Rock-Hard Proposals for the New Congress

[edthecynic]

Public sector jobs have doubled under the current administration while private sector jobs have been cut.

CON$ are incapable of telling the truth.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Received in my e-mail today with some revisions by me:

[

Go ask your postal carrier if they support that plan. Or an elementary school teacher. You're deluded if you think that it would be helpful to cut the wages of millions of middle class Americans.




So you think that people who've worked their entire lives should be denied the pension that their contract promises them?


.

Regarding cutting public sector jobs:
There was no problem with the private sector losing hundreds of thousands of jobs, why should the public sector be any different? Public sector jobs have doubled under the current administration while private sector jobs have been cut.
Democrats must fight federal workers on rising pay; it's no time for public sector salaries to soar
"The Defense Department has nearly 1,000 workers earning at least $170,000; back in 2005, it had just nine. Government physicians now make $179,500 on average; back in 2005, they made just $111,000 on average. Why should only part of the workforce in this country suffer. You do realize that public sector jobs are paid by tax dollars paid doing private sector jobs. Your argument makes no sense.

You claim that my argument makes no sense, but you seem to be arguing that you're saying that government workers should be laid off to make it even?

There is a HUGE problem with the private sector losing hundreds of thousands of jobs. But firing public sector employees makes EVEN MORE PEOPLE out of work, making everything EVEN WORSE. Public employees are paid by tax dollars - but then they spend those tax dollars on food, clothes, rent, computers, children, etc. And all of that money goes back into the economy.

Regarding the pension plans:
The big problem are the unions which take in large sums of money in union dues. Rather than using these monies to fund these pension plans, they fund campaigns to elect those that will work to help unions. The union member has no voice in how this money is spent and may or may not support the candidate the union bosses support. The unions then go to the politician they helped get elected and ask that taxpayer money be used to supplement the pension plans they mismanaged. Why should the taxpayers pay for their mismanagement. The usual liberal argument is always about someone else paying for another's poor choices.

Really? Cause I don't think I've ever heard a liberal use that argument.

But your point is moot anyway, because Public sector pensions are not managed by Unions, friend.

 

[MaggieMae]

First we have reams of writings expressing the thoughts and debates among the Founders in exhaustive detail. There is little ambiguity in what they intended when they put together the U.S. Constitution.

It took only six months before the signed Constitution required an amendment, which was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789 and adopted on December 15, 1791. So I guess the founders realized early on their document was far from perfect.
And just in case, they also decided that a United States Supreme Court would decide intent.

 

[Foxfyre]

First we have reams of writings expressing the thoughts and debates among the Founders in exhaustive detail. There is little ambiguity in what they intended when they put together the U.S. Constitution.

It took only six months before the signed Constitution required an amendment, which was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789 and adopted on December 15, 1791. So I guess the founders realized early on their document was far from perfect.
And just in case, they also decided that a United States Supreme Court would decide intent.

I would provide an informed response to this Maggie, but since you've informed me that I'm brainwashed, blindly partisan, and delusional, I wouldn't be taken seriously anyway, yes?

 

[Foxfyre]

Once those initial issues have been taken on and/or are in the active pipeline re the new Congress, I think it is imperative that they take on those issues that created the housing bubble and subsequent collapse. Currently nothing more than bandades have been applied and little or no reform initiated, much less passed.

One suggestion that I think merits consideration:

How to Shut Down Fannie and Freddie

Although Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played a central role in causing the recent economic crisis, they are absent from the reform plans of Congress and the Obama administration, says Emil W. Henry, the CEO of Henry, Tiger, LLC, and an assistant secretary of the Treasury from 2005 to 2007.

The Treasury doesn't need Congress or an academic assessment in order to tackle the most important reform goal: eliminating the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and moving their activities to the private sector. Secretary Geithner himself can immediately reshape the mortgage markets -- by withholding his approval of new debt issuances by the GSEs. That's the best way to begin curtailing the GSEs, and it can be done unilaterally.

If the Obama administration is serious about addressing the GSEs, it should re-establish a rigorous process to review all GSE debt issuance.

That process should require the GSEs to provide Treasury with full financial data and justification for issuances, including statistics that show the creditworthiness of the agencies after each offering.

In addition, the Treasury secretary should have to approve all new debt issuances personally.

The administration should also announce that in 2012 the Treasury will begin to deny a portion of GSE debt issuances with the goal of reducing their debt 50 percent by 2015 and 100 percent by 2018. This eight-year period of adjustment would allow the private markets ample time to provide secondary market liquidity, says Henry.

Large banks may be wary of this solution because the federalization of the GSEs has offered them a stable vehicle for off-loading their mortgages. Policymakers, meanwhile, will worry about impairing the recovery if a private market is slow to materialize. But the alternative is keeping the flawed system whereby liquidity depends upon distorted price discovery, permanent subsidization and the economic judgments of bureaucrats.
How to Shut Down Fannie and Freddie

 

[jeffrockit]

Public sector jobs have doubled under the current administration while private sector jobs have been cut.

CON$ are incapable of telling the truth.

Love generalizations that you seem to spew on a regular basis. With that in mind, it looks like libs are unable to read:
"Obama Has Created 863K Jobs in 2010, More Than Double Average Annual Creation under Bush"
Blogs on: Obama Has Created 863K Jobs in 2010, More Than Double Average Annual Creation under Bush

Federal Workers Making $150,000 Doubles Under Obama
Federal Workers Making $150,000 Doubles Under Obama - Topix

US public sector losing jobs in this recession-report
US public sector losing jobs in this recession-report | Reuters

With overwhelming evidence do you still stand by your bogus claim?

 

[jeffrockit]

Regarding cutting public sector jobs:
There was no problem with the private sector losing hundreds of thousands of jobs, why should the public sector be any different? Public sector jobs have doubled under the current administration while private sector jobs have been cut.
Democrats must fight federal workers on rising pay; it's no time for public sector salaries to soar
"The Defense Department has nearly 1,000 workers earning at least $170,000; back in 2005, it had just nine. Government physicians now make $179,500 on average; back in 2005, they made just $111,000 on average. Why should only part of the workforce in this country suffer. You do realize that public sector jobs are paid by tax dollars paid doing private sector jobs. Your argument makes no sense.

You claim that my argument makes no sense, but you seem to be arguing that you're saying that government workers should be laid off to make it even?

There is a HUGE problem with the private sector losing hundreds of thousands of jobs. But firing public sector employees makes EVEN MORE PEOPLE out of work, making everything EVEN WORSE. Public employees are paid by tax dollars - but then they spend those tax dollars on food, clothes, rent, computers, children, etc. And all of that money goes back into the economy.

Regarding the pension plans:
The big problem are the unions which take in large sums of money in union dues. Rather than using these monies to fund these pension plans, they fund campaigns to elect those that will work to help unions. The union member has no voice in how this money is spent and may or may not support the candidate the union bosses support. The unions then go to the politician they helped get elected and ask that taxpayer money be used to supplement the pension plans they mismanaged. Why should the taxpayers pay for their mismanagement. The usual liberal argument is always about someone else paying for another's poor choices.

Really? Cause I don't think I've ever heard a liberal use that argument.

But your point is moot anyway, because Public sector pensions are not managed by Unions, friend.

Really. You might want to do a little research "friend" before you state an untruth.
Public sector unions set for pensions struggle after new report
New Statesman - Public sector unions set for pensions struggle after new report

Public-sector unions and cuts
An unavoidable clash
Public-sector unions and cuts: An unavoidable clash | The Economist

Care to take another swing at my "moot" point.

As far as cutting public sector jobs goes, it has nothing to do with fairness (I know how libs love that word and every financial debate revolves around "fairness" rather than what is the best thing to do to get this economy going), it has everything to do with the country being unable to afford this number of jobs. Also consider that in the current state, public sector jobs pay much more for the same job as private sector which is easy to do since they don't have to make a profit and have what they think is an endless stream of funding.
"Federal pay ahead of private industry"
Federal pay ahead of private industry - USATODAY.com

 

[edthecynic]

Public sector jobs have doubled under the current administration while private sector jobs have been cut.

CON$ are incapable of telling the truth.

Love generalizations that you seem to spew on a regular basis. With that in mind, it looks like libs are unable to read:
"Obama Has Created 863K Jobs in 2010, More Than Double Average Annual Creation under Bush"
Blogs on: Obama Has Created 863K Jobs in 2010, More Than Double Average Annual Creation under Bush

Federal Workers Making $150,000 Doubles Under Obama
Federal Workers Making $150,000 Doubles Under Obama - Topix

US public sector losing jobs in this recession-report
US public sector losing jobs in this recession-report | Reuters

With overwhelming evidence do you still stand by your bogus claim?

I know it's standard procedure for CON$ to play dumb when caught with their foot firmly in their mouths, but don't you think you are overdoing it???

 

[jeffrockit]

CON$ are incapable of telling the truth.

Love generalizations that you seem to spew on a regular basis. With that in mind, it looks like libs are unable to read:
"Obama Has Created 863K Jobs in 2010, More Than Double Average Annual Creation under Bush"
Blogs on: Obama Has Created 863K Jobs in 2010, More Than Double Average Annual Creation under Bush

Federal Workers Making $150,000 Doubles Under Obama
Federal Workers Making $150,000 Doubles Under Obama - Topix

US public sector losing jobs in this recession-report
US public sector losing jobs in this recession-report | Reuters

With overwhelming evidence do you still stand by your bogus claim?

I know it's standard procedure for CON$ to play dumb when caught with their foot firmly in their mouths, but don't you think you are overdoing it???

Can't refute the evidence it seems so move to the personal insult phase of liberal debate skills.

 

[edthecynic]

Public sector jobs have doubled under the current administration while private sector jobs have been cut.

CON$ are incapable of telling the truth.

Love generalizations that you seem to spew on a regular basis. With that in mind, it looks like libs are unable to read:
"Obama Has Created 863K Jobs in 2010, More Than Double Average Annual Creation under Bush"
Blogs on: Obama Has Created 863K Jobs in 2010, More Than Double Average Annual Creation under Bush

Federal Workers Making $150,000 Doubles Under Obama
Federal Workers Making $150,000 Doubles Under Obama - Topix

US public sector losing jobs in this recession-report
US public sector losing jobs in this recession-report | Reuters

With overwhelming evidence do you still stand by your bogus claim?

I know it's standard procedure for CON$ to play dumb when caught with their foot firmly in their mouths, but don't you think you are overdoing it???

Can't refute the evidence it seems so move to the personal insult phase of liberal debate skills.

Play that perpetual VICTIM card!

You refuted yourself!!!!!!
First you said public sector jobs doubled then you posted a link that said the public sector was losing jobs, pretending to be dumb enough to believe losing public sector jobs proves they were doubled!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Public sector employment should be kept at a level of need. Unfortunately we see public employment growing. Public employment is a 100% loss as public employees produce nothing.
Now, as far as public service , police, fire and medic are basic functions of government and as such are necessary.
Sanitation, transit, snow removal could be privatized. Or run by municipalities but with contract workers which cost far less because they draw no expensive pensions.
The major problem with public employees is the unions that represent them. These unions use their political connections to coerce huge salaries out of municipalities which are powerless to fight the union demands.
This has to end. IMO no public employee should have collective bargaining rights.
It is time for the wages of the servers to be placed in line with the served.
Government employment is service. It is NOT a career.
Use this link to search NJ public worker salaries.
With this tool ,you'll get an idea of how insanity reins in one state where public worker unions are so powerful, no one has dared to challenge them. Until now ,that is.
New Jersey by the Numbers - NJ.com...
I will offer just one example....Here in my hometown there are 4,700 people. There are several police officers who earn well over $100,000 per year not including overtime.
They can retire in 5 years or less. The taxpayers will have to pay them for the rest of their lives as well as pay for their medical costs which are free to the retiree.
The taxpayers of NJ simply cannot continue to fund these escalating costs. The people's bank accounts are not bottomless pits.

 

[jeffrockit]

Public sector jobs have doubled under the current administration while private sector jobs have been cut.

CON$ are incapable of telling the truth.

I know it's standard procedure for CON$ to play dumb when caught with their foot firmly in their mouths, but don't you think you are overdoing it???

Can't refute the evidence it seems so move to the personal insult phase of liberal debate skills.

Play that perpetual VICTIM card!

You refuted yourself!!!!!!
First you said public sector jobs doubled then you posted a link that said the public sector was losing jobs, pretending to be dumb enough to believe losing public sector jobs proves they were doubled!

Not a victim. I do choose not to respond to name calling. Grow up and then get back to me if you want an adult discussion.

 

[edthecynic]

Public sector employment should be kept at a level of need. Unfortunately we see public employment growing. Public employment is a 100% loss as public employees produce nothing.
Now, as far as public service , police, fire and medic are basic functions of government and as such are necessary.
Sanitation, transit, snow removal could be privatized. Or run by municipalities but with contract workers which cost far less because they draw no expensive pensions.
The major problem with public employees is the unions that represent them. These unions use their political connections to coerce huge salaries out of municipalities which are powerless to fight the union demands.
This has to end. IMO no public employee should have collective bargaining rights.
It is time for the wages of the servers to be placed in line with the served.
Government employment is service. It is NOT a career.
Use this link to search NJ public worker salaries.
With this tool ,you'll get an idea of how insanity reins in one state where public worker unions are so powerful, no one has dared to challenge them. Until now ,that is.
New Jersey by the Numbers - NJ.com...
I will offer just one example....Here in my hometown there are 4,700 people. There are several police officers who earn well over $100,000 per year not including overtime.
They can retire in 5 years or less. The taxpayers will have to pay them for the rest of their lives as well as pay for their medical costs which are free to the retiree.
The taxpayers of NJ simply cannot continue to fund these escalating costs. The people's bank accounts are not bottomless pits.

As has already been shown in this very thread, public employment has NOT been increasing!!!!!!

And any policeman in NJ who retires before 20 years of service gets only 2% per year of service. And retirement health benefits are not automatic.

http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/epbam/exhibits/factsheets/fact19.pdf

HEALTH BENEFITS
Your Application for Retirement Allowance does
not automatically enroll you in retired health
benefits coverage.
Employees who are covered by the State Health
Benefits Program (SHBP) or the School Employees’
Health Benefits Program (SEHBP) through their
employer will be offered SHBP/SEHBP coverage
when they retire. In addition, some employers have
agreed to pay for the cost of coverage for retirees
with 25 or more years of service credit (and in some
cases retirees on disability retirements).
If eligible, you will receive a letter approximately
three months before your retirement date offering
you enrollment in the SHBP or SEHBP.
Fact Sheet #11, Enrolling in Health Benefits
Coverage When You Retire, provides additional
information about health benefits coverage in retirement.
If you are not covered by the SHBP or SEHBP, contact
your employer about your options for continuing
your health benefits coverage.
Chapter 330
Chapter 330, P.L. 1997, provides health benefits
under the SHBP or SEHBP to local (non-state
employee) police officers and firefighters who retire
after 25 years of service, or on a disability, and who
do not receive any payment towards retiree health
coverage from their employers.
If eligible, the State will pay 80 percent of the cost of
the least expensive SHBP/SEHBP plan offered and
the retiree then pays the remainder for the plan
selected. A qualified retiree may enroll at the time of
retirement or when becoming eligible for Medicare.
The eligibility of retired police officers and firefighters
for benefits under Chapter 330 depends on the
health benefits provided by the employer for retired
police officers and firefighters as of the effective date
of the law, July 1, 1998. These employer benefits are
indicated in labor and other employment contracts,
ordinances, and resolutions of the employers.

 

[The T]

Received in my e-mail today with some revisions by me:

20 Rock-Hard Proposals for the New Congress
1. Repeal ObamaCare . . . Now!

2. Keep all the about-to-expire Bush Tax Cuts.

3. Implement an immediate 15 percent across-the-board spending cut.

4. Implement an immediate government hiring freeze and cut all wages by 15 percent, including Congress.

5. Implement the following test on all legislation: 1. Is it CONSTITUTIONAL? 2. If it’s Constitutional, do we NEED it? 3. If it’s Constitutional and we need it, can we AFFORD IT? 4. Is it best left to the STATES to implement?

6. Audit the Federal Reserve.

7. Stop the bailout of union and government pensions and end tax-payer funded retirement programs for all government employees.

8. Keep the Internet from being regulated by bureaucrats.

9. Test all future and present judges on the content of the Constitution and publish the results online.

10. Pass the following law: “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.”

11. Other than their salaries which must be approved by a majority of voters, Congress will vote itself no benefits that are not also extended to all citizens of the land.

12. Block the implementation of Sharia law in the United States.

13. Protect Our Second Amendment Rights.

14. Amend the Constitution to grant citizenship to only naturalized citizens and persons born who have one or two parents who are legal citixzens. Support State anti-illegal immigration legislation.

15. Other than provision for immediate necessary humanitarian assistance, pass laws providing no government assistance of any kind to illegals and apply harsh penalities to those who knowlingly employ, house, transport, or provide aid and comfort to those who are in the country illegally.

16. Abolish the Department of Education.

17. Return all Federal lands to the states.

18. Implement an across the board flat tax system, end the income tax, and abolish the IRS.

19. Work for the privatization of Social Security.

20. Abide by the legal strictures outlined in the Tenth Amendment.

Discuss any or all of the above and add your suggestions for what needs to be done after the initial list is accomplished.

I'd double up on #2...and makes appropriate cuts in governemnt programs to reflect it. Make the Statists defend the spending.

 

[Foxfyre]

Received in my e-mail today with some revisions by me:

20 Rock-Hard Proposals for the New Congress
1. Repeal ObamaCare . . . Now!

2. Keep all the about-to-expire Bush Tax Cuts.

3. Implement an immediate 15 percent across-the-board spending cut.

4. Implement an immediate government hiring freeze and cut all wages by 15 percent, including Congress.

5. Implement the following test on all legislation: 1. Is it CONSTITUTIONAL? 2. If it’s Constitutional, do we NEED it? 3. If it’s Constitutional and we need it, can we AFFORD IT? 4. Is it best left to the STATES to implement?

6. Audit the Federal Reserve.

7. Stop the bailout of union and government pensions and end tax-payer funded retirement programs for all government employees.

8. Keep the Internet from being regulated by bureaucrats.

9. Test all future and present judges on the content of the Constitution and publish the results online.

10. Pass the following law: “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.”

11. Other than their salaries which must be approved by a majority of voters, Congress will vote itself no benefits that are not also extended to all citizens of the land.

12. Block the implementation of Sharia law in the United States.

13. Protect Our Second Amendment Rights.

14. Amend the Constitution to grant citizenship to only naturalized citizens and persons born who have one or two parents who are legal citixzens. Support State anti-illegal immigration legislation.

15. Other than provision for immediate necessary humanitarian assistance, pass laws providing no government assistance of any kind to illegals and apply harsh penalities to those who knowlingly employ, house, transport, or provide aid and comfort to those who are in the country illegally.

16. Abolish the Department of Education.

17. Return all Federal lands to the states.

18. Implement an across the board flat tax system, end the income tax, and abolish the IRS.

19. Work for the privatization of Social Security.

20. Abide by the legal strictures outlined in the Tenth Amendment.

Discuss any or all of the above and add your suggestions for what needs to be done after the initial list is accomplished.

I'd double up on #2...and makes appropriate cuts in governemnt programs to reflect it. Make the Statists defend the spending.

I hope they stick to their guns. If they stick to the Pelosi and Reid plan and with a President who has proved to be pretty impotent in this kind of thing, we in the lower middle and low income groups won't see our taxes change much, at least at the Federal level, but we also aren't going to see the jobs coming back. If they make the tax cuts pretty permanent for the small business folks though, I think we'll be significantly pulling out of the recession by early next year.

I am convinced we have an Administration that doesn't want the private sector to regain strength--I believe they want to continue and speed up the socialization of America--but I'm trusting the American people to prevail. We have to keep the faith.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You claim that my argument makes no sense, but you seem to be arguing that you're saying that government workers should be laid off to make it even?

There is a HUGE problem with the private sector losing hundreds of thousands of jobs. But firing public sector employees makes EVEN MORE PEOPLE out of work, making everything EVEN WORSE. Public employees are paid by tax dollars - but then they spend those tax dollars on food, clothes, rent, computers, children, etc. And all of that money goes back into the economy.



Really? Cause I don't think I've ever heard a liberal use that argument.

But your point is moot anyway, because Public sector pensions are not managed by Unions, friend.

Really. You might want to do a little research "friend" before you state an untruth.
Public sector unions set for pensions struggle after new report
New Statesman - Public sector unions set for pensions struggle after new report

Public-sector unions and cuts
An unavoidable clash
Public-sector unions and cuts: An unavoidable clash | The Economist

Care to take another swing at my "moot" point.

Sure.

First, neither of your links refutes my statement.
Second, both of your links are about Britain, not the US. Whoops....

As far as cutting public sector jobs goes, it has nothing to do with fairness (I know how libs love that word and every financial debate revolves around "fairness" rather than what is the best thing to do to get this economy going), it has everything to do with the country being unable to afford this number of jobs. Also consider that in the current state, public sector jobs pay much more for the same job as private sector which is easy to do since they don't have to make a profit and have what they think is an endless stream of funding.
"Federal pay ahead of private industry"
Federal pay ahead of private industry - USATODAY.com

I question the validity of the USATODAY survey. But I could be wrong on that.

 

[Modbert]

12. Block the implementation of Sharia law in the United States.

I notice you only mention Sharia Law, clearly you have no problem with Christians implementing their belief system into our laws.

I would respond to the rest of your list but it would be a giant waste of time since you have no intention of actually reading what I have to say.

 

[The T]

Received in my e-mail today with some revisions by me:

20 Rock-Hard Proposals for the New Congress
1. Repeal ObamaCare . . . Now!

2. Keep all the about-to-expire Bush Tax Cuts.

3. Implement an immediate 15 percent across-the-board spending cut.

4. Implement an immediate government hiring freeze and cut all wages by 15 percent, including Congress.

5. Implement the following test on all legislation: 1. Is it CONSTITUTIONAL? 2. If it’s Constitutional, do we NEED it? 3. If it’s Constitutional and we need it, can we AFFORD IT? 4. Is it best left to the STATES to implement?

6. Audit the Federal Reserve.

7. Stop the bailout of union and government pensions and end tax-payer funded retirement programs for all government employees.

8. Keep the Internet from being regulated by bureaucrats.

9. Test all future and present judges on the content of the Constitution and publish the results online.

10. Pass the following law: “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.”

11. Other than their salaries which must be approved by a majority of voters, Congress will vote itself no benefits that are not also extended to all citizens of the land.

12. Block the implementation of Sharia law in the United States.

13. Protect Our Second Amendment Rights.

14. Amend the Constitution to grant citizenship to only naturalized citizens and persons born who have one or two parents who are legal citixzens. Support State anti-illegal immigration legislation.

15. Other than provision for immediate necessary humanitarian assistance, pass laws providing no government assistance of any kind to illegals and apply harsh penalities to those who knowlingly employ, house, transport, or provide aid and comfort to those who are in the country illegally.

16. Abolish the Department of Education.

17. Return all Federal lands to the states.

18. Implement an across the board flat tax system, end the income tax, and abolish the IRS.

19. Work for the privatization of Social Security.

20. Abide by the legal strictures outlined in the Tenth Amendment.

Discuss any or all of the above and add your suggestions for what needs to be done after the initial list is accomplished.

I'd double up on #2...and makes appropriate cuts in governemnt programs to reflect it. Make the Statists defend the spending.

I hope they stick to their guns. If they stick to the Pelosi and Reid plan and with a President who has proved to be pretty impotent in this kind of thing, we in the lower middle and low income groups won't see our taxes change much, at least at the Federal level, but we also aren't going to see the jobs coming back. If they make the tax cuts pretty permanent for the small business folks though, I think we'll be significantly pulling out of the recession by early next year.

I am convinced we have an Administration that doesn't want the private sector to regain strength--I believe they want to continue and speed up the socialization of America--but I'm trusting the American people to prevail. We have to keep the faith.

Indeed. otherwise we'd already be done with this. The plan is to wear the populace thin on patience until they give in via apathy.

*Not this time*

Scratch this play from the book. Obama has a fight...a real one on his hands that harkens back to the Founders. Let us hope he doesn't push it to that depth.

 

[Foxfyre]

12. Block the implementation of Sharia law in the United States.

I notice you only mention Sharia Law, clearly you have no problem with Christians implementing their belief system into our laws.

I would respond to the rest of your list but it would be a giant waste of time since you have no intention of actually reading what I have to say.

Well I didnt come up with the list, but there is no implementation of "Christian Law" in the Constitution or in any of our Federal laws or State laws for that matter. The fact that Christianity has had a profound influence on our U.S. Constitution and many of our laws as well as our culture in general should put to rest any fears that a theocracy might develop. If it did not develop in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries when Christianity was pretty much the only visible religion represented, there is certainly no danger that a theocracy will develop now that many different religions are visible and represented.

Christianity and the U.S. Constitution are quite compatible and have co-existed for well over 200 years now, while much of Sharia Law is opposite many Constitutional principles and to allow it would be in clear violation of our respect for unalienable, civil, and legal rights.

 

[The T]

12. Block the implementation of Sharia law in the United States.

I notice you only mention Sharia Law, clearly you have no problem with Christians implementing their belief system into our laws.

I would respond to the rest of your list but it would be a giant waste of time since you have no intention of actually reading what I have to say.

Well I didnt come up with the list, but there is no implementation of "Christian Law" in the Constitution or in any of our Federal laws or State laws for that matter. The fact that Christianity has had a profound influence on our U.S. Constitution and many of our laws as well as our culture in general should put to rest any fears that a theocracy might develop. If it did not develop in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries when Christianity was pretty much the only visible religion represented, there is certainly no danger that a theocracy will develop now that many difference religions are visible and represented.

Christianity and the U.S. Constitution are quite compatible and have co-existed for well over 200 years now, however, while much of Sharia Law is opposite many Constitutional principles and to allow it would be in clear violation of our respect for unalienable, civil, and legal rights.

Refresh my memory here did you in your list ONCE refer to any religious law of any sort?