Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since when do you care about "socialist" Europe?
Let me guess: Fox showed the riots in France, but left out that the economy in "socialist" Germany has been growing for months now.
What's funny about socialist Europe, especially in France is that these entitlement crybabies are rioting over 2 more years before they can retire! 2 freaking years and they are rioting in the streets over it! It is unbelievable. What childish behavior! My job raised the retirement age 10 years and nobody rioted!
You are still harping on this? Seriously? Geez, let it go already. O'Donnell never said anything about forcing anyone to learn anything. Creationism is fine to be taught in schools as long as it isn't taught in science class right? So what is your problem with what she said? She was right, Progressives don't know what Separation of Church and State actually means and it does not say that in the 1st amendment. It says what every other poster has told you it says including me.
My "problem" with what she is saying is that she DOES want it taught in science class, as an alternative to evolution. Perhaps if you actually did some research into what she is proposing, rather than simply give her your support because you want Coons to lose, you would understand the situation a little better.
And frankly, I think I understand very much what separation of church and state means. And I CAN quote the entire Constitution and the Bill of Rights from memory, so I know EXACTLY what it says. What I don't understand is exactly how REGRESSIVES like you explain how a prohibition of government from interfering in religion also supports government funding being used to promote a religion. Schools receive government funds. Creationism is religious doctrine. A school teaching creationism as science is promoting one religion's doctrines. Therefore it would be government promoting a religion. And that is Unconstitutional. It's a very simple logical exercise.
My "problem" with what she is saying is that she DOES want it taught in science class, as an alternative to evolution. Perhaps if you actually did some research into what she is proposing, rather than simply give her your support because you want Coons to lose, you would understand the situation a little better.
And frankly, I think I understand very much what separation of church and state means. And I CAN quote the entire Constitution and the Bill of Rights from memory, so I know EXACTLY what it says. What I don't understand is exactly how REGRESSIVES like you explain how a prohibition of government from interfering in religion also supports government funding being used to promote a religion. Schools receive government funds. Creationism is religious doctrine. A school teaching creationism as science is promoting one religion's doctrines. Therefore it would be government promoting a religion. And that is Unconstitutional. It's a very simple logical exercise.
I think you are being hysterical just for the sake of it. BTW, I seriously doubt you can recite those documents from memory. Who are you trying to fool, me or yourself?
I think you are being hysterical just for the sake of it. BTW, I seriously doubt you can recite those documents from memory. Who are you trying to fool, me or yourself?
I think you are a child. At one time schools required children to memorize a great deal. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence were all committed to memory. Right along with multiplication tables. Right along with the names of countries and their capitols.
And nothing in my remarks could be construed as hysterical. It's unfortunate that you have to characterize them that way because you are unable to form a coherent argument to refute my statements.
Coons didn't flub a question about the First Amendment. O'Donnell BROKE the rules by asking the question, Coons FOLLOWED the rules by refusing to answer her question. It's a debate, not a free-for-all. The moderators ask the questions, not the debaters.
Coons did not know what the other First Amendment freedoms are, other than freedom of religion. O'Donnell was correct in saying the First Amendment says NOTHING about "separation of church and state". It was the liberal courts that introduced that concept into the interpretation. Coons was INcorrect in saying "separation of church and state" is in the First Amendment.
Coons did not know what the other First Amendment freedoms are, other than freedom of religion. O'Donnell was correct in saying the First Amendment says NOTHING about "separation of church and state". It was the liberal courts that introduced that concept into the interpretation. Coons was INcorrect in saying "separation of church and state" is in the First Amendment.
If I asked you the color of your underwear, and you REFUSED to answer the question, would it be okay for me to tell the world that you were so stupid you didn't even know the color of your underwear. There is a difference between choosing to not answer a question and not knowing the answer. I realize that this is a nuance of communication, and you may not be able to process nuances. But if that's the case, I have no reason to talk to someone who's so limited linguistically.
My "problem" with what she is saying is that she DOES want it taught in science class, as an alternative to evolution. Perhaps if you actually did some research into what she is proposing, rather than simply give her your support because you want Coons to lose, you would understand the situation a little better.
What does any of this matter? She is running for the US senate, she cannot force the schools in the state of Delaware to do anything. Besides, the only thing she is in favor of, is allowing states to decide what is taught in schools, on their own. So its just freedom of choice that has your panties in a bunch..
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
And frankly, I think I understand very much what separation of church and state means. And I CAN quote the entire Constitution and the Bill of Rights from memory, so I know EXACTLY what it says. What I don't understand is exactly how REGRESSIVES like you explain how a prohibition of government from interfering in religion also supports government funding being used to promote a religion. Schools receive government funds. Creationism is religious doctrine. A school teaching creationism as science is promoting one religion's doctrines. Therefore it would be government promoting a religion. And that is Unconstitutional. It's a very simple logical exercise.
So close the United States Department of Education, its not as if they teach anything anyway.
Your recollection of the debate is faulty. She asked him to name the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, and he declined to answer. He never referenced freedom of speech at all. And since there's a snowball's chance at 210 degrees of him not knowing the five freedoms listed in the First Amendment, it's a non-point. She was not a moderator, she doesn't get to ask questions. She was admonished several times for going off-topic.
As for the rest of your rant, did anyone say that you have to be a lawyer to be qualified for the Senate? Nope. So what the heck are you ranting about?
We need smart, capable people who have more integrity than we've become accustomed to run for office and to be elected. I don't want someone who's painfully unfamiliar with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to be making decisions that affect me and you.
You seem to be more interested in insults rather than the truth here. If I am ranting, you are off the "ridge" here. You need to calm down there man.
She asked him the question on the 1st Amendment as a follow up and he began to answer and became "stuck" after naming "freedom of speech" and then fell back on the excuse, "Oh the moderator is supposed to ask the questions" bs. Check the record and you will see the dialogue in the transcript.
This guy Coontz is a fake, a phony, a fraud, and DC robot whose only allegience is to the power elite like Harry Reid. Didn't Harry refer to him as his "pet" recently? Wow that's nice of a Senator! These are the same old people who have been ruining this country and you support them. Great. At least you know what and who you support and aren't afraid to admit it like so many Dem candidates who have distanced themselves from Obama, Health care, Cap & Trade, etc, and have nothing but personal attacks to rely upon to get them elected to Congress.
I never said one "had to be a lawyer" you wrote that here, not me. I wrote I am sick and tired of lawyers crowding the Legislature writing 3000 page laws that no one reads before they vote upon. If that's your idea of Democracy, then fine, at least you admit it.
We have the Justice Branch that constantly challenges the legislative branch and its laws. We don't need the Legislative branch packed with lawyers who are beholding to special interests creating laws that nobody reads, much less understands, and at times, end up in the trash bin of the SCOTUS. Your own Nancy Pelosi said "Oh just pass the law and we can read and figure it out later"..wonderful.. That's a great understanding of the Constitutional responsibilities from the House.
If a total understanding of the Constitution "backwards and forwards" was a prerequisite for being elected to the Legislature, all we would have would be lawyers, or empty chambers. This is all merely a "gotcha" game that is about as stupid as children on a playground playing "I know more than you do..na na na na na...."
Please, there are no Constitutional requirements that a candidate has to be an expert in the Constitution. Elected officials surround themselves with legal advisors and a staff that do the research for them. If you think all of those people down in DC are all experts in government and Constitutional scholars, you are living in a different US than I am.
Wake up and open your eyes. The current state of government in the US is sinking YOUR Titanic because YOUR people, and so many other elected officials are responsible for the collision into the iceberg. It is they who are at the helm. You, and the people you support, have been doing things the same old way for years and years and yet always get the same results...poor ones or nothing at all. When will you realize doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is one definition of stupidity? Carry on...
I think you are a child. At one time schools required children to memorize a great deal. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence were all committed to memory. Right along with multiplication tables. Right along with the names of countries and their capitols.
And nothing in my remarks could be construed as hysterical. It's unfortunate that you have to characterize them that way because you are unable to form a coherent argument to refute my statements.
Yeah you can recite the entire Constitution from memory.
O'Donnell just wants schools to be able to teach Witchcraft.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
