Santorum wants to impose 'Judeo-Christian Sharia'

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

WARNING OPINION PIECE AHEAD!

Few quotes:

Plainly put, Rick Santorum wants to convert our current legal system into one that requires our laws to be in agreement with religious law, not unlike what the Taliban want to do in Afghanistan.

To me, "Santorum Two" truly poses an existential threat to the separation of church and state, one of the bedrock principles of our nation since its inception. Not only did Thomas Jefferson speak (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html) of the need to create "a wall of separation between church and state," so did Santorum's idol, Ronald Reagan, who succinctly stated, "church and state are, and must remain, separate."

LINK (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/opinion/obeidallah-santorum-sharia/index.html?iref=obnetwork)

Last updated 5 January 2012 at 2:30 PM EST

[Skybird]

Fundamentalism always stinks and always is against reason and humanism - no matter whether it comes in the dress of Islam, Christian sectarians or Jewish orthdox. When I see what the ultras are trying in Israel currently, I only want to vomit all day long. Primitives.

[mookiemookie]

He's puritanical. His views on birth control are frightening. They go back to some patriarchal Leave it to Beaver type 1950s time warp.

[Ducimus]

With nut jobs like that, Obama will be shoo-in come next election. The republican party really needs to weed out the circus clowns.

[Sea Demon]

With nut jobs like that, Obama will be shoo-in come next election. The republican party really needs to weed out the circus clowns.

Obama is definitely not a shoo-in. People by the millions are impatiently waiting go to the voting booth for the sole purpose of kicking Obama straight to the curb. Despite what you think Rick Santorum believes, this article is merely someone's opinion. Sharia...really???LOL :haha:

[Sea Demon]

He's puritanical. His views on birth control are frightening. They go back to some patriarchal Leave it to Beaver type 1950s time warp.

He wants to stop using federal funding (read..my tax dollars) for birth control. Sounds good to me. :up: Pay for your own damn birth control pills.

[mookiemookie]

He wants to stop using federal funding (read..my tax dollars) for birth control. Sounds good to me. :up: Pay for your own damn birth control pills.

And when people can't, you get to pay for all those new babies on welfare. Hooray for cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And he's for allowing states to ban birth control. That's absolutely idiotic. The guy's a fundie, and as Skybird said - fundies of all stripes in a position of power are scary.

[Bubblehead1980]

[QUOTE=mookiemookie;1816596]And when people can't, you get to pay for all those new babies on welfare. Hooray for cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And he's for allowing states to ban birth control. That's absolutely idiotic. The guy's a fundie, and as Skybird said - fundies of all stripes in a position of power are scary.[/QUO

Ah religious fools are just about as bad as people like obama. Sad state of affairs my party and this country is in.

[mookiemookie]

I just can't believe Iowa would push Santorum up over Paul lol , religious fools.

I'm impressed with Paul's showing precisely because Iowa is such a backwards place. To come in a respectable third there is no small feat.

[Sea Demon]

And when people can't, you get to pay for all those new babies on welfare. Hooray for cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And he's for allowing states to ban birth control. That's absolutely idiotic. The guy's a fundie, and as Skybird said - fundies of all stripes in a position of power are scary.

I don't believe any of it. It's a made up projection of a future without federally funded birth control. It's a fraudulent argument. People can pay for their own birth control. A few people unwisely choose not to use birth control at all, and make babies they cannot afford. Federal funds won't change that. What liberals want is to create another entitlement using taxpayer funds, thus creating dependancy on government. This is nanny state lunacy. Government, using tax dollars on thousands of wasteful programs won't save everybody from themselves. Never has. This is why liberals have no business putting their hands on the levers of government.....they abuse it.

As far as states banning birth control, he's for allowing states the right to choose which laws they want to pass. Even if it is about birth control. Birth control is not a right or power enumerated in the US federal constitution. Therefore, he is correct. Leave it up to the states to pass their own laws. Let the courts determine the constitutionality.

[Ducimus]

Between Rick Perry and this Santorum fella, umm, i'm noticing a common trend, and I have to wonder, what the hell are they thinking? If the republicans want the white house back, they're gonna need to find candidates that most people across the country can agree on. These two jack wagon's are only going to scare away everyone who isn't on the extreme right. Just the fact that they are candidates at all, is scary.

[Sea Demon]

Between Rick Perry and this Santorum fella, umm, i'm noticing a common trend, and I have to wonder, what the hell are they thinking? If the republicans want the white house back, they're gonna need to find candidates that most people across the country can agree on. These two jack wagon's are only going to scare away everyone who isn't on the extreme right. Just the fact that they are candidates at all, is scary.

Be careful. That's exactly what people thought about Obama. He is on the extreme left and he has largely been a failure. Obama is a looney marxist with all kinds of weird ideas, yet he got elected. Before his election, he was thought to be unelectable. Just understand, Obama's election changed things. People who you find "scary" are very much electable these days. The Republicans want the White House back...and these "fellas" can get it back for them. The whole USA does not live in your bubble. If you're old enough, this is almost like Reagan redux.

[Tribesman]

He is on the extreme left and he has largely been a failure. Obama is a looney marxist with all kinds of weird ideas
Demon, you wouldn't know a marxist loony or otherwise if he was parading naked in front of you holding an I am a marxist sign.
But given the fact that you are saying you support a prime fundy pillock like santorum may suggests that you are secretly an Obama fan and want the republicans to choose the biggest unelectable tosspot from the bunch of idiots that have put themselves forward.
So tell me, when exactly was it you became such a big fan of your current slightly left of right President?

[CCIP]

The Republicans want the White House back...and these "fellas" can get it back for them. The whole USA does not live in your bubble.

And what makes you think it lives in yours? :hmmm:

I think if you look out in the world in general, or at least Western politics, in almost any perspective but the US right-wing's, Obama would hardly be considered left-wing at all, let alone loony marxist. It's no secret that the US neocon and social conservative scene is a bizzare one in the big scope of things.

But that aside, you don't need to look very here to see that the religious right represents a very small number of US constituents, while alienating huge portions of the population based on beliefs and social circumstances. Don't kid yourself, they're not a 'moral majority' and when push comes to shove, you'll see people voting for Obama just out of fear of these guys. And that's the worst kind of political situation, one that will get you stuck with this doofus and the likes of him for a while to come. The point is, when you get a crappy president, you don't get rid of him by voting for candidates with extreme views based on the fact that they're perceived to be opposite to his. If that's how America actually thinks, I would be very disappointed.


And the Reagan romanticism is just laughable. But I guess that's how neocon lore works.

[Takeda Shingen]

Politically, Santorum is a loser. The guy lost the seat he held for two terms to Bob Casey by 17 percentage points. Bottom line is that if Team R puts him up, they lose big. He's toxic.

[Randomizer]

In Canada, Pres. Obama would probably be at home in the left wing of the Conservative Party, to the right of the Liberals and far to the right of the New Democrats. American's who call him a socialist or communist have zero political knowledge outside their pathetically narrow, bigoted and fanatical fundamentalist dogma.

[Ducimus]

But that aside, you don't need to look very here to see that the religious right represents a very small number of US constituents, while alienating huge portions of the population based on beliefs and social circumstances. Don't kid yourself, they're not a 'moral majority' and when push comes to shove, you'll see people voting for Obama just out of fear of these guys.

Exactly.

[CCIP]

Politically, Santorum is a loser. The guy lost the seat he held for two terms to Bob Casey by 17 percentage points. Bottom line is that if Team R puts him up, they lose big. He's toxic.

I think all the Republican candidates right now share some degree of toxicity, for various reasons. For the Tea Party, Romney and Gingrich are "the establishment". For "the establishment", Paul is an anathema to neoconservative politics. For libertarians, both the religious right and the "establishment" are suspect.

I don't think team R could be any more fragmented right now, over its identity most of all. A far cry from a 'bubble' - I honestly can't see anything remotely resembling a consensus emerging. There are at least 2 conflicting versions of economics and foreign policy and 3 different versions of social policy revolving around GOP circles right now, all under bitter attacks from within party ranks and their main electorate. That's a bad situation, and the ones who built their politics on far-reaching and supposedly-unassailable interpretations religious morals are very much to blame. They don't budge, and IMO that's a very bad thing for everyone. It might look like a great thing if you're in the target demographic for those types, but the reality is that most of America is no longer that demographic at all, and you won't win democratically on that sort of platform.


In Canada, Pres. Obama would probably be at home in the left wing of the Conservative Party, to the right of the Liberals and far to the right of the New Democrats. American's who call him a socialist or communist have zero political knowledge outside their pathetically narrow, bigoted and fanatical fundamentalist dogma.

Pretty much. I would actually say that the mainstream of the US Democrat party is either even with or even a little to the right of our Conservative party, which is our furthest-right party with realistic chances of governing. That is also the case with most of the world's developed democracies (Europe, Australia/New Zealand, Japan, South America, etc. etc.) So, looking from the outside, US mainstream politics does look grotesquely skewed to the right...

[Sea Demon]

I think if you look out in the world in general, or at least Western politics, in almost any perspective but the US right-wing's, Obama would hardly be considered left-wing at all, let alone loony marxist. It's no secret that the US neocon and social conservative scene is a bizzare one in the big scope of things.

But that aside, you don't need to look very here to see that the religious right represents a very small number of US constituents, while alienating huge portions of the population based on beliefs and social circumstances.

Because it's not about religion. The fact is, the economy still sucks. The housing market still sucks. Infrastructure is still crumbling. The deficit is still rising (And Obama has increased this ten fold.....and wants Trillions more). And businesses are still showing a reluctance to hire because of things like the costs of Obama's healthcare bill. Obama is toxic. To the Democrat party and the country both. People are ticked off. Don't fool yourself into believing Obama is a guarantee. He's lost a vast amount of the white independant vote, and will not get it back. I'm not saying they all go Republican....some of them will, others don't show up. That hurts Obama more than any GOP candidate. GOP voters want to drive Obama out of the White House. This race is for the Republicans to win or lose.

It's not Reagan "romanticism". This happens every presidential election regarding GOP outsiders from the beltway East Coast. Reagan was an unelectable senile actor. G.H.W. Bush was a "corrupt" unelectable and unworthy VP (time for change). George Bush was an unelectable "bumbling idiot". This is a pattern. Now anybody but Mitt is unelectable. The same people will say he's unelectable if he wins the nomination. Cracks me up. :DL

[Takeda Shingen]

Because it's not about religion. The fact is, the economy still sucks. The housing market still sucks. Infrastructure is still crumbling. The deficit is still rising (And Obama has increased this ten fold.....and wants Trillions more). And businesses are still showing a reluctance to hire because of things like the costs of Obama's healthcare bill. Obama is toxic. To the Democrat party and the country both. People are ticked off. Don't fool yourself into believing Obama is a guarantee. He's lost a vast amount of the white independant vote, and will not get it back. I'm not saying they all go Republican....some of them will, others don't show up. That hurts Obama more than any GOP candidate. GOP voters want to drive Obama out of the White House. This race is for the Republicans to win or lose.

Reagan ran on his version of hope and change. He won. Clinton ran on his version of hope and change. He won. John Kerry ran on 'I'm not Bush' during an election that he probably should have won. He lost. Team R is running on 'I'm not Obama' in an election that they probably should win. Instead of new ideas, they are recycling the same neoconservative politics that have been in place since the Reagan administration; the very budget-busting policies that helped move us into this mess.

My personal view is that this race is not about Obama. This race is a contest for the soul of the Republican party. The party must not be permitted to return to the White House until the Reagan NeoCons are purged. This Reagan worship must end, and we must return to the roots of fiscal responsibility. This includes the bloated military budget, not just civil programs and services. For that to happen; for the Republicans to start acting like Republicans again they must recieve the message that we will not tolerate neoconservative politics any more. Obama must win, and I am confident that he will.

[Sea Demon]

Reagan ran on his version of hope and change. He won. Clinton ran on his version of hope and change. He won. John Kerry ran on 'I'm not Bush' during an election that he probably should have won. He lost. Team R is running on 'I'm not Obama' in an election that they probably should win. Instead of new ideas, they are recycling the same neoconservative politics that have been in place since the Reagan administration; the very budget-busting policies that helped move us into this mess.

My personal view is that this race is not about Obama. This race is a contest for the soul of the Republican party. The party must not be permitted to return to the White House until the Reagan NeoCons are purged. This Reagan worship must end, and we must return to the roots of fiscal responsibility. This includes the bloated military budget, not just civil programs and services. For that to happen; for the Republicans to start acting like Republicans again they must recieve the message that we will not tolerate neoconservative politics any more. Obama must win, and I am confident that he will.

You can't run on 8%-10% unemployment and win. Small business owners cannot hire and have uncertain prospects for future hiring. This election will be about economics, the housing market, and jobs. Obama has nothing. Contrasting from Obama equals change. I don't believe Obama is worthy to be re-elected. And people I know who voted for him last time seem to share that sentiment.

After reading through this thread and some of the thoughts presented here in opposition to my own, it has occurred to me that it's probably a good thing Democrats are comfortable and confident in Obama's re-election.

Cheers. :woot:

[Takeda Shingen]

You can't run on 8%-10% unemployment and win. Small business owners cannot hire and have uncertain prospects for future hiring. This election will be about economics, the housing market, and jobs. Obama has nothing. Contrasting from Obama equals change. I don't believe Obama is worthy to be re-elected. And people I know who voted for him last time seem to share that sentiment.

After reading through this thread and some of the thoughts presented here in opposition to my own, it has occurred to me that it's probably a good thing Democrats are comfortable and confident in Obama's re-election.

I think it's funny that you think I'm a Democrat.

[mookiemookie]

I don't believe Obama is worthy to be re-elected. And people I know who voted for him last time seem to share that sentiment.

The answer to that is not to present a religious right candidate who offers the same neoconservative ideas that drove people to elect Obama in the first place. I think the Kerry analogy is very fitting here.

[August]

The real political power in this country rests with its legislatures, not it's executive. So IMO the Republicans would do far better by getting control of Congress.

[Platapus]

With nut jobs like that, Obama will be shoo-in come next election. The republican party really needs to weed out the circus clowns.


As a "Recovering Republican", this is what I find most disheartening. The RNC is telling me that these guys are the best of the best of the best that the GOP has to offer.

Really? These are the best?

I just hope that the RNC has already written off 2012 as it is hard to unseat an incumbent, and they are concentrating on 2016, when the office is truly up for grabs.

[Randomizer]

I submit that the best thing that could happen in American politics is to somehow get away from the current 24/7/365 election cycle. The day after the election, the runs for the following November start to form.

The requirement for non-stop electioneering causes the nut bars to rise to the top just so that they can stay in the news. Only someone from the lunatic fringe or who is desperate for office can maintain the rhetoric long enough to remain in the front pages until the inevitable skeleton's in their closets causes them to stand down so the next bozo can take their place. This crosses party lines and pretty much excludes the best and brightest from elected office.

The entire process should take 4-months or less and with the election dates fixed years in advance it should be easy to do. National politics should not vie with Comedy Central as an entertainment circus.

That along with ending gerrymandering electoral districts and the election of the President by the electoral collage rather than by popular vote.

Never happen though...

[mookiemookie]

National politics should not vie with Comedy Central as an entertainment circus.

Funny when some of the most insightful and balanced political news is broadcast on Comedy Central's The Daily Show

[Randomizer]

Funny when some of the most insightful and balanced political news is broadcast on Comedy Central's The Daily Show
Agreed. But the circus act should involve what the clowns in office are doing rather than the annual 364-day zoo dominated by the wanna-be's.

[Tribesman]

After reading through this thread and some of the thoughts presented here in opposition to my own
I think you miss the point about your severe lack of thoughts.

[mookiemookie]

Agreed. But the circus act should involve what the clowns in office are doing rather than the annual 364-day zoo dominated by the wanna-be's.

I blame the 24 hour news cycle. With the rise of cable news, they have hours and hours of programming time to fill. Pundits muse on the most mundane details, they infer meaning to every word, every action, and the politicians realize this. They've found that they've become a brand, and they need to manage their message and their image needs to be as carefully crafted as any shoe or car brand. In order to resonate with people, they've become marketers who cater to the lowest common denominator and as a result we have the ridiculous antics that we see from career politicians.

[Takeda Shingen]

I blame the 24 hour news cycle. With the rise of cable news, they have hours and hours of programming time to fill. Pundits muse on the most mundane details, they infer meaning to every word, every action, and the politicians realize this. They've found that they've become a brand, and they need to manage their message and their image needs to be as carefully crafted as any shoe or car brand. In order to resonate with people, they've become marketers who cater to the lowest common denominator and as a result we have the ridiculous antics that we see from career politicians.

There's a whole industry built around the concept of political entertainment, and the people lap it up. FOX News and MSNBC are raking it in.

[Sailor Steve]

I think you miss the point about your severe lack of thoughts.
It's hard to follow your point when you intentionally abuse the quote function. Who were you quoting?

[TarJak]

Because it's not about religion. The fact is, the economy still sucks. The housing market still sucks. Infrastructure is still crumbling. The deficit is still rising (And Obama has increased this ten fold.....and wants Trillions more). And businesses are still showing a reluctance to hire because of things like the costs of Obama's healthcare bill. Obama is toxic. To the Democrat party and the country both. People are ticked off. Don't fool yourself into believing Obama is a guarantee. He's lost a vast amount of the white independant vote, and will not get it back. I'm not saying they all go Republican....some of them will, others don't show up. That hurts Obama more than any GOP candidate. GOP voters want to drive Obama out of the White House. This race is for the Republicans to win or lose.

It's not Reagan "romanticism". This happens every presidential election regarding GOP outsiders from the beltway East Coast. Reagan was an unelectable senile actor. G.H.W. Bush was a "corrupt" unelectable and unworthy VP (time for change). George Bush was an unelectable "bumbling idiot". This is a pattern. Now anybody but Mitt is unelectable. The same people will say he's unelectable if he wins the nomination. Cracks me up. :DL
You really need to take a reality check mate. You comments on housing and infrastructure are laughable when compared to world standards. A vist to Mumbai, India's Manhattan might open your narrowed vision a little:
http://assets0.seabetter.com/images/guide/extra_large_image9260.jpg

[Oberon]

I believe he was referring to Sea Demon, Steve.

In my view Obama should be the easiest Democrat President to unseat since Jimmy Carter. If the Republicans cannot organise themselves enough to manage to do that, then they deserve to lose.

