it takes no time at all.
click "Query System:" on the link you provided.
then click "Individual Search:"
you will then be on a search window.
now, on the link i provided click any company link, then select any of the names you see.
go back to the search page, type the name, and *PRESTO* the truth
its simple
if your going to call me a liar at least do me the service of proving me to be such
Originally posted by BackFire
What stereotypes? Bush being a prejudiced dumbass? That's not wrong, sorry. He showed his prejudice ideals during the last debate.Or are you reffering to the statement I made comparing him to self riteous religious folks who think gay marriage is bad without giving valid reasoning?
I don't know if you know this but Kerry has the same standings. 😑 He actually attacked basically Cheney for having a Lesbian daughter 😑 The only difference is that Bush wants to make it illegal for a State to put its views upon the country by defining what the concept of marrage is. 🤨 if marrage was intended to be open to all as a representation, considering that marrage is in fact a religious cerimony... the founding fathers would have put that in thier and the past 7000 years of civilization would have defined it as so... 😐
Originally posted by RaventheOnly
thse numbers are not official though. they could be all the money contributed in the past 20 years by the same company. 😐
no the query on the site you provided validates those numbers, right down to the date of contribution. its valid information, and if you would only check, you will see.
Originally posted by PVS
it takes no time at all.
click "Query System:" on the link you provided.
then click "Individual Search:"
you will then be on a search window.now, on the link i provided click any company link, then select any of the names you see.
go back to the search page, type the name, and *PRESTO* the truth
its simple
if your going to call me a liar at least do me the service of proving me to be such
are we looking at the same one? 😑
http://www.fec.gov/1996/sdrindex.htm
click electronic filings:
ok, thats why you cant find it.
this is the link i was referring to:
I know Kerry is against gay marraige. However, his statements didn't come off as prejudiced and he didn't sound like a bigot when he was giving his reasons.
I saw no attack on Cheny or his daughter. Unless you consider him saying "Cheneys daughter is being who god made her" is an attack (which is blatantly silly). If anyone attacked anyone it was Bush, who basically attacked all gay people by saying that them getting married would ruin marriage for everyone else, which is indirectly insulting their lifestyle.
Again, outdated morals need to be changed. Just because something has been a certain way for 7000 years doesn't mean it's RIGHT. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed to coincide with new, correct, morals. If morals didn't change, slavery would still exist.
Also, Marriage is hardly a religious cerimony anymore. Plenty of people who aren't religious get married these days, it's no more religious then a funeral is these days. Both it and marriage started off that way, but as I said, things change as time goes on. Now, marriage is simply a way to pledge your undying love to someone else, as a funeral is simply a way to pay your last respects to a dead loved one.
Lets also keep in mind that obviously Bush didn't like what the founding fathers defined marriage as, so he changed it to stricly say "between a man and a woman" rather then "between two people who love eachother" or whatever it said before.
In all fairness there was something from the debates that did bother me about Kerry. He needs to find a different way to say 'I have a plan.' In know that you are supposed to repeat things to get it across to the voters. There should be a limit though.
I was worried that the 3rd debate was just going to be a replay of the first 2. Both of them seemed to be spouting the same answers for the first few questions. Thankfully the moderator pushed in some new directions.
I am a bit tired of Bush taking things out of context and trying to make it sound bad. Example. During the weekend Kerry told the New York Times Magazine, 'We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives but they're a nuisance,' He didn't say terrorism is just a nuisance. Bush would have us all believe that we must live in fear and be reminded of terrorism all the time. After all he is the only one that can protect us. Sigh
Later in the article Kerry stated that you will never get rid of terrorism. Bush admitted that earlier this year but since has back pedaled to say he will win the 'war on terror'
Just Like Reagan won the War on Drugs. it's nice that no one takes drugs anymore. (Note Sarcasm)
Originally posted by PVS
ok, thats why you cant find it.
this is the link i was referring to:
Originally posted by BackFire
I know Kerry is against gay marraige. However, his statements didn't come off as prejudiced and he didn't sound like a bigot when he was giving his reasons.I saw no attack on Cheny or his daughter. Unless you consider him saying "Cheneys daughter is being who god made her" is an attack (which is blatantly silly). If anyone attacked anyone it was Bush, who basically attacked all gay people by saying that them getting married would ruin marriage for everyone else, which is indirectly insulting their lifestyle.
Again, outdated morals need to be changed. Just because something has been a certain way for 7000 years doesn't mean it's RIGHT. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed to coincide with new, correct, morals. If morals didn't change, slavery would still exist.
Also, Marriage is hardly a religious cerimony anymore. Plenty of people who aren't religious get married these days, it's no more religious then a funeral is these days. Both it and marriage started off that way, but as I said, things change as time goes on. Now, marriage is simply a way to pledge your undying love to someone else, as a funeral is simply a way to pay your last respects to a dead loved one.
Lets also keep in mind that obviously Bush didn't like what the founding fathers defined marriage as, so he changed it to stricly say "between a man and a woman" rather then "between two people who love eachother" or whatever it said before.
The Founding Fathers said nothing. He isn't changing it. It is a States Rights Issue that he is trying to make a National before a minority few try to force it upon people. Thats how Slavery was abolished mind you.... 😬 it was a states rights issue that a bunch of bigotted southerners actually were able to make totally legal by forcing the courts to acknowledge that a slave was technically property, and that was the last straw... a war was indirectly fought over that.
Originally posted by RaventheOnly
The Founding Fathers said nothing. He isn't changing it. It is a States Rights Issue that he is trying to make a National before a minority few try to force it upon people. Thats how Slavery was abolished mind you.... 😬 it was a states rights issue that a bunch of bigotted southerners actually were able to make totally legal by forcing the courts to acknowledge that a slave was technically property, and that was the last straw... a war was indirectly fought over that.
How ironic that similar bigots are now trying to keep something that would give people equal rights as a states right, rather then a national right.
Originally posted by PVS
ok, ill explain again. the list compiled was of execs from those companies. they individually contribute thos funds to get around campaign finance laws. if you dont want to research this, then there is no point in arhuing the point anymore 😐
that is soft money. there is no records of that because it is soft money it isn't considered contributions. 😐
Originally posted by BackFire
Ah, gotcha. My bad.So he wants to make it completely illegal nationwide for gay people to have the same rights as everyone else.
That sounds liek the kinda guy who should be president.
but... he is merely suggesting it be put it to Constitutional Convention... 😐 the people decide and the President has absolutely no say. a massive, unheard of percentage must vote for it for it to be passed... some say impossible. but that is te nature of this decision... would you rather it be unanimously turned down, or forced upon us by a minority few with spacific agendas?
Considering the circumstances this is actually a very center stagging stance. a very shrewd non-political manuever, usually Presidents are too worried about votes to attempt something they think as important.