whateverdude Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 You're mis characterization the exchange and what was stated in the article. She asked where in the constitution was written "separation of church and state" not "establishment". You are misleading the PPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 19, 2010 Author Share Posted October 19, 2010 Sounds like he's hurt your feelings once or twice before. Was that a preemptive strike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Second's easy: guns. The First is complicated: talk, worship, and rioting. That's a lot for a politician to hold in their head. At this point, I'm practically supportive of voting in idiots, on the principle that they know they're not intellectuals, and won't try to pass laws "for your own good, because we're intellectuals and we know better." Hell, if you think about it, anyone smart enough to use a credit card responsibly is smart enough to run for federal office - which, while admittedly eliminating a hell of a lot of Americans from consideration, is still a hell of a lot of otherwise dimwitted people. Be careful. Thinking like that was the rationale that Losman couldn't possibly be any worse than Bledsoe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Was that a preemptive strike? Preemptive or preliminary, I haven't decided yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 19, 2010 Author Share Posted October 19, 2010 You're mis characterization the exchange and what was stated in the article. She asked where in the constitution was written "separation of church and state" not "establishment". You are misleading the PPP. When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" Thats out of context and a mis-representation of the facts She interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" That was a repeat of the question which Coons refused to answer directly. "Separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution. To argue so is stupid. Hugo Black who erected the great impenetrable and mythical wall mentioned it in his 1947 decision in Everson Vs. Board of Education. Hugo Black - the ex Ku Klux Klansman from Alabama who hated the Catholic church. Another fine upstanding Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 19, 2010 Author Share Posted October 19, 2010 Thats out of context and a mis-representation of the facts I'm simply quoting the AP article. I'm sure there are a dozen ways to spin this to make her once again palatable to the mouth-breathers. Your current choice of spin, however, is equally unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 I'm simply quoting the AP article. Oh, the AP. Well, that settles it. The woman is so far behind the polls that she'll be lucky to not get beaten by a write-in candidate for the Rent Is 2 Damn High Party. Almost 100 seats are up for grabs, but hey, everyone! Look at the witch! Scary, scary witch! Booooo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 This doesn't even make any sense. So a tea-party candidate is a moron who fundamentally misunderstands the constitution (big surprise there), and so your response is "Nancy Pelosi"??? Well I have two words for you SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS! I bet you can't beat my witty retort! You called? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I'm simply quoting the AP article. I'm sure there are a dozen ways to spin this to make her once again palatable to the mouth-breathers. Your current choice of spin, however, is equally unacceptable. WHAT spin??? Why did you link a yahoo news article that does not contain your "quote" anywhere in it? How else am I to take it but other than a mis representation of the facts in the article that YOU linked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB27 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 WHAT spin??? Why did you link a yahoo news article that does not contain your "quote" anywhere in it? How else am I to take it but other than a mis representation of the facts in the article that YOU linked. He makes a damn good point here.......... What say you Mr. Moonbat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 That's just the Libertarian in you talking. I think we know how well you tend to suffer fools and idiots. Point well made. On the other hand...imagine how much fun reading my rants will be if we elect more dimwits to office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passepartout Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Well creationism and evolutionism always has and always will cause conflict. Not just in schools. But everywhere you go and look. It has been controversial since the days of God and man. Why people bring this up everytiome and all the time, is beyond anybody's guess! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 20, 2010 Author Share Posted October 20, 2010 WHAT spin??? Why did you link a yahoo news article that does not contain your "quote" anywhere in it? How else am I to take it but other than a mis representation of the facts in the article that YOU linked. He makes a damn good point here.......... What say you Mr. Moonbat? I just checked and they literally re-wrote the article. My original post was a direct copy/paste of a portion of the article as it was at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I just checked and they literally re-wrote the article. My original post was a direct copy/paste of a portion of the article as it was at that time. Wow. "Re-wrote" is an understatement. That's a completely different article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 20, 2010 Author Share Posted October 20, 2010 Wow. "Re-wrote" is an understatement. That's a completely different article. Is that common practice on the web? I guess it could be considered a good thing - letting the article evolve to become more accurate over time. At the same time, it feels a bit lacking in journalistic integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Spin doctors and retards, it's the FREAKING FIRST AMENDMENT. If it were the second amendment, you'd be all over this, no? Please put up someone worth "Voting the Bums Out" for. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp I didn't see the exchange, but if I had to guess, I'd say she was intending to point out that the constitution in no way refers to a "separation of church and state". I know on paper it looks like she was questioning the establishment clause, but this sounds more like gotcha bs than anything substantive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 (edited) No, I think this proves that she was a horribly ill-qualified candidate that is out of her league. In my view after learning more about her, I am convinced that she craves and loves the attention more than anything and right now Jim Demint and Sarah Palin I'm sure are thrilled with the prospect that Coons, the ultimate future rubber stamp of the liberal agenda will be the next new Senator of Delaware. Great Job guys Edited October 20, 2010 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Is that common practice on the web? I guess it could be considered a good thing - letting the article evolve to become more accurate over time. At the same time, it feels a bit lacking in journalistic integrity. They are all in such a hurry to get ahead of the crowd. Then they realize the crap they wrote and fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts