weeniehead, are you proposing that Congress just sit around in between bills that YOU find important enough for them? Is there some weeniehead rule that Congress is only allowed to tackle one thing at a time? In weenieland, here you obviously make the rules (and nothing gets done, I bet) this might be just fine.
But I think that Congress can handle a little debate on several issues in the same general time frame.
Are you saying that the Dems are in agreement on illegal immigration? You didn't say so, you just said "immigration" so I am not sure what you mean. Because the last I heard, a huge number of Demds were so against the amnesty that their so-called "representatives" were trying to push through Congress, to appease the neorads, that a need was seen to step back from the over-reaching "comprehensive" bill and take a better look at each and every aspect of immigration reform.
What American DOES stand for is equality, and the efforts of the Dems to turn Americans against each other, on the basis of skin color or financial status, is the single most cold-blooded and calculatedly DIVISIVE thing I have ever seen. You don't seem to mind the Dems playing the race card at every opportunity, or to see the Libs frantically trying to create and then shore up prejudices based on income. That kind of diviseness seems just fine to you.
What makes gay marriage and flag burning "issues of our time" is simply that there were times when they would both be automatically considered wrong they didn't even have to be discussed. The Liberal attitude that there are no boundaries, that it is wrong to "judge" anything, have made it necessary to legislate what was once simply common sense or decency.
Like it or not, a huge number of Americans resent having their cultural and religious traditions. of great importance to them, simply hijacked by a bunch of uber-Liberals and distorted to mean something entirely different. This DOES matter to a lot of people. Just because it doesn't matter to YOU doesn't mean much. To millions and millions of Americans, while gay people can do whatever they want and should even be able to have some legal protections for their relationships, they simply do not need to be able to hijack the word "marriage" and declare it to mean something it has never meant in the entire history of civilization, secular or religious.
In fact, if the Libs would just drop the strident demand to be able to Invade and Occupy the word "marriage" and simply agree that homosexual unions do not fit the traditional definition of marriage over the millenia and decide on another term to describe them, this "division" would disappear. The "division" is about the use of a culturally and religiously significant term for something it clearly does not define---and it is a demand of the radical Left. So quit DIVIDING us all, Lefties, and find a good word for your homosexual unions. Next, you'll be wanting to claim the word "heterosexual" to define gay relationships, because you like the way THAT sounds.
And to millions and millions of Americans, the Left obsession with "Hate Crimes" has come home to roost in the flag burning issue. Remember, suddenly it was a crime if it was motivated by hatred? (As opposed to all the Love Crimes that existed previoulsy.) Personally, I think we could just as easily include flag burning in the list of Liberally-beloved "Hate Crimes". What could be more hateful or personally insulting or demeaning to a person than to see a symbol of his country desecrated? If he loves and respects his country, that is.
So, based on the Liberal theory that a man is ever so much deader if he was called a name before being killed, and that each person gets to define what, exactly, strikes him as "hateful" about an insult or ephitet, we can simply call flag burning a Hate Crime if it OFFENDS anyone, crank up the penalty to the increased penalty for doing anything out of bad feelings, and call it done.
Please emphasize on yur blog, that the medias response to todays ruling by the supreme court is a defeat for Bush, but this is a defeat for America!!!!!!
This is probably going to double-post, but it's been a couple hours since I first posted it and got the dreaded "Server Error". You guys getting any closer to resolving that?
The Democrats problem is they are on the wrong side of these issues and they don't want to talk about them or even explain what their position is.
And I think more and more people are beginning to realize this.
Noel Sheppard had a great piece last week at The American Thinker about how the Democrats bubble is psssssssssssssss bursting. I'm beginning to feel better about our prospects this November. As you allude to, Matt, the biggest problem facing the Dems is that they desperately want to nationalize the election, but, in order to do so, they have to say what they stand for and what their real vision is for this country. They can't do that because that will scare the @#!%&$* out of the majority of Independents. Talk about between Iraq and a hard place. Ya gotta love it.
Retired Spook,
I loved your line "between Iraq and a hard place".
You bet they are! The Donks continue their smear
campaign against the Bush Administration, in their
obvious hatred of President Bush, and their whinning, as they have no "ideas for the good of the country"...but continue they do. I wonder in all their glee at the ruling today, if they would
like these terrorist combatents, freed in their own area? Like Pelosi...think she would like these killers in her sacred/liberal area..S.F.?
Maybe she would hire "more illegals for her winery
say....from Iraq"? As an aside, I would like to
know what happened to that issue about Pelosi skirting the laws, and hiring illegals at the winery, and her restaurants. Anyone have anything
on this?
Not to mention that on Rasmussen Reports, Bush is back at 43% approval and climbing. Looks like the Repubs are coming back into the fold (Bush approval is up significantly among GOP'ers). Up until a couple of weeks ago I was dreading November. Right now (and much could admittedly change from now until then) it certainly appears like we are going to smoke the 'Rats...
"Not to mention that on Rasmussen Reports, Bush is back at 43% approval and climbing. Looks like the Repubs are coming back into the fold (Bush approval is up significantly among GOP'ers). Up until a couple of weeks ago I was dreading November. Right now (and much could admittedly change from now until then) it certainly appears like we are going to smoke the 'Rats..."
Now you look to the polls for confirmation. very convenient.... and typical.
Gay marriage and flag burning are the "issues" of our time? Wow. You are clueless. War, terrorism, social security, poverty, health care? Those aren't the real issues?
Gay marriage and flag burning are, simply, divisive issues. They are non-issues in every respect, other than that they divide people for the electoral gain of Republicans.
And immigration was thrown off the table by divided Republicans, not Democrats.
weeniehead, are you proposing that Congress just sit around in between bills that YOU find important enough for them? Is there some weeniehead rule that Congress is only allowed to tackle one thing at a time? In weenieland, here you obviously make the rules (and nothing gets done, I bet) this might be just fine.
But I think that Congress can handle a little debate on several issues in the same general time frame.
Are you saying that the Dems are in agreement on illegal immigration? You didn't say so, you just said "immigration" so I am not sure what you mean. Because the last I heard, a huge number of Demds were so against the amnesty that their so-called "representatives" were trying to push through Congress, to appease the neorads, that a need was seen to step back from the over-reaching "comprehensive" bill and take a better look at each and every aspect of immigration reform.
What American DOES stand for is equality, and the efforts of the Dems to turn Americans against each other, on the basis of skin color or financial status, is the single most cold-blooded and calculatedly DIVISIVE thing I have ever seen. You don't seem to mind the Dems playing the race card at every opportunity, or to see the Libs frantically trying to create and then shore up prejudices based on income. That kind of diviseness seems just fine to you.
What makes gay marriage and flag burning "issues of our time" is simply that there were times when they would both be automatically considered wrong they didn't even have to be discussed. The Liberal attitude that there are no boundaries, that it is wrong to "judge" anything, have made it necessary to legislate what was once simply common sense or decency.
Like it or not, a huge number of Americans resent having their cultural and religious traditions. of great importance to them, simply hijacked by a bunch of uber-Liberals and distorted to mean something entirely different. This DOES matter to a lot of people. Just because it doesn't matter to YOU doesn't mean much. To millions and millions of Americans, while gay people can do whatever they want and should even be able to have some legal protections for their relationships, they simply do not need to be able to hijack the word "marriage" and declare it to mean something it has never meant in the entire history of civilization, secular or religious.
In fact, if the Libs would just drop the strident demand to be able to Invade and Occupy the word "marriage" and simply agree that homosexual unions do not fit the traditional definition of marriage over the millenia and decide on another term to describe them, this "division" would disappear. The "division" is about the use of a culturally and religiously significant term for something it clearly does not define---and it is a demand of the radical Left. So quit DIVIDING us all, Lefties, and find a good word for your homosexual unions. Next, you'll be wanting to claim the word "heterosexual" to define gay relationships, because you like the way THAT sounds.
And to millions and millions of Americans, the Left obsession with "Hate Crimes" has come home to roost in the flag burning issue. Remember, suddenly it was a crime if it was motivated by hatred? (As opposed to all the Love Crimes that existed previoulsy.) Personally, I think we could just as easily include flag burning in the list of Liberally-beloved "Hate Crimes". What could be more hateful or personally insulting or demeaning to a person than to see a symbol of his country desecrated? If he loves and respects his country, that is.
So, based on the Liberal theory that a man is ever so much deader if he was called a name before being killed, and that each person gets to define what, exactly, strikes him as "hateful" about an insult or ephitet, we can simply call flag burning a Hate Crime if it OFFENDS anyone, crank up the penalty to the increased penalty for doing anything out of bad feelings, and call it done.
You waste so much time writing long posts with no content. You want to refute me, then refute what I say instead of pulling sh*t out of your head.
Gay marriage will not infringe on your rights, and, as you said, "What American DOES stand for is equality."
Flag burning happens once every 5 years or so by a deluded teenager, having no effect on the country whatsoever, yet every election years the GOP spends a week or two debating it for re-election sound bites.
I know people disagree on whether there should be a constituional amendment banning either one of those things. Fine, people disagree (please don't argue, I'm conceding that we disagree on those issues). The point is simple: they are of very, very, very little consequence. And I think are cynical politial ploys to divide people, and rally the base.
They are non issues. I'm afraid the entire agenda of the GOP, at least the one sold to the American people, is all about these kinds of divisive distractions. Jon over at GOP Bloggers seems to agree.
And I make no comment on immigration, other than that there are differences of opinion on both sides of the isle. Again, don't shove things I didn't say down my throat.
BTW, you might consider not reverting to name calling. People will take you more seriously.
Morphine,
WTF are you on about? I make a post about W's numbers rising (do you feel they are not?) and you throw a hissy fit? Grab a life (and a brain cuz your current gray matter is all screwed up).
You are right there, Matt. If it weren't "divisive" it would not be an issue at all; any political difference is divisive. As if Mad Howard himself, Kerry and Kennedy and Durbin are not "divisive". Hilarious! This sort of claptrap is simply the sign of a weak mind. In this case, it is the collective mind, collectively weak, of the Prime Collective... The Democratic Party.
megapotamus,
It was Bush who ran on being "a uniter, not a divider."
Hah!
It was Bush who ran on being "a uniter, not a divider."
....and he has evolved into the decider. LOL