Christine O’Donnell FLIP FLOPS on Jesus
Here is a great catch by Chris Kelly at HuffPo.
Christine is either lying to Delaware now, or lied to “Catholic Families for America” back in June. Check out the list of promises she made to them for an endorsement, and try to square that with what she is now saying about the Constitution.
Third option: voting in the U.S. Senate how Jesus wants her to is Constitutional.
Uhm…yeah, I’m no expert but I think Jesus was about having compassion poor people, being honest, patient, kind, gentle, and humble. I’m not seeing much Jesus in the modern the GOP.
Jesus never taught that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should do those things. Read the Book of Romans.
Back on topic: bearing false witness against Ms. O’Donnell (claiming that she is the one lying) is clearly against what Jesus taught.
Jesus taught that WE should do those things. And now WE are the government.
No wonder the Christian right hates government. The ministry of Jesus took place under occupation.
I’ll let her record speak to the question of whether she is lying. For example, she lied for 20 years about being a college graduate. Her defenders don;t argue that point, they only point out that the lie does not matter.
anon:
“We” are definitely to do that, not the government. I thought your side was all for “Separation of Church and State”?! You can’t have it both ways. Anything the government does has to have a valid SECULAR purpose.
You would know that if you read the Book of Romans ; )
Jesus wept.
jason330:
I do argue that point and any other “lie” you claim.
Perhaps the hand of God guided us to create this government where the people ARE the government. So when Congress passes a program to help the poor, Jesus smiles.
Anything the government does has to have a valid SECULAR purpose.
That is from the Book of Justifications, if I recall correctly.
JakeD,
No you don’t. If you did, you’d try to form on the argument based on some evidence that she did not lie for 20 years about having graduated from college. Instead, you just proved my point that you are not bothered by the lying.
No, it’s not.
jason330:
It’s possible that she honestly thought she had graduated for all of those years (she DID participate in the ceremony and her the billing with the college was not resolved until later). You are aware that she has a legitimate degree now, right?
You are aware that she has a legitimate degree now, right?
Yes, and there is video to prove it.
tsk tsk jake. And I thought you Christians regarded lying as wrong.
anon:
My favorite movie.
Jason:
I’m “lying” because it’s not possible she was mistaken? LOL
She has never said that she thought she had a degree. She went 20 years lying about being a college graduate and the fact is you don;t care that she lied for twenty years.
There is no lie or stupidity O’Donnell can utter to make her supporters give up. As long as you are for tax cuts for the rich and against abortion, you can kill a puppy on live TV and still keep your base.
If teabaggers had been around in 1976 and their candidate said “Eastern Europe is not dominated by the Soviet Union” he would have gotten a 10% bounce in the polls.
Wait – actually that already happened when Reagan said trees cause pollution. Another example of Republicans being impossible to parody.
She flipped-flopped on Jesus? And I thought she was chaste.
So, witch (pun intended) one is it?
A). “There is no lie or stupidity O’Donnell can utter to make her supporters give up.”
or
B). “Her defenders don;t argue that point”?
Once you guys get that straight, let me know.
Unless O’Donnell produces a video of her participating in the graduation ceremony and receiving a bursar’s check I don’t believe it happened. O’Donnell lies so often I don’t believe any she says. She also said it took her a long time to pay back her “student loans.” The universities don’t care about your loans. The loans are used to pay the university. If she had loans, she would have gotten her degree on time. Her whole story is fishy.
Christine O’Donnell is a habitual, unapologetic lying piece of shit. When she got caught in March by the News Journal for lying about her degree, she said it was because of loans and that she “finished the coursework.”
She cried her sad story to Byron York in July about how she was handed a bursar’s bill instead of a diploma at her graduation. How very sad for poor lil Christine.
Then Politico finds out on September 3 that she graduated this September 1 AFTER FINISHING THE CLASSES SHE NEEDED TO GRADUATE.
Yet, on September 2, she was on the radio with Dan Gaffney still telling the same sob story about a bursar’s bill, ONE DAY AFTER RECEIVING HER DEGREE AFTER FINISHING A CLASS. She paid off her college debts in 2003, she didn’t get her degree until a few weeks ago because she was a loser who dropped out before finishing the classes necessary to graduate.
Christine O’Donnell will use any story, and any lie to get in to the US Senate. The people who defend her should be ashamed of themselves for backing a liar. They have no morals. They make Jesus cry.
Yeah, well Barack Obama says he’s a Christian too. Both of you lie so often I don’t believe anything you say either. I guess we are even.
So that is your final word? I think my point is proven.
I think Jesus wanted to torture the Muslims and and nuke the shit out of the commies!
Did I misread that “wonderful” post on Huffington Post, or did it not say that O’Donnell’s answers were not released. So, if you want to attack O’Donnell for something, at least attack her based on facts and not inane and juvenile speculation about what her answers to questions might have been.
>“We” are definitely to do that, not the government. I thought
>your side was all for “Separation of Church and State”?! You
>can’t have it both ways. Anything the government does has
>to have a valid SECULAR purpose.
Does that mean we can finally get rid of those tax exemptions for religious institutions? I mean, since God told Bush to invade Iraq, shouldn’t God start helping to pay for it?
These statements are not mutually exclusive:
A). “There is no lie or stupidity O’Donnell can utter to make her supporters give up.”
B). “Her defenders don;t argue that point”
Not only do they not argue they CELEBRATE it!
Every one of the 5 positions are clearly Constitutional. You may agree or disagree, but no honest person can say there is a contradiction. Judges that violate people’s right to free religious exercise consistently should have their courts abolished under Article 3 authority. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is natural law. Natural law is the organic basis of the Declaration and the foundation of our Constitution. You can use whatever basis you want to justify a law. The only question is does the law itself meet constitutional muster.
I don’t care if a talking flower tells you to pass a law, if the law turns out to be constitutional, common sense, and the majority believe it to be good policy, there is no reason to oppose it. I may want to check your medication, but I won’t oppose the law.
“Every one of the 5 positions are clearly Constitutional…..Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is natural law.”
Your ability to construct an argument is impressive.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is natural law. Natural law is the organic basis of the Declaration and the foundation of our Constitution.
David – what did you do – have a seance with Christine the Witch to raise a framer of the constitution to come to that conclusion??
GOd – you are such and idiot – go back and play with your pals on DP
what 5 positions exactly in a marriage?? are constitutional
1.man supine on back – woman superior
2.woman supine on back – man superior
3.doggie – man behind woman
4.spoon – from the side
5.woman superior – facing feet
there that’s 5 positions for ya – but I’m sure I can come up with more…..
Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is natural law. Natural law is the organic basis of the Declaration and the foundation of our Constitution. You can use whatever basis you want to justify a law. The only question is does the law itself meet constitutional muster.
I don’t care if a ‘talking flower’ tells you to pass a law, if the law turns out to be constitutional, common sense, and the majority believe it to be good policy, there is no reason to oppose it. I may want to check your medication, but I won’t oppose the law.
Obviously Christine O’Donnell is the talking flower to which David is referencing. He seems to be saying that despite it being her that initiates the anti gay law that is to come about soon, if the anti gay law gets offered even by her, because he deems it to be a Natural Law, it will be passed and the majority of people will rejoice that being anti gay now has legal sanction.
Ok, I understand where he’s coming from, and could support his premise on Natural Law.. For example, if we were talking about the restriction of murder, I would think his argument would apply… Murder is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. However, the killing of another for sport or pleasure would violate some type of Natural Law, and therefore, even though it is not mentioned in the Constitution, the fact that it is not mentioned in the Constitution, cannot be used to make it legal to murder for sport and pleasure…
Where he errs … is in his interpretation of Natural Law. What is natural law? One must take the root, the word nature and look there for answers… He states that natural law is between a man and a women. I’m sorry, but Homo sapians is the only species that marries. Single cells divide. They procreate without sex. They are natural, Therefore cloning, which is the procreation without sex, shares enough similarity to be natural too. Therefore Natural Law, demands that cloning be endorsed by the Constitution.
Then there is same sex relationships, often involving ejaculation. In the plant kingdom, there are self fertilizing plants that propagate their single line of genes. They, of the same gender actually have the equivalent of sex, they share their pollen. They are natural. Therefore by Natural Law, the human equivalent, two females in proximity, can also share the equivalent of sex. Since our Constitution is run by Natural Law, there is no reason to refute it.. Therefore Natural Law, demands that two females having sex, be endorsed by the Constitution.
Recently I saw the funniest thing. A little dog and a big dog. The little dog had his paws on the big dogs head and was just humping away on the big dogs head while the big dog was giving the little dog the sniff over.. Both were males.. and both were wagging their tales, so obviously they both enjoyed it. since neither of them knew how to read, it would be a safe bet to say their action was sanctioned by Natural Law. They were doing what nature intended.. especially when they aren’t making babies. Since two males having fun sex is in nature, it is Natural Law that they be enabled to, and therefore…. The Constitution, being founded on Natural Law, thereby fully endorses the mutual enjoyment of sex between the same gender.
Anyone who says otherwise is an activist judge.
Marriage, however is not found in the natural world. I can only think of one species, owls, that mate for life.. there may be others, but their numbers are dwarfed by the numbers of species that have random sex. In fact, random sex seems to have the upper hand in Natural Law, much more than marriage.
In fact, if you use Natural Law as the basis for the Constitution, then, you must accept the argument that cloning and homosexuality have far more traction with the Constitution than does the institution of marriage. In fact, according to Natural Law, the argument of marriage being sanctioned under the Constitution is rather weak…
So we come down to this point. Banning gay sex, even banning gay marriage, has nothing to do with Natural Law. It it your law. There is nothing natural about it. It is simply put,. your law that you are imposing upon the rest of us..
One would think that as more and more Americans look at this issue each time you bring it up, and abandon your party and support instead, the right of every American to pursue sexual happiness in their own way, even getting married, , that the idea would begin to occur to you and your shrinking party, that perhaps you are wrong.
Perhaps it is not natural to limit marriage to a combination that one has to search nature high and low, even to find one example of it.. Quite possibly you are wrong on this. Natural Law would certainly imply it.
During WWII, Gen. Eisenhower wanted to weed his military of homosexuals. He was all set to do so until his administrative right hand, said, “uh.. excuse me Dwight, I’m homosexual.” And that was the end of that. Unlike today’s Republicans, Eisenhower was a wise man.
So Dave, if you want to keep losing more elections, keep touting marriage as Natural Law. We will pound your party into smithereens… as we have ever since your party began this nonsense in ’06…
I think Kavips confused Delusional David by making a rational argument.
O’Nutjob correctly says that the Republican Party was founded on “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Where she goes wrong is when she says that phrase was referring to abortion, and refuses to apply it to homosexuals.
I am breaking my pledge to ENDORA this once to give KAVIPS his props.
That was one beautiful post.Fascinating, thoughtful and really skewered Delusional Dave.
Kavips,
I would think that: Masturbation = Self-pollination.
Republickin Dave needs to go self-pollinate.