July Poll - Your Choice For U.S. President - 2004

Status
Not open for further replies.

jonb

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
7,578
Media
0
Likes
65
Points
258
Age
40
Nader's on the Reform Party? Well, my clock even says "Cuckoo! Cuckoo! In order to be a Reform candidate you have to be cuckoo!"
 

Pecker

Retired Moderator
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Posts
54,502
Media
0
Likes
320
Points
283
Originally posted by MarkSavage@Jul 1 2004, 09:24 PM
Yeah, the Reform Party endorsed him. He also wanted the Greens' endorsement, but they soundly rejected him.
The Greens shrubbed their shoulders and treed Nader.

He had to bough out.
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The first presidential election I was eligible to vote in was '88. (Sadly, I never got to vote against Reagan.) Although I've never missed a presidential election, I've never cast my vote for a major-party candidate before?

Why? I've never lived in a 'battleground state' -- the states where I was living have always been so decidedly tilted towards one candidate or the other than one more vote would not be likely to affect the electoral winner-takes-all outcome for the state. On the other hand, maaaaaaybe, my vote could be useful in securing federal matching funds for a deserving minor party.

This year, of course, it's gonna be different. I can't overstate this fact: Getting Bush out of office is vital to my health and happiness. We face an uphill battle in Virginia -- polls still show that monster ahead by a few points in this state -- but I'm not taking any chances.

Am I a John Kerry fan? Not really, but it doesn't matter. I'd vote for Pauly Shore if I thought he had the best chance of beating Bush in this state. :angry: I'm optimistic that the number of fringe voters who will come out of the woodwork to oust a madman is underrepresented in the polls.
 

MisterMark

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Posts
2,021
Media
10
Likes
126
Points
383
Location
Palm Springs, CA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Heath - I think you'll be glad to know that in the latest poll in Virginia, Bush was ahead by only 2%.

Here's a great site to help us keep track of the public polls:

http://2.004k.com/

And I love this site too - they update it daily with the latest electoral vote predictions:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/
 

jay_too

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Posts
789
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
236
Age
44
Location
CA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Mark..

I checked out http://www.electoral-vote.com/ Good info. Thanks.

In this age of proposing a constitutional amendment to right everything, I think we should combine North and South Dakota into one state and Montana and Wyoming into another. Why? Well, after a century or so, it is obvious that not many want to live in these states.

Evidence? Well, they only have one Representative. A real state should have at a minimum as many U.S. Representatives as they have U.S. Senators (2). This would be a cost savings to the Federal Government and to the citizens of the semi-states of SD, ND, MN, and WY.

jay
 

KinkGuy

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Posts
2,794
Media
0
Likes
156
Points
268
Age
70
Location
southwest US
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Originally posted by Tender@Jul 2 2004, 12:44 PM


but i do want a President who agrees with protecting tradional marriage.

what a mess!

Tender
bush and the southern baptist conventionites are NOT talking about "protecting traditional marriage"...they are talking about re-writing the U.S. Constitution as an EXCLUSIONARY document. It was conceived by our founding fathers as an INCLUSIVE document and clearly addresses the separation of church and state. bush and the bush cartel (cheney, ashcroft, rumsfeld, rice et al) want to make the Constitution address what is actually a states rights issue. The bushies made gay marriage a wedge issue for the November election (and it is a pay back to the right wing christian zealots who put him illegally into office). Not one of our (read glbt) political or social action groups had gay marriage on any agenda or calendar as a battle to launch under the watchful eye of the bushie administration. gee, all these morals from a "man" who gleefully executed more people than any other governor in the history of the U.S. Sorry for the rant....and I could go on and discuss the graft, corruption and illegal actions by he and his cronies regarding Iraq AND the fact that they could all be tried as war criminals in the world court. But I won't....right now....I'm going to go off and talk about big peni' :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: until they don't allow it anymore.
 

KinkGuy

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Posts
2,794
Media
0
Likes
156
Points
268
Age
70
Location
southwest US
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Tender,
I guess the only point I am really trying to make and I apologize for not making it clear, is that IN MY OPINION changing the U.S. Constitution to exclude certain people of "their" choosing is only just the beginning. And again, IMHO, the illegal invasion of another country is part of the overall "bush" package, along with the removal of civil rights which have stood for over 200 years. Who knows, maybe you don't attend the authorized church? I am just addressing the removal of this country's foundation. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. AND, that "Congress shall make no law" regarding religion. AND one more thing, I'm not wearing panties...or anything else at the moment. :rolleyes:
 

KinkGuy

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Posts
2,794
Media
0
Likes
156
Points
268
Age
70
Location
southwest US
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
BTW, I would/will gladly give up the right to marry, live with the basic human civil rights that you enjoy.....to protect the U.S. Constitution.
 

jonb

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
7,578
Media
0
Likes
65
Points
258
Age
40
Originally posted by Tender@Jul 2 2004, 10:44 AM
but i do want a President who agrees with protecting tradional marriage.
I've drafted an amendment to preserve Biblical marriage:
  • Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Genesis 29:17-28; II Samuel 3:2-5)
  • Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Samuel; 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chronicles 11:21)
  • A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deutoronomy 22:13-21)
  • Marriage between a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden. (Genesis 24:3; Numbers 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Nehemiah 10:30)
  • Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the Constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deuteronomy 22:19; Mark 10:9)
  • If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Genesis 38:6-10; Deuteronomy 25:5-10)
  • Divorced people may not remarry without being considered adulterers. Matthew 5:31-32) (Mark 10:4)
  • Adulterers shall be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
Jon (Are we sure we want to preserve this?)
 

BobLeeSwagger

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Posts
1,455
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Originally posted by Tender@Jul 3 2004, 04:17 AM
God created Adam, and he made Eve to be a wife for him.
that is one man one woman and that to me is what god intended for marriage to be. so that is defined as 'traditional marriage'.

as far as bush, i do not beleive he purposely stirred up a 'same sex' marriage scuffle in order to pressure votes.
he isnt that smart :lol:

Tender

I think a previous post pointed out the ridiculous extremes that the Bible takes the idea of "traditional marriage."

Bush did not bring up the same-sex marriage issue. It came up in Massachusetts and California whether he wanted it to or not. During the 2000 primary campaign, he indicated that he thought it was something that each state should decide, not the federal government. Now that he needs the Christian evangelical vote to get re-elected, he can't afford to stay neutral.
 

B_RoysToy

Cherished Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Posts
7,115
Media
0
Likes
287
Points
283
Age
34
Location
memphis, tennessee
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Originally posted by Tender@Jul 3 2004, 04:17 AM

as far as bush, i do not beleive he purposely stirred up a 'same sex' marriage scuffle in order to pressure votes.
he isnt that smart :lol:

Tender
Exactly, Tender, he isn't that smart, but may I add that his actions are guided by Karl Rove, Dick Chaney, and his hard core Republican cabinet, which makes this administration even more dangerous than his 'slow' mind.
 

jonb

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
7,578
Media
0
Likes
65
Points
258
Age
40
Originally posted by Tender@Jul 2 2004, 08:17 PM
God created Adam, and he made Eve to be a wife for him.
that is one man one woman and that to me is what god intended for marriage to be. so that is defined as 'traditional marriage'.

having two mommies or two daddies or five wives is not the original way of marriage.

as far as bush, i do not beleive he purposely stirred up a 'same sex' marriage scuffle in order to pressure votes.
he isnt that smart :lol:

Tender
Oh, a man and his transgender clone. O-kayyyy . . .

Actually, there are clearly two creation stories in Genesis: Genesis 1:1-2:3 has one, and then Genesis 2:4-25 has a second. (Check the order for yourself: In the first one, man and woman are created after the plants and other animals, but in the second, man's created before the plants and other animals, followed by woman last.) In the first one, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." It doesn't say how many humans there are, just that there was more than one.
 

jonb

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
7,578
Media
0
Likes
65
Points
258
Age
40
well man = 1.
men =2.
the word man is used. when he said male and female he created THEM he is saying 1+1 =2 (one man one woman) and that = THEM.
Man's also used in some cases to mean humanity in general. In the original Hebrew, it's humanity in general. If you're going to take it by English alone, God says "Let us make man in our image." Does he have a mouse on his pocket?

The more obvious problem with this literalism is that human remains go back to the Pleistocene, but the genealogy only goes back 6000 years.

the "clone" aspect, is explained in that God wanted Adam's wife to be a part of him, that they were to be one.
And she would've been genetically identical to Adam, if she were made from his rib. Should I marry my twin brother, then?

Even many people who are 'conservitive' on ideas, will not vote for him, because of the war thing.
And also because of the fiscal problems. For what? Tax cuts for the rich. The funny thing is, the American Economic Association considers supply-side roughly analogous to perpetual motion.

otoh, i believe the majority of the nations population is against same sex marriage being legalized, and so they will vote for him because of that.
Well, the irony is, by making it into a constitutional amendment, he's saying that laws forbidding same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. And federal laws forbidding same-sex marriage certainly are; licensing is given to the states. (Of course, states' rights only applies to keeping those who won't vote for you out of your polls, and if you're a Republican, knowing who won't vote for you is as simple as a brown paper bag test.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.