Kerry flips...

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Jetstorm, Mar 9, 2004.

  1. Jetstorm

    Jetstorm Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    29
  2. M.O.M

    M.O.M Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    2
    Kerry has said nothing in this campaign on the economic front that makes me want to vote for him.
    I know where he stands on gay marriage, he vigorously supports it, and lies about his support, luckily very transparently.
    If that's an endorsement of Bush, that's about as strong a one as I can give.
    Bush is bad on the economy, Kerry hasn't said anything that impresses me on the economy.
    What a choice.
     
  3. Jetstorm

    Jetstorm Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    29
    I got my issues too MOM. But no candidate will ever perfectly agree with my ideology, and especially yours. Your positions criss-cross the political spectrum, borrowing some from Democrats and some from the GOP.

    You are like a lot of erstwhile Southern Democrats I know, forced to choose between their soul (the GOP) and their wallet (the Democrats).
     
  4. M.O.M

    M.O.M Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    2

    All I'd like to see is the GOP fight for their social base as hard as the Democrats fights and wins for theirs.
    Or in the alternative the Democrats fight for their economic base as hard as the GOP fights and wins for theirs.
    But I know who calls the shots, the elite of both parties need each other. The Democratic elites need the GOP to give cover for the protection of the wealthy and the Republican elites need the Democrats to give cover for the protection of the radical social agendas. The moderate middle gets squeezed by both. No economic relief and socially will continue to sleaze towards the lowest possible lifeforms.
     
  5. Jetstorm

    Jetstorm Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    29
    I can certainly see your point.

    Dennis Prager recently wrote something which I think applies to the current debate on gay marriage and how the fight will play out in both parties. To read Andy Sullivan you would think everyone in the GOP just loves the idea (certainly not true, they are just divided about how best to proceed). While the GOP debates the logic of constitutional amendments vs. states' rights to oversee marriage in strategy sessions and consultations with constitutional scholars, hard-core homosexual activists are taking the fight to all fifty states, pushing hard for gay marriage anywhere they can get it accepted. The time for action is NOW; we can sort out federal/state turf wars later. But Prager brought up a point that worries me; those who are for gay marriage want it really, really, REALLY badly, some so badly they would honestly be willing to take up arms and struggle violently for it. Those who are opposed to gay marriage are mostly principled, but most are not willing to firmly dig their heels in, say "NO!", and fight like the dickens to stop it, and certainly aren't willing to bring society to a screeching halt with civil disobedience or pick up a gun and shoot someone to keep marriage traditional. To them, the culture war is not a real war, and if it doesn't directly affect them or anyone they know, they aren't really too concerned. Same for abortion. Same for the environment. But interestingly, not the same for gun control. While there are many passionate advocates for strict gun control who want it really, really, REALLY badly, there are a greater number of 2nd Amendment advocates who are willing to do anything, literally ANYTHING, to keep their guns. When Charlton Heston held up that rifle and said "From my cold, dead hands," he was not even close to kidding. That's why the Left lost the debate on gun control.

    If 50 million people marched on Washington DC carrying placard-pictures of two men in tuxedos kissing and exchanging wedding rings, with the caption OVER MY DEAD BODY, the debate on gay marriage would be over pretty quickly. But very few anti-gay marriage folks are willing to take it that far. And that does not bode well for the folks who want to fight it off. The tepid response of the Democrats to the issue and the lack of consensus even among the GOP as to how to fight it is not a good sign.

    That said, I do see differences between the parties, and I believe that the GOP is much more likely to dig in against gay marriage than the Democrats. We shall see if this becomes a serious issue on the campaign trail.
     
  6. M.O.M

    M.O.M Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    2
    Jetstorm, a few differences and other points.
    First, Andrew Sullivan exaggerates the support of some GOP members, but don't be fooled. Quite a few are wolves in sheeps clothing on this issue. I think you could start with the VP and move down the line. The *country club* Republicans are far from stalwart on this issue.

    Second, the idea of a mass protest on this issue is a tricky one. You must start with the fact that *conservatives* are amatuers compared to their leftwing opponents when it comes to the mere act of protesting. We/conservatives just are not as good as the radical left when it comes to protesting, mainly of course because they are much more practiced at it. A key component as well is the importance of the media in covering protests. I guarandamntee you that if a group of conservatives protested this radical gay agenda, the major media would search and find the most outlandish individual, sign, group necessary to prototype the protest. They would find the freakshow holding up the *Gays Must Die!* sign even if that was the only individual and the only such sign in the protest. In the alternative, if its a gay agenda march or protest, the major media is going to find the most clean-cut, articulate, *wholesome* looking individual or team they can find. And if one doesn't exist, hell they'll plant one in the audience to interview! Because let's be clear, on the gay agenda issue, the major media doesn't report, they editorialize and advocate. That's why you see the naive' like MikeTheTiger confused and believe he *knows gay people* and they are all *hardworking, clean-living folks*, because the gays he knows are the gays that the media finds, scrubs, prepares and polishes! On that fact we may agree?

    Third, I disagree with you on the armaments of the radical gay agenda advocates. They are a clever bunch, not the types who are going to take up arms or such. Rather, they have organized purposefully and have realized to push an outlandish agenda, you need *sentries* and lots of them in three places; a) the media b) academia and c) the courts. Each plays an important role and each have been filled with advocates with a purpose. The media role was discussed above, in academia, whether elementary school or law schools, you have a captive audience, the students whether 5 or 25, who are both subtly and directly filled with the gay agenda or a regular basis. Now of course its not as blunt as having students recite a mantra daily like*gays are good!*, but rather its a systematic, to use a twist on Hillary's phrase, *massive gay rights conspiracy* to slowly but surely advance the agenda via the cirriculum and pressure. The Courts are hand-in-glove with the law school faculty and provide the strong-arm of the government to enforce the agenda given that despite the efforts of the first two parts, the media and academia, the agenda can not be fully implemented via the democratic process. It is necessary to use the bayonnet of the courts to fully implement.
     
  7. BB

    BB Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,038
    Likes Received:
    3
    Al Qaeda blows up a train in Europe and people are really planning to vote for John Kerry and his policies - scary thought...
     
  8. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    so true. national security is THE issue. we quickly forget to pay attention, but we shouldnt. i ride a (subway) train every day. i have seen my neighbors murderered. we need an administration that has the guts to fight. we can't elect a democrat. democratic candidates are too dependent on peaceniks for votes, and i dont want to elect anyone who listens to spineless peaceniks.

    sure, bush isnt reducing spending like he should. sure, he is a christian and i think christianity is stupid. none of that matters to me, relative to foreign policy. we need to re-elect bush. he has the guts to make decisions for us even with other countries do not agree.

    i feel pretty bad for spain, they are a loyal friend to the US, unlike france and germany, the spineless wimp countries. the whole world needs to get on board and crush terrorists and countries who support them.
     
  9. BB

    BB Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,038
    Likes Received:
    3
    Very well said... This country needs a LEADER more than anything else. Democrat / Republican, Liberal / Conservative, either way we need a leader. Bush is a leader. I am a Republican and a Bush supporter and I hate many of his decisions, but that is what true leaders do - they lead and make decisions regardless of how popular they may be.
     
  10. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,314
    Likes Received:
    560
    I just heard a little more about the train explosion in Spain.
    Did you know that is was done on the 11th of March and that was exactly 911 days
    after 9-11-01?
    They just said it on the news.....
     

Share This Page