Politics

[likwidtek]

This isn't news because it's not entertaining enough.  This is both parties guys.  Both parties. Don't worry guys, we are free in our democracy. It's a fair and level playing field guys! Move along, nothing but freedom here everyone!






 Ã¢â‚¬Å½"The real story here it's not about Democrats and God and Republicans and Ron Paul. Who cares what the specific issue at hand is. The real story here is that what happened in tampa last week at the RNC and what happened in Charlotte at the DNS yesterday proves that the party bosses - Republican and Dmocrat really don't care what the delegates think. They don't care what the people think. And unless grassroots of both parties stand up now and push back, the national conventions will now simply become coronations."

[Broin]

It is about our founding damnit.... The recognition that we are founded upon certain propositions that each man is embued by a higher power.... Call it God, a creator, whatever.  I'm not talking about political party here you dolt I'm talking about recognizing where we came from.  And it is a damn fucking shame that you are either to blinded by your years of brain washing in the school system or the life you've lived sense to deny the simple fact of how this country was founded and on what principles it was and has imparted itself with.  

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
― John Adams

Oh how about this one... Sounds right up the Obama alley

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt."
― John Adams


Here are some Thomas Jefferson for you...

"The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty. A student's perusal of the sacred volume will make him a better citizen, a better father, a better husband."
- Thomas Jefferson

One of my favorite...

"Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" - Thomas Jefferson

How about some Madison....

"We have staked the future of American civilization upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison


Henry anyone....?

"It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry

I mean give me a F'n break I could qoute all day on how the founders believed in a Judeo-Christian foundation for our country... For anyone to deny that fact is the basis for our founding means that they are IGNORANT


Oh and by the way marriage is not a freakin civil right... That is the problem I'm pointing out.  Anytime some wants something that isn't in the constitution they claim it is their RIGHT.  And then just claim it is their right to do what they want even if it imposes on the rights of others.  

And don't give me that crap about how can marriage be something that imposes a right on others.  I don't give a shit if people are gay, or straight, or bi, or want to go fuck a goat while they marry their brother and his half sister.

But just because you want to fuck a goat or marry your brother and his half sister doesn't mean that we have to agree with it and allow it.  It is not a F'n RIGHT.

[likwidtek]

Broin, but these are personal choices not to be dictated by the government.  You can't and shouldn't legislate religion on people.  Freewill, right?  So those quotes from John Adams and Thomas Jefferson mean they were religious men, sure.  But they still understood that to protect all people, including the minority, there is a need to keep religion out of politics.  Separation of church and state.

If the argument is being made that the founders were Christian on a personal level, ok fine.  If the argument is that because they were Christians, then that means by proxy we should assume they felt everyone had to live under Bible rules... well... that's a bit of a stretch.  

I think religion is great.  But you cannot create laws based on religion for religion sake.  So making birth control illegal, outlawing marrying black people, giving less rights and freedom to men marrying men, having government pay for things that should be left for home and church... it's just not appropriate.  

It doesn't get much clearer man.  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"  

Please show me where in the constitution that it says the bible has constitutional authority.  Seriously.  What some of you guys want is a Theocracy.  I'm not sure if any of you have spent any time in Saudi Arabia lately but.... that's not where we want to go.  I'm deadly serious.  Executions in the streets because you got caught by the religious police for not following the bible... yeah....  We're a few thousand years ahead of that bull.  Just because American Christians feel that their church is the right church doesn't make it ok to start legislating it.  It's the government's job to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Even if 95% of Americans think that we should make the Bible LAW, it's still not appropriate.  That's why we have the constitution.  Right?

We have to keep in mind, we're the nation of immigrants guys.  We have Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Humanists.  They all get equal rights.  All of them.  Not just the Christians.

[Broin]

For the love of god don't you guys get it... It's not about religion it's about what set of beliefs and ideals we are founded upon.  WTH are you talking about legislating religion?  OR religion in politics?  

