It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama first term grade and historical rankings

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:38 PM
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

I try hard to keep personal comments/ad hominem from influencing my posts/replies.
Perhaps we differ on what are "social" as opposed to "moral" issues.

Many legitimate political positions have 'social" implications, such as the provision of educational opportunity and the control of curricula. While I agree that funding of K-12 should be optimized, I do not agree on a standard curriculum as a "one size fits all" dictate.

I do not beleive that the federal government has any legitimate interest in who or what I love, but I accept that it and individual States can favor certain relationships over others with incentives, such as the "marriage deduction" that reinforces certain behavior such as monogamous, heterosexual, unions for rearing children. Anyone feeling otherwise should be free to move to States that accomodate their beliefs; but it is not D.C.'s prerogative to dictate that everyone behave in such-and-such a manner.

We have ceded too much authority over personal choices to others who do not live in our communities, or stand in our shoes

True "social" issues are inherently personal choices, over which we have not ceded control to the federal government.

it seems that people need to be guided

So, if the people of Germany were "guided" in 1939, would this legitimate their behavior?
Did the "Klan Bake" of the democrats sufficiently "guide" Southern voters and Congress?

These were matters of legislation on "social" issues; and I fail to see how sovereign "guidance" helped.

The federal government has no business intruding into "social" issues, regardless of party or political orientation.


posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:35 AM
reply to post by jdub297

Say the fed were to back off and give states more flexibility and freedom.

What happens then if a state were to decide on something that was unanimously ridiculous everywhere else? For example, maybe a drought in Mexico increases illegal immigration exponentially and Texas combats by making illegal immigration a capital offense. Or, maybe they decide to allow them in and use them as a cheap labor source for manufacturing. Minimum wage applies to this right? I think DC is within it's rights to set a national standard, but I agree that it's gone to far and the trend is concerning.

Realized the capital offense argument is unconstitutional, ignore it in favor of second scenario.
edit on 9/7/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:55 AM
The only 1% I want to deal with is when it goes down my mouth. %1 milk.

I will give obama an A + if he beats Romney. Just on Biden's great speech tonight, I have to give him an A for that speech. It was one of the best i've heard in a long time.

Sure the economy sucks and I would LOVE to see Jessy Ventura in with Ron Paul but that is not going to happen!

I just would love not to see such a strangle hold of the lobbyist on the presidency. For that I give any president how ever sold out an F and that goes for any president ! Hope they get that!

I agree with Jesse on the fact that every congressman should wear their lobbyist patches on their suites like the indy 500 !

But like in the song " If you can't be with the one you want " "Love The One Your With". Being that Jesse (lobbyist - less) is not in, got to go with the next best and that is Obama.
edit on 7-9-2012 by thetiler because: spelling

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:11 AM
reply to post by thetiler

Uh oh!
The AP says your bud Joe wasn't telling the truth, nor was his boss.

When the AP jumps ship, you'v lost an influential acolyte.

edit on 7-9-2012 by jdub297 because: sp

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in