It's not hard to get a straight answer from us, but it is damned impossible to get an agreement out of a lib even when links and facts are posted. I no longer waste time doing the homework for you guys only to hear "you don't expect me to believe anything from them, do you?"
According to the polls, democrats projected wins and gains in the last TWO elections. Last time I checked, Bush is the President and the GOP gained seats in congress.
I worked on the last election in a Kerry campaign office; at best, we thought on Tuesday night that we had a shot; we knew it was going to be close, and probably too close to call. I'd like some evidence for your contention, unless you got it from pulledouttamyass.com.
So what's Bush running for that he has to worry about his approval numbers?
Finishing his term. If his approval numbers drop into the mid-thirties, you're gonna hear a lot of people using the I-word.
Here is the secret decoder ring of 2004 presidential politics. Recall that the 2000 race between Democrat Al Gore and George W. Bush was about as close to a dead-heat finish as possible. Here are questions you simply ask yourself between now and Election Day: 1) How many people do you know or meet who voted for Al Gore in 2000 and who now say they intend to switch and vote for George W. Bush in 2004, and 2) How many people do you know or meet who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and now intend not to vote for him in 2004?
From my own limited and admittedly unrepresentative samplings, the second group -- with six months still to go in this campaign -- is larger than the first group, and if that turns out to be the case, then John Kerry will be the first former naval officer from Massachusetts to win the White House in 44 years. Try it for yourself, and let me know what you find.
"democrats projected wins and gains in the last TWO elections."
Where did I say anything about being exclusively related to the Kerry campaign? I was talking about more than one office, but you only chose to read what you wanted to hear and then resort to name calling. Keep it up, you people on the Left want to smear us so badly you'll jump to any conclusion that supports your position.
"So what's Bush running for that he has to worry about his approval numbers?
Finishing his term. If his approval numbers drop into the mid-thirties, you're gonna hear a lot of people using the I-word."
On what grounds? Unpopularity? I know that's a terrible thing these days, but I don't think anyone has been thrown out of office for it, except Gray Davis.
Where did I say anything about being exclusively related to the Kerry campaign? I was talking about more than one office, but you only chose to read what you wanted to hear and then resort to name calling.
this isn't evidence for your contention. and he didn't call you any names.
"I worked on the last election in a Kerry campaign office; at best, we thought on Tuesday night that we had a shot;"
I worked on the Kerry campaign here. We focused on Minnesota and I was proud of the state's Democrats. We delivered for the party's nominee on Election day. Good organization and enthusiastic voters. Things could have gone better in the congressionals, but we picked up seats in the statehouse.
But nationwide, a chance at beating Bush was the best you could hope for.
Pieter, is the opposite (being uncomfortable around gays) something you should be ashamed of?
Ashamed of, no. Something you should work on, probably. Attempting to silence debate by resorting to gay smack is definitely something to bee ashamed of.
Rat, I don't do line dancing myself; my dancing style is more improvisational. That bar I mentioned in a friendlier forum (that Von has been sifting through looking for things to slag me with) is a place I first went into by accident, and had such a great time that I try to drop in when I'm in the city.
Note to Merle: reports of the death of country music are, in Mark Twain's words, greatly exaggerated.
is a place I first went into by accident, and had such a great time that I try to drop in when I'm in the city.
Here in the Twin Cities, I liked the Metro and went there many a time with my gay friends before it closed. I hate the Gay 90's. That place is nasty if you ask me.
One thing about San Francisco -- unlike other cities, there isn't a "look" to the exteriors of gay bars; they mostly just look like saloons.
Regarding your earlier question about being uncomfortable around gays or with even the concept of "gayness," if it gets to the point where you beat your three-year-old son to deathto keep him from growing up a "sissy," you've got a problem.
And there's got to be more than one gay bar in the Twin Cities.
Finishing his term. If his approval numbers drop into the mid-thirties, you're gonna hear a lot of people using the I-word."
On what grounds? Unpopularity? I know that's a terrible thing these days, but I don't think anyone has been thrown out of office for it, except Gray Davis.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said it in plain English, that interpreting what was meant by someone who wrote a law was not trying to "get into his mind" because the issue was "not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used."
As I've said before, if a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, criminals' rights and property rights – liberals wouldn't need the Supreme Court to give them everything they want through invented "constitutional" rights invisible to everyone but People For the American Way. It's always good to remind voters that Democrats are the party of abortion, sodomy and atheism, and nothing presents an opportunity to do so like a Supreme Court nomination.
The Federalist Society is the principal antidote in the establishment to that activist infestation. It's a society boasting the membership of such compelling intellects as . . . John Roberts.
That membership alone will raise the hackles of dubious luminaries like Vermont's Sen. Patrick Leahy, who regards even the departing Sandra O'Connor as a judicial activist against the ideology that drives him. Blend in other senators who want to make each confirmation process a referendum on Roe v. Wade, and the spectacle to come may not prove particularly pretty.
As I've said before, if a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, criminals' rights and property rights – liberals wouldn't need the Supreme Court to give them everything they want through invented "constitutional" rights invisible to everyone but People For the American Way.
our Constitution is designed and intended to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.
"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect,and to violate would be oppression." Â --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. Â Â
bodine thinks Thom Jefferson was ignorant and deluded. I think it's the other way around.
What in the quote gives any indication that the Constitution was designed to protect minority rights? Such an idea is refuted by the first few words, specifically: "Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail..."
you only read what you want to read crabs. He clearly says majority will should prevail. He says that it should be reasonable or there will be oppression. But the bottom line is he believes that the majority must prevail. You cannot explain away this "that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail" The rest of the quote is simply a modifier for this principle.
"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority
is
in all casesto prevail,that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect,and to violate would be oppression."
In this quote the will of the majority is absolute, there should be no question about that.  While he does advocate that the majority should provide for equality and states that not to do so would be oppression, it does not change the fact that the will of the majority, in Jefferson's mind when he made this quote, was absolute.Â
it does not change the fact that the will of the majority, in Jefferson's mind when he made this quote, was absolute.
what was in Jefferson's mind when he made that quote was that unless the law protected the rights of the minority, people like you could use the will of the majority for the purpose of oppression.
Jefferson was warning us about people like you who would ignore the rights of the minority by ignoring the laws need to protect them.
"I urged Judge Roberts, as far as he can legally within the cannons of ethics, to be forthcoming and honest with his answers," Durbin said after their meeting Friday. "If he is open and honest, I think it will go a long way."
what was in Jefferson's mind when he made that quote was that unless the law protected the rights of the minority, people like you could use the will of the majority for the purpose of oppression. So you know what was in Jefferson's mind by ignoring what he actually wrote?
Jefferson was warning us about people like you who would ignore the rights of the minority by ignoring the laws need to protect them. Could you write anything that made less sense?
The only question you asked was directed toward Fold. Are you that far to the left that Fold is a conservative?..Probably.
It's not hard to get a straight answer from us, but it is damned impossible to get an agreement out of a lib even when links and facts are posted. I no longer waste time doing the homework for you guys only to hear "you don't expect me to believe anything from them, do you?"
I worked on the last election in a Kerry campaign office; at best, we thought on Tuesday night that we had a shot; we knew it was going to be close, and probably too close to call. I'd like some evidence for your contention, unless you got it from pulledouttamyass.com.
Finishing his term. If his approval numbers drop into the mid-thirties, you're gonna hear a lot of people using the I-word.
http://www.democrats.us/editorial/shields042304.shtml
Â
Here is the secret decoder ring of 2004 presidential politics. Recall that the 2000 race between Democrat Al Gore and George W. Bush was about as close to a dead-heat finish as possible. Here are questions you simply ask yourself between now and Election Day: 1) How many people do you know or meet who voted for Al Gore in 2000 and who now say they intend to switch and vote for George W. Bush in 2004, and 2) How many people do you know or meet who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and now intend not to vote for him in 2004?
