U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 28, 2012 03:02 PM UTC
76 Comments
Nice to have a two hour jump on you.
better be on your toes Monday, though. 🙂
I’m going to be living in the Central time zone for a couple of months…starting in August. Heh, heh.
Retroactively.
True
False
Only in David’s Mind
We have seen it before, if I am not mistaken.
We were discussing here that they figured they had no chance at best opening ceremonies ever, so they went for worst ever. On the plus side, skipping every annoying part (which by definition includes any time Bob Costas or Matt Lauer is on the screen) we were able to reduce the time we spent watching to under an hour.
Dave Barry: Opening ceremonies great tribute to Hawaii?
but the over-use of close ups on small groups of top hatted figures doing little hand movements and the over explanation, talking while I was trying to listen, by the NBC team…not so much. I think parts could have been presented better but that’s the fault of NBC, not the ceremonies themselves. Over all, pretty darned good.
Would have liked more views of the whole picture. Loved that it really was the Queen in the bit that had her (of course this part not the real Queen )parachuting in. Never would have expected her to agree to playing along with “James Bond”. As Paul McCartney once sang, Her Majesty’s a pretty nice girl.
There’s no way anyone will ever be able to out-do China in terms of uniformity and precision what with no other country having the ability to collect thousands of beautiful people, same height, weight, coloring, and similarly perfect bodies so very wise to go for something entirely different.
Loved the rag tag hordes of drummers, the towering smoke stacks, the Olympic rings, the torch lighting, the multi-cultural multi-colored Brits, the dancing doctors and nurses, beautiful rainbow of children, the partying teens and twenty somethings. Drums kept the parading delegations moving briskly. Good old Sir Paul did a fine job of wrapping it up. All the participants looked like they were having the time of their lives. On time finish. Good show, London.
I think all the hate is because it wasn’t what anyone expects in an Olympic opening ceremony. You don’t get such polarized reactions unless unwritten rules are broken.
It was a great time to run errands. Not much traffic and the stores were practically deserted.
I thought they were fantastic. I’m a fan of the unusual and the unexpected. I enjoyed that they could poke some tongue-in-cheek fun at the stuffiness of the traditional pomp, while at the same time retaining so much of the traditional pomp.
I thought it was interesting how they included so many facets of modern British life and culture just beyond sport. What did you want: King Arthur, jousting and some pip, pip cheerio? (Could have used a bit of Monty Python, however)
I didn’t care so much for the interminable ongoing interactive commercials — mini cooper, iPhone, and Frankie and June — but these days it has to be figured out how to pay for these extravaganzas.
The Parade of Nations had more energy and enthusiasm than I ever remember. These are young, energetic, immensely talented folks at the prime of their life — it was great. It was all inclusive, from the flags on the hill, to the leaves that accompanied each nation becoming a torch, to the unknown future Olympians who got to light the torch. The Olympics aren’t British, or American, or Greek, or Russian — they don’t belong to nations or politics, they belong to the peoples of this world.
The fireworks, the stadium lighting — It was a celebration of humanity, its potential and the hope for its future. Compete to your best, play hard, have fun, enjoy all the good things that this world and the variety of humanity has to offer.
Paul McCartney should have sat in the reviewing stands, however, with a shot or two of him clapping and waving. That would have been enough. (Hey, Jude?? WTF?)
I just want in on the gossip – who’s with who in the Olympic Village.
I adored the Rowland Atkinson bit on Chariots of fire. Dry humor (including the bit from Queenie) leavened the industrial revolution theme — which was awesome. Just delightful.
I liked the James Bond skit and the industrial revolution part. But the early part was boring and the after industrial was a complete mess. When they have to explain what is being shown for you to understand the story, then you aren’t doing a good job of showing it.
The idiots on NBC were explaining everything, but that says more about American TV audiences than anything else..
the opinion that the opening ceremonies were horrible is a minority view. As I’ve already said, certainly not my view. Lots of fun and impressive stuff. But your taste (I stopped clicking on your “music” videos after the first couple of tries), as well as your often mutually contradictory views, have always been a mystery to me, Dave. Hope you enjoy the rest of the games.
Unless it’s one of my daughters on a team. So my Olympic viewing is over.
As to what one finds enjoyable, that is always a very personal thing (except for ice cream – everyone loves ice cream).
Not the 60 percent of the world’s population that suffers from lactose intolerance.
And they probably know you’re just watching to be a good dad because they know you don’t enjoy or value or understand any sports, obviously including whatever ones they participate in. I’m sure they understand, though, and appreciate the effort despite your cluelessness. You might try watching the pro versions of the ones they play a few times to learn to actually understand a little bit of what they’re doing. It makes attending less boring and gives you something to talk about after.
I played a lot of them growing up. I was pretty good at a couple of sports and won all-state in some swimming events. I just have never enjoyed watching unless it’s my daughters playing. But your view is common. I have a lot of friends who found it a puzzlement that I played and understand sports well, but don’t care to watch them.
Part of the reason your various political views never seem to form anything very coherent is because they all seem based on a very narrow Dave-centric view. Not surprised you can’t work up any interest in athletes other than yourself and your daughters, no matter how spectacular they may be. Not at all. Probably doesn’t make you the best judge of anything to do with the Olympics, though, including the opening ceremonies. Now if any of the athletes had ever agreed to have coffee with you….
I find the Eurovision songs to be great and fascinating to follow. 125 million television viewers agree with me. But I don’t turn around and denigrate anyone here who does not find Euro-pop to be great music.
People find different things interesting. That’s a good thing. Try to accept that.
find something called The Baconator to be great and fascinating, and also delicious. But if you started a campaign to sing its praises on this blog, you might run into some resistance. That wouldn’t mean you’re the only one around with an open mind.
figured out your deep disappointment with the Olympic opening ceremonies.
Hang in there, David, there’s still a chance we’ll see that Spice Girls reunion during the closing ceremonies. And, if not . . . as has been noted elsewhere . . . shame on the IOC. Or, not.
A four way race in HD61! The race started with an incumbent Democrat, a Republican and a Constitutionalist challengers.
Now we have a former Democratic Speaker Pro Tem running as an Unaffiliated.
Now that’s an interesting race. Thoughts? Inside scoops?
That’s how most good stories end up on this site.
Write an informative diary post about it.
this election is going to be interesting. I admired Curry but thought she showed utter dumbness when she became unaffiliated without knowing the rules re running again. She may take enough votes from illie Hamner to get Irvine elected but I hope not. Irvine is so self absorbed. the ACP guy is radically uninformed. If one had no other reason to vote for Millie they ought to just because she is a D. But, she has been an outstanding rep
this year, the ACP theme is “no more career politicians.”
Hello all;
I want to take a moment and alert you to the existence of Colorado’s Third Major Party–right here in Mesa County!
“What are you talking about?” someone’s bound to ask. Well, you know about the Democratic Party; you know about the Republican Party. In Colorado, the American Constitution Party is classified as a Major Political Party. Which means the ACP can run candidates just like the “big boys” do. It participates in the political process in ways minor parties such as the Libertarians cannot. (The ACP recently participated in the Mesa County Canvass Board, while the Libertarian there was only acting as an observer.)
This is YOUR chance to get in on the ground floor. The Mesa County American Constitution Party is open for business and we want YOU to participate. How? Well, for starters, go to this Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/group… and send a friend request. While you’re browsing the web, go to this site: http://mcacp.weebly.com and learn more about the party and the local organization. If you are already affiliated with the ACP through voter registration, you have a chance to become part of the local party’s organization. We are looking for everyone from precinct captains to candidates for county chair. (Elections to be held in February, 2013)
Why the ACP? It is the ORIGINAL tea party. Don’t believe me? Go the web site http://mcacp.weebly.com/ and check it out. Libertarian in ideology without the abandonment of our Judeo/Christian values in the process. Smaller, smarter government. Candidates like you and I: people who believe in limited, responsible government at all levels. People who value the individual over the politics; principle over party. Sign up now. Participate now.
How does the ACP reconcile this with the idea of separation of church and state? Freedom of religion?
Speaking of Biblical law –
Would the ACP put this into law? Which seventh day would the law recognize?
Clearly slavery is allowed in Biblical law. How would ACP reinstate slavery? Which nations would be defined as near enough to the US that they could be our slaves? If one of those neighboring nations was also following Biblical law, would ACP allow me to sell my daughter into slavery there?
Because human error is inherent in any human activity, including a system of government, does this mean no capital punishment?
Does this mean I get to vote for my wife? I mean I trust her to obey, but it’s hard to control the ballot and she does sometimes wear clothes made from a mix of linen and wool. Or would ACP repeal the 19th Amendment ?
Did you mean the Whigs protesting the Townshend Act? Or the much more recent Koch/AFP supported “tea party” that chose to call themselves “tea baggers”?
what I want to know is how the ACP expects to stay a major party if we’ll all have to give up our cheeseburgers, BLTs, and pepperoni pizzas?
Man does not live by bread alone . . .
So you believe in personal liberty, but only if that person believes in your God? That seems a little hypocritical to me.
You’ve inspired me to create a painting class. Students are allowed to use whatever colors they want as long as it’s one of the colors I tell them they can use.
I realized you are making fun of yourself,
and I shouldn’t interrupt.
It makes sense to me that a person can be both Libertarian and Christian, but it makes absolutely no sense to me for an organization to be both.
I don’t think its members understand much about the constitution, (which is full of concern for the common good, the common welfare), the founding fathers, the irrelevance of most biblical law to our laws as illustrated by Madco’s handful out of zillions of examples or the fact that our founding father’s expressly agreed on a government that would keep its nose out of religious matters, either in support of or in opposition to, as the only feasible way of guaranteeing complete freedom of conscience for every American.
If this party were really libertarian, constitutionalist or both it would be adamantly opposed to mixing religion of any kind with government. Regardless of historic influences of this or that tradition (our laws owe much more to English common law than to biblical law, BTW) our constitution is quite clear that ours is a secular (not a dirty word – just means matters other than religious ones) government, forbidden to meddle with its citizens in matters spiritual.
There really isn’t anything in the constitution particularly mandating small, large or any other size government. What it does mandate is a government which is, in fact, us, through our elected representatives.
.
The Constitution I have doesn’t say what you say it says,
something about being “secular”
and
“adamantly opposed to mixing religion of any kind with government.”
All my version says in this regard (Article 1 of the Bill or Rights, also called the 1st Amendment) is that
the government (congress) will not make any law concerning an establishment of religion, or prohibiting people to freely exercise a religion.
In fact, the founding fathers believed that this form of government would only work if the people were moral. They could be any religion, or no religion.
But they certainly expected religious people to serve in government, and to act according to their religious beliefs in that capacity.
There is no Constitutional wall of separation between Church and State in my version.
Maybe you could post a link to your version, and the hard-to-find Article 8, or the hidden Amendments that contain the parts you are referring to.
is forbidden from endorsing or banning religion, having an official state religion or imposing religious tests for office make it clear that the state is to deal with matters temporal (secular) only and stay out of matters spiritual (religious) leaving those to matters to be decided by each citizen as matters of individual conscience, makes it perfectly clear that the state is a secular entity, not a religious one. The word secular and the phrase separation of church and state do not have to appear because what does appear is a clear definition of a government as a secular entity with no power in the religious sphere. Remember, secular does not mean ant-religious, just other than religious.
Further your assumption that moral equals religious is a flawed one. There is no evidence that atheists or agnostics are less moral or ethical than the religious. In fact the bible belt does worse, rather than better, on many objective measures of what the religious claim to believe is moral or immoral behavior than does the allegedly less Godly, liberal north east.
The assumption that people don’t steal or murder, for instance, only because their religion tells them not to is a completely unproven one. It seems far more likely that the world’s various religions are a way of explaining the moral aspirations that have been part of human cultures worldwide rather than the source for morality’s creation. Morality predates the bible and exists in cultures whose religions have nothing to do with your bible.
I do not accept that their religious beliefs, particularly in adopting laws, should influence their vote. At all. In fact, if they are going to come at things from their religious beliefs then I think they have no business there. Their religious belief can influence their own personal behavior but they ought not use it as a cudgel to influence others’ behavior. I think my view is closer to Jefferson’s than your’s is BX
in order to assure people that it would be OK to elect a Catholic President.
Says it all whether you hear it or not.
It’s so elegant. The government is our collection of laws and if the government is barred from either establishing or banning religious practice through law, that’s all it takes to establish the limiting of government to the secular sphere. No need to enumerate all the possible laws it can’t pass such as laws enforcing a state religion, banning religions, forcing people to attend religious services or profess to religious beliefs. Something would, no doubt, be left out of an enumerated list but this simple sentence negates the need for anything more.
Just this clearly establishes no government dabbling in religion, pure and simple. The phrase separation of church and state is unnecessary. The only kind of government possible within these two simple requirements is a government which is a secular, not a religious, institution and that concerns itself exclusively with temporal matters, nose out of citizens’ religious choices. Anything else would violate one or both requirements in this simple formula. Thanks, Barron
My version does have a Preamble saying “promote the general Welfare,”
but that’s not the same as “full of,” is it ?
Surely your version has a lot more on that topic ?
My version only has 7 Articles, and they focus on defining the structure and rules of conduct for how to operate the government.
I’m guessing that you are thinking of Article 9, which isn’t included in my copy.
again, not just in the preamble:
As you can see clearly from the clause you provided above in connection with religion and the state, the constitution is very economical in language. Few word say a lot.
I guess you really DO want to go there.
Now, before I start, I admit that a lot of my fellow Christians don’t fully agree with what I’m about to say.
In fact, there are reportedly 60,000+ different varieties of Christianity, all but one having broke away from my church over some disagreement or other.
The largest Christian denomination, to which I belong, believes that the quotes MADCO showed above are important for understanding who Jesus is, in context,
but they are not biblical law.
They were replaced, or fulfilled, in Jesus’ coming.
I mean no disrespect to any preceding religious tradition;
that’s just what Christianity is about, like it or not.
Because of my beliefs, I DO tend to be skeptical of, if not disrespectful toward “Christian” sects that teach that the Bible is the verbatim word of God.
It makes my skin crawl, whenever they refer to themselves as “fundamentalists,” because they actually reject the fundamentals taught by Jesus. I prefer to call them “literalists,” and feel they are closer to Islam than to anything Jesus intended. Muslims believe that God spoke Arabic and spoke the Q’oran to the Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, who simply transcribed what God told him to write.
MADCO is a sharp guy. He knows that those quotes aren’t “biblical law” in Catholic Christianity. He’s being cute.
Because of your background, you could be smart and yet still believe that they are, according to Judaic tradition.
Not something I can intelligently argue with you about.
This raises a point of clarification:
most of the top dogs in the state Constitution Party are of the “literalist” type of Christianity. That may also be true for the national party.
If I was guaranteed that the STATE RELIGION would be my particular religion, then I might consider it to be beneficial to have a state religion.
But that’s not how it would work.
If there was a state religion, it might be a version of Christianity that I personally find offensive. It could be that religion invented about 200 years ago in Scotland, Ireland and Germany, built on the foundations of genuine Christianity, but intentionally embracing obvious heresies.
Accordingly, I am more opposed to there being a state religion than most folks, maybe even more than you.
Of course, as I’ve posted before, most CoPols participants deny being religious, but exhibit the culture, belief system, and worldview of an actual religion, Humanism. Look it up in Wikipedia, if you like. Look up “religion,” while you’re at it.
That’s where, for example, the belief about the propriety of gay marriage comes from. It sure doesn’t come from science.
Today, there actually IS a state religion in the USA, and its the religion of Humanism. I wish it were not so, but alas.
Thankfully, adherents are so insistent on denying their adherence that they undercut their ability to organize well enough to impose their values, for the most part.
So far.
is that early in the history of Catholicism, there was a ferocious debate over whether the New Testament was meant to replace the Old Testament or complement it, and that the latter view won out.
In the century after Jesus’s death, there were many dozens of documents circulating around the Roman empire. There were huge arguments about which were legit for the slowly forming new church, which was pretty scattered and identified by the bishop of each major city.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are the oldest gospels and they in turn have come from a source gospel that has never been discovered.
One of the bishops fighting for influence insisted that only Matthew be used, not even the writings of Paul.
What we know as the New Testament was hashed out and settle on in the Fifth century. Revelations almost didn’t make the cut; imagine how different Christianity would be without its rambling hallucinations. (Which were all supposed to happen within the generation. See Revelations 1:1.)
One thing that becomes obvious with the study of the history of holy literature is that there is no such thing as a finished, sanctified, we all are in agreement product. Argue, argue, argue. Then there are sourcing issues. Jerome’s first translation of the Hebrew Bible (OT) into Latin came via the Septuigent, a Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures. And just like that campfire game of telephone, with each translation, errors appear.
If a book is supposed to be the word of God, I’d bet on the Koran. It’s the newest of the major desert works and it was written in Arabic, a modern language. Even the English translations contain the Arabic side by side in order to reference back.
Anyway, I think of the Bible as words about God, not the word of God. And, of course, being an atheist means I’m not looking for clues about God, just appreciating the role this book has played in the making of our culture.
Catholic Christianity
So ACP is saying we should return the biblical law roots of the USA based on Catholic Christianity?
I didn’t think so.
Sure, I pick on some archaic stuff in the Old Testament because it highlights the problem with such an asinine phrase as “…nation governed by a constitution rooted in Biblical law…”
Biblical law? What exactly is that?
You think it means Catholic Christianity. But the founders were not exactly thinking like that. In fact, only one of the 56 signers of the Constitution identified as Catholic- Charles Carroll of Maryland. Most were Episcopalian and other Protestant denominations.
So is ACP talking about Episcopalian “Biblical law”?
Here’s the thing – and there is no getting past it:
There is no commonly held definition of “biblical law,” So as words, they are almost meaningless. Except that even in their vagary they clearly communicate the desire and intention for the US to be a Christian country. Whatever that means.
For you it means something about the Catholic catechism based on the New Testament. For others it means something else.
What it means to me is a religious test for being a true American. And that is anathema.
As far as Jewish belief is concerned the new testament doesn’t even exist as a legitimate religious text. Judaism recognizes only what you would call the old testament. For Jews there is no “new” testament to supersede Jewish law, not that any Jews, even the most orthodox, follow the harsh ancient laws to the letter but that’s all beside the point. Your theology and everyone else’s is beside the point on matters of constitutional law.
Our government, being banned from endorsing your religion or mine, has no business imposing the laws of either on anyone.
The fact that certain things are illegal both in civil law and in religious law doesn’t mean they are illegal because of religious law. The fact that, say, murdering your neighbor to steal his goods is illegal in all kinds of cultures that have no biblical basis to their religion or laws demonstrates that the impulse for outlawing such behavior predates and extends far beyond any one culture’s religious writings.
So in discussing the constitution, the clear ban on a government that represents any particular set of religious beliefs or favors any group of religions or specific religion over any others, I fail to see what Christian theology concerning the nature of the “Old” and “New” testaments has to do with it. You, under my constitution, have no right to subject me or anyone else to your theology.
The constitution creates a government banned from authority over religious matters so no religious majority can impose its will on religious minorities or on the non-religious via our democratic process. Period. The state is secular. It is specifically banned from establishing a state religion or even endorsing a religion. The only way you can deny that the state is secular is if you don’t understand what the word means.
You allude strongly that it does. Why?
Humanism being a religion. The state is secular. That’s clearly established in the constitution by the combination of bans on establishing, banning or endorsing in the sphere of religious belief. Secular simply means not in the realm of religious matters.. So, if it makes you happy, the state cannot be officially “humanist” either, an entirely different thing than being secular. The state can’t establish Humanism, or Atheism or any other ism relating to matters spiritual as the state religion because…duh…the state is restricted to act only in the realm of secular/temporal matters. The fact that religion is explicitly excluded from matters over which the state has the right to exercise authority doesn’t constitute “humanism”. It just means let everyone decide spiritual matters for themselves. It’s none of the state’s business.
Logic and deductive reasoning are also not your strong points. Just look at the way you have to dance to try to make sense of a religious, not secular, government but one that can’t promote particular flavors of what it apparently gets to decide are acceptable. The founding fathers made it quite simple:
Our state is forbidden from acting in the sphere of religious matters. What is outside the realm of religious matters is secular. Therefore our state is an entity that operates only in the secular sphere. The state is a secular institution.
This is the only way to provide individual citizens with complete freedom of conscience in spiritual matters that can never be usurped via the democratic process by the majority. Period.
Read it.
It doesn’t say what you think it says.
Like the Jewish faith has its own stories outside of the actual text, the evidence outside of the actual constitution is overwhelming that religion and state are to be as separate as possible. Being human, it’s understood that religious beliefs will “inform” office holders, but there will not be an official religion.
A few items:
1. It was argued mightily during the making of the constitution whether to have a state religion or not.
2. Madison, I believe it was, was very angry that Congress funded the position of a Congressional chaplain.
3. “The wall of separation between church and state” comes from a letter by Jefferson. I hear he had something to do with the founding of America.
4. When Washington made treaty with the Barbary pirates, he assured them that “We are not a Christian nation.” This was meant, not as a note on the dominant religion, but officially. The pirates had to know that this wasn’t a Muslim-Christian capitulation.
Religious people have always tried to be rid of Jefferson’s wall. But lately, it has become a mission and with lies abounding. Lies about the spiritual and religious beliefs of the founding fathers, painting them as devout fundamentalists.
The darkest hours of humanity, throughout history, have all come when the cultures were a theocracy.
Think Calvin’s Geneva, the Middle Ages, the Muslim theocracies.
Freedom does not arise from religion, it is the natural enemy of religion.
I recommend a book called , “Democracy at the Crossroads”, by Craig S. Barnes.
Within its’ discussion of democracy is a remarkable discourse on the cruelty and oppression of most, if not all, theocracies.
Religion is a cult of personality…completely antithetical to the rule of law. The way “Gods’ Law” has been applied over the centuries sort of makes the point.
Oh wait that was Junior Barnes. Never mind.
about the state being a religious entity. I don’t think you understand what the words libertarian or secular mean and you certainly don’t understand the basis of religious freedom established in the constitution including any Hindu American’s right not to be subject to your theology or anyone else’s. The very fact that you bring the religious text you believe in into the discussion proves it. Anti-establishment means your religious instruction book, much less your particular interpretation of your particular instruction book, carries no more weight under our constitution than anyone else’s.
The fact that we have a Christian majority doesn’t change the fact that the state is banned from being Christian or any other religion.
I should have said that your particular interpretation of your particular religious instruction book, like everyone else’s carries no weight, in relation to the constitution, not simply no more weight than others although technically that would be true since zero isn’t greater than zero.
I’ve decided to go back to school to get a degree in Emergency Management and I’m having issues with my online political science class.
I understand it and I’m interested in it, but it’s hard to not be occaisonally snarky and sarcastic.
I blame you.
First, it is not our fault that you are occasionally snarky and sarcastic, you have probably been listening, secretly, to ex FEMA Mikey “great job, brownie” whose whole emergency management philosophy is people need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps..even if those boots are filled with flood water….
Secondly, the language of the new poli-sci can be tricky to decipher…..here is a simple lexicon.
1) Stakeholders are people with money and power
2) Folks are people without money or power
3) “Having a discussion” is where the stakeholders tell the folks what is going to happen.
4) Facilitators figure in here in someway that neither the folks nor the stakeholders have quite figured out….facilitates make money facilitating the conversation.
good luck.
Mitt Romney: A Candidate With a Serious Wimp Problem
http://www.thedailybeast.com/n…
Romney’s immediate response?
Romney’s next response? Who knows? Maybe some “tough guy” saber rattling talk . . . possibly aimed at Iran? Bet you didn’t see that one coming? Doh!
The GOP had a problem this cycle, obviously; their potential pool of candidates with that old-fashioned level of traditional conservative . . . er, gumption . . . was unusually small to begin with — the consensus count would pretty much include only Palin and Bachmann.
What say you Pols — has Mitt got a problem? I mean an obvious problem? Do you think Willard might be a little too, as Palin might say, “overcompensatey“?
Would it be possible for him to invade Iran all by himself?
Of the Iraq war. By comparison, a normal person’s fortune could pay for about 10 seconds of the Iraq war.
One has to assume the cost of the Iran war would be similar since they’re almost the same damn name.
to persuade the world he is strong and decisive. He wouldn’t have to spend any of the Cayman money or cash out his IRA. That would be asking too much.
He used to impersonate cops.
He’s traveled in Europe.
He has to park his wife’s car with an elevator.
Now Romney’s unsure of how much he paid in taxes
Even if it’s not realistic to expect a candidate to the exact amount he or she paid (or exact rate) without looking it up, a candidate who doesn’t a have a general idea is clueless.
Is Romney trying to lose this election? Romney has his strengths, but if he keeps putting his foot in his mouth, President Obama may be shoe-in.
He “thinks” he’s paid a considerable amount of taxes every year? Hey, Romney – your taxes have been the subject of discussion for the past month or so. Perhaps you could, you know, look them up in your records – or at least call your tax accountant?
Complete BS coming from someone who’s increasingly showing himself to be capable of nothing direct and honest.
I said, “Libertarian in ideology without the abandonment of our Judeo/Christian values in the process.”
I never said religion. I said values. If that equates to slavery in your mind, that says much more about you than the ACP.
Here’s a very brief list of values: 1) All men are created equal.
2) All men have been endowed with certain rights.
3) These rights an unalienable. 4) That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
There is no need to read a nefarious scheme to imprison people who don’t pray on Sundays into this. As well stated in this thread, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution protects both the practice and non-practice of religion. In my mind, you are free to worship whomever or whatever you want. Or nothing at all. But so am I.
The idea that people of faith should leave their faith behind when they take political office is ludicrous. When does the liberal ever ask any other group of people to abandon their beliefs and values? That’s reserved only for those who hold values the liberals cannot tolerate. Making the modern “liberal” movement the most intolerant group in existence.
Hate the fact that a Christian family owned business is Christian in its views? Launch a national persecution of it. That’s “liberal tolerance” for you.
Thanks for taking time to view the site; even if were merely to find a bone to pick.