Open Political Discourse

Even some Jews in the Reich sympathized with the Nazis. Heck, there are even some gay Republicans. You will also find people who hate themselves and their backgrounds enough to associate themselves with evil. BEFORE YOU BASH ME YET AGAIN...I'm not saying that you hate yourself. I'm just pointing out a fault in your logic.

That's mighty big of you! Now if we--as a great country--just did not force our children to recite "under God" in our schools, have federal money going to faith-based organizations that Bush says are "qualified," and stop quoting the Bible's verses when calling things we dis-liked un-American. The difference between you and me is that, while we both agree that our country is great, I believe that we can make it even greater by having more, not less, liberty and justice for all.

 

Bashing you? What do you call your attacks on me in this forum?

How about you answer a couple of questions with facts instead of grandiose statements?

What part of the constitution specifically provides homosexuals the right to Marriage? I am not talking about equal protection under things like power of attorney, medical directives, or other legal matters (which they already have), but I am referring specifically to the institution of Marriage.

Have you actually read the seperation clause in the constitution? It states and I qoute "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This does not mean that a government entity may not host, participate in, or fund a religious organization. It specifically pervents Congress from establishing an official religion of the US. It also directs Congress that they may make no laws that prevent either people or states from exercising their religion. Such as putting the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, allowing Nativity scenes on public property, or funding religious-based organizations.

Do you support legislation that makes it two murders if you kill a woman and her unborn child?

 

I actually agree with you with respect to blind faith religion. I find it ironic that Christians, Jews and Muslims all belive in the same god but, It's the religion that causes the fighting.

That statement is a good reflection of the fast food, instant gratification type of society we have become. How long was WW2? How many lives (civilian and combatant) did that war against tyranny and genocide cost? Are you saying it wasn't worth it? We need to learn from history. The world just sat by and watched as the Nazis ignored sanctions imposed on Germany after WW1. Had the world community stepped in earlier how many millions of deaths could have been prevented?

But, not under Carter (when adjusted for inflation). Gas prices in the late 70's and early 1980, in today's dollars were about $2.80 a gallon. When you consider inflation and the increase in family income we really aren't paying much more than we have throughout history.

 

What part of the U.S. Constitution specifically grants anyone the right to marry? Please cite it. While you are at it, please cite for me the article or amendment of the U.S. Constitution that outlaws terrorist attacks like 9-11?

Also, if we captured bin Laden or a male Islamic terrorist and brought him back to the U.S. for prosection, he could choose to marry a woman legally. Why aren't you calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution about that?

I find it beyond reproach that Bush, you, and others who follow your political beliefs think that letting any two consenting adults lead a life together is WORSE than 9-11 or the terrorists who spawned that atrocity.

 

On that same note. There are many instances that we deprive a certain group of people of some constitutional right because the prevailing belief is that it is best for our society as a whole. For example we do not allow people of some religions to have more than one spouse. Does that not violate their right to fully practice their religion? It's against the law for a 20 year old to have a beer yet they are legally considered an adult citizen. Is that not a violation of the 4th amendment right to equal protection of the law?

I agree. That part of the the constitution means we have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.

 

Thank you, OP.

Bush's war in Iraq is quite different from WWII. How can you even begin to make such a random connection? We fought for our lives and our allies' lives in WWII. In Bush's war in Iraq, we've spent at least $120 billion to satisfy Bush's desire for revenge for what Saddam did to make Bush's "deddy" look incompetent.

A more apt analogy is Vietnam. I'm not surprised that you failed to mention that example.

Finally, if both you and VW believe in Bush's war so darn much, why aren't you over there fighting for your beliefs? Do you support the War in concept but not in action?

(For the record, I have family in the service and ON THE GROUND in Iraq. I pray every night--and often throughout the day--that Bush, Cheney, and Halliburton do not kill a single one of them.)

 

Where is that found in the U.S. Constitution. Please cite. When you actually read it (you have read it, correct?), you may be surprised to see what is there and what is not. Just as you don't follow religion blindly, you may not want to follow your Republican leadership blindly. I doubt many of them have ever read it.

 

It was the Democrats that got us into that one wasn't it?

The army won't take me. I'm too darn old [xx(]

I have family on the ground here and I pray every night--and often throughout the day that they don't become victims of a terroist attack.

 

I never said it was in the constitution. If you had read and followed the thread you would understand. People have stated that denying same sex marriage is a violation of the 4th amendment right to equal protection under the law. I was giving examples where this happens quite often.
As far as "My Republican Leadership", as you put it, I have stated here in the past that I do not belive in political parties. I am an independent. My voting record ranges from Dubya to Barbara Mikulski (when I lived in Maryland). I will admit I voted for Dubya in the last election not because I felt he was so good but because I felt he would do less damage than Gore. It looks like the next election will require the same thought process. Neither Bush nor Kerry excite me at this point.

 

Random connection? Let's see... We have a dictator who has complete disregard for sanctions place on his country by the world community. A dictator who practices and sanctions state sponsored genocide. A dictator who has made clear his intentions of "annexing" neighboring countries. You say WW2 was different because we were fighting for our lives and the lives of our allies. Had the world community stepped up to it's responsibility earlier and taken care of the Nazi problem it never would have become a "world" war. It's that same apathetic appeasement many of our allies have toward Iraq. In a way we are fighting for the lives of our allies because they are too apathetic to fight for their own.
If you are a Kurd living in what's left of a village in northern Iraq. Most of your family either gassed en mas or executed simply because of your ethnicity. Would you rather see sanctions or someone come in and help you rid your country of the tyrant?

 

Chris, for the record. I currently work for the US Army. I have mnay friends who are serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations, and I have lost 1 since the start of the war. If I was asked (and there is a good possibility that I will have to go over to the sandbox in the near future) I would not hesitate to go. My wife is an officer in the reserves as well. So this affects me personally as much as anyone else.

 

OP, while I'm glad to see that you do not favor murdering people based on their ethnicity, I am still shocked that you would let bin Laden get married and not let an American soldier who had proudly and bravely served his/her country solely because you not approve of his/her choice of a mate.

Choosing to treat a group of people like an under-class is just what Hitler did to the Jews before he gassed them. Bush wants an entire group of people in the U.S. to be treated like an under-class and to wear a figurative "yellow star" just due to his on bigotry. Will he call for them to be rounded up and put in concentration camps next? You're a big beleiver in learning from history, so isn't this a logical conclusion? Furthermore, your admitted association with Bush shows that you would support this if it were to occur.

 

ROTFLMAO
Chris only you could take a statement about Saddam gassing his own people and twist it into allowing Bin Laden to marry. Besides, you are wrong about that. Bin Laden already has several wives. It would be unlawful for him to marry in this country even though his religion allows it. As I said before. Some individual rights get superceded by the rights of society in general. Society feels polygamy is not acceptable therefore an individual's right to practice their particular religion to the fullest by practicing polygamy is denied. Society in general feels same sex marriage is not acceptable, therefore their rights under the 4th amendment with respect to that issue are denied.

 

No, I am quite correct. If bin Laden divorced all of the wives in his harem, was captured and brought to the U.S. for prosection, he could marry a woman of his choosing. However, an American soldier who served his/her country bravely in Iraq or Afghanistan (but who happens to be different from you in a way that you disapprove of) would not have the right to marry another consenting adult.

 

Chris:

I see I have a lot of catching up to do, but I'll start with your response to me. Unless I missed something, I was not aware that Pat Robertson held a position in the GOP. That would make it kind of difficult for Bush to "kick him out" of the party. True, he ran for President 16 years ago as a Republican, but you may recall he never actually became President. As I remember, he had one good day (Iowa), before being sent back home smarting pretty badly. I don't believe he has ever been elected to anything before or since. This, I guess, despite his being the chief spokesman for all Republicans. (For the record, I voted for the current President's "deddy" in the 1988 primary).

I must give you credit, however, for picking up on my "cultural" reference. You're starting to pay closer attention.

The thrust of the comments, which I believe came in an interview between Robertson and Falwell, was that it was unwise to mock God by promoting the secularization of society, in contradiction to our founding, and the abortion of more than a million children every year. Yes, I do believe that these are cultural problems that should be fought against. But as I said before, I don't agree that they, (neither of which has anything to do with allowing only people who are "white, straight or male" to have rights), caused God to allow our enemies to attack us, as Pat and Jerry asserted.

So yes, I am a social conservative who believes that there are some bad things going on that we should stop. Not because we'll suffer more attacks from psychos, but because our society benefits when people practice their religions and suffers when we devalue human life.

 

And pigs could fly if they had wings.

 

OK, take this for instance: The NSA (Dr. Rice) yesterday said that there are aQ terrorists in the U.S. Anyone of those American-hating terrorists could marry a woman. Why not have an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prevent that? Dutch, VW, and Brooks: why have you not asked for that? Is terrorism less of an issue for you people that two people making a life with each other? Seemingly so! Bush and you people want a culture war, not what is best for the country.

 

Let me try to understand this, Chris. A constitutional amendment to ban al Qaeda terrorists from marrying. I suppose that means when they head over to city hall, we say something like "Nice try, but you're a terrorist, so we can't help you here." That should get 'em. I can't speak for Dutch and vw, but I think the reason I haven't proposed such an amendment is probably because if we've gotten to the point of identifying them as terrorists, I would prefer to just kill them.

 

I'm relieved you are now getting your quoteworthy news from a source other than conversations overheard at Starbucks. And I was wondering when you were finally getting around to judging me along with so many other of our neighbors on this board.

 

Chris, I am writing in general support of your views. Would love to have a debate with the people who have posted in this topic in person.

jaeris