Democrats - you got your MORAL VICTORY! Time to celebrate!

[fossten]

Republicans win California seat

The Republicans held onto a seat in one of their strongholds, California, after a special election to replace a jailed Republican congressman.
Brian Bilbray narrowly defeated his Democrat rival Francine Busby to take the House of Representatives seat.

The election has been closely watched as an indication of voter sentiment ahead of the key mid-terms in November.

The Democrats are hoping to win control of the House of Representatives from the Republicans.

The special election was called after congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham resigned last year after admitting taking bribes.

He was jailed for eight years in March.

Mr Bilbray will serve out the remainder of Cunningham's term and is set to face Ms Busby again in November's mid-terms.

The Republicans and Democrats spent millions of dollars to campaign for the California election, which was seen as a key test of which party will win control of the House of Representatives.

Mr Bilbray put immigration at the centre of his campaign, while Ms Busby highlighted perceived public dissatisfaction with the Bush administration.

Several states held primaries on Tuesday to select candidates for the November elections.

In California, Phil Angelides narrowly beat Steve Westly to be the Democrat candidate to face incumbent Arnold Schwarzenegger in the election for state governor.


*******************************************************

It's funny, I thought we were supposed to lose that seat. What happened? I can't wait to hear the spin from the left. Oh, by the way, the TODAY Show ignored the story. What do you want to bet if Busby had won, they would have been ALL OVER IT?

 

[MonsterMark]

The HardBall loud mouth Chris Matthews was all over it last night. CNN was also drooling.

It was sick to watch. They basically said that this election would signal the end of the Bush administration. Bush won the district in '04 with 54%.

If Francine would have won, it would have been Front Page in every newspaper in the Country. They so desperately want to show momentum to defeat Bush (got news for you..the Prez is not running again for anything... morons) that their news reporting will be off the bias scale this year.

They were talking out of their asses that this is a referendum on Afganistan, Iraq, the economy, gay rights, immigration, you name it. If the Repub lost, Dems would be proven the winners on all these issues, so they think.

Just sick, sick sick.

Man, I want the Repubs to gain seats so bad this year just to watch the faces of all these morons on TV. It would be great entertainment.

 

[wayfarers43]

Only proves a couple things

This only proves a couple of things:

1. "The media " is a business. There is no liberal or conservative "conspiracy." They have been accused of both conservative bias and liberal bias, sometimes at the same time. Their function, however, is to make MONEY, and that is through ratings, ratings affect advertisers who want the most viewership of their commercials, which leads to higher ad rates and income for the network or local channel. THAT IS THE MAIN FUNCTION OF NEWS AND MEDIA. Why do you think the major news outlets are owned by billionaires.

Media changed in the 1970's from information (think Walter Cronkite, Eric Sevareid, David Brinkley, Roger Mudd, mostly not the best looking guys or the most dynamic) to today's news/entertainment people (and hence, Stone Phillips, Matt Lauer, Katie Couric (like having a colonoscopy on television was news!), etc.

(Unless you read "alternative" newspapers or check in once in a while with PBS "The News Hour," or international news like BBC, you will not get real news).

2. The media, as a business, thus, holds its finger up to the wind to get the best story that will get people to watch. A Republican winning a traditionally Republican seat in California is not something that would get people to watch.
(However, you may watch Tim Russert this Sunday, he probably will cover this story. The GOP can claim now that they have the momentum, if the Dems won they would do the same).

3. The win in California proves one thing--the American people are able to believe that an issue is an issue if its pounded into their head enough. The GOP is very good at having one or two issues and sticking to them. The Dems, however, talk about lots of issues and don't focus their message enough. Immigration problems, which have gone on for years, are not REALLY the major issue in America. Major problems are the unpaid-for war in Iraq (no one is helping us to pay for it, unlike Persian Gulf 1); over half of Americans without health care because their employers drop it as a benefit; a federal debt at $8.1 trillion now (interest is going to bankrupt this nation in the next 20 years, because we have to pay for the Rx bennies, Medicare, and Social Security).

An example, I heard on the local news that suburban Americans are going to food shelves because they can't afford their house payment, car payment, health care, and credit card balances at the same time, and they can no longer file for bankruptcy.That's a problem !

 

[wayfarers43]

Oh yeah

Did you ever think that the reason the media didn't report the story is to avoid any tainting of the winner by the previous officeholder ? There are strings that control the message the media gives out. CNN and Chris Matthews are on the story because they sell well.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

It's funny, I thought we were supposed to lose that seat. What happened?

It's funny, I thought you dis-associated yourself from the GOP. What happened? Flip-flopping again?

