| Author | Message | ||
     Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1468 Registered: 9-2004 |
Best phone call EVER by John in DC - 6/05/2006 03:30:00 PM AMERICAblog reader Bill writes in about his phone call to Senator Crapo's office (R-ID) this afternoon: Is Senator Crapo in favor of traditional marriage? Yes he is, he's a cosponsor of the bill. He is? Can you tell me if he masturbates? I could not tell you that. Can you tell me, do you masturbate? I cannot tell you that either. Can you tell me, does he commit sodomy, analingus, cunnilingus or fellatio? What is the purpose of this questioning? It's regarding his views on traditional marriage. Okay, he supports the bill. Yes, but could you tell me does he commit sodomy? I could not give you an answer on that. Is he willing to pledge that he has not or will not commit sodomy? I could not answer that. Has he ever had sex before or outside of marriage? Again, sir, what is the point of this questioning? It's regarding traditional marriage and how far his support goes. Any one of those questions I could not answer. Have you ever had sex outside of marriage? Again, I will not answer that. It's nobody's business, right? That's right. Okay, thank you. http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/06/best-phone-call-ever.html AUDIO Available at Crooks and Liars: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/05.html#a8595 -------------------------------- Thank you Carl Rove for giving three quarters of America another reason to vote the bums out on Nov. Its like a gift from God. | ||
| cmontyburns Citizen Username: Cmontyburns Post Number: 1851 Registered: 12-2003  |
Foj: With most Americans opposing gay marriage, why do you think coming out as "anti-gay" is somehow a bad thing politically? | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1472 Registered: 9-2004 |
Its a gift from Carl Rove to DEMs. And I love Carl for it. Thanks Carl.  | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro  Post Number: 3312 Registered: 5-2004  |
Foj, I agree with cmonty on this. How is this in any way going to help the Democrats? Given that most of the country is not in favor of gay marriage, how can this help the Dems? Just because you believe in something doesn't mean the rest of the country does. In fact, while listening to Bloomberg on the way home yesterday, several callers from outside the NYC area called in to say that this issue would bring them to the polls - to SUPPORT Republican candidates. | ||
| ina Citizen Username: Ina Post Number: 370 Registered: 6-2001 |
From the National Review: From a new Gallup poll, taken May 22-24, with results from an identical poll taken April 10-13 for comparison. The question was: "What one or two issues should be top priorities for the president and Congress to deal with at this time?" [#s are the percentage of pollees choosing the question as one of their top 2] May April Situation in Iraq/war 42 29 Fuel/oil prices/lack of energy sources/ the energy crisis 29 13 Immigration/illegal aliens 23 20 Economy in general 14 14 Poor health care/hospitals; high cost of health care 12 9 Terrorism 4 3 Education/poor education/access to education 4 4 Federal budget deficit/federal debt 3 3 Unemployment/jobs 3 3 Taxes 3 2 Social Security 2 2 International issues/problems 2 2 National security 2 5 Environment/pollution 2 1 Medicare 2 2 Foreign aid/focus overseas 2 2 Poor leadership/corruption/dissatisfaction with government/Congress/politicians/ candidates 2 1 Poverty/hunger/homelessness 1 1 Ethics/moral/religious/family decline; dishonesty; lack of integrity 1 1 Natural disaster relief/funding 1 * Trade deficit/foreign trade 1 * High cost of living/inflation 1 1 Unifying the country * 1 Judicial system/courts/laws * 1 Abortion * 1 Lack of money * 1 Gap between rich and poor * 1 Other 1 2 No opinion 4 3 Percentages add to more than 100% due to multiple responses. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3317 Registered: 5-2004 |
Ina, Good bit of information. But just because it's not what people want them to prioritize does not mean that it won't bring people to the polls. Plus, it will bring money in from the Religious Right. Also, it appears that Gay Marriage is not on the list, unless you consider it buried under "Ethics/moral/religious/family decline;dishonesty; lack of integrity 1 1" | ||
| ina Citizen Username: Ina Post Number: 371 Registered: 6-2001 |
Rastro, I'm clinging to the hope that at long last people will recognize when they're being played. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3412 Registered: 9-2001  |
Here's why it will bring them to the polls. Without a flame issue like this, many cons are going to sit on their hands and not vote at all. People are that fed up with Bush and the Republican Congress. They are not fed up enough to vote Democratic--they simply won't vote. So, a hot button issue like this gives them a good excuse to hold their noses, show up, and pull the GOP lever. Because to not vote now would be to hasten the decline of Western civilization. My source for this? Talks with my former in-laws who are conservative Republicans (three families worth) who now say: the war was a mistake, Bush has bombed on the economy, he screwed up New Orleans, he has appointed idiotic people (except they loved the SC justices), the GOP leaders in Congress are inept and corrupt. But the gay marriage issue would be enough to get them to motivate to the polls if it becomes a real issue for the elections. | ||
| ina Citizen Username: Ina Post Number: 373 Registered: 6-2001 |
But why all the hate for gay people? Don't they know any, themselves? I mean it borders on mental insanity to say that THIS is THE issue that's so horribly damaging to 'Western civilization.' And wouldn't it be ironic if Laura files for divorce or at least leaves before November? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5675 Registered: 8-2003 |
If someone is against gay marriage it doesn't necessarily mean they hate gay people. Politics being played? Sure. However, I believe more people care about this than they did Campaign Finance Reform which limits free speech. 58-60% of this country 'hates' gay people? You're including a lot of Democrats in that statement. I think people unfamiliar or uncomfortable with gay people have to pass on. When they're no longer the majority, things will change, as I think it's changing now albeit slowly. | ||
| Spqr Citizen Username: Spqr Post Number: 92 Registered: 9-2004 |
I don't normally post in Political Soapbox, but can't pass on this one. You may think that anti gay marriage does not equal hating gay people, but as a gay person just trying to live my life in this country where I and all my gay friends are told that we are not worthy of the same rights as everyone else because we are gay sure feels alot like hate. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3325 Registered: 5-2004 |
Unfortunately, ignorance often manifests itself in actions that are hateful. | ||
| ina Citizen Username: Ina Post Number: 376 Registered: 6-2001 |
This post at salon.com sums it up for me: Kobre - 03:04 pm Pacific Time - Jun 5, 2006 - #3328 of 3375 Commemorating the "anniversary of the launch of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq by way of whoring the tragedy of Sept. 11 for his cronies' appalling gain..." - Mark Morford The only sane response to any pushing the marriage ban is a Seig Heil salute. While we descend into fascism, the planet descends into ecological hell, and the economy tanks, they are at rallies in "favor of" marriage. My response from here out will be: Would love to waste some breath on that front of an issue, but I'm too busy trying to save your voting rights, your drinking water, and your job. From here out, don't ever say you didn't know about the failing economy, about the destruction of lives for oil, about torture in your name at Abu Ghraib; don't say you didn't know about Guantanamo, you didn't see the smoke, you didn't know about rising seas and climate destruction and corporate takeovers of your life - I'm telling you right now, you know. You've been warned. And you choose to snuggle into bed and pull up the covers with the forces of destruction. You believe the Big Father of the Fatherland when he says he'll keep you safe and warm, although all around you is evidence to the contrary, lapping at the corners of your bed. You believe you can be a child forever, getting more and more and more, other people in the world owe it to you, someone owes it to you, and Big Father has promised to get you some sometime somehow, and you would have to grow up and give up in order to decide differently. Just so you know, don't ever ask for absolution, don't ask to be saved, don't ask for our dollars or our care or our concern. You know what the real problems are and you're choosing the pageantry and the warm fury of hatred and image and smoke and mirrors, like the best children's carnival you ever attended and the best part is, you never ever need to quit eating the cotton candy and go home and put on your thinking cap and face reality. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1120 Registered: 2-2004 |
Spqr, No one can help how you feel except yourself. If that is your view then I'll respect. ESL is dead on. Don't worry, soon the Dems will pull out their emotional issues like the evil Repubs want to take food off the table of the elderly and poor people. We all know the class warfare the Dems always trot out, just like we all know the issues the Repubs will trot out. I don't blame or disparage either side. In election years all is fair. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3413 Registered: 9-2001 |
Southernor, quit it, you're ruining my cred, man. Anyhow, to the class warfare crud. It is class warfare when Republicans call for tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy, so the Democrats certainly do not have the corner on class warfare. One man's class warfare is another man's rational way to run the economy. It's all a matter of perspective and who you are reaching out to (and whose ox you are seeking to gore). | ||
| S.L.K.s. Ghost Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1610 Registered: 10-2005 |
ina- "While we descend into fascism, the planet descends into ecological hell, and the economy tanks..." Do you really expect anyone with half a brain to seriously continue reading Morford's piece after beginning with this melodramatically untruthful and astinine statement? -SLK | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1473 Registered: 9-2004 |
Rastro, Last Time the Cons (2004) went on the gay marriage ban binge, support for gay marriage went up considerably. Additionally, remember when Pat Robertson ran for President? Well........ That was in response to being PANDERED to by the Reagan Republicans, they had gone to the well too many times and the Religious right knew it. It very well may be the religious right will see that this is pandering, and it may be they will remember how they were used in the 1980's. All in all, the potential for the religous right to stay home on election day has just gone up. Rastro, and others......... How many times will the Religious right listen to Carl Rove crying wolf? If ya keep going to the well too often, it dries up. And if the so called conventional wisdom was such that it indicated this will drive the Religious right to the polls......... then why was it done in June and not October.. Because this tactic cant be trusted as a gimme putt, the kind to be used in November.. And of course this begs the question...... what tactic will be used in time for the Novemeber election.... Will the Neo Cons put another carrot in front of the Religious right's horse in time for the November elections? SO yes... I want Carl Rove to keep going to the well. I want Carl to drink deeply from the well, for he has an insatiable thrist. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1474 Registered: 9-2004 |
More on the backfire from Lou DObbs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_IZav0N29c | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1476 Registered: 9-2004 |
"It may stir up my primary voters a little bit against me," said Mr. Chafee, a centrist Republican up for re-election. He opposes the push for a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage and is under intense pressure to back a proposed amendment that would forbid flag burning. "I'm collateral damage." Other Republicans, including some conservatives, say Mr. Chafee may not be the only potential victim of what they see as a misguided effort to appeal to social conservatives by staging votes intended primarily to make a point about the party's values. from here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/washington/07cong.html? | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1477 Registered: 9-2004 |
Will Bush's Push For Gay Marriage Ban Backfire? ...."Social conservatives are disappointed that there hasn't been more action on the issues that were highlighted in the 2004 election," said Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Assn. of Michigan. He added: "Increasingly, social conservatives expect real action, not just politically timed attempts to motivate and organize the base." >snip< UPDATE 2: CNN's Jeff Greenfield notes that this is Bush and the GOP "returning to the well" and that while there are risks there are also potential benefits: But sometimes the ploy can backfire. In 1982, Tom Bradley backed a very tough gun-restriction ballot proposal and narrowly lost his bid for governor in part because of a huge turnout among gun owners >snip< If the President simply wants to say he is still the man we elected in 2004, perhaps there is a better way of saying it. If he is trying to make up for his stand on the immigration issue, he is treading on some bigger corns there. Either way pushing this issue right now seems like a bad move, http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1149486632.shtml ------------------- Laura Bush says Roger is right........... First couple splits over constitutional amendment banning gay marriage The issue of gay marriage is causing divisions within the Republican Party, including the highest reaches of the White House. The split has been so pronounced that President Bush faces strong opposition within his own administration to a constitutional amendment that would outlaw gay marriage. The split has pitted Mr. Bush against his own wife, first lady Laura Bush. Mrs. Bush has warned that promoting the amendment could backfire against the GOP in congressional races in November. Here: http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/marriage.htm -------------------------------- Its all over the net, I wont bore you with the rest. But I will rub it in your collective faces, and suggest you pay attention. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3401 Registered: 5-2001  |
There's a lovely irony in misspelling the word "asinine" - don't you think?  | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1481 Registered: 9-2004 |
I missed that... good one....... LOL Irony.. yes, it is, wonderful irony. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 232 Registered: 1-2006 |
Protecting Marriage From Judicial Tyranny by Rep. Ron Paul, MD Before the House of Representatives, July 22, 2004. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended. The practice of judicial activism – legislating from the bench – is now standard procedure for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than on upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by judges they did not elect and cannot remove from office. Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June. The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the justices’ vision on the people of Texas. Since the Lawrence decision, many Americans have expressed their concern that the Court may next “discover” that state laws defining marriage violate the Court’s wrongheaded interpretation of the Constitution. After all, some judges simply may view this result as taking the Lawrence decision to its logical conclusion. One way federal courts may impose a redefinition of marriage on the states is by interpreting the full faith and credit clause to require all states, even those which do not grant legal standing to same-sex marriages, to treat as valid same-sex marriage licenses from the few states which give legal status to such unions. This would have the practical effect of nullifying state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, thus allowing a few states and a handful of federal judges to create marriage policy for the entire nation. In 1996 Congress exercised its authority under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution by passing the Defense of Marriage Act. This ensured each state could set its own policy regarding marriage and not be forced to adopt the marriage policies of another state. Since the full faith and credit clause grants Congress the clear authority to “prescribe the effects” that state documents such as marriage licenses have on other states, the Defense of Marriage Act is unquestionably constitutional. However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the Constitution necessitates congressional action so that state officials are not forced to recognize another states’ same-sex marriage licenses because of a flawed judicial interpretation. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. It is long past time we begin using our legitimate authority to protect the states and the people from judicial tyranny. Since the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote in both houses of Congress (and the president’s signature) to become law, it is a more practical way to deal with this issue than the time-consuming process of passing a constitutional amendment. In fact, since the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly passed both houses, and the president supports protecting state marriage laws from judicial tyranny, there is no reason why the Marriage Protection Act cannot become law this year. Some may argue that allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition of marriage can result in a victory for individual liberty. This claim is flawed. The best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states. Allowing federal judges unfettered discretion to strike down state laws, or force a state to conform to the laws of another state, leads to centralization and loss of liberty. While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church – not the day they received their marriage license from the state. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to stop rogue federal judges from using a flawed interpretation of the Constitution to rewrite the laws and traditions governing marriage. I urge my colleagues to stand against destructive judicial activism and for marriage by voting for the Marriage Protection Act. Americans don’t need new federal programs, and they certainly don’t need more federal control over their schools. They don’t need a disastrous government-run medical system. What Americans do need is a federal government that provides national defense, secures our borders, and does very little else. Needless to say you won’t hear the parties suggesting such a platform anytime soon. Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1417 Registered: 10-2004  |
Ron Paul is a •••. What he means by activist judges is any decision he disagrees with. He is one of the worst legislators and is all about the party line. | ||
| S.L.K.s. Ghost Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1614 Registered: 10-2005 |
notey/Foj, Laughed it up fuzzballs. At least I am not accepting every harebrain excuse why my candidate lost a national election close to two years after the fact. Now that is asinine...  -SLK | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 234 Registered: 1-2006 |
Hoops said: Ron Paul is a •••. What he means by activist judges is any decision he disagrees with. He is one of the worst legislators and is all about the party line. You must not be familiar with the work of Ron Paul. He is a principled legislator who tries to base his position on the Constitution and lets the chips fall where they may. Unlike the current bi-partisan monstrosity in DC, he wants to preserve both the institution of marriage and the Constitution. To say that Ron Paul is all about the party line is like saying that Ted Kennedy is all about safe and sober driving. Cheers | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11758 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think we should amend the constitution to reduce the divorce rate among Evangelicals which are the highest in the country. Incidentally, Massachussets where marriage is under attack because of their Supreme Court has, or had the last I checked, the lowest divorce rate among the states. | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 1927 Registered: 5-2001 |
I don't understand logically why anyone opposes gay marriage, or champions marriage at all except as a business agreement. 51% of marriages end in divorce, it's a slim margain, but still, most marriages between a man and a woman are unsuccessful. Something like 70% of married men admit to infidelity - so the marriages that don't end in divorce still don't honor their vows. The whole sanctity of marriage brouhaha is a specious argument - people love each other, people are sexual, and if they they want to stay together for the long run, that should be celebrated with a wedding if they want. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 236 Registered: 1-2006 |
Lydia said: The whole sanctity of marriage brouhaha is a specious argument - people love each other, people are sexual, and if they they want to stay together for the long run, that should be celebrated with a wedding if they want. Could this lead eventually to the legalization and societal ratification of incest and group marriage? If gender roles are arbitary and socially constructed by the oppressive patriarchic hegemony, should marriage be limited to just two persons? Can't 3 men (or women) love each other? Can't 4? Or 5? Cheers | ||
| Nancy - LibraryLady Supporter Username: Librarylady Post Number: 3547 Registered: 5-2001  |
3RING, Wasn't that the same argument used by you folks to try and continue to prohibit interracial marriage? | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1483 Registered: 9-2004 |
Nancy , yup... good call. Before the vote Frist claimed he had a majority, turns out he didnt, he only had 49 votes. Thats a Bad Moon rising for Frist and the rest of the Republicans in Congress. | ||
| James Citizen Username: Gymtagart Post Number: 15 Registered: 11-2005 |
Foj, "...there is obviously much you dont know. Let me give you a hand". 49 votes out of 97 votes cast is a majority. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 237 Registered: 1-2006 |
Nancy-LibraryLady said: 3RING, Wasn't that the same argument used by you folks to try and continue to prohibit interracial marriage? I'm not sure what you mean by "you folks", but I have never spoken against or tried to prohibit interracial marriage. Are you equating interracial marriage with incest and group marriage? I don't really see the comparison. Cheers | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 7973 Registered: 5-2001  |
I dunno, Guys. I feel like 3ring has exposed me. Deep down, I've been waiting for the day I can leave my partner of over 16 years and marry my neighbor's pit bull. I've seen people pull out the old "incest is next" thing in documentaries. I didn't know that they actually existed in real life. But then again, there is a trailer park down the road..... | ||
| S.L.K.s. Ghost Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1629 Registered: 10-2005 |
greenetree- How in god's name did you get "incest is next" out of 3ringale's last post is beyond me. Is this way of painting him as intolerant? The pathetic thing about this GM debate is that both sides fail to see the whole picture on the issue, blinded by their own motives. I have no problem with you maryying your partner if you choose, but you must keep in mind is the reason you can't is partly due to the actions of the pro-GM community. -SLK | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 7974 Registered: 5-2001 |
the reason you can't is partly due to the actions of the pro-GM community. Damn. You're right. I was thinking about that. If the good little Negros had just kept quiet and politely asked the Smart White People to drink at the same fountain, the whole Civil Rights movement wouldn't have had to happen. We're not using our "company manners" to ask nicely? Is that it? We're just too.... obvious? That's right up there with "women ask for it by wearing short skirts". | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1433 Registered: 10-2004 |
3Ring, your right. I have him confused with a different republican congressman. voting record here According to his voting record, he appears to vote his conscience. That makes him at the least a very good legislator. | ||
| mjh Supporter Username: Mjh Post Number: 590 Registered: 5-2001 |
James: A 2/3 majority is needed, and this vote did not come close to getting the required majority. I guess Foj assumed you would know that already. | ||
| S.L.K.s. Ghost Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1633 Registered: 10-2005 |
greenetree- Grow up. I am not asking you to be nicey nice about anything but a little respect for the law would be peachy. What do you expect when the pro GM crowd defiantly break to law? That will sure win alot of hearts and minds. You are treading water with your feeble attempt seeking a sympathy vote (oh poor me, I can't get married), another reason the concept of GM is experiencing a current backlash. You have issues with a constitutional amendment banning GM but you have no issue with bypassing the constitutional process to get what you want(GM). Do you know what that spells in my book? GM is a state matter that should be left up to the states to decide. If the GM crowd pursued this route rather than "it is my constitutional right" you wouldn't be experiencing this BS today. The last time the gay community took this route about "rights infringements" alot of them ended up dead. BTW, you don't have a "constitutional right" be married. Never had, never will... -SLK | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1437 Registered: 10-2004 |
{{{{sound of greenetree getting ready to rip SLK to pieces}}}} |
