[Mr. Onion Head]

I'm gonna stick to the topic and say that all sides and media outlets appeal to low informed voters. Conservatives need the "They're gonna take muh guns" crowd as bad as the liberals need those as equally uniformed.

And interpretation of the founding fathers is pretty much just an opinion. Yes you can try to determine what they'd like and wouldn't like, but nobody knows for sure how they'd view things today. The world has changed just a bit since their time. I don't think they had a specific vision in mind. They disagreed on many issues just like we do today. It's too broad to say that they wanted specific things to be accomplished 200 years later.

[TheRealThing]

I'm gonna stick to the topic and say that all sides and media outlets appeal to low informed voters. Conservatives need the "They're gonna take muh guns" crowd as bad as the liberals need those as equally uniformed.

And interpretation of the founding fathers is pretty much just an opinion. Yes you can try to determine what they'd like and wouldn't like, but nobody knows for sure how they'd view things today. The world has changed just a bit since their time. I don't think they had a specific vision in mind. They disagreed on many issues just like we do today. It's too broad to say that they wanted specific things to be accomplished 200 years later.

Oh, thanks for clearing all that up for me. So when Eric Holder lamented as late as last week that he took it "personal" when the US failed to enact gun legislation on the heels of the events at Sandy Hook, that was just another example of media manipulating the dull? I figured he was a little short on patriotism, I didn't consider his being low information. And when Barack Obama made his big push for gun control legislation, that was just the pundits jockeying for ratings with the lesser fools who actually try to keep themselves informed about such issues?

And I know I'm speaking to a great intellect here (evidently hovering somewhere above need of the news) but just because folks have cell phones and tablets these days, certainly doesn't mean society is in any way improved much less evolved. Else, why would we need gun control, right? I disagree completely with your assessment and dismissal of us knowing the intent of the framers. We know their sacrifice, and we certainly know they faced the gallows at the hand of King George. We know what they said and what they thought as it has all been carefully preserved in the writings of that day. Now, I will stipulate without equivocation that it is difficult to press the framers thoughts and deeds into a modern liberal mold. Therefore it is much easier to dismiss it all as some kind of indeterminate colonial mishmash in favor of making social issue charged changes to the constitution for the "light and transient causes" liberals are in such wont to see come to fruition.

And certainly, if one party decided to destroy the credibility of the other, they wouldn't need to court the low information types with welfare that included every concern of life including housing, food, clothing, spending money, utilities, cell phones and last but not least, healthcare.

Oh and one more thing. Using the court to go around the will of the people in measures like the one in Kentucky where 72% of the voters cast their vote to ban gay marriage could never happen, could it?

[TheRealThing]

^ Since I'm on an iphone, let's just address the "10th amendment, states rights " you name, since you want to lean toward it. What privilege did said states lose, if they restricted voting right of citizens? I'll tell the answer, they lost congressional representation. If it went the way you want, KY wouldn't have any representation in Washington.

LOL, if things go the way you want and Alison is sent to the Senate, we won't have any representation in Washington. If, and happily it really looks good for Mitch. If McConnell holds his seat, Kentucky will see her first Senate majority leader since Alben W. Barkley who left to become Harry S Truman's VP in 1948.

7 days to go. inglepar

[TheRealVille]

LOL, if things go the way you want and Alison is sent to the Senate, we won't have any representation in Washington. If, and happily it really looks good for Mitch. If McConnell holds his seat, Kentucky will see her first Senate majority leader since Alben W. Barkley who left to become Harry S Truman's VP in 1948.

Don't count a majority seat just yet, you guys need 6 new seats. I see you skipped over the "states rights" losing congressional representation for hindering voting rights, and Harry skipped town when I pointed that out. I'd also wage good money he isn't a constitutional lawyer. I wouldn't be that proud to have Mitch as the new blocker in chief from Kentucky. As least before, we could blame the blocking on Ohio.

From your post above, if 100% of KY voters were against gay marriage, civil rights issues aren't left up to votes.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

^ Since I'm on an iphone, let's just address the "10th amendment, states rights " you name, since you want to lean toward it. What privilege did said states lose, if they restricted voting right of citizens? I'll tell the answer, they lost congressional representation. If it went the way you want, KY wouldn't have any representation in Washington.

What on earth are you talking about? I posted the history. Either you can't understand it or you won't uinderstand it. Either way illustrates your ignorance.

In making laws concerning voting, the states never "restricted voting rights" since the "rights" were based upon complying with the law passed by the state. The "rights" were set by each state. That is how the founders intended it. That can't be argued. Of course, we all know what liberal judges have done to destroy our constitution. I'm not going to waste time replying to Mr. Onion Head in a separate post. Let's just say that he/she must have been in your eighth grade history class and, like you, Ms. Doodad failed to educate him/her either.

It is difficult to impossible to carry on an intelligent conversation with either of you because your "information" is so completely baseless in fact.

And, I still haven't heard your answers to my questions concerning Clueless Barbie's alleged qualifications, the whereabouts of Andy, or if you union boys allow those who do not pay union dues to vote in union elections.

Of course, I already know the answers to all three questions. If you don't answer, you just appear to be hardheaded. However, if you do answer, you are proving yourself to by a hypocrite- particularly on the voting issue. And, maybe better to be a hard head than a hypocrite, don't you think?

[Mr. Onion Head]

TRV -

HRV, I was referring to conservatives who literally say that "they're gonna take my guns", not those who have concern over gun control. The ones who believe that someone is literally going to walk in their house and remove their guns. Gun enthusiasts have every right to be concerned over control of weapons however.

And it's difficult to press the thoughts of the framers into any modern day mold. I admire them greatly but both sides can make arguments against the other in regards to who they would rally behind today on key issues.

It's comical to argue about "welfare" voters as uninformed when the majority of them especially in EKY vote red more often than blue. Amazingly ignorant to generalize that blacks, young voters, and single women as your OP are uninformed and less educated than others. Would love to compare many of their educations/voting qualifications (not that there needs to be) to that of white men in EKY that will vote conservative simply by being told "war on coal", without knowing anything else.

As far as any qualifications for your obsession Grimes, I don't have them and don't argue that I do. It's a stretch for her to be Senator and I think many know that. It's a lose lose for this state either way.

[TheRealThing]

TRV -

HRV, I was referring to conservatives who literally say that "they're gonna take my guns", not those who have concern over gun control. The ones who believe that someone is literally going to walk in their house and remove their guns. Gun enthusiasts have every right to be concerned over control of weapons however.

And it's difficult to press the thoughts of the framers into any modern day mold. I admire them greatly but both sides can make arguments against the other in regards to who they would rally behind today on key issues.

It's comical to argue about "welfare" voters as uninformed when the majority of them especially in EKY vote red more often than blue. Amazingly ignorant to generalize that blacks, young voters, and single women as your OP are uninformed and less educated than others. Would love to compare many of their educations/voting qualifications (not that there needs to be) to that of white men in EKY that will vote conservative simply by being told "war on coal", without knowing anything else.

As far as any qualifications for your obsession Grimes, I don't have them and don't argue that I do. It's a stretch for her to be Senator and I think many know that. It's a lose lose for this state either way.

You were unaware or, was it unconcerned, that under the dictates of ObamaCare health care workers are to ask questions regarding the presence of firearms in the home? Of those who you envision as saying "thar gonna take muh guns" I would argue the vast majority are gainfully employed. Nothing particularly personal there Onion Head but, if you want to argue that Dems don't pander to the low information crowd you'll come up short with me and Harry Rex. As to so many in Kentucky who vote red, that is an outlier due to the sprawling farm country in which they live and parents who were Republican.

Not many would argue that having one's own state senator as majority leader is a good thing. And not many would argue that McConnell would surely be light years better than Harry Reid's woeful performance.

[TheRealThing]

Don't count a majority seat just yet, you guys need 6 new seats. I see you skipped over the "states rights" losing congressional representation for hindering voting rights, and Harry skipped town when I pointed that out. I'd also wage good money he isn't a constitutional lawyer. I wouldn't be that proud to have Mitch as the new blocker in chief from Kentucky. As least before, we could blame the blocking on Ohio.

From your post above, if 100% of KY voters were against gay marriage, civil rights issues aren't left up to votes.

Well, the pursuit of sexual depravity is not guaranteed under the constitution. Neither does a list of civil rights include sodomy. In all the back and forth between us concerning this "unseemly" behavior, I have always said that based on the clear teachings of Christ, though I will never condone the homosexual lifestyle and am totally against legislating on it's behalf, what they do in private is no business of mine.

So, if I took your point you were taking a bow for besting Harry Rex in a legal debate. :hilarious:

[TheRealVille]

Well, the pursuit of sexual depravity is not guaranteed under the constitution. Neither does a list of civil rights include sodomy. In all the back and forth between us concerning this "unseemly" behavior, I have always said that based on the clear teachings of Christ, though I will never condone the homosexual lifestyle and am totally against legislating on it's behalf, what they do in private is no business of mine.

So, if I took your point you were taking a bow for besting Harry Rex in a legal debate. :hilarious:

No, I wouldn't go as far as to say I bested him. I just called him out on something he didn't care to tell about the 10th amendment, concerning voting rights, and didn't think anybody would catch. States , I guess, according to the 10th can limit voting's rights, but they lose all congressional representation if they do.

[RunItUpTheGut]

One thing ole Mitch will do is put so many pieces of paper on Obamas desk that he will have no time for golf. He'll have to keep the veto pen full of ink, and if he uses it to much, it will only further hurt the country, and more and more people will see whos really doing the blocking.

Its coming. Get ready. Be happy. The country is almost under the control of people who will actually help it.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

No, I wouldn't go as far as to say I bested him. I just called him out on something he didn't care to tell about the 10th amendment, concerning voting rights, and didn't think anybody would catch. States , I guess, according to the 10th can limit voting's rights, but they lose all congressional representation if they do.

Do you ever talk in grammatically correct complete sentences? From what I can figure out, you seem to think that, if states disobey the edicts of the federals in regard to voting "rights", said states lose their congressional seats. Where did you get that?

I guess it is time for another lesson.

The US Constitution clearly left qualifications to vote up to each state as a part of the umbrella of rights granted by the Tenth Amendment. This conclusion is supported by the fact that each state had its own laws for voting up until the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1871. The purpose of the at amendment was to give the vote to blacks after the Civil War. Women were not granted the blanket right to vote until the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1921.



However, even with those two amendments, states still had much control in regard to voting. How do we know? Well, a number of states, including Kentucky, allowed eighteen year olds to vote prior to the ratification of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment in 1965. If some states allowed eighteen year olds to vote and others required voters to be twenty-one years old, obviously voting was still a state issue.

Now, along comes a bunch of liberal politicians and, even worse, liberal judges more interested in winning elections than following the dictates of the framers, and the federal government has taken over voting. Why? Undoubtedly because liberals need the votes of the uninformed, undereducated, naïve, dependent underclass/low information voter to win elections and maintain power. You know and I know that, if only income tax payers voted, your boys would never win another election. Your margin of victory, when you have one, always comes from the takers. Even the most ardent Democrat knows that is true and that is why you people cater to the underclass.

Your continued reference to states "losing" congressional representation is, like most all of your posts, silly.

And, for the umpteenth time, will you union boys allow those who pay no union dues to vote in your union elections? If not, why should we taxpayers allow non taxpayers to vote in our elections? The logic is identical. I won't ask again about Clueless Barbie and her invisible "spouse" because they have become moot.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Don't count a majority seat just yet, you guys need 6 new seats. I see you skipped over the "states rights" losing congressional representation for hindering voting rights, and Harry skipped town when I pointed that out. I'd also wage good money he isn't a constitutional lawyer. I wouldn't be that proud to have Mitch as the new blocker in chief from Kentucky. As least before, we could blame the blocking on Ohio.

From your post above, if 100% of KY voters were against gay marriage, civil rights issues aren't left up to votes.

Your post is rubbish. However, your last sentence is obscenely incorrect. Actually, civil rights issues are, at least indirectly, "left to votes" (I'll assume you mean left up to the voters.). Voters elect two branches of our government- the executive and the legislative. The executive branch nominates those who serve in the judicial branch and the legislative branch confirms or rejects these nominations. So, when you correctly analyze the process in light of the way the framers intended, laws do originate with the will of the voter.

An unintended consequence is that the judicial branch has usurped the powers of the other two branches- particularly the legislative branch. That was never intended by the framers.

For example. Every state which has ever voted on the principle of marriage has voted by large margins in all instances that marriage is between one man and one woman. Many states have adopted laws protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage. The people, even in fruit and nut land (California) have spoken. The federal government, during the tenure of your boy, Clinton, passed the sanctity of marriage act which old Bill willingly signed into law.

Now, along come a few liberal judges and overturn the will of a vast majority of the people.

Does anyone really believe that the framers intended for the judicial branch to trump the other two branches of government?

[TheRealVille]

Do you ever talk in grammatically correct complete sentences? From what I can figure out, you seem to think that, if states disobey the edicts of the federals in regard to voting "rights", said states lose their congressional seats. Where did you get that?

I guess it is time for another lesson.

The US Constitution clearly left qualifications to vote up to each state as a part of the umbrella of rights granted by the Tenth Amendment. This conclusion is supported by the fact that each state had its own laws for voting up until the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1871. The purpose of the at amendment was to give the vote to blacks after the Civil War. Women were not granted the blanket right to vote until the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1921.



However, even with those two amendments, states still had much control in regard to voting. How do we know? Well, a number of states, including Kentucky, allowed eighteen year olds to vote prior to the ratification of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment in 1965. If some states allowed eighteen year olds to vote and others required voters to be twenty-one years old, obviously voting was still a state issue.

Now, along comes a bunch of liberal politicians and, even worse, liberal judges more interested in winning elections than following the dictates of the framers, and the federal government has taken over voting. Why? Undoubtedly because liberals need the votes of the uninformed, undereducated, naïve, dependent underclass/low information voter to win elections and maintain power. You know and I know that, if only income tax payers voted, your boys would never win another election. Your margin of victory, when you have one, always comes from the takers. Even the most ardent Democrat knows that is true and that is why you people cater to the underclass.

Your continued reference to states "losing" congressional representation is, like most all of your posts, silly.

And, for the umpteenth time, will you union boys allow those who pay no union dues to vote in your union elections? If not, why should we taxpayers allow non taxpayers to vote in our elections? The logic is identical. I won't ask again about Clueless Barbie and her invisible "spouse" because they have become moot.

14th amendment, section 2.


Apples and oranges. Obviously, non union workers aren't "citizens" of our union. The same as Canadians can't vote in American elections, non union workers can't vote in union business. Citizens of the US are citizens of the US, and are allowed to vote.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

14th amendment, section 2.


Apples and oranges. Obviously, non union workers aren't "citizens" of our union. The same as Canadians can't vote in American elections, non union workers can't vote in union business. Citizens of the US are citizens of the US, and are allowed to vote.

Did you notice that the paragraph you cite applies only to males? That has been amended by later amendments and laws. And, of course, I would propose the same method for taking the vote from the non-contributors. Give up, TheRealVille, you are embarrassingly in over your head. As your little pitiful boy, Obama, likes to say, all this is above your pay grade.

Your explanation in regard to your union is weak. How about the non-union workers who are "citizens" of your company and similar companies since they work there but don't pay dues? Shouldn't they have a vote? And, of course I believe in absolute right to work laws. I believe in freedom and self reliance.

[TheRealVille]

Did you notice that the paragraph you cite applies only to males? That has been amended by later amendments and laws. And, of course, I would propose the same method for taking the vote from the non-contributors. Give up, TheRealVille, you are embarrassingly in over your head. As your little pitiful boy, Obama, likes to say, all this is above your pay grade.

Your explanation in regard to your union is weak. How about the non-union workers who are "citizens" of your company and similar companies since they work there but don't pay dues? Shouldn't they have a vote? And, of course I believe in absolute right to work laws. I believe in freedom and self reliance.

Amendments were added to include women, blacks, and 18 year olds. Those amendments don't override the 14th, they just add to it and clarify the 14th. The 14th is still there. You can twist it all you want, and think you are the only on this board that has reading comprehension, but real congressional lawyers have already taken up, and clarified the amendments pertaining to voting. The words are plain. You can look down on non lawyers as ignorant, but writing is plain.

There are no non union members of my union. My company is a union company, and employs only union labor members to do the work. Any white collar people at high levels of my company that might not pay dues on a global scale, have no say in our union votes. Again, there are no non union "citizens" in my union.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Amendments were added to include women, blacks, and 18 year olds. Those amendments don't override the 14th, they just add to it and clarify the 14th. The 14th is still there. You can twist it all you want, and think you are the only on this board that has reading comprehension, but real congressional lawyers have already taken up, and clarified the amendments pertaining to voting. The words are plain. You can look down on non lawyers as ignorant, but writing is plain.

There are no non union members of my union. My company is a union company, and employs only union labor members to do the work. Any white collar people at high levels of my company that might not pay dues on a global scale, have no say in our union votes. Again, there are no non union "citizens" in my union.

Gee. It doesn't sound like you union boys favor freedom of choice other than in regard to the murdering of innocent babies by women and their accomplices. But, since you don't believe in the laws of God, killing the innocents doesn't rise to the serious level of union loyalty.



As for your "congressional lawyers", I would submit that interpretations are often in the eyes of the beholder. Conservatives stick to original intent. Liberals create new interpretations to fit their ends. As Justice Felix Frankfurter once said, "To some lawyers all facts are created equal". And you, as a union non-lawyer are entitled to your own interpretation regardless of how flawed it may be. In other words, I may not approve of ignorance but I do defend one's right to be ignorant.

[TheRealVille]

Gee. It doesn't sound like you union boys favor freedom of choice other than in regard to the murdering of innocent babies by women and their accomplices. But, since you don't believe in the laws of God, killing the innocents doesn't rise to the serious level of union loyalty.



As for your "congressional lawyers", I would submit that interpretations are often in the eyes of the beholder. Conservatives stick to original intent. Liberals create new interpretations to fit their ends. As Justice Felix Frankfurter once said, "To some lawyers all facts are created equal". And you, as a union non-lawyer are entitled to your own interpretation regardless of how flawed it may be. In other words, I may not approve of ignorance but I do defend one's right to be ignorant.

If those women want that fetus out of their body, before the viability stage, it's none of my business. That fetus can't live outside the womb before the viability stage. You guys need to figure out a way to make viability start at conception, then you can raise the kids. George Carlin said it best about your guys,

Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren’t they? They’re all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you’re born, you’re on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don’t want to know about you. They don’t want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re preborn, you’re fine; if you’re preschool, you’re fucked.

Yea, we favor other workers having a choice, they can find a non union company to work for, or join and help pay for our negotiators. In the construction industry, unions only have about 7% of the work. So, that leaves 93% of non union contractors for people to go to work for, if they have a problem with paying dues. Going by percentages, non union workers have a lot better chance of finding a contractor to work for, than I do. But, my 7% tend to be better at negotiating wages for our workers. Why would we allow non union people to work for our measly 7% of the market, unless they join up and pay their share. Again, non "citizens" have no vote, just like on the national scale of voting.

[TheRealVille]

Did you notice that the paragraph you cite applies only to males? That has been amended by later amendments and laws. And, of course, I would propose the same method for taking the vote from the non-contributors. Give up, TheRealVille, you are embarrassingly in over your head. As your little pitiful boy, Obama, likes to say, all this is above your pay grade.

Your explanation in regard to your union is weak. How about the non-union workers who are "citizens" of your company and similar companies since they work there but don't pay dues? Shouldn't they have a vote? And, of course I believe in absolute right to work laws. I believe in freedom and self reliance.

Of course your are for right to work laws, you are a typical big business conservative. Right to work laws, which are only "right to work" in name, take away all worker say, and allow the business to treat workers anyway they want. At their very core, right to work laws are meant to bust unions, and give all say to the company, none to the worker. You, being a conservative, are for big business, and the unions are too good at negotiating their wages, for that labor. Right to work laws do two things, break unions, and allow companies to treat workers any way they want, and bring ALL workers wages down, even the non union. Non union should be grateful for unions, we keep all workers wages up to par, for that work. But, I understand your take, you are business, you want the worker to do what you say, and be glad for whatever you decide to pay them.

[TheRealThing]

Do you ever talk in grammatically correct complete sentences? From what I can figure out, you seem to think that, if states disobey the edicts of the federals in regard to voting "rights", said states lose their congressional seats. Where did you get that?

I guess it is time for another lesson.

The US Constitution clearly left qualifications to vote up to each state as a part of the umbrella of rights granted by the Tenth Amendment. This conclusion is supported by the fact that each state had its own laws for voting up until the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1871. The purpose of the at amendment was to give the vote to blacks after the Civil War. Women were not granted the blanket right to vote until the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1921.



However, even with those two amendments, states still had much control in regard to voting. How do we know? Well, a number of states, including Kentucky, allowed eighteen year olds to vote prior to the ratification of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment in 1965. If some states allowed eighteen year olds to vote and others required voters to be twenty-one years old, obviously voting was still a state issue.

Now, along comes a bunch of liberal politicians and, even worse, liberal judges more interested in winning elections than following the dictates of the framers, and the federal government has taken over voting. Why? Undoubtedly because liberals need the votes of the uninformed, undereducated, naïve, dependent underclass/low information voter to win elections and maintain power. You know and I know that, if only income tax payers voted, your boys would never win another election. Your margin of victory, when you have one, always comes from the takers. Even the most ardent Democrat knows that is true and that is why you people cater to the underclass.

Your continued reference to states "losing" congressional representation is, like most all of your posts, silly.

And, for the umpteenth time, will you union boys allow those who pay no union dues to vote in your union elections? If not, why should we taxpayers allow non taxpayers to vote in our elections? The logic is identical. I won't ask again about Clueless Barbie and her invisible "spouse" because they have become moot.

And the rising star from among the takers is the illegal population. The following is why Democrats militantly oppose voter ID's. At any rate Harry thanks for putting this up.^^

As many as a million illegal votes cast?

EXCERPT---
"Although the Democrats will vehemently deny it, there is a problem with voter fraud in this country. In fact, former VP candidate Wayne Allen Root alleges that the Democrats won recent elections due to rampant voter fraud.

A recent poll showed that nearly 8 in 10 Americans support voters having to provide ID before being allowed to cast their vote, in order to prove that their vote isn’t fraudulent.

Studies were conducted in swing-states like Florida and Ohio after the 2012 election, and revealed numerous cases of illegal immigrants voting and fraudulent voter registrations.
http://conservativetribune.com/voter-fraud-1-mil-votes/

CHICAGO
"Last week a voting machine in Cook County, Illinois switched votes for Republicans to votes for Democrats. Election officials blamed a "calibration error" for the change. Now, the same thing is happening in Maryland and again officials are citing a "calibration error."

MARYLAND
"Voting machines that switch Republican votes to Democrats are being reported in Maryland."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlic...s-n1910991

Here we go again. Early voting results are fraught with "errors" that miraculously seem invariably to favor Democrats. :pondering:

[RunItUpTheGut]

Right to work laws are the best thing that's happened to counter the ridiculous union groups we have today. You shouldn't be forced to join a union. You also shouldn't have to pay dues if you don't want to.

[TheRealVille]

Right to work laws are the best thing that's happened to counter the ridiculous union groups we have today. You shouldn't be forced to join a union. You also shouldn't have to pay dues if you don't want to.

Ignorance of the subject at it's highest. You don't have to join a union if you don't want to. Also, you don't have to pay union dues. To cure both of your worries is simple, don't join a union. Anything else? I have the option of not being in a union, and not paying union dues. All I have to do is go to work for a company that does my trade, that is non union.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Ignorance of the subject at it's highest. You don't have to join a union if you don't want to. Also, you don't have to pay union dues. To cure both of your worries is simple, don't join a union. Anything else? I have the option of not being in a union, and not paying union dues. All I have to do is go to work for a company that does my trade, that is non union.

I enjoyed your tirade concerning the virtues of union membership. I suppose that my experience, as a former member of two labor unions, led me to conclude that I, shall we say, don't "look for the union label".

Now one last statement concerning my proposal to limit voting to those who actually contribute to the operation of the republic. To accomplish my end, a constitutional amendment would be required. We have had several amendments concerning voting so the precedence is established. Do I believe the US Congress and the states will pass and ratify such an amendment? No. We have produced a large population of dependents. If Obama paves the road for all the illegals to someday be citizens, most all of them will be dependents. Therefore, most all of them will be Democrats. The Democrats and the dependents scratch each other's backs. Democrats provide welfare for the dependents and, in return, dependents continue to vote for Democrats. That is how modern day US politics works.

Is there really anything that can be done about it? Probably not. Once people are kept by the government, you cannot turn back the clock. Will it effect me or my family financially? Directly- no. However, the majority of those who work for a living can't reach that same result. thus, indirectly, it effects me and my family because of the damage such a system does to the foundation of the country.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

If those women want that fetus out of their body, before the viability stage, it's none of my business. That fetus can't live outside the womb before the viability stage. You guys need to figure out a way to make viability start at conception, then you can raise the kids. George Carlin said it best about your guys,




Yea, we favor other workers having a choice, they can find a non union company to work for, or join and help pay for our negotiators. In the construction industry, unions only have about 7% of the work. So, that leaves 93% of non union contractors for people to go to work for, if they have a problem with paying dues. Going by percentages, non union workers have a lot better chance of finding a contractor to work for, than I do. But, my 7% tend to be better at negotiating wages for our workers. Why would we allow non union people to work for our measly 7% of the market, unless they join up and pay their share. Again, non "citizens" have no vote, just like on the national scale of voting.

It is difficult to reason with TheRealVille in regard to life issues. My beliefs are built on personal experience and sacred biblical tenets. Since TheRealVille claims no allegiance to the latter, there is no reason to argue the Will of God.

However, I do notice that he uses all the liberal buzz words to avoid stating the truth and that truth is that, from the moment of conception, this is a separate human being from the woman carrying it. It is not a wart or a mole. It is a baby.

Those purporting to believe like TheRealVille always argued science. However, with the advent of DNA, they can no longer do so. Have you noticed that the abortionists don't seriously use science anymore? Why? Because DNA proves beyond question that, from conception, the forming baby has separate DNA from the woman carrying it. Thus, it is a separate human being.

TheRealVille uses the idea of "viability". This is an argument without any validity. For example, lets consider a baby one day, one month, one year after birth. Just how truly viable is it? It, as before birth, is still dependent upon others to survive. It obviously cannot survive on its own. The bottom line is that a baby nine months before birth is just as much a human being as a baby nine months after birth.

Abortion is the murder of another human being. No informed person can conclude otherwise although a large number still support the "practice" for convenience sake.

Will a conservative court ever overturn Roe v Wade? No. The reality is that it is too deeply embedded in legal precedence to ever be overruled. That is the sad fact.

Will God hold those who had abortions, those who assisted abortions, and those who openly supported abortions responsible? How could He not do so?

[TheRealVille]

It is difficult to reason with TheRealVille in regard to life issues. My beliefs are built on personal experience and sacred biblical tenets. Since TheRealVille claims no allegiance to the latter, there is no reason to argue the Will of God.

However, I do notice that he uses all the liberal buzz words to avoid stating the truth and that truth is that, from the moment of conception, this is a separate human being from the woman carrying it. It is not a wart or a mole. It is a baby.

Those purporting to believe like TheRealVille always argued science. However, with the advent of DNA, they can no longer do so. Have you noticed that the abortionists don't seriously use science anymore? Why? Because DNA proves beyond question that, from conception, the forming baby has separate DNA from the woman carrying it. Thus, it is a separate human being.

TheRealVille uses the idea of "viability". This is an argument without any validity. For example, lets consider a baby one day, one month, one year after birth. Just how truly viable is it? It, as before birth, is still dependent upon others to survive. It obviously cannot survive on its own. The bottom line is that a baby nine months before birth is just as much a human being as a baby nine months after birth.

Abortion is the murder of another human being. No informed person can conclude otherwise although a large number still support the "practice" for convenience sake.

Will a conservative court ever overturn Roe v Wade? No. The reality is that it is too deeply embedded in legal precedence to ever be overruled. That is the sad fact.

Will God hold those who had abortions, those who assisted abortions, and those who openly supported abortions responsible? How could He not do so?

You are right a conservative court won't turn over RvW, because a conservative, republican majority appointed court brought you RvW.

[TheRealVille]

I enjoyed your tirade concerning the virtues of union membership. I suppose that my experience, as a former member of two labor unions, led me to conclude that I, shall we say, don't "look for the union label".

Now one last statement concerning my proposal to limit voting to those who actually contribute to the operation of the republic. To accomplish my end, a constitutional amendment would be required. We have had several amendments concerning voting so the precedence is established. Do I believe the US Congress and the states will pass and ratify such an amendment? No. We have produced a large population of dependents. If Obama paves the road for all the illegals to someday be citizens, most all of them will be dependents. Therefore, most all of them will be Democrats. The Democrats and the dependents scratch each other's backs. Democrats provide welfare for the dependents and, in return, dependents continue to vote for Democrats. That is how modern day US politics works.

Is there really anything that can be done about it? Probably not. Once people are kept by the government, you cannot turn back the clock. Will it effect me or my family financially? Directly- no. However, the majority of those who work for a living can't reach that same result. thus, indirectly, it effects me and my family because of the damage such a system does to the foundation of the country.

Laborer and pipe fitter?

[Harry Rex Vonner]

You are right a conservative court won't turn over RvW, because a conservative, republican majority appointed court brought you RvW.

TheRealVille is somewhat correct but his analysis leaves much to be desired. I won't get into the ins and outs of Roe v Wade because it would be lengthy and, to most everyone, boring and too legalistic. Suffice it to say that several Republican appointed justices did vote with the majority. Even Chief Justice Burger did so but there was a strategic reason as to why he did so and there is no need to orate on that in this forum.

As to philosophy, it should be noted that, unlike present day court appointments, rigid partisans were not necessarily sought out as they are today. the Republican appointed justices who voted with the majority were Brennen, Powell, Blackmun, and Burger. However, as I said, there was a strategic reason for Burger's vote. As history clearly shows, either Powell nor Blackmun could be characterized as staunch conservatives remotely like, for example Justice Alito today. Brennen was appointed by Eisenhower. Brennen turned out to be the liberal leader of the court. Eisenhower, in his memoirs, stated that the worst two mistakes he ever made in his remarkable career were the appointment of Earl Warren and William Brennen to the USSC. If fact, Ike used a goodly number of profanity to correctly describe just how bad those two choices were. I wholeheartedly agree with him.

The reason Roe v Wade will never be overturned is strictly because it is now established law- regardless of how abominable it may be. the precedence is embedded in our law. Decisions by a conservative court may chip away at Roe v Wade by placing restrictions and limits but will never overturn it.

I apologize for all the "legalize" in my lengthy posts. However, TheRealVille can't be allowed to "alter" the facts without response.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Laborer and pipe fitter?

Neither.

[TheRealVille]

TheRealVille is somewhat correct but his analysis leaves much to be desired. I won't get into the ins and outs of Roe v Wade because it would be lengthy and, to most everyone, boring and too legalistic. Suffice it to say that several Republican appointed justices did vote with the majority. Even Chief Justice Burger did so but there was a strategic reason as to why he did so and there is no need to orate on that in this forum.

As to philosophy, it should be noted that, unlike present day court appointments, rigid partisans were not necessarily sought out as they are today. the Republican appointed justices who voted with the majority were Brennen, Powell, Blackmun, and Burger. However, as I said, there was a strategic reason for Burger's vote. As history clearly shows, either Powell nor Blackmun could be characterized as staunch conservatives remotely like, for example Justice Alito today. Brennen was appointed by Eisenhower. Brennen turned out to be the liberal leader of the court. Eisenhower, in his memoirs, stated that the worst two mistakes he ever made in his remarkable career were the appointment of Earl Warren and William Brennen to the USSC. If fact, Ike used a goodly number of profanity to correctly describe just how bad those two choices were. I wholeheartedly agree with him.

The reason Roe v Wade will never be overturned is strictly because it is now established law- regardless of how abominable it may be. the precedence is embedded in our law. Decisions by a conservative court may chip away at Roe v Wade by placing restrictions and limits but will never overturn it.

I apologize for all the "legalize" in my lengthy posts. However, TheRealVille can't be allowed to "alter" the facts without response.

Republican appointed justices WERE the majority. 5 of the 7 were appointed by republicans. It doesn't matter if he regretted his decision on the two justices, he appointed them, and they were in the majority.

[TheRealThing]

It is difficult to reason with TheRealVille in regard to life issues. My beliefs are built on personal experience and sacred biblical tenets. Since TheRealVille claims no allegiance to the latter, there is no reason to argue the Will of God.

However, I do notice that he uses all the liberal buzz words to avoid stating the truth and that truth is that, from the moment of conception, this is a separate human being from the woman carrying it. It is not a wart or a mole. It is a baby.

Those purporting to believe like TheRealVille always argued science. However, with the advent of DNA, they can no longer do so. Have you noticed that the abortionists don't seriously use science anymore? Why? Because DNA proves beyond question that, from conception, the forming baby has separate DNA from the woman carrying it. Thus, it is a separate human being.

TheRealVille uses the idea of "viability" . This is an argument without any validity. For example, lets consider a baby one day, one month, one year after birth. Just how truly viable is it? It, as before birth, is still dependent upon others to survive. It obviously cannot survive on its own. The bottom line is that a baby nine months before birth is just as much a human being as a baby nine months after birth.

Abortion is the murder of another human being. No informed person can conclude otherwise although a large number still support the "practice" for convenience sake.


Will a conservative court ever overturn Roe v Wade? No. The reality is that it is too deeply embedded in legal precedence to ever be overruled. That is the sad fact.

Will God hold those who had abortions, those who assisted abortions, and those who openly supported abortions responsible? How could He not do so?

The whole thing has been a dodge from it's conception, pun intended. Viability is just another word to hide behind, like women's health, and pro choice. We dare not call it what it is, infanticide, murder by any definition. At any rate, here is a considered opinion on the word viability from abortion law language.

EXCERPT---
"The Court thus stressed that viability was essentially a medical judgement, and invalidated a law making physicians criminally liable for performing abortions when the fetus ``is viable'' or when there is ``sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable''[7]. The threat of criminal liability in the face of the uncertainty associated with viability determinations unacceptably burdened the abortion decision."
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/ra.../roe2.html

In other words, every effort has been taken from a legal standpoint to encourage abortions with the assurances of the court. All the reams of case law in support of the butchering of the innocents, are one lie stacked up on top of the one before. A veritable mountain of lies and the people should rise up against the abominable practice of abortion.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Ignorance of the subject at it's highest. You don't have to join a union if you don't want to. Also, you don't have to pay union dues. To cure both of your worries is simple, don't join a union. Anything else? I have the option of not being in a union, and not paying union dues. All I have to do is go to work for a company that does my trade, that is non union.

Tit for tat.

YOU know as well as I do, if you work for a company and don't join the union that all of the others have you will be harassed, and eventually pushed out. Do not tell me that you wont.

That's the reason for the season. Join or get cut out. Nobody wants to go to work to be ignored all day and being harassed.