Christine O'Donnell is batshit crazy

I'll let the videos speak for themselves. This was filmed yesterday:

[video=youtube;miwSljJAzqg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg[/video]

And this was her campaign a decade ago, before running for public office:

[video=youtube;RzHcqcXo_NA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzHcqcXo_NA[/video]

Just to let everyone know, this woman won Delaware's Republican Primary, and is currently running in the general election for a federal Senate seat.

To those viewing this from other nations, no, this is not a joke. She's an actual candidate from an actual state. She could actually be another member of one of the United States' highest branches of government.

Americans 18 years or older: please vote on November 2nd. Please don't let this run our country.

Oh, I heard this on NPR.

I spat out my coffee and starting laughing uncontrollably.

Abe Lincoln is crying in his grave.

"If he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?"

Well, you are not.

I saw the video where she didn't know a piece of dipsh'it about the 1st Amendment. You got to be fuc'king kidding me.

If anything, she made herself look like a moron from the beginning.

I saw the video where she didn't know a piece of dipsh'it about the 1st Amendment. You got to be fuc'king kidding me.
If anything, she made herself look like a moron from the beginning.

You don't know what you are talking about. Do your research before you cast stones or you will look like an idiot-like you do right now.

She is technically right your know. He did not state the first amendment correctly. The first amendment says nothing about the separation of church and state.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see it in there. Do you? That video makes both of them look dumb.

With that stated both candidates are "extreme" on some issues, but there are a lot of people who believe what he/she believes. It all depends on how you define "extreme."

I agree with FrozNlite though. People need to go out and vote, but do your research first and don't blindly vote for him/her without knowing what both stand for.

Werent people accusing her of being a witch?

There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution, neither implied or explicit. The First Amendment is constantly interpreted that way incorrectly due to a bad representation of a letter by Thomas Jefferson to a the Danbury Baptists regarding whether the government would be heavily involved in their practice. The metaphor "wall of separation" was used to describe how no government can dictate how a religion works, yet they can still be involved in supporting that religion and their schools.

Heavily biased Wikipedia Link-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_..._and_state

Just because the Supreme Court has continually interpreted it that way does not mean that is how it was intended by the Framers. Many of the Framers, including Hamilton and Madison, wanted a national religion, but they all agreed it would be best if no religion was treated as more important or enforced upon the masses. That clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" only states that no government can endorse a religion and exclude other religions from being established.

Please do some actual research instead of voting for a candidate based on their party and little snippets on the news. Actually view their proposed policies and see why exactly they should be the better candidate. Christine is a little crazy, and I do agree there is most likely a better candidate, but there is no need to ridicule her for being accurate and hating her views because of your bias.

Voting is extremely important and allows us to check the government and have a voice. When you don't vote you essentially give up your right to participate in government and you should not hold an opinion regarding the elected.

LOL, thought things like that only happen in brazil, probably our next president, a woman, is considered a terrorist and can't go to some country or she will be arrested.

She have a criminal record and already got arrested and stuff like that, so yeah, its not that bad for you.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


anyone who doesn't blatently see the concept of seperation of church and state within the first amdendment is a freakin idiot, I'm sorry but I will not even be polite about this its the foundation for democracy and I won't let people f'uck around with it.

The government cannot ever respect an establishment of religion EVER, by recognizing a religion e.g teaching it in schools/making laws based on said religion. that is a form of respect towards that particular religion and basicly insures that everyone must follow that law of that specific religion, thereby prohibiting the expression of someone elses religion or beliefs who differ from the one of the religion who is now in law.

I'm sick and tired of right wing christian conservatives who are trying to turn this place into another third world country, religion has NO place in politics.

this woman is beyond dumb along with sarah palin, the mosquito who bit me today has a higher IQ then both these women combined yet only in such a backwards nation would they ever be considered electable for ANYTHING.

/end rage

this country is so screwed *sigh*

There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution, neither implied or explicit. The First Amendment is constantly interpreted that way incorrectly due to a bad representation of a letter by Thomas Jefferson to a the Danbury Baptists regarding whether the government would be heavily involved in their practice. The metaphor "wall of separation" was used to describe how no government can dictate how a religion works, yet they can still be involved in supporting that religion and their schools.

Heavily biased Wikipedia Link-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_..._and_state

Just because the Supreme Court has continually interpreted it that way does not mean that is how it was intended by the Framers. Many of the Framers, including Hamilton and Madison, wanted a national religion, but they all agreed it would be best if no religion was treated as more important or enforced upon the masses. That clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" only states that no government can endorse a religion and exclude other religions from being established.

Please do some actual research instead of voting for a candidate based on their party and little snippets on the news. Actually view their proposed policies and see why exactly they should be the better candidate. Christine is a little crazy, and I do agree there is most likely a better candidate, but there is no need to ridicule her for being accurate and hating her views because of your bias.

Voting is extremely important and allows us to check the government and have a voice. When you don't vote you essentially give up your right to participate in government and you should not hold an opinion regarding the elected.

asides from the fact that voting is mainly pointless because both major parties are sold out and completely owned by money and greed.
( asides from a few politicians for example ; Alan Grayson )

I'll just leave carlin to sum up my feelings.

[video=youtube;xIraCchPDhk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk[/video]

don't toss that if you don't vote you can't complain BS.

Just because the Supreme Court has continually interpreted it that way does not mean that is how it was intended by the Framers. Many of the Framers, including Hamilton and Madison, wanted a national religion, but they all agreed it would be best if no religion was treated as more important or enforced upon the masses. That clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" only states that no government can endorse a religion and exclude other religions from being established.

And using government funded education to teach a specific religious view isn't endorsing it because? Nearly every court and scientist has laughed out the idea of intelligent design and declared it to be at best pseudo-science or science fiction. When in school we are meant to be taught facts that has been scrutinized to the inth degree not ideas made by people who want to dignify their beliefs.

And in all honesty your interpretations doesn't mean anything. The courts have decided what that amendment guarantees and makes the government adheres to.

anyone who doesn't blatently see the concept of seperation of church and state within the first amdendment is a freakin idiot, I'm sorry but I will not even be polite about this its the foundation for democracy and I won't let people f'uck around with it.

The government cannot ever respect an establishment of religion EVER, by recognizing a religion e.g teaching it in schools/making laws based on said religion. that is a form of respect towards that particular religion and basicly insures that everyone must follow that law of that specific religion, thereby prohibiting the expression of someone elses religion or beliefs who differ from the one of the religion who is now in law.

I'm sick and tired of right wing christian conservatives who are trying to turn this place into another third world country, religion has NO place in politics.

this woman is beyond dumb along with sarah palin, the mosquito who bit me today has a higher IQ then both these women combined yet only in such a backwards nation would they ever be considered electable for ANYTHING.

/end rage

this country is so screwed *sigh*

Anyone who doesn't see the other sides view is a "freakin idiot." It is true that the government may never establish a religion, but no one was arguing that. Religion has always had a place in politics, it had its place since this country was created. The founders talked about religion when they were making the Constitution. There are states that even had a state religion. So saying that "...religion has NO place in politics" is just plain wrong.

I don't know any person turning the USA into a third world country. Mind naming some examples? If not this point is not valid.

How do you know the IQ of either of them? What was the IQ of the mosquito? Really...this is just over the top. Look without your biased view and respect their opinion. It may differ from your opinion, but that is no reason to make comments like that. It just demeans your point of view.

You should not rage in the arena of politics. You will just look like a "freakin idiot" and will be overlooked.

I do agree that the country is screwed no matter what party wins, if we can't have a civil conversation with our facts straight.

And using government funded education to teach a specific religious view isn't endorsing it because? Nearly every court and scientist has laughed out the idea of intelligent design and declared it to be at best pseudo-science or science fiction. When in school we are meant to be taught facts that has been scrutinized to the inth degree not ideas made by people who want to dignify their beliefs.

And in all honesty your interpretations doesn't mean anything. The courts have decided what that amendment guarantees and makes the government adheres to.

