bush on his way out?

[Cassie]

Bush warned that a "constitutional process" might be necessary if what he called "activist judges" allowed same-sex marriages.

reelection years should never have statements made like this especially when the normal population embraces gays.

[JR]

what is the "normal population"?

why do you say they "embrace gays" when most states oppose same sex marriages?

[Carrie]

A constitutional process is an amendment, it's not a military takeover.
It takes a long time to get an amendment passed.

Either way, that won't cost him the election. Even if every gay in the US showed up and voted against him, it wouldn't cost him the election.

[wig]

substitute tolerates for embraces and I think it fits.

but more to the point... any type of judicial activism undermines the whole process. legislation is the method for changing laws.

btw, my book arrived yesterday. ;-) looking forward to sitting down and reading it. Thanks again for the tip, JR!

[Peaches]

Originally posted by wig@Jan 21 2004, 11:35 AM
btw, my book arrived yesterday. ;-) looking forward to sitting down and reading it. Thanks again for the tip, JR!
And I'm looking forward to reading after you. :P

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 10:34 AM
A constitutional process is an amendment, it's not a military takeover.
It takes a long time to get an amendment passed.

Either way, that won't cost him the election. Even if every gay in the US showed up and voted against him, it wouldn't cost him the election.
Yeah, after the landslide by which he one last time, he's got nothing to worry about. :rolleyes:

[Carrie]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jan 21 2004, 10:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jan 21 2004, 10:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 10:34 AM
A constitutional process is an amendment, it's not a military takeover.
It takes a long time to get an amendment passed.

Either way, that won't cost him the election. Even if every gay in the US showed up and voted against him, it wouldn't cost him the election.
Yeah, after the landslide by which he one last time, he's got nothing to worry about. :rolleyes:[/b][/quote]
*shrugs*
He doesn't. His list of possible opponents are weak and his approval rating is high. The folks who spend the most time bitching about what Bush has done are *generally* the ones who sit on their butts and don't bother voting.
I'd love it if everyone who was legally allowed to vote showed up and did so, but it just won't happen.

I'm not real happy with Bush at the moment (as if you couldn't tell), but there's no better solution being offered (other than a Tom Clancy novel).

[PornoDoggy]

Tom Clancy or Turner Diaries?

[Cassie]

i think we are all damned if we do or damned if we dont because our choices arent very bright. however i remember saying the same thing when bush-clinton were running and look how clintons 8 years turned out.

not too badly for my pocket which is what i am really concerned with. he didnt sweat too much of the small stuff (maybe he should have but he didnt) and for that, there was some backlash but nothing that put our economy and this industry in the state its in now.

i agree that this industry, like mainstream, should be looked in on every now and then to weed out the extreme elements but some of this is going too far. i mean playboy? c'mon! tell me that bush didnt pick up a playboy when he was younger and i will move to mars.

[Carrie]

What about Playboy?

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Cassie@Jan 21 2004, 10:01 AM
Bush warned that a "constitutional process" might be necessary if what he called "activist judges" allowed same-sex marriages.

reelection years should never have statements made like this especially when the normal population embraces gays.


What plant do you live on?

Bush was refering to a Constitutional Amendment - because of stupid liberal judges are finding justification in their interpritation of the Constitution.

Over 70% of the country supports the concept that a marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

That is not a week spot for Bush.

[Cassie]

Originally posted by Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 12:28 PM
What about Playboy?
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navig...ontent_ID=70264 (http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=70264)

now this isnt bush directly but.....

[Carrie]

Originally posted by Cassie+Jan 21 2004, 11:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cassie @ Jan 21 2004, 11:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 12:28 PM
What about Playboy?
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navig...ontent_ID=70264 (http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=70264)

now this isnt bush directly but.....[/b][/quote]
It's not Bush indirectly, either. It's a small county's local district attorney. (A very religious county too, it would seem from the article.)

[Cassie]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Jan 21 2004, 12:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Jan 21 2004, 12:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Cassie@Jan 21 2004, 10:01 AM
Bush warned that a "constitutional process" might be necessary if what he called "activist judges" allowed same-sex marriages.

reelection years should never have statements made like this especially when the normal population embraces gays.


What plant do you live on?

Bush was refering to a Constitutional Amendment - because of stupid liberal judges are finding justification in their interpritation of the Constitution.

Over 70% of the country supports the concept that a marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

That is not a week spot for Bush.[/b][/quote]
i support that as well but i also think that if two people from the same sex care enough about each other to marry, then let it happen.

the divorce rate from m/f marriages is about 85-87% now. what does that say about those who so call believe in the sanctity of marriage?

before one tries to disallow same sex marriages, one should look to those who are failing in tremendous amounts at m/f marriages.

this is only one topic, keep in mind, that im sure is not sitting well with a good portion of the people (and it is a very small issue that in the grand scheme of things, isnt of top importance).

this so called war we got into
foreign relations
the economy
alien immigration

those are topics of greater importance that need to be addressed by someone other then bush. i am not sure if you remember but not more then 3 months into his term, he put a strain on russian-us relations. i could go on but why should i. you can make whatever decision best suits your life based on the evidence presented before you. this is not an argument as much as it is a rant.

[Cassie]

Originally posted by Carrie+Jan 21 2004, 12:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Carrie @ Jan 21 2004, 12:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Cassie@Jan 21 2004, 11:46 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 12:28 PM
What about Playboy?
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navig...ontent_ID=70264 (http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=70264)

now this isnt bush directly but.....
It's not Bush indirectly, either. It's a small county's local district attorney. (A very religious county too, it would seem from the article.)[/b][/quote]
good point. now who are the majority of bush supporters?

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Cassie+Jan 21 2004, 11:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cassie @ Jan 21 2004, 11:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Mike AI@Jan 21 2004, 12:41 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Cassie@Jan 21 2004, 10:01 AM
Bush warned that a "constitutional process" might be necessary if what he called "activist judges" allowed same-sex marriages.

reelection years should never have statements made like this especially when the normal population embraces gays.


What plant do you live on?

Bush was refering to a Constitutional Amendment - because of stupid liberal judges are finding justification in their interpritation of the Constitution.

Over 70% of the country supports the concept that a marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

That is not a week spot for Bush.
i support that as well but i also think that if two people from the same sex care enough about each other to marry, then let it happen.

the divorce rate from m/f marriages is about 85-87% now. what does that say about those who so call believe in the sanctity of marriage?

before one tries to disallow same sex marriages, one should look to those who are failing in tremendous amounts at m/f marriages.

this is only one topic, keep in mind, that im sure is not sitting well with a good portion of the people (and it is a very small issue that in the grand scheme of things, isnt of top importance).

this so called war we got into
foreign relations
the economy
alien immigration

those are topics of greater importance that need to be addressed by someone other then bush. i am not sure if you remember but not more then 3 months into his term, he put a strain on russian-us relations. i could go on but why should i. you can make whatever decision best suits your life based on the evidence presented before you. this is not an argument as much as it is a rant.[/b][/quote]


HAHA Yeah Reagan put a strain on US/Russian relations as well. The Russians have not been making much progress in the way of democracy and freedom. Lots of people like to pretend they are, but its still a dictatorship over there. It is also a myth that they are a superpower still. Russia needs pressure to reform, and make the right moves - notonly for their people, but for OUR national security.

As far as gays, I could care less when any adult wants to do sexual as long as its with other consenting adults. However, marriage is a fundemental building block for society, it should stay the way it is.

You rnumbers for high 80% in failed marriages - I would like to see where you got those from. They seem a little high.


I coul go on an on with other issues, but I don't think it will change your mind.

[Vick]

2 things to always remember

Anyone who wants to be President of the United States is unfit for the job

If you vote, you have no right to complain

[Peaches]

Originally posted by Cassie@Jan 21 2004, 12:56 PM
the divorce rate from m/f marriages is about 85-87% now.
Per the CDC it was 40% in 2001. I doubt it's more than doubled in 2 years. :awinky:

[Cassie]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Jan 21 2004, 01:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Jan 21 2004, 01:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Cassie@Jan 21 2004, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by -Mike AI@Jan 21 2004, 12:41 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Cassie@Jan 21 2004, 10:01 AM
Bush warned that a "constitutional process" might be necessary if what he called "activist judges" allowed same-sex marriages.

reelection years should never have statements made like this especially when the normal population embraces gays.


What plant do you live on?

Bush was refering to a Constitutional Amendment - because of stupid liberal judges are finding justification in their interpritation of the Constitution.

Over 70% of the country supports the concept that a marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

That is not a week spot for Bush.
i support that as well but i also think that if two people from the same sex care enough about each other to marry, then let it happen.

the divorce rate from m/f marriages is about 85-87% now. what does that say about those who so call believe in the sanctity of marriage?

before one tries to disallow same sex marriages, one should look to those who are failing in tremendous amounts at m/f marriages.

this is only one topic, keep in mind, that im sure is not sitting well with a good portion of the people (and it is a very small issue that in the grand scheme of things, isnt of top importance).

this so called war we got into
foreign relations
the economy
alien immigration

those are topics of greater importance that need to be addressed by someone other then bush. i am not sure if you remember but not more then 3 months into his term, he put a strain on russian-us relations. i could go on but why should i. you can make whatever decision best suits your life based on the evidence presented before you. this is not an argument as much as it is a rant.


HAHA Yeah Reagan put a strain on US/Russian relations as well. The Russians have not been making much progress in the way of democracy and freedom. Lots of people like to pretend they are, but its still a dictatorship over there. It is also a myth that they are a superpower still. Russia needs pressure to reform, and make the right moves - notonly for their people, but for OUR national security.

As far as gays, I could care less when any adult wants to do sexual as long as its with other consenting adults. However, marriage is a fundemental building block for society, it should stay the way it is.

You rnumbers for high 80% in failed marriages - I would like to see where you got those from. They seem a little high.


I coul go on an on with other issues, but I don't think it will change your mind.[/b][/quote]
reagan was a different time and russia was a different country; we were a different country. i agree with you that are not a super power any longer either but why fix something that isnt broken.

i read the divorce article from msnbc some while back and if i find the article (i save everything that i find interesting), i will post it for you.

youre right, you probably wont change my mind but thats what makes this country a great place. we can agree to disagree and right now, under the current admin, i personally feel that the options we have been given for so long are in a strangle hold of sorts.

you have your opinion and i have mine and we will both do whats in the best interest for ourselves as individuals (that may sound selfish but so be it) and neither one of us can be faulted for that. :)

[Toolz]

Originally posted by Peaches+Jan 21 2004, 09:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peaches @ Jan 21 2004, 09:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Cassie@Jan 21 2004, 12:56 PM
the divorce rate from m/f marriages is about 85-87% now.
Per the CDC it was 40% in 2001. I doubt it's more than doubled in 2 years. :awinky:[/b][/quote]
Sidebar:

Why does the CDC keep track of divorce rates?

[Peaches]

Originally posted by Toolz+Jan 21 2004, 01:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Toolz @ Jan 21 2004, 01:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Peaches@Jan 21 2004, 09:08 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Cassie@Jan 21 2004, 12:56 PM
the divorce rate from m/f marriages is about 85-87% now.
Per the CDC it was 40% in 2001. I doubt it's more than doubled in 2 years. :awinky:
Sidebar:

Why does the CDC keep track of divorce rates?[/b][/quote]
I dunno. They keep a lot of stats that don't seem like they'd come under their jurisdiction. For instance, they also keep stats on gun injuries and deaths - not exactly a "disease". :unsure:

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Cassie+Jan 21 2004, 12:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cassie @ Jan 21 2004, 12:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Mike AI@Jan 21 2004, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by -Cassie@Jan 21 2004, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by -Mike AI@Jan 21 2004, 12:41 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Cassie@Jan 21 2004, 10:01 AM
Bush warned that a "constitutional process" might be necessary if what he called "activist judges" allowed same-sex marriages.

reelection years should never have statements made like this especially when the normal population embraces gays.


What plant do you live on?

Bush was refering to a Constitutional Amendment - because of stupid liberal judges are finding justification in their interpritation of the Constitution.

Over 70% of the country supports the concept that a marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

That is not a week spot for Bush.
i support that as well but i also think that if two people from the same sex care enough about each other to marry, then let it happen.

the divorce rate from m/f marriages is about 85-87% now. what does that say about those who so call believe in the sanctity of marriage?

before one tries to disallow same sex marriages, one should look to those who are failing in tremendous amounts at m/f marriages.

this is only one topic, keep in mind, that im sure is not sitting well with a good portion of the people (and it is a very small issue that in the grand scheme of things, isnt of top importance).

this so called war we got into
foreign relations
the economy
alien immigration

those are topics of greater importance that need to be addressed by someone other then bush. i am not sure if you remember but not more then 3 months into his term, he put a strain on russian-us relations. i could go on but why should i. you can make whatever decision best suits your life based on the evidence presented before you. this is not an argument as much as it is a rant.


HAHA Yeah Reagan put a strain on US/Russian relations as well. The Russians have not been making much progress in the way of democracy and freedom. Lots of people like to pretend they are, but its still a dictatorship over there. It is also a myth that they are a superpower still. Russia needs pressure to reform, and make the right moves - notonly for their people, but for OUR national security.

As far as gays, I could care less when any adult wants to do sexual as long as its with other consenting adults. However, marriage is a fundemental building block for society, it should stay the way it is.

You rnumbers for high 80% in failed marriages - I would like to see where you got those from. They seem a little high.


I coul go on an on with other issues, but I don't think it will change your mind.
reagan was a different time and russia was a different country; we were a different country. i agree with you that are not a super power any longer either but why fix something that isnt broken.

i read the divorce article from msnbc some while back and if i find the article (i save everything that i find interesting), i will post it for you.

youre right, you probably wont change my mind but thats what makes this country a great place. we can agree to disagree and right now, under the current admin, i personally feel that the options we have been given for so long are in a strangle hold of sorts.

you have your opinion and i have mine and we will both do whats in the best interest for ourselves as individuals (that may sound selfish but so be it) and neither one of us can be faulted for that. :)[/b][/quote]


I am always upon for debate when it comes to social and domestic issues. I think there is a lot of room for all sides.

However, in foreign policy I really think there is no debate. Defending this nation's interest should be paramount to all Americans and should not be politicized.

Defense should be strong and proactive so we as American citizens can have open debates on domestic issues. If we are destroyed by our enemies I do not think there will be many gay marriages. ( I doubt Bin Laden or other terrorists would be supporting much in the way of gar marriage)


The Russians ARE broke in many ways and need to have pressure put on them to reform. They are not an equal partner, they are not a super power, and they at this time do not have many of the same interest as we do. Thus we should make sure they continue reform get to true democracy, and OPEN markets, economic freedom!

[Cassie]

agreed on most of what you said but take this into mind (this is something i heard in passing) we marched into iraq predominently for oil. saying we went in there for any other reason is a lame excuse at best. do you know, gas is suppose to shoot up to 3.00 a gallon in some areas by summer. now again, this is something i heard but if that is true, then why the hell did we march into iraq with all its oil? you would think that would benefit us no?

my point here is that bush should concern himself more with the state of affairs in this country rather then stepping on the dicks of the russians (or anyone else in a blatent manner). granted they need a guiding hand and that is what it should be, guiding. to ruffle feathers is to make it seem to an outsider that america as a whole is trying to take over the world. we already know our power and i believe clinton did it best by being subtle. to make such a grandious move is not democratic at all imo.

why is it that osama is still camel riding around the country side yet saddam is in custody? you would think one who killed so many people on american soil would be first priority no? son doing dads work is a good thing but not justifiable at the immediate momment. that is the whole premise to his reelection.....he must finish what has yet to be completed!

it has been said many times before by others that if bush is reelected, this country as we now know it will be a completely different place and i dont think it will be for the good of the american population. just look at ashcroft and his ability to cover a piece of art that has stood for many moons just because he deemed it obscene.



Last edited by Cassie at Jan 21 2004, 03:02 PM

[Carrie]

Cassie, the majority of Bush supporters are in the religous right. That's no secret.
However, to equate the actions of one gung-ho district attorney from some little county as being Bush's fault is ludicrous.
That man would have gone into that bookstore and demanded those Playboys be yanked down regardless of who is in office.


Vick - I disagree with you completely on "if you vote you have no right to complain". We voters have EVERY right to complain, as we put someone in office to do some things in particular. If he's not doing them, you're damned right we're gonna complain!
The people who *don't* vote, however, have no right to bitch. They exerted no effort to make things go the way they wanted them to. It takes ten minutes, if that, to cast a vote. To put your support behind the person who you feel will best represent your interests in office. If you can't even be bothered to do that, then you've got no right to bitch. Those people were content to be silent on voting day, but suddenly they've found their voice? Hogwash.

[Cassie]

Originally posted by Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 03:06 PM
That man would have gone into that bookstore and demanded those Playboys be yanked down regardless of who is in office.



i agree with you. however he has a little more power to do so with the current admin behaving in such a way where the store owner selling them will not stand a real chance of fighting this.

thats not to say that if someone else gets elected, the pattern will change. we will only know that when the time comes. four years ago, i dont think this would have been a big issue.

[Carrie]

Originally posted by Cassie@Jan 21 2004, 01:59 PM
it has been said many times before by others that if bush is reelected, this country as we now know it will be a completely different place and i dont think it will be for the good of the american population.
It doesn't matter who is elected President next, America will *still* be a very different place.
That's been going on incrementally for generations, heading in a very frightening direction.
At this point there's no stopping it, IMO. It's just a matter of who is going to make smaller, less sweeping moves towards the end goal.

It's depressing thinking about the country that my great-grandfathers lived in, and compare it to the mockery of a country that my great-grandchildren will live in.

[Cassie]

Originally posted by Carrie@Jan 21 2004, 03:12 PM
It's depressing thinking about the country that my great-grandfathers lived in, and compare it to the mockery of a country that my great-grandchildren will live in.
thats actually a very good statement. wish i could come back 100 years from now and see how much this world has changed. then again.....

[dig420]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Jan 21 2004, 11:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Jan 21 2004, 11:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Cassie@Jan 21 2004, 10:01 AM
Bush warned that a "constitutional process" might be necessary if what he called "activist judges" allowed same-sex marriages.

reelection years should never have statements made like this especially when the normal population embraces gays.


What plant do you live on?

Bush was refering to a Constitutional Amendment - because of stupid liberal judges are finding justification in their interpritation of the Constitution.

Over 70% of the country supports the concept that a marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

That is not a week spot for Bush.[/b][/quote]
First they came for the Gays
and I did not speak out - because I was not Gay.

Then they came for the Muslims
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Muslim.

Then they came for the liberals
and I did not speak out - because I was not a liberal.

Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.

[Carrie]

Originally posted by Cassie@Jan 21 2004, 02:10 PM
four years ago, i dont think this would have been a big issue.
Why?
There were more pornography prosecutions under Clinton than there have been under Bush.
He was no friend to porn. NO politician is a friend to porn. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. It doesn't matter if the person has an R, a D, or an I after their name... none of them are going to stand up in front of the Congress or the Country and say they want to see 18yr old girls taking it up the ass from big black men.

No matter who is in office, there will *always* be an agenda against porn. Our ONLY friend in this system is the Court... and you'd better pray that more REAL judges are put on the bench that interpret the Constitution, rather than ones who take their robes as a sign of Patriarchy.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by dig420+Jan 21 2004, 02:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dig420 @ Jan 21 2004, 02:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Mike AI@Jan 21 2004, 11:41 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Cassie@Jan 21 2004, 10:01 AM
Bush warned that a "constitutional process" might be necessary if what he called "activist judges" allowed same-sex marriages.

reelection years should never have statements made like this especially when the normal population embraces gays.


What plant do you live on?

Bush was refering to a Constitutional Amendment - because of stupid liberal judges are finding justification in their interpritation of the Constitution.

Over 70% of the country supports the concept that a marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

That is not a week spot for Bush.
First they came for the Gays
and I did not speak out - because I was not Gay.

Then they came for the Muslims
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Muslim.

Then they came for the liberals
and I did not speak out - because I was not a liberal.

Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.[/b][/quote]


HAHAHA How original!!



Carrie, I agree the people who do vote have the most reason to complain!! You are also right about politics and porn - democrats and republicans are ALL ANTI-Porn!! That is what politicians do!!

If it was a bigger issue Bush would have included it in speech - he did include steriods and pro players which is a pretty narrow issue.

[sextoyking]

Mike,

they will never get a cont. ammed. you know that was well as I do.

2/3 of congress must approve and the states.. Dead on Arrival my friend.

He was reaching out to his base, nothing more :)



Last edited by sextoyking at Jan 21 2004, 12:52 PM

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by sextoyking@Jan 21 2004, 02:52 PM
Mike,

they will never get a cont. ammed. you know that was well as I do.

2/3 of congress must approve and the states.. Dead on Arrival my friend.

He was reaching out to his base, nothing more :)
Ever see numbers on this issue?

It makes the blue/red from past Preidential elections look even.

A VAST majority of Americans are against gay marriage.

2/3 of the states would not be hard to round up.

[sextoyking]

Mike,

I have seen some numbers on this awhile back. But the problem is 2/3 of the states need to approve and besides that, it will never happen in an election year. and even if they got the states on board Mike, They need what 14-18 Democrat Senators, never bro..

this should be left up to the states for now until it can be a federal law / rule in a few years.

Most repub. pundits don't even think Bush would try for this anyway, he was just talking to the base..

[Carrie]

Hell, MOST of these issues should be left up to the States.
And a bunch that've already been taken away from the States should be given back.

[Torone]

I could care less what gays do; but like MikeAI, I feel marriage should remain as is. However, The subject of activist judges is another thing. I move for a Constitutional Amendment limiting them to one 6-year term...no one should be allowed to hold any office for life (and that includes Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd).

I would further suggest that Senators and Representatives be allowed only one term; and take their retirement away. Beaurocrats should be removed when the President who appointed them leaves office. :moon:



Last edited by Torone at Jan 23 2004, 08:50 AM

[JR]

Deans ratings are now dropping fast.

[Gunni]

The way I see it is if gay people can get married they will have tax benifits, and there for gay men can buy more access to gay porn on the internet, pink money rules!! :rokk:

And you Americans should have voted that Ross Perot when you had the chance! That guy knows how to make money...

[Carrie]

Pink money?
God that's just.... ughhhhhh
Don't mind me, I'm in the world's most foul mood right now. Think I'll just skip the boards for a while.

[Gunni]

Originally posted by Carrie@Jan 23 2004, 07:38 AM
Pink money?
God that's just.... ughhhhhh
Don't mind me, I'm in the world's most foul mood right now. Think I'll just skip the boards for a while.
Hehehe, market reaserchers in England call it the pink pound, and it makes sence, a lot of those guys make a pretty decent living, and can afford to spend more of it than your regular family guy. Because they don't have a family to support of course.

And if your in a bad mood listen to the song "Don't worry, be happy" :awinky: