14 replies [Last post]
Offline
Location: NE Minnesota
Joined: 01/14/2004
Posts: 144
A Serious question

The constitutional amendment I'm refering to is the "gay marriage" amendment, the Patriot Act is not a constitutional amendment, but I will agree it is scary.

The funny thing about the second amendment is that more and more Repubs are saying they would support more laws. I will give you that the left is far more worrysome in that regard though.

The right may have a more traditional base of personal rights ideology, but they are increasingly for big business, that is NOT good for the personal rights of the average citizen. Witness the increasing use of Eminent Domain for private businesses like Wal-Mart and large developers.

I too worry about political correctness, I feel it is a real issue in this country, and across the world. But it is certainly not something only the left is guilty of. I do think there is a fine line between being Politicaly Incorrect and disregard for anothers feelings. It is our right to express an opinion, but the Golden Rule still applies.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
A Serious question

I hadn't heard there's a "gay marriage" amendment -- at least not on the federal level. They couldn't get the ERA through, so something like that would be DOA. But I think they're pushing to not even need it -- get it legalized in some states, and then press for nationwide recognition of those marriages under the full faith and credit clause that requires states to recognize civil ordinances performed in other states. That's why there's so much national attention on what the states are doing.

I'm all for a level playing field, discussion, and opposition. Opposition, regardless of which side it comes from, keeps the other side honest. But what worries me is that the left is driving the PC business and ad hominem attacks to shut down its opposition. But that's mostly been one-sided.

Case in point: when Linda Tripp secretly taped a phone conversation with Monica Lewinsky, the Democrats and most of the media set out to destroy her -- her career, her reputation, etc -- even to go so far as to ridicule her personal appearance because she secretly taped something incriminating. Yet when Doug Wead secretly taped a conversation with Bush and went public, he got interview after interview -- and nobody in the media or Democratic Party was bashing him for it.

It's double standards like that that drive me up a wall and which, IMO, have no place in the political process.

Offline
Location: NE Minnesota
Joined: 01/14/2004
Posts: 144
A Serious question

There isn't a "gay marriage" amendment yet. To be more clear, I should say that Bush has said numerous times he wants a "protection" of marriage amendment to the Constitution, meaning "anti-gay marriage". That was what I was refering to. Sorry if I assumed you'd heard what he has been saying.

I think it is funny that we have a debate over whether the media is biased-right or left., since it is obvious that they are really both. Some of the media talk out of one side of their mouth (tv, radio, newsprint) acting like they are unbiased, for the people, PC, and gov't watchdogs. But don't be fooled, they are BIG businesses, and they lobby like other big business (energy, autos, steel, etc.) in Washington, for protection from laws, competition, etc. That doesn't help the average joe.

They are really a two headed monster, and that is much scarier than them being on one side or the other. I'm sure they love the perpetual idea that they are the "liberal" media, it just lets them have it both ways. They seem to look good to the left in the open, but behind the scenes they have the people on the right in their pockets.

Of course there are those media outlets that aren't afraid to say they support one side or the other, but those aren't true "news outlets", thay are simply entertainment.

Offline
Location: Western Canada
Joined: 03/27/2005
Posts: 77
not a bad deal..

I don't think bush has too bad of an idea. If he can pull it off. Iraq has a huge oil supply and China is running around to find resources. If bush can secure iraq. The US will have lots of oil and oil they can sell (at a premium price) to china. The bush family makes money and the us has reasonably priced gas.

I think the only stumbling block was to let rumsfield (?) handle the military. His "no dirty hands" and "use technology" program is not working. To control a country takes lots of man power, clearing streets, cracking heads and yes, getting your hands dirty.

Rumsfield was involved in the tail end/withdrawl in vietnam..Iraq is kind of looking similar. The US has really good military reasources..too bad the guy in charge (Rumsfield) doesn't know what he's doing.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Dumb QuestionCVC1207/04/2010 14:42 pm
New Rifle helpEildydar1807/10/2009 20:08 pm
? on possible combo moose\sheep hunt.tim104/19/2005 10:40 am
Boar Hunting (Bullet selection)NewHunter201/07/2005 06:22 am
question about the 35 remingtonhickory stick401/17/2005 16:37 pm