|
Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
24-02-04, 06:04 PM | #1 | |||
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
GOP Lite
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
can we get back to the real issues now? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Feb24.html |
|||
24-02-04, 06:49 PM | #2 |
Bumbling idiot
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Vancouver, CA
Posts: 787
|
It's just one of those polarizing issues where you can't make everyone happy, or at least make them go away. Politicians must hate these
|
24-02-04, 07:51 PM | #3 |
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,024
|
might as well try passing an amendment against miscegenation. it'll have as much a chance of succeeding as his anti-gay proposal and be remembered just as warmly by future generations. bush is a small minded ass.
- js. |
24-02-04, 09:03 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
|
anti-gay? lol
|
24-02-04, 10:55 PM | #5 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 381
|
Quote:
btw, you do realize that you’re the donkey…don’t you? a few facts about your anti-gay comment…(facts=those pesky ‘lil things you don’t bother with) president bush appointed homosexual activist..scott evertz, to the office of national aids policy..which was the first appointment of an open homosexual to this federal position. then he transferred evertz to direct u.s. policy on global funding for aids, and appointed another homosexual activist to take over as the new director. he also appointed yet another homosexual activist to be ambassador to romania...at the protest of the romanian government. and..he appointed homosexual donald capoccia to the u.s. commission of fine arts. he appointed a homosexual to the state department as an arms control advisor, which was the first appointment of an openly gay person to a senior arms control post. he has also appointed many openly gay republicans to the president’s advisory council on hiv/aids. he has stated that a person’s sexual orientation is irrelevant as long as he/she has the job qualifications for a position. |
|
25-02-04, 12:27 AM | #6 |
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,024
|
gwbush to gays: “drop dead.”
someday scoob you and span will get yur heads out of each other's bowls and see things for the way they really are. but until that day arrives… nah, it'll never come. still, i must press on with your education regardless if it's an exercise in futility. there is one gay group the right can count on, year after year, for unwavering public support in the face of continuing humiliations. most gays (and straights) consider them nothing more than self loathing hypocrites but for whatever reason, maybe because they'd rather piss out of the tent than in or maybe because they just can't keep their hands off all those sweaty republican fascists, the “log cabin republicans” have been there for bush. they’d be the ones who’d use your “facts” above, ahem, to convince the simple minded and impressionable that bush really isn’t homophobic and anti-gay in spite of his actions to the contrary. not any more. sorry scoob ( i seem to have to write a lot). the real experts, the ones who’d give bush the benefit of the doubt if he was caught on a frat boy binge painting swastikas in a bath house, have abandoned him completely on this issue. (say, didn’t hitler start with gays back in the 30’s? made ‘em wear pink triangles?) thier respnse to bush's support for an amendement to the us constitution denying them the right to marry - "Log Cabin considers support for this amendment a declaration of war on gay and lesbian families and an attack on our sacred Constitution." - Patrick Guerriero, executive director. so save the kinder, gentler 'gwbush is a gays best pal' soft soaping for the kindergarten class, nobody believes that fractured fairy tale. like so much else republican smog, it just isn’t true. “A Declaration Of War.” wow. strong stuff that. that’s not your clear thinking liberal pal jack spratts talking, no siree. that’s the best friend a republican homophobe could've had: a nice, conservative log cabin gay guy who looks the other way so often he can see around corners. i was gonna add “bush supportin’” but well, that would really be a whopper now wouldn’t it? - js. |
25-02-04, 01:32 AM | #7 | ||
BANG BANG BANG (repeat as necessary)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Soon to be elsewhere
Posts: 1,327
|
Quote:
Quote:
If Bush is working on stereotypes, it makes me wonder what Romania did to piss him off so much! (JOKE...)
__________________
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" Dick Cheney - August 26, 2002 "I did not authorise the leaking of the name of David Kelly. Nobody was authorised to name David Kelly. I believe we have acted properly throughout" Tony Blair - July 22, 2003 |
||
25-02-04, 02:42 AM | #8 |
Formal Ball Proof
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,948
|
I'd just like to point out that the adjective "polarized" is not appropriate to describe the issue of gay marriages between the candidates, as neither (Kerry nor Bush) supports it. Certainly in the arena of public discourse it's a polarizing issue, but then so is everything from the banality of popstar tit flashes on up. The difference between them (Dumb and Dumber) is one of a few degrees but it's hardly diametrical: Bush makes no bones that he would oppose it aggressively while Kerry, it seems, would oppose it, but be PC about it.
For the record, although Kerry does oppose constitutional amendments defining marriage, his careful rhetoric at this point is the he "'prefers' civil unions and will reject any state or federal laws" that could be used against equal protections for those in them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, but he has stated that he "personally opposes gay marriage." In my opinion this is a nutless attempt to seem superficially gay-friendly (gays and those who find "gay-sympathetic" issues critical are probably a good deal less than 10% of the vote--my guess, I have no stats) while trying to simultaneously appease the roughly 50% of Democrats who oppose gay marriage--and figuring the other 50% will probably still prefer "anyone but Bush." I say nutless, but I guess all you can really blame him for is thinking that soulectomies are a prerequisite for candidacy. I know a few gays who are "staunch Republicans" (ie: rabid enough to support Bush in spite of the facts) but I think it's a fair bet that the vast majority of gays feel they have good reason to detest Georgey-Porgey. (with all his mumbling about God and "Faith-Based Initiatives;" bad form if not scary to begin with and pretty consistently proving why) Seems all Kerry has to do is be a few degrees less of an outright bigot on this issue to cop the votes of those who see it as an issue, and as far as I'm concerned that's exactly all that he's done. Yes, I'll be voting for the lesser of two evils (not just because of this issue) but I predict if Kerry is elected I'll probably be talking smack about his administration about 87.5% of the time, whereas I bitch about Bush 92.3% of the time. And, lol, I'm wondering if the Young Republican Faction here will still be calling me unpatriotic because I'm critical of a president? No matter, I'm sure they'll find ways to disagree with me even if the shoe's on the other foot (or would that be the same foot?) and I'm doing "their job". And good point tambourine dude, but to be fair, gays have gravitated most strongly towards AIDS activism in the states even though neither here nor globally of course is it a strictly "gay issue"--and these appointments may speak more to the fact that many straight Americans have been somehow lulled into thinking otherwise than sheer tokenism. But do I wonder if Bush is planning on forming a Department of Interior Decoration... |
25-02-04, 01:19 PM | #9 | |
--------------------
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
|
Quote:
To Quote the LA Times.... Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage. Seems the Democrats are the ones saying, as you put it...Drop Dead!..... Bush's Words... The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress. Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city. For all these reasons, the Defense of Marriage requires a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency. Thank you very much
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend |
|
25-02-04, 02:30 PM | #10 | |
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,024
|
Quote:
- js. |
|
25-02-04, 02:43 PM | #11 | |
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
|
Quote:
|
|
25-02-04, 03:02 PM | #12 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 381
|
Quote:
|
|
25-02-04, 03:15 PM | #13 | |
--------------------
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
|
Quote:
Is marriage is a religious institution? If so should it be part of the constitution Does a marriage license violate separation of church from state?? Historically, the framers of the US Constitution responded to abuses of churches as they influenced governments didn't they? Aren't licensing civil unions a state function?
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend Last edited by Sinner : 25-02-04 at 03:31 PM. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|