Rank the Republican contenders by order of craziness.

[Bonam]

It cannot be enforced, as it was ruled unconstitutional in a unanimous Supreme Court decision in 1961 - Torcaso v. Watkins. Any citizen does have the right to run for public office, regardless of their religious beliefs - or lack thereof.

Which public office? Some restrict naturalized citizens from running and allow only American-born citizens.

[Guest American Woman]

Which public office? Some restrict naturalized citizens from running and allow only American-born citizens.

So which public offices, other than POTUS, would those be?

[Bonam]

So which public offices, other than POTUS, would those be?

I dunno. Not an expert. You're the American, you tell me. I suspect if you went through all the various public offices, and looked at state levels too, you'd find all kinds of restrictions, but maybe it's just president. Even if that's the only exception to your statement, it still shows it's not an absolute.

[Guest American Woman]

I dunno. Not an expert. You're the American, you tell me. I suspect if you went through all the various public offices, and looked at state levels too, you'd find all kinds of restrictions, but maybe it's just president. Even if that's the only exception to your statement, it still shows it's not an absolute.

It's just the POTUS; I was responding to another comment that was in regards to public offices in general, specifically at the state level, so didn't bother stating the exception of POTUS, as that's a given - just pointed out that the Supreme Court has ruled the 'atheist' clause mentioned unconstitutional.

[Moonlight Graham]

Just heard a clip of Michele "Bat-crazy" Bachmann saying these things:

Rep. Michele Bachmann said Iraq should pay back the United States for a war that cost $800 billion and left nearly 5,000 U.S. dead.

"I believe that Iraq should reimburse the U.S. fully for the amount of money we've spent to liberate these people," the GOP presidential candidate said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation." "They are not a poor country. They're a wealthy country."

And the winner of the most crazy Republican is...

p.s. Michele, Iraq has a GDP-per-capita of $2,500, so if you think that makes them a "rich country" you are batshit stupid too. And that number is likely inflated because of all the people killed in the last decade...or maybe deflated because of the destruction to their economy/infrastrcuture caused by the war.

[Shady]

And the Tea Party wants that to stop. Let them all die!

Complete nonsense.

No, craziness is promising big tax cuts despite all the above. In fact, craziness is going to the wall to defend tax cuts on wealthy Americans, and to forbid any new taxes on anything, no matter how much offsetting spending cuts are offered.

You could raise taxes all you want, you're not gonna close a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit. All you're going to do is constrict your economy and prevent further economic growth. Especially since you wanna spend even more to so-called "help people." Anyways, spending cuts are always promised in return for tax increases, but the spending cuts never happen. Reagan agreeded to raise taxes in exchange for so-called spending cuts. George Bush Sr agreeded to raise taxes in exchange for so-called spending cuts. They never materialized in both instances. Fool me once, shame on you.

We've already tried your ideas. It was called Ontario in the early 90s under the great leadership of Bob Rae. Please. If you wanna enact failed economic policies of the past. Please enact them in another country. We can't afford them in Canada. And they certainly can't afford them in the United States. Your way brings us Greece, and Portugal, Spain, England, Ireland, etc. How's that "helping people" routine working out for ya there?

[Moonlight Graham]

Just heard a clip of Michele "Bat-crazy" Bachmann saying these things

Now just found a video clip of her saying at a GOP debte that both Iraq and Libya should reimburse the US, and people in the audience of the debate clapping. Nothing more dangerous than having countries you voluntarily choose to attack paying you back for your military adventures.

Geez, just replace soldiers with robots and there would literally no cost to going to war. War on everybody!

[bush_cheney2004]

Now just found a video clip of her saying at a GOP debte that both Iraq and Libya should reimburse the US, and people in the audience of the debate clapping. Nothing more dangerous than having countries you voluntarily choose to attack paying you back for your military adventures.

You mean like the WWI reparations paid off by Germany just this past year?

That would include Canada as part of the Interallied Reparations Agency "customers".

Just a crazy idea...huh?

Edited October 25, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

Complete nonsense.

You could raise taxes all you want, you're not gonna close a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit. All you're going to do is constrict your economy and prevent further economic growth. Especially since you wanna spend even more to so-called "help people." Anyways, spending cuts are always promised in return for tax increases, but the spending cuts never happen. Reagan agreeded to raise taxes in exchange for so-called spending cuts. George Bush Sr agreeded to raise taxes in exchange for so-called spending cuts. They never materialized in both instances. Fool me once, shame on you.

We've already tried your ideas. It was called Ontario in the early 90s under the great leadership of Bob Rae. Please. If you wanna enact failed economic policies of the past. Please enact them in another country. We can't afford them in Canada. And they certainly can't afford them in the United States. Your way brings us Greece, and Portugal, Spain, England, Ireland, etc. How's that "helping people" routine working out for ya there?

You could raise taxes all you want, you're not gonna close a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit. All you're going to do is constrict your economy and prevent further economic growth

Yes it will because people will change their behavior. If Americans had to pay for all that spending out of their own pocket at tax time, instead of offloading the cost to their unborn children and the rest of the world, then they would be more carefull about what spending they vote for, and more carefull about voting for republicans or democrats in general. As it is now, why would taxpayers bother to get serious about electing politicians that will tackle spending, if they arent the ones that have to pay the bill anyhow?

This is exactly how spending got so out of control in the first place.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes it will because people will change their behavior. If Americans had to pay for all that spending out of their own pocket at tax time, instead of offloading the cost to their unborn children and the rest of the world, then they would be more carefull about what spending they vote for, and more carefull about voting for republicans or democrats in general.

Not a good example, as income taxes are paid from payroll or quarterly. Wouldn't make any difference.

As it is now, why would taxpayers bother to get serious about electing politicians that will tackle spending, if they arent the ones that have to pay the bill anyhow?

Moot, as the taxpayers still want the entitlements, regardless of who pays.

This is exactly how spending got so out of control in the first place.

Very popular in many countries!

Edited October 25, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

Not a good example, as income taxes are paid from payroll or quarterly. Wouldn't make any difference.

Yeah it would. It should be pretty obvious to you, if youre isolated from cost because others pay your bills for you, then youre not going to care about spending too much. Sorta like when mom and dad finally stopped paying your bills for ya! You had to learn how to balance a budget pretty fast.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah it would. It should be pretty obvious to you, if youre isolated from cost because others pay your bills for you, then youre not going to care about spending too much. Sorta like when mom and dad finally stopped paying your bills for ya! You had to learn how to balance a budget pretty fast.

Nice try...they never paid my "bills"...I paid theirs. Income taxes are collected at payroll, not out of pocket.

[dre]

Nice try...they never paid my "bills"...I paid theirs. Income taxes are collected at payroll, not out of pocket.

Doesnt matter where they are collected. If youre forced to pay your own bills youll look at them. If you arent you wont.

[bush_cheney2004]

Doesnt matter where they are collected. If youre forced to pay your own bills youll look at them. If you arent you wont.

Some will, some won't. Most of my "bills" are paid automatically from the bank...no big deal. And I sure as hell wouldn't sweat having to pay another $5.50 at the border!

[kimmy]

They've already been overruled. They are unconstitutional.

They remain on the books in 8 states, including Maryland, which was the subject of the Torcaso vs Watkins case. While the Supreme Court held that barring Torcaso from working as a notary was a violation of the US constitution, the Maryland constitution was not changed (check out clauses 36 and 37) and remains there in black and white to remind us that judging people on their religious beliefs is a time honored tradition in America (and I'll save you and Dick the trouble of pointing out that the same is true in Canada.)

Not sure what your point is. It's not as if other leaders of other nations don't bring their religious beliefs into the fray. But yeah, I agree with you. I wouldn't vote for him. He has the right to run - and we have the right not to vote for him.

The point is simply this: I consider it the height of hypocrisy when Christians-- who have literally institutionalized the practice of judging others based on their religious beliefs-- cry foul when people turn the lens on their own religious practices.

I really object to Blueblood running in with the Politically Correct Shield of Justice and saying "hey no fair talking about the candidates' religion, religion is a personal and private affair." Like hell it is. They've turned it into a 5-ring Jesus Circus, but we're not allowed to question their beliefs? Newt goes on stage and expresses his disrespect for the morals of approximately 40 million Americans who don't believe in god, but we're not allowed to ask what kind of morals he gets from his god? No way. Screw that.

-k

[dre]

Some will, some won't. Most of my "bills" are paid automatically from the bank...no big deal. And I sure as hell wouldn't sweat having to pay another $5.50 at the border!

Im not talking about fees at the border. Im talking about paying enough taxes to finance your own government. Judging from your posts youre a senior technologist so youre probably making somewhere between 80k and 250k which means the government would start taking a LOT more money from you. Maybe 20 to 50 thousand bux a year? I dunno but it wont be $5.50

Now I know... funding your own government seems unthinkable to you. The idea that US tax payers would cover the cost of the day to day operations of their own government seems bizzare, after decades of other folks around the world chippin in, and helpin out.

But it might actually be a good thing in the long term

Edited October 25, 2011 by dre

[blueblood]

I really object to Blueblood running in with the Politically Correct Shield of Justice and saying "hey no fair talking about the candidates' religion, religion is a personal and private affair." Like hell it is. They've turned it into a 5-ring Jesus Circus, but we're not allowed to question their beliefs? Newt goes on stage and expresses his disrespect for the morals of approximately 40 million Americans who don't believe in god, but we're not allowed to ask what kind of morals he gets from his god? No way. Screw that.

-k

So we're supposed to have a stock well day type of situation where he can be pretty near persecuted on tv and by political rivals for having religious beliefs? You have opponents saying because he's a religious person and follows his religion very closely, he shouldn't be fit for public office? I find it hypocritical that in Canada if stock well day were to question his opponents religion or lack of it, he would have been skewered by the media. Why should someone get a free pass for questioning Christians and seeing if their beliefs should disqualify them for office yet if a Christian did it, its the second round of the spanish inquisition? Cripes if believing that you should treat others with respect and not be a bad person is grounds for calling someone's candidacy into question, then we have an intolerance problem.

I'm saying you shouldn't question any politicians beliefs no matter what religion. It's as appropriate as questioning someone's sexual orientation! Color, marital status, etc. It's not really anybody's business.

Newt said something dumb, and people should judge him for saying something dumb, not for what he believes in.

Why do some people who label themselves as atheists need to go out and trash people who believe in something, yet expect everyone to accommodate them. For a group that complains about religion being pushed on everyone, a lot feel the need to push their views on other people, hypocrites?

[Moonlight Graham]

Newt said something dumb, and people should judge him for saying something dumb, not for what he believes in.

My opinion is if somebody believes that, say, the earth is only 6000 years old, or that we are all the trapped souls of aliens from the planet Gourgamoth (or whatever is that ridiculous nonsense Scientologists believe) then you are unfit for public office. And maybe go retake that high school science class they obviously slept through.

[GostHacked]

Nice try...they never paid my "bills"...I paid theirs. Income taxes are collected at payroll, not out of pocket.

Correct they steal it before it even gets to your pocket.

[bush_cheney2004]

Im not talking about fees at the border. Im talking about paying enough taxes to finance your own government. Judging from your posts youre a senior technologist so youre probably making somewhere between 80k and 250k which means the government would start taking a LOT more money from you. Maybe 20 to 50 thousand bux a year? I dunno but it wont be $5.50

Like I said, it doesn't really matter to me. Marginal tax rates have been adjusted up or down my entire life, and what matters is what's left. I have no debt and can't spend it all now anyway. Already paying 50K a year in taxes.

I guess what I'm saying is that I am more fortunate that 90% of others so it wouldn't hurt at all.

Now I know... funding your own government seems unthinkable to you. The idea that US tax payers would cover the cost of the day to day operations of their own government seems bizzare, after decades of other folks around the world chippin in, and helpin out.

Yes and no, it's not like they finance the debt for free. We can game them a bit by monetarizing the debt, and there is no expectation to ever paying it all off. I am not a tax protester and gladly pay whatever is mandated without complaining, but anybody can see that the entitlement culture is not sustainable regardless of any practical tax policy to increase revenue.

But it might actually be a good thing in the long term

Long term is a relative perspective....some people thought everything would be swell just because the US had more revenue in the late 90's from the tech bubble, but the budget was still not balanced. Good news...bad news...it comes and goes. There will be winners...and losers....just as always.

[Guest American Woman]

They remain on the books in 8 states, including Maryland, which was the subject of the Torcaso vs Watkins case. While the Supreme Court held that barring Torcaso from working as a notary was a violation of the US constitution, the Maryland constitution was not changed (check out clauses 36 and 37) and remains there in black and white to remind us that judging people on their religious beliefs is a time honored tradition in America (and I'll save you and Dick the trouble of pointing out that the same is true in Canada.)

Thank you for the civics lesson re: Canada, but your feeble attempt to predict what I was going to "point out" fails. What I am going to point out is that in spite of what remains in the Maryland Constitution, it is illegal - per the Supreme Court decision. So I repeat. Atheists are not barred from public office.

The point is simply this: I consider it the height of hypocrisy when Christians-- who have literally institutionalized the practice of judging others based on their religious beliefs-- cry foul when people turn the lens on their own religious practices.

I really object to Blueblood running in with the Politically Correct Shield of Justice and saying "hey no fair talking about the candidates' religion, religion is a personal and private affair." Like hell it is. They've turned it into a 5-ring Jesus Circus, but we're not allowed to question their beliefs? Newt goes on stage and expresses his disrespect for the morals of approximately 40 million Americans who don't believe in god, but we're not allowed to ask what kind of morals he gets from his god? No way. Screw that.

I hope you feel better after getting that off your chest. Fact is, I merely pointed out that the Supreme Court rules the state constitutions you referred to unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court decision reigns over the state's. As for Newt, I already expressed my feelings about him. He'll never get my vote.

So I say go ahead and question anyone's beliefs if they make them public, as in "God spoke to me and said whatever" regarding the office they are running for. Anything they bring to the table is "fair game."

But I'll repeat. The state constitutions you refer to have been overruled by the Supreme Court.

[BubberMiley]

Thank you for the civics lesson re: Canada, but your feeble attempt to predict what I was going to "point out" fails.

Never try to predict the cut-and-paste "it's the same in Canada" responses. That would be "feeble".

[Argus]

I'll go with the Austrian School any day over the Keynesian nonsense that got us into this nonsense.

And no it can't, the size of the US government is unsustainable,

This is nothing but Fox news nonsense. The U.S. government, relative to its population, is actually quite reasonable. If it weren't for the tax cuts they'd have yearly surpluses.

the way things are going social security and entitlements are going to eat up almost all of the USA budget.

Well, sure. The way things are going Republican will be thumping their desks one day, screaming in rage at the 1% flat tax, and demanding it be reduced to 1/2%. It certainly stands to reason that you can't afford the same kind of government services as all the rest of the western world enjoys when you won't pay taxes.

And U.S. taxes are lower than any other OECD country.

So you want more money in the hands of the poor and your idea is to tax the rich. 1) that puts a damper on production which makes everyone poorer as a result and 2) the rich don't have the kind of taxable money to pull everyone out of poverty. The rich would be better off keeping their money and going about their business. IF anybody is buying into the hollywood movie economic theory its you. Rich people by being around improve the lives of others by buying, saving, and investing because they have more capital to do so.

As for the old and sick. I'm not saying stick them anywhere, I'm saying its time to start cutting funding because the US really can't afford it. I don't think you appreciate how dire shape the economies of the western world are. Spending needs to be cut and everything is on the table.

Greece, Italy, and Spain have tried your high spending, high tax, high entitlement regimen and it turned out to be a disaster.

Greece, Italy and Spain had a series of minority governments where the parties fought for the popular vote by offering more and more services. The U.S. doesn't offer anywhere near the kinds of entitlements the Europeans have. On top of that, they mismanaged everything about both their budgets and their economies. They are hardly examples of what happens when you have entitlement programs.

Nope the way out of this mess is to cut spending and increase production, and that means the unsustainable consumption party is over.

Try to cut social security and the seniors will throw you out of power in a heartbeat. Those programs are far too popular to cut, so the right wing in the US is just going to have to either reconcile itself to tax increases or no military.

[Shady]

Try to cut social security and the seniors will throw you out of power in a heartbeat. Those programs are far too popular to cut, so the right wing in the US is just going to have to either reconcile itself to tax increases or no military.

You'll find that it's not just the so-called right wing that understands reforming entitlements is a must. Social security is an easy fix. Raise the retirment age by a couple of years for younger people, and means test the progrm. Fixing medicare is a much tougher problem. The only thing I've agreed with Rick Perry on, is social security being a ponzi scheme.

In fact, based on the SEC's own definition of a ponzi scheme, social security would fall into that category. The only way that recipients receive their benefits is from current and new workers into the system.

According to the Security and Exchange Commission:

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.

SEC

And raising taxes doesn't fix the coming entitlement crisis. Anyone with an eye on the debt clock and the unfunded liabilities of these programs can see that. You can't raise a hundred trillion dollars through tax hikes. And anyone telling you that is a liar.

US Debt Clock

See that Argus buddy? Under US unfunded liabilites? Currently 116 TRILLION dollars. Exactly what part of 116 TRILLION don't you understand?

Sorry Argus. Keep your ponzi schemes away from us. We see what their consequences are already. Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland, France and England. Or do you think that Europe just doesn't have high enough taxes?

[Shady]

And U.S. taxes are lower than any other OECD country.

Oh, and that's completely untrue.