 

[stang99x]

"The media " is a business. There is no liberal or conservative "conspiracy."

:bsflag:

Newsflash! The media (other than Foxnews) is completely biased to the left

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

This only proves a couple of things:

1. "The media " is a business. There is no liberal or conservative "conspiracy." They have been accused of both conservative bias and liberal bias, sometimes at the same time. Their function, however, is to make MONEY, and that is through ratings, ratings affect advertisers who want the most viewership of their commercials, which leads to higher ad rates and income for the network or local channel. THAT IS THE MAIN FUNCTION OF NEWS AND MEDIA. Why do you think the major news outlets are owned by billionaires.

.........!

Ah, a breath of fresh air from someone without blinders on. Welcome!

 

[wayfarers43]

Dude how soon you forget

:bsflag:

Newsflash! The media (other than Foxnews) is completely biased to the left

In 2000, Al Gore got few positive news stories on his campaign--he was made a laughingstock. If he had Mother Teresa and the Pope endorse him the press still would have ignored him Does that mean the media had a liberal bias.... ?

In 2004, even with low poll numbers, the war in Iraq, and all the power in the Administration and Congress creating problems with corruption and overcharging by Halliburton, GW won. Does that mean the media had a liberal bias.... ?

 

[MAC1]

Busby was tape recorded encouraging illegal aliens to vote by explaining they don’t need documents or proof of citizenship. I don’t know what the poll figures were prior to, and after she was caught, but no doubt she must of aggravated quite a few Californians. I wouldn’t be surprised if many switch their vote to Bilbray.

 

[MonsterMark]

Busby was tape recorded encouraging illegal aliens to vote by explaining they don’t need documents or proof of citizenship.

And her back-tracking on the statement was really pathetic.

Here is the problem I have with liberals. They can't get elected being who they are. They have to lie and conceal their true identity in order to elected.

I just wish they would tell the truth.

Busby could have come out and said this:

I am a liberal. In order to get elected, we liberals need to allow as many illegal aliens in the country as possible. We need to let these illegals know it is us liberals that got them a drivers license. It is us liberals that allow them to walk into any medical facility and get care for anybody in their family free of charge. It is us liberals that want to take care of their kids and their kids, kids, whether they work a day in this Country or not.

Same thing on all the voter ID laws. Disenfranchising the elderly and all that b.s. Just come out and say that us liberals need as many people as possible to register multiple times at multiple polling places, and make sure as many people as possible get absentee ballots so they can vote over and over at multiple polling places in order to help us get back into power.

Take off the chameleon suit. Show us your true stripes, libs.

 

[fossten]

Did you ever think that the reason the media didn't report the story is to avoid any tainting of the winner by the previous officeholder ? There are strings that control the message the media gives out. CNN and Chris Matthews are on the story because they sell well.

Baloney.

Dude, you don't want me to start this all up again, but for your information, this topic has been thoroughly and personally obliterated by me and others. Since you are new, and you obviously don't know the first thing about reading past threads before commenting (click on the link at the bottom of my sig and make sure you have your speakers on) , you may observe this link where I trounced that line of thought and finally got bored when all the libs on this site stopped commenting.

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=13320&highlight=main+stream+media

I will personally guarantee you that I can put up a minimum of 5 examples PER DAY of MSM liberal bias for every ONE you can put up of Conservative media bias. I've already done it.

To quote Limbaugh: "DON'T DOUBT ME."

 

[fossten]

Lesson number 1 in media bias for the newbie:

Huh? NY Times Says GOP Victory in California Election Signals 'Problems' for Party
Posted by Clay Waters on June 7, 2006 - 11:05.

A Republican won a special congressional election in Southern California yesterday – so why does the Times make it sound as if the Republicans got beat?

Chief political reporter Adam Nagourney’s online filing Wednesday morning on last night's electoral victory by Republican Brian Bilbray begins:

“A Republican former congressman slipped to victory in a special election here Tuesday, staving off what would have been a highly embarrassing Democratic victory in a solidly Republican district. National Republicans poured in nearly $5 million and dozens of campaign workers to help hold the seat for their party.”

Nagourney tries to inflate Democrat Francine Busby’s loss into some kind of moral victory:

“With 97 percent of the vote counted, Mr. Bilbray had 49 percent of the vote and Ms. Busby 45 percent, raising the prospect that he would fail to win more than half the vote in what should be one of the safest Republican districts in the country.”

