[TheRealThing]

Here we go. First we saw that the repeal of DADT was one of this administration's primary objectives, as Obama moved to repeal the policy early on in his first term. As of today, we see that Leon Panetta directed the US Military to begin extending special benefits to unmarried same sex partners of active military.
EXCERPT ---
"Now it seems that gay military personnel may be receiving some benefits that heterosexual personnel will not receive. According to unnamed officials, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta plans to extend benefits to the homosexual partners of military personnel before leaving his position in the very near future. The benefits would include access to military bases, the commissary, health and welfare benefits. To receive the benefits, the military partner would have to sign a document stating that the person is their partner"

http://godfatherpolitics.com/9408/gay-mi...-partners/

No amount of compromise will ever suffice the liberal. The repeal of DADT only served to open the floodgates for our president to begin a program of social reengineering within the very organization charged with keeping our country safe, the US Armed Services.

[crazytaxidriver]

I will never feel like we owe these people anything. All men were created equal. That should means all get equal opportunity no more no less. I don't believe we as a country owe anything to certain groups. Whether they are white black Latino or gay. Slaverywas abolished over 100 years ago. No on alive today was here before that. I know things were still rough for blacks in the 60'and before, even some since, but I don't think anyone should get special treatment based on past circumstances. The white American is the only group in America who doesn't get special treatment. If we try to start an all white organization we get labeled racist. Being overly politically correct is a joke and making this country pitiful.

I'm not racist. I give everyone a chance. But since I was born a white American I have to watch what I say and who I get mad at and who I decide to pick last durin basketball for fear of being accused of a hate crime.

[TheRealThing]

I will never feel like we owe these people anything. All men were created equal. That should means all get equal opportunity no more no less. I don't believe we as a country owe anything to certain groups. Whether they are white black Latino or gay. Slaverywas abolished over 100 years ago. No on alive today was here before that. I know things were still rough for blacks in the 60'and before, even some since, but I don't think anyone should get special treatment based on past circumstances. The white American is the only group in America who doesn't get special treatment. If we try to start an all white organization we get labeled racist. Being overly politically correct is a joke and making this country pitiful.

I'm not racist. I give everyone a chance. But since I was born a white American I have to watch what I say and who I get mad at and who I decide to pick last durin basketball for fear of being accused of a hate crime.

You have hit on something profound. The holy grail pursued by civil rights advocates from the days of Lincoln, and later during the days of Martin Luther King was embodied in the hope that all men would be considered of equal value in the eyes of man and God. That's all the slaves wanted, just to be normal, an every day, run of the mill, average Joe. The white man's equal, not his better. Let's consider what is really going on these days.

There used to be a concept known as reverse discrimination. The idea was that as the result of the perceived sins of the past, white folks were going overboard to sort of make all that up to black people. Even to the point of various members of the Congress of the United States suggesting over time that the federal government should appropriate reparations from the general taxpayer fund and award every black person in America a settlement check as compensation to the slaves. I have noticed of late, that everybody being treated equally is not exactly how we have it in this country these days. How do we know this to be true? Very simply because of all the anti-discrimination laws on the books, and the recent emergence of so-called hate crime laws. The very act of carving out any ethic group, thereby distinguishing them from the while masses, is again an act of discrimination, whether it be positively or negatively, they are still being catagorized by color or (and this one is too weird) sexual orientation. There goes 'normal' out the window again. In fact, the ultimate slam, I call it the nuclear option, for any politician, coach, teacher, boss, police officer, or average citizen is to be accused of being a racist. Usually by one with whom they happen to have a matter of contention.

It's a shame that we managed to trade one kind of discriminatory behavior for a different kind of discriminatory behavior. Here's what I mean. If Jackie Robinson is the greatest baseball player of all time, then he is the greatest of all time. If Lt Col Allen West is a great statesman and Congressman, and Ronald Reagan was the greatest president since FDR, then that is what they are. Same thing is true with lawyers, teachers, trades people and on and on. But, many times we see that folks of color, or sexual orientation are afforded special considerations as if they are owed something based on a physical characteristic, or a social decision they may have made that separates them from normal behavior. (I mean after all, God has already taken credit for our every physical detail in Psalm 139:16 (KJV) 16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.) And in no way am I suggesting with my Bible referrence that God is assuming any responsibility for people making the choice to live a lifestyle which characterizes open rebellion to Him, in living a life which involves acts of homosexuality. But, back to my point, one doesn't win the world series by featuring players according to race or sexual orientation. He wins by putting the best players on the field. Same way with every aspect of life. Some folks just do things better than their fellows. In short, success should be based on performance. I know I want the best scientists and industry hardware manufacturers designing any anti-ballistic missile system that defends this county. Let the also-rans head up the defense systems of our foes, LOL.

No, it seems we are still confused and the evidence of that is what we see here. Further, if we continue to elect liberal minded politicians to high office we will continue to witness the destruction of equality via the correct route which, is equality of opportunity here in this land. That is certainly the way Jackie Robinson made his mark. These days, the federal government is so consumed with carving out exceptions to the rule of law they have time for little else. This fact is strongly in evidence when one reviews the list of legislative priorities Obama has decided are his top priorities to push through. The green energy agenda, anti-fossil fuel measures such as Cap and Trade, DADT, the often overlooked nation killing immigration policies, or lack of them, ObamaCare (which contains sweeping abortion rights goodies and funding), Gun Control, and a rabid expansion of the welfare system while maintaining a rigid stance against spending cuts all the while cleverly transferring the blame for the coming 23 trillion dollar deficit on republicans.

People aren't as stupid as Obama thinks they are, they realize all the federal meddling based on ethnicity and sexual orientation has the effect of rendering the laws of our land both toothless and trifling. Ask yourself why terrorists suddenly have the courage to murder American Ambassadors stationed overseas? The whole world knows and recognizes the weakness that now personifies our land. We have replaced Uncle Sam and his "terrible swift sword" with John Lennon and a peace pipe filled with recently legalized marijuana, LOL. Oh yeah, what an enlightened people we have become! Reassessing our need of so much military might in this day of enlightenment, we have decided we'll just send out one of our heavy hitters to talk them into submission, Obama, Nancy Pelosi or Charlie Rangel should fill the bill. :Thumbs:

[RunItUpTheGut]

It never ceases to amaze me at how much the gays beg for and how much attention they beg for.

Maybe thats what screwed them up and made them gay, mommy and daddy didnt show them enough attention and love nicker:

[vundy33]

How are we giving anything special to certain groups? All mean are created equal right, no more no less? Well, military heterosexual couples get these same benefits, so why shouldn't military homosexual coupls get the same?

They are still serving our country, something most of you here have never done, will never do, and could never do (not an insult, just a fact, less than 2% of American's have served their country and less that 15% are even capable of it). Do you respect their service to OUR Nation less because they're gay?

[crazytaxidriver]

I didn't say they shouldn't get the same benefits. I said they shouldn't get any more or any less.

Go to the original post. Right under the word excerpt read the first sentence. That's what I was referring to.

I actually tried to join the service, but couldn't because of medical conditions. So while you are correct that most people never have done, never will do, or never could, there are people who got turned away.

[TheRealThing]

How are we giving anything special to certain groups? All mean are created equal right, no more no less? Well, military heterosexual couples get these same benefits, so why shouldn't military homosexual coupls get the same?

They are still serving our country, something most of you here have never done, will never do, and could never do (not an insult, just a fact, less than 2% of American's have served their country and less that 15% are even capable of it). Do you respect their service to OUR Nation less because they're gay?

No, military heterosexual couples do not get those same benefits, they have to be legally married. Seriously. You're saying that the taxpayers should have to pay for benefits given to boyfriends of gay servicemen, and the girlfriends of gay servicewomen. And that constitutes equal treatment? No significant others ever got any military benefits when I spent my 6 plus years in the Air Force, I can tell you that, if they had, guys would have been dragging good looking hookers home like it was going out of style. If you choose to miss the point that suits me but, let's not kid ourselves. There is nothing equal about gay live-ins getting government benefits.

Let me ask you someting. What happens when the civilian partner of an active member of the US military gets left behind when he/she gets shipped out for an overseas deployment to a combat zone? They get to stay there in base housing and if what's his name unfortunately gets killed, they get those benefits extended for their whole lifetime? Heck, by that rationale, every single straight GI should be able to set up housekeeping with their girlfriends or whoever and those girlfriends should get the same thing. Right?

Like I said, this was always about the official validation of homosexuality as a morally acceptable alternative to the natural relationship God intended between man and woman. And liberals will never lay down and shut up about it. At bare minimum this is discriminatory due to the fact that gay people will get benefits for their shack job.

[vundy33]

I didn't say they shouldn't get the same benefits. I said they shouldn't get any more or any less.

Go to the original post. Right under the word excerpt read the first sentence. That's what I was referring to.

I actually tried to join the service, but couldn't because of medical conditions. So while you are correct that most people never have done, never will do, or never could, there are people who got turned away.

Oh yeah man, that's what I meant by not qualifying.

And I agree, no more no less. Same, if federally approved

[vundy33]

I didn't say they shouldn't get the same benefits. I said they shouldn't get any more or any less.

Go to the original post. Right under the word excerpt read the first sentence. That's what I was referring to.

I actually tried to join the service, but couldn't because of medical conditions. So while you are correct that most people never have done, never will do, or never could, there are people who got turned away.

No, military heterosexual couples do not get those same benefits, they have to be legally married. Seriously. You're saying that the taxpayers should have to pay for benefits given to boyfriends of gay servicemen, and the girlfriends of gay servicewomen. And that constitutes equal treatment? No significant others ever got any military benefits when I spent my 6 plus years in the Air Force, I can tell you that, if they had, guys would have been dragging good looking hookers home like it was going out of style. If you choose to miss the point that suits me but, let's not kid ourselves. There is nothing equal about gay live-ins getting government benefits.

Let me ask you someting. What happens when the civilian partner of an active member of the US military gets left behind when he/she gets shipped out for an overseas deployment to a combat zone? They get to stay there in base housing and if what's his name unfortunately gets killed, they get those benefits extended for their whole lifetime? Heck, by that rationale, every single straight GI should be able to set up housekeeping with their girlfriends or whoever and those girlfriends should get the same thing. Right?

Like I said, this was always about the official validation of homosexuality as a morally acceptable alternative to the natural relationship God intended between man and woman. And liberals will never lay down and shut up about it. At bare minimum this is discriminatory due to the fact that gay people will get benefits for their shack job.

No TRT, I mean they should get the same benefits IF they're legally married. My girlfriends never got a thing from the Army unless I gave it to them, lol.

They should not get anything unless they're married, and that's federal of course. But if they are able to be legally married, they should get same benefits of course.

[TheRealThing]

No TRT, I mean they should get the same benefits IF they're legally married. My girlfriends never got a thing from the Army unless I gave it to them, lol.

They should not get anything unless they're married, and that's federal of course. But if they are able to be legally married, they should get same benefits of course.

Whew! I thought you had slipped completely over onto the dark side there for a while. I don't even agree that the married partners should get benefits but, that is part of the genius behind the implimentation of the liberal agenda. Every journey begins with the first step they say. The secret is in gaining what seems to be an insignificant legal victory. Then, just as in the case of legallized abortion on-demand, when the courts only legallized abortion in the case of rape, incest, danger to mother, people thought, things might still be okay. Though at the time, the vast majority of voters, let alone legislators, were vehemently opposed to abortion, the percieved baby step authorized by the court was merely the key clever liberals then used to open the floodgates for 55 million abortions for any reason imaginable, including just because.

Another baby step was taken with the passage of DADT. Therefore, we are now discussing a full range of benefits for these folks, because sexually depraved lifestyles have been validated as embodied and endorsed by the federal government, of which, God has so ardently and clearly warned that He will judge anybody and everybody who has anything to do with, namely the sin of homosexuality.

[vundy33]

To be honest I'm more worried about women in combat MOS's. I'm not sexist, we know this, but there's problems with it. Mainly that the Physical Standards just to stay in the Army are still different.

[Hoot Gibson]

To be honest I'm more worried about women in combat MOS's. I'm not sexist, we know this, but there's problems with it. Mainly that the Physical Standards just to stay in the Army are still different.

Just a personal observation, but it seems like I see more overweight women in uniform than men. The guys I work with work hard to keep in shape to pass their PT tests. Does it seem to you that the standards may have been relaxed a little too much for uniformed Army women to keep their numbers up?

It seems like the standards should be higher for people who are preparing to deploy than they are for those who are unlikely to see combat.

