Teabagger Whacktard Christine O’Donnell Warns Against Mice With Human Brains!

[Ladewig]

It's pretty clear what Your Litmus Test is, I would say.

OK. You caught me in your clever trap. I think Creationism is nonsense. I could not vote for a conservative creationist, a liberal creationist or an independent creationist. I will strenuously defend their right to believe it and their right to run for office. If a creationist shows up at JREF and simply says this is what I believe, I have no problem with it. However as soon as someone says there is evidence for creationism - I bristle. When someone says there is as much evidence for creationism as for evolution, I laugh.


I'll ask a fourth time. Do you, Mhaze, believe it is nonsense to claim that 6-day creationism has as much evidence as evolution?

 

[AlBell]

I bet your mommy told you that you were clever, huh?

I bet yours didn't.

 

[Ladewig]

“when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional.”

How is this different than what every other Senator does?

I find it amazing how far afield proposed legislation can get while the person introducing the bill calls it constitutional. For instance, in 1979, Sen. Jesse Helms introduced a legislative rider that would have forbidden the Supreme Court to review cases concerning prayer in the public schools.

 

[mhaze]

OK. You caught me in your clever trap. I think Creationism is nonsense. I could not vote for a conservative creationist, a liberal creationist or an independent creationist. I will strenuously defend their right to believe it and their right to run for office. If a creationist shows up at JREF and simply says this is what I believe, I have no problem with it. However as soon as someone says there is evidence for creationism - I bristle. When someone says there is as much evidence for creationism as for evolution, I laugh.


I'll ask a fourth time. Do you, Mhaze, believe it is nonsense to claim that 6-day creationism has as much evidence as evolution?

It's been noted recently that the Republicans stand to win big in November, but only to the extent that they stick to fiscal issues, issues of strict constitutionality, and smaller government. In my area, there are two congressional districts with strong Democratic incumbents, where for separate and unrelated reasons the two challengers are Republicans who emphasize their religion and anti-abortion stand.

These two candidates will lose to the incumbent socialists. Why? In large part because they are focusing on issues are irrelevant to most people and certainly they are not focused on the critical issues of today.

There are several other districts where the candidates have various levels of religious bent but they are strictly focused on the economy. They are going to win.

So this is all pretty simple stuff from my way of thinking. If O'Donnell stays focused on the right message, she has a chance. If she focuses on religion instead of or alongside economic and constitutional messages, that'll cause her to lose. Thus dredging up things from her past regarding religion are totally irrelevant.

Now to your trite evolution-vs-creationism question. Do I believe it is nonsense to argue creationism? (Previously I clarified for you the meaning of the term nonsense).

It's not nonsense in particular if the voter base believes that stuff. Scientifically wrong, but not nonsense. And a losing strategy for the election at this moment in time, irregardless of the voter's base beliefs,because right now the voters want to hear challengers talking about cutting spending, stopping the mad printing of money, and limiting government.

I previously noted the top down dissemination of the 'mice-brain' meme from TPM and that third or fourth tier down it quite predictably reached this forum. But note that this isn't where voters are at for Delaware. They are over in Delaware. So one reasonable question is whether in the case of a candidate who has stated she's going to work based on strict constitutionality and who has said that individual sex shouldn't be a matter for legislatures, etc, is this an effort by the opposition to spin her as running a campaign based on religion?

 

[Ladewig]

Do I believe it is nonsense to argue creationism? (Previously I clarified for you the meaning of the term nonsense).

It's not nonsense in particular if the voter base believes that stuff. Scientifically wrong, but not nonsense.

Thank you. That's all I needed to know.

I am done arguing about the matter. I just wanted you to make your position clear and you most certainly have done that.

 

[AlBell]

Hey, if you're going to make up numbers why not just say 9,999,999,999 out of 10,000,000,000?

Only a Democrat could find that many voters. LBJ would be envious.

"Cross-breeding" means something very specific, and nothing at all to do with the reality to which O'Donnell was erroneously referring. So you either share O'Donnell's laughable misconception of what "cross-breeding" means, or you think 99.9% of "normal voters" are as stupid as she is.

I think 0.000001% of voters hang out here congratulating themselves on how intelligent they are and how dumb everyone else is.

 

[mhaze]

.....
I think 0.000001% of voters hang out here congratulating themselves on how intelligent they are and how dumb everyone else is.

That would be dumber than a sack of rocks...

Wait....

 

[Corsair 115]

I'm a conservative. So you may want to rethink your statement.

Pffft! No you're not! You a CINO (conservative-in-name-only)!

It's not nonsense in particular if the voter base believes that stuff. Scientifically wrong, but not nonsense.

Wait, so something isn't nonsense if enough people believe in it? So if enough of the American population came to believe in the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, the theories would no longer be nonsense?

 

[Biscuit]

?? Frankenstein-esque? We're not sticking dead peoples' parts together here. Maligning science? Nope, don't see that.

It's worth noting that the subject of the discussion, the mouse-man quip, was not the central issue in that discussion that O'Donnell kept returning to. That was the ethics of human cloning.

If that isn't addressed, then this is all just quote mining. You see, O'Reilly addressed the issue of growing human organs in animals as a solution or a way to allow harvesting useful replacement parts.

Two different subjects, to which the quip concerning mice with human brains was ancillary and peripheral to the main question.

Frankenstein was the Doctor not the monster. When I say Frankenstein-esque I mean she is painting modern scientists as freak doctors conducting radical and morally abhorrent experiments in their high castles.

She is clearly making an appeal to her fundamentalist base who believe that modern science is an affront to their morals. These people oppose all manner of research based on their perception that science is an amoral force attacking america. To paint adding human brain cells to mice as cross breeding and creating mice with human brains is an attack on science.

I state again that she may have done this out of her own ignorance or as a deliberate tactic to score points with her base. That is a point we can discuss.

It may not have been the main point but it was still said and combined with other fundamentalist beliefs she professes to hold is it relevant to her ability to be an effective law maker. What does the constitution say about stem cell research or pollution run off? What does the constitution say about establishing migratory paths for wild animals? How in the heck can she base every decision on the constitution?

 

[vwgub]

So....leave attempts to "comprehend the Constitution" to some group of .... experts?

As opposed to elected representatives and Senators?

I'm afraid the Supreme Court has ruled on that and you are wrong.

When has the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress are experts or need to be experts on Constitutional Law?

 

[vwgub]

To add to my previous post. It is not Congress' job to judge the constitutionality of the laws they pass, that's the role of the Supreme Court. I would hope they would consider the constitutional muster of the laws they pass because it would save time and resources.

 

[Biscuit]

To add to my previous post. It is not Congress' job to judge the constitutionality of the laws they pass, that's the role of the Supreme Court. I would hope they would consider the constitutional muster of the laws they pass because it would save time and resources.

I couldn't agree more. If Congress is going to sit around and go through past supreme court judgments, constitutional papers, and the constitution itself, to discover if every aspect of every law proposed is, in their opinion, constitutional than they will get nothing done.

What if one aspect of a multifaceted bill is judged by O'Donnell to be unconstitutional? Does she vote the whole bill down? Is it an over 50% rule? Her statement regarding this is just another pandering comment that has little basis in reality.

 

[mhaze]

To add to my previous post. It is not Congress' job to judge the constitutionality of the laws they pass, that's the role of the Supreme Court. I would hope they would consider the constitutional muster of the laws they pass because it would save time and resources.

Of course that's the way it is. Suuurrrreeee.

What does the oath of office say?

 

[vwgub]

Of course that's the way it is. Suuurrrreeee.

What does the oath of office say?

It says to uphold the constitution not to interpret the Constitution. Because interpretation of the Constitution is the Supreme Courts job not the Executive or Legislative branches of government job.

