I find her to be truly frightening. If THIS is the best the republicans can offer, it's a sad state of affairs for republicans. Remember, this is a woman who says masterbating is a sin, and that gay people can be changed and become straight. She's obviously a radical, hateful evangelical Christian, who certainly does not, and should not, represent the values of the vast majority of Americans. That is why, even when man repubs won that year, she failed in a landslide.
@mkatsnel23 oh and just to be clear. When I say read up, I am not telling you to go to some news organization or opinion piece. Go directly to her site, because finally her site has been updated with more then a donation link and you can read what she thinks her constituents want. You can actually read it and know what she wants to do, so you no longer have to rely on you sensing ability and can actually read it. lol
@mkatsnel23 but, the opinion of what they her constituents want are described by her.To simply say she will do what constituents want, is meaningless as every politician claims that. I assure you, you will not find a single politician that claims to do what their constituents don't want. You can actually read her opinion on what they want. That includes teaching not religion, but Christianity in schools. She is under the opinion that states have the right to ignore the bill of rights. Read up!
Coons is obviously the more qualified liberal candidate who likely would continue Obama and current Democratic policies and direction. O'Donnell is obviously the more qualified conservative candidate who would likely maintain across the board tax cuts and favor conservative agendas. Vote O'Donnell, Delaware! It can't get anyworse with O'Donnell as your senator. Coons is just another smooth talking candidate. He contradicted his liberal record during the debate.
@addart32763 what makes her qualified? Her running for office twice and failing? The fact that she wants to teach religion, well Christianity to be specific, in schools? The fact that when talking about separation of church and state, the meaning of it is not as important as the semantics of the wording? The fact that she believes the states have a right to deny individual's, as states do not have to abide by the constitution and the bill of rights? What makes her qualified?
It's painfully obvious that the moderators favor one of these candidates over the other. I wish America would provide a real honest-to-goodness debate instead of these charades every four years.
@wilmoer every two years, not four... but yes, favoritism... They should have asked her more about her religion, she might have more to say then politics... lol
@MooseOfReason does she toss your salad? does she swallow? the way you spew in defense of this witch, one would think you're getting some. is she any good? does she douche? shaved or hairy? or is she like your momma?
this lady is just aching to be taken from behind. maybe she'll shut up after some hefty doggie-style pounding. i'm just afraid she'd cast a wicked spell on and my pecker would rot and fall off in three days.
If O'Donnell is wrong about the First amendment and the separation of church and state, then progressives are wrong about the General Welfare clause. Read the Federalist Papers. Madison said that was confined to the enumerated powers.
@MooseOfReason the constitution as originated is not as it is today. there have been many amendments. welfare needs are not the same now as it was then
@MooseOfReason Many Christians here are as fanatical as Extreme Muslims are in the middle East. Would you truly want lesser minds like O'Donnell, Palin, Angle, ..Oh my god, BACHMANN...! to actually make this country a truly Right wing nation? the answer is a clear NO. They would burn books,and then burn witches. ( Christine O'D excluded. ) and take us to another crusade. No, I like my crazies in the loony bin. these idiots, ( Of course Beck included. ) should just go away
@angelrod75 I wouldn't vote for any of them to be President, and I haven't donated to any of their Senate campaigns. But I think Angle and O'Donnell would be an improvement in the Senate. Why do you think they would burn books?
Republicans would take us on another crusade? How many Senate Democrats vote for war-spending bills? Damn near all of them, and they keep getting elected. There's an anti-war Republican running against Pelosi. Who's gonna win there? I can only guess.
@MooseOfReason angle and o'd are ignorant and inept. they have no plans . they just repeat the spoon fed pablum...cut spending reign in whatever, this and that.
no plans no examples, no thought through process. these idiots are not people with leadership qualities AT ALL. You will never find buffoons like these in the private sector in management roles. odonnell cant even manage her own financials... and you would have her manage millions? its woefully unintelligent to state the comment you did
@MooseOfReason you know something? the deficit that the prior administration started, will not be eliminated. Anyone that tells you that is full of it, You should know this. So that is pablum, and it is what it is, soundbytes.
" O'Donnell took some time to pay off her student loans. Is that what you're talking about by "can't manage her own finances"? "
YES. because its not the student loans, it's everything, the hypocrisy and banter,the sheer lack of poise and knowledge.
@angelrod75 She paid off her debt. To me, that sounds like someone who knows how to manage their finances.
You said the deficit won't be eliminated. That means we'll continue to spend an ever increasing amount of money, so the deficit will get larger too. You're saying Chris Coons won't even reduce the deficit? Some day China won't want to lend us any more money.
@MooseOfReason SHE PAID HER DEBT WITH CONTRIBUTIONS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO GO TO HER PAC. AND ANYONE CAN TELL YOU THAT DEBT IS MADE NOT TO BE ELIMINATED. DONT YOU KNOW THAT?
BUT THAT LITTLE GIRL IS JUST THAT A WANNABE THAT JUST WANTS AN EASY RIDE. SHE IS INTELLECUALLY LAZY AND INEPT. SHE KEEPS GETTING IN THESE ARGUMENTS THAT SHE HASNT THE SMARTS TO READ.
@MooseOfReason Kid. just cause CO'D is saying she would downsize or eliminate
something, ANYTHING does not mean she could or actually would. She lacks - obviously- the presence of mind to navigate the intricities of washington, or even delaware high office. Show some reason, kid. If youre voting for her because you are a wingnut rep. then fine. but dont come as a reasonable person and defend this ignoramus, because it's a disservice to that cause...it's an oxymoron. You understand that?
@angelrod75 Do you think all people in congress or senate are intelligent?
Mr.Koons seemed arrogant according to this debate. Do you want to add him to the socialistic chorus that we have now? We need a diversity. I used to lived in one party rule in USSR and know what it may bring.
Vote for this socialistic and cynic moron who learned how to speak well and not much more. In the end we'll get what we deserve: Elites rule the country and the rest are morons who have no convolutions in their brains (-: best regards.
Of course. I make no sense to you. I have different background and saw what will be at the end. I am just saying that the guy is infected with ideology that will bring this country to the socialistic state. In this condition all people will be poor and we may have the Greece situation. I hope this country will not loose its sanity.
@akatsmusic ah, the socialism soundbyte. Look the kid's going to lose because she knows nothing. It was her race to lose and she did. Not leadership quality here.
As a productivity consultant, I can ASSURE YOU, this child has no common sense.
She is a child that wants to win a tiara. I would expect more from a grown man such as yourself, than to imbibe such pablum.
You sound like Mr. Koons (-:. Are you him? (-:. To be serious. I don't know Ms. O'Donnell and admit she sounds much worse than Mr. Koons. However, she is more believable to me than him just because she can show her silliness and inexperience in this debate. I hope if she gets elected she'll be honest for 1 term at least . Then will see. As to her leadership quality: she is not running for a majority leader or president (-:. So, she'll be junior senator like Al Franken (-:.
@akatsmusic yeah, she will only be a senator and be able to vote on issues that effect every single person in this country. But, yes, she is only a senator.....
@akatsmusic IF SHE SEEMS MORE BELIEVABLE THAN COONS, THEN YOU HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS THAT NO CANDIDATE HAS POWER TO HELP YOU WITH. And, please, you are admitting you are voting for someone with NO LEADERSHIP QUALITIES? WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU?
The honesty issue: let's see, she has INSIDE INFORMATION OF A CHINESE TAKEOVER! Sir, please, you have no argument. Take your comments to someone less intelligent than I.
@100guests100 is it? have you seen any obviously stupid comments from him, like:
" i never lie" ' i never masturbate, so nobody else should " " i have inside information that i wish i didn't have about China taking over the US " " I am NOT a witch " .... When " seeming to remember " remember these things, because my argument... my INVALID argument is not so much lack of experience, but lack of intellect.
@100guests100 yes, and which of experience, intellect, and leadership does O'Donnell posses? She has no leadership experience, as a marketing agent hardly leads. She lacks any experience in politics at all, down to having a degree in English and communication. Her intellect is also up for debate, as I personally have called people who believed in witches in high school... well morons... Same sentiment goes to those who would focus on semantics of separation of church and state over the meaning.
@felya420 Semantics is very important when argue points of law. Especially when it comes to the meaning of the constitution and it's amendments. And demeaning someone's religious beliefs is moronic in and of itself.
@100guests100 Yes, the semantics of the meaning is important. But the semantics of the wording, her actual argument for her glib response, is not as important as the meaning.
Witches being idiots is part of my religion, so you claiming it's moronic is insulting my religion. It's a similar religion that got witches burned in Salem. lol
@100guests100 i never said anything about experience, clearly, however, any experience she has is in other fields, is obviously - even painfully - worthless in the field she is currently pursuing. She has shown NO sustained sucsess in ANY endeavor at all... she is another worthless tea-party candidate that takes away from some worthwhile republican candidates.
@angelrod75 Did George Washington have political experience? Did Thomas Jefferson. I think in the current political environment "political experience" is the worst experience a candidate can have.
@100guests100 uhm... George Washington was a general who became a political leader during the Townshend Acts, prior to being president. Thomas Jefferson was a political philosopher who was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence before he became president. So... yes... they both had political experience.
@angelrod75 you forgot my favorite - " You're telling me the separation of church and state is in the first amendment?". Then Coons recites from the first amendment - "Government shall make no establishment of religion". OWNED. I guess she was too busy not masturbating to pay attention in high school.
@100guests100 Obama finished law school and received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) from Harvard as magna cum laude. He served in state and US senate. Christine O'Donnell worked as a public relations and marketing consultant, while receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree is in English literature with a concentration in communications. As you can see, there is a huge difference between the inexperience of the two. To the point where even insinuating a similarity in experience is ludicrous.
@felya420 You are correct - O'Donnell has much more real world experience than Obama. i have yet to hear about his private business experience. Please remember he won his state senate seat by getting his opponents disqualified for the ballot. After "winning" he then resigned his office when he "won" his U.S. senate seat after once again having no one on the ballot to oppose him. He then resigned that office. Obama has yet to complete a full term of political office. Experience indeed.
@100guests100 as the most blatant lie, Obama served 3 full terms in Illinois senate. Second, he did get his opponents disqualified, because as someone who finished law school, he was aware that the signatures obtained for a nomination where submitted too late. Which really would not have mattered as he had 3 times the signature of the 4 people running against him. You are so ludicrous in the comparison, that you are making the argument that I am more qualified than she is to run for office
@felya420 You may be more qualified than O'Donnell. You may be more qualified than Obama as well. I have no idea about your experience so I cannot make that decision either way.
@100guests100 no, it doesn't matter what you know about my experience. Her experience is so far away from her field, that the odds of me being anywhere farther away from from her, are just so minute that me being more qualified than her is a safe bet.
Also, all experience I have is "real world experience". As that to you seems to be enough, I can assure you, I have yet to travel to any fake world. lol
@angelrod75 I asked a question about Coons and you start attacking O'Donnell. Apparently you think changing the subject is a winning argument strategy.
Coons' website lists tax proposals and some small budget items to cut. If you take them at face value, that's about $57 billion off the budget annually. Considering that the 2010 budget was $3.55 trillion, that would knock it down to $3.48 trillion.
@MooseOfReason Kid... SHE WOULD HAVE NO POWER TO DO A THING!
Someone will teach her the ropes, and she will do as she is told. Your budget nonsense is nothing but random numbers. The " surplus " that bush threw away ( actually, cheney ) is one thing you don't mention. this whole mess we're in was the repubs. ( you know this, I assume... you CAN READ. ) Neither of these people would have power do do A N Y T H I N G. There is a bigger agenda at play here.Grow up
@angelrod75 No, they aren't random numbers. Look at Obama's 2010 budget proposal. It's called "A New Era of Responsibility". Go through the "Summary Tables" section where it shows budget estimates. The budget estimate for 2011 is $3.625 trillion. Next, go to Coons' website and check his "fiscal responsibility" page, and add them up.
Apparently you think Bush and his big-spending buddies are still in charge. If you support Coons, stand up for him.
@MooseOfReason you just don't understand, do you? republicans did this, kid. REPUBLICANS. you were a child when bush took office, but its not ancient history.
You don't understand, and you are just the perfect mark for losers like CO'D.
@MooseOfReason kid, these people have no power to do anything about a thing.
all this " deficit " that actually republicans, got us into, even when they inherited no wars and a $urplus, It was them who created this crap. But you ... in YOUR WISDOM
want them back? Specifically CO'D?? it's funny, cause it's so sad. Thank god she hasnt a shot.
@MooseOfReason tell me a single federal department that an individual senator has the power to eliminate. It's like the idiocy of repealing "Obamacare". I am sorry, but "Obamacare" can not be repealed unless Obama signs off on the repeal. Majority house or senate or majority in both can not do it. So, every single candidate that is running on the platform of repealing "Obamacare" is lying to you! But, as long as they agree with you, I see no reason not to vote for a liar. lol
@MooseOfReason she payed off her debt thanks to the donations from people to her campaign. So yes, if people just gave money to the government, instead of requiring taxes, the debt would be payed off mighty quick. But, people don't want to pay taxes, but want the debt gone and you are using someone who used donations to pay her debt as an example of what we should do about the deficit. Do you bother to think?
After seeing all this "bad press and opinions" on Ms. O'Donnell, I was expecting to see her unintelligable and idiotic, but of course, she's brilliant! She doesn't get too over the top w/ talking points..just clear and concise.
btw, how disappointing to see Wolf Blitzer moderate..yikes!
Lack of Constitutional comprehension does not equate ACTUAL meaning differentiation. Republicans, you need to let this ridiculous notion of the founding fathers wanting church and state mingling go. It's old, it's boring, it's demeaning. You can read quotes from Jefferson, Madison, jesus just read the Treaty of Tripoli for cring out loud. It's clear. The concept AND words are there. Jefferson quoted, "wall of seperation between church and state", yet it's hardly relevant vs. the entire picture.
I pay taxes punk. I don't have a church either. I'm ten years out of high school grammer and punctuation are not my strength. none of that takes from my points which you refuse to address. you are weak!
Christine O'donnell is a threat to our establishment. What a f'ing moron. Americans, lets all masturbate the day she looses together as a nation. Her demise from public service should serve as America's national masturbation day.
Let's face it, she is the GREATEST thing to happen for the Democrats this election!! She may get a few "looney tunes" to vote for her in Delaware, but, she has single-handedly driven MORE votes to the Democrats nation wide simply because she Is a PERFECT example of what the Republicans want Washington,D.C. To look like......idiot drones who will rubber stamp ANY "party line propaganda" that comes down the pike!! She's a treasure!!!
@kenny10100 it's not a matter of... well.. matter... More of the fact that some people like to argue. I personally like to argue with tea party members. It's the same as watching Jerry Springer... It leaves me with that, better than them feeling... :)
@felya420 do you understand that respecting religion in this case is used for or synonymous with regarding. Congress shall make no law concerning regarding respecting religion. You can look at even a modern dictionary (as opposed to one in the 1770s language as changed over time but the meaning of the constitution has not) and it will give you this definition. I listed two books for you to start with. Those two are exhaustive. Also I mentioned youtubing Thomas Sowell, Have you tried that?
@felya420 yes it is! it is less than half of our existence. 51% Is still a majority. 1862-1872 which was only a tax on income after legal prosecution. 10yrs.
1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution. 11yrs then 1913-2010 97+11=108 yrs less than half our existence. i don't know why i keep entertaining this but i am hopeful that you will
@felya420 No it does not!!! I am not arguing semantics CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW!!!! means congress cannot make laws that have anything to do with religion. it cannot prohibit me from praying in schools. which courts have ruled illegal. courts do not make laws or "legislate from the bench" remember the sotomayor controversy. The first amendment does not mean that the states cannot make even a state religion if they so choose like there was when the nation was formed.
@felya420 The Founders in hundreds of instances proclaimed and acknowledged God. The Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator . . ." The last sentence of the Declaration states, "And for the support of the declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, Again a very clear reference to God and the expectation of protection for the new country from the Divine.
@felya420 Look at the federalist and anti federalists papers. our marxist schools have attempted to erase history. communist manifesto you should read it. 1 Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
10. Free education for all children in government schools.
the america you knew and grew up with, Christine, is the America that has fucked future generations in the ass with a hot iron rod. The only thing this woman has to say is "stop spending money, but yeah well we should probably spend on the military and security" the places where the most money is squandered needlessly. Millitary and security are two of the biggest special interests negativley influencing US policy.
hey she's a little brighter than Palin and that ain't saying much,Coons win easy, way more Qualified he just more informed and know what's up and that's what it's Really about,i would let her sell Girl scout cookies though she would be good at Raising money for the church or Something like that she's likable but not enough to elect.
This chick is now questioning the constitution so they can teach her religion in schools. Good job, voters. If you want a pretty girl, why dont you just look up pictures on the internet? You dont have to fucking vote for one....
Why wasn't Wolf Blitzer sitting next to Chris Coons? I would have expected them to be giving each other back massages or something. I mean, it appears they're lovers or at least intimately involved on some level. Wolf did horrible job at moderating this "debate". He GRILLED O'donnell and PLACATED Coons. How is that "moderating"?? It was more appalling than anything I've ever seen Blitzer do. And for the record, I'm no huge fan of O'donnell. But she should have been given FAIR treatment.
"First I would like to say thank you for being here. I believe that the Constitution was written by God so that American's can worship Jesus. With Jesus all things are possible. My opponent is the anti-christ. Please vote O'Donnell for President of the World under Jesus and I promise that all the bread you cook will have a nice crust. The moon landing was made in Hollywood, Red Dawn is a real historical documentary and the Holocaust never happened. Thank you. And Praise President Jesus."
@BriansVideoHobby no, I do not think the moderators are partisan. When you are asked what ruling by the supreme court you opose, the fact that you can not answer is not the fault of the moderator. I am not running for senate and I can list a few. For example, just a few month ago the supreme court lifted any limitations on financial contributions from corporations to political candidates. I oppose lobbying and oppose uncapping lobbying all together. Why couldn't she say something like that?
@felya420 They asked her multiple personal question, interrupted her numerous times, cut her off, and debated her answers. They did NONE of this with Coons. It was like she was debating 3 people. I love your example because that is the ONLY one Coons could come up with, after they had just discussed it, even after being asked to name another! Why haven't you pointed out that he couldn't either? I don’t need a perfect person, just one that believes in the constitution.
@BriansVideoHobby \she does not even know the first amendment. What sort of constitution does she believe in, when the contents of the very first amendment is a mystery to her? Shouldn't a person who knows the constitution know the first amendment? Shouldn't the person who is sick of the same old government, have a single clue on what the government does that she is sick of? It's nothing but slogans. When faced with actually explaining what she means by her slogan, the interviewer is biased.
@felya420 Um..... this is going to shock you... the first amendment doesn't say "seperation of church and state" and the current interpretation of those words as coined by Jefferson, have been reversed from their original meaning.
@BriansVideoHobby "separation of church and state" means the same thing as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". As shocking as you may find it, I am not an idiot, so someone telling me that the exact phrase is not in the constitution, does not fool me into ignoring that the actual meaning is. Who cares if the exact phrase is not in it, when the meaning is?
@BriansVideoHobby you can not seriously ignore the fact that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" has the same meaning as "separation of church and state". Jefferson's 'Wall' latter actually explains it to the Baptist counsel, which is when he uses that phrase. You can read said letter right now. How disingenuous can you possibly be when you claim the semantics of the phrase was your point, not the meaning?
He used "separation of Church and State" to describe the 1st amendment to a group of religious minorities to assure them that under the federal law, they would be protected.
We know this. And yet people would rather argue on THAT?
@xPooogle515 No, Jefferson didn't write the constitution. Many men wrote the constitution. James Madison was considered the "father of the constitution". However, in that letter, he was explaining that the government would not interfere in religion, NOT that religion had no right to participate in the government.
@BriansVideoHobby oh morons how they make the world spin haha....im glad thier are people on this planet like you or else it would be dreadfully boring for the rest of us.
I know there was a committee in charge of drafting the Constitution; I reminded you of his involvement because you implied that Jefferson's words had been misconstrued since then. Are you forgetting the Supreme Court also brought back the phrase "Sep. of Church and State"? Last time I checked, their main "job", per se, was to interpret the Constitution, and that is the decision they made.
How are you going to second guess the Judicial Branch on that?
@xPooogle515 Yes. I disagree with the liberal and faulty interpretation. They used Jefferson's phrase to reverse HIS meaning when he said it. I think they were also wrong to uphold slavery. Maybe they'll fix this bad decision like they did slavery.
How exactly did they "reverse" Jefferson's meaning? They aren't taking what he said and doing the opposite. The beauty of the judicial branch lies in its Review. This also pertains to slavery. It's why our country doesn't remain submersed the the bigoted laws of the old country, it's why our society can be flexible enough to call ourselves the Free World. They review and, if necessary, re-interpret laws to keep our country's values. How can you be against that?
@xPooogle515 I can be against that because they undermine our constitutional rights by "reinterpreting" the meaning to meet their own ideology. If the meaning of the constitution is to change, it's done through amendments, not "reinterpreting". Up until they skewed Jefferson's phrase, it was correctly accepted that Government couldn't establish or interfere with religion. Now that they have "reinterpreted", religion is banned from even discussing politics or be punished with taxes.
Buddy, the Constitution ESTABLISHES the Judicial Review. The Supreme Court isn't undermining the Constitution, they're exercising the rights spelled out for them BY it. The idea that times change and with it, so must America was almost prophetical, and the father(s) of the Constitution planned for it accordingly.
And we would never get anything done politically in this country is every time a court case went through SC we had to make a new amendment. Know what I mean?
@xPooogle515 Your statement "times change and with it, so must America" is exactly what is supposed to happen through amendments. Our rights are fundamental, granted by our creator, and can not be encroached without amendment. It’s DESIGNED to be very difficult. For example, the supreme court stripped the unborn the right to life when clearly this should have been handled by amendment. NO ONE truly believes a baby 1 minute from live birth isn’t a human with rights.
No one is changing the meaning of these amendments, only putting them into context. The amendment process is too long, and the court system is an effective way at that.
And surely you don't believe babies are being aborted that close to birth! There is a period of time in which you must be in order to abort a fetus, and it's well before the fetus has any amount of brain activity. We're not killing infants in their seventh and eighth months of development! Really now.
@xPooogle515 "Putting them into context" means reinterpreting them to mean something that was not originally intended. The amendment procedure is supposed to be hard. Changes in the constitution have an impact on your most basic rights and should be guarded with a passion.
You aren't up on your abortion. Within limits, that are easily and often circumvented, a baby can be aborted up until birth. Tiller, the abortionist who was killed, was doing 400+ late term abortions a year.
MOST Abortionists refuse to perform surgery past that point. Maybe you're thinking of still birth in that sense, and the methods of dealing with that.
Putting things into context does not rewrite definitions. I think you're blinded, friend. You see what you want to see. No one is changing our rights. Judicial Review is designed to further describe, and apply to certain situations, in order to clarify what exactly our rights are. The Constitution gives this power.
@xPooogle515 Last year there were over 1300 reported late term abortions. It's not required to report these in any fashion so the vast majority go unreported. When the Supreme Court put the lives of these fully developed babies "into context" they stripped tem of ALL of their rights with no precedent or constitutional basis upon which to rely. It was an ideological decision that would have never passed through the proper process.
I can almost guarantee that the VAST majority of babies are aborted before late development stages, actually. The surgery itself would be far too difficult (and costly!) to do with a nearly-fully-grown fetus. The whole point of having an abortion is not having to deal with the trouble of pregnancy and post-care. What woman is waiting until the last few months to get one?
Not many, I imagine.
So if this was made an amendment, you wouldn't be complaining? I don't think so.
@xPooogle515 Well of course the majority are the birth control convenience type of abortions. That doesn't mean it's OK to kill thousands in their final weeks. The cost is usually about 3 to 5 thousand. It's not difficult. You reach in with needle nose pliers and rip limbs off until it's in pieces, then suck it out with a vacuum. Or you can induce contractions, wait for it to crown, and jam scissors in. Then you suck the brain out, grab it's head with pinchers and pull. Thanks supreme court.
This is the last time I'm going to tell you. The VAST MAJORITY of abortions are done in the first 12 weeks. Some are done in the first 12-21, and a very few number are done at or around 21 weeks, well before any type of brain activity has even surfaced. NO ONE is aborting fully-grown fetuses.And ripping off limbs? I don't know where you're getting your information, but none of that is happening either.
@xPooogle515 You need to do your research. Just type partial birth abortion or late term abortion in youtube or google. Until you become aware of what is happening and how they are doing it, you aren't going to listen to reason.
And how dare you associate every woman in an abortion case with "birth control-type convenience". What about women whose lives are threatened? Women who have been raped? Women who are unable to take of the child, or couldn't give it any opportunites? 13 and 14 year olds whose possibilities for successful lives would be RUINED with their pregnancy?
You can't deny THEIR rights either. This is NOT a black and white issue, so don't argue it like one.
@xPooogle515 The VAST majority in every poll ever taken were abortions of convenience. There are ZERO late term abortions to save the life of the woman as a cesarean is much safer. The number of women overall who receive abortions for rape, incest, or health is tiny. Lives aren't ruined from having a baby. There are options. Lives are ended by abortion.
Are you even listening? There are NO late term abortions being done on any scale. NONE. We are not killing infants. This happens well beyond any brain activity, well beyond they become HUMAN in that regard, and can FEEL anything. When you drop out to raise that child as a high school or college, your future is destined to be riddled with debt, poverty, and social understatement. Not all women are in it for "oh I got pregnant, oops, let's take care of that". How dare you.
@xPooogle515 There are THOUSANDS of late term abortions every year. We don't know when the baby begins to feel pain but it DEFINITELY does in the third trimester during late-term abortions. You can choose adoption and save a family from spending 30-50 thousand for one from China or Russia. Hey, give them a half price deal and you have a nice college fund. The reasons of too young, life or health of the mother, incest, and rape add up to 14% of all abortions. Guess what the other 86% are.
We don't KNOW? We don't KNOW when the baby has enough brain activity to feel pain. Uh, yeah we do buddy. The first 21 weeks. A baby cannot survive if born at 21 weeks (that would be a miscarriage), so it is not yet a fully functional infant. And adoption is expensive everywhere, not just in China or Russia. You're fucking sick in the head. And WOW, 10,000 is a big number, right, guys lololol? Not when we're talking about 6 billion people on the planet. Hellooo?
Oh,please,you don't have any economic or financial background and still you wanna talk about the tax policy ,social welfare and how the government invest the fund to rate of return to cover the discount rate or net exporting related to the flowing rate currency..........please remember that voting sometimes requires a little extra researching & studying.
@xPooogle515 "We have some experience with late terminations: about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years." - George R. Tiller at the National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting. That was ONE doctor.
@BriansVideoHobby can you please also tell us what happened to Mr Tiller? You know, the part about where an anti-abortion terrorist went into a church and opened fire? As I keep saying, abortions and the number of women who die during birth or as the result of birth have gone down from 40% to tiny 11 in 1000 type of numbers sense the 1900. The significance is that social programs that people like Christine O'Donnell oppose is what lead to a huge decrease. Not removing rights or murdering people!
@felya420 The decline has NOTHING to do with abortions. It's called caesarean sections. No doctor, under any circumstances, would perform a late term abortion to save a woman’s life. They ALWAYS choose caesarean section. It appears someone tired of Tiller’s personal holocaust against babies and put a stop to it. The next doctor who thinks running a late term abortion mill to get rich is going to think long and hard.
@BriansVideoHobby Why did cesarean all of a sudden have an impact 100 years ago? You do know that cesarean is mentioned in the old testament and references to cesarean birth predate Jesus by over 300 years. Have you never read Macbeth? Spoiler alert, but that's the twist to the prediction of him being killed; 'macduff was from his mothers womb untimely ripped', which means Macduff was a cesarean, thus Macbeth's killer. The mother dies. I'm referring to FDR's New Deal, it was kinda a big deal...
@BriansVideoHobby if you give people ways t take care of the child or support the mother once the child is born, I assure you the numbers would continue to decrease as they have through history. Instead, what you people want is to have the government dictate what a woman can do to her body and when you disagree with the results, you kill people. I am sorry, but I rather have social programs that have worked for a hundred years then killing people and having government tell women what they can do
@felya420 We didn't have social programs a hundred years ago. What we did have were families, friends, churches, communities, charities and local government. Federal welfare is the most destructive and wasteful way to "care" for anyone. I wouldn't wish that self-esteem sapping, motivation crushing, good for nothing producing socialist program on anyone.
Anyone else feel the awkwardness in the room when no one is able to clap?
MrAnimated 5 months ago
MRBromley is a hateful bigot, the likes of Georgie Wallace and Archie Bunker.
PixieCotton 6 months ago
Bromley and quig are judgemental haters
PixieCotton 6 months ago
I find her to be truly frightening. If THIS is the best the republicans can offer, it's a sad state of affairs for republicans. Remember, this is a woman who says masterbating is a sin, and that gay people can be changed and become straight. She's obviously a radical, hateful evangelical Christian, who certainly does not, and should not, represent the values of the vast majority of Americans. That is why, even when man repubs won that year, she failed in a landslide.
mlc2005 7 months ago
coons is too little rude to this worthless candidate, morosn shouldnt aloud to be reprensenativs
hansson2000 11 months ago
You can clearly tell that unlike O’Donnell, Coons has not bathed in the warm, sticky and coppery smelling blood of our lord and savior Jesus Christ
quig66 11 months ago
@quig66 Jesus was a mollusc? I always figured he was a human with iron blood. :P
Maybe iron makes crappy wine. ;)
urantivirus 7 months ago
This woman is the most charismatic political figure in decades!
jstc2002 1 year ago
Coons is being a little rude.
tommyrc1990 1 year ago 2
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HOW'S THAT SENATE SEAT FEEL CHRISTINE?
usedforspam37 1 year ago
Christine went full retard......Never go full retard
MRBromley1 1 year ago 16
Comment removed
NiggazDeaD40 1 year ago
@mkatsnel23 i haven't read or responded to a thing you said. who are you again?
make some sense, kid.
angelrod75 1 year ago
@mkatsnel23 oh and just to be clear. When I say read up, I am not telling you to go to some news organization or opinion piece. Go directly to her site, because finally her site has been updated with more then a donation link and you can read what she thinks her constituents want. You can actually read it and know what she wants to do, so you no longer have to rely on you sensing ability and can actually read it. lol
felya420 1 year ago
@mkatsnel23 but, the opinion of what they her constituents want are described by her.To simply say she will do what constituents want, is meaningless as every politician claims that. I assure you, you will not find a single politician that claims to do what their constituents don't want. You can actually read her opinion on what they want. That includes teaching not religion, but Christianity in schools. She is under the opinion that states have the right to ignore the bill of rights. Read up!
felya420 1 year ago
@mkatsnel23 the fact that people abuse a word, does not change it's meaning. To claim someone is "poisoned with ideology" is crazy.
felya420 1 year ago
I cant believe someone with a law degree from Yale even has to lower himself to a debate with this walking, talking boob.
el100783 1 year ago
Coons is obviously the more qualified liberal candidate who likely would continue Obama and current Democratic policies and direction. O'Donnell is obviously the more qualified conservative candidate who would likely maintain across the board tax cuts and favor conservative agendas. Vote O'Donnell, Delaware! It can't get anyworse with O'Donnell as your senator. Coons is just another smooth talking candidate. He contradicted his liberal record during the debate.
addart32763 1 year ago
@addart32763 what makes her qualified? Her running for office twice and failing? The fact that she wants to teach religion, well Christianity to be specific, in schools? The fact that when talking about separation of church and state, the meaning of it is not as important as the semantics of the wording? The fact that she believes the states have a right to deny individual's, as states do not have to abide by the constitution and the bill of rights? What makes her qualified?
felya420 1 year ago
when i see christine o'donnell all i can think about is sex
pulpnonfiction13 1 year ago
It's painfully obvious that the moderators favor one of these candidates over the other. I wish America would provide a real honest-to-goodness debate instead of these charades every four years.
wilmoer 1 year ago
@wilmoer every two years, not four... but yes, favoritism... They should have asked her more about her religion, she might have more to say then politics... lol
felya420 1 year ago
@MooseOfReason does she toss your salad? does she swallow? the way you spew in defense of this witch, one would think you're getting some. is she any good? does she douche? shaved or hairy? or is she like your momma?
csc2048b 1 year ago
this lady is just aching to be taken from behind. maybe she'll shut up after some hefty doggie-style pounding. i'm just afraid she'd cast a wicked spell on and my pecker would rot and fall off in three days.
csc2048b 1 year ago
OH... A PAC IS A POLITICAL ACTION COMITTEE.
angelrod75 1 year ago
Comments below me are too long, so...im not gonna read them :D
rrcczz 1 year ago
Chris Coons 2010!
Bryanchannel1 1 year ago
If O'Donnell is wrong about the First amendment and the separation of church and state, then progressives are wrong about the General Welfare clause. Read the Federalist Papers. Madison said that was confined to the enumerated powers.
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
@MooseOfReason the constitution as originated is not as it is today. there have been many amendments. welfare needs are not the same now as it was then
angelrod75 1 year ago
@angelrod75 Couldn't you say, then, that the First Amendment no longer requires a separation of church and state?
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
@MooseOfReason Many Christians here are as fanatical as Extreme Muslims are in the middle East. Would you truly want lesser minds like O'Donnell, Palin, Angle, ..Oh my god, BACHMANN...! to actually make this country a truly Right wing nation? the answer is a clear NO. They would burn books,and then burn witches. ( Christine O'D excluded. ) and take us to another crusade. No, I like my crazies in the loony bin. these idiots, ( Of course Beck included. ) should just go away
angelrod75 1 year ago
@angelrod75 I wouldn't vote for any of them to be President, and I haven't donated to any of their Senate campaigns. But I think Angle and O'Donnell would be an improvement in the Senate. Why do you think they would burn books?
