Jump to content
Let's see. Michelle Bachmann went to Oral Roberts University and Pat Robertson's Regency Law School. Both BARELY retain accreditation year-in, year-out. Al Franken graduated Phi Beta Kappa as a Math Major from Harvard.
Biden went to the University of Delaware and Syracuse Law School (which does not have trouble retaining its accreditation). Barney Frank graduated from Harvard and received his law degree from Harvard. Reid went to Southern Utah University and George Washington Law School, while also working full time as a capitol hill policeman.
Yep, clearly they are as "dumb" as Bachmann.
If wishes to, one can review all of TreadLightly's posts over the last several months. It is a constant theme of his that "Christian" values and strict, literal, biblical interpretation should be the basis for "American" moral values and THUS the basis for the U.S.legal system and its laws.
To me, that strongly suggests that he is an advocate of governing the United States in concert with his interpretation of Biblical teaching and that the Constitution should be interpreted according to this tradition as well. In short, the Constitution is subordinate to the Bible if the two seem to clash.
He denies this. But he's being inconsistent at best, and disingenuous at worst.
"loyalty to the law of the land..."
This from a man who wants to turn the U.S. into the Christian Theocracy!
Clerics who perform marriages are licensed by the State in which they reside to do so as a "civil" act which creates the "marriage" in terms of State law, and concurrently as a religious act which has no legal basis, per se, but is cherished by those who wish to receive the blessing of their church,.
Well, what else could we expect from a person who uses a skull as his symbol. As a devout secular humanist, I believe being human means treating others as I would like to be treated...heard that somewhere else I think.
If you know anything about "game theory" my philosophy of life is called the "mini-max" solution. It promises the most gain for the most people at the least risk. Not most gain in the absolutely sense. Your assumption supposes that. But yours also poses the most risk. It's kinda "all or nothing."
You don't have to believe in the "great voyeur" as HE has been sometimes called, to do the right thing. You just have to be rational and hope the other guy is too. If he's not....well, learn karate too.
Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, "fundamentalist" or "literalist" anythings (Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindu's -- yes there are fundamentalist Hindu's, one of them assassinated Ghandi), Treadlightly, Treadlightly, Treadlightly.
The principal reason members of the House keep getting reelected is the sophistication of gerrymandering the congressional district boundaries. Most congressional districts are "safe" in the sense that they are significantly majority republican or majority democratic. Hence, elected representatives are more than likely to be reelected even if congress is held in contempt nationally. Moreover, these overwhelmingly safe districts lead to members only speaking to and representing their "base." As a result our politics have become more and more divisive and partisan.
I'd love to see a constitutional amendment that would redress this problem by making a majority of districts competitive. However, state legislatures, the people that promulgate the gerrymandered congressional district boundaries, are the very same people who would have to vote to pass such an amendment. So it isn't too likely to happen unless the grassroots, i.e. us, can marshal our forces via electronic petitions and make it happen by pressuring the U.S. Congress to pass it and then the state legislatures to ratify it.....Don't hold your breath.
It's all how you do or calculate the accounting. Does using public money on infrastructure projects, and the new hiring the private companies that win the construction bids will do benefit the economy, and if so, how does one calculate these benefits?
Does building a dam with public money that generates "x" amount of electricity every year and/or irrigates "y" acres of farmland every year, make money in the long run for the U.S.Treasury?
Does building or repairing a bridge over which a lot of commercial traffic flows make money in the long run for the U.S. Treasury? For the County or City where the bridge is located? Is building or repairing the bridge the proper role of government?
Would providing land grants or tax subsidies or technology support to create huge wind farms in the mid-west and huge solar panel facilities in the southwest to generate 10%, 15%, 30% of U.S. electricity by 2020, 2030 make money for the government(s) involved in the future?
What would the macroeconomic implications be of such investments in the local economies?
How many additional jobs would be created in addition to the jobs directly associated with the projects? How many additional jobs would those jobs create, and so on?
I often have the sense the budget deficit hawks simply do not a) believe such projects are warranted, or are the federal government's responsibility; or b) simply reject the multiplier effect of public sector spending on local economies.
It's now fashionable to debunk the achievements of FDR's "infrastructure" projects in reducing the impact of the Depression. I think this revisionist history is wrong on the face of it. But in any event, can anyone seriously argue that the Hoover Dam, the Grand Cooley Dam, the TVA, and other such projects did not make a positive return on their investment many times over from the taxes paid on the economic activity their existence has generated since the 1930's?
Well, like I said, a certain segment of our society is not interested in compromise. For them, and you apparently, it's my way or the highway (or default as the case may be and damn the implications because Fox News and Rush tell me there won't be any).
I think you utterly misread human nature if you think people are just going to "cooperate" once the "dust settles" if political solutions cannot be found via reason and compromise, as the Founders intended.
No DaveyNC, you are dead, dead wrong.
The Founders envisioned that checks and balances would foster compromise, NOT gridlock.
Recent polling before the debt ceiling bill found that about 75% of self-described Democrats expected their elected Representatives to compromise to reach an agreement. About 60% of self-described Independents expected elected Representatives to compromise. But only about 35% of self-described Republicans expected compromise, and the figure was even lower for self-described Tea Party members.
Representative Democracy is predicated on compromise by enough members to get critical legislation passed.
It's also predicated on having elected legislators who are not morons who know nothing about economics and world markets, but that's another issue.
Anniversary Announcement | Birthdays Over 80 | Birthdays Under 12 | Engagement Announcement | Site Feedback | Letter to the Editor | User Submitted Photo | Subscription Request | Vacation Start Stops | Wedding Announcement Subscribe | Advertising | Media Kit | About Us | Contact Us | Archives | Search
Physical Address: 145 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Southern Pines, NC Mailing Address: P.O. Box 58, Southern Pines, NC 28388 910-692-7271 Fax: 910-692-9382