That's not socialism, that's being smart.  Socialism is the centralization of an economy and its production.  Armies, police and fire by necessity fall under the control of government, that isn't socialism and we won't let you redefine the term to make it seem innocuous.   Health care, food production, energy production, manufacturing and pretty much everything else are best left to markets, where the weak producers fall by the wayside and the successful are rewarded. There are example after example of socialist failures throughout history and even in modern times.

Quote from: nddons on January 24, 2016, 08:42:28 AM

Another trait of the liberals is to degrade anyone who is conservative, mock them as being stupid, uneducated and devoid of anything intelligent.

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #5 and 13:

5.  “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

13.  “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

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.

Whenever anyone trouts out 'separation of church and state' when speaking about a candidate who is not a muslim that discussion is over for me - it represents such a monumental lack of critical thinking or comprehension of the founding as to be the debate equivalent of jumping the shark - there is simply no point in continuing with someone without a foundation in logic and history.

I literally lose all respect for anyone who does that on whatever subject they do it with.

'Gimp

Reagan wasn't electable.

Quote from: Joe-KansasCity on January 20, 2016, 02:39:00 PM

Quote from: Kristin on January 20, 2016, 12:14:19 PM

If you are responding to my post, your reading comprehension is suffering.  I made no value comparison between Hillary and Bernie.  I am merely predicting, albeit unhappily, that the GOP seem likely to saddle us with either Hillary or the socialist because the primary voters seem likely to pick either Cruz or Trump, neither of whom is electable.

That is a ridiculous asserting given the fact we elected a far-left radical the last two elections.  The idea that only a centrist can win elections is hogwash.  The business as usual crowd are being proven wrong in spades so far in this election cycle.  The population is tired of the ridiculous spending and governing against the will of the people.  There will be a conservative in the White House following the election this fall.

So you think that because the electorate went left in 2008 and 2012 that they are now going to come screaming back going hard conservative to the point that they will overlook the idiocy of Trump and Cruz.  Talk about ridiculous.  However, these are just competing opinions.  Time will tell.

Your Royals have a better chance of winning the World Series in 2016 than Trump or Cruz do have being President, and no one seems to be betting on them to repeat.

If you are responding to my post, your reading comprehension is suffering.  I made no value comparison between Hillary and Bernie.  I am merely predicting, albeit unhappily, that the GOP seem likely to saddle us with either Hillary or the socialist because the primary voters seem likely to pick either Cruz or Trump, neither of whom is electable.