NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you guys think the significance of this is?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/30/iowa.samesexmarriage/index.html

Good maybe all the homos will leave Illinois for Iowa...erm what I really mean is congrats to gays in Iowa???? It really doesn't phase me when the courts say something that I already believe to be true.

Well done Iowa.

That's cool.

our nation is becoming more liberal.:upyours:

our nation is becoming more liberal.:upyours:

On the contrary, our country was founded on an ideal of liberty and equality under the law. The Founding Fathers knew even then that the nation didn't hold up to that ideal but they created that ideal anyway with the hopes we as Americans would always strive toward it.

Moving further toward that ideal is as conservative an action as you can get. *nod*

our nation is becoming more liberal.:upyours:

Good !

Maybe ya'll can get rid of the neo-fascists running the show in the white house right now aswell.

our nation is becoming more liberal.:upyours:

Dude, live and let live. And despite what the neo-cons say, this ruling doesn't make your relationship with your pet goat any less of a relationship. :p

Bravo, Iowa. It's nice to know that progress does happen.

Dude, live and let live. And despite what the neo-cons say, this ruling doesn't make your relationship with your pet goat any less of a relationship. :p

Zing!!! Good one.

Hey everybody, impending n00b fight!:D

Excellent. Well done, Iowa. :)

What do you guys think the significance of this is?

Very slight, if existent at all. It is a lower court, Iowa will appeal and a stay will be granted until higher courts have ruled. This ruling in itself will not make any difference.

Damn...another victory for legalized marriage.

Wake me up when some state rules that straight couples can't get married, either. Preferably one of the hilarious states.

Very slight, if existent at all. It is a lower court, Iowa will appeal and a stay will be granted until higher courts have ruled. This ruling in itself will not make any difference.

I disagree. Lower court rulings are often important in viewing the legal fratenity's way of thinking on a subjecct.

Plus, the State Supreme Court may decline to hear the appeal, in which case this ruling will stand.

I disagree. Lower court rulings are often important in viewing the legal fratenity's way of thinking on a subjecct.

In certain issues, yes, in others no. In these sorts of cases, it leans towards no; the supreme courts have tended to go with their own reasonings and haven't seemed to have relied much on the lower courts.

Plus, the State Supreme Court may decline to hear the appeal, in which case this ruling will stand.

That is not going to happen.

I oppose gay marriage.

Marriage was a device created by aristocrats thousands of years ago to control dynasties for political, economic and military gain, and came to be used more prominently as a patriarchal tool for male oppressors to subordinate women. Up until half-way through the 20th century it was a useful technique to stop the inter-breeding of races. Marriage had continued to be strong until today among heterosexuals, with some marriage fans doing it multiple times.

I don't want no fags messin' up my institution.

I oppose gay marriage.

Marriage was a device created by aristocrats thousands of years ago to control dynasties for political, economic and military gain, and came to be used more prominently as a patriarchal tool for male oppressors to subordinate women. Up until half-way through the 20th century it was a useful technique to stop the inter-breeding of races. Marriage had continued to be strong until today among heterosexuals, with some marriage fans doing it multiple times.

I don't want no fags messin' up my institution.

The sarcasm is strong with this one... ;)

Iowa has finally caught up to medieval France (http://www.gay.com/news/election/article.html?2007/08/24/5)!

Same-sex civil unions, while seemingly new and radical, appear to have existed 600 years ago in late medieval France, a professor writes in the September issue of the Journal of Modern History.

The term affrerement, or "brotherment," referred to a certain type of legal contract that provided a marriage-like foundation for non-nuclear households of many types, according to Allan Tulchin, an assistant professor of history at Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.

I think it's a good thing. (right?)

I'm surprised that it's taken this long.

Unless you have a Constitutional amendment (the only thing resistant to a constitutional challenge) banning gay marriage, the equal protection clause would mandate gay marriage (it would also mandate polygamy, and other variants of marriage between adults).

Personally, I believe gay marriage should be legal (and polygamy, etc.).

As long as it's consenting adults, that should be the extent of the state's interest in the matter.

I'm surprised that it's taken this long.

Unless you have a Constitutional amendment (the only thing resistant to a constitutional challenge) banning gay marriage, the equal protection clause would mandate gay marriage (it would also mandate polygamy, and other variants of marriage between adults).

Personally, I believe gay marriage should be legal (and polygamy, etc.).

As long as it's consenting adults, that should be the extent of the state's interest in the matter.

Unfortunately, Iowa's equal protection clauses are, I understand, much stronger than the Federal Constitution's. Arguments that would work in Iowa and some other states are problematical in the national setting.

good stuff, now let's see it happen all over the US

I think it's a good thing. (right?)

Equality is a good thing, but the inevitable "Activist judges!" foaming at the mouth is regrettable. Honestly I'd prefer such things be handled by legislators, but take what we can get I suppose.

I'm surprised that it's taken this long.

Unless you have a Constitutional amendment (the only thing resistant to a constitutional challenge) banning gay marriage, the equal protection clause would mandate gay marriage (it would also mandate polygamy, and other variants of marriage between adults).
The Equal Protection clause has nothing to do with this. However, the Full Faith and Credit clause does. And they have been pissing on it for years using the "Defense of Marriage Act" as an excuse.

What do you guys think the significance of this is?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/30/iowa.samesexmarriage/index.html
My opinion of Iowa remains the same as ever: "Hell with corn."

Equality is a good thing, but the inevitable "Activist judges!" foaming at the mouth is regrettable. Honestly I'd prefer such things be handled by legislators, but take what we can get I suppose.

yeah, I would rather it be legislators too.

if we waited on legislators "seperate but equal" would still be the bullshit of choice.

I oppose gay marriage.

Marriage was a device created by aristocrats thousands of years ago to control dynasties for political, economic and military gain, and came to be used more prominently as a patriarchal tool for male oppressors to subordinate women. Up until half-way through the 20th century it was a useful technique to stop the inter-breeding of races. Marriage had continued to be strong until today among heterosexuals, with some marriage fans doing it multiple times.

I don't want no fags messin' up my institution.

*Deanna Troi*

I sense... sarcasm.

What do you guys think the significance of this is?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/30/iowa.samesexmarriage/index.html

Congrats to Iowa, and boo to all the people who stereotype them as overly-religious hicks.

What do you guys think the significance of this is?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/30/iowa.samesexmarriage/index.html

If the people want it, let them decide on it. Courts should butt out.

The Equal Protection clause has nothing to do with this. However, the Full Faith and Credit clause does. And they have been pissing on it for years using the "Defense of Marriage Act" as an excuse.

"We cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint"

-Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision overturning Colorado's Amendment 2 referendum


Sounds like equal protection to me.

The Equal Protection clause has nothing to do with this. However, the Full Faith and Credit clause does. And they have been pissing on it for years using the "Defense of Marriage Act" as an excuse.

An act supported by Clinton of all people.

An act supported by Clinton of all people.

Yes, good old Slick Willy, a man of principle!

Equality is a good thing, but the inevitable "Activist judges!" foaming at the mouth is regrettable. Honestly I'd prefer such things be handled by legislators, but take what we can get I suppose.

If the people want it, let them decide on it. Courts should butt out.

And not a moment too soon.

Yes, good old Slick Willy, a man of principle!

Clinton was pretty smart about "how to be a popular President".

Rather than follow his campaign promises (which no candidate does anyway), or lead using his own ideas, he resorted to polling before opening his mouth or making a decision.

End result: he pushed things that were perceived as popular (even if they didn't align with what the Democratic faithful would want).

So, we got "the end of welfare as we know it" and other things.

If Bush had done his Presidency in this way, he would be just as popular as Clinton - just poll instead of making any decisions.

If the people want it, let them decide on it. Courts should butt out.

If the people want blacks and whites to be educated together let the people decide it, the courts should butt out!


Anyone else see the delicious irony of Bush using the Brown vs Board of Education anniversary a couple years back to promote his anti-gay marriage spiel?

If the people want blacks and whites to be educated together let the people decide it, the courts should butt out!


Anyone else see the delicious irony of Bush using the Brown vs Board of Education anniversary a couple years back to promote his anti-gay marriage spiel?

Brown is one of the most important decisions. A decision I wholeheartedly agree with.

Brown is one of the most important decisions. A decision I wholeheartedly agree with.

You're a funny man.

You're a funny man.

Thx

If Bush had done his Presidency in this way, he would be just as popular as Clinton - just poll instead of making any decisions.

Dr. Cox, I choose you!

Problem is, Shirley, his decisions were messes both when they were popular and when they were unpopular. Indeed, they didn't begin as unpopular, they became unpopular when the people (save for a moronic few) realized the mess they had been unwittingly thrown into. But of course you will support any and all decision that allows you to see brown people getting slaughtered, all the while you have lone nerdy sex thinking about their blood spilling on your lack-of-a-gun, or the guns of the people that, unlike you, actually go risk their asses over there for the blood thirst of people like you. Guess what, though: People realized Bush's decisions were crap and THAT made them unpopular. The punchline? Due to the support of people like yourself the US will leave Iraq much, much weaker than it entered and way, way less safer. Think about it, Mary-Lou.

Dr. Cox, I choose you!

Problem is, Shirley, his decisions were messes both when they were popular and when they were unpopular. Indeed, they didn't begin as unpopular, they became unpopular when the people (save for a moronic few) realized the mess they had been unwittingly thrown into. But of course you will support any and all decision that allows you to see brown people getting slaughtered, all the while you have lone nerdy sex thinking about their blood spilling on your lack-of-a-gun, or the guns of the people that, unlike you, actually go risk their asses over there for the blood thirst of people like you. Guess what, though: People realized Bush's decisions were crap and THAT made them unpopular. The punchline? Due to the support of people like yourself the US will leave Iraq much, much weaker than it entered and way, way less safer. Think about it, Mary-Lou.

Quoted for both truth and showmanship. :D

Quoted for both truth and showmanship. :D

Awww, you really think so? ^_^

Dr. Cox, I choose you!

Problem is, Shirley, his decisions were messes both when they were popular and when they were unpopular. Indeed, they didn't begin as unpopular, they became unpopular when the people (save for a moronic few) realized the mess they had been unwittingly thrown into. But of course you will support any and all decision that allows you to see brown people getting slaughtered, all the while you have lone nerdy sex thinking about their blood spilling on your lack-of-a-gun, or the guns of the people that, unlike you, actually go risk their asses over there for the blood thirst of people like you. Guess what, though: People realized Bush's decisions were crap and THAT made them unpopular. The punchline? Due to the support of people like yourself the US will leave Iraq much, much weaker than it entered and way, way less safer. Think about it, Mary-Lou.

Actually, I went over there. So I did risk my ass.

It wouldn't have been a popular idea if he hadn't tried to sell it. Clinton would not have tried to sell it, so it wouldn't have come up. He would have waited until something happened and then took a poll.

So, we would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 if Bush was leading by polling, and not Iraq.

Actually, I went over there. So I did risk my ass.

It wouldn't have been a popular idea if he hadn't tried to sell it. Clinton would not have tried to sell it, so it wouldn't have come up. He would have waited until something happened and then took a poll.

So, we would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 if Bush was leading by polling, and not Iraq.

Even assuming it's true that you were there, doesn't change the fact that Bush's decision were out of blood-and-oil-lust more than anything. And by your post history, it's clear that you particularly weren't there to bring them democracy, you were there to kill brown people.

"You won't be marriage partners, you'll be butt buddies." ;)

Either way, good. It's good to know what some states are coming around.

After all, wasn't part of the preamble to the US Constitution say, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."?

If all men (though taken to mean people) are created equal, they surely they can all be afforded the same rights, including that of marriage.

I live in England, and we have civil ceremonies for same sex couples. I am all for gay marriage, but how about the same tax breaks for long-standing habitual couples? My parents aren't married but they've been together for 17 years, but they get no legal benefits from this. It's a crazy world.

Even assuming it's true that you were there, doesn't change the fact that Bush's decision were out of blood-and-oil-lust more than anything. And by your post history, it's clear that you particularly weren't there to bring them democracy, you were there to kill brown people.

Take the debate elsewhere.

I don't care if people are brown or not (I'm brown myself).

If people shoot at me, that's all the license I require.

And that goes for you 2. Take this debate elsewhere.

It's about time! Now maybe all the other states will follow, in time.

Even assuming it's true that you were there, doesn't change the fact that Bush's decision were out of blood-and-oil-lust more than anything. And by your post history, it's clear that you particularly weren't there to bring them democracy, you were there to kill brown people.

I don't care if people are brown or not (I'm brown myself).

If people shoot at me, that's all the license I require.

I don't care if people are brown or not (I'm brown myself).

If people of the country I invaded unprovoked are Muslim, that's all the license I require.

Fixed.

/End threadjack.

After all, wasn't part of the preamble to the US Constitution say, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."?

If all men (though taken to mean people) are created equal, they surely they can all be afforded the same rights, including that of marriage.

Well said. :) Of course, when that was written, they felt very clearly that NOT all men were created equal...but it's a nice sentiment and one to be aspired to.

Fixed.

Nope, now you're lying.

Really, I've killed people who weren't Muslim.

Well said. :) Of course, when that was written, they felt very clearly that NOT all men were created equal...but it's a nice sentiment and one to be aspired to.

I realise that, but I believe the wording is what's important now. After all, equality is now supposedly a forefront of American democratic idealism, so, why not aspire to equality for all and not just for those who can afford fancy high priced Yale lawyers? :)

If the people want it, let them decide on it. Courts should butt out.

Exactly. Let's get back to reinstituting things that those damn activist judges deprived us fair and intelligent voters of deciding ourselves.
I'm forming a reinstate Jim Crow party, who's with me?

The problem, of course, revolves around opinionated views and upbringing. This is generally a debate that has no completely-unbiased answer.

Personally, homosexuals will be what they want to be. Giving them the right to marry is just giving them the right to have certain legal capabilities where they wouldn't as an unmarried couple.

That being said, they should be able to marry if they want. Now, my opinion on gay marriage is that it should be no different than straight marriage. The allowance of homosexual marital process is that it remains just that. Any overt public displays that are achieved in the name of "Furtherment of Gay Rights" should be disallowed for a heterosexual wedding.

In short, homosexual marriage should have no more or less rights that a heterosexual one.

Exactly. Let's get back to reinstituting things that those damn activist judges deprived us fair and intelligent voters of deciding ourselves.
I'm forming a reinstate Jim Crow party, who's with me?

Did I say that the judge was activist? No I did not say it at all. All I said was let the people decide and the courts should butt out.

Did I say that the judge was activist? No I did not say it at all. All I said was let the people decide and the courts should butt out.

Having the majority decide wether or not to give equal rights to a minority? Yes, that sounds like a good idea. After all, I'm pretty sure if you had asked the people in the Confederacy, they would most certainly have told you they'd want to keep their slaves, thank you very much.

Not just the courts, but the government altogether.

The government has no place regulating marriage in the first place.

Each church, business, insurance company, social club, etc. has every right to decide for itself what it will and will not recognize as a "marriage" for its own purposes. The notion of marriage as a LEGAL institution needs to be done away with altogether.

Not just the courts, but the government altogether.

The government has no place regulating marriage in the first place.

Each church, business, insurance company, social club, etc. has every right to decide for itself what it will and will not recognize as a "marriage" for its own purposes. The notion of marriage as a LEGAL institution needs to be done away with altogether.

What, so no tax breaks, no legislation and process for divorces, no legal child custody, no joined pensions, no financial responsibilities?

Yes, that will clear things up :rolleyes:

What, so no tax breaks, no legislation and process for divorces, no legal child custody, no joined pensions, no financial responsibilities?

Yes, that will clear things up :rolleyes:

I don't believe in the tax breaks. That's social engineering.

Divorce (dissolution of an actual marriage) could be done by a religious organization.

If you want to share property and assets, write a contract. That doesn't require marriage does it? Or do corporate executives marry each other during mergers?

Child custody can be handled separately - for a lot of people who are not married it already is.

I don't believe in the tax breaks. That's social engineering.

Divorce (dissolution of an actual marriage) could be done by a religious organization.

If you want to share property and assets, write a contract. That doesn't require marriage does it? Or do corporate executives marry each other during mergers?

Child custody can be handled separately - for a lot of people who are not married it already is.

So, essentially, you're saying instead of having one contract and regulating all legal business that way, let's have seperate contracts for every single little item that comes up? What are you, a lawyer???

So, essentially, you're saying instead of having one contract and regulating all legal business that way, let's have seperate contracts for every single little item that comes up? What are you, a lawyer???

Child custody is already separate from marriage.

Child custody is already separate from marriage.

I think you might be confusing custody with support.
An unmarried father is legally obliged to provide child support. That does not give him any custody rights. In most cases, the father can only ever get custody of the child if the mother is legally declared uncapable of looking after the child.

So, essentially, you're saying instead of having one contract and regulating all legal business that way, let's have seperate contracts for every single little item that comes up?

Bureaucratic efficiency is not a relevant metric. All that matters is individual liberty.

Bureaucratic efficiency is not a relevant metric. All that matters is individual liberty.

And that is threatened by having the legal concept of marriage?

I think you might be confusing custody with support.
An unmarried father is legally obliged to provide child support. That does not give him any custody rights. In most cases, the father can only ever get custody of the child if the mother is legally declared uncapable of looking after the child.

Here in Virginia, you have custody rights that must be decided. Visitation, living arrangements, etc. Goes hand in hand with support issues.

Once a man is labeled as the father here, it doesn't matter if they are married or not. You fall into the same child custody/support trail as everyone else.

Clinton was pretty smart about "how to be a popular President".

Rather than follow his campaign promises (which no candidate does anyway), or lead using his own ideas, he resorted to polling before opening his mouth or making a decision.

End result: he pushed things that were perceived as popular (even if they didn't align with what the Democratic faithful would want).

So, we got "the end of welfare as we know it" and other things.

If Bush had done his Presidency in this way, he would be just as popular as Clinton - just poll instead of making any decisions.

You mean serve the will of the people?!? MADNESS!!! Sheer Madness!!!! :eek:

You mean serve the will of the people?!? MADNESS!!! Sheer Madness!!!! :eek:

You mean don't lead? MADNESS!!!

You mean don't lead? MADNESS!!!

People have to follow you to be a leader. If you're dragging a cart full of bound and gagged people, are you 'leading' them? What if you're wandering aimlessly in the wilderness?

Typically a leader leads people to where they want to go, not where they don't. ;)

You mean don't lead? MADNESS!!!
actually LG has it better than you.

Though it is easy for cons to get confused. They seem to think the "will of the people" should only apply when it is things they do not want and can scare the rest of america into agreeing with them.


Of course when "the will of the people" run counter to the republicians they don't matter. (see 2000 when bush got elected by the electoral college, after losing the popular vote. see also stem cell research)

actually LG has it better than you.

Though it is easy for Right to get confused. They seem to think the "will of the people" should only apply when it is things they do not want and can scare the rest of america into agreeing with them.

And the left does not do that either?

Of course when "the will of the people" run counter to the republicians they don't matter. (see 2000 when bush got elected by the electoral college, after losing the popular vote. see also stem cell research)

We call that the application of the US Constitution!

And the left does not do that either?



We call that the application of the US Constitution!

Pretty much, a nationwide recount of a direct popular vote would be a nightmare. Electoral system can work, just needs overhauled.

Pretty much, a nationwide recount of a direct popular vote would be a nightmare. Electoral system can work, just needs overhauled.

I agree 100%

Goddamnit Iowa, what a horrible decision...




You're making my state look even worse and more backward in comparison.... it was bad enough as it is! :(

But really, good on you!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/31/iowa.samesex.ap/index.html

Didn't last long, another judge issued an injunction.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/31/iowa.samesex.ap/index.html

Didn't last long, another judge issued an injunction.

It was the same judge:

Judge Robert Hanson issued a stay less than 24 hours after he threw out Iowa's ban on gay marriage.

Bunch of fucking homophobes.:upyours:

Awww, you really think so? ^_^

Yeah. :)

Yeah. :)

Thanks. :D

Not a big surprise. He wants this kicked upstairs.

The county appealed it.

It was the same judge:

Not a big surprise. He wants this kicked upstairs.

Sure, and that gives him the ability to kick it up. If it goes to the State Supreme Court, he won't be associated with the final result as closely.

Which could be important in keeping his job if the final result is unpopular.

agreed.

The county appealed it.

Sure, and that gives him the ability to kick it up. If it goes to the State Supreme Court, he won't be associated with the final result as closely.

Which could be important in keeping his job if the final result is unpopular.

Clinton was pretty smart about "how to be a popular President".

Rather than follow his campaign promises (which no candidate does anyway), or lead using his own ideas, he resorted to polling before opening his mouth or making a decision.

End result: he pushed things that were perceived as popular (even if they didn't align with what the Democratic faithful would want).

So, we got "the end of welfare as we know it" and other things.

If Bush had done his Presidency in this way, he would be just as popular as Clinton - just poll instead of making any decisions.

I disagree. Bush isn't popular, not because of the fact that he went against the grain but by the fact that the decisions he made, and the promises he made, never eventuated. Iraq was unpopular, but had the whole country remained peaceful, elections were held, the tide of democracy spread through the middle east and an over all decline in fanatical groups, you would find that he would be very popular right now.

The simple fact is, nothing has worked out for him. Worse, he has pissed off, even those who initially supported him. Fiscal conservatives for example, the easiest to keep happy, and ballsed it up by allowing EVERY PIECE OF SPENDING to go through when the Republicans held the majority in congress and the senate. The libertarians of the party pissed that GWB is sucking up to the religious right rather than downsizing the roll of government in peoples lives. The religious right not getting what they want.

I'm sorry but GWB has made some unholy alliances and only has himself to blame for them.

our nation is becoming more liberal.:upyours:
How's stormfront?

Thanks. :D

That was especially good, as I watch Scrubs whenever I get the chance.

Good for Iowian(?) gays.

our nation is becoming more liberal.:upyours:

Yup. The one good thing to come out of the Neo-con movement and the Bush presidency.

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22452

Yup. The one good thing to come out of the Neo-con movement and the Bush presidency.

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22452

And yet...the democratic party is slipping in the polls because of their inability to follow through on what they promised in the election.

And yet...the democratic party is slipping in the polls because of their inability to follow through on what they promised in the election.

And after scandal after scandal, I doubt the Republicans are faring any better.

And after scandal after scandal, I doubt the Republicans are faring any better.

We shall see come next november.

We shall see come next november.

We sure will.

We sure will.

Glad we can agree *bows*

We shall see come next november.

Too bad I can vote next November..

*maniacal laughter*

Glad we can agree *bows*

Not really much to agree on.

We shall see come next november.

You know what's funny? You said the same thing last november.

You know what's funny? You said the same thing last november.

I was surprised by the Senate but not by the house. This time around though, it could be different.

/cheer for Iowa
:)

Nope, now you're lying.

Really, I've killed people who weren't Muslim.

I used to respect the soldiers of the US Army. Up until about three minutes ago.

I'm so glad to be Canadian.

I used to respect the soldiers of the US Army. Up until about three minutes ago.

I'm so glad to be Canadian.

Indeed, Remote Observer I used to just think of you as a petty troll, now your a murderer in a uniform, way to sell yourself out, you make me sick.

We shall see come next november.

We sure will.

On behalf of the UK I think I should warn you that if you don't elect a proper president this time we're going to have to revoke the Declaration of Independence and send in a gunboat.

*nods*

On behalf of the UK I think I should warn you that if you don't elect a proper president this time we're going to have to revoke the Declaration of Independence and send in a gunboat.

*nods*

Just one? Like that's going to do anything :p

I was surprised by the Senate but not by the house. This time around though, it could be different.
You support GOP!?!
* Throws up *

This time around though, it could be different.

It will, in the sense that neither house will change hands, and that the presidency will. People are smartening up regarding conservatism.

Just one? Like that's going to do anything :p

Unfortunately due to budget cuts we only have one gunboat available: we're counting on our superior linguistic skills (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zinMelZjWAw) to convince you all to give up peacefully. :D

It will, in the sense that neither house will change hands, and that the presidency will. People are smartening up regarding conservatism.

As I said...November is over a year away and it all depends on who the candidates are for President.

As to Congress, I repeat what I said before. We shall see come next november.

You support GOP!?!
* Throws up *

*snorts*

I'm a moderate who will vote for anyone who believes in defending the United States from our enemies.

*snorts*

I'm a moderate who will vote for anyone who believes in defending the United States from our enemies.

And killing all Arabs.

And killing all Arabs.

Care to back that up with facts?

As I said...November is over a year away and it all depends on who the candidates are for President.

As to Congress, I repeat what I said before. We shall see come next november.

Hehehe. 22 Republican senate seats up for re-election. 12 Democratic seats.

Of those, only one Democratic seat is even looking like it might be a tight race as opposed to six Republican seats.

And that was before Larry Craig cruised an airport bathroom(yes, he was up for re-election in 2008)

Hehehe. 22 Republican senate seats up for re-election. 12 Democratic seats.

Of those, only one Democratic seat is even looking like it might be a tight race as opposed to six Republican seats.

And that was before Larry Craig cruised an airport bathroom(yes, he was up for re-election in 2008)

And Larry Craig is resigning from the Senate.

And Larry Craig is resigning from the Senate.

Well, I suppose the RNC is just glad it didn't happen a couple weeks before the election like Mark Foley did. :)