 

[mhaze]

Frankenstein was the Doctor not the monster. When I say Frankenstein-esque I mean she is painting modern scientists as freak doctors conducting radical and morally abhorrent experiments in their high castles. .....

Basically you could summarize her position as anti-stem cell research. There's no need for the hyperbole. Some voters agree with this position, some are opposed to it, some couldn't care less. It seems to me that the only job a Senator would have relative to such an issue might be to vote on bills providing federal funds for such research. I'd much rather the developments were done in the private sector resulting in patents and licensing of them.

....What does the constitution say about stem cell research or pollution run off? What does the constitution say about establishing migratory paths for wild animals? How in the heck can she base every decision on the constitution?

Good points. Haven't you answered your own question? What does the Constitution say about powers reserved to the states?

 

[Cleon]

Basically you could summarize her position as anti-stem cell research. There's no need for the hyperbole.

The "hyperbole" is coming from O'donnell.

 

[vwgub]

I couldn't agree more. If Congress is going to sit around and go through past supreme court judgments, constitutional papers, and the constitution itself, to discover if every aspect of every law proposed is, in their opinion, constitutional than they will get nothing done.

What if one aspect of a multifaceted bill is judged by O'Donnell to be unconstitutional? Does she vote the whole bill down? Is it an over 50% rule? Her statement regarding this is just another pandering comment that has little basis in reality.

My statement about saving time and resources was actually meant differently than I think you interpreted it. I mean I would hope that Congress (I mean individuals as well as the body) would at least consider whether or not proposed bills would pass basic constitutional muster. Not that those bills would pass stringent constitutional interpretation.

Ok I need to keep going on this to be sure I'm explaining myself right.

While it is not the job of Congress to interpret the Constitution. I would hope they would base their laws on the basic interpretation of the Constitution handed down by the Supreme Court. Only because to not do so means the Supreme Court once again has rule on an unconstitutional law that has already been decided before. I.E. see 14th amendment rulings. How many time
does the Supreme Court have to rule on equal protection under the law for all citizens?

 

[Dr. Keith]

O'Donnell

“when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional.”

But that is an easily falsifiable statement, isn't it? Constitutional is floor above which all legislation must operate, it is not a ceiling. I don't think she would vote for any of the following although they are clearly constitutional:

- increased income tax rates;
- increased capital gains tax rates;
- increased social security benefits;
- increased oversight of corporations;
- civil rights for gays;
- removal of prayer from the senate chambers;
- increased fees for logging and drilling operators on federal lands;
- increased oversight of industry by any regulatory body . . .

I am not saying that I am for everything in that list, but everything in that list is constitutional and completely against what I understand the Tea Party to be about. (And before someone nitpicks, only one of them has to be constitutional for her statement to be wrong. If you disagree on some of them ask your self if any of them are constitutional.)


She speaks without thinking and says things that are demonstrably false on serious issues. If this is the future of the GOP I am very sad.

 

[Biscuit]

My statement about saving time and resources was actually meant differently than I think you interpreted it. I mean I would hope that Congress (I mean individuals as well as the body) would at least consider whether or not proposed bills would pass basic constitutional muster. Not that those bills would pass stringent constitutional interpretation.

Ok I need to keep going on this to be sure I'm explaining myself right.

While it is not the job of Congress to interpret the Constitution. I would hope they would base their laws on the basic interpretation of the Constitution handed down by the Supreme Court. Only because to not do so means the Supreme Court once again has rule on an unconstitutional law that has already been decided before. I.E. see 14th amendment rulings. How many time
does the Supreme Court have to rule on equal protection under the law for all citizens?

Yes of course. I got that. I just think it is absurd for O'Donnell to be wasting our time interpreting the constitutionality of every bill before voting on it. That is clearly defined in the constitution as the judicial branches job.

Consider it? Yes. Uphold it. 100%

 

[johnny karate]

I think 0.000001% of voters hang out here congratulating themselves on how intelligent they are and how dumb everyone else is.

Not everyone. Just those too stupid to know what "cross-breeding" means.