[Oberon]

You really need to take a reality check mate. You comments on housing and infrastructure are laughable when compared to world standards. A vist to Mumbai, India's Manhattan might open your narrowed vision a little:


To be fair TJ, the American people have lived in relative prosperity since the later 1930s early 1940s. They have enjoyed economic success, freedom from enemy bombing campaigns, infrastructure that remained undamaged throughout the Second world war, and a post-war boom from helping Europe rebuild, as well as financial gains from the various loans.
This is the biggest crisis since 1929 for the US...heck...it might well be the biggest economic crisis in American history, and the standards of living that America has enjoyed for the past several decades is slipping, it's still marvellous compared to most of the world, but compared to what they have been used to, yes, it's crumbling. We'll have the same problems over here...but we have a generation that went through worse and came through it alright, unfortunately they're not the generation in charge at the moment, but I hope that their lessons will ring true...but...looking at the riots of last year...I do fear for what is to come...

[TarJak]

To be fair TJ, the American people have lived in relative prosperity since the later 1930s early 1940s. They have enjoyed economic success, freedom from enemy bombing campaigns, infrastructure that remained undamaged throughout the Second world war, and a post-war boom from helping Europe rebuild, as well as financial gains from the various loans.
This is the biggest crisis since 1929 for the US...heck...it might well be the biggest economic crisis in American history, and the standards of living that America has enjoyed for the past several decades is slipping, it's still marvellous compared to most of the world, but compared to what they have been used to, yes, it's crumbling. We'll have the same problems over here...but we have a generation that went through worse and came through it alright, unfortunately they're not the generation in charge at the moment, but I hope that their lessons will ring true...but...looking at the riots of last year...I do fear for what is to come...
That's as may be Oberon, but its not excuse for being blinkered to what the rest of the world is like. The US' blinkers need to come off sooner rather than later.

[CCIP]

Another layer of cross-cultural irony: in much of the rest of the world, neoconservative economics are in fact called neo-liberal.

Otherwise, I think the bottom line that a few people in this thread have hinted at: why do we need dogmatic religious social conservatism mixed with neo-liberal economics when the US has a perfectly good, functional tradition of constitutional, secular, reasonable libertarian conservatism? Do you really need Jesus and corporate interests in DC, or just a minimally-intrusive government that works and protects citizens from others' spiritual and economic schemes?

[CaptainHaplo]

For the Tea Party, Romney and Gingrich are "the establishment"

Actually, most polls show Gingrich gets a good chunk of the "tea party" vote. The majority of people see the Karl Rove type power players all backing Romney, and doing their best to harm Newt. How many senior republican politicians have been negatice about Newt running? The establishment fears Newt.

I submit that the best thing that could happen in American politics is to somehow get away from the current 24/7/365 election cycle. The day after the election, the runs for the following November start to form.

Best thing we could do is get rid of the letter by people's names. If people had to run on issues vs what party they were in - then the electorate would be more educated on the candidate stances on the issues. It wouldn't be "left vs right", it would be about the issues and the ways to solve them. THAT would be the best thing for this country.

Campaign finance reform would be the next.....

[AngusJS]

Be careful. That's exactly what people thought about Obama. He is on the extreme left and he has largely been a failure. Obama is a looney marxist with all kinds of weird ideas:har: Now that's entertainment.

[Sea Demon]

The real political power in this country rests with its legislatures, not it's executive. So IMO the Republicans would do far better by getting control of Congress.

Yes, the legislative controls the purse strings. So yes, it's imperative the Republicans need to solidify their hold of the House for sure. And retain balance in the Senate, if not take a slim majority. The thing that concerns me regarding the executive is that it appoints judges. A power I don't want liberals to retain for the long term.

You really need to take a reality check mate. You comments on housing and infrastructure are laughable when compared to world standards. A vist to Mumbai, India's Manhattan might open your narrowed vision a little:

It's all relative wherever you live. And I'm definitely not going to shoot for a living standard like the slums of Mumbai, India. :O: The facts remain that our economy is still performing poorly, jobs are lacking as unemployment is still a huge factor, our deficit is running in the Trillions and the current administration thinks we need to add more to it, government waste and fraud is ramapant with tax withholdings, and overall national debt is increasing and will negatively impact future generations. Obama simply can't escape HIS economy. That's reality.....mate.

I blame the 24 hour news cycle. With the rise of cable news, they have hours and hours of programming time to fill. Pundits muse on the most mundane details, they infer meaning to every word, every action, and the politicians realize this.

Well here's where we can find common ground mookie. I'm sick of 24 hour cable news. But that also goes to the "out of context" propaganda articles coming from places like Daily Kos, Free Republic, gateway pundit, CNN opinion and others (like the one posted by the OP about "Santorum and Sharia";).

Funny when some of the most insightful and balanced political news is broadcast on Comedy Central's The Daily Show

You've got to be kidding me. This is where we part company. This show is not balanced news or insightful in any way. It's supposedly a comedy show but acts as platform to bash conservatives(and the token liberal from time to time for pretend balance...but we know where he leans). There is nothing insightful about it at all. Even Fox News typically has someone on the Right and someone on the Left to argue their points against one another and present their views. They offer retractions. That's balance. The Daily show does not have anything like it.

The RNC is telling me that these guys are the best of the best of the best that the GOP has to offer.

Really? These are the best?

Actually they reserve that label for Mitt...LOL. At least the establishment GOP does. You know, I'm not convinced that any of these candidates are the best America or the GOP has to offer. But IMO, all of them (except Ron Paul) are a much better option than Obama. As a taxpayer with an actual tax liability, I stand firm on that.

[elephantium]

I don't believe any of it. It's a made up projection of a future without federally funded birth control. It's a fraudulent argument. People can pay for their own birth control. A few people unwisely choose not to use birth control at all, and make babies they cannot afford. Federal funds won't change that. What liberals want is to create another entitlement using taxpayer funds, thus creating dependancy on government. This is nanny state lunacy. Government, using tax dollars on thousands of wasteful programs won't save everybody from themselves. Never has. This is why liberals have no business putting their hands on the levers of government.....they abuse it.

As far as states banning birth control, he's for allowing states the right to choose which laws they want to pass. Even if it is about birth control. Birth control is not a right or power enumerated in the US federal constitution. Therefore, he is correct. Leave it up to the states to pass their own laws. Let the courts determine the constitutionality.

I consider myself a liberal, and this is most definitely *not* what I want. Please stop lying about my wishes and motivations.

[Sea Demon]

I consider myself a liberal, and this is most definitely *not* what I want. Please stop lying about my wishes and motivations.

:DL I wasn't talking about you or any regular joe voter on a personal level. But in my view, I believe the Democrat Party and liberals in government who seem to hold perpetual office wants people dependant on government programs in exchange for votes. Federally funded "everything" is a way to make that happen.

