Tom Cotton is a freshman Senator from Arkansas. He has an awesome pedigree. Cotton was born in Arkansas. His father served in Vietnam. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and went on to Harvard Law School. After law school Cotton joined the Army and served two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and was awarded the Bronze Star.
Cotton actually wrote something on the record while at Harvard, something Obama, despite being on the Law Review, really never did.
And he ain’t afraid. Not of the press, not of democrats and not afraid of dictators in Iran or the US.
Cotton authored a letter informing Iran that the Congress would have to approve any formal agreements or treaties. The letter can be seen here.
Cotton has taken a lot of fire for that letter, with the New York Daily News calling him a traitor. democrats (democrat being defined as someone with absolutely zero long term memory) conveniently forget a lot, some of which I’ve already covered, but there’s even more. In 1984 demcorats wrote to Daniel Noriega, undermining Ronald Reagan.
Cotton made clear the intention of the letter:
“We’re making sure that Iran’s leaders understand if Congress doesn’t approve a deal, Congress won’t accept a deal,” Cotton, 38, whose letter evoked a sharp rebuke from the White House, said Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program. “Because we’re committing to stopping Iran from getting a weapon.”
Joe Biden laced into Cotton:
“This letter, in the guise of a constitutional lesson, ignores two centuries of precedent and threatens to undermine the ability of any future American president, whether Democrat or Republican, to negotiate with other nations on behalf of the United States.”
You can see already that Biden is wrong, but Biden is seldom anything other than wrong. If you leave out being a pervert, that is.
Cotton doesn’t suffer fools well and shot right back.
“Joe Biden, as [President] Barack Obama’s own secretary of defense has said, has been wrong about nearly every foreign policy and national security decision in the last 40 years,” Cotton said Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” in a reference to former Pentagon chief Robert Gates, who ripped Biden in a tell-all memoir after leaving office.
“Moreover, if Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate he should be insisting that the president submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in Senate,” Cotton said.
Barack Obama is a liar. He guaranteed that Iran would not get a nuke and of course, that guarantee was no better than any other Obama assurances.
Cotton is doing us all a big favor questioning Obama. Cotton is a hero. He’s got balls. I could see him as President one day.
I love this guy.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 40 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 45 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter who is in the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Greg: Like Obama, these Iranian thugs don’t like to be reminded that we in the United States are bound by a Constitution.
How did you feel about the illegality, treachery and disruption of this move?
@Redteam #86:
“05, what do you think about the deal in OK, where they’re voting to do away with state issued marriage licenses. That way, the state can’t be ordered to issue gays marriage licenses, or to recognize marriages, since marriages will only be in the church. Any church would be free to marry anyone they choose to marry. I think there will be many more states that will pass that law. If the fed wants to ‘legalize’ marriages, they can issue federal licenses.”
Sorry, Redteam, but you missed the point of this law.
Here’s what the Oklahoma bill really did:
“Rep. Todd Russ (R-Cordell) introduced House Bill 1125 with the intent of getting county court clerks out of the duty to officiate marriage ceremonies. This was because some clerks have religious objections to gay marriage. What Russ did, though, was to make it so that citizens no longer need clerks for their marriages. They will instead file “certificates of marriage” or file affidavits of common law marriage with the clerks after it’s all done with. This puts the responsibility for officiating the ceremony on judges or various religious figures. And according to the bill, these certificates will stand as proof of marriage for Oklahoma law:
“Any entity requiring proof of identity or marital status shall accept a certified copy of the marriage certificate or affidavit of common law marriage that has been filed with the court clerk. Any reference in the Oklahoma Statutes requiring a marriage license as proof of identity or marital status shall be interpreted to include a marriage certificate or affidavit of common law marriage executed on or after November 1, 2015.”
Any Oklahoma statute that operates off of marital status or provides benefits or privileges based on marital status will accept either of these non-license certificates. Note that they will get all the same rights and privileges under Oklahoma law.”
The state of Oklahoma WILL recognize gay marriages. In fact, this law will end Oklahoma’s fight AGAINST gay marriage. Since the SCOTUS is set to mandate gay marriage anyway, and since there are already both clergy, churches and judges in Oklahoma who will conduct gay marriages, there really isn’t any legitimate objection to this legislation. It DOES protect those bureaucrats who object to performing gay marriages, but clerks will still have to accept and file the marriage certificates submitted to them by married gays. If they have a problem with that, well, tough.
Sorry if you mistakenly think that this bill is a defeat for gays. It simply takes one unnecessary bureaucratic step out of the process of getting married, and in doing so removes from Court Clerks the responsibility for conducting marriages of any kind. Likely, the state of Oklahoma won’t NEED quite so many court clerks after this law goes into effect. It’s the GOP’s blueprint for shrinking government, isn’t it? Eliminate a service, lose a job, save a buck? Works for me!
BTW, you think Retire05’s “The-Sky-Is-Falling”…”The-End-Is-Near” predictions are accurate? The “End-OF-Times” doom-sayers have been at their silly pastime for ever, but this “ugly pendulum” isn’t going to do what she predicts. Retire05 has insisted far too often that “she DOESN’T have a crystal ball” for you to fall for her wishful thinking this time. She’s just bent that I DO have a crystal ball (also known as a decent head on my shoulders that can see the writing on the wall) and I have been right when she has been wrong. However, no amount of clicking her ruby slippers together three times and sobbing “There’s no-place like the past, There’s no-place like the past, there’s no-place like the past!” will ever turn this ship around and squeeze gays back into the closets from whence they came. She’s just going to have to live with that truth.
“The executive director of Freedom Oklahoma, which advocates in behalf of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals, criticized House passage of the measure.
“This legislation puts all couples who plan to marry in Oklahoma at risk of being denied hundreds of federal legal rights and protections, if it were to become law,” said Troy Stevenson, executive director of Freedom Oklahoma. “The federal government and other states will not be required to acknowledge these proposed ‘marriage certificates.’ This legislation will only result in mass confusion from clerks’ offices to courtrooms around the nation — while putting Oklahoma families at risk.”
: http://swtimes.com
@George Wells:
Sorry George, but I understand it 100%. It gets the state out of performing gay weddings or licensing them. I didn’t claim it would get them out of recognizing them.
I like this statement:
Do they have a quota? How many are they going to mandate? Will it be so many per state, or will it be a quota based on the country instead of states? Do the persons actually have to be gay to be required to have a gay marriage? I know the humor of this will pass right over your head, but I just couldn’t resist it based on your statement:
I checked as to the current statutes in Louisiana, and as of now, they require marriages to be done by clergy. If they passed a law such as Ok seems to be doing, I suspect they will change that requirement.
No, I don’t think it will hinder homosexuals getting joined in legal unions, but now they can’t require a state to participate in it or to legalize it.
@George Wells:
you might not believe this George, but I haven’t seen those predictions. If I had, I would suspect they are relative, but personally, the ‘world’ has been here a long time and will be here a long time. Human civilization is but a pimple on the butt of the solar system. I’m sure many civilizations have come and gone over the eons.
But as to the ‘honesty’ of 05, I’d say she’s certainly correct more often than not. But let me also say George, I think you are also correct more often than not. The thing you are most incorrect on is the present occupant of the white house. He’s not a friend of this country.
@retire05: 103
They reap what they sow, don’t they? Isn’t it the ‘federal’ government they are using to ‘force’ the states to do what they want? They want the feds in it, they got em. I personally don’t see any problem with it. No other laws would be changed except for wording where the state language is currently ‘marriage license’ it would be ‘marriage certificate’. The requirements for someone performing a wedding would be changed so that they are basically required to fill in the information that the clerks had been doing. I think it is a victory for the State and for the homosexuals. Now they just take their birth certificate to a preacher and he fills out the ‘certificate’ and says you’re now a legal ‘couple’.
@retire05 #103:
““The executive director of Freedom Oklahoma, which advocates in behalf of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals, criticized House passage of the measure.”
Since when do YOU quote a sodomite – a left-wing liberal with an agenda that blinds him to the real content of this legislation – as an expert on ANYTHING?
Did you bother to read the law?
There’s NOTHING in it to suggest what Freedom Oklahoma is crying about.
They are simply doing exactly what the religious right has ALWAYS done regarding gay rights: Say “NO!” to everything the other side proposes, no matter what it is.
The religious right said “NO!” to “civil unions”, right up until “gay marriage” looked like it was going to become the law of the land, and suddenly “civil unions” looked mighty good.
I just hope Freedom Oklahoma isn’t making the same kind of stupid mistake that the religious right made. The Oklahoma law is a good one, and Freedom Oklahoma should be happy with it.
@George Wells:
See my response above. See, we agree.
@Redteam:
As usual, George is full of it. I have never even hinted at “end times” predictions.
What I have said is that the pendulum continues to swing. As just as it swings far to one side, when it comes back, it swings equally far to the other side. George, being perpetually dishonest, contributes things to people that never existed, or they didn’t say.
Ironic, isn’t it, that there is now a push starting to legalize polygamy. Something the gaystapo claimed would never happen.
@Redteam #105:
“The thing you are most incorrect on is the present occupant of the white house. He’s not a friend of this country.”
Begging your pardon, but where did I say otherwise? Obama’s done exactly what I had hoped he would do for gay people, although I found his schedule somewhat tardy. Other than that, gays got into the military, got federal benefits and got gay marriage on his watch, things that were unlikely to occur had a Republican been in the White House. I’m not happy with about half of everything else he’s done, but then again, I’ve never been completely happy with any president’s accomplishments, so expecting much more from Obama would have been unrealistic, wouldn’t it?
@George Wells:
“religious right” How easily that rolls off your tongue. I guess all those black preachers and black congregants that opposed same sex marriage in California were Republicans.
And how do you know Troy Stevenson is a sodomite? You claim not to be. Perhaps he enjoys the same sick sex you do since you do not seem to think that is a form of sodomy. Like almost everything else you discuss, you are either lying or just poorly informed.
I am not sure how THIS topic slid into gay marriage (like so many topics do) but Utah just passed a weird law, signed by the gov.
It makes it illegal to discriminate against people for their sexual preference in housing and jobs BUT AT THE SAME TIME it also protects the consciences of people who prefer not to appear to approve homosexuality, such as photographers, bakers, florists.
Utah’s gay population is very ”out.”
But this law confuses them, although they have come out as happy it passed.
It gives them a lot because Mormon landlords and bosses will now be forced to rent to them and hire them (a big thing here.)
But then it allows the protection of the consciences of people whose work could be easily done by someone else who wants to do it.
Comments?
Edited to add link to comprehensive article:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/explaining-religious-freedom-and-lgbt-rights
Note that the Mormon Church wrote this law that the secular government just passed!
@retire05:
yes. regardless of laws, marriage will always be one man and one woman. I’m certainly not in favor of polygamy, and of course that will never be a legitimate union, in anyone’s eyes. apparently, if the law passes in Ok, the marriage certificate will be used to ‘authenticate’ all unions, both marriages and homosexual unions. If a person wants to leave his worldly possessions to 10 people, all (he,she, it) has to do is make out a will. There is nothing in any law I’m familiar with that makes it illegal for a man to have several women living in his house with him, any or all of which can be included in his will. In that sense, polygamy is already here.
@Redteam #104:
“I checked as to the current statutes in Louisiana, and as of now, they require marriages to be done by clergy. If they passed a law such as Ok seems to be doing, I suspect they will change that requirement.”
Hey, Redteam, would you mind checking up on this one?
Google “Louisiana justice of the peace marriage”
Then take note that marriages in Louisiana do NOT have to be performed by clergy. District judges, justices-of-the-peace, ship captains and any other person certified by the state of Louisiana can perform lawful weddings in that state, as of now and as of quite a long time ago. NO STATE IN THE UNION restricts marriage to clergy. Doing so would discriminate against atheists, and that would be unconstitutional.
@Nanny G:
because I just read about the Ok law (yesterday) and asked 05 what she thought about it.
@Nanny G:
As Redteam stated, he asked me about the Oklahoma law. And it is with any conversation, no matter the topic, George turns it into one of his rants about how sodomists are going to be rewarded with legalization of their perverted relationships. Poor George. Being queer is the only thing he has in his life.
@retire05 #111:
” …a sodomite? You claim not to be. Perhaps he enjoys the same sick sex you do…”
You baffle me.
You complain when I give you the sordid details you ask for, and you complain when those details do not fit with your bigoted preconceptions of what all gay people do. We are not all the same, exactly as heterosexuals are not all the same. Unlike yourself, I don’t OBSESS on that other people do with their sexual equipment. You should moderate that fascination of yours, as it distracts from any meaningful ideas you have to offer.
@George Wells: George, I had already ‘googled’ it and here is what I found:
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/louisiana/
This is what ‘the law’ actually states, I didn’t search for modifications to ‘the law’.
I guess you could keep seaching til you find something you like better. Note that it seems to require that one be a ‘bride’? When you and your wiband filled out your licenses, was one listed as a bride or did they already have new forms printed?
@Nanny G #112:
“it allows the protection of the consciences of people whose work could be easily done by someone else who wants to do it.”
This is the sticky line. How does a court determine when a service COULD be obtained from a “willing” vendor, and how does it determine when no such willing vendor exists? Then how is the “UNWILLING” vendor to be “forced” to provide services against his or her religious conscience? It’s a rat’s nest of legal trip-wires, and sure to keep lawyers busy for years to come. I support religious freedom of belief – and worship – but once the issue becomes freedom to discriminate on the grounds of religious objection to a minority class of people, the constitutional issues become complex.
@George Wells:
I never asked for the details of your sick life style. You willingly made them public when I called you a sodomist. You described your sex life claiming it is not sodomy. It is. So saying I asked for them is just a flat out lie.
But then, what else should we expect from you? You’re not exactly an honest person.
@Redteam #119:
Sorry that the source you found gave you the wrong impression that justices of the peace cannot marry people in Louisiana. What I told you is correct. Call a justice of the peace if you doubt me. ANY justice of the peace. It’s what they’re for.
@George Wells:
Apparently any business with fewer than 15 people is exempt.
Even any landlord with fewer than 4 units is exempt.
I have the phone book for Salt Lake City and cannot find any business that only lists ONE provider.
As to County Clerks and their individual consciences, the County MUST provide an alternative if their clerk doesn’t want to perform these marriages (which is his right under this law.)
@retire05 #121:
Your hate is showing.
@George Wells:
Except when you don’t. No one should be forced to violate their religious beliefs. But you don’t care that the First Amendment covers that issue., You simply want to prove to the “breeders” that you can get your way. And it doesn’t matter how many dirty tricks have to be done to reach that objective. In every case of a florist, baker or t-shirt printer being sued, they were set up by angry queers out to prove they could force the issue. Just like the whole Lawrence vs. Texas case came out of a rejected queer being unhappy his love interest wanted someone else and perpetrated a case of “swatting.”
@George Wells:
Now that’s funny, considering that’s what you do best.
I never gloat when same sex marriage is turned down, but you damn sure waste no time gloating when it is forced on social via judicial fiat.
George, while reviewing ‘the law’ again I saw this:
several times throughout the law, the term he/she was used.
Just curious but don’t you think that should be changed to: he/she/it for obvious reasons?
The U.S. State Department’s take on the Logan Act. Source- Digest of United States Practice in International Law 1975, p. 750:
Part of the duties of the Senate per Article 3, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:
Sanctions are enacted against Iran.
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/iran/index.htm
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/iran.aspx
Connect the dots and it’s easy to figure out that this letter violated nothing given that Congress has the power to pass sanctions. As a matter of fact, there is a sanctions bill against Iran that is making its way through Congress right now.
Let Obama’s Justice Department bring charges against the 47 for violating the Logan Act and see what happens.
@George Wells:
It didn’t give me the wrong impression, because I read the whole thing at at the bottom it said:
JP’s have many duties and responsibilities, performing civil union ceremonies is only one of those.
@Nanny G #123:
Sounds reasonable enough to me.
The activists in ANY effort to change ANYTHING ALWAYS want everything all at once. That isn’t realistic. People cannot change overnight. Real progress takes time. I have argued here before that the advances in gay rights need time to consolidate and will not be secure immediately. I may be guilty of making the same mistake that the Japanese made after hitting us hard at Pearl Harbor – they didn’t go for the kill. But I don’t respect the batter who swings for a home run every time he comes to the plate, as he will usually have a fairly low batting average.
