politicalmonster

In the interest of lively debate, let me ask for a point of clarification: So you want a society in which we can each choose which laws we do and don't adhere to? I mean if you think it is best for the individual to follow their beliefs as opposed to the rule of law, then what is the purpose of having laws, or any society at all, for that matter? If we can arbitrarily decide that government is corrupt and therefore not morally able to legislate society, then where are we headed? -PM

Nope. There is nothing in Article 2 guaranteeing an individual right to vote. It simply says that representatives will be chosen by the people of the States. It doesn't say HOW they will be chosen. If the State decides that the elected state representatives (those who REPRESENT their constituents) were to choose their Congressional Representatives, it would not violate article 2. Or they could choose a pool of approved candidates for the people to vote on. There are numerous ways in which Article 2 COULD be interpreted. (Not that it ever would be). But the fact remains that there is NO Const

Right, but those only say that IF there is a vote, you cannot deny someone the ability to vote because of those factors. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees a general right to vote. As an example, if the Feds and States agreed that Congress would be chosen by the State Legislatures, then you don't get to vote for Congress. That does not violate the Constitution. -PM

You people crack me up. If they didn't have as many opportunities for early voting, people would be crying that they can't make the time to vote on election day. Now people decided not to take advantage of multiple early and absentee voting options, which is your choice, and you complain because the lines were too long. Yeah, sure they could have added machines, or not reduced polling places, but then if the turnout had been low, it would have been a waste of my tax dollars. I would rather stand in line for awhile than have my money wasted, especially if I have been given the opportun

Went to the Apocalypse this weekend, and highly recommend it for anyone thinking about it! It was like being in a zombie movie! Great make-up jobs, the acting was pretty good for being volunteers, and it really kept you jumping. Think I will volunteer next year to be a zombie! -PM

Wonder where all the Obama supporters are? shouldn't they be here telling us how the stimulus packages we got stuck with in the past year are making things better? Or how Obama isn't going to raise our taxes? Or how things were so much worse under Bush and the Republicans? I really wanted to give Obmama the benefit of the doubt when he got elected, but unfortunately, he is turning out exactly as I feared. This whole "evil rich" and "evil businesses" thing is so dang stupid. The rich and the businesses are what drive the freakin economy! So what if the the CEO makes 9000 times what we do? I

I think your initial post is what caused the animosity. You have since tried to temper your initial claims, but the damage was done. For my part, I think you have legitimate concerns that are shared by many Americans that are unfortunately inflammed by the general anti-muslim rhetoric in certain parts of the media today. I think you probably meant what you said originally, and feel that the Muslim faith is a non-starter, as many many people today share that belief. I believe it is misplaced, but I don't think that makes you the next Hitler, or a terrible person. Just someone that is scared

Apparently you know what it means quite well, since the majority of your posts lately (including the one I am responding to) have been nothing but ad hominem attacks. Might want to brush up on your own debate skills before slamming others. -PM

Unfortunately, you are pretty spot on with the statement in bold. Political discourse has become so polarized that honest intellectual debate is almost impossible. The vast majority of people that try to become involved in politics to any extent get their information from sources that lean to one side of the aisle or the other, and their perspectives are skewed to represent that. -PM

But again, that is not all (or even most) muslims! Your problem isn't with the Muslim faith (or at least it shouldn't be), but with the extremists taking actions and hiding behind the mantle of a religion. And in that aspect, most of us would agree with you. The problem is when you take those actions and carry them out to broadly categorize all Muslims as that type of person. -PM

Ok, since you haven't responded to any of my posts debating your earlier points, and to ensure that I didn't miss something, AND to give you the opportunity to clear the air... Could you please clearly state what your point is? Maybe I was arguing the wrong perspective. Thanks, -PM

Got it. So Christians don't abuse or even murder their own kids because of their religious beliefs like the Muslims do... Oh wait. What about this couple that beat one of their kids to death because of their adherence to using the "rod" for punishment as described in the Bible??? http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/02/16/christian-parents-biblically-beat-child-to-death-for-mispronouncing-word/ And that article also has a link to a site that describes the benefits of beating your kids as they believe the Bilble tells them to. So what is the difference again? -PM

If you are not ignorant, then why don't you respond to my points about the difference between mainstream religion and fundamentalist extremism? Or to my points that there are the same type of activities and groups using Christianity to defend the same type of aberrant behaviors? If you choose to simply ignore those concepts in favor of your close-minded religious fervor, then you are truly ignorant. Oh, and as for your example of the girl refusing to scan pork, you do know that it is illegal for employers to discriminated on the basis of religion, right? -PM

It is easy to see that there is no point in trying to debate with you on this, as your entire argument is based not on facts, but on distorted interpretations of the acts of INDIVIDUALS that call themselves muslims while perverting the teachings within the Quaran. There are also "Christian" groups that support polygammy and the marrying of young girls. There are "Christian" groups that support the killing of non-Christians. Christian churches are also built in areas that may not have a large Christian population in order to spread the gospel of Christ. Do any of those things mean that Chr

Which Christian principles would that be? Oh, never mind. We have had that debate far too many times on here. I am so tired of the intolerance and fearmongering corrupting actual Christian values it makes me sick. Everyone wants to take such extreme positions, that no one can actually debate what is going on. Yes, there are elements of extremist muslim sects that are causing terror and mayhem domestically and abroad. No, that doesn't make all Muslims evil, any more than extremist Christian groups make all Christians evil. And yes, our country can and will integrate new religions an

But I do hate people like child molesters, and would leave them in a ditch after a car accident... so mayber there is a place for some hate, if for nothing else than to function as a means to deal with people or actions that are so reprehensible? I guess I just have a problem with absolutes. Saying ALL hate is bad is just as impossible as saying ALL people are equal. Both sound good, but neither is possible in reality. -PM

How would flying a plane into a Mosque ensure that you only kill radical islamist's? And wouldn't you fill the plane with radical islamists? I think the problem is that people keep co-mingling the two, and they are two seperate groups, just as radical Christians are not the same as traditional Christians. -PM

Who does it harm, and in what manner? -PM

Very well said. My views and opinions are my own, and unless I take some action or inaction based on those views that causes harm to another, then nobody is a "victim". -PM

I hear ya. Take it easy. -PM

So what is the liberal solution? -PM

But that isn't the same as the politicians in charge giving you a tax decrease!! The politicians here voted to RAISE YOUR TAXES!!! Saying that you got a tax decrease just because your property value went down is like saying that those who are on unumployment got a tax decrease in their income taxes even after Congress allows the existing tax breaks to expire, which is in fact a tax increase! Look at it this way. You are going to pay more taxes on your property now than you would have had the bill been calculated at this same time last week. That is an increase. -PM

Fact, that person is currently slated to pay less in taxes this year than if the millage rate increase is passed tomorrow. For what? -PM

So by that logic, then everyone who got laid off this past year got a tax decrease, right? Even if Congress raises the income tax brackets, they should still be able to say that 9 million people got a tax decrease this past year? -PM

WTH??? Is nobody on here capable of differentiating between a tax RATE and the taxes paid??? Saying that you are getting a tax decrease because the VALUE OF YOUR EXISTING PROPERTY WENT DOWN IS RIDICULOUS!!! That would be like saying someone that bought a smaller house this year got a tax decrease! No they didn't! Their asset base changed! This is an INCREASE in the TAX RATE! Nobody can dispute that. It is a conscious decision by the politicians to increase how much money the government will take from you. Look at it this way... If your 2011 tax bill was $1700 last week, and they