Early returns look good for Ron Sims, and I-912 isn’t drawing quite what it probably needs in Eastern WA. So I’m feeling good right now. Have at it.
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Why isn’t King County’s site updating?!?
ARGH! Stuck at 14% for a half an hour…
http://www.metrokc.gov/electio.....sPage2.htm
Well, by 11 we’ll know if David Goldstein is in the Sims kitchen cabinet… or if Gentry Lange is running King County Elections and I am the Superintendent.
If Commissar Sims wins, he ought to take a bite of horse poop. Drink liberally. David Goldstein won this for Ron Sims, pure and simple. Not Dean Logan (unless it’s less than a two percent spread).
If David Irons wins, well then that was $50 well spent.
Now that the election is over, handle-shrink time for http://www.honestelectionsproject.com boy.
http://www.metrokc.gov/electio.....hedule.htm
King County will update again at 9 p.m. with the first batch of returns from the polls. So far the only postings have been from absentees, which tend to trend conservative. They’re going 62% no on 912, which may go even higher when the results come back from the polls.
912 is losing right now by a razor-thin margin before King County has come back with the majority of its polling data…it may well fail. It’s going to come down to how big the margin against it is in King County.
Bring on your sour grapes, wingnuts!
Looks like Rethugs are getting crushed throughout the Galaxy, and possibly as far as the most distant known quasar!! “‘There’s no way to spin this than anything other than a major defeat for Republicans and for President Bush,’ said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato.” (From an Associated Press story.)
Can you say “blowback?” :D :D :D
@5
If I-912 can’t win in the hinterlands before King County reports, it’s done.
@2
Keep deluding yourself, Josef! You guys didn’t have a marketable product. Sims would have won even if he didn’t campaign and Goldy had never been born.
912’s still barely losing, and the counties that haven’t reported aren’t going to have the margin of votes to make up for King County. I think it may well lose. Amazing…
Roger: “Sims would have won even if he didn’t campaign and Goldy had never been born.”
I don’t think you can understate the impact of Goldy’s stories on Irons, for good or bad, on the results (thus far)…..
Please, Ron Sims is evil.
I will fight, fight and did I say FIGHT for honest elections!
Dean Logan must go.
Comment by Jon— 11/8/05 @ 9:28 pm
Well said. I think the Lange people raced to Sims because of Horsesass.org.
Mark @ 1: It’s 9:30, and KC still hasn’t updated…..
“‘There’s no way to spin this than anything other than a major defeat for Republicans and for President Bush,’ said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato.”
How on earth did someone extract a quote from Sabato? He’s usually so shy around reporters. /sarcasm
(This from someone who regularly assigns Sabato’s books to my classes – good scholar, but damn he’s a microphone chaser)
30 minutes overdue! Stop trying to fix the count, and just post the results. ;)
Josef…you stink. Have your mommy change your diaper.
I stand corrected. They just updated.
BTW anyone heard about Texas’ Prop 2, to ban gay marriage? Just wondering…
@ 18- The prop in Texas passed, easily.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174993,00.html
First posting by King County and 912’s down by 11,000 votes. They probably aren’t going to make that up in the rest of the state. I think it’s going down…
Republicans across the nation are burning their papers and buying plane tickets to Paraguay!!! HAR HAR HAR :D :D :D
And maybe a lawyer could comment on the wording of the legislation?
H.J.R. No. 6
A JOINT RESOLUTION proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
What does “identical or similar to marriage” mean? Are all marriages in Texas now illegal? Are they going to need to parse the meaning of the word “recognize”?
Just wondering.
ALERT!!! ALERT!!! ALERT!!!!!
CLOWNstein is a Poll Watcher.
Unfortunately and predictably, CLOWNstein’s idea of PollWatching is to go into the Men’s Room and peak at the guy peeing in the urinal next to him!!
Jon,
I feel like a broken record saying this, but having heard Irons speak, he seems to be talking to a fairly narrow constituency (rural/exurban, conservative). He had an hour near my house to explain himself. He could have talked about transit, budgets, water quality, or any one of a number of subjects that mattered. Here’s what he did talk about:
1. Make dry jokes about election fraud (this goes over really well in front of a South Seattle audience. Does he put out a pork barbeque feast for the Jewish/Muslim Interfaith dinner as well?)
2. Go on and on about the CAO. Maybe the CAO is good law, maybe it ain’t. I’m an urban property owner, not a rural one. I just don’t care.
3. Say that Sims was doing a bad job at building infrastructure in Skyway and White Center to prepare them for annexation, without any explanation of what was done wrong or how it would be done better.
Ignoring Goldy’s posts about Irons, just from hearing him speak, I’d say this. If I was a rural property owner, and had a fairly conservative outlook on the role of government, Irons would be my guy. King County is urban and moderate to liberal, and Irons had nothing to say that would close the deal with anyone who considers government services to be something useful.
With that as your base, you just can’t win enough votes, no matter how bad your opponent is.
This is GLORIOUS! Mr. Irrelevant is more and more irrelevant, the rest of the TROLLS are bending over backwards to pick – Something – Anything out of their butts to cover the collapse of their party.
CLUE PHONE: It for the TROLLS.
Clue Phone: Get rid of the fascist Neo-Cons, then call me back for more advice.
TROLLS: Its… the Moon! It is … uh Waxing!!!! that’s the problem!!!
Clue Phone: Uh… never call me again. You will remain clueless.
Dr. E @ 22
You need to read your BIBLE. Or at least interpret it in the context of the Texas constitutional amendment.
If you start with the assumption that GOD created and recognized marriage as being the union of one man and one woman, you can understand what Article I, Section 32(b) means. TEXAS doesn’t need to create and recognize something that GOD has already established.
Roger @ 6: Is that the same Sabato that said in 2004:
“Democratic nominee John Kerry easily would beat Republican President George W. Bush if the presidential election was held now, political analyst Larry Sabato told members of the Business Council of Alabama Saturday.
“Kerry would win very handily,” said Sabato, 52, a frequent guest of network television news shows and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.
Sabato, speaking at the BCA’s governmental affairs conference at the Grand Hotel Marriott Resort here, said the growing unpopularity of the Iraq war is the biggest factor hurting Bush’s re-election chances.
“He really will need a miracle to win, and the last miracle was for Harry S. Truman,” Sabato said in an interview after his speech. Truman pulled his upset presidential victory in 1948.”
Hmmmm…….
RP @ 25 Zeus already established that any union of loving faithful consenting adults is a groovy thing.
You GOD vs. My God.
Let’s keep them both out of it, OK?
Irons better not take it out on his mother!
Ouch Daniel K @ 28 That was uncalled for!
NAW… it really was! :)
Donna @ 27
I am mainly trying to provide the context to explain why the Texas constitutional amendment is written the way it it. Without this context, someone would think that (1) Section 32(a) limits marriage in Texas to one man and one woman and (2) Section 32(b) prohibits Texas from recognizing any type of marriage, even if it is between one man and one woman.
@11
So will I. Diebold must go.
@26
Sabato failed to factor Diebold into the 2004 election.
Jeff Sax is getting his ass kicked for re-election to the Snohomish County Council. 51% for Somers and 40% for Sax.
Irons concedes!!!
RP, not to split hairs, but if the Texas amendment does not mention the BIBLE or GOD, then your point is moot.
And I swear to GOD the next person who mentions GOD will be slapped down by the almighty ZUES!***
Donnageddon
**** pick your favorite mythological creature.
It is still very early in the returns but I am celebrating the nice lead Rom Sims has over the mother beater.
Character does count.
Ok, so he isn’t conceding. As he said, the night is young yet for him to do so.
Don’t expect a graceful concession speech from the mother beater! He’ll probably say Logan stole the election for Sims.
Well he did say that King County elections are probably searching for votes in his explanation of why it was too early to call.
Donna @ 35
I am just trying to explain why the folks in Texas who wrote it would have chosen the wording that they did. I will give up on this. I wasn’t trying to advocate a religious point of view, but merely to explain why the proponents’ religious point of view would have made the language in Section 32(b) seem sensible.
And ZUES? I am afraid of ZUES! Almost as much as I am afraid of DOG!
Sadly, it looks like I-912 will end up failing by about 4 points. But I believe the passage of I-900 means that voters want more accountability. WSDOT and the Legislature will be under the microscope to back up all the anti-912 rhetoric.
Equally sadly, Sims will beat Irons by about 6 points. It should send Sims a message in highly Democratic KingCo that a whole lot of Dems are not happy with Sims performance. Sims is too ignorant to understand that message however.
Frankly, I believe Bush’s poor performance ratings really have hurt candidates like Irons…..badly. I have friends that simply REFUSE to vote for any Republican because of Bush that used to be a lot more open-minded when it came to local races & Governor.
A Democratic Pal of mine told me 5 years ago that Bush would get elected twice and then set the Republican Party back 20 years. I laughed at him then…I ain’t laughing now.
Congrats to David Irons on a heroic effort…no matter how it turns out.
YEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSS!
WHAT A NIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!
RP… an honest plain question. Are you an Athiest?
RP… am searching for an honest Pol that will cop to their Zeus and DOG. and All mythology.
They get my vote hands down. Just for being rational.
Donna … Athiest? Is that someone who doesn’t believe in Zues or any other Dogs?
Mr. Cynical – Thanks. I really appreciated the chance to read a comment of yours without CAPS and wanting to wretch.
It doesn’t look good for I-912 passing with so many votes yet to be tallied in King County and the count at 52-48 against already. This is looking like a better than hoped result. What happened to that 15% winning margin some trolls here were predicting?
44 above “Dis Belief” was lost in the translation. or filter.
@41
“I have friends that simply REFUSE to vote for any Republican”
Real friends don’t let friends vote Republican! :D
You think that an Athiest is a ratoinal person?
Richard, I mean a candidate who can say that the popular, and unpolular descriptions of “An ultimate power” is false, and that any unfalsifiable account of such a being is suspect.
Richard, I think that an Atheist is a person who requires convincing proof rahter than folklore to believe in the miraculous.
KING 5 TV surveys show Irons lost big among women. Looks like women voters dislike mother beaters! Can’t imagine why.
Roger: “KING 5 TV surveys show Irons lost big among women. Looks like women voters dislike mother beaters! Can’t imagine why.”
So, are you going to give Goldy his due or what?
Stuckonstupiddon: WTF? Zeus. That’s not God’s name. Are you now delusional?
This nation would be a mighty scary place (scarier?) if it weren’t for women’s votes.
Donnageddon—
Faith is a watershed…..it is a point so sharp that you cannot stand on it. You fall either one way or another. I know there is a definition for an agnostic. But I believe an agnostic falls off the point on the same side as an Atheist.
How can you have Creation with a Creator???
I came to the conclusion that you cannot.
We all make our own choices when it comes to that decision of FAITH. What is a myth to some is the TRUTH to others.
I have acquaintences who are hardcore Atheists. Something is missing from each of their lives. I don’t pound on them to believe as I do. But I can pray for them.
@53 “So, are you going to give Goldy his due or what?”
Goldy gets the female vote?
Goldy consider your due given!
I did Stuckonstupiddon. God knows you hate Him and His Son Jesus! You have stated it sooooooo many times!
DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL; SAX DEFEATED
Our friends north of Seattle think erratic GOP candidate Jeff Sax sucks; he’s losing by 11 points. Democrats appear to have won a 1-vote majority on the county council.
David Irons would not take the LDT. I can only speculate. My wife asked why didn’t he clear his name. I told her I didn’t understand it either. I told John Carlson he needed to do it.
Unfortunate because now we have to read the likes of stuckonstupiddon gloating. So give credit where credit is due. Goldy did a Yoda job on the mother-beating story. I will give you the credit and it’s not begrugingly. In politics you go for the jugular and if the opponent can’t deal, then they are flamed.
I always love how Christians define Faith as a dualism. Either you don’t have it and your an atheist, or you do and your a Christian. I would reckon that a good deal of Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc would take exception to that. The problem with faith is that there is no way to test it. No way to determine if it is well founded or not.
That being said I don’t give a rats ass about the religious views of elected officials. If they support the things I support I could care less if they do so because of Jesus, or some other imaginary friend.
@ 60
Virtue isn’t virtue until it’s tested – Frank Pembleton
PuddyBud @ 55 lied “God knows you hate Him and His Son Jesus! You have stated it sooooooo many times!”
Provide evidence for *one* time I stated that.
If you can’t then apologize to all for lying like a satanist.
@ 58 above. For the liar PuddyBud.
Sin-is-cool said:
“How can you have Creation with a Creator???
I came to the conclusion that you cannot.”
I wouldn’t have thought Cynical could actually come to such a logical conclusion.
Mr. Irrelevant “How can you have Creation with a Creator???
I came to the conclusion that you cannot.”
I am not saying that you can. (although maybe you can). But there is NOTHING convincing about any of the worlds religions regarding creation.
Mythology! Read the BIBLE. I encourage everyone to do that. And the Koran. And the sacred Hindu, Buddhist writings.
Fiction!
We have to deal with our own reality, and we are respnsible for our own survival.
No one is going to save us from our irrational hatred but ourselves.
Sleep on that.
Every time stuckonstupiddon you say you are an athiest you claim not to accept Jesus as the Son of God and accept God as our Creator. Now run along to be because God is not happy with you!
Donna @ 65
You can’t prove that ANYTHING other than your own sense of self exists. This whole thing could just be a figment of your imagination.
My God doesn’t have sex with shepard women. Nothing but supermodels for him.
Seems like God, assuming he exists despite Cynical’s proof to the contrary (did nobody pick up what he actually typed??) is Very Unhappy with rethuglicans this Tuesday. Ha ha ha ha ha!
Puddybud, you talk directly with your God? Amazing. Does he hand out stock tips or anything useful, or is it just hateful bile like you spew?
In response to PuddyBud I will post his comment in total @ 66
“Every time stuckonstupiddon you say you are an athiest you claim not to accept Jesus as the Son of God and accept God as our Creator. Now run along to be because God is not happy with you!”
Nuff Said!
MArk @ 67 Could be, but I *hope* there is a more deep mystery.
But don’t provide me the answer. I WONT believe you.
Trust me.
Giffy @ 68
Well, since (the Christian) God doesn’t either, I presume you’re talking about the insatiable lust of Donna’s pretend god “Zues.”
Notice we haven’t heard from Mark the Redneck, who said I-912 would win by 15 points.
Hey Mark, eat shit, you loser.
Donna @ 71
As I said, there are only two things one can logically prove. First, that the person doing the pondering “exists” in some form — even if that is only in spirit. Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am).
The second, and only other, thing that can be proven by logic is that God or some other higher power exists. If He does (or did) not, how could the person doing the pondering even have a concept of God?
There is NOTHING else you can prove with science. Everything else is taken on faith — be it through Christian faith or otherwise.
Mark @ 72 “Donna’s pretend god “Zues.—
Religious zealot!!!! By the completely real power of Zues I proclaim religious war on your ass!!!
Duck the lightening bolts!
All hail Zues!
Ummm… anyone care to talk about the elections?
Sorry to interrupt this God-talk, folks, but the AP just called no on 330. WOOHOOO!!!!!
Mark @ 74, I accept your concept. But what is the nature of “the Creator”?
And who created the “Creator”?
If you can rationally answer that, I will publically nominate you for the Nobel Prize in Physics!
But you will also have to answer who created the creator of the creator… ad infidumn
912 losing by over 5% point. So KVI wasted all that air time and lost tons of listeners for nothing. That’s got to hurt.
http://vote.wa.gov/election/20.....sures.aspx
And Ivan, since 912 is losing by 5%, and Mark the yellowback predicted 15%, he is just hitting the normal GOP error rate of 20%. At least he was smart enough to commit perjury.
QED We need to carefully protect the only humans we KNOW exist.
Or Not.
It is our choice.
Mark @74 It is always nice to see Anselm brought up in conversation, but have you ever actually read the ‘Monologion’ and ‘Proslogion’?
The problem with Anselm’s argument for the existance of God is that simply by thinking something does not mean it has any more ‘existance’ then anything else someone might think of. To take a recent internet joke, I can imagine a Giant Spaghetti Monster that is all-powerful, but that does not make him so.
I would love to talk more medieval philopophy with you, but the ‘proof’ that God exists – or even worse, if he does exist how the heck could we ever come to some level of rational confidence of what s/he would entail – is a little heavy for tonight.
Stuckonstupiddon: If you don’t believe in God, then how did man evolve? If you say from apes, then how did you come about? Since you are not human by normal standards, sid your evolutionary branch take the proverbial left turn and stop? Still in the simian stage like “Chimp” Pa-troll?
Puddy@83 You don’t understand elementry biology… fine. That has been shown on this board quite a number of times. But that does not mean that therefore whatever other explanation sounds good to you means anything.
PudyBud… Puddy…
I love the arguement that just because we might not know exactly how something happened, the Christian god must have done it. Its almost as good as the “if I can think of it it must exist” arguement. I for one know that the FSM I’m imagining is responsable for the UFO’s you can’t prove don’t exist.
PuddyBud @ 83 ” If you don’t believe in God, then how did man evolve? ”
By Natural progress from existing conditions.
“Who created the existing conditions!!!”
I don’t know what, or who did, and neither do you.
Nindid: CS Lewis in the first part of his life embraced Sigmund Freud and his athiest beliefs. Later he rejected them in the last half of his life. Why did he? Did he find God?
Sims wins in a walk thanks to Irons’ support for Freeman’s whacky freeway schemes and an assist from Goldy.
