diverborg

I have no problem with anybody wanting to marry whether they are atheists, bhuddists, you name it. If the state never recognized or treated anybody differently for being married then this would be a non-issue. There's nothing keeping any gay couple from having a ceremony, saying their vows, and living together forever. The difference becomes the state recognizing the institution of marriage between a gay couple, and if not giving them a civil union so they can have the same benefits. This is where I admittedly am torn and may have a double standard. Like I said I really don't know how I would vote if I had to on civil unions because I can recognize some of my own hipocracy on the issue from a world's standpoint. However, I would never be for outlawing homosexuality in general. If that were the case then where would I stop. Let's outlaw drinking, cursing, gambling, premarital sex, you get the drift. But I do see a difference between tolerance and acceptance. From a logical perspective you guys will have me beat on this one and I'm not going to try and argue it. I'm just mainly expressing my own convictions. We are all allowed to vote based on our convictions and I'm still trying to sort this one out in my own mind.

Not saying you, but a lot of people assume that because I may vote against civil unions that I somehow would treat them with less respect or view them as less of a citizen. My wife has several friends that are gay and they are wonderful people like anyone else. If you really knew us on a personal basis you'd understand that we really aren't judgemental people. Even her gay friends know how we feel about this issue, and they are still great friends. It's just an area we see differently. I guess in one way or another this can be viewed as judgemental, but I hope the gay people that know me don't view me that way.

I'm actually torn internally on this one. One side of me due to my Christian faith has some strong convictions on the issue that I just can't do away with. Now before I get flamed, I'm not going to say that its a choice, or that I know why people are gay because I honestly have no clue, and its something I'll never understand. I do however strongly believe that Christians are supposed to love everyone, and I think we are all created equally with equal rights. But this is where I get torn because I believe they should have equal rights, but the thought of recognizing gay marriage goes against my faith. So in weird sense even though its the same thing, the words "civil union" for some strange reason make me feel a little better. Christians base their faith on the teachings and life of Jesus, so before Christians should go judging me or anyone else on this issue, they should look at what Jesus did in his life. Jesus spent most his life befriending the down and out and religiously rejected crowd. While the bible (if you believe in it) is clear that homosexuality is wrong I think we'd be representing Jesus's character more by spending our money on feeding the poor and helping the homeless than campaigning to fight some civil union bill. So honestly I would probably vote no if I had to, but at the same time the gaybashers and those people or organizations that would spend millions in campaigning against it truly drive me crazy. So to sum it up, I simply don't know how I truly feel about this, and this is my most honest answer.

Well, I didn't really get that from your first post, but ok, This is why she needs to learn before this ever happens. Still if you know this guy is gonna kill you, and there's nothing the law can do until he at least tries to, then you might as well give it your best shot. No pun intended. It doesn't take but a few minutes to learn how to shoot a gun. Or you can find someone you can stay with that's armed. This one kinda strikes a nerve with me because a girl I personally knew might still be alive if she had a gun in her home. Not expecting anyone to know of that situation, but it just happens far too often. She however made the mistake of never getting a restraining order in the first place and never pressing charges on it being violated. It didn't escalate to the murder overnight. Still sux she wasn't armed though.

So they can give the dude a restraining order? Do you ever watch some of the courtTV specials on women who've been murdered because the justice system failed to lock up their pshyco ex-boyfriends. Its not gonna do much good to call the police when you're homicidal ex-boyfriend decides to come kill you. I watched one recently where the dude violated the restraining order twice, and while waiting "x amount" of days for his trial, tracked this girl down over 1000 miles away and shot her in the head while she was on the phone with the 911 operator. Seriously, I don't have the stats to refute this, but do you think more women kill their boyfriends over a death threat than get killed by their stalking ex-lovers. We don't see eye to eye very much and I find myself agreeing with your posts more and more, but Oh man Bill, you lost me on this one. Bad post! Bad bad post!

If this country went into economic meltdown, I don't think you realize how important firearms would be to everyday survival. Not to mention being able to protect yourself in your home as it is, can you imagine how you would protect your property and family in case of national disaster. Just ask some of those down here that stuck out Katrina. It would have been a much uglier situation if people had no means of protecting their family and home. Disasters bring out the best and the worst in people, and heaven forbid you'll ever have to experience that but infringing on the 2nd ammendment is messing with the security of our lives. What would you do if someone broke into your house at night to kill you and the govt wouldn't allow you to own a gun to protect yourself. I live in a nice neighborhood, and 3 blocks away this summer a thug broke into a random house to rob it in the night and stabbed the owner to death. It happens all the time, and I don't need some asshat telling me I have to take this intruder on with only a knife. Yes, its that important to us!!, and no this is hardly the only reason that I won't be voting for Obama. If that was their only goals then I wouldn't be too concerned. Cmon, do you really think the anti-gun organizations that Obama supports really want it to end there. The crowd that pushes for these things will never let it end with just that.

I'm conservative, but I don't love the Republican party. I call bs when I see it, and nowhere on here will you hear me say that Iraq was a good idea. You can check back 5 years if you want. McCain made the mistake of voting yes on Iraq right along with some of your beloveds. To say he shares the same ideals as GWB is absolute bs. The reason I like McCain so much is because he will take on his own party if he thinks its crap. He's not a puppet on a string to his party like Obama is. Obama is a representation of the most extreme view of the democratic party and goes right along with them on almost every partisan issue.

sorry, posted that the same time you did

I'm gonna hafta agree here. I'm aware of Obama's gun control policies, and I don't like em anymore than you do Warped, but little articles written like this don't help our case much. I'd rather see a big report of "what the bill is" and how he voted. I lose interest when I see the words to try to instill emotion.

Ok, I can understand if you don't like Palin based on the fact she has no foreign policy experience. I also lived in Germany for a while and I've seen how different CNN based in England portrays things compared to CNN here, so I know they are probably ripping her apart over there, as they are here too. Ok, George Bush, an idiot, I'll agree with ya there. In all seriousness and respect, why do you think McCain is an idiot and Obama is somehow the savior of our country. Trust me there's plenty here that agree with you too, but I'm more curious as to what McCain's done or stands for that sours your country towards him. I understand Obama has visited your country and he's a very charismatic and likeable person, and I know that most of Europe views him as a rockstar. This is going to be one plus side to Obama getting elected is the restoration of our allies. However leaving Iraq out of it altogether, those of us that will vote for McCain see Obama's policies as destructive to the country and are also bothered by some signs of corruption. McCain is a hero in this country and has served this country since Obama was in diapers. Sure he's got his questionable history like everyone that's been in Washington that long as well. If you don't like him that's fine, but the word idiot seems a bit naive. Now if the Iraq situation is why you hate him then ok, but he's no more to blame than all the other prominent democratic senators that voted yes right along with him including Clinton. Obama wasn't even in Washington, when the decision to overthrow Saddam was made, so he can say he opposed it all he wants, but there's no telling how he would've voted at the time. Just like all the democrats like Kerry and Clinton that say it was such a mistake, but yet they voted yes too. In short I'm curious as to how much you know about the two candidates and how your country is portraying them in the media, and if that's where you're gathering your opinions. McCain and Bush have never been friends either and have fought on many of the issues you hate him for. Do you guys even have a news channel over there that shows the other side of the story. I don't remember one from when I was there, but that explains a lot if all you ever here is bad bad McCain/Palin and glorious Obama.

I kinda wish Palin would just come out and say that "yes, I realize that my foreign policy experience is very limited, but I'm studying like a banshee and will be working advisors regularly and taking every trip I can." However people can throw around experience this and experience that. Palin obviously has less experience than Biden, I don't think anybody is arguing that. However, what good does the most experienced person in the world do, if their policies are crap and destructive to our society. (not saying Biden's are all crap either) Republicans are supporting Palin because she has shown she can lead and can reform for the good. I'm curious how many governors out there have an 80% approval rating. Yes, experience is important but its not everything if someone can prove that they can change things for the better. I'd rather have someone who's less experienced and will fight corruption in the system because he/she hasn't become corrupted yet, than someone who's been in politics since before she was born, but has enough dirt on em to make anyone blush. Dig all you want, but she's got less dirt on her by far than anyone else in the running. Also to add, any president or vice-president can have all the foreign policy experience in the world, but they are not going to be making these decisions without more input from advisors than they'll probably want. Edited again to add... What Palin may lack in experience to Obama or Biden in foreign policy, she also makes up in executive experience which neither have. No matter what, if you've made your mind up that you're voting for Obama, you're naturally going to hate the thought of Palin in office. Those that have made their mind up to vote for McCain, dread the thought of Obama/Biden's ideas change if they take power.

I think these few quotes pretty much sum up what I've been trying to say in my last few posts. Well said!

My best guess by my own judgement is any good effects will only be temporary, and $700billion seems like too much money for a temporary patch. In all honesty, I hope that this is the answer and this will fix our problems because some form of this will eventually pass. I would feel a lot more warm and fuzzy if its only $70 billion. Of course, but this is all relative to how much of a recession we really see without the bailout, which is really being disputed. Some think that the bailout will do more damage than leaving it alone. Some of the disagreements are bipartisan, but not as much as the media is playing it up to be IMO, there were 95 democrats that voted this down too. I think when that amount of people in both parties shoot this down, this may not be the answer. We have no choice but to accept the consequences of either decision, take responsibility for ourselves and try and move on with life.

