• 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

Councilman said:
As to evolution being real or a theory, look not farther than man.

The average height for an early 17th-century man was approximately 5' 6". Today it's 5'9". We have evolved into taller people.
Click to expand...

Even the proposition that average height has increased since the 17th century is just a theory. We just have better evidence to support it.
 
SheWolf said:
It was obvious that he said evolution was a fact, and she was in disagreement..
Click to expand...
Didn't you just make the point on the last page that "there is the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution?"

I guess if you're going to call O'Donnell stupid for saying it's a theory, you'll agree that Coons is "stupid" too for thinking it's a fact. :shrug:

SheWolf said:
I hated how she tried to argue it's just a theory, like it shouldn't be taught in a classroom because it's a THEORY.
Click to expand...
Where did she argue that it "shouldn't be taught in a classroom because it's a THEORY"? What's the timestamp for that line?

SheWolf said:
Science is about theories, hypothesis, and laws.. It's about thinking, logic, and being critical.
Click to expand...
I wish you'd apply some of that to what you write.
 
What I find interesting is we have a failing economy, and what are we focusing on in the O'Donnell race? Nothing related to it.

Why?

Simple; She would be active repealing all things Obama, and the non-bearded, Bearded Marxist would be exposed as another Obamatron... A losing proposition.

Allies (Journolists) of Coons/Dems are trying to run the clock-out for the Marxist so folks don't really know that he's a tax and spend fanatic... until it's too late. For if she got some traction, an honest shake... Coons would be running scared.

All this reminds me of what happened when Obi got elected.

.
 
Last edited:
You know Coons is not actually a Marxist... right?

No, wait, you didn't know that. Hannity told you he's a Marxist and you just accepted it.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
again such irony.... You get told to start calling non liberals "Regressives" and you are lock stock and barrell gung ho with it.


Robert S. McElvaine: Let's Start Calling Them 'Regressives'


:failpail:
Click to expand...

I've never read this article. Great minds think alike!
Anyway, "bearded Marxist" came from a joke that Coons' friends told about him. He "went to Africa a conservative and came back a bearded Marxist." Coons didn't actually call himself that, and he doesn't at all fit the definition of a Marxist.

The Democrats should get a copy of the GOP mailing list, and send them little pamphlets explaining what the words Socialist, Fascist, Marxist, and Statist actually mean...
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
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???

.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised at all that Coons didn't know what he was talking about, but I was more concerned with a room full of people and a moderator who apparently didn't know either. The supreme court ruling of separation of church and state started with a Jefferson letter in the early 1800's and wasn't put into effect until 1947 Supreme court ruling - which interpreted the 1st amendment in a 5-4 ruling. The folks who are stupid are the one's who didn't know what the 1st amendment says nor the intent of it.

What's creepy is that Democrats generally want to change the meaning of the Consitution and remold it to their ideological views... questioning the meaning of words and rearranging them to fit their progressive mantra. They take an oath to uphold the Consitution, but they really don't want to nor do many know what it says. Too bad O"Donnell didn't have a Sen. Byrd sized pocket constitution available. She was right. :shrug:
 
Deuce said:
Anyway, "bearded Marxist" came from a joke that Coons' friends told about him. He "went to Africa a conservative and came back a bearded Marxist." Coons didn't actually call himself that, and he doesn't at all fit the definition of a Marxist.

The Democrats should get a copy of the GOP mailing list, and send them little pamphlets explaining what the words Socialist, Fascist, Marxist, and Statist actually mean...
Click to expand...
He admits to studying under a Marxist, and changing because of it. He admits to abandoning Republicanism, and was open to change.
So, under the Marxist Professor (Perhaps Obama Senior...LOL) he became a Bearded Libertarian? Bearded Anarchist? No... he became a Bearded Tax and Spend Leftwing Capitalist... ROTFLOL.

Let's not be coy. He's walked the tax and spend line since serving the people of the state. He deserves the Marxist label.
Why the press doen't grill him about his tax and spread the wealth around choices... is beyond me... LOL... not really. We know why they've chosen to shift the debate away from Coons. (And Rove should be kicked in the balls for the damage he did).

Here is the Bearded Marxist article titled Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist:
coonsbeardedmarxist.pdf.pdf

At a bare minimum, I think it's safe to say Kenya has had a terrible influence on this country. :)
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
I'm not surprised at all that Coons didn't know what he was talking about, but I was more concerned with a room full of people and a moderator who apparently didn't know either. The supreme court ruling of separation of church and state started with a Jefferson letter in the early 1800's and wasn't put into effect until 1947 Supreme court ruling - which interpreted the 1st amendment in a 5-4 ruling. The folks who are stupid are the one's who didn't know what the 1st amendment says nor the intent of it.

What's creepy is that Democrats generally want to change the meaning of the Consitution and remold it to their ideological views... questioning the meaning of words and rearranging them to fit their progressive mantra. They take an oath to uphold the Consitution, but they really don't want to nor do many know what it says. Too bad O"Donnell didn't have a Sen. Byrd sized pocket constitution available. She was right. :shrug:
Click to expand...

So two candidates, neither are overly familiar with the Constitution. Guess they kind of cancel each other out.
 
Deuce said:
I've never read this article. Great minds think alike!
Anyway, "bearded Marxist" came from a joke that Coons' friends told about him. He "went to Africa a conservative and came back a bearded Marxist." Coons didn't actually call himself that, and he doesn't at all fit the definition of a Marxist.
Click to expand...

I don't get the joke....
 
Taylor said:
Didn't you just make the point on the last page that "there is the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution?"

I guess if you're going to call O'Donnell stupid for saying it's a theory, you'll agree that Coons is "stupid" too for thinking it's a fact. :shrug:
Click to expand...

:laughat:

Coons was talking about the FACT of evolution, and O Donnell interrupt him to say, "We'll you just proved not only how little you know about the THEORY of evolution but also about the Constitution." Then she said, "the theory of evolution is indeed a THEORY.

They were debating two different things. O'Donnell looks like a moron for appearing to not know evolution is BOTH a fact and a theory. Coons said nothing wrong.. He was talking about the fact of evolution.

If she were better educated on this issue she would have conceded that scientific facts should be taught in school, and the real debate was the theory of evolution. Coons probably baited her into looking like a fool, and she took it: hook line and sinker.

I bet if some journalist in Delaware goes up to O'Donnell and asks her, "Is evolution a fact?" she would say no.. and then when it hit the national news she'd say it was a gotcha question. O'Donnell would be a victim of a lamestream media..


Where did she argue that it "shouldn't be taught in a classroom because it's a THEORY"? What's the timestamp for that line?
Click to expand...

She is arguing it shouldn't be taught as a theory unless ID is being taught as a theory... problem is, one is a scientific theory and the other is not. Again, it leads me to believe she doesn't know the basics about the scientific method.

If she understood the scientific method.. she wouldn't be tricked by Coon's saying evolution is a fact, and she wouldn't have a problem with teaching ID in a non scientific setting.. It is not a science, it can't be tested.

It's valid to study scientific theory in a science classroom, it always has been..
I wish you'd apply some of that to what you write.
Click to expand...

how ironic
 
Last edited:
O'Donnell's camp is now saying the concept of separation of church and state is in the constitution. She was only pointing out the Constitution doesn't say it explicitly, which I think is rather pointless to debate if you value the concept.

YouTube - Constitutional Clash in Del. Senate Debate
 
Mellie said:
I don't get the joke....
Click to expand...

Coons credits his change to liberalism to time spent in Africa. It was an in-joke among his friends, and he used it in the title of an article (or something) that he wrote.
 
SheWolf said:
Coons was talking about the FACT of evolution, and O Donnell interrupt him to say, "We'll you just proved not only how little you know about the THEORY of evolution but also about the Constitution." Then she said, "the theory of evolution is indeed a THEORY.
Click to expand...
He wasn't talking about some subset of observations or mechanisms, he was talking about evolution in general... "evolution is a fact"
 
Phoenix said:
So two candidates, neither are overly familiar with the Constitution. Guess they kind of cancel each other out.
Click to expand...

Really? Not seeing that COD was out of her league? One was more familiar than the other. Much more familiar. Being able to quote a full text is not in anyway comparable to COD's raising an issue about the 1st amendemdment, while not knowing that the etsablishment clasue was in the amendment she was raising as an issue.

What Cons did was not be able to quote the full amendment. He was aware of what they were discussing, the separation of church and state and it's existence or not in the Constitution.
 
SheWolf said:
O'Donnell's camp is now saying the concept of separation of church and state is in the constitution. She was only pointing out the Constitution doesn't say it explicitly, which I think is rather pointless to debate if you value the concept.

YouTube - Constitutional Clash in Del. Senate Debate
Click to expand...

Really? The concept, the principle, the implied reasoning....so Coons was correct and COD was clueless?
 
SheWolf said:
:laughat:

Coons was talking about the FACT of evolution, and O Donnell interrupt him to say, "We'll you just proved not only how little you know about the THEORY of evolution but also about the Constitution." Then she said, "the theory of evolution is indeed a THEORY.

They were debating two different things. O'Donnell looks like a moron for appearing to not know evolution is BOTH a fact and a theory. Coons said nothing wrong.. He was talking about the fact of evolution.

If she were better educated on this issue she would have conceded that scientific facts should be taught in school, and the real debate was the theory of evolution. Coons probably baited her into looking like a fool, and she took it: hook line and sinker.

I bet if some journalist in Delaware goes up to O'Donnell and asks her, "Is evolution a fact?" she would say no.. and then when it hit the national news she'd say it was a gotcha question. O'Donnell would be a victim of a lamestream media..




She is arguing it shouldn't be taught as a theory unless ID is being taught as a theory... problem is, one is a scientific theory and the other is not. Again, it leads me to believe she doesn't know the basics about the scientific method.

If she understood the scientific method.. she wouldn't be tricked by Coon's saying evolution is a fact, and she wouldn't have a problem with teaching ID in a non scientific setting.. It is not a science, it can't be tested.

It's valid to study scientific theory in a science classroom, it always has been..


how ironic
Click to expand...

thank you for pointing a few little things like facts out. Homeschooling and religious indoctrinization will harm this nation greatly.
 
SheWolf said:
She is arguing it shouldn't be taught as a theory unless ID is being taught as a theory... problem is, one is a scientific theory and the other is not. Again, it leads me to believe she doesn't know the basics about the scientific method.
Click to expand...
Nope. She's arguing that local school districts should be the ones to decide what to teach.

If you're going to criticize the argument, at least get the argument right.
 
Taylor said:
Nope. She's arguing that local school districts should be the ones to decide what to teach.

If you're going to criticize the argument, at least get the argument right.
Click to expand...

creation and intelligent design have no place in public schools, period. and i'm a christian.
 
Taylor said:
Nope. She's arguing that local school districts should be the ones to decide what to teach.

If you're going to criticize the argument, at least get the argument right.
Click to expand...

A phantom opponent in a bogus argument? Who if anyone, ever said anyone but local government gets to decide what is taught? Does a Federal Dept of Education set curriculum?
 
liblady said:
creation and intelligent design have no place in public schools, period. and i'm a christian.
Click to expand...

They don't? When instructing about world religions, it would be improper to have creation stories?

I'm sure you meant in the science classroom, but just wanting to make sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom