Tea Party wins primary in Delaware - Page 29

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

On October 20 2010 07:10 Sadist wrote:




she tried to differentiate ID from creationism. Im sure she supports teaching ID in public schools.

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.

On October 20 2010 07:13 Ferrose wrote:


I'm pretty sure that it said that on Wikipedia.

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.

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

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.