Video proof that O'Donnell really did say that

[kpete]

Run time: 08:01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg   Posted on YouTube: October 19, 2010 By YouTube Member: FameAppeal Views on YouTube: 326   Posted on DU: October 19, 2010 By DU Member: kpete Views on DU: 2072

 
Christine O'Donnell ignorant of the Constitution (go to 2:37)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/19/911658/-DE-Sen:-Video-proof-that-ODonnell-really-did-say-that

[MilesColtrane]

1. She's too stupid to realize that people are laughing at her.

That's real Senatorial material there.

[RandomThoughts]

2. On the topic of teaching evolution.

There is something aethiest do not understand, excluding faith discussions is also a religion.

Things like intelligent design, and even concepts people have about faith issues and creation can be said to be religious, as can excluding those discussions.

O'Donnell makes the point that the communities should decide, as should the students, so many ideas of concepts explained makes for a more educated population.

By not mentioning concepts of faiths, and things like concepts of intelligent design, you actually are teaching a religion, separation of church and state should present each issue and let each person decide, that can only be done if both religions are mentioned.

So if you teach evolution with the comment on science, but without higher power, you are teaching a religious belief.

[ProfessorPlum]

4. No, you are not

you apparently don't understand this.

Science is explanation of phenomena which doesn't invoke supernatural causes/agents. Excluding creation myths (and there are thousands of them - which should be taught in your world?) from a discussion of how life changed and became what it is today is not a religious decision.

Those discussions can be had in a religious instruction class or sunday school or someplace else.

"but without higher power, you are teaching a religious belief."

According to this, every scientific finding is a religious belief.

[RandomThoughts]

8. Its a conversation I have had before, it ends up with this conclusion.

Your last line is correct. It is a religion based on best analysis of repeated cuasational relationships based on observations and peer review.

You see something happen the same way many times, you then make a best guess at causal relationship, you then submit that for review, other people can test it, results are the same, and so you believe it is probably correct, and it becomes part of science. Every good scientist knows there is no 100% proof in science, and not saying that something like intelligent design is a possible factor is not good science. When teaching evolution, the method of science belief system should also be taught by saying it is best guess by observations.

The science only group, may have a different set of experiences that gets them to believe different, but if they teach that evolution and even big bang theory with a claim of no higher powers, then they make a statement outside of their knowledge.

They can teach how fossil records show a pattern in changing of species and development over time, but they can not say it was without supernatural influence, hence not saying that Intelligent Design is possible is a claim of certainty they can not honestly make.

:shrug:

On a side note, cause and effect has shown I am due money for beer and travel, and many experiences. Peer review anyone?

[ProfessorPlum]

13. a nice summary of Hume - that causality cannot be proven

but science invokes Occam's Razor when it can.

Can you prove that gravity isn't due to fairies pulling things down toward the ground? Therefore, shouldn't that be taught?

[ProfessorPlum]

15. Can you prove that disease is not caused by viruses, but by

negative thoughts? Shouldn't that be taught?

[grantcart]

16. evolution is not a belief it is a scientific fact

This can be said because the conditions under which it operates can be recreated under controlled conditions.


The fact that Malaria has evolved to resist the anti Malaria treatments used 30 years ago proves all of the underlying tenets of eveolutionary theory. It has been recreated. Additional medicines have come out and the outcome is predicted. This is science.


This a provable fact and not a "best guess by observations". The conditions can be reduplicated.


Now if you want to argue that evolution applies to some species and not others then you are free to do so but the burden of proof would be on you.


And if you want to argue a religious crationist theory you are free to do so at Church. Such a discussion does not belong in a science classroom. They are not competing systems of belief. One is a provable objective theory. The other is a metaphysical system of belief. To try and put them on the same plain for discussion sake undermines both of them and bastardizes words so that they have no real meaning. They are also not mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible to understand evolution and have a religious belief, but studying that religious belief does not belong to and should not be confused with science.

