Yay demonization.
The irony of being Dick Cheney
- Thread starter John Reynolds
- Start date
Oh no, referring to "not liking darkies" isn't calling anybody racist.
RussSchultz said:
That was an attempt at a little dark, tongue-in-cheek, humor.
Here's an example of the Southern Strategy at work Russ. In 2000 during the Presidential Campaign, Bush's campaign managers were afraid they were losing a hold on the "Southern White Male" vote. According to some polls, it appeared they were beginning to break for Gore. This led Bush to schedule a visit to Bob Jones University. For anyone that knows BJU's history, this school prohibits interracial dating among its students. The reason why they scheduled this was because this was seen as a move to shore up "the base," that would not be seen too badly in a political light. Bush got a lot of flack for the visit in some circles, but it really didn't make the national headlines. It turns out afterward that his campaign was misreading the polls, and didn't have to make the visit after all.
But it's a window into the political strategies pursued by the Republican Party leadership. If you feel your base slipping, rely on these "red meat" issues to shore it up.
Now why did this come up in this thread? The reason is because I feel that the Republicans are repeating history with the current cultural controversy over gay americans receiving equal rights to their heterosexual counterparts. The Republican Party will run on this issue, punch it into the ground, if they can. We've already seen the rumbling of the storm on the horizon wrt this aspect of politicking, and it frankly disgusts me.
I just love how since Bush's opposition to gay marriage is based on his Christian beliefs that it's viewed as a principled stand instead of what it is: bigotry.
John Reynolds said:
Well I am opposed to gay marriage, but I am for civil unions
...The way I see it is that if it is your religous beleif that is dictating your stand you have no right to force it on others, it can be your opinion but not your policy...
In any case iI realize this opens a huge can of worms because what do you base morals on ? The common philisophical idea is that if you get a large group together and they would vote on how things should be in society and then be placed into a random socio/economic class the idea is that then people would make society fair, of course we cannot do this b/c who is going to volunteer
...Why do right-wing Christians, (because not all Christians agree), get to dictate what "Marriage" is? If "marriage" is only a Christian tradition, then how come straight Athiest, Agnostic, Hindu couples, etc, can call themselves "married"? Marriage has existed independent of right-wing Christianity for millenia, so how did they all of a sudden register this as a trademark? This "civil unions" talk is a load of crap, IMO. If my girlfriend and I decided to get married, I would be outraged if a bunch of right-wing fundamentalists told us we couldn't call ourselves "married" because heterosexual Christianity has a monopoly on the term. And if a gay or lesbian couple wanted to do the same, I can't imagine them feeling any different.
It's because of the pedestal of assumed moral superiority that most fundies put themselves on, plain and simple.
And voila, Bush rolls out the "red meat" to shore up the base, after his abysmal performance on Meet the Press, and his falling approval ratings over the past month or so.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4235453/
So typical. When you're getting battered over things that matter, switch the topic of conversation to your divisive bread and butter.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4235453/
So typical. When you're getting battered over things that matter, switch the topic of conversation to your divisive bread and butter.
Silent_One
Newcomer
In my book it's a little different when you've been tortured for years then being raised a bigot.
Sxotty said:Well I am opposed to gay marriage, but I am for civil unions
Why? Keep in mind, we're not trying to get the government to enforce Religious Gay Marriage. Religions can do whatever they please. We're trying to get the government to enforce Civil Gay Marriage.
Is that distinction in your thought processes when you make that statement?
Sxotty said:
Most definitely agreed.
Sxotty said:
In the legal sense, our "morality" is the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
See, this is what happens when you let the niggers vote. The next thing you know the god damn faggots want to marry each other.
P.S. My sincere apologies to anyone such language offends. I'm using it merely to make a point.
P.S. My sincere apologies to anyone such language offends. I'm using it merely to make a point.
Clashman said:
Agreed. In Apartheid Africa, Hindu Marriages were not recognized because it was deemed Christian Marriages were the only relevant ones, due to religious differences. And yet epicstruggle, a Hindu who's parents experienced that very form of bigotry under Apartheid, wants a ban on gay marriages in part because of religious reasons.
The title of this thread is the irony of being dick cheney. Heh. I can just substitute the name and it would apply perfectly to certain individuals.
John Reynolds said:
Nothing offensive about it John. That has long been one of my points. Here's a quote from a judge who ruled against interracial marriage in Virginia, just before the landmark Loving vs Virginia case, which struck down the anti-miscegenation (anti-interracial marriage) laws as unconstitutional.
Virginia Judge said:
http://www.marriageequality.org/facts.php?page=historical_look
This is history repeating itself.
Sound familiar anyone?
Natoma said:Here's a good read as well, dealing with this very issue.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4212900/
Coincidence? Color me skeptical.
Here's a decent editorial about it as well.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040123-103002-1312r
Natoma, please. Imposing the worst possible motive upon your opponents is a great way to make sure a debate gets poisoned quickly and stays that way. I for one am also opposed to gay marriage - I don't want to force such an antiquated, soul-destroying and oppressive institution on gays.
What shocks me is that heterosexual marriage (unfortunately) survived the 70's and 80's, and now gays are being sucked into that living-death trap. It's really quite depressing, but if that's what they want for whatever ungodly reason they should have the option of doing so.
What shocks me is that heterosexual marriage (unfortunately) survived the 70's and 80's, and now gays are being sucked into that living-death trap. It's really quite depressing, but if that's what they want for whatever ungodly reason they should have the option of doing so.
Similar threads
