How Many Laws Can One Break?

[_JS]

The purpose of my query was not to lock you into a candidate. Obama or McCain, follow your instincts.

My query was more conversational. I know and you know both parties pander to whomever will get them votes.

But I do see a lot of damning of the GOP for their position vis a vis the definition of marriage but i don't see a lot of posting about dems who advocate one thing and then vote in the opposite direction.

And I just wanted to know if you observed the same thing.

Consider it a reality check on my part. Validation of my own observations if you will.

I think part of it has to do with the fact that Republicans used the issue to great effect in 2004 with the notion of a US Constitutional Amendment. It was never going to happen, and anyone who sat down and thought about it understood that, but it worked well to get evangelicals to the polls. Technically speaking, Bush and Kerry had virtually the same policy concerning same-sex marriage - but Bush was held up by the right (fairly or not) as a "defender of marriage."

I completely agree. The Democrats take advantage of that voting block. The truth is that a more libertarian view is the only valid view in my opinion. Homosexuals should be allowed to be married. Why not? The so-called compromises are worse than the ban altogether because they hearken back to the days of "separate but equal."

[sirs]

Valid criticism is ALWAYS possible.  If you hadn't noticed he gets it plenty from "rightwingers" as well.  The issue is the 24/7 perservation that anything Bush does must be bad, that he hasn't accomplished anything, that he's a failure in everything, never once providing any concession to anything he's done in office -----> which is bascially's Xo's so called insinuation of a sore loser

And you'll note, I haven't run from Bush, merely criticized him when it was appropriate to do so.  You're referring to politicians that live & die by poll #'s, to which I care very little for in representing my interests

[_JS]

I think Bush has been notably good for life issues, with the glaring exception of the death penalty. Otherwise he has been one of the best presidents and few to actually go beyond lip service with regards to abortion and embryonic stem cell research. I find some fault with his view of using warfare, but otherwise his record here has been good.

[sirs]

And has we have all referenced before, you're one of the more rationally minded Libs around here, Js.  You don't fit the template that messers Xo, Tee, and Brass, live in

[_JS]

Recently, given the tensions of the election, I think that all of us have been guilty to contributing to the negative atmosphere in here.

No one has a monopoly on "right" or "good." We all need reminding of that sometimes.

[Michael Tee]

<<The issue is the 24/7 perservation that anything Bush does must be bad, that he hasn't accomplished anything, that he's a failure in everything, never once providing any concession to anything he's done in office -----> which is bascially's Xo's so called insinuation of a sore loser>>

Then it's a fake issue - - most of the criticism of Bush is fairly specific - - lying the country into war being of course the worst of his many crimes, also Katrina, the tax cuts for the rich paired with the expenses of the war, the financial meltdown and the $800 billion "rescue" plan. 

They're all solid accusations and even if the causes may be arguable, the number and the depth of the disasters that befell the country on his watch are staggering.  Why do these accusations have to be "sore losers?"  You're claiming that Bush had nothing to do with any of it?  Who the hell was President when the shit hit the fan?

<<And you'll note, I haven't run from Bush, merely criticized him when it was appropriate to do so.  You're referring to politicians that live & die by poll #'s, to which I care very little for in representing my interests>>

Yeah, but that wasn't my question.  Why do Republican candidates who "live & die by poll #'s" (in your own words!) run from Bush like he's carrying Ebola virus, if he's so innocent of all the accusations?  Are all the Republican candidates so devoid of backbone that none will defend a President who is so innocent of all those "sore loser" accusations?

[Plane]

<<The issue is the 24/7 perservation that anything Bush does must be bad, that he hasn't accomplished anything, that he's a failure in everything, never once providing any concession to anything he's done in office -----> which is bascially's Xo's so called insinuation of a sore loser>>

Then it's a fake issue - - most of the criticism of Bush is fairly specific - - lying the country into war being of course the worst of his many crimes, also Katrina, the tax cuts for the rich paired with the expenses of the war, the financial meltdown and the $800 billion "rescue" plan. 

They're all solid accusations and even if the causes may be arguable, the number and the depth of the disasters that befell the country on his watch are staggering.  Why do these accusations have to be "sore losers?"  You're claiming that Bush had nothing to do with any of it?  Who the hell was President when the shit hit the fan?

<<And you'll note, I haven't run from Bush, merely criticized him when it was appropriate to do so.  You're referring to politicians that live & die by poll #'s, to which I care very little for in representing my interests>>

Yeah, but that wasn't my question.  Why do Republican candidates who "live & die by poll #'s" (in your own words!) run from Bush like he's carrying Ebola virus, if he's so innocent of all the accusations?  Are all the Republican candidates so devoid of backbone that none will defend a President who is so innocent of all those "sore loser" accusations?

Well then what can we suppose President Gore would have done to better prevent the 9-11 attack or prepare for the Katrina storm damage?

I kinda suppose he would have done about as well as Clinton did at these preparations when Gore was his partner.

