STUPID REPUBLICAN BITCHES...

[Crazy Levi]

Where the fuck does the Republican party keep finding these morons?

O'donnell outPalins Palin by refusing to accept the fact that the constitution establishes the separation of church and state. I don't think I've ever seen a candidate get laughed at during a debate before.

http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk-elect ... nk3|178762

[EvilRockPosh]

I saw this earlier and made this face for a good five minutes.

I'm Scottish and apparently I know more about the US constitution than she does.

[Hames Jetfield]

I hate to say this about someone but she's an idiot! She has air between her ears!

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

Where the fuck does the Republican party keep finding these morons?

O'donnell outPalins Palin by refusing to accept the fact that the constitution establishes the separation of church and state. I don't think I've ever seen a candidate get laughed at during a debate before.

http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk-elect ... nk3|178762

The Constitution doesn't establish a "separation between church and state". That phrase was taken from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote that has no rule of law. The Constitution only states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

[Crazy Levi]

The Constitution doesn't establish a "separation between church and state". That phrase was taken from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote that has no rule of law. The Constitution only states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

If you actually think that bitch KNOWS that you are stupider than she is.

She clearly has no idea that the Constitution establishes separation of church and state, which it does. It's not an issue of semantics, she's clearly completely ignorant.

[Drunk Kennedy]

that the Constitution establishes separation of church and state, which it does.

please post where the constitution says there is a separation of church and state.

[Cliffenstein]

She clearly has no idea that the Constitution establishes separation of church and state, which it does.

No it doesn't and just because you say it does doesn't make it so.

Interestingly enough, in the same debate, Coons couldn't name the five freedoms listed in the first amendment.

He misstated freedom of religion as separation of church and state and could not list the freedoms of speech, the press, to assemble or to petition.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

She clearly has no idea that the Constitution establishes separation of church and state, which it does. It's not an issue of semantics,

As you well know, you have a history of pontificating about constitutional matters and other issues of law, and then you are proven wrong. As stated before, the "separation of church and state" is a phrase found nowhere in the constitution. It has no rule of law. With that being said, the application and interpretation of the concept is a recent creation which has little or no relation to Jefferson's intent.

Attempting to argue a "separation of church and state" application to the Establishment Clause from an originalist foundation is an exercise in futility. Even the ACLU concedes this, which is why they argue from a different foundation.

Of course this is all Greek to you because you have no idea what you're talking about.

[pulsar0510]

Yes, because although the Supreme Court and Thomas Jefferson both have said that:
"Congress (the STATE) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (the CHURCH), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
equals a separation of the two, it doesn't actually mean that.

[Crazy Levi]

Yes, because although the Supreme Court and Thomas Jefferson both have said that:
"Congress (the STATE) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (the CHURCH), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
equals a separation of the two, it doesn't actually mean that.

She's an idiot and the people here defending her should be ashamed of themselves.

They are contributing to a climate where some of the stupidest people on the planet - people like Palin and the witch, excel in our political process.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

Yes, because although the Supreme Court and Thomas Jefferson both have said that:
"Congress (the STATE) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (the CHURCH), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
equals a separation of the two, it doesn't actually mean that.

The "no law" part of the Establishment Clause is not what is open to interpretation by the courts because it is considered unequivocal language. It's the word "establishment" and its meaning that is part of the debate. So now, since your "well they said no law" horse sense understanding of the First Amendment was so breathlessly exhibited, you should have no problem explaining what the constitutional definition of establishment is, how the New Left interpretation of that definition lines up with what the framers intended, and give us an explanation (I'll even accept a rationalization) of why this "separation" as they define it did not exist in 1790, 1820, 1860, 1900, 1920, 1945, and 1960?

Take as much time as you need.

