Who are you going to vote for?
shadowcat
Atlanta suburb
Yeah, I know, way off topic but we thought that it was fun at the office.
This surprised me.
If you're interested in quickly seeing which political candidate most closely shares your views, take the short quiz at the following link;
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=25…
It's totally anonymous.
Guess Mit Romney is my candidate! Hillary did not do well among my co workers.
This surprised me.
If you're interested in quickly seeing which political candidate most closely shares your views, take the short quiz at the following link;
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=25…
It's totally anonymous.
Guess Mit Romney is my candidate! Hillary did not do well among my co workers.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
74 comments
Apparently he's my best match, followed by Edwards & Clinton.
Fred Thompson is at the bottom of my list. He can kiss my ass.
1. Kucinich
2. Dodd
3. Gravel
4. Clinton
5. Obama
I've been planning to vote for Kucinich in the primaries for quite some time now. However, I'm nearly certain that Hillary will win the nomination, and I intend to vote for her in the presidential election.
I'm beginning to think that the Kucinich For President committee is sponsoring that quiz website.
Ron Paul
John McCain
Sam Brownback
Tom Tancredo
Rudy Guiliani
My opposition to capital punishment and to a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage put me out of the running with a lot of Republicans I otherwise agree with--although I oppose a FEDERAL Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage for reasons of Federalism, not necessarily for reasons concerning social policy.
When I went back and changed my responses to favor capital punishment and to favor an anti- gay marriage amendment (the more "orthodox" Republican positions), I got:
McCain
Hunter
Thompson
Paul
Tancredo.
I question this theory, however, on the basis that, if the media truly are so liberal, why would they follow military usages as a pattern for their own analysis?
Ron Paul is my choice according to the site.
I won't be voting----must be something like 15 years, but who knows . . . better to let others have all the fun.
My prediction, which I made here about 2 years ago, is that Hillary will win because I think she's the most skilled politician of the group, just like her husband was. I also think she'll be extremely devisive, that domestic terrorism will re-emerge during her presidency, and that the R's will make big gains during her presidency.
John McCain
Duncan Hunter
Fred Thompson
Jim Gilmore
Mitt Romney
Tom Tancredo
Rudy Giuliani
Sam Brownback
Mike Huckabee
Ron Paul
Joe Biden
Bill Richardson
Barack Obama
Jonh Edwards
Hillary Clinton
Chris Dodd
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel
Shocking I know, every Republican rated higher than every Democrat for me. Odd however because I'm supporting Rudy (I've already cut two checks for his campaign) and while I'd consider voting for John McCain it'd only be if he were the nominee in the general election. Even then I'd think twice if Leiberman were running. It is true on one other point, if I were to vote for one of the Democrats it's probably be Joe Biden.
I took the test and I'm supposedly a spiritual dabbler. Seemed like a lot of bunk to me.
I didn't think much of the test either because it left out a couple of questions which I deem to be most important. But if I had to choose today I'd probably go with McCain because I think he's the least devisive candidate out there and that's what we need. But his chances of getting the nomination are neer zero, he's been around too long and doesn't excite anyone including me. So as usual we're likely to get a choice between an ultra-liberal and an ultra-conservative. Which is really sad because I think most people would prefer a moderate.
I didn't pay attention to the rest as there has never been second place voting on any ballot I've ever used.
FONDL,
Perhaps we do not agree on the term "moderate", but I would hate to see one in the White House. To me, a "moderate" is someone that has no position. Just wait and see which way the wind blows. I want someone that tells me up front (usually by deeds) they are conservative or liberal. I would prefer the "ultra" label in front of either, before ever seeing "moderate".
Thing is, the one person I would vote for, in a heartbeat, was not listed as they are yet to be an announced candidate.
Anyway...pass the oatmeal. "There is nothing better for Thee than me."
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_….
Clubber, my definition of "moderate" is indeed very different from yours. To me a moderate is someone who isn't tied to any particualr ideology but takes a more pragmatic approach - if it works let's keep doing it, if it doesn't work, let's try something else. Moderates take positions on issues but those positions are based primarily on pragmatism, he supports ome liberal positions, some conservative postitions, and some that are neither. He also is willing to consider a middle position on issues like abortion that are usually defined in black and white terms. In other words, he's willing and able to think for himself.
None of these are frontrunners- what a lot of voters will end up doing will be, choosing the lesser of the evils. If I get too bored with stripclubbing, I may tweak my answers a bit to a point of view that I don't agree 100% with, but find palatable (or not too unpalatable), and see what comes up.
WE will have to agree to disagree.
First, I never mentioned "particualr ideology", rather, perhaps, one that has no ideology. Conservatives and liberals, both have a "pragmatic approach", in their view. The difference is the practical way to solve the problem. Most all of us are not "completely" conservative or liberal, and take a position on issues one by one.
To me, it seems you are saying, that one that is will to settle for "a middle position" (compromise), rather than defend and advance their values and beliefs would be a moderate. What we should do is convince those that do not agree, via history, logic, whatever, that our position is the better route to take.
The ideology that I object to, and both conservatives and liberals are guilty, is the act of taking a politically-correct position on any issue without any thought, based solely on what your particular group leaders tell you is the right position. People who refuse to do that and who make up their own minds on each issue are what I consider to be moderates. And they appear to be shrinking in number, which I think is sad because it is polarizing and dividing our society in a very dangerous way. I'll vote for the person who I believe to be least partisan, who I think has the best chance of reducing the divisions between us. That person will best represent my fundamental beliefs that we need to try to overcome the efforts of those who would divide us for personal gain.
As I stated, we will have to agree to disagree. However, at least our "clubbing" outlook seems to coincide, which is the reason we both come here.
If you think of politicians as strippers you understand them much better. It's all about the money. Give them enough and they'll tell you what4ver you want to hear. And pretend to be interested in what you have to say. And the more you give them the more they want. And sooner or later you'll get screwed. It's all about the money, and that's all they care about. It's all pretend. Don't be a PL and fall for their act. It isn't real.
Except Hillary Cliton. I just can't stomach the idea of such a hypocrite getting anywhere near the Oval Office. I don't know what I'll do if the Dems nominate H. Clinton and the Reps nominate F Thompson. Move to Holland, I guess. Otherwise, it's essentially whoever makes my stomach turn less. I like Richardson, I LOVE Jim Webb, I can stand Edwards (and he's done more for New Orleans, on the poverty and Katrina fronts, than most other candidates, so that's good), I could maybe handle McCain (he keeps whoring, though), I'll certainly take Gore (re-elect Gore in 08! har har) and I might even suffer Obama. Pat Robertson is right out.
As far as Hillary I read a great article on her today.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article…
I loved this; "The Post editorial noted "a perverse kind of good news" in Hillary's free-trade revisionism: "There's little chance that her position reflects any deeply held principle." And there lies the beauty not just of Clinton on free trade but of the Clinton candidacy itself: She has no principles. Her liberalism is redeemed by her ambition; her ideology subordinate to her political needs.
I could never vote for her, but I (and others of my ideological ilk) could live with her -- precisely because she is so liberated from principle. Her liberalism, like her husband's -- flexible, disciplined, calculated, triangulated -- always leaves open the possibility that she would do the right thing for the blessedly wrong (i.e. self-interested, ambition-serving, politically expedient) reason."
Talk about damning with faint praise.
a. Ginsu knives
b. forensic etymology
c. Poughkeepsie, New York
d. epidural anaesthesia
e. January
Har har. I really think Ms. Rodham is just a bundle of ambition, but wrapped slightly better than Vitter or Kissinger. Slightly.
Funny you should mention campaign finance laws (aka "speech rationing": that's a loaded way to put it; note that I didn't say "reform" since that in itself presumes the superiority of one side over the other). I think the thing I MOST support McCain on, is the idea of changing campaign finance and air-time regulations from what they currently are. I'd appreciate hearing why you oppose restrictions.
The way I see it, is, that what we see too often right now, is that those who raise big bucks tend to define which issues will be discussed, despite the fact that often a larger number of constituents (voters, citizens) would see much greater benefit from OTHER issues being in the foreground. It just seems to me that our current method of free-for-all on the airwaves and in the pocket-books doesn't serve the aims of democracy as much as the aims of plutocracy. I can see a lot of valid arguments against that position -- from the cravenly materialistic right down to the rather philosophically democratic -- but I'd appreciate hearing yours.
It's fascinating how H. Clinton has managed to become a chameleon. She started out a braying, aggressive midwestern housewife. Now she's a braying, aggressive non-committal midwestern housewife.
I'm going to have to pick Dodd as my man, one slight step above Kucinich. I'm serious, if Fred gets in I'm leaving, we're no longer a free country.
BG, the thing I like LEAST about McCain is his support of limits on political speech. I oppose such restrictions because (1) they're unconstitutional and (2) because they would further strengthen the power of the political professionals at the expense of ordinary citizens.
"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."
I guess I missed the penumbra where it's OK to tell private citizens or groups that they can't spend their own money within 60 days of an election to run an ad either for or against a candidate because that constitutes a contribution to a candidate and therefore is regulated, since after all we can't have just anyone participating in politics without the proper supervision of the government, and of course without the proper forms being filled out and filed properly.
Does that about cover it?
You said far better than I could have.
Shadowcat, how can anything possibly get more political than a poll asking who we would vote for? That's as political as it gets and you started it. Plus I think it's relevant anyway because, as I said earlier, politicians are just like strippers - they tell you lies to get you to give them your money in exchange for feeling good for a short while, that's what it's all about.
Somebody please wake me when it's 2009.
It's interesting to read what other strip clubbers think politically especially when there is seeming cognizant dissonance. Nobody will care to seriously challenge them on a strip club website? That is one hell of a generalization. Sort of like strippers only care about the money. They're all just little cookie cutter clones who march in lock step for their one true god the almighty U.S. dollar.
Anyway, if President Bush was allowed or did serve another term that would be fine imo. And, President Clinton has a nice ring to it. President Obama sounds nice also. Out of the candidates who is going to give us more cleavage? That's an excellent way to choose the leader of the free world. Hey, don't be thinking Mrs. Clinton got the job just cause she's got a pair! Wives and daughters and mistresses of dear leader should count greatly in determing who is going to provide more cleavage.
After cleavage, I think highway safety is the next priority followed by blowing up those religious folks overseas. Oh yeah. How could I forgot the American farmer? After, cleavage then the next priority is making sure each and every American farmer get a huge government check. I mean if we don't pay the farmers to grow food we might starve and that just doesn't sound like something I'd be interested in doing. I believe in super size it when it comes to tasty American treats and foreign treats too. I'm equal opportunity when it comes to tasty treats of the food variety. :)
Well, actually blowing up those relgious folks overseas or over here (e.g. Waco) is the third priority or was that the fourth priority? It puzzles me that blowing up people wasn't a survey question nor was highway safety nor the American farmer. What a joke.
A bunch of malcontents who unfortunately didn't care for the love it leave option.
Al Qaida is a joke. American farmers have killed far more than Al Qaida could ever dream of. Betcha didn't think I was aware of that, did ya? Well yeah most of the victims are insects but according to some religious people all life is valuable.
Anyway, the solution to Al Qaida is simple. Bring the Jews over here, those that wouldn't mind coming, and of course compensate them generously. New homes, cars, boats, cash, food stamps, hoes, strippers, whatever it takes to make them feel this is their home sweet home (besides it might be a little cheaper than pumping billions into Israel). Then immediately abandon all military, economic, political, whatever ties to Israel. If Israel can survive wonderful. If not, then it shouldn't be considered much of a loss----I mean the world did survive without Israel for hundreds of years and more likely than not Israel has no future if you're thinking long term.
BTW, I don't necessarily believe the teachings of the governments' schools, but weren't these malcontents free to practice a variety of wacked out religions? In essence religion wasn't the issue for the malcontents. They just didn't like paying taxes for valuable government services such as the military. Well, when people don't pay taxes more likely than not there will be some blood spilled and people will be killed. Now, usually the blood is almost exclusively of those who refuse to obey the law and decide to live a life of crime. Whoa, in come the French, always causing problems whether it be french fries or french toast and they give money and assistance to these malcontent anti-tax terrorist cowards. I'll have freedom fries and freedom toast thank you very much!!! :)
.
As a mild counter-argument, I'd suggest that there's really nothing wrong with amending the US Constitution. One could, for example, support a change that would outlaw all fire arms (to change the subject for the sake of the example, so as not to cloud the original issue) or to mandate Christianity as the state religion. I'm not, therefore, particularly convinced that your position is valid MERELY because it parallels the current version of the Constitution. What I'm asking, is, how would you argue to OPPOSE the other side. What reasoning, not which laws, support your side? What if the other side says, "Hey, we know we're suggesting something so radical we'd have to change the Constitution. We're happy to change the Constitution, because we think the change would be beneficial?"
