Show off your holiday lights and you could win an iPad! Enter your photo by December 13. Winner will be selected by popular vote.
A little madness in the Spring/is wholesome even for the King.
What’s driving you insane today?
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. This is what our political and scientific discourse has come to.
Apparently Ted Kaczynski, the Unibomber, accept man made global warming so it would be wrong for you or anyone else to accept it either. Otherwise the terrorists win.
Wait until you see the billboard, put up by The Heartland Institute, a right-wing think tank funded in part, by the Koch brothers.
You want madness?? The Texas Attorney General will give you madness.
And some say there is no way on women. I’d like to have the following entered as exhibit gazillion.
In the ongoing battle over funding for Planned Parenthood as part of the Women’s Health Program in Texas, that state’s attorney general made an argument in federal court that is both outrageous and hypocritical, using a federal anti-terrorism law to justify cutting off funds from PP because it would “free up” money to be used for abortions…..
The “federal material-support statute” that Abbott mentions makes it a felony to give money to a terrorist organization, even if the funds are specified for nonterrorist activities. Abbott makes the argument that giving Medicaid money to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings, pap smears, STD testing and birth control is akin to giving a terrorist organization money for humanitarian activities…..
Is this where we are headed in the US?
Sorry. That was supposed to read ‘war on women’ instead of ‘no way on women’. Oops.
Hey,,, if the shoe fits
Cry that they think people are that stupid. Cry more that some are.
Maybe we should put up a Manson photo and say, “He still thinks it is all a government plot too!”
@3 Chuck, maybe that is where we’re headed. Please see the following links. But read the articles instead of assuming you know what’s in them from the titles.
I am not clear on how we can know or agree on “where we are going” when it appears we cannot agree on where we have been.
I think anyone wearing a t-shirt for 12 days straight is not even trying to hide their agenda. If his judging is allowed, what stops “God hates______” next? He was not stopped in public, this was in a school, which has a right to a dress code, like it or not.
Poor Obama, it’s been a tough week what with the Chicoms taking the human rights activist, Chen, from US control and the vets “swiftboating” ad taking Obama to task for spiking the ball and taking all the credit for killing Osama.
April’s job report continues on its dismal course with the economy only creating a meager 115,000 jobs during the month.
Though liberal headlines indicated job creation, the total employment level for April actually fell 169,000. The jobless rate decreased to 8.1% but this only reflects a drop in the labor force participation rate, that is those folks actually looking for jobs, which fell to 63.6%, the lowest level since December 1981.
Hey Obama, where are the jobs? Is this what he meant by the catchy campaign slogan “Forward”? Looks like the Obama non recovery is really moving backward!
I can’t help but wonder if you would be so supportive, like it or not, of the dress code, if the student were being suspended for wearing a t-shirt expressing support for gay marriage or gun control. I mean if the issue is truly about enforcing a dress code to prevent political agendas or offending others, then wouldn’t those issues also have to be suppressed?
Given that this is about Nova Scotia and not the US, the discussion is largely hypothetical, but there seems to be quite a difference in saying a government funded school can’t support or promote a particular religion and saying a student, i.e. private citizen, can’t do the same. While your derision of folks over at Dan Casey’s blog for selectively forgetting the “well-regulated clause” of the 2nd amendment was interesting, it may not have been altogether sincere. I say this because liberals invariably choose to ignore the “free exercise” clause of the 1st amendment.
I do not think this story is about anything being “suppressed” necessarily, but 12 days in a row is not just wearing a T-shirt that challenges thinking or “might offend”. There is advocacy and there is activism and then there is offensive advocacy and activism. Since there is hardly an activist t-shirt, including Global Warming, “Save the Pandas” (or any animal), gay rights, gun advocacy, women’s rights, or offensive band names and “artwork”, that someone is not going to be offended by, I think schools would be well within their rights not to allow “advocacy” apparel, at a minimum certainly advocacy that insults anyone who does not agree, but sure, some would go “unreported”. I am not sure why you think I would not be supportive of that. I HATE offensive people and t-shirts, but the First Amendment gives people the right to be one and wear the other. Schools are allowed to control for more than society as a whole. Granted, not without being called socialists or authoritarians but that is the mentality of the upbraided.
I have never ignored the “free exercise” clause, although it leads to just these issues. Perhaps you are confusing “free exercise in the government functions”…which ain’t in there. That is and will remain my main problem with “free exercise”.
For those who do not cross blogs, I responded to Bob H about where in the Constitution the “separation of church and state” was found by saying: I guess it is in the same place as “corporations are people my friend”, Bob H. Either you see it, or you don’t. I don’t see the Constitution granting rights to only some citizens either, but many assure me “it’s in there”.
If I am pressed, I suppose that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” which clearly and absolutely means they are two separate things to most of us. Of course, if you take “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” out of the 2nd Amendment, I can see where you would take the first clause out of the 1st Amendment too.
And for all that John R, the contrast is still between a man who epitomizes the American story and a Wall Street Corporate Raider who epitomizes the 1%. Good luck with that.
I drove by Elmwood Park today expecting to see the local Occupy folks…only to see the corner empty!
I guess the fight against evil capitalism and the rotten 1% only happens on weekends.
What a joke…
If it wasn’t for that 1%, the country would be worse off than it is. They provide the jobs. Whatever jobs there are comes from the private sector.
The fact that the US economy is not in a depression is a testament to its strength, not Obama’s policies. Any recovery that the economy may have will be inspite of Obama, not because of Obama.
Case in point is Obama appointed Al Armendariz, the EPA regional administrator for the southwestern US, the largest producing area of oil and gas in the country, who said the agency’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” oil and gas producers.
Armendariz’s now discredited claims of water contamination due to hydraulic fracturing in Parker County, Texas, targeted Range Resources, a driller that has since been exonerated. The court found that there was no basis for the EPA’s claim of water contamination. Purly a witch hunt without facts to destroy an industry.
Armendariz was a well known radical anti-fossil fuel environmental activist with little experience in the gas and oil industry before his appointment. He was appointed by Obama to do just what he said, “crucify” the oil and gas industry. He probably doesn’t understand why he was asked to resign, he was only carrying out orders.
If Obama wanted to create jobs, he would approve the Canadian pipeline tommorrow. He doesn’t. He just wants to destroy oil, gas, and coal thru regulation. What an idiot!
They do not “provide jobs” they go into business to make a profit and they need employees to make that business work. No business has more employees than they can afford or more than the production need demands. They serve their needs by hiring workers.
A society will adapt and the people of talent and ability will be “in demand” and “business” will develop. Society serving jobs are still jobs, they still contribute and they still matter to any nation.
“The fact that the US economy is not in a depression is a testament to” the efforts of both the Bush and Obama administrations working to stabilize the financial markets that the economy runs on. I disagree absolutely that the actions and stimulus did not help keep us from a true depression. And I disagree that the policies Obama has instituted and is pursuing will not be instrumental in our recovery.
There is no perfect government, no perfect business and no perfect system. You can hunt and pick failures and problems and I can do the same for successes and important actions. Saving the US auto industry is my number one example of a good decision and millions of jobs saved.
I saw the chart tonight that this nation has been losing jobs since 2001. The aughts were indeed the decade of no job growth. This recession is real and serious but the fear tactics and ODS is just silly partisan politics.
If you want people to abandon President Obama and the work he has done for this nation, you need to offer something a whole lot better than a Wall Street Corporate Raider who helped many of those jobs leave this nation in pursuit of profit not “providing jobs”.
The “Canadian pipeline” has too few jobs to even register on the scale in the big picture. Pure partisan political posturing from people thinking voters will believe the lie. I do not think President Obama is the idiot!
“Conservatives say if you don’t give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest – as for the poor, they tell us they’ve lost all incentive because we’ve given them too much money.” ~George Carlin
@9 Hey Capitalism, where are all the jobs?
We’ve given you everything you wanted. More executive pay. A lower corporate tax rate. A lower capital gains tax rate. We’re working more hours for less pay. We bailed out your banks and your auto industry.
Please Capitalism, tell us. What more do you want from us?
…..unless it’s not us or the President or anything else. What if it’s Capitalism’s fault??
@10 Chuck, please see this link for a picture of the T-shirt. It seems pretty inoffensive as things go.
…I’m all for students having freedom to express their beliefs. But that doesn’t mean I approve of this shirt. There’s a pretty clear reason why:
It insults people who don’t believe in Jesus. It says very directly that they’re wasting their lives and that they’re worthless. It’s a form of bullying. (It’s also completely false — How many brilliant people have made contributions to our world without believing in Christian nonsense? It’s a shirt anyone can refute with about 2 seconds of thought.)
If Swinimer wore a shirt that said, “Life is great with Jesus,” I don’t think I would care much at all. That’s a personal message with positive tones (at least in theory). It’s no different than students expressing themselves by wearing a cross. Or atheists saying we can be good without god. It doesn’t say anything negative about people who don’t agree with your beliefs….
@15 John R., your understanding of economics is poor. The idea that the richest 1% provide the jobs is hogwash at best. The whole economy is interconnected. It is not a top down affair. Capitalism on the other hand is a bottom up affair which acts as a pump funneling money from the many to the few.
I’m helping my youngest study for his upcoming SOLs. They’re already being taught “economics”. They’ve learned a “definition” of ‘natural resources’(natural materials intended to be used up), ‘human resources’(how’s it feel being compared to something meant to be used up?), and ‘capital resources’(they gave examples like machines, etc). They also talked about opportunity costs and having to make choices because we can’t have everything we want or need.
Think about that for a second. They are already teaching them to accept they can’t have everything they want or need. Maybe that’s because they’re not rich and attend public school instead of private school?
But it got me to thinking. Why include commodities like manufacturing machines in capital resources but not talk about actual capital, meaning money? Can’t capital be considered a “resource”. If people need a place to live and people need food and water and people need, etc. why aren’t we thinking about money that way? If people should have an equitable share of the resources such as water, air, shelter, etc. shouldn’t people be given an equitable share of money?
Think of it another way. Suppose one person owned a vast forest but lots of people owned a smaller forest. This forest has to provide food, shelter, etc. for the population. Obviously those who own little are going to have to manage struggle, etc. much more than the person who owns a lot. The small forest owners have opportunity costs because their choices are limited.
But if you look at the forest as a whole, there is plenty for everyone. No opportunity costs because there is no scarcity. Allowing one person to say “all this is mine and that little bit is yours” is an artificial human construct that can be changed if we want it.
Not only that, but the owners of the vast forest is a job creator only in so far as she allows others to come use her forest.
@14 Michael, I’m not involved with OWS but I’ve been in touch this week with someone who is. Perhaps you got there too early. It sounds like they will be there today.
Instead of being derogatory, perhaps you should stop and speak with them.
The government does not create jobs. Capitalism produces the greatest economic success, much more so than any form of socialism.
Look to Europe and its failed version of socialism. Immediately following WW II, western Europe had robust growing economies. In the 70′s, entitlement programs began to drown out their economies leading to high unemployment and a modest at best GDP became the norm. Their cost of entitlements continued to smother economic growth and now they are bankrupt, fallen back into recession, and unemployment is 25% or more in some areas.
Germany, because of their austerity measures instituted several years ago such as cutting taxes, reducing corp. taxes, and making it easier to hire and fire employees, is doing the best of the European economies.
If all the tax hikes planned to take effect beginning in ’13 do take place, the US economy will fall back into recession. Thanks, Obama!
Unfortunately, high unemployment and sluggish GDP growth has become the norm for the US economy as the last 3 years have witnessed. We are going down the same path as the euro zone. A country, just as a family, cannot live beyond its means for long.
Big government is far more evil than big business.
To #14 (Michael) and #21 (Scott M.): I’m not offended by the absence of Occupy Roanoke protesters during the week. Indeed, if they’re only active on the weekends, it probably means they have jobs. Contrast that with the OWS protesters in Zuccotti Park in NYC, who essentially set up a giant squatters’ camp filled with legions of people who could find nothing else useful to do. [Their camp had become quite filthy and dangerous before NYC officials finally kicked them out.]
And given that the Occupy Roanoke group hasn’t joined with anarchists and/or professional agitators, they’ve been much more civil when they are active. [That's one reason I like living in the south. "Southern hospitality" is for real.]
On the other hand, I wonder if Occupy Roanoke is simply dying off. Their website, http://occupyroanokeva.com/, hasn’t been updated in over two months. And I still have little feel for what their goals are.
@22 John, now I’m just embarrassed for you.
To #22 (John R): You said, “If all the tax hikes planned to take effect beginning in ’13 do take place, the US economy will fall back into recession.” This is the “fiscal cliff” or “Taxmageddon” of which many economists are warning: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/sunday-review/coming-soon-taxmageddon.html?pagewanted=all
It’s about a $500 billion per year tax hike. 5X the size of the payroll tax cut we’ve had in 2011 and 2012. [And sadly, even such an enormous tax hike would still not be enough to eliminate the federal deficit. We'd only be borrowing $700 billion per year instead of $1.2 trillion, and this (ahem) rather optimistically assumes that the tax hike would not have a negative impact on the economy or economic growth.]
We’ll also be bumping into the debt limit at about the same time.
However, I’m doubtful that Congress will let all of this happen. They’ll be realistic and say, “This is too much hike for one year”. Unfortunately, then they’ll start arguing about which cuts/hikes to preserve and which to eliminate. Arguments will abound. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And then, at the very end, they’ll pass a hastily-written, minimally-vetted bill that’ll require them to take up the issue again at the end of 2013, instead of fixing it once and for all.
And during all of these arguments, businesses will be looking into the future, trying to figure out how to make plans. And it’ll be damned difficult, given how much uncertainty Washington will be imposing on them. A lot of businesses will “hunker down” until the smoke clears and they can finally understand all of the new rules, meaning that our economy will be somewhat suppressed until early 2013. Uncertainty is a job-killer!!
#21 – I have spoken to some Occupy folks, Scott, and it was very enlightening.
Big Business OWNS Big Government. There is so little difference, they are partners for all intents and purposes and your denials and avowals of the joy of capitalism came home to roost when their destruction of the economy became apparent.
You WANT the economic crisis to be about poor people who could not afford home buying them, but the market takes care of that at every level.
You WANT the deficit to be about Obama and his “wasteful spending”, but the recession and decade of lost jobs made that spending a certainty.
You WANT the truth to be that it was “entitlements” and “socialist policy” that caused this instability, but the reality is that capitalism rides a gravy train or pulls their assets and moves on.
The TP/GOP supported the destruction of this nation with complicit pols and big business money. You know the bipartisan legislation that led us to this point, you know that everything, including tax cuts have a tipping point and we reached ours under Bush. We are paying for many mistakes and much deliberate mayhem caused by capitalism. And that was WITH regulations.
I know America will survive and thrive again, but I am well aware that just because “the hair of the dog that bit us” will be the vehicle does not ignore the bite, it just accepts the terms of them owning the pound. They always have. They will create jobs and allow some trickle down as soon as they can make the money they require to do so. Not a moment sooner, no matter who is President.
“They’ll be realistic“. Yeah, that’s what they will be. They will, as usual, do what business wants because voters can be fooled and owners cannot. USA Inc. That is our reality. The rest is window dressing. And if we want jobs, we’ll shut up and take it. Again.
They will create jobs and allow some trickle down as soon as they can make the money they require to do so. Not a moment sooner, no matter who is President.
@26 I appreciate that Michael. I prefer to think of you as a person who actually examines issues instead of just an ideologue. Thank you for helping me see you as a more rounded individual.
@29 – No worries, Scott.
“Perhaps you are confusing “free exercise in the government functions”…which ain’t in there.”
I know what’s in the Constituion and what’s not and unlike you, I don’t assume or pretend it says or means things it doesn’t because I think it should. So while I’m not confused, I think you might be. The Bill of Rights restricts government action, not the action of private citizens. There is no Constitutional prohibition against a private citizen promoting a religious agenda ANYWHERE, so long as the government doesn’t help him do it. If the school provided the t-shirt, there’d be a problem. However, when the school says a student can’t express his/her religious beliefs, the school, a government agency, is not enforcing the separation clause. Instead it is violating the free exercise clause.
And once again, you dear Sandi, are putting words in my mouth. I guess it helps win the argument when you make up about half of the other person’s argument. I have never disregarded the militia clause. You, on the other hand tend to always disregard the free exercise clause. You also seem to deeply cling to the fundamental misunderstanding about the separation of church and state described above, so I’ll explain it one more time. The amendments restrict GOVERNMENT action, not private citizen action. If teachers were wearing t-shirts advocating a particular religion, there would be a separation issue. However, students do NOT become government agents simply by virtue of going to a public school. Therefore, the Constitution does NOT prohibit the students from making religious statements or choosing one religion over another.
Oh, and while we’re at it, tell me again where the Constitution guarantees anyone the right not to be offended. The fact that someone professes their religious beliefs publicly is a Constituional violation because it might offend someone? That isn’t a Constituional issue. It’s yet another issue that arose from a misguided sense of political correctness intended protect the thin skinned and narrow-minded from any thoughts differnet from their own. Talk about a straw man argument.
The Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire, as they were passed as temporary measures by the Republican congress and Bush administration in 2001 and 2003. Allowing them to expire would return us to the tax rates we had under Clinton, when we actually had a balanced budget and a booming economy. We might not have a balanced budget now under current circumstances, but the short term and long term debt situation would be greatly improved.
You really need to stop drinking the koolaid my friend. Your post about the government creating jobs is so wrong on even the most elementary of levels, it’s truly sad that someone of the 21st century even espouses such nonsense.
Simple example for you:
The military of the United States requires guns, planes and munitions to supply its fighting forces. It has to obtain those supplies from somewhere…do you seriously believe that if the military didn’t require those things that someone would just go out and build a B-52 bomber just for the hell of it?
The military complex creates thousands of jobs in the country from a civilian perspective.
Sheesh yourself! I’m not the one that is misinformed. I live in the real world, you seem to be in some sort of parallel universe.
I believe Boeing Aircraft is a private sector company. What does the government make? Nothing! The only manned US space program is now in the private sector since Obama cancelled the NASA manned program, which envolved private sector companies. No jobs there!
All manufacturing, construction, most R&D, and innovation as well as new company startups come from the private sector. And all those government contracts are paid for with taxpayer money wich comes from the people and private companies, plus Chicom loans, unfortunately.
You mistakenly equate the cost of the government running the nation through contracts with the private sector with government job creation. You probably favor nationalizing private industry which would then be true government job creation. That’s called socialism. Are you a socialist?
What happens when the government accepts a contract for military tanker aircraft from Europe’s Airbus? That does not stimulate US jobs. What happens when the government blocks the Canadian pipeline, oil drilling leases, coal mining, logging, natural gas drilling, nuclear plant construction, etc. No private sector jobs!
Your friend Obama is planning to cut the military drastically, reverting the navy and air force back to pre WW II size, and reducing the the standing army by half. That will be a big hit on the private sector which I am sure pleases the liberals.
The government needs to get out of the way and let the private sector create jobs. The government picking winners and losers as in subsidising the “green energy” sector only increases debt e.g. Solyndra and other green sector company bankruptsies at taxpayer expense. No jobs!
No, the government does not create jobs. And the Obama admin. is a job destroyer. If the government created jobs, where are they? That $1T stimulus did not create jobs. Don’t tell me “hey, things would have been worse…” How?
The govenment just transfers wealth, it creates nothing.
“[Bush tax cuts] were passed as temporary measures by the Republican congress and Bush administration in 2001 and 2003″
The GOP did not intend for the tax cuts to expire, it was hopped that a future Congress would continue them on, just as Obama and the Dems did thanks to the Nov. ’10 midterm elections where the Dems took a such beating. The only way the GOP could pass the Bush tax cuts was to set them to expire. Otherwise they would never have passed.
Many economists believe if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire plus the implementation of Obamacare will result in a 30% drop in the stock market and send the US economy back into recession.
For those that really care, read:
Do you liberals really believe that just raising the taxes on the “rich” will lead to prosperity?
Sorry Kevin, the Clinton surplus never really existed. It was bassed on a 10 year projection that did not take into account 9/11, the ’01 recession and the dotcom bubble breaking, and the Iraq War. The so called Clinton surplus existed only on paper put out by the CBO.
Personally, if Obama wins a second term God forbid, I think the GOP members of the Senate and House should just stay home after the election and not attend the lameduck session of Congress and let the cuts expire Jan. 1. Obama and the Dems will just stew in their own juice as the economy falls off the cliff in ’13. It would serve them right!
@34 John R., I’m afraid you’re wrong. While it’s true the government doesn’t in general do manufacturing instead preferring to contract the work out, they do provide services, that if done by the private sector you would consider to be ‘job creation’. Take for example, IRS agents (not ideal I know). I’m assuming because I don’t know, they’re essentially all accountants because you need an understanding of accounting in order to do audits. If the government contracted that work out, you would say the private sector created those jobs, but because it’s done by the government, you call it transfer payments. If it’s the same work, you can’t just redefine one into a good category and one into a bad category based on who does the hiring. They’re both job creators.
But looking at private sector manufacturers you mention. They take their money to buy supplies and other resources. Will you then make the claim as you did about the government that these are just transfer payments and those companies create nothing? Of course not, because it doesn’t just come down to transferring wealth and payments. This simply illustrates our economy is all interconnected.
Your accusing question “are you a Socialist?” is hardly the insult or as scary as you seem to think. France just elected a Socialist. Socialism is quite mainstream everywhere but the US. And nationalization of some industries is OK depending on the circumstances. The government is supposed to have a monopoly on military operations. You wouldn’t want every corporation to have a private army would you? The organizations I can think of with private armies are the Mafia, and drug cartels south of the border.
Cut the military you say. Please remember that was part of the automatic budget cuts agreed to by the Republican House when they failed to pass a budget deal through the Super Committee. Now the Republicans want to change the rules. It’s unfair of you to lay the blame of that at Obama’s feet because he’s the one actually sticking to the agreement in this case.
But speaking of the government creating jobs again, the government could and should. The government should take those who are unemployed but want to work and put them to work doing things in our communities that need to be done. Such as insulating homes, putting in replacement windows, painting old folk’s homes, etc.
@35 John R., it depends on what was done with those increased taxes on the rich but yeah it has the potential to help lead to prosperity.
Oddly enough, taxing them at a higher rate would allow us to pay off our debts and since those same rich people hold a lot of US debt, it would simply end up back in their pockets again.
No I’m not a socialist but I am very much a realist and not some dilusional right wing extremist who doesn’t have the ability to connect the dots when it come to examining our economic drivers.
I doubt seriously that Boeing would build a B-52 unless there was a market need for it from some entity…that entity just happens to be the military industrial complex of the United States and other countries throughout the world.
If the military complexes of the United States and other countries around the world didn’t have a need for the B-52 or any other product or service required by their respective operations, Boeing or any other government contractor wouldn’t be manufacturing that product or providing that service.
In that respect, it is indeed the government that created the need for the product or service and the end result is a job to make or provide the service.
I would suggest that the number of jobs created by the military industrial complex may be smaller than in the non military world. I would recommend you read “The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities” by Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier. They present a very good article. http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/071001-jobcreation.pdf
You might find it somewhat enlightening…well probably not given your predispositions.
Chuck, I am sorry that interpretation is a problem for you unless it agrees with yours, but there are plenty of people, then and now, who clearly see the separation of church and state in the First Amendment and applaud it too.
Regarding the Constitution, I don’t believe I “assume or pretend it says or means things it doesn’t”, but you feel free to offer an example of that insult and we can discuss it.
I do not think the Bill of Rights per se, applies to a student in a school system, public or private who wants to insult those who do no worship as he does. I agree, “There is no Constitutional prohibition against a private citizen promoting a religious agenda ANYWHERE”, or a non-religious agenda, or the worship of pig entrails for that matter. I never said there was. I explained the difference in advocacy and activism. The kid was not simply wearing the shirt to “express his/her religious beliefs” he was insulting those who do not share them. If his shirt had insulted Christians for their beliefs, you would get that I think.
The school has no obligation to uphold insulting “speech”. It is a controlled environment that encourages cooperation and respect. Unlike the world, which does not. Once he is out in the world, he can wear it every day of his life if he chooses.
Once again, you project meaning I never made or intended. YOU brought up my comment on another blog and I clarified it. I did not say it had anything to do with you then or now. I put no words in your mouth.
I have never disregarded the “free exercise” clause and you cannot find an example where I did. But I also support the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” clause and many here want to ignore that and “assume or pretend it says or means things it doesn’t”.
I win arguments when I stick to the facts in evidence. The student was not exercising his right to express religious belief, he was insulting those who do not believe as he does. Two different things. If you are going to “explain it one more time”, get it right.
Advocating for Christ is not the same as telling those who do not, they are a life “wasted”. That is an insult.
Oh, and STRAWMAN, I have never said “the Constitution guarantees anyone the right not to be offended” that is made up by folks who do not have a better argument, so they reach for fantasy.
No, I don’t imagine “The fact that someone professes their religious beliefs publicly is a Constituional violation” at all and not the least “because it might offend someone”, but the real fact in this case is that someone professed their religion was the only one not a “waste”. That is an insult not a profession of faith and it was done in a school system with discretion on such “messages”.
FWIW, I agree, it is not “a Constituional issue”. It would be if it was not in a controlled environment that sometimes even require uniforms, but schools can have a dress code and they can refuse “offensive” messages. I think the “misguided sense” here is the one that is defending this as expression of religious belief instead of a deliberate insult. and “thin skinned and narrow-minded” folks appear to be defending it as something it is not for their own reasons.
John R asks: “Do you liberals really believe that just raising the taxes on the “rich” will lead to prosperity?”
For the umpteenth time already, NO, we don’t. We have not said anything remotely like that and yet you keep twisting our stance to suit your needs. Oddly enough, you get really angry when people do that to you.
In reality “the Clinton surplus” never came to fruition, but no honest person can say that Clinton did not reduce spending and lower the deficits and that he had us on a better trajectory. Even if you “take into account 9/11, the ’01 recession and the dotcom bubble breaking”, it still does not excuse Bush borrowing to pay for the wars he started and adding to the deficit and debt by adding the Medicare boobdoggle. NOTHING justifies that or TWO major tax cuts during war time and economic uncertainty. It cannot be done and even the Reagan acolytes have admitted that.
If Obama wins a second term, you will have no one to blame but the TP/GOP who put up a Wall Street Corporate Raider Billionaire who looks and talks like a Plutocrat and believes in baptizing dead people.
As usual, I am sure America appreciates that your hatred of Obama wishes more harm to the nation as long as he is President. Patriotic of you to say the least.
The free world is free because the US assumed the roll of the world’s super power in the 20th century. That does require a world class militery. Something that liberals don’t seem to appreciate.
The world is a better place now because of the greatest country in modern history.
Hear that 89Hoo? John R. called you a liberal.
Looks like you took the “duck and run” approach to my remarks regarding whether the government creates jobs.
Just so you’ll know for any future reference, this liberal appreciates the military and what they do for us. My Dad was 28 year Navy…so don’t try to belittle my opinion. You don’t have the right.
Now as to the question of whether or not the government creates jobs, did you bother to read the information from the link I provided?
From your remark, I would say not…as predicted.
41/42. John R and Scott – John, if the world were free, we wouldn’t be in over 700 installations all over the world, getting shot, spending billions a week merely to “keep the peace”.
I would further suggest that the cost of maintaining a global police presence has done us more damage – economically – and made us less secure – militarily – than a more humble, non-interventionist foreign policy such as I favor would have. We can have a world class military without having to place it in over 150 countries around the world; the former does not depend on the latter.
As to labels, the classical liberal position – much like the classical conservative position – favored a non-interventionist foreign policy (and sound currency, by the way, a separate by integrally related topic). It is the policies of the Trotskyist/neocon/GOP and the CPUSA/Dem Party that have mangled the definitions.
Name is required
A valid email is required (email@example.com)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.All fields are required to comment.
Mon, 09 Dec 2013 03:47:15 +0000