It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is Bush Doing? Now He's Anti-Republican Platform, Pro Gay Rights?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I think - and believe - that one of the links originally posted needs to be reaffirmed.

Why I believe in our president
gadflyer.com...




posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Losonczy
You can still feel that the church part is not accepting of gays and they shouldn't be able to "marry" in your church, while supporting that committed gay couples ought to have certain legal/civil rights as citizens.


Then admit as much in one of the many, MANY opportunities you had on a national stage, so that gay people don't as though you are turning the nation against them in a ploy to drum up support.

Bush had the opportunity many times over, and he didn't. The ONLY reason he is bringing this up now is to try and cut his losses and get some of those gay voters that supported him in '00 to support him again in '04. As I said before, TOO LATE.

The reason he didn't bring this up during the RNC, or during the debates, is because quite a few of the people that won't gay marriage outlawed -- guess what? They don't want civil unions either. They'd outlaw gays as a people if they could. Saying that he supported civil unions, on a national stage when everyone was watching, would have detracted from what he was trying to accomplish, and he was trying to get votes.

His stance on civil unions, which he apparently just conveniently remembered one week before election day, is nothing but a ploy to try and win back some of those voters he systematically turned away over the past year. It's not going to work. You have to be quite the intelligent, informed person to be gay and support the Republican party to begin with, and a cheap tactic like this simply isn't going to work. You've lost the majority of the 1,000,000+ gays and lesbians that supported you in 2000 Bush, it's too late to try and win them back.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   
PS - How many votes did Bush win Florida by in 2000 again? Some miniscule number, like 500'ish right?

50,000 gay and lesbian voters from Florida supported Bush in the 2000 election. If he had done and said the things back then, that he has over this past year in regards to gay people, he wouldn't have won Florida, and he wouldn't even be president.

Apparently he forgot about that whole 'every vote counts thing' from 2000. That's why he's saying what he is right now.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Losonczy

Originally posted by RANT


"President Bush said in an interview this past weekend that he disagreed with the Republican Party platform opposing civil unions of same-sex couples and that the matter should be left up to the states."



I think there is a big difference between "civil unions/legal rights" and the "sanctity of marriage issue". Although many Republicans are Christian in orientation and may feel that God frowns on gay "marriage", I think that the Republican platform has always been one of individual rights and the government, certainly at the federal level, keeping its nose out of an individual's decisions.


Huh? I know you're on the gay right's tip, and I'll find you the Republican platform in two shakes, but to start you think the Republicans at the federal level want to keep their nose out of individual decisions? Not the last four years!

You're aware what was so unpredented about the "conservative" Supreme courts intervention in Florida was it overrode state law allowing for recounts. You're aware the Republican push for SCOTUS has been to override an individuals reproductive rights at the federal level. You're aware dissenting Republicans furious about the new authoritarian pro-patriot act cabal in power now are currently joining the "no longer liberal" ACLU to stop Republican Federal Authoritarianism. Making me fund "faith based initiatives" promotes individual decisions? And how does amending the Constitution for anything (even to "protect" marriage) not fly in the face of everything you just said?

Grrr. I'm too mad to Google. Let's look at that RNC platform. I know the one from Texas is freaking scary. Who's got a link handy?



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Well poo. I was just trying to play devil's advocate. I pretty much agree that he's flip-flopping. I just don't necessarily agree that his flip-flopping is against the "Republican Agenda". It does definitely appear to be against the current Republican agenda...i just still have some respect for the Republican Agenda of years ago...of Fiscal conservatism and individual rights.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Losonczy
Well poo. I was just trying to play devil's advocate. I pretty much agree that he's flip-flopping. I just don't necessarily agree that his flip-flopping is against the "Republican Agenda". It does definitely appear to be against the current Republican agenda...i just still have some respect for the Republican Agenda of years ago...of Fiscal conservatism and individual rights.


Understood. It's just that the Party of Reagan is dead. Or rather called Libertarian now.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Rant, I agree with you. My last post explains my point. I was referring to the old Republican Platform. Every now and again I like to put my devil's advocate hat on. That said, I'm an Independent homosexual who would never vote for Bush for ANY reason. I just thought for once he was actually being a little more shrewd in his flip-flopping. And I was trying to stand up for the George Will type Republicans of old who I respect because I believe in some degree of a multi-party system and I try to keep an open mind. My mind is closed to George.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Understood. It's just that the Party of Reagan is dead. Or rather called Libertarian now.


If you are for personal freedom it is.

When did the Republicans become the Gestapo? Whould you believe when I voted last week, if they wasnt a Libertarian candidate I voted Democrat because at the local level anyhow they are for MORE personal freedom than the Republicans?



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Whould you believe when I voted last week, if they wasnt a Libertarian candidate I voted Democrat because at the local level anyhow they are for MORE personal freedom than the Republicans?


Same here - if there isn't a viable LP candidate, I vote democrat. Civil liberties is what it all comes down to when I vote.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join