Can I give a shot at this? Ok thank you. Well first of all I do not have the knowledge to know whether this will work or not, and I don't think anybody truly does. If it never passes and all hell breaks loose, then maybe I'll look back on this wishing it did pass. With it getting shot down, there is obviously a majority of in congress that think it's a bad idea. So its fair to say that it might not work. So what do we have now if it fails and we just blew $700billion. Now we are waaaaaay worse off than we would have been if we just let it go. So yes I'm not so sure it will work, as well as the amount bothers me too. When its obvious this is a gamble, I think $700billion is a little too much to be gambling with. Not to even mention the precedent it is setting where we are bailing out a few failing companies that brought this on us all in the first place because they have the biggest influence on wall street. I would rather see these companies go under, go into a recession and let it work itself out and recover better than before with some lessons learned. I could be very naive on this and overly optimistic, but who knows yet. This bill may just prolong the inevitable and leave us worse off than before, and there are plenty of knowledgeable economists that would agree with me, as there are plenty that don't. Nobody really knows. I can't help but feel this bail-out is like a hold-em tournament where we are just few hands from being blinded out and were dealt a king and a deuce and going all in pre-flop. Thats a foolish move IMO and we need to at least see the flop or accept losing a few more blinds till things turn around for us and we get some good cards to invest on.

EXACTLY!! Especially for blaming a mayor for a state issue. If Palin comes out says anything to the extent that she supports this grotesque law, then I'll be the first to eat crow.

What a convenient twist to add to make your point in the article. Wonderful, unbiased journalism this is! When no where in the meeting notes for the bill being passed http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_single_minute.asp?session=21&beg_line=0603&end_line=0887&time=1503&date=20000323&comm=HES&house=H is Wasilla even mentioned.

This article is so absurd there is no word to describe it. Tell me any Mayor, Governor, or President in history that it has been assumed that he or she endorses every law on the books during their time in office. The report never mentioned Wasilla, so this was obviously a statewide issue. To say that she even knew of this policy of the police dept just because she appointed the cheif is a stretch beyond my comprehension. In that town it may have never come up, and I'm curious if there was ever a scenario where a rape victim was forced to pay for the testing in Wasilla during Palin's term as Mayor. Now if she ever fought the bill to throw out this ridiculous law in the first place, then you can easily make that statement. However that's not the case and this is one of the worst stretches on any attack ad I've ever seen. How about we start picking thru books to find some strange policy on the books during Biden's or Obama's leadership roles during any part of their political careers and say that they must have endorsed it if they were the mayor. Cmon now people, are you really jumping on this bandwagon. I don't buy into every attack ad or conspiracy theory behind Obama even though some of them maybe true and are far more provable than this will ever be. I'm not voting for him only because I don't like his policies and I think his spending will be way out of control for what this country needs right now.

Sometimes we pay the price for the mistakes of those that came before us. However, most of what you say on Iran is true, but I'm not so much concerned about what the current president or people say about us, but what they say about Israel. I don't understand how the desire to wipe away an entire country because of a long deeply-rooted conflict will solve anything for the future. This guy needs to go for the good of his own country, but the fact that he got elected in the first place is concerning to me about the people there (assuming it was a fair election). I'm sure there are some wonderful people in Iran, I just hope most of them have the sense to not jump on the bandwagon with their current president.

Is there a law on the books stating that smokers are required to get cigarrete breaks aside from their normal breaks, or is it just something the employers do to be considerate. As with the holiday issues, its not a law either that employers grant any holidays if they don't want to. A long time ago, I waited tables, and was required to work every friggin holiday including Christmas. I didn't have to stay there. If the employers want to close for the holidays to keep their employees happy thats their choice, but I don't know of any laws requiring that. I was told upon hiring that I was required to work these days and I agreed. I think its wise of employers to accomodate people's religious needs, but if its a law that they have to then why can't I go sue my former employer for making me work sundays or Christmas. I'm a little confused on this one. The employer didn't want them stopping to pray 5 times a day, so the employees walked out and then were fired. I don't see the problem here. Unless some of the claims of "abuse" are shown true. OR... if anybody else is given a 5 cigarette breaks aside their normal breaks, but these guys aren't allowed to pray, then maybe they might have a case. Honestly I've never worked an hourly paying job where anybody was allowed to take cigarette breaks aside normal breaks.

Yeah, I usually don't get too caught up in worrying about media being biased because they all are one side or another. BUT, this was a little ridiculous, and I think Gibson made an ass of himself. I'm not here to attack Obama and say he's unqualified, but I have no idea how the Obama crowd can even begin to attack Palin on the grounds of experience. Her policies and such are fair game, but experience, I think her experience outweighs Obama no matter which way you slice it, and she's only running for VP. Stick with the issues I say!

I think the reason McCain never had the favor of the GOP before is because he is willing to betray his own party for what he views as corruption. I think he and Palin are two of a kind in that regard. I think it is pretty evident in the primaries that the GOP did not want McCain to win, but the people made their voice heard and he's the only one that stands a chance against Obama. I have always considered myself a conservative, but that doesn't mean that I don't recognize the corruption that goes with both main political parties because all the key players have "special interest" in it. I feel McCain and Palin although imperfect are as close as were going to get to a "middle ground" and I mean that by willing to go against their own party if they view something as bs. Not necessarily "middle ground" politically, although McCain is probably the closest candidtate we've had nominated by their own party that fits that description as well. Obama is as left as they get and has one of the most liberal voting records in Senate. Some people want this, but I do not want a socialist, high taxed, beaurocratic govt. I dont like this war anymore than anybody, but after all the money and lives spent on it so far, would not finishing the job be even that much more wasteful. Some think the job will never be finished though, and I understand that, and I fear that as well. This is the only thing that worries me about McCain, but I think had we never got into this quagmire in Iraq, this election would be a landslide to McCain.

I don't know where I got the 22% figure. Obviously it wasn't unemployment where I heard that figure. I could of swore I saw it on msn.com. I knew we were second in the country for it, but 22% has to be something else. After a little more research I know 22% is around the percentage of people below poverty level here. That may have been what I confused it with. I cannot seem to find statistics anywhere for the percentage of families on welfare to see if thats it, but 22% sounds too high for that as well. I guess I'm just full of crap.

You know what's really friggin funny, is after all the posting that I've done on here about the unemployment/welfare issue, I just noticed this in your post. This actually happened in the town I live in.. I work right by the plant and it was quite the show yesterday. Helicopters swarming the place and all. Speaking of this, there's a few hundred more jobs, that just opened up in my town.

Well I don't have a bunch of stats for you and sources to cite, but here's what I do know. I moved from Nebraska about a little over a year ago to Mississippi. Nebraska's unemployment rate was somewhere around 3 percent. I know if you lose a job in Nebraska and want to collect unemployment, you have to bring the employment office 3 filled out job applications a week to qualify. This puts the pressure on people to get a job, and once they have the income then the welfare will drop off too. Now lets look at Mississippi. I don't have the sources right now to prove it, but I think its a pretty commonly accepted statistic that we are currently #2 in the country for unemployment rate which is around 22% I believe. What I have learned in this state so far, is there is no requirements to collect unemployment, meaning if I get laid off, I never have to show that I'm seeking work to collect unemployment. I feel bad for the employers that mistakenly hire one of the losers, because when they are forced to fire them, then it ends up costing the company quite a bit each month that they have to pay to the unemployment office. Wow, thats great for the economy. You'll understand why I just called them losers when you read the rest of my post. Now for the reality of it. My wife is a manager at a nationally known department store here in Mississippi. She has been actively seeking an employee for almost six months that needs to do nothing more than operate a cash register and sit in the store and help customers that enter. She has gone thru 6 employees already that were completely unemployable and she's almost given up in trying to find one. This is a job that pays $9.50/hr, which goes a lot further in small town Mississippi than it would elsewhere, and this is the bottom of the barrell, this is as unskilled as labor can get. There are billboards in my town from employers seeking workers from welders to construction, to plucking chickens. Because of the size of the towns here, privately owned businesses are still very common. I am good friends with someone who owns a local painting company and one who owns a lumber yard. Neither one can find anybody willing to work for them that is reliable enough to even call if they are not going to show up. In fact the painter has actually gone to street corners with people holding cardboard signs and asked if they wanted to come paint with him for the week for $10/hr. Not once has he ever got a yes. The reality of our unemployment rate is not our economy, but the fact that people down here are simply unemployable or don't have any need to work because they are sucking the govt tit. If these local businesses could find any help in order to grow and expand, it would have a snowball effect in creating more jobs and higher paying jobs as the business needed. I could make an endless list of men and women down here in their prime with no children to support, that day in and day out do nothing but chill in the front yards with absolutely nothing holding them back from cowboy'n up and taking that $10/hr job. There are no shortage of businesses that would like to expand if they could get the manpower to grow. My wife moved down in February and dropped off resumes at four different places in her first week seeking work. All four of these places offered her management positions which she wasn't even seeking. Not to mention that this isn't even her line of work. She was a cosmetologist before she moved here. She didn't even look in the classifieds, she saw 4 places she thought she might work and went in. It is that simple down here. If you want to work, you will have a job. Phew, sorry for the long post. So to answer your question, the percentage of those that are actually seeking work that need the money would probably be no more than 3% of the 22% theoretically comparing the two states given the economies would be similar which I've already stated that there are no shortage of jobs here. And thats assuming that the whole 3% in Nebraska really want to work.

Hmm, Amazon has a good point. In order to see whose right here we have to see which website has higher numbers. http://www.fuckersthatshouldfry.org/ I can't get the link to work to know if the number is higher or not.