I refudiate your interpretation!
I would wager that Coons knows full well what the five freedoms are. My take on that exchange was that he was simply refusing to jump through the hoops she was holding up. Why give her that control, even if he answers correctly?
Rush Limbaugh’s attempt to defend her by claiming she meant that the exact phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the constitution is just idiotic. Hey Rush, where in the Ten Commandments does it say I “shouldn’t murder anybody”? That exact phrase is not in there anywhere!
Fortunately, it looks like O’Donnell is going to lose, but It scares me that anybody is going to vote for this fuckwit.
Too much attention is being given to O’Donnel. She clearly is not going to win. If she wasn’t attractive she probably would not get half the attention.
I honestly believe this word is going to be Palin’s most long-lasting contribution to American history.
Let’s not get all echo-chamber-y in here. The Religious Right has been pounding on that drum (SOCAS not mentioned in the Constitution) for the past ten years, at least. It doesn’t serve us well to pretend that this is the first time it’s been tried in public.
Coons would have done a lot better to have smacked her down for trying such a hoary and already discredited approach.
Well, is it?
There are otherwise ingenuous posters here who make the same type of argument with regards to Palin’s Vice President comment or O’Donnell’s mumbo-jumbo about China preparing to take over America.
This may go a step beyond that if it’s also defending the overall viewpoint that’s taught in Glenn Beck U., but the basic “you can’t make fun of a broken clock” routine is prominent here.
Michele Bachmann is not attractive, but we still get plenty of fun out of her! 
Besides setting back feminism thirty years?
Better than the nuclear wasteland that would have been had she and McCain won the election.
On the subject of Michele Bachmann, here’s a nice bit of hypocrisy on her part:
Nothing hypocritcal about that. Once the money is approved and being spent, you might as well make sure your constituents get a portion. Some of it is coming out of their pockets.
O’Donnell website lists support by right wing whackaloon Pamela Geller:
The comedy darkens; we shall know her by the company she keeps.
It is hypocritical when she claims in her radio ads that “This congress has already spent $3.6 trillion on stimulus that failed to produce jobs,” then turns around and writes a letter to the Transportation Department crowing that “MnDOT estimates that the project would directly produce 1,407 new jobs per year while indirectly producing 1,563 a year – a total of 2,970 jobs each year after the project’s completion,”
Even you must concede the hypocrisy in that.
Maybe that $3.6 trillion is what was squandered in other states, but under her wise oversight, the moeny spent in Minnesota actually did some good.
Is that number remotely right? I don’t think I’ve heard $3.6 trillion for the stimulus before.
You know, even with Johnson’s recent return to sanity, when Little Green Footballs calls you a fascist sympathizer and you’re NOT a liberal, you really need to take a longer look at your life…
So you can be against robbing banks, but once the bank has already been robbed, it’s not hypocritical to ask for a share of the loot.
That would be a good analogy if government spending was morally or legally equivalent to bank robbing.
Look, O’Donnell’s conduct in this particular case is clearly hypocritical. However, opposing spending while simultaneously attempting to grab as much of it as you can, in general, is not.
Remember when Rick Perry said he’d refuse stimulus money? Remember how we said he was retarded? That’s because he was. If all the other states are getting a big chunk of change, you’d better get yours too. That doesn’t mean you can’t demand that states stop getting big chunks of change.
But Bachmann is essentially claiming that it is. She’s condemning the stimulus as destructive and evil (and actively running ads to that effect pretty much constantly up here). Whether that’s true or not (and it obviously is not), is beside the point. If SHE is going to call stimulus spending evil, then it’s hypocritical for her to participate in it.
Sorry, I meant to say Bachmann, not O’Donnell. Having trouble keeping my Asshole Right-Wing Females From Cold Places straight.
There is a fine line. As part of an organization, I may strongly advocate for spending more of our budget on X than Y, with very good reason. However, if I’m overruled, that doesn’t preclude me from benefiting from expenditures on Y. In this case, the case which I think John is assuming, then there is no hypocrisy.
In Dio’s case, there is a stated moral objection to Y. As such, it would be hypocritical to benefit from it.
From what I’ve gathered, Bachmann’s rhetoric is much closer to the latter. Any evidence to the contrary?