RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Bush...pandering to the religious right?(34 posts)

Bush...pandering to the religious right?ColnagoFE
Jul 30, 2003 10:28 AM
I can see Bush not supporting this on a personal level, but what argument does anyone have against gay marriage that doesn't somehow hinge on religion saying it's wrong? The children argument seems flawed as well as you can make many examples of hetero couples that are awful parents. discus..

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage/index.html
pandering?DougSloan
Jul 30, 2003 10:49 AM
That's a loaded question. "Pandering" is automatically negative, versus asking whether he's "supporting Christian values" or the like. Also, this issue may not be limted to the "religious right," unless you define "right" as an overhwelming majority of US and state legislators it would take to pass any amendment (2/3's the members of the former and 3/4's of the latter).

Aside from "pandering," do you think a president should be devoid of personal opinions about morality himself (whether we agree or not)?

While I'd not support an amendment, there very well may be secular reason for the idea of man/woman only marriages. It would be interesting to know whether atheistic countries allow same sex marriages (former USSR, for example). If so, what were/are their reasons?

Doug
here's what I don't getgtx
Jul 30, 2003 11:03 AM
Does allowing gay people to get legally married somehow diminish heterosexual marriage? It seems to me that is basically what the oponents to gay marriage are saying. Regarding Bush's stance, he's just showing he knows who put him in office...
At this, he's no dummy........always go for the votesMR_GRUMPY
Jul 30, 2003 11:42 AM
His core is the religious right. What else would he do ? In his way, Clinton did the same thing. Go for the core.
Clinton transcended his "core" several times. (nm)czardonic
Jul 30, 2003 11:47 AM
you mean Monica? nmDougSloan
Jul 30, 2003 11:54 AM
No. Draft dodging drug users, like Bush.czardonic
Jul 30, 2003 12:17 PM
Glass houses, my man.
George wasn't a draft dodgerMR_GRUMPY
Jul 30, 2003 12:44 PM
He just got his old man to get him into the Air National Guard so that he wouldn't have to go overseas, and them proceeded to blow off a year or two of meetings.
He keeps getting that confusedLive Steam
Jul 30, 2003 12:47 PM
It was Clinton who dogded the draft and went to communist USSR to speak out against the US of A. Not Bush :O)
Did he make himself eligible to be drafted and sent to Vietnam?czardonic
Jul 30, 2003 1:03 PM
No? I call that dodging.

Of course who's to say what havoc the VC or the NVA could have wreaked in the skies of Texas if not for his vigiliant service (when he bothered to serve)?
Once againSteveS
Jul 30, 2003 2:52 PM
Once again, you do not know what you are talking about. Air National Guard, National Guard, Reserves-Army, Navy, or Coast Guard are all honorable and legitimate branches of service. My pals who all joined the Naval Reserve after high school, were all called to Active Duty within a year. The Commander-in-Chief could have called up whom he wanted during Viet Nam, obviously that individual did not do it to Air National Guard unit to which Bush was assigned. It could have just as easily happened as it did to the individuals that his father, GHWB, called to active duty in Gulf 1.

You had better make sure you know what you are talking about on this topic, lest you get shot down once again.

Now, draft dodging, that was an element that Clinton represented. Got himself into ROTC for the deferment of active duty, signed his contract, and then reneged on his contract and obligation. (For you who are ignorant or ignore such things, it wasn't in Clinton's rights to renege on this contract. He never served even 1 'drill day'.) What should have happened at that time is that Clinton should have been immediately drafted into the Army as a private and gone to Viet Nam. Funny, somehow 'things' just got manipulated for Clinton to skate on by. That is draft dodging, very artfully done.
The purpose of the "Champaine Brigade" was well known. . .czardonic
Jul 30, 2003 3:31 PM
. . .even at the time, and no revisionist historian is going to convince anyone that daddy's little angel was going anywhere near Vietnam under any circumstances.
Maybe. .SteveS
Jul 30, 2003 8:34 PM
Maybe if you pulled your head out, you would do better at these things.

First, as I said previously, you don't have a clue about military obligation and secondly, you better check to see to see what position 'daddy' had in the years in question before you pop off.

It was little Albie Gorewho was the fortunate one (Senator's son with a body guard during his 1/2 tour of duty in Nam)while he was humping his typewriter, but not through the jungles.
Maybe I should run for the GOP nomination. . .czardonic
Jul 31, 2003 9:58 AM
. . .seeing as how I have no clue about military obligation, and all.

If Bush was such a hot-shot pilot and so eager to serve his country, why didn't he demand to be sent to the front lines? I guess his bush-league political career was a higher priority.
Transcend = abandonmoneyman
Jul 30, 2003 1:54 PM
Any way the wind blows. To abandon one's core, one must have a core. Clinton's core was nonexistent. Expediency in the process of re-election. That's what he was about.

$$
Stipulated. And yes, Clinton wanted to appeal . . .czardonic
Jul 30, 2003 1:57 PM
. . . to as broad a range of voters as possible. He believed in winning the office the old fashioned way; by being elected to it.
Since you seem to be so concerned about ....Live Steam
Jul 30, 2003 7:00 PM
the Constitution, don't you agree that the Electoral College is valid and should be protected as a device that makes the voice of all the people important and not just those that live on either coast? Fly-over country would have no voice or say in who is elected to the presidency if it were done away with. After all our FF put it in place for a reason. Here is additional reading for you. I hope you are keeping up with your homework :O)

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf
If the popular vote in a state is rigged. . .czardonic
Jul 31, 2003 10:06 AM
. . .by the Supreme Court the Electoral College can't do its job.
You seem like a semi-intelligent guy ....Live Steam
Jul 31, 2003 2:36 PM
please tell me how the "popular vote was rigged"? Did you understand the ruling the Supreme Court handed down? Actually they didn't even make a ruling, as they stated there was nothing to rule on. The election laws in Florida had to be followed which didn't allow for a partial count in select counties. The entire state had to be recounted and within the prescribed time frame. That was and is the law. So are you suggesting that the law should have been changed mid-stream? Al Bore would still have lost no matter how many hanging chads you wanted to count. Interesting how a semi-intelligent guy like yourself chooses to see the facts in such a slanted manner. Oh, and you still didn't answer my question about the Electoral College.
That's consistent with your usual judgement.czardonic
Jul 31, 2003 3:42 PM
The fact of the matter is that nobody knows who would have won if all of the voting irregularities in Bush's brothers state had been ironed out. Recounts and hanging-chads were only part of the story -- predictably the only part that Shrub's apologists ever like to talk about because it is the only straw they can grasp.
Why do gays want to emulate the very institution they criticize128
Jul 30, 2003 11:59 AM
: the mariage contract? I thought marriage was just for the subjugation of women and the passage of property w/clear title? Maybe we've moved past that...??

If it is primarily economic 'equality' (tax, insurance, health proxy) homosexuals want, why is the traditional institution of marriage the prefered vehicle? Why not economic policy or something distinct from "marriage"? Is homosexuality a traditional value(it is in the Bible and prevelent throughout history after all) that should be enshrined and perpetuated in "marriage" (in quotes b/c just what is it in this arena? A social construction? Property right? Religious sacremant? Legal contract etc...)

My jury is still out. I'm inclined to think a new social instituion needs to be developed to address this issue. Not grafterd on to the existing one.
Who is "they" ...?jtolleson
Jul 30, 2003 8:46 PM
While I know there is a branch of leftist/feminist political theory that rails against the allegedly patriarchal, theocratic, elitist roots of marriage, I personally think that is a fringe (and maybe academic) viewpoint. The number of folks who avoid matrimony on theoretical grounds, but are otherwise willing to make a monogamous commitment, has got to be tiny.

No, it isn't just economic equality. It is social equality. If other folks can have rutabaga, I want rutabaga. If other folks can be married, I think I should be able to be married. Only my interest goes further because I, the product of folks now married 43 years, believe in the institution as well.
re: Another example of Faith Based Policyjrm
Jul 30, 2003 12:01 PM
Centering around creationism. He totally pandering to the relifous right. If he doesnt his re-election could be in jepordy given his piss poor record so far. Not to mention that he's osolating himself from borderline libertrains and liberals.

Whats so threating about allowing gay couples the same rights as hetro couples? I think it really shows how lame we are as a nation being lead by some coke addict, defector, alcoholic born again poster child for a president.
Now there's tolerance for ya'Live Steam
Jul 30, 2003 1:00 PM
I think it really shows how lame we are as a nation being lead by some coke addict, defector, alcoholic born again poster child for a president.

