Federalist Paper # 10

Although these papers were written over 200 years ago, we can draw a lot of the original intent of the framers and apply it to how we create laws and understand the United States Constitution.  Federalist 10 (written by Madison) discusses factions and points out the flaws in them along with the purpose of them in politics.  Most of us are passionate about something and the purpose of the two political parties of the United States is to encompass those beliefs.  It has become increasingly difficult over the past 2 years to see that the 2 parties are in fact very different because of the splitting within each party and the incessant mud slinging of politicians in both from both.  There is nothing that can divide quicker and more efficiently than the divide that comes from within.  There are extremists in both parties, there are moderates in both parties, and there is everyone in between.  The major differences are well known and stated in the political platforms of each party but the major ones are of course Homosexual rights, Abortion, Environmental Issues, and Government Powers (size and expanse).  These are issues that often deal with individual morals which are a part of people's foundations, therefor it is obvious that these are going to be passionate subjects and the arguments will turn into personal attacks and rumor spreading.  Is this what Madison was warning us of?  I doubt he had any idea as to what American would come to but it is a safe bet that many of the founding fathers would be disappointed with the country they fought and died to create and protect.

Education of the Masses

Seymour Martin Lipset stated "Who knows only one country knows no countries"
I was reading "How Academia Failed the Nation" by Francis Fukuyama (one of the most intriguing political writers in my opinion) and I felt the need to share my findings with you.  The article talks about the September 11 attacks and the lack of preparedness the United States felt during the response period.  Fukuyama states that there were few that even spoke Pushto or Arabic at all and most of those involved in the assault on Iraq had little understanding of the culture and this led to some of the devastation that would have possibly been avoided had they been educated on the deeper meanings of culture to other nations.
There were few schools that even had Middle Eastern studies as a part of their curriculum at a college level and there were even less specialized programs with training to handle and understand other cultures specifically those in the Middle East.  It is hard for someone at my age to remember in detail what foreign diplomacy and relations were like because I had just started my freshman year in high school but as history has shown, all it takes to shove the masses into education is a tragedy.  The world wars, the attempted invasion of several Asiatic countries, and the Stock Market crash of 1929 were all events that pushed us as a whole into branching out in our education of those things beyond the norms of the time.  It is apparent that this country is lacking in certain knowledge which I believe comes from being a hegemon that has little to fear from any other country.
Fukuyama goes on to say that although it is imperative for people to have at least a basic knowledge of regional studies, it is not enough and "has it's own limitations".  It is more simple to understand one's own country of origin than it is to learn about something completely foreign in immense amounts of ways.  It is easy to overlook and draw general conclusions in areas where specificity is necessary.  Can this be changed?  Will it always take something terrible happening to bring us to reality?  Let us hope not but let this be a lesson learned that we must (as should other countries) be well learned about nations with whom we interact.

Common Good v. Individual Rights

This topic has been on my mind for the past week and each time I have sat down to write about it, something does not sound right in the delivery so hopefully this one is crystal clear.
I recently stumbled upon a quote that I personally agree with about those that tend to support too much focus on the individual rights and it goes as follows "Liberalism, because of it's emphasis on individual autonomy and choice has been criticized as being morally rudderless and insufficiently concerned about the common good"  I have always believed that a common ground must be met in the case of general and specific.  If we never focused on the individual, many rights would be lost and I believe that the Bill of Rights would be made void however, if too much focus is placed on the individual chaos ensues.  There will be riots and the common good of all will be forgotten in the process as some rights are given leeway and others are trampled.
The answer should be simple but as everything in America, it is not.  There are no longer just two sides of the playing field as each side has branched off and created it's own story and interest group.
What to do what to do America?  Have we really been so blind to see that the rights given to the masses are slowly being chinked away in the name of equality?  The past couple decades have produced brilliant minds that have produced brilliant euphemisms to replace harsh or ugly words like Pro-Abortion (now Pro-Choice), Homosexual Marriage (now Equality of Marriage), and Affirmative Action (now Race-Equality).  Trying to go back and fix what was done in history is not the key to success in the future.  This upcoming election will show where the thoughts of out citizens are at but until that time, fight for what you believe in and fight for the rights of the common good because as those rights are given back, individual rights will fall into their place instead of taking the place of what the Bill of Rights promises.

Illegal funding? Perhaps.

Nancy Pelosi has been one of the few politicians that is under constant fire since she became Speaker of the House and for good reason.  She is known for being abrasive and inconsistent in her views.  I was recently reading an article by Charles Babington of the Associated Press and he stated that Pelosi has been able to raise more money than anyone else in the political realm for herself and others with the exception of the President.  This made me wonder and question the validity of the funds because it has been proven although basically ignored that President Obama used illegal funds to support his and other's campaigns.  If Pelosi is doing so well especially during an economic downturn can it be fully within the laws of political campaigns and donations?  There are very strict limits on how much PACs, individuals, businesses, and party members can donate in each election but somehow she is receiving more?
It is enough dishonesty that allowed dead and imprisoned people to vote for Democrats in recent elections but to be receiving and accepting illegal funds that clearly tear down the laws of this country that they should be upholding?  That is a disgrace.

Do Polls Tell True Approval Ratings?

I was recently researching the approval ratings of governors around the country and was surprised to find that the Republican governors are doing a remarkable job in maintaining good marks with the people from their states.  I of course question the validity of polls because I have learned that they are not always accurate but it would appear that the GOP is handling the crisis around the country with flying colors.
Bobby Jindal of Louisiana has a 74% approval rating according to the Rasmussen Report.
Sean Parnell of Alaska is at a 58% approval rating according to the Public Policy Polling.
Gary Herbert of Utah has a rating of 57% according to Utah Policy.
Sonny Perdue of Georgia has a 56% rating from Rasmussen Report.
Linda Lingle of Hawaii has an approval rating of 71% according to Ballotpedia.
On the Democrat side Chet Culvuer of Iowa has a 33% approval rating from Rasmussen Report.
Jack Markell of Delaware hovers around a 40% approval rating according to Public Policy Polling.
David Paterson of New York is at a 21% approval rating accoring to Maristpoll.
Bill Richardson of New Mexico has an approval rating of 28% according to NMPolitics.
As we can see, these are some of the highs and lows but I would urge you to research this trend yourself because I found it interesting that the tide has turned so quickly against the Democratic party.

A Man With Everything to Lose Starting Out.

President Barack Obama was the face of hope to many people in the United States.  He was able to get many different races and age groups out to vote that normally had low turnout rates and as a result he won the Presidency with a landslide election and at the top of his game... However as we have seen in history, things change within a matter of months in the political realm.
President Obama has been unable to keep many of his promises because there have been several large items that have require his immediate attention including the Oil Spill down south, foreign relations abroad going sour, domestic battles of immigration, religion, and free speech.  Although these are not the only reason why his promises have yet to be seen as kept, they have contributed significantly.  It is sad that this man who was a rock star Senator and won with a huge approval rating has fallen so quickly in the polls of his people.  His most recent approval ratings are around 41% which is an all time low for his presidency.  There have been many dishonest items that have risen over the past year and a half and the people are not impressed.  His actions have directly resulted in his political party losing support and with this upcoming election holding so much for both parties, they really cannot afford this loss.  We will know in the next couple months whether people are truly upset enough to show it in their vote or not but it is safe to say that this upcoming election will be one of the most intriguing mid-term elections in recent history.

Mosque on Ground Zero

This is a subject that I have mixed feelings about... I believe that since the religion of Islam is a wonderful religion and has very few radicalists within their ranks, they are being unfairly judged in this matter. However, I feel that it is interesting that some sort of middle ground has not been found. Clearly people are upset and showing their emotions in the streets but most of these Muslims are citizens of this country and the 14th Amendment is clear when it states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".  These people have every right to build a mosque on whatever land they have purchased and it is unfair and unjust for others to try and stop them.  I do think that the Muslims could consider changing the location by a block or so and those fighting the placement of the building could appease on the location a block or so just to show that both sides are willing to work together to find a peace on this.  The United States is known for being a melting pot and as long as other races and ethnicities enter the country within legal means, I see nothing wrong with them embracing their religions and customs because it brings that special spirit that is America the Land of Dreams.  Hopefully this will not end with bad feelings because peace can be found it just needs to be discovered first.

Facebook Status: Intriguing

I posted this on Facebook on August 17, 2010 and within less than 15 hours I had 82 comments.  

Me= my posts and this color and initials are the comments of my friends.  Enjoy.

ORIGINAL POST: I disagree with abortion, affimative action, homosexual marriage, and big government.
I agree with the death penalty, capitalism, legal immigration, and harsher punishments for parole violation.

CL: LOVE, LOVE, LOVE. you're really trying to stir the pot aren't ya.

AC:  Love it!

BD: That's like a political testimony there.

JS: What... are you running for Miss America or something. You left out world peace.

AM: You don't believe in gay marriage? What is wrong with you?

Me:  It is wrong on so many levels no matter how it is looked at. Of course I don't believe in it... I believe in God and the Bible :)

DG: Don't forget gun control.

Me: Oh yes. I do enjoy shooting guns :) that is one good thing about Idaho is gun control laws!

TG:  FRRRRRREAK YEAH!!

DG:  and make sure you vote for Dino Rossi, he'll really need it this year!:)

Me: I wish I could! He should have won in the past 2 gubernatorial races but thanks to Acorn (Obama's friends) and other groups, dead people and imprisoned people's votes were counted and he lost. I am not a resident of Washington technically anymore :(
CH:  I think I disagree with you on everything. I LOVE IT. Good luck at K-State.
SF: That's sounds very unchristlike and very much like dick cheney
Me: Haha so Christ disagreed with God's decision to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? It was destroyed because homosexuality by the way. 
And Christ also thinks that one race is better than another and that they should get special privileges even if they didn't earn them?
And he also believes in the killing of innocent babies just because their mother is too selfish to either live with the consequences of her actions or someone else's?
Yeahhhh I'm so sure that Christ believes in lowering standards and morals in order for people to feel good about their poor and weak behavior. Nice try :)

JJ:  And I'm flaccid.

JA:  

For starters; The God of the old Testament was Jehovah. So it was the proper Lord that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. And the city was destroyed for multiple reasons - not just a single one. 

And of course the Lord is no respecter of person regardless of color. However, given the sad history of race relations here in the US I think its a safe assumption that the Lord would be all for trying to "level the playing field."
As for abortion; its silly to assume that people support abortion. However, people do support the right of a woman to chose. Even the church supports a woman's right to chose in cases of incest, danger of the child/mother, or rape.

If I could only see the world as simply as you do I would probably agree with you more.

I MISS you Lindsay! Again, just keeping you on your toes! Safe travels.

Me: Justin if you are flaccid I wouldn't know but I would say it is weak to lower standards for a selfish reason :)
And Josh I was making a point that obviously there was no disagreement in Heaven with the decision and there have been many references that state homosexuality was not only the final straw but was the main reason and even the dirt of the area was destroyed because of it.
Also, leveling the playing field as you call it lessens the professionality in every job. A job or a spot in college should be earned because the person has worked their butt off to get not because they are a certain color. That is wrong in every way because it then taking from every other race to appease that one. Let's look at Native Americans for example: one of the most self sufficient groups of people has become largely one of the most lazy and uneducated because of this theory of leveling the playing field.  

 

Oh and I know plenty of people that support abortion for a plethora of reasons not just so the mother has a choice. It is selfish no matter how you look at it and no matter the circumstance. I said previously that whether her actions or other, I can't believe that adoption isn't an option. Unless it is 100 percent that the mother would die if the pregnancy were continue, I don't agree.

I did get to Kansas safely and I am LOVING it out here!
Ps its not hard to see the world in black and white. More and more theses days there is less gray area and its quite obvious to me :)

A black man is president now if you weren't aware so I would say that the races are doing just fine.

AC:  

I'm pretty sure Lindsay's last comment was pure and complete sarcasm. Although rampant promiscuous sexual relations (especially among the homoesexual crowd) were a huge reason Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, there were obviously more reasons.

I must say that I disagree with the abortion argument. People do support abortion (do some research on how much $$money$$ is in the industry). And please don't give me the "choice" argument. I strongly believe in a woman's right to chose, and when she chooses to have sex, the consequence of that action sometimes produces a baby; the choice has already been made.

I also think it's absurd to think that the Lord (the one who has a PERFECT understanding of agency) would be an advocate for leveling the playing field. He would be forced to take one side over another and succumb to being a respecter of persons and would then cease to be God (but I guess that is a philosophical question for another day).

Lindsay, keep up the good work. Some of you other guys, you need to work on your arguments!

(DISCLAIMER: I WASN'T BEING SARCASTIC).

CG: I LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOOOOOVE reading your status updates. :)

JA:  

I enjoyed the flaccid comment. I LOL'd.

There's really no need to clarify the comments. The point I was trying to make is often the over simplification of situations makes for weak, and at times, illogical arguments.

Lindsay, I'll visit you in Kanas and you come visit me in DC. Deal?

JJ: 

Let me clarify. I'm flaccid and I love sweeping generalizations on issues.

JA:  I keep liking all these flaccid arguments. Does that make me day? Dangit.

Me: So you would prefer specifics on everything? 

Hmmm that would take to long :)
I prefer my generalizations. Especially since I am right. Cool huh?

JJ: Hmmm, that's exactly what I tell children when they ask for something and I say no. Then again, I've heard thats great parenting.

MC:  and world peace...

Me:  

Even if someone doesn't believe in God there are completely logical reasons for my perspective. I've already explained the homosexual perspective but affimative action and big business are for similar reasons.
In ANY business, you would want the best correct? No matter what gender, ethnicity, or race you will want someone that has the education, the mind, and the drive. If an equal playing were real, everyone would have the same chance and they don't because they have to have their quotas filled with all the different races. I'm sorry but that is just stupid and unwise. Its not difficult to understand that.

SP: DISLIKE!!!

Me: There are a few things I like that Ann Coulter says but one is "if Democrats had any brains, they would be Republican". Totally!

CS: My name's Clayton and i support this message (lindsay's original post). Well said.

SP: Question:
How many people who have had abortions have you met?
How many gay people do you know?
How many un-wanted babies have you adopted?

Although the rambling of ignorance is quite entertaining.

AC: So, does that mean that I need to go out and make friends with women who have had abortions to be able to voice an opinion on the subject? Or how many gay friends does it take to make an informed decision on gay marriage? Sherri, I'm dieing to know so I can be enlightened in your eyes.

Me:  are you serious?
Let's see... Since most women do not go around broadcasting the fact that they have assisted in murder, I know of few but of the 6 that I do know ALL regret it. Abortion is not only wrong but it has a HUGE psychological effect on the mother and oftentimes they fall into depression and many have attempted suiced. Yeah. Great option there.
I know many many gay people most of whom I really like and am good friends with. They know how I feel and we don't discuss it typically because our friendship goes beyond political beliefs.
I am 23 years old and single. What right do I have to adopt. What a stupid and uneducated comment you just made. Really. If I were to walk into an adoption clinic (which I plan to when I am married) and ask if I can adopt, they would never let me because I am a student and single.
Way to make yourself the status fool though :)

JJ:   FYI, you can license for foster care at the age of 21.
SF: The funny thing is you being a Mormon should see how evil capitalism is and should know Joseph smith actually intended the church to be communistic and Mormons will someday live that way again so they say. Well good luck tryin yo do that then when you can support it now. Capitalism promotes greed and dishonesty if you want to bring Christ into this he was a socialist he looked out for everyone. Then again the more religiously conservative people usually are less tolerant of everyone else and other people. Quite a paradox I'm sure Jesus would accept the gays nowadays just like he hung out with the prostitutes and heathens back in his.
SP: I guess we can agree to disagree. Most of my facebook friends would think you were the one who made yourself the status fool. It is easy to get everyone to agree with you when they are all in your own political and religious circle. I dare you to post this somewhere were anyone can comment and see what feed back you get.
Me: As you can see Sherri many of my friends disagree. Many of my friends are more liberal and are not a member of my religion and I have posted this elsewhere :) I have a political blog. So what do I get for already doing the dare?
Justine, your comment didn't make sense and I feel as though you may be drunk...? If so thanks for negating your stance by proving your instability :)
Shawn... Yeahhhh communism and socialism are SO different from the Law of Consecration its not even funny that you would bring that up. You want to bring God in, no amount of sin can be looked with the least degree of allowance... You REALLY think Jesus is just hunky dory about people that support this?

 Adam and Clayton, thank you :) I appreciate the support from everyone :) and I appreciate the posts from people that don't agree because I really like to explain myself and why and this gives me the chance.

SF: That's fine Adam and I respect your view I don't agree with it but I respect. But when Lindsay goes tea party radical with what she says about alternate and different ways of life other than hers it becomes intolerant and very very contrary to what Jesus actually taught.

Me: I'm not even close to being a radicalist. Not even close. Why can't I comment on alternate lifestyles when they have a political significance to me? I trying to bar my freedom speech Mr. Ferguson because that is unconstitutional :)
I love my gay friends. I love the girls I know that have had abortions.
I don't have to agree with people to care about them but I have every right to say they are wrong. Although I would never go so far as you have (hypocrite) to say it is intolerable.

SF: No they really aren't that different Lindsay not at all. In fact if you did your historical research Joseph smith started the church with communistic principles (how dare he?!). The law of consecration is exactly like communism with a theological head instead of a secular head. Bottom line: capitalism is polar opposite of the law of consecration therefore it must be opposite of a godly law. So you have to support one and hate the other. Take your pic. And I will still hold on to the fact that Jesus hung out with the sinners he was tolerant the way you have portrayed yourself show just how intolerant you are. I am fine if you are conservative even ultra conservative I respect all views but when it's portrayed in a dogmatic as a matter of fact way it becomes ugly and very counter productive as you have so gracefully demonstrated by your posts.

MC: I think you all are friggin idiots for turning this from a political discussion to a religious one. Sure people get their ideals from their religion but quit playing the Jesus card! Shawn, there is a BIG difference from communism and the LAW OF CONSECRATION. It's not communism. The only thing that should matter here is people have CHOICE in their life. ALL choices have consequences whether good or bad. I know where I stand on issues, I have to give other people their freedoms if I am going to enjoy the same. That is right and that is fair. What those people DO with those same freedoms is up to them.

SF: Well Matt it sure ain't capitalism if that's what you want to argue.

Me: Thanks Matt. it still makes me laugh that Shawn thinks I'm intolerant because I disagree with gay rights and abortion. I assure I am not at all and it goes to show how much you know in general about me. If I am intolerant what does that make people who commit horrible hate crimes? What does that make people who use racial and derogatory slurs? What does it make people who actively go out and protest against people who are different (yes I said different because we are ALL different in our perspectives obviously) than them because of fear or hate? You don't get it and I really hope you do one day. Sometimes I think you are so liberal because you wanted to be different growing in Red Rexburg... You need better facts.

AR:  

I have no interest in your political views or religious views ( no offense) although I do find the facebook debate highly entertaining...I do agree with you that you don't have to agree with people's lifestyle choices to love and care about them, I personally do not understand homosexuality and as a christian believe it is not the way God intended us to live, I do however love the people in my life who choose that lifestyle because as it says in the bible it is not our job to judge but to love unconditionally. I have friends and family who have had abortions and while I personally do not believe in their choice I love them regardless, my relationship with them has not changed because of it. Lindsay is not a bad person for voicing her opinions she is clearly not ignorant as she has been educated quite well, you don't have to agree with her but the thing is we live in America where she has the right to believe in what she wants to believe in and say it when she feels, I haven't seen her comment that any one who disagrees with her is ignorant or stupid so perhaps the conversation should be kept political and not personal...just a suggestion.

MC:  

I'm not arguing anything. Capitalism has its flaws sure. what economic theory doesn't? but capitalism gives us the most choices in our life. Communism doesn't, that is about control. I am arguing choice. For good or bad, better or worse, richer or poorer, etc, etc. There is always going to be someone there to take advantage of the system in any economy. But Capitalism gives us all the choices we want and make a decision for ourselves what we want to spend our money on or what to produce etc etc. That is what is most important! Choice! I don't want someone to make that choice for me. If I want to blow 3 grand I don't have then heck that is MY choice. I will have to deal with the consequences of such an act. But hey! I made a choice right?

Me: Congrats to Ashley for silencing everyone with honesty and best of all, with love and respect. We could all take a lesson from her.

DG: Who is ready to cleanse the House this November!! Shawn, Chris, and Josh, I hope you're as giddy about this as I am! But the GOP needs to purge its ranks of RINOs and then we can look fwd to November, I'm glad we are finding more and more candidates who can articulate their differences with Democrats.

SF: She hasn't silenced me ms. Ashley Reed sorry you dont even know me She and everyone who doesnt see the flaws in her thinking definitely has shown ignorance with how she condemned gays abortion an everyone else who doesn't see eye to eye. Yes I hold to what I said before the more religious you are the more intolerant you are. That's that and you Ashley and lindsay won't
Agree because you are blind to it. That's fine I don't care I guess you can pull the blinders off your eyes in your own due time. I'd have to say Lindsay I'm pretty disappointed with how arrogant you have become since the days of byui. What a blessing getting a masters degree is for you I'm happy for you.

DG: some one please give a scriptural reference were the Lord commanded that the temporal welfare of the people be vested in the power of the state, please anyone? Aren't we judged upon what we do as individuals and not the social government programs we vote for? Aren't we blessed for the quiet acts of service we do for those in need, and condemned for sounding our loud, boisterous trumpets to be seen of men? I think some here would do well to read the writings of President Benson, and how he expressed that forcing reluctant citizens to perform "acts of charity against their will" was not in keeping with the gospel, and is in fact the design of the adversary. Are there people in need? Yes. Do we have a duty to help them and bear one another's burdens? Of course. But do it individually...pay a generous fast offering, give of your time and talents to help those in need, but don't force others to pay through government compulsion and against their will. Salvation is not vested through government compulsion and redistribution.

AR:  

Its unfortunate that you didn't objectively read what I wrote. I am not condemning anyone for anything, I think that we live in america and have the right to choose our beliefs, I think that we have two different political parties who we can freely choose to support. I don't think anyone who is gay, supports gay marriage, has an abortion or supports abortion is a bad person or ignorant. I think they are different then me that doesn't make them any better or worse than who I am. Ignorance is defined as a lack of knowledge, information, or education, I don't think that you me or Lindsay is any of those things. I didn't personally attack any ones intelligence or the type of person they are or even their beliefs. I am perfectly tolerant some of my closest friends have had abortions, I didn't ever say anything to them, in fact I supported them in the decision they chose whether I thought it was right or wrong, even more so I drove her to the clinic and sat by her side so she didn't have to be alone, if thats intolerance then I must be severely misguided. I am not saying that as a whole people with strong religious beliefs don't tend to be intolerant but I think that it is unfair to include me a person you don't know in a blanket statement.

AC: Wow, from what I've noticed, Daniel is awesome, and Shawn can't put a sentence together without making someone feel stupid. I say Daniel wins this one.

BE: Interesting debate here Lindsay. I've gotta say that for the most part, I agree with what you have to say, especially the opening argument.

Shawn, I just don't see any logical points in any of your posts. All you've shared is the fact that you think capitalism is ruining the world and that anyone that has any sort of religion in their lives is ignorant and intolerant. I don't see any support for any of your arguments, and quite frankly, see a lot of the anti-Mormon argument in your comments. For anyone that is LDS, you've probably noticed that when you talk to a person of another faith about their religion, that person tends to focus more on the LDS beliefs and why they feel they are wrong, rather than what they believe. Hence the criticism without the support for their own beliefs. Come back with your own beliefs instead of simply criticizing others.

I didn't grow up LDS, or grow up religious at all for that matter, and I have agreed with Lindsays original argument since I was old enough to know what each of those statements mean.

Sorry, I don't have anything witty or insightful, I'm just tired of the criticism without belief and support of their own.

Me: I just don't understand how anyone can say anyone else on here is intolerant. Well except maybe Shawn at this point because he refuses to see that no one is condemning but merely stating how we feel. Since when is this wrong?? Shawn... Calm the freak down or stop commenting because you are being absolutely uncalled for

AE: DISLIKE AS WELL!!!!! LINDSAY, NOT SURE IF YOU REALLY REMEMBER ME FROM SCHOOL OR ONLY REQUESTED ME BECAUSE WE HAD MUTUAL FRIENDS BUT I AM A "HOMOSEXUAL" AND I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THESE SO CALLED "GAY FRIENDS" OF YOURS WOULD EVEN REMAIN FRIENDS WITH YOU FOR SAYING ANYTHING LIKE WHAT YOU HAVE SAID! I DON'T DOUBT YOUR SMARTS AND I'M GLAD THAT YOU HAVE SUCH COMMITMENT AND DEDICATION TO YOUR BELIEFS BUT IF THAT'S THE CASE AND THAT IS REALLY HOW YOU FEEL....I DEFINITELY AM NOT ONE OF YOUR "GAY FRIENDS!" @ SHERRI PHILLIPS: I HAVE TO SAY THAT I ADMIRE YOU FOR WHAT YOU HAVE POSTED, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU AND I DO NOT FEEL THAT YOU ARE IDIOTIC, STUPID, NOR UNEDUCATED....GOOD FOR YOU!

Me: I remember you obviously because we went to the same school for years but my gay friends are super comfortable with who they are and our friendship is much deeper than our political thoughts which are very different. They choose to not be offended as should you.
Calm down with the all caps because it's a bit dramatic.

AE:  LMFAO! YOU CALM DOWN WITH THE HYPOCRITICAL STATEMENTS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SAY THAT YOU ARE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY AND THEN ON THE SAME NOTE SAY THAT YOU "KNOW MANY MANY GAY PEOPLE WHOM MOST YOU REALLY LIKE AND ARE GOOD FRIENDS WITH. THEY KNOW HOW U FEEL AND YOU DON'T DISCUSS IT TYPICALLY BECAUSE YOUR FRIENDSHIP GOES BEYOND POLITICAL BELIEFS." YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF!

Me:  Ps maybe you all should read my status again. It says I don't agree with gay marriage... I didn't condemn anyone although I'm enjoying being condemned in return.

Abby I doubt you have even read most of the comments and its actually called hypocrisy when someone accuses you of doing something or not doing something when they themselves are doing or not doing it. It was being implied that I shouldn't say anything against abortion unless I had adopted kids when they hadn't either. I am allowed to say and perfectly legitimized to say that I don't believe in gay marriage. Since there are only 10 countries in the entire world that even recognize gay marriage, I would say my thought process is prevalent.

AE: NO ONE SAID THAT YOU ARE NOT "ALLOWED" TO SAY ANYTHING BUT WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS THAT WE DISLIKE YOUR STATUS AND THAT WE DISAGREE WITH YOU...EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINIONS AND I HAVE VOICED MINE AS WELL. GOOD LUCK TO YOU..

Me: I'm not saying otherwise but you and others have stated loud and clear that I'm condemning people and contradicting myself and I'm not. I know what I believe and I stand by that but it is clear by your response that you didn't even read my status so how can you respond in a way that makes sense if your argument is against something I never claimed? That is unfair. I'm sorry that you are upset but that is politics and that is our country. Ash stated that we are all entitled to our opinions and I'm glad you can see that fact. 

Thank you for clarifying.

AE:  I ACTUALLY READ EVERY SINGLE COMMENT AS WELL AS YOUR ORIGINAL POST, IT JUST SEEMED REPETITIVE AND AS THOUGH YOU WERE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF...SORRY IF I MISUNDERSTOOD, I WAS A LITTLE OFFENDED. I AM NOT SORRY FOR VOICING MY OPINION THOUGH. AND ONE MORE THING...I COMPLETELY SUPPORT HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE SINCE WE ARE "CLARIFYING."

Me: I get that you support it. Again that was loud and clear but the reason why it seemed repetitive was because people were throwing the same argument and I felt it necessary to address them as such.
I want to point out a comment my roommate made about this whole thing which is that there are many homosexuals that do not support same-sex marriage. I think it is because many people in general feel that marriage is the next step to procreating and since same-sex marriages cannot provide that, they don't see the purpose in marriage. Its just some food for thought.

CL: abby haven't you ever disagreed with a parent, a friend, a sibling, a roommate, anyone? a person can disagree with someone and still remain friends.

Me: Hey Chris... I stirred the pot :) look at allllll these people that I got angry. Just for stating my opinion. I guess politics is the road for me because I already have the basics down.
I'm not sure if Abby will answer you but I am living proof that you can disagree and remain friends. Its part of a mature relationship right? If everyone agreed, how boring would that be?

CL: very boring. but if people couldn't disagree and still be friends, we would all live in caves. alone. because nobody could stand to be around anyone else:)

BE: Abby, sorry but if you can't get over the fact that people don't believe in or support it but are still willing to be your friend, perhaps you need to get steppin'. I in no way support gay marriage, yet I have friends who are homosexual. I also have friends who are members of the church and homosexual. They all know my beliefs, but they also know they have agency and I'm not condemning them for acting on that agency. I don't have to accept everything someone believes in, supports, or acts upon in order to care for them as a friend.

Do you agree with all the choices every member of your family makes? But do you love and care about them anyways?

AE: YES CHRIS I HAVE DISAGREED WITH PEOPLE I CARED ABOUT AND YES MOST OF THEM ARE STILL FRIENDS AND OF COURSE MY FAMILY WILL ALWAYS BE MY FAMILY NO MATTER WHAT. GOOD POINT.

BE:  Abby I'm sure you're a wonderful girl and a lot of fun to be around. Please don't confuse our disagreement with is not liking you. We do and we like that you're finding out for yourself who you are.

Can you please take the caps off?

Me:  Everyones comments have most definitely created to most interesting set of comments I've ever seen. If no one minds I would like to post this to my political blog. I will be posting the website for the blog later today when I have finished adding my pieces and will then update the blog on a regular basis. If anyone has any questions or concerns please let me know.

Judge Activism

I believe that most are aware of Proposition 8 which passed in California to stop same-sex marriages from taking place.  This was legally voted on by the people of the state of California... Justice Walker of the 9th Circuit decided that he would take it upon himself to change this.  He is an openly gay man and has chosen to put his personal lifestyle and beliefs into law above what was voted on last year.  This is crossing the line.  Judge activism has gotten more accepted over the years and it is just not appropriate!  It is not the place or duty of the Judicial Branch to actively support or back cases that are beyond their jurisdiction.  This case will have to go to the Supreme Court and what a waste of tax dollars to overturn a case that was already voted on by the people.  

I have heard that it is "inequality" to deny the homosexual community the right to marry someone of the same sex but I would like to pose a question: Where does it say that they do not have the right to get married legally and lawfully?  They can marry but they are choosing to try and sidestep the outlines of marriage which has always been between a man and a woman.  If we want to get technical here we can go as far as saying this country was built on Christian values and although there are many that are not Christians themselves, these are the basis of the American law.  The Christian God states that homosexuality is an abomination and cities in the Bible were destroyed for practicing such activities.  Now if you were a Christian, would it not appear that your God is against same-sex marriage?  

There are many religions that are against same-sex marriage and if the federal government were to make it legal for the gay and lesbian community to marry in every state, these religions would be infringed because they would be forced by same document that gives them freedom to recognize and even perform these marriages.  

And the homosexual community states that their rights are being infringed?  It is clear that they are not.  Justice Walker has however infringed on the rights of the voters and this needs to stop.  It is not right and it is not within the bounds of the law to do what he did.  Many are calling for impeachment but I do not think that is the answer to this problem.  The judgement simply needs to be rescinded and he needs to act within his authority as a Judge in the United States.  If he wants to change laws he should run for office but he crossed the line as a judge.