Constitution Party Launches New Website

Email ^ | February 19, 2004 | Alison Potter

[jgrubbs]

A question that you never answered on that thread, what part of Bush's many statements saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman don't you understand.

Yes, Bush said that, I never said he didn't say that. All I said was that Bush supports "civil unions", and has supported gay rights in his administration:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1080555/posts?page=19#19

At the federal level a marriage amendment is unwise; what is needed is the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (S. 2082), which was introduced last week and co-sponsored by Senator Zell Miller.

[The_Eaglet]

All I said was that Bush supports "civil unions", and has supported gay rights in his administration:

Are you referring to the federal government giving special benefits for partners of homosexual or non-married employees?

[carenot]

Please remember to vote in November!

I have never missed a vote. I want them to know I am there. :)

[Consort]

That method of rationalizing is pretty ineffective anymore.

It's very effective unless you're gullible. It worked for Nader against Gore.

2000 was the last "lessor of two evils" votes for many of us.

Always vote for the lesser evil. And who are the "many of us"?

[Dane]

Your reply is filled with innuendo. Many of those positions have nothing to do with gay rights, but other policy issues such as arms control.

BTW, if you were truly honest you would also point your vitriol towards Ronald Reagan who also appointed homosexuals in positions that had nothing to do with social policy.

Why the silence about Ronald Reagan?

[jgrubbs]

yes, that is what I am referring to.

[steve50]

And who are the "many of us"?

Oh, the 14% or so here that intend to vote for other candidates or stay home might be a few of them.

[sfRummygirl]

bump

[sfRummygirl]

oopps on the tagline...

[Dane]

Oh, the 14% or so here that intend to vote for other candidates or stay home might be a few of them.

Actually it is more like 10% and even some of that 10% could be part of the Moby/Kerry group.

You are still outnumbered by a margin of 8 to 1.

[jgrubbs]

Why the silence about Ronald Reagan?

We all have our faults, Me, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, even Michael Peroutka. Overall I am disappointed with Bush, I posted a portion of an article about one of his many positions that should be considered a slap in the face to conservative values and you have taken major offense.

The silence about Ronald Reagan is because I was only five years old when he was first elected.

[sfRummygirl]

anti-Catholic bigots? What happened?

[Consort]

I am finished with this voting for someone who might not win from a third party is voting for the dems crap.

It's true, as Nader showed against Gore. The Constitution Party is the Perot of 2004.

I will simply vote my conscience. If I feel ok with the vote in my heart, then to heck with what anyone else here or any place thinks.

Don't let your conscience, your heart, your feelings, your personal views, your morals, your principles, your integrity, or whatever....get in the way of your God-given common sense.

[Dane]

The silence about Ronald Reagan is because I was only five years old when he was first elected

So for the record if you knew about Reagan hiring homosexuals, you would not vote for him, correct.

Thus, IMO, giving a defacto vote for Carter or Mondale.

[steve50]

Moby, LOL. Pretty lame excuse to hide the fact that a growing percentage of republicans are fed up with the neocon nonsense coming out of the WH the last 3 years. Bush got in by a nose last time around, these are votes he can't afford to lose and can no longer take for granted.

[Consort]

Oh, the 14% or so here that intend to vote for other candidates or stay home might be a few of them.

For the misguided, pseudo-maverick, disgruntled, disenchanted, gullible 14%, what is the difference between voting for other candidates and staying home?

[Dane]

Moby, LOL. Pretty lame excuse to hide the fact that a growing percentage of republicans are fed up with the neocon nonsense coming out of the WH the last 3 years

Really? FR always had it's share of very loud yet small contingent of malcontnets. Buchanan in 2000, the Constitutionl Party in 2004.

Still doesn't negate the fact that they are outnumbered 8 to 1 on a very right wing forum.

[steve50]

The difference on the Constitution and Libertarian Party side of the ledger is to send a message that this new republican party is no longer acceptable. If the neocons think they can win without that faction, let them go for it instead of whining.

[RetiredArmy]

Let the butthole say what he wants. I am no liberal and I certainly am not holdling to an @$$hole such as he/she/whatever it is.

[jgrubbs]

So for the record if you knew about Reagan hiring homosexuals, you would not vote for him, correct.

If that was the only issue, I would probably still vote for Reagan, because from what I know he was the most conservative Presidents in my lifetime. If you compared Reagan to Bush you would see a big difference. If the only thing I disagreed with Bush was that he hired a few homosexuals, I would vote for him, but that is not the case. Bush has proven himself to be a moderate and not a conservative on many issues.

Even many who are voting for him admit that it's over the single issue of the "War on Terror", or because they don't want a Democrat to win the election.