Why was Palin on that quiz? She isn't running for the nominee.
Printable View
Why was Palin on that quiz? She isn't running for the nominee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silcc69
Good question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
I don't like either Party. But I was surprised when my "candidate" came up: Gary Johnson....
I mean, how many debates has he been excluded from anyway?
And:
Huntsman seems pretty sensible, pretty rational. Plus he believes in science. I'm surprised they haven't thrown him out of the Party -- ha ha!
And, too, I'm surprised they haven't thrown Paul off the stage for his sensible and rational foreign policy positions. And, too, fiscally conservative positions when it comes to military expenditures. I mean, we're off the charts when it comes to military spending. I mean, as Paul points out, why do we have troops in Germany and Japan?
Jon Huntsman discussing science, evolution, and global warming - YouTube
Paul Craig Roberts has a different take on it. He thinks, aside from Ron Paul, they're all idiots and dangerous....
Paul Craig Roberts: GOP debate is an amazing collection of stupidity - YouTube
And Ron Paul:
Ron Paul on Fox News 11/16/11 - YouTube
Ol' Newton can't decide whether or not he believes in (the science of) global warming. But, then again, politicians position themselves where they think it best suits their own interests:
Then:
Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich Commercial on Climate Change - YouTube
And NOW:
Newt Gingrich Renounces Global Warming Ad - YouTube
In G.O.P. Field, Broad View of Presidential Power Prevails:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/us...r.html?_r=3&hp
Ben....Thanks or your support of Huntsman, and the increasingly irrational, Ron Paul but we'll chose our nominee, and it won't be either of these two. I liked Ron Paul....I think he has some very salient points about the Fed and The Dollar, and the Debt, but as time goes on he's exposed himself as a bit of an unelectable loon, and he's widely seen as anti Isreal. I can't get in his head, so I can't be sure that's accurate....but some of his statements are certainly eye opening. His thoughts on 911 are puzzling to put it mildly. While I'm more than willing to vote for an unconventional candidate, he's not the one. Any candidate that compares the Gaza with The Concentration Camps will not be the Republican nominee..Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Ron Paul does interview with Iranian state TV, bashes Israel, defends Hamas - YouTube
While I agree Ron Paul is an important and refreshing Republican/Libratarian voice on domestic policy....interviews like this leave one to wonder what goes on inside his head
Ron Paul tells 9/11 Truther why he won't come out about the "truth" over 9/11 - YouTube
I'm reproducing this article from last Tuesday's Guardian by the American commentator Glenn Greenwald without further comment other than that it posits an interesting and credible thesis for the undignified rush to the far right of most of the Republican candidates - his conclusion is that they don't have much choice.
Vote Obama – if you want a centrist Republican for US president
Because Barack Obama has adopted so many core Republican beliefs, the US opposition race is a shambles
By Glenn Greenwald
American presidential elections are increasingly indistinguishable from the reality TV competitions drowning the nation's airwaves. Both are vapid, personality-driven and painfully protracted affairs, with the winners crowned by virtue of their ability to appear slightly more tolerable than the cast of annoying rejects whom the public eliminates one by one. When, earlier this year, America's tawdriest (and one of its most-watched) reality TV show hosts, Donald Trump, inserted himself into the campaign circus as a threatened contestant, he fitted right in, immediately catapulting to the top of audience polls before announcing he would not join the show.
The Republican presidential primaries – shortly to determine who will be the finalist to face off, and likely lose, against Barack Obama next November – has been a particularly base spectacle. That the contest has devolved into an embarrassing clown show has many causes, beginning with the fact that GOP voters loathe Mitt Romney, their belief-free, anointed-by-Wall-Street frontrunner who clearly has the best chance of defeating the president.
In a desperate attempt to find someone less slithery and soulless (not to mention less Mormon), party members have lurched manically from one ludicrous candidate to the next, only to watch in horror as each wilted the moment they were subjected to scrutiny. Incessant pleas to the party's ostensibly more respectable conservatives to enter the race have been repeatedly rebuffed. Now, only Romney remains viable. Republican voters are thus slowly resigning themselves to marching behind a vacant, supremely malleable technocrat whom they plainly detest.
In fairness to the much-maligned GOP field, they face a formidable hurdle: how to credibly attack Obama when he has adopted so many of their party's defining beliefs. Depicting the other party's president as a radical menace is one of the chief requirements for a candidate seeking to convince his party to crown him as the chosen challenger. Because Obama has governed as a centrist Republican, these GOP candidates are able to attack him as a leftist radical only by moving so far to the right in their rhetoric and policy prescriptions that they fall over the cliff of mainstream acceptability, or even basic sanity.
In July, the nation's most influential progressive domestic policy pundit, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, declared that Obama is a "moderate conservative in practical terms". Last October, he wrote that "progressives who had their hearts set on Obama were engaged in a huge act of self-delusion", because the president – "once you get past the soaring rhetoric" – has "largely accepted the conservative storyline".
Krugman also pointed out that even the policy Democratic loyalists point to as proof of the president's progressive bona fides – his healthcare plan, which mandates the purchase of policies from the private health insurance industry – was designed by the Heritage Foundation, one of the nation's most rightwing thinktanks, and was advocated by conservative ideologues for many years (it also happens to be the same plan Romney implemented when he was governor of Massachusetts and which Newt Gingrich once promoted, underscoring the difficulty for the GOP in drawing real contrasts with Obama).
How do you scorn a president as a far-left socialist when he has stuffed his administration with Wall Street executives, had his last campaign funded by them, governed as a "centrist Republican", and presided over booming corporate profits even while the rest of the nation suffered economically?
But as slim as the pickings are for GOP candidates on the domestic policy front, at least there are some actual differences in that realm. The president's 2009 stimulus spending and Wall Street "reform" package – tepid and inadequate though they were – are genuinely at odds with rightwing dogma, as are Obama's progressive (albeit inconsistent) positions on social issues, such as equality for gay people and protecting a woman's right to choose. And the supreme court, perpetually plagued by a 5-4 partisan split, would be significantly affected by the outcome of the 2012 election.
It is in the realm of foreign policy, terrorism and civil liberties where Republicans encounter an insurmountable roadblock. A staple of GOP politics has long been to accuse Democratic presidents of coddling America's enemies (both real and imagined), being afraid to use violence, and subordinating US security to international bodies and leftwing conceptions of civil liberties.
But how can a GOP candidate invoke this time-tested caricature when Obama has embraced the vast bulk of George Bush's terrorism policies; waged a war against government whistleblowers as part of a campaign of obsessive secrecy; led efforts to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs; extinguished the lives not only of accused terrorists but of huge numbers of innocent civilians with cluster bombs and drones in Muslim countries; engineered a covert war against Iran; tried to extend the Iraq war; ignored Congress and the constitution to prosecute an unauthorised war in Libya; adopted the defining Bush/Cheney policy of indefinite detention without trial for accused terrorists; and even claimed and exercised the power to assassinate US citizens far from any battlefield and without due process?
Reflecting this difficulty for the GOP field is the fact that former Bush officials, including Dick Cheney, have taken to lavishing Obama with public praise for continuing his predecessor's once-controversial terrorism polices. In the last GOP foreign policy debate, the leading candidates found themselves issuing recommendations on the most contentious foreign policy question (Iran) that perfectly tracked what Obama is already doing, while issuing ringing endorsements of the president when asked about one of his most controversial civil liberties assaults (the due-process-free assassination of the American-Yemeni cleric Anwar Awlaki). Indeed, when it comes to the foreign policy and civil liberties values Democrats spent the Bush years claiming to defend, the only candidate in either party now touting them is the libertarian Ron Paul, who vehemently condemns Obama's policies of drone killings without oversight, covert wars, whistleblower persecutions, and civil liberties assaults in the name of terrorism.
In sum, how do you demonise Obama as a terrorist-loving secret Muslim intent on empowering US enemies when he has adopted, and in some cases extended, what was rightwing orthodoxy for the last decade? The core problem for GOP challengers is that they cannot be respectable Republicans because, as Krugman pointed out, Obama has that position occupied. They are forced to move so far to the right that they render themselves inherently absurd.
Hey Robert,Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Here's another interesting article by Greenwald. Which I read over the weekend.
He writes about, in part, how can liberals actually support Obama. I mean, look at his foreign policy record.
It's, in many ways, more extreme than Bush. I mean, the Bush administration kidnapped suspects. Whereas Obama simply assassinates them.
Greenwald also writes about the rapid rise in drone attacks. Again, how can liberals support this? (He also writes about Paul. There are a lot of positives about Paul. As Greenwald points out. But that DOES NOT mean to say he supports him or his candidacy. There's also a lot to revile about Paul.)
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/prog...ies/singleton/
I don't support Huntsman. And: I've always said I like Paul on certain positions. But now he's being thrust into the media spotlight. And they're exposing him. Whether or not what they say is true or not, well, I don't know. Is he a racist? Is he homophobic? If he is then of course that would utterly change my opinion of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
But what Paul is doing is interesting. He's actually showing that the Dems and Republicans are exactly the same when it comes to foreign policy. And his foreign policy positions should be the Dems foreign policy positions. I mean, so the American people actually have a choice. Now, of course, they don't.
I mean, in a lot of ways Obama is more extreme on foreign policy than Bush. Obama is more extreme on civil liberties. Obama is more extreme when it comes to cracking down on whistleblowers.
So the differences between the so-called political parties are pretty slight. Yep! The differences are pretty slight. The Republican Party are actually ceasing to be a political party. They simply serve the super rich. Ain't even the rich anymore. It's the super rich. And the Dems are rapidly moving in the same direction. (I mean, the Democratic Party used to serve middle class and working class Americans. They're rapidly abandoning that.)
And God knows what's happened to the party of Theodore Roosevelt (who was a conservative) and Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower is surely spinning in his grave when he looks at this so-called Republican Party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Wow....Glen Greenwald....never heard of him. How about you Ben ? :dancing:
Appearently he's become the liberal go to guy. Who Knew?
Come on, omk. You're being untypically ingenuous. :whistle:Quote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
It was in the Guardian so it's unlikely to be from Fox News, but I'm genuinely interested to know what you think of the overall thesis. Does Obama fit the criteria for an old-style moderate Republican and if so does that stance force his GOP opponents to head for the right so that they have grounds on which to oppose him?
Bear in mind that for those of a liberal persuasion like me, Obama has been a massive disappointment. He's the equivalent of Blair in the UK.
"Does Obama fit the criteria for an old-style moderate Republican?"
I can answer this in one word.....NOFUCKINGWAY !
McCain is an old style moderate Republican.
And I wish you libs woud really stop trying to make that connection . All you're doing is trying to mitigate your disappointment by fooling yourselves into thinking he's not one of you. He is...you're stuck with him...go down with the ship RL !!!!!!!
Originally Posted by onmyknees http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/ima...s/viewpost.gif Wow....Glen Greenwald....never heard of him. How about you Ben ? :dancing:
Appearently he's become the liberal go to guy. Who Knew?
I wouldn't classify or brand Glenn Greenwald as a liberal. He might be a left-liberal or a democratic socialist or historical Tory. I don't know. He's never really been clear about his political clan, as it were.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
What Greenwald does do is critique the political establishment. Not serve it. Like the plain prevailing media do.
He is just as critical of Obama as he was Bush. So, in that sense he doesn't align himself with a political slanted tag, as it were.
You shouldn't cozy up to power; you should critique power and point out wrongdoing and corruption and lawbreaking.
I don't see any stark differences between Obama and Romney. Does that mean Romney is a Democrat???????Quote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
So, McCain believes in global warming. (YouTube clip below.) That's moderate. That's existing somewhere in the real world.
What's a moderate Republican? Low taxes, so-called free trade. (Albeit we don't have free trade because the core of free trade is the free circulation of labor; nor do we have free markets. To quote Ron Paul: "Just so that we're clear: the modern system of money and banking is not a free-market system. It's a system that's half socialized – propped up by the government.") This sounds like Obama. Hold on. He's atrocious with respect to civil liberties. Maybe he's an extreme Republican. Hold on. His foreign policy is extreme. Hmm... who knows.
And we should note that conservatism came out of classical liberalism. So, is McCain a classical liberal? Well, yes. So, the terms are essentially intertwined.
And, too, what label would or should we give to, say, Abraham Lincoln? I mean, his position along with the Republican Party was that there's no difference between chattel slavery and wage slavery.
So, as Lincoln pointed out, the idea of renting yourself is degrading. (Are there any Republicans today who've similar positions to Lincoln -- ha ha ha!)
Abraham Lincoln regarded it as an attack on your personal integrity. And the Republican Party, again this is the mid 19th. century, despised the industrial system that was developing around them. Because it was destroying their culture, their independence, their individuality. In essence, constraining them to be subordinate to masters.
Sen. John McCain refutes a global warming denier - YouTube
Conservative Fantasies About the Miracles of the Market
by Robert Jensen
A central doctrine of evangelicals for the “free market” is its capacity for innovation: New ideas, new technologies, new gadgets -- all flow not from governments but from individuals and businesses allowed to flourish in the market, we are told.
That’s the claim made in a recent op/ed in our local paper by policy analyst Josiah Neeley of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think-tank in Austin. His conclusion: “Throughout history, technological advances have been driven by private investment, not by government fiat. There is no reason to expect that to change anytime soon.” http://www.statesman.com/opinion/che...s-2105711.html
As is often the case in faith-based systems, reconciling doctrine to the facts of history can be tricky. When I read Neeley’s piece, I immediately thought of the long list of modern technological innovations that came directly from government-directed and -financed projects, most notably containerization, satellites, computers, and the Internet. The initial research-and-development for all these projects so central to the modern economy came from the government, often through the military, long before they were commercially viable. It’s true that individuals and businesses often used those innovations to create products and services for the market, but without the foundational research funded by government, none of those products and services could exist.
So I called Neeley and asked what innovations he had in mind when he wrote his piece. In an email response he cited Thomas Edison and the Wright brothers. Fair enough -- they were independent entrepreneurs, working in the late 19th and early 20th century. But their work came decades after the U.S. Army had provided the primary funding to make interchangeable parts possible, a transformative moment in the history of industrialization. In the “good old days,” government also got involved.
As Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway explain in their book Merchants of Doubt, the U.S. Army’s Ordinance Department wanted interchangeable parts to make guns that could be repaired easily on or near battlefields, which required machine-tooled parts. That research took nearly 50 years, much longer than any individual or corporation would support. The authors make the important point clearly: “Markets spread the technology of machine tools throughout the world, but markets did not create it. Centralized government, in the form of the U.S. Army, was the inventor of the modern machine age.”
That strikes me as an important part of the story of the era of Edison and the Wrights, but one conveniently ignored by free-marketeers.
Even more curious in Neeley’s response were the two specific products he mentioned in his email: “The plow wasn’t created by government fiat, and neither was the iPhone.”
The plow and the iPhone are the best examples of innovations in the private sphere? The plow was invented thousands of years ago, in a world in which governments and economic systems were organized in just slightly different ways, making it an odd example for this discussion of modern capitalism and the nation-state. And the iPhone wouldn’t exist without all that government R&D that created computers and the Internet.
Neeley didn’t try to deny the undeniable role of government and military funding; for example, he mentioned the Saturn V rocket (a case made even more interesting, of course, because Nazi scientists were brought into the United States after World War II to work on the project). “But the driver of these advances’ adoption and relevance outside the realm of government fiat has always been the private sphere,” he wrote in his response.
Neeley is playing a painfully transparent game here. He acknowledges that many basic technological advances are driven by government fiat in the basic R&D phase, but somehow that phase doesn’t matter. What matters is the “adoption and relevance” phase. It’s apparently not relevant that without the basic R&D in these cases there would have been nothing to adopt and make relevant for the market.
We’re in real Wizard of Oz territory here -- pay no attention to the scientists working behind the curtain, who are being paid with your tax dollars. Just step up to the counter and pay the corporate wizards for their products and services, without asking about the tax-funded research on which they rely.
There are serious questions to be debated about how public money should be spent on which kinds of R&D, especially when so much of that money comes through the U.S. military, whose budget many of us think is bloated. More transparency is needed in that process.
But anyone who cares about honest argumentation should be offended on principled grounds by Neeley’s sleight of hand. His distortion of history is especially egregious given the context of his op/ed, which argues against public support for solar energy in favor of the expansion of oil and gas drilling. Neeley focuses on the failure of Solyndra -- the solar panel manufacturer that filed for bankruptcy after getting a $535 million federal loan guarantee -- in trying to make a case against government support for alternative energy development. When public subsidies fail, there should be a vigorous investigation. But the failure of one company, hitched to a highly distorted story about the history of technological innovation, doesn’t make for a strong argument against any public support for solutions to the energy crisis, nor does it cover up the fact that the increasing use of fossil fuels accelerates climate change/disruption.
The larger context for this assertion of market fundamentalism is the ongoing political project to de-legitimize any collective action by ordinary people through government. Given the degree to which corporations and the wealthy dominate contemporary government, from the local to the national level, it’s not clear why elites are so flustered; they are the ones who benefit most from government spending. But politicians and pundits who serve those elites keep hammering away on a simple theme -- business good, government bad -- hoping to make sure that the formal mechanisms of democracy won’t be used to question the concentration of wealth and power.
Throughout history, the political projects of the wealthy have been driven by propaganda. There is no reason to expect that to change anytime soon, which means popular movements for economic justice and ecological sustainability not only have to struggle to change the future but also to tell the truth about the past.
http://www.commondreams.org/sites/co...ert_jensen.jpg
Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin.
An interestin' article:
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/27/the_...ars/singleton/
This will be, well, controversial, to say the least -- ha ha!
Low IQs, Conservatism Linked To Prejudice - YouTube
The conservatives on here are certainly doing their part to back up these findings.
Post something worthy of response and I'm sure you'll see plenty. I'm not sure you have any members of the GOP on this board, maybe Erika.Quote:
Originally Posted by BluegrassCat
You fool.Quote:
Originally Posted by BluegrassCat
yea like ....well like, like this is toxic, ya know ? They like did this survey right, and ya know like ..... ROTFLMAO
Let me get this straight....Ben posts a clip, of a 20 something valley girl talking about some "study" ( that's an ironic word to use considering the host and his guest) from some unknown university in Canada....appearing on a cable TV side show that has less ratings than the local traffic station in Kenosha Wisconsin, and you jump all over it with your best "me too" enthusiasm. And you wonder why we laugh at you....If you were a fish, you'd bite on a bare hook !!
No Ben...it's not controversial...it's pathetic, and you're pathetic for posting it. Hardly your best cut and paste job. :dancing:
This is classic. I'm saving this thread and getting into the comedy central writers.
Looks like OMK just proved you're right, Ben. It's controversial. Who'da thought?
Excellent piece by Krugman. Thanks Trish.
Thanks Trish, also! Looking at a related link, I found this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us...R_AP_LO_MST_FB
This article makes that claim that the poorest are getting less, in percentage of Government benefits, than in the past. It goes to one of my beliefs that everyone, rich, middle class, or poor is trying to maximize the benefits, of their financial relationship with government. It's not just 'lazy' people, as some people are led to believe.
It's funny watching the same Tea Partiers that revolted after Bush lining up behind Romney, another Rove puppet.
Reagan, now, is seen as a moderate. That's how far to the right the Republicans have moved.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodajazz
I mean, Romney is moving more and more to the right during this campaign. He has to. To capture the nomination. But, deep down, Romney is a moderate.
Biden: 'This isn't your father's Republican Party' - YouTube
Attaboy kneeler. Stick to your guns. Even when it's obvious to everyone that you're just another angry little CON who never lets facts get in the way of a good rant.Quote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
I realize you want to dismiss the whole TYT phenomenon as a "cable TV side show that has less ratings than the local traffic station in Kenosha Wisconsin" but the plain truth is
'The Young Turks is the largest online news show in the world, covering politics, pop culture and lifestyle. The TYT Network is one of the Top 50 You Tube Partners, with over 30 million views a month and well over 670 million total video views on The Young Turks YouTube Channel. An award-winning online broadcast, The Young Turks won the 2011 People's Voice Webby Award for Best News & Politics Series, 2011 News/Politics Shorty Award, and Best Political Podcast 2009 at the Podcast Awards and Best Political News Site 2009 at the Mashable Awards. Additionally, The Young Turks with Cenk Uygur debuted on Current TV in December 2011.' http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/2/prweb9195065.htm
Kneeler, are you really this guy?
Barack Obama is the American Nero. - YouTube
There used to be liberal republicans. Not allowed any more. These days anyone with compassion or the inkling of something that is not hard right gets labelled a rhino... republican in name only. When did the GOP yield to the totalitarian temptation?
Well, their base are Christian nutcases. And I mean "nutcases" in the nicest way possible -- :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Anyway, their base are hardcore Christians. So, well, that's it.
I mean, nobody supports their policies.(Because their core policies enrich the top 0.01 percent of the population and harm/hurt the rest. Policies like free trade (albeit it isn't free trade), the free movement of capital and the free import of goods and, lastly, starving the beast. Ya know, we're the beast. And we need to be starved.
A lot have "fallen in love" with Santorum because he's a Bible thumper.
Plus elections and election campaigning are pretty simple: politicians want uninformed voters (about 90 to 95 percent of voters are low information voters) making IRRATIONAL choices. That's how our market system works: we've uninformed consumers making irrational choices. But for markets to work, well, you need informed consumers making rational choices.
It's a curious kind of "Christianity" which consistently preaches a doctrine of hate - hate for gays, hate for women who want control of their bodies and hate for anything and anybody they fear or otherwise don't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The American Christian right is every bit as intolerant and extremist as the likes of the Taliban and the Mullahs in Iran. The only difference is that so far the wisdom of the better part of the American people has prevented them from getting their hands on the levers of power. But if that ever does happen, through the agency of the Republican Party, you'll see a theocracy unleashed which will take America back centuries.
I think there are important cultural and political differences between the two groups that would prevent christian conservatives from reaching those depths. Firstly, America places great value on the principles of equality, democracy, and freedom of speech and religion at least in the abstract if not always in the particular. Even with a Rick Santorum presidency and a quiescent Congress these cultural values would prevent a full on regression to the dark ages. You would find increasing restrictions on the reproductive rights of women and a lot more government money going to Christian organizations but not a complete mirror image of a Muslim theocracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
The other important arresting factor is that the people who fund the GOP and its candidates are the 1%, and they could give two shits about social conservatism. They find it useful to get the Christian conservatives to vote for the moneyed interests in the name of Jesus, but in name only. If these candidates ever starting threatening the bottom line (for example by actually trying to carry out what Jesus said) their corporate masters would quickly find new tribunes with the appropriate interpretation of the gospels.
While America is increasingly becoming an oligarchy, I don't see theocracy as a possibility.
Are you sure? Here's Santorum in his own words. What a prick.Quote:
Originally Posted by BluegrassCat
Sanatorum would have no ability to ban porn. This is cheap talk to the base.
....who would shout at him until he did something about it. The worrying thing about Santorum is that he is the real deal - a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool true believer, a fanatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by BluegrassCat
At one level that's more admirable than the cynics (I'm looking at you, Newt) who'll say anything to garner votes. But when he says what he says, he truly believes it. That's chilling. And even if, as seems likely, the GOP challenge to Pres Obama is in the end going to be headed by Romney, it won't be easy to forget or ignore that large constituency on the religious right for which Santorum has articulated beliefs, hopes, desires, and, heaven help us, a sense of expectation.
Even from this side of the Atlantic I find that truly terrifying, and I am concerned that an otherwise intelligent man like you seems eager to dismiss it so casually, no disrespect intended.
and its also something he never said
http://www.snopes.com/politics/santorum/taliban.asp
awesome fact checking there from you
He doesn't seem to know that. Just writing the executive fiat could cause trouble for years while the courts bounce it around. Besides; Just making such a stupid statement tells me he's too stupid to be President. & being a radical papist & all, even the klan doesn't want him.Quote:
Originally Posted by BluegrassCat
The question was never whether Santorum would be a good president. I think we can dismiss that out of hand. The question was would he (or any president) be able to institute a Christian theocracy. I mentioned the institutional barriers that I see preventing such an occurrence. I fail to understand how recognizing the limits of the presidency is equivalent to dismissing the nastiness of the Christian Right.