Tea Party Twit

[Urbanguerrilla]

"Christine O'Donnell's church and state gaffe makes voters laugh at the Widener Law School, the audience derided O'Donnell for asking: 'Where in the constitution is the separation of church and state?'

Christine O'Donnell was debating with Chris Coons at Widener Law School. The US constitution has its quirks but it is crystal clear on one issue: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," begins the first amendment, adopted in 1791. But more than 200 years later, its meaning appears to be lost on Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party favourite running for a US Senate seat."


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[AmericanFirst]

This is covered in another post. But, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!!! There. It was adopted in 1947.

 

[topspin]

Tea Haddist circle

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Tea Haddist circle

Hey numb nuts... the term you are searching for is teahadist, not Tea Haddist. SO, now that we have that straight, please explain how you come to use the term and what is it exactly that it means.

 

[topspin]

Tea Haddist circle

Hey numb nuts... the term you are searching for is teahadist, not Tea Haddist. SO, now that we have that straight, please explain how you come to use the term and what is it exactly that it means.

soggyinharrahan bite me

Jihadis
American Tea Haddist

 

[HUGGY]

Tea Haddist circle

Hey numb nuts... the term you are searching for is teahadist, not Tea Haddist. SO, now that we have that straight, please explain how you come to use the term and what is it exactly that it means.

soggyinharrahan bite me
Jihadis
American Tea Haddist

Dude.... Careful what you wish for...Have you seen Soggy?

Not to be indelicate but...the thought of having that hag anywhere near my junk gives me the willies!!!

My apologies Soggy girl ....but for real..you one scary lookin mofo.

 

[beowolfe]

This is covered in another post. But, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!!! There. It was adopted in 1947.

The principle of the separatation of church and state is enshrined in the First Amendment. It's sad that you guys can't grasp a principle w/o the actual phrase being used. It's that, or you're in conscious denial about what the First Amendment says. Even w/ Jefferson's letter to the baptist where he paraphrases the First Amendment with the phrase 'separation of church and state', you morons still don't seem to be able to put two and two together and get four. Or are you trying to compensate for the ignorance of the politicians you're supporting.

 

[Mad Scientist]

They must have loved Obamas' "57 States" comment!

 

[Annie]

Looking at ODonnell and a few others:
Lots of links, for those that really want to know

Instapundit Blog Archive HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE SPREADSHEET….

EMBARRASSING WIDENER:

A word needs to be said about the mocking laughter that instantly erupted from the law students in the audience. Presumably, that sound meant we are smart and you are dumb. Where did they learn to treat a guest at their law school — Widener Law School — with such disrespect? They hooted O’Donnell down, and she never got a chance to explain her point. What does that say about the climate for debate in law schools? Not only did they feel energized to squelch the guest they politically opposed, but they felt sure of their own understanding of the law.

I’ve been studying law myself since 1978, and I still puzzle over things and try to work my way through problems. If a speaker at my school makes a statement that sounds outlandish to me — me with 32 years of studying law — I may display a puzzled expression or a smile, but I hear the person out and entertain the possibility that he has a point and that even if the point is wrong, I will have learned some new perspective on the ways of being wrong or how another human being’s mind works. I try to create that atmosphere in the classroom.

What is the atmosphere at Widener? Is there no intellectual curiosity? No love of debate? No grasp of how complex constitutional law problems can be?

Well, we can only judge by what we’ve seen. Meanwhile, Cornell lawprof William Jacobson comments: “A literal reading of O’Donnell’s comments reflects that she was correct, but of course, the press and the blogosphere don’t want a literal reading, they want a living, breathing reading which comports with their preconceived notions.”

The Constitution stands for things that are good. The things that we want are good. Therefore, the Constitution stands for what we want. QED. How can those dumb wingnuts not understand this simple logic?

Meanwhile, I agree that the O’Donnell focus is a deliberate distraction. But I also think it’s important to use this opportunity — like the Sarah Palin “1773″ brouhaha — to point out that the credentialed gentry class isn’t nearly as smart, and certainly isn’t as well-educated, as it thinks it is. Because, you know, it isn’t. ed. because Palin happened to be right on this date.

Perhaps Widener law students can’t be expected to understand constitutional doctrine like Wisconsin or Cornell law professors. But they can be expected to avoid showing their ignorance through ill-mannered displays. One of the underappreciated virtues of good manners is that they help you to avoid making an ass of yourself when you are not as smart as you think you are.

Posted at 2:52 pm by Glenn Reynolds

 

[JimH52]

OOOOOHHHH! Can I play!? Which T Party Twit are we talking about? There are a bunch of them, you know?

 

[JimH52]

Okay, which Church should be the official Church if she is elected. Catholic, Baptist, Presbys, Muslims, Jews,...the list goes on.

 

[topspin]

soggyinHarrahan went to UNO and studied hard to learn english with his accounting/pocket protecter wearing degree.
He thinks correcting slang makes him look smart, but he doesn't take the pocket protector out at ladies night either.

 

[theHawk]

This is covered in another post. But, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!!! There. It was adopted in 1947.

The principle of the separatation of church and state is enshrined in the First Amendment. It's sad that you guys can't grasp a principle w/o the actual phrase being used. It's that, or you're in conscious denial about what the First Amendment says. Even w/ Jefferson's letter to the baptist where he paraphrases the First Amendment with the phrase 'separation of church and state', you morons still don't seem to be able to put two and two together and get four. Or are you trying to compensate for the ignorance of the politicians you're supporting.

That is your opinion, not what the constitution says.

And Jefferson's idea of a "wall of separation" between church and state is nothing like the view held by modern day liberals. Liberals today think the idea means nothing in government can even refer to religion, such the Ten Commandments being displayed on government property. Some even go as far as to say the term "In God We Trust" shoudn't be on our currency.

The First Amendment is supposed to protect citizens rights to freely worship whenever they want, yet liberals use it to suppress religion at every turn. Take the outlawing of school prayer, even though schools don't do any part of governing and are not apart of "government", they argue that just because schools are funded by taxes that means there cannot be any religion attached to it. But to a liberal, a child saying a prayer in a school is somehow equivelant to Congress passing a law respecting a religion.

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

Okay, which Church should be the official Church if she is elected. Catholic, Baptist, Presbys, Muslims, Jews,...the list goes on.

What if all the gods fought it out and the winner takes all, or the church leaders should cage fight until a winner emerges

 

[Madeline]

From the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797: This document, negotiated under George Washington and signed under John Adams, flatly states that "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

Treaty Between the United States and Tripoli - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I agree with Annie, the students were rude to a guest and lost an opportunity to better understand a POV that many might have found unpalatable. But I also think O'Donnell could have anticipated their reaction and presented her comments in a better way.

This is, after all, the same chick would could not name one recent SCOTUS decision just last week.