There are legitimate disagreements about what those things mean to different people.

 

Schools are public institutions run by "the government". When we say there is no "school led prayer or bible study" is that the government intruding in your life or staying out of it?

Federal Intrusion. The education system should be run by state and local governments.

 

 

When we say that women should have the right to "choose" is that the government intruding in your life or staying out of it?

Again federal intrusion. This is a state issue not a constitutional issue.

 

 

When we say that there will be no same sex marriages intruding or staying out?

Intrusion. Same reason.

 

 

Does following the Constitution mean not trying to change the 14th Amendment and what it says?

Don't want to change it. Want it clarified. Want it to be used as it was intended to be - to ensure citizenchip to people who were slaves. Not as an avenue for illegals.

 

 

What I think LBBC was saying is that MM needs to work to move the country to a better place than where it is now. It is more than just trying to win the presidency. MM should focus on positive legislation that gets people back to work and not simply defeating Obama in an election that is two years away.

I agree with this. His number one goal should be to move legislation that is beneficial the country.

And you know this how?

 

There is often a fine line between courage and stupidity and depending on how the person is viewed people could argue either way.

 

It is my opinion. What do you think that he was afraid of when he made his statement?

It is my opinion. What do you think that he was afraid of when he made his statement?

 

Did I make that statement?

 

I'm merely pointing out how the same person making the same statement can be seen different ways depending on our personal bias for or against the person.

 

I don't know off the top of my head but I'll bet similar statements have been made towards just about every president during their first term.

You're right, and I don't doubt that most all partisan politicians would prefer to get a president from another party out of the Whitehouse as soon as possible. Still, I think Mitch makes uprooting the democrats too much of a "platform", like TB&G mentioned. A true politician needs to understand that he represents people from all parties, and with that in mind, he needs to do what he can to represent all of those people. Gunning for the president just to get your own party into the Oval Office isn't necessarily the best way to do that.

 

I agree with everything in this post. As a public servant representing me, I want to know what he is going to do for me over the course of the next two years.

 

Stating that his primary agenda item is to unseat the President borders on the moronic. I guess the only positive is that the Senator won't be getting my hopes up with an ambitious legislative platform.

Did I make that statement?

 

I'm merely pointing out how the same person making the same statement can be seen different ways depending on our personal bias for or against the person.

 

I don't know off the top of my head but I'll bet similar statements have been made towards just about every president during their first term.

 

You assume that it's bias that lead me to my conclusion. I don't like McConnell, that's true, but it's really Occam's razor that does it for me.

You assume that it's bias that lead me to my conclusion. I don't like McConnell, that's true, but it's really Occam's razor that does it for me.

 

At least, consciously you think it is.

Federal Intrusion. The education system should be run by state and local governments.

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

The Federal Government needs to stay out of people's lives as much as possible. This includes public education. Education needs to be controlled only by state and local governments with the emphasis on LOCAL.

Getting the federal govt. out of public education might be a good idea if state and local governments could be counted on to make education the priority it should be.

 

If I lived in a state such as Iowa, where it's taken seriously, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I live in Kentucky, which historically ranks near the bottom, has a long and nasty anti-intellectual streak and is chock-full of folks who "don't see no need for no book-larnin'," I just don't feel that comfortable leaving it up to state and local authorities.

 

In my high school, the motto seemed to be, "I can't wait 'til I turn 16, so I can quit." Those people are now the ones vying for public office, and that scares the hell out of me.