Dem Behavior Explained

Have you ever wondered why a group of people who claim to represent the oppressed and those in need of assistance actively tried to stop the liberation of 20 plus million people from a dictator?

Have you ever wondered why the Iraqi people being free has so annoyed the Democrats?

Answer below the fold.

Bush shows highest ratings in a year

WASHINGTON — Americans gave President Bush his highest approval rating in more than a year and showed cautious optimism about Iraq in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken days after historic elections in Iraq.

In reversals from a month ago, majorities said that going to war in Iraq was not a mistake, that things are going well there and that it’s likely democracy will be established in Iraq. (Related item: Poll results)

Bush’s approval rating of 57% was his highest since he reached 59% in January 2004.

Millions of people may be free, but the Dems only care about their quest for power. Which, ironically, is the exact reason they keep losing.

Twinkle, twinkle, little scam...
France Calls for Fresh Start in Relations with U.S.
  • Les Nessman

    Bleck:
    “5) What the hell? Republicans care about freedom but you can’t marry unless you meet our standards?”

    Why is it that the gay ‘marriage’ issue has gone from 0 to 100 mph in about three seconds? Can you imagine even having this debate as recently as 6 or 7 years ago?

    For the past hundreds or thousands of years, marriage was between a man and a woman. It seems the current trend is to Demand Gay Marriage Right Now, Everywhere. Doesn’t a change as big as this deserve extended debate?

    For those who support it, then what exactly is the reason that a woman couldn’t marry a man and another woman (or some combination thereof)?

  • D-Hoggs

    Joser is completely unhinged, laughable. How does he expect anyone to take anything he says seriously when he says that repubs will be…

    “attacking grammar or saying how I’m a moonbat or whatever arbitrary keyword you’ll use this week.”

    Than he pleads to us to please…

    “instead of outright attacking a dem, or even attacking a rep’s (if you’re democratic) inteligence/patriotism/integrity, why not look at what that person as a PERSON is saying.”

    All this right before he says people here are “arrogant jerkwad(s) on a right-wing blog” HA!! Lets not forget that he claims W. is now responsible for abortions because these “parents” can’t afford to have a child now in our poor economy…HAHAHAHAHA, that is so ridiculous. My favorite part is where Joser says “Bush wants to make sure that we poor are dumb for a really long time.” Now, I am pretty sure that Bush has no intent on keeping poor people dumb for a really long time, but I am 100% sure that Joser will be.

  • r.a.

    nessman wrote:

    For those who support it, then what exactly is the reason that a woman couldn’t marry a man and another woman (or some combination thereof)?

    generally here in the US, marriage to more than one partner is illegal, i.e. polygamy or polyandry. it happens in other countries around the world, and has for thousands of years, but not so much here.

    so the laws about bigamy would pretty much prevent what you are talking about.

  • Paul, while I am usually upset when you preclude the opposition from having any legitimacy, you do have a point. Where are the humanitarians now? If Bush indeed has made a mess of Iraq, shouldn’t we be trying to help the innocent Iraqi people, who had little to do with either Saddam’s or Bush’s actions, rebuild?

  • r.a.

    If Bush indeed has made a mess of Iraq, shouldn’t we be trying to help the innocent Iraqi people, who had little to do with either Saddam’s or Bush’s actions, rebuild?

    yes.

  • AnonymousDrivel

    RE: r.a.’s post (February 9, 2005 11:45 AM)
    …so the laws about bigamy would pretty much prevent what you are talking about.

    This is exactly Les Nessman’s point. Law or the presumption of one has prevented homosexual unions in this country ever since its creation. Now we have begun to cross a legal/social threshold that would allow/bless it as an acceptably sanctioned bond. Some fear the slippery slope that other non-traditional unions would become equally acceptable should the homosexual union be legally bound. His concern is not without foundation and he is only asking what legal precedent would deny such an inevitability.

    There is every reason to expect current laws regarding bigamy to eventually succumb to contemporary social norms when another social norm that used to have legal standing falls by the wayside. Your comment that “it [polygamy or polyandry] happens in other countries around the world” is the proof in the pudding since these other civilizations and their liberal evolution predate our own.

    You have proven Nessman’s point and reinforced his concern that other previously “unacceptable” behaviors will assuredly challenge our legal, social, and political foundation. Call it the camel’s nose under the tent. Under the right pressure and proper political packaging, homosexual unions will become acceptable. You can bet that polygamy and all of its incarnations will follow suit and at an accelerated rate due to precedence. Activist courts like that.

    Now how did we deviate so much? From the original topic, I mean…

  • mantis

    Anon,

    Law or the presumption of one has prevented homosexual unions in this country ever since its creation.

    Sorry, no. As you may have noticed several states have found that their laws do not prevent homosexual unions, as they do not specify gender. Furthermore, there is as yet no federal restriction thereof, and why would conservatives push for one if state laws all forbid it? I’m not sure how many states have laws against bigamy, but I’d bet it’s all of them. Furthermore, if states change their laws to allow the union between two people regardless of gender there is no reason why this will legally allow bigamy, despite your claim that the precedent will lead to that. No judge will interpret a law allowing any two people to join in union as meaning multiple people. So there goes you’re legal argument. Remember we are talking about the law here, and despite your paranoia about activist courts, rulings that contradict the law are thrown out, as they have been in some of the states that tried to legalize gay marriage.

    Your comment that “it [polygamy or polyandry] happens in other countries around the world” is the proof in the pudding since these other civilizations and their liberal evolution predate our own.

    Right, the liberal evolution of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

    Les,

    Why is it that the gay ‘marriage’ issue has gone from 0 to 100 mph in about three seconds? Can you imagine even having this debate as recently as 6 or 7 years ago?

    The struggle for equal protection under the law is a long one, just ask any black person. Gays have made a lot of progress in the past couple of decades, and have a lot more to go. The marriage/civil union issue is just another link in that chain. If you think it has snuck up on you, you have obviously not been paying attention.

  • mantis

    correction:

    instead of “states that tried to legalize gay marriage”, to “states where judges tried to illegally allow gay marriage.”

  • AnonymousDrivel

    RE: mantis’s post (February 9, 2005 02:19 PM)

    As you may have noticed several states have found that their laws do not prevent homosexual unions, as they do not specify gender.

    In what state is it or has it been legal? You may be parsing things a bit here as we differentiate “civil union” and “marriage”, but the goal of everyone seems to be redefining marriage. San Francisco and Boston(?), I believe, tried to create homosexual unions but they were subsequently annulled. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    As far as reaching the federal level, nothing as yet (I could be wrong) has gone to the upper chambers of the courts on appeal, so the states have laws on the books, or at least some limited restraints, on what is a legal union and what is not. The fact that nothing has reached federal challenge is because state law is limiting the definitions, and its constituents’ actions, so far. But that can change. A sympathetic mayor, a politically opportunistic governor, and a complacent attorney general with a particularly vocal political action committee can do wonders to written law.

    Furthermore, if states change their laws to allow the union between two people regardless of gender there is no reason why this will legally allow bigamy, despite your claim that the precedent will lead to that. No judge will interpret a law allowing any two people to join in union as meaning multiple people.

    That’s a mighty strong statement there. You must feel pretty confident. Once upon a time, no judge would have interpreted law allowing any same gender union as meaning an acceptable marriage or union either. My how times have changed… who’d a thunk it? As society changes, so does the interpretation of law. Law is a reflection of the people living by it which explains the intervention of activist courts that are not stict Constitutionalists in their rulings. Can you say States’ Rights versus Federalism? A bit of a tangent but not too far off the mark.

    The point is that the interpretation of law changes with those elected and selected to chair the benches. I think we all know how law gets interpreted, reinterpreted, appealed, and passed up the chain. Some have even proclaimed that an election or two was decided by a partisan Supreme Court that leaned the wrong way. This is how law, good or bad depending on one’s POV, gets passed and a social paradigm shift results. Not every ruling is thrown out… some of them even winnow their way through the legal filters and become precedential law. This explains why timing and venue is so important – just look at the Ninth Circuit and its appellate cases. A liberal President and a liberal judicial appointment to the Supreme Court would likely not overturn many of the Ninth’s decisions, and I think we’d all be looking at a very different country right now. Good or bad, one cannot proclaim that a law in one state will not eventually trump a law in every other state and become Federally mandated due to the “Full Faith and Credit Clause”. These are the reasons why I do not share your confidence that written law is sound. I suspect many would agree with that insecurity.

    Right, the liberal evolution of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

    What’s your point? Are you insinuating that I sense an inevitability that we’ll eventually accept bigamy as well as some othe traits common to some oppressive ME regimes? If you are, you have insinuated incorrectly. If not then I’m missing your point.

  • mantis

    Ok, so perhaps I worded that too strongly, but I do doubt that a judge would interpret a law providing the union of two people to mean 3 or 4 or whatever. As I understood it MA allowed gay marriage because it was against the state constitution which did not specify gender, but maybe I’m wrong. And as far as I’ve heard, those marriages still stand.

    As for the last part, I’m not insinuating anything. You seem to claim that other, older, and more liberal nations allow bigamy. I was just pointing out that bigamy was an old form of marriage, still practiced in places that could hardly be called liberal. What were you talking about?

  • AnonymousDrivel

    mantis,

    I was using the term “liberal” in the sense of a more open social behavior (at least for men, Allah help the women) as opposed to the more conservative, traditional values or behavior patterns of Americans. r.a. mentioned bigamy as a not uncommon practice around the world and I wasn’t really interested in researching marriage norms of the globe. As a rule, I’d call multiple partners in a marriage, or union, or association, or bond, pretty “liberal” while ignoring any concomitant behaviors or societal norms that are not. It was a focused observation and conclusion without the associated baggage.

    If I use the capital “L” liberal, then you’ll know I mean the Left of center politically.

  • mantis

    My mistake. However the idea of this liberal evolution seems strange to me as countries such as that didn’t sanction homosexual union and then polygamy/polyandry to the best of my knowledge. Muhammed certainly didn’t condone it and he had multiple wives. So the implication that the progression of changing social norms to allow polygamy as a natural next step after gay marriage is natural or inevitable has no real basis, merely a speculative one. At least regarding other civilizations. If the European countries that now allow gay marriage also start to allow bigamy, or if they already do (never heard of it), then maybe.