Political spam

[emmagrant01]

This is an interesting quiz, though there were several times that it was difficult for me to choose because the two positions were so frickin' similar that I actually disagreed with both of them. But like I've said several times, no one who's as socially liberal as me will ever get elected in this country. I can accept that, even if it means having to choose the candidate I dislike the least in every election.

You preferred Kerry's statements 89% of the time You preferred Bush's statements 11% of the time Voting purely on the issues you should vote Kerry Who would you vote for if you voted on the issues? Find out now!

Oh, and will someone reassure me that this story (Park Service Sticks With Biblical Explanation For Grand Canyon) is not true? Please???

Comments

[sorion.livejournal.com]

I was kind of surprised that Bush managed to get 33% when I made the test... ^-^'

Despite the fact that all Americans I know vote for Kerry, I believe Bush will be elected, again [is disillusioned].

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I hate to admit it, but I'm also starting to think Bush will be re-elected. And a very small part of me thinks maybe it wouldn't be so bad: after all, could anyone really clean up Bush's mess? If a slight majority of the American public would prefer that Bush dig an even deeper hole for four more years, fine. We'll be that much more ready for a "regime change" next time around.

Geez, I sound cynical. And there's two weeks to go...

[hazelhawthorne.livejournal.com]

Hey!
Cut that out!
Put your energy into positive visualization. You do not need to give in to the defeatest attitude the Bush supporters want you to.
Go look at my post and then join me in creating the future.

Do you think the Bushites are letting themselves get depressed by the close call? NO! If they feel any doubts they just alay them by praying that Bush will win.

I think we can do better than that. Besides, look at this. You do not have to accept the crap being spoonfed to the American Public by the current administration.

Fight back!

Um...*sheepish grin* sorry for getting carried away. I think you hit a button. *hugs*

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes... you're right. I need to be more positive.

It's just that... I live in Texas. MDH was in a bar in Houston last week, and a Kerry commercial came on TV and the whole bar BOOED. I came home from work today to discover that my yard sign for a local Democratic candidate had been vandalized. It just seems very hopeless here, sometimes...

*sniffles*

[sorion.livejournal.com]

I live in Texas.

Just make sure you don't own more than 5 dildos... ^_~

I live in Switzerland, and while we keep clear of other countries' affairs, we all cross our fingers for Kerry to make it into the White House.
I haven't met a single person who would vote for Bush, were they in America...

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Just make sure you don't own more than 5 dildos...

*snerk* Yeah. Ain't that a stupid law? What are they afraid of? Is someone going to wire ten dildos together and make a bomb, or something?

[hazelhawthorne.livejournal.com]

OMG! I just snorffled water all over my desk when I read that.

If there was a terrorist who made bombs out of dildos, I think I just might have to idoloize them. Especially if said dildo bomb was used to get the current administration out of the White House.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Ya know, I'll bet you could do some damage with a few rabbit vibrators.

[hazelhawthorne.livejournal.com]

Um... and, yeah. Is that really a law?

WTF?

And how do they define dildo?

What if it is just an artistic rendering of a phalic object?
Do vibrators count. Only if they are phalic representations? Or if they are intended for insertion? How 'bout if you can claim that it is just a "personal massage device" that you ordered from the Fingerhut catalog?

I am so disturbed by this. And I am soooo glad I live in California where you can own as many of the damn things as you like and can proudly display them on your shelves as art.

Do you think they might have a special dispensation for people who are professionally licenced as sexologists?

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's really a law. (http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2000-08-11/xtra_feature2.html) Welcome to my little hell. :-P

[hazelhawthorne.livejournal.com]

As I said, I find this very disturbing. But I will admit it made me laugh quite a bit too.

I love the bit about the exceptions if you can prove you have a bona fide medical, psychiatric, judicial, legislative, or law enforcement purpose for the dildos.

Would someone please tell me what possible judicial, legislative or law enforcement purpose you could come up with for having a collection of dildos, vibrators and artificial vaginas?!

"Well officer," says the judge, "That Jury just wan't hung enough."

The state senator claims: "Officer, the Governer called me a pussy and I just had ta show him how wrong he was. This is a pussy! I'm not a pussy!"

"Well, of course there is a use for giant, over-sized dildos like this Punisher in law enforcment. I find it is much more effective in subduing criminals that the standard issue nightstick."

Again I ask WTF?

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Mwahahaha! Isn't it amazing that just owning a dildo for your own pleasure is a crime? I thought the article made an interesting point about the irony of most sex crimes offenders being men, while most users of dildos are women. *shakes head*

[snickelpop.livejournal.com]

I live in Alabama. It's illegal to have anything in any quantity made for the express purpose of genital stimulation.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Oooh. In Texas, it's just models of gentalia that are verboten. So cock rings are just fine, interestingly enough! :-P

[helens78]

*pets and hugs* Move to Washington! Where a Bush/Cheney sign is so rare it gets baffled stares and comments, where we have Toys in Babeland, where... OK, well, the cost of living, not so good. *frowns*

Actually, we visited Bloomington, IN yesterday (where Indiana U. is located) and were surprised that there were more Libertarian signs than Republican ones. Lots and lots of Kerry supporters, of course, as it's a college campus. But someone in the libertarianism community recently said that the Green party is actually the one that's gaining ground in Bloomington these days. I love the idea of someplace having a Green/Lib division; it's so heartening, somehow, thinking that there are places where you can tell the popular parties apart!

[coconutswirl.livejournal.com]

I got the exact same result and I'm a left-wing Scandinavian. Go figure.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Hee! I wonder which question it was?

[hazelhawthorne.livejournal.com]

You preferred Kerry's statements 100% of the time Voting purely on the issues you should vote Kerry Who would you vote for if you voted on the issues? Find out now!

What can I say? Sagitarrians think alike.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

You and your perverted dreams! ;-)

[hazelhawthorne.livejournal.com]

There was nothing perverted about that dream.
It was a very nice meet the president, invite him back to my place to see my snakes and have sex with him dream. It's not like I tied him up or asked him to spank me. And the snakes were NOT involved in the sex part *eeeew, gross*.

If you want perverted, I can do much better than that. *wink*

[ex-ordinaryh343.livejournal.com]

I got the same exact results. I guess that's a good sign.

[fernwithy.livejournal.com]

I found it a very weird quiz, because a lot of the time, the juxtaposed statements, while not "the same thing" weren't actually different choices on the same issue, but comments on different issues entirely. As might be expected, I was pretty close to 50/50.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. The "education" one was a great example: a choice between funding Head Start and funding after school programs. I mean, do we have to choose? WTF is that about?

[shudaizi.livejournal.com]

Did they completly miss the fact that a flood IS a geological force? Considering that, I'm betting that water DID create the Grand Canyon. The Bushies' only disagreement (with the slightly more sane folks who call themselves geologists) is when the event (the flood) took place. I haven't read Genesis in forver, but wasnt Noah about 5000 years ago? I guess being off by a couple million years ago or so is good enough for government work.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I don't know much about geology, but aren't the walls of the Grand Canyon made of stone? I don't care how fast the water was rushing - it's gonna take a lot longer than a few thousand years for a mile-deep chasm to be carved out! I actually know a few geologists, and their eyes usually roll out of their heads when they hear this sort of shit.

Of course, the Bush administration is hardly known for paying much attention to science, now are they?

[phoenix-starr.livejournal.com]

I beg to differ. There are industrial "knives" that they use to cut anything (Steel, stone etc You name it, it can be cut.) These "knives" are nothing more than water under high presure. These "knives" cut stuff like a hot knife though soft butter. Now take that "knife" and multiply it by a global flood? Yes, I say it is very logical that it happend quite fast.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

First, there is absolutely NO geological evidence for a global flood. Many creationists like to claim there is, but the fact is that geology as a field abandoned that idea in the 19th century. There is simply no evidence to support it, and nothing about what we know about geological processes supports that such a thing would be possible.

Second, those industrial knives require a tremendous amount of energy to work. There aren't any naturally-occuring sources on this planet that can release the sort of energy required to push water in one direction with enough force to carve out something as large as the Grand Canyon in a short amount of time.

Third, the geological evidence does support a slow carving of the stone over a long period of time. http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/new_no_flood_evidence.htm

Fourth, if you endorse a creationist view of the universe, we should probably stop discussing this issue now. We're working from completely different assumptions about the nature of the universe, and we won't even have common ground from which to argue. :-)

[phoenix-starr.livejournal.com]

By paragraph:

Yes there is. There are many caves at the TOPS of mountains that have fossils of sea creatures all smashed together suggesting they were slammed there.

Of course there is that sort of energy. It just would be extremely usual.

I'll grant you that, having not studied the data.

Alright. I find evolution illogical. I think it more logical that something/one had a plan. There are just too many things that can go wrong for all of this very intricate biology to happen on its own, in my opinion.