I find it very hard to believe the President "fears" either one of these phonies. If their is anyone who should fear either one of these guys it should be the American people.
The American people fear Obama right now, his incredible disregard for the economy is causing a lot of Americans to look for alternatives. We have Romney and Gingritch who both hold very similar views to Obama, and then we have Santorum and Ron Paul, both of which are much better alternatives than Obama, but so far the only man who we know can put this country back on the right track is Ron Paul.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Wow, you have no idea what you are talking about. Liberals are too closed minded to look at the facts, and the facts are Obama's budget is driving this country in bankruptcy. Race has nothing to do with it, if Obama was white, it wouldn't make a difference. The liberals are the one who are getting brainwashed because the vast majority of the media is liberal, not conservative.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Race has EVERYTHING to do with the "over-the-top" disrespect Conservatives routinely show the President.
First, I'm not liberal. Disagreeing with conservative political lies, half truths and distortions makes me rational, NOT liberal.
Second, Obama's fiscal policy directions AREN'T driving the country toward a fiscal cliff. We have the Dubya's economic/fiscal "legacy" and 30 years of Conservative-led economic fiscal policies to thank for our present circumstances. Add Conservative stonewalling in Congress and you'll arrive at the REAL reasons for our current economic troubles. Here's the proof:
Third, I gather my knowledge from a VARIETY of sources...media outlets across the ideological spectrum (i.e., when they are CREDIBLE...Fox News is NOT), conservative-leaning business media, nonpartisan economic/financial literature/data and almost 30 years of business experience in applied finance/economics.
How’s THAT for a “liberal bias”? Are YOUR sources of information and experience equally as diverse and credible? If not, you’re disingenuously projecting your own partisan bias onto others. That baseless accusation is commonly practiced by MOST Conservatives in an effort to justify their behavior. Here's a clue, it doesn't.
Finally, accusing people of ignorance ONLY works when it's true.
Race has nothing to do with the disrespect shown tp the President (and yes he has been disrespected). The disrespect stems from how Obama treated the good will of Republicans in early 2009. It quickly made enemies and divided this country rapidly after his election. "Elections matter, I won". In other words "shut the f**k up". As a leader when you tell half the country that their input doesn't matter you better be prepared for a s**t storm and disrespect.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Do you HONESTLY think those political "crocodile tears" give you ANY credibility? I can smell the stench of those lies/BS from here.
"Conservative goodwill stems from how Obama treated the good will of Republicans in early 2009."
What goodwill? Conservatives turned on Obama before he had even been sworn into office. Hell, Mitch McConnell (Senate Minority leader, R-KY) ADMITTED that the LEADING legislative imperative for Republicans was to SABOTAGE the Obama Presidency, regardless of what that did to the country. He and Congressional Conservatives have been true to that committment ever since McConnell made those comments.
That was such a blatant admission of treason AND sedition, it SHOULD have culminated in McConnell's prosecution and expulsion from Congress along with any legislator who dared to follow his "lead". I've been around enough "good ol' boys" in my day to recognize the racists in Congress. If Mitch is not a "Grand Wizard" in the KKK, he certainly behaves EXACTLY as one would in Congress.
As for the view that "elections matter", THEY DO. Since your memory is so poor, the Bush Administration behaved in EXACTLY the SAME fashion after taking office. The difference was that DUBYA and crew NEVER possessed the electoral "mandate" he bragged of having while Obama DOES. That's why Dubya couldn't walk to his inauguration, but had to be driven in the Presidential limo.
Unfortunately, Obama never pursued his electoral mandate of economic reform and INSTEAD favored the bipartisan approach to governing you accuse him of "abandoning". That capitulation to Conservative demands is the REASON Democratic voters failed to show up at the polls in 2010. You'll notice I didn't refer to Obama's behavior as "compromise". Compromise requires sacrifice by BOTH sides, something modern conservatives are unwilling to do.
Bush and Obama are very very similar presidents, they both brought us into debt by massive amounts, but Obama spent more and no surprise: The country gets worse under Obama's ridiculous monetary policies.
It doesn't appear so by your comment. There is NO way you can credibly blame Obama for Dubya's disgrace and get away with it. Our current financial circumstances are a DIRECT consequence of Dubya's former policies AND incompetence, NOT Obama's.
As for setting the nation's monetary policy, that's done by the Federal Reserve (i.e., Ben Bernanke), not Obama.
If you're criticizing Obama's economic/fiscal policies, I'd love to see what you're referring to since Congressional Conservatives have successfully stonewalled everything he has proposed. That makes CONSERVATIVES culpable for our present economic circumstances, NOT Obama.
fyi - Libertarians are further "right" on the political spectrum than Conservatives. This makes them conservative extremists, not conservative moderates/centrists.
Conservative stonewalling? Pardon me, but the Democrats had control of Congress and the White House for two years and what did they do? Spend, spend, spend! If it didn't work, their response is that they hadn't spent enough!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Two years? Try ONE YEAR and that year was dominated by Wall Street's financial clusterf**k.
Mitch McConnell (R-KY, Senate Minority leader) used Scott Brown's election (R-Mass) to filibuster every piece of Democratic legislation proposed after that first year was over. He, all but, shut down Congress with the unprecedented use of the filibuster.
As for all the "spending" CONSERVATIVES always whine about, take a GOOD look at where that money was spent and WHO was responsible for it.
Where was your whining when Dick Cheney laughed off the deficits he and conservatives were so determined to create? The blatant hypocrisy drips off your every complaint. If that wasn't bad enough, Republicans continue proposing budgets which will worsen the national debt.
you're full of s**t, You've been hating Obama since day 1, don't start pulling up his budget. To say you are conservative and not racist and still hate Obama who has hardly been liberal you have to be racist or just brainwashed or stupid or all three, pick your poison. Have fun with Pope Rick Scrotorum
Exactly. They hated Clinton, who was more liberal than Obama (though he flip flopped) But Obama? They saw that black face at the podium and went absolutely apes**t. This the end of the Confederacy, they thought.
And to be honest, they were right. No going back there from here.
The first comment in this thread by neveroddoreven was well thought out and logical.
Your's was nothing more than a poorly thought out, partisan knee jerk, written to appeal to the emotions of left-wingers. It has no basis in fact.
Santorum is a very successful politician who, from 1991 to 2007, held seats in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate. Romney was elected governor of Massachusetts, a state where both sides of the aisle are heavily controlled by Democrats. They're both very serious candidates -- not jokes. It'll be Obama's downfall if he does not take this race seriously, which I fully believe he willComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Pretty thin article... says Republicans fail at math yet he provides no numbers. Does Santorum poll better than Romney in those states (general population)? He just assumes Santorum will win Florida with Rubio which again has no mathematical bearing.
"Mathematically speaking, Santorum is the tougher candidate against Obama. The Republican Establishment has failed once again at basic math."
I think all this guy understands is basic math. All he can do is add delegates together. Give me some statistics man!
If you want the math, you go to the internet king of statistics geekdom (who, sadly, has now been recruited behind a quasi-paywall). Doesn't quite line up with this article, but does indeed support the general (terrifying) gist that Santorum could have a shot in the general.
"The forecast model I’ve been using in conjunction with a set of New York Times magazine articles suggests that Mitt Romney is likely to fare better than Rick Santorum in the popular vote against Barack Obama. Specifically, the model would give Mr. Romney a 40 percent chance of winning the popular vote against Mr. Obama given G.D.P. growth of 2.5 percent this year (in line with the most recent forecasts), but Mr. Santorum just a 23 percent chance."
so completely contradicts what this other guy is saying. Thanks!
The nationwide popular vote doesn't win elections though. The point the article is trying to make is that there are only a few states where the popular vote matters, and in these specific states Santorum has an advantage over Romney.
Specifically, the election may come down to a number of swing states in the midwest where Santorum is more popular than he is nationally.
Unfortunately the OP doesn't provide polling statistics to back up the claim.
The other guy is NOT talking about the popular vote, he's talking about the electoral college. So no, it does not completely contradict the original article.
"a candidate who gets 49 percent of the vote nationally but 51 percent in the Midwest would arguably be better than one for whom the reverse is true."
And I didn't post that link to bolster any argument that the original link was correct but to provide a resource to quality analysis as requested.
In the latest Rasmussen poll Ron Paul beats Obama by 2 points, Romney ties Obama, and Santorum and Gingrich fall way behind Obama. Ron Paul for the win! Even Rush Limbaugh (who hates Ron Paul) had to admit (tho he choked on the words) that economists agree Rep. Paul's economic plan is the ONLY one (of the candidates' plans) which will NOT increase the federal debt (Obama has increased it dramatically during his term) and which WILL work the way Rep> Paul says it will.
Obama has been a disaster and all those young people and independents who voted for him last time have turned away from him due to the fact he's done, as president, the exact opposite of everything he said he would do if elected. Every campaign promise was a lie (just as the campaign promises of Mitt, Rick and the newt are all lies) He's got no one to blame but himself.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Rick Santorum is the anti-gay, anti-abortion anti-womyn, anti-science. Who is running on these social issues. Never mind health reform or jobs. Or anything important or non-discriminatory, for that matter.
He got the point about swing states correct, but the numbers are only from Republican primaries where the votes are all Republican. That implies an assumption that a Republican not voting for a candidate means that voter won't vote for that candidate in the general election (as if they're going to vote Democrat or third party). Worse, it doesn't consider the votes of independents, which are what usually determines the final outcome.
we dont even know what he considers because he barely lists anything. He just says Santorum gets XYZ and Romney gets ABC blah blah. Such a worthless article
I think it's obvious he understand what it means. The problem is "Separation of Church and State" does not appear in the constitution. And no interpretation of the first amendment can even come close to the meaning of what current court interpretations are. The phrase "Separation of Church and State" came from a letter written by President Jefferson decades after the constitution was written. With context the letter was actually in regards to a religious group who feared their state would interfere with their religious freedom. It had nothing to do with religious influence on the government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
care to back your claim up? regardless of if you agree with what he said, separation of church and state isn't explicitly written in the constitution anywhere.
the only fail is on you for failing to discredit fact that contradicts your belief. the only thing the government is explicitly forbidden from doing is establishing a state church (akin to the church of england)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
the claim that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in the Constitution is true, but it's a straw man - a red herring - but you know that. The principles of non- or anti-establishment and free exercise are explicit and have been reinforced by statute and by the courts innumerable times. If you want to know more specifically what the US Govt's definition of "establishment" is - at least as recently as the mid-20th century, read the US Directive for the Disestablishment of State Shinto, 1945. Sanitorium FAILS this establishment test.
The U.S. Constitution is NOT the only founding document OR basis upon which our country is governed. "Separation of church and state" is founded on rock solid social principles/practice even if that offends political/religious morons, like Rick Santorum. If Rick wants to live in a purely Catholic society, then are PLENTY of alternatives available to him around the planet. The rest of us have NO desire to have his social/political agenda forced upon us.
It's time Conservatives stopped wasting this nation's time with their disingenuous and misguided political/social fundamentalism.
"The U.S. Constitution is NOT the only founding document OR basis upon which our country is governed."
The federal government is. State governments have to abide by specific provisions from the constitution and their own state constitutions.
"Separation of church and state" is founded on rock solid social principles/practice even if that offends political/religious morons, like Rick Santorum"
What? You lost me here. It's based on a letter from Jefferson and his use of the phrase in the letter. The constitution is *The Law of the Land* for the federal government. There is no other document that supersedes it. If any law contradicts what is in the constitution, the law is invalid. If any law goes outside of the scope of the federal government (as defined by the constitution) the law is invalid.
"It's time Conservatives stopped wasting this nation's time with their disingenuous and misguided political/social fundamentalism."
I only care because we're dealing with the constitution. The social aspect of this I could care less about. The constitution is quite clear on this issue, and Separation of Church and State is not based on the constitutional restriction put in place.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Do you go about your daily acttivities wearing blinders?
NO? Then, STOP looking at the nation's governing principles using that same approach. It blinds one to reality and leads to disastrously misguided conclusions.
My comments on this issue go beyond Jefferson's letter. In addition to the Constitution and that letter, we ALSO have centuries of legal, legislative AND social precedent which SUBSTANTIATE the concept of "separation of church and state". Here's the relevance, the country's founding documents were based upon the times at hand. While I favor the guiding role they serve, I disagree with the fundamentalist view that they are the "end all, be all" many Conservatives take them to be (unless, of course, it infringes upon their political/social agenda. Then they're hellbent on pursuing Constitutional amendments to "fix" the problem created by that "Constitution".) Even the founding fathers recognized the evolutionary nature of our country/society AND the documents they drafted/signed. It's time some in our soceity woke up to that fact.
As a person of faith, I have NO interest in having MY religious freedoms/beliefs infringed upon by ANY other religion's practices/beliefs. As such, I FULLY support that separation of powers. Rick Santorum is too stupid to recognize that his religious freedoms could just as easily be subverted by the dominance of another religion if it were to gain sufficient political power in the U.S. Isn't that why so many in his party oppose the construction of mosques in the U.S.? The point of separating church and state is to PROTECT religious freedom, NOT endanger it. The Vatican (and OTHER major religions) have PROVEN throughout history that merging politics and religion is a MAJOR mistake.
"My comments on this issue go beyond Jefferson's letter. In addition to the Constitution and that letter, we ALSO have centuries of legal, legislative AND social precedent which SUBSTANTIATE the concept of "separation of church and state". "
Which is *utter* bulls**t. It is not "in addition to the constitution", the constitution has *absolutely* nothing to do with this.
You have only barely over a century of legal precedent which used the Separation of Church and state which its very *premise* is wrong. The f**king premise of your entire precedent is wrong.
Social Precedent is worthless. It doesn't mean jack s**t. We are dealing in legality. If something is *perceived* (emphasis again on perceived) as wrong like drinking alcohol, we have a system of amending the constitution to take care of it. But again it is all *based* on the f**king constitution (even removing the ban on alcohol). We didn't have judges arbitrarily ignoring the constitution because social precedent demanded it. That is crap and you know it.
There is no *legal* basis (the constitution) for Separation of Church and State no matter how you try and obfuscate it with Judicial activist courts.
"Here's the relevance, the country's founding documents were based upon the times at hand."
Declaration of Independence is *not* the law of the land. The *only* document that is the law of the land is the constitution. The constitution was written by *many* people who had contradicting beliefs and perceptions of government. The document was a *compromise* of what they believed the best possible government could be. This is why it is a *complete* and absolute joke that you reference Jefferson for intent of the constitution, especially when you reference him decades after the constitution was written and his own opinion had likely changed over time (meaning it no longer reflected his *intent* or opinion at the time the law of the land was written).
"While I favor the guiding role they serve, I disagree with the fundamentalist view that they are the "end all, be all" many Conservatives take them to be (unless, of course, it infringes upon their political/social agenda. Then they're hellbent on pursuing Constitutional amendments to "fix" the problem created by that "Constitution".) Even the founding fathers recognized the evolutionary nature of our country/society AND the documents they drafted/signed. It's time some in our soceity woke up to that fact."
The constitution sets up the rule of law and the system of government. I am not a fundamentalist, I believe new amendments need to be passed. What I'm completely against is ignoring the constitution and doing whatever the f**k you want without abiding by the rule of law (which the current government does quite a bit now). This will eventually lead to anarchy as the rule of law will eventually break down. The shadow laws put into place by the Supreme Court that aren't based on the constitution can easily be flipped at any time. This type of system that ignores our Constitutional Republic is *bound to fail*.
"As a person of faith, I have NO interest in having MY religious freedoms/beliefs infringed upon by ANY other religion's practices/beliefs."
As a person with no faith, I'm stating I couldn't care less about the issue and more about the legality of it. The constitution *does not* bar religious influence on government. There is no Separation of Church and State. If *The People* wish for there to be a *complete* secular government and a Separation of Church and State they will need to *amend* the constitution to do it. This is the process of this country. What you and your ilk are trying to do is ignore the process and system of our government in order to push your agenda. This is disgusting (even if you're conservative or liberal). This is similar to you feeling that since democrats/liberals are so much better for this country that it is okay for you to *subvert* our elections and make it so voting no longer matters. I would hope you find at least that disgusting. You should also find ignoring the constitution equally repulsive and oppose anyone who pretends they are above the law.
"The point of separating church and state is to PROTECT religious freedom, NOT endanger it."
Who gives a f**k? The point of legal premise that is not actually constitutional? It doesn't matter how much you *want* or *desire* something to be true, as it is not in the constitution. The type of Separation of Church and state you and liberals are claiming is definitely not supported by Jefferson, or the Justice who first quoted him. It has been embellished over the years and is so far removed from the Constitution that is it disgusting.
Justices have upheld Separation of Church and state as it supports Judicial Supremacy and allows them the freedom to provide "intent" to almost every form of law that comes their way. That is why it is quite common to have a 5/4 decisions in the court. The judicial branch is given significant power with such purview of undisputed constitutionality. If the court accepted the original intent of the Supreme Court (originalist application of the constitution and if laws abide by them) they would lose significant power within the government.
His letter written decades after the constitution was written (by dozens of individuals with varying beliefs and opinions) was intended for a group of individuals that thought their religious practices would be banned or interfered with by their state. The fact that the actual writing of the constitution does not support the out of context statement "Separation of Church and State", but neither does the letter. Given context of the letter he was assuring them that the government cannot impede in their free exercise of religion.
A "originalist" interpretation is actually someone who goes by the *written word* and not some arbitrary b.s. The only time interpretation is needed is dealing with new technological developments. So for instance the freedom of press related to the ability to print/publish content and distribute it. Today we have internet which doesn't deal with printing or publishing, but the freedom of press allows us to publish content electronically as that was the *intent* of that freedom. This requires interpretation. The clause that protects religion from government does *not* require interpretation as the roles of both institutions have not changed with time or technology.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
That is the entirety of what is written.
*Congress* shall make *no law* respecting an *establishment of religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The only aspect that can be interpreted differently is the use of the word "establishment". And both interpretations of the word *do not* support any concept of Separation of Church and State based on current judicial dogma.
1.) "Establishment of Religion" as in the Catholic church. So Congress cannot pass laws in regards to specific establishments of religion.
2.) "Establishment of Religion", as in Establishing a state sanction religion. The Catholic church being the official religion of the United States.
The second interpretation of the word is the more likely as many of the founders and colonists left England purely because of the Church of England (a established State Religion).
No possible sane interpretation of the clause can come to the conclusion that all spirituality and religious references *must* be stripped from *all* government institutions. Especially since the clause is a specific restriction the Congress of the United States and not to state governments. This does not fall under the 14th amendment as that is talking about personal rights, not governmental restrictions.
So for instance a school (which is setup and funded by local and state sources of money) would not need to abide by this clause *even* if it meant stripping out religion and spirituality.
To be clear I'm agnostic, but I'm a constitutional conservative and believe that the law of the land needs to be followed. I also support amending the constitution if we have need to give or remove powers from the government and also to bestow protected rights on our citizenry."
This was one of my previous posts, so I'm just going to reuse it as it still applies here.
Court stature does not overwrite the constitution. As it stands court interpretation can change. The current interpretation is based off a ruling in the late 19th century that cited Jefferson's letter and the phrase "Separation of Church and State". The ruling was not based on the constitution *at all*. This precedent has been used and added upon by future justices. This doesn't meant he basis for their presumption is completely dead wrong (which based on what I've cited shows it to be the case).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Yes, I've read all that before. sounds to me like your issue is less the First Amendment specifically and more the role of the courts to interpret the law. Our legal system relies very heavily on judicial precedent - clearly. Questions of de facto or de jure prejudice or preference of one religion over another falls within the scope of the first amendment. Santorum would like maximum freedom of exercise - even in his role as a public official - to the point where his personal beliefs and attendant policy priorities would create both prejudices against and preferences for or between whole faiths or even different Christian sects. Again, if you have any questions about the original intent of the language, look no further than Jefferson's own interpretation, and if you want a more recent interpretation, see Disestablishment of State Shinto. It's very clear - govt must remain strictly neutral - which does NOT imply that individuals must abandon their beliefs in order to serve in public office - it just means they cannot base public policy on their religious beliefs. Rick Santorum is simply NOT prepared to respect the wall separating private matters of conscience and his public duties and authority - which is why we simply cannot entrust him with the authority afforded to the Office of the President.
"Yes, I've read all that before. sounds to me like your issue is less the First Amendment specifically and more the role of the courts to interpret the law."
Yes I have issue with Judicial Supremacy and Judicial Activism. You have observed my opinion correctly. I do believe the court holds the right to interpret when it is needed. But originalist interpretation is the only legitimate interpretation the court should be allowed to use. That means the written word has the highest priority, and if there is any ambiguity left than they can refer to the federalist papers to apply some "intent". Many rulings use more "intent" than actually using the wording found in the constitution.
"Our legal system relies very heavily on judicial precedent - clearly."
As it should. But if a ruling is clearly wrong, say they find laws that ban Jews from speaking in public as constitutional. This precedent doesn't suddenly ignore the wording used in the constitution which protects freedom of speech. Dredd Scott ring any bells?
"Santorum would like maximum freedom of exercise - even in his role as a public official - to the point where his personal beliefs and attendant policy priorities would create both prejudices against and preferences for or between whole faiths or even different Christian sects. "
As every president has done. The issue JFK was referring to was the Catholic Church dictating policy to the United States. This was quite feared as the Catholic church had a history of doing this in other nations. JFK made it quite clear he wouldn't be taking order from the pope. At the same time his *catholic faith* had a huge impact on the decisions he made in his political career. This hadn't been a problem before JFK as many Protestant Christians didn't have a hierarchy that resembled the Catholic Church. The only one I can think of is the Ladder Day Saints or commonly known as Mormons (they have a "president" who is believed to be a prophet, a singular leader of the Church). No Mormons have every come close to winning a election until 2008 with Romney.
Santorum completely butchered his interpretation of JFK's speech btw.
It *is* against the constitution for congress to pass laws regarding religious establishments. So no Rick Santorum would not have the legal authority to harass other religions and he definitely wouldn't have the votes in order to achieve it (how many Catholics are there in congress?).
"it just means they cannot base public policy on their religious beliefs"
And this is just plain wrong. While this might be Jefferson's interpretation (which based on his writings I think is incorrect) this is not the *actual* language of the constitution. Which was written by many individuals who didn't agree on everything (James Madison is considered the father of the document). You cannot base legal law on the writings of Jefferson nearly several decades after the constitution. 1.) His opinion had probably changed between the time the constitution had been written and when he express said opinions, thus is not reflective of *intent*. 2.) It was his opinion and did not actually reflect everyone involved who wrote it, so his opinion *cannot* supersede the written word of the constitution (which is what you are implying here).
"which is why we simply cannot entrust him with the authority afforded to the Office of the President."
Please point to a president who did not have his positions high influenced by his religion. Do you recall that Obama had a *spiritual adviser* as a part of his campaign. Which demonstrates that it *indeed* had a impact on his decision making process (why else have a spiritual adviser?).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
What does that even mean? He would still need to pass legislation through congress. If it just so happened the legislation matched up with something like the 10 commandments, doesn't mean it makes this a theocracy.
What Santorum meant (though was retarded in how he went about it) is that having religious representation within government institution is not bad. So for instance there was a court house that had the 10 commandments displayed, they were forced to remove it (even though the 10 commandments had a large impact historically speaking in how the founders laid out this country).
*Congress* shall make *no law* respecting an *establishment of religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The word that can be interpreted two ways here is "establishment".
So either this clause means that the congress cannot establish a state religion (like the Church of England) via law. Or it means congress cannot pass a law regarding a specific religious institution (like the Catholic Church). Christianity is not a religious establishment. The ideas of Christianity are shared over many Churches and is generally reflected in our voting population (majority of voters).
So if a school which is mostly funded by state/local money decides it wants to have prayer in the mornings, the constitution does not prohibit this (even though a court has ruled contrary to the constitution). There is no constitutional right that protects you from being embarrassed or bullied (which is commonly the excuse used by those who oppose schools that had prayer).
Federal funding does not automatically dictate restrictions to those who receive it (as a majority of Americans receive money from the federal government in one form or another).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
It being within the means of the government and me being okay with it are two different things. Personally I would not want to live under religious law. Though realistically if the *system* remains consistent it would be voted on and enacted by our Republican system. That means those laws likely represents the beliefs of the majority of Americans. So if the Christians pass a law that state that working on Sunday's is against the law, I can't argue with the democratic system that allowed them to do that. It doesn't matter *how* the majority of Americans came to that conclusion. Though outlawing work days is outside the scope of the federal government, so that specific case I would probably have issue with.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I love this one - the whole "founded on Christian Principles" argument - which I think is where you're going - is yet another example of theocon intentional cultural confusion through clever messaging. Private beliefs are not law. The founders were not unanimous in their beliefs, but they came together to sign their name to laws they could agree on - and they expressly left religion off the table. (BTW - At this point, I don't find your claim of agnosticism credible - you've regurgitated to much of the party line.) But back to my point... if you're really delving into "founded on Christian Principals," can you be more specific about which principals, and how exactly do you mean "founded" and what leads you to conclude that these principles are unique to Christianity, and... oh, you get the point. The soundbite is easy to repeat - but where's the beef?
"I love this one - the whole "founded on Christian Principles" argument"
No I wasn't going for this. But English Law, which ultimately translated into U.S. law is based on Christian principles and belief system. Our system of justice for instance does not represent the beliefs of say Buddhists.
My previous comment really didn't relate to this. It's purpose was detailing the Law of the Land and that there are no restraints on people using religious reasons to enact law.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Wait - you're talking about ENGLISH law being "founded on Christian principles"? You mean the ENGLISH government we rebelled against, and the state-established Anglican CHURCH that English pilgrims fled? Ah - I get it - perhaps not your strongest argument... since we repudiated that entire model with our own Constitution, making it explicit that our new government would derive its just powers from the consent of the governed - rather than from a divine right of kings conveyed through the archbishop of canterbury...
in the final words of Steven P. Jobs: "Oh, wow. Oh, wow. Oh, wow."
*Yawn*. You really need to read some history. English law is a very general term and is not the same thing as the English system of government.
From Wikipedia (not the best source, but easy to reference):
"English law is the legal system of England and Wales,[1] and is the basis of common law[2] legal systems used in most Commonwealth countries[3] and the United States except Louisiana (as opposed to civil law or pluralist systems in use in other countries). It was exported to Commonwealth countries while the British Empire was established and maintained, and it forms the basis of the jurisprudence of most of those countries. English law prior to the American Revolution is still part of the law of the United States through reception statutes, except in Louisiana, and provides the basis for many American legal traditions and policies, though it has no superseding jurisdiction."
Emphasis on this portion *provides the basis for many American legal traditions and policies*. A lot of this relates the Christians belief structure. Specifically protestant. Read up on Cromwell and some of the history in Britain, its rather fascinating.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Rick doesn't favor Christian rules, he favors an "old world" Catholic version which ALSO offends many U.S. Catholics.
Christian Protestants (and other religions) take exception to Rick's world view for the simple reason that it is religious over-reach at it's worst. Given the Vatican's history, that's NOT an unfounded concern.
Separation of church and state
is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists) and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
the federal endorsement of a deity or religion violates the united states constitution
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
"the federal endorsement of a deity or religion violates the united states constitution"
This does not reflect the wording of the constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
As you quoted correctly. The specific portion of this clause that does not back up your statement is "establishment of religion". This can mean the followed:
1.) Establish a state religion, Church of England type establishment.
2.) Establishment of religion, like the Catholic church. So congress could not pass laws specifically regarding a establishment of religion.
None of this support stripping religious input/influence out of government. This clause stops the government from enacting religious prosecution (religions it doesn't like) and it makes it so it can't have a state religion where the Church and the State are the same thing. There is a in-between which is allowed by the constitution, yet supporters of the out of context Jefferson quote are using it to over write the *actual* wording of the constitution.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
He understands what it means, he's just opposed to the concept.
I disagree with ultimis's statement about the first amendment. It clearly prohibits congress from any action regarding religion, and that precludes any action by religious groups to impose their will through government on individual citizens, or take away their rights that are protected by that Constitution.
The text of Jefferson's letter is below. It's pretty clear why social extremists in Texas and elsewhere want to eliminate Jefferson from school textbooks
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. "
But let's say that Jefferson 100% was against any religious influence in the governance of this country. What does that matter? Jefferson wrote this letter when he was president decades after the constitution was written (meaning his opinion could have changed between the time he wrote the letter and when the constitution was drafted). He was one man of *many* who helped put together the constitution. And the men who wrote and signed the constitution did not agree on everything (meaning Jefferson's opinion, was just that opinion). So for the courts to use a phrase from a letter he wrote long after the constitution as a basis for law is out right ludicrous.
"disagree with ultimis's statement about the first amendment. It clearly prohibits congress from any action regarding religion, and that precludes any action by religious groups to impose their will through government on individual citizens"
It does no such thing. You and I would like to think that, but the constitution can't have the power to state with certainty that people are not enacting laws based on their religious beliefs. That is utterly absurd.
*Congress* shall make *no law* respecting an *establishment of religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
That is it. There is nothing else in the constitution in regards to religion. Nothing.
This is a restriction on congress passing laws.
"The only aspect that can be interpreted differently is the use of the word "establishment". And both interpretations of the word *do not* support any concept of Separation of Church and State based on current judicial dogma.
1.) "Establishment of Religion" as in the Catholic church. So Congress cannot pass laws in regards to specific establishments of religion.
2.) "Establishment of Religion", as in Establishing a state sanction religion. The Catholic church being the official religion of the United States.
The second interpretation of the word is the more likely as many of the founders and colonists left England purely because of the Church of England (a established State Religion).
No possible sane interpretation of the clause can come to the conclusion that all spirituality and religious references *must* be stripped from *all* government institutions. Especially since the clause is a specific restriction the Congress of the United States and not to state governments. This does not fall under the 14th amendment as that is talking about personal rights, not governmental restrictions."
From another post of mine.
There is no way you can take that clause and some how claim the constitution restricts people from using religion as a basis to pass law. Not to mention to expand this to state that schools that *receive money* (majority of Americans receive some money from the federal government) are also bound by this lunacy and must strip out religion within their local districts.
Santorum will be dragged into endless social issues in an election about the economy. He'll piss away what little strength the republicans have and play to democrat's strength.
The man can only make the republicans lose which is why the democrats want him to win the primary. Michael Moore wouldn't be bragging about voting for Santorum if he were the bigger threat. They fear romney.
Funny article... Why doesn't the Obama Campaign attack frontrunner Romney (or Santorum)? Because, in my opinion, the GOP candidates do enough harm to themselves every time they talk.
If anyone but Ron Paul or Obama are elected president, I am moving to Canada, because clearly the majority of this country has a drastically different opinion on what direction to take the country in......
Becuase neither one is going to run this country based on there religious views. That means alot to me that we dont get sucked into another holy war. Lives mean more to me than taxes.
not wanting iran to have nuclear weapons has nothing to do with religion (and worth mentioning, preventing iran from getting nukes is something obama claims he will support)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
There is a difference between not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons and actively starting a war with troops on the ground.
Are you telling me that the same type of rhetoric that got us into Iraq wont cause the same fiasco in Iran? Establishment republicans want a war, they want to send our sons and daughters to die. What part of that is acceptable???
At least obama knows how to take down a dicator without resorting to barbaric brute force.I am not an obama supporter, I would much much rather have Ron Paul. But forced to choose, I could never vote for opportunistic religous zealots.
Please, unless motivated by religion you can not honestly believe taking our country backwards is the right thing to do......
Doubt it, I'm not white, rich or christian. No offense to rich white christians we all have a right to express our concerns, first Amendment and all. But a vote for santorum, romney, or gingrich is a bold statement.
The only thing we fear from Santorum is the Doomsday scenario, like if Obama would make a major gaffe late in the game and somehow Santorum would win. It would spell DOOM for America, like Bush on steroids.
Do you think a republican president would have any hope of being reelected if unemployement was at 15% (the real unemployment rate), gas prices were near 5 dollars a gallon and the debt was growing by a trillion dollars a year?
I do not think it would be possible, but strangely, Obama will likely get reelected under those exact circumstances.
As for me, I could never vote for anyone, of any party, that proved to be such an incompetent leader. But half the electorate stopped worrying about competence a long time ago. Now they just worry about what they can get out of the deal and Obama is really good at promising things.
I could beat him though. I could out Obama Obama himself.
Obama promises free college...I promise free college AND a free luxury car of your choice. No price limit. Beat that Obama!
Obama promises to extend unemployment benefits....I promise you never EVER have to work again and youll get 1 million dollars a year of spending money.
Obama promises free health care that does not include cosmetic surgery....I promise not only free health care, but free cosmetic surgery for anyone that wants it! The country would be full of hot chicks with big t**s and face lifts! BAM! Beat that Obama!
You will not only get front row seats to any and all sporting events of your choice (why limit yourself to just pro sports?), you will also be accompanied by a beautiful woman of your choice. She will also take care of all of your needs. Of course there will be no cost to you because this is one of your rights garunteed in the bill of rights.
Would you like a blond, brunette or red head? Asian? Midget? Black? Latina?
When Im president, youll get everything and anything you want.
I can say often that I disagree with you, but this post is awesome. Though if you tried to out Obama Obama, he would up his Obamaness to combat you. Like in the 2008 election anything McCain stated that got a positive reaction from the electorate Obama would immediately support or even take it a step up (not that he ever followed through on it).
"As for me, I could never vote for anyone, of any party, that proved to be such an incompetent leader."
"Do you think a republican president would have any hope of being reelected if unemployement was at 15% (the real unemployment rate), gas prices were near 5 dollars a gallon and the debt was growing by a trillion dollars a year?"
We will never know, since that was all happening under Bush, but he had already served two terms. Clearly the American people didn't want another Republican at the time.
Obviously, you haven't been following recent Republican campaign promises on the campaign trail. The fiscal proposals and public policy positions offered up by Romney and Santorum would tank the economy and our national debt challenges, making things worse not better.
With regard to your re-election question, a Republican President COULD be re-elected under those economic conditions if Democrat's were as responsible for those conditions as Republicans are today. Culpability for economic mismanagement rests with those who CREATE economic conditions, NOT those who happen to be in office at the time. Congressional Conservative stonewalling is responsible for our inability to repair/restore the economy and lower our debt, NOTHING ELSE.
Herbert Hoover (a Republican President) wasn't thrown out of office just because the national economy hit a rough patch. He was kicked out of office for creating those conditions and for doing precious little to correct them as conditions worsened. What little he did attempt amounted to "too little, too late" at the end of his term.
Obama is Bush on steroids. More wars, more spending, bigger government, more oppressive regulations, more crony capitalism, greater socialism, less liberty, etc.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
No. He cut a lot of programs, although he did massive expand the military like all cons do. As for regulations, no. The Bush/Cheney regime not only slashed regulations, but they severely underfunded and hampered the ability of existing regulatory agencies to do their jobs in the first place.
"Obama is Bush on steroids. More wars, more spending, bigger government,"
You do realize ALL of these claims are factually incorrect, right? How do you expect to be taken seriously when you straight up lie, and it is easily checked?
Did we not engage in more wars? Did government spending and not grow even more under Obama? Did Obama not continue the PATRIOT ACT and signed into law a bill that will allow detention without trial of American citizens? Did Obama not continue social bailouts of big businesses on top of helping with the bail out wall street?
What I'm a lying about? Obama and Bush are nearly the same. The big difference is Obama is a superior communicator.
We already have doom for America, and it's spelled O_B_A_M_A. We're trying to avert it, but personally, I think Ron Paul is the only one that actually would. The debt might not grow as fast under Romney, but it will grow and it's getting close to being too high already. Plus, he's the only one that would stop the everlasting wars.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"The debt might not grow as fast under Romney..."
On what d o you base that statement? His unfunded 20% reduction in income tax rates will be, as apparently all Republican tax cuts nowadays are, DEFICIT FUNDED.
Romney's tax plan if implemented, would leave Bush's unfunded handout to the wealthy for dust & make Obama's recovery spending look like pocket change.
I'm basing it mainly on the increase in Medicaid that will come from the HCA. It's an increase of 15 percent I believe. Half will be shouldered by the states, half by the fed, but since the states are barely staying above bankruptcy paying what they do, I think it will get shifted to the fed. The payroll tax which is being given to Americans is also really payments that are supposed to go to Medicare, and Medicare just moves it over to the debt. I think under Obama that tax will stay shifted longer. We'll have to see what the tax on the rich brings but they have lawyers and know all the tricks. I believe it will be less than half what they think, and it may well slow the economy. There just aren't any real statistics. It did improve when Bush brought put it in place. Not much, but we have a huge economy. And I think Obama doesn't have to fret if he goes over, whereas Romney does because Republicans have made it more clear they want a balanced budget. However, Romney plans on increasing the military, so that's a downside for him, and he hasn't really talked about cutting anything, so he's a wild card.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
THAT MEANS THAT NO REPUBLICAN HAS BALANCED THE BUDGET IN OVER HALF A CENTURY!!!
How long will you listen to rhetoric over reality?
Romney has proposed to reduce income taxes for everyone by 20%. Nice idea, but not unless you also propose a way to reduce spending accordingly, which he(like Bush) hasn't done.
I'll bet the average American wouldn't volunteer to work 4 days a week & take the requisite 20% paycut without working out if they could still pay their bills. If it's not alright for them, why is it alright for the country?
With regard to your other talking points above:
Why single out Medicaid in the HCA, why not look at the whole bill? Oh, I remember now, we were talking about the deficit & the HCA legislation that passed was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to reduce the deficit by $138 billion over 10 years.
Source: http://www.cbo.gov/
Payroll taxes are Social Security & Medicare, not just Medicare. The tax break is to help create &/or keep jobs. Does it hurt the budget in the short term? Yes. Would millions more unemployed hurt it more, absolutely!
Obama's proposal to tax the rich addresses exactly your concern. The "Buffet Rule" applies a minimum 30% tax to everyone earning over $1 million - no writeoffs, no schemes. It won't get passed though, your Republican buddies are against the rich paying their fair share. I guess if the Koch brothers were funding me I'd have to be against it too!
As far a Bill Clinton balancing the budget, I was working then and it was mainly because Gingrich was head of the House and ran on balancing the budget. Clinton had enough sense leave business alone, he was one of the last sane Democrats as far as I'm concerned.
Republicans are just more serious about making cuts and balancing the budget. When the Democrats owned both houses, recently, they didn't even submit a budget. They didn't consider it worth bothering with. We can talk all we want about Republicans through history, but what matters is the here and now and the tea party is just one example of how Republicans have become more serious about balancing the budget.
Also, try not to use the words "talking points" in your argument because it makes you sound like an idiot and I can see you are not. Make comments specifically about what someone said and your argument against it.
As far as the buffet rule goes, even Krugman said it would gain 30 billion in revenue, tops. He said we would need to go much further to even get 50 billion, which is a very small part of a 1 trillion deficit. It's something to run on, but almost all of it has to come from spending cuts and spurring the economy. Although you might believe throwing money into government jobs would do that, I believe it won't at all. Republicans states have gained more jobs than Democrat states since 2000. http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2011/05/red-states-add-more-jobs-than-blue.html
So, no matter what Dems say, low taxes and balanced budgets spur the economy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The CBO has said they'll release new figures, based on the fact that 2 years have passed & they now havce 2 years more figure on which to base their estimates. STOP LYING! The only thing "they've admitted" is that they now have 2 years more facts on which to base their future estimates/ Uf you disagree, please provide EVIDENCE of someone from the CBO saying otherwise.
"As far a Bill Clinton balancing the budget, I was working then and it was mainly because Gingrich was head of the House "
Only a Republican could try & spin this badly. Gingrich was speaker from 1995 to 1999. If it was because of him, why was there no surplus in 1995, 1996 or 1997?
Experts ON BOTH SIDES agree that the biggest cause of those budget surpluses was c**tnon's tax increases of 1993 - which Gingrich voted against!
Your problem is that you never let reality get in the way of your rhetoric. eg. Despite my pointing about above that no Republican President has balanced the budget in over half a century, you have the nerve to write in your reply "Republicans are just more serious about making cuts and balancing the budget.".a striaght out LIE with absolutely not an ounce of FACT to back it up. The FACTS show that Republicans for the last 60 or so years have talked about being fiscally conservative to get elected but once there have simply handed deficit funded tax breaks or cuts to the wealthy. There is no arguing this as history is FACTUAL.
You can try & claim that they'll be different in the future, but who'd believe you, when the frontrunner Romney has proposed a 20% deficit funded tax cut with no way to pay for it & Santorum's plan is even worse for revenue!
"please provide EVIDENCE of someone from the CBO saying otherwise."
from the article I posted:
"That piece alone would raise the cost of the Affordable Care Act,” Elmendorf said, referring to the formal name for the legislation. “I don’t know by how much.”
Elmendorf said the CBO would update its estimates of the cost of coverage expansions under the health care law."
It will obviously be raised, so you have until March to continue your fantasy. I was not lying since it clearly says the cost will be raised and Elmendorf works for the CBO. Your language is also pretty accusatory for someone with such low reading comprehension.
"Experts ON BOTH SIDES agree that the biggest cause of those budget surpluses was c**tnon's tax increases of 1993 - which Gingrich voted against!"
You'll have to back that up, the GDP was higher during the Clinton administration and that was by far the biggest reason they had more revenue. Taxes just don't bring that much of a revenue increase as I stated before. I was using Krugman's figures for the millionaire tax, and it's a very small percentage of the deficit. We still need to come up with the other 970 billion or whatever. Obviously we need to tax, but if it's fair and low, it works out the best for the economy. Even Obama admits the sky high corporate tax is causing a loss in business.
""Republicans are just more serious about making cuts and balancing the budget.".a striaght out LIE with absolutely not an ounce of FACT to back it up. "
No, I clearly gave you a fact, and I'm a little sick of being called a liar by someone with low reading comprehension. The Democrats didn't even submit a budget for at least one year when they owned both houses. If you don't submit a budget you obviously are not worried about the deficit. The tea party is based on cutting spending and balancing a budget and has had an influence in the Republican party nominees. That's a fact. That's two facts that show the Republican party is more interested in balancing the budget. So stop calling me a liar and grow up a little bit.
It wouldn't be doom. Socially, we'd be set back a few decades in terms of political tolerance. Financially it'd be mostly a wash. Pratically, it'd be more of the same.
More than a few decades. Women gained the right to vote in 1920, and persecution for religious reasons ended some time before that, at least in western civilization.
Obama does not have to fear either of tweedle-dum or tweedle-dee. I have more chance becoming Pope(I am an atheist) than either of these have of being elected President.
According to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the President submits a BUDGET REQUEST to Congress, who then determine what will & won't be approved. The President has the ability to veto changes, but at the end of the day, Congress can over-rule him, he can't beat a veto.
So you may want to rethink your reasoning and also do a little research & compare what Clinton handed to Bush budget & economy wise & what Bush passed on to Obama 8 years later.
Obama proposed the budget, and our Congress approved it, what's not to get? Yeah Bush f**ked Clinton's good economy, and Obama RAPED Bush's already bad economy, making it 10 times worse.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Really? You couldn't work out that I was embellishing to make a point? The use of the word "rape" in terms of economic policy didn't sound the alarm?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Whomever becomes President, can mean tens of billions of dollars to the right corporation / organization. Committing election fraud has more benefits and fewer risks than knocking over an armored car. So why WOULDN'T some outfit rig the election?
Even if 2 hackers weren't hired by Diebold to make a voting system that had 3 databases with remote exploits (and they admitted it) -- there is enough incentive for an enterprising hacker to jump in the fray and rig elections.
How does CNN call the vote in Arizona with 0% of the precincts counted? In that case, nobody probably hacked their video stream to MAKE them report this -- but it seems like another form of voter manipulation as well.
>> Maybe American voters haven't become totally insane...
We should all fear Santorum, and the people supporting him. Unfortunately, when he loses and goes away, there will be another nutcase up next. Maybe Sarah will come back.
Maybe the Republican Clown Show isn't about making Obama look good at all costs -- maybe it's because the plan is to have some Republican waiting in the wings, sweep in and get "appointed" by the Republican party at the final hour.
Someone sane, and reasonable sounding, like the Governor of Jersey, or some other non bats**t crazy Republican that we were scratching our heads as to why they weren't considered.
The beleaguered Republican voter would then yell "Yippee!" because ANY Republican to them who can beat Obama is going to be a hero. As long as nobody has a long lead time to get the dirt on how crooked EVERY Republican actually is -- this "last minute" candidate might have a real shot.
Obama is beatable -- just not by any Republicans, because anyone sane, non-corrupt, and of integrity, got weeded out by our political process and nitwit voters a long time ago.
Republicans, if you want a shot at winning the white house, do not vote Santorum or Romney (or Gingrich, but do i have to say that?).
Santorum is too anti-gay, extreme Christian, pro-war & pro-life (how he rationalizes that i don't know) for mainstream America. He might win over core republicans with that, but he won't do it in a general election.
Romney has taken every position on every issue, you have no idea what he will do if elected. He very well might be an excellent president, but then again he might just be the worst crony sell-out ever. Hard to vote for someone who is that wishy washy.
It almost as if the republicans are just trying to lose the election. I didn't want to vote for Obama but I will now that I don't want to see any of the jokers they are wanting to put up against him.
I tend to agree with the premise of this article. I think the Dems are ignorant on what Sarah Palin did for the GOP ticket in 2008. The GOP was pretty disillusioned with McCain, so he picked a "Tea Party" (which didn't exist, but that's another post) candidate to "energize" the base. Well, Santorum is this cycle's Palin. If he gets the nod, I see a very energized GOP base. If Romney get's the nod, he'll need to do exactly what McCain did - pick a Tea Party whacko, to have any chance.
I've been saying this for months the only candidate president obama wants to face is Romney because it takes healthcare off the table and he can destroy him on being a flip-flopper if he faces santorum his healthcare bill will be debateable and santorum has been more consistAntly conservative then Romney.
With an approval rating well below 50%, rising gas prices, a s**tty economy and a foreign policy which has made us the laughing stock of the world, President Obama should fear all of the GOP candidates.
Once the primary season is over, the nominee and the Republican party will turn its attention towards Obama and his record, and unlike in 2008, he'll have to defend it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Obama's approval rating is better than anyone who will challenge him.
The Koch brothers are among the very largest oil speculators and their agenda is to defeat any Democrat even if it means wrecking America's economy. Causing our credit rating to be lowered last summer is exhibit "A".
Foreign policy is one of Obama's strong points. As in "Mission Accomplished".
Someone forgot the games Congress was playing last year... wasting time on resolutions that they knew would not be signed, and not budging on any compromises offered by Obama. One month, they were not willing to close the loopholes exploited by the rich, and the next month they were willing to close the loopholes, but with other non-relevant clauses stitched into the bill like the Keystone pipeline.
Read back on that bargain. The GOP was refusing to budge an inch on any bill that included increasing taxes on the rich. The democrats were not willing to do a spending cut-only bill, but they were willing to do spending cuts AND a tax increase -- which was a lot more reasonable.
"While pundits scold Republicans for not supporting the "grand bargain," it is not clear the package could pass even if House Speaker John Boehner signed on. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has come out against any cuts in entitlement spending -- an extreme position that breaks the deal."
Democrats never agreed to any *specific* cuts and only supported tax increases. So even if Republicans were willing to slide on tax increases, they had no cuts.
i love it when you try to rewrite recent history like no one was watching or noticed that it was the republicans' tantrums over tax breaks for their campaign financiers to move their jobs out of the country that got our credit rating lowered
I'm sure you do. Not really different than extremists on the right who felt that Obama's election would mean that Soviet-style communism was right around the corner.
Not really. Obama has never said he'd vomit on separation of church and state, that contraception is wrong, that gas prices caused the 2008 recession, that Americans should crusade for Christianity, that homosexuality is akin to man on dog action, that college is snobbish...
The difference, of course, is Obama's election did not mean Soviet -style communism. The extremests on the right were idiots. They made up a bunch of stuff about Obama and convinced themselves it was true.
But the people on the left are just going by Santorums own words. They make up nothing.
I mean, come on atom, meet me half way here. The man is against Birth Control! What is this, the middle ages?
From your reference: "Similar claims have been circulating in right-leaning blogs and conservative Web sites ever since July, when Obama made a single reference to a "civilian national security force" in a campaign speech in Colorado"
Since you may use "a single reference" such as vomiting at what JFK said, or facilities on the moon, to imply the extremism or whackiness of the Republican candidates, then we also shall be allowed to reference anything Obama might say regarding his extremist desires.
.
That tells me everything about you AHM. You would rather have an idiotic religious zealot as your President than a man who saved your country from economic ruin and got bin laden ,who your hero G.W. Shrub said was unimportant. LOL
Obama has his chance. He fell through on many of his cornerstone campaign promises. He's proven himself to be a glib liar that's quick to blame others rather than taking responsibility for his actions and decisions.
Looking at his record,( and we are allowed to look at it before the election, unlike our current president) where has Santorum ever voted to force his Catholic views on the population. I couldn't find anywhere where he voted to deny contraception or sterilization. I couldn't find his support for blue laws anywhere.
He does say that he will use his faith as a guide, but that can be said for most of our presidents.
He's not my favorite, but the fear mongering that women will be forced to be barefoot and pregnant in their burqas is a bit over the top.
this is laughable. Santorum is merely the latest far-right flunky to gain media attention in this ridiculous GOP primary clown show, as the Republican party base does the Anyone-But-Mitt dance.
get used to President Obama, folks. if these are the best candidates the "Party of No" can muster, Obama will be in the White House for a second term.
Purely hypothetical electionomic mathematics, calculating on the basis of ifs, not on the basis of any evidence factual, while ifs are known to rarely work or materialize, even then should have been advise for Republicans instead warning for a Democrats.
roofviewFeb 29, 2012
I find it very hard to believe the President "fears" either one of these phonies. If their is anyone who should fear either one of these guys it should be the American people.
miklkitFeb 29, 2012
That is my opinion also.
toasty8Feb 29, 2012
The American people fear Obama right now, his incredible disregard for the economy is causing a lot of Americans to look for alternatives. We have Romney and Gingritch who both hold very similar views to Obama, and then we have Santorum and Ron Paul, both of which are much better alternatives than Obama, but so far the only man who we know can put this country back on the right track is Ron Paul.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorFeb 29, 2012
Wrong, Conservatives fear Obama as a result of his race and the incessant political brainwashing they get from Conservative media.
toasty8Feb 29, 2012
Wow, you have no idea what you are talking about. Liberals are too closed minded to look at the facts, and the facts are Obama's budget is driving this country in bankruptcy. Race has nothing to do with it, if Obama was white, it wouldn't make a difference. The liberals are the one who are getting brainwashed because the vast majority of the media is liberal, not conservative.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorFeb 29, 2012
Race has EVERYTHING to do with the "over-the-top" disrespect Conservatives routinely show the President.
First, I'm not liberal. Disagreeing with conservative political lies, half truths and distortions makes me rational, NOT liberal.
Second, Obama's fiscal policy directions AREN'T driving the country toward a fiscal cliff. We have the Dubya's economic/fiscal "legacy" and 30 years of Conservative-led economic fiscal policies to thank for our present circumstances. Add Conservative stonewalling in Congress and you'll arrive at the REAL reasons for our current economic troubles. Here's the proof:
http://www.marke****ch.com/story/story/print?guid=C387638C-41A3-499B-9315-5AF8940C47DD
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6
Third, I gather my knowledge from a VARIETY of sources...media outlets across the ideological spectrum (i.e., when they are CREDIBLE...Fox News is NOT), conservative-leaning business media, nonpartisan economic/financial literature/data and almost 30 years of business experience in applied finance/economics.
How’s THAT for a “liberal bias”? Are YOUR sources of information and experience equally as diverse and credible? If not, you’re disingenuously projecting your own partisan bias onto others. That baseless accusation is commonly practiced by MOST Conservatives in an effort to justify their behavior. Here's a clue, it doesn't.
Finally, accusing people of ignorance ONLY works when it's true.
ultimisMar 1, 2012
Race has nothing to do with the disrespect shown tp the President (and yes he has been disrespected). The disrespect stems from how Obama treated the good will of Republicans in early 2009. It quickly made enemies and divided this country rapidly after his election. "Elections matter, I won". In other words "shut the f**k up". As a leader when you tell half the country that their input doesn't matter you better be prepared for a s**t storm and disrespect.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorMar 1, 2012
Do you HONESTLY think those political "crocodile tears" give you ANY credibility? I can smell the stench of those lies/BS from here.
"Conservative goodwill stems from how Obama treated the good will of Republicans in early 2009."
What goodwill? Conservatives turned on Obama before he had even been sworn into office. Hell, Mitch McConnell (Senate Minority leader, R-KY) ADMITTED that the LEADING legislative imperative for Republicans was to SABOTAGE the Obama Presidency, regardless of what that did to the country. He and Congressional Conservatives have been true to that committment ever since McConnell made those comments.
That was such a blatant admission of treason AND sedition, it SHOULD have culminated in McConnell's prosecution and expulsion from Congress along with any legislator who dared to follow his "lead". I've been around enough "good ol' boys" in my day to recognize the racists in Congress. If Mitch is not a "Grand Wizard" in the KKK, he certainly behaves EXACTLY as one would in Congress.
As for the view that "elections matter", THEY DO. Since your memory is so poor, the Bush Administration behaved in EXACTLY the SAME fashion after taking office. The difference was that DUBYA and crew NEVER possessed the electoral "mandate" he bragged of having while Obama DOES. That's why Dubya couldn't walk to his inauguration, but had to be driven in the Presidential limo.
Unfortunately, Obama never pursued his electoral mandate of economic reform and INSTEAD favored the bipartisan approach to governing you accuse him of "abandoning". That capitulation to Conservative demands is the REASON Democratic voters failed to show up at the polls in 2010. You'll notice I didn't refer to Obama's behavior as "compromise". Compromise requires sacrifice by BOTH sides, something modern conservatives are unwilling to do.
toasty8Mar 1, 2012
Bush and Obama are very very similar presidents, they both brought us into debt by massive amounts, but Obama spent more and no surprise: The country gets worse under Obama's ridiculous monetary policies.
Of course my sources are varied and credible, and I'm not even a conservative, I consider myself more of a libertarian.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorMar 1, 2012
@toasty8,
Did you bother to read the links I provided?
It doesn't appear so by your comment. There is NO way you can credibly blame Obama for Dubya's disgrace and get away with it. Our current financial circumstances are a DIRECT consequence of Dubya's former policies AND incompetence, NOT Obama's.
As for setting the nation's monetary policy, that's done by the Federal Reserve (i.e., Ben Bernanke), not Obama.
If you're criticizing Obama's economic/fiscal policies, I'd love to see what you're referring to since Congressional Conservatives have successfully stonewalled everything he has proposed. That makes CONSERVATIVES culpable for our present economic circumstances, NOT Obama.
fyi - Libertarians are further "right" on the political spectrum than Conservatives. This makes them conservative extremists, not conservative moderates/centrists.
wkrausmannMar 1, 2012
Conservative stonewalling? Pardon me, but the Democrats had control of Congress and the White House for two years and what did they do? Spend, spend, spend! If it didn't work, their response is that they hadn't spent enough!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorMar 1, 2012
@wkrausman,
Two years? Try ONE YEAR and that year was dominated by Wall Street's financial clusterf**k.
Mitch McConnell (R-KY, Senate Minority leader) used Scott Brown's election (R-Mass) to filibuster every piece of Democratic legislation proposed after that first year was over. He, all but, shut down Congress with the unprecedented use of the filibuster.
As for all the "spending" CONSERVATIVES always whine about, take a GOOD look at where that money was spent and WHO was responsible for it.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6
Where was your whining when Dick Cheney laughed off the deficits he and conservatives were so determined to create? The blatant hypocrisy drips off your every complaint. If that wasn't bad enough, Republicans continue proposing budgets which will worsen the national debt.
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
"First, I'm not liberal. Disagreeing with conservative political lies, half truths and distortions makes me rational, NOT liberal."
I follow very few people. I don't want to be a part of the 'digg game.' But I can't help this one. That sentence just earned you a follower.
emkaysmithMar 1, 2012
Oh, f**k off, Toasty, we're actually (for once) trying to have a rational discussion here.
toasty8Mar 1, 2012
Who's we? You haven't said anything at all, except to insult me.
concusionMar 1, 2012
you're full of s**t, You've been hating Obama since day 1, don't start pulling up his budget. To say you are conservative and not racist and still hate Obama who has hardly been liberal you have to be racist or just brainwashed or stupid or all three, pick your poison. Have fun with Pope Rick Scrotorum
toasty8Mar 1, 2012
Wow, Obama is extremely liberal, what are you talking about?
ybevar1Mar 1, 2012
Why does everything have to do with race?
Obama is the one who said he would cut the debt in half. Obama is the one that said increasing the debt was unpatriotic.
OOPS.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
Exactly. They hated Clinton, who was more liberal than Obama (though he flip flopped) But Obama? They saw that black face at the podium and went absolutely apes**t. This the end of the Confederacy, they thought.
And to be honest, they were right. No going back there from here.
lucas123Feb 29, 2012
The first comment in this thread by neveroddoreven was well thought out and logical.
Your's was nothing more than a poorly thought out, partisan knee jerk, written to appeal to the emotions of left-wingers. It has no basis in fact.
Santorum is a very successful politician who, from 1991 to 2007, held seats in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate. Romney was elected governor of Massachusetts, a state where both sides of the aisle are heavily controlled by Democrats. They're both very serious candidates -- not jokes. It'll be Obama's downfall if he does not take this race seriously, which I fully believe he willComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
icwydFeb 29, 2012
Romney was what they call a RINO. This is now his problem.
Santorum is a lunatic and hopefully the American people will be able to figure that out.
neveroddorevenFeb 29, 2012
Pretty thin article... says Republicans fail at math yet he provides no numbers. Does Santorum poll better than Romney in those states (general population)? He just assumes Santorum will win Florida with Rubio which again has no mathematical bearing.
"Mathematically speaking, Santorum is the tougher candidate against Obama. The Republican Establishment has failed once again at basic math."
I think all this guy understands is basic math. All he can do is add delegates together. Give me some statistics man!
jhw539Feb 29, 2012
If you want the math, you go to the internet king of statistics geekdom (who, sadly, has now been recruited behind a quasi-paywall). Doesn't quite line up with this article, but does indeed support the general (terrifying) gist that Santorum could have a shot in the general.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/romneys-tenuous-electability-edge/
neveroddorevenFeb 29, 2012
"The forecast model I’ve been using in conjunction with a set of New York Times magazine articles suggests that Mitt Romney is likely to fare better than Rick Santorum in the popular vote against Barack Obama. Specifically, the model would give Mr. Romney a 40 percent chance of winning the popular vote against Mr. Obama given G.D.P. growth of 2.5 percent this year (in line with the most recent forecasts), but Mr. Santorum just a 23 percent chance."
so completely contradicts what this other guy is saying. Thanks!
zipkoFeb 29, 2012
The nationwide popular vote doesn't win elections though. The point the article is trying to make is that there are only a few states where the popular vote matters, and in these specific states Santorum has an advantage over Romney.
Specifically, the election may come down to a number of swing states in the midwest where Santorum is more popular than he is nationally.
Unfortunately the OP doesn't provide polling statistics to back up the claim.
jhw539Mar 1, 2012
The other guy is NOT talking about the popular vote, he's talking about the electoral college. So no, it does not completely contradict the original article.
"a candidate who gets 49 percent of the vote nationally but 51 percent in the Midwest would arguably be better than one for whom the reverse is true."
And I didn't post that link to bolster any argument that the original link was correct but to provide a resource to quality analysis as requested.
moonriderMar 2, 2012
In the latest Rasmussen poll Ron Paul beats Obama by 2 points, Romney ties Obama, and Santorum and Gingrich fall way behind Obama. Ron Paul for the win! Even Rush Limbaugh (who hates Ron Paul) had to admit (tho he choked on the words) that economists agree Rep. Paul's economic plan is the ONLY one (of the candidates' plans) which will NOT increase the federal debt (Obama has increased it dramatically during his term) and which WILL work the way Rep> Paul says it will.
Obama has been a disaster and all those young people and independents who voted for him last time have turned away from him due to the fact he's done, as president, the exact opposite of everything he said he would do if elected. Every campaign promise was a lie (just as the campaign promises of Mitt, Rick and the newt are all lies) He's got no one to blame but himself.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
UncleRuckuFeb 29, 2012
This is what abortions will look like if Rick Santorum is elected president.
http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/pregdropin.jpg
UncleRuckuFeb 29, 2012
Rick Santorum is the anti-gay, anti-abortion anti-womyn, anti-science. Who is running on these social issues. Never mind health reform or jobs. Or anything important or non-discriminatory, for that matter.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzqw1yyyGj1qdqcq7o1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1330636146&Signature=SVzW%2FKekmTc3goKNdYGgLaRB%2FaI%3D
bdbrFeb 29, 2012
He got the point about swing states correct, but the numbers are only from Republican primaries where the votes are all Republican. That implies an assumption that a Republican not voting for a candidate means that voter won't vote for that candidate in the general election (as if they're going to vote Democrat or third party). Worse, it doesn't consider the votes of independents, which are what usually determines the final outcome.
neveroddorevenFeb 29, 2012
we dont even know what he considers because he barely lists anything. He just says Santorum gets XYZ and Romney gets ABC blah blah. Such a worthless article
metallic07039Feb 29, 2012
If you ask me, Santorum needs to understand what the separation of church and state means.
ultimisFeb 29, 2012
I think it's obvious he understand what it means. The problem is "Separation of Church and State" does not appear in the constitution. And no interpretation of the first amendment can even come close to the meaning of what current court interpretations are. The phrase "Separation of Church and State" came from a letter written by President Jefferson decades after the constitution was written. With context the letter was actually in regards to a religious group who feared their state would interfere with their religious freedom. It had nothing to do with religious influence on the government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
joeseitherFeb 29, 2012
History FAIL. Civics FAIL. Logic FAIL. Keep repeating those theocon talking points. Rick Sanitorium FAIL.
reaper527Feb 29, 2012
care to back your claim up? regardless of if you agree with what he said, separation of church and state isn't explicitly written in the constitution anywhere.
the only fail is on you for failing to discredit fact that contradicts your belief. the only thing the government is explicitly forbidden from doing is establishing a state church (akin to the church of england)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
joeseitherFeb 29, 2012
the claim that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in the Constitution is true, but it's a straw man - a red herring - but you know that. The principles of non- or anti-establishment and free exercise are explicit and have been reinforced by statute and by the courts innumerable times. If you want to know more specifically what the US Govt's definition of "establishment" is - at least as recently as the mid-20th century, read the US Directive for the Disestablishment of State Shinto, 1945. Sanitorium FAILS this establishment test.
eraptorFeb 29, 2012
The U.S. Constitution is NOT the only founding document OR basis upon which our country is governed. "Separation of church and state" is founded on rock solid social principles/practice even if that offends political/religious morons, like Rick Santorum. If Rick wants to live in a purely Catholic society, then are PLENTY of alternatives available to him around the planet. The rest of us have NO desire to have his social/political agenda forced upon us.
It's time Conservatives stopped wasting this nation's time with their disingenuous and misguided political/social fundamentalism.
ultimisFeb 29, 2012
"The U.S. Constitution is NOT the only founding document OR basis upon which our country is governed."
The federal government is. State governments have to abide by specific provisions from the constitution and their own state constitutions.
"Separation of church and state" is founded on rock solid social principles/practice even if that offends political/religious morons, like Rick Santorum"
What? You lost me here. It's based on a letter from Jefferson and his use of the phrase in the letter. The constitution is *The Law of the Land* for the federal government. There is no other document that supersedes it. If any law contradicts what is in the constitution, the law is invalid. If any law goes outside of the scope of the federal government (as defined by the constitution) the law is invalid.
"It's time Conservatives stopped wasting this nation's time with their disingenuous and misguided political/social fundamentalism."
I only care because we're dealing with the constitution. The social aspect of this I could care less about. The constitution is quite clear on this issue, and Separation of Church and State is not based on the constitutional restriction put in place.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorMar 1, 2012
@ultimis,
Do you go about your daily acttivities wearing blinders?
NO? Then, STOP looking at the nation's governing principles using that same approach. It blinds one to reality and leads to disastrously misguided conclusions.
My comments on this issue go beyond Jefferson's letter. In addition to the Constitution and that letter, we ALSO have centuries of legal, legislative AND social precedent which SUBSTANTIATE the concept of "separation of church and state". Here's the relevance, the country's founding documents were based upon the times at hand. While I favor the guiding role they serve, I disagree with the fundamentalist view that they are the "end all, be all" many Conservatives take them to be (unless, of course, it infringes upon their political/social agenda. Then they're hellbent on pursuing Constitutional amendments to "fix" the problem created by that "Constitution".) Even the founding fathers recognized the evolutionary nature of our country/society AND the documents they drafted/signed. It's time some in our soceity woke up to that fact.
As a person of faith, I have NO interest in having MY religious freedoms/beliefs infringed upon by ANY other religion's practices/beliefs. As such, I FULLY support that separation of powers. Rick Santorum is too stupid to recognize that his religious freedoms could just as easily be subverted by the dominance of another religion if it were to gain sufficient political power in the U.S. Isn't that why so many in his party oppose the construction of mosques in the U.S.? The point of separating church and state is to PROTECT religious freedom, NOT endanger it. The Vatican (and OTHER major religions) have PROVEN throughout history that merging politics and religion is a MAJOR mistake.
ultimisMar 5, 2012
"My comments on this issue go beyond Jefferson's letter. In addition to the Constitution and that letter, we ALSO have centuries of legal, legislative AND social precedent which SUBSTANTIATE the concept of "separation of church and state". "
Which is *utter* bulls**t. It is not "in addition to the constitution", the constitution has *absolutely* nothing to do with this.
You have only barely over a century of legal precedent which used the Separation of Church and state which its very *premise* is wrong. The f**king premise of your entire precedent is wrong.
Social Precedent is worthless. It doesn't mean jack s**t. We are dealing in legality. If something is *perceived* (emphasis again on perceived) as wrong like drinking alcohol, we have a system of amending the constitution to take care of it. But again it is all *based* on the f**king constitution (even removing the ban on alcohol). We didn't have judges arbitrarily ignoring the constitution because social precedent demanded it. That is crap and you know it.
There is no *legal* basis (the constitution) for Separation of Church and State no matter how you try and obfuscate it with Judicial activist courts.
"Here's the relevance, the country's founding documents were based upon the times at hand."
Declaration of Independence is *not* the law of the land. The *only* document that is the law of the land is the constitution. The constitution was written by *many* people who had contradicting beliefs and perceptions of government. The document was a *compromise* of what they believed the best possible government could be. This is why it is a *complete* and absolute joke that you reference Jefferson for intent of the constitution, especially when you reference him decades after the constitution was written and his own opinion had likely changed over time (meaning it no longer reflected his *intent* or opinion at the time the law of the land was written).
"While I favor the guiding role they serve, I disagree with the fundamentalist view that they are the "end all, be all" many Conservatives take them to be (unless, of course, it infringes upon their political/social agenda. Then they're hellbent on pursuing Constitutional amendments to "fix" the problem created by that "Constitution".) Even the founding fathers recognized the evolutionary nature of our country/society AND the documents they drafted/signed. It's time some in our soceity woke up to that fact."
The constitution sets up the rule of law and the system of government. I am not a fundamentalist, I believe new amendments need to be passed. What I'm completely against is ignoring the constitution and doing whatever the f**k you want without abiding by the rule of law (which the current government does quite a bit now). This will eventually lead to anarchy as the rule of law will eventually break down. The shadow laws put into place by the Supreme Court that aren't based on the constitution can easily be flipped at any time. This type of system that ignores our Constitutional Republic is *bound to fail*.
"As a person of faith, I have NO interest in having MY religious freedoms/beliefs infringed upon by ANY other religion's practices/beliefs."
As a person with no faith, I'm stating I couldn't care less about the issue and more about the legality of it. The constitution *does not* bar religious influence on government. There is no Separation of Church and State. If *The People* wish for there to be a *complete* secular government and a Separation of Church and State they will need to *amend* the constitution to do it. This is the process of this country. What you and your ilk are trying to do is ignore the process and system of our government in order to push your agenda. This is disgusting (even if you're conservative or liberal). This is similar to you feeling that since democrats/liberals are so much better for this country that it is okay for you to *subvert* our elections and make it so voting no longer matters. I would hope you find at least that disgusting. You should also find ignoring the constitution equally repulsive and oppose anyone who pretends they are above the law.
"The point of separating church and state is to PROTECT religious freedom, NOT endanger it."
Who gives a f**k? The point of legal premise that is not actually constitutional? It doesn't matter how much you *want* or *desire* something to be true, as it is not in the constitution. The type of Separation of Church and state you and liberals are claiming is definitely not supported by Jefferson, or the Justice who first quoted him. It has been embellished over the years and is so far removed from the Constitution that is it disgusting.
Justices have upheld Separation of Church and state as it supports Judicial Supremacy and allows them the freedom to provide "intent" to almost every form of law that comes their way. That is why it is quite common to have a 5/4 decisions in the court. The judicial branch is given significant power with such purview of undisputed constitutionality. If the court accepted the original intent of the Supreme Court (originalist application of the constitution and if laws abide by them) they would lose significant power within the government.
ultimisFeb 29, 2012
"http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
His letter written decades after the constitution was written (by dozens of individuals with varying beliefs and opinions) was intended for a group of individuals that thought their religious practices would be banned or interfered with by their state. The fact that the actual writing of the constitution does not support the out of context statement "Separation of Church and State", but neither does the letter. Given context of the letter he was assuring them that the government cannot impede in their free exercise of religion.
A "originalist" interpretation is actually someone who goes by the *written word* and not some arbitrary b.s. The only time interpretation is needed is dealing with new technological developments. So for instance the freedom of press related to the ability to print/publish content and distribute it. Today we have internet which doesn't deal with printing or publishing, but the freedom of press allows us to publish content electronically as that was the *intent* of that freedom. This requires interpretation. The clause that protects religion from government does *not* require interpretation as the roles of both institutions have not changed with time or technology.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
That is the entirety of what is written.
*Congress* shall make *no law* respecting an *establishment of religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The only aspect that can be interpreted differently is the use of the word "establishment". And both interpretations of the word *do not* support any concept of Separation of Church and State based on current judicial dogma.
1.) "Establishment of Religion" as in the Catholic church. So Congress cannot pass laws in regards to specific establishments of religion.
2.) "Establishment of Religion", as in Establishing a state sanction religion. The Catholic church being the official religion of the United States.
The second interpretation of the word is the more likely as many of the founders and colonists left England purely because of the Church of England (a established State Religion).
No possible sane interpretation of the clause can come to the conclusion that all spirituality and religious references *must* be stripped from *all* government institutions. Especially since the clause is a specific restriction the Congress of the United States and not to state governments. This does not fall under the 14th amendment as that is talking about personal rights, not governmental restrictions.
So for instance a school (which is setup and funded by local and state sources of money) would not need to abide by this clause *even* if it meant stripping out religion and spirituality.
To be clear I'm agnostic, but I'm a constitutional conservative and believe that the law of the land needs to be followed. I also support amending the constitution if we have need to give or remove powers from the government and also to bestow protected rights on our citizenry."
This was one of my previous posts, so I'm just going to reuse it as it still applies here.
Court stature does not overwrite the constitution. As it stands court interpretation can change. The current interpretation is based off a ruling in the late 19th century that cited Jefferson's letter and the phrase "Separation of Church and State". The ruling was not based on the constitution *at all*. This precedent has been used and added upon by future justices. This doesn't meant he basis for their presumption is completely dead wrong (which based on what I've cited shows it to be the case).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
joeseitherFeb 29, 2012
Yes, I've read all that before. sounds to me like your issue is less the First Amendment specifically and more the role of the courts to interpret the law. Our legal system relies very heavily on judicial precedent - clearly. Questions of de facto or de jure prejudice or preference of one religion over another falls within the scope of the first amendment. Santorum would like maximum freedom of exercise - even in his role as a public official - to the point where his personal beliefs and attendant policy priorities would create both prejudices against and preferences for or between whole faiths or even different Christian sects. Again, if you have any questions about the original intent of the language, look no further than Jefferson's own interpretation, and if you want a more recent interpretation, see Disestablishment of State Shinto. It's very clear - govt must remain strictly neutral - which does NOT imply that individuals must abandon their beliefs in order to serve in public office - it just means they cannot base public policy on their religious beliefs. Rick Santorum is simply NOT prepared to respect the wall separating private matters of conscience and his public duties and authority - which is why we simply cannot entrust him with the authority afforded to the Office of the President.
ultimisFeb 29, 2012
"Yes, I've read all that before. sounds to me like your issue is less the First Amendment specifically and more the role of the courts to interpret the law."
Yes I have issue with Judicial Supremacy and Judicial Activism. You have observed my opinion correctly. I do believe the court holds the right to interpret when it is needed. But originalist interpretation is the only legitimate interpretation the court should be allowed to use. That means the written word has the highest priority, and if there is any ambiguity left than they can refer to the federalist papers to apply some "intent". Many rulings use more "intent" than actually using the wording found in the constitution.
"Our legal system relies very heavily on judicial precedent - clearly."
As it should. But if a ruling is clearly wrong, say they find laws that ban Jews from speaking in public as constitutional. This precedent doesn't suddenly ignore the wording used in the constitution which protects freedom of speech. Dredd Scott ring any bells?
"Santorum would like maximum freedom of exercise - even in his role as a public official - to the point where his personal beliefs and attendant policy priorities would create both prejudices against and preferences for or between whole faiths or even different Christian sects. "
As every president has done. The issue JFK was referring to was the Catholic Church dictating policy to the United States. This was quite feared as the Catholic church had a history of doing this in other nations. JFK made it quite clear he wouldn't be taking order from the pope. At the same time his *catholic faith* had a huge impact on the decisions he made in his political career. This hadn't been a problem before JFK as many Protestant Christians didn't have a hierarchy that resembled the Catholic Church. The only one I can think of is the Ladder Day Saints or commonly known as Mormons (they have a "president" who is believed to be a prophet, a singular leader of the Church). No Mormons have every come close to winning a election until 2008 with Romney.
Santorum completely butchered his interpretation of JFK's speech btw.
It *is* against the constitution for congress to pass laws regarding religious establishments. So no Rick Santorum would not have the legal authority to harass other religions and he definitely wouldn't have the votes in order to achieve it (how many Catholics are there in congress?).
"it just means they cannot base public policy on their religious beliefs"
And this is just plain wrong. While this might be Jefferson's interpretation (which based on his writings I think is incorrect) this is not the *actual* language of the constitution. Which was written by many individuals who didn't agree on everything (James Madison is considered the father of the document). You cannot base legal law on the writings of Jefferson nearly several decades after the constitution. 1.) His opinion had probably changed between the time the constitution had been written and when he express said opinions, thus is not reflective of *intent*. 2.) It was his opinion and did not actually reflect everyone involved who wrote it, so his opinion *cannot* supersede the written word of the constitution (which is what you are implying here).
"which is why we simply cannot entrust him with the authority afforded to the Office of the President."
Please point to a president who did not have his positions high influenced by his religion. Do you recall that Obama had a *spiritual adviser* as a part of his campaign. Which demonstrates that it *indeed* had a impact on his decision making process (why else have a spiritual adviser?).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaFeb 29, 2012
Are you saying that if Santorum gets elected, it would be OK to turn America into a Christian nation, following Christian rules?
ultimisFeb 29, 2012
What does that even mean? He would still need to pass legislation through congress. If it just so happened the legislation matched up with something like the 10 commandments, doesn't mean it makes this a theocracy.
What Santorum meant (though was retarded in how he went about it) is that having religious representation within government institution is not bad. So for instance there was a court house that had the 10 commandments displayed, they were forced to remove it (even though the 10 commandments had a large impact historically speaking in how the founders laid out this country).
*Congress* shall make *no law* respecting an *establishment of religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The word that can be interpreted two ways here is "establishment".
So either this clause means that the congress cannot establish a state religion (like the Church of England) via law. Or it means congress cannot pass a law regarding a specific religious institution (like the Catholic Church). Christianity is not a religious establishment. The ideas of Christianity are shared over many Churches and is generally reflected in our voting population (majority of voters).
So if a school which is mostly funded by state/local money decides it wants to have prayer in the mornings, the constitution does not prohibit this (even though a court has ruled contrary to the constitution). There is no constitutional right that protects you from being embarrassed or bullied (which is commonly the excuse used by those who oppose schools that had prayer).
Federal funding does not automatically dictate restrictions to those who receive it (as a majority of Americans receive money from the federal government in one form or another).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaFeb 29, 2012
So you would be OK with it.
ultimisFeb 29, 2012
It being within the means of the government and me being okay with it are two different things. Personally I would not want to live under religious law. Though realistically if the *system* remains consistent it would be voted on and enacted by our Republican system. That means those laws likely represents the beliefs of the majority of Americans. So if the Christians pass a law that state that working on Sunday's is against the law, I can't argue with the democratic system that allowed them to do that. It doesn't matter *how* the majority of Americans came to that conclusion. Though outlawing work days is outside the scope of the federal government, so that specific case I would probably have issue with.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
joeseitherFeb 29, 2012
I love this one - the whole "founded on Christian Principles" argument - which I think is where you're going - is yet another example of theocon intentional cultural confusion through clever messaging. Private beliefs are not law. The founders were not unanimous in their beliefs, but they came together to sign their name to laws they could agree on - and they expressly left religion off the table. (BTW - At this point, I don't find your claim of agnosticism credible - you've regurgitated to much of the party line.) But back to my point... if you're really delving into "founded on Christian Principals," can you be more specific about which principals, and how exactly do you mean "founded" and what leads you to conclude that these principles are unique to Christianity, and... oh, you get the point. The soundbite is easy to repeat - but where's the beef?
ultimisFeb 29, 2012
"I love this one - the whole "founded on Christian Principles" argument"
No I wasn't going for this. But English Law, which ultimately translated into U.S. law is based on Christian principles and belief system. Our system of justice for instance does not represent the beliefs of say Buddhists.
My previous comment really didn't relate to this. It's purpose was detailing the Law of the Land and that there are no restraints on people using religious reasons to enact law.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
joeseitherFeb 29, 2012
Wait - you're talking about ENGLISH law being "founded on Christian principles"? You mean the ENGLISH government we rebelled against, and the state-established Anglican CHURCH that English pilgrims fled? Ah - I get it - perhaps not your strongest argument... since we repudiated that entire model with our own Constitution, making it explicit that our new government would derive its just powers from the consent of the governed - rather than from a divine right of kings conveyed through the archbishop of canterbury...
in the final words of Steven P. Jobs: "Oh, wow. Oh, wow. Oh, wow."
ultimisFeb 29, 2012
*Yawn*. You really need to read some history. English law is a very general term and is not the same thing as the English system of government.
From Wikipedia (not the best source, but easy to reference):
"English law is the legal system of England and Wales,[1] and is the basis of common law[2] legal systems used in most Commonwealth countries[3] and the United States except Louisiana (as opposed to civil law or pluralist systems in use in other countries). It was exported to Commonwealth countries while the British Empire was established and maintained, and it forms the basis of the jurisprudence of most of those countries. English law prior to the American Revolution is still part of the law of the United States through reception statutes, except in Louisiana, and provides the basis for many American legal traditions and policies, though it has no superseding jurisdiction."
Emphasis on this portion *provides the basis for many American legal traditions and policies*. A lot of this relates the Christians belief structure. Specifically protestant. Read up on Cromwell and some of the history in Britain, its rather fascinating.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorFeb 29, 2012
Rick doesn't favor Christian rules, he favors an "old world" Catholic version which ALSO offends many U.S. Catholics.
Christian Protestants (and other religions) take exception to Rick's world view for the simple reason that it is religious over-reach at it's worst. Given the Vatican's history, that's NOT an unfounded concern.
chilidogsFeb 29, 2012
Right, the founding fathers totally intended for this country to be a christian theocracy. Everyone knows that.
ultimisFeb 29, 2012
Perhaps read one of my other posts. I didn't state that, but you're pretty good at putting words into other people's mouths huh?
UncleRuckuFeb 29, 2012
Separation of church and state
is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists) and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
the federal endorsement of a deity or religion violates the united states constitution
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
ultimisFeb 29, 2012
"the federal endorsement of a deity or religion violates the united states constitution"
This does not reflect the wording of the constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
As you quoted correctly. The specific portion of this clause that does not back up your statement is "establishment of religion". This can mean the followed:
1.) Establish a state religion, Church of England type establishment.
2.) Establishment of religion, like the Catholic church. So congress could not pass laws specifically regarding a establishment of religion.
None of this support stripping religious input/influence out of government. This clause stops the government from enacting religious prosecution (religions it doesn't like) and it makes it so it can't have a state religion where the Church and the State are the same thing. There is a in-between which is allowed by the constitution, yet supporters of the out of context Jefferson quote are using it to over write the *actual* wording of the constitution.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jpurdyFeb 29, 2012
He understands what it means, he's just opposed to the concept.
I disagree with ultimis's statement about the first amendment. It clearly prohibits congress from any action regarding religion, and that precludes any action by religious groups to impose their will through government on individual citizens, or take away their rights that are protected by that Constitution.
The text of Jefferson's letter is below. It's pretty clear why social extremists in Texas and elsewhere want to eliminate Jefferson from school textbooks
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. "
ultimisFeb 29, 2012
That is one paragraph out several.
The entire letter, and what he was responding to:
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
But let's say that Jefferson 100% was against any religious influence in the governance of this country. What does that matter? Jefferson wrote this letter when he was president decades after the constitution was written (meaning his opinion could have changed between the time he wrote the letter and when the constitution was drafted). He was one man of *many* who helped put together the constitution. And the men who wrote and signed the constitution did not agree on everything (meaning Jefferson's opinion, was just that opinion). So for the courts to use a phrase from a letter he wrote long after the constitution as a basis for law is out right ludicrous.
"disagree with ultimis's statement about the first amendment. It clearly prohibits congress from any action regarding religion, and that precludes any action by religious groups to impose their will through government on individual citizens"
It does no such thing. You and I would like to think that, but the constitution can't have the power to state with certainty that people are not enacting laws based on their religious beliefs. That is utterly absurd.
*Congress* shall make *no law* respecting an *establishment of religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
That is it. There is nothing else in the constitution in regards to religion. Nothing.
This is a restriction on congress passing laws.
"The only aspect that can be interpreted differently is the use of the word "establishment". And both interpretations of the word *do not* support any concept of Separation of Church and State based on current judicial dogma.
1.) "Establishment of Religion" as in the Catholic church. So Congress cannot pass laws in regards to specific establishments of religion.
2.) "Establishment of Religion", as in Establishing a state sanction religion. The Catholic church being the official religion of the United States.
The second interpretation of the word is the more likely as many of the founders and colonists left England purely because of the Church of England (a established State Religion).
No possible sane interpretation of the clause can come to the conclusion that all spirituality and religious references *must* be stripped from *all* government institutions. Especially since the clause is a specific restriction the Congress of the United States and not to state governments. This does not fall under the 14th amendment as that is talking about personal rights, not governmental restrictions."
From another post of mine.
There is no way you can take that clause and some how claim the constitution restricts people from using religion as a basis to pass law. Not to mention to expand this to state that schools that *receive money* (majority of Americans receive some money from the federal government) are also bound by this lunacy and must strip out religion within their local districts.
The current judicial precedent is not based off of the constitution, but Judicial Activism.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kamtsaFeb 29, 2012
Obama needs to understands what the separation of my-money and not-my-money means.
timedalkatFeb 29, 2012
You write bumper stickers, don't you?
10452bghfFeb 29, 2012
Obama shouldn't fear neither Romney nor Santorum
maybe in a different era ...
but in today's politics, Obama is the best man for the top job.
FYI, I am an independent.
stubearFeb 29, 2012
We should all fear Rick Santorum taking the White House, especially if the Republicans control a majority of the House and potentially the Senate.
bluto36Feb 29, 2012
why?
Christians going to get you?
they going to force you to buy a snack at this years bake sale?
boooga boooga
stevanoskiFeb 29, 2012
lollol
caseycooldFeb 29, 2012
"Christians going to get you?"
Actually... yes, they will try. And force their bulls**t down everyone's throat (or up their vagina, as it were).
karmashockMar 1, 2012
nonsense.
Santorum will be dragged into endless social issues in an election about the economy. He'll piss away what little strength the republicans have and play to democrat's strength.
The man can only make the republicans lose which is why the democrats want him to win the primary. Michael Moore wouldn't be bragging about voting for Santorum if he were the bigger threat. They fear romney.
emo110Mar 1, 2012
Funny article... Why doesn't the Obama Campaign attack frontrunner Romney (or Santorum)? Because, in my opinion, the GOP candidates do enough harm to themselves every time they talk.
concusionMar 1, 2012
the GOP might as well just send no one up to the plate and nominate Obama for republican nominee.
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
Oh I agree. Please vote for Santorum. He will be MUCH harder for Obama to beat.
No, seriously, I WANT you to vote for him.
CaptainobliviousFeb 29, 2012
If anyone but Ron Paul or Obama are elected president, I am moving to Canada, because clearly the majority of this country has a drastically different opinion on what direction to take the country in......
toasty8Feb 29, 2012
Ron Paul and Obama are complete opposites on nearly every issue, how can you like Obama and Ron Paul at the same time?
CaptainobliviousFeb 29, 2012
Becuase neither one is going to run this country based on there religious views. That means alot to me that we dont get sucked into another holy war. Lives mean more to me than taxes.
reaper527Feb 29, 2012
your name is perfectly accurate.
not wanting iran to have nuclear weapons has nothing to do with religion (and worth mentioning, preventing iran from getting nukes is something obama claims he will support)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CaptainobliviousFeb 29, 2012
There is a difference between not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons and actively starting a war with troops on the ground.
Are you telling me that the same type of rhetoric that got us into Iraq wont cause the same fiasco in Iran? Establishment republicans want a war, they want to send our sons and daughters to die. What part of that is acceptable???
At least obama knows how to take down a dicator without resorting to barbaric brute force.I am not an obama supporter, I would much much rather have Ron Paul. But forced to choose, I could never vote for opportunistic religous zealots.
Please, unless motivated by religion you can not honestly believe taking our country backwards is the right thing to do......
toasty8Feb 29, 2012
Obama runs this country based on his religious views. Unless you have an atheist for a president, religion will always be a factor.
bluenose2Feb 29, 2012
Come on up.The weather is chilly and damp , but not too bad.
fertilebastardMar 1, 2012
If Obama gets another four years, we may all be moving up there. That's where the new jobs are.
... and the good beer and the dancing girls.
fertilebastardMar 1, 2012
Go Sabres!!!
CaptainobliviousFeb 29, 2012
If I had to choose I would pick Ron Paul over Obama any day. From what I hear alot of people share that opinion as well.
neveroddorevenFeb 29, 2012
I'm sure you'll be missed.
CaptainobliviousMar 1, 2012
Doubt it, I'm not white, rich or christian. No offense to rich white christians we all have a right to express our concerns, first Amendment and all. But a vote for santorum, romney, or gingrich is a bold statement.
novenatorFeb 29, 2012
The only thing we fear from Santorum is the Doomsday scenario, like if Obama would make a major gaffe late in the game and somehow Santorum would win. It would spell DOOM for America, like Bush on steroids.
ghengiskhan1Feb 29, 2012
Do you think a republican president would have any hope of being reelected if unemployement was at 15% (the real unemployment rate), gas prices were near 5 dollars a gallon and the debt was growing by a trillion dollars a year?
I do not think it would be possible, but strangely, Obama will likely get reelected under those exact circumstances.
As for me, I could never vote for anyone, of any party, that proved to be such an incompetent leader. But half the electorate stopped worrying about competence a long time ago. Now they just worry about what they can get out of the deal and Obama is really good at promising things.
I could beat him though. I could out Obama Obama himself.
Obama promises free college...I promise free college AND a free luxury car of your choice. No price limit. Beat that Obama!
Obama promises to extend unemployment benefits....I promise you never EVER have to work again and youll get 1 million dollars a year of spending money.
Obama promises free health care that does not include cosmetic surgery....I promise not only free health care, but free cosmetic surgery for anyone that wants it! The country would be full of hot chicks with big t**s and face lifts! BAM! Beat that Obama!
Admit it Novenator, my platform of freebies sounds pretty appealing doesnt it?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
readmikenowFeb 29, 2012
If you can throw if free tickets to professional sporting events you have my vote!
ghengiskhan1Feb 29, 2012
Well good citizen, since you asked for it......
You will not only get front row seats to any and all sporting events of your choice (why limit yourself to just pro sports?), you will also be accompanied by a beautiful woman of your choice. She will also take care of all of your needs. Of course there will be no cost to you because this is one of your rights garunteed in the bill of rights.
Would you like a blond, brunette or red head? Asian? Midget? Black? Latina?
When Im president, youll get everything and anything you want.
If you dont want to pay taxes thats fine, dont. It wont matter cuz Ill just be printing the money anyway.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CaptainobliviousFeb 29, 2012
Would you send my son to die for your special interests?
ghengiskhan1Mar 1, 2012
If that is what you wanted, of course! Anything to get you to vote for me so I can get elected!
ultimisFeb 29, 2012
I can say often that I disagree with you, but this post is awesome. Though if you tried to out Obama Obama, he would up his Obamaness to combat you. Like in the 2008 election anything McCain stated that got a positive reaction from the electorate Obama would immediately support or even take it a step up (not that he ever followed through on it).
"As for me, I could never vote for anyone, of any party, that proved to be such an incompetent leader."
Seriously though. This was obvious before he was elected in 2008. Yet Democrats overwhelming elected him.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingnovaMar 1, 2012
"Do you think a republican president would have any hope of being reelected if unemployement was at 15% (the real unemployment rate), gas prices were near 5 dollars a gallon and the debt was growing by a trillion dollars a year?"
We will never know, since that was all happening under Bush, but he had already served two terms. Clearly the American people didn't want another Republican at the time.
eraptorMar 1, 2012
Oh how quickly you forget. Dubya was elected through Karl Rove's voter/election fraud in 2000 AND 2004, nothing more.
kasha34Mar 1, 2012
You know, my idea was to hire all the unemployed and pay them $50/hr. But your idea is better.
eraptorMar 1, 2012
@Ghengis,
Obviously, you haven't been following recent Republican campaign promises on the campaign trail. The fiscal proposals and public policy positions offered up by Romney and Santorum would tank the economy and our national debt challenges, making things worse not better.
With regard to your re-election question, a Republican President COULD be re-elected under those economic conditions if Democrat's were as responsible for those conditions as Republicans are today. Culpability for economic mismanagement rests with those who CREATE economic conditions, NOT those who happen to be in office at the time. Congressional Conservative stonewalling is responsible for our inability to repair/restore the economy and lower our debt, NOTHING ELSE.
Herbert Hoover (a Republican President) wasn't thrown out of office just because the national economy hit a rough patch. He was kicked out of office for creating those conditions and for doing precious little to correct them as conditions worsened. What little he did attempt amounted to "too little, too late" at the end of his term.
nickymouseFeb 29, 2012
Obama is Bush on steroids. More wars, more spending, bigger government, more oppressive regulations, more crony capitalism, greater socialism, less liberty, etc.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorFeb 29, 2012
So Bush was a "big government" socialist regulator huh?
nickymouseFeb 29, 2012
Yep. Look at his track record. Massive expansion of government and regulations.
novenatorFeb 29, 2012
No. He cut a lot of programs, although he did massive expand the military like all cons do. As for regulations, no. The Bush/Cheney regime not only slashed regulations, but they severely underfunded and hampered the ability of existing regulatory agencies to do their jobs in the first place.
Fox is not news.
nickymouseFeb 29, 2012
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/big-government-gets-bigger/?page=all
http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/10/bushs-regulatory-kiss-off
novenatorMar 1, 2012
http://www.ehow.com/info_7748733_deregulation-markets-under-george-bush.html
https://www.propublica.org/article/bush-forces-deregulation-in-waning-days-of-administration
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/cheney_deregulation.html
http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=15
kingnovaMar 1, 2012
"Obama is Bush on steroids. More wars, more spending, bigger government,"
You do realize ALL of these claims are factually incorrect, right? How do you expect to be taken seriously when you straight up lie, and it is easily checked?
nickymouseMar 1, 2012
Did we not engage in more wars? Did government spending and not grow even more under Obama? Did Obama not continue the PATRIOT ACT and signed into law a bill that will allow detention without trial of American citizens? Did Obama not continue social bailouts of big businesses on top of helping with the bail out wall street?
What I'm a lying about? Obama and Bush are nearly the same. The big difference is Obama is a superior communicator.
howdoesseanrollFeb 29, 2012
this amazing comment's current score (+1) with equal up and down diggs just goes to show that the DPs are in full force today!
charlotte_webFeb 29, 2012
How dare conservatives be allowed to vote on Digg! This is an outrage!
particleman420Feb 29, 2012
finally we agree on something!
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
It's not the conservatives, it's the stupid...
But, as Twain once said, now I'm repeating myself.
jpurdyFeb 29, 2012
You can say that again
yurmutha412Feb 29, 2012
We already have doom for America, and it's spelled O_B_A_M_A. We're trying to avert it, but personally, I think Ron Paul is the only one that actually would. The debt might not grow as fast under Romney, but it will grow and it's getting close to being too high already. Plus, he's the only one that would stop the everlasting wars.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fairdinkummateMar 1, 2012
"The debt might not grow as fast under Romney..."
On what d o you base that statement? His unfunded 20% reduction in income tax rates will be, as apparently all Republican tax cuts nowadays are, DEFICIT FUNDED.
Romney's tax plan if implemented, would leave Bush's unfunded handout to the wealthy for dust & make Obama's recovery spending look like pocket change.
yurmutha412Mar 1, 2012
I'm basing it mainly on the increase in Medicaid that will come from the HCA. It's an increase of 15 percent I believe. Half will be shouldered by the states, half by the fed, but since the states are barely staying above bankruptcy paying what they do, I think it will get shifted to the fed. The payroll tax which is being given to Americans is also really payments that are supposed to go to Medicare, and Medicare just moves it over to the debt. I think under Obama that tax will stay shifted longer. We'll have to see what the tax on the rich brings but they have lawyers and know all the tricks. I believe it will be less than half what they think, and it may well slow the economy. There just aren't any real statistics. It did improve when Bush brought put it in place. Not much, but we have a huge economy. And I think Obama doesn't have to fret if he goes over, whereas Romney does because Republicans have made it more clear they want a balanced budget. However, Romney plans on increasing the military, so that's a downside for him, and he hasn't really talked about cutting anything, so he's a wild card.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fairdinkummateMar 1, 2012
"Republicans have made it more clear they want a balanced budget."
The last Republican President to balance the budget was Eisenhower in 1957(& 1956).
The last Democratic President to balance the budget was Clinton in 2001(& 1999 & 2000)
Source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/03/cnn-fact-check-the-last-president-to-balance-the-budget/
THAT MEANS THAT NO REPUBLICAN HAS BALANCED THE BUDGET IN OVER HALF A CENTURY!!!
How long will you listen to rhetoric over reality?
Romney has proposed to reduce income taxes for everyone by 20%. Nice idea, but not unless you also propose a way to reduce spending accordingly, which he(like Bush) hasn't done.
I'll bet the average American wouldn't volunteer to work 4 days a week & take the requisite 20% paycut without working out if they could still pay their bills. If it's not alright for them, why is it alright for the country?
With regard to your other talking points above:
Why single out Medicaid in the HCA, why not look at the whole bill? Oh, I remember now, we were talking about the deficit & the HCA legislation that passed was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to reduce the deficit by $138 billion over 10 years.
Source: http://www.cbo.gov/
Payroll taxes are Social Security & Medicare, not just Medicare. The tax break is to help create &/or keep jobs. Does it hurt the budget in the short term? Yes. Would millions more unemployed hurt it more, absolutely!
Obama's proposal to tax the rich addresses exactly your concern. The "Buffet Rule" applies a minimum 30% tax to everyone earning over $1 million - no writeoffs, no schemes. It won't get passed though, your Republican buddies are against the rich paying their fair share. I guess if the Koch brothers were funding me I'd have to be against it too!
yurmutha412Mar 1, 2012
The CBO has pretty much admitted they were off on the HCA costs and are going to put out new numbers in March.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cbo-process-updating-obamacare-estimates/357961
They are notoriously wrong on their predictions and this was just another one, so my point still stands on the Medicaid expansion, which in case you didn't know is causing much trouble with states already.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57384449/glasses-wheelchairs-on-illinois-medicaid-cut-list/
This is happening all across the country. States can barely afford Medicaid right now before the 15 percent expansion required by the HCA.
As far a Bill Clinton balancing the budget, I was working then and it was mainly because Gingrich was head of the House and ran on balancing the budget. Clinton had enough sense leave business alone, he was one of the last sane Democrats as far as I'm concerned.
Republicans are just more serious about making cuts and balancing the budget. When the Democrats owned both houses, recently, they didn't even submit a budget. They didn't consider it worth bothering with. We can talk all we want about Republicans through history, but what matters is the here and now and the tea party is just one example of how Republicans have become more serious about balancing the budget.
Also, try not to use the words "talking points" in your argument because it makes you sound like an idiot and I can see you are not. Make comments specifically about what someone said and your argument against it.
As far as the buffet rule goes, even Krugman said it would gain 30 billion in revenue, tops. He said we would need to go much further to even get 50 billion, which is a very small part of a 1 trillion deficit. It's something to run on, but almost all of it has to come from spending cuts and spurring the economy. Although you might believe throwing money into government jobs would do that, I believe it won't at all. Republicans states have gained more jobs than Democrat states since 2000.
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2011/05/red-states-add-more-jobs-than-blue.html
So, no matter what Dems say, low taxes and balanced budgets spur the economy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fairdinkummateMar 2, 2012
The CBO has said they'll release new figures, based on the fact that 2 years have passed & they now havce 2 years more figure on which to base their estimates. STOP LYING! The only thing "they've admitted" is that they now have 2 years more facts on which to base their future estimates/ Uf you disagree, please provide EVIDENCE of someone from the CBO saying otherwise.
"As far a Bill Clinton balancing the budget, I was working then and it was mainly because Gingrich was head of the House "
Only a Republican could try & spin this badly. Gingrich was speaker from 1995 to 1999. If it was because of him, why was there no surplus in 1995, 1996 or 1997?
Experts ON BOTH SIDES agree that the biggest cause of those budget surpluses was c**tnon's tax increases of 1993 - which Gingrich voted against!
Your problem is that you never let reality get in the way of your rhetoric. eg. Despite my pointing about above that no Republican President has balanced the budget in over half a century, you have the nerve to write in your reply "Republicans are just more serious about making cuts and balancing the budget.".a striaght out LIE with absolutely not an ounce of FACT to back it up. The FACTS show that Republicans for the last 60 or so years have talked about being fiscally conservative to get elected but once there have simply handed deficit funded tax breaks or cuts to the wealthy. There is no arguing this as history is FACTUAL.
You can try & claim that they'll be different in the future, but who'd believe you, when the frontrunner Romney has proposed a 20% deficit funded tax cut with no way to pay for it & Santorum's plan is even worse for revenue!
yurmutha412Mar 2, 2012
"please provide EVIDENCE of someone from the CBO saying otherwise."
from the article I posted:
"That piece alone would raise the cost of the Affordable Care Act,” Elmendorf said, referring to the formal name for the legislation. “I don’t know by how much.”
Elmendorf said the CBO would update its estimates of the cost of coverage expansions under the health care law."
It will obviously be raised, so you have until March to continue your fantasy. I was not lying since it clearly says the cost will be raised and Elmendorf works for the CBO. Your language is also pretty accusatory for someone with such low reading comprehension.
"Experts ON BOTH SIDES agree that the biggest cause of those budget surpluses was c**tnon's tax increases of 1993 - which Gingrich voted against!"
You'll have to back that up, the GDP was higher during the Clinton administration and that was by far the biggest reason they had more revenue. Taxes just don't bring that much of a revenue increase as I stated before. I was using Krugman's figures for the millionaire tax, and it's a very small percentage of the deficit. We still need to come up with the other 970 billion or whatever. Obviously we need to tax, but if it's fair and low, it works out the best for the economy. Even Obama admits the sky high corporate tax is causing a loss in business.
""Republicans are just more serious about making cuts and balancing the budget.".a striaght out LIE with absolutely not an ounce of FACT to back it up. "
No, I clearly gave you a fact, and I'm a little sick of being called a liar by someone with low reading comprehension. The Democrats didn't even submit a budget for at least one year when they owned both houses. If you don't submit a budget you obviously are not worried about the deficit. The tea party is based on cutting spending and balancing a budget and has had an influence in the Republican party nominees. That's a fact. That's two facts that show the Republican party is more interested in balancing the budget. So stop calling me a liar and grow up a little bit.
theonewhoknowsFeb 29, 2012
It wouldn't be doom. Socially, we'd be set back a few decades in terms of political tolerance. Financially it'd be mostly a wash. Pratically, it'd be more of the same.
jpurdyFeb 29, 2012
More than a few decades. Women gained the right to vote in 1920, and persecution for religious reasons ended some time before that, at least in western civilization.
theonewhoknowsFeb 29, 2012
I know, but I don't think he'd be able to reverse women's suffrage.
icwydMar 1, 2012
Hell, Santorum scares the s**t outta me. He's freaking nuts.
elliotysMar 1, 2012
Correction *AMERICA should fear Santorum more than Romney.
SophiaPuffMar 1, 2012
We should all fear Santorum more than Romney... but not because he is more electable.
thrusthamsterMar 1, 2012
I'm afraid of Santorum as well. I'm afraid of getting it on my clothes, on my car, or in a Presidency. So I avoid Santorum all together.
bluenose2Feb 29, 2012
Obama does not have to fear either of tweedle-dum or tweedle-dee. I have more chance becoming Pope(I am an atheist) than either of these have of being elected President.
arachnydFeb 29, 2012
I wrote your name in on the Pope ballot. My exorcism is scheduled for next Wednesday.
toasty8Feb 29, 2012
I don't think so. Whether you support them or not, the American people are dissatisfied with Obama's presidency.
caseycooldFeb 29, 2012
People are dissatisfied with the state of the country. Fox says we should blame Obama.
toasty8Feb 29, 2012
The president sets the budget, Obama is the one who has driven our national debt to ridiculous heights.
fairdinkummateMar 1, 2012
According to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the President submits a BUDGET REQUEST to Congress, who then determine what will & won't be approved. The President has the ability to veto changes, but at the end of the day, Congress can over-rule him, he can't beat a veto.
So you may want to rethink your reasoning and also do a little research & compare what Clinton handed to Bush budget & economy wise & what Bush passed on to Obama 8 years later.
toasty8Mar 1, 2012
Obama proposed the budget, and our Congress approved it, what's not to get? Yeah Bush f**ked Clinton's good economy, and Obama RAPED Bush's already bad economy, making it 10 times worse.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
You need to work on your math skills.
toasty8Mar 1, 2012
Really? You couldn't work out that I was embellishing to make a point? The use of the word "rape" in terms of economic policy didn't sound the alarm?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
That's wrong, but you aren't thinking anyway so I won't bother correcting you.
toasty8Mar 1, 2012
Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Read it and stop pretending like you know what you're talking about, when you clearly have no clue.
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
Clearly one of us doesn't know what he's talking about, but I'll leave it to others to make the call.
vitriolandangstMar 2, 2012
Right.
But then again, those Optical scan ES&S readers have shown around 50% error rates, and the computers counting the votes, are basically black boxes.
When you subpoena a hacker after a suspicious event, sometimes they just die under mysterious circumstances; http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/12-mysterious-death-of-mike-connell—karl-roves-election-thief/
Whomever becomes President, can mean tens of billions of dollars to the right corporation / organization. Committing election fraud has more benefits and fewer risks than knocking over an armored car. So why WOULDN'T some outfit rig the election?
Even if 2 hackers weren't hired by Diebold to make a voting system that had 3 databases with remote exploits (and they admitted it) -- there is enough incentive for an enterprising hacker to jump in the fray and rig elections.
How does CNN call the vote in Arizona with 0% of the precincts counted? In that case, nobody probably hacked their video stream to MAKE them report this -- but it seems like another form of voter manipulation as well.
>> Maybe American voters haven't become totally insane...
laurahoustonFeb 29, 2012
so when is the church going to target those small families? any woman not having a kid a year is a murderer, right?
It's NOT President Obama who should fear any Inquisitors, conservatives are well-known to eat their own underlings.
sirmcdiznutsFeb 29, 2012
Don't matter both Santorum and Romney are horrible. I rather deal with the Devil I know than the Devil I don't know.
salbatrossFeb 29, 2012
Retch.
jpurdyFeb 29, 2012
We should all fear Santorum, and the people supporting him. Unfortunately, when he loses and goes away, there will be another nutcase up next. Maybe Sarah will come back.
vitriolandangstMar 2, 2012
Maybe the Republican Clown Show isn't about making Obama look good at all costs -- maybe it's because the plan is to have some Republican waiting in the wings, sweep in and get "appointed" by the Republican party at the final hour.
Someone sane, and reasonable sounding, like the Governor of Jersey, or some other non bats**t crazy Republican that we were scratching our heads as to why they weren't considered.
The beleaguered Republican voter would then yell "Yippee!" because ANY Republican to them who can beat Obama is going to be a hero. As long as nobody has a long lead time to get the dirt on how crooked EVERY Republican actually is -- this "last minute" candidate might have a real shot.
Obama is beatable -- just not by any Republicans, because anyone sane, non-corrupt, and of integrity, got weeded out by our political process and nitwit voters a long time ago.
vitriolandangstMar 2, 2012
We ALL should fear Santorum...
... more than Romney?
I don't know; you've got religious fascism, or draconian pennies a day paycheck fascism.
It's Boomba or Death by Boomba -- take your pick.
beforesputnikMar 1, 2012
Republicans, if you want a shot at winning the white house, do not vote Santorum or Romney (or Gingrich, but do i have to say that?).
Santorum is too anti-gay, extreme Christian, pro-war & pro-life (how he rationalizes that i don't know) for mainstream America. He might win over core republicans with that, but he won't do it in a general election.
Romney has taken every position on every issue, you have no idea what he will do if elected. He very well might be an excellent president, but then again he might just be the worst crony sell-out ever. Hard to vote for someone who is that wishy washy.
bluenose2Mar 1, 2012
John Huntsman should be the nominee , but he is too sane and sensible to take the helm now.
corinthosMar 1, 2012
It almost as if the republicans are just trying to lose the election. I didn't want to vote for Obama but I will now that I don't want to see any of the jokers they are wanting to put up against him.
bcarl314Mar 1, 2012
I tend to agree with the premise of this article. I think the Dems are ignorant on what Sarah Palin did for the GOP ticket in 2008. The GOP was pretty disillusioned with McCain, so he picked a "Tea Party" (which didn't exist, but that's another post) candidate to "energize" the base. Well, Santorum is this cycle's Palin. If he gets the nod, I see a very energized GOP base. If Romney get's the nod, he'll need to do exactly what McCain did - pick a Tea Party whacko, to have any chance.
emkaysmithMar 1, 2012
*Anyone* should fear Santorum . . . who isn't a priest or a nun.
paultripMar 1, 2012
Just read the headline.....laughed my ass off...... shut up!
gkiltzMar 1, 2012
Santorum is so dumb, his dog teaches HIM tricks!!
analogkid1Mar 1, 2012
RICHARD Santorum prefers to be called "Dick". ;)
bluenose2Mar 1, 2012
Santorum is just a dick.
kcast985Feb 29, 2012
I've been saying this for months the only candidate president obama wants to face is Romney because it takes healthcare off the table and he can destroy him on being a flip-flopper if he faces santorum his healthcare bill will be debateable and santorum has been more consistAntly conservative then Romney.
exspasticcomicsFeb 29, 2012
Well- mathematically speaking-
All three of them are all kinds of crazy.
atomheartmotherFeb 29, 2012
With an approval rating well below 50%, rising gas prices, a s**tty economy and a foreign policy which has made us the laughing stock of the world, President Obama should fear all of the GOP candidates.
Once the primary season is over, the nominee and the Republican party will turn its attention towards Obama and his record, and unlike in 2008, he'll have to defend it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
freeformjazzFeb 29, 2012
You do not win wars by defending.
drmangrumFeb 29, 2012
But you can lose them if you don't.
miklkitFeb 29, 2012
Obama's approval rating is better than anyone who will challenge him.
The Koch brothers are among the very largest oil speculators and their agenda is to defeat any Democrat even if it means wrecking America's economy. Causing our credit rating to be lowered last summer is exhibit "A".
Foreign policy is one of Obama's strong points. As in "Mission Accomplished".
toasty8Feb 29, 2012
I don't think they take approval ratings for people who haven't gotten the job yet.
atomheartmotherFeb 29, 2012
As toasty said above. And the Dems' complete unwillingness to tackle our crushing debt is what lowered our credit rating.
jhoritaFeb 29, 2012
Someone forgot the games Congress was playing last year... wasting time on resolutions that they knew would not be signed, and not budging on any compromises offered by Obama. One month, they were not willing to close the loopholes exploited by the rich, and the next month they were willing to close the loopholes, but with other non-relevant clauses stitched into the bill like the Keystone pipeline.
atomheartmotherFeb 29, 2012
Obama couldn't get the House Dems to go along with the (never actually penned) "grand bargain". THAT is why the debt talks collapsed.
jhoritaFeb 29, 2012
Read back on that bargain. The GOP was refusing to budge an inch on any bill that included increasing taxes on the rich. The democrats were not willing to do a spending cut-only bill, but they were willing to do spending cuts AND a tax increase -- which was a lot more reasonable.
atomheartmotherFeb 29, 2012
"While pundits scold Republicans for not supporting the "grand bargain," it is not clear the package could pass even if House Speaker John Boehner signed on. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has come out against any cuts in entitlement spending -- an extreme position that breaks the deal."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/14/obamas_debt_ceiling_grand_bargain_no_such_thing_110573.html
Obama couldn't get his own troops in line.
ultimisFeb 29, 2012
Democrats never agreed to any *specific* cuts and only supported tax increases. So even if Republicans were willing to slide on tax increases, they had no cuts.
particleman420Feb 29, 2012
i love it when you try to rewrite recent history like no one was watching or noticed that it was the republicans' tantrums over tax breaks for their campaign financiers to move their jobs out of the country that got our credit rating lowered
atomheartmotherFeb 29, 2012
Whatever you say, nutjob.
particleman420Feb 29, 2012
you're doing it again.
my reality based observation of actual facts makes me a "nutjob"?
yea, you run with that!
atomheartmotherFeb 29, 2012
The only reality you even remotely approach is the one penned by Carlos Castaneda.
bluenose2Feb 29, 2012
Now why do you pick Senor Castaneda ?
I have been though a desert with know name.
atomheartmotherFeb 29, 2012
You're familiar? I read them all.
bluenose2Feb 29, 2012
The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge ....one of my favorite sojourns in my younger days. I did like peyote.
atomheartmotherMar 1, 2012
Never tried it but I enjoyed the books immensely. Beware the gnat.
Schweppesale2Feb 29, 2012
You would prefer Rick Santorum over Obama?
atomheartmotherFeb 29, 2012
Absolutely.
breadfredFeb 29, 2012
I fear for the world if he would become president - I seriously mean that.
atomheartmotherFeb 29, 2012
I'm sure you do. Not really different than extremists on the right who felt that Obama's election would mean that Soviet-style communism was right around the corner.
Two sides of the same coin, really.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
theexitwoundFeb 29, 2012
Not really. Obama has never said he'd vomit on separation of church and state, that contraception is wrong, that gas prices caused the 2008 recession, that Americans should crusade for Christianity, that homosexuality is akin to man on dog action, that college is snobbish...
Santorum is on a completely different coin.
Schweppesale2Feb 29, 2012
It's not the same.
Have you even watched the GOP debates?
The guy is a homophobe and a warmonger.
atomheartmotherFeb 29, 2012
Yes, really. Obama has said many things that people on the right are equally frightened about and were just as concerned about his governance.
Schweppesale2Feb 29, 2012
What?
You mean like the NDAA and the Patriot Act? The TSA?
Will Rick Santorum pull us out of Afghanistan?
Has Rick Santorum addressed ANY of these issues? No, I didn't think so.
That's because the guy's entire campaign is driven by fear.
He has no solutions to offer; which is why he's no better in my eyes than Michelle Bachmann.
Rick Santorum is a joke.
atomheartmotherFeb 29, 2012
Well we all have out opinions, Schweppe. That's why we'll all vote (I hope) in November.
fertilebastardMar 1, 2012
@Schweppy: Scary things Obama said:
"We need to create a domestic security force that is every bit as well funded and powerful as our military"
Back where I come from, that is pretty scary.
Schweppesale2Mar 1, 2012
@fertiebastard
-http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas-national-security-force/
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
The difference, of course, is Obama's election did not mean Soviet -style communism. The extremests on the right were idiots. They made up a bunch of stuff about Obama and convinced themselves it was true.
But the people on the left are just going by Santorums own words. They make up nothing.
I mean, come on atom, meet me half way here. The man is against Birth Control! What is this, the middle ages?
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
"Back where I come from, that is pretty scary."
I suspect where you come from is a large part of your problem.
atomheartmotherMar 1, 2012
So the extremists on the right are crazed, but the extremists on the left are wise, sage, rooted in reality and have everything figured out. Gotcha.
Where's the halfway in that?
fertilebastardMar 1, 2012
From your reference: "Similar claims have been circulating in right-leaning blogs and conservative Web sites ever since July, when Obama made a single reference to a "civilian national security force" in a campaign speech in Colorado"
Since you may use "a single reference" such as vomiting at what JFK said, or facilities on the moon, to imply the extremism or whackiness of the Republican candidates, then we also shall be allowed to reference anything Obama might say regarding his extremist desires.
.
bluenose2Feb 29, 2012
That tells me everything about you AHM. You would rather have an idiotic religious zealot as your President than a man who saved your country from economic ruin and got bin laden ,who your hero G.W. Shrub said was unimportant. LOL
atomheartmotherFeb 29, 2012
Thanks for being America's hat.
bluenose2Feb 29, 2012
Welcome,(ahem) I'm sure.
drmangrumFeb 29, 2012
I'd prefer just about anyone over Obama.
Obama has his chance. He fell through on many of his cornerstone campaign promises. He's proven himself to be a glib liar that's quick to blame others rather than taking responsibility for his actions and decisions.
He reminds of the Family Circus comic strip where the kids always blame "Not Me."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
reaper527Feb 29, 2012
in a heart beat. rick might not be perfect, but he'd be much better than the empty suit that is sitting in the whitehouse right now
particleman420Feb 29, 2012
yes, because what america really needs to fix it's problems is a theocracy.
fertilebastardMar 1, 2012
Looking at his record,( and we are allowed to look at it before the election, unlike our current president) where has Santorum ever voted to force his Catholic views on the population. I couldn't find anywhere where he voted to deny contraception or sterilization. I couldn't find his support for blue laws anywhere.
He does say that he will use his faith as a guide, but that can be said for most of our presidents.
He's not my favorite, but the fear mongering that women will be forced to be barefoot and pregnant in their burqas is a bit over the top.
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
The man is against Birth Control. Discussion over. There is no way you can be a modern human being and be against birth control.
It's not the bare feet or burka women are worried about, it's the back ally abortions they'll be forced into.
This isn't made up s**t, like Obama's secret Muslim agenda, the man SAYS THIS STUFF ON CAMERA!
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
I agree. Obama will be easy to beat. You should vote for Gingritch.
fertilebastardMar 1, 2012
I would love to see that.. The debates would be awesome.
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
I'd rather see Paul. Gingritch is a blowhard, but Paul - crazy or not - has some real power behind what he says.
roguegeniusMar 1, 2012
Agreed. Should be a cake walk.
Closed AccountMar 1, 2012
this is laughable. Santorum is merely the latest far-right flunky to gain media attention in this ridiculous GOP primary clown show, as the Republican party base does the Anyone-But-Mitt dance.
get used to President Obama, folks. if these are the best candidates the "Party of No" can muster, Obama will be in the White House for a second term.
you reap what you sow...
promusicApr 7, 2012
Rick Santorum Stars in an 80's New Wave Video :http://digg.com/news/politics/rick_santorum_stars_in_an_80_s_new_wave_video
subbaramanrMar 3, 2012
IT IS ALL DUE TO WESTERN CIVIILIZATION WRONG POLICY
subbaramanrMar 3, 2012
IT IS ALL DUE TO WESTERN CIVIILIZATION WRONG POLICY
profmnaimMar 2, 2012
Purely hypothetical electionomic mathematics, calculating on the basis of ifs, not on the basis of any evidence factual, while ifs are known to rarely work or materialize, even then should have been advise for Republicans instead warning for a Democrats.
gbreedMar 1, 2012
REALLY! Hey is nothing! This article is so thin, if it was paper you could write on the sheet.