Check out this nonsense. I seriously can't believe that an elected official sits around all day coming up with this stuff. Maybe we should just abandon free elections all together, it'll make things much easier for our "leaders".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112802448.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2007 12:28PM by TheMeeper.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Check out this nonsense. I seriously can't
> believe that an elected official sits around all
> day coming up with this stuff. Maybe we should
> just abandon free elections all together, it'll
> make things much easier for our "leaders".
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic
> le/2007/11/28/AR2007112802448.html

This would be hysterical if it weren't so pathetic. The Republican party has in general develop a paranoia over the election process. It demonstrates itself in calls for national ID cards..and more recently and closer to home...Prince William County Republicans claiming that people at the polls there to help ESL persons were swaying people to vote Democratic.

I truly believe they are afraid of the process.

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TheMeeper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Check out this nonsense. I seriously can't
> > believe that an elected official sits around
> all
> > day coming up with this stuff. Maybe we should
> > just abandon free elections all together, it'll
> > make things much easier for our "leaders".
> >
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic
>
> > le/2007/11/28/AR2007112802448.html
>
> This would be hysterical if it weren't so
> pathetic. The Republican party has in general
> develop a paranoia over the election process. It
> demonstrates itself in calls for national ID
> cards..and more recently and closer to
> home...Prince William County Republicans claiming
> that people at the polls there to help ESL persons
> were swaying people to vote Democratic.
>
> I truly believe they are afraid of the process.


it's not that they're afraid, it's that the dems cheat.

come on Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it's not that they're afraid, it's that the dems
> cheat.

It's not cheating if the rules allow it, which they clearly do:

Voters in Virginia do not register by political party. Therefore, any registered voter may choose to vote in any party primary. However, when both parties hold a primary at the same time, voters must select whether they wish to vote the Democratic or the Republican ballot.

I used to be a registered republican and actually believed in Bush in 2000 and voted for him. I have since become disillusioned and am a registered independent. I seem to be leaning heavily to the libertarian side lately. But the bottom line is that ALL politics pander to their interests/supporters good God look at how many lobbying firms there are in DC. I have become disillusioned of the whole process.

>>>I used to be a registered republican<<<

Where? Because that would be illegal in Virginia. We have NO party registration in Virginia. Duh. That's why party primaries are an issue. Democrats love to cross over and vote, just to screw things up for republicans.

LOL....I think they're scared of all the Ron Paul voters...who will then vote for Ron Paul as an independent, since it's clear the GOP has no intentions of letting him win, by hook or by crook.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2007 11:57PM by trogdor!.

Neen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>>I used to be a registered republican<<<
>
> Where? Because that would be illegal in Virginia.
> We have NO party registration in Virginia. Duh.
> That's why party primaries are an issue.
> Democrats love to cross over and vote, just to
> screw things up for republicans.


It was in California genius, thanks for the vote of confidence.

trogdor! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL....I think they're scared of all the Ron Paul
> voters...who will then vote for Ron Paul as an
> independent, since it's clear the GOP has no
> intentions of letting him win, by hook or by
> crook.


A perfect example of Republican paranoia and as always blaming others for their problems. Of course...only Democrats...illegal imigrants...homosexuals who want to marry...and non-Christian cross party lines during primaries! How else could the Republican party nominated Geore Bush?

ugh... can we just get new "parties" as the current ones suck.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

trogdor! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL....I think they're scared of all the Ron Paul
> voters...who will then vote for Ron Paul as an
> independent, since it's clear the GOP has no
> intentions of letting him win, by hook or by
> crook.

You hit the nail on the head. That is exactly the reason.

Remember a few of years ago during a VA Republican primary (the McCain versus Bush one) where GOPers were at the polls with signs that said "By voting today, you automatically become a member of the Republican primary" or my favorite "To defray the costs of the Republican primary, Democrats and Independents will be charged a $5 donation to the GOP" etc. There are many more examples of insane (and illegal) things people did to keep other people away from the polls.

I for one will vote for Ron Paul in the primary. I will not sign a pledge - but I will bring my voter registration card and drivers license with me. Perhaps bring an ACLU lawyer to witness the situation when I say "no thank you" to the pledge.

"To defray the costs of the Republican primary, Democrats and Independents will be charged a $5 donation to the GOP" etc"

wouldnt that be a poll tax? Which was made illegal by the 24th amendment?

Both parties have thrown out the Constitution. I too was pro-Bush with the 2000 election and how he could have been elected in 2004 is just amazing. I was hoping the democrats would roll back the USA PATRIOT Act and the democracy-destroying Military Commissions Act of 2006 but they have done neither.

The entire system is corrupt and I'm not sure what can be done about it. Both parties will do whatever it takes to either gain power or keep it, this isn't just a republican practice. Republicans pull the above crap, democrats proxy dead voters. One just hopes that enough people go to the polls that the corrupted votes are overcome.

KeepOnTruckin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "To defray the costs of the Republican primary,
> Democrats and Independents will be charged a $5
> donation to the GOP" etc"
>
> wouldnt that be a poll tax? Which was made illegal
> by the 24th amendment?

Yes I know! Some of the dirty tricks they pulled during the McCain Bush primary was fascinating.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Both parties have thrown out the Constitution. I
> too was pro-Bush with the 2000 election and how he
> could have been elected in 2004 is just amazing.
> I was hoping the democrats would roll back the USA
> PATRIOT Act and the democracy-destroying Military
> Commissions Act of 2006 but they have done
> neither.
>
> The entire system is corrupt and I'm not sure what
> can be done about it. Both parties will do
> whatever it takes to either gain power or keep it,
> this isn't just a republican practice.
> Republicans pull the above crap, democrats proxy
> dead voters. One just hopes that enough people go
> to the polls that the corrupted votes are
> overcome.

Jesus, I could have written that myself. Sadly, I bet there are ten's of millions of us sitting here dumbfounded. I however, will be voting for Ron Paul this time around. If nothing more, it will be a protest vote, but I'd love to see him run as an independent (even though up to now he has said he wouldn't)

the presidency isnt where the real power lies. the congress and the senate pass all the laws, the president has the chance to veto but that too can be overridden. they are both filled with people who have been there for sometimes decades. the election process has become a cheap ass popularity contest between the (let's face it) two parties where they will say anything to get into office. it's not about recent issues, it's about lines that have been drawn in the sand. personally, i wish there were more parties instead of the nebulous "independent party." i also wish there were official (written) statements made that would be available in one central location for everyone to see. one thing i really hate is double talk. make a statement and stand by it.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A perfect example of Republican paranoia.


Yeah, it is real paranoia, when you have prominant progressive bloggers who work for Newsweek actively encouraging Democrats in MI to crossover party lines to throw a wrench in the Republican nominating process. Yes, this is perfectly legal, but is it right? I am sure you will make accusations of Republican dirty tricks, is this the best counterargument? I don't necessarily agree with the GOP "pledge" in VA, but I do understand the reasoning behind it.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/11/132847/518/150/435128

The crossover primary vote has been a dynamic in politics forever. At times it impacts Democrats also. The news pollsters say it is has had very little impact in MI...My advice, have a drink, calm down, and let the system work.

I don't know how it happened but the Republican Party was hijacked by the far right within the past years. I can't point to any particular election but all of a sudden we were over run with front men for Falwell. They come up with crazy laws and ignore the most pressing issues such as roads and taxes.
The Democrats get easy victories because the Republicans are muddled in religious issues.

Against Ron Paulers what I was going to say

Be Real...I agree with you 100%...not only have they been taken over by the religous right..they also have demonstrated they have less fiscal discipline then anyone in the Democratic Party. Until Bush was requested to sign a bill increasing health care to children...he never found a spending bill he didnt sign. Between that and their endless war in Iraq...this country will eventually face the piper...perhaps it wont be felt in taxes..maybe increased prices...shortage of comodities...increased unemployment...a declining standard of living. Whatever it is..the price will be paid for the inefficient/non-productive spending we have seen the last 7 years.

VInce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Be Real...I agree with you 100%...not only have
> they been taken over by the religous right.

If we want to speak in hyperbole, the same could be said about the Democratic party - that it has been hijacked by ultra-liberal, move-onists, those with radical gay agendas, and pro-abortionists. Liberals love to paint Republicans with the broad brush of evangelicalism as a stigma. Conservatives love to paint Democrats with the braod brush of radical liberalism. The truth lies in the middle. A majority of Republicans and Democrats (both voters and elected officials) are far more to the center than both sides like to paint them. Sure, we can all name outlyers, but a majority are toward the middle. Funny thing is, I only know about three evangilicals personally, and all three are Democrats.

> they also have demonstrated they have less fiscal
> discipline then anyone in the Democratic Party.

Jack Murtha - nuff said.

> Until Bush was requested to sign a bill increasing
> health care to children...he never found a
> spending bill he didnt sign.

No argument here. However, for 6 years of his presidency, he worked with a Republican Congress. If you know anything about the process, a President and Congress can usually avoid a veto if they are in the same party by working out their differences before the bill gets tot he President's desk. That being said, I do believe spending has got out of control by both parties.


> Between that andtheir endless war in Iraq...this country will
> eventually face the piper...perhaps it wont be
> felt in taxes..maybe increased prices...shortage
> of comodities...increased unemployment...a
> declining standard of living. Whatever it is..the
> price will be paid for the
> inefficient/non-productive spending we have seen
> the last 7 years.

There is a ton of non-priductive spending. However, I doubt you would agree with my definition of non-productive.

Let's explore this issue some more....

You mention one Democratic Congressman as an example of excessive spending..Im sure you can name more. However, it is a fact that when Bill Clinton was President all increases in spending had to be funded by offsets or increased taxes. Now you might say "there the democrats go" increasing taxes again...but lets face it increased spending without an offset or new taxes is just a tax on our children...it will be payed...again by inflation...increased unemployment and a lower standard of living. The piper gets paid. During the Republican controlled Congress the idea of offsetting increased spending was thrown out the window. A simple google search on this subject would result in quotes from your vice-president saying {deficits don't matter}....our current financial situation sits squarely at the feet of the republican party!

You talk about the Democratic Party liberals..pro-abortionists...move-oners. Halleluliah we have a party of diversity and debate..not monolithic marching to the beat of the Christian Right! Lets also set the record straight...no pro-abortionist forces a women to have an abortion..and we beleive every and any effort neeeds to be taken to eliminate the practice...but at the end of the day..it is the women's right to decide..not the federal government's. The argument that life begins at conception is a religous belief...it is not supported by scientific determination. Support of the opinion that life begins at conception will result in the elimination of many of our current means of birth control that rely on a multiple approach to ensure a women is not impregnated..one of those means might result in the expulsion of a fertilized egg. So...the great republican party that professes to support individual freedom is more then willing to take this freedom from a women.

I have a simple definition of a productive spending....it's an investment in infrastrucure and people...highways, bridges, industrial capacity, education and programs designed to provide socially responsible alternatives to children and teeneagers. It does not include the defense industry...why I agree some level of defense spending is necessary it is too high now and in any case it is non-productive spending.

Vince,

In a way, you just proved my point. If you had read my post carefully, I was pointing out that both Rs and Ds love to paint each side in the most extreme light, when the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Look at the presidential candidates if you want to talk about diversity and debate. Yes, outward appearance wise would lend credence to the Democrats being more diverse, a minority and a woman. However, which party has both pro-life and pro-choice candidates on the ballot? I see only one. Which party has both stay the course and immediate withdrawal in Iraq candidates on the ballot? I see only one. Which party has candidates with diverse views on handling illegal immigration on the ballot? I see only one.

Let's assume you are right that the whole life begins at conception is a moral position and not a scientific determination. What is a scientific fact is that there are approximately 20,000 abortions performed annually on viable fetuses. When you speak of individual freedom, it sounds as if you only support the freedom of those old enough to conceive. You completely ignore the freedom of those 20,000 lives who have reached the stage of scientific viability to live.

The legislature can go fuck themselves. I currently don't "intend to support" any candidate at the moment. What if I choose to vote for McCain in the primary, intending to vote for him if he wins the nomination... but then he loses the nomination to a tool like Huckabee, and I decide to vote for the Democrat? Fuck that shit. I'll sign whatever they want me to sign, and then gleefully go against it if I need to. Douchebags.

Virginia will never be great again until we bring back the Whig party.

Blabber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince,
>
> In a way, you just proved my point. If you had
> read my post carefully, I was pointing out that
> both Rs and Ds love to paint each side in the most
> extreme light, when the truth lies somewhere in
> the middle. Look at the presidential candidates
> if you want to talk about diversity and debate.
> Yes, outward appearance wise would lend credence
> to the Democrats being more diverse, a minority
> and a woman. However, which party has both
> pro-life and pro-choice candidates on the ballot?
> I see only one. Which party has both stay the
> course and immediate withdrawal in Iraq candidates
> on the ballot? I see only one. Which party has
> candidates with diverse views on handling illegal
> immigration on the ballot? I see only one.
>
> Let's assume you are right that the whole life
> begins at conception is a moral position and not a
> scientific determination. What is a scientific
> fact is that there are approximately 20,000
> abortions performed annually on viable fetuses.
> When you speak of individual freedom, it sounds as
> if you only support the freedom of those old
> enough to conceive. You completely ignore the
> freedom of those 20,000 lives who have reached the
> stage of scientific viability to live.


I'll make it even easier for...nothing...no one..no government has the right to come between a grown women and her Doctor...ever!

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll make it even easier for...nothing...no
> one..no government has the right to come between a
> grown women and her Doctor...ever!

Someone on this board on another topic wrote: "while you dont apparently find human life sacred...some do." I think that more than applies here where you are so quick to dispose of life viable outside the womb. Maybe you can remind us who wrote that, Vince. And, maybe you can actually take that to heart.

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> trogdor! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > LOL....I think they're scared of all the Ron
> Paul
> > voters...who will then vote for Ron Paul as an
> > independent, since it's clear the GOP has no
> > intentions of letting him win, by hook or by
> > crook.
>
>
> A perfect example of Republican paranoia and as
> always blaming others for their problems. Of
> course...only Democrats...illegal
> imigrants...homosexuals who want to marry...and
> non-Christian cross party lines during primaries!
> How else could the Republican party nominated
> Geore Bush?


You're stupid.

When life begins...and needs protection is a matter of religous belief..not science. My personal belief is that a baby isnt truly humanzed until about 3 months after birth...but thats just my opinion...which I push on no one. Why cant you let others decide for themselves what their medical options are?

VInce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When life begins...and needs protection is a
> matter of religous belief..not science.

No, Vince, the science tells us that human fetuses are viable oustide the womb after at least 24 weeks and the most 28 weeks.


> My personal belief is that a baby isnt truly humanzed
> until about 3 months after birth...but thats just
> my opinion...which I push on no one. Why cant you
> let others decide for themselves what their
> medical options are?

Funny, coming from a Hillary supporter who will tell us all what our medical options are. Patient choice will be out the window. Why can't you let others decide that illegals should not be permitted in this country?

Ron Paul 08!

Blabber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> VInce Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When life begins...and needs protection is a
> > matter of religous belief..not science.
>
> No, Vince, the science tells us that human fetuses
> are viable oustide the womb after at least 24
> weeks and the most 28 weeks.
>
>
> > My personal belief is that a baby isnt truly
> humanzed
> > until about 3 months after birth...but thats
> just
> > my opinion...which I push on no one. Why cant
> you
> > let others decide for themselves what their
> > medical options are?
>
> Funny, coming from a Hillary supporter who will
> tell us all what our medical options are. Patient
> choice will be out the window. Why can't you let
> others decide that illegals should not be
> permitted in this country?


Let me explain to you what comprises 85% of all the top Democratic health plans are proposing. They are all centered on the concept that people will be required or encouraged to buy..or have provided by their employer, a medical health plan insurance policy. This is far from telling any definition of socialized medicine. The remaining 15% difference is based on whether to make the program 100% manditory and at what income levels people will be provided assistance to purchase the commercial insurance.

No, Vince, the science tells us that human fetuses
> are viable oustide the womb after at least 24
> weeks and the most 28 weeks.

Sorry Blabber..it's just not that simple. Perhaps the scientists you are quoting were paid by the current Republican administration to justify their opinion...but thats all it is an opinion...and one person's opinion has no right to stop a person with a different opinion from acting on an issue that should be made by them and their doctor....not politicians. For a more intelligent discussion please go to this web site..

http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry Blabber..it's just not that simple. Perhaps
> the scientists you are quoting were paid by the
> current Republican administration to justify their
> opinion...but thats all it is an opinion...and one
> person's opinion has no right to stop a person
> with a different opinion from acting on an issue
> that should be made by them and their
> doctor....not politicians. For a more intelligent
> discussion please go to this web site..
>
> http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162


Fetal viability is not an opinion, it is a fact. Perhaps you are muddying the waters a bit by claiming they are Republican scientists and statistics. If it helps you sleep better at night by discounting facts that you disagree with as opinions of Republicans, so be it, but the more intelligent among us prefer to allow medical scientists determine facts. I assume you know more than the below mentioned organizations when it comes to fetal viability.

Check out the Amicus Brief of the American Medical Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Fertility Society, American Medical Women's Association, American Psychiatric Association, and American Society of Human Genetics, for WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES, No. 88-605, October Term, 1988, p. 7.

So..is your point that prior to fetal viability..a women's decision to have an abortion is between her and her concious and that after that point it is between her and her Doctor?