Florida May Screw Up Another Election

[Boris]

Personally, I could give a cabbage fart. I do find it interesting if the Dems choose to make the Florida primary non-binding, this will be the same blowhards claiming voter disenfranchisement for the last several elections. I guess it's like beating up your little brother. Only you are allowed to do that.


On Jan. 29, Florida Republicans and Democrats head to the polls to pick presidential nominees. Republican votes count, just as you would expect, but the results for Democrats would be nonbinding. No delegates would be awarded based upon the results and instead party activists and insiders would decide on some later date how to divvy up the state's more than 200 delegates to the Democratic national convention.



http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/09/State/Dems__primary_may_not.shtml

[Tom]

:lol: So far, everything they have done is non binding!
What a bunch of losers!
Whine whine whine

Now Hillary wants a do-over on the war vote.
Somone should tell them that this is the REAL world, not Wayne's World.

[Indulto]

My biggest disappointment with the Democrats since the 2006 election is that they aren't making progress in areas they could be, particulary with regard to maintaining confidence in our electoral process. Electronic voting machines, ballot wording, voter access, poll monitoring, and ability to conduct accurate recounts are still in question.

I hate to draw any wrong conclusions here, but why aren't they doing evertything they can to make certain that the next presidential election can't be "stolen" from them? This "non-binding" BS is a step in the wrong direction.

[rastajenk]

Because they think they're in position to do the stealin', I guess.

[Tom]

Indulto, "stealing elections was only an issue when repubs were winning.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Sorry, I do not read threads that have that as an opening sentence!!

[GaryG]

A good many of them are illiterate and some of the old folks are jacked up on digitalis and anxious to get to Denny's for the early bird special. How'd you like to give the U of Miami football a reading test?

[Lefty]

Indulto, the simple answer is, they know NOTHING was stolen from them. They know it was they that tried to do the stealing.

[PaceAdvantage]

Sorry, I do not read threads that have that as an opening sentence!!

But you reply to them?

[Indulto]

Tom-Lefty (or is it Lefty-Tom? ;)),

Despite having provided the PA version of the Beulah Twins another photo-op, I am sincere about no longer supporting any politicians who are lackadaisical about furthering free, fair, future elections. I'll vote for any credible Dem or Rep that sets a high priority on this issue. How can we force democracy on others if we can't have confidence in our own elections? :bang:

[Tom]

"credible Dem or Rep"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHA
:lol::lol::lol:

Oh man, that was good.
My sides hurt! ROTFLMAO

[skate]

But you reply to them?

i dont even repl...


y

[skate]

but, hey, on subject, the democrats along with the media, just keep on tossing hooks and along comes another Mutt-head willing to grab ahold.


i guess the bright side (if any) is, they keep other muttunheads diverted.;)


we need that:cool:

on the last FL screw-up, the demos were in charge:eek:

[Indulto]

but, hey, on subject, the democrats along with the media, just keep on tossing hooks and along comes another Mutt-head willing to grab ahold.

i guess the bright side (if any) is, they keep other muttunheads diverted.;)

we need that:cool:

on the last FL screw-up, the demos were in charge:eek:Of what?

Have you already forgotten the queen of repugs?

http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archives/2006/08/kathryn_harris.html (http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archives/2006/08/kathryn_harris.html)
Kathryn Harris Wants a Theocracy August 25, 2006

A new interview with Kathryn Harris confirms the fears of many who fear a coming theocracy. Harris, a member of Calvary Chapel in Sarasota, believes that Christians must impose their faith on the country through the passage of biblical-based laws. She says it herself…

[GaryG]

Of what?

Have you already forgotten the queen of repugs?

http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archives/2006/08/kathryn_harris.html (http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archives/2006/08/kathryn_harris.html)
[font=Verdana]Now THERE is a credible news source.....repugs? This guy must be part of hcap's posse.

[Indulto]

Now THERE is a credible news source.....repugs? This guy must be part of hcap's posse.His fan club, anyway. ;)

I agree the r-word doesn't apply to all Reps, but for some like Harris and Delay, it just isn't sufficient.

I've been looking for a similar term for a few choice Dems. Any suggestions?

[46zilzal]

Indulto, "stealing elections was only an issue when repubs were winning.
Do a little history lesson 1876, republicans stole the election then too and via what state you ask? FLORIDA!

[Lefty]

zilly,Fla was won in 2000 by Bush. The state supreme court tried to steal it for ALGORE but wasn't allowed to do so. 1876 has nuthin to do with it. Please try and get over it.

