I love it.

Superdelegates don't count until they vote at the convention and Obama doesn't have the number of elected delegates to get the nomination righ tnow......so all this talk of him "crossing the threshold" and "securing thenomination' is ludicrous because it's simply not true. What IS true is that the number of actual elected delegates that either of them has earned is less than the number needed to win the nomination........and anything can and will happen between now and the convention to alter who the superdelegates will vote for.

Prediction:

Hillary will "suspend" her campaign next Friday......until the convention and then, after the Michelle Obama tapes come out 3 days beforehand.....the superdelegates will turn tails and run for the white girl.

Maybe the Democrats will now alter their structure to a "winner take all" system instead of every state being proportional to the vote......as THAT is what caused this.

I do think the system should be similar or the same as the Republican process.

I don't think these super delegates who waited until the end, and brought Obama's totals over the required amount would change between now and the convention. Many didn't want to make their choice known because of how close the race for the nomination was.

Now it is clear, or at least, clear as it will ever get. The games need to end. I really dislike the idea of Hillary as the VP choice, but to unify the party and keep these rapid Hillary fans happy, I believe it must happen.

rapid should be rabid, as in animals who foam at the mouth.

Sarge,

Nobody can stop you from dreaming, that is for sure.

Ahmanrah....sorry to burst your ignorant bubble, but that is reality.

Fact: Obama did not win enough elected delegates to clinch the nomination.

Fact: Clinton did not win enough elected delegates to clinch the nomination.

Fact: super delegates do not count until they cast a vote AT the convention.

Fact: anything can happen between now and the convention to alter their vote.

Fact: you've got nothing to say but to show that you will deny reality.

SSE.....I don't care if they have a knock-down brawl until the Convention, that's fun politics for political junkies no matter who's doing it. Just so happens the Republican have a system better designed to get an earlier nominee.....and the competition looked at the numbers and said "I'm out for the good of the party (and I probably can't win in the end anyway)". Doesn't always work that way, but nothing ever does.

I really don't think Obama wants Billary on the ticket........would YOU?

No Sarge, I wouldn't. But to have a chance in November, I think he may have to bite the bullet and incorporate her.

"I don't think these super delegates who waited until the end, and brought Obama's totals over the required amount would change between now and the convention."

That would be 26 of them. The other 780 or so are also in play. And it all depends on how radioactive Obama becomes in the next few months. The entire notion of superdelegates is an elite safeguard to make sure that the "wrong" candidate isn't swept into power by the crazed and irrational populace. If Obama becomes a buyer's remorse candidate, they can always fix it.

"Many didn't want to make their choice known because of how close the race for the nomination was."

By the way, how many political favors do you think President Obama will owe those elected Democratic officials? He is, when all is said and done, a Chicago politician. He knows how to receive and give clout. (or, in Chicago colloquy, he knows "how to clout"). Ask Father Pfleger about his nice chunks of state and federal change that flew his way courtesy of the benevolent Barack.

"Now it is clear, or at least, clear as it will ever get. The games need to end."

I dont' think so. As long as those delegates are free to change (and they are, by design), there is no actual winner.

"I really dislike the idea of Hillary as the VP choice, but to unify the party and keep these rapid Hillary fans happy, I believe it must happen."

Hillary would be an idiot to take the veep spot, unless she has a plan to push to the top. She would either have to wait eight years (you can't be the VP running for president against your own president, so four is out) to run again, or be the failed VP candidate and go the way of Geraldine Ferraro; failed VP candidates go nowhere.

And Obama should hire a food tester if he gives her the spot. Plus, it would set up both of them as targets. She's already problematic; how does linking himself to her help him?

She should act loyal, make a nice convention speech, and stand for election as Senate leader, then take potshots at Obama for four years and pull in her fem fans, study the delegate map in 2012, and go for it again. Maybe get a divorce, too (especially if Bill does something really egregious between now and then.)

It's going to be a fun summer. Unfortunately for us, I don't think these clowns are going to go on vacation and leave us alone. They're going to be in our faces the whole time.

And the best part is, no matter what, the Denver convention is going to be chaos. And the GOP convention is going to make sure not to.

And the best part is, no matter what, the Denver convention is going to be chaos.

Lets try to separate wishful thinking from reality shall we. I'd say with Ron Paul supporters crashing more than one primary you have some watching out to do on your side of the aisle as well.

Sarge,

Sure a lot could happen, but reality is that it won't happen. Clinton and Obama aren't stupid, they know that to stir the pot any more than is appropriate is not only political suicide for themselves but for their party. That is the reality that will prevent your little "it aint over until its over" scenario from ever happening.

If Obama went nuts, went off a political cliff or got assassinated before the convention that is something else, but chances of any of those scenarios is probably as small as WWIII tomorrow.

Sorry, I live in the real world with real-world facts.......and a real-world bitch still playing the field behind closed doors.

after the Michelle Obama tapes come out 3 days beforehand

McCain will sit on those tapes until October, but since everybody has heard about them by now, I suspect that someone on the media is going to find them (if they really exist) any day now. So I don't discount your scenario.

But I wonder...why hasn't anyone in the media found these tapes yet? They are supposedly among the publicly available recordings from their church. I would think a team of researchers could track it down in a couple days. Come to think of it, I would imagine that every media outlet has been looking at recordings from Obama's church since Reverend Killjoy first hit the air. So I have a suspicion that this is so much rumor and BS, but we shall see...

Tapes this tapes that. Everybody thinks they have a fucking tape of everything these days. Only one excuse for keeping them buried until the end and that is the hope that you can squeak out a win by blind siding voters before they have a chance to do a reality check. But frankly in this day and age where nothing stays buried for long, the longer we go without seeing them the better the chance they simply don't exist.

And frankly why wait. If they are so damaging why not release them now. Because if they are that bad, nobody will forgive Obama now or in six months.

Leave it to Republicans to try to swift boat people with bullshit. Don't think it will work this time.

Fella.....why do you assume that REPUBLICANS have the alleged tape? It's "supposedly" in the hands of "a network", but I'd surmise that Hillary is as equally likely as Republicans.

And frankly why wait.

Don't ever go into politics and think you're gonna get anywhere, ignorant one. Timing is everything concerning political dirt and the People aren't paying attention to the POTUS race until September and beyond.

You don't report about a bullshit National Guard story in June.....you hold it until September.

Just ask Dan Rather.

Sarge,

Hell by your logic, why release it in September, why not 2 weeks before the election. One month, two months, is a life time in election is it not..especially since you said it first.

Why doesn't every one play nice until two weeks before the election, and then unleash all the dirt. Because people despite what you think are pretty poor at keeping damning secrets. Plus I thought all you Republicans thought the media were lapdogs of the democrats? Save Fox News! So it MUST BE! FOX that has it. Keep dreaming sherlock.

Fella.....why do you assume that REPUBLICANS have the alleged tape? It's "supposedly" in the hands of "a network", but I'd surmise that Hillary is as equally likely as Republicans.

The story I heard is that the McCain campaign has it and is sitting on it. That was the rumor I read off a couple right wing blogs, so it's not like I've got an ax to grind here. Well, that's just the nature of rumors...this only makes me think more that this is BS. Why would a network hold it back? It sounds like you've heard a different version than I.

Only one excuse for keeping them buried until the end and that is the hope that you can squeak out a win by blind siding voters before they have a chance to do a reality check.

Why do you assume that a reality check is required? Isn't it possible that Michelle Obama actually said something nasty and racist? The non-surprising nature of this rumor practically makes it an urban legend, since it plays on all our not-so-subliminal prejudices. And no, I'm not talking about racial prejudice (per se) or something that needs to be addressed, in case anyone is confused by the word "prejudice".

Some Fella,

Further up the page I said if she truly said something nasty, it wouldn't have to wait until the "right moment". You could release it and it would forever tarnish the candidate. Its only when you want to stun the electorate long enough to squeek out a victory that holding such news makes sense.

Someone needs to keep his politically ignorant comments to himself.

Dipshit, you simply do not release ANYTHING in the summer like your ignorant ass thinks one should (why not release it now....indeed)....as NOBODY IS PAYING ATTENTION.

Thusly, you release it in the fall........BUT, if you release it too soon or too late, you miss the most opportune time to get the most effect out of it. You release it right before the election and, true or not, it could backfire on you.

If it's true, you release it in the 60 to 30 day window to let eveyone talk about it for a month+....especially if it's damning. If it's false or semi-false and you're not Dan Rather being a dumbass....you release it the Thursday before the election to get the Thursday news-watchers and the Sunday morning talk-show watchers (relatively nobody watches the news Friday-Saturday)....but, once again, that could backfire on you in today's 24/7 news world.

Amateur....as always. You should stick to telling lies about 300,000 diagnosed PTSD cases in the last 5 years.

Some Fellas,

I guess its the difference between the Reverend Wright issue and discovering Obama is a homosexual or likes hookers. Obama's ratings plummted for awhile based on Reverend Wright, but have since recovered. But if Obama came out with something akin to the latter, you don't need the right timing for it to work for you...so there is no reason to sit on anything.

You could release it and it would forever tarnish the candidate. Its only when you want to stun the electorate long enough to squeek out a victory that holding such news makes sense.

You're so full of shi'ite it's pathetic. You don't give juicy dirt a whole summer off where the People aren't paying attention.....a whole 3 months to "go away"....you slam it on 'em about a month+ from E-Day so that's all the talk for a month. The People get bored with this stuff rather quickly and it becomes another "that's so yesterday" thing like the Rev. Wright will be.

Amateur.

I guess its the difference between the Reverend Wright issue and discovering Obama is a homosexual or likes hookers. Obama's ratings plummted for awhile based on Reverend Wright, but have since recovered.

Thanks for proving my point. Had the Rev. Wright shi'ite been held onto until late September......it would hurt him in November MUCH MORE than it coming out when it did.

End game....amateur.

Dipshit, you simply do not release ANYTHING in the summer like your ignorant ass thinks one should (why not release it now....indeed)....as NOBODY IS PAYING ATTENTION.

Nobody is paying attention? Please. You think if anybody in the Republican party got a whiff that Obama was gay that 99% of America that cares about such things wouldn't know within hours or days of it happening.

Anything that really matters to people, they will find out, and find out fast. You might have been right in the horse and pony days, but not these days with everybody having blackberry's and cellphones.

Sarge,

It must not have been that important if Obama recovered from it, and those tapes must not be that important if they have to use it at the last moment to achieve an affect. Anything real doesn't require to squeek it in right before November. Only those trying to tar and feather candidates with bullshit need to resort to such tactics.

Amateur....as always. You should stick to telling lies about 300,000 diagnosed PTSD cases in the last 5 years.

And you should do some reading up on the validity of taking a statistical sample versus surveying everybody. Statisticans have been doing it for years and most politicians that fight the tape, generally end up without a job.

Its also pretty pathetic that Republicans once again hang their hopes are finding dirt about candidate, rather than winning or losing on the issues. Pretty much typifies what disgusts me about the Republican party.

"Its also pretty pathetic that Republicans once again hang their hopes are finding dirt about candidate, rather than winning or losing on the issues. Pretty much typifies what disgusts me about the Republican party."

I'm not sure that whether or not a candidate's wife is a raving racist qualifies as "dirt." Wouldn't that be something you would want to know before making the mistake of handing that couple power?

i have no doubts about Michelle. I don't want her in there. She is obsessed with race. It's why they spent 20 years in the Afrocentric church. It's why she's bitter. It's going to be why she thinks they lose in November.

By the way, Obama says that he is saddened by the Rezko decision and that he's "not the Tony I knew."

Isn't that what he said about Reverend Wright? Makes me wonder just how easy it is to bamboozle this guy. THAT Tony Rezko (the one going to prison) is THE Tony Rezko. And if Obama didn't know it, doesn't think Bill Ayres is a terrorist, and didn't know that Wright was a black power disciple with delusions of grandeur, how can we trust him to pick advisors he can trust? So far, he has made really bad choices for people to surround himself with. What happens when personnel is his most important job for a few months?

i have no doubts about Michelle. I don't want her in there. She is obsessed with race. It's why they spent 20 years in the Afrocentric church. It's why she's bitter. It's going to be why she thinks they lose in November.

Hmm, that's cute. And I thought most blacks went to black churches because they were black. Now if you are a black going to a black church you must be obsessed with race. Are you obsessed with race Kerry, because I doubt you go to a church that less than 50% white.

Sarge,

And the Michelle tapes aside I think Republicans are underestimating a major problem that will haunt McCain. Every time another one of Bush's fuck-ups comes to light, will be more free ride by the Democrats to ask the American people, do you really want a Republican to run the show....

First McClellan

And now this.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/19586829.html

Read it and weep.

And I am sure Democrats will keep digging. Of course they have a reason. Since all of this should have been told to us from the beginning.

Nobody is paying attention? Please. You think if anybody in the Republican party got a whiff that Obama was gay that 99% of America that cares about such things wouldn't know within hours or days of it happening.

Yes, political amateur, during the summer months NOBODY pays attention to politics outside the pathetic few percentage points of us that are political geeks that pay attention non-stop........and, political amateur, that 99% of America that cares whether or not Obama is a homosexual (that will hear about it through their church)......ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR OBAMA ANYWAY.....so releasing juicy dirt that only targets that demograph is a political LOSER that only brings out pro-Obama people MORE.

