OMG - Someone please control Christine O'donnell

User Forum Topic
Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on October 19, 2010 - 5:28pm

How can the tea-baggers be so dumb to nominate her? If this the direction our country is heading under "tea party" I see trouble ahead.
------------------------------------------------
O'Donnell, the GOP nominee for Senate in Delaware, was surprised to learn the Constitution had an amendment that prohibited the government from establishing a national religion.

"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" she asked opponent Democrat Chris Coons during their debate at Widener University Law School - apparently unaware of the "church and state" language in the First Amendment.

Amid laughter in the audience, O'Donnell continued: "Let me just clarify, you're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"
---------
Later in Tuesday's debate, O'Donnell was pressed to answer whether she would repeal the 14th (citizenship), 16th (income tax) and 17th (election of Senators) amendments.

O'Donnell was only familiar with the 17th amendment.

"I'm sorry, I didn't bring my Constitution with me," she said. "Fortunately, senators don't have to memorize the Constitution. Remind me of what the other ones are."

-------------------------------

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics...

Submitted by Coronita on October 19, 2010 - 5:31pm.

Lol...We're doomed...Right wing nut job anyone?

Submitted by gandalf on October 19, 2010 - 5:42pm.

Good grief.

Submitted by an on October 19, 2010 - 6:30pm.

Wow, just wow.

Submitted by faterikcartman on October 19, 2010 - 6:41pm.

enron_by_the_sea wrote:
How can the tea-baggers be so dumb to nominate her? If this the direction our country is heading under "tea party" I see trouble ahead.
------------------------------------------------
O'Donnell, the GOP nominee for Senate in Delaware, was surprised to learn the Constitution had an amendment that prohibited the government from establishing a national religion.

"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" she asked opponent Democrat Chris Coons during their debate at Widener University Law School - apparently unaware of the "church and state" language in the First Amendment.

Amid laughter in the audience, O'Donnell continued: "Let me just clarify, you're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"
---------
Later in Tuesday's debate, O'Donnell was pressed to answer whether she would repeal the 14th (citizenship), 16th (income tax) and 17th (election of Senators) amendments.

O'Donnell was only familiar with the 17th amendment.

"I'm sorry, I didn't bring my Constitution with me," she said. "Fortunately, senators don't have to memorize the Constitution. Remind me of what the other ones are."

-------------------------------

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/10/19/2010-10-19_christine_odonnell_tea_party_senate_hopeful_doesnt_believe_in_the_separation_of_.html#ixzz12r7p4yOH

I'm not saying you're dumb, so please don't be offended. You are clearly, however, not fairly educated.

There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, they had to put a free exercise clause in there as many of the original states/colonies were founded around religious lines.

What they feared was a national religion -- hence the establishment clause.

The "separation of church and state" was not introduced into the Constitution until the 1940's by an FDR judge who was a former KKK member and KKK lawyer.

Didn't some Nazi once say if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe it as fact?

Now the separation of church and is believed to be in the Constitution just because some judge said so -- even though it is clearly not there. Orwell was right about people believing anything the state tells them.

Supreme Court judges have also said it separate but equal is Constitutional. And that escaped slaves should be returned to their owners under the Constitution. And that we can put Japanese Americans in internment camps according to the Constitution.

So please don't tell me just because a judge says it's there it's there, because even you don't believe that. Read it for yourselves and see what you've been missing.

Submitted by ocrenter on October 19, 2010 - 6:52pm.

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.

sounds like separation of church and state is pretty clear cut here.

Submitted by KIBU on October 19, 2010 - 7:05pm.

Geez, I think the party picked the wrong one to protect the constitution !

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/...

Submitted by Vod-Vil on October 19, 2010 - 7:07pm.

How can the Democrats be so dumb to nominate Alvin Greene for Senate?If this is the direction our country is heading under "Democrat" I see trouble ahead.

Alvin Greene on his idea for stimulating the economy…

"Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays. Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an army uniform, air force uniform, and me in my suit. They can make toys of me and my vehicle, especially for the holidays and Christmas for the kids. That's something that would create jobs. So you see I think out of the box like that. It's not something a typical person would bring up. That's something that could happen, that makes sense. It's not a joke."

And you're calling the tea-baggers stupid.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on October 19, 2010 - 7:26pm.

faterikcartman wrote:

There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, they had to put a free exercise clause in there as many of the original states/colonies were founded around religious lines.

What they feared was a national religion -- hence the establishment clause.

The "separation of church and state" was not introduced into the Constitution until the 1940's by an FDR judge who was a former KKK member and KKK lawyer.

Didn't some Nazi once say if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe it as fact?

Now the separation of church and is believed to be in the Constitution just because some judge said so -- even though it is clearly not there. Orwell was right about people believing anything the state tells them.

Supreme Court judges have also said it separate but equal is Constitutional. And that escaped slaves should be returned to their owners under the Constitution. And that we can put Japanese Americans in internment camps according to the Constitution.

So please don't tell me just because a judge says it's there it's there, because even you don't believe that. Read it for yourselves and see what you've been missing.

The constitution explicitly states that the USSC decides on constitutional issues.
So if they say that the constitution is to be interpreted a certain way, they are the final word on that.
It can't be different until the court overrules itself later.
They are the final word.

Also, the phrase in question is from 1802.
Its from a letter written by Jefferson.

Here is good explainer.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Submitted by Coronita on October 19, 2010 - 7:44pm.

Vod-Vil wrote:
How can the Democrats be so dumb to nominate Alvin Greene for Senate?If this is the direction our country is heading under "Democrat" I see trouble ahead.

Alvin Greene on his idea for stimulating the economy…

"Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays. Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an army uniform, air force uniform, and me in my suit. They can make toys of me and my vehicle, especially for the holidays and Christmas for the kids. That's something that would create jobs. So you see I think out of the box like that. It's not something a typical person would bring up. That's something that could happen, that makes sense. It's not a joke."

And you're calling the tea-baggers stupid.

I'm sorry, but you really can't defend stupidity.... O'donnell definitely demonstrated, well, stupidity.... as disappointing as it is.

Now if I run under a tea-bagger label, please vote for me. I'll be sure to answer these questions correctly...

Flu...2010 writein...

(Briansd, you have my permission to have a field day on this one....She kinda earned it....)

Submitted by tc on October 19, 2010 - 7:59pm.

I love O'Donnell. She has been keeping me laughing for weeks now.

Submitted by urbanrealtor on October 19, 2010 - 8:00pm.

As I recall Alvin Greene was elected by Republicans in an open primary.

Am I wrong about that?

Submitted by Shadowfax on October 19, 2010 - 8:05pm.

LOL!! Can't....stop.....laughing!!!

Well, hopefully that solves that!

Congratulations, Senator Coons!

Submitted by Coronita on October 19, 2010 - 8:12pm.

Shadowfax wrote:
LOL!! Can't....stop.....laughing!!!

Well, hopefully that solves that!

Congratulations, Senator Coons!

Wouldn't it be a sadder affair if Coons loses :)

Anyone else thing that Odonnell and Palin kinda look alike?
Maybe it's just me....For politicians, I'd also add neither are too shabby looking either :)

For the amused...Here's the video....

http://all247news.com/another-delaware-s...

Submitted by no_such_reality on October 19, 2010 - 8:24pm.

flu wrote:
Shadowfax wrote:
LOL!! Can't....stop.....laughing!!!

Well, hopefully that solves that!

Congratulations, Senator Coons!

Wouldn't it be a sadder affair if Coons loses :)

Anyone else thing that Odonnell and Palin kinda look alike?
Maybe it's just me....For politicians, I'd also add neither are too shabby looking either :)

For the amused...Here's the video....

http://all247news.com/another-delaware-stunner-christine-o%E2%80%99donnell-questions-separation-of-church-state/6783/

Don't most of the voters there already know she's a literal interpetation of the bible, creationism teaching proponent?

Do you think this will deter her supporters at all? I doubt it. Call me jaded, but frankly I suspect as long as it's the 'right' religion, they're probably just fine with it.

Submitted by KIBU on October 19, 2010 - 8:33pm.

I wouldn't be very surprised to see her win.

It's laughing matter but it can be crying as well.

Submitted by tc on October 19, 2010 - 8:41pm.

I predict that if she loses she will have her own vh1 reality show. I wouldn't be surprised if she's already lined up her backup plan. I might even watch just for laughs.

Submitted by Shadowfax on October 19, 2010 - 8:42pm.

Yeah, go figure. The state with the most developed corporate law in the country could be a creationism backwater after the elections.

Please, someone convince me the people of Delaware won't let this woman become a Senator.

And, yes, someone already covered the Palin/McDonnel look-a-like issue:

http://www.newser.com/story/100685/stewa...

Submitted by Coronita on October 19, 2010 - 10:34pm.

Shadowfax wrote:
Yeah, go figure. The state with the most developed corporate law in the country could be a creationism backwater after the elections.

Please, someone convince me the people of Delaware won't let this woman become a Senator.

And, yes, someone already covered the Palin/McDonnel look-a-like issue:

http://www.newser.com/story/100685/stewart-skewers-sarah-palin-clone-christine-odonnell.html

Ah don't worry. It's just a tiny state...One lunatic senator ain't going to make a dent..If things get really bad with our creditors, I'm sure we can just pay down some of our debt by selling that state to them anyway...Though I'm not sure they would want it....

Submitted by Eugene on October 19, 2010 - 11:24pm.

Quote:
One lunatic senator ain't going to make a dent

The problem with the Republican Party is that it's not just one lunatic senator, it's the whole party that is deeply and flagrantly anti-intellectualist. There was just an article in NY Times claiming that only one of all Republican Senate candidates believes in man-made global warming (which is, as you, of course, know, the scientific consensus). And a sizable number of them don't believe in evolution, either.

Why can't I have a party that's pro-business and pro-fiscal responsibility, but also respects science?

Submitted by faterikcartman on October 20, 2010 - 12:21am.

urbanrealtor wrote:
faterikcartman wrote:

There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, they had to put a free exercise clause in there as many of the original states/colonies were founded around religious lines.

What they feared was a national religion -- hence the establishment clause.

The "separation of church and state" was not introduced into the Constitution until the 1940's by an FDR judge who was a former KKK member and KKK lawyer.

Didn't some Nazi once say if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe it as fact?

Now the separation of church and is believed to be in the Constitution just because some judge said so -- even though it is clearly not there. Orwell was right about people believing anything the state tells them.

Supreme Court judges have also said it separate but equal is Constitutional. And that escaped slaves should be returned to their owners under the Constitution. And that we can put Japanese Americans in internment camps according to the Constitution.

So please don't tell me just because a judge says it's there it's there, because even you don't believe that. Read it for yourselves and see what you've been missing.

The constitution explicitly states that the USSC decides on constitutional issues.
So if they say that the constitution is to be interpreted a certain way, they are the final word on that.
It can't be different until the court overrules itself later.
They are the final word.

Also, the phrase in question is from 1802.
Its from a letter written by Jefferson.

Here is good explainer.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

I know where the phrase is from -- but that is not when it was introduced into our Constitution. A letter from Jefferson to some parishioners does not mean something is in the Constitution. If the nation intended to say there should be a separation of church and state the Constitution would have and could have been written that way. Or amended to reflect that change. Moreover, if that is what was intended, there would not have been the commonplace invocation of God in various public organizations -- including Congress, prior to Justice Black's opinion in the 1940's. History belies your assertion.

You have a frightening willingness to allow the boot of others to be put on your neck and your rights abrogated by a few unelected people who rule for life.

What you have embraced, perhaps unwittingly, is a belief that the Constitution may be rendered meaningless -- not through the amendment process for which the Constitution provides -- but through the opinions of judges.

Thus, the members of SCOTUS (not USSC) could die in car accidents tomorrow, and the newly appointed members could literally rule the Constitution does not mean what it says and instead means X,Y,Z and you would be fine with that.

That is exactly the tyranny that Christine O'Donnell was alluding to if, perhaps, not very artfully.

If it isn't obvious to you this would mean you have no rights other than what the state or the members of the judiciary say you have. That you have no rights given by "we the people". That you have no rights given by your creator.

This, of course, is likely why our Dear Leader left this line out of two recent quotes of the greater passage. Because if your rights come from a creator, they come from a power higher than the state. But if there is no creator, and we remove that line from the dialog, and your rights do not emanate from that creator, or even a Constitution ratified by the people through their representatives, they come from the state. And what the state gives it can take away. You are then, again, a subject -- the very thing this nation was founded to avoid.

Please note that I am not giving you some sort of religious Bible thumping sermon here. I'm pointing out the underpinnings of individual liberty in this country which you, and many others, are so willing to casually throw away.

You may also want to apprise yourself of Marbury v. Madison to learn that the Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review -- the court claimed that power for itself. And that congress can pass laws which exclude the Supreme Court from any right to review their constitutionality.

As for the majority of the other comments I glanced at which seem to condemn O'Donnell as an idiot I am very disappointed. I usually turn to the Piggs as the smart group.

The establishment clause is not the same thing as the separation of church and state. The later is NOT in the Constitution. If you're going to let every federal judge in the country, with SCOTUS having the last word, decide what the Constitution says based on the beliefs and wishes of individual justices you have lost your constitutional republic.

It may all seem dandy when things go your way, but what if there is another Hitler down the line? Or some other tyrant? Tough, your rights are what the men in black say they are and you've already abrogated your right to claim the words of the Constitution -- written so that all may understand them -- protect you.

Just tonight my wife, who is also a lawyer and who was also admitted to two top ten medical schools, reminded me why people like Christine O'Donnell's opponent in the debate are dangerous. If you actually listen to the whole segment at issue here you'll note that her opponent states that he believes the Constitution should not be read as it was written and with the meaning it originally had, but read to comport with our current times. But as my wife pointed out, the Constitution does not give judges that power. And why would it? Then your rights are meaningless and subject to the vagaries and whims of the particular federal judge to hear your case. She went on to point out that the Constitution explicitly provides for changing times and mores -- the Constitution may be changed through amendment.

But as my wife pointed out, that remedy is never turned to by those who believe it to be out of date and out of step with the times. Likely, she noted, because the reality is the opinions of these judges and their fans are not nearly as popular as they think they are. And that presented with a debate, the majority of people would recoil against them.

Hence the complaint by many who say legislation through judicial fiat is not only tyrannical and unconstitutional, but expresses a deep condescension that people are incapable of thinking for themselves. That may be, but without that opportunity we are not free. And that is why I believe many who profess to be "liberal" are anything but.

I'm not sure if it is a general lack of serious history instruction in the public schools, the fact that not everyone is a lawyer or, even if they are, were brainwashed by liberal ideology at law school, as in college, but I feel like I've just found the shallow end of the Piggington pool in this thread.

Submitted by Eugene on October 20, 2010 - 1:02am.

Quote:
I know where the phrase is from -- but that is not when it was introduced into our Constitution. A letter from Jefferson to some parishioners does not mean something is in the Constitution. If the nation intended to say there should be a separation of church and state the Constitution would have and could have been written that way. Or amended to reflect that change. Moreover, if that is what was intended, there would not have been the commonplace invocation of God in various public organizations -- including Congress, prior to Justice Black's opinion in the 1940's. History belies your assertion.

I think that what really needs to be clarified here is what you mean by "separation of church and state" and whether it's the same or in any way different from what the Constitution says, or from what Thomas Jefferson says in his letter.

I'll remind you that the relevant part of the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

To me this seems to mean quite clearly that the Congress shall not tell me which religion I should or should not practice, or favor one religion over another in any functional way. And the Fourteenth Amendment "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" applied the First to state legislatures as well. Which seems to be the same as the separation of church and state (aka the government).

Now, it is a valid point that, prior to the Fourteenth, we only had the separation at the federal level, and it was technically possible for the union to consist of some catholic states, some protestant states, a mormon state and a muslim state. (Even though that may not have been what Thomas Jefferson intended when he drafted the First.) But after the Fourteenth that position is no longer defensible.

Submitted by faterikcartman on October 20, 2010 - 1:12am.

Eugene, that's not how the courts have ruled.

I should have noted as well that the fashionable "living document" view of the Constitution results in a finding by many federal judges that gay marriage is protected in the Constitution as well as abortion -- even though they are not even mentioned. And many federal judges believing the Constitution does not give the people the right to keep and bear arms -- even though it says that explicitly.

So we find ourselves in a situation where are so-called "rights" are transitory and illusory. Subject to change year to year depending on the desires of people in black robes -- not the people or their representatives. So why would anyone bother to amend the Constitution if even plain words may be twisted by a judge the next day to mean something different?

As for republicans being anti-intellectual, I don't want to get stuck defending the current crop in congress. But I will note that conservative (I hate that term. They are really classical liberals -- meaning actually liberal -- generally, while those labeled "liberal" are generally fascist and want to control what you say, think, and do, right down to your diet and choice of light bulbs.) books are often bestsellers. Liberal books don't really sell at all.

I think it just may be true that intellectuals are readers while anti-intellectuals are probably not.

But I don't find the sales numbers surprising. I think liberals generally fall into three categories -- wealthy elites who don't buy their own BS; looters who want handouts taken from the labour of someone else; and useful idiots -- the vast majority. None of these groups hold their beliefs -- generally -- because of deep intellectual inquiry. They either want to get more money or power, a handout from the first group, or are just parroting what the nightly news and their college professors told them was good and evil.

I mentioned my wife in my last post for a reason. I think there are many people out there who question the company line put out by the mainstream media but are cowed into silence by those who would suggest their stupid, anti-intellectual, or just mean spirited. I am here to tell you that there are men and women out there who have reached the pinnacle of academic and professional excellence who are classical liberals (or what the mainstream media would label right wing extremists). You are not crazy, they are.

I'm sorry Christine O'Donnell is not the most polished or ready for prime time candidate -- but she has the right idea. I, for one, am ready for some absolute beginners who at least have the right ideas at heart. Currently we have an absolute beginner at the top who has anything but the best intentions for America -- unless you think the best thing for America is to be no more prosperous, influential, or powerful, than any random third-world country. In that case, you've found your guy.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on October 20, 2010 - 2:02am.

Um. Judges are the final arbiters on what the constitution means.

Submitted by weberlin on October 20, 2010 - 3:43am.

faterikcartman wrote:

-- wealthy elites who don't buy their own BS; looters who want handouts taken from the labour of someone else; and useful idiots -- the vast majority. None of these groups hold their beliefs -- generally -- because of deep intellectual inquiry. They either want to get more money or power, a handout from the first group, or are just parroting what the nightly news and their college professors told them was good and evil.

....

Currently we have an absolute beginner at the top who has anything but the best intentions for America -- unless you think the best thing for America is to be no more prosperous, influential, or powerful, than any random third-world country. In that case, you've found your guy.

You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. It sounds like your towing the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line: REAL conservatives have lost power in the Republican party, and anyone who claims to be liberal is brainwashing the masses, or part of the brainwashed masses.

As for Obama, I'm disappointed in you assessment as it sounds, again, like the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line. I am none-too-pleased with his performance, but to imply that his goals are to weaken the US is disingenuous at best.(take a sip of water from my mug)

At least there is the possibility of reasonable political discourse with faterikcartman. I wish more 'conservatives' would speak like this.

Submitted by harvey on October 20, 2010 - 6:33am.

faterikcartman wrote:
I'm not saying you're dumb, so please don't be offended. You are clearly, however, not fairly educated.

[snip]

Classic example of the pattern we see with the Tea Party.

One of their candidates demonstrates fundamental stupidity, and the "followers" try to defend the behavior using contrived arguments based on an incoherent muddle of historical references.

Perhaps there are some legal subtleties in the difference between the text of the First Amendment and the "separation" phrase.

But O'Donnell wasn't debating these subtleties - she simply lacks basic knowledge of the Constitution.

Is the Tea Party the party of "common sense values" or the party of nitpicking technicalities and rationalization?

And the explanations for Palin quitting? - "It was the patriotic thing to do..."

The fact that so many people try to defend such ignorance is an embarrassment to our country.

Submitted by blahblahblah on October 20, 2010 - 7:23am.

I recommend that we become indignant and enter postings on internet message boards voicing our concern. Clearly this is the correct course of action, and will prevent this sort of outrage from occurring in the future.

Later in Tuesday's debate, O'Donnell was pressed to answer whether she would repeal the 14th (citizenship), 16th (income tax) and 17th (election of Senators) amendments.

Wow, I didn't know that a single Senator could have the power to repeal constitutional amendments. I learn something new every day when reading the news!

Submitted by ucodegen on October 20, 2010 - 8:22am.

Eugene wrote:
There was just an article in NY Times claiming that only one of all Republican Senate candidates believes in man-made global warming (which is, as you, of course, know, the scientific consensus).

No it is not the scientific consensus. though that is a discussion for a separate thread. The media and politicians like 'consensus'.. it makes it easy to decide which way 'the wind blows'. The scientific process is based upon anything but consensus. The process is not based upon the total number of scientists on any one side.. but based upon the 'last fact standing'. Even Hansen (NOAA pro-AGW, and one of the most voiciferous) had to agree that not enough is know of the role water plays in the whole cycle and that their models do not properly account for it. The earth's surface is 60% water!

Submitted by ucodegen on October 20, 2010 - 8:35am.

faterikcartman wrote:
You may also want to apprise yourself of Marbury v. Madison to learn that the Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review -- the court claimed that power for itself. And that congress can pass laws which exclude the Supreme Court from any right to review their constitutionality.

From my recollection, first statement is correct.. it was established as a result of Marbury v. Madison and another case under Marshall. This established precedent. The case under Marshall established that the Supreme Court could review the constitutionality of any laws passed by Congress (also via establishing precedence). The method that Congress has around Constitutional review is by amending the Constitution (why the 2/3ds vs simple majority required too).

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on October 20, 2010 - 8:24am.

weberlin wrote:

You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative. It sounds like your towing the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line: REAL conservatives have lost power in the Republican party, and anyone who claims to be liberal is brainwashing the masses, or part of the brainwashed masses.

As for Obama, I'm disappointed in you assessment as it sounds, again, like the Fox/Murdoch/Koch line. I am none-too-pleased with his performance, but to imply that his goals are to weaken the US is disingenuous at best.(take a sip of water from my mug)

Weberlin: Definitely concur with your assessment that real conservatives have lost power in the GOP and I haven't voted GOP since 1996 as a result.

I think that there are true liberals (in the Moynihan mold) out there, but they've lost their voice within the Democratic Party as well.

Both sides are polarized and true power has cohered, in both parties, around the radicalized elements, which (IMHO) has forced Obama to shift ever leftward in order to "energize his base".

I'd also encourage you to look more closely at the Tea Party movement (which is in its version 1.0 iteration right now). You articulate concern about FOX/Murdoch/Koch, but I don't think that's who you really need to worry about. Its Rove/Armey/Scaife.

Love 'em or hate 'em, you're dealing with very canny political operators, who are backed by huge money. Right now, SuperPACs on the GOP side are outspending Dems 6 to 1 and they're involved in all the close/toss-up races. You better believe that guys like Rove and Armey are going to figure out how to harness the power of the Tea Party (which will be version 2.0) and then it won't be a joke anymore.

Even in its present form, the Tea Party is a force to be reckoned with. No, I'm not endorsing it, and people like Palin and O'Donnell scare the shit out of me. But the shrewder folks are figuring the right concoction of money, message and organization and putting it to work.

Watch what happens to the Dems in the mid-terms and then tell me that it was solely a function of voter discontent.

Submitted by ucodegen on October 20, 2010 - 8:31am.

weberlin wrote:
You have an interesting definition of liberal and conservative.

Ironically faterikcartman is technically correct on this point. If you trace back both political parties, you find that the Republican party was founded by Lincoln while the Democrat party is the party that was pro-slavery at the time. I do find it ironic that the Democrat party has a large part of its base of support in the colored south.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.