Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Why blacks voted for Prop 8

Posted By: Gay Issues on 2008-11-30
In Reply to:

Interesting column from the Times, written by a black. I bring this here just as a matter of interest. I found it to be quite interesting.


Op-Ed Columnist
Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: November 29, 2008



We now know that blacks probably didn’t tip the balance for Proposition 8. Myth busted. However, the fact remains that a strikingly high percentage of blacks said they voted to ban same-sex marriage in California. Why?


There was one very telling (and virtually ignored) statistic in CNN’s exit poll data that may shed some light: There were far more black women than black men, and a higher percentage of them said that they voted for the measure than the men. How wide was the gap? According to the exit poll, 70 percent of all blacks said that they voted for the proposition. But 75 percent of black women did. There weren’t enough black men in the survey to provide a reliable percentage for them. However, one can mathematically deduce that of the raw number of survey respondents, nearly twice as many black women said that they voted for it than black men.


Why? Here are my theories:


(1) Blacks are much more likely than whites to attend church, according to a Gallup report, and black women are much more likely to attend church than black men. Anyone who has ever been to a black church can attest to the disparity in the pews. And black women’s church attendance may be increasing.


According to a report issued this spring by Child Trends, a nonprofit research center, weekly church attendance among black 12th graders rose 26 percent from 1993 to 2006, while weekly church attendance for white 12th graders remained virtually flat. In 2006, those black teenagers were nearly 50 percent more likely to attend church once a week than their white counterparts. And it is probably safe to assume that many of them were going to church with their mothers since Child Trends reported that around the time that they were born, nearly 70 percent of all black children were born to single mothers.


(2) This high rate of church attendance by blacks informs a very conservative moral view. While blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, an analysis of three years of national data from Gallup polls reveals that their views on moral issues are virtually indistinguishable from those of Republicans. Let’s just call them Afropublicrats.


(3) Marriage can be a sore subject for black women in general. According to 2007 Census Bureau data, black women are the least likely of all women to be married and the most likely to be divorced. Women who can’t find a man to marry might not be thrilled about the idea of men marrying each other.


Proponents of gay marriage would do well to focus on these women if they want to win black votes. A major reason is that black women vote at a higher rate than black men. In the CNN national exit poll, there were 40 percent more black women than black men, and in California there were 50 percent more. But gay marriage advocates need to hone their strategy to reach them.


First, comparing the struggles of legalizing interracial marriage with those to legalize gay marriage is a bad idea. Many black women do not seem to be big fans of interracial marriage either. They’re the least likely of all groups to intermarry, and many don’t look kindly on the black men who intermarry at nearly three times the rate that they do, according to a 2005 study of black intermarriage rates in the Wisconsin Law Review. Wrong reference. Don’t even go there.


Second, don’t debate the Bible. You can’t win. Religious faith is not defined by logic, it defies it. Instead, decouple the legal right from the religious rite, and emphasize the idea of acceptance without endorsement.


Then, make it part of a broader discussion about the perils of rigidly applying yesterday’s sexual morality to today’s sexual mores. Show black women that it backfires. The stigma doesn’t erase the behavior, it pushes it into the shadows where, devoid of information and acceptance, it become more risky.


For instance, most blacks find premarital sex unacceptable, according to the Gallup data. But, according to data from a study by the Guttmacher Institute, blacks are 26 percent more likely than any other race to have had premarital sex by age 18, and the pregnancy rate for black teens is twice that of white teens. They still have premarital sex, but they do so uninformed and unprotected.


That leads to a bigger problem. According to a 2004 report by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, black women have an abortion rate that is three times that of white women.


More specifically, blacks overwhelmingly say that homosexuality isn’t morally acceptable. So many black men hide their sexual orientations and engage in risky behavior. This has resulted in large part in black women’s becoming the fastest-growing group of people with H.I.V. In a 2003 study of H.I.V.-infected people, 34 percent of infected black men said they had sex with both men and women, while only 6 percent of infected black women thought their partners were bisexual. Tragic. (In contrast, only 13 percent of the white men in the study said they had sex with both men and women, while 14 percent of the white women said that they knew their partners were bisexual.)


So pitch it as a health issue. The more open blacks are to the idea of homosexuality, the more likely black men would be to discuss their sexual orientations and sexual histories. The more open they are, the less likely black women would be to put themselves at risk unwittingly. And, the more open blacks are to homosexuality over all, the more open they are likely to be to gay marriage. This way, everyone wins.




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

You're right, most blacks have voted democrats
nm
More blacks are in prision because more blacks are poor in this country...sm
If you can't afford a get out of jail free card, you spend the time.

The legal system is a poor excuse. If you have money you can buy your way out. If not you're screwed. This is not even a black or white issue, except that most blacks can't afford to pay off the legal system.
U R right - Palin is just a prop
z
Boycott those who supported Prop 8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)


Since Proposition 8 passed, several legal challenges to Proposition 8 have already been filed in California courts, and more than 40 state legislators filed a friend-of-the-court briefs  to support legal efforts to void Proposition 8. A series of protests have spread across California, and are sweeping the country, and now they've moved onto the Internet with blacklists that are outing those who gave money to get Proposition 8 passed.


 Reminiscent of Christian boycotts against companies who supported gay rights, and the ever popular War on _____ boycotts, now gay right activists are calling for the same action.  Several new websites have launched that list all the names and businesses of all the donors. Evidently those who made political donations to Prop8 did not realize that their contributions are a matter of public record... or that publishing those records is legal.


http://electiontrack.com/
http://antigayblacklist.com/


Prop 8 --- majority rules problem...(sm)
Okay, I've seen several posts on here about how Prop 8 should be upheld because *the majority rules.*  Almost every civil rights movement that was successful including the right for women to vote, the right for inter-racial marriage, etc would have never made it if we had gone by the idea that the majority rules.  In fact, isn't that the point of civil rights? -- to protect minorities? Also, the constitution says *we the people,* not we the christians.  ARRRRGGGGHHH!
Oh, don't forget about the Obama puppy!! Prop & MASCOT!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Exposed: Prop. 8 part of 'Christian Taliban's' move to make Bible the law

The Protect Marriage Coalition, which led the fight to pass an anti-gay marriage initiative in California, is now suing to shield its financial records from public scrutiny.


The lawsuit claims that donors to Protect Marriage and a second group involved in the suit have received threatening phone calls and emails. It asks for existing donation lists to be removed from the California secretary of state's website and also seeks to have both plaintiffs and all similar groups be exempted in the future from ever having to file donation disclosure reports on this or any similar campaigns.


Although public access advocates believe this sweeping demand for donor anonymity has little chance of success, it does point up the secretive and even conspiratorial nature of much right-wing political activity in California.


Howard Ahmanson and Wayne C. Johnson


The man who more than any other has been associated with this kind of semi-covert activity over the past 25 years is reclusive billionaire Howard Ahmanson.


Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist, a devout follower of the late R.J. Rushdoony, who advocated the replacement of the U.S. Constitution with the most extreme precepts of the Old Testament, including the execution -- preferably by stoning -- of homosexuals, adulterers, witches, blasphemers, and disobedient children.


Ahmanson himself has stated, "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives."


As absurd as this Reconstructionist agenda may seem, the success of Proposition 8 demonstrates the ability of what is sometimes called the "Christian Taliban" to pursue its covert objectives behind the screen of seemingly mainstream initiatives and candidates.


Ahmanson's role in promoting Proposition 8 has drawn a lot of attention, but he appears to serve primarily as the money man, leaving his associates to carry out the practical details. One name in particular stands out as Ahmanson's chief lieutenant: political consultant Wayne C. Johnson, whose Johnson Clark Associates (formerly Johnson & Associates) coordinated the Proposition 8 campaign.


Johnson has spent many years working for Ahmanson-funded causes -- such as the battle against a 2004 initiative to promote stem cell research -- and organizations, like the anti-spending California Taxpayer Protection Committee.


Johnson Clark has also operated PACs for many candidates supported by Ahmanson. It ran Rep. John Doolittle's leadership PAC, which became notorious for sending a 15% commission to Doolittle's wife out of every donation received. It currently runs the PAC for Rep. Tom McClintock, a strong Proposition 8 supporter who was narrowly elected last fall to succeed the scandal-plagued Doolittle.
Proposition 8


The series of events leading to the approval of Proposition 8 began in 2000 with the passage of Proposition 22, which defined marriage in California as being solely between one man and one woman -- but did so only as a matter of law and not as a constitutional amendment.


Proposition 22 was quickly challenged in court, leading to the creation by its supporters of the the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund. In 2003, Johnson Clark Associates registered the domain ProtectMarriage.com on behalf of that fund.


ProtectMarriage.com began campaigning in early 2005 for an initiative that would add its restrictive definition of marriage to the California constitution, but it failed to gather sufficient signatures and was terminated in September 2006.


In 2008, however, a reborn ProtectMarriage.com, flush with nearly a million dollars in funding from Howard Ahmanson and tens of millions from other doners, succeeding in getting Proposition 8 placed on the ballot and approved by 52% of the voters.


Proposition 8 is now California law -- at least for the moment, pending challenges to its constitutionality -- and ProtectMarriage.com has turned its attention to demanding that all 18,000 existing same-sex marriages be declared invalid.
The Ahmanson-Johnson Strategy


The partnership between Ahmanson and Johnson, however, did not begin in 2003 or even in 2000. It goes back to at least 1983, if not earlier, and has been a continuing factor in California politics for the last 25 years.


In a 1994 article on Christian Reconstructionism, Public Eye described Johnson's central role in an Ahmanson-financed attempt by the Christian Right to take control of the California state legislation. The strategy involved first pushing through a term limits initiative, which was accomplished in 1990, and then promoting its own candidates for the seats this opened up:


"The practical impact of term limits is to remove the advantage of incumbency ... which the extreme Christian Right is prepared to exploit. ... At a Reconstructionist conference in 1983, Johnson outlined an early version of the strategy we see operating in California today. ... The key for the Christian Right was to be able to: 1) remove or minimize the advantage of incumbency, and 2) create a disciplined voting bloc from which to run candidates in Republican primaries, where voter turn out was low and scarce resources could be put to maximum effect. ...


"Since the mid-1970s, the extreme Christian Right, under the tutelage of then-State Senator H. L Richardson, targeted open seats and would finance only challengers, not incumbents. By 1983, they were able to increase the number of what Johnson called 'reasonably decent guys' in the legislature from four to 27. At the Third Annual Northwest Conference for Reconstruction in 1983, Johnson stated that he believed they may achieve 'political hegemony. . .in this generation.'"


The mention of H. L. "Bill" Richardson as the originator of the Johnson-Ahmanson strategy is both eye-catching and significant. Richardson, a former John Birch Society member, was considered to be one of the most extreme right-wing politicians of his time. In 1975, he co-founded Gun Owners of America (GOA), an organization which is widely regarded as being well to the right of the National Rife Association.


Wayne Johnson began his political career in 1976 by working for Richardson -- and Johnson Clark Associates still operates a PAC for GOA's state affiliate, the Gun Owners of California Campaign Committee.


In 1992, Johnson and Ahmanson managed to help send a batch of conservative Republicans to Congress. Foremost among these was Richard Pombo, one of whose first acts after taking office was to introduce a resolution of commendation for the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation.


In 2004, Johnson told an interviewer that Pombo's election was a high point of his political career. "There have been a lot of great moments, but Richard Pombo's 1992 upset victory in his first congressional primary has got to be near the top. The television stations didn't even have his name listed on their pre-programmed screens election night. Today, he's chairman of the House Resources Committee."


Two years after Johnson's enthusiastic declaration, Pombo was defeated by a Democratic challenger, following wide-ranging allegation of corruption, including being named as the Congressman who had received more donations from Jack Abramoff than any other.
The Anti-Homosexual Agenda


Although the Christian Right never achieved its original goal of taking over California state government -- which may be why Ahmanson and Johnson have turned their attention to passing socially conservative initiatives instead -- it has been far more successful in establishing dominance over that state's Republican Party.


In 1998, Mother Jones reported:


"First they packed the then-moderate California Republican Assembly (CRA), a mainstream caucus with a heavy hand in the state party's nominating process, with their Bible-minded colleagues. By 1990 they controlled the CRA, and since then the CRA's clout has helped the religious conservatives nominate and elect local candidates and—crucially—catapult true believers into state party leadership slots. ...


"From radical fringe to kingmakers in a decade — how did they do it? 'Basically, there's two places you have influence: one is in the nominating process in the primaries, where you can elect people in ideological agreement with your views, and the other is in the party structure,' says former CRA vice president John Stoos, a former gun lobbyist, member of the fundamentalist Christian Reconstructionist movement, and senior consultant to the State Assembly."


Stoos appears to come out of precisely the same background as Johnson and Ahmanson. He served as the executive director of Gun Owners of California and was also the chief of staff and a legislative advisor to Tom McClintock from 1998 until 2003, when he got into trouble for his over-the-top Reconstructionist sentiments.


In the Mother Jones interview, Stoos referred to Christian politicians as God's "vice-regents ... those who believe in the Lordship of Christ and the dominion mandate" and pointed to the repeal in the 1970's of laws against homosexual acts as an example of the need for rule by "biblical justice."


"The proof is in the pudding," Stoos told Mother Jones. "Since we lifted those laws, we've had the biggest epidemic in history."


To many who voted for it, Proposition 8 may have been no more than a nostalgic attempt to keep a changing world more like the way it used to be. But for Reconstructionists like Ahmanson, Johnson, and Stoos, it clearly represents something else -- a dramatic first step towards "the total integration of biblical law into our lives."


more blacks in prison...why?
Your post is a racist post.  Tell me, why do blacks make up the majority in prison?  Could it be bad cops sending innocent black people to prison..you bet..could it be no opportunites for blacks, you bet..Your statement trying to defend Bennetts undefensible comments make me wonder.
Blacks in Alaska.......
Well, I have several long-time very close friends who have lived in Alaska for 28+ years. My best friend married a native Alaskan. That conversation did come up one time and you know what her husband told me (this is a man who worked on the north slope for dozens of years). He said the blacks in Alaska are some of the most hard working people he has ever met. Blacks and whites work alongside one another on the slope and other hard jobs. He said many blacks came to Alaska to get higher paying jobs. The comments he would hear would be how they detested their black relatives/friends who sat on their butts and took government (taxpayer)handouts and used their color as an excuse not to better themselves. Their children all went to school together, played together, and helped one another. He also told us that a close friend of his who was from black/Alaskan heritage had told him he couldn't understand with all the advantages his generation and those still to come have, why they don't take advantage of them and why they continue to kill one another in gangs and spend so much time hating one another and "whites", blaming whites for all their problems. Now, this comes from a black man in Alaska. He said many of his friends came up after he suggested they could find higher paying jobs. They were hard working people who just wanted a better life and they refused to raise their children thinking they had to have handouts and they didn't want them "around" other blacks who were drug pushing and calling each other the "n" word in their schools. It wasn't the Republican whites they were trying to get away from. By the way, he thought social programs were a joke!! He felt social programs were one of the biggest problems in black society and that they encouraged handouts and free rides without offering a solution.

I have several black neighbors and we are in the south, that will not hesitate to tell you they "hate" social programs, they are sick and tired of paying for them, and suggest those that like them so much be the only ones who pay for them. They are hard working people like us who want to actually keep their money. One couple put two of their daughters through medical school without a single social program in their lives. They detest being taxed to pay for all these social programs when we can see in our own communities they are just unjustified, just throwing more money into a big pit.

Now, I'm not sure where you get your info from, but all republicans are not white...matter of fact the above mentioned blacks vote republican and think the democrats are the problem for the plight of the black man. Keep giving them handouts and making them believe they "need" help, can't do without the government, can't make their own decisions, and you will have nothing but a welfare state before long.

Rich republicans don't pay taxes? Who in the h*ll do you think pay for all those social programs now.....you? The 1% of rich republicans as you put it are the ones in the highest tax brackets, pay the most taxes, and fund the greatest majority of your social programs. Taxation is relevant to your income, not your political party. You make more, you pay more in taxes. How do you think they made more money....it fell from the skies? Yes, there are those who inherit a lot of money and have done nothing to deserve it (even though those they inherited it from worked their butts off for it), but in a free country, they are free to inherit it if it is given to them. I don't feel negative towards them for that. And there are those who have made fortunes from hard work, not coming home at 5, and have pretty much given up any life of their own to succeed to the level they feel they want to be. You say rich like it's a bad word. Should we fault people for being hard working and succeeding financially in life and making more than us? I know people who have lots of money and they have sacrificed a LOT to get there.

I feel pretty certain if you had lots of money you would certainly lavish it on your children. That would be your right. And you probably wouldn't want it taken from you to give to everyone else when you can make the decision to donate/give as you see fit.

Our government, however, feels they have the right to have death taxes, which by the way, Whoopie Goldberg, detests and thinks that is wrong (she's black and rich)and why does she think that's wrong? Because she wants to give her wealth to her family when she dies and that's how it should be, without government interference. They have no right to take it....they didn't make it. I don't hear her jumping on the bandwagon saying TAKE MY MONEY, PLEASE, and give it to anyone you want and pay for hundreds of social programs with it. After all, she made it and should give to those as she sees fit, not as our government sees fit. Matter of fact, I don't hear any rich blacks screaming take my money. I hear some of them backing Obama and say they believe in what he wants for this country, but they just don't want to pay for what he wants. Make up your mind...can't have it both ways!
Dems voted for it, Biden voted for it....
Bill Clinton signed it into law. Plenty of blame to go around. McCain asked for regulation of Fannie/Freddie in 2005. Dems blocked it. The Dem record is slightly worse in the regulation/deregulation arena.

But...plenty of blame to go around.
Well, for ACORN it is about race....the more blacks
The blacks that have been truthful have spoken out and said that the corrupt group ACORN has PUSHED them to vote for Obama, telling them how much better their lives would be, etc., etc., and they will get a big 'ole check every month, courtesy of the hard working folks. And all they gotta do is sign on the dotted line. These are black people speaking out because they know something is very wrong with this picture.

Too bad the O lovers don't see anything wrong with this picture.
Current-day blacks are not slaves and never were.
nm
You hate blacks AND gays? You think Fox is the news..
I am not answering any more of your racist, rude dumb posts. Talk to yourself, all 3 or more of your selves that you are posting here so obviously.
First of all, blacks received the right to vote after the civil war,
try 140 years ago (NOT 40) when the Reconstruction Ammendments were passed between 1865 and 1870.  Women received the right vote with the 19th Ammendment in 1920 (88 years ago).  
 

I think history has established that slavery is wrong.  I refuse to believe that I, as a white person, must continually apologize to the black man or woman for slavery that happened to their ancestors centuries ago!  I personally have never codoned or owned slaves and they personally have never been slaves.  So I ask you, what does slavery have to do with Obama being elected president?  What does slavery have to do with his compaign and this election?  Who is making race an issue here?  I'll answer the last one, YOU are by insinuating that Obama and all African-Americans deserve special accolades just because they are black.  They did not suffer as slaves.  They did not have to overcome slavery.  And today's African-Americans receive more rights and more governmental assistant, then any white person I know.  Just look at affirmative action for crying out loud! 

First of all blacks AND whites live in Harlem
The ignorant comments you refer to came directly out of Harlem and was played for anyone and everyone to hear. Did you not hear the comments made by citizens there? Don't call others names if you don't know what we're talking about.
It's time for blacks to have a little celebration WHY DO YOU CARE? sm
White people never will understand, and I am white, what the blacks went through and still go through. Not only do we now have a brilliant loving, honest president, but he happens to be black. It is MAJORLY symbolic. Why do you rabids pick apart every good and loving thing that the rest of us are celebrating today. Go write a love letter to Anne Coulter!
BYEEEEE hahahah Obama WON.

*blacks* not blanks. Been working too long today! nm
x
Where on earth in this post do you get I hate blacks, Dems, or the poor?
I was quoting the mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin..who is black, and a Democrat, though not poor. Did I say I didn't like mayor Nagin? I am just saying he is acting a whole lot differently than he did during Katrina. And from that you get that I hate blacks, dems, and the poor? The dem talking points don't really fit this post...??? Now I am confused.

I don't hate Dems. I just don't agree with them. And I don't understand how they can say they are the party of the people and want to fight so hard for freedom of choice and individual rights, and then turn on one lone poster like a pack of snarling dogs for disagreeing with them. Don't you think what the party is supposed to stand for and the way theones on this board are acting is even SLIGHTLY contradictory?? lol
Imagine that simple statement being recited by a white man about blacks.
It would have been labeled a racist remark.
Think again - nothing has been voted on yet
I guess you really don't get it, do you. I don't care if McCain or Obama is ahead but these polls mean absolutely nothing. Nothing has been settled yet. If Obama wins on 11/4 then that's fine. If McCain wins on 11/4 then that's fine, but for pete's sake stop acting like children spinning that your candidate has already won and they have more this or that. I've been watching the news on every station and reading all the websites and I have not found anything yet to say one has more votes than the other. Polls mean diddly. The real thing will happen on 11/4. Til then it would be a good idea to put a lid on your arrogance.

Like I say either way I don't care. Whoever gets in gets in. Either way the country is really really screwed! The question now is do you want someone to tell you your screwed to your face or do you want some to hide it in fluff and make you feel good while your being screwed.
They all voted against us

No one in Washington is standing up for us.  You are being pitted against each other by CNN and Fox.  There is no difference between the two candidates at all. They are both wimps.


Had he done so I would have voted for him most likely
x
but he could have voted against it -
He did not have to sign that bill; even if it was for show because he knew it was going to pass, he could have not signed it just to prove the point that he does not support any pork barrel spending. Just goes to show, he is going to do whatever he wants to do when he gets in office - no matter what he promised. If he wants something done and he has to give away a lot of money to get it, he is going to give away a lot of money. He's no different than anyone else.
He voted against it, and he said why...
he said he was afraid that people would use the bill to somehow circumvent abortion rights. And for that he was willing to sacrifice even those babies who survived that heinous procedure. Does it matter WHY he voted against it? Does that change the fact that he DID?
i voted against O, however...
i strongly opposed obama in the white house.  however, i do believe that now he is pres-elect, that we should be respectful and supportive in as much as possible.  he may well surprise even me and change some of his positions and prove to be a much better leader than i would expect.  i for one, will be praying for his wisdom and judgment. 
or maybe he voted the way he said he voted
nm
Why they voted for him...
obama fan: "I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage because if I help him[Obama], he’s gonna help me.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

Any questions? Get a grip, I am happy not to be associated with voters like this.
Like I said, the ones who voted for him
either think he is their precious EVERYTHING, were too scared about the economy and were willing to vote for ANYTHING, or the ones who just voted for him because he is BLACK! Not too much of an intelligent vote either way!!

Flame all you want!
You mean he voted something besides
Who knew?
I do believe that it was voted

on whether or not we went to war in Iraq and I do believe that many Dems were on board at that time as well as many Americans.  It only became a problem with some when they realized how much money it was costing. 


Personally, I feel we should leave the middle east alone and let them kill each other.  However, when they strike on US turf.....they best get ready for a strike back. 


As for the stuff that Obama has been handed.....I know his job can't be easy and I wouldn't take it no matter how much money I was offered......but I still cannot condone what he is doing.  Taking the rights away from Catholic hospitals and making them perform abortions or lose their funding.  The continued bailing out of banks with big bonuses being slipped in there.  So many people in our government who have been appointed to positions and getting caught for not paying taxes but getting a get out of jail free card. 


Obama not crooked?  I'm sorry but look at the state he comes from.  Illinois is full of crooked politicians.  His associations alone make me question his morality.  His attendance to a church of hate was overlooked as nothing.  There are just so many things stacked against this man and yet so many people refuse to see it or just let it slide like it is nothing. 


Obama has had enough free passes.  This is my country and I have a right to question my government.  To me this is not the time to be going to other countries and telling them how arrogant the US is and how everything is our fault.  Just like every time Obama opens his mouth about his spending....he continually brings up Bush's spending instead of admitting his own excessive spending.


I'm tired of the government giving CEOs crap for having private jets when government officials waste more taxpayer money on planes, etc.  It is just ridiculous.  It is like the whole lot of them preaching "do as I say and not as I do."  Absolutely ridiculous. 


I just hope that come election time, we get some of these people out of office.....Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, Reid........


They may have voted for what some
people want, but not everyone agrees with SSM. 
we actually voted in 2004....SM

http://ideamouth.com/voterfraud.htm


state by state, counties too..........


I voted in our primary

on Tuesday. As soon as I put the card in the electronic machine it said invalid card even though I watched the woman run it through her little machine to clear it and saw it say clear twice. It took 3 people about 5 minutes to figure out how to get the card out of the machine. Then I got a new one. Everything went along fine until one choice. There were 4 people on the ballot; it would let me vote for 3 of them but not the 4th which was the one I wanted to vote for. I told them about this but nothing will happen. I think we should either have a paper trail or write them out long hand. Even if these machines were not suspect to begin with as far as tampering goes, just plain not working makes a huge difference in the vote.


I know that Bush did not win Florida in 2004. Thousands of African Americans did not stand in lines for hours to vote for Bush. You can take that to the bank and bet the farm on it too. My personal favorite though is a county that counted something like 10,000 votes for Bush and there are only 5,000 registered voters in the entire county !!! Go figure.


I never voted Democrat, but...
For one thing, Clinton WAS impeached. He just was not convicted. The Republicans caved. Shame on them! With that being said, while Obama did not actually "change" the seal, his campaign thought it would be cute to copy it for the meeting, Isuppose they did not have sense enough to realize what a firestorm it would cause. Well, duh, folks. Not everyone in the US is mesmerized by Obama the Pied Piper. The man is not nearly as eloquent without prompters. Can't think on his feet really well. Someone has their hand up his back pulling ALL the strings. I am tempted to think the initials are GS. THAT being said, I agree whole-heartedly about the Jeremiah Wright thing. I don't think I want a man as President who sat in the pew for 20 years and never heard the man "preach like that." Either he wasn't paying a bit of attention (which is highly unlikely as intelligent as he is supposed to be, right), or he was lying through his teeth (I vote for that one). But, just on the offchance he really "missed" that kind of preaching over 20 years, if he does get elected, my suggestion is someone else attend the cabinet meetings to take notes so he actually realizes what went on. lol. Not to mention security and intel briefings. I can't WAIT, if he is elected, to see who is his chief of staff and cabinet are. That will tell the tale I am thinkin, but by then it will be too late for buyers remorse. lol.
A lot of dems voted for the war too....
including Kerry and Hillary and untold others...including your VP candidate, Biden. Can't you tell the truth? What about the truth is so scary to you? You can go on line and see the roll call vote. Many, Many D's there. No war can ever be waged without a 2/3 vote of Congress. War is not a "conservative" thing. What a ridiculous lie. Do you ever go research anything or are you afraid lightning will strike you if you stray from Dem talking points??
I voted for Bush
The people who are campaigning are not the same people once they get into the white house. I voted for Bush. I also voted for Clinton. Both presidents turned out to be Bozo's but not until after they got into the position.

I think you need to stop accusing Sarah Palin of having no experience because that is going to backfire big time. Obama does not have any expereince either. The only two people expereinced are McCain and Biden. Also you want to talk about no experience think back to our forefathers. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams. Those people had no experience and yet they went on to be great leaders. Both Barack and Sarah do not have experience. The difference in my opinion is that Sarah is running for VP while Barack is running for President. Two candidates - both with no experience. Except that Sarah has balanced a budget, cut out wasteful spending, and stood up to the big oil people. She also gave money back to the citizens of Alaska who paid to much in gas/oil prices. I'll go for that over someone who did some community organization.
so every single pub voted for it and no pub

I've answered several of your questions.  Now try 2 of mine.  Did every single pub vote to pass it and did no pub receive any type of benefit from this situation? 


So would those 94 democrats who voted no.nm
nm
Yes, and 94 Democrats voted no. So why not...
11 more democrats voting yes instead of 11 more Republicans?
No, most of the Republicans voted against it...
because their constituency were 99 to 1 against it. The senators added the extra stuff hoping to entice some of those Republicans to vote yes instead of no. Plus to woo the 95 democrats who voted against it.

It is silly on its face for the Democrats to whine so much...if they would stop worrying about voting in the majority with George Bush, they could pass the thing themselves. They have the majority. But they want it to be "bipartisan" so if it does not work, they don't have to live out their congressional terms with "they voted with George Bush and crashed the economy" over their heads.

Politics first, constituents second. And so it goes.
he was voted in - she was chosen... nm
x
You have already voted for communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
Haven't you voted YET?
What are you waiting for?
And you have no idea who they voted
just because they were black you assume they voted for Obama. Now, would that be racist?
Obamanation may have voted

no on that one, but Bush couldn't have passed that without the support of many others.  Quite a few politicians voted yes for that one.  So you can't really just blame ole bushy for that either. 


Besides, the surge has won and Obama has yet to really admit that and he owes it to our troops who have fought and the ones who have lost their lives to admit that their efforts have been successful. 


My question is this though....there is a whole lotta crap going on over in Afghanastan (sp?).  We have troops over there now.  Even if we pull out of Iraq and let the Iraqi law enforcement take charge.....what happens in Afghanastan?  Do we pull out of there too?  What does Obama suggest we do?  Does any one know his view points on this because this is something I've never really researched.


Obama voted against it, too!
What does that make him?
Why I voted for Obama (sm)

1.  I believe in a woman's right to choose.  I have read the FOCA bill and have based my decision on my interpretation of that bill in accordance with my own opinion.


2.  I believe the war in Iraq is a disaster.  I don't think it does credit to our troops to send them into harm's way for an unjust war.  Obama will end that war and get our military home.  The money we spend in Iraq is also included in that.


3.  I agree with Obama's tax plan.  I have sat down and compared the two, and in my situation, I get a better deal with Obama's plan.  I see no difference in McCain's plan and what is going on right now with Bush.


4.  McCain has shown is lack of leadershiip in the fact that he cannot manage his own campaign.  He ran all around like a chicken with his head cut off when the economic crisis hit.  Said he suspended his campaign and didn't. Obama submitted a plan and went with hit, showing leadership qualities.


5. Negative campaining:  This is something McCain and his wife publicly said he would not do, and yet he seems to be okay with it now.


The list is much longer, but these are a few.


Yes. He will be voted into office and be
He is a fine AMERICAN citizen who has dedicated his life to public service, has run a brilliant campaign, won over a "commanding" lead in the polls and will be making history in just 48 short hours or so.
I haven't voted yet.

I'm planning on hitting the polls a little later this morning.  Not too concerned about lines as our polling place is in a small town.


Gee Sam...wonder who you voted for.  LOL!  Go McCain/Palin!!! 


If you voted for "O" I can understand why....
LOL.
Voted last week, but..
wore an old pair of jeans and a white sweat shirt.