by sam7777 » Fri Aug 06, 2004 5:38 pm
_____________________
I still see dead lesbian cliches
by darkmagicwillow » Fri Aug 06, 2004 6:07 pm
That's the solution I've always thought best, but it's unlikely to happen in the US.
IMHO the only legal marriage should be a "civil union" contracted by he state. You can then be married in any church you like in addition if that is your wish. Some countries in Europe do this with the only legal marriage being the state marriage. Why should a religious institution like marriage get so many civil rights? That way "marriage" can be "sacred" while all people can benefit from legal partnerships.
--
"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."
by The Angry Lion » Fri Aug 06, 2004 7:15 pm
My Country is the World. My Coutrymen Mankind-Thomas Paine
Edited by: The Angry Lion at: 8/6/04 6:18 pmby sam7777 » Fri Aug 06, 2004 7:54 pm
He certainly has given up his principles just to get on the ballot: F*^K NaderQuote:
Today I have been doggedly pursuing rumors that paid signature gatherers in Arizona for a draconian anti-immigrant ballot measure, Protect Arizona Now, have also been gathering signatures to get Ralph Nader on the state's ballot. Dailykos has publicized the rumor, also claiming Democrats had found enough invalid signatures to knock Nader off the ballot. However, I called Tina May, editor of the Arizona Republic, and she told me Nader has in fact qualified.
Meanwhile, the director of Protect Arizona Now won't pick up her phone to tell me if her group has been collecting signatures for Nader. There have been many rumors of Republican support for Nader in Arizona but none have been confirmed.
If Nader did piggyback on Protect Arizona Now, then his campaign has been indirectly financed by FAIR, a hard-right anti-immigrant lobbying front and think tank in Washington which pumped at least $35,000 into Arizona signature gathering efforts. Ralph couldn't go any lower.
Or could he?
And here is the interview with Buchanan: Ralph Nader: Conservatively SpeakingQuote:
This time around, I was unimpressed from the first. Nader's '04 bid seemed more informed by ego than principle. He completely failed to grapple with the debacle that his '00 campaign was, and his unchanged anti-corporate rhetoric seemed oblivious to everything which has ensued since 9-11--almost nothing about the fast-unfolding police state, the anti-immigrant crackdown, etc.
Now the current edition of Buchanan's American Conservative magazine features an interview with Nader by Pat himself, in which Ralph does nothing to disassociate himself from Pat's evil politics. In fact, Pat dogs Ralph to take an anti-immigrant stance, and Ralph finally breaks down, saying he opposes an amnesty because it would give "a green light to cross the border illegally." He also happily spews the Buchananite Jew-baiting wag-the-dog theory that US foreign policy is secretly controlled from Tel Aviv, decrying the "congressional and White House puppets to Israeli military policy." Ugly stuff indeed.
_____________________
I still see dead lesbian cliches
at: 8/6/04 6:59 pmby Kieli » Fri Aug 06, 2004 7:58 pm
Quote:
Um Kieli, can i ask you why you described ralph nader as reactionary? assum1 who makes very specific use of political terms, reactionary is something ive seen abused more then once. I heard some one describe the ACLU as reactionary for opposing the PATRIOT Act.
Quote:
Re*ac"tion*a*ry, n.; pl. {Reactionaries}.
One who favors reaction, or seeks to undo political progress
or revolution.
Re*ac"tion*a*ry, a. Being, causing, or favoring reaction; as, reactionary movements.
Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.
by The Angry Lion » Sat Aug 07, 2004 5:35 am
My Country is the World. My Coutrymen Mankind-Thomas Paine
by sam7777 » Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:19 am
If you are not a conservative Christian then Bush will not be your president. He hasn't reached out to other faiths. In particular, Muslim Americans who voted more for him in 2000 are very disaffected with Bush: (requires sign up)Quote:
Susanne Jacobsmeyer, a member of the West County Assembly of God in a St. Louis suburb, voted for George W. Bush four years ago, but mostly out of loyalty as a Republican and not with much passion.
This year, Ms. Jacobsmeyer is a "team leader" in the Bush campaign's effort to turn out conservative Christian voters. "This year I am voting for him as a man of faith," she said over breakfast after an early morning service. "He has proven that he will do what is right, and he will look to God first."
IMHO Muslim americans are the most visible victims of Bush's bigotted policies and broken policies with gay americans a close second. Who will be next? I expect the poor to suffer next as faith based initiatives take over for social services and refuse help to the "undeserving" poor who do not share their beliefs.Quote:
Hashim Raza is a 38-year-old physician from St. Louis who, like like a majority of Arab-Americans, voted for President Bush in 2000. Raza has voted Republican in every presidential election starting with Ronald Reagan in 1984. ``I was always attracted to the Republican message of self-accountability, personal responsibility, low taxes, and staying out of international affairs,'' Raza said.
This year, he will vote for Democrat John Kerry. ``After 9/11, things started adding up,'' he said at a reception Tuesday for Muslim attendees to the Democratic National Convention hosted by the Islamic Society of Boston. ``Muslims were unfairly targeted; we were presumed guilty; Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Cheney acted like they have no use for Muslims. The Republican Party has become a refuge for far right religious extremists. I believe people like Bush senior and (Bob) Dole were moderates. But now I feel the party has excluded me.''
A year ago, Arif Gafur, a 52-year-old engineer for Shell Oil in Houston, did not know anything about being a delegate to the convention. Before 9/11, he and many of his professional friends were never involved in politics. But the aftermath of the terrorist attacks where many Muslims were detained, made him concerned. ``America is the best country in the world, but it's not easy to be a Muslim,'' he said.
The invasion of Iraq, which Gafur said was ``unnecessary,'' pushed him and several other South Asian Muslims to register 1,000 voters and elect delegates to district, state, and national delegations. Of the about 5,000 delegates to the convention, about 40 are Muslim and six are from Texas, including himself.
``Sometimes, on Middle East policy, Kerry seems to come across as Bush Lite,'' Gafur said. ``But on domestic policy, with the Patriot Act and the racial profiling of Muslims, the Muslim community was awakened to the fact that we had to get involved.''
The Arab-American awakening could play a significant part in the Democrats' drive to put the Bush presidency to sleep. In the 2000 elections, Bush pledged to end profiling of Arab-Americans. Other Arab-Americans were put off by Gore's choice of Joe Lieberman, who is Jewish, as his running mate, fearing the choice signaled an unacceptable pro-Israel tilt by the Democrats. ``To many Muslims, Bush just seemed to work harder for our vote,'' Gafur said.
In 2000, Bush won 46 percent of Arab-American votes, compared to 38 percent for Gore and 14 percent for Ralph Nader. But now, a July tracking poll conducted by Zogby International for the Arab American Institute found that only 25 percent of Arab-Americans say Bush should be re-elected. Only 9 percent of Arab-Americans say Bush's policies concerning Israel and Palestine are good or excellent.
This could spell trouble for Bush if there are tight races in battleground states like Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where Zogby predicts a half-million Arab-Americans will vote. It is trouble because families like the Khan family of Toledo, Ohio, have personally felt the sting of Bush's post-9/11 policies, even though they are the embodiment of the American dream.
Husband Abdul Hafeez and wife Meena Khan are both 62. He is a retired civil engineer. She is a retired librarian. Their two daughters, Zeenat, 29, and Zeba, 23, were with them at the reception. Zeba has a master's degree in Middle East studies from the University of Chicago, and Zeenat has a doctorate in public health from the University of Texas. Zeba recently spent a year studying in Syria. Zeenat recently moved to the Boston area and has become a state Democratic Party activist. They all originally supported Dennis Kucinich of Ohio for president.
