DaVinci 0 #126 October 21, 2010 QuoteSo is it your contention that Christine O'Donnell is smarter and better qualified than Obama? No just poking fun at how some try to slam one person for making a mistake, but will defend to the death another person making a mistake based only on party lines. In this case.... O'Donnell was correct in text if not in intent... The US Constitution does not have the words "Separation of Church and State" anywhere in it. Her opponent was unable to name 4 of the 5 freedoms in the first. But even children know that the US only has 50 States. Obama flat out said "57 States". So in this case, O'Donnell was actually correct and Obama was wrong. Now rational people would just chock both cases up to a simple mistake... but some see to only want to dismiss one person's mistake and crucify the others based only on party affiliation. And I find that funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #127 October 21, 2010 >our government cannot establish a state church , however , churches >can and do influence the state. this is how the founders intended it ! A good book on this is "The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America" by Frank Lambert. He goes into great detail on what the Founding Fathers intended with respect to religion by delving into their writings, their speeches and even some earlier (discarded) versions of the Constitution. Highly recommended. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #128 October 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteSo is it your contention that Christine O'Donnell is smarter and better qualified than Obama? No just poking fun at how some try to slam one person for making a mistake, but will defend to the death another person making a mistake based only on party lines. In this case.... O'Donnell was correct in text if not in intent... The US Constitution does not have the words "Separation of Church and State" anywhere in it. Her opponent was unable to name 4 of the 5 freedoms in the first. But even children know that the US only has 50 States. Obama flat out said "57 States". So in this case, O'Donnell was actually correct and Obama was wrong. Now rational people would just chock both cases up to a simple mistake... but some see to only want to dismiss one person's mistake and crucify the others based only on party affiliation. And I find that funny. It really is quite easily explained. We all make dumb mis-steps; that's understood. When a smart person has a dumb mis-step, it's properly recognized as an aberration. When a twit has a dumb mis-step, it's presumed to be a representative sample. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #129 October 21, 2010 QuoteAnd how exactly did it help Christine O'Donnell's argument/debate to state that those exact words are not found in the constitution (if you truly believe that is what she meant)? Don't know..... I was not at the debate. Could have been along the lines of Reagan's, "There you go again" or more recently Alex Sinks, "We just can't trust anything from you". But the fact is Coons say's "one of those indispensable principals is the separation of Church and State" And she asked, "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and State?" Fact is it is not in the Constitution. It may have been the intent, but those words are not in there. She may have been forcing him to expand on his opinion and admit that it is not actually in the Constitution (in those words).... I don't know. But people disagree on the Constitution all the time... Hell, the 2nd says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", Jefferson is quoted saying he supports the right for people to have guns... Yet people claim that the right should be infringed. So knowing WHY people think the Constitution says what they think it says can tell you a lot about them. She may have been trying to trip him up.... Like I said I was not there... Hell she could have just slipped up and knew the exact text of the 1st. Lets not forget Coons could only name 1 of the 5 freedoms in the 1st.... So to claim he knows the first better than her is not exactly a slam dunk. Hey, I honestly think she is a twit... But I find it funny that people are so quick to jump on her, but just as quick to defend Obama for the 57 States comment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #130 October 21, 2010 QuoteIt really is quite easily explained. We all make dumb mis-steps; that's understood. When a smart person has a dumb mis-step, it's properly recognized as an aberration. When a twit has a dumb mis-step, it's presumed to be a representative sample. Amazing that all your "understanding" of the examples fall right down party lines. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #131 October 21, 2010 >Hey, I honestly think she is a twit... She may be a twit, but as she pointed out, she is definitely not a witch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #132 October 21, 2010 QuoteHey, I honestly think she is a twit... But I find it funny that people are so quick to jump on her, but just as quick to defend Obama for the 57 States comment. Exactly ... and here it is for those who missed it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrsBKGpwi58 Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #133 October 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteIt really is quite easily explained. We all make dumb mis-steps; that's understood. When a smart person has a dumb mis-step, it's properly recognized as an aberration. When a twit has a dumb mis-step, it's presumed to be a representative sample. Amazing that all your "understanding" of the examples fall right down party lines. No. I was speaking generically. When Alvin Greene says weird shit, people presume it's just par for the course. Just like back when then-VP Dan Quayle walked into a school classroom and - on camera! - told the class that "potato" should be spelled "potatoe" - people didn't chalk that up to fatigue; they figured it was just Dan-o being his usual twit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #134 October 21, 2010 we all consist of the basic building blocks , the elements ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #135 October 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt really is quite easily explained. We all make dumb mis-steps; that's understood. When a smart person has a dumb mis-step, it's properly recognized as an aberration. When a twit has a dumb mis-step, it's presumed to be a representative sample. Amazing that all your "understanding" of the examples fall right down party lines. No. I was speaking generically. When Alvin Greene says weird shit, people presume it's just par for the course. Just like back when then-VP Dan Quayle walked into a school classroom and - on camera! - told the class that "potato" should be spelled "potatoe" - people didn't chalk that up to fatigue; they figured it was just Dan-o being his usual twit. Did he pronounce it Corpse - man?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #136 October 21, 2010 >we all consist of the basic building blocks , the elements ! And those are made up of subatomic particles, yes. We've seen all sorts of elements, even made some ourselves. However, there are many ways to make life - and all the life on this planet has traces of the _one_ way that worked out best here, which is the DNA->RNA->protein system. No other systems exist, and the molecular clocks present in all DNA based life tell us how far back we go, and when we diverged from other life. And it all points to one common ancestor very far back in time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #137 October 21, 2010 thank God it just points to it ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Prior23 0 #138 October 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteAnd how exactly did it help Christine O'Donnell's argument/debate to state that those exact words are not found in the constitution (if you truly believe that is what she meant)? Don't know..... I was not at the debate. Could have been along the lines of Reagan's, "There you go again" or more recently Alex Sinks, "We just can't trust anything from you". But the fact is Coons say's "one of those indispensable principals is the separation of Church and State" And she asked, "Where in the Constitution is the Separation of Church and State?" Fact is it is not in the Constitution. It may have been the intent, but those words are not in there. She may have been forcing him to expand on his opinion and admit that it is not actually in the Constitution (in those words).... I don't know. But people disagree on the Constitution all the time... Hell, the 2nd says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", Jefferson is quoted saying he supports the right for people to have guns... Yet people claim that the right should be infringed. So knowing WHY people think the Constitution says what they think it says can tell you a lot about them. She may have been trying to trip him up.... Like I said I was not there... Hell she could have just slipped up and knew the exact text of the 1st. Lets not forget Coons could only name 1 of the 5 freedoms in the 1st.... So to claim he knows the first better than her is not exactly a slam dunk. Hey, I honestly think she is a twit... But I find it funny that people are so quick to jump on her, but just as quick to defend Obama for the 57 States comment. Yes those words are there, you are just being silly now by saying "Well the EXACT words are not there so technically she was right!". That's a crock of shit and you know it, and if you don't then I feel bad for you because any civilized person reading the first amendment knows that by interpreting pretty much word for word it says there shall be a separation of church and state, sorry it doesn't say it in those EXACT words but it is there. So by your logic the bible does not condemn adultery because it says "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" so it doesn't say you should commit adultery! Come on these are children's games...B.A.S.E. #1734 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Low-Mao 0 #139 October 22, 2010 QuotePeople get the government they deserve. She'll get elected. Fiinally...the truth... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Low-Mao 0 #140 October 22, 2010 Quote Quote People get the government they deserve. She'll get elected. Fiinally...the truth... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! See ya, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #141 October 22, 2010 QuoteYes, I know what a theory is. Do you? When there is concrete evidence (your words) then it is no longer theory it is. It is then considered fact. Rush, why do you continue to punish yourself like this? Do you enjoy making yourself look ignorant?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #142 October 22, 2010 Quotewe all consist of the basic building blocks , the elements ! So how do you describe the basic building blocks of the elements, then? "Super basic", "basic^2"? You really are out of your depth.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #143 October 22, 2010 QuoteQuotewe all consist of the basic building blocks , the elements !So how do you describe the basic building blocks of the elements, then? "Super basic", "basic^2"?You really are out of your depth.you assert , and in the form of a veiled PA ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #144 October 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuotewe all consist of the basic building blocks , the elements ! So how do you describe the basic building blocks of the elements, then? "Super basic", "basic^2"? You really are out of your depth. you assert , and in the form of a veiled PA ! normal moa for him"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Prior23 0 #145 October 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotewe all consist of the basic building blocks , the elements ! So how do you describe the basic building blocks of the elements, then? "Super basic", "basic^2"? You really are out of your depth. you assert , and in the form of a veiled PA ! normal moa for him You asked me for evidence of transitional forms from earlier humans to homo-sapiens. You seem to have not responded I guess that means you don't have much to say to the facts?B.A.S.E. #1734 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #146 October 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotewe all consist of the basic building blocks , the elements ! So how do you describe the basic building blocks of the elements, then? "Super basic", "basic^2"? You really are out of your depth. you assert , and in the form of a veiled PA ! normal moa for him You asked me for evidence of transitional forms from earlier humans to homo-sapiens. You seem to have not responded I guess that means you don't have much to say to the facts? I asked you for the concrete evidence you posted to No answer And I stated that I know life evolves. You can not show concrete evedince that all evolved from one. It is a theory. It has holes in it. Me? I am not convinced either way. I gave you an oportunity to try and sway me and as of yet, have offered nothing. YOU, in your own word stated this was theory. Next"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Prior23 0 #147 October 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotewe all consist of the basic building blocks , the elements ! So how do you describe the basic building blocks of the elements, then? "Super basic", "basic^2"? You really are out of your depth. you assert , and in the form of a veiled PA ! normal moa for him You asked me for evidence of transitional forms from earlier humans to homo-sapiens. You seem to have not responded I guess that means you don't have much to say to the facts? I asked you for the concrete evidence you posted to No answer And I stated that I know life evolves. You can not show concrete evedince that all evolved from one. It is a theory. It has holes in it. Me? I am not convinced either way. I gave you an oportunity to try and sway me and as of yet, have offered nothing. YOU, in your own word stated this was theory. Next I guess I just havn't been on this forum long enough and I am just now finding out that this guy is not worth debating with? I guess I had to find out some how...B.A.S.E. #1734 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #148 October 22, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote we all consist of the basic building blocks , the elements ! So how do you describe the basic building blocks of the elements, then? "Super basic", "basic^2"? You really are out of your depth. you assert , and in the form of a veiled PA ! normal moa for him You asked me for evidence of transitional forms from earlier humans to homo-sapiens. You seem to have not responded I guess that means you don't have much to say to the facts? I asked you for the concrete evidence you posted to No answer And I stated that I know life evolves. You can not show concrete evedince that all evolved from one. It is a theory. It has holes in it. Me? I am not convinced either way. I gave you an oportunity to try and sway me and as of yet, have offered nothing. YOU, in your own word stated this was theory. Next I guess I just havn't been on this forum long enough and I am just now finding out that this guy is not worth debating with? I guess I had to find out some how... Translation You cant do it "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #149 October 22, 2010 Quote .... Next I guess I just havn't been on this forum long enough and I am just now finding out that this guy is not worth debating with? I guess I had to find out some how... Translation You cant do it International translation: He's got it. And he found out by himself early enough. Not bad. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #150 October 22, 2010 Quote Quote .... Next I guess I just havn't been on this forum long enough and I am just now finding out that this guy is not worth debating with? I guess I had to find out some how... Translation You cant do it International translation: He's got it. And he found out by himself early enough. Not bad. Yep, Learning I think on my own really pisses you libs off Good lesson"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