From my own limited and admittedly unrepresentative samplings, the second group -- with six months still to go in this campaign -- is larger than the first group, and if that turns out to be the case, then John Kerry will be the first former naval officer from Massachusetts to win the White House in 44 years. Try it for yourself, and let me know what you find.
"democrats projected wins and gains in the last TWO elections."
Where did I say anything about being exclusively related to the Kerry campaign? I was talking about more than one office, but you only chose to read what you wanted to hear and then resort to name calling. Keep it up, you people on the Left want to smear us so badly you'll jump to any conclusion that supports your position.
Â
Â
"So what's Bush running for that he has to worry about his approval numbers?
Finishing his term. If his approval numbers drop into the mid-thirties, you're gonna hear a lot of people using the I-word."
On what grounds? Unpopularity? I know that's a terrible thing these days, but I don't think anyone has been thrown out of office for it, except Gray Davis.
this isn't evidence for your contention. and he didn't call you any names.
"I worked on the last election in a Kerry campaign office; at best, we thought on Tuesday night that we had a shot;"
I worked on the Kerry campaign here. We focused on Minnesota and I was proud of the state's Democrats. We delivered for the party's nominee on Election day. Good organization and enthusiastic voters. Things could have gone better in the congressionals, but we picked up seats in the statehouse.
But nationwide, a chance at beating Bush was the best you could hope for.
Did you work on the campaign in the metro area or are you located out here in the sticks like me?
Anyone in here running for office this year?
The Democrats did gain in MN.
And of course we all saw what happened.
pulledouttamyass.com....Funny stuff coming from a guy who line dances at gay bars.
"Did you work on the campaign in the metro area or are you located out here in the sticks like me?"
I grew up in the sticks but we live in the urban core.
That's a damn shame.
Everybody's gotta be somewhere.
I learned my values in the sticks. It's a damn shame they didn't take with you.
Your sticks values have been corrupted by the big city.
The fact that Torp thinks that being comfortable around gay people is something to be ashamed of tells you a lot about him.
Yeah that's exactly what i think, peter...moron.
Pieter, is the opposite (being uncomfortable around gays) something you should be ashamed of?
I'd just be ashamed if I were gravitating to places where there was line dancing, gay or otherwise.
Learn any clogging, Pieter? Got the boot-scootin' boogie?
Line dancing killed country and western music like disco killed rock 'n' roll, you know.
I didn't say it first, Merle Haggard did.
Ashamed of, no. Something you should work on, probably. Attempting to silence debate by resorting to gay smack is definitely something to bee ashamed of.
Rat, I don't do line dancing myself; my dancing style is more improvisational. That bar I mentioned in a friendlier forum (that Von has been sifting through looking for things to slag me with) is a place I first went into by accident, and had such a great time that I try to drop in when I'm in the city.
Note to Merle: reports of the death of country music are, in Mark Twain's words, greatly exaggerated.
my dancing style is more improvisational.
New Tagline!
is a place I first went into by accident, and had such a great time that I try to drop in when I'm in the city.
Here in the Twin Cities, I liked the Metro and went there many a time with my gay friends before it closed. I hate the Gay 90's. That place is nasty if you ask me.
One thing about San Francisco -- unlike other cities, there isn't a "look" to the exteriors of gay bars; they mostly just look like saloons.
Regarding your earlier question about being uncomfortable around gays or with even the concept of "gayness," if it gets to the point where you beat your three-year-old son to deathto keep him from growing up a "sissy," you've got a problem.
And there's got to be more than one gay bar in the Twin Cities.
And there's got to be more than one gay bar in the Twin Cities.
I've only been to three.
if it gets to the point where you beat your three-year-old son to death...
That's just nuts!
