Why I won't be voting for Rick Perry

[LSN80]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html

I know Im somewhat of a rarity here amongst those who visit this section, as Im an admitted Republican. But I couldn't in good conscience vote for Rick Perry. Many of the overhauls he wants to make to the Constitution are rediculous and based on his religious beliefs. Im not sure what I'll do around election time if it's Perry vs Obama, to be honest. But in my mind, the seven ways Perry wants to change the constitution are enough of a reason for me not to vote for him. Here are excerpts from Perry's book Fed Up!, and interviews he's done since declaring his canadicy:

1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.

The nation's framers established a federal court system whereby judges with "good behavior" would be secure in their job for life. Perry believes that provision is ready for an overhaul.

"The Judges," reads Article III, "both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Perry makes it no secret that he believes the judges on the bench over the past century have acted beyond their constitutional bounds. The problem, Perry reasons, is that members of the judiciary are "unaccountable" to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want. In his book, the governor speaks highly of plans to limit their tenure and offers proposals about how to accomplish it.

"'[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability," he writes in Fed Up! "There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority."

I have no problem with this one. I do believe that all people in power should be held accountable to their constituants, and Supreme Court Judges having lifetime tenure doesn't give them much accountability other then they have to "behave". Abolishing Lifetime tenure would give the judges a sense of being accountable to the bench of which they've been elected, as all other judges are. To be fair, most Supreme Court Judges don't overstep their bounds, but it does happen from time to time. I'd have no problem with this one, however, as anyone in power needs a checks and balance.

2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
Ending lifetime tenure for federal justices isn't the only way Perry has proposed suppressing the power of the courts. His book excoriates at length what he sees as overreach from the judicial branch. (The title of Chapter Six is "Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live.")

Giving Congress the ability to veto their decisions would be another way to take the Court down a notch, Perry says.

"[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy," he writes.

This doesn't bother me terribly much as it goes hand in hand with the issue of accountability. I don't know if Congress is the best vehicle to use to hold them accountable, however, because Congress has far more agendas then the Supreme Court Justices do. Further, most would likely vote along their party lines, not based on what the best decision is. This, while nice in theory, is incredibly flawed in its proposed execution.

3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It should be abolished immediately, Perry says.

Calling the Sixteenth Amendment "the great milestone on the road to serfdom," Perry's writes that it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.

I actually agree with Perry here, for the most part. Again for me, this goes back to checks and balances. However, any laying and collecting of taxes would have to be taken to a vote if imposed by Congress, but its the same old story here. Most of Congress will likely(and has in the past) vote according to party lines and the beliefs of their party's beliefs on taxation, not their own. So I agree essentially with Perry here, in abolishing this ammendment provided he has a reasonable, just one to take its place.

4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

Overturning this amendment would restore the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislators the power to appoint the members of the Senate.

Ratified during the Progressive Era in 1913 , the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amehndment gives citizens the ability to elect senators on their own. Perry writes that supporters of the amendment at the time were "mistakenly" propelled by "a fit of populist rage."

"The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment)," he writes.

I HATE this idea. We as a country need to get back to giving more power to the majority. Who is that true majority? The people who live here. This wasn't populist rage, as Perry puts it, it was constructed in the spirit of giving more power to the people, and less governing by Washington. Instead of giving the power to the people in electing the members of the Senate, this would give power to a select few, the state legislators, to select them. This is an insult to the people of the country and is in essence saying they're not responsible or intelligent enough to make their own choices of whom they want to see elected. Some aren't, to be fair. But most of us who vote for Senators do our homework, even if it's just basic understanding. This would be a step back to an era when women weren't able to vote either, which is ludicrous to return to. Im not saying he's proposing women shouldn't vote. But he is proposing we return to that time period regarding voting, or a lack thereof, of voting for our own senators.

5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
Of all his proposed ideas, Perry calls this one "the most important," and of all the plans, a balanced budget amendment likely has the best chance of passage.

"The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution--now--to restrict federal spending," Perry writes in his book. "There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional 'balanced budget amendment' or a straightforward 'spending limit amendment,' either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter . . . . Let's use the people's document--the Constitution--to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington."

A campaign to pass a balanced budget amendment through Congress fell short by just one vote in the Senate in the 1990s.

Last year, House Republicans proposed a spending-limit amendment that would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the economy. According to the amendment's language, the restriction could be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress or by a declaration of war.

This same proposal was attempted to be passed through Congress 18 years ago, and it fell short by just one vote. Perry is more flexible here then he is on others, as he either wants to return to the original balanced budget amendment from the original Constitution, or set a spending limit. Ideas such as 20% of the economy or setting limits based on the economy of each state have been bantered around. This one I think is an excellent idea, as it would provide consequences for Washington for overspending, the last thing we need with the debt we currently exist with. Perry called this the most important of his proposals, and I agree with him here. I would have no problem seeing this get passed, with the checks and balances provided by Congress through the 2/3 vote that could override this if it's not working.

6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.

Despite saying last month that he was "fine with" states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.

"I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that," Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. "I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here's the way you do it'.

In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry's broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.

And here we go. This proposed change by Perry is a mixture of hypocrisy and trying to push beliefs and morals into laws. Perry, when asked point blank about the issue, said he was fine with the states that allow gay marriage. He's changed his tune and has said he respects the opinion of the states that have legalized gay marriage, but he takes a different approach. How is that indicative of a man whom is fine with the states that allow gay marriage?

Our country and its constituents have fought long and hard to allow homosexual marriage, essentially, equal rights for all people. Not only would this keep further states(and all 50 should) from passing gay marriage laws, it would abolish the current policies in place in the select few states whom have all fought hard to allow marriage of this kind. It's an issue of morality and religion, and it doesn't belong in the White House. If Perry, as a Christian, doesn't agree with the idea of gay marriage, that's one thing. It's a complete other to try and force those beliefs upon a nation. This is a ludicrous amendment, and his religious beliefs have no place here if he's the leader of a nation.

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was "so important...to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers."

This is another case of morality and religion, with no sound legal argument for it. Perry, like with gay marriage, has said in the past he had no problem with this being a state to state issue. But he's changed his tune, again. In wanting to return to the "traditional values" of those who founded our country, he wants to abolish abortion altogether.

I see another issue where the mans religious beliefs are what is governing his thoughts, not any true legal argument. Im primarily against abortion myself, because an adoption in most cases is the preferred method in my eyes. But in the cases of rape, Perry is essentially arguing that those women have to not only live with being raped, but carry that pain inside of them for 9 months. Further, the possible passing of this will jeopardize lives. We'll see more back-alley abortions, which dont generally have that high of a success rate. Nothing is more important then human life--the life on this earth. Passong of this amendment would jeopardize lives and be nothing then the imposition of morality and one man's religious beliefs upon an entire nation. But these are just my thoughts. What say you?

Thoughts in general on the 7 amendments Perry has proposed he'll attempt to implement if elected? You can touch on them all or just one in particular that you truly approve of/dislike.

Any other thoughts on this are more then welcome. This is open to a broad range of discussion, and any and all thoughts on Rick Perry and his proposed changes are more then welcome.

 

[Mustang Sally]

As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.

Some problems are beyond our power to solve, and according to the Book of Joel, Chapter 2, this historic hour demands a historic response. Therefore, on August 6, thousands will gather to pray for a historic breakthrough for our country and a renewed sense of moral purpose.

........Rick Perry (8/6/11)

If there was one principle adopted by the Founding Fathers that demonstrated their profound wisdom, it was the separation of church and state. I don't know about you, but I'm extremely uncomfortable with a President who makes political, social, economic and foreign policy decisions based on what God tells him to do.

Why?

Because I don't think it's God telling him at all. I think it's his own idea that he's attributing to God, to throw more weight behind his claim. Or worse, if he really believes it's God who gave him the word on how to balance the federal budget, I'm even more uncomfortable.

Yes, most Presidents have held religious beliefs. That's fine because they followed the principles of the Constitution and didn't throw God into the equation when making policy. George W. Bush was the first President to openly blur the lines, imo. He wanted us to believe he was governing based on what God wanted of him, which is so dangerous it would be funny if not for the potential for disaster......yet, thousands of people probably backed what Bush was saying because they believed God was calling the shots. Why would they believe that? Well, Bush said it was so, didn't he?

Now, we have Rick Perry who states openly he wants to pray to God for the money to help the nation with it's problems. He tosses the name of God around as if the Almighty were a golfing buddy of his. (If he really is, I stand corrected, of course.)

But what scares me more than Rick Perry is the possibility the Republicans might actually nominate him for the presidency......and that the American people might subsequently elect him to the highest office in the land.

In the unlikely event they do, remember this: these people can vote and can reproduce. Now, that's scary.

 

[DJ Kyo]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html




I HATE this idea. We as a country need to get back to giving more power to the majority. Who is that true majority? The people who live here. This wasn't populist rage, as Perry puts it, it was constructed in the spirit of giving more power to the people, and less governing by Washington. Instead of giving the power to the people in electing the members of the Senate, this would give power to a select few, the state legislators, to select them. This is an insult to the people of the country and is in essence saying they're not responsible or intelligent enough to make their own choices of whom they want to see elected. Some aren't, to be fair. But most of us who vote for Senators do our homework, even if it's just basic understanding. This would be a step back to an era when women weren't able to vote either, which is ludicrous to return to. Im not saying he's proposing women shouldn't vote. But he is proposing we return to that time period regarding voting, or a lack thereof, of voting for our own senators.

I'll bite on this point here.

To understand why the Senate was not elected by the people, you have to first understand the reason why our nation was built the way it was.

We were designed purposefully as a "Representative Republic." What that means though, is that ALL parties are represented accordingly. The "People" had the house. The "States" had the senate, and the "Presidency" was chosen by the electoral college.

Now why was this done? It was for a balance of power to where we could maintain somewhat of a democracy, without giving the power of tyranny fot he majority.

States rights went completely out the window with the passage of the 17th amendment. Also we lost any and all ability to have Washington be rational. Creating a system where the House, Senate, and Presidency are all elected by the people, creates a scenario in which partisan hackery reigns supreme.

With Senators being chosen by the state legislature (or however the states chose to send 2 people to the Senate) then those two individuals were meant to represent the State in which they came from and the best interests of that state. They had to answer to that state and the state alone for how they were doing and it took a lot more negotiating to actually get things done. Unlike today, to where the Senators do the exact same thing the House does, except they get to sit in office for 6 years verus 2. They have more of an opportunity to 'clean themselves up' on the crap they've done to try and get re-elected. The house isn't so lucky.

You claim you want the 'people' to have more power, but the people were never intended to have said power in the first place. If you understand anything about the founding of this country it was that the founders understood that a true democracy was dangerous. Just as they knew a fiat monetary system was dangerous.

People like to look at the constitution as a 'dated' piece of paper, but if you really take a look back and understand its passage, you'll understand why the original roles of the brances of government were put in the way they were. It wasn't for the hell of it, it was from experience and understanding.

 

[Xemmy]

I don't plan on lending my support to either candidate, much less Rick Perry. Why any sane human being would vote for him is beyond me.

Naturally, like many, I have a serious problem with #6 and #7. Neither have a good legal argument. Neither are productive to the progress of this country. And neither are humane. The idea that this fucker thinks the government should be able to dictate what goes on with people's bodies and love lives just infuriates me. What's the justification for telling two people that love each other that they can't marry? Jesus?
What's the justification for telling a woman that she has to carry a fetus she doesn't want? Jesus? Maybe not. It's alive? We kill things with the same amount of brain power or more all the time.

These shouldn't be issues. This involves shoving your morality on to people, who don't carry the same beliefs, and burdening them. And it's certainly not the government's job to do that. Their job is to create order. Not morality. Not religion. Luckily, unless Obama comes out as a rapist, Rick Perry has a snowball's chance in Hell for victory.

 

[DJ Kyo]

What's the justification for telling two people that love each other that they can't marry? Jesus?

The issue is that Government is involved in marriage, period.

You can't sit here and say "what's the jurisdiction..." without first realizing that government is involved in something that it shouldn't be involved in at all.

Marriage is a religious thing at the end of the day. In Government, if they want to have 'binding contracts' then they need to be 'civil unions' for EVERYONE.

At the end of the day though, if you need a piece of paper from the government to be 'happy,' then your relationship is sad & pathetic.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Yeah, Perry may have some pretty warped ideas when it comes to social issues, but Texas is one state where the economy seems to be doing quite well. They're creating jobs left and right. To be honest with you, all of the issues you raise will take a backseat in my voting decision if Perry can answer yes to the following two questions:

1) Has you administration had a significant hand in Texas's recent job growth/job creation?