@retire05 #125:
“No one should be forced to violate their religious beliefs.”
If my religious belief is that I should be allowed to own slaves, AND I TAKE ACTIONS TO ACQUIRE SLAVES, I should be forced to violate that belief.
You can believe whatever you choose. You just can’t ACT upon those beliefs if the action you take violates the constitutional rights of others.
@George Wells:
I don’t think that’s the issue. “minority class of people’ should not be a distinguishing ‘class’. I strongly suspect that if homosexuals were in the majority, you would still be opposed to freedom to discriminate against homosexuals.
Either a person has ‘freedom of/from religion’ or they do not. Should a church be required to admit homosexuals or not? Should an eye doctor be required to vend eyeglasses to correct vision to a person with perfect vision? That would certainly be a ‘minority’ class of persons. Should the doctor be allowed to exercise personal freedoms in that choice. If you own one house that you are renting out, should you be required to rent it to the first person that comes up to rent it? Even if you know that person is likely to wreck your property? Do people have rights, or do they not?
@George Wells:
Then you would be a Muslim.
Like most other issues, you seem to not understand religious freedom. And the right of association. No one can force you to shop at a particular retailer. And you should not have the right to force a business to cater to your perversion.
@Redteam:
George seems to think that his right to be a pervert trumps someone else’s religious rights.
Pure Gramsci.
@Redteam #129:
“JP’s have many duties and responsibilities, performing civil union ceremonies is only one of those.”
The “unions” they perform are called “civil marriages,” not “civil unions,” for legal reasons. Most states and the federal Government do not recognize “civil unions” for the purpose of granting marriage benefits.
If your religious beliefs require you to make this distinction, you should still understand that the law considers the subject differently. You should not confuse the two.
@George Wells:
Why? Couldn’t you just move to a country that allows slave ownership? Or just buy and keep your slaves in a country that allows it? I don’t think there is a prohibition against persons that own slaves being in this country, if there is, there are one helluva bunch of foreigners that need to leave.
@George Wells:
I could ‘call you a girl’ but that wouldn’t make you one, uh, wait that may not be accurate. Ok, I could call you a ‘foreigner’ but that doesn’t make you one. To be a marriage, one has to be a male and one a female, otherwise it is something else. The only reason you care whether it is called a marriage is that it makes you ‘feel’ as if you won something. When one in your partnership sprouts a vagina, then it may become a ‘marriage’.
@George Wells:
Only in some places and only more recently. Just as some refer to you as ‘gay’, I suspect that your sexuality does not make you ‘exceedingly happy’ as opposed to some other feeling. The term marriage has meant a union of one man and one woman since time began, using the term for other meanings has only begun within the last few years. I suspect it will be a long long time before most persons accept ‘marriage’ to mean anything other than one man, one woman.
@ Redteam #132:
I’m not sure what you are arguing here.
I don’t see how you might construe my arguments against discrimination to suggest that a doctor might or might not prescribe glasses to someone with perfect vision. That doctor has every right to refuse glasses to anyone who doesn’t need them. Doing otherwise would be medical malpractice.
Refusing to prescribe glasses to a gay person who needs glasses WOULD be discrimination, since OTHER patients who need glasses would be properly served by that same doctor. THAT would be a case of unlawful discrimination, although the laws against such discrimination vary from state to state and from locality to locality. It is THAT kind of discrimination that I think is constitutionally problematic. Two people who BOTH need glasses would potentially be served unequally, based upon characteristics that have no bearing on their need for glasses or their ability to pay for them. As a matter of principle, I view this question NOT as a question of freedom of association (which WOULD allow a church to exclude gay worshipers) but as a matter of unequal treatment in the provision of publicly available services and accommodations. I do not support such unequal treatment, regardless of whether the discriminated-against class is a minority or a majority class.
@Redteam #137:
” I suspect it will be a long long time before most persons accept ‘marriage’ to mean anything other than one man, one woman.”
Your suspicions are not born out in recent polls.
The latest WSJ?NBC poll put acceptance of gay marriage at 59%, with opposition at 33%. Perhaps in Louisiana, “MOST” would be correct, but not nationally.
I take it your “suspicions” are not supported by any facts?
George, just thought of a reasonable question. Since ‘marriages’ have always been defined (until homosexuals got involved) as one male and one female, why not just declare that one of you is a female? That way, you would have one male and one female and the laws as already written would apply. After all, you really are a ‘female’, right? I mean just because you used to be a male doesn’t mean female can’t include you, just for the purposes of fulfilling the definitions. After all, if just ‘calliing’ it a marriage makes it a ‘marriage’ then just ‘calling’ you a female would make you a female. Right?
@Redteam #136:
“I could ‘call you a girl’ but that wouldn’t make you one, uh, wait that may not be accurate. Ok, I could call you a ‘foreigner’ but that doesn’t make you one. To be a marriage, one has to be a male and one a female, otherwise it is something else”
Only if Redteam was the legal entity that mattered.
What YOU call marriage doesn’t matter to me.
And what I “FEEL” about it doesn’t matter a hill of beans to the IRS.
What matters is that the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States Federal Government BOTH agree that Paul and I are married. Not “civilly united”, MARRIED.
I’m not sure why you persist in this delusional fantasy that YOUR definition of marriage matters to anyone other than yourself.
It doesn’t.
@Redteam #140:
Do you REALLY think that this comment of yours deserves an answer?
@George Wells:
What? A doctor has a right to refuse service to someone of a minority class (class that doesn’t need glasses but want them) just because he chooses to, but a cake baker doesn’t have that right?
what if that gay person doesn’t need glasses? Couldn’t he claim that the doctor has to sell to him because he’s gay?
@George Wells:
absolutely. You claim ‘calling it a marriage makes it a marriage’, then why wouldn’t calling you a female make you a female? I’m not saying word definitions can’t change over time, but calling something a marriage that for all eternity, until 5 years ago, was not a marriage does not make it a ‘marriage’. Would you have an objection to being listed as a female on your ‘marriage’ certificate? If so, you should have exactly the same objection to calling it a ‘marriage’ certificate.
@George Wells:
And I’m not sure why your delusional thinking that your definition of marriage matters to anyone. Also your thinking that you’re not a female matters to anyone other than yourself. After all, definitions change all the time.
@Redteam #143:
“Couldn’t he claim that the doctor has to sell to him because he’s gay?”
No. The doctor cannot provide an unneeded prescription because doing so – for anyone – would be malpractice.
@Bill, #101:
What I notice is another effort to place blame for a Bush administration failure on the administration that came afterward. It’s my own belief that a cause generally comes before its effect.
In any event, the response from Iran’s leaders to the republican letter raises the issue of who the idiots in this exchange actually are. The Iranians traded a lecture for a lecture, and their own comments were more to the point:
G.O.P. Letter by Republican Senators Is Evidence of ‘Decline,’ Iranian Says
The guy with the “awesome pedigree” and his cosigners have just publicly expressed their disdain for the authority of their own nation’s office of president. They’re something decidedly worse than a national embarrassment.
Gullible Greggie agrees with the Ayatollah Khamenei.
Color me surprised. NOT!!!!!
@George Wells: suppose they aren’t prescription glasses, only cosmetic?
But a wedding cake is clearly a ‘prescription’ item? The homosexual person ‘has’ to have one? Hmmmm….
@retire05, #148:
You clearly don’t understand the the principle involved in continuity of commitment. I suppose this might explain your failure to grasp Obama’s obligation to honor all of the terms of Bush’s Status of Forces Agreement, rather than simply disregarding them whenever it became more convenient to do so.
You’ve elected people having that same deficiency, among others. Even the Iranians perceive the growing dysfunction that results. Apparently past promises can be cast aside as needed. Keep that in mind whenever you hear republicans talking about Social Security benefits, Medicare, the The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, etc. More than once in very recent memory their partisan political maneuvering has threatened default on promised payment of the nation’s debts. There’s an emerging pattern of general irresponsibility. They’ll continue to cut taxes, for example, even when revenues increasingly lag behind the nation’s financial obligations. Then they’ll lecture people about deficits and growing national debt. They’ll blunder into another war while refusing to acknowledge the problems the last one created and the enormous past and future costs it involved.
And you’re calling me gullible?