That's in the first amendment?

[Weeks]

Spin control and people who want a theocracy aside, the Republicans/Tea Party are fielding some real idiots this election season. Can someone please counter with an equally stupid democratic candidate?

There's the guy who dressed up as an SS officer for a reenactment society that publicly espouses that this heroic SS regimen was defending Europe from the Bolshevik scourge.

Oh wait, he's a Tea Partier.

[Atreides]

the only stupidity I've seen from the democratic side (although I'm quite sure that there are idiots who are already elected) this election cycle is from Alexi Giannoulias, who was pressed about his family bank lending money to known Chicago crime figures while he worked there, to which he repeatedly responded that he was "not aware of the extent of the criminal activity" lol. Other than that Teabaggers have got Democrats beat this year, by far, at least in terms of people who are running for office.

edit: and there is literally no way O'Donnell will win. She is WAY behind in the polls in a relatively blue state, and gaff after gaff (all public gaffs, so she's either immensely unlucky or immensely stupid, or both) aren't helping her numbers.

[Correction]

There are a whole bunch of winners this year from the tea party. Do any californians know if Meg Whitman actually has a shot of becoming governor or has Jerry Brown pretty much got it locked up?

whitman's more or less tied with brown, mostly because brown has baggage from the 70s and because whitman's spending millions (more than anyone else ever has on a governor's office) on advertising. Last week she mailed out a 30 page full-color MAGAZINE to voting households all across the state.

Tea Partier she is not, though, as far as I can tell she's an old fashioned multimillionaire buying her way into office, kinda like Steve Forbes.

[Atreides]

I hate to sound petty but Meg Whitman probably has some of the WORST hair I have ever seen. She looks like she's had the same haircut since 1964, it is just awful and makes her look a lot nerdier than she is. If you can afford to dump hundreds of millions into your gubernatorial campaign you can afford a quick trip to Frederic Fekkai.

edit
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/82038/thum...TMAN-large.jpg
I mean really, where do you even go to get the "non-lesbian lady mullet" look?

[Correction]

I hate to sound petty but Meg Whitman probably has some of the WORST hair I have ever seen. She looks like she's had the same haircut since 1964, it is just awful and makes her look a lot nerdier than she is. If you can afford to dump hundreds of millions into your gubernatorial campaign you can afford a quick trip to Frederic Fekkai.

It's all right, she just looks like a retiree. You should see Carly Fiorina's (candidate for senator) boycut explosion of butch dyke highlights.

[Atreides]

oh god I saw, she looks like Madame Hooch, the quidditch instructor at hogwarts

edit: i kinda feel bad for making fun of her hair because apparently she had cancer, oops

[Atreides]

oh yeah, and then there's John Raese the Republican senate candidate from West Virginia who cast a commercial looking for "hick types" to play average working folks and repeatedly mispronounces asian and hispanic names. He called the Secretary of Energy (Dr. Stephen Chu) "Doctor Chow Mein" lol

[Byrthnoth]

edit: and there is literally no way O'Donnell will win. She is WAY behind in the polls in a relatively blue state, and gaff after gaff (all public gaffs, so she's either immensely unlucky or immensely stupid, or both) aren't helping her numbers.

http://www.duck-artshop.com/acatalog/iwanttobelieve.jpg
... buuuuut... poll numbers are skewed towards people with cellphones, which means they likely under-represent conservatives and technophobes, both of which are more likely to vote the Republican line. Two things are infinite...

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Aren't you a law student? Anyway, read up on it and Jefferson, it's a good read.

I am, but we haven't gotten there in Con law yet, and when we do, we only read like 2 cases. Unfortunately the second semester is mainly about equal protection. Something like this doesn't get much attention.

My reading on it indicates it was a political statement, not an interpretation of the 1st amendment by Jefferson. There's also many contradictory actions by Jefferson if "separation of church and state" was his interpretation of the 1st amendment.

[Atreides]

Oh and I almost forgot Oregon's republican House candidate Art Robinson (who is also a scientist) who believes global warming and AIDS are myths perpetuated for political means, who wants to abolish the department of education and teach children from a series of antique books he keeps in print that are overtly racist (referring to negroes as "childlike, but capable of civilization when they're around whites").

And Jim Russell, the republican candidate from New York who is a known white supremacist who thinks white activism will rise once whites realize they'll become a minority in their own country (he actually made these remarks on live television lol).

I am sure there are more.

[Byrthnoth]

You mean Jefferson, who people regularly accused of being an Atheist?

Also, watch the video. It takes a lot of effort to see Christine O'Donnell's questions re:First Amendment as a political statement and not ignorance. Bitch just didn't know. Afterspin says it was a political statement and an attempt to catch Coons on a technicality, but Coons pretty much shoots that argument to shit with his, "We need to uphold the constitution in its current state and in light of all the interpretations and court decisions of the past" counter-argument.

[Demosthenes11]

I am, but we haven't gotten there in Con law yet, and when we do, we only read like 2 cases. Unfortunately the second semester is mainly about equal protection. Something like this doesn't get much attention.

My reading on it indicates it was a political statement, not an interpretation of the 1st amendment by Jefferson. There's also many contradictory actions by Jefferson if "separation of church and state" was his interpretation of the 1st amendment.

are you seriously trying to argue that the 1st amendment religion clause does not mean the separation of church and state? Get your head out of GBs ass

[zoobernut]

My reading on it indicates it was a political statement, not an interpretation of the 1st amendment by Jefferson. There's also many contradictory actions by Jefferson if "separation of church and state" was his interpretation of the 1st amendment.

Ok Jefferson aside I am curious how would you interpret that portion of the 1st amendment? What does it mean to 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.

Just in case you don't feel like looking it up.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

are you seriously trying to argue that the 1st amendment religion clause does not mean the separation of church and state? Get your head out of GBs ass

What the hell do you think it means? Pull your head out of your ass and justify it.

Zoober: Since governments prior to ours had established religions to persecute others, I think it means exactly what it says, the govt. can not officially establish a religion nor interfere with the practice of religion. It simply prevents the persecution that was prevalent in other governments. I haven't read the cases yet, but I'm curious to see how the 2nd clause affects the analysis.

[Atreides]

no, that's not what it means

[sephir]

Democratic strategy: Keep your mouth shut and let the Tea baggers do the damage to themselves.

[zoobernut]

Ok Swamp I agree with what you said however I think you are giving it too wide of a scope, I also think it prevents the government from favoring any particular religion even if it isn't "establishing" an official USA religion.

For example, the government cannot donate or fund a particular church without donating or funding to an equal extent every other church. The government cannot require that the religious texts from one religion be part of the curriculum in public federally funded schools without requiring equal representation of all the religions or none at all.

This would also go along with the whole creationism thing along with other examples where religious doctrine tried to make its way into public law.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Atreides, I know that's not what the SCOTUS said it means, but their analysis is based on a statement Jefferson made in a political statement and is completely contradicted by his own actions before and after that statement. So why does it mean otherwise?

[Atreides]

because this isn't even something that's up for debate, this has been pretty much common knowledge for over 200 years now. What you're seeing now is the religious right trying get their foot in the door by attempting to have a debate with Jefferson/Madison over a dead issue, attempting to dismantle a core part of our democracy for the sake of going down the ultimate in slippery slopes.

Even if the statement was unclear in any way, the point is the constitution of 1776 isn't the only document on which we base our laws and attempting to discard the last two centuries of legal discourse just so we can apply conservative christian principles to the way we read the constitution is downright scary. We don't live in the Republic of Gilead.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I don't know why that's what it means.

Maybe you should.