OMG – Someone please control Christine O’donnell

[afx114]

Lets be honest, the Tea Party fully supports separation of church and state — assuming said church is Muslim, Jewish, basically anything that is not Christian. They’re actually against separation of their church and state. If they were intellectually honest about their church and state arguments they’d be perfectly fine with a Muslim president. I always thought we were asking the wrong question about whether or not Obama is a Muslim. Who cares if he is?

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
– US Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3

So this is really nothing about the separation of some philosophical “church” and state at all. It’s about making Christianity the official religion of the state, which in my opinion flies in the face of the first amendment.

I’d give my left, and probably my right nut to have a fully open atheist president. We’ve had plenty of atheist presidents, they just were unable to “come out” — that would be political suicide. At least JFK had the balls to come out and be honest about his religion.

We already have a definition for government without separation of church and state — theocracy. Why don’t you ask Iran and the Taliban how that’s working out for them?

[NotCranky]

[quote=afx114]Lets be honest, the Tea Party fully supports separation of church and state — assuming said church is Muslim, Jewish, basically anything that is not Christian. They’re actually against separation of their church and state. If they were intellectually honest about their church and state arguments they’d be perfectly fine with a Muslim president. I always thought we were asking the wrong question about whether or not Obama is a Muslim. Who cares if he is?

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
– US Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3

So this is really nothing about the separation of some philosophical “church” and state at all. It’s about making Christianity the official religion of the state, which in my opinion flies in the face of the first amendment.

I’d give my left, and probably my right nut to have a fully open atheist president. We’ve had plenty of atheist presidents, they just were unable to “come out” — that would be political suicide. At least JFK had the balls to come out and be honest about his religion.

We already have a definition for government without separation of church and state — theocracy. Why don’t you ask Iran and the Taliban how that’s working out for them?[/quote]
A++

Not that there should even be a need to invoke the failures of Theocracies to the argument.

[NotCranky]

[quote=afx114]Lets be honest, the Tea Party fully supports separation of church and state — assuming said church is Muslim, Jewish, basically anything that is not Christian. They’re actually against separation of their church and state. If they were intellectually honest about their church and state arguments they’d be perfectly fine with a Muslim president. I always thought we were asking the wrong question about whether or not Obama is a Muslim. Who cares if he is?

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
– US Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3

So this is really nothing about the separation of some philosophical “church” and state at all. It’s about making Christianity the official religion of the state, which in my opinion flies in the face of the first amendment.

I’d give my left, and probably my right nut to have a fully open atheist president. We’ve had plenty of atheist presidents, they just were unable to “come out” — that would be political suicide. At least JFK had the balls to come out and be honest about his religion.

We already have a definition for government without separation of church and state — theocracy. Why don’t you ask Iran and the Taliban how that’s working out for them?[/quote]
A++

Not that there should even be a need to invoke the failures of Theocracies to the argument.

[NotCranky]

[quote=afx114]Lets be honest, the Tea Party fully supports separation of church and state — assuming said church is Muslim, Jewish, basically anything that is not Christian. They’re actually against separation of their church and state. If they were intellectually honest about their church and state arguments they’d be perfectly fine with a Muslim president. I always thought we were asking the wrong question about whether or not Obama is a Muslim. Who cares if he is?

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
– US Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3

So this is really nothing about the separation of some philosophical “church” and state at all. It’s about making Christianity the official religion of the state, which in my opinion flies in the face of the first amendment.

I’d give my left, and probably my right nut to have a fully open atheist president. We’ve had plenty of atheist presidents, they just were unable to “come out” — that would be political suicide. At least JFK had the balls to come out and be honest about his religion.

We already have a definition for government without separation of church and state — theocracy. Why don’t you ask Iran and the Taliban how that’s working out for them?[/quote]
A++

Not that there should even be a need to invoke the failures of Theocracies to the argument.

[NotCranky]

[quote=afx114]Lets be honest, the Tea Party fully supports separation of church and state — assuming said church is Muslim, Jewish, basically anything that is not Christian. They’re actually against separation of their church and state. If they were intellectually honest about their church and state arguments they’d be perfectly fine with a Muslim president. I always thought we were asking the wrong question about whether or not Obama is a Muslim. Who cares if he is?

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
– US Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3

So this is really nothing about the separation of some philosophical “church” and state at all. It’s about making Christianity the official religion of the state, which in my opinion flies in the face of the first amendment.

I’d give my left, and probably my right nut to have a fully open atheist president. We’ve had plenty of atheist presidents, they just were unable to “come out” — that would be political suicide. At least JFK had the balls to come out and be honest about his religion.

We already have a definition for government without separation of church and state — theocracy. Why don’t you ask Iran and the Taliban how that’s working out for them?[/quote]
A++

Not that there should even be a need to invoke the failures of Theocracies to the argument.

[NotCranky]

[quote=afx114]Lets be honest, the Tea Party fully supports separation of church and state — assuming said church is Muslim, Jewish, basically anything that is not Christian. They’re actually against separation of their church and state. If they were intellectually honest about their church and state arguments they’d be perfectly fine with a Muslim president. I always thought we were asking the wrong question about whether or not Obama is a Muslim. Who cares if he is?

