Sherwood

I'm of the understanding that, according to federal law, you are not compelled to recite the pledge of allegiance. Shudder to think what it will do to your kid in West Virginia to not say it, but you can hardly blame the feds.

I still argue with the use of religious in this sense, though, since forbidding gay people to marry does not require anyone's belief in a god. In fact, I can't think of a single piece of legislation which compels anyone to practice or subscribe to a religion in this country, though I surely can in other countries.

Religion is already kept out of politics in the way you're describing. There are no laws forcing anyone to practice or not practice any religion, regardless of who they are. The debate on this thread is substituting "religion" for "morality". Religious individuals are entitled to a vote, as is everyone. It is only natural that their vote line up with their beliefs, which in theory should be the guiding principle behind their every decision. The issue of gay marriage is not a religious issue, it is just an issue where opinions are strongly influenced by religion. There are certainly religious people who aren't inclined to allow the government to make decisions on marriage. What you seem to want is for religious people not to participate in politics whenever their views don't coincide with yours.

I do see them trying to start it, though. That could certainly be construed as forcing views.

Despite my political voting history, including this election, and my churchy ways, I sincerely hope Obama can get some sort of nationwide pproval on gay marriage in the next two years, and that we can put it behind us as a nation. It is inconsequential to all but the people it directly affects, and I can see no reason to prohibit them from enjoying the full social and economic benefits associated with marriage. That's one issue I would rather just get out of the way so we can focus on things that actually matter to this country. They're adults. Let 'em do what makes 'em happy within the traditional boundaries of law.

Ah, my bad then.

Those laws already exist, and more than one church has lost their tax-free status as a result of direct electioneering from the pulpit. Enforcement is the problem. Edit: I'm looking for harder facts on this than just my word. Stay tuned...

Q effing T.

I heard almost the exact same thing said last night about why CO voted blue. Except omit the word "intolerant".

That kinda comes out of left field (right field?)

Wow... I don't recognize that. Not EMM, not dCs, not Esoteric... the hell is that?

Oh come now, that could be anyone's HE90, 2x Omega, O2 Mk I and o2 MK 2.

Good on him for not taking the day off. Seems he's going to try and get the most out of his guaranteed 2 years of partisan green lights. Imagine what it would be like if the Democrats could block the filibuster, too.

Curiously unlike intelligent sexual discourse, which brings out monkey shame.

If greater engagement and greater voter turnout led to a better-informed populace, I would be all for it. I certainly don't see the two as correlated, however, so participation is only a measure of enthusiasm. Enthusiasm isn't bad in and of itself, of course, but neither is it good.

I remember him not being terribly good. At saxophone, I mean

I don't actually care about engagement, really. All the motivation anyone should need is the freedom to participate.

I'd argue that fundraising is a big part of the real brains of a campaign.

That is simply because Obama ran a smarter campaign, or got very lucky. I'm inclined towards the former. Living in Colorado, as a registered republican no less, I received 17 calls from Obama's campaign in the last three days and not one from John McCain. Obama put the numbers together far more effectively.

Well stated, and I could not agree more. I did not vote for Mr. Obama yesterday, because I have some irreconcilable differences of opinion on what this country should be and where it should be headed. Nonetheless, he is now my president, and as a public servant and a patriot I intend to support him. I voted for John McCain with a heavy heart, as I have never agreed with him on many aspects of his policy either. I do not feel he was the best republican candidate, but he was the choice we were given. I am extremely eager to see how the Republican party handles this well-deserved loss. Should they reinvent themselves into the party they have been, i.e. one of governmental nonintervention socially and fiscally and one that emphasizes personal responsibility, I will be delighted. I sincerely hope I am able to vote for a candidate I believe in four years from now. One of my other favorite places, Belarus, recently had an election as well. The ruling party controls the state media, and didn't allow publicity for the opposition. He won with 97% of the votes in an election the UN decried as a farce. We do not live in that country. We live in one of peaceful regime changes and, for the most part, thoughtful politics. I am pleased that America has definitively chosen a leader, and I sincerely hope it addresses some of the myriad problems this nation has.

Shit yeah! Oh, I'd love to hear that thing. Sooper hawt.

Certainly a phenomenal looking setup, Voltron. Gonna have to send him a new pic with the KX-R?

PS Audio P600 power plant. Same as Steve said above. Local deal was too good to pass up. Shipping this 90 pound beast would be horrendous, though...

Gonna be tough to switch over to Portland, I suspect...