tvashtarkatena

You've apparently never seen the House of Lords on camera...

Wow. Your rapier political insight is incredible. I would have never thought of that, indeed, none of us would have. How do you do it?

I have no idea what you meant and, apparently, neither do you.

this sounds a bit cyclical to me. Of course the majority of voters support not allowing blacks or women to vote when the majority of voters (all the voters as a matter of fact) are neither black nor female. It is not "us" when the "us" pool was that limited. Are you saying that blacks and women deserved to remain in servitude because they didn't have the right attitude? Of course not. None of these policies went by the wayside, they were battled out for years. Rights are never granted, they are only taken. Slavery ended because most voters (in the North) supported its abolition. Women got the vote when most voters (men and women) supported it. The Equal Rights Amendment passed because most voters (black and white) supported it. Yes, there were long struggles before the public adopted these positions. My point is that voters often don't realize how much power they wield...if they choose to. Voters also do not realize that most of the wounds against civil liberties are self inflicted...they were popular among voters until voters changed their minds. Welcome to the USA.

1) I'm afraid that they did not get *that* point. There are plenty of representatives that are in "secure" districts who would have to f*** up really bad to even have a chance of losing. Did you see the election results for McDermott? He could rape horses in Enumclaw and still get elected. Ditto for quite a few "safe" Rep districts. The majority of them in fact. Apparently, the President got the intended message from voters loud and clear. As for McDermott, I know him and am not aware of his penchant for equestrian sports. Sort of like a voluntary boycott? Repeat after me: "We shall ov-ver-co-o-ome. We shall o-ver-co-o-ome. We shall..."* *I know a guy who'll do the T shirts.

This is a knee jerk suggestion from someone who obviously has little experience working with any organization with a national footprint. Lobbyists are essential for a non-governmental to know what is happening in the legislature and represent their constituents effectively. They are an important way for the members of any organization to stay in touch with what their legislators are up to, which, in my book, is a very good thing. They help achieve the 'transparency' people like you so loudly call for. If you wanted the environment protected, who would you give money to: Earth First! (no lobbyists, jailed activists, virtually no public support, little money, kno real legislative action network) Ducks Unlimited or the Sierra Club (Lobbyists, broad public support, lots of money, effective legislative action networks). Sure, there are corrupt lobbyists, just like there are corrupt legislators. The solution is not to get rid of lobbyists, which are such an important part of being heard in government, but to implement strict rules against corruption, whether by lobbyists, legislators, or anyone else.

Someone's agreeing with me? I'm framing this post...

I think they just got that point yesterday loud and clear. I'm against term limits because they limit my right to vote for who I want. If someone's doing a great job, I want the choice of voting to keep them in that job.

BTW: not to split hairs, but our Constitution does not grant us any rights; mostly it defines our government. What I said.

And slaves, and native Americans, and Japanese Americans, and drinkers, for that matter. No doubt there is an ugly historical disconnect between our behavior and the full potential of the constitution. The supreme court has typically gone along with the 'tyranny of the majority' rather than enforcing the rights supposedly guaranteed by that document. And that is the salient point. The policies of slavery, male only voting, and Jim Crow laws survived because a majority of voters at the time supported them. When voters changed their attitudes, those policies went by the wayside. It's not 'those in power' that maintain unjust policies...it's us. We get the government we deserve. Guantanamo Bay, torture, and gay marriage bans are just the latest versions of this tyranny of the majority. These policies survive only because we continue to support them. But...we've made enormous progress towards realizing the full potential of the constitution. I believe we'll continue to do so, with the inevitable hitches along the way.

Hopefully never in my case.

However, if liberty is not granted, I think it's status as an intrinsic property or an action is fundamental to the constitutional stance on homosexuality. Perhaps. Our constitution provides self evident rights, however. I.e, the government does not 'grant' rights; we already have them, and it must provide a compelling reason to revoke or deny them. So far, the government has provided no compelling reason to deny gays the right to marry, which is, at best, central to the pursuit of happiness for much of that large segment of our population, and, at worst, an utterly victimless act. Indirect offense to, say, religious organizations from such a practice has not constituted a legal harm in the past.

Oh, thanks. I love you, too.

Mom didn't let us lie down in the street in front of motorcades when I was in fourth grade.

Like the war in Iraq? you are truly a moron Luckily most voters were also morons yesterday...

It's not surprising that you have to pay women to pretend to be sexually interested in you. Are you kidding? My wife watches my expenses like a hawk.

Not quite as absurd as your grammar.

Nor do I loose much sleep thinking about it...

BTW, thank the Old Man Upstairs for the congressional election for me. And the failure of the stripper initiative. Double Hail Marys if we get the senate.

Can't we trap and use them for medical research?

"Honey, your pit bull just santorumed on the carpet again..."

Don't drag da bitches inta dis

Party of Satan?

I understand your inability to correct or post your endless state of incomprehension.

The scientific or social basis for homosexuality, while interesting, should have no bearing on public policy. The constitution doesn't care whether nature or nurture is at work. Conversely, its purely genetic analog, race, has a fundamental cultural affect on behavior. Again, the constitution doesn't care.