|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Bush is back! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
I dunno, man. I find the words "Chief Justice Scalia" sending hourly chills down my spine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
point made none-the-less. so there is a break off cult and they do it their way?
the point is that once the word becomes officially defined to be an {included \ excluded} categorization of people it is unconstitutional to use it in laws as it then explicitly discriminates. all laws that refer to marriage to distinguish taxes, inheritance, visiting rights, benefits, etcetera -- are void. it will be fun. who will be the next "activist" judge(s) when this goes to court? O'Conner? Scalia? roflol. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I heard on the radio that the insurgents were celebrating that Bush won.
heh. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
bush has talked about how he admires thomas ... but either will not be better than reinquist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Glordag writes:
quote: NO!!! That's exactly what I'm saying they want. In order to do that, Roe v. Wade has to be overturned. I don't think that most American women are going to stand by and allow Roe to be overturned, and I think the democrats in the Senate will do everything in their power to stop an anti-Roe nominee from getting onto the Court. The reaction across the country is likely to be bitter and divisive. Sending abortion back to the states is not going to happen without a near civil war. Mark my words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 751 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Just saw this and had to reply. Thanks for your reply.
But as we all know, these attacks have been going on since Bush I and all the way through the Clinton years, so obviously the jihading fundamentalists' hostility is at more than just presidential style. Right.
Well, US policy certainly has something to do with it, doesn't it? ... Why else are Islamic fundamentalists pissed off with America if not American policies? Because the fundamentals of Islam say to kill those who do not submit to Allah. Because propoganda tells those people that America is the reason everyone is poor and suffering. Because they are jealous of us. Because they can get more power if they incite hatred in order to gain followers.
Where are Kerry and Osama in agreement, other than they both publicly state Bush is a twunt? They aren't. But I believe Osama, like most other people can see through Kerry's tuff talk and political rhetoric and realize that he is as soft militarily as Clinton.
PS... apropo of nothing... I went to factcheck and saw what they had to say about the "Wolves" advert. It was so cunning! "The first attacks on american soil"... in 1993 or whatever. So clever. I'm not sure what thats about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6422 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
Give me a 25-40% lead for a consistent "conservative" policy over a liberal one and we can begin making such statements. Well, you and many won't want to hear this, but gay marriage. 11 for 11 on referenda rejecting it, and in both red and blue states. I know some will be tempted to view everyone who voted for these as Fred Phelps. But that's untrue, and a mistake. Many would see some sort of civil union arrangement, on a state basis, as a reasonable compromise, but are deeply concerned about having such a massive social change imposed on a timetable and form determined by judicial fiat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
I had to figure that upon my return I would no doubt find a fair number of disgruntled evo's, wallowing in their losing leftist agenda. Damn! Talk about underestimating the reaction of the leftists to yet another big defeat.
This thread simply proves a point I have made for years, that the Democratic party has been hijacked by extreme left-wing liberals hell bent on force-feeding their losing agenda to the majority of the populace. As some of you may have noticed, I have been absent for some time. Needless to say, I have been heavily involved in politics over the past several months and all that hard work has paid off big time. This thread also proves another contention of mine, that these same left-wing extremists just don't get it. So, for all of you brain-dead, left-wing liberals who can actually read, let me spell it out for you.....
"IT'S THE MORAL DECLINE OF AMERICA, STUPID!" In all the polls in which I participated, especially the exit polls, the number one issue on the voters mind was the moral decline of America and of the Democratic party agenda being completely out of step with the values shared by the majority of Americans that helped them decide how to vote. I am not sure what pleases me more, the fact that Herman Munster lost the election or the reaction I have seen in here by those who supported that left-wing liberal moron. Perhaps by 2008 the Democrats will be able to take their party back from the extreme leftist liberal morons who now control it and then maybe, just maybe, a majority of Americans can once again embrace the Democratic party and the values that it once believed in and supported. However, if the posts in this thread are any indication, that possibility is gone forever. More's the pity! The Democratic party use to be a great party but it has become nothing more than a useless collection left-wing liberal morons who just don't get it. No surprise there. The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story, nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Verzem Inactive Member |
Sometimes a judge, or a panel of judges, have to draw a line in the sand and say "schools shall be integrated", or "any people who love each other and want to marry, may marry". A lot of people may not like it, but it is the right thing to do.
Verzem
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Talk about underestimating the reaction of the leftists to yet another big defeat. What was big about it? More people voted against Bush than have ever voted against any president, ever.
This thread simply proves a point I have made for years, that the Democratic party has been hijacked by extreme left-wing liberals hell bent on force-feeding their losing agenda to the majority of the populace. Yeah, our agenda of "leave people the fuck alone." I can really see how that would be so objectionable to arrogant moralist busybodies such as yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Look everyone another short sighted right-winger!
I really don't understand why you feel you have so much to gloat about in your political victory. After all, it was hardly a landslide. It was about 1% difference in the election and record numbers voted AGAINST the president. IMHO I think it could have gone either way. Had not the highly uneducated, white, lower-middle class, Christian fundamentalist vote, not turned out you may have been singing a different tune. Perhaps it was Kerry's miscalculation not to pander to the easily lead , self-righteous, dogmatists. Or maybe... he just had more class.Sorry guy, but pork rinds and a "don't mess with Texas attitude does not a leader make. This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-05-2004 11:42 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Morte Member (Idle past 6102 days) Posts: 140 From: Texas Joined: |
quote: ...As opposed to extreme right-wing conservatives hellbent on force-feeding their version of morality on society and enforcing it as law? It's interesting that in a nation that was founded at least partially in the hope of forming a shining example to all of liberty and freedom from tyranny, we still feel the need to create laws restricting basic rights on the basis of religion. No, I'm not talking about abortion. I can understand why people feel that it is wrong, even if I don't agree. But how, in a country that prides itself on its freedoms and its equality, can we honestly be considering an amendment to ban gay marriage? What greater good does this idea serve for society? Does it prevent people from being harmed or wronged, as should be the general purpose of laws in a free society, or does it just harm and wrong people? (I fear that this may be near to straying off-topic, so let me just add - if you want to debate the morality of homosexuality, there are other threads for that and here it could potentially cause an off-topic spiral, so please just reference one and reply there if you feel it necessary; if you wish to respond in reference to enforcing morality in legislation, I would expect that that fits perfectly well into this thread).
quote: ...Speaking of shining examples for us all... I think this quote pretty much speaks for itself, when the one on the "moral high ground" might take greater pride in the anguish of his "enemy" than the elation of his friend.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Morte Member (Idle past 6102 days) Posts: 140 From: Texas Joined: |
quote: For some reason, I found the irony of associating a motto from an environmental preservation (anti-littering) campaign with Bush quite amusing. This message has been edited by Morte, 11-06-2004 12:00 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes: What was big about it? More people voted against Bush than have ever voted against any president, ever. Yeah, our agenda of "leave people the fuck alone." I can really see how that would be so objectionable to arrogant moralist busybodies such as yourself. I figured you to be one of the aforementioned left-wing liberal extremists who just doesn't get it.....boy did I have you pegged right. Just in case you mistakenly think I am wrong about what happened in this election, and to the Democratic party, I offer a few e-mails that have been posted at Instapundit that seem to support my contention that the left wing has virtually destroyed the authenticity of the Democratic party.
ERIC SCHEIE isn't so sure that reality is what the "reality-based community" has a grip on. UPDATE: Meanwhile at "reality-based" blog The Daily Kos, reality seems less important than, well, lying: And thus, the biggest silver lining of this election is how the GOP's victory is thus far being claimed, framed and explained. To that I say, "Let us join that chorus." And we should do so now, because there is immediacy in the post-election window of opportunity. Marching order #1, therefore, is this: No matter whom you talk to outside our circles, begin to perpetuate the (false, exaggerated) notion that George Bush's victory was built not merely on values issues, but gay marriage specifically. If you feel a need to broaden it slightly, try depicting the GOP as a majority party synonymous with gay-haters, warmongers and country-clubbers. Because I, for one, am tired of hearing whiny complaints from conservatives that, not only do I not have values, but that I fail to properly respect the values of people who are all too happy to buy into, no less perpetuate, inaccurate caricatures of the 54+ million Americans who voted Tuesday for John Kerry. Criticizing the GOP ain't gonna build us a new national majority. But the process is brick by brick, or perhaps, brickbat by brickbat. We didn't decide the rules of engagement, but that's what they are and so we may as well start firing away. This doesn't strike me as a very productive approach, but the post is certainly revealing. and.....