I think FONDL's mention of the political "operatives" is a good angle to pursue. By limiting speech in any manner, he seems to suggest, you're probably taking more rights away from the common man while failing to take them away from the "slimy professionals" who would be able to continue to find loopholes.
I'm up in the air over this issue. I'm certainly not trying to provoke anger. I just look about me and see, that the campaign finance situation is weirdly screwed up, and I'd like it to be fixed. Maybe we can change financing without changing free speech somehow?
As for a specific argument let me then refer to the 14th amendment this time; " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The equal protection clause was the one the supreme court used to stop Gore's lawsuits in Florida. How could the state supreme court rule that (I might add in violation of the specific text of state law) some counties had the right to recount only undervotes and add the totals, but overvotes, other ballots, and other counties did not get the same protection. In short if the state goes to great lengths to protect one citizens rights it had better be prepared to go to those same lengths for every citizen. The fact that Florida was tossing out military ballots on technicalities but giving preferential treatment to ballots in certain counties pretty much killed Gore's chances. But I digress.
Lets go to 21 days before an election. If I'm the owner or editor of the New York Times I can print any editorial I want specifically endorsing any candidate or cause. If I don't happen to own a newspaper I can't buy an ad to do the exact same thing. If I'm a political candidate I can buy add time to convince people that the new freeway through where the Jones farm is is a ballot initiative you should approve. If I'm Mr. Jones I can't pass out flyers saying that is a bad idea without creating a campaign, filing with the FEC, filing out paperwork, etc. So the ability to speak out on an issue in the last days before a campaign are reserved for the candidates, the established media, and people or groups with government approval via the FEC. That alone should raise the red flag, you have to have government approval to be able to run ads about issues.
I think we're pretty much on the same page there. (Soros scares me, by the way. Way too ... umm ... CONNECTED. Government-by-committee type. Eek.) I would like to see less campaigning in general. Nuke the primary system, nuke the thing about first Tuesday in November, rearrange the electoral college (we got telecommunications now! you can get from LA to Chicago in half a day!), set up proportional representation. Boy the things I'd do if I were King for a Day ...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/43346/page/2
Is it true? Does it make any difference? Don't the voters understand the Democrats want to SURRENDER to the terrorists? Even if they did surrender it seems like the policy would be declare victory and run ala President Reagan in Lebanon. Everyone once in a blue moon I'll read a story bemoaning President Reagan's decision to "cut and run." How the terrorists could have been defeated in Lebanon if only President Reagan hadn't taken the convenient and cowardly way out. Fortunately, the heroic government has an opportunity to correct that mistake by defeating the terrorists in Iraq. Golly gee whittaker. It is like if you NUKED Columbia the drug lords would be defeated. Oh, you might have to NUKE Mexico as well, but that ain't any great loss and it solves the problem of illegal immigration! Killin two dem dogs with a couple pop pops definitely a bargain for freedom loving people all over the world. Next we can all sit around a faux camp fire and drink Coca Cola while swaying to the music and holding hands. :)
One policy of President Bush's that is ingenious is fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here. It is a win/win for the terrorists and Americans. Think for a moment.
Why would a terrorist need to make the long and risky journey to America when President Bush has so thoughtfully given them a plentiful number of Americans in convenient locations? No need for Omar or Rasheed or Muhammed to travel to far off lands. They can can conduct their godly duties in the holy lands and hang with friends and family. Even better if successful they get more than a few dozen virgins as a reward and are freed from being jealous of our FREEDOMS. (Remember how right before the holy warriors boarded the planes they hung out at a strip club so they could get a small taste of the freedom that was awaiting them? Oh, that story was a fraud. Oh, well. :) )
OK, sounds good so far but what do our soldiers win out of this? Besides increased monetary rewards and adventure? Simple they get to fight for our freedoms that didn't need to be surrendered to our war on terror. Remember the reason the terrorists hate us according to President Bush is because they're jealous of our freedoms. A damn good reason of making strip clubs illegal as Governor Bush promised the people of Florida. The Bushes sure know how to fight terrorists!