[46zilzal]

same thing, different time frame.
http://www.davekopel.org/Misc/OpEds/1876-Election.htm

[Lefty]

Your guys tried to steal the election and failed. 1876 is as irrelevent as the dem/Soros party getting to be.

[boxcar]

I hate to draw any wrong conclusions here, but why aren't they doing evertything they can to make certain that the next presidential election can't be "stolen" from them? This "non-binding" BS is a step in the wrong direction.

I'm suprised you would ask this kind of question -- unless of course, you really do hate to draw the wrong conclusions about Dem Rats. :D

Boxcar

[Indulto]

... Dem Rats. :D :lol: :ThmbUp:

[skate]

Of what?

Have you already forgotten the queen of repugs?

http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archives/2006/08/kathryn_harris.html (http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archives/2006/08/kathryn_harris.html)
[font=Verdana]

Of What?? the demos were in charge of the election committee, i dont remember the girls name, but you can take that to the bank, they were in charge.

hell, Harris was just a local Rep. speaking out, she had Nothing to do with any election, she came on after tht e election.

[skate]

Of What?? the demos were in charge of the election committee, i dont remember the girls name, but you can take that to the bank, they were in charge.

hell, Harris was just a local Rep. speaking out, she had Nothing to do with any election, she came on after tht e election.


what is it, that you think your posted web site has to do with the election?

[Lefty]

Skate, for the most part the dems were in charge of all the polling places. But, It was Kathryn Harris' job to certify the election which she did, did it correctly, and legally, then the libs in the Fl Supreme Ct decided to take the law into their own hands. After all the rigmarole, recounts etc. it was determined Bush won by a larger margin that orig thght. It was on all the back pages...

[skate]

Lefty,

i agree, and the point i was looking forward to making to Indulto was that this gal in charge of Election Committe in Fl. was a registered Democrat.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4f/Theresa_le_pore.jpg/150px-Theresa_le_pore.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Theresa_le_pore.jpg)

they gave her the title (after the election) "Madame Butterfly".

she actually designed the Butt... Ballet. which, as it turns out, was the main cause for dispute.

Theresa Le Pore was the Super visor of Election, according to Whiki...

i recall her now

[Indulto]

... the point i was looking forward to making to Indulto was that this gal in charge of Election Committe in Fl. was a registered Democrat.

they gave her the title (after the election) "Madame Butterfly".

she actually designed the Butt... Ballet. which, as it turns out, was the main cause for dispute.

Theresa Le Pore was the Super visor of Election, according to Whiki...

i recall her nowWas it Le Pore or Le Pone as I once heard on the radio? If she was a Dem, then no one can say that they don't also hit their own-foot-shooting bullseyes. But a good conspiracy theorist could conclude she was a double agent. :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

Of what?

Have you already forgotten the queen of repugs?

http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archives/2006/08/kathryn_harris.html (http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archives/2006/08/kathryn_harris.html)
[font=Verdana]

Wow, I'm surprised you of all people would give credibility to something like this. Talk about a leap of faith!

Harris, a member of Calvary Chapel in Sarasota, believes that Christians must impose their faith on the country through the passage of biblical-based laws.

Yeah, that's exactly what she said.....:rolleyes:

[Indulto]

Wow, I'm surprised you of all people would give credibility to something like this. Talk about a leap of faith!

Yeah, that's exactly what she said.....:rolleyes:Why ME of all people and what do YOU think she did or didn't say that discredits the author's summary?

[PaceAdvantage]

Why ME of all people and what do YOU think she did or didn't say that discredits the author's summary?

Well, I've considered you to be pretty level headed when it comes to politics.

Not once in the interview did I read where she advocated passing biblical-based laws. Perhaps you could cut and paste her exact words where she says this must be done.

[Indulto]

Well, I've considered you to be pretty level headed when it comes to politics.

Not once in the interview did I read where she advocated passing biblical-based laws. Perhaps you could cut and paste her exact words where she says this must be done.PA,
Thank you for the compliment. It actually means something to me coming from you.

As to Ms. Harris’s words, you are entitled to your opinion and interpretation. Mine are that the following quote supports the author’s interpretation. Readers are encouraged to go to the original link which contained this link as well as another to Ms. Harris's words, and to draw their own conclusions.

http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/6298.article (http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/6298.article)
… If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you’re not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is alright. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don’t know better, we are leading them astray and it’s wrong.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes, you are correct, it is open to interpretation. I wonder if a Muslim running for office would receive such scrutiny in this day and age....hmmmmm....

Oh, and by the way, I'm no Biblical scholar by any means, but is there a passage in the Bible that specifically outlaws abortion?

