Glad I don't live there cause I probably wouldn't vote. Don't know much about Coons but I have to agree O'Donnell seems insane. It's pretty sad that it seems like all these states are voting on who is less corrupt, less stupid, or less insane. Out here in cali we dont have it much better. We have do nothing elitist Barbra B*tch Boxer vs failed ex HP CEO. In this case it's in my opinion that the later is the less crappier of the two so she has my vote although reluctantly.
Not sure if this was the point O'Donnell was trying to make, but separation of church and state is most certainly not in the Constitution. Not establishing an official religion is quite different from abolishing public religious activity. How is this any better?:
The words "separation of church and state" (or any variant) do not appear in the Constitution. It says the state cannot establish a religion, not that public demonstrations of religion are forbidden. Don't bother with the "you're dumb" reply, we get it.
"Coons responded by quoting the relevant text: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." "'That's in the First Amendment?'" a still skeptical O'Donnell replied smiling, as laughter could be heard from the crowd. I could possibly give her a pass on the separation thing (even though anyone with half a brain understands the implication of the amendment), but she clearly indicates here that she did not "Congress shall make no law..." was in the 1st Amendment. Your witness....
Coons isn't much better, though- can't name more than freedom of religion? Hmm.... However, O'Donnell has been building up these questionable viewpoints from Day One. Perhaps it's not fair, but when Rasheed Wallace was on the court, officials were ready for any little reason to T him up. Christine O'Donnell is the Rasheed Wallace of politics. Plus, she's directly affiliated with a movement that is making a HUGE deal out of a literal interpretation of the Constitution. I think that, if I were a Tea Party candidate, I would know that thing inside and out based on the Party stance.
The 'implication' - that is where the trouble brews. One person interprets it one way and the other person interprets it another and a third yet another . . . and each of the three thinks the other two don't even have half a brain This is what we have the supreme court which unfortunately is not as good as it use to be either Rocket River
Right - Commodore's post is basically not relevant to the discourse being discussed. Ergo, my confusion.
Sure about that? http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5641284&postcount=730 I'd say it's neck and neck...
