Paul and Cruz were playing to people with just the views you express, who want a simple "no" for an answer. So Paul asked a general question about the President's "authority" not policy, even saying he thought the answer was "no." He got schooled on that, and after agreeing that the President has such authority in some circumstances, e.g., to repel to a terrorist attack, he said he really had in mind a specific question about coffee drinkers, to which he got his simple "no." Whew!

Yet the grandstander rails on. "The debate is not over!" he valiantly declares. Bully show! He won't take yes--or actually no--for an answer, at least not until the spotlight fades and he no longer has any reason to bother.

Holder responded to Paul's hypothetical, saying it is possible to imagine an extraordinary circumstance calling for military use of lethal force against citizens in the U.S. Duh! Civil War. Yet Paul grandstands, conceding Holder's point and suggesting another question: "Nobody questions if planes are flying towards the Twin Towers whether they can be repulsed by the military. Nobody questions whether a terrorist with a rocket launcher or a grenade launcher is attacking us, whether they can be repelled." Holder responded: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" His answer: "no." Again, duh! So, Paul and Holder agree--except for the grandstanding.

Uh, Guy, Obama suggested the sequester not because he thought the cuts were good, but because he thought they were so obviously bad that even a gridlocked Congress would be compelled to come up with a real alternative in order to avoid them. But Congress has so far failed to do so. Accordingly, Obama rightfully takes Congress to task and again urges it to do its job. To suggest that Obama thereby "denounces his own idea" is just silly. Turn your attention back to the real issue: Congress needs to do its job.

Confusion understandably arises because the constitutional principle of separation of church and state is sometimes equated with a widely supported political doctrine that generally calls for political dialogue to be conducted on grounds other than religion. This political doctrine, of course, is not “law” (unlike the constitutional separation of church and state, which is), but rather is a societal norm concerning how we can best conduct political dialogue in a religiously diverse society. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the doctrine is a good idea or not and whether or how it should influence us in particular circumstances.

Actually, because employers would save money by paying the assessments, which would be much less than what employers otherwise would pay for health insurance, and because the law affords their employees realistic opportunities to obtain insurance on their own, many employers are considering this option--for reasons entirely unrelated to religion. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443437504577545770682810842.html) So much for the claim employers are "forced" to provide such insurance. Simply not true.

Biden has it right. Chaput's claim that the health law violates religious liberty is based on a "big lie"--a gross falsification constantly repeated and embellished to lend credibility. Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the health care law does not force employers to act contrary to their consciences. Employers may comply with the law by choosing either of two options: (1) provide qualifying health insurance plans or (2) do not provide such plans and instead pay assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers’ religions forbid payments of money to the government, the law does not compel them to act contrary to their beliefs.

This has become tedious. You but state what I already understood you to believe (to be the meaning of "substantive" that is). My meaning (and, if you recall the beginning of this thread, that is what we are talking about) was otherwise. Again, you can look it up in a dictionary--and learn the term's meaning in the sense that I used it. I'm not arguing with you about my meaning; I'm telling you.

Diagram sentences and parse words all you want. All but koolaid drinkers listening to President Obama's remarks will hear him stating the plain truth that each of us achieves success through BOTH our individual efforts and the support of others, including government. It is so simple and obvious, one can but wonder why the right has wrapped itself around the axle over this. I understand that some, perhaps those parsing words and diagramming sentences, would like to imagine Obama actually meaning that individuals have had no part in their own success. Even to say that out loud is to invite derisive laughter--and rightfully (pun intended) so. If Obama's opponents choose to predicate their opposition on such nonsense, more power to them.

You confuse disagreement with non-substantive. A substantive point does not become less so just because someone disagrees with it.