[sirs]

<<The issue is the 24/7 perservation that anything Bush does must be bad, that he hasn't accomplished anything, that he's a failure in everything, never once providing any concession to anything he's done in office -----> which is bascially's Xo's so called insinuation of a sore loser>>

Then it's a fake issue - - most of the criticism of Bush is fairly specific.

Minus of course the grotesque distortions, hyperbole, and lying, that's precisely what I'm referring to.  Picking specific issues, and drumbeating them 24/7, all the while completely ignoring those aspects that have been postive during his tenure

Why do these accusations have to be "sore losers?"  

Because it fit's Xo's template on how the President, in this case Bush, was being burned in effigy, even before he took office, and since validated by the non-stop condemnations, minus any sense of objective assessment of the good things that have occured.  No terror attacks since 911, record tax revenues initially generated by the tax cuts, low unemployment for the vast majority of his administration, Iraq's violence down at its lowest since we went in, Surge obviously having been successful, Conservative leaning administrations now in France, in Germany, in Canada even.  I mean, I could go on, but suffice to say, Bush gets zip credit on any of it

You're claiming that Bush had nothing to do with any of it?  

No, you're not paying attention.  As usual.  I'm saying he's been a either a part, or merely President during everything the last 8yrs, both good and bad.  And needless to say, I don't agree with your hyperbolic premises, so we can gloss right passed those

<<And you'll note, I haven't run from Bush, merely criticized him when it was appropriate to do so.  You're referring to politicians that live & die by poll #'s, to which I care very little for in representing my interests>>

Yeah, but that wasn't my question.  Why do Republican candidates who "live & die by poll #'s" (in your own words!) run from Bush like he's carrying Ebola virus, if he's so innocent of all the accusations?

 

Accusations & poll #'s frequently go hand in hand, in DC.  I have yet to see much validity to either

[Michael Tee]

<<Accusations & poll #'s frequently go hand in hand, in DC. >>

Yes they do.

<< I have yet to see much validity to either>>

Good, then I guess you don't think Obama's a terrorist, a Muslim, a reverse racist, a crooked politician, or a dope who got through Harvard Law on the basis of his skin colour.  Or a communist or a socialist or an anti-Semite.  Lemme see, did I leave out any accusations?

You are still dodging the question, I see.  How come - - if these accusations against Bush are all BS and the poll numbers don't have much validity, all the Republican candidates are running away from the Shrub like he was an Ebola virus carrier?  Is it their cowardice?  their treachery?  their stupidity?  what?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Homosexuals should be allowed to be married. Why not? The so-called compromises are worse than the ban altogether because they hearken back to the days of "separate but equal."

==============================
This is perfectly logical. Why indeed not?

The reason is that most Americans do not think logically on issues like marriage and religion.

I recall a neighbor's friend visiting from u8p near Birmingham, AL was talking about how "there never was none a these problems back when we had prayer in the schools".

I asked her what sort of prayer she thought might be the most effective to prevent "all a those problems", and she seemed to ponder it for about ten whole seconds. Then she said, "I don't wanna talk about this no more."

But you know she would have voted for prayer in the schools, anyway. As I recall, she also liked George Wallace, Lester Maddox and Ross Perot.

[sirs]

<<Accusations & poll #'s frequently go hand in hand, in DC. >>

Yes they do.

Cool...concensus

<< I have yet to see much validity to either>>

Good, then I guess you don't think Obama's a terrorist, a Muslim, a reverse racist, a crooked politician, or a dope who got through Harvard Law on the basis of his skin colour.&nbsp; Or a communist or a socialist or an anti-Semite

You're right, I don't, and never have.&nbsp; His voting record and rhetoric do make him a hard left lib

You are still dodging the question, I see.&nbsp; How come - - if these accusations against Bush are all BS and the poll numbers don't have much validity, all the Republican candidates are running away from the Shrub like he was an Ebola virus carrier?  Is it their cowardice?

BINGO.&nbsp; Poll #'s have that kind of effect, on many a politician.&nbsp; You must have missed the article I provided a week ago, that addresses this point specifically.

[BSB]

They're all running away from Bush because he's a cancer on the lungs of human intelligence. No one with a brain has been able to breath for the past 8 years. We all know what hell is now. It's being led by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. The three musketeers. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

BINGO.&nbsp; Poll #'s have that kind of effect, on many a politician.  You must have missed the article I provided a week ago, that addresses this point specifically.



A typical Krauthammer screed that dopes not address the question at all.

[BSB]

I think Bush has been notably good for life issues...

Lol, yeah, just ask the Iraqis.

[Michael Tee]

<<You're right, I don't [think Obama's a terrorist, a Muslim, a reverse racist, a crooked politician, or a dope who got through Harvard Law on the basis of his skin colour.  Or a communist or a socialist or an anti-Semite ]  and never have.  >>

All right.  Enough of this bullshit.  Who are you really and where is sirs?