Republican candidates for 2012

• majorspark

  

  Cain is right. I have always said the same thing. It should not be a federal issue. Let the state of New York and the people of New York City decide.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;937404 wrote:Cain is right. I have always said the same thing. It should not be a federal issue. Let the state of New York and the people of New York City decide.

  He didn't say just the New York mosque. He said that cities have a right to ban mosques. That doesn't jive well with the constitution.
  
  The State of New York and the people of New York City have no right whatsoever to decide where religious buildings go so long as they meet the various zoning laws, etc.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;937405 wrote:He didn't say just the New York mosque. He said that cities have a right to ban mosques. That doesn't jive well with the constitution.

  No shit. All states and all localities. Yet it jives with the constitution to ban local school districts from acknowledging God or allowing prayer at commencement ceremonies.
  

  I Wear Pants;937405 wrote:The State of New York and the people of New York City have no right whatsoever to decide where religious buildings go so long as they meet the various zoning laws, etc.

  Thats never stopped the left when some local community wants to set up a nativity scene on the city square square.
• believer

  

  majorspark;937417 wrote:Yet it jives with the constitution to ban local school districts from acknowledging God or allowing prayer at commencement ceremonies.
  
  Thats never stopped the left when some local community wants to set up a nativity scene on the city square square.

  Truer words have never been spoken.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;937417 wrote:No shit. All states and all localities. Yet it jives with the constitution to ban local school districts from acknowledging God or allowing prayer at commencement ceremonies.
  
  
  
  Thats never stopped the left when some local community wants to set up a nativity scene on the city square square.

  Seperation of church and state is the argument there. How can you argue for banning religions you don't like?
  
  Mind you, I think banning nativity scenes and such is pretty damn stupid as they are easy to ignore, etc. But I recognize that the legal argument against them is much better than any for saying that in x city you are not allowed to build or operate a mosque. Quite different things.
  
  The school district thing is a bit different because while I have no problem with allowing prayer, etc in school (my school did and still does have prayer for certain things) it needs to be very clear that it is entirely optional. There were some teachers who would try to scold kids for not participating in a moment of silence or something like that. That should not be tolerated. Other than that I have no problem with prayer or acknowledging religion (within reason) as it's pretty simple to ignore it. And again, the argument for banning those things is seperation of church and state. Which may be a different interpretation of what that means than what you subscribe to. However, there is no interpretation of the constitution that I've heard that would abide the outright banning of a religion from a city/area.
• pmoney25

  

  In regards to the mosque, private property rights and the first amendment protect it . you cannot claim to follow the constitution and think banning it would be ok.
  
  In all reality it shouldnt even be an issue.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;937520 wrote:Seperation of church and state is the argument there.

  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
  
  Yeah those nativity scenes are placed on some city square by congressional legislation.
  

  I Wear Pants;937520 wrote:How can you argue for banning religions you don't like?.

  I am not. Just that the states and localities can handle the issue on their own. The mosque issue was handled by the state and city of NY and they handled it correctly. How many times have I told you I don't give a shit if some locality in California wants to errect a scene honoring mother earth on earth day. Its the people that get their panties in a bunch over this stuff and run and cry to Uncle Sam's judges to force their will on people on the other side of the country. Keep it up.
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;937520 wrote:Seperation of church and state is the argument there.

  Can you please direct me to the part of the Constitution that says this?
  
  Until then lets stick with the Constitution and go with the Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise"
  
  As long as the government is not establishing a "state religion" or prohibiting any religion, then there is 0% wrong with a Nativity scene placed ANYWHERE.
  
  Now, with the Mosque, I do not believe that the government should be allowed to ban them, but at times common sense needs come into play. The Ground Zero Mosque should have never even been brought up, it is inflammatory and rediculous.
  
  However, banning mosques in general is plain retarded.
• I Wear Pants

  I said it was the argument, not that I subscribed to that reading of the constitution.
  
  But there is no reading of the constitution that would allow the banning of mosques.
  
  "Now, with the Mosque, I do not believe that the government should be allowed to ban them, but at times common sense needs come into play. The Ground Zero Mosque should have never even been brought up, it is inflammatory and rediculous."
  
  Doesn't matter in the least bit as to it's legality. And many would disagree with it being inflammatory. That same line of thinking would say that Muslims visiting ground zero shouldn't happen because it's inflammatory. Which is ridiculous.
• majorspark

  

  LOL! Politicians act like such children sometimes. What men. You Ronulans will be left scratching your head as to why Paul joined in on this show of chivalry.
  
  At the first CNN presidential debate this campaign season, 5-foot-2 Michele Bachmann asked for a height-raising block to stand on behind the lectern . Her request was granted and then all the other candidates seeking equal treatment got risers, too, even 6-foot-2 Mitt Romney
  
  http://www.lvrj.com/news/crews-prepare-huge-set-before-cnn-s-tuesday-gop-debate-131967488.html
• sleeper

  

  Speaking of acting like children...These candidates are complete jokes. I can't stand Perry, Romney, or Santorum.
• SportsAndLady

  

  That Rick Perry-Mitt Romney exchange was awkward. But so hilarious.
  
  "You're like the college coach who claims he has the experience to coach in the NFL despite 40 straight losses" haha
• OneBuckeye

  

  SportsAndLady;938088 wrote:That Rick Perry-Mitt Romney exchange was awkward. But so hilarious.
  
  "You're like the college coach who claims he has the experience to coach in the NFL despite 40 straight losses" haha

  I hope this ends up on youtube soon.
• believer

  

  sleeper;938076 wrote:Speaking of acting like children...These candidates are complete jokes. I can't stand Perry, Romney, or Santorum.

  Can't be any worse than the joke currently occupying the WH.
• I Wear Pants

  believer;938133 wrote:Can't be any worse than the joke currently occupying the WH.

  This is the same as the blame Bush thing. "Someone said something bad about a conservative? Don't refute it, just mention how bad I think Obama is!"
• WebFire

  Big shock that Paul was the only one that didn't get to say his final piece.
• majorspark

  

  WebFire;938158 wrote:Big shock that Paul was the only one that didn't get to say his final piece.

  Anderson Cooper was not trying to get ideas out. He was trying to spark a fight with every question. Some of the questions were so irrelevant and dickless. Newt alluded to this near the end of the debate.
• I Wear Pants

  
  
  9-9-9 Plan.
  
  
  
  http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/how-herman-cains-9-9-9-plan-would-change-your-taxes/246941/
  
  Insane.
• Footwedge

  9-9-9 plan....dumb as rocks. When it comes to economics, Cain is not able.
• pmoney25

  

  In my honest opinion, this country is screwed. The Only two people on that stage who I actually think are smart enough and have the actual balls to change anything in this country are Paul and Gingrich and unfortunately neither of them will win.
  
  Romney vs Obama in 2012. Better get used to it.
• Footwedge

  gut;935189 wrote:A business can have 100% of a market and still not necessarily be able to name it's price - the elasticity of demand matters. Even if they can, it still may not warrant govt action, ignoring the loss of consumer surplus due to lack of innovation. But to the extent consumers can and would choose substitutes, the harm done is debateable. An example I could use would be the IPad - Apple could have 100% of that market and do whatever they want and charge whatever they want, but consumers could substitute laptops/netbooks or smartphones, or even choose alternate forms of entertainment such as tv, etc.. I'd argue there'd be no real need to break up the IPad tablet monopoly. But your milk example is a good one where you would take action.

  What you say here is somewhat accurate. Elasticity will determine selling price. However, as Adam Smith clearlyy stated, only competition from others entering the market will yield an invisible hand fair price.
  
  A monopoly will never yield a fair market price, unless the government oversteps it's bounds and fixes said prices. This is what they did to Ma Bell when I was a kid. Even with that, investing in Ma Bell was a sure winner that could not lose....and the consumer still overpaid.
• Footwedge

  pmoney25;938231 wrote:In my honest opinion, this country is screwed. The Only two people on that stage who I actually think are smart enough and have the actual balls to change anything in this country are Paul and Gingrich and unfortunately neither of them will win.
  
  Romney vs Obama in 2012. Better get used to it.

  Newt? Really? Do we really need yet another expansionary war president in power given our present plight? Aren't we a little sick and tired of chickenhawks sending our kids off to die all over the planet?
  
  Bush, Obama, and then Newt? SMH and facepalming at the same time.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge;938230 wrote:9-9-9 plan....dumb as rocks.

  9-9-9 is so dumb my teenage son's could do my taxes. I don't need to pay those smart tax attorneys and accountants to scour the tax code making sure all is in order. Nor would I have to waste my education trying to figure out how to run my business and generate profit through the multi thousand page tax code.
  

  Footwedge;938230 wrote:When it comes to economics, Cain is not able.

  The purpose of the federal tax code is to fund the constitutional powers of the federal government. Period. It should have nothing to do with directing economic policy. Many of us Americans are sick and tired of the tax code being used to direct our personal lives and our business. This 7,500 page behemoth needs to go away. So us dumb folk can no longer waste our time and resources on it.
• I Wear Pants

  The 9-9-9 plan is a tax increase on 84% of the country.
• gut

  Footwedge;938244 wrote:What you say here is somewhat accurate. Elasticity will determine selling price. However, as Adam Smith clearlyy stated, only competition from others entering the market will yield an invisible hand fair price.
  
  A monopoly will never yield a fair market price, unless the government oversteps it's bounds and fixes said prices. This is what they did to Ma Bell when I was a kid. Even with that, investing in Ma Bell was a sure winner that could not lose....and the consumer still overpaid.

  That's why substitutes matter, and they will significantly impact that elasticity of demand.
  
  And surely you don't mean the govt fixing prices will result in a fair/equilibrium price?!?