Yes, but that's like the left saying, "All men are created equal" is a lie!! without understanding in context that slaves were considered property (and yes, it makes me throw up in my mouth just typing this). I mean, how much more obvious can it be that if Congress can't bar a religion, nor establish one, that they have separated the government from the religious aspect of our society? But, you know this is coming from the O'Donnell camp: "She was absolutely right! It doesn't say 'separation...'! See, she's actually the brilliant one!! Quick -someone find that Brady Bunch episode with Greg's "exact words" conflict with his parents- a history lesson is in order!!
No, according to O'Donnell, senators don't have to know the Constitution. That's the worst comment among everything she's said because it is the clearest form of hypocrisy regarding her as a Tea Party member. I don't understand why people want to elect individuals to government positions who view the government as basically a step above evil. I don't mind some reductions from what we have now, but I do want individuals in there who are actually going to DO something.
I would have to see that in context but it doesn't necessarily sound like Coons didn't know the answer but that O'Donnell had tried to ask him a gotcha question out of place in the debate and Coons chose to stick with the debate format. More from the link: [rquoter]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. The exchange followed an attempt by O’Donnell to fix a misstep from last week’s nationally televised debate in which she was unable to name a Supreme Court case with which she disagrees. [/rquoter]
As bad as it is, it is amusing to me that the left on this board isn't OUTRAGED and cursing anyone who vote for Coons as he couldn't name any of the other freedoms of the 1st amendment! He must be a racist teabagger as well!
Geez, did you not read this thread?? First, he did not say "I do not know the others... he simply stated one and then asked that they stick to the moderators' questions. That being said, if he did forget, yes, shame on him. Yes, I am a liberal progressive (beautiful words that I am extremely proud of, because life is about progression and liberty is a wonderful thing) and I feel that he should be called out for this- if that is what transpired. Now, in O'Donnell's case, Coons actually quoted something from the Constitution and she responded with, "That's what it says?" That's pure ignorance and willfully admitting it, too. Then, what is overlooked is this: Unfortunately for O'Donnell, the Tea Party-backed candidate also stumbled over the Fourteenth and Sixteenth Amendments when asked if she would support repealing them. "I'm sorry, I didn't bring my Constitution with me. Fortunately, senators don't have to memorize the Constitution. Can you remind me of [them]?" O'Donnell said." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/19/odonnell-gets-coons-for-constitutional-law-101/ That is flat-out embarrassing and quite frankly supremely arrogant to say that senators don't have to memorize the Constitution -ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE TEA PARTY'S HOLIER-THAN-THOU STANCE ON THE PURITY OF THE CONSTITUTION!!! Anyone in the legislative, executive, or judicial branch should WANT to know the Constitution by heart!! Or at least be able to cite the key amendments. You memorize what is important to you- like the NBA Champions are important to me, so I memorized every one since 1980: Lakers, Celtics, Lakers, 76ers, Celtics, Lakers, Celtics, Lakers (2), Pistons (2), Bulls (3), Rockets (2), Bulls (3), Spurs, Lakers (3), Spurs, Pistons, Spurs, Heat, Spurs, Celtics, Lakers (2)- (Is that right?)
No, not really. Aside from the fact that this statement his wrong (it wasn't that he couldn't - it's that there was no need to) the guy has a degree from Yale Law School, arguably the best in the country - accordingly I am not concerned that he doesn't know what's in the First Amendment. When you're dealing with people who don't have similar academic credentials, say college dropouts like Palin or O'Donnell - they don't get that benefit of the doubt. Because they didn't earn it....and in O'Donnell's case, proving why today.
Well at least we know she's not an "elitist"..... Palin, Angle, O'Donnell good God could the GOP find any dumber women?
We all want more female representation in politics but when this is starting to look like the future of females in politics it scares the **** out of me. There are smart and intelligent women out there and instead all we here about are these 3 clowns. What a sad story.
Awesome!!! <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uqQJB8DR_Zo?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uqQJB8DR_Zo?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
I guess Christine O'Donnell is a different person than she was when she was a frequent guest on Politically Incorrect. Back then she said that lying is always a sin, even if you are lying to Hitler about protecting Jews. She doesn't appear to have any problem with lying these days. Her campaign manager is clearly full of ****. If she was not questioning the concept of the separation of church and state, then why the hell would it be important for her to argue with Coons after he actually said what the first amendment says, and explained the meaning of it as interpreted by the courts. If she isn't questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts, wouldn't she be in agreement with Coons? Why the hell would she care then that the words separation of church and state weren't actually in the first amendment. This may be a ****ty example but its early and I'm too tired to think of anything else. Let's say my doctor's office gives me one of those little reminder cards (im so out've it i can't remember what they are normally called) and it said "we'll see you again on Monday at 9:30" and I go home and tell my mom "I have another appointment on Monday at 9:30", if she saw the card and agreed that this was the case, would she say "where does it say you have an appointment at 9:30?". No. If she challenged me to show her where it says that I have an appointment at 9:30, that means that she believes that the meaning of "We'll see you on Monday at 9:30" does not mean that they are anticipating seeing me on that time and at that day when I come in for my appointment, but it means they plan on seeing me somewhere else and not for an appointment. Anyways, thank god for Palin. Coons would've had no shot if O'Donnell didn't win the primary.
This is actually a really important issue in philosophy of language. Everyone on the internet should read H.P. Grice's "Logic and Conversation." Another example: Person A's car runs out of gas on some obscure rural road. He walks down the road to the nearest farmhouse, where an Person B is sitting on the porch, plucking on his banjo. A tells B, "I ran out of gas. Is there a gas station nearby?" B replies, "Sure, homie. There's a gas station about two miles that way." A walks two miles in the direction B pointed, only to find the station boarded up and the pumps dry. When he returns to the farmhouse, A confronts B, "Why did you tell me I could get gas at that station?" B replies, "I didn't say you could get gas. I said there was a gas station." B grabs the banjo and smashes it over A's head.
it's got to hurt to get schooled on the first amendment by someone as "dumb" as christine odonnell. of course, the real idiots are those who "know" something that just ain't so.
