The Last Stop On The Right's Crazy Train

Aug 30, 2012 Full story: www.fcnp.com 20

The Crazy Train, built by the Religious Right and accelerated by the Tea Party, must stop before it goes off the rails and inflicts severe damage on America.

Full Story

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#1 Aug 30, 2012
I miss Randy Rhoads.

:(

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2 Aug 30, 2012
I just can't get enough of this ...

conservative crapola

Allentown, PA

#3 Aug 30, 2012
The Last Stop On The Right's Crazy Train

The con clowns derailed years ago. They can thank reagan for sucking up to the southern thumpers and starting their demise.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#4 Aug 30, 2012
snyper wrote:
I just can't get enough of this ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =yGAvwSp86hYXX
There is no federal "right to vote". The right to vote is EXCLUISVELY reserved to the states.

IF the states allow voting for candidates and other things, they can restrict that right ANY WAY THEY WANT TO, EXCEPT by the things narrowly, and EXPRESSLY prohbited by the U.S. Constitution.

THERE IS NO FEDERAL "RIGHT TO VOTE".

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#5 Aug 30, 2012
I favor laws expressly forbidding Democrats from voting.

:)
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#6 Aug 30, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no federal "right to vote". The right to vote is EXCLUISVELY reserved to the states.
IF the states allow voting for candidates and other things, they can restrict that right ANY WAY THEY WANT TO, EXCEPT by the things narrowly, and EXPRESSLY prohbited by the U.S. Constitution.
THERE IS NO FEDERAL "RIGHT TO VOTE".
Oh puh-leez. Stop with the bullshit. Try looking up the 15th Amendment.

Section 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.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

Now look up the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#7 Aug 30, 2012
snyper wrote:
I just can't get enough of this ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =yGAvwSp86hYXX
It's a great show, n'est-ce pas?

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#8 Aug 30, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh puh-leez. Stop with the bullshit. Try looking up the 15th Amendment.
Section 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.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
Now look up the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
You comletely misunderstand that amendment. While one cannot prevent a person from voting based upon thier race nr anyting else mentioned in taht amendment, that does NOT grant a general right to vote by teh federal government.

Try studying a little Constitutional Law or ask someone such as a lawyer or judge who is well-versed in the subject.

here's a LIBERAL SOURCE:

http://www.salon.com/2006/09/21/no_right_to_v...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#9 Aug 30, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no federal "right to vote". The right to vote is EXCLUISVELY reserved to the states.
IF the states allow voting for candidates and other things, they can restrict that right ANY WAY THEY WANT TO, EXCEPT by the things narrowly, and EXPRESSLY prohbited by the U.S. Constitution.
THERE IS NO FEDERAL "RIGHT TO VOTE".
I think that it might be implicit and inherent in "a republican form of Governement".

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#10 Aug 30, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a great show, n'est-ce pas?
Oui, mon ami.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#11 Aug 30, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that it might be implicit and inherent in "a republican form of Governement".
IF that were true, then during the FIRST POTUS election, in which George Washington was elected POTUS by acclamation, then New Yorkers WOULD HAVE BEEN permotted to vote. In fact NO NEW YORKER was permitted to vote for Washington.

Therefore your supposition is WRONG.

Moreover, until aboout the mid-1830's, MANY STATES had as a requirment to vote that a MAN needed to own AT LEAST 40 acres of land. How many people living in big cities could that requirement do you think ?

Accept it. There is no federal right to vote. Even the stupid liberals (sorry for being redundant) admit that.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#12 Aug 30, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Oui, mon ami.
TALK AMERICAN !

DOWN WITH FRANCE !

Freedom Fries FOREVER !

:)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13 Aug 31, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
IF that were true, then during the FIRST POTUS election, in which George Washington was elected POTUS by acclamation, then New Yorkers WOULD HAVE BEEN permotted to vote. In fact NO NEW YORKER was permitted to vote for Washington.
Therefore your supposition is WRONG.
Moreover, until aboout the mid-1830's, MANY STATES had as a requirment to vote that a MAN needed to own AT LEAST 40 acres of land. How many people living in big cities could that requirement do you think ?
Accept it. There is no federal right to vote. Even the stupid liberals (sorry for being redundant) admit that.
Fortunately, unlike the religious documents of yore, the U.S. Constitution is a living document.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#14 Aug 31, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Fortunately, unlike the religious documents of yore, the U.S. Constitution is a living document.
No it's not.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#15 Aug 31, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Fortunately, unlike the religious documents of yore, the U.S. Constitution is a living document.
THAT conclusion is incorrect. Liberals interpret it as a "living" document as a pretense to circumvent the founders' intent of the law as written. They argue that times and technologies change BUT they ONLY wish to implement such "changes" that they would benefit their position.

Example: 2nd Amendment. Liberals being unable to deny the right to keep/bear arms want to limit possession to the arms relevent to the founders' available choices,flintlocks,rather than modern self-loading arms,since THOSE were the arms of the period that the Constitution was written.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#16 Aug 31, 2012
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>THAT conclusion is incorrect. Liberals interpret it as a "living" document as a pretense to circumvent the founders' intent of the law as written. They argue that times and technologies change BUT they ONLY wish to implement such "changes" that they would benefit their position.
Example: 2nd Amendment. Liberals being unable to deny the right to keep/bear arms want to limit possession to the arms relevent to the founders' available choices,flintlocks,rather than modern self-loading arms,since THOSE were the arms of the period that the Constitution was written.
I agree. The U.S. Constitution is a written document, a contract if you will, like any other document. It's meaning does not change any more than any other written document changes.

Just as the meaning of a 199 year lease's terms don't change over that time period, neither does the meaning and terms of the U.S. Constitution, unless states ratify an amendment to it. What would James Madison say ?

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#17 Aug 31, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. The U.S. Constitution is a written document, a contract if you will, like any other document. It's meaning does not change any more than any other written document changes.
Just as the meaning of a 199 year lease's terms don't change over that time period, neither does the meaning and terms of the U.S. Constitution, unless states ratify an amendment to it. What would James Madison say ?
Jim would say take 1/2 the socialists in Congress and publicly pillory them. Then tar&feather them and run 'em outta town on a rail.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#18 Aug 31, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. The U.S. Constitution is a written document, a contract if you will, like any other document. It's meaning does not change any more than any other written document changes.
Just as the meaning of a 199 year lease's terms don't change over that time period, neither does the meaning and terms of the U.S. Constitution, unless states ratify an amendment to it. What would James Madison say ?
A Compact or agreed upon treaty between the peoples of the various States to form a Central Government whose powers are limited in scope to what the people of those States deem necessary to provide for the common defense and maintain good order,with respect to property and rights of the invidual.

Where do liberals find anything about an all encompassing,do everything big government in the Constitution? You can't find what ain't there...... Sooooo,ya make it up as you go along.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#19 Aug 31, 2012
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>Jim would say take 1/2 the socialists in Congress and publicly pillory them. Then tar&feather them and run 'em outta town on a rail.
Too much trouble. Just shoot them. That's what The Obamaniac is doing to Americans without indictment, trial, or conviction, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#20 Aug 31, 2012
(music)

I hear that old train,
A comin down the track,
I hear it's whistle blow,
The wheels go clickety clack ...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lubbock County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
'Guardian Angel' finds missing man in Wolfforth Jul '14 camila boifield 1
S.C.P Wrestling *THIS SUNDAY* 6/9 at Jake's Spo... (Jun '13) Jun '13 SCP Wrestling 1
The search is underway for bail jumper Jeena Ro... (Jan '13) Jan '13 Soggybottom 3
S.C.P (Pro-Wrestling) "Rumble All The Way" *THI... (Dec '12) Dec '12 SCP Wrestling 1
Election season bluster: Threats to move to Can... (Nov '12) Nov '12 Sheik Yerbouti 1
S.C.P Pro-Wrestling *STEEL CAGE* Main Event THI... (Nov '12) Nov '12 SCP Wrestling 1
Republican judge in Texas warns of 'civil war' ... (Aug '12) Sep '12 rollin 5

Lubbock County People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE