PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Srexley who wrote (590883)	7/15/2004 12:55:48 AM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (1) of 769670

<< didn't lie. But acknowledged that you have "many" polls after you showed me two.>> You're really full of it. I said there were many polls and you asked me to show you "one." So i showed you one and you then accused me of dishonestly trying to pawn off one poll as many. That's just weak on your part. (BTW: there's a third poll showing leave it to the States ahead by one point 45-44 or so.) <<Guess we'll see in November.>> Whether or not Bush wins in November, i doubt it will be because of the gay marriage amendment. It back-fired on the President because it fell so pitifully. He called on the Republican Senate to act and failed to even get full Republican support, revealing a split in the party and making the President look weak. <<I am talking about gay people wanting to change the definition of marriage, not whether blacks could marry whites. Invalid comparison.>> You just can't stop lying can you? Read you own post Message 20311258 "Just like 50 years ago with inter-racial marriage." I'm not black, but I am sure you know they are taking offense at dishonest comparisons like this. To claim that changing the definition of marriage is equivelent to insuring our gauranteed rights to blacks is ridiculous. But the left is ridiculous, so no surprise. See, you said bringing up inter-racial marriage was a dishonest comparison. You stupidly said not allowing interracial marriage was a violation of "our guaranteed rights to blacks." But it's a perfect comparison: Whites didn't have any rights blacks didn't have, neither could marry outside their race. Marriage was defined as between a man and a woman of the same race. It had been for hundreds of years. That applied to all races. We changed the definition of marriage to allow the races to intermarry. <<I am talking about gay people wanting to change the definition of marriage,>> We just changed the definition in 1967, it's not only between people of the same race anymore. <<Seems like a reasonable rule to me.>> You just can't stop can you? You wrote: "See how many gay people (which they are free to be with no restrictions)." Well they're restricted by the military whether you think it's a reasonable rule or not. It's a rule that only applies to gays which makes your original assertion wrong no matter how you try to change the subject. Steve Dietrich

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next