How Can George Bush Represent the People if.......

[jordan]

Fair enough. I shall look into the subject more someday and refrain from commenting more until then.

[Phi for All]

So much of what Bush does that angers me revolves around flat-out ignoring what the experts say and making bold statements against their advice that must be executed in order to be proven true or false. His tax cuts to the rich, his war on Iraq based on Hussein's WMD programs, his assertion that suddenly a Constitutional ammendment is necessary to protect us from homosexuality, all of these things were rejected by those whose job it is to know better. Bush is the biggest liar of all time! He campaigned as a moderate, is considered by the majority of Americans to be highly conservative, and yet, as National Journal's Jonathan Rauch recently noted, George W. Bush has governed with the most radical agenda of any president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And most of what he's done so far seems to be dedicated to overturning what Roosevelt created from the ashes of the Depression.

 

Currently Bush seems to be breaking treaties and alliances with foreign powers in a bid to realign the entire world structure. Is this what you conservative Republicans voted him in for? To change the face of the whole world in Bush's image and spit in the face of allies the world over?

 

I still say he's using this whole homosexuality thing as a smoke screen for his more underhanded objectives. We'd like the president to be able to produce jobs, make prescription drugs more affordable, protect the environment that we and our loved ones will have to survive in, and maybe thwart some terrorists along the way. Bush has done none of these things and in fact has made every single one worse.

 

If a boxer threw that many matches, you have to say he'd been paid to take the falls, wouldn't you?

[AL]

Why have they been unable to lead a normal lifestyle?

First of all, what is normal? Some of my friends think that talking to faceless strangers on an internet discussion forum is not "normal," but judging by the millions of people on the internet who do so daily, it seems pretty common and usual enough for me to justify saying that it is indeed "normal." Since there are millions of gay people in the U.S. alone, I'd argue there is some "normality" to them.

 

Second of all, what is so instrinsically special about "normality" that we should prefer it over abnormality? Even if someone could demonstrate that internet posting or being gay was, without a doubt, "abnormal," why then does it follow that we should avoid doing it? I see no logical connection there.

[DreamLord]

Honestly, I don't look at this issue as being whether you like gays or not. It has little do with them at all. All I know is that they are looking for acceptance, which I am glad to give except that they haven't given a good reason yet. All I've heard is "they love each other[sup']1[/sup]

 

Um... Isn't love the reason for most people wanting to get married? If two people love eachother and they want to get married, shouldn't that be justification enough? What is marriage for if not to be with the one you love for the rest of your life. It's not just about having babies and getting a few benefits from the government (anyone who thinks that way should really rethink marriage or plans for marriage).

[DreamLord]

Well can they explain why they have to chose a different lifestyle then most and parade it around? Why have they been unable to lead a normal lifestyle? Have they tried? I don't really think they all have. I would believe that it is more about the attention and rebelion for most.

 

You say "chosen" a different lifestyle. Homosexual people do not choose to be the way they are any more than heterosexuals do. It is simply biological. They cannot change the way they. This would be like saying you "choose" to be male or female at birth. It is not something that you simply "choose".

[jordan]

So much of what Bush does that angers me revolves around flat-out ignoring what the experts say and making bold statements against their advice that must be executed in order to be proven true or false....wouldn't you?

It's so hard to argue with you when you make so much sense.

[atinymonkey]

Um... Isn't love the reason for most people wanting to get married?

 

Yes, to get back to the original context of the thread. Repression of the formal expression of love can't be a good thing.

[drz]

Well, I've yet to see anyone demonstrate how a gay couple being married takes away from your rights in any way. Honestly, unless this can be demonstrated, there really isn't an arguement against it.

[Phi for All]

It's so hard to argue with you when you make so much sense.

Thank you.

 

What I can't figure out is how we keep forgetting how much our leaders have been lying to us. Reagan used to make up these outrageous stories that his followers never bothered to check, like "the fact" that trees cause more pollution than cars. Bush Sr. lied about the whole Iran-Contra relationship. Clinton lied about his relationship with "that woman". And now Bush has come up with a whole new way to lie, the "let's just shove it down their throats with a little spin on it" lie. These are probably the most harmful because, unlike the other three presidents, you don't find out about Bush's bulls**t until the damage is done. Then you're in too deep and have spent too much money and have killed too many people to back out honorably.

[jordan]

Just remeber that there is a hidden motive behind just about everything (even the gay rights movement). Nothing is as people would have you believe it is. I don't want to sound like a conspiricy theorist, but for the most part I think that's true.

[Sayonara]

What possible hidden motives could the average Jeff & Dave or Sally & Emma have for wanting to get married?

[jordan]

Attention.

[Sayonara]

I think you might find that "attention" is implied in the act of marriage by anyone, seeing as they are declaring their love and/or commitment before god, friends and family.

 

Even if it were some sort of terrible and covert "motive", and if you were to apply any uniform criteria for deciding if someone wanted to marry just for attention, it would not only fail to cover all gay marriages, but it would cover a great deal of straight marriages too.

 

Again we come back to Special Pleading.

[jordan]

I never hoped to imply it was the main reason, nor did I hope to start into the discussion again. I just hope you don't think they are all coming out now is because they truely love each other. Special pleading might be true. I think some of them do it for the attention only. I think some of them do it for love only. I think some of them do it for a combination of the two. I doubt that the big boom in the gay community is just because people woke up one day and realized they didn't like the opposite sex. I think a lot of it has to do with the increased publicity though.

[john5746]

 

And he should be free to express whatever views he might hold. However' date=' religion is not part of the state and Bush has no reason to influence political structures based on whatever Church he is a member of. It's not as if he's even a member of a prevalent Church in America.

 

Church and state are always kept separate, even if daddy did make you president. [/quote']

 

We know this, but as President his beliefs will influence the country, religious or not. The Judicial branch can uphold the Constitution. The stupid amendment he wanted to add, should then be declared unconstitutional.

 

Well, if the Judicial branch has too many conservatives...

 

I still think the President is elected on a platform by a certain segment of the population. If he runs as a Nazi and is elected, then everyone should expect him to be a Nazi. Doesn't make it right, but he is representing his platform that was approved by a majority, or the election process.

[drz]

ya, I mean, how about the 24 hours chapels in las vegas an such???

 

John, true, but there is also a good portion of the population, like, uhm, pretty much anyone I ask that still finds the 2000 elections fishy. Its also kinda fishy to be talking about delaying the elections incase of terrorist threat.

[DreamLord]

Yeah, I agree with drz. There was deffinitaly something very wrong with the 2000 elections. Especially in Florida (Jeb country). Where suddenly right before the elections many people (mainly black) were suddenly found to be convicted of felonies (something like that, I'm not really sure of the exact phrasing) and were unable to vote. And then there was the whole "miscount" thing down there.

[Phi for All]

Where suddenly right before the elections many people (mainly black) were suddenly found to be convicted of felonies (something like that, I'm not really sure of the exact phrasing) and were unable to vote.

The thing I hated the most about that particular angle of the debacle was when Florida suddenly got a long list of people who had committed felonies in a different state. Florida law says you can't vote if you've committed a felony anywhere. Of course, the list was used to purge voter registration based on name alone and they didn't bother to check whether or not you were actually the "John Smith" who was a convicted felon. They just took all the "John Smith's" off (if JS was in a crucial county).

 

Which state sent them this special information? Texas.

 

 

 

That reeks of special privilege.

[DreamLord]

Wow, I didn't know that part of it. That makes it even worse. Oh man, I hope these sorts of things are stopped if they try them for this year's election. They shouldn't have gotten away with it in the first place...

[blike]

Florida law says you can't vote if you've committed a felony anywhere. Of course, the list was used to purge voter registration based on name alone and they didn't bother to check whether or not you were actually the "John Smith" who was a convicted felon.

The felon purge actually took place before the election. The Palm Beach post reported that 1,100 people's votes had been wrongly discarded because of the purge. Many Florida officials knew that there had been an overpurge, and so 20 florida counties ignored the purge list altogether. This resulted in an estimated 5,600 illegal votes cast by convicted felons. (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/final_dissent.pdf)

 

Considering felons vote 69% democratic (http://www.asanet.org/), and the American Sociological Association concluded that "If felons could have voted, national election outcomes would have been different", the purge, if anything, actually worked in favor of Gore.

 

Was it wrong that those people were robbed of their vote? Yes. Was it wrong that convited felons were able to vote? Yes. Did it help Bush win? No, it probably narrowed the margin.

[Phi for All]

The felon purge actually took place before the election.

I didn't mean to imply they were allowed to vote and their votes were simply not counted. Of course it was done beforehand, that's part of my point. An unprecedented purge of Florida's voter registration when the governor's brother is trying to win a swing state is just plain wrong!

 

Your link to the Florida Election Commission's rebuttal of the report by a federal, bi-partisan agency like the US Commission on Civil Rights is also highly suspect. Their take on statistics and their objections to being called to task for this discrimanatory approach to voting is completely expected and equally completely suspect.

 

The fact that taxpayer money from both Texas and Florida was used to doctor voter registration is just plain criminal. Add to that the fact that Fox New's early call of Florida's election projections, signalled by Jeb and George's cousin, John Ellis, and it's hard not to believe in conspiracies.

[DreamLord]

Whether or not it helped George Bush (I believe it did) it was still very wrong. And it still seemed to have been done by Jeb. Which would lead one to believe that in some way, George Bush was likely involved in all of the voting in Florida problems.

[blike]

The Florida Legislature called for the felon purge in 1998.

 

Add to that the fact that Fox New's early call of Florida's election projections, signalled by Jeb and George's cousin, John Ellis, and it's hard not to believe in conspiracies.

 

Please, fox called florida for gore and was the last to retract it. They beat the other networks in calling it for bush by a whole four minutes.

[DreamLord]

The felon purge was closer to the election then that I believe. And it was quite sudden too. And I've heard that Fox called Florida to Bush before all the results were in.

[Phi for All]

The Florida Legislature called for the felon purge in 1998.

Proving only that their criminal activity was premeditated and lengthy.

Please, fox called florida for gore and was the last to retract it. They beat the other networks in calling it for bush by a whole four minutes.

The other networks jumped on Fox's bandwagon, not wanting to be scooped. By declaring such a close vote for Bush without firm results Bush's cousin unduly influenced voters on the West Coast who hadn't voted yet. It's a shame that some people waited until the last minute and felt it was more important to be on the "winning team", but that's America for you. Everything's a competition, especially in a two-party system.