acemona

Why would the deputy risk physical injury?

Come on, check the numbers yourself. He had majorities. He couldn't get it done. Just about every president has faced the same thing. In fact "the party of no" label came out at least during the Bush administration. Obama passed health care. Why not his economic policies? He failed, plain and simple.

 

However, if Obama says the policies are starting to work and they're not his, then it's time to get him out, isn't it?

You check the record number of filibusters in 4 years. C'mon, check 'em.

Check the history of the "right track/wrong track". I think it has changed in a long while.

That should be "hasn't" changed in a long while. Like over a decade.

I'm not poor, and get no checks from Obama. It would be kinda cool to get a check signed by Obama, though. I digress...In reality, I'm not that far removed from legitimately poor. Neither in personal circumstance, nor the circumstance of my parents and many aunts/uncles. All receive some sort of assistance...some are totally disabled. Some are elderly. Some are elderly AND disabled. Some are unskilled, never graduated high school and unable to find a job. I'm intimately aware of how government programs assist many in need, and have had to utilize certain services at one point in my life as well. What Romney vaguely describes would be devastating to a very large portion of the population. Many denounce those on assistance as "freeloaders". I know first hand that many worked their whole lives till certain circumstances prevailed, and they could no longer help themselves. There's the aunt who has a degenerative spine, who's been on social aid since her husband of 30 years died 20 years ago. There's the uncle who worked in construction until he fell through a roof, landing on his head, rendering him mentally and physically disabled. He probably could have avoided almost 30 years of social aid had his wife not divorced him when she found out he would never recover. There's another uncle who worked in construction until arthritis sidelined him. He opened a thrift store after that, which was doing quite well...then he had an aneurysm and now can barely function. There's my father who worked 30+ years making the doughs for the bread you eat, one of the lowest paying jobs in that industry. He had to take early retirement because he tore his calf muscles away from his bones pushing these 400+ bins of dough to the next point in the process. His pension is $300 a month. I have a cousin who dropped out of high school at 16 to get married because of an abusive, alcoholic father. She wound up divorced at 18, and a drug addict. Eventually she turned her life around and was able to finish school and raise her kids with some government assistance. Now, her own drug addicted daughter has left her own 4 kids with my cousin, and she finds herself back to needing aid.

 

But, I guess my family are idiots.

Don't forget that they are also freeloaders.

Except about 2/3rds of the country think he took us through New Orleans and is headed for Dallas.

 

Right Direction or Wrong Track - Rasmussen Reports™

Check the history of the "right track/wrong track". I think it has changed in a long while.

There isn't much left to choose to give after the "fair share" is taken by law.

Simply not true.

Obama 93

Democrats 99

kentucky 51

The shocking part is that Kentucky will go overwhelmingly republican, which means we vote on so few issues.

In 2009 the bottow 50% of wage earners paid 2.25% of the taxes.

 

Looks like someone needs to do their fair share.

I will bet they made less than 2.5% of the wages, salary and income.

I don't understand. What is ironic about it?

 

 

 

Those darn freeloading five year olds. Good grief...they need to get off their swing and GET A JOB! :lol:

don't forget about the elderly living in nursing homes. Freakin' freeloaders.

What do you base that statement on?

I would suggest he is using HISTORY for this statement.

Sorry, I'm not that old.

I am just saying, it was not originally written with 'under God' in it. Congress added that line. So yeah, things have changed.

If I'm not mistaken it's more than letting the tax cuts expire. Plus the Supreme Court says that Obamacare is a tax on us all.

Fact check. Not the SC did not. It said, that if you CHOOSE not to have health coverage you will pay the fee, and that fee is a tax. It is not a tax on "us all."

All I can say is that every day in grade school at the beginning of class we said a pledge. Part of it went like this: "And to the Republic for which it stands, One Nation Under God".

 

Sad how things have changed.

Not if you were in school before 1954.

Unlike you, I do want my elected officials to have CHRISTIAN MORALS and VALUES. And yes there is a difference.

 

I'm sure Hitler had morals and values.

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a

fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded

by a few followers, recognized these (people) for what they were and

summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest

not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian

and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord

at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the

Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight

against the () poison. Today, after two thousand years, with

deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact

that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As

a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have

the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is

anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is

the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty

to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and

work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only

for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning

and see these men standing in their queues and look into their

pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very

devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two

thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people

are plundered and exposed.”

Yes Adolf Hitler did have "Christian" Morals. Put Jew in where I put parenthesis and you will get a better flavor of the actual tone of the speech.

[Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922

The Constitution restricts the government from encroaching on rights that pre-exist the forming of the government. So the rights existed prior to the creation of the government. Who endowed this rights if they are not 'given' by government. They are natural rights and they are endowed by the Creator.

 

Most government worshipers fear the discussion on natural rights and natural laws since these supersede man-made law and were existence before and after (yes, this government will collapse at some point) government structure.

 

Free speech existed before the 1st Amendment was written. The 1st Amendment only protects it.

The right to be secure in your home existed before the 4th Amendment. The 4th only protects it from government interference.

 

These 'God-given' rights exist without government. The Declaration of Independence says it directly. The Constitution clear builds that fact into its wording and structure.

There is no God given right to free speech. Free speech implies that I can speak freely without fear of retribution from my government. Free speech cannot therefore supercede government. Without government, my speech cannot be protected. I am free to say what I want, but your are then free to hit me in the mouth. Without government I have no right. In a land with no government there are no rights, it is the survival of the fittest.

I don't worship the government but I certainly understand the importance of the Social Contract. Otherwise we live in a state of nature and are only as secure as our own power. I also understand that in these United States that I am the government, well I was until Citizens United.

Faith has nothing to do with the foundation of the actual Constitution. A 'Creator' (i.e. God) does. The principles of the Constitution rely on certain rights pre-existing government. This is why the Constitution does not 'give' us rights. It restricts the ability government to curtail those natural rights and natural laws with positive (man-made) laws. The core premise of our Constitution is that certain rights pre-exist man-made government.

 

If the 'creator', or God is eliminated then the foundation of our Constitution and its protective umbrella against man-made tyranny is eliminated. Hence if I am worried about the undermining of the Constitution by enemies I am concerned about eliminating the existence of a Creator that is greater that government from the Peoples mindset. Once people disconnect the Creator from the Constitution the foundation of our rights is much more easily attacked. Faith simply how you worship or acknowledge the creator. That is protected by the 1st amendment.

There is no mention of God, Creator, Religion or Faith (outside the freedom to worship), in the Constitution. Nor is there any mention in the Preamble. As a matter of fact the Preamble states that it is the PEOPLE who are doing all that is being done in establishing this Country.

Creator is mentioned in the Declaration which was written 11 years earlier but was not the basis of our government rather the disolution of our connection to England.

It appears the Preamble and Constitution are less Godly than the Democrat Party Platform. Whoda thunkit?

This is what they believe.

Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God. His birth, life, death, and resurrection fulfilled the many prophecies contained in the scriptures concerning the coming of a Savior. He was the Creator, He is our Savior, and He will be our Judge (see Isaiah 9:6, 53:3-7; Psalms 22:16-1http://mormon.org/faq#faq/topic/jesus-christ/question/belief-in-jesus-christ8).

Re-read my post. I said nothing about Mormons. It took me a while to figure out who they were. I will re-state my post.

What I don't understand is how a Christian can vote for a party whose (grammar change) policies are so against the actual teachings of Jesus.

A serious question for Christian democrats. How can you support a party that is so against God, for abortion, for homosexuality, and one that doesn't even want to refer to God at the biggest convention of the year. There were some visible upset voters that God gets mentioned.

 

Convention floor erupts as Dems restore references to God, Jerusalem in platform | Fox News

What I don't understand is how a Christian can vote for a party who policies are so against the actual teachings of Jesus.

The article cited earlier states no facts. It makes some assumptions. I drank a few beers in college, but I was a struggling student on work study. I ran for Student government and was paid a paltry 400.00 for holding office and went to Cancun with that money. That doesn't mean I wasn't struggling.

What were the facts that were wrong in the First Lady's speech?

@2humped

 

Why would the free market be a horrible place to live in?

slavery - RENT - iron law of wages

Think of Medieval Europe, or what we affectionately call "The Dark Ages". You know, when we completely ignored science and only the privileged few had property. Education was frowned upon. Serfdom was the norm. The free market at its best.

I don't consider that to be the same .

Because it is not.

I say again, please stop talking.

Every time you guys quote him, I have to read it.

It has been a failure. Absolutely no other way to view it. Is it better? That is up for debate as some indicators and segments are better, others are worse. The questions for voters are could it be better and should it be better.

I think Clyde has asked several times, "Which indicators are worse?"

No one has answered that yet, other than saying gas prices are up. I didn't realize that was an economic indicator, but what the heck. I'll go with it. What other indicators besides the price of gas, are worse?

So you believe that Obama will only raise taxes on people who make $250k. In other words no one else will be effected?

What anyone believes and what they can back up with any facts may be two very different things. Dick Morris might believe what he says but he has no facts to back them up. Michael, why haven't you responded to Clyde's posts where he debunks by Dick has said.

This is Dick Morris who used to work for the Clinton administration, he is a respected news contributor and author.

:laugh::laugh::lol::eek::scared::banana::clap::taz: