Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010?

[Duke for Mayor]

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:

<quoted text>I see nothing odd about that sentiment. This nation is a republic, and a great deal of the law is vile.

That's a pretty good one too I suppose.

"This nation is a republic, and a great deal of the law is vile."

I kinda like the anti-Democracy thingy though. Maybe you could combine them for greater effect.

woof

[Duke for Mayor]

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>Yes Reagan was a Leftist.

How bout Scalia?

What's your take?

woof

[Reality speaks]

strapped in?

cause we are going surfing!

over the cliff we go..........

[Duke for Mayor]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
I am intriqued that Scalia would cite the Pledge of Allegiance as authority. Dude truly is nuts.

I didn't interpret it as a citation of authority, but more as a citation of evidence of a antecedent, resulting influence.

Either way, its pretty funny.

woof

[Che Reagan Christ]

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:

<quoted text>Man's natural habitat would qualify. Unfortunately, you leftists interpret that as Section 8 housing.

What is man's natural habitat? A cave?

[xxxrayted]

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
It isn't my fault that when I point out to you what the law is, you don't agree with it. Tis what it tis.
State restrictions upon abortion and gun rights involve the same sort of judicial review applied to fundamental Constitutional rights. That's what you and Fred seem not to understand. States are permitted to restrict/regulate fundamental rights in order to protect a legitimate state/public interest. It happens in the case of abortions. It happens in the case of guns.
woof

Again, you're arguing the legalities of it instead of harmful intent or motive. Lawsuits are public record, but I bet the ambulance chasers would be howling at the moon if a conservative outlet conveniently listed the outcome of those lawsuits, how much money was awarded, or the lawyers take.

[Che Reagan Christ]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, you're arguing the legalities of it instead of harmful intent or motive. Lawsuits are public record, but I bet the ambulance chasers would be howling at the moon if a conservative outlet conveniently listed the outcome of those lawsuits, how much money was awarded, or the lawyers take.

Probably not.

http://www.dln.com/

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
What is man's natural habitat? A cave?

No doubt in your case.

[Che Reagan Christ]

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:

<quoted text>No doubt in your case.

And here I thought you might have a rational thought about your assertion. Silly me.

[Pops]

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
Struck a nerve, huh George?
If the state says its the state's business, or the public's...it is.
The 2nd Amendment is not absolute.
Read the caselaw Fred.
woof

I agree with both of you. The decision to call the law was based on behavior which they were logically due to do whether or not Kermit or Billy Bob has any sort of weapon. And whether or not it's publicly available info depends on the state. The call was still the right thing.

[Pops]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again, you are misinformed. "Libs" (which appears to be your word for anyone left of Rush Limbaugh) are working all the time to make the voting process better, including cleaning up the voter rolls.
Voters are disenfranchised by the GOP tactics. In order to vote a provisional ballot, one must be properly registered. So, if the BOE sends a card to a voter's street address instead of the voter's PO box and the card is returned "Undeliverable" that voter's registration is "purged." That voter now has to re-register. Of course, that voter has no idea that her registration has been canceled until she shows up on election day and isn't in the book anymore. Can't vote a regular ballot. Can't vote a provisional ballot. Can't vote period.
The problem is when "Libs" bring this type of thing up to the current GOP Secretary of State he acts like you, stomping his feet, covering his ears, and screaming voter fraud. Someday, people in your party will become reasonable again and we will have calm, rational conversation about how to address the legitimate fears you have without disenfranchising people. It can be done, but only after the hysteria stops.

I am barely qualified to discuss Rush. I don't listen to his pompous rants anymore.
Why do you choose to so often be denigrating? "...stomping feet, covering ears & screaming voter fraud"? And then there's .."your party" MY party?? I have said B4 & will say one more time, I have been registered 'Independent' for decades. I have voted both major parties & even Libertarian over time. So I have NO party so to speak. But I will admit to being a Moderate with conservative leanings.
Then there's 'covering ears' again. NO ONE is disenfranchised because there are Provisional Ballots to rectify ANY problem. The Libs call out 'disenfranchisement' of Blacks, the aged, poor, Latino's & others. That is insulting to many because it basically says that they are NOT capable of voting by the lawful process. Some do need some assistance but that is available by a phone call or asking family. Wouldn't you help someone get to the polls or register or mail in a ballot if you were aware? I would.
Please inform me of how Libs have tried to help refine the voting process? If you have something, I am all ears.

[Pops]

one of the good ones wrote:

I think we need to start voting for the best canidate not vote because he is a republican or democrat

Hip Hip Hooray! That's what have done for decades.

[Che Reagan Christ]

Pops wrote:

<quoted text>I am barely qualified to discuss Rush. I don't listen to his pompous rants anymore.
Why do you choose to so often be denigrating? "...stomping feet, covering ears & screaming voter fraud"? And then there's .."your party" MY party?? I have said B4 & will say one more time, I have been registered 'Independent' for decades. I have voted both major parties & even Libertarian over time. So I have NO party so to speak. But I will admit to being a Moderate with conservative leanings.
Then there's 'covering ears' again. NO ONE is disenfranchised because there are Provisional Ballots to rectify ANY problem. The Libs call out 'disenfranchisement' of Blacks, the aged, poor, Latino's & others. That is insulting to many because it basically says that they are NOT capable of voting by the lawful process. Some do need some assistance but that is available by a phone call or asking family. Wouldn't you help someone get to the polls or register or mail in a ballot if you were aware? I would.
Please inform me of how Libs have tried to help refine the voting process? If you have something, I am all ears.

You insist on calling anyone who doesn't agree with your right wing agenda "Libs" and then insist that you are a moderate without political party. That is one the more disingenous comments I have read here. Pretending to be moderate while parroting tea party talking points doesn't help your cause.

You obviously didn't read my post. Provisional ballots are NOT available to people not registered. I provided you with an actual scenario in which GOP ham handed efforts to purge voter rolls disenfranchised properly registered voters. It is interesting that you take offense to my characterization of you covering your ears yet you completely chose to ignore what I was teaching you. I guess I was right about how you and your right wing friends react when presented with the truth, wasn't I?

[Pops]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
You insist on calling anyone who doesn't agree with your right wing agenda "Libs" and then insist that you are a moderate without political party. That is one the more disingenous comments I have read here. Pretending to be moderate while parroting tea party talking points doesn't help your cause.
You obviously didn't read my post. Provisional ballots are NOT available to people not registered. I provided you with an actual scenario in which GOP ham handed efforts to purge voter rolls disenfranchised properly registered voters. It is interesting that you take offense to my characterization of you covering your ears yet you completely chose to ignore what I was teaching you. I guess I was right about how you and your right wing friends react when presented with the truth, wasn't I?

I agree with most of your post. I also asked if you would help people register which you didn't answer.
Then there is WHY LET PEOPLE VOTE that did NOT register? It is NOT difficult & NOT needed every year! In fact, as long as one continues to vote ONLY every OTHER election, they will remain registered with NO extra effort as long as they do NOT change precincts. It is a minimal requirement!
IF someone is too incompetent to even register, they are too incompetent to vote. Pretty flippin' simple. Registering is no more complicated than getting a customer loyalty card at the grocery store. IF someone is too simple to register for voting or a store loyalty card, they don't deserve to vote or get store loyalty benefits. Who wants idiots & incompetents to vote? Only liars, propagandists & cheaters.
Pretty black & white, pretty simple unless they are too simple to perform the MINIMAL requirements. MINIMAL being the operative word.
I haven't ignored what you "are trying to teach me.' You have taught nothing. Only argued the inarguable.
IF someone is NOT registered, they could be deceased, illegal, a felon, etc. IF they are registered anywhere it will be discovered in the provisional ballot process.
YOU also have NOT given me one example of Libs/Dems/bleeding hearts trying to improve voter registration enrollments. I guess that those examples don't exist since you can't give even 1 weak or even invalid example.
Lastly, I don't simply call anyone that disagrees with me a Lib, especially since I am an Independent that has voted at least 3 different parties, I was calling the whiners,'progressives', cheaters, propagandists & bleeding hearts that do NOT want standards for voting, Liberals. You don't hear of Libratarians, Conservatives, Constitutionalists & others whining about registration standards,while trying to create a standard requirement to minimalize fraud, Just the flippin' baseless whining Libs/propagandists wanting to include EVERYONE!!
What the heck is wrong with STANDARDS?? Answer that question even IF you continue to avoid my other questions.

[xxxrayted]

Pops wrote:

<quoted text>I agree with most of your post. I also asked if you would help people register which you didn't answer.
Then there is WHY LET PEOPLE VOTE that did NOT register? It is NOT difficult & NOT needed every year! In fact, as long as one continues to vote ONLY every OTHER election, they will remain registered with NO extra effort as long as they do NOT change precincts. It is a minimal requirement!
IF someone is too incompetent to even register, they are too incompetent to vote. Pretty flippin' simple. Registering is no more complicated than getting a customer loyalty card at the grocery store. IF someone is too simple to register for voting or a store loyalty card, they don't deserve to vote or get store loyalty benefits. Who wants idiots & incompetents to vote?.

Democrats.

[ickley]

The simple fact that someone would use "Che" as a statement says they support a "murderer" or think its cool. Like kids that wear the T-Shirts. Do any of you even know the outrageous violence of this guy? You cannot reason with unreasonable people.

[Che Reagan Christ]

Pops wrote:

<quoted text>I agree with most of your post. I also asked if you would help people register which you didn't answer.
Then there is WHY LET PEOPLE VOTE that did NOT register? It is NOT difficult & NOT needed every year! In fact, as long as one continues to vote ONLY every OTHER election, they will remain registered with NO extra effort as long as they do NOT change precincts. It is a minimal requirement!
IF someone is too incompetent to even register, they are too incompetent to vote. Pretty flippin' simple. Registering is no more complicated than getting a customer loyalty card at the grocery store. IF someone is too simple to register for voting or a store loyalty card, they don't deserve to vote or get store loyalty benefits. Who wants idiots & incompetents to vote? Only liars, propagandists & cheaters.
Pretty black & white, pretty simple unless they are too simple to perform the MINIMAL requirements. MINIMAL being the operative word.
I haven't ignored what you "are trying to teach me.' You have taught nothing. Only argued the inarguable.
IF someone is NOT registered, they could be deceased, illegal, a felon, etc. IF they are registered anywhere it will be discovered in the provisional ballot process.
YOU also have NOT given me one example of Libs/Dems/bleeding hearts trying to improve voter registration enrollments. I guess that those examples don't exist since you can't give even 1 weak or even invalid example.
Lastly, I don't simply call anyone that disagrees with me a Lib, especially since I am an Independent that has voted at least 3 different parties, I was calling the whiners,'progressives', cheaters, propagandists & bleeding hearts that do NOT want standards for voting, Liberals. You don't hear of Libratarians, Conservatives, Constitutionalists & others whining about registration standards,while trying to create a standard requirement to minimalize fraud, Just the flippin' baseless whining Libs/propagandists wanting to include EVERYONE!!
What the heck is wrong with STANDARDS?? Answer that question even IF you continue to avoid my other questions.

I am going to repost what I wrote yesterday, including my statement about covering ears and stomping feet, because you still haven't seemed to read and understand my explanation about how people were disenfranchised by the GOP voter roll purge.
You have reacted exactly the way I complained off in this post. You are so insistant on fighting me because you have labeled me a "Lib" that you won't listen to any facts I provide.
Here is the answer to how a conscientious voter gets her registration canceled, unbeknown to her, and is not permitted to cast a ballot in the next election:

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Voters are disenfranchised by the GOP tactics. In order to vote a provisional ballot, one must be properly registered. So, if the BOE sends a card to a voter's street address instead of the voter's PO box and the card is returned "Undeliverable" that voter's registration is "purged." That voter now has to re-register. Of course, that voter has no idea that her registration has been canceled until she shows up on election day and isn't in the book anymore. Can't vote a regular ballot. Can't vote a provisional ballot. Can't vote period.
The problem is when "Libs" bring this type of thing up to the current GOP Secretary of State acts like you, stomping his feet, covering his ears, and screaming voter fraud.

No liberal I know or how I have read write about the subject is against making our voting system stronger or more secure. They and I are against doing it in a way that results in legitimate voters being denied a ballot. The GOP has yet to try to implement remedies that don't beny folks a ballot. I wonder why.

[Che Reagan Christ]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Democrats.

Your beloved Founders.

[Che Reagan Christ]

ickley wrote:

The simple fact that someone would use "Che" as a statement says they support a "murderer" or think its cool. Like kids that wear the T-Shirts. Do any of you even know the outrageous violence of this guy? You cannot reason with unreasonable people.

Oh yeah? What about Christ?

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Your beloved Founders.

Really? They wouldn't let women or those under 21 vote. That was pretty sensible; look what's happened since.