luna

Okay, Fenix- for the two points you gave, I couldn't agree more. I think Bush is off the mark with those two issues, as well as numerous others. That being said, I don't see how he has "gone so far right". He hasn't moved much at all on his position. If anything, I think we can say he has consistently been for and against the same issues. I haven't seen much change at all. Can you show this change to me?

__________________
Resurgent's New Motivational Motto:
"Now train harder! Live inside your character! If it dies, YOU DIE! Focus!"

Jesus had a soulstone.

leejo

An amendment to the constitution requires so much democratic process that only a hugely popular issue can get pushed through. It takes time and money and a whole lot of votes to make it happen.

How is this against the heart of the constitution?

TheFeniX

Not really. I don't feel like digging through google trying to find 4 year old records. I remember specifically going to vote for Bush because he preached on about being only a moderate Christian. He talked about bringing in some Christian values, but nothing on the scale that he's done post 9/11.

I can remember watching a few of the debates on TV, and I made the decision to vote for Bush, not because he was Texan, but because he was a "middle road" kinda guy. Now I just see him beating the same drum-roll that pushed me away from the Republican party to begin with.

So, basically: I go to the polls this November only to register my disgust with both candidates.

__________________

Mot73

Ain't America great?

luna

See, that surprises me. I DIDN'T vote for Bush 4 years ago because I worried he was too far to the right. Now, more than anything, I feel that his 4 years in office have proven me wrong.

You can't blame the guy for something that takes the whole congress and senate to approve- he isn't a King.

__________________
Resurgent's New Motivational Motto:
"Now train harder! Live inside your character! If it dies, YOU DIE! Focus!"

Jesus had a soulstone.

leejo

Why do you feel the need to register your disgust with anyone? Turn that frown upside down camper! Make something good happen instead of griping about how God or Bush aren't good enough for you. Seems terribly angry.

I don't see that Bush has done anything terribly grand with his religious beliefs, but you strike me as hypersensitive on that issue so maybe I come across as a jesus freak to you. Bush has pushed to open faith-based orgs up to some federal funding, which makes a lot of sense provided we don't get into the business of supporting one religion to the detriment of others. He's worked to stave off the effects of some goofy judicial rulings with regard to homosexual marriage. I understand that you have a personal stake in this issue, but Bush is speaking for a solid majority of Americans on that issue, so I wouldn't call him extreme in this regard.

Did you know Kerry was in Vietnam?

TheFeniX

Because, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not written to protect the majority. The majority needs no protection. They were written to protect the minority. Bush (and the current Republican Congress) would push to limit a minority's (Gays) rights. A few State Sumpreme Courts have deemed anti-gay marriage laws to be unconstitutional. Bush would circumvent that by adding it directly into the Constitution.

No one else sees a problem with the majority using their power to hold back a minority?

Did you know back in the 90's they did a survey and (I believe) 80%+ of Americans said they would vote for a law against flag burning? Hell, I can't imagine even 50% of Americans agreeing on anything much less 80%. Did you also know there is no law on the books against flag burning even though it would pass with no problems? That's because it limits a person's right of expression. The Supreme Court said "No, it's a right to burn an American flag that you own."

Using the Constitution to push your own twisted view of freedom = Bad. Bush lost my vote because in my opinion he doesn't actually care about freedom.

What the Hell is that supposed to mean? Oh, because I support Gay rights, I must be gay? I guess because I believe women shouldn't be treated as property, I must also be a woman. Typical mindset.

Read the above. When the majority seek to trample the minorty: we have the Bill of Rights to stop them.

I'm not about to break the Constitution's long-standing history of not dictating actual law so you don't have to worry about gays getting tax breaks and "destroying society."

__________________

fr1j0l3

lied to get medals eh?

What facts in question?