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
– US Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3

So this is really nothing about the separation of some philosophical “church” and state at all. It’s about making Christianity the official religion of the state, which in my opinion flies in the face of the first amendment.

I’d give my left, and probably my right nut to have a fully open atheist president. We’ve had plenty of atheist presidents, they just were unable to “come out” — that would be political suicide. At least JFK had the balls to come out and be honest about his religion.

We already have a definition for government without separation of church and state — theocracy. Why don’t you ask Iran and the Taliban how that’s working out for them?[/quote]
A++

Not that there should even be a need to invoke the failures of Theocracies to the argument.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Watch what happens to the Dems in the mid-terms and then tell me that it was solely a function of voter discontent.[/quote]

It’s a function of the 24/7 media that needs to keep things interesting.

If you are in the business of sports broadcasting, then you do what it takes to make sure the game is a close match all the way to the end.

But the Tea Party will fade. They will linger on in the media, but will never gain any real influence. They haven’t established any foundation of credibility, and this will only get worse as their candidates face the realities of elected office. (One of the reasons Palin quit was to avoid these realities.)

The strongest asset of the Tea Party is that they have no track record. (someone above claimed to like O’Donnell because she was “new.”) Many Tea Party fans are simply enamored with the novelty. Once they have candidates in office that can no longer avoid scrutiny, it will be clear that their platform is just a bunch of platitudes.

Not a perfect analogy, but a close one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_nothing_party

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Watch what happens to the Dems in the mid-terms and then tell me that it was solely a function of voter discontent.[/quote]

It’s a function of the 24/7 media that needs to keep things interesting.

If you are in the business of sports broadcasting, then you do what it takes to make sure the game is a close match all the way to the end.

But the Tea Party will fade. They will linger on in the media, but will never gain any real influence. They haven’t established any foundation of credibility, and this will only get worse as their candidates face the realities of elected office. (One of the reasons Palin quit was to avoid these realities.)

The strongest asset of the Tea Party is that they have no track record. (someone above claimed to like O’Donnell because she was “new.”) Many Tea Party fans are simply enamored with the novelty. Once they have candidates in office that can no longer avoid scrutiny, it will be clear that their platform is just a bunch of platitudes.

Not a perfect analogy, but a close one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_nothing_party

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Watch what happens to the Dems in the mid-terms and then tell me that it was solely a function of voter discontent.[/quote]

It’s a function of the 24/7 media that needs to keep things interesting.

If you are in the business of sports broadcasting, then you do what it takes to make sure the game is a close match all the way to the end.

But the Tea Party will fade. They will linger on in the media, but will never gain any real influence. They haven’t established any foundation of credibility, and this will only get worse as their candidates face the realities of elected office. (One of the reasons Palin quit was to avoid these realities.)

The strongest asset of the Tea Party is that they have no track record. (someone above claimed to like O’Donnell because she was “new.”) Many Tea Party fans are simply enamored with the novelty. Once they have candidates in office that can no longer avoid scrutiny, it will be clear that their platform is just a bunch of platitudes.

Not a perfect analogy, but a close one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_nothing_party

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Watch what happens to the Dems in the mid-terms and then tell me that it was solely a function of voter discontent.[/quote]

It’s a function of the 24/7 media that needs to keep things interesting.

If you are in the business of sports broadcasting, then you do what it takes to make sure the game is a close match all the way to the end.

But the Tea Party will fade. They will linger on in the media, but will never gain any real influence. They haven’t established any foundation of credibility, and this will only get worse as their candidates face the realities of elected office. (One of the reasons Palin quit was to avoid these realities.)

The strongest asset of the Tea Party is that they have no track record. (someone above claimed to like O’Donnell because she was “new.”) Many Tea Party fans are simply enamored with the novelty. Once they have candidates in office that can no longer avoid scrutiny, it will be clear that their platform is just a bunch of platitudes.

Not a perfect analogy, but a close one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_nothing_party

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Watch what happens to the Dems in the mid-terms and then tell me that it was solely a function of voter discontent.[/quote]

It’s a function of the 24/7 media that needs to keep things interesting.

If you are in the business of sports broadcasting, then you do what it takes to make sure the game is a close match all the way to the end.

But the Tea Party will fade. They will linger on in the media, but will never gain any real influence. They haven’t established any foundation of credibility, and this will only get worse as their candidates face the realities of elected office. (One of the reasons Palin quit was to avoid these realities.)

The strongest asset of the Tea Party is that they have no track record. (someone above claimed to like O’Donnell because she was “new.”) Many Tea Party fans are simply enamored with the novelty. Once they have candidates in office that can no longer avoid scrutiny, it will be clear that their platform is just a bunch of platitudes.

Not a perfect analogy, but a close one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_nothing_party

[gandalf]

Wow, cartman! That’s so fucking retarded.

Incidentally, I can’t get this picture out of my mind of the fat asshole kid on South Park stuffing his face with cheesy poofs and yelling at Kyle.

