“1. I agree with the view that separation of church and state is one way in the sense that government cannot interfere with religion but religion is free to influence government (so long as government does not establish an official [or national] religion without amending the Constitution). Do you disagree?
2. I think you're being overly combative and you didn't read my reply as I wrote it. I said that I concurred that the GOP's deification of Reagan is foolish and that I agreed that the national debt skyrocketed under his administration. But I emphasized that I also disagree with his glorification as GOP saint because he supported and signed into law gun control during his governorship of California. It seems to me that you approve of his former support for gun control. Do you know who he was targeting when he signed increased gun control into law? (As in, name the targeted party, not yes / no.)
3. Congress as a whole IS dysfunctional. We can't talk about reforming entitlements without reducing the conversation to one of "oh, you want to take away Grandma's Medicare?" We can't talk about cutting spending because it's never a "good" time to do that.
4. If you were debating a creationist and he said "if you can't find evidence of creationism, you haven't looked at all because there is copius [sic] amounts of research and data all around you," would you buy that? No? Then you see why your response is problematic.”
“5. The Bush Tax Cuts were problematic in many ways, but even the Washington Post stated that they "increased take-home pay for middle-class workers." Now, perhaps the "majority" of Americans aren't middle class, so I am not refuting what you said. But there's a reason why the Democrats pushed to extend them.
“1. Are you referring to how some (many?) Republicans have a different view of what separation of church and state means?
2. I concur that the Republican Party's deification of Ronald Reagan is foolish. While I agree that the national debt (not just the deficit) skyrocketed under Reagan's administration, I also point out that Reagan supported (and signed into law) gun control when he was Governor of California. (I am not sure whether you think that was a bad thing, hence the concurrence.)
3. It's rather disingenuous of you to blame the Tea Party for S&P's downgrade. Congress as a whole is simply dysfunctional and has been for some time.
4. I don't dispute that the Republican Party has a poor track record of spending. That's why I voted Libertarian last election (but supported Ron Paul in the GOP primaries). As for union busting, I do not agree with the view that union membership should be essentially a requirement for employment. Regarding regulations and financial disaster, I'm not aware of research that causally establishes a link between deregulation and financial crises.”
George From NYC on Feb 13, 2013 at 12:00:06
“1. Why yes, yes I am. Most reasoning Americans don't find a difference of opinion to be problematic, but when you have people trying to actively re-write history to support their conjecture, then people get nervous. It's not about a difference in "views", it's about basing your opinions on hyperbole and then using that as some kind of justification for numerous laws that violate the Constitution.
2. So because Reagan signed strict gun control, we are to completely ignore the things he did that mirror the complaints we have about our current President? Remember what Cheney said, "reagan proved that deficits don't matter". It seems that the current chicken little argument that conservatives have jumped on, makes no sense.
3. Congress as a whole is not disfunctional. People have seen deals scuttled time after time because Boehner can't deliver his caucus. The reason? Because a minority of tea party members of the republican party are the fly in the ointment. The tea party obstruction is the direct cause of the downgrade. They want to hold the full faith and credit of the United States hostage as a bargaining tool.
4. Yes, the republicans are far worse spenders than anyone else. Being a financial proffessional, I can assure you that deregulation of banks via the repeal of Glass-Steagall was the direct cause of all our fianancial problems. If you can't find research, you haven't looked at all because there is copius amounts of research and data all around you.”
talking about respect for the Constitution and the Second Amendment while your party constantly attacks the First Amendment might seem highly hypocritical to many reasoning Americans.
Quoting Reagan, "Ronald Reagan said, government is not the answer to the problem, government is the problem.", while completely ignoring the fact that Reagan tripled the deficit might be considered hypocritical.
Saying "Not only should the sequester stand, many pundits say the sequester really needs to be at least $4 trillion to avoid another downgrade of America’s credit rating" while ignoring the fact that repeated obstructionism on the part of the tea party is what lead to the downgrade.
He says "Our party is the party of growth, jobs and prosperity" Despite the fact that the republican party has been the party of spendiing, union busting, and repealing regulations that lead to financial disaster.
Saying, "The only stimulus ever proven to work is leaving more money in the hands of those who earned it!" despite the evidence that trickle down economics and Bush tax cuts had no affect on the majority of Americans.
Saying "We must be the party who sees immigrants as assets, not liabilities", while members of your party denigrate and insult immigrants while passing legislation that targets immigrants.
Saying, "We will not let any President use executive orders to impinge on the Second Amendment." While completely ignoring that Bush signed twice as many executive orders as Obama has.
“I also disagree with Roman's analysis. Let's take a look at "Parents Involved" from 2007. IIRC, Kennedy did not join Roberts's opinion in full because Kennedy stated that it is permissible to pursue the goal of "diversity, depending on its meaning and definition." I think Roman forgot that the "depending on" part is crucial to Kennedy. The oral argument in Fisher suggests that Kennedy is realizing that to liberals, "diversity" means race counts above all.”
lady1646 on Apr 12, 2013 at 14:36:06
“Hiding in the background is the inconvenient truth that U. Texas at Austin, like many other flagship state schools, has brought this situation upon itself. The admissions officer surely know about the racial achievement gap in primary and secondary education yet they continue to ramp up the admissions standards and tuitions with the clear understanding that such a decision will have a negative impact against minority applicants in larger proportions. Thus intentional racial discrimination becomes necessary because the university does not want to choose between elite status and racial diversity. They could simply lower the standard, perform a lottery, and divert all the money wasted on "diversity experts" in the form of scholarships. The lack of willingness to make this change casts doubt on the assertion that racial diversity is a "compelling interest" worthy of overriding the 14th amendment.”
“1. If the Second Amendment were a communitarian right, why then does the Amendment say that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
2. Etzioni doesn't once mention the war on drugs, which is a major contributor to gun violence in the United States. It's humorous that he approves of Mexico's recent move to domestic disarmament when Mexico already had very strict gun laws and yet had horrific gun violence due to...wait for it...the war on drugs.”
“"Sometimes war is necessary. When people bomb bases in Hawaii, or run planes into buildings, a strong leader knows the difference."
War against whom? The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis; why haven't we invaded and occupied Saudi Arabia? They are not democratic; they are an absolute monarchy ruled by the House of Saud.
"A person doesn't have to bomb black churches, to be considered racist. Opposing those who fought for civil rights, goes against the constitution, just as the American Revelation."
Paul's heroes include Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks. Paul was the only member of Congress willing to put up his own money to pay for a medal for Parks.
"Admit that Dr. Paul delivers babies, and is not an expert on the American monetary system. I have an MBA, and will quickly defer to Paul about my third trimester of pregnancy, not on how to run the federal reserve."
An MBA doesn't make you an expert on the American monetary system.
"Stop excusing his racist views, for the things he gets right. We went through that during the 1930's. It can only lead to disaster."
Paul views people as individuals, not as members of groups. When you do that, you cannot be racist.”
maninal2 on Jan 5, 2012 at 18:21:37
“"Paul views people as individuals, not as members of groups. When you do that, you cannot be racist. "
“Yeah, she exposed him so well that she dropped out of the race.”
NebDem78 on Jan 4, 2012 at 18:01:38
“She exposed him to the voters of Iowa. Ron Paul would have won Iowa if MB had not questioned his stance on foreign policy. He was climbing in the polls in Iowa, but after that debate all of the gains he made were for naught.”