I donated money and I'm not even American. :glugglug

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...250EDT0725.DTL
good point

and kerry mentioned it a few times and has been seen lately campaining in churchs with high ranking minority "reverends"
its imposible to regualate this when they're goal is giving out the funding instead of verifying the recipient is legit and if caught there are no inforced punishments. i agree people should have the opportunity to get educated, but at the same time it is illegal to aid anyone who is illegally in this country yet it happens millions of times a year. when i was in college making shit money and living off top romin i couldnt get aid even though i lived on my own because my parents made to much but still couldnt afford to send me to college. if my parents had been on public assistance i would of had people lining up to hand me checks and give me grants. the system is ass backwards and temp fixes wont solve the problem.

Bringer, do you work in the adult industry and are you saying here that you are in fact voting for Bush? What I am getting out of what you wrote is that you are for personal responsibility and you would prefer the gov't be financially conservative with the tax dollars you contribute. Am I off on this?

If you are a financially conservative person, as are many of us, surely you can see that the road towards Bush could have dramatic changes to your finances (assuming that you work in Adult). The things that you talk about, welfare and immigration policy in the end will mean the difference of just a few hundred dollars at most to your personal finances. Compare that to what would happen if our government were to make your actual job illegal.

sorry, i figured people would read the entire thread before making comments

sorry to be so harsh, been a bad day :(

Ok my bad I missed that.

Glad to hear that :thumbsup

Big Big thumbs up to folks like Rich who are not even living in the USA and sent money to help out.

The funny thing about this board is, you'll find a lot of people who attack Kerry with every right wing talking point, while at the same time defending Bush on every possible occasion, yet they say they're not voting for Bush.

It's a very strange phenomenon, maybe the TV has just fucked with their heads a little too much.

Amen to that :thumbsup

Some idiot webmasters are in favor of COPA.

bump :thumbsup

50 GFY votes for Kerry:)

I don't see anywhere in that article that mentions the party affiliation of the city board of supervisors. Allowing something like that under their existing health network program is a bit different than passing a state/federal bill making it a public entitlement but if I had been on that board of supervisors I would have voted against it (and I'm gay). I can't imagine anyone in the current democratic party that would consider bringing something similar to this to a national bill.

2 birds with 1 stone:winkwink: Serious though, the man would be retarded not to do so given some of the mass distortion being church networked.

Your situation sounds like half the people I know. That's why I said there should be a public higher education system where the students don't pay tuition (they would only have to cover lab/workbook type fees which any scholarships or grants could be applied toward).

A society benefits when it's population is educated and healthy. The democrats get this.

AH! I was wondering WHO was going to buy the election this time!

From all the democrats..we say "THANK YOU!" :)

Most consumption comes from the middle class. Consumption increase creates jobs.

Giving rich people tax cuts only encourages them to keep more of their profits, instead of reinvesting it to grow businesses which would create more jobs.

Do you think the main reason for unemployment is people not being well educated/trained? I believe it's a lot more related to the stability of the economy.

Did you ever see Videodrome? I think the TV stations have discovered a milder version of that:glugglug

Kerry Kerry Kerry :thumbsup

He wasnt able to get it done in the last four, why would another term be any different? Its a valid concern but not realistic.

Appellate Court nominations do not make the front page. Gridlock in the Senate for Appellate Court nominations do not make the front page.

Supreme Court nominations make the front page. Gridlock in the Senate that is creating a vacancy in the highest court in the US makes the front page.

Senators will not be able to take that exposure and that will be the difference.

Well I had my brother in law in the US donate the money for me and I paid him off. lol

Bush's complete failure as President has affected me personally and my country (Canada) a great deal. I realize President Kerry won't be perfect but he will be a HUGE improvement. Plus a can't let my bros down south go down at the hands of John Asskroft.

I agree with the premise of your statement. Your view is narrowed on one issue though. The problem with Democrats and Liberal judges is they do not firmly believe in States Rights. The problem with Conversative Judges and Republicans is they try to enforce their moral views. No side should be given absolute control. The one good thing that has come out of the court, with the current balance, is the constant enforcement of States Rights.

You DO NOT want the court to back away from this! Power and decisions in the hands of Washington is NOT a good thing.

States Rights is THE biggest issue.

Ensuring the balance of ideals makes it possible for only the best decisions to come out of the court. Shifting it in either direction is never a good idea.

-dd

Interesting...but i am not convinced that State's rights are the overriding main issue with the Court's future appointments. Look at who are the chief backers of state's rights

Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Sandra Day O'Connor
Anthony Kennedy

If you are suggesting that what we need are more of those kinds of minds, sorry but I will take a pass.

If the Supreme Court had in fact followed a pro state's rights policy we might not have Bush to begin with. In 2000 the US Supreme Court could have passed on becoming the arbiters of the election and handed it back to the Florida Supreme Court but they didnt.

The Tenth Amendment reserved to the States all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Gov't and despite the professed love of strict interpretation of the constitution espoused by the current conservative majority those same Justices somehow were quickly able to overlook their reverence for the sovereignty of the states and instead ordered a recount stopped and awarded Bush the Presidency.

Justice Stevens in his dissent ?Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.?

None of them have retired in a decade... but a couple of them are over 80.

This is where we will diverge in opinion. Let me preface this by giving a clear picture of where I stand. My political party of choice is the Federalist party. I am a stonch advocate of removing as much power as possible from Washington and putting it back to the States, on all issues except for currency, foreign affairs, and international trade. If it does not fit into the 3 previously mentioned compartments then it is a State issue.

This country was built on freedom of choice. The ultimate freedom of choice is allowing people to choose a state based upon its laws and viewpoint. This is servely hampered by the looming government involvement we have now.

Freedom is only possible when there are real and discernable choices. Which at this point are dwindled with each power we give to the Federal Government.

Your comments on the 2000 election are accepted and understood. The court made a decision to stop the maddness and move the country forward. Both sides of the aisle are to blame for acting like children in this matter.

-dd

Forgive my ignorance but I thought the Federalist party was in favor of strong central government and also was a political party that went extinct in the 1800's.

I looked here http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/PartyLink.htm
and do not even see a group listed. Do you have any links? I would be interested in reading more on this.

another good reason to vote for Kerry:

BECAUSE HES NOT GEORGE BUSH!!

:glugglug

:)

Google: The Federalist Papers

They are the finest documents written. Some would say divinely inspired.

Jefferson is my party's candidate.

-dd

Vote libertarian. :thumbsup

I don't disagree that Bush has got to go, but that's a sad reason to elect someone else. When you say "anyone but Bush", be careful that Stalin or Hitler don't volunteer.

#1 reason:

He's not a mouth breather like W

*Looks at John Kerry*.

Ok, no Stalin or Hitler here, time to move on.

Reason #1

He is not Bush

Agreed, a single picture is worth 1000 words, 2 are 2000, and so on. Keep em coming!

We need to vote Kerry to stop similar laws to 2257

see my earlier post
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...adid=372191&s=

DO SOMETHING - canvas everyone you know, and make sure you enrol to vote and do so!!

Two more great links showing why besides his negative stance on the Porn industry he should be stopped.

http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
and
http://www.costofwar.com/

ive voted third party all my life. because of this douche bag bush im going to give up my third party vote this year and vote for kerry - just to get rid of bush. since im in FL i hope Jeb doesnt get silly.

i encourage other idealists such as myself to do the same... think of it as, "lets live long enough to vote third party again"

i just watched fahrenheit 9/11 ... extremely biased but god damn good flick. I liked the Orwell quotation - is this from 1984? sorry, i spent most of my time in high school skipping english lit and smoking doobies.

"It's not a matter of whether the war is not real, or if it is, Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact."

Actually, I think there are plenty of smart and reasonable people here. It's just that the words of the extremists and the ultra morons stand out like a sore thumb and gives a false impression of the majority. It's like smelling a skunk in a garden.

There's lots of #1 reasons not to vote for Bush.

But the second one has got to be, we need someone that doesn't say "InternetS"...

Kerry will win, you'll see :thumbsup

Very good points from both sides!

However, I would like to hear more about the impacts that Bush will have on this industry if elected again. I know there's been a lot of talk about "what's going to happen" that hasn't, and I've also seen a lot of changes take place already. Anybody care to help fill me in with more details on the political impact of this industry specifically?
(Informed posts with facts to back them up please, not just people's random opinions.)

we should hire 1,000 presidents, and let them vote on things all the time.

the NUMBER ONE reason to vote for KERRY is.............


















































HE'S NOT G*EORGE B*USH




:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh