Undecided Voters....Read!

[Coinit]

A letter to undecided or fence sitting voters

The 2 main issues I see are that Bush is the first president since Hoover to have a net loss of jobs and he made a mistake going to war in Iraq.

I say so what to both.

He is also the first president in history to have our own airplanes used against us to kill over 3000 of our people in a war we didn’t even know we were in. He was handed intelligence right after that devastating attack that said we were going to be attacked again from Iraq, who we already knew had no problems doing such a thing. So he was also the first president to get bad world intelligence.

The job losses were mainly from the attack on 911 and no one could have possibly known at the time that the intelligence was wrong. Had he not acted on this intelligence, and had it been correct, we could have had an even more devastating attack the second time. He didn’t have the luxury of sitting back a year later and finding the intelligence was wrong.

This president has brought this country through one of the worst four year periods we have ever seen. The attack of 911, the corporate scandals and the collapse of the dot coms should have been enough to plunge us into the worst recession in history.

The only way for a challenger to defeat him would be to tear him down before the election. The Democrats started doing this with Dick Gephardt calling him a miserable failure and then every Democrat running for the primary doing the same or worse for the last year.

Instead of rewarding him with an easy lead in this election, we see him in a virtual tie with someone who is untested in all areas. We have an economy that while not great yet, it is surely heading that way. We haven’t been attacked on our soil since 911. Do you want to risk those issues with someone who just says he will do things or someone we know already has?

I say to you undecided or fence sitters, if you can’t make up your mind, allow someone who matters more to do it for you.

Our Military men and women fighting and dying for our freedom support Bush by a 3 to 1 margin.

Shouldn’t that be the deciding factor in this election?

If he’s good enough for them he’s sure good enough for the rest of us.

Coinit

[Slavik44]

A letter to undecided or fence sitting voters

The 2 main issues I see are that Bush is the first president since Hoover to have a net loss of jobs and he made a mistake going to war in Iraq.

I say so what to both.

He is also the first president in history to have our own airplanes used against us to kill over 3000 of our people in a war we didn’t even know we were in. He was handed intelligence right after that devastating attack that said we were going to be attacked again from Iraq, who we already knew had no problems doing such a thing. So he was also the first president to get bad world intelligence.

The job losses were mainly from the attack on 911 and no one could have possibly known at the time that the intelligence was wrong. Had he not acted on this intelligence, and had it been correct, we could have had an even more devastating attack the second time. He didn’t have the luxury of sitting back a year later and finding the intelligence was wrong.

This president has brought this country through one of the worst four year periods we have ever seen. The attack of 911, the corporate scandals and the collapse of the dot coms should have been enough to plunge us into the worst recession in history.

The only way for a challenger to defeat him would be to tear him down before the election. The Democrats started doing this with Dick Gephardt calling him a miserable failure and then every Democrat running for the primary doing the same or worse for the last year.

Instead of rewarding him with an easy lead in this election, we see him in a virtual tie with someone who is untested in all areas. We have an economy that while not great yet, it is surely heading that way. We haven’t been attacked on our soil since 911. Do you want to risk those issues with someone who just says he will do things or someone we know already has?

I say to you undecided or fence sitters, if you can’t make up your mind, allow someone who matters more to do it for you.

Our Military men and women fighting and dying for our freedom support Bush by a 3 to 1 margin.

Shouldn’t that be the deciding factor in this election?

If he’s good enough for them he’s sure good enough for the rest of us.

Coinit

so what are you the republican's version of Michael moore?

[kaper1999]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ows/choice2004/

good site to make up your mind. enjoy.

[Black Dog]

He was handed intelligence right after that devastating attack that said we were going to be attacked again from Iraq, who we already knew had no problems doing such a thing.

And that "intelligence" (most of it bad) was tailored for the specific purpose of guding U.S. policy towards an invasion of Iraq. They wanted to invade Iraq from Day 1. After 9-11, the war on terror gave them the excuse they needed to do so.

The job losses were mainly from the attack on 911 and no one could have possibly known at the time that the intelligence was wrong.

Unemployment under Bush was at its lowest in October of 2001, right after 9-11, so your first statement is incorrect.

As to your assertion that noone could have known the intelligence was wriong, that too is incorrect. Read up on the Office of Special Plans and Ahmed Chalabi.

Here's a primer.

According to former Bush officials, all defence and intelligence sources, senior administration figures created a shadow agency of Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defence Intelligence Agency.

The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney.

The ideologically driven network functioned like a shadow government, much of it off the official payroll and beyond congressional oversight. But it proved powerful enough to prevail in a struggle with the State Department and the CIA by establishing a justification for war.

...

The OSP had access to a huge amount of raw intelligence. It came in part from "report officers" in the CIA's directorate of operations whose job is to sift through reports from agents around the world, filtering out the unsubstantiated and the incredible. Under pressure from the hawks such as Mr Cheney and Mr Gingrich, those officers became reluctant to discard anything, no matter how far-fetched. The OSP also sucked in countless tips from the Iraqi National Congress and other opposition groups, which were viewed with far more scepticism by the CIA and the state department.

...

The OSP absorbed this heady brew of raw intelligence, rumour and plain disinformation and made it a "product", a prodigious stream of reports with a guaranteed readership in the White House. The primary customers were Mr Cheney, Mr Libby and their closest ideological ally on the national security council, Stephen Hadley, Condoleezza Rice's deputy.

In turn, they leaked some of the claims to the press, and used others as a stick with which to beat the CIA and the state department analysts, demanding they investigate the OSP leads.

This president has brought this country through one of the worst four year periods we have ever seen. The attack of 911, the corporate scandals and the collapse of the dot coms should have been enough to plunge us into the worst recession in history.

What do you mean "brought 'us' through"? Joblessness is epidemic, Iraq is still a mess, terrorism (if you belivve the Bush administration) is still a grave threat, milions are struggling without health care. Even Bush's pet programs like No child Left Behind are chronically underfunded. This administration's only skill is doubletalk.

The only way for a challenger to defeat him would be to tear him down before the election. The Democrats started doing this with Dick Gephardt calling him a miserable failure and then every Democrat running for the primary doing the same or worse for the last year.

I wouldn't consider calling Bush a miserable failure to be a slur when it seems to be the truth. Furthermore, dirty politics are, unfortunately, part of the political process now and the Bushies have shown they can give as good as they get in that regard.

Instead of rewarding him with an easy lead in this election, we see him in a virtual tie with someone who is untested in all areas.

I would hardly call Kerry a neophyte. His years of Seanate service mean he's far better versed in the workings of government at a high level than Bush was when he took office. Bush's only political experience prior to the Presidency was the governorship of Texas, a notoriously soft job.

We have an economy that while not great yet, it is surely heading that way. We haven’t been attacked on our soil since 911. Do you want to risk those issues with someone who just says he will do things or someone we know already has?

Let me put it to you this way: given that Bush is the one who got you into the mess in the first place, why would you trust him to get you out.

I say to you undecided or fence sitters, if you can’t make up your mind, allow someone who matters more to do it for you.

Our Military men and women fighting and dying for our freedom support Bush by a 3 to 1 margin.

Shouldn’t that be the deciding factor in this election?

If he’s good enough for them he’s sure good enough for the rest of us.

First, I'd like to see a source for your 3 to 1 stat.

Second: what makes some grunt more qualified to pick the president than anyone else?

[BigDookie6]

Awww.... If it were not for double standards, then Liberals wouldn't have any standards at all!

And that "intelligence" (most of it bad) was tailored for the specific purpose of guding U.S. policy towards an invasion of Iraq. They wanted to invade Iraq from Day 1. After 9-11, the war on terror gave them the excuse they needed to do so.

"War sucks, but freedom is worth it!"

[daniel]

This Cheney/Bush Administration has conflict-of-interest written all over it. The reason nobody has taken any action is that anybody with the power to do so is probably in the loop too.

Enron, Worldcom, Tyco Electronics and all those other corporate corruption cases marking the beginning of Cheney's term was indicative of the type of administration he was about to lead. If Cheney wins the election, there'll be more to come.

The war on terror is in Afghanistan. The Iraq invasion was planned years prior to 911.

Those of you who maintain the world order is better with Cheney ought to worry if anything happens to him, Bush will be at the helm.

Remember when Bush Sr had irregular heartbeats?

[BigDookie6]

This Cheney/Bush Administration has conflict-of-interest written all over it. The reason nobody has taken any action is that anybody with the power to do so is probably in the loop too.

Same with the UN and "Oil for Food" program.

Enron, Worldcom, Tyco Electronics and all those other corporate corruption cases marking the beginning of Cheney's term was indicative of the type of administration he was about to lead. If Cheney wins the election, there'll be more to come.

So where were the "Whistle Blowers" then, if everyone knew what type of administration he was about to lead?

The war on terror is in Afghanistan. The Iraq invasion was planned years prior to 911.

The "War on Terror" is worldwide. You may be right about Iraq, but maybe they were planning it because Sadaam was not holding up his end of the UN Resolutions and kept kicking out inspectors, while the UN remained silent.

Those of you who maintain the world order is better with Cheney ought to worry if anything happens to him, Bush will be at the helm.

Where have you been? They can do without the other... Their Admin have been pulling the strings going on 4 years now.

[Black Dog]

Awww.... If it were not for double standards, then Liberals wouldn't have any standards at all!

What does that even mean?

"War sucks, but freedom is worth it!"

A completely meaningless slogan.

First, the war was not fought on the grounds of "freedom", but on the alleged threat Saddam Hussein posed, a threat that has since been proven to be non-existent. It was only after teh WMD/Terrorism angle crumblesd that the focus shifted to "freeing" the Iraqi people.

[BigDookie6]

Far left Liberals hold the people and government to double standards They undermine God, country, family, and the military. They use the court system to undermine the will of the people. Whatever they cannot gain through the ballot box they claim "Unconstitutional!", and exploit the justice system. And if you believe in any of what they undermine, they claim it is a violation of their civil rights.

It's OK for Liberals to come out of the closet and admit that they are homosexual, and engage in sodomy, Call our President a liar, but lie themselves (Michael Moore.), etc. But not OK for anyone to come out and say they believe in God, or are against being homosexual. (Dbl. standard!)- This is just one out of hundreds of examples.

War is war BD... We're over there right now, whether you like it or not. Don't you tire from trying to unjustify the cause? Obviously our president is not listening to the likes of your kind, nor is at least 50% of Americans or Iraqi's.

[Black Dog]

They use the court system to undermine the will of the people. Whatever they cannot gain through the ballot box they claim "Unconstitutional!", and exploit the justice system.

Examples?

It's OK for Liberals to come out of the closet and admit that they are homosexual, and engage in sodomy, Call our President a liar, but lie themselves (Michael Moore.), etc. But not OK for anyone to come out and say they believe in God, or are against being homosexual. (Dbl. standard!)- This is just one out of hundreds of examples.

Bull. I (and most people of the progressive liberal-left) don't care about an individuals personal religious affiliation or beliefs. It's the enroachment of religion on public policy that gets our backs up.

War is war BD... We're over there right now, whether you like it or not. Don't you tire from trying to unjustify the cause? Obviously our president is not listening to the likes of your kind, nor is at least 50% of Americans or Iraqi's.

So that makes it right? Give me a break. This "war" is an exercise in contemporary imperialism, sold to the public on a bed of lies and now Americans and Iraqis are paying the price for your nation's hubris.

[daniel]

This Cheney/Bush Administration has conflict-of-interest written all over it. The reason nobody has taken any action is that anybody with the power to do so is probably in the loop too.

Same with the UN and "Oil for Food" program.

Enron, Worldcom, Tyco Electronics and all those other corporate corruption cases marking the beginning of Cheney's term was indicative of the type of administration he was about to lead. If Cheney wins the election, there'll be more to come.

So where were the "Whistle Blowers" then, if everyone knew what type of administration he was about to lead?

The war on terror is in Afghanistan. The Iraq invasion was planned years prior to 911.

The "War on Terror" is worldwide. You may be right about Iraq, but maybe they were planning it because Sadaam was not holding up his end of the UN Resolutions and kept kicking out inspectors, while the UN remained silent.

Those of you who maintain the world order is better with Cheney ought to worry if anything happens to him, Bush will be at the helm.

Where have you been? They can do without the other... Their Admin have been pulling the strings going on 4 years now.

More justification for the corrupt, eh? Nothing has or will change.

They undermine God, country, family, and the military

Uh, oh. Here we go about God. I wonder if God or Jesus really would approve of Cheney's corrupt actions.

[BigDookie6]

Just recently, BD...

In California I saw how the ACLU with three (very Liberal judges) tried to stop an election to recall a failed, corrupt governor. (Gray Davis ring a bell?)

Affirmitive Action is another example. Liberals claim that minorities are not getting a "fair shake" in college admissions, based on skin color, instead of social class. If based on poverty, we'd all be getting a "fair shake"; black, white, brown, green, etc. But that's not the case!

Bull. I (and most people of the progressive liberal-left) don't care about an individuals personal religious affiliation or beliefs. It's the enroachment of religion on public policy that gets our backs up.

Is govt. forcing religion on us, like homos are forcing us to tolerate homosexuality?

So that makes it right? Give me a break. This "war" is an exercise in contemporary imperialism, sold to the public on a bed of lies and now Americans and Iraqis are paying the price for your nation's hubris.

Yep! It does make it right! You call it what you want BD. If America is an imperial nation than I want my 40 acres and oil digging mules waiting for me in Iraq! You give me a break Black Dog... If Bush had some backbone and used our military might, then you'd have an argument of "empire" & "imperialism"!

[Black Dog]

In California I saw how the ACLU with three (very Liberal judges) tried to stop an election to recall a failed, corrupt governor. (Gray Davis ring a bell?)

Can you tell me why the ACLU was trying to stop the recall? (I know why: I just wonder if you do.)

Is govt. forcing religion on us, like homos are forcing us to tolerate homosexuality?

The Religious Right is one of the most powerful lobbys in the U.S. (certainly far more influential than the gay rights lobby). That influence undermines the Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. So when political leaders attempt to undermine individual rights such as marriage and the right to choose, on religious grounds, they are, in effect, forcing religion on everyone. In contrast, the "homos" as you so charmingly put it, are simply asking to be accorded the same rights as everyone else.

If America is an imperial nation than I want my 40 acres and oil digging mules waiting for me in Iraq!

This doesn't even make sense.

If Bush had some backbone and used our military might, then you'd have an argument of "empire" & "imperialism"!

America already fits the definition of an empire. I don't know what definition you're operating from.

[BigDookie6]

Can you tell me why the ACLU was trying to stop the recall? (I know why: I just wonder if you do.)

Yeah I know and don't care if you do or not... don't want to hear your spin or posted weblog.

Doesn't matter why. People wanted a recall, and those judges & ACLU tried to stop it.

The Religious Right is one of the most powerful lobbys in the U.S. (certainly far more influential than the gay rights lobby). That influence undermines the Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. So when political leaders attempt to undermine individual rights such as marriage and the right to choose, on religious grounds, they are, in effect, forcing religion on everyone. In contrast, the "homos" as you so charmingly put it, are simply asking to be accorded the same rights as everyone else.

Sure BD.... just a difference in opinion/interpretation. I am far from religious, and don't feel it forced on me. Polticians are just sticking to their core values for political purposes, not forcing them. Homosexuals use the "separation of church & state" argument (backing up my main point) because they know they won't get it through voting. Now who's forcing what on who? Homos are homos (short for homosexual), nothing charming about it, it's a dirty word. Why do you think they changed it to "gay"? Do you call Jewish people "Jews"? So charming!

This doesn't even make sense.

You think we're an imperialistic nation, so I want my land from the country that we're supposedly taking over. I think you got the point! Sense the sarcasim? It was wreaking in the last post.

America already fits the definition of an empire. I don't know what definition you're operating from.

Yeah, and homo fits the definition of being gay. But you don't seem to think so. We're not an empire.

[Black Dog]

Yeah I know and don't care if you do or not... don't want to hear your spin or posted weblog.

Doesn't matter why. People wanted a recall, and those judges & ACLU tried to stop it.

A simple "no, I actually don't have a clue what I'm talking about" would have sufficed, because it's obvious you don't.

The ALCU simply wanted the recall vote delayed until faulty punch card voting machines could be taken out of service. Period. Though I'm starting to see how ensuring elections are conducted fairly, in such a way that every vote counts, is anathema to you: you are, after all, a Bush supporter.

Polticians are just sticking to their core values for political purposes, not forcing them

But their core values might not be shared by the peopl ethey represent. That's why the separation of church and state exists.

Homosexuals use the "separation of church & state" argument (backing up my main point) because they know they won't get it through voting.

Won't get what through? equal rights?

Homos are homos (short for homosexual), nothing charming about it, it's a dirty word. Why do you think they changed it to "gay"? Do you call Jewish people "Jews"?

It's a slur. It would be akin to calling a Jewish individual a "kike".

You think we're an imperialistic nation, so I want my land from the country that we're supposedly taking over. I think you got the point! Sense the sarcasim? It was wreaking in the last post.

Sarcasm only works if it's meaning is clear. However, what makes you think emprires are in the habit of giving away land they've conquered? Did every Roman own a piece of their empire? Was every Briton entitled to a piece of their imperial spoils?

We're not an empire.

Why not?

[BigDookie6]

A simple "no, I actually don't have a clue what I'm talking about" would have sufficed, because it's obvious you don't.

The ALCU simply wanted the recall vote delayed until faulty punch card voting machines could be taken out of service. Period. Though I'm starting to see how ensuring elections are conducted fairly, in such a way that every vote counts, is anathema to you: you are, after all, a Bush supporter.

How vain of you. So if someone does not want to hear what you have to say, you say it anyway huh? Must be Liberal.

"Hey, does everyone want to hear how gay I am?"

The reason I said, "I do not care..." is because it doesn't matter. Even after you still explained... It doesn't matter BD! The ACLU was trying whatever they could to not have a recall...Against the people's will.

But their core values might not be shared by the peopl ethey represent. That's why the separation of church and state exists.

When have they ever ENTIRELY represented the people. Homosexuals will have their chance... When a Liberal is elected into office.

Won't get what through? equal rights?

What equal rights do they not have? Maybe they should try another state. I'm not going to contact the ACLU because Calif. will not allow me to carry my concealled weapon, even with a permit There's other states that are in favor of the rights they claim they do not have.

It's a slur. It would be akin to calling a Jewish individual a "kike".

Faggot is a slur... Homo is short for homosexual.

Sarcasm only works if it's meaning is clear. However, what makes you think emprires are in the habit of giving away land they've conquered? Did every Roman own a piece of their empire? Was every Briton entitled to a piece of their imperial spoils?

Fine! We're an empire. The strongest and nicest the world has ever seen!

[Guest eureka]

You have an odd view of your own history, BigDookie - I always want to spell that in a shorter form. It is the Conservative courts that have allowed the undermining of the Constitution ever since you had the political divide. And, I could give you examples of that and the frustration of the will of the people as expressed in the Constitution you think you uphold.

Does that not say a lot about the failure of the American system. You do not have courts to uphold the Rule of Law and protect your democratic rights. You have Conservative and Liberal courts to express the will of the administration of the day. Fortunately for you, you have had some Liberal Courts that have not stood in the way of progress; that have not supported the stifling of Free Speech or denied "due process." You need them all the time.

Recall is the most idiotic and anti-democratic idea that ever distorted a political system. It ensures only that a legislator must never follow the right path when money mounts an opposition. It ensures that politicians are for ever beholden to whoever can mount a negative campaign.

Religion is, indeed, taking over the stae in America. When your leaders have to appeal to a certain religios community on religious (disguised as moral) grounds, then religion is in the halls of power. When your leaders have to prove their piety to win votes, then you are on a dangerous path to intolerance. When one of your leaders admits to the influence of his "faith" on his decisions, then you have no separation.

[Slavik44]

Religion is, indeed, taking over the stae in America. When your leaders have to appeal to a certain religios community on religious (disguised as moral) grounds, then religion is in the halls of power. When your leaders have to prove their piety to win votes, then you are on a dangerous path to intolerance. When one of your leaders admits to the influence of his "faith" on his decisions, then you have no separation.

Yes we gotta keep religous faith and State seperate you wowuldn;t want some nut case walking around adherign to a belief that tells you to love your nieghbor as yourself, a religous belief that tells you not to lie, a religous belief that tells you to do unto others as you would have them do to you, a religous belief that tells you to forgive others. Oh My God that would be scary now woudln't it a responsible Politician we better keep them out of office.

[Black Dog]

How vain of you. So if someone does not want to hear what you have to say, you say it anyway huh? Must be Liberal.

"Hey, does everyone want to hear how gay I am?"

The reason I said, "I do not care..." is because it doesn't matter. Even after you still explained... It doesn't matter BD! The ACLU was trying whatever they could to not have a recall...Against the people's will.

No, if someone is pontificating on a subject they know nothing about , I feel compelled to correct them. The point you made was that the ACLU and "liberal judges" were trying to halt the California recount. I demonstrated that this interpretation of events was wrong. The ACLU is a nonpartisan organization (it's current head is, IIRC, a former Republican), so it had no vested interest in keeping people from voting, but simply wanted to ensure evgeryone's vote was counted.

When have they ever ENTIRELY represented the people. Homosexuals will have their chance... When a Liberal is elected into office.

Chance for what? You still aren't making any sense.

What equal rights do they not have? Maybe they should try another state. I'm not going to contact the ACLU because Calif. will not allow me to carry my concealled weapon, even with a permit There's other states that are in favor of the rights they claim they do not have.

How many states recognize gay marriage? Partnership benefits for gays?

Faggot is a slur... Homo is short for homosexual.

Homo is a slur as well, especially in the context you use it in, Mr. "I-have-gay-friends-but-use-the-word-'faggot'-regularly."

Fine! We're an empire. The strongest and nicest the world has ever seen!

The refrain of all empires since the dawn of time.

[BigDookie6]

You have an odd view of your own history, BigDookie - I always want to spell that in a shorter form. It is the Conservative courts that have allowed the undermining of the Constitution ever since you had the political divide. And, I could give you examples of that and the frustration of the will of the people as expressed in the Constitution you think you uphold.

Does that not say a lot about the failure of the American system. You do not have courts to uphold the Rule of Law and protect your democratic rights. You have Conservative and Liberal courts to express the will of the administration of the day. Fortunately for you, you have had some Liberal Courts that have not stood in the way of progress; that have not supported the stifling of Free Speech or denied "due process." You need them all the time.

Recall is the most idiotic and anti-democratic idea that ever distorted a political system. It ensures only that a legislator must never follow the right path when money mounts an opposition. It ensures that politicians are for ever beholden to whoever can mount a negative campaign.

Religion is, indeed, taking over the stae in America. When your leaders have to appeal to a certain religios community on religious (disguised as moral) grounds, then religion is in the halls of power. When your leaders have to prove their piety to win votes, then you are on a dangerous path to intolerance. When one of your leaders admits to the influence of his "faith" on his decisions, then you have no separation.

(You can shorten it up a bit Eureka: BD6 will be fine)

I would say a "narrow view on history" (Stopped after high school) So go easy on me, I can see "smear" coming!

You're right, our justice system is somewhat of a failure. But that's another issue.

Lets talk about recall... (teach me some history Eureka)

How often does any politician get recalled? Actually, I think in Calif. it's probably quite often.

If government were a plane, shouldn't it have an "eject" or an "emergency exit"?

Is a recall against the peoples will?

This religion argument is pointless. Probably because it does not affect me personally. Here's my take on it:

I'm not religious one bit. I do not practice, preach or study. I do believe in something higher than myself though. I think religion has excellent morals and values. I have never felt that govt. has forced it on it's people. It's a choice. Nor do I care if politicians glorify their religious belief. I do agree that it is sad, when people base their vote off religion. Or make a decision based off what God told them to do. I even get irritated during an awards ceremony when the winner wants to thank God! But I just do not see it being forced on the people. I also do not see why it bothers people that a leader is open about their faith. Could it be "Christiaphobia"? Now if they were talking about demons in their head, or sacrificial beliefs...then we have some problems. Liberals love Jimmy Carter, and he was the most open about his religion and faith. (Another Liberal double standard) I really do not buy that God told Bush to invade Iraq, nor do I think that is what Bush meant when talking about his faith.

[BigDookie6]

No, if someone is pontificating on a subject they know nothing about , I feel compelled to correct them. The point you made was that the ACLU and "liberal judges" were trying to halt the California recount. I demonstrated that this interpretation of events was wrong. The ACLU is a nonpartisan organization (it's current head is, IIRC, a former Republican), so it had no vested interest in keeping people from voting, but simply wanted to ensure evgeryone's vote was counted.

The ACLU's job is not to ensure that everyone's vote is counted. It was a delay tactic For Gray Davis. His Lawyers argued the samething. And there was nothing wrong with the voting system. Calif. was just switching from punch ballots to machines. Obviously it worked fine.

How many states recognize gay marriage? Partnership benefits for gays?

So you've come up with one example of rights homosexuals do not have: "a State Not recognizing a legal marriage." It's a state to state issue. And I firmly believe that all states do not have to agree with the legalizing of gay marriage. Put it to vote. That's part of democracy. If 1% of the population is voted against, that's just how it goes. There are other states!

I guess I'd better call the ACLU. I cannot carry a concealled weapon in Calif. It's a violation of my Washington State rights!

The argument for "Partnership rights & benefits" for homos is false. I'm speaking for Washington & Oregon, and probably California, and gay couples have the same rights. Other states, I am not sure??

Homo is a slur as well, especially in the context you use it in, Mr. "I-have-gay-friends-but-use-the-word-'faggot'-regularly."

I do not call them faggot.

[Black Dog]

The ACLU's job is not to ensure that everyone's vote is counted. It was a delay tactic For Gray Davis. His Lawyers argued the samething

The ACLU's suit was based on the continued use of decertified voting machines. If you have any evidence to prove your consipracy theory, then let's see it.

So you've come up with one example of rights homosexuals do not have: "a State Not recognizing a legal marriage." It's a state to state issue. And I firmly believe that all states do not have to agree with the legalizing of gay marriage. Put it to vote. That's part of democracy. If 1% of the population is voted against, that's just how it goes. There are other states!

Thirty-nine states prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying with laws modeled after the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Such bans have been deemed unconstitutional in some states and will very likely be challenged on the bvbasis of their constitutional validity in others. Gay marriage is indeed a state issue and itis almost certainly an inevitable reality. As for your idea to "put it to a vote", constitutional protections of rights were established precisely to prevent the kind of tyranny of the majority you are advocating.

I guess I'd better call the ACLU. I cannot carry a concealled weapon in Calif. It's a violation of my Washington State rights!

If you feel you have a legitimate case, go ahead.

I do not call them faggot.

But you're okay with using it as a slur?

You IM your faggot buddy yet?

Here.

[BigDookie6]

The ACLU's suit was based on the continued use of decertified voting machines. If you have any evidence to prove your consipracy theory, then let's see it.

It was my understanding that they thought it "Could" (keyword here) disfranchise minority votes, and had asked for a delay in the recall. Justice System shot them down because they had no evidence that the recall would violate the 1965 Voters Rights Act. Any delay would benefit Davis's chances of retaining governorship. Doesn't it seem coincidental that the ACLU would file a lawsuit (with no evidence, I might add) and requesting a delay? Hoping for a delay? Just my observation BD. Just seems odd to file a lawsuit to oppose a recall based on the possibility of the voting system might not accurately count the ballots, when the recall had yet to take place. I could see their argument after the recall, and request a recount, but that's not what happened.

Thirty-nine states prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying with laws modeled after the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Such bans have been deemed unconstitutional in some states and will very likely be challenged on the bvbasis of their constitutional validity in others. Gay marriage is indeed a state issue and itis almost certainly an inevitable reality. As for your idea to "put it to a vote", constitutional protections of rights were established precisely to prevent the kind of tyranny of the majority you are advocating.

Why do you think those 39 states prohibit the marrying of homosexuals? Could it be that the state is looking out for the best interest of it's people? Let the other states challenge! Govt. is not stopping them. But to expect every state to rule the same, just will not happen. We'd might as well cecede from the Union.

If you feel you have a legitimate case, go ahead.

Wouldn't waste my time clogging up the court system. I'd carry it anyway, just wouldn't get caught.

As far as the "slurring" of words... Do not take mine out of context. I do not call my homo friends faggots (only if I am joking...and they know that I am, and do not take offense.)

Some of them even admit, "yeah I am a faggot." I've also called a heterosexual male a faggot. I asked you about the calling of a Jewish person a Jew. I'm Jewish (although I do not practice), but I'm a Jew, "Kaike", "penny pincher", whatever you want to call me. Doesn't bother me. I'm a "cracker", a Yankee, etc. All are true, and they're just words. (keep in mind, I watch what I say though)

[Guest eureka]

But government is not a 'plane. If it were, the objective would be to allow it to complete of getting from one point to another without accident.

A politician is elected to do a certain job. Recall is the tool of those who opposed him in the first place and have mounted the resources to invalidate the political process.

If a politician, through malfeasance of some kind should earn dismissal, then impeachment is theproper process. Every government and government office requires certainty and stability. Recall takes that away and makes a mockery of the election process.

Religion is indeed am important issue: perhaps the most important. Religious freedom is considered to be the base from which all freedoms flow. It contains all the others. When any religious belief gains an influence on government policy; when any politician does not separate his faith from his politcal practice, then there is not a separation of Church and State: there is not religious freedom or any freedom.

God did not tell Bush to go to war in Iraq, I am sure. In fact, my own belief is that God has better things to do than to concern himself with how we mishandle the free will he gave us and the freedom to grow or not.

However, Bush did say that he had consulted a "higher authority" than his Dad. That means only that he prayed for an answer and concluded that God had ordained him to be the carrier of death in Iraq.

I really don't believe that either. Bush went to war because the cabal around him had decided years before that they would establish this controlled base in the Middle East and that the occupation of Iraq was the easiest and most suitable target.

The WTC was merely the excuse they thought they needed. Not one reason they gave for the invasion has proven to be valid. The idea now presented that it was about bringing freedom to the Iraqis and establishing democracy is a sick deception. They were happy for decades to have Iraqis labouring under an oppressive regime when it appeared to suit American interests - or rather their personal interest, which is the same thing to them.

Iraq as a foil to Iran was good so long as it could be under reasonable control of oil interests. Iraq under direct control is better and linking Saddam to Al Quaeda was the perfect excuse to con a frightened nation.

[BigDookie6]

A recall is legal. The people have that right! I'm sure if Gray Davis were a Conservative Republican, there would be no objection of a recall from you. Should Clinton have been impeached for sexual activity and adultry while in the White House, on the taxpayers payroll? Or were you one of those who tried to justify it?

when any politician does not separate his faith from his politcal practice, then there is not a separation of Church and State: there is not religious freedom or any freedom.

Where were you when Jimmy Carter was president?

However, Bush did say that he had consulted a "higher authority" than his Dad. That means only that he prayed for an answer and concluded that God had ordained him to be the carrier of death in Iraq.

He should have kept it to himself.

Well regardless of what people think as to why Bush made a decision to invade Iraq; we're there, we need to be there, and the world needs to work together. Not blame our govt. for 9/11 or unjustify an invasion, or justify terrorists because of American foreign policy, because that just fuels instability and terrorism, and confuses nations trying to be liberated. I guarantee that if Bush were not re-elected, and we pulled everything out of Iraq, and the Mid East (companies, etc.), Change policy, etc. Terrorists would still try to target the West. Any terrorism is unacceptable! And we're confronting it. May not be the best way, and people may not like it, but it can't be tolerated. Sadaam and his sons were terrorists to their own people, harbored terrorists and supported terrorism, fooled the UN and paid the price. We had to go to Iraq. If we just removed Sadaam, without invading we would have had to go in anyway. Instability would have caused terrorism to take over the oil, feeding their belief and hatred with an unlimited amount of funds to do whatever with. The UN was unreliable (afraid of being exposed: "Oil for Food") And the rest of the world is being subjective, based only because Bush is in office. "We love America but hate Bush; therefore we will not support!" What kind of message does that send ?