You missed the point during your sarcastic reply. If there are no long term consequences or higher moral standards for people to follow, many would degrade into selfish, self-serving oxygen theives under (and maybe even without) the infleunce of power. Why do you think that congress / the government is so corrupt? There are no real consequences for them other than embarassment.
That's a little later than I had thought, but not particularly surprising. Yet still not in violation of "Congress shall..." as it was state, not federal, of course.
Reading Grant, then Sherman I've been forcibly reminded of the strength of state loyalties as opposed to national that we now no longer consider. One state as opposed to another is little more than who one roots for at the football rivalry as opposed to fervent independent pride until after the Civil War and really didn't begin to fade until during the two WW's wherein federal troops were no longer raised and organized by state militias.
You speaking for yourself here, Joe? If you lost your faith tomorrow could we count on you to launch a crime spree against the rest of the citizenry? What I hear you saying Joe is that your religion is the only thing keeping you out of prison or off of death row.
I don't know any non-believers, Joe, that have ever been arrested, much less convicted. In fact, I would venture that more crimes against humainty have been cmmitted in the name of god that just about about any other motive save money. And religion generates no shortage of money motives by itself.
No such thing. There is no test of any sort as a qualification -- only age, citizenship and such. How else could we possibly have such an unqualified bunch of yahoos (for the most part) elected?
Not necessarily me... Althought there are some oxygen theives I might just go after.
I'm not so sure I'd be comfortable grouping those who do things in the name of God as those who actually have a healthy religious base... But this is going way OT... I'm gonna back out for two reasons:
Preserve the newsgroup
I don't have time to answer this stuff as quickly as it should be. e-mail me privately and I'll gladly discuss it in detail. Personally, I think violence on a grand scale has been perpetrated by those with no belief in a God more often than by those with a belief system in place.
(Ignorance of Adam Smith capitalism with moral base/"economic man" as moral man) + (Law school curriculums blurring distinction between morality and legality) + (lawyer politician/lawmakers) + (corporate greed) = (Corrupt, morally and economically bankrupt, culture)
The Republic was hardly "new" when the 14th was added. The authors had a specific problem to deal with and I doubt that it ever occurred to them that anybody would come up with some of the interpretations that the courts have applied.
That was the whole point of the Establishment Clause, that Congress could not interfere with the state churches. MA wasn't the only one. Connecticut disestablished in 1829 if I recall correctly, and I don't know the dates on other states that had state religions. In no case was disestablishment forced by the Federal government.
Actually Federal troops were supposed to be independent of state militias. The theory if I understand it correctly was that the state miltias, together, could stand up to the Army at need, but that doing so successfully would require that the states be in agreement that such an action was necessary. One of the checks and balances that has been lost with the National Guard being required to swear fealty to the Union from the git-go.
Oh, I wasn't trying to go into the theory of the thing at all, simply pointing out that the effect of having a national army w/o the state militias finished off the already in progress assimilation of the states into an essentially amorphous blob that it is now... :)
True. Unless Hilary is the Dem candidate. Of all the candidates she is the one that I just cannot stand to look at, or listen to.
I am just thinking that anyone that votes for Ron Paul would be politically far right. They would vote for Paul because the Rep candidate (call him center for the sake of THIS argument) is bad and the Dem candidate (far left) is probably worse. So by voting for Ron Paul they are, for all practical purposes, voting for the very person they want the least.
Yet you are applying a religious test of your own. Because Huckabee is an open person of faith, you are indicating that he is unworthy of holding office and are projecting upon the citizens of Iowa that the only reason they are choosing him is because of religion.
You can really say that with a straight face? You honestly don't believe that a Hillary, Obama, or Edwards would be a bigger disaster to this country's freedoms and underpinnings than a win by Gulianni, Romney, Huckabee, or Thompson?
Paul is not remotely "far right". He is a strict Constitutionalist - as *all* political creatures who swear "to defend and uphold the Constitution" ought to be. Most of his arguments - the Iraq war aside - rest on the fact that the Federal government does not have Constitutional permission to do all things it is doing, regardless of how good they might otherwise be. I support Paul because - even though I disagree with him in particular areas - he is the ONLY candidate that has bothered to read and actually understand the Constitution. He would be a breath of fresh air in the Executive branch - assuming he would behave as he promises to - by making the office *smaller*, vetoing the endless parade of swine entrails being passed by the Legislature, eliminating non-Constitutional government agencies (Dept. Of Education for starters) and generally returning power to the States and the individual as the Constitution mandates. You don't have to be Right or Left to support this - just someone who gets what the Framers had in mind in the first place.
No - they would be different kinds of disasters, but similar in size and scale. All these people believe that the Federal should *do* things - things which it has no enumerated power to do. The Republicans have become the Big Spenders in the last 7 years passing abominations like the drug bills for retirees. It was a Republican - in part - who helped further undermine our right to free expression by passing the McCain-Feingold act. Both Rs and Ds happily cooperated in passing one of the most bloated, useless, ineffective laws ever devised - Sarbanes-Oxley (aka "The Auditor Full Employment Act"). It was the Rs that got their panties in a wad when gay citizens asked to be treated equally before the law. It was a Republican President that decided to use tax money to fund private charities, including religious charities. (Oh how that one is going to come down around the ears of the snakehandling religious right when the Wiccan charities apply for money and a court upholds their request.)
The list is just endless. Neither party respects the Constitution. Neither party is fiscally responsible. Neither party respects civil rights. Both parties want government in the doing "good" business differing only in the details of what "good" actually means. The Democrats are stupid and dangerous, the Republicans are incompetent and dangerous. Take your your pick. They all - with very few exceptions like Ron Paul - make me ill.
I will vote for Paul in the primary and possibly write him in in the general (assuming the Rs aren't smart enough to make them their candidate). It may be a "wasted" vote, but it will not be a malignant one like voting for any of the rest of these people.
P.S. Apart from Ron Paul, there is only one other candidate that appears to even have a shadow of personal integrity - Barak Obama. His ideas are lousy and dangerous, but he has been clear from the beginning what they are, has not wavered or pandered to the polls and stuck to his story. Like I said, it's a bad story, but at least it's honestly told.
Maybe not the ONLY reason, but religion is definitely a HUGE considertation for them.
This Schneider dude summed things up nicely: (From CNN web page):
formatting link
Huckabee is to win the nomination, CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider said he has to broaden his appeal beyond the religious base that fueled his Iowa win.
---"He has to appeal to the non-evangelical Republican voters, to those who do not put religion in first place," Schneider said.
I agree with everything you say except your very first sentence. So if you exclude that first sentence, that just leaves me with two things to say. One - In this day and age, it seems as though your description of Ron Paul is exactly what the "left" would call a card carrying "far right wing" nut case. Heck, I'll bet that even a lot of Republicans think he is a far right-wing nutter.
It really sounds like you and I have very similar political views. I too like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say. And if he had a shot at winning I would most likely vote for him. But at this point he is still not a viable candidate, and so I say again (and this is the second thing I had to say), he doesn't have a chance of winning, but he as every chance of securing a Democrat win.
I don't like either the R's or D's nowadays. As someone said, different dogs, same fleas. Hillary is disgusting to me, but so is McCain. Hussein Obama, Giullani, Huckabee, Romney, etc. are all just bau. They are all just establishment politicians and not one of them will turn this country around. Just the opposite. But those are the only candidates that have any chance of winning. It all comes down to which is the lesser of two evils and by a red hair margin that would be R for me. Voting for Paul will hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats, and that could lead to what I want the least in the Whitehouse.
Wayne
P.S. During one of the early Republican debates the question of Socialized Medicine came up (they called it National Health Care but what's in a name?). Only one other candidate stated that the FEDERAL government did not have the Constitutional authority to do it. Unfortunately, I don't remember if it was Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo, but that seems moot now.
LOL. I thoroughly despise Clinton. She's a neo-con.... even worse than that Bilderberger Edwards. Obama is by far the best the dems have. My gut instinct tells me he's a moral man will good intentions. In relative terms, you understand.
"At the other side's alternatives" I'll give you that without the head and shoulders and Obama.
Therein lies the hope for Ron Paul. I think he has as much moral fibre as Huckabee without the disastrous track record. Huck's pardon record tells me something... he wants to be liked a little too much. If you drop party lines, you want a guy that is up to the job of putting your great country back on track. You also want a guy who you can't mess with. McCain is such a guy. You can scare Huck too easily.
As an outsider, and for purely selfish reasons which include ending up with a nice neighbour, I'd pick Paul, Obama, McCain in that order for a myriad of reasons.
The liberal/conservative line is so damned blurry, let's just hope for a guy who can do the job. In a stretch of reality: An Obama/Paul ticket would be as cool as anything. (As opposed to a Paul/Obama, which couldn't get elected) And give the Sec Defence to Wesley Clark, maybe Edwards for AG (mmmmm he worries me with that Bilderberg shit.). Bill Clinton for State? =2E..and make Christopher Walken head of the CIA. *G*
BTW, I think Obama/Paul would be one helluva team. But who has those kinda gonads, eh?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.