I also mentioned that some of the couples who were the first to get married in Canada and California had been together 40 or 50 years (I was fuzzy on the exact years) and when they were first together they had to worry about physical threats, losing their job, maybe being arrested. just for being together.
You attempted to use logic.
That's never going to work until it directly applies to them and even then, it's a toss-up.
My favorite election moment so far has been Abby coming home from (elementary) school and saying, "Some kids at school were going around today saying they were voting for McCain and I told them they weren't voting for anyone, since they weren't eighteen yet and they thought I was lying because they thought their parents were going to be able to cast votes for everyone in the family."
Heh. Civics 101-- take that you little right-wingers!
I could kinda buy that except for the openly gay man who works in our organization. And it's not a large one so they have almost daily contact with him. But I guess he can still be theoretical.
Oh also I heard that even though you can use just about anything as proof of id (seriously neighborhood association card works) some college students were turned away when they showed their student id.
But the local news and the paper online were saying that the mistake had been corrected and please come back and vote.
We are not going to fuck this up! We SWEARS!!!!
That's not enough! Pinky-swear, young lady!
I foolishly thought I might have been able to convince him to vote No; I told him he could have all the moral oppositions he wanted, but there was no reason to make it a legal issue.
It's a sensible tack to take. Never mind, you gave it a shot.
for so long it's been choosing the lesser of two evils
You know, if they actually
had
voted in the lesser of those two evils...
yay my cashier just told me, "don't worry I'm gonna go vote no on prop 8 right now."
I was reading some website about a woman who thinks women shouldn't vote. Well she said she thinks that households should vote the same and since hte man is the head of the household then he should cast the vote. Also if a woman doesn't agree it undermines the husband's authroity and will cause him to suffer esteem, etc and so on.
Anyway she was talking about voting cancelling each other out and how she just would like her husband to vote for the household. She'd allow unmarried women to vote (although I got the feeling she didn't like the idea of unmarried women) and unmarried men , of course would vote.
But then I was thinking about it. If you had 26 single men and 25 households with only the husband voting, and the married couples agreed to vote for the same person but the single men all voted for someone else, that candidate would win. Even though there were 50 people who wanted the other candidate.
I wanted to send an email with that question but that just seemed like folly so I avoided it.
OMG, askye! Where do you work? 1954?
Well the above about the head of household voting was not work related.
if 9% of the vote is in, and someone is ahead 54-46%, how the he'll do they rule that a victory?
Also, I thought they couldn't start announcing results till all votes were cast. CA is still voting!
@1% counted, Dallas county is 60% Obama!
Last, NBC graphics are making me woozy. Too much info, flipping too rapidly.
