O'Donnell: separation of church from state"not in Constitution"

[Bilge_Rat]

I know we can only pick on her for two more weeks :D

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/odonnell-questions-church-state-separation/?hp

not a big news story in itself, but since some members here (Aramike I believe :hmmm:) follow the same reasoning, I thought it may be of interest.

[The Third Man]

She is correct. I challenge you to find the words 'seperation between church', or 'seperation of church and state', or any dirivative there of in the US consitution.

[The Third Man]

O'Donnell: separation of church from state"not in Constitution"


She is absolutely correct. That wording nor any dirivative there of exists in the constitution of the US.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[tater]

To think the republicans would have won handily, instead we get this moron running. She's an idiot. Read the text, she didn't know what was in the first amendment, she wasn't arguing that the exact wording was not there (as her backpedalling staff later said trying to save her stupid ass).

She's a low-grade moron. At best.

[AVGWarhawk]

She's a low-grade moron. At best.

And will fit in perfectly at Capitol Hill. :DL

[The Third Man]

To think the republicans would have won handily, instead we get this moron running. She's an idiot. Read the text, she didn't know what was in the first amendment, she wasn't arguing that the exact wording was not there (as her backpedalling staff later said trying to save her stupid ass).

She's a low-grade moron. At best.

No one expects her to win in a clearly low populace blue state any way.

[Tribesman]

She is correct
She is incorrect, to claim otherwise you demonstrate that you don't understand English very well.

I thought it may be of interest.
What is interesting is that the comment she made is relation to teaching cretinism in schools as science.

[SteamWake]

It helps to hear it in context.

[Tribesman]

It helps to hear it in context.
:up: Don't tell aramike:rotfl2:

[tater]

No one expects her to win in a clearly low populace blue state any way.

No, the Republican she ran against in the primary would have STOMPED Coons. He was polling way ahead. Coons was picked as a sacrifice because he simply could not win—then this utter moron won the primary. This seat was not in play, it was a "gimme" for the Republicans before lil miss stupid.

[The Third Man]

A little more context?


Democratic opponent Chris Coons, who argued that local schools should teach science rather than religion, at which point O’Donnell jumped in. “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” she asked.


The audience at Widener Law School was taken aback, with shouts of “whoa” and laughter coming from the crowd.
Coons then pointed to the First Amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

“You’re telling me the First Amendment does?” O’Donnell interrupted to ask.

Following the next question, Coons revisited the remark — likely thinking he had caught O’Donnell in a flub — saying, “I think you’ve just heard from my opponent in her asking ‘where is the separation of church and state’ show that she has a fundamental misunderstanding.”
“That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell again asked.
“Yes,” Coons responded.

O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions. “I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.


Seems it was Coons, the self avowed Marxist, who didn't know the constitution.

[Sailor Steve]

She is correct. I challenge you to find the words 'seperation between church', or 'seperation of church and state', or any dirivative there of in the US consitution.
Or 'God', or 'Christ'.

She is absolutely correct. That wording nor any dirivative there of exists in the constitution of the US.
So do you adhere to literal construction or original intent?

Seems it was Coons, the self avowed Marxist, who didn't know the constitution.
Nor, apparently, did James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" and author of the First Amendment.

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/detach.htm

Madison was also against any government support of religion (which could arguably extend to tax priveleges) and taxpayer-funded chaplains for Congress and the military.

[The Third Man]

So do you adhere to literal construction or original intent?



Before I can answer that question common definitions must be established.

[mookiemookie]

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/detach.htm


I found this one interesting:

The growing wealth acquired by them (corporations) never fails to be a source of abuses.

Sorry to stray off topic. Carry on.

[the_tyrant]

Moved to separate thread

[Sailor Steve]

Before I can answer that question common definitions must be established.
I usually hold that to be a requirement for discussion on 'Separation' as well. What do you mean by 'Separation of Church and State', and why does that make you for or against it.

I personally believe in 'Separation', which for me means that the Government is not allowed to interfere with religious beliefs (at least as long as they don't break any laws governing other rights of the individual), and Religion is not allowed to interfere with the Government. This does not mean that religious people can't hold government office - quite the opposite. It means that Religions organizations can't tell the government what it may or may not do.

As to my comment on 'Literal Construction' and 'Original Intent', it's something that I trot out sometimes in cases like this. I observe that sometimes the same people who insist on Literal Construction (i.e. "If it doesn't say it, then it doesn't mean it") in this context are the same ones are the same ones who follow Original Intent ("You have to explore what they really meant") in cases like the Militia Clause of the Second Amendment.

I'm not saying you do that, which is why I asked. But some do, which is why I felt the need to ask.

[krashkart]

* deleted out of respect for the thread * :salute:

[SteamWake]

Yea lets bring things she 'might' say into the discussion now that were diverted away from the out of context original topic. Thats solid stuff there !

[krashkart]

Sorry Steamwake. I'll edit that out.

[the_tyrant]

Sorry Steamwake. I'll edit that out.

Me too

[Bilge_Rat]

Yea lets bring things she 'might' say into the discussion now that were diverted away from the out of context original topic. Thats solid stuff there !

"out of context original topic"? I resent that...:D

I don't think I misrepresented her views and if you read the blurb I quoted, it does appear that she does not believe that the Constitution defends separation of church and state, not that she does not know what the First amendment means.

I don't think O'Donnell is dumb. Her stand on the separation of church and state (or lack thereof) is followed by many conservatives.

My problem with her is more her extreme right wing views and her attack dog style of politics, but then there are many candidates like her running for office right now. She just seems to attract more publicity.

Picking on her now is more of a trial run for 2012 when Palin squares off against Obama ......now that should be fun...:arrgh!:

[Ducimus]

She is correct. I challenge you to find the words 'seperation between church', or 'seperation of church and state', or any dirivative there of in the US consitution.


Are you really CaptainHaplo in disguise?

It seems to me, this has already been discussed ad nauseum (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=169745&highlight=church+state&page=2), and any further discussion is beating a dead horse.


PS. I "love" how bible thumping zealots continually try to turn our country into a theocracy. Really, i do!

[Skybird]

The same claim being made once again, so the same answering link being given once again:

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/separation.html

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/index.html

The purpose behind the US being secular is to allow people to make a choice unhindered by others (not needing to fear discrimination, pressure or disadvantages) what they want to confess to regarding religion - or not want to confess to. That way, it means no problpoem for anyone - as long as nobody claims the right to make the state and it'S institutions defining the playground of the nation's society according to dermands and commandements by any given relgion, at the cost of all those who do not share that belief/view.

This necessary self-limitation is something that fundamentalists - Christian fanatic sects, Islam - have big problems to accept, because they do not want equal rights and chances for everybody and all other beliefs. They want domination of their own belief, and ultimately turning the country into a tyranny of that one faith exclusively, excluding all others. In this regard, many American Christian radicals are not any different from Muhammad's teachings. Both are offsprings of one and the same mindset, and it is a most intolerant one.

[Tribesman]

It may seem incredible, but when you watch the full exchange she appears even dumber than she does when you simply read the transcript.

[Bilge_Rat]

I wish I could stay away from this, but this is priceless:


Coons pressured O’Donnell to answer whether she believes in evolution. “To say for example that it is up to local control whether a local school teaches science and evolution misses the question,” he said.

“The theory of evolution is not a fact, but is indeed a theory,” O’Donnell said.



a creationist also?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43826.html

[NeonSamurai]

She is entirely correct though, Evolution is only a theory and is not fact. Being that it is a theory created by us, it is flawed and not the "truth" (we will never discover the "truth" as it is fundamentally impossible for us to). But it is far better supported by available evidence then creationism is, which is thoroughly disproven by available evidence (ID theory on the other hand cannot be disproven, but is utterly useless because you can't disprove it.. ever).

[Sailor Steve]

(ID theory on the other hand cannot be disproven, but is utterly useless because you can't disprove it.. ever).
Nor can you prove it, precisely because there is no real evidence at all one way or the other. This means it is not 'theory' at all, but belief based on speculation.

[tater]

I wish I could stay away from this, but this is priceless:



a creationist also?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43826.html

Of the worst sort, yes.

like many she clearly doesn't understand what a theory actually is in science. She is also likely unaware that the evolution part is uncontroversial as it is an observation (that the balance of species on earth has changed over time, which is pretty clear as I walked around the block last night and was not eaten by a T. rex), not at all part of the theory that attributes a mechanism.

This is my first post on my new, i7 iMac, too. Wow this screen is frickin HUGE. Gotta get dual boot set up then try SH4.

[mookiemookie]

a creationist also?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43826.html

That irks me to no end. When ignorant people say "just a theory."

Evolution is not a theory. It is an observable and recordable fact. The theory of evolution through natural selection is the currently accepted explanation for the FACT of evolution. Nevermind that the word "theory" carries a completely different meaning to science than it does in casual use.

Gravity is a "theory" too. But I bet I can tell you what happens if you jump off a bridge.

http://notjustatheory.com/

[TLAM Strike]

A "Theory" is not the same as a Scientific Theory. :roll:

Somedays I just want to hit these people... :damn:

A Scientific Law describes a small set of actions or a single action. When one observes something and analyzes what is occurring based on known Scientific Law they develop a Hypothesis. When that Hypothesis is analyzed by others and confirmed it becomes a Theory.

[antikristuseke]

Gravity is also far less understood than evolution is.

[SteamWake]

Gravity is also far less understood than evolution is.

There is no gravity. The earth sucks :woot: :O:

[NeonSamurai]

Nor can you prove it, precisely because there is no real evidence at all one way or the other. This means it is not 'theory' at all, but belief based on speculation.

I'm not aware of any theories, scientific or otherwise that can ever be proven. The best you can ever do is to disprove a theory, not prove it as it is completely impossible to prove anything using the scientific method (or any other method).

That irks me to no end. When ignorant people say "just a theory."

Evolution is not a theory. It is an observable and recordable fact. The theory of evolution through natural selection is the currently accepted explanation for the FACT of evolution. Nevermind that the word "theory" carries a completely different meaning to science than it does in casual use.


No evolution is a theory... a scientific theory, that attempts to explain observed events, and generalize them to future events (ie. predict). Evolution however is not a fact, at best only the observed events are facts (and even then I would argue that they are not really facts, due to the natural and unavoidable biases that exist within us at a biological level that prevent us from fully perceiving an event, and that is aside from all the other biases we are born with).

Furthermore the meanings between scientific theory and casual use are not all that different. A theory is simply an explanation, it is just that scientific theory tends to be a little bit more evidence based (meta-physical theory excluded as that is almost entirely logic based).

Gravity is a "theory" too. But I bet I can tell you what happens if you jump off a bridge.

Actually the "theory" of gravity barely qualifies as a theory, since it offers no real explanation for the phenomena, just predictive formulae. So in other words we know what will happen, but have no clue as to why exactly.

http://notjustatheory.com/
I won't even begin to get into what is wrong with that site, but the author made numerous errors and should learn a little about the philosophy of science. This person's claims are just as ignorant as someone else claiming that it is "just a theory", just from the other end of the spectrum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

[Aramike]

I'm not aware of any theories, scientific or otherwise that can ever be proven. The best you can ever do is to disprove a theory, not prove it as it is completely impossible to prove anything using the scientific method (or any other method).You're citing the positivist viewpoint proposed by Karl Popper, which I only somewhat agree with. For instance, it is indeed possible to prove that something happened, but it is impossible to prove that the conditions causing that occurence would always result in the same result (theory).

What irks me about the positivist philosophy is that it rests upon assumtions (fairly safe ones to be sure) that we cannot know with certainty anything EXCEPT that we cannot know anything with certainty. There's a logical default there.

Quite frankly I think it falls into the category of unimportant philosophical debate for a theory only needs to work for the applications it's relevant to for it to be factual in the pragmatic sense.No evolution is a theory... a scientific theory, that attempts to explain observed events, and generalize them to future events (ie. predict). Evolution however is not a fact, at best only the observed events are facts (and even then I would argue that they are not really facts, due to the natural and unavoidable biases that exist within us at a biological level that prevent us from fully perceiving an event, and that is aside from all the other biases we are born with).

Furthermore the meanings between scientific theory and casual use are not all that different. A theory is simply an explanation, it is just that scientific theory tends to be a little bit more evidence based (meta-physical theory excluded as that is almost entirely logic based).Not to defend Mookie, but you're arguing something different than what he's positing. The "Theory of Evolution" and the fact of evolution are two different things. He's saying that evolution is a fact, and he is correct. You're saying that it is a scientific theory, and that is also correct. But that's apples to oranges.

It would be like me stating that the light bulb giving off light is a fact but that being counter with that it is only eletromagnetic theory which cannot be deemed a fact. It's a logical fallacy.Actually the "theory" of gravity barely qualifies as a theory, since it offers no real explanation for the phenomena, just predictive formulae. So in other words we know what will happen, but have no clue as to why exactly.There are plenty of actually theories surrounding gravity that are actual theories in the truest sense of the term, primarily that we know as the Theory of General Relativity, which explains gravity as the bending of space by all massive objects.

[Sailor Steve]

I'm not aware of any theories, scientific or otherwise that can ever be proven. The best you can ever do is to disprove a theory, not prove it as it is completely impossible to prove anything using the scientific method (or any other method).
A theory is normally based on phenomena that have already been observed. Yes, they can be proven wrong, and no, they can't be proven right. But can you show where ID has anything to do with theory, or science? It's an imposition of religious belief onto science, with no other justification or evidence than "I believe"?

[TLAM Strike]

It's an imposition of religious belief onto science, with no other justification or evidence than "I believe"?

Does Aqua Buddha telling someone its true count as evidence? :hmmm:


:88)

[mookiemookie]

But can you show where ID has anything to do with theory, or science? It's an imposition of religious belief onto science, with no other justification or evidence than "I believe"?

Indeed. If it cannot be tested against the scientific method, it's not science and does not deserve to be treated as such or given the same weight as such.

[Skybird]

What...? Another discussion on scientific theory, that short after the last one?

Scientific methodology has been explained so often in so short time now, it must not be done once again.

On scientific theories, we simply need to remember just this: that the only thing we can be certain of, is the fact that in the process of perception, something happenes to/with us. We already cannot be sure anymore what it is, and whether or not what we perceive is indeed like it seems to us that it is. And the meaning of it - is a completely different story anyway (if things have a meaning indeed). Science and theory do not produce the final, the last evidence for something, we only see a theory as highly valid if it produces overwhelming empirical evidence for it's predictions - but even that does not make it a conclusion of final and ultimate order (even if for reasons of sheer pragmatism we often act as if it would). We cannot observe something like "evolution" out there, like we cannot perceive light in its most essential, elemental form. Both terms are theories, created by us. All we do is perceiving something that already is turned into a form so that our biological senses can take note of it. The impression we form of it, already is the result of inventive constructional work being done in the brain. We do not see "colours" - the attribute of "red" and "blue" gets added to the electrical impulses in the optical nerves leading into our brains only. Hell, our eyes are not even capable to form sharp images on the retina - the impression of what we call a sharp, focussed image - is a quality added by our brain! Lense and cornea are not of that quality as if they would allow the forming of a sharp image on the retina. In fact, the picture they can prioduce, is quite blurry. "Sharpness" is something we add to our visual percepetion all by ourselves. Whether it represents any quality that is rooting in things "out there" indeed, we cannot be sure of.

We do not perceive "reality" itself. We invent and form and construct it. We do that in that way that we consider - by empirical evidence - to be the most helpful for us to navigate in this world and it'S challenges. That way, some ways make more sense than others. This is what scientific theory is about.

However:

Of Black Swans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory)

And more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory)

I tend to see existence like a title of a german book on physics from the 80s: "Die Welt is Klang", (=The world is sound). It means that in the end, it all seems to be and we all are just: waveforms, energy.

[Sailor Steve]

What...? Another post, that short after the last one?
:rotfl2:

I can understand your anger, but telling anyone what "must not be done" is a waste of time. People are going to do what they do.

[SteamWake]

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/duplicate.jpg

[Skybird]

:D

The difference between edit and quote buttons, I assume.

One piece of double posting KILLED.

[Alky]

PS. I "love" how bible thumping zealots continually try to turn our country into a theocracy. Really, i do!
What you should be worried about is the current crop of Marxists who want to turn your country into another Cuba! :cry:

[Takeda Shingen]

What you should be worried about is the current crop of Marxists who want to turn your country into another Cuba! :cry:

Actually, I think that both theocrats and Marxists are equally worrisome.

[Tribesman]

Actually, I think that both theocrats and Marxists are equally worrisome.
Yes, but where exactly are these "current crop" of marxists?

[tater]

No evolution is a theory... a scientific theory, that attempts to explain observed events, and generalize them to future events (ie. predict). Evolution however is not a fact, at best only the observed events are facts (and even then I would argue that they are not really facts, due to the natural and unavoidable biases that exist within us at a biological level that prevent us from fully perceiving an event, and that is aside from all the other biases we are born with).


Wrong. Evolution is the OBSERVATION that species evolve (change gradually) over time. Dig a hole. Find bones of critters that no longer exist, and find no bones of creatures that DO exist. Note that the deeper stuff is different than the more shallow, and none of the critters are extant. That means the fauna has changed over long time periods. That is evolution. That is observed.

Evolution is fact the same way gravity is fact. Drop an apple, and it doesn't hover or fall up. The theory of gravitation is the F=GmM/r^2 bit. Theories are models to explain observations. Models that have been tested and work.

The theory in "evolution" is the mechanism, Natural Selection, etc (there are a few minor variants). Not the fact that species are observed to change in time and geography.

Any alternate theory needs to adequately explain the fossil record.

[Takeda Shingen]

Yes, but where exactly are these "current crop" of marxists?

I'm not sure if any politician or candidate fits the bill as a true Marxist, or a theocrat for that matter. I was speaking in generalities.

[Tribesman]

Any alternate theory needs to adequately explain the fossil record.
God did the fossils.
That adequate for an explanation isn't it.

[tater]

Coons labeled himself as such.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39330531/coonsbeardedmarxist-pdf-pdf

I read it, and while you can certainly take the marxist bit as joking hyperbole, it's not clear he means it as a joke (other than the "bearded" part, which is clearly humor). He explains about his eloquent, marxist prof in Nairobi...

Having virtually any overlap with Marxists puts you in pretty distant left-field in US politics.

It's funny how opinion pieces like his in the college paper point out the "gory" horror of Viet Nam as a price of our system, but neglect the 100+ million murdered by communists worldwide. At best you get an answer sort of like, "yeah, but they made the trains run on time!"

[mookiemookie]

God did the fossils.
That adequate for an explanation isn't it.

No no, it was Satan who created the fossils to test your faith.

[Tribesman]

No no, it was Satan who created the fossils to test your faith.
Are you sure it wasn't Santa?

[AVGWarhawk]

No no, it was Satan who created the fossils to test your faith.

Interesting thought. :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

Are you sure it wasn't Santa?

Easter Bunny. :03:

[tater]

God did the fossils.
That adequate for an explanation isn't it.

Heheh.

[Molon Labe]

After watching the video, it's pretty obvious that O'Donnel was not taking her opponent to task about the words "separation of church and state" appearing in the Constitution, but that she didn't know that the Establishment Clause even existed. She is a disgrace.

On the plus side, Karl Rove's stock just went up a little (along with every other Republican that opposed her b/c she wasn't seasoned enough--now we know just how polite they were really being!).

[tater]

Rove was spot on.

[Bubblehead1980]

she is an idiot.:damn:

[SteamWake]

After watching the video, it's pretty obvious that O'Donnel was not taking her opponent to task about the words "separation of church and state" appearing in the Constitution, but that she didn't know that the Establishment Clause even existed. She is a disgrace.

On the plus side, Karl Rove's stock just went up a little (along with every other Republican that opposed her b/c she wasn't seasoned enough--now we know just how polite they were really being!).

Its funny how two pepole can see the same video and draw different conclusions.

On what did you base your opinion? The gasps and giggles of the crowd?

[antikristuseke]

Are you sure it wasn't Santa?

Maybe satin?

[frau kaleun]

Maybe satin?

Well...

http://www.borev.net/special.jpg

...isn't that special. :O:

[TLAM Strike]

Are you sure it wasn't Santa?

No it was Santana....
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/8071/carlossantana2.jpg

[Alky]

she is an idiot.:damn:
You can call her whatever you like but at least she'll vote against all that insane spending and taxation.
It's amazing that 50 -60 years ago, communists and pinko's were being hunted down in America, now they're the ruling elite :cry:

[Tribesman]

On what did you base your opinion? The gasps and giggles of the crowd?
Her words, the way she said them and her actions and expressions during the exchange.
What did you base them on? the drivel that her publicist came up with as a lame excuse to try and hide her idiocy?

It's amazing that 50 -60 years ago, communists and pinko's were being hunted down in America
Ah the good old days of McCarthyism, a black spot in history which is so discredited that the witch hunts by the demagogues are held up by people of all political persuations as examples of crazy propoganda gone completely mad.
Yet you appear to think the lunacy was a good thing

[Alky]

Ah the good old days of McCarthyism, a black spot in history which is so discredited that the witch hunts by the demagogues are held up by people of all political persuations as examples of crazy propoganda gone completely mad.
Yet you appear to think the lunacy was a good thing
Communism is never a good idea and has never worked any time it's tried.

[Tribesman]

Communism is never a good idea and has never worked any time it's tried.
What has that got to do with the price of cheese?

[tater]

Communists were not "hunted down" to any significant level in the US. Even during so-called "McCarthyism" the CPUSA was never criminalized—even though it was under complete control of a foreign power, and was used (with and sometimes without) the consent of its members for espionage.

The examples always cited as the worst of "McCarthyism" oddly enough come from the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). I say oddly since Senator McCarthy obviously had nothing to do with a House committee. McCarthy's ham-fisted methods were unfortunate given the entirely reasonable purpose of the Senate investigations—to determine if there were communists within the US Federal Government (that's all the Senate group looked into, federal employees).

In fact, there WERE communists in the Federal government, and guess what, they were also agents of the CCCP. Too bad he was such a showboat he gave ammunition to fellow-travellers to discredit the entire process.

In the end it's important to remember that the communists murdered over 100 MILLION human beings. While the US should always provide due-process and Constitutional protections to citizens, the total number inconvenienced by "McCarthyism" was tiny in both scope and magnitude than those similarly inconvenienced by the war with the Nazis. Pretty trivial compared to the communist body-count, too.

On-topic to Coons, writing an article that is favorable to commies, or makes a joke like the "bearded communist" thing is exactly as funny as if you replace "communist" or "Marxist" with "national socialist" or "Nazi." That's a good test of anyone who is an apologist for communism. Replace all the communist references with nazis ones, Marx with Hitler, etc. Read it back, and see if it makes you queasy. If it does... there ya go. Can you imagine a college paper printing such an article about a guy trading in his Democratic creds for Nazi ones? Didn't think so. (they'd be sensible not to, I don't understand how commies get a pass)

I'd say saying something positive about them should be as disqualifying as saying the same about nazis would be (if he was already in his own crazy camp I'd throw Pat Buchannan out of the Rep. party for crap he's written, for example). Just as I'd say that even if Senator Byrd had "repented" 100% from his KKK ways, his previous position should none the less have been disqualifying to any decent person. Should he be persecuted after "seeing the light?" No. Should he be rewarded with a lifetime Senate seat? No. he should have sought other work (assuming his party had had the decency to do the right thing and give him the heave-ho).

[Molon Labe]

Its funny how two pepole can see the same video and draw different conclusions.

On what did you base your opinion? The gasps and giggles of the crowd?

Her questions and her inflection. It wasn't just the earlier part with the "separation" mentioned. If that's all it was I'd have just thought she was making the case for the Establishment Clause not being all that much of an impediment towards government endorsement of religion. But, she brought it up again later and her opponent cited the Establishment Clause (not "separation") and she flat-out asked, "Is that in the 1st Amendment?"

[mookiemookie]

What has that got to do with the price of cheese?

I find it ironic that a Canadian, a citizen of a country that's much more socialistic than the U.S., is flinging crap about the perceived "socialists" in the U.S. That's rich.

[Alky]

I find it ironic that a Canadian, a citizen of a country that's much more socialistic than the U.S., is flinging crap about the perceived "socialists" in the U.S. That's rich.
Yes the left has taken a foothold in this country for many years, but what's going on right now in America is extremely scary. What happens there, has a huge tendency to affect us here.
The last conservative leader we had was Mulroony. We've had a conservative now for a few years but Libs keep snapping at his heels because he doesn't have a majority and we're having a bad time getting this ship back on course.

I fear for this country and you should fear even more what's happening in yours!!

[NeonSamurai]

Apologies for not addressing any responses directed at me yet, I wont have time till the weekend. Then I will be happy to counter argue the various statements (some I agree with, several I do not).

Just for clarification though, I am not arguing from the standpoint that ID should be given equal weight, or that creationism is correct. But that most people fundamentally do not understand science or how it really works, and overstate it's veracity.

[Platapus]

You can call her whatever you like but at least she'll vote against all that insane spending and taxation.

And how do you know this?

Because she says she will? A politician saying that they are against spending is nothing new. Politicians from all parties say the same thing.

Ask yourself, what is her history of past performance in cutting spending. She has none. Based on her personal life, it does not seem she is financially savvy at all.

So what you have is an unknown politician wanna be saying that she is against spending and you believe her... why?

This is why I can't take the Tea party seriously. They are just a bunch of politicians "saying" that they will cut spending, but have no history of past performance. I have heard this song before.