It's time for changes..... lots of them. by 6ixStringJack

America loves a winner!

Bush committed no war crimes, and any HINT of going after him would cause riots. I'm serious, it would bring on armed conflict. Worst thing Obama could do. The rift he'd cause might be unrepairable.

You want to spend the next 100 yrs looking into every company in the nation? Go for it. Might as well take control of all free market enterprises now, while you're at it.

A change in tactic in fighting Islamo terrorist might be in store, but don't look for anything to change immediatly.

If you're going to put Bush on trial, then put Obama on trial to, for his 'TREASONOUS' vote.

That page has gone AWOL!

404 Error: File not found
It appears that the page you requested cannot be located at this time.

Please check to make sure that everything in the URL was spelled correctly. Otherwise, use the site search above to find the information you need.
( What was it you were talking abotu ? )

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 4:24 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
What is your Obama wishlist?

I wish he was a conservative Republican.

As for change, the first thing I'd like changed is your attitude. After that...I'd kinda like to rename Delaware.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 4:24 AM

The link works for me. I just tried it. Maybe they were down for a while. Let me know if it works.

I'd say Obama and most of the senate/house should be brought to trial along with Bush, but I'm not trying to piss in anyones Cheerios on the big day.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 4:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
What is your Obama wishlist?

I wish he was a conservative Republican.

As for change, the first thing I'd like changed is your attitude. After that...I'd kinda like to rename Delaware.

H

I wish McCain was a Conservative Republican too. I would have voted for him then.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 4:28 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

Bush committed no war crimes, and any HINT of going after him would cause riots. I'm serious, it would bring on armed conflict. Worst thing Obama could do. The rift he'd cause might be unrepairable.

I thought Republicans didn't riot...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 4:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

What is your Obama wishlist?

I want him to establish a Department Of Joss Works (DOJW) to fund & implement the return of Firefly (you said 'wish', dintja?).

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 4:36 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Bush committed no war crimes, and any HINT of going after him would cause riots. I'm serious, it would bring on armed conflict. Worst thing Obama could do. The rift he'd cause might be unrepairable.

I thought Republicans didn't riot...

This would be a time to misbehave, to be sure.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 4:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I want him to establish a Department Of Joss Works (DOJW) to fund & implement the return of Firefly (you said 'wish', dintja?).

Chrisisall

Heh.... Why is it Chris, that I think that will be the most intelligent and most agreed upon thing said in this thread, from start to finish?

Kudos to you for your never ending optimism, and I hope you're right about the man. Not like I have a choice who's president since the vote is the last refuge for the impotent man who really has no say in his day to day life.... so I just roll with the punches and hope that when he talks about spreading the wealth, he means taking it from the much-higher-ups and not out of my 40k per year or so salary. (My own company was bought out last year and the new guys are doing a hell of a job of that already without any Government intervention)

Later,
~6

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 4:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I just roll with the punches and hope that when he talks about spreading the wealth, he means taking it from the much-higher-ups and not out of my 40k per year or so salary.

You make 40K??

Sad7isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 4:47 AM

Yeah.... I think I've hit my ceiling though. I didn't get much higher education. I pretty much skate on my Mensa intelligence, good looks and rapport.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 4:51 AM

RIVERLOVE

If anyone goes after Bush or Cheney it won't be Obama. It'll be those House & Senate Dems seeking more political capital and revenge. Actually, I would support a trial for Rumsfeld. He is the true villain for the entire Iraq mess of the first few years. He's the one that gave the green light to aggressive interrogation of prisoners, the so-called torture-lite. He's the one that ignored the advice of his generals and sent in a pathetically inadequate force.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
[ I think I've hit my ceiling though.

Aimingforthatceilingisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 4:57 AM

I'm down for a Rumsfeld stoning too. (Fair and balanced trial beforehand, of course). While we're at it, why isn't Greenspan hiding in L Ron Hubbard's secret cave now? I can't believe the balls on that guy unless he's just campaining for his own death.

Chrisisall....

Don't sweat it man. I had five years of living with 7 cats in my grandma's basement before I had to move 150 miles away from my friends and family to take this job. Between the loss of closeness to anyone I cared about for the last 4 years and cost of living increases, you're probably a much richer man than I am.

Sometimes I really miss those furry little bastards when I realize how lonely it is up here......

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 5:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
you're probably a much richer man than I am.

My wife & son are my wealth.

Chrisisall, with the 'awww' moment

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 5:14 AM

Ain't nothing wrong with that man. I see me going the same way my uncle did about 20 years or so from now.... Alone.

Just hope to have more money to make it a little more enjoyable until then. Maybe I'll get lucky and find that girl that does it for me and that I do it for.

Don't envy my meager cashflow, no matter what you got coming in. I can tell you're the type of guy that family means everything to. Just do right by them and they'll do right by you and you will weather any storm.

That's about as close as I get to an awwwwwwwww moment isall.

Later,
~6

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 5:36 AM

That was pretty 'AWWWW'.

ThanksJackisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 5:46 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Bush committed no war crimes, and any HINT of going after him would cause riots. I'm serious, it would bring on armed conflict. Worst thing Obama could do. The rift he'd cause might be unrepairable.

Tee hee. But I thought you said the Right doesn't riot.

Mr. Eagle, you funny!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 6:00 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
any HINT of going after him would cause riots.

Bring it on.

You, and all two of your friends.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 6:13 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

If I were Obama, the first three things I would do to fix the country are:

1) repair the registration and election system so that everyone who is eligible is registered, everyone who shows up to vote is able to cast a ballot, and every vote is counted - and I'd make election day a national holiday.

2) lead the repeal of the USPATRIOT Act, make signing statements illegal, and repair necessary checks and balances

3) re-institute the Fairness Doctrine and re-regulate corporate media.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 6:44 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If I were Obama, the first three things I would do to fix the country are:

1) repair the registration and election system so that everyone who is eligible is registered, everyone who shows up to vote is able to cast a ballot, and every vote is counted - and I'd make election day a national holiday.

He can't. No President can. It's a state issue, on how each decides to vote for President. If Idaho made a law saying only lawyers could vote for President, then that's how they'd chose, and ain't a damn thing Washington D.C. could do about it.
Quote:

2) lead the repeal of the USPATRIOT Act, make signing statements illegal, and repair necessary checks and balances
Bush was actually against this, at first, but then yielded to expanding Gov't anyways. As long as the various agencies could share info , and we don't build up the Gorelick wall of seperation which stood during the Clinton years, I see no real reason for Patriot Act any longer. If done properly, I'd be for this

Quote:

3) re-institute the Fairness Doctrine and re-regulate corporate media.

Nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine. This out dated piece of legislation was born of a 40's era mentality, when there were far fewer stations and signals. The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.ht
m

Now, with the wide array of t.v channels, and the internet, there's little credence to the claims that critics in the political arena can't be answered. There's also the concept of Free Speech, where anyone and everyone is welcome to have their own show, provided it has an audience.

The Fairness Doctrine is a horrific idea, and whose time has thankfully long gone.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 6:54 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"If Idaho made a law saying only lawyers could vote for President, then that's how they'd chose, and ain't a damn thing Washington D.C. could do about it."

Not true - the 24th amendment which repealed the poll tax, and subsequent Supreme Court rulings have established broad Federal authority to enforce equal voting rights.

"Now, with the wide array of t.v channels, and the internet ..."

All owned by a total of eight corporations - in essence, a severely limited spectrum.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 6:57 AM

America loves a winner!

I'm sorry Rue, but there is NO Constitutal right for anyone to vote for Presdient. All the 24th Amendment does is state that , if you DO allow citizens to vote, there can't be any discrimination, or poll tax. There's absolutely no law which requires the citizens be allowed to vote for the office of the President.

None.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 6:59 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Add to that, go through the alphabet boys with a chainsaw, eliminate all that blackbag shit, needless redundancy, lack of accountability and secret black budgets.

Streamline it to a single agency under the auspice of the former NSA and remove ALL authority to act on their own in any capacity, making it a serious criminal offense to do so.

In short, make them an Observation post, which was what they were always intended to be, not a bunch of thugs.

And have them report directly to the joint chiefs of staff and a board of civilian advisers with appropriate backgrounds appointed by congress to review their reccommendations and suggest what course of action to take.

No more of this terrorist action against americans to keep the fear button pressed so they can keep their authority and budgets, hell no - and anyone they CAN catch on that, life imprisonment, without parole.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 9:01 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm sorry Rue, but there is NO Constitutal right for anyone to vote for Presdient.

15th
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

24th
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

26th
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 9:15 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I get all sorts of conservative stuff. Here's another one:

We conservatives have our work cut out for us to hold back the liberal tide, and The Heritage Foundation -- America's leading conservative policy organization -- is prepared to fight back.

The Left is sure to claim a mandate to impose its radical agenda on America-from the economy to energy to the war on terror, from the Supreme Court to taxes, health care and education.

If we are to fight back against the liberal onslaught, we need your support today. Our goal is to raise $80,000 towards this effort by November 15.

Help Heritage fight to defend conservative principles and get a free Pocket Constitution with your gift of $35 or more.

And thanks to a generous matching gift, your gift today is worth double. So your tax-deductible donation of $50 is worth $100 to Heritage, and your gift of $100 is worth $200.

Triumphant liberals have already spelled out their plans:

On the campaign trail, liberal candidates called for tax increases, massive new government health care programs, drastic new environmental controls and more.
Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts said, "we'll have to raise taxes ultimately" as a result of liberal spending increases. He also wants to cut defense spending by a quarter.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she supports re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine-an onerous regulation that could silence conservatives on talk radio.
Liberals of all stripes have pledged to enact the Employee Free Choice Act, a handout to big labor that eliminates the secret ballot in unionization elections.

The Heritage Foundation is ready to stand up to this challenge. We will not stray from our mission to fight for the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. (What - no mom and apple pie ?)

We are ready to fight back against the liberals and advance our conservative principles. We will build on our 35-year record of success-from welfare reform to missile defense to tax cuts-and help get America back on track.

But we need your help if we are to raise $80,000 by November 15 to make this possible. Will you stand with us?

Make a contribution to help Heritage counter the liberal threat and get your FREE Pocket Constitution.

Remember -- your gift is worth double, thanks to a generous gift from the Benwood Foundation.

In Washington, there are no permanent victories and no permanent defeats. We must remain firmly committed to our principles in both good times and in bad. That's why your help is so important.

Now more than ever, we are grateful for your support for our conservative principles and ideals. Without the support of conservatives like you, none of what we do would be possible.

Sincerely,

Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.
President
The Heritage Foundation

***************************************************************

Reading this, you'd think that somehow a small band of 'the liberals' foisted off a president on an unwitting conservative country, and not that the president was overwhelmingly elected by large numbers of citizens.

Townhall seems to have a very strange vision of democracy.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 10:04 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

The lowering of expectations has already begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
1. Give GWB a fair and balanced trial for his war crimes and his pissing on the Constitution and American freedoms.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) pretty much quashed this idea on the Kojo Nnamdi show on WAMU public radio in D.C. earlier today. Apparently the Dem's line is gonna be reconciliation, not revenge.

Quote:
3. End the endless war on terror that serves no other purposes than to piss everyone else in the world off and dump 12 billion dollars a month in that shit hole when they have plenty of oil money to fight their own battles.

On local news/talk station WTOP, a senior Obama national security advisor said the first natl. security concerns for the Obama administration would be radical Islamic jihadists and uncontrolled nuclear material, either available to terrorists or to Iran. Obama has said during his campaign he'd chase and kill terrorists wherever they were.

Listening to the call-ins on the local NPR radio shows this morning, I get the feeling that a lot of folks imbued Sen. Obama with their own desires and didn't really pay much attention to his actual platform. Folks are now expecting things to happen that he has never supported or promised.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 10:09 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Reading this, you'd think that somehow a small band of 'the liberals' foisted off a president on an unwitting conservative country, and not that the president was overwhelmingly elected by large numbers of citizens.

52% to 46% is "overwhelmingly elected"?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 10:16 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
52% to 46% is "overwhelmingly elected"?

349 electoral votes to 173 seems a bit "overwhelming", though - and as you guys are always pointing out, the popular vote don't amount to a hill o' beans...

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 10:23 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm sorry Rue, but there is NO Constitutal right for anyone to vote for Presdient.

15th
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

24th
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

26th
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

It's not just that he's wrong so often, it's that he's so often SPECTACULARLY wrong, and then remains steadfast in his resolve that he's absolutely right, and we're all just too stupid to "get it".

This is right up there with the 95% of "them" who pay no taxes whatsoever.

Hey, I've got an idea: Why don't we take those 95% of them who pay no taxes, and do away with their right to vote? Y'know, since there IS no "right" to vote anyway...

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 11:39 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

It's not just that he's wrong so often, it's that he's so often SPECTACULARLY wrong, and then remains steadfast in his resolve that he's absolutely right, and we're all just too stupid to "get it".

He didn't say there was "no right to vote" he said there was no right to vote for President.

He is technically correct. We vote for Electors and THEY vote for the President. None of this is official until the electors make their official selection and they can choose anybody.

I note for the letter the stupid lady that gave Gore her electoral vote in 1992.

Edited to add: When I say they can "choose anybody" that is both right and wrong...the issue has never really been decided. They can "choose anybody" but in order to become an Elector they enter into a binding agreement with the Party, candidate, or campaign (depending on how they've got it organized, Obama, for example, did his stuff seperate and distinct from the Party). What does that agreement mean? It means they can be sued for breach of contract. Remedies can include being replaced, being forced to do as promised, or paying "damages". Until a court case comes about on this subject, I don't see this issue being resolved. I think the key, if any of you happen to be wavering electors, is don't advertise what your going to do. Just show up, shout "Sarah Palin!" and run for the door.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 11:54 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

He said something right, then he went on to say something wrong, and something almost-right and something sort-of wrong:

but there is NO Constitutal right for anyone to vote for Presdient (true, you vote for electors). All the 24th Amendment does is state that , if you DO allow citizens to vote (wrong, every citizen of age has the right to vote, it's not up to the states to decide who does and who doesn't), there can't be any discrimination (almost-right, as it stands without the limitation he imposes next), or poll tax (sort-of wrong - any discrimination is forbidden, not just a poll tax).

But his main point - that states can decide who 'gets' to vote and who doesn't - is flat out wrong. As usual.
***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 12:33 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The BEST change to expect????

We won't have an loose cannon blowing holes in the USA like we've had for the last eight years! (Yeah, I have low expectations.)

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 1:20 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm sorry Rue, but there is NO Constitutal right for anyone to vote for Presdient.

15th
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

24th
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

26th
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

It's not just that he's wrong so often, it's that he's so often SPECTACULARLY wrong, and then remains steadfast in his resolve that he's absolutely right, and we're all just too stupid to "get it".

This is right up there with the 95% of "them" who pay no taxes whatsoever.

Hey, I've got an idea: Why don't we take those 95% of them who pay no taxes, and do away with their right to vote? Y'know, since there IS no "right" to vote anyway...

Mike

Nothing there that says anything about a RIGHT to vote for the President of the United States.

Sorry, I'm right, you're wrong. Again.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 1:29 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

But his main point - that states can decide who 'gets' to vote and who doesn't - is flat out wrong. As usual.
***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

No, you're wrong, as usual.

Quote:

Almost everyone in America, thanks to the presidential election mess of 2000, knows that the Constitution provides that the president will be selected by an Electoral College, not by direct popular vote. Only 538 persons, representing the slates of electors chosen by voters in the fifty states and the District of Columbia, actually vote directly for president. The person receiving a majority of the votes of electors becomes the president. In the event that no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the decision falls, under the 12th Amendment, to the House of Representatives.The mode of the selection of the president was one of the most difficult and contentious issues in the 1787 Convention. Some delegates urged that the president be selected by the legislature. Other delegates, favoring direct election, argued that selection by the legislature would mean--at least if presidents could serve more than one term--that the president would be continually trying to please the legislators and would not be truly independent. Delegates opposed to direct election expressed the concern that presidents would always come from more populous states and wondered whether the public would have the knowledge of various candidates necessary to make a wise selection. The final decision of the delegates, to have electors chosen by the various state legislatures elect the president, was the result of a compromise worked out by a committee comprised of one delegate from each of the states and presented to the Convention on September 4, 1787.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/electoralcoll.
htm

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 1:41 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Nothing there that says anything about a RIGHT to vote for the President of the United States."

"24th
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged ..."

Right there, doofus.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 1:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Rue:
But his main point - that states can decide who 'gets' to vote and who doesn't - is flat out wrong. As usual.

Doofus:
No, you're wrong, as usual.
"the Constitution provides that the president will be selected by an Electoral College, not by direct popular vote"

Rue:
But doesn't say the states have the right to exclude people from the voting booth, in fact, just the opposite.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 2:49 PM

FIVVER

Sorry Rue, you really should have posted the complete text:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

All the 24th amendment deals with is the issue of poll tax.

Here's what the constitution (Article 2 Section 1) says about choosing the electors:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

What this means is that each state legislature gets to decide the manner in which the electors are chosen. IF they decide to use a direct popular vote (which all states do now) then they can't limit the voting based on race, sex, paying a poll tax, etc. However the states are in no way bound by the constitution or any amendment to use a direct vote. They could decide to choose the electors themselves for example. Rap's got this one right.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 3:11 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I did post the full 24th amendment, far above. I was just referring to my earlier post by a short reference.

While the poll tax itself seems fairly limited, it's been broadly interpreted by the US Supreme Court to mean that groups of people should not be unduly disadvantaged at the polls so as to discriminate against them or abridge their right to vote.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 3:30 PM

America loves a winner!

rue

You can apologize to me at any time.

The longer you wait, the bigger idiot you show yourself to be to all.

Your choice.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 3:44 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

S'wenyways, Fivver

Here's the Supreme Court ruling summary (found in the ruling itself)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&v
ol=383&invol=663

(a) Once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines which determine who may vote may not be drawn so as to cause invidious discrimination. Pp. 665-667.

(b) Fee payments or wealth, like race, creed, or color, are unrelated to the citizen's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process. Pp. 666-668.

(c) The interest of the State, when it comes to voting registration, is limited to the fixing of standards related to the applicant's qualifications as a voter. P. 668.

(d) Lines drawn on the basis of wealth or property, like those of race, are traditionally disfavored. P. 668.

(e) Classifications which might impinge on fundamental rights and liberties - such as the franchise - must be closely scrutinized. P. 670.

As I mentioned, the ruling is sufficiently broad so as to indicate the state many not discriminate against groups of people in terms of those who may or may not vote. If you read further - I invite you to - you'll notice that there are many, many rulings the Court took as precedent to broadly apply the equal right to vote across many circumstances.

***************************************************************

And Rap's claim: "If Idaho made a law saying only lawyers could vote for President, then that's how they'd chose, and ain't a damn thing Washington D.C. could do about it" - clearly wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 4:30 PM

FIVVER

Here's the relevant point I'm talking about:

(a) Once the franchise is granted to the electorate

A state legislature DOES NOT have to grant the franchise to the electorate. The legislature is free to pick any method they want of choosing presidential electors.

I live in Georgia. If the legislature enacts a law that there will be no general election for president in the state and the electors will be chosed by the senate then I have no right to vote for president. Once again, the constitution leaves the method of choosing electors to each state. You, I, Rap have no constitutional right to vote for president BUT Once the franchise is granted to the electorate, all of the amendments on race, sex, poll tax, etc come into play.

Your right to vote for president comes to you from the legislature of the state where you live, not the US constitution.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 4:41 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

From the ruling...

While the right to vote in federal elections is conferred by Art. I, 2, of the Constitution (United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 314 -315), ...

There are many similar statements scattered throughout the ruling applied to different circumstances - but all in all, used by the Court in its ruling to broadly define the right to vote under the Constitution. It's kinda' why I invited you to read the ruling, because there were many statements that just couldn't be included in such a short summary.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 5:17 PM

FIVVER

Those statements mean nothing as far as mandating voting as the only method to be used to choose electors, only that if voting is the method selected by the legislature then these laws apply. Go back and read that article again. It expressly grants the power of how to choose electors to the state legislature.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 7, 2008 3:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I get the feeling that a lot of folks imbued Sen. Obama with their own desires and didn't really pay much attention to his actual platform. Folks are now expecting things to happen that he has never supported or promised.

I just caught the South Park episode last night on an encore. That was funny as hell. I wonder how long ago they made that, and I'd love to see the alternate episode if Obama lost (I assume there is an alternate episode and that Parker and Stone weren't privy to information that we weren't)

Mr. Marsh told his boss to F himself and gave him the finger about an inch from his face over and over again. When his boss said "Hey! I voted for Obama too!" while wearing an Obama shirt, Marsh said "He wasn't talking about change for people like you!" and he gave him the finger again. All of this happened at an Obama party where everyone was so hammered half of them woke up in the hospital (the other half of the ER visitors had tried to kill themselves with their McCain shirts on when they thought the world was coming to an end). When Mr. Marsh woke up on his couch, his pants were gone, his knee was bloody and after touching his head a couple times after the extreme hangover was taking its toll he said "Hey... Where's my pants?". Then he looked over and saw the TV stand with nothing but the cables on it and said "Where's my TV?" Then Stan came downstairs and told him that his boss called and he was fired. "Goddamnit! Obama said there was going to be change! I knew I should have voted for McCain!" he said, as he kicked shit around his destroyed living room.

As the credits rolled, he was out on the street begging people for change.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 7, 2008 4:27 AM

RIVERLOVE

Obama campaigned on change...rah rah rah!

Now he's filling his Administration with Clintonista party hacks like Emmanuel and Podesta. Where's the change? Where's the hope? Where's the new way of doing things? What a crock!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 7, 2008 4:29 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Obama campaigned on change...rah rah rah!

Now he's filling his Administration with Clintonista party hacks like Emmanuel and Podesta. Where's the change? Where's the hope? Where's the new way of doing things? What a crock!

Oh, that's just Obama adding GRAVITAS to his cabinet.

Remember hearing THAT word like 5000 times 8 yrs ago ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 7, 2008 7:33 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fivver

"Those statements mean nothing as far as mandating voting as the only method to be used to choose electors, only that if voting is the method selected by the legislature then these laws apply."

That it does. But Rap's point was that states could arbitrarily decide WHO gets to vote. And he was wrong, as usual.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 7, 2008 8:11 AM