Posted on 11/22/2005 12:28:26 PM PST by Icelander
This is facetious, right? Or, are you actually claiming that by electing Bush we have nullified this cabal of politicians? Have you been watching the news lately? They sure seem to be running Congress when put up against the neutered Republicans.
You guys having fun talking to each other?
Ah. The old parade of imaginary horribles with a sense of humor thrown into the process.
In 2016 I'm voting
Might want to wear gloves when voting. Some of the prior voters were undoubtedly Democrat and their platform suggests they engaged in hand activities that are not sanitary.
Let's see about a parade of "horribles" (stated as if such a parade is not already ongoing):
1) Elimination of Dept. of Education to expansion of its budget and agenda.
2) Respect for U.S. Boders to defeatism in the face of illegal immigration.
3) Constant mention of the depravity of abortion (and specific references to it being murder) to barely enough votes to pass parental notification in some states.
4) Sodomy illegal to sodomy ratified by support of domestic partner laws and homosexual adoptions.
5) No smoking near a gas pump to no smoking within 25 ft of the entrance of any public building.
The slope is not always slippery, but there IS a slope, and we are spending much more time sliding down it than working our way back up.
A few years ago the Hawaiian supreme court used that very argument based on their own state ERA to support gay marriage.
It took an act by the Hawaiian legislature to overturn that decision, but it turns out it is too late as we currently see what is going on in Vermont, Massachusetts, etc.
She may seem silly to you, but she was prescient.
I give up, you obviously are not getting my point. Get use to referring to Madam President after 2008 and I don't mean Condi.
I used to be sucked into this faulty thinking myself. I even donated to the Constitution Party. I wish I had my money back. They're flawed humans just like the Republican party. I was offended when Philips ran ads against Bush, not Gore or Kerry.
Philips may not like Bush but the RATS are much worse and he didn't bother talking about the evil of the RATS. Philips is only trying to keep a money flow going. He's not serious about fixing anything. I'll keep my fight in the Republican party, thank you.
I can't stand that flip-floppin' rino McCain. And Rudy is pro-death. I will vote for whomever Tancredo embarrasses into strong stances against open borders and illegal migrants or for Tom himself if he runs. I'm so done with this weak kneed policy on both sides of the platform that I could just spit.
Everyone in the U.S. has the right to habeous corpus no matter how despicable. Only some people have the privilege to drive because only some people have passed their driving test, payed their fees, etc.
If the ERA had passed then women would have all rights that men had, and vice-versa. This would have led inexorably to all men and women having the opportunity to apply for all privileges as well. It would only be a matter of passing tests, paying fees, etc. for women to get all the privileges that men enjoyed.
These privileges would have included being available for Selective Service and any potential military draft. It would also have meant employers having to bend over backwards to allow pregnant women to keep jobs even if those jobs endangered their fetuses.
This of course is all besides the point, but to come to the point. Here is the main text of the ERA:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
What the liberals supposedly meant by this was to allow women to be firefighters (even though they couldn't haul 250lbs of dead weight), fight in combat, get special consideration on their way to becoming CEO, etc.
However, since we now know that the Constitution is a "living" document we know that the following rationalization (ala Kennedy, Souter, etc.) would most certainly have followed if the ERA had every become law:
1. A man wants to marry a man
2. The only difference between this and a traditional marriage is that one of the participants is a man
3. To deny them the right (or privilege) to marry would be to do so based entirely on the sex of one of the participants.
4. This is a violation of the ERA. Thus gay marriage is AOK in the USA
Phyllis was right and it was a very good thing that the ERA didn't get ratified for more reasons than women in combat, more affirmative action nonsense, etc.
Unfortunately the liberals found other ways to push their agenda and a lot of pubbies are either supporting them or at least not getting in their way much at all.
Your point was not difficult to understand. I personally choose not to vote for someone just because others might. I don't vote for an individual due to electability, based on popularity or group-think. But I appreciate your opinion.
I well remember the "slippery slope" theory, it has been extended to people marrying more than one partner, marrying their pets etc.
I don't totally discount that thinking because I am old enough to remember when divorce was socially looked down upon. It was brought up in Reagan's first campaign for the Presidency. Now with the divorce rate at more than 50% it's just an accepted fact of life.
The birth control pill was controversial at one time too and abortion was not spoken of. Everything changes in society and not always for the better.
Okay, so you would vote for someone totally simpatico with your beliefs with no chance of being elected before voting for someone with some but not all your beliefs that had an excellent chance of being elected.....have I got that right?
So I am supposed to vote for whatever Republican goes up against Hildebeest because I'm supposed to believe that the end times will come if she is elected.
Her evil husband was president for eight years and we all survived. Even if she were to get elected and re-elected, the nation would still survive.
She might even have to throw in some conservative programs to get re-elected.
We might even get gridlock if the house and/or senate stays Republican.
And if the current administration is spending money like Democrats and looking the other way on massive violation of the law, then I might prefer gridlock and having a few conservative bones thrown my way by Hildebeest rather than Bush merely nodding to the right.
Please see my response to MikeInIraq.
Because the ERA was so vague it could be interpreted in many more ways that was "intended" (or maybe many more ways AS intended!)
I know you didn't ask me but here it is anyway.
I will vote for any Republican before I would vote for Hillary and that includes McCain, whom I deeply dislike.
I cannot think of one single democrat I could vote for with the possible exception of Zell Miller and as far as I know he's not running for anything.
Okay, and what will our grand coalition be formed of? A bunch of RINO's that what. I prefer to stand on principle and demand that the people who are elected do the same. If not, then we are all a bunch of whores, plain and simple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.