Dang, just when I was ready to leave, you have to go and say that.
No, it's a simple choice, Rosemary. For many, many reasons...but a personal fave that comes to mind is that Dubya wants to write bigotry into our Constitution. That, and the pesky reality of all kinds of people, military and civilian, still dying for his war.
It's so much not about hate, and more about disgust. Bush and Co. are truly disgusting. We're living their history already. Can't wait for a new day, and a return to our better angels, as a country and as a friend to civilized people of the world.
I'm looking forward to Peggy campaigning for Kerry by saying, "Vote Kerry, because a majority of Americans are bigots!"
I am also looking forward to the day when Peggy learns what a sense of humor is, learns what April Fool's day is, and learns that irresponsible generalizations cut both ways.
Oh, and Peggy? The hatred comes off you in waves, girlfriend. ;-)
Peggy, For many, many reasons...but a personal fave that comes to mind is that Dubya wants to write bigotry into our Constitution. That, and the pesky reality of all kinds of people, military and civilian, still dying for his war.
I disagree with you. But as I tried to say earlier - today is April 1st. I have a running gag going. We won't be getting serious today. Nothing I post today - with the exception of this response will be serious. Nothing I post will be anything I actually believe. Today is fun day.
Friday, I'll be back to business. Today we shall all say crazy things.
Dean, I didn't say 'a majority of Americans are bigots.' I said that Bush wants to write bigotry into the Constitution, which is a simple fact. Guess I've missed the April Fool's Day jokes, so far, anyway.
And don't call me girlfriend. Rosemary may get jealous.
My dearest Peggy: To accept your notion that Dubya wants to "write bigotry into the Constitution," you would have to believe that a majority of Americans are bigots, since an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose gay marriage.
Furthermore, if I accepted your proposition, I would have to view John Kerry in the same fashion. For John Kerry is on record as opposing gay marriage, and is also on record as favoring an amendment to his home state's Constutiton which would ban gay marriage.
Which makes your position seem to be that a majority of Americans are bigots and that John Kerry is only slightly less bigoted. Or have I missed something?
Dean, last time I checked some of those same polls, they said that although most Americans don't support same-sex marriage, most are not opposed to 'civil unions,' which brings a very big debate down to semantics only, in some ways, (though I & others want the 'real thing,' in word and deed, i.e. marriage, not some wannabe second-class status). So what I get from the polls is *not* that most Americans are bigots, but that most hold a belief (based on a complex mixture of tradition, religion, and fear) that somehow our culture will grind to a halt if gays are allowed to marry, or some vague sense that something is being 'stolen' from them, if gays are allowed to marry. A lot of all this is completely grounded in silly fears, it seems, since as I said, many polls seem to also show a broad, general acceptance and support for civil rights for same-sex couples.
It is, however, an entirely different (and bigoted) thing, to seek to codify unequal rights, at a national level.
John Kerry's position on this is less than perfect, but far from Bush's sickening coddling of his (very wealthy) fanatical, right-wing fundamentalists.
Peggy: Bush has made it clear that he doesn't oppose civil unions.
Your generalizations of "wealthy, fanaticaly, right-wing fundamentalists" is as hateful as any KKK rant I've ever read about Jews, by the way. Just food for thought.
Bush can't have it both ways. (That's for bi-sexuals). If he weren't responding to the fanaticals, by calling for a constitutional amendment, it might give credence to the idea that he's cool and down with civil rights for gay couples and all. Problem is, he's not, or else he would never have stood up and given that public endorsement of the amendment.
I'll ignore your KKK accusation, ok? If you promise to study a list of Bush's campaign donors, that is. (Then tell me about people who hate).
Peggy: I just don't see Bush trying to have it both ways, sorry. Like a majority of Americans, he says if states want to have civil unions, they can.
It also remains, by the way, that Presidents have no real role in passing Constutional amendments anyway. It's a process that requires a supermajority of the Congress and a supermajority of states to ratify, and the President has no role at all--except as cheerleader, which I'll note he's done very little of since giving his weak endorsement of the FMA.
I've seen lists of both Bush and Kerry's campaign donors, thanks. I repeat: your rant smacks of horrible bigotry. Pot-kettle-black and all that, girlfriend.
"Way to go, associating this hateful dweeb's rantings with people who support Kerry."
Let's not be narrow-minded here. What sane people call "a hateful dweeb" might well be to Al Franken and Air Hindenburg "a fun guest when Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky aren't available."
Problem is, Musgrave's original amendment language forbids states from deciding anything, either.
Bush didn't have to support the amendment at all, if he really thought it was wrong and/or unnecessary. But he did support it, to appease part of his base. You seem to say that, a) it's a lengthy, involved process, this amendment stuff and might not pass the final tests anyway, so don't sweat it...and b) hey, Bush just gave it half-hearted endorsement anyway, so don't sweat it.
Words mean things, especially from the numero uno bully pulpit in the land...
Anyway, don't believe anything I say today. April Fools! I actually totally love all people and government officials, even when their boots are on my pretty little neck! And if you call me girlfriend one more time, we'll have to get a room, that's all there is to it. (I'm already feeling sort of flushed with a passion that knows no bounds).
John Kerry's position on this is less than perfect, but far from Bush's sickening coddling of his (very wealthy) fanatical, right-wing fundamentalists.
LMAO! Glad to hear that Kerry won't be sickeningly coddling of his (very wealthy) fanatical, left-wing fundamentalists, Peggy. Ahh, the smell of hypocrisy and blind hatred in the morning.
And it's not like Bush is seriously changing the constitution. Whatever he wants the amendment to say, it was and is already constitutional until the states are required to follow Mass. law.
the problem with amending the constitution on this issue is it does nothing to treat the underlying cause, which is hermeneutics. i have no idea, however, how to write an amendment on hermenetics that would not turn us eventually into France.
How do you require justices to interpret the constitution a certain way that cannot be evaded by exactly in the kind of eisogesis that some justices use to create one bad decision after another.
Still, legislatures could make this easy by simply removing justices who engage in bad faith interpretations. The answer in Massachusetts for example was not to amend the Constitution. It was remove the justices.
Of course I don't want to discuss SSM here. But I'll say this much -- I'd accept, fairly easy, any result (even against me) that came out of deliberations among our elected representatives. If there was a broad-based consensus that went against me, fine. But don't rig the judiciary, or call me a bigot, or imply bad faith on my part. And don't insist that the only "just" solution is yours.
Bill,
In theory, all laws are subject to hermeneutics, and challenges to them settled (ultimately) by The Supreme Court. That's our system, and it works.
The Musgrave amendment is unique, in that it would deny (not expand) the rights of some citizens--and prohibit redress in the courts.
Dave,
If you can name an individual or group that supports Kerry and is exclusionary a la The Family Research Council (great supporters of Bush), please do.
I look forward to Peggy's lengthy and pasionate post commending Bob Barr for his principled stand against this hideous abomination, the FMA. Obviously such a stance reveals a kind and tolerant attitude towards all humanity just as the opposite reveals otherwise.
Sorry Peggy, but "hardly" is not a rebuttal. If you don't think the groups listed are left-wing extremist groups supporting Kerry, please demonstrate as much. Thanks.
I imagine those 3 groups are supporting Kerry. I just don't see them as exclusionary. Generally speaking, they support more (as opposed)to less freedom.
Bob Barr has come out against the FMA? Cool!
Bill, I trust the system to usually get things right...eventually.
Generally speaking, they support more (as opposed)to less freedom.
That is strictly a matter of opinion. You asked for exclusionary groups. Those groups exclude plenty of people based on their beliefs. They are as intolerant as any group you can name.
Dean, is that your friend Peggy Kaplan? I couldn't even recognize her with all the fear and loathing oozing out of her. Who kidnapped her brain and replaced it with Al Franken's?
That bearstrong.net site seemed so over the top I figured it couldn't be serious. However its similarity to any given over the top, run of the mill hate-spewing leftist site is so eerie, I'm still having a hard time being sure...
Sean Hannity was impersonating lefties today. I couldn't listen after 2 mins. Personally I think this April Fool's Day was a bust.
I AM SO FRIGGING CONFUSED!!! I think I like it. I love the spell of conservatives in the morning...they smell like BACON!!! We're gonna cut ya, fry ya, and eat ya....yum yum....
Way to go, associating this hateful dweeb's rantings with people who support Kerry. Gimme a break...
Come on now. You know darn well that plenty of hateful people will be pulling the lever for Kerry.
Dang, just when I was ready to leave, you have to go and say that.
No, it's a simple choice, Rosemary. For many, many reasons...but a personal fave that comes to mind is that Dubya wants to write bigotry into our Constitution. That, and the pesky reality of all kinds of people, military and civilian, still dying for his war.
And plenty of hatefull people will be pulling one for Bush.
It's so much not about hate, and more about disgust. Bush and Co. are truly disgusting. We're living their history already. Can't wait for a new day, and a return to our better angels, as a country and as a friend to civilized people of the world.
I'm looking forward to Peggy campaigning for Kerry by saying, "Vote Kerry, because a majority of Americans are bigots!"
I am also looking forward to the day when Peggy learns what a sense of humor is, learns what April Fool's day is, and learns that irresponsible generalizations cut both ways.
Oh, and Peggy? The hatred comes off you in waves, girlfriend. ;-)
LOL!! Obviously someone has never read that "hateful dweeb" before, nor do they realize what date it is.
I love Bjorn...
(oh, and Rosemary and Dean, too.)
Andrew,
I'm sure that is true. It changes nothing.
Peggy,
For many, many reasons...but a personal fave that comes to mind is that Dubya wants to write bigotry into our Constitution. That, and the pesky reality of all kinds of people, military and civilian, still dying for his war.
I disagree with you. But as I tried to say earlier - today is April 1st. I have a running gag going. We won't be getting serious today. Nothing I post today - with the exception of this response will be serious. Nothing I post will be anything I actually believe. Today is fun day.
Friday, I'll be back to business. Today we shall all say crazy things.
Dean, I didn't say 'a majority of Americans are bigots.' I said that Bush wants to write bigotry into the Constitution, which is a simple fact. Guess I've missed the April Fool's Day jokes, so far, anyway.
And don't call me girlfriend. Rosemary may get jealous.
She's right! Damn you you horny bastard! Stop flirting with the commenters!
My dearest Peggy: To accept your notion that Dubya wants to "write bigotry into the Constitution," you would have to believe that a majority of Americans are bigots, since an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose gay marriage.
Furthermore, if I accepted your proposition, I would have to view John Kerry in the same fashion. For John Kerry is on record as opposing gay marriage, and is also on record as favoring an amendment to his home state's Constutiton which would ban gay marriage.
Which makes your position seem to be that a majority of Americans are bigots and that John Kerry is only slightly less bigoted. Or have I missed something?
See, Dean? No need to break the woman's heart. Besides, I'm already spoken for, you cad.
Rosemary knows I love the ladies. Especially cute ones like you, Peggy. :-)
Rotten Prick!
Dean, last time I checked some of those same polls, they said that although most Americans don't support same-sex marriage, most are not opposed to 'civil unions,' which brings a very big debate down to semantics only, in some ways, (though I & others want the 'real thing,' in word and deed, i.e. marriage, not some wannabe second-class status). So what I get from the polls is *not* that most Americans are bigots, but that most hold a belief (based on a complex mixture of tradition, religion, and fear) that somehow our culture will grind to a halt if gays are allowed to marry, or some vague sense that something is being 'stolen' from them, if gays are allowed to marry. A lot of all this is completely grounded in silly fears, it seems, since as I said, many polls seem to also show a broad, general acceptance and support for civil rights for same-sex couples.
It is, however, an entirely different (and bigoted) thing, to seek to codify unequal rights, at a national level.
John Kerry's position on this is less than perfect, but far from Bush's sickening coddling of his (very wealthy) fanatical, right-wing fundamentalists.
Peggy: Bush has made it clear that he doesn't oppose civil unions.
Your generalizations of "wealthy, fanaticaly, right-wing fundamentalists" is as hateful as any KKK rant I've ever read about Jews, by the way. Just food for thought.
Bush can't have it both ways. (That's for bi-sexuals). If he weren't responding to the fanaticals, by calling for a constitutional amendment, it might give credence to the idea that he's cool and down with civil rights for gay couples and all. Problem is, he's not, or else he would never have stood up and given that public endorsement of the amendment.
I'll ignore your KKK accusation, ok? If you promise to study a list of Bush's campaign donors, that is. (Then tell me about people who hate).
Dean, while you are messing around with peggy, and I borrow Rose?
After all, she said I was good-looking, once. Heh.
Actually, y'all nearly had me on this one, until I started looking at the sidebar stuff... :)
An excellent Fools joke.
Peggy: I just don't see Bush trying to have it both ways, sorry. Like a majority of Americans, he says if states want to have civil unions, they can.
It also remains, by the way, that Presidents have no real role in passing Constutional amendments anyway. It's a process that requires a supermajority of the Congress and a supermajority of states to ratify, and the President has no role at all--except as cheerleader, which I'll note he's done very little of since giving his weak endorsement of the FMA.
I've seen lists of both Bush and Kerry's campaign donors, thanks. I repeat: your rant smacks of horrible bigotry. Pot-kettle-black and all that, girlfriend.
"Way to go, associating this hateful dweeb's rantings with people who support Kerry."
Let's not be narrow-minded here. What sane people call "a hateful dweeb" might well be to Al Franken and Air Hindenburg "a fun guest when Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky aren't available."
Problem is, Musgrave's original amendment language forbids states from deciding anything, either.
Bush didn't have to support the amendment at all, if he really thought it was wrong and/or unnecessary. But he did support it, to appease part of his base. You seem to say that, a) it's a lengthy, involved process, this amendment stuff and might not pass the final tests anyway, so don't sweat it...and b) hey, Bush just gave it half-hearted endorsement anyway, so don't sweat it.
Words mean things, especially from the numero uno bully pulpit in the land...
Anyway, don't believe anything I say today. April Fools! I actually totally love all people and government officials, even when their boots are on my pretty little neck! And if you call me girlfriend one more time, we'll have to get a room, that's all there is to it. (I'm already feeling sort of flushed with a passion that knows no bounds).
John Kerry's position on this is less than perfect, but far from Bush's sickening coddling of his (very wealthy) fanatical, right-wing fundamentalists.
LMAO! Glad to hear that Kerry won't be sickeningly coddling of his (very wealthy) fanatical, left-wing fundamentalists, Peggy. Ahh, the smell of hypocrisy and blind hatred in the morning.
peggy's a troll. ah, bigotry and hypocrisy in the morning. it's bigotry to accuse people of bigotry. as the cretan said, all cretans are liars.
And it's not like Bush is seriously changing the constitution. Whatever he wants the amendment to say, it was and is already constitutional until the states are required to follow Mass. law.
the problem with amending the constitution on this issue is it does nothing to treat the underlying cause, which is hermeneutics. i have no idea, however, how to write an amendment on hermenetics that would not turn us eventually into France.
How do you require justices to interpret the constitution a certain way that cannot be evaded by exactly in the kind of eisogesis that some justices use to create one bad decision after another.
Still, legislatures could make this easy by simply removing justices who engage in bad faith interpretations. The answer in Massachusetts for example was not to amend the Constitution. It was remove the justices.
Of course I don't want to discuss SSM here. But I'll say this much -- I'd accept, fairly easy, any result (even against me) that came out of deliberations among our elected representatives. If there was a broad-based consensus that went against me, fine. But don't rig the judiciary, or call me a bigot, or imply bad faith on my part. And don't insist that the only "just" solution is yours.
Bill,
In theory, all laws are subject to hermeneutics, and challenges to them settled (ultimately) by The Supreme Court. That's our system, and it works.
The Musgrave amendment is unique, in that it would deny (not expand) the rights of some citizens--and prohibit redress in the courts.
Dave,
If you can name an individual or group that supports Kerry and is exclusionary a la The Family Research Council (great supporters of Bush), please do.
How about NARAL? NAACP? NOW? PETA?
NARAL? NAACP? NOW? Hardly. And personally, I think PETA exists in some parallel universe, and are an equal-opportunity offender.
NARAL? NAACP? NOW? Hardly.
You mean they aren't supporting Kerry?
I look forward to Peggy's lengthy and pasionate post commending Bob Barr for his principled stand against this hideous abomination, the FMA. Obviously such a stance reveals a kind and tolerant attitude towards all humanity just as the opposite reveals otherwise.
In theory, all laws are subject to hermeneutics, and challenges to them settled (ultimately) by The Supreme Court. That's our system, and it works.
It works? Except, you know, when it doesn't.
Sorry Peggy, but "hardly" is not a rebuttal. If you don't think the groups listed are left-wing extremist groups supporting Kerry, please demonstrate as much. Thanks.
I imagine those 3 groups are supporting Kerry. I just don't see them as exclusionary. Generally speaking, they support more (as opposed)to less freedom.
Bob Barr has come out against the FMA? Cool!
Bill, I trust the system to usually get things right...eventually.
Generally speaking, they support more (as opposed)to less freedom.
That is strictly a matter of opinion. You asked for exclusionary groups. Those groups exclude plenty of people based on their beliefs. They are as intolerant as any group you can name.
The only difference is that you agree with them.
Well, sorry, I don't see them as exclusionary or intolerant.
And, with the exception of PETA, they are hardly "extremist," Dave.
I'd love to stick around, but I have to get ready for work soon. Catch you later. Happy April Fool's Day.
But serioously folks.......nevermind.
Dean, is that your friend Peggy Kaplan? I couldn't even recognize her with all the fear and loathing oozing out of her. Who kidnapped her brain and replaced it with Al Franken's?
That bearstrong.net site seemed so over the top I figured it couldn't be serious. However its similarity to any given over the top, run of the mill hate-spewing leftist site is so eerie, I'm still having a hard time being sure...
Sean Hannity was impersonating lefties today. I couldn't listen after 2 mins. Personally I think this April Fool's Day was a bust.
I AM SO FRIGGING CONFUSED!!! I think I like it. I love the spell of conservatives in the morning...they smell like BACON!!! We're gonna cut ya, fry ya, and eat ya....yum yum....
Swishy pool boy Enri
Anybody have a short definition of "hermeneutics"?