rtwo

Well it seems that most of you have bought into the "apply the 'solution' that we've always wanted to the non-existant problem" mentality. You seem to be totally convinced that it is a good idea to "show your papers" every time you have them demanded.

Not sure that works out, Buck. You can't assume that, because I think it's okay to ID for voting purposes, I also believe it's okay to show ID for anything and everything we're told to. You're being an alarmist.

To suggest that we "don't get it" because we don't agree with your conclusion is, I'd suggest, rather presumptuous. I simply don't have any sort of problem with requiring people to pull out their IDs at the polling station. I'd say choosing the next leader is pretty important -- and the decision ought to be ensured to have been made rightly and properly by citizens who actually have the right to do so.

the wiretapping involved here doesn't violate the constitution. You'd be, presumably, referring to the "search and seziure" clause -- but it's arguable that it applies. I'd say it does not.

There is no constitutional right to privacy. Perhaps there should be, but there isn't.

Voting -is- a right -- for citizens. I'd like to see a demonstrable hardship for people before ruling out the ID system. Personally I think Hillary hates the idea because it rules out the dead and illegals.

Having been a poll watcher before, I have never witnessed the dead or illegals vote. 50 years ago, the system was so corrupt that kind of thing was a problem. Today the problem is more an issue of disenfranchisement than voter fraud. You have a constitutional right to reasonably exercise the rights of citizenship without having to "show your papers". Now, of course, there are plenty of exceptions and personally I don't see anything wrong with showing ID to vote. However, I would not be surprised if it were ruled as unconstitutional.

Without checking IDs, how would you know?

Many people who've paid attention are already aware of this. It started with Clinton, or at least, continued during his tenure. During the discussions on the Patriot Act, Bush made it plain that certain wiretapping of calls placed to known terrorists from inside the US would be tapped.

I still don't have a problem with it.

I don't see it as being that important an issue, to be honest. I'd take 12 Romneys before even 1 Huckabee -- and I'm a Fred supporter!

I don't have a problem with the requirement to show photo I.D. in order to vote. Here, in the U.S., if you don't have a photo I.D. you are either not an American citizen or too young to vote. Those who don't drive can get a state I.D. in any of the fifty states. I can only conclude that those who are fightng this requirement are trying to keep the way open for voters that have no legal right to vote.

Personally, I don't have any problem with the notion either. I think the problem is that its probably unconstitutional.

Similarly, I would like to see significant restrictions on how money, specifically special interest and corporate money is used in elections. The problem with that is that its unconstitutional. Same thing with the line item veto.

Voting is a right, not a privilege like say driving a car, thus what are reasonable requirements for driving a vehicle are not from a constitutional perspective reasonable requirements for voting.

Voting -is- a right -- for citizens. I'd like to see a demonstrable hardship for people before ruling out the ID system. Personally I think Hillary hates the idea because it rules out the dead and illegals.

when did she become opposed to illegal immigrants?

When it became a politically expedient way to require national IDs for citizens. Don't let her hemming and hawing fool you... this woman has a very clear plan -- and I've no doubt that national IDs have long been part of it.

As the pundits say, it's just too early to count anyone out. Edwards just doesn't have enough stamina -- or hair gel -- to keep up with Obama and Hillary. Of the two, Hillary is starting to crack up a bit (do a Yahoo news search on Hillary Clinton and Oil prices), so it may go to Obama by default (sanity always makes for a better candidate).

I sincerely hope Thompson gets the Republican nod. Giuliani's too liberal on social issues, and Huck's too liberal on everything else. If Romney is where he says he is on the issues, he might be alright(though I really don't like the health plan he implemented in Mass) I'm just still not sure I trust him.

Actually, if you look at where they governed (MA and mayor of NYC, two liberal strongholds) and study what they accomplished while in their respective offices, you'd see that Rudy and Mitt are actually more conservative than Huckabee and Thompson. Thompson is dead in the water; a major disappointment.

I still maintain that Hilary will get in on the Dem's side and Rudy on the other side, although my hope would be for Mitt to get the nomination. I think, however, that is unlikely.

I disagree on Thompson's campaign. We have some movement, and I think he'll surprise you.

I agree re: Mitt v. Huckabee. Knowing Huck's positions on a lot of things, and his record, I'm appalled he's doing as well as he is in the Republican arena. I actually like Mitt quite a bit, but I disagree with MassCare. That's really the biggest thing. If his change is true on abortion (and there's no real reason to believe it's not) he could be a good one.

Rudy did accomplish quite a bit, but policy-wise he's been very liberal. His recent conversion to the 2nd Amendment, I don't buy -- especially since he seems not to even know what it is. I just don't buy "he was as conservative as you can be for New York". He's pro-abortion, which, by itself, certainly removes him from my consideration in the primary.

Don't really see where you could reasonably say either one is "more conservative" than Thompson though. The record disagrees.

Hillary probably will get in on the Dem side... the Clinton machine is almost too large for her not to. Giuliani's slipping, by quite a bit. Conservatives don't like him. Reasonably so.

As the pundits say, it's just too early to count anyone out. Edwards just doesn't have enough stamina -- or hair gel -- to keep up with Obama and Hillary. Of the two, Hillary is starting to crack up a bit (do a Yahoo news search on Hillary Clinton and Oil prices), so it may go to Obama by default (sanity always makes for a better candidate).

I sincerely hope Thompson gets the Republican nod. Giuliani's too liberal on social issues, and Huck's too liberal on everything else. If Romney is where he says he is on the issues, he might be alright(though I really don't like the health plan he implemented in Mass) I'm just still not sure I trust him.

In response:

http://independentthinking.wordpress.com/2...-calls-it-news/

to the admin -- this is my personal blog. If there is something there that you prefer not be linked, let me know. thanks.

There was also no evidence that it -isn't- working.

It's a useless report, because we don't have a record of methodology; we don't know what metrics were used; we don't know how data was collected and collated, nor what data. It's just not responsible to take this report seriously without knowing these basics.

Fred Thompson

Ron Paul

Duncan Hunter

Sounds about right... except that I wouldn't vote for Paul based on foreign policy. I love the guy on just about everything else, though.

'If thou 'applaud' him with the rod, he shall not die.'

But one could kill a child through beating.

Shalom Artsy,

Who said a thing about "beating"? That's twisting things.

Spanking is love. Training up a child in the way he/she should go. A loving parent uses spanking as a training method. There is no "beating" involved, so let's not get things muddled.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe they're discussing Axxman's idea that the word "Beat" in the Bible is not "beat", and that it somehow isn't a pro-spanking part of Scripture. One of the other definitions for it, evidently, is "applaud" which, in context, is of course nonsense. I believe that's what they're getting at.

Spanking has been BANNED in the United States and you can be arrested for doing it.

It has not... and I'll deal with my own children how I see fit. The government doesn't run my house; I do. Spanking doesn't teach children that it's okay to be violent, nor is it violence. It is reinforcement. And, since you brought it up, yeah... it is discussed in scripture. So, is God wrong on this one? Perhaps He needs "Parenting lessons"?

I agree, spanking is not banned. In fact, if you are adopting and tell the social worker thats doing the home study that you spank, its not going to preclude you from adopting or anything. So even Social Workers don't fully disapprove of it. Arkansas, where I am from originally, still paddles in school.

Now that's interesting. I didn't know there were any State social workers that approved (or at least, didn't wholly disapprove) of spanking. I certainly didn't know there were still schools that did it. Do you know whether they're at least required to contact the parents?

I think in many cases, even if spanking is looked down on, agencies look for physical signs of harm (bruising, etc) before meting out punishment.

Spanking has been BANNED in the United States and you can be arrested for doing it.

It has not... and I'll deal with my own children how I see fit. The government doesn't run my house; I do. Spanking doesn't teach children that it's okay to be violent, nor is it violence. It is reinforcement. And, since you brought it up, yeah... it is discussed in scripture. So, is God wrong on this one? Perhaps He needs "Parenting lessons"?

I find that I have days when I want to take the entire world and just smack some sense into it....

If there ever was positive evidence of the Religious Right being a complete sham, this is it.

I'm a little curious about what your response would be if I said, "Al Gore's house is less energy-efficient than GW Bush's... that plus his insistence on using a private jet to travel PROVES that this whole global warming thing is a total power grab."

Oh, wait... I know what the response would be, because we've seen it. Let's not generalize based on one guy about whom the rest of the "Religious Right" is probably scratching their heads...

I think Ron Paul makes a lot of sense, most of the time. The problem is, he's unstable, or seems to be. Every now and then he breaks out the wacky conspiracy theories, which doesn't bode well for his overall mental health. Mostly I like him though... it's his blog-troll followers throughout the web that I have a real problem with (not the OP, by the way... I'm referring to specifics).

She has a great platform on Stem Cell Research, she supports a women's right to choose BUT puts emphisis on rare occation abortions. She has a great plan to make adoption more affordable and an easier option for women. She supports teen abstainence and family planning.

Her basic stance is wrong... the rest is what we like to call pandering.

She supports civil rights of homosexual partnerships, such as domestic partnership benefits.

You're confusing the homosexual activist wishlist with civil rights.

She supports ending this ridiculous war in Iraq. She supports cutting fund for Iraqi use, but not for troops. Supports helping Israel in finding and securing peace.

How do you cut funds for Iraq without cutting funds for the troops in Iraq? Where do you think the money's going? Ice cream sandwiches?

Aside from her openess on abortion, i ask again, what's wrong with Clinton?

I ask again: what's RIGHT with her?

The voters can challenge it all they want, but unless they want to burn the constitution, they are not going to get anywhere. The courts at all levels have consistently ruled that it is unconstitutional to use the government and or its institutions to endorse or promote religious beliefs. By placing a Nativity Scene on taxpayer property, thats exactly what is being done. The reason why the ACLU consistently wins in cases like this is that they have the constitution on their side.

If you ask me, instead of using this as some culture war whipping post, us Christians ought to put our nativity scenes on private property and we ought to be more concerned with the rampant materialism and commercialism of Christmas as that is what is really wrong in how society treats it.

The First Amendment was referring to Congress. That's why it said "Congress". This is not a US Constitution issue.

Oh, look... Putin thinks Russia's still a world power. That's so cute.

Okay, but seriously... I think, though I don't really have a defined eschatology myself, that our friend Mr. Landis may be on to something.

No school is better than public school.

I'd have to dissagree personally. but that's just me.

Okay, I didn't read all the way through... and this is a toughy...

There is no school better than public school?

Or not sending them would be better than putting them through public.

Cuz I'd have to agree with the second one.

You know who gets hit when business owners have to pay more taxes? We do. The Rich are already carrying 85 % of the burden.... fine. But when taxes go up, what do you think business owners do? They pass on the "savings" to their customers. Which means you and I pay for it -- it's just less direct than the government's hand right in your own pocket.

I don't know what the problem is. Saggy pants = harder to run from cops.