Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ] 

Board index : Music Talk : Rock/Pop

Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Dear Democrats, U R F#cked, Sincerely, "Activist Judges
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:50 pm 
Offline
A True Aristocrat of Freedom

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:46 am
Posts: 22121
Location: a worn-out debauchee and drivelling sot
Judge Says Calif. Can't Ban Gay Marriage

 Top Stories - AP



By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional — a legal milestone that, if upheld on appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.


Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County's trial-level Superior Court likened the ban to laws requiring racial segregation in schools, and said there appears to be "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples.



The ruling came in response to lawsuits filed by the city of San Francisco and a dozen gay couples a year ago after the California Supreme Court halted a four-week same-sex marriage spree started by Mayor Gavin Newsom.



The opinion had been eagerly awaited because of San Francisco's historical role as a gay rights battleground.



Gay marriage supporters hailed the ruling as a historic development akin to the 1948 state Supreme Court decision that made California the first state to legalize interracial marriage.



"Today's ruling is an important step toward a more fair and just California that rejects discrimination and affirms family values for all California families," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.



Conservative leaders expressed outrage at the ruling and vowed to appeal.



"For a single judge to rule there is no conceivable purpose for preserving marriage as one man and one woman is mind-boggling," said Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver. "This decision will be gasoline on the fire of the pro-marriage movement in California as well as the rest of the country.



Last winter, nearly 4,000 gay couples got married after Newsom instructed the city to issue them licenses, in defiance of state law. The California Supreme Court later declared those marriages void, saying the mayor overstepped his authority. But the court did not address the underlying issue of whether the law against gay marriage violates the California Constitution.



At issue in the current case were a 1977 law that defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman," and a voter-approved measure in 2000 that amended the law to say more explicitly: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."



Gay marriage opponents were particularly upset by the judge's decision to nullify to 2000 proposition — approved by 61 percent of voters.



"The practical effect is the disregard of close to two-thirds of the people of California who used the initiative process to ensure that marriage would remain between one man and one woman," said Robert Tyler, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund.



The state maintained that tradition dictates that marriage should be limited to opposite-sex couples. Attorney General Bill Lockyer also cited the state's domestic-partners law as evidence that California does not discriminate against gays.



But Kramer rejected that argument, citing Brown v. Board of Education — the landmark U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) decision that struck down segregated schools.



"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts — separate but equal," the judge wrote.



It could be months or years before the state actually sanctions same-sex marriage, if ever. Kramer's decision is stayed automatically for 60 days to allow time for appeal.



Lockyer has said in the past that he expected the matter eventually would have to be settled by the California Supreme Court.


A jovial Newsom was flanked by several same-sex couples and their supporters at a City Hall news conference shortly after the ruling was announced. "We will not be appealing this decision," the mayor joked as the crowd broke into laughter.

Two bills now before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If California voters approve such an amendment, as those in 13 other states did last year, that would put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts.

The decision is the latest development in a national debate that has been raging since 2003, when the highest court in Massachusetts decided that denying gay couples the right to wed was unconstitutional.

In the wake of the Massachusetts ruling, gay rights advocates filed lawsuits seeking to strike down traditional marriage laws in several other states. Opponents responded by proposing state and federal constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

Around the country, Kramer is the fourth trial court judge in recent months to decide that the right to marry and its benefits must be extended to same-sex couples.

Just as many judges have gone the other way in recent months, however, refusing to accept the argument that keeping gays from marrying violates their civil rights.

California has the highest percentage of same-sex partners in the nation, and its Legislature has gone further than any other in providing gay couples the benefits of marriage without being forced to do so by court order.
_______________________________________

I'm not saying that there is merit to this argument, I'm not saying that judges are more activist on the left than the right, I'm not saying I give a fuck if tow people of any race/creed/nationality/sexual orientation get married.

I AM saying that this shit plays into conservative's hands. I am saying that it will be used HEAVILY in the next 2-3 campaigns. And I am saying that it will drag the party down. Less than 20% of people in states where gay marriage amendments were on the ballot voted to make them legal.

It keeps an issue that FUCKS Democrats on the table. And since they are already hamfisted in their attempts at media manipulation, look out.

_________________
Throughout his life, from childhood until death, he was beset by severe swings of mood. His depressions frequently encouraged, and were exacerbated by, his various vices. His character mixed a superficial Enlightenment sensibility for reason and taste with a genuine and somewhat Romantic love of the sublime and a propensity for occasionally puerile whimsy.
harry Wrote:
I understand that you, of all people, know this crisis and, in your own way, are working to address it. You, the madras-pantsed julip-sipping Southern cracker and me, the oldman hippie California fruit cake are brothers in the struggle to save our country.

FT Wrote:
LooGAR (the straw that stirs the drink)


Back to top
 Profile WWW 
 
 Post subject: Re: Dear Democrats, U R F#cked, Sincerely, "Activist Ju
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:01 pm 
Offline
Winona Ryder wears my t-shirt on TV

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:10 pm
Posts: 2532
Location: Cleveland, OH
I think it's sad how people vote on one issue, whether it's guns, gays or abortion. And the worst part is that the media keeps people dumb and narrow-minded by choosing very selective topics that people want to hear instead of what they need to know.

We should somehow have people print out a list of topics such as following where they can compare candidates and vote for the one that looks the best across the board. Also, there should be a choice of "none of the above" on ballots if voters don't like anybody.

Or maybe America just loves gay-bashing warmongers, and mediocre ones at that. It's funny, most of the money in America is in the blue states that went for Kerry, yet the poor red states voted for the guy who wants to throw their social security into the stock market.

Foreign Policy
Homeland Security
War & Peace
Free Trade
Immigration
Energy & Oil
Gun Control
Crime
Drugs
Civil Rights
Jobs
Environment
Education
Health Care
Abortion
Families & Children
Corporations
Principles & Values


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:24 pm 
Offline
frostingspoon

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:07 pm
Posts: 12618
if activism means interpreting equal protection and applying it...then activism should be applauded.

judicial review - see Marbury vs. Madison.

_________________
dumpjack: "I haven't liked anything he's done so far, but I'll still listen."


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:27 pm 
Offline
frostingspoon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:50 pm
Posts: 15260
Location: Raised on bread and bologna.
Thing is, now the new big thing on the talk radio circuit is this bonehead and his book, Men In Black that blasts Marbury vs. Madison from the get-go.

I say if review isn't applicable, let's bring back the stocks and pillory as forms of punishment.

_________________
A poet and philosopher, Mr. Marcus is married and is a proud parent.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dear Democrats, U R F#cked, Sincerely, "Activist Ju
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:39 pm 
Offline
The Obner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:48 pm
Posts: 4479
Senator Krzyzweski LooGAR Wrote:
Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County's trial-level Superior Court likened the ban to laws requiring racial segregation in schools, and said there appears to be "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples.
.



This is a wrong assessment. God clearly hates the gays now more than he ever hated the blacks back in the 50s.

_________________
[img]https://i.imgur.com/OV6GpTD.jpg[/img]


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dear Democrats, U R F#cked, Sincerely, "Activist Ju
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:42 pm 
Offline
A True Aristocrat of Freedom

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:46 am
Posts: 22121
Location: a worn-out debauchee and drivelling sot
Curtis Enis Wrote:
Senator Krzyzweski LooGAR Wrote:
Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County's trial-level Superior Court likened the ban to laws requiring racial segregation in schools, and said there appears to be "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples.
.



This is a wrong assessment. God clearly hates the gays now more than he ever hated the blacks back in the 50s.


As usual, Mark Clark's simple wisdom illustrates the main point. Politics now boils down to Faggots v. Jesus.

_________________
Throughout his life, from childhood until death, he was beset by severe swings of mood. His depressions frequently encouraged, and were exacerbated by, his various vices. His character mixed a superficial Enlightenment sensibility for reason and taste with a genuine and somewhat Romantic love of the sublime and a propensity for occasionally puerile whimsy.
harry Wrote:
I understand that you, of all people, know this crisis and, in your own way, are working to address it. You, the madras-pantsed julip-sipping Southern cracker and me, the oldman hippie California fruit cake are brothers in the struggle to save our country.

FT Wrote:
LooGAR (the straw that stirs the drink)


Back to top
 Profile WWW 
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:44 pm 
Offline
Go Platinum

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:26 pm
Posts: 6459
Big whoop. California's not going to swing Republican over this. I also don't think anyone voted based on this issue alone, except for those wanting to be married.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is. "Domestic partners" are no different from common law married folk, who are no different from "officially" married folk. You find a life partner, you establish a household, hopefullly it's happily ever after. To the extent "marriage" bestows some extra priveleges on you, you should be qualified to receive them.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dear Democrats, U R F#cked, Sincerely, "Activist Ju
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:46 pm 
Offline
Go Platinum

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:26 pm
Posts: 6459
Senator Krzyzweski LooGAR Wrote:
As usual, Mark Clark's simple wisdom illustrates the main point. Politics now boils down to Faggots v. Jesus.


Jesus, who hung around almost exclusively with guys and wore a dress.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:49 pm 
Offline
A True Aristocrat of Freedom

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:46 am
Posts: 22121
Location: a worn-out debauchee and drivelling sot
Billzebub Wrote:
Big whoop. California's not going to swing Republican over this. I also don't think anyone voted based on this issue alone, except for those wanting to be married.


You are correct, but states where it is competitive, it is a problem. It gets people out to vote, and once they are there, they tend to vote for the party against the issue they came out to vote against. Georgia, is in now way 65% Republican, but it went ^5-35 for Bush...coincedentally the gay marriage amendmemt was like 73-27...you trying to tell me this thing had no coattails?

It is also used big time for fundraising, nationally and locally. I am talking about the mechanics of politics more than how this affects California.

_________________
Throughout his life, from childhood until death, he was beset by severe swings of mood. His depressions frequently encouraged, and were exacerbated by, his various vices. His character mixed a superficial Enlightenment sensibility for reason and taste with a genuine and somewhat Romantic love of the sublime and a propensity for occasionally puerile whimsy.
harry Wrote:
I understand that you, of all people, know this crisis and, in your own way, are working to address it. You, the madras-pantsed julip-sipping Southern cracker and me, the oldman hippie California fruit cake are brothers in the struggle to save our country.

FT Wrote:
LooGAR (the straw that stirs the drink)


Back to top
 Profile WWW 
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:56 pm 
Offline
Go Platinum

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:26 pm
Posts: 6459
Senator Krzyzweski LooGAR Wrote:

You are correct, but states where it is competitive, it is a problem. It gets people out to vote, and once they are there, they tend to vote for the party against the issue they came out to vote against. Georgia, is in now way 65% Republican, but it went ^5-35 for Bush...coincedentally the gay marriage amendmemt was like 73-27...you trying to tell me this thing had no coattails?



I'd be surprised if the Dems got hurt in GA because of gay marriage. Granted, not living in said state, I didn't follow their elections too closely (i.e. not at all), was the Dem candidate in favor of gay marriage?

I don't think you can make this issue a proxy for the "religious right". Do they monger around this issue? Sure, but it's not the only one. There's the "no ten commandments on public buildings" issue, the "no prayer in school" argument, the faith-based charity issue, etc.

If you were to canvass the 48% or so of the people who voted for Kerry/Whatshisname, I would be surprised if less than 90% had a different "moral" stance than their neighbors who voted for Bush/Don'tspeakhisnameoutloud.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dear Democrats, U R F#cked, Sincerely, "Activist Ju
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:58 pm 
Offline
frostingspoon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 17359
Location: cogthrobber
Billzebub Wrote:
Senator Krzyzweski LooGAR Wrote:
As usual, Mark Clark's simple wisdom illustrates the main point. Politics now boils down to Faggots v. Jesus.


Jesus, who hung around almost exclusively with guys and wore a dress.


It was a ketonet with chalug and sash. And a four-tassled coat.

Nazarenes were way butch. And stylin'.


Back to top
 Profile WWW 
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:58 pm 
Offline
Whiskey Tango
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:08 pm
Posts: 21753
Location: REDLANDS
Billzebub Wrote:
Big whoop. California's not going to swing Republican over this. I also don't think anyone voted based on this issue alone, except for those wanting to be married.


Than you either dont understand much about elections or have never examined exit polling data.

Billzebub Wrote:
I honestly don't see what the big deal is. "Domestic partners" are no different from common law married folk, who are no different from "officially" married folk. You find a life partner, you establish a household, hopefullly it's happily ever after. To the extent "marriage" bestows some extra priveleges on you, you should be qualified to receive them.


au contraire. The big deal is twofold:

1. Being legally married makes people feel like they are closer to members of "normal" society, thus reducing the stigma of having the gay.

2. There are more potential economic benefits to being married and money, im sure you would agree Billz, is what makes everything go 'round.

_________________
"To keep you is no benefit. To destroy you is no loss."


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:04 am 
Offline
Go Platinum

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:26 pm
Posts: 6459
Incidentally, I think where this does hurt the Dems is the fear of "activist judges" who legislate from the bench. Had there not been the national security issue, I think the judicial selection issue could have been big in '04.

That this much power can be wielded, almost with impunity, by one man should scare the bejeezus out of everyone. In the future, the Republicans can hold this up as the poster child for the need for Scalia-ish judges who adhere to the most strict interpretation of the Constitution.

The laws may not be correct, but the Constitution lays out the means by which we may change them. That power rests with the Legislature, and not the Judicial branch. If the law states "man and woman", then that is the law.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:08 am 
Offline
Whiskey Tango
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:08 pm
Posts: 21753
Location: REDLANDS
Billzebub Wrote:
Incidentally, I think where this does hurt the Dems is the fear of "activist judges" who legislate from the bench. Had there not been the national security issue, I think the judicial selection issue could have been big in '04.

That this much power can be wielded, almost with impunity, by one man should scare the bejeezus out of everyone. In the future, the Republicans can hold this up as the poster child for the need for Scalia-ish judges who adhere to the most strict interpretation of the Constitution.

The laws may not be correct, but the Constitution lays out the means by which we may change them. That power rests with the Legislature, and not the Judicial branch. If the law states "man and woman", then that is the law.


But where do you stand: I mean do you believe that such a law is necessary? Isn't that just unnecessary government intrusion and over legislation of a pointless issue?

_________________
"To keep you is no benefit. To destroy you is no loss."


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:13 am 
Offline
Go Platinum

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:26 pm
Posts: 6459
Yail Bloor Wrote:

au contraire. The big deal is twofold:

1. Being legally married makes people feel like they are closer to members of "normal" society, thus reducing the stigma of having the gay.

2. There are more potential economic benefits to being married and money, im sure you would agree Billz, is what makes everything go 'round.


I think you missed what I was trying to convey. I agree it's a big deal for the folks wantin' to be hitched, for the reasons you stated.

What shouldn't be a big deal is the impact this has on the rest of the nation. Marriage, as an institution, ain't gonna suffer if we allow more folk to get married.

If two people are willing to assume all of the responsibilities that go along with marriage, then they should be entitled to the rewards.

I don't think it's fair they be denied any benefits, economic or otherwise.

That was my point, for the prospective bride/bride/groom/groom it's a bid deal. For everyone else, it shouldn't matter in the least.

As for exit poll data, it's not all it's cracked up to be. People often give conflicted responses to the way they vote, especially for a lightening rod issue. I'm also not aware of any poll data that said the gay marriage issue was the primary decision criterion for those who voted Republican.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:16 am 
Offline
Go Platinum

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:26 pm
Posts: 6459
Yail Bloor Wrote:
But where do you stand: I mean do you believe that such a law is necessary? Isn't that just unnecessary government intrusion and over legislation of a pointless issue?


I don't think such a law is necessary. I support any legistlation that overturns it.

However, I recognize and value the process by which laws must be changed. There are extremely good reasons that the Founding Fathers took the time to create well-defined separation among the powers (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial).


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:18 am 
Offline
Natural Harvester
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 1:38 pm
Posts: 23083
Location: Portland, OR
i have access to show tunes, and will dj at any gay weddings for a slightly higher fee.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:31 am 
Offline
frostingspoon
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:59 pm
Posts: 24583
Location: On the gas and tappin' ass
Busty goes to San Fran for the weekend, and the local judge rules in favor of gay marriage... coincidence? Maybe.

I'm sure the good judge felt he was doing the right thing, but I agree with Loog in thinking that this smells distinctly similar to gunpowder. :!:

_________________
[quote="Bloor"]He's either done too much and should stay out of the economy, done too little because unemployment isn't 0%, is a dumb ingrate who wasn't ready for the job or a brilliant mastermind who has taken over all aspects of our lives and is transforming us into a Stalinist style penal economy where Christian Whites are fed into meat grinders. Very confusing[/quote]


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:10 am 
Offline
A True Aristocrat of Freedom

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:46 am
Posts: 22121
Location: a worn-out debauchee and drivelling sot
Cap'n Squirrgle Wrote:
I agree with Loog in thinking that this smells distinctly similar to gunpowder. :!:


Why would I know anything about politics, or what motivates voters? :roll:

_________________
Throughout his life, from childhood until death, he was beset by severe swings of mood. His depressions frequently encouraged, and were exacerbated by, his various vices. His character mixed a superficial Enlightenment sensibility for reason and taste with a genuine and somewhat Romantic love of the sublime and a propensity for occasionally puerile whimsy.
harry Wrote:
I understand that you, of all people, know this crisis and, in your own way, are working to address it. You, the madras-pantsed julip-sipping Southern cracker and me, the oldman hippie California fruit cake are brothers in the struggle to save our country.

FT Wrote:
LooGAR (the straw that stirs the drink)


Back to top
 Profile WWW 
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:12 am 
Offline
The Obner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:48 pm
Posts: 4479
Dalen Wrote:
i have access to show tunes, and will dj at any gay weddings for a slightly higher fee.


Nothing like being self employed so you can charge a discomfort fee.

_________________
[img]https://i.imgur.com/OV6GpTD.jpg[/img]


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:34 am 
Offline
"Weddings, Parties, Anything…"

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:50 pm
Posts: 853
Location: lawrencekansas
Billzebub Wrote:
Incidentally, I think where this does hurt the Dems is the fear of "activist judges" who legislate from the bench. Had there not been the national security issue, I think the judicial selection issue could have been big in '04. That this much power can be wielded, almost with impunity, by one man should scare the bejeezus out of everyone. In the future, the Republicans can hold this up as the poster child for the need for Scalia-ish judges who adhere to the most strict interpretation of the Constitution. The laws may not be correct, but the Constitution lays out the means by which we may change them. That power rests with the Legislature, and not the Judicial branch. If the law states "man and woman", then that is the law.


i for one am not frightened of what activist judges can do. there's plenty of checks and limits on judicial power. they are, after all, appointed through a democratic process (in many states they are directly elected and do not have lifetime tenure) judges do by design have the power to make unpopular decisions, but there is a definite limit to what they can impose. just imagine if the supreme court ruled in favor of gay marriage--it wouldn't be long before there was a federal constitutional amendment to ban it working its way through the states (i'd like to think it wouldn't pass, but the homophobic hatred this country is capable of continues to amaze)
also, courts lack enforcement power, they need the other branches in order to make any of their decisions stick. while its unlikely that a ruling will be directly defied by any branch of the government, there are a million ways in which opinions can be subverted. laws that are struck down can be rewritten in order to ostensibly comply with a decision, executive agencies can refuse to enforce new rules vigorously, etc. etc. and because the courts move slowly, it could be years before these matters are ultimately settled.
phrases like "judicial activism" may carry a negative connotation, but some of the most celebrated supreme court opinions of the last century were extremely activist. take brown v. board of education and the opinions that followed. they completely dismantled segregation, imposed busing as the solution to school desegregation, and were deeply unpopular. but they were absolutely the right thing to do, and i'm glad we had a supreme court that would do the right thing when elected leaders refused to do so. and this is completely in keeping with the constitution and what the framers intended--that lifetime-tenured judges would be above the passions of the day and more able to protect the rights of minorities. i agree that the courts should give deference to the legislative branch, but not if they enact laws that violate the constitutional rights of individuals.
one of the most ironic things about the whole activism debate is that the current conservative incarnation of the supreme court is one of the most activist in history. since 1994 they've struck down more federal laws than any other supreme court. and the 5 justice conservative majority has no problem wielding judicial power in favor of conservative causes, striking down gun control and domestic violence laws. not to mention that bush v. gore isn't exactly a model of judicial restraint. conservatives are curiously silent when judicial activism favors their interests.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:00 am 
Offline
Go Platinum
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:37 pm
Posts: 8889
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska USA
After examining the Conservative agenda after the 2004 Presidential Election, they want to use the same issues to maintain power rather than actually win legislation on those issues. The longer gay marriage, abortion, teaching of evolution, etc exists, the more power they have to scare people by saying the country is going to hell. If they actually succeeded in getting national legislation or a judicial overturn on certain hot button moral issues, it would be disasterous for the Christian Right.
The Democrats might want to do what Conservatives in Congress did for about Forty years. Continue to challenge the ruling party on major issues, but not actually block keystone legislation. When those policies come into effect, and run the country into the ground, the way Republicans think a lot of New Deal and LBJ era legislation, they can use popular discontent to take control again. The old guard Democratic Party is definitely struggling to maintain a connection with Average Joes in middle america and the south. Rather than move to far to the center/right to combat this, they should lay dormant and regroup. 2008 is obviously a huge election for the party, but could be its death nail too.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:41 am 
Offline
frostingspoon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:48 pm
Posts: 10749
Location: getting some kicks at the mall
i haven't been able to find any moderates or rational people that voted for Bush based upon things like gay marriage and abortion or other moral issues- mostly they voted for republican tendencies in spending or pro-war in the middle east, for whatever reason, from what i've been able to figure out. these lightning rod issues seem to be designed for the media and the fire and brimstone crowd, not the business guys that actually make up the top of the republican party.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:45 am 
Offline
A True Aristocrat of Freedom

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:46 am
Posts: 22121
Location: a worn-out debauchee and drivelling sot
fightingliberal Wrote:
After examining the Conservative agenda after the 2004 Presidential Election, they want to use the same issues to maintain power rather than actually win legislation on those issues. The longer gay marriage, abortion, teaching of evolution, etc exists, the more power they have to scare people by saying the country is going to hell. If they actually succeeded in getting national legislation or a judicial overturn on certain hot button moral issues, it would be disasterous for the Christian Right.

YEp.


chase Wrote:
these lightning rod issues seem to be designed for the media and the fire and brimstone crowd, not the business guys that actually make up the top of the republican party.


But see, the business guys use issues like this to get people who are not economically aligned with them to vote for them. Plus, it helps the media keep Democrats designed as pansies, and America haters, with values outside the norms.

And it works. See this week's bankruptcy bill. Loopholes galore, except for Joe Scmho who'se credit card company issued him a card at 21% APR and gave hima credit limit so massive that it'll take him until he retires to pay it off: he gets stuck with ALL the bills. Last time i checked forgiveness and second chances were the backbone of Christianity and "American" values.

'

_________________
Throughout his life, from childhood until death, he was beset by severe swings of mood. His depressions frequently encouraged, and were exacerbated by, his various vices. His character mixed a superficial Enlightenment sensibility for reason and taste with a genuine and somewhat Romantic love of the sublime and a propensity for occasionally puerile whimsy.
harry Wrote:
I understand that you, of all people, know this crisis and, in your own way, are working to address it. You, the madras-pantsed julip-sipping Southern cracker and me, the oldman hippie California fruit cake are brothers in the struggle to save our country.

FT Wrote:
LooGAR (the straw that stirs the drink)


Back to top
 Profile WWW 
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:50 am 
Offline
Go Platinum

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:26 pm
Posts: 6459
Senator Krzyzweski LooGAR Wrote:

But see, the business guys use issues like this to get people who are not economically aligned with them to vote for them. Plus, it helps the media keep Democrats designed as pansies, and America haters, with values outside the norms.



Oh come on Gar, the Dems pull the same crap with social security and other federal programs (Medicare, Social Security, etc.) and the "tax cuts only for the rich". Both parties scare-monger to whip up the troops and fill their coffers. Neither side has clean hands in this.


Back to top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ] 

Board index : Music Talk : Rock/Pop

Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Style by Midnight Phoenix & N.Design Studio
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.