OK, you want explanations? Hear ya go. I’ll keep the wording as simple as possible so I don’t confuse you.
#1. Seriously? Are you aware that our Founding Fathers defined the Senate in Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution? It’s actually more restrictive than the 17th Amendment. The Amendment was Ratified under Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, and a Congress that was over 66% Democrat/Progressive in the House and had the majority (52-44) in the Senate. In case you want to re-read that portion of the Constitution, here’s a link. Remember, Article 1 Section 3…
http://www.archives.gov/exhib...
#2 So, people risking their lives to race here and have a baby is OK? Anchor babies are NOT what was envisioned when that amendment was written. It was drafted with the slaves in mind. By the time the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th amendment set about to make slavery illegal, slaves had been here for a couple generations. Paragraph 4 of Article 14 stated “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insur...
#1. Seriously? Are you aware that our Founding Fathers defined the Senate in Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution? It’s actually more restrictive than the 17th Amendment. The Amendment was Ratified under Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, and a Congress that was over 66% Democrat/Progressive in the House and had the majority (52-44) in the Senate. In case you want to re-read that portion of the Constitution, here’s a link. Remember, Article 1 Section 3…
http://www.archives.gov/exhib...
#2 So, people risking their lives to race here and have a baby is OK? Anchor babies are NOT what was envisioned when that amendment was written. It was drafted with the slaves in mind. By the time the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th amendment set about to make slavery illegal, slaves had been here for a couple generations. Paragraph 4 of Article 14 stated “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insur...
OK, you want explanations? Hear ya go. I’ll keep the wording as simple as possible so I don’t confuse you.
#1. Seriously? Are you aware that our Founding Fathers defined the Senate in Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution? It’s actually more restrictive than the 17th Amendment. The Amendment was Ratified under Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, and a Congress that was over 66% Democrat/Progressive in the House and had the majority (52-44) in the Senate. In case you want to re-read that portion of the Constitution, here’s a link. Remember, Article 1 Section 3…
http://www.archives.gov/exhib...
#2 So, people risking their lives to race here and have a baby is OK? Anchor babies are NOT what was envisioned when that amendment was written. It was drafted with the slaves in mind. By the time the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th amendment set about to make slavery illegal, slaves had been here for a couple generations. Paragraph 4 of Article 14 stated “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.” In other words, slave traders could not take back the slave descendents since it was abolished. This was done to protect their rights. The 14th amendment was set about to further secure them. People who came here legally (my grandparents) and follow the right channels to become citizens are offended by “anchor babies”.
#3. Where does it state in the Constitution that government should be involved in private business? Government is NOT to be involved in private business financially, which includes stocks and bailouts. What would happen in government purchased stock, then decided to sell out their portion for a particular company? It will drastically hurt stock values, not to mention that it’s a conflict of interest to hold shares in a company when you write the laws for what’s legal in business. Judges cannot preside over cases where there is a conflict of interest, so why should government buy into a company when their laws regulate it?
#4. Just exactly HOW is it negative to want more parental rights where government is concerned? If you construe that as negative, you must not have children. I do NOT want the government to stick their nose in my family’s business. I gave birth to my child, I am responsible for my child’s well-being. I am the one that lives with my child day in and day out, and knows what each of her needs are. I am the one that she turns to when she needs love, help, support, and guidance. So, how does government know what’s better for MY child?
#5. Funny, considering out of the top 20 longest-serving Congressional members of all time, 17 of them are Democratic and 2 are Republican (I don’t count Thurmond, since he changed parties 4 times). You seriously have a problem with term limits? You don’t want to restrict the power that long-serving members have and abuse? They’re the sellouts, and manipulate the system. They need to be GONE!!!!
#6. This is a touchy area, simply because if you make flag-burning illegal, it violates the First Amendment, which would push us toward a socialistic society. If you do nothing about it, it shows that we don’t care what even our own people think about our country. Flag-burning is because people are not happy at all with the country. Notice the people that are for restricted government and personal responsibility. They have pride in their country (even though socialists are trying to take over), and respect for national symbols, including the American Flag.
#7. Hmmm… Cutting spending and taxes is disastrous? When your income is reduced, do you cut your personal spending? When you’re deep in debt, do you cut back frivolous spending to get out of it? We are spiraling out of control, and need to rein it in. The spending is the cause of both sides, though the Republican side tended to be from “progressive” members that hid under the guise of being conservative, but really were not. If you want to keep borrowing money to get out of debt, by all means do it – but on a personal level. Word of warning, though. If you default on anything, you could end up in jail for it.
#8 Again, a touchy subject. As a Baptist, I don’t believe in abortion. Morally, I struggle with it because there are LEGITIMATE medical reasons for it. There are personal rights to your body, but if you decide to sleep around, or have unprotected sex, then you are responsible for the consequences. I have friends that got pregnant in high school and decided not to get abortions. The kids have graduated high school now, and are wonderful. Even knew someone that adopted out their baby, because they were not ready. They’re happy with the decisions. Should the government tell you if you can have one or not? No. Should they pay for abortions? Absolutely not, since then it’s a state-sponsored procedure, and that’s letting the government interfere with our personal freedoms. Once you open the door to government covering something like that, they’ll barge through and make more decisions that no one will be comfortable with.
#9 And therein lies the problem. Marriage traditionally is recognized in a religious ceremony, whereas a civil union is a ceremony performed by a judge. A religious leader performs the ceremony, but the license still needs to be signed and filed with the state. If more insurance companies/businesses/people in general accepted a civil union (which most gay couples unite under), there would be no issue. Their significant other would be able to make life decisions, just as a spouse in a traditional marriage would. I don’t believe in gays getting married, as that is a religious tradition, but a civil union is fine. They deserve the same protections under the law as any other heterosexual couple that is joined in a civil union.
#10 Any particular reason a “supermajority” approving tax increases is a bad idea? It’s needed for Congress to pass a bill that has been vetoed by the President, and most non-profit groups require a “supermajority” or two-thirds for a vote to pass to ensure the actions voted on are in agreement with a large majority of the group. Too easy to sway a single vote to block/pass a bill. That’s where lobbyists and “back-scratching” come into play in politics.
#11 Capping spending to 20% GDP? How dare we try to behave in a fiscally responsible way!!! How dare we try to keep ourselves from becoming financially unstable like Greece, Ireland, and host of other European countries!!
#12 Wow! Michelle Bachmann is such a mean person, wanting the President to only have the abilities granted to him under the Constitution (Article 2, Sections 1-4)! Presidents past and present have overstepped their bounds, and need to adhere to the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold. But, guess it’s OK not to if you have no integrity…
Hope I didn’t fry your brain…
(more)#1. Seriously? Are you aware that our Founding Fathers defined the Senate in Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution? It’s actually more restrictive than the 17th Amendment. The Amendment was Ratified under Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, and a Congress that was over 66% Democrat/Progressive in the House and had the majority (52-44) in the Senate. In case you want to re-read that portion of the Constitution, here’s a link. Remember, Article 1 Section 3…
http://www.archives.gov/exhib...
#2 So, people risking their lives to race here and have a baby is OK? Anchor babies are NOT what was envisioned when that amendment was written. It was drafted with the slaves in mind. By the time the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th amendment set about to make slavery illegal, slaves had been here for a couple generations. Paragraph 4 of Article 14 stated “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.” In other words, slave traders could not take back the slave descendents since it was abolished. This was done to protect their rights. The 14th amendment was set about to further secure them. People who came here legally (my grandparents) and follow the right channels to become citizens are offended by “anchor babies”.
#3. Where does it state in the Constitution that government should be involved in private business? Government is NOT to be involved in private business financially, which includes stocks and bailouts. What would happen in government purchased stock, then decided to sell out their portion for a particular company? It will drastically hurt stock values, not to mention that it’s a conflict of interest to hold shares in a company when you write the laws for what’s legal in business. Judges cannot preside over cases where there is a conflict of interest, so why should government buy into a company when their laws regulate it?
#4. Just exactly HOW is it negative to want more parental rights where government is concerned? If you construe that as negative, you must not have children. I do NOT want the government to stick their nose in my family’s business. I gave birth to my child, I am responsible for my child’s well-being. I am the one that lives with my child day in and day out, and knows what each of her needs are. I am the one that she turns to when she needs love, help, support, and guidance. So, how does government know what’s better for MY child?
#5. Funny, considering out of the top 20 longest-serving Congressional members of all time, 17 of them are Democratic and 2 are Republican (I don’t count Thurmond, since he changed parties 4 times). You seriously have a problem with term limits? You don’t want to restrict the power that long-serving members have and abuse? They’re the sellouts, and manipulate the system. They need to be GONE!!!!
#6. This is a touchy area, simply because if you make flag-burning illegal, it violates the First Amendment, which would push us toward a socialistic society. If you do nothing about it, it shows that we don’t care what even our own people think about our country. Flag-burning is because people are not happy at all with the country. Notice the people that are for restricted government and personal responsibility. They have pride in their country (even though socialists are trying to take over), and respect for national symbols, including the American Flag.
#7. Hmmm… Cutting spending and taxes is disastrous? When your income is reduced, do you cut your personal spending? When you’re deep in debt, do you cut back frivolous spending to get out of it? We are spiraling out of control, and need to rein it in. The spending is the cause of both sides, though the Republican side tended to be from “progressive” members that hid under the guise of being conservative, but really were not. If you want to keep borrowing money to get out of debt, by all means do it – but on a personal level. Word of warning, though. If you default on anything, you could end up in jail for it.
#8 Again, a touchy subject. As a Baptist, I don’t believe in abortion. Morally, I struggle with it because there are LEGITIMATE medical reasons for it. There are personal rights to your body, but if you decide to sleep around, or have unprotected sex, then you are responsible for the consequences. I have friends that got pregnant in high school and decided not to get abortions. The kids have graduated high school now, and are wonderful. Even knew someone that adopted out their baby, because they were not ready. They’re happy with the decisions. Should the government tell you if you can have one or not? No. Should they pay for abortions? Absolutely not, since then it’s a state-sponsored procedure, and that’s letting the government interfere with our personal freedoms. Once you open the door to government covering something like that, they’ll barge through and make more decisions that no one will be comfortable with.
#9 And therein lies the problem. Marriage traditionally is recognized in a religious ceremony, whereas a civil union is a ceremony performed by a judge. A religious leader performs the ceremony, but the license still needs to be signed and filed with the state. If more insurance companies/businesses/people in general accepted a civil union (which most gay couples unite under), there would be no issue. Their significant other would be able to make life decisions, just as a spouse in a traditional marriage would. I don’t believe in gays getting married, as that is a religious tradition, but a civil union is fine. They deserve the same protections under the law as any other heterosexual couple that is joined in a civil union.
#10 Any particular reason a “supermajority” approving tax increases is a bad idea? It’s needed for Congress to pass a bill that has been vetoed by the President, and most non-profit groups require a “supermajority” or two-thirds for a vote to pass to ensure the actions voted on are in agreement with a large majority of the group. Too easy to sway a single vote to block/pass a bill. That’s where lobbyists and “back-scratching” come into play in politics.
#11 Capping spending to 20% GDP? How dare we try to behave in a fiscally responsible way!!! How dare we try to keep ourselves from becoming financially unstable like Greece, Ireland, and host of other European countries!!
#12 Wow! Michelle Bachmann is such a mean person, wanting the President to only have the abilities granted to him under the Constitution (Article 2, Sections 1-4)! Presidents past and present have overstepped their bounds, and need to adhere to the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold. But, guess it’s OK not to if you have no integrity…
Hope I didn’t fry your brain…
SEIG HEIL TEA GAGGERS
I am only going to address a couple of your inane accusations or assertions.
14th Amendment: Between 1868 and 1965 the 14th Amendment had an interpretation that Congress perverted in 1965. All we need to do is return to the intneded intent of the 14th when it was written.
That is quicker and more efficient.
17th Amendment: The direct election of Senators has been hailed as a move towards democracy. However, in reality the 17th Amendment was a transfer of power from the states to the federal government. Our federal government has become a national government, exactly what the Founders were afraid of creating.
As far as the rest of your drivel, all are left wing goals of destroying the US.
AZ has the admiration of the people in the world, except for the Leftists and illegal aliens.
And the illegal aliens are laughing at the libs destroying the US.
1. Covered by Constitution.
2. Agreed, will require proof that your parents are legally in this country, which prevents illegals from having babies in this countyr to attempt and gain citizenship
3.Agreed, the government should not be a stockholder in a company that has financed all of the DEMOCRATS in office, it's called conflict of interest!
4. Force parents to take care of the children they have brought I'm tired of supporting welfare babies and their families
5. We need term limits in Congress
6. It should be a federal felony to burn or destroy an US flag.
7. Agreed. Make it a part of the constitution that the federal government must have a balanceed budget by year end, or people (President down lose their jobs and we have a special election to cover balance of terms). Government should not be able to spend more than it takes in.
8.Agreed, those are HUMAN LIVES being taken away. Does the FATHER have the RIGHT to abort being the father, regardless of what the mother wants?
9. Agreed, not only is it immoral, it is un-natural, and unhealthy. Might I also mention it is UNWANTED the majority of our country.
10. Supermajori...
1. Covered by Constitution.
2. Agreed, will require proof that your parents are legally in this country, which prevents illegals from having babies in this countyr to attempt and gain citizenship
3.Agreed, the government should not be a stockholder in a company that has financed all of the DEMOCRATS in office, it's called conflict of interest!
4. Force parents to take care of the children they have brought I'm tired of supporting welfare babies and their families
5. We need term limits in Congress
6. It should be a federal felony to burn or destroy an US flag.
7. Agreed. Make it a part of the constitution that the federal government must have a balanceed budget by year end, or people (President down lose their jobs and we have a special election to cover balance of terms). Government should not be able to spend more than it takes in.
8.Agreed, those are HUMAN LIVES being taken away. Does the FATHER have the RIGHT to abort being the father, regardless of what the mother wants?
9. Agreed, not only is it immoral, it is un-natural, and unhealthy. Might I also mention it is UNWANTED the majority of our country.
10. Supermajority for TAX INCREASE... That's the best I've heard in a while! It would take 3 out of 4 in Congress to vote for an increase instead of just a majority, LOVE IT!
11. Capped Spending - What a novel idea. 20% of GDP or less, yet another brilliant idea to prevent the government from spending (or selling) what we do not have!
12. Agreed. US Dollar only. I "DO NOT" want to deal w/ Mexican peso or Canadian dollar, nor the YEN, POUND, EURO, etc...
2) It's the anchor babies problem that is trying to be solved here. Of course Democrats really need the illegal voters these days so small wonder they are against any solution to the continued violation of existing immigration laws.
3) Government in bed with big business was something Democrats usually complained about - until now.
4) Parental rights is only a problem for those who wish to legislate far beyond the bedroom - into the minds and hearts of your children - yeah, that's a Democrat thing.
5) Term limits is a good thing for everybody - including Republicans.
6) People have the right to burn the flag. I think it's disrespectful and unpatriotic but they still have that right.
7) Democrats who recently outspent every other generation in history combined (and wasted it all) are hypocrites for even speaking of fiscal responsibility. Increasing taxes to pay for their waste, fraud and vote buying schemes - what else is...
2) It's the anchor babies problem that is trying to be solved here. Of course Democrats really need the illegal voters these days so small wonder they are against any solution to the continued violation of existing immigration laws.
3) Government in bed with big business was something Democrats usually complained about - until now.
4) Parental rights is only a problem for those who wish to legislate far beyond the bedroom - into the minds and hearts of your children - yeah, that's a Democrat thing.
5) Term limits is a good thing for everybody - including Republicans.
6) People have the right to burn the flag. I think it's disrespectful and unpatriotic but they still have that right.
7) Democrats who recently outspent every other generation in history combined (and wasted it all) are hypocrites for even speaking of fiscal responsibility. Increasing taxes to pay for their waste, fraud and vote buying schemes - what else is new here?
8) The right to kill someone was never written into the constitution in the first place. It takes a Democrat to kill a child seconds away from birth and then to leave those that do make it out to die in a broom closet. Nobody is as satanically calloused as a Democrat looking to cash in on the blood of the innocent.
9) Yet another instance where the Democrats can't find a vice they hate. Wait until the "pedosexuals" start mainstreaming themselves - the Democrats will use this same argument to protect perverts who touch little kids "in the bedroom".
10) Yep, it should take a majority to steal from the american people. Anything that makes it more difficult for Democrats to rob my middle class wallet to give to their voters is a good thing.
11) Democrats sure hate the idea of capping spending. What else would they do with themselves besides promote sodomy and kill babies if they can't waste other people money?
12) We don't need presidents like Obama (or Bush for that matter) signing on to treaties that break down the national barriers and give unelected foreign bodies the right to dictate rules to the American people. We got rid of that crap in the revolutionary war and the Democrats are intent on bringing back foreign rule.
#2 Is being misused.
#3 Duh! Think about it. Ford didn't get bail out money, in fact they are paying taxes to prop up their competition.
#4 So parents shouldn't have rights?
#5 I support term limits, currently by voting against the majority of them.
#6 I have no respect for those that burn the flag in protest, but to make it illegal would violate the 1st amendment.
#7 You try spending more than you make every year and see where that gets you.
#8 I believe that life begins at conception, if not when does it start. At what point is a fetus considered a baby?
#9 Marriage is a religious union between a man and a woman. Gay means happy. If homosexuals want a civil union or legal union let them, but it isn't marriage.
#10 It should be even higher than 2/3, I like 3/4 better.
#11 So you want the government to be able to spend how every much they want. 20% is 1/5 the total national product it they can't stay within that they are spending too much.
#12 There are those that are pushing the amero now.
You can start with the 1950s when the US began losing respect and that had nothing to do with us. In your case you probably supported the Nazis in WWII and when they fell supported the Communists. I would say your parents supported the Germans in WWI.
#1. Seriously? Are you aware that our Founding Fathers defined the Senate in Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution? It’s actually more restrictive than the 17th Amendment. The Amendment was Ratified under Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, and a Congress that was over 66% Democrat/Progressive in the House and had the majority (52-44) in the Senate. In case you want to re-read that portion of the Constitution, here’s a link. Remember, Article 1 Section 3…
http://www.archives.gov/exhib...
#2 So, people risking their lives to race here and have a baby is OK? Anchor babies are NOT what was envisioned when that amendment was written. It was drafted with the slaves in mind. By the time the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th amendment set about to make slavery illegal, slaves had been here for a couple generations. Paragraph 4 of Article 14 stated “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insur...
#1. Seriously? Are you aware that our Founding Fathers defined the Senate in Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution? It’s actually more restrictive than the 17th Amendment. The Amendment was Ratified under Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, and a Congress that was over 66% Democrat/Progressive in the House and had the majority (52-44) in the Senate. In case you want to re-read that portion of the Constitution, here’s a link. Remember, Article 1 Section 3…
http://www.archives.gov/exhib...
#2 So, people risking their lives to race here and have a baby is OK? Anchor babies are NOT what was envisioned when that amendment was written. It was drafted with the slaves in mind. By the time the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th amendment set about to make slavery illegal, slaves had been here for a couple generations. Paragraph 4 of Article 14 stated “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.” In other words, slave traders could not take back the slave descendents since it was abolished. This was done to protect their rights. The 14th amendment was set about to further secure them. People who came here legally (my grandparents) and follow the right channels to become citizens are offended by “anchor babies”.
#3. Where does it state in the Constitution that government should be involved in private business? Government is NOT to be involved in private business financially, which includes stocks and bailouts. What would happen in government purchased stock, then decided to sell out their portion for a particular company? It will drastically hurt stock values, not to mention that it’s a conflict of interest to hold shares in a company when you write the laws for what’s legal in business. Judges cannot preside over cases where there is a conflict of interest, so why should government buy into a company when their laws regulate it?
#4. Just exactly HOW is it negative to want more parental rights where government is concerned? If you construe that as negative, you must not have children. I do NOT want the government to stick their nose in my family’s business. I gave birth to my child, I am responsible for my child’s well-being. I am the one that lives with my child day in and day out, and knows what each of her needs are. I am the one that she turns to when she needs love, help, support, and guidance. So, how does government know what’s better for MY child?
#5. Funny, considering out of the top 20 longest-serving Congressional members of all time, 17 of them are Democratic and 2 are Republican (I don’t count Thurmond, since he changed parties 4 times). You seriously have a problem with term limits? You don’t want to restrict the power that long-serving members have and abuse? They’re the sellouts, and manipulate the system. They need to be GONE!!!!
#6. This is a touchy area, simply because if you make flag-burning illegal, it violates the First Amendment, which would push us toward a socialistic society. If you do nothing about it, it shows that we don’t care what even our own people think about our country. Flag-burning is because people are not happy at all with the country. Notice the people that are for restricted government and personal responsibility. They have pride in their country (even though socialists are trying to take over), and respect for national symbols, including the American Flag.
#7. Hmmm… Cutting spending and taxes is disastrous? When your income is reduced, do you cut your personal spending? When you’re deep in debt, do you cut back frivolous spending to get out of it? We are spiraling out of control, and need to rein it in. The spending is the cause of both sides, though the Republican side tended to be from “progressive” members that hid under the guise of being conservative, but really were not. If you want to keep borrowing money to get out of debt, by all means do it – but on a personal level. Word of warning, though. If you default on anything, you could end up in jail for it.
#8 Again, a touchy subject. As a Baptist, I don’t believe in abortion. Morally, I struggle with it because there are LEGITIMATE medical reasons for it. There are personal rights to your body, but if you decide to sleep around, or have unprotected sex, then you are responsible for the consequences. I have friends that got pregnant in high school and decided not to get abortions. The kids have graduated high school now, and are wonderful. Even knew someone that adopted out their baby, because they were not ready. They’re happy with the decisions. Should the government tell you if you can have one or not? No. Should they pay for abortions? Absolutely not, since then it’s a state-sponsored procedure, and that’s letting the government interfere with our personal freedoms. Once you open the door to government covering something like that, they’ll barge through and make more decisions that no one will be comfortable with.
#9 And therein lies the problem. Marriage traditionally is recognized in a religious ceremony, whereas a civil union is a ceremony performed by a judge. A religious leader performs the ceremony, but the license still needs to be signed and filed with the state. If more insurance companies/businesses/people in general accepted a civil union (which most gay couples unite under), there would be no issue. Their significant other would be able to make life decisions, just as a spouse in a traditional marriage would. I don’t believe in gays getting married, as that is a religious tradition, but a civil union is fine. They deserve the same protections under the law as any other heterosexual couple that is joined in a civil union.
#10 Any particular reason a “supermajority” approving tax increases is a bad idea? It’s needed for Congress to pass a bill that has been vetoed by the President, and most non-profit groups require a “supermajority” or two-thirds for a vote to pass to ensure the actions voted on are in agreement with a large majority of the group. Too easy to sway a single vote to block/pass a bill. That’s where lobbyists and “back-scratching” come into play in politics.
#11 Capping spending to 20% GDP? How dare we try to behave in a fiscally responsible way!!! How dare we try to keep ourselves from becoming financially unstable like Greece, Ireland, and host of other European countries!!
#12 Wow! Michelle Bachmann is such a mean person, wanting the President to only have the abilities granted to him under the Constitution (Article 2, Sections 1-4)! Presidents past and present have overstepped their bounds, and need to adhere to the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold. But, guess it’s OK not to if you have no integrity…
Hope I didn’t fry your brain…
Edit:
If the Aztecs still existed I would recommend that you volunteer to be one of their 20,000 sacrificial victims a year. You ancestors must have been lucky that they escaped their victim gathering raids, because I bet your forebearers sqealed like pigs.
Republicans and Tea Party idiots shouldn't be allowed to govern, they always make bad choices to limit the freedom of the people of the United States.
"This has been an ongoing battle since the inception of the founding."
What has been? And what's your proof?
"As the exceptionalism gets brushed aside or deleted from history, the
awareness becomes less relevant."
What is exceptionalism to you? What does it make one aware of? What becomes less relevant and how? And how do you document that all of this exists and happened?
This has been a well orchestrated effort..."
By who? How do you prove it?
"...and as society dumbs down it becomes more and more likely."
In what way(s) is society getting dumber, and how do you prove it? How do you document that it's become "more and more likely" that "awareness has become less relevant", and what does that mean and how does it matter?
It was reported on many occassions the ongoing issues with the approval of textbooks and the board that deliberates on what will or will not make it into history books. Depending on an individuals' ideology sways the opinion. Case in point, Texas SBE; they in turn sell those books to other states given they're the largest in terms of distribution. Look it up if you haven't heard of it; that will answer your other questions on why it matters.
I'm aware of the issues surrounding Texas school text decisions. I consider their decisions erroneous and dangerous to the quality of education--and therefore worthless in proving much of anything. Sounds like you disagree.
http://www.the7thfire.com/new...
The point regarding the TSBE was the process that occurs, not whether I agree or disagree to the latest.