TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Christine O'Donnel blanks on first amendment
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Christine O'Donnel blanks on first amendment

post #1 of 34
10/22/10 at 3:53am
Thread Starter 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deMdZ...eature=related

I'm curious what you think. Conservatives, if you were in Delaware would you support her?

She also said "evolution is a myth" and if humans evolved from apes, how come we aren't seeing apes turn into humans?
I'm sure a lot of people don't believe in evolution, but I hope most people realize the ignorance of that statement, and how different this is from simply choosing to believe in a religious creationist story vs. evolution. It's the ignorance that really shocks me, not her choice not to believe in evolution.
Reply
post #2 of 34
10/22/10 at 5:56am
Okay, admittedly, here's where I show MY ignorance.

I get how, conceptually, evolution takes one hell of a long time to have any visual alterations to a lifeform; but what I have never understood, is how if there was one moment of "life creation" ("Big Bang" or whatnot), why, basically, would there "still be apes"? I assume the answer lies in something environmental? That a specific sect of ape happened to have the right tools, climate, etc., to further itself? While the rest of the ape clans were oppressed by some set of "uninspiring" conditions?

I'm one of those sorts that has a hard time with evolution on a number of levels (I'm a sucker for the "watch in the sand" analogy"), but if I'm to believe that, "Poof, here are the conditions for life", then I'm also assuming that there weren't different stages of evolution already in place, there was just one simple cellular "whatever". So, after millions - or billions, or whatever - of years, to have a lifeform at such a primitive state still doesn't square with me. Are we to assume that the apes of today, given enough years to procreate, will in fact be human-like one day? Or is there a genetic difference that prevents them for evolving any further? Or does it go back to that environmental thing?

I'm already irritated with it.
Reply
post #3 of 34
10/22/10 at 6:26am
If I could find her follow up interview with Fox News I would post it, but I saw it last night on TV. In that interview, she was telling the reporter that she and her staff walked away from that debate "high-fiving" that they had won the debate based on her knowledge of the 1st amendment, then were surprised when they read the press coverage stating that she had lost because of her comments about it. She just didn't get it. For a person who claims she will legislate based on her deep understanding of the constitution, she is either a lier, or far more stupid than I suspected.

Her comments about evolution go beyond showing her ignorance of science. They also tell me that she doesn't bother to do any research about concepts that oppose her views. I would hope that anyone that is responsible for establishing laws within this country would understand both sides of an argument before pushing their opinion on the matter. She is completely close minded about anything other than her own viewpoints. That's a dangerous trait in a politician.

Her ad about being "I'm you" simply offended me on so many levels.
Reply
post #4 of 34
10/22/10 at 6:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
She just didn't get it. For a person who claims she will legislate based on her deep understanding of the constitution, she is either a liar, or far more stupid than I suspected.
You might enjoy this; it would seem there are some problems with her claims about "knowing" the constitution, among other things :
Christine O'Donnell's Education Lies
Reply
post #5 of 34
10/22/10 at 6:59am
In her defense, "Separation of church of state" is nowhere to be found in the constitution, correct? The concept was actually borne out of an interpretation of the First Amendment?

The way she handled that whole thing was poor, yes. Given her history, should she have known better? Probably. Does she understand the concept of the "Separation of church and state"? Likely. Is she stupid? Probably not.

I don't take umbrage with the fact that the whole thing looked bad for her on its own merits. What I DO have an issue with is the arrogance stemming from this "Information age", where with a few keystrokes, everyone knows everything. Now all of a sudden after a faux pas, offenders immediately become idiots; wherein days past, "Hey, you know, she really IS like me", and we thought it was pretty cool.

Besides...she's cute and she's a witch. That's all I need from a Congresswoman. Everything else is just window dressing.
Reply
post #6 of 34
10/22/10 at 7:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keycube View Post
What I DO have an issue with is the arrogance stemming from this "Information age", where with a few keystrokes, everyone knows everything.
But the reality is that we live in an Information Age, and she is young enough that she should have embraced it. The information is readily available to her if she only took the time to look it up. But she doesn't bother to do that. How can she make informed decisions if she doesn't bother to look up information?

I don't want the country run on opinions which are not based on any facts.
Reply
post #7 of 34
10/22/10 at 8:55am
She asked a valid question. Where in the Constitution is "separation of church and state?"

She's an inexperienced debater and speaker, that much is definitely true, but she asked a question most Americans don't know the answer to, and she got pilloried for it.

She could also have asked where in the Constitution do you find a "right to privacy." Or any number of other "rights" we may think we have, but are not in the Constitution.

Someone in another thread was denying that NPR has a left bias, and would probably do the same for many other media, but the fact is that the media is quicker to jump on conservatives, and especially women.

All that said, I wouldn't vote for her. She clearly thinks that being a Senator is a valid job option for the under-employed, and we sure don't need another career politician who is in politics because they aren't any good at anything else.
Reply
post #8 of 34
10/22/10 at 9:59am
Thread Starter 
Humans and apes are just on different branches of the evolutionary tree that share the same common ancestor if that makes any sense as to why there are still apes. Evolution isn't discrete, it's a continuous process.

Did this video also show her asking to be reminded what amendment 14 16 and 17 are? Cuz on AC 360 that was also a part of it. I think that's something that's even more concrete that shows that she really has no clue.
Reply
post #9 of 34
10/22/10 at 10:29am
this woman scares me to pieces
Reply
post #10 of 34
10/22/10 at 12:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by katiemae1277 View Post
this woman scares me to pieces
Really? Because I've seen her opponent say some pretty scary things, too.

I don't think I could vote for either of them.
Reply
post #11 of 34
10/22/10 at 1:32pm
she scares me because she is so obviously unqualified for the job of senator, and her beliefs just blow my mind, like her opinion that gay people have a mental disease for example. Granted, how many people really are qualified to be a senator, but, correct me if I'm mistaken, she doesn't even have an undergrad degree? I'm sorry, but I think anyone serving in our government at that high of a level should at least have a bachelor's degree.

really, most tea-partiers and their ideologies scare me
Reply
post #12 of 34
10/22/10 at 1:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Really? Because I've seen her opponent say some pretty scary things, too.

I don't think I could vote for either of them.
Ditto and likewise.
Reply
post #13 of 34
10/22/10 at 2:40pm
I don't live in Deleware, so I don't understand why non-Delewarians care so much about her!
Reply
post #14 of 34
10/22/10 at 2:44pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
I don't live in Deleware, so I don't understand why non-Delewarians care so much about her!
Because whether or not she gets elected is very decisive in whether republicans will get the majority in the senate this up coming election!
Reply
post #15 of 34
10/22/10 at 3:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
Because whether or not she gets elected is very decisive in whether republicans will get the majority in the senate this up coming election!
I understand that, but it is up to registered voters in Delaware to choose their candidate, not me or you. But since they chose her, I think it is wrong and disgusting that Rep. party leaders are coming down on her. The job of the party leaders is to defend their candidates and help get them elected, not to destroy them on national TV.
Reply
post #16 of 34
10/22/10 at 3:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
I understand that, but it is up to registered voters in Delaware to choose their candidate, not me or you. But since they chose her, I think it is wrong and disgusting that Rep. party leaders are coming down on her. The job of the party leaders is to defend their candidates and help get them elected, not to destroy them on national TV.
I think that political parties would more or less qualify as a "super organism", sort of like an ant colony. Everything is for the good of the whole, and any "weak links" are culled.
Reply
post #17 of 34
10/23/10 at 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
I understand that, but it is up to registered voters in Delaware to choose their candidate, not me or you. But since they chose her, I think it is wrong and disgusting that Rep. party leaders are coming down on her. The job of the party leaders is to defend their candidates and help get them elected, not to destroy them on national TV.
I don't know.. she makes them look bad.. really, really bad. I imagine they want to nip this in the bud as soon as possible. I'm positive there are intelligent, conservative women- what I don't get is why the conservative women who keep getting the lime light and who get so much support from the tea party folks are so ditzy and ill informed. This doesn't help them. Being pretty can only get you so far. I understand wanting new and different, but you shouldn't have to trade capable and intelligent to get that.
Reply
post #18 of 34
10/23/10 at 4:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by esrgirl View Post
I don't know.. she makes them look bad.. really, really bad. I imagine they want to nip this in the bud as soon as possible. I'm positive there are intelligent, conservative women- what I don't get is why the conservative women who keep getting the lime light and who get so much support from the tea party folks are so ditzy and ill informed. This doesn't help them. Being pretty can only get you so far. I understand wanting new and different, but you shouldn't have to trade capable and intelligent to get that.
Your last sentence there is a "loaded statement and I can think of some things to say, but I won't."
Reply
post #19 of 34
10/23/10 at 8:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Ditto and likewise.
Maybe Delaware and Rhode Island need to join some other state in order to expand the possible political gene pool?
Reply
post #20 of 34
10/24/10 at 1:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
She asked a valid question. Where in the Constitution is "separation of church and state?"
Just in case anyone isn't aware of the origin of the statement.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
Reply
post #21 of 34
10/28/10 at 1:00pm
....

I have taught Civics and the Constitution. I will admit that without review, I can mix up the Constitutional Amendments. However, the separation of church and state is such a integral part of the Constitution. Not to mention the first amendment is probably the best known one out of the 27.

Even though I do not live in Delaware, she does scare me. If elected, she will become a part of the Senate and therefore can impact national legislation.

