Christine O'Donnell fails at the Constitution.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_el_se/us_delaware_senate

I mean, I know she's flaky, but this is just staggeringly ignorant.

Typical they twisted it around to make it seem like she did not know

Rush Limbaugh set the record straight though for the media

I can't even..

"Local schools do not have the right to teach what they feel?" No, feelings do not need to be taught :cry:xaos

Typical they twisted it around to make it seem like she did not know

Rush Limbaugh set the record straight though for the media

fueled-system

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]

Typical they twisted it around to make it seem like she did not know

Rush Limbaugh set the record straight though for the media

xaos

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]

Typical they twisted it around to make it seem like she did not know

Rush Limbaugh set the record straight though for the media

xaos

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="fueled-system"]

Typical they twisted it around to make it seem like she did not know

Rush Limbaugh set the record straight though for the media

fueled-system

Uhhh, what? The seperation of church and state is in the First Amendment.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="fueled-system"]

Typical they twisted it around to make it seem like she did not know

Rush Limbaugh set the record straight though for the media

Pirate700

Yes, exactly, Christine O'Donnell does not make sense, I've been saying that all along. And what context? She outright asked the guy where the FA said there was a seperation of church and state, and when he quoted the exact phrase she said she didn't bring her copy of the constitution and that senators don't need to memorize it.

Let me put on my "shocked" hat: A Washington hopeful that doesn't understand the limits placed on Government by our defining legal document? A politician that twists the Constitution?Seriously?!? That must be the first time this ever happened!!!

*Takes "shocked" hat off*

Yeah, she fails at the Constitution. She'll make a good fit in Washington.

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] "The First Amendment does?" O'Donnell interrupted. "You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?" Those are her very own words...worlock77

Uhhh, what? The seperation of church and state is in the First Amendment.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]And thats the part that was twisted around she was replying to the tax mans amazing comment about chruch and state

fueled-system

Uhhh, what? The seperation of church and state is in the First Amendment.

Typical they twisted it around to make it seem like she did not know

Rush Limbaugh set the record straight though for the media

fueled-system

"Local schools do not have the right to teach what they feel?" O'Donnell said. "Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools."

Oh yeah they clearly twisted what she said around :roll:.. I guess she doesn't understand what secular government means..

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]And thats the part that was twisted around she was replying to the tax mans amazing comment about chruch and state

fueled-system

Uhhh, what? The seperation of church and state is in the First Amendment.

What exactly did he say that was invalid?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]And thats the part that was twisted around she was replying to the tax mans amazing comment about chruch and state

fueled-system

Uhhh, what? The seperation of church and state is in the First Amendment.

What did he say about it that was invalid?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]And thats the part that was twisted around she was replying to the tax mans amazing comment about chruch and state

fueled-system

Uhhh, what? The seperation of church and state is in the First Amendment.

:lol: Yeah those devious liberals.. Just like that interview with Sarah Palin where the person used devious ambush questions like "what do you read?".

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Uhhh, what? The seperation of church and state is in the First Amendment.

xaos

Let me put on my "shocked" hat: A Washington hopeful that doesn't understand the limits placed on Government by our defining legal document? A politician that twists the Constitution?Seriously?!? That must be the first time this ever happened!!!

*Takes "shocked" hat off*

Yeah, she fails at the Constitution. She'll make a good fit in Washington.

m0zart

Based on what we have seen of the Tea Party in their full glory, how can really any one be surprised or shocked by her statements anymore?

Nah actually I am kidding I use to be a Conservative but even I cant support her, her views are just out there... I do listen to talk radio but just for entertainment value(Levin is hilarious when hes mad)

fueled-system

Shes a witchLed_poison

How do you know she is a witch?

Shes a witchLed_poison

I wonder if, decades from now, "I'm not a witch" will be a meme just like Nixon's "I am not a crook" is today.

[QUOTE="Led_poison"] Shes a witchtheone86

How do you know she is a witch?

She said she practiced it.. She also advocates teaching of religion in schools, meaning WITCHCRAFT!.. She promotes abstience because virigins are much more valuable sacrifices.. It all makes sense now!

[QUOTE="Led_poison"]Shes a witchworlock77

I wonder if, decades from now, "I'm not a witch" will be a meme just like Nixon's "I am not a crook" is today.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Led_poison"]Shes a witchPirate700

I wonder if, decades from now, "I'm not a witch" will be a meme just like Nixon's "I am not a crook" is today.

Indeed it is.

Based on what we have seen of the Tea Party in their full glory, how can really any one be surprised or shocked by her statements anymore?sSubZerOo

Indeed! And based on what I've seen with just about everyone in Washington over the last thirty-five years in which I've been conscious of politics and the antics of politicians, how can anyone be shocked that any politician shows a basic misunderstanding of the limits placed on our Government by the Constitution, whether those limits be in the Bill of Rights, or the amended content of the document proper?

It's business as usual as far as I am concerned -- nothing especially noteworthy.

I wonder if, decades from now, "I'm not a witch" will be a meme just like Nixon's "I am not a crook" is today.

worlock77

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I wonder if, decades from now, "I'm not a witch" will be a meme just like Nixon's "I am not a crook" is today.

xaos

Ehh, good enough.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I wonder if, decades from now, "I'm not a witch" will be a meme just like Nixon's "I am not a crook" is today.

xaos

ROFL, "I Love the '10s" is going to be 35% George Bush and 50% Sarah Palin. There'll be little room for either of the O'Donnell divas, either the ultra-conservative or the ultra-liberal.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Led_poison"] Shes a witchsSubZerOo

How do you know she is a witch?

She said she practiced it.. She also advocates teaching of religion in schools, meaning WITCHCRAFT!.. She promotes abstience because virigins are much more valuable sacrifices.. It all makes sense now!

I'm sorry, the correct answer is, "because she's dressed like one."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I wonder if, decades from now, "I'm not a witch" will be a meme just like Nixon's "I am not a crook" is today.

worlock77

Ehh, good enough.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I wonder if, decades from now, "I'm not a witch" will be a meme just like Nixon's "I am not a crook" is today.

m0zart

ROFL, "I Love the '10s" is going to be 35% George Bush and 50% Sarah Palin. There'll be little room for either of the O'Donnell divas, either the ultra-conservative or the ultra-liberal.

This makes it hard to follow the republicans while being a conservative.

I believe in a firm seperation of church and state. Even if her words were twisted, she still doesn't believe in such a seperation.

Let's go to our good friends in Taiwan for their impressionsxaos

"It's always wrong to lie, even if it is a Nazi asking where Anne Frank is".

That has to be the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.

I wonder if Chris Hansen will be the host of "I Love the 10s"?xaos

Given the caliber of the guests, I'd advise it.

The potential hilarity of a person like this becoming a Senator is too good to pass up. Please, Delaware... please please elect her.

Let's go to our good friends in Taiwan for their impressionsxaos

Dubya Tee Eff?

To be semantically fair, the phrase 'separation of Church and State' does not appear in the First Amendment.FragStains

Yes, but I've never been one to doubt the intent of the Establishment clause.

Typical they twisted it around to make it seem like she did not know

Rush Limbaugh set the record straight though for the media

fueled-system

[QUOTE="FragStains"]To be semantically fair, the phrase 'separation of Church and State' does not appear in the First Amendment.m0zart

Yes, but I've never been one to doubt the intent of the Establishment clause.

[QUOTE="xaos"]Let's go to our good friends in Taiwan for their impressionsworlock77

Dubya Tee Eff?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="xaos"]Let's go to our good friends in Taiwan for their impressionscomp_atkins

Dubya Tee Eff?

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Dubya Tee Eff?

xaos

I agree. All I'm pointing out that if you want to get nit-picky she kept asking if 'the separation of Church and State' was in the First Amendment. And it is not. The intent of that part of the First Amendment is the separation of Church and State, but it doesn't explicitly use those words. That's all.FragStains

Yes, and you are obviously right from the point of view of the strict semantics of the statement. Those words came from Thomas Jefferson as an interpretation of the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause.

But I think the reason people harp on this statement is that, typically, the majority of religious conservatives who argue that those words don't appear in the Constitution tend to do so as an attempt to downplay and/or evade the clear meaning of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.

I'm willing to say that we don't always know the intent of the person who is making that statement though. Years ago I was involved in a discussion on a libertarian political list and I made a rather innocent statement that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" came from Thomas Jefferson rather than the Constitution. I did this because the phrase was being used in quotes and being overtly stated to have come directly from the Constitution by a few people who apparently were communicating in their own political shorthand. So I corrected this. Suddenly, I found myself surrounded by some very angry libertarians who insisted that I make it clear that I fully supported the First Amendment. I had no intent to malign those clauses -- I just wanted them to avoid making statements that could be hooks for ne'er-do-wells from the religious right who frequented that list to troll libertarians. So it isn't always the case that someone brings this up in an attempt to malign those clauses, but in the case of O'Donnell, it seems rather obvious that this was her intent.

This has to be taken out of context. It doesn't even make sense. :P

Pirate700

There is a general misinterpretation of the Separation of Church and State...what the Amendement means is that the Federal Government cannot force any one religion upon the people.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

This has to be taken out of context. It doesn't even make sense. :P

topsemag55

There is a general misinterpretation of the Separation of Church and State...what the Amendement means is that the Federal Government cannot force any one religion upon the people.

It means that the Government cannot "establish" an official religion, and that it cannot force any religious ideas, period, on the people.

That means, by any logical extension, that it cannot support religious ideology in its institutions and must remain secular to the question of God or religion. Otherwise, it is forcing citizens to pay for religious ideas that they may not logically accept.

So I don't see any misinterpretation on the side that generally supports Separation of Church and State.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

This has to be taken out of context. It doesn't even make sense. :P

There is a general misinterpretation of the Separation of Church and State...what the Amendement means is that the Federal Government cannot force any one religion upon the people.