Active Users:641 Time:21/12/2025 09:18:55 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Re: Jesus Christ Camilla Send a noteboard - 20/10/2010 03:36:48 PM
That was painful.

Yes, it was too much to be funny. I just felt sorry for her that she was allowed to go out speak in front of a camera.


Well, she seems to do well in front of cameras, but in front of law students?
*MySmiley*
structured procrastinator
Reply to message
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" damookster - 20/10/2010 12:33:05 AM 961 Views
You don't want her? nossy - 20/10/2010 01:21:20 AM 522 Views
I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year. everynametaken - 20/10/2010 01:27:13 AM 381 Views
Now there's an answer Isaac - 20/10/2010 01:47:28 AM 486 Views
Voting isn't the only way to contribute *NM* Roland00 - 20/10/2010 02:42:10 AM 165 Views
And most of those posts are a guess at best. everynametaken - 20/10/2010 03:02:04 AM 361 Views
Maybe you shouldn't be guessing then? Isaac - 20/10/2010 06:00:02 AM 348 Views
Local bonds/ballot initiatives? Want the only major road within 10 miles of your house tolled? Joel - 21/10/2010 01:50:41 PM 400 Views
Issac has a point. Tashmere - 20/10/2010 02:14:28 AM 365 Views
Can you not spoil your ballot? Mark - 20/10/2010 10:19:54 AM 346 Views
Depends where you live. Joel - 20/10/2010 01:50:30 PM 435 Views
I don't think so but an intentional no vote is just as valid as voting IMHO. *NM* everynametaken - 21/10/2010 02:45:35 AM 164 Views
The difference is when they look at statistics snoopcester - 21/10/2010 10:49:48 AM 338 Views
Exactly. Joel - 21/10/2010 02:02:46 PM 473 Views
When you don't vote the bad guys win. That simple. Joel - 20/10/2010 01:53:23 PM 485 Views
The bad guys? That implies that there are some "good" guys somewhere in politics. Avendesora - 20/10/2010 05:43:06 PM 334 Views
I didn't say that, just that the bad guys automatically win if you don't vote. Joel - 20/10/2010 05:49:43 PM 339 Views
An intentional NO vote is just as valid as voting. everynametaken - 21/10/2010 02:46:58 AM 360 Views
Apart from the fact there's no record of it whatsoever, yes. Joel - 21/10/2010 01:37:46 PM 346 Views
Re: I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year. Camilla - 20/10/2010 02:54:04 PM 468 Views
She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is... everynametaken - 20/10/2010 01:25:43 AM 462 Views
Re: She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is... TaskmasterJack - 20/10/2010 01:35:48 AM 388 Views
Re: (meant to be under the main thread, but I can't move it) Gaps - 20/10/2010 02:42:23 AM 366 Views
It's a valid argument. Joel - 21/10/2010 03:26:46 PM 336 Views
i feel kinda bad for her Aisha - 20/10/2010 03:31:03 AM 424 Views
What is odd about this is that everyone is used to the 'separation' idea that they don't bother to MightyYT - 20/10/2010 06:44:48 AM 388 Views
Or, you know, the letters on the topic written by the people who drafted the Constitution *NM* Jragghen - 20/10/2010 07:04:47 AM 212 Views
Those aren't the Constitution though. Joel - 20/10/2010 12:39:41 PM 365 Views
which show they considered it but did not include it *NM* random thoughts - 20/10/2010 06:14:37 PM 157 Views
Yep, this. *NM* Zalis - 20/10/2010 07:40:19 PM 192 Views
Personally, I think that's splitting hairs. *NM* rebelaessedai - 20/10/2010 09:20:28 PM 164 Views
a direct reading is splitting hairs? random thoughts - 20/10/2010 09:25:14 PM 348 Views
That's what lawyers like the Founding Fathers do. Joel - 21/10/2010 02:56:36 PM 347 Views
I actually felt bad for her snoopcester - 20/10/2010 10:46:57 AM 366 Views
She's right. Joel - 20/10/2010 12:27:55 PM 484 Views
I'm less concerned about what she said than why she said it. *NM* Avendesora - 20/10/2010 01:32:38 PM 257 Views
It is on youtube snoopcester - 20/10/2010 02:40:12 PM 397 Views
Jesus Christ Camilla - 20/10/2010 03:03:30 PM 409 Views
Re: Jesus Christ snoopcester - 20/10/2010 03:32:02 PM 354 Views
Re: Jesus Christ Camilla - 20/10/2010 03:36:48 PM 328 Views
Re: Jesus Christ snoopcester - 20/10/2010 03:53:46 PM 338 Views
Re: Jesus Christ Camilla - 20/10/2010 04:01:49 PM 421 Views
Re: Jesus Christ snoopcester - 20/10/2010 05:12:28 PM 331 Views
Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse. Joel - 21/10/2010 02:31:19 PM 371 Views
Re: Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse. nossy - 21/10/2010 02:40:23 PM 441 Views
If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter. Joel - 21/10/2010 03:03:11 PM 373 Views
Re: If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter. nossy - 21/10/2010 03:57:45 PM 429 Views
She focused on the First Amendments text, and ignored the rest as commentary. Joel - 21/10/2010 04:49:22 PM 438 Views
Ok. nossy - 21/10/2010 05:01:22 PM 335 Views
I certainly don't think she deserves the scorn being heaped on her this time. Joel - 21/10/2010 05:14:03 PM 369 Views
See Dreaded Anomaly's reply below. Camilla - 21/10/2010 03:03:02 PM 399 Views
Done. Joel - 21/10/2010 04:50:52 PM 336 Views
Yet another reason you aren't a lawyer. *NM* Ghavrel - 21/10/2010 05:09:16 PM 127 Views
Because I don't accept arguments I consider unproven? Joel - 21/10/2010 05:23:52 PM 389 Views
The last statement is the only relevant one, and still a bit ambiguous. Joel - 20/10/2010 03:51:35 PM 365 Views
I think it is clear that that argument is beyond her capabilities. It was not what she was saying. *NM* everynametaken - 21/10/2010 02:50:33 AM 147 Views
Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, so she's right. Joel - 21/10/2010 03:41:27 PM 309 Views
I see we have replaced the PDS with ODS random thoughts - 20/10/2010 03:05:58 PM 337 Views
It only depends on just how finely one wants to split hairs. Macharius - 20/10/2010 04:02:28 PM 341 Views
no it depends how far you want to stretch the Constitution to say things it doesn't say random thoughts - 20/10/2010 04:19:04 PM 338 Views
No it does not show that. everynametaken - 21/10/2010 02:58:32 AM 330 Views
It doesn't matter what some of them may have wanted random thoughts - 21/10/2010 02:54:54 PM 314 Views
Treaty of Tripoli through the Establishment clause fairly explicitly affirms this. Sorry. *NM* Ghavrel - 21/10/2010 03:56:09 AM 147 Views
OK which clause allows for amending the Constitution by treaty? I can't seem to find it *NM* random thoughts - 21/10/2010 02:59:01 PM 136 Views
Supremacy clause, not establishment clause. My mistake. Ghavrel - 21/10/2010 05:07:18 PM 337 Views
Sorry, but the Treaty of Tripolis relevant section still seems like commentary. Joel - 21/10/2010 05:18:00 PM 328 Views
This is quickly becoming infuriating. Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 01:41:18 AM 310 Views
No, it's part of the treaty. Joel - 22/10/2010 02:02:42 AM 349 Views
Take it up with the Supremacy Clause. *NM* Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 02:12:11 AM 155 Views
So from 1797 we've been at "perpetual peace" with Libya? Joel - 22/10/2010 02:25:44 AM 312 Views
Fair enough as regards the treaty being broken. Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 02:38:37 AM 334 Views
Seems to apply to the Tenth Amendment only, not the Constitution as a whole. Joel - 22/10/2010 02:56:27 AM 408 Views
When a treaty is ratified by the senate, its provisions become federal law via a few processes. Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 03:02:24 AM 323 Views
