^ Pretty much. She's the Paris Hilton of politics.

10/20/2010 12:45:33 PM

She's not a Paris Hilton. She's you.

10/20/2010 1:36:47 PM

10/20/2010 1:39:54 PM

there's way too much focus on O'Donnell, im not sure if her failings are helping democrats elsewhere

10/20/2010 2:03:19 PM

you know, looking at the video, it's clear that she is hammering home the notion of the phrase "separation of church and state" not being anywhere in the 1st amendment. to interpret it in any other way is just intellectually dishonest.

10/20/2010 6:02:37 PM

No she's not

10/20/2010 6:41:49 PM

Then why'd she act incredulous after he quoted from it, verbatim.


Also, the 14th (14th!!) and 16th thing.

10/20/2010 6:44:23 PM

Quote :

"the original republicans were much more like the dems of today than they are like the modern GOP"

To be more specific the party founded in 1854 that nominated Frémont and then Lincoln for the Presidency is more like the present-day Democratic Party than like the GOP of today; the party once known as the "Jeffersonian Republicans" is actually the predecessor to the Democratic Party and is now referred to in history books as the "Democratic-Republican Party"

10/20/2010 6:56:14 PM

I don't think that today's modern parties are even comparable with ye olden parties.

Today's parties are more about appealing to strategic voting blocks than about any sort of overarching ideology.

10/20/2010 7:22:45 PM

IIRC there has never been a fiercely ideological party that attained control of the government, the population has just been too diverse; rather there has long been tension between the ideologues and the pragmatists and the iconoclasts, between advancing an agenda, remaining popular enough to retain power, and recognizing the ideas of individual legislators.

10/20/2010 7:36:08 PM

Allow me to change "overarching ideology" with "philosophically consistent ideology"

10/20/2010 7:45:55 PM

still

10/20/2010 8:13:21 PM

Quote :

"you know, looking at the video, it's clear that she is hammering home the notion of the phrase "separation of church and state" not being anywhere in the 1st amendment. to interpret it in any other way is just intellectually dishonest."

NO. I don't know what you mean when you say "looking at the video," but you must not have meant actually listening to the words being exchanged in said video. Nor read the important passages transcribed on the first page of this thread.

7:07

Quote :

"O'Donnell: "Let me just clarify. You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the first amendment?""

If this the video ended here, you might be able to make a case (a weak one, since she never uses the words 'words' or 'phrase') that she was talking about the literal phrase or even the concept itself. But it's obvious she just has no clue because of what happens next:

Quote :

"Coons: "The government shall make no establishment of religion." O'Donnell: (incredulously) That's in the first amendment... Audience: (laughter)""

Coons closely paraphrases the FIRST SENTENCE of the FIRST AMENDMENT and O'Donnell's next response is total disbelief.

10/21/2010 8:00:35 AM

10/21/2010 8:22:41 AM

^^

but like i said on p1, i've already seen in several places, people try to claim that she was referring to the exact phrase. which, of course is complete bologna

10/21/2010 8:58:18 AM

anderson cooper's take

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsRwV-OhG1I

10/21/2010 3:33:43 PM

Quote :

"Christine O’Donnell was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts. She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution. It was in fact Chris Coons who demonstrated his Constitutional ignorance when he could not name the five freedoms contained in the First Amendment."

BWAhAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

10/21/2010 4:17:29 PM

Quote :

"But it's obvious she just has no clue because of what happens next:"

no, she's just being an ass at that point. The "that" is still referring to SOCAS. It really is dishonest to suggest otherwise. Now, actually laughable is that she didn't know what the 14th and 16th were, which she flat out said.

i mean, it's not hogwash that she is saying that. It's ultimately meaningless, yes, but some people get off on trying to make a "point" that the phrase isn't there. Does it make a real difference if that phrase is there? No, not really. The same way it doesn't really matter if you say "survival of the fittest" to mean "natural selection" or even mistakenly "evolution." Ultimately there is no difference in what it means.

10/21/2010 6:11:22 PM

Quote :

"The "that" is still referring to SOCAS. It really is dishonest to suggest otherwise."

I wonder what kind of mental gymnastics you had to do to believe that.

Do you honestly believe she didn't hear him say the last sentence...during which he slowed down, spoke clearly, punctuated important words, maintained eye contact, and had no audience interruption?

Or she doesn't know what the word "that" means in normal discourse?

Or maybe she thinks SOCAS (the concept) = no establishment (in which case she still doesn't believe "no establishment" is in the constitution)?

10/21/2010 6:42:46 PM

no. i honestly believe she thought it was an important "point" to make that the phrase SOCAS isn't in the 1st amendment. It's equally stupid.

10/21/2010 6:47:29 PM

why are you bothering to make yourself look like more of a retard by trying to defend this stupid bitch. She didn't know the 16th amendment, why do you think she would know the first?

10/21/2010 7:15:52 PM

i'm not really defending her. I just don't see why it's necessary to put words into her mouth when the ones she said were dumb enough on their own

10/21/2010 7:24:32 PM

fair enough.

10/21/2010 8:19:07 PM

It seems like the people that bitch about the founders' intent would give a fuck about what the founders actually wrote, or just the Constitution in general. This kind of shit makes it all too clear that they're just ramping up the "constitutional conservative" rhetoric in time for election season. I have no doubt that these faux anti-establishment candidates will buckle under political pressure, because they aren't standing on principle.

10/21/2010 8:57:13 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/27/odonnell-threatened-to-sue-radio-station/#more-131216

lol

10/27/2010 4:36:49 PM

http://gawker.com/5674353/i-had-a-one+night-stand-with-christine-odonnell?skyline=true&s=i

spoiler: they didn't actually have sex, but not because she didn't want to.

10/28/2010 2:41:06 PM

Quote :

""You've got to be kidding," I said. She didn't explain at the time that she was a "born-again virgin." She made it seem like she'd never had sex in her life, which seemed pretty improbable for a woman her age. And she made it clear that she was planning on staying a virgin that night. But there were signs that she wasn't very experienced sexually. When her underwear came off, I immediately noticed that the waxing trend had completely passed her by. Obviously, that was a big turnoff, and I quickly lost interest. I said goodnight, rolled over, and went to sleep. "

Pretty funny passage, but I have a hard time believing that part. A drunk guy turning down pussy because it's hairy? Right. She told him no and he went to sleep.

10/28/2010 2:51:47 PM

^^

Quote :

"And she made it clear that she was planning on staying a virgin that night."

^agreed

10/28/2010 3:41:20 PM

reading comprehension ftw.

Also can't believe the roomie dated her for a year and didn't hit it.

10/28/2010 4:27:30 PM

what a sleezy fuckin article. i mean, what the fuck was the point?

10/28/2010 6:05:38 PM

I'm not a fan of Christine O'Donnell by any stretch, but Jesus Christ. This is uncalled for, sleazy, and just fucking MEAN.

THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS.

10/28/2010 8:46:37 PM

I don't think it is uncalled for. Every candidate has their complete past run through the mud. She is pretty lucky this is all they got on her. Pretty innocent compared to sex with hokers while wearing a diaper and looking for blowjobs in an airport men's bathroom.

If anything, this will help her campaign immensely because:

1) ...people with feel sympathy for her. While reading the article, I thought people would totally rip into her, but the comments are all in her favor. I didn't think it was as sleazily written as it could have been, but people are coming down harder on the author more than O'Donnell. Even her opposers are sympathizing.

2) ...it shows she is not a hypocrite like most other politicians. She preaches abstinence and waiting for marriage which is what happened.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was penned from with her own camp.

10/29/2010 8:06:38 AM