Christine O'Donnell typifies the ignorance of the Teabagger movement as mirror image of Sarah Palincomparison when asked to name a supreme court ruling she objected to. Her response; "Could you give me a specific case?" America, help is on the way to take our country backwards!
This is fricken scarelarious! http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/362219/october-14-2010/transitive-property-of-christine-o-donnell
"first they ignored us, then they laughed at us, then they fought us, then we won."
ReplyDelete-Gandhi
303 Hours :)
Sniffsnortin in the teabag O Propaghandi
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that "ignorance" is not the word you are looking for. Try "nuanced"
ReplyDelete"Ignorance" could be used on Delaware Democratic Senate candidate and Yale Law School graduate Chris Coons who couldn't even name the Five Freedoms in the First Amendment. Or is that "ignoramus"?
298 Hours :)
Nice try, but even the Nation Rewrite can't put the husks back on the nutjobs you've representing you in this election.
ReplyDeleteSo your argument is that basically nothing is happening between Christine's ears, beyond autonomic function and some basic communication? You'd think even Sarah Palin could have pulled "Roe vs. Wade" out of the old grey matter. But then again, she wasn't quick enough to say, "The New York Times!" and make Katie rue the day.
ReplyDeleteRand Paul probably could have come up with "Brown vs. the Board of Education."
Ignorance is a possibility. She might just be stupid.
Yeah R v W would have been the simple and obvious out for both of them. Of course Bush V Gore and Citizen United v FEC were by far more aggregious not to mention judicially activist.
ReplyDeleteEven more amazing is the Sarah's people coached O'Donnel and she STILL couldn't answer the question. Stupidity supported by stupidity, coached by stupidity.
Go TEAm go!
You'd think Palincomparison would have quickly named the "Reverend" Moon's Washington Times as a newspaper she reads since that rag is the con sheet of choice.
If Christine 0'Donnell were before the Senate for conformation to the bench, your point would be more salient. If she authors law that, due to either ignorance or ideology, proves to be unconstitutional you would be correct in calling into question her competence as we will do here in Wisconsin Tuesday after tomorrow with our own unconstitutional law authoring Senator.
ReplyDelete177 Hours :)