I Hope You Had The Time Of Your Life - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-05-2006, 10:52 PM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,459
Local Time: 01:15 PM
another thread with WAAY too much liberal influence.

either tone it right down, or i'll be forced to deal with this differently.

let's let the republicans say their piece and be on with it, alright gang?

let me put it to you this way, guys. if your family always argued about everything, would anything get done?? of course not. there's always gonna be bumps along the way, that's nothing new.

7ust relax, and en7oy the ride, guys.
__________________

__________________
Zoomerang96 is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 11:13 PM   #62
The Fly
 
close your eyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was on the inside
Posts: 87
Local Time: 02:15 PM
Musbus aside, this is one of the worst diversions to real issues I have ever seen.

Nothing reverses a floundering public approval rating like a good old bashing of the gays! right!?

Are we really that ignorant in this country to think that this is going to ruin our society? I thought the Repblicans were against adultery in the during the last regime....now we have moved on to gays.

NOTHING ruins the sacred bond of marriage more than ADULTERY. I feel this regime has adulterated me!

__________________

__________________
close your eyes is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 11:29 PM   #63
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,459
Local Time: 01:15 PM
on a serious note though, it's good to see how PATHETIC this attempt is by bush and his cronies.

how anyone can't see through this would be beyond me.
__________________
Zoomerang96 is offline  
Old 06-06-2006, 01:40 AM   #64
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:15 AM
Quote:
Question: Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples?

Quote:
GALLUP POLL
SAMPLE: Interviews with 1,002 U.S. adults conducted May 8-11, 2006, via telephone.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-06-2006, 02:52 AM   #65
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Lila64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ♥Set List Lane♥
Posts: 52,710
Local Time: 12:15 PM
are 1002 U.S. adults a good sampling of the population of almost 300,000,000 (not all adults, I know)

damn polls
__________________
Lila64 is offline  
Old 06-06-2006, 09:00 AM   #66
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 02:15 PM
Boston Globe editorial

Gay marriage, so what?

June 6, 2006

America has much more to fear than gay marriage. So it was disappointing to hear President Bush's radio address on Saturday, and his speech yesterday, in which he defends marriage, scolds activist judges, and supports the Marriage Protection Amendment, which would change the Constitution by only allowing one man and one woman to wed.

``Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all," Bush said, noting that straight marriages provide a safe haven for children and a pillar for society.

One problem: Gay marriage isn't a real threat. In Massachusetts, married gay couples are not masterminding terrorist bombings. They are not refining weapons-grade uranium nor are they running up federal budget deficits. Married gay couples are not monitoring their fellow Americans' phone calls and e-mails. They haven't cut Medicaid. And they didn't put that doughnut hole in the middle of Medicare's new prescription drug program.

If there's anything to be said about two years of gay marriage in Massachusetts, it's congratulations to the couples and now back to our regularly scheduled conversations about ``American Idol " and ``The Sopranos."

As for the claim that gay marriage is hurting straight marriage: Where's the evidence? Straight marriages have flaws, from fights to extramarital (and largely heterosexual) affairs. But these problems predate gay marriage by centuries.

Government should be concerned about children. But the big threat they face is poverty, not gay marriage. Any serious defense of children has to include better physical and mental health care, stronger schools, increasing family incomes, and less exposure to crime and violence. Banning gay marriage would not accomplish any of these things.

Nonetheless, the Senate is scheduled to vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment this week. It will be a huffing, puffing bit of political theater that's tossed like a bone to social conservatives, because common knowledge is that the amendment won't go forward. There aren't enough votes to win the two-thirds majority needed -- in the Senate and the House -- to send the amendment on to the states. Three-quarters of them would then have to approve it before it could become part of the Constitution.

One small threat to straight marriage is each year's crop of hyped short marriages -- celebrities who wed for months, weeks, or days. The implicit and troubling assumption seems to be that marriage only has to last as long as the excitement does. But no one is calling for federal intervention into the lives of Jennifer Lopez or Eminem.

America needs effective government action to solve serious and life-threatening problems. Gay marriage isn't one of them.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 06-06-2006, 01:50 PM   #67
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Lila64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ♥Set List Lane♥
Posts: 52,710
Local Time: 12:15 PM
__________________
Lila64 is offline  
Old 06-06-2006, 06:27 PM   #68
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 02:15 PM
i know this is from Salon, which is clearly a left-wing site, but this article nails it so beautifully, that i can't not post it, and i'll post the whole thing because you have to either subscribe or watch a dumb commercial to read it. please read:



[q]Who's afraid of the big bad gay marriage amendment?
Bush's feeble "family values" ploy is just a dutiful payoff to his base -- and it won't make much difference in November.

By Michael Scherer

June 6, 2006 | WASHINGTON -- There is something queer about this week's Senate crusade to outlaw gay marriage. If you listen closely, the leaders who oppose single-sex unions refuse to talk about gay people. They talk about activist judges, welfare rolls, the rights of voters and the birthrate of single mothers in Scandinavia. But there is not a gay man, a lesbian woman or a bisexual teenager in the mix.

Kansas Republican Sam Brownback, a 2008 presidential contender, led the charge for a constitutional amendment on the Senate floor Monday, dominating the debate with a handful of blue-and-white charts that he said showed the need for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. He had line graphs, bar graphs and circle graphs. He spoke about French law and Dutch sociology. He went on about the benefits of two-parent families. "It's important that a child be raised between a loving couple," Brownback declared, a phrase that seemed, at first, to be an argument in favor of gay marriage. "Developmental problems are less common in two parent families." He said that welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births and called for more research on marriage. But the Republican senator made no real mention of men who love men or women who love women.

In fact, the principal argument mounted by social conservative leaders like Brownback has more to do with the fragile state of heterosexual marriage than homosexuality. Their convoluted logic works like this: If society approves of long-term homosexual monogamy, then the "institution of marriage" will be weakened. This will lead straight people to abandon monogamy and harm the welfare of the nation's children, who benefit from stable, two-parent families. "Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them," explained President Bush in his Monday address to amendment supporters. "And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure."

This is why Brownback has been spending so much time studying Nordic marriage trends. He believes there is a direct (albeit inverse) correlation between gay marriage and heterosexual fidelity. "Where gay marriage finds acceptance, marriage virtually ceased to exist," he said in the Senate, reading aloud from one of his big blue-and-white posters, this one labeled "Scandinavia." "The institution no longer means much of anything."

These straight-marriage-in-trouble arguments are everywhere in the current debate. Just a few hours earlier, they had dominated a Monday press conference in the Capitol, just a few feet off the Senate floor. "When marriage declines, children and society suffer," explained Matt Daniels, the founder of the Alliance for Marriage, an umbrella group of churches and synagogues that wrote the anti-gay-marriage amendment. "Violent crime, youth crime, welfare dependency and child poverty track more closely with family breakdown than with any other social variable, including race and income level."

Daniels, who describes himself as the child of a single welfare mother, had gathered black pastors, Hispanic leaders, rabbis and a Mormon elder to make the case against lasting homosexual bonds. But rather than talk about gay marriage, a dozen speakers, including Colorado GOP Sen. Wayne Allard, took turns expounding on the importance of loving, two-parent homes for children. They talked about the damage done by deadbeat dads in the inner city, and the importance of family in minority communities. As the Rev. Eve Nunez, an Arizona pastor put it, "America has been wandering in a wilderness of social problems caused by family disintegration."

The press corps who had gathered for the event appeared universally baffled by the argument being made from behind the microphones. "How would outlawing gay marriage encourage heterosexual fathers to stick around?" asked the first wire service reporter to be called on for questions. "Why not outlaw divorce?" another scribe asked Allard later.

In many ways, the institution-of-marriage argument is tailored for sound bites, not serious debate. It appeals directly to those Americans who already believe in a wave of secularism that is destroying the country's moral fabric. But it may also be an argument of last resort. As it stands, the polls say about three in five Americans oppose gay marriage, though only two in five support amending the Constitution to ban it. That said, almost all the trend lines point in a liberal direction. Last month, the Gallup Poll reported that 54 percent of Americans believe that homosexuality should be considered an "acceptable lifestyle," up from 34 percent in 1982. In the same time period, the percentage of Americans who think homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal has risen from 45 to 56 percent. Young Americans are the most likely age group to support gay marriage and the least likely group to consider it a make-or-break issue, a fact that should make Republican political strategists wary.

Furthermore, the American Psychological Association has concluded that gay and lesbian parents are as likely as straight parents to provide supportive healthy environments for their children. There is no scientific evidence that children of homosexual parents are more likely to suffer abuse, psychological hardship or homosexual tendencies. Gay couples have been found to be just as happy -- and just as unhappy -- as heterosexual couples and similarly committed to long-term relationships. Despite significant social stigma, the APA describes multiple surveys that show between 40 and 60 percent of gay men and 45 and 80 percent of lesbian women are currently involved in romantic relationships.

Given these facts, it is perhaps understandable that activists who argue against gay marriage focus their fire on the failures of heterosexual marriage. It is also understandable that journalists, who are themselves largely baffled by the paucity of data behind the argument, focus on reporting about the politics of the issue. As it stands, there is no hope that the marriage amendment will pass Congress. This has led Democrats to cry foul, as if it is a great outrage that a political party would attempt to score political points in Congress.

But both Republicans and Democrats say there is little evidence that the ploy will have any real impact on the 2006 election. "These kinds of issues, they may affect the national atmospherics, but in terms of how we run elections, we are focused on local issues," said Ed Patru, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is coordinating the GOP's 2006 House effort. Religious groups are also not treating it as a partisan issue. James Dobson's Focus on the Family has taken out radio and print ads in 13 states, claiming that 16 senators do not "believe that every child needs a mom and dad." But of the group Dobson has targeted, most of them are not up for reelection this year and six of the senators are Republicans, including popular stalwarts like New Hampshire's John Sununu and Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter. A separate ad in USA Today, paid for by Dobson's group and its ally, the Family Research Council, attacked both Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton and Republican Sen. John McCain for opposing the amendment.

Despite predictions to the contrary, the current debate does not appear to be another stroke of Machiavellian brilliance from presidential advisor Karl Rove, but simply a dutiful payoff to the president's base voters. "He couldn't not do it," explained Richard Viguerie, a prominent conservative activist who believes that gay marriage will not have much of an impact in 2006. "He's got an election coming up and he is 30 percent in the polls. Nothing, Dr. Samuel Johnson told us, focuses the mind like an impending hanging."

Whatever its role in the 2006 campaign, the debate on gay marriage will continue. At the Monday morning press conference, Allard announced that he hoped the current debate over amending the constitution will become an annual rite in Congress. "It takes a while, I think, for the Senate to realize how the Americans feel," said Allard, whom Time magazine described last month as one of the five worst senators. "It takes a while for the American public to realize what has happened."

He was referring, yet again, to the continued erosion of stable, heterosexual, two-parent homes in America. Time, of course, will tell if he is right. But it's a long shot, to say the least. The American people are not given to amending the Constitution to punish one group of people (committed gay and lesbian couples) for the sins of another group (uncommitted straight couples). The last time it happened was the 18th Amendment in 1919, when the United States decided that the danger of alcohol abuse for some outweighed the pleasures of an evening drink for many. Fifteen years later, the American people realized the error of their ways and ended Prohibition. Despite predictions to the contrary, our union remained strong.
[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 01:00 PM   #69
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 02:15 PM
well, it was soundly defeated.

to celebrate, watch Jon Stewart destroy Bill Bennett:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/07.html#a8614



[q]Stewart: So why not encourage gay people to join in in that family arrangement if that is what provides stability to a society?

Bennett: Well I think if gay..gay people are already members of families...

Stewart: What? (almost spitting out his drink)

Bennett: They're sons and they're daughters..

Stewart: So that's where the buck stops, that's the gay ceiling.

Bennett Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.

Stewart:I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.

[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 01:36 PM   #70
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 02:15 PM
Unbelievable..

"During today's same-sex marriage amendment debate, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) used a prop of a blown-up photo of his family (some 20 people or so). Gesturing towards the photo, he said:

(MR. INHOFE) As you see here, and I think this is maybe the most important prop we'll have during the entire debate, my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of a homosexual relationship."



http://gay-gop.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

I love the picture
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 06-07-2006, 02:16 PM   #71
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Lila64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ♥Set List Lane♥
Posts: 52,710
Local Time: 12:15 PM


music is kinda catchy...
__________________
Lila64 is offline  
Old 06-16-2006, 08:28 AM   #72
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 02:15 PM

Give it up..

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/15/...-gay-marriage/

"Religious Right Seeks Unprecedented Constitutional Convention To Ban Gay Marriage Without Congress

Earlier this month, efforts to ban gay marriage by amending the Constitution failed badly in Senate. Now the religious right is considering appealing to state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention under an obscure provision of Article 5 that would allow amendments to the Constitution without congressional approval. The Evans-Novak report has the details:

Meeting after the big failure at the offices of the social-conservative Family Research Council, the top leaders of the marriage movement — Catholic, Protestant and Mormon leaders among others — discussed the possibility of an unprecedented Constitutional Convention. Two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures would have to call for such a convention — which could be done only with great difficulty. Even then, no one knows what such a convention would look like or what sort of amendments could result from it.

Right-wing pundit Bob Novak, who writes the report, appears to be pushing the idea even as he calls it “rather fanciful.” Novak argues banning gay marriage through a constitutional convention would be difficult but not impossible:

[I]f such a convention were to pass a marriage amendment, we estimate that 28 states would easily ratify it. Another eight states may do so only after a protracted and bloody political fight (which could span an election cycle). That leaves supporters with two more states to go to reach the threshold of 38 (three-fourths), and only the most difficult ground to fight on — states such as Maine, Rhode Island, Oregon and Nevada are probably not ideal places to win such a fight, although not all would be unwinnable.

Novak notes that such a convention would give liberals the opportunity to write their own amendments. He’s convinced, however, “that there are more than 13 states with legislatures willing to block anything too far out on the left."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 06-16-2006, 08:33 AM   #73
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 01:15 PM
Fuck'em

I'm so sick of them...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com