I'm not sure what to make of this. This is the first I'm hearing about it.
1 posted on
10/26/2004 5:05:22 AM PDT by
ruralgal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
To: ruralgal
Well, this should make some Bush supporters stay home. Or at least the NY Times/Kerry campaign hope so.
2 posted on
10/26/2004 5:07:04 AM PDT by
PilloryHillary
(John Kerry is a traitor! johnfkerrysucks.com)
To: ruralgal
Can we step into any more potholes this final week?
To: ruralgal
Bush has ALWAYS said that this should be left up to the states. Why? Because all states so far oppose civil unions, and have voted against them. That's the reason activist judges are overturning the laws...
He saying let the PEOPLE choose what they want - and since they overwhelmingly want marriages between men and women only, it becomes a enfranchisement issue.
6 posted on
10/26/2004 5:09:14 AM PDT by
dandelion
(http://johnkerryquestionfairy.blogspot.com/)
To: ruralgal
John Kerry is still gonna get whooped on November 2nd.
We have to be sure to tell our DUh friends that they get their turn to vote on November 2nd.
8 posted on
10/26/2004 5:09:34 AM PDT by
Preachin'
(Kerry/Rather 2004)
To: ruralgal
The NYT does its level best to discourage Republican turnout at the polls.
I'll still be there to vote for the President, even though I oppose the legal recognition of sodomite perversion.
9 posted on
10/26/2004 5:10:44 AM PDT by
wideawake
(God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
To: ruralgal
This is the first I've heard him say this, too. He's always said it should be left to the states, but his personal opposition to the GOP platform is news to me.
13 posted on
10/26/2004 5:14:09 AM PDT by
7.62 x 51mm
(• veni • vidi • vino • visa • "I came, I saw, I drank wine, I shopped")
To: ruralgal
Leaving it up to the states and the people is a stance pretty consistent with most Republican party statues.
I think the NYT is embellishing it a bit...
14 posted on
10/26/2004 5:14:13 AM PDT by
MikefromOhio
(Rudi Bahktiar is hot!!!! Too bad she works for CNN.....)
To: ruralgal
This is making a mountain out of a mole hill. As I read it Bush is saying that whether civil unions are allowed should be decided at the state level, and that as govenor of Texas he would have opposed it. As long as the federal government protect states' rights to make this decision, I have no objection to it.
15 posted on
10/26/2004 5:14:35 AM PDT by
HoustonTech
(Vote for Strength. Vote a straight Republican ticket.)
To: ruralgal
If President Bush actually said what the article alleges he said, his statement cannot be blamed on MSM misrepresentation. The last thing Bush needs is to depress voter turnout among social conservatives. "Civil unions" give the blessing of the state to perversion and immorality.
To: ruralgal
"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others." I have zero problem with that.
18 posted on
10/26/2004 5:15:32 AM PDT by
AHerald
("I'm George W. Bush, and I approved this butt-whoopin'")
To: ruralgal
He's shooting for the Andrew Sullivan/Log Cabin vote.
19 posted on
10/26/2004 5:15:37 AM PDT by
spodefly
(I've posted nothing but BTTT over 1000 times!!!)
To: ruralgal
"ruralgal" new to FR 10/22/2004.
Time to report your proud dirty work to your fellow "clymers" at DU.
To: ruralgal
Sounds good to me. Let states decide.
22 posted on
10/26/2004 5:19:38 AM PDT by
wingnutx
(tanstaafl)
To: ruralgal
State's rights? How novel!!
28 posted on
10/26/2004 5:22:23 AM PDT by
IrishGOP
(I don't like John Kerry, because John Kerry is going to get me killed.)
To: ruralgal
Reasonable people can disagree on issues like this and realize John Kerry under no circumstances is a better option than George W. Bush. No one should stay home because of this, if they do they might condemn us all to John Kerry running the US into the ground.
To: ruralgal
I don't agree. A civil union is the equivalent of marriage in all but name. I do oppose it and so do the American people.
31 posted on
10/26/2004 5:23:39 AM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: ruralgal
Wake up! Can you not see that every day now the NYTimes is trying to hit President Bush and help their boy, Kerry? Everyday!
It is disgraceful. The Times is engaged in blatant political activism. It's as if Terry McAulliff is actually directing what hits he wants the Times to take on President Bush
It is so obvious. You are a hopeless fool if you fall for it, or succumb to it.
32 posted on
10/26/2004 5:24:07 AM PDT by
Obadiah
To: ruralgal
I have to say this dissapoints me.
To: ruralgal
Ah, another hit piece by the NYT. Trying to cut into the Presidents base.
37 posted on
10/26/2004 5:24:46 AM PDT by
mware
To: ruralgal
Not really a surprise for me but I still have to fall back on what I posted yesterday:
It is not a secret that I'm not a huge fan of GW's. I look at the overall picture and try an figure out which way we will lose the least. However, there are a couple of disqualifies. One of those is "abortion". Anyone who believes that it is ok to grind up a child and suck them out of the womb is simply unfit for ANY public office. In failing to understand the very basics of life, it is impossible for them to make wise decisions. Not only could I not vote for Kerry, I can not do anything that would contribute to or result in him getting into office.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson