Chris Coons Lied, Granny Died

Pages: 1 2

(But The Weekly World News is jumping right on it!)

In contrast to O’Donnell’s manifestly true point that “China could take us over monetarily before they could militarily,” Coons seemed more worried about a military invasion. He warned that “as the Chinese have become economically stronger, they are seeking to become militarily stronger.”

(O’Donnell quipped: “Are you saying that China has a plot to take over America?” — exactly what she has been falsely accused of saying.)

If you do nothing else before casting your vote, Delawareans, ask people who know something if China poses more of a military threat, or a monetary threat, to us. (Make sure they know you’re talking about China the country, not singer/actress Chynna Phillips.)

What should worry Delaware voters even more than Coons’ demanding a first strike against China was the elaborate lying he did — on stage, in front of everyone — about his family’s financial interest in cap and trade.

Responding to the question about “our carbon footprint” from a student who will be living with his parents soon, O’Donnell gave a tour-de-force attack on the cap-and-trade bill, mentioning the massive electricity bills that will devastate Delaware’s farmers and elderly citizens.

She concluded by asking Coons: “Speaking of cap and trade, your family business stands to financially benefit from some environmental legislation under Bush — ”

Then she was cut off by the moderator.

Coons sneered: “A fascinating question that really makes no sense, yet, so if you’d like to — better ask the whole question, I’d be — what’s she talking about?”

O’Donnell said sweetly, “I’d like to know if your family business stands to have a financial gain if cap and trade is passed and, if so, would you recuse yourself in the lame duck sessions from voting with Harry Reid?”

Coons again scoffed at O’Donnell: “Fascinating question. No.”

Thinking he had caught O’Donnell in a gaffe, Blitzer asked for her evidence. Oops!

O’Donnell cited W.L. Gore — the company owned by Coon’s stepfather, which also provided Coons with the only for-profit job he ever held — and said that the company makes fuel cells and other things that companies will be forced to buy under cap and trade. (Making W.L. Gore at least the second entity named “Gore” to cash in on the global warming hoax, by the way.)

Blitzer asked Coons, “Is that true?” Oops, again!

Amid a litany of irrelevancies and insults – That’s quite a stretch, Gore makes a lot of products, we also sell dental floss! — Coons finally coughed up the truth: Yes, Gore will benefit if cap and trade becomes law.

He explained his earlier, by-now-obvious lie by saying that “it took a couple of minutes to even understand what she was talking about.”

Really? That’s strange, because according to Delaware newspaper articles not seven years ago, Coons himself — as the lawyer for Daddy’s company –- deployed Gore scientists to testify before Congress in favor of environmental mandates because, as Coons said, it was good for business.

On Nov. 16, 2003, “company lawyer Christopher Coons” told Wilmington’s News Journal: “This is one of those very rare moments where the legislative outcome matters to Gore.”

I guess now we know why Coons kept pretending he couldn’t understand the batty dame.

Pages: 1 2

  • maurice

    People have been complaining about Christine O'Donnell, for instance, Meghan McCain, daughter of John McCain, says she and her friends dislike the total lack of accomplishment of this candidate. But reading Ann Coulter's column, I am very much reassured about Christine, even if Christine was a witch. Perhaps we need good witches to do some magic in Washington – nothing else will turn it around. (We already have a bad witch called Pelosi). Seriously though, if I was in Delaware, I would vote for Ms. O'Donnell. One disagreement I have with Ann though – China may well be a military threat, and not just an economic threat. One of their military figures says "we must fight the Americans hand to hand". That doesn't sound peaceful.

    • ajnn

      Isn't this about O'Donnell trying to get on a reality show as a teenager?

      Is this just a 'college prank' ?

      • Gary from Jersey

        Two sentences, two stupid comments. Here are two words for you ajnn: grow up.

  • jacob

    If I would be McCain or any of his close relatives, I would keep mum, as the choice of
    McCain as presidential candidate was the worst mistake the RNC ever made, evidenced by his pitiful performance in his TV debates with OBAMA, with whom ROMNEY or any of the other aspirants would have swept the floor with and even before
    the polls, this "schlimazel" practically conceded him victory, stating he wold make a good president….
    As to Christine O'Donnell, I don't believe she would be worse than COONS.
    On the contrary, we need new people and not rotten professional politicians and it is time to send the DEMOCRAPS home..

    As to CHINA, what would take to bring back the "MADE IN USA" tag, nowadays as scarce as hen's teeth ???

    Would OBAMA do it ???
    DON'T COUNT ON IT…

  • Gamaliel Isaac
  • John Beatty

    Um…there were no Australians in Korea in Septermber 1950 when the Inchon landing took place.

    Australia and China hold joint maneuvers with New Zealand every third year, have for about a decade. Mostly they work the Celebes and Indian Ocean areas. No one has thought to find this remarkable until now.

    • Gary from Jersey

      Um, there indeed were Aussies in Korea in 1950 as part of the UN force the US had to lead.

      Maybe you think the Australian Navy likes to hold re-enactments because they're safer than real war.

  • Wesley69

    Coons is a Marxist Democrat, the type Obama wants in the Senate. He will vote with the administration 100% of the time. O'Donnell is a Republican/Tea Party candidate. She will vote against Obama's big government plans, block his radical left justice appointments in the Senate. Simply, she will vote to stop Obama's transformation of the US. Delaware, your vote is critical for the future of you, your children, this country.

    All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
    Thomas Jefferson

    • bubba4

      What we don't need are hysterical ninnies that call people they don't like Marxists. It's critical you vote for ODonnel if you want the "Know-Nothings" to return to power.

      • Guest

        I'd like to hear what you think Obummer meant by "fundamentally transforming America"? No vacuous boilerplate please.

      • Drlove

        As opposed to the enlightened leaders we now have .. my how marvelous a place we have here in the ole USA….demos repubs all the same….politicians when we need PUBLIC SERVANTS…not public savants….Vote the party line as always…
        We americans are morons…..

      • Stephen_Brady

        Didn't he call himself a "bearded Marxist"? I realize that he's lost the beard, somewhere along the way. However, a "bearded Marxist" is a well-known caricature for a person who considers himself intellectually superior to others, and has a distinctively left-wing slant to his political views.

        Coons … whose name would be a late-night joke, if he were a Republican … fits the caricature, quite well.

        • bubba4

          He wrote a paper in college when he was 21 called "making of a bearded marxist". That is enough. Opposition research dug this little jewel up and now people like you not only think it's relevant you think it's current…

          Maybe he should have done a commercial where he says, "Im not a Marxist…Im nothing you've heard…I'm you"…lol

          • Stephen_Brady

            Ah, I understand, now.

            If you're a Republican who did something stupid in High School, it's necessary for that to haunt you for the rest of your life. But if you're a DEM … hey, it's good.

            Is this your theory?

          • bubba4

            Huh? I'm relating the two things…as being things the candidates did or said when they were kids basically. It's not relevant. If Coons was a Marxist in the FPM sense of the word or ODonnel were still a practicing witch then both would be relevant.

            I'm not much for the "less filling – tastes great" of politics.

          • coyote3

            Don't know whether he is a Maxist or not. I do know he proposes that government exercise power it doesn't have. Let's see that could make him a Marxist, a Facist, or a lot of other things, But look at what he proposes to do, it sure sounds Marxist.

          • bubba4

            You don't know a lot of things. But it's not necessary to post your point of view anymore since it is unchanging and encompasses almost everything discussed politically today and everything the Federal government currently does with the exception of killing foreigners.

            If we were trying to decide on the rules of a game and your opinion was that there was no game and we shouldn't be playing, then there would be no need for you to pipe in as each rule was discussed.

      • Foolster41

        Once again, Bubba you are calling a repbulican/tea partier/conservative a "know-nothing" (and again, it's a woman too!) without substantiating it, as you did in another topic. I asked you this in the other topic as well and you didn't answer. Could you please explain in what way O'Donnel is a "know nothing?" What do you think about the dishonesty of Coons, as stated in the article?

        And asking reporter questions to clearify is NOT trolling, as much as you claim it is to avoid uncomfortable questions.

        • bubba4

          The "Know Nothings" is the nickname of the American Party from the 1800's. While the name is appropriate on many levels today, it didn't mean they were stupid…but they did accomplish very little. It is similar to the Tea Party of today in some ways.

          I don't know what debate Ann watched to write this article. It is nakedly biased and ridiculous. Here's the actual transcript if you want to read what was said. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/1

          What dishonesty are you talking about?

          If you haven't figured it out yet, this article is an editorial and full of assertions that have more to do with what Ann believes and wants than what happened at the Debate.

          • Foolster41

            Again, you fail to answer my question. Please answer it this time. In what way are tea partiers in general, and O'Donnol in general are "know nothings"? Why do you beleive the tea party won't do anything?

          • bubba4

            I answered you in the Newsreel blog…I asked if you wanted a list of stupid things Tea Party women said..

            "Anway, yes. I asked you twice now to give subtance to your claims (unworldly, lame and uncurious). I'm not sure why you need to be told three times before you actually do it."

            I think this whole line of questioning is feigned ignorance on your part, but whatever, I'll bite. You can't use google apparently.

            First off, people call her a moron and stupid, etc…but she seems to have all her faculties. I don't think she is retarded or below average ability…she's just ignorant and proud of it. More of that below…but the other thing that makes her "stupid" (and I think this is what you're hoping for) is she's a born again Christian creationist who doesn't seem to have a very good grasp on science or history.

            Here is a small sampling of quotes to consider:

            "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."

            "You know what, evolution is a myth." / "Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?"

            "God may choose to heal someone from cancer, yet that person still has a great deal of medical bills. The outstanding bills do not determine whether or not the patient has been healed by God."

            When asked by O'Donnell at this last debate if evolution was a myth she said, "What I believe is irrelevant."

            So does she now believe in evolution…of course not, but her handlers told her to never say that again. So there's a small list for you. I hope it makes you happy. I wish you would just come out and state what you are looking or hoping for..instead of asking for substantiation of an opinion.

          • bubba4

            I think this whole line of questioning is feigned ignorance on your part, but whatever, I'll bite.

            First off, people call her a moron and stupid, etc…but she seems to have all her faculties. She's just ignorant and proud of it. More of that below…but the other thing that makes her "stupid" (and I think this is what you're hoping for) is she's a born again Christian creationist who doesn't seem to have a very good grasp on science or history.

            Here is a small sampling of quotes to consider:

            "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."

            "You know what, evolution is a myth." / "Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?"

            "God may choose to heal someone from cancer, yet that person still has a great deal of medical bills. The outstanding bills do not determine whether or not the patient has been healed by God."

            When asked by O'Donnell at this last debate if evolution was a myth she said, "What I believe is irrelevant."

            So does she now believe in evolution…of course not, but her handlers told her to never say that again.

            So there's a small list for you. I hope it makes you happy. I wish you would just come out and state what you are looking or hoping for..instead of asking for substantiation of an opinion.

          • Foolster41

            It would have been nice of you to give citations instead of making me google all these since you're presenting them as evidence.

            So, it's because she's a bible beleiving Christan. I see.There are scientists who question macro evoltuion/evolutinist beinings, and it seems sort of condescending to call all Christians who beleive in Creation as "idiots". I don't call those who believe all people came from apes stupid.

          • bubba4

            Sigh. This was a small sampling. Are you telling me you have never heard any of this stuff? I find that difficult to believe.

            You can still "believe" in Christ and think that path is valid and not be a fundamentalist who thinks that biblical mythology is literal. If you "believe" for instance that the world was created in 7 days, then, and I mean this as condescendingly as possible, you're stupid.

            Now, here in America you are free to believe whatever you want. However, what you believe becomes very relevant when you are running for public office and will be a position to decide things for the rest of us.

            There really aren't scientists that believe in Creationism…because the entire concept is anti-science and anti-scientific method. The guy who writes and stars in that CBN show about Creationism…he's a "scientist"…he has "degrees" and so forth.

            And "people" (modern humans) didn't come from modern apes…but man and most apes, monkeys, chimps and so forth share a common ancestor. The evolutionary reasons for why we and apes are so different (and why we have these brains and apes don't) is very interesting and if you want to feel the entire process of evolution is poetic, elegant and the work of a divine being you certainly can.

            But don't say that Creationism is science because it simply isn't.

          • 93Metro

            And your proof that all share a common ancestor is what? There's still a lot of theory being tossed around as fact concerning evolution. You can't prove your point, so you have to have faith in your position just as believers do in theirs. Sooner or later, that elitist attitude you're tossing around is going to get you in trouble…..

          • bubba4

            There is no way to "prove" in the ways you mean something as broad as evolution or the lifecycles of a star. You can guess but since we can't travel through time and since our minds cannot fully comprehend the passing of billions of years…it's tough to "prove"…like I can't take you on a tour of the earth's past in fast forward so you can literally observe evolution and be convince that is best explains the natural world and the formation and ongoing changes of life on earth.

            So you got me there…

            If the vast body of scientific work in this area doesn't help you at all understand the natural world, but is instead a source of doubt and confusion, then you are protecting your ideas from common sense and what can be observed.

            Especially in the face of what we (humankind) have learned in the last 30 years about genetics and just how right Darwin was even just observing, sketching and guessing…you have to actively doubt and discard to avoid noticing what is increasingly obvious.

            Standing up for science is elitist to you…shows where you're coming from.

            I notice you take no position at all…unless it's that nothing can be known and I think that Descartes put that one to bed a long time ago.

          • Foolster41

            I suppose you beleive "they" (which includes me) don't deserve to be in office? And once that's taken away, perhaps they also loose their rights to vote, be parents or educate in a school. It's a slippery slope leading right to the Gistapo.

            The rat thing is defeinitly odd, same with the medical bills thing, of course it is worrying if she uses this to effect law, but considering the alternative a guy who will go along with the socialist polcies of the last 2 years, I think I'd rather have that.

            "wish you would just come out and state what you are looking or hoping for..instead of asking for substantiation of an opinion. "
            Wow, hypocrite much? All I wanted was just what i asked for WHY you think O'Donnol/Tea Partiers/GOP are stupid. Now I know, thank you.

            It's not feigned ignorance. I don't have the power of teleathy to know why you beleive someone is stupid.

          • Foolster41

            I agree the statements about the mice and the medical bills are odd, but seeing her opponent who stands for following the lleftist policies of the last 2 years that have been disastors the choice to me is a no-brainer. You seem to be under the impression that Christians who beleive the bible are unfit to run for office? This seems like a dangerous slippery slope to go down.

            " I wish you would just come out and state what you are looking or hoping for..instead of asking for substantiation of an opinion. "
            Hypocracy much? I said just what I wantd, an explination of why you think GOP/tea Party/O'Donnol is stupid etc. You're not the one who's coming out and saying what you mean. And thank you for finally explaining.

          • bubba4

            Whether or not Obama and the Democrats are communist traitors who want to destroy America will have to wait for another thread.

            "You seem to be under the impression that Christians who beleive the bible are unfit to run for office? This seems like a dangerous slippery slope to go down."

            Well, then get it right…it's being anti-science, anti-knowledge that is not good..not being a Christian. If you're a rabid Hindu that thinks that the world was literally ground into existence on the back of the great turtle Vishnu, then I would have a similar problem. Especially if you went as far as Christine ODonnel has done and claim that you can hear the voice of God.

  • watchful

    It seems our entire government is filled with people who directly benefit from the way they and their cronies vote. This is a conflict of interest if there ever was such a thing. It must be stopped. Tea partiers, your mission, should you decided to accept it …

  • Yetwave

    For the people of the state of Delaware, the choice in the race for US Senate is between a back scratching, condescending windbag and mental munchkin. No matter which one of these unspeakable human beings wins the race, the losers are the people of Delaware and insofar as their selection effects voting and Senate sway, the rest of us as well.

    • Foolster41

      *sigh* I swear it's like "whack a mole" on here. Another troll who gives a drive-by insult to O'Donnol without substance.

  • bubba4

    Poor Ann. After that debate she has to write an article trying to make ODonnel not only look competent but the "winner" of the debate. Talk about bizarro world.

    • USMCSniper

      Comrade bubba4 make support and lies for Marxist stooges like Conmrade Coons for greater glory of Chairman Obama as head of one world government.

  • david elder

    As an Australian I know little about Mr Coons or Ms O'Donnell. I do know that both of our major parties here, the Labor government led by Julia Gillard and opposition conservative coalition led by Tony Abbott, are vigorously committed to our alliance with the US, and to military action against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Both parties have recently reaffirmed this stand in Afghanistan despite some public concern about the course of the war. Parliamentary opposition to our Afghan involvement is the province of our Green party, which as usual is cluttered up with numerous such hard-left policies unrelated to the environment.

  • badaboo

    What a pathetic situation in American politics , how absurd a choice , voters shall have to make ! '

    Coons a pathological LIAR , and O'Donnell an unabashed MORON .

    Hey mate , that's all you need to know about these two .

    • Doc

      Usual response no substance just name calling….no argument with facts just call someone names….
      Of course that is the american way! Flash over substance…go for the laugh or the insult…censorship by ridicule…..Prime example of political correctness..
      Ah the decline of the USA..happened faster than anyone expected….such is the fate of arrogant people….Too bad we were so nasty to those we passed on our way to the top…now we gonna get spanked hard on the way down….
      DrlOve

    • Foolster41

      Hi Badaboo. I'll ask you the same question I asked Bubba: what makes you beleive O'Donnel a moron?

      As Doc says below, Subtance, not insults!

      • bubba4

        I don't know why you have to ask…but since you're so insistent about it, you must think you're onto something. So, I'll bite.

        First off, people call her a moron and stupid, etc…but she seems to have all her faculties. I don't think she is retarded or below average ability…she's just ignorant and proud of it. More of that below…but the other thing that makes her "stupid" (and I think this is what you're hoping for) is she's a born again Christian creationist who doesn't seem to have a very good grasp on science or history.

        Here is a small sampling of quotes to consider:

        "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."

        "You know what, evolution is a myth." / "Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?"

        "God may choose to heal someone from cancer, yet that person still has a great deal of medical bills. The outstanding bills do not determine whether or not the patient has been healed by God."

        When asked by O'Donnell at this last debate if evolution was a myth she said, "What I believe is irrelevant."

        So does she now believe in evolution…of course not, but her handlers told her to never say that again.

      • bubba4

        I don't know why you have to ask…but since you're so insistent about it, you must think you're onto something. So, I'll bite.

        First off, people call her a moron and stupid, etc…but she seems to have all her faculties. I don't think she is retarded or below average ability…she's just ignorant and proud of it. More of that below…but the other thing that makes her "stupid" (and I think this is what you're hoping for) is she's a born again Christian creationist who doesn't seem to have a very good grasp on science or history.

        Here is a small sampling of quotes to consider:

        "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."

        "You know what, evolution is a myth." / "Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?"

        "God may choose to heal someone from cancer, yet that person still has a great deal of medical bills. The outstanding bills do not determine whether or not the patient has been healed by God."

        When asked by O'Donnell at this last debate if evolution was a myth she said, "What I believe is irrelevant."

        So does she now believe in evolution…of course not, but her handlers told her to never say that again.

    • aspacia

      Ad Hom attacks do not make a valid claim. Do you have any valid support for your claim? I doubt it.

  • Michael Harris

    My take on the debate is that Christine's claim that the First Amendment does not prevent the establishment of religion was the prime reason why she is singly unqualified. She has a record of doing nothing and has no understanding of the Constitution — a treat she shares with liberals. In a Republican year she will be trounced. If I were a a Delaware voter I would simply not vote for Senator. As a Florida voter, I have already voted for Marco.

    • Foolster41

      That's not what she said. She said that the phrase "seperaton of church and state" isn't in the constitutioin, or the first amendment. (She's right, it isn't, feel free to look it up) http://michellemalkin.com/2010/10/19/chris-coons-

      Yes, the goverment can't establish one religion over others, but that doesn't prevent the goverment from teaching on the principles of different religions.

      the idea of this speration- (looks up at micheal, searching the constitution "try the letters of Thomas Jefferson")- is being used to the redicoulus levels by liberals to removie student prayer, prstolitizing, reading their bibles, wearing religious symbols and even wishing a "Merry Christmas"! This was never the intent to use the first amendment as a hammer to remove the rights of students.

      • bubba4

        The "war on Christmas" and other made up "Christians have it rough in America" stories are all bs.

        There is no way to interpret the first amendment as not providing for the separation of church and state. The reason people cite letters from Jefferson and essays and other writings from him and the other founding fathers, is because they explained themselves in detail. This should help our understanding of the constitution…where we don't have to guess about intent beyond the words, or guess as to the environment they were in when they wrote it….they told us…it's part of history.

      • RalphB

        O'Donnell said nothing about "the phrase": "separation of church and state" not being in the Constitution, She claimed that "separation of church and state" simpliciter, i.e., the concept of the separation of church and state is not in the constitution. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Om-oDWSPtM at 6:01 and 7:26. Unfortunately for us, Coons was right, and there is no way to avoid the state establishment of religion except by the separation of church and state, and that this separation was the clear intent of the Founders is shown by their other writings on the issue. I defy any informed Constitutional Conservative to watch O'Donnell's performance without embarrassment. I recommend Delaware voters vote for Libertarian Senate candidate James Rash, since after that debate it is clear that O'Donnell cannot — and should not — win.

        I'm sorry to say that Malkin got it wrong (to put it kindly) and that O'Donnell's 'knowledge' of the Constitution obviously comes from tendentious secondary sources — as does her knowledge of science. It's not that hard to read and learn the Constitution! Coulter knows better too, but some people can't help pushing their religious orthodoxies ahead of political freedom for all.

        • bubba4

          Malkin is one of those writers that knows the outcome before the debate. ODonnel is just making it tough on her having to explain away the stupid.

          Of course they know better…

  • Reneeca

    Foolster is correct but it seems tha people hear what they want to hear. The media has been laughing about her answer about the seperation of church and state not being in the Cnstitution and she is absolutely correct on that Mr. Harris. The left has contorted the Constitution to whatever they deem the meaning should be. I don't remember anything in the Constitution about abortions either.

  • Jim Johnson

    The constitution mentions that the state may not establish a state religion or( religions ,my extension). Separation of church and state is impossible as this would mean that even the supreme court could make no judgements concerning any issue in which religion was involved. Yet once in a while the courts have been called on to decide if an organization was a church or religion or not. In which case they may have actually established state religions by means of accepting a prospective religion as legitimate and another not. A band of bank robbers claiming robbing banks is part of their religion may well be judged as not a religion but a criminal organization.
    Wise people stick to the establishment language. However they do so with great cleverness using every appearance of religion touching any thing governmental as in effect establishing a religion. Doing so makes the public think the courts are engaging in loop hole abuse.
    They very wise will stick to the interpretation which disallows the Government from forming a written instrument or official oral proclimation which declares a certain religion as the official state religion.

  • Foolster41

    In other words, you are for surpressing the rights of students of expression their I religius beleifs, be they Buddist, Muslim or Christian, etc.

    I fully support the goverment being prevented from preaching any religion, but the first amendment was never meant be to be hammer to sillence religion in public realms and has little to do with what students and free citizens do.

    Non religions bias means not favoring one, not supressing themall equally.

    • bubba4

      "In other words, you are for surpressing the rights of students"

      Really, that's what you got from "protecting the rights"?

      "but the first amendment was never meant be to be hammer to sillence religion in public realms and has little to do with what students and free citizens do."

      We'll who's "hammering". This started with Christine ODonnel and seperation of church and state. I have clearly stated that I am 100% behind religious freedom in America.

      "Non religions bias means not favoring one, not supressing themall equally."

      What do you care? What do you want to do that you can't do? If you're a Christian, how are you being hammered? I don't think you are, I think it's just a general fear/angst.

  • Foolster41

    "and I mean this as condescendingly as possible,"
    As they say, "you said it.", yet you seem to think this is an admirable thing. I think it's clear which of us is being rude and insulting here.

    "Sigh. This was a small sampling. Are you telling me you have never heard any of this stuff? I find that difficult to believe."
    Again, a claim I am lying that you can't prove, since it involves what I really know. and amounts to mudslinging. Also, a standard that I doubt you yourself hold. Do you follow non-political news outside your state? Do you know who Patty Murry is? Dino Rossi? Dick Muri? Mike McGinn? No?

    I guess a whole lot of Nobel prizes and PHDs need to be taken back. I'm not going to bother argueing sceince with you, since it won't accomplish anything, but saying everyone disagreeing with you are "not really scientists" and "stupid" is not an argument. If you had mearly said they were wrong that would be another thing altogether.

    • Foolster41

      (Cont'd)
      "The "war on Christmas" and other made up "Christians have it rough in America" stories are all bs. "
      All? This is a silly statement since one example proves it false. It's like claiming there's no gold in China. If you had said "many" that might have been debatably true. Examples: http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/1_Jan/01310http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/24… (Footwashing is dangerous now? I wonder what had happened if these were Muslim?) http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/09/30/aclu-anti-rhttp://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/12/15/indiana-ele

      And many more on the Studentsforacademicfreedom.org website.

      • bubba4

        "All? This is a silly statement since one example proves it false."

        Yeah but Foolster, I'm not writing a magnum opus here…that wasn't trying to be a definitive declaration that anytime ever that a Christian feels "persecuted" that they are making it up.

        You gotta help me out a little bit, my posts are long enough as it is. I'm saying that there is no "war on Christmas"…no one is trying to take away your right to be a Christian. Did you read all these examples…I did. Do you think in all these the Christians are in the right? We are in a country with 350 million +. There are going to be disputes about what is allowed or sanctioned in public arenas like Universities. They win some, they lose some it seems depending on the circumstances…

        But if you read every account of a person feeling persecuted then it will seem like persecution is everywhere. You've got cases from years and years ago also…there are more current cases that fit the bill, but honestly if you are taking your dispute to court, aren't you exercising your rights? We don't have a lot of other venues to demand civil justice…but where is the persecution?

        I argued with a guy on Frontpage a while back that was pretty racist and when he found I would respond to him (negatively), he wanted me to explain each and every black and white crime and every incident where he felt a white man had been wronged by the law in favor of a minority. But he spent a lot of time on one of those websites that cobbles together crime stats and opinofact from all over the country and presents it as an oncoming wave of darky violence and a country going to hell in a handbasket.

        And if your going to hand out candy canes to students with invites to Bible study, try not claiming that the candy cane is a "J" for Jesus with white representing purity and red the blood of Christ.

    • bubba4

      It's a bit pithy…can't I have any fun..:(

      "Again, a claim I am lying that you can't prove, since it involves what I really know. and amounts to mudslinging."

      I said it's hard to believe…I didn't call you a liar. Relax.

      " Do you know who Patty Murry is? Dino Rossi? Dick Muri? Mike McGinn? No?"

      I have heard of all these people and I am semi-familar with the races from a National perspective, but no, I don't follow races too closely that I can't vote in.

      Well..again I am not writing a technical paper…I am more or less speaking conversationally…er writing…but yes calling it "stupid" is simply my opinion…calling it anti-science is simply a fact. It is. You can update mythology, but you can't say that mythology is a scientific discipline akin to physics or biology or something. It's starting with a conclusion and working your way back. That's not how science works.

      On CBN, on the creationism show, some "evidence" of creationism was the banana was so perfectly made for the human hand. Coincidence? I can't make this stuff up. I'm sorry…that's not science.

      You don't want to argue science because it's not a subject we can agree to disagree on…someone would have to be right and someone would have to be wrong. In this case, regarding Creationism…I'm right…it's not science and that's not just my opinion.

  • Foolster41

    Bubba:
    "that wasn't trying to be a definitive declaration that anytime ever that a Christian feels "persecuted" that they are making it up. "

    You said they are "all BS", (Emphisis mine) so if you don't mean that, don't say it. Of course Christians aren't right all the time, but to say it isn't happening is rediculous.

    On "Speration of Church and State": You're using doublespeak. When you say "protecting the rights" you use that phrase in the way Bill Maher would use it.

    You also talk about how Christians shouldn't be allowed to proslotyze on School using candy canes, and say how religion should be kept in people's homes. yes, from the wider context of what you've said I see that as supression and not protection. As I said, you see Freedom of Religion as as supressing all religions equally, but students should not have to check their religious rights at the school door.
    http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/10/25/1-29/

    • bubba4

      The "war on Christmas" and other made up "Christians have it rough in America" stories are all bs.

      Actually if you want to parse this, I was saying that "made up" ones are bs…and I count "the war on Christmas" as a made up one. Whether or not you agree with the above, focusing on "all" as to kinda alter what I was going for, is an odd angle…

      then as evidence persecution and "having it rough" you cite various cases where students are suing because they feel wronged by whatever institution. Christians aren't the only ones that file such cases, and since alot of cases like this rather petty (like they told me to take down my recruitment table) I still didn't see the persecution.

      "On "Speration of Church and State": You're using doublespeak. When you say "protecting the rights" you use that phrase in the way Bill Maher would use it."

      I have no idea what that means.

      "You also talk about how Christians shouldn't be allowed to proslotyze on School using candy canes"

      Not with a little historically inaccurate story about the origins of the candy and saying the red represents the blood of your savior. Try not claiming a candy.

      "and say how religion should be kept in people's homes."
      Well..in private spaces…which is the whole world accept for public spaces.

      "As I said, you see Freedom of Religion as as suppressing all religions equally, but students should not have to check their religious rights at the school door."

      Well…you can see yourself and your religion as suppressed I supposed. But you are now kind of conflating public spaces and institutions with you or Christians in general being persecuted…like people are coming after you and want to destroy your precious faith. This whole thread was about separation of church and state. You have every right to practice your religion and believe whatever you want. Your right to do so is protected.

      • Foolster41

        "I have no idea what that means. "
        My Refrence to Maher or doublespeak? See the article I posted a link to for the former, and then read George Orwell's 1984 for the later.

        "Well..in private spaces…which is the whole world accept [sic] for public spaces. "

        So, you beleive religion shouldn't be practiced in "public spaces"? See, this is where we disagree, and this isn't in any way shape or form "protecting religion". You make it sound big by saying "the whole world", but this is dishonest since most of the world is PUBLIC.

      • Foolster41

        Students have a right to free speach. they may speak about their religion outside of classes, they may present papers with biblical themes and allusions, they may wear clothes or pins with Christian statements on it. this is all PROTECTED by the first amendment. Youi aparently have a problem with this. Seperation of church and state is about the GOVERMENT bodies (or invidisuals representing the goverment) representing a religion, and does not restrict what INDIVISUALS do in goverment places.

        The candy cane thing is simply an analogy, like using the wordless book, and isn't meant to be any kind of actual history lesson.

        • bubba4

          So, you beleive religion shouldn't be practiced in "public spaces"?

          Well before that I used the phrase "keep it in the home" and you had a problem with that…so now public spaces is a problem…how about "arena"? Does that help? Was "space" too general…like you thought I was pulling a fast one and trying to ban you from sidewalks?

          You've spent way too much time in this thread accusing me of stuff or telling me what I meant instead of trying just a little to understand what I'm saying.

          So let me try to clear this up.

          Your rights to practice as you see fit are protected. However in public spaces (arena…dimension..whatever), it isn't always welcome. What's so hard to understand about this? There is a point when your right to be whatever infringes on the rights of other people to do and be what they want. Where is this point or line? Well…that's what those lawsuits were about. It's not that everyone's a Christian and the government is trying to stop you. The Government represents everyone…public school same thing.

          The candy cane example was yours. Upon first reading it sounds terrible…Christians being persecuted for inviting people to a Bible study.

          Then you keep reading and get the whole picture. Unlike you, I can kind of see where the school officials (or a parent) might object to this. It's not that I personally give a sh*t…K? So I ask you if you thought in all these cases the Christians were in the right? What was your answer? Somewhere in there is the line I was talking about earlier. But you don't want to see it.

          But it doesn't amount to persecution. So, I think I'm done with this thread…please don't turn what I'm saying into I think Christians should be shot.

          I'll ask again…what do you want to do that you can't do?

          "The candy cane thing is simply an analogy, like using the wordless book, and isn't meant to be any kind of actual history lesson."

          So say you…can you climb out of your point of view for a minute and look at it from the point of view of a damned sinner? Maybe they want their kid to enjoy their candy cane without thinking about the blood of someone else's savior. Does that compute?

          • Foolster41

            It has nothing to do with the WAY you say it, but the intent and the use of the word "PUBLIC".
            If I misunderstood you, I apollogize but I wasn't accusing you of anything, I was only trying to do my best to understand what you said based on what you said. I don't claim to be psycic.

            When you say things like "[relgous people] that want to start pushing their crazy into the public [arena/space]" or speak of "spheres it [religion] doesn't belong" or "unwelcome" etc. as qualifiers to what you say about fredom of religion, I am naterualy skepitcal and want to know what you specificly mean by this. This was my bone of contention with you, not the specific words you chose (thus why I emphisized "public"), so the accusation of semantic games is frivilous. You have repeatidly made statements that (at least sound like they) indicate that Christans and (other religous people) should not have PUBLIC rights to freedom of speach in schools or public areas, and this is troubling. If I am wrong and misunderstand you, please tell me.

          • Foolster41

            "it isn't always welcome" being (un)welcome and rights aren't the same thing. Someone might be offended by my Christian T-shirt, or offering brining up Christ in a coversation, but that doesn't mean I don't have a right to do either of those things.

            Do you mean to say by this that "unwelcome" actions should be limited? What about public actions that don't infringe on someone else's rights in public sidewalks or schools? (Such as offering tracts, mentioning Christ or wearing Christian aparel)? Or do you beleive these things are infringing on someone elses rights? if so, why?

          • bubba4

            Me personally? None of that stuff would bother me. Just as blanket actions, no,…those don't seem offensive or obtrusive.

            Schools should have policies that it doesn't happen in class I guess…but most of problems in this area have been about school prayer. I think like the candy cane incident, you probably don't see where school prayer at a publc function could be anything but good and innocuous, but some people do…so again there is that line.

          • Foolster41

            Thank you. Perhaps then we agree in more than either of us though.

            Could you please define "school prayer"? If you mean prayer being lead by a teacher as part of the class then I definitly thjink that would be a problem and should not be allowed. if a kid or even a student wants to pray over his/her lunch or meets others after school to pray by the flagpole, that I beleive should be protected.

          • bubba4

            Like praying in an audutorium or before a game where you're taking a whole crowd through a prayer…

            I think making a big deal about prayer during lunch could also get out of hand. Most of these issues I think can be handled by everyone just having a little discretion.

            What kind of a$$hole has a problem with people praying somewhere that it doesn't effect them…and would report such a thing. That's too much the other way…that would be a kind of disdain. I didn't see any cases that were this petty in all the cases of that Chrisitan attorneys network..with the exception of a girl being told to remove her table from a campus event. Then I read the case and she hadn't filled out the proper paperwork…and the dispute was whether or not permission was given another way…so I sighed and moved on.

            I would say this…I am the least of your worries when it comes to Christian persecution. However…I don't think being a follower of Christ and trying to be christ-like necessarily means that one has to be anti-science. In defense of science we don't need to be anti-prayer or anti-Christian…

          • Foolster41

            "please don't turn what I'm saying into I think Christians should be shot. "
            Of course, I never did say anything like that, but as I said, your statements I mention above are troubling since this implies not in public.

            "can you climb out of your point of view for a minute and look at it from the point of view of a damned sinner? "
            This is a bit hypocritical, I havn't seen anything from you that shows concern for the other side. There is a clear anti-christian, anti-religous bias in schools, and simply saying it's not there doesn't make it not there. I have presented cases. Yes, Chrsitians are fighting back legaly, but you wouldn't say that because Blacks are fighting back legaly against unjustice it isn't troubling that it's there to begin with? Also, sharing what someone beleifs about a candy now causes trama now?

            "So I ask you if you thought in all these cases the Christians were in the right? What was your answer? " I think you're the one that missed something. I said of course Christians aren't always right.

          • bubba4

            In this day and age we are going to see more of this, not less…but it is not an indication that Christians are being persecuted unfairly apart from other groups religious or otherwise. We can agree to disagree on that.

            "Also, sharing what someone beleifs about a candy now causes trama now?"

            Well..I can't answer for those school officials. But, I think if you did at least understand where someone might have a problem with it (not agree with it just understand it) you could strike this from the persecution column. Turn it around. What if your little one came home with crescent moon cookies that were red on one end and it came with a note that said the red was the blood of the infidel. I think you would have a sh*t attack.

            "I think you're the one that missed something. I said of course Christians aren't always right."

            Yes, OK…that being said, then I think these cases you present represent the blurry line between public and private where Christianity is concerned (but evangelical christianity imparticular) and it is being argued over. Just look at our semantic wrangling…well that has to play out in these cases.

            Whether it's blacks or Muslims or any group or minority, someone is filing a lawsuit somewhere. This is a big country. At some point you have to go from personal identification with these cases to statistics. Broad statistics over the last 20 years might give you the material to build a persecution argument, but I doubt it. I think these types of cases will be dwarfed by cases about race, sex and nationality (civil cases).

            I was raised a Christian in the South. There is practically a church on every corner. As our society changes, we will continue to see the eroding of the Christian majority and there might be more cases…anywhere that old meets new or urban meets rural or traditional meets progressive….someone is going to get their feathers ruffled somewhere.

          • Foolster41

            "that said the red was the blood of the infidel. I think you would have a sh*t attack. " I woul'd, but that is not because any religous analogy was tied to the candy, but the message of murder. I hope you realize the blood of a person who died to save people is a LITTLE (yes, I'm being sarcastic it's a LOT) different than blood of innocent people killed in the name of a religion. That annalogy is not onily inaccurate, it's offensive.

            Yes, I can understand how the candycane might upset someone who is non Chrsitan, but again, that doesn't mean it shoudn't be done or the person doesn't have a right to do it.

            For the rest, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

  • Foolster41

    "I don't follow races too closely that I can't vote in" My point then stands. You're a hypocrite for chiding me for not knowing about O'Donnol's statements when you do not hold yourself to the same standard.

  • bubba4

    BTW Foolster…can you use the reply function to help keep these threads in order…