Christine O'Donnell doesn't know what the First Amendment is

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
madmen-1.gif
 
First Amendment + jurisprudence, of course, since it doesn't literally say "you gotta keep 'em separated'.

Fuck, it's so embarrasing. It's exactly like Palin, watching a kid try and fake their book report, except it's going to be your tax dollars.
 
Except she's a Tea Party person and their whole mantra was to protect the constitution......

That's all we've heard from these types (most of all Mama Grizzly).

I'm all for getting new blood into washington, people with good ideas, maybe not to just look after themselves, but have some progress. Whether it's limiting government spending, or trying to get affordable healthcare to everyone....

but these people like Christine and Sarah are just flat out morons who would probably do great having their own little radio show to spew their ignorance and stupidity, but not be in charge of our country.

I would be willing to bet that Christine's issues will mirror Sarah Palin's if she tries to run for office.
 
Eh. . .if you listen closely, it sounds more to me like O'Donnell is trying to make the point (a tired one granted, that I've heard trotted out by Christian conservatives before) that the phrase "seperation of church and state" does not appear in the first amendment or anywhere else in the constitution.

I was more aghast it her general lack of knowledge of the Constitution. I didn't feel her references to the 16th and especially the 14th amendment were partiuclarly accurate at all. If I recall, the 14th amendment does not address illegal immigration at all.
 
well, the fact is she had to be told what the 16th was. She pulled the same crap on that CNN debate where they asked her about any supreme court rulings that she's against and couldn't name any. Just like Sarah.

I'll give her this though, she was at least honest and said she didn't know or couldn't think of any. Sarah did the sly talk around the point over and over.

I actually feel sorry for Christine.
 
maycocksean said:
Eh. . .if you listen closely, it sounds more to me like O'Donnell is trying to make the point (a tired one granted, that I've heard trotted out by Christian conservatives before) that the phrase "seperation of church and state" does not appear in the first amendment or anywhere else in the constitution.
Click to expand...

I agree, but if you list around 5:58 he goes into explanation of the verbage and she still seems lost.
 
this tea party candidate will not win, but others will.


The GOP will go from 41 Senators to at least 48 perhaps 50.

with the GOP pick up there will be 4 or more tea party Senators.

5 will be a powerful block. they will wield quite a bit of power. If the Dems have a majority of 50-52, the GOP will still control the Senate, legislatively.
 
until they actually show they're capable of coming up with ideas, or removing their idiotic branch of the party, they are a bunch of kooks.
 
deep said:
5 will be a powerful block. they will wield quite a bit of power. If the Dems have a majority of 50-52, the GOP will still control the Senate, legislatively.
Click to expand...

Given that the GOP had de facto control with only 41 senators, as the Democratic Party stands for nothing, it'll be business as usual.
 
If the GOP get 49 or 50, they will easily peal off a Blue Dog Dem or 2 and get their legislation passed. Lieberman will vote with them, too.

The 60 votes needed to get stuff out of committee, and Senate holds won't be as much of a log jam as they have been with the GOP.

Yes, the GOP are more disciplined and vote lock step more than the Democrats
 
I love how Christine O'Donnell, who sounds like she's barely literate, is telling a Yale-educated lawyer that he knows "nothing" about constitutional law.
 
This woman is genuinely stupid (not unlike Palin), but she is merely the product of certain segments of the population deciding to glorify anti-intellectualism.

She won't be elected but that is hardly the point. What is most offensive is what she stands for - brazen stupidity and a lack of intellectual curiosity which is celebrated as some kind of a badge of honour in a world where going to Harvard is seen as elitist bullshit booklearnin' that should be scorned. I often wonder about people who support individuals like her and what hopes and dreams they have for their children. It is actually completely antithetical to the American dream and one of the finer American ideals of meritocracy (which has certainly flourished in North America far more than in so-called old Europe). It's really a very sad social statement.
 
Does anyone else get the feeling that a new divide will be occuring within the next decade? The new divide won't be between liberals and conservatives, Democrats or Republicans, this party or that party... I have a feeling, and I know I'll be playing right into Hannity's hands when I say this, and he can call me an elite if he wants to, but it will be between the thinking and non-thinking class. Not the educated vs non-educated but the thinking vs the non-thinking. Those that form an opinion and then gather information to uphold that opinion and those that sift through all the information and form an opinion.

I feel both the left and right and everyone in between are quite embarassed by certain factions of their group, but it just seems like those factions are becoming more and more vocal lately...

Anyone else?
 
anitram said:
This woman is genuinely stupid (not unlike Palin), but she is merely the product of certain segments of the population deciding to glorify anti-intellectualism.

She won't be elected but that is hardly the point. What is most offensive is what she stands for - brazen stupidity and a lack of intellectual curiosity which is celebrated as some kind of a badge of honour in a world where going to Harvard is seen as elitist bullshit booklearnin' that should be scorned. I often wonder about people who support individuals like her and what hopes and dreams they have for their children. It is actually completely antithetical to the American dream and one of the finer American ideals of meritocracy (which has certainly flourished in North America far more than in so-called old Europe). It's really a very sad social statement.
Click to expand...

:applaud:
 
deep said:
If the GOP get 49 or 50, they will easily peal off a Blue Dog Dem or 2 and get their legislation passed. Lieberman will vote with them, too.

The 60 votes needed to get stuff out of committee, and Senate holds won't be as much of a log jam as they have been with the GOP.

Yes, the GOP are more disciplined and vote lock step more than the Democrats
Click to expand...

Hopefully, the Dems will keep control of the Senate and be scared out of their fucking minds by the results from the elections such that they ratify new filibuster rules at the beginning of the new term. (plus whatever other committee rules are just accepted and ratified perfunctorily each new term)
 
"That's actually in the First Amendment?"

*Sits with completely stunned look on her face. Proceeds to do what girl in Cori's gif is doing*** And she has the nerve to say to his face, "shows how little you know"?

Holy crap, this is one stupid girl. I understand what deep's getting at about the "kooks" thing, but I'm sorry, I'm incredibly sick to death of this BS. If somebody says something THAT stupid, they need to be called out on it. Plain and simple. If they don't like it, tough. Truth hurts. I want my leaders to be smarter than me. Crazy concept, I know, but it's something new worth trying.

anitram and BVS hit the nail on the head. I don't know when our society decided being intelligent was some sort of evil, bad thing, but it's way past time to change that.

deep said:
:shrug:

this is an 'outsider' candidate not embraced by the mainstream GOP
most all agree that she will lose big.
Click to expand...

I'd like to think that will be true, and sincerely hope that turns out to be the case. But the fact that people like Christine do have voters flocking to them does cause me some worry. Even if she does lose, the fact that she had any sort of a chance at all, the fact that anyone voted for her at all, is incredibly troubling.

The audience's reaction in that clip, however, was funny :D. They seemed just as incredulous as I was.

(**I'm thinking that that gif should be a required part of many an FYM discussion surrounding politicians and their quotes/actions)

Angela
 
It just seems to come down to the fact that a lot of Americans want a leader who they can relate to.

I'm the opposite. I don't want a President who I would feel comfortable having a couple of beers with. I want someone who is much, much, much smarter than me, and much more hardworking.

It's not just the US, look at Canadian politics. We have a businessman as a Prime Minister, and have shunned people like Stéphane Dion as too "intellectual" to lead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
NBA 2022-23 Thread
46 47 48
Replies
1K
Views
45K
U2inUtah
U2inUtah
A
The little stranger chapter 18
Replies
0
Views
494
annj
A
A
The Little Stranger chapter 14
Replies
0
Views
519
annj
A
A
The Little stranger chapter 16
Replies
0
Views
992
annj
A
A
The little stranger Chapter 5
Replies
0
Views
677
annj
A

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom