I agree with you that the fact that Jefferson is still in office is unconscionable.

And that the whole earmark thing is WAY out of hand, on both sides. I remember that on a budget a year or two ago, there was an earmark in there to honor Ronald Reagan with, I think, a highway in California, and one reporter mentioned the irony that if the item had come up in the Reagan administration, he would have vetoed it.

As for sex scandals, I think it was pretty clear to everyone which side Spitzer was on. But he stepped down. Larry Craig did not.

Both sides play all games, I agree.
I disagree that treatment varies along party lines, but it does vary by case.

actually, you're right.

I believe that the will of the people should be honored EXCEPT in instances of minorities' civil rights - which should never be put to a popularity vote.

Nope...

The will of the people should NEVER be applied unless the legislation commands it (such as this proposal or other initiatives)...

The will of the people is for elections only...

If you truly believe the "will of the people should be honored", here's a simple question then...

Why have a government?....

According to your way, every topic would be on a ballot and every person would vote on everything...then everything 50% + 1 would become law...

That's a TRUE democracy....of which we are not...Mob rule is just about the worst thing any country could do...Imagine 50% + 1 of the majority changing the constitution itself and removing amendments any way the wind blows?...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

you're nitpicking semantics

I'm not going to go back through the thread and make sure that every one of my words has been chosen judiciously so that they can't be picked apart in a semantics war.

I said 'honor' - not 'apply' - and there IS a difference. Perhaps I should have used 'seriously taken into consideration' instead of 'honor' - but, again, it's just a matter of semantics, when my intent was clear.

I stand by my statements as intended - and read by anyone who isn't looking for something to grab ahold of and basically change the topic

Let's read the original article again...

Don't see the term "honor" in there anywhere...

I do see "fight it"...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

as I said - and which you keep distorting and/or ignoring - EXCEPT for civil rights for minorities, which should be protected from mob rule

you're intentionally distorting, twisting and ignoring certain parts of my posts in order to play semantics games

I'm not interested in playing

I'm not being hypocritical at all - I'm completely steadfast in my opinion - and I"m not going to play stupid games defending absurd interpretations and paraphrasing of my words

An op-ed I've found while researching which sums it up nicely...

Is Marriage a Civil Right?

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

that doesn't sum up anything

that's just an anti-gay marriage rant

:eyeroll

if that's the kind of thing that informs your opinions, no wonder you're wrong so much of the time

Well what makes YOU believe gay marriage is a civil right?...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Civil rights are the rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.