- Blog
- Bios
- Boards
- Classifieds
- DIY
- Gallery
- Vendor Reviews
- Shop Weddingbee
Weddingbee boards
Noone has anything to say? Did you see her "I'm you" advertising campaign???
She is worse than Palin. I just shake my head everytime I see something about her. She's just...I don't even have words. She nor Palin represent me as a woman.
This might get heated if we've got anyone from Delaware in here, but yes, she should never be allowed anywhere near a public office. Her video the other day of her acting all smarmy about separation of church and state made me sick. Really all of government makes me sick at this point, but she's a real winner.
Then again I live in California and we're about to go belly up this election year. I'm scared as hell to see how this all turns out.
i rarely talk about politics here, but i absolutely can't stand her or palin.
She didn't know that there was freedom of religion guaranteed in the first amendment - 'nough said.
@lilyfaith: Actually that is not true. She said the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the first amendment.
I think that our country is in a sad state that this women is even a contender for public office
@lilyfaith: Actually she said that she didn't think that the 1st amendment guaranteed the separation of church and state, which it doesn't. Technically she was right.
There are some interesting candidates this year. Her comments on the first ammendment were quite funny, well funny unless she got elected, then I'd be worried.
I think if I was in New York I'd vote for the guy in The Rent is Too Damn High Party. All states should have their debates open to third (or fourth party) candidates, makes for a more interesting discussion.
@Jacqi: directly from the video:
O' Donnell: "Let me just clarify, you're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the first amendment?"
Coons: "The government shall make no establishment of religion"
O' Donnell: "That's in the first amendment?"
@mncrk09: Not really, Coons had said several times that it said establishment and then explained that courts had affirmed the separation. Yet she still didn't seem to understand that that was in the first ammendment.
And Coons was absolutley right the first ammendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", he explained that several times during the debate.
Ok I just want to add to the OP. If you love or hate her, why? I am pretty undecided and I would be interested in knowing your opinion and the facts to back it up.
@troubled: The separation of church and state comes from a Thomas Jefferson document called "The Wall of Separation" (if I am remembering correctly). But yes I agree with the rest of what you said.
IMO, women like O'Donnell and Palin reenforce the stereotype that some men (and women) have that women in general are too kooky/silly/dramatic to be in politics, which is a shame for all of the well educated, smart, strong and drama-free women working hard just to be taken seriously.
@mncrk09: No, it doesn't. A letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to some Baptists in CT has no bearing on how we govern ourselves, though the phrase "wall of separation" that he coined has passed into common usage.
The principle of separation of church and state is, as has been pointed out, based on the establishment clause of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It, and its partner the free exercise clause, prohibit the government from establishing or endorsing a religion or from forbidding people from practicing.
@mncrk09: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
That is in the first ammendment. Feel free to look it up if you don't believe me.
Coons also clarified that to her and that the separation of church and state has been traditionally how the courts have interpreted that clause and alot of how we interpret the constitution is based on court precedent.
Ok. I know what the first amendment says. You don't need to quote it for me. I'm not an idiot. I am just pointing out that those exact words "separation of church and state" are not in the constitution.
The craziest things Christine ODonnell has said:
"We took the Bible and prayer out of public schools. Now we're having weekly shootings. We had the 60s sexual revolution, and now people are dying of AIDS."
"A candidate said several years ago, 'I'm not concerned the reason you vote for me as long as you vote for me.'" - Press Conference, in response to a reporter asking if she'd send out bikini photos to gain votes.
"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains." - Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor, 2007
"You know what, evolution is a myth." / "Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?" - Politically Incorrect, 1998
"It is not enough to be abstinent with other people, you also have to be be abstinent alone. The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery, so you can't masturbate without lust."
She opposes abortion in all forms, even in cases of rape and incest.
This is just a few of her gems. My point with these is that she is uneducated, and unwilling to educate herself for the sake of her country and people. Just like Sarah Palin, she makes ignorance look fabulous and it irritates the hell out of me.
@mncrk09: They don't need to be. The combination of those two clauses create that effect. Like a cake. If I have a bowl of wet ingredients and a bowl of dry ingredients I have... two bowls. Put them together and, voila, cake.
The establishment clause says goverment can't government can't endorse, or appear to endorse, a specific religion or denomination. Basically, we can't be a theocracy or have an official state religion.
The free exercise clause says the government can't up and decide one day that all Methodists have to stop being Methodists because somebody feels like it.
Added together, the practical effect is that government is to stay out of church business.
Anyway, to the original point... She appears to lack anything like a political platform and has based her entire campaign around "Anything Obama does is bad! Very bad!" We're presently not in a great position as a country, and I really don't think rampant obstructionism (or rank hypocrisy, for that matter) is a helpful characteristic in a U.S. Senator.
IMO, women like O'Donnell and Palin reenforce the stereotype that some men (and women) have that women in general are too kooky/silly/dramatic to be in politics, which is a shame for all of the well educated, smart, strong and drama-free women working hard just to be taken seriously.
Beautifully put.
@mncrk09: I didn't mean to imply anything, it's just I had quoted that same passage in my previous comment and I thought that's what you were referencing wasn't in the first ammendment. But I also responded before you edited what you wrote, it was just a misunderstanding.
And you're right the literal words aren't there but Coons clarified what he meant to her in the debate and she still didn't realize that even establishment was in the first ammendment. Anderson Cooper had a good summary of her the other night and kinda sums up why I dislike her. She's presenting herself in a way that she's not at all living up to. If she's not familiar with the constitution don't run on being a scholar of it.
I don't like her because she sounds like a lunatic. Some of the things she spits about science are so iditic, they are dangerous. Moreover, any politician who needs seperation of church and state spelled out for them in those words as opposed to being able to glean the meaning from 'the government shall make no establishment of religion' should not be in charge of a 7-Eleven much less elected to office.
even if you take away her sheer ignorance and radical personal beliefs, o'donnell is a liar. she has been investigated for embezzlement. she calls obama an elistist yet she lies about attending yale. we have really hit an all new low in this country when people like o'donnell and paladino have any legitimate chance of holding public office.
@mncrk09: Even though those exact words aren't in the Constitution, it is implied through the other words. She was playing a semantics game and it just clouds the argument instead of adding anything to the discussion. What was the point of her saying that? She should hopefully realize that they mean the same thing and therefore there was no benefit to her even saying that.
I appreciate the people answering my question about why you hate her. Since she isn't running in my state, honestly I am not all that concerned with her. Being from Illinois, we have our own issues here LOL! Thanks for sharing the facts everyone.
@mncrk09: I could start a whole thread on Brady! And Rahm Emanuel! Argh.
O'Donnell's rather kooky but I think she was trying to be clever (and failing) with the First Ammendment thing. I don't really care what she thinks about evolution as I don't think it will come up for a vote in the Senate. She's living in the Twiilight Zone but the process of evolution will continue with or without her recognizing it.
Some of the other things she says, like with masturbation, I think she has a point in there that she's not articulating well. The idea is that when people masturbate they are typically fantasizing about a member of whatever gender and sort of objectifying them, using them as a "thing" for your own personal pleasure rather than someone you're being intimate with (basically the difference between "having sex" and making love). Well who knows if she's actually thinking that deeply but that's my own personal philosophy :)
Regardless of what she believes, her prior record alone is enough to not be an O'Donnell fan. She previously ran for office and her old campaign manager came out and said she took a bunch of money raised and used it to pay her personal rent. I don't think that's kosher. The Tea Party really blew this one big time because the mainstream Republican candidate actually had a chance at winning! Whoopsie!
My take on the First Amendment back and forth:
She was mixing up the concepts "shall not establish" and the specific wording of "separation of church and state" plain and simple. Points to her for actually knowing about Jefferson's later argument because she seems to know little else. Teaching Intelligent Design in a public school classroom is very clearly in violation of "shall not establish" which she would know if she ever read the damn constitution--a document that the Tea Party uses as its own personal bible.
Also, I swear to God, there is some clandestine group whose goal is that a woman never EVER sits in the Oval Office behind all of this. I don't believe it could be anything else.
EDIT Of course now I see "my take" has already been covered. Boo for me!
I think both her and Pailn are an embarassment to womenkind.
I first heard her speak on the Radio and thought I was listening to the minister's wife from the second season of True Blood!
She strikes me as the kind of woman I'd tolerate in my kids carpool, but I would NEVER want anywhere near any kind of position of power!
You must log in to post.
| Visit our sister sites | eHarmony Online Dating |
eHarmony Advice Dating Advice |
Project Wedding Wedding Songs |
JustMommies Pregnancy Calendar |
Create the honeymoon of your dreams.
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| Lyndzo | 52 |
| Brielle | 41 |
| mypinkshoes | 34 |
| Cady | 32 |
| fivemonthsnotice | 32 |
| AshleyR83 | 30 |
| ndreighton | 27 |
| rebwana | 26 |
| funkymunky85 | 26 |
| fishbone | 26 |
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| JulesSchnooks | 12 |
| mightywombat | 8 |
| HappilyEverAfter54 | 8 |
| BellaDee | 8 |
| KatyElle | 6 |
| SouthernGirl | 5 |
| couawilou | 5 |
| RahlyRah | 5 |
| Snowflake011913 | 5 |
| KateByDesign | 4 |
Ok so I am curious as to whether I am the only one who thinks that she is the only person in politics today who is worse than Palin... Sorry in advance to those of you who support these women... My opinion is mine whether right or wrong and vise versa.