Pete went there by accident and liked it so much he kept on going back?
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-K.
Finishing his term. If his approval numbers drop into the mid-thirties, you're gonna hear a lot of people using the I-word."
On what grounds? Unpopularity? I know that's a terrible thing these days, but I don't think anyone has been thrown out of office for it, except Gray Davis.
Does John Roberts, Jr. have a right-winger folk singer brother named Bob?
"Drugs stink, Drugs stink/Give me a God-fearin' man with a rope in his hand/Drugs Stink, drugs stink/hang 'em high for clean livin' land"
Bob sez: Don't smoke crack, it's a ghetto drug.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said it in plain English, that interpreting what was meant by someone who wrote a law was not trying to "get into his mind" because the issue was "not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050721.shtml
As I've said before, if a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, criminals' rights and property rights – liberals wouldn't need the Supreme Court to give them everything they want through invented "constitutional" rights invisible to everyone but People For the American Way. It's always good to remind voters that Democrats are the party of abortion, sodomy and atheism, and nothing presents an opportunity to do so like a Supreme Court nomination.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20050721.shtml
The Federalist Society is the principal antidote in the establishment to that activist infestation. It's a society boasting the membership of such compelling intellects as . . . John Roberts.
That membership alone will raise the hackles of dubious luminaries like Vermont's Sen. Patrick Leahy, who regards even the departing Sandra O'Connor as a judicial activist against the ideology that drives him. Blend in other senators who want to make each confirmation process a referendum on Roe v. Wade, and the spectacle to come may not prove particularly pretty.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/rossmackenzie/rm20050721.shtml
certainly a majority of those who can actually have them agree with the liberals that abortion should be legal.
our Constitution is designed and intended to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.
our Constitution is designed and intended to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.
bodine thinks Thom Jefferson was ignorant and deluded. I think it's the other way around.
I'm waiting to learn, Crabby.
obviously
What in the quote gives any indication that the Constitution was designed to protect minority rights? Such an idea is refuted by the first few words, specifically: "Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail..."
"that thoughthe will of the majority is in all cases to prevail..."
"... the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect... "
you only read what you want to read crabs. He clearly says majority will should prevail. He says that it should be reasonable or there will be oppression. But the bottom line is he believes that the majority must prevail. You cannot explain away this "that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail" The rest of the quote is simply a modifier for this principle.
he clearly says that though the majority is to prevail, the law MUST PROTECT the rights of the minority or else there is OPPRESSION.
you are on the side of OPPRESSION.
"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority
is
in all casesto prevail,that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect,and to violate would be oppression."
In this quote the will of the majority is absolute, there should be no question about that.  While he does advocate that the majority should provide for equality and states that not to do so would be oppression, it does not change the fact that the will of the majority, in Jefferson's mind when he made this quote, was absolute.Â
Where does Jefferson even mention states?
Still waiting Crabby.
Ooops, wrong thread.
what was in Jefferson's mind when he made that quote was that unless the law protected the rights of the minority, people like you could use the will of the majority for the purpose of oppression.
Jefferson was warning us about people like you who would ignore the rights of the minority by ignoring the laws need to protect them.
"I urged Judge Roberts, as far as he can legally within the cannons of ethics, to be forthcoming and honest with his answers," Durbin said after their meeting Friday. "If he is open and honest, I think it will go a long way."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163314,00.html
How will Durbin know if Roberts tells the truth? I mean Durbin does not know what truth is.
Where does Jefferson even mention states?
what was in Jefferson's mind when he made that quote was that unless the law protected the rights of the minority, people like you could use the will of the majority for the purpose of oppression. So you know what was in Jefferson's mind by ignoring what he actually wrote?
Jefferson was warning us about people like you who would ignore the rights of the minority by ignoring the laws need to protect them. Could you write anything that made less sense?
Saturday, July 23 at 8:00 am
Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College
Tara Ross
http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?segID=5859&schedID=366