You've got to chuckle at the GOP. They get slaughtered in the last vote, so they hold summits, and the best they can offer is a new platform where they have 4-letter words they can't say, and they change the message to, "Steal the Vote". This will indeed be interesting, when they win presidential and local elections with just 30% of the popular vote.

There be far less red states if it wasn't for gerrymandering in the first place. When is this going to end?

Joe in Albany

Gee, does that flush the sh!t filled toilet of lefty liberal moral superiority

What is it with you guys and your incredible obsession with the human solid waste system??

Even a mortally wounded snake can get in a final poisonous bite.

It's time to remove the fangs.

Why don't Republican's just pass a law that Democrats are 3/5 of a person and don't get to vote?

I'm sure that's next, come on, really! Good line.

I'm just LMAO at Joe, who has to pay higher taxes now.

I've been quiet for a couple weeks trying to actually work instead of getting involved in things I can control anyway....but this one about rigging the system has got me riled.

Do they think this will go unnoticed?

This is going nuclear. This is WAY bigger than collective bargaining rights.

They are not going to be able to disenfranchise millions of people crammed into solid democratic districts without a HUGE fight.

This idea BETTER DIE before we have riots.

If Obama lost (or any President lost) with a 3-4% popular margin, we wouldn't have a democracy anymore.

Why don't Republican's just pass a law that Democrats are 3/5 of a person and don't get to vote?

Please... don't give them anymore ideas! lol

Backhouse, well said. Instead of calling the proposals gun, ammunition bans/restrictions, they should be referred to as Massacre Prevention Laws--people get that term, it is less threatening. Sensible federal laws are needed so that in some instances, the United States are all on the same page. We have a hodge-podge of 50 different state gun laws, not to mention the various municipality laws. In Iowa, it was reported that the lastest gun law passed has a dangerous loophole, it allows the mentally unbalanced to purchase guns which had been illegal. Not sure how that one slipped past but it did.

While I have been quite vocal about the need for filibuster reform, it is like so many other archaic rules in the Senate--baby steps are necessary to appease the "senior senators" on both sides who prefer tradition to functionality. That said, since the election, I have noticed the GOP Senators (not what they say in front of the microphones) working with democrats to avoid crisis to crisis legislating. Maybe the fact that TPer Jim DeMint, a thorn in the GOPer sides, left has made it easier for McConnell and the more sensible senators to find common ground. As Harry Reid said, if it doesn't work, the democrats will revisit it. Perhaps the threat of losing their minority filibuster power has the GOP thinking that abusing it can cost them dearly. We'll see. I intend to hold both the democrats and republicans feet to the fire if the handshake agreement and the modest tweaks fail to allow the majority to rule as intended by our Constititon.

Having gotten their collective * handed to them on a silver platter in 2012, their first, best response is to come up with new, innovative and (in the eyes of our Allies) increasingly desperate ways to fix and rig elections. Their ideology is being rejected and abandoned in record numbers. Soon, all they will have left is the handful of entitled wealthy, and the dwindling cohort of 'mean, stupid bigots' I referred to in this space yesterday.

Election reform is urgently needed, yes. What they are offering is a tortured, convoluted power grab that would have made Boss Tweed swallow his cigar with its sheer, brazen obscenity.

I can well imagine Lady Liberty covering her face in grief and embarrasment. Well, Republicans? Are you prepared to justify this latest spit-in-the-eye-of-decency by your party's leaders? Or are you just gonna stick with "The ends justify the means" and let that be salve enough for your withered, blackened souls?

Shame on you for continuing to support these destroyers of freedom and tramplers upon the Constitution. Shame.

With respect to First Read's take on what the GOP is up to in future elections, an interesting perspective from a Floridian Republican, House Speaker Will Weatherford, Steve Benen/The Maddow Blog:

"To me, that's like saying in a football game, 'We should have only three quarters, because we were winning after three quarters and then beat us in the fourth," Weatherford, a Republican, told the Herald/Times. "I don't think we need to change the rules of the game, I think we need to get better.

________________

Looking ahead to future GOP primaries, it would be nice if we saw some candidates who opened up the southern red states; made these states more progressive, lean forward states.

So tired of politicians in the south who just love to disrespect northerners, as if we were immoral or something stupid like that. It's crazy and it's time to stop it and find politicians who have their priorities in order moving forward. The people themselves seem to want to move on.

Maybe Jindal and Rubio can do that. Let's see. But first they need to speak out against their party attempting to steal presidential elections. And they need to speak out NOW.

________________

Senator Harry Reid, you broke our heart.

The republican party will be no different under the leadership of Reince Priebus and the current batch of probable 2016 contenders. For a brief moment I considered the possibility of the republican party becoming the party of liberty and fiscal conservatism again under the leadership of someone like Mark Willis...looks like I, and millions of others, will be voting libertarian again.

I say let us go to straight popular vote! That way no more GWBs x2!!!

At first thought, I am opposed to changing the electoral college here in Virginia, but I certainly understand why it is being discussed. Living in a majority Republican district, I never got a chance for either President Obama or VP Joe Biden to visit my area to hear how they would make change good for all. I only heard the speeches to the crowds where there were Democratic Majority, such as Richmond, Northern Virginia, Newport News, etc. There is a large swatch of people here in Virginia who were basically ignored by the Democratic Party because the Party pushed in the areas where their base was located.

And before the Va. Republican gerrymandering comments begin, look at the 3rd District in Virginia. It's a patchwork or cities and counties stretching from Norfolk to Richmond. That's gerrymandering at it's finest and it's held by Representative Bobby Scott, a Democrat.

From the article above:

One, the Republicans pushing them are all but acknowledging that their party problems heading into 2016 are so significant that they have to change the rules in order to win. In other words, they are throwing in the towel and trying to rig the system.

That’s right, America.

The Teapartypoopers can’t win with their policies so they have to cheat.

This shouldn’t surprise us.

They have been rigging elections, stealing elections, oppressing the voters, and circumventing the rules for decades now.

Perhaps they should change their mascot from the Elephant to a Sewer Rat.

Salud

David Walker, great post.

An example of this weird, illogical and disjointed GOP thinking is a recent poll showed republicans in large numbers support universal background checks, banning assault weapons, and limiting magazine clip size. They were all for it; then the pollster asked if they supported President Obama's proposed gun restrictions of universal background checks, banning assault weapons and limiting magazine clip size and 72% (?) of republicans said they oppose it. These were the very same people asked the very same questions except the second set of questions mentioned President Obama; that is the only difference in the poll questions. There is something seriously wrong with people who respond logically to reasonable laws then do a complete flip because they don't like the one proposing them.

The new Republican trick on how to count Electoral Votes only moves us farther away from having a real MAJORITY rule in our country.

Using our Electoral College rules allows a candidate to become President while only getting as little as 26% of the popular vote.

This mathematical fact will move closer to reality as our second largest electoral state, Texas move
toward becoming a purple state.

Republicans will be against moving to a popular vote because they have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential Elections and the demographics are against them thanks to their “small tent” approach toward inclusion.

Albany Joe: (or, if you are a lefty liberal, at least try to be less miserable)

Yo, Joe - I don't know about you, but I still haven't come down from the high of being in Washington, D.C. on Monday. Hanging out with a million of my best friends in the world, watching joyfully as our President - despite all your party's lame efforts to unseat him over the last four years - was sworn into office for four more years. Every time I see that sea of flags waving, I get goosebumps all over again. You, too?

FOUR MORE YEARS, Joe! Four more years of Obama! Is that awesome, or what?

Man, if this is what "miserable" feels like, I can't wait to see "loving every minute"!

If this plan the GOP are trying to push through in state legislatures where they hold sway were in place this past November, we would now have a President Romney.

These changes they are proposing are not for the good of the country, they are solely so conservatives can win the WH. With redistricting from the 2010 census, any state with a Republican legislature and Governor will push for these changes. We cannot allow this to happen, it may be time to look at the antiquated Electoral College system. In every other walk of life, the majority has the most say, only in the US Senate is 51 out of 100 not a majority thus we have gridlock most of the time with filibuster as the 'weapon' of choice, and republicans championed that one. Now they want to rig elections to where the will of the majority will take second place, is that because voter suppression didn't work for them.

Down here in Florida, our GOP Gov. Rick Scott who worked really hard to suppress the vote, now has had a change of heart, and is looking to change the system back to the way it was.At first I thought he's looking for votes in his bid for reelection, but I now realize what's behind his thinking. He could care less about the voter standing in line for 6-7 hours, he has bigger fish to fry in helping his party win back the WH.

Yesterday the Albanian Idiot wrote of Hillary Clinton:

BTW, what’s with the Coke bottle glasses?

The last refuge of the misogynist is to mock a woman's appearance.

Yeah that's what you do, when the dog gets to the cake and eats a little you just cover it over with more frosting.

David Walker.

I enjoy reading your contributions to this site. Keep up the good work!

Oh those darn Republicans. They can't win the Presidency fair and square. So they have to rig and change the voting rules. They have tried voter suppression, because they don’t want people to vote. Then district Gerrymandering. Then they tried limiting early voting hours. Now, the latest trick is messing with the Electoral College system. Gosh, The Republican Party’s new theme is, “if you can’t win honestly and fairly, CHEAT! Cheat the voter that is.

Well, we won’t let this Cult Group get away with it. We will fight their dirty tricks and stop this minority group from taking away a cherished tradition of the right to vote and have it count.

The sad thing is the followers of the Republican Party lack the simple character trait of fairness.

I'm so looking forward to the Presidents Organizing for Action and the fair minded people of America taking on and exposing these people for the scum they are.

Again we see don't raise the bridge, lower the water instead .

The T-bags & pubs in general still don't get it. Their entire party and party line is so far out touch with the American public. That they are not even in the parking lot. If they keep this up we will become a one party system by default. Guess it is time to get a third party up and running to prevent that from happening.

The Dougler, I have no libertarian views whatsoever, but I do appreciate your perspectives on abortion and fiscal responsibility.

The elections worry me and I think it should be a #1 priority going forward. We can't just sit and decide to do something in 2016. Our electoral system is what it is, not great, but it works.

Thank you for your input. It's very much appreciated as we head on toward the future as we all try to figure out what we all can do to make it a better more sound future.

Jody...

There is something seriously wrong with people who respond logically to reasonable laws then do a complete flip because they don't like the one proposing them.

It's called BIGOTRY!

Any way you can, GOP. If you can't be a party with reasonable policies that collects lots of votes, just cry foul and re-rig the system so it slants in your favor. That's all you've done in the last 20 years anyway.

the gop can't win a national election. so the new plan is to steal them. when we elect a president who loses the popular vte by 5 million votes the american people are going to send the gop packing forever.

they tried to steal the last election and they so fired people up they lost anyways. this plan will assure that a republican will win every election since they carry most of the rural unpopulated areas. a district with 2000 people will have a bigger vioce in who runs the country than one with 2 million people

you want a revolution, this will give you one.

And there's nothing we can do about it but blog. :(

LOL. The GOP tried to use Citizens United to BUY what they could not win on merit. So now, they have to try yet another avenue? When are they going to see their PARTY is the problem. America is not just the "White Male American" Club anymore. Women, miniorities, gays/lesbians, mainstream religious groupes etc... MATTER.

Shakes Head. Keep it up GNOP. You LOST and will CONTINUE To lose, until you change. Sorry, you can't WIN an election on legitimate rape.

Yeah, cause democrats never ever called for such action when GW was elected...twice

Interesting @Pat since you live in one of the most Democratically Gerrymandered states in the country...the South Shore had its blue collar roots decimated by the latest round of redistricting.

PS this gerrymandered state is soon to have its first felonious Lt Governor...goes well with its 3 speakers of the house and 2 state senators.

First if was Gerrymandering district lines. Then it was voter suppression laws. Now, it's changing the electoral college.

Why don't you fix your party? How can you still hold onto your principles that American's don't?

Our founders put in place the Electoral College because, at that time, few people could read and write. It was intended as a protection but it also ended up placing presidential elections in the hands of the elite who could read and write. It was also intended as a way to give small, less populous states a bigger voice--that one still escapes me since the fewer people, the fewer electoral votes. Initially, any electoral delegate could vote for the person they chose rather than in accordance with how the state's voters chose--that was the protection against an uneducated population electing an uneducated president. We have long moved past the need for the electoral college. Most people can read and write, most people pay enough attention to cast a vote. It is time to eliminate the electoral college and replace it with the majority of votes, wins. Right now, red states aren't usually visited much by democratic candidates and blue states aren't visited much by republican candidates which means the so-called swing states receive all the attention. The electoral college creates that.

FoxTrotsky, well said. Pat, Boston, that is a perfect example of how ridiculous this GOP notion is.

As for Senator Reid, I don't blame him for the failure to pass sweeping filibuster rule changes. Only 27 democrats supported the comprehensive proposals; Reid didn't have the votes and he knew it. That said, in 2011, there were even fewer democrats supporting the filibuster rules changes so progress has been made. There are clearly a number of "senior" senators on both sides that resist any kind of change to what they perceive as tradition. Baby step rule changes is about all those long-time senators from both sides can handle at a time.

It is not possible to overestimate the power of stupidity. The fight against wanton, willful ignorance and outright stupidity never ends.

Very true, David. So how do we win this fight? The brainwashing Americans receive from Fox 'news' and the likes of Limbaugh and Beck frightens me. Americans are being conditioned to see a conspiracy theory behind every tree.

We are being taught to distrust everything we see and hear unless it comes out of the mouth of a right-wing demagogue. Have we gone through this before in our history? Is there any hope for us?

What the GOP is doing with their Electoral College shell game should be transparently obvious, even to right-wing koolaid drinkers. We need to stand up as Americans and say enough is enough. Election Day 2014 cannot come soon enough.

First Thoughts: Changing the rules, not the party

Well, as much as some of you would like to deny it, and would probably argue me about it, "changing the rules," is really not anything new. When you look at this particular GOWRP (Grand Old White Republican Party) group on the stage, you'd understand my reasoning. In many instances in America this has happened, when "certain" people get involved in something that was "mostly" white, the old white guys attempt to change the rules back to their favor to cut the chances of the other "certain" people gaining ground on them.

What they are attempting is really nothing new, but it should be criminal in the sense of them waiting for minority/democratic law makers leaving town before pulling their stunts of gerrymandering which specifically offers an unfair manipulation of an electoral area for political advantage

David Walker-

They are mechanics, doctors, lawyers, legislators (Rand Paul, Ron Johnson), judges, farmers, and on and on.

The other day, I was having a nice conversation with my pharmacist then I said "Did you see the inauguration?", and a cold, mean look came over her face.

Have a great weekend, David.

You rock.

Salud

We are being taught to distrust everything we see and hear unless it comes out of the mouth of a right-wing demagogue. Have we gone through this before in our history? Is there any hope for us?

It's not about being taught to distrust. It's about being taught to question what you're told, because everyone has to some extent, some political leanings. It's about being smarter, and making smarter decisions by being educated.

Why would you completely trust someone you've never met?

Wow, can't will a fair race on your merits so you rig the race. Standard Republican move, don't fix what is wrong with your party, fix the race.

Joe in Albany, I see that you're severely information deprived in the case of the filibuster. It has been a favorite tool of the Republican party for decades. The Repugs have used it to excess, and was responsible for changing the rule for over ride from a simple majority to a plurality of 60%. The nuclear (or nucular if you went to school with GWB) option was threatened by Republicans when Democrats threatened to filibuster a damaging bill. This wasn't the topic of the article, but I felt it was my civic duty to make an attempt to further Joe's edimication on the gubmint. Even scarier is the attempt by Republicans to give themselves an unfair advantage in Presidential elections. If the Electoral College as it worked for a hundred years no longer works, then do away with it altogether and elect all political office holders by a straight popular vote.

State GOP legislatures are the some of the most dangerous, heinous, unscrupulous, ruthless criminal organizations this side of Mexico's drug cartels. Their blatant disregard for democracy and their God complex really is some frightening stuff. And the worst part is, I don't see them getting voted out and replaced with Democratic majorities if they go through with it. It's easy to sell the idea that assigning electoral votes by district is fairer a system than the winner-take-all. I hope I'm wrong and people realize that anything having to do with districts just lets a powerful few determine which party will be able to win the next elections and that Republicans have been doing just that.

We need to do away with the Electoral College. But in the meantime, winner-take-all is the ONLY way of ensuring no one has undue influence on the process.

God, Republican leaders are nasty. They're blatantly interfering with the very fabric of democracy now that they've realized their long-term prospects as a party are to be relegated to the ash heap of history.

If you're a Republican and you don't see how this is wrong, you should just come out as being the party-first zealot who hates this country, the Founding Fathers, and democracy that you clearly are.

TheDougler....Tom DeLay? Redistricting? Unconstitutional? Lost his job as Speaker because of his redistricting games?

VA is a red state and dictatorial as all hell. Everyone knows what happens in red states with minority populations. The GOP seeks to win elections by redistricting to exclude certain voters they know will not vote for Republicans. How is that NOT unconstitutional? The entire premise of the Constitution is based upon voting rights and the right to choose the candidate you want to elect. How dare the GOP try and pull off another good ole boi fast one to give electoral votes more leverage than the popular vote?

I am so fed up with the Confederate good ole bois in Congress muscling the rest of the states to be their sole support. The GOP is a bunch of little old ladies always bitching and complaining and then trying to get something for nothing. Like votes they haven't earned from the people who pay their salaries via the taxes we all pay.

And who died and handed the GOP all the control of the voting system in the US? If the Dems take this sitting down, they are fools because it will hit the blue states the hardest when the porker politicians of the red states continue their tax revenue windfalls into their porker states.

I respect our Constitution and the right for any American to own any weapon they choose.

Think - the Constitution does not allow you to own any weapon you choose. You cannot own a nuclear bomb. The countries most conservative Supreme Court Justice has already ruled the government CAN implement restrictions on the types of weapons that can be owned by its citizens.

GOP = Gimmicks Override Principles

The Dougler, I get your point and agree with the thinking about getting candidates to visit all parts of a state and making all voters feel relevant. The best way for that is eliminate the electoral college. However, if there are changes to the electoral method, then republicans CANNOT just propose those changes in the blue states they control. It is just as unfair as gerrymandering. The district you mention is unusual not the normal way it works. To fairly change the electoral rules, it would have to be in every state but that is not the GOP plan, they want to only change the rules where they frequently lose. There's nothing in the least bit ethical about that.

The US Constitution set up the three branches of the government to insure a separation of powers.

The two houses of Congress were set up to ensure a fair distribution of power between the states. More populous states have greater influence in the House of Representatives, while all states are represented equally in the Senate.

This concept is carried down to the state level in most states, where local districts elect their Representatives and statewide elections decide Senators and the POTUS.

I am very disturbed that a set of elections in a Census year would allow one party the opportunity to reverse centuries of tradition, "stack the deck", and potentially influence the outcome of a presidential election.

Hopefully if the Republicans go forward with this strategy it will cause a massive public outcry. I know in Ohio if we get enough signatures we can put it on a statewide ballot and the "will of the people" can still be heard. I am not sure how it works in other states.

I also hope that just the threat of this action wil cause voters to think twice before they vote Republican.

Of course if voters thought about it much they wouldn't vote Republican at all!

ewent

TheDougler....Tom DeLay? Redistricting? Unconstitutional? Lost his job as Speaker because of his redistricting games?

VA is a red state and dictatorial as all hell. Everyone knows what happens in red states with minority populations. The GOP seeks to win elections by redistricting to exclude certain voters they know will not vote for Republicans. How is that NOT unconstitutional? The entire premise of the Constitution is based upon voting rights and the right to choose the candidate you want to elect. How dare the GOP try and pull off another good ole boi fast one to give electoral votes more leverage than the popular vote?

I am so fed up with the Confederate good ole bois in Congress muscling the rest of the states to be their sole support. The GOP is a bunch of little old ladies always bitching and complaining and then trying to get something for nothing. Like votes they haven't earned from the people who pay their salaries via the taxes we all pay.

And who died and handed the GOP all the control of the voting system in the US? If the Dems take this sitting down, they are fools because it will hit the blue states the hardest when the porker politicians of the red states continue their tax revenue windfalls into their porker states.

Wow ewent....did you forget to take your anti-crazy pills this morning?

Never once did I say I approve of it.

My point was to which how it is selectively made ok when democrats do it, but not when Republicans do it. When Republicans do it, dems call it Gerrymandering, when democrats do it, it's just redistricting. Just pointing out a hypocrisy, not giving approval. Now go take your prozac.

Jody, Iowa

The Dougler, I get your point and agree with the thinking about getting candidates to visit all parts of a state and making all voters feel relevant. The best way for that is eliminate the electoral college. However, if there are changes to the electoral method, then republicans CANNOT just propose those changes in the blue states they control. It is just as unfair as gerrymandering. The district you mention is unusual not the normal way it works. To fairly change the electoral rules, it would have to be in every state but that is not the GOP plan, they want to only change the rules where they frequently lose. There's nothing in the least bit ethical about that.

I agree.

I don't think the locations should be cherry picked. It would have to be across the board, and something that all parties could agree to. Perhaps my idea has some problems, and if someone points them out, I'd gladly listen. I was just throwing out an idea, that I thought might make the entire system work more fairly, and still utilize the electoral college system, while allowing for a better representation of the actual votes.

Turning Virginia, with a 3 point margin for the popular vote winner, into a 4:9 Electoral Delegate loss for said winner is disenfranchisement.

The huge risk for the Republicans is that Gerrymandering can work against them too.

That's why this is "going nuclear" --the definition of a short term win, future be damned.

Do we really want our country to be run on processes like these?

Should we be surprised? When have Republicans EVER considered the future over short-term expedition? EVER?

The gop will regroup, cut off some fat, get rid of some bad eggs and come back stronger than before.

Last week, ProFreeDumb tore up his GOP card, threw it in the fire, and became a Libertarian. Now he is going to have egg on his face when after frying a couple, he rejoins the party. This creature's party flip-flops are making Romney look tame - simply a flip vs. a flip-flopper.

The Dougler, the point about gerrymandering districts is that neither side should engage in it. Iowa and Arizona, and a few other states, have laws that place re-drawing the district maps after every census out of the hands of the state legisatures and into that of a non-partisan board. Iowa's law is particularly good because it gives the legislatures and the governor the opportunity to reject a map and have the board try again (twice rejection is the limit). Guess what, Iowa's redistricting maps were done first in the country and the first try passed the legislature and was signed by, this time, a republican governor. That said, GOP Gov Branstad has been vocal about trying to un-do this law but so far, it hasn't happened because the public has let him know they disagree.

Additionally, Iowa's law also takes selecting judicial appointees out of the hands of our Governor; a board selects names and the Governor must pick from those recommendations. Branstad would like to change that law as well but he took flack for even mentioning it.

I am really pissed at our cowardly Senate majority leader "Harry Reid" and those democratic bastards who supported him for not changing that bodies filibuster rule. Apparently Washington's Senator Merkeley and His group of supporters are the only Senate democrats who believe they were sent there to be about the peoples business. Reid actually called Senator Merkeley on the carpet for insisting on the rule change. What a sorry son-of-a-bitch! The little beady eyed bastard has proven, and all those who supported Him, that they, like all republicans, need built in defectors to hide behind as they allow the screwing of the people. All good democrats need to take another look at Reid and His accomplices for committing this sh^tty deed, and I suspect many will.

I respect our Constitution and the right for any American to own any weapon they choose.

Really? I can go out and buy myself a tank, a rocket launcher, and a nuclear weapon? Yippee!!

I will finally be safe. LOL

Well The Koch brothers are back at it. They couldn't buy the last election so they have to try to change things so they can buy the Next election. We need a concentrated effort to boycott The Koch's. They are investing in buying our representatives to do what they want done, Not what the people that elected them want. We need make it so David Koch don't have so much money to buy power and make him more money. We should start a signature drive nation wide to out law lobbying and get it stopped once and for all. We set back and let the rich buy our elected officials. We no longer have a Representative Government. Only the rich are represented right now. WE THE PEOPLE have no say any more, except that we are sick of the rich buying elections, and we didn't allow it this time.

I am so sick of the REP's talking about Obama taking there rights away. Bull$hit. It is the Rep's that rig elections, Keep people from voting. Hell Bush took more rights away then Obama ever did. For all the money David Koch and his friends put into the last election, they got there ass handed to them. The masses are sick of them and there money trying to running things in this country. I am sure that the next election the Rep's governors In WI. MI. OH will be run out of office and the Dem,s will get the houses back also. The damage done by the R. well be undone. We have hit critical mass and we are not going to take anymore.

I hope the Rep's try this little game to rig the election again. We will destroy them once and for all. The American people are on to the Rep's. All the money in the world will not help the Rep's. If they are to stupid to change and lesion to the people and what we the people want, then it is over for them. It is clear that the Dem's are getting stronger and stronger, because they have heard what the masses want. The Rich have had a free ride for mush to long.

Ewent, Dougler, Jody...

Gerrymandering does indeed go both ways. Democrats and Republicans benefit in different times and places.

Currently though, the mix of state vs Federal powers has led the GOP to benefit nicely. I don't recall the number exactly but some small percentage of Democratic win existed in the popular vote for House representatives, yet they "enjoy" a 20 seat deficit.

Going nuclear on this approach for Presidential Electors reflects a deep deficit in popularity--they KNOW they CAN'T win. It appears to be the ONLY way to win.

Sad.

Nevertheless, I have no doubt they will do EVERYTHING they can to make it happen.

Will bald face cheating blow back? Remember Florida in 2000. It didn't. Wisconsin in 2010. It didn't.

That's why they'll try. Whatever it takes to win. Throw sand in the eyes of your opponent. Sucker punch them like in VA with one Democratic senator at the Inauguration. It's the GOP way.

We teach our children to play fair, yet these are the people who chose not to learn that lesson.

Those are the people representing more than half of us.

What kind of country do we want?

Backhouse: take a deep breathe, settle down, get a grip on reality, and return to emotional and intellectual balance. Thanks, kiddo.

The other day, I was having a nice conversation with my pharmacist then I said "Did you see the inauguration?", and a cold, mean look came over her face.

I was at a business dinner a week ago with a group of intelligent, successful men when one asked for a show of hands of anyone who believed the Newtown shooter had used an assault rifle. I was the only one at the table who raised a hand.

The media did a horrible job getting its facts and figures straight during and after the tragedy in Connecticut. Gun control advocates have seized on a lot of information and ignored a lot of information in an effort to push their agenda.

But I’m seeing gun rights supporters do the same. Most troubling, over the past week on radio filling in for Neal Boortz I’ve heard from dozens of callers, tweeters, Facebook friends, and email correspondents assuring me that Adam Lanza never used the AR-15 in his possession. Most people linked to a video purportedly showing the police retrieving the AR-15 from Adam Lanza’s car after the incident.

I don’t blame these people for getting the facts wrong. The media caused a lot of the misinformation in their rush to cover the story. But as the nation begins to set policy (or not) based on this random act of violence, we should all have our facts straight.

The fact is, Adam Lanza used a handgun to take his own life, but he relied on the Bushmaster AR-15 to kill most of the victims. He did use that gun.

http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/27/setting-the-record-straight-adam-lanza-did-use-the-bushmaster-ar-15/

A delusional, misinformed rant on gun control?

Pretty pathetic, dude.

What about the many thousands of young black men that are the vast majority of gun deaths in this country?

You know, the ones that are murdered with HANDGUNS?

do you care about them?

kaybeetoys

I was at a business dinner a week ago with a group of intelligent, successful men when one asked for a show of hands of anyone who believed the Newtown shooter had used an assault rifle. I was the only one at the table who raised a hand.

My biggest beef with all of this, is the purposely and intentionally blurring of the line between what is really an "assault" weapon, and what is a semi-automatic weapon!

A true "assault weapon" is a weapon that is either fully automatic, or has select fire capabilities.

A firearm is not defined by it's looks or "body-style", it's defined by it's functions. A Semi-automatic weapon is by definition, any weapon that takes all the necessary steps to discharge and reload the next round for firing. With any semi-automatic, you have to pull the trigger one time for one round. The vast majority of all modern day firearms are in fact semi-automatic weapons. With an AR-15 or a Glock 9mm, the weapon can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger! The only real difference, is the way they look.

There used to be a car called a Pontiac Fiero. You could buy a body kit to make it nearly identical to a Ferrari. So did the body kit now make it a Ferrari? Nope....even with the body kit, it was still a Pontiac Fiero.

That Pontiac Fiero is no more a Ferrari, than an AR-15 is an assault weapon!

I would just like to point out to those who keep bring up Virginia and "gerrymandering". In 2010, every city, county and town had to redistrict according to the 2010 Census, along with the state's congressional districts. AND because Virginia is a southern state where there was a history of segregation, the redistricting had to be approved by the Justice Department, which was and is headed by Eric Holder. So if any of you have any problem with the "gerrymandering" in Virginia, please complain to the Attorney General's office as they approved of all the districts in the state.

Sorry folks, it has nothing to do with fairness. It's about the accumulation of Power. These thugs know they are in the minority; they don't care! They will do what is needed to obtain Power. Once they obtain it they will do what is necessary to keep it and expand it. If it means trampling individual rights, so be it! If it means disregarding the Constitution, cost of doing business.

Do not for one instant think they are concerned with the populace! They are not. They want to control everything to their own advantage. People must be made to see that these crooks are no better than a dictator consolidating their control. They want a dictatorship where they make the rules for you but they are exempt.

They don't care what the population thinks of them. POWER is the name of the game. And we are becoming the pawns.

The Republicans can't win the presidency by getting the most votes, and they couldn't even win by suppressing the vote, so now they think they can win by rigging the vote. And they're probably right. If their scheme to gerrymander the electoral college vote is put through, we could well have permanent rule by the minority Republican Party.

Every election could be like the 2000 election, with a Democrat winning the popular vote but a Republican winning the election, except the popular vote margin of the losing Democratic candidate could be much larger than it was in 2000. Gore only won 500 thousand more votes than Bush, but Obama won 5 MILLION more votes than Romney and Obama still would have lost if the Republicans' gerrymander scheme had been in place.

Permanent rule by a minority would be a REAL tyranny, unlike the tyranny of not being able to buy weapons of mass murder that the NRA paranoids supposedly fear. Chris Matthews was right yesterday: If the Republicans go through with their plot to overthrow democracy, there WILL be revolution.

"The Republicans advocating these changes say they would give smaller communities more of a voice in presidential battleground states."

So, Republicans want to change the entire United States from MAJORITY rules, to MINOIRITY rules because the majority of Americans reject the Republicans.

No matter how Republicans try to twist the rules, the American People WILL put them out of office.

Republicans must think that the American People are just a bunch of stupid knuckleheads ready to be overthrown by a few clowns that live in the Virginia back woods.

If voter rules are to be changed, cut to the chase and go popular vote - Obama still would have won.
Just make sure the voter machine company that Romney's son works for is NOT in charge of counting the votes.

The proposed action by the Republicans of changing the rules concerning the electoral vote to suit the interest of the GOP Party, versus the wishes of the citizens of the respective states, is not surprising in the least. Now they are not only acting like children on most major issues they are willing to cheat to win. Only losers would stoop to this level! The mentality of ignore the majority of citizens to win "at all costs" is not a new concept and will only lead to the further disintegration and demise of the GOP! Ignorance and lies will ALWAYS be submissive, sooner or later, and will eventually yield to wisdom and truth! Let them do what they wish with the state's money and time and the federal courts will deny them this travesty of violating the rights of ALL the citizens in each state!

TheDougler960608

That Pontiac Fiero is no more a Ferrari, than an AR-15 is an assault weapon!

That's a totally stupid analogy. The AR-15 used in the Newtown massacre was enough of an assault weapon to murder 26 people in under four minutes.

You Liberals aren't thinking this through. Obama would have still won under this system and it's been proven repeatedly by all sides when studying the 2012 voting records per district. It's not proposing one person-one vote, it's proposing dividing the electoral votes up among the district and giving them a voice. Personally, I think it needs to go one step further and shuffle the order of primaries in a rotating order. For too long, the same first few states get to choose the candidates on both sides.

As it is now, presidential candidates only cater to swing state voters and make pledges to appease only them. 40% of Texas districts voted for Obama, yet Obama got zero electoral votes. That's 40% of the 2nd largest state in the country that had their voices muffled and weren't even considered by either candidate during the campaign except for drive-by fundraisers. But, hey, if you want the hispanic and black vote in Texas to be muffled completely when most vote Democrat, that's your 1st amendment right. Just don't try and make it sound like you're doing them a favor.

happytimesarehearagain

If voter rules are to be changed, cut to the chase and go popular vote - Obama still would have won.
Just make sure the voter machine company that Romney's son works for is NOT in charge of counting the votes

For starters, a straight popular vote, allows too easily for fraud. That's the entire purpose of the electoral college.

Secondly, it's odd you talk about the voting machine company that Romney's son works for partly owns, while having no clue how the districts that used those machines actually voted. In fact, most went heavily Obama.

Houston!

TheDougler960608

That Pontiac Fiero is no more a Ferrari, than an AR-15 is an assault weapon!

That's a totally stupid analogy. The AR-15 used in the Newtown massacre was enough of an assault weapon to murder 26 people in under four minutes.

And he could have done the same damage with two hand guns with 30 round clips, even 15 round clips, and could have done nearly the same damage with the proposed 10 round clips.

Again, a semi automatic firearm only fires as quickly as the person can pull the trigger. How the gun looks doesn't change that.

What about the many thousands of young black men that are the vast majority of gun deaths in this country?You know, the ones that are murdered with HANDGUNS? do you care about them?

Yes, I care. The question is: do you?

My biggest beef with all of this, is the purposely and intentionally blurring of the line between what is really an "assault" weapon, and what is a semi-automatic weapon!

My biggest beef is that the gun nuts are more concerned with semantics than they are with the lives of our children. The gun-crazy version of "rights," followed to a logical conclusion, gives anyone the "right" to walk into a classroom and open fire.

Re-read my comment. The shooter used a rifle ("assault" or not, it was a RIFLE). But the right-wing media convinced some people, by using a video, that the shooter had used a handgun to slaughter those children.

But Doug, Democrats don't RELY on those people.

Republicans don't get enough money from regular people to even function.

TO: seriousordelirious who wrote:

"Yeah, cause democrats never ever called for such action when GW was elected...twice..."

George "Curveball" Bush wasn't "elected".

The Supreme Court selected Bush, not the American people.

The Republicans are no match for the Democrats when it comes to winning popular opinion. We saw this again in 2012.

The Democrats look at the long term and plan decades ahead. For example, in the 1940's and 1950's, the Democrats couldn't yet reveal their long term goals for America. In these days, the dedicated leftists viewed the majority of Americans as people steeped in traditional Eurocentric values, culture and attitudes. They wanted to change the fundamentals of the American way, but the Americans of that time didn't want them changed.

The Democrats never rested and never stopped. They knew that the white European americans would never willingly give up their nation and their status in the world, so they worked to change the population. They introduced, and managed to pass the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, which slowed immigration from Western Europe, and diverted it instead from mostly the third world. These people already had a healthy dose of jealousy at Americans' standard of living, and would overwhealmingly vote Democrat.

They also carefully established compatriots in the media and education systems to change the collective attitudes of America. They mocked traditiobnal values, and glamorized those of other origins. They also, through the Johnson Administration, subsidized single-parent households with federal money, and their numbers exploded over the next few decades, creating millions more people who were dependent upon government, and the Democrats delivered those benefits.

The Republicans have nowhere near the skill or experience of shaping mass opinion and winning elections.

TO: Allen-968499 who wrote:

"You Liberals aren't thinking this through...it's proposing dividing the electoral votes up among the district and giving them a voice..."

How is that NOT minority rules?

To give 10 Republicans more voting power than 5,000 American Citizens is NOT "freedom" and it is NOT grounded in the United States Constitution.

And he could have done the same damage with two hand guns with 30 round clips, even 15 round clips, and could have done nearly the same damage with the proposed 10 round clips.

Again, a semi automatic firearm only fires as quickly as the person can pull the trigger. How the gun looks doesn't change that.

That's your defense? That's your argument for why we should allow mentally unbalanced individuals to purchase semi-automatic weapons?

How fast does one need to pull the trigger to kill twenty children?

I can say I don't disagree with the thought of essentially doing away with the electoral college and basing everything off the popular vote however I would never ever support anything that is basing it of the popular vote of predefined districts. Really I would argue we don't need the districts for Presidential elections at all but I understand for House Reps you need them and other instances that I can't think of now. But my point is if we did go by the district route, actually needs this done anyways, all gerrymandering must be stopped. Let me repeat that all gerrymandering needs to be STOP! Its total bull and should never happen in the first place. And it doesn't matter who you support as it happens on both sides and it is time for it to end completely!! Districts will no longer have anything to do with voter party registration but will be based on population numbers alone. A computer program that looks at census maps then evenly divides up a state (can have +/- error factors, though limited, for population as it won't be perfect) and also could use natural and or man made boundaries (ie streets, rivers, ect) to make the layout a little easier to understand, otherwise no more of this crap where you have districts that snake around this way and that and make no sense at all. For the most part you should be looking at as square as possible shaped districts. Gerrymandering is just another game that the fools in DC play to keep themselves in power and the rules against it need to be enforced.

It is time

Or, you know, they could acknowledge that America consists of more than straight, white, Christian men and cease their platform of attempting to deny rights to the rest of us.

Houston!

That's a totally stupid analogy. The AR-15 used in the Newtown massacre was enough of an assault weapon to murder 26 people in under four minutes.

He could have done the same with a Glock pistol. That doesn't make it an assault weapon.

TheDougler960608

Again, a semi automatic firearm only fires as quickly as the person can pull the trigger. How the gun looks doesn't change that.

An AR-15 semi automatic can be fired once per second. That's fast enough to murder 26 people in four minutes. As for the capacity of the clips, the death toll in the Tucson attack last year would have been worse if the gunman hadn't had to stop to reload, allowing bystanders to disarm him. The fact that AR-15s are "scary looking" is the reason gun nuts like to buy them; it's not the reason rational people want to ban them. Let the gun nuts buy squirt guns that looks just as scary and nobody would care.

Actually what readers from MSNBC don't want to say is that it will shape the NEW presidential elections. NO MORE will states like NY get all of the electoral votes because of NYC. You will find that a vast number of elections will be left up more to the people. Afterall, democrats don't want this to go through because they fear they will lose their hold on the big states. Yet you have to ask yourself, if democrats care so much about what the people want, why would they refuse this? Afterall, isn't this more of an accurate sampling of public opinions?

The Democrats never rested and never stopped. They knew that the white European americans would never willingly give up their nation and their status in the world, so they worked to change the population. They introduced, and managed to pass the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, which slowed immigration from Western Europe, and diverted it instead from mostly the third world. These people already had a healthy dose of jealousy at Americans' standard of living, and would overwhealmingly vote Democrat.

Proud2 Be Liberal: Well said.... which is why so many people are on welfare now thanks to the Democrats way of life.

2005 – $410 Billion / 295 Million people = roughly $1,389 per person

2006 – $410 Billion / 298 Million people = roughly $1,375 per person

2007 – $420 Billion / 300 Million people = roughly $1,400 per person

2008 – $500 Billion / 303 Million people = roughly $1,650 per person

2009 – $630 Billion / 306 Million people = roughly $2,058 per person

2010 – $790 Billion / 308 Million people = roughly $2,565 per person

2011 – $800 Billion / 311 Million people = roughly $2,572 per person

2012 – $790 Billion / 314 Million people = roughly $2,515 per person

2013 – $750 Billion/ 316 Million people = roughly $2,373 per person

Read more at http://americanlivewire.com/how-much-does-the-us-government-spend-on-welfare-annually/#UHki4JBZtqYGuWxi.99

kaybeetoys

That's your defense? That's your argument for why we should allow mentally unbalanced individuals to purchase semi-automatic weapons?

How fast does one need to pull the trigger to kill twenty children?

I didn't see anywhere in his posts suggesting "Crazy people buying guns is A-Okay". In fact I haven't seen many suggest it, outside of the seriously insane.

How fast does one need to pull the trigger? It doesn't matter, which is both the point you and he are making. You are both just drawing differing conclusions on how it matters.

Repojam

He could have done the same with a Glock pistol.

Semiautomatic pistols are on the list of weapons that Dianne Feinstein's bill would ban.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary

All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

Not that her bill has any chance of passing. Universal background checks is probably the best that can be hoped for at present.

Here are the 2 biggest problems facing the United States today;

1) - The National Debt is projected to be $20.392 Trillion in 2016 - if Obama gets all of the tax increases he's asked for and the economy suddenly starts growing at 5% per year instead of the 2% of the last 4 years (Source - Obama's 2013 Budget). Presidential Budget projections are very optimistic.

Interest Rates on the Debt over the last 30 years before Obama averaged 4.92% per year.

If history is a guide, we can expect the Interest alone on the National Debt to increase to slightly over $1 Trillion per year in 2016, an increase of over $800 Billion per year above the average of $199 Billion per year paid under Bush. That's an increase of more than $8 TRILLION over 10 years - just for Interest expense. The current 'haggling' over a few hundred $Billion in taxes and spending cuts over 10 years is insignificant compared with this problem.

And Interest expense could increase from 10.02% of ALL Federal receipts in 2008 to 27.6% of Federal receipts in 2016. That dramatic increase in revenues dedicated to Interest expense will crowd out huge amounts of spending that could be used for 'entitlements' and running the government (causing Austerity). That dramatic increase in money spent for Interest will also require huge tax increases, which will cause a huge drop in consumer spending, which will stagnate the economy and cause high Unemployment (ala Greece).

No matter what happens over the next 4 years, EVERYONE will face huge tax increases – just to pay the Interest expense.

2) - Inflation (and Interest Rates) are poised to skyrocket. Any student of Economics is taught that there is a very simple formula that predicts general price levels (Inflation) – Here it is;

M x V = P x Q

In the preceding equation, M is the money supply, V is the velocity of money, as measured by the number of times the money supply turns over in a year, P is the general level of prices, and Q is the quantity of goods and services available, which changes very slowly over time (w/ productivity).

Applying this simple formula, it's easy to see that a significant change in any of these 'variables' will have a direct impact on Prices, as reflected in the inflation rate. Doubling the money supply (M) ultimately leads to a doubling of prices (P) over a relatively short period of time.

What's happening right now is that the Money Supply (M1) has been increasing dramatically over the last few years ($1.4 Trillion in 2008 vs $2.5 Trillion now) because the Federal Reserve has been 'creating' more money to fund the huge current government Deficits. Ultimately, this will be highly inflationary, and if/when the Federal Reserve has to reverse course to counter inflation by reducing the money supply, it will lead to high interest rates and an economic contraction (recession). Generally, the greater the reduction in the money supply, the greater the contraction. In Milton Friedman's book "Money Mischief" he devotes chapter 8 to this subject – 'The Cause and Cure of Inflation'. History has shown that this is a 'Truism'.

The main reason that we have not experienced an inflationary spiral to date is the recession, which has resulted in a slowing in the Velocity (V) of money, and the 'lag time' between an increased money supply and its effects, but when inflation begins and people start 'getting rid' of Dollars that are declining in value by buying things, Prices (P) will quickly rise ever faster, thus forcing the Federal Reserve to intervene. A classic example of this process in action occurred in the early 1980s, when Paul Volker (then the head of the Federal Reserve) reduced the money supply, which forced consumer interest rates up to about 18% per year to combat the 14% inflation rate in late 1980. The result was a sharp recession and high unemployment. Interest point - $1.00 from 1970 is currently worth only 17 cents in equivalent value because of inflation.

