Open Political Discourse

jaeris: Thank you! I'm glad to hear that I'm not alone on here. A live debate would be a wonderful thing. I wonder if the HOA would want to sponsor an ad hoc committee to debate the future of the Broadlands and its place in Lo. Co., Virginia, the U.S, and the world.

VW/Brooks/Dutch: My point about amendments to the U.S. Constitution is that I think that there are worse things in this country than putting the state in the middle of personal relationships. I like less government interference rather than more. Also, I like to value state rights over federal rights. (Remember when Republicans actually believed this, too?!?) Is the issue of marriage THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING to the country? To listen to the "Holy Trio" (or Holier-Than-Thou to be accurate) that you three represent and your bigotry-filled views that you espouse, it must be because that's the only amendment to the U.S. Constitution that you're riled up about...

 

Listen Chris, I've been debating you on your views concerning the School Budget and your incomprehensible bilge about Bin Laden marrying an American. How you made the leap about me espousing bigotry-filled views is reprehensible and I am expecting an apology and a retraction of the above post. Man, they can't get the "ignore poster" feature on here fast enough.

 

CHRIS: I'm not a liberal or a conservative but I can say that I think that your views are moderate. I share a great many of them. It's a shame to see the extreme religious fundamentalism being used in an attempt to change the constitution.

 

Dutch, don't hold your breath.

 

Chris, again you powers of perception and assumption are amazing. Where did I state in any message that I had a position in one way ot another on a consitutional amendemnt on gay marriage? Hmm.. I never did. You just assume that just like you assume everything else. Until I see what the wording of the actual amendment is, I am neither for or against it. If it is a universal ban on gay marriage then I would not be for it, because (and I guess this is where we agree) I belive in the supremacy of states rights. The problem right now is that the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution has been interpreted as requiring all states to recognize one another's legal proceedings. So in effect if Massachusetts passed legislation recognizing gay marriage, the de facto result would be that all gay marriages recorded in Mass. would have to be recognized by say Virginia even if it's own residents passed a law banning gay marriages. So the current situation is an abridgement of states rights.

What I would support is an amendement that allowed each state to decide the issue of gay marriage for themselves, but that would also specifically prevent any state from having to recognize the marriage if they had legislation banning the practice.

 

Chris,

I don't believe I've said a thing about gay marriage at all (yet). And I'm not holding my breath either waiting for an apology for calling me a bigot. Or waiting for some evidence to support the charge, for that matter.

 

Killer Bee: You are an extremist by EVERY definition of the word. If you are trying to "represent" the Republican party you are giving the other people who are moderate, logical, sane Republicans a bad rap. You are humorous, and most of the time disturbing, to many of us who frequently read these posts!!

 

chelsivia: Killer Bee??? I think you are referring to Chris, right?

 

SK8R: Hey! That's low. In my mind, the worst thing that you can call a person is a "Republican." What a nasty insult. So, please don't associate me with the likes of VW, Brooks5, and OP!

Brooks5: You claim that you are not a bigot. I never called you one (though I said that some of your views are bigoted), but your own rhetoric truly does underscore your radical, right-wing beliefs. For example, you constantly refer to our society's "cultural problems." What are those? Is it women being allowed to vote? People of color owning homes? American soldiers making their choices about whom to live their lives?

Show me how enlightened and moderate you are by answering this. In your opinion, what are the top 3 cultural problems facing the U.S. and which amendments to the U.S. Constitution do you want to stop them? A repeal of the XIII amendment? Maybe the XIX amendment? Or the XV amendment?

 

actually, I was just referring to your extremist beliefs. Wow, you are so over the top. I have many friends that are democrats and they sound nothing like you. YIKES!

 

I guess I am an extremist because I can't stand to see anyone discrimated against, think our culture is the greatest on the Earth (and that it did not cause 9-11 as some Republicans have said), and dare to question Bush.

 

Chris:

1. Abortion
2. The church/state separation myth
3. Janet Jackson

Don't know what to do about number 3, but as to the first two, we probably don't need to amend the constitution. Just find some judges who know how to read it.

 

I hesitate to jump into this fray, because of the ardent and often extreme positions of some here (in my opinion). However, as a lawyer and moderate Republican, I do think that MOST courts do understand the church/state separation issue (item #2 on Brook5's list) rather well...

The vast majority of judicial decisions (particularly by the U.S. Supreme Court over the last 20 years) support the notion that spirituality and religion need not be completely walled off from public institutions (government, schools, etc.). In recent years the Supremes have okay'd public vouchers for disadvantaged kids to get religious education, required public schools to permit religious groups to use their facilities in the same manner as other non-school groups do, and permitted federal money to pay for books and computers to religious schools so long as the materials are not used for religious instruction.

So is not that church and state need be completely separated, but that public institutions cannot endorse any one set of religious beliefs over another. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appeals court based in California), is an exception to this, and almost no one expects their decision on the pledge of allegiance (for example) to be sustained by the Supremes.

 

jtarnow:

I am humbled that of all the things displayed on this thread, it is my little remark that has caused you to enter the fray you have been so valiantly resisting. I never would have guessed that mine would be the one issue raised here that would cause a Republican, moderate or otherwise, to finally feel the need to challenge a post.

That said, as a lawyer and conservative Republican, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on how "rather well" the courts understand the separation issue. We'll have to see what happens with the pledge case, but I tend to agree with Justice Scalia's recent comments that lower courts would never have been emboldened to make such decisions without signals from the Supreme Court on this issue. True, the Ninth Circuit has long been a bushel of particularly bad apples, but there have been other examples of unsupportable decisions as well (the Supreme Court's early '90's HS graduation case, the recent Ten Commandments case, etc.).

Our Founders made it clear that what they feared was government, not religion. I just don't agree with you that our courts fully understand this.

 

There's more than one person on here who is a Republican and a lawyer? If you listen to the right-wing, only liberals are attornies. I'm glad to hear that it's not true.

Brooks5: You say, "Our Founders made it clear that what they feared was government, not religion." You're wrong again. What the founders most feared was a government religion. You seem to want that so darned much that I suggest you move to a country like Iran. You also would not have to worry about the other things that you HATE about the U.S.--such as the other things that you have whined about detroying our great country (i.e., women's rights and Janet Jackson's boobs).

From my perspective, you're no different from the Ayatalloh in Iran. For example, you freak out when a woman shows some skin. Are you next going to call for every woman in the Broadlands to wear hijabs (clothing that covers the body and hair of a woman). Maybe we need to change the Virginia flag to get that nekkid harlot of there!?! (PLEASE, WHY WON'T SOMETHING PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN! BOOBS ARE DEADLY!)

Finally, if you hate boobs so darned much, what haven't you called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning them? Isn't that the solution that you and Dubya got for everything?

 

I'm back! Have I missed anything???

 

Yeah, someone has been mixing their medications again. That prince of spin, savior of souls and the soul-less, hugger of trees everywhere, labeler of all people, voice of the voiceless who will put words in everyone's mouth, prophet of gloom and doom, seer of all things that are wrong with the world and the all-knowing who will lead us all out of our darkness and despair and teach us all how to think, believe, and live the rest of our lives has been spouting off a lot of really insightful windbaggery.

 

Dutch: That was some good humor. =-) If you're going to malign me, for gosh's sake, please don't leave out "the one who is unconcerned about boobs"! Since the Republicans want an amendment banning them, I can't believe that you failed to mention that!

OH MY GOD, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!! Stop the evils of the boob now!

 

I see Chris is Republican bashing again and labeling anyone with even the slighest moderate inclinations as "Soldier Murderer".

Chris, how do you live each day with such an obvious hatred towards Republicans? I bet if you put as much energy as you do hating Republicans towards, lets say terrorism, I bet you would could come up with the solution for world peace!

I do find some of what you say interesting but so much of it is political blah blah blah. My GOD, can you not speak of anything else??? Time to give it a rest! PLEASE! I am sure a woman of your intelligence must have some other interests than Bush bludgeoning.
HMMMM, you know, back in school, if someone picked on someone as much as you do with GWB, it meant you had a crush on them. Inquiring minds want to know!.

 

Chris, I realize you're putting a lot of thought into your posts, but nevertheless, I'm starting to get bored with this, so I'm not sure I'll keep responding. And now that you've exposed me as the boob-hating Ayatollah of the Broadlands, what more can I say?

Keep up the good fight. You state your case with grace and elegance. Your party should be proud.