Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Translation: you have no fucking clue where the definition you gave comes from in terms of the Founding Fathers putting it in the Constitution.
Do ya think I didn't already know that when I asked you? I merely wanted to see you put that in writing so everyone else could see.
What do you think of a "performance" that wastes taxpayer money to the tune of over $60 million to repeal Obamacare over 50 times, knowing that Obama will never sign it?To be honest - I highly doubt they will have it cleaned up by his 10th term. But if they do, my response will be dependent upon his performance.And this will be your response when Louis Gommert is running for his 10th term, too.Well duh....they aren't done cleaning it up yet.
If he has $10 million in his bank account and is violating the U.S. Constitution daily - just like Nancy Pelosi - I will consider him a typical dirt-bag politician who should not have become a career politician. If, however, he is a man of modest means who is upholding the U.S. Constitution as his oath requires him to, I will respect and praise him.
Is that the Tea Party ideal? The ones who constantly bitch about the government spending money? They're frauds from a fraudulent, Astroturfed "movement".
Nancy Pelosi's husband is a very wealthy businessman - I though you wingnuts loved those people? If you have any evidence that she has stolen taxpayer money, put up or shut the fuck up.
Obama Hellcare must be abolished by any means necessary.
It is a socialist unconstitutional scam
.
You just hate successful Democratic policies!
NYT: Immigrants And Low Wage Workers Benefiting The Most From Obamacare
Immigrants -- and specifically, Hispanic immigrants -- are among those benefiting the most from Obamacare, a New York Times analysis published Sunday said. The Times' report on the first full year of Affordable Care Act implementation found that low-wage workers also saw their uninsured rates decrease sharply, as did part-time workers and those with only high school degrees.
"The analysis shows how the law lifted some of the most vulnerable citizens," the Times reported.
I'm not your son asshole,
and you have no business calling anyone an imbecile.
Case law, officer, victim and witness safety require a suspect be detained, secured and searched without a warrant, only probable cause is required and said search is reasonable and legal.
The actions of Boston law enforcement after the terrorist attack was an extraordinary example of why a warrant is unnecessary due to the exigency of the situation.
Look, everyone.. Uncensored2008 is still running away from my question.Translation: you have no fucking clue where the definition you gave comes from in terms of the Founding Fathers putting it in the Constitution.
Translation: You think logical fallacy is really clever and a substitute for reason.
Do ya think I didn't already know that when I asked you? I merely wanted to see you put that in writing so everyone else could see.
You bore me, cretin.
Great... now who decides what is or is not "unreasonable" when someone tries to sue over what they believe was a unreasonable search?I'm not your son asshole,
If you were, I would regret not drowinng you at birth.
and you have no business calling anyone an imbecile.
Virtually everyone has business noting that you are an imbecile.
Case law, officer, victim and witness safety require a suspect be detained, secured and searched without a warrant, only probable cause is required and said search is reasonable and legal.
Perhaps that is why the Constitution and I both stated probable cause, retard.
{
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
}
The actions of Boston law enforcement after the terrorist attack was an extraordinary example of why a warrant is unnecessary due to the exigency of the situation.
It amazes me that you and your buddy faun delude yourself that you are clever.
In fact, your childish games are boring.
Great... now who decides what is or is not "unreasonable" when someone tries to sue over what they believe was a unreasonable search?
No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.Super delegates are the party's insurance against a rebellious electorate.As long as you have enough Super Delegates, that is...
SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...
That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.
Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???
This is probably the dumbest argument I have seen so far on this subject. All of the answers needed to refute this are part of the argument. All that's needed is 5 minutes and some critical thinking skills.
Hint:
The parties are the " establishment". Therefore shouldn't they and their delegates then by default support the establishment candidate? Of course it's a biased selection process. Why would a party want a nominee that the party doesn't support to lead the party and their brand?
This is the way it has always been.
How do you people become adults and are probably 50+ years old without understanding this until now?
No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.Super delegates are the party's insurance against a rebellious electorate.
SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...
That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.
Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???
This is probably the dumbest argument I have seen so far on this subject. All of the answers needed to refute this are part of the argument. All that's needed is 5 minutes and some critical thinking skills.
Hint:
The parties are the " establishment". Therefore shouldn't they and their delegates then by default support the establishment candidate? Of course it's a biased selection process. Why would a party want a nominee that the party doesn't support to lead the party and their brand?
This is the way it has always been.
How do you people become adults and are probably 50+ years old without understanding this until now?
I've understood it for a couple decades. It's the rest of America that is learning what the priorities of their precious 2 party systems are.. And it's NOT a stupid argument if it's true. That's just your failure of logic and reason to comprehend that one SuperDelegate VOIDS the polling votes of 10,000 citizens..
No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...
That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.
Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???
This is probably the dumbest argument I have seen so far on this subject. All of the answers needed to refute this are part of the argument. All that's needed is 5 minutes and some critical thinking skills.
Hint:
The parties are the " establishment". Therefore shouldn't they and their delegates then by default support the establishment candidate? Of course it's a biased selection process. Why would a party want a nominee that the party doesn't support to lead the party and their brand?
This is the way it has always been.
How do you people become adults and are probably 50+ years old without understanding this until now?
I've understood it for a couple decades. It's the rest of America that is learning what the priorities of their precious 2 party systems are.. And it's NOT a stupid argument if it's true. That's just your failure of logic and reason to comprehend that one SuperDelegate VOIDS the polling votes of 10,000 citizens..
If they turn an election against the candidate with the most delegates. Which they never have in a Democratic race.
But they're certainly gonna try if Trump doesn't have the 1237 he needs for the GOP primary.
As I've said, the closer we get to a contested GOP convention, the harder conservatives are going to rail against Democratic super delegates.
No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.
That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.
Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???
This is probably the dumbest argument I have seen so far on this subject. All of the answers needed to refute this are part of the argument. All that's needed is 5 minutes and some critical thinking skills.
Hint:
The parties are the " establishment". Therefore shouldn't they and their delegates then by default support the establishment candidate? Of course it's a biased selection process. Why would a party want a nominee that the party doesn't support to lead the party and their brand?
This is the way it has always been.
How do you people become adults and are probably 50+ years old without understanding this until now?
I've understood it for a couple decades. It's the rest of America that is learning what the priorities of their precious 2 party systems are.. And it's NOT a stupid argument if it's true. That's just your failure of logic and reason to comprehend that one SuperDelegate VOIDS the polling votes of 10,000 citizens..
If they turn an election against the candidate with the most delegates. Which they never have in a Democratic race.
But they're certainly gonna try if Trump doesn't have the 1237 he needs for the GOP primary.
As I've said, the closer we get to a contested GOP convention, the harder conservatives are going to rail against Democratic super delegates.
That's not the only way that stacking the deck with 7Mill establishment party votes hurts voter representation. It also discourages any dissenting candidates from DECLARING and chills the speech of those who might be critical of party actions or candidates. Past or present candidates.
No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.Super delegates are the party's insurance against a rebellious electorate.
SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...
That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.
Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???
This is probably the dumbest argument I have seen so far on this subject. All of the answers needed to refute this are part of the argument. All that's needed is 5 minutes and some critical thinking skills.
Hint:
The parties are the " establishment". Therefore shouldn't they and their delegates then by default support the establishment candidate? Of course it's a biased selection process. Why would a party want a nominee that the party doesn't support to lead the party and their brand?
This is the way it has always been.
How do you people become adults and are probably 50+ years old without understanding this until now?
I've understood it for a couple decades. It's the rest of America that is learning what the priorities of their precious 2 party systems are.. And it's NOT a stupid argument if it's true. That's just your failure of logic and reason to comprehend that one SuperDelegate VOIDS the polling votes of 10,000 citizens..
It IS voter disenfranchisement by design...
Thanks for explaining the obvious ----------------------- TO YOURSELF....
No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.
That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.
Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???
This is probably the dumbest argument I have seen so far on this subject. All of the answers needed to refute this are part of the argument. All that's needed is 5 minutes and some critical thinking skills.
Hint:
The parties are the " establishment". Therefore shouldn't they and their delegates then by default support the establishment candidate? Of course it's a biased selection process. Why would a party want a nominee that the party doesn't support to lead the party and their brand?
This is the way it has always been.
How do you people become adults and are probably 50+ years old without understanding this until now?
I've understood it for a couple decades. It's the rest of America that is learning what the priorities of their precious 2 party systems are.. And it's NOT a stupid argument if it's true. That's just your failure of logic and reason to comprehend that one SuperDelegate VOIDS the polling votes of 10,000 citizens..
If they turn an election against the candidate with the most delegates. Which they never have in a Democratic race.
But they're certainly gonna try if Trump doesn't have the 1237 he needs for the GOP primary.
As I've said, the closer we get to a contested GOP convention, the harder conservatives are going to rail against Democratic super delegates.
That's not the only way that stacking the deck with 7Mill establishment party votes hurts voter representation. It also discourages any dissenting candidates from DECLARING and chills the speech of those who might be critical of party actions or candidates. Past or present candidates.
That's why the Dem debate podiums are so empty and the choices so meager. Ask ole Joe Lieberman what happens to party "dissidents".. He got DEPORTED and ATTACKED by the party because he wouldn't repeat the scripture of the Dem establishment.
Joe Lieberman is a casualty of the resistance against the tyranny of the 2 party system.. So are all those "Blue Dog Democrats" that got euthanized as strays... They were PURGED from the Dem party..
A candidate not thinking they can win doesn't qualify as 'voter disenfranchisement'. So you're moving your goal posts.
.
No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...
That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.
Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???
This is probably the dumbest argument I have seen so far on this subject. All of the answers needed to refute this are part of the argument. All that's needed is 5 minutes and some critical thinking skills.
Hint:
The parties are the " establishment". Therefore shouldn't they and their delegates then by default support the establishment candidate? Of course it's a biased selection process. Why would a party want a nominee that the party doesn't support to lead the party and their brand?
This is the way it has always been.
How do you people become adults and are probably 50+ years old without understanding this until now?
I've understood it for a couple decades. It's the rest of America that is learning what the priorities of their precious 2 party systems are.. And it's NOT a stupid argument if it's true. That's just your failure of logic and reason to comprehend that one SuperDelegate VOIDS the polling votes of 10,000 citizens..
It IS voter disenfranchisement by design...
Thanks for explaining the obvious ----------------------- TO YOURSELF....
Obviously you still don't get it.
The voters never have had a say in who the nominee will be. It's always been the delegates as it's a party nomination. BTW, super delegates have been a part of the Democrat's process since 1984. Nothing new here.
Look, Clinton is the establishment candidate. That means she so far has had the most support among delegates and party members. She's the favorite. It's only logical that they would support her.
Sanders isn't even a Democrat and is an
anti-establishment candidate. Not a party insider of favorite. Why would the establishment back an anti-establishment candidate? How is that in their best interest?
Any candidate from either party must consider this when thinking about a run. There is always a party favorite and the other candidates will always have to work harder to rally support. This has always been the case and there is nothing nefarious about it. Everyone knows how this works except the easily riled dopes who are outraged and have been led to believe otherwise.
SuperDelegates have been a feature in the Dem party since the LAST principled Popularist (Eugene McCarthy) TRIED to bring the socialist wing of the Dem Party out of the closet. The fact that HE LOST BADLY -- is what set off this voter disenfranchisement by design. Had NOTHING to do with his principles.
The Parties only CARE about winning. And all the leftists whining in this thread about how it's a GOOD THING that the party pushes out a "front-runner" early and avoids debates and carnage are LEFTISTS because all THEY care about is the "winning" part. They dont give a fuck about issues, principles, or dissent or ideas.. That's the key trait of BEING a leftists. It's all about the power and winning..
A candidate not thinking they can win doesn't qualify as 'voter disenfranchisement'. So you're moving your goal posts.
.
And the first sentence of your post shows complete violation of reason.. So voters are not "disenfranchised" by being offered fewer pre-certified "USED" choices and padding ONE of the fewer choices with 7Mill stolen votes?? You leftists don't HAVE any goalposts. It's all circular with youse guys...
Why don't you just buy a Crown and pass it along to the next in line??
SuperDelegates have been a feature in the Dem party since the LAST principled Popularist (Eugene McCarthy) TRIED to bring the socialist wing of the Dem Party out of the closet. The fact that HE LOST BADLY -- is what set off this voter disenfranchisement by design. Had NOTHING to do with his principles.
The Parties only CARE about winning. And all the leftists whining in this thread about how it's a GOOD THING that the party pushes out a "front-runner" early and avoids debates and carnage are LEFTISTS because all THEY care about is the "winning" part. They dont give a fuck about issues, principles, or dissent or ideas.. That's the key trait of BEING a leftists. It's all about the power and winning..
Any party cares about winning. The fact that you keep screaming about the evils of the Democrat's process betrays your recent indoctrination by conservative media. They have you so riled over the Dem process so that you won't notice that the Repub process will be far more nefarious than the Dems.You are clueless. The Republican process will result in a contested convention with it's own share of unbound delegates that will no doubt not go for the overall vote winner. Grow up dude. This has been the case since the beginning.
SuperDelegates have been a feature in the Dem party since the LAST principled Popularist (Eugene McCarthy) TRIED to bring the socialist wing of the Dem Party out of the closet. The fact that HE LOST BADLY -- is what set off this voter disenfranchisement by design. Had NOTHING to do with his principles.
The Parties only CARE about winning. And all the leftists whining in this thread about how it's a GOOD THING that the party pushes out a "front-runner" early and avoids debates and carnage are LEFTISTS because all THEY care about is the "winning" part. They dont give a fuck about issues, principles, or dissent or ideas.. That's the key trait of BEING a leftists. It's all about the power and winning..
Any party cares about winning. The fact that you keep screaming about the evils of the Democrat's process betrays your recent indoctrination by conservative media. They have you so riled over the Dem process so that you won't notice that the Repub process will be far more nefarious than the Dems.You are clueless. The Republican process will result in a contested convention with it's own share of unbound delegates that will no doubt not go for the overall vote winner. Grow up dude. This has been the case since the beginning.
Hell no.. I'm riled about BOTH your parties and their priority on WINNING rather than governing or representing the people. THAT'S when resistance is warranted..
This weekend I will be volunteering to "screen" about 5000 ballot petition signatures from Pennsylvania in order to get a 3rd party choice on the ballot there.... THAT'S the hurdles and the litigation that the DEM/REPs put into place to prevent competition..
It has NOT been this way since the beginning,. We allowed these 2 parties to become tyrannical and rob the voters of real Democratic choice. They don't even care if they leave 15 or 18% of the Congress contests -- uncontested because they are not "winnable".. When you actually see how much democratic concepts have SHRUNK over the past 50 years --- you understand that unless these issues are addressed -- there WILL be organized resistance and conflict.. We don't have a Congress anymore.. We have FOUR party bosses allocating every pencil and every speech. And when one party takes control -- they pass blank check bills with the actual law to filled in by agencies that the Congress can't even control any more.