For an interesting 'read' on the relationship between M1 and Inflation, I would recommend the following link;

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation/Money_Supply_and_Inflation.asp

And the reason that it will happen is political ineptness, as shown by a N Y Times article, linked below;

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/opinion/04meltzer.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&th&emc=th

Forewarned is forearmed, and 'Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it'.

Is anybody really surprised that obummer is going to endorse/support billary for the 2016 presidential bid? After all, that was the agreement whe he sold her the SoS position during his first campaign - she would drop out of the 2008 campaign and he would give her the SoS position so she could bolster her "foreign policy" shortcomings if he won the presidency. Also, she would not oppose him if he should decide to run again in 2012.

"Proud 2B Liberal" Nice false flag. You guys are good at using those.

Liberals "changed the rules" of immigration 50 years ago to be FAIR to the rest of the world. That's what real liberals always do--create fairness for the unempowered (e.g. the Voting Rights Act, women's suffrage, emancipation or the slaves for crying out loud). It wasn't a grand plan, it's a philosophy of fairness.

In contrast Ronald Raygun did have a grand long term plan: drown government in debt because he didn't want government to function; cut funding for education and safety net for poor people because a dumber and poorer population is more likely to vote for ideas that are not very well thought out. Both are working long-term plans.

GOP never has the good of the population in mind.

GOP plan for next round of elections....MORE AND MORE of the same....and try harder to not get caught gerrymandering and committing voter fraud. Create even more voter suppression laws and find new words to change the appearance of their foul play. Lie, lie, and lie some more...because the ill informed watchers of Fox news believe it if repeated often.

They also carefully established compatriots in the media and education systems to change the collective attitudes of America.

"To change the collective attitudes of America?"

Are we talking about the same country? AMERICA...the great melting pot, the land of opportunity, the refuge of the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free"?

The Founding Fathers envisioned a land where all are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, among them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We are a nation of immigrants, for pity's sake! Get out beyond our borders and take a look at the rest of the world, why don't you? Are only those chosen few, those whites born on American soil, entitled to liberty and justice on this planet?

That is not what America stands for in the world. "I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door". We are not changing the collective attitude, but returning to its original intent.

Your attitude is frankly un-American.

Houston!

Semiautomatic pistols are on the list of weapons that Dianne Feinstein's bill would ban.

Some are. The Glock isn't on that list, but most of the ones that are have some unusual characteristics. Many of the pistols listed fall into questionable categories as far as pistols go anyways (such as the MAC-10, TEC-22 Scorpions, etc). Those are often identified as "machine pistols".

And you are right. This bill likely has no chance of passing. Unfortunately we know that too many people will either say it's too restrictive or their pockets are too heavily lined to agree with it.

I am still of the firm belief that a workable solution is somewhere in the middle with these two groups, but the problem is that the middle is very vast and depends on the most unreliable of people to fully execute it: us.

Funny these are the same arguments that were made when Bush was elected.

I don't want the electoral college changed not for the Demos or Repubs... They both want to change it when it doesn't favor them.

Roy,

Deficits are going down faster now than for any president since Eisenhower. We're already heading in the right direction and that's before any of the sequester cuts or fiscal cliff tax increases have taken effect.

Inflation isn't occurring, and that "sky is falling" argument is has NEVER proven to be the case. It's just economic THEORY. Sort of like trickle down economics is supposed to "pay for itself." It never has and THAT is why we have debt in the first place.

Well at least this move by Republicans proves what we learned about them when GWB was in office:

Republicans are NOT above committing acts of treason against the United States and the American People in order to further their own personal and political causes.

Republicans refusing to work for the American People and to instead focus their entire past 4 years on defeating the President of the United States seems to be just the beginning of what Republicans are willing to do in order to gain undeserved power.

I would like to know when the DEMOCRATS EVER PROPOSED something like this bob the plumber. Links please.

Portioning out electoral votes by district is certainly more fair then winner takes all. Especially when you have states where it is a complete waste of time to go vote unless you are a member of the ruling party. There are certainly arguments for and against the electoral college, but at the same time there is no celebrating a system where one candidate can win 4 of 13 districts and take all 13 electoral votes. Given the system we have in place, it would be far more interesting to watch the election if electoral votes were cast by district, and it would make campaigning more of a challenge as well.

kaybeetoys

What about the many thousands of young black men that are the vast majority of gun deaths in this country?You know, the ones that are murdered with HANDGUNS? do you care about them?

Yes, I care. The question is: do you?

My biggest beef with all of this, is the purposely and intentionally blurring of the line between what is really an "assault" weapon, and what is a semi-automatic weapon!

My biggest beef is that the gun nuts are more concerned with semantics than they are with the lives of our children. The gun-crazy version of "rights," followed to a logical conclusion, gives anyone the "right" to walk into a classroom and open fire.

Re-read my comment. The shooter used a rifle ("assault" or not, it was a RIFLE). But the right-wing media convinced some people, by using a video, that the shooter had used a handgun to slaughter those children.

Like a stated before, the very same damage could have been done with standard pistols. Should we ban all of those too?

I am no more a gun nut, than most liberals are abortion nuts!

You speak emotionally kaybee, and I understand that, it's a very emotional issue. But we don't, and shouldn't make laws based on emotion.

The only people talking about the shooter only using a hand gun, are conspiracy theorists, they are neither right nor left. The video clearly shows a shotgun in the trunk of the car. end of story.

Joe in Albany Comment collapsed by the community

It is not possible to overestimate the power of stupidity.

_________________________________

David Wanker: We agree on this point. It elected Barry Obama as President twice.

Life is good.

Enjoy.

(or, if you are a lefty liberal, try to be less miserable)

Sure so when you take measures to restrict or eliminate the voting rights of millions of americans its for thier own good right? That is the trouble with freedom so many people can't handle it properly, therefore a powerful leader must step in and do thier thinking for them.

Liberals have never been about the people. Polls show that most americans are against illegals staying in this country yet liberals continue to press this through because they don't want to lose the latino vote.

Gay rights would never have gone this far, if they had let the people decide for themselves in the US. Again, liberals like to cater to minority groups in order to place get their power. They haven't really listened to what the American people wanted in decades. That's why some states ( such as NY) was NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE ON GAY RIGHTS. It's not about the people with them.

What is surprising is they are against this measure. Think people! If liberals really cared what the people wanted then they should be able to vote by district and not have all of their votes taken away by a 'winner takes all' mentality.

DEMOCRATS HAVE NEVER BEEN ONE FOR THE PEOPLE. THIS JUST PROVES IT.

kaybeetoys

And he could have done the same damage with two hand guns with 30 round clips, even 15 round clips, and could have done nearly the same damage with the proposed 10 round clips.

Again, a semi automatic firearm only fires as quickly as the person can pull the trigger. How the gun looks doesn't change that.

That's your defense? That's your argument for why we should allow mentally unbalanced individuals to purchase semi-automatic weapons?

How fast does one need to pull the trigger to kill twenty children?

The ignorance of your statement here shows that you are clearly only arguing emotionally. And you are arguing something that I'm not arguing at all.

Please show me where I said anything like a mentally unbalanced individual should be allowed to purchase semi-automatic weapons. I didn't....and I won't.

As someone from California , I've always wanted the electoral college tossed out and popular vote instated . There are a few reasons one of which is the fact that when I vote for president it doesn't count because the election is decided long before our votes are even counted . Plus I've always felt that the popular vote is the right way for things to be , it gives equal power to every voter which is not the case now .

TheDougler960608

For starters, a straight popular vote, allows too easily for fraud. That's the entire purpose of the electoral college.

That was NOT the purpose of the electoral college. The people elected the Electors, who supposedly would be wiser than the people in general. That has absolutely nothing to do with voter fraud.

http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

Nothing could be more fraudulent than anti-democratic power grab that the Republicans are contemplating.

Unhappy,

Please provide a source for your polls about "illegals".

The gay rights movement is about CIVIL RIGHTS, that's why we shouldn't be voting on it, although they have been. And they've also been WINNING by the way.

Liberals are about giving rights and equal protection to minorities. If you want to call that "catering" to them, then congratulations, you finally got something right.

I didn't see anywhere in his posts suggesting "Crazy people buying guns is A-Okay". In fact I haven't seen many suggest it, outside of the seriously insane.

Let me quote The Dougler:

And he could have done the same damage with two hand guns with 30 round clips, even 15 round clips, and could have done nearly the same damage with the proposed 10 round clips.

He asserted that the Newtown shooter could have done the same damage with handguns. We are not having a national discussion about restricting handguns, to my knowledge. We are not trying to prevent people --sane or not-- having handguns, only 'assault' weapons.

How fast does one need to pull the trigger? It doesn't matter, which is both the point you and he are making. You are both just drawing differing conclusions on how it matters.

It might matter to you how fast one pulls the trigger if it's your child in the shooter's sights. Can you at least acknowledge that as a reality?

Houston!

TheDougler960608

Again, a semi automatic firearm only fires as quickly as the person can pull the trigger. How the gun looks doesn't change that.

An AR-15 semi automatic can be fired once per second. That's fast enough to murder 26 people in four minutes. As for the capacity of the clips, the death toll in the Tucson attack last year would have been worse if the gunman hadn't had to stop to reload, allowing bystanders to disarm him. The fact that AR-15s are "scary looking" is the reason gun nuts like to buy them; it's not the reason rational people want to ban them. Let the gun nuts buy squirt guns that looks just as scary and nobody would care.

So a standard 9mm with a 15-30 round clip can't? Do you know anything about guns? It's not an insult, I really want to know.

Again, what a gun looks like is not what makes a gun. It's functionality does.

It amazes me how someone can soooooo blindly accept the lies from both parties.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/264347-obama-clinton-backed-reforms-to-electoral-college-after-bush-v-gore

It amazes me how someone can soooooo blindly accept the lies from both parties.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/264347-obama-clinton-backed-reforms-to-electoral-college-after-bush-v-gore

Unhappy-1583758

Actually what readers from MSNBC don't want to say is that it will shape the NEW presidential elections. NO MORE will states like NY get all of the electoral votes because of NYC.

New York CIty has more people than Yahooville, Alabama, but it's not the "right" sort of people. They're a few shades too dark on average in NYC. Before the Civil War, enslaved blacks were considered 3/5 of a human being. Republicans want to resurrect that principle by giving certain people 3/5 (or less) of the vote that other people get.

David Walker,

The thing that really ticks me off about Republicans is that they think the majority of Americans are as stupidly blind as their base. They pull stunt after stunt in broad daylight and truly believe we won't notice, or worse yet, that we might actually agree with them. How often will they have to have their a$$e$ handed to them before they see that stuff like voter suppression tactics, blatant gerrymandering, and re-rigging the system only turns more voters away from them? These are the antics that drive people away! Do they ever really consider that possibility? I think not! Which tells me they're not just stupid, they're clinically stupid! There must be a physical, medical, or psychological reason why they have lost their reasoning capability. And these are the people the Republicans claim are their best!!!!

Well, they've convinced me. I believe these are, in fact, the best ya' got, because Republicans with any sense have already left!

TheDougler960608

So a standard 9mm with a 15-30 round clip can't? Do you know anything about guns? It's not an insult, I really want to know.

I know more about guns than you do about the reasons for the electoral college. The restrictions in Senator Feinstein's bill on clips would be TEN rounds, not 15 to 30. New York just imposed a 7-round limit. If you need a gun that fires 30 rounds without reloading to kill a duck, maybe you need to get a new hobby.

We are a country with many diversified cultures. Our country has allowed this diversification with few decisions on responsible control of immigration. The immigrants that are here legally or illegally in many cases do not know or respect the laws of this land or the fact that our openness to a diversified population allows them to even be here. This however, does not give "illegals" full voting rights, nor does it give "bleeding heart liberals" the right to turn their heads to "illegals" voting, in order to obtain additional votes for their liberal candidates that are pushing ramped up welfare agendas for votes.

Crime is up in this country. "Illegals" contribute greatly to the problem. "Illegals" contribution to our constitutional government and our democratic way of life is almost zero, yet we the taxpayers foot the bill for many of them. For the Democratic party to wave the current criteria to become a U.S. citizen so that they have an additional voting block to push the Democratic parties initiatives is irresponsible especially when many of these "illegals" would never meet the check list criteria for becoming a U.S. citizen, and don't give a damn about this countries success or failure.

In retrospect; we're probably the only country in the world that is even open to having a discussion on this issue.

The ignorance of your statement here shows that you are clearly only arguing emotionally.

In fact, I'm not emotional about the slaying of twenty children. Heck, mass shootings are happening at an ever-increasing pace. It's now the status quo. Nobody bats an eyelash anymore.

Again, what a gun looks like is not what makes a gun. It's functionality does.

Please tell us, Dougler... what is the function of a gun?

I have never owned a gun, despite having been raised in a home by a hunting father with numerous handguns, rifles, and shotguns. The idea of owning a tool of easy death has never appealed to me and it never will, even if I'm the last person in this country without a gun.

Rick,

no celebrating a system where one candidate can win 4 of 13 districts and take all 13 electoral votes

There's a bigger problem with WINNING the popular vote in a state and getting 4 of 13 Electors, don't you think! At worst, an event like that should end up 7:6.

There are two reasonably fair approaches, a national popular vote, and state-by-state popular votes with electors set by relative population (sort of what we have now).

Changing SOME states to District-selected electors is TOTALLY unfair. It will favor Republicans now, but not forever. It's a REALLY bad idea to piecemeal the country for short-term gain. Even Republicans should know this.

kaybeetoys

I didn't see anywhere in his posts suggesting "Crazy people buying guns is A-Okay". In fact I haven't seen many suggest it, outside of the seriously insane.

Let me quote The Dougler:

And he could have done the same damage with two hand guns with 30 round clips, even 15 round clips, and could have done nearly the same damage with the proposed 10 round clips.

He asserted that the Newtown shooter could have done the same damage with handguns. We are not having a national discussion about restricting handguns, to my knowledge. We are not trying to prevent people --sane or not-- having handguns, only 'assault' weapons.

How fast does one need to pull the trigger? It doesn't matter, which is both the point you and he are making. You are both just drawing differing conclusions on how it matters.

It might matter to you how fast one pulls the trigger if it's your child in the shooter's sights. Can you at least acknowledge that as a reality?

It's not that difficult to understand kaybee. I did assert that Adam Lanza, could have used hand guns with all sorts of clips, and done the same, or nearly the same damage. So how does that mean I condone it? It doesn't. That was your assertion.

The national discussion has been about banning "assault weapons". They are already banned. Assault weapons are those that fire fully automatically, or have select fire mechanisms. Weapons that are only semi-automatic are being confused as being "assault weapons", not because of how they function, but almost entirely because of how they look!! The vast majority of ALL modern day firearms are in fact SEMI-AUTOMATICS! When the line is blurred like the leftists are doing on purpose, folks like you that are being emotional, aren't able to differentiate between them.

The arguments being made for possible restrictions, will do nothing to curb what Adam Lanza did.

There likely is no correct calculation of the number of guns in the US. It is obvious though, to anyone who can see, that the number is about the same as the "fly" population. Additionally, after buying these weapons, they are bought and sold, without trace, in numbers equal to all Southern and western sh^thouse fly swarms. This does need effective FEDERAL control. Why can't the US DOJ file a federal suit which would eventually force the SCOTUS to formally rule on the validity of the 2ed amendment, and Its reach into, and among the states? The language of the amendment is screwy, which brings doubt of intent for many. Too, the time of writing indicates an intent then, that may or may not be relative to the present. The claimed supporting documentation is at best, quite conflicting, variable, and purely speculative. Now, before gun nuts begin giving me hell, I have no wish to disarm responsible gun owners, nor do I care to hear their interpretations of that courts extended 2008 ruling of "Washington DC V. Heller. That ruling actually settled nothing relative to the question at hand, and was specific only to Federal Law. Like a time piece or a calendar, we need this guiding tool of clarity. All the back and forth, among even responsible people isn't likely to accomplish anything other than to harden the resolve of the crazies and weaken the law abiding efforts of the responsibly sane citizenry.

Liberals are about giving rights and equal protection to minorities. If you want to call that "catering" to them, then congratulations, you finally got something right.

Sarah:

You are obviously a WHITE person who thinks they know something about minorities. I am NOT WHITE. So if you are going to use your perceived outlook on why equal protection should be granted to 'ILLEGAL MINORITIES', let me stop you right there.

The problem is too many democrats like to confuse the two. I am all for legal immigration, but not illegal. The fact that the democratic party is allowing ILLEGAL immigration to take place is a bother for everyone else in this country who have been waiting 15 years or more for their family members to arrive through LEGAL means.

Unless you yourself was an immigrant, you don't know the pain of waiting for others for years while the DEMOCRATIC party allows lawbreakers to stay in the country.

Once again Sarah, keep to your own closed mind about what you consider to be "right".

Houston!

TheDougler960608

So a standard 9mm with a 15-30 round clip can't? Do you know anything about guns? It's not an insult, I really want to know.

I know more about guns than you do about the reasons for the electoral college. The restrictions in Senator Feinstein's bill on clips would be TEN rounds, not 15 to 30. New York just imposed a 7-round limit. If you need a gun that fires 30 rounds without reloading to kill a duck, maybe you need to get a new hobby.

I wasn't aware that the second amendment made reference to hunting. But I guess you know more than me.

What's amusing to me, is that folks on your side of the argument actually expect for criminals to obey the laws.

To point something out there is upwards of 8.5 MILLION pounds of marijuana being smuggled into the U.S. every year. Of which officials actually catch about 1-1.5 Million of. That's not even discussing all other illegal drugs that come into the U.S. every year. Do you really think that if we can't stop illegal marijuana from coming into the U.S., that we'll have any chance of stopping illegal firearms? Not likely!

DK Southern,

It's called EVIL. They DON'T CARE because it works.

There is NO BLOWBACK. The Florida 2000 debacle; the Wisconsin collective bargaining gambit.

CHEATING doesn't COST them so they keep doing it.

So why did the Democrats win the Presidency?

There are now 47 million families that get free food and cash aid, and they credit the Democrats for 'giving' them that largess. At $713 per month average, that's about $335.2 Billion per year in 'freebies'.

These families are typically also the ones that get an average of about $333 Billion per year in free health care (Medicaid - that figure comes from Obama's 2013 Budget projections).

That amounts to a total of about $668 Billion per year in 'free benefits' that these 47 million families get each year, which amounts to about 61% of the $1.1 Trillion Deficit.

These people have become dependent upon the government, so they naturally will continue to vote for the Democrats. A cynic might suggest that the Democrats are 'buying votes with taxpayer funds', but of course that would be considered 'heartless towards those in need', or even 'racist'.

In addition, the Democrats keep promising 'Amnesty' for the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country, so the 12 million Hispanics that vote will naturally want to vote overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrats who promise to let their friends and relatives stay here and be eligible to work (competing with legal American workers), as well as getting welfare benefits. Ironically, the Democrats don't actually want to 'pass' Amnesty, because it would remove a valuable campaign tactic that they use over and over.

Since Obama got about 65 million of the 126 million votes in this last election, but won by less than 5 million votes, this huge group of roughly 47 million that has become 'dependent' on the government will form a formidable voting block that will ensure the Democrats maintain power well into the future. So how many of the roughly 47 million families that have become dependent on the government voted for the Democrats for purely selfish reasons (Don't touch my benefits)? If only 3 million of the 47 million voted for continued 'free benefits' from the Democrats, that was enough to ensure a Democratic victory. According to exit polls, Obama won this group by almost 11 million votes.

Ironically, even though these policies by the Democrats will drag down future economic growth, ensure high unemployment, and make everyone 'poorer' - witness the $5,000 (10%) drop in average family income over the last 4 years, this actually helps the Democrats win even more votes because it creates even more people that will become 'dependent on the government'.

All of this comes at a great cost (witness the $668 Billion per year spent on welfare and Medicaid above) and the huge cost to taxpayers of the massively growing Debt (which Obama's Budget projects to increase to $20.379 TRILLION within less than 4 years - even if he gets his 'tax increase on the wealthy'). The Debt was only $9.986 Trillion at the end of fiscal 2008. But the 47 million that get welfare and free medical care don't really care about that, because they know that 'someone else will have to pay for that' (those who actually pay income taxes).

And of course the Democrats will continue to 'play to their base' by claiming 'the rich don't pay their fair share', and the Republicans are 'heartless and racist' for calling for 'entitlement reform'.

We are well on our way to the ruin that Greece brought upon itself by promising benefits that we can't afford.

PS – The Democrats also do not care that much about improving education in this country because uneducated people are much easier to manipulate. Those that dropped out of High School voted for Obama by a 63% to 35% margin. And an important constituency is teachers unions that fight against any education reforms.

Link for Welfare spending;

http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_detail_fy12bs12012n_401000#usgs302

kaybeetoys

The ignorance of your statement here shows that you are clearly only arguing emotionally.

In fact, I'm not emotional about the slaying of twenty children. Heck, mass shootings are happening at an ever-increasing pace. It's now the status quo. Nobody bats an eyelash anymore.

Again, what a gun looks like is not what makes a gun. It's functionality does.

Please tell us, Dougler... what is the function of a gun?

I have never owned a gun, despite having been raised in a home by a hunting father with numerous handguns, rifles, and shotguns. The idea of owning a tool of easy death has never appealed to me and it never will, even if I'm the last person in this country without a gun.

Then please by all means, don't drive, or use a knife to cut anything. Don't use prescription medicines, or any of the like, as all can kill just as easily, and do so at a higher rate than guns do.

I didn't say the "function" of a gun. That is obvious. I was stating the functionality that defines what type of gun it is. Again, you're twisting what I'm saying to suit your bias.

Bob-the-plumber

It amazes me how someone can soooooo blindly accept the lies from both parties.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/264347-obama-clinton-backed-reforms-to-electoral-college-after-bush-v-gore

You're a bit confused. Obama and Clinton said they wanted to eliminate the electoral college and elect presidents by popular vote. The GOP want make KEEP the electoral college and make the vote far more anti-democratic than even the current electoral college system. There've only been two or three presidential elections in history where the loser of the popular vote won the electoral college. The Republicans scheme would ensure that they would happen all the time.

@ Joe in Albany

Your little remark on stupidity and President Obama was funny but not as funny as this fact:

Romney told you the part about the 47% that he does not care about, and YOU, probably being part of that 47% club voted for him anyhow, that my man wins the "Most Stupid Award!"

Congrats Joe, did you get a trophy with your award also?

Unlike most, responding to this requested change by the GOP, it seems to me as if the system in place benefited the Democrats all along. If not, why, are they not making an effort to stop these changes.

In fact, is the current system the reason Obama won reelection? Sure seems like it.

DR821,

Europe never had or has these problems with immigration, eh? We're not the only ones with problems in the world. Read some news about the rest of the world.

Unhappy<

Sarah, like me, say that liberals are about fairness, not just about winning. You have to win to institute fairness. Conservatives are trying to conserve unfairness (or create it sometimes). That's the difference.

Listening to the voice of WE THE PEOPLE for their will on the direction of our beautiful country

or

Bowing to The Tea Party for their RULING of our country

The GOP has made their decision.

nor does it give "bleeding heart liberals" the right to turn their heads to "illegals" voting, in order to obtain additional votes for their liberal candidates that are pushing ramped up welfare agendas for votes.

I will not argue that we need reforms in many areas: immigration, welfare, and voting rights to name a few. I have registered dozens of voters and worked at the polls and can assure you that "illegals" do not vote in my state. In fact, voter suppression has moved us so far in the opposite direction that it has caused difficulties for elderly people who have voted in the same county for 60+ years.

Welfare recipients are the least likely of all our citizens to vote. The level of apathy and dis-enfrachisement in their ranks is astounding. To assert that liberal candidates push welfare to get votes is laughable.

Romney told you the part about the 47% that he does not care about, and YOU, probably being part of that 47% club voted for him anyhow, that my man wins the "Most Stupid Award!"

Joe in Albany probably doesn't believe he is in the 47%. Even if his income doesn't reflect it, he believes himself to be part of the 1%.

SmBusOwnerinNY "Roy, Deficits are going down faster now than for any president since Eisenhower."

Here are the Deficit figures for the last 5 Presidents - with a link to the official Obama White House government source to verify - If that's 'going down', I'd hate to see what 'going up' is;

Reagan (1981-1988) = $1.339 Trillion over 8 years, or $167 Billion per year.

Bush 1 (1989-1992) = $933 Billion over 4 years, or $233 Billion per year.

Clinton (1993-2000) = $320 Billion over 8 years, or $40 Billion per year.

Bush 2 (2001-2008) = $2.006 Trillion over 8 years, or $251 Billion per year. This included all of the cost of the wars.

Obama (2009-2012) = $5.333 Trillion (Proj) over his first 4 years, or $1,333 Billion per year. That's $4.6 Trillion more than Bush spent in his first 4 years.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Roy,

What you're saying is just plain evil.

Do you really think that all of those people on food stamps vote for democrats because of that "gift" of government handouts?

Well, maybe they do...if Republicans had their way, these people would in some cases literally be starving out on the street.

These people, more than any other, actually know what it means to be in such dire straights, and recognize the value of such temporary assistance.

Unhappy,

I'm sorry, did I miss the chapter in history where it was announced that ONLY black people are minorities? That has to be the single most racist thing I've seen on the vine, and I've seen some doozies.

Here, let me teach you about this now. The Constitution, in the bill of rights, never once says "citizen", it says "people". That's why those who vacation here, still get public defenders and trials and can't be thrown in jail for speech or religion...

From Plyler v Doe, a SCOTUS ruling...

(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 457 U. S. 210-216.

So perhaps you should take your gripe up with the Supreme Court? I'm sure they'll bow to your superior knowledge, read hatred.

Furthermore, here's some more info for you, since you sorely lack it in apparently ALL areas. So this is what I know, you might want to take notes...

I know it takes eight years, on average, to immigrate here legally. I also know it's limited to established professionals and those who have family members as citizens. I know that once here on a green card or visa, it's a highly beaurocratic process to renew them. And that if you don't there is NO pathway to citizenship. I know that 1996 Welfare reform disqualified undocumented people from any means tested assistance. I know that the IRS assigns ITIN numbers for all workers, regardless of immigration status, ensuring they pay taxes, but can't collect SS. I know undocumented people are the least likely to seek medical attention for fear of deportation. I also know it costs $12,500 to deport a single person, if we follow the law, which I'm sure you want to do, since you seem very concerned about legality. I know that civil rights are afforded to persons and not citizens. I know that the supreme court ruled that theft of SSN numbers, as done by undocumented workers, does not constitute theft per se.

And most of all, I know that being a human is not illegal.

Now, are you going to post the source for your info about "illegals" or what??? And by the way, congratulations on NOT embarrassing yourself about the gay rights movement, anymore than you already have. Perhaps you can learn.

come on, really?

"Why don't Republican's just pass a law that Democrats are 3/5 of a person and don't get to vote?"

Don't be surprised if they try to implement this on minorities too. :/

ROY -- WTF does your post have to do with the topic of stealing elections?

This business of selective election rules is not only unconstitutional, it is loony. Why just swing states, and not also Texas, for example? And it shows all the more that we need a federal standardization of elections, not per individual state whims. We the United States are supposed to be a beacon on the hill for democracy, not the laughing stock.

But if worse comes to worse, just like the Debt Ceiling, SCRAP THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Every time the rightwing douchebags abuse something, take it away ASAP. They are on notice with the filibuster too.

Other than the above, just throw these anti-democracy jagoffs out of office! Any conservative who supports this crap is unpatriotic too. Shame on you all. You are a disgrace!

SmBusOwnerinNY "Roy, What you're saying is just plain evil. Do you really think that all of those people on food stamps vote for democrats because of that "gift" of government handouts?"

Of course not - all it took was for 10% of them to vote for Obama to 'keep their food stamps' for Obama to win.

Chicago-style politics in action. And how is pointing out the obvious 'evil'?

Roy,

The annual deficit has gone down every year since 2009, which was Bush's last budget year.

Down is good, up is bad.

Putting in non-inflation adjusted non-GDP adjusted budget numbers is totally disingenuous.

Reagan-Bush nearly QUADRUPLED the national debt.

Obama has merely increased it by 50% and that's coming off the biggest recession since the Great Depression.

Reagan UP. Bush 1 UP. Clinton DOWN. Bush 2 UP. Obama DOWN. It's 100%.

I didn't say the "function" of a gun. That is obvious. I was stating the functionality that defines what type of gun it is. Again, you're twisting what I'm saying to suit your bias.

More semantics. Let's cut to the chase, Dougler.

Then please by all means, don't drive, or use a knife to cut anything. Don't use prescription medicines, or any of the like, as all can kill just as easily, and do so at a higher rate than guns do.

You need to clarify in your own mind the functions of a car, a knife, a prescription medication, and a gun apparently. One can kill himself or others with a glass of water.

Logic is a hard nut for the closed mind.

The shooter at Newtown did not use a car, a knife, or a prescription medication to slaughter twenty children.

Sarah, like me, say that liberals are about fairness, not just about winning. You have to win to institute fairness. Conservatives are trying to conserve unfairness (or create it sometimes). That's the difference.

Smallbusinessowner in NY: Nice try; what's next, are you going to say it is all done for the good of the minorities? Most minorities do perfectly fine without the govt. help. There are thousands of minorities who because (they are not hispanic) have taken to increase their education and are learning the english language, etc.This democratic vote for illegal immigration does not really address them, right?

So quit playing the word games on what you call "fair".

As for protecting the minority voters, I don't recall you democrats being this excited when republicans used a filibuster to try and block the healthcare bill, thereby protecting MINORITY voters.

I guess it is really just about what you( liberals) consider to be fair then, right?

TheDougler960608

I wasn't aware that the second amendment made reference to hunting. But I guess you know more than me.

I didn't say that it was. The 2nd Amendment does make reference to the reason for gun rights is in order for states to have a "well regulated" militia. Gun nuts don't seem to be aware of that, either.

To point something out there is upwards of 8.5 MILLION pounds of marijuana being smuggled into the U.S. every year. Of which officials actually catch about 1-1.5 Million of. That's not even discussing all other illegal drugs that come into the U.S. every year. Do you really think that if we can't stop illegal marijuana from coming into the U.S., that we'll have any chance of stopping illegal firearms? Not likely!

You've got it backwards. The guns flow from the US south to Mexico and the drugs flow north. The Mexican government has been trying to persuade the US to do something about straw purchasers who LEGALLY buy large quantities of guns in a short period of time and then resell them criminals and drug cartels. The carnage in cities like Chicago has the same source. The gun industry doesn't want this to change because it makes as much money when a straw purchaser buys guns for a drug lord as it does when a when anyone else does.

TruePatriot-445959 "ROY -- WTF does your post have to do with the topic of stealing elections?This business of selective election rules is not only unconstitutional..."

It just shows that both Parties have their 'strategies', and how can it be 'unconstitutional' if Maine and Nebraska already did it?

Do you really think that all of those people on food stamps vote for democrats because of that "gift" of government handouts?

Well, maybe they do...if Republicans had their way, these people would in some cases literally be starving out on the street.

In September 2012, I travelled part of the Appalachian Trail through Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia. From the number of "Anybody but Obama," and Romney/Ryan, bumper stickers I saw from people who you can easily see were not only "down on their luck," but most definitely on government "handouts," be it welfare, or food stamps, or both, how could they even think of voting for Romney.

I thought that was unbelievable, and yes, these people were white.

I'm happy to cut to the chase kaybee. and it's about time!!!

How about we deal with the real issues of mental illness, and how to treat them. Or about how we can have better, smarter back ground checks. Or how we can protect the most defenseless citizens in our society.

Again, folks like you actually expect for criminals to follow the law. That assumption in and of itself is a joke.

Well ROy, if you kep reading, I said:

Well, maybe they do...if Republicans had their way, these people would in some cases literally be starving out on the street.

These people, more than any other, actually know what it means to be in such dire straights, and recognize the value of such temporary assistance.

That was the more important point. Your 10% has a reason to think temporary assistance is a good idea.

Obama was right when he said the safety net doesn't make us takers, it frees us to take risks--starting a business, starting a new career, not worrying about having to take care of our brother or sister or parents.

TheDougler960608

kaybeetoys

Again, what a gun looks like is not what makes a gun. It's functionality does.

Please tell us, Dougler... what is the function of a gun?

I have never owned a gun, despite having been raised in a home by a hunting father with numerous handguns, rifles, and shotguns. The idea of owning a tool of easy death has never appealed to me and it never will, even if I'm the last person in this country without a gun.

Then please by all means, don't drive,

If you think an automobile is a "tool of easy death," then you're the one who shouldn't be allowed behind a steering wheel. The purpose of a car is transportation. The purpose of an assault rifle with a high-capacity magazine to kill large numbers of people quickly.

or use a knife to cut anything.

Not even to cut up celery and tomatoes? I don't think anyone considers that a crime.

moshulu,

If it weren't for Roosevelt and rural electrification, those people in rural TN, VA and WV wouldn't even have a TeeVee.

Another example of liberal fairness, even when it doesn't necessarily benefit them, despite what Unhappy might think.

Before you people choose to bash me and offer nothing constructive in return, as is your style from reading the comments here, I am not a Republican and the only thing I watch on any Fox network is NFL games on Sunday afternoons. I am a Libertarian, and have been for 20 years now. I think changing the EC is a wonderful idea because we come closer to the one person one vote ideal. I don't know if I completely agree with the Republican idea, but it is better than what we have now. If you Democrats are afraid of that, it only means that you are not too confident in your own party. I have voted for Democrats and Republicans and will continue my trend. However, it seems to me that the EC disenfranchises voters. Take my state of Alabama. There were Obama supporters here, and their votes essentially did not count because all of our electoral votes went to Romney. You Democrats want things to be fair. Does that seem fair to you? I did not vote for Obama because I am a Libertarian and not a Socialist, but I think everyone should have a vote that counts in any election.

I know it takes eight years, on average, to immigrate here legally. I also know it's limited to established professionals and those who have family members as citizens. I know that once here on a green card or visa, it's a highly beaurocratic process to renew them. And that if you don't there is NO pathway to citizenship. I know that 1996 Welfare reform disqualified undocumented people from any means tested assistance. I know that the IRS assigns ITIN numbers for all workers, regardless of immigration status, ensuring they pay taxes, but can't collect SS. I know undocumented people are the least likely to seek medical attention for fear of deportation. I also know it costs $12,500 to deport a single person, if we follow the law, which I'm sure you want to do, since you seem very concerned about legality. I know that civil rights are afforded to persons and not citizens. I know that the supreme court ruled that theft of SSN numbers, as done by undocumented workers, does not constitute theft per se.

Sarah: That's just it. As a white person, you only have book knowledge. I have people in my family who are engineers who are working in Abu Dhabi because they CAN'T GET INTO THE US. It takes a LONG TIME. So again, spare me the rhetoric about it ONLY being 8 years.

It's obvious you know nothing and all of that liberal education is confusing the crap out of you. And as for taking it up with the Supreme Court, you are correct. We should sue the US govt. for granting illegals amnesty while still collecting funds from those who are going through the channels legally.

As for talking about the gay rights movement. This post is already too long. And no matter what you say, democrats in the NY didn't let the people vote on that one, which means they probably knew they were going to lose. Which goes to show you why Democrats won't let them change the ideas about the electoral votes either for fear they would end of losing this state. It is only in your mind that you consider gays to be a minority because they have a voice they can't speak out about. It is also only in your mind that you consider illegals to be a minority because they can't speak out about that too.

What I don't understand is liberals like yourselves can't see your hypocrisy when it comes to abortions. Afterall, those people can't speak out either.

SmBusOwnerinNY "Roy, The annual deficit has gone down every year since 2009, which was Bush's last budget year."

There was no Budget for 2009 under Bush - The Democratic controlled Congress refused to give Bush one that could be vetoed, so they stalled until Obama took office so they could dramatically increase spending - here's a link to verify (there are many others);

https://www.aamc.org/advocacy/washhigh/highlights2008/159056/president_signs_spending_bill.html

The only Budget for 2009 was signed by Obama on March 11, 2009 - after he passed his $860 Billion 'Stimulus' bill. Trying to pin the huge increase in spending on Bush is 'baloney'.

And I'll take the average $251 Billion Deficits for Bush's 8 years in office over the $1,333 Billion average Deficits in Obama's first 4 years any day - even 'inflation adjusted'.

David Walker, good post, but it is too long for the looneys to read. Let me put it simple. Dems own guns too and if the popular vote doesn't win with a significant margin there will be dead people in the streets of the US.

Is that easy enough to understand?

Houston!

TheDougler960608

kaybeetoys

Again, what a gun looks like is not what makes a gun. It's functionality does.

Please tell us, Dougler... what is the function of a gun?

I have never owned a gun, despite having been raised in a home by a hunting father with numerous handguns, rifles, and shotguns. The idea of owning a tool of easy death has never appealed to me and it never will, even if I'm the last person in this country without a gun.

Then please by all means, don't drive,

If you think an automobile is a "tool of easy death," then you're the one who shouldn't be allowed behind a steering wheel. The purpose of a car is transportation. The purpose of an assault rifle with a high-capacity magazine to kill large numbers of people quickly.

or use a knife to cut anything.

Not even to cut up celery and tomatoes? I don't think anyone considers that a crime.

So cars and knives aren't easy tools of death? If it's difficult for them to be tools of death, then why do so many people die from them each year?

Their intended purpose has nothing to do with ease of death from them.

SmBusOwnerinNY "Obama was right when he said the safety net doesn't make us takers"

I other words, Obama is saying "It's ok to vote for me because I'll keep giving you stuff, and not for that rich, evil, heartless Romney".

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Time to go - things to do, and bye.

Have a nice day :)

Rick-3416939

Portioning out electoral votes by district is certainly more fair then winner takes all.

Gawd how stupid. I'll try to explain it so you can understand (and not the spin you get from FAUX and Limpballs).

What these rightwing idiots think is we should vote according to land mass. They know urban areas are Blue, and they know Democrats can organize and get out the vote better in urban areas.

The argument that rural votes don't count is absurd. Aside from the fact we already have fairness built into the system with the Senate (statewide) and the House (by district), WTF? I live in a Red state where my vote does not count, and most offices go completely uncontested because of money barriers for candidates. If anything, the argument of scraping the electoral college altogether is the best way to make "one person one vote" a reality.

States that go by district still do so in accordance with the popular vote. If elections varied greatly from the popular vote, it would be unconstitutional. If President Obama had won the electoral college but lost the popular vote by a large margin, you rightwingers would have been in the street protesting to get rid of the electoral college.

Teapublicans are hypocritical sore Losers who think it is their message and not their disgusting policies that is the problem. Stop crying like little school girls and clean up your platform. Win fair and square, not by cheating.

Again, folks like you actually expect for criminals to follow the law. That assumption in and of itself is a joke.

Folks like you define someone as a criminal BEFORE they commit a crime: Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jacob Roberts. None of them had a criminal history. All obtained weapons legally.

A friend said of Roberts:

"He was a very loved individual that always seemed as if he had great intentions and a heart of gold. I know that must be hard for people to see/think/understand, but It's the truth. I don't know what caused him to do such a horrendous, terrible thing, but I do hope that somehow answers will be available to us all."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/12/justice/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html

We aren't dealing with criminals, Dougler, but with supposedly law-abiding citizens. Until we are able to read the mind of the individual plotting a crime, we need to restrict access to weapons of easy death.

That is my opinion. Not a popular one in our gun-crazy culture.

How about we deal with the real issues of mental illness, and how to treat them. Or about how we can have better, smarter back ground checks. Or how we can protect the most defenseless citizens in our society.

Yes, let's have a calm, rational conversation about such issues.

ROY WILSON-336103

TruePatriot-445959 "ROY -- WTF does your post have to do with the topic of stealing elections?This business of selective election rules is not only unconstitutional..."

It just shows that both Parties have their 'strategies', and how can it be 'unconstitutional' if Maine and Nebraska already did it?

Since when did the loser of the popular vote in those two states win the majority of the electoral votes? Never. And neither of those states allocated electoral votes by congressional districts with the intention of stealing presidential elections, which the Chairman of the Republican National Committee essentially admitted was the intention of the national Republican Party.

Local Sheriff here says he won't enforce gun regs. Well lets think about that one second. It isn't his job to determine which laws are constitutional.

But let's say he doesn't then there is a shooting (maybe not even a "mass" shooting) in his district with a weapon newly purchased illegally (one way or another). The sheriff would be in a tough spot wouldn't he. And the lawsuits would totally break the country. I suspect the sheriff would be in jail in short order.

Yeah, it will happen and it is going to be a sad occurrence for our county to watch it unfold.

I hear the council men here are going to be speaking with the sheriff this week, we will see what falls out for someone that took an oath to uphold state and fed constitutions. Oh, wait, congress people take that oath too and we see where that got us.

As the Liberal/Progressive clique clings to its irrational ideology they continue to struggle to understand common sense. When they have been indoctrinated for so long by their dysfunctional parents, peers, teachers and any other simple-minded mob they have no other choice but to conform. Their ability to rationalize normally or to comprehend real facts have been eliminated. Political correctness consumes them and refuses them any alternative thoughts.

They believe more laws to reduce more guns will work, just like it did with our massive drug policies and laws. They continue to believe that spending more money that you don’t have, and have no plan how to create more in the future, will somehow decrease the deficits and subsequently the debt. The Bush tax cuts did produce more revenue in 2007 than ever in history, even more than Clintons best year in 2000. It even created the average revenue to GDP of 18.4%. Of course his spending skyrocketed to 24% of GDP driving a deficit. But the unwashed masses have been duped into believing that the rich are the ones to blame for all our ills. They have been incessantly lied to and told we don’t have a spending problem when all the evidence points directly at it.

Their claim to fame is their self-proclaimed intellect. Yet they never pursue the corporate world to fix all the atrocities and bogeymen they create. They complain about stagnant wages and CEO wage to common wage disequilibrium, even though the highest points for both of them were during the Clinton era. Liberals don’t create jobs, they look at ways to create more mediocrity. Barrack Husseins class-warfare/envy campaign has brainwashed the useful idiots on the Left to believe the best they can ever become is middle-class. Why doesn’t he promote everyone be successful, rich, wealthy? Because it’s too difficult to create wealth, it’s much easier to tell everyone to be common, mediocre, middle class.

Yes, the left will try to impress themselves with their claims of projection as they claim they aren’t racists. They will promote cognitive dissonance on everyone else but they struggle with the realities of abortion, unalienable Rights and political correctness. The one thing they are prolific at is hypocrisy. As they struggle to function in a normal free-market society it’s obvious they can’t. They can’t live by normal rules of equal opportunity and success creates more success. It’s too difficult for Liberals/Progressives to compete, they just prefer to lie and deceive and hope no one notices.

It’s time to finally start exposing the scared little Libbies for the cowards they are and demand that equal opportunity doesn’t become the impossible equal outcomes.

Only we real Americans can understand that.

Unhappy,

You do realize my folks didn't come here on the Mayflower, right? And again, your racism is showing. By the way, if we reformed our immigration process, your people could get here a lot easier.

Now, can you argue anything on a substantive level, or do you just like spewing racist crap? I noticed you couldn't prove a single thing I said was wrong. And you still haven't provided that source.

Also, when did we grant amnesty??? And you can't sue the government, as per your scenario. They have immunity, mostly so those who have no clue can't waste our time and money. You know, like you. Thank God for that "liberal" education of mine. Otherwise I might be embarrassing myself as much as you.

So cars and knives aren't easy tools of death? If it's difficult for them to be tools of death, then why do so many people die from them each year?

Their intended purpose has nothing to do with ease of death from them.

Come on, Dougler. If I go out and buy a car or a knife, do you assume I'm plotting a murder?

You're being deliberately obtuse. That is no way to effectively argue your point. What exactly is your point?

TheDougler960608

So cars and knives aren't easy tools of death? If it's difficult for them to be tools of death, then why do so many people die from them each year?

You seem not to understand the concept of an intended function. Knives and cars have purposes other than killing. Guns do not.

BTW: the overwhelming majority of homicides (67.8% in 2011) are committed with guns, not knives (13.4%) or other weapons:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp

SmBusOwner

Ignore Roy, he is the typical Republican that George Carlin spoke of:

"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 foodstamps, no welfare, no nothing.

If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f***ed."

In Roy's world, he would cut out all food stamps and welfare, then laugh at the children starving to death in the street. He claims that Obama won because of welfare, even though the most recent data shows that only 2% of the population is on welfare. So, in his world, the election was decided by 2% of Americans.

It’s time to finally start exposing the scared little Libbies for the cowards they are and demand that equal opportunity doesn’t become the impossible equal outcomes.

It's time you conservatives (conserving what, exactly?) grow a set and quit equating firepower with courage.

Who is expecting equal outcomes? We are only asking for equal opportunity. But you knew that.

Only we real Americans can understand that.

Define "real American" for us please.

Obama was right when he said the safety net doesn't make us takers, it frees us to take risks--starting a business, starting a new career, not worrying about having to take care of our brother or sister or parents.

And that is EXACTLY what Paul Ryan did... TAKE a "handout" to free himself to improve his life.

And now that same man is adamantly against the very same "handout" he received himself.

Unhappy,

You do realize my folks didn't come here on the Mayflower, right? And again, your racism is showing. By the way, if we reformed our immigration process, your people could get here a lot easier.

Sarah: It just goes to show you that your definition of racism is skewed. Your folks didn't come hear on the mayflower? Did they come in the last generation? Because if they hadn't, you have then no idea of what immigration officials are up to doing now.

And lastly let me point out that it is you who is a racist. If I had not mentioned that I wasn't white, you would have assumed that I was a WHITE, christian male who did not care about immigrants. That is the platform you democrats like to use the most and IT IS A LIE!

Stop trying to belittle people if they don't agree with you.

Now, can you argue anything on a substantive level, or do you just like spewing racist crap?

I don't know Sarah, you like to spew racist crap when it suits you. Remember when you said this on an earlier post: Seems to be a constant with you.

#1.95 - Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:19 AM EST

Or, you know, they could acknowledge that America consists of more than straight, white, Christian men and cease their platform of attempting to deny rights to the rest of us.

No matter how the Republicans try to rig the system

Electoral college or popular vote

The facts remain

The latino vote bank henceforth decides the winner - if they continue voting as one big block

The likes of Mitch McConnell and Boehner will continue to alienate even some diehard republicans

The Tea Party extremists will turn off quite a few of the moderates

There is no GENUINE change - just lip service and restructuring to try and obfuscate the facts

There will emerge a third party - one of moderate independents ultimately which will displace both

No matter how good a party when you have an 'etch a sketch' candidate like Mitt you are bound to lose

How is that NOT minority rules?

To give 10 Republicans more voting power than 5,000 American Citizens is NOT "freedom" and it is NOT grounded in the United States Constitution.

Each liberal vote should count for 3/5ths of a Conservative vote. That has always been their platform; that we liberals are not able to think for themselves and need Conservatives to think for us.

Never mind that their platform is logically inconsistent, morally repugnant and ethically unacceptable. Since they are quite happy with contradicting themselves, they claim to be both the party of values and the party of parenting for the rest of the country. And somehow they are also all for freedom, while at the same time badmouthing liberals for opposing government overreach.

ROY WILSON-336103

And I'll take the average $251 Billion Deficits for Bush's 8 years in office over the $1,333 Billion average Deficits in Obama's first 4 years any day - even 'inflation adjusted'.

Roy, you know better to try and convince the limp-wristed Liberals with facts. They already have their mind made up by someone else. Their indoctrinated bobbleheads are who they listen to even though simple research fully discredits them. Obvious examples are the Brown University “unbiased” scoring of the cost of the Iran and Afghanistan wars.

This one you are arguing comes from, Marketwatches, Rex Nutting and his delusional evaluation of Bush’s last fiscal year. As you point out it is a complete lie and fabrication.

But hey, you’re dealing with Liberals/Progressives, that’s all you can really hope for from them.

Unhappy,

Actually, my family came here in the '50's.

And lastly let me point out that it is you who is a racist. If I had not mentioned that I wasn't white, you would have assumed that I was a WHITE, christian male who did not care about immigrants. That is the platform you democrats like to use the most and IT IS A LIE!

I would have??? Jesus, you should work for the Psychic Hotline. I already knew you were a non-white female, you've told me.

And I don't belittle you for who you are, or what you believe. I belittle you for your ignorance.

Yes, I remember when I said that. That was about the Republican platform not a statement about who makes up the Republican Party, and it's completely true. That doesn't mean that there aren't Uncle Tom's out there, or those who are too ignorant to realize they're supporting a party who doesn't have their interests or respect for their rights in mind. Exhibit A, YOU.

And you STILL haven't posted that source, provided a factual counter argument, or any facts to discredit what I said. In fact, you haven't even provided anything of substance at all. How come?

mguy-478

And that is EXACTLY what Paul Ryan did... TAKE a "handout" to free himself to improve his life.

I can't wait to see his new budget ur, uh oligarchy agenda for his plutocrat masters. Republicans, even Teabaggers do NOT support cuts to trust funds, specifically Social Security to reduce the deficit. They know in their dark hearts that the unnecessary/protracted wars and tax cuts for the rich are why we have so much debt, and that trust funds are separate from the issue.

A word to ALL Democratic candidates, you CAN kick Teapublican butt on this, and Paul Ryan knows it. Let's see a bill to raise the cap on FICA withholding from $110k up to $400k per the extended Bush tax cuts on the first $400-450K earned. Fair is fair. The richest 2% like Paul Ryan got this tax break on their federal rates, so now they need to pay into trust funds at a matched amount.

Any news reporter who fails to ask Paul Ryan and his ilk about this contradiction is failing to do his/her job. Ask it often, and over and over!

GOP looks to change the rules so they can steal the next election, this is sad to see this party stoop to this level, I don't think the American people would vote for them no matter what they do - the way I see it this party is finish as a party !!!

This is utter bullsh*t. It means sparsely populated physical space will receive more weight than densely populated physical space. Absolutely we should move to the popular vote if this is gonna be the game the GOP plays. A person in a district with a million people will have 1/10th the voting power of a person in a district with 100,000 people. It's just completely unfair and it speaks volumes about who actually holds the moral high ground amongst our politicians.

RedDevp'O's:

Last week, ProFreeDumb tore up his GOP card, threw it in the fire, and became a Libertarian. Now he is going to have egg on his face when after frying a couple, he rejoins the party. This creature's party flip-flops are making Romney look tame - simply a flip vs. a flip-flopper.

I had a gop card and became a libbie? Really? I'm flip-flopping parties eh? And where is your evidence chowder head? Based on what- your wet dreams?

Try laying off the vodka so early in the day. Stay there in your momy's basement and get back to your video games, boy.

I noticed you couldn't prove a single thing I said was wrong. And you still haven't provided that source.

Sarah: Here's your source on the polling of Americans for Illegals. Next time, try a little more reading before you spout your mouth off.

http://www.fairus.org/facts/public-opinion

It's not about being taught to distrust. It's about being taught to question what you're told, because everyone has to some extent, some political leanings. It's about being smarter, and making smarter decisions by being educated. Why would you completely trust someone you've never met?

I agree completely. We should always question authority. We should educate ourselves and support education for everyone. Finding the truth is not always easy.

My point was that conservatives are being taught to assume that anything a liberal says or does constitutes a conspiracy.

Roy and Spense,

Spense again with your "limp wristed" ....which says a lot more about what's on your mind that any of us.

Roy, who said anything about budgets? Deficits due to what was actually spent has gone down under Obama, down a lot. Regardless of how you want to spin it, the giant economic tailspin that Bush left had consequences. TARP and Stimulus were there to attempt to repair it. Those underlying conditions requiring both were there when Obama arrived. Deficits have been going down fast ever since. The opposite occurred during every Republican since Reagan.

Opposite of what George Costanza would say: It's you, not me.

http://zfacts.com/p/gross-national-debt.html

You guys wrecked the Federal Financial situation long ago and continue to do it whenever you have a chance.

And lastly let me point out that it is you who is a racist. If I had not mentioned that I wasn't white, you would have assumed that I was a WHITE, christian male who did not care about immigrants. That is the platform you democrats like to use the most and IT IS A LIE!

It is not only whites who can be racists. From the views you seen to be espousing, it seems that Sarah's evaluation of you is dead on.

You seem constitutionally incapable of understanding that being a Democrat or a liberal doesn't mean that one is automatically a liar or an idiot. Your attitude cannot be classified as racism, because Democrats come in all races, but it is certainly classifiable and is, in fact, bigotry.

• Keep digging that hole Republicans. Keep making more and more and more people angry with you. Voter suppression backfired in your face so now you're trying another stunt. At this rate, in another 2 election cycles, you might be a gone as the Whig Party of the 19th century.

FAIR, really??? This is almost as good as when you used WND as your source. Here's a research tip, you need to find NON biased and BIPARTISAN sources.

Some info on FAIR...

http://www.visalaw.com/98may/22may98.html

http://www.mnforsustain.org/media_bias_in_reporting_us_immg_pop.htm

The founder John Tanton, is a known anti-immigration activist (What was that I was saying about being ignorant enough to support those who are actively working against your interests and rights). And has taken money from the Pioneer Fund, which supports EUGENICS.

Great source. Real reliable.

I did not vote for Obama because I am a Libertarian and not a Socialist, but I think everyone should have a vote that counts in any election.

I voted for Obama. I am not a Socialist, and neither is he.

I didn't vote for Romney because, among other reasons, I believe in democracy, not plutocracy.

The only way to ensure that all votes are counted equally is to do away with the Electoral College.

So cars and knives aren't easy tools of death? If it's difficult for them to be tools of death, then why do so many people die from them each year?

If cars are weapons, they way the gun lobby people keep telling us, then they are protected by the 2nd Amendment. To own, operate and use a car should be a right, not a privilege as is commonly assumed in the US.

Yet, interestingly, pretty much every gun lobby supporter is quite happy to accept all sorts of licensing and car safety restrictions that they oppose for guns. Hence my point above; pretty much EVERY SINGLE core idea of the so-called Conservative platform is in serious contradiction, either with itself, with the Constitution, or with some other equally important aspect of their platform.

I have never liked the winner take all attitude of the electoral college in most states..

Texas has a large liberal population Houston, Austin, parts of Dallas, and most counties along the boarder ( I wonder why /sarcasam )

Currently Texas is a winner take all state, more counties are red then blue, so all the electoral votes go red. Blue gets basically nothing from Texas due to the winner take all.

I do not see this as a fair representation in any shape matter or form. If you state gets say 10 votes total.. The group that carries the state gets an automatic set number ( say 2 to 5 electoral votes ) then the rest of them ( 8 to 10 ) get divided based on the the popular vote.

The left likes to claim that they beat the pants off the right in the last presidential election, when it was actually a close rase, 48 to 51 percent popular vote.

Houston

Let's be clear, I don't want the voting system changed.. both parties have wanted to change the current electoral college system when it hasn't favored their result... some of the sheep on this blog don't want to accept that the Demos have wanted to change the current system (good or bad) in the past, just as much as the Rebups (good or bad) want to change it now. that's it nothing more...

You can argue whether popular vote is better or not, but I like what our current Constitution has now and don't want to change it because of the sheep on this blog.

Yes, I remember when I said that. That was about the Republican platform not a statement about who makes up the Republican Party, and it's completely true.

Sarah: I made no mention that I was a female, but I understand how white, liberal women think.( Sounds racist, doesn't it? )Afterall, isn't that what most of the Democratic party is made up of (not minorities) ?

For me to use that generalization is just as absurd to think that the Republican party is made up only of white, christian men.

That doesn't mean that there aren't Uncle Tom's out there, or those who are too ignorant to realize they're supporting a party who doesn't have their interests or respect for their rights in mind. Exhibit A, YOU.

You spout of too much rhetoric and in return, you don't even realize that the majority of men from the democratic party wants to use you as a platform but still would deny you equal pay for equal work. Is that the ideals that democrats spout these days from the democratic party? You guys are all for education reform , but that would mean going against the teacher's unions. You don't see that you are your own worst enemy?

This is what your so called party is teaching you. If you want to live blindly then so be it, but don't claim to think that people on the right are blind to the hypocrisies of the left.

...or use a knife to cut anything.

Not even to cut up celery and tomatoes? I don't think anyone considers that a crime.

LOL Apparently The Dougler has never attempted to use a gun to make a salad.

I rode to work on my gun this morning. It cured my headache too. What a useful all-purpose tool!

You spout of too much rhetoric and in return, you don't even realize that the majority of men from the democratic party wants to use you as a platform but still would deny you equal pay for equal work.

Lily Ledbetter and The Fair Pay Act, ring a bell? And don't give me that crap about Obama paying women less. Have you ever heard of a skewed statistic? You have to look at equivalent positions, education and experience levels, not just blanketly average out ALL the women who work for him and ALL the men who work for him.

And again, a SOURCE for that?

For me to use that generalization is just as absurd to think that the Republican party is made up only of white, christian men.

Please quote where I said that the GOP consisted of only white, Christian men. Can you really not differentiate between a platform that supports that, and the people that support that platform? That's a new low even for you.

This is almost like picking on the "special" kid in class. And by the way, I SUPPORT union reform.

Proud 2B Liberal said: "The Republicans have nowhere near the skill or experience of shaping mass opinion and winning elections."

If, by your statement, you mean that Republicans haven't spent decades cultivating a voting base of lazy parasites sucking on the government hind-tit, as well as felons who exist in my country illegally, then you're correct.

In the realm of hypocrisy, though, isn't it funny how libbies are okay with extensive background checks and other forms of personal invasion when it comes to gun-owners, yet they froth at the mouth when you mention having to show ID to vote?

And your ignorant comment about libs having vision and caring about this country long-term is a complete crock of bull!You care about absolutely nothing except the ridiculous number of personal freedoms and rights believe are your birthright yet you've done absolutely nothing to deserve because you're takers. And although you won't lift a finger to defend any of those rights and freedoms, you have no problem disparaging those who will.

As for your faux compassion for the downtrodden minority, you care for them only to the extent that they help you win elections and keep your unqualified and undeserving a$$es in office. You don't give a sh!t about them and you have no interest in helping them make a better life for themselves through our free-enterprise system that gives everyone the opportunity to achieve their dreams in this country. And why? Because you know that if they ever got a whiff of life outside of welfare, food stamps and subsidized housing, and woke up to the fact that the "compassionate and caring" liberals have been keeping them chained to their lives of poverty for decades, you'd never see another vote from them or another day in office.

You're liars, you're frauds, and you're hypocrites, and collectively you're a puss-filled sore on the a$$ of this country.

to the dems,spouting repubs are bad.be thankful,maine has sent a senator to help your cause.angus the terrible replacing snowe. some of his antics include,while governor instituting great tax breaks for "new energy" (while in the backroom setting up a company that delivers "wind power").leaving office,to start co.wants to develop "wind farms" in roxbury(residents don't want,want PROOF of LIQUID ASSETS,to the tune of 250 million and REQUIRE this company to NOT FINANCE THIS PROJECT(which he did prove they had 250 million liquid), king then goes to congress and is awarded a "grant" to pay for the whole operation (means he used OUR MONEY). and PROMPTLY took his name off the "company roster" three days after snowe announced she would be leaving this @!$%#hole congress,and if you READ the article OUR popular vote would have been nice to keep this idiot OUT of this poor countries way,but alas, our people in office right now are mostly dem.thank god for that knucklehead we have right now for a governor or we'd be in even MORE DIRE STRAITS!

Houston!

TheDougler960608

So cars and knives aren't easy tools of death? If it's difficult for them to be tools of death, then why do so many people die from them each year?

You seem not to understand the concept of an intended function. Knives and cars have purposes other than killing. Guns do not.

BTW: the overwhelming majority of homicides (67.8% in 2011) are committed with guns, not knives (13.4%) or other weapons:

Fantastic argument about homicides, only we aren't talking about banning all firearms are we? No, we are talking about banning a fraction of them. The particular fraction of them which causes the death of the least amount of people.

these so called "assault weapons" kill roughly 300 people per year, while hand guns kill nearly 9,000 per year. This also means that knives do in fact kill more people per year than the weapons proposed to be banned.

So should we ban all guns then? or do you just want to ban the scary looking ones? Even though there functions are exactly the same?

The founder John Tanton, is a known anti-immigration activist (What was that I was saying about being ignorant enough to support those who are actively working against your interests and rights). And has taken money from the Pioneer Fund, which supports EUGENICS.

Sarah: Are you saying that founders are now important? Because I can recall not too long ago about talking with you about the founder of Planned Parenthood who used to support Eugenics. If I recall you didn't like that argument, so stop trying to grasp at straws now.

Nice try, Sarah..... Try again.

Byron Raum

So cars and knives aren't easy tools of death? If it's difficult for them to be tools of death, then why do so many people die from them each year?

If cars are weapons, they way the gun lobby people keep telling us, then they are protected by the 2nd Amendment. To own, operate and use a car should be a right, not a privilege as is commonly assumed in the US.

Yet, interestingly, pretty much every gun lobby supporter is quite happy to accept all sorts of licensing and car safety restrictions that they oppose for guns. Hence my point above; pretty much EVERY SINGLE core idea of the so-called Conservative platform is in serious contradiction, either with itself, with the Constitution, or with some other equally important aspect of their platform.

I don't recall where I said cars are weapons. I did not say that. I simply stated, they can be "easy tools of death". Accidents alone kill more people every year than all of the weapons proposed to be banned.

Please quote where I said that the GOP consisted of only white, Christian men. Can you really not differentiate between a platform that supports that, and the people that support that platform? That's a new low even for you.

This is almost like picking on the "special" kid in class. And by the way, I SUPPORT union reform.

Sarah: Look at your own post on this article. Do you not remember from this morning?Did you not say this? Post #1.95

If this is the result of Democratic Amnesia, then its no wonder people like you don't know anything?

#1.95 - Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:19 AM EST

Or, you know, they could acknowledge that America consists of more than straight, white, Christian men and cease their platform of attempting to deny rights to the rest of us.

I noticed that a whole bunch of states got a lot of signatures on petitions to secede from the Union, and nothing ever came of it. Pity. Is there a way for states which play fair and care about democracy to petition to kick them out of the Union? Virginia is considering new rules which will disenfranchise huge numbers of their voters. I think that's a good enough reason.

SmBusOwnerinNY and kaybeetoys

Liberals "changed the rules" of immigration 50 years ago to be FAIR to the rest of the world.

FAIR? Fair to whom? The founders spoke often of the people, and their posterity, but you will have to show me where it was determined that the United States was ever intended to be an international, multiracial, multicultural land. These are concepts that came later by folks who wanted to change America.

They also carefully established compatriots in the media and education systems to change the collective attitudes of America.

****************

"To change the collective attitudes of America?"

Are we talking about the same country? AMERICA...the great melting pot, the land of opportunity, the refuge of the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free"?

The Founding Fathers envisioned a land where all are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, among them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Right, all people within the United States. They weren't busy writing a constitution for anywhere else.

We are a nation of immigrants, for pity's sake! Get out beyond our borders and take a look at the rest of the world, why don't you? Are only those chosen few, those whites born on American soil, entitled to liberty and justice on this planet?

I have likely been to more parts of the world than YOU have. The immigrants before the 20th century were almost ALL from Western Europe. The people and cultures meshed satisfactorily. The multiracial, multicultural concept came from Marxist activists in the 20th century.

I am concerned with the rights and freedoms of Americans. It is simply not possible for everyone in the world to come to the United States. If other countries and peoples want a similar system, they need to change theirs and make it happen.

Besides, what about the rights of Americans who don't WANT to be multiculturalized? Do they have the right of freedom FROM association?? And if being FAIR means allowing everyone from every other part of the world into your country, why isn't Japan doing it? Or, China? Or the Middle East? Or anywhere but America, Europe, Canada and Australia? Does fairness mean white countries only must open their doors for everyone else, but those countries are free to remain homogenious?? Hmmm.

Finally, if everything must belong to everyone, shouldn't that include YOUR property and YOUR house? Shouldn't you be fair to EVERYONE who wants to come in? Your logic suggests so, but I'll bet you keep YOUR doors locked, don't you. Shame on you!

Yeah, she was a racist. But Planned Parenthood isn't dedicated to stopping the propogation of a race. Hence women of ALL races can go there and receive BC and abortions. Also, she was born in 1879. Do you discount the founding fathers for their racist tendencies. She also discounted Nazi eugenics, and was focused on it in terms of birth control.

John Tanton doesn't JUST take money, CURRENTLY, from eugenics, but is ALSO supportive and pushing an anti-immigrant agenda. FAIR is his means of doing so. I'm guessing you didn't read the sources. His beliefs are directly related to the mission of his organization. FAIR isn't just bunk because of who its founder is, but ALSO because of what they do.

Again, READ THE SOURCES I GAVE YOU.

Please find me where PP is directly related to the outdated beliefs of Margaret Sanger. And please, don't give me that "Black people have more abortions" argument. That would only be logical if PP was encouraging black women, SPECIFICALLY, to have them, or NOT allowing women of other races to. And I'd love to see your source for THAT claim.

By the way, you didn't give me your source for "Democratic men don't want me to get paid the same".

And jesus, you're dense, I already explained that this statement...

Or, you know, they could acknowledge that America consists of more than straight, white, Christian men and cease their platform of attempting to deny rights to the rest of us.

Speaks to their platform and not their membership. Remember when I said this...

That was about the Republican platform not a statement about who makes up the Republican Party, and it's completely true. That doesn't mean that there aren't Uncle Tom's out there, or those who are too ignorant to realize they're supporting a party who doesn't have their interests or respect for their rights in mind. Exhibit A, YOU.

You really CAN'T distinguish between a MEMBER and a PLATFORM, can you? Here, let me explain. The platform (what I was speaking about in my first post) is the positions they take, the members are those who belong to the party. Does that help?

Or, you know, they could acknowledge that America consists of more than straight, white, Christian men and cease their platform of attempting to deny rights to the rest of us.

To acknowledge that America consists of more than straight, white, Christian men is NOT the same as asserting that the GOP is made up of only straight, white, Christian men.

Forgive my butting in, but one must support the study and practice of logic.

Stay on topic. Oh, and watch the diarrhea of the mouse too. No one cares about rightwing positions on no-brainers like gun safety, or wants to scroll through Bullsh!t Mountain piled on by conservatives who have no forum of their own. Thanks, The Management.

Lily Ledbetter and The Fair Pay Act, ring a bell? And don't give me that crap about Obama paying women less. Have you ever heard of a skewed statistic? You have to look at equivalent positions, education and experience levels, not just blanketly average out ALL the women who work for him and ALL the men who work for him.

By the way, you didn't give me your source for "Democratic men don't want me to get paid the same".

And again, a SOURCE for that?

Sarah: Here are your sources:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/101812-629933-obama-white-house-pays-women-less.htm?p=full

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/16/obama-touts-fair-pay-for-women-despite-records-showing-women-paid-less-in-his-own-white-house/

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2011

So much for your Fair Trade Act, right? This is just another example of Obama not practicing what he preaches.

Oh and for the record, there are still many more articles on this.

In the realm of hypocrisy, though, isn't it funny how libbies are okay with extensive background checks and other forms of personal invasion when it comes to gun-owners, yet they froth at the mouth when you mention having to show ID to vote?

Hmm...might that be because voting never killed anyone? :)

So Nebraska and Maine already do this right? So what's wrong with other states doing it? If a state wants to do this then let their own people vote on it first. If it passes then they can be like other states that already do this. Not sure I see a problem here.

PS. Just a reminder folks, Feisty, Beverly, Pigotry, and David Walker are all the same posters and have been exposed.

Liberals! LMFAO!!!

The gop is un-American, un-Christian, un-civil, evil, racist, bigots, thieves and crooks. They are not the least bit interested in the well being of our nation. They are only interested in holding the power over the American citizens, with their dictating our every breath, word and move, to the satisfaction of their wealthy owners. We the people can not sit back and let the gop CONTINUE to screw over our elections, all for their partisan gain. We the people need to demand our elections be based on popular vote only. Electoral votes do not count. ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE .

If and when, the gop are successful at stealing the senate majority, they WILL change the filibuster rule, to deny the dems any chance of filibustering. Harry Reid, go back to sleep, you are useless.

So should we ban all guns then? or do you just want to ban the scary looking ones? Even though there functions are exactly the same?

Hey, now you're getting warmer! Like that will ever happen in our nutty gun-loving culture though.

In America, it's all about God, guns, dogs and donuts. Sometimes it just makes me sad.

don_draper -- This is just blatant all out treason by Teapublicans. They've already diminished the votes for urban areas by purging rolls (Katherine Harris/FL), limiting voting booths in blue districts (Ohio), making the ballots and lines long in both states, etc.

If the Dems were caught doing this crap, rightwingers would be livid, screaming, marching in the street. They were threatening to do this with speculation that President Obama could win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote. Yet when this happened in the reverse with Dubya, I guess it wasn't an issue.

Come on, we all know Teapublicans are a bunch of lying hypocritical douchebags, and nothing else.

Bobster-1557895 -- Other states that already do this do it in accordance with the popular vote, but it brings the problem of not having federally standardized election rules to the forefront. Then explain what would happen if Texas did the same thing, because that would favor the Dems.

In regard to national elections, can't you reason that rules should be national? Gawd, what's wrong with you rightwngers?

-----------------------
1994 to 2004, "assault weapon" ban (no semi-auto rifles with evil features, nothing manufactured over 10 rounds)

1994 to 2004 gun related murders = average of 19,000 people a year (little to no reduction in rates)
-----------------------
late 2004 to 2013, no ban (all larger capacity magazines and semi-auto rifles are legal in most states)

late 2004 to 2013 gun related murders = avg of 12,000 people a year (with a steady decline in rates, 2011 only had 8,600 murdered by guns)
-----------------------

So, limiting options of law-abiding citizens meant 7,000 more gun-related murders (FYI, 75% of all gun related murders are directly tied to gang activities). What to take from that, with a ban MORE PEOPLE WERE MURDERED BY GUNS because criminals were less afraid of their victims having a gun with the firepower to fight back.

FYI - Out of 50,000,000 legal gun owners and 300,000,000+ legally owned guns, only 650 people die a year by accidental shootings and only 323 people are murdered a year with rifles. So why are semi-auto rifles and high capacity magazines the focus when more people (kids) die by improperly installed carseats and seatbelts (1400 a year average).

Spend the time and money on weeding out and dealing with the mentally ill and gangs, and then you'll see a real reduction in all violence.

Unhappy

So even though Sarah ALREADY explained your skewed statistics data...

You have to look at equivalent positions, education and experience levels, not just blanketly average out ALL the women who work for him and ALL the men who work for him.

You still posted them. Really?

A Statistics 101 student, hung-over from a late night, could easily rip apart that pathetic report. Everyone knows (except you, apparently) that you can not take a blanket average... or median, in this case... to adequately review a pay structure. The fact that you completely ignore experience levels, education, comparable positions, etc, is blatant proof that you lack the intelligence to properly analyze any of this data.

I suggest you quit while you are behind, you are in WAY over your head.

kaybeetoys

Hey, now you're getting warmer! Like that will ever happen in our nutty gun-loving culture though.

In America, it's all about God, guns, dogs and donuts. Sometimes it just makes me sad.

I don't see disarming the populace being workable. What lengths do we go through to enact that?

I think that's the reason why in terms of this debate, I see 2 things as "this just won't happen". #1 is disarming the populace. #2 is maintaining the status quo and suggesting zero changes to be made.

@ Roy Wilson: Gwaddammit! Enough about the unbalanced budget! Neither party, if they really wished to, can balance the budget. Fact, both of 'em together, along with Professor Einsteins clone, if available, can't come close. The Congress certainly can't. Even if we all quit, sat on our asses, and did not one productive thing until we died, we can't balance our national budget. Waay too many unknowns out ahead of us. Anyone can take a pencil and piece of paper and configure almost anything if they don't give a damn what they are doing. The best we can to is Keep the "Whole" healthy and wealthy enough to adequately and overwhelmingly sustain Itself above deficits and debts. Full employment at accompanying appropriate wages will be sufficient to that task. Anything less is deficient to that task. Regards

The founders spoke often of the people, and their posterity, but you will have to show me where it was determined that the United States was ever intended to be an international, multiracial, multicultural land.

Newsflash, phony liberal: This land was already an international, multiracial, multicultural place at the time of the Revolutionary War.

I have likely been to more parts of the world than YOU have.

I have lived in seven foreign countries and would have to take some time to count up the places I've traveled to.

kaybeetoys

So should we ban all guns then? or do you just want to ban the scary looking ones? Even though there functions are exactly the same?

Hey, now you're getting warmer! Like that will ever happen in our nutty gun-loving culture though.

In America, it's all about God, guns, dogs and donuts. Sometimes it just makes me sad.

Thanks for being honest and admitting you'd like ALL guns to be banned.

If only your ilk would follow suit.

What's sad is that you won't even be able to get the majority of Liberals to agree with you on that!

Stephen Colbert proven prophetic when he jokingly asked "Why don't we just award electoral votes based on square mileage?"

Sadly, this is too serious a threat to be met purely with the ridicule it deserves. The Republican party is attempting to undermine the democratic fabric of our democratic republic, and in doing so, change the very definition of what America is and what ideals it represents. This is a threat to our nation, to our values, to our ideals, to our history. We have an obligation as Americans to preserve the grand experiment handed down to us from our founding fathers and to not let such a brazen power grab occur. Whatever you believe on any other issues, it is essential that you oppose the Republican party in this. They cannot be allowed to succeed.

So even though Sarah ALREADY explained your skewed statistics data...

Mguy: I didn't know that the govt. 2011 report represented skewed data, but perhaps you are correct. Everything seems to be skewed in terms of the Obama administration. You are probably right. The discrepancy among the pay is probably much higher.

Bobster-1557895

So Nebraska and Maine already do this right? So what's wrong with other states doing it? If a state wants to do this then let their own people vote on it first. If it passes then they can be like other states that already do this. Not sure I see a problem here.

The problem is this: let's say a state wants to allocate EC votes by congressional district, one vote for each district (which was proposed here in my state). That gives equal weight to a district with a population of 10 thousand and another district with a population of 10 million.

PS. Just a reminder folks, Feisty, Beverly, Pigotry, and David Walker are all the same posters and have been exposed.

Thanks for the laugh of the day.

Thanks for being honest and admitting you'd like ALL guns to be banned.

I'm nothing if not honest. Yes, I'm of the mind that our world would be a better place if guns did not exist. However, realistically, there is no logic in supporting a ban on all guns so I don't even go there.

Backhouse and Fiesty, you both need to get lives, as you are the most Ignorant individuals Ive ever seen post in here, you dont know a damn thing, so get your heads out of Obama's ass and wake up to reality!

You wont acknowledge the Truth even if its right in front of you, you lie about Sandy Hook and assault weapons which are not true assault weapons, you just keep blowin the Party Line of what ever the ass in DC tells you, and you believe it. Get your free stuff yet from selling your souls and Votes to get the Illegitimate President back in office, well you deserve what your getting. Now shut the Phuck up and Go away if you cant add something constructive to the conversation!

the realm of hypocrisy, though, isn't it funny how libbies are okay with extensive background checks and other forms of personal invasion when it comes to gun-owners, yet they froth at the mouth when you mention having to show ID to vote?

Hmm...might that be because voting never killed anyone? :)

Kaybeetoys: Unless of course you are voting for federally funded abortions.

Unhappy, there are no federally funded abortions.

Really? We are just going to change all the rules? Change them how exactly? Why do I feel as if the people proposing this might have something to gain from it? Oh that's right, the Republican lost the election because they couldn't field a candidate better than Mitt "I changed my mind" Romney-care. Now, they lost to Obama not once but twice because they can't seem to field a decent candidate. It's no wonder they hate him.

I was all set to vote McCain until he picked Sarah Palin of all people as his running mate. I think that was the point where he (John McCain) stopped being known as honorable by the general public. Then the cycle after that, they field Mitt Romney. As someone who lived in Massachusetts while he was governor, I can tell you I'd rather vote for Joe Biden's dog than Mitt Romney. And I'm not even sure Biden has a dog. That was the best the GOP could do? It's no wonder they keep losing. You need to have a viable candidate somewhere. I'm not even a Democrat, but 2012 was the first time I ever voted Democrat across the board due to the lack of candidates on the Republican side. FIRST TIME EVER.

So now, after all that failure, the GOP decides they need to change the rules? What, do they already know they don't have a decent candidate? Yet again? Have they already given up on that, and decided they have to change the rules in order to win? The current rules would work if you could find a candidate better than Joe Biden's dog, which may or may not even exist! As an Independent, I hate voting across the board for a single party because I believe over the top party bias is tearing this country apart. But I need to have someone for the right who I can actually vote for. I have voted all Republican a couple times, but I had never needed to vote all Democrat before 2012. I have never seen the GOP so weak.

The GOP needs to get it's act together and find an actual candidate who can win. The rules should be irrelevant to that. They have won a lot in the past under these same current rules. It shouldn't be any different now. Just field a decent candidate!

Victory for accountability.

Defeat for Obama the " Constitution Professor" defeated in court , not in MSNBC

By SAM HANANEL
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.

Read more: http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/20706338/court-obama-appointments-are-unconstitutional#ixzz2J0bQMUzQ
Follow us: @myfoxdc on Twitter | myfoxdc on Facebook

Obama already had another set back for abuse of power

Federal DC Judge confirmed that President Obama's political appointees in the Department of Justice did in fact interfere with the prosecution of two New Black Panther party members after they were filmed outside of a Philadelphia polling place in 2008 wielding a billy club and intimidating voters. This is something the Justice Department has denied up to this point. More from the Washington Examiner:

Obama will not stop trampling the Constitution to pursue his liberal agenda.

Bobster:

I'm sure you don't see a problem with it, since you're a republican. But you should understand: when a state population votes overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate, and the other candidate wins, that's called disenfranchisement of the voters. In this country we make sure the minority have rights, but forced rule by the minority over the majority is the very definition of tyranny. Remember that word? Y'all love to throw it around like it's a bad thing, but now here you go endorsing it.

If you'd like to see a problem, wait until the guy who gets millions more votes loses the election. I don't think this country can handle that. Simply put, I think the rest of us have put up with the experiments by Maine and Nebraska because they represent a combined total of 2 electoral 'swing' votes. Start adding to that disenfranchisement, and this country will come apart at the seams.

Kaybee: Try again. Planned Parenthood has always been federally funded.

And don't get me wrong, the Democrats have had their moments like this, too. But right now, it's the Republican's turn to "shine" if you will.

Gun owners, a hypothetical question. You're walking down the street, see a man pointing a gun towards a group of people. you react and shoot, killing the gunman, who happens to be a police officer responding to an armed robbery that just occurred. The police have spent years learning to identify a threat. Even they misidentify threats occasionally. What makes you think you're better at that than they are?

As someone who lived in Massachusetts while he was governor, I can tell you I'd rather vote for Joe Biden's dog than Mitt Romney. And I'm not even sure Biden has a dog.

Mitt Romney...that name sounds vaguely familar... whatever happened to him?

Meanwhile, Biden's dog (if he has one) gets more press! ;)

Kaybee: Try again. Planned Parenthood has always been federally funded.

Planned Parenthood, yes. The procedure known as abortion, no.

I know that post was off topic, but it crossed my mind and I felt that it needed to be said.

Unhappy-1583758

Kaybee: Try again. Planned Parenthood has always been federally funded.

If a clinic that offers them in addition to normal OB/GYN services and takes medicaid and medicare patients, you could also argue that they are federally funded I assume.

However abortion makes up what percentage of planned parenthoods business? It's a very, very, very small amount.

Snakebone

Bobster:

I'm sure you don't see a problem with it, since you're a republican. But you should understand: when a state population votes overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate, and the other candidate wins, that's called disenfranchisement of the voters. In this country we make sure the minority have rights, but forced rule by the minority over the majority is the very definition of tyranny. Remember that word? Y'all love to throw it around like it's a bad thing, but now here you go endorsing it.

If you'd like to see a problem, wait until the guy who gets millions more votes loses the election. I don't think this country can handle that. Simply put, I think the rest of us have put up with the experiments by Maine and Nebraska because they represent a combined total of 2 electoral 'swing' votes. Start adding to that disenfranchisement, and this country will come apart at the seams.

Would you have any issue with each states electoral votes being split up in the same percentage as the percentage of votes they receive for each state?

This, in my opinion, would allow for everyone's vote to actually count in each state, even if it leans heavily one way or the other. It will also keep smaller populated districts from being able to be counted equal to higher populated districts as stated earlier.

For me, this seems like a good compromise between the electoral college system and a popular vote system.

Funny how Republicans want to change the rules in swing states, but not in red states where they stand to lose electoral votes in urban areas. Maybe it was just an oversight.

Court already rule about gun control, any intent to bun guns will be unconstitutional.

Washington DC–In an historic ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Washington D.C.’s 32-year-old handgun ban as unconstitutional. The decision was 5 to 4 with Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas ruling to overturn the ban. The dissenters were Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter.

In 1976, politicians in Washington D.C. responded to the 135 homicides that year by enacting laws that virtually banned the private possession of handguns, unless they were owned prior to when the law took effect. The law also required that rifles and shotguns in the home be kept unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock. Their reasoning behind the law was that banning handguns in the city would result in fewer killings. The ban did not have that effect.

In 2003, a challenge to the ban was filed on behalf of six District residents, but in a lower court ruling only one plaintiff, Dick A. Heller, an armed security guard, had the legal standing to sue over the ban. Heller sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun in his home for protection.

The issue as it came before the Supreme Court was whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns, or if that right is tied to service in a state militia.

Typical reaction of the crazy, filthy, nasty Republicans. When you can't shove your filthy agenda down our throats, CHEAT!!!! We can't let them get away with this. They can't help themselves. They refuse to do what this nation wants. The people spoke loudly this last election but it doesn't matter with them. They are determined to continue their campaign to bring down the middle class and bow to the rich. They need to get smacked down over and over I guess until they get the message. Don't let them get away with any of this anymore America.

Carryingconcealed

In the realm of hypocrisy, though, isn't it funny how libbies are okay with extensive background checks and other forms of personal invasion when it comes to gun-owners, yet they froth at the mouth when you mention having to show ID to vote?

To carry that even further.

Try to fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... But not prove they are a citizen.

The limp-wristed Libbies will just continue their hate of America under the guise of their convoluted social and economic justice that has never worked in a nation our size.

As long as we real Americans continue to allow our great Republic to maintain the Constitution we have a chance at saving it from the corruption of Progressivism and Liberal lunacy.

John Bryantvia Facebook

Gun owners, a hypothetical question. You're walking down the street, see a man pointing a gun towards a group of people. you react and shoot, killing the gunman, who happens to be a police officer responding to an armed robbery that just occurred. The police have spent years learning to identify a threat. Even they misidentify threats occasionally. What makes you think you're better at that than they are?

responsible gun owners can differentiate between the actions of a mad man, and the actions of an off duty police officer. They don't act the same. To assume they do is irresponsible.

An officer would be yelling directives to the people he's pointing his gun at. Mad man generally don't talk and just fire repeatedly.

Most lawfully carrying concealed weapons owners resist firing their weapons, which is why you don't hear of them doing so very often.

So your hypothetical question is just that, hypothetical.

If you can't win by the rules, then rig the system. Sounds just like Wall Street to me. Instead, why not just junk the electoral system all together and just go to whomever wins the polular vote is the president? I do not want either the Democrats or the Republicans playing the electoral college game. We need to end the dominance of "swing states" where millions of dollars are poured in to marginalize voters and allow a small number of people to decide our presidential election. Also the candidates will need to address voters needs in every state, which is the way it should be, rather than ignore most of us, which is how it now works.

why do we even need an electoral college it's outdated and frankly wrong, popular vote should always win, not that it matters anymore, since neither party is actually helping.

And what worries me more is looking at the posts from both sides here leads me to believe the country as already lost anyway. There is no way to secure the debt in this country without eliminating hundred's of thousands of jobs, cutting pensions and healthcare, we would need to collapse the system to get out of deb tto the Federal reserve, but NO we just keep having them making money while the debt goes up, you do realise the more money we borrow the more money we have to pay back, which we can't do now, so who thinks we'll be able to do in 5-10 years?

Best thing that will happen to this world the the world economy collapses and we move on and hopefully aren't dumb enough to fall for a world bank again, it's been tried before and our forefathers booted them out, but some genious in the early 20th century let the federal reserve control our money and look where it has gotten us?

Neither the dems or repubs will fix this problem, why because they both work for the bank, aka the corps which buy their votes, until we the people stand up to the whole system nothng will change period, so you guys can argue all you want who is the best or worst president, because frankly it doesn't matter and never will.

It's not the gov't responsibility to create jobs, I guarantee you no one is looking into this, because they can't, all that will do is speed up the cycle of debt, you can't have the jobs and no debt it doesn't work that way, when you have a system of money that can create money out of thin air, this economy this whole worlds economy is run on a system of digital money, no where can they back that up. You took out a loan on money the bank doesn't even have. So tell me who's the fool in this case the many rich political, federal reserve and all it's croonies or you people arguing about who's got the better canidate for president?

Best thing everyone could do is stop paying on any loans you have around the world and let this greed and corruption end, it'll be messy, but I guess you all enjoy being slaves to money. I personally don't owe anyone a dime anymore I got out of the rat race best thing I've ever done.

You all just keep arguing while they strip the last of your humanity and rights away even though you don't even know they are already gone, the illusion of freedom, it's a beautiful thing, I could play in that rat race and make myself a lot of money, but I don't believe in stepping over or on people to make money, I don't think it's ethically correct, now if the people in our gov't and federal reserve felt that same way.

Doesn't anyone wonder why we actually don't need natural gas and fossil fuels anymore, we could power and house and feed everyone on this planet, right now without a blink of an eye, doesn't anyone wonder why we wouldn't do that, MONEY, it all boils down to money, we've enslaved ourselves on something that isn't even tangible anymore, they don't even need to produce it, they can just do it electronically.

so sad that people want to go to war over guns, but no one cares about their humanity, their personal freedom from oppression, greed, corruption, a job. Look through history and you can see our gradual change into a consumer/job driven nation, what do they really teach in school now, I love listening to the crap and how they teach now, it's like they want little mindless robot's running around just something easier to control, well you all got your american dream, deal with it, you're living it, in debt, slave to a job and you're worrying that a politician is a gonna save you, that is rich.

WilliamOfRites

Joe in Albany

Gee, does that flush the sh!t filled toilet of lefty liberal moral superiority

What is it with you guys and your incredible obsession with the human solid waste system??

===============================================================

They wallow in it, it is their primary PR tactic, they think it is a normal way of life, which for them, it probably is.

So now the repubs are going to start sucking up to illegals and kissing ass to get a vote. Nobody has any pride any more. The popular vote should decided the election always not the electoral. With popular vote the whole George mess would have been avoided.

TYPICAL UNEDUCATED DEMONCRAP EMOTIVE NON FACTUAL OPINIONATED CRAPPING ALL OVER NEWSVINE'S "GET SMARTER HERE".

We need "Gun" Control, by having all the Anti Gun Nuts pulling their penis removed, so that they cannot procreate more of the uneducated emotive non factual opinionated creation of "Idiocracy" (as depicted by movie, "Idiocracy".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U

AND remove all of all "Guns" from the President Obama (Chancellor Hitler) SA so that they cannot murder anyone that does not disagree with the Demoncraps:

"President Obama, this is your Army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Union Leader Jimmy Hoffa Junior during the President Obama Reelection Campaign.

And GET AN EDUCATION ABOUT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

An education about the Electoral College

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133559n&tag=showDoorFlexGridLeft;flexGridModule

"The average citizen is too ignorant to determine the Highest Offices of the Land, President and Vice President", arguement while the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College, so that they (Rich Elitists) could maintain control over the too ignorant, while previously refusing to pay the "Rich Pay Their Fair Share", "Tax the Rich" of the British Stamp Act Taxes so they started the American Revolution.

DIDN'T ALL OF YOU DEMONCRAPS WANT A MORE DEMONCRAPTIC (Founding Fathers, "Democracy is Mob Rule", as to why they founded a REPUBLIC of America, not a Demoncrapcy) America. That would be eliminating the Electoral College.

Court already rule about gun control, any intent to bun guns will be unconstitutional.

Hey red! "Bun" guns? I'm trying to picture that. Is it a means of concealed carry??

Sounds rather uncomfortable, but anything to keep your dear gun close, huh? ;)

Unhappy, I have read you and Sara's back and forth for quite a while now. Is there a time when you plan to actually back up your attempted argument with anything other than blabber or should I stop reading what you have to say now and dismiss you as someone who spews crap just to be spewing crap?

bryan-2744138

why do we even need an electoral college it's outdated and frankly wrong, popular vote should always win, not that it matters anymore, since neither party is actually helping.

I think the reason for this is that we want to keep some of the representation relevant. We do not want New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, etc picking the president each year.

One reason I still see it as viable to use the electoral college is in terms of representation. As an example, I live in Dallas and my parents live a couple hours away in a small town called Tyler (and are represented by the always quoteable and mostly gronable Louie Gohmert). There are very real and different concerns among the people in Tyler as opposed to the people of Dallas.

If everything was controlled by the population centers, in Texas we could have San Antonio, El Paso, Dallas, Houston and Austin control everything popular vote wise. I don't think that would be a good model for Texas, nor for the rest of the nation.

The reason we were set up as a Representative Republic was to avoid mob rule.

Okicize Wicasa Yata Pi

So now the repubs are going to start sucking up to illegals and kissing ass to get a vote. Nobody has any pride any more. The popular vote should decided the election always not the electoral. With popular vote the whole George mess would have been avoided.

Isn't that what the democrats do? Why else would you suck up to illegals. After all, they shouldn't be allowed to vote anyway right?

Here's a deal. In exchange for making all illegal immigrants legal tomorrow........actually secure the boarders and require by law that those once illegal immigrants not be allowed to vote for 20 years. If the votes aren't the point of doing it, then lets take the votes out of the equation. I wonder how much support they'll get for that.

kabeetoys said: "Hmm...might that be because voting never killed anyone? :)"

And when, pray tell, did liberals decide that they would compromise on ANY rights that they perceive are their birthright? Hypocrite much?

Illegals DO sneak into my country and kill citizens, and they are encouraged by liberals to vote in direct violation of our Constitution. As such, producing valid ID to vote is a perfectly legitimate requirement. What's the matter, afraid of losing the next election?

And BTW, I love the self-righteous smiley-face or LOL you idiots love to stick at the end of your sentences when you're feeling all full of yourselves, even though nothing you say ever makes any sense to anyone but you.

If a clinic that offers them in addition to normal OB/GYN services and takes medicaid and medicare patients, you could also argue that they are federally funded I assume.

However abortion makes up what percentage of planned parenthoods business? It's a very, very, very small amount.

Repojam:

Forty years after Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood and its critics are engaged in a fierce brand war. The billion-dollar charity wants to protect its image as a trusted health care provider and advocate for women. Its critics say the nation's largest abortion provider is a rogue organization that misuses federal money. At stake is more than $500 million in government financing for Planned Parenthood's health care, prevention and education programs. That money can't be used for abortion.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/22/planned-parenthood-anti-abortion-bills/1854831/

Spense,

AGAIN with "limp wristed"....what is your problem? Closeted homophobe much? Something of yours must be limp. That's what I get out of that.

ROY:

SmBusOwnerinNY "Obama was right when he said the safety net doesn't make us takers"

I other words, Obama is saying "It's ok to vote for me because I'll keep giving you stuff, and not for that rich, evil, heartless Romney".

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

AGAIN with the DISINGENUOUS CRAP.

I said, like Obama said: the safety net doesn't make us takers, IT FREES US TO TAKE CHANCES because we don't have to worry about taking care of our brothers, sisters or parents when they are disabled, or out of a job, or just plain old.

That's TWICE you misquoted/ removed context in a quote from me. Disingenuous pig.

Illegals DO sneak into my country and kill citizens, and they are encouraged by liberals to vote in direct violation of our Constitution. As such, producing valid ID to vote is a perfectly legitimate requirement. What's the matter, afraid of losing the next election?

Provide documentary proof for your allegation of voting by illegals. Otherwise, thanks for the hot air... it's cold outside!

One of the biggest ironies there is:

Democrats believe in Darwinism and do what they can to thwart it for humanity's sake.

Republicans live it in every way, yet don't believe a word of it.

kaybeetoys

Illegals DO sneak into my country and kill citizens, and they are encouraged by liberals to vote in direct violation of our Constitution. As such, producing valid ID to vote is a perfectly legitimate requirement. What's the matter, afraid of losing the next election?

Provide documentary proof for your allegation of voting by illegals. Otherwise, thanks for the hot air... it's cold outside!

But by simple fact that there is no requirement, would that not open the door to those who aren't legally allowed to vote, a way to vote. This isn't just about illegal immigrants, but also about immigrants who are here legally, and aren't allowed to vote. Felons who've lost their right to vote, who could potentially vote because there is not need to prove who you are.

I live in Florida, and we have A LOT of lefties here. Yet we are required by law to show ID to vote. I've yet to hear one person complain about it.

If you look at Ohio where the bulk of the counties vote Republican but the state is carried Democrat because the 5 population centers that get the bulk of the handouts from the Democrat liberal free stuff machine you would see why some of us are for this.. That's OK the money is running out and the ride will end soon anyway.. Then it will just be a matter of keeping all that ghetto garbage in those pockets and off our land.. Guess that could be part of the reason Homeland security got all that ammo and machine guns.. I always thought it was to keep us in check and steal our food and give it to the city people.. Well maybe it is but who knows..

I would rather see birth control handed out instead of funding abortions.. Rape conception can be avoided by using the morning after pill 99.999% of the time..

Hillary is going to get the queen treatment because she took the boot heading for Obama.. They tried a cover up that failed and will never come clean just like fast and furious.. Blaming US gun owners when the government was behind the whole thing.. Liar Liar pants on fire............

Lets hope that Australian oil will prevent Obama from capitalizing on any US economic growth through US oil reserves.. His only hope is to crack open some of those hidden technology secretes.. Maybe anti gravity or some ultra compact and ultra powerful energy device.. But I hope not as I am sick of the socialist/communist tactics like redistribution of wealth..

kaybeetoys

Repojam:

Forty years after Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood and its critics are engaged in a fierce brand war. The billion-dollar charity wants to protect its image as a trusted health care provider and advocate for women. Its critics say the nation's largest abortion provider is a rogue organization that misuses federal money. At stake is more than $500 million in government financing for Planned Parenthood's health care, prevention and education programs. That money can't be used for abortion.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/22/planned-parenthood-anti-abortion-bills/1854831/

Kaybeetoys, the reason I specifically left that part alone is that you will hear the argument that "Are you telling me Planned Parenthood sets aside those funds and says "No no no, this part can't be used for abortion?"".

Rather than deal with the mental gymnastics that comes with that for some, it's easier to just ask how much of Planned Parenthood's business revolves around abortions. I've seen some throw out wildly inaccurate numbers and others state that there's no way to "divy up" the funds that are provided or suggested that accounting tricks can be used to mask the source or use of the funds.

The Dougler:

No, I wouldn't have a problem with that, since it would make it even less likely for the person who got fewer votes to win the overall election. The problem is that, for it to work and be fair, all the states would have to do it - so it is a bit unrealistic to think it will happen. Interestingly enough, though, many states (like California) have laws on the books which will apportion electoral votes as you've described - but only if a majority of other states join in. So it may yet be possible...

The bottom line is what level of disenfranchisement the public will accept before they revolt. Under the current system, it is technically possible but very rare for the loser of the popular vote to win the election - and then only if the vote count is very close. It is almost impossible for someone to win by 1% and lose the election. But I don't think the public will accept their candidate losing when they've won the votes by a large margin. We don't like to be disenfranchised.

Snakebone

The Dougler:

No, I wouldn't have a problem with that, since it would make it even less likely for the person who got fewer votes to win the overall election. The problem is that, for it to work and be fair, all the states would have to do it - so it is a bit unrealistic to think it will happen. Interestingly enough, though, many states (like California) have laws on the books which will apportion electoral votes as you've described - but only if a majority of other states join in. So it may yet be possible...

The bottom line is what level of disenfranchisement the public will accept before they revolt. Under the current system, it is technically possible but very rare for the loser of the popular vote to win the election - and then only if the vote count is very close. It is almost impossible for someone to win by 1% and lose the election. But I don't think the public will accept their candidate losing when they've won the votes by a large margin. We don't like to be disenfranchised.

Thanks for the response, I appreciate it. I didn't know that about California. Perhaps if other states passed similar laws, it would sort of test the waters to see just how many states would be interested in doing that, without making the complete shift towards actually doing it.

I said that option earlier in the thread, and I haven't heard anyone give a good argument against it yet, though I'm opening to hearing them.

TheDougler960608

Fantastic argument about homicides, only we aren't talking about banning all firearms are we?

You were the one who brought up the issue of knife homicides as opposed to guns. Guns happen to be used in the majority of homicides, which is no big surprise.

No, we are talking about banning a fraction of them. The particular fraction of them which causes the death of the least amount of people.

The people of Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, and other places devastated by assault weapons massacres would probably not share your dismissive attitude.

these so called "assault weapons" kill roughly 300 people per year, while hand guns kill nearly 9,000 per year. This also means that knives do in fact kill more people per year than the weapons proposed to be banned. So should we ban all guns then? or do you just want to ban the scary looking ones? Even though there functions are exactly the same?

The problem of gun violence in general should be addressed with universal background checks. An overwhelming majority of the public (more than 80%) favor that. There should also be a ban on purchasing more than a few guns of any sort in a given period of time to prevent straw purchasers from buying guns in states with lax gun laws and selling them to criminals in Chicago and drug lords in Mexico. But I already said that, and you pretended not to see what I wrote. I also said nobody CARES how scary-looking a gun is. They care about the horrific destruction they cause.

TheDougler.......We do need to get better, but I do at the same time feel there could be a better electoral system. For me, it would be whatever percentage of the vote a candidate gets per state, they get that percentage of the electoral college vote. I think this would more accurately reflect the individual votes, no matter which way they lean. Perhaps there are other ways, but this seems the like a good way to actually reflect the individual votes, so that people don't feel like their votes won't matter based on the state they live in.

================================================================

I respect your point of view, but explain to me why the GOP only wants to change the electoral system in SOME states, those that the DEMs won but had a GOP vote as well? What about the states that went to Romney but also had DEM votes, they don't mention those, now do they? Do you suppose there is a hidden agenda in their slanted proposal? Why not just propose that registered Republican be given 2 two while the DEMs still get only 1, i.e, if you're attempting to skew the process totally in your favor, why not go all out. If you truly feel we need to make changes to more accurately reflect the individual vote (and I agree with you), then can the entire electoral process and go with the popular vote as is done in other countries, of course, GW Bush would have lost to Gore (I voted for Bush by the way).

As far as your previous discussion about the distinction between semi-automatic and assault rifles, I agree there is a distinction. However, the issue here is not misnomers, it's about what weapons make sense for the general population, because the design of both types of rifles is to allow them to kill faster than single shot, bolt action rifles. Let me ask you to consider something: If you were a guard in a school and had to confront an intruder, what would you prefer, that the intruder be armed with a 6 to 8 round handgun or single shot hunting rifle, or armed with an AR-15 or AK-47 with an expanded capacity magazine? I think I know what you, or any guard, would prefer.

Let me state that I support the 2nd amendment, I own 3 rifles (all bolt action), and am researching handguns with the idea of getting on or two for home protection. I know quite a few people who also support the 2nd amendment, who own firearms, but who, like me, don't understand why someone needs a semi-automatic rifle for protection. Seeing as you are concerned with making proper distinctions, consider that there is a big distinction between control and prohibition. If the 2nd amendment means we should be able to buy semi-automatic rifles and expanded capacity magazines, then when will someone like the NRA begin to push the envelope and demand we should also be able to buy .30 and .50 caliber machine guns, BARs, RPGs, mortars, bazookas, flamethrowers, 105s, etc.? I know, I know, some of those weapons are very outlandish, but still, where do you draw the line? I think we should draw it in an area called common sense, and no, I am not a liberal.

Since we're so interested in protecting children, what is the leading cause of child (ages 0-19) mortality in the US? Let's try not to get this information from Fox news, CNN, MSNBC or the NRA.

We're awfully interested in gun violence these days. I guess because the media tells us what to think. You know if we could just curb guns, that kid in Philadelphia probably wouldn't have beat his mom to death with a hammer and tried to cremate her in the household oven, this happened earlier this week (I believe). Wade Ridley stabbed a woman 10 times in the head and neck area then kicked and stomped on her until she stopped making noise, in October of 2009 (Wasn't national news at all until she filed suit against match.com).

You want to get serious about violence, then lets do that. ALL VIOLENCE. We need to stop this "flavor of the month horse@!$%#" the media stirs us up with. Feck, next week they'll have your panties all wadded up about birth control and bath salts. Don't hand me your little weak idle chatter about starting with guns. Go big or go home. I, for one, am tired of seeing women with bruises all over them. Women who flinch if you move unexpectedly. I'm tired of men, women and children dying because somebody thinks they are sober enough to get behind the wheel. I always hear the question, " What is the designed purpose of a gun?" That's a fair question but I have to ask, "What practical purpose do alcoholic beverages serve?" I work with some kids in the local community whose only meals of the day are generally breakfast and lunch at school. In many cases it's because mommy and daddy have better things to do with their time. Beating a child is inexcusable, mentally abusing a child and then neglecting them is in-fu king-human. These aren't inner city children either. These are kids from white suburbia. Many of them live in homes that were built with in the last 10 years.

Save me your drivel about wanting to protect children by banning "assault weapons" and large capacity magazines. Dufuq do you know about child mortality except what the media tells you to know. You want to really stop the violence go get "ass deep" involved in the dirty part of your community. Any wanna-be can drop some stuff off at good will and pretend like their involved.

My original question was, "What is the leading cause of child mortality in the U.S.?"

johnbryant- love that hypocritical(hypothetical) question, first off, you assume shoot first(why is that? are all gun owners assumed by you to be instant killers?),i am not a gun owner but even i know that's not the case.now in answer to the "question" I WOULD SAY "drop the gun" before shooting giving an officer time to identify himself,there-by negating that hypocritical,leading question.

Roadrunner -zero

As if farms in the country don't get handouts via Farm Policy. Totally retarded "gift" idea that you guys keep telling. 2% of the population is on welfare and more of them are rural than urban.

BTW a Chevelle or a Mustang beats any Mopar any day in looks and engineering. Roadrunner. What a ridiculous vehicle.

But by simple fact that there is no requirement, would that not open the door to those who aren't legally allowed to vote, a way to vote. This isn't just about illegal immigrants, but also about immigrants who are here legally, and aren't allowed to vote. Felons who've lost their right to vote, who could potentially vote because there is not need to prove who you are.

I live in Florida, and we have A LOT of lefties here. Yet we are required by law to show ID to vote. I've yet to hear one person complain about it.

Florida, huh? I can't speak for what you guys allow down there. We've heard plenty of stories...

In my state, one must register to vote at least 30 days before the election by signing an affadavit with name, address, sex, party affiliation, and providing either a Social Security number or in-state driver's license number. Your registration is processed and either approved or denied within two weeks. If approved, you are mailed a voter's registration card.

When you arrive at your designated polling place to vote, you must sign in. Your signature is checked against the signature on your registration form.

The people who work at the polls follow this procedure strictly, and we don't have any illegals voting here. In this state, felons who have served their sentence are allowed to vote. Again, I don't know what you do in Florida.

Houston!

TheDougler960608

Fantastic argument about homicides, only we aren't talking about banning all firearms are we?

You were the one who brought up the issue of knife homicides as opposed to guns. Guns happen to be used in the majority of homicides, which is no big surprise.

No, we are talking about banning a fraction of them. The particular fraction of them which causes the death of the least amount of people.

The people of Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, and other places devastated by assault weapons massacres would probably not share your dismissive attitude.

these so called "assault weapons" kill roughly 300 people per year, while hand guns kill nearly 9,000 per year. This also means that knives do in fact kill more people per year than the weapons proposed to be banned. So should we ban all guns then? or do you just want to ban the scary looking ones? Even though there functions are exactly the same?

The problem of gun violence in general should be addressed with universal background checks. An overwhelming majority of the public (more than 80%) favor that. There should also be a ban on purchasing more than a few guns of any sort in a given period of time to prevent straw purchasers from buying guns in states with lax gun laws and selling them to criminals in Chicago and drug lords in Mexico. But I already said that, and you pretended not to see what I wrote. I also said nobody CARES how scary-looking a gun is. They care about the horrific destruction they cause.

It's not dismissive, it's just pointing out facts. Why should weapons that kill roughly 300 people a year be banned, when weapons that kill nearly 9000 have nothing done about them? Seems like a cherry picking of a problem to create feel good laws that largely do nothing to curb the actual overall problem.

I'm fine with more, and smarter background checks. You won't get that argument from me.

The fact is, the largest amount of horrific destruction is done at the end of a standard hand gun (most of which happen to be semi-automatic as well), yet largely nothing is being done about them. So what gives?

Repojam

The reason we were set up as a Representative Republic was to avoid mob rule.

A republic is not representative when a minority party seizes power even though they can no longer convince a majority or even a plurality of the public to vote for them. What the Republicans are plotting is to get rid of the Representative Republic we have now and replace it with mob rule -- rule by THEIR mob.

TheDougler960608

It's not dismissive, it's just pointing out facts. Why should weapons that kill roughly 300 people a year be banned,

If one of those 300 people was YOUR six-year old child, you might think differently.

Dougler:

Yeah, I discovered that about CA last year in a news report. Don't remember how many other states have similar laws on the books, seemed like maybe a half-dozen or so. Might be able to research it.

kaybeetoys

But by simple fact that there is no requirement, would that not open the door to those who aren't legally allowed to vote, a way to vote. This isn't just about illegal immigrants, but also about immigrants who are here legally, and aren't allowed to vote. Felons who've lost their right to vote, who could potentially vote because there is not need to prove who you are.

I live in Florida, and we have A LOT of lefties here. Yet we are required by law to show ID to vote. I've yet to hear one person complain about it.

Florida, huh? I can't speak for what you guys allow down there. We've heard plenty of stories...

In my state, one must register to vote at least 30 days before the election by signing an affadavit with name, address, sex, party affiliation, and providing either a Social Security number or in-state driver's license number. Your registration is processed and either approved or denied within two or three weeks. If approved, you are mailed a voter's registration card.

When you show up at your designated polling place to vote, you must sign in. Your signature is checked against the signature on your registration form.

The people who work at the polls follow this procedure strictly, and we don't have any illegals voting here. In this state, felons who have served their sentence are allowed to vote. Again, I don't know what you do in Florida.

Seems like it's a big run around in your state, when a simple ID would have done the same. As you stated, you needed an ID to register, then what's the big deal with having to show it the day you vote?

As far as felons, in Florida, if you had a withhold of adjudication, you lose NO rights. However, if you were adjudicated guilty, then you lose your right to vote, and your right to poses firearms. Though, you may petition the governor and/or state to restore your rights.

Also a felon in the state of Florida, or from any other state that moves to Florida, but had a withhold of adjudication, while they can poses a firearm, they cannot obtain a concealed weapons permit, and are not permitted on federal lands with said firearms, as the federal government does not recognize a states withholding of adjudication.

Snakebone and Dougler,

Apportioning all Presidential Electors by congressional district is not fair to the popular vote.

Even in 2012, the popular vote for members of the House was net positive for Democrats, yet they are down more than 30 seats.

That's what would happen if every state proportioned electors that way. 3% win turns into a loss. That's not democracy.

It's even worse and more unfair if you do it in only a handful of states.

The only way to to be completely fair is to go to a national popular vote.

That's not going to happen, so a piecemeal state by state approach is going to wreck what small trust Americans have in the electoral process.

Democrats seem to care about that. Republicans seem to be OK with going nuclear like this.

I don't like it.

Not just because I'm a Democrat and would temporarily be negatively affected. It's a bad idea because all those guns out there might start getting used. Republicans aren't the only ones who have guns, you know.

Constant liberal democrat re-use of the Bush Band-Aid - to cover up for Obama's incompetence - for the 5th year now - pathetic and sad

The democrat controlled congress of 2007 and 2008 - torched a very robust economy

Houston!

TheDougler960608

It's not dismissive, it's just pointing out facts. Why should weapons that kill roughly 300 people a year be banned,

If one of those 300 people was YOUR six-year old child, you might think differently.

Ok hypothetical.

What if YOUR six year old child was one of those 9,000 killed by a hand gun, that the government is doing nothing about.

SmBusOwnerinNY

Snakebone and Dougler,

Apportioning all Presidential Electors by congressional district is not fair to the popular vote.

Even in 2012, the popular vote for members of the House was net positive for Democrats, yet they are down more than 30 seats.

That's what would happen if every state proportioned electors that way. 3% win turns into a loss. That's not democracy.

It's even worse and more unfair if you do it in only a handful of states.

The only way to to be completely fair is to go to a national popular vote.

That's not going to happen, so a piecemeal state by state approach is going to wreck what small trust Americans have in the electoral process.

Democrats seem to care about that. Republicans seem to be OK with going nuclear like this.

I don't like it.

Not just because I'm a Democrat and would temporarily be negatively affected. It's a bad idea because all those guns out there might start getting used. Republicans aren't the only ones who have guns, you know.

I think you're misunderstanding my thoughts on this. I'm not talking about breaking it down to congressional districts.

What I'm saying is let's say Obama gets 60% of the vote in California, and Romney got 40%....just an example, I don't recall the actual split there. Then Obama would receive 60% of the electoral college vote from that state, while Romney would have received 40%.

What I think this does, is more correctly represent the vote of individuals from each state, while keeping the electoral college viable. So this has nothing to do with congressional districts, and would more closely reflect the popular vote, and keep voters from feeling disenfranchised because they live in a heavily democrat state when they are republican, or live in a heavily republican state when they are democrat.

As the Liberal/Progressive mob continues its irrational argument about banning assault weapons for American citizens our criminal government is sending 16 new F-16's and 200 Abrams tanks to Egypt.

Yes, we Americans will have certain firearms banned but the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt gets some of the most sophisticated weaponry in the world.

And of course the limp-wristed little Liberals just sit there and do their best bobble-head imitation. This is the hypocrisy and ignorance the Left continues to proudly exhibit.

ROY WILSON-336103

Here are the 2 biggest problems facing the United States today;

1) - The National Debt is projected to be $20.392 Trillion in 2016 - if Obama gets all of the tax increases he's asked for and the economy suddenly starts growing at 5% per year instead of the 2% of the last 4 years (Source - Obama's 2013 Budget). Presidential Budget projections are very optimistic.

Interest Rates on the Debt over the last 30 years before Obama averaged 4.92% per year.

If history is a guide, we can expect the Interest alone on the National Debt to increase to slightly over $1 Trillion per year in 2016, an increase of over $800 Billion per year above the average of $199 Billion per year paid under Bush. That's an increase of more than $8 TRILLION over 10 years - just for Interest expense. The current 'haggling' over a few hundred $Billion in taxes and spending cuts over 10 years is insignificant compared with this problem.

And Interest expense could increase from 10.02% of ALL Federal receipts in 2008 to 27.6% of Federal receipts in 2016. That dramatic increase in revenues dedicated to Interest expense will crowd out huge amounts of spending that could be used for 'entitlements' and running the government (causing Austerity). That dramatic increase in money spent for Interest will also require huge tax increases, which will cause a huge drop in consumer spending, which will stagnate the economy and cause high Unemployment (ala Greece).

No matter what happens over the next 4 years, EVERYONE will face huge tax increases – just to pay the Interest expense.

First of all, most of your expectations are based on assumptions; the average interest rate may be nearly 5%, but I highly doubt that bondholders will demand higher interest rates all at once. For all we know, we might still have a sluggish economy in 2016, which means bondholders will stick to the Treasury. Secondly, the deficit and debt is not our main problem nor is it our only problem. Our main problem is the economy overall; we have a sluggish growth rate due to lackluster consumer demand and job creation; a financial sector that, over the past 30 years, has become a cancerous tumor sucking away resources from the economy without producing anything in return except debt; and a terribly outdated infrastructure system that needs immediate repairs. Debt and deficits is a long-term problem and must be dealt in the long-term. The economy is an IMMEDIATE issue, because without a strong economy, we cannot hope to pay off our deficits. As John Maynard Keynes once said, "in the long run, we are all dead."

2) - Inflation (and Interest Rates) are poised to skyrocket.

What's happening right now is that the Money Supply (M1) has been increasing dramatically over the last few years ($1.4 Trillion in 2008 vs $2.5 Trillion now) because the Federal Reserve has been 'creating' more money to fund the huge current government Deficits. Ultimately, this will be highly inflationary, and if/when the Federal Reserve has to reverse course to counter inflation by reducing the money supply, it will lead to high interest rates and an economic contraction (recession). Generally, the greater the reduction in the money supply, the greater the contraction. In Milton Friedman's book "Money Mischief" he devotes chapter 8 to this subject – 'The Cause and Cure of Inflation'. History has shown that this is a 'Truism'.

The main reason that we have not experienced an inflationary spiral to date is the recession, which has resulted in a slowing in the Velocity (V) of money, and the 'lag time' between an increased money supply and its effects, but when inflation begins and people start 'getting rid' of Dollars that are declining in value by buying things, Prices (P) will quickly rise ever faster, thus forcing the Federal Reserve to intervene. A classic example of this process in action occurred in the early 1980s, when Paul Volker (then the head of the Federal Reserve) reduced the money supply, which forced consumer interest rates up to about 18% per year to combat the 14% inflation rate in late 1980. The result was a sharp recession and high unemployment. Interest point - $1.00 from 1970 is currently worth only 17 cents in equivalent value because of inflation.

For an interesting 'read' on the relationship between M1 and Inflation, I would recommend the following link;

Your premise is flawed, my good man. People have been warning of higher inflation in years to come, and yet nothing has happened. Why??? Because, good sir, we are in a liquidity trap, a trap in which real interest rates are so pressed against the lower bound that banks do not find it profitable to loan out the newly-made funds (which you have already pointed out). However, inflation will eventually rise when demand picks up (as you have also said). But the transition need not be so chaotic. The Federal Reserve announced that it would increase interest rates once unemployment drops, a more reasonable deadline than a fixed date as it corresponds to trends of the economic recovery. That would ease the pain of higher interest rates. You also seem to ignore the fact that ever since the stagflation of the 1970s and the corresponding rise of monetarism, the Federal Reserve has been intensely inflation-minded, seeking to control the beast in order to prevent such another thing from occurring. In fact, the Fed has been (in my opinion) TOO inflation-minded, leaving the economy dependent on fiscal stimulus that we all know will never come thanks to idiots in Congress. While I understand that the Fed has been reckless (and downright stupid) in the past, particularly in the housing buildup, I don't see how the Fed's laser-focus on keeping the inflation rate at or below 2% can coexist with (as you presume) an eventual inflation-caused recession, much like those in the 1970s and early 1980s. I could be wrong, but given the current monetarist hold on the Fed, I doubt that we will have an inflation-caused recession in the next few years.

Houston!

A republic is not representative when a minority party seizes power even though they can no longer convince a majority or even a plurality of the public to vote for them. What the Republicans are plotting is to get rid of the Representative Republic we have now and replace it with mob rule -- rule by THEIR mob

It's may be the case, however other states allow for portions of the votes to go in different directions. If the legislature passes it, I would hope that the voters answer by removing their representatives.

It sounds very much like a power grab to me, but then again, it is politics. Nothing either party does even surprises me anymore. All I need to do is lower my expectations and laugh as I get accused of being the enemy by both sides.

The Going Nuclear idea of apportioning really does say something about what Republicans think of their prospects doesn't it?

It means they think they will NEVER win those states again. Otherwise, they could lose some electors in those states if they had plans to WIN those states at some point.

Do they really think they'll NEVER win all of OHIO's electors? They'd rather have 8 and hope for 12 or 14 than risk losing all 18--but never have the chance of winning all 18?

It's dumb and shortsighted--unless you think you're NEVER going to win again.

It says a lot that they are considering this.

SmBusOwnerinNY

The Going Nuclear idea of apportioning really does say something about what Republicans think of their prospects doesn't it?

It means they think they will NEVER win those states again. Otherwise, they could lose some electors in those states if they had plans to WIN those states at some point.

Do they really think they'll NEVER win all of OHIO's electors? They'd rather have 8 and hope for 12 or 14 than risk losing all 18--but never have the chance of winning all 18?

It's dumb and shortsighted--unless you think you're NEVER going to win again.

It says a lot that they are considering this.

It says an awful lot to me. It is incredibly short sighted and may come back to bite them on the tail.

It seems like the absolute worst time for it. Next term they are going to likely be putting forth a new candidate and the Democrats will have to put forth a new candidate.

It would amuse me, endlessly, if they pushed this through and lost as a result. I would find the irony incredibly amusing.

Dougler @1.275

That's basically the same as a popular vote, except states with 3 elector,s but barely any people would still be overweighted. Maybe not, if every one of them went 2:1 instead of 3:0. I don't know...

If every state did that it might approach fairness, but that's not the proposal. The proposal is to cherry pick a handful of states where Republicans think they can pick off 30 EVs.

Jim (Viagra required) Spence,

Can you provide a post without the term "limp wristed"?

I think you have a fetish.

SmBusOwnerinNY

Dougler @1.275

That's basically the same as a popular vote, except states with 3 elector,s but barely any people would still be overweighted. Maybe not, if every one of them went 2:1 instead of 3:0. I don't know...

If every state did that it might approach fairness, but that's not the proposal. The proposal is to cherry pick a handful of states where Republicans think they can pick off 30 EVs.

It may change the way people vote though. It would give greater opportunity for even in the heaviest leaning states, for opposing party votes to actually matter, thus you may see higher turnout...maybe not, but it would, in my opinion, open the door to those who are conservative but live in California, or liberal but live in say Texas, or Alabama.

I know it's not the proposal being offered. It was my proposal that I said earlier in the thread.

Seems like it's a big run around in your state, when a simple ID would have done the same. As you stated, you needed an ID to register, then what's the big deal with having to show it the day you vote?

First, are you aware of the easy availability of fake I.D.'s? (Underage kids use them to buy beer.) Photo I.D.'s alone wouldn't prevent voter fraud.

Second, we have a large elderly population here (as do you) and many of those people haven't driven for years so have no currently-valid driver's license. The GOP in this state mandated a very specific type of photo I.D., with expiration date (which made many college student I.D.'s invalid) only a few months before the presidential election, knowing full well that the Department of Transportation did not have the resources to get everyone processed in time. That was a good part of the uproar here, that we didn't have time to get everyone a photo I.D. before the election.

Photo I.D. is now the law here, and before the next election the state will have spent a pretty penny providing everyone with a free photo I.D. It's a huge waste of resources to fix something that wasn't broken, and a transparent attempt by the GOP to disenfrachise certain groups of voters. It failed because voters were not going to let their rights be curtailed.

The fact is, the largest amount of horrific destruction is done at the end of a standard hand gun (most of which happen to be semi-automatic as well), yet largely nothing is being done about them. So what gives?

What gives is the second amendment to the U.S. constitution, which gives citizens the right to bear arms. We can't get assault weapons banned, let alone handguns. But you knew that.

kaybeetoys

Seems like it's a big run around in your state, when a simple ID would have done the same. As you stated, you needed an ID to register, then what's the big deal with having to show it the day you vote?

First, are you aware of the easy availability of fake I.D.'s? (Underage kids use them to buy beer.) Photo I.D.'s alone wouldn't prevent voter fraud.

Second, we have a large elderly population here (as do you) and many of those people haven't driven for years so have no currently-valid driver's license. The GOP in this state mandated a very specific type of photo I.D., with expiration date (which made many college student I.D.'s invalid) only a few months before the presidential election, knowing full well that the Department of Transportation did not have the resources to get everyone processed in time. That was a good part of the uproar here, that we didn't have time to get everyone a photo I.D. before the election.

Photo I.D. is now the law here, and before the next election the state will have spent a pretty penny providing everyone with a free photo I.D. It's a huge waste of resources to fix something that wasn't broken, and a transparent attempt by the GOP to disfranchise certain groups of voters. It failed because voters were not going to let their rights be curtailed.

The fact is, the largest amount of horrific destruction is done at the end of a standard hand gun (most of which happen to be semi-automatic as well), yet largely nothing is being done about them. So what gives?

What gives is the second amendment to the U.S. constitution, which gives citizens the right to bear arms. We can't get assault weapons banned, let alone handguns. But you knew that.

................

Seems that it could be just as easy to fake a voter card to though couldn't it? I don't know about your state though, but Florida's ID's have a magnetic strip, like a credit card, where information can be stored to verify that the card was issued appropriately and contains the correct information.

You don't need a drivers license to have an ID. Florida issues standard ID cards, which sole purpose is just for identification. I think they currently cost $25, which I'm sure they actually cost less in reality so I don't see any reason why states couldn't subsidize them for those that are say on welfare programs.

Also, the instance you are speaking of wasn't just a couple of months before the election. The whole thing started nearly a year prior. Democrats waited until a couple months prior to make issue of it, making it appear as though it was something that just came up.

Why would it be a waste of money? Either people obtain a driver's license, which they pay for, or they receive an Identification Card, which they either pay for, or it gets subsidized. Why would everyone need a free ID card? That makes no sense.

Define assault weapons... Because real assault weapons, i.e. fully automatic and select fire weapons are already banned. Again, semi-automatic weapons are not assault weapons, no matter what they "look" like.

Sticking with the Electoral College system, but not yet plunging into the surprising too-little-discussed history of why the Framers put it in the Constitution, I want first to dash off a quick list of ten problems and potential problems with the Electoral College system:

Problem No. 1

It creates the possibility for the loser of the popular vote to win the electoral vote. This is more than a theoretical possibility. It has happened at least four times out of the 56 presidential elections, or more than 7 percent of the time, which is not such a small percentage, and it created a hideous mess every time. The most recent occurrence was 2000.

Read the other nine here: http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/10-reasons-why-electoral-college-problem

Seems that it could be just as easy to fake a voter card to though couldn't it?

We don't need to show our voter card. Our signature is our proof of identity. Or was, until the photo I.D. law was passed. The devil is in the details, my friend. Problem is, no one asks for the details. If it sounds good, that's enough. Except there then become huge issues to be dealt with which most people don't understand or care about unless they are personally affected. That's the GOP way, underhanded and unfair.

Also, the instance you are speaking of wasn't just a couple of months before the election. The whole thing started nearly a year prior. Democrats waited until a couple months prior to make issue of it, making it appear as though it was something that just came up.

You try getting over a million people-- elderly, handicapped, without transportation-- processed through an inefficient government system in less than a year's time and then get back to me.

Why would it be a waste of money? Either people obtain a driver's license, which they pay for, or they receive an Identification Card, which they either pay for, or it gets subsidized. Why would everyone need a free ID card? That makes no sense.

Some people actually have a hard time parting with $15. That represents 2 hours of pay to a minimum- wage worker. The rest of us are lucky that it's just the price of lunch. Be grateful you're not poor, and don't discount their struggles. They do not deserve to be demonized en masse.

Define assault weapons... Because real assault weapons, i.e. fully automatic and select fire weapons are already banned. Again, semi-automatic weapons are not assault weapons, no matter what they "look" like.

Semantics. Nothing more.

Post #1.263

You all seem very interested in who has the biggest piss stream

So as long as the signatures look similar, someone can vote as someone else then. You can never expect for signatures to be exactly the same every time, but they will look for certain characteristics. This still allows for people to come in claiming they are someone else, as all they had to do was learn other peoples signatures, which can be as easy as taking someones receipt from a restaurant.

I highly doubt there was over a million people in your state that are elderly, handicapped, or without transportation, that voted, but couldn't if they had to get an ID. Throwing out a number does not make it fact. I'm assuming you're talking about Pennsylvania?

Again, on the cost of the ID card, you totally skipped the thought of subsidizing the cost of the ID card, for people that are on welfare programs. If you aren't on welfare, then there is a pretty good chance you can handle forking out $15-25 every 4-5 years.

Regarding the weapons. It's not semantics at all. They are functionally different weapons. They don't fire in the same manner, so my point is, if politicians want to ban certain guns, then why not other guns that function the exact same way? The point is, politicians are happy to blur the line, and create feel good laws, so that people will get off their back. The law Feinstein proposes does nothing to stop what Adam Lanza did. The options Obama proposed, does nothing to stop what Adam Lanza did.

A Democrat controlled congress of 2007 - 2008 caused the derailment of a very robust economy - point blank

And it continued with a Democrat controlled congress of 2009 - 2010- who continued to spend mindlessly under the leadership of President Obama

A Democrat controlled Senate - has refused to approve a budget for 4 years of Obama - pathetic

The children - we try to protect - will be the ones paying the price for the insanity

So sad - so much evidence and - so many democrats in denial - suckers you are

Will the Republicans never learn from their mistakes? The majority of voters do not want what they are selling. First they gerrymander and now it is changing the electoral college. Why don't we just use the popular vote and be done with the electoral college. Just imaging how much money could be save without having the electoral college. No longer would Congress need to convene to to cast their vote and we would have a fair and true electoral system that reflected the will of the people. Simple. Most people in America are not illiterate and capable of reading and writing at the sixth grade level. I said most.

Shellie,

She/he, whatever the hell it is, spews crap just to spew crap.

Unhappy,

You DON'T pay for abortions. The Hyde Amendment prohibits any public, tax payer money from being used on them. And don't give me that "Money is fungible" crap argument. If you deposit and withdrawal $20 from a bank, you don't get the same $20 bill back, but the loss to the bank is the equivalent. Money is fungible, math is not.

A state's number of electors equals the number of representatives and senators the state has in the United States Congress. In the case of representatives, this is based on the respective populations. Each state's number of representatives is determined every 10 years by the United States Census.

My dad, although retired for many years, enjoys working a few days each month for the U.S. Census Bureau, collecting information from people who refuse to answer the ten-year census. As my father will tell you, the majority of these folks live in GOP districts and are mega-paranoid of anything relating to the government (except any government assistance they receive). They often live secluded behind locked doors and fences, with large watch dogs roaming the yards or tied to a porch or tree, and you can bet your sweet fanny they are armed to the teeth while they lurk behind those walls, suspicious of anyone who drives up to their residence. Their main source of information from the outside world seems to be satellite tv where they overdose on FOX news, Family Guy, and the porn channels.

When my dad tries to explain why the Census Bureau needs some simple information for reasons like electoral college population count, helping determine funding for school districts, etc. (things that would benefit these people), they still don't get it.

These are simple folk that would certainly vote GOP if they ever voted at all. If the Republicans and Tea Party are serious about having their collective voices heard, they should get their troops out in hillbilly USA and appeal to that percentage of the population to register to vote and cooperate with the U.S. Census, instead of trying to manipulate the rules to get one of their own candidates elected.

First please define the word assault weapon without resorting to what the talking heads in Washington, D.C. and on network television expound. If you look back through history every form of firearm on the market today was used by the military at one time. With a bill that bans any firearm that has one military characteristic all it would take is someone to issue an executive order defining firing a projectile as a military characteristic and all firearms would be banned. Our current President loves executive orders, how much damage could this do to the country. Do you want that much power in one persons hands?

Another thing to consider is how many murders are actually committed using a rifle of any type. Then look at the number of murders committed using a so-called "assault weapon". When looked at as a percentage of all homicides in the United States the percentage committed with a rifle is really small, and the percentage committed with a so-called "assault weapon" is a really small percentage of that.

Second the founding fathers put the Second Amendment in the constitution for a reason. One of which is that the country from which we won independence had laws in place, earlier if not at that time, making it illegal for an ordinary citizen to own a weapon. This law did not apply to the upper class.

Third if someone is absolutely determined to do another individual bodily harm or kill that individual, a gun is not required. There were murders before the invention of the gun, so why does anyone think banning firearms will stop crimes from being committed, be it robbery, rape, assaults or murder.

Last of all why does everyone take what the media and politicians say as gospel? The public seems to think that when these people speak they are absolutely correct, and they are telling the truth. Let’s look a Benghazi, we have satellites that can zoom in enough to identify a brand of car, just look at Google Earth, and they could not tell that there was no protest. Start that story with the statement "once upon a time". Look at Operation Fast and Furious when Obama’s Justice Department allowed persons to pass a background check that should not have and the weapons wound up in Mexico in the hands of drug cartels. Those firearms killed a lot more people than they do in the United States. You want these people controlling the definition of military characteristic.

To "It Is Time" using a direct popular vote should never be an option for electing a President. If that method was used the only people that the candidates would care about would be the ones living in the major population areas. Look at a population density map and anyone could predict where the campaigns would hold events. If on the other hand you went to the system Nebraska uses every district would count, not just the districts in states with a high number of electoral votes. Look at a map that shows the county results in each state, while Obama won the required number of electoral votes using the winner take all system the results maybe different if the system used in Nebraska were in use. Even in Blue states there was a lot of territory that was Red, as a matter of fact you can use those maps to locate the major metropolitan areas.

The use of this method would also give the television network talking heads a nightmare because they could not predict the outcome with one or two percent of the precincts reporting. I would also mean that the candidates could not write off any segment of the population as unimportant because they are winning a state with a large number of electoral votes.

I would really like to see the 17th Ammendment to the Constitution which created the system of electing Senators repealed. That way maybe they would do what is right not what will get them re-elected.

SmBusOwnerinNY "Roy, who said anything about budgets? Deficits due to what was actually spent has gone down under Obama, down a lot."

Boy, what gobbledegook. The Deficit (or Surplus) is the difference between what the government spends and what they take in. Deficits for Bush's 8 years in office averaged $251 Billion per year, and they have averaged $1,333 Billion per year for Obama's first 4 years.

Spending for Bush's 8 years in office averaged $2.396 Trillion per year. Spending for Obama's first 4 years in office averaged $3.529 Trillion per year - an increase of more than 47% per year under Obama.