Americans, who will you be voting for as President in 2004?

The resting place of threads that were very valid in 2004, but not so much in 2024. Basically this is a giant historical archive.


Post Reply

Who will you vote for to be the next POTUS?

Poll ended at Sun 31 October 2004 5:38 pm

Michael Anthony Peroutka of the Constitution Party

9
23%

George W. Bush of the Republican (Grand Old) Party

13
33%

Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party

2
5%

Ralph Nader of the Reform Party

1
3%

John Kerry of the Democrat Party

8
20%

David Cobb of the Green Party

0
No votes

Walt Brown of the Socialist Party

1
3%

I am writing in Patrick Buchanan!

2
5%

Anyone But Kerry!

1
3%

Anyone But Bush!

0
No votes

Other (Please describe in detail)

0
No votes

Nobody (Thus I have no right to complain about who wins)

3
8%
 
Total votes: 40

User avatar
ania
Member
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue 15 April 2003 4:21 pm
Contact:

Post by ania »

[quote="ARTEMON"], I still don't know if Natasha's friend is married or not but the reason I said that is because like I said before she spoke of it as if her friend wasn't.[/quot
It was my friend we were talking about, not Natasha's.

From what I said earlier that if you had any grey matter you'd figure it out...

Grey Matter = another term for brain

I said she's a devout Catholic. If she's a devout Catholic should wouldn't be sleeping around without being married. If you pick your canditants with the same lacadasical attention, might I suggest not involving yourself in politics at all?

ARTEMON
Newbie
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue 26 October 2004 6:32 pm

Post by ARTEMON »

hshshshshshs

Last edited by ARTEMON on Wed 3 November 2004 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
George Australia
Sr Member
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat 17 January 2004 9:26 am
Location: Down Under (Australia, not Hades)

Post by George Australia »

ARTEMON wrote:

my I remind you how many Orthodox come to Church with unmarried boyfreinds girlfriend hu? how many pious Orthodox have to be in Church while to couples are boyfriend gilefriend coming to Church in a manner so unholy hu? these are basicaly fornicators coming into Church as if theres nothing wrong.

Artemon,
I'm guessing you are unmarried, not that there would be anything wrong with this, but your attitude towards love seems a bit scewed.
Having a girlfriend or boyfriend is not "fornication" as far as I can see. Being in love is not fornication in my opinion. What do you suggest? That marriages should be arranged by a matchmaker and the groom shouldn't see his bride until the wedding?
I suggest you read the entire book of the Song of Solomon in your bible to see a beautiful dipyction of the love between a man and a woman. In this biblical book, we have the conversation between two lovers talking about their love for one another.
George
P.S. Unmarried couples who live together is a different thing, and certainly scandalous. I've been married for seventeen years- I don't see why anyone else should get away with it! :)

"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."

ARTEMON
Newbie
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue 26 October 2004 6:32 pm

Post by ARTEMON »

rerererewffwfwf

Last edited by ARTEMON on Wed 3 November 2004 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
George Australia
Sr Member
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat 17 January 2004 9:26 am
Location: Down Under (Australia, not Hades)

Post by George Australia »

ARTEMON wrote:

Talking about miscarrages is not wrong but talking about tubes is not right infront of people nor on a site where many people can read

Um.......you can't be serious.
Does the mention of the Fallopian tubes inflame your passions so uncontolably Artemon? You really need to get out more and stop reading those looney wierdo conspiracy theory websites. How will you go then when you read the Song of Solomon in the Bible? Here's a quote:
"My sister, my spouse, thou hast ravished my heart, thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes, with one chain of thy neck! How beautiful are thy breasts my sister, my spouse! how much more beautiful are thy breasts than wine, and the smell of thy garments than all spices!"(Song of Solomon 4:9-10)
Perhaps beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I find this quote from the bible a little more inflammatory to the passions than talking about fallopian tubes.

ARTEMON wrote:

by the way it is against Church teachings to have a boyfriend and girlfriend, I'll find where it is written by the Fathers so there will be no arguement..

Please do. And please look up where the Fathers say that God did not intend that people should fall in love. And please look up where they say that men and women who fall in love and have sexual intercourse before marriage (like St. Silouan the Athonite did) should be shunned and vilified.
And please read about the life of St. Phanourious, one of the best known and beloved Saints of Orthodoxy who was the 'illegitimate' sone of a prostitute- would you like to tell him that it would have been better had he not been concieved?
George

Last edited by George Australia on Tue 2 November 2004 3:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."

ARTEMON
Newbie
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue 26 October 2004 6:32 pm

Post by ARTEMON »

jsedjqiedeqijh

Last edited by ARTEMON on Wed 3 November 2004 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
George Australia
Sr Member
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat 17 January 2004 9:26 am
Location: Down Under (Australia, not Hades)

Post by George Australia »

ARTEMON wrote:

just give me sometime to find the writings on marriage by the Fathers can be found on the net.

Why are you looking up where the Fathers wrote about marriage? I thought you said that you knew where the Fathers wrote against people having boyfriends and girlfriends.
What you said was:

ARTEMON wrote:

it is against Church teachings to have a boyfriend and girlfriend, I'll find where it is written by the Fathers so there will be no arguement..

and what I said was:

George Australia wrote:

I'm guessing you are unmarried, not that there would be anything wrong with this, but your attitude towards love seems a bit scewed.
Having a girlfriend or boyfriend is not "fornication" as far as I can see. Being in love is not fornication in my opinion. What do you suggest? That marriages should be arranged by a matchmaker and the groom shouldn't see his bride until the wedding?

So please, Atremon, tell me so I can "be shocked"- where have the Fathers said that males can't have girlfriends and females can't have boyfriends?

"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."

Post Reply