226
Spin Zone / Re: The world is FLAT not ROUND
« on: February 06, 2016, 07:31:55 PM »
Jonesy, good to see you!!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
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???.
Bold added
Honestly, yes. It is OK to politicize our Founding Principles. The issue with Progressives is that they aren't honest about it.
If you want to repeal the first amendment, go ahead and propose doing so. Don't say "We need to get money out of politics." (McCain-Feingold attack on free speech) or "We need to get religion out of politics." (Attack on the Free Exercise clause)
I actually have a lot more respect for Sanders because he's up front about being against the economic system that built the country. I think he's wrong, and that his "solutions" would be devastating to this country, but at least he's honest about what he wants to do. Unlike Clinton who wants to tear it down, but is dishonest about it.
Back to the original point. I don't believe in having "sacred cows" that cannot ever be challenged. And that applies to the founding principles too. The framers were not perfect men, and they understood that, and provided a mechanism for correcting errors (hint to progs...it's Article V, not Article III).
I think everybody does that. The document is only about 4500 words. That's like a 22 page 8 1/2" x 11" booklet to run the USA with. People say, if it's not in the constitution, then it's not legal, but there really isn't that much in the constitution, so it's more like everything is legal until the SCOTUS says it isn't.
Amendment XThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
[
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?
That includes the sitting President.probably a few people need to understand what the Executive branch is responsible for and what the Legislative branch is responsible for.
Sadly, people seem to think now that the president runs the whole show and controls everything.
This latest dust up could be the exact excuse Sanders needs to pursue his socialist revolution as an Independent, while taking his crowds with him.
Then the response would be to select an administration next year that would support the people's desires and willingness to fight radical Islam.The President wants to be friends with everyone around the world, which clearly isn't working. I think the other part of it is that he wants to be able to end his term and say that he didn't have any terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during his time. That's why he would rather classify it as work place violence or under some other cause.I agree that the French response has been more visible and stronger. I also agree that we should have a better response. However, let's also not forget that when France passed their state of emergency they eroded a lot of citizen's rights. Part of the state of emergency powers allows the government to forbid mass gatherings, limit movements of people and increase the monitoring of people. We don't want to go down that road here. That's allowing the terrorists to win in my book.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/france-nationwide-state-of-emergency
I don't disagree, and that's a good point. We've seen that anarchy as recently as Hurricane Katrina, with gun confiscations in New Orleans.
But I think our unwillingness to fight radical Islam right here may be our existential downfall.
As a whole, I don't think it's the American people's unwillingness to fight radical Islam, I think it's that of a select few, those who are in or close to the current administration.
Starting with Michegan, 26 states have refused President Obama's scheme to resettle Syrian "refugees" in their states. Shepherd Smith at Foxnews is going apoplectic over this as well as a host of progressives in and out of government.
The President clear said that ISiS was not a danger, so why is he so firmly demanding these "refugees" are in such peril? If ISIS is not a problem, how come the "refugees" aren't being sent home?
The whole scheme is a traitorous conspiracy to move future democrat voters into states that can be changed over to insure the democrats don't get their asses kicked next November, at the peril of bringing gin tens of thousands of violent terrorists along with them.
Typical progressive logic.