The Texas State House has passed a Bill protecting Pastors from performing gay marriages. The Governor promises to sign it.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/05/12/texas-senate-passes-bill-protecting-pastors-from-performing-gay-marriages/
So, will the Supremes shoot down this law?
The Texas State House is on fire right now.... as we have just added an impressive number of TEAs to the chambers! The Christian conservatives are in power now!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I love this.
Something is going terribly wrong, when states have to pass their own laws to protect themselves from the federal government.
Californians voted twice to declare marriage was between a man and a woman, and both times the courts threw it out.
Quote from: Dori on May 12, 2015, 06:03:03 PM
Something is going terribly wrong, when states have to pass their own laws to protect themselves from the federal government.
Californians voted twice to declare marriage was between a man and a woman, and both times the courts threw it out.
... which should be unconstitutional! The Courts cannot overrule the will of the people!
Like the President, the Judges are exerting powers that they do not lawfully possess!
If the SCOTUS rules against the people, we are doomed as a Constitutional Republic. We have become a Banana Republic. Our only hope is in the election process which is being corrupted also.
When I come to this point I always put my faith in God and acknowledge that all things are possible!
God will not be mocked.
Quote from: kroz on May 12, 2015, 05:46:47 PM
So, will the Supremes shoot down this law?
Nah. They'll rule that States can do what they want. If a gay-couple gets married in one State, they'll have to return to that State to get a divorce. That's the cold reality of it. Gay-divorce isn't the 94-ish percent of non-gay's problem.
A small percentage of working-people get transferred out-of-state. A microscopic percentage of
those are gay. " For better or worse " means exactly what it implies.
If there's an adoption-issue, let the States' high-courts decide it on a case-by-case basis.
I wanted Wendy Davis' perspective on this however she was busy having several abortions and couldn't be reached for comment....
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 13, 2015, 12:08:29 AM
I wanted Wendy Davis' perspective on this however she was busy having several abortions and couldn't be reached for comment....
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Wendy who ? ..... :laugh:
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 13, 2015, 12:08:29 AM
I wanted Wendy Davis' perspective on this however she was busy having several abortions and couldn't be reached for comment....
Texas needs to outlaw Austin.
Quote from: Dori on May 13, 2015, 09:38:09 AM
Texas needs to outlaw Austin.
oh, yeah..... that would be great, Dori~!
Quote from: red_dirt on May 12, 2015, 06:42:35 PM
God will not be mocked.
You, I and most of the forum believe this. It remains to be seen if most of our rulers, along with a goodly number of voters, will come to recognize where the real power comes from.
Quote from: keyboarder on May 13, 2015, 10:01:43 AM
You, I and most of the forum believe this. It remains to be seen if most of our rulers, along with a goodly number of voters, will come to recognize where the real power comes from.
O'Reilly talks about this a lot. Last night he had an AP poll, that showed that Americans who are Christians has dropped to 70%, from 78% in 2007.
There is a war on Christianity that needs to be fought against.
George Washington - " Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."
Quote from: kroz on May 12, 2015, 06:20:08 PM
... which should be unconstitutional! The Courts cannot overrule the will of the people!
Like the President, the Judges are exerting powers that they do not lawfully possess!
If the SCOTUS rules against the people, we are doomed as a Constitutional Republic. We have become a Banana Republic. Our only hope is in the election process which is being corrupted also.
When I come to this point I always put my faith in God and acknowledge that all things are possible!
It IS unconstitutional for courts to legislate from the bench. But, Federal justices, once appointed, they serve for life. UNLESS they do something, like issue an Unconstitutional ruling, at which point it's up to either the SUPREMES to sanction that justice, or the Congress to impeach them. I don't think, a lot of folks realize that ALL federal court justices are there for life, not just those who serve on the supreme court. And well as we can see with the Congress, good luck ever seeing that one happen.
So whats my point? You are right! Something has gone terribly wrong, it's called a Congress full of people who refuse to do their job as our elected officials.
Who sat silently by, while a couple of liberal Presidents rushed to fill court vacancies, with people who are themselves liberals.
And who now refuse to do their jobs, and reign in justices who are legislating from the bench, doing things for example, like enacting "sharia" courts.
Even though, no legislative body, in the U.S. has ever empowered such a thing.
I think allot of people are blaming Christians for the killing in the middle east.
Quote from: kroz on May 12, 2015, 06:20:08 PM
... which should be unconstitutional! The Courts cannot overrule the will of the people!
Like the President, the Judges are exerting powers that they do not lawfully possess!
If the SCOTUS rules against the people, we are doomed as a Constitutional Republic. We have become a Banana Republic. Our only hope is in the election process which is being corrupted also.
When I come to this point I always put my faith in God and acknowledge that all things are possible!
That is incorrect. Anyone who has read the federalist papers or the notes of the constitutional convention know that our founding fathers deliberately put in safeguards to protect certain rights against the will of the people.
For example, if the majority of Americans voted right now to send Jews to gas chambers, the constitution uses courts as a last line of defense to prevent it.
I am not comparing the two scenarios, but it is false as you stated it.
That being said, nobody has a right to make pastors marry anybody. It seems to me a pastor should be allowed to choose who to marry based off of his own beliefs. I don't think that this law makes a different in that sense.
For example, a pastor cannot be made to perform a muslim ceremony or a jewish one. I don't see the difference but I affirm my agreement that pastors shouldn't be forced to do anything against their wishes. I was just unaware that they had been.
Quote from: Dori on May 12, 2015, 06:03:03 PM
Something is going terribly wrong, when states have to pass their own laws to protect themselves from the federal government.
Californians voted twice to declare marriage was between a man and a woman, and both times the courts threw it out.
I agree. If the government can force any church to perform any act that they feel violates their belief, what will stop that same government from forcing any hospital to preform abortions?? And once we accept the fact that our government can force anyone to perform anything, we will not be surprised when our government decides to withhold services from other groups they feel do not think the right way. Its coming folks, keep one in the chamber.
The government has never forced such a thing.
Keep one bullet in the chamber?
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 01:18:41 PM
The government has never forced such a thing.
Keep one bullet in the chamber?
Obamacare tried that very same thing with the catholic churches and birth control, just did not get enough votes this time. BUT THEY TRIED. And yes, keep one in the chamber does refer to a bullet in the chamber.
Thanks for clarifying the bullet thing.
I disagree with your assessment here on Obamacare.
Quote from: Dori on May 12, 2015, 06:03:03 PM
Something is going terribly wrong, when states have to pass their own laws to protect themselves from the federal government.
Californians voted twice to declare marriage was between a man and a woman, and both times the courts threw it out.
Less than then flippin years ago, even Barak Hussain Obama and Hillary Clinton publically stated they BELIEVED that marriage was between a man and a women and this was due to their own personal religious convictions
Now they, along with the media and the RINO's who wet their finger and put it in the air to test the direction of the prevailing political wind...are Hell bent on undoing a religious and civil institution of thousands of years. Now, we know what that "Change you can Believe in" crap was all about; The Tyrrany of the Minority has come to fruition!
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 01:18:41 PM
The government has never forced such a thing.
Keep one bullet in the chamber?
A DP round? :rolleyes:
Quote from: wally on May 13, 2015, 01:31:08 PM
Less than then flippin years ago, even Barak Hussain Obama and Hillary Clinton publically stated they BELIEVED that marriage was between a man and a women and this was due to their own personal religious convictions
Now they, along with the media and the RINO's who wet their finger and put it in the air to test the direction of the prevailing political wind...are Hell bent on undoing a religious and civil institution of thousands of years. Now, we know what that "Change you can Believe in" crap was all about; The Tyrrany of the Minority has come to fruition!
Yeah he is lying opportunist, hardly news. ALl politicans, or most, are.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 01:27:57 PM
Thanks for clarifying the bullet thing.
I disagree with your assessment here on Obamacare.
Here is one quick article to help explain what I was writing about. Birth control was written into obama care knowing fully well that the catholic church would not go along. That fact meant nothing to the dems, it was written in anyway. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/30/bishops-refuse-to-comply-with-obamacare-birth-control-mandate/
Quote from: s3779m on May 13, 2015, 01:34:28 PM
Here is one quick article to help explain what I was writing about. Birth control was written into obama care knowing fully well that the catholic church would not go along. That fact meant nothing to the dems, it was written in anyway. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/30/bishops-refuse-to-comply-with-obamacare-birth-control-mandate/
But if you are an employee of a religious institution you are thereby prevented from being covered for plan b?
There are some religions that believe you should not take medicine at all. Would then they not have to cover anything?
I am sensitive to your point here. But to me if you say a company can choose to not cover birth control you are then saying a company can refuse to cover any drug for any religious reason. IDK, this is a tough one to me.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 01:41:10 PM
But if you are an employee of a religious institution you are thereby prevented from being covered for plan b?
There are some religions that believe you should not take medicine at all. Would then they not have to cover anything?
I am sensitive to your point here. But to me if you say a company can choose to not cover birth control you are then saying a company can refuse to cover any drug for any religious reason. IDK, this is a tough one to me.
You are correct, the government should not force anyone to do anything against their religion. Its right here,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". We do not need the government to regulate companies on a issue like this, the free market would take care of it. The catholic church has always had this stance on birth control, it became a issue when the government tried to force them into "plan b" thru obamacare.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 01:33:11 PM
Yeah he is lying opportunist, hardly news. ALl politicans, or most, are.
Yes he and the Clintons are lying opportunists. It's hardly "old news" though. The Godless Marxists are doing just what Stalin did with religious freedom. Stalin infamously said you can practice any religion you wish, behind the doors of your church, but that is where it is to remain! (or words to that effect; the exact quote escapes me. The meaning supports Marx's view that "religion is the opiate of the people" and the ends justify the means. The end is total state control over all aspects of every individual's life from cradle to grave! Homosexual Marriage is a means to an end. The supreme relationship is not the family; It is all 'subjects' being subservient to the dictates of the state! The destruction of the traditional family is as important as the alienation of people from one another!
Quote from: s3779m on May 13, 2015, 01:56:02 PM
You are correct, the government should not force anyone to do anything against their religion. Its right here,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". We do not need the government to regulate companies on a issue like this, the free market would take care of it. The catholic church has always had this stance on birth control, it became a issue when the government tried to force them into "plan b" thru obamacare.
That being said, the free market was not solving health care at all.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 02:00:31 PM
That being said, the free market was not solving health care at all.
And obamacare did what?? Health care is still not solved.
Obamacare was a bill written, literally, by health care companies, for health care companies.
It did not solve healthcare, I agree. But it has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with insurance/ and pharma profit.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 02:11:28 PM
Obamacare was a bill written, literally, by health care companies, for health care companies.
It did not solve healthcare, I agree. But it has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with insurance/ and pharma profit.
The dems have been trying to get a one payer plan for healthcare for some time. If that is not socialism what is?
BY the way, Robert Creamer had a lot to do with writing obamacare, and he damn sure did not do it for the insurance companies.
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/12/02/the-shocking-truth-about-who-wrote-obamacare/
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 12:17:42 PM
That is incorrect. Anyone who has read the federalist papers or the notes of the constitutional convention know that our founding fathers deliberately put in safeguards to protect certain rights against the will of the people.
For example, if the majority of Americans voted right now to send Jews to gas chambers, the constitution uses courts as a last line of defense to prevent it.
I am not comparing the two scenarios, but it is false as you stated it.
That being said, nobody has a right to make pastors marry anybody. It seems to me a pastor should be allowed to choose who to marry based off of his own beliefs. I don't think that this law makes a different in that sense.
For example, a pastor cannot be made to perform a muslim ceremony or a jewish one. I don't see the difference but I affirm my agreement that pastors shouldn't be forced to do anything against their wishes. I was just unaware that they had been.
Okay, let's discuss this a little further.
Why don't you post a supporting document for your statement...... courts can overrule the people.
It appears to me that this government was given to the people. It is a government "of the people", "by the people", "for the people". The ballot box reigns supreme in all issues. As Ben Franklin famously said, "We have given you (the people) a constitutional Republic..... if you can keep it."
I have never heard anywhere that SCOTUS can knock down a national referendum. The only exception would be if the referendum defied the Constitution or Bill of Rights. To change that we were given the option of Constitutional Amendments.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 02:11:28 PM
Obamacare was a bill written, literally, by health care companies, for health care companies.
Where do you get your information?
Ever hear of Johnathan Gruber? Robert Creamer? Ezekiel Emanuel?
The plan for Obamacare is to become a one payer system, the government, which would eliminate the need for insurance companies.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 02:11:28 PM
Obamacare was a bill written, literally, by health care companies, for health care companies.
It did not solve healthcare, I agree. But it has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with insurance/ and pharma profit.
Wake up and smell the borscht, Komrade! Capitalism is the enemy of the marxist, socialist state! State control of one seventh of the US economy and state mandates that bypass the individual states ordering state dictazted behavior...couple this with the same "croanie capitalism" which has always existed in Marxist regimes from Stalin to Chairman Mao and you have a perfect storm for destroying the free market along with individual liberties. The Cloward-Piven Plan (for CHANGE through orchestrated crisis) calls for exploiting the freedoms of our system in order to place unrealistic demands upon the system and thereby bankrupting the economy; then blaming capitalism as a failed economic system and ultimately replacing it with marxist socialism. State controlled Healthcare is a means to an end!
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 02:00:31 PM
That being said, the free market was not solving health care at all.
There hasn't been a free market health care system. The government has interfered for years in our system. A free market system with very little government would significantly improve our system.
Quote from: taxed on May 13, 2015, 03:45:29 PM
There hasn't been a free market health care system. The government has interfered for years in our system. A free market system with very little government would significantly improve our system.
Taxed, I'm afraid we're either talking with a Libtard Troll or an Anarchist. Considering his (stevefolkster) apparent love for all things that flow from the UN and hatred and distrust of the American system of free enterprise and capitalism, e either is with the other Team or he just has given up and can't see the forest through the trees! He don't much sound like a COnservative to me...justsayun! :rolleyes:
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 02:00:31 PM
That being said, the free market was not solving health care at all.
The problem is not free market healthcare. The problem is the government's insistence upon forcing medical doctors and hospitals to treat non paying patients. That is NOT free market. That is government oppression.
Also, medicare forces physicians and hospitals to treat the elderly for ridiculously low amounts of government compensation. It is unsustainable. And the government dictates what type of healthcare a medicare recipient can receive. Medicine is no longer between a patient and the doctor. We have the long arm of government present in every clinical situation.
This is socialization of the worst kind!
Quote from: kroz on May 13, 2015, 04:09:41 PM
The problem is not free market healthcare. The problem is the government's insistence upon forcing medical doctors and hospitals to treat non paying patients. That is NOT free market. That is government oppression.
Also, medicare forces physicians and hospitals to treat the elderly for ridiculously low amounts of government compensation. It is unsustainable. And the government dictates what type of healthcare a medicare recipient can receive. Medicine is no longer between a patient and the doctor. We have the long arm of government present in every clinical situation.
This is socialization of the worst kind!
There are a couple of other problems that flow from goverment interference with the market and overregulation.
1. TORT REFORM!!! Everyone in the Healthcare profession must practice defensive medicine to the point of paranoia! Anyone bold enough to take a chance and only do what is deemed medically necessary, reasonable and/or appropriate is the target for every ambulance chasing lawyer on tv and those who aren't!
2. The Federal Goverment won't allow medical insurance to be sold accross state lines. Why is that? It's because so many of our various states are also infected with the Liberal Cancer of requiring the people "insure" against all manner of stupid mandaes!
3. THE STOOOPID POLITICALLY MOTIVATED MANDATES that requires everyone's policy insures for shit to shine-ola. (eg; fifty year old woman must be insured to cover prenatal care/ oh, don't forget mandates like all of our policies covering such things as abortion, whether we want it or not, or sex change (gender reassignment) counseling through the surguries themselves.) All these mandates cost all of us consumers more and more money to pay for a never ending dictated lists of whatever state and federal goverments mandate us to "insure" for. The dirty little secret is that everyone's costs go higher to pay for those things that may only be of concern to a little minority of people. I can except we are all at risk for things like heart disease and cancer...BUT not that many of us are at risk for needing expensive gender reassignment healthcare treatment!!!!
Quote from: wally on May 13, 2015, 04:07:14 PM
Taxed, I'm afraid we're either talking with a Libtard Troll or an Anarchist. Considering his (stevefolkster) apparent love for all things that flow from the UN and hatred and distrust of the American system of free enterprise and capitalism, e either is with the other Team or he just has given up and can't see the forest through the trees! He don't much sound like a COnservative to me...justsayun! :rolleyes:
He's a hot mess......
Quote from: taxed on May 13, 2015, 04:42:46 PM
He's a hot mess......
A lot of people are. In fact, it is part of the Obama strategy to divide us so they canultimately win. As you aptly pointed out, Ben Franklin showed his reluctant support for the new goverment they created saying it is a republic, if we can keep it. Madison explains in Federalist Papers #10 why we need the struture of an overarching Federal Republic in order to control factions, lest a small faction one day either controls us, or competing factions lead to civil war.
Both Alynsky and the Cloward-Piven Plan prey upon our system by exploiting the inherent imperfections in this system. Ben Franklin expressed his fears in his utterence of "if you can keep it". Long before Ben Franklin, Voltairre said, "The Perfect is the enemy of the Good". As Obama and his cabal fan the flames of discontent, they point our and grossly exagerate every flaw and imperfection. Some succumb to this propaganda and forget what a great (good) country we have because we are portrayed as being so grossly imperfect. They lose the perspective that there exist no better place on the face of this earth; nor has their ever existed a nation as "good" as this country the we, still love!
It's their plan; to alienate us from each other and to alienate us from our love of this country! It seems to be working with this newbie, just the way they HOPE to CHANGE people like him!
Quote from: wally on May 13, 2015, 05:08:09 PM
A lot of people are. In fact, it is part of the Obama strategy to divide us so they canultimately win. As you aptly pointed out, Ben Franklin showed his reluctant support for the new goverment they created saying it is a republic, if we can keep it. Madison explains in Federalist Papers #10 why we need the struture of an overarching Federal Republic in order to control factions, lest a small faction one day either controls us, or competing factions lead to civil war.
Both Alynsky and the Cloward-Piven Plan prey upon our system by exploiting the inherent imperfections in this system. Ben Franklin expressed his fears in his utterence of "if you can keep it". Long before Ben Franklin, Voltairre said, "The Perfect is the enemy of the Good". As Obama and his cabal fan the flames of discontent, they point our and grossly exagerate every flaw and imperfection. Some succumb to this propaganda and forget what a great (good) country we have because we are portrayed as being so grossly imperfect. They lose the perspective that there exist no better place on the face of this earth; nor has their ever existed a nation as "good" as this country the we, still love!
It's their plan; to alienate us from each other and to alienate us from our love of this country! It seems to be working with this newbie, just the way they HOPE to CHANGE people like him!
It's one reason I am such a strong believer in reforming the education system, which is to de-unionize it and let the free market run schools. The union and Marxist stronghold is so insane and just opens up the propaganda hose on young kids who are still trying to figure life out.
Quote from: taxed on May 13, 2015, 05:11:56 PM
It's one reason I am such a strong believer in reforming the education system, which is to de-unionize it and let the free market run schools. The union and Marxist stronghold is so insane and just opens up the propaganda hose on young kids who are still trying to figure life out.
I'm afraid it's a lost cause! It's like trying to fix a sieve so it will float; The best you can do is bail...BAIL..BAIL!!!! each and every motherflippin day! You'll keep it afloat only as long as you keep bailing! Then, one day you Bail Out and let someone younger bail for awhile!
In spite of all it's problems, we still have people emerging who have learned to think for themselves. In time, the Leaders of Tomorrow may make the whole ship of state float much better than it does... That's pretty much like trying to float a sieve, as well..Methinks! :cry:
Quote from: wally on May 13, 2015, 05:24:52 PM
I'm afraid it's a lost cause! It's like trying to fix a sieve so it will float; The best you can do is bail...BAIL..BAIL!!!! each and every motherflippin day! You'll keep it afloat only as long as you keep bailing! Then, one day you Bail Out and let someone younger bail for awhile!
In spite of all it's problems, we still have people emerging who have learned to think for themselves. In time, the Leaders of Tomorrow may make the whole ship of state float mush better than it does... That's pretty much like trying to float a sieve, as we..Methinks! :cry:
I disagree. I'm pretty optimistic. We're beating this thing. A lot of light has been shining on a lot of cock roaches.
My wife is a school teacher in for a city school system. She commutes into and out of the city every day. She'll be long gone before this pendulum takes a swing for the better. Right now they're tying Teachers hands on discipline and letting the inmates run the asylum while they are scapegoating teachers for poor performance of these petulant wannabe ganstahs!
Quote from: kroz on May 13, 2015, 02:58:19 PM
I have never heard anywhere that SCOTUS can knock down a national referendum. The only exception would be if the referendum defied the Constitution or Bill of Rights. To change that we were given the option of Constitutional Amendments.
Theoretically, this is exactly what the courts are doing: comparing laws (whether written by legislators or passed as referendums by the People) against limitations written into state constitutions, or the U.S. Constitution. If the law violates constitutional provisions, then it is thrown out, no matter how large a percentage of people support that law.
The problem comes in when those on the bench read the Constitution according to what they want it to say, rather than what is actually says. The most apparent example of this is the entire issue of the 2nd Amendment. If justices were to read the 2nd Amendment according to the design and intent of those who wrote it (and there are plenty of records which tell us exactly what was intended) then about the only gun control laws which would stand the test of constitutionality would be those which prohibit ownership by convicted felons. But, instead they reinvent the meaning of "militia", and come out with ridiculous notions such as "surely they did not intend people to own nuclear weapons!", and many other excuses to ignore what the Constitution says in favor of what they want to do to us.
A second problem comes in when the courts decide to define a previously undefined right under the heading of the 9th Amendment. Certainly amendments 1-8 did not define all human rights which need protection from government encroachment. But along comes progressive humanism, claiming "rights" which are anything but, such as the right to kill unborn human children with no more thought than popping a pimple. And now they are claiming that marriage is an unlimited "right" (even while claiming "No right is unlimited" in their typical practice of hypocrisy....) and therefore neither the state nor the People have the authority to refuse homosexuals the right to marry.
Too many people think it's the government that gives them rights. Some people are now talking about the right for everyone to have a basic income. I'm assuming they mean getting a check without lifting a finger.
Quote from: Dori on May 13, 2015, 09:25:10 PM
Too many people think it's the government that gives them rights. Some people are now talking about the right for everyone to have a basic income. I'm assuming they mean getting a check without lifting a finger.
gimics such as "the earned income credit" which redistribute our income taxes to people of lesser means (not even 'poor' anymore)..
even if they don't work...has started us on the slippery slope of people having the Belief that the role of goverment is to hand them a check for doing nothing! You get enough of these people and they will be the voting majority. If we blindly allow this and every other goverment handout, from Obama phones to two years of unemployment benefits and EBT cards...they will become much more than the 47% Romney said were not going to vote for him (or any other Republican) becaause they may lose some of their income (from our pocketsto their pockets). Romney was very inarticulate in defining the problem, lumping together everything from social security and VA benefits, aspart of the 47% receiving some sort of entitlement check from the goverment. The Libtards fail to make a distinction between the something for nothing progrms and those which have been paid for in advance by individuals making a sacrifice!
Quote from: wally on May 14, 2015, 04:26:02 AM
gimics such as "the earned income credit" which redistribute our income taxes to people of lesser means (not even 'poor' anymore)..even if they don't work...has started us on the slippery slope of people having the Belief that the role of goverment is to hand them a check for doing nothing! You get enough of these people and they will be the voting majority. If we blindly allow this and every other goverment handout, from Obama phones to two years of unemployment benefits and EBT cards...they will become much more than the 47% Romney said were not going to vote for him (or any other Republican) becaause they may lose some of their income (from our pocketsto their pockets). Romney was very inarticulate in defining the problem, lumping together everything from social security and VA benefits, aspart of the 47% receiving some sort of entitlement check from the goverment. The Libtards fail to make a distinction between the something for nothing progrms and those which have been paid for in advance by individuals making a sacrifice!
You are SO right about that. It used to irk me to death that Romney was SO inept at rightly dividing the truth in statistics! He was the worst at it. He was so far removed from reality that there was a disconnect in his understanding of many issues. And THAT sank his boat!
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 01:33:11 PM
Yeah he is lying opportunist, hardly news. ALl politicans, or most, are.
Only because certain people still cast their vote for them. :lol: IF we as a people would de-elect some of these habitual liars, and show that no we won't tolerate our representatives in government lying to us, they wouldn't even run.
Quote from: daidalos on May 15, 2015, 06:51:57 AM
Only because certain people still cast their vote for them. :lol: IF we as a people would de-elect some of these habitual liars, and show that no we won't tolerate our representatives in government lying to us, they wouldn't even run.
Worse than that, in their districts they get the majority of the vote.