The W
Views: 100937452
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.11.14 0527
The W - Current Events & Politics - All major networks declare Barack Obama president-elect (Page 4)
This thread has 13 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.84
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
(290 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (93 total)
hansen9j
Andouille








Since: 7.11.02
From: Riderville, SK

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 21 hours
#61 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.37
    Originally posted by Lise
    Ok, I'm here for my pancakes!

    Someone promised pancakes after election day. I'll even settle for those nummy maple shortbread pancake cookies...


No pancakes. McCain lost.



It is the policy of the documentary crew to remain true observers and not interfere with its subjects.

If there's a god, He's laughing at us and our football team.
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 515 days
Last activity: 515 days
#62 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.86
I have no involvement in Prop 8 in California, but if you are putting the blame mainly on religious groups/conservatives, how do you explain this Proposition passing on the same ballot Obama beats McCain 61-37 and by 2.5 million votes. It would seem then that a fair sized segment of Obama voters would have supported this Proposition in order for it to pass.
Joseph Ryder
Head cheese








Since: 19.3.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 1234 days
Last activity: 767 days
#63 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.15
    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    I have no involvement in Prop 8 in California, but if you are putting the blame mainly on religious groups/conservatives, how do you explain this Proposition passing on the same ballot Obama beats McCain 61-37 and by 2.5 million votes. It would seem then that a fair sized segment of Obama voters would have supported this Proposition in order for it to pass.


Obama's not an atheist, nor is everyone in CA who voted for him.



I run
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 108 days
Last activity: 108 days
#64 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.14
    Originally posted by Joseph Ryder
      Originally posted by redsoxnation
      I have no involvement in Prop 8 in California, but if you are putting the blame mainly on religious groups/conservatives, how do you explain this Proposition passing on the same ballot Obama beats McCain 61-37 and by 2.5 million votes. It would seem then that a fair sized segment of Obama voters would have supported this Proposition in order for it to pass.


    Obama's not an atheist, nor is everyone in CA who voted for him.


This is exactly true.

The other part of the answer is that the Mormon Church, which was all that was mentioned in the original post about Prop. 8, spent millions of dollars - from Utah, mind you - to promote this amendment in California. That is why the church was singled out. Without the Mormons coming from out of state to campaign in favor of it, this bill is slaughtered in the polling.
odessasteps
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: MD, USA

Since last post: 163 days
Last activity: 130 days
#65 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.23

Without any data, the answer would seem to be the large number of minorities that are at least moderately religious (being California, Catholic Hispanics) would probably voted for Obama and for Prop 8.



Mark Coale
Odessa Steps Magazine
The Affirmation, Baby Blog
El Nastio
Andouille








Since: 14.1.02
From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 4 hours
ICQ:  
#66 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.35
I have no beef if same-sex couples get government benefits. If hetero-commonlaw couples get benefits, same-sex couple should as well. All I wanted to say was that I find it ironic that people don't like it when religous people push their beliefs on others, yet in matters such as this other groups are just as pushy in voicing/forcing their opinions. There are school boards, teachers, and religous groups/organizations who are being forced to conform to other's ideals and beliefs even though they apparently are supposed to be "protected" (mind you this is in Canada). And apparently I'm a bigot for having no issue with homosexuals (or homosexual couples getting government benefits), but for having an issue about believing in something as archaic and "demeaning" as marriage being defined as one man and one woman.

Is it a matter of a word? Perhaps. If they call it a "civil union" that'd be fine. So many problems (such as Prop 8) could be avoided if the government simply regonized them as a union, rather than a marriage.

Of course, the EASIEST thing in this case is to do what Lise's post suggests, or what other peopel suggest and grant them government benefits but call it something else. And getting the government out of the marriage game altogether.

EDIT: I also wanted to add, once again, I hold no ill-will towards homosexuals. I have a couple of gay friends, and we get along just fine and dandy. I may not agree with their life style choice(s), but it doesn't stop me from respecting them as people or as my friends. And several other people who profess to believe in the "traditional" definition of marriage hold no ill-will towards them either. It's not a matter of holding peopel back or a "glass ceiling", it's matter of protecting our beliefs.

(edited by El Nastio on 5.11.08 2226)


You know, I really don't know what to put here. Close your eyes and thank of something funny!
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 108 days
Last activity: 108 days
#67 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.14
    Originally posted by El Nastio
    I have no beef if same-sex couples get government benefits. If hetero-commonlaw couples get benefits, same-sex couple should as well. All I wanted to say was that I find it ironic that people don't like it when religous people push their beliefs on others, yet in matters such as this other groups are just as pushy in voicing/forcing their opinions. There are school boards, teachers, and religous groups/organizations who are being forced to conform to other's ideals and beliefs even though they apparently are supposed to be "protected" (mind you this is in Canada). And apparently I'm a bigot for having no issue with homosexuals (or homosexual couples getting government benefits), but for having an issue about believing in something as archaic and "demeaning" as marriage being defined as one man and one woman.


How are "school boards, teachers, and religous groups/organizations" being "forced to conform to other's ideals and beliefs" by allowing gays to get married? Are they being forced to turn gay and get married themselves?
El Nastio
Andouille








Since: 14.1.02
From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 4 hours
ICQ:  
#68 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.35
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      How are "school boards, teachers, and religous groups/organizations" being "forced to conform to other's ideals and beliefs" by allowing gays to get married? Are they being forced to turn gay and get married themselves?



    A Knights of Columbus Council in British Columbia was taken before a Human Rights Tribunal because after finding out a same-sex couple rented one of their halls, they cancelled their booking. Although it could have been handed better by the KoC, there shouldn't have been taken to a Human Rights tribunal over it as they should have been protected. That's not counting Catholic Insight's Tribunal troubles. There's some other cases floating about as well.

    Regardless, what was mentuioned before makes the most sense; the government could have easily foudn a way around this and chose not too.

    (edited by El Nastio on 5.11.08 2305)
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
#69 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.81
    Originally posted by El Nastio
    And apparently I'm a bigot for having no issue with homosexuals (or homosexual couples getting government benefits), but for having an issue about believing in something as archaic and "demeaning" as marriage being defined as one man and one woman.

    I may not agree with their life style choice(s), but it doesn't stop me from respecting them as people or as my friends.


Proclaiming to have no issue with homosexuals in one sentence while not "agreeing with their lifestyle choice(s)" in another sentence really undermines your argument.

I, too, have friends who happen to be homosexual - and this was a VERY difficult day for them. Frankly, it's absurd to hear these traditionalists notions of marriage in a country that has a 40-50% divorce rate (it's about the same for Canada, BTW).

I don't know what else to tell you. You'll fight for what you believe, and I'll fight for what I believe, and we'll see what happens. This is far from over, however - and I like my side's long term chances.




NonDescript
Tue @ 9a PDT

NonDescript Podcast

Homepage
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 108 days
Last activity: 108 days
#70 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.14
    Originally posted by El Nastio
    A Knights of Columbus Council in British Columbia was taken before a Human Rights Tribunal because after finding out a same-sex couple rented one of their halls, they cancelled their booking. Although it could have been handed better by the KoC, there shouldn't have been taken to a Human Rights tribunal over it as they should have been protected. That's not counting Catholic Insight's Tribunal troubles. There's some other cases floating about as well.

    Regardless, what was mentuioned before makes the most sense; the government could have easily foudn a way around this and chose not too.



Well I don't think private people or organizations should be forced to accommodate anyone if they don't want to, but that's also not what allowing gays to get married does. That is an entirely separate issue. You can deny gays marriage and still have this problem. Conversely, you can allow gays to marry without forcing the private sector to accommodate them. Bills like the one in California strictly say that the government does/does not have to recognize same-sex marriages in the same way it recognizes opposite-sex ones.

I don't know what you mean by "protected" though. Being a Catholic organization shouldn't grant them any rights or privileges any other group doesn't have, and it shouldn't exempt them from any laws or taxes (to churches in Canada get tax exemptions?).

(edited by TheBucsFan on 6.11.08 1121)
Nag
Landjager








Since: 10.1.03
From: Enter your city here

Since last post: 2213 days
Last activity: 268 days
Y!:
#71 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.68
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
      Originally posted by Nag
      Well the people have spoken, if its socialism you want, you got it America.

      And when the inevitable mass shooting occurs and the Obama and the dems decide to infringe on my constitutional rights, I'll speak to.

      ex cineribus resurgam!


    I would like to think that wherever he is, Dr. King would be smiling today. Unfortunately, since there are still "people" who believe the nonsense quoted above, it would be short-lived with the realization that much work still needed to be done.


Now do I dehumanize you based on your opinions, which I obviously disagree with. If you find me to be the original sinner based on my belief in the literal interpretation of the U.S. constitution or my right to speak out against whom I believe to be nothing more than a false prophet with a subversive far left agenda that threatens the culture, freedoms and sovereignty of this once great nation, guilty as charged.

Be aware StingArmy, I am not alone. Though, I don't find Obama all bad, I must admit. Despite the ulcer burning a hole in my stomach from worry, I feel seventeen again. The rebellious passions and wild imagination of my youth once drowned by the increasing pressures of maturity and conformity are returning. I'm fringe now. From these dark days, a new way will prevail, and while you will certainly, in a most sarcastic manner, ridicule me for my fanatical zeal, I'll exert whatever energy and talents I have to the efforts of true patriots like Dr Ron Paul and local candidates with similar leanings.

DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 20 hours
#72 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.74
Just a thought for all to ponder and I wish I could remember the exact quote but the heart of it says, "This country was founded and exists to protect the beliefs and rights of the majority."

Nag, how are your views fringe. Non-mainstream views are just that but throughout our history, over time, all or parts of "fringe" views become mainstream.

I also find the discussion of same-sex marriage fascinating as this has been discussed here before by many "old" members of this board saying very similar things.



Perception is reality
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 54 days
Last activity: 27 days
#73 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.60
    Originally posted by Nag
    Be aware StingArmy, I am not alone. Though, I don't find Obama all bad, I must admit. Despite the ulcer burning a hole in my stomach from worry, I feel seventeen again. The rebellious passions and wild imagination of my youth once drowned by the increasing pressures of maturity and conformity are returning. I'm fringe now. From these dark days, a new way will prevail, and while you will certainly, in a most sarcastic manner, ridicule me for my fanatical zeal, I'll exert whatever energy and talents I have to the efforts of true patriots like Dr Ron Paul and local candidates with similar leanings.

Oh I am all too well aware that, sadly, there is more than one of you.

What I find fortunate, however, and what I pointed out in my original post directed towards you, is that there are not now, nor do I think there ever will be again, enough people like you in this country so that viewpoints such as the ones you espouse have a chance to become policy in this great nation.

I suppose you should be applauded for your zeal and your (presumably) genuine concern for our nation's well-being. I'll leave the applauding to someone else though and exert MY energy and talents supporting my President.

- StingArmy
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 370 days
Last activity: 364 days
#74 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.02
(deleted by CRZ on 5.11.08 2328)
Hogan's My Dad
Andouille








Since: 8.6.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 9 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
#75 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.77
    Originally posted by El Nastio
    Is it a matter of a word? Perhaps. If they call it a "civil union" that'd be fine. So many problems (such as Prop 8) could be avoided if the government simply regonized them as a union, rather than a marriage.


That's entirely the point, though. The people that are fighting for gay marriage don't want to have to call it a union. To them, it's a marriage. They want to be able to call it that. There is no "separate but equal", as history has shown.

I personally believe that a marriage is at least as much, if not more, a social construct as it is a particularly religious one---after all, religion itself is a corollary of society, made possible by society, existing to meet and suit the needs of society, not the other way around---and so as social needs or views change, so too must social conventions. Nothing that has happened in Canada, no ruling, has infringed on the right of any religion to cling to whatever views it has, no matter who those views exclude or how unfair the exclusion. There is no need to worry, to my mind, that any Catholic parish (to use just one example of one religion) could be forced to marry two men when there is no historical precedent of the church being forced to make far less controversial concessions; to marry a Catholic to a Jew or a Protestant, for example, or to allow a woman to become a Priest. The concern is alarmist at best.

And also, I wonder if you realize how arrogant it sounds when you say you have no issues with gays but they shouldn't be allowed to get married. It says to them, whether you mean it this way or not, "You are nine tenths the human being I am, entitled to nine tenths the things that I am, but you can't have this." If someone was saying that to me, I'd be pretty upset about it. As it stands, this issue doesn't effect me personally, but I sure am glad the Canadian government pushed it through without putting it to a vote. You don't put civil rights to a vote. If the Kennedys had done that years ago, last night wouldn't have happened.



Quiet, Or Papa Spank!
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 80 days
Last activity: 2 days
#76 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.85
    Originally posted by Hogan's My Dad

    That's entirely the point, though. The people that are fighting for gay marriage don't want to have to call it a union. To them, it's a marriage. They want to be able to call it that. There is no "separate but equal", as history has shown.



What if all such arrangements were referred to as "civil unions" as far as the government goes, whether they were made by two straight people or two gay people? Wouldn't that remove the issue of "separate but equal", as everyone would be treated the same?



The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
#77 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by ges7184
      Originally posted by Hogan's My Dad

      That's entirely the point, though. The people that are fighting for gay marriage don't want to have to call it a union. To them, it's a marriage. They want to be able to call it that. There is no "separate but equal", as history has shown.



    What if all such arrangements were referred to as "civil unions" as far as the government goes, whether they were made by two straight people or two gay people? Wouldn't that remove the issue of "separate but equal", as everyone would be treated the same?


If all marriages were called the same thing, they'd all be equal of course. I think the ruling from the California court earlier this year sums this all up well:

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/05/historic_califo_2.html

"Finally, in applying the strict scrutiny standard, the majority opinion determines the challenged statutes do not satisfy that standard, because the state interest underlying the marriage statutes' differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples - the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage - cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.

The opinion explains that the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary to protect all of the rights and benefits currently enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples: permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage inasmuch as same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that are currently imposed on married opposite-sex couples. The opinion further observes that retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples, and may perpetuate a more general premise that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects "second-class citizens" who may be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, the opinion finds that retaining the traditional definition of marriage cannot be considered a compelling state interest.

Consequently, the majority opinion holds that the marriage statutes are unconstitutional.

The opinion also explains: "[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
Joseph Ryder
Head cheese








Since: 19.3.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 1234 days
Last activity: 767 days
#78 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.15
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      Originally posted by Joseph Ryder
        Originally posted by redsoxnation
        I have no involvement in Prop 8 in California, but if you are putting the blame mainly on religious groups/conservatives, how do you explain this Proposition passing on the same ballot Obama beats McCain 61-37 and by 2.5 million votes. It would seem then that a fair sized segment of Obama voters would have supported this Proposition in order for it to pass.


      Obama's not an atheist, nor is everyone in CA who voted for him.


    This is exactly true.

    The other part of the answer is that the Mormon Church, which was all that was mentioned in the original post about Prop. 8, spent millions of dollars - from Utah, mind you - to promote this amendment in California. That is why the church was singled out. Without the Mormons coming from out of state to campaign in favor of it, this bill is slaughtered in the polling.

Yes. I grew up in NorCal and still communicate with many of my Mormon former classmates/teammates, and many of them now live in Utah (obviously), Washington, Oregon, Idaho, etc. And I have spent the last 3-4 months deleting spam from ALL OF THEM regarding voting yes on Prop 8. Facebook was a big tool. Everyone sporting that logo as their avatar, daily status updates about how much they're praying that this passes, invites to fasting parties in Utah, etc.

Now that leads me to another question perhaps someone can answer for me. With the separation of church and state and all that malarkey, what do/did you find to be the main *non-religious* reasoning behind this campaign? The best I could decipher from the materials I received was that if we allow gay marriage, we'll have to teach it in schools alongside traditional marriage and our 6-7 year olds will be subjected to this disgusting act unwittingly. Now, I haven't been in grade school since the late 80s, but I don't recall EVER learning one thing about "marriage," so I don't see where gay marriage is suddenly inserted into the curriculum. Am I alone? Did any of you get marriage lesson plans, or even discuss the issue remotely? Do your kids now? (I don't have any, as you might expect.)

And of course there's the ol' (and insulting) slippery slope meme about how we'll be allowing man-dog marriage next, but I didn't hear much of that this time around. At least not from the Mormons. Just 6 year olds and school.



I run
El Nastio
Andouille








Since: 14.1.02
From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 4 hours
ICQ:  
#79 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.40
    Originally posted by Leroy
    Proclaiming to have no issue with homosexuals in one sentence while not "agreeing with their lifestyle choice(s)" in another sentence really undermines your argument.


Not liking their life style doesn’t undercut things at all. It’s no different than a democrat may disagree with a republication’s beliefs, values, and overall policies, however still respecting them. Several people here obviously do not agree with my opinions, yet there is still a measure of respect. There are some people in history that had huge character flaws, which they are respected by others. There’s a lot of lifestyle choices they I don’t approve of, but that doesn’t stop me from respecting the fundamental fact that people deserve respect as a human being.

    Originally posted by Leroy
    I, too, have friends who happen to be homosexual - and this was a VERY difficult day for them. Frankly, it's absurd to hear these traditionalists notions of marriage in a country that has a 40-50% divorce rate (it's about the same for Canada, BTW).


Divorce rates are high. But how many of those divorces are from civil marriages? Marriages from people who lived together before they got married? Marriages with people practicing contraception? I’ve seen some studies on this before, although admittedly some of the studies were rather dated. It’d be interesting to see more recent results with breakdowns as to the cause and background of divorces and whether certain behavioral patterns led to an increased chance of divorce(s).

    Originally posted by Hogan’s My Dad
    And also, I wonder if you realize how arrogant it sounds when you say you have no issues with gays but they shouldn't be allowed to get married. It says to them, whether you mean it this way or not, "You are nine tenths the human being I am, entitled to nine tenths the things that I am, but you can't have this."


See above regarding the respect thing. In addition to above, I also feel compelled to mention that if looking at one of the requirements of Marriage that people need to be…..uh, we’ll say “biologically and anatomically compatible”, then they are missing one of the requirements (that is, of course, oen of the reasons you think it’s only a man and a woman).

    Originally posted by Joseph Ryder
    And of course there's the ol' (and insulting) slippery slope meme about how we'll be allowing man-dog marriage next, but I didn't hear much of that this time around. At least not from the Mormons. Just 6 year olds and school.


Click Here (canada.com)

I think the above link represents a valid concern regarding a slippery slope that some people have. Its two years old, but the concerns within are still valid.



The crux of the matter is that back when both countries were founded, they were founded with religious principals in mind. Those beliefs shaped much of the law and values at the time, which is why several laws and other items have somewhat of religious flavor (God Save the Queen, In God we trust, God keep our Land, glorious and free, misc. etc). At the time Marriage was something still very much a religious thing. Things have changed sense then. Society as a whole as stepped away from that and very much has become a “separation of Church and State” line of thinking. The issue here is that Marriage is still very much a religous thing, and unless they change the language and structure with how things work, I don't see how they can escape this.

Also, to gain insights as to why people are fighting this strongly about this. People don’t approve of the lifestyle of a same-ex couple. The government then says “it’s perfectly acceptable” and legalizes it. These people will take this as the government condoning that kind of behavior, and in turn making them feel threatened that they need to condone that behavior in turn. And although the government may make assurances, that doesn’t stop people from being worried. For example, here in Canada an MP made a private member’s build to have it so that when a pregnant woman gets assaulted, the criminal can be charged for an injury/death to the baby inside. Despite REPEATED assurances that this would not affect the current status of abortion in Canada, people were still concerned that it would lead to abortion being made illegal.

EDIT; Layout stuff fixed. Well, sorta fixed. I'm lazy and will leave "well enough" alone.

(edited by El Nastio on 6.11.08 1247)

(edited by CRZ on 6.11.08 1445)

You know, I really don't know what to put here. Close your eyes and thank of something funny!
Lise
Mrs. Guru








Since: 11.12.01

Since last post: 455 days
Last activity: 10 days
#80 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.77
I think the non-religious argument (I could be wrong) is that in allowing same-sex marriage it somehow demeans or lessens marriage between a woman and a man. Honestly I don't know how gay people can screw up marriage more than straight people already have.

I ended up watching this show about a politician from Minesota who otherwise being very liberal had voted on a bill defining marriage as between one woman and one man, was being told by an aide why his gay consituients were so mad at him. "You're basically saying that a loving same sex couple that's been together for twenty years means less than 'The Bachelor'."

/edit Ok, let's not try and equalize a legal relationship between two people to a legal relationship between three or more people (polygamy). And especially to bring in the break away Mormon polygamist sects. The reason those groups are in trouble with the law is not because they practice polygamy it is because they are marrying underage girls often with no input from the girl (sometimes from the groom either). Some of these groups are very far removed from society to the point where they claimed that they did not know it was not legal for a fourteen year old girl to be married!

Even if you are talking about three mutually consenting adults wishing to join in a legally binding relationship, there are not currently rules in place to deal with this (are all parties equally fiscally responsible for the others? Do all parties get equal rights over children reguardless of blood ties? etc..) There are laws and rules in place to deal with the legal union of two parties.

Please do not compare apples to oranges.

(edited by Lise on 6.11.08 1013)
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Thread rated: 4.84
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Thread ahead: Obama win triggers new racist incidents
Next thread: Bone marrow transplant cures AIDS!
Previous thread: Blame Sarah Palin?
(290 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
William Safire, who died yesterday, is probably best known for being a NYT columnist, but he was also a speechwriter in the Nixon White House. And I guess this could have been the most famous speech he wrote that no one ever heard... until now.
The W - Current Events & Politics - All major networks declare Barack Obama president-elect (Page 4)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.224 seconds.