Gene Frenkle Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools." "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him. When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience. "You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution. Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion. "She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise," Daly said. "It's one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment." O'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate. "Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution." Coons said her comments show a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the Constitution. O'Donnell questions separation of church, state Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB27 Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 And Obama told everyone he had campaigned in all 57 States...... This is no surprise, they (politicians) are all idiots.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 O'Donnell is a real kook...not sure how anyone could vote for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools." "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him. When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience. "You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution. Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion. "She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise," Daly said. "It's one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment." O'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate. "Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution." Coons said her comments show a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the Constitution. O'Donnell questions separation of church, state Two words: NANCY PELOSI I win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Two words: NANCY PELOSI I win. :lol: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Two words: NANCY PELOSI I win.America Loses Corrected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 While Im on a roll here, O'Donnell shot back in the debate, asking Coons if he could name the five freedoms guaranteed by the BoR. He could not. Wonder if the media will be reporting on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Corrected Beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Two words: NANCY PELOSI I win. This doesn't even make any sense. So a tea-party candidate is a moron who fundamentally misunderstands the constitution (big surprise there), and so your response is "Nancy Pelosi"??? Well I have two words for you SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS! I bet you can't beat my witty retort! :lol: :lol: Corrected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 This doesn't even make any sense. So a tea-party candidate is a moron who fundamentally misunderstands the constitution (big surprise there), and so your response is "Nancy Pelosi"??? Well I have two words for you SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS! I bet you can't beat my witty retort! Sarah Palin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Sarah Palin. Nice B word slap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 And Obama told everyone he had campaigned in all 57 States...... This is no surprise, they (politicians) are all idiots.... Really, you would equate an exhausted politician (right or left) at the end of a presidential cycle to this dumbass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Sarah Palin. Sarah's not someone I could ever vote for but she's sticking it to the Republican Party, challenging them yesterday to "man up" and break from the establishment. Part of me loves her brassy rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 O'Donnell is a real kook...not sure how anyone could vote for her. I'll take the kooks over who we have now. Offering us a depressing one way ticket to no where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Really, you would equate an exhausted politician (right or left) at the end of a presidential cycle to this dumbass? Ah, yes. Fatigue. That's what it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Really, you would equate an exhausted politician (right or left) at the end of a presidential cycle to this dumbass? Five months before the election is the "end of a presidential cycle"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Really, you would equate an exhausted politician (right or left) at the end of a presidential cycle to this dumbass? Gee, at the end of the cycle he should be feeling pretty good. It's before and at the beginning of his cycle that he could blame it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 (edited) This doesn't even make any sense. So a tea-party candidate is a moron who fundamentally misunderstands the constitution (big surprise there), and so your response is "Nancy Pelosi"??? It means people in glass !@#$ing houses shouldnt throw stones, you half-wit. Actually it means people who are standing outside with no !@#$ing clothes on during a March rainstorn shouldnt throw stones. Half-wit. Edited October 19, 2010 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 I'll take the kooks over who we have now. Offering us a depressing one way ticket to no where. I am anti-incumbent 8 days a week. But I also wouldn't vote for a straight lunatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Gee, at the end of the cycle he should be feeling pretty good. It's before and at the beginning of his cycle that he could blame it on. Wrong. At the end of the cycle EVERYONE including the politician is utterly exhausted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts