EPTGod that bitch is stupid.
Tea Party wins primary in Delaware - Page 29
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
God that bitch is stupid. | ||
|
GodIsNotHere
Canada395 Posts
| ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On October 19 2010 08:15 NATO wrote: "On September 16, 2010, O'Donnell said she does not believe in regulating private sexual behavior" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O'Donnell#Political_positions now there's a cheap political flip flop if i've ever seen one. not that i was in favour of the original position anyway | ||
|
lvatural
United States347 Posts
:/ Tea party response to anything retarded they say. Or maybe that was Sharron Angle. Fucking...they're all the same. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
| ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
Sadly though, the truly outstanding part is probably where Coons states evolution to be a scientific fact. He's never going to live that down, it's going to go right up next to the Marxist allegations in attack ads. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On October 20 2010 05:16 Sadist wrote: Anyone who is for teaching ID in public schools needs to be discredited for any position of power to begin with IMO. If you can be conned by such a scam you are far to naive to deal with Politics and any type of power.....period. Not to mention that teaching ID in public schools would violate the Establishment Clause. | ||
|
lvatural
United States347 Posts
On October 20 2010 05:16 Sadist wrote: Anyone who is for teaching ID in public schools needs to be discredited for any position of power to begin with IMO. If you can be conned by such a scam you are far to naive to deal with Politics and any type of power.....period. Despite how much I don't like the woman, that wasn't her point. It was more about the issue of Congress reaching into what was traditionally viewed to be within the power of the State. In our country's founding, the federal government was viewed to be pretty limited in what it could tell the State to do, but over the centuries that has changed quite a bit. Now the fed gov't is this huge thing that many people see as the governing entity in the USA. It wasn't originally supposed to be this way. Her qualm with the "separation of church and state" not being in the First is really related to her initial point that the expansion of the power of the feds to infringe on choices that are traditionally held for the State was an incorrect expansion. That's why, I hope, she was making the point about why the separation of church and state isn't explicitly written in the First Amendment but (incorrectly) interpreted to be so...which goes against the original idea of Federalism which is a stance taken by the Tea Party. But I don't think she understands the fundamental concepts of her party and just has a facial understanding of everything. That's why she generally comes off as a moron, and a reason why I don't like her as a candidate. :D Edit: So for clarification. Her point wasn't that ID should be taught in schools but that it should be up to the State to determine what is taught to the kids. And the First Amendment "separation of church and state" should not be able to infringe upon this choice because the notion was incorrectly interpretted from the First. It's not that the schools have to teach ID but that it should be able to choose whether or not it wants to. That's not really a bad position; she's just retarded and can't articulate her party's viewpoints properly. | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
I can't even hate her anymore, she's too funny xD | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On October 20 2010 06:45 synapse wrote: "Where in the constitution is separation of church and state?" I can't even hate her anymore, she's too funny xD Well to be fair to her, that's not written in the Constitution. However, the clause that government can't make laws respecting the establishment of religion is in the Constitution and she should know that very important fact. | ||
|
Baby_Seal
United States360 Posts
| ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On October 20 2010 07:07 Baby_Seal wrote: That debate was just painful to watch. Regardless of whether the Tea Party's general political positions are good or not, this woman definitely should not be put in office. She was genuinely surprised when she found out that separation of church and state was in the Constitution. How is she gonna defend the Constitution when she doesn't even know what's in it? D: | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
On October 20 2010 06:04 lvatural wrote: Despite how much I don't like the woman, that wasn't her point. It was more about the issue of Congress reaching into what was traditionally viewed to be within the power of the State. In our country's founding, the federal government was viewed to be pretty limited in what it could tell the State to do, but over the centuries that has changed quite a bit. Now the fed gov't is this huge thing that many people see as the governing entity in the USA. It wasn't originally supposed to be this way. Her qualm with the "separation of church and state" not being in the First is really related to her initial point that the expansion of the power of the feds to infringe on choices that are traditionally held for the State was an incorrect expansion. That's why, I hope, she was making the point about why the separation of church and state isn't explicitly written in the First Amendment but (incorrectly) interpreted to be so...which goes against the original idea of Federalism which is a stance taken by the Tea Party. But I don't think she understands the fundamental concepts of her party and just has a facial understanding of everything. That's why she generally comes off as a moron, and a reason why I don't like her as a candidate. :D Edit: So for clarification. Her point wasn't that ID should be taught in schools but that it should be up to the State to determine what is taught to the kids. And the First Amendment "separation of church and state" should not be able to infringe upon this choice because the notion was incorrectly interpretted from the First. It's not that the schools have to teach ID but that it should be able to choose whether or not it wants to. That's not really a bad position; she's just retarded and can't articulate her party's viewpoints properly. she tried to differentiate ID from creationism. Im sure she supports teaching ID in public schools. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On October 20 2010 07:10 Sadist wrote: she tried to differentiate ID from creationism. Im sure she supports teaching ID in public schools. I'm pretty sure that it said that on Wikipedia. | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On October 20 2010 06:04 lvatural wrote: Edit: So for clarification. Her point wasn't that ID should be taught in schools but that it should be up to the State to determine what is taught to the kids. And the First Amendment "separation of church and state" should not be able to infringe upon this choice because the notion was incorrectly interpretted from the First. It's not that the schools have to teach ID but that it should be able to choose whether or not it wants to. That's not really a bad position; she's just retarded and can't articulate her party's viewpoints properly. Oh, I'll be devil's advocate here and disagree. I think it really is a bad position and I have a problem with people who have that position. It's just one of many viewpoints I disagree with the religious right on. | ||
|
lvatural
United States347 Posts
On October 20 2010 07:13 Ferrose wrote: I'm pretty sure that it said that on Wikipedia. I'm sure she does, but I still don't think that's the point she was trying to make during the debate. The issue was state sovereignty over the federal government, and her idiocy just made it look like an ID vs evolution talk. She's a moron for going in that direction, and naturally you can see why since everyone now just talks about her being for ID instead of the underlying issue at hand. Btw, I'm not a Tea Party supporter, but I still find it worthwhile to understand the actual stances of the Tea Party (not the random shit that O'Donnell and the like tend to say) just for the hell of it. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
On October 20 2010 08:03 lvatural wrote: I'm sure she does, but I still don't think that's the point she was trying to make during the debate. The issue was state sovereignty over the federal government, and her idiocy just made it look like an ID vs evolution talk. She's a moron for going in that direction, and naturally you can see why since everyone now just talks about her being for ID instead of the underlying issue at hand. Btw, I'm not a Tea Party supporter, but I still find it worthwhile to understand the actual stances of the Tea Party (not the random shit that O'Donnell and the like tend to say) just for the hell of it. I buy that but shes a moron as you said :D Case in point Insists on making the discussion about cloning humans | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
| ||
|
GodIsNotHere
Canada395 Posts
On October 20 2010 08:18 Sadist wrote: I buy that but shes a moron as you said :D Case in point http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXvV11-Xwpw Insists on making the discussion about cloning humans Lol Jesus... my head hurts after watching that it was so damn painful. -_- | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On October 20 2010 05:19 Krigwin wrote: Wow, my head almost exploded from that debate. Sadly though, the truly outstanding part is probably where Coons states evolution to be a scientific fact. He's never going to live that down, it's going to go right up next to the Marxist allegations in attack ads. Evolution is a scientific fact.... | ||
| ||
