Your homework assignment
- Thread starter Couture
- Start date
lucky-E-leven
Aphrodisiaddict
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Posts
- 17,241
Re: He's gone and done it
Me too, but it was only a matter of time...before you know it you'll have to say a prayer out loud to access the money in your bank account or be able to attend public school
~lucky
minsue said:
Me too, but it was only a matter of time...before you know it you'll have to say a prayer out loud to access the money in your bank account or be able to attend public school
~lucky
RenzaJones
you know you like it
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2003
- Posts
- 1,241
to the "recent" rash of idiocy I'd like to say
and by that I mean
and by that I mean
destinie21
Daddy's Brat
- Joined
- May 27, 2003
- Posts
- 3,612
Re: He's gone and done it
me I'm feeling sad
minsue said:
me I'm feeling sad
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
I just watched the president's solemn little announcement. I'm so deeply saddened by what Bush/Cheney have done to my country in the space of a few brief years.
I would never have believed that in a time of war, economic crisis and rampant joblessness of a frightening long-term type that we haven't seen since the Great Depression...that even this president would perform a campaign stunt that is guaranteed to rip the United States apart at the seams.
Who are these people, in their hearts?
It's inexplicable to me than anyone would send young men and women to kill and to die, ostensably to bring freedom to another country - and would then do this, and fail to perceive the irony.
I would never have believed that in a time of war, economic crisis and rampant joblessness of a frightening long-term type that we haven't seen since the Great Depression...that even this president would perform a campaign stunt that is guaranteed to rip the United States apart at the seams.
Who are these people, in their hearts?
It's inexplicable to me than anyone would send young men and women to kill and to die, ostensably to bring freedom to another country - and would then do this, and fail to perceive the irony.
NoJo
Happily Marred
- Joined
- May 19, 2002
- Posts
- 15,404
Re: He's gone and done it
Well, he's clearly lost a few votes with that... Will he gain more votes than he loses? His people have probably done some kind of demographic analysis. They were probably worried about losing some middle-right voters or something.
minsue said:
Well, he's clearly lost a few votes with that... Will he gain more votes than he loses? His people have probably done some kind of demographic analysis. They were probably worried about losing some middle-right voters or something.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Re: Re: He's gone and done it
His handlers don't give a damn if the amendment ever passes. What they want is to corner the Democratic candidate into a debate about this and force him to take the "liberal" stance that will condemn his candidacy.
Consider this: the people who voted for Bush in 2000 and might fall away this time are right-wing Republicans who are turned off by his far-from-conservative spending habits. Right-wing Republicans are typically not supporters of civil rights issues. The way to push the strays back into Bush's camp is to force Kerry to take the "pro-gay" side.
Kerry is on the record as being against a constitutional amendment, but as a state's-rights issue, rather than on the grounds that he favors same-sex marriage. On other issues - business regulation, the environment - Bush's party traditionalists are usually the ones espousing smaller government and less federal control over the states. The exception is typically hot-button social issues like abortion. Same-sex marriage has the capacity to be as divisive as the abortion rights issue, but unlike abortion, the polls show that on this one Bush is in the majority. He can't lose.
The votes you see him losing here today were probably not his to begin with.
Sub Joe said:
His handlers don't give a damn if the amendment ever passes. What they want is to corner the Democratic candidate into a debate about this and force him to take the "liberal" stance that will condemn his candidacy.
Consider this: the people who voted for Bush in 2000 and might fall away this time are right-wing Republicans who are turned off by his far-from-conservative spending habits. Right-wing Republicans are typically not supporters of civil rights issues. The way to push the strays back into Bush's camp is to force Kerry to take the "pro-gay" side.
Kerry is on the record as being against a constitutional amendment, but as a state's-rights issue, rather than on the grounds that he favors same-sex marriage. On other issues - business regulation, the environment - Bush's party traditionalists are usually the ones espousing smaller government and less federal control over the states. The exception is typically hot-button social issues like abortion. Same-sex marriage has the capacity to be as divisive as the abortion rights issue, but unlike abortion, the polls show that on this one Bush is in the majority. He can't lose.
The votes you see him losing here today were probably not his to begin with.
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
The election is... when? Is there a way of preventing this moron from making any more idiotic things before he's kicked out for good?
His time is running out, I think he's getting desperate to do all the damage he can while he still can do it.
His time is running out, I think he's getting desperate to do all the damage he can while he still can do it.
G
Guest
Guest
Flicka, the election is in November. He is obviously desperate, but it's not just him, there's lots of money and those crazy R. wing christians behind him. My only real hope is that he'll go too far, even for them.
Perdita
Perdita
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
perdita said:Flicka, the election is in November. He is obviously desperate, but it's not just him, there's lots of money and those crazy R. wing christians behind him. My only real hope is that he'll go too far, even for them.
Perdita
Too far for them? Not even if he adopted Horst Vessel's anthem for the party, the swastika as its emblem and managed to clone Himmler and make him Ag, nevermind, he's already got that covered.
The only way he will loose the religious right is if he allows himself the luxury of trying to lean a little bit back towards center. If he manages to get Roe V Wade overturned before the election he won't loose them even if he puts a statue of Lenin in the oval office.
-Colly
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
But, on the other hand - even if he can make a right mess of things, overturning Roe vs Wade, taking away funding for indecent organisations and doctors who are pro-choice, and reduce sex ed in schools to one simple DON'T DO IT...
the next guy can turn it back, right? If you can make a law that says you can only wear blue, then sure as hell the next guy can make a law saying that you mustn't wear blue, right?
the next guy can turn it back, right? If you can make a law that says you can only wear blue, then sure as hell the next guy can make a law saying that you mustn't wear blue, right?
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
Svenskaflicka said:
The simple answer is yes and no. Much of what Bush has accomplished has not been accomplished on his direct authority, but via his influence as prsident and the fact that his party controls both houses of congress. If Kerry were elected, but the composition of house and congress remains republican there is actually very little he could to undo the damage.
Via executive order he could render some of it moot by ordering federal authorites not to prosecute it, parts of USA PATRIOT for example, but to overturn it he would have to put legislation through congress.
In the case of Roe v Wade if it's overturned there would be precious little he could do, it would be back in the hands of the congress and the judiciary. And while he could veto further restrictions, with some confidenc that there woudln't be enough votes in congress to overide his veto, he could do practically nothing if such legislation made it to his predescessors desk and was signed.
For all his power, the president has very little ability to directly enforce his will in domestic matters. His strongest power in that direction is tied to a compliant congress and judiciary, a luxury that the next democrat who becomes president isn't likely to have, unless things change.
-Colly
Couture
Ass Expert
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2001
- Posts
- 1,363
Well, there is good news at last. It seems the gay discrimination bill has failed in the senate. I know Ashcroft is somewhere gnashing his teeth right now. I wonder if GWB even cares, or if this is just a divisive issue he is using to rally the faithful come November?
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
Here is a news article about that. This is not entirely unalloyed good news. Some of those who voted against the measure may not be opposed to the idea of banning gay marriage, just to the idea of amending the US Constitution to do it. The bad news is that 48 senators feel so strongly against gay marriage that they would vote to amend the constitution to ban it.
AFP Photo
Senate Scuttles Gay Marriage Amendment
(AP) - The Senate scuttled a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Wednesday, handing a defeat to President Bush yet assuring the issue renewed prominence in the fall campaign for the White House and control of Congress. Forty-eight senators voted to advance the measure -- 12 short of the 60 needed -- and 50 voted to block it. Defeat came at the hands of dozens of Democrats joined by six Republicans. More ...
AFP Photo
Senate Scuttles Gay Marriage Amendment
(AP) - The Senate scuttled a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Wednesday, handing a defeat to President Bush yet assuring the issue renewed prominence in the fall campaign for the White House and control of Congress. Forty-eight senators voted to advance the measure -- 12 short of the 60 needed -- and 50 voted to block it. Defeat came at the hands of dozens of Democrats joined by six Republicans. More ...
Last edited:
TheEarl
Occasional visitor
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2002
- Posts
- 9,808
Svenskaflicka said:
Not necessarily Svenska. In order to get a law passed, you've gotta have quite a bit of sway to get it through. A reversal law could take years and wouldn't be guaranteed of passing. At least, this would be the case in England; my knowledge of American politics is weak at best.
This is quite an old thread. I opened it up, thinking it looked quite familiar, only to see that I posted the 2nd reply ages ago. Who bumped it?
The Earl
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
TheEarl said:
Colly answered Flicka's question in Feb. and than Couture posted to the thread, thereby bumping it up. If laws get passed during the Bush reign, getting them repealed would be very hard, especially with a Republican Congress. If they do not get passed under Bush, and Kerry is elected, they won't get passed. I am referring to restrictive laws such as banning gay marriage, etc.
Last edited:
Clare Quilty
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2004
- Posts
- 950
Dirt Man said:
Surely the irony of an admonition against altering the bible written by blokes who'd done just that (when they slapped the gospel on the old testament) doesn't escape you?
