Fox
Republicans accuse West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd (search) of sharply changing his priorities over the last five decades in the first television ad purchased by either of the campaign committees in a warmup to the 2006 congressional campaign.
The Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee announced Thursday it has spent “tens of thousands” of dollars for an ad that will start Friday and run on network and cable television in the Charleston, W.Va., market. The final amount spent and length of time the ad will run have not been settled, said Brian Nick, a committee spokesman.
The ad shows a picture of Byrd as a brown-haired young man with a bow tie and a fiddle under his chin that alternates with a picture of the white-haired senator, who is now 87. Byrd entered the Senate in 1958 and is in his eighth term.
“Byrd voted for soldiers in the 50s, but he voted against body armor in the War on Terror (search). Back then, he stood with working families … today he votes for higher taxes for the middle class.” The first claim refers to a 2003 bill providing money for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the second refers to Byrd’s votes against President Bush’s proposed tax cuts.
what can we say about politicians who take one stand one year (day, month) and another the next?
like candidate Bush saying homosexual rights is a state issue.
like Bill Frist who now supports increasing federal funding for stem cells, just a month after he said he did not support expanded financing.
what can we say about a politician who does that?
a. he’s a politician
b. everybody does it &
c. the opposition often gets demonized as flip- floppers for doing it.
if this forum gets ten posts, historically at least two of them will include calling Byrd a klu klux klan member – & isn’t that half the fun of bringing his name up?
What do you come here for if not to discuss the issues? We are talking about Byrd.
balance & perspective.
dontcha just love it?
(don’t answer that)
on the other hand – if i could find an issue in this forum, i might have an opinion on it.
any help there?
Shiloh, go plague the DU or something if you don’t like it here! You can be sucha bitch. I don’t hear any debate from you lately, just bitching. Ok,,, you must face the facts.
1. Conservatives have Congress
2. Conservatives have Senate
3. Conservatives have the majority of state houses and governorships.
4. Conservatives have the PRESIDENCY
5. Conservatives will soon have the Courts.
oh, and 6. Liberals have the ACLU, The UNIONS and other traitorous organizations.
Wow! and the American public is starting to see that!:wink:
Galt
your nature is that of a follower, so the attacks by others on me give you direction. i get it.
where is it that i am ‘bitching’?
if the American public is just starting to see what you say they are, they are too stupid to understand what they’re because what’s been happening has been going on for a generation. when they finally do “understand” (whatever that means) they’ll know that their fears are being pumped up by an administration that got elected on fear, & throw the bums out.
when the pendulum swings and none of the 5 things on your list is true anymore, will you have anything else to say?
when the majority doesn’t agree with you, i’m guessing the majority will then be wrong in your eyes?
do i detect a tone of arrogance in your post?
Who cares what you detect? In fact who cares what you think? Obviously only you do.
I for one am glad they are going after Byrd. It is time for him to retire.
5-John, you will have to excuse the excuse for balance. He seems to think that what he says matters. He hasn’t figured out anything in his 57 years on earth.
peejz – i don’t take your insults personally. if you read yourself, you insult quite a number of people just because you disagree with them.
some might consider that a character flaw, but
you seem to relish it as a strength.
your attacks are unnecessary, but you seem to enjoy them too much for any self-examination to be worthwhile.
it’s easy to dismiss such illogic.
9-blah blah blah shiloh. I bet you copied and pasted that from the numerous times you have had felt the need to post it.
Byrd brains acting like such a jerk again i mean why do the good folk of West Virginia continue to elect this blabbering nit-wit?:razz:
1,
“like candidate Bush saying homosexual rights is a state issue.”
I don’t see him backing off that opinion at all. Oh yeah, you must be confusing homosexual rights as a state issue as that with the Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage. Not at all the same, and while I disagree with the Amendment and President Bush’s opinion of it, I can see that those are two separate issues…
Too bad you can’t.
And while I don’t pay attention to what Frist supports and does not support, it wouldn’t be surprised if you are misrepresenting that also. That is, after all, your M.O.
Now, what what the issue? President Bush? No…Bill Frist? No…Oh yeah- Robert Byrd- someone I can’t imagine anyone (besides a bigot) even attempting to defend.
And yet, here’s Shiloh…
& Ted – your issues with me seems to follow into most forums. howdy.
peejz – talk about me pasting – you don’t see your own repetititve posts insulting me, do you?
& here we are again.
thanks ted – thanks peejz.
what a suprise.
good job.
i was wrong. 10 posts in & not one mention of the klan. of course there’s no mention of whatever the point of this forum is, which i’ve yet to discover.
it’s like leading children.
re: the rights of homosexuals to marry & Bush’s pandering:
if you think because you characterize it as protecting marriage & think people (outside this narrow, right ‘leaning’ world) believe that rationale & don’t see the change of direction, the blinders are working. are you offering this as an example of ‘compassionate conservatism’?
come to think of it, what compassion?
so blatant, yet i imagine you’re writing with a straight face.
let me be the first to say a word about Bob Byrd.
an amendment proposed by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) to provide $390 million in additional funding for border security also won unanimous support from Senate Democrats and passed, despite “nay” votes from 34 Republican senators, including Frist and McConnell.
you like this amendment, peejz, don’t you? why not drop him a thank you note.
I believe the approach that was used on Daschle will be repeated with Byrd.
15,
Regarding protection of marriage: Undoubtedly you did not pay too much attention to the state issues that were passed regarding protection of marriage that proves your statements as it being a narrow view as false. The polls that you also like to tout (which in the end to me are still meaningless to me, but since you like to cling to them…) show 69% of Americans supporting protection of marriage acts in the states. So much for your dismissal of the facts.
Any sensible, rational person sees protection of marriage and gay rights as two separate issues. Because you do not only belies the fact that you have no grip on the facts of the issue.
Regarding Byrd: The motivation for Byrd is not national security but undoubtedly racism- an approach that doesn’t surprise me if you would endorse.
Ted
the same states that want to protect marriage (heterosexuals have already done more than enough damage to marriage) will outlaw abortion.
generically they’re called red states.
if you really believe the stuff you said about homosexual rights and marriage being two separate issues – well i just don’t know what to say. once again you’re saying the sky is not blue. the point is lost in the craziness of your statement.
i do want to congratulate you though. you’re becoming very inventive in stretching and twisting points & just making stuff up (ala pcd) that all comes together into a way to further insult me.
you’re a hoot.
No insult here Shiloh. Do you think it right for a NATION to say “hey its ok to do this great sin, and we will even normalize it”? Do you think it will not be noticed. I would think it an addition to the legal murder of the innocent. What judgment do you think we would have as a nation?
re #6. You must follow to lead. I have never seen it any other way.
Michigan, a “BLUE” state, voted for Kerry and overwhelmingly for NO GAY MARRIAGE! I guess that must be what Ted is referring to?
18,
It is just a matter of fact, that’s all. They are two separate issues. Most people understand this, and only those who do not respect the institution of marriage does not.
Of course, you are happy to dwell in your ignorance of the issue, that is fine.
Marriage (which Bush wants a Constitutional Amendment to protect) is a religious institution and one that must be given the respect it is due. My opinion is that it should be completely separated from that of the state issue to the point that the religious man doing the ceremony shouldn’t even be allowed to sign the state certificate. Most people, however, do not recognize their union as valid unless marriage is involved. I happen to agree with that assertion.
Civil unions are that of the state issue (this is what Bush says too), and one that should be allowed to be decided by said states. If that means two gays can have all the lawful benefits of said society, that is the state’s prerogative. Of course, we saw ;last election that most states do not want that yet either and neither does the vast majority of the population.
I happen to be in the minority. The problem is the idiots like yourself that either confuse the two institutions or do not give the former the respect it is due. While this continues, the latter will rarely allowed to occur.
Ted
17 “the polls you like to tout” do i quote polls regularly? is once considered ‘touting’? no matter.
some exaggerations are showing. comfort yourself with the facts when i’m being wrong, don’t start blatantly reaching for imaginations.
i’m trying to be nice while you’re calling me all these things (your negative energy has scared me straight) but you’re on the verge of pushing me into a corner where a negative word may have to be used.
but i’m more fascinated with the focus you seem to have & your interest in disputing almost everything i say. half of it is thru the rabbit hole logic & easily dismissed – the other half I consider. no one’s paid this kind of attention to me online before so i’m somewhat on new ground.
is it love? are you building yourself up on the ashes of my imagined destruction?
do you think i am daunted by this whatever-it-is vendetta?
all this to say i will no longer play with you in this way. i am excising you until you start behaving.
21,
Exactly. IIRC, out 11 states whose ballots had protection of marriage issues all 11 of them passed. It even passed in Oregon, yet another blue state victory and perhaps the most stunning. Polls (Shi’s favorite tool) showed between 60-70% (depending on the poll, as I have reviewed the figures) support of the issue nationwide. 59% showed support of a Constitutional Amendment.
Ted
“all this to say i will no longer play with you in this way. i am excising you until you start behaving.”
Yaaaaaaawn!
You already did, numbnuts.
Ted
19,
You have a valid point. 30 years later, Roe v. Wade is still a societal issue simply because it is NOT a ruling on abortion rights as many seem to think but a compromise.
You’d would think that it would have “normalized” by now, huh?
Ted
19
i don’t think abortion is any business of “the nation”.
marriage is not all in the eyes of the law, a religious anything.
the problem is the sanctimonious, those who know what’s best for everybody, those claiming they also know God’s will & want to insert themselves & their traditional values.
can you imagine a theocracy
legislated by the likes of John Ashcroft?
What’s all this “protect marriage” BS? Protect it from what? Is society this homophobic? Why is it that every time the right wing wants to stir-up it’s base, they have to resort to “fear” tactics?
“The Gays Are Coming To Get You And Destroy Your Marriage!”
theres one smoking a joint, and another with spots…
Tofu- no offense but that is an incredibly ignorant statement. It isn’t a matter of fear, homophobia or “left and right” (as both “left” and “right” factions are in opposition) but of recognition and respect.
Marriage in religion, is defined as a strictly religious act between those being married and God (usually, this is a religious sacrament). Unless that is recognized and respected by all parties involved (whether you are gay, straight, religious or not) the issue will never proceed forward.
The issue is not just one of the matter of law.
You have to separate the religious aspect (marriage) from the state aspect (civil unions) and both have to recognize and respect the other side of the issue- otherwise the issue will never proceed forward and gays will never have the rights of “civil unions”. Until
Ted
28,
In my state, the wedding certificate requires the signature of my pastor for the wedding to be legal. When my pastor signed it, seems like that makes it a religious “something” to me. Marriage is strictly religious by historical definition- it is the vagueness of the law that have blurred the definition. Those two definitions need separated.
Ted
31-
Forgive my apparent “ignorance” but if what you say is true, why are we mixing civil law with the reglious doctrine of select religions?
Which state are you in that requires a priest/minister to bless a marriage before the state will grant the license? That’s just crazy.
Perhaps we need to get the state out of the ‘marriage’ business completely and convert all existing to civil unions. Then we won’t have to worry about sensitives and fears of joey and johnny getting ‘married’ cause the state won’t care.
Incidently, Ohio was one of those 11 states which passed an ammendment banning gay marriage last fall. In fact, it was the most restrictive all of them. It went further: “This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends t approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.”
Interstingly, not only did this hurt the case of gay and lesbian couples, but also unmarried heterosexual couples. We recently had a domestic violence case where the couple was not married, but lived together with child. The father was accused of violence against the mother, however, with the new ammendmend, his attorney argued that the felony charge was not perscribed and the charge was lowered to a mere 3rd degree misdemeanor.
Now Ohio law makers are scratching their heads and asking themselves WTF do we do now??
The ammendment did nothing to ‘protect’ marriage— it only has resulted in harming unmarried couples and fostering intolerence of the LGBT community. A worthless wedge issue of the right.
My state requires the signature of my pastor or the justice of the peace’s signature. But the fact is that my pastor signed it.
Welcome to Ohio.
This is exactly why marriage needs defined as the religious institution, just as it should be and civil unions of that of the state.
Ted
34-
Thank you for clarifying because your original statement “In my state, the wedding certificate requires the signature of my pastor for the wedding to be legal.” seemed to mean unions must be blessed by a church before your state would recognise it.
Witnessed by a Justice of the Peace, a court appointmentee not a religious figure, is a valid path to marriage in all states, I believe. Religion not required.
29.
Ok Tofu…I suppose the left never resorts to fear tactics……..
“Republicans are going to take away your social security, and elderly people will be eating dog food”
“If George W. Bush is re-elected, rape will be legal”
“If The republicans gain control of congress, blacks will be second class citizens”
Yes, Tofu, it’s only the RIGHT that is engaged in scare tactics, right?????
29, looks to me the Lefties are still looking for John Ashcroft under their beds.
37-Good point PCD. He isn’t even in office yet lets blame him for it.
WHat Tofu dosen’t understand is that the republicans need not “scare” anyone by using gay marriage as some sort of wedge issue.
Newsflash…. the MAJORITY of americans are OPPOSED to gay marriage, not becuase they have been “scared” by some republican propaganda machine, but because they know that it is WRONG. THis is what you cannot accept.
you think that just because a minority of moral relativists think we should all just accept anything, a few judges can just decree gay marriage fine and dandy, and we have to live with it…that’s not how if works, pal.
I’m personally opposed to ALL Marriage, so I really don’t give a shit… but as long as the union of one man and one woman has proved to be the foundation upon which the perpetuation of the human race has been built, I see no reason to change that.
besides, if we should recognize ANY relationship between people in “loving” “committed” relationships as being equal to one man and one woman… how about one man and 2 women? How about 3 women and a duck? How about 5 18 year olds? after all, who are you, Tofu, to say that their love is not as good? ARe you a BIGOT?????
Hey! I wuv my wubba ducky!
Ted
THe ACLU and NAMBLA will be happy to know that you are at the vanguard of their civil rights struggle to make hot, anal love between hairy 40 year old men and young boys the order of the day.
Good work, Tofu!
Wubba Ducky, you’re the one!
oh shit.. I”m sorry.. middle aged men, sex-crazed priests aren’t GAY, they are MENTALLY ILL….I almost forgot.
42.
Good one TED!!!
Stop the OPPRESSION!!!!
Careful linking the- the government traces your IP and place you on a watch list, exactly as it should be. I don’t know if they run a background check or not and removes you, but I do knw that.
Ted
yeah, good point… they should monitor the psychos… but I think reasonable people who oppose this nonsense should also be able to do their homework and see what these lunatics are up to.