Posted on 10/21/2010 3:00:59 PM PDT by smoothsailing
WILMINGTON, Del., Oct. 21 (UPI) -- Christine O'Donnell, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Delaware, says news reports misrepresented her debate with Democrat Chris Coons.
In an interview with ABC News, O'Donnell argued that she won an exchange with Coons last week over the First Amendment. She said she succeeded in making her point that the Constitution does not use the phrase "separation of church and state" while Coons was unable to recite the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.
"It's really funny the way that the media reports things," she said. "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?'"
snip
While O'Donnell continues to get support from conservative figures like Rush Limbaugh, Meghan McCain, the daughter of U.S. Sen. John McCain, called her a "nut job" during an appearance on ABC's "This Week."
"All you have to do is laugh," O'Donnell said. "She's a blogger, and she's entitled to say whatever she wants."
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
You didn't make a good first impression....
I suspect you are one and done.........
You signed up today to tell us that she lost the debate because students at a TIER 4 law school who don’t know the Constitution laughed at her ?
Expect more. Happens every election. Concern trolls and the like with downbeat “insider” tips and somesuch. Whatever.
IBTZ
LOL! That’s one grooving cat!!!
Coons was probably confused because he wasn't sure which constitution the moderator was referring to.
Ann Coulter watched the debate and had this comment...
"O'Donnell's responses couldn't have been better if Thomas Sowell were whispering them in her ear. Then Coons would say something incomprehensible, false or insane.--Ann Coulter
And then you say.....what?
We should immediately follow by quoting: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", which means that no person of faith may be prohibited from speaking or holding government office based on religion.
When they bite on that one, you can point out that people have the right to do both at the same time. "no law" means NO LAW period.
Yes, isn't it?
Where you be, 3ML?
But by all means, FIRE AT WILL!!!!!
If the Founders would have only stopped right there.
LOL!
There's plenty that will if he ever shows his nose again.
I wonder if s/he's the young, the left or the thoughtless?
Maybe all of the above :)
We the Tea party members are getting tired of being Christian to followers of satan.
Some day soon we will strike back and take no prisoners.
I hope that you have the door upstairs locked and that your mommy’s basement is well stocked with food.
Good-bye little child.
We the Tea party members are getting tired of being Christian to followers of satan.
Some day soon we will strike back and take no prisoners.
I hope that you have the door upstairs locked and that your mommy’s basement is well stocked with food.
Good-bye little child.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.