Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Olbermann: O'Donnell's Separation of Church & State Fail

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 09:43 PM
Original message
Olbermann: O'Donnell's Separation of Church & State Fail
Edited on Tue Oct-19-10 09:56 PM by Hissyspit
 
Run time: 09:59
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7fDm7TCtsU
 
Posted on YouTube: October 20, 2010
By YouTube Member: FixedNewsChannel
Views on YouTube: 56
 
Posted on DU: October 20, 2010
By DU Member: Hissyspit
Views on DU: 2331
 
MSNBC Countdown w/ CENK UYGUR - 19 October 2010: Guest host Cenk Uygur speaks with state and American University Professor Sen. Jamie Raskin about how Christine O'Connell got the Constitution all wrong in her debate appearance with rival candidate Chris Coons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks for posting this, Hissyspit. I think Uygur got it
just right when he said that not only was O'Donnell absolutely wrong on the point but that she had such a smug look on her face...

Exactly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
breadandwine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-20-10 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. Coons didn't know the text of the 1st Amendment, which was painful to watch.



Good to see Cenk set that straight.

O'Donnell got it all down to the evils of government and taxation.

It's all very clear now.

Monkeys were not created by evolution.

They were created by taxation.

Silly that we didn't know that........


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-20-10 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. It seemed as if O'Donnell forgot who was in that
audience.

My guess is that most of them knew what the First Amendment was, even if Christine doesn't.

I'm thinking Coons' campaign's odds are pretty good, given that he's running against a total idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. A box of rocks is more usefull than her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BobTheSubgenius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. "A bag of wet hair"
That was the phrase that came to my mind. I might have a use for a box of rocks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. How come ALL of the Teahadists are dumber than a pile of rocks?
How could anyone vote for stupid?

Oh wait....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. Just when you think it (she) can't get any more stupid
She magically seems to go there. I'm thinking Sasha Obama would beat her in a debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. All the MSM news stations are playing it, hilarious and scary at the same time..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FedUp_Queer Donating Member (679 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-20-10 12:05 AM
Response to Original message
7. Why don't the media call out the "evolution is a theory" meme?
The definition of theory in science is as follows:

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

Here it is again:

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory....

Note that, as it pertains to science, science bases theories on "observation, experimentation, and reasoning" that a theory is something science has "tested and confirmed" and it helps to "explain and prediction natural phenomena." Scientific theories are not just guesses or ruminations, they have their basis in fact. Scientific theories have undergone repeated experimentation and pier review. This is the fundamental reason why "intelligent design" can NOT be a theory in the scientific sense. It's not "experimentable" or "observable." Intelligent design, i.e. creationism, is, in the popular sense, a "theory" because it is merely a guess.

Again, from Stephen Gould:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrcheerful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-20-10 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
8. The problem is wing nuts want to say because there is no mention of state/religion separation
in the 1st amendment that just means that congress can't establish a religion but in their beliefs the state can set up state religions, another words more proof that the Fed is over stepping its boundaries and taking state rights away. Pretty much like how wing nuts can take a statement in the bible and twist it to get the meaning they want, like how jebus said that feeding the poor is wrong its better to teach them to fish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-20-10 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
9. K&R! Great stuff! Cenk nailed it...
Thanks for posting! :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blacksheep214 Donating Member (682 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-20-10 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
10. This woman never shuts up!
She lacks any decorum and I'm sure she wouldn't know what Roberts Rules are.

Zero common courtesy to allow the other person to speak unmolested by constant interruptions.

This is a common teabag trait.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
8 track mind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-20-10 03:19 AM
Response to Original message
12. Wow!
That's the best train wreck I've ever seen!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 17th 2018, 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC