pajarito

Agreed, in a sense. We have the God given "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to pursue whatever relationship we want if it makes us happy and it doesn't harm anyone else. However, if I decide to have a relationship with "Bob", it is not my "right" to have it recognized by the state as "marriage."

QuoteHomophobia - Prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality. Just want to be clear. My opinion isn't homophobic as I have no "fear" or "dislike" of homosexuals. I dislike their lifestyle. I don't dislike the person based on that. They have every bit as much a basic right to pursue their relationship as I do.

mailin, WMW999, and Shotgun: Not going to argue this thing to death today because most already know my stance. Just giving my opinion. Nothing at all prevents a person from having whatever relationship they want with a person of the same sex. That is their basic right. Marriage, however, is reserved for one man and one woman and is defined as such. You must define an entity before it exists and can be recognized. Simply diversions from the topic at hand. The “conditions” conducive for a successful family are primarily and fundamentally ensured with a solid definition of marriage in the traditional sense which has proven successful for thousands of years. If the root of a plant is good, its growth can be healthy.

I think we'll be alright.

They're self-destructive and dangerous in their hatred of Bush. Must win at all costs, including the welfare of the Nation.

I'm confused. You started another "2004 Presidential Election Thread" to consolidate posts concerning the election. You then started this new thread concerning the same thing. What up?

Less than half. You can't give Kerry that much credit. The popular vote went to Bush also. Time has already told that Bush is a good choice. Now we can finish the job.

Still a lot of variables to consider in that bro. I kind of take all that stuff with a grain of salt (that is to say I try not to look at it because it causes me to have stomach pain unnecesarily). I just hope it's decided relatively soon either way and that it's decisive so we don't have to argue for the next 4 years.

But I just don't like "Tunathreads."

"Reducing liberalism from a threat to a mere nuisance."

This isn't fraud necessarily but it's still messed up. I went to the address listed on my voter registration card and it led me to an old abandoned education administration building. All the doors were locked, no lights on inside, there was a "for sale" sign in the front, and I was the only one standing in the parking lot (crickets chirping ). I walked over to the mailbox twice to make sure I was at the correct address. I was. I went to a service station to ask directions. The guy told me, "Oh yeah, that's where it used to be last year." He said to go to a place further down the road and on a completely different street than what was listed on my card. Completely different address. Most people around here know each other and I guess the word gets around. Maybe that's just built into the system. I don't know. I haven't lived here that long but that's beside the point. I guess that was why I was the only one in that deserted parking lot. Anyway, my guess is that, if you were someone not inquisitive or persistent enough to ask about the unpublished change in polling station address, you might just give up and not vote. That could make a difference. Who knows. During my last three changes in residence, I've continually moved to smaller towns (Birmingham, AL, Augusta, GA, and now LaGrange, GA). I guess I'd just better get used to the "Mayberry" way of doing things.

GA is all electronic. NICE! That was the easiest trip to the polls that I've ever had. They check your ID, make sure you're who you say you are, make sure you're on the registration list, and they hand you a plastic card. Insert into the slot, touch screen selections, and you're done. No waiting in line for me either. Then again, I do live in LaGrange (50 minutes SW of Atlanta). I heard, however, that some voting machines have been showing up with votes already on them. Not in GA but some state up North (can't remember which). In the numbers of about 1500 votes if I'm not mistaken. Heard it on the news. That sucks.

Absolutely! Georgia is a huge rivalry. Always one with class, though. I've never had anything against UGA and love the games. I lived in Birmingham, though, for about 8 years growing up and then 4 more years after moving back later on (don't get me wrong. I like Birmingham and surrounding areas. I don't live there now, though). I can't stand Alabama fans especially there. That was NEVER a neutral site for a game and it was a happy day when it got moved. Legion field (which I've jumped into about 8 times ) used to be Alabama's home field away from home. I love to see UA get beat. They're still trying to resurrect Coach "Bear" Bryant there. He's kind of like Elvis these days. Florida also (goes without saying really ).

I say verticle with loop at the top but I don't think it really matters. It's the thought that counts. I say loop at the top to signify that it's being tied around something and the ends are hanging down. That's just me. God Bless the Troops!!!

Sic 'em! Woof! Woof! Woof! Woof! Woof! My tickets are 45 yardline, upper deck, 4 rows up. I'll be there. I'm pumped!

C-Span

Just wanted to post another big WAR EAGLE!!! Auburn...continuing to climb...as predicted...by me! Ole Miss the latest to fall. Got this week off. We play Georgia next in Auburn. Should be one of the toughest games this year but, again, I predict Auburn wins but by a close margin. I'll reinterate what Coach Tubberville has been saying. It would be a shame for a team in a conference as tough as the SEC, such as Auburn, to win all of their games including a Conference Championship game and not get a shot at the National Championship. That wouldn't say much for the current system. Bring it!!!

Take it all in, mark off what doesn't fit, come up with the truth. It's all very logical. Again, you have no idea what really happened, don't have evidence to prove conclusively who's at fault or if there was any fault at all, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, NEITHER DOES JOHN KERRY!

Apparently, this General thinks otherwise concerning Al-Qaqaa. I think he’d be more authoritative than you in this instance. Maybe not. I don’t know your security clearance. You have no idea exactly what their stated intelligence requirements were. The fact is, we don’t know all the facts Bill. It could be that it was not a mistake and that our own people moved and disposed of the munitions as they were supposed to do. You and I just don’t know for sure. Again, I’m talking about Al-Qaqaa and won’t submit to your attempt at diverting from the topic. In the instance of Al-Qaqaa, you simply don’t know. You and John Kerry shouldn’t jump to conclusions before you know all the facts. It’s just a good idea. Again, you don’t know for sure that it was a “mistake.” Creating “mistakes” for the sake of politics is just plain wrong and counterproductive. See, you’re all comfortable with your conclusion that you refuse to take in any further evidence. Does that show blinding bias? You tell me.

And that is your opinon, however, this story is a load of crap. And it's all Kerry's got to finish his race. Pathetic. I'd say you aught to check out Kerry's Senate record, however, I guess you already have. Impressive

John Kerry is in fact claiming exactly that in his last week campaign against Bush. It’s his primary focus surprisingly. Anyway, what you said is really watering this whole discussion down into a pile of mush. The argument about Al-Qaqaa doesn’t really have legs to stand on and now it’s turned to generalities. Speculation about what Kerry might have done better. However, given his record on defense, I don’t think a reasonable person would conclude that we’d be better off. Saddam would most likely still be in power, he’d continue to be a threat, and he’d probably own Kuwait. Hell, we might still be in The Cold War.

According to this General, most of the traffic on the road and in the area was military. There was a presence. Therefore, there would be plenty of witnesses around to see stuff in those amounts being trucked away. No………it’s not. Right, but apparently, according to our military, we had our eyes on this area. That unless you’d like to continue to discredit our military forces and keep insinuating that they’re incompetent. Call a mistake and blame it on someone when there’s cause. However, be sure about the facts before you do it. Certainly don’t exploit it for political gain with something as incredible as this. There’s no sense at all in “apologizing” for something when you’re not at fault. Unless, of course, you’re just trying to keep your wife happy and it’s just not worth the effort to fight about something. I think it’s interesting how you word some things. You’ve already made up your mind that (1) A mistake was made and (2) The US is at fault. You are pretty set on this even before we know all the facts of the event. i.e. (“I will be most impressed once we admit that. Once we admit it, we can do something about it.) It seems to me that many of your statements indicate being the first to jump on the “hate America” bandwagon most of the time. Rarely is America given the benefit of the doubt in a situation. Is the Democrat hatred at such a level that it supercedes ones patriotism and support of our military? They’re doing one hell of a job. The Special Forces war in Afghanistan was unprecedented. A few Green Beret teams (with the aid of some air support) did what they were trained to do by supplying, training, and fighting alongside guerilla forces (warlord forces) and took over an entire country in a matter of weeks. Something the Russians couldn’t do in a matter of years. I’d cut them a bit of slack if I were you.

Nice diversion tactic but why don't we stick to the discussion at hand. Shall we?

I'm not coming up with "excuses." I don't think anyone else here is either. I'm just repeating what I've hear on the news and trying to figure stuff out. They're still investigating and are trying to come up with the "facts" of what occurred "before jumping to conclusions." That means analyzing "all the evidence." Part of that includes the video mentioned. It also means including the testimony of the General in charge of that area at the time to put that video into "context." No "squirming" going on. Just careful analysis.