Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by MisterMark, Jul 1, 2004.
Only four months to go!
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!"
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.
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.
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:
And I love this site too - they update it daily with the latest electoral vote predictions:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
And she would've been genetically identical to Adam, if she were made from his rib. Should I marry my twin brother, then?
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.
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.)