Do you think it was a good idea for the Davidson County Election Commission to spend $777,000 on upgrading paper poll books to new electronic books?
I'm sure you have the answer, but if not, just ask gdiafarte. He knows.
The Hawaiian governor said the first thing he would do when he went in office would be to show Obama's birth certificate because of the questions being asked. But he didn't. Why? Because he couldn't. There isn't one there to show.
Being governor he could have ordered the Health Department to place it before the public to get the arguments out of the news. So why didn't he?
Let's face it, facts are facts, and I'm wondering how idiotic you're going to feel when the true facts are known.
Common sense would tell a reasonably intelligent person something is wrong with a man who has constantly refused to prove his legal identity.
brainedlight said: "UMMMMM! He needs to catch up."
Lady, you, yogi and rasputin are so far back in my rear-view mirror i can't even see you (thankfully).
Ummm... please enlighten us all with the wisdom imparted to you today by your crazy out-of-touch OWS Vandy instructors? We promise not to tell your daddy what all his good hard-earned money is being wasted upon.
Oooh, Little Bennie is steamed because he couldn't come up with a rebuttal concerning the income tax rates under Eisenhower in the 1950's! Now he's using an age-old tactic- if you can't refute the message, attack the messenger. Low rent, Bennie, very low rent.
Tell me, gdiafarte, how can you win an election if you aren't legally eligible to be in the race? You can't, even if you received the majority of the votes.
An example: To be in a General Session's judge race, you must have a law degree, so even if someone got the majority of the votes in that race, they could not legally become the General Session Judge in that area.
To be a road superintendent you must have a HS diploma or have passed a GED test.
The same holds true in every office that has certain requirements for that office, including the Oval Office of the USA.
So ask Barry to prove he's legally eligible for that office and did not usurp it.
Here's an example of what Obama is actually doing, Kosh.
Even if there is a job shortage, the answer isn’t to get rid of the work requirements but to provide useful, public jobs (that receipients would then be required to perform, on pain of losing their checks, just like regular workers).
So this guy is arguing against government expansion while arguing for it as well.
Schizophrenia, table for one.
I said you were cherry picking and disregarding environmental factors, Ummmm. What more do you want? I'm not going to spend an afternoon researching all the details when you're just going to dismiss what I say and heave another handful of monkey-sh*t at the wall to see what sticks.
Let's freshen it up little, Myna bird. What kinda crazy stuff did your poli-sci instructor teach you today?
I'm not going to spend an afternoon researching all the details when you're just going to dismiss what I say and heave another handful of monkey-sh*t at the wall to see what sticks.
Right, because you don't do that at all...lol
Whether you agree with my opinions or not they are thoughtful and cogent, gd... though sometimes intentionally provocative.
You, being one of the few reasonable people out here, should at least recognize that.
I have given buckets full of data on Obama but you and your "friends" ignore it. And as I've posted before, on November 6 one of us is going to look like a damn fool. Be prepared, gdiafarte, because I'm afraid it's going to be you and your fellow posters.
I'm gonna go get my vote in today. I want to make sure a legal candidate is in the winner's circle.
Oh, and by the way, watch Sheriff Arpaio next Tuesday.
You know I'm giving you a hard time, Ben...lighten up.
Per Little Bennie:
"I'm not going to spend an afternoon researching all the details when you're just going to dismiss what I say and heave another handful of monkey-sh*t at the wall to see what sticks."
Extremely thoughtful and cogent (in a pig's eye).
I love you too, man.
You know, Little Bennie, I actually did take Political Science in school (about thirty years ago), but I don't have my notes with me anymore. And please give us all a "thoughful and cogent" example of how the income tax rates in the 1950's are not a relevant argument against your idiotic, pie-in-the-sky "flat tax," and are instead "cherry picking" and subject to "environmental factors," since despite your assertions to the contrary, this is the first time you have mentioned those things.
C'mon ummmm... I need some new material to share with the guys at Johnny's tonight. Since the Occupy Movement lost its momentum been a dearth of Moon-Bat-ism to laugh at.
So you're an instructor rather than a student? That's even worse.
Oh well, since you have no "thoughtful and cogent" response, at least the guys at Johnny's will still have you to laugh at.