2) Do you have a detailed and well thought-out plan that, if implemented, would successfully spur job growth/job creation nationwide?

If he can intelligently and affirmatively answer those two questions, I'll seriously consider voting for Perry should he get the GOP nomination.

 

[Davi323]

If there was one principle adopted by the Founding Fathers that demonstrated their profound wisdom, it was the separation of church and state. I don't know about you, but I'm extremely uncomfortable with a President who makes political, social, economic and foreign policy decisions based on what God tells him to do.

Really?

“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”

“The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained”

“Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love and reverence toward Almighty God… What a Utopia, what a Paradise would this region be.”

“It must be felt that there is no national security but in the nation’s humble acknowledged dependence upon God and His overruling providence.”

"t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."

"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

"This is all the inheritance I give to my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will make them rich indeed."

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.”

"I have tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty; through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me."

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also.”

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”

"The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.”

"Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system."

Okay, that's enough. I think that should be adequate to demonstrate that the "profound wisdom" of the founding fathers in regards to the separation of church and state (A phrase that is not found in either the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution) was not nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be. In fact, it would seem to me that many of the founding fathers not only believed in God, but felt that it was a very prudent course of action to teach that faith publicly.

Did those names make you extremely uncomfortable, as you claim? A lot of the Revolutionary founding fathers, some Presidents, some not, seemed to believe that religion should in fact have a heavy influence on not only our personal lives, but also in how the US Government should function.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Really?

No. Not really.

Let's start, in order:

1. George Washington never said that. Sorry. There's no argument to be made here. Your point is refuted entirely. (link)

2. Patrick Henry never said that. (link)

3. Thomas Jefferson also said:

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence: and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate therefore the gold from the dross; restore to him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to sift them apart.

4. Bibles in schools never, ever came out of Congress, in any year. I don't know what ass you pulled that out of, but it never happened. I can't even find any links to debunk it, because it's such an obscure fabrication, I'm convinced you just made it up.

The rest of your quotes are just men practicing their own religion without incorporating politics into it whatsoever. The United States was not a Christian nation then, and it's not a Christian nation now. Deal with it.

 

[klunderbunker]

I won't go into a case by case analysis at the moment, but a few stand out to me.

Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution

Lump this one together with the second one.

This is something that sounds good in theory to some, but it doesn't work in practicality for a few reasons.

1. Why would people want to be judges?

The majority of judges come from a legal background right? In short, why would a hotshot attorney making 6 or 7 figures a year in private practice stop doing that for a two year term as a judge? The idea of job security and the prestige of being a Supreme Court Justice, which is the highest honor in law, are some of the few reasons to go to work for the government. As a citizen, would you want the bottom of the barrel from the legal world making decisions that decide things in your lives? I certainly wouldn't.

2. What power does it leave the judicial branch with?

A professor of mine put this best: "the judicial branch has neither the purse or the sword." In short, the legislative branch writes the laws and the executive branch enforces them. The judicial branch interprets them. Perry argues that the judges can use their power to do as they wish. This isn't a bad thing as Perry implies. The courts' only power is to say their opinion. By not having to face a constituency or re-election, they don't have to say something that the people want to hear. They can make an unpopular decision and base their opinions on what they feel is the right decision, not what they feel is what will keep them in office for another term. That's a powerful weapon that they possess and probably their biggest. You have to remember: the courts have to have a majority. With tenures on courts lasting many years, their appointments are approves by a rotating mixture of Congresses and Presidents. It's not like one President can load the benches up and have a majority. By keeping it from being a political appointment, the judges are free to use what their name implies: their judgement.

Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

I've heard this time and time again and for the life of me I don't get what these people are thinking. What makes that your money? Did you print it? Did you give those green pieces of paper any value at all? No you did not. Living under our economic system is what gave you the ability to earn a living and live in a civilized manner rather than having to go and break a sweat every day under the sun to earn food to barter with. The idea of saying that you refuse to give a small bit back to keep that system running because it's "your" money is absurd.

Perry likes to talk about being a Christian right? Don't most Christian churches encourage tithing? As in giving a small percentage of income to the church in order to keep it functioning? If it's ok with the church, then why not the government? Perry loves the idea of mixing the two in almost everything else, but not here? For someone that is so terrified of the EVIL EVIL DEBT hanging over us, Perry seems very reluctant to help pay his fair (with a heavy emphasis on that word. The income tax should not be crippling or an absurd percentage of income) share to help bring it down while he enjoys the benefits of incurring that debt in the first place.

Also, where does he propose the government get its funding from? The income tax is probably the biggest source of income, and yet i hear no idea from Perry on what to replace it and the money it brings to the government with.

End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

Chant with me:

Crony-ism!

*clap x5*

Crony-ism!

In other words, take the power of representing the people away from the people and give it to people that are elected by a portion of the people. This couldn't POSSIBLY result in bribery, someone buying a seat in Congress, the people not having any idea who their representative, as in their voice in Congress, is or having someone who is there to follow the orders of the person who appointed him right? I mean clearly by taking the power away from the people, you're giving them more power right? That doesn't even make bad sense.

In short, Perry is saying take power away from the people and give it to a small group. Perry is advocating an oligarchy and that's not what this country was designed as.

Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.

People that advocate this don't live in what I like to call reality.

For most people, their most valuable possessions are their home and the car right? I don't know about you, but most people simply cannot afford to buy a car or home without some kind of a payment plan. They don't have all of the money (or at least all of it that they can spend immediately) at the moment, but they can pay off parts of it at a time through their income and savings.

Using the balanced budget approach to a household, there would be no cars bought with car payments and no mortgages. The idea is a very simple one: we don't have the money right now, but we need something right now. We're willing to take on some debt with the intent to pay it back in the future in exchange for paying interest on it. Now of course there are examples where this can be abused, but there are also examples where it's a very good idea.

Let's use my father as an example. He purchased a relatively new home in the early 80s. He was roughly 30 years old and had steady employment as a mechanic in a factory making decent money which he supplemented with a lawn mowing business. While he took on debt, at the same time he had something he needed: a roof over his head and a place to live. He made his payments every month as he had agreed to do with the bank over the next 25-30 years and never missed a single one. In the 90s he came into some extra money through inheritance and raises at work and was able to refinance his mortgage and pay it off in 15 years instead of 25. He had no debt and owned a home free and clear.

That's an example of how debt can be a good thing if managed properly. My dad had a home, he owed no debt at the end of it and made good on the promises he had made. The people that built the home made money as it was sold, the bank made money, the factory he worked for had an employee because he needed the money to make his payments and he was able to spend his money elsewhere eventually, meaning he was putting it into the local economy. In short, everyone benefits.

All of this was possible because he didn't have to balance his budget. He did in fact spend money he didn't have at first, but he had it planned out to be able to pay off his debt and get what he needed at the same time.

Let's look at another problem: emergencies. Let's go with Hurricane Katrina for example. The city was devastated and the US government had to help to pay for it. This wasn't the people of New Orleans fault nor was it the government's fault. It was an unexpected issue that simply had to be dealt with. Let's say the budget was balanced prior to this. All of a sudden, we have a new expense. Was the government supposed to tell the people dying from hunger and malnutrition that they were on their own because we can't possibly afford taking on a single penny more of debt because it could unbalance things? That's absurd.

In short, debt can be something that can work if managed properly. The government hasn't managed it properly to be sure, but demanding the budget be balanced isn't going to make things better. It's going to make things incredibly difficult and potentially make it even harder to pay off the debt in the long term while making it more difficult to keep things functioning on a day to day basis.

The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.

Ok, I'm cool with this. We'll do this as soon as divorces are completely outlawed, quick marriages in places like Las Vegas are outlawed, the government is put in charge of conducting all marriages instead of the church and adultery is made into a crime. All of these things listed are about protecting the sanctity of marriage and if we're going to go that route, we better make sure we go full blast with it because I don't know how to go through a relationship without the government telling me how to run it at all.

Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country

Ok so let me make sure I have this straight. It's cool to say that the government needs to stay out of everything else, except for a woman's vagina. Am I getting this right? They should stay out of our wallets, our elections, our economy and everything else, but they get to decide what happens to something that is a part of a woman's body. That's what Perry is more or less saying here, as the baby put inside the woman isn't her's, but his still. Good to see Perry admitting that women are sex objects with no say in what happens to them whatsoever and are subservient to the men that allow them to be used for sex.

 

[Taker Sucks]

Yeah, Perry may have some pretty warped ideas when it comes to social issues, but Texas is one state where the economy seems to be doing quite well. They're creating jobs left and right. To be honest with you, all of the issues you raise will take a backseat in my voting decision if Perry can answer yes to the following two questions:

1) Has you administration had a significant hand in Texas's recent job growth/job creation?

2) Do you have a detailed and well thought-out plan that, if implemented, would successfully spur job growth/job creation nationwide?

If he can intelligently and affirmatively answer those two questions, I'll seriously consider voting for Perry should he get the GOP nomination.

Does "jobs" we have here in Texas have been here since oil was discovered. Perry has not made any jobs... Those Jobs was here Bush daddy was in office. Our tax is cheaper ,but we have less money in our state spending. Education took a humongous drop in Texas ,and our budget is not on par with other states. Rick Perry is a good man I personally met the guy we talked had lunch... he sent a letter of recommendation for a law summer institute at the University of Texas even though he is a Aggie. Dude is not the man you want for president.

 

[Davi323]

Mozz, I never said that the United States was a Christian nation. All I stated was that the iron-clad principles of separation of church and state that Mustang Sally stated were not nearly so iron clad. I never stated that the US was intended specifically as a Christian nation.

Their actual positions on the role of religion in Government, religion in public life, etc. was certainly confusing, which is the point I was trying to make. You had those founding fathers, who supposedly were adamant believers in the separation of church and state, making statements about God, faith, God's role in a just nation, making it public, etc. Basically, that even if the United States was not specifically set up as a Christian nation, you CANNOT deny that they believed God had an important role in their lives, and that it clearly affected their decision making. It is just as erroneous to state that the United States Founding Fathers believed in the complete separation of church and state as it is to claim that they fully intended the nation to be officially Christian. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. All I did was muddy the waters a bit.

Did some of the quotes later be determined to be fake? Maybe. And I admit that I didn't spend hours and hours researching every one. However, that was just a small sampling, and I could easily find 50 more quotes to back my point up too. The point was NOT to claim that they intended America to be a specifically Christian nation, merely to demonstrate that it was not intended to completely remove religion from public discourse, as Mustang Sally claimed.

 

[Davi323]

in addition, take a look at a dollar bill or US minted coin. What does it say? "in God we trust". Wait a minute! You mean the official currency of this supposedly 100 secular government, with steadfast principles of church and state separation, has the name of God on its official currency? How can that be? Why are Presidents sworn into office by placing their hand upon a Bible? Another egregious violation! If it was such an ironclad principle, why was prayer allowed at all public schools until 1961? Why do congresional sessions begin with prayer? Why did Congress designate a national day of prayer? Again, let me reiterate: I am not stating that the United States was designed as a Christian nation. But to claim that the founding fathers believed in a supreme principle of the separation of church and state is patently ridiculous. There are counter examples that occur on a daily basis in the Government that disprove it. There may be a distancing, not no complete separation.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Mozz, I never said that the United States was a Christian nation. All I stated was that the iron-clad principles of separation of church and state that Mustang Sally stated were not nearly so iron clad. I never stated that the US was intended specifically as a Christian nation.

Their actual positions on the role of religion in Government, religion in public life, etc. was certainly confusing, which is the point I was trying to make. You had those founding fathers, who supposedly were adamant believers in the separation of church and state, making statements about God, faith, God's role in a just nation, making it public, etc. Basically, that even if the United States was not specifically set up as a Christian nation, you CANNOT deny that they believed God had an important role in their lives, and that it clearly affected their decision making. It is just as erroneous to state that the United States Founding Fathers believed in the complete separation of church and state as it is to claim that they fully intended the nation to be officially Christian. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. All I did was muddy the waters a bit.

Everyone goddamn knows that the founding fathers all believed in at least one deity or another, and if that was the point you were trying to make, then you've missed the mark so badly, you might as well be in another thread entirely. So let's break it down:

The current republican nominees are trying to blur the line between church and state, a concept the founding fathers came up with to strengthen the foundation of this country as one that promotes freedom for everybody, not just Christians. That includes freedom of religion.

Did some of the quotes later be determined to be fake? Maybe. And I admit that I didn't spend hours and hours researching every one. However, that was just a small sampling, and I could easily find 50 more quotes to back my point up too. The point was NOT to claim that they intended America to be a specifically Christian nation, merely to demonstrate that it was not intended to completely remove religion from public discourse, as Mustang Sally claimed.

No, you can't find 50 more, because not one single founding father believed that this country should be a Christian nation, run by Christian values. And no, Mustang Sally didn't say that the founding fathers wanted religion to move from public discourse. You pulled that right out of your ass. He's saying the same thing I'm saying -- separation of church and state is a concept developed by the founding fathers to steer AWAY from the country being run by the laws of religion, rather than by the will of the people.

in addition, take a look at a dollar bill or US minted coin. What does it say? "in God we trust". Wait a minute! You mean the official currency of this supposedly 100 secular government, with steadfast principles of church and state separation, has the name of God on its official currency? How can that be? Why are Presidents sworn into office by placing their hand upon a Bible? Another egregious violation! If it was such an ironclad principle, why was prayer allowed at all public schools until 1961? Why do congresional sessions begin with prayer? Why did Congress designate a national day of prayer? Again, let me reiterate: I am not stating that the United States was designed as a Christian nation. But to claim that the founding fathers believed in a supreme principle of the separation of church and state is patently ridiculous. There are counter examples that occur on a daily basis in the Government that disprove it. There may be a distancing, not no complete separation.

Just because there are policies in place that violate the separation of church and state doesn't mean they're not violating the separation of church and state, you oaf. I don't care what the modern government has to say about it, because they're as objectively wrong as you are.

 

[Davi323]

That is not the point I was trying to make. The point I DID make was that the founding fathers all thought that religion and faith were an important aspect of not only their private lives, but their public lives as well. I think we might be talking about two different things when we talk about the separation of church and state, and that may be where the real issue is. Officially, they did not want to set up an official religion, they wanted everyone to be able to practice whatever faith they had freely. They did not want to be like England and the Anglican church being tied together. Refusing to set up an official church is not the same thing as saying religion/faith should be absent from public life, or that their faith wouldn't deeply affect their decision making.

There is a difference between their repeated desires that America would be best served following Christian values and instituting the Christian Church of America as an official governmentally sanctioned body.

Essentially, while they did not favor making any one religion the official religion of the nation, they sure as hell had no problems with their religion weighing heavily on their policy-making. They were governed by their faith, and that faith had a clear influence over them as they governed.

Even Jefferson, the man who actually coined the term, favored using taxpayer dollars to build churches, support missionaries, and other non-separation friendly activities.

Further, Jefferson himself may have only been referring to the Federal government, deferring to states rights.

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qjeffson.htm

pay attention to the 3rd and 7th bullet points, where he allows for states to get involved in religion, even if the federal government can't. Surely, someone who was deadset against religion and government intermingling would also oppose it at the state level, yet he doesn't.

It is completely asinine to expect public officials to not let their faith influence their decision making. Their faith is part of who they are, it affects everything they do, even if only subconsciously. If they can completely disassociate their faith from their decisions, their faith is not very strong to begin with.

They simply did not intend the concept to be as absolute as liberals wish. They did not want an official religion, but they did not want to be completely free of it either. They had no problems letting faith guide them. The truth is in the middle between a theocracy and a completely secular humanist government, which is what I was saying.

 

[Davi323]

I thought of a simpler way to explain this on the way home from work:

Technically, U2 is a secular band. They are not listed as a Christian band, they do not play on Christian radio stations. They are part of the mainstream music scene, not the Christian Contemporary scene.

Yet, CLEARLY, the Christian faith of at least three of the individual band members, specifically Bono, the Edge and Larry Mullen, is crystal clear in their music. (I say three, because bassist Adam Clayton is an agnostic, the last I heard)

The band is secular, but the individual members' faith is a core part of what the band is. Their identity is not Christian, but yet, their identity is deeply influenced by Christianity, and they would simply not be the same band if it wasn't.

That is kind of like the role of faith in public service. The Government, as a collective singular body, is not of any particular faith. However, most of the individual components of that body, the members of Congress, the President, etc. are, AND that faith influences them in how they do their jobs.