All four members of the family say they have been singled out for anti-terrorism searches in airports. Abdul Hafeez, Meena, and Zeba missed their flight to Boston because the father was pulled out of line and was not cleared until their flight was closed.
``In 35 years in this country I never had this experience,'' Abdul Hafeez said. Zeenat said, ``When you can nullify the Bill of Rights, the current administration is out of control.'' Meena said, ``All of the things America stands for, freedom, charity, rights, these are Muslim values, same as Christian values. But with all that's going on, how can you call this a Christian country?''
None of the attendees or delegates were naive that Kerry completely supports their views. Kerry has angered Arab-Americans for agreeing with significant parts of Bush's Israel/Palestine policy and his vote authorizing Bush to invade Iraq. What they hope is that Kerry's pledge not to be a unilateralist will mean he will at least listen to Muslims before acting.
Gulten Ilhan, 38, a philosophy professor at St. Louis Community College and a Missouri delegate, said, ``After there were no weapons of mass destruction, after it was clear we were not there to liberate Iraqis, Bush has lost many Arab-Americans. We have no choice but to stay in Iraq now. But Bush cannot stay as president.''
When we allow one group to lose their rights then we all lose our rights.Quote:
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
_____________________
I still see dead lesbian cliches
at: 8/9/04 11:06 amby Kieli » Mon Aug 09, 2004 12:26 pm
Quote:
yea but youve described just about every single politician out there, from Jesse James to the Governator.
Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.
by Gatito Grande » Mon Aug 09, 2004 4:14 pm
Quote:
``Sometimes, on Middle East policy, Kerry seems to come across as Bush Lite,'' Gafur said. ``But on domestic policy, with the Patriot Act and the racial profiling of Muslims, the Muslim community was awakened to the fact that we had to get involved.''
).
Out by sam7777 » Mon Aug 09, 2004 5:32 pm
_____________________
I still see dead lesbian cliches
by thx1123 » Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:03 pm
by skittles » Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:48 pm
skittles
by Gatito Grande » Mon Aug 09, 2004 8:37 pm
Quote:
My ancestor was not a fool.He was a poor farmer forced to fight for a bunch of elitist slave owning scum in order to protect his home becuase of their ignorance,greed and stupidity.
). Remember, you may be very lonely, thinking the way you do (or loving the way you do), where you live---but on the Kitten, you're never alone. 
Out by The Angry Lion » Mon Aug 09, 2004 8:48 pm
My Country is the World. My Coutrymen Mankind-Thomas Paine
by thx1123 » Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:31 am
Quote:
I have no doubts in my mind, if Bush is re-elected, Iran is gonna be next on 'Shock and Awe' list.
by sam7777 » Tue Aug 10, 2004 11:09 am
Personally, I would have preferred a UN mission. Given all the other things that they have misrepresented, I don't fell that a mission approved by the administration will be effective. I feel the Bush administration's is making things more dangerous for the US partly because alot of people in the country no longer trust them after their misrepresentations on the war in Iraq. This is one of the reasons why there has been talk of political motives behind the raising of threat levels:Quote:
Major international monitors will issue an unprecedented report on the handling of this year's U.S. presidential election, after the 2000 vote raised concerns of disenfranchisement, U.S. officials said on Monday.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe will a send a team to observe the vote in a move applauded by Democrats who had sought monitors because they felt ballots were unfairly left uncounted last time, particularly in Florida.
In 2000, voters split down the middle in Florida, which was ridiculed worldwide as it spawned court battles over whether and how to count imperfect ballots. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled George W. Bush was the winner by 537 votes, which put him in the White House.
With polls showing this year's election between Bush and Democrat John Kerry will also be tight, civil rights groups have raised concern over a repeat of the 2000 debacle.
The OSCE, which groups 55 countries, does not have a mandate to judge the fairness of this year's vote. Still, while some OSCE representatives have observed U.S. presidential votes before, this year will be the first time they will report publicly afterward on any shortcomings it finds, according to State Department officials.
"This represents a step in the right direction toward ensuring that this year's elections are fair and transparent," Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, said in a statement. "We sincerely hope that the presence of the monitors will make certain that every person's voice is heard, every person's vote is counted."
Lee was one of a group of Democrats in the House of Representatives who initially wanted U.N. monitors. Republicans complained a U.N. mission would make the world's superpower look like a third world nation and passed an amendment in the House banning the use of federal funds to make such a request.
The OSCE traditionally has monitored elections in fragile democracies to determine if they were fair. But in the last few years it has also observed votes in major Western powers, such as France and Spain, in a new program to help its members learn from others' examples.
The State Department, which traditionally invites OSCE observers, requested the mission under that new program.
Focusing on Florida, an OSCE mission observed the 2002 mid-term U.S. congressional elections to see what changes had been put in place "to address the challenges of the 2000 presidential election," the OSCE vote report said.
The report noted "remedial measures" had significantly addressed the shortcomings of two years earlier in Florida but said "room for some further improvement remains."
I do not believe that Bush can unite this country anymore. Instead he seems intent on fracturing between those who share his "values" & those who do not, between conservative and progressive/liberal, between christians and all others and between gays and heterosexuals. Kerry at least is trying to reach out to more moderate voters and before we scream political opportunism, this is wht Bush did in 2000 with his "compassionate conservatism" which is yet another thing that Bush misrepresented. In these difficult times, I believe that we need a leader who will unite this country. Bush ain't it.Quote:
On Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge raised the government's terrorist threat alert level to orange (high risk) based on intelligence reports suggesting that the al-Qaida network may have targeted at least five financial institutions in this country. Two days later, Ridge angrily rejected criticism that the Bush administration, by going public, may have been playing election-year politics.
"We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security," Ridge said, adding: "The detail, the sophistication, the thoroughness of this information, if you had access to it, you'd say we did the right thing."
He may well be right, and Americans, who don't have access to that information, ought to assume that their leaders, especially in the face of a threat that everyone agrees is real, are doing their best to protect the country. But in the politically polarized climate that now pervades the country, it's not always easy.
MLS
It might have been easier, for example, if Ridge had not said, in announcing the threat alert, that the intelligence gained was "the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror." That may also be true, but in the context of a presidential campaign in which a core issue is how effectively President Bush has responded to the terrorist threat, such statements inevitably raise questions.
Based on what officials have told the public about what they've learned about al-Qaida surveillance of potential targets in this country - some information dates back a few years, some apparently was obtained very recently through the seizure in Pakistan of a suspect and documents containing detailed information about target sites in this country - the public owes authorities the benefit of the doubt. By the same token, officials should, when at all possible, try to avoid timing announcements that may be seen as attempts to upstage Democratic candidate John Kerry's campaign, tempting as that may be.
Politics aside, some analysts, including former CIA officials, question the value of the color-coded threat level system. They say it amounts to "crying wolf" without giving the public any useful advice beyond telling it to be alert and go on with normal routines. And some local officials in the cities affected by tighter security measures - New York, Newark and Washington, D.C. - have begun to complain about the cost, the likely duration and even the necessity of those measures. How much that reflects normal grumbling over having new burdens imposed and how much it reflects distrust of the administration imposing them is uncertain.
The credibility gap created by the failure to find the Iraqi arsenal that the president assured the American people justified going to war helps to explain why Ridge felt he had to stoutly defend his action, and why the questions that forced him to do so were raised in the first place.
Somehow, no matter who wins the election in November, America must find a way to dispel the pervasive atmosphere of distrust that makes it so difficult to conduct the nation's business.