Republicans would take us on another crusade? How many Senate Democrats vote for war-spending bills? Damn near all of them, and they keep getting elected. There's an anti-war Republican running against Pelosi. Who's gonna win there? I can only guess.
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
@MooseOfReason angle and o'd are ignorant and inept. they have no plans . they just repeat the spoon fed pablum...cut spending reign in whatever, this and that.
no plans no examples, no thought through process. these idiots are not people with leadership qualities AT ALL. You will never find buffoons like these in the private sector in management roles. odonnell cant even manage her own financials... and you would have her manage millions? its woefully unintelligent to state the comment you did
angelrod75 1 year ago
@angelrod75 What is Chris Coons plan to eliminate the deficit then, if cutting spending and other "pablum" like that is apparently off the table?
O'Donnell took some time to pay off her student loans. Is that what you're talking about by "can't manage her own finances"?
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
@MooseOfReason you know something? the deficit that the prior administration started, will not be eliminated. Anyone that tells you that is full of it, You should know this. So that is pablum, and it is what it is, soundbytes.
" O'Donnell took some time to pay off her student loans. Is that what you're talking about by "can't manage her own finances"? "
YES. because its not the student loans, it's everything, the hypocrisy and banter,the sheer lack of poise and knowledge.
angelrod75 1 year ago
@angelrod75 She paid off her debt. To me, that sounds like someone who knows how to manage their finances.
You said the deficit won't be eliminated. That means we'll continue to spend an ever increasing amount of money, so the deficit will get larger too. You're saying Chris Coons won't even reduce the deficit? Some day China won't want to lend us any more money.
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
@MooseOfReason SHE PAID HER DEBT WITH CONTRIBUTIONS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO GO TO HER PAC. AND ANYONE CAN TELL YOU THAT DEBT IS MADE NOT TO BE ELIMINATED. DONT YOU KNOW THAT?
BUT THAT LITTLE GIRL IS JUST THAT A WANNABE THAT JUST WANTS AN EASY RIDE. SHE IS INTELLECUALLY LAZY AND INEPT. SHE KEEPS GETTING IN THESE ARGUMENTS THAT SHE HASNT THE SMARTS TO READ.
angelrod75 1 year ago
@MooseOfReason or do you think that C.O'D will reduce the deficit?!?!
tell me you aren't serious.
angelrod75 1 year ago
@angelrod75 Tell me one federal department that Chris Coons would downsize or eliminate?
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
@MooseOfReason Kid. just cause CO'D is saying she would downsize or eliminate
something, ANYTHING does not mean she could or actually would. She lacks - obviously- the presence of mind to navigate the intricities of washington, or even delaware high office. Show some reason, kid. If youre voting for her because you are a wingnut rep. then fine. but dont come as a reasonable person and defend this ignoramus, because it's a disservice to that cause...it's an oxymoron. You understand that?
angelrod75 1 year ago
@angelrod75 Do you think all people in congress or senate are intelligent?
Mr.Koons seemed arrogant according to this debate. Do you want to add him to the socialistic chorus that we have now? We need a diversity. I used to lived in one party rule in USSR and know what it may bring.
akatsmusic 1 year ago
@akatsmusic
" @angelrod75 Do you think all people in congress or senate are intelligent? "
That's your excuse for voting this moron, in? That many in congress are not smart? That sentiment is really ignorant.
I would much rather have an intelligent person that's a bit arrogant - which Coons was not- than someone that stupid.
angelrod75 1 year ago
@angelrod75 What can I say?
Vote for this socialistic and cynic moron who learned how to speak well and not much more. In the end we'll get what we deserve: Elites rule the country and the rest are morons who have no convolutions in their brains (-: best regards.
akatsmusic 1 year ago
@akatsmusic You made no sense at all.
angelrod75 1 year ago
@angelrod75
Of course. I make no sense to you. I have different background and saw what will be at the end. I am just saying that the guy is infected with ideology that will bring this country to the socialistic state. In this condition all people will be poor and we may have the Greece situation. I hope this country will not loose its sanity.
akatsmusic 1 year ago
@akatsmusic ah, the socialism soundbyte. Look the kid's going to lose because she knows nothing. It was her race to lose and she did. Not leadership quality here.
As a productivity consultant, I can ASSURE YOU, this child has no common sense.
She is a child that wants to win a tiara. I would expect more from a grown man such as yourself, than to imbibe such pablum.
angelrod75 1 year ago
@angelrod75
You sound like Mr. Koons (-:. Are you him? (-:. To be serious. I don't know Ms. O'Donnell and admit she sounds much worse than Mr. Koons. However, she is more believable to me than him just because she can show her silliness and inexperience in this debate. I hope if she gets elected she'll be honest for 1 term at least . Then will see. As to her leadership quality: she is not running for a majority leader or president (-:. So, she'll be junior senator like Al Franken (-:.
akatsmusic 1 year ago
@akatsmusic yeah, she will only be a senator and be able to vote on issues that effect every single person in this country. But, yes, she is only a senator.....
felya420 1 year ago
@akatsmusic IF SHE SEEMS MORE BELIEVABLE THAN COONS, THEN YOU HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS THAT NO CANDIDATE HAS POWER TO HELP YOU WITH. And, please, you are admitting you are voting for someone with NO LEADERSHIP QUALITIES? WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU?
The honesty issue: let's see, she has INSIDE INFORMATION OF A CHINESE TAKEOVER! Sir, please, you have no argument. Take your comments to someone less intelligent than I.
angelrod75 1 year ago
@angelrod75 -- I seem to remember another recent candidate who had NO leadership experience either. And yet he became our current President.
Your argument about lack of experience is invalid.
100guests100 1 year ago
@100guests100 is it? have you seen any obviously stupid comments from him, like:
" i never lie" ' i never masturbate, so nobody else should " " i have inside information that i wish i didn't have about China taking over the US " " I am NOT a witch " .... When " seeming to remember " remember these things, because my argument... my INVALID argument is not so much lack of experience, but lack of intellect.
angelrod75 1 year ago
@angelrod75 Yes it is If you want to argue experience and leadership. Experience, intellect, and leadership are very different qualities.
100guests100 1 year ago
@100guests100 yes, and which of experience, intellect, and leadership does O'Donnell posses? She has no leadership experience, as a marketing agent hardly leads. She lacks any experience in politics at all, down to having a degree in English and communication. Her intellect is also up for debate, as I personally have called people who believed in witches in high school... well morons... Same sentiment goes to those who would focus on semantics of separation of church and state over the meaning.
felya420 1 year ago
@felya420 Semantics is very important when argue points of law. Especially when it comes to the meaning of the constitution and it's amendments. And demeaning someone's religious beliefs is moronic in and of itself.
100guests100 1 year ago
@100guests100 Yes, the semantics of the meaning is important. But the semantics of the wording, her actual argument for her glib response, is not as important as the meaning.
Witches being idiots is part of my religion, so you claiming it's moronic is insulting my religion. It's a similar religion that got witches burned in Salem. lol
felya420 1 year ago
@felya420 Fair enough - I apologize for insulting your religion.
100guests100 1 year ago
@100guests100 i never said anything about experience, clearly, however, any experience she has is in other fields, is obviously - even painfully - worthless in the field she is currently pursuing. She has shown NO sustained sucsess in ANY endeavor at all... she is another worthless tea-party candidate that takes away from some worthwhile republican candidates.
angelrod75 1 year ago
@angelrod75 Did George Washington have political experience? Did Thomas Jefferson. I think in the current political environment "political experience" is the worst experience a candidate can have.
100guests100 1 year ago
@100guests100 ...Yeah, now you're just talking shit...
angelrod75 1 year ago
@100guests100 uhm... George Washington was a general who became a political leader during the Townshend Acts, prior to being president. Thomas Jefferson was a political philosopher who was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence before he became president. So... yes... they both had political experience.
felya420 1 year ago
@angelrod75 you forgot my favorite - " You're telling me the separation of church and state is in the first amendment?". Then Coons recites from the first amendment - "Government shall make no establishment of religion". OWNED. I guess she was too busy not masturbating to pay attention in high school.
moveincircles89 1 year ago
@moveincircles89 thats what happens when your brain is glogged with morals and ethics, there is no room for common sense
angelrod75 1 year ago
@100guests100 Obama finished law school and received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) from Harvard as magna cum laude. He served in state and US senate. Christine O'Donnell worked as a public relations and marketing consultant, while receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree is in English literature with a concentration in communications. As you can see, there is a huge difference between the inexperience of the two. To the point where even insinuating a similarity in experience is ludicrous.
felya420 1 year ago
Comment removed
100guests100 1 year ago
@felya420 You are correct - O'Donnell has much more real world experience than Obama. i have yet to hear about his private business experience. Please remember he won his state senate seat by getting his opponents disqualified for the ballot. After "winning" he then resigned his office when he "won" his U.S. senate seat after once again having no one on the ballot to oppose him. He then resigned that office. Obama has yet to complete a full term of political office. Experience indeed.
100guests100 1 year ago
@100guests100 as the most blatant lie, Obama served 3 full terms in Illinois senate. Second, he did get his opponents disqualified, because as someone who finished law school, he was aware that the signatures obtained for a nomination where submitted too late. Which really would not have mattered as he had 3 times the signature of the 4 people running against him. You are so ludicrous in the comparison, that you are making the argument that I am more qualified than she is to run for office
felya420 1 year ago
@felya420 You may be more qualified than O'Donnell. You may be more qualified than Obama as well. I have no idea about your experience so I cannot make that decision either way.
100guests100 1 year ago
@100guests100 no, it doesn't matter what you know about my experience. Her experience is so far away from her field, that the odds of me being anywhere farther away from from her, are just so minute that me being more qualified than her is a safe bet.
Also, all experience I have is "real world experience". As that to you seems to be enough, I can assure you, I have yet to travel to any fake world. lol
felya420 1 year ago
@felya420 Good - hopefully we will see you on a ballot sometime in the near future so we elect you with your extensive experience.
100guests100 1 year ago
@100guests100 yep, I'll run for president, as soon as people with law degrees start working as surgeons...
felya420 1 year ago
@akatsmusic "infected with ideology"... you sr are crazy!
felya420 1 year ago
@angelrod75 I asked a question about Coons and you start attacking O'Donnell. Apparently you think changing the subject is a winning argument strategy.
Coons' website lists tax proposals and some small budget items to cut. If you take them at face value, that's about $57 billion off the budget annually. Considering that the 2010 budget was $3.55 trillion, that would knock it down to $3.48 trillion.
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
@MooseOfReason Kid... SHE WOULD HAVE NO POWER TO DO A THING!
Someone will teach her the ropes, and she will do as she is told. Your budget nonsense is nothing but random numbers. The " surplus " that bush threw away ( actually, cheney ) is one thing you don't mention. this whole mess we're in was the repubs. ( you know this, I assume... you CAN READ. ) Neither of these people would have power do do A N Y T H I N G. There is a bigger agenda at play here.Grow up
angelrod75 1 year ago
@angelrod75 No, they aren't random numbers. Look at Obama's 2010 budget proposal. It's called "A New Era of Responsibility". Go through the "Summary Tables" section where it shows budget estimates. The budget estimate for 2011 is $3.625 trillion. Next, go to Coons' website and check his "fiscal responsibility" page, and add them up.
Apparently you think Bush and his big-spending buddies are still in charge. If you support Coons, stand up for him.
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
@MooseOfReason you just don't understand, do you? republicans did this, kid. REPUBLICANS. you were a child when bush took office, but its not ancient history.
You don't understand, and you are just the perfect mark for losers like CO'D.
Vote for her, it won't stem the tide.
angelrod75 1 year ago
@angelrod75 Can't wait to see your campaign ads.
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
@MooseOfReason youre a kid... you can wait. by then, hopefully you'll have gone for your GED.
angelrod75 1 year ago
@MooseOfReason kid, these people have no power to do anything about a thing.
all this " deficit " that actually republicans, got us into, even when they inherited no wars and a $urplus, It was them who created this crap. But you ... in YOUR WISDOM
want them back? Specifically CO'D?? it's funny, cause it's so sad. Thank god she hasnt a shot.
angelrod75 1 year ago
@MooseOfReason tell me a single federal department that an individual senator has the power to eliminate. It's like the idiocy of repealing "Obamacare". I am sorry, but "Obamacare" can not be repealed unless Obama signs off on the repeal. Majority house or senate or majority in both can not do it. So, every single candidate that is running on the platform of repealing "Obamacare" is lying to you! But, as long as they agree with you, I see no reason not to vote for a liar. lol
felya420 1 year ago
@MooseOfReason she payed off her debt thanks to the donations from people to her campaign. So yes, if people just gave money to the government, instead of requiring taxes, the debt would be payed off mighty quick. But, people don't want to pay taxes, but want the debt gone and you are using someone who used donations to pay her debt as an example of what we should do about the deficit. Do you bother to think?
felya420 1 year ago
After seeing all this "bad press and opinions" on Ms. O'Donnell, I was expecting to see her unintelligable and idiotic, but of course, she's brilliant! She doesn't get too over the top w/ talking points..just clear and concise.
btw, how disappointing to see Wolf Blitzer moderate..yikes!
sps242 1 year ago
fixednews, lol, ain't it the truth.
TeslaDRay 1 year ago
Lack of Constitutional comprehension does not equate ACTUAL meaning differentiation. Republicans, you need to let this ridiculous notion of the founding fathers wanting church and state mingling go. It's old, it's boring, it's demeaning. You can read quotes from Jefferson, Madison, jesus just read the Treaty of Tripoli for cring out loud. It's clear. The concept AND words are there. Jefferson quoted, "wall of seperation between church and state", yet it's hardly relevant vs. the entire picture.
superduperjew 1 year ago 2
Chuch state seperation is applied, therefore it stands.
superduperjew 1 year ago
Seems Coons is from the party of NO...
PADRAEG 1 year ago
I pay taxes punk. I don't have a church either. I'm ten years out of high school grammer and punctuation are not my strength. none of that takes from my points which you refuse to address. you are weak!
frogman92981 1 year ago
Wow.
SongbirdLullaby 1 year ago
Does she even know what she's saying?
TheMEGYBEAR 1 year ago
Christine O'donnell is a threat to our establishment. What a f'ing moron. Americans, lets all masturbate the day she looses together as a nation. Her demise from public service should serve as America's national masturbation day.
TheMEGYBEAR 1 year ago
She is going to loose big time.
TimDisagree 1 year ago 4
We are in debt but lets cut taxes.....This plan is pure genius.
dirtydeedsdone 1 year ago
She is Sarah Palin after taking an English course.
Blacksoljah 1 year ago
Let's face it, she is the GREATEST thing to happen for the Democrats this election!! She may get a few "looney tunes" to vote for her in Delaware, but, she has single-handedly driven MORE votes to the Democrats nation wide simply because she Is a PERFECT example of what the Republicans want Washington,D.C. To look like......idiot drones who will rubber stamp ANY "party line propaganda" that comes down the pike!! She's a treasure!!!
SeattleRexx 1 year ago
science fly's us to the moon. religion fly's us into buildings. religion is crux this country does not need
myco578 1 year ago
lol @ the comment warriors. they actually think their opinion matters on the comment section of this video
kenny10100 1 year ago
@kenny10100 it's not a matter of... well.. matter... More of the fact that some people like to argue. I personally like to argue with tea party members. It's the same as watching Jerry Springer... It leaves me with that, better than them feeling... :)
felya420 1 year ago
@felya420 do you understand that respecting religion in this case is used for or synonymous with regarding. Congress shall make no law concerning regarding respecting religion. You can look at even a modern dictionary (as opposed to one in the 1770s language as changed over time but the meaning of the constitution has not) and it will give you this definition. I listed two books for you to start with. Those two are exhaustive. Also I mentioned youtubing Thomas Sowell, Have you tried that?
frogman92981 1 year ago
@felya420 yes it is! it is less than half of our existence. 51% Is still a majority. 1862-1872 which was only a tax on income after legal prosecution. 10yrs.
1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution. 11yrs then 1913-2010 97+11=108 yrs less than half our existence. i don't know why i keep entertaining this but i am hopeful that you will
frogman92981 1 year ago
@frogman92981 learn something
frogman92981 1 year ago
@felya420 No it does not!!! I am not arguing semantics CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW!!!! means congress cannot make laws that have anything to do with religion. it cannot prohibit me from praying in schools. which courts have ruled illegal. courts do not make laws or "legislate from the bench" remember the sotomayor controversy. The first amendment does not mean that the states cannot make even a state religion if they so choose like there was when the nation was formed.
frogman92981 1 year ago
@frogman92981 When your Church pays taxes then we can talk.
Cryptopsy666 1 year ago
@Cryptopsy666 LOL I didn't capitalize it Jefferson did!
frogman92981 1 year ago
@felya420 The Founders in hundreds of instances proclaimed and acknowledged God. The Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator . . ." The last sentence of the Declaration states, "And for the support of the declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, Again a very clear reference to God and the expectation of protection for the new country from the Divine.
frogman92981 1 year ago
@frogman92981 Humans create human so humans are "the creator" (Can't believe you capitalized creator...) correct? Or is that to.... blatant.
Cryptopsy666 1 year ago
@felya420 Look at the federalist and anti federalists papers. our marxist schools have attempted to erase history. communist manifesto you should read it. 1 Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
10. Free education for all children in government schools.
frogman92981 1 year ago
the america you knew and grew up with, Christine, is the America that has fucked future generations in the ass with a hot iron rod. The only thing this woman has to say is "stop spending money, but yeah well we should probably spend on the military and security" the places where the most money is squandered needlessly. Millitary and security are two of the biggest special interests negativley influencing US policy.
NWOIsANoGo 1 year ago
She is talking about the REAL Constitution not the Constitution as reconstructed by liberal marxists.
statewithinastateuk 1 year ago
@statewithinastateuk You mean like Osama is talking about the real Koran, not the Koran as reconstructed by moderates?
Pseudologic 1 year ago
@Pseudologic Obama and the 'moderates' are on the same page as regards to reconstructing the Koran. Y'know, the religion of pieces.
statewithinastateuk 1 year ago
@statewithinastateuk
She doesn't know the AMENDMENTS in the "real" Constitution, so what are you going to do?
xPooogle515 1 year ago
She's way out of her league.
loonmaniac 1 year ago
She's way out there ...
tuoniz 1 year ago
To say the least ... Christine O'Donnell is smarter than Sarah Palin ...
But she is still full of ... CONFEDERATE RIGHTWING PROPAGANDA ... NONFACTUAL INFORMATION ...
daWiiZarD 1 year ago
Could you see her without that paper in front of her she would be so lost
musclegenii 1 year ago
hey she's a little brighter than Palin and that ain't saying much,Coons win easy, way more Qualified he just more informed and know what's up and that's what it's Really about,i would let her sell Girl scout cookies though she would be good at Raising money for the church or Something like that she's likable but not enough to elect.
musclegenii 1 year ago
This chick is now questioning the constitution so they can teach her religion in schools. Good job, voters. If you want a pretty girl, why dont you just look up pictures on the internet? You dont have to fucking vote for one....
grendelee 1 year ago
Wow.
I've never been to Delaware in my life, so I honestly don't know. But seriously . . .
Are these the three smartest people they have?
trentgerman 1 year ago
I mean honestly, how dumb do you have to be when, at the end of a debate, the anti-masturbation Jesus-witch has made you look like an idiot?
Wow.
trentgerman 1 year ago
@trentgerman pretty much
westmiltogradia 1 year ago
Why wasn't Wolf Blitzer sitting next to Chris Coons? I would have expected them to be giving each other back massages or something. I mean, it appears they're lovers or at least intimately involved on some level. Wolf did horrible job at moderating this "debate". He GRILLED O'donnell and PLACATED Coons. How is that "moderating"?? It was more appalling than anything I've ever seen Blitzer do. And for the record, I'm no huge fan of O'donnell. But she should have been given FAIR treatment.
daisy8luke 1 year ago
she looks a lot like elaine benes
detahdomo 1 year ago
@detahdomo elaine is hotter lol
musclegenii 1 year ago
"First I would like to say thank you for being here. I believe that the Constitution was written by God so that American's can worship Jesus. With Jesus all things are possible. My opponent is the anti-christ. Please vote O'Donnell for President of the World under Jesus and I promise that all the bread you cook will have a nice crust. The moon landing was made in Hollywood, Red Dawn is a real historical documentary and the Holocaust never happened. Thank you. And Praise President Jesus."
salgod 1 year ago
@photolitherland Sooooo... you don't see how partisan the moderators are? Did you even watch the videos?
BriansVideoHobby 1 year ago
@BriansVideoHobby no, I do not think the moderators are partisan. When you are asked what ruling by the supreme court you opose, the fact that you can not answer is not the fault of the moderator. I am not running for senate and I can list a few. For example, just a few month ago the supreme court lifted any limitations on financial contributions from corporations to political candidates. I oppose lobbying and oppose uncapping lobbying all together. Why couldn't she say something like that?
felya420 1 year ago
@felya420 They asked her multiple personal question, interrupted her numerous times, cut her off, and debated her answers. They did NONE of this with Coons. It was like she was debating 3 people. I love your example because that is the ONLY one Coons could come up with, after they had just discussed it, even after being asked to name another! Why haven't you pointed out that he couldn't either? I don’t need a perfect person, just one that believes in the constitution.
BriansVideoHobby 1 year ago
@BriansVideoHobby \she does not even know the first amendment. What sort of constitution does she believe in, when the contents of the very first amendment is a mystery to her? Shouldn't a person who knows the constitution know the first amendment? Shouldn't the person who is sick of the same old government, have a single clue on what the government does that she is sick of? It's nothing but slogans. When faced with actually explaining what she means by her slogan, the interviewer is biased.
felya420 1 year ago
@felya420 Um..... this is going to shock you... the first amendment doesn't say "seperation of church and state" and the current interpretation of those words as coined by Jefferson, have been reversed from their original meaning.
BriansVideoHobby 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BriansVideoHobby "separation of church and state" means the same thing as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". As shocking as you may find it, I am not an idiot, so someone telling me that the exact phrase is not in the constitution, does not fool me into ignoring that the actual meaning is. Who cares if the exact phrase is not in it, when the meaning is?
felya420 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BriansVideoHobby you can not seriously ignore the fact that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" has the same meaning as "separation of church and state". Jefferson's 'Wall' latter actually explains it to the Baptist counsel, which is when he uses that phrase. You can read said letter right now. How disingenuous can you possibly be when you claim the semantics of the phrase was your point, not the meaning?
felya420 1 year ago
@BriansVideoHobby
Jefferson wrote the Constitution, FYI.
He used "separation of Church and State" to describe the 1st amendment to a group of religious minorities to assure them that under the federal law, they would be protected.
We know this. And yet people would rather argue on THAT?
xPooogle515 1 year ago
@xPooogle515 No, Jefferson didn't write the constitution. Many men wrote the constitution. James Madison was considered the "father of the constitution". However, in that letter, he was explaining that the government would not interfere in religion, NOT that religion had no right to participate in the government.
BriansVideoHobby 1 year ago
@BriansVideoHobby oh morons how they make the world spin haha....im glad thier are people on this planet like you or else it would be dreadfully boring for the rest of us.
ThePWNZORorNOOBZOR 1 year ago
@ThePWNZORorNOOBZOR Ah, the typical liberal. When you can't argue a point, slander your opponent. I stand by what I said and I am correct.
BriansVideoHobby 1 year ago
@BriansVideoHobby
I know there was a committee in charge of drafting the Constitution; I reminded you of his involvement because you implied that Jefferson's words had been misconstrued since then. Are you forgetting the Supreme Court also brought back the phrase "Sep. of Church and State"? Last time I checked, their main "job", per se, was to interpret the Constitution, and that is the decision they made.
How are you going to second guess the Judicial Branch on that?
xPooogle515 1 year ago
@xPooogle515 Yes. I disagree with the liberal and faulty interpretation. They used Jefferson's phrase to reverse HIS meaning when he said it. I think they were also wrong to uphold slavery. Maybe they'll fix this bad decision like they did slavery.
BriansVideoHobby 1 year ago
@BriansVideoHobby
How exactly did they "reverse" Jefferson's meaning? They aren't taking what he said and doing the opposite. The beauty of the judicial branch lies in its Review. This also pertains to slavery. It's why our country doesn't remain submersed the the bigoted laws of the old country, it's why our society can be flexible enough to call ourselves the Free World. They review and, if necessary, re-interpret laws to keep our country's values. How can you be against that?
xPooogle515 1 year ago
@xPooogle515 I can be against that because they undermine our constitutional rights by "reinterpreting" the meaning to meet their own ideology. If the meaning of the constitution is to change, it's done through amendments, not "reinterpreting". Up until they skewed Jefferson's phrase, it was correctly accepted that Government couldn't establish or interfere with religion. Now that they have "reinterpreted", religion is banned from even discussing politics or be punished with taxes.
BriansVideoHobby 1 year ago
@BriansVideoHobby
Buddy, the Constitution ESTABLISHES the Judicial Review. The Supreme Court isn't undermining the Constitution, they're exercising the rights spelled out for them BY it. The idea that times change and with it, so must America was almost prophetical, and the father(s) of the Constitution planned for it accordingly.