What's entertaining about your post is, I don't know how many times I've been told I want to "deny" people healthcare and want the elderly to die because I oppose Obamacare, how I "hate" gay people because I support Prop 8, I want to nuke everybody out of existence because I want a strong and viable nuclear deterrent and remain firm against further cuts, and I hope and pray for dirty air and water because I oppose legislation that all but guts our energy infrastructure and refuse to support pie in the sky energy schemes. All told to me by died in the wool libs. I made no such assertions against you.

[elephantium]

Fair enough - I'd agree (with respect to both political parties) that the people in Washington are so far out of touch with the "real" people that they're in essentially a different country.

Please do say "the fat-cats running the Democratic party" instead of "liberals" -- the latter is a VERY broad brush and inaccurate besides. I'm certainly not a Democrat.

I'll add this comparison, too:

Democrats - want voters to benefit from and be grateful for social programs? ... in bed with rich Hollywood companies.
Republicans - want voters patriotic and grateful for jobs from lots of spending on "defense contractors"? ... in bed with said defense contractors.

Looking out for normal people: No one.

[Tribesman]

It's hard to follow your point when you intentionally abuse the quote function.
Didn't you learn from last time that it's all in your mind?:doh:
Oh sorry, last time you crazily said I was deliberately doing it not intentionally doing it.
Must make a mental note , don't use the big "post reply" button when posting a reply

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

It's all relative wherever you live. And I'm definitely not going to shoot for a living standard like the slums of Mumbai, India. :O: The facts remain that our economy is still performing poorly, jobs are lacking as unemployment is still a huge factor, our deficit is running in the Trillions and the current administration thinks we need to add more to it, government waste and fraud is ramapant with tax withholdings, and overall national debt is increasing and will negatively impact future generations. Obama simply can't escape HIS economy. That's reality.....mate.Just checking: do you remember, that this "stimulus" crap was invented by previous administration? Yes. Its Republican invention despite how much they are fitting that to Obama only.

Didn't you learn from last time that it's all in your mind?:doh:
Oh sorry, last time you crazily said I was deliberately doing it not intentionally doing it.
Must make a mental note , don't use the big "post reply" button when posting a replySteve meant (or at least I mean) that it would be really kind to keep that [QU0TE=Person X + numbers] in beginning of quote like this (with 0 replaced with O): [QU0TE=Tribesman;1816903]it makes you much more easier to understand.

Please? Could you do that? Btw what is point answering with "Post Reply" button if you are anyway going to quote someone? There is "Reply With Quote" and "Multi-Quote This Message" buttons available.

No intention to insult you. I would just like to understand your logic and your current quoting tecnique makes it (at least in long threads) unnecessarily work intensive.

[Tribesman]

Steve meant (or at least I mean) that it would be really kind to keep that
Yes and last time he said I was deliberately deleting it.:doh:
Since it isn't there I cannot keep it and I cannot delete it.:know:

Btw what is point answering with "Post Reply" button if you are anyway going to quote someone?
Because I read to the bottom of a topic and hit the "post reply" button if I am posting a reply in that topic.

I would just like to understand your logic and your current quoting tecnique makes it (at least in long threads) unnecessarily work intensive.
Not at all, if I am responding with a quote then all that matters is the specific words I wish to address, whoever posted it is generally pretty irrelevant as it is often the actual statement that is being addressed not the person.

[Sailor Steve]

Didn't you learn from last time that it's all in your mind?:doh:
Oh sorry, last time you crazily said I was deliberately doing it not intentionally doing it.
Must make a mental note , don't use the big "post reply" button when posting a reply
Okay, now I begin to understand, and apologize. You're manually quoting everything, which is lots of work. Do you really not have the "Reply With Quote" button in the lower right-hand corner of the post you want to reply to? That one quotes for you automatically.

I thought you were using that and deliberately erasing the link part. My bad.

[em2nought]

Help us Ron Paul, you're our only hope! :rock: If only he looked like Brad Pitt. :D

[Takeda Shingen]

Help us Ron Paul, you're our only hope! :rock: If only he looked like Brad Pitt. :D

Seriously. The only real conservative on the stage and everyone labels him crazy. :doh:

[CCIP]

Seriously. The only real conservative on the stage and everyone labels him crazy. :doh:

Well, in fairness, he was associated with some pretty weird stuff back in the day, which is largely what that perception seems to be based on.

[Takeda Shingen]

Well, in fairness, he was associated with some pretty weird stuff back in the day, which is largely what that perception seems to be based on.

Nothing he has said has been crazier than the actual effects of neoconservative policies since the 1980's.

[Platapus]

When evaluating any of the nut jobs dumb enough to run for POTUS, it is important to remember that we elect a president, not a king.

Anytime any candidate for president states "I want to do abc", the first thing a citizen needs to do is determine whether the president has that authority. Pretty much anything outside the Executive branch he doesn't. Everything that involves the appropriation of money is beyond the president's authority.

So most of the time when a candidate for POTUS or even the POTUS himself says "I want to do ABC, what he really means is that "I intend to ask congress for permission to do ABC."

In my opinion, the number one requirement for POTUS is the ability to make the deals with congress. The POTUS asks congress, never tells. And congress always want' something in return. Politics is the art of making the deal. Nothing is free in politics and everything is negotiable.

So we take a candidate like Ron Paul. Some of what he says sounds, on the surface, pretty good. But would the president have the authority to make these Ron Paul changes? Frankly no. With few exceptions, any of these changes needs to be approved by congress. Much of the structure and operations of the government is dictated by legislation. Changes in legislation come from congress.

This is no accident. When the founding dads made this government, they did not want the president to have too many independent powers. And I think we can all agree that it is better for a president to have to deal with congress than have the king-like power to make sweeping changes.

Does Ron Paul have the experience and the connections to make the deal with congress? Doubtful, especially for some of his more "unusual" plans. In looking at Ron Paul's record in the house, he is more an independent acting politician as opposed to a team builder. I am not confident that Ron Paul has any political clout in the House no less the Senate. I have no confidence that Ron Paul can make the deal.

Sad as it might be, but Newton may, in fact, be the best qualified GOP candidate running. He has experience in making the deals. Now whether Newton can still make the deal in the 21st century congress has not been demonstrated. But he is one of the few candidates who has had experience in making the deal. The problem is that Newton's agenda does not match mine.

