O'Donnell Blanks on First Amendment
Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
Christine O'Donnell is a freaking idiot!
Can't we find someone better than this to run? Crazy!
I'll go School House Rock on them. You never know when someone willing to learn something may come along.
Ok kids - when you grow up you will learn this neato thing called reading. Reading is fun! Reading allows you to learn things, look up facts and keep yourself from being a mindless drone when a politician and pundits tell you something and keep repeating it, hoping you will never actually do some research to find out that what they are telling you is complete bullkaka....and it keeps you from sounding like an idiot when someone who actually does read comes along.
The First Amendment of the Constitution details 5 specific rights. Got that? 5. Most people don't know that. Coons didn't know it, but O'Donnell did. That's the same O'Donnell that some folks here are trying to call an idiot - the one who knew the 5 rights of the First Amendment. Here are those 5 rights:
1. Freedom to exercise your religion
2. Freedom of speech
3. Freedom of the press
4. Freedom to peaceably assemble
5. Freedome to petition the United States government for a redress of grievances.
You see kids, it's not about restrictions but about freedoms. When it comes to religion, "separation of church and state" is not a freedom - it is an ideological restriction on activity. There is one restriction in the First Amendment and it specifically says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Read that one closely kids because it's important. This is not the same as "separation of church and state". It is the separation of church from one singular function of government - making laws. Congress is solely restricted from making laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of it. That's all. It's only about making laws.
So where did "separation of church and state" come from? It came from Thomas Jefferson, in a letter he wrote while he was President in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist association. Note it was not a law or even an executive order. It was a letter. The total sentence was: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State"
Wow - even Jefferson knew specifically what words were in the Constitution by putting them in quotes, and what words are not. Notice here also that he said it builds "a" wall of separation. That's singular kids. It again refers to just one thing - passing laws. The problem is that there's a lot of people out there who don't want to read and have no idea that even the origin of the phrase separation of church and state acknowledges that this phrase is not in the Constitution and refers only to the passing of laws by Congress.
Want to know what else he said in that letter? His closing sentence was, "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem." So the same letter that talks about separation of church and state, being sent in an official capacity by the President of the United States, promises to pray for the recipient of the letter to the common father and creator of man. Not exactly separation of Church and State even within that letter.
So kids, you really have to read things and learn for yourself. That's why we spend all this time and money on you when you're young, teaching you how to read. It used to be that every high school student was given a Constitution test as well so that they would actually know the Constitution. This isn't as common anymore and this is one of the reasons why. It's a lot easier to get people to believe something false about a document if they've never read it.
I think she can see Russia from Delaware, so at least she has the foreign policy experience. It could have been a disaster!!
And she is not a witch! She has my vote!
I am equally as excited to watch Sarah palin's brand new reality tv show. I wish all politicians were so open about their lives. Some people think it's just for the money. I believe it's for normal good ol' america. Which I am a part of. I think...
Can't we find someone better than this to run? Crazy!
The video is not loading for me. Is this the one where she asked if the separation of church and state was really in the Constitution?
She stated that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution.
TC
I figured it was that one. How hard of a smack down should I give the liberals here? Should I go Mark Levin or School House Rock on them?
I'll go School House Rock on them. You never know when someone willing to learn something may come along.
Ok kids - when you grow up you will learn this neato thing called reading. Reading is fun! Reading allows you to learn things, look up facts and keep yourself from being a mindless drone when a politician and pundits tell you something and keep repeating it, hoping you will never actually do some research to find out that what they are telling you is complete bullkaka....and it keeps you from sounding like an idiot when someone who actually does read comes along.
The First Amendment of the Constitution details 5 specific rights. Got that? 5. Most people don't know that. Coons didn't know it, but O'Donnell did. That's the same O'Donnell that some folks here are trying to call an idiot - the one who knew the 5 rights of the First Amendment. Here are those 5 rights:
1. Freedom to exercise your religion
2. Freedom of speech
3. Freedom of the press
4. Freedom to peaceably assemble
5. Freedome to petition the United States government for a redress of grievances.
You see kids, it's not about restrictions but about freedoms. When it comes to religion, "separation of church and state" is not a freedom - it is an ideological restriction on activity. There is one restriction in the First Amendment and it specifically says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Read that one closely kids because it's important. This is not the same as "separation of church and state". It is the separation of church from one singular function of government - making laws. Congress is solely restricted from making laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of it. That's all. It's only about making laws.
So where did "separation of church and state" come from? It came from Thomas Jefferson, in a letter he wrote while he was President in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist association. Note it was not a law or even an executive order. It was a letter. The total sentence was: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State"
Wow - even Jefferson knew specifically what words were in the Constitution by putting them in quotes, and what words are not. Notice here also that he said it builds "a" wall of separation. That's singular kids. It again refers to just one thing - passing laws. The problem is that there's a lot of people out there who don't want to read and have no idea that even the origin of the phrase separation of church and state acknowledges that this phrase is not in the Constitution and refers only to the passing of laws by Congress.
Want to know what else he said in that letter? His closing sentence was, "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem." So the same letter that talks about separation of church and state, being sent in an official capacity by the President of the United States, promises to pray for the recipient of the letter to the common father and creator of man. Not exactly separation of Church and State even within that letter.
So kids, you really have to read things and learn for yourself. That's why we spend all this time and money on you when you're young, teaching you how to read. It used to be that every high school student was given a Constitution test as well so that they would actually know the Constitution. This isn't as common anymore and this is one of the reasons why. It's a lot easier to get people to believe something false about a document if they've never read it.
Isn't that the same laundromat that Bill Gates washes his SS uniform?
Isn't that the same laundromat that Bill Gates washes his SS uniform?
Don't you love that part James where costumes are just fine for Hollywood but not Republicans? Nice...
It appears the post had the intended effect!
How did I get to be a liberal again Tom?
I'm assuming (hoping) that Bryan's OP was satire. I've never taken him for a liberal.
It's funny how the "idiot" went Rick James on her opponent and a bunch of "educated" lawyer wannabees...and they didn't even realize that the joke is on them! Maybe J Scott is right...the key to turning this country around is education. Apparently our schools are terrible! Time to scrap them and go all private.
Touché, Tim & Tom, touché, that is what I get for not actually looking at the video before making the comment. After watching, it’s obvious she was talking about what Tim mentioned and was misunderstood. Further, because it is a snippet, like always in media, you do not get to the part where she elaborates. I am still stoked about Palin’s new show. And about Palin 2012, which should also be great show regardless of your political leanings.
LOL, yes, IMO, it's the schools stupid. Have two teenagers in the house, one is going to be President, so he thinks, he loves to debate everything. He got into it yesterday with his economics teacher who was saying that the medical system was an example of an efficient market before Obama care was passed. I don't like everything about the change and I know many want the whole thing repealed, but saying it was an efficient and fair market is beyound stupid. So, the political views of our teachers are presented everyday to the kids. Our health system was ranked 47th in the world, overall, so efficient it was not. A friend just bought a walker that was billed at 126 bucks, I wouldn't have paid 26 bucks for that cheaply made piece of junk, I've seen better wheels on baby strollers and luggage!
How did I get to be a liberal again Tom?
To create activity? Lol. I wasn't sure if you were going satire or not so I thought I'd play along but slow play it. I was debating going with Coons is Too Damn High.
The intention of the post was to stir the pot.
That said...I do really think that O'Donnell is an idiot.
Tom...no...not everyone in Austin is a liberal. In fact, most of our liberals would be considered conservative by left coast standards.
While O'Donnell is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, she isn't an idiot either. You want an example of an idiot, let's take Diane Feinstein. She received 90,000 + letters and emails about the Health Care bill, 85,000 were AGAINST it. So what does Diane Feinstein say, "These people just don't get it."
I would take Christine O'Donnell over Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi, ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.
Pelosi belongs in that idiot group too.
Mike, that only proves that 85,000 out of 90,000 don't know what's in the Health Reform Act, that's about right, 85 out of 90 don't read anything for themselves, they follow the crowd....and yes Brian, you and I agree, she is an idiot.
I agree Tom, it should have been, guess why that's why most people are just plain ticked off. But here we are, today, living with it.
You don't have to read the whole thing at all to see that there were some great improvements over what we had and the way insurance companies were screwing over MOST EVERY, American, in one way or another. I didn't mean to hijack Brian's thread.....so let's not.....at least here.
Is O'Donnell a complete idiot....no, not like the Republican nominated Democrat in South Carolina....poor Alvin, but she is an idiot....let's just say the gas was turned off before she was done.....good night all.
The intent of this post was to piss everyone off and stir the pot so please feel free to drift into whatever random tangents you like...enjoy!
That is...unless the mods tell you not to :-)
Tim's post is the winner so far!
3, 2, 1....
Let the blood bath begin!
BTW...I haven't seen a single religion debate on BP yet. Is this against the rules?
Bryan
So you want to stir it up a bit! Here you go, if O'Donnell is an idiot, than Liberals are complete morons! They have no idea about human nature or human tendencies. Man is basically greedy and selfish and you will never legislate that away. The best you can do is place a form of government in place that will allow man to pursue his selfishness and greediness!
Agreed....about the form of gov-mint. Unfortunately ours moves away from that form year by year.
Let the blood bath begin!
BTW...I haven't seen a single religion debate on BP yet. Is this against the rules?
not against the rules, I don't think. Usually it's hijacked by uneducated people who think that there is no God. They somehow can't comprehend complex subjects such as religion, health care, etc.
"financexaminer" what great things were in the healthcare bill? Also, the gov wants to deamonize the insurance comanies (this has been successful) to slowly get their single payor government system. This is working well. The reason the insurance companies are the bad guys is due to the government regulation, not because they're evil. Please see Mike OH's thread on healthcare where people actually argued that insurance companies would see increased profits from the bill simply because there is an increase in revenue. This is yet another left wing myth. Insurance companies are now raising their rates due to the healthcare bill, when barry said it would lower costs. not to mention the large portion of money we spent on top of the increased premiums.
...and obama, and Ried, and Frank (and his boyfriend), etc, etc.
Guess I will stir the pot, or your minds up a bit.
They are not working for you at all. Neither side works for you AT ALL.
You do not pay them. Your tax dollars are NOT paying their salaries. They might as well be paid actors (not saying they are, but just sayin). If you want to know who REALLY pays them to do what they do, then follow the money back to its source.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks], will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
- Thomas Jefferson
"If the American people knew tonight, exactly how the monetary and banking system worked, there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
- Abraham Lincoln
You will not find a solution to this problem in the near future. Any major movement against this problem ALWAYS gets infiltrated by one of the two parties. Example: there were many Libertarians in the original Tea Parties that were speaking these truths. They have been drowned out by Republicans who will now control that movement.
Here in my area the Libertarian candidate for Gov was not allowed to participate in a televised debate. He will not be welcomed by major media outlets. So the public here will go in and pick their "side" and we will go along as usual.
So you are at the mercy of their agenda. Those who voted for Obama to end the war, end NAFTA, or one of the other millions of lies and half truths he told should KNOW this by now. You are not going to get a politician, or a group of politicians on either side to stand up to the money source. Yeah, they may blow smoke up your rear until they get elected; but the only "change" they will have to offer is what is approved by this source.