posted
It makes me feel safer, to hear that someone wants to amend the Constitution rather than pretend it says what he wants already. Think how difficult it is to amend the Constitution.
Any talk of changing the Constitution should frighten us? It's been changed 27 times already.
[ January 16, 2008, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I agree with Rabbit. Huckabee is extremely charming, and I was really impressed by his stance on the environment.
Environment is just one example of why Huckabee scars. He's got all the right buzz words down and sounds great when he talks, but when you look at the details available from his campaign, the picture looks very different. I'm afraid his environmental policy could be another example of the double speak charactized by "Blue Skies" and other Bush administration innitiatives. Didn't Bush campaign in 2000 and "The environmental President" (or was that his father)?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Putting an amendment in the Constitution to define marriage and specifically exclude civil unions from ever being possible not only establishes Christianity as a de facto national religion, it also specifically reserves special rights for Christians and forces Christian doctrine on all Americans regardless of their religion. In other words, it's anti-American.
You forget that Jews, Muslims, and Mormons also tend to believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Sure not all think that, but not all Christians do either. I don't think it is a uniquely Christian doctrine at all, any more than giving money to the poor is.
That said, I find Huckabee kind of weird as well.
As I've mentioned before, Hindus have no religious problem with homosexual marriage. So unless you're cool with the State denying Hindus the religious right to define marriage as they wish, you should be against the State defining marriage as between a man & a woman only. The Judeo-Christian God is not the only one recognized by citizens of this country.
I'm strongly in favor of marriage being defined by your religion, and civil unions being defined by the State. That's how it's done in some European countries (such as Germany), and it seems an excellent system.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He doesn't just have the buzzwords down -- he has a great understanding of how to appeal to the 18-26 demo (the Chuck Norris ads were a stroke of brilliance, er, I mean evil genius). Which is precisely the group that's most likely to vote for the guy who's ads they like and least likely to realize that he's crazier than Courtney Love.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is great antagonism to the principle of "Separation of Church and State," by people largely uneducated in history who just do not understand its vital necessity.
Kind of like people antagonistic toward the electoral college?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Squicky, you're right. I should have said the non-establishment clause is in the first amendment. My bad.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the way to accomplish this were opened up, there would be immediate and enormous support.
Define "enormous."
Also, "possibility" does not equate to "likely."
If you're going to propose an outrageous reversal in American politics (such as you just did a couple posts above), and criticize others when they show their disbelief, you should also provide the reasons for why you think that reversal is probable.
I don't think your current support ("I receive...mass mailings...") constitutes an actual, reasonable data point.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a strict division between Church and State would be awful. The Establishment Clause has been massaged almost as much as the Commerce Clause, and for the most part, I'm fine with both. Religion matters in public policy.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it would be awful to say, "If you're using religious criteria to vote a certain way, then you are not allowed to vote."
I don't think it's possible to remove religion from American culture; and inasmuch as that's true, it can't be extricated from public policy.
I do not think that it would be awful to say, "We're a secular government and we will not institute policies that favor or promote one religion above another."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which Church are you talking about, Irami? What about the religions that don't have a Church, but rather a temple, or a mosque, or a synagogue? What about the people who explicitly reject religion? I'm with Scott on this one - our government should be secular in nature, which means a significant (if not absolute) division between all religions and the State.
I think it's Huckabee's blatant dismissal of all other religions' Gods that angers me the most, even though I'm not religious.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many of you seem to be forgetting the second way the Constitution can be changed. Hold a Constitutional Convention.
Sneering aside, is this for real? What would be involved? Is my impression that every state would have to ratify any resulting product correct? If so, I don't think this is a serious threat.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm with Scott on this one - our government should be secular in nature, which means a significant (if not absolute) division between all religions and the State.
That's not what I said. Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know it's not, Scott, and I'm sorry if it seems that I implied that. However, I do think it's a necessary conclusion of a secular government that there is some division between any and all religions & the State. Do you disagree? (Maybe we're mentally defining "line" differently.)
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that it would be awful to say, "If you're using religious criteria to vote a certain way, then you are not allowed to vote."
I don't think it's possible to remove religion from American culture; and inasmuch as that's true, it can't be extricated from public policy.
I do not think that it would be awful to say, "We're a secular government and we will not institute policies that favor or promote one religion above another."
What about when the people in the first part are Senators?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he was explicit about his religion - and his intention to vote in accordance with it - when he was up for election, then I have no problem with any elected representative using religious criteria in his job in the House or Senate. I don't like it (because I don't like most religions' criteria) but I don't think it's a wrong act.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Huckabee ran Arkansas for 12 years and the state still exists. It's not a state I'd move to, but Arkansas people like it.
Uhhh... I moved to California.
Granted, it was before Huckabee was governor (Mr Clinton had just quit as governmor because he got promoted.) but every time I go home I remember why I left. And Huckabee made that worse.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that laws can be informed by broad religiously-based support for them; I don't think that it would be right to disallow religion to inform public policy.
For example, my beliefs regarding welfare are intimately tied to my understanding of Mormonism. I believe that the best system is a system in which all receive according to their needs, regardless of the work they do. There's no separating, to me, financial matters from spiritual matters.
It would be awful if the government outlawed my system of welfare because it was religiously based.
It would also be awful to enact my system of welfare merely because it is what I believe God wants.
I think that religion is the impetus for a lot of our culture, morally; I think that as that culture is legislated, we need to examine the implications of that morality for fairness and broad applicability. It's in this last step that I think the government is secular-- just because it's of God doesn't mean the US has to make it law.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
From your explanation, Scott, I do think we're defining "division" or "line" as it relates to religions & the State differently. Very briefly (since this is a whole 'nother discussion), I'm thinking of it as keeping the government from backing a particular religion in a way that pushes down other religions or people who are agnostic or atheistic. This includes things like using a particular religion's definition of marriage (simply because it's that religion's definition) as State law, or posting a particular religion's laws in a State court. I don't think it includes things like keeping moral reasoning out of the government process, since morality must not be informed by any particular religion. Your moral conclusions regarding welfare, for example, have also been reached by agnostic/atheistic thinkers.
edit: In case it's not clear, I'm largely in agreement with Scott's post above.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I think it's Huckabee's blatant dismissal of all other religions' Gods that angers me the most, even though I'm not religious.
Me, too. Because I am religious.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I may paraphrase Irami: "A moral upbringing matters in public policy." A specific religion does not.
For example, I think legislators should keep in mind the poor and disenfranchised. This is not a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim belief I hold, although it is mentioned in all three religions. It is the right thing to do, based on my upbringing and adult experience.
Morals and spirituality do belong in politics. Scripture does not.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Morals and spirituality do belong in politics. Scripture does not.
I disagree.
Depending on precisely what one means, I might agree with "Scripture does not belong in government."
But much of politics happens outside government. The conflation of the two concepts is something I see more and more of in this country.
Well-differentiated political and governmental spheres* would go a long way to alleviating the concern some people** have about over-zealous enforcement of the establishment clause.
*Of course, those spheres would overlap, but they would still be distinct.
**I am not speaking of the people who want to roll back the establishment clause in order to allow government to advance their religion at the expense of others. But I do think they'd have a harder time gaining allies from those who do not want such government advancement of religion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I believe that laws can be informed by broad religiously-based support for them; I don't think that it would be right to disallow religion to inform public policy.
For example, my beliefs regarding welfare are intimately tied to my understanding of Mormonism. I believe that the best system is a system in which all receive according to their needs, regardless of the work they do. There's no separating, to me, financial matters from spiritual matters.
It would be awful if the government outlawed my system of welfare because it was religiously based.
It would also be awful to enact my system of welfare merely because it is what I believe God wants.
I think that religion is the impetus for a lot of our culture, morally; I think that as that culture is legislated, we need to examine the implications of that morality for fairness and broad applicability. It's in this last step that I think the government is secular-- just because it's of God doesn't mean the US has to make it law.
I agree with what you are saying and would like to add my own little bit. Religion is a fine motivation for public policy as long as it is not used as a justification for public policy. For example, banning abortion would be unconstitutional if the sole justification for doing so were religion (of course that's not the case).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that it would be awful to say, "If you're using religious criteria to vote a certain way, then you are not allowed to vote."
What about when the people in the first part are Senators?
I don't think it matters whether people are ordinary citizens or Senators. I think what matters is the nature of the vote in question and the way that religious criterion are applied.
I believe it would be unjust for either ordinary citizens or Senators to vote for laws that would give advantages to any religious group or its members over other groups. So for example, I think a law that would give any sort of privileges to people married within one religion but not to those married within another would be unjust. I would also find any law that made public resources available to one or a few religions but not all to be unjust. I would include in "public resources", space and time on public property or in publicly funded activities.
On the other hand, if a particular religious sect values individualism, or the free market, education, the environment, or caring for the poor -- I see no problem with members of that sect pushing for laws that promote their values, as long as it is done with in a democratic system that ensures representation of all religious and non-religious values.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would be awful if the government outlawed my system of welfare because it was religiously based.
It would also be awful to enact my system of welfare merely because it is what I believe God wants.
You are going to vote on the strength of your religion, and the government is going to act in accordance with your vote. Once you cut out the legal prestidigitation, you have government policy based on religion.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is great antagonism to the principle of "Separation of Church and State," by people largely uneducated in history who just do not understand its vital necessity.
Kind of like people antagonistic toward the electoral college?
To echo Squick, I'd have to also say no, not at all. I'd think well educated people would largely be more in favor of getting rid of the electoral college than keeping it once they understand its history, original intent, and the damage it does today.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: For example, banning abortion would be unconstitutional if the sole justification for doing so were religion
For the record, that's just not true, at least under any interpretation of the Constitution that's ever been enforced by courts.
quote:On the other hand, if a particular religious sect values individualism, or the free market, education, the environment, or caring for the poor -- I see no problem with members of that sect pushing for laws that promote their values, as long as it is done with in a democratic system that ensures representation of all religious and non-religious values.
To expand a little on what I was saying above, it is perfectly reasonable for someone trying to advocate a new assistance program for the poor to quote Matthew 25 35-46 to convince people to support that program. That's politics.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huckabee's fascinating because he's really the Frankenstein's monster of the Republican party. For thirty years now they've been buying the religious right's vote with a lot of rhetoric about ending abortion and (more recently) the Defense of Marriage act, but once Republicans have won the elections, they've expended almost no energy toward these ends. Remember all the talk in the 2004 election about adding a marriage amendment to the Constitution? Where did that go?
Huck, though, is now freaking out the Republican establishment. He's the base that's not content to simply cheer for the establishment's candidate. And, true to who these evangelicals really are, he's an economic populist who's not interested in the pro-business platform that the Republicans have generally combined with cherry-picked "moral" issues. He's William Jennings Bryan, in short; an insurgent. Trust me, the party leadership's praying he goes down.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand, if a particular religious sect values individualism, or the free market, education, the environment, or caring for the poor -- I see no problem with members of that sect pushing for laws that promote their values, as long as it is done with in a democratic system that ensures representation of all religious and non-religious values.
[italics added]
The italicized part assumes that religion and non-religious values can be represented in harmony, and that's not true. Many values are contentious, and we have to choose which ones are going to be expressed in our public policy, else we'll live in a degraded public sphere. The winners decide and everyone else sucks it up. This is me, sucking it up.
quote:Originally posted by MattB: Huckabee's fascinating because he's really the Frankenstein's monster of the Republican party. For thirty years now they've been buying the religious right's vote with a lot of rhetoric about ending abortion and (more recently) the Defense of Marriage act, but once Republicans have won the elections, they've expended almost no energy toward these ends. Remember all the talk in the 2004 election about adding a marriage amendment to the Constitution? Where did that go?
Huck, though, is now freaking out the Republican establishment. He's the base that's not content to simply cheer for the establishment's candidate. And, true to who these evangelicals really are, he's an economic populist who's not interested in the pro-business platform that the Republicans have generally combined with cherry-picked "moral" issues. He's William Jennings Bryan, in short; an insurgent. Trust me, the party leadership's praying he goes down.
:nods:
One of the first things I noticed when I started noticing politics was the GOPs nice speech to social conservatives combined with very little action for them. Combined with very pro-middle class speeches and exuberant policies undermining (or satiating) the middle class in exchange for fattening corporations.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The italicized part assumes that religion and non-religious values can be represented in harmony, and that's not true. Some values are anti-thethical, and we have to choose which ones are going to be expressed in our public policy.
My statement implied no such assumption. Naturally, it any pluralistic society, some people will hold values that are anti-thetical. In this respect, "religious vs. non-religious values" are no different than say "libertarian vs. socialist values", "ecological vs. commercial values" or "Baptist vs Muslim values".
My statement implied only that I thought true democratic which give equal weight to the votes of every person were a just and reasonable way to resolve at least some values conflicts in a pluralistic society.
While I am not confident that democratic processes are necessarily just, I am confident that any process which restricts the participation of a segment of the population in the formation of public policy is unjust.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: One of the first things I noticed when I started noticing politics was the GOPs nice speech to social conservatives combined with very little action for them. Combined with very pro-middle class speeches and exuberant policies undermining (or satiating) the middle class in exchange for fattening corporations.
I forget which show I was watching, but Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council was engaged in a conversation with one of the tax groups that hates Huckabee. Part of the discussion involved the history of the the "three legs" supporting modern conservatism in the Republican party.
Prior to Reagan, conservatives and the Republicans stood for mostly a strong defense and small government/low taxes.
That wasn't a winning formula.
Reagan added the social conservatives in as the "third leg" which changed the size of the voter base.
It's pretty clear that no one candidate represents those "three legs" very well.
Perkins didn't endorse Huckabee but made it clear that it's easy to understand why social conservatives flock to him.
I have at least two acquaintances who are evangelicals who haven't been thrilled with the pro-business side of the Republican party.
They love Huckabee.
I suspect that the one thing pro-business establishment types in the GOP have in common is this one wish in terms of their eventual candidate: "anyone but Huckabee"
Having said that, he makes me nervous, too. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:My statement implied only that I thought true democratic which give equal weight to the votes of every person were a just and reasonable way to resolve at least some values conflicts in a pluralistic society.
And I think that just moves the problem around and makes it a numbers game. For example, I care about schools and prisons. Black males are graduating high school at a ridiculously low rate and being incarcerated at a high one. It's a national problem, tied to a national legacy, cultural norms and disposition. I care very little about Iraq and lowering taxes, but white guys do. So those are the issues debated, and it's my patriotic duty to suck it up and pretend that their issues are important to me.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:it's my patriotic duty to suck it up and pretend that their issues are important to me.
Why? Pretend to whom?
It would be a better act of citizenship to make noise and work for your issues so they don't dissapear.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Every time I vote, I feel complicit in a system that, while perfectly just, is thoroughly unbecoming.
quote:It would be a better act of citizenship to make noise and work for your issues so they don't disappear.
At some point, even that requires working through a system I find unbecoming. The majority of voting Americans can have whatever President they want, or create the President they'd like. But they can, have, and will do it without me. Huckabee, Romney, Clinton, McCain and Obama are all the same guy in different moods to me. As much as I like Obama, and I'll vote for him in the general, he wants to unite America under the banner of uniting America. If he makes any more specific distinctions, it'll show that we aren't one country. I'm barely the same animal as Mitt Romney.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm disturbed at the prospect of Huckabee being president. I don't support what he does, and find it... bad, to say the least, that he does not support evolution. Not in and of itself, but what that fact suggests about other views he may have and other decisions he makes, is disturbing.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How easy is it to call a Con-Con? (the abbreviation ammuses me)I was under the impression it was difficult but I find I don't actually know.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattB: Huckabee's fascinating because he's really the Frankenstein's monster of the Republican party. For thirty years now they've been buying the religious right's vote with a lot of rhetoric about ending abortion and (more recently) the Defense of Marriage act, but once Republicans have won the elections, they've expended almost no energy toward these ends. Remember all the talk in the 2004 election about adding a marriage amendment to the Constitution? Where did that go?
Huck, though, is now freaking out the Republican establishment. He's the base that's not content to simply cheer for the establishment's candidate. And, true to who these evangelicals really are, he's an economic populist who's not interested in the pro-business platform that the Republicans have generally combined with cherry-picked "moral" issues. He's William Jennings Bryan, in short; an insurgent. Trust me, the party leadership's praying he goes down.
This is precisely why I am a Republican, but completely at odds with the party. We are discussing this very thing in Political Geography. I'm sick of hearing Republicans talk about being the "party of traditional morals and values" and upon election they pay lip service to those things and actively work ONLY on big business friendly programs. Tax rollbacks for the rich, and anti union measures.
Huckabee I think is genuinely interested in progressive financial reform and in the environment, but he is also rooted in religious fundamentalism. In short, he somebody the Republicans did not mind being a congressman, or a governor. As a senator and God forbid a president he scares the hell out of the whole party.
Huckabee won't get the nomination, though I think he will do VERY well in the south. If he does get the nomination, I think the Republicans are doomed this election. If by some incredible happenstance Huckabee wins the election, I will pray that he be a one term president and not screw up too bad. I don't even want to think about what it will mean if I am wrong about all of the above.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: How easy is it to call a Con-Con? (the abbreviation ammuses me)I was under the impression it was difficult but I find I don't actually know.
2/3 of the state legislatures have to apply for a convention. Then 3/4 of the state legislatures have to approve any amendments the convention proposes.
quote:Article V: Amendment Process
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
posted
Irami- what makes you think that only blacks are in favor of fixing the educational system? In my experience, just about very middle class white parent cares about education. The problem is that fixing it is not going to be a simplistic solution so no lovely soundbite like with Iraq (I'll bring the troops home, I'll never surrender, more troops!). Also, if you expand jail to eliminating crime, I think a lot of Americans would be pretty concerned. But again, not an easy solution. Now, if you just want to look at improving the education of only black students, well, duh, your going to limit who cares about your cause.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We've been "fixing the educational system" for most if not all of my lifetime. I think that ship has sailed. Only marginal or local improvements seem possible at this point.
Huckabee scares me too. But not as much as Giuliani does.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that it would be awful to say, "If you're using religious criteria to vote a certain way, then you are not allowed to vote."
I don't think it's possible to remove religion from American culture; and inasmuch as that's true, it can't be extricated from public policy.
I do not think that it would be awful to say, "We're a secular government and we will not institute policies that favor or promote one religion above another."
What about when the people in the first part are Senators?
Why would it be OK to remove their own right to religious freedom simply because they hold public office? That is one of the worst thing you could do, IMO.
And I am hardly a Huckabee fan....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only candidate that doesn't scare me is McCain. I really like Obama, but I don't really know that much about the man.
And since someone is bound to ask, yes, I include Romney in that because of his stance on immigration.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't know his specific stance, other than the fact that he wants to send all 11 million illegals home, but admits that isn't feasible. So, near as I can tell, he doesn't even have a stance except to say whatever he has to say at any given moment to make him sound more electable.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What's his stance on immigration?
I don't know his specific stance, other than the fact that he wants to send all 11 million illegals home, but admits that isn't feasible. So, near as I can tell, he doesn't even have a stance except to say whatever he has to say at any given moment to make him sound more electable.
Mr. Card made immigration and Mitt Romney a big part of his latest essay on world watch, you might want to go check it out.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I skimmed some of it, but it looks like he and I mostly agree on illegal immigration. I'd have gone a bit further on Romney though. Republicans in general are just full of it on immigration. The word "amnesty" is anathema to them. They can't do anything that could be construed as amnesty, but anyone who has suggested we "send them all back" also admits that is totally not feasible. But they're afraid to go near the Democratic position for what I imagine are obvious reasons. It's a case where pandering to your base might get you reelected in your home district, but it'll lose you national elections, and it'll kill your party, to say nothing of the fact that it's wrong, dishonest, and I think cruel.
And I know this has been said quite a bit but, for the love of God, shut up about Democrats wanting to lose the war. It's intellectually dishonest, which is usually what we say when we're trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt before calling them a liar. First off, a majority of the people in this country think we have bigger issues than the war, and we do, like the things that keep us tied to that region: energy independence. Then there's the economy, and healthcare, and a host of other domestic issues that have been ignored for 7 years by a President that hasn't been powerless to do anything about it, he just hasn't tried.
You can't keep ignoring a nation that is crumbling at home to fight a war overseas that has questionable influence on us anyway. What's the point of winning over there if there's nothing worthwhile to come home to here? When/If a Democrat wins, they will look at the war, probably be a lot more honest with us on how it is really going, and we'll reevaluate. If things are really going better, I bet we stay there, but there will be a lot more pressure on the government, and there'll be a lot less of a blase attitude about the whole thing. They'll either get something done, or they'll get us out. Bush isn't getting anything substantive done, and he isn't getting us out. Bush even said it doesn't bother him that we'll be there long past his presidency, well it bothers us.
Democrats want to disengage us from the region smartly, they want energy independence so we aren't financing the terrorists we're fighting through oil money, and so we don't have to keep hoisting up dictators over there just to keep the region stable to get the oil out. We waste far too many of our resources over there, and only very recently have Republicans started to change their tune, and only after they saw how well people responded when the Democrats were saying it.
I just don't understand how an intelligent person can talk the way he does.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
