Maybe. Or, maybe not. Maybe they will win in November. We'll see. It's like I heard from my professors at UVA on my first day as a graduate student of Theoretical Physics: "Imaginary forces are heavily model-dependent." Those political-outcome projections are very tricky. They are often wrong. Maybe. PS. Look at the polls, folks. They are a-turning, dem convention flashy magic seems to be over...
So by your stated criteria Bush's superior academic credentials to both Gore and Kerry earned him the White House.
I guess history was not your strong subject in school. the Romans were not "allowed" to kill their wives if they felt like it.
1. Obama himself was sired out of wedlock by a mother who was just a year older than Bristol. 2. In a country that's lost 50 million lives to the genocide of abortion a pregnancy should be celebrated. 3. The next time you complain about the Mexican invasion-in the future when you're overwhelmed by non-whites-make sure you thank the institution of abortion that's forced us to open our borders. 4. The Palins are obviously not duplicitous when it concerns life. 5. Regardless of how we each feel about abortion I think we'd mostly agree it's a matter for Legislatures not the courts. Perhaps I missed the amendment in the Bill of Rights concerning reproductive rights. If it comes down to pursuit of happiness than please allow me to roll a legal doobie or pay for a legal hooker.
Hahhaha! funny post. Never the less, you are still, and will always remain, one dumb imbecile. Maybe you should vote your dog in as republican presidential candidate. I would bet your little bitch dog can't be much dumber than you or the current slate of fools you will vote for. Were you the one who posted the slut palin has foreign affairs experience because her state is right next to Russia? Hahahaha, you right wing wackos crack me up. Dumb fucking 20th percentile inbreed. You taliban numb nuts are a threat not only to the US constitution and the western way of life, you are also a threat to human civilization.
No doubt your pedigree as a clear thinking, educated intellect is well displayed by the amazingly astute use of syntax in your written expression.
Not true. The ancient Roman laws were very strict. Later, they were somewhat softened by Julius and Augustus near the time of Christ, but strengthened again by Constantine (4th century). Look at this: "Paterfamilia's Rights Over the Family: The formal head of the legally recognized family, the paterfamilias, was the oldest surviving male ascendant, and his authority over his descendants lasted until his death, unless formally resolved by a legal act. He was the anchor of the family, the decision maker, and the financial manager. Women, children, and slaves had a very inferior status. They had a constant awareness of his power and position. Every member of the familia was in the potestas of the paterfamilias. The virtually absolute power of the paterfamilias over the rest of his household may have been necessary or desirable in early days when the state had no regular courts or police force and did not involve itself in private morality. The father of the Roman family had the power over everyone and everything in the home. This power was legally recognized. If any member of the family behaved in any way that he considered exceeding the boundaries of proper behavior he had the power to punish the offender with harsh sentences, such as, banishment, slavery, and death. This power extended to the man's slaves and tenant farmers as well. Only the paterfamilias had the right before law to buy, sell, or hold property. He owned, as agent and trustee, all the property of the extended family and held absolute power over persons within his household. As long as the paterfamilias was alive, the sons could not own property or have legal authority over their own children." (From "Roman Family Law and Traditions" by Lisa S. Morin)