KartMan

Patty:

Marriage happens to be a religious and God ordained institution that He set up for a a man and a woman together. Granted, you don't believe in God, but none the less, those who do, believe marriage is a definition for a man and a woman who pledge a devotion together and make a vow before God. Now, when a minority of society wants to change the definition of marriage to something they believe it is, to do so is to infringe on the rights of those who see it differently. Do gay people want to have a special committment to one another that's similar to marriage only they want to have 2 of the same sexes involved? Then they should come up with their own word for an institution such as theirs. They once called it a civil union. What's wrong with that? But no, they are not satisfied with just a 'civil union'. they want the religious people who KNOW that marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman to 'recognize' that they can be married also. Those of us who believe in God don't want our definition for marriage to be changed.

Kartman:

This is why I have said that I think government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Government should ONLY recognize Civil Unions and it should afford them all the same rights and benefits under the law. Marriage should be a component of religion. If one particular religion only recognizes M/F – fine, it only effects them. If another chooses to recognize same sex as well, that is fine too – it is for that particular congregation to deal with. There are plenty of people and denominations out there profess their belief in God just as adamantly as you do, yet they disagree with you on the definition of marriage. Feel free to disagree with them on it if you like, it is your belief versus theirs.

Patty:

Some Christians don't want Civil unions either. I for one, would prefer for gay people to stop doing what they are doing and see it for the sin that it is. But, there will always be people who do wrong in the world, and it would be impossible to stop it all, so, I say just let them do what they want. But they should not be allowed to change the definition of marriage. Some gay people believe that when they get married and say their vows before God that He is accepting of their committment to one another. God does not lie, and in his word, he says that homosexuality is a sin. He would never be accepting of sin of any kind. They are only fooling themselves. Unless of course they want to say their vows to a God other than thee God, Jesus.

It is NOT okay to have sex with the same sex as far as God and many Christians who follow Him are concerned. Period. He calls it a sin and to allow it is just as bad as allowing any other sin to be acceptable by society and made into law. Now, I understand that everyone sins. don't get me wrong, it's one thing to sin, it's quite another to demand that the world accept it as okay. We have this problem already with abortion in this country. The government has made it legal, and it is sinful to murder children. We don't need any more sins becomeing lawful.

Kartman:

Again, you are making a religious argument here. I asked you to give me a non-religious reason as to why we should ban Gay Marriage, or even Gay relationships. You can’t do it, because there is no reason to even worry about it if you take religion out of it. Look, I’m about as hetero as they come. The thought of Gay Sex confuses the hell out of me, I just don’t get it. However, I am pretty sure that Gay people feel the same way about hetero relationships. A Gay man just can’t envision himself with a woman. I absolutely see no reason to prevent him from feeling love for his partner. Same argument with abortion BTW, I see no legitimate non-religious argument against it. I’ll remind you of my previous argument that sins are sins and laws are laws. We are a country built on “the rule of law” not on “the rule of sins”.

Patty:

Apart from the bible: The family unit is that of a mom and a dad. Every study out there shows that both are needed in a relationship with children involved. The father brings one thing to the kids and the mother brings yet another. If everyone had samesex partners, how would children be brought into the world? Common sense shows that the best thing for a family is one mom and one dad. (God has the best plan for families and marriage) Also, once same sex marriage becomes accepted into a society, they will begin to incorporate the 2 men together or 2 women together with children in photos and words in our public school text books and infringe upon the rights of the religious majority who feel it is sinful and wrong and don't want their children to believe otherwise.

Kartman:

That my friend is a fairy tale. By that logic we should take children away from single parents because clearly they don’t fit the mold of a model family with a mom and dad. What are you afraid of with those 2 dad photos? Are you afraid that it will make all the nice little hetero kids gay? Seriously? This is just pure homophobia. The vast majority of gay people are born gay – embracing them in society is not going to bring in any gay converts. Now, don’t fixate too much I my use of the term “vast majority” here. I do think there is a segment of the population that is bi-sexual/gender neutral/bi-curious – whatever. Those people may or may not be influenced by more sexual openness – in any event, I think they are a small segment of the gay community.

Why does it say my message is too short? I put my text in the body of the reply. Alas, even Lap Band Talk is not perfect.

so then, where do you get your standards for the laws you would like to see in place? You may say that you'd like to ban sex between a brother and a sister, but what if they are comfortable with that? what if they want to get married? Who are you to say it is not acceptable? Who am I to say it is not acceptable? This is why people need moral guidelines. There is a right and a wrong for everything. Who is to decide? You? Me? How about the Creator of you and me?

Let’s stick with just you and me and leave “the creator” out of it. You and me and the rest of society make up an electorate. Some of us have religious views, some don’t - but we all have a sense of right and wrong. We don’t need a religion, a book, a pastor, or even a God to tell us which is which. We are all adults and should be able to reason our way thru those things.

Some things are obvious, like rape, robbery, and murder. We all know those are wrong and the people that do those things have to pay their debt to society (not to God, to society). Other things are not so clear - segregation, gay rights, abortion, etc. For these tougher questions, society decides en mass thru elections what it deems to be right and wrong. This is a simple concept of secular democracy. In a society as diverse as ours, there is really no other logical way to do it – to even suggest a religious foundation be applied to any of our laws is ludicrous.

A simple example of this is gay marriage. Can you give me a non-religious reason why same sex partners should not be allowed to marry? I can’t think of one. Personally, I think government should get out of the business of marriage altogether. I think government should treat all Marriages as Civil Unions and give the all the same benefits whether they are same sex or M/F. Marriages should strictly be the purview of religion. If one religion chooses to Marry you, then it is their choice – but that marriage only has significance within the religion but no legal standing.

Government must have money to function, and the more functions it performs, the more money it must have. We just don't have enough for all the programs they desire. It is getting too big and needs to be cut down a few notches. Start slashing programs that are wasteful and start laying off all the government jobs that are wasteful.

Ok. Let’s start with the multi trillion dollars that we are wasting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Next I would like some way to pay for Medicare Part D and the massive unjustified Bush Tax cut that only helped the top 5%. Once we get done figuring out what to do with all that waste, let’s take a look at what we have left. Heck, we might even have a surplus.

This does not bother me. If you reject the writings of God, then fine. That's your choice. Also, I can correct any contradiction you feel is in the bible, because there are none.

This is exactly the kind of absolutism from religious people that baffles and frightens me. I find it utterly absurd that someone would believe without question in something that just seems wrought with questionable facts, distorted timelines, fantasy, conjecture (feel free to insert other adjectives), etc. I guess that is why they call it faith rather than fact. It is certainly your right to believe in it to your heart’s desire – I just wish you would stop trying to impose that faith on the rest of society thru laws.

I've already explained Exodus and Luke. The Egyptians gave them the goods. As for the passage in Luke 19, To someone who understands that God owns everything, this passage does not justify stealing. And, even if it does to you, I remind you of what God has said of himself in Psalms 50:10 and 11:

"for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine."

In other words, if God takes it from you, he's not stealing. He owns it. Everything that you and I have belongs to him, for he is the creator, and he can take it from us at any moment in time if he chooses. He has never advocated stealing. As a matter of fact "Thou shalt not steal." is one of the 10 commandments of God.

The problem with that argument is that it is a slippery slope that gives any people the right to take what they want as long as it is in the name of God. The pilgrims came here and took the land of the Indians to form a “nation under God” (as you remind us of always). The Israelis took Palestine from the Palestinians. Europeans and early Americans were “Gods People” and had a God given right to take the barbarian slaves. The early church took lands, riches, and lives form the masses in the name of God. I could give you a hundred more examples of cases in which “God’s People” borrowed (took, stole, misappropriated, etc.) from unbelievers (other believers, heathens, faceless people, etc.).

Since I don’t believe in God in the way that you do, I certainly don’t think everything belongs to him (regardless of what the Bible says). Even if I did, how could any man arbitrate how God might want his “things” portioned out? “Things” don’t belong to God, and they were not being given to God when they were “stolen”. I don’t think that the people that lost those things believe that God benefitted from their loss.

A failing that you seem to always stumble on is that you try prove things based on what the bible says. The problem with this is that I reject the writings of the bible, so you can’t use that source as proof with me. I on the other hand can point out the inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and outright contradictions in the bible because you have already professed to believe in it fully (especially the parts that suit your jaded political/social view).

Thanks!

Actually, I’m at about 14% Body Fat now, but who’s counting

I’m actually pretty much where I wanted to be with weight and am now focusing on toning up various parts of my body. I love the new me, especially how I look in “normal” clothes. People that didn’t know me before say there is no way I was ever fat. They say I just look like a “normal” guy to them. The band is still working great! It pretty much curbs my appetite and keeps the weight off, and the gym is doing wonders with filling out all the right places. I feel like I have a new lease on life:thumbup::thumbup:

Mince the words in any way you like, all three of these look like they are justifying stealing to me:

Exodus 3:21-22, 12:35-36 & Luke 19:29-34

The passage from Luke (isn’t this supposed to be the kinder gentler New Testament?) is particularly troubling:

Luke 19:29-34

29As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, 30"Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 31If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it.' "

32Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them. 33As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, "Why are you untying the colt?"

34They replied, "The Lord needs it."

It has been translated into other languages, but its meaning is the same in any language. It has not been interpreted a million different ways, as you say. When the bible says," thou shalt not steal."", that's just what it says and means. It's not a gray area. It's black and white, clear as day.

Except when it totally contradicts itself as it does here:

But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians. (Exodus 3:22)

The people who voted for Obama and are unhappy with him are those who think he is not liberal/progressive enough and think he is governing too close to center or center right. These are not the people you see at the tea bagger rallies. Those are the people who didn't and never would vote for Obama.

count me in that camp

Oh, I think people knew what their wrong votes in 2000 and 2004 got us, which is why Obama won in 2008. They are not going to want to return to the failed policies of those 8 years. But if cleaning up those failed policies costs democrats and Obama a second term, then so be it. These clean-up efforts aren't painless and there will be a political price to pay because people are impatient and want everything solved yesterday.

Agreed! I would like to see Obama make it through to two terms, but if doing the right things (ending the wars, passing healthcare, fixing the financial system, ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, repealing DOMA, climate change, etc.) means he gets voted out then so be it. He is just one man, I think the principals are more important than the man.

I am not male so really it doesnt involve me.. But Being as i have TWO siblings that were milarty and one that is still in Active duty.. I think we should still be able to draft, and Being that we have soldiers over in Iraq for there 3 and 4 deployments we need new manpower over there!

I am a firm believer everyone should give service to their country one way or another.. I cant go into the service due to health problems i was born with.. but I help in different ways..

In my opinion it should absolutely involve you and other women. I believe we should have a draft for every able bodied American under 25 years old (male and female). People over 25 should have some stateside contribution. If this stupid war is cause for some to suffer, we should all suffer until we end it.

Again, I don’t consider myself a pacifist, I do believe there is at times justification for war. But justified or not, the burden of war should be shouldered by the entire population (as it was in WWII and WWI) otherwise we don’t really have a vested interest in the agony of the war. I personally believe both of these particular wars are unjust and are being fought at the peril of our nation. If more Americans had skin in the game (if it was them, their sons and daughters, or their family dying over there) these wars would have succumb to public opinion a long time ago.

War is hell and it should be seen for what it is. 20 year old kids are dying every day over there. Many more are coming home with missing limbs, PTSD, brain injuries and countless other injuries. I could care less about the long line of people waiting for the best deal at Wal-Mart on Black Friday, the news should be showing the agony and suffering this senseless war is causing to our young soldiers.

Perhaps the thing to do is to require that the cost of all wars be deficit neutral just like those who are demanding that healthcare reform be. That is- the war has to be paid for, not add to the deficit. And if it doesn't - then raise taxes to support it. Call it a war tax. And see how supportive of war people would be then.

I mean the cost of this healthcare reform has been debated ad nauseum, but do you recall one person asking Pres. Bush or Obama how the wars are going to be paid for? Or how much they would raise the deficit?

I don’t know how they are going to be paid for, but I do know that conservative estimates are coming in at about $100B per year for Afghanistan alone. $100B!!! What the hell do we get for $100B a year? We have no strategic interest in Afghanistan, we have no reason to be there, and we absolutely can’t “win” there (even if we quadrupled the proposed troop increase). Keep in mind that the Soviets had an order of magnitude more troops there than we do and were by all accounts brutal in their attempts at insurgent suppression and didn’t even come close to winning there. What makes anyone think we have even a chance to do anything different there? As far as I am concerned we did what we set out to do there, we got Al Qaeda out of the country, now we should leave too. What Americans don’t seem to realize is that there is a significant portion of the Afghan population that sees us as nothing more than conquerors and occupiers (which we are) and will fight for generations until we give up (just like the Soviets, British, and Alexander before us).

What could we do with that $100B/year instead? Well, the current Senate health care proposal costs about $85B per year. Sounds like a much better use of our money to me. How many American lives could be saved each year with health care? How many American lives will be lost each year that we are in Afghanistan? It’s a no brainer to me.

That is so great!!!! 100lbs is a huge milestone and one that i am happy to share with you. Keep up the great work!

My point wasn't that all of the roots of the economic downturn started with Bush. My point was that everything he did made everything worse. He didn't improve this country in any area in 8 years and the people just shrugged their shoulders and gave him a free pass (with a few anti-war demonstrations thrown in). Now, after only 10 months, they want Obama to have solved everything without spending a dime. It's just so phoney. And it's based on their hatred of Obama and their wish for him to fail.

I agree that we have to be as outspoken and supportive now as we were before we got him elected. I know I do my part. My two democratic senators hear from me and I do call my congressman but he's in lockstep with the republicans. I write letters to the editor, I attend these forums by my reps, and I am president of my local democratic club. I am very proactive.

But people fueled by hate, anger and the party of no who are opposed to everything will always be louder. And get the most media attention. Despite the fact that they are still in the minority.

I think there's talk of getting that Glass Steagall Act back (its repeal was introduced by Phil Gramm and Leach - both republicans but Clinton should never have signed it - a big mistake.)

I agree with you on everything you said and commend you for your activism. It is important though for us to call out our own too or we are just as bad as the people that fell under the might of Bush/Cheney. That is one reason that I have said form the beginning that while I do support Obama, my support only goes as far as his ability to do what he was elected for. If he can’t get us out of these wars, pass health care, and re-regulate the financial industry then he will lose my support and should not expect to be re-elected.

Just to be clear though, I would much rather he be a one term president by getting trounced by the Republicans (because of doing the right thing) than form crumbling while in office and getting the boot via primary from the left.

I think there is a flaw in what the charts say what we can consume in a “normal” day and not gain weight. I too am 6’ tall and will usually gain weight if I consume over 2000 calories in a day. I have been rigorously counting calories since I was banded 2/18/09. Before I started working out, I consumed 1200-1500 calories a day and lost 2-4 pounds per week. Now that I work out regularly (4-6 days a week) I consume about 1800 - 2000 calories a day and am relatively flat with weight loss, maybe still losing about .5 lbs a week. This is fine with me because I am actually under my goal weight. But I know I can’t go by what the charts say and eat over 2000 a day and still maintain.

As for stretching the pouch, I worry about that one too. Sometimes the food is just really good or the social setting is such that I want to keep eating. It is really a chore to fight the urge to eat (even though I am clearly not hungry). It’s only happened a few times to me, but when I push past my limit I always worry that I have damaged my pouch.

I bring it up to again highlight the hypocrisy of those who are "suddenly" concerned with the plight of this country and its president when for 8 years they didn't care what the worst president in american history did to bring this country to the brink of ruin.

And now we have a president cleaning up his messes and I am supposed to believe their outrage is genuine. NEVER.

Just to be fair, the economic crisis has been brewing for a long time and is not entirely Bush’s fault (keep in mind, I am not a fan of Bush). Our lousy standing with the world, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and our crumbling infrastructure are certainly his fault but the economy is a little more complicated.

I would agree that the majority of the blame should go to him (Bush) for not keeping jobs here, letting the energy crises happen, wasting trillions of dollars on unnecessary wars, passing harmful tax cuts, and letting Wall Street deregulate to the point of complete anarchy. However, the roots of deregulation can be traced back to the Clinton Administration. Larry Summers (currently a key figure in Obama’s administration) and Robert Ruben started a lot of it when they halted the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 and other important regulatory protections. Obama should get rid of Summers (and Geithner because he is way too close to Wall Street) and really put in meaningful consumer protection and regulatory controls back in place.

Kartman, dems don't have the hearts & minds of the American people. If the public supported this bill, it would have passed yesterday. Why do you think democratic reps and senators are dragging their feet? It's because they know the voters are against the bill.

I don’t quite agree with that. I think they have the hearts and minds of the American people, but they may be a little short on the actual voters in America. The silent middle and progressives came out in record numbers to vote for Obama largely on his plan to finally address healthcare. Unfortunately, they seem to think their work was done in getting him elected, obviously that is not the case. They need to continue their support of him to get the legislation passed or it will fail yet again. The people that really want healthcare passed need to be just as vocal as the opposition. They need to rebut every argument and make their voices heard. Most importantly, they need to remind their Democratic Senators and Representatives that they will be primaried (I don’t think that is really a word, but you get my point) and tossed if they don’t vote for this legislation. Obama needs to know too that this is HIS issue, if he drops the ball on it he will be tossed as well (and he should be).

Cleo’sMom and Larraine, my hat is off to you two. I don’t have the time or patience to go back and rebut all of the ludicrous ranting from the other side on this thread but you guys have done a remarkable job. Keep up the good work.

We have the numbers out in the country and in Congress. We don’t have to convince the Right Wing, they will never join us. The Republicans (save 1 or 2 in the House and maybe 1 in the Senate) are against anything Obama is for, so they are out too.

The folks that need convincing are the people that Obama helped to put in power, the Democrats. They better figure out who is buttering their bread or they may find themselves without a job in 2010 and 2012. They waivered on this very topic in 1994 and they lost both the House and Senate because of it, I hope history does not repeat itself. Bill Clinton took them to the woodshed the other day in regard to that and they still don’t get it. If they screw this up I suggest we all get behind MoveOn.Org and other groups that have threatened to Primary Democrats that do not support HC Reform. In fact, if Obama is not strong enough to get this passed we should Primary him too. Enough is enough.

Sane, rational, thinking people see right through it. And so do I.

So how long have you been insane, irrational and thoughtless? J/K, you know I love your posts :thumbup:

Kartman...let me start by thanking you for your serivice to our country.

I voted "no" and my opinion is strictly based on the fact that I had a HUGE fear of the draft when my son was in Iraq a couple of years back and still have the fear as I have another son who could go over at any given time. I would just as soon my sons do their missions with others that signed up for the job.

Apples, that is the point. War should be a hard decision and should affect us all equally. I think far too many people that want us to continue fighting around the world have no vested interest in terms of fighting and dying. If war is right and just (and I do believe it is at times) then we should all share in the cost through our collective blood and treasure.

I think going into Afghanistan to oust Al Qaeda was right and just at the time that we went in. Al Qaeda has since left Afghanistan and so should we. We have no reason to be there anymore and in the end, all we will have to show for it will be more of our precious soldiers fighting and dying. We went into Iraq based on lies and propaganda, we should not have gone then and should not be there now. If we can’t justify putting our sons and daughters at risk in war then we should not put others at risk either. If fighting over there is not good enough for some of us, it is not good enough for any of us.

Kartman, thank you for your service. When I was in college, we had a draft during the Vietnam war and even with a draft, the military was still mostly the poor and rural. The rich and connected were able to get deferrments or into the reserves (or Air National Guard) - like Cheney, Bush, Limbaugh - who later became chickenhawks.

Then we should do the draft in a different way. I don’t have hard evidence, but I’m sure with some digging I could show that rules were changed in the draft for Vietnam versus WWII. I know for a fact that many famous and wealthy Americans served, fought, and died in WWII. Whatever was done differently in Vietnam should not be allowed to happen again. A draft should be a way to equalize the pain and suffering across the whole population, people should not get breaks because of their connections or status (to be fair, Clinton got out of serving too).

I voted for him because I thought for once we might get somebody in office that does what is right and not just what collects votes. Health Care is right and he should just go for it. These wars are wrong and he should end them The only way there will be enough outcry for to get us out of them is when they start impacting everyone equally. Far too many of the soldiers dying over there are from rural areas and the working poor. If a war is right and just we should all pay the price for it collectively. More often than not (and certainly not for these two) war is neither right nor just and people won’t put up with them if they are compelled to participate.

I started to jump back into this topic but found myself digressing to Antiwar stuff, so I started another thread for that.

http://www.lapbandtalk.com/f80/should-we-have-draft-105697/

Ok, this started out as a rebuttal to an argument on the Healthcare Thread, but I realized that I was digressing to my Antiwar stance rather than my Pro HealthCare stance so I decided to start anther topic.

You know, if we would have taken our Peace Dividend at the end of the Cold War and invested it here at home we could have had a 21st century information architecture, a completely revitalized bridge/rail/and road system, universal health care, top notch education, etc. Instead we poured even more money into defense and have little to show for it. In 2008, the US spent 41.5% of the world’s military dollars, the next ten countries combined spent only 21.1% of the world military capital, China spent a tiny 5.8%. Now keep in mind these are not percentages of GDP, they are percentages of the world military spend.

What has all that spending gotten us? Let’s take a look back to 1980 which is about when the USSR started to collapse.

- We lost a Marine Barracks in Lebanon in 1983

- We invaded Grenada in 1983 (huge victory)

- We invaded Panama in 1989 (I guess we won… Wait, what did we win?)

- We failed to oust Saddam Husain in the first Gulf War in 1990

- Cold War ends approximately 1991

- Blackhawk down in 1993

- World Trade Center Bombing 1993

- We occupied Haiti in 1994

- We were part of NATO in Bosnia/Herzegovina in 1996 (success?)

- Khobar Towers Bombing in Saudi Arabia 1996

- Our embassy was bombed in Kenya in 1998

- USS Cole attacked in Yemen in 2000

- We were attacked on 9/11/2001

- We wrongly attacked Iraq in 2003

- We can’t get out of Afghanistan

- North Korea has Nukes

- Iran is very close to having Nukes

How much money are we talking about here? Well, if we look at data from 2008, discretionary spending was $941B, of that, Defense was $553B (plus $306B in an off budget supplemental). So in 2008 we spent more than double the money on defense than on EVERYTHING else the government did that year. Really? More than double? Yes, really. This is where your money is going. Eisenhower was right, beware the Military Industrial Complex.

You know what I think? I think we should have a draft. Compel everyone to go over there and fight if it’s that important. I bet any misguided support for these stupid wars would dry up if we all had to participate in them with our own blood. In fact, I think we would be less likely to even get into these situations with a draft. War SHOULD be hard. Every single US soldier that dies over there should have an impact here at home, and it should hurt your soul, if it doesn’t then you are NOT close enough to the issue and have no business saying we should be there. Why are we even there? We can’t win, so why even stay? The goal in Afghanistan was to oust Al Qaeda, ok done – they have left Afghanistan and so should we.

Now before you folks on the Right start beating me up with the flag I will remind you that I served honorably in the military during the first Gulf War (6 years, US Navy).

I for one wish we could do away with labels and focus more on issues. I supported Obama in the election and for the most part think he has done a great job so far considering the colossal mess we were in to begin with. But I will not for a second give him a pass just because I agree with him on some things, because he is a democrat, or because he is black. See Patty, I have disagreements with him as well, but they are just not the same issues as yours. Here are a few things I would like him to focus on.

1) Get Health Care passed (I wish we could have Single Payer, but I will settle for a Government Option)

2) Get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan

3) Become an honest broker in the Middle East (stop being subservient to Israel)

4) Close Guantanamo

5) Repeal DOMA and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

6) Make significant strides in alternative energy

7) Stop being the World’s Police Force. If the rest of the world doesn’t want to pay for the world’s wars why should we? Most of Europe has Universal Health Care right now partly because they spend a tiny fraction of their GDP on the military whereas we spend more than the rest of the world combined.

8) Pass real election reform. Make national elections publicly funded and get ALL special interest out of the pockets of candidates.

9) Stop picking and choosing which petty dictators to prop up. Why do we allow the atrocities of the Egyptians and the Saudis yet despise Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela? If one is bad, they are all bad. If one doesn’t feel our wrath, none should.