A Clinical Analysis of the Republican Mind (720 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.85 on 32 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Adhesive (View user info) at 2004-10-22 15:12:44 EDT
A Clinical Analysis of the Republican Mind
In this post, I wish to examine a group of Republicans on Ubersite that chose to respond to the following is a post that I made earlier this week:
"Hi, everyone.
I think that all of us following the United States Presidential election understand that this just might be the most important election of any of our lifetimes. As such, I think that we all should contribute in a wide debate on the issues before we step out and vote on November 2.
IN LIGHT OF THIS, I would like to respectfully pose some questions to the Republican members of Ubersite that I think will assist in helping me and probably others make their final choices on the isses.
If you guys wouldn't mind taking the time to answer, I'd please like to hear your responses to the following:
1) Republicans and other conservatives alike have long been advocates of small, non-intrusive government. Don't you consider President Bush's Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind Policy, increases in Federal spending, and proposed Ammendment banning gay marraige in conflict with old conservative principles?
2) Does it bother you at all that, because the case that President Bush made to the world regarded WMDs in Iraq, that the Bush administration has seemingly rewrote history, saying that the liberation of Iraqis is the reason that we went there? Don't you find it disconcerning at the same time that while we've invaded a country that proved to be no threat, Iran and North Korea have been developing nuclear weapons?
3) What do you fear would happen in this nation if John Kerry were elected President?
Thank you all very much. I appreciate your time and assistance."
Firstly, while I hesitate to do this, I think it should be noticed that many Republicans chose to overlook many statements of friendliness that I made when posing my questions. For example, notice that I wrote the following when I posed the questions: "we all should contribute", "I would like to respectfully pose some questions", "If you guys wouldn't mind", "I'd please like to hear", and closing with "Thank you all very much. I appreciate your time and assistance." I tried to be polite, and I think that a rational human being could justify that I was not aggressive in my language.
Regardless, the Republicans who answered were somewhat violent.
JoeGenius began his answer to me with, "Wow. Those are all such original whines, none of which I've ever heard used by the entire Democratic Party a thousand times. They really made me think - about how much of a stupid shitcock you are."
Obviously, he had taken my questions offensively, simply because I was asking questions that he had heard before.
Other Republicans responded with paranoia. After answering the questions, PROXYman said, "Attack me however you want, this is the way I feel. Nothing can change the fact that I think George W. Bush is simply the best man for the job." He automatically assumed that I was going to attack the reasoning of his answers, which in the end, I found the most rational among any of the Republicans who answered.
Yet, getting by this, we must now look at how the Republicans answered my questions:
In response to my first question, JoeGenius summarized his answer with, "Ideally Republicans favor less government involvement, but in these changing times, some things have to be done."
In his opinion, the privileges of this nation are acceptable sacrifices in a wartime.
And in response to the Gay Marriage issue, many Republicans chose to weight in. TheMidnight12AM wrote, "The government is not intruding on the rights of anyone, because gays don't have the right to marry in the first place. It's not in the Constitution, it's not in the federal laws, and our founding fathers would be horrified by the idea." I hope not to overstep my bounds as a commentator here, but I would like to point out that the same could have been said about the abolition of slavery at one point in time.
Actually, TheMidnight12AM also brought up the issue again in answering the third question about what a John Kerry leadership might mean for America. He wrote, "Secondly, what little moral fiber that had begun to creep back into the fabric of American culture would evaporate--gay marriage would easily become the law of the land, abortion would be secured for another decade at least..."
In the end, these two hot-button topics (abortion and gay marriage) will be main issues separating Republicans and Democrats.
The second question got an interesting response and also brought up a rumor from within the right-wing of the Republican Party that I think needs to be clarification.
In JoeGenius' response to the issue of Iraq, JoeGenius said, "John Kerry voted for the war, as did many Democrats." This is not exactly true. Congress authorized the President to use force if necessary when dealing with Iraq. Many Republicans seem to think that John Kerry voted for and was a big supporter of the Iraq War and then "flip-flopped" as they say. Yet, when John Kerry voted to give the President a force to use in Iraq, John Kerry said the following before his vote: "In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days—to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so." He added, "If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent—and I emphasize 'imminent'—threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs." In the end, John Kerry laid out stipulations for his support of the invasion of Iraq—stipulations that he says the President did not abide by.
Republicans as a whole put much of their emphasis of responsibility on the individual. When considering a person that has gone to jail for drug possession, a Republican is much more likely to say, "He deserves it for breaking the law," than to consider the socio-economic trap that said criminal might have been living in. Republicans more often then not consider blaming social problems instead of people as a way for said people to get out of taking responsibility for their actions. As a result, the prison system has increased in the United States under every President since Ronald Reagan (Reagan, Regan's VP, a Democrat, and Reagan's VP's son) and America has more prisoners than any other nation in the world. This is all due to the Republican (and very American) belief that the individual is always to blame, not society.
Thus, when asked "What do you fear would happen if John Kerry was elected President," many Republicans brought up the issue of personal responsibility. Freakmagnet stated, "I sincerely fear nationalized healthcare, it is another step toward socialism and another way for me to be taxed for other people's stupidity."
Notice that Freakmagnet stated that he did not wish to be taxed for other people's problems. Despite the fact that he knows the taxes will be spent for the betterment of society, he still would be happier with the money than to assist a stranger who (being in dire straits) must obviously have had "messed up" in their life.
Non-Republican Uber-user Worm put it the best when he wrote, "Old Conservative Principals, and old conservative Christian principals have wanted a smaller government because they largely feel that they can take care of themselves, and that what a man should and should not do, and how successful a man should or should not be is determined by their Bible and their ability to pick themselves up by their bootstraps."
And so, Republicans tend to believe in a more "Survival of the fittest" mentality than in overall social-betterment.
Another odd thing about Republicans is their inability to believe in the fact that the US's approval ratings have dropped worldwide, despite this being proven by several Pew polls.
Nobb poses the problem when saying, "Here's a question for Republicans, why do you still think Bush is a good president when it's so clear to everyone else he's the worst in memory? I know Americans are severely arrogant and dislike listening to people from the outside world, but how often does the ENTIRE world agree on something? They must be onto something right? Arabs hate him, Christians hate him, Hindus hate him, Buddhists hate him, and everyone hates him."
Republicans, however, simply don't believe this or don't care.
In response to Nobb, Freakmagnet stated, "The last time I checked it didn't matter if the rest of the world hates us, we're better than them."
TheMidnight12AM said, "The world is not America. Their opinion only matters because enough liberals in America think it does." He then added, "Besides, if we shut out the world, they'll starve, not us. We're the economic superpower here."
In the end, very few Republicans can accept the America that John Kerry represents to them. They see him as an incredibly far-left man willing to give up American interests to foreign nations. These foreign nations—which are so great in number that they are safe to call "the rest of the world"—are deemed dependent on us and tied to our beliefs.
Here's all I'm saying. My reasoning is as open to criticism as anyone else's—which you're about to read below me—but I think that Republicans truly do need to search their hearts on all of the issues that I listed above.
User Reviews
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2004-10-24 23:49:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
My response was written in the same dismissive unreasonable manner that his was. It was not an attempt at argumentation. It was not an attempt to start a dialogue. Whatever you accuse me of in my last response, you also accuse the person I was talking to, because I was mocking what he said.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-10-24 06:13:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2004-10-24 05:49:13 (#)
Ranking: 2
You're not worth debating, mostly because you don't know how to, and secondarily because you're a bible-sucking retard making unreasonable assumptions.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
This was just another example of drivel that passes for dialogue in liberal circles. Thank you. Vote Nader.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2004-10-24 05:49:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by soakedinale (user info) at 2004-10-23 17:42:26 (#)
Ranking: 1
If there is 1 (ONE) Abortion being performed just because the child would be an inconvenience to the mother or society that is reason to be outraged. Speculation about when a fetus can feel pain is pointless. It has a soul as soon as it's conceived. It is our Responsibility, Nay. Our SOLEMN DUTY to nurture and protect that soul. To destroy it because it's burdensome is an abhorrence beyond any on earth.
You're not worth debating, mostly because you don't know how to, and secondarily because you're a bible-sucking retard making unreasonable assumptions.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2004-10-24 05:47:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-10-23 22:28:36 (#)
Ranking: -2
I graphed it - including the following chart that gives abortions in week 6, 7, and 8. It is not exponential. I will allow that is possible that 1% or less may be right, but I don't think you can assume it.
Not to mention that this is all legal abortions.
Crap..I had the axes reversed. And I concede that it can't be assumed, although it's more than likely to be true anyway. The gist of my point still stands.
The data I used was from 2002, before the PBA band was enacted, and therefore PBAs would have been counted in the statistics. Any other illegal abortions are negligible.
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-10-23 22:28:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Clarification: The curve between 100% minus the percentage of abortions performed vs number of weeks of pregnancy is an exponential one.
Go ahead and graph it.
-------------------------------------------------
Say what?
I graphed it - including the following chart that gives abortions in week 6, 7, and 8. It is not exponential. I will allow that is possible that 1% or less may be right, but I don't think you can assume it.
Not to mention that this is all legal abortions.
Submitted by soakedinale (user info) at 2004-10-23 17:42:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
If there is 1 (ONE) Abortion being performed just because the child would be an inconvenience to the mother or society that is reason to be outraged. Speculation about when a fetus can feel pain is pointless. It has a soul as soon as it's conceived. It is our Responsibility, Nay. Our SOLEMN DUTY to nurture and protect that soul. To destroy it because it's burdensome is an abhorrence beyond any on earth.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2004-10-23 02:01:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Clarification: The curve between 100% minus the percentage of abortions performed vs number of weeks of pregnancy is an exponential one.
Go ahead and graph it.
56% before 8 weeks
88% before 12 weeks
98.6% before 20 weeks
All figures from the CDC.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2004-10-23 01:47:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-10-22 20:13:20 (#)
Ranking: -2
Well we don't have a figure for the 26 week point, but if after 20 weeks only 1.4% occur, then it can be coservatively assumed that after 26 weeks less than 1% of abortions occur.
----------------------------------
actually you can "assume" no such thing.
Why not?
The curve of percent abortions performed vs. number of weeks of pregnancy is an exponential one. If after 20 weeks the percentage is 1.4, then what do you think the percentage will be at 26 weeks? It can only be less than 1.4%, so even if you were right, his outrage would be over less than 1.4% of all total abortions, which would still be ridiculous. I've heard figures of only .1% of abortions being performed in the third trimester, so 1% would be a conservative estimate.
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-10-22 20:13:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Well we don't have a figure for the 26 week point, but if after 20 weeks only 1.4% occur, then it can be coservatively assumed that after 26 weeks less than 1% of abortions occur.
----------------------------------
actually you can "assume" no such thing.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2004-10-22 20:10:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
coservatively = conservatively
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2004-10-22 20:08:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Medically unneccasary abortins are the cruelest form of murder."
See if you can follow this logical path.
cru·el ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krl)
adj. cru·el·er, or cru·el·ler cru·el·est or cru·el·lest
1. Disposed to inflict pain or suffering.
2. Causing suffering; painful.
OK, now that we have established that cruel implies pain, let us examine the point at which fetuses can feel pain.
"prior to 22 weeks the fetus does not have the neuroanatomical pathways in place to feel pain, between 22 and 26 weeks thalamo-cortical connections are forming, and after 26 weeks the fetus has the necessary connections to feel pain."
-European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Volume 92, Issue 1, September 2000, Page 165
Now, let's see what percentage of abortions are performed after the 26 week period (approximately the beginning of the third trimester) in gestation.
'Only 1.4 percent [of abortions] occur after 20 weeks'
-CDC, 2002
Well we don't have a figure for the 26 week point, but if after 20 weeks only 1.4% occur, then it can be coservatively assumed that after 26 weeks less than 1% of abortions occur.
Conclusion: Your moral outrage is based on less than 1% of total abortions. Way to go, Captain Dumbfuck.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-10-22 19:27:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Besides, too much social services ruin everything. Do you have any idea what it is like owning
a business in Germany? 60% taxes, baby, and on top of that the government forces you to do all kind of shits (Paying various Insurances for the FUCKING WORKERS you employ, for instance). Thanks to all that social spending, our deficit is so high that every German theoretically has a 10.000 € debt. At times, people who recieved welfare had more money than those who held low-paying jobs. It's not difficult to see where that will lead, no? Furthermore, people who recieve welfare and are able to life a reasonably good life this way (without poverty) will most likely grow lazy. They start to think the state owes them something because they are poor, and they will never work again. I know an entire family who lives of welfere. Mother, Father, son, sister and son-in-law each revieve welfare cheques. That family has a fuckin swimming-pool! Just by recieving welfare! A fucking swimming-pool! That's just wrong. An old german saying from better days say that "jeder ist seines Glückes Schmied". Man forges his destiny. That is how an ideal society should look like, and America come pretty close to that. I envy those of you that live there.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-10-22 19:15:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Excuse me? You think just because somebody is conservative he is automaticly a bad person? That is not a very democratic statement. If you cannot accept the other side's opinions, you are not fit to live in a democracy. Regardless, I too believe that too much social services are shit. As I understand it, (I don't live in America), everybody has kinda equal chances in the US. Granted, they might be some exceptions, kids with really rich daddies for example (see current president), but if you really want to, if you focus all you will on it, if you STUDY instead of going binge drinking on the weekends, if you WORK instead of concentrate on fucking the Quarterback/Cheerleading squad captain (depending on your gender), you can achieve anything you want. It's all a matter of dedication and self-discipline.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-10-22 19:15:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2004-10-22 17:19:08 (#)
Ranking: 2
If you want proof, just look at how people are changing over to Fox. Fox news is heavily conservative, conservatives can watch it and not feel like bad people, because it doesn't bring to the light the fact that, well, they are. More and more news stations are changing to a similar format as fox because of this. For every 2 liberal guests, they have to have 3 conservative guests and so on.
Oh, and I got a mention in a post! WHOOOOOOOOO!"
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-10-22 19:14:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Heh.
Submitted by soakedinale (user info) at 2004-10-22 18:42:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Although I'm a Republican, I'd like to thank you for your post. Very well thought out, even if your politics aren't. I'd like to anwer your questions since I missed your post the first time around.
1. I do oppose "Big Government" when it's un-called for. But there are certain things only the federal government can do, like National Defense, Some civil systems, Like Education and healthcare work better at the State and Local level. This gives people more control.
However, with issues like abortion and gay marriage. We will do whatever it takes to prevent these from happening even if it means Amending the constitution. To a consevative like me, Medically unneccasary abortins are the cruelest form of murder. I will repeat that: Medically unneccasary abortins are the cruelest form of murder. I would do whatever it took to stop them from happening
2.on WMD's were overblown by the MEDIA as the reason to invade Iraq. GWB alwys gave a litany of reasons to invade Iraq, many of wich I list here: http://www.ubersite.com/m/49018 (yes i'm fishing for hits). But the MEDIA latched onto WMD as the ONLY reason when infact we continue to reveal good reasons to invade everyday. Having nothing to do with WMDs.
3.I don't Fear Kerry, He's an honorable man with many years of service to his country. But he's a typical Democrat. He promises people he'll never raise thier taxes and the Government can solve their problems. He says whatever is popular, but never delivers on all the promises. He speaks Like a Senator, not like a president.
I don't care what the world thinks of Americas Policies. We make Decisions for US. We need to do whats right, we need to do whats best for us. And if that means doing something that 80 percent of france opposes, well so be it.
Thank you for your post though, It was thought provoking.
Submitted by ScoutCJustice (user info) at 2004-10-22 17:48:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Hey now Gnome, I wouldn't go that far... Napolean wasn't nearly as bad as Bush is. Napolean went a long way to restoring a good amount of order to what was a French state in chaos and ruins after years of bloody revolution. Granted, he got too big for his briches, but while Napolean was at his height the French never had it any better. Thanks in part to Napolean's conquests (and in part to the wise men at the Congress of Vienna) the map of Europe was reshaped in such a way that after Napolean's eventual defeat Europe experienced its most peaceful century since the height of the Roman Empire.
Submitted by Gnome (user info) at 2004-10-22 17:39:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
and rightfully so.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-10-22 17:32:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You're right Gnome. History will not be kind to Bush.
Submitted by Gnome (user info) at 2004-10-22 17:30:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
bush could very possibly be sitting next to napolean and hitler in the history books. given another chance to build on the momentum he's got going it's not that much of a stretch.
he does whatever he wants and then feeds the american public something to satisfy them. 'yeah, uh, we're going in for the good of the world to rid him of WMD. nobody appreciates us do-gooders here for some reason though? the rest of the world must be idiots.'
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2004-10-22 17:19:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Very well written, and congrats on not attacking the Republicans. Not that they won't react anyway. I was going to do a post on this, I might still. But basically, many Republicans have built up this false reality, that like you said, if someones sick or poor, it's their own fault, that 9/11 was the worst thing to happen in a long time, when it wasn't the worst thing to happen in 2001 worldwide. However, when someone trys to break this wall of denial, they react aggresively and refuse to accept it.
If you want proof, just look at how people are changing over to Fox. Fox news is heavily conservative, conservatives can watch it and not feel like bad people, because it doesn't bring to the light the fact that, well, they are. More and more news stations are changing to a similar format as fox because of this. For every 2 liberal guests, they have to have 3 conservative guests and so on.
Oh, and I got a mention in a post! WHOOOOOOOOO!
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-10-22 17:05:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Some answered you truthfully and didn't get a response. I am sure you aren't surprised that democrats do the same thing on other posts. Some people are tired of repeating the same arguments over and over. This has been done by both sides many, many times before.
Some sacrifices must be made for the greater good. I personally have seen no difference in my freedom pre 9/11 to now. The only difference was at the airport, but anyone who has flown overseas will be able to tell you that the US security is still lower. The "privileges" as you call them are freedom, liberty and justice for all. Maybe it is just because I haven't been touched by the Patriot Act, etc, that I don't mind. But I think many people are worrying needlessly. I like my privacy, but I like safety as well. Why are you afraid of your "privileges" being lost? What ones are you referring to?
Gay marriage.....I don't care. I don't understand how some guy could like another (lesbians I understand - women are HOT), but that's just me. I do feel that it is a state issue. I don't like the idea of the Constitutional amendment.
I am pro-life. Nobody start bitching. We aren't arguing about that here.
My problem with Kerry voting for the war and against it: Everyone voted for it with conditions or stipulations. Where was Kerry when Bush violated those conditions? No where to be found. If I had laid down conditions for war and felt they were violated, I would have pitched a fit and raised hell. Kerry went with the wind of popular opinion and didn't speak out.
Socio-economic trap? Work hard and study and you can escape any "trap." The so-called War on Poverty was supposed to help with this trap. It didn't. We are in the same boat as before. We have intergenerational welfare. When will liberals understand that you can't always blame society and that you must take some responsibility for yourself? Wait, they already know this. It is just that it is in the democrats favor to perpetuate welfare and a fiction of an unbreakable vicious cycle of poverty. Why? Because this is where they get their strong base of voters.
You are right. I do put emphasis of responsibility on the individual. I want the chance to succeed or fail to by wholly mine.
Of course I don't support nationalized healthcare. I work and make money. I want to keep what I earn. I happily pay taxes for the defense of this country, for parks, and for other goods that are best provided for by the government. Healthcare isn't one of these. You just assume that the "stranger" is in "dire straits." What about the strangers who don't work and freeload. I support freedom of choice. I want to control my own resources. Don't expect me to work so you can get free Viagra.
It isn't that we believe "Survival of the fittest" as you put it, but we don't believe society is better with handouts. Do you understand the concept of "incentives"? If your dream of society came about, people wouldn't be as productive because they don't have the same motivation anymore. Yes, kids of poor deserve the chance to succeed, but when you have intergenerational welfare and mothers getting pregnant to get more welfare, you have a problem. I don't think that liberal's plans with bring "overall social-betterment."
Other countries hate Bush for various reasons. We drug them into war, we - by our willingness to attach rogue regimes- threaten their nation, and they see our culture as a threat. The reasons are numerous. Much of the hatred was already there. But, Bush's popularity may not play a role in many of the votes he gets. Do you prefer liberal or conservative ideology? That is what people look at as well.
I may not feel Bush is the BEST choice, but I think Kerry is far worse.
Submitted by boomslang (user info) at 2004-10-22 16:38:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
well if they did they never got caught, and that's all that matters to us republicans anyways. right? right?
think about that, asshat.
Submitted by great_angst (user info) at 2004-10-22 16:30:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by boomslang (user info) at 2004-10-22 16:24:37 (#)
Ranking: -1
I can tell you one thing, Republicans never crack to anyone to buy votes.
---------------
And .. some people don't think at all. It's easier that way.
Submitted by great_angst (user info) at 2004-10-22 16:28:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Very good analysis ... and some very good questions (on the first post).
I liked the ending "Republicans truly do need to search their hearts on all of the issues ..."
Sadly, I doubt much of that will happen ... and I don't mean that as a partisan slam (uhh .... necessarily). Judging from the replies your post got (and others I have read ... and people I have debated ... and everything we see on the news), most political zealots (left or right) are not willing to (or able to) concede anything to the "opposition."
God knows try to keep an open mind, but I am about as left-wing as you can get. No amount of debating or heart-searching will change my mind that George Bush is a bad president, the invasion of Iraq was wrong, and that the country is headed for (further) disaster unless we change our path immediately. Most Republicans who this passionate about the issues (enough to voice them and argue them) will be equally stubborn ... err .. I mean resolute in their beliefs.
Which leaves us in endless debate. Some of us enjoy that.
Good job.
Submitted by boomslang (user info) at 2004-10-22 16:24:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
WTF? I'm not reading all of that
i read some of it though, and this is what i hear continually out of all liberals.
"Whine whine whine... republicans do it too...whine whine whine",
I can tell you one thing, Republicans never crack to anyone to buy votes.
Submitted by ScoutCJustice (user info) at 2004-10-22 15:55:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Put together nicely. It doesn't hurt that I agree with pretty much everything you said. And I must say that TheMidnight12AM's quote regarding gay marriage not being a right because it is not outlined in the Constitution is sheer ignorance. The Constitution states very plainly, Amendment IX of the Bill of Rights if you want to look it up, that the government can not take away any rights just because they are not explicitly mentioned as rights by the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were VERY insistent on that point. If you want to argue that gay marriage is not a right, that's fine (that is at least a matter of opinion), but you can't do it from the perspective that it's not a right because it's not in the Constitution.
Although to be fair, the comparison to slavery was weak. Slavery actually was condoned (albeit implicitly) by the Constitution via the 3/5ths rule and the ban on importation of slaves after 1805 so according to the Constitution at the time the slaves did not have the right to be free. Therefore it did require a Constitutional Amendment to end slavery. In this case, gay marriage (or the banning thereof) is not mentioned in the Constitution therefore if it is deemed a right by state legislatures or (ultimately) the courts then the government can not infringe upon it thanks to the 9th Amendment. Of course, that's where the Constitutional Amendment proposed by President Bush comes in, which is stupid on levels beyond just restricting the rights of citizens, but that debate is really for another post.
Submitted by johnson (user info) at 2004-10-22 15:43:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I once found that quote by going through the article on John Kerry's 2004 campaign at Wikipedia.com. If you play around reading stuff about his stance on Iraq, you can find the quote.
!!!
Actually, now that this guy posted it, you can just use the quote in a search engine and find all the sites that have it.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2004-10-22 15:38:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Well argued. Sadly, republicans don't take well to criticism - probably because they are so susceptible to it (and the same is true for everyone else, I know). Where did you find Kerry's little vote speech? Thats the sort of thing people really should know, rather than getting their info from opposition attack ads.
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2004-10-22 15:26:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The day you stop generalizing, you'll learn something.
Submitted by big_wigger (user info) at 2004-10-22 15:23:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
republicans are masters of self deception and they think the same way about democrats
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013
Submitted by Anarchy (user info) at 2004-10-22 15:21:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Very informative.