A quick web search found this; the first one of a list.
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003239.html
angie wrote:.
Osso wrote:
"Separate and equal didn't fly to well with bussing and schooling. It's prejudice pretending to share like good Christians, and a total farce, of course.
And finally, if civil unions give gays the identical legal perks, protections and benefits married people have now, then isn't a civil union a marriage, and isn't a marriage a civil union. Why make the distinction at all? What's the point.
Civil union must be the positioning to be exploited later, but no matter how many times they repeat it, they can't convince people anymore that they are anything but blatant, ignorantly, and selfishly biased and prejudiced against fellow Americans. The more they attack, the more they look anti-American AND anti-Bill of Rights. They have to be very, very careful with this one.
And they know it."
Yep.
.
Gee, did I say that? fairly coherent for me...
Hobitbob, your comment reminds me of when I was visiting my cousins when they lived in Fullerton, me with my volkswagen with the (Eugene) McCarthy bumper sticker, back in the days when I did such things as put bumper stickers on my car. When I stopped at a grocery store I was a little paranoid, stranger in strange land's parking lot. Maybe that was the night we all talked til dawn, and downed a lot of blueberry brandy. Every one of us 'sick as a dog shortly thereafter, a learning experience.
cicerone imposter wrote:I think another group that may have negative feelings about Bush are new college grads who are finding it very difficult to find jobs. Factory workers are a toss-up; they showed up at Bush's speech in Ohio where they've lost thousands of jobs.
Bush hand selects audiences, they may or may not represent what they seem to be. He is very much like the Union busters of the teens and 20's. He will actually truck them in from out of state. Guess that's what he needs all the millions upon millions for. He never talks to a group of people that are just random, they're to scared of reality......
Thanks Cicerone.
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
Translation: Marriage is recognize legally as only between one man and one woman, so anyone else that gets married contrary to this will not be recognized legally so that the legal incidents of marriage don't have to be passed on to civil unions as well, unless they are by one man and one woman.
This amendment is insidious. No legal nothing unless it is between one man and one woman.
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law: This is wicked too, as it says the 14th amendment does not apply, when it most certainly does. It seriously weakens the 14th amendment at best, and leaves the window open for additional weakening of it. You can't get more insidious than that.
Calling the 1049 laws that benefit married people as incidencts is a serious misuse of language. If they are incidents, they occurred frequently and have grown considerably.
This amendment does not deny civil unions, but it exempts law, feds and states from having to confer the same rights as guaranteed by the 14th amendment. It's a God-damned Jim Crow law made into an amendment under the guise of upholding tradition.
Marriage itself isn't discriminatory. We are free to worship and establish the religion we want, and GOVERNMENT is not allowed to make laws regarding it, but we have 1,049 of them already that blatantly discriminate in favor of some citizens and against others. The excuse being tradition.
The state requiring licenses the feds will honor is what makes this a civil rights issue. Say what you will, the laws as they stand discriminate in favor of marriage people versus any two Americans. And the doors are swing shut for additional pairs of Americans getting into this favored status system.
There is no way in hell the current wording of this amendment won't be shot down by the USSC. It's clever, but so blatant it isn't funny.
The bold section is the kingpin here. It's saying marriage won't be recognized, nor the rights extended to other groups unless they are a man and a woman. It's not barring the civil unions, it's barring the equal rights to those married. That's second-class status no matter how you slice it, and therefore a Jim Crow Amendment.
Quote:
There is no way in hell the current wording of this amendment won't be shot down by the USSC. It's clever, but so blatant it isn't funny.
Not if Bush or any other ultra-neocon is allowed stack the court with anti people justices (sic).
So go ahead and enter into a civil union if you want. We'll let you play house if you want, since you are going to anyway. But equal laws applied, equal benefits and protections applied recognized by American law, federal law or state law?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Not until Washington is a crater full of radioactive ash will we ever allow this expansion of rights to all Americans like the 14th Amendment says we should.
NO WAY. We will ban you first, and ban you from coast to coast. Your lover doesn't have any rights to what you own. You don't get tax breaks, you don't get anything but the worthless piece of paper you insist upon.
It's full blown marriage and all 1,049 laws incidently attached to it, or you get nothing but a worthless piece of paper with some ink on it.
This is horrifying actual. I can't believe they would dare take such a giant step backwards into time. It does not bode well for anyone, actually, single or married, gay or straight. If they get away with doing this to some of the people some of the time, it won't be so long before it is all of the people all of the time.
Trying to use the Constitution to severely weaken it is downright traitorous as far as I am concerned.
The Washington Post link from my post above. Just in case anybody wishes to question Bush's ban on gay marriage. They can contact the Washington Post for any disagreement they may have about "ban on gay marriage" supported by Bush.
*******************************
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30326-2004Feb10.html
Hey Bill, I said "ultraneocon" and got slammed by Scrat for torturing the language.
I must admit though, the use of a hyphen makes it much better to look at.
ULTRA-NEOCON
It has a nice ring to it.
Far be it for us not to be able to coin a word or phrase on occassion. I'm sure it's been in use already somewhere somehow anyway.