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_...y_records.html

There's a link to a bunch of actual military records(aka facts), and the various accomplishments he's garnered. The same folks that are sound-bitten in this "ad" are the ones heaping praises on him in his reviews. It's not until AFTER he got back, and started to tell the senate what was REALLY going on over there, that these guys got upset. (one of those "happens in vegas, stays in vegas" kinda of things)

I think it is absolutely hilarious that this is even an issue, when dumbya (see note1 below) can't even find ONE SINGLE FRIKKEN guy to corroborate his alabama national guard duties. Kinda funny where a dozen or so boat captains remember EXACTLY where someone was in vietnam, but not a damn soul can remember seeing dumbya in the ANG.

note1
Don't preach to me about restraint. As long as this imbecile still spouts garbage like this:
He's earned the title.

background info on the boat people

Article showcasing the partisan backing of the boat people (one-day salon pass rqd)

Side note: Go to the swift boat folks website, and find the 70's(I think) debate transcript of kerry and some guy. Reading through it (it's quite long), when they finally get to vietnam, you could damn near swap out the word "iraq" for "vietnam". Really bizarre stuff. All the talk about civilian casualties, when to pull out, what the postwar plan is, etc...

leejo

Dude, EVERY amendment to the constitution, including the ones you're touting (Bill of Rights), was passed in the same manner - by the MAJORITY.

With regard to "I understand that you have a personal stake in this issue" means, I had you confused with Fait Maker, who's written that his brother is gay. Apologies, I wasn't trying to say anything negative. However, what does "typical mindset" mean?

The majority aren't seeking to trample the minority in this matter, they're seeking protect the meaning of marriage, which for 1000's of years has meant the union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals can get every power-of-attorney they want to make their relationship legally the same in terms of the ability to make critical decisions for each other. There is no due process violated here, and in any case, if enough votes exist to pass an amendment to the constitution, then according to the framers of the constitution, it should be so.

leejo

Whatev Frijole. The shoe's on the other foot. Enjoy the fall.

You don't have to convince me, Kerry has to convince the American voters that his little band are more reliable and believable than all these vets who served in the same group, and his entire chain of command.

Kerry's given himself plenty of rope and now he's going to hang with it. So long John Forbes "I tossed my medals, someone else's medals, ribbons/It's not my suv it's my wife's/those weren't my words they were a speechwriter's words that passed my lips" Kerry.

leejo

Attached Images

	swiftboat.JPG (63.7 KB, 12 views)

IceCold

Exactly. If a Constitutional Amendment can pass, then it (by definition) is constitutional... I highly doubt that an anti-gay marriage amendment could pass, however...
I've heard this several times here at TG and I can't take it any more. A general power of attorney is crap. Nobody has to recognize one. They're only real use anymore is to cover someone's butt if a company/organization decides to allow somebody to act in someone else's stead. The concept is nice, but legally unsound. And that doesn't even go into the fact that married heteros have options that gay couples still wouldn't have even if powers of attorney worked like that...

leejo

Hmm, my father, who's practiced law for 30 years, told me that one so I thought he knew what he was talking about. Are you sure?

And what options do married heteros have that homosexual couples don't have? And are those options constitutionally protected? And if not, should the will of the People be trampled to extend those options to homosexuals?

I have a few homosexual friends who've been "married" for 7-10 years and have drawn up every durable power of attorney, etc. They've told me that they want this issue resolved because they want the validation, but they've already taken care of all the legal issues. I don't have a constitutional right to have my lifestyle validated, I don't think. Where is that?

TheFeniX

Red Herring, that's not the point. The point is our founding fathers (along with a push from the new American citizens) saw fit to inlcude these rights for minority protection. And also, these were passed by a majority in the Congress, not majority of the people.

I feel using government power to force a "hot-button" issue like this past the courts and people is unethical (especially a religious issue). No matter if it's gay marriage or free popcorn on sundays.

Ignore it if you misdirected that comment.

I'm not arguing this here. I believe there was another thread about this exact topic. We can move it to there if you want.

__________________

IceCold

I'm positive. It's SOP for Base Legal to offer to draw up General Powers of Attorney for married Marines before deployments so that the wives can take care of things. They're still offered, but discouraged due to their ineffectiveness and potential for abuse. Getting specific powers of attorney is still effective. If you draw one up that specifically grants somebody the authority to use a specific credit card for a specific amount of time for a specific purpose, then it'll probably be accepted (but it still doesn't have to be accepted). But to say that gays have the same abilities as heteros in this regard is absolutely false.