Christine, honey...

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:52 pm

...stop embarrassing yourself and come back to bed.

I want to snuggle*.

* and by "snuggle", I actually mean, honk your luscious boobs up and down on my cock until I hose down your mug with my mayonnaise.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:52 pm

It's a "hetero thing", Felchco.
You wouldn't understand.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:03 pm

She is even more weapons-grade stupid than Palin which means she'll also appeal to the lowest common denominator of the GOP base.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:23 pm

^^^ gayer than AP with justin Beiber's dick up his ass ^^^

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:01 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:She is even more weapons-grade stupid than Palin which means she'll also appeal to the lowest common denominator of the GOP base.

It's OK. You can mention wolfman by (nic)name.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:37 pm

That's all you got ? Pathetic. Did you get your John Boehner Halloween costume yet ? Why on earth are you so interested in a senate race in Delaware ? Get a life.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:39 pm

Nice job posting an un-embedded link, dickwad.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:07 am

Scott's right, her commercial is begging to be mocked.

O'Donnell is a ridiculous tool.

Only problem is, Coons is more of a ridiculous tool.

Or a Marxist.

One of those things.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:59 am

Managing a conversation and not saying anything should be disturbing enough, I'd think.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:09 am

Damn straight she's not a witch. A witch is conscious for starters--alive to the planet and its systems, sensitive to its needs, and heir to its bounty. An ignorant-as-a-bag-of-sand celebrity whore about to get flattened in a weird embarrassing landslide is in fact the last person to lay claim to being a witch.

fake witch

real witch

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:32 am

88 wrote:What did she say that was incorrect?

In the clip from the debate, nothing.

It was clear that when under the gun, however, she was not able to bring to mind any "recent" Supreme Court ruling she disagreed with.

You would hope that a person aspiring to be a U.S. Senator would be able to do so.

Not the end of the world but also not that inspiring.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:57 am

Too bad the moderator didn't ask her what newspapers she read. She would have had the same fucking dumbass stare.

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:11 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Damn straight she's not a witch. A witch is conscious for starters--alive to the planet and its systems, sensitive to its needs, and heir to its bounty. An ignorant-as-a-bag-of-sand celebrity whore about to get flattened in a weird embarrassing landslide is in fact the last person to lay claim to being a witch.

fake witch

real witch

Deserves a reset:

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:54 pm

Wolfman wrote:John Boehner Halloween costume

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:14 pm

Jsc wrote:She has no business being anywhere close to the US Senate.

The Senate bar is set pretty low.
She'd find pretty good company.

Sam wrote:If this is what the far right is about and the best they can offer, we're doomed.

I wouldn't consider her "far right," but then again, I follow (more-or-less) the Dinsdale chart when it comes to REAL conservatism.
I wouldn't say O'Donell's foreign policy views are "conservative" or "right" at all.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:21 pm

Wolfman wrote:Why on earth are you so interested in a senate race in Delaware ?

Probably for the same reason you're so interested in couch-on-porch laws in Ann Arbor.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:43 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Wolfman wrote:Why on earth are you so interested in a senate race in Delaware ?
Probably for the same reason you're so interested in couch-on-porch laws in Ann Arbor.

Senile dememtia?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Oct 16, 2010 6:13 am

poptart wrote:
Jsc wrote:She has no business being anywhere close to the US Senate.
The Senate bar is set pretty low.
She'd find pretty good company.

Here is some brilliance from SENATE MAJORITY LEADER Harry Reid.

:?

Imagine if C. O'Donnell had uttered such idiocy.
The clip would be obsessed over by the media for years to come.

You surely must understand that the senate has a lot of asshats like Harry Reid who get a pass from most of the media, while on the other hand, the media does all it can to portray an O'Donnell in the worst light possible.

Senate fucking majority leader. lol

Don't be duped.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:29 am

Well he is a Mormon who immediately signed on for everything ZioNazi--including the unbelievably disgraceful and immoral attack of Iraq....so...what's your whimpering point again?....

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:22 am

It's obvious.

