Jump to content
I'm glad you're happy to reside out there on the fringe. It means you've exculded yourself any meaningful national policy decisions.
From Washington-Obama, this country has never elected a President from anything other than one of the two major parties. Ever. The reasons for that have principally to do with the differeces between the two main electoral systems employed by Western representative republics: single-member district pluralities, and proportional representation. It's probably too much to expect Paulians to know which of those is used here, let alone the realities it imposes.
In all of American history, Roosevelt posted the best 3rd-party Presidential election results, garnering 27.4% of the popular vote in 1912. Ross Perot won 18.9% in 1992, and George Wallace 13.5% in 1968.
The only time Ron Paul appeared on all 50 General Election Presidential ballots (in 1988), he won 0.47% of the popular vote. THERE'S an electoral juggernaut for ya.
So I encourage you to write Paul on your November ballot. Support for that nutcase is so anemic, you will have no impact on the election and exert zero influence on the direction of the country.
A vote for Ron Paul is a wasted one, and increases the likelihood of the President's re-election.
A potted plant would be an improvement over Barack Obama.
Worst. President. Of my lifetime. Quite an achievement, as I never anticipated Jimmy Carter would ever be eclipsed in that regard.
If Obama ever visits, I hope he doesn't have the family dog working its way through the Presidential colon.
The phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Federalist Papers, the Declaration, or Constitution. The Establishment Clause was crafted to prevent the government from ever establishing or sanctioning an official state religion.
The “wall of separation” wasn't built until nearly two centuries after the Constitution was ratified; by the Supreme Court's 1947 Everson v. the Board of Education decision. It was a 5-4 ruling, in whose majority opinion that “wall of separation” language appears for the first time in American jurisprudence. The majority opinion was authored by former Ku Klux Klan lawyer Hugo Black, whom many believe was motivated in no small measure by his virulent antipathy for the Catholic Church (had it been up to Justice Black, American law would have prohibited a Catholic like JFK from getting anywhere near the Oval Office).
Everson has swung the pendulum to asinine extremes. As a card-carrying heathen, I believe the illegality of a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn to be ridiculous. Back in my old stomping grounds, there was a Seattle mayor who issued an executive order prohibiting anyone on the city payroll from uttering the words “merry Christmas.” Idiot much, Mr. Mayor? A number of other municipal executives have followed that lead in recent years. In 2009, a college (in Minnesota, IIRC) excused a blind student from class because his guide dog offended the Muslim students in attendance.
Staggering pinnacles of arrogance, sanctimony, and stupidity. And it's all brought to you by Everson in 1947 – not by James Madison in 1787.
Integrity isn't everything. Important, certainly. Unfortunately, not everyone has it. That's why those in authority have been granted the discretion to make judgment calls.
The NFL has recently come down hard on the New Orleans Saints. Not because of the infractions committed, but because the Saints lied about it.
The CDP makes an excellent argument. As a matter of law, Tarango should be green lighted. On the other hand, it's an opportunity for the Council to use its discretion to send a message: lie to us, and you can go pound sand. Future applicants might take note.
I don't want to see anyone playing tonsil hockey in public - straight, gay, or otherwise.
The rest of your rant is a juvenile contradiction. Extolling the virtues of free speech, then shrieking 'shut up shut up!' in the same breath, when someone you don't agree with presumes to exercise that right. It seems your embrace free speech is limited exclusively to you and those who agree with you. All others should "shut up", and not be allowed to speak. Newsflash: that's the opposite of free speech. If your passion were ever translated into policy, there would be little distinction between you and Stalin, Mao, Castro, et al.
Civil unions, yes. Marriage, no. Curiously, both Elton John and Rush Limbaugh are in agreement on that point.
Speaking of “seperation [sic]” of church and state, Rebelgirl, how do you feel about the state requiring religious institutions to abandon their own beliefs and principles by forcing them to subsidize – at taxpayer expense - the sexual activities of its members? How does that not violate “seperation [sic]” you claim to admire? Do you believe that you and I and the Jesuits at Georgetown should be obligated to pay for Sandra Fluke’s sex life? If so, then you probably wouldn’t have a problem with requiring Jews to work on the Sabbath, or Muslims to subsidize production of pork, or the imposition of mandatory military service for conscientious objectors like the Quakers.
You whine that Christians should “try following the words of your bible [sic]”. My understanding is that the Bible condemns homosexuality, so be careful what you ask for. The reality is that your desire for believers honor their convictions is nothing more than duplicitous bs. You want Christians to behave Biblically only when their convictions are in lockstep with yours. Once they disagree with your sanctimonious condescension, you’d just as soon have them flush the Bible down the crapper.
Hmm. There was briefly a post from ranger blasting me for my "blinders." Now it's gone. Curious.
What is it you believe me to be blind to?
Last login: Thursday, February 13, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.