Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

OK. I'm not currently in a position to watch the video, so I will take your word for it. She well deserves to be mocked for other things she has said, but she was right when she said it the first time, but she lacks the ability to explain her out-there views to others who aren't true believers.

I'm confused. Did Hank get Ty's password, or is Ty really becoming Ty@50?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Of course they blinked at state promotion. Ty cited Madison's opposition to the Virginia bill that would have levied a religious assessment, which was pre-constitutional but is a noted piece of writing.

When Jefferson died he asked that three of his accomplishments be noted on the grave obelisk -- "author of the Declaration of Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom," and father of the first non-religious college in North America. You and I might have gone with "Former U.S. President" "Governor of the Commonwealth" or "Noted Architect" or even "Prominent Sufferer of Jungle Fever," but no, he went with the religious freedom thing -- both because it was something for which he believed he was on the right side of history {cough, slavery, cough} and because it was a non-obvious proposition. But the fact that Virginia and Massachusetts and Maryland had their various state toleration acts doesn't mean the Founders were universally of the view that states couldn't have sanctioned religions -- it was a very typical sovereign power at the time, and the Founders were smart enough to know that there is a difference between a Good Idea and a Condition for Statehood and Membership in the Union.

I love these discussions, but it's a fool's errand to try to define what "the Founders" or "the Framers" thought about religion. They were quite two-faced about it all -- no different from today's politicians.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Then Chris recited the establishment clause for her and she said something to the effect of, "That's in the first amendment?".

Again, not knowing what Coons said there, I can't tell how wrong she was. I actually looked for a better account than the Forbes one, but didn't find it. I'm sorry that I can't watch the debate on YouTube right now, but I can't. My loss, I'm sure.

What I can tell you is that this sort of snide coverage is unfair to her:

Just when you thought Christine O'Donnell, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware, could do nothing further to top herself, she does.

At a Tuesday morning debate with her Democratic rival Chris Coons, she appeared to be aggressively ignorant of the fact that the First Amendment requires the separation of church and state.

That's NPR. There are a lot of people who disagree with that proposition, and some of them are pretty smart.

Ty, you're working WAY too hard to avoid the conclusion that she's THAT stupid. Did you sleep with her?

I'm sure she's that stupid. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Ty, she wasn't right. If she had meant what you seem to want to think she meant, then she would have been right. But she was claiming that the notion of separation of church and state has no constitutional basis.

That would be loopy. But -- according to Forbes, anyway -- that's not what she said.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm sure she's that stupid. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I'll take that as a compliment. thanks, p

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I didn't see the debate, only the Forbes article I quoted. I agree that she is in way, way over her head.

I think Democrats are having fun paying attention to the Delaware Senate race because it allows them to ignore briefly the coming onslaught everywhere else.

I think (i) you should stop responding to this string until you are in a position to watch the video in the link I just provided you and (ii) she is a fucking moron and it amazes people (democracts included) at how unbelievably stupid she is.

TM

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Can the Republican Party recover from what's happening to it this year, or will it have to be put down? When will the country get the second political party it needs?

My favorite aphorism to describe it: "As one Republican put it to me, the dog has caught the car and is now shaking the bumper."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I'll take that as a compliment. thanks, p

I'm trying to encourage my son to be Flavor Flav for Halloween. The early Flavor Flav, anyway.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think (i) you should stop responding to this string until you are in a position to watch the video in the link I just provided you and (ii) she is a fucking moron and it amazes people (democracts included) at how unbelievably stupid she is.

TM

She is a fucking moron. My point was that "separation of church and state" isn't actually in the Constitution. That was her point, initially, and she was right.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

She is a fucking moron. My point was that "separation of church and state" isn't actually in the Constitution. That was her point, initially, and she was right.

Everyone here understands your point. I think what most likely happened is that someone on her staff told her to argue that those exact words aren't actually in the Constitution (because this is the new moron-base (TP or Repubs) argument for everything when it comes to the Constitution) and she most likely misunderstood (because she's a fucking moron) and went eight steps further and argued that there is nothing in the Constitution about keeping religion separate from government. Because it would seem, based on the video, that that's exactly what she believes.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm sure she's that stupid. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

say she is "right," you still need to be right for the reasons you think make you right.

in the USDofC I was a union grievance advocate. Part of my job was challenging decisions where management decided an employee fucked up a legal determination.

We were challenging one, me making legal arguments to support the employee's decision, and the manager said, "I hate this process. It doesn't mean anything that Mr. Chinaski can cite in re cicero from 1930 to argue the employee made the correct determination, because the employee has never heard of that case, and it had no bearing on em's determination. we're trying to decide competence, not whether to revisit that determination."

the whole time I've been a lawyer I have never been so floored by an opponent's argument.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

She is a fucking moron. My point was that "separation of church and state" isn't actually in the Constitution. That was her point, initially, and she was right.

I think I could argue, without looking at any cases or analysis, that the "separation of church and state" is very easily found in the sixteen words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I think the concept is in the Constitution when one looks at the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses together. And while reasonable minds can (and do) differ on the point, that woman has no idea how or why she made the statement that she did. And when confronted with the actual content of the text, she revealed herself unable to articulate her position or even know how on earth she got there.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Everyone here understands your point. I think what most likely happened is that someone on her staff told her to argue that those exact words aren't actually in the Constitution (because this is the new moron-base (TP or Repubs) argument for everything when it comes to the Constitution) and she most likely misunderstood (because she's a fucking moron) and went eight steps further and argued that there is nothing in the Constitution about keeping religion separate from government. Because it would seem, based on the video, that that's exactly what she believes.

I think she went to that constitutional law program at Claremont run by a bunch of conservatives with loopy ideas and took away the headline version of what they were pitching.

[Atticus Grinch]

O'course, giving Bat Boy a double strand of luncheon pearls might be seen as stacking the deck.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Everyone here understands your point. I think what most likely happened is that someone on her staff told her to argue that those exact words aren't actually in the Constitution (because this is the new moron-base (TP or Repubs) argument for everything when it comes to the Constitution) and she most likely misunderstood (because she's a fucking moron) and went eight steps further and argued that there is nothing in the Constitution about keeping religion separate from government. Because it would seem, based on the video, that that's exactly what she believes.

TM

This is exactly right. Ty, look at this video at at 7:12, if you can get Salon.

If you look at the whole exchange, you see a woman woefully ignorant of the constitution. It is incredible.