Hot Free Porn for you! Best porn!
http://eropict.ru/1.JPG

Pres - Baldwin/Castle (SC does not allow write-in votes for federal elections and RP was not on the ballot)

Senate - Bob Conley (La Raza Lindsey won by a smaller margin than he anticipated considering he barely ran a campaign since he was so busy pushing for McCain).

Congress - Joe Wilson (He won)

Sunday alcohol sales - yes
State Constitutional amendment to remove the age of 16 as the consensual age for sex so it does not restrict or contradict state and local laws - Yes

Richland County Sherrif - I voted write-in for myself. He ran unapposed and is a terrible Sherrif.

All others unapposed, I abstained from voting.

I also abstained from School Board seat voting because I recently moved into a new districtand could not (in good conscience) vote for anyone in my former district.

I then had to floss to get out the communion waffer stuck in my teeth.

I also voted against Tom Harkin who voted for the bailout. And voted for Tom Latham, who voted against the bailout.

I then voted to get rid of all the Iowa supreme court judges. We had a new law go active here in iowa on july 1st that bans smoking in places of business. Basically taking away a bar owners right to allow people to smoke on their property. If these judges can't overturn an obviously unconstitutional law like that, then they deserve to get booted.

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams

My wife and I voted for Barr in Texas. Not comfortable writing in candidates.

I voted at 745; stood in line for 45 minutes; and cast a ballot for
Charles Jay - President
Darryl W. Perry - US Senate
NOTA for all other offices.

No on Amendments 1, 3, 5
Yes on 2, 4 & 6
No on Jefferson County Proposal for Amendment.

and had six shots of espresso.

Mine is a clean conscience.

I voted McKinney/Clemente for president, and Robert J. Underwood for U.S. Senate - the only third party rep in any category on my ballot besides President.
That's all well and good, but the main reason that I voted this year was to vote Yes on Questions 1 and 2:

Q.1:
State Personal Income Tax

This proposed law would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for all categories of taxable income for the tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010. The personal income tax applies to income received or gain realized by individuals and married couples, by estates of deceased persons, by certain trustees and other fiduciaries, by persons who are partners in and receive income from partnerships, by corporate trusts, and by persons who receive income as shareholders of "S corporations" as defined under federal tax law. The proposed law would not affect the tax due on income or gain realized in a tax year beginning before January 1, 2009. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO

A YES VOTE would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for the tax year beginning on January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010.

Q2:
Possession of Marijuana

This proposed law would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state's criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty.

Offenders under 18 and their parents or legal guardian would be notified of the offense and the option for the offender to complete a drug awareness program developed by the state Department of Youth Services. Such programs would include ten hours of community service and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion concerning the use and abuse of marijuana and other drugs and emphasizing early detection and prevention of substance abuse.

The penalty for offenders under 18 who fail to complete such a program within one year could be increased to as much as $1,000, unless the offender showed an inability to pay, an inability to participate in such a program, or the unavailability of such a program. Such an offender's parents could also be held liable for the increased penalty. Failure by an offender under 17 to complete such a program could also be a basis for a delinquency proceeding.

The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one's body.

Under the proposed law, possessing an ounce or less of marijuana could not be grounds for state or local government entities imposing any other penalty, sanction, or disqualification, such as denying student financial aid, public housing, public financial assistance including unemployment benefits, the right to operate a motor vehicle, or the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. The proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws that prohibit the public use of marijuana, and would not affect existing laws, practices, or policies concerning operating a motor vehicle or taking other actions while under the influence of marijuana, unlawful possession of prescription forms of marijuana, or selling, manufacturing, or trafficking in marijuana.

The money received from the new civil penalties would go to the city or town where the offense occurred.
WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO

A YES VOTE would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties.

On Question 3 (Dog Racing) I voted No. I know that the dogs at the racetracks are not mistreated in any way - in fact, they are treated like champions, well loved and taken care of. I would hate to see 2000+ people lose their jobs in those 2 communities because of a false belief that racing dogs are abused. Common sense tells you that a dog isn't going to be fit to race if he or she isn't well taken care of. Some say the racing itself is a form of abuse, and that may or may not be true, but the economy is in a bad enough state as it is, and it would break my heart more to see so many people lose their jobs. Dogs don't have families to support, you know?

*******************************
in our hand an old old old thread
trail of blood and amens
greed is the gift for the sons of the sons
hear this prayer of the wampum
this is the tie that will bind us

http://pyrabang.com/go/mamachelle