_____________________
I still see dead lesbian cliches
by maudmac » Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:03 pm
Quote:
...take the most recent Orange Alert, which came just after the Democratic Convention as Kerry was setting out on the campaign trail and was based on a series of arrests of al-Qaeda figures in Pakistan, the first of which, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the FBI's twenty-second "Most Wanted" terrorist, was announced on the day of Kerry's acceptance speech. To be more precise, it was announced by Faisal Saleh Hayyat, Pakistan's interior minister, at that top Pakistani hour for making crucial announcements – midnight (but acceptance speech day halfway across the world.). Actually, to be yet more accurate, the arrest itself had been made not that day but four days earlier. What's surprising here is not the four-day lag, but the speed with which the announcement was made – a kind of unseemly tip-off to any al-Qaeda figures connected to Ghailani. As former CIA operative Robert Baer commented on the timing of the announcement: "It makes no sense to make the announcement then. Presumably, everything [Al Qaeda] does is compartmented. By announcing to everybody in the world that we have this guy, and he is talking, you have to assume that you shoot tactics. To keep these guys off-balance, a lot of this stuff should be kept in secret. You get no benefit from announcing an arrest like this."
[...]
As part of the ramping up of its Orange Alert, the administration announced that an al-Qaeda computer expert and techno-whiz had just been arrested with terrifying material on his computer, and then, when the New York Times learned his name, evidently confirmed it to the paper. The catch was, as Reuters recently revealed, when Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan was arrested, he agreed to turn double agent – and so became that rarest of all creatures, a potential mole inside al-Qaeda. Soon thereafter, his cover was blown. "'The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse," said Tim Ripley, a security expert who writes for Jane's Defence publications."You have to ask: what are they doing compromising a deep mole within al Qaeda, when it's so difficult to get these guys in there in the first place?... Running agents within a terrorist organisation is the Holy Grail of intelligence agencies. And to have it blown is a major setback which negates months and years of work, which may be difficult to recover."
i wasn't sniffing your spicy brains
by sapphicpoet » Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:51 pm
aren't we supposed to be going after Bin Ladden, you know the guy who actually attacked us? I have to say, I for one never believed Saddam was a threat to us. Why did we go there? Because Bush has a chip on his shoulder. He was hell bent on finishing what his father couldn't and didn't. When he heard about the attacks he didn't ask who did it, he told his people to find the connection to Iraq and Saddam. Well he asked about this stuff after he sat for 7 minutes with a dumb look on his face. by sam7777 » Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:29 pm
The problems that got a CIA angent's name revealed in 2003 have obviously not been solved:Quote:
The unmasking of an al Qaeda mole after a U.S. security alert points to disarray within U.S. intelligence and could mean President Bush is accused of playing politics with security, the top U.S. election issue.
Washington raised its security alert to high on August 1 and disclosed a man held in secret by Pakistan was the source of information that justified the alert.
U.S. officials next morning confirmed a media report naming the man as Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, a computer expert arrested secretly in July and used by Pakistan to track down al Qaeda militants in Britain and America.
Pakistani intelligence told Reuters that Khan was still working undercover when the U.S. security status was raised to orange and his name appeared in a U.S. newspaper.
Security analysts said the outing of the source was a major blunder that forced Britain to arrest 12 terrorism suspects in a hurry; nine are still in custody. Washington said the arrests, which included an alleged top al Qaeda figure, were a success.
_____________________
I still see dead lesbian cliches
at: 8/10/04 5:43 pmby The Angry Lion » Tue Aug 10, 2004 7:35 pm
My Country is the World. My Coutrymen Mankind-Thomas Paine
by sam7777 » Fri Aug 13, 2004 12:32 pm
ETA: Two items from the washington Post:Quote:
If the election were held today, there’s a good chance George W. Bush would not be reelected. And if he doesn’t change the course of his campaign or dramatic news events don’t change the race, he’s not going to be reelected in November. Certainly the polls still show a close race. Most say Kerry has the lead, a few give it to Bush, but all put it within the margin of error. And Kerry gained only a small bump in the national polls from his convention. But that’s because conventions usually rally the party faithful around their nominee, and Bush, with some help from Howard Dean, united the Democrats months ago. The President really means it when he says he’s a uniter.
