posted on July 13, 2004 09:24:46 AM new
Looks as if Congress can't agree on a vote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5416297/
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
[ edited by logansdad on Jul 13, 2004 09:25 AM ]
posted on July 13, 2004 09:39:38 AM new
Logan today on Big Ed Schultz,
"Ed SaysToday on the Show...We'll discuss the Senate debate over a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Plus, could the November presidential election be postponed in the event of a terrorism attack?
Our big news today is we're going live in Miami! Tune in to WINZ-AM 940 for South Florida's progressive talk. "
posted on July 13, 2004 03:18:38 PM new
This is becoming a trend.... the dems should be called the 'block' party.
They're blocking Nader from getting on ballots, so people have another choice.
They've blocking votes for judges to be seated or not.
And now they're blocking this so a vote can't take place. Ah....the courage of their convictions ....something they appear to lack otherwise there would should be no problem with voters knowing exactly what position they take on this issue. so sad....but typical.
posted on July 13, 2004 03:28:19 PM newThey're blocking Nader from getting on ballots, so people have another choice.
No they're not. Some have only tried to keep nader off ballots he is legally not supposed to be on.
They've blocking votes for judges to be seated or not.
They have filled more vacancies than the republicans allowed for Clinton appointees. Looks like the Republicans are just getting some of thier own medicine. BTW, the harry Truman "do nothing" Congree argument won't work. Bush isn't even a patch on Truman's pants.
And now they're blocking this so a vote can't take place. Ah....the courage of their convictions ....something they appear to lack otherwise there would should be no problem with voters knowing exactly what position they take on this issue. so sad....but typical.
Nothing wrong with blocking a repugnant bill. Polls show the majority of Americans don't want a Constitutional Amendment anyway.
posted on July 13, 2004 03:35:53 PM newNothing wrong with blocking a repugnant bill. Polls show the majority of Americans don't want a Constitutional Amendment anyway.
LOL Oh yes....according to the you...there's nothing wrong with blocking a vote IF you don't agree with the subject. Let a few decide what the public wants. IF they all did that we wouldn't need our system of government at all....we could just rely on the *polls* to set National policy.
posted on July 13, 2004 03:43:42 PM new
Here's another BIG laugh from logansdad's article:
Allard's opponents say there is no need to amend the Constitution. They say there is no likelihood that same-sex marriage will spread beyond Massachusetts, the only state where it is now legal.
You've gotta find that statement laughable. ....they haven't heard about nor read about what's been going on all over this country in the past year with activist judges allowing JUST that?....maybe they've been on some isolated island in some other country and that's why they haven't a clue.
posted on July 13, 2004 04:24:03 PM new
Well Linda what do you have to fear, 39 of 50 states already have passed laws. I guess that is not good enough for you or you really are afraid the courts will find those laws unconstitutional. Why else would Bush want to pass a constitutional amendment?
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 13, 2004 04:36:41 PM new
Linda must regulate all details of your life to conform to her narrow view. How you think, what you say, how you say it, when you say it, and where you say it. What you get, how you get it and where you get it.
Forget that she wants to trample your rights, be polite.
posted on July 13, 2004 04:57:57 PM new
What do I fear logansdad? Fear almost nothing except kerry, a candidate for President who sold out his country while it was at war....and might be in the position to do it again.
39 of 50 who have passed laws. And more are working to so so too. My point exactly. And it's the activist judges that are not abiding by the laws the people of the states have passed who obviously need to have clear guidelines. They need to be reminded they are there to inforce the laws....not change laws by a whim they get. That's the legislatures job.
posted on July 13, 2004 05:08:03 PM newLinda must regulate all details of your life to conform to her narrow view.
Nope....that would be oh so wrong. The democratic party is the one doing all the 'controlling'...by all their blocking, rather than by allowing our democratic process function how the way it's meant to.
I have strong opinions and beliefs, yes....but I support our system...letting the people speak...letting our elected representatives vote...rather than a few blocking the whole voting process all together. If issues go to a vote...and I don't like the way the vote turned out...I can live with that - our process worked.
What I can't live with is a party that continually takes more and more actions to silence/stop the ability of our voices/choices to be heard. And that's what the dems are doing.
Re-elect President Bush!!
posted on July 13, 2004 05:15:16 PM newletting our elected representatives vote
The representatives in Massachusetts voted or I should say allowed gay marriages but you were not happy with that now were you Linda.
Oh but the people and the elected officials did not vote. It was the elected officials who enforce the laws that gave their interpretation of the law. I guess that is different for you.
The judges said gay marriages are legal based on the law, but your "elected represntatives" did not like how the law was written so they decide to change.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 13, 2004 05:20:49 PM new
Linda - PLease explain to me how your assertion that Dems are the root of all evil and specifically esponsible for this specific situation, jibes with this statement....
Senators in both parties who want to avoid casting an election-year vote on the amendment, one way or the other, will vote against cloture, as will those who are opposed to the marriage amendment.
Seems that republicans are just as eager to avoid pissing off potential voters before election as the dems are.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 13, 2004 06:14:39 PM new
Linda says, " have strong opinions and beliefs, yes....but I support our system...letting the people speak...letting our elected representatives vote...rather than a few blocking the whole voting process all together. If issues go to a vote...and I don't like the way the vote turned out...I can live with that - our process worked.
What I can't live with is a party that continually takes more and more actions to silence/stop the ability of our voices/choices to be heard. And that's what the dems are doing."
Note the following:
posted on July 13, 2004 08:58:48 AM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush in West Virginia for Fourth
7/4/2004 10:19 PM
By: Associated Press
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A couple from Texas was taken out of a speech given by President Bush in West Virginia Sunday.
Police placed Nicole and Jeffery Rank of Corpus Christi in restraints after they entered the event with a ticket and then removed their clothes to reveal anti-Bush T-shirts, according to the acting director of the Capitol police in Charleston.
He said the two were asked to go out to the designated protest area, but refused.
Bush came to West Virginia on the nation's 228th birthday to honor the country's veterans and garner support for invading Iraq.
About 6,500 people packed into the Capitol's north courtyard to hear him.
As police rushed her out, Nicole Rank shouted that they were told they couldn't be there because they were wearing anti-Bush shirts.
Police say the two were issued citations for trespassing and released"
Why would they be trespassing if they had tickets??
The Republicans will stop at nothing including arresting people who wear TEE SHIRTS!
posted on July 13, 2004 06:54:20 PM newDid you share that view after the 2000 election when 500,000 more AMERICANS voted for Gore than they did Bush?
Our Presidents aren't elected by popular vote....that is our system...the electoral college. The system worked. That a President was elected and put in office who didn't have the majority of the popular vote....has happened before in our history...this is NOT the first time.
You don't like the system...work to change it.
---------------
The representatives in Massachusetts voted or I should say allowed gay marriages but you were not happy with that now were you Linda.
Because the majority of voters in MA where not given the chance to state their views...by voting on the subject....like the other states have. It's activist judges that decided they should be allowed...and when challenged the liberal court agreed. BIG difference.
The judges said gay marriages are legal based on the law, but your "elected represntatives" did not like how the law was written so they decide to change.
Again....judges don't have the power to MAKE the laws....there was no law allowing gay marriages.
posted on July 13, 2004 07:13:53 PM newPLease explain to me how your assertion that Dems are the root of all evil and specifically esponsible for this specific situation, jibes with this statement....
fenix - This has been brought up before and I've tried to clarify that when I make a statement it's not JUST based, alone, on what any particular article states...[not based on only the 'offered' article] but rather from the combination of what I've read on different sites/articles. As it was in this case.
Senators in both parties who want to avoid Seems that republicans are just as eager to avoid pissing off potential voters before election as the democrats. Most of these cultural issues/moral issues pretty much run along party lines. That does not mean that 100% of each party holds their party-line position....but many more Republicans do support marriage being kept to the traditional meaning....than do dems. That can be see on how they vote. I watch both the House and the Senate sites and keep tabs on who votes which way....that's the information I take to form my opinions.
Another example of this was in 2002 before going to war. It appears to me that the Republicans were forcing a vote then too...so that we voters could see who was and who was not supporting doing the regime change called for, by a law passed during clinton's administration. And the dems didn't want to vote on it before the election.
When I repeatedly see this same form of 'not wanting to take a position' on an issue, so voters can see where they stand, then I form my judgement that they work to keep their position hidden from those who elected them - those put them there to represent them.
I mean for crying out loud...it's like they have no backbone. Either you support an issue or you don't. If you do...then why keep trying to not have to 'show' that position to the voters. Sneaky to me...and not above board. I'd rather see them [all of them] take a position and fight for it.
Like with this issue....vote their position and be done with it....no matter which way the vote goes....but blocking...blocking...block....to serve what purpose? Do they really think it will never be voted upon? Allow our system to work the way it's suppose to work.
posted on July 13, 2004 07:20:41 PM new
But Linda -you blamed it all on the Dems when it is a bi-partisan issue.
Oh yeah... by the way, I think that if they avoid this vote for the next few months, it will neer come up. I don't think Bush will be re-elected, Kerry is not going to push it and four years from now it is not going to be the hot button issue it is today.
BTW - Although many are opposed to gay marriage, that number does shrink when you ask the number of people that want that opposition to become a constitutional ammendment.
Also - since they already know that the votes are not there to get the proposal thru the Senate - it is best for all involved, most impotantly for the President for the vote to never take place. I'm wwilling to bet that there are as many is not more republicans blocking the path to that vote.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Jul 13, 2004 07:24 PM ]
posted on July 13, 2004 07:50:16 PM new
Whats the matter crow, no one cared about it in your other thread so you bring it here... LOL
I have reconsidered... let the homosexuals get married... let the states reap the benefits...
Same sex marriage license...
$50,000
Think what a boon to the state and city governments...
Ok I know some of you are going to try to say that is discrimintory but it is not... many licences have different fees... so just make the regular license a set fee with a same sex add on... those sweet thangs can ge married all day long... $50,000 a license...
posted on July 13, 2004 08:06:13 PM newDid you share that view after the 2000 election when 500,000 more AMERICANS voted for Gore than they did Bush?
Our Presidents aren't elected by popular vote....that is our system...the electoral college. The system worked. That a President was elected and put in office who didn't have the majority of the popular vote....has happened before in our history...this is NOT the first time.
They why even allow people to vote if their vote doesn't count. Even you said let the people speak. The people did speak in 2000.
The electoral college was drawn up because the upper class did not believe the "lower class" people could actually make a sound decison when it came to electing a President.
You can't have it both ways Linda.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
[ edited by logansdad on Jul 13, 2004 08:27 PM ]
posted on July 13, 2004 08:13:59 PM newYou don't like the system...work to change it.
That is exatcly what is being done with the gay marriage debate. Now because we are working to change something, we are being called extremists. Funny how to will disagree with this issue.
Again....judges don't have the power to MAKE the laws....there was no law allowing gay marriages.
But there was NO LAW outlawing them either. Based on the current laws that were on the books and the way they were written the judges made the right decision. But it was the politcians that did not like the outcome. People years ago voted on the laws. It just so happened they could not forsee the future and could not account for everything that might happen.
The Constitution says I have the right to bear arms...so does this mean I have the right to posses weapons of mass destructions. After all it is "arms". NO I don't think that is what the founders of the Constitution meant when it was drafted but I don't see Bush or any other lawmaker trying to "update" a provision that was drafted over 200 years ago as a precautionary measure just in case somebody decides to take issue.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 13, 2004 08:23:41 PM new
fenix, that's how I see it....it's the continuing obstructionism from the democratic party.
I still believe Bush will be re-elected. I've said before I've felt their numbers will decline until AFTER their own nominating party convention. Once all the facts on all these unproven accusations are out to the people....and despite the media doing all they can to block anything that's not slanted to kerry's side rather than sticking to just reporting without the OPs. Then his numbers will head back up and there's still plenty of time for that to happen.
I have stated myself those who oppose gay marriage don't necessarily support changing the Constitution...and that it was unlikely to pass. We're not in disagreement there.
But we are in disagreement about this being 'left alone' - set aside. It's an important issue to many and they finally have a President that is supporting marriage/family. I understand that's the dems position...they don't want to be forced to take a stand - and not wanting to take that stand - blocking everything - is why I don't hold them in very high esteem....it's shows a lack of character to me.
posted on July 13, 2004 08:37:52 PM new
logansdad - How old are you? Are you a very young man?
They why even allow people to vote if their vote doesn't count.
Their vote does count...it is what makes the decision on who their states electoral votes go to.
Even you said let the people speak. The people did speak in 2000.
Yes, they did speak. And that's why the USSC ruled the way they did.
The electoral college was drawn up because the upper class did not believe the "lower class" people could actually make a sound decison when it came to electing a President.
That a new one for me. It's designed so that the states with the heaviest populations don't get to make the decision who will be elected for the whole Nation. If not for the electoral system....CA, NY and FL would be the only voters to decide who would be elected. And the rest of the country 'the fly-over' states would never have their voices heard.
You can't have it both ways Linda.
It is that way when it comes to national elections....and not that way when it comes to other National issues. As you are aware each state is voting on this issue...but it may take a Federal law, or Constitutional change to keep the activist judges from changing the laws.
In most cases I support states rights. I can't on this issue because it just wouldn't work...it would cause total havic. Just like it already is....because people don't stay in the states where it may be agreed they can marry. So that presents a whole different type of challenge.
posted on July 13, 2004 09:55:27 PM new
University of Pennsylvania Annenberg Poll. 48% oppose an amendment, 43% favor it. MOE 2%. Opposition wins by 3%. It isn't going to happen. Enough people in this country know that you can't just amend the constitution to get around states' rights.
Remember when Republicans used to believe in states' rights? Boy have they changed their tune.
___________________________________
Beware the man of one book.
- Thomas Aquinas
posted on July 14, 2004 06:08:28 AM new
No profe some of us still believe in States rights, however can you honestly say this issue will not end up before the US Supreme Court and that the states that did not want to accept homosexual marriage will be FORCED to do so...
Many states have the law on the books right now...
It is funny how those that want it left at the "state" level, will themselves take it to the Federal level...
Because you know as well as anyone else this is going to go to the US Supreme Court...
As you can see the Founding Fathers did not think the people were smart enough to choose a President:
A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
if the election was done strictly by popular vote, then after NY, CA, FL and TX voted the election would be almost over Chicago would decide for the people of Illinois...
That is the reason behind electoral delegates
In state elections are done by popular vote, but to have the Presidential election done that way, better move... because the most populous states would decide the election and your vote wouldn't count... this way the president has to win the state and in the situation of that last election the electoral college had to break the tie...
I see your all for popular vote for the president, seems funny you're against a state voting on same sex marriage...
posted on July 14, 2004 07:17:50 AM new
twelve, maybe it will "go to the supreme court", I wouldn't care to guess. My comment regarding it not happening referred to the Congress, it is, as I'm sure you know, the Congress' power to amend the constitution, not the court's. I'm not arguing whether or not I think it's a good idea. I don't, but that isn't my point here.
Once again, in my opinion, when someone wants an amendment, it is because they specifically don't want to give that particular decision to the states.
I still say, realistically it won't happen no matter how badly you want it to. Since 1989, there have been 856 attempts in Congress to amend the constitution, and it's only been altered 27 times (I think) in it's entire history. Statistically, any amendment proposal hasn't got a snowball's chance. It's like Nader running for President. No matter your politics, he isn't going to win.
___________________________________
Beware the man of one book.
- Thomas Aquinas
posted on July 14, 2004 07:28:48 AM newI see your all for popular vote for the president, seems funny you're against a state voting on same sex marriage...
If the states want to vote, they can vote. I am against want is going on in Mass. because the judges made their interpretations of the laws that were already on the books. Because the politicians didn't like the outcome they wanted to change the laws.
if the election was done strictly by popular vote, then after NY, CA, FL and TX voted the election would be almost over Chicago would decide for the people of Illinois...
All but two elections have been decided by popular vote. You are assuming all the people in those states vote the same way.
The elctoral college was created because the found father were afraid of direct election to the Presidency.
....something they appear to lack otherwise there would should be no problem with voters knowing exactly what position they take on this issue. so sad....but typical.