Just curious, as this must be one of those "biblical-based laws" ya'll are so concerned about Harris passing....

[Indulto]

Yes, you are correct, it is open to interpretation. I wonder if a Muslim running for office would receive such scrutiny in this day and age....hmmmmm....

Oh, and by the way, I'm no Biblical scholar by any means, but is there a passage in the Bible that specifically outlaws abortion?

Just curious, as this must be one of those "biblical-based laws" ya'll are so concerned about Harris passing....Youse guys must be from the South.........Bronx.;)

If a Muslim or a Jew running for office made similarly religion-biased statements, I would be equally as disturbed.

But it was her POLITICAL bias that drew my contempt.:bang:

[skate]

Was it Le Pore or Le Pone as I once heard on the radio? If she was a Dem, then no one can say that they don't also hit their own-foot-shooting bullseyes. But a good conspiracy theorist could conclude she was a double agent. :lol:


ok, and the same could be said for Clinton, either one...:rolleyes: :eek: ;)

[skate]

.

Oh, and by the way, I'm no Biblical scholar by any means, but is there a passage in the Bible that specifically outlaws abortion?

Just curious, as this must be one of those "biblical-based laws" ya'll are so concerned about Harris passing....


well, by no means am i either, but somewhere, somebody said 'thou shalt not kill" or something close to that.

[Indulto]

ok, and the same could be said for Clinton, either one...:rolleyes: :eek: ;)Oh master of thin ice, even Hilary would agree that Bill was a double agent, and a theatrical one at that.:lol:

[skate]

least we forget, also, hillary was a Big Barry fan.

so, which 'came' first, the hill or the bill?:cool:

[PaceAdvantage]

well, by no means am i either, but somewhere, somebody said 'thou shalt not kill" or something close to that.

That's already on the books, and I don't think anyone considers "you can't kill anyone" a "biblical-based" law, even though it technically is....it's commonly considered a "no-brainer" law....

[Tom]

That's already on the books, and I don't think anyone considers "you can't kill anyone" a "biblical-based" law, even though it technically is....it's commonly considered a "no-brainer" law....

Not if you are a democrat.

[skate]

That's already on the books, and I don't think anyone considers "you can't kill anyone" a "biblical-based" law, even though it technically is....it's commonly considered a "no-brainer" law....


nothing personal, but that's what i was saying "no brainer":blush:

but still ,some dont see, they use elasticity.

hey , i m sure glad we can edit, thanks for that link:D

[JPinMaryland]

Oh, and by the way, I'm no Biblical scholar by any means, but is there a passage in the Bible that specifically outlaws abortion?....

It's an interesting question and a quick google search reveals that not only are there a lot of bad web site developers out there but there really is no direct biblical proclamation against it.

Upon further reflection that should come as no surprise, since if it was really in the bible you can be damn sure that people would have quoted it by chapter and verse by now. Then again there is a biblical premonition against wearing clothing made of two different fibers but people seem to have lost track of that one as well.

About the best that can be said is that biblical scholars continue to debate the issue to this date. But as that's the case, then clearly it is not clear in the bible.

ANother pt. perhaps more telling. It was never against jewish law. Which did not consider an expelled fetus as worthy of mourning. In fact the newborn had to live 30 days before it was considered to be viable. So I guess partial birth abortions would be legal under jewish law too... :confused:

That there is a premontion against killing (thou shalt not kill) is also not such an easy argument. The word for killing under jewish law meant unlawful, and there are plenty of instances of lawful killing in the bible, e.g. when God said it was cool... :cool:

So to argue that "killing" includes abortion among other things, was never correct under jewish law.

[skate]

ANother pt. perhaps more telling. It was never against jewish law. Which did not consider an expelled fetus as worthy of mourning. In fact the newborn had to live 30 days before it was considered to be viable. So I guess partial birth abortions would be legal under jewish law too... :confused:

That there is a premontion against killing (thou shalt not kill) is also not such an easy argument. The word for killing under jewish law meant unlawful, and there are plenty of instances of lawful killing in the bible, e.g. when God said it was cool... :cool:

So to argue that "killing" includes abortion among other things, was never correct under jewish law.


interesting points here, thanks.

how would you determine?

if Dr. Skate were to remove your fetus without(or with) your desire. would a tooff (tooth) removal be considered the same?


i'll agree, killing is not always wrong, cept when its mine.

[Indulto]

... if Dr. Skate were to remove your fetus without(or with) your desire. would a tooff (tooth) removal be considered the same?It would depend on whether or not it was a wisdom tooth or if it had been bothering you for more than 30 days. :lol: