► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Social Issues’

Republican Establishment plays their voters again: George H W Bush attends a Gay Wedding

by Phantom Ace ( 150 Comments › )
Filed under George W. Bush, Progressives, Republican Party at September 27th, 2013 - 8:00 am


I personally could care less that George H. W. Bush was a witness at a Gay wedding. These were adults he was friends with and he had every right to show support. What irks me is that Poppy Bush made the Republican Party Social issue centric. He moved the party away from its traditional focus on Economic issues and made  the Culture War (Murphy Brown, Family Values) the focus of the party. This was done for cynical reasons to cover up his Progressive economic polices. The result was that the GOP lost for a generation it’s old Northeastern and Upper Midwestern suburban stronghold.

Poppy’s son took a page from his father and in the 2004 campaign used opposition Gay Marriage to whip up the Social Conservative base. Although at the time it was electorally successful, the vitriol and hate directed at Gays by segments of the Republican Party created a backlash that now most Americans support Gay Marriage. Even worse, George W Bush now refuses to speak out against Gay Marriage. His wife and daughters support Gay Marriage and in this context it is no surprise that his Father approves of Gay Marriage. George H. W. Bush served as a witness at a Gay Marriage between 2 female friends of theirs in Maine.

(Reuters) – Former President George H.W. Bush and his wife, Barbara, were the official witnesses of a same-sex marriage between two women in Maine over the weekend, a spokesman said on Wednesday.

The former first couple witnessed the private ceremony on Saturday in Kennebunk between Bonnie Clement and Helen Thorgalsen, according to Jim McGrath, a Bush spokesman.

Clement posted a photograph on her Facebook page of President Bush signing a piece of paper as the couple, close friends of the Bushes, watched and held champagne glasses.

The couple owns H.B. Provisions, a general store in Kennebunk, Maine. The former president owns a compound in Kennebunkport, about four miles (six km) east of Kennebunk.

Maine is one of 13 states that allows gay marriage.

Like I said earlier in the thread I could cares less Poppy Bush was at a Gay Wedding, that’s his business and congrats to the couple. This is not a Social Conservative vs. Libertarian thread either. My issue is that Poppy attending a Gay Wedding is that it is indicative of the Republican Establishment’s cynical use of social issues. They could care less about gays or abortion, they just use the issues to manipulate Republican voters to support them. They are playing Republican voters for suckers and using the rhetoric to keep control over the Party.

My advise to my Social Conservative allies, don’t fall for red meat social issue rhetoric. Mr. Family Values himself was a witness at a gay Wedding, which should proof at how phoney these GOP Establishment types are on these issues. The reality is, there is nothing these politician can do on these issues, it’s ruse to deceive well meaning voters.




Mayor Bloomberg endorses Obama but admits Romney would better on the Economy!

by Phantom Ace ( 192 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Fascism, Liberal Fascism, Progressives at November 1st, 2012 - 7:00 pm

I have said in the past that I felt for most of the 90’s and 2000’s that some Social Conservatives didn’t care about the economy and only cared about the social issues. Well it’s worse on the Progressive side of things. Many Progressives claim to be fiscally conservative but Socially Liberal. However, when confronted with a choice they will chose their Social Liberalism over Economic freedom.

The Neo-Fascist Mayor of NYC and Dhimmi of the Caliphate Mike Bloomberg has endorced Barack Obama. This is really not shocking news. What intrigues me is his rational. He openly admits Mitt Romney would be better for the US economy. But Bloomberg says Obama’s stances on social issues, Gun Control and Global Warming is why he’s voting for the President. Bloomberg even admits that economically, Obama is to far Left for his tastes. Yet Bloomberg feels that Social issues override the economy.

I believe Mitt Romney is a good and decent man, and he would bring valuable business experience to the Oval Office. He understands that America was built on the promise of equal opportunity, not equal results. In the past he has also taken sensible positions on immigration, illegal guns, abortion rights and health care. But he has reversed course on all of them, and is even running against the health-care model he signed into law in Massachusetts.

If the 1994 or 2003 version of Mitt Romney were running for president, I may well have voted for him because, like so many other independents, I have found the past four years to be, in a word, disappointing.

In 2008, Obama ran as a pragmatic problem-solver and consensus-builder. But as president, he devoted little time and effort to developing and sustaining a coalition of centrists, which doomed hope for any real progress on illegal guns, immigration, tax reform, job creation and deficit reduction. And rather than uniting the country around a message of shared sacrifice, he engaged in partisan attacks and has embraced a divisive populist agenda focused more on redistributing income than creating it.


When I step into the voting booth, I think about the world I want to leave my two daughters, and the values that are required to guide us there. The two parties’ nominees for president offer different visions of where they want to lead America.

One believes a woman’s right to choose should be protected for future generations; one does not. That difference, given the likelihood of Supreme Court vacancies, weighs heavily on my decision.

One recognizes marriage equality as consistent with America’s march of freedom; one does not. I want our president to be on the right side of history.

One sees climate change as an urgent problem that threatens our planet; one does not. I want our president to place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics.


Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan both found success while their parties were out of power in Congress — and President Obama can, too. If he listens to people on both sides of the aisle, and builds the trust of moderates, he can fulfill the hope he inspired four years ago and lead our country toward a better future for my children and yours. And that’s why I will be voting for him.

You guys read that correctly. Mike Bloomberg admits Mitt Romney would be better on the economy. But In Bloomberg’s world abortion, gun control, gay marriage and global warming stances are more important than economic growth. He then claims he would have voted for the 2003 version of Mitt Romney. I have news for Bloomberg, the Mitt Romney of 2003 is the same guy we have running in 2012. Yes Mitt took some socially conservative stances to win the GOP nomination. But no one thinks he really cares about social issues.

Does Bloomberg really think Mitt Romney is going to spend political capital to ban abortions or undue gay marriage? If George W. Bush who was the most socially conservative person to be President and who really was into these values issue didn’t ban abortion, doe anyone think Mitt Romney who is really a Eisenhower Republican moderate is going to ban it? This is pure dishonestly on Mike Bloomberg’s part.

The real reason the Neo-Fascist Mayor is backing Obama because he is rich enough to survive the false god-king’s economic policies. In his mind, he could care less about a stagnant economy. It’s all about abortion on demand and fighting, taking away gun rights and fighting the global warming hoax that are his priorities. Bloomberg could have been honest and come out and said that since he is rich, he could care less about the economy.

Mike Bloomberg should have asked Obama why he didn’t keep his promise of stopping ocean flooding. Parts of NYC City are flooded due to Obama not keeping his promise of stopping ocean levels from rising. But I would not expect Mike Bloomberg to even ask Obama this question. After all, Obama supports abortion on demand and that is what Bloomberg cares about.

While voters worry about the economy, Democrats focus on abortion

by Phantom Ace ( 3 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Headlines, Progressives at August 24th, 2012 - 10:25 am

2012 is turning into 1992 in reverse. In that year Papa Bush presiding over stagnant economy decided to launch a campaign on culture wars. His campaign attacked the TV show Murphy Brown, popular music and was obsessed with family values. To top it all off, he allowed Pat Buchanan to make a very hateful speech calling for a culture war. This speech lost the suburbs for the GOP for nearly a generation.

Like Papa Bush, Obamaligula aka. King Put presides over an anemic economy. He has decided to run on attacking Chick-Fil-A and abortion on demand. Unlike Bush, he has the press cheer-leading him and helping to distract voters.

“This election, to me, is about which candidate is more likely to return us to full employment,” says former President Bill Clinton in a new ad released by the Obama campaign. Most voters would agree, at least if one believes countless polls that show the economy and jobs are the nation’s top concern.

So why are Democrats planning to make their convention a celebration of abortion and gay marriage? The Obama campaign has given a new and prominent surrogate role to Sandra Fluke, the former Georgetown law student and full-time lefty activist who achieved notoriety after Rush Limbaugh called her a bad name because of her energetic promotion of taxpayer-financed contraception.

This week, Fluke’s role has been to attack Republicans over Rep. Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” statement. “Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan tried to distance themselves from the remark,” Fluke wrote in an Obama campaign email, “but the fact is they’re in lockstep with Akin on the major women’s health issues of our time.”

Fluke is just one part of the Democrats’ plan to target Akin and the GOP on abortion.

Running on distracting social issues  didn’t work for Poppy Bush and hopefully will not work for Obama.


Obama opposes Bill banning gender based abortions

by Phantom Ace ( 9 Comments › )
Filed under Abortion, Headlines at May 31st, 2012 - 1:56 pm

The House is planning on voting on a bill voting to outlaw abortions based on gender. Right now if the unborn is discovered to be a boy or girl and the parent wants the other sex, the baby can be aborted. The Pharaonic regime has come out against the bill.

TAPPER: The House is, I think, this afternoon preparing to take up a bill that would ban gender selection as a factor in abortions in this country. And I was wondering — I haven’t a statement of administration policy; I was wondering if the White House had a position on that?

CARNEY: I will have to take that as well. Been focused on other things, but I will get back to you.

Note: The White House got back to me this evening to say the president opposes the bill.

White House deputy press secretary Jamie Smith says in a statement: “The Administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision.   The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

Personally I would wait until after the election for this type of legislation. But luckily, the Obama Regime has come out against the bill and in support of gender based abortions. Personally I hope if the GOP wins the White House and gets complete control of government they don’t waste their time on this social stuff. Our nation is in debt, the economy shaky and the American dream dying. I hope that is their priority. That said, I find abortions based on a baby’s gender despicable and it should be outlawed.