NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070508/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

It's nice to see some GOP politicians supporting their constituents rather than the bloated ego of a lame duck President. It almost makes me proud to be registered as a Republican again. The problem is not the Republican party, although three presidential candidates not believing in evolution is frightening. The problem lies within the slash and burn, fear and smear politics that our current administration has lowered the party to.

On a side note, anyone catch the Daily Show with McCain smiling like a Cheshire cat after his "ates of hell" comment. I understand he must have been nervous but that was oddly uncomfortable. It's almost like watching Bush smirk when he talks about death and destruction in Iraq. It just makes you cringe.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070508/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

It's nice to see some GOP politicians supporting their constituents rather than the bloated ego of a lame duck President. It almost makes me proud to be registered as a Republican again. The problem is not the Republican party, although three presidential candidates not believing in evolution is frightening. The problem lies within the slash and burn, fear and smear politics that our current administration has lowered the party to.

You mean that both parties have lowered themselves to right?

You mean that both parties have lowered themselves to right?

My apologies as I stand corrected. But let's not kid ourselves here, we all know who is more responsible for fear and smear. Studies of the last 2 even year cycles shows the Republicans with a clear lead in negative advertising and campaigning. The Bush administration being the absolute worst of that lot. Democrats are guilty of it as well but to a lesser degree. Can we agree on that or are we going to play tricks on ourselves?

My apologies as I stand corrected. But let's not kid ourselves here, we all know who is more responsible for fear and smear. Studies of the last 2 even year cycles shows the Republicans with a clear lead in negative advertising and campaigning. The Bush administration being the absolute worst of that lot. Democrats are guilty of it as well but to a lesser degree. Can we agree on that or are we going to play tricks on ourselves?

No no. I agree with you :)

I wait for the elections in which the parties do absolutely no advertising for themselves, but only attempt to slander their opponents.

No no. I agree with you :)

Glad we can be truthful with one another. This is a major reason I enjoy discussing topics with you because you appear to be more of a moderate GOPer like myself, unless I'm reading you wrong. We can debate topics without trying to lie to one another to prove a point. Sadly the same cannot be said for many others but most of them are trolls anyhow.

Honestly, I'd love for the GOP to get off this Bush psychosis that it's been existing under for the past six years, and get back to being a party I can dig.

Glad we can be truthful with one another. This is a major reason I enjoy discussing topics with you because you appear to be more of a moderate GOPer like myself, unless I'm reading you wrong. We can debate topics without trying to lie to one another to prove a point. Sadly the same cannot be said for many others but most of them are trolls anyhow.

If you're a moderate GOPer, then I'm Hillary Clinton.

If you're a moderate GOPer, then I'm Hillary Clinton.

Hey Hillary.

Hey Hillary.

Hey y'all!

http://www.eastex.net/mighcal/plantation_pancakes.jpg

Hey y'all!

http://www.eastex.net/mighcal/plantation_pancakes.jpg



You are almost funny. Too bad almost doesn't count.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070508/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

It's nice to see some GOP politicians supporting their constituents rather than the bloated ego of a lame duck President. It almost makes me proud to be registered as a Republican again. The problem is not the Republican party, although three presidential candidates not believing in evolution is frightening. The problem lies within the slash and burn, fear and smear politics that our current administration has lowered the party to.

On a side note, anyone catch the Daily Show with McCain smiling like a Cheshire cat after his "ates of hell" comment. I understand he must have been nervous but that was oddly uncomfortable. It's almost like watching Bush smirk when he talks about death and destruction in Iraq. It just makes you cringe.You have three presidential candidates not believing in evolution? Which ones?

Hey y'all!
Ah--more of the same old bullshit. And you say you don't do talking points. :rolleyes:

Hey y'all!


HEY DK Bushevik!! :)

You know, at this point, I'd support anything that'll cause the death of either the Democrats or Republican, then the Libertarians can just move right on in.

*sits back and watch the Dems and Reps. fight it out*

You know, at this point, I'd support anything that'll cause the death of either the Democrats or Republican, then the Libertarians can just move right on in.

*sits back and watch the Dems and Reps. fight it out*You'll be waiting a long time, and there was a political event about a year and a half ago that proved libertarianism won't make any headway any time soon--the Social Security privatization fight. It went down hard, and that, combined with the current expansion of Medicare and the talk about nationalized health care shows that most Americans aren't really interested in libertarian philosophies on goverment programs at the very least.

You'll be waiting a long time, and there was a political event about a year and a half ago that proved libertarianism won't make any headway any time soon--the Social Security privatization fight. It went down hard, and that, combined with the current expansion of Medicare and the talk about nationalized health care shows that most Americans aren't really interested in libertarian philosophies on goverment programs at the very least.

Well we may not be making it on the federal level yet, but we are working our way up.

Well we may not be making it on the federal level yet, but we are working our way up.

You either missed or ignored my point. People have a philosophical problem with libertarianism in this country, at least as it applies to government programs. There's a lot of social libertarians in this country--I'm one, for example--but people like their big governments. They like Social Security. They want governments to build roads and the like. They want more protections in things like food quality and environmental protections and workplace safety. That's all anathema to the libertarian perspective, at least as far as the party is concerned.

Honestly, I'd love for the GOP to get off this Bush psychosis that it's been existing under for the past six years, and get back to being a party I can dig.

When exactly was the party like that? Before Bush II, there was Bush I and he was a moron ("atheists shouldn't be considered citizens," "America should be less like the Simpsons and more like the Waltons"). Before that it was Reagan and he introduced neoconservatism...and I honestly don't see you as a neocon.

You either missed or ignored my point. People have a philosophical problem with libertarianism in this country, at least as it applies to government programs. There's a lot of social libertarians in this country--I'm one, for example--but people like their big governments. They like Social Security. They want governments to build roads and the like. They want more protections in things like food quality and environmental protections and workplace safety. That's all anathema to the libertarian perspective, at least as far as the party is concerned.

The only reason the movement to privatized Social Security failed was because people were scared that they were going to lose their SS, espically the one who were about to retired. Bush and others tried to reassure that it'll still be there for those who are about to retire, but it didn't work. Of course, it's not going to matter anyways, pretty soon Social Security will go bankrupt and my generation won't be left with anything, so already I know that I can't depend on SS for about anything.

Privatized Social Security may be a bust, but we're working on the Fair Tax plan next, and once people see how much money they'll actually be getting, you know they'll be on board for it, mainly because, well, money talks.

Glad we can be truthful with one another. This is a major reason I enjoy discussing topics with you because you appear to be more of a moderate GOPer like myself, unless I'm reading you wrong. We can debate topics without trying to lie to one another to prove a point. Sadly the same cannot be said for many others but most of them are trolls anyhow.

Moderate GOPer aka RINO you mean.

The only reason the movement to privatized Social Security failed was because people were scared that they were going to lose their SS, espically the one who were about to retired. Bush and others tried to reassure that it'll still be there for those who are about to retire, but it didn't work. Of course, it's not going to matter anyways, pretty soon Social Security will go bankrupt and my generation won't be left with anything, so already I know that I can't depend on SS for about anything.

Privatized Social Security may be a bust, but we're working on the Fair Tax plan next, and once people see how much money they'll actually be getting, you know they'll be on board for it, mainly because, well, money talks.

Privatized social security is a fine idea, but as usual Bush was going about it in the dumbest way possible. Honestly I think the current situation is probably best, let it die a slow death. Anyone just starting out knows they're not going to see a dime of it. I know I won't, so we plan for ourselves.

Privatized Social Security may be a bust, but we're working on the Fair Tax plan next, and once people see how much money they'll actually be getting, you know they'll be on board for it, mainly because, well, money talks.This isn't more flat tax voodoo is it?:rolleyes:

This isn't more flat tax voodoo is it?:rolleyes:

It is. Flat tax advocates never seem to mention that in order to get that lower taxation they're calling for, they'll have to rip the guts out of entitlement programs. Why? Because people like those entitlement programs.

You have three presidential candidates not believing in evolution? Which ones?

The ones that have no chance of getting the nomination...

EG the ones that arent McCain, Romney, or Giuliani...

Or the ones you never hear about...

The ones that have no chance of getting the nomination...

EG the ones that arent McCain, Romney, or Giuliani...

Or the ones you never hear about...

At the rate his campaign is plummeting, you'll be able to knock McCain out of that sentence any day, and Romney, despite all his money, can't seem to get a bump in the polls--evangelicals don't trust him because he's a Mormon. For the moment, it doesn't look like the Republicans like any of their candidates very well.

This isn't more flat tax voodoo is it?:rolleyes:

It is. Flat tax advocates never seem to mention that in order to get that lower taxation they're calling for, they'll have to rip the guts out of entitlement programs. Why? Because people like those entitlement programs.

Ok, you two are idiots, the Fair Tax Plan is NOT a flat tax. It is a Sales Tax. See the Fair Tax plans guts out the current tax system, gets rid of all the red tape and bureaucracy that goes along with the old one, and installs in the sales tax. You won't be taxed for what you make, but only for what you spend. Essientals like food, medical, clothes, shelter, etc. will be refunded back to you. Also used items being sold will not be taxed.

Click, Read, Learn (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer)

Ok, you two are idiots, the Fair Tax Plan is NOT a flat tax. It is a Sales Tax. See the Fair Tax plans guts out the current tax system, gets rid of all the red tape and bureaucracy that goes along with the old one, and installs in the sales tax. You won't be taxed for what you make, but only for what you spend. Essientals like food, medical, clothes, shelter, etc. will be refunded back to you. Also used items being sold will not be taxed.

Click, Read, Learn (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer)

Fair Tax = Flat Tax in all ways that matter, and it will still either require a higher tax rate than anyone wants to admit to keep services at their current levels or it will require a gutting of current services.

And I've just about had it with your tossing of the word idiot around, Wilgrove. It's flaming, and it's against the rules. If you want to be insulting about something I've said, fine--attack it. call it idiotic if you want. But don't call other posters idiots. Learn the difference.

Fair Tax = Flat Tax in all ways that matter, and it will still either require a higher tax rate than anyone wants to admit to keep services at their current levels or it will require a gutting of current services.

And I've just about had it with your tossing of the word idiot around, Wilgrove. It's flaming, and it's against the rules. If you want to be insulting about something I've said, fine--attack it. call it idiotic if you want. But don't call other posters idiots. Learn the difference.

Well to be fair, when you confuse flat tax with sales tax, then that was a pretty stupid and idiotic statement, but fine, from now on I will just simply call you misinformed. Now, if you actually looked at the website, hell even on the first page, you would get this:

The FairTax Plan is a nonpartisan national grassroots campaign to replace the federal income tax system with a progressive national retail sales tax. It provides a "prebate" to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue replacement and, through companion legislation, repeal of the 16th Amendment.

and on the page "About the Fair Tax", you get this:

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

I'd say it's pretty safe to say that it is a sales tax, and NOT a flat tax.

Moderate GOPer aka RINO you mean.

Hmm, interestingly enough I seem to only have a problem with the Bush administration. If that makes me a RINO then so be it because Bush is not what the Republican party stands for. Issues I'm conservative on: Gun ownership (I own many), "marriage" as only being between a man and a woman (I have an interesting idea for this that gets the government out of the marriage business altogether). I'm a fiscal conservative who belives in balanced budget and not spending more than you take in. If you must spend more you must tax more, just like if you want that yacht you need a better get a better paying job. I'm against over-taxing estates of the dead and for allowing wealth to be passed down to other generations. I'm pro-military, pro-family, and pro-states rights. I'm also a practicing Catholic. Issues I'm liberal on: Healthcare for all, civil rights for all (one for all and all for one). I'm pro-choice and for allowing women to make these decisions on their own. Although I would never support my wife getting an abortion (barring health reasons) I do not see it as my right to give or take from others. I believe the most important thing to regulate in business is waste and companies cannot go off scott free for polluting the planet. All in all that seems pretty balanced to me, but I'll let you define me instead with your 100 post count and kno0wing all about me :p

I'd say it's pretty safe to say that it is a sales tax, and NOT a flat tax.

Wow. I already pay Sales Tax, to the tune of 8.35%. How much are we supposed to pay in sales tax now?

Moderate GOPer aka Not a Bushevik you mean.

Corrected. :D

Wow. I already pay Sales Tax, to the tune of 8.35%. How much are we supposed to pay in sales tax now?

They like to tout it as being 23%, but it's because of fuzzy math. In reality, it's 30% of whatever you buy, so if you happen to buy 100 dollars worth of stuff, you have to pay 30 dollars in tax. It just happens that if you buy 77 dollars worth of stuff, you have to pay 23 dollars in tax, which is a very sneaky method to give the impression that there is a tax reduction when, in fact, there isn't. Not that any other tax is any better.

Also, all of the candidates that either party has put up are either absolute dolts or conniving thieves. The only exception is Ron Paul, but there's no way in Hell that he'll get anywhere near the nomination. But the people will gladly vote for either so long as they get their bread and circuses, ignoring the steady plummet of the US further into the hole it's dug itself.

They like to tout it as being 23%, but it's because of fuzzy math. In reality, it's 30% of whatever you buy, so if you happen to buy 100 dollars worth of stuff, you have to pay 30 dollars in tax. It just happens that if you buy 77 dollars worth of stuff, you have to pay 23 dollars in tax, which is a very sneaky method to give the impression that there is a tax reduction when, in fact, there isn't. Not that any other tax is any better.

Also, all of the candidates that either party has put up are either absolute dolts or conniving thieves. The only exception is Ron Paul, but there's no way in Hell that he'll get anywhere near the nomination. But the people will gladly vote for either so long as they get their bread and circuses, ignoring the steady plummet of the US further into the hole it's dug itself.

It is 23%, but it's the only tax you'll have to pay. No income tax, no fuel tax, no property taxes etc. You'll also get refunds on all the food, and medical stuff that you buy.

It is 23%, but it's the only tax you'll have to pay. No income tax, no fuel tax, no property taxes etc. You'll also get refunds on all the food, and medical stuff that you buy.

Considering that's LESS than the average tax rate in this country, and nobody spends 100% of their income on buying stuff......

How the HELL is this supposed to support the country without completely and totally gutting our budget?

From FairTax.org

Exactly what taxes are abolished?

The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It replaces federal income taxes including, personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.

Is the 23% FairTax revenue-neutral rate higher or lower when compared to income and Social Security taxes people pay today?

Most people are paying that much or more today much of it is just hidden from view. The income tax bracket most people fall into is 15 percent, and all wage earners pay 7.65 percent in payroll taxes. That’s 23 percent right there, without taking into account the 7.65 percent employer matching! On top of that, you have to add in the business taxes and associated compliance costs passed on to consumers in higher prices.

Effective tax rates vs. stated tax rates
Because the 23-percent FairTax rate of $0.23 on every dollar spent is not imposed on necessities, an individual spending $30,000 pays an effective tax rate of only 15.5 percent, not 23 percent. That same individual will pay 17.3 percent of his or her income to federal taxes under current law. See effective tax rates for a family of four at various spending levels in Figure 2.

http://www.fairtax.org/images/content/pagebuilder/10454.gif


Does the FairTax rate need to be much higher to be revenue neutral?

The proper tax rate has been carefully worked out; 23 percent does the job of: (1) raising the same amount of federal funds as are raised by the current system, (2) paying the universal rebate, and (3) paying the collection fees to retailers and state governments. Unlike some other proposals, this rate has been independently confirmed by several different, nonpartisan institutions across the country. Detailed calculations are available from FairTax.org.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq

It's all in the FAQ.

Beside, with all the pork and unnecessary spending on "pet projects" we could use some accountability and restriction on our budgets.

It is 23%, but it's the only tax you'll have to pay. No income tax, no fuel tax, no property taxes etc. You'll also get refunds on all the food, and medical stuff that you buy.

That's tax inclusive; if you pay $100 overall, $23 will go to taxes and you'll pay $77 for whatever it is you're buying. But tax exclusive it is 30%; if you buy a good for $100, you have to pay $30 in taxes. Trust me, I have the FairTax book and was a proponent of the FairTax for a while. I want to reduce taxes; I don't care to just re-apportion them.

Edit: You still have to pay fuel taxes and property taxes. Sucks, huh?

Considering that's LESS than the average tax rate in this country, and nobody spends 100% of their income on buying stuff......

How the HELL is this supposed to support the country without completely and totally gutting our budget?

Because consumption is the biggest part of GDP; if you take 23% of it as taxes, then you can cover it.

Because consumption is the biggest part of GDP; if you take 23% of it as taxes, then you can cover it.

pure nonsense considering we take more than 23% of average INCOME already.

Although consumption may be the biggest part of the GDP, 23% of purchases will be less than 23% of income.

It is 23%, but it's the only tax you'll have to pay. No income tax, no fuel tax, no property taxes etc. You'll also get refunds on all the food, and medical stuff that you buy.
You're dreaming if you think that's the only tax you'll pay. It might be the only federal tax you pay (a flat tax on consumption, I might add), but that only means that states and localities will up the ante on your ass to take care of everything the Fed won't be funding anymore.

And that assumes that the tax would stay at that rate--it wouldn't.

Beside, with all the pork and unnecessary spending on "pet projects" we could use some accountability and restriction on our budgets.
Look--we can bitch about pork and accountability until the cows come home, but here's the fard truth about the budget. If you want to reduce spending significantly, and not just dick around with a handful of billions, you've got to go to one of three places: Social Security, Medicare, and National Defense.

What's it going to be? What do you cut, realistically? What cuts in those three areas can you potentially get passed when two of them directly impact the largest and most consistent voting bloc in the nation (baby boomers) and the third is national defense? Any discussion of real budget reduction starts and ends in those places.

pure nonsense considering we take more than 23% of average INCOME already.

Although consumption may be the biggest part of the GDP, 23% of purchases will be less than 23% of income.

Let's do the math. Personal consumption expenditures are $9.2 trillion. Fairtax also taxes government expenditures (Seriously. I don't know why, since they just get it back, but they do.) That's $2.5 trillion. Add it together, and we get $11.7 trillion. Times that by .23, and we get $2.691 trillion, which covers the government expenditures. So it does cover the price of our insane spending spree.

Look--we can bitch about pork and accountability until the cows come home, but here's the fard truth about the budget. If you want to reduce spending significantly, and not just dick around with a handful of billions, you've got to go to one of three places: Social Security, Medicare, and National Defense.

What's it going to be? What do you cut, realistically? What cuts in those three areas can you potentially get passed when two of them directly impact the largest and most consistent voting bloc in the nation (baby boomers) and the third is national defense? Any discussion of real budget reduction starts and ends in those places.

Well Social Security is dying a slow and painful death, I doubt it'll be around much longer. Hell it'll probably be gone even before all the baby boomer dies out. Medicare will have to stay and so will National Defense. So, I'd put SS on life supports until we get the baby boomer's out of the way, then pull the plug. That's all it's doing right now anyways, being on life support.

Well Social Security is dying a slow and painful death, I doubt it'll be around much longer. Hell it'll probably be gone even before all the baby boomer dies out. Medicare will have to stay and so will National Defense. So, I'd put SS on life supports until we get the baby boomer's out of the way, then pull the plug. That's all it's doing right now anyways, being on life support.

Do you not want to pull the plug on the spending spree of national defense and Medicare, or do you just find that doing so would be strategically bad?

Do you not want to pull the plug on the spending spree of national defense and Medicare, or do you just find that doing so would be strategically bad?

People who cannot afford private health care, will need a public alternative, which happens to be Medicare. Now the problems associated with Medicare is that alot of illegals uses it, and those who have private health care most of the time have to foot the bill for the Medicare patients at hospitals and doctors office. While Medicare is a drain on our budget, it is needed because if we didn't have it, our mortality rate for the lower class will be higher. Now if there was a viable private sector alternative to Medicare that'll do the same thing as Medicare, then I'm all for it.

As for the National Defense we're going to need that to protect our country from invasion and to strike back at a country that struck us, IE Afghanistan and the Al Qaeda terrorist network. Having a strong National Defense that keeps up with the latest technology and tactics in military is essential.

So far, Social Security is the only service thats only around for the baby boomer's, and then it'll die out.

It is. Flat tax advocates never seem to mention that in order to get that lower taxation they're calling for, they'll have to rip the guts out of entitlement programs. Why? Because people like those entitlement programs.
That's probably why the flat tax bill in Congress has only 4 sponsors and the FairTax bill has 60. The FairTax replaces all federal payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, estate, death, and corporate taxes with a retail sales tax. It's a dollar for dollar replacement, so your hallowed poor will not suffer a bit. In fact, not only will they no longer have payroll taxes withheld, they will get a check from the government to offset the federal sales taxes that they would have to pay on the necessities of life, up to a poverty line value.

I can't see why any defender of the poor would not support the FairTax. It completely eliminates their tax burden at the federal level. Isn't that what you want?

righto, think we could get back on topic now? Even the leaders of the GOP are ending their patience with Bush and this war. Are they bowing to the will of the people or wilting to public opinion polls?

The problem is not the Republican party, although three presidential candidates not believing in evolution is frightening.


Why?

Why?

because the prospect of someone not believing in evolution running this nation, or even think themselves a good fit for the role, is disturbing.

righto, think we could get back on topic now? Even the leaders of the GOP are ending their patience with Bush and this war. Are they bowing to the will of the people or wilting to public opinion polls?

Okay, I read the article and it didn't mention any sort of revolt by the Republican members. This is what I read...

Congressional Republicans immediately dismissed the Democratic proposal as unfairly rationing funds needed in combat and said their members would not support it.

Looks like business as usual, doesn't it?

because the prospect of someone not believing in evolution running this nation, or even think themselves a good fit for the role, is disturbing.

Okay...how so?

Okay...how so?
I'm sure it's not intellectually satisfying to think of our leaders as dogmatic believers in anything other than big government.

Okay...how so?

1) because it creates serious questions as to his intellect

2) because it raises the question of, if this candidtate is willing to ignore all evidence, all logic, all overwhelming data, and favor an unsubstantiated, un corroborated, unscientific claim based on nothing more than religious belief, what else is he willing to sacrifice in the name of his faith?

3) can we truly trust an individual who would reject all science, logic, and rationality for unsubstantiated claims of faith to properly safeguard the laws of this nation, one of the forefront of which is the strict wall between church and state? If he has already let his faith so inundate his thinking as to reject all rational sense, how can I trust him to not let his faith inundate his thinking as to reject the laws of this nation?

1) because it creates serious questions as to his intellect

Since when was intellect a requirement? :)

2) because it raises the question of, if this candidtate is willing to ignore all evidence, all logic, all overwhelming data, pertaining to the Theory of Evolution and favor an unsubstantiated, un corroborated, unscientific claim based on nothing more than religious belief, what else is he willing to sacrifice in the name of his faith?

Probably not much more than has been by past presidents.

On what basis can we assume that because he is God-fearing, he will act in a way ultimately not beneficial for this nation?

3) can we truly trust an individual who would reject all science, logic, and rationality for unsubstantiated claims of faith to properly safeguard the laws of this nation, one of the forefront of which is the strict wall between church and state? If he has already let his faith so inundate his thinking as to reject all rational sense, how can I trust him to not let his faith inundate his thinking as to reject the laws of this nation?

You may not be able to. That is for the electorate to decide.

Where is it written in law the "Separation of Church and State?" Where is there precedent for any Christian president (which they all, at least nominally, were) to allow his religion to interfere with his governance?

From your post, you would not support Lincoln, JFK, Washington, Bill Clinton (all Christian presidents), nevermind they did not let their faith inundate their thinking as to reject the laws of this nation? How does not accepting evolution amount to rejecting all rational sense? how does his faith have anything to do with spurning the laws of this nation?

I'm not sure about the rationality of a man who speaks much of reason and yet argues such irrational belief himself...

You may not be able to. That is for the electorate to decide.

And I am a voter in that electorate, and as such I will decide as to the extent of my vote.

And as I am a voter I certainly have the right to decide whom I will vote for, or not vote for, for whatever reason I choose.

This is the reason I have chosen.

Where is it written in law the "Separation of Church and State?"

For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State.

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

From your post, you would not support Lincoln, JFK, Washington, Bill Clinton (all Christian presidents), nevermind they did not let their faith inundate their thinking as to reject the laws of this nation?

the second part does not mesh with the first. I have NO problem with anyone of ANY religion serving as president AS LONG AS he does not let his or her faith interefere with his or her sworn duty.

I do not believe that anyone who would be so profoundly staunch in their faith as to reject whole handedly a consistantly validated scientific theory in exchange for a totally invalid religious belief is capable of doing so.

How does not accepting evolution amount to rejecting all rational sense?

Because evolution is the most rational explanation we have, and rejecting it is thus rejecting the rational choice.

And I am a voter in that electorate, and as such I will decide as to the extent of my vote.

And as I am a voter I certainly have the right to decide whom I will vote for, or not vote for, for whatever reason I choose.

This is the reason I have chosen.

As is your right. However, do not deign to assume that "we" fall into the same category of fear.

For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State.

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

Yes, all well and fine, I still have yet to be pointed to where this concept has become law...

the second part does not mesh with the first. I have NO problem with anyone of ANY religion serving as president AS LONG AS he does not let his or her faith interefere with his or her sworn duty.

I do not believe that anyone who would be so profoundly staunch in their faith as to reject whole handedly a consistantly validated scientific theory in exchange for a totally invalid religious belief is capable of doing so.

Lincoln opposed slavery because he was profoundly staunch in his Christian faith that it was wrong. He violated the constitutional rights of the southern states to secede because of his profound faith in the unity of the United States.

