![]() ![]() |
|
| |
|
Election 2006: the BadPosted on Nov 7, 2006
California Governor
Previous item: Election 2006: the Good Next item: Dems Win the House, Senate Up for Grabs Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
By radmeister, November 8, 2006 at 1:47 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I just heard on cnn that John Tester beat his opponant in the senate race in Montana and along with Joe Lieberman that gives us at least half the senate. All those propositions that we do not like, we are going to have to get our own propositions on the ballot, and remember that federal law trumps state initiatives especially affirmative action which is a federal law. We still have a lot of work to do. Anybody for threatening the oil kings with nationalizing our oil industry?
Report thisBy rabblerowzer, November 8, 2006 at 7:10 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The Rabid Right tried hard to steal this election too, but Democrats were ready for them this time. Hopefully, we will be ready again in 2008 when the stakes will be just as high. Lying, stealing and cheating is the Republican Way, and most of them devote their entire lives to taking advantage of others. Good will never utterly defeat evil because approximately half of all humans born seem instinctively to be predators. Every species has a predator species that preys on it. Our predators may look the same as us physically, but they have the instincts of predators.
Report thisBy Donovan, November 8, 2006 at 6:41 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I thought that “conservative” political views were those that desired small govt.? So why do neo-cons want the govt. to ban gay marriage, and homosexuality altogether (if they could get away with it)? Is it because they’re not really “conservatives,” rather they’re the religious right, evangelicals in power?
I thought “freedom of speech” meant that we can say what we want in whatever language we want. I think it’s unconstitutional to force a langauge upon the people. I agree that immigrants should feel an onus to learn English, but it’s certainly not absolutely necessary.
Isn’t it time that we gain the ability to let that which truly does not matter slide?
Report thisBy Ned, November 8, 2006 at 4:54 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Yep the 9th amendment is but a comma. The Bill of Rights has nothing to say about the right to persue happyness.
Report thisBy TFYQA, November 8, 2006 at 3:38 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Short of a second american revolution we,re all pretty much fucked !
Be Careful What You Say
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=98845005530349 156&hl=en
Be Careful What You Say Part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6543452139136 491618&hl=en
Lynching by Laptop Part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=29166033447680 735&q=Lynching+by+Laptop
Dying Regime Part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3165222218919 13371&hl=en
Peace !
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. -Frank Zappa
Report thisBy Palema, November 8, 2006 at 3:19 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I have 2 thoughts about gay marriage bans:
Report thisa) That’s government enforcing what is basically a religious viewpoint;
b) Government should not be in the marriage business at all—they should stick to regulating contracts, which they do okay at.
Anybody should be able to make a domestic contract in whatever way pleases them and dissolve it according to whatever terms they themselves set up.
What if laws didn’t address sexual relations between consenting adults? Suppose such contracts didn’t revolve around sex—rather were about owning real estate, providing health insurance, power to make decisions in the event of illness, etc. They could be between a parent and adult child who live together, siblings, friends, etc. Why not? Our demographics are changing and the laws shold accommodate that.
By Bukko in Australia, November 8, 2006 at 2:30 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Wow, US Marine, you’re smart. No sarcasm intended. My dad was career Army, but I always found jarheads to be smarter or meaner than grunts. Sometimes both. You should run for office. Hopefully not as a Republican.
Report thisBy MARIAM RUSSELL, November 8, 2006 at 12:11 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Folks, this is not going to change anything unless we demand the changes. The dems who were in office acted as enablers for the Bush admin to pass Patriot, Torture, and spend your grandchildren´s college fund on shooting people in another country who had done nothing to us.
Report thisBy us marine, November 7, 2006 at 10:21 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
just thought i would remind you all, while restricting gays and not allowing them to marry is wrong and in no way should be within the power of the government, the pursuit of happiness is not a right granted by the constitution it is a phrase in the declaration of independence wich by the way, in many peoples opinion is not even a federal document
Report thisBy Anita Van Ouwerkerk, November 7, 2006 at 7:50 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I’m saddened to see that so many of the states and citizens wish to deny the basic constitutional guarantee of “the pursuit of happiness” to those whose partner is of the same gender. This basic civil right to love whomever we choose should be an inalienable right.
What would Jesus do? His life showed us. He would affirm the right of others to live their lives as they were guided to live them.
Report this