"do nothing Republicans", " Republicans-the party of no".
Surely, after all these months you are tired of hearing yourself.

One talking head tonight on CNN said Miller (R) of Alaska wants to "privatize social security". This was immediately following Miller saying we have to put an end to social security in the future. He said "end it, absolutelY" , the Dem claims he said "privatize". Talking points have gotten them so confused they don't hear anything else.

GAterp-If you have a spoiled spendthrift child and refuse to allow him to spend you into poverty, that is no obstructionism!

That 'ol double-standard. So, what was the point of this one???

Hollingsworth: "believe" is the key word here. Most of us gave up "make believe" around the 3rd or 4th grade. I didn't read the column, but it sounds like you and the columnist need to live in the real world instead of making wild suppositions.

grouse, the fact you claim not to have gained information before responding says it all.

thank you chascush

The government shouldn't regulate what America's citizens can and can not do as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others citizens. Just because someone's actions isn't consistent with the beliefs of organized religion is irrelevant and isn't grounds for continued regulation just because our government has been corrupted by the money of these religions over the many years.

I dispute the pithy logic of this writer. If you believe in nothing it stands to reason that you would not fall for anything.

Oh, "taking over our dietary preferences". Well, I dont' know if you are taking about food and drug administration, or what.

So, you think the government should not be involved in safe food? No inspection of meat packing plants? Maybe we should just do away with any sort of review process before a new drug is put on the market. Caveat emptor and all that.

I agree that the commerce department is probably just a shill for business so I would love to get rid of them. But, I think the Labor Department actually keeps workers safe - I know they are a pain and get awfully nitty, gritty in regulations, but how many more people would die on the job if we did not have some rules about, say, hazardous substances in the work place? Or, some mine safety rules? And, if we didn't have periodic inspections to be sure those safety rules were being observed. Lives really are saved.

We could get rid of social security and any safety net programs like widows and childrens benefits when a wage earner dies. No disability benefits. Let people just get by as best they can. Or buy insurance. We could get rid of all federal health care programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and (horrors or horrors) Obamacare.

(It is interesting to me that insurance was just about the least federal regulated business in the US in the last 50 years or so. Truly a state regulated market. And, availability of health care is just not there for millions of Americans, costs have risen far faster than wages, and we continue to fall behind other industrial/developed countries in such measures as infant mortality, longevity. You know, things we used to be so proud of that showed how superior the US system was to anyone else.)

And, no pension oversight. The government doesn't need to be in the middle of any of that - it should be either based on the savings of the individual or whatever is agreed upon between an employer and employee, individually. If an employer stiffs an employee on a retirement benefit, let the employee sue. That is what courts are for.

I guess the federal government should never have gotten in to building the interstate highway system under Eisenhower. I do want to get the feds out of education for anything but reporting on comparative statistics across states. Education should be primarily a state and local issue.

We do need the Interior Department to deal with lands that are still federal land. But, we could just stop having federal parks for people to visit.

What else can we get rid of?

dichotomy -- "I'll bet that he does understand that all of those documents suggest that the federal government should be restricted to those specific functions literally itemized in the Constitution ..."
--
Well, dichotomy, this idea really resolves nothing, as the Constitution says the following:

The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes [and] ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers ...

---
Wiki defines "commerce" as "the exchange of goods and services from the point of production to the point of consumption to satisfy human wants."

So, the Constitution EXPLICITLY STATES that Congress has the power to create any laws necessary in the process of regulating anything that occurs in America that involves the exchange of goods or services of any value whatsoever. Sorry to say it, but this covers "healthcare, education, dietary preferences, and everything else they can stick their fingers into having to do with our personal choices", as long as those personal choices have a component of "commerce". Congress cannot go so far as to infrige on Bill of Rights amendments, but these amendments are written with very little bearing on points of commerce (press, religion, and firearms being notable exceptions, and I include religion in there because we all know that many religious organizations are also big businesses).

I'm not saying that the Consitutionally-mandated right to make such laws is the final ethical arbiter of whether or not these laws should be made; I'm just saying that this tired argument of limiting legislation to the Constitutionally-itemized powers really does nothing to move these big issues forward in any way. We are a nation, primarily, of commerce. This fact gives Congress a huge body of legislative power, as elucidated in the Constitution.

Now, as to this point -- "One day he will plead for the rights of women to abort their children, or for legitimization (of) all imaginable lifestyles, and the next day he'll plead for acceptance of a religion in which people are still stoned for this very same behavior" -- perfectly describes what is wrong with the present administration, and much of the country right now.

If you believe in nothing you will fall for anything.
---
This writer suffers from an age-old human inability to make distinctions when distinctions may damage their worldview.

Questions:

When was the last stoning by American Muslims?
When was the last stoning by Canadian Muslims?
When was the last stoning by Mexican Muslims?
When was the last stoning by Guatemalan Muslims?
When was the last stoning by Costa Rican Muslims?
When was the last stoning by Panamanian Muslims?

I can continue asking this question of the Muslim population of all the Central American and Caribbean countries, work my way down to every South American Country, bounce across the Pacific to Australia, Asia, Europe, and down to Africa, bring it back to the U.S., and we will find five countries where this question can be answered with a date in the near present: Afghanistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Nigeria. Five countries that are typified by strongman governments and/or ongoing intertribal warfare with general cultures of a lack of regard for human life. I would be willing to bet that even if these five countries were followers of the Bible, rather than the Koran, they would use Old Testament law mandating stoning to express their cultural values of general disregard for individual human rights.

The inability of individuals to separate the behavior of individual followers of a religion from one another, or to view religious behavior in the context of the surrounding cultural climate, is an inability to exercise critical thought, or to consider evidence that doesn't match one's pre-conceptions.

For the vast majority of global Muslims, stoning is not a response to the liberties the President espoused. The President's statement is not contradictory, and does not illustrate a belief in nothing. Rather, it demonstrates an ability to see the world as it exists rather than as it appears to exist when you ignore evidence that contradicts your preconceptions.

If you believe in nothing but what you hold to be true regardless of the evidence, then your beliefs are useless for contributing to the collective wisdom of humanity.

Don't forget about the Ft. Hood muslim who killed 12 or 13 and also the muslim who shot & killed Army recruits about a year ago.

Chillen, I know you have seen many counter-examples in the past on this site of individual cases of Christian-motivated terror and mayhem. I won't insult your intelligence or my time by constructing another such list, just as I won't expect you to insult my intelligence by thinking that such a list would make me believe all Christians are exemplified by the exceptions.

There are 1.57 billion Muslims on Earth right now, according to the Pew Research Center. Use the brain for a moment, and think about that number. Compare it to the number of "Muslim" crimes occurring around us. The gross disparity between those two indicates the criminal is the individual, not the religion.

burninater - for whatever reason insurance companies are not interstate commerce and therefore fall out side the interstate commerce clause in the US Constitution and firmly into the domain of the 10th amendment.

Health care on the other hand would be conducted within a state no matter what the laws are because of the need for the doctor to actually do a phyical exam.

The interstate commerce clause purpose was to allow the federal government to regulate the movement of goods from one state to or through another, not to regulate how it is used once the product gets to the state the customer finally uses it in. The 10th amendment specifically forbides the federal government from just taking powers it wasn't specifically given. So the only constitutional way to give the federal government more power is by a constitutional amendment ... Congress oversteps ita authority if it tries to do it by just creating a law and courts oversteps their authority when they try to do it from the bench.