Christine O'Donnell vs Coons - debate for the ages

look at that smug look she has when she thinks people are laughing with her. how can someone so dumb actually be in the running for anything?
 
I think she might be right on the seperation of church and state. I don't think it actually says that....

However she's still a freak. But I'd put it in her.
 
It's tough
It says something like Congress shall make no law backing an establishment of religion. Then John Locke went further to interpret that as "separation of church and state".
She sounds like a reincarnation of Sarah Palin. Which again brings me to be very saddened she is getting this media attention. How we need to look past this comedic tragedy of politics and stop giving ridiculous people the most air time.
 
Placing bets now on how long until she secures a cable news TV host spot. They seem to love these kinds of train wrecks.

spitzer.jpg


I give it two months after the elections.
 
the constitution doesnt type out "separation of church and state" anywhere in text
but when thomas jefferson was president he referenced the first amendment and said it created a 'seperation between church and state' it has also been quoted by teh supreme court in many cases
she was right it technically doesnt say that anywhere in the constitution..but lets be serious, she wasn't going for a technicality with that point she legitimately thought that our founding fathers had no desire for a separation between church and state
 
Also, later on in the debate O'Donnell asks Coons to name the five freedoms given in the First Amendment (Free Speech, Religion, Press, Petition, and Assembly) and he can't name them.

So the debate can go either way.

And also, it doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that there is separation of Church and State. Read it some time.
 
the words "separation of church and state" are not in it, but something meaning essentially that IS.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Wanna interpret the bold part for me? Because to me, that is a pretty clear way of saying keep religion out of the law and in turn, the state.
 
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/BNsrK6P9QvI?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/BNsrK6P9QvI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top