Well ummmm.... how do I respond to that in a way you haven't already dismissed?
Eisenhower inherited a 90% rate. It was what it was and the economy made do with it enjoying a recovery from 11 or so years of FDR economic repression despite the high rates on the highest earners not because of them.
Would Clinton be lauded today without the dividend of the end of us wining the Cold War and the Tech boom? I content the common sense notion that economy boomed despite his tax increases and not because of them. You'll argue the non-sensical opposite ignoring the fact that the recovery didn't really kick in until he abandoned his crazy health-care plan and when he cozied up to the New Congress in '94 taking credit for fiscal conservatism, welfare reform, NAFTA, etc. The surpluses were as big of a surprise to Clinton as they were to everyone else... as was the big surprise to the two earner households who enjoyed income inflation but then figured out that due to bracket creep over 50% of the second income was going for taxes in one form of another. The earlier 'normal' was unsustainable under the new tax and there was an adjustment (the 2000 recession).
"Eat the Rich" doesn't work. You simply get far fewer of the people that your economy is increasingly dependent upon.
Question: How many Republicans does it take to change a light bulb?
Answer: One, with a ladder... but since all of his fellow Republicans with ladders won't help him out (because that would be socialism), he'll just stand in the dark.
Somewhere in this country Newt is gleefully rubbing his hands together while looking for the highest mountain from which he can yell...."I told you so!!!" And Santorum is wetting himself with frustration........
Get over yourself and this "Eat the Rich" crap. The rich are not "Job Creators". At best, they are supply providers who can only exist if there's demand. The right likes to say, "I've never heard of a poor man giving someone a job".... to which I reply, "I've never heard of a rich man hiring someone just to sit on their hands.... they hire someone because there's work to be done, and they'll do that only as a last resort".
"Eisenhower inherited a 90% rate. It was what it was and the economy made do with it enjoying a recovery from 11 or so years of FDR economic repression despite the high rates on the highest earners not because of them."
That's your "thoughtful and cogent" rebuttal??? Even weaker than I had imagined.
And who brought up Clinton? I guess you just feel more "thoughtful and cogent" talking about an administration that's been the subject of Faux News talking points- imagine that.
In the spirit of compromise (I said a dirty word! I said a dirty word!), how would everyone feel about tax cuts for businesses contigent upon a percentage being invested...be it hiring, purchasing medical insurance, not outsourcing, etc.
The point being that if you want to extend tax cuts for the wealthy in the hopes that the money is going to be reinvested, make it so that those who pocket the money are not rewarded.
"In the spirit of compromise (I said a dirty word! I said a dirty word!), how would everyone feel about tax cuts for businesses contigent upon a percentage being invested...be it hiring, purchasing medical insurance, not outsourcing, etc.
The point being that if you want to extend tax cuts for the wealthy in the hopes that the money is going to be reinvested, make it so that those who pocket the money are not rewarded."
This is exactly what happened when we had the higher tax rates..... and why we don't see that type of reinvestment today.
Wow, Ummmm, and I was expecting you to respond with, "why, I hadn't thought about it that way before".
Hadn't thought about it what way? The way that says Eisenhower presided over a strong economy and thriving middle class which according to you should have been "doomed" by the extremely progressive income tax? I have thought about it that way, and it proves my point, not yours. And by the way, Truman followed FDR, Eisenhower didn't.
"11 or so years of FDR economic repression "
Do you mean war with Hitler and Hirohito or the economic collapse under Hoover?
The people kept electing FDR because he kept convincing them he could pull them out of the depression. He finally did when we "entered" WWII and the industry took over creating jobs. He was in his 4th term when that happened.
The best thing HST did when he took over was set term limits on the President's office. The worst thing he did was push the UN program through Congress to honor FDR for starting it.
I'm curious as to how the concept of presenting a tax return in order to vote woud be implemented.
The discussion is moot, since as I understand the Constitutional references regarding voting, taxes, property, and all manner of conditions, such a requirement would be a violation of rights.
Since everyone pays taxes, but some receive refunds for overpayment, how would that work? Even people drawing unenmployment and other benefits must declare and pay taxes on that money.
Since convicted felons fortunate enough to find work do, hopefully anyway, pay taxes, with such a condition, they should be able to vote, since they will be able to present a tax return.
Let's be honest, shall we. The voter ID law in good on the surface, until the rock is turned over revealing the actual aim of the law. That being to throw up an impediment to voting by the 'wrong' people, such as the poor and minorities, who might actually unite to elect candidates who will support the rights of the middle and lower classes instead of the uber wealthy and "Korporate Amerika.'
I believe advocates opposing the ID law should thwart the attempt by rallying those affected to obtain required ID and overwhelming the polls. The best outcome would be the party supporting this law thrown out en masse. Acceptable would be the loss of enough seats, ignorant legislation making Tennessee seem a bastion of knuckle draggers and hillbillies would become a thing of the past as there would not be enough votes to support such inane bills.
Ask01..........I think you are barking up the wrong tree. If it were not for the poor and the minorities Barack Hussein Obama would not be President of the United States.
The underclass is now fully in charge of the voting booth in any national election. Now in Belle Meade and Brentwood local elections they have just the right amount of influence.
I in turn do not meddle in their affairs and try not to influence anythng in their neighborhoods. They have their own culture and should be left to carry it out without outside interference. I do buy the CONTRIBUTOR quite often. I try to buy it in other peoples neighborhoods.
Today's USA is not the USA I was born and raised in back in the 30s and 40s. Everything has grown vastly since then. The population has grown, every form of needs have been improved by "modification". And today, we've gained too many political crooks today as well as too many more criminals.
I can't really understand why anyone defies a voter ID card to vote for our "bosses".. Isn't it funny how they never question about an ID card for a driver's license? Or a ID card to buy a beer or a pack of cigarettes? Yet it's "normal" to resent an ID card to vote for the people we are putting in office to manage this nation.
The way I interpret to Constitution, Rasputin72, you only have to be an 18 year old citizen to vote in an election. Only citizens who are criminals are denied the voting rights. I had to be 21 before I could vote before the politicians decided they could get more persuaded votes if they dropped that age limit to 18.
If the voting right should be restricted to to only ones paying taxes you could bet your a$$ a lot of people wouldn't come up with so many deductions. So how many dollars should you have to pay to have your vote bought after your Constitutional right has been taken away from you (referring to the poor people, of course). And couldn't we raise that voting age back to 21 to get it out of the hands of those stupid 18 kids that don't know what voting is all about?
I read an assertion the poor and minorities control the ballot box, the offered proof being the presence of Barack Obama in the Oval Office.
Perhaps in that one instance, the concept holds true, but examining the make up of the House of Representatives, I believe the fact becomes clear that the poor and minorities don't have total control.
Considering documented cases of actual voter fraud are, according to all reports rare, the only objective of the ID law has to be an attempt by firghtened polticians to lessen the impact of those voters who might not, for one reason or another, have government issued identification, and who might vote for the 'wrong' candidate.
I believe when I go to vote this fall, I will only take my U. S. government issued passport along with my voter registration card just to test the system.
There was also a suggestion to raise the voting age to 21 again. I could support that idea if the same legislation declared those under 21 to be still minors, with parents totally responsible for their actions. The draft age would have to be raised to 21 also. I'm sure such action would indeed galvanize the young electorate to vote, but almost certainly not in the manner people hope.
Besides, if there were any possibility of 18 to 21 year olds ever mobilizing, that event should have already taken place decades ago. Most young people have become so cynical, they are just what politicians seek. Someone who won't pay attention while they act with impunity.
Two points: The only reason anyone could argue about proper ID to vote could only be to gain illegal votes on the ballots.
The reason given to lower the voting privilege was because of the young men dying for this country before they ever had a chance to vote. Many teenagers had died in WWII.
I'm sure you guys that went in service at 17 gained a lot of maturity through your basic training and experience with your fellow GIs. Yeah, you mature fast in service.
Too bad you did not mature any yogi.
Sorry, nimrod. I afraid I'm way ahead of you and you can't seem to catch up. You gain intelligence with maturity and I'm afraid you're still working on that.
Sure - without purging the system of voters, imposing new burdensome ID requirements to address rare cases of voter fraud and gerrymandering district lines pursuant to the race based census . . . how else is the GOP going to guarantee a win-win situation in 2012? All is fair in love, war . . . and politics. The end apparently justifies the means.