[Cliffenstein]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This is not the separation of church and state as advanced by most liberals today. Liberals somehow imagine "freedom of religion" as meaning "freedom from religion" and they like to stop there and then use the government to force it to be stopped there. Sure, we do have freedom from religion here in the states, the government can't force you to worship, nor can it force you to subscribe to any religion. The reverse is also true...the government can't stop religion...it cannot stop the free personal or public expression of religious belief...at all.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

This means that the government is not allowed to establish an official church, denomination or religion. It means nothing more and nothing less.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This means what I stated earlier...the government is not allowed to stop or curtail our freedom to privately and publicly express religious belief.

It also cannot stop that expression just because some people don't want it around. That is, if you're offended by religion...it's up to you to work that out in your mind...to "get over it" so to speak. The government can't do that for you.

[Cliffenstein]

The "no law" part of the Establishment Clause is not what is open to interpretation by the courts because it is considered unequivocal language. It's the word "establishment" and its meaning that is part of the debate. So now, since your "well they said no law" horse sense understanding of the First Amendment was so breathlessly exhibited, you should have no problem explaining what the constitutional definition of establishment is, how the New Left interpretation of that definition lines up with what the framers intended, and give us an explanation (I'll even accept a rationalization) of why this "separation" as they define it did not exist in 1790, 1820, 1860, 1900, 1920, 1945, and 1960?

Take as much time as you need.

I hope I don't get you in trouble, but...wow! Slam dunk, dude...I'm impressed.

[Hooligan]

Funny how facts always get in the democrats way.

[Skate4RnR]

I've been watching these clips of her on the Bill Maher show and I like her. I'm not a huge Republican supporter by any means but I do like O'Donnell because she knows that evolution is a myth and isn't afraid to say it. I also like the time when she was saying "you reap what you sow" and Maher talked about karma which she then clearly stated she did not believe in.

She knows what the fuck is going on.

[pulsar0510]

Yes, because although the Supreme Court and Thomas Jefferson both have said that:
"Congress (the STATE) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (the CHURCH), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
equals a separation of the two, it doesn't actually mean that.

She's an idiot and the people here defending her should be ashamed of themselves.

They are contributing to a climate where some of the stupidest people on the planet - people like Palin and the witch, excel in our political process.

And they'll go on with their semantic argument, parroting this nonsense like they are the smartest guys in the world because the idiots lap it up. Astounding.
Can't establish a religion: pretty clear.
Can't deny religious freedom: since ANY attempt at imposing ANY religious-centered law could be interpreted as a denial of someone elses religious freedom, it effectively separates the church and the state. Its not rocket science.

You might enjoy this article.
It's pretty interesting:
http://www.theology.edu/ushistor.htm

[Crazy Levi]

Coons recites the relevant part of the first ammendment to this brain dead hag...and she is incredulous...and refuses to believe it.

If you can vote for women like O'donnell and Palin, you clearly hate America, or are so blinded by "football team politics" that you'll simply vote for anybody with the right uniform.

Your defense of her, which is just regurgitated spin from right wing pundits desperate to make excuses for this dumb bitch, is simply indefensible. At least it's absolutely clear where you people stand.

----------------
"The government shall make no establishment of religion," Coons said, summarizing the gist of the specific words in the First Amendment's establishment clause.

"That's in the First Amendment?" O'Donnell asked again, eliciting further laughter from the room.

[Luminiferous]

I've been watching these clips of her on the Bill Maher show and I like her. I'm not a huge Republican supporter by any means but I do like O'Donnell because she knows that evolution is a myth and isn't afraid to say it. I also like the time when she was saying "you reap what you sow" and Maher talked about karma which she then clearly stated she did not believe in.

She knows what the fuck is going on.

She's against masturbation... fuck that bitch.

[Cliffenstein]

Coons recites the relevant part of the first ammendment

Speech, press, assembly and petition...you don't think these are relevant?

Yep...you're definitely a liberal!

[yeahbuddy]

Yes, because although the Supreme Court and Thomas Jefferson both have said that:
"Congress (the STATE) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (the CHURCH), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
equals a separation of the two, it doesn't actually mean that.

