I think you are misreading my comment.

At least in my opinion, there is a difference between "disagreeing" and "blanket opposition". The former has always been a part of the political process; the latter is a more recent development by the Tea Party Republicans. When group A adopts a policy that was originally created by group B, but group B then decides to oppose that policy, that is evidence of "blanket opposition", and not just "disagreement".

When all that has changed between the time when Republican Tea Party was in favor of the policy, and the time they were against it, is that the President took a position in favor of it, that is blanket opposition.

Think 'Health Care Reform'. unless you can logically explain the difference between the Affordable Care Act and the Republican health care proposal in the 1990s, and how those differences turn it from a good policy into a bad one, that is evidence of blanket opposition.

Think 'Cap & Trade'. Unless you can logically explain why the Republicans are now against the policy that they created just a few years ago, that is evidence of blanket opposition.

Think 'START Teaty'. Unless you can logically explain why the Tea Party Republicans filibustered the extension of the START Treaty that was created by President Reagan, that is evidence of blanket opposition.

Think 'Tax Cuts'. When the Republican Tea Party perpetually claims that tax cuts are the solution for every economic problem, and they state that "tax cuts don't need to be paid for" when discussing the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy, then unless you can logically explain to me why the Republicans are so against the extension of the payroll tax cuts, that is evidence of blanket opposition.

Think 'Infrastructure'. When investments in infrastructure were never contraversial before 2009, unless you can explain to me what changed between infrastructure investments in 2007 and 2009, then the Tea Party Republicans continual obstructionism to even the most benign infrastructure investments is blanket opposition.

Think 'Defense'. When President Bush sent us into Iraq in order topple their dictator, and the Republican position is that we should still have troops occupying their country, how do you explain the Tea Party criticisms against President Obama being able to assist in the overthrow of Gaddafi without the loss of one American life, if it's not blanket opposition.

I could go on, but my point has been made. There is nothing wrong with rational disagreement. Unfortunately, we have not seen that in Washington since the Republicans decided in 2009 that they were going to take a stance of blanket opposition.

Nicely stated, Jordan.

Hey Jerry you can ask Romney about what to do when someone disagrees with him. He just tells them to "Take a Hike" Keeping it classy.

Times change. People change their attitudes. A lot of the people who were in government in the 1980's/1990's are retired or dead. The generations in charge are less interested in compromise and our political rhetoric reflects that. Both Parties have moved further away from the center. The left is more liberal. The right is more conservative. So, yeah, they are going to disagree more. What else would you expect? It's not just the problem of one party, and unless people are willing to see that, there really isn't much more than can be said. Neither party holds a monopoly on sainthood or blame for the current state of (what passes for) political dialogue. Liberals were so knee-jerk against GWB that it's really just funny to watch the same people complain that conservatives oppose Obama. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black....

Jo Nielson, I am so glad you said:

"Both Parties have moved further away from the center. The left is more liberal..."

I have heard many people say this before, but whenever I ask them to give me some policy examples on which the Democrats have moved to the left, there is only one that people can identify (equality for the LGBT community). So since you made the statement, please either support it or admit you are wrong. Which policies that the Democrats supported in the 1980s and 1990s are now not liberal enough for today's Democrats? When they were "knee-jerk" against President Bush, as you put it, which of his policies of his did they oppose that they had previously supported?

I've laid out numerous examples of the Republican Tea Party moving to the right, but I will provide others if anyone thinks I haven't made a strong enough case.

You are absolutely correct that people can change their minds over time. But they need logical reasoning behind the change for it to be a valid disagreement with previous positions rather than political opportunism. Simply stating "they changed their mind" does not give any indication about the reasoning for the change, and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests the changes are purely based on blanket opposition.

As far as citing things, heres the link to the NON GLENN BECK info:

http://cnsnews.com/node/72404

When I went to school I had to make choices. I couldn't afford U of M, BC, or Harvard. I went to Community College and then joined the military for the G.I. Bill, just like a lot of our parents did.

Why cant we just realize that the government has become way too big to be sustained. We, as a people cannot afford to take care of EVERYONE. If your child wants to go to college, there are ways to do it. We just need to be resourceful. Unfortunately the new generation gets everything given to them, so why work for it.

