After a bit of searching, I finally dug up the USDOT website on SAFETEA. Included on the site is a nice little fact sheet and a funding chart.Wow. Summary?
Possibly, possibly not. Not that the whole election fiasco is over they can actually get back to work. Even the commanders on the ground over there were admitting that attacks on places like Fallujah had been put on hold for several months plus because it was the middle of an election and the resultant images might not have played well.Rev wrote:Iraq War -> dribbles on and on.
He can't quite do whatever he wants. There's still the possibility of Congress impeaching him, or if he really pisses people off, a referendum can be passed by the people to get him out of office.FlakJacket wrote:If anything, I hope this emboldens Bush on certain issues. With the spectre of getting re-elected out of the way he's got four years to do whatever the hell he feels like without having to worry about what the public or media thinks. Things like Iraq or the highly volatile Israel-PA situation.
Say what? First off, there's Republican control of Congress. That's not breeding grounds for impeachment. Second . . . referendum for removal? Huh? Which part of the Constitution is that in?There's still the possibility of Congress impeaching him, or if he really pisses people off, a referendum can be passed by the people to get him out of office.
I'm sure there's some things even Republicans can't stomach. And I could be insane about the referndum, but I could have sworn I read somewhere (I don't believe in the Constitution), that there could be a referndum by the people to remove the president. But like I said, I could be misremembering something.Marius wrote:Say what? First off, there's Republican control of Congress. That's not breeding grounds for impeachment. Second . . . referendum for removal? Huh? Which part of the Constitution is that in?
No, Americans me fucking cry.Johnny the Bull wrote:Ooh! Lets get broader.ak404 wrote:If it makes ya feel any better, Paul, Republicans make me laugh.
Americans make me laugh.
I totally wanted Dean.Wounded Ronin wrote:The dems lack energy and initiative. This makes them look like corrupt aristocratic politicians. This gets worse when they keep running boring and unconvincing candidates. I think they fumbled the election as much as the Republicans won it.
I think you just answered your own question.ak404 wrote:He's like Bush, but from a different state. God only knows what the Dems were thinking when they made him their guy.
That's why I wanted Hillary to run. Even if she couldn't win, she would have lost in style.Wounded Ronin wrote:The dems lack energy and initiative. This makes them look like corrupt aristocratic politicians. This gets worse when they keep running boring and unconvincing candidates. I think they fumbled the election as much as the Republicans won it.
Ah-nold is Austrian-born. He can't run for President. Sorry.Serious Paul wrote:Jeb Bush is a fair enough guess, even if I loathe the idea.I would hope John McCain would be healhty enough to participate, or that they would open the way for Arnold to be the main man. I'd vote for Arnold hands down.
Barack shouldn't run in '08. He'll still be too "new" to the scene. Even if he shakes things up in the next four years, he isn't a strong enough candidate alone. He'd make an excellent VP pick, though, which would also give him the experience he'd need to run on his own 8 years later (assuming a Dem win).Dem wise, I would to see Barak run, but I can't say that will happen. He is perhaps second only to Arnold in my book.
):
They have been talking lately about changing that rule have they not?Anguirel wrote:Ah-nold is Austrian-born. He can't run for President. Sorry.
Hyper-opinionated much?lorg wrote:So they would be ok with changing that so that Arnie could run but ohhh God forbid something else is changed (like the Guns and stuff).
People support things they want, and don't support things they don't. People support changes to the Constitution they think are positive, but resist change to aspects of it they believe in. You want to change an aspect of it that they think is positive, so obviously they don't want an amendment for it. They want a change they think is fine, so obviously they wouldn't mind an amendment for it.lorg wrote:Read it with the first paragraph of text. Why was my wish for a change to the Gun part illogical and bad just cause you don't want it?
Giuliani, whose name I misspelled, will most likely win in a landslide.lorg wrote:Next time ... Mmm wonder who the Reps will run in '08, after all George is out, Cheney is well old and basically dead so he can't really be the running man can he? He doesn't even want does he? So what are they going to do? Run Jeb Bush?
McCain/Giuliani would be my preferred ticket.Salvation122 wrote:Giuliani, whose name I misspelled, will most likely win in a landslide.lorg wrote:Next time ... Mmm wonder who the Reps will run in '08, after all George is out, Cheney is well old and basically dead so he can't really be the running man can he? He doesn't even want does he? So what are they going to do? Run Jeb Bush?
3278 wrote:I think the more people dismiss the "moral right" as being "scared of fags" or whatever, the more they'll miss the point, and the more their opposition will win. Until you understand your opponent is another human being with differing opinions and reasoned justifications for those opinions, you will lose and lose and lose.
They don't want to ban gay marriage because they're scared of gays, or scared of more gays in public, or scared they'll suddenly be gay, or whatever the leftist small-minded insult of the day is: they want to ban gay marriage because being gay is wrong, an abomination against all they believe in. They want to ban gay marriage because for 10,000 years, "marriage" has meant the union between a man and a woman, and they don't see a compelling reason to make an exception to that rule for something that's an abomination.
Every time these people turn around, something horrible, something morally repugnant is going on. The US legalized murder - abortion - and now it's legalizing [in a few states] abominations against god, and then letting people committing the abomination to get married and pretend they're a family!
We dismissed these people for decades, and they're finally angry enough to make up fifty percent of the population, or something like it. But the city-bred left just keeps treating them like gun-totin' rednecks, without any consideration for their moral viewpoint. How would all of /you/ like it if the US legalized sex with infants, or murder of adults? I can justify those things with almost the same arguments used to justify legalized homosexuality or abortion. I could come up with all sorts of reasons it's better to let 8-year-olds marry. But you would be morally opposed to those actions, whatever reasons I provided: you need to realize that their position is no different from this one.
You treat them like idiots, like ignorant country fools, and you'll keep getting surprised when they take over the nation and stick us all with their moral agenda. You need to see them for what they are if you want to defeat them.
And my point is that your perception of them is incorrect.Wounded Ronin wrote:Uhh....I think this is already how lefties like me see the majority of the Republican voters. That's precisely why all the "christian" and "yokel" jokes come up.
You're talking about two different things. "Fear of homosexuality" is not "fear of people committing an atrocity in a public place." Frankly, I don't even know where this "public place" thing is coming from; abomination is abomination, public or private.Wounded Ronin wrote:If you think that something is an abomination then wouldn't you be scared of it happening more in public and the people around you subscribing to it? I don't think there's a difference between what you say it isn't and what you say it is.
But I thought that that was your point, that homosexuality is something that many Americans see as bad.3278 wrote: You're talking about two different things. "Fear of homosexuality" is not "fear of people committing an atrocity in a public place." Frankly, I don't even know where this "public place" thing is coming from; abomination is abomination, public or private.
WillyGilligan wrote:The word you're looking for is "shocked", possibly "appalled", "outraged", "angry", and the list goes on. None of that reaction is fear, unless you're afraid that you're neighbor is going to rape your dog. The thought behind the word homophobia as it's used today is this: that man is gay, and he's looking at my package/wants to do me in the butt/wants to rape my son. I won't deny that those people and that thinking exist, but to say that anyone who thinks of homosexuality as something that our society shouldn't endorse is automatically "afraid" is fooling themselves. I've actually been having discussions with some fairly intelligent co-workers who are fully against gay marriage. They don't hate gay people (okay, one of them comes close, but he's attempting to focus on the act itself), and quite a lot of this is religiously motivated, but there's a reasoning at work. While I don't agree with this viewpoint, I can see the logic in it. "If we legalize gay marriage, then the schools will have to teach about it. The books will have to have equal time for these types of familes and essentially promote this as an acceptable lifestyle." Essentially, this one thing will have huge repercussions for our society and how we deal with a subset of it. A subset for whom it is still unproven as to whether they are born into it or choose it later (and you "knowing" that it's not a choice doesn't count as proof). While you can cry Jim Crow all you like (and I see reason to at least give it a mention every so oftehn while we talk about civil unions) there are some fundamental differences between the black struggle and the gay struggle for equality.
I think it was even more powerful in the 50s and before.crone wrote:I think religion is gaining power in your country. I wouldn't expect it to go away in a hurry.Wounded Ronin wrote:Maybe in that time religion will also lose power in this country, much like the medieval church was a lot more powerful than the modern one.
But choosing homosexuality as one thing to object to while ignoring a lot of the other provisions in Leviticus just strikes me as being retrospective justification of contemporary bias. If you flip through Leviticus there are a *lot* of provisions and rules but many of them we wouldn't take seriously today.WillyGilligan wrote:How is anyone perverting Christianity into disliking gays? I'm pretty sure that Leviticus still says that homosexuality is an abomination. While christians should love the sinner and hate the sin, it's not just mean-spiritidness that's fueling the idea that the state shouldn't condone abberrant sexuality.
