Author Topic: Dubya to Jump Shark (Read 5730 times)

FUNKED1 · « **on:** February 24, 2004, 09:49:36 AM »

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4426087

Unbelievable. I literally can not believe they are this stupid, and that they think voters are this stupid. Please prove me right America.

AKIron · « **Reply #1 on:** February 24, 2004, 09:53:56 AM »

I dunno, looks like most are opposed to legalizing gay marriage. Probably a non-issue come election time.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html

ra · « **Reply #2 on:** February 24, 2004, 09:54:21 AM »

What is your point?

LePaul · « **Reply #3 on:** February 24, 2004, 09:56:16 AM »

Along with Tax Cuts...its one of the few things he's done right.

He needs to re-think Immigration tho.

slimm50 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 24, 2004, 09:56:30 AM »

Personally, I don't think he has a choice in the matter. I'm all for such an ammendment, myself. The joyful acceptance of this lifestyle by the public, or having it forced upon an unwilling public, either way, would spell the doom of our country...the ol' "slippery slope" thingy, ya know? But this is only my humble opinion.

Eagler · « **Reply #5 on:** February 24, 2004, 09:58:19 AM »

FUNKED1
if you hurry, you can still get hitched in SF

AKIron · « **Reply #6 on:** February 24, 2004, 10:00:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
FUNKED1
if you hurry, you can still get hitched in SF

Nope, too late, Arnie told 'em to stop.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 24, 2004, 10:02:41 AM »

Opposing gay marriage is one thing.
A constitutional freakin' amendment is quite another.
Shouldn't amendments be reserved for important issues? Like maybe a balanced budget or limits on taxation?
And since when is the Consitution a tool to deny rights to citizens? I thought the whole idea was to reserve rights that government tyrrany can not take away? You know, those wacky concepts like "freedom" and "liberty"...

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 24, 2004, 10:05:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
FUNKED1
if you hurry, you can still get hitched in SF

Eagler they can say a lot of things about you, but they can't say you aren't predictable.

rpm · « **Reply #9 on:** February 24, 2004, 10:05:53 AM »

I think that would fall under "the pursuit of happiness". Friggin communist liberal Constitution.

straffo · « **Reply #10 on:** February 24, 2004, 10:07:03 AM »

Do I understand correctly ?
A modification of the constitution for the purpose banning gay mariage ?

Wow ...

Yeager · « **Reply #11 on:** February 24, 2004, 10:10:57 AM »

Dont forget that in order to add an amendment to the constitution a constitutional convention needs to be assembled. Once a convention has come to order the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION is fair game for revision.

With regards to gay marriage I would be EMBARRASED to see it addressed in the constituion in any manner. Almost as embarrasing as living in a world where unisex marriages are considered normal. Pursuit of Happiness is not a license to perversion.

AKIron · « **Reply #12 on:** February 24, 2004, 10:13:35 AM »

It would never be ratified and I'm sure he knows this. Not likely to put off any of his supporters nor gain him any votes from the left. Like I said, non-issue.

Dowding · « **Reply #13 on:** February 24, 2004, 10:16:54 AM »

Gay marriage is the most important issue in the world today.

AKcurly · « **Reply #14 on:** February 24, 2004, 10:18:11 AM »

Never happen Funky for the reason Yeager pointed out: It opens the constitution for all manner of changes and no one is crazy enough to risk that. Heh, not even Bush.

curly