The Day America Wept

[Ginzburgh]

As much as the faggosexuals annoy me, I couldnt care less if they can have a 'civil union' or not. As long as they keep it out of my living room.

So I guess the producers of Queer Eye can't count on you for any future DVD box set purchases.

[Lueyen]

I have double-edged feelings about Affirmative Action. On one hand I feel it is a completely discriminatory policy that encourages divisiveness and leads to feelings of resentment and entitlement. On the other hand, I don't know if anyone who is against it can honestly say that without it, minorities and women would have a fair and equal shot at some jobs and at some schools. I realize that AA sometimes results in less qualified minority candidates receiving jobs over more qualified white candidates, but it also stops those same minorities from being turned away when they are just as qualified. There is no perfect solution.

Seriously Haylo from what I know of you, the double edge might come even more at a personal level if it were ever insinuated that AA and not merit were the cause for any of your own achievements.

affirmative action was banned in NE ;\

I'm not surprised it passed. If you read the italicized part without relating it to AA it sounds like civil rights and anti discrimination legislation.

A Constitutional amendment to prohibit the state
from discriminating against, or granting preferential
treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race,
sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment,
public education or public contracting;

The biggest travesty is that when talking about AA, in general society and government can't seem to separate or delineate a difference between quota type programs and out reach or recruitment programs. While the two may seem to go hand in hand, the ultimate problems they attempt to address are sometimes very different.

While I might not be in favor of quota's for jobs or class room slots, I'd have no problem with for example a program that targeted recruiting minorities or women specifically for careers in law enforcement. To be rather pointed in example, I had close dealings with a situation where a women was kidnapped, bound up with zip ties and sexually assaulted. She managed to escape her captor while he was away, and wandered into the place I worked. In her state of mind at the time she was extremely uncomfortable being around any men, much less giving a male officer any information that was time critical in catching the fucker, thank god the local police department had some women officers one of which who was on duty or the guy may very well have escaped arrest.

[brinstar]

yeah i pretty much agree. i believe a significant number of people going to the polls were not aware of what that proposition was really about, and the wording of the prop a) carefully avoided using the actual phrase "affirmative action" and b) masked its intent somehow behind an equal rights protection theme.

i also somewhat agree about the differences between quota and outreach, as they may very well be the difference between reverse racism and actually trying to help. it certainly is a difficult issue to navigate, that's for sure.

personally i am upset this was even on the ballot, considering it was some rich white folk from california that started the petition drive. shouldn't be able to do that outside your state of residency ;\

[Arlos]

Felt this was apropos....





-Arlos

[brinstar]

mmmm 'nique

[Evermore]

Why do homo's think they deserve special rights just because they decide they want to suck dick?

[brinstar]

"special"? lol

[vonkaar]

Why do homo's think they deserve special rights just because they decide they want to suck dick?

I was expecting to scroll down and see a punchline

[leah]

how on earth are general rights and priveleges awarded to married couples "special"?! jesus lord.

[Diekan]

Felt this was apropos....





-Arlos

Actually it wasn't a landslide. By the popular vote he only won by 5% - even CNN and MSNBC admit it wasn't a landslide.

[Naethyn]

Yet popular vote means nothing. Anything over 320 is a landslide.

[Tikker]

Yet popular vote means nothing. Anything over 320 is a landslide.

do you not see that as possibly a problem?

I really don't like systems that can allow someone to lose the popular vote, yet still win an election

[Naethyn]

It has it's trade offs. Smaller states would have zero voice when it comes to the president. Larger states or big cities would have greater control on who wins the election. It is in place to protect the interests of the smaller groups of people and state's rights.

[Zanchief]

It has it's trade offs. Smaller states would have zero voice when it comes to the president. Larger states or big cities would have greater control on who wins the election. It is in place to protect the interests of the smaller groups of people and state's rights.

That still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...still. Anyone who claims this is true either doesn't understand mathematics, or they're trying to protect a system that skews things in there favour.

[Diekan]

That's partly because the United States is not a democracy... it is a republic. Another fact (like "the right to vote" - which doesn't exist) that Americans fail to understand.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Ameri ... emrep.html

[Tikker]

It has it's trade offs. Smaller states would have zero voice when it comes to the president. Larger states or big cities would have greater control on who wins the election. It is in place to protect the interests of the smaller groups of people and state's rights.

the minority should never end winning tho....do you not see that?

[Naethyn]

I understand both sides of the argument. You have to look back when the Union was formed. Smaller states would not enter the Union if they felt larger states would have an unchallengeable opinion. A deal was struck. The contract still lives today - the constitution.

[Arlos]

Heck, it's not even that so much. Originally, the Electoral College was in no way bound to go along with the popular vote. Theoretically you could have 1 guy get 90% of the popular vote, but the Electoral College votes the other guy in as president.

Basically, the Founding Fathers felt that the common man was far too dimwitted to be trusted on something as important as electing the president, and so created a way for a small number of top-rank individuals to actually decide the election.

That has since been changed for the most part, in that now generally the party that won a given state picks the electors for that state, who of course vote along party lines. Of course, no law FORCES the electors to vote along party lines, though. There was actually a case in 2004 I think it was, where one of the people picked by the Republican party in California to be an elector, should the outlandish occur and California vote for Bush, that himself had become disillusioned with Bush, and publicly stated that if he became an elector, he would NOT vote for Bush. Would've been a huge muddle if the GOP had taken California, but obviously that never happened.

-Arlos

[Drem]

I always thought the point of the college was to decide votes for people that didn't have the means to vote themselves at the time. Since communication over huge distance was very difficult, votes were unreliable at best, and the college was made to decide in lieu of that, I thought. It's useless this day and age

[Tikker]

Basically, the Founding Fathers felt that the common man was far too dimwitted to be trusted on something as important as electing the president, and so created a way for a small number of top-rank individuals to actually decide the election.

you mean they found a way to have to influence a much smaller number of people to get elected

[brinstar]

NEWSFLASH

it's entirely possible that Obama might swipe one of Nebraska's five electoral college votes, as there are still several thousand provisional ballots left to count in Sarpy County and McCain's lead there is less than 600.

to back up the train, Nebraska and Maine are the only two states in the union that can split their EC votes. not sure how maine does it, but in NE, each of the three districts votes based on the number of votes in that district, and the remaining two votes go to whichever candidate has the most statewide votes. district 2 is the greater omaha area (all of douglas county and much of sarpy county), district 1 (where lincoln is) is the eastern 1/5 of the state minus the omaha area, and district 3 is everything else.

that means that while district 3 was overwhelmingly red, and district 1 (except for lancaster [lincoln], thurston, and saline counties) was strongly red, those two votes will go to McCain. statewide, McCain enjoyed a 57-36 split, so he will also get the two at-large votes.

HOWEVER, Obama easily won Douglas county (omaha metro), and has a good chance of taking sarpy, so NE might actually go McCain (4) & Obama (1). personally i love this method!

the more you knooooooow

[leah]

aw man, i thought lancaster's blueness would have a bigger effect. and why did i think douglas went red? i fail at mapreading.

[Narrock]

The only reason America weeps today is the unbelievable voting down of homosexual rights. I will never understand why people think it's their business to govern how others live their adult consentual personal lives. The conservative mantra: "LESS GOVERNMENT!!! (unless I don't like what you're doing - in that case MORE GOVERNMENT!!!)"

a sad day for California, Florida, and Arizona.

About the California initiative, Proposition 8... This is the third time in California history that this issue has come up and was voted on by Californians. Radical activist judges have overturned previous initiatives that produced the same result... to keep the definition of marriage between a man and a woman. The majority of Californians want this. Who the HELL do YOU (speaking to opponents of Prop 8) think you are to say that YOUR opinion is more important and should outweigh what the majority thinks and wants. A minority should not be able to have a stronger voice than the majority. Now to address the stupid question that keeps coming up of "how does it affect you?" It's because of our faith and religious belief that the definition of marriage should be between a man and a woman. More people believe this than do not. It's as simple as that. It has absolutely nothing to do with "Homophobia" or "Bigotry." I have to laugh when I hear people try to play that card.

Now the other thing that has pissed us off to no end is that these gay activists changed the wording on marriage certificates to say rather than "Bride and Groom" to "Person A and Person B." I'd tell you to shove it up your ass, but you'd like it too much. Fortunately, the wording got changed back to "Bride and Groom." You want civil unions and the same benefits as hetero married couples? Fine. But NO to calling yourselves "married" in the traditional sense of the word. If that's what you want, then move to a country that embraces that kind of stupidity and assbackwardsness.

You opponents of Prop 8 got shot down FOR THE THIRD FREAKIN TIME. Now STFU and move on. Leave it alone. Forever.

[Diekan]

A minority should not be able to have a stronger voice than the majority.

Can't always have it like that man. Remember this is NOT a democracy, this is a republic. If we never allowed the minority to have a say we'd still have "slaves" working the cotton fields. It is, however, a double edged sword and a slippery slope that has to be managed with care and wisdom.

The danger is that if the minority always got its way, talk radio and ultimately freedom of speech would be long gone. On the other hand if the minority never got its way we'd still be 50 years from anyone of color being able to run for president, let alone win. Thus, as I just said, it's a fine line we HAVE to walk to ensure true equality.

[Haylo]

"Marriage" is not owned by any religion. You say marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, singular. So what about religions that allow more than one wife, are they all wifes? Are they all married? Is only the first marriage a marriage and the rest are sluts? What about pagan religions, what defined marriage for them, I mean before we all had the great bible to guide us, who told people what they were allowed to call the person they slept with every night. It's just a word, a ceremony, anyone should have a right to it.

Since religions are developed, well guess what i'm going to make a new religion and a new book that tells us what we can do. In my religion you can marry a man if you're a man, a woman if you're a woman or even a dog if you want to. Since I have the right to practice my religion as I so choose, i'm going to allow anyone who wants to join do so, then they can all get married if they want. Who are you to say that I can't define marriage b/w same sex people as marriage. Does this sound stupid, well it is, and so is people feeling as if they have some special right to a word. WHO CARES. If gay people want to get married, freaking let them. What does it mean to you, absolutely freaking nothing.

If Jesus Christ came back today he'd be smiting you fucks left and right for the complete subversion you have all done on his words and beliefs.