Guest Spicy McHaggis Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 All of you are talking utter rot. People are elected because the voters believe they are the best candidates for the job. Whether they represent a majority opinion is utterly irrelevant; whether they work to implement majority opinions as policy after the election is equally irrelevant. No elected official is obliged to do anything of the sort. That's what we suffered for eight years under President Clinton, for Christ's sake. Poll on a given issue, jump in front of the majority and "lead" it, poll on another issue. It is dishonest, degenerative, and demeaning. If the voters feel that an elected official is doing a bad job, they can do something about it at the next election. That's what I meant. But voters generally think the best candidate is the one they agree with most. And if that changes, Tyler, they can vote for somebody else.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 It did change, and yet, you seem to still believe that Frist's comments represent mainstream America. That is, of course, absurd. Even if a plaurality wouldn't support making gay marriages legal, as showed in the Gallup poll, the majority would certainly not support a ban, either. Frist is taking his opinion -- which is likely a previously unknown barb -- and trying to push through his own personal, anti-rights trash into the constitution. This is neither in the nation's best interest, nor is it the opinion of the plaurality. By the time he comes up for re-election, it could theoretically be too late.
Guest NoCalMike Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 ermm, we "suffered" under 8 years of Clinton huh?
Guest Cancer Marney Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 At the very least insofar as he jumped in front of every popular movement and claimed to be leading it. That isn't the President's job. The federal government should not be run by polls and surveys; even you should admit that.
Guest Spicy McHaggis Posted July 1, 2003 Report Posted July 1, 2003 It did change, and yet, you seem to still believe that Frist's comments represent mainstream America. That is, of course, absurd. Even if a plaurality wouldn't support making gay marriages legal, as showed in the Gallup poll, the majority would certainly not support a ban, either. Frist is taking his opinion -- which is likely a previously unknown barb -- and trying to push through his own personal, anti-rights trash into the constitution. This is neither in the nation's best interest, nor is it the opinion of the plaurality. By the time he comes up for re-election, it could theoretically be too late. You're missing the point of this tactic. Anti-gay marriage people know that state and federal legislatures, with a few exceptions, will be very reluctant to legalize gay marriage due to possible voter backlash. The only way gay marriage will be legalized is through the courts... I would guess 9th Circuit/CA Supreme --> SCourt. The only way to head off the SCourt from legalizing gay marriage is to change the Constitution. Wrong as it may be, that's why they want the amendment. Frist isn't anti-rights per se, just severely anti-gay marriage.
Guest JMA Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 How can Frist not be anti-rights when he's anti-gay marriage? He wants to restrict the right for two Americans to get married. How could anything be wrong with that? It hurts NO ONE. NO ONE.
Guest Jobber of the Week Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 I'm not going to pass judgment on Spicy himself, since I don't know the guy well enough to do such a thing. However, his posts do have this underlying seperation between rights and gay marriage. This is perhaps because that's how those against gay marriage defend their position (it's not a civil right, it's "something different") or maybe he agrees with that position that marriage rights aren't really "rights" rights all along (and even if he does, it's appearantly okay, as American society has shown this year that gay people are an exception for minority prejudice.) Again, I'm not the man to make the call, I've just been observing that and saying nothing.
Guest Midnight Express83 Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 Everyone has the legal right to get married in this country as long as they are over 18(marriage contract) and both concent to it. People have civil rights and part of that civil rights is to marry whoever you want as long as their is concent, witness, and both of legal age. Now where does it say that two people can't get married because of sex? If you know married couples get tax breaks then not allowing is unfair there. If married couples got money from 9-11, and since NY, CT, NJ, PA doesn't allow gay marriges, those gay couples not only lost a love one but those 9-11 funds wouldn't go to non married couples(despite having way over a billion dollars in them). Again its not fair. If you think this "Anti-Gay Marriage" isn't "Anti-Civil Rights" is a lie. You are infringing on atleast 30 million Americans because its against the "religiolus" rules. Not only are they people who make this bullshit up are wrong scum. Those who try to defend this is scum to for beliving this bullshit. Didn't the civil rights movement show that if you piss on a part of the population long enough, the shit will hit the fan big time?
Guest Vyce Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 only way to head off the SCourt from legalizing gay marriage is to change the Constitution. Wrong as it may be, that's why they want the amendment. Frist isn't anti-rights per se, just severely anti-gay marriage. I believe this is the precise purpose of the proposed amendment. They just want to preemptively strike so that the Supreme Court won't have the opportunity to interpret the law in a particular way. Have we discussed state's rights in this thread? I personally have no problem with gay marriages; if they want to get married, that's fine with me. What do I care? However, I was uneasy at the sodomy ruling this past week because it was something of a defeat for state's rights. So let me ask this question: for those in favor of gay marriage, would you like it decision whether or not to allow / recognize gay marriage to be one of each individual state (such as we've seen in Vermont)? Or would like like a federal law, or a Supreme Court ruling (which is effectively the same thing), expressly requiring the allowance of gay marriage that all states must acknowledge and support?
Guest Midnight Express83 Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 Well, seeing that with states having that chace to vote that and only two have. I see it being a Supreme Court ruling. If you won't allow two adults the same freedoms as others then the Supreme Court should step in and aloow such acts.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 I think sooner or later, someone is going to sue for the right to marry in a state that doesn't support it. Barring some unforseen circumstance in which the Supreme Court reverses itself, they will legalize it at that point. By the way, Howard Dean supports state's rights on this issue.
Guest Vyce Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 Good for Dean. Too bad the rest of his platform makes him the kind of liberal I fear ever gaining control of the country.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 You've obviously never read his platform, since he's the most centrist candidate not named Lieberman.
Guest NoCalMike Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 I don't think either party TRULY wants state's rights. I mean consevatives have been screaming state's rights after the Sodomy ruling, yet when CA passed medical marijuana bills over and over again, Ashcroft would send in the feds to try and shut it all down and not allow it, same with medically assisted suicide. That is not the action of someone who is so pro-state's rights.
Guest Spicy McHaggis Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 I'm not going to pass judgment on Spicy himself, since I don't know the guy well enough to do such a thing. However, his posts do have this underlying seperation between rights and gay marriage. This is perhaps because that's how those against gay marriage defend their position (it's not a civil right, it's "something different") or maybe he agrees with that position that marriage rights aren't really "rights" rights all along (and even if he does, it's appearantly okay, as American society has shown this year that gay people are an exception for minority prejudice.) Again, I'm not the man to make the call, I've just been observing that and saying nothing. Please show me. I don't believe I've even stated my position. I think sooner or later, someone is going to sue for the right to marry in a state that doesn't support it. Barring some unforseen circumstance in which the Supreme Court reverses itself, they will legalize it at that point. Which is exactly why the anti-gay marriage crowd wants the amendment.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 I don't think either party TRULY wants state's rights. I mean consevatives have been screaming state's rights after the Sodomy ruling, yet when CA passed medical marijuana bills over and over again, Ashcroft would send in the feds to try and shut it all down and not allow it, same with medically assisted suicide. That is not the action of someone who is so pro-state's rights The difference there is that the California rule is directly contrary to Federal Law, which is against the Supremacy clause in the constitution. There is no national law banning sodomy.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 2, 2003 Report Posted July 2, 2003 Which is exactly why the anti-gay marriage crowd wants the amendment. Obviously, but they won't get it.
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 At the very least insofar as he jumped in front of every popular movement and claimed to be leading it. That isn't the President's job. The federal government should not be run by polls and surveys; even you should admit that. I didn't suffer because Clinton was amoral, in fact, his presidency was a pretty prosperous time.
Guest Spicy McHaggis Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 So sad how easily people dismiss a lack of ethics.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 *sigh* And you think Bush has ethics?
Guest Jobber of the Week Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 So let me ask this question: for those in favor of gay marriage, would you like it decision whether or not to allow / recognize gay marriage to be one of each individual state (such as we've seen in Vermont)? Or would like like a federal law, or a Supreme Court ruling (which is effectively the same thing), expressly requiring the allowance of gay marriage that all states must acknowledge and support? I believe in a State's right to set it's own laws in regards to how it manages it's state. However, I firmly believe that civil rights are handled on a federal level. Vyce: Too bad the rest of his platform makes him the kind of liberal I fear ever gaining control of the country. Gotta learn your candidates. Kucinich is the liberal you fear gaining control of the country. NoCalMike: I mean consevatives have been screaming state's rights after the Sodomy ruling, yet when CA passed medical marijuana bills over and over again, Ashcroft would send in the feds to try and shut it all down and not allow it, same with medically assisted suicide. That is not the action of someone who is so pro-state's rights. People are hypocritical, unfortunately. Check out all the pork we've been spending money on since "Conservatives" have control of every step of the budget process. Spicy McHaggis: Please show me. I don't believe I've even stated my position. That was what I mentioned in my post. You never explicitly stated a position, but through lines like: Frist isn't anti-rights per se, just severely anti-gay marriage. Someone could take that either one of two ways: That you are simply trying to show the position of those against gay marriage, that marriage is not a constitutionally guaranteed right for all, or that you agree with that position yourself and are letting it seep through your posts. This of course, would conflict with those who think that marriage is a civil right that ought to be allowed for any couple regardless of gender. Since I don't know you well enough to decide on that kind of thing, I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and not let these posts change my opinion of you unless you wish to directly support that line of thinking, in which case I'll have to disagree with you there. I do not wish to think of someone as something they aren't.
Guest Vyce Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 You've obviously never read his platform, since he's the most centrist candidate not named Lieberman. No, I have read it. I still don't want him president. His health care ideas alone are enough to make me dislike him.
Guest JMA Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 No, I have read it. I still don't want him president. His health care ideas alone are enough to make me dislike him. I like his stance of reproductive rights. Plus, unlike a lot of other candidates he isn't a religious fundamentalist.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 His health care ideas alone are enough to make me dislike him. His stance on healthcare is hardly radical. He supports expanding Medicare to cover anyone under 25, and anyone up to 180% of the poverty line (I believe it's 180%, anyway... don't shoot me, I'm not gonna research it at work). Then, he encourages (through tax breaks, etc.) both small businesses and corporations to pick up health care for their employees. This is easily funded by repealing the largely ineffective Bush tax cut. How is this uber-radical? I mean, God forbid we actually allow people who can't afford it to have medical care. That'd be a terrible thing, and all.
Guest Spicy McHaggis Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 *sigh* And you think Bush has ethics? No doubt.
Guest JMA Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 No doubt. Spicy, Don't take this the wrong way (even though you probably will)but a lot of your political beliefs seem to come from your Catholic beliefs. Now, would you say this is true or untrue?
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 Riiight. I suppose you've never seen this, this, this (after all, Bush barely knew Ken Lay, right?), this, or this.
Guest Spicy McHaggis Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 No doubt. Spicy, Don't take this the wrong way (even though you probably will)but a lot of your political beliefs seem to come from your Catholic beliefs. Now, would you say this is true or untrue? 1. Religion shouldn't affect a need for ethics. Unethical behavior should be looked down upon no matter what one believes. 2. You seem to think that each "world" exists independently of other worlds, politics, religion, etc. That's not the case... one's religion can and should influence his beliefs. 3. It is irresponsible to let your religion be your only guide. Of course my Catholic beliefs influence my political beliefs, as they should. But, in addition, I find whatever factual evidence I can to support my beliefs (like scientific evidence showing that a fetus is human). I also have many conflicting views, but views which allow others to use their God-given free will. I think drugs should be legalized, I think gay marriage should be legalized (or privatize all marriage). I think a person should be able to do whatever they want to and with their bodies as long as another human's life is not directly harmed. I'm pro-death penalty and I supported the Iraqi war... both contrary views. Riiight. I suppose you've never seen 1) this, 2) this, 3) this (after all, Bush barely knew Ken Lay, right?), 4) this, or 5) this. 1. Link didn't work. 2. Technicalities and Bush did make a full disclosure. 3. Not paying to read that trash. 4. A second-hand report with no evidence. 5. Bush has admitted he had a cocaine problem, got over it, and is better for it. When I say unethical... I mean murdering, raping, and lying under oath.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted July 3, 2003 Report Posted July 3, 2003 When I say unethical... I mean murdering, raping, and lying under oath. 1) Who? 2) Who? 3) That's more unethical than snorting coke and insider trading, not to mention going AWOL? 2. Technicalities and Bush did make a full disclosure. He sure did... it was simply late. And therefore, illegal. 3. Not paying to read that trash. Don't have to, the abstract is right there. I picked one of about a hundred, you can read all about Bush and his Enron ties by typing in "Bush" "Enron" in Google. 4. A second-hand report with no evidence. How about the fact that he didn't show up for the last year of his service? You're a freaking hypocritical apologist, and it's rather pathetic.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now