The point is, Jsc't take that O'Donnell doesn't belong anywhere near the Senate would hold water if the Senate didn't already have quite a number of mind-numbing m0rons like SENATE MAJORITY LEADER Harry Reid in it.

Of course if you latch on to the bill of goods the "main street media" continually sells, you only learn that "conservatives" are dumbasses.

Get your mind off the Yews and pay attention for a change, dumbshit.

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:07 pm

Jsc810 wrote:She has no business being anywhere close to the US Senate.

Yeah!

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sat Oct 16, 2010 6:19 pm

88 wrote:What did she say that was incorrect?

That if elected, she would go to DC and do what I would do. Even someone as dumb as you can't believe that.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:39 pm

No, popper, your argument is false. Just because Harry Reid and so many others are corporate whores and AIPAC stooges does not in any way mean that they should be replaced by utterly moronic Christers (who are also total militarist corporate whores--i.e., "Free Market", etc) as well as TOTAL ZioNazi puppets. And that's EVERY single Tea Bagger you can mention. Or what? :doh:

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:32 pm

Who gives a fuck? The constitution is a "living document" that means whatever we want it to mean depending on the subject, right? I fail to see the big deal. You and your favorite fag loving judges don't know shit about the constitution either.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:15 pm

So you're saying that the phrase "separation of church and state" IS found in the First Amendment?

Really?

And you practice law? Might wanna practice a little harder....

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.

Nope. No literal phrase "separation of church and state" in MY Constitution either. Maybe the Lib version reads differently....

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:22 pm

It would appear that the opportunity to fuck her brains out is off the table.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:29 pm

Why? Because the phrase "separation of church and state" actually IS in the Constitution?

:?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:41 pm

Jsc810 wrote:"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Sorry, Tru -- you're flailing.

This wasn't simple semantics -- just flat out ignorance.

And no, the phrase "seperation of church and state" doesn't appear in the Constitution -- it does however appear in the writings of multiple Framers in their explainations of the document they wrote.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:47 pm

R-Jack wrote:It would appear that the opportunity to fuck her brains out is off the table.

One could always try fucking them back in.

:o

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:59 pm

Moving Sale wrote:
88 wrote:What did she say that was incorrect?
That if elected, she would go to DC and do what I would do. .

She said she'd open a glory hole at the DC bus station?

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:07 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
Sorry, Tru -- you're flailing.

This wasn't simple semantics -- just flat out ignorance.

Flailing? Really? Hmmm....

Then so is the Washington Post

"After a squabble over whether or not schools should be permitted to teach creationism as a competing theory to evolution, Coons said that the First Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to imply the case for the separation of church and state.

O'Donnell interrupted:

O'DONNELL: "So you're telling me . . . that the phrase 'separation of church and state' is found in the First Amendment?"

Coons didn't take the bait and went on, citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment as confirmation of the First Amendment's intention.

The debate soon after returned to the subject:

O'DONNELL: "Let me just clarify, you're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"

COONS: "'Government shall make no establishing religion'"

O'DONNELL: "That's in the First Amendment"

And no, the phrase "seperation of church and state" doesn't appear in the Constitution -- it does however appear in the writings of multiple Framers in their explainations of the document they wrote.

Yup. The article I referenced cites TJ here:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Simply picking nits, Dins. Guess I'm one of those stubborn Missouri mules who actually believes that the Consititution says what it does. Heck, everybody knows that the "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution - it's right there next to the part that guarantees a woman the Right to have an abortion...

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:12 pm

Jsc810 wrote:
88 wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:If your understanding of our Constitution is so lacking that you do not know there is a separation of church and state, then you are not qualified to serve in the U.S. Senate.
When the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment were ratified, there was clearly no prohibition against state governments establishing official churches. Most states had them, and several maintained their established official churches well into the 1830's, with some state constitutions requiring that its citizens be members of the official church. The First Amendment only applied to prohibit Congress from making "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified. The Fourteenth Amendment makes no mention of religious establishment.
But it did apply the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the States, which as you know, is why states and local political subdivisions now cannot have an official church.

This is clearly established law, basic stuff. My 8th grade daughter literally has a better understanding of the First Amendment than O'Donnell does.

This is a strawman argument, JSC, and you know it.

O'Donnell understands the First Amendment quite well. That's why she challenged Coons to list the the five freedoms for which this Right provides. He failed miserably, btw. One-out-of-five ain't bad when you're running for the United States Senate, I suppose. Check the video.

Her contention all along in her exchange with Coons was that the phrase "separation of church and state" IS NOT specifically referenced by the First Amendment of the Constitution. And for you - as an officer of the court and sworn to support the Constitution of United States and the State of Louisiana - to take her poorly worded statement out of context - in the heat of a debate, mind you - and berate her as being ignorant is disingenuous at best and breathtakingly ironic at worst.

C'mon, JSC, you're better than this....

It may be established law, but NO WHERE in the First Amendment is a specific reference to the separation of church and state. Period. An yes, I DO realize that many have suggested that it WAS implied when Congress wrote that it "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". But the woman was technically correct when she called Coons on it. And as a person who makes his living arguing the techicalities of our laws, I would think that you would have respect for that.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:26 pm

Truman wrote: Her contention all along in her exchange with Coons was that the phrase "separation of church and state" IS NOT specifically referenced by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

At first, maybe.

But... Coons then goes on to cite the exact wording, to which Dimwit replies "That's in the First Amendment?"

Sorry, she laid one hell of a KHOA on herself.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:00 pm

Is it wrong that I'm picturing her tongue-cleansing Sarah Palin's squirt-soaked mudflaps...and for the moment setting aside her badly compromised intellectual and patriotic service capacities?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:18 pm

PSUFAN wrote:Is it wrong that I'm picturing her tongue-cleansing Sarah Palin's squirt-soaked mudflaps...and for the moment setting aside her badly compromised intellectual and patriotic service capacities?

Maybe you're onto something...

Perhaps O'Donnell and Palin should plan the GOP's strategy in the coming election together...

...in a Motel 6...

...with a bottle of Chivas...

...and me...

...and my video camera...

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:34 pm

Jsc810 wrote:This is clearly established law,

There is no such thing, you stupid asshole. The constitution is a "living document" that changes from day to day depending on its mood.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:36 am

Jsc wrote:Lemon vs. Kurtzman established three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:

1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

One might wonder what "secular purpose" there is in a session of Congress having always opened with a prayer.

Straight up, if someone imagines that the founders intended the above standards when the First Amendment was written, they are either blatantly ignorant or they have some agenda they are pursuing.

Cuckoo.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:38 am

What! Are you lusting after other torpid milf muff, b-juice? Cuz you've got to service me--me, me, me.....the beads?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:03 am

poptart wrote:One might wonder what "secular purpose" there is in a session of Congress having always opened with a prayer. Straight up, if someone imagines that the founders intended the above standards when the First Amendment was written, they are either blatantly ignorant or they have some agenda they are pursuing. Cuckoo.

Straight up, if someone imagines they have ANY clue as to how the founders would have reacted to 21st century America beyond "HOLY FUCK THERE IS PORN ON THE INTERNET? Wait a minute, WTF is the Internet?," they are either lying or stupid.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:10 am

BSmack wrote:
poptart wrote:One might wonder what "secular purpose" there is in a session of Congress having always opened with a prayer. Straight up, if someone imagines that the founders intended the above standards when the First Amendment was written, they are either blatantly ignorant or they have some agenda they are pursuing. Cuckoo.
Straight up, if someone imagines they have ANY clue as to how the founders would have reacted to 21st century America beyond "HOLY FUCK THERE IS PORN ON THE INTERNET? Wait a minute, WTF is the Internet?," they are either lying or stupid.

This is the excuse you give for judges pulling complete bullshit out of their @ss?

You seriously are a horrendously delusional fuckwit.

The establishment clause was very clearly put in place to see to it that no national religion was established and so that people would be free to exercise their religion as they see fit.

I mean, that's what it fucking SAYS.

You can read? lol