Nov 07, 2006 02:32 pm www.dontvote.org
US members, get out of vote, beotch!
Posted on Nov 07, 2006 05:58 am
dbmasters
Administrator Since: Apr 03, 2002
If you don't vote, you loose your right to ***** and complain later. Voting is your say, it's your voice USE IT!
[ Back to Top ]
Nov 07, 2006 02:47 pm < dontvote results >
You scored 292 out of 350 possible points, or 83.43%
B
You should update your knowledge and then vote.
< end results>
Well, i'm still gonna vote.
Nov 07, 2006 02:53 pm man, i was up until 1:45am last night reading up on all the candidates and ballot initiatives. I've already earned the right to ***** and moan!!! But I will be voting, and then bitching and moaning even louder. Libertarian leaning Greens never get what they want...
Nov 07, 2006 03:05 pm Voting is a reverse / reverse / reverse / infinite psychology game to me. Who the hell ever does the majority of what they say they'll do in office anyways. Furthermore, many that get if office turn out to be damn near the opposite of what they portrayed themselves to be. Yeah, I voted today, but did it really matter ? I beg to differ. The political system in the U.S. IS broken. I've never heard such a bunch of whining *****-baby campaigning as I did this election.... Just don't forget, that the lesser of two evils is still evil !
Nov 07, 2006 03:18 pm Yeah, never judge by exactly what they say they will do, and it's not always done not only because they didn't try but because of majotiies in the offices they hold...it's a gov't of checks and balances (except for GWB apparantly) so one guy wanting something doesn't mean it gets done, which, in the big picture is a good thing.
Nov 07, 2006 07:43 pm Just got back from voting...gives me a great feeling! It's great to live in a country where you don't have to risk your life to go to the polls to vote.
Tru dat, beotch!!
Oh yeah, I scored a B+ 88% on the don't vote website.
Nov 07, 2006 11:21 pm I vote for a federal amendement to the voting system to mirror Colorado's "none of the above" balat! Here in Michigan we have the choice between one ******* and a yet bigger *******. If only we could say "up both your ********" and force the parties to come up with two new candidates all together. A few rounds of that and maybe we could skim enough skum off the top of the parties to get down to someone that actualy wanted to serve someone other than self!
Nov 07, 2006 11:23 pm WoW! Slick censoring there Db! I loves it....I loves it!
Nov 08, 2006 12:33 am the election turned out mostly ugly for me here in ohio...
county election did ok... but the idiots (stupid voters) raised our sales tax to cover public transportation... I think it's now 7%
silver lining is all congressmen are still gop though one race was close (still uncalled) but if kilroy wins we're ******. Plus, the gop has state auditor... who is actually a CPA, unlike most... and most judges are still gop.
Blackwell got creamed...
Nov 08, 2006 02:58 am i've been dead to the world the past 36 hours, and have come down with a vicious headcold that knocked me out (as in sleep) for 20 hours strait...i completely missed the election (although we had a really nice turnout for early voting here)......i was actually gonna vote for Corker (R)...because he's seems better 'grounded' for the job, Ford (D) is a smooth talker and a 'pro politician'....so it was a 'lesser of two evils' for me......i think we're still waiting on the results.
Nov 08, 2006 04:47 am Pawlenty won! WooHoo! I was nervous about that going to bed last night, close race!
Damn Amy Kloubachar won senate tho, which totally sucks...but Michele Bachmann beat brainless democratic talking head Patty Wetterling which I will thank God for every day of that term. Not that all dems are brainless talking heads but she is...
Overall I think divided gov't works the best and favors either side the least, and, well, a divided gov't is what we have now.
I do think it's pretty clearly stated now that the people of the US want out of Iraq and want out now. Not sure how I feel about that personally, but it seems to be the majority opinion.
Wisconsin upheld the gay marriage ban, interesting.
Nov 08, 2006 07:15 am Quote:
Wisconsin upheld the gay marriage ban, interesting.
Yeah...I guess all the gay-bashers that I go to church with will be dancing in the pews on Sunday. At least now they'll take down all of their ******* signs.
All in all, it was a very interesting election day in Wisconsin. We re-elected a Democrat Gov. for the first time in 32 years. Plus, the Dems. now control the legislature as well. That has me slightly worried. I, too, prefer the balance of power to be split...everyone keeping everyone else in check. Looks like my taxes will go up even higher, but on the upside our educational system will get some much-needed improvement.
Of course, that's only if everybody does what they said they were gonna do!
Nov 08, 2006 07:16 am Well, just food for thought, I am no gay basher, but I do believe there is no place for same sex marriages...I was glad to see it upheld...but not a deal-killer, hot-button issue for me personally.
Not everybody against gay marriage is a homophobe...tho I am sure many are.
Nov 08, 2006 10:25 am I understand your position, but respectfully take a different opinion. I believe that two people who love each other and want to be a family should have that right in the eyes of the law. (I understand that it's different in the eyes of the church, due to various interpretations of the Bible.)
What non-church-based justification can there possibly be for not allowing same-sex marriage? It's not right? It's immoral? It's not the way things were intended to be? Give me something to work with here...
I'm not big supporter of gay rights. I don't understand the lifestyle they've chosen. It's not for me. I'm probably as homophobic as the next person. But why should we be passing laws to prevent them from being recognized as families?
I don't know why this issue has my dander up so much. And I know that everybody has their opinions on the matter. Oh well, doesn't matter what I think now...we have a constitutional ammendment banning it in our state.
Nov 08, 2006 10:27 am Because it makes the same sex union equal in importance to society as different sex unions, and they are not, simple as that.
Besides, unions are not a gov't thing, it shouldn't even be an issue, it's a religious thing.
Nov 08, 2006 11:33 am I'm happy and sad the day after.
I'm tickled that the Dems got the House, and might even get the Senate (crosses fingers).
I'm upset that people didn't vote my way on our state propositions. I swear, people don't do any research on these things, and just vote their first impression. But the proposition writers know this and bundle some obvious choices with some stuff that would be a money grab for special interests, and nobody sees the second part. It's so frustrating! Plus nobody understands that bond sales do indeed raise taxes!!!!
Nov 08, 2006 11:44 am I can see how marriage is a religious thing, but gov't has made it a gov't thing now. Basically, when two people get married, they're both entering into a contract with the state.
A 3 party contract. Therefore, any fruits of that contract agreement (kids) are a 1/3 interest to the state, thereby giving the state 1/3 power over your kids.
I'm not a fan of this spin that the gov't put upon us. Maybe other states are different, but that's the way I understand it in MI. (i certainly could be wrong, I'm just going by heresay)
But, I can see how the state wants to stay capable of rectifing a bad situation when one arrises, like child neglect. The state can get involved under their contractual rights, in addition to child endangerment issues.
But for the common gender union thing, I feel marriage is already defined, man & woman. No need to re-hash the issue. That people are trying to re-write it confirms (at least to me) the fact that it's already defined. Should two common gender people want to establish the same rights and capabilities afforded to man/woman marriages, then create a new civil union, for common gender couples, that afford the same legal rights. Just don't call it marriage. Call it something else.
Common Gender Civil Union, or something like that.
Nov 08, 2006 12:16 pm Well, the dispute is in the definition. I feel the definition has nothing to do with woman and man, but person and person.
Quote:
Besides, unions are not a gov't thing, it shouldn't even be an issue, it's a religious thing.
This actually kind of makes sense, but given that currently it is a govt. thing, gays should be afforded the same rights as straights to get married in the govt.'s eyes. Religions can define it however they want.
Nov 08, 2006 12:30 pm It totally makes sense, the only reason it's a gov't thing is tax reasons, employment benefits reasons and all that, which shouldn't exist...
Nov 08, 2006 01:11 pm Quote:
I feel the definition has nothing to do with woman and man, but person and person
That would mean that thousands of years of tradition, history, and religious practices (where marriage came from) were not quite right?
I guess that in a democratic type of society, that if majority wants to say marriage is not gender-specific, then the rules get changed.
I don't agree, but I can see the day coming.
I'm thinking that govt got involved in recording the marriages of their constituents because govt didn't want the records being held in churches. So the govt said 'it's now a rule, you have to register with us, or it's not a real marriage'. Then they got more involved, because they could.
Course, I'm only theorizing . . .
Nov 08, 2006 01:33 pm [quote]That would mean that thousands of years of tradition, history, and religious practices (where marriage came from) were not quite right?
[/quote]
And we still believe that the sun revolves around the earth?
Nov 08, 2006 02:43 pm So...what I'm hearing is that same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because (A) the majority of the people don't want it or don't see it as important and (B) man-woman marriage is the way it's always been, so that's the way it should always be.
Imagine what our country would be like today if that's what we based every decision on.
Nov 08, 2006 02:55 pm Yup, if we based our decisions on tradition, history and religious practices, men would have as many wives as they want, 50 or so children, smoke dope, drink and carouse... Plus, they'd own land, run governments while women make babies and possibly dinner...
Nov 08, 2006 03:21 pm oh, you guys are only leaning on one side of this issue.
There's lots of tradition, history and/or religious practice that you can get behind and believe in. You make it sound like just because something has been a certain way for many years, then it's inherently bad.
In this context, I believe that the term and general belief is that marriage was, and is, between man and woman. I'm saying that the term was only re-engineered to mean any two people in the last dozen or so years, due to social evolution.
Like I stated before though, I'm not against common gender people being legally represented as a union. I just don't think marriage is the term to call it.
Quote:
(A) the majority of the people don't want it or don't see it as important
That's why people vote in a republic. But I'm guessing you mean that if people vote to remove someone's civil or personal rights, then it's not correct. I can see that point. That's why a civil union of some sort is in order. Protect people's right to commit legally to another, and enjoy the same rights afforded married people.
Quote:
(B) man-woman marriage is the way it's always been, so that's the way it should always be.
You're right, that does sound boorish.
I'm just putting up my opinion of a definition of a term. My opinion is that the definition of marriage is man/woman, and I don't think it needs to be changed. Creating a new term for common-gender unions would better suit this situation (IMHO)
Quote:
Yup, if we based our decisions on tradition, history and religious practices, men would have as many wives as they want, 50 or so children, smoke dope, drink and carouse.
I can't get behind this one either. The republic was set up to pick people that represent the constituents, to make laws that govern our society, both locally and federally. Tradition, history and religious practice all directed people to contol themselves, have only one wife, make dope illegal, etc, etc, to maintain a civilized society.
Nov 08, 2006 03:27 pm i got a 98 percent on the test, an A. i missed one question.
i got ban ki moon's name wrong, but not his title.
'i should definitely have voted, it says.
Nov 08, 2006 05:58 pm Quote:
You make it sound like just because something has been a certain way for many years, then it's inherently bad.
You misunderstand me...I'm saying that just because something has been a certain way for a number of years doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing.
My whole problem with this entire issue is that I don't see any rational,non-religious reason why there should be a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages.
Nov 09, 2006 09:46 am Quote:
I'm saying that just because something has been a certain way for a number of years doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing.
I certainly agree with that. I was more referring to coolo's post, regarding the sun - earth thing.
Anyway, I guess it's just a point of having different ideas on what is, and what should be. I can certainly understand your point.
Nov 09, 2006 02:35 pm "My whole problem with this entire issue is that I don't see any rational,non-religious reason why there should be a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages."
nor do i understand people who think that a constitutional amendment is appropriate here. to me, that would be VANDALISM of our constitution. i mean, it's completely ridiculous. if a faction really cares about preventing alternate forms of marriage from happening, stage your fight somewhere else.
the constitution shall not be weakened by religiously-motivated value systems. those are momentary things, shifting things.
Nov 10, 2006 06:26 am The Constitution was originally CREATED by religiously motivated value systems, get over it already.
"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ". - Patrick Henry
"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers." - John Jay
Nov 10, 2006 06:34 am Glad you have this right to debate, thank a veteran tomorrow...or any day.
Nov 10, 2006 08:27 am I had that same thought yesterday, but figured I'd stirred the pot enough for one thread.
Thanks for bringing that point up.
Nov 10, 2006 10:19 pm Religious issues aside, to include the use of the word "marriage"; If two same sex people want to take on the task of raising a critter, in a loving home invironment, my take is give them the same tax benifits, survivor rights, etc. that a two mixed sex people would get. Obviously they are not going to produce their own offspring in most cases and save me the burdon of raising one more discarded child in 'the system' which is so often highly ineffective at churning out human beings as well as being costly to me the tax payer.
Nov 12, 2006 02:49 pm db, it's too simple to say that the country was founded on religious principles. that's one of those extremely intellectually dishonest arguments that the right wing makes. if you want to (but you don't) you can go throughout 'quotespace' and dig up quotes to support your preference on this matter. you can find instances of madison or jefferson or anyone you want speaking about separation of church and state. you can also go through quotespace and find statements in support of religion.
you know why? because people are and have always been complicated individuals who make lots of distinctions for different purposes and in different contexts. complicated, unlike the perspective the right wing promulgates here.
amending the constitution to bar gay marriage vandalizes principles encoded in the constitution in lots and lots of other places. it's simply a childish thing to want to do. if you feel gay marriage should be banned, there are other avenues, ones which don't come across like a bunch of moderns-of-a-particular-persuasion trying to retroactively write their preferred morality backwards into a document whose *strength* is its silence on these kinds of matters.
my god, it's just blasphemy.
Nov 12, 2006 03:08 pm Yes, it is simple, the problem in society today is that people over complicate simple concepts. Marriage is one man and one woman, not too difficult to understand and accept, it's the way it always been, it's the way it always should be.
People start to complicate it once they start legitimizing other sorts of relationships outside of that basic framework of family and redefining it.
People are not complicated, people make things complicated.
Nov 12, 2006 04:15 pm Kinky did better than I thought he would, and I was happy. Wish he would won the election for governor but whatever, still a big showing. Problem was having 5 candidates screwed everything up and split to vote, so that idiot rick perry sits in the mansion again. Oh well. Kinky did better than I expected, so I'm pleased.
Nov 13, 2006 01:18 am churches are the ones who should never have to capitulate on the issue of marriage. the catholics, for instance, should never be made to allow marriage: a new christian splinter group would be required for that. (and also think about this: by the same token, intelligent design must not be taught in science class. different issues here, but the essential problem here is the same. science considers ID invalid by its own criteria, and the church deems gay marriage invalid by a similar mechanism. you see what i mean here...)
when it comes to the law, though, ya gotta give everyone the 'same deal.' and the word used should be 'marriage' because it's the church's business, not the govt's, to get all squirelly about that word. i think i heard you say there never should have been any benefits granted by the gov't even for married heteros. i think you were saying that that would solve the whole problem. you're right, it would. but it didnt go that way.
the argument that always comes up now has to do with bestiality and plural marriage, but that is an utterly false argument, a false slope, an intellectually dishonest idea. it doesn't--and can't--work like that, for logical reasons which the right refuses to ever admit, and which i have stopped mentioning, because the stubbornness with the slippery slope argument is just breathtaking.
but the point i most care about is the point about the basic strength of the consitution lying in its refusal to micromanage stuff like this.
Nov 13, 2006 04:45 am Everyone does have the same deal, everybody is allowed to marry people of the opposite sex.
And yes, the gov't, in my opinion, should not be in the business of marriage in the first place, this shouldn't be an issue anyway.
Nov 13, 2006 02:19 pm Man, is this thread 'gay', or what ? Bah !
Quote:
...the only reason it's a gov't thing is tax reasons, employment benefits reasons and all that, which shouldn't exist...
Damn right .
If anything, there should be some compensation for caring couples(of any damn sexual preference... so juvenile !) who adopt a child that doesn't have a caring family . There are too many 'leftover-humans' born as a result of the past doctrines of religious, governmental, and traditional/self-serving institutions... discarded through the inability to properly uphold those same standards that said institutions demand . Self-perpetuation may be a right that everyone has granted 'naturally', but y'ad think once an evolved mind took one look at the way our natural path has been twisted by our developed systems of control,(ie... control of the populous, as well as spiritual, and intellectual contouring) there'd be some 'lil voice that would SCREAM in their ear something to the effect of "There are enough of us that we can stop breeding for a while while we clean up our fellow humans messes, or at least be responsible enough to skip a generation of breeding, and get this place cleaned up a bit... SOMETHING other than "Yay, I can breed ! I can breed ! ya-yay-YAY !"
I'm not saying we should all drop what we're doing and 'adopt a mess', just that that 'lil voice should be acknowledged before we go off and make any messes of our own based on anything religious, governmental, or traditional . We've simply gone too far to use these 'excuses' to matter at all anymore, and too many people aren't even free enough to hear that voice, let alone have the balls to listen to it... sad **** . Yes, it hurts... it's called "responsibility", not "love", not "happiness"... I can remember quite vividly the look on my fathers face when I explained the concept of this obligation to him, expecially being the last of my line . Now whether you call it responsibility to yourself or your race/planet, it's up to you, but one good look around and the question of our very existance should pop up somewhere between the thoughts of us being at the top of the food chain, and our ****** moral standards .
Oh, I can hear it now...
"That crazy uncle Hue doesn't care that you were born into a loving family with all the resorces to grant you a happy and fufilling life, he thinks you shouldn't have been born at all reguardless... so stay the hell away from that nutty bastard ." That's right, sweety-pie .
Please don't get me wrong, I love kids...
... I just can't finish a whole one in one sitting . 8 p
All I'm saying is that we shouldn't need excuses to breed, or even kill for that matter... we should be responsible enough to think for ourselves . I know there are some flaws in this particular vein of thought, but I'll be damned if I subscribe to anything else... less I start tending the garden for us all .
Now, let's just see how soon that concept gets 'voted' into a working government... riiiiiiight .
Nov 13, 2006 04:39 pm I think I have Issues.....!?
Nov 14, 2006 03:28 am i've got issues of Future Music, Tape Op, and EM!
yee hawww! i's be got havin' issues too!
Nov 14, 2006 08:53 pm Well ya, we now you have issues Hue. :-)
That aside, you are right on the breeding thing. There are far too many children in this world left to tend to themselves. I know this for a fact as we took in one about a year ago now. She is soon to turn 18 and is thankfull for everytime we have grounded her, thankfull for kicking her in the behind to get her school work done, thankfull for having a warm bed and caring parents, (and yes she considers us her mom and dad) glad to have food when she wants it. She appreciates the little things most of us take for granted. And the funny thing is, we do this without reward of a tax break or any kind of help from her real parents, the father whom cashes a social security check of hers every month. Does it piss me off, yep it sure does. But it pisses me off becuase our system is so F'd up that it doesn't do anything about idiots like him and her mother. It pisses around and dances with the topic of the day, gay marriage, legalized sodomy or whatever the new fad is. And it lasts for years. Meanwhile, kids are left to die, rob banks, steal cars, die, do drugs, kill innocent people. And why, because someone who should not have had children did, and our friggin government allowed it.
Now I'm just rambling so I'll stop.
Nov 15, 2006 04:15 am to be honest, i don't think it's the government's job to prevent it....that is the responsibility of parents like you, and should be everyone....if the government knew what's best, they'd encourage (nurish) this.
Nov 15, 2006 02:07 pm Ya, I kinda went astray there and just rambled at the end. The things I've seen in the last couple weeks have really pissed me off the way some people treat their kids. I do my damnedest to keep things straight and some irresponsible parent fucks up everthing I have laid out in stone and says its OK to be a **** up!
Nov 15, 2006 02:46 pm Good on ya, Noize, for doing the right thing, when you did.
Nov 15, 2006 03:06 pm Quote:
The things I've seen in the last couple weeks have really pissed me off the way some people treat their kids.
I hear that Paul !
I visited my x the other night... I had helped her raise her two boys, and they're now 13 and 15 years old . Within the year and a half of us being apart she has managed to completely destoy any respectable trait imparted upon them prior to our demise . I was felt so pissed off, and completely helpless all at the same time... they really were good kids, and now I can hardly stand to talk with them . I'm completely disgusted .
Nov 16, 2006 08:53 pm Yep, I know I'm not alone Hue. There are other parents which I met one the other night. Tony and her daughter became good friends in the last couple weeks.
But ya, some things are out of our control for sure. My oldest son who is now 25 is a living example of what not to do with your life. I haven't heard from him in almost a year now. And he only lives about 10 or 12 miles away. With his friggin mommy!!!! Who is a chronic on cronic. And so is he. It really pissed me off for awhile, then I just decided, **** him! He cant even keep enough money in his pocket, nor can she to pay for a friggin phone. I figure when he finally does grow up enough he'll call more then just at christmass time. Boy wont he be suprised when there aint no presents under the tree for him. I'll just explain that I thought he was dead or moved far away, since I hadn't heard from him.
But ya, end of rant there. I'm just glad things are looking up here.
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.