[TheRealThing]

To be honest I'm more worried about women in combat MOS's. I'm not sexist, we know this, but there's problems with it. Mainly that the Physical Standards just to stay in the Army are still different.

Agree, they're gonna wind up getting a bunch of them killed. Despite what the la-la's are saying, our military will be put to the test. I hope it isn't soon but, it's just the time in history in which we live. I'm worried that what is coming will make Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan look like small potatoes.

[vundy33]

If it does, I am definitely confident in our troop's ability to kick all types of ass.

[vector]

Just a personal observation, but it seems like I see more overweight women in uniform than men. The guys I work with work hard to keep in shape to pass their PT tests. Does it seem to you that the standards may have been relaxed a little too much for uniformed Army women to keep their numbers up?

It seems like the standards should be higher for people who are preparing to deploy than they are for those who are unlikely to see combat.

so you do depend on the government for your paycheck :biglmao:

[Hoot Gibson]

so you do depend on the government for your paycheck :biglmao:

I work for a private company that provides services to the military and I have never claimed otherwise. I support the military every day because national security is one of the few services that the federal government is constitutionally mandated to provide.

The first day of the month is like any other day for me. Remember that when you leave your couch to file into Wal-Mart next week. :biglmao:

[vector]

so you are just 1 of the 47 % hh:

[Hoot Gibson]

so you are just 1 of the 47 % hh:

Your ignorance is on full display again, vector, but when is it not?

[vector]

Your ignorance is on full display again, vector, but when is it not?

let me see if I am right if the us government would cut the program that your private company works for you would be without a job hmmm

[Hoot Gibson]

let me see if I am right if the us government would cut the program that your private company works for you would be without a job hmmm

That is a simply brilliant observation, vector! If the federal government terminated its contract with my employer, I might be without a job for awhile. (The company for which I work has many clients. I just happened to be assigned to a federal contract at the moment.) However, I normally get contacted at least a couple times a week by competing companies as other jobs in my field become available.

Let me see if I am right if the us government stopped sending you a monthly check and other freebies it would be the end of life as you know it hmmmmm

[TheRealThing]

That is a simply brilliant observation, vector! If the federal government terminated its contract with my employer, I might be without a job for awhile. (The company for which I work has many clients. I just happened to be assigned to a federal contract at the moment.) However, I normally get contacted at least a couple times a week by competing companies as other jobs in my field become available.

Let me see if I am right if the us government stopped sending you a monthly check and other freebies it would be the end of life as you know it hmmmmm

Hoot, I wouldn't sweat it too much. Not that many find their niche in today's world at the local level. Much less inside the beltway, literally the center of governance for the free world and the highest source of influence for the planet. None the less, I find myself in awe of what vector's life must be like. The James Bond of the holler. nicker:

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot, I wouldn't sweat it too much. Not that many find their niche in today's world at the local level. Much less inside the beltway, literally the center of governance for the free world and the highest source of influence for the planet. None the less, I find myself in awe of what vector's life must be like. The James Bond of the holler. nicker:

:Thumbs: My guess is that the highlight of vector's life is a monthly trip to Wal-Mart and checking his lottery ticket numbers at the end of the day. Then it's back up the holler to restart the countdown: 30 days, 29 days, ... :biggrin:

The DC area is one of a very few areas in this country where you can hop on a train or drive a few minutes and listen to industry leaders discuss breaking technology free of charge. For software developers, this is still a land of unlimited opportunity, but you have to surround yourself with experts if you want to become one. For most of us, that means living and working in areas like Silicon Valley, near DC, Austin, and Cambridge, MA.

[Granny Bear]

Agree, they're gonna wind up getting a bunch of them killed. Despite what the la-la's are saying, our military will be put to the test. I hope it isn't soon but, it's just the time in history in which we live. I'm worried that what is coming will make Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan look like small potatoes.

I agree, and it scares me. It could be the end of the world war; it's about time for that one.

As far as women in the military are concerned, if they are being deployed to active combat locations, then they should exact identical PT regulations as men...IMO. NO manipulations in the rules or qualifications just because they're female. If they can't hang with the PT (or any other training for that matter), then they don't need to be with the people who can!!

[RunItUpTheGut]

One day, there are certain groups who will wish they hadnt asked for equal rights.


I suppose this mean, for fairness and equality, I, as a taxpaying, working, American, can say that i dont want to pay taxes unless everyone has to work and pay them, correct?

[vundy33]

Just a personal observation, but it seems like I see more overweight women in uniform than men. The guys I work with work hard to keep in shape to pass their PT tests. Does it seem to you that the standards may have been relaxed a little too much for uniformed Army women to keep their numbers up?

It seems like the standards should be higher for people who are preparing to deploy than they are for those who are unlikely to see combat.

Sorry Hoot, I didn't see your post last night for some reason.

I'm not really sure of there's more, but ALOT, like their are men. Thankfully, the Navy and Air Force have a much bigger weight problem than he Army and Marine Corps, but the Army has it's own that's getting bad.

I'm sure in the 2000's with the multiple quick troops surges we needed that standees for both men and women relaxed a bit. But it's gotten to a pathetic point.

The minimum time an 18-21 year old male has to run their 2 mile part of their PT (Physical Training) test in the Army (our biggest service by 500,000 easily) is 16:30. 16 and a half minutes to run two miles! I ran it in 13 when I was in as an just above 14 now. For women 18-21, it is 17+! Around 17:30 or 40 I think. As the older you get, the easier it it gets.

How can we expect women to be up to par with us in infantry and other combat MOS's when they're PT standards are TOTALLY different??! It's ridiculous ya know?

Another thing is that IMO and alot of others, men *sometimes* will do stupid things for a female in combat that they wouldn't normally do. Again, this isn't every time. But I have literally seen it with my own eyes from a good, young soldier. Although I think we as an Army and military can get over that sort of automatic response to help a female over a male with the right training and leadership.

But it starts with making the same PT standards for both men and women! ESPECIALLY for a combat MOS! If we make the standards the same, I am completely and perfectly fine with it...because of course all women won't be able to make it, just like all men can't even come close to making it.

I don't buy the stuff about women getting tortured worse because they have a vagina. Not many enemy's around the work will execute an American soldier because they know the pure hell that will come down on them. The Al-Qaeda insurgents that kidnapped Jessica Lynch in Iraq in 2003 literally all died in less than 2 minutes when a joint Special Operations team full of the baddest dudes on earth came through their door to get Lynch, and apparently she hasn't even been raped or tortured.

Sorry to change the subject a bit lol, but if ya want to talk problems that are directly affecting our armed forces and more importantly our war fighting units, then this is definitely one of them IMO.

[Westside]

How are we giving anything special to certain groups? All mean are created equal right, no more no less? Well, military heterosexual couples get these same benefits, so why shouldn't military homosexual coupls get the same?

They are still serving our country, something most of you here have never done, will never do, and could never do (not an insult, just a fact, less than 2% of American's have served their country and less that 15% are even capable of it). Do you respect their service to OUR Nation less because they're gay?

Very good post. :Thumbs:

[TheRealThing]

One day, there are certain groups who will wish they hadnt asked for equal rights.


I suppose this mean, for fairness and equality, I, as a taxpaying, working, American, can say that i dont want to pay taxes unless everyone has to work and pay them, [B]correct? [/B]

Totally correct. They have a habit of over simplifying some pretty complex issues in DC by adopting catch phrases. It so happens that there is a popular one these days dealing with government assisted success, whether at the personal level in programs such as affirmative action and other legislative triumphs like special assistance programs available only to latinos, blacks, east indians, legal and illegal aliens, and in some cases women only and of course, in the case of the US Armed Services, the repeal of DADT. And at the corporate level, with companies such as A123 and Solyndra. The act of selecting who will recieve this government assured success is called "picking winners."

Picking winners has become our legislature's whole world. It's everything liberal leaders and this president ever think about. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, all the New England delegation, the so-called black caucus and Obama, who together govern as if all that matters is mother earth and secular humanism. Hence, the passage of all the social programs for which these folks, especially Obama, will be immortalized. I believe America's future is shaky at best. History none the less, will not be kind to this administration for it's propensity for arrogant self enlightenment. Additionally, the way liberal dems have plotted to fan the flames of discontent, which inspired the masses to blame republicans for what they perceive as personal lack, rather than touting equality of opportunity. Which, is the true gift of America to her people. Not freebies.

Your point is very well taken. Everybody should contribute something in the form of taxes. Otherwise, we are not a republic but are rather a socialist society. The whole process by which government awards material wealth to folks is a form of justice. Leaving the idea of a viable safety net out of the discussion. It's getting what one deserves but, in the opposite way justice works in the criminal system. In the criminal system, we validate or justify the severity of penalty one must suffer for actions deemed to be an offense to this society through the process of a criminal court proceeding, which BTW is held to a very high standard to prove actual guilt of the accused. Same thing happens with regard to social justice. The recipients of welfare are deemed to have been robbed of substance they are entitled to by virtue of comparison to what those considered to be middle class typically possess. There you have it folks, the basis for the notion of distribution of wealth. Like I said. ObamaCare, the redistribution of wealth, the repeal of DADT, all mandates of social justice. Of of which are 180 degrees out of agreement with the traditional values of America in the years which make up the historical record pre-Obama.

[TheRealThing]

Very good post. :Thumbs:

You must have missed the part where Vundy corrected his post I guess. The assumptions he made initially did not factually apply to the Panetta mandate in question.

[WideMiddle03]

let me see if I am right if the us government would cut the program that your private company works for you would be without a job hmmm

[Image: http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/pic...tureid=554]

[RunItUpTheGut]

Totally correct. They have a habit of over simplifying some pretty complex issues in DC by adopting catch phrases. It so happens that there is a popular one these days dealing with government assisted success, whether at the personal level in programs such as affirmative action and other legislative triumphs like special assistance programs available only to latinos, blacks, east indians, legal and illegal aliens, and in some cases women only and of course, in the case of the US Armed Services, the repeal of DADT. And at the corporate level, with companies such as A123 and Solyndra. The act of selecting who will recieve this government assured success is called "picking winners."

Picking winners has become our legislature's whole world. It's everything liberal leaders and this president ever think about. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, all the New England delegation, the so-called black caucus and Obama, who together govern as if all that matters is mother earth and secular humanism. Hence, the passage of all the social programs for which these folks, especially Obama, will be immortalized. I believe America's future is shaky at best. History none the less, will not be kind to this administration for it's propensity for arrogant self enlightenment. Additionally, the way liberal dems have plotted to fan the flames of discontent, which inspired the masses to blame republicans for what they perceive as personal lack, rather than touting equality of opportunity. Which, is the true gift of America to her people. Not freebies.

Your point is very well taken. Everybody should contribute something in the form of taxes. Otherwise, we are not a republic but are rather a socialist society. The whole process by which government awards material wealth to folks is a form of justice. Leaving the idea of a viable safety net out of the discussion. It's getting what one deserves but, in the opposite way justice works in the criminal system. In the criminal system, we validate or justify the severity of penalty one must suffer for actions deemed to be an offense to this society through the process of a criminal court proceeding, which BTW is held to a very high standard to prove actual guilt of the accused. Same thing happens with regard to social justice. The recipients of welfare are deemed to have been robbed of substance they are entitled to by virtue of comparison to what those considered to be middle class typically possess. There you have it folks, the basis for the notion of distribution of wealth. Like I said. ObamaCare, the redistribution of wealth, the repeal of DADT, all mandates of social justice. Of of which are 180 degrees out of agreement with the traditional values of America in the years which make up the historical record pre-Obama.

Bingo.
Government assistance programs were established for those in need, Seniors, Disabled, and unemployed, only after working.
I fully believe that when the idea of a capitalist government was set up, the ideal of government assistance was never meant to include those who are just to sorry to work, nor was it set up to provide something like a cell phone.
There is absoloutly no reason that we should have changed the fundamentalist ideals. You came here, legally, to live the American dream, not to get a free ride. If you failed, you starved, or you left. The amount of money we are wasting on programs while overspending is eventually going to be the downfall of this nation, maybe even in our lifetime. Until we stop worrying about immigration, gay marriage, and whether or not everyone is being treated "fairly", we must get back on the track to entrepreneurship and making something of yourself, were never going to get out of debt. We went threw a time in this country where we actually enslaved people just because of there color, and its astonishing that these nutty groups are more radical over minor issues, than worrying about getting out of debt and preventing hyper inflation and a bankrupt government.
Anyways you slice it, it comes down to the curse of allowing liberalism. IMO, its time for the good dems to take back over there party and get rid of these nuts.