And we would never get anything done politically in this country is every time a court case went through SC we had to make a new amendment. Know what I mean?
xPooogle515 1 year ago
@xPooogle515 Your statement "times change and with it, so must America" is exactly what is supposed to happen through amendments. Our rights are fundamental, granted by our creator, and can not be encroached without amendment. It’s DESIGNED to be very difficult. For example, the supreme court stripped the unborn the right to life when clearly this should have been handled by amendment. NO ONE truly believes a baby 1 minute from live birth isn’t a human with rights.
BriansVideoHobby 1 year ago
@BriansVideoHobby
No one is changing the meaning of these amendments, only putting them into context. The amendment process is too long, and the court system is an effective way at that.
And surely you don't believe babies are being aborted that close to birth! There is a period of time in which you must be in order to abort a fetus, and it's well before the fetus has any amount of brain activity. We're not killing infants in their seventh and eighth months of development! Really now.
xPooogle515 1 year ago
@xPooogle515 "Putting them into context" means reinterpreting them to mean something that was not originally intended. The amendment procedure is supposed to be hard. Changes in the constitution have an impact on your most basic rights and should be guarded with a passion.
You aren't up on your abortion. Within limits, that are easily and often circumvented, a baby can be aborted up until birth. Tiller, the abortionist who was killed, was doing 400+ late term abortions a year.
BriansVideoHobby 1 year ago
@BriansVideoHobby
MOST Abortionists refuse to perform surgery past that point. Maybe you're thinking of still birth in that sense, and the methods of dealing with that.
Putting things into context does not rewrite definitions. I think you're blinded, friend. You see what you want to see. No one is changing our rights. Judicial Review is designed to further describe, and apply to certain situations, in order to clarify what exactly our rights are. The Constitution gives this power.
xPooogle515 1 year ago
@xPooogle515 Last year there were over 1300 reported late term abortions. It's not required to report these in any fashion so the vast majority go unreported. When the Supreme Court put the lives of these fully developed babies "into context" they stripped tem of ALL of their rights with no precedent or constitutional basis upon which to rely. It was an ideological decision that would have never passed through the proper process.
BriansVideoHobby 1 year ago
@BriansVideoHobby
I can almost guarantee that the VAST majority of babies are aborted before late development stages, actually. The surgery itself would be far too difficult (and costly!) to do with a nearly-fully-grown fetus. The whole point of having an abortion is not having to deal with the trouble of pregnancy and post-care. What woman is waiting until the last few months to get one?
Not many, I imagine.
So if this was made an amendment, you wouldn't be complaining? I don't think so.
xPooogle515 1 year ago
@xPooogle515 Well of course the majority are the birth control convenience type of abortions. That doesn't mean it's OK to kill thousands in their final weeks. The cost is usually about 3 to 5 thousand. It's not difficult. You reach in with needle nose pliers and rip limbs off until it's in pieces, then suck it out with a vacuum. Or you can induce contractions, wait for it to crown, and jam scissors in. Then you suck the brain out, grab it's head with pinchers and pull. Thanks supreme court.
BriansVideoHobby 1 year ago
@BriansVideoHobby
This is the last time I'm going to tell you. The VAST MAJORITY of abortions are done in the first 12 weeks. Some are done in the first 12-21, and a very few number are done at or around 21 weeks, well before any type of brain activity has even surfaced. NO ONE is aborting fully-grown fetuses.And ripping off limbs? I don't know where you're getting your information, but none of that is happening either.
xPooogle515 1 year ago
@xPooogle515 You need to do your research. Just type partial birth abortion or late term abortion in youtube or google. Until you become aware of what is happening and how they are doing it, you aren't going to listen to reason.
BriansVideoHobby 1 year ago
@BriansVideoHobby
And how dare you associate every woman in an abortion case with "birth control-type convenience". What about women whose lives are threatened? Women who have been raped? Women who are unable to take of the child, or couldn't give it any opportunites? 13 and 14 year olds whose possibilities for successful lives would be RUINED with their pregnancy?
You can't deny THEIR rights either. This is NOT a black and white issue, so don't argue it like one.
xPooogle515 1 year ago
@xPooogle515 The VAST majority in every poll ever taken were abortions of convenience. There are ZERO late term abortions to save the life of the woman as a cesarean is much safer. The number of women overall who receive abortions for rape, incest, or health is tiny. Lives aren't ruined from having a baby. There are options. Lives are ended by abortion.
BriansVideoHobby 1 year ago
@BriansVideoHobby
Are you even listening? There are NO late term abortions being done on any scale. NONE. We are not killing infants. This happens well beyond any brain activity, well beyond they become HUMAN in that regard, and can FEEL anything. When you drop out to raise that child as a high school or college, your future is destined to be riddled with debt, poverty, and social understatement. Not all women are in it for "oh I got pregnant, oops, let's take care of that". How dare you.
xPooogle515 1 year ago
@xPooogle515 There are THOUSANDS of late term abortions every year. We don't know when the baby begins to feel pain but it DEFINITELY does in the third trimester during late-term abortions. You can choose adoption and save a family from spending 30-50 thousand for one from China or Russia. Hey, give them a half price deal and you have a nice college fund. The reasons of too young, life or health of the mother, incest, and rape add up to 14% of all abortions. Guess what the other 86% are.
BriansVideoHobby 1 year ago
@BriansVideoHobby
We don't KNOW? We don't KNOW when the baby has enough brain activity to feel pain. Uh, yeah we do buddy. The first 21 weeks. A baby cannot survive if born at 21 weeks (that would be a miscarriage), so it is not yet a fully functional infant. And adoption is expensive everywhere, not just in China or Russia. You're fucking sick in the head. And WOW, 10,000 is a big number, right, guys lololol? Not when we're talking about 6 billion people on the planet. Hellooo?
xPooogle515 1 year ago
Oh,please,you don't have any economic or financial background and still you wanna talk about the tax policy ,social welfare and how the government invest the fund to rate of return to cover the discount rate or net exporting related to the flowing rate currency..........please remember that voting sometimes requires a little extra researching & studying.
MagicAg 1 year ago
@MagicAg
I don't remember talking about the tax policy.
You're right; I don't know anything about that; but I don't go starting arguments over things I know nothing about.
I was talking about abortion, not the tax policy. Are you sure you replied to the right person?
xPooogle515 1 year ago
@xPooogle515 "We have some experience with late terminations: about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years." - George R. Tiller at the National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting. That was ONE doctor.
BriansVideoHobby 1 year ago
@BriansVideoHobby can you please also tell us what happened to Mr Tiller? You know, the part about where an anti-abortion terrorist went into a church and opened fire? As I keep saying, abortions and the number of women who die during birth or as the result of birth have gone down from 40% to tiny 11 in 1000 type of numbers sense the 1900. The significance is that social programs that people like Christine O'Donnell oppose is what lead to a huge decrease. Not removing rights or murdering people!
felya420 1 year ago
@felya420 The decline has NOTHING to do with abortions. It's called caesarean sections. No doctor, under any circumstances, would perform a late term abortion to save a woman’s life. They ALWAYS choose caesarean section. It appears someone tired of Tiller’s personal holocaust against babies and put a stop to it. The next doctor who thinks running a late term abortion mill to get rich is going to think long and hard.
BriansVideoHobby 1 year ago
@BriansVideoHobby Why did cesarean all of a sudden have an impact 100 years ago? You do know that cesarean is mentioned in the old testament and references to cesarean birth predate Jesus by over 300 years. Have you never read Macbeth? Spoiler alert, but that's the twist to the prediction of him being killed; 'macduff was from his mothers womb untimely ripped', which means Macduff was a cesarean, thus Macbeth's killer. The mother dies. I'm referring to FDR's New Deal, it was kinda a big deal...
felya420 1 year ago
@BriansVideoHobby if you give people ways t take care of the child or support the mother once the child is born, I assure you the numbers would continue to decrease as they have through history. Instead, what you people want is to have the government dictate what a woman can do to her body and when you disagree with the results, you kill people. I am sorry, but I rather have social programs that have worked for a hundred years then killing people and having government tell women what they can do
felya420 1 year ago
@felya420 Maybe I would take you seriously if you knew that the past tense of 'pay' is 'paid' not 'payed'
gokidgo78 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gokidgo78 you don't have to take me seriously... I give you that permission... lol
felya420 1 year ago
@felya420 We didn't have social programs a hundred years ago. What we did have were families, friends, churches, communities, charities and local government. Federal welfare is the most destructive and wasteful way to "care" for anyone. I wouldn't wish that self-esteem sapping, motivation crushing, good for nothing producing socialist program on anyone.
BriansVideoHobby 1 year ago