You shouldn't do that, but you could throw her in a moat and she if she floats.
Christine O'Donnell: Constitutional Moron
- Thread starter Jagger69
- Start date
You shouldn't do that, but you could throw her in a moat and she if she floats.
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
[insert typical "well she's still smarter than Bush" comment here]
I think all politicians corrupt and dumber than an erection, and this chick is no exception. 
There needs to be a series of IQ and psychological exams required for anyone to take and pass if they are going to get into any position of political power
Facetious
Moderated
Correction, she's a gift to the dependent :uhem: welfare statists who require government assistance at every step!
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Correction, she's a gift to the dependent :uhem: welfare statists who require government assistance at every step!
How's driving on them socialist roads working for ya? How about flushing your toilet with socialist water? I get so sick of seeing these stupid talking points repeated as if they were gospel.
This is one case where that might not be true.
Facetious
Moderated
The state, city and/or country actually subs out (to a private sector entity) most if not all of the road construction around here . . . it's the maintenance of these roadways (a public sector responsibility) that is failing given all of the unattended potholes, the dirty streets and clogged storm drains.
The government can actually do a pretty good job in certain job sectors believe it or not, the trick is keeping them in their place and not let them intervene into every facet of our lives. . . .
...
A moment of silence please, while we again honor Ms O'Donnell with the nation's lowest honor, the ten face palm salute
A moment of silence please, while we again honor Ms O'Donnell with the nation's lowest honor, the ten face palm salute
You'd have an easier time traversing the Amur-Yakutsk (M56 Lena aka Tpacca) HWY in Russia than making something like that happen.:2 cents:
"I strenuously object?" Is that how it's done? Hm? "Objection, your Honor." "Overruled" "No, no. I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. You strenuously object. Then I'll take some time and reconsider."
The response to that; Oh, you 'STRENUOUSLY OBJECT'...? Okay that's different. Let me think about it a bit more, ummmm...denied!:ban2:
ForumModeregulator
Believer In GregCentauro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_clause
"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly said as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause."
"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly said as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause."
This chick makes Palin look like a genius
Similar threads
