[MD] Tea Bagging

[david buchanan]

Mark said to Steve:
 Yes, I heard the debate, I thought Coons looked like a complete idiot.  When
> asked what rights are presented in the first amendment he did not have a
> clue.  Doesn't that tell you something?  They are rights to protect the
> individual from the government.  And the laughter from law students was
> indeed telling of the kind of education they are getting there.  Ambulance
> Chaser 101.  Use the law to make lots of money, get lots of power, and
> become president of the United Sates.  Sad I think, and dangerous.  But then
> again, using science to define morality is no different.  However, it all
> depends on what the meaning of the word is is.  :-)


dmb says:
I've grown increasingly alarmed at your remarks, Mark, but that's the straw that breaks my camel's proverbial back. 

Why is it that right-wingers always reason like a 10 year-olds? (Actually, that's unfair to my ten year old.) Watching the parade of idiots they call the tea party and witnessing the "reasoning" that is used here to support them is a very strange spectacle. The law students laughed at her ignorance of the highest law and so THEY are badly educated? The would-be Senator doesn't know that the first part of the first amendment is known as the separation clause or that it is the legal basis of the separation of church and state, but we should be concerned about the laughing law students? O'Donnell's ignorant comments were funny to them (and to me) because they DO understand that the principle of separation is derived from the First Amendment. But all that means nothing because the whole lot of them are dangerous, power-hungry, money-grubbing ambulance chasers. Is that why they laughed or is that why their laughter can be dismissed? I suppose the ignorant candidate ought to wear their informed derision as a badge of honor? It'll show the Tea Baggers how she can stand up to those elitists with their fancy book-learnin', right? 

Mark, your argument is an evasion, an absurd non-sequitor, an ad hominem attack and an act of wild, baseless speculation - all at the same time. It's a meaningless jumble of inarticulate disapproval. It's a tossed salad of stupid and mean. And you're the same guy who doesn't like the look on Hawking's face, right? Now I'm convinced. You're a prankster or an idiot. Either way, I'm not going to waste any more time talking to unreasonable people.