Why Republicans should not vote Bush in 2004 - Page 2 - 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 02-26-2004, 01:02 AM   #16
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: houston,tx,usa
Posts: 645
Local Time: 01:47 AM
I know I'm getting carried away with my posts, but here's an interesting statistic:

1.1 million openly gay voters voted for Bush in 2000. That's 25% of the gay vote.

I wonder how much of those votes will be swayed due to this gay-marriage fiasco. Poor Bush...he knows that the amendment will probably not pass, but had to take a stand to appease the religious right. This "hot" topic have the potential to ruin Bush as much as help him. We'll have to wait and see.
__________________

__________________
GibsonExplorer is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 07:25 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:47 AM
Bush has chased after his white whale, and I hope it sinks him.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 09:07 AM   #18
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 01:47 AM
Homeland security is important, but as a parent I'm much more interested in education and environmental issues.

On the environment he has not only failed but has deliberately set out to reverse hard earned accomplishments. My son has asthma and I can tell you the "clear sky" initiative is BS.

His habit of mandates and no funding also should send him back to Crawford. My grandfather called that talking out both sides of your face.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 10:29 AM   #19
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,427
Local Time: 01:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Such beautiful hypocrisy. I believe that, if the Catholic Church was consistent, it would advocate a constitutional amendment to ban non-Catholic marriage, since, gay or straight, non-Catholic unions are worthless in the eyes of this entity.

I guess, in spite of your honesty, I don't understand why you've come to your conclusion as is. I think the conclusion is to get government out of marriage altogether, and, thus, make everyone subject to civil unions, regardless of sexuality. Then, let religions decide who they want to marry, as it will be a religious ceremony with no legal standing.

However, I'm not so naive to believe that people could be this civil. :P We are a nation founded by fanatics, and we will die a nation of fanatics.

Melon
... at the hands of other fanatics?

And yes... that is the conclusion I was shooting for, and I also don't believe it'll fly... but one can hope, right? According to the Constitution all men (and women) are supposed to be created equal. Well if that is indeed true, then if a man is allowed to marry a woman, then a man should also be allowed to marry a man, thus being eligable for the same benefits that a straight married couple recieves.
The Church needs to just shut up and stay out of it. If the Church is right then all gays are already going to Hell anyways, right? So what should they care? Besides... they aren't married "under the eyes of God," right? So fine... if the Church doesn't want Gays to marry, then don't marry them. Stop worrying about other people's business and clean up your own house... 'cause anyone who feels that a man loving a man is worse than a Priest having sex with a child should be publicly stoned.

But alas... I too am not naive. I know that it won't happen anytime soon. We are, indeed, a country filled with fanatics. The entire world is filled with fanatics. Why should we be any different?
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 12:11 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
We are, indeed, a country filled with fanatics. The entire world is filled with fanatics. Why should we be any different?
Because otherwise you lose the right to criticise other people's fanaticism.

Take the recent revelation that the UK spied on Kofi Annan in the build-up to the Iraq war. What credibility does the government of the UK have to criticise other governments for being deceitful now?
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 02:10 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 11:47 PM
Although I can't say that I even have any conservative friends, I do know that a LOT of my friends' Republican family members will not be voting for Bush again. One of them voted for Bush in 2000 but feels betrayed because the library that he ran was shut down after he refused to turn over records under the Patriot Act--you know, one of those incidents that people say could never happen to them. Well, it happens.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 02:30 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 02:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by GibsonExplorer
I know I'm getting carried away with my posts, but here's an interesting statistic:

1.1 million openly gay voters voted for Bush in 2000. That's 25% of the gay vote.

I wonder how much of those votes will be swayed due to this gay-marriage fiasco.
Well, here's one (popular) example:
Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Dish
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 02:40 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 02:47 AM
Here's a quote from the same site. I thought it was very interesting. (emphasis mine)

Quote:
THE WAR AND THE CONSTITUTION: It behooves me to wrestle with a question that many of you have asked me about. I have long been a strong supporter of this president's extraordinary leadership in the war on terror. He has made some mistakes, but I stand by his broader record entirely. This isn't because of some personal liking for Bush (although I've never been able to loathe him). My support for the war is inextricable from my love for America. When this country was attacked, like many others, I was distraught. I was enraged because America's promise of a new world had been threatened by a murderous gang of theocratic thugs. Call it the wrecking of an immigrant dream. I still believe passionately in taking this war to that enemy, of not apologizing for the United States, of opposing appeasement and weakness in the face of evil. As a gay man, I could also uncomplicatedly support a war against some of the most brutal homophobes on the planet, men who also targeted Jews and women and anyone who dissented from their theological bromides. It was because I believed in the Constitution of the United States that I felt no qualms in backing this president and in fighting rhetorical wars on his behalf - because that Constitution was under attack. I grew up in a country where there was no separation of church and state and had to attend a public high school that was anathema to my own religious faith. America has therefore always signified religious and political freedom to me. So when I wrote after 9/11 about the threat of religious fundamentalism abroad, this is how I finished my essay:

In this sense, the symbol of this conflict should not be Old Glory, however stirring it is. What is really at issue here is the simple but immensely difficult principle of the separation of politics and religion. We are fighting not for our country as such or for our flag. We are fighting for the universal principles of our Constitution, and the possibility of free religious faith it guarantees.

The religious fanatics of 9/11 despise the American Constitution exactly because it guarantees equality under the law, freedom of conscience and separation of church and state. The war I have supported is a war, ultimately, in defense of that Constitution. And that is why I am so committed to it.


THE PRESIDENT'S CONTRADICTION: So you can see, perhaps, why the bid to write anti-gay discrimination into this very Constitution provokes such a strong response from me - and so many other people, gay and straight, and their families. It robs us of something no one in this country should be robbed of - equality and inclusion in the founding document itself. When people tell me that, in weighing the political choices, the war on terror should trump the sanctity of the Constitution, my response is therefore a simple one. The sanctity of the Constitution is what we are fighting for. We're not fighting just to defend ourselves. We are fighting to defend a way of life: pluralism, freedom, equality under the law. You cannot defend the Constitution abroad while undermining it at home. It's a contradiction. And it's a deeply divisive contradiction in a time of great peril.

THE NEED FOR UNITY: To those who say that this amendment is merely a codification of existing marriage law and doesn't target homosexuals, the answer is obvious. If it weren't for the possibility that gay couples might become equal under the law, this amendment wouldn't even exist. Pro-marriage amendments could have been introduced before now every year for decades - to ban no-fault divorce, for example. But none was. This one is entirely designed to single out gay couples for Constitutional exclusion. It therefore seems to me that I'm not the one who needs to defend his position. It's the president who has to answer to the charge that in wartime, he chose to divide this country over the most profound symbol there can be: the Constitution itself. I refuse, in short, to be put in a position where I have to pick between a vital war and fundamental civil equality. The two are inextricable. They are the same war. And this time, the president has picked the wrong side. He will live to be ashamed that he did.

-Daily Dish
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 03:29 PM   #24
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: houston,tx,usa
Posts: 645
Local Time: 01:47 AM
Quote:
You cannot defend the Constitution abroad while undermining it at home.
Wow. That is the best piece of wisdom I've ever heard. I am so moved that I will definitely use this line in the future.
__________________
GibsonExplorer is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 03:39 PM   #25
War Child
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 965
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Under Bush we were able to:

1) Pull ourselves out of a recession he inherited from Clinton (recession = 2 consectuive quarters of negative growth, this began in 2000) and into favorable times economically as manufacturing and production are currently skyrocketing.

2) Withstand the face of pure evil we faced during 9/11 and rebuild our countries morale, military, and respond quickly and effectively in Afghanistan.

3) Put an end to another purely evil regime in Iraq by not only freeing an entire people, but also capturing their once-pround dictator.

I dare say he stands out among all American presidents for his ability to lead a country during such times of recession, terrorism, and criticism from the flip-flop left (both in the US and abroad).

He's got my vote again in 2004.
__________________
Zoocoustic is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 04:08 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 11:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Zoocoustic

3) Put an end to another purely evil regime in Iraq by not only freeing an entire people, but also capturing their once-pround dictator.

I have met with and talked with many people who have been in Iraq recently. If you think the Iraqi people are free right now under occupation--an occupation where innocent people are subjected to nightly raids by US soldiers and worse--I'm afraid you are not well informed. The situation is absolutely devastating, a complete and utter disaster, and much worse than any of us can imagine.

Have a look here:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
http://www.occupationwatch.org/
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 05:42 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase


And yes... that is the conclusion I was shooting for, and I also don't believe it'll fly... but one can hope, right? According to the Constitution all men (and women) are supposed to be created equal. Well if that is indeed true, then if a man is allowed to marry a woman, then a man should also be allowed to marry a man, thus being eligable for the same benefits that a straight married couple recieves.
The Church needs to just shut up and stay out of it. If the Church is right then all gays are already going to Hell anyways, right? So what should they care? Besides... they aren't married "under the eyes of God," right? So fine... if the Church doesn't want Gays to marry, then don't marry them. Stop worrying about other people's business and clean up your own house... 'cause anyone who feels that a man loving a man is worse than a Priest having sex with a child should be publicly stoned.

I think this may be one of the best posts I've read on this issue
__________________
ILuvLarryMullen is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 06:24 PM   #28
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: houston,tx,usa
Posts: 645
Local Time: 01:47 AM
Quote:
1) Pull ourselves out of a recession he inherited from Clinton (recession = 2 consectuive quarters of negative growth, this began in 2000) and into favorable times economically as manufacturing and production are currently skyrocketing.
You are mistaken. On November 26, 2001, the National Board of Economic Research officially announced that the recession started in March 2001.

Quote:
2) Withstand the face of pure evil we faced during 9/11 and rebuild our countries morale, military, and respond quickly and effectively in Afghanistan.
As I said before, a Democratic president would have reacted in the same way. Afghanistan was the easiest decision for Bush to make because 95% of the people wanted Afghanistan to be taken out. Making no-brainer decisions does not a great leader make, or something.

Quote:
3) Put an end to another purely evil regime in Iraq by not only freeing an entire people, but also capturing their once-pround dictator.
Joyfulgirl is right: Iraq is no freer now than it was under Hussein. Adding to her remarks, it's a fact that dozens of Iraqi police and officials die every week. Sure, Saddam was evil, but his people are the ones paying for it now. Capturing their dictator = Mission accomplished? I'd say Mission Unnecessary. Better yet, Mission Totally Fabricated.

Also, for us to spend billions of taxpayer money on reconstructing a country that will most likely oppose us in 10 years does not sit well with me.
__________________
GibsonExplorer is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 06:29 PM   #29
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,427
Local Time: 01:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by GibsonExplorer

You are mistaken. On November 26, 2001, the National Board of Economic Research officially announced that the recession started in March 2001.
Now you are mistaken... a recession doesn't become a recession overnight... the economic downturn (better wording for ya?) started towards the end of the Clinton years, just like the economic downturn of the early 90s started in the tail end of the reagan years
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 06:46 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 12:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ILuvLarryMullen
I think this may be one of the best posts I've read on this issue
.

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel 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 01:47 AM.


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