Political stragety

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 5, 2004, 3:31 pm

I was talking with my friend Guido at dinner, and he brought up a very good point about the whole gay marriage issue and how it affected this presidential campaign: it was completely manufactured by the GOP.

A year ago, gay marriage was a non-issue. They wanted benes, not marriage. All the sudden, out of the blue, the Republicans are like "OK, fags can't get married." Well, predictably, the extremist faction within gay community decides that the best way to show them up is to have very public marriages and to get them fucking boradcast on every news station in the country.

So the first thing that Eggbert and Wilma in Nebraska see regarding the gay marriage thing is bull dykes and flaming queens in San Francisco making a mockery of something that they hold very sacred. They don't like it very much, and all the sudden, we have a polarizing issue that motivates those who may not have voted otherwise to get off their asses and vote GOP, while not losing them any votes.

This kind of people manipulation is amazing. The GOP got the gay community to do their dirty work FOR them.

Damiarch · Post by **Damiarch** » November 5, 2004, 3:33 pm

stragety?

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » November 5, 2004, 3:36 pm

Cointelpro

Thess · Post by **Thess** » November 5, 2004, 3:37 pm

Good point, but I believe it was more a media thing focusing on it so much, of course gay people are going to be proud to get married.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 5, 2004, 3:48 pm

Thess, the media coverage is exactly what the GOP was counting on to make this issue run.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · November 5, 2004, 3:52 pm

It was activist judges in Massachusettes and the mayor of san francisco who started it.

The federal law to ban gay marriages was purely to void out the marriage protection act which made one state recognize the marriage of a couple from another state. Therefore leaving up to the indivdual state to decide if gay marriage is something they want.

Despite what bullshit people are saying. The federal law wasn't intended to make sure no one could have gay marriage. It was just to put it back to the states where it had always been.

Yet another example of Dem scare tactics using lies and distortion to rile people up and go out and vote for them. 51% didn't fall for it.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 5, 2004, 3:53 pm

i think you are probably 100% right, and it is brilliant. they know a lot of fundamental things about the dynamic of the population that is their base, and they know how to motivate that base - through both manipulation as well as energizing them honestly.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » November 5, 2004, 3:59 pm

Gay marriage has been on the agenda in a lot of countries for a while now. First in Europe, then to north america is I'm not mistaken. America is just slower than most in adapting social concepts cause a lot of people are a lot more reticent to accept change.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » November 5, 2004, 4:02 pm

Ah, the foreigner who knows us best enlightens us once again.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 5, 2004, 4:03 pm

Midnyte, WTF are you talking about? I know what the text of the original law said, but I also that it, combined with the proposed Constitutional amendment, really angered and spurred those "activist judges" and the extremists in the gay community to take the actions they did. Which just happened to play right into the hands of the GOP, but didn't involve any deceit on the part of the Democrats.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » November 5, 2004, 4:16 pm

once more....slowly
coin...tel....pro

Midnyte_Ragebringer · November 5, 2004, 4:17 pm

Rekaar. wrote:Ah, the foreigner who knows us best enlightens us once again.

Aye. hehe

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 5, 2004, 4:49 pm

Pherr the Dorf wrote:once more....slowly
coin...tel....pro

What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Talking. About?

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 5, 2004, 4:54 pm

It was activist judges in Massachusettes

I take it, since you are comfortable declaring it activist, that you are familiar with Mass. Constituational Jurisprudence and have read the decision. What part of the decision did you find activist? E.g. what particular reasoning in the decision was contrary to the constitutional jurisprudence of the Mass. courts?

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » November 5, 2004, 4:58 pm

COINTELPRO is an acronym for a series of FBI counterintelligence programs designed to neutralize political dissidents. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO's of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against radical political organizations. In the early 1950s, the Communist Party was illegal in the United States. The Senate and House of Representatives each set up investigating committees to prosecute communists and publicly expose them. (The House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, led by Senator Joseph McCarthy). When a series of Supreme Court rulings in 1956 and 1957 challenged these committees and questioned the constitutionality of Smith Act prosecutions and Subversive Activities Control Board hearings, the FBI's response was COINTELPRO, a program designed to "neutralize" those who could no longer be prosecuted. Over the years, similar programs were created to neutralize civil rights, anti-war, and many other groups, all said to be "communist front organizations." As J. Edgar Hoover, longtime Director of the FBI, put it

The forces which are most anxious to weaken our internal security are not always easy to identify. Communists have been trained in deceit and secretly work toward the day when they hope to replace our American way of life with a Communist dictatorship. They utilize cleverly camouflaged movements, such as peace groups and civil rights groups to achieve their sinister purposes. While they as individuals are difficult to identify, the Communist party line is clear. Its first concern is the advancement of Soviet Russia and the godless Communist cause. It is important to learn to know the enemies of the American way of life.

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 5, 2004, 5:03 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:
It was activist judges in Massachusettes
I take it, since you are comfortable declaring it activist, that you are familiar with Mass. Constituational Jurisprudence and have read the decision. What part of the decision did you find activist? E.g. what particular reasoning in the decision was contrary to the constitutional jurisprudence of the Mass. courts?

the part Sean Hannity didn't like

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » November 5, 2004, 7:29 pm

cointelpro in a nutshell, convince a group to do something that will cause it to shoot itself in the foot by posing as a member of said group. Popularized by Dick Held (Nixon Admin, and ok he went by Richard but Dick Held sounds better) and still a currently used tactic due to it's effectiveness against such groups as the Black Panter Party, American Indian Movement and Earth First!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 5, 2004, 7:50 pm

Well, Pherr, you can add gays to that list of marks. Hook, line, and sinker.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » November 5, 2004, 8:19 pm

Dumb ass conspiracy nuts, listen to yourselves, it is called a PLATFORM, and one of the PLANKS was against gay marriages.

This is a part of EVERY presidential election not some "eval" Bush thing.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » November 5, 2004, 8:40 pm

Kylere wrote:Dumb ass conspiracy nuts, listen to yourselves, it is called a PLATFORM, and one of the PLANKS was against gay marriages.

This is a part of EVERY presidential election not some "eval" Bush thing.

I understood the vein of thread to be suggesting that there were some very clever political manuevers conducted by the Republican Party during this election period. It is possible that the gay marriage issue was planned to unravel in this way. If so, then it was a brilliant plot by the Republican Leadership to win support.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » November 5, 2004, 9:39 pm

Honestly, I was shocked that America was looking so progressive all of a sudden as to start legalizing gay marriages. Heck, Canada only just recently got in on it.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » November 5, 2004, 9:53 pm

If people seriously think the RNC organized Gay marriages to make them press worthy to use as a plank in the election then you are fools.

If the RNC was that capable I would have voted for them, and the margin would have been a hell of a lot wider.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 6, 2004, 10:37 pm

Aaeamdar wrote: Quote:
It was activist judges in Massachusettes

I take it, since you are comfortable declaring it activist, that you are familiar with Mass. Constituational Jurisprudence and have read the decision. What part of the decision did you find activist? E.g. what particular reasoning in the decision was contrary to the constitutional jurisprudence of the Mass. courts?

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: [nothing]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought.