O'Donnell Surges In Polls. Sex Scandal Fails. Coons Backs Out Of Last 2 Debates.

[Charles_Main]

Maybe, maybe not. I haven't heard her say anything that suggests she doesn't understand that.

The fact that she's in favor of public schools teaching the Biblical story of creation as if it were somehow scientific throws up a red flag for me.

That is not the whole truth. She has repeatedly said all she wants is for schools to be free to teach Creationism along with Evolution if they so choose. If you believe she wants them to stop teaching Evolution and only teach creation then you are buying a liberal lie. She has been very clear on the subject. All she wants is schools to have the option to teach an alternate theory of Creationism along side Evolution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Democrats suck no more and no less than Republicans. Both parties are big government parties, and the Tea Party is not going to change that at all.

 

[Charles_Main]

Democrats suck no more and no less than Republicans. Both parties are big government parties, and the Tea Party is not going to change that at all.

I assume you were responding to me? I was not saying one party or another sucks more than the other. I was responding to the question of why Castle was favored to beat the Democrat.

 

[Toro]

If Delaware is one of the bluest states in the country, then how come Castle was a heavy favorite to win against the Democrat before O'Donnell won? Nice spin USArmyMoron.

Because Castle is a huge RINO...

Please educate yourself...

Here's what I don't get. Control of the House and Senate are based on which party holds a majority. The majority controls the committees, and of course, the Speaker comes from the majority party, who shapes the agenda. Thus, the majority controls the initiative. The minority much less so. Its much easier for the majority to pass its agenda. The minority much less so. The chambers aren't divided along ideological lines. They are divided along party lines. It is easier to advance an agenda if you have more party members than the other party. Thus it makes the most sense to nominate candidates that are most likely to win so the party can advance the agenda. In a liberal state, the odds of a hardcore conservative winning are slim to none. So why nominate a hardcore conservative in a liberal state? The Small Tent Republicans may deride the RINOs, but it makes it easier to pass a conservative agenda in Congress if you control Congress. Even if you have a Senator who would vote as a moderate no matter which party they are in, it benefits the Republicans because that one "RINO" senator may mean that the party will control of the Senate.

I've never understood the logic of ideological purity in a political party, which is nothing more than an institution that represents the brokerage of interests. Its like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[Scaybeez]

That is not the whole truth. She has repeatedly said all she wants is for schools to be free to teach Creationism along with Evolution if they so choose. If you believe she wants them to stop teaching Evolution and only teach creation then you are buying a liberal lie. She has been very clear on the subject. All she wants is schools to have the option to teach an alternate theory of Creationism along side Evolution.

I didn't say that she wanted schools to stop teaching Evolution, now did I?

Let me ask you this. Is a science classroom a place to study creation myths, Christian or otherwise? If your answer is "yes" then why stop at Christianity? Surely Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto and Ymir the giant frost ogre also deserve a "scientific" look.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe, maybe not. I haven't heard her say anything that suggests she doesn't understand that.

The fact that she's in favor of public schools teaching the Biblical story of creation as if it were somehow scientific throws up a red flag for me. Add to that, her confusion over what, exactly, is established in the First Amendent, despite her claims of having intimate knowledge of the Constitution, further calls her understanding into question.

If she understands this subject, she has an obligation to demonstrate that, in some way. If I were a voter in Delaware, that's what I'd be looking for.

I am not an advocate of teaching the Creation Story alongside the science curriculum, but I am opposed to the Federal Government assuming unconstitutional power to dictate in matters like that. And I am adamently opposed to any science teacher presuming to advocate for or against the Creation Story if a student brings it up. I strongly recommend a policy in which the teacher would acknowledge that many people do embrace the Biblical Creation Story but that it is not science as the school defines science and therefore won't be discussed in the class. And then matter-of-factly move on.

I am pretty darn sure O'Donnell would not oppose such a policy.

As CharlesMain said, she has NEVER demanded or asked that the Creation story be taught side by side with Darwin et al, but advocates the government staying out of it and allowing local school boards to set their own policies in such matters.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If your support of CharlesMain's suggestion were approved for the local school boards, I am sure you are aware that said school boards in the rural South would be mandating that creationism be taught in the science classroom, and that would be a confusion of church and state. Even the Roberts court, I think, would rule against that.

 

[DiveCon]

If your support of CharlesMain's suggestion were approved for the local school boards, I am sure you are aware that said school boards in the rural South would be mandating that creationism be taught in the science classroom, and that would be a confusion of church and state. Even the Roberts court, I think, would rule against that.

given the fact the very same teachers would be doing the teaching, you have nothing to fear, jake

but strange that you fear it at all

 

[JakeStarkey]

If your support of CharlesMain's suggestion were approved for the local school boards, I am sure you are aware that said school boards in the rural South would be mandating that creationism be taught in the science classroom, and that would be a confusion of church and state. Even the Roberts court, I think, would rule against that.

given the fact the very same teachers would be doing the teaching, you have nothing to fear, jake

but strange that you fear it at all

I am not surprised that you do not understand or fear it: not surprised at all. You have never served on a southern school board, either as a member or as its president. The great majority of the school boards would make sure the 'right' science teachers were hired and that creationism be taught as if it were science.

Why do you fear if it should not happen, divecon? We are a church going people in the south, and I assure you that Genesis is taught all the time to everyone.

 

[DiveCon]

If your support of CharlesMain's suggestion were approved for the local school boards, I am sure you are aware that said school boards in the rural South would be mandating that creationism be taught in the science classroom, and that would be a confusion of church and state. Even the Roberts court, I think, would rule against that.

given the fact the very same teachers would be doing the teaching, you have nothing to fear, jake

but strange that you fear it at all

I am not surprised that you do not understand or fear it: not surprised at all. You have never served on a southern school board, either as a member or as its president. The great majority of the school boards would make sure the 'right' science teachers were hired and that creationism be taught as if it were science.

Why do you fear if it should not happen, divecon? We are a church going people in the south, and I assure you that Genesis is taught all the time to everyone.

i have no fear either way, jake
you still havent provided any rational reason to fear equal treatment

 

[Foxfyre]

If your support of CharlesMain's suggestion were approved for the local school boards, I am sure you are aware that said school boards in the rural South would be mandating that creationism be taught in the science classroom, and that would be a confusion of church and state. Even the Roberts court, I think, would rule against that.

given the fact the very same teachers would be doing the teaching, you have nothing to fear, jake

but strange that you fear it at all

And since I HAVE served on a school board in a state in which the Creationism question became a very big deal for awhile, I can assure everybody that the problem is not widespread or pervasive. But I can't imagine that a dose of Creationism added to the curriculum, so long as it was not advocated in any way as WHAT the children should or must believe, could not possibly be as harmful and destructive as some of the idiocy that kids ARE being taught these days with the complete approval of the humanist liberals who accept a lot of stuff as fact that simply isn't.

Back when the local school boards, parents, teachers, and the PTA had total control over school curriculum, kids were getting a far better education than they do now in the public schools. And you can see a direct trend as the Federal government got more and more involved, the quality of education has deteriorated.

Why not just give the problem back to the local schools and let them deal with the Creation issue. I imagine they'll do a far better job with it than the liberal activists want to believe.

 

[Charles_Main]

That is not the whole truth. She has repeatedly said all she wants is for schools to be free to teach Creationism along with Evolution if they so choose. If you believe she wants them to stop teaching Evolution and only teach creation then you are buying a liberal lie. She has been very clear on the subject. All she wants is schools to have the option to teach an alternate theory of Creationism along side Evolution.

I didn't say that she wanted schools to stop teaching Evolution, now did I?

Let me ask you this. Is a science classroom a place to study creation myths, Christian or otherwise? If your answer is "yes" then why stop at Christianity? Surely Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto and Ymir the giant frost ogre also deserve a "scientific" look.

I don't believe it has to be taught as science. We learn about Greek and Roman Mythology in school. It is not taught as fact, simply as something people used to believe.

Creationism could be Taught in much the same way. With out violating church and state rules. You are simply showing the kids what people used to believe before Evolution grew in popularity. You could point out that some people still believe in it, despite mounting evidence of Evolution as fact.

It makes no sense to ignore History and not teach people at all about it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Somebody back up there earlier said something about requiring our elected leaders to memorize the Constitution. I went back to look for that post and didn't see it.

I honestly don't think that is necessary or useful, however. Those who understand what sort of document the Constitution is and what it is supposed to accomplish, and who support those principles, will make that crystal clear in their campaign advertising and rhetoric. Those who don't won't.

I memorized a lot of technical old English and Gaelic prose and poetry as a student years ago, but without some pretty good guidance from gifted teachers, wouldn't have been able to explain what some of it was saying. An ability to recite the Constitution from memory doesn't always translate into the person having an understanding of or appreciation for what s/he is reciting. I would like to think responsible legislators would check proposed legislation against the principles of the Constitution every single time before offering it in committee, however. I don't have the Constitution memorized, but I know where to find the information that is in it.

I am guessing that Christine O'Donnell, despite her failure to adquately articulate it on the fly, understands the principles embodied in the First Amendment better than Chris Coons probably understands them.

 

[judyd]

How much time do the schools spend on evolution these days? Granted, I'm old, but they only touched on it when I was in school, and I was just amused by it. I don't think it was a big subject when my son was in school and now my granddaughter doesn't seem to be bombarded with it. Is this really what you would want to base a U.S. senatorial election on?

The real problem with O'Donnell is that she has no work experience--hasn't worked since she was fired in 2004. She is very childish and isn't very familiar with the truth. She had talked about going to Oxford, and that was an out and out lie. She didn't even finish college until September 2010, when she finally finished her coursework at Fairleigh Dickerson. She is undergoing a federal investigation for misuse of campaign funds. She was using them to live on--something which is completely illegal.

She is completely unprepared and just doesn't have any credentials to recommend her for such a position. She's pro-life? Big deal--so am I--but I have lived long enough to know that NOTHING will be done to change that decision. She's against masturbation? So, are we going to make federal laws against it?

I really can't believe that people outside of Delaware are taking that airhead seriously.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

O'Donnell is still going to lose.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are all entitled to our assertions here, and that's what they are with very little proof by any of us.

But I will make some assumptions of my own.

One, the constitutional issue of control is over: neither big party is going to overturn the power of the DOE or the state education agencies: too much power, too much monies, too much invested interests.

Two, Divecon, equality has nothing to do with this discussion. Charles_Main hit it on the head. Creationism does belong in school, just not in the science classroom. Why? It's not science. But it does belong in Mythology, Humanities, Comparative Religions, somewhere in Liberal Arts.

Three, I am sure that Christine O'Donnell does understand the 1st Amendment, her interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

 

[Jack Fate]

So the moonbat dweeb is scared of a little Christian girl and cancels two debates. Anyone ever notice that the liberal males are all pretty much sissies?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jack Fate, you have been running from those liberal sissies such you came to the board. Now, of course what I just wrote is no more true than your statement above. Coons is going to win very easily, and you are pissed about it.

 

[Meister]

So the moonbat dweeb is scared of a little Christian girl and cancels two debates. Anyone ever notice that the liberal males are all pretty much sissies?

In the end, she's toast

 

[judyd]

So the moonbat dweeb is scared of a little Christian girl and cancels two debates. Anyone ever notice that the liberal males are all pretty much sissies?

A "little Christian girl" has no business running for office. A mature Christian woman would be a better choice.

If you had seen the debates, with her giggling, going off topic, being unprepared, and constantly interrupting, you might understand. I can imagine that he has better things to do with his time.