Bill Maher's show? OMG Consider the source. He was once funny and pertinent, about 20years ago. He is just a liberal shrill, now a days.

They were O'Donnell's own words. When accused of taking things out of context he (Maher) responded by playing the same clip, just a longer version to show just how NOT out-of-context those rather outlandish statements were (and still are, thanks to the magic of videotape).

She appeared on his show some 2 dozen times (I can't remember if the actual number was 22 or 26 but it was in that area).

I find myself increasingly disappointed at Maher's slow slide into being nastier and more of a "name caller" - in particular over the last 4 weeks.

djplong, are you saying you agree with Bill Maher regarding what he said about humans evolving from monkeys in that old clip with Christine ODonnell?

Originally Posted by djplong

They were O'Donnell's own words. When accused of taking things out of context he (Maher) responded by playing the same clip, just a longer version to show just how NOT out-of-context those rather outlandish statements were (and still are, thanks to the magic of videotape).

She appeared on his show some 2 dozen times (I can't remember if the actual number was 22 or 26 but it was in that area).

I find myself increasingly disappointed at Maher's slow slide into being nastier and more of a "name caller" - in particular over the last 4 weeks.

There could be many many threads discussing the new practice of getting our "news" from comedy shows with a spin.

I have no opinion on the Delaware race, but quoting a political hack who failed as a comedian is just foolhardy ! After the MSM got hold of those old clips, this gal had no chance even if she had a message to deliver.

Palin as the attack-ee of all opposition.

btk

You ever notice how that failed comedian from Minnesota never gets any heat? Talk about idiots.

BK: It was O'Donnell who asked why monkeys weren't "still evolving" into humans. She said this on Maher's old show, "Politically Incorrect". She also said that evolution is a myth.

This demonstrates to me that, not only does she not know what she's talking about (that's bad enough but can be dealt with), but that she proceeds from those ignorant assumptions.

First and foremost, evolution doesn't say we "descended from monkeys". What it says is that chimps, apes and humans HAD A COMMON ANCESTER millions of years ago. In other words, one fork of evolution produced chimpanzees and another fork produced humans.

Secondly, evolution is not a "myth". At *worst* you could call it a theory that has not been disproven but is not iron-clad because there are holes in the fossil record but SO FAR, everything in the fossil record follows along with what evolution describes. In addition she's out of touch with how long evolution takes (thinking that we should be able to see monkeys evolving before our eyes).

Now, to go any further down that subject (evolution) is a debate for another thread.

More on-topic is how candidates like them win their primaries in the first place. It just seems to me that there were a lot more "loonies" in the major parties this year than in years past. I mean, you could always find loonies in the minor, 3rd party and fringe parties. But now?

- O'Donnell, well documented.
- New York had a guy sending bestiality pictures in emails and saying "well, that's the construction biz".
- Rand Paul, an eye doctor certified by a board that HE STARTED (not the board that's been around for 100 years)
- In South Carolina a guy who didn't campaign but won the Democratic primary even though he was under indictment for stalking, could barely form whole sentences and appeared to live in his father's basement.

No, Republicans didn't have a monopoly on crazy candidates.

I'm of the mind that the gauntlet that the press and everyone else puts people through has so thoroughly discouraged good people from running that THESE are the kinds of people we get.

And what do these quirks have to do with running a GOVERNMENT? Are you saying that if a person believes that the earth is flat, it will make him less of a government hack?

I sense a double standard here. Strong independent woman like this lady and Palin get beaten up while the Nancy Pilosi's , who go along with the party lines, get a free ride?

Originally Posted by Ajack

And what do these quirks have to do with running a GOVERNMENT? Are you saying that if a person believes that the earth is flat, it will make him less of a government hack?

I sense a double standard here. Strong independent woman like this lady and Palin get beaten up while the Nancy Pilosi's , who go along with the party lines, get a free ride?

This is the reason why on all the debates between McDonnell and Coons she was asked her opinions on her beliefs instead of substantive questions on her views on the Constitution and her anticipated role in relation to it. She repeatedly tried, and with some success to do this anyway. Despite the picture painted in the news she mopped the floor with the woeful Coons who didn't even know what freedoms the First Amendment granted US citizens.

By the way dj, she was right about the words "separation of church and state" not being in the First Amendment albeit the televised ignorance of the college students and moderators who voiced shocked laughter. This is a great example of the brainwashing of the liberal elite.

All in all Ms. O'Donnell dragged the Delaware Republicans to the conservative side of the aisle and, like Sarah Palin, I expect you'll be seeing more of this talented woman all over television. I also expect her to be derided and called names by liberal talking heads and their disciples, much like the influential Sarah Palin, much to her delight, is derided and underestimated by these same culprits.

I can see 2012 from my house

Originally Posted by RichieLion

This is the reason why on all the debates between McDonnell and Coons she was asked her opinions on her beliefs instead of substantive questions on her views on the Constitution and her anticipated role in relation to it. She repeatedly tried, and with some success to do this anyway. Despite the picture painted in the news she mopped the floor with the woeful Coons who didn't even know what freedoms the First Amendment granted US citizens.

By the way dj, she was right about the words "separation of church and state" not being in the First Amendment albeit the televised ignorance of the college students and moderators who voiced shocked laughter. This is a great example of the brainwashing of the liberal elite.

All in all Ms. O'Donnell dragged the Delaware Republicans to the conservative side of the aisle and, like Sarah Palin, I expect you'll be seeing more of this talented woman all over television. I also expect her to be derided and called names by liberal talking heads and their disciples, much like the influential Sarah Palin, much to her delight, is derided and underestimated by these same culprits.

I can see 2012 from my house

Good post RICHIELION. I often wonder why the women's groups do not get more upset at what, I at least, consider different treatment of women candidates versus men. Some of the questions would never be asked of a man and I wonder why since they are running for the same offices !

Originally Posted by djplong

BK: It was O'Donnell who asked why monkeys weren't "still evolving" into humans. She said this on Maher's old show, "Politically Incorrect". She also said that evolution is a myth.

This demonstrates to me that, not only does she not know what she's talking about (that's bad enough but can be dealt with), but that she proceeds from those ignorant assumptions.

First and foremost, evolution doesn't say we "descended from monkeys". What it says is that chimps, apes and humans HAD A COMMON ANCESTER millions of years ago. In other words, one fork of evolution produced chimpanzees and another fork produced humans.

Secondly, evolution is not a "myth". At *worst* you could call it a theory that has not been disproven but is not iron-clad because there are holes in the fossil record but SO FAR, everything in the fossil record follows along with what evolution describes. In addition she's out of touch with how long evolution takes (thinking that we should be able to see monkeys evolving before our eyes).

Now, to go any further down that subject (evolution) is a debate for another thread.

More on-topic is how candidates like them win their primaries in the first place. It just seems to me that there were a lot more "loonies" in the major parties this year than in years past. I mean, you could always find loonies in the minor, 3rd party and fringe parties. But now?

- O'Donnell, well documented.
- New York had a guy sending bestiality pictures in emails and saying "well, that's the construction biz".
- Rand Paul, an eye doctor certified by a board that HE STARTED (not the board that's been around for 100 years)
- In South Carolina a guy who didn't campaign but won the Democratic primary even though he was under indictment for stalking, could barely form whole sentences and appeared to live in his father's basement.

No, Republicans didn't have a monopoly on crazy candidates.

I'm of the mind that the gauntlet that the press and everyone else puts people through has so thoroughly discouraged good people from running that THESE are the kinds of people we get.

Do you want me to post it djplong, or do you want to post the segment you have brought up here where Bill Maher said humans evolved from monkeys? You know the clip that Huffington Post broadcast about "science is about reality."

"Monkey's don't evolve in the time it would take to watch them," is Maher's response to Odonnell's belief that evolution is a myth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_739131.html

Richie: It also doesn't say "gun rights" in the Consitution. But "the right to keep and bear arms", which is what that translates to, IS in there.

No, "separation of church and state" isn't technically in there, but "shall pass no loaw respecting an establishment of religion" IS in there, which is what that translates to, ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE THAT WROTE THE CONSITUTION - the exact words in letters written later are "wall of separation".

O'Donnel thought, as many do, that the Constitution 'only' forbids an 'official religion'. They think it says "respecting an establishment of A religion" and it does NOT.. It's a VERY important distinction.

Yeah, he said monkeys don't evolve 'in the time it takes to watch them' but he knows that chimps are not going to evolve into humans - we don't know WHAT chimps will look like in a million years (assuming they aren't wiped out by any outside influences).

Again, it's the common misconception that frosts me. We did not evolve from apes or chimps. *All* higher primates evolved from a common ancester *that no longer exists*.

The founding fathers were good fearing people and did not want an "official" church run by government, like England had.

The founding fathers did not want government to infringe on our right to bear arms, no matter how some people "read" into it.

Ajack: They also knew the dangers of appearing to favor one sect over another. Read some of Jefferson's writing concerning Christianity. It backs up the view that religion and government should never be in bed with each other. While writing some vitriolic statements concerning Christianity ("In our practice of orthodox Christianity I can find not one redeeming virtue") he was quite tolerant of religions in general ("It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.")