what's terrifying is that if she were running for a state board of education seat, she'd win.

I'm not from, nor do I live in the United States but this is about a scary as a Chemist saying "You mean water actually has Water AND Oxygen in it. Where is it because I only see liquid."

If you don't know even the most basic principals of something, you shouldn't be in that business.

A proud day for Christine and her family. She and Sarah Palin should team up together, write an album and go on tour. Bill'O can open for them with his smash hit sensation" F*ck it, We'll Do It Live!".

Let's See:
"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."

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) incorporated certain select provisions. However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

To her Credit, (and I can't believe I'm saying this), it doesn't say the words "Seperation of Church and State."

Wow... just... wow.

She keeps going back to that well, doesn't she. Why is she debating law when... oh, whatever.

I love her face when everybody starts laughing at her unbelievable ignorance, and she grins like she's thinking: "Yeah... I got him now!"

They're laughing AT you, not WITH you.

Witch!! WITCH!!!
BURN HER! Burn her anyway!

She'll make a perfect VP for Palin. They can be ignorant together.

I posted the unedited version... there are few more gems in there...

http://videosift.com/video/Christine-O-Donnell-What-is-the-First-Amendment-Again

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, October 19th, 2010 2:26pm PDT - promote requested by MycroftHomlz.

She acts like a kid that thinks she's the first person ever to say "I'm rubber and you're glue...".
It seems like all the arguments from these people are like those from a child questioning established knowledge in some blindingly literal way. It doesn't literally say "separation of church and state" anywhere but in the minds of the people they accuse "think they know better than the rest of us". So the political system turns into a high school popularity contest, with the intelligent nerds being trounced by the half-wit jocks and beauty pageant winners.

Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.

The scary part here is that I dont think this will end her career. Or even damage it. which makes me wonder what will? Oh, I know: sensible policies on taxes or sex.

*religion

Adding video to channels (Religion) - requested by BicycleRepairMan.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

The scary part here is that I dont think this will end her career.


Agreed. Further, I'll wager that most of her supporters will not see or hear about this video. Of the O'Donnell supporters that do, some will be against separation altogether, and some will have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.

Good point, Sagemind. An intelligent Christian conservative might argue that the establishment clause has been historically misinterpreted by the courts, and that it was only originally intended to prohibit the federal government from creating a new religion, as the Church of England did. . . But she didn't say any of that. She really just came off as completely clueless about what's in the Constitution.

Survival of Democracy Depends on Investment in Civics Education

She must of been amazing at witchcraft.

I don't know what's worse, that fact that she doesn't know that, or that it looks like she still doesn't believe it. I mean, OK, the constitution doesn't say "separation of church and state", but c'mon, I can't believe people are still trying to make this argument.

I'm getting a new passport ready just in case the 2012 election goes from "Entertaining as the 2008 Election" to "Holy Shit, I've got to leave this country now."

Can anyone make a good suggestion of where I can go? I don't really speak any other languages. I took some French in high school and I know a little German (he's sitting over there <- awesome Top Secret reference).
Seriously though. Any ideas?

That is truly incredible... i'll be really curious to see if her more high profile supporters just completely abandon her at this point. You would think that anyone who supported this idiot would truly be embarrassed by it.

>> ^shuac:

I'm getting a new passport ready just in case the 2012 election goes from "Entertaining as the 2008 Election" to "Holy Shit, I've got to leave this country now."
Can anyone make a good suggestion of where I can go? I don't really speak any other languages. I took some French in high school and I know a little German (he's sitting over there <- awesome Top Secret reference).
Seriously though. Any ideas?


Canada ?

"... one of these days ... Pow! Right in the kisser! One of these days Christine, straight to the Moon!"

RRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!

SHEPPARD SMASH!

SHEPPARD DESTORY!

SHEPPARD CAN NO LONGER HEAR ANYTHING MORE COME OUT OF CHRISTINE O'DONNELLS MOUTH!

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I don't know what's worse, that fact that she doesn't know that, or that it looks like she still doesn't believe it. I mean, OK, the constitution doesn't say "separation of church and state", but c'mon, I can't believe people are still trying to make this argument.


You don't believe people are still trying to make this argument?
Don't forget... she's on the same plain of intellectualism of those who think evolution is not real.

Her supporters will believe that it's ok that she's hazy on the constitution (or downright ignorant) as long as she tackles the "issues" facing America today, and that she works to "restore America" or any other combination of buzzwords that mean nothing and stand for nothing except to placate their worries.

Oh Man, coffee all over my keyboard!

>> ^petpeeved:

Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.

To her Credit, (and I can't believe I'm saying this), it doesn't say the words "Seperation of Church and State." Sagemind.

You're right, that is what she was trying for, but--because of the general knowledge of the law professors and law students in this audience--she failed miserably. If she had pulled this at a bagger rally everyone would have cum all over themselves.

>> ^shuac:

I'm getting a new passport ready just in case the 2012 election goes from "Entertaining as the 2008 Election" to "Holy Shit, I've got to leave this country now."
Can anyone make a good suggestion of where I can go? I don't really speak any other languages. I took some French in high school and I know a little German (he's sitting over there <- awesome Top Secret reference).
Seriously though. Any ideas?


Don't be one of those guys, man.

Also, you're probably fooling yourself if you think there's anywhere better. Corruption is a huge problem the world over. The UK is a nanny state, surveillance state, and general purpose Orwellian nightmare. It sounds like much of mainland Europe is being flooded with Fundie Muslims, and the governments are kowtowing before all of their demands (hence all of the anti-heresy laws). Oceania is going crazy with their Internet Filtering and whatnot. Canada's far too easily influenced by the US.

They're all bowing before the American Intellectual Property Juggernaut.

You will pretty much never be able to become a citizen in most of Europe. The Japanese government is corrupt, and the people will never accept you as one of them. I'd be leery of settling in in most of the rest of Asia. North Korea and South Korea could go to war again at any moment. China's not exactly the place I'd go to flee from an insane government. Maybe India, Nepal, something.

Maybe there's some amazing place in South America or Africa.

This vid is good at illustrating the intellectual divide in this country that has resulted in our crappy educational system. The fact that Coons, a bunch of college law students, and all of you here find what she said "crazy" illustrates how far our nation has fallen in basic civics. Sad really.

O'Donnel was absolutely right. The entire idea of "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution. It does not exist as a phrase, or even as a concept. The phrase originated from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group. The entirety of Jefferson's context was to assuage their fears that the Constitution would potentially be used to impose a NATIONAL FEDERAL religion on them. It was not written with the concept that Church & State were to be completely and utterly vivisected.

Hence the language of the first ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It is not in any way implying the neolib concept of a 'wall of separation'. It - like all the Constitution - is a LIMITING document that is telling the U.S. Government what it is not allowed to do. In this case, the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or prevent people from exercising their faith of choice. Any of you wondering why it is only the Daily Kos & HuffPo that are pimping this? It's because they are the only ones so blatant and naked in their bias as to think they can get away with making this sound like it was an O'Donnel flub. Everyone else in the media (except maybe MadCow) still has the brains to know that she was right and it was Coons & the Law Idiots that were wrong.

It was not in any way meant to imply ALL church and ALL goverment should be completely seperate. That is a modern neolib fantasy. At the time, many of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. It was not until 1947 that the liberally packed FDR courts because to misapply the Establishment Clause in such a way as to allow them to further misapply the whole 'wall of seperation' idea.

Even Coons has to wag his finger a bit at these law students before they completely embarrassed themselves with their utter and complete ignorance of the Constitution. I really don't know why I'm surprised though. Our law schools generated such "constitutional scholars" as Barak Obama. Is it any wonder that they nothing but a bunch of brainless "social justice" twits that have not one historical fact in their heads?

It's a "shame" for the left that O'Donnell is correct,even by accident. Edited for your (dis)approval!

Yep; it doesn't say those exact words. Let's all narrowly define every section of the constitution to the meaning it held at that specific point in history. Surely the founding fathers didn't intend for us to interpret it beyond it's immediate intention.

Treaty of Tripoli anyone ? Oh wait, sorry, not in the consitution, guess it doesn't count. Oh well !

"You think the language in the Second Amendment is clear enough, you know, about the right to bear arms?"
"Of course it's clear, everyone in America has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall. How could that possibly be misconstrued?"

-Family Guy

And yet, she may very well be elected...

>> ^Sagemind:

I'm not from, nor do I live in the United States but this is about a scary as a Chemist saying "You mean water actually has Water AND Oxygen in it. Where is it because I only see liquid."
If you don't know even the most basic principals of something, you shouldn't be in that business.


Hmmm.. TECHNICALLY, water does not contain ANY water...

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's a shame for the left that O'Donnell is correct, even by accident.


How can she be "correct" about anything here? By her own admission, SHE DOESN'T KNOW whether its in there. Coon even quotes directly: "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.." and she says "Is that in there?" How is that correct in any sense? if its an honest question it display deep ignorance, and if its rhetorical it is in fact incorrect.

Its a shame for you that reality, facts and logic exists. Without them, your worldview might have been almost consistent. Almost.

"In this case, the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or prevent people from exercising their faith of choice. "

WRONG. read it again. it says nothing about the state/congress "establishing religion" it says it "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." There is a big difference. This means exactly what it says, because the wording is careful. It means that any law that congress makes, cannot respect/pander to/limit/prevent/etc anything to do with an "establishment of religion". Effectively this means separation of state (whose job it is to make and uphold the laws) from church. There really is no other sensible way to interpret it. And as I said in my previous comment, interpretation or not, the simple fact is that she doesnt even know what he's talking about when he quotes word for word.

are you dead fucking serious? you cannot be serious.....

Yes, it's all a neolib fantasy.

Time to get rid of the highways. And anti-child-porn-legislation. And any of these other newfangled neo-liberal shackles.>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

This vid is good at illustrating the intellectual divide in this country that has resulted in our crappy educational system. The fact that Coons, a bunch of college law students, and all of you here find what she said "crazy" illustrates how far our nation has fallen in basic civics. Sad really.
O'Donnel was absolutely right. The entire idea of "seperation of church & state" is not in the constitution. It does not exist as a phrase, or even as a concept. The phrase originated from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group. The entirety of Jefferson's context was to assuage their fears that the Constitution would potentially be used to impose a NATIONAL FEDERAL religion on them. It was not written with the concept that Church & State were to be completely and utterly vivisected.
Hence the language of the first ammendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It is not in any way implying the neolib concept of a 'wall of separation'. It - like all the Constitution - is a LIMITING document that is telling the U.S. Government what it is not allowed to do. In this case, the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or prevent people from exercising their faith of choice. Any of you wondering why it is only the Daily Kos & HuffPo that are pimping this? It's because they are the only ones so blatant and naked in their bias as to think they can get away with making this sound like it was an O'Donnel flub. Everyone else in the media (except maybe MadCow) still has the brains to know that she was right and it was Coons & the Law Idiots that were wrong.
It was not in any way meant to imply ALL church and ALL goverment should be completely seperate. That is a modern neolib fantasy. At the time, many of the 13 colonies had OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. It was not until 1947 that the liberally packed FDR courts because to misapply the Establishment Clause in such a way as to allow them to further misapply the whole 'wall of seperation' idea.
Even Coons has to wag his finger a bit at these law students before they completely embarrassed themselves with their utter and complete ignorance of the Constitution. I really don't know why I'm surprised though. Our law schools generated such "constitutional scholars" as Barak Obama. Is it any wonder that they nothing but a bunch of brainless "social justice" twits that have not one historical fact in their heads?

As it turns out, O'Donnell was right all along. Never let one's guard down when dealing with (bearded) libmarxist media distortion!

"O'Donnell's point, if you listen to CNN's actual video, is pretty clear from her inflection -- she's challenging Coons on a common Constitutional misconception that he perpetuated: "separation of church and state" is explicitly named in the Constitution (it's not).

"As a journalist, you have two responsibilities: quote accurately, and make sure that, if there's something you've decided not to quote, you're still allowing whatever you do write to be framed by the context provided from the unquoted material. So a good journalist, writing this story, would have listened again to the transcript, heard her ask the same question which specifically asked about phrasing, and made sure O'Donnell's point was brought across in context.

Meanwhile, Coons could not name the five freedoms listed in the First Amendment."


Its a shame for you that reality, facts and logic exists. Without them, your worldview might have been almost consistent. Almost.

The real shame will be removed from power on November 2nd, with the Red House disgrace following them in 2012.

*lies

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by quantumushroom.

Jeez...I hate to be defending her...but she is right and she is saying it that way on purpose...it's just being lost on the crowd and it seems the majority of people here who are calling ignorant of the Constitution. She is referring to what the 1st amendment says "literally" and assuming everyone there knows this and knows that she is correct and so she isn't elaborating any further which she apparently needed to do.

If you don't know even the most basic principals of something, you shouldn't be in that business.

Agreed. But the idiots voted for the obamateur anyway.

She is Correct. Sad that the debate took place at the university and when they laughed it showed their ignorance.


Dam you people are too high minded to look this shit up and prove yourself wrong.

Two points of clarification here.

First, Christine O'Donnell never said the word "phrase". Had she said "the phrase 'Separation of Church and State' isn't in the Constitution" she'd have been right, but it would've been a total non sequitor, since the larger conversation was about whether public schools could legally teach creationism. To address that, you have to talk about the legal principle of Separation of Church and state, which Coons and the audience correctly note derives from the 1st amendment.

Second, this is the law of the land, according to several Supreme Court decisions, and honestly, according to even the most basic understanding of the words that make up the 1st amendment itself. Even arguments about "original intent" (which are questionable to begin with) fall flat here, since we have plenty of historical evidence that shows the framers intended that there should be a separation of church and state.

If you want to watch the longer, unedited version, you can see her asking the moderator for what the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments did, because she didn't "have them memorized". To emphasize that, she didn't need help with the exact wording, she was at a basic loss to be able to describe in any way what those amendments did.

No, it doesn't say "keep Church and State separate". But the entire document is a living gray area. That's why we employ 9 people to constantly apply the document as appropriate. Currently, that is the piece of the Constitution that supports it. 100 years might change this, but Christine, and the rest of us, live now. It's certainly unreasonable to say the first amendment doesn't hint at the idea of separation, which is what Christine seems to do during the debate. Right or wrong, it shows a complete disregard for, or ignorance of contemporary civic issues, and a poor point of contention for her jump on in that forum.

In short, Christine O'Donnell FAILS at politics.

Are leftists really upset every conservative candidate doesn't have the Constitution memorized when they disregard this 'inconvenient document' at every turn?

Good luck with bald, White obama Jr.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, evolution never happened.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, climate change isnt real.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, teens can abstain from sex.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, homosexuality is a "threat to the family".
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, a fertilized embryo and a person is the same thing.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Bush was an excellent president.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama wasnt born in the US.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama isnt a Democrat leaning center.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama is actually a muslim.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama is actually a marxist.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama is actually a socialist.
BREAKING NEWS!
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the 1st amendment doesnt separate church and state!


So, I guess we've found the latest in reality denial now.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Are leftists really upset every conservative candidate doesn't have the Constitution memorized when they disregard this 'inconvenient document' at every turn?
Good luck with bald, White obama Jr.


Its not about having them memorized, its about understanding what they mean. For example the phrase "Separation of church and state" doesnt appear there, but thats because such a phrasing would be too vague to have any legal meaning. The phrase is a simplified description of the intention of whats in there. Lets pretend for a second that it instead used the phrase "separation of church and state"

1) Original version:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

2) Fictive version "There shall be a Separation of Church and State"

Now, lets say you wanted to put some commandments outside the courthouse. How does 2) help you decide anything here? does it mean a physical separation of buildings, does it mean the two entities should just generally be kept apart, does it mean that you cant have churches in the state at all?

1), on the other hand, could not be clearer. Since you are pandering to the will of a specific religious group, you must be following a law that permits such behaviour, but look! Congress shall not make laws like that, so if they exist, they are unconstitutional, so so is the mixing of commandments and proper law.

This is the way all "separation" issues end up, because the authors of the 1st amendment used very specific, very conscious wording when they wrote that sentence. Not only does it separate church and state, but it explains HOW they are separated. All in a single sentence.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Are leftists really upset every conservative candidate doesn't have the Constitution memorized when they disregard this 'inconvenient document' at every turn?

There's a difference between memorizing it, as in being able to recite the exact wording from memory correctly, and knowing it, as in being able to give a paraphrase of what it's about. In particular, when you're part of a political movement that's calling for the repeal of said amendments, you should have some clue what they do when people ask if you're in favor of repeal.

Also, the left doesn't disregard the Constitution. On the contrary, you guys on the right are the ones who ignore it, or pretend that when you disagree with Supreme Court decisions, your own interpretations supersede theirs.

You guys can pretend that the Separation of Church and state is some sort of liberal myth if you want, but in reality, it's just plain incorrect to say it isn't a real concept with a great deal of force in our actual legal system, whether you agree with it or not.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Are leftists really upset every conservative candidate doesn't have the Constitution memorized when they disregard this 'inconvenient document' at every turn?
Good luck with bald, White obama Jr.


Because she claimed to be a constitutional scholar, and yet doesn't know what the various articles mean... yes.

speaking of original intents, it seems our anti-progress friends have forgotten that that most conservative of founding fathers, the framer of the constitution, James Madison felt so strongly that government should have nothing to do with religion that he was against tax-exempt status for churches and even military chaplains

Oh dear lord, Herp and Derp together. What a mindfuck.

>> ^raverman:

She'll make a perfect VP for Palin. They can be ignorant together.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, your mom actually has a slender frame.
>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, evolution never happened.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, climate change isnt real.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, teens can abstain from sex.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, homosexuality is a "threat to the family".
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, a fertilized embryo and a person is the same thing.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Bush was an excellent president.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama wasnt born in the US.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama isnt a Democrat leaning center.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama is actually a muslim.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama is actually a marxist.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama is actually a socialist.
BREAKING NEWS!
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the 1st amendment doesnt separate church and state!

So, I guess we've found the latest in reality denial now.

YOU DUN GOOFD UP!!
/calling cyberpolice!!/
>> ^gwiz665:

Despite all evidence to the contrary, your mom actually has a slender frame.
>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, evolution never happened.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, climate change isnt real.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, teens can abstain from sex.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, homosexuality is a "threat to the family".
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, a fertilized embryo and a person is the same thing.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Bush was an excellent president.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama wasnt born in the US.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama isnt a Democrat leaning center.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama is actually a muslim.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama is actually a marxist.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama is actually a socialist.
BREAKING NEWS!
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the 1st amendment doesnt separate church and state!

So, I guess we've found the latest in reality denial now.

"Government shall make no establishment of religion." - Chris Coons

Wow! That actually ISN'T in the 1st Amendment. The "bearded Marxist" is wrong, and the "witch" is correct.
I know some would like it to be so, but congress is not the government, and "establishment" does in no way imply a separation. A "separation" of "church" and state would prohibit Muslim lawmakers breaking for prayer 5 times a day and so possibly missing a potentially crucial vote. The "free exercise" words specifically allow for this. Would help for folks on both sides to educate themselves before expressing an uninformed opinion.

>> ^pavel_one:

A "separation" of "church" and state would prohibit Muslim lawmakers breaking for prayer 5 times a day and so possibly missing a potentially crucial vote. The "free exercise" words specifically allow for this.


No, it wouldnt, thats exactly what its there for, there IS a separation, which means you can ask for extra breaks citing religion, (assuming you are employed by the govenrment/state), but the government is under no obligation to give it to you, and it cant pass a law that says "the establishment of islam requires extra breaks in the workplace" because that would be unconstitutional, because congress shall pass no law respecting.. and so on. As I tried to explain this sentence DOES separate church and state, as in what we mean when we say "Separation of church and state."

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^shuac:
I'm getting a new passport ready just in case the 2012 election goes from "Entertaining as the 2008 Election" to "Holy Shit, I've got to leave this country now."
Can anyone make a good suggestion of where I can go? I don't really speak any other languages. I took some French in high school and I know a little German (he's sitting over there <- awesome Top Secret reference).
Seriously though. Any ideas?

Don't be one of those guys, man.
Also, you're probably fooling yourself if you think there's anywhere better. Corruption is a huge problem the world over. The UK is a nanny state, surveillance state, and general purpose Orwellian nightmare. It sounds like much of mainland Europe is being flooded with Fundie Muslims, and the governments are kowtowing before all of their demands (hence all of the anti-heresy laws). Oceania is going crazy with their Internet Filtering and whatnot. Canada's far too easily influenced by the US.
They're all bowing before the American Intellectual Property Juggernaut.
You will pretty much never be able to become a citizen in most of Europe. The Japanese government is corrupt, and the people will never accept you as one of them. I'd be leery of settling in in most of the rest of Asia. North Korea and South Korea could go to war again at any moment. China's not exactly the place I'd go to flee from an insane government. Maybe India, Nepal, something.
Maybe there's some amazing place in South America or Africa.


Bogus. UK is just as free as the USA, if not freer, with the exception of libel laws and traffic cameras. And you're not goinh to move to any other european country just because of the few percent Muslim minority that has emigrated there? Racist.

If teaching to the narrow content of a test is a problem, broaden the content of the test rather than throwing your hands in the air and giving up on standardized testing. Whatever isn't being measured will often be neglected -- if they have to teach to the test they'll often neglect whatever isn't on the test, but if there's no test the same danger exists. Just broaden the test by a hundredfold so that the only option is a really broad education and not constant drilling on the few things that are on the test. Nobody should graduate from high school without being able to recite most of the bill of rights from memory, describe the three branches of government, and know about hundreds of thousands of other things from acetylene to Zimbardo.

@jwray: 1) Muslims aren't a race. 2) It has absolutely nothing to do with not liking Muslims. It has everything to do with not liking governments that bend over backward for oppressive religions. Notice how this video is about a crazy American not realizing that government and religion are supposed to be separate in the US--well, that's not something you escape by going to Europe. There seem to be a lot of laws against blasphemy popping up.

I never said that the US was "more free" than the UK, or said that the US was better. I said that the UK was not better than the US, though. They're just fucked up in different ways.

The UK is a surveillance state. I know it makes Brits sad when people say it, but they have more CCTV cameras per capita than any other country in the world. There is legislation that would allow the government to store every email and website you send/visit. Anyone charged with any sort of offense has his/her DNA stored permanently (England and Wales).

There are (different link) Sharia courts in the UK.

It's not my country, so they can do whatever they want with it, but I definitely wouldn't move there if I were upset about the Republicans' stance on religion, or the police, or either party's stance on wiretapping, or any of the other things we've generally been pissed off about in the United States. Except for the socialized medicine thing. I could go for that.

I pity any person who watches this debate and still votes for O'Donnell instead of her opponent.

1) Muslims aren't a race. 2) It has absolutely nothing to do with not liking Muslims. It has everything to do with not liking governments that bend over backward for oppressive religions. Notice how this video is about a crazy American not realizing that government and religion are supposed to be separate in the US--well, that's not something you escape by going to Europe.



Even England still has blasphemy laws on the books from hundreds of years ago, but they're never enforced. Actual instances of people being prosecuted for blasphemy in Europe are very few and far between.



The UK is a surveillance state. I know it makes Brits sad when people say it, but they have more CCTV cameras per capita than any other country in the world.



Depends how the cameras are used. The mere existence of CCTV cameras on the streets is not necessarily a bad thing.



There is legislation that would allow the government to store every email and website you send/visit.



That would be very very bad, but the law hasn't actually been passed yet. It was just proposed. Surveilance of the internet is worse than surveilance of public streets because:



1. Nearly all internet crimes are victimless crimes except where people are using the internet to plan to do something IRL. There is no such thing as getting mugged on the internet, and viruses/hacking are nearly 100% avoidable as a matter of personal responsibility without much need for policing.



2. There is an expectation of privacy in your personal communications that does not exist when you're walking down a public street. If 1000 other people walking down that street can see it too, why are you worried about one more guy watching it on CCTV?



3. People can and will use encryption to circumvent any and all attempts at policing the internet, so don't even bother. Internet anarchy is inevitable so you might as well accept it.




Anyone charged with any sort of offense has his/her DNA stored permanently (England and Wales).



This is exactly the same in principle as fingerprinting. I've got no problem with it.


There are (different link) Sharia courts in the UK.
It's not my country, so they can do whatever they want with it, but I definitely wouldn't move there if I were upset about the Republicans' stance on religion, or the police, or either party's stance on wiretapping, or any of the other things we've generally been pissed off about in the United States. Except for the socialized medicine thing. I could go for that.




Separate courts for Sharia law are bad, but is that really much different from a corporation making employees agree to resolve all civil disputes with the employer via binding arbitration with a particular arbitrator? In the latter case there's sort of coercion/adhesion going on. If both sides were really free to choose and agreed upon using a particular arbitrator to resolve their civil disputes, then there'd be no problem. If e.g. Muslim women in abusive relationships are being forced my their husbands to use these separate courts, that's terrible, but I haven't seen anything to substantiate that or anything similar.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by saber2x.

Ha Ha - Right - Can't believe I said that - Hydrogen and Oxygen (H20) is what I mean to say - amazing no one else picked up on that

>> ^ForgedReality:

>> ^Sagemind:
I'm not from, nor do I live in the United States but this is about a scary as a Chemist saying "You mean water actually has Water AND Oxygen in it. Where is it because I only see liquid."
If you don't know even the most basic principals of something, you shouldn't be in that business.

Hmmm.. TECHNICALLY, water does not contain ANY water...