Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
May 18, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Benghazi Fiasco
  • Gosnell Trial
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Scott Whitlock's blog
  • CNN's Banfield: 'Take Me Off the Ledge' and Tell Me IRS Audits Weren't Political
  • NBC's Williams Ready to Move On: 'It's Tough to Know the Staying Power of Any Given Scandal'
  • Video: Bozell, Hannity Amused That Obama Sycophant Chris Matthews Worried Obama's White House Filled with Yes-Men
  • Luke Russert: 'Smart' House Republicans Aren't The 'God, Guns & Guts People'
  • Tea Partiers Confront Comcast CEO: Why Would a Conservative Want Their Money to Pay Al Sharpton's Salary?
  • Bob Schieffer Spins Obama Scandals: White House Not Like Nixon's, Which Had Burglars and Bomb Plots
  • NBC's Todd Warns: If GOP Investigates Obama Scandals, 'The Voters Will Punish Them'
  • NYT's Peters Hits 'Waste of Time' Obama-Care Repeal Votes and GOP's 'Myopic Focus' on Deficits

Christine O'Donnell: 'Separation of Church and State' Not in Constitution, MSNBC Shocked, Angered

By Scott Whitlock | October 19, 2010 | 17:03

A  A
Scott Whitlock's picture

MSNBC on Tuesday continued its attempt to dismiss Republican candidates as extremist, hitting Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell and others as "mean girls" who are unqualified for office. Jansing appeared shocked that the Delaware candidate pointed out the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution. She then read from the First Amendment, but failed to find the words.

After playing a clip of O'Donnell from this morning's debate, Jansing sputtered, "I thought she had to be kidding." She then pulled out her "handy, dandy" pocket Constitution and quoted, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech.' Amendment number one. I don't even know where to go with that." [MP3 audio here. Click on the article for video.]

What Jansing was thinking of is the Establishment Clause. O'Donnell's point was that restricting the creation of the official religion isn't the same thing as walling off faith from public life. Despite the indignant tone of Jansing, "separation of church and state" isn't in the text.

Regarding other female Republican candidates, such as Angle, an outraged Jansing snapped to guest Michelle Bernard, "And, actually, I'm not finding any of this stuff funny any more. It actually kind of made me sick to my stomach because I feel like somehow we have got to find people who know a little more, can do a little more, something."

The "mean girls" label, which MSNBC used as a graphic, came from a Maureen Dowd column on Sunday. Jansing mocked Angle for saying this to a group of Hispanic high school students: "I don't know that all of you are Latinos. Some of you look a little more Asian to me."

No mention, of course, was made of any gaffes or odd statements of Democrats. Harry Reid, Angle's opponent, in August slammed, "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican. "Do I need to say more?"

A transcript of the October 19 segment, which aired at 11:03am EDT, follows:

 11am

CHRIS JANSING: From belittling the President's manhood to telling an opponent to man-up, are these Republican candidates the new mean girls?

GRAPHIC: New Mean Girls?

JANSING: And speaking of mean girls, Nevada senatorial candidate Sharron Angle manages to offend Latinos and Asians in one breath.

SHARRON ANGLE: I don't know that all of you are Latinos. Some of you look a little more Asian to me.

JANSING: With Angle and Reid separated by a hair in their Senate showdown, will comments like that help put Reid over the top?

11:03

JANSING: Okay, we can't make this stuff up. Last week Christine O'Donnell said she'd have to check on some Supreme Court cases she disagreed on. Now it seems she has to just simply check on the Constitution. Listen to this.

CHRISTINE O'DONNELL: Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?

CHRIS COONS: An excellent point.

MODERATOR: Hold on, hold on, please.

JANSING: I actually, Michelle, let me introduce Lynn Bernard [sic], Michelle Bernard, president and CEO of the Independent Women Forum and MSNBC political analyst. Major Hillary Clinton supporter, Lady Lynn De Forrester De Rothchild. And Howard Wolfson Deputy New York City mayor and former senior aide for Hillary Clinton. I literally had to find out from our producer on the scene if she was kidding. I thought she had to be kidding. You know, handy dandy pocket, maybe I could send this, the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech." Amendment number one. I don't even know where to go with that. Did you think it was a joke, Howard?

HOWARD WOLFSON: I think if was a joke, whether she meant it as a joke, I don't know. She is a Saturday Night Live satire of herself. And last night in New York we saw seven candidates on the debating for governor. People who were obscure, people who weren't running in any serious way. You know, this just debases America's faith in the political system.

JANSING: I'm going to drive the control room crazy. But, If we have that set of clips from the New York governor's debate I want to bring it into this discussion, if we can. It will take them a minute to find them. But, Michelle, let me ask you, because, I sat and watch that governor's debate for an hour and a half. Then I hear about this comment. And, actually, I'm not finding any of this stuff funny any more. It actually kind of made me sick to my stomach because I feel like somehow we have got to find people who know a little more, can do a little more, something. This is such a serious time in our nation's history. How did we get to this point?

MICHELLE BERNARD: I don't know how we got to this point. I'm scratching my head also. Christine O'Donnell has had a lot of moments that just were not stellar moments. But, this was absolutely one of them. And, you know, Chris, I mean, the American public is bleeding and whether we're looking at independents, Democrats or Republicans, you know that most of the American public is looking at these clips, watching television, listening to these candidates on the radio and saying is there truly anyone out there that understands the suffering that we're going through? Unemployment is, you know, through the roof. The foreclosure crisis that we're seeing all throughout the countries. Banks deciding that they're going to start foreclosing on people's homes again. And then you have candidates who profess this love of the Constitution, but then don't understand the Constitution or seemingly haven't read it. People have to be saying, would I been better off moving to a different country? It's very, very, very sad. We need some politicians who need to know what they're doing.

JANSING: And do you know Christine O'Donnell claims she did graduate work at the Claremont Institute? On its website it displays a picture of the Constitution. Howard, since you brought it up, I do want to play that set of sound bites from this debate,. But, frankly, I think New York Times said it was nearly a farce. The Post says it was a farce. This debate for governor of New york, take a listen.

KRISTIN DAVIS (NY gubernatorial nominee): The career politicians in Albany are the biggest whores in the state. I might be the only person sitting on this stage with the right experience deal with them.

UNIDENTIFIED CANDIDATE: I'm not your typical New York politician. I've never been cught with a prostitute.

DAVIS: It will kill thousands of jobs and decimate our economies. In fact, businesses will leave this state quicker than Carl Paladino at a gay bar.

SECOND UNIDENTIFIED: Listen, someone's child's stomach just growled. Did you hear it? Gotta listen like me. Let's talk about the issues. People can't afford to pay their rent. My rent is too damn high.

MODERATOR: Okay, Mr. Cuomo. 30 Seconds for you, sir.

ANDREW CUOMO: Thank you.

JANSING: I mean, even Andrew Cuomo had to laugh, that gentleman was from the Rent is Too Damn High Party." And we don't know, I tried to find out why he was wearing the gloves. So, where do we go from here? We have Sharron Angle who, basically, won't take questions. You have Rand Paul who won't do debates and they're taking questions, they're having debates. At least, say for them, and say for Christine O'Donnell who was on the radio today, they're taking questions, they're having debates. Does it say more about what the Democrats have done or not done because that's where this anger is being fueled and it's allowing for some people who arguably don't have the credentials to run for serious high office.

LADY LYNN FORESTER DE ROTHSCHILD (Hillary Clinton supporter): Well, someone once said that Americans want to elect an eagle and they're given choices between a duck and a chicken. And our political system is so ugly the process that a person has to go through. The person you have to become to achieve elected office is so ugly that the best and the brightest among us are staying quiet, just like the Yates poem. Just like the Second Coming.

JANSING: Is that what is going on?

DE ROTHSCHILD: I really think that is what's going on.

JANSING: I spent a little bit of time in Washington, a lot of time on various campaign trails and people always sort of look at me with rolling eyes when I say to them, You'd be surprised how hard people work. You'd be surprised how good some of their staffs are and how much they genuinely do care. Is it the process that process that allows people who are not so smart to get in? Help us try to understand this.

WOLFSON: Well, I am always in favor of saying nice things about staff. In some of these cases, what you have is a tiny minority of a state's population voting in a primary and choosing the more extreme candidate whether on the left or the right over the more moderate candidate. That's what happened in Delaware. We had an excellent candidate there in Mike Castle. Mayor Bloomberg supported him, moderate Republican, been in the House of Representatives a long time, accomplished bipartisan, but he had to fight in a Republican primary that was tilted to the right and you have the result that you had. So, this person who is not qualified to be the Senate, she's not going to be the next senator is on tv and on the radio making embarrassing statements like that. And for the general public, for the person who, the vast majority of people who weren't voting for her in a primary, they just shrug their shoulders and say, how could the country, how have we come to this?

JANSING: Yeah. Really quickly. I want to go to that op-ed piece in the New York Times by the Maureen Dowd, who compared the ladies of the Republican Party, the races this year to the tween movie with Lindsay, Mean Girls. Quote, "We are in the era of Republican mean girls, grown-up versions of those teenage tormentors who would steal your boyfriend, spray-paint your locker and just for good measure, spread rumors that you were pregnant." So, Michelle, here's what I want to know: Are they the mean girls because you have to be mean or is this a case of sexism where you're tough and you're smart and successful you must be then, as a woman, mean. I won't use the word that rhymes with witch.

BERNARD: You know, Chris, I'm going to say, that if anybody is the mean girl in this, this is Maureen Dowd. I mean, the column she wrote where in the New York Times over the weekend where she's depicting the Republican and conservative female candidates as the Mean Girls, it's kind of ironic coming from a self-professed, progressive, liberal who wrote a column in July of this year for the New York Times where she said the White House wasn't black enough. You know, it's ironic coming from her and what we see with Republican and Democrat candidates, there's been an enormous sea change from the '60s, the '70s and even From the way female candidates ran in 2008. Women are running, whether they're Democrats or Republicans very differently now. You don't see a lot of female candidates of any political stripe talking about their children, their husbands, their families, their grandchildren. They are running for political office much in the same way that men have done and it's the first time we have seen so many Republican candidates on nationwide tickets whether they're running for governor, for senator or for House seats that are running in a very, very different way. And I think most of the nation has been caught by surprise by this but I think Maureen Dowd's column is way, way, way over the top. If she wants to talk about the candidate, she should talk about them on their merits. Are they good candidates or bad candidates. Do they know what they're talking. But, to say they're Mean Girls because, you know, Sharron Angle told Harry Reid to man up is ridiculous.   

About the Author

Scott Whitlock is the senior news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Scott Whitlock on Twitter.
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • 2010 Congressional
  • Chris Jansing
  • MSNBC
  • Scott Whitlock's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Comments

No Separation of Church and State In Dem World

Submitted by QuidMeVexari on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:28pm.

Evidently, "do-as-I-say-not-as-we-do" Democrats and their media lapdogs forget that, at one time, they were okay with Reverands Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as Democratic nominees for President. MSNBC = Maybe Someday NoBody'll Care.

  • Login to post comments

Too Bad, So Sad!

Submitted by GeneralAl on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:20pm.

Its amazing to watch the MSI  [Main Stream Idiots] having coronaries over the seriousness of this election. They weren't serious enough two years ago to check on their Obamessiah. Now that he and his two demons, Digger O'harry and Morticia Pelousy are about to get their clocks cleaned, these MSi twits are concerned about the seriousness of this election. Sorry babes, you counted us out in 2008, now we're sending yours to the pen in 2010!

"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!

  • Login to post comments

Yeah, religion and creation

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:20pm.

Yeah, religion and creation being taught in schools is a peachy idea, just as long as the religion is Christianity.

All others need not apply - your beliefs won't be respected anyway.

  • Login to post comments

What a Bizzare Post

Submitted by libBuster on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:23pm.

Is your post merely intended to be tendentious?

  • Login to post comments

Is it that obvious? ; ) But

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:27pm.

Is it that obvious? ; )

But with all due respect, isn't it the truth?  What would parents say if Islam was treated with the same sincerity as Christianity when being taught in school?

  • Login to post comments

When was the last time you attended school?

Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:31pm.

When was the last time you attended school?  Here in Minneapolis, not only do they teach Islam to those who wish to learn about it, they even have segregated water  fountains so the Muslims can wash their feet before they pray IN SCHOOL during class hours!

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

  • Login to post comments

Any proof of that?

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:41pm.

Any proof of that?

  • Login to post comments

Yea, attend school

Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:42pm.

Yea, attend school here and see for yourself. 

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

  • Login to post comments

That's your defense? Weak,

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:44pm.

That's your defense?

Weak, man.

  • Login to post comments

Ok, Dead, since you're too lazy

Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:53pm.

Ok, Dead, since you're too lazy to look it up yourself:

"Officials at a charter school in Minnesota attacked a TV news crew yesterday that came to investigate whether the publicly funded institution complied with a state order to stop accomodating Islamic prayers and religious programs.

KSTP-TV in Minneapolis-St.Paul reported police are probing the incident at the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy in Inver Grove Heights, Minn., which is housed in the same building as a mosque and the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society. The station said a photographer was injured while wrestling with two school officials over a camera.

As WND reported, a substitute teacher at the school reported religion appeared to be a significant educational focus. Amanda Getz said her duties included taking students to the bathroom, four at a time, to perform "their ritual washing." She told a Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist teachers also "led the kids into the gym, where a man dressed in white with a white cap, who had been at the school all day" led prayer."

In case you're wondering, Inver Grove Hights is a suburb of Minneapolis and any child who resides in Minneapolis is allowed, even encouraged, to attend school in nay suburb as they are all considered part of the Minneapolis School District.  One of my children attends a school in Bloomington, while residing in Minneapolis, as an example.

Source

That's just the most gregarious example, one that is easily found, if only you bothered to LOOK.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

  • Login to post comments

Hear that...

Submitted by ontheright on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 6:26pm.

...crickets...

When someone provides "requested' proof and/or truth for the lazy nay-sayers, what happens - no response.

Typical M.O. of the liberal revisionists...

oTr

"If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always got."
  • Login to post comments

Since I'm too lazy to look up

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 6:32pm.

Since I'm too lazy to look up your argument for you? Hardly.

So let's look at 2 things in this story:

1)  A substitute teacher's claims:  So the substance of the claim lies entirely on the story of one teacher, but has yet to be proven.  Correct?  Additionally, the state has ordered them to cease such practices, correct?  So we're already acknowledging that this school has disobeyed a state order.

2)  Let's consider the school's accommodation for those Muslims to worship according to their beliefs.  Does our government not already accommodate Christians by making Christmas a national holiday?  

Has any child been forced into Islamic education?  Despite this school's actions, accommodation and education are 2 different issues.

  • Login to post comments

Are you serious with the

Submitted by ant on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 7:13pm.

Are you serious with the Christmas comment? Was this country founded on Judeo-Christian principles or Islamic principles? I'll give you one hint; there sure as hell wouldn't be a Constitution or Bill of Rights if the US were founded by Muslims. How many muslim countries recognize and accomodate Christmas? Oh, and one more thing, if the Fed decided it wasn't going to "accomodate" Christmas tomorrow, it would still be celebrated. Christians, in case you haven't noticed the past few hundred years, are content to live in a free republic where religion is a personal/community choice. It is Islam that marries religion and governing together. Wake the hell up!

  • Login to post comments

Really?  Last time I checked

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 7:48pm.

Really?  Last time I checked Christians were forcing their views on everyone.  Abortion, homosexuality, marriage - your positions, and the legislation you demand falls squarely upon Christianity and the Bible.

  • Login to post comments

Really? Is abortion not

Submitted by ant on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 8:14pm.

Really? Is abortion not legal? Have the ten commandments not been removed from state buildings (not just a Christian tenet by the way)? Is there not overt sex and violence in television, music, advertising,etc.? Most stories I see are about people being censored or "re-educated" when they don't agree with leftist dogma, not Christian. People have, in fact, suffered negative consequence in school and other venues for not adhereing to the left's view on things like homosexuality,global warming, or Obama's perfectness. It's not Christians trying to tell me what I should eat, or what I should drive, or passing judgement on me calling me a redneck or racist or glutton or fool. I don't see Christians charging extra taxes on non-Christians, or insisting non-Christians keep lower than the ruling class . Stoning? No votes for women? Make thigh sex between the legs of children? What is it ADK that these Christians are forcing on you?

  • Login to post comments

Q: Why shouldn't gays

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 8:17pm.

Q: Why shouldn't gays marry?

A: The Bible says so.

Q: Why is homosexuality a sin?

A: The Bible says so.

These are consistent conservative answers.  You wish to legislate based on your Christian beliefs, someone else's rules, and force us all to play by them.  

  • Login to post comments

I will tell you why

Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 8:28pm.

Q: Why shouldn't gays marry?

A: The Bible says so.

Q: Why is homosexuality a sin?

A: The Bible says so.

False premise, both of these.

First, Marriage is a Religious bond. The Gov cant force their beliefs on any Religion. Fact is, most everyone would support any civil bonding that Gays want, as long as it doesnt make a mockery of their faith.

Second, regardless of how those of faith feel about Homosexuals, they are free to be. And I dont know of one religion other then Islam that wants to ban it.

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

Since When Have..

Submitted by GeneralAl on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:24pm.

Since when have any of you liberals shown any respect to Christianity? You cry babies have a fit about critical views regarding Islam but not once do you decry the insults hurled at Christians. We've turned the other cheek for the last time. now you can kiss our larger cheeks!

"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!

  • Login to post comments

Here's a task for

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:28pm.

Here's a task for you: 

Find one negative thing I've said about Christianity on these boards.

  • Login to post comments

I'll take that task.

Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:35pm.

"Find one negative thing I've said about Christianity on these boards."

I'll take that task:

"All others need not apply - your beliefs won't be respected anyway."

Humm, that's not a negitive comment against Christianity, is it?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

  • Login to post comments

No, it isn't.  It's a comment

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:44pm.

No, it isn't.  It's a comment directed at those who want the Bible to be taught in classrooms.  It's directed at people like O'Donnell who think the school system should be able to decide to teach Creation as fact while disregarding both science and all other religious belief systems.

  • Login to post comments

yes, it was.

Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:52pm.

Yes, it was, ADK, you called Christians intolerant of the beliefs of others.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

  • Login to post comments

You lose, Cobra....

Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 6:20pm.

It's not "intolerant" to call others (especially Christians) "intolerant."

According to liberals, that is....

  • Login to post comments

Time for a name change

Submitted by ckc1227 on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 11:06pm.

Another Dumb Kennedy would be more appropriate. Or maybe Rumpelstiltskin. Who said anything about teaching Creationism as fact while ignoring everything else....well, other than you? Can you spin gold out of all that straw you throw around here?


  • Login to post comments

You do realize that we no

Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:37pm.

You do realize that we no longer have access to the archives?

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

Isn't that inconvenient for

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:41pm.

Isn't that inconvenient for all of us?

  • Login to post comments

It's inconvenient for those

Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 7:17pm.

It's inconvenient for those who you challenge to find something you've said in the past.  Might be pretty convenient for you though.

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

And I've made previous

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 7:45pm.

And I've made previous challenges as well.  To date I'm still clear.

What are your thoughts on atheism?

  • Login to post comments

Hey, I got a better idea

Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 7:59pm.

Let's see who can be the first to find an intelligent or coherent thought that ADK ever made.

: )

See my smiley face, must be I am joking

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

Yeah, well, it's no laughing matter

Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 11:09pm.

ADK is in serious need of just one.
 

4dd8427b-a622-4abf-8e68-2c9b5fb97787 1.03.01
"I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders". - Ted Nugent
  • Login to post comments

Another Dead Zippers is partying like it is 2009.

Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 12:25am.

ADZ: Find one negative thing I've said about Christianity on these boards.

 

He/She/It knows all comments are gone since they changed over to the new NB servers.

Hey Another Dead Zippers.

  • Tell us how you claimed to be gay and then said it was all a joke.
  • Tell us how you claimed to be a woman and then said it was all a joke.
  • Tell us how you claimed to be black and then said it was all a joke.
  • Tell us why you can never fill out the subject line either as yourself or ArkansasZippers.
  • Tell us why both you and ArkansasZippers put 2 spaces between sentences. Do they teach that in christianity school?
  • Tell us how both of you love to us one word sentences.
  • Tell us how both of you use a kicker sentence at the end of your posts. A one line paragraph that ends with an exclamation point or sentence and is usually a dig designed to get an instant response.
  • Tell us how both of you love the triple bangs (!!!) and internet acryonyms and slang. The Lollies, Rofflemows, multiple hahahahahaha's

Then tell us how you are not STILL using sock puppet accounts.

Then demand we find one thing you said prior to a week ago on these boards knowing full well all old comments are gone.

  • Login to post comments

There's no need for a subject

Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 12:09pm.

There's no need for a subject line.  The site should get rid of them entirely.  

2 spaces between sentences?  You're kidding, right?  It's the proper way to type, in case you missed that.

One word sentences?  Such as?

You won't ever find a post of mine using LOL or ROFL, or any variations of such.  "Hahahahaha" is the sound of laughter - LOL doesn't work for me.

The rest of your suspicions are just as ridiculous.  

  • Login to post comments

Blonde told me.

Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 11:36pm.

  Blonde told all. Remember? So shut up Another Dead Zippers. She also told me about your arrest in 1978 for buggering a minature donkey in a live nativity scene. That is why you show such a visceral obsession for all things christian. You are an atheist yet you are obsessed with christians after being turned in by one on Christmas Eve 1978.

  Oh, and in case you did not notice, WE ARE NOT HAVING A CONVERSATION. I did not put up the list to DISCUSS it.

  • Tell us how you claimed to be gay and then said it was all a joke.
  • Tell us how you claimed to be a woman and then said it was all a joke.
  • Tell us how you claimed to be black and then said it was all a joke.
  • Tell us why you can never fill out the subject line either as yourself or ArkansasZippers.
  • Tell us why both you and ArkansasZippers put 2 spaces between sentences. Do they teach that in christianity school?
  • Tell us how both of you love to us one word sentences.
  • Tell us how both of you use a kicker sentence at the end of your posts. A one line paragraph that ends with an exclamation point or sentence and is usually a dig designed to get an instant response.
  • Tell us how both of you love the triple bangs (!!!) and internet acryonyms and slang. The Lollies, Rofflemows, multiple hahahahahaha's

  • YOU AND ARKANSASZIPPERS ARE ONE AND THE SAME.

    • Login to post comments

    You kinda just made my day,

    Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 12:50pm.

    You kinda just made my day, cutie-pie. ; )

    • Login to post comments

    Awwwww. Did the retread troll think he is gonna report me?

    Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/22/2010 - 11:46am.

      Knock it of with the gay harrassment. I ain't your gay lover. You are the one that harrasses women here. We ain't buddies. We ain't friends. So knock it off with the gay talk NWAHS.

    • Login to post comments

    I think putting two spaces in

    Submitted by arkansaszippers on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:02am.

    I think putting two spaces in between sentences is pretty much common knowledge.  Have you seriously never heard of that?

    I didn't know I used all of these easily categorizable writing styles.  Since you like to dig so much, please, show me some examples.

    • Login to post comments

    oops.

    Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:06am.

      Still thinking a give a rat's tushie. But then you are not very bright Dead Zippers.

    • Login to post comments

    Like, when did I go "hahaha?"

    Submitted by arkansaszippers on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:19am.

    Like, when did I go "hahaha?"  Find one of those for me.

    • Login to post comments

    Like when did I care.

    Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:20am.

     Go away. This thread is as dead as your brain.

    • Login to post comments

    Hey Zips, welcome back. I

    Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 10:33am.

    Hey Zips, welcome back.

    I did a little research on the 2 spaces after a period.  It seems that older folks like you and me were taught how to type on a typewriter with fixed width fonts.  What was once necessary in the mechanical age is no longer the case in the electronic age, so the 2 spaces are corrected with present day computer fonts.

    It only means that most likely you and I are over 30, while our friend still in his youthful 20s.

    • Login to post comments

    Dead Zippers LIES again. LIES to himself.

    Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 12:28pm.

      I am 47. I was taught typing in High School in 1978. We were not taught to put 2 spaces. LIE. Dead Zippers lies to his own hand.

    • Login to post comments

    You were taught wrong. 47

    Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 1:50pm.

    You were taught wrong.

    47 surprises me.

    • Login to post comments

    YOU LIE.

    Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:20pm.

     When busted, you try to distract by getting personal.

      THE ISSUE IS YOUR LYING.

    • Login to post comments

    Why did you wait three days?

    Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 2:03pm.

    Next time I summon you, you better come running a little faster.

    • Login to post comments

    The thing is ADK is that you

    Submitted by mattm on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:28pm.

    The thing is ADK is that you have it exactly backwards.  Everything is allowed in public school classrooms nowadays except creation and Christianity, and opinion is OK as long as it's a "liberal" opinion...

    • Login to post comments

    The real problem...

    Submitted by retrocon on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 7:26pm.

    The real problem isn't what allowed and what's not, the real problem is that the liberals are writing the text books and course materials to reflect their beliefs.  So, it's not illegal to talk about the good things that our founders did, but it's not available to the students, instead, they have to learn how they were imperialists and slaveowners.

    True, they are trying to make it "illegal" to talk about Christianity, but in as much as that is problem, it's the less direct use of our schools for liberal indoctrination that has been the problem (literally, since the days of McCarthy... duh, he was actually wise in his concerns).

    • Login to post comments

    Where's YOUR proof?

    Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:57pm.

    "Yeah, religion and creation being taught in schools is a peachy idea, just as long as the religion is Christianity.

    All others need not apply - your beliefs won't be respected anyway."

    Do YOU have any proof of this?

    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

    Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

    Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

    • Login to post comments

    Dont bother CM

    Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 8:04pm.

    ADK just makes accusations, he doesnt "bother" proving them

    Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
    • Login to post comments

    Madalyn Murray O'Hair is who

    Submitted by rfpzzzzz on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 4:14am.

    Madalyn Murray O'Hair is who you can thank for the current attitude. She was quite a gal.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27Hair

    • Login to post comments

    So who belittled the president's "manhood"?

    Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:21pm.

    Shocking. Whoever you are, you're going to have answer to Tingles and Olby on that vicious rumor.

    • Login to post comments

    Can someone please squash this dung beetle?

    Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:22pm.

    Thanks in advance.

    • Login to post comments

    SoL---

    Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:52pm.

    The obvious desperation inherent in the liberals screeching tells me that anyone who steps on one must be very careful.

    If their skin is broken, rather than blood issuing forth, the liquid released, rather than being like ichor, an ethereal fluid supposedly found in the hemodynamic system of the gods, which all liberals think they are gifted with, will instead  be much like the acidic fluid released by the Alien creature in the film of the same name.

    MD

    "The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
    • Login to post comments

    LOL, MD

    Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 6:02pm.

    If I ever had the opportunity, I'd mash it real good just on general principle.

    Anybody on the lower decks would be on their own ;)

    • Login to post comments

    Leave it to the msm to do

    Submitted by bigtimer on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 5:45pm.

    Leave it to the msm to do what they do...intentionally.

    I do wished Christine had stated exactly what she meant when it came to brain-dead, marxist Coon, she had to know the msm would do this hand in hand with their leftist party, they are the endless free Bully-Pulpit for them all...it's despicable.

    Like Rush said today...any conservative knew she was correct, leave it to the msm to spin it like a top at full speed.

    'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart

    • Login to post comments

    It's in that "good and

    Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 6:22pm.

    It's in that "good and welfare clause" cited by John Cornyn. ;-)

    • Login to post comments

    mb... Right you

    Submitted by bigtimer on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 6:51pm.

    mb...

    Right you are!

    You've got me laughing that was a good one.

    'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart

    • Login to post comments

    Separation of Church and State

    Submitted by wdvander on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 6:34pm.

    It is amazing to me that the "smartest people in the room", those in the media, have no idea what is really in our Constitution. They have believed everything they were "taught" in college and certainly don't think there is anyone who can teach them anything worth while, at least no out outside the media. The commentators thinking that O'Donnell was joking when she asked Coons where the separation of church and state was in the Constitution. It was Coons who committed the gaffe when he said the 1st ammendment, cause it aint there. It is not anywhere in the Constitution. Imagine if a Sarah Palin had said the separation was in the 1st amendment. The hue and cry across the media land would have been deafening. The hypocracy of the mainstream media is unmeasureable.
    • Login to post comments

    And to think Chris Jansing

    Submitted by Martin2717 on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 6:42pm.

    And to think Chris Jansing was somewhat a respectable journalist........

    • Login to post comments

    Lol.. When would that have

    Submitted by bigtimer on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 6:49pm.

    Lol..

    When would that have been?

    I remember lmao when Pat Buchanan called her Corporal Jansing or something close to that...was true too, she was off msnbc for quite a few years after that, but alas they brought her back, I do have to say she's heads above the other nutcases on msnbc...and that doesn't take much.

    I'll be glad when msnbc is gone, or under conservative management...which will most likely be the 12th of Never.

    'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart

    • Login to post comments

    I found the separation of

    Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 6:59pm.

    I found the separation of church and state. It is right there next to the right to kill babies and force health care on us. Sorry, I was reading the World Constitution that was introduced by Robert Muller back in the  80's.I think that is where the Dems get their ideas. 

    I see the bastard died in September. I know I am not supposed to be happy about somebody dying but the bastard did a lot of harm through the UN. As it tells on his website a soul passed to heaven. They are wrong about that. Hell was formed for the devil and his angels and this guy was of those angels.

    Forgive me for the rant but I have never forgotten the tape of him speaking at the Aspen Institute cutting down the USA and talking about his World Constitution.

    A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    • Login to post comments

    rick... Amen, Amen, and

    Submitted by bigtimer on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 7:08pm.

    rick...

    Amen, Amen, and Amen to all you posted.

    I remember too, thanks for the info many of us had forgotten until you brought it up.

    'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart

    • Login to post comments

    BT

    Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 7:14pm.

    I just get so mad at how the bastard and his ilk have treated the USA. He lived here for years and on the dime of the US taxpayer through the UN. Am I glad he is gone? Damn right. I wish all the rest like him would go too. He had a lot to do with all this multiculture crap they teach in schools today.   

    A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    • Login to post comments

    Rick... Damn straight...I'm

    Submitted by bigtimer on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 7:21pm.

    Rick...

    Damn straight...I'm not sorry he's gone either, I'd be a liar if I said different, there are more to come that are going to need that ice water and never receive it, Soros being one of them.

    Not one tear will be shed by me, unless it's tears of joy.

    'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart

    • Login to post comments

    They're out to lunch

    Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 7:00pm.

    Re. O'donnell.

    Angle, however, made a stupid comment. I hope she wins, but she should think before speaking.


    4dd8427b-a622-4abf-8e68-2c9b5fb97787 1.03.01
    "I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders". - Ted Nugent
    • Login to post comments

    Handy Dandy Pocket Constitution

    Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 7:20pm.

    You can get those from the Heritage Foundation. I got a bunch and pass them out all the time. I keep one in my desk drawer at work and another right beside my bed next to the Bible. I read both. I don't declare myself to be a scholar of either one just a student.

    I wonder if she would like to have my copy of the US Constitution for Dummies.

    A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    • Login to post comments

    "Separation" and Jefferson's letter to Danbury Baptists

    Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 8:21pm.

    This is what frustrates me about discussions and debates between conservatives and liberals.

    All O'Donnell had to do was explain the real source of the term "separation of Chruch and State" and she would have cleaned Coons' clock.

    The phrase "wall of separation" between Church and State first appeared in an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut.

    She could have showed up Coons, the law students who laughed in the audience, and the entire msm of which I'm sure not 1 in 20 know about the origin of the concept.

    She was technically right, but the libs were left off the hook and given more ammunition to mislead the gullible.

    Come on, conservatives! Sharpen your game. You have to ANTICIPATE what the left will throw at you. It's not that hard because they use the same old playbook over and over.

    This is for keeps.

    metaphorsbwithu
    • Login to post comments

    Even when Republicans are right, they're wrong...

    Submitted by jawebster1 on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 8:40pm.

    in the eyes of Democrats.  'Separation of Church and State' is not in the Constitution.  Only stupid 'educated' people, apparently like Coons and those in the audience, don't know that.  Isn't it funny that no one talked about Coons not knowing the freedoms, other than the freedom of religion, espoused in the first amendment, when asked by O'Donnell?  Must be that Liberal 'bias' thing striking again.     

    Jim Webster
    • Login to post comments

    NPR too...

    Submitted by andrew - des moines on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 8:38pm.

    NPR did a segment on this and made it sound like she was extremely ignorant. They even pointed out the audiance laghing at her. Disgusting for NPR which usually limits its leftward indulgence...
    • Login to post comments

    Mark Levin

    Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 8:41pm.

    Is talking about this right now, he just smoked a caller who insisted it's in the First Amendment

    Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
    • Login to post comments

    Um, I hate to be the bearer of bad news...

    Submitted by stage9 on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 9:58pm.

    to the idiots in the press, but the phrase "separation of church and state" is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. You bunch of geniuses!

    The phrase was hijacked from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists of Danbury, CT assuring them that the government will in no way establish a national denomination like England had.

    The actual concern about government overreach into the affairs of the Church began in England. It was the reason many fled to the new world -- for religious freedom to worshp God without the state dictating the manner in which it was to be done.

    It was October 7, 1801, that the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson telling him:

    "Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.

    Jefferson made it clear on several other occassions that the government had no right to interfere in the affairs of the Church:

    "In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government." Second Inaugural Address, 1805

    "[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary." Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808

    "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises." Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808

    After all, THIS and THIS ALONE was the reason so many Christians were concerned. They didn't want a repeat of the Church of England.

    Historian David Barton writes:

    "Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

    '[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity (DENOMINATION) through the United States; and as every sect (denomination) believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists (Christian denominations). The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.'

    Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the "establishment of a particular form of Christianity" by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination."

    It wasn't until 1947, 156 years AFTER the Bill of Rights was written that the Supreme Court took it upon itself to invoke the "separation of church and state" phrase into the Constitution.

    The Everson v. Board of Education case declared that, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

    THIS is when the phrase caught fire. Misinterpreted. Misapplied. And a huge misstep of Constitutional jurisprudence.

    "If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge

    • Login to post comments

    Yep, we have Hugo Black and

    Submitted by HockeyKid on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 1:57am.

    Yep, we have Hugo Black and Wiley Rutledge--two liberal FDR appointees--to thank for that huge misstep.  Black for the majority and Rutledge for the minority both instantiated the "wall of separation" concept as meaning religion has no place in the public square.

    Lunacy.

    "Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

    • Login to post comments

    Church and State

    Submitted by Jer on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 1:26pm.

    An overzealous, tweezered interpretation and application of the principle can lead to trivial, unnecessary and even bizarre results, but the fundamental concept has spanned virtually the entire history of the republic, and the specific "wall of separation" wording--employed by Jefferson and Madison among others--and penned by Black in the Everson case has survived over six decades of subsequent Supreme Court decisions.

    It is clearly not novel, and it is most certainly not lunacy.

    Jer

    • Login to post comments

    Actually Jer

    Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 11:56pm.

    The Everson case isn't so bad in my mind. It's the erroneous subsequent decisions that use this as precedent, specifically the mis-interpreted "separation of chuch and state", that is odious.

    "I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders". - Ted Nugent
    • Login to post comments

    RESTLESS...

    Submitted by Jer on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 12:16am.

    Your perspective is correct in regard to the case precedent trajectory.

    In fact, Everson spoke of the "wall" but held it wasn't breached under the specific facts presented.  Subsequent decisions expanded the concept.

    Jer

    • Login to post comments

    Jer, Funny that you do not

    Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 12:30am.

    Jer,

    Funny that you do not mention John Adams and other Founding Fathers clearly stated and wrote that the American Constitution could not work in a nation that was not a Christian nation.

    The Establishment Clause was intended by our Founding Fathers to prevent government from ESTABLISHING an official religion like in England. That was it! Everything else was added by radical FDR appointees!

    Jer, I am sure that you are aware that Thomas Jefferson had a Christian Chapel built inside The Capitol. the "Wall" that Jefferson spoke about had NOTHING to do with what Liberals claim today.

    The problem with Liberals is that they spew half-truths when it comes to history and the rest they make up! Jefferson would NEVER approve of how Liberals have chosen to interprent the Establishment Clause.  

    • Login to post comments

    Liberallies..

    Submitted by Jer on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 2:12am.

    I am aware of the history of chapel services being held in the Capitol as well as a plethora of Christian and religious imagery present in a number of government buildings and on various monuments in Washington, D.C.  However, I am not familiar with Jefferson's role in the construction of the chapel to which you refer.

    Speaking of Adams, you might find the following information to be of interest:

    If spoken by a contemporary politician, many of John Adams' comments about Catholics would render him or her unelectable. In 1765, he wrote that the "whore of Babylon" had falsely grabbed the "keys to heaven"; blasphemously claimed to convert wine into the blood of the Lord; and survived by keeping subjects in “sordid ignorance and staring timidity.”

    Its hard to recognize freedom’s champion in this letter to Abigail in which he describes a visit to St. Mary's Catholic Church in Philadelphiaa. His pen dripping with contempt and pity, Adams catalogues the repellant customs: "The poor wretches fingering their beads, chanting Latin, not a word of which they understood, Their holy Water—their Crossing themselves perpetually—their Bowing to the Name of Jesus, whererever they hyertit – their Bowings, and Kneelings, and Genuflections before the Altar." He marveled at the power of the gaudy ritual to hypnotize. "But how shall I describe the Picture of our Saviour in a Frame of Marble over the Altar at full Length upon the Cross, in the Agonies, and the Blood dropping and streaming from his Wounds… Here is everything which can lay hold of the Eye, Ear, and Imagination. Every Thing which can charm and bewitch the simple and ignorant."

    On August 12, 1765, the Boston Gazette published an essay again linking both churches to each other, and to tyranny. The essay argued that religious canon law – “extensive and astonishing” -- was created by the "the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement of their own order." Church law enslaved people by "reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity” and warned that only an educated populace could thwart the "direct and formal design on foot, to enslave America." Though it was not known at the time, Adams was the author.



    Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/04/was-john-adams-an-anticatholic.html#ixzz12yQP2r4E

    Furthermore, John Quincy Adams, the source of many quotations about America's status as a "Christian nation"--and that it should only be governed by Christians--believed the Roman Catholic Church to be intolerant of other religions and had no place in the institutions of a republic.

    Thus it would seem the Adams' devotion to rule by Christians was qualified by the proviso that it be by the right kind of Christians.

    Jer

    • Login to post comments

    Jer, Nice try at red

    Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 2:24am.

    Jer,

    Instead of addressing the FACT that The Founding Fathers NEVER, not one of them, intended to Seperate Church and State as Liberals claim today, you put up stuff to try to discredit John Adams in my eyes. LOL! Typical Liberal! you can't address the facts, thus you bring a completly irrelevant point!

    Nice try at red herring. Try to focuse on what we are addressing, the Founding Fathers did not mean to Separate Church from State as you, the Supreme Court and Liberals today claim . I find it a shallow  and ridiculous argument to turn to the Supreme Court case to support the claim of Seperation of Church and State. This is the same Supreme Court that once decided the Dred Scott decision!

     We are not debating John Adams views on the Roman Catholic Church. We are arguing the fact that John Adams, along with other Founding Fathers, which included a few Roman Catholics, knew that the American Constitution could only work in a Christian nation.

    But nice try to divide and conquer, Jer. Nice try to divert from the fact. The Founding Fathers, none of them, wanted to Seperate Church and State, what they did want is to prevent the Federal government from establishing a religion like it happened in England!

    Yes, Thomas Jefferson had a chapel, a Christian chapel built in The Capitol. Historical fact that is unknown to 100% of Liberals who love to quote Jefferson to support their Seperation of Church and State radicalism.

    • Login to post comments

    Her fault

    Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 9:26am.

    If O'Donnell's point was that the phrase itself isn't in the Constitution, she should have actually made that point, and then had a defense ready for why the establishment clause is not in essence a requirement for the separation of church and state.

    Instead, all she did was ask over and over again, "Really?  That's in there?  That's in the first amendment?  That's the first amendment?"  Which made her sound completely ignorant.

    If she isn't an idiot, then she has only herself to blame for looking like one in this instance.  Also, while there may be legitimate debate about the meaning of various amendments, no one who describes themeslves as having done "deep analysis" of the Constitution should have to be reminded what those amendments are!

    So, fail.

    When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind- Robert Heinlein
    • Login to post comments

    Mamabear, Are you serious?

    Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 12:17am.