The founding of our republic was based upon Judeo Christian principles.... That yes were found in the bible and Christianity.  Why the hell is that a bad thing to acknowledge?  Does it mean that the founders wanted everyone to bow down to the God of Abraham?  No.... Shit fire wake the F up.

And you have your f'n first admendment wrong

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

"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."

The key part being "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

What they are freakin saying is that Congress will not acknowledge a specific type of establishment of religion.  Why because it is against the very principles of our founding.  HOWEVER that doesn't mean that the aspect of Judeo Christian principles are ABSENT from our founding beliefs and principles.  They are KEY... Freaking KEY and without them you are right you would be living in some third world backwater country like Saudi Arabia wandering why you were being beaten, your wife was being rapped, and your children were all killed, because someone up the chain didn't like the way you looked.

It pisses me off to no end when T and some of you others actually equate the acknowldement of our founding ideals and principles with the freakin intolerance and totalitarianism you find in these back water places.

It drives me absolutley insane that when you just mention the facts of our founding and principles that automatically you younger folks want to jump straight to... WELL HELL WHY DO WE HAVE TO LIVE BY WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, SHOW ME WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT WE HAVE TO LIVE BY THE BIBLE.  EVERYONE HAS EQUAL RIGHT NOT JUST CHRISTIANS.  

Who the fuck said that?  

And don't get me started on discrimination because if there is one religious group that is disriminated against the most in this country it is the Christians.

[Tbone]

The key part being "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

So if my religion believes that marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is OK, does Congress still have the right to forbid that union? Should Congress or the states be at liberty to decide what a "right" marriage and a "wrong" marriage is? And before you go all "fucking goats" on me, by "marriage" I mean a union between two consenting adults. The comparison to anything else is insulting. It was the same argument used against those against interracial marriages and it's a bunch of bullshit.

And don't get me started on discrimination because if there is one religious group that is disriminated against the most in this country it is the Christians.

Speaking of bullshit, I love you man, but this is the most backwards, ignorant comment I've seen you make. There's no way - NO WAY - you can justify or prove that CHRISTIANS are the most discriminated against religion in America. I don't care how many "no prayer in school" quotes you find. BOTH conventions had a Christian benediction. Every politician still says "God bless America". There's still prayer in lots and lots of schools. Creationism is taught as fact. Churches are at every corner (no one has ever said "you can't build a church there- it'd be offensive). I could go on and on and on and on. Christians are far FAR from earning a victim card in this country. Just because not everyone believes what you believe and not everyone is forced to act on your beliefs (see prayer in schools) doesn't mean everyone is discriminating against you and you're just so suppressed. Christians need to stop seeing the inclusion of all religions as an exclusion of their own.

Love ya Broin! =P

[Tbone]

Oh, and likwidtek, those voting procedures really pissed me off. I saw that happened at the DNC and couldn't believe it. How insulting! I hadn't realized it had happened at the RNC as well. In both cases, the whole thing was scripted. The RNC just kept on going. The DNC took the vote THREE times and finally just gave up and kept going on script regardless of the outcome. Both of those decisions should be reversed based on the rules of the convention. What a joke...

[Venlar]

Sorry guys, saw this and just had to post it =D

[Broin]

Don't have time to ellaborate on all your post T but again you are wrong... Marriage is not a constitutional right.  The clauses you sighted are protection clauses for discrimination much like the protection clauses I've already talked about concerning voting.  There is no constitutional right to vote nor is there one for marriage.  The Dems/Libs want there to be but there isn't.... That is why they are pulling from the protection clauses against discrimination.  

The States set the laws about marriage, and voting, and tons of more issues that Dems/Libs want to give over the Feds.  

As far as your rant on if my religion is that men should marry men crap.... I would just forward you back to your own posts about religion and goverment.  That's like saying if my religion is I want to marry my sister and the two twins down the street then it's okay.

Each state has the right to set it's own laws regarding morale belief and establishment of things such as marriage.  The citizens of the state elect people to represent them and then produce legislation that the citizens vote on.  SO YES IT IS THE STATES THAT DECIDE WHAT IS A RIGHT MARRIAGE AND WHAT IS A WRONG MARRIAGE.  That is the way it has always been... Well until the Dems/Libs decide they don't like what the people say and decide to take it to the courts.   If you want something a certain way then vote on it... But don't force me to accept what I don't agree or believe in without me being able to have a voice on it.

That's the problem you say you are for freedome of choice but when it comes to mine you want to take it away, and just say.... Well because I or a group of us believe that it should be this way then it has to be that way.

You want to marry a man then move to San Fran...  There is nothing prohibiting you from having the exact same rights as a married couple in any State.  None...  and don't give me the crap about not being able to see your man/woman partner in the hospital or any of that other crap.  Fill out the paperwork and get it all set up through the lawyers and you'll have the exact same rights as a married couple, but it won't be called MARRIAGE.

[Tbone]

Venlar: That is epic.

Broin: There are times when minorities need protection from popular vote. It's the same as INTERRACIAL marriage. Interracial marriage was banned in most states until 1967, when the Supreme Court stepped in and ruled that it violated the 14th Amendment for States to ban it. Since then interracial marriage has been legal in the United States and, surprisingly, no one is marrying goats or their sister because of it. It's the exact same thing with gay marriage. There is already a precedence that this is an issue that should not be left to the States. If you believe in the Constitution of the United States and our court system's ability to interpret it, then you must concede that gay marriage could potentially (and I believe should) fall under this same umbrella. If you don't believe that, then you are just picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution and legal system applies to whom. It's discrimination based on sexual preference, whether you believe it is discriminating against a RIGHT (which the court system says marriage is) or simply a discrimination.

[Broin]

No it is not, because they are afforded the same legall rights and benefits through other civil and legal action.  Marriage is a cultural and moral funtion of the  society.. thus left to the states and the residents there in.  The civil actions afforded to same sex couples through other legal means allows them to have the legal standings they desire...save one.  They cannot claim to be legally married. Therefore same legal stanfings then your disrimination charge is moot.

What it truley is, is an attack on the morale standings that you and others don't agree with

[likwidtek]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/12/you-can-handle-truth/

You can handle the truth
By Neil Brown
Published on Wednesday, September 12th, 2012 at 12:52 p.m.

Share this article:



We've published more than 6,000 Truth-O-Meter fact-checks since we launched five years ago.

"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."

Neil Newhouse, pollster for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney

That quote at a breakfast the week of the Republican National Convention swept through the press gallery in Tampa, swirled around the blogosphere and even found its way into a scold from former President Bill Clinton during his speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte.

Neil Newhouse was defending a Romney ad that claimed President Barack Obama had gutted the successful bipartisan welfare reform law, even though numerous reporters had revealed that the details in the ad were just plain wrong. PolitiFact.com, the fact-checking unit of the Tampa Bay Times, declared the ad "Pants on Fire" false.

Newhouse's candor fanned a brush fire over what some have dubbed the "fact-check movement" - the growing number of journalists who report on the accuracy of what candidates and their surrogates say.

Right-wing publications like the Weekly Standard and the National Review have derided such fact-checking as a liberal conceit. Newhouse has remained unbowed, and the Romney campaign argued that inaccuracies in the welfare ad were debatable and had little to do with the larger differences between Republicans and Obama.

This fact-check business, it turns out, makes some partisans very uncomfortable.

"We have disrupted the status quo in American politics," says my colleague Bill Adair, editor of PolitiFact and our Washington bureau chief.

We launched PolitiFact - featuring its now trademarked "Truth-O-Meter" graphic - in August 2007 with a handful of journalists and a promise that if it wasn't popular with readers, we'd quit after the January 2008 Florida presidential primary.

Five years later we have published more than 6,000 Truth-O-Meter stories, set up shop in 11 states and have 36 fact-check journalists reporting on claims made from the White House to the statehouse to City Hall. We are syndicated in newspapers around the country.

Along the way, we've called out Republicans for misleading Americans on Obamacare, and Democrats for scary over-the-top characterizations of Paul Ryan's budget ideas. We've documented every promise candidate Obama made before he became president and scored how many he has kept and broken. We've been "fired" by lefty Rachel Maddow, scolded by liberal Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, berated by the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. We won the Pulitzer Prize in 2009.

The heat comes from all sides and our audience comes from all over. In the past two weeks of party conventions, a record 1.2 million unique users went to PolitiFact.com, racking up more than 4 million page views of our journalism.

Today there is more fact-check journalism under way than ever before. Reporters at Factcheck.org (one of the earliest and most credible initiatives), the Washington Post Fact Checker and other newsrooms are diving deep into the claims of politicians, asking the most basic question: Is it true?

Why would there be a backlash against that? It's all about power.

The candidates, the political parties, the super PACs, the cable TV and talk radio shows - they all spend millions of dollars in order to shape what you believe. There are no question-and-answer sessions after you watch a campaign ad; there are no meaningful disclosures of where their info comes from. Beliefs are declared with authority and impunity and crafted to look like facts. The strategy is clear and not at all new: Say something strongly and frequently enough and perhaps it will be accepted as truth.

But what if you have your own set of tools to judge political speech? What if you have the source of the information and took the time to consider it? You might agree with the claim, you might not. But the power is all yours.

The underpinning of fact-check journalism is this tenet: Words matter. If you don't believe that, then journalism that checks the veracity of political speech may not hold much interest for you.

At PolitiFact, we wrote "Principles of the Truth-O-Meter" to help guide our work. Words matter was the first principle. The second principle: Context matters. And another important principle: We show our math and explain where we got all our information. So you don't have to take our word for it, you can look it up yourself. No anonymous sources.

When Paul Ryan's website accused President Obama of "doubling the size of government since he took office," we rated that Pants on Fire since it turned out Ryan included data from before Obama was president and projected spending for another nine years after his term was up. After our ruling, Ryan's office dropped the claim and replaced it with one more specific to the national debt. Words matter.

When Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, a Democrat, took to the stage in Charlotte, N.C., last week and said Mitt Romney "likes to fire people" - we rated that False and showed how Markell had cherry-picked a sentence out of a Romney quote, making it entirely misleading. Context matters.

At times - the Romney welfare ad being one of the latest - critics complain that this is a movement of nitpickers. We should lighten up, they say, because hyperbole has and always will be a part of politics. Even fellow journalists approach some fact-checking with a measure of cynicism.

"I suppose fact-checking would matter more to voters if they expected honesty from their politicians," Jack Shafer of Reuters wrote last week. "But most don't. ... Voters crave rhetoric that stirs their unfact-checked hearts. As long as the deception is honest, pointing in the direction they want to go, they're all right with it."

Campaign managers everywhere are betting Shafer is right. "Look, when people give speeches, not every fact is always absolutely accurate," former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN's Piers Morgan with aw-shucks candor at the Tampa convention.

Hey, we are (with apologies to Claude Rains) just as "shocked, shocked" as anybody to discover that there is deception under way on the campaign trail.

But why settle for that when the stakes are so high? Why not let voters decide for themselves? The naysayers of fact-check journalism make the mistake of underestimating voters. For their part, we say to voters: Caveat emptor. They must invest some time in becoming better consumers of political information.

That's where we come in.

A fan letter to PolitiFact from Paul Levin of Woodstock, Ill., put it this way: "Your unbiased checking and analysis is paramount to helping Americans understand the detail 'devils.' Hopefully it will end with an election that will honestly result in a true majority-rule democracy."

Which brings us back to Mr. Newhouse, the Romney pollster. He has it all wrong. Fact-check journalists aren't trying to dictate how he should run the campaign. We are not the ones demanding accuracy in politics. We'll just publish what we find.

Then, fellow citizens, it's over to you.

Neil Brown is the editor the Tampa Bay Times, which owns PolitiFact.

[Sared]

[Phienyx]

...your point....?

[Tbone]

...your point....?

Mitt Romney hates video games. Duh! =p

[Sared]

...your point....?

I'm pro-legalization and Romney has proven himself to be a shallow intolerant fuckwit to me.