GOP Voters in Mississippi want to ban inter-racial marriage.

[james&olya 1,121]

I thought about it but the Cossack photos are out there somewhere. Probably why I will never be President. Don't ask anything else, I can't tell you.

I would not be surprised if we ever actually had a candidate with a colorful past that if he were to 'own' that past and talk straight with people, no pandering and weasly answers (Hear that Mitt?) he might defy all the pundits and do very well! Santorum is sort of doing that but he is weasly on some issues and he is such a moron! And his past puts people to sleep!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I would not be surprised if we ever actually had a candidate with a colorful past that if he were to 'own' that past and talk straight with people, no pandering and weasly answers (Hear that Mitt?) he might defy all the pundits and do very well! Santorum is sort of doing that but he is weasly on some issues and he is such a moron! And his past puts people to sleep!

Yeah, well he is a religious fundamentalist. Sort of like Danno putting black tape over his built in webcam..."just in case" You are right. If I had been Bill Clinton I would have said "Yeah, I smoked pot" Next question. BFD!!!!!!!!! (actually I never have smoked pot, but I would admit it if I did)

They are all weasly though. Santorum looks like a weasel.

[Orando 57]

So I guess that means not allowing Muslim men in the US to have multiple wives is denying their fundamental rights. And not allowing drug addicts to freely use drugs is denying their fundamental rights, etc etc.

From my view, I see it as a function of the collective conscience of the USA. From my observations, this conscience has evolved and continues to evolve over the course of the history of the USA. The defining of what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means has evolved and I suspect will continue to evolve. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has a fundamentally different meaning/reality/outlook today than it did 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 200 years ago for many different groups of people and many different actions people take. In the out years, this definition may very well include polygamy, it may very well include the decriminalization of drugs, the collective conscience at large of the USA may very well include these activities as part and parcel of someones fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the USA may write it into law. Whether this is right, wrong, good, bad public policy is a matter for public policy debate.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Orando

[james&olya 1,121]

From my view, I see it as a function of the collective conscience of the USA. From my observations, this conscience has evolved and continues to evolve over the course of the history of the USA. The defining of what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means has evolved and I suspect will continue to evolve. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has a fundamentally different meaning today than it did 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 200 years ago for many different groups of people and many different actions people take. In the out years, this definition may very well include polygamy, it may very well include the decriminalization of drugs, the collective conscience at large of the USA may very well include these activities as part and parcel of someones fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the USA will write it into law. Whether this is right, wrong, good, bad public policy is a matter for public policy debate.

I disagree! Conscience is a function of morality and should remain within the rights of the individual to decide, as long as he does not violate someone else's rights! And I also do not see where there is any difference in the meaning of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"! So they didn't have flat panel TV's and video games 200 years ago. The principle has not changed, even a little! Our bill of rights was written at the founding of our nation and we are still working to bring practical reality in line with that ideal! The recognition of the rights of blacks and women were major advances toward that ideal that occurred a long time after the constitution took effect. Now the issue is gay rights. Perhaps the next issue will be the rights of polygamists! Why not, as long as they are all consenting adults? It all should be based on the right of the individual to have the maximum freedom possible while maintaining the rights of others and basic social order. I agree that none of these changes should occur without a healthy and spirited debate.

[Orando 57]

I disagree! Conscience is a function of morality and should remain within the rights of the individual to decide, as long as he does not violate someone else's rights! And I also do not see where there is any difference in the meaning of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"! So they didn't have flat panel TV's and video games 200 years ago. The principle has not changed, even a little! Our bill of rights was written at the founding of our nation and we are still working to bring practical reality in line with that ideal! The recognition of the rights of blacks and women were major advances toward that ideal that occurred a long time after the constitution took effect. Now the issue is gay rights. Perhaps the next issue will be the rights of polygamists! Why not, as long as they are all consenting adults? It all should be based on the right of the individual to have the maximum freedom possible while maintaining the rights of others and basic social order. I agree that none of these changes should occur without a healthy and spirited debate.

I was not arguing a specific position, simply stating that one poster mentioned that polygamy should be considered a fundamental right following an argument someone else is making. Well, right now, the polygamist is denied his own version of the pursuit of happiness because the govt denies him the right to marry multiple women, the govt denies a woman the right to marry multiple men. The federal govt denies homosexuals the right to marry, denies this version of their pursuit of happiness. If and when the majority of the US at large collectively agrees (the collective conscience is comfortable), then these groups of people would, will be afforded their own personal version of the pursuit of happiness. In this sense, as a matter of law, the definition of the pursuit of happiness has evolved and will continue to evolve I suspect.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Orando

[james&olya 1,121]

I was not arguing a specific position, simply stating that one poster mentioned that polygamy should be considered a fundamental right following an argument someone else is making. Well, right now, the polygamist is denied his own version of the pursuit of happiness because the govt denies him the right to marry multiple women, the govt denies a woman the right to marry multiple men. The federal govt denies homosexuals the right to marry, denies this version of their pursuit of happiness. If and when the majority of the US at large collectively agrees (the collective conscience is comfortable), then these groups of people would, will be afforded their own personal version of the pursuit of happiness.

We are close in our point of view but with one major difference. I believe that as a constitutional republic (NOT a democracy) our constitutional rights trump the will of the majority. It is a big part of what makes America great!!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

We are close in our point of view but with one major difference. I believe that as a constitutional republic (NOT a democracy) our constitutional rights trump the will of the majority. It is a big part of what makes America great!!

Absolutely! Rights specifically protect that which is NOT popular and could NOT win by popular vote. They are limits on government, not on people. They are not subject to whims and popularity. It is inevitable that some people will not like some aspects of some rights. Some people do not like porn and do not like that aspect of the first amendment, all rights protect some things that are maybe not so pleasant for all people but we have to tolerate them or else our OWN preferences can be threatened.

At this site we have a lot of people married to foreign spouses. About as many people object to us doing that as marrying interracially or even gay/lesbian marriage. care to guess the percentage of people that think we should not be able to marry a woman from Russia or Philippines? Want to bet there would even be preferences in which foreign woman you marry? Care to bet that there would be less resistance to women marrying foreign men? Obviously not everyone is pleased with what everyone else is doing, whatever that is. So just take care of your family, do what you think is right for them and don't hurt other people.

I also like your comment regarding "maximum freedom" each right should be interpretted to provide the maximum freedom it can.

[Orando 57]

We are close in our point of view but with one major difference. I believe that as a constitutional republic (NOT a democracy) our constitutional rights trump the will of the majority. It is a big part of what makes America great!!

If my understanding of the government structure of the US is correct, we are a democratic republic governed by a National Constitution at the federal level. As a republic, the people rule themselves as opposed to a monarchy where a king rules the people. With the people ruling themselves, they elect representatives to represent them in the halls of the government, hence the democratic part. When the representatives are elected, they swear to abide by the constitution, the law of the land. From my observations, the way the system is set-up, the views of the people, whatever they are, right or wrong, constitutional or unconstitutional will be represented in the halls of government. The laws, interpretation of the laws and execution of the laws of the country change as the hearts and minds of the people change, which then flows through their elected representatives and gets reflected in the functioning of the government.

I agree, the US govt structure is brilliant, the constitution is the best document I have seen for man to rule themselves. I think it provides the best system for people to rule themselves with the 3 branches of government, a lower house and an upper house in the legislature with different terms, 2 years in the house, 6 years in the senate to check the executive, an executive to carry out the laws and check the legislature, and a judiciary to check everybody.

Now if we could just agree what the constitution says and agree to live by that!!

Edited March 15, 2012 by Orando

[james&olya 1,121]

If my understanding of the government structure of the US is correct, we are a democratic republic governed by a National Constitution at the federal level. As a republic, the people rule themselves as opposed to a monarchy where a king rules the people. With the people ruling themselves, they elect representatives to represent them in the halls of the government, hence the democratic part. When the representatives are elected, they swear to abide by the constitution, the law of the land. From my observations, the way the system is set-up, the views of the people, whatever they are, right or wrong, constitutional or unconstitutional will be represented in the halls of government. The laws, interpretation of the laws and execution of the laws of the country change as the hearts and minds of the people change, which then flows through their elected representatives and gets reflected in the functioning of the government.

I agree, the US govt structure is brilliant, the constitution is the best document I have seen for man to rule themselves. I think it provides the best system for people to rule themselves with the 3 branches of government, a lower house and an upper house in the legislature with different terms, 2 years in the house, 6 years in the senate to check the executive, an executive to carry out the laws and check the legislature, and a judiciary to check everybody.

Now if we could just agree what the constitution says and agree to live by that!!

SCOTUS!!! Supreme Court of the United States! It trumps any law voted in by a majority of our democratically elected representatives. Based on the CONSTITUTION they are positioned to rule on any and every law or regulation enacted by our government. That is why we are a Constitutional Republic (with democratically elected representatives)!

[Orando 57]

SCOTUS!!! Supreme Court of the United States! It trumps any law voted in by a majority of our democratically elected representatives. Based on the CONSTITUTION they are positioned to rule on any and every law or regulation enacted by our government. That is why we are a Constitutional Republic (with democratically elected representatives)!

The US system is also brilliant in this regard to me as well, the POTUS appoints the Supreme Court Justices and the Legislature confirms the justices. Even here, the hearts and minds of the people are reflected in the Supreme Court as well, rightly and wrongly depending upon a person's political persuasion. They receive a life-time appointment which I think is also brilliant in that it provides stability to the Supreme Court, all the while having been checked by the executive and legislature. Even though there were many courts that considered a black man to be 3/5 of a human being for some time or with the Brown v Board of Education case for example but, over the course of history, the system worked , the hearts and minds of the people changed and the Supreme Court eventually reflected this. I enjoy reading the decisions of the Supreme Court, interesting stuff.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Orando

[james&olya 1,121]

Even though there were many courts that considered a black man to be 3/5 of a human being for some time or with the Brown v Board of Education case for example but, over the course of history, the system worked , the hearts and minds of the people changed and the Supreme Court eventually reflected this. I enjoy reading the decisions of the Supreme Court, interesting stuff.

I think you may be referring to the notorious 'Dred Scott' ruling that sanctioned slavery! Brown v Board of Education referred to 'separate but equal' not being true civil rights for minorities! Most, unfortunately not all, believe that was one of the better moments for the SCOTUS!

[Orando 57]

I think you may be referring to the notorious 'Dred Scott' ruling that sanctioned slavery! Brown v Board of Education referred to 'separate but equal' not being true civil rights for minorities! Most, unfortunately not all, believe that was one of the better moments for the SCOTUS!

Yes indeed! It was good messaging with you. I enjoy political and public policy discussions but it is hard nowadays. It is too nasty and ugly for me nowadays. People just seem to want to get their point across and prove they are right in a very unloving, disrespectful manner from my view.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Orando

[Danno 1,228]

And now, thanks to Nixon's 'southern strategy', the GOP now has those former democrats who were the driving force behind those laws!

Are you in a time warp?

No one from the error is even alive that's not in a nursing home.

I am barely old enough to even remember him in office.

So what part of the Southern strategy was it that converted Klans men in to GOP voters?

(what desperation)

[james&olya 1,121]

Are you in a time warp?

No one from the error is even alive that's not in a nursing home.

I am barely old enough to even remember him in office.

So what part of the Southern strategy was it that converted Klans men in to GOP voters?

(what desperation)

Everybody over 50 is in a nursing home?!!

Which error do you refer to specifically?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Everybody over 50 is in a nursing home?!!

Which error do you refer to specifically?

"error" is southern for "era" James. I speak fluent southern. Remember they add "r"s, it makes up for people in Boston that delete them. It all works out.

Danno is a young guy and thinks his webcam will catch him doing something against God. I know of what you speak, I am over 50, but it wasn't until Jimmy Carter that Dems lost the "solid south" on a national basis but not at the state level. Heck, that shining star of educational evolution, Kentucky, only elected its first Republican Governor in 2003,but it didn't last/

This poll is flawed because it surveyed only Republicans, The results would be the same if you surveyed Dems in Mississippi, I assure you, and blacks have no more enthusiasm for interracial marriages than whites. It is really just some sort of sensationalism which there is a lot of this election cycle. Racism is alive and well in Mississippi. And Alabama and a few other places where education is still illegal and you can get arrested for thinking and driving.

Obama cannot run on his record so he keeps throwing shiny objects off a cliff and the stupid Republicans keep jumping off the cliff after them! "War on Women" for example. If Republicans have no greater focus than an 8 week old kitten then they deserve to lose and we would be better off if they did.