I mean, honestly: How could any conservative with a scintilla of common sense not be?
With Bush’s approval ratings at lethal lows, with the GOP chokehold on government apparently threatened, with civilians and soldiers dying at a stunning rate in Iraq, gas prices through the roof, citizens being spied on, the courts and politicians finally taking a long hard look at Bush’s historic power grabs…NOW Bush et al suddeny haul out a marriage amendment? NOW?
I mean, yes, the ploy worked wonders in energizing the conservative base and getting votes out in 2004 in a dazzling, multi-state display of voting bigotry. But no one’s mentioned it in two years. Suddenly, NOW, they announce that “marriage is under attack” and start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y’know, worked out so well) that would restrict freedoms rather than expand them. It could not possibly be a more obvious gambit to try and appeal to the many voters who have had buyers’ remorse ever since they voted for Bush and the GOP in 2004 and slowly came to the realization they’d been hosed. It’s genuinely insulting to conservative voters’ intelligence, that their leaders think they’re THAT easily manipulated. That they’re going to overlook the very real assault that our soldiers are under, needlessly, in Iraq, because of the fake assault that the institution of marriage is allegedly under.
Is it that Bush et al believe that conservatives must be monumentally stupid because the fact that conservatives voted for them proves it?
I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: If politicians are really worried about marriage being undermined, the key is not to prevent people from getting married. It’s to make it difficult-to-impossible to get divorced. But they’ll never do that because Bush and his cronies aren’t REALLY concerned about marriage being under attack. They’re worried their numbers are under attack. But they’re clinging to the notion that conservatives are Just That Stupid that they’ll fall for this crap a second time.
The question is, will they?
PAD
• 
I have two problems with this
either
1- It will work
or
2- Democrats are going to go out of their way to show how anti-gay they can be since, as Bart Simpson says, “The only way to be cooler than him is to do exactly what he does”.
You got me, man. And despite what sopme may think, it isn’t just conservatives who are against it. I’ve been amazed that some folks who otherwise are usually way to the left of me are so threatened by this.
But anti-gay feelings seems to be a cultural as much as political thing. Many of my African American students, whose opinions of Bush make PAD look like Condi Rice, are INCREDIBLY homophobic, and I don’t use that term as loosely as most. If this is a common feeling among many African Americans it may explain why the Democrats are so mealy mouthed on the issue.
On the other hand, all 3 of my kids are very tolerant on the issue, as are some of their friends, so maybe th enext generation will see a shift…I don’t know. Anybody have a good poll that indicates how young people feel on the issue?
Posted by Bea O’Problem:
“start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y’know, worked out so well) “
Except that it’s not the first amendment since Prohibition. G’won… look it up
An important nitpick, here:
PAD’s full statement was “..start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y’know, worked out so well) that would restrict freedoms rather than expand them.“
No intelligent person could claim that there have been no Consitutional Amendments since Prohibition. Plenty of intelligent persons point out that no Constitutional Amendment since prohibition has involved minimizing citizen’s freedoms; if anything, plenty of Amendments (before and after Prohibition) have involved preserving or expanding the rights of the citizen’s.
It’s a contentious enough issue wihtout misrepresenting folks’ statements. We now return you to your regularly scheduled argument…
IMHO marriage/family values in America are not threatened by homosexuals, they are threatened by heterosexuals. I heard in a propaganda film that the number one household in America is unmarried couples with no children (which may or may not be true). There is a trend with heterosexuals to throw the marriage system away completely (which makes it interesting that so many homosexuals are fighting for it). I don’t think passing a ban on same sex marriages will cause any change in the steady decline of marriage values in our culture, and I also don’t think politicians can do a thing about it.
That being said, yes it’s stupid that Bush is playing election year politics.
Posted by Alf! at June 7, 2006 01:42 PM
Gay marriage has been legal in my country for some time now. Of course, consevatives claimed the world was going to end. Guess what… not only it didn’t, but gay conservatives started getting married as well.
And life went on.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What country are you in?
“Frustrating that your candidate is performing ineptly, or even fishing for votes is not quite the same thing I don’t think, as routinely seeing the worst in the actions, thoughts, motives, policies of the other side.”
Thank you for defining for me the way I should see the world and what constitutes being an independent thinker. Tragically, I had no concept of that for myself.
PAD
“See now, I read that as saying that IF conservatives “fall” for it–by which I thought you meant voting for Republicans–then yes, they really ARE that stupid. How else would you propose we measure whether or not the ploy is successful?”
If we see a repeat of states hurrying to slap a no-gay-marriage vote onto their ballots. Other than that, I’m not sure how it would be “measurable.” Then again, I wasn’t talking about it being measurable. Merely wondering if conservatives would be so stupid as to be blind to the fact that their leaders are trying to manipulate them.
PAD
(because, let’s face it, that’s what they were. It was the country’s very first state-wide hate crimes.)
I disagree. Only because it wasn’t the first. You neglect slavery and the slaughter of the Native Americans among other things.
Luigi Novi: Not every American principle has to be in the Constitution in order to be a fundamentally correct one. Separation of Church and State is indeed a valid and vital American principle that the Founding Fathers correctly felt we needed.
****
That’s what you feel. But that doesn’t make it so. the founding fathers were dozens of men. Some, notably Jefferson believed in Separation of Church and State. Others did not. Either way, they did not enshrine it in the Constitution. The Supreme Court first mentioned it in the 1920s (or thereabouts), and they have recently backed away from it.
It really isn’t correct to say it is required by the Constitution. the Constitution requires no establishment of religion. It requires no religious test for office. and it allows the free exercise of religion. But that isn’t a separation. (and a true separation would actually mean no fire, police, water, etc, services at any rate). Not a separation at all.
Maybe we should have a separation. But we don’t, especially one required by the Constitution. Want to change it? Propose an amendment. “Church and state shall forever be separated in the United States, except for basic fire, police, and utility services henceforth.”
“I disagree. Only because it wasn’t the first. You neglect slavery and the slaughter of the Native Americans among other things.”
Well, I was talking about since the term “hate crimes” was coined and given legal weight, but okay.
PAD
1Luigi Novi: It does take away a freedom. The freedom to live your own life as you please, which includes marrying the person you fell in love with, without undue interference by Big Daddy government.
****
As usual, you missed my point. The amendment does not take away freedom, because the freedom ahs never existed. No law except now by judicial fiat in Massachussetts allowed it to happen.
Of course gays not being allowed to marry is a lesser state of freedom. But it is a freedom they never had. Thus, the amendment takes away no freedom from them (other than the ability to change the law without an amendment). they never had the freedom to begin with.
So every post that says “it takes away freedom” is false. Every post that says “its a hate crime” is false-the “hate” is already there, i.e., the lack of the ability to marry one of the same gender.
Separation of church and state in this country is a joke. We have “In God We Trust” on the money. We have a government that shuts down on Christmas Day. The President is sworn in (as are witnesses in courts of law) with one hand on a bible.
PAD
Merely wondering if conservatives would be so stupid as to be blind to the fact that their leaders are trying to manipulate them.
****
Wow, you really have no idea that you are offensive, do you?
Maybe the leaders really agree
or maybe the conservatives really have this at the top of the agenda even if it fails and is “tilting at windmills”
or maybe all the reasons you listed initially have nothing to do with why conservatives as a group are disappointed or angry at Bush
or maybe there are people besides conservatives (like say, most black Americans) who this issue is important to.
But of course not. They (and its only conservatives) are being manipulated and would be stupid to fall for that manipulation. Very black and white, and because it is, wrong.
Separation of church and state in this country is a joke. We have “In God We Trust” on the money. We have a government that shuts down on Christmas Day. The President is sworn in (as are witnesses in courts of law) with one hand on a bible.
****
That’s because it doesn’t exist.
In my opinion, if we truly were enforcing the establishment clause, “In God we Trust” would be gone-its an establishment of religion-particularly, momotheism. But if it is a separation, then it is simply de minimus. There’s no entanglement there, need to monitor, freeing up of money for other uses.
Swearing the President in? Hmmm. I think he could choose to be, and it would be a free exercise thing, neither violating establishment or a separation.
Christmas? Effectively a free exercise thing. Most people by far celebrate Christmas either religiously as intended, or secularly as has developed.
The courts in New York also have “IN GOD WE TRUST” above the Judge. That to me would be an impermissible violation of establishment. But de minimus if the standard is separation.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
If homosexuals are religious than they can claim that marriage is a free exercise of their religion.
Spiderrob please don’t play games. When there is an attempt to change a document of the power and magnitude of the US Consititution in order to prevent chganging or challenging local laws in order to be allowed to marry, this is no small thing. It is an act reducing their freedom, and it is motivated by a certain attitude toward homosexuality which even if not hate is certainly not positive.
The equivalent would have been an attempt prior to 1920, trying to pass an amendment not allowing women to vote.
I wouldn’t begrudge Americans there Christmas or the “I God We Trust.”
I live in a country that has its own religious symbolism here and there. It is natural that national symbols will reflect the beliefs of the majority. The danger is when religions try to use the organs of the state to enforce their beliefs on others. This seems to be the case with an amendment against gay marriage.
This isn’t an appeal to the general conservative base, this is an appeal to the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ann Coultier or as I call them Bible Snorters. These are people with one track minds , who vote based only on one subject group abortion, gay marriage and religion in the schools. Religous fundalmentalists from which a taliban or bin ladden could easily arrise.
Someone asked if anyone had quantatively proved their voting impact and the answer is yes. The Wallstreet Journal shortly after 2004 elections did a massive write up on this group and how they put Bush over the top. Recent articles elsewhere have detailed their support for Bush stems from the fact they want to accelerate the end of days and believe Bush will do so for them. They have no interest in future impacts because for them there is no future, there is only the rapture, after which they don’t have to worry about anything. They are riding the titanic to the bottom and enjoying it. Scary!
And Bush is cowtowing to them. They put him over the top in electoral votes in 2000 where he lost the popular votes and they were enough to give him the slight margin he won by in 2004.
I have said for a long time that his rating would not fall below 30% because there will always be 20% who vote Republican no matter what and they are the other 10% to give him his 30%. However he hasn’t been appeasing them lately and this is his appeasement.
These are the same type of people who in 1890 considered the KKK a social club. This is just the latest target of their religious bigotry.
Brian
“Merely wondering if conservatives would be so stupid as to be blind to the fact that their leaders are trying to manipulate them.
****
Wow, you really have no idea that you are offensive, do you?”
Soooo that would be “yes” then?
PAD
I just found this in another article:————
The Vatican also added muscle to the argument Tuesday, naming gay marriage as one of the factors threatening the traditional family as never before.
———————————————–
I’ve never really been able to figure it out, but what exactly does the vatican or any of their priests, bishops, archbishops or even pope know about marriage? These people never marry, are supposedly celibate and I use supposedly very strongly and a large chunk of them, in the states, have been proven to be pedophiles. Really what does the Pope know about anything marriage? I’m single and never married and I know I sure as heck can’t advise my married friends about much of anything in marriage. Zeesh.
Brian
From an article detailing the amendment’s defeat:
“Democrats said the debate was a divisive political ploy.
“The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. “A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law.”
In response, Hatch fumed: “Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?”
Anyone who remembers the “West Wing” episode “Celestial Navigation” would know that the response to this is, “If the shoe fits…”
PAD
I’ve yet to read the other 68 posts so far on this thread, but I wanted to get this comment out there first:
PAD –
It’s genuinely insulting to conservative voters’ intelligence, that their leaders think they’re THAT easily manipulated.
And yet, apparently conservatives ARE that easily manipulated, unfortunately.
The equivalent would have been an attempt prior to 1920, trying to pass an amendment not allowing women to vote.
***
I believe a few legislatures had already allowed women to vote though by then. Otherwise it is pretty close.
I pretty much agree with what you say, except that the argument would be that “we have no choice. Despite the “will of the people” expressed in referendums, despite the will of the people expressed through the legislature, courts are determined to find a right that doesn’t exist no matter what the majority, in some cases the far majority says. We aren’t happy to do it, but the abuse of what the courts are doing necessitates it.”
Anyone who remembers the “West Wing” episode “Celestial Navigation” would know that the response to this is, “If the shoe fits…”
***
It might fit, but it wouldn’t be just the United States senate, it would be the majoprity of the country.
In fact the majority of democrats. They may not support an amendment banning it, but many have definitively stated that they donm’t support gay marriage. I believe that includes Dean, clinton (both), Kerry etc.
Then even those who nominally support, how much have they really done to get it? most very little.
These people never marry, are supposedly celibate and I use supposedly very strongly and a large chunk of them, in the states, have been proven to be pedophiles.
****
That’s an exaggeraton. A small eprcentage have been shown to have sex with underage people. However, compared to the normal population, depending on the studfy, it does not seem that it is much more than any other group in the country (heck, now the new thing is teachers). Of the people who had sex with underage, there is a distinction between pedophilia, sex with non-developed children, and sex with developed, physically mature but legally underaged minors. The latter is not necessarily the result of a disorder, and in fact varies from state to state. Still wrong, but not the same kind of wrong
Which would have nothing really to do with the principles of the institution, even as it reflects on its members
-_-I’m worried about this New Generation..I am also concerned about your generation Mr.David,and the generation before your’s.
You can almost smell it in the air that something Sad is about to befall us
,..all I think about are my Children when I think of this matter ((Bush)),I catch myself looking at them ..staring ..like if I need to remember all of this.. and appreciate the time we have together.
But I see in the near future alot of ppl waking up to reality..no T.V’s no music ..nothing to Distract you from what’s going on.I look at the generation before you Peter , these old Men of Yesterday , running things now.
I look at them..all the ppl around me. .literally living in the Matrix… There Are a Select few that take the red pill from what i see…the sad truth in all this is ..this won’t stop w/ Bush..regardless of who’s in Seat.. they are all cut from the same cloth, Peter. I myself am preparing mentally for what’s to Come. Freedom is slowly Disappearing ..and I believe we waited to long to do something about it.
Understand what it is that’s happening here ppl,
.Emperor Bush had to let 9-11 happen in order to get the Patriot act,
W/ that he can do anything he wants under the Guise of Terrorism…
why are we in Iraq you Ask?
We got paid to do a Job which was to take out Suddam el Seed,
Who paid and how much ?
Kuwait’s//200 billion dollors worth of gold.
9-11 was nothing more then the BiGGEST HEIST IN U.S History.
there was 4 billion Dollors worth of gold in the world trade when the planes hit.
((There was only 200 million worth of gold recovered))….the kuwait’s wanted Saddum the Seed Out and If you haven’t noticed yet , U.S dollor is turning to Crud , it’s really not what used to be.
The twin Towers was a money loser to the owners and The city of N.y anyway.
Trust me ,you couldn’t demolition it due to the Asbestos Risk in the city and it’s Ppl
…lol don’t even get me started on Iran ..that one is a no brainer
..whats the quickest way from one point to another? ,
Yup, ..A Straight line.
…Basically the United states is on world Domination Mode , we are the new Nazi’s of the 21st century,
United states has been Hijacked and that is the truth if I ever said it myself.
I honestly think thing’s have to go this way thou.
History wouldn’t seem right if it didn’t.
So my question to you David is ..what do you see coming,(-_-….
Before our sex drive kicks in when we’re young, and after it wanes when we’re old, aren’t we all at least a little bit fággÿ?
1″Merely wondering if conservatives would be so stupid as to be blind to the fact that their leaders are trying to manipulate them.
****
Wow, you really have no idea that you are offensive, do you?”
Soooo that would be “yes” then?
PAD
*****
More like you done what is typical of the partisan-defined everything on your terms, and then said “Oh look the other side failed.”
As I’ve said, there are many reasons why it is not manipulation but you’d rather say that so that if the Republicans win or do better than expected, you can satisfy yourself by saying “I was right, but these other people are just stupid, easily manipulated sheep” rather than “Wow reasonable, rational people had a choice to make, and they made a reasonable rationale choice based on their own needs, desires, and values which differs from mine, but which I can still respect.” No matter who has Congress next year, they will have gotten the majority of people in their state or district on their side for a whole host of reasons. It isn’t because they are stupid, or fooled, no matter who wins. Your view of politics, or history, is not definitive or anything.
Maybe they just interpret things different than you. Maybe they prioritize other things than you. Maybe they assign blame to other factors or people than you do, and credit to others as well. Your views are not so self-evident that anyone who disagrees must be getting fooled by a side issue. Perhaps Bush did get helped by gay marriage the last campaign. If so, he got helped by a host of other factors, including support by millions upon millions of people who were not voting based on gay marriage.
Egon –
Marriage = A Religious Institution
Last I checked, I was not married in a church, nor did any religious institution have a say in my marriage certificate.
I guess it was just a sham, huh?
I’m sorry, but if you think marriage is nothing more than a religious institution, you’ve got another thing coming – perferrably in the form of a history lesson.
PAD –
Separation of church and state in this country is a joke.
I guess it depends on how you look at things.
I’d like to believe that the stories about the Founding Fathers being Deists, and not Christians, is true. For one, it makes phrases such as “In God we trust” a little easier to swallow, because they’re not focusing upon the Christian god.
Which ends up being the problem I have with this entire mess: for the Christians (note: generalization here), it’s about getting THEIR god in government, not anybody elses. And that’s where the problem starts.
The Bill of Rights says, among other things the Bush Administration has forgotten, that we have “freedom of religious worship”.
I take it to mean that we not only have freedom of religion, we have freedom FROM religion.
Here’s the exact words of the 1st Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It’s interesting how religion is mentioned before speech, considering most see the 1st Amendment as purely about free speech.
So, I guess to summarize: Yeah, “In God we Trust” is there, but I don’t really see it being jammed down my throat; I’d prefer it not be there, but I can live with it.
What I can’t live with is certain groups telling people they cannot marry because their religion says otherwise, and so forth.
we are the new Nazi’s of the 21st century
*****
Oh man, the whackjobs are coming out now.
“The equivalent would have been an attempt prior to 1920, trying to pass an amendment not allowing women to vote.
***
I believe a few legislatures had already allowed women to vote though by then. Otherwise it is pretty close.”
Which makes the comparison even more appropriate. The point of said amendments is to prevent liberal states from allowing gay marriages.
“I pretty much agree with what you say, except that the argument would be that “we have no choice. Despite the “will of the people” expressed in referendums, despite the will of the people expressed through the legislature, courts are determined to find a right that doesn’t exist no matter what the majority, in some cases the far majority says. We aren’t happy to do it, but the abuse of what the courts are doing necessitates it.””
You are refering to what is known as judicial activism. We have this debate inmy country too. Somewhere I have an article about it, maybe I’ll find it.
Of course the classic example of judicial activism is Brown vs. The Topica Kansas board of education.
Depriving gays from equal rights is wrong even if the majority agrees to it. It should think that defending individual rights against the tyranny of the majority is what the courts and the constitution are for?
Then again, I wasn’t talking about it being measurable. Merely wondering if conservatives would be so stupid as to be blind to the fact that their leaders are trying to manipulate them.
Glenn reynolds– “THE ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT HAS DIED, and this AP lede shows why it was not only wrong, but stupid:
Captain’s Quarters- “If Andrew Sullivan wants to marry his significant other, it has no affect on my relationship with the First Mate; if I was that insecure, I never would have gotten married in the first place.”
Allahpundit- The president’s going to try to toss some red meat to the base today by, uh, coming out in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Which doesn’t have a prayer of passing. (He also believes that the the Equal Protection Clause should/does protect their right to marry.)
La Shawn Barber- Politicians are so transparent. The midterm elections are quickly approaching (can you believe 2006 is half over?), and Bush is trying to appease angry conservatives and Christians by pushing this amendment. It’s an empty and meaningless gesture because the thing will never be ratified.
Patterico- “As I have said before, I don’t see the huge threat that gay marriage allegedly poses to the fabric of our society. And I oppose Bush’s support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.”
Political Pit Bull- “President Bush is preparing to throw his “political capital” behind the Federal Marriage Amendment–quite possibly the most blatant act of political pandering I have ever seen.”
Confederate Yankee- “A rouge nation with budding nuclear weapons capabilities is being run by a cult obsessed with End Times eschatology, and threatens ten of millions of lives in southwest Asia. Sectarian violence continues in Iraq. We’re importing poverty in record amounts through a southern border that leaks like a sieve, and Patrick Kennedy is out of rehab and back on the road.”
“Mr. President, if you really think I care about gay marriage right now, you’re out of your ever-lovin’ mind.”
Professor Bainbridge– “I see no reason why the MPA ought to energize the GOP base. If anything, it ought to make the base even more skeptical of the bona fides of the GOP Washington elite, whose sole remaining principle appears to be the will to cling to power.”
Neal Boortz- “I think that it is perfectly fitting for us to use the United States Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the preservation of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain specific group of people what they cannot do, rather than tell the government what it cannot do.
We don’t need tax reform. We don’t need an end to earmark pork spending in Congress. We don’t need smaller government and school choice. We don’t need real reform that would put medical care back into the competitive marketplace. We need none of those things. All is fine! What we need is a Constitutional Amendment that will keep two people who love each other, but who we don’t consider to be normal – not by our standards anyway – to marry.
I know I’ll sleep better tonight.”
Kathryn Jean Lopez(NRO)–“The Senate moves on (to their next bad move?).”
I don’t know about the voters but the conservative bloggers seem pretty underwhelmed.
“we are the new Nazi’s of the 21st century
*****
Oh man, the whackjobs are coming out now.”
That post is weird. What’s Saddam el Seed?
In case it isn’t clear, BTW, Neal Boortz is being sarcastic.
1Of course the classic example of judicial activism is Brown vs. The Topica Kansas board of education.
****
I don’t think so. In that case, you had constitutional amendments that were being flouted, the 13th (arguably) the 14th and 15th (for later decision after Brown. So the Judges were applying the law. I’d also argue things like the Privileges and Immunities clause were being flouted as well, but no one gives much thrift to that one. The Federal government also intervened on normal state functions using the interstate commerce clause, and some provisions of the 14th and 15th amendments allowing them to do so.
Generally, Judges in the United States are not supposed to make law, that’s what legilstures are for, especially if there is no gap in the law, or it is not part of the common law tradition. Courts are not there to prohibit tyranny of the majority-unless it is already protected in the constitution or a statute based on same.
It would prevent liberal states, but so far, even liberal states have not allowed it. Primarily, its to prevent liberal judges.
The 22nd amendment, passed well after prohibition, restricted my freedoms. In particular, my pre-existing freedom to run for a third term as president. Admittedly, the chances of my exercising that particular right were vanishingly small either way, but one could say the same of the issue under discussion…
I don’t know about the voters but the conservative bloggers seem pretty underwhelmed.
Well, your first mistake, Bill, was confusing conservative bloggers with conservative voters in general. 🙂
That’s it…I’m done with this blog.
I come here for comic book related discussions, not political. For that I can go to any newspaper website.
Comics are escapist literature, why can’t this blog be?
C’ya!
(and yes, I DO support the Marriage Amendment. Yes, I am a conservative. And, yes, I voted for G. W. Bush both times.)
Part of the problem is, the way I see it, is the conservative people out there are realizing that being “conservative” isn’t as homogenous as it once was. You’ve got your conservatives, your neocons, your lip-service conservatives, and a heck of a lot of conservative people that I know personally(granted, it may just be a Philly thing) who are arguing amongst themselves about just what it IS to be a conservative. You know, kind of like what They have always accused the liberals of being. Not united! Not standing for a single goal! Not anchored behind a View! With or without Meredith Viera! (Sorry, had to) It just looks to me like the conservatives out there think they can appeal to their base, be they TV personality, politician, author, what have you, just by voicing Traditional Values! The Way Things Have Always Been! I find it kind of hopeful that maybe, just MAYBE, mind you, that the country has had it with all these extremes and may be going back toward moderation.
I just really hope the sunglasses of mine ain’t rose-colored. But seriously, it’s not a crime to be either liberal or conservative. Maybe the country is finally waking up and realizing that being so polarized about, well, everything, doesn’t help anyone.
Comics are escapist literature, why can’t this blog be?
C’ya!
————————————————–
Another blog suicide. Should we start the bets as to when the republican will be back?
And Republican, read the title of this blog, it says Peter David.net Writer of stuff. I don’t see where it says, writer of only comics and comic diatribs. A comment about the ability of conservatives to comprehend, comes to mind, but then many liberals can’t comprehend either…
Although I have to admit that I’m surprised that I haven’t seen any of the comedians or more strident liberal outlets talk about pruning the White House once and for all.
Come on, you get it. His name’s BUSH, for gosh sakes.
Or is that just one of those things that’s funny just in MY head?
Sean Scullion: Part of the problem is, the way I see it, is the conservative people out there are realizing that being “conservative” isn’t as homogenous as it once was. You’ve got your conservatives, your neocons, your lip-service conservatives, and a heck of a lot of conservative people … who are arguing amongst themselves about just what it IS to be a conservative.
So why bother with the label?
Lemme see… I believe taxes should be higher on the rich, and that taxes overall should be lower. I believe the death penalty is wrong, and that some acts are so bad the perpetrator should be killed. I believe less money should be spent on prisons, more on schools, and that schools should perform or the parents get vouchers. (Hmm, that one kinda suprised me.) I support a “woman’s right to choose”, and that life begins well before “birth”.
So what am I? And why do I have to care? I’ll vote for the person I most agree with and believe can do the best job. Could be from either party, often from neither.
Will conservatives be stoopid enough to fall for this most recent bull from Bush? Why not just ask “Will people be stoopid enough.. ” and leave the us vs. them stereotyping out of it?
Sorry for the three posts, but I start one before I finish reading all the posts, but then I get other thoughts as I go down the list and I get new ones.
Anyhoo, spiderrob–Peter is a writer. A dámņ good writer, in my opinion, but a writer none the less. To my knowledge, he has no political position or appointment, so if the opinions he expresses occasionally go along with a particular party, well, that’s his right. It’s not partisan, it’s opinion. The only time I see “partisan” being a problem is when it is in fact expressed by those elected officials who look more to their party than their constituents. Woefully, that’s happening more and more, but maybe it’ll start to change. I don’t know.
But one thing to remember. Opinions are very personal. They need to at least, the very least, be respected. Not told that they’re wrong, especially in terms of politics. There are very few “facts” in politics.
“Comics are escapist literature, why can’t this blog be?”
This site isn’t a comic and doesn’t claim to be one. I believe PAD owns this site and can say and do on it pretty much whatever he wants.
1But one thing to remember. Opinions are very personal. They need to at least, the very least, be respected. Not told that they’re wrong, especially in terms of politics.
****
My opinion is you are wrong. He can have any opinion, he wants, but so can I. It works both ways. Please respect it. 🙂
Part of the problem is, the way I see it, is the conservative people out there are realizing that being “conservative” isn’t as homogenous as it once was.
Er, I think it’s always been that way…you may not be old enough to remember the fights between the Goldwater Republicans and the Rockerfeller Republicans.
Indeed, part of the appeal to me of conservatism is that it allows for more freedom of differences of opinion than liberalism has shown (in my experiences. You mileage may vary.) Peruse the National review’s blog The Corner and compare it to, say, the Huffington Post. Lots more variety at the Corner, IMHO.
Comics are escapist literature, why can’t this blog be?
Not a comic, not your blog. Crybaby.
I believe less money should be spent on prisons
Not to pick on you, but this leapt out at me. How? Decriminalize drugs (ok by me)? Make the prisons little more than Cool Hand Luke hellholes? Reduce sentences overall?
I like prisons. I like that there are many criminals in them. I’m always amazed when people are amazed that crime has gone down while the prison population has gone up. Um…isn’t that sort of what one should expect?
“That’s it…I’m done with this blog.”
So?
“I come here for comic book related discussions, not political. For that I can go to any newspaper website.”
And for comic book related discussions you can go to any comic book related site (Newsarama, comicon.com, comicbookresources, etc.) So your point remains elusive. But really, it’s pretty odd to act as this blog has done you a disservice simply because it isn’t what you expect it to be. Such behavior would require a monumentally intolerant attitude that insists upon foisting your beliefs upon others and make them live by your standards.
“Comics are escapist literature, why can’t this blog be?”
Beeeecause it’s not a comic…?
“C’ya!”
Wouldn’t wanna be ya.
“(and yes, I DO support the Marriage Amendment. Yes, I am a conservative. And, yes, I voted for G. W. Bush both times.)”
Ah. Well, that explains the monumentally intolerant attidue…
PAD
Brian Peter asked (snipped): “I’ve never really been able to figure it out, but what exactly does the vatican or any of their priests, bishops, archbishops or even pope know about marriage? These people never marry, are supposedly celibate… Really what does the Pope know about anything marriage?”
While clergy in the Catholic church are required to be celibate once they take their vows, that does not necessarily mean they always have been. A widower, for example, could enter the priesthood after his wife died, if he’d felt he’d been called. So, too could a man whose marriage had been annuled (the Catholic church doesn’t recognize divorce; but an annulment essentially rewinds everything back to before the marriage took place.)
Likewise, a married clergyman from another faith could convert to Catholicism, go through the various requirements to become a Catholic priest, and then be a priest. I’ve met once such person. And yes, someone in that situation is exempted from the celibacy rule.
So, to reiterate, a priest, bishop, even the Pope could, in theory, have been in a relationship before deciding to go into religious life.
Rick
P.S., with regard to the issue of the amendment Bush would tack onto the Constitution, it is narrow-minded, bigoted, and will ultimately be harmful to this country. We don’t need it. And I could care less whether John and Sue get married, or Bob and Marry, or John and Bob, or Sue and Mary.
Get a life, Mr. President. Worry about something that matters. Like the mess in Iraq. Like finding Osama Bin Laden. Remember him?
If I had to choose between a third term with George W. and bringing Nixon back from the dead and putting him in the White House again, I’d take Nixon.
C’ya!
Don’t let the disconnect door hit your ášš on the way out!
(I always loved that line.)
If I had to choose between a third term with George W. and bringing Nixon back from the dead and putting him in the White House again, I’d take Nixon.
Zombies in the White House. Cool. (it’s also the plot of the next Reanimator movie. I am so there.)
Sorry about the length, but i began taking notes at the top:
Posted by spiderrob8
and not to nitpick, but considering 2,500 allied troops died and 10,000 total casualties on D-Day 62 years ago yesterday, it is somewhat overblown to say soldiers in Iraq are dying at a “stunning” rate. The rate is one of the lowest we’ve had for any war. For thos who think the war not worth it, 1 death is too much. But it is ridiculous to say a “stunning” rate.
Ummm — and how many personnel were engaged in the fighting on D-Day? What percentage of them were killed? Direct frontal amphibious assaults into fixed and hardened positions carry disporprotionately high butcher’s bills. Besides – how many WW2 casualties were due to conflict between uniformed regular troops, compare to how many were due to irregulars? (Most of the type of casualties similar to those we’re seeing in Iraq happened to the Germans…)
The majority of US casualties in WW2 were due to fighting a recogniseable enemy who, more or less, fought by the rules.
In Iraq, one is as likely to be killed by a thirteen-year-old wearing a C4 undershirt as by any sort of organised enmey action.
Might i ask if you have ever served in the military?
That doesn’t even make any sense. Besides gay marriage, the other issues have been Supreme Court nominations, immigration, social security, Iraq, War on Terror. None of the other issues he has raised since then have even touched on “Jerry Springer” like topics. and it is really chicken and the egg anyway.
Lessee — handing over US ports to Arab-owned companies at the same time he’s busily ensuring that the entire Arab world at least distrusts the US. Advocating illegal-immigration policies that nobody likes. Declaring a War on Terror — you might as well declare a war on flanking maneuvers or on the right cross. Gutting FEMA and appointing incompetents to run what’s left. Attempting to appoint a totally unqualified political crony to the Supreme Court. Invading Iraq based on lies (his own, among others) and taking the advice of total incompetents (whome he has yet to remove) whose incompetence resulted in unnecessarily heavy casualties, and whose methods of prosecution of the war turned Iraq from a country with a near-First World economy and an oil exporter to a net oil importer where the electricity may be on a few hours every day, and Uncle Ðìçk’s cronies at Halliburton and other companies get no-bid contracts which seem mainly designed to allow them to steal the most money for the least useful work…
Posted by CCR
I never thought about it that way… making it hard to impossible to get divorced. It’s reminiscent of the old Chris Rock joke where he said “don’t take guns off the streets, make bullets rediculously expensive.”
The last time gay marriage was looking like an issue, Neal Boortz, conservative talk jock, was saying he didn’t see anything wrong with it; certainly it took nothing away from married straights (except for possibly putting a little more burden on health insurance plans and so on), and his producer, Royal Marshall (pretty much a black yuppie) said “Bad idea. Three words — ‘gay divorce court’.”
Posted by Egon
Marriage = A Religious Institution
America = Separation of Church & State
Therefore, the Government should not meddle in Religous affairs.
Wrong. Marriage is very much a secular institution, controlled and regul;ated by the State, not by the Church — otherwise atheists could never marry.
Posted by spiderrob8
America = Separation of Church & State
***
Find it in the Constitution and I’ll agree with you.
Hmm… “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion … “
Posted by Bea O’Problem
“start talking about adding the first amendment since prohibition (which, y’know, worked out so well) “
Except that it’s not the first amendment since Prohibition. G’won… look it up
In your haste to make someone look dumb and score points, you apparently overlooked (or ignored) the words “that would restrict freedoms rather than expand them” — PAD didn’t that it’s the Very First amendment since Prohibition, that it’s the first since then that attempts to limit the rights of the people.
Posted by Thomas E. Reed
I know many people who refuse to vote at all, saying “it only encourates them.” This, of course, is stupid – “they” will be there whether you vote or not, and by not voting you insure “they” will be in charge.
As the Bonzo Dog (doo dah) Band said, “No matter who you voite for, the Government always get in.”
Posted by Aladdin
Native Americans
Grrr. I hate to digress, but the American Indian is no more a “Native American” than i am; no less either.
My ancestors came on ships, theirs walked — but neither evolved here.
The Canadian term “First American” is a lot more accurate and simply sounds better.
Posted by Spiderrob8
Wow, you really have no idea that you are offensive, do you?
Wow, you really have no idea that you are offensive, and obtuse and pretty much politically ignorant,do you?
They (and its only conservatives) are being manipulated and would be stupid to fall for that manipulation. Very black and white, and because it is, wrong.
No, it’s anyone who’s stupid to vote the way Bush wants based on his scare tactics, lies and manipulation.
(The more i see od Dubya, the more i miss RMN and LBJ — they were cynical manipulative and probably crooked lying bášŧárdš, too, but they were good at it, and LBJ, particularly, often actually left you feeling good about it after he lubed you up and did you…)
Posted by Bill Mulligan
In case it isn’t clear, BTW, Neal Boortz is being sarcastic.
See my account of Neal’s exchange with Royal, above.
Posted by A Republican
That’s it…I’m done with this blog.
I come here for comic book related discussions, not political. For that I can go to any newspaper website.
Comics are escapist literature, why can’t this blog be?
C’ya!
(and yes, I DO support the Marriage Amendment. Yes, I am a conservative. And, yes, I voted for G. W. Bush both times.)
Cool, Republican. Nothing to worry about, we’re all just stirring up trouble here, George W. Bush Is Your Friend, We are Winning the War on Terror, Everybody in the World Loves Us…
Now go back to sleep till Election Day.
“ev’rything’s safe, ev’rything’s cool…” (Frank Zappa)
It’s okay if you practise saying “Baaahh!”
Posted by Brian Peter
“Comics are escapist literature, why can’t this blog be?
C’ya!”
Another blog suicide. Should we start the bets as to when the republican will be back?
Tomorrow. Under his real name.
Posted by Sean Scullion
Although I have to admit that I’m surprised that I haven’t seen any of the comedians or more strident liberal outlets talk about pruning the White House once and for all.
Come on, you get it. His name’s BUSH, for gosh sakes.
Or is that just one of those things that’s funny just in MY head?
Nah — but we wore it out back about 2001. I still prefer “Bush Minor”.