More Tea Party Retardation

[Despanan]

Reposting the article and post that someone made on another forum I frequent because I'm lazy. The short of it is Christine O'Donnell claims to be a constitutionalist, but is unaware of what the constitution actually says and seems to have no idea that the audience was laughing AT HER not with her. See below (and make sure you check out the video):

Crap I've been so insanely busy with work. You guys probably heard at least some of this already, but it really bears repeating since O'Donnell is still clinging to it hard.

So far, the best report seems to be from Anderson Cooper, but the following has a longer direct video: O'Donnell doesn't seem to realize that the First Amendment details the separation of church and state.

Time index 2:30, O'Donnell asks "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" and the audience basically laughs in her face as one guy off to the side wails "Oh my god!" What's even better is that this debate between O'Donnell and Coons occurred in front of a crowd of law students.

Unfortunately O'Donnell is thicker than anyone expected, because she not only grins victoriously thinking the crowd is laughing with her rather than at her, she takes the time to ask the question again at the 7-minute mark.

O'Donnell: "So where is it? Where in the Constitution is the separation between Church and State?"
Coons: "The First Amendment. 'Congress shall make no law respecting religion'."
O'Donnell: "That's in the First Amendment?"
Coons: "Yes."
O'Donnell: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"


Of course once this became a debacle she couldn't let it slide, and the following was posted on her campaign website:

"In this morning’s WDEL debate, Christine O’Donnell was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts. She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution. It was in fact Chris Coons who demonstrated his ignorance of our country’s founding documents when he could not name the five freedoms contained in the First Amendment."

Now aside from the fact that this is a semantic technicality (since Thomas Jefferson uses the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in describing the First Amendment, and decades of Supreme Court cases have supported this view), she seems to forget the fact that she in the second instance she was scoffing at the idea of "Congress shall make no law respecting religion" (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof).

Funny enough, this is how Fox News reported the gaffe:

"Trying to demonstrate her grasp of constitutional law after recently blanking on examples of Supreme Court rulings she opposes, Delaware Republican U.S. Senate nominee Christine Coons on Tuesday found herself chided by a debate panelist – in front of a roomful of legal scholars – for not memorizing the U.S. Constitution."

This is what O'Donnell said a couple days later: "After that debate my team and I we were literally high fiving each other thinking that we had exposed he doesn't know the First Amendment, and then when we read the reports that said the opposite we were all like 'what?'"

But she's so pretty and has staunch Christian values!

[Saya]

I don't understand. Conservatives should have looked at Palin and realized what a failure as a politician she is. Now they're digging up even dumber people and rolling with it. Is it because they automatically think women=progressive? I really don't understand how these people get to the point where they can even run for office. Fuck on a stick.

I read this article earlier today in the actual magazine, so I was going to recommend it:

http://bitchmagazine.org/article/tea-stained

And fucking Tea Baggers are in the comments. In a feminist magazine. No where is safe anymore.

But anyway, I really liked this point:

She and her compatriots have jumped on the “security mom” bandwagon of the post-9/11 Bush years, when pollsters reported widely on white, heterosexual married women leaning toward Republican candidates and repressive policies on such that with the treatment of Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a slain U.S. soldier who set up camp outside George W. Bush's Texas ranch to protest the Iraq war. Far from being heralded as either security mom or fiercely bearish matriarch, the progressive Sheehan was mocked as an “irrelevant kook” by conservative columnists like Mark Steyn and pilloried for her antiwar position.

Its all just an act to appear a certain way without any substance at all. The whole article is good, and I almost, almost understand by reading it. But then I read shit like that and it doesn't make sense anymore.

Fuck, I'm Canadian and I could have told her what the First Amendment says.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

I couldn't have identified the Amendment, but I did at least know that it was in the bloody constitution (I'm Canadian too).

[ape descendant]

*face palm* I want... to cry... no... more... stupid... bitches.

[CptSternn]

It's not all bad...

http://tinyurl.com/3yhtvmu

Tea Party-backed Republicans spur party switches

NEW YORK (Reuters) – For lifelong Republican Joe Errigo, deciding to cross party lines and support a liberal Democrat for New York governor wasn't nearly as difficult as one might expect.

Republican candidate Carl Paladino -- backed by the conservative Tea Party movement -- raised such political hackles he spawned a "Republicans for Cuomo" movement supporting Democrat Andrew Cuomo.

Similar groups can be found in heated races elsewhere nationwide, often those featuring Tea Party-endorsed candidates, attacked by Democrats and some moderate Republicans as extreme.

"When I saw his website, I said nobody could be that dumb," said Errigo, an upstate New York Assemblyman, of Paladino, a Buffalo developer and political newcomer.

"He has alienated every group that I could think of," said Errigo. "He should write a book on how to lose an election."

In Delaware, where Christine O'Donnell has Tea Party support, Republicans backing Democrat Chris Coons include a former state judge and former U.S. Congressman. A "Republicans for Coons" Facebook site reads: "Because we just can't support Christine O'Donnell."

In Arizona, "Republicans for Giffords" are backing Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords over conservative Iraq War veteran Jesse Kelly.

In Nevada, incumbent Democrat Sen. Harry Reid, who faces Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle, counts among his Republican supporters an array of influential gaming and casino executives.

"Mainstream Republicans are refusing to support the latest crop of insurgent candidates in the Republican Party because of their extremist beliefs," said Deirdre Murphy, spokeswoman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington.

*snip*

Read the full article - the link is above. It's quite funny that the republicans are actually funding and supporting the democrats to keep tea party candidates from winning any seats.

That does bring up a few interesting questions.

Like, are the republicans afraid of a party that actually is fiscally responsible? Or are they just afraid to get branded as dumb-assed racists? Will this mean the tea party is here to stay? Will the republican party be divided into two groups from here on out? If any tea party candidates do win, will they caucus with the republicans or start their own caucus?

And of course, who will faux new support? It appears already they have pulled support for many tea party candidates and are avoiding many hot button issues to keep tea partiers out of the news, which is hilarious as they are one of the primary reasons those nut jobs got to where they are today.

I mean, with fox beating the drum saying everyone in washington has to go, they have accidentally screwed their own party. They appear to be trying to correct that now, but how far are they willing to back-track? We all know they are right-wing fear mongers, and if they back off of that their own supporters will fall by the wayside. If they continue down that path then they risk pushing their viewers towards more nut jobs like the tea party candidates.

Maybe it's just me but its funny to sit back now and watch this unfold.

Alas, so many questions, I guess we will have to wait and see.

[KontanKarite]

Actually, Sternn, thanks for that.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Rand Paul won the senate race...The first Tea Party candidate to win such a position.

Things will start to improve in the Bluegrass State.

[KontanKarite]

LOL! Kentucky is fucking FUCKED.

Kentucky... why must you be so full of ignorant, stupid, good ol' boy people?

Thank fuck I moved to NYC when I did.

[KontanKarite]

Hey Deadman, eat a dick, BTW.

[Despanan]

This message is hidden because Deadmanwalking_05 is on your ignore list.

You should try this Kontan, it's like Internet cruise control.

[KontanKarite]

I do. I really had a weird suspicion about what Deadman had to say and letting him know that a gay man is mayor in Lexington would raise his blood pressure a bit. I can't wait for Rand Paul to fuck DeadmanWalking over.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

12,15,12!!!!!

[ape descendant]

So many Tea-tards elected ... how is Canada looking?

[korinna5555]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

LOL! Kentucky is fucking FUCKED.

Kentucky... why must you be so full of ignorant, stupid, good ol' boy people?

Shit's gonna hit the fan, I tell ya..

[CptSternn]

It's like this.

The democrats didn't have enough support, even as a majority thanks to turn-coats within their own ranks so the shift of power which has moved a few seats around hasn't really done anything. Everything is still split down the middle, and neither side has enough voting power to push anything through, meaning another two years of stagnate deadlock, which each side will blame on the other.

And the tea baggers? They will fall in line with the repubs and in two years their own people will be calling them sells outs, like those who supported Obama, but became disillusioned when he couldn't fix the economy in 18 months.

On a good note - lots of really stupid people with bad ideas got elected. The Daily Show will be chock-full of political goodness for a few years while these eejits try and pass really, really, stupid laws.

Also on the good side, the repubs will be taking half the heat now they hold all those new seats. Again, like the Obama thing, people have an attention span like that of a gnat these days and will be attacking them in about six months when nothing has changed.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by ape descendant

So many Tea-tards elected ... how is Canada looking?

You better come soon before we unhitch the country and float away. We might want to be another country's hat. Think we can fit on top of Australia?

[SomeoneNamedEmily]

How the hell did they let her live on her own, let alone run for office? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or restricting the free exercise thereof." See? Not that hard.

Looks like someone's going to have to explain AGAIN to the would-be theocrats that allowing others to worship or not worship whatever they want does not prevent said would-be theocrats from worshiping whatever they want.

I want to go to Canada. Clean air, marriage equality, accessible healthcare, not being Michigan... it's got a lot of advantages over my current place of residence

[Saya]

I don't get the Tea Party people who want a theocracy...I mean, you think taxes are invasive, but you want to force religion on other people? Actually, I should have stopped at "I don't get the Tea Party".

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Originally Posted by Saya

We might want to be another country's hat.

That... is an excellent way of describing Canada.
I was hoping maybe for Europe's hat, though. I'd have easier access to all the art and architecture there.

The problem with putting any single practise of worship in charge is that there's so many variations that most of the time would be spent having nit-picky theological arguments, instead of running the country.
Theocracy is a terrible idea.
...The sky is a pale, cold blue, and things fall if you drop them.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by LaBelleDameSansMerci

The problem with putting any single practise of worship in charge is that there's so many variations that most of the time would be spent having nit-picky theological arguments, instead of running the country.
Theocracy is a terrible idea.
...The sky is a pale, cold blue, and things fall if you drop them.

Worse, its usually the craziest denomination who would want it badly enough to get into power. I can't see the average Anglican rising up to take control. Universal Unitarians wouldn't get around to getting a meeting together to even discuss the possibility of an overthrow. Born Again Christians? Totally would. They have enough influence already anyway. Moderate denominations would just want to live and let live, for the most part, maybe throw their voice out there on certain issues, but the crazies would love to save us all from ourselves.

And then The Handmaid's Tale would happen! We don't have a scared face emoticon so please use your imagination.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Evangelists who scream and weep and speak in tongues when they're in church, then go out and carry anti-gay placards at the funerals of people who died of AIDS or hold pictures of dead fetuses in front of abortion clinics seem like the kind of people to make a theocracy. I feel like Anglicanism and Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have grown up enough that they don't find it to be important to force people into their way of worship.

Edit: I haven't read The Handmaid's Tale.

[ape descendant]

The Handmaid's tale made me cry. Why do we have to fight such a hard, constant battle for ownership over our own bodies?

People seem to ignore the fact that when abortion was illegal, they still happened and that desperate women were dying from botched abortions, unable to get medical help because doctors either did not want to be associated with them or would call the police and have the dying woman arrested.

And it seems to have been forgotten that the Comstalk laws prevented people from getting contraceptive devices or even information about them as it was considered obscene.

It sickens me to think that a bunch of tea-tards want to take us back to those days. Grrr!!

[SomeoneNamedEmily]

Sadly, most of the Catholics I know haven't grown up. I consider myself more of a Progressive Christian, but most of my father's family is of the batshit!Catholic brand. They insist that the Crusaders were doing the only moral thing and that Bloody Mary was all sunshine and roses, while Elizabeth was a bloodthirsty bitch who was interested only in killing all Catholics.

Oh, and at least one of them says that the Holocaust really wasn't as bad as the Jews make it out to have been, and that more Catholics were killed by the Nazis than any other group.

This website has some more very scary misinformation, if you're in the mood to be traumatized.