Bullshit. Pull your gear and flaps up, and stop depending on someone else for your navigation.  The extra drag is fully self inflicted at this point in history.

I have less of an issue when a Cabinet Secretary (Dole) or Congress itself (the National Minimum Drinking Age Act) lobby/pressure states.


I do have an issue when executive agencies do it.  Again, this is a new issue that I've not deeply considered before.

I actually thought it was against the law for federal funds to be used to influence local politics/elections, maybe just election/ballot issues in particular but I agree this is troubling.

'Gimp

See... this is where you can actually follow up with your perspective instead of a one line sentence that leaves us- wonder what that might be???.

I think of MMGW as a hiding place for people with nothing to substantiate their twisted sense of entitlement. Many dull, shallow people, look for ways to introduce a theme that their culture (PC bullspit artistry) has made off limits, as far as resistance. Much like mentioning Barack Obama's fancy, fake birth certificate has become an automatic way to be labeled stupid, crazy, or more ugly things, standing up to the absolute fabrications of the MMGW crowd comes with automatic derision.
Everyone knows how Barack Obama stared right at the camera and claimed MMGE causes terrorism, but when asked why that MMGW caused terrorism only affects Muslims, he got mad and ended the interview. The fact that he pretended something so preposterous was supposed to be protected by the PC rules of engagement on the topic and the reporter refused to play.

Neat forum y'all have over here. 


Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!

Quote from: nddons on January 24, 2016, 10:30:01 AM

I've never been a "gamer" so what you are describing may as well have been written in Cyrillic.

But I can see why you do this. Flying your Yak must be so boring and repetitive.

I am a man of varied interests and capabilities.   

It will be good for the 5 or 6 days a year I truly 'can't' fly the Yak due to weather, like yesterday.

'Gimp

Quote from: nddons on January 23, 2016, 12:58:45 PM

Quote from: Kristin on January 23, 2016, 12:34:27 PM

Quote from: nddons on January 23, 2016, 12:24:17 PM

Quote from: Kristin on January 23, 2016, 12:14:48 PM

Quote from: nddons on January 23, 2016, 09:40:16 AM

Quote from: Kristin on January 23, 2016, 12:28:36 AM

Quote from: nddons on January 22, 2016, 06:54:02 AM

Quote from: Joe-KansasCity on January 22, 2016, 04:35:30 AM

Quote from: Kristin on January 21, 2016, 10:30:38 PM

[
Whichever one that would be, it would not be Cruz who has no understanding of the separation of church and state.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

What specific language do you feel Cruz has violated, or shown a lack of comprehension?

Kristin, I'm sorry if you misread the syllabus in law school and you thought your C-law class section on the First Amendment read "Freedom From Religion."

You might start with Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) and Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947).  Both quote Jefferson's letter to the Baptists promising a wall of separate between church and state.  Then we have a whole raft to decisions from there making clear that any governmental promotion of a religion is unconstitutional.

If you have had the pleasure of taking Con Law you must have slept through it.

Oooh. Landmark cases. Impressive. Now tell me one thing that Cruz has proposed that violates Jefferson's metaphor of the "wall of separation." 

And your lame claim of what he said in Iowa isn't one of them.

Why is it so tough to just admit that you want the First Amendment to mean a Freedom FROM Religion?

It does mean freedom from state supported religion.

Duh. Any 8th grader should know that.  But that's not what concerns you in Cruz's case, is it?

My concern with Cruz is either that he is pandering or that he is a Christian bigot who thinks science is a waste of time because all answers to our existence is in Genesis.

So your concerns changed from post #47 when you said Cruz is not a Constitutionalist because he doesn't understand the separation of church and state?  Because that was kind of the point of this whole discussion, wasn't it? 

Can you fill me in on what Cruz has said that makes him a "Christian bigot?"  I don't think you've articulated that yet.

While you're at it, can you cite any statement of Cruz where he said or implied that "science is a waste of time"?  Or can we conclude that you're so bigoted against all Christians that you are simply projecting your hatred toward a candidate that you despise, who happens to be Christian?

I consider a statement saying that if you don't start the day praying that you are not fit to be President a pretty good example of bigotry.

Cruz has spend lots of time getting cozy with the creationist crowd.  I recall him being asked if he accepted any aspects of evolution and he ducked the question.  It is a fair one considering his father is an outspoken support of creationist theory ala Genesis.