Bush supports anti gay marriage amendment

  • News
  • Thread starter edward
  • Start date
In summary: I mean real facts, then I would listen and possibly agree with them. But I have yet to see any pro-Bush member do this. I don't expect to either.In summary, the issue of gay marriage is once again making headlines as the Senate debates a constitutional amendment to ban it. However, many believe this is simply a tactic to rally the conservative base during a tough election year for the Republican Party. Despite Bush's support for the amendment, the timing and reasoning behind it is being questioned. Additionally, the recent record profits of the oil industry and the mishandling of issues such as Katrina and the war in Iraq are also being criticized. The debate over gay marriage ultimately seems to be a political ploy rather than
  • #36
StarkRavingMad said:
I didn't feel attacked by Skyhunter telling me I was repeating rhetoric. It was an accusation, and a little too dismissive, but not all that insulting.
It was an indirect accusation, but not rightly an attack as long as you will provide some case examples. ;)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Clinton's ecexutive orders were not about keeping the America in the dark about security issues. If they were he would have classified the "Monica incident".

My point through this thread is that the Bush administration has been the most secretive in the history of this nation. His executive orders have been heavily involved with keeping information from the people, but also from the Congresas and Senate. That amounts to the classifying of material in a dictatorial manner.

Even to the point of allowing Cheney to keep secret the names of the Oil execuitive he met with to determine America's energy policy, this administration has classified everything.

Clinton's executive orders were were more on the order of being of benifit to the common citizen. For instance from one of the links:

During his two terms as president, Bill Clinton averaged about one executive order each week. By doing so, he was able to effectively legislate from the Oval Office. He wrote executive orders to set aside large tracts of land as national monuments. He wrote executive orders to restructure federalism. He wrote executive orders adding "sexual orientation" to laws on federal hiring. He wrote executive orders prohibiting federal contractors from hiring permanent striker replacements. In other words, he exercised a legislative function: he made laws.[/QUOTE]

And many right wingers had a problem with this, yet seem to have no problem with the secret cabal in the Whitehouse, making laws in the same manner.
 
  • #38
According to Stark's first 2 links, Clinton had 353 publicly disclosed EOs in his 2 terms in office. That's about 3.45 EOs a month.

During these last 65 months of Bush's terms, he has issued a little over 200 EOs (I was a little sloppy in my counting, but the total is 205 +/- 5). That's about 3.15 (between 3.1 and 3.2) EOs per month.

No numbers for secret orders are used above - only those that are publicly disclosed.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
12K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
72
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
72
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
23
Views
5K
Back
Top