Dear, you're speaking out of your ass. O'Donnell is 19 points behind in the polls. "Educated" U.S. voters are goung to soundly reject her.

Btw, does the picture below look familiar to you ?

Shit, GaG, how much do I owe you on that bet ?!----------LMAO !




-- Modified on 10/20/2010 8:40:36 AM

Hey Tea Party,  If there is a school for your candidates who need to get in to a school for illiterates and retarded, meaning having an IQ of 10 below, please give this character a one way ticket.   I will give her a free book on First Amendment to your constitution.

It will be party time, if "educated" American voters elect this woman to "govern" your country.

I wonder what the rest of the world thinks of America when we produce politicians like George W Bush, Sarah Palin, and Christine O'Donnell. None of them have more than a high school knowledge of American government, world history, economics, finance, and so on.

In the last debate, O'Donnell again showed an appalling lack of knowledge regarding the U.S. constitution. She chuckled that senators don't have to memorize it. Perhaps not, but it would be nice if she read it and basically knew what it contained. It's not very long or hard to understand.

For years the Super-rich end of GOP has pandered to a heavy theological, working class base with a couple "straw-man" issues; Never imagining that any of the 'less than erudite' would prevail to a point of national exposure.

Now these fully propagandized; but questionably educated fring candadates from the GOP base are shamelessly promulgating both their potential incompetance as well as forcing the shadow government of the corporations/banks/super rich to blantantly pour record $$$$ into their campaigns to counter the tide of foot-in-mouth disease and Independent Voter rejection.

This is a fabulous demonstration of the "Peter Principle" hemorrhaging.  

...Iraq.  He thought they were all just 'Ay-rabs'.

I'm saying that it is entertaining (but disturbing) watching absolutely insane amounts of money being spent by the GOP, and now foreign interests via the U.S Commerce Assn. (thanks to the Supreme Court allowing corporations no caps on political donations) to capture high level government seats because some normally un-electable Wing-Nuts are perched to be elected; and A-LOT of independent voters want nothing to do with "Wing-Nuts" from EITHER party.

The GOP studied the landslide defeat of Barry Goldwater back in 64. The States and demographics that DID vote for him were then nurtured, and ideals pandered too. The GOP is now trying to win seats with a conspicuously venal, inexperienced, superstitious, rudiment ally educated lot of white xenophobes.  

Actually, I've had the opportunity to debate a lot of political activities with some folks in Europe as we enjoyed some great German beer.  The take I got from them is that Americans are actually pretty stupid and don't deserve to have a right to vote because they screw it up like a bunch of puppets.  What you seem to have fallen victum to is the news media's attempt to focus the voter's attention on things that don't freakin matter such as the examples you mention, when the real story should be what the candidates have already done if encumbents, or what they promise to do if elected.  Put you attention on that, and ignore the stupid shit, and you'll probably see that there is a clear choice in candidates who will do something good for the country and not just issue a bunch meaningless barbs over BS.

OK, just wanted to be sure.  Now that you clarified that, all I can say is I'm sorry you've been drinking the koolaid.  For starters, there is not one shred of any evidence that foreign money is being used by GOP.  Not any, and even when challenged to produce some, not even Obama would acknowledge any.  It's easy for these gangster dems to make wild accusations, get some news coverage, and never have to prove that there was any truth to what they said.  Have you found any evidence?  Or, are you just repeating the party line like a puppet?  And, by the way, according to a report on CNN based on material they received from both parties, the amount of money spent thusfar is about the same.  Again, do you have evidence any different that what CNN reports?

I certainly want candidates to have a strong grasp of economics and finance. Tax increases choke economic vitality and actually lead to lower tax receipts for the govt to work with. The big banks and Wall Street can not get so powerful that we have to bail them out when they destroy themselves with their own greed and stupidity.

If George W Bush had a grasp of world history, he would have known the Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds would never get along in a peaceful democracy. The Iraq debacle could have been avoided.

As far as the Europeans go, it seems like they are in very shitty shape economically themselves and shouldn't worry about the splinter in our eyes when there is a log in there own eyes.

In what way?

Bush displayed his ignorance on more than once!

George W Bush left the nation in one helluva mess(to say the least). I don't like Obama, I would never vote for him, but I don't blame him for being unable to clean up Bush's mess in less than two years.

I also wonder how much longer our 50,000 troops and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on Iraq can prevent a civil war there. Actually, a low level civil war is already going on. All we can hope for is that it doesn't get out of hand, but I fear it will eventually.

Muslims are people who are practicing the Islam Religion.  

Sunni and Shia are different factions of Islam.  

Arabs and Kurds are ethnic races.

Arabs in Iraq are both Sunni and Shia.  Most Kurds are Sunni.

Iranians are Persians (not Arabs), and most are Shia.  

Afghans are several different ethnic groups (Pashtun, Uzbek, Turkmen, Tajiks, Hazara, Nuristanis, Aimaq, and Balociais).  I believe most Afghans are Sunni Muslim.  

The question was, where does the phrase "SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" appear in the constitution.

It is not in the CONSTITUTION. He did what all liberals do and distorted it to fit his definiation.

In addition, when asked Coons could not name the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Like most liberals, he only cherry picsk what he wants to remember.

Most, not all of course, but most of the early European settlers were indeed Christians fleeing religious persecution. These "Good Christians" somehow were able to rationalize slavery, genocide of the indigent population etc, just like the good Pat Robertson et al. I think this is what Christians mean by "worshipping in peace". Non Christians aren't really people with rights, they are non believers to either be converted to Chritianity or be killed for the heathen savages they are.

Despite Christians committing fewer and fewer atrocities over the last century or two, the list that they have committed is a quite lengthy one. A list so long that any "merciful god" would have no choice but to wash his hands of the entire lot of them. lol

This country was founded mainly on "christian principles" thankfully the founding fathers must have realized that basing their new country strictly on religious principles might not have been such a good idea.

The specific phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, but the First Amendment most certainly includes the "establishment clause", which very clearly forbids the establishment of a state religion - or, if you will, the separation of church and state. As a legal precedent, that long predated the Supreme Court decision banning teacher-led prayers in public schools - and, to hear some conservatives I know tell it, the beginning of the end of the great American civilization. "Separation of church and state" is not a lefty-liberal contemporary interpretation, it is one of the foundations of this great democratic republic.

On the other hand, "American was founded as a Christian nation" HAS become a standard of contemporary right wing demagoguery - though no amount of insisting that this is so actually makes it so. Given the number of Deists, Unitarians, Freemasons, Enlightenment-era intellectuals and other heretics present in the constitutional congress and their general contempt for European monarchs whose authority as "defenders of the faith" was grounded in Church dogma, it is actually pretty goddamned clear that separation of church and state was, in fact, EXACTLY the original intent of the establishment clause - and so important that they put it in the very first amendment!