Selfish people would rather watch tits and ass than appease the terrorists! Sorry, that's fight the terrorists! Talk about a lethal blow to the whole terrorist movement. They're all in a hissey fit over our freedoms? Just elminate the freedoms! President Bush does know how to win the war on terror through a dual pronged strategy of giving the terrorists more convenient targets and eliminating freedoms. It is so simple the war has basically already been won and it is just time to distribute the medals in a few short months. :)
I was watching Rumsfeld on TV some years back and he was complaining that we spend more money than the terrorists. OK, he wants to spend less money than the terrorists? That's a good start. :)
No, he couldn't be that sensible. Naw, somehow he needs to force the terrorists to spend more of their money. Maybe help them set up their own IRS? :) Naw, that would probable be a little too cruel and unusual. OTOH, they aren't protected by the Consitution are they? Silly, is anyone? The legal profession.
The Constitution doesn't even mention lawyer or attorney. It's been turned into a gravy train by and for lawyers.
I didn't know there was right to bear arms secured by the Constitution. And, perhaps I need to take a closer look at it, but free speech rights weren't protected either as I recall. I know their isn't a right to a jury of ones peers. And, there isn't a right to a jury trial in civil cases either. Double jeopardy? Gone. No standing army? Well with endless war promoted by the government that ain't really applicable. It is a fairly "flexible" document that I believe was ignored or selectively enforced right from the get go.
And, as good as it was in many respects in planted the seeds for a very bloody war. And, I'm not even talking about the slave issue; the division of power between the States and the Federal Government.
Do you remember the Pledge of Allegiance case? The father sued on behalf of his daughter and the case spent years in the courts. The state had its team of lawyers and the lawyer-judges batted the issue around. The father appearing pro-se did have a law degree and may have even been licensed to practice law. So you have all these lawyers who you would think might know a little something about law, but know it never occured to them that the father didn't have standing to sue on behalf of his daughter. The great legal minds of the Supreme Court, more likely their law clerks, had to cook up that excuse to avoid deciding the case. Not that the case had any real importance. The government wants you to pledge allegiance to peanut butter and jelly sandwiches then you pledge allegiance to peanut butter and jelly sandwishes. It's real simple.
Most of government is just about force and fraud. Who was that said if men were angels we wouldn't need government as if the the government was better than ordinary men. It might be if you created real separation of powers and checks by ordinary citizens . . . imo it is just a bunch of ca ca. :)
Hi FONDL,
Well you don't shrink the government by throwing money and resources to protect Israel let alone risk plunging the world into war over a strip of land that should truly have NO value to Americans. Protecting the Jewish people is one thing getting into a real estate squabble is quite another. Plenty of room here in the U.S. for those Jews who value peace and their lives over some strip of "holy land." They think God gave it to them? Fine, then its God's problem. America should actually start thinking about its citizens first for a change and not get involved in idiotic religious disputes. The Republicans look like just a bunch of hoodlums and closet sex cases.
Anyway compassionate conservative as I understood it meant more government in every aspect of people's lives. So it shouldn't have come as a surprise. If more government is the desire of both parties, then that is fine. I would like to see gay marriage approved of by both state and federal governments. Perhaps even affirmative action for gays and lesbians. I would also like to see the government pay for abortions as well as medical care for everyone. Taxes? Way too low and enforcement not aggressive enough. Alcohol banned and other drugs legalized, but regulated and heavily taxed. Inflation? Not enough because the government needs to create more money to give to the poor. Mandatory million dollar no-fault insurance for gun owners per gun. Almost forgot again. Nothing more important than giving government millions to family farms.
But, if none of those good things happen that will be fine. So any Democrat or Republican is wonderful. Remember WE STAND UNITED!!!
PS --- I was Republican who wouldn't have ever thought of voting for Democrats. I believed in less government even for progams that I thought were basically good and less taxes and a stable dollar. After Bush, I don't care what the Democrats do they'll never look appealing to me. :)
So bring on Hillary or whoever.
Democratic victory is fine and so is a Republican victory. Endless wars that is fine or peace nut city is fine also.
The one Republican most responsible for their rise in 1994, Newt, was trampled, even by Republicans. He was the one that truly held conservative principles. democrats have the "protect their own" down to a science. Republicans do not, and in many cases, should not! When Newt left the main stage, truly conservative principles (IE: eliminating the Department of Education) left with him. One of his biggest strengths is his knowledge of history and how to learn from it. Should he run, he would get my vote without a doubt.
jablake, It has been illegal since 1943 to force a child to Pledge Allegiance. The most recent case was not about forcing children to make the pledge, or about teachers leading the pledge. The plaintiff contended that the phrase "under God" being uttered by other students who voluntarily took the pledge in the public schools was illegal. Kind of flies in the face of the part of the first amendment clause which states that government shall not only not create a religion, but shall not interfere with the free practice of same.
As far as "throwing money at Israel" Egypt gets $2 billion per year compared to Israel's $3 billion per year, and Israel actually lets people vote, including Arabs and Moslems. In contrast just about all the Jews and Christians have been driven out of Egypt (and just about every other middle eastern nation) and the state controlled media regularly run anti-US and anti-Israel and anti-Semitic propaganda. So is the scandal that we defend Israel with 1.8 billion worth of military aid and 1.2 billion worth of economic aid to a nation that has consistently been our ally and consistently refrained from defending its interests to aid us and who has always responded to calls for negotiations, or that we toss 2 billion worth of aid into a nation that actively works against our interests.
Aside from those points I find most of your pronouncements rather confusing.
BG, careful, pride is the Devil's favorite sin. What has been the main reason communists, socialists, various "progressives" and general malcontents have caused so much mischief going back to the French revolution? Because they thought if they just tore down everything all those poor unenlightened ossified minds of the oppressors clung to without reason they could start from scratch and create the perfect society. We've seen how that works out.
As far as all the wire tapping, etc. I think it should be remembered that in the most literal sense people who are against this DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. It is illegal to wiretap for prosecution in a criminal case without a warrant. It has NEVER been illegal to wiretap foreigners, embassies agents, foreign communications for INTELLIGENCE purposes. It has been the policy of every president, including Clinton, that they had the unrestrained authority to monitor any and all communications outside the US, and from outside the US to inside the US for intelligence purposes. This highlights the cognitive disconnect that many people are unable to even conceive of anything in the world that is not a legal case. Clue in. When JFK sent U2 spy-planes over Cuba to prove that there were Russian missiles there, he violated Cuban airspace and he didn't ask for a warrant so he could bring a legal case against the Russians.
Clubber, I agree that Newt is not only not the boogeyman he was portrayed as by the left, but a serious person that should have a voice in public policy debates, but I also think he was not an effective leader. He basically considered his job done when he brought an issue to the floor for a vote. He never really worked much beyond that to advance an agenda. As a mitigating factor, he was political poison and was perhaps not the best spokesman because he spoke in paragraphs and the press reported in soundbytes, but I still feel a little let down by him.
Gee I wonder why Egypt is getting $2 Billion a year? Could it have anything to do with Israel?
The point of the pledge of allegiance case was the grounds the Supreme Court used to avoid deciding the issue. Dad has no standing where his child is concerned--No surprise there, sounds like typical America. Furthermore as I stated if the government wants you to say pledge of allegiance to peanut butter and jelly sandwiches you do it. AND, no it doesn't make a bit of difference if there is some stupid or smart Supreme Court precedence stating that you can or can't do X, Y, or Z. Whether the statutory law or case law is for or against you makes very little difference. It is whatever the judge wants.
I had some Supreme Court law where an administrative judge was held to the requirement of written findings of fact and conclusions of law under the due process clause. As an aside the court stated a trial judge would be held to even higher standards of due process. You believe that? Is that the law that will be enforced? Or is there some reason a trial judge shouldn't be held to that standard of due process?
Anyway, you believe in this corrupt system that is fine and dandy. I wouldn't trust them with anything over a $1--no even a $1 is too much to trust them with.
No, it is all me. It is the way I write and think. :)
See you bring up something about the pledge not being required since 1943 and my thought is so what? The issue is years of litigation and Supreme Court suddenly discovers Dad has no standing. I believe even if the Constitution and the highest court specially said that you had a right not to pledge allegiance that that would be meaningless. The protections don't work. Precedent is ignored. The Constitution is ignored.
You bring up the garbage about $2 Billion a year for Egypt. And, this situation was for the benefit of ?????????????? I will give you a million guesses. Was one of the guesses Israel?
Whatever. Perhaps you think the benefit of the $2 Billion a year for Egypt was for U.S. college students. Who knows. Israel is no benefit to the United States it is the exact opposite--it is a financial as well as a security drain.
The way congress seems to "work" these days, that was Newt's job, get hte legislation started, then the committee chair takes over, the majority leader, the majority whip, the majority #1 vote getter, the majority HMFIC of getting votes, etc, all go to work to get it passed. A pitiful way to accomplish anything meaningful. I agree Newt was not an effective speaker as a snippet man but excellent as a true speaker.