The Freak Show Continues: O'Donnell Questions Separation Of Church & State

[dca221]

PJABBER: I'll butt in this conversation, since you missed or ignored my post #83 above. I'll borrow heavily from that post

Can you name the second article, the fifth rule, the third principle of anything?
[...]

I offered up a self test in Post #72. Did you take it? I see you are a concerned citizen, regularly expound your learned opinions. How did you do? Be honest.

It doesn't matter how many I get right. The issue is the ignorance and pretentiousness of O'Donnell. And it is an issue because it is SHE who parrots the talking points, claims she loves the Constitution, mocks non-tea-partiers because others don't love or know the Constitution as much as she does ... yet she doesn't know what's in the 1st amendment, 14th, or 16th. She can't name a supreme court decision she disagrees with. Heck, she should play your game and tell us how many amendments she got right! Are you scared to know her number? (And no, I am not talking about her "number" of sexual adventures before she decided to crusade against masturbation)

I do expect a lawyer to be able to recite some of the detail of the Constitution, but I am pleasantly surprised when someone with an English literature degree and a marketing background does.

OK, let's see:
- she doesn't know, or let's be generous, is confused about, 1st amendment
- she doesn't know what's in the 14th or 16th amendment. this despite 14th being discussed quite a lot recently in the public domain (perhaps she doesn't watch the news or read newspapers ... like they don't read newspapers in Alaska?)
- she can't name a single supreme court decision she disagrees with. When asked, she said, in her Rachel Ray way, "I'll have to get back to you on that. Let me post it on my website"

And you are still pleasantly surprised by O'Donnell's mastery of the constitution? Are you partisanly blind or willfully ignorant? (see, I gave you a false dichotomy... I picked the trick up from Hannity!)

I did fully agree with one of your statements earlier, so I'll repeat here: "What I have come to find is that those who mock the loudest know the least. And those who dare to mock the most are themselves invariably more worthy of being mocked than any object of their derision. "

It really is a tough competition between O'Donnell, Angle, Paul, and Palin. So far, O'Donnell is winning by a nose -- or a pointy hat!

 

[PJABBER]

It really is a tough competition between O'Donnell, Angle, Paul, and Palin. So far, O'Donnell is winning by a nose -- or a pointy hat!

What, no Democrats on your list? :awe:

 

[dca221]

What, no Democrats on your list? :awe:

I'll throw in the dude from South Carolina (Green). He'll trounce DeMint!

 

[PJABBER]

Ann Coulter is always good for a few chuckles...

CHRIS COONS LIED, GRANNY DIED

by Ann Coulter
October 20, 2010

In all of life's tribulations, there is nothing so aggravating as being condescended to by an idiot. In last week's CNN debate in the Senate race between the astonishingly well-spoken Christine O'Donnell and the unfortunate-looking Chris Coons, O'Donnell had to put up with it from Coons for 90 minutes.

O'Donnell wiped the floor with Coons, moderators Wolf Blitzer and Nancy Karibjanian, and the idiotic University of Delaware students asking questions -- all of whom were against her.

(With the nation on the verge of another great depression -- the brunt of which, to my delight, will fall most heavily on college students -- guess what the dunderheads asked? GUESS! That's right: They asked about abortion "in the case of rape or incest," "don't ask, don't tell," doing something about "our carbon footprint," and the kook-minister who was going to burn Korans, because ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE, I TELL YOU!)

O'Donnell's responses couldn't have been better if Thomas Sowell were whispering them in her ear. But after every well-thought-out answer she gave, Coons would act as if O'Donnell were speaking in tongues and make a dismissive remark to the moderators: "If you can reconcile all those comments, you're an even more talented reporter than I think you are, Nancy."

(O'Donnell managed to simply answer the questions without wasting everyone's time with snippy asides about Coons' replies.)

Then Coons would say something incomprehensible, false or insane -- such as his conspiracy theory about the Australians uniting with the Chinese against America.

Yes, Australia, America's most loyal ally.

After O'Donnell described the China problem with absolute precision -- the Chinese hold so much of our debt, we can't hold them accountable in their dealings with Iran or North Korea -- Coons smirkingly replied: "It's hard for me to respond effectively, Wolf, to all the different issues that my opponent has raised in previous statements, and I'll just let that stand."

Then he launched his Chinese-Australian conspiracy theory!

Coons said: "The Australian navy engaged in joint exercises with the Chinese and specifically excluded us recently. A dramatic shift in the Australian policy."

Somehow, The New York Times had missed the national security implications of Australia's engaging in naval exercises with China! Either that or Coons is Dennis Kucinich, I've-got-eight-test-tube-babies-and-I'm-broke crazy.

Weirdly, though, considering Australia is snubbing the U.S. and sidling up to China, the Australian navy also recently staged a dramatic re-enactment of Gen. Douglas MacArthur's Incheon landing during the Korean War, which saved Australian troops from annihilation.

It's strange that the Australians would honor America -- or as the North Koreans put it, try to impress "U.S. sycophants and lackeys" -- just as they're distancing themselves from us. Maybe that's why no one else in the developed world is worried about Australia's joint naval exercises with China.

(But The Weekly World News is jumping right on it!)

In contrast to O'Donnell's manifestly true point that "China could take us over monetarily before they could militarily," Coons seemed more worried about a military invasion. He warned that "as the Chinese have become economically stronger, they are seeking to become militarily stronger."

(O'Donnell quipped: "Are you saying that China has a plot to take over America?" -- exactly what she has been falsely accused of saying.)

If you do nothing else before casting your vote, Delawareans, ask people who know something if China poses more of a military threat, or a monetary threat, to us. (Make sure they know you're talking about China the country, not singer/actress Chynna Phillips.)

What should worry Delaware voters even more than Coons' demanding a first strike against China was the elaborate lying he did -- on stage, in front of everyone -- about his family's financial interest in cap and trade.

Responding to the question about "our carbon footprint" from a student who will be living with his parents soon, O'Donnell gave a tour-de-force attack on the cap-and-trade bill, mentioning the massive electricity bills that will devastate Delaware's farmers and elderly citizens.

She concluded by asking Coons: "Speaking of cap and trade, your family business stands to financially benefit from some environmental legislation under Bush -- "

Then she was cut off by the moderator.

Coons sneered: "A fascinating question that really makes no sense, yet, so if you'd like to -- better ask the whole question, I'd be -- what's she talking about?"

O'Donnell said sweetly, "I'd like to know if your family business stands to have a financial gain if cap and trade is passed and, if so, would you recuse yourself in the lame duck sessions from voting with Harry Reid?"

Coons again scoffed at O'Donnell: "Fascinating question. No."

Thinking he had caught O'Donnell in a gaffe, Blitzer asked for her evidence. Oops!

O'Donnell cited W.L. Gore -- the company owned by my excellent compatriot's stepfather, which also provided Coons with the only for-profit job he ever held -- and said that the company makes fuel cells and other things that companies will be forced to buy under cap and trade. (Making W.L. Gore at least the second entity named "Gore" to cash in on the global warming hoax, by the way.)

Blitzer asked Coons, "Is that true?" Oops, again!

Amid a litany of irrelevancies and insults -- That's quite a stretch, Gore makes a lot of products, we also sell dental floss! -- Coons finally coughed up the truth: Yes, Gore will benefit if cap and trade becomes law.

He explained his earlier, by-now-obvious lie by saying that "it took a couple of minutes to even understand what she was talking about."

Really? That's strange, because according to Delaware newspaper articles not seven years ago, Coons himself -- as the lawyer for Daddy's company –- deployed Gore scientists to testify before Congress in favor of environmental mandates because, as Coons said, it was good for business.

On Nov. 16, 2003, "company lawyer Christopher Coons" told Wilmington's News Journal: "This is one of those very rare moments where the legislative outcome matters to Gore."

I guess now we know why Coons kept pretending he couldn't understand the batty dame.

 

[dca221]

Thanks for the Ann Coulter article. I was almost beginning to believe my own eyes and ears, and think with my own brain. Then I saw the article by one of the craziest right-wing pundits defending one of the extermist right-wing candidates. Now, i am clear -- I can vote for O'Donnell, "apparently unemployed 41-year-old woman whose major life success had been an ongoing performance as Wacko Conservative Girl on late-night talk shows" (hat tip, Gail Collins). But she is so sweet after all, and she is not a witch. She is me.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Thanks for the Ann Coulter article. I was almost beginning to believe my own eyes and ears, and think with my own brain. Then I saw the article by one of the craziest right-wing pundits defending one of the extermist right-wing candidates. Now, i am clear -- I can vote for O'Donnell, "apparently unemployed 41-year-old woman whose major life success had been an ongoing performance as Wacko Conservative Girl on late-night talk shows" (hat tip, Gail Collins). But she is so sweet after all, and she is not a witch. She is me.

Don't forget her constitutional fellowship she keeps touting...which is actually a 7 day course from a think tank.

 

[Pens1566]

And now she can't even name a single sitting democrat senator ... hilarity continues.

 

[her209]

And now she can't even name a single sitting democrat senator ... hilarity continues.

She did recently say she admires Senator Clinton from NY. Of course, she didn't realize at the time that Clinton is now the Sec. of State.

 

[SP33Demon]

I know you like to think this was a "gotcha" question by the moderators, but be serious for a moment; is there anyone in this nation who has any more than the most casual interest in law or government who doesn't know the significance of those two Amendments?

This is a candidate who runs as a representative of a party primarily concerned with taxes that does not know which Amendment established the income tax in the first place? Seriously?

This is a very valid point and luckily in 2 weeks we won't ever hear about this dumb broad again.

 

[her209]

This is a very valid point and luckily in 2 weeks we won't ever hear about this dumb broad again.

I suspect you will be quite wrong.

 

[SP33Demon]

I suspect you will be quite wrong.

Oh yeah, forgot that the IRS investigation hasn't concluded yet. So that will be in the news past the elections.

 

[ElFenix]

This is a candidate who runs as a representative of a party primarily concerned with taxes that does not know which Amendment established the income tax in the first place? Seriously?

trick question: the income tax had been established well before that amendment and only one portion of it was ever struck down by the courts (and the courts later decided they goofed on that one anyway). not to mention the amendment doesn't purport to establish the tax itself anyway.

 

[Anarchist420]

Just read the first page of this thread, but It's obvious that neither of them know the first Amendment. If O'donnell knew the first amendment, she would've told him it doesn't apply to the states and then he would've been the only one who looks like an ass. However she failed to respond that the first amendment doesn't apply to the states, so they both made asses out themselves.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Just read the first page of this thread, but It's obvious that neither of them know the first Amendment. If O'donnell knew the first amendment, she would've told him it doesn't apply to the states and then he would've been the only one who looks like an ass. However she failed to respond that the first amendment doesn't apply to the states, so they both made asses out themselves.

Fourteenth Amendment, Incorporation Doctrine. The First Amendment does apply to the states.

 

[CallMeJoe]

trick question: the income tax had been established well before that amendment and only one portion of it was ever struck down by the courts (and the courts later decided they goofed on that one anyway). not to mention the amendment doesn't purport to establish the tax itself anyway.

Agreed, I would have done better to say that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes income taxes in their current form.

 

[CallMeJoe]

It appears that Candidate O'Donnell has difficulties with the "Freedom of the Press" part of the First Amendment, as well.

Threatening to sue a radio station for taping a live interview...

 

[her209]

It appears that Candidate O'Donnell has difficulties with the "Freedom of the Press" part of the First Amendment, as well.

Threatening to sue a radio station for taping a live interview...

LOLOLOLOL

I wonder if she thought she had a reasonable expectation of privacy on a radio show.

 

[sandorski]

What a train wreck.

 

[caddlad]

Sanctimonious and stupid....a combination that guarantees lulz.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I have to ask one question before joining in. Did Coons say that the first amendment "the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion" because the details matter in this little game of gotcha. If O'donnell said that the first amendment does not say the church and state should be separate, she is right. The law professor says it is derived from the first amendment, but it is not actually in it. The problem I have with this report is that O'Donnell's response of: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" is either amazingly ignorant, or actually a good point, based entirely on what Coons said was in there. But, for some reason, the article does not actually provide his statement that she responded to. I have been caught by this myself when I made posts, where I trusted the reporters interpretations of a statement, when it actually changed the meaning of the original statement.

LOL! Take the comment at face value. Claiming a tea bagger had an intellectual misunderstanding could only be be taken by them as a deadly insult.