Bluegrassrivals

As you read the article cited below, keep in mind that geographically, the last presidential election went Republican for the all the areas shown in red. With the high concentration population areas having generally gone for the Dems and shown in blue.


CLICK ME
[attachment=o3007]


Under a plan being secretly pushed by the left, all those states and counties shown in red will instead be turned blue if Dems win the popular vote as they did in the last election.

EXCERPT---
"The plan is a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that would neuter the Electoral College and give the presidency to the winner of the popular vote. Under this agreement, your state (of Kentucky, which Romney won by a 60/40 margin) would award its electors to the candidate winning the most votes nationally — even if a majority of your state’s residents voted for a different candidate."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/pol...-289784321

So, under this new plan, Obama would still have gotten trounced in KY, but KY would have been counted under the Dems column anyway. Really isn't so hard to see why Dems stand four square against voter ID's and honorable dealings (from the perspective of bona fide Americans who worked to build and defend this nation) with the millions of illegal immigrants milling the streets. No way Reid will allow 12 to 20 million Democrat votes to get flushed without one heck of a fight. That is one of the reasons this year's mid terms are so vitally important. The irony is that most if not all 'white' Democrats, think they will somehow be spared the loss of rights and the burdens of costs associated with all the freebies being promised to these folks.

And BTW, for all those freedom loving, pickup truck driving, fishermen, hunters and fun loving country boys living in all those red areas shown on the map. Well IMHO if the Dems hold the Senate, they will most likely be kissing their way of life good bye. Red blooded Americans will be expected to support the needs of the many so, bass boats and other expensive toys, along with lead bullets will be things of the past.

we elected obama 2 times so something definetly needs 2 be changed

TheRealThing Wrote:As you read the article cited below, keep in mind that geographically, the last presidential election went Republican for the all the areas shown in red. With the high concentration population areas having generally gone for the Dems and shown in blue.


CLICK ME
[attachment=o3007]


Under a plan being secretly pushed by the left, all those states and counties shown in red will instead be turned blue if Dems win the popular vote as they did in the last election.

EXCERPT---
"The plan is a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that would neuter the Electoral College and give the presidency to the winner of the popular vote. Under this agreement, your state (of Kentucky, which Romney won by a 60/40 margin) would award its electors to the candidate winning the most votes nationally — even if a majority of your state’s residents voted for a different candidate."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/pol...-289784321

So, under this new plan, Obama would still have gotten trounced in KY, but KY would have been counted under the Dems column anyway. Really isn't so hard to see why Dems stand four square against voter ID's and honorable dealings (from the perspective of bona fide Americans who worked to build and defend this nation) with the millions of illegal immigrants milling the streets. No way Reid will allow 12 to 20 million Democrat votes to get flushed without one heck of a fight. That is one of the reasons this year's mid terms are so vitally important. The irony is that most if not all 'white' Democrats, think they will somehow be spared the loss of rights and the burdens of costs associated with all the freebies being promised to these folks.

And BTW, for all those freedom loving, pickup truck driving, fishermen, hunters and fun loving country boys living in all those red areas shown on the map. Well IMHO if the Dems hold the Senate, they will most likely be kissing their way of life good bye. Red blooded Americans will be expected to support the needs of the many so, bass boats and other expensive toys, along with lead bullets will be things of the past.

well the first thing you would have to do is change the Constitution
so I think you can still sleep at night over this

vector Wrote:well the first thing you would have to do is change the Constitution
so I think you can still sleep at night over this

There is a good reason why I always cite the source I'm using to develop a thread topic vector. Changing the constitution to the end you suggest is dealt with clearly in the article I provided the link for.

EXCERPT DEALING WITH CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION---
"The compact will take effect once enough states ratify it to constitute at least 270 electoral votes, a majority of the total 538. And with Governor Andrew Cuomo having signed a bill on April 15 making New York the 10th state party to the agreement (the District of Columbia is also on board), its 29 electoral votes bring the compact’s total up to 165, well more than halfway to the goal. The other signatory states are California, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island."

As you can see, liberals are very close to getting to the magic 270 number of electoral votes needed to change the constitution. Sooner or later you're gonna start to see that your Democrat buddies from places like New York cannot be trusted to take your concerns into consideration as they plot to fundamentally change the world in which you grew up. Guys like Cuomo are rabid liberals who think they know what's best for everybody else. Ironically, that is exactly the charge liberals make against Republicans when they say they want to ram religion down other people's throats. A charge that is patently untrue. But, it's okay for those same Dems to ram the fundamental transformation down people's throats where it comes to gun control and killing the function of the electoral college I suppose?