On Tuesday, a majority of the American electorate took a look at their party and asked, "Who are these people?" Who are George Soros, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sontag, Teresa Heinz Kerry and all these other self-anointed spokespersons for everything good and true? And what does a party that is dominated by a loose coalition of the coastal intelligentsia, billionaires with too much spare time, the trial lawyers' association, the Hollywood Actors' Guild, rock stars and unionized labor have in common with what's quaintly known as Middle America? The majority's answers were (a) not us; and (b) not a whole lot. Growing up in Topeka, Kansas (where my dad still lives), and now living in Denver, this is pretty much what my friends and associates are thinking, too. What I'm hearing from the Democrats is that middle America voted on moral values, which I take to be code for "they are a bunch of ignorant, bible thumping sheep". There seems to be a lot of hand wringing over how they could have better conveyed their message to the Midwest, and an arrogance that if they had, Kerry would have won in a landslide. What the Democrats don't understand is that yes, we do understand your message, and we reject it. and.....
The Democratic Party--my party--has finally become nothing more than the party of cognitive dissonance. That is why, like Zell Miller and a large fraction of usually Democratic middle America, I backed the other side on this one. . . . Mainstream media bragged of being able to boost the Dems by 15 percent (do you remember Newsweek saying that?). The "blogosphere" has been crowing that MSM failed to do so (for which the blogs also claim responsibility), but I don't agree. I think the MSM actually succeeded in bringing the Dems a 10 to 15 point boost in the election (and maybe more). Before the media spin machine started systematically slamming Bush 18 months ago, he was favored at around 66% in the polls. 66% minus 15% is...well...the 51% margin Bush was re-elected by. Thing is, even the thinly veiled support of most major media outlets wasn't enough to put Kerry in the White House. The Democratic party has completely, utterly, undeniably marginalized itself. The Dems no longer have a national party. All it takes is one look at the electoral map to illustrate that. The so-called "Purple Map" may make them feel better, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. A party that can only win in the Northeast and Left Coast is not a national party anymore. A party that manages to lose by 3 percent even with a huge boost from blatantly partisan favorable media coverage is on its deathbed politically. and.....
It only takes a 3% swing to lose the executive. Bold is good when you have a mandate. But bold must be in programs that are likely to have positive MEASUREABLE results. Other wise you sow the seeds of your next defeat. Remember the middle. It is where you win and lose elections. and.....
53% of those voting in the state were women, 47% men; 28% came from union households, 72% non-union households; 36% had college degrees, 64% did not. ... 38% identified themselves as Republican, 35% Democrat, 27% independent. From another view: 31% said they were conservative, 20% liberal and 49% moderate. Some 54% approved of the job Bush has done as president, 46% disapproved; 56% said the nation is safer from terrorism than four years ago, 42% said it is less safe. The top issues for voters: Moral values (for 21%) and terrorism (20%), followed closely by economy/jobs (19%) and Iraq (18%). Like I said before, let me spell it out for all of the left-wing liberal morons who have hijacked the Democratic party.....
"IT'S THE MORAL DECLINE OF AMERICA, STUPID!" .....not to mention the disgusting disintegration of the once honorable, and moral, Democratic party. Deal with it, you left-wing liberal losers! The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story, nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I figured you to be one of the aforementioned left-wing liberal extremists who just doesn't get it.....boy did I have you pegged right. Brilliant, Sherlock. Maybe, with your next feat of investigative legerdemain, you can tell me who's buried in Grant's tomb? Actually, maybe in your next post, you could actually rebut my points. You have a big problem with that, as I recall.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024