When the government says "revenue nuetral" that means, you take from others and give to someone else. Pretty soon, those who do, will stop doing it because theres no reason to. You can just get someone elses money from our government. Pretty soon we'll be standing in bread lines and waiting an hour for a roll of toilet paper.

I find it funny that we, as a society have started to villify the rich. Don't we want to be that some day. As far as billionaires and millionaires paying less than the common secretary, remember the tax code. Most of their earnings are capital gains, not working income. Capital gains are paid @ 15%. I would love to sit at home and make money and pay less than a working income. The American Dream

Aaron,

I thank you for responding to my comment and providing a cite. Unfortunately, words have meaning. You stated:
"THIS President has spent more than all others combined."

And you cite states:
"Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined"

So there's two important things here. The first is that you stated President Obama *spent* more than all others combined. There is a difference between spending, which is what you claimed, and deficit & debt, which is how much spending surpasses revenue by.

The second thing is that when you say *all others*, your list includes presidents that your cite does not. So even if you meant "THIS President has added more to the debt than all others combined", you would still be mistaken. Your source is not claiming that the debt has doubled under President Obama (which is what would have occurred if he added as much as all those previous to him), as they don't get past the 1980s.

"Our National Debt is out of control and THIS President has spent more than all others combined."
Cite please.

"Where does this money come from?"
Additional financial support for education will come from the government. To make it deficit neutral, it would require either additional revenues or additional cuts.

"Can we afford to do that?"
We can afford to do either, but the question is which is better policy. What is the cost/benefit of making sure that the most wealthy among us pay at least the same tax rate as the middle class? What is the cost/benefits of more cuts? Well the 'benefit' is same either way, as it is the additional revenue that could go towards investing in our future through programs like the President is promoting.

So we must compare the 'costs' of the two options. The 'cost' of cutting even more from government services is the negative impact that will be felt by those who are struggling and need those services.

The 'cost' of making sure the wealthy don't pay a smaller tax rate than the middle class is that the wealthy then have less money that they would otherwise save/invest. Now there are trillions of dollars that could be invested right now, but they are sitting on the sidelines because there is too little demand which makes the markets risky. I don't think there is a tangible downside to decreasing the number of dollars being added to that sideline, but I'm interested in hearing if you disagree.

If our taxes were to be used for anything I would vote for them to be used to educate our children. If this isn't our number one priority we should probably give up now. It's no good for just the kids of the rich to get an education if no one else can afford one. That's not the way to compete with India and China and Finland (!). It's not the way to come up with the kind of innovations that will get the country back on track economically. And it's short-sighted (and honestly selfish) to want just our own kids to get a college education. We live in a society, not on an island, and what benefits the whole, benefits us.

Spent more than all other presidents combined? Where'd you hear that? Glenn Beck? Let me guess. Fox News....

Most of the overspending is driven by the stupid wars that Bush got us into, the Bush tax cuts, and the unfunded Medicare drug benefit which I'm going to gues Aaron is a beneficiary of, but has paid ZERO for.

Aaron, is that really the answer you want to give to kids in high school who want to go out and educate themselves for the better but can not afford college. "Gee, sorry that sucks, you should be a plumber.". If that's the case the future doesn't look too bright. A bachelors degree is the new high school diploma, good luck finding a job that pays a living wage without one.

How exactly do you know that student loans are repayed? If you file bankruptcy, you still have to pay your student loans, they don't just disappear. Please educate yourself before making such ignorant statements, they are offensive to anyone who is trying to make it through school to make something of themselves.

It is opinions like yours that are bringing this country down and killing our middle class

"Both Parties have moved further away from the center. The left is more liberal..."

Both parties are so far right, they make Goldwater look like a liberal. As a direct response to this rightward march into insanity and facism, the "left" has gotten more main stream and more vocal.

Conservatives are amazing hypocrites. When someone tries to regulate guns, it is treason. When they regulate birth control and abortion and discriminate against women and "blasphemous" gays, they're just doing god's work. When taxpayer dollars go to private corporations, they call it capitalism and the free market. When taxpayers get their own money back, they call it socialism and welfare.

The reason this President has the highest deficit is because somebody had to clean up and pay for the mess Bush and his neocons made. Conservatives have had control of this country for 40 years and all they've done is drive us it into debt and destroy our economy, middle class, and environment. Where's the trickle down and jobs they promised? The jobs are in India and China, and the money is in their offshore bank accounts.

If I ever have swamp land to sell, I know exactly who to market it to.

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html

That is a very broad brush you're using, Aaron. Your advice to students and parents is worthy of consideration, and should be part of the discussion at the family level. But when you turn advice into demands -- "Go to a community college" and "quit looking for the big name schools" -- you lose credibility.

Of course, when you refer to "kids" in this context you are really talking about "adults" under the law. And guess what? The large majority of those "kids" you disparage ARE paying back their student loans. It takes time, and many take advantage of options provided by law to defer and forbear until they establish their careers, but there is no "rarely pay it back" happening. That's exactly like saying "most homes are being foreclosed on" or "everyone is looking for work." Those are all inherently false statements, attempting to demagogue the issue...which again goes straight to your credibility.

THIS President didn't spend more. He was presented an itemized bill for the ongoing cost of two wars, unfunded income tax rate cuts from 2001 and 2003, a deep recession and the financial crisis of 2008 -- all run up by the previous Administration. NEW spending by this Administration to date is a fraction of that.

Your failure to grasp the difference is the same problem we faced last year, when the Tea Party and Republicans in Congress wanted the United States to default on the debt incurred, by stopping the debt ceiling increase. It was madness then, and still is.

One more thing: Next time you refer to "my tax money," consider the tax credits and deductions you claim. Do you deduct your mortgage interest? That represents MY TAX MONEY going to support YOUR housing choice. The mortgage interest tax writeoff is a HUGE transfer of money from everyone to homeowners with mortgages.

But no one seriously considers ending it or even modifying it, despite the clear evidence that it helped cause the mortgage collapse (the tax break enabled and even encouraged people to buy bigger homes at higher interest rates), and indirectly exacerbated a host of problems, from suburban sprawl to the decline of older cities to increased gasoline use to the need for more infrastructure.

Randy, are you suggesting compulsory public service?

College costs can't be lowered by subsidizing costs, they can only be lowered by actually lowering the cost. While some may think that's stating the obvious, it seems to escape the grasp of many that think state or federal contributions to college will lower costs.

It may lower the cost to the student, but not the cost to the public. If the public must subsidize post-secondary education, then the public should have a right to say what those dollars pay for. For example, public monies may be spent for STEM classes, rhetoric, and teaching, but not for fluff classes and degrees colleges use to indoctrinate or patronize popular political thinking.

Yeah, Randy, and that's the problem. People incurring huge debt that provides them no opportunity to make a living and repay it. The focus of academia should be exactly that - training to find work in the economy.

I agree with Thomas. Wages are not getting higher, but colleges seem to think that it's okay to raise tuition rates every year. The fact is that there are always people willing to pay the higher price. It's not like there are empty spaces because for every student who decides not to attend because of price, there's always another student in line who's willing to pay the stated price. There aren't incentives for colleges to actually lower the price.

College isn't for everyone and I agree in the "well-rounded" education idea. However, you can graduate college w/o knowing much outside of your major. It also doesn't help that colleges offer remedial courses for subjects that students should have a handle on before freshman orientation week. That means that a lot of colleges are paying people to teach subjects that these kids should have mastered in high school. Yes, I want an educated population. Yet, at the same time, I want colleges to higher expectations of their students. It's just sad watching students "go nuclear" when they are given "extra reading" (outside the text) that's only one or two pages of photocopies.

You're either a liar or don't know what you're talking about.

Tax rates are lower under Obama than they were under Bush. They're lower than they were during most of Reagan's term also.

Doesn't that just prove how difficult it is to return gifts? Engler ended taxes on senior pensions and Snyder returned it. Seniors are upset because it affects their income. I's easy to see how people become dependent on government kindness.

My dad recently returned to Michigan from Minnesota and couldn't figure out what all the fuss was about. His income as a senior was taxed in Minnesota, it didn't make sense to him that Michigan would think senior income was anything other than, well, income. To not tax seniors' income would be to say they should be subsidized by everyone else that is working, which is to liken seniors with the 1% that everyone feels isn't paying their fair share.

And before seniors claim they've paid their fair share, they'll have to admit their shared responsibility for a $15 trillion debt that we're all leaving for someone else to pay.

Hartland Eagle, to accuse one of being a liar is a feeble attempt at imparting your wisdom on others. Shame on you.

My health care a a public employee went from $75 dollars this month to $450.00 next month due to the legislation that Snyder passed late last year. This legislation was a republican led attack on public employees.

Funny how that worked out for you, isn't it? Everyone complained about "gridlock" during the Granholm years, as her administration was stymied at every turn by Republicans in the Legislature (and "Democrats" like former Speaker Andy Dillon, now RIck Snyder's Treasurer). Twice they couldn't pass a budget in time, and the MBT and surcharge were horrible business tax compromises intended to appease Republicans and gain bipartisan support (but wound up pleasing no one).

After 2011, I imagine you miss gridlock.

"[W]e are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our INFORMED opinions." -- Harlan Ellison

(Emphasis mine.)

I count 10 unfounded statements in your comment. If you are willing to have a logic-based discussion about one of them, I will be amazed. Just pick a number and I promise to give your position full consideration:

1) "came... to turn us into a socialist country."
2) "to make sure he started a war between the [classes]"
3) "to make sure we... would fall to the depths of a third would Country [sic]."
4) "His speeches are arranged to appeal to whom ever [sic] he is speaking."
5) "thousands of speeches he has made and the lies..."
6) "He has destroyed our Economy [sic]"
7) "[he has destroyed] our Armed Forces [sic]"
8) "so that we will no longer be able to defend our Country [sic]"
9) "has over regulated business as to make it as hard as possible to succeed"
10) "[to make it as hard as possible to] make a profit"

I'm not asking you to defend all ten, just one, so hopefully you'll not ignore this post.

Her opinions are just as irrational as stating "the world is not round, but a cube". If she were to state that the world was a cube, would you criticize the person that asked her to defend that position?

The vast majority of the President's critics have realized that their opinion does not have to be based in reality, since there's people like you who defend their choice to be delusional. If a single individual was deluded, it wouldn't matter what they say because the rest of the world would recognize they are not living in reality. But when it comes to President Obama, an entire percentage of the population has decided to commit massive group-delusion to pretend like he is doing things he is not. That group needs to recognize their paranoia is just that, paranoia.

If you value the truth at all, you don't let opinions like "the world is a cube" go unchallenged. I welcome any and all challenges to my positions, and all that I want is for them to be based on reality and logic. I have been shown to be wrong in the past, and will be wrong in the future, but I would be incredibly disappointed if I was delusional and others did not rescue me from my alternate reality.

All I ask in return is that if someone makes a statement, that they be willing to defend that statement, and if they can't defend it, they admit that the statement is false.

People can say whatever they want. But I am not going to let irrationality go unchallenged.

The 'Obama is a radical socialist' line would be just hilarious if so many people didn't actually believe it. It's so immensely absurd that I still find it hard to believe that anyone in this century, with this much access to information can believe such nonsense.

Obama is a moderate, centrist Democrat. He's even upset his own party by not being left enough. He's made compromises that have angered a lot of people who voted for him and wanted him to be more progressive. Most of the things he has done and proposed e.g. Healthcare Reform, stimulus based on infrastucture spending, are things that in the past, BOTH parties have recommended. Fear-mongering based on ignorant name-calling is totally unproductive. We seem to have forgotten McCarthyism. Are people really that ill-informed and scared of the Socialist boogeyman?

And if we're going own that (ridiculous) road, fascists almost always use the religion of the land as a tool to create division and bring in their totalitarian government. Seriously, you're going there? This nation should (according to the Constitution!) have room for Christians, Buddhists, Muslims and Zoroastrians and Atheists. Social issues based on the opinions of any religion have absolutely NO place in government.

It's actually interesting to read the British press around the Republican Primaries. Almost wholeheartedly people are just incredulous that personal, social issues like gay marriage and abortion have ANY place whatsoever in the choice of electing someone who will be the ruler of the most influential nation in the free world. My advice to you is to get out a little more.

"but his respect for religion is pretty close to that of the Communists."

I respectfully request that we discuss that statement. What has the President done that you feel is disrespectful to religion, that other presidents have not done? He is pro-choice, that is true, although I'm not sure what position he has in that regard that you feel is "far left", since the majority of he country is pro-choice. But the "war on religion" meme was something that Gov. Perry tried to push, and it always confused me as to what he was talking about. Hopefuly you can explain so the next time I hear someone else say it, I won't be so curious about what they're referencing. Thank you.

Josh, thank you for a well-developed response.

1) I'm not quite sure if I understand exactly. Are you saying that if someone shows up to a Catholic hospital or chairty and asks for contraception, that hospital or charity has to provide it? Or are you referencing the ACA having a provision that requires insurance companies to provide birth control without co-pay? I know the Catholic Church was opposed to that provision, but I thought it just affects the insurance companies. Please expand if you can.

2) I will concede that some in the religious community is not going to like that the President is pro-choice. I don't believe that there are going to be taxpayer funded abortions, but that disagreement shouldn't make a difference in the larger discussion (that the President is disrespectful to the religious).

3) That's an oversimplification. The honest representation of the case is that the President was opposed to letting religious groups discriminate in employment decisions. There was already the "ministerial exemption" that allowed religious discrimination (which makes sense, because a mosque or church should be allowed to hire only members of their faith), but the court basically expanded that exemption to all of the protected classes. But there's nothing anti-religious about President Obama thinking that churches shouldn't be able to have a blanket employment policy saying "no Asians", or firing someone for being handicapped (as in the case).

4) I don't know who Harry Knox is and what he has said in the past, but I'll trust that what you've written is accurate. I personally don't feel that guilt by association is a very effective argument, but I'll go along with your position and say that that decision is as bad as you feel it is.

5) Being against discrimination may upset the religious community, but I think that says more about the religious organizations fighting for the right to discriminate than it does about the President. At one point in our history, racial bigotry was based on religion. Today, it's a different form of bigotry based on religion. To say that a store owner should be able to put up a sign saying "no gays" is the same as saying they should be able to have a sign saying "no blacks". It restricts a business owners right to discriminate when you tell them they can't do that, but that is a restriction well justified, and it doesn't make the President any more disrespectful towards religion than his position against allowing "no blacks" signs makes him disrespectful towards religion.

6) Again, replace "gays" with "racial minorities", and if it is illegal to discriminate against the latter, the President feels it should be illegal to discriminate against the former. The only difference between protecting the LGBT from religious bigotry and protecting minorities from religious bigotry is that society realized the latter was necessary long ago.

Everyone in this country has the right to racial bigotry, until that bigotry comes into conflict with the rights of others. So a KKK member can walk down the street saying that minorities are inferior to whites, but a KKK business owner can not prevent minorities from patronizing his/her establishment.

Everyone in this country has the right to religious prejudices against the LGBT community, until that right comes into conflict with the rights of others. Religious individuals can say that homosexuality is evil or whatever, but religious business owners shouldn't be allowed to prevent the LGBT community from patronizing their establishment.

When you state:
"Communist China has not banned religion as long as they can control it. You can be religious as long as you don't really act on it."
That does not describe our country, and it doesn't describe President Obama's position. You can act on your religious beliefs until it infringes upon the rights of others.

Everyone has the right to vote with their religious beliefs in mind, but individuals who work for the government are prevented by the Constitution from establishing their religion at work. A religious clerk is not allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples trying to get a marriage license (in states where marriage is legal). A teacher is not allowed to teach their religious views in school.

We are a secular nation, even though that upsets religious conservatives and they wish we weren't.

Joshua (clever passive-agressiveness with the 'Jord'),

1) Absolutely, all health insurance is required to provide coverage for things like the birth control pill. Now you can relabel that as an "abortion-inducing pill", but that doesn't change the validity of requiring insurance companies to cover it. So, since the ACA put stricter requirements on employers to provide insurance to employees, and the only insurance options available to those employers will include coverage for birth control, what you are saying is correct. It is completely justified in my opinion, and I think most others would agree.

There are some religious groups that don't believe in medical care at all. Do you think that if one of those individuals owns a business and employees hundreds of employees, that they should be exempt from providing insurance that covers any health care to those employees? It's the same exact idea, that the employer can determine, based on their religious beliefs, what health insurance the employees will receive. If you think that one religious group should be allowed to dictate what is covered in health insurance, then you have to let all religious groups dictate what is covered in health insurance.

2) I've read that that is incorrect, but I already said I'll concede it for the purposes of this discussion. Pro-life individuals are going to be offended by any continuation of freedom of choice, and so in that regard, the pro-choice position will be viewed as disrepectful.

3) Do you think that the federal government should be able to restrict businesses from employment discrimination? I do. Now religious groups have been given an exemption in the past that let's them discriminate based on religion, but I personally don't see what is wrong with the government telling the religious group that they can't discriminate based on handicapped-status. Do you? Sure, the Supreme Court ruled that a religious organization can fire someone for being handicapped, even though a regular business could not, but I don't think disagreeing with that ruling makes one disrepectful towards religion.

4) I'm sure that's not an exaggeration at all. Fred Phelps = Harry Knox. An intellectually honest person would see nothing wrong with that comparison. [/sarcasm]

5 & 6) Do you believe that we have to be tolerant of racial discrimination? The bigot has every right to hold onto their bigotry, but do we have to tolerate it and allow them to act upon it, even when it harms others by keeping them from equal treatment under the law? Would you support the right of a clerk to refuse to give marriage licenses to mixed-race couples? I mean, don't you feel that you have to tolerate their opinion that people of different races shouldn't marry? Or do you recognize that the clerk's action results in the couple's rights have been infringed upon?

"Should Catholic Charities be allowed to not adopt children to gay couples? Obama would say no. Should Knights of Columbus be allowed to refuse to host a gay wedding reception? Obama would say no."

And I would agree with President Obama. Equal protection under the law. It's an important concept. Do you think Catholic charities should be able to refuse to adopt children to Baptist individuals? President Obama would say 'no', and I would agree. Should the Knights of Columbus be allowed to refuse to host a wedding for two individuals who had previously had other marriages but got divorced? President Obama would say 'no', and I would agree. Do you?

The important difference between us is that I recognize that sexuality is not a choice, and so it should be protected the same way as other non-choices. But let me ask you this- is your religious beliefs a choice? If you were a strong Catholic, would you be able to choose to become a Muslim, and actually have a faith just as strong in Islam that you had in Christianity? Or would the conversion not be genuine, where you could do everything that makes it appear as though you are Muslim, but deep down you never lost faith in Catholicism?
-------------------
The President does not discriminate against views based on religion, but he does restrict actions based on religion. Religion is not a carte blanche to do actions that infringe upon the 14th Amendment.

Joshua,

1) Health care is as much about prevention as it is about healing, and birth control is an important tool for preventing unplanned pregnancies (which are a health concern). That is why birth control is different than elective cosmetic surgery. In regards to the Amish and other groups, my understanding is that they are exempt from the individual mandate, but I don't think they would be exempt from employer requirements if they own a business with many employees. I could be wrong though.

2) While I think you are incorrect about the "taxpayer funded abortions", I can understand how that would upset people if you are correct, just as I understand anti-war individuals getting upset at how much of their tax dollars go towards war.

3, 5, 6 & 7) It all boils down to whether or not religious groups should be able to use their religious beliefs to justify doing things to others that someone else could not legally do. I don't see the 1st Amendment as identifying such policies as constitutional. The 1st Amendment protects their rights, but it doesn't let them infringe upon the rights of others. Your argument would equally apply to a situation where a religious group wants to make human sacrifices, with you saying that the government preventing that is a violation of their 1st Amendment rights.

(to respond to some points of yours that I've missed)

"I've given plenty of examples where Obama has placed federal law above religious conscience. Can you provide examples where Obama put precedent on religious conscience?"

President Obama supports the rights of religious individuals to be religious, and to act on that religiousity up until it comes into conflict with the 14th Amendment rights of others. He is in favor of placing federal law above religious conscience the same way that previous presidents have done so by saying that religious beliefs do not give business owners permission to racially discriminate. The President is doing no more than that, but applying it to sexual orientation as well. The President sides with religious individuals whenever a (unconstitutional) law prevents them from expressing their religion in a way that does not take away the rights of others (like school prayer).

"Do you believe a private or public adoption agency should be allowed to refuse an adoption to a KKK leader or a fundamentalist (polygamous) Mormon?"

Good question. KKK leader- yes, since being a racist is not and should not be a protected class, and so it should be allowed to be taken into account. Polygamous Mormon- personally, I don't think so. If the Mormons meet all other adoption criteria, I don't think their polygamous beliefs should be discriminated against. The government does not recognize polygamous marriages, but that shouldn't matter to the adoption agency.

"For some reason, I thought your bio said you had Libertarian leanings. I'm not seeing them, but perhaps we are interpreting things differently."

I consider myself to be a civil libertarian, yes. I strongly support the ACLU, and as a general rule agree with their understanding of the Constitution and personal rights.

I support individual freedom when those freedoms do not take away the constitutional rights of others. But I do not support an individual's freedom to infringe on someone else's rights.

Take the business owner who wants to put up a "no blacks" sign. The government has to decide whether to protect that business owner's right to put up the sign, or protect everyone elses right to equal protection under the law. If a black person walks into the business, and the business owner calls the police, what do you think the police should do? Should the police protect the business owner's rights and force the black person to leave? Or should the police let the black person stay? If the latter, and the owner then tries to physically force the black person out, should the police stop that owner or let him do it? If the latter, and the black person fights back, who should the police arrest?

How does that situation get resolved under your philosophy? The government has to get involved at some point, so which side should they give preference to?

Joshua,

I agree this has been a worthwhile discussion, and I thank you for staying on point much better than others I've conversed with on this site.

"Since you feel this should be part of healthcare, please cite me another example of something covered that disrupts normal processes to prevent a normal and healthy condition."

Now I am not an OB/GYN (stating the obvious), but I do believe that at least for some women, pregnancy is not a "healthy condition". And I believe that for all women, pregnancy could theoretically become an "unhealthy condition". And it's that fact that justifies the 'prevention' aspect of birth control.

To be honest, I am not able to come up with a perfect analogy to another provision in the health care reform, so your point is made there. The best I could come up with were dietary things like "eating sugar is, in general, healthy and normal, but for some, it can lead to diabetes, so should medication for those whose are at risk for developing diabetes be covered?" I would say that is somewhat similar to "getting pregnant is, in general, healthy and normal, but for some, it can lead to health concerns, so should birth control for those who want to avoid those health concerns be covered?", but it's clearly not a flawless analogy.

I think the disagreement lies in whether or not pregnancy should be viewed only as healthy & normal, or can it be viewed as potentially dangerous and worth preventing if desired.

Joshua,

I in no way think you are immoral for your position regarding property rights. When Rand Paul came under criticism for stating a very similar position as you have, I tried to defend him from those accusing him of being racist. I disagreed with his position for the reasons I've disagreed with yours, but it's not an immoral position. I just don't know how to handle the policing concerns of such a position without it violating the 14th Amendment.

You've done well painting me into a corner regarding adoption, and what should be open as valid discrimination and what discrimination should prohibited. I do think protected classes should remain protected, but outside them, the burden should be on the adoption agency to demonstrate/articulate a clear harm to the child if that child were to be adopted by the person they are discriminating against. That will leave it open to some gray area. And I don't think the mother gets to supercede those rules and require discrimination.

"Could you provide some concrete examples where Obama has placed the rights of religious people over federal law?"

The first example I can think of was his defense of the Muslim community center in New York that conservatives called the 'trade center mosque' or something. He supported their religious freedom, and would not let the frederal government violate their rights. He will defend expression, even if it offends, but he won't defend action that infringes on others' rights.

" I believe private businesses should have every right to discriminate. You and I have that right."

And this strategy might well work for you, if you happen to be in the majority. For white, middle class, heterosexual, Christian, business-owners this might be just dandy. But if you're black and all of the shops in town have a 'no Blacks' sign.. tough for you, move somewhere else. Or no Jews, or gays or... The sad and inevitable truth is that the Government has to regulate your prejudices. Because people (societies), left to their own devices, often make very bad decisions that place others' rights below their own.

Wow. Just...wow.

I agree Chester, some of these administrators make a lot of money, and the regents/boards keep raising their salaries. Look at the salary of the President of U-Mich. and some of the top admin
istrators - they make RIDICULOUS money!

You...didn't pay much attention when studying history, did you? What would it actually take to reach you?

What information -- factual, sourced, supported by evidence -- would you need to pierce that shell of ignorance you've accreted around yourself?

Do you even want to consider the POSSIBILITY that something might show your beliefs to be wrong, or are you comfortable in your current state?

First of all, he didn't fly 2500 miles to "strong arm" the governor of Arizona. concur with Jordan on getting facts straight. I see nothing narcissist about Obama. I think it is difficult for ANY President of the U.S., good or bad, to be a narcissist! It is an oxymoron.

how did you feel about the spending of the previous administration? if you weren't quite as worked up about deficits in 2007, please ask yourself why not? Were you as appalled about the Medicare Prescription plan that Bush spearheaded as you are about Obama's Affordable healthcare act? Did you ask yourself how the Bush wars were being funded in the same manner you're questioning how Obama is funding his initiatives?

If you were feeling the same in '07, i applaud your consistency.

Aaron - "Obama spends more than all Presidents combined Washington through Reagan."

This is patently FALSE. You can have your own opinion. Not your own facts. You give a link, did you even read it, or just not understand it? It doesn't support your statement. At all.

I'm glad he forced through health care. We need it. And we can afford it. It's paid for. Unlike the Medicare drug benefit, which most of the people posting on this board are benefiting from - which was never paid for.

How can the President be single handedly be sinking the country, I'd ask? We have a Congress. He can only sign bills that they send him. The GOP has used a historic number of filibusters - anything that got through to the President was a product of both parties.

amen

agreed, Jordon always presents a rational and fact-based perspective to the discussion, and always in a respectful manner. unfortunately, that doesn't play well with the 'Throw the bum out' mob mentality that we see so frequently on these boards.
the hysterical rants "became president to play free golf (sic), destroy the armed forces, make us socialist", etc are a sad indictment of those making them. Agree or disagree, but please do some research to support your argument and at least listen to the other side. Blind ideaology can be very dangerous.

Yes. I still serve on the executive committee. I have no desire to be anonymous here, and so I will answer any question asked of me. I try to be the commenter I wish others were.

So I will ask you why you didn't respond to my comment directed towards you on Tuesday in the State of the Union article?

Sorry, I don't understand what one has to do with another.

Yes, the government should keep groups from discriminating against people. Any group. Including churches.

That begs the question then Mr. Eagle, do you then feel the government should be able to force a religious institution to alter its core beliefs and principles if the government doesn't deem those beliefs and priciples to be correct?

Believe whatever you want. Take actions that discriminate against and put people at a disadvantage, and yes, the government should step in. What if your religion took this kind of stance against blacks? Would that make it ok?

Bryce

Let me help you out:

Mr. Eagle

Is it okay for the Religious organizations to Discriminate? Yes or No

Is it okay for Governments to Discriminate against the Religious Orders? Yes or No

Easy enough for a yes or no answer. No need for a PHD lesson. This is all Bryce was point out. Your opinion is it is okay for Government to Tell Religious orders not to Discriminate, but you never answered why is it then they can tell a Religious Order then can not but up a nativity scene on its property. That in itself is Discrimination and you can talk around it all you want, but it does have to do with each other.

Good to know, Milan. Always interesting to glimpse things happening elsewhere. The big difference between in-state and out-of-state (and out-of-country) tuitions is also present in Michigan, and anecdotally seems to have some impact on the ability of some qualified (as opposed to HIGHLY-qualified) Michiganders to attend a state university.