Comments on: Ralph Don’t Run http://thomnottom.com/blog/2004/02/25/ralph-dont-run/ Muttonchops and loud shirts... Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:32:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: travis cullen http://thomnottom.com/blog/2004/02/25/ralph-dont-run/comment-page-1/#comment-291 travis cullen Fri, 25 Jun 2004 03:26:14 +0000 //?p=#comment-291 ralph is a inside puppet for republicans ralph is a inside puppet for republicans

]]> By: markus http://thomnottom.com/blog/2004/02/25/ralph-dont-run/comment-page-1/#comment-131 markus Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 //?p=#comment-131 Thankfully, we found the WMD, caught bin Laden, balanced the budget, and recreated those 2 million jobs... now we can get back to pressing matters at home, like adding amendments to <b><i>define words</i></b> in our Constitution. Thankfully, we found the WMD, caught bin Laden, balanced the budget, and recreated those 2 million jobs… now we can get back to pressing matters at home, like adding amendments to define words in our Constitution.

]]> By: bonefig http://thomnottom.com/blog/2004/02/25/ralph-dont-run/comment-page-1/#comment-133 bonefig Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 //?p=#comment-133 You mean adding amendments which CONTRADICT the constitution :p You mean adding amendments which CONTRADICT the constitution :p

]]> By: markus http://thomnottom.com/blog/2004/02/25/ralph-dont-run/comment-page-1/#comment-135 markus Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 //?p=#comment-135 Well, I think the proposed amendment would simply "define marriage as being between a man and a woman." There's nothing unconstitutional or homophobic about that definintion. What they plan to use this possible amendment to argue or or against, well, that's another story. Well, I think the proposed amendment would simply “define marriage as being between a man and a woman.” There’s nothing unconstitutional or homophobic about that definintion. What they plan to use this possible amendment to argue or or against, well, that’s another story.

]]> By: indieb0i http://thomnottom.com/blog/2004/02/25/ralph-dont-run/comment-page-1/#comment-137 indieb0i Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 //?p=#comment-137 You're completely right. As I said in an earlier post, the actual definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Along the lines of what you were saying, it's not the amendment itself, so much as the intent behind it that's the real problem. And of course intent is one of the most difficult judgement calls. I think I'll be writing a follow-up to this post as I just started reading over the various amendments to the Constitution. It's been years since I studied them, and I truly am amazed at how well thought out and planned the Bill of Rights is. You’re completely right. As I said in an earlier post, the actual definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Along the lines of what you were saying, it’s not the amendment itself, so much as the intent behind it that’s the real problem. And of course intent is one of the most difficult judgement calls.

I think I’ll be writing a follow-up to this post as I just started reading over the various amendments to the Constitution. It’s been years since I studied them, and I truly am amazed at how well thought out and planned the Bill of Rights is.

]]>