• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

ReverendHellh0und said:
For the third time since you missed it in the post you are responding too. :doh:
Click to expand...

Oh, okay. I thought you were replying to someone else. I was going by the video and I have not seen any video where she asks that question.
 
Erod said:
As I said, liberals detest the Constitution.

Consider this: the President of the United States is the most powerful person in the world, and yet, he has no power over you individually, as a citizen, whatsoever.

If you don't see the genius in that, you are beyond help. And 240 years later, it still stands, where others have been crumpled and trashed.

Liberals want to crumple it, I understand. Good luck with all that.
Click to expand...


In a genuine Emergency scenario the POTUS can Throw a Proverbial "Monkey wrench" into a lot of lives. This includes Travel restrictions, and Call up of Military Reserves, Family Movements even.
 
CriticalThought said:
Oh, okay. I thought you were replying to someone else. I was going by the video and I have not seen any video where she asks that question.
Click to expand...



in otherwords, you only believe what you are spoon fed? Please, if you are going to call yourself "CriticalThought" perhaps you should engage in some. :prof
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
in otherwords, you only believe what you are spoon fed? Please, if you are going to call yourself "CriticalThought" perhaps you should engage in some. :prof
Click to expand...

Meh...I did concede once I saw that you provided an article that went into further detail, and before that I searched for a video so I could see the comments in context. If I were not engaging in critical thought, then I would still be arguing with you about it and I would have accepted the OP's article at face value. Politico exists because we don't always have all the facts.
 
Taylor said:
Why would you think that there's no possible way to improve the Constitution? Ever hear of an "amendment?"

What I find creepy is lack of basic education in this country.
Click to expand...
I'm not referring to the text itself, only the insane idea that somehow there is a specific "interpretation" woven into it.
 
CriticalThought said:
Meh...I did concede once I saw that you provided an article that went into further detail, and before that I searched for a video so I could see the comments in context. If I were not engaging in critical thought, then I would still be arguing with you about it and I would have accepted the OP's article at face value. Politico exists because we don't always have all the facts.
Click to expand...




You haven't addressed the the other guys gaffe, your partisan hackery is in full plumage. :thumbs:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Hell none of you have. :roll:
Click to expand...


Well neither the transcript or the video are provided in reference to the politico article.

Was Coons trying not to be de-railed or did he seriously not know the First?
 
winston53660 said:
Well neither the transcript or the video are provided in reference to the politico article.

Was Coons trying not to be de-railed or did he seriously not know the First?
Click to expand...




weak sauce. weak sauce. :shrug:

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.



Read more: Christine O?Donnell questions separation of church, state - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...



what context would you like this fail to be put in.


please, pretending like you are all worried about context now? It rings hollow dude.
 
CriticalThought said:
Are we watching the same video?
Click to expand...
Yup.

O'Donnell is making the point that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Consititution. Coons is trying to paint her as a religious nut because it's his best chance of winning.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And again, "separation of church and state" is a term of convenience that does not correctly describe the relationship between church and state. Coons sort of addresses the establishment clause, but forgets the free exercise clause. Rounding up, he gets 1 of the 5 freedoms half right. ;)
 
Taylor said:
Yup.

O'Donnell is making the point that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Consititution. Coons is trying to paint her as a religious nut because it's his best chance of winning.
Click to expand...

O'Donnell: "You're telling me 'separation of church and state' is in the first amendment?"
Coons: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
O'Donnell: "That's in the constitution?"

So, what, she just wasn't listening to what he said? That's your take on this?
 
Deuce said:
O'Donnell: "You're telling me 'separation of church and state' is in the first amendment?"
Coons: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
O'Donnell: "That's in the constitution?"

So, what, she just wasn't listening to what he said? That's your take on this?
Click to expand...



nothing on Coon's ignorance? Just the partisan hypocritical antics again deuce?
 
Erod said:
As I said, liberals detest the Constitution.

Consider this: the President of the United States is the most powerful person in the world, and yet, he has no power over you individually, as a citizen, whatsoever.

If you don't see the genius in that, you are beyond help. And 240 years later, it still stands, where others have been crumpled and trashed.

Liberals want to crumple it, I understand. Good luck with all that.
Click to expand...

Which liberals are looking to repeal amendments?
 
Deuce said:
O'Donnell: "You're telling me 'separation of church and state' is in the first amendment?"
Coons: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
O'Donnell: "That's in the constitution?"

So, what, she just wasn't listening to what he said? That's your take on this?
Click to expand...

She was repeating her question.

The true idiots are the audience who laughed when she asked the question She knew it wasn't in the constitution and they didn't.
 
megaprogman said:
If she fails to use basic logic to understand the meaning of the first amendment, then yes she is stupid.
Click to expand...

Coons couldn't name the Fab 5 Freedoms in the 1st. I'm sure he's able to regergitate the Commi Manifesto though :)
Who's stupid???

.
 
Patria Antiqua said:
I'm not referring to the text itself, only the insane idea that somehow there is a specific "interpretation" woven into it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure anyone believes that there is an interpretation "built in" to the Constitution. If it were that easy, would we need judges?

The Constitution must be interpreted contemporarily. The usual disagreement (in way too general terms) is in whether to base your interpretation on what you think the law meant when it was written, or whether you base your interpretation on what you think makes most sense now. The former gives more power to the people to decide the supreme law of the land (for better or worse), whereas the latter takes a portion of that power and puts it in the hands of a handful of appointed elites (for better or worse).
 
The headlines should be "Nutjob Christine O'Donnell is smarter than Chris Coons and the Audience."
 
Barbbtx said:
She was repeating her question.

The true idiots are the audience who laughed when she asked the question She knew it wasn't in the constitution and they didn't.
Click to expand...

no, she was not. she specifically said "THAT'S in the constitution?", [/B]in reply to his stating the amendment in words. she's an idiot. the audience knew she was an idiot, that's why they laughed. and in fact, that amendment has been interpreted to mean separation of church and state, hasn't it? and here's part of the reason why, which, as a beck devotee, you should know.

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
Click to expand...
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I know you are all about repealing the third.... You commie!
Click to expand...

BTW, Coons did gaffe, no doubt. But it's not as big of a story because he forgot what was in it instead of denying something that was in it was in it. Also, like it or not, she is a media magnet. Coons is milquetoast. It also didn't help her cause that she tried to wrap herself in The Constitution but couldn't remember what the amendments were that her supporters would like repealed. He forgot the specifics, she forgot even the generalities.
 
Taylor said:
I'm not sure anyone believes that there is an interpretation "built in" to the Constitution. If it were that easy, would we need judges?

The Constitution must be interpreted contemporarily. The usual disagreement (in way too general terms) is in whether to base your interpretation on what you think the law meant when it was written, or whether you base your interpretation on what you think makes most sense now. The former gives more power to the people to decide the supreme law of the land (for better or worse), whereas the latter takes a portion of that power and puts it in the hands of a handful of appointed elites (for better or worse).
Click to expand...
I see no debate here. It makes no sense whatsoever to base your interpretation of laws on situations that have no relevance to today.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
BTW, Coons did gaffe, no doubt. But it's not as big of a story because he forgot what was in it instead of denying something that was in it was in it. Also, like it or not, she is a media magnet. Coons is milquetoast. It also didn't help her cause that she tried to wrap herself in The Constitution but couldn't remember what the amendments were that her supporters would like repealed. He forgot the specifics, she forgot even the generalities.
Click to expand...



yeah but if she wasn't cut off she might have explained in context what she meant. As in that link I provided before, there is no actual separation of church and state, it's hair splitting but its not wrong.


She was cut off, then she retorted and the other dood gaffed as well.

To me it's a wash, I am not impressed with o'donnell in the least, but the mouth foaming for her while others won't even ACKNOWLEDGE coon's inability to answer reeks of hyper-partisan bullplop.
 
Patria Antiqua said:
It makes no sense whatsoever to base your interpretation of laws on situations that have no relevance to today.
Click to expand...
You make a big error in assuming that the situations under which a law arose "have no relevance to today" simply because they occurred a number of years ago.
 
Taylor said:
You make a big error in assuming that the situations under which a law arose "have no relevance to today" simply because they occurred a number of years ago.
Click to expand...
I make no assumptions one way or the other.

I feel tempted to go on some spiel about you assuming about me assuming about someone else assuming, but I won't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom