What idiotic thing will she say next?????

#2
#2
good thing we don't have a couple guys this clueless in the WH

and congrats on discovering gifs. I realize they're shiny and new but try and pace yourself
 
#7
#7
They're both idiots.

Michelle Malkin Chris Coons can’t name the five freedoms in the First Amendment

O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”
Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.
“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.
 
#8
#8
All 57 states should be so lucky to have this lady.

:thumbsup:

From the header I thought this thread was going to be about Michelle Obama but then I realized it was started by ACLG and remembered he has a hard on for Christine because she doesn't condone masterbation.

2902853070_fb52f80751_o.jpg


I wonder if MO has ever visited the Farrakhan space ship??
 
#9
#9
I cannot believe anyone is seriously thinking of voting for her for anything, much less U.S. Senate.
Not nearly as baffling as the fact that a community organizer who had never accomplished anything of significance or said anything of substance is in the leader of the most powerful country in the world.
 
Last edited:
#10
#10
What a complete and utter moron this woman is. I cannot believe anyone is seriously thinking of voting for her for anything, much less U.S. Senate.

this is coming from a guy who lives in the state that's elected Alan Grayson, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Alcee Hastings.
 
#12
#12
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

where, exactly, is the "separation"?
 
#13
#13
this is coming from a guy who lives in the state that's elected Alan Grayson, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Alcee Hastings.

"There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make 'em up as we go along."
Alcee Hastings - the last Federal judge impeached by Congress.

In another memorable quote from this "intellect" Hastings, he insinuated during the last presidential campaign that Sarah Palin was bigoted against blacks and Jews because she hunts moose!

Here is the exact quote from Hastings' speech to the NJDC in August 2008:

"If Sarah Palin isn't enough of a reason to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention. Anyone toting guns and stripping moose don't care too much about what they do with blacks and Jews. So, you just think this through."

Even Jewish Democrat Susan Estrich thought that Hastings' statement was idiotic.

In 1981, Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He was acquitted by a jury after his alleged co-conspirator, William Borders, refused to testify in court (resulting in a jail sentence for Borders).

In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The vote on the first article was 69 for and 26 opposed, providing two votes more than the two-thirds of those present that were needed to convict. The first article accused the judge of conspiracy. Conviction on any single article was enough to remove the judge from office. The Senate vote cut across party lines, with U.S. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont voting to convict his fellow party member, and U.S. Senator Arlen Specter voting to acquit.

The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator, attorney William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office.

Hastings filed suit in federal court claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate, and that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial. Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in favor of Hastings, remanding the case back to the Senate, but stayed his ruling pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court in a similar case regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed.

Sporkin found some “crucial distinctions” between Nixon’s case and Hastings’s, specifically, that Nixon had been convicted criminally, and that Hastings was not found guilty by two-thirds of the committee who actually “tried” his impeachment in the Senate. He further added that Hastings had a right to trial by the full Senate.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled in Nixon v. United States that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters, so Sporkin’s ruling was vacated and Hastings’s conviction and removal were upheld.

In 1990, Hastings attempted to make a political comeback by running for Secretary of State of Florida, campaigning on a platform of legalizing casinos. In a three-way Democratic primary, he placed second with 313,758 votes, or 33%, behind newspaper columnist Jim Minter’s 357,340 votes (38%) and ahead of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon John Paul Rogers’ 275,370 votes (29%). In the runoff, which saw a large dropoff in turnout, Hastings lost to Minter in a landslide, 300,022 votes to 146,375. Minter would go on to lose the general election to incumbent Republican Jim Smith.

Hastings was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1992, representing Florida’s 23rd district. After placing second in the initial Democratic primary for the post, he scored an upset victory over State Representative Lois J. Frankel in the runoff and went on to easily win election in the heavily-Democratic district. From that point on he has yet to face a serious challenge for reelection.

He is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and was elected President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in July 2004. Today, as a Senior Democratic Whip, Hastings is an influential member of the Democratic leadership. Representative Hastings is also a member of the powerful House Rules Committee and is a senior Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). On the HPSCI, Hastings is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

He was one of the 31 who voted in the House not to count the electoral votes from Ohio in the 2004 presidential election.

florida_23rd_district.png


Alcee and the Congressional Black Caucus were also instrumental in returning that murderous communist thug Aristide to power in Haiti under Slick Willy Clinton.

There’s a huge Haitian community in that district and the Republican is a Haitian hero and human rights activist who saw 14 members of his family killed by Duvallier. (Side note - yes, that’s the guy who Alcee chose to threaten).

The Haitian community is fully backing Bernard Sansaricq. Acee's defeat may be a shocker of monumental proportions.

Bernard was The Speaker of the House in The Senate of Haiti...before the thugs came to kill him and his family his daughter is a member of the United States Air Force..

arthastings0924gi.jpg


Alcee Hastings: Political Thug, Terrorist, Communist, Socialist.

Hastings threatened the life of his 2008 opponent and he has done the same again this year, why isn't this headline news in the NY Slimes???

This past Sunday, at a retirement home in Belle Glade, Florida, a United States congressman threatened the life of his opponent in front of an entire group of senior citizens.

Democrat Congressman Threatens Opponent’s Life, Again

Florida?s Sansaricq Backs Term Limits in Congress

“When you have congressmen with nine terms [such as Sansaricq’s Democratic opponent, Alcee Hastings], that’s when you have entrenched corruption,”
---------------------------

Sansaricq also will fight to put members of Congress in the same Social Security system as the rest of the citizenry. “When you make laws and they don’t apply to you, that’s a no-no,” he says.
----------------------------------------

Sansaricq supports repeal of the new healthcare law. “I have seen socialist healthcare systems, especially in France, where some of my family members live.” It can take a year to see a specialist there, he says. “Sometimes it’s too late.”

The United States has the best healthcare system in the world, while socialist healthcare systems have failed everywhere in the world, Sansaricq says.


Oh and wait, while ACLG overlooks the garbage in his own back yard and questions the intelligence of the good people of Delaware, let's not forget those good people of Delaware saw fit to elect Rosary Joe 'the strangler' Biden who is as corrupt a politician as has ever graced the halls of congress.

The average street whore is a paragon of virtue compared to 'show me the money' Biden.
 
#14
#14
where, exactly, is the "separation"?

Perzactly!!! :clapping:

The communist interpretation of the amendment is factually wrong, rendering Coons only correct answer to be wrong also.

Early in our history Christian church services were regularly held in the Capitol building.

Thomas Jefferson (who some would today say was really a muslim, while the truth is that he only read the koran to study the enemy) while serving as our president, regularly attended Christian church services in the Capitol building every Sunday and often during the week also.

As much as ACLG would love for his commie comrade crony Coons to win the senate race in Delaware, he will probably be disappointed because Christine O'Donnel has -----

halal-lipstick-natural-magi.jpg
 
#17
#17
Christine O'Donnell - OrlandoSentinel.com

What a complete and utter moron this woman is. I cannot believe anyone is seriously thinking of voting for her for anything, much less U.S. Senate.



did you listen to the actual debate? that is completely out of text. lawgaytor, you're a fool. you guys listen to the actual debate, she asked Coons where does the 1st amendment say there is seperation of church and state, she was challange coons to what the 1st amendment states.

lawgaytor, i'm sorry man, but you are such a socialist sheep, you can't objectively research to find the truth. A friend of mine thought the same way until she actually listened to the debate..

also, did you see that coons could not verify the 5 freedoms in the constitution. obviously not.
 
#18
#18
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

How is that not seaparating the church from the state? Is that language not borne of the experience of the founders that when the government endorses or adopts a religion, that it stifles others unfairly?

The only people I have EVER heard endorse the notion of a state-sponsored religion in this country are Christians. Why? Because theirs is the majority religion.

Now, most of us Christians are bright enough to realize that the issue is bigger than us, that there is wisdom in keeping even our church from being the "official" one. We are educated enough and smart enough to see that there is value in allowing all religions to be practiced, as did the Founding Fathers three centuries ago.

It is only the narrow minded, the bigoted, the truly stupid like yourselves, joevol and gsvol, who have the arrogance to try to (inartfully) argue that the nation is supposed to be organized around or to tout your particular religious frame of reference.

You are an embarrassment to modern-day Christianity.
 
#20
#20
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

How is that not seaparating the church from the state? Is that language not borne of the experience of the founders that when the government endorses or adopts a religion, that it stifles others unfairly?

I understand what you're trying to get at but, if phrased correctly, her question is still valid

“Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” O'Donnell asked Coons as the audience laughed.

He said it was in the 1st Amendment.

are you saying Coons is right and it actually is contained in the Constitution and not TJ's later interpretation?
 
#21
#21
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

How is that not seaparating the church from the state? Is that language not borne of the experience of the founders that when the government endorses or adopts a religion, that it stifles others unfairly?

The only people I have EVER heard endorse the notion of a state-sponsored religion in this country are Christians. Why? Because theirs is the majority religion.

Now, most of us Christians are bright enough to realize that the issue is bigger than us, that there is wisdom in keeping even our church from being the "official" one. We are educated enough and smart enough to see that there is value in allowing all religions to be practiced, as did the Founding Fathers three centuries ago.

It is only the narrow minded, the bigoted, the truly stupid like yourselves, joevol and gsvol, who have the arrogance to try to (inartfully) argue that the nation is supposed to be organized around or to tout your particular religious frame of reference.

You are an embarrassment to modern-day Christianity.

obviously, you've never read the Bible, you must be one of those modern 'Christians' those who say their Christians but never read the bible or go to church or actually follow what God says.

the fact is the 1st amendment was made because the king if England established an official church. that's why the pilgrims left in the first place. the 1st amendment was not intended to bar people from praying in public schools. such ignorance lawgaytor.
 
#22
#22
I understand what you're trying to get at but, if phrased correctly, her question is still valid



are you saying Coons is right and it actually is contained in the Constitution and not TJ's later interpretation?

don't let a valid point get in gator's socialist way.
 
#23
#23
I understand what you're trying to get at but, if phrased correctly, her question is still valid



are you saying Coons is right and it actually is contained in the Constitution and not TJ's later interpretation?


I'm saying that if her point comes down to the argument that the precise words "separation of church and state" do not appear exactly in the First Amendment, then it isn't there, then she is indeed the complete fing moron she appears to be.



obviously, you've never read the Bible, you must be one of those modern 'Christians' those who say their Christians but never read the bible or go to church or actually follow what God says.

the fact is the 1st amendment was made because the king if England established an official church. that's why the pilgrims left in the first place. the 1st amendment was not intended to bar people from praying in public schools. such ignorance lawgaytor.


I think your historic point is correct, but your logical conclusion utterly flawed.

The point was to avoid a state-sponsored or endorsed religion because it invariably leads to suppression of others. From your perspective, your branch of Christianity would be tolerant of others. From the persepctive of the others, however, it would not be tolerant.

That's why none get to be chosen as official.

That is why there must be separation of church and state.

That is what is meant by the langiage that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

And if O'Donnell thinks she was clever during the debate because she had found some sort of "gotcha" because the exact words "separation of church and state" don't appear in the amendment, then she just is hopelessly ignorant.
 
#24
#24
so it's ignorant to say the words aren't in the Constitution but it's not ignorant to say they are in the 1st amendment? It's a correct interpretation IMO based on later writings but Coons would have only been correct if he had stated that. As it is they were both pretty stupid. She played "exact words" and he was dumb enough to fall into the trap. Reminds me of the end of the LSU/UT game
 
#25
#25
I'm saying that if her point comes down to the argument that the precise words "separation of church and state" do not appear exactly in the First Amendment, then it isn't there, then she is indeed the complete fing moron she appears to be.






I think your historic point is correct, but your logical conclusion utterly flawed.

The point was to avoid a state-sponsored or endorsed religion because it invariably leads to suppression of others. From your perspective, your branch of Christianity would be tolerant of others. From the persepctive of the others, however, it would not be tolerant.

That's why none get to be chosen as official.

That is why there must be separation of church and state.

That is what is meant by the langiage that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

And if O'Donnell thinks she was clever during the debate because she had found some sort of "gotcha" because the exact words "separation of church and state" don't appear in the amendment, then she just is hopelessly ignorant.

ruling was an over reaching by an humanist/activist judge. by your rationale, a Christian could never run for office or be a judge. this was not the intent of our founding fathers.
 

VN Store



Back
Top