Here's the short of it. Everybody will rue the day they allowed all this stuff to go down, not just Republicans. Everybody who works with their hands are going to get screwed beyond belief. Dems want to line up behind Obama, who just sort of popped up out of nowhere. Republicans want to stay true to the long standing interpretation of the US constitution. Are you really going to say you're in the Obama line?

Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

According to a liberal, roe vs. wade is written in stone - cannot be changed, cannot be altered, cannot be overruled.

According to a liberal, the U.S. Constitution is an "elastic" document that can be "re-interpreted" by any judge, prosecutor, legislator or president at any time, for any reason.

vector Wrote:Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

LOL, nice try vector, you can tell RealVille to quit giving you talking points now. According to what I've read, these guys aren't trying to amend the constitution. Rather they are trying to influence how the states choose their electors, who will then vote differently than they do now. Same difference but, in so doing opponents of the electoral college function will in fact have neutered it's long standing influence, thusly freeing them from the procedural constraints under which they now operate.

EXCERPT----
"Several movements are currently underway to change the process within the constraints of the Constitution:
•The “Nebraska Plan” in which votes are tallied in congressional districts rather than winner takes all.
•Proportional vote awards electoral votes proportional to the popular vote in a state.
•In the National Popular Vote compact, states form pacts in which electoral votes are tied to the results of popular vote. The electors are then bound to the state’s popular vote rather than partisan pledge. In a pact of states, the member states would combine their electors to remedy the “spectator” aspect for those member states, creating a more balanced and representative election.
•The National Popular Vote movement, which is rapidly gaining traction, provides the clearest benefits and one must wonder if this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind all along while establishing the Electoral College: ideas thwarted by political parties manipulating the process.

While avoiding any attempt to amend the Constitution, the movement has acquired support in a total of 136 electoral votes with a very strong likelihood of acquiring the necessary 270 necessary to achieve their goal of preserving the Electoral College while simultaneously providing a stronger voice for the electorate.
READ MORE:
http://ivn.us/2014/02/28/we-can-reform-t...l-college/

At any rate, there are thousands of participants within this 'movement', who are all convinced they can pull it off. If you have a differing opinion other than the uninterpreted paste you put up of Article V, maybe you wouldn't mind to share it with us.

BTW, the states are given power under the constitution to elect presidents and vice presidents, not the popular vote total. So, to deprive each state it's voice by forcing their electors to vote for the candidate receiving the popular vote regardless of that state's elective result, would disenfranchise each state and therefore each state's voting majority, their just due.

The Supreme Court, prior to the death of Rhenquist, was comprised of 7 justices appointed by Republicans (Nixon 1, Ford 1, Reagan 3, Bush I 2) and 2 justices appointed by a Democrat (Clinton).

Since 1955 there have been 21 judicial appointments to the Supreme Court. Republican presidents appointed 15 justices (Eisenhower 4, Nixon 4, Ford 1, Reagan 3, Bush 2, and Bush 1). Democratic presidents appointed 6 justices (Kennedy 2, Johnson 2, and Clinton 2).

The Supreme Court at the time of the Roe v. Wade decision was comprised of 6 justices nominated by Republican presidents (Eisenhower 2, Nixon 3, and Reagan 1) and 3 justices nominated by Democratic presidents (Roosevelt 1, Kennedy 1, and Johnson 1).

The Roe v. Wade decision and the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade has always been controlled by justices nominated by Republican presidents because they were in the majority on the court.

If the Democratic Party has pushed an agenda in opposition to the Republican Party regarding Roe v. Wade, they have certainly been quite unsuccessful!

Those are the facts, plain and simple.

Those who want to blame the Democratic Party or activist Democratic judges for legalizing abortion or for not overturning the legalization of abortion could not be more wrong!

Republicans, if you don't like Roe v. Wade and are upset that it has not been overturned, you have no one to blame but your own Party!

I don't suppose it occurred to you that your rambling and errant response didn't have the first thing to do with the conversation at hand? Remember, you said I shouldn't lose any sleep about lefties changing the function of the electoral college because such an action would require changing the constitution. The 12th amendment in particular I believe, which defines the way we elect presidents and vice presidents in this country. Is it all coming back to you yet? You got off the train before it quit rolling, or, was it because you had no comeback?

None the less, apart from taking on your basic premise, I cannot resist responding to the two personal observations you proffered with regard to abortion on demand. The premise of your argument is based on the notion that all the bru ha-ha about abortion are the Republicans fault. Given the complexion of the court at the time of the ruling, I can see why Dems keep saying that. The "simple" truth, (to borrow from one of your conclusionary statements), is as follows; the finding from the Supreme Court in Roe was never intended to become the launching pad for the 78 million abortions which were destined to stain our national conscience since said finding. Legal abortions were to be granted only in the case of rape, incest and danger to mother. Sadly none of those three criteria are used to make such judgments. Rather, thanks to rabid liberals who openly and actively campaign for unbridled slaughter of the innocents, abortion for any reason is the norm. There is no standard other than funding and of course, the incredibly short sighted selfishness of those who get pregnant out on the party trail. So, I'll hand it to you, Republicans (in part only) did usher in abortion on demand by trying to preemptively satisfy the bloodlust of the left, as the ruling handed down attempted to qualify a very narrow exception for legalized abortion. It didn't quite work out the way the justices had hoped, as it HAS been the Dems who have made abortion rights part of their national convention platform, not Republicans.

Point one - So, to say that Democrats have been unsuccessful in their opposition to Republicans with regard to abortion rights is just about as far from the truth as one could get. Sort of like saying everybody will be allowed to keep their health care coverage, LOL.

Point two - Nobody I know of, ever tried to blame activist Democrat judges for legalizing abortion. But, you can bet that for the most part, the Dems have marshaled their forces to fend off attempts made to overturn Roe. Here is part of the real history of Roe V Wade.

EXCERPT---
"President Ronald Reagan, who favored legislative restrictions on abortions, created his infamous "litmus test" for federal judicial appointments. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (Reagan) began to dissent on the court's abortion cases, claiming that the "trimester" stance was "unworkable." Burger, shortly before his retirement, advanced the notion that Roe should be "re-examined."

New associate justice Antonin Scalia (Reagan), who replaced Burger on the court, was known to be anti-Roe, but Robert Bork's nomination was scuttled by the liberal wing when it was feared that Roe might be overturned. Anthony Kennedy (another Reagan appointee) also was seen as a potential vote to overturn it."
END EXCERPT---
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2603.html

On a personal note, I watched the venerable Joe Biden, as he made his shameless attack on the person of Robert Bork. The confirmation hearings for his nomination to the SCOTUS, were televised. I watched in horror as that grimacing mental midget demeaned and brought all manner of false accusation against Robert Bork, who by comparison to Joe Biden, was a mountain of integrity. IMO, liberals the likes of Biden, regardless of what has been reported to be his lack of intellect, have none the less, gone a long way to help destroy the traditional American values of our fathers. Listen, I know the argument about the Republican Justices, I've heard it over and over ad-nauseum. Robert Bork would have been a marvelous justice and the timing of his 'should have been appointment' could not have been better. I mean, had Bork been confirmed what is the worst that could have happened? Babies who should rightfully have been born and spared murder in their mommy's womb would be breathing air today, maybe we wouldn't have to bear the burden of ObamaCare, the repeal of DADT and Gay rights legislation would still be on the back burner.

So, on your second point that Republicans have nobody to blame but themselves, sorry but that one gets 4 pinocchios too.

I would add this, it is my firm conviction that many of the countless murdered on the abortionist slab would have been gifted contributing citizens of the US. Additionally, I believe that fact is part of God's judgment on this land. Who's to say whether among them may have been one who would have cured dread diseases like cancer, or possibly developed new fields of energy, or noteworthy leaders of which, we are sorely in short supply these days? We have sown the wind and as a result we are reaping the whirlwind.

TheRealThing Wrote:I don't suppose it occurred to you that your rambling and errant response didn't have the first thing to do with the conversation at hand? Remember, you said I shouldn't lose any sleep about lefties changing the function of the electoral college because such an action would require changing the constitution. The 12th amendment in particular I believe, which defines the way we elect presidents and vice presidents in this country. Is it all coming back to you yet? You got off the train before it quit rolling, or, was it because you had no comeback?

None the less, apart from taking on your basic premise, I cannot resist responding to the two personal observations you proffered with regard to abortion on demand. The premise of your argument is based on the notion that all the bru ha-ha about abortion are the Republicans fault. Given the complexion of the court at the time of the ruling, I can see why Dems keep saying that. The "simple" truth, (to borrow from one of your conclusionary statements), is as follows; the finding from the Supreme Court in Roe was never intended to become the launching pad for the 78 million abortions which were destined to stain our national conscience since said finding. Legal abortions were to be granted only in the case of rape, incest and danger to mother. Sadly none of those three criteria are used to make such judgments. Rather, thanks to rabid liberals who openly and actively campaign for unbridled slaughter of the innocents, abortion for any reason is the norm. There is no standard other than funding and of course, the incredibly short sighted selfishness of those who get pregnant out on the party trail. So, I'll hand it to you, Republicans (in part only) did usher in abortion on demand by trying to preemptively satisfy the bloodlust of the left, as the ruling handed down attempted to qualify a very narrow exception for legalized abortion. It didn't quite work out the way the justices had hoped, as it HAS been the Dems who have made abortion rights part of their national convention platform, not Republicans.