Washington voters reject decreasing their gas taxes in a time of rising gas prices, and where was Dino? Voters did send a message: we’re tired of cheap political dithering and pandering on transportation.
Proof there IS a God:
Initiative To The People 912
YES 101326 34.77%
NO 190078 65.23%
are ya’ll SHITTING me on this? is this FOR REAL?
Well now,
Sims wins. The insurance companies lose. And we can all drink liberally in a smoke free environment.
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, life is good!
Dug
Giffy, having read the BIBLE, I very much doubt that it has much truth regarding creation. :)
But as to how *this* all happened.
I dunno. I am an atheist, because I have studied world religions and find them all to be obvious fantasies.
I have no *god* answers.
But given 70 years we will all have an answer, whether any of us a cognizant of the answer even then, is the big mystery.
Nindid I do understand elementary biology. I was stretching a point to make a point on stuckonstupiddon’s belief system! Since he does not believe in creation, evolution is the only other avenue. He is in a conundrum with his belief. Hence where did his evolutionary branch go? I remember a line that went “Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life here!” Especially in Stuckonstupiddon’s tent!
PuddyBud @ 88 “Nindid: CS Lewis in the first part of his life embraced Sigmund Freud and his athiest beliefs. Later he rejected them in the last half of his life. Why did he? Did he find God?”
No. And the “id”, “ego” and “Superego”
More Mythology.
Try again.
Donna @ 92: Amen to that. I ahve read the bible as well and found it to be a rather boring book with a few interesting stories.
Bell @90: Those are King County only. Check http://www.vote.wa.gov/electio.....sures.aspx
for statewide
Puddy @88 – My understanding of Lewis’ beliefs are confined to having read all of his major works. Freud was very big in the Oxford circles of the ’30’s and I imagine that Lewis simply didn’t think that Freudian analysis answers everything. I don’t think many people do.
But whatever his reasons for not believing in Freud and however brilliant and wise you happen to think he was, his belief or lack of it hardly proves anything. That is unless you are putting your faith in man?
Oh, by the way, Lewis apparently had some serious sadomasochistic ideas about sex. Just thought you might like to know if it effects how you think about him…
Irons is truely an ass – all over and no good mannered concession.
This one needs to go the Vance for a new job in the rancid R world which takes care of its own.
God, what a toad.
Puddy @93 I guess I don’t understand where that conflict is in saying that one does not believe in literal biblical creation – as in, ‘poof’ the world in 6/24hour days – and yet expressing ignorance as to who/what/how the conditions for life came about.
Evolution is as much scientific fact as gravity. If you understand biology, then you know that organisms evolve through mutations in their basic genetic structure. There are many theories which are constantly being refined for how and why this happens, but it does happen. Which is not to say anything about souls or who/what started all life in the first place.
The fundamentalists feel threatened somehow by evolution, and frankly I am not sure why. It seems to me that God may have caused life to be created, maybe not. Whether one believes so is precisely that – a matter of belief.
I was wondering that myself George, you would think he might have the decency to concede considering the results – but then again maybe not.
Hey trolls:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Every single Ah-nuld initiative has FAILED
I guess that Caul-ee-four-neeuh voters are the real…
TERMINATORS
From an AP story on MSNBC:
“We can always go too far, and frequently do,” said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. “Is it a harbinger? Who knows. But it’s unadulterated bad news for Bush and the Republican Party and great news for Democrats as they attempt to make a comeback in 2006.”
I think Sabato has it just right… the results do not predict 2006 or 2008, but for the moment things did not go well for the anti-tax zealots and the ‘movement’ conservatives. It is too early to say that we have seen the downfall of the ‘government is evil and must be destroyed’ meme, but I’d rather be on the side of those calling for good government tonight.
One issue brought up in the Campaigns is Sound Transit, specifically LINK Light Rail. Coming back from the Polling Place I worked at in Renton on the 106 last night, I saw the Lander Street Station, it is really taking shape, platforms, shelters, and up the Busway a bit, even some track has been laid. This good news was not brought up by Sims or Irons
Dearest PuddyBUTT, I have not seen anyone on this blog that can post stupidity as well as you! You are in a class by yourself! If there had been an election for ‘Idiot of the blogosphere’ I am quite sure that you would have won it hands down. LMAO@yourSTUPIDITYalways. Now, as the real world savors this great election day 2005, and the preparations are set in motion for repeat performances in 2006 and 2008, I will say goodby to all the neocon/wingnuts/talibaptists/culture of corruption and torture/Republicans….where ever you are! (probably hiding in their fallout shelters afraid of reprisals)
AND CLINTON NUMBER TWO WILL CHANGE HISTORY.
GO GO GO BILL AND HILARY, WHAT A PERFECT PRESIDENTS EPOUSE.
Nindid @ 85
I was actually referring to the work of Descartes.
As for your Giant Spaghetti Monster, he DOES exist — if only as an image in your mind. And since you cannot prove that what we commonly accept as “reality” exists, that Spaghetti Monster exists as a thought in a universe that consists of nothing but thought. Damn! And now the Giant Spaghetti Monster exists as a thought in my mind, too. :)
Nindid @ 106
I second your call for good government — be it GOP or Dem. We need races where people think “Damn! They both have good ideas!” and the campaign is a horserace to the last minute. You take the kooks out of the two major parties and the rest of the folks generally agree on what we want as an end result. Much of the difference then becomes HOW to achieve that mutually-desired result.
Vance needs to resign.
Mark @110
It is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, not a Giant one. Your Blasphamy is an afront both to him and to his creation. Someone is going to get pricked by the very sharp pin of faith. :)
Mark @110ff Ah Descartes… I was really hoping for Anslem. Nice guy really. But as for thinking up reality, aren’t there qualitative degrees here? My mental image of the GIANT Minature Spaghetti Monster could kick Giffy’s flying one all to hell btw.)
As for government, I would love to see both sides coming up with ideas. But it seems to me that the Republican party has pretty much become the party seeking to destroy government as the apply for the job of managing it. The results are strikingly evident in the mismangement during a crisis like Katrina, but there are little signs everywhere.
Government has its role to play and I want people who take it seriously running it and who will not just come up with new and improved ways to bankrupt the whole venture for ideological goals. As long as Republicans are the party bent on the destruction of these institutions there can be no meeting of the minds and they have disqualified themselves from public office.
Chump Pa-Troll: Apparently you missed the train. Look for it in the near future. You couldn’t have a competent conversation if someone was whispering the words in your ear.
Regarding the election, I am in California last week and this one. Most of the MSM backed three of Arnolds initiatives. The issue was the spin. Three of the initiatives were made to sound like the people would lose control. How do the people lose control when the Democratic legislature in California spends more that they take in? Deficits? And you guys rail on GWBs deficits? Do you guys read or do you listen to the MSM only? CA has a big time debt $$$Billions. Arnold wanted to reign it in. Regarding the unions, the ads in these last few days were again the people would lose control. The illegal union theft of dues for campaign contributions was the issue. Ads said the people would lose control of chosing their candidates. People don’t control the picking of candidates, the unions do. So the messages sent were confusing to the populace. I will read the epitaph in the LA news papers and see their take. One the one for judges chosing the districts they whipped out old man Judge Wappner to rail against it. John McCain was backing it saying the Sacremento crowd is the reason the CA gov’t is almost at junk bond status. Change the was you redistrict. THe ads against it said the people will lose out in redictricting. Again, the democrats in the legislature perform the redistricting here in CA not the people. Sure you can say they vote them in, but Arnold wanted non-partisan judges to do it. Hence they got old man Wappner out of his retirement home to rail against it. It worked in all three cases.
Giffy @ 113
I see your Flying Spaghetti Monster and challenge you with the trinity of the Giant Spaghetti Monster, the Massive Meatball and the Ethereal Parmesan! :)
Puddy @114 – Have you considered that your baseline ‘facts’ are actually ideological assumptions that most people don’t share? So it might not actually be ‘confusing’? Just saying…
Donna re: Jesus
You have stated in other threads that Jesus was a great teacher, but not the Son of God. That issue is addressed in something called the “trilemma.” Basically, it says that either:
Jesus knew he wasn’t the Son and said so anyway, making him a liar.
or
Jesus wasn’t the Son, but was crazy and believed and said he was.
or
Jesus was truly the Son of God.
None of those options allow for him to be merely a “great teacher, but plain human.”
Not to go all Oprah’s Book Club on the gang here, but if I might suggest a little light reading…
For the Hardcore Religious Conservatives, I suggest reading “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis.
For the Rabid Lefties, you should pick up a copy of “Taoh of Pooh” by Benjamin Hoff.
Me @ 118
Got all wound up with the H’s… It should be the TAO of Pooh.
Mark @119 – As a person who is definately NOT a ‘Hardcore Religious Conservative’, I liked Mere Christianity. Why the assumption that only con’s can be religious?
As for the “trilemma” – that only works if you assume a completely unhistorical development of the gospels which, to my knowledge, no Christian tradition actually claims. Unlike Islamic tradition, Christians do not believe that their holy texts simply appeared, but were created by men – whatever the divine involvement.
Now you can say that there are no errors in the bible, but how one arrives at the truth through some combination of historical, typological, tropological and anagogical method is really up in the air now isn’t it?
To put it another way, on what day was Jesus executed? If the bible can not be in literal error, how do we explain the difference between John and the synoptics?
(If you even think about mentioning ‘four guys watching a car accident’ I will be forced to deliever such a cyber-slap that your head will spin. ;) )
Nindid @ 121
I didn’t say that only conservatives are religious. I suggested that the hardcore religious Righties read the book and gain a little perspective.
The only real fault in the trilemma that I’ve heard is that there is an argument over whether Jesus ever explicity said or believed he was the Son of God. That is where the interpretation of certain historical and Biblical accounts comes into play. If he DID say it, then the trilemma applies.
Personally, I’ve always been much more in the “Bible as divine parables” camp rather than being a literalist.
Nindid,
What do you think of the idea of The Vinegar Tasters representing the GOP, Dems and moderates?
Mark @118:
An additional problem with the Trilema is the claim that If Jesus was mistaken as to his divinity he must be insane and therefore not a great teacher. The Dali Lama believes he is the reincarnation of a Buddha. Yet most people see him as a great teacher. The Buddha fancied himself enlightened, but even non-Buddhists respect his teachings. Socrates thought the gods told him he was the wisest man on earth. I could go one.
This is not to mention the argument form above that the writers of the gospels simply put it in there, or construed statements to make them seem that Jesus was saying that. For instance other biblical figures claimed to be the son of god in the “we are all sons of god” sense.
You can also pick apart the first option regarding lying. Perhaps Jesus felt his teachings would be incredible beneficial, but would only be accepted if he seemed to satisfy messianic prophecies. In this case the greater good would out way the lie. This sort of belief was rather common in the area at the time. For example some Greek and roman philosophers believed that the people should be lied to about religion because the stories and rules made it easier for them to be moral.
RP @ 27
“You need to read your BIBLE. Or at least interpret it in the context of the Texas constitutional amendment.”
I didn’t realize that the Bible could be considered a legal document in the state of Texas. Is that what you’re saying?
“TEXAS doesn’t need to create and recognize something that GOD has already established.”
Wouldn’t that pose a First-Amendment problem? I’m not a Christian, and therefore don’t believe in this Judeo-Christian deity that supposedly has established a definition for marriage. Why should I have my Constitutional rights violated by a state constitutional amendment? (Granted I –thankfully– don’t live in Texas, but if I did, I’d be rather peeved.)
I’m just curious about the legal interpretation here: specifically the wording prohibits the state from recognizing any marriages. I doubt that wording would hold up in a court of law, but it seems to me that, in their haste to perpetrate their intolerance of non-traditional marriages, they misworded the amendment.
Dr. E & others @ all over the place
The way the law is written has nothing to do with God. It has to do with the term “identical,” which appears to take the meaning of “equivalent in all aspects” or “essentially the same” as opposed to “the thing itself.”
Now, try re-reading the law with that in mind:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
What I don’t see, but may be in another part of the law, is a definition of what “marriage” actually is, aside from the parties involved.
That’s right, I don’t see any wording that has to do with God. I don’t think the term “identical” is as much a problem as is the phrase “may not create or recognize“. So, if the state (or political subdivision thereof) may not recognize any legal status identical to marriage, does that not mean that the state may not recognize marriage? That’s my question. I’m not a lawyer, but I know there are a few lurking around here, so that’s why I pose the question.
BTW, have a look at the graphic on Town Hall.
E @ 128
The delusion that the Dems won some major victories yesterday is why they may win the “battles,” but not the “war.” As I’ve said before, the Dems didn’t “win” those governorships, they “retained” them. And the failure of the CA propositions aren’t surprising (except maybe to hardcore partisans). It should be noted that the one forbidding government employee unions from using for political purposes was only narrowly defeated.
E @ 127
You’re missing my point. I’m saying the term “identical” is written here to mean “essentially the same,” not “the thing itself.” So, if you replace the word, you get:
“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status [essentially the same as] or similar to marriage.”
You see, “similar to” means there are differences besides the parties involved.
But this discussion brings up a point about poorly-written law. Laws should be clear and concise. A layperson should be able to fairly readily understand most laws that apply to them.
Dr E @ various
I wasn’t trying to promote a religious point of view, but merely say that the inartful wording of the Texas constitutional amendment can be explained by the religious point of view of its sponsors.
Since they assume that the marriage of one man and one woman is ordained and created by God, they wouldn’t think that Texas needs to do anything to create or recognize this type of marriage. Nor would they imagine that this wording could possibly be interpreted so that Texas no longer recognizes any kind of marriage whatsoever.
I don’t think I’m missing your point — I don’t find any confusion in the term “identical”. It’s the phrase “create or recognize”, specifically “recognize”.
131
So then we’re right back to “poorly written law”. Which, of course, does not address the matter of it being a poorly conceived law (in my view), but then that’s a matter for Texans to sort out.
E @ 132 & 133
If we acknowledge that “identical” isn’t intended to mean “the thing itself,” but “essentially the same as, but not the thing itself,” I’m not sure why “recognize” is an issue.
“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status [essentially the same as, but not exactly marriage] or [a status] similar to marriage.”
I have to stick with the poorly-written law idea. The intent SEEMS clear — even without God or the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage — but the language is bad.
E @ 133
I would imagine the reason it was (poorly) written as it was, is that they not only want to limit “marriage” to one man/one woman, but want to prevent equivalent or quasi-marriage legal status of any kind. In other words, you can’t get away with word games like a status called “deirram” (“married” spelled backwards) that is equivalent to marriage, but wouldn’t be barred if they simply said, specifically, that MARRIAGE is between a man and woman.
Well, given that the GOP is trying hard to convince themself that they didn’t do anything wrong yesterday, I could not ask for anything else from this election.
Go ahead wingnuts, continue thinking everything is fine. Continue drinking your koolaid with the Hannity’s and the Limbaugh’s. Continue to believe the paranoid conspiracy theories of Sharansky and the like. Continue groveling to your base while ignoring the middle. Continue to support torture and lying to the public. Yep, that is the path to victory. You definitely proved it last night.
JDB @ 136 (and all the rest of the Far Lefties)…
Please, please, PLEASE rest on your laurels. Please continue to think that you actually won something unexpected in KingCo. Name one win or loss that was unexpected. Nearest you get is Irons getting as many votes as he did, despite the Sims smear machine.
Perhaps, while you’re patting yourselves on the back, the moderate Dems will get their act together and obliterate you in the next primaries. I’m kind of torn over whether to vote Dem and get the sane(r) ones on the ballot or vote GOP and similarly get the sane(r) ones on.
I can’t believe those Repulican do gooding bible thumpers got the smoke free zone passed…. Unbelievable.
You can’t even walk down the sidewalk without approaching a doorway… guess you can’t walk and smoke at the same time in this town anymore.
Officer!!! Arrest that man.. He’s walking past and smoking near that doorway.
Love it!
Mark,
I don’t know exactly how many Communists frequent this board — that’s what a Far Lefty is, isn’t it?
E @ 139
A “Far Lefty” is anyone who thinks Kucinich even had a prayer of being nominated. A “Far Lefty” is anyone who thinks that and handout is as good as or better than a hand up. A “Far Lefty” is anyone who thinks that moderate Democrats may as well call themselves Republicans and that anyone that calls themself a Republican is a fascist. A “Far Lefty” thinks that tree spiking, riots, burning down university buildings, and throwing blood on women in fur coats are justified forms of protest. A “Far Lefty” thinks that all corporations are bad and that the world would be a better place if the vision of Uncle Joe had just been implemented. Should I go on?? (BTW, at various times, I’ve read posts by “Democrats” saying words to the effect of the above on this site)
Guess I’m not a “far lefty” then. And I’m pretty far to the left. To wit: I didn’t think Kucinich had a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting nominated, but I caucused for him, as he seemed to me to be the most ethical candidate. I don’t think that “hand-out” and “hand-up” are mutually exclusive concepts. I think that most “lefties” committing acts of vandalism or assault should be punished to the full extent of the law. I don’t think all corporations are bad, and I think Uncle Joe (Dzhugashvili) was one of the most evil humans of the twentieth century.
Carl, the Smoking Ban was a “Progressive Thing”. Didn’t Goldy send you the memo. He was for the ban! View his choices below. But then again you proved to be the ignorant liberal you are. We believe you can do what you want to your own body, just don’t intrude into my space while you are doing your body. God deals with you at judgment.