What has to be far more disturbing to the staff at Bush-Cheney ‘04 headquarters is the most recent round of polls from key battleground states. They show Kerry gaining ground in some of the states most crucial for Bush. The latest poll in Florida, where Bush was ahead before the convention, gives Kerry a six point lead. West Virginia is leaning toward Kerry. A New Hampshire poll shows Kerry ahead by seven points. All three states voted for Bush in 2000.
As for those close national polls, there are some strong signs that Bush will not pick up many votes from the small sliver of undecided Americans. Nonpartisan political guru Charlie Cook recently analyzed a series of AP polls from April to August and found that while 56% of surveyed voters believe the country is on the wrong track, 74% of undecided voters think that’s the case.
Mr. Nader's BaitingQuote:
The factors that make President Bush a vulnerable incumbent have almost nothing to do with his opponent, John F. Kerry. They stem directly from two closely linked, high-stakes policy gambles that Bush chose on his own. Neither has worked out as he hoped.
The first gamble was the decision to attack Iraq; the second, to avoid paying for the war. The rationale for the first decision was to remove the threat of a hostile dictator armed with weapons of mass destruction. The weapons were never found. The rationale for the second decision -- the determination to keep cutting taxes in the face of far higher spending for Iraq and the war on terrorism -- was to stimulate the American economy and end the drought of jobs. The deficits have accumulated, but the jobs have still not come back.
If Bush can win reelection despite the failure of his two most consequential -- and truly radical -- decisions, he will truly be a political miracle man. But as his own nominating convention approaches, the odds are against him.
ETA2: Nader seems to be regressing more and more each day: Don't Help Nader Help BushQuote:
"The days when the chief Israeli puppeteer comes to the United States and meets with the puppet in the White House and then proceeds to Capitol Hill, where he meets with hundreds of other puppets, should be replaced."
"Bush also repeated the catch-phrase . . . 'committed to the security of Israel as a Jewish state,' which is repeated almost word-for-word again and again by Israel's sycophants and Capitol Hill puppets."
QUICK QUIZ: Which of the above quotations is lifted from the Web site of the white supremacist National Alliance and which was uttered this summer by independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader? It's a tough one. After all, both play on the age-old anti-Semitic stereotype of powerful Jews dominating politics and manipulating hapless non-Jewish puppets for their own ends. Yet if Mr. Nader is at all disquieted by the company he is keeping by using such metaphors, he sure isn't showing it. In a letter this week to the Anti-Defamation League, which had complained to him about his rhetoric, he responded with breezy indifference and more rhetoric that only compounds concerns.
Mr. Nader complains in his letter that the debate in Israel over Israeli policies is far more robust than the American debate over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In an interview last month on the "Democracy Now!" radio show he explained, "The U.S. government never connects with the deep and broad Israeli peace movement" -- a claim he elaborates on in the letter. And Mr. Nader has a point. Israel's shriller defenders often cry foul at even the mildest and most constructive criticism of the state. The problem with Mr. Nader's words are not that he criticizes either Israel's policies or American support for those policies. The problem, rather, is the language he deploys in doing so. In the radio interview he called John Kerry a "puppet politician who does not think in the best interests of the American people and the Israeli and Palestinian people." And in his letter he writes, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, of "AIPAC's ditto machine on Capitol Hill" and the awed members of Congress "who, against their private judgment, resign themselves to sign on the dotted line."
This is poisonous stuff. And if Mr. Nader doesn't understand what such words actually mean, the less savory elements of American society certainly know how to read such code. But Mr. Nader, as always, is not backing down: "As for the metaphors -- puppeteer and puppets -- the Romans had a phrase for the obvious -- res ipsa loquitor," which means the thing speaks for itself. Indeed it does.
Quiz answer: The first quotation was Mr. Nader's.
_____________________
I still see dead lesbian cliches
at: 8/16/04 11:46 amby thx1123 » Mon Aug 16, 2004 9:17 pm
by Kieli » Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:05 pm
Quote:
This is not about patisianship.
Quote:
Having civil rights won't do me any good if I am dead.
Quote:
Both sides can play politics with this and the cost could be a lot of dead people.
Quote:
If Bush wins and gets a 2/3 majority we are in trouble.If kerry wins but the republicans get the 2/3 majority,he cannot veto an ammendment and even id he could it would pass over his veto.
Quote:
Neither house, however, is under any legal, constitutional, or procedural obligation to schedule an override vote attempt, but may do so anytime during a Congress. It is not unusual for Congress to make no effort to override a President’s veto if party leaders feel they do not have sufficient votes. In still other cases, vetoes have been challenged and sustained in one house, eliminating the need for a vote in the other chamber.
Quote:
3:50 P.M. -
Considered as unfinished business.
H.R. 3313:
to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 233 - 194 (Roll no. 410).
11:38 A.M. -
Considered as privileged matter.
H. Res. 734:
providing for consideration of the bill ( H.R. 3313) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.
by urnofosiris » Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:22 am
by Hemiola » Tue Aug 17, 2004 6:47 am
by sam7777 » Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:03 pm
And why are young people fleeing the bush camp: the war and fear of the draft. They are rightly more afraid of dying in Iraq than from a terrorist attack at home: Teen Poll: Majority Expects DraftQuote:
Surveys suggest that Bush's popularity has plummeted among 18- to 29-year-olds in the past four months, posing a new obstacle to the president's bid to win reelection and an immediate challenge to Republicans seeking to win over impressionable and lightly committed young people during their upcoming convention.
Four years ago, network exit polls found that Bush and Democrat Al Gore split the vote of 18- to 29-year-olds, with Gore claiming 48 percent and Bush getting 46 percent -- the best showing by a Republican presidential candidate in more than a decade.
But that was then. In the latest Post-ABC News poll taken immediately after the Democratic convention, Kerry led Bush 2-1 among registered voters younger than 30. Among older voters, the race was virtually tied.
Bush's problems with younger voters began months before the Democratic convention, Post-ABC polls suggest. The last time Bush and Kerry were tied among the under-30 crowd was back in April. In the five surveys conducted since then, Bush has trailed Kerry by an average of 18 percentage points.
Virtually every other major poll conducted in the past month confirms Kerry's newfound and perhaps transient popularity with voters under the age of 30. The size of this advantage varies, due in part to the relatively small number of younger voters and correspondingly large margin of sampling error in each survey.
A Newsweek Poll conducted on July 29-30 found Kerry with a 51-32 lead among 18- to 29-year-olds. The CBS News/New York Times post-convention survey of registered voters showed Kerry with a 50-31 advantage among this group.
Kerry also led among young adults in most surveys conducted during the weeks leading up to the convention. The combined data from surveys of 2,891 registered voters conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in May and June showed a 15-point Kerry lead, but its mid-July survey found the race tied. A Newsweek poll exclusively of younger voters interviewed in mid-July found Kerry with a 48-41 lead while a Post-ABC News survey put the Democrat ahead by 9 points on the eve of his party's convention.
Even if they support the war, they are greluctant to die there much like the chicken hawks in the Bush administration from the commander in chief chicken hawk on down.Quote:
Most U.S. high-school students believe the government will restart the military draft during their lifetimes, and shrinking numbers are optimistic about the country's future, a new poll finds.
Among teenagers, 55 percent say young Americans will be required to serve in the military, up from 45 percent last year, according to "The State of Our Nation's Youth," an annual survey by the Horatio Alger Association.
During the year between polls - May 2003 to May 2004 - U.S. casualties mounted during attacks in Iraq even after President Bush declared on May 1, 2003, that major combat had ended.
If you want to be safe, voting for Kerry is the better choice. He can't fix the bad situation that Bush created but he has a better chance to improve it since he doesn't carry the baggage of alienating most of the rest of the world.Quote:
The Bush administration is facing growing criticism from both inside and outside its ranks that it has failed to move aggressively enough in the war of ideas against Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups over the three years since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The Sept. 11 commission last month called for a vigorous strategy for promoting the image and democratic values of the United States around the world, and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that the administration is working hard on those efforts.
But Middle East experts -- and some frustrated U.S. officials -- complain that the administration has provided only limited new direction in dealing with anti-American anger among the world's 1.2 billion Muslims and is spending far too little on such efforts, particularly in contrast with the billions spent on other pressing needs, such as homeland security and intelligence.
On its boldest policy ideas, such as the Greater Middle East Democracy Initiative, the administration has limited its follow-through or deferred to the very governments that have most resisted democratic reforms, specialists and some U.S. officials say.
"It's worse than failing. Failing means you tried and didn't get better. But at this point, three years after September 11, you can say there wasn't even much of an attempt, and today Arab and Muslim attitudes toward the U.S. and the degree of distrust in the U.S. are far worse than they were three years ago. Bin Laden is winning by default," said Shibley Telhami, a member of a White House-appointed advisory group on public diplomacy and Brookings Institution scholar.
_____________________
I still see dead lesbian cliches
at: 8/20/04 11:39 amby Kieli » Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:29 pm
Quote:
Reuters
Updated: 10:15 p.m. ET Aug. 21, 2004
ATHENS, Greece - Iraqi soccer players reacted angrily Friday after being told that their nation's Olympic participation was mentioned in TV commercial by the re-election campaign for President Bush.
The players called on Bush to stop using them to win votes in the United States.
“Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign,” midfielder Salih Sadir was quoted as saying. “He can find another way to advertise himself.”
However, the Iraqi Olympic delegation accused journalists of deliberately provoking an angry response from their players.
“Our purpose is not to politicize the football team in any way,” Mark Clark, a consultant for the Iraqi Olympic Committee, said. “It seems the story was engineered.”
The flags of Iraq and Afghanistan appear in the Bush commercial ahead of the Republican National Convention, to be held in September.
A narrator says: “At this Olympics there will be two more free nations—and two fewer terrorist regimes.”
Another Iraqi player asked: “How will (Bush) meet his God having slaughtered so many men and women? He has committed so many crimes.”
But Clark insisted journalists were wrong to take advantage of the athletes.
“It is a little naughty,” he said. “The players are not very sophisticated politically; they are a little naive. Whoever posed these questions knew that the reaction would be negative.
“It is possible something was lost in translation. It’s a free, new Iraq, and the players are entitled to their opinions but we are disappointed.”
Iraq’s soccer players once lived in fear of Uday Hussein, son of toppled dictator Saddam Hussein, who used to beat the soles of their feet or throw them in prison for slip-ups on the pitch.
Under current coach Adnan Hamd, they have defied the odds to reach the quarterfinals at the Athens Olympics, where they will play Australia on Saturday.
Hamd said, “The American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the stadium and there are shootings on the road?”
Clark expressed hope that Iraq could play on without further political waves.
“Any success we ... have here could be beneficial in the broader picture,” he said. “But we are here to play football.”
Copyright 2004 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.
by Gatito Grande » Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:55 pm
Quote:
However, the Iraqi Olympic delegation accused journalists of deliberately provoking an angry response from their players.
“Our purpose is not to politicize the football team in any way,” Mark Clark, a consultant for the Iraqi Olympic Committee, said. “It seems the story was engineered.”
Outby Warduke » Sun Aug 22, 2004 3:18 pm
by angel of salvation » Mon Aug 23, 2004 4:52 pm
"We've never been so many, and we've never been...so alone"-Ana Johnnson
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 116 guests