Actually, it's not Vector's argument haha. Here is the site he once again copied and pasted from.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis...04x5282541

WideRight05 Wrote:Actually, it's not Vector's argument haha. Here is the site he once again copied and pasted from.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis...04x5282541

LOL. Should have known he'd never actually offer any of his own thoughts about something as important as the subject of abortion. I almost gave him a pat on the back for having the courage to make those assertions in the first place, something didn't pass the smell test so I held back. :biglmao:

Such is the case with vector and all his comrades, none of them actually have anything original to put forth while trying to justify a line of rationale. With this particular group, libs, Dems and progressives, politics are merely a game of memorizing talking points. No matter how many times they attempt to engage conservatives, whether on TV or here on humble ol BGR, you're never going to get a thing out of them but another rendition of DNC sanctioned talking points. I really can't say I understand what drives them, or worse, what gives them the passion to keep on arguing when none of the thoughts they espouse are their own.

See, liberalism is a system of belief. And even worse, it is a shallow system of belief. It snares only the young who haven't experienced what life has to offer or the gullible, or those willing to be supported by government, or those who are likely to fall under the spell of socialism but, this last group are the scary ones, they are those who enjoy watching the bad guys win. The ones who get a bang out of keying a nice car, or calling in a fake bomb threat to scare the dickens out of normal folks. Had to vacate a theater not long ago, due to a bomb threat. Anyway, we were talking about the system. The guru's of the system, college profs, ironically get all their adulation and homage from their students, who just so happen to be the afore mentioned young (and dumb). So, what we have is a kind of codependency between frustrated profs and the naïve youth who dutifully ooh and ah at the appropriate times before a bunch of self inflated morons who fancy themselves to be direct descendants of Aristotle. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, this is the reason Obama likes to speak before an audience comprised of college students and academics. Those cheers and that applause is intoxicating.

These are strange days.

It's funny how so many young people think they know everything about everything, voting for the candidates who are "cool" rather than the ones who are competent. Liberals have taken note of this and (through the help of our liberal-loving professors) have brainwashed our college students into becoming liberals. It's usually through the philosophy, religion, sociology classes that this is done. A friend of mine took a sociology class recently where the teacher (a grad assistant) was a huge liberal using the class to promote the gay rights movement. She had the students watch a video about apes that promoted homosexuality. I forget the details and am kind of glad I am forgetting haha, but he ended up dropping the class due to the fact he would have failed because of his conservative views. This is a student that normally has solid performances in class.

Anybody that doesn't agree with the liberal movement is a racist, bigot, homophobe, any other name you can think of. Oh yeah, and it's all in the name of love and tolerance.

Just look at the quality of posts you get from our conservative and liberal posters on here (the few that are remaining). You, RIUTG, Skinnypig, Harry Rex Vonner, anybody - quality posts that although they may occasionally contain a link, are well-explained and give a through detail as to what you think and why you think what you think, and why the other side is incorrect. Totally different ballgame from the liberals who will just respond with just "bull" or a website link. No good discusssion-generating posts whatsoever. Thus, you probably have noticed with me that I have greatly cut back on what I post in here, that is why.

^
Where you been?!?!?!?

I am a Democrat an don't care who knows it.My whole life I have live in a Repubican county. And have been force to vote R. or I can't vote that doesn't make me a bad person....Just saying i can say 100% I have never voted for a R...President

64SUR Wrote:I am a Democrat an don't care who knows it.My whole life I have live in a Repubican county. And have been force to vote R. or I can't vote that doesn't make me a bad person....Just saying i can say 100% I have never voted for a R...President

I believe you. Do you think the USA would be a better place without the Republican party?

TheRealThing Wrote:I believe you. Do you think the USA would be a better place without the Republican party?

No....But the tea party movement is destroying the Republican party.

64SUR Wrote:No....But the tea party movement is destroying the Republican party.

I know that's the talk being bandied about. The Tea Party has forced many lazy legislators and citizens to get a crash course on American history and actually read the US Constitution for the first time in their lives. That's a good thing for a nation of people who are supposed to be a self governing group, wouldn't you say? I look at citizenship as being a lot like union membership. Any union man I ever knew was well aware of the rules and bylaws and willingly took an active part in protecting his union's well being. Why would Americans settle for letting politicians define their rights for them or to tell them what's best for them instead of protecting their national well being for themselves? President Obama has characterized the Republicans as a bunch of old white fogeys getting in the way of progress. My question would be progress for what? Are we not already living in the greatest country in the world? I think we should darn well be very careful about passing and changing laws like they're going out of style for fear of screwing something up that we need desperately. Like outlawing the coal we use to generate electricity with. At any rate, Congress is not supposed to issue out a torrent of legislation by a bunch of guys so enamored with one another they can barely tear themselves away to go home at night. :biggrin: Rather, they are supposed to come to legislative compromise only after much thoughtful and sometimes heated debate. We already have laws on the books to deal with everything from immigration to run off water, if we can't enforce the one's we've got how are we going to enforce the new ones?

I'm thankful we haven't seen more laws coming down the pike. Dems would make it harder to get a gun than a ride to the international space station, or a doctor's appointment. I say we ease up, let the 535 congressmen and senators do their job and give the pen and cell phone a rest. No one man is smart enough to run this whole country.

64SUR Wrote:No....But the tea party movement is destroying the Republican party.

The media is doing everything in their power to destroy the Tea Party - labeling them racist, homophobic, closed-minded fanatics, etc. First off, I don't see why the liberals are so concerned about a minority of a minority. Second, if one were to watch C-SPAN and watch everybody in action, they would see that the Tea Party was more active than anybody and kept their patience a majority of the time when it comes to expressing their views.

I think if you saw the Tea Party that you and many others would have a different perspective on them. Unfortunately, the media has manipulated many of our voters into following their agenda.

^ If I had to define the Tea Party, I'd say they were polar opposites of liberals. Tea Partiers therefore tend to honor God and love the truth of scripture as well as oppose things like gay and abortion rights. They tend to espouse the traditional American values of our fathers, they tend to have good paying jobs and reasonably functional family lives. Many have served their country in the US Armed Services, always pay their taxes, believe in orderly and responsible social standards, respect and obey the law and therefore have a spotless criminal record. I mean, one can easily see why Lois Lerner considered folks of this ilk "very dangerous," LOL. Additionally, conservative Tea Partiers tend to love their country and are therefore very proud to be Americans who esteem the US Constitution and revere our founding fathers and the principles upon which this nation is built.

Liberals tend to lack a belief in God, and as you mentioned earlier, they tend to make it their mission to support everything God has said He hates. Among them are fervent support of gay rights, abortion on demand, legalized drugs, opposition to school prayer, a rabid defense of their version of the separation of church and state, (they cannot bear to be constantly reminded of the judgment looming in their future by Christmas displays or any reference to God). Liberals tend to eschew the traditional American values of our fathers. They tend to be very forgiving of folks who are too lazy to work or make any attempt at a productive life style, and see white folks as their very own personal fleecing flock to fund liberalism. They trend toward not having served in the US Armed Services, they tend therefore to call for gun control and a ridiculously naïve and lenient system to enforce our laws. And yet, they demand blind subjection to global warming regulations as are applicable to the use of fossil fuels of every conceivable kind, the 'No Slug Left Behind' federal government giveaway programs, as well as 'over the top' racial tolerance, which prevents common sense public protective measures. We dare not racially profile Islamists who tend to flock to American Airports, right? That would be racist.

And again as you point out, liberals tend to view the US Constitution and other founding documents as archaic parchments which must be continually updated to suit the palate and transient fads of the day.

The two sides could not be farther apart. This nation and her laws and fundamental values have been to die for, for the rest of the entire world up until recent day. The gift the founding fathers bequeathed to the blessed of this land, should be preserved, not fundamentally transformed.

In a nutshell, Tea Partiers want to preserve traditional America. Liberals want to loot the land for all they can get in classically liberal John Lennon-esque fashion. "Imagine all the people, living for today" Common sense has left the consciousness of the inhabitants of this land. I remember the story of the ant and the grasshopper. The ant worked and put up food for the coming winter, while the grasshopper lolled his days away in comfort and ease. The winter came and as you know, the ant lived another year while the unproductive grasshopper died. I will have to admit though, the grasshopper had waay more fun than the ant, until famine came calling.

64SUR Wrote:I am a Democrat an don't care who knows it.My whole life I have live in a Repubican county. And have been force to vote R. or I can't vote that doesn't make me a bad person....Just saying i can say 100% I have never voted for a R...President

This explains a hell of a whole lot.