O'Donnell's Epic Fail - Separation of Church and State
Options
oliverlang
Members Posts: 593
How do these tea baggers defend something so staunchly but don't even understand the constitution or what's in it is beyond me. I want to know how the republican party is going to spin this one. lmao.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXQO4S7XIkIComments
-
smh...they arguing if it is the 1st amendment or not. Why would you post such a lame video?
-
2012 is one of her advisors.
smh at her thinking that people were laughing because she had made such a great point. -
really, O'Donnell makes Palin look like Stephen Hawking
^^^ - ? -
Wack embed.
-
smh at her thinking that people were laughing because she had made such a great point.
i think she was just confused. not about what she said, she is clue less. i jus think she has no idea why the ppl re acted that way.... -
IN her Afghan quote I kinda agree with her.
-
Not surprising, a simple look at every other show she's been on you can tell she ain't right
-
someone inform her the soviets left like 20something years ago
-
someone inform her the soviets left like 20something years ago
Her typewriter is broken and the cup phones won't get anyone on the other end she has no other forms of getting in contact with anyone. -
These women are setting us back like hundreds and hundreds of years...
However, I always have my blackness to fall back on
-
its over: 2012! wrote: »I think O'Donnell's body language depicts this as a display of sarcasm/mocking, her opponent, and therefore deceitful to attempt to paint her display as an Epic fail.
As this very thread, existing, is proof that she was very successful in fact.
Why in the world would anyone purposely want to look like an idiot when running for congress of the US? She had no clue what she was talking about, as was evident when she tried to go back to question LATER in the debate. -
its over: 2012! wrote: »There is no reason in the world, why a person would want to look like an idiot. Which is why it was clear-sarcasm, according to her body-language in that instant. And that's solidified by her going back to address it, veraciously, LATER in the debate.
You're reaching pal, just like you do when concocting reasons for closing my threads. Now put your Reed Richards gear back on the rack, because O'Donnell's laughter displayed the sarcasm so, Face it, Accept it, Own it.
Christine O'Donnell Disagrees with you.
-
its over: 2012! wrote: »oh no she's not setting anyone back, at all, so stay keen to avoid the propaganda machine:
So now that you have been proven wrong with your "sarcasm/mocking, her opponent" talking point, what's your next move? -
its over: 2012! wrote: »There is no reason in the world, why a person would want to look like an idiot. Which is why it was clear-sarcasm, according to her body-language in that instant. And that's solidified by her going back to address it, veraciously, LATER in the debate.
You're reaching pal, just like you do when concocting reasons for closing my threads. Now put your Reed Richards gear back on the rack, because O'Donnell's laughter displayed the sarcasm so, Face it, Accept it, Own it.
quit bullshitting, man. she has no idea what she's talking about. quit trying to defend ignorance. -
its over: 2012! wrote: »Proved wrong?
Where?
Did I miss something?
or did one of you disprove that body-language, of her sarcastic-laughter, wasn't really body-language at all? When she asked that question?
please do point it out, for me, in case I missed one of you invalidate that.GIFSoup
You're trying to change your argument here..... -
its over: 2012! wrote: »Proved wrong?
Where?
Did I miss something?
or did one of you disprove that body-language, of her sarcastic-laughter, wasn't really body-language at all? When she asked that question?
please do point it out, for me, in case I missed one of you invalidate that.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...."
That says there is a separation of church and state. She didnt know this. She proved she didnt know this twice. That was not sarcasm or mockery, that was ignorance. -
Swiffness! wrote: »really, O'Donnell makes Palin look like Stephen Hawking
I chuckled, because the first time I saw O'Donnell on TV, I blurted out to a friend "? , she's just like Sarah Palin, but really ? stupid", and then after realizing what I just said, it occurred to me, Christine O'Donnell has made the difference between "Sarah Palin" and "Sarah Palin but really ? stupid" a distinction I can now conceptualize. -
ok, ignorance can now be defended as sarcasm. not knowing ? is now sarcasm.its over: 2012! wrote: »You mean, quit defending sarcasm. As I really wasn't at all since I didn't agree with that being the proper moment for it, but that doesn't change how it was still indeed sarcasm. -
Wow this broad is dumb and she isin't even well spoken enough to play it off.
Is this the same one McCain's daughter was ? on? IDK ? about anything in politics just watched the News today and I think I saw something about this. -
shootemwon wrote: »I chuckled, because the first time I saw O'Donnell on TV, I blurted out to a friend "? , she's just like Sarah Palin, but really ? stupid", and then after realizing what I just said, it occurred to me, Christine O'Donnell has made the difference between "Sarah Palin" and "Sarah Palin but really ? stupid" a distinction I can now conceptualize.
lol, too true. -
In O'Donnell defense their is a segment of the political spectrum that knows fully about the 1st Amendment and the separation interpretation. They believe though that the wall is only one-way. Government can not effect religion but religion can effect government. They view the exercise of religion in the public square as completely in-sync with the Constitution. They are comfortable with prayer in public schools or passing legislation based solely on religious dogma.
O'Donnell was trying to raise the point from a literal standpoint the 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the constitution but that an establishment and exercise clause exist. -
In O'Donnell defense their is a segment of the political spectrum that knows fully about the 1st Amendment and the separation interpretation. They believe though that the wall is only one-way. Government can not effect religion but religion can effect government. They view the exercise of religion in the public square as completely in-sync with the Constitution. They are comfortable with prayer in public schools or passing legislation based solely on religious dogma.
O'Donnell was trying to raise the point from a literal standpoint the 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the constitution but that an establishment and exercise clause exist.
Please, that is a sorry excuse.
It's not a "separation interpretation." The 1st Amendment is very clear "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It does not make sense to say that government cannot affect religion but religion can affect government. In order for religion to affect government a person in power has to make religious interpretations to law - thereby making a law respecting the establishment of religion and favouring one religion over another.
Yes, the literal phrase "separation of church and state" does not occur in the American constitution. However, the literal interpretation of the first amendment is that church is separate from the state. -
Please, that is a sorry excuse.
It's not a "separation interpretation." The 1st Amendment is very clear "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It does not make sense to say that government cannot affect religion but religion can affect government. In order for religion to affect government a person in power has to make religious interpretations to law - thereby making a law respecting the establishment of religion and favouring one religion over another.
Yes, the literal phrase "separation of church and state" does not occur in the American constitution. However, the literal interpretation of the first amendment is that church is separate from the state.
I completely agree with your post. I wanted to stress in mine that it is not stupidity that motivates O'Donnell in this case but a desire to elevate religion to a higher position of authority. One step in that is an ultra-literal interpretation of the 1st amendment. -
I completely agree with your post. I wanted to stress in mine that it is not stupidity that motivates O'Donnell in this case but a desire to elevate religion to a higher position of authority. One step in that is an ultra-literal interpretation of the 1st amendment.
Yes, there is a definite motivating ideology, but I'd argue that the ideology itself is stupid.
I suppose like most ideologies though, it has its appeals and there will be those who fall for it (see 2012). -
its over: 2012! wrote: »I don't fall for anything, by any means. I speak truth and whar did, as well, as you login to deceive and obfuscate and you did it, well. I know. You've joined in to victimize me before. Many times, but I don't mind saying you got O'Donnell this time.
Victimize? Disagreeing with you is victimizing you now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcRxOJhW8nQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz0xr3tSA0g
