RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Sanity -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 1:50:02 PM)


The Dems in the House dont have a prayer, certainly.


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The house and senate doesn't have a prayer and hasn't had one since before Reagan. 




mnottertail -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 1:51:28 PM)

nor do tea party candidates.   the pubs will fuck it up again, be out on their ear, dems will come in, then they will fuck it up.....ad nauseam




rulemylife -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 1:52:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Are you truly this dense on the subject?


Considering he is supporting someone who is probably the densest candidate ever to run for public office?

Wait, let me take that back.

There are so many dense teabagger candidates anymore I don't know who to choose as the densest:

Colorado Senate Debate: Ken Buck Compares Being Gay To Alcoholism






rulemylife -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 1:57:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Your OP is based on a false premise... that CNN reports the news. See, this is a good example of why CNN is being pummeled in the ratings so badly by FOX, CNN edited O'Donnels words to make it appear that she said something other than what she said.

quote:

CNN devoted several segments on Tuesday and Wednesday to Delaware Republican Christine O'Donnell's apparent gaffe on the First Amendment, but barely acknowledged her opponent Chris Coons's own gaffe on the amendment. Analyst Jeff Toobin spun O'Donnell's remark as demonstrating that "she didn't seem to know" the amendment. It took conservative Dana Loesch on AC360 to bring up Coons's own gaffe.

Anchor Wolf Blitzer played an edited clip of O'Donnell's questioning of Coons on the First Amendment issue during Tuesday morning's WDEL Delaware Senate candidate debate on his Situation Room program. Blitzer did not play the part where the Republican clearly asked, "You're telling me the 'separation of church and state'- the phrase, 'the separation of church and state' is found in the First Amendment?" [audio available here] After playing the edited sound bite, Blitzer continued that "O'Donnell's spokesman later said she was not questioning the concept of church and state subsequently established by the courts, she simply made the point, he says that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution, 'separation of church and state.'" This is an accurate summary of the candidate's line of questioning, but since the anchor didn't play the part where she used the term, "the phrase 'separation of church and state,'" he made it seem like the spokesman was giving a clarification.


Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2010/10/20/cnn-barely-covers-coons-gaffe-1st-amendment-highlights-odonnell#ixzz12vxuZPaX




So CNN is biased, as said by the ultra-right wing Newsbusters?

Can you then explain to me why her remarks were published just as CNN reported by numerous other sources?





Sanity -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 1:59:51 PM)


I dont think anyone could fuck it up as badly as your crew, mnot.

Your poster children are poster children for poster children...

[image]http://votingfemale.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/obama-reid-pelosi.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

nor do tea party candidates.   the pubs will fuck it up again, be out on their ear, dems will come in, then they will fuck it up.....ad nauseam





Sanity -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 2:02:34 PM)


Yes, biased - which is why their viewership is 500k on a good day.

"Tainted".

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

So CNN is biased, as said by the ultra-right wing Newsbusters?

Can you then explain to me why her remarks were published just as CNN reported by numerous other sources?






rulemylife -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 2:11:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Yes, biased - which is why their viewership is 500k on a good day.

"Tainted".

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

So CNN is biased, as said by the ultra-right wing Newsbusters?

Can you then explain to me why her remarks were published just as CNN reported by numerous other sources?





You didn't answer my questions.




Sanity -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 2:11:39 PM)


The Newsbusters article has a link to the audio in question, the full audio, by the way - not he cut version CNN played. 




pogo4pres -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 2:22:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

The Newsbusters article has a link to the audio in question, the full audio, by the way - not he cut version CNN played.



Apparently O'Donnell is not the only one too stupid to grasp the meaning of the first clause of the first amendment, which I remind every one reads :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

Why this is so difficult to understand is beyond me.  Jefferson clarified it in his 1 Jan 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist's.   People STILL get it wrong even after reading that.


Religuliously,
Some Knucklehead in NJ




rulemylife -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 2:24:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The Newsbusters article has a link to the audio in question, the full audio, by the way - not he cut version CNN played. 


Here it is Sanity, from the Newsbusters link you posted:

[audio available here]

Explain to me how it is any different from what CNN reported.







Sanity -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 2:27:42 PM)


What O'Donnell said was that the phrase "separation of church and state" doesnt appear in the Constitution, and she is absolutely correct. Its you and your friends making the mistake here.








Sanity -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 2:29:43 PM)


Ive given up trying to explain anything to you, ask someone else.

Its all right there in the article...

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Here it is Sanity, from the Newsbusters link you posted:

[audio available here]

Explain to me how it is any different from what CNN reported.








pogo4pres -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 2:31:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

What O'Donnell said was that the phrase "separation of church and state" doesnt appear in the Constitution, and she is absolutely correct, its you and your friends who are the ones who are making the mistake here.



You know when you need to argue semantics of a concept you have lost.  O'Donnell is correct as far as wording goes, she is a fucking moron about what those words mean however.  I reiterate she is apparently not the only one too fucking stupid to grasp the concept.


Historically,
Some Knucklehead in NJ




rulemylife -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 2:34:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Ive given up trying to explain anything to you, ask someone else.

Its all right there in the article...

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Here it is Sanity, from the Newsbusters link you posted:

[audio available here]

Explain to me how it is any different from what CNN reported.




No, you've given up trying to defend yourself because you know you are wrong.






Sanity -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 2:35:49 PM)


It doesnt mean what modern leftists want it to mean, or what the courts have begun to interpret the meaning which is that its strictly verboten for Christians to practice their religion in public.

The original intent was exactly the opposite, and again O'Donnell is correct, and you are the one who is erroneous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pogo4pres
You know when you need to argue semantics of a concept you have lost.  O'Donnell is correct as far as wording goes, she is a fucking moron about what those words mean however.  I reiterate she is apparently not the only one too fucking stupid to grasp the concept.


Historically,
Some Knucklehead in NJ





Lucylastic -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 2:38:44 PM)

quote:

strictly verboten for Christians to practice their religion in public.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


who what now?




Sanity -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 2:42:16 PM)


No one has to defend themselves from you, rml... or believes that they do. The point is that its very challenging to try to explain very simple concepts to you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife


No, you've given up trying to defend yourself because you know you are wrong.







rulemylife -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 2:44:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


It doesnt mean what modern leftists want it to mean, or what the courts have begun to interpret the meaning....



What exactly do you think the courts exist for other than to interpret the meaning of laws?




rulemylife -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 2:47:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


No one has to defend themselves from you, rml... or believes that they do. The point is that its very challenging to try to explain very simple concepts to you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife


No, you've given up trying to defend yourself because you know you are wrong.






Well, take pity on me Sanity, try to be charitable and explain it to me anyway.




Real0ne -> RE: The Tea party Candidate.... (10/20/2010 2:49:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, he asserts the right to pound pud perched 'pon the porch, perhaps you have an article or amendment to the constitution that prohibits it? 


well he has the right to do that of course, but then the person who must watch him has the right to sue.

Just like yelling in a theator.... yo uhave the right to do it then the owner and everyone in it has the right to sue.

no need for statutes no need to grow gubmint even that far.  same goes for everything else





Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875