And it makes sense too. Sure, we know there are a lot of conservatives around, but we are also starting to see a lot more of "something else, far worse than conservative."
Ultra-neoconservatism just might end up being the definitive definition of this wing in the republican party.
Personally, I view it as a third party in its own right, because their ideology is virtually identical to the ideology of the federalists in the late-18th, early-19th century in America.
If you want a nice eye opener on that bunch of rascals, read "Federalists In Dissent." The parallels are amazing, actually.
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
What this is saying that no one can pitch any law in America to redefine marriage rights and laws recognized by the Feds and States.
No new laws giving civil unions or unmarried couples can create the same kind of marital status with the same laws attached, because marriage is restricted forevermore to one man and one woman. That use of the generic word, groups, is the real evil at work here. Civil unions will fall into that catergory, which is being denied the same rights as marriage.
Bush isn't against civil unions, and neither is Kerry. However, Bush is saying it's just a symbolic relationship the states and feds don't have to recognize or protect or extend the same laws to as they do with marriages.
Kerry says just the opposite, that civil unions with the same rights is OK with him. This is tantamount to recognizing the marriage, only not calling it that.
So if anyone says Bush and Kerry see the same about gay marriage, they are dead wrong. Bush and Kerry are on total opposite sides. Bush sees a symbolic piece of paper, signifying nothing legally. Kerry sees the same license filed under a different title.
There are 2,760 Google hits on ultra-neocon.
BTW, I define it (especially in GWB case) as ultra neo confidence man (as in conficence game).
confidence game
n.
A swindle in which the victim is defrauded after his or her confidence has been won.
Somewhat like the "Flim Flam Man?"
BillW wrote:There are 2,760 Google hits on ultra-neocon.
Hmmm. I'm not sure why I'm getting something different, because I believe that's what you saw, but I get 19 hits for "ultra-neocon" and 6 for "ultraneocon", which is what he wrote.
Please check my results and see what you get:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=ultra-neocon
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=ultraneocon
Then take a look at how many Google hits you get for "ultra-Bill": 2,270!!!
In .18 seconds, Google reported 2410 hits for "ultra neoconservative."
clickity-click[/color]
Having posted that, i checked the link, and it now reports 2380 hits in .19 seconds. It would appear that neither the number of hits, nor the length of time for the search are "carved in stone."
Google's stats on the number of results are notoriously innacurate. I got 2,420.
Bush continues his pandering to the Religious Wrong:
Bush to constituency: God hates fags, and so do I!
Quote:
Top Stories - Reuters
Bush Tells Evangelicals He Will Fight Gay Marriage
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Thursday sought to solidify his standing with evangelical Christians by restating support for a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage as part of his championship of conservative causes.
"I will defend the sanctity of marriage against activist courts and local officials who want to redefine marriage. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution," Bush, himself a born-again Christian, told the National Association of Evangelicals Convention in Colorado via satellite from the White House.
"I support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman," Bush said.
The president has largely steered clear of the thorny political issue since announcing his support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on Feb. 24.
Bush seized on the issue after legal developments in San Francisco, where thousands of marriage licenses have been issued to gays and lesbians, and in Massachusetts, where the state's highest court ruled gay couples had the right to wed.
The move could help bolster his support among conservative Christians, a critical base for Bush, a Republican, in the November presidential election. With some polls showing him trailing Democratic challenger John Kerry (news - web sites), analysts say Bush will need to energize his base.
Amending the U.S. Constitution is a difficult task. It can take years to win the support of two-thirds of the U.S. House of Representatives, two-thirds of the Senate and ratification by three-quarters of the 50 states.
In addition to gay marriage, Bush touted his decision last year to sign a ban on a type of late-term abortion and said, "We will vigorously defend this law against any attempt to overturn it in the courts."
He said he was working with the U.S. Congress to pass a "comprehensive and effective" ban on human cloning -- another hot button issue for Christian conservatives.
He also called on Congress to send him legislation that would make killing or harming a "child in utero" a federal crime. Critics said the bill undermines abortion rights by treating the fetus or embryo as a person, although bill sponsors said they included language that explicitly excludes abortion.
Which of course is the number of pages where those two words showed up ANYWHERE on the page. Now, perhaps that is meaningful to you, but it isn't to me.
When you Google the phrase "ultra neoconservative", you get exactly 4 hits.
Now, can we get back to real issues?
Scrat, we can get back to "real issues" with as much alacrity as you have displayed in digressing on the subject of google hits. I've responded to the "real issue" of the thread, by saying that i do not hate Ashcroft, and neither do i trust him.
Oops, wrong thread . . . it's just so hard to keep track of the ultra neoconservative rants these days . . .
Sen. Jo Ann Sprague (R-Walpole) urged her colleagues to vote no on any amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, saying that "All of us want to leave a legacy that we acted in accordance with our belief in tolerance, our belief in individual merit, our belief in the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We owe it to those we love to uphold, and keep inviolate, our Constitution -- a Constitution that guarantees all of us, not just some of us, equality before the law."
Damn! I thought ultra-neocon was a new word. Oh well. I guess I wasn't trashing the language after all.
Look at what a republican is saying. Can you believe it? There must be a few left floating around after all...
