IggyD Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Beginning this week, Senate leaders are planning votes on emotional issues dear to social conservatives, many of whom are upset with President Bush and GOP lawmakers about immigration and other matters. Are these really Hot-button issues or are they only to devert the public attention away from real matters that have not been addressed in 6 years of control by the Congress and the Administration? Of course I feel they are only a diversion for real problems that are being ignored. Like the deficit, ending this war and bring home our boys, raising minimum wages, election reform, are only a few of my concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 It's a diversion, sure, but it's all about the '06 elections. Almost exactly 6 months away, so it's time to manufacture some matters of dire importance like flag burming and gay marriage. And I would love to say that it won't work and the American voters will see that this is just distraction from real election issue, but we saw first hand in '04 how many people came out of the woodwork to vote to "save the sanctity of marriage." :headshake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 both votes are a complete waste of time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 This one pisses me off. STAY THE **** OUT OF OUR LIVES, GOVERNMENT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 10:25 AM) This one pisses me off. STAY THE **** OUT OF OUR LIVES, GOVERNMENT. Exactly. And these are Republicans proposing the votes too. The ones who supposedly like small government. Yet another sign that there are two distinct GOP animals now - those who really want small government, and those who want to force their moral choices down our collective throats. The latter are the ones that make the GOP look terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 04:00 PM) Exactly. And these are Republicans proposing the votes too. The ones who supposedly like small government. Yet another sign that there are two distinct GOP animals now - those who really want small government, and those who want to force their moral choices down our collective throats. The latter are the ones that make the GOP look terrible. I know it's Republicans that are proposing this. And they are flat out wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 11:05 AM) I know it's Republicans that are proposing this. And they are flat out wrong. Then we agree on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 09:05 AM) I know it's Republicans that are proposing this. And they are flat out wrong. When you can bring together Kap, Northside, Iggy, and Balta all on the same side...wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 11:22 AM) When you can bring together Kap, Northside, Iggy, and Balta all on the same side...wow. \ Count me in too. At best, from a purely constitutional point of view, this is an issue for the states to decide. At worst this is completely none of any governments business. I would personally say that because governments are already in the business of marriage by governing things such as wedding licenses, divorces etc, that it is definately a state's issue. Personally, as a biblethumping conservative, I still see judge not lest yee be judged in the bible. In other words no matter what I think about it, it is none of my business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 The contrast with Canada right now is great. In Canada during the election Conservatives pledged early on to hold a vote to re-examine the issue of same-sex marriage to appease the social conservatives. So they won the election, and last friday the Prime Minister said there would be a vote. Of course the difference being that they want to bring as little attention to it as possible because it scares voters away from the Conservatives, and doesn't help them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balance Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 I'm glad to see that we're all in agreement on this one. And I have a lot of respect for those right-leaning posters here who are all calling this political move for what it is- a cheap ploy that has no business distracting Congress from the real issues at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeFroman Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Hmmm... I stole this from Thomas Friedman... but here it is: I wonder how a Congressional vote would go on this proposed amendment: All burning of the American Flag shall be illegal as it is a sign of great defiance against our traditional American values and history. Furthermore, the displaying of the Confederate Flag shall also be banned, as it is a symbol the past defiance against our traditional American values and history. I bet it would fail 0-100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 Thank God for my Senators who are going to vote Hell No on the Federal Discrimination Amendment. To be honest, I doubt that amendment will even get 50 votes in the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 07:34 PM) Thank God for my Senators who are going to vote Hell No on the Federal Discrimination Amendment. To be honest, I doubt that amendment will even get 50 votes in the Senate. 52 is what the latest pollwatchers are guessing - not nearly enough to pass but a couple more than two years ago. But then again, I can understand there being more support now, since Tony Snow has now explained to us how this is a "civil rights" measure. And by "civil rights" measure, he apparently means using the Constitution to discriminate against a minority group and permanently legislate away their right to be treated as equals in society. I have a dream stuff if ever I saw it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I will admit that all this bulls*** is just to bring back the "conservative base"... but hello, the conservatives DO NOT GIVE A s*** about this crap. You want to win the election? - SEAL the border, and screw that amnesty s***. One thing at a time. Make sure that the laws mean something. - STOP spending money like drunken sailors - ACTUALLY stand for something re: Iraq. Quit being pussies and get that s*** done and get back home. Do that, and you'll have even more of a majority then you do now. But as it is, they are pandering to every bulls*** special interest f***wad out there. Do not do the above, and sell your soul to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 10:01 PM) I will admit that all this bulls*** is just to bring back the "conservative base"... but hello, the conservatives DO NOT GIVE A s*** about this crap. You want to win the election? - SEAL the border, and screw that amnesty s***. One thing at a time. Make sure that the laws mean something. - STOP spending money like drunken sailors - ACTUALLY stand for something re: Iraq. Quit being pussies and get that s*** done and get back home. Do that, and you'll have even more of a majority then you do now. But as it is, they are pandering to every bulls*** special interest f***wad out there. Do not do the above, and sell your soul to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!! Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi?!?! God what a gut wrenching thought!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 10:11 AM) both votes are a complete waste of time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 This country has bigger fish to fry than an amendment that has no chance in the Senate. This is really f***ing stupid if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 08:26 PM) This country has bigger fish to fry than an amendment that has no chance in the Senate. This is really f***ing stupid if you ask me. It's the perfect metaphor for the current leadership in the executive and legislative branches. Stupid, pointless photo ops to distract the voters, instead of anything with substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Yep. I agree with you guys. They're just blowing smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 12:01 AM) It's the perfect metaphor for the current leadership in the executive and legislative branches. Stupid, pointless photo ops to distract the voters, instead of anything with substance. Immigration legislation? Not everything they do is a photo-op. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I don't know about anyone else but I'm glad I can finally get some sleep. I have been so worried about people burning flags and gays marrying each other. It's about time this administration tackles the issues that affect us all so deeply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 05:49 PM) I don't know about anyone else but I'm glad I can finally get some sleep. I have been so worried about people burning flags and gays marrying each other. It's about time this administration tackles the issues that affect us all so deeply. And then you all wonder why I say ya'll are biased against the President. The ADMINISTRATION is not tackling this, Congress is. But they're all molded from the same tattered cloth, I will agree that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 11:36 AM) And then you all wonder why I say ya'll are biased against the President. The ADMINISTRATION is not tackling this, Congress is. But they're all molded from the same tattered cloth, I will agree that much. So giving speeches on the issue that get broadcast on CNN because it's the president, and using the bully pulpit on this issue, is not considered an effort at tackling it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Nah. This is a Congressional move, and the president is along for the ride. It's STUPID, but that's neither here nor there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts