Regret Your Vote Yet?

[AmericanGirl05]

I didn't vote for Obama, so I have nothing to regret.

I voted for Huntsman in the primary. I knew it wasn't going to happen but I don't regret it at all. I do regret that the act had no power except to make a drop-in-the-bucket statement.

Sadly, many of our votes don't mean anything anymore.

Given Dem control of CA, my votes are mainly symbolic.

I live in DC and am a registered Republican. That's worse than CA.

It might be just as bad..., but I doubt it's worse.

Oh, yeah. Not just very liberal Democrats, but corrupt liberal Democrats. Some of whom are reverse racists.

I find the same variety in San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley on a regular basis.

Even the Obama-appointed US Attorney is investigating this lot, including the current Mayor.

And you all know about Marion Barry.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll refer you to Ted Olson:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/theo...t-amendment-1410124101?mod=Opinion_newsreel_2

Thanks but that page requires subscription. Can't read it. Another source?

American Thinker has a review of his column here:

Blog Senate Dems seek to rewrite First Amendment

Essentially, Reid wants to overturn the SCOTUS ruling on Citizen United. CU would allow the government to censor books, pamphlets, movies...the free speech of individuals speaking out against incumbent candidates....

Remember this:


"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
The Daley Gator Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut




The Leftists on this board don't realize that a vote for any Liberal/Demcrat/Progressive is an endorsement of the suggestions Kagan makes, that free speech can be censored.

 

[Pogo]

So the President is supposed to stop everything and mourn? Where is the precedent for that?

Nope.

But he should quite probably avoid flippant and pleasure-seeking activity, a metaphorical 10 seconds after making such a somber announcement.

Right-Wingers care much more about style than substance. Ronald Reagan & George W. Bush are proof.

You say this when just yesterday Obama talks about how the "optics" didn't look good???????????

Obama said he "should have anticipated the optics" because "part of the job is the theater of it," conceding..(get ready to laugh).... "it's not something that comes naturally" to him.

Yeah, right

It absolutely is. "Theater" is spot-on. Because very little of what we engage in during campaigns is politics; rather, it's politics-theater. They play to an audience in search of applause lines, and forget about presenting a good story.

Who inhaled... who tied his dog to a car roof... who got a DWI.... who went to a black church.... enough pap already.

 

[Foxfyre]

No regrets. I had to hold my nose to do it, but I voted for McCain as the lesser of two evils in 2008. And while I still think he is a liberal in conservative clothing, and that he would not have made a great President, he would have done infinitely less damage in the first four years than Obama has done. First and foremost we wouldn't be dealing with the most evil, expensive, counterproductive, and destructive piece of legislation ever forced upon the American people: Obamacare.

No regrets. Romney was not my first choice to be the GOP nominee, but after researching what he had accomplished with his life, I looked forward to voting for him in 2012. And I remain convinced that while he would be no more perfect and immune to error as any other President, we would be hugely more well off now had he won in 2012.

 

[Pogo]

Unlike you, I love America.....that's why I will never be a Liberal.

-- a nation that is completely a Liberal creation. You have a paradox.
Not that that's a surprise.

Regret your thread yet?

What you refer to as "Liberals".....modern Liberals....were created when John Dewey talked the socialists into changing their name.

Pick up a book for once.

I think you spelled Joe McCarthy's name wrong. Here, speaking of "books" you'll like this link. It's thirty pages long. Just imagine it's one of your posts and admire it in the mirror.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No but I sure regret the 14 seconds spent reading that last post...

Really?

Why?

You did not find that an interesting story? One where hundreds of Americans got together to find a missing teenager?

Really? You considered hearing (reading) that story as a waste of time?

Do you claim to be non partisan? I bet you do. And you just proved you aren't.

Reeeeeallly -- time management is "partisan" now?

Want to know how many Tim Horton'ses are in Bangor?
No, I don't think a bullshit feelgood missing persons PR story has jack shit to do with politics. Call me crazy. And the fact that some media outhouse took the time to "fact check" such a PR tale speaks volumes about our electoral values. Or lack thereof.

I has more to do with the character of the man just as fund raising and golf at inappropriate times do.

OH! I forget. Democrats don't claim to be men of character. Never mind.

"Character" is irrelevant to politics.

"Character" is irrelevant to Liberals.

And, they use the aim of propriety of the Right against same....

"For example, since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsibility, morality, law, and justice (which are frequently strangers to each others), they can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations. No organizations, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their "book" of rules and regulations. This is what that great revolutionary, Paul of Tarsus, knew when he wrote to the Corinthians: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter killeth." -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, P.152



In fact....Liberals will vote for a rapist.......twice.

 

[R.D.]

Obama said he "should have anticipated the optics" because "part of the job is the theater of it," conceding..(get ready to laugh).... "it's not something that comes naturally" to him.

Yeah, right

It absolutely is. "Theater" is spot-on. Because very little of what we engage in during campaigns is politics; rather, it's politics-theater. They play to an audience in search of applause lines, and forget about presenting a good story.

Who inhaled... who tied his dog to a car roof... who got a DWI.... who went to a black church.... enough pap already.[/QUOTE]
Why am I not surprised you completely missed the point

 

[AmericanGirl05]

No but I sure regret the 14 seconds spent reading that last post...

Really?

Why?

You did not find that an interesting story? One where hundreds of Americans got together to find a missing teenager?

Really? You considered hearing (reading) that story as a waste of time?

Do you claim to be non partisan? I bet you do. And you just proved you aren't.

Reeeeeallly -- time management is "partisan" now?

Want to know how many Tim Horton'ses are in Bangor?
No, I don't think a bullshit feelgood missing persons PR story has jack shit to do with politics. Call me crazy. And the fact that some media outhouse took the time to "fact check" such a PR tale speaks volumes about our electoral values. Or lack thereof.

I has more to do with the character of the man just as fund raising and golf at inappropriate times do.

OH! I forget. Democrats don't claim to be men of character. Never mind.

"Character" is irrelevant to politics.

"Character" is irrelevant to Liberals.

And, they use the aim of propriety of the Right against same....

"For example, since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsibility, morality, law, and justice (which are frequently strangers to each others), they can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations. No organizations, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their "book" of rules and regulations. This is what that great revolutionary, Paul of Tarsus, knew when he wrote to the Corinthians: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter killeth." -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, P.152



In fact....Liberals will vote for a rapist.......twice.

And tell you they were morally justified in doing so. After all, it was just sex and the women were sluts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Unlike you, I love America.....that's why I will never be a Liberal.

-- a nation that is completely a Liberal creation. You have a paradox.
Not that that's a surprise.

Regret your thread yet?

What you refer to as "Liberals".....modern Liberals....were created when John Dewey talked the socialists into changing their name.

Pick up a book for once.

I think you spelled Joe McCarthy's name wrong. Here, speaking of "books" you'll like this link. It's thirty pages long. Just imagine it's one of your posts and admire it in the mirror.

1. The link, like Liberalism, doesn't work.

2. Wise of you not to doubt that your brand of Liberal is really John Dewey's socialist.

3. Senator Joseph McCarthy....an American patriot and hero.

Another opportunity for you to 'pick up a book.'

 

[boedicca]

I'll refer you to Ted Olson:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/theo...t-amendment-1410124101?mod=Opinion_newsreel_2

Thanks but that page requires subscription. Can't read it. Another source?

American Thinker has a review of his column here:

Blog Senate Dems seek to rewrite First Amendment

Essentially, Reid wants to overturn the SCOTUS ruling on Citizen United. CU would allow the government to censor books, pamphlets, movies...the free speech of individuals speaking out against incumbent candidates....

Remember this:


"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
The Daley Gator Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut




The Leftists on this board don't realize that a vote for any Liberal/Demcrat/Progressive is an endorsement of the suggestions Kagan makes, that free speech can be censored.

Which all translates into: "Just shut up you haters!"

 

[Pogo]

No but I sure regret the 14 seconds spent reading that last post...

Really?

Why?

You did not find that an interesting story? One where hundreds of Americans got together to find a missing teenager?

Really? You considered hearing (reading) that story as a waste of time?

Do you claim to be non partisan? I bet you do. And you just proved you aren't.

Reeeeeallly -- time management is "partisan" now?

Want to know how many Tim Horton'ses are in Bangor?
No, I don't think a bullshit feelgood missing persons PR story has jack shit to do with politics. Call me crazy. And the fact that some media outhouse took the time to "fact check" such a PR tale speaks volumes about our electoral values. Or lack thereof.

I has more to do with the character of the man just as fund raising and golf at inappropriate times do.

OH! I forget. Democrats don't claim to be men of character. Never mind.

"Character" is irrelevant to politics.

"Character" is irrelevant to Liberals.

And, they use the aim of propriety of the Right against same....

"For example, since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsibility, morality, law, and justice (which are frequently strangers to each others), they can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations. No organizations, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their "book" of rules and regulations. This is what that great revolutionary, Paul of Tarsus, knew when he wrote to the Corinthians: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter killeth." -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, P.152

In fact....Liberals will vote for a rapist.......twice.

Whereas your ilk will dangle a strawman forever. The vast majority of us never heard of Paul Jablonsky until Glenn Beck dredged him up in 2008. Utterly irrelevant.

 

[R.D.]

[
I has more to do with the character of the man just as fund raising and golf at inappropriate times do.

OH! I forget. Democrats don't claim to be men of character. Never mind.

"Character" is irrelevant to politics.

 

[Pogo]

Unlike you, I love America.....that's why I will never be a Liberal.

-- a nation that is completely a Liberal creation. You have a paradox.
Not that that's a surprise.

Regret your thread yet?

What you refer to as "Liberals".....modern Liberals....were created when John Dewey talked the socialists into changing their name.

Pick up a book for once.

I think you spelled Joe McCarthy's name wrong. Here, speaking of "books" you'll like this link. It's thirty pages long. Just imagine it's one of your posts and admire it in the mirror.

1. The link, like Liberalism, doesn't work.

2. Wise of you not to doubt that your brand of Liberal is really John Dewey's socialist.

3. Senator Joseph McCarthy....an American patriot and hero.

Another opportunity for you to 'pick up a book.'

Bullshit - there's nothing wrong with the link except the user going

Here, want me to read it aloud to you, helpless one?

One of the major problems in American political consciousness today comes from a misrepresentation of the political spectrum. This is partly the result of a deliberate effort to put all of America's enemies (fascists and communists) into the same basket after World War II, and a deliberate effort by the American "Right" to classify everything that they oppose as "Leftist". After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics.
​

Is that just too scary to read because it requires rethinking where you've stranded yourself?

Please.

McCarthy was an asshole opportunist drunk womanizing demagogue poser liar, who fits like a glove here. And we've been over this before. The personification in fact of style over substance. And you're still buying. Gullible's Travels.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No but I sure regret the 14 seconds spent reading that last post...

Really?

Why?

You did not find that an interesting story? One where hundreds of Americans got together to find a missing teenager?

Really? You considered hearing (reading) that story as a waste of time?

Do you claim to be non partisan? I bet you do. And you just proved you aren't.

Reeeeeallly -- time management is "partisan" now?

Want to know how many Tim Horton'ses are in Bangor?
No, I don't think a bullshit feelgood missing persons PR story has jack shit to do with politics. Call me crazy. And the fact that some media outhouse took the time to "fact check" such a PR tale speaks volumes about our electoral values. Or lack thereof.

I has more to do with the character of the man just as fund raising and golf at inappropriate times do.

OH! I forget. Democrats don't claim to be men of character. Never mind.

"Character" is irrelevant to politics.

"Character" is irrelevant to Liberals.

And, they use the aim of propriety of the Right against same....

"For example, since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsibility, morality, law, and justice (which are frequently strangers to each others), they can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations. No organizations, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their "book" of rules and regulations. This is what that great revolutionary, Paul of Tarsus, knew when he wrote to the Corinthians: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter killeth." -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, P.152

In fact....Liberals will vote for a rapist.......twice.

Whereas your ilk will dangle a strawman forever. The vast majority of us never heard of Paul Jablonsky until Glenn Beck dredged him up in 2008. Utterly irrelevant.

Who?


"The vast majority of us never heard of .... Utterly irrelevant."

Surprise, surprise!

Usually it's only 90-95% of Liberals who despise knowledge so much that what ever they haven't heard of is "Utterly irrelevant."

I though you might have been in the 5%.....

Guess not.

 

[Pogo]

No but I sure regret the 14 seconds spent reading that last post...

Really?

Why?

You did not find that an interesting story? One where hundreds of Americans got together to find a missing teenager?

Really? You considered hearing (reading) that story as a waste of time?

Do you claim to be non partisan? I bet you do. And you just proved you aren't.

Reeeeeallly -- time management is "partisan" now?

Want to know how many Tim Horton'ses are in Bangor?
No, I don't think a bullshit feelgood missing persons PR story has jack shit to do with politics. Call me crazy. And the fact that some media outhouse took the time to "fact check" such a PR tale speaks volumes about our electoral values. Or lack thereof.

I has more to do with the character of the man just as fund raising and golf at inappropriate times do.

OH! I forget. Democrats don't claim to be men of character. Never mind.

"Character" is irrelevant to politics.

"Character" is irrelevant to Liberals.

And, they use the aim of propriety of the Right against same....

"For example, since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsibility, morality, law, and justice (which are frequently strangers to each others), they can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations. No organizations, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their "book" of rules and regulations. This is what that great revolutionary, Paul of Tarsus, knew when he wrote to the Corinthians: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter killeth." -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, P.152

In fact....Liberals will vote for a rapist.......twice.

Whereas your ilk will dangle a strawman forever. The vast majority of us never heard of Paul Jablonsky until Glenn Beck dredged him up in 2008. Utterly irrelevant.

Who?


"The vast majority of us never heard of .... Utterly irrelevant."

Surprise, surprise!

Usually it's only 90-95% of Liberals who despise knowledge so much that what ever they haven't heard of is "Utterly irrelevant."

I though you might have been in the 5%.....

Guess not.

Whoever, that's who. The point sailing blissfully over your pointy little head is that dredging up some obscure writer from decades ago and unilaterally declaring it to be the messiah of your opponent is a juvenile bullshit strawman and an utter failure of logic engaged in by the rhetorically bereft.

 

[Moonglow]

No but I sure regret the 14 seconds spent reading that last post...

Really?

Why?

You did not find that an interesting story? One where hundreds of Americans got together to find a missing teenager?

Really? You considered hearing (reading) that story as a waste of time?

Do you claim to be non partisan? I bet you do. And you just proved you aren't.

Reeeeeallly -- time management is "partisan" now?

Want to know how many Tim Horton'ses are in Bangor?
No, I don't think a bullshit feelgood missing persons PR story has jack shit to do with politics. Call me crazy. And the fact that some media outhouse took the time to "fact check" such a PR tale speaks volumes about our electoral values. Or lack thereof.

I has more to do with the character of the man just as fund raising and golf at inappropriate times do.

OH! I forget. Democrats don't claim to be men of character. Never mind.

"Character" is irrelevant to politics.

"Character" is irrelevant to Liberals.

And, they use the aim of propriety of the Right against same....

"For example, since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsibility, morality, law, and justice (which are frequently strangers to each others), they can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations. No organizations, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their "book" of rules and regulations. This is what that great revolutionary, Paul of Tarsus, knew when he wrote to the Corinthians: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter killeth." -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, P.152



In fact....Liberals will vote for a rapist.......twice.

Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and vote to keep certain people out of the state they same from...and it worked...

 

[PoliticalChic]

No but I sure regret the 14 seconds spent reading that last post...

Really?

Why?

You did not find that an interesting story? One where hundreds of Americans got together to find a missing teenager?

Really? You considered hearing (reading) that story as a waste of time?

Do you claim to be non partisan? I bet you do. And you just proved you aren't.

Reeeeeallly -- time management is "partisan" now?

Want to know how many Tim Horton'ses are in Bangor?
No, I don't think a bullshit feelgood missing persons PR story has jack shit to do with politics. Call me crazy. And the fact that some media outhouse took the time to "fact check" such a PR tale speaks volumes about our electoral values. Or lack thereof.

I has more to do with the character of the man just as fund raising and golf at inappropriate times do.

OH! I forget. Democrats don't claim to be men of character. Never mind.

"Character" is irrelevant to politics.

"Character" is irrelevant to Liberals.

And, they use the aim of propriety of the Right against same....

"For example, since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsibility, morality, law, and justice (which are frequently strangers to each others), they can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations. No organizations, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their "book" of rules and regulations. This is what that great revolutionary, Paul of Tarsus, knew when he wrote to the Corinthians: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter killeth." -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, P.152

In fact....Liberals will vote for a rapist.......twice.

Whereas your ilk will dangle a strawman forever. The vast majority of us never heard of Paul Jablonsky until Glenn Beck dredged him up in 2008. Utterly irrelevant.

Who?


"The vast majority of us never heard of .... Utterly irrelevant."

Surprise, surprise!

Usually it's only 90-95% of Liberals who despise knowledge so much that what ever they haven't heard of is "Utterly irrelevant."

I though you might have been in the 5%.....

Guess not.

Whoever, that's who. The point sailing blissfully over your pointy little head is that dredging up some obscure writer from decades ago and unilaterally declaring it to be the messiah of your opponent is a juvenile bullshit strawman and an utter failure of logic engaged in by the rhetorically bereft.

"...dredging up some obscure writer from decades ago...."

If it is Saul Alinsky to whom you refer.....wipe the egg off your face.


Barack Obama (peace be on him) not only studied Alinsky....but he taught same.

"In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College titled "There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. The subject was famed radical community organizerSaul Alinsky."
Hillary Rodham senior thesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


And.....
"Here is Saul Alinsky's dedication to his own book: “Lest we forget at least ... did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer "
Saul Alinsky s book Rules for Radicals dedicated to Lucifer - Catholic Answers Forums

 

[Moonglow]

If that were true, why did the PC effort start during Reagan?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If that were true, why did the PC effort start during Reagan?

You seem to imagine that you pay by the word to post.

Not so.

 

[Pogo]

"Lucifer" -- the ultimate strawman. Too funny.