He already is muslim, but he might convert others. Therein lies the danger.

Should've executed him.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, as my potential objection did not raise a Constitutional issue. If, as I think, you are getting at his eligibility, then state your objection plainly, sir.

I like Rubio quite a bit. My main argument against selecting him for VP candidate right now is that it's too early. For one, he hasn't yet completed a full term in the Senate (like Obama). Even though the Democrats would be hypocritical for using this against Rubio, some of us still would like him to have at least the experience of a full term. More importantly than that, however; is this: do we really want to "use up" one of the new shining conservative stars by locking him up in the VP spot for 4-8 years? And after that, all that is left for him is to run for President. Assuming it all works the way we'd want, he'd finish as President at 59 (if my math is correct). Too young! He should be running for President at about that age.

They expired before they could be constitutionally challenged.

As nice as the platform may be, it's a loser. Any vote for a candidate who is not a Republican is just as good as a vote for his or her Democrat opponent. The Republicans may be a terrible disappointment this week, but they're still 100% better than the other choice. Give me a world where a Constitution or Libertarian Party candidate can win, and then we'll talk.

Apparently you haven't actually been paying attention. Where do you get that Tea Partiers are trying to impose some religious dogma? Any time you turn on the TV or radio and they talk about Tea Partiers, it's deficits, spending, taxes, etc. The only religious aspect that may rarely get mentioned is to reiterate that our government was set up to follow the Constitution and God's natural laws. That's hardly religious dogma. There probably is a high representation of Christians among the Tea Partiers, but I would wager that it is most likely because Christians are drawn to pleas for responsible government.

You assume a lot from what I wrote. What I meant is that there would have been a good chance (that's what likely meant when I used it above, not that it would be certain) that had McCain been president instead, Qaddafi probably wouldn't be threatening the Mediterranean airspace and potentially committing war crimes on his own people with a strong leader here. I suspect Qaddafi was totally caught off-guard when the UN authorized the no-fly zone. If France and Britain didn't have the right-leaning leaders that they do, there's no way we would have pushed for the no-fly zone. Yeah, it sounds like Hillary may have been in favor of it, but she couldn't have persuaded Obama on her own. He's been too petrified of being cast in the same...

I think that if John McCain were president, we likely wouldn't see such an issue popping up. Qadaffi thought Obama was essentially neutral to him because, as we all know, Obama is extremely naive when it comes to foreign policy matters. McCain would exhibit a stronger face to the world that would have an effect similar to that of Bush after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Remember, it was likely due to Bush that Qadaffi gave up his nuclear program. The only saving grace I can think of for Obama being elected is that everyone now knows where the Left really truly stands on things, and it has provoked a strong reaction: witness the Tea Party and the enormous effect they had in November. Was it worth all the damage, some likely...

If getting "respect" involves moving the country to more resemble a socialist republic, I'll pass.