We all know what the courts have interpreted it to be, but no one[in this thread] was arguing for religion to have government funded education, so I don't know where you pulled this out of.

Edit: Sorry I thought he was referring to Kurtle's post not the video.

We all know what the courts have interpreted it to be, but no one was arguing for religion to have government funded education, so I don't know where you pulled this out of.

Actually, that's the whole point of the conversation regarding government and religion thus far. Did you watch even the first 2-3 minutes of the first video I posted? Christine O'Donnell wishes to have intelligent design taught in public schools. Intelligent design is a perspective created in the foundation of religion, and thus to wish to have it taught in schools funded by government in all forms local, state, and federal is to "argue for religion to have government funded education."

On a side note, while many interpretations here on the notion of separation of church and state are interesting, I strongly believe separation should exist in the United States for the sole reason that a government's job is to provide for all people of the country, which is impossible to do if the laws only cater to those of a certain denomination. Feel free to create a nation founded on the principles of a particular religion, a place where those of that faith may go to reap the benefits of a government focused on them. I have no issue with that. But in a nation that exemplifies diversity, the only way to provide for all is to acknowledge all, not some.

We all know what the courts have interpreted it to be, but no one was arguing for religion to have government funded education, so I don't know where you pulled this out of.

Christine did when she suggested that public schools teach intelligent design to kids as well as the theory of evolution.

It's really hard to have your facts straight when so many politicians insist on lying and so many news organizations like to report only half of the truth or through a dirty lens. It takes way too much energy to care about this pomegranate.

Sorry my mistake, I should have explained further. I was referring to no one in the thread-defending or supporting religion in government run things, not Christine. He had asked Kurtle about funding intelligent design, and no person had endorsed let alone talked about funding intelligent design until he brought it up.

With that said, government should not support any one religion. It should allow all religions to be equal in all places. If a private school wants to teach a certain religion, go ahead so long as no government funding is going to it.

On a side note, while many interpretations here on the notion of separation of church and state are interesting, I strongly believe separation should exist in the United States for the sole reason that a government's job is to provide for all people of the country, which is impossible to do if the laws only cater to those of a certain denomination. Feel free to create a nation founded on the principles of a particular religion, a place where those of that faith may go to reap the benefits of a government focused on them. I have no issue with that. But in a nation that exemplifies diversity, the only way to provide for all is to acknowledge all, not some.

I think most people agree on this.

It's really hard to have your facts straight when so many politicians insist on lying and so many news organizations like to report only half of the truth or through a dirty lens. It takes way too much energy to care about this pomegranate.

So true.

Sorry my mistake, I should have explained further. I was referring to no one in the thread-defending or supporting religion in government run things, not Christine. He had asked Kurtle about funding intelligent design, and no person had endorsed let alone talked about funding intelligent design until he brought it up.

With that said, government should not support any one religion. It should allow all religions to be equal in all places. If a private school wants to teach a certain religion, go ahead so long as no government funding is going to it.

In the video Christine basically said that teaching intelligent design was not going against the constitution

The person i quoted agreed that it's not and said:

"Just because the Supreme Court has continually interpreted it that way does not mean that is how it was intended by the Framers. Many of the Framers, including Hamilton and Madison, wanted a national religion, but they all agreed it would be best if no religion was treated as more important or enforced upon the masses. That clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" only states that no government can endorse a religion and exclude other religions from being established

But more specifically:

only states that no government can endorse a religion"

And i argued (on the basis that what the person i quoted said was true) that Sabrina Spellman wanted to endorse religion by having it taught in schools via intelligent design.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44mqiBrB0zI
I have a feeling people are going to vote for her because of this.

Found a Cracked article on her just now. I laughed so hard.

http://www.cracked.com/funny-6527-christine-odonnell/

Found a Cracked article on her just now. I laughed so hard.

http://www.cracked.com/funny-6527-christine-odonnell/

And I can't STOP laughing. Like seriously, I'm CRYING here!

http://thinkprogress.org/christine-odonnell-record/

Enjoy.