    Mamabear,

    Are you serious? The Establishment Clause was misrepresented by the Supreme Court, just like they made the wrong decision with the Dred Scott, Abortion and many other decisions.

    The Establishment Clause forbids the ESTABLISHMENT of a National religion that everyone must follow! It was ment by the founders to control our government not to control American citizens. The founding fathers did not want America to have a Federal religion like England had the Anglican Church.

    If Liberals like you bothered to read the original writings of the Founding Fathers you would realize that they NEVER intended for Seperation of Church and State as you, Liberals and media claim.

    The only place you find the term, Seperation of Church and State, is in a letter by thomas jefferson. However, if you bother to read the exchange, the situation and why he wrote it, you would find that it is nothing close to what Liberals claim today it is. If Liberals knew anything about American history they would know that Thomas Jefferson had a Christian chapel built inside The Capitol!!!!

    Regardless, Christine O'Donnell was spot on, no where in the Constitution you find Seperation of Church and State. The Establishment Clause is NOT about Seperation of Church and State. So, YOU along with the ocuntless of poorly informed, easily manipulated Liberals FAIL!

    No doubt you are aware of the fact that john adams clearly stated that our Constitution could ONLY work in a deeply Christian nation, right?

    No doubt you are aware that it was George Washington who added at the end of the Presidential Oath, "So Help Me God!"

    It was the Founding Fathers who started dating laws with, "In the Year of Our Lord XXXX"

    The Founding Fathers knew and understood that only a deeply religious nation, a Christian nation could get along with the Constitution they put together.

    Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Decleration of Independence, understood and knew that our Rights, our Freedoms come from our Creator as these were endowed to us by Him. Our Constitution is BASED on the writings set forth in the Decleration of Independence.

     

    • Login to post comments

    mamabear LIES to your face. Spits in it and LIES to you.

    Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 1:08am.

    mamabear: If O'Donnell's point was that the phrase itself isn't in the Constitution, she should have actually made that point

    She did LIAR. LIAR. LIAR. LIAR.

    She interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?" - AP

    She interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?" - Washinton Post.

    hippiebear LIES to your face. Spits in it and LIES to you.

    • Login to post comments

    The Vet FKA, Sadly, that is

    Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 10/21/2010 - 1:17am.

    The Vet FKA,

    Sadly, that is the favorite weapon of Liberals like Mamabear, lying, distoring the facts, speaking in half-truths. The hatred that Liberals feel for Palen, O'Donnell and other Conservative women blinds them. Liberals are a bunch of mysoginists. In their eyes, a woman is not a woman unless she is a radical Liberal feminists.

    Education to Liberals means spewing Liberal talking points and interpreting the Constitution according to Liberal ideology.

    The scary part is that Mamabear claims to be a college professor! SCARY!! She represents everythign that is wrong with college professors today. Liberal liars who love to revise history and influence the kids they teach with Liberal revisionist history.

    • Login to post comments

    Geez. All I said was that

    Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 7:30pm.

    Geez.

    All I said was that she should have made a definitive statement instead of trying to make the point by asking questions.  Other people here have agreed with me.  She played the point badly, and ended up looking stupid.

    When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind- Robert Heinlein
    • Login to post comments

    Holy crap, I can track

    Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 7:27pm.

    Holy crap, I can track posts!

    She asked a question, she didn't say "That phrase is not in the Constitution."  I get that that is the point she was trying to make.  MY point was that she should have actually said it-- asking the same question over and over again just made her look like she dodn't know the answer.

    While I certainly disagree with her interpretation of the establishment clause, I wasn't actually trying to convince anyone here that she was wrong.  I get the point that she was trying to make, she just made it very poorly, and thus made herself look clumsy and inept.

    When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind- Robert Heinlein
    • Login to post comments

    Hang in there, mamabear.

    Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 7:49pm.

    Hang in there, mamabear.  You're not alone. ; )

    • Login to post comments

    True that, grislybear---

    Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 2:16am.

    The Dead One represents any number of  liberals to support you just by offering up the many different aliases he has used at NBs.    

    MD

    "The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
    • Login to post comments

    You're as delusional as

    Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:16pm.

    You're as delusional as JWF.

    Keep making up lies about me and hope for the best.

    • Login to post comments

    Sniff. Sniff. I iz obsezzies on teh JWF.

    Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:36pm.

     I talkz aboot him. He not heah nah.

    • Login to post comments

    Isn't it bedtime yet?  Or

    Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:38pm.

    Isn't it bedtime yet?  Or have you been waiting up all night for me?  Forgive me, but my work day begins at 9 am, so this really is the soonest I could get back online to play.

    • Login to post comments

    trollie givz orderz nah.

    Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:44pm.

      trollie gonna tell othurz what to do nah. trollie tink he in charges.

    • Login to post comments

    Hush little

    Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:47pm.

    Hush little troll-stomper

    Don't say a word

    Teddy's gonna buy you

    A trolly nerd

    If that nerd won't play with you

    Teddy's gonna buy you 

    A red balloon

    • Login to post comments

    whatever nwahs.

    Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:49pm.

      this your idea of what, nwahs? You think acting like nwahs is gonna upset me? fail, nwahs trollie fail.

    • Login to post comments

    Vet doesn't even know who

    Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:54pm.

    Vet doesn't even know who he's talking to.  Vet thinks he's smart, but he's just chasing his tail.  Vet thinks all trolls are the same troll.  Vet has no proof.  Vet makes mistakes.  Vet makes up lies.  Vet needs more sleep.  Vet derails every thread he meets.  Vet ain't scared of anyone.  Vet works the midnight shift.  Vet needs more sleep.  Vet is a troll.  Vet just doesn't know it.  Vet is super-duper popular with the NB conservatives.  Vet doesn't play nice.  Vet uses baby talk to make himself sound smarter.   Vet...blah blah blah.

    I'm bored now.

    • Login to post comments

    Not delusional at all, Dead One---

    Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 1:22am.

    I have had only one account and one username here at NBs.

    You?

    MD

    "The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
    • Login to post comments

    Hang in there, mamabear.

    Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 9:12am.

    Hang in there, mamabear.  You're not alone. ; )
      Thanks.  Sometimes it's hard not to wonder if you're a little crazy arguing with people like JWF. Maybe I'm just imagining the question marks at the end of the O'Donnell quotes he's waving around...
    When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind- Robert Heinlein
    • Login to post comments

    Holy crap. You can't fill out a subject line.

    Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 3:19am.

    LIE AGAIN:

    Liarbear: ...she didn't say "That phrase is not in the Constitution." 

    That was not your initial claim. Where is anything at all about THE PHRASE in your FIRST STATEMENT. Not your walkback statements AFTER I called you a liar.

    Liarbear: Instead, all she did was ask over and over again, "Really?  That's in there?  That's in the first amendment?  That's the first amendment?"  Which made her sound completely ignorant

    The actual unedited quote from Miss O'Donnel >>>>

    Miss O'Donnel: So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"

    NO. Your point was you bought into the initial report from the LYING TV station on the first day. The LYING TV stattion that cut out her saying phrase 'separation of church and state,' . To admit you were wrong now is to admit you bought into a LIE.

     LIAR.

    • Login to post comments

    Okay, you're not getting

    Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 9:08am.

    Okay, you're not getting it.

    She asked a question.  The quote you are showing me has a question mark at the end of it.  It is not a statement of fact, it is a question that she presumably intended to indicate disbelief.  It is a passive agressive rhgetorical tactic that we are all familiar with, but it only works if your opponent answers "Well, okay, no.  The phrase is not in the Constitution."

    My point is that using that tactic instead of making a declarative statement that the phrase is not in the Constitution (which would look something like this: "The phrase 'separation of church and state' is not in the Constitution."  Note the period at the end, that's your clue that she isn't asking a question) was a bad move.  Instead of hammering her point home, she sounded clueless.  Combining that with other times in the debate where she had to be reminded what was in other amendments, whether those were also intended to be snide or not, compounded the effect and made her sound stupid or poorly informed.  Whether or not "the phrase" appeared in her questions was not germane to my point.  I get what she was trying to say, I just don't think she did it well.

    Sorry to break that down for you into such bite-sized chunks.  I just think you get so caught up in calling me a liar that you don't read the words you are calling lies!

    When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind- Robert Heinlein
    • Login to post comments

    Does liarbear even listen to what she says?

    Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:05am.

    liarbear: If O'Donnell's point was that the phrase itself isn't in the Constitution, she should have actually made that point...

    JWF: Liar.

    liarbear: My point is that...

    Why is it YOU had to CLARIFY your point, liarbear? Why didn't you just MAKE your point the first time? Huh? Oh dear, am I making MY POINT in the form of questions?

    Idiot.

    • Login to post comments

    I did make my point.  At

    Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:10pm.

    I did make my point.  At least some other people, including people who completely disagree with me on the meaning of the establishment clause, got it.

    I'm certainly not suggesting that O'Donnell, or any debator for that matter, is responsible for driving through the thick skull of every moron in the audience who willfully refuses to understand her arguments.  But the audience laughed because she sounded like she was really asking what's in the first amendment.  If she had just said "The phrase isn't in the Constitution and I disagree with you about the meaning of the establishment clause," the audience may have disagreed with her, but they wouldn't have laughed and it wouldn't have ended up on any news shows because she wouldn't have looked ridiculous.

    Also, feel free to keep ignoring the other half of my original point, which is that she also had to ask what was in other amendments.  Nothing wrong with that, except that it makes her claims to deep study of the constitution sound overinflated, and it really makes it easy to look at the first amendment questioning in exactly the same light-- as an expression of ignorance, not a challenge.

    When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind- Robert Heinlein
    • Login to post comments

    I agree @mamabear

    Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Wed, 10/20/2010 - 1:07pm.

    I actually made the same point a few comments above. She missed an opportunity to execute a slam dunk against Coons' argument, educate everyone on the truth of the "Separation" interpretation, and left herself open for the media misrepresenting her stand - which is the correct one.

    To be fair she DID use the words "The phrase separation of Church and State" when questioning Coons but, I'm assuming, may have been unclear as to the facts.

    Just as Coons was unclear in failing to understand the establishment clause AND being unable to name the other guarantees cited in the First Amendment ... which the media chooses to ignore.

    However, out of the ashes of missed opportunity is a teachable moment.

    O'Donnell WAS right and Coons was wrong.

    Now, if the MSM will just get on to reporting the facts and informing the American people of that ... but don't hold your breath.

    metaphorsbwithu
    • Login to post comments

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
    Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

    Editors' Picks

    • Is asking about what you pray for inappropriate for IRS? IRS commish not sure (Say Anything)
    • Another fed court invalidates Obama's NRLB recess appointments (Politico)
    • Former SecState Hillary Clinton's record leaves much to be desired (Kondracke)
    • Sen. Boxer is lying about impact of budget cuts on Benghazi security (WashPost)
    • Left-wing actor Cusack attacks Obama, Holder over AP scandal (Twitchy)
    • Dopey Chicago gun laws prevent museum from displaying unloaded WW2 relic (Fox News)
    • New Google Maps is flat, clean, user-friendly (Gizmodo)
    • New Google Maps looks spectacular (Mashable)
    Walter E. Williams's picture
    Walter E. Williams
    Walter E. Williams Column: Hating America
    Michelle Malkin's picture
    Michelle Malkin
    Malkin Column: Obama's Emptiest Benghazi Talking Point
    Ann Coulter's picture
    Ann Coulter
    Coulter Column: Sorry, Sen. Rubio, But Your Immigration Plan Is Still Problematic
    David Limbaugh's picture
    David Limbaugh
    David Limbaugh Column: Partisan Obama Culture Spawned a More Abusive IRS
    Walter E. Williams's picture
    Walter E. Williams
    Walter E. Williams Column: An Honest Examination of Race
    More >

    RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

    Stop Censoring The News!

    ObamaCare's a Real Pain in the Neck
    more cartoons
    • Romney: ‘I’m Not a Fan of the President’
    • Krauthammer on IRS Testimony: ‘You've Got to be a Knave or a Fool to Say That and an Idiot to Believe It’
    • Leno: GOP Should Repeal ObamaCare By Naming it Conservative Non-Profit and Letting IRS Take it Down
    • ABC Drama Warns of ‘Conservative Overlords’ Bringing Anti-Black ‘Salem Witch Trials’ to DC
    • Gay NBA Player’s Twin Brother Gets ‘I’m The Straight One’ T-shirt From Jimmy Kimmel
    More >
    NewsBusters

    Executive Editor
    Matthew Sheffield

    Editor at Large
    Brent Baker

    Senior Editors
    Tim Graham
    Rich Noyes

    Managing Editor
    Ken Shepherd

    Associate Editor
    Noel Sheppard

    Contributing Editors
    Tom Blumer
    Geoffrey Dickens
    Dan Gainor
    David Limbaugh
    Mithridate Ombud
    Clay Waters
    Scott Whitlock

    Senior Contributor
    Mark Finkelstein

    Contributing Writers
    Matthew Balan
    Michael M. Bates
    Erin R. Brown
    Jack Coleman
    Kyle Drennen
    Douglas Ernst
    P. J. Gladnick
    Stephen Gutowski
    Matt Hadro
    D. S. Hube
    Kathleen McKinley
    Dave Pierre
    Amy Ridenour
    Julia A. Seymour
    Terry Trippany
    Rusty Weiss
    Brad Wilmouth

    Publisher
    Brent Bozell

    Site Design
    Dialog New Media

     

    • Home
    • Blogs
    • About
    • Forum
    • Contact
    • Donate
    • Search
    • Account
    • rss
    • CNSNews
    • MRC TV
    • Biz & Media
    • Culture & Media
    • Take Action!
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • Amazon Kindle
    • Advertise
    • Jobs

    Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
    Privacy Policy | Terms of Use