This has been one of President Obama's greatest weaknesses. He may or may not have had good ideas (we can all offer our opinions on that), but it seems pretty clear that President Obama is not all that skilled or experienced with "making the deal". Everything seems to be a fight, even amongst democrats. And yes, the President even needs to make deals with his own party's representatives. :yep:

Emotionally, we may want an political outsider as president. But perhaps we are stuck with the reality that an experienced senator/congressman who has the experiences in "making the deal" might not be the best bet.

As I have posted way too many times: The office of President of the United States is not an entry level job. It requires, in my opinion, the ability to "make the deal" with a friendly, neutral, or hostile congress.

[nikimcbee]

As I have posted way too many times: The office of President of the United States is not an entry level job. It requires, in my opinion, the ability to "make the deal" with a friendly, neutral, or hostile congress.

Sounds like you want President Trump then.:hmmm:

Maybe we need to revisit the minimum requirments to be prez.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/presrequire.htm

[gimpy117]

He's puritanical. His views on birth control are frightening. They go back to some patriarchal Leave it to Beaver type 1950s time warp.

which is ironic. I was taught in My history classes a Western Michigan University, that the puritans were actually somewhat lax in sexual practices, they didn't technically condone sex out of wedlock...but it was widely tolerated in society. this was during the times of the colonies BTW

but, hate me as you like, by my Girlfriend is a Muslim (and we get along great). And to be honest, she is much more lax than the proposed laws discussed in this thread

[Sailor Steve]

Maybe we need to revisit the minimum requirments to be prez.
Those are the official technical requirements. Platapus is talking about what needs to be considered when selecting one to vote for. There is a big difference between what qualifies a candidate for entry into the office and what makes him qualified to do the job.

[nikimcbee]

Those are the official technical requirements. Platapus is talking about what needs to be considered when selecting one to vote for. There is a big difference between what qualifies a candidate for entry into the office and what makes him qualified to do the job.

No I'm just saying, that maybe we need to raise the bar a wee bit.

[Sailor Steve]

No I'm just saying, that maybe we need to raise the bar a wee bit.
Oh, as in write a new Constitutional Amendment? After getting Congress sold on the idea, deciding what new requirements are needed, getting it written, getting Congress to actually vote on it (and win), then getting two-thirds of the states to ratify it? Maybe, but not in our lifetimes.

Besides, if you open that door you'll also open up the possibility of it overriding the "No Religious Requirements" clause in the Constitution itself, and a lot of other interesting possibilities besides.

Are you ready for that?

[nikimcbee]

Oh, as in write a new Constitutional Amendment? After getting Congress sold on the idea, deciding what new requirements are needed, getting it written, getting Congress to actually vote on it (and win), then getting two-thirds of the states to ratify it? Maybe, but not in our lifetimes.

Besides, if you open that door you'll also open up the possibility of it overriding the "No Religious Requirements" clause in the Constitution itself, and a lot of other interesting possibilities besides.

Are you ready for that?

Not really,:dead: It would probably die in the debate stage. It's a good thing we have the process we do, or they could change the Constitution at any whim. Maybe it's a bad idea, but the discussion won't hurt anything.:hmmm:

[August]

Besides, if you open that door you'll also open up the possibility of it overriding the "No Religious Requirements" clause in the Constitution itself, and a lot of other interesting possibilities besides.

Why is that? We have I believe 6 constitutional amendments passed by congress but not ratified by the states. I don't see how a 7th would suddenly open the dam to more.

[TarJak]

It's all relative wherever you live. And I'm definitely not going to shoot for a living standard like the slums of Mumbai, India. :O: The facts remain that our economy is still performing poorly, jobs are lacking as unemployment is still a huge factor, our deficit is running in the Trillions and the current administration thinks we need to add more to it, government waste and fraud is ramapant with tax withholdings, and overall national debt is increasing and will negatively impact future generations. Obama simply can't escape HIS economy. That's reality.....mate.

:har:You miss my point entirely. You might have heard the saying "I complained about having no shoes, until I saw a man with no legs". Yes all those things may be making your circumstances less than ideal, however compared to the rest of the world, you still have it good. Now that truly is reality.

BTW it's not Obama's economy. It is yours just as much as his. Government fraud and waste has been a staple of governments since the dawn of bureaucracy. Your collective consumption habits have as much to do with the state of the US economy, as any programs Obama has put into place in the last 3 years. Anyone else as president, now matter the political party, will do just as poorly as long, as you continue to do what you do now.

No-one can magically fix"crumbling" infrastructure without funds and where will they come from? Reducing the size of the government? Like that will ever happen. Government fat cats the world over know how to work the system to stay right where the cream flows.

Unless you learn from history, you don't learn anything. Do some reading on the 1899 and 1929 depressions and see what you can learn about how to get out of the mess you are in. It is not a new situation at all, just the players involved are new.

Doesn't mean you need to lower your standards to Mumbai slum level, but it does mean you may have to lower your expectations for a while.

Best of luck, because we are all going to need it.:03:

[August]

Best of luck, because we are all going to need it.:03:

No we won't. You foreigners have been prognosticating our doom ever since our country was formed. You ain't been right yet.

[TarJak]

No we won't. You foreigners have been prognosticating our doom ever since our country was formed. You ain't been right yet.
So you don't think the world economy is headed for rocky waters this year? Tell me what you know that makes you think that.:O:

Never said anything about doom for the US. Just making a point that whinging about having more than anyone else is a little undignified.:03:

[nikimcbee]

Hey you two, play nice now:D. We're all on the same team here. I think there's some sort of misunderstanding here.:D

I'll fix it; Tarjak , here's a [insert your fav beer here], August here's a [insert your fav beer here]. Everybody's happy now, Ja?

Now where's my nobel peace prize.:D

[TarJak]

Hey you two, play nice now:D. We're all on the same team here. I think there's some sort of misunderstanding here.:D

I'll fix it; Tarjak , here's a [insert your fav beer here], August here's a [insert your fav beer here]. Everybody's happy now, Ja?

Now where's my nobel peace prize.:DCheers big ears!:Kaleun_Cheers::Kaleun_Cheers:

[August]

So you don't think the world economy is headed for rocky waters this year? Tell me what you know that makes you think that.:O:

The world economy is always headed for rocky waters. It's nothing new.

Never said anything about doom for the US.Figure of speech.

Just making a point that whinging about having more than anyone else is a little undignified.:03:What does dignity have to do with it? A reduction is a reduction. Anyone will complain if their standard of living falls whether they be in Mumbai, America or Australia.

[TarJak]

Figure of speech.
Yours not mine.:O:

What does dignity have to do with it? A reduction is a reduction. Anyone will complain if their standard of living falls whether they be in Mumbai, America or Australia.
Everything. My standard of living has reduced quite a bit over the past 12 months due to the GFC, world economy, etc. I'm not moaning about it. I'm trying to do something about it. To my mind that's the only dignified response.

No point crying over spilled milk.

[nikimcbee]

Everything. My standard of living has reduced quite a bit over the past 12 months due to the GFC, world economy, etc. I'm not moaning about it. I'm trying to do something about it. To my mind that's the only dignified response.


Just curious, how has it decreased? I forget what you do for work.

[TarJak]

Our government has significantly changed the tax regime here which sees me several thousand dollars per year worse off in addition to cost of living increases for the basics. As the only income earner for a family of five, it's definitely meant I've had to lower my expectations.

[ZeeWolf]

Fundamentalism always stinks and always is against reason and humanism - no matter whether it comes in the dress of Islam, Christian sectarians or Jewish orthdox. When I see what the ultras are trying in Israel currently, I only want to vomit all day long. Primitives.

I love discussions like this. It always misses the point and ignores the NEED
for stricter laws and more simpler ways of dealing with the solution. Thanks
to the cowardly and corrupt (at the top) who imposes their "reason and
humanism" which is nothing more than New Marxist Liberalism. Looks good on
paper but in the real world is total chaos and ends in disaster.
If murders, rapists and all forms of criminal scum are getting away their crimes
at the bottom, what do you think those at the top are getting away with?
Those who's religion is only greed and self indulgence are incapable of doing
anything good, in the long term.
In other words what is needed are men of action not of talk. Those who
can not or will not show self control (at top or bottom) must finally be dealt
with in the harshest terms possible.

ZeeWolf

[MH]

Blah blah....with in the harshest terms possible.

ZeeWolf

ZeePincher in the house...:haha:

[Sailor Steve]

ZeePincher in the house...:haha:
Drug abuse? Death penalty.
Gay? Death penalty.
Critical of the government? Death penalty.
Wrong religion? Death penalty.

Heard it all before.

[Tribesman]

In other words what is needed are men of action not of talk. Those who
can not or will not show self control (at top or bottom) must finally be dealt
with in the harshest terms possible.

Oh look the nazi is back with mein kampf
I thought you said this forum was full of jews and was part of a jewish conspiracy...so why are you posting your lunatic fascist crap here?

[Takeda Shingen]

Drug abuse? Death penalty.
Gay? Death penalty.
Critical of the government? Death penalty.
Wrong religion? Death penalty.

Heard it all before.

No, it works. Clearly we will have peace once everyone is dead.

[Hottentot]

"reason and
humanism" which is nothing more than New Marxist Liberalism.

Yeah, there is only approximately 300 years of difference between the phenomena. I'll let you discover yourself which was born first.

Also, a dictionary wouldn't hurt if you want to throw terms around.

[soopaman2]

Does anyone know why he takes this stance?
Same as the tea-nuts. There is a good sized segment of our population who believes this.

It reeks of a police state, which is why we kicked Britains ass to begin with...

It saddens me, that a man with such beliefs can get so many nods of approval. I always though our countries capacity for compassion and brotherhood was strong. But seemingly it it going towards contempt and suspicion of your fellow citizen.

Perhaps a purge is in order once we get that pinko, commie, jobkiller Obama out of office.

Like Stalin, your neighbor lies on you out of fear, you and your family go to the gulag. It's a win win!

God bless the republicans, and their constituency.

[Takeda Shingen]

Perhaps a purge is in order once we get that pinko, commie, jobkiller Obama out of office.

Don't forget foreign-born secret muslim.

[soopaman2]

Don't forget foreign-born secret muslim.


Yes your right!

Oh and he likes gay people too. And he's BLACK! not only black but Kenyan! His birth certificate he showed was faked by the illuminati, and co-signed by the freemasons..

So remember kids, Obama is evil, vote for the same party that brought you the patriot act, and tax cuts on the rich that did nothing but drive up our debt.

Do it!

[Takeda Shingen]

Yes your right!

Oh and he likes gay people too. And he's BLACK! not only black but Kenyan! His birth certificate he showed was faked by the illuminati, and co-signed by the freemasons..

So remember kids, Obama is evil, vote for the same party that brought you the patriot act, and tax cuts on the rich that did nothing but drive up our debt.

Do it!

:haha: You don't happen to write ads for the GOP, do you?

So do you think your governor will be a VP candidate? The only thing that I am sure of is that no matter what Big Chris decides and wherever he goes, he'll take the helicopter.

[soopaman2]

:haha: You don't happen to write ads for the GOP, do you?

So do you think your governor will be a VP candidate? The only thing that I am sure of is that no matter what Big Chris decides and wherever he goes, he'll take the helicopter.

In all honesty Christie is a bit on the moderate side. (I kinda like him a little)

You all hear about him pounding on unions, but the unions he pounds on, are public unions, especially our wasteful schools. Small state, alot of 6 figure earning "administrators", retiring from one job and taking another, then double dipping on salary on pension, all on the taxpayer dime.

I respect him for trying to fight it honestly.
Jersey politics is separate from nationals my friend. Honest men do not last.
I can write a long 2 or 3 posts on the crap Corzine and Mc Greevey pulled in office.

[ZeeWolf]

Oh look the nazi is back with mein kampf
I thought you said this forum was full of jews and was part of a jewish conspiracy...so why are you posting your lunatic fascist crap here?

Ha Ha! :haha: We used to hang horse thieves until the "enlighten ones" were
allowed to corrupt and lie their way to power. The final solution is drawing
nigh, as it must. :D But hey, you'll have just another thing to wale about.

ZeeWolf

[Takeda Shingen]

In all honesty Christie is a bit on the moderate side. (I kinda like him a little)

You all hear about him pounding on unions, but the unions he pounds on, are public unions, especially our wasteful schools. Small state, alot of 6 figure earning "administrators", retiring from one job and taking another, then double dipping on salary on pension, all on the taxpayer dime.

I respect him for trying to fight it honestly.
Jersey politics is separate from nationals my friend. Honest men do not last.
I can write a long 2 or 3 posts on the crap Corzine and Mc Greevey pulled in office.

I don't mind him either, frankly. The guy is all about the budget and with none of those social conservatism strings attached. And you're right about New Jersey schools; the pay and benefits are ridiculous. Those unions haven't gone quietly either, kicking and screaming at every cut. Honestly, the pay is still above the national average (better than in PA at least).

Just having a bit of fun with that helicopter incident.

[soopaman2]

I don't mind him either, frankly. The guy is all about the budget and with none of those social conservatism strings attached. And you're right about New Jersey schools; the pay and benefits are ridiculous. Those unions haven't gone quietly either, kicking and screaming at every cut. Honestly, the pay is still above the national average (better than in PA at least).

Just having a bit of fun with that helicopter incident.

Then again, look how McCain went from moderate (Or RINO) to far right in one campaign season pr e2008 elections. So you never know. I could be eating crow here.

You can have fun with how him and his family went off to Florida while a record blizzrd shut the state down, last winter. All state highways impassible, lack of plowing during the storm, and Christie is in Florida singing calypso songs, and doing the limbo.:woot:

People had to be literally rescued off the side of the road by helocopter, due to some crazy money saving policy with not plowing until the snow slows.

Anyone who lives in snow states knows you have to constantly plow throughout the storm. (just ask Minnesota or Wisconsin)

[ZeeWolf]

Yeah, there is only approximately 300 years of difference between the phenomena. I'll let you discover yourself which was born first.

Also, a dictionary wouldn't hurt if you want to throw terms around.

Dear Dr. Hottentot,
Why is it when I throw terms around I am sent straight to the dictionary. But
when some "New Marxist" liberal throws terms around they are put at the head
of the class and hailed as "Enlightened" Isn't this the way Pavlov's dog
was "Enlightened"?

Sincerely comrade ZeeWolf

[Sailor Steve]

No, it works. Clearly we will have peace once everyone is dead.
Well, everyone but me, anyway. :D

[August]

God bless the republicans, and their constituency.

That's what, like a third of the party once you get rid of the "tea-nuts" as you call them? Good luck beating the Democrats with those numbers. :up:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Drug abuse? Death penalty.
Gay? Death penalty.
Critical of the government? Death penalty.
Wrong religion? Death penalty.

Heard it all before.

No, it works. Clearly we will have peace once everyone is dead.

Well, everyone but me, anyway. :DSo lets see what Sailor Steve is... :hmmm:

Alcohol abusing, monk living in celibacy, exceptional, Great Leader loving citizen of Democratic People's Republic of Korea who happens to be atheist.

Did I get it correctly?

Edit: :hmmm: monk part doesn't fit well... gonna invent something else... :DL




:O:

Quickly digs foxhole...

[Tribesman]

Dear Dr. Hottentot
Hold on isn't he a rabbi anymore?

Why is it when I throw terms around I am sent straight to the dictionary. But
when some "New Marxist" liberal throws terms around they are put at the head
of the class and hailed as "Enlightened"
Thats because it is a jewish conspiracy, didn't you know:woot:

But hey, you'll have just another thing to wale about.

Do you mean that people are whipping the nazi scum?
Didn't someone suggest you buy a dictionary
Maybe those word books are a jewish conspiracy too.

[Oberon]

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/10/18/034719e3-0487-458f-ab46-2879464c2b1d.jpg

[Tribesman]

Is that a picture of a whale Oberon? I do get confused you sea.

[Oberon]

Is that a picture of a whale Oberon? I do get confused you sea.

Nope, it's a Wolf :yep:

[Bubblehead1980]

With nut jobs like that, Obama will be shoo-in come next election. The republican party really needs to weed out the circus clowns.


Sad isn't it Ducimus? Religious fools have ruined my party.

[gimpy117]

Sad isn't it Ducimus? Religious fools have ruined my party.

fools in general have ruined Washington...but that being said, I feel the republican party really has been lost for a while.

[Bubblehead1980]

fools in general have ruined Washington...but that being said, I feel the republican party really has been lost for a while.

To me Reagan was the last sensible mainstream Republican with religious views.Reagan believed in god, fine for him, but he believed in seperation of church and state. Now we have fools like Santorum who are just as bad as muslims who want islamic law, just as ignorant, just as dangerous.

[soopaman2]

To me Reagan was the last sensible mainstream Republican with religious views.Reagan believed in god, fine for him, but he believed in seperation of church and state. Now we have fools like Santorum who are just as bad as muslims who want islamic law, just as ignorant, just as dangerous.

Republicans used to be a really great party.

God fearing is ok, but using it to appeal to bible belt rubes is shallow. And what gets me is people have been falling for it since Christ got nailed to a piece of timber.(at least in modern times)

Look at the power of the Papacy during the medieval era. The reason Brazil exists as an ex portuguese colony and not a Spanish colony is because of the Pope at the time.

The power to mobilize multiple nations to fight in a Crusade, using Christ, and fear.

How about recent times.
Rev Jim Jones, of Jonestown Massacre fame. I listened to the death tape out of boredom one day, and was appalled out of all those people, only one woman tried to appeal the mass suicide...

Religion is a controlling measure for the simple minded. It has been since the ancient Mesopotamians, and will always be, when morons start killing each other over the "Mighty Robotic Waffle Iron Monster"

[Sailor Steve]

Look at the power of the Papacy during the medieval era. The reason Brazil exists as an ex portuguese colony and not a Spanish colony is because of the Pope at the time.
And the poor Brits had to make do with the scraps. Look where that got us.
:rotfl2:

[soopaman2]

And the poor Brits had to make do with the scraps. Look where that got us.
:rotfl2:

Britain did have America and India as colonies, that worked out well...Oh wait...My bad:yawn:

On the brightside, they still got the Falklands.

J/K. You know we love you Britain. :)

[Platapus]

Have any of santorum's writings indicated that he is a dominionist?

[CaptainHaplo]

Writings no... but he certainly has a fair relationship with a number of them....

Including Friess.

However, what I find odd is that we have the man stating his opinion, but the only suggestion of action he has made was a constitutional ammendmant - meaning a very lengthy process where HE can't force or ram through what he believes.

So he wants to have the discussion about a topic. He wants the NATION to have a discussion about a topic. A Constitutional Ammendment process involves the people.... Something wrong with that?

I would think that is better than letting the eggheads in DC get on Cspan and debate what they tell us they are going to do....