Even if we take that at face value, a law can still be unconstitutional. Joel - 22/10/2010 03:19:07 AM 356 Views
it was a poor decision anyway since Amendments should be seen to modify the original random thoughts - 22/10/2010 02:11:22 PM 310 Views
Well, they do, but they modify, they don't automatically negate. Joel - 22/10/2010 08:31:47 PM 315 Views
no your mistake was misreading the clause random thoughts - 21/10/2010 05:48:52 PM 321 Views
Very difficult not to lose my temper here. Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 01:39:21 AM 310 Views
Then you should argue it violate a treaty with a country that no longer exist random thoughts - 22/10/2010 02:03:32 PM 321 Views
Noticed that, too, did you? Joel - 22/10/2010 08:40:09 PM 442 Views
She's so... bewildered! beetnemesis - 20/10/2010 06:40:04 PM 331 Views
that is what I think when I read a lot of the responses here random thoughts - 20/10/2010 07:44:40 PM 318 Views
She was still confused when he clarified what he meant, is what's funny *NM* beetnemesis - 20/10/2010 08:56:56 PM 143 Views
Because the logical conclusion is obvious. everynametaken - 21/10/2010 03:08:39 AM 320 Views
I think it is logical that it means what is say not want some want it to say random thoughts - 21/10/2010 03:02:08 PM 320 Views
Nonsense. The nature of the nation was already changing in the first generation. everynametaken - 22/10/2010 12:35:26 AM 431 Views
but it is an impulse that should be limited random thoughts - 22/10/2010 06:05:10 PM 321 Views
I think it funny that so many people can't see that what she was actually saying was true random thoughts - 20/10/2010 09:23:23 PM 328 Views
I think it is funny that you think that she could argue that angle when she clearly can't. *NM* everynametaken - 21/10/2010 03:10:43 AM 136 Views
For those who think O'Donnell is correct, even on a technicality: Dreaded Anomaly - 20/10/2010 10:49:40 PM 380 Views
exactly damookster - 21/10/2010 03:26:00 AM 369 Views
She started out alright nossy - 21/10/2010 02:32:01 PM 319 Views
She reiterates her question about "separation of church and state" and he repeatedly dodges. Joel - 21/10/2010 03:19:56 PM 339 Views
or she wasn't really paying attnetion to him and was still trying to argue her first point random thoughts - 21/10/2010 03:24:06 PM 478 Views
Lol. Bush-League. LadyLorraine - 21/10/2010 04:39:43 PM 296 Views
at leas thten the haters were hating someone who mattered *NM* random thoughts - 21/10/2010 05:50:03 PM 156 Views
Heh...reminds me of Obama claiming to have visited all fifty seven states. MightyYT - 22/10/2010 12:44:58 AM 446 Views
My favorite bit is how people are attacking the judicary because they disagree with rulings. Ghavrel - 21/10/2010 05:12:01 PM 339 Views
so you believe we all should just accept what the courts say without question? random thoughts - 21/10/2010 05:54:42 PM 346 Views
Given that it's you, Joel and Christine O'Donnell versus two centuries of jurisprudence? YES. *NM* Ghavrel - 22/10/2010 01:49:01 AM 153 Views
Y'know, an alliance as unlikely as that one ought to give you cause for a second look. Joel - 22/10/2010 03:03:05 AM 421 Views
*double posts* Joel - 22/10/2010 08:44:07 PM 338 Views
yes we are the only ones who don't think the courts can rewrtie the Constitution at will *NM* random thoughts - 22/10/2010 02:04:44 PM 142 Views
yes we are the only ones who don't think the courts can rewrtie the Constitution at will *NM* random thoughts - 22/10/2010 02:04:44 PM 134 Views
Come, my brethren! All Hallows Eve approachs, and we have much to do! beetnemesis - 22/10/2010 05:34:01 PM 312 Views
...goddammit beetnemesis - 22/10/2010 05:35:37 PM 349 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes