Another Constitution Stunt
David Waldman at Daily Kos found that our old friend Jonathan Moseley is pulling a new stunt. Moseley offering a $1,000 reward for someone who finds the words “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. David offers his own challenge:
How about $1,000 to anyone who can find the word “guns” in the US Constitution?
I think we can think of some other phrases to search for. How about
“Freedom of Religion”
“The right to a fair trial”
“Prayer in school”
I’m sure you can think of other phrases to search. Is it just me or has this election season really revealed how simplistic and silly the teabaggers understanding of government really is?
Tags: Christine O'Donnell, DE-Sen
The rich have to be watching the school yard fights from their windows and laughing. All the while, we fight over these less than intellectual arguments like kids, and they raid our bank accounts laughing at our idiocy.
DV nailed it.
you always were my favorite over here
Isn’t this the same Jonathan Moseley who claimed that Christine O’Donnell was perfectly honest in her $7 million ISI lawsuit, and that everyone else was “lying and smearing” her, despite this DAMNING claim:
Page 6 #13:
“…and, although she was provided with minimal time to attend courses towards her Master’s Degree, she ultimately had to withdraw from that program due to the workload she was given at ISI.”
How do you “WITHDRAW” from a Masters Degree Program that would have NEVER accepted you because you DROPPED OUT of your undergraduate program 12 years earlier without finishing the coursework?
Question #2:
We now know that COD was living it up, banging and screaming in bed with her 2008 “campaign lawyer” Brent Vasher, and her current campaign lackey David Hust, thanks to the Daily Beast:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-13/christine-odonnells-neighbors-review-the-delaware-senate-candidate/
Was she doing this Moseley dude, too? That seems to be the pattern of her Christianity, chastity and her candidacies.
“How do you “WITHDRAW” from a Masters Degree Program that would have NEVER accepted you because you DROPPED OUT of your undergraduate program 12 years earlier without finishing the coursework?”
Re-read her carefully worded sentence. She didn’t say she was “in” a Masters program. She was probably doing undergrad pre-requisites and was actually working toward her undergrad. That is, if she even set foot on campus or cracked a book. More bullshit.
“We now know that COD was living it up, banging and screaming in bed with her 2008 “campaign lawyer” Brent Vasher, and her current campaign lackey David Hust, thanks to the Daily Beast” Concurrently or consecutively?
I guess Moseley had some time on his hands between chasing ambulances around Northern Virginia. The Bar should really look into how sane he is.
Anyone else calling Balloonboy on the Gawker story?
I cannot take credit for it but I’m interested in exploring the idea. Who took and then kept 12 photos for 3 years, DouchAnon? I doubt it. By his own words he couldn’t end it fast enough, about 12 hours.
Why would DouchAnon sell the story? Smoking Gun alleges he was paid for the story and that he works at the Fed in Phila. It strikes me as weird that guy would do it for the money. Money seems like a phony motivator. Plus he’s working hard to remain anonymous. Nonetheless, we’ve been given a reason why DouchAnon did it – for the money. You buying it?
COD blames Coons for the sexism and slander and goes on Hannity to get the message out far and wide.
It looks like manufactured outrage to me. Plus the timings right.
Early in the primary she talked about her sexual activity and drunkenness in her college days. I have a link to a google cache of the story. I always wondered what a savvy PR person like herself was doing talking about that.
In COD world everything, both truth and fiction, is ripe fruit to be exploited as a victimization of her. She exploits people’s compassion shamelessly.
Dear anon:
The lawsuit clearly says that Christine had NOT yet entered a master’s program at Princeton.
http://www.redstate.com/jonmoseley/2010/10/04/i-wrote-christine-odonnells-2005-lawsuit-liberals-are-lying-smearing-by-claiming-christine-odonnell-lied/
I am sorry if you are not very smart:
SO explaining this is probably like trying to educate a turnip, but one more time. Don’t say I did not make the effort:
The lawsuit explains that Christine was hired on March 12, 2003 (paragraph 10).
Paragraph 8 explains that Christine was applying to Princeton hoping to start in the Fall of 2003.
Paragraph 8 clearly indicates that Christine O’Donnell had not yet been accepted to Princeton.
Got that?
In March of 2003, when hired, she was hoping to be accepted and start at Princeton in The Fall of 2003.
Those plans were in the future, not already implemented.
However, her employer’s promises to give her time off were broken “shortly after starting her employment” (paragraph 13).
So, in the Spring of 2003, long before she hoped to start at Princeton later in the Fall, her employer had already broken a promise to provide a flexible schedule necessary for Christine to pursue a master’s… later that Fall, along with other pursuits.
Did Christine claim to already be in a Master’s program at Princeton? Exactly the opposite! Her lawsuit clearly states that Christine was not even planning to enter the master’s program until the Fall – but was prevented from doing so earlier that Spring by a dispute about her work schedule around April of 2003.
So it is obvious that Christine never claimed to have enrolled in a master’s program at Princeton. It was a plan for the future that never materialized. Sorry to repeat the point, but we are obviously dealing with some thick heads here. (The lawsuit does say that Christine had enrolled in one course, but was forced by time pressure to drop that once course.)
TO NEIL SAGAN:
I am afraid the questions are even worse than you pose.
Look at the photos.
Friends do not take photographs that look like a series of automatic, fast-action shots.
When friends take photographs of other friends, the person STOPS, POSES, SMILES, and WAITS for their friend to take the photograph.
No one takes photographs in a string of photographs one after another — NONE of them looking at the camera.
It would seem that these photographs were taken by a telephoto lens from a photographer unseen by Christine at the time.
(Christine was a local celebrity back in 2006, with half the single men in Delaware having a crush on her already back then.)
This disproves the entire story.
Whether or not these were taken by a fast-action, multi-shot camera on a telephoto lens or by a normal camera, no one DRAGGED OUT to a bar who was NOT PLANNING TO GO OUT that night brings a camera like that.
NO one takes cameras like that.
In fact, these guys asked the girls out to a bar for Halloween… perfectly okay.
They had PRE-POSITIONED a photographer with a telephoto lens waiting in hiding in that location, waiting for them to show up there.
It was pre-arranged.
Again, notice how NEITHER Christine nor the man seem to be aware of the camera.
If someone is taking ONE (1) photograph – much less a couple dozen photographs — people notice, stop, look at the camera, pose, smile, and wait for the photograph to be taken.
So some guys got Christine drunk.
Did they also slip her a roofie drug, too?
NEIL SAGAN:
Christine did not mention this topic on Sean Hannity.
Hannity asked about it — vaguely — but Christine declined to comment and talked about the issues instead.
I know that terrifies you.
When people talk about the issues… liberals lose.
Paragraph 8 clearly indicates that Christine O’Donnell had not yet been accepted to Princeton.
And Paragrah 13 says she had to “withdraw.”
So which is it, troll?
The pre-amended version of the complaint has a much clearer statement of the false Master’s claims. In that version she actually claims damages for not getting a Masters degree from Princeton, and states that she got a tuition refund.
The differences are amazing. Whoever wrote that first version must have had his hand slapped hard by the judge. In the amended version the lies are much more subdued; confined to a single inference of a Masters program.
Peter, you claim the that Christine had NOT yet entered a master’s program at Princeton.
How does one enter a master’s program without an undergraduate degree?
See? The lie begins immediately.
pandora, you’re thinking too conventionally. Xtine was going to get in by magic.
Peter’s website looks a lot like the personal website of the ambulance chasing attorney Moseley.
Who would trust the competency and credibility of a person (lawyer?) who publicly and voluntarily defends O’Donnell’s blatantly fraudulent court filings with lies of his own?
And then there is this:
“When friends take photographs of other friends, the person STOPS, POSES, SMILES, and WAITS for their friend to take the photograph.”
What century is this guy living in?