Honestly, politicians these days have gone hill. There really isn't anyone that I can really rally behind. When it get's down to voting, I pick the lesser of two evils... and that is just sad.
Reply
post #22 of 34
10/30/10 at 2:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
I understand that, but it is up to registered voters in Delaware to choose their candidate, not me or you. But since they chose her, I think it is wrong and disgusting that Rep. party leaders are coming down on her. The job of the party leaders is to defend their candidates and help get them elected, not to destroy them on national TV.
I think if people want to run as Tea Party candidates, they should make that a third party like the Libertarians. I have a feeling that in the end, Republicans are going to regret embarcing the lunatic fringe.
Reply
post #23 of 34
10/31/10 at 7:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty8723 View Post
I think if people want to run as Tea Party candidates, they should make that a third party like the Libertarians. I have a feeling that in the end, Republicans are going to regret embarcing the lunatic fringe.
To call the Tea Party people "lunatic fringe" tells me you don't understand politics and those involved. There are Democrats, Libertarians and just plain Independents involved in the TP movement. There is absolutely nothing lunatic about wanting our representatives to quit voting for programs the country can't afford, and to quit attaching "pork" clauses to their legislation, and to follow the will of the people who they represent. In a nutshell that is it. Perhaps you need to read both sides of an issue before making unfounded assumptions.

The Tea Party Movement believes in FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, FREE MARKETS AND CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT. That's it. There is nothing lunatic about it, and furthermore the people supporting the TPM are among the most politically informed group of voters in the country.
Reply
post #24 of 34
10/31/10 at 8:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rianna View Post
....

I have taught Civics and the Constitution. I will admit that without review, I can mix up the Constitutional Amendments. However, the separation of church and state is such a integral part of the Constitution. Not to mention the first amendment is probably the best known one out of the 27.
Then you must know that "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found within the wording of the Constitution, and definitely not in the First Amendment, which reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Reply
post #25 of 34
10/31/10 at 9:41pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
To call the Tea Party people "lunatic fringe" tells me you don't understand politics and those involved. There are Democrats, Libertarians and just plain Independents involved in the TP movement. There is absolutely nothing lunatic about wanting our representatives to quit voting for programs the country can't afford, and to quit attaching "pork" clauses to their legislation, and to follow the will of the people who they represent. In a nutshell that is it. Perhaps you need to read both sides of an issue before making unfounded assumptions.

The Tea Party Movement believes in FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, FREE MARKETS AND CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT. That's it. There is nothing lunatic about it, and furthermore the people supporting the TPM are among the most politically informed group of voters in the country.
I beg to differ, lunatics would be a good way to describe them. This woman is a tea party favorite, and I cannot imagine anyone but a lunatic could want her in office.
Whoever pointed out that the Tea Party should be it's own third party had a good point, but I keep thinking what would that do, even if it was a third party it would still split the republican vote, as a lot of the people who attend tea parties could have voted republican if there is no tea party party...
So yea, it seems like the tea party is actually doing damage to the republican party.
Reply
post #26 of 34
11/1/10 at 4:22am
One of the first signs of mental instability is assuming that those who disagree with you are mentally unstable, evil, or irretrievably wrong. I hear that on both sides of this debate, so you can guess the conclusion I come to!
Reply
post #27 of 34
11/1/10 at 6:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
One of the first signs of mental instability is assuming that those who disagree with you are mentally unstable, evil, or irretrievably wrong. I hear that on both sides of this debate, so you can guess the conclusion I come to!
Good point and it's hard to argue with ignorance because the uninformed don't want to make the effort to learn all sides of an issue.
Reply
post #28 of 34
11/1/10 at 7:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
Good point and it's hard to argue with ignorance because the uninformed don't want to make the effort to learn all sides of an issue.
And that is exactly why people have such strong feelings against O'Donnel. She is uninformed and she doesn't make an effort to learn all sides of an issue.

How's that for bringing things back on topic?
Reply
post #29 of 34
11/1/10 at 10:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
And that is exactly why people have such strong feelings against O'Donnel. She is uninformed and she doesn't make an effort to learn all sides of an issue.

How's that for bringing things back on topic?

O'Donnel may not have been my first choice, but again, I don't live in Delaware, so it doesn't much affect me. But as long as she votes with the conservatives, I don't care about her intellect. OK, that's MY honest reaction.

She is a neophyte in political debating, and I believe that is more about her personality than it is about her intelligence. I believe she was misunderstood in the debate re the 1st amendment. She questioned "separation of church and state" and she is absolutely correct. That phrase does not exist anywhere in the Constitution or in the Amendments following. It is a generally accepted INTERPRETATION of the Constitution and the First Amendment. But the Constitution and it's Amendments are subject to judicial interpretation, and that changes with the makeup of the courts. My interpretation of the Second Amendment, as an example, may differ greatly with your interpretation.
Reply
post #30 of 34
11/1/10 at 10:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post

O'Donnel may not have been my first choice, but again, I don't live in Delaware, so it doesn't much affect me.
Using this argument, then you wouldn't care if Pelosi and Reid remain in office either, unless you live in California or Nevada.

Any national candidate that can impact the laws in the entire country should be of interest to any U.S. citizen. And that's just my humble opinion.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Christine O'Donnel blanks on first amendment