Christine O'Donnell vs. Chris Coons Debate on C-SPAN

[Tonington]

Oh gosh, and he didn't mention the British Crown in his speech either, so by omission he is denying the birth of the United States of America.

Pretty thin gruel Jack.

 

[YukonJack]

What IS thin gruel is that the EXACT quoting the fundamental papers of the United States, is not important.

This phony pretender never bothered to learn what he "quoted".

 

[ironsides]

Government making 'no law respecting an establishment of religion' is widely accepted to signify a separation of church and state. This is both on a federal and local basis. In fact, the Supreme Court makes explicit reference to that separation in association with the first amendment.

Which is extremely ironic, because, if you recall correctly in that earlier debate, O'Donnell couldn't come up with one solitary issue had with the Supreme Court. One would think that a principle that she is so staunchly against - the separation of church and state - which is also the same principle promoted by the Supreme Court, would move her to bring that up. I guess not -- despite the fact that one of her 'constitutional beliefs' is that the educational system should be teaching creationism. Well, I'm sure glad she stands for something: a stupid contradiction.

Whatever. If you want to put faith in someone that dumb, that's your loss.

"In fact, the Supreme Court makes explicit reference to that separation in association with the first amendment." But are they right? There was no need for the Supreme Court to say or do anything. Cannot make it any more simpler than was originally written.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Bill of Rights | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[Tonington]

What IS thin gruel is that the EXACT quoting the fundamental papers of the United States, is not important.

Why should he have to quote the papers word for word? That's stupid. Then it's not a speech, he's just standing in front of people reciting the Declaration, which wasn't obviously the point...

This phony pretender never bothered to learn what he "quoted".

Yeah, well you have no evidence of this, and I doubt that bothers you.

 

[YukonJack]

If this phony pretender had any decency, he would not make an attempt to quote something that he deliberately and willingly and openly despises.

He feels quite OK with reading nonsense from his teleprompter, written by some of his over-paid lackeys, but according to you, to quote the founding papers of the United States CORRECTLY is stupid.

 

[ironsides]

Christine O'Donnell is a air head, and defiantly a help for the Democrats, not sure who helps them more her or Pelosi.

 

[YukonJack]

ironsides, Christine O'Donnell is no more of an air-head than Kelly O'Donnell of MSNBC, Norah O'Donnell of MSNBC, or Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC, or Rosie O'Donnell of the Island of Lesbos or for that matter the biggest air-head of them all, the current occupier of the White House.

 

[ironsides]

ironsides, Christine O'Donnell is no more of an air-head than Kelly O'Donnell of MSNBC, Norah O'Donnell of MSNBC, or Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC, or Rosie O'Donnell of the Island of Lesbos or for that matter the biggest air-head of them all, the current occupier of the White House.

I am 8O. :lol::lol: http://www.demontackle.co.za/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/product_images/thumbnails/IAN - CONA33.jpg

 

[mentalfloss]

Well, umm... anyway...

Clearly, Obama not reading the constitution like a fundamentalist christian trumps Christine O'Donnell turning her own existence into a gigantic paradox. Much like the people who would actually defend her, considering she can't even properly stand up for their own republican ideals. Maybe you should reconsider your own values Jack. As it stands now, if Obama was a republican you would be humping his leg like a chihuahua.

 

[DaSleeper]

And if miss O'Donnel was a Democrat you and a few others would be doing the same:lol:

 

[YukonJack]

And if Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and the other conservative ladies suddenly decided that killing a baby in the womb is cool, all the liberals would be cool with them.

 

[mentalfloss]

They'd have to do more than just killing babies to get my vote.

 

[YukonJack]

They'd have to do more than just killing babies to get my vote.

But, obviously, killing innocent babies for cheap comfort and convenience, rather than being responsible is your measure of how a woman can get your vote.

Are you seriously working hard on how to be more despicable, or does it come naturally to you?

 

[ironsides]

And if miss O'Donnel was a Democrat you and a few others would be doing the same:lol:

Funny is funny, how this gal got the nomination must be quite a story. :lol:

Well, umm... anyway...

Clearly, Obama not reading the constitution like a fundamentalist christian trumps Christine O'Donnell turning her own existence into a gigantic paradox. Much like the people who would actually defend her, considering she can't even properly stand up for their own republican ideals. Maybe you should reconsider your own values Jack. As it stands now, if Obama was a republican you would be humping his leg like a chihuahua.

They both maybe reading the Constitution like fundamentalists radicals, just different ends of the sane spectrum, which makes them both dangerous.