Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on September 04, 2001, 07:58:00 AM
-
(http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20010903/capt.999544604florida_governor_mh101.jpg)
Surprised that Waco, and Gonzolas isn't still fresh in the minds of many..I'm sure it will be at election time.
-
If the dumocrats choose her, she'll get the african american vote, gay and some senior citizens but I don't think any candidate the dems choose will defeat Jeb.
But she did do such a fine job as AG ... LOL
-
If I lived in Florida (thank god I don't) I'd vote for her.
-
I still say she looks like Bill Gates older brother in drag
-
is that janet reno?!
hehe - what would we call it's significant other if it got elected?: the first "lady"? or maybe ..."the first alternately oriented womyn" (i forgot the pc way to spell woman)
would there be a lot of helen dengenerous reruns mandated by the state? actually it might not be a bad thing as she would probably feel more comfortable with the capital here in san francisco somewhere south of castro street and that might spur our economy. :eek:
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
If the dumocrats choose her, she'll get the african american vote, gay and some senior citizens but I don't think any candidate the dems choose will defeat Jeb.
But she did do such a fine job as AG ... LOL
Don't forget the women. They'll vote for her. She's pro choice.
Hell, I'd vote for her. I was happier with her as AG than I am with that nutcase, Ashcroft.
-
If it was Will Farrel dressed up as her, I'd vote for him. Does that count?
Seriously tho', none of the idiots intending to vote for her will be able to figure out how to use the new ballots. ;)
SOB
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM:
Hell, I'd vote for her. I was happier with her as AG than I am with that nutcase, Ashcroft.
Well, we expected to get one vote for her, just didn't expect it to be you... ;)
-
Well, she isn't Jeb Bush. That's a good strong point in her favor.
-
Point for me as well! I'm not Jeb Bush either. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM:
Don't forget the women. They'll vote for her. She's pro choice.
Hell, I'd vote for her. I was happier with her as AG than I am with that nutcase, Ashcroft.
Figures..
Last time I checked, FL was a pro choice state - see the abortion clinics er women's clinics everywhere - non issue.
Ashcroft is still trying to clean house over at the FBI. If she wins, Condit will too :)
It's not about the issues anymore, it's about the marketing & advertising budgets/strategies...the general public is too ignorant to remember past the last 30 second commercial. With so much Clinton baggage, the dems cringed when she decided to run as there isn't anyway they can't give her the dem nomination.
I can hear the Elian chants now :)
-
Wow, I can't believe she is running for office. But then I can't believe that Hillary ran for office. I guess the dumbest vote the mostest...
-
Hihihi.
Republicans are funny.
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Hihihi.
Republicans are funny.
This is quote to remember StSanta. Made my day!
funkedup, both the right AND the left use ignorance as their primary method of getting votes and support. The left has suburban hippies and just plain idiots who tend to be more liberal. The right has the religous right, industrialists, and just plain idiots that tend to be more conservative.
People are more intelligent than you give them credit for. The fact that most of the country is liberal doesn't mean that most of the country is stupid. It means that most of the country knows what's up. The right is not an intelligent minority; rather, it is an outdated minority.
People are smart. A person is stupid. That's how I see it.
-
Quote:
"The fact that most of the country is liberal doesn't mean that most of the country is stupid. It means that most of the country knows what's up. The right is not an intelligent minority; rather, it is an outdated minority."
Oh really? And how do you arrive at the conclusion that the "country is more Liberal"??? As for "outdated minority", you might want to consider that the Liberal/Left, despite some very creative whining and complaining, hasn't had an original idea since the 1930's.
I know the Liberal Left always likes to think of itself as "enlightened", "progressive", and the "intelligent, cutting-edge" of Society. This sort of arrogance is the source of much humor and entertainmnet for the rest of us.
Cabby
-
Hmmm... Limbaugh says as much. Often.
-
It should read:
"Right is outdated"
-
Now here's a reason to vote for her .. LOL:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010906/el/reno_speaks_4.html (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010906/el/reno_speaks_4.html)
"Reno said she is running for governor because she has always told people not to sit on the sidelines. She said the state's adoption system is ``going to need to be fixed,'' but she didn't specifically address homosexual adoptions."
Yep Sally has two daddies....or maybe little Tommy does... another example of the spiraling decay of the moral fabric this country was founded on.
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
Yep Sally has two daddies....or maybe little Tommy does... another example of the spiraling decay of the moral fabric this country was founded on.
Oh, brother! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by SOB:
Oh, brother! :rolleyes:
SOB
does that mean you'd be for gay couples adopting children? I don't have anything against them as a couple but don't think it's heathly for kids to be raised in such an enviroment...I mean if naturally they couldn't produce one under normal circumstances, maybe there is a reason..
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
SOB
does that mean you'd be for gay couples adopting children? I don't have anything against them as a couple but don't think it's heathly for kids to be raised in such an enviroment...I mean if naturally they couldn't produce one under normal circumstances, maybe there is a reason..
Why unhealthy? So long as they provide a stable and loving environment for the kids it should be fine. There are lots of "straight" couples who certainly should NOT be raising children, thouugh they have every right to. Seems to me you have to look at the specifics - are the needs of the child being met? If they are, get the hell out of the parent's bedroom.
The assumption that children will automatically be harmed because the adults nurturing them are homosexual is absurd.
- Yoj
-
Okay, Yoj. This is not an lab experiment, isolated from all outside influences.
You might have the best two parents ever in the history of the world, it is still a fact their adopted kid is going to get its bellybutton kicked pretty much every single day of its childhood.
Of course, that's nothing compared to the parents right to adopt, right? The child must be sacrificed to destroy stereotypes! :rolleyes:
-
I have a constitutional right not to incriminate myself. On these grounds I elect to say nothing.
Yeager
-
Originally posted by Fatty:
Okay, Yoj. This is not an lab experiment, isolated from all outside influences.
You might have the best two parents ever in the history of the world, it is still a fact their adopted kid is going to get its bellybutton kicked pretty much every single day of its childhood.
Of course, that's nothing compared to the parents right to adopt, right? The child must be sacrificed to destroy stereotypes! :rolleyes:
You say that as though its a fact. However, such adoptions have already been made and the kids are not "getting their butts kicked at school every day". Do you say that because its what you would have done? I assume not - so why assume others would? When there is EVIDENCE that kids get hurt you'll have an argument.
- Yoj
-
Oops - sorry for the misquote.
-
The simple fact there is such resistance to it should be a fairly obvious indicator. Throw in the normal increase taunting etc normal in schoolyards and that is magnified.
In principle, I actually would agree, but in practice this is something very different than an adult coming out of the closet and getting married, or becoming life partners where that is not possible. This is taking a child and forcing them to bear the backlash from their decision, whether that backlash is justified or not.
Of course in communities where alternative lifestyles are commonplace and accepted it's going to be fairly easy, but at this point and time those are the exception rather than the rule.
-
Naa, I don't have any problem with a gay couple being able to adopt a child. If they're willing to love, care and provide for the child I don't see any reason they wouldn't have the same chance of raising a perfectly well adjusted child or a complete idiot. And I don't see what "naturally" has to do with it...there are plenty of heterosexual couple who can't "naturally" have a child.
The kid may get some extra toejam at school because his/her family is different, but then any kid who has anything different about them at school will get toejam.
That's just my opinion of the whole deal tho'. It was your comment about the decay of our society's moral fiber in relation to accepting gay couples as a norm in society that got me. At least that's what I percieved your statement to mean at the time.
SOB