"How do I get over the fact that this person has so much that could be spread around? How do I stop fantasizing that maybe, just maybe, he will remember me and "share the love"? "

Go work for a living and be happy for your cousin. If your cousin CHOOSES to give you some money, be grateful. If not, then go out and work for your own.

GEEZ!

Give me a break! Someone gets kicked in the back of the leg and suddenly there massive anger???

Heck, the way I feel about reporters, I would kick them no matter WHERE we were.

Big Freakin Deal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420151553142939.html

It's a close race now!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420151553142939.html

It's becoming a tight race.

Should be interesting on election day.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420151553142939.html

It's becoming a tight race.

Should be interesting on election day.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420151553142939.html

For someone who lost, he seems to be doing better now. It's a close race!

Should be interesting on election day.

2 years ago, it was a lot easier and CHEAPER to get gasoline to fill up my tank.

Well...he asked.

is an Independent. How are you going to punish him? Drop him from the Caucus? Big deal...you may STILL need his vote to put you over the top.

So what are you going to do???

Rove would have knocked the crap out of the Code Pink woman, then prosecuted her for assault.

This kind of stuff should not happen in the US. If she wants him arrested, swear out a complaint with the police department.

HOLY---!

If this is true, then either more Republicans vote early in that state, or the polls are TOTALLY off!!!

Stunning results in early voting in California. Smile redstaters

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redalert/2008/oct/26/stunning-results-in-early-voting-in-californi/

bernbart,

So where does CA land in this? Because the early voting says McCain is ahead of Obama here!

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redalert/2008/oct/26/stunning-results-in-early-voting-in-californi/

So what is THIS all about???

T. Gray,

"But, it is a graspable straw, so grasp away."

Not grasping at anything...I couldn't really care less which wins - either way, I won't be happy with the choice.

BUT, I thought it was weird that CA had more votes for McCain than expected. VERY strange for that state.

BTW, no matter who wins, the US loses, IMO.

THIS story screams class!

Geez, slow news day?

but find the irony in the fact that Obama is screening his prospective employees in unprecedented detail...yet HE could not pass this same screening because of his past ties.

Ironic, no?

After all Obama COULDN'T have made a mistake!

He is the annoited one, after all.

MUST be something Hillary did!

Or...or maybe it's Bush's fault! Yeah, THAT'S it!

this presupposes that Defense Secretary Robert Gates will WANT to stay in his post for a year under the Obama administration.

He could conceivably say thanks but no thanks.

"The legal questions are all about the legal contract of marriage, a civil contract with many ramification and benifits tied to the state. No one is trying to, or could, force churches or other cultural organizations to give religio-cultural sanction to gay marriage."

If Civil Unions are equated in all legal aspect to marriage, then your problems with legal questions would all be answered.

"What the voters of California said is that two people, otherwise legal and sane adults, are not permitted to enter into a civil contract with each other."

Uh, NO...read what the Proposition said...MARRIAGE is defined as being between one man and one woman. It said NOTHING about

Civil Unions.

"This is exactly the case where votes like this have to be questioned. The majority CANNOT be allowed to legislate away the rights of the minority. Thats why (amongst other reasons) the judical system exists."

IF this were the case, I would agree...but it is not. If Civil Unions are legally equated with marriage in terms of rights and legal contracts, then your rights could NOT be abridged.

"The California State constitution guarantees minority rights. You can't legislate or amend away minority rights unless you remove this protection first. Do you think its reasonable to remove protection of minority rights?"

There IS no removal of protection of minority rights if minorities have the same rights, under different terminology, that married couples do. You simply wish to FORCE the redefinition of marriage. I submit that this can not and will not take place because of the fact that the institution of marriage has historical, traditional, and religious significance to the majority.

""Separate but equal" is not equal."

The point made was the legal aspects. IF marriage and civil unions were equivalent under the law, then there would be no issue.

You can not and you will not get those who marry in churches to agree to gay marriage.

Now you CAN make the terminology civil unions across the board, even though those who do so in a church get married by a priest. THAT might work.

But you are not going to win in taking away the marriage label for religious marriages between a man and a woman. It just will not fly.