Did Christine O'Donnell pass High School Civics?

[Muravyets]

Which was another view shared by a majority of the founders of the US (though I'm not sure Hamilton agreed; he was such a snob). Franklin, in particular, held universal education as a social good.

Incidentally, it was also a good, solid, Puritan point of view as well. There was no monolithic Puritanism that dictated a uniform code of belief, and some Puritan churches were waaaaaaay less liberal than others, but even the ones that believed in absolute wordly authority, in the form of kings, were still anti-Pope. They were among the first churches to promote universal literacy so that every Christian could read their own Bible and not have their faith controlled by the Pope. Maybe they were letting the genie out of the bottle in a way, and for some of the churches, it led in a direction they didn't like (while some others were all for it), but the fact is, the solid Puritan Protestant ethic of "you're not the boss of me" led to the idea of every individual having the absolute right to think freely, which necessitates every individual having access to the education they need to be able to learn things and make critical judgments about them. If they were willing to apply that to God Almighty, why wouldn't they apply it to the lesser authority of government as well. Thus, people like Franklin supporting the value of an educated electorate.

would it surprise you if I said I was a Lutheran?

Only if (a) it was relevant, (b) I cared, and (c) you looked like something else.

[Vonners]

would it surprise you if I said I was a Lutheran?

Only if (a) it was relevant, (b) I cared, and (c) you looked like something else.

A - It is

B - You do

C - I make Princess Leah look like a 195 year old hag

[The Cat-Tribe]

Well, she absolutely should know how to respond to the question, but "separation of church and state" technically doesn't appear in the Constitution...

I have yet to see a full transcript of the debate, but all of the transcripts of the exchange make clear that Ms. O'Donnell was not making that completely irrelevant point. She clearly does not think the concept is or should be in the Constitution or should hinder Delaware schools from teaching creationism/intelligent design. (Which is especially stupid, because the Delaware Constitution itself forbids it.)

[Vonners]

Well, she absolutely should know how to respond to the question, but "separation of church and state" technically doesn't appear in the Constitution...

I have yet to see a full transcript of the debate, but all of the transcripts of the exchange make clear that Ms. O'Donnell was not making that completely irrelevant point. She clearly does not think the concept is or should be in the Constitution or should hinder Delaware schools from teaching creationism/intelligent design. (Which is especially stupid, because the Delaware Constitution itself forbids it.)

um thee doth not need a transcript...just watch der vid yah know;)

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

I think her gaffe ranks a 8.0 on the Quaylemeter.

[Vonners]

I think her gaffe ranks a 8.0 on the Quaylemeter.

yer 8 years too late.

[Saiwania]

I no longer believe Christine O'Donnell can win in Delaware. What can I say, she blew it. She could have rode the momentum of the TEA party with a little campaigning on the issues and not caring about the whole witch thing. Maybe taking a page out of Scott Brown's book. I hope she pulls off a miracle (we need every senate vote we can get to repeal Obamacare) but I'm pretty sure she won't make it.

[Muravyets]

Only if (a) it was relevant, (b) I cared, and (c) you looked like something else.

A - It is

B - You do

C - I make Princess Leah look like a 195 year old hag

A - How?

B - No, I don't.

C - Was she, like, a space-Presbyterian or something?

[Muravyets]

I no longer believe Christine O'Donnell can win in Delaware. What can I say, she blew it. She could have rode the momentum of the TEA party with a little campaigning on the issues and not caring about the whole witch thing. Maybe taking a page out of Scott Brown's book. I hope she pulls off a miracle (we need every senate vote we can get to repeal Obamacare) but I'm pretty sure she won't make it.

So you detest one domestic policy so much that to get rid of it, you would vote in someone who would destroy the US Constitution, someone who has no idea what the foundations of US law are, someone who has no clue how government works at all? In other words, is it your idea that the best way to solve a leaky roof is to burn the house down?

[Farnhamia]

I no longer believe Christine O'Donnell can win in Delaware. What can I say, she blew it. She could have rode the momentum of the TEA party with a little campaigning on the issues and not caring about the whole witch thing. Maybe taking a page out of Scott Brown's book. I hope she pulls off a miracle (we need every senate vote we can get to repeal Obamacare) but I'm pretty sure she won't make it.

Good. And you better hope whatever gains you make are veto-proof, because Obama hasn't forgotten how to write his name. And you need 2/3 of both Houses of Congress to override a veto. Good luck with that.

[Saiwania]

I no longer believe Christine O'Donnell can win in Delaware. What can I say, she blew it. She could have rode the momentum of the TEA party with a little campaigning on the issues and not caring about the whole witch thing. Maybe taking a page out of Scott Brown's book. I hope she pulls off a miracle (we need every senate vote we can get to repeal Obamacare) but I'm pretty sure she won't make it.

Good. And you better hope whatever gains you make are veto-proof, because Obama hasn't forgotten how to write his name. And you need 2/3 of both Houses of Congress to override a veto. Good luck with that.

Voting out Obama's rubber stamp congress is only the first step, we'll push hard to boot Obama out with whoever wins the nomination. 4 years (currently 2) of trillion dollar spending sprees, 10%+ unemployment, federal government power grabs, and waning American power/influence abroad is more than enough for me.

So you detest one domestic policy so much that to get rid of it, you would vote in someone who would destroy the US Constitution, someone who has no idea what the foundations of US law are, someone who has no clue how government works at all? In other words, is it your idea that the best way to solve a leaky roof is to burn the house down?

Yes, indeed. I hate what Obamacare is going to try to do (fine me $700 a year) that I'm willing to do almost anything to aid in repealing it and American public opinion is on my side with more wanting repeal than for keeping it.

[Tekania]

Voting out Obama's rubber stamp congress is only the first step

Hmm... You must be from that Mirror universe from Star Trek.... In this universe the congress we have is in no way "Obama's Rubber Stamp Congress".

[Muravyets]

Good. And you better hope whatever gains you make are veto-proof, because Obama hasn't forgotten how to write his name. And you need 2/3 of both Houses of Congress to override a veto. Good luck with that.

Voting out Obama's rubber stamp congress is only the first step, we'll push hard to boot Obama out with whoever wins the nomination. 4 years (currently 2) of trillion dollar spending sprees, 10%+ unemployment, federal government power grabs, and waning American power/influence abroad is more than enough for me.

So you detest one domestic policy so much that to get rid of it, you would vote in someone who would destroy the US Constitution, someone who has no idea what the foundations of US law are, someone who has no clue how government works at all? In other words, is it your idea that the best way to solve a leaky roof is to burn the house down?

Yes, indeed. I hate what Obamacare is going to try to do (fine me $700 a year) that I'm willing to do almost anything to aid in repealing it and American public opinion is on my side with more wanting repeal than for keeping it.

So... you do want to destroy the entire nation? Just double checking.

[Farnhamia]

Voting out Obama's rubber stamp congress is only the first step, we'll push hard to boot Obama out with whoever wins the nomination. 4 years (currently 2) of trillion dollar spending sprees, 10%+ unemployment, federal government power grabs, and waning American power/influence abroad is more than enough for me.



Yes, indeed. I hate what Obamacare is going to try to do (fine me $700 a year) that I'm willing to do almost anything to aid in repealing it and American public opinion is on my side with more wanting repeal than for keeping it.

So... you do want to destroy the entire nation? Just double checking.

It's refreshing when they actually say it out loud, don't you think?

[Saiwania]

So... you do want to destroy the entire nation? Just double checking.

I don't see getting rid of Obamacare as destroying the nation, I see failing to get rid of it as destroying America.
Premiums will still be rising under Obamacare and the cons in my view outweigh any pros it was purported to have.

[Muravyets]

So... you do want to destroy the entire nation? Just double checking.

It's refreshing when they actually say it out loud, don't you think?

In a way, yeah, I guess. Whew! Heady stuff.

[Muravyets]

So... you do want to destroy the entire nation? Just double checking.

I don't see getting rid of Obamacare as destroying the nation, I see failing to get rid of it as destroying America.
Premiums will still be rising under Obamacare and the cons in my view outweigh any pros it was purported to have.

Read the words on the screen:

...

So you detest one domestic policy so much that to get rid of it, you would vote in someone who would destroy the US Constitution, someone who has no idea what the foundations of US law are, someone who has no clue how government works at all? In other words, is it your idea that the best way to solve a leaky roof is to burn the house down?

Yes, indeed. I hate what Obamacare is going to try to do (fine me $700 a year) that I'm willing to do almost anything to aid in repealing it and American public opinion is on my side with more wanting repeal than for keeping it.

I ask you if you are willing to destroy the Constitution, which is the basis of our entire system of government. I ask you if you would put someone in power who would destroy the government as we have had it for our whole history. I ask you if your solution to one problem is to destroy the entire structure.

And you say "Yes, indeed." Because of $700 a year, you would do all that.

[Saiwania]

Save your semantics, one person is not going to destroy the constitution. The rest of the GOP senate leadership would have her stay quiet until she gains some seniority. A senator is only there to debate and vote on bills brought to the floor. What matters to me is her YEA vote against the Obama agenda.

[Farnhamia]

Save your semantics, one person is not going to destroy the constitution. The rest of the GOP senate leadership would have her stay quiet until she gains some seniority. A senator is only there to debate and vote on bills brought to the floor.

That's a frightening thought, Christine O'Donnell elected and re-elected enough times to actually gain some seniority. Anyone for the "Anti-Masturbation Act of 2029"?

[Muravyets]

Save your semantics, one person is not going to destroy the constitution. The rest of the GOP senate leadership would have her stay quiet until she gains some seniority. A senator is only there to debate and vote on bills brought to the floor. What matters to me is her YEA vote against the Obama agenda.

You didn't say one person. You said you needed as many seats as you could get, all filled with people like her. She is utterly unqualified for public office. She doesn't even know what's in the Bill of Rights, ffs. And she disagrees with the most fundamental concepts no which the nation is founded, such as separation of church and state. A person like her is basically out to dismantle our system of government to make it fit her extreme ideology. And you want to lard Congress with enough people like her to save you $700 a year. To save yourself money, you want to give power to people who will destroy the nation, because they don't like the way it's set up.

[Saiwania]

Anyone for the "Anti-Masturbation Act of 2029"?

As opposed to legalizing marijuana (catering to pot heads), giving illegal immigrants mass amnesty, and punishing the economy more with regulations (like cap and trade), that sounds like a good deal to me. A ban on masturbation wouldn't exactly be enforceable.

[Conserative Morality]

As opposed to legalizing marijuana (catering to pot heads),

Cutting down on pressure for already stretched police forces for a drug less harmful than tobacco.

giving illegal immigrants mass amnesty

Impractical to deport them all.

, and punishing the economy more with regulations (like cap and trade), that sounds like a good deal to me.

Punishing the economy? As opposed to punishing the consumers?

A ban on masturbation wouldn't exactly be enforceable.

Neither is a ban on pot.

[Saiwania]

If you legalize marijuana you go down a slippery slope of legalizing other dangerous drugs. Why not make cocaine legal while you're at it? The idea that laws against marijuana have any less a purpose than laws against other drugs is ludicrous to me.

[Ashmoria]

If you legalize marijuana you go down a slippery slope of legalizing other dangerous drugs. Why not make cocaine legal while you're at it? The idea that laws against marijuana have any less a purpose than laws against other drugs is ludicrous to me.

its a good idea.

taking the far more dangerous organized crime out of the drug business is well worth the potential increase in usage (of drugs that would now have quality control)

[Conserative Morality]

If you legalize marijuana you go down a slippery slope of legalizing other dangerous drugs. Why not make cocaine legal while you're at it? The idea that laws against marijuana have any less a purpose than laws against other drugs is ludicrous to me.

You're right, let's ban tobacco and alcohol.