But if she isn’t, it always amuses me that people like that think that the only qualification one needs for public office is to be a gawd fearin’ Christian. No actual knowledge is needed because the Lawd will guide Christine’s hand as she proposes and votes on legisation in the Senate.

I do not hate Ms O’Donnell, I find her two parts hilarious to one part dopey, and her religion is not a factor, except in as much as it has apparently removed most of her brain cells and/or her critical faculties

Ashley’s other issue is that “The only reason(the SECOND only reason?) shes so hated is because demons are trying to push this lady out of office because they know shes gonna make a positive impact on our schools and government in general”.

First, pedantically, you cannot have two “only reasons”, either grammatically or any other way. Only means one and exclusive.

Second,demons exist only in your fevered brain. Look outside; sorry,no demons.

Third, the imaginary demons cannot “..push this lady out of office..” for the plain and simple reason that she has NEVER been IN office. Every attempt by the vacuum between the ears which is Ms O’Donnell to get into office has been rejected by the voters. This give us some hope that the USA will survive.

An idiot defending another is not a pretty sight.

I do think you are delusional if you think there are demons trying to influence an election, however. Maybe just a little, but there it is.

If you hate Christine whose a Christian then you must hate Jesus Christ Himself because she stands for what Jesus stood for. The only reason shes so hated is because demons are trying to push this lady out of office because they know shes gonna make a positive impact on our schools and government in general

Shes a True Christian AND THAT IS WHY SHE IS HATED! BECAUSE SHE STANDS FOR THE MORALS OF GOD = THE BIBLE

*I* know that’s the intention/typical interpretation of the First Amendment – and I’m Canadian.

More importantly, is there any chance she might be elected?

Only an ignoramus, a moron or a demagogue would make such an argument. The fact that it doesn’t use this exact phrase is irrelevant. Nowhere in the constitution will you find the phrases “separation of powers,” “checks and balances” or “limited government.” But no one in their right mind would claim that those concepts are not accurate descriptions of the purpose of various provisions in the Constitution.

How do we know this? Because the men who wrote the Constitution used those phrases to describe those provisions, just as Jefferson and Madison used the phrase “separation of church and state” to describe the purpose of the First Amendment. We can disagree about what exactly that phrase means or entails, of course; the founders themselves disagreed on it. But to pretend that it just isn’t there at all is either idiotic or dishonest — take your pick.

Well, he leaves out “grossly ignorant” in the last sentence, but aside from that, he sums it up pretty well.

yes, but as an example of a bad theory.