Any credible history book, like The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution by Bernard Bailyn, who won two Pulitzer Prizes for History, would tell you that the separation of church and state is absolute. The US Government has no opinion of religion and must maintain that position in it's laws.
This idea that it is not absolute is the product of demagogues and theocrats who have profited politically by misleading the public on their own history.
It should be noted that Issa is the guy who spent $4 million (IIRC) of his own cash to recall Grey Davis and then cried when the Governator got everyone's support. The guy is just a little partisan, I'd say.
1. The voting machines used in the Venezuelan elections is from a Florida company with no ties to Chavez. There was a local Democratic candidate for Elections Supervisor in the Primary here in Hillsborough (he lost) who is a) runs an anti-Chavez group and b) a systems engineer at Verizon. I talked with him at length about the company in question and their product. They have produced source code for the product and it has all the safeguards that people here regularly complain about Diebold and other machines lack. One of the campaign promises was to implement these same machines in our county. Please cite a source that shows some doubt cast on the legitimacy of the machines used in Venezuela, all of my first hand knowledge is that it was very fair.
2. The Palm Beach County error rate was due to the butterfly ballot. I refuse to sit here and argue about whether or not old people are stupid, numerous experts on both sides of the issue agreed that the ballot used for that election was very confusing and not at all user-friendly. The fact that it was approved by a Democratic Supervisor is really dumb though. Also you shouldn't bring up the Palm Beach error rates without mentioning the thousands of black votes in Gadsden County that were spoiled (1 in 8 counted, pop is 39.7% white). The same system and ballots were used in Leon County (where Tallahassee is) and had a spoilage rate of 1% while the population is 66% white. In 2002 Gadsden County had a new Election Supervisor, using the same system, and only 1 in 500 ballots were spoiled. The governor is now known as "Jeb Crow" in some circles down here.
3. It was the Bush/Cheney 00 campaign that sent down James Baker and a team of lawyers before the recounts were over, before Gore even mentioned involving the courts. The riotous group attempting to stop the recount were GOP operatives flown in.
4. Don't accuse Dems of trying to rig elections when you've got that gerrymandering mess in Texas. Redistricting 3 years after the last one is a pure political play to lock in power. Just because it wasn't illegal, doesn't make it ethical. Note that DeLay is under investigation and 3 of his cohorts have been indicted for violating Texas campaign finance laws. The money was directly tied to the redistricting effort. Not to mention the voter purges here in Florida. The willful disregard for accuracy (90.2% wrong)in those felony purge lists borders on criminal negligence.
5. The Republicans in Florida are the ones who pushed for the ID's at the polling places. They have also been against the motor-voter registrations.
6. Whatever your opinion of Carter's presidency, he is a far more honorable and noble man than the majority of the crowd on this site. He has dedicated his life to helping the less fortunate and spreading peace and democracy in this world. Bringing up issues involving other states when Carter was specifically referring to Florida and then claiming he is partisan because he didn't mention them is disingenuous. I'm sure that Carter could talk you blue about elections and fairness. I'm also sure that he would address every single one of your complaints fairly and honestly, given the chance. Carter simply brought up the issues he felt were most gregarious and resulted in the largest damage to our system, if you'd read the column more carefully, you would have noticed the qualifiers "The most significant of these requirements are".
It seems that your response to Carter is far more partisan than you claim him to be.
This is the best you can do? You've yet to present a single historical fact, while claiming the opposite of what the record presents. The only defense you've provided is a reading of the text of the US Constitution. I'm not about to regurgitate the history of this nation's founding when you can't even muster a single fact supporting your case.
What's the matter, forgot how to use google? I would have expected at least a half assed attempt to trot out the usual list of crap arguments revisionists bring up, but you haven't even provided that.
You call me a troll, yet you've failed to counter a single assertion I made of the historical record, maybe you've missed them and should reread my posts. Remember, this is *your* "huge pet peeve". Appearently, it's not huge enough to back it up with research, which you have yet to do in any post you've made on this thread.
Before you were simply acting ignorant, now it appears you lack the ability to reason, any insults you've been subject to are truly deserved. Since when have fools been suffered lightly on/.? Put up or shut the fsck up.
Maybe you and the researchers should explain this phemomena to all the white guys I see doing yard work in Florida. The argument itself is a bit difficult, since the measurement has to be taken with a control situation, ie when immigrants are not doing the labor, and then after the immigrants take over the jobs.
In most cases, such as farm workers and food processors, anti-union efforts allowed the wages for these jobs to drop below a rate acceptable to natural citizens. During times of good job growth, people were willing to allow cheap labor in to take jobs with little or no wage growth. Had these industries, and others automated when labor became expensive, there would be more opportunity for middle class workers providing these high tech solutions.
You have to take these factors into account when discussing the effect of immigration on the job market. Cheap labor is bad for the economy, it reduces the need to innovate and hides poor social policy from view. Outsourcing is going to have the same effect.
This is not to say that unions have been perfect, I personally think they dropped the ball in the 80's when they fought automation. On the other hand, unions have caused far less damage overall than nearly any of the capitalist scandals such as the S&L's, Enron, WorldCom or the Bush-Cheney administration. I'd rather have imperfect unions than these multi-headed hydra running amock.
If you knew history you wouldn't make the claims you have, especially without backing them up.
I've read more than the constitution, but it simply doesn't matter. What was in their minds at the time has no bearing on what the laws of this country are.
Not only are you ignorant of Constitutional law, but you're ignorant of law in general. The basis for US law is laid out in the principles and debates that took place before the US as a state was a thought in anyone's mind. The Founding Fathers saw the US as a continuation of liberal traditions that came to fruition in the Enlightenment and have a history going back to Rome.
It's not my fault if you've failed to understand this yet. Your statements show you're lack of knowledge about the specific events in question, as they are opposite from the historical record. The evidence counters you're position yet you've failed to cite anything supporting your views.
You've even managed to confuse the term theocrat. One need not believe in God to believe in theocracy. Your advocacy of blurring the lines between religion and government in this country is support of theocracy, hence making you a theocrat. If you don't like being called one, then reevaluate your position. Either defend it or change it.
If you are so knowledgable, then you might want to use it to defend your position instead of focusing on the fact I've called you on it. Quite frankly, I'm tired of having this debate with American's who can't take the time to understand their own history. This debate should have ended over 200 years ago with the Constitutional Convention. Instead, there are still organizations in this country who think they have some divine mandate to alter the basis of our country. The postion you took is the same position they've tried to use as a populist wedge, confusing the issue, to persue their un-American crusade.
Quite frankly, if you're insulted it's your own damn fault. You shouldn't state a position so forcefully if you're not willing to back it up.
Your example still shows that you misunderstand lawyers and politicians. The goals of the professions are to have the working knowledge in order to construct the legal system necessary to fairly and universally take into account all of the working knowledge you desire. It's just like a customer asking me to build a piece of software that automates a business process, I can't begin to work until I understand the process. The law doesn't always reach a perfect state at 1.0, that's why we have the courts, they are sort of a debugger.
Electing good politicians or finding a good lawyer is very similar to finding a good software engineer to automate your business, if they just know tech and can't understand your goals, then you'll wind up with crap. The reason that lawyers have Bars with ethics committees and licensing is to insure that an unsuspecting public is not preyed upon by incompetents.
Most legislatures have ethics committees that are supposed to provide the same oversight to politicians, as are campaign laws. The US Congress suspended (bipartisan truce) the House ethics committee in the late 90's, which was one of the greatest injustices against the people of the US ever committed.
I would say that it is more dangerous to put people in power who don't understand the law or how it works than the other way around. The system is set up to deal with bad politicians and lawyers, but it is not as easy to deal with sheer incompetence and ignorance.
If you think that simply reading the text of the US Constitution gives you the understanding and context of the authors or the struggles and history that brought them to the conclusions reflected in the text, you're ignorant.
The Baptists didn't simply worry about the COE they also worried about the Puritans who persecuted them as well. Both groups were consisdered renegades by the COE but one the Puritans consisdered themselves reformers of the COE whereas the Baptists were part of the groups that were the Pilgrims and considered themselves Separatists.
Puh-lease... "Wah! My taxes paid for something I don't like! Wah!" Ever see some bad art that your taxes paid for? Think there should be a separation of state and art?
Wow, you've just managed to restate the arguments made against the religion clause in the First Amendment. Go read some fscking history before you come make an ass of yourself in public.
The reason the Pilgrims and Puritans came to colonize N. America is because people were killing each other over the very thing you claim I'm whining about. The wisdom of the Founding Fathers was not to worry about whether or not someone was acting irrational in this regard, but to simply say it was not the business of government and to avoid the problem totally. Reversing this ideal is to invite disention and threatens the peace of this diverse republic, not to mention throwing away the primary American contribution to Western secular law.
Ignoring the rights of minorities in deference to religious majorities is just as theocratic as passing laws that persecute them. You need not believe in God to support theocracy.
You're personal religious persuasion is irrelevant to the debate. The absolutism of the separation of church and state is intended to render such differences null so that we may form a political union and act in public concert regardless of our conscience. The Constitution does very much provide for freedom "from" religion with regards to government property and functions, to say otherwise is historical revisionism.
Until you can find a medical explanation that states such, you're simply speculating. There could be valid concerns on the part of a medical professional, and without that experience, I doubt you or I could make a conclusive determination that the specific language. There are numerous questions about what being alive is, take the current case of Terry Shiavo as an example. The parents say she is not to a state where her expressed wishes of not being a vegatable should be honored vs. the husband, who states that she is that place. Doctors have weighed in on both sides, and the case has hardly been conclusive.
The point at which life starts and ends has hardly been as black and white as you are making it out to be. If it were black and white, these issues would hardly be so controversial and law would have been created that was not vulnerable in the courts.
From the article you referenced: An Obama spokesman said the Democrat voted against the abortion legislation because it included provisions that "would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable."
I can't find the full quote anywhere, so I cannot say anything more about Obama's position on this issue. I will say that doctors may have a valid concern with the language of the bill. I am not one, so I can't say whether or not there would be cause for their alarm, but I can say that this concern is valid.
And what lawyer doesn't have to make money? What politician doesn't have to run a campaign with limited funds? Lawyers produce justice and Politicians produce laws, and both live in a capitalist society. Your misunderstanding is still there. Without justice and laws, we would not have near the economic opportunity that your want your leaders to take part in. Since those were created by politicians and lawyers, I would say that they had a pretty good understanding of economics and the structure required to produce all the other things you give merit to.
How about if I preferred that only voters who understood lawyers and politicians were allowed to vote, since they are blissfully unaware of certain legal realities? It's just as farcical an opinion as yours. The economy isn't the sole business of the US government.
So because he voted against this Bill, he automatically disagrees with the language you quoted above?
That's a cheap rehtorical trick. Stop it, it's making me laugh. It's the same crap argument the GOP is using to say Kerry always votes against the military even though his voting record when Cheney was Sec. of Defense, followed Cheney's recommendations. It's like saying Kerry doesn't want the soldiers to have body armor because he voted against the version of the 87B bill that passed. Kerry voted for a version that would have paid for the 87B with a tax cut rollback, whereas the version that passed simply borrowed the money.
You are trying to use the same trick against Obama.
There is utterly no qualifier of procreation attached to secular marriage contracts, never has been. Attempting to attach one now is wishful thinking, we have never banned infertile couples from marriage contracts. Your slippery slope argument is still based on personal morality. Unless you can prove harm before the fact, the courts and legislature have no right to ban it. Two male cousins would be able to marry just as a male and female cousin may currently marry. Two brothers would not, since equality under the law would not allow it because brother and sister may not marry. The law must be consistent.
As for legal reasons that polygamy is banned, try this.
i have yet to apply my opinion of what is moral or immoral. I only base my arguments on the a logically consistent view of rights. The laws of this country have no opinion of religion or morality. They only have an opinion on the definition and defense of rights. Western Civilization biggest contribution to the world is our secular body of law and the recognization of individual rights. Without that base, we would not be able to reach the level of sophistication that we currently have. I will defend this legacy, which is conferred upon me by the my mere existence, to the death. You, nor any other theocrat, has any right to deny me this, it is my birthright, as it is the birthright of every US citizen. Your ability to think homosexuality will only be protected if you understand that that is a personal decision and do not continue to force it upon our secular legal system. Once you start to violate the rights of others, there will be no social contract to protect your rights. Law is a series of non-agression pacts, banning gay marriage is an assualt on this.
Well as its the United states there is freedom of (not from) religion, keys is free to say that if he chooses. I was just pointing out that to keys and many millions of other americans it is a sin. This has no bearing on US law. It's a personal opinion, Keyes brought it up to bolster his position on US law.
After the passage of state law last session mandating diversity field trips and other pro-homosexual school activity, this session's legislature is considering SB. 225, which would require that schools with interscholastic sports teams adopt non-discrimination codes supporting "sexual orientation" as well as "perceived gender," or risk being banned from the California Interscholastic Federation. This reaches into the private school sector, which of course has been the goal of the activists all along. Nothing will satisfy until all of society is supportive of homosexuality. A second bill, SB 257, would force schools to target speech that opposes homosexuality as being discriminatory and equivalent to harassment. (Yea its all in my head)
Your accusation is utter BS. You want to use public funds (CA Interscholastic Fed., public school trip funds) to discriminate. Nothing will satisfy until homosexuals are equal under the law. You don't have to personally support it.
You have no right to use public funds to discriminate. What makes you think this is an assualt on you? Do homosexual children not deserve equality under the law? No is saying you have to quit believing it is a sin, you're just not allowed to discriminate using tax dollars. The only way private schools would have to follow these laws is if they recieve public funding. It works the same way for Title 9 stuff. The same reasoning you are using was used for segregation before the Civil Rights Act.
Fine then Barney Frank has no right discussing homosexuality. Guess what he does, and Keys has every right to talk as a Christian. Humanism is on par with Christianity in that it is a source from which many people derive their moral code, so if a secular humanist can use their moral compass so can a christian.
Umm the parent complained that keys called sin a sin, thats kinda saying he has no right to consider it a sin or are you saying as a devout Christian he should either shut up (freedom of speech) or not have the right to run for office unless he renounces his faith?
I'm not saying Keyes doesn't have a right to discuss Christianity or Christian values, but Keyes made this comment in the context of a discussion about his opposition to gay marriage. This is part of his morally based rational for denying homosexual couples secular marriage contracts. Your comparison isn't valid since Barney Frank isn't trying to discriminate against Christians because they believe homosexuality is a sin. Keyes was the one who mixed his personal moral compass with the laws of the US. Show me where Barney Frank has tried to use public money to force Christians to believe that homosexuality is not a sin. You're allowed to believe it's a sin all you want, you just can't use tax dollars to enforce your morality based beliefs that violate the principle of equality under the law.
You are trying to force a false dichotomy. Accepting homosexuality in publicly funded institutions is no different than acctepting Buddhists. You have yet to prove otherwise. No one is saying Keyes must renounce his faith, anymore than a Southern Baptist Senator would have to separate his faith from his public duty to vote on alcohol taxation or an appropriations bill for the ATF.
There are Jews in the world, there are Buddhists, There are Hindus and Mormons and then, There are those that follow Mohammed, But I've never been one of them...
I'm a Roman Catholic, and have been since the day I was born, And the one thing they say about Catholics, Is they'll take you as soon as you're warm...
You don't have to be a six-footer, You don't have to have a great brain, You don't have to have any clothes on - You're a Catholic the moment dad came...
because...
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.
Let the heathen spill theirs, on the dusty ground, God shall make them pay for each sperm that can't be found
Every sperm is wanted, every sperm is good, Every sperm is needed in your neighbourhood.
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon, Spill thiers just anywhere, But God loves those who treat their Semen with more care.
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.
Every sperm is sacred, Every sperm is good, Every sperm is needed, In your neighbourhood.
Every sperm is useful, every sperm is fine, God needs everybody's, Mine And mine And mine
Let the Pagan spill theirs, O'er mountain, hill and plain, God shall strike them down for Each sperm that's spilt in vain.
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good, Every sperm is needed in your neighbourhood.
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.
</cue-music>
Now how is Keyes position not in violation of separation of church and state when the state holds no opinion on the purpose of a marriage contract, but only in the rights contained therein and their enforcement? Keyes test of acceptablility is invalid.
You are either insane or ignorant. The public property may not be used to promote or deny any religious or moral viewpoint. The separation of church and state is absolute. It was the Baptists and other religious groups who were considered illegal separatists and who fought for this absolute separation. Previous allowances for usage of public property for religious reasons were done so without opposition due to cultural homogeny. Simply because previous generations were able to get away with violating law since no one cared, does not make it legal.
The Anti-Federalists were the ones who fought hardest for this. Would my taxes be used for the upkeep of these postings on public property? What about the economic value of the space being used by the posting? Do my taxes not pay for this also? If I am an athiest, then how is this legally different from my taxes being used to pay a priest's salary?
As cultural hemogeny disentigrates due to immigration and other factors, you will have to conform to the law in order to respect the rights of minority views. What authority do you have to place the 10 commandments on public property? How would you like it if a group of Athiests came along and put up a sign that said "There is no god!" right next to it? Where does your bluring of religion and government stop?
You have the right to practice and or not practice whatever belief you want, you don't have any right to force anyone else's tax dollars to pay for it though.
This is just a theocrat's argument hidden in a slew of falsehoods and ignorance. It is an advocation for the violation of my rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Cite the bill and the legal opinion that states that the bill would make such an action legal. I've been hearing this crap from the pro-life movement for years, in every case, it has turned out to be a invalid interpretation of the law. The only reason people repeat it is that they are ignorant of the law. This is no different than Bill Frist or Dennis Hastert claiming that gay marriage would allow bestiality. The only difference is that, as lawmakers, they are expected to not be so ignorant. Perhaps it's just proof that in a democracy, you get the government you deserve. If the ethics commitee's were still working, both would have been censured for these claims at the least.
Once a baby is alive and outside the mother, it has the rights of a citizen conferred upon it. Allowing it to die on a cold table would be murder and no legislation that allowed this would pass the laugh test in a court since it would obviously violate the rights of the new citizen.
The pro-life movement's repitition of these lies would make Geobels proud.
What the fsck does Christian morality have to do with the laws of the United States? No one is pushing crap on you, that's your own paranoia. No one is demanding that you participate in gay marriage, no one is forcing your church to hold ceremonies for gay couples. Where is there a law that requires a Christian church to marry Muslims? Absent compelling state interest, denying marriage contract rights to millions of couples is arbitrary discrimination.
It's legal to drink alcohol in this country but my Southern Baptist relatives never have, my Muslim friends also abstain. How does my buying a six-pack infringe on their rights? After all, in their opinion, I'm sinning.
In the role of a US Senator, Alan Keyes would have no business discussing sin. He has no authority for his opinion of what is sin and what isn't. 1500 years of Western Civilization, countless wars and misery have led us to the logical conclusion that the liberty of conscience is the dearest. You have no more authority to push your moral worldview on me as I do on you. This liberty is not granted to me in the Constitution, it is guaranteed. If you attempt to push your morality upon me, I have the right to oppose you with violence if necessary. No one is telling you that you may not consider homosexuality a sin, anymore than you have to believe people who worship a diety other than yours will get to heaven. You do have to respect their rights to disagree with you however. Just as you cannot tell a Buddhist that he cannot pray to an idol of Buddha, you cannot deny rights to homosexuals just because you believe it's a sin.
That is the reasoning of the courts, logically consistent with the body of law that preceeded the decision. No state interest was proven in discriminating against homosexuals for secular marriage contracts. We do not make law based on moral or religious basis in this country, we make them based on rights. While the legislature and population may not always follow this principle, the courts are there to remedy the situation. Denying homosexuals the right to the secular contract of marriage violates their equality under the law and in this country we believe in the rule of law.
This is the crap slippery slope falsehood that has been repeated numerous times. Polygamy consistently creates situations where the welfare of the children and women in such a situation falls on the shoulders of the state. Incest is obvious as well since any offspring are almost guaranteed to have genetic problems. We do allow first cousins to marry, so the state only intervenes where the creation of a child in that relationship is tantamount to willful negligence for the welfare of the child.
The courts have repeatedly established state interest in these cases and have upheld laws banning such contracts. As for you second naive statement, it ignores the role of secular marriage contracts in the history of Western Civilization. Marriage, as a secular contract, is not about love or dedication, it's about recognizing a partnership and confers numerous legal rights for two individuals to act as a single party, which is necessary for those living in such a tightly coupled life.
The government does not sanctify any of these relationships in a moral or religious way, it is no different from the perspective of the government than two people entering into any other contract. The contract of marriage is simply a boilerplate contract for a certain type of situation, much as the rights of partnerships have a default set of rules absent additional agreements (prenups in the case of marriage). Just as you can not give up your civil rights when you enter into a contract, the government will not allow you to enter into a contract that will violate the rights of others, such as offspring in the case of incest and polygamy.
Then why does he support federally sponsored discrimination of a secular marriage contract? What business does any American politician have judging who is a sinner? The only interest an American politician should have in judging others is in criminality. What crime has Mary Cheney commited that would preclude her from obtaining such a contract? Whose rights does she violate by obtaining a marriage contract with another woman? What state interest is served through this arbitrary discrimination that would make it valid?
Seems your glass house isn't impervious to stones.
Of course God is against Bush, I've got good information that Buddha, Shiva, Zeus and Jupiter don't like him either. Vishnu on the other hand is a Pioneer donor to Bush/Cheney 04 and Vahalla is voting Badnarik.
I hadn't seen that graph, but it was beautiful. I had been rooting for Ivan to hit the Panhandle since I was under the impression that Frances had hit largely Democratic areas. The really beautiful thing is that it's going back for seconds in Texas. My feelings about Texas these days are much like those of Bill O'Reilly's concerning France.
Unfortunately, the issue is that poorer voters, who tend to vote Democrat, are more likely to still have disrupted lives on Nov 2 than wealthier Bush supporters. We've registered over 45K new Democrats in FL this year and Nader won't get anywhere near 90K votes again, but 3 hurricanes halfway through the season and another one on the way isn't helping.
Your fear of lawyers is disturbing. It's like saying you only use software written by people with no professional history of programming. Politics is law, we are a country that believes in the rule of law, created from a civilization whose greatest single contribution to the world is our body of secular law. How do you propose that we uphold equality under the law when no one understands the logical basis for it? Have you stumbled upon some other method of defining human activity that will create a more just existence for individuals? It seem to me that you would throw the baby out with the bath water.
Repeating hyperbole is not insightful, it's noise.
Slashdot Mirror
Any credible history book, like The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution by Bernard Bailyn, who won two Pulitzer Prizes for History, would tell you that the separation of church and state is absolute. The US Government has no opinion of religion and must maintain that position in it's laws.
This idea that it is not absolute is the product of demagogues and theocrats who have profited politically by misleading the public on their own history.
For those interested, Harper's has a really interesting article on the mechanics of the corruption in the reconstruction contracts. Baghdad Year Zero - Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia
This may be more palatable if you feel Mother Jones goes off the deep end sometimes.
It should be noted that Issa is the guy who spent $4 million (IIRC) of his own cash to recall Grey Davis and then cried when the Governator got everyone's support. The guy is just a little partisan, I'd say.
Several points of contention here.
1. The voting machines used in the Venezuelan elections is from a Florida company with no ties to Chavez. There was a local Democratic candidate for Elections Supervisor in the Primary here in Hillsborough (he lost) who is a) runs an anti-Chavez group and b) a systems engineer at Verizon. I talked with him at length about the company in question and their product. They have produced source code for the product and it has all the safeguards that people here regularly complain about Diebold and other machines lack. One of the campaign promises was to implement these same machines in our county. Please cite a source that shows some doubt cast on the legitimacy of the machines used in Venezuela, all of my first hand knowledge is that it was very fair.
2. The Palm Beach County error rate was due to the butterfly ballot. I refuse to sit here and argue about whether or not old people are stupid, numerous experts on both sides of the issue agreed that the ballot used for that election was very confusing and not at all user-friendly. The fact that it was approved by a Democratic Supervisor is really dumb though. Also you shouldn't bring up the Palm Beach error rates without mentioning the thousands of black votes in Gadsden County that were spoiled (1 in 8 counted, pop is 39.7% white). The same system and ballots were used in Leon County (where Tallahassee is) and had a spoilage rate of 1% while the population is 66% white. In 2002 Gadsden County had a new Election Supervisor, using the same system, and only 1 in 500 ballots were spoiled. The governor is now known as "Jeb Crow" in some circles down here.
3. It was the Bush/Cheney 00 campaign that sent down James Baker and a team of lawyers before the recounts were over, before Gore even mentioned involving the courts. The riotous group attempting to stop the recount were GOP operatives flown in.
4. Don't accuse Dems of trying to rig elections when you've got that gerrymandering mess in Texas. Redistricting 3 years after the last one is a pure political play to lock in power. Just because it wasn't illegal, doesn't make it ethical. Note that DeLay is under investigation and 3 of his cohorts have been indicted for violating Texas campaign finance laws. The money was directly tied to the redistricting effort. Not to mention the voter purges here in Florida. The willful disregard for accuracy (90.2% wrong)in those felony purge lists borders on criminal negligence.
5. The Republicans in Florida are the ones who pushed for the ID's at the polling places. They have also been against the motor-voter registrations.
6. Whatever your opinion of Carter's presidency, he is a far more honorable and noble man than the majority of the crowd on this site. He has dedicated his life to helping the less fortunate and spreading peace and democracy in this world. Bringing up issues involving other states when Carter was specifically referring to Florida and then claiming he is partisan because he didn't mention them is disingenuous. I'm sure that Carter could talk you blue about elections and fairness. I'm also sure that he would address every single one of your complaints fairly and honestly, given the chance. Carter simply brought up the issues he felt were most gregarious and resulted in the largest damage to our system, if you'd read the column more carefully, you would have noticed the qualifiers "The most significant of these requirements are".
It seems that your response to Carter is far more partisan than you claim him to be.
This is the best you can do? You've yet to present a single historical fact, while claiming the opposite of what the record presents. The only defense you've provided is a reading of the text of the US Constitution. I'm not about to regurgitate the history of this nation's founding when you can't even muster a single fact supporting your case.
/.? Put up or shut the fsck up.
What's the matter, forgot how to use google? I would have expected at least a half assed attempt to trot out the usual list of crap arguments revisionists bring up, but you haven't even provided that.
You call me a troll, yet you've failed to counter a single assertion I made of the historical record, maybe you've missed them and should reread my posts. Remember, this is *your* "huge pet peeve". Appearently, it's not huge enough to back it up with research, which you have yet to do in any post you've made on this thread.
Before you were simply acting ignorant, now it appears you lack the ability to reason, any insults you've been subject to are truly deserved. Since when have fools been suffered lightly on
Maybe you and the researchers should explain this phemomena to all the white guys I see doing yard work in Florida. The argument itself is a bit difficult, since the measurement has to be taken with a control situation, ie when immigrants are not doing the labor, and then after the immigrants take over the jobs.
In most cases, such as farm workers and food processors, anti-union efforts allowed the wages for these jobs to drop below a rate acceptable to natural citizens. During times of good job growth, people were willing to allow cheap labor in to take jobs with little or no wage growth. Had these industries, and others automated when labor became expensive, there would be more opportunity for middle class workers providing these high tech solutions.
You have to take these factors into account when discussing the effect of immigration on the job market. Cheap labor is bad for the economy, it reduces the need to innovate and hides poor social policy from view. Outsourcing is going to have the same effect.
This is not to say that unions have been perfect, I personally think they dropped the ball in the 80's when they fought automation. On the other hand, unions have caused far less damage overall than nearly any of the capitalist scandals such as the S&L's, Enron, WorldCom or the Bush-Cheney administration. I'd rather have imperfect unions than these multi-headed hydra running amock.
You've completely ignored the position I've taken and simply restated your earlier assertion. Try again.
If you knew history you wouldn't make the claims you have, especially without backing them up.
I've read more than the constitution, but it simply doesn't matter. What was in their minds at the time has no bearing on what the laws of this country are.
Not only are you ignorant of Constitutional law, but you're ignorant of law in general. The basis for US law is laid out in the principles and debates that took place before the US as a state was a thought in anyone's mind. The Founding Fathers saw the US as a continuation of liberal traditions that came to fruition in the Enlightenment and have a history going back to Rome.
It's not my fault if you've failed to understand this yet. Your statements show you're lack of knowledge about the specific events in question, as they are opposite from the historical record. The evidence counters you're position yet you've failed to cite anything supporting your views.
You've even managed to confuse the term theocrat. One need not believe in God to believe in theocracy. Your advocacy of blurring the lines between religion and government in this country is support of theocracy, hence making you a theocrat. If you don't like being called one, then reevaluate your position. Either defend it or change it.
If you are so knowledgable, then you might want to use it to defend your position instead of focusing on the fact I've called you on it. Quite frankly, I'm tired of having this debate with American's who can't take the time to understand their own history. This debate should have ended over 200 years ago with the Constitutional Convention. Instead, there are still organizations in this country who think they have some divine mandate to alter the basis of our country. The postion you took is the same position they've tried to use as a populist wedge, confusing the issue, to persue their un-American crusade.
Quite frankly, if you're insulted it's your own damn fault. You shouldn't state a position so forcefully if you're not willing to back it up.
Your example still shows that you misunderstand lawyers and politicians. The goals of the professions are to have the working knowledge in order to construct the legal system necessary to fairly and universally take into account all of the working knowledge you desire. It's just like a customer asking me to build a piece of software that automates a business process, I can't begin to work until I understand the process. The law doesn't always reach a perfect state at 1.0, that's why we have the courts, they are sort of a debugger.
Electing good politicians or finding a good lawyer is very similar to finding a good software engineer to automate your business, if they just know tech and can't understand your goals, then you'll wind up with crap. The reason that lawyers have Bars with ethics committees and licensing is to insure that an unsuspecting public is not preyed upon by incompetents.
Most legislatures have ethics committees that are supposed to provide the same oversight to politicians, as are campaign laws. The US Congress suspended (bipartisan truce) the House ethics committee in the late 90's, which was one of the greatest injustices against the people of the US ever committed.
I would say that it is more dangerous to put people in power who don't understand the law or how it works than the other way around. The system is set up to deal with bad politicians and lawyers, but it is not as easy to deal with sheer incompetence and ignorance.
If you think that simply reading the text of the US Constitution gives you the understanding and context of the authors or the struggles and history that brought them to the conclusions reflected in the text, you're ignorant.
The Baptists didn't simply worry about the COE they also worried about the Puritans who persecuted them as well. Both groups were consisdered renegades by the COE but one the Puritans consisdered themselves reformers of the COE whereas the Baptists were part of the groups that were the Pilgrims and considered themselves Separatists.
Puh-lease... "Wah! My taxes paid for something I don't like! Wah!" Ever see some bad art that your taxes paid for? Think there should be a separation of state and art?
Wow, you've just managed to restate the arguments made against the religion clause in the First Amendment. Go read some fscking history before you come make an ass of yourself in public.
The reason the Pilgrims and Puritans came to colonize N. America is because people were killing each other over the very thing you claim I'm whining about. The wisdom of the Founding Fathers was not to worry about whether or not someone was acting irrational in this regard, but to simply say it was not the business of government and to avoid the problem totally. Reversing this ideal is to invite disention and threatens the peace of this diverse republic, not to mention throwing away the primary American contribution to Western secular law.
Ignoring the rights of minorities in deference to religious majorities is just as theocratic as passing laws that persecute them. You need not believe in God to support theocracy.
You're personal religious persuasion is irrelevant to the debate. The absolutism of the separation of church and state is intended to render such differences null so that we may form a political union and act in public concert regardless of our conscience. The Constitution does very much provide for freedom "from" religion with regards to government property and functions, to say otherwise is historical revisionism.
Until you can find a medical explanation that states such, you're simply speculating. There could be valid concerns on the part of a medical professional, and without that experience, I doubt you or I could make a conclusive determination that the specific language. There are numerous questions about what being alive is, take the current case of Terry Shiavo as an example. The parents say she is not to a state where her expressed wishes of not being a vegatable should be honored vs. the husband, who states that she is that place. Doctors have weighed in on both sides, and the case has hardly been conclusive.
The point at which life starts and ends has hardly been as black and white as you are making it out to be. If it were black and white, these issues would hardly be so controversial and law would have been created that was not vulnerable in the courts.
I'll let Eric Zorn address Obama's vote. Zorn v. Stanek
From the article you referenced:
An Obama spokesman said the Democrat voted against the abortion legislation because it included provisions that "would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable."
I can't find the full quote anywhere, so I cannot say anything more about Obama's position on this issue. I will say that doctors may have a valid concern with the language of the bill. I am not one, so I can't say whether or not there would be cause for their alarm, but I can say that this concern is valid.
And what lawyer doesn't have to make money? What politician doesn't have to run a campaign with limited funds?
Lawyers produce justice and Politicians produce laws, and both live in a capitalist society. Your misunderstanding is still there. Without justice and laws, we would not have near the economic opportunity that your want your leaders to take part in. Since those were created by politicians and lawyers, I would say that they had a pretty good understanding of economics and the structure required to produce all the other things you give merit to.
How about if I preferred that only voters who understood lawyers and politicians were allowed to vote, since they are blissfully unaware of certain legal realities? It's just as farcical an opinion as yours. The economy isn't the sole business of the US government.
So because he voted against this Bill, he automatically disagrees with the language you quoted above?
That's a cheap rehtorical trick. Stop it, it's making me laugh. It's the same crap argument the GOP is using to say Kerry always votes against the military even though his voting record when Cheney was Sec. of Defense, followed Cheney's recommendations. It's like saying Kerry doesn't want the soldiers to have body armor because he voted against the version of the 87B bill that passed. Kerry voted for a version that would have paid for the 87B with a tax cut rollback, whereas the version that passed simply borrowed the money.
You are trying to use the same trick against Obama.
There is utterly no qualifier of procreation attached to secular marriage contracts, never has been. Attempting to attach one now is wishful thinking, we have never banned infertile couples from marriage contracts. Your slippery slope argument is still based on personal morality. Unless you can prove harm before the fact, the courts and legislature have no right to ban it. Two male cousins would be able to marry just as a male and female cousin may currently marry. Two brothers would not, since equality under the law would not allow it because brother and sister may not marry. The law must be consistent.
As for legal reasons that polygamy is banned, try this.
i have yet to apply my opinion of what is moral or immoral. I only base my arguments on the a logically consistent view of rights. The laws of this country have no opinion of religion or morality. They only have an opinion on the definition and defense of rights. Western Civilization biggest contribution to the world is our secular body of law and the recognization of individual rights. Without that base, we would not be able to reach the level of sophistication that we currently have. I will defend this legacy, which is conferred upon me by the my mere existence, to the death. You, nor any other theocrat, has any right to deny me this, it is my birthright, as it is the birthright of every US citizen. Your ability to think homosexuality will only be protected if you understand that that is a personal decision and do not continue to force it upon our secular legal system. Once you start to violate the rights of others, there will be no social contract to protect your rights. Law is a series of non-agression pacts, banning gay marriage is an assualt on this.
Well as its the United states there is freedom of (not from) religion, keys is free to say that if he chooses. I was just pointing out that to keys and many millions of other americans it is a sin.
This has no bearing on US law. It's a personal opinion, Keyes brought it up to bolster his position on US law.
After the passage of state law last session mandating diversity field trips and other pro-homosexual school activity, this session's legislature is considering SB. 225, which would require that schools with interscholastic sports teams adopt non-discrimination codes supporting "sexual orientation" as well as "perceived gender," or risk being banned from the California Interscholastic Federation. This reaches into the private school sector, which of course has been the goal of the activists all along. Nothing will satisfy until all of society is supportive of homosexuality. A second bill, SB 257, would force schools to target speech that opposes homosexuality as being discriminatory and equivalent to harassment. (Yea its all in my head)
Your accusation is utter BS. You want to use public funds (CA Interscholastic Fed., public school trip funds) to discriminate. Nothing will satisfy until homosexuals are equal under the law. You don't have to personally support it.
You have no right to use public funds to discriminate. What makes you think this is an assualt on you? Do homosexual children not deserve equality under the law? No is saying you have to quit believing it is a sin, you're just not allowed to discriminate using tax dollars. The only way private schools would have to follow these laws is if they recieve public funding. It works the same way for Title 9 stuff. The same reasoning you are using was used for segregation before the Civil Rights Act.
Fine then Barney Frank has no right discussing homosexuality. Guess what he does, and Keys has every right to talk as a Christian. Humanism is on par with Christianity in that it is a source from which many people derive their moral code, so if a secular humanist can use their moral compass so can a christian.
Umm the parent complained that keys called sin a sin, thats kinda saying he has no right to consider it a sin or are you saying as a devout Christian he should either shut up (freedom of speech) or not have the right to run for office unless he renounces his faith?
I'm not saying Keyes doesn't have a right to discuss Christianity or Christian values, but Keyes made this comment in the context of a discussion about his opposition to gay marriage. This is part of his morally based rational for denying homosexual couples secular marriage contracts. Your comparison isn't valid since Barney Frank isn't trying to discriminate against Christians because they believe homosexuality is a sin. Keyes was the one who mixed his personal moral compass with the laws of the US. Show me where Barney Frank has tried to use public money to force Christians to believe that homosexuality is not a sin. You're allowed to believe it's a sin all you want, you just can't use tax dollars to enforce your morality based beliefs that violate the principle of equality under the law.
You are trying to force a false dichotomy. Accepting homosexuality in publicly funded institutions is no different than acctepting Buddhists. You have yet to prove otherwise. No one is saying Keyes must renounce his faith, anymore than a Southern Baptist Senator would have to separate his faith from his public duty to vote on alcohol taxation or an appropriations bill for the ATF.
There are Jews in the world, there are Buddhists,
There are Hindus and Mormons and then,
There are those that follow Mohammed,
But I've never been one of them...
I'm a Roman Catholic, and have been since the day I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics,
Is they'll take you as soon as you're warm...
You don't have to be a six-footer,
You don't have to have a great brain,
You don't have to have any clothes on -
You're a Catholic the moment dad came...
because...
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.
Let the heathen spill theirs, on the dusty ground,
God shall make them pay for each sperm that can't be found
Every sperm is wanted, every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed in your neighbourhood.
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill thiers just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed,
In your neighbourhood.
Every sperm is useful, every sperm is fine,
God needs everybody's,
Mine
And mine
And mine
Let the Pagan spill theirs,
O'er mountain, hill and plain,
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed in your neighbourhood.
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.
</cue-music>
Now how is Keyes position not in violation of separation of church and state when the state holds no opinion on the purpose of a marriage contract, but only in the rights contained therein and their enforcement? Keyes test of acceptablility is invalid.
Is not in the constitution (as most people think)
You are either insane or ignorant. The public property may not be used to promote or deny any religious or moral viewpoint. The separation of church and state is absolute. It was the Baptists and other religious groups who were considered illegal separatists and who fought for this absolute separation. Previous allowances for usage of public property for religious reasons were done so without opposition due to cultural homogeny. Simply because previous generations were able to get away with violating law since no one cared, does not make it legal.
The Anti-Federalists were the ones who fought hardest for this. Would my taxes be used for the upkeep of these postings on public property? What about the economic value of the space being used by the posting? Do my taxes not pay for this also? If I am an athiest, then how is this legally different from my taxes being used to pay a priest's salary?
As cultural hemogeny disentigrates due to immigration and other factors, you will have to conform to the law in order to respect the rights of minority views. What authority do you have to place the 10 commandments on public property? How would you like it if a group of Athiests came along and put up a sign that said "There is no god!" right next to it? Where does your bluring of religion and government stop?
You have the right to practice and or not practice whatever belief you want, you don't have any right to force anyone else's tax dollars to pay for it though.
This is just a theocrat's argument hidden in a slew of falsehoods and ignorance. It is an advocation for the violation of my rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Cite the bill and the legal opinion that states that the bill would make such an action legal.
I've been hearing this crap from the pro-life movement for years, in every case, it has turned out to be a invalid interpretation of the law. The only reason people repeat it is that they are ignorant of the law. This is no different than Bill Frist or Dennis Hastert claiming that gay marriage would allow bestiality. The only difference is that, as lawmakers, they are expected to not be so ignorant. Perhaps it's just proof that in a democracy, you get the government you deserve. If the ethics commitee's were still working, both would have been censured for these claims at the least.
Once a baby is alive and outside the mother, it has the rights of a citizen conferred upon it. Allowing it to die on a cold table would be murder and no legislation that allowed this would pass the laugh test in a court since it would obviously violate the rights of the new citizen.
The pro-life movement's repitition of these lies would make Geobels proud.
What the fsck does Christian morality have to do with the laws of the United States?
No one is pushing crap on you, that's your own paranoia. No one is demanding that you participate in gay marriage, no one is forcing your church to hold ceremonies for gay couples. Where is there a law that requires a Christian church to marry Muslims? Absent compelling state interest, denying marriage contract rights to millions of couples is arbitrary discrimination.
It's legal to drink alcohol in this country but my Southern Baptist relatives never have, my Muslim friends also abstain. How does my buying a six-pack infringe on their rights? After all, in their opinion, I'm sinning.
In the role of a US Senator, Alan Keyes would have no business discussing sin. He has no authority for his opinion of what is sin and what isn't. 1500 years of Western Civilization, countless wars and misery have led us to the logical conclusion that the liberty of conscience is the dearest. You have no more authority to push your moral worldview on me as I do on you. This liberty is not granted to me in the Constitution, it is guaranteed. If you attempt to push your morality upon me, I have the right to oppose you with violence if necessary. No one is telling you that you may not consider homosexuality a sin, anymore than you have to believe people who worship a diety other than yours will get to heaven. You do have to respect their rights to disagree with you however. Just as you cannot tell a Buddhist that he cannot pray to an idol of Buddha, you cannot deny rights to homosexuals just because you believe it's a sin.
That is the reasoning of the courts, logically consistent with the body of law that preceeded the decision. No state interest was proven in discriminating against homosexuals for secular marriage contracts. We do not make law based on moral or religious basis in this country, we make them based on rights. While the legislature and population may not always follow this principle, the courts are there to remedy the situation. Denying homosexuals the right to the secular contract of marriage violates their equality under the law and in this country we believe in the rule of law.
This is the crap slippery slope falsehood that has been repeated numerous times. Polygamy consistently creates situations where the welfare of the children and women in such a situation falls on the shoulders of the state. Incest is obvious as well since any offspring are almost guaranteed to have genetic problems. We do allow first cousins to marry, so the state only intervenes where the creation of a child in that relationship is tantamount to willful negligence for the welfare of the child.
The courts have repeatedly established state interest in these cases and have upheld laws banning such contracts. As for you second naive statement, it ignores the role of secular marriage contracts in the history of Western Civilization. Marriage, as a secular contract, is not about love or dedication, it's about recognizing a partnership and confers numerous legal rights for two individuals to act as a single party, which is necessary for those living in such a tightly coupled life.
The government does not sanctify any of these relationships in a moral or religious way, it is no different from the perspective of the government than two people entering into any other contract. The contract of marriage is simply a boilerplate contract for a certain type of situation, much as the rights of partnerships have a default set of rules absent additional agreements (prenups in the case of marriage). Just as you can not give up your civil rights when you enter into a contract, the government will not allow you to enter into a contract that will violate the rights of others, such as offspring in the case of incest and polygamy.
Then why does he support federally sponsored discrimination of a secular marriage contract? What business does any American politician have judging who is a sinner? The only interest an American politician should have in judging others is in criminality. What crime has Mary Cheney commited that would preclude her from obtaining such a contract? Whose rights does she violate by obtaining a marriage contract with another woman? What state interest is served through this arbitrary discrimination that would make it valid?
Seems your glass house isn't impervious to stones.
Of course God is against Bush, I've got good information that Buddha, Shiva, Zeus and Jupiter don't like him either. Vishnu on the other hand is a Pioneer donor to Bush/Cheney 04 and Vahalla is voting Badnarik.
I hadn't seen that graph, but it was beautiful. I had been rooting for Ivan to hit the Panhandle since I was under the impression that Frances had hit largely Democratic areas. The really beautiful thing is that it's going back for seconds in Texas. My feelings about Texas these days are much like those of Bill O'Reilly's concerning France.
Unfortunately, the issue is that poorer voters, who tend to vote Democrat, are more likely to still have disrupted lives on Nov 2 than wealthier Bush supporters. We've registered over 45K new Democrats in FL this year and Nader won't get anywhere near 90K votes again, but 3 hurricanes halfway through the season and another one on the way isn't helping.
Addiction, Brain Damage and the President "Dry Drunk" Syndrome and George W. Bush
I don't think I have much to add beyond this since I feel the issue is interesting but overall, not very relavent.
Your fear of lawyers is disturbing. It's like saying you only use software written by people with no professional history of programming. Politics is law, we are a country that believes in the rule of law, created from a civilization whose greatest single contribution to the world is our body of secular law. How do you propose that we uphold equality under the law when no one understands the logical basis for it? Have you stumbled upon some other method of defining human activity that will create a more just existence for individuals? It seem to me that you would throw the baby out with the bath water.
Repeating hyperbole is not insightful, it's noise.