READER COMMENTS ON
"Who Needs Three Branches?"
(15 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 7/22/2004 @ 8:29 pm PT...
> make it illegal for the bill itself to be reviewed in any way by the Judicial Branch
Nothing new here -
While Democrats called the bill unprecedented, backers said Congress had moved before to limit courts' authority on matters from cleaning up hazardous waste to protecting trees.
"If limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts is good enough to protect trees, shouldn't it be good enough to protect a state's marriage policy?" Sensenbrenner said.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 7/22/2004 @ 8:49 pm PT...
One more thing - this is Government 101 and does not require any emotion.
Republicans are in charge because the American people put them in charge. Congressmen and senators are "representing" [Representative Republic] their constituents. They are doing what the people want.
The American people as a majority do not want two homosexuals in a relationship called a "marriage."
And by the way, a gay couple is filing for divorce in Canada, so now homosexuals will give marriage a bad name. Something you and your bleeding heart liberals harped on [hetersexual marriages] for quite some time.
When Bush is elected and Republicans control congress yet again in 2004, all of your speculations in your blog will prove false. The hatred fom the Left is turning both sides off. Not all Democrats are liberals. The south has plenty of Reagan Democrats. Hatred is not an effective motivating tool.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 7/22/2004 @ 11:46 pm PT...
seems like a time when the majority preffered their black folk on a porch and not in a voting booth. Unfortunately those activist judges made it so you can't even walk down the street without bumping into one of those people.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 7/23/2004 @ 10:35 am PT...
Yes, our friend Paul does seem to need a Civics 101 course in "Reason for the U.S. Constitution".
None the less, he tells us this as a way to excuse his own party's attempted dismanteling of the U.S. Constitution:
"While Democrats called the bill unprecedented, backers said Congress had moved before to limit courts' authority on matters from cleaning up hazardous waste to protecting trees."
What exactly are those previous Congressional moves to limit the courts' authority, Paul?
Looking forward to your information! Thanks!
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 7/23/2004 @ 5:26 pm PT...
Well, where to start with this one. First off, Paul states:
"Republicans are in charge because the American people put them in charge."
Prove it. It was never proven that he was elected in the first place, so don't tell me that the best man won. I will never accept the point that Bush "won" his position as President.
Secondly, Paul states:
"The American people as a majority do not want two homosexuals in a relationship called a "marriage."
Has it been put to the whole of America as a vote? Did we "all" get our say? When has it EVER been a voted issue. Isn't this simply another case of our representatives in the government assuming what the majority wants? Or maybe what the largest contributors to their campaign funds want. We do not have a true representational democracy. We are simply at the mercy of whatever the political reps want to hand us. At least until we chose to take our government back from them.
"And by the way, a gay couple is filing for divorce in Canada, so now homosexuals will give marriage a bad name."
Why is a gay couple any different from a straight couple? There are good marriages and bad marriages - of any kind. People are people and will have relationships that work and that don't. Why would a gay couple divorcing make any difference to the thousands of straight couples that divorce every day. Let alone the fact that you state that it is taking place in CANADA! Since when does US law base it's decisions on what happens in Canada? Did Bush decide to take over that country too? Is that his next move? And can we have their health coverage?
"Something you and your bleeding heart liberals harped on [hetersexual marriages] for quite some time."
Tee heee, he said 'bleeding heart liberals' teeheee
Thanks, yes I am. Oops, was that suppose to be a slam? Sorry :crazy: And if liberals are bleeding hearts, what are conservatives? Living heart donors?
"When Bush is elected and Republicans control congress yet again in 2004...."
Okay, why don't you do me a favor and hold your breath.
Alright, now that I got that out of my system, I have to say that I really feel that the Bush administration has bent, twisted, broken and changed any laws that they felt stood in the way of anything they wished to accomplish. They have disregarded the constitution in many ways from the very begining - starting with blocking our rights to protest, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and probably more that I can't think of off the top of my head. Now, I know, guys and dolls, from reading here that someone is going to probably ask me where I get my facts from. It has all come from a large variety of news articles, personal experience, online information, friends, college professors, news papers etc. If someone would like, I could e-mail all of the facts I have gathered. But I will stop here and just finish with the thought that come November I truely believe that America will be shopping for a new president.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 7/24/2004 @ 10:45 am PT...
"Republicans are in charge because the American people put them in charge."
I am talking about Congress, the Senate, and most state governors. Bush did win Florida, even with almost every which way the media counted the votes. Plus, the Republican Florida house would have given it to Bush if it was a tie or too close to call. The Republican controlled US House would have given it to Bush in a tie. The Supreme Court stopped the Florida court from changing the election laws after an election occurred. Bush lost New Mexico by 300 votes but he won Florida. Gore did not win his own state or Clinton's state. So, you may choose to live in ignorance if you like. Every vote counts only means every vote counts when the ballots are marked correctly. If you circle a name, put an X or checkmark by it, when you are supposed to color in a square or punch a hole, the vote does not count.
> Has it been put to the whole of America as a vote? Did we "all" get our say? When has it EVER been a voted issue?
All the polls show it. I do not think you really want it to be put to a vote. Liberals cannot win at the ballot box so they have to win by liberal federal judges making law from the bench.
> We do not have a true representational democracy.
We are not a representational democracy sweetheart. We are a Representative Republic. Democracy is no where in our constitution. We only have democratic elections. Although, presidents are chosen by electoral votes, not popular vote. Where did you get your education?
> college professors
Most of them are liberal.
> And can we have their health coverage?
Move to Canada!
> Why is a gay couple any different from a straight couple?
Many a time Brad's blog has said heterosexuals have ruined marriage. You'll have to read several earlier blogs.
> the Bush administration has bent, twisted, broken and changed any laws that they felt stood in the way of anything they wished to accomplish. They have disregarded the constitution in many ways from the very beginning - starting with blocking our rights to protest, freedom of speech, freedom of the press
You have not lost any freedom of speech. You have the right to say whatever you like and I have the right not to listen to it. If a private organization does not allow you to say certain things, that has nothing to do with the constitution. Only the government cannot abridge speech.
> Okay, why don't you do me a favor and hold your breath
Typical liberal socialist emotional non-thinking Democrat response!
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 7/24/2004 @ 11:17 am PT...
"Liberals cannot win at the ballot box so they have to win by liberal federal judges making law from the bench."
I am quite sure the irony of that statement from Paul is completely lost on him. I am also quite sure it won't be lost on anyone else who reads it. Anyone who isn't blinded by the Right, that is.
"Many a time Brad's blog has said heterosexuals have ruined marriage."
Um...please do not misquote me, Paul. Your Rush-speak (making up positions for others that don't exist) is not welcome here. Well, it's welcome, but it won't go unanswered as it does on Lord Rush's show.
You have just lied and mischaracterized my position. Knock it off.
If you can't debate the issue with facts, save the bullshit strawman arguments for posting over at Free Republic.
"Typical liberal socialist emotional non-thinking Democrat response!"
Typical cowardly, fact-free, Fake Conservative ad-hominem attack. We're used to it though. When the facts aren't on your side, what else can you do?
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 7/25/2004 @ 2:58 pm PT...
"Bush did win Florida, even with almost every which way the media counted the votes...blah, blah, blah..."
First of all, if you want to see the whole quote, scroll up and read it. Second of all. I could go into the many, many ways that the election should have been null and void, starting with people being turned away from the voting boxes, polls being closed early in some cases and opened late in others. Let alone the fact that votes casted were completely thrown out in some cases. The Supreme court stopped the Florida courts from changing what? What law was it that they were trying to change? I would be interested in seeing those facts. I would also like to find out why marking ballots was never an issue before this election. But then, it doesn't surprise me that they made an issue of it this past election. How else could they have placed the man they wanted in office, since he wasn't the man elected.
As for all the polls about gay marriage showing anything - statistics are funny things. You can get polls and statistics to say anything you want. I could find a poll supporting Bush's impeachment just as quick as you could find one saying not to. I could quote statistics that say that Bush is the most hated president just as quickly as you could find one that says the opposite. That's all it is. Put any spin on it you want, but it doesn't prove anything other than you can make numbers total up any way you want when you put a spin on it. But what it boils down to for me is freedom. When we have freedom, it isn't just for a few beliefs, it isn't for just a few religions. It's for all citizens of the USA. The right to marry whom you want should be a freedom of choice. Not the Government telling us how to live our lives.
Where did I get my education? In the real world Darling. I live in a place called reality. You may not be familiar with it, not many Republicans Live there.
College Professors are liberals? Oh, really? Does that mean that liberals are more educated than not? Or does that mean that conservatives are not interested in education and don't chose to go into a profession such as education due to the fact that it's so under paid?
Move to Canada? Why, when living here is so much fun. Where else could I find such brilliant debate. I also happen to believe that America is a wonderful country. It's just mislead right now. Perhaps you missed my joke up there. That would not surprise me.
I will not touch your comment on Brad's Blog and it's stance, not only has Brad already commented, but I haven't seen any evidence or read anything about it and wouldn't dare comment on something that I'm not informed on.
However, that leads me to the freedom of speech. That I can comment on and say that if you don't realize what freedoms we have lost, you really are blind. Let me enlighten you to some of the facts. It is our right to petition and protest our government. However, the Bush admin has limited and in some cases banned our freedom by requiring that groups have permits to protest. then denying many liberal groups to those very permits. Secondly, the administration has fined or outright banned many people from speaking out against Bush by passing laws stating that it is illegal to speak out against the president during a state of emergency or times of war. There have been cases of certain media being banned from press conferences with the president. Fox News is actually told what they can and cannot say. While I understand that it is important to protect certain information for national security, it does not mean that the government can tell us whatever bullshit they think the public will swallow. Restricting what we can and can't say, to the public, about the president and to the president, hmmm, those all sound like freedom of speech, heck freedom of the press too.
How many freedoms do we have to lose before you wake up and realize that we no longer are a free country? Look at the woman who was in a public place simply handing out voter registration cards. Not saying anything about who to vote for, just to vote. She was arrested! Why? Creating a public nuisance. Yeah, promoting voting is such a nuisance. The people may actually get the representation they choose.
Typical liberal socialist emotional non-thinking Democrat response!
Am I typical? Not sure. Liberal, definetly. Socialist? Not what it says on my voter registration. I guess it would depend on your definition of the word. Emotional? HELL YES! It is my life, my home and my country, why shouldn't I be passionate about it. Non-thinking? Why, because I'm not spouting off Rush rhetoric? Democrat? Another HELL Yeah to that one. I have to say that you string your words together very prettily. If that was all meant to be an insult, I am trying to find it. That's right up there with bleeding heart liberal.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 7/26/2004 @ 4:15 am PT...
I'm on vacation, but just wanted to pop in quickly and say what a joke that section is.
The GOP has utterly lost its way, falling completely in thrall to the theological conservatives. They have no problem trampling over the Constitution or personal privacy in their drive to legislate their version of morality over the rest of us. It makes me want to puke.
Whatever happened to "limited government?"
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 7/26/2004 @ 9:51 am PT...
Whatever happened to "limited government?"
The interest in it simply disappeared once they actually got into office, Teddy.
And the remarkable part is that the huge majority of their supporters don't actually care. Turns out those Fake Conservatives think they are conservatives, but are actually Liberals! They just don't realize it because the folks they blindly told them have used other words to describe themselves and their followers.
You are very much in the minority on the Right, Teddy. A Conservative who actually believes in Conservative principles.
It's remarkable how many of the Dittiots just continue to delude themselves in blind service to their masters.