She's an idiot and the people here defending her should be ashamed of themselves.

They are contributing to a climate where some of the stupidest people on the planet - people like Palin and the witch, excel in our political process.

She is an idiot because you say so? Give me a f'n break.
And in regards to Palin- She has taken EVERY bullet that the lame stream media and far left morons have shot her way. Not only do their bullets bounce off of her, she comes back stronger. If she was such a dummy that the lsm presents her as, why do they keep attacking her? Dummies get their 15 minutes of fame, and are done. She's been on the national news level for two years now, and it appears no signs of letting up.

[lerxstcat]

Coons recites the relevant part of the first ammendment

Speech, press, assembly and petition...you don't think these are relevant?

Yep...you're definitely a liberal!

He recited the part that is relevant to the issue, which was her denying that separation of church and state is in the Constitution. If she thought parsing that was cute, she was wrong, and if you think you are cute for parsing on this thread when we all know that is the issue that was i contention, then you are also wrong.

You sound like one of those "It's just a piece of paper" guys when it comes to the Constitution, taking this tack in a discussion.

[yeahbuddy]

Coons recites the relevant part of the first ammendment

Speech, press, assembly and petition...you don't think these are relevant?

Yep...you're definitely a liberal!

He recited the part that is relevant to the issue, which was her denying that separation of church and state is in the Constitution. If she thought parsing that was cute, she was wrong, and if you think you are cute for parsing on this thread when we all know that is the issue that was i contention, then you are also wrong.

You sound like one of those "It's just a piece of paper" guys when it comes to the Constitution, taking this tack in a discussion.

No his thought is more that the Constitution can be changed or thought of differently to the benefit of whoever wants it their way, regardless of its true and original meaning.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

And they'll go on with their semantic argument, parroting this nonsense like they are the smartest guys in the world because the idiots lap it up. Astounding.
Can't establish a religion: pretty clear.

If it was so abundantly clear, then Supreme Court decisions would be decided 9-0. Instead of answering the questions, you repeat your ridiculous bare assertion fallacy that "x is because x says it is". You avoid the argument because you don't know how to answer. If you don't know anything about Con Law, that's ok, just say so. I don't mind lecturing you.

Of course you are the same goober that was blasted down by EYU in the "men's rights" thread in the lounge. It takes a special kind of retard to say that men and women have the same reproductive rights when only one of them has a uterus.

[pulsar0510]

And they'll go on with their semantic argument, parroting this nonsense like they are the smartest guys in the world because the idiots lap it up. Astounding.
Can't establish a religion: pretty clear.

If it was so abundantly clear, then Supreme Court decisions would be decided 9-0. Instead of answering the questions, you repeat your ridiculous bare assertion fallacy that "x is because x says it is". You avoid the argument because you don't know how to answer. If you don't know anything about Con Law, that's ok, just say so. I don't mind lecturing you.

Of course you are the same goober that was blasted down by EYU in the "men's rights" thread in the lounge. It takes a special kind of retard to say that men and women have the same reproductive rights when only one of them has a uterus.

EYU is as much an idiot as you are presenting yourself to be here, although none of that has anything to do with this.
On topic:
Jesus fuck, dude, if you asked nine people if the sky is blue, you're likely not to reach a 9-0 vote of yes. Now please tell me how the sky really isn't blue and your facts as to why.

[Skate4RnR]

I've been watching these clips of her on the Bill Maher show and I like her. I'm not a huge Republican supporter by any means but I do like O'Donnell because she knows that evolution is a myth and isn't afraid to say it. I also like the time when she was saying "you reap what you sow" and Maher talked about karma which she then clearly stated she did not believe in.

She knows what the fuck is going on.

She's against masturbation... fuck that bitch.

Hey! God doesn't want you to touch your wang. It's like a guitar, DON'T EVEN LOOK AT IT!