Throughout the story, Nagourney tries to turn Bilbray’s win into a pyrrhic victory for the Republican Party, with dark foreboding for the fall elections:

“The intensity of the contest and the closeness of the result underscored the problems Republicans face in trying to keep control of Congress at a time when many Americans have expressed discontent with President Bush, Congress and the Republican Party. In a normal election year, this district would not even be near the playing field: Mr. Bush defeated John Kerry by 10 points here in 2004, and Republicans have a 44 percent to 29 percent edge over Democrats in voter registration.”

Nagourney concluded by once again talking about how “close” the vote was:

“But Democrats said the results showed just how weak Republicans are this year, and noted how much money and effort the party had to put in just to squeak out a victory in a solid Republican district. Beyond the money and campaign workers, the party also had President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Senator John McCain of Arizona [that's a lie - McCain never showed up] and First Lady Laura Bush make taped automatic calls to voters here, urging them to support Mr. Bilbray.

"‘In an election cycle that is about change and a new direction versus the status quo, Francine Busby has shown that a strong change message can make even former members of Congress vulnerable in deeply red Republican districts,’ said Sarah Feinberg, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.”

Columnist Robert Novak provides some perspective:

"For all the hype and the money spent on the race between former Rep. Brian Bilbray (R) and Francine Busby (D), Busby, in her loss to Bilbray, failed to exceed significantly the percentage won here by John Kerry in 2004. This is significant, because although she will have another shot at Bilbray in November, the turnout should have favored her yesterday, since Republicans had no other races to drive their turnout and Democrats had a gubernatorial primary."

 

[wayfarers43]

Sorry, if you are quoting Rush Limbaugh, (don't doubt me) you are quoting an admitted drug addict who conspired to illegally get his supply from numerous pharmacies. And has never admitted to it publicly. A fine example of someone to point out someone else's shortcomings. That dude is messed up.

 

[TheDude]

Sorry, if you are quoting Rush Limbaugh, (don't doubt me) you are quoting an admitted drug addict who conspired to illegally get his supply from numerous pharmacies. And has never admitted to it publicly. A fine example of someone to point out someone else's shortcomings. That dude is messed up.

 

[fossten]

Sorry, if you are quoting Rush Limbaugh, (don't doubt me) you are quoting an admitted [recovered] drug addict who [no proof, allegedly] conspired to illegally get his supply from numerous pharmacies. [I thought it was doctors] And has never admitted to it publicly. [why should he admit to something if it's not true?] A fine example of someone to point out someone else's shortcomings. That dude is messed up.

1. This has already been discussed. To do so again would be boring and repetitive. You don't know the story. Go do a search. You're wrong.

2. I suppose that anyone who's ever done anything wrong can't ever criticize anyone else in your book. Oh - wait a minute! That would include EVERYBODY on earth!

 

[fossten]

CBS Touts Possible Democratic Takeover of House Seat, But Goes Silent After GOP Win
Posted by Brent Baker on June 8, 2006 - 03:23.

On Tuesday, the day of the election in California's 50th Congressional District to replace imprisoned Republican Randy “Duke” Cunningham, the CBS Evening News ran a story touting a potential Democratic takeover of the seat as reporter Jerry Bowen described the race “as a referendum on both the Republican Congress and the Republican President, whose popularity is sinking.” But after the Republican won, the newscast was silent about it Wednesday night. In fact, the morning after the vote, CBS Evening News anchor Bob Schieffer declared on The Early Show that despite the win by Republican Brian Bilbray over Democrat Francine Busby, the 49 to 45 percent victory is “a warning shot for Republicans.” Busby, however, got just one point more of the district's vote than did John Kerry in 2004.

Schieffer had set up CBS's Tuesday night story about the San Diego County race: "Democrats believe they have a chance to take back control of Congress from the Republicans this year, and they're looking to a special election tonight for a sign that they may be right.” Jerry Bowen trumpeted how “when disgraced Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham went off to prison for taking millions of dollars in bribes, no one predicted what just may happen today as voters in this 25-year-long Republican stronghold pick his replacement: That a Democrat, local school board member Francine Busby, could emerge the winner." (Transcripts follow)

Instead finding some time on Wednesday to inform viewers of the results of what Bowen had framed as a “referendum” on an unpopular President, the June 7 CBS Evening News led with the Marine Commandant's comments on Haditha and Schieffer managed to squeeze in short items on the same-sex marriage vote in the Senate and how the population of New Orleans has shifted to fewer blacks and more whites since Katrina, before a profile of Dallas Mavericks basketball team owner Mark Cuban.

The NBC Nightly News didn't mention the California race on Tuesday or Wednesday and ABC's World News Tonight provided a brief item Wednesday night, though the newscast did not match CBS with a Tuesday preview story. On the June 7 World News Tonight, anchor Charles Gibson read this short item:


"There was a significant congressional election yesterday in San Diego. A Republican won a congressional race with national implications. Democrats said Brian Bilbray's narrow victory in a solidly Republican district shows the GOP faces trouble this fall, but Republicans said all that counts is that they won."

The transcript of the Tuesday, June 6 CBS Evening News story on the day of the election:

Bob Schieffer: "Democrats believe they have a chance to take back control of Congress from the Republicans this year, and they're looking to a special election tonight for a sign that they may be right. It is an election in the 50th Congressional District in Southern California to fill the remaining seven months of Duke Cunningham's term. Here's Jerry Bowen."

Jerry Bowen: "When disgraced Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham went off to prison for taking millions of dollars in bribes, no one predicted what just may happen today as voters in this 25-year-long Republican stronghold pick his replacement."

Francine Busby, Democratic candidate: "People are just dissatisfied."

Bowen: "That a Democrat, local school board member Francine Busby, could emerge the winner."

Busby, waving at cars: "Thank you."

Carl Luna, Mesa College: "It's a sign that the party has some trouble right now. If Francine Busby wins this, it means Karl Rove better start paying more attention to party politics and less to looming indictments."

Bowen: "It's a race that's seen as a referendum on both the Republican Congress and the Republican President, whose popularity is sinking. Recent polls show Busby even or slightly ahead of former Republican Congressman, turned lobbyist, Brian Bilbray."

Brian Bilbray, Republican candidate: "This is a marathon, not a sprint."

Luna: "It doesn't help in this day and age if you're running as a former incumbent and a lobbyist. That's like running as a used car salesman."

Bowen: "The contest has filled local air waves with not just negative but nasty TV ads from both sides. The National Republican Congressional Committee has spent more than $4.5 million in an effort to keep the seat. Vice President Cheney flew in to raise even more."

Vice President Dick Cheney, from May: "I'm proud to join you in supporting Brian's campaign."

Bowen: "Democrat Busby campaigned on the corruption issue. Bilbray took a stand for tougher immigration laws."

Bilbray: "Illegal immigration is the issue."

Bowen: "Which may convince conservatives to turn out despite their differences with him on things like stem cell research and abortion rights, which he favors."

Unidentified Man: "He's doing what will get him votes."

Bowen concluded: "And there is a lot at stake here. But the fact remains this race would not even be close were it not for voter discontent triggered by Duke Cunningham, the imprisoned ex-Congressman who could never say no to a bribe."


On Wednesday's Early Show, the MRC's Scott Whitlock recounted in a NewsBusters item, Bob Schieffer forwarded the post-election Democratic spin.

 

[MonsterMark]

the turnout should have favored her yesterday, since Republicans had no other races to drive their turnout and Democrats had a gubernatorial primary."

Anybody that knows anything about politics should know how voter turnout works. The Dems were also voting for a gubernatorial candidate on the same ballot which means they would have a significantly higher turnout than the Repubs for this 'local' election.

This was a CRUSHING BLOW for the Dems and they know it. But the media will never admit it nor report it.

It is also a great, no, make it one of the BEST EXAMPLES of media bias one can find. Boy, if she had won, the media would already be calling the Mid-term elections for the Democrats.

And people wonder why people on the Right go nuts. We have to deal with this B.S. day-in and day-out.

 

[Joeychgo]

And people wonder why people on the Right go nuts. We have to deal with this B.S. day-in and day-out.

You mean like starting an initiative for a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage, when its well known such a thing will never pass - that what you mean by nuts?

 

[fossten]

You mean like starting an initiative for a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage, when its well known such a thing will never pass - that what you mean by nuts?

It's not nuts. Everybody's on record now, just in time for the election push.

Now THAT'S a clever political strategy.

Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Not Voting
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Not Voting
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting
Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---49
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stevens (R-AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---48
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3
Dodd (D-CT)
Hagel (R-NE)
Rockefeller (D-WV)

 

[MonsterMark]

You mean like starting an initiative for a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage, when its well known such a thing will never pass - that what you mean by nuts?

It has already been put on the ballot in 45 out of 50 states and passed with HUGE margins, some might even term them landslides.

Could this pass with 2/3 vote in the Senate? Not even if Hell froze over. We haven't wittled down the Dems to 33 robots yet. When that happens, then it will pass. But Dems will never support something that the great majority of Americans want. You can have all the 'civil-unions' you want, just stay away from the sanctity of 'MARRIAGE'.

But it is good strategy to put everybody 'out there' and have their vote taken so people can see where their politicians stand. What is so wrong with that. Once again, do liberals need to hide from who they are? Guess so.

 

[Joeychgo]

It's not nuts. Everybody's on record now, just in time for the election push.

Now THAT'S a clever political strategy.

But it is good strategy to put everybody 'out there' and have their vote taken so people can see where their politicians stand. What is so wrong with that. Once again, do liberals need to hide from who they are? Guess so.

Ok, so you both admit it was all about partisian politics.

Thank you.

 

[MonsterMark]

Ok, so you both admit it was all about partisian politics.

Thank you.

Your welcome.

But all the NAYs did have a chance to vote the will of the people and they chose to ignore them. The leopard has been spotted.

 

[TheDude]

It has already been put on the ballot in 45 out of 50 states and passed with HUGE margins, some might even term them landslides.

Could this pass with 2/3 vote in the Senate? Not even if Hell froze over. We haven't wittled down the Dems to 33 robots yet. When that happens, then it will pass. But Dems will never support something that the great majority of Americans want. You can have all the 'civil-unions' you want, just stay away from the sanctity of 'MARRIAGE'.

But it is good strategy to put everybody 'out there' and have their vote taken so people can see where their politicians stand. What is so wrong with that. Once again, do liberals need to hide from who they are? Guess so.

You know civil unions are BS Monster... They offer something around 1/3 of the rights/privileges a legal marriage does. So essentially what you're telling these gay & lesbian couples, 'You get to pay taxes in full like everyone else, except you only get to reap a 3rd of the benefits.' Gee, that's the American way. Reminds me of Jim Crow America, seems we really haven't come that far since 1964.

And, I'm not buying that 'Sanctity of Marriage' line I hear the conservatives toss around, if that were the real issue, then they'd be up in arms over divorce; after all it is 'Until death do you part' right? This amendment is purely about oppression and Bush should be ashamed of himself, an American President in the 21st century enacting ass-backwards laws, but then again look who he caters to. Ask yourself this, what in your own private life would change if two people you do not know and will never meet get married?

 

[fossten]

You know civil unions are BS Monster... They offer something around 1/3 of the rights/privileges a legal marriage does. So essentially what you're telling these gay & lesbian couples, 'You get to pay taxes in full like everyone else, except you only get to reap a 3rd of the benefits.' Gee, that's the American way. Reminds me of Jim Crow America, seems we really haven't come that far since 1964.

And, I'm not buying that 'Sanctity of Marriage' line I hear the conservatives toss around, if that were the real issue, then they'd be up in arms over divorce; after all it is 'Until death do you part' right? This amendment is purely about oppression and Bush should be ashamed of himself, an American President in the 21st century enacting ass-backwards laws, but then again look who he caters to. Ask yourself this, what in your own private life would change if two people you do not know and will never meet get married?

You are coming from an incorrect premise and also operating via moral relativism. Can you not see the difference between right and wrong?

The correct way to look at this is:

1. Marriage b/t man and woman was here first and is sanctioned by society as a norm.
2. Tax breaks and other benefits for marriage are for man and woman.
3. Gays want to obtain benefits equivalent to hetero married couples without having to change their lifestyles and thus conform to societal norms.
4. They are trying to redefine a societal norm for PURELY ECONOMIC benefit, i.e. obtain SPECIAL RIGHTS.
5. They claim discrimination because they don't get those special rights, despite the fact that society in general doesn't approve what they want.
6. You fall for their rhetoric and succumb to the pressure because you don't want to be made to feel guilty about telling somebody else they are wrong.


And for what it's worth, divorce, although hated by God, was permitted in the old days. Homosexuality was NEVER permitted by God in the Bible. You make an illogical argument when you try to compare divorce to homosexuality. That's apples and oranges. You would do better to compare polygamy to homosexuality.

Would you approve of a new definition of marriage that states that marriage doesn't have to be between one man and one woman, thus making polygamy a legal status?

 

[MonsterMark]

Why is it that the species called 'human' needs to rewrite the laws of nature?

And why should I participate in 'condoning' this 'lifestyle choice'?

Has homosexuality always been a major presence all throughout history?
Is this behavior a 'defect' in our gene pool?
Has it become more acceptable as an alternative lifestyle because of global warming?

Here's my point. What happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom.

I am bombarded by the 'gay' movement on a constant, daily basis. I feel harrassed. If you want to be gay, fine, be gay. But why shove it in my face.

Don't ask. Don't tell.

And I might add, I believe that the 'civil-marriages' should include benefits like being able to have access similar to family members visitation rights in a hospital, etc. But I think the gay movement has pushed too much and now people are starting to push back. Call it too much too fast, or whatever you want. Personally, I'm willing to concede on certain issues but I'm not ready to roll down the slippery slope yet.