Let me tell you you why what you’re saying is RETARDED:

CONTEXT. Christine O’Donnell was not arguing about legal nuances. Plain and simple, she was advocating the teaching of Creationism as told in the Bible as SCIENCE in PUBLIC SCHOOL instead of Evolution.

The fact that you’re defending Christine O’Donnell speaks volumes. You people are like foot fungus. GO AWAY!

—

One more thing, I found your pseudo-intellectual ‘critique’ of separation of church and state to be flawed on the merits and highly selective in terms of your criticism of judicial review.

The law students at the debate LAUGHED. Not because they’re all ‘liberal elitists’. People who go to law school aren’t all ‘liberals’. Fucking moron.

The First Amendment and the language in it was ratified by our founders, the SAME PEOPLE who wrote the Constitution. They are not ‘Activist judges in black robes’.

Those judges in black robes issue interpretations of the constitution all the time as they have for two centuries, including countless socially conservative opinions that you don’t seem to take any issue with.

—

I think basically, this whole issue boils down to christian fundamentalists trying to impose their beliefs on others, and the rest of us who think they should mind their own fucking business.

[gandalf]

Wow, cartman! That’s so fucking retarded.

Incidentally, I can’t get this picture out of my mind of the fat asshole kid on South Park stuffing his face with cheesy poofs and yelling at Kyle.

Let me tell you you why what you’re saying is RETARDED:

CONTEXT. Christine O’Donnell was not arguing about legal nuances. Plain and simple, she was advocating the teaching of Creationism as told in the Bible as SCIENCE in PUBLIC SCHOOL instead of Evolution.

The fact that you’re defending Christine O’Donnell speaks volumes. You people are like foot fungus. GO AWAY!

—

One more thing, I found your pseudo-intellectual ‘critique’ of separation of church and state to be flawed on the merits and highly selective in terms of your criticism of judicial review.

The law students at the debate LAUGHED. Not because they’re all ‘liberal elitists’. People who go to law school aren’t all ‘liberals’. Fucking moron.

The First Amendment and the language in it was ratified by our founders, the SAME PEOPLE who wrote the Constitution. They are not ‘Activist judges in black robes’.

Those judges in black robes issue interpretations of the constitution all the time as they have for two centuries, including countless socially conservative opinions that you don’t seem to take any issue with.

—

I think basically, this whole issue boils down to christian fundamentalists trying to impose their beliefs on others, and the rest of us who think they should mind their own fucking business.

[gandalf]

Wow, cartman! That’s so fucking retarded.

Incidentally, I can’t get this picture out of my mind of the fat asshole kid on South Park stuffing his face with cheesy poofs and yelling at Kyle.

Let me tell you you why what you’re saying is RETARDED:

CONTEXT. Christine O’Donnell was not arguing about legal nuances. Plain and simple, she was advocating the teaching of Creationism as told in the Bible as SCIENCE in PUBLIC SCHOOL instead of Evolution.

The fact that you’re defending Christine O’Donnell speaks volumes. You people are like foot fungus. GO AWAY!

—

One more thing, I found your pseudo-intellectual ‘critique’ of separation of church and state to be flawed on the merits and highly selective in terms of your criticism of judicial review.

The law students at the debate LAUGHED. Not because they’re all ‘liberal elitists’. People who go to law school aren’t all ‘liberals’. Fucking moron.

The First Amendment and the language in it was ratified by our founders, the SAME PEOPLE who wrote the Constitution. They are not ‘Activist judges in black robes’.

Those judges in black robes issue interpretations of the constitution all the time as they have for two centuries, including countless socially conservative opinions that you don’t seem to take any issue with.

—

I think basically, this whole issue boils down to christian fundamentalists trying to impose their beliefs on others, and the rest of us who think they should mind their own fucking business.

[gandalf]

Wow, cartman! That’s so fucking retarded.

Incidentally, I can’t get this picture out of my mind of the fat asshole kid on South Park stuffing his face with cheesy poofs and yelling at Kyle.

Let me tell you you why what you’re saying is RETARDED:

CONTEXT. Christine O’Donnell was not arguing about legal nuances. Plain and simple, she was advocating the teaching of Creationism as told in the Bible as SCIENCE in PUBLIC SCHOOL instead of Evolution.

The fact that you’re defending Christine O’Donnell speaks volumes. You people are like foot fungus. GO AWAY!

—

One more thing, I found your pseudo-intellectual ‘critique’ of separation of church and state to be flawed on the merits and highly selective in terms of your criticism of judicial review.

The law students at the debate LAUGHED. Not because they’re all ‘liberal elitists’. People who go to law school aren’t all ‘liberals’. Fucking moron.

The First Amendment and the language in it was ratified by our founders, the SAME PEOPLE who wrote the Constitution. They are not ‘Activist judges in black robes’.

Those judges in black robes issue interpretations of the constitution all the time as they have for two centuries, including countless socially conservative opinions that you don’t seem to take any issue with.

—

I think basically, this whole issue boils down to christian fundamentalists trying to impose their beliefs on others, and the rest of us who think they should mind their own fucking business.

[Author]

Posts