[demi moore]

21. heres my take

the bible states that it knows how the universe began, that man was made from dust, and the rest..
but that's like saying we know the moon is made of cheese, why go there and find out.

its ok to believe in god/allah/the rest and still do science but when your trying to do the math as to where the universe came from.. you can't say = god. your going to have to figure it out without help from supernatural beings.

i am almost a scientist but i will not rule out a "god" but i consider that to be myself because i think the universe and everything in it is "god" and i am apart of the energy so... im god. but then again.. so are you :).

now i feel like smoking pot

[AlbertCat]

22. It is a religion based on....

It is not a religion. No one "believes" in science! People TRUST science....as you do every time you turn on an electric light or start your car or type on your PC. There is no dogma in science. Science is a method of investigation involving observation and experimentation. Religion is not. Science merely goes where the facts lead. Religions do not.


Cheesus.... these same old debunked arguments from religious unthinking people (like you) who simply will not or cannot process information. No wonder you don't even know what science is.

[mikelgb]

39. they also can't prove that FSM's noodley appendage did not simply place the fossil record.

So this should be taught too.

Also they cannot prove that I did not father all species, so I demand my delusions be taught as well.

I'm off to create a new gastropod. Notify the biologists.

[AlbertCat]

18. communities should decide, as should the students,

I'm sorry... but communities and students DO NOT DECIDE WHAT IS SCIENCE. Period.


They can go to church every Sunday and hear all about their cherished ancient myths. And in science class they will hear about science. There is no need to include mythology in science class. The myth can be accessed as easily as the facts science shows us. THEN an individual can make up his or her mind. This BS about teaching a nonexistent controversy just betrays that they know science has authority unmatched by theology. They pretend that students will never hear about Adam and Eve or whatever myth they want and that's the problem. But it isn't. It's that science actually explains things, makes sense, and is hugely successful.

Besides, all those getting their panties in a wad over this were taught evolution in school, and it didn't stick with them. They all still remember the feel good mythology they seem to love. So what are they worried about? They couldn't learn it, why do they think their kids will?

But obviously what they fear is that science is correct and has a lot of proof to show so.

[urgk]

24. +1 (n/t)

[urgk]

23. So...to not teach people to believe with disregard to evidence...

...is a belief without evidence, in and of itself?

Hm. That doesn't seem to be true. Let's pursue that a moment, shall we? If there are 22 major world religions, 21 are wrong. That is, 21 major world religions have adherents whose faith is misplaced.

Now, that would seem to be some sort of evidence that religions tend to be wrong. Making curriculum decisions based on the idea that the majority of faith-based systems are wrong, to exclude those faith-based systems would seem to be acting wholly outside of the realm of faith, and in the land of reason. Wouldn't you say?

[tkmorris]

26. What you are not understanding is...

There is a VAST difference between saying that a thing is not definitively not true, and saying there is no reason to think a thing is true. Another poster proposed the notion that gravity can be explained by faeries pulling things toward the ground. That is an excellent example. We cannot prove that there are no faeries causing gravity, BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE CONCEPT A VIABLE THEORY. Ideas which have no evidence to support them must be placed aside until such evidence is presented. A literally infinite number of ideas may be advanced to explain the world we live in, but without evidentiary support they are all equally pointless.

That is the fundamental difference between a religion and science. Science does not pretend to know what is, but sets out doggedly to try to find out. Science itself has no bias, if a concept has merit it is accepted, but if facts don't support it out it goes. Religion states unequivocally that it has the Truth, and states that no evidence is required. You may feel that these are equally valid approaches to learning about our universe, but they are not.

[GaYellowDawg]

33. No. NO.

Excluding faith discussions is not a religion when you're talking about teaching science. Science, as a discipline, excludes supernatural explanations. Exclusion of supernatural explanations from a science classroom is not a religion. It is simply science. Not a religion. When you force creationism or intelligent design into a biology classroom, you are imposing religion where it is inappropriate. It is comparable to introducing a religious explanation for 2+2=4. That artificial and inappropriate imposition of religion by any sort of public school is endorsement of religion and is unconstitutional.

Communities should decide? What you're advocating is that each community has the right to its own scientific "facts." No, they don't. They have the right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Evolution is scientific fact. Creationism is not. Fact is not dependent on community. Fact is not dependent on democracy. You do not get to vote on the physical phenomena of the universe.

Some concepts do not contribute to education; rather, they confuse the teaching of legitimate concepts. Introducing misconceptions alongside facts - with the strong implication that they are legitimate - is neither efficient nor effective teaching. That is not education. It is confusion.

Not mentioning concepts of faith in a science class is not teaching religion. It is teaching science, which, again, excludes religious or supernatural explanation. Excluding it in the science classroom is not religion. It is intellectual honesty.

[Courtesy Flush]

41. What kind of tea are you drinking?

That's like saying that a lack of science is the same as science. In fact, that's exactly what you're saying.

Keep in mind that we're talking about what kids are taught in SCIENCE class! Why can't people fathom that teaching religion in science class is extremely destructive to society. American kids are severely lagging in science compared to other nations... and we actually have large numbers of people who want to hold them back even more!

I blame the Taliban. American Christians are emulating their Muslim counterparts in a big competition to see who can force their beliefs on society the most. When we hold Afghanistan up as a model for science education, we're doomed.

[tabatha]

3. yackety yackety yack

[Indianademocrat91]

5. oh good lord

that smile really needs to be taken off her face, the ignorance of that witch is astounding..

[breadandwine]

31. Don't worry. On Election Day the GOP will be casting a spell over the whole country.

We will be hearing music across the whole country that sounds like this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFOc0aJr1Ts&feature=related

[tomm2thumbs]

6. can someone try harder to look as STUPID as she just did over that sequence?

I'd find it hard to believe anyone could have ended worse on that than she did

[Can of Whoop-ass]

7. Did she

escape or was she released prematurely?

[Stuart G]

9. She said, "That's in the First Amendment? " at least 2 maybe 3 times.

Wow...:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[yellerpup]

12. With eye rolling!

Who paid to put her on the ballot?

[monmouth]

17. Someone did it as payback for Alvin Greene, maybe....n/t

[CLANG]

28. She actually thought she had a "gotcha" moment!

What a dumb witch!

[Still Blue in PDX]

29. She's not a Witch.

She doesn't have the mental capacity.

[CLANG]

30. Well, I didn't want to use the B word so I just went with witch.

Sorry if that offends any real witches.

[Stuart G]

10. Thank you for posting this...absoultely wonderful...nt

[yellerpup]

11. The audience was laughing at her stunning ignorance

and she thought she was making points! :rofl: I hope no one is able to convince her just how wrong she is...keep talking ignoramus. That's what people really need to know about you.

[the redcoat]

14. I absolutely love how

When she asks "That's in the first amendment?" Coons just looks at her and drinks his water instead of answering.

[TheEuclideanOne]

27. You just know that in her peasize brain

that she is saying to herself, I can't wait to go back to the Interwebs, Google the 1st ammendment and really make a fool of this guy. I will even read the 1st ammendment just to show the world what a fool he is. I have got him!!!!

[the redcoat]

34. Hopefully she'll post the findings "on her website" nt

[KurtNYC]

40. that is a common response when you don't want to say the first

thing that comes into your mind.

Alternately you can just use the water in your response

like this: :spray:

[tomm2thumbs]

19. the typical Tea Bagger will say 'how REFRESHING' - because they are just as ignorant

hopefully she'll crawl back under that Bill Maher time machine and lose her way back to Salem circa 1692

sorry Salem 1692

[Plucketeer]

20. Ms O'Donnell is irrefutable evidence that

intelligent design is a flawed supposition. :dunce:

[Hamlette]

25. OMG that was worse than I imagined!

There is an old, right wing argument that the separation of church and state is not in the constitution because all it says is no establishment. But as he pointed out, the court interpreted that to mean a separation. But at the end, she is acting cute and thingk she has him saying "that's in the first Amendment?" like he's nuts and she thinks the audience is with her. So odd, she think the audience laughed WITH her the first time so she is going to beat him over the head with it.

Her own private hell would be locked in a room with a constitution and that clip playing over and over until she develops some insight into her own personality and how she is using cuteness to cover her ignorance.

To think this is her third run at the Senate. Sigh

[breadandwine]

32. First Amendment text ----

"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."

The meaning, as the courts have interpreted, is that government may not involve itself in religion even to the extent of so much as "RESPECTING" a religious establishment and courts have interpreted that to mean respecting religion. Government can't even RESPECT it, government has to not touch religion with a ten foot pole.

THAT'S separation.

[ProfessorPlum]

37. I think "respecting" here means 'concerning" or "about"

But your conclusions are correct about what it has been interpreted as meaning.

[barbtries]

35. she really didn't know.

oh, please, make commercials out of this, democrats!

[democracy1st]

36. K & R

[xchrom]

38. it's horrifying she's not embarrassed. nt