And we thought Christine O'Donnell could not get worse

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by steve knight, Oct 19, 2010.

  1. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #1
    Well we have all heard of foot in mouth disease but Christine O'Donnell but she has taken it to a new level.
    I think this proves masturbation is good for you if you don't masturbate you end up like her.

    O'Donnell questions separation of church, state
    Story user rating:

    BEN EVANS
    Published: 46 minutes ago

    WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) - Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.

    The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

    Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

    "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

    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?"

    Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

    "You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," said Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone, adding that he thought it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
  3. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #3
    Christine O'Donnell: Making Sarah Palin look like a Rhodes Scholar since 2010.
     
  4. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #4
    I can't believe I'm going to say this, but it's a little unfair to expect a non-lawyer candidate to be familiar with legal issues. She's not running as a legal scholor, but as a non-lawyer, outsider, with independent views and a different set of skills and experiences. If she is elected, she can hire a staff with legal experience, or use the Senate staff attorneys.

    I say that because I think it is a good idea to have people from different professions in our legislative branch, and I wouldn't want to discourage someone from running for office merely because they weren't legal scholors.

    That being said, most junior high and high school civics classes teach basic constitutional issues, and anyone who follows the news should be aware of at least one Supreme Court case or issue.
     
  5. steve knight thread starter Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #5
    So we need signs made up (if you don't masturbate you turn out like this) and we all know who's picture will be large on it.
    Sara palin today on the road saying mainstream republicans should vote for the tea party. ya right with fools like the above?
     
  6. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #6
    While I don't expect all senators to be legal scholars, I expect them to know what the first amendment is.
     
  7. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #7
    Aren't the Tea Party all about returning to the constitution? How can that be when she doesn't even know wtf is in the constitution.

    This doesn't scare anyone that this is a serious candidate in our country?
     
  8. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #8
    I'm not a legal scholar, and I know what the First Amendment says. I expect someone who wants to be in government to know the same- at the very least.

    I can't believe you said that either.
     
  9. steve knight thread starter Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #9
    I can somewhat agree on the no expert thing but this is a mainstream knowledge.
    it's like going to a fight dressed in bunny slippers a designer handbag and expecting to watch opera. Completely clueless these people are the ones that want to make the constitution match the bible.
     
  10. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #10
    Speak for yourself. I, for one, had and have full confidence in Christine O'Donnell's ability to get worse.
     
  11. steve knight thread starter Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #11
    I humbly bow to your wisdom.
     
  12. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #12
    There's nothing in the Constitution - first amendment or otherwise - about separation of church and state.

    The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion, or prohibiting the free exercising of religion.

    The Supreme Court dropped the ball, IMO, by equating this to "separation of church and state." There's a HUGE difference between a prohibition on establishing a national religion and completely prohibiting religion in any public forum.

    Allowing a public school to teach creationism teeters on establishing a religion. It doesn't reach as far as complete separation.
     
  13. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #13
    The term "separation of church and state" is merely a shorthand way of describing what the first Amendment does, and separation of church and state does not "completely prohibit religion in any public forum."
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    Teeters? :eek: No- it's definitely a violation of the First Amendment. The only way it could work is if all religions' creation myths were taught along with it.

    Trying to teach creationism in science class is also just plain stupid, as religion is not science.
     
  15. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #15
    I cannot wait to see how fox news will try to defend this one. This woman is A JOKE. It's beyond me how anyone can possibly take this idiot seriously.
     
  16. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #16
    Am I missing something about the connection to masturbation? I don't get it.
     
  17. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #17
    That's why it's exciting. You know it's going to happen, you just have no idea how.
     
  18. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #18
    Christine O'Donnell is against wanking.
     
  19. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    Really? It's her biggest claim to fame. She's against masturbation. This woman is insane.
     
  20. beatzfreak macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Location:
    NYC
    #20
    Sorry, I'm not buying that. O'Donnell has made a career out of running for this senate seat since 2006. She's also running on a platform to protect the constitution, so she should know what's in it. She's had 4 years to get it together.

    Here's the exchange:

     
  21. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #21
    You don't have to be the smartest. You don't have to be a lawyer. But as a potential lawmaker, you HAVE to know enough about the Constitution to know the gist of the First Amendment.

    We are a democracy, not a theocracy, no matter how much some people want us to be.

    You can have faith and belive in a higher power. However, you cannot just believe away the tenets of our country. You can believe in literal creationism or that the universe revolves around a flat Earth...but belief is not science.
     
  22. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #22
    A really good point, considering the utter mess lawyers and legal scholars have made of this country.
     
  23. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #23

    I expect candidates for dog catcher to know that.
     
  24. liquidsuns macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    #24
    She is definitely my new favorite politician, easily topping Bush Junior. Arnold is still in the top three, he could have been number one but never really lived up to the hilarious potential he had.
     
  25. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #25
    Quite yer whining. This woman's turning out to be fun :D
     

Share This Page