I thinks it's kind of funny that many on the left choose to attack Bush on his alcoholism and alleged use of drugs. It really shows how tolerant and forgiving you are. It also shows how hypocritical you are. Aren't drug and alcohol use, "liberal" vises?
I'll tell you what is hypocritical.czardonic
Jul 30, 2003 1:35 PM
Trading on your past alcoholism and trancendence thereof, and then using your powers to toss others who make the same mistakes in prison for the rest of their lives. Where is the tolerance and forgiveness at Bush's DOJ or in the War on Drugs? Unless you are one of George or Jeb's offspring, you are SOL.

I would have a more favorable opinion of Bush if he would say "Yeah, I was a drunk and I did coke a few times too. It was the 80's, people. But I quit, and am a better person for it." Instead, he simply weasles around the issue and quietly unleashes his political hatchet-men on anyone who digs to close to the truth.
You really have a warped sense of realityLive Steam
Jul 30, 2003 1:58 PM
First the W on D has been every presidents initiative. Bush does not have the pleasure of making that his own. Second, why should he relax the laws? Do you advocate drug use? Those that are being tossed in jail are dealers and not users. Get your facts straight. Lastly, he would be lambasted by the press and the left and you for that matter, for admitting anything that you suggested. That is if it is true. I didn't hear Al Bore admit his drug problem either. Clinton came close, but no balls. "Didn't inhale". Really?
Whereas your "reality" of Bush omnipotence is legitimate?czardonic
Jul 30, 2003 2:08 PM
Bush specifically indicated that he was making the War on Drugs a priority among his law enforcement initiatives when he entered office. He wisely ignored the outgoing Clinton Administration's warning that terrorism would be his top concern, not the puritanical crusades of the Reagan Era.

I guess the fact that Bush couldn't get elected if he told the truth somehow justifies his avoiding it or lying about it? Is that how it works in your un-warped sense of reality?

I don't advocate drug use, but neither do I advocate draconian laws that have done nothing to stop it.
You like putting words in other mouthsLive Steam
Jul 30, 2003 2:24 PM
I never said Bush should be or is omnipotent.

So it seems that Clinton may have had prior knowledge about 9/11 according to your assessment. What didn't he tell the truth about during his campaign? He said he was going to war against drug dealers. 9/11 hadn't occured yet. How could he have made it a priority? Draconian laws? Do you have a better solution than all of the past presidents, the collective minds of Congress and the Senate and pretty much the rest of our governing bodies and police forces? This is too tiring. You win. Is that what you want to hear?
Everybody loses when people are uninformed.czardonic
Jul 30, 2003 3:24 PM
The Clinton Administration saw the writing on the wall as far as the rising threat to terrorism. They warned the Bush Administration to be vigilant, but Bush decided to "distinguish" himself by abandoning Clinton's initiatives in favor of his own. Thus, the terrorism was out as the number one law enforcement priority and drugs were (back) in.

How could Bush have known that terrorism was worth paying attention to before 9/11? Lets see: the first attack agains the WTC? The U.S.S. Cole? The African embassy attacks? Maybe he just assumed that AL Queda had a personal beef with Clinton, or maybe he assumed that they would never even try anything with his own cracker-jack team ready to make sure that no massive terror attacks go unpunished.
Maybe gay marriage is just the beginning:Benefits for Dependents128
Jul 30, 2003 12:51 PM
Why not just allow lifelong friends, or dependent relatives (aged parent, supporting child) to claim dependent status for insurance, tax purposes?

Maybe framing the debate interms of homoSEXual terms is distracting from the broader notion that the rights and duties that come along with co-dependency (marriage) is the kind of domestic, economic result we want public policy to support.

The deliniation that marriage must produce children, necessitating the required physical intimacy, is a straw man. Why do we base marriage ultimately on the sex act? Thereby making gay marriage, quite offensive so some.

We could just group it all together as 'co-dependent' status, and if the dependents separate, economic sanctions (alimony, support, payments) result. Society moves forward?
Pope takes a stand, tooDougSloan
Jul 31, 2003 6:41 AM
No surprise here, I assume:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20030731/ts_nm/vatican_gays_dc
yeah big shocker thereColnagoFE
Jul 31, 2003 7:16 AM
how long before he asks bush to create an ammendment making birth control and abortions illegal too?
did he ask Bush to do anything? nmDougSloan
Jul 31, 2003 7:20 AM
no, but i'm sure he's pleased (nm)ColnagoFE
Jul 31, 2003 8:13 AM