Moral: The masses really are ignorant, I guess!
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 7/26/2004 @ 9:11 pm PT...
> College Professors are liberals? Oh, really? Does that mean that liberals are more educated than not? Or does that mean that conservatives are not interested in education and don't chose to go into a profession such as education due to the fact that it's so under paid?
I graduated college. My professors were liberal. They could not make it in the real world. that is why they teach. Those who can do, those who can't teach, "those who can't teach, teach gym" - Woody Allen
> The right to marry whom you want should be a freedom of choice
Ok - I want to marry my sister. I mean, it's freedon of choice, right? I want to marry my cow in the backyard and I want my cow to have health benefits. I mean, it's my choice and the governemnt should not tell me who I can or cannot sleep with!!!!!!!!! Oh yes, we have lost of freedoms. We cannot marry the same sex so we have lost or freedoms.
> the administration has fined or outright banned many people from speaking out against Bush by passing laws stating that it is illegal to speak out against the president during a state of emergency or times of war
that is so not true! A bogus argument.
> legislate their version of morality over the rest of us
Morality comes from God and no where else. You either have morals or you don't. Our laws are based on Roman and Jewish law, the 10 commandments, etc. It is not illegal to commit adultery even though it is immoral. Their are things that are legal but immoral.
NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY. IT WAS MADE UP IN COURT TO ALLOW ABORTION. The govenrment can tell you what not to do in the bedroom - use illegal drugs, kill your spouse, beat your kid, etc. This immoral argument is bogus.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 7/27/2004 @ 11:34 am PT...
Judgment, judgment, judgment.
"My professors were liberal. They couldn't make it in the real world."
First of all, neither of those statements are accurate. I find it highly suspect that ALL your professors were liberal, or that they were unsuccessful. On the off chance a portion of your statement is correct, what does that say of your hard-won education? Your ludicrous point has no validity, and you unknowingly posture yourself as a hypocrite (with great aplomb I might add), which is both sad and ironic.
"Ok - I want to marry my sister. I mean, it's freedon of choice, right? I want to marry my cow in the backyard and I want my cow to have health benefits. I mean, it's my choice and the governemnt should not tell me who I can or cannot sleep with!!!!!!!!! Oh yes, we have lost of freedoms. We cannot marry the same sex so we have lost or freedoms."
Should I even point out how ludicrous you sound? You are degrading and insulting to humans (and animals alike), and probably don't even know why. The gay community isn't talking about losing freedom, it's speaking of freedoms they have never had. Quite possibly because our society has treated them like, oh I don't know, animals. Can't quite possibly fathom where they got that idea.
"You either have morals or you don't."
Really? So how can one be born again if they never had morals to begin with? This moral argument is bogus, and even God is laughing.
"Their [sic] are things that are legal but immoral."
Excellent point Paul, therefore I assume you will vote in support of gay marriage. Even though your God tells you it is immoral, it's irrelevant. The religious issue is debunked --- this is a legislative issue only. As the reasonable among us still believe in a separated Church and State, your denial of equal rights to equal citizens of America is unjust, and unfair for a man of your unquestionable ethics.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 8/5/2004 @ 9:00 am PT...
> Prove it. It was never proven that he was elected in the first place, so don't tell me that the best man won. I will never accept the point that Bush "won" his position as President.
Kimber, read the following article non-emotionally. It is what happened and it was not that long ago -
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 8/6/2004 @ 10:03 am PT...
Did I have to read it four times or was that just to make a point?
I read it, and I'm not convinced. Mostly because I don't think that Florida itself was the deciding factor in the "election" of Bush. It did have something to do with it, but I think that there were other things that went awry in the entire country. But then, with so many fingers pointing at everything that went wrong in Florida, the other issues seemed to have been pushed under the rug.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 8/10/2004 @ 9:16 am PT...
> I think that there were other things that went awry in the entire country
No proof of it!!!!!!