Now corporations soon to have "freedom of religion"? Really?

[Mojo2]

And you people didn't have a problem with bush swapping spit and holding hands with the saudi prince either.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bus...IOsj9oATLz4GQBQ&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=613

How is ANYTHING involving George W. Bush going to save this country from what Obama is doing to it and us?

Please tell me.

And if you won't, then PLEASE STFU about Bush. We're trying to save this country. We're not playing tit 4 tat.

I think the point is that a lot of Republicans who are griping about stuff Obama is doing, were conspicuously silent when Bush was doing exactly the same things. Of course, it's also true that a lot of Democrats that were griping about the stuff Bush was doing are conspicuously silent while Obama does exactly the same thing. It's kind of a hypocrite's circle jerk. Go team.

Yeah, I was paying attention the past few years. I know what happened THEN.

But as this giant ship of state is heading toward a gigantic iceberg I don't want some leftist assholes who want to get married to their same sex lovers or who want free condoms thinking they're helping our collective situation by taking everyone's little spans of attention off the #1 priority, which is:

PREVENTING A COMPLETE SOCIETAL, ECONOMIC, GOVERNMENTAL COLLAPSE AND TAKEOVER.

Rag on Bush AFTER we save our asses, Okay?

Jim Lovell: Gentlemen, what are your intentions?
[Jack Swigert and Fred Haise turn around and stare at Lovell]
Jim Lovell: I'd like to go home.

Apollo 13 (1995) - Quotes - IMDb

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But that's NOT what's happening here. Granting special exemptions doesn't restrict government power, it expands it.

That is exactly what is happening here. If you don't believe me take a gander at the arguments defending the mandate.

I really like the one Sandra Fluke used, "So there’s an attack on allowing employers to be required to provide this insurance coverage on insurance that employees pay for, at the same time that there’s an attack on public availability through clinics."

Tell me the truth, do you view the argument against the mandate as an attack on allowing employers to provide contraception?

Uh... no? But I'm not sure I understand your question.

The first amendment isn't there to give religious people an excuse to not follow the law. It's there to prevent government from targeting religions for persecution. These mandates are wrong, period. But allowing exemptions for favored special interest groups only expands government power, setting them up to pick and choose who will suffer the consequences of the law and who will get a pass.

Wow, I specifically point out that the only purpose of the 1st Amendment is to stop the government from doing things, and you rant about religious people not obeying the law.

Come back when you stop arguing like rdean.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And you people didn't have a problem with bush swapping spit and holding hands with the saudi prince either.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bus...IOsj9oATLz4GQBQ&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=613

How is ANYTHING involving George W. Bush going to save this country from what Obama is doing to it and us?

Please tell me.

And if you won't, then PLEASE STFU about Bush. We're trying to save this country. We're not playing tit 4 tat.

I think the point is that a lot of Republicans who are griping about stuff Obama is doing, were conspicuously silent when Bush was doing exactly the same things. Of course, it's also true that a lot of Democrats that were griping about the stuff Bush was doing are conspicuously silent while Obama does exactly the same thing. It's kind of a hypocrite's circle jerk. Go team.

Funny, I thought the point was that a lot of the Democrats that were griping about Bush are conspicuously silent now that Obama is doing the same thing.

Given that only idiots try to hold people responsible for things they have no control over, the point about what other people are doing is, at best, a red herring. that intelligent people only acknowledge to mock the people that bring it up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The right wing will slowly turn muslim without a shot being fired. They won't even realize they became what they used to hate. Might take a few years though.

What do you mean? Are you suggesting that right-wingers and the like will start reciting passages from the Quran, celebrating Ramadan, going on pilgrimages to Mecca, etc.? I'm fairly certain nearly every American would notice the change. For example, the U.S. would probably get a regime change every other week followed by days of executions and rebellions. Seems pretty noticeable to me.

Start boiling a live frog in a pot at room temperature and he will remain in the water until it is hot enough to kill him but he'll never save himself because the temperature rise happens so gradually he never becomes alarmed.

What's happening to America right now is an indication the strategy can work.

We sat here and watched the left gain a strangle hold on our news our culture our politics our history and we let it happen with only a few court battles here and there and now this country is in really bad shape and things are not looking any more hopeful with Obama in office for another 3 years!

Things are VERY different...noticeably different today than they were twenty years ago.

And not for the better.

So, to expect the Muslim Brotherhood would permit us to become alarmed is very unlikely.

They will want things kept as calm as possible so we won't have anything or anyone to shoot at until it is too late for shootin.

And so many of the left will act as Judas goats that we'll all go down with hardly any blood being shed.

Nationwide, only a few dozen thousands or so, I'd guess.

Letme get this straight, because you believe in psuedo science the entire world is crazy, and only you realize the water is boiling.

Guess what, that old wives tale is an old wives tale.

 

[dblack]

That is exactly what is happening here. If you don't believe me take a gander at the arguments defending the mandate.

I really like the one Sandra Fluke used, "So there’s an attack on allowing employers to be required to provide this insurance coverage on insurance that employees pay for, at the same time that there’s an attack on public availability through clinics."

Tell me the truth, do you view the argument against the mandate as an attack on allowing employers to provide contraception?

Uh... no? But I'm not sure I understand your question.

The first amendment isn't there to give religious people an excuse to not follow the law. It's there to prevent government from targeting religions for persecution. These mandates are wrong, period. But allowing exemptions for favored special interest groups only expands government power, setting them up to pick and choose who will suffer the consequences of the law and who will get a pass.

Wow, I specifically point out that the only purpose of the 1st Amendment is to stop the government from doing things, and you rant about religious people not obeying the law.

Come back when you stop arguing like rdean.

Heh... aren't you in the surly mood!

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. This isn't about resentment at people not following the law. It's a recognition that allowing leaders to pick and choose who has to follow laws and who doesn't isn't a restriction on government power. Indeed, it amplifies it by giving them the power to decide who deserves the special privilege and who doesn't. To even implement an exemption for religious belief, the government must decide what qualifies as a religion and what doesn't - specifically violating the First Amendment by making 'law respecting the establishment of religion'.

Again, the point of freedom of religion is that government stays out of religion. It's not to grant government recognized churches special exemptions.

 

[syrenn]

not sure what they cover or not... but most do..



the way i see it, if a company covers Viagra...they should cover birth control. HL should be able to OFFER any health plan they want..... if the employee doesn't like it they don't have to use or take it.

Remember.... obamacare is there for anyone who doesn't like what their employer is paying for.... they are all free now to buy their own plans... bwhahaha

 

[koshergrl]

Uh... no? But I'm not sure I understand your question.

The first amendment isn't there to give religious people an excuse to not follow the law. It's there to prevent government from targeting religions for persecution. These mandates are wrong, period. But allowing exemptions for favored special interest groups only expands government power, setting them up to pick and choose who will suffer the consequences of the law and who will get a pass.

Wow, I specifically point out that the only purpose of the 1st Amendment is to stop the government from doing things, and you rant about religious people not obeying the law.

Come back when you stop arguing like rdean.

Heh... aren't you in the surly mood!

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. This isn't about resentment at people not following the law. It's a recognition that allowing leaders to pick and choose who has to follow laws and who doesn't isn't a restriction on government power. Indeed, it amplifies it by giving them the power to decide who deserves the special privilege and who doesn't. To even implement an exemption for religious belief, the government must decide what qualifies as a religion and what doesn't - specifically violating the First Amendment by making 'law respecting the establishment of religion'.

Again, the point of freedom of religion is that government stays out of religion. It's not to grant government recognized churches special exemptions.

It also means that government cannot force churches to submit to laws that require them to act contrary to their stated belief.

 

[dblack]

Wow, I specifically point out that the only purpose of the 1st Amendment is to stop the government from doing things, and you rant about religious people not obeying the law.

Come back when you stop arguing like rdean.

Heh... aren't you in the surly mood!

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. This isn't about resentment at people not following the law. It's a recognition that allowing leaders to pick and choose who has to follow laws and who doesn't isn't a restriction on government power. Indeed, it amplifies it by giving them the power to decide who deserves the special privilege and who doesn't. To even implement an exemption for religious belief, the government must decide what qualifies as a religion and what doesn't - specifically violating the First Amendment by making 'law respecting the establishment of religion'.

Again, the point of freedom of religion is that government stays out of religion. It's not to grant government recognized churches special exemptions.

It also means that government cannot force churches to submit to laws that require them to act contrary to their stated belief.

Well, that's exactly the assumption I'm challenging. It's often stated in that way, but it doesn't make sense. If a church believes in human sacrifice, must they submit to laws requiring them to act contrary to their stated belief?

 

[Vox]

Sorry....................corporations AREN'T people.

Yes, they are OWNED by people, but they aren't people in and of themselves, because they are a group of people.

Why should CEO's get an extra vote while ordinary citizens can't? If corporations are people, then that means the CEO's get a vote for themselves as individual citizens, and they get another vote via their corporation?

That means the CEO's get 2 votes, one for themselves, and one for their corporation. I thought this was a country of 1 person, 1 vote.

Yes, THEY ARE.
Citizens United

 

[Vox]

not sure what they cover or not... but most do..



the way i see it, if a company covers Viagra...they should cover birth control. HL should be able to OFFER any health plan they want..... if the employee doesn't like it they don't have to use or take it.

Remember.... obamacare is there for anyone who doesn't like what their employer is paying for.... they are all free now to buy their own plans... bwhahaha

Viagra is a medical treatment. Birth control is NOT medical treatment, especially abortifacients.
the latter ones should not be forced to be covered by employer.

 

[longknife]

A typical atheist rant against anyone or any entity that seeks to worship their God - except for Allah, of course -without a realistic approach.

If you are against HIV testing as it encroaches upon your personal beliefs, should you be forced to pay for it or be fined for not doing so?

Employees know the basic beliefs of the owners when they apply for positions. So, they are making the choice. If they know the owners are pro-lifers, why should they expect the owners to pay for an abortion they want/need/etc?

It amazed me how many ways you anti-religion types can go out of your way to try to force your beliefs on others.

 

[Mojo2]

What do you mean? Are you suggesting that right-wingers and the like will start reciting passages from the Quran, celebrating Ramadan, going on pilgrimages to Mecca, etc.? I'm fairly certain nearly every American would notice the change. For example, the U.S. would probably get a regime change every other week followed by days of executions and rebellions. Seems pretty noticeable to me.

Start boiling a live frog in a pot at room temperature and he will remain in the water until it is hot enough to kill him but he'll never save himself because the temperature rise happens so gradually he never becomes alarmed.

What's happening to America right now is an indication the strategy can work.

We sat here and watched the left gain a strangle hold on our news our culture our politics our history and we let it happen with only a few court battles here and there and now this country is in really bad shape and things are not looking any more hopeful with Obama in office for another 3 years!

Things are VERY different...noticeably different today than they were twenty years ago.

And not for the better.

So, to expect the Muslim Brotherhood would permit us to become alarmed is very unlikely.

They will want things kept as calm as possible so we won't have anything or anyone to shoot at until it is too late for shootin.

And so many of the left will act as Judas goats that we'll all go down with hardly any blood being shed.

Nationwide, only a few dozen thousands or so, I'd guess.

Letme get this straight, because you believe in psuedo science the entire world is crazy, and only you realize the water is boiling.

Guess what, that old wives tale is an old wives tale.

Most of America who is older than 35 realizes that we are decidedly worse off than we have been in anyone's experience or memory.

With the jaunty tam on his head and a playful cartoonish animal on his shoulder, is your avatar image the picture Michael Jackson kept on his mirror of what he wanted to look like after all his plastic surgeries were completed?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Uh... no? But I'm not sure I understand your question.

The first amendment isn't there to give religious people an excuse to not follow the law. It's there to prevent government from targeting religions for persecution. These mandates are wrong, period. But allowing exemptions for favored special interest groups only expands government power, setting them up to pick and choose who will suffer the consequences of the law and who will get a pass.

Wow, I specifically point out that the only purpose of the 1st Amendment is to stop the government from doing things, and you rant about religious people not obeying the law.

Come back when you stop arguing like rdean.

Heh... aren't you in the surly mood!

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. This isn't about resentment at people not following the law. It's a recognition that allowing leaders to pick and choose who has to follow laws and who doesn't isn't a restriction on government power. Indeed, it amplifies it by giving them the power to decide who deserves the special privilege and who doesn't. To even implement an exemption for religious belief, the government must decide what qualifies as a religion and what doesn't - specifically violating the First Amendment by making 'law respecting the establishment of religion'.

Again, the point of freedom of religion is that government stays out of religion. It's not to grant government recognized churches special exemptions.

It annoys me when people repeat stupid arguments simply because they have nothing else to support their position, especially when I already pointed out that hey are right and that the purpose of the Constitution is to define, and limit, government.

You are partially right, the point of freedom of religion is partially that government stays out of religion. The part you don't get is that that is the lesser purpose of the restriction, even if it is mentioned first.

Lets look at the clause we are discussing.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

We agree on the first part, so you can stop bringing it up, the part that has your panties all in a wad is the second part. This prohibits Congress from making even a general purpose law that restricts anyone's free exercise of their religion. Religion, in this case, means more than simply believing, or even not believing, in God.

Courts have always recognized that this part of the Constitution actually empowers individuals, like you, to refuse to obey the government if their personal beliefs were sincerely held, even if they aren't based on a religious text. This is why it is legal for atheist to register as conscientious objectors to the draft, and to refuse to serve in any capacity that promotes war.

You, solely because you refuse to see just how powerful this makes you, see this as an expansion of government power. This is not England, the government does not have the power to define what is, and is not, a religion, you do. You are perfectly free to stand up and argue that your personal beliefs prohibit you from doing the same thing, it you chose to do so. There are currently 70 separate challenges to the mandate working their way through the courts, and hundreds of different parties involved in the challenge, including a few government entities.

The mandate is a challenge to your personal freedom, and it is exceedingly stupid to close your eyes to that fact, and to argue that you oppose limiting the government simply because you don't like some of the people who are challenging it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

not sure what they cover or not... but most do..



the way i see it, if a company covers Viagra...they should cover birth control. HL should be able to OFFER any health plan they want..... if the employee doesn't like it they don't have to use or take it.

Remember.... obamacare is there for anyone who doesn't like what their employer is paying for.... they are all free now to buy their own plans... bwhahaha

Personally, I don't see why it is any of your fucking business what they cover, even if it means letting them cover birth control and to refuse to cover Viagra because they believe Viagra enables rape.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Heh... aren't you in the surly mood!

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. This isn't about resentment at people not following the law. It's a recognition that allowing leaders to pick and choose who has to follow laws and who doesn't isn't a restriction on government power. Indeed, it amplifies it by giving them the power to decide who deserves the special privilege and who doesn't. To even implement an exemption for religious belief, the government must decide what qualifies as a religion and what doesn't - specifically violating the First Amendment by making 'law respecting the establishment of religion'.

Again, the point of freedom of religion is that government stays out of religion. It's not to grant government recognized churches special exemptions.

It also means that government cannot force churches to submit to laws that require them to act contrary to their stated belief.

Well, that's exactly the assumption I'm challenging. It's often stated in that way, but it doesn't make sense. If a church believes in human sacrifice, must they submit to laws requiring them to act contrary to their stated belief?

Human sacrifice is legal, its called abortion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Start boiling a live frog in a pot at room temperature and he will remain in the water until it is hot enough to kill him but he'll never save himself because the temperature rise happens so gradually he never becomes alarmed.

What's happening to America right now is an indication the strategy can work.

We sat here and watched the left gain a strangle hold on our news our culture our politics our history and we let it happen with only a few court battles here and there and now this country is in really bad shape and things are not looking any more hopeful with Obama in office for another 3 years!

Things are VERY different...noticeably different today than they were twenty years ago.

And not for the better.

So, to expect the Muslim Brotherhood would permit us to become alarmed is very unlikely.

They will want things kept as calm as possible so we won't have anything or anyone to shoot at until it is too late for shootin.

And so many of the left will act as Judas goats that we'll all go down with hardly any blood being shed.

Nationwide, only a few dozen thousands or so, I'd guess.

Letme get this straight, because you believe in psuedo science the entire world is crazy, and only you realize the water is boiling.

Guess what, that old wives tale is an old wives tale.

Most of America who is older than 35 realizes that we are decidedly worse off than we have been in anyone's experience or memory.

With the jaunty tam on his head and a playful cartoonish animal on his shoulder, is your avatar image the picture Michael Jackson kept on his mirror of what he wanted to look like after all his plastic surgeries were completed?

And they are starting to fight back, not simply pretending that the water is perfectly comfortable. Same thing happens with a frog, it will stay in the gradually warmed water until it reaches a point where the internal temperature of the frog is too hot. At that point the frog will jump out of the water unless it is prevented from doing so.

So, please, stop pretending you are smarter than everyone else. The comfort levels vary, but most people will fight back long before we reach the point of no return. The secret is getting them to see what is making the water hot, not complaining because they got the wrong idea of the source of the problem.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

People always want the government out of their bedrooms unless the government comes knocking with "free" sponges, viagra, spermicide and day after pills.

 

[dblack]

Wow, I specifically point out that the only purpose of the 1st Amendment is to stop the government from doing things, and you rant about religious people not obeying the law.

Come back when you stop arguing like rdean.

Heh... aren't you in the surly mood!

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. This isn't about resentment at people not following the law. It's a recognition that allowing leaders to pick and choose who has to follow laws and who doesn't isn't a restriction on government power. Indeed, it amplifies it by giving them the power to decide who deserves the special privilege and who doesn't. To even implement an exemption for religious belief, the government must decide what qualifies as a religion and what doesn't - specifically violating the First Amendment by making 'law respecting the establishment of religion'.

Again, the point of freedom of religion is that government stays out of religion. It's not to grant government recognized churches special exemptions.

It annoys me when people repeat stupid arguments simply because they have nothing else to support their position, especially when I already pointed out that hey are right and that the purpose of the Constitution is to define, and limit, government.

You are partially right, the point of freedom of religion is partially that government stays out of religion. The part you don't get is that that is the lesser purpose of the restriction, even if it is mentioned first.

Lets look at the clause we are discussing.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

We agree on the first part, so you can stop bringing it up, the part that has your panties all in a wad is the second part. This prohibits Congress from making even a general purpose law that restricts anyone's free exercise of their religion. Religion, in this case, means more than simply believing, or even not believing, in God.

Courts have always recognized that this part of the Constitution actually empowers individuals, like you, to refuse to obey the government if their personal beliefs were sincerely held, even if they aren't based on a religious text. This is why it is legal for atheist to register as conscientious objectors to the draft, and to refuse to serve in any capacity that promotes war.

You, solely because you refuse to see just how powerful this makes you, see this as an expansion of government power. This is not England, the government does not have the power to define what is, and is not, a religion, you do. You are perfectly free to stand up and argue that your personal beliefs prohibit you from doing the same thing, it you chose to do so. There are currently 70 separate challenges to the mandate working their way through the courts, and hundreds of different parties involved in the challenge, including a few government entities.

The mandate is a challenge to your personal freedom, and it is exceedingly stupid to close your eyes to that fact, and to argue that you oppose limiting the government simply because you don't like some of the people who are challenging it.

I don't have anything against religious people, so please stop suggesting that's my motivation here. This is about corporatist government and the corrosive way it expands government power, even when it pretends to be giving us a break.

I think we agree that the mandates of ACA are wrong because they violate the fundamental freedom think and make financial decisions for ourselves. You seem to be of the opinion that letting some people skip out of a bad law is better than making everyone follow it and it's that notion I'm taking exception to. Every group that's exempted from Obamacare is just another block of voters who will be more willing to give into it, and diminishes resistance to a really bad trend in government.

And, yes, granting exemptions to laws based on religious beliefs does put government in the powerful position of deciding what represents a legitimate religious belief - and raises the question of why that should even matter. Why should a religious belief that being forced to buy insurance is wrong be any more of an excuse than simply believing insurance is a really bad way to finance health care? Does the mystical nature of the religious belief make it more worthy of protection than a rational analysis? Why?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Heh... aren't you in the surly mood!

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. This isn't about resentment at people not following the law. It's a recognition that allowing leaders to pick and choose who has to follow laws and who doesn't isn't a restriction on government power. Indeed, it amplifies it by giving them the power to decide who deserves the special privilege and who doesn't. To even implement an exemption for religious belief, the government must decide what qualifies as a religion and what doesn't - specifically violating the First Amendment by making 'law respecting the establishment of religion'.

Again, the point of freedom of religion is that government stays out of religion. It's not to grant government recognized churches special exemptions.

It annoys me when people repeat stupid arguments simply because they have nothing else to support their position, especially when I already pointed out that hey are right and that the purpose of the Constitution is to define, and limit, government.

You are partially right, the point of freedom of religion is partially that government stays out of religion. The part you don't get is that that is the lesser purpose of the restriction, even if it is mentioned first.

Lets look at the clause we are discussing.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

We agree on the first part, so you can stop bringing it up, the part that has your panties all in a wad is the second part. This prohibits Congress from making even a general purpose law that restricts anyone's free exercise of their religion. Religion, in this case, means more than simply believing, or even not believing, in God.

Courts have always recognized that this part of the Constitution actually empowers individuals, like you, to refuse to obey the government if their personal beliefs were sincerely held, even if they aren't based on a religious text. This is why it is legal for atheist to register as conscientious objectors to the draft, and to refuse to serve in any capacity that promotes war.

You, solely because you refuse to see just how powerful this makes you, see this as an expansion of government power. This is not England, the government does not have the power to define what is, and is not, a religion, you do. You are perfectly free to stand up and argue that your personal beliefs prohibit you from doing the same thing, it you chose to do so. There are currently 70 separate challenges to the mandate working their way through the courts, and hundreds of different parties involved in the challenge, including a few government entities.

The mandate is a challenge to your personal freedom, and it is exceedingly stupid to close your eyes to that fact, and to argue that you oppose limiting the government simply because you don't like some of the people who are challenging it.

I don't have anything against religious people, so please stop suggesting that's my motivation here. This is about corporatist government and the corrosive way it expands government power, even when it pretends to be giving us a break.

I think we agree that the mandates of ACA are wrong because they violate the fundamental freedom think and make financial decisions for ourselves. You seem to be of the opinion that letting some people skip out of a bad law is better than making everyone follow it and it's that notion I'm taking exception to. Every group that's exempted from Obamacare is just another block of voters who will be more willing to give into it, and diminishes resistance to a really bad trend in government.

And, yes, granting exemptions to laws based on religious beliefs does put government in the powerful position of deciding what represents a legitimate religious belief - and raises the question of why that should even matter. Why should a religious belief that being forced to buy insurance is wrong be any more of an excuse than simply believing insurance is a really bad way to finance health care? Does the mystical nature of the religious belief make it more worthy of protection than a rational analysis? Why?

I forgot, you hate everyone who gets together to real with their common interests.

Let me try typing this really slow.

Giving individuals, not groups, more power does not empower the government, even if the individuals have to form groups in order to get their point across. Corporatism, in and of itself, is not bad. What is bad is when we give the government the power. Anything, repeat anything, that restricts the power of the government is good for everyone.

 

[Mojo2]

Letme get this straight, because you believe in psuedo science the entire world is crazy, and only you realize the water is boiling.

Guess what, that old wives tale is an old wives tale.

Most of America who is older than 35 realizes that we are decidedly worse off than we have been in anyone's experience or memory.

With the jaunty tam on his head and a playful cartoonish animal on his shoulder, is your avatar image the picture Michael Jackson kept on his mirror of what he wanted to look like after all his plastic surgeries were completed?

And they are starting to fight back, not simply pretending that the water is perfectly comfortable. Same thing happens with a frog, it will stay in the gradually warmed water until it reaches a point where the internal temperature of the frog is too hot. At that point the frog will jump out of the water unless it is prevented from doing so.

So, please, stop pretending you are smarter than everyone else. The comfort levels vary, but most people will fight back long before we reach the point of no return. The secret is getting them to see what is making the water hot, not complaining because they got the wrong idea of the source of the problem.

I'm saying the time to get serious is now, not later. And if you merely assume that America will wake up before we reach that point of no return I ask what makes you so certain? How do you know now isn't already too late?

Basically, your position is, 'Nevermind about YOUR line in the sand, we should use MY line in the sand to know when the time has come to take action.'

That doesn't make your line is any better than mine.

It only means you are allowing less time to do what needs to be done to save America.

If that's all you got you should sit the fizzuck down, Jacko.

We ain't in a pissing match!