Accepting or rejecting a scientific theory that is still widely thought of as incorrect, however wrong they may be, is no measure of a person's ability to lead a nation.

Because evolution is the most rational explanation we have, and rejecting it is thus rejecting the rational choice.

"Rational." To you.

Yes, all well and fine, I still have yet to be pointed to where this concept has become law...

You are aware of the 1st amendment right?

You are aware of the 1st amendment right?

"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."

Separation of church and state comes from a letter that Jefferson wrote, expressing his desire that the state maintain a wall between the government and the church.

Yes, all well and fine, I still have yet to be pointed to where this concept has become law...

Um....are you daft? I just quoted the supreme court.

Lincoln opposed slavery because he was profoundly staunch in his Christian faith that it was wrong. He violated the constitutional rights of the southern states to secede because of his profound faith in the unity of the United States.

Oh now THIS I want to see. Do point out this constitutional right to me.

Accepting or rejecting a scientific theory that is still widely thought of as incorrect, however wrong they may be, is no measure of a person's ability to lead a nation.

That theory is not "widely thought of as incorrect". Not widely at all. The VAST majority of the scientific community supports it.

"Rational." To you.

Yes, and, again, I am a voter.

Separation of church and state comes from a letter that Jefferson wrote, expressing his desire that the state maintain a wall between the government and the church.

And from Engle v Vitale

"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."

Separation of church and state comes from a letter that Jefferson wrote, expressing his desire that the state maintain a wall between the government and the church.

And how would it look if a candidate who did not believe in Evolution wins the white house? Let us look at the current situation. Religion has no place in government and if a President who did not believe in Evolution won the White House, logic will tell us that they will do what they can to have the nation follow their beliefs.

That theory is not "widely thought of as incorrect". Not widely at all. The VAST majority of the scientific community supports it.


Exactly.

Exactly.

yes, exactly. After all, scientists are the best arbiters of what makes good science, non?

What the fuck good are the opinions of laymen? This is a matter of science, it is the scientists who are the experts, and the experts WIDELY agree.

The fact that non experts disagree is not really relevant. They, by nature of not being scientists, don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Much like, for example, you saying that I never provided you with any law describing seperation of church and state, despite me quoting Engle v Vitale.

yes, exactly. After all, scientists are the best arbiters of what makes good science, non?

What the fuck good are the opinions of laymen? This is a matter of science, it is the scientists who are the experts, and the experts WIDELY agree.

The fact that non experts disagree is not really relevant. They, by nature of not being scientists, don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Much like, for example, you saying that I never provided you with any law describing seperation of church and state, despite me quoting Engle v Vitale.
Reminds me of one of our House reps here, name of Don "Kiss My Ear" Young.

http://www.adn.com/front/story/5810117p-5738569c.html
I don't believe it is our fault. That's an opinion. It's as sound as any scientist's.

+ a little more ...
http://esterrepublic.blogspot.com/2006/05/don-young-quack-scientist.html

Reminds me of one of our House reps here, name of Don "Kiss My Ear" Young.

http://www.adn.com/front/story/5810117p-5738569c.html


+ a little more ...
http://esterrepublic.blogspot.com/2006/05/don-young-quack-scientist.html

separation of church and state has been covered well in case LAW. Use FindLaw and you will find plenty USSC rulings to this fact. Arguing that it is not the law is intellectual dishonesty or ignorance. the USSC interprets the framers' intent and how they apply to society in the current day. As of right now there is a strict wall, so that is the law we go by until precedent is changed.

yes, exactly. After all, scientists are the best arbiters of what makes good science, non?

What the fuck good are the opinions of laymen? This is a matter of science, it is the scientists who are the experts, and the experts WIDELY agree.

The fact that non experts disagree is not really relevant. They, by nature of not being scientists, don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Much like, for example, you saying that I never provided you with any law describing seperation of church and state, despite me quoting Engle v Vitale.

Which makes you wonder why our Congressmen and Senators and Presidents are usually suck ill informed idiots.

I mean, if you don't know if Al-Qaeda is a Sunni or Shia organization - if you don't know who Hezbollah is - if you don't know <fill in the blank>, how are you supposed to hold hearings on the matter?

I have a great quote from a Congressman from Connecticutt back in the early 1960s asking if there was air in space, so you could take off your space suit.

The majority of our politicians are non-experts in the extreme.