Search results

^What is it at now? Like seven and a half trillion? ...what comes after 'trillion'?

^Hey, they reelected Nixon in 68, so there's some precedent for this...

^That's not accurate, but it was up around 1.30 a while ago, I think. So yes, it has risen.

^True enough... but could the people voting on it please READ it this time before they approve it? I mean, I don't think that's too much to ask... they should at least know what they're about to do to the country.

49, I believe.

There was no conceivable (sensible) electoral system under which Kerry could have won that election. There is no point in complaining about the election itself (well, in this case that is; overall the system could stand a fair bit of improvement). So don't whine about how it turned out. If you...

Sober BigJ is apparently less aggressive and more willing to admit his earlier oafishness... we'll call this a study on the effects of alcohol on the Carolinian.

It's pretty ridiculous that this is being treated like Red Sox / Yankees. It's not a sport, your 'team' did not win, so quit making intentionally polarizing statements, or the next four years will be more saturated with bitching than the last eight months. The extremism isn't helping anybody...

^Not to play devil's advocate... well actually, that's exactly what I'm doing... anyways, the point is, they could just as easily say it's more like saying 'I don't think people in California should be able to torture children, even though I live in NYC and it doesn't affect me', then voting on it.

Hahaha, yes, I just suddenly became aware of the most important presidential election in recent memory on the eve of polling, and developed a position on the spur of the moment, just to show up and annoy you. Sorry I wasn't in for the 'long haul', but that doesn't change the fact that you're...

Hey, morals are a different story. I might not agree, but whatever. The point was that it's rather ignorant to call homosexuality unnatural when there's no consistent way to support that claim. If you'd rather say it's morally wrong... well, use the search feature. I did, it worked out nicely.

Oh. I thought this was a public forum. I didn't realize I had 'no place to be arguing here'. It's really humorous that you're treating this like a sports victory... it's politics. Just because your side won doesn't make you more right than you were before the election. And rather than impressing...

I urge you to reread that list... because what you're suggesting implies that it would be unnatural for two people who are sterile to be attracted to each other. Science only goes so far, as all the anti-evolutionists here will no doubt tell you.

Wow, you're clearly the type of person to represent this government. You're doing a fine job. No wonder people around the world respect Republican America.

^Hate to disagree here, but it isn't 'Guilty until proven innocent'...

^There's a reason: There is almost no conceivable way he could win. Damn the elctoral college. Damn it to hell. Not that proportional is better; it's worse, but MMP would be an improvement.

Gloating, huh.... way to unite the people under their finally-elected leader. You're a paragon of American values...

Been through what now? That thing I posted sounded pretty logical to me. There's no way anyone can make the claim that it's unnatural without A) Being God or B) Being flat out wrong... that seems pretty evident.

^Clearly you don't, if you're defining it arbitrarily as unnatural. I used the search bar earlier when there was a long thread ont his and things have already been posted that answer pretty much every argument anyone has made here. For example. J.D._May 6766 posts Addict 2004-06-22 23:51:45...

Most networks are saying that. Of course, fox probably called Ohio for Bush a week ago, but whatever.