deep
Blue Crack Addict
it's over-rated
and certainly outdated
and certainly outdated
I'm assuming you think amendments are anti-patriotic?
Nowhere in the constitution is the power to pass environmental protection laws that the states are forced to comply with delegated to the government. So clearly, the power to pass environmental protection laws is a power reserved to the states. Your welcome.
BVS said:The Founding Fathers were so brilliant that they could forsee the future; they knew of the internet, they knew about climate change, and they knew about Lady Gaga. This was all part of their plan.
Caleb8844 said:On a serious note, though, would you say you believe in a living constitution?
insert photo of founding fathers with exotic costumes here.
Of course they knew about Lady Gaga. They even banned listening to her in one of the amendments. Does no "cruel and unusual punishment" meant anything to people nowadays?!
On a serious note, though, would you say you believe in a living constitution?
Come on man, you're an intelligent guy. Resorting to swearing and insults makes it seem otherwise.
I asked where it says that the government can burden the states with regulations the states can't afford, and not give them the federal funds to put those regulations into action. You explained why the government has to protect the environment.
I asked what you think will happen when the downtrend in the dollar continues, to the point where the government prints so much backless money, that the dollar is worth next to nothing. You explained what would happen if we went to a gold standard.
I'd say that's not quite answering my questions.
Oh, I gotcha. Yeah, reading that over again it sounds a bit too harsh. Sorry about that Steved
I also find the idea that states know so much better absolutely fascinating. What makes a state so much holier-than-thou than the federal government?
Maybe it's my cynicism from living in a state with arguably the most corrupt government in the entire country
Appearing on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" on Friday night, Ron Paul was asked to run down the list of his fellow Republican presidential candidates to give his impressions. It was pretty tame until he got to Michele Bachmann. "She hates Muslims," Paul said, giving Leno the sort of look one uses when describing a bigoted great uncle who's set in his ways. "She wants to go get 'em." Paul also tagged former senator Rick Santorum with the same label. When Leno suggested all Santorum wants to do is "talk about gay people," Paul added, "and Muslims."
...Meanwhile, the guy who is accusing Bachmann of hating Muslims has had his own run-ins with hateful speech. Recall the 2008 furor over James Kirchik's article for The New Republic about the newsletters published under Ron Paul's name over twenty years. They, among other delights, compared black people to "animals," called Martin Luther King Jr. a pedophile, and warned of imminent race war. Paul's campaign rebutted the criticism in 2008 by saying that the offensive material in those newsletters, which dated to the 1980s, were not written by Paul, and that he didn't see them before they were published; Kirchik, who quickly became a target of scorn for Paul's supporters, said the campaign had changed its story about Paul's authorship of some of those memos.
Will theRepublicanPresidential candidate that isn't a complete hypocrite please stand up?
Fixed it.
They are all hypocrites, but this current crop of Republicans take it to an entirely new level. Then you add some crazy and well, there needs to be a reality show.
Paul leads in Iowa
Newt Gingrich's campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa. He's at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.
Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row. His share of the vote has gone from 27% to 22% to 14%. And there's been a large drop in his personal favorability numbers as well from +31 (62/31) to +12 (52/40) to now -1 (46/47). Negative ads over the last few weeks have really chipped away at Gingrich's image as being a strong conservative- now only 36% of voters believe that he has 'strong principles,' while 43% think he does not.
Paul's ascendancy is a sign that perhaps campaigns do matter at least a little, in a year where there has been a lot of discussion about whether they still do in Iowa. 22% of voters think he's run the best campaign in the state compared to only 8% for Gingrich and 5% for Romney. The only other candidate to hit double digits on that question is Bachmann at 19%. Paul also leads Romney 26-5 (with Gingrich at 13%) with the 22% of voters who say it's 'very important' that a candidate spends a lot of time in Iowa. Finally Paul leads Romney 29-19 among the 26% of likely voters who have seen one of the candidates in person.
Paul leads in Iowa - Public Policy Polling