Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Weekend polls are always bad indicators, as the people they find at home at not representative of the public-at-large.

Any poll after friday is useless. The election is now in the hands of the Illuminati, who I expect will seed the clouds and cause lots of rain.

Those guys are fucking amateurs.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

And I promise you, lil' darlin! We'll sue those bastards that did this to you!!!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"Keep acting naturally, but there's a Republican poll watcher right behind you."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
How much money do you think we have? Remember Arnold leveraged the budget with huge bonds. His version of balancing.

I'm sure you meant that he refinanced the debt that was coming due and which we could not pay.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So original intent jurisprudence would have said, stay out, let the state handle it,

the State had handled it. then the Florida Supremes decided the Florida legislature and executive branch didn't matter.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
Closer than we would be if we just sit on our ass and do nothing.

Why do you say that? Point to a single study that shows that embroyonic stem cells hold the key to alzheimers. The available evidence indicates that adult stem cells, small molecule pharmaceuticals, and genetic therapy are more promising avenues of research for developing treatments for alzheimers.

You are ignorant of this topic.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Weekend polls are always bad indicators, as the people they find at home at not representative of the public-at-large.

Any poll after friday is useless. The election is now in the hands of the Illuminati, who I expect will seed the clouds and cause lots of rain.

You know, I thought you were full of shit when I first read this, but then I learned that there's a valid scientific basis for this proposition:


People are going nuts over the weekend polling that show Bush way down and Kerry way up. Everybody knows, even the pollsters, that when you start calling on the weekends, you throw those samples out. They don't reflect at all what happens during the week, because people are not at home, and for some reason it's mostly Republicans that aren't at home on Friday night, Saturday night. High school football, trick-or-treating, who knows what they're doing out there but it's clear that Republicans probably have a lot more fun that Democrats do. They're all hate-filled. They've got seething rage out there. How much can they be enjoying themselves? Republicans in the meantime, confident, upbeat, enjoying their family and so forth, not home to take that precious call for your friendly pollster.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...k_a.guest.html

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
You know, I thought you were full of shit when I first read this, but then I learned that there's a valid scientific basis for this proposition:


People are going nuts over the weekend polling that show Bush way down and Kerry way up. Everybody knows, even the pollsters, that when you start calling on the weekends, you throw those samples out. They don't reflect at all what happens during the week, because people are not at home, and for some reason it's mostly Republicans that aren't at home on Friday night, Saturday night. High school football, trick-or-treating, who knows what they're doing out there but it's clear that Republicans probably have a lot more fun that Democrats do. They're all hate-filled. They've got seething rage out there. How much can they be enjoying themselves? Republicans in the meantime, confident, upbeat, enjoying their family and so forth, not home to take that precious call for your friendly pollster.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...k_a.guest.html

Saturday Zogby- Kerry up 1
Sunday Zogby- tied
Today Zogby- Bush up 1

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The Times bit was a little more concrete, as in it said "$75 million in new deposits in the Jesus Bank". That sort of thing grabbed me. I was too busy arguing about how how ridiculous I thought religious beliefs were during our debate to consider how profitable it could be to exploit them.

I take it you have never been to the Vatican Museum.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'll take your sarcasm, raise you by the truth, and end with the only possible logical conclusion. Dispute this:

1.)>>The president’s call for a constitutional amendment came under sharp criticism Tuesday night from Democratic presidential candidates Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards.

Both candidates reiterated their opposition to gay marriage during a California debate, but they also said the issue should be left up to the states to decide.
“He’s doing this because he’s in (political) trouble. ... He’s playing politics with the Constitution of the United States,” said Kerry, the front-runner for the nomination.<<

2.)>> ‘A problem that does not exist’
“This president is talking ... about amending the constitution for a problem that does not exist,” Edwards said.

Directly contradicting a claim made by Bush, Kerry also said the Constitution does not require states to recognize gay marriage licenses granted elsewhere in the country.
“I think, in fact, that no state has to recognize something that is against their public policy,” he said. And for two centuries, “we have left marriage up to the states.”<<


Conclusion: Uhm, full faith and credit?

Hello

ETA And before any asshole starts saying mean things, lplease note that I am opposed to mean things. Basically, opposed on a personal level? Because certainly not on a state level for any particular state, and he's certainly opposed to opposing it on a national level. Admit it man, John Kerry is for all things gay.

I didn't know that Kerry was the deciding vote on the Supreme Court.

Ad(and being against an amendment does not equate to for gay marriage... although it should)der

[Replaced_Texan]

Ty has a piece up about ABC producers who went to K/E04 and B/C04 events wearing the other team's tee shirts. The rules were that they were supposed to obtain tickets and act respectfully once inside. At the Kerry event, Kerry people surrounded the producers but otherwise didn't harrass them. At the Bush event, the producers were asked to leave and it was suggested that law enforcement could help them find the door.

There've been hundreds of accounts of this sort of thing. People arrested, women wearing nonpartisan "protect civil rights" tee shirts kicked out, loyalty oaths, a loyalty pledge....

Why? Why kick out people who hold opposing views? Especially since Bush has been directly addressing Democrats in the last week or so. Aside from Zell Miller and the members of the media, there aren't any Democrats in the crowd to address.

This is a very, very close election. Why alienate half of the constituancy? Why refuse to even address those people?

Obviously, I'm horribly biased against Bush, but this is something I truly don't understand. The practice has gotten a lot of press, and obviously the Rs think they get more milage out of it or they would have cut it out a long time ago. I just dont' understand why.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I just dont' understand why.

This is a very simple concept. It is because it doesn't hurt the Reps to kick them out and doesn't help the Reps to let them stay. Those people offended by the Reps actions weren't voting Rep anyway. Those who are voting Rep either don't care or like the fact that they kick them out.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Weekend polls are always bad indicators, as the people they find at home at not representative of the public-at-large.

Umm... help me out... exactly how? More Dems than Reps are home on weekends?? You sure you don't mean weekdays (on accounta how Reps work and Dems are all on the dole)?

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
He's done no such thing. And he's completely ignored the topic of judicial activism, which makes the federalism argument moot.

Which activitism are you concerned about here (on the gay marriage issue)? We now amend the federal constitutation instead when a state court interprets its state constitution in ways that we don't like?

If I recall correctly, the Minnesota supreme court has found a state right to privacy, should we amend the federal consitution for that too?

Ad(judicial activism is a bipartisan sport anyway)der

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I did just okay in con Law, but wasn't Bush v Gore about stopping judicial activism. Basically some state judges were saying the state's procedures for counting votes don't matter.

So you didn't read that either then.