Man, you're dumb.

Anything that really matters to people, they will find out, and find out fast. You might have been right in the horse and pony days, but not these days with everybody having blackberry's and cellphones.

You give the People too much credit and couldn't be more uninformed about how much the People pay attention to ANYthing......the majority of the People don't pay attention to much outside their pathetic little lives. Yes, the younger demographs have their little hand-held devices, but they're also not checking out politics on 'em......and the younger they are, the less likely they're gonna vote anyway......AND the less likely they're gonna care about Obama being homosexual. Very simple population psychology 101 stuff.

It must not have been that important if Obama recovered from it, and those tapes must not be that important if they have to use it at the last moment to achieve an affect. Anything real doesn't require to squeek it in right before November. Only those trying to tar and feather candidates with bullshit need to resort to such tactics.

Dumbass......THAT is why you release it about 30 days before the election and not 8 months.....to maximize the negative effect........but Hillary was desperate, so she had to use it in Feb. The Wright stuff DID hurt Obama in the following primaries involving the largest voting population....white middle-class middle-aged people. BUT, much of the damage done is reversed by election time BECAUSE of the 8+ months time he had to distance himself from the racist Reverend. AND, to think Obama "recovered" from it with NON-DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS.....just shos YOUR ignorance once again.

Go on....keep saying stupid things.

And you should do some reading up on the validity of taking a statistical sample versus surveying everybody. Statisticans have been doing it for years and most politicians that fight the tape, generally end up without a job.

Sorry, I never learned in my Stats 1+2, Biostats 1+2, OR epidemiology 1+2....that I was supposed to manufacture bullshit studies to generate bullshit conclusion of 300,000 troops getting PTSD over 5 years. Here I thought I was supposed to generate scientifically viable numbers. Hint: It's valid to take a sample and extrapolate it out in to a larger population, It's not valid to manufacture 300,000 cases of PTSD because these guys might have had a symptom of PTSD....according to the surveyors......but they know there're idiots like you that willingly lap this shit up and further their statistical lies on-line.

Go on....YOU made the claim that 300,000 of our troopers got PTSD over the last 5 years. Back up your lie.

Its also pretty pathetic that Republicans once again hang their hopes are finding dirt about candidate, rather than winning or losing on the issues. Pretty much typifies what disgusts me about the Republican party.

Your head's stuck THAT far up your ass? If Obama HAD dirt on McCain, he'd use it just like he did with that preacher-man who Obama tried to link to McCain a la Rev. Wright to say "see, him too" when it was a big fat non-comparison...McCain was never one of his flock. The preacher's name exscapes me...BECAUSE it was a non-comparison.

....and Obama CANNOT run on "the issues"...he's running on "change" and "hope" just like Deval Patrick did in MA. "Together we can" is quite similar to "yes, we can"......the only problem is "can" do "what". Deval found out that "together, we can" be one of the worst governors in MA history.

First McClellan

Keep dreaming. McClelland is a politician that wrote a book that said nothing and relatively nobody is going to read it.

Read it and weep.

Wow....Senate Democrats "held onto a report" that said something negative about Bush?? Whodathunkit? ...but you're right....Democrats will keep digging up Bush dirt and trying to pin it on McCain...but the tactic will fail.

How's THAT jibe with your bullshite claim that Democrats "run on the issues" while Republicans will be "diggin up dirt"?????? How about their lying claim that they're not going to accept lobbyist money......when they ARE, they're just not going to call those donating to them "lobbyists".......they'll be "unions" and "guilds"....and "indepedent PACs".....and idiots like you will lap THAT shit up just like you do everything else coming from them.

Amateur.....

Nobody is paying attention? Please. You think if anybody in the Republican party got a whiff that Obama was gay that 99% of America that cares about such things wouldn't know within hours or days of it happening.

Yes, political amateur, during the summer months NOBODY pays attention to politics outside the pathetic few percentage points of us that are political geeks that pay attention non-stop........and, political amateur, that 99% of America that cares whether or not Obama is a homosexual (that will hear about it through their church)......ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR OBAMA ANYWAY.....so releasing juicy dirt that only targets that demograph is a political LOSER that only brings out pro-Obama people MORE.

Man, you're dumb.

Anything that really matters to people, they will find out, and find out fast. You might have been right in the horse and pony days, but not these days with everybody having blackberry's and cellphones.

You give the People too much credit and couldn't be more uninformed about how much the People pay attention to ANYthing......the majority of the People don't pay attention to much outside their pathetic little lives. Yes, the younger demographs have their little hand-held devices, but they're also not checking out politics on 'em......and the younger they are, the less likely they're gonna vote anyway......AND the less likely they're gonna care about Obama being homosexual. Very simple population psychology 101 stuff.

It must not have been that important if Obama recovered from it, and those tapes must not be that important if they have to use it at the last moment to achieve an affect. Anything real doesn't require to squeek it in right before November. Only those trying to tar and feather candidates with bullshit need to resort to such tactics.

Dumbass......THAT is why you release it about 30 days before the election and not 8 months.....to maximize the negative effect........but Hillary was desperate, so she had to use it in Feb. The Wright stuff DID hurt Obama in the following primaries involving the largest voting population....white middle-class middle-aged people. BUT, much of the damage done is reversed by election time BECAUSE of the 8+ months time he had to distance himself from the racist Reverend. AND, to think Obama "recovered" from it with NON-DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS.....just shos YOUR ignorance once again.

Go on....keep saying stupid things.

And you should do some reading up on the validity of taking a statistical sample versus surveying everybody. Statisticans have been doing it for years and most politicians that fight the tape, generally end up without a job.

Sorry, I never learned in my Stats 1+2, Biostats 1+2, OR epidemiology 1+2....that I was supposed to manufacture bullshit studies to generate bullshit conclusion of 300,000 troops getting PTSD over 5 years. Here I thought I was supposed to generate scientifically viable numbers. Hint: It's valid to take a sample and extrapolate it out in to a larger population, It's not valid to manufacture 300,000 cases of PTSD because these guys might have had a symptom of PTSD....according to the surveyors......but they know there're idiots like you that willingly lap this shit up and further their statistical lies on-line.

Go on....YOU made the claim that 300,000 of our troopers got PTSD over the last 5 years. Back up your lie.

Its also pretty pathetic that Republicans once again hang their hopes are finding dirt about candidate, rather than winning or losing on the issues. Pretty much typifies what disgusts me about the Republican party.

Your head's stuck THAT far up your ass? If Obama HAD dirt on McCain, he'd use it just like he did with that preacher-man who Obama tried to link to McCain a la Rev. Wright to say "see, him too" when it was a big fat non-comparison...McCain was never one of his flock. The preacher's name exscapes me...BECAUSE it was a non-comparison.

....and Obama CANNOT run on "the issues"...he's running on "change" and "hope" just like Deval Patrick did in MA. "Together we can" is quite similar to "yes, we can"......the only problem is "can" do "what". Deval found out that "together, we can" be one of the worst governors in MA history.

First McClellan

Keep dreaming. McClelland is a politician that wrote a book that said nothing and relatively nobody is going to read it.

Read it and weep.

Wow....Senate Democrats "held onto a report" that said something negative about Bush?? Whodathunkit? ...but you're right....Democrats will keep digging up Bush dirt and trying to pin it on McCain...but the tactic will fail.

How's THAT jibe with your bullshite claim that Democrats "run on the issues" while Republicans will be "diggin up dirt"?????? How about their lying claim that they're not going to accept lobbyist money......when they ARE, they're just not going to call those donating to them "lobbyists".......they'll be "unions" and "guilds"....and "indepedent PACs".....and idiots like you will lap THAT shit up just like you do everything else coming from them.

Amateur.....

yeah...oops....friggin' thing wouldn't accept the HTML

Sarge,

You a Kerry better compare notes. Because according to her, everybody in America is concerned about homosexuals taking over the world. And besides homosexuals is only one example. Obama ranting about gay marriage being legal would be another one that might permanent ruffle feathers, regardless of when it was released.

As far as McClellan, I judge the accuracy of the book based on how hot and bothered the Administration was about it, and I haven't seen that much commotion out of them in quite some time.

"Hmm, that's cute. And I thought most blacks went to black churches because they were black."

I didn't say "black church." I said "Afrocentric" church. There is an enormous difference. Trinity is a United Church of Christ church, which is doctrinally diametrically opposed to the vast majority of "black churches," which are Baptist, African Methodist Episcopal, and Church of God in Christ. UCC is a mostly white denomination, left-leaning, and not at all similar to 90% of the "black church."

"Now if you are a black going to a black church you must be obsessed with race."

No, but if you are going to a church obsessed with race that feeds your racial fears and paranoia every week, you will be. Besides, it's what she did her thesis on. You don't think she's obsessed?

"Are you obsessed with race Kerry, because I doubt you go to a church that less than 50% white."

No, I'm not obsessed with race, nor is my church. We are intentionally diverse, and we have people from every race and dozens of nations. But it would be extremely odd (in fact, racist) of me to go to a church that was less than 50% white, since the population of our county is almost ninety percent white. And since the nation is no more than 15% African-American, I wouldn't expect anyone in this country to go to a church less than 50% white, if they were trying to be "representative," as the DNC likes to be.

"And the Michelle tapes aside I think Republicans are underestimating a major problem that will haunt McCain. Every time another one of Bush's fuck-ups comes to light, will be more free ride by the Democrats to ask the American people, do you really want a Republican to run the show...."

I would rather have a Republican than the clowns that run the DNC--elitist snobs, obsessed with classification, and totally incompetent.

As to the DEMOCRATIC report, all I need to know is that it was written by the DEMOCRATIC majority on the committee and opposed by the REPUBLICAN minority. That tells me that there is no apolitical consensus, so it's not a question of fact but opinion. Therefore, it is no more useful than an op-ed piece in USA Today.

"Nobody is paying attention? Please. You think if anybody in the Republican party got a whiff that Obama was gay that 99% of America that cares about such things wouldn't know within hours or days of it happening."

Are you kidding me? If Barack Obama was gay, nobody would vote for him--not because he was gay, but because he is MARRIED and therefore a LIAR.

"People don't pay attention to much outside their pathetic little lives."

Actually, I'd like to put in a good word here for the lives of ordinary people. Those lives are not "pathetic," though they may be little. But in my opinion, whether a father goes to his kid's ballgame or recital is a lot more important than whether or not Hillary Clinton tells people to vote for Barack Obama.

The people are, in fact, more important than the politicians, though perhaps less influential. Let's not give them the ego-stoking satisfaction of making them more important than they are.

And I hope with all my heart that people who get their news from Jon Stuart and tenured radical college professors don't vote at all. They don't know what they're doing. They don't know anything about the real world. And they're totally brainwashed.

You a Kerry better compare notes. Because according to her, everybody in America is concerned about homosexuals taking over the world. And besides homosexuals is only one example. Obama ranting about gay marriage being legal would be another one that might permanent ruffle feathers, regardless of when it was released.

I don't care what Kerry says, so stop equating her to me.

Yes, there are specific things that don't matter when they're released, especially if it's a simple position on an issue, but DIRT....scandalous stuff....has a specific time period that affects the candidate the most. Releasing Rev. Wright 2 years ago when Obama started his campaign would not hurt him as much as last Feb.....which would not hurt him as much as if it's released within 30+ days of E-Day.

This is REALLY amateur stuff.

As far as McClellan, I judge the accuracy of the book based on how hot and bothered the Administration was about it, and I haven't seen that much commotion out of them in quite some time.

How silly of me for judging the "accuracy of a book" by the veracity of what's said and actual evidence presented to back up what's said.

Your logic says that Ann Coulter's books are the most accurately written books in the world......as THEY garner not only a huge reaction from those she writes about....libs and lib politicians....but also actual physical attacks.

Actually, I'd like to put in a good word here for the lives of ordinary people. Those lives are not "pathetic," though they may be little. But in my opinion, whether a father goes to his kid's ballgame or recital is a lot more important than whether or not Hillary Clinton tells people to vote for Barack Obama.

By "pathetic", I mean only that the average persons life is a mere one piece of sand on the beach and that they live their lives without thinking much about that huge percentage of life which is outside theirs.....pathetic in relation to everything they COULD be thinking about. What they DO think about is a pathetic portion of total reality. They go to work, go back to their family, have dinner, watch American Idol or 24 or Survivor or Lost or "fill in the blank with the latest must-see TV" and repeat for 5 days a week. Spend weekends doing "whatever" with the family and take a vacation or 2 a year to AMERICAN vacation spots. They do not pay attention to politics until near E-Day.....hence you don't release dirt on your opponent until it has the biggest impact with the most people paying attention.

I would rather have a Republican than the clowns that run the DNC--elitist snobs

LOL, I love how Republicans delude themselves with the belief that only Democrats are elitist snobs. I can't remember the last time American's didn't elect an elitist of some stripe into the white house. So keep on Kerry using stupid labels that have no basis in fact.

In fact I would say that McCain with his billionaire wife, and hefty allowance qualifies more as an elitist than Obama who at least had to earn his way to the position in life he now holds.

"Elitist" has little to do with how much $$$$$ your billionaire wife has and everything to do with YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS OTHERS.

One can be an elitist like Obama and Clinton without ever having had billions of dollars.

One can also have $$$$billions and not be an elitist.

John Kerry is an elitist regardless of his wife's $$$$

Awwwwww.....but then you cojldn't blindly bash McCain in a manner you never would've bashed JFinKerry and HIS billionaire wife.

......I wouldn't EVER put GWBush in the "elitist" category, because he just doesn't have the elitist attitude towards others.

I never met a Republican, especially a "moral" conservative who didn't think they were better than everyone else, especially a democrat. Depends on whose setting the definition of elitist. Republicans think they own the definition, and by that very measure they are elitist themselves.

Elitist is as elitist does, Forrest.....if YOU misdefine it as "having a wife with a bajillion $$$$$$", as you've done, then you are very simply using an incorrect definition.

If you define elitism as "twisting the definition of a word to your benefit", than you are misdefinine it.

If you definte "elitism" as "thinking you're better than everyone else", then you're close but no cigar........and you're full of shi'ite about "every Republican you've met"...but if you didn't say it, you'd have nothing to say.

Elitism is an attitude that either you deserve better treatment because of who you are socially/financially "Do you know who I am??"......or, as it pertains to public policy decisions, that you know what's better for the People than the People do because of who you are.........that you, the elite, should be deciding everything in the lives of the People through the cradle to grave nanny state because they're too stupid to know how to live their own lives. That you should take their hard earned $$$$$$$ to do all the things you decide need getting done for them instead of letting them keep their own $$$$ and doing it for themselves...or not.

...the taking away the life-decisions of the People and replacing that freedom with YOUR plans for them because you know what's better for them than they do.

"I never met a Republican, especially a "moral" conservative who didn't think they were better than everyone else, especially a democrat."

Actually, I believe that all people are intrinsically AS GOOD AS and NO BETTER THAN all other people. And I would call myself a moral ultraconservative.

"Depends on whose setting the definition of elitist."

Why don't we use the ACTUAL definition of "elitist." As usual, you are confusing one word with another. Just as you can be a Marxist without actually being Karl Marx, so you can be an elitIST without being a member of the ELITE.

The word YOU want is "elite," not "elitist." An "elite" is one who is part of the unique and numerically small class of people who are at the top of any given power system. Hence, all US presidents, and all of the current candidates qualify as "elites."

However, an "elitist" is someone who BELIEVES that it's best for certain people to consolidate power and tell everyone else what to do. As in universal health care. And global warmist fascism. The Clintons, the Obamas, and the entire Democratic National Committee qualify, thanks to the system by which they decided to choose the nominee, since it privileged and empowered the votes of elected party officials above all other voters.

"Republicans think they own the definition, and by that very measure they are elitist themselves."

No, they don't think they "own" the definition. They think they can READ a dictionary.

Actually, I believe that all people are intrinsically AS GOOD AS and NO BETTER THAN all other people. And I would call myself a moral ultraconservative.

Yet you never stop telling people your religion is better than there's, that your more patriotic than they are, that you know better how marriage should be defined, etc etc...and you know better how, and what laws should be written regarding morality. This is another side of the elitist coin, you just refuse to admit it.

However, an "elitist" is someone who BELIEVES that it's best for certain people to consolidate power and tell everyone else what to do.

Dito. Oh and you don't think Republicans want to tell people what they can and can't do? And you don't think Republicans want to ensure that the Republican elite rules the country. Please, like I said to Kerry, Republicans are no different. They want to control the agenda too, they just have a different set of core issues that they harp on, like abortion, flag burning, who deserves what rights, what behavior is appropriate, what religion is best, what clothing is appropriate...on and on

Recently I bought a TRAX ticket to travel, and among the coins I received in change was one of the new golden dollar coins. Since I hadn't seen one before, I looked it over with some excitement. Imagine my surprise and deep disappointment when I discovered that our national motto, “In God we trust,” which is on all of our other bills and coins, was nowhere to be found. Yet another sign that our nation is losing its moral compass. David W. Haughey Murray

Here's a perfect example of Republican shoving his holier than though attitude on the rest of us. I am sure if he had a chance to force a constitutional amendment to "REQUIRE" in God we Trust on every coin and piece of paper produced by the US government on the American people he'd try his damnedest.

Where in reality this guy just needs to get a life. Because you can print "In God we Trust" on every piece of paper and metal in the world and it won't make the world more moral.

"Yet you never stop telling people your religion is better than there's, that your more patriotic than they are, that you know better how marriage should be defined, etc etc...and you know better how, and what laws should be written regarding morality. This is another side of the elitist coin, you just refuse to admit it."

No. Again, you miss the point and misinterpret words (and use them badly, as well. But that's just the elitist in me, demanding conformity to the authority of spelling and grammar!)

There is a difference between adhering to an authority you believe superior and believing one's SELF to be superior. Are you telling me that you do not think that the American system is better than any other? That the Constitution is a superior document to other potential forms of government?

Those of us who believe in the Bible adhere to ITS restrictions, not our OWN. We do not hold ourselves intrinsically superior, but recognize a more perfect Authority. Those who are strict constructionists (as, I believe, Sarge is) would say the same of the Constitution.

It is the moral relativist who holds himself superior, because he bows to no authority, thereby becoming the only and ultimate authority.

Sarge, would you consider yourself above the Constitution? I assume you would say no. You recognize that authority and accept it. Where your initial personal response in attitude differs from the document, I assume you would remain within the dictates of the document and change your perspective, not its (except, of course, that it can be amended. Until then, however, the Constitution as existing remains the controlling legal authority.) Would I be right about that?

And that does not make you an ELITIST. To the contrary--it makes you an adherent of our own system.

Ahmanrah, on the other hand takes only his own whim as the controlling authority. That, in fact, makes HIM an elitist.

""However, an "elitist" is someone who BELIEVES that it's best for certain people to consolidate power and tell everyone else what to do.""

"Dito. Oh and you don't think Republicans want to tell people what they can and can't do? And you don't think Republicans want to ensure that the Republican elite rules the country. Please, like I said to Kerry, Republicans are no different. They want to control the agenda too, they just have a different set of core issues that they harp on, like abortion, flag burning, who deserves what rights, what behavior is appropriate, what religion is best, what clothing is appropriate...on and on"

No, there is a difference. The entire Democratic party is designed to BE elitist. It is why they have Superdelegates--and why they fought 100 extra years to maintain tacism as a fact of public life. And why they fought a bloody civil war to try to prevent the elitist system of white entitlement from being brought down.

The Republican party was founded to defeat exactly that elitism and classificational obsession that the Democratic party retains to this very day.

As to David Murray, I have no idea who he is, or why you wanted to bring him into the discussion. His information is simply flat wrong. "In God We Trust," "E Pluribus Unim," and the year of minting are stamped on the edge of the $1 coin.

"Here's a perfect example of Republican shoving his holier than though attitude on the rest of us. I am sure if he had a chance to force a constitutional amendment to "REQUIRE" in God we Trust on every coin and piece of paper produced by the US government on the American people he'd try his damnedest."

I'm sure it would easily pass. And, since it frustrates YOUR will, you would object. Even though there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Here is, in fact, a good example of where you go off the rails as an elitist. Although there is nothing unconstitutional about stamping the coin "In God We Trust," you think it is somehow wrong or offensive. Therefore, you think it shouldn't be done. Your authority is in your head, and you won't change what's in your head to conform to the actual authority of the Constitution.

Why?

Because you "know better."

Sarge, would you consider yourself above the Constitution? I assume you would say no. You recognize that authority and accept it. Where your initial personal response in attitude differs from the document, I assume you would remain within the dictates of the document and change your perspective, not its (except, of course, that it can be amended. Until then, however, the Constitution as existing remains the controlling legal authority.) Would I be right about that?

Actually....to split hairs....as a non-governmental-entity, I consider myself "extra-Constitutional"....outside of the Constitution.....as the Constitution neither dictates MY behaviors, nor can I violate provisions of the Constitution or Constitutional rights of others.

Actually, I AM in a psedo-governmental organization, (we're also a pseudo-private company as we don't take $$$$ from the State and they don't govern over us...we're not part of the budget), not a governing entity....but that's beside your point that ahmanrahman will never "get" because he thinks having a wife with a $$ bajillion makes you an elitist.

Kerry,

Given the fact that Republicans want a constitutional amendment for just about everything these days, suggests to me that most have a problem with it. And particularly on things like gay marriage you want an amendment, because that is the only way you can avoid having the law you want being voted down as unconstitutional by the language in the existing constitution.

"Given the fact that Republicans want a constitutional amendment for just about everything these days..."

'Everything?' Like what?

"...suggests to me that most have a problem with it."

No, we have problems with the INTERPRETATION of existing law.

"And particularly on things like gay marriage you want an amendment, because that is the only way you can avoid having the law you want being voted down as unconstitutional by the language in the existing constitution."

No, we want an Amendment protecting the definition of marriage because it is the only way we can avoid having THE LEGISLATIVE WILL OF THE PEOPLE begin RULED unconstitutional by ACTIVIST JUDGES promoting their own agenda in violation of their constitutional duty.

We're not usually getting the chance to be "voted" down--and when we DO put it to a vote, we always WIN. It's when the losers whine to the courts and cheat that we object to the outcome.

Conservatives want RESTORATIVE amendments to address Court rulings that have perverted the meaning of the original text. They want to change the Constitution in accordance with the will of the people--unlike Democrats, who just want to use judges and courts to push their preferences onto the people, whether they want them or not.

In other words, Republicans have to go for the Constitutionally-provided Amendment process because Democrats have evaded the Constitutional process by flooding the courts until they got what they wanted. Remember that whole "rule of law" thing during the Impeachment hearings? That was OUR side of the table. YOUR side was all about nuance and "context" and how they WANTED things to be--not how they were.

"Given the fact that Republicans want a constitutional amendment for just about everything these days..."

'Everything?' Like what?

Do I really have to name them? Please. Flag burning, gay marriage, prayer in school, abortion, english the official language, "God" in the allegiance, to eliminate the right of children of non-citizen parents born in the US to be citizens.

No, we want an Amendment protecting the definition of marriage because it is the only way we can avoid having THE LEGISLATIVE WILL OF THE PEOPLE begin RULED unconstitutional by ACTIVIST JUDGES promoting their own agenda in violation of their constitutional duty.

In other words, you don't want judges that disagree with you to have a say.

In other words, Republicans have to go for the Constitutionally-provided Amendment process because Democrats have evaded the Constitutional process by flooding the courts until they got what they wanted.

Oh the downtrodden and helpless Republican...what a pathetic excuse. Maybe you just can't get it done, because the public isn't on your side.

""Given the fact that Republicans want a constitutional amendment for just about everything these days...""

'Everything?' Like what?

"Do I really have to name them? Please. Flag burning, gay marriage, prayer in school, abortion, english the official language, "God" in the allegiance, to eliminate the right of children of non-citizen parents born in the US to be citizens."

I've never heard of the "God in the pledge" amendment. Who proposed it?

Besides that, what exactly is the problem you have with Constitutional amendment, anyway? It's the most Democratic process there is in this nation. It guarantees that nothing will change unless the majority at EVERY level agrees. 3/4 of the House, 3/4 of the Senate--and the expressed will of the people in 3/4 of the states. Not a simple majority. Not just a legislature. Not just Congress. And not just the Courts. It has to be the will of the majority of EVERYBODY. How can it get more "democratic" than that?

""No, we want an Amendment protecting the definition of marriage because it is the only way we can avoid having THE LEGISLATIVE WILL OF THE PEOPLE being RULED unconstitutional by ACTIVIST JUDGES promoting their own agenda in violation of their constitutional duty.""

"In other words, you don't want judges that disagree with you to have a say."

No, in the same words, we don't want the judges to override the will of the people.

""In other words, Republicans have to go for the Constitutionally-provided Amendment process because Democrats have evaded the Constitutional process by flooding the courts until they got what they wanted.""

"Oh the downtrodden and helpless Republican...what a pathetic excuse. Maybe you just can't get it done, because the public isn't on your side."

No, we can't get it done because the public IS on our SIDE.

We can't "get it done" because when we DO "get it done" by getting the PUBLIC (who ARE "on our side") to vote to pass laws (that SUPPORT "our side"), the Courts (who are NOT "on our side") overturn the public will by striking down those laws. Therefore, the way to make sure that the will of the PUBLIC (which is ON OUR SIDE) is done is to negate the courts' ability to strike that will down as unconstitutional--by CHANGING the CONSTITUTION, using LEGAL methods provided for and anticipated by the FRAMERS who designed the whole system.

In other words, we are following the law, to the letter, to ensure that the WILL OF THE PUBLIC becomes--and STAYS--the law.

Why are you so afraid of that?

Allowing courts to rewrite law contrary to Constitutional powers = good.

Amending the Constituiton following Constitutional guidelines = bad.

Do I really have to name them? Please. Flag burning, gay marriage, prayer in school, abortion, english the official language, "God" in the allegiance, to eliminate the right of children of non-citizen parents born in the US to be citizens.

Let's see...

..flag burning....dumb one. Just don't burn one in front of me, as I will kick the ever living shit outta you and gladly go to jail for it.

gay marriage......or ANY State-recognized marriage for that matter, IS A STATE ISSUE.

Prayer in school....students should be allowed to pary on their own...to set up prayer groups on their own.....as THEY WISH (so long as they're not disrupting the education of others). Too bad that the schools/towns have caved under lawsuits and disallowed students from praying even on their own.

Abortion IS A STATE ISSUE...'nuff said.

English as THE language of the State (as in, the language that the State will conduct all business in......I'm all for this one. Ballots in multiple languages are OK because THAT IS A STATE ISSUE...but the State should not be teaching the children in any language other than english...outside of foreign language classes, of course.

God is already IN the Pledge.....has been by law since 1954. The argument is "is it Constituitonal" and it is as you are free to NOT say "under God" just as I did for 13 years and continue to this day. Besides, the 1A only prohibits the government from establishing a State religion, not the complete BS separation of church and state it has become that was never intended.

The intent of the 14th Amendment was to make the newly freed slaves American citizens, nothing more.

It's intent was NEVER to ensure that people sneaking ILLEGALLY into the country can drop a kid over the border and then they get to stay ILLEGALLY because their kid is now a "citizen". I have no problem with an anti-anchor-baby Amendment......or even a court interpretting the Constitution so as to disallow anchor babies as citizens because that was never the intent of the Amendment.....no Amendment necessary.

.....but that's all if you actually have an understanding of the Constitution and its intent as written.

Kerry,

I am not opposed to constitutional amendments, I am simply demonstrating that Republicans just like Democrats have their little pet project that they want to force on the population. Democrats want a health care system that covers everybody, you want to prevent people from burning the flag. Democrats want you to leave their abortion rights alone, you want to take them away

No, we can't get it done because the public IS on our SIDE.

That's right. Its you against the bad evil system. Funny how with all that support you still couldn't get it done with Republicans controlling 2 and 3/4 branches of the US government. There are numerous ways of getting around that last branch of government, the activist supreme court, but you still didn't manage to get anybody to ratify your amendments. Oh, if only you had the support you claim.

gay marriage......or ANY State-recognized marriage for that matter, IS A STATE ISSUE.

Disagree, people need to be able to freely move between states and maintain their rights for the most part without being harassed or denied basic things like health care, inheritance rights, custody rights, etc. Or heaven forbid being arrested for being a same sex couple in a backwards state...extreme for sure, but if you make it a freeforall the fed can't overide, that could happen.

that should have read...."people need to be able to freely move between states and maintain their rights for the most part without being harassed or denied basic things like health care, inheritance rights, custody rights, based on some states arbitrary decision on someone's marital status. Same reason that underpins the reasons there are basic standard for education, environmental quality, employment security, etc set at the national level, so that people can expect (rather than hope and pray) that the next state they move to doesn't have any major surprises.

Perfect example being that it was technically legal to kill Mormons in Missouri until 1976. Though I doubt you would have gotten away testing the law at the state level, you definitely wouldn't have once it got to the federal level. Because it goes against fundamental rights that are the domain of the federal government. And that is where this gay marriage thing will ultimately end up I suspect.

Why are you so afraid of that?

That one day a bunch of boneheaded Republicans just might succeed in codifying discrimination into constitution. But like your last attempt to legislate morality (Prohibition) there will always be the ability to repeal amendments made by our overzealous and backward ancestors.

Watching Kerry and Sarge laying into Ahmanrah is so pointless. Don't you two realize that all this proves nothing? Ahmanrah represents, to you, everything you despise about liberals. Slamming him around represents a cathartic pleasure, like if someone started spouting to me that Bush was the greatest man who ever lived. Sarge, can't you see that's why I gave up on Kerry? Batting her around doesn't mean that I've "defeated conservatism". No matter what I say, she'll never learn, but I can salvage a certain schadenfraude-y pleasure in the consistency of her self-delusion. I know it's cathartic, but it's not fulfilling, and it makes for grim spectacle.

But if not for that, there wouldn't be any conversation at all. This site is really circling the drain.,,I wonder how often Steve checks in.

Disagree, people need to be able to freely move between states and maintain their rights for the most part without being harassed or denied basic things like health care, inheritance rights, custody rights, etc.

Disagree all you want. There is no marriage "right" concerning the federal government. There are State marriage laws and State marriage laws vary as the ideology of People of the States vary. Healthcare is not a "right" to be denied. Neither the State nor an employer HAS to supply you, your spouse or your kids healthcare coverage. It's become a benefit for employment, nothing more. There is no inheritance right, there are inheritance laws.....homosexuals don't need to be married to be able to pass on their wealth to whomever they choose. There is not such thing as "custody rights", there are laws pertaining to custody and homosexuals can co-adopt and thusly share custody of children. Homosexuals can also have surrogate mothers make babies for them. I will be seeing half of a male homosexual couple this weekend that both co-adopted a kid from a Russian orphanage AND have a 7 month old daughter from a surrogate.....and they live in CHicago where their Massachusetts marriage is not recognized....is null/void.

PAssing on BS rhetoric and claiming that everything is a "right" won't get you anywhere.

Same reason that underpins the reasons there are basic standard for education, environmental quality, employment security, etc set at the national level, so that people can expect (rather than hope and pray) that the next state they move to doesn't have any major surprises.

.....and everything listed here is NOT the job of the federal government as outlined in Article I, Secion 8 or any other provision of the Constitution. These are all those things that are State rights/powers as mentioned in the 10th Amendment that used to mean something until you libs started ignoring the Constitution and started playing nanny state with the fed gov.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Amendment is very specific and definite. EVERYTHING not specifically outlined in the Constitution as a federal power is a State issue. That means Education is a State issue. Environmental quality is a State issue. Eemployment security is a State issue.

Perfect example being that it was technically legal to kill Mormons in Missouri until 1976. Though I doubt you would have gotten away testing the law at the state level, you definitely wouldn't have once it got to the federal level. Because it goes against fundamental rights that are the domain of the federal government. And that is where this gay marriage thing will ultimately end up I suspect.

Lots of states have lots of laws on the books that are asinine and/or outdated...I shudder about some of the archaic Massachusetts laws still on the books......this one was stricken because MURDER IS ILLEGAL in Missouri, not at the federal level...AT THE STATE LEVEL. Murder within a State is a STATE issue... a State crime...unless it pertains to the State killing someone through capital punishment.....THEN there are Constitutional protections against summary executions and such through the 5th Amendment.

The only things that are the domain of the federal government are those things specifically outlined in the United States Constitution.

"I am not opposed to constitutional amendments, I am simply demonstrating that Republicans just like Democrats have their little pet project that they want to force on the population."

But that's not true. Republicans want amendments that PREVENT things from being "forced on the population." And, in the case we are talking about, the Republicans are fighting for something that the population has ALREADY expressed its will on. Not something they are "forcing" on the population.

"Democrats want a health care system that covers everybody..."

Wait. We're talking about Constitutional amendments here. I missed the Democrats' "free health care" amendment. Please, tell me all about it.

""No, we can't get it done because the public IS on our SIDE.""

"That's right."

I know it is. That's why I said it.

"Its you against the bad evil system."

No, it's the people against the bad, power-grabbing judges.

"Funny how with all that support you still couldn't get it done with Republicans controlling 2 and 3/4 branches of the US government."

You can't fix every mess the Democrats have made over the past 70 years in just a few. There are deep-rooted problems in this country that will take quite a while to undo. But they're not the ones you think they are.

"There are numerous ways of getting around that last branch of government, the activist supreme court, but you still didn't manage to get anybody to ratify your amendments."

Wait. What amendments are we talking about here? There have only been six unratified amendments in US history, 3 since 1900, the last of which is the ERA--which the liberals failed at, not the conservatives (God bless Phyllis Schlafly.)

"Oh, if only you had the support you claim."

The electoral evidence says we do.

"Disagree, people need to be able to freely move between states and maintain their rights for the most part without being harassed or denied basic things like health care, inheritance rights, custody rights, etc. Or heaven forbid being arrested for being a same sex couple in a backwards state...extreme for sure, but if you make it a freeforall the fed can't overide, that could happen."

Hang on there. I know since Lawrence v. Texas (the 5-year old sodomy case that will be overturned by the next conservative court) there has been a "right" to personal homosexual sodomy--but when precisely did we decide that everyone has a constitutional "right" to "health care?" Of any kind? Much less the "right" to be covered under someone else's plan?

Oh, and hang on here:

"based on some states arbitrary decision on someone's marital status."

Actually, since it's the state that determines the status of one's civil marriage, it seems to me that it's not "your" marital status at all--it's the state's definition of status. In other words, I see no reason why you should carry it with you. It belongs to the state, and it's the state's right to determine whether or not to recognize that or not.

The equal protection clause involves *individual* rights, not collective ones.

"Same reason that underpins the reasons there are basic standard for education, environmental quality, employment security, etc set at the national level, so that people can expect (rather than hope and pray) that the next state they move to doesn't have any major surprises."

But none of those things qualify as constitutional rights. A rule does not confer a right; it can only protect an inherent one. There is no "right" to environmental quality--is there? I know there isn't one for "employment security." If there were, you couldn't limit the term of unemployment or deny it altogether to some people.

"Perfect example being that it was technically legal to kill Mormons in Missouri until 1976. Though I doubt you would have gotten away testing the law at the state level, you definitely wouldn't have once it got to the federal level. Because it goes against fundamental rights that are the domain of the federal government."

No, actually. It was an order issued when the state of Missouri was at war with the Mormons. The Mormons surrendered and the leaders were imprisoned and tried; the group was expelled from Missouri. The reason the governor issued the "extermination order" was that the Mormons AS A GROUP were acting as a terrorist organization in the state of Missouri. (This was after the "peaceful" Mormons burned down an entire town.) The order was of no use after the Mormons left Missouri, and the only reason it was rescinded was that someone noticed it and thought it would be a nice P.R. move to celebrate the bicentennial.

In looking around the Internet, however, I can see how, ignorant of Mormon and other history, you would develop this notion. It seems a rather common misconception in the liberal blogosphere. In fact, they all use it in exactly the same way.

Lemmings.

"And that is where this gay marriage thing will ultimately end up I suspect."

Utterly misrepresented in cyberspace? No doubt.

Republicans want amendments that PREVENT things from being "forced on the population."

Kerry,

Tell me what a flag burning amendment prevents from being forced on you?

How about gay marriage? And amendment against gay marriage isn't going to stop their lifestyle

What about abortion? What is being forced on you here? You're not being forced to have an abortion. Creating a law against abortion, isn't going to make the people who want them, more moral. So the same immorality which is perhaps what you think is being forced on you, is still going to exist.

The reason the governor issued the "extermination order" was that the Mormons AS A GROUP were acting as a terrorist organization in the state of Missouri.

A terrorist organization? That's cute. And you presume to know Mormon history.

"Tell me what a flag burning amendment prevents from being forced on you?"

The Flag Desecration Amendment has been attempted since 1989, when the Supreme Court decided that the current version of the Constitution does not allow the banning of such. AT THE TIME, FORTY-EIGHT STATES HAD LAWS AGAINST BURNING THE FLAG. That means that the VAST majority of the public did not WANT flag burning allowed--but the Court FORCED them to put up with it.

"How about gay marriage?"

I have explained this until your head should have exploded. The VAST majority of Americans don't WANT to sanction gay "marriage," and it is only the courts that are forcing them to. If it takes a Constitutional amendment to allow the will of the people to be enacted, so be it.

"And amendment against gay marriage isn't going to stop their lifestyle"

No kidding. That must be why it's the Federal MARRIAGE Amendment, not the National Lifestyle Choice Act.

"What about abortion? What is being forced on you here?"

The sanctioning of murder. And, by the way, the Human Life Amendment hasn't been heard from since the 1980s, for all intents and purposes.

"You're not being forced to have an abortion. Creating a law against abortion, isn't going to make the people who want them, more moral."

It's not intended to. It is intended to protect innocent human life from being taken under the claim of a Constitutional "right" of the mother and the murderer.

""The reason the governor issued the "extermination order" was that the Mormons AS A GROUP were acting as a terrorist organization in the state of Missouri.""

"A terrorist organization? That's cute. And you presume to know Mormon history."

Um, yeah. I do. Do you have an alternative explanation? Have you ever heard of the Mormon wars? Do you understand that the state of Missouri considered the Mormons unwanted dangerous criminals in their midst? And drove them out of the state? And no federal court said a single word about it, or ever has?

Um, yeah. I do. Do you have an alternative explanation? Have you ever heard of the Mormon wars? Do you understand that the state of Missouri considered the Mormons unwanted dangerous criminals in their midst? And drove them out of the state? And no federal court said a single word about it, or ever has?

Kerry,

It takes two to make a war, and most of the people killed in these wars were mormons. Just because you think someone is a dangerous criminal doesn't make it so. Some people thought and still think blacks are dangerous, and killed them to, but that doesn't make them terrorists.

Mormons were driven out because the locals saw their lifestyle as a threat. And why not, they were taking church members and money away from other communities as their faith started becoming popular. THat is a bit different than them, being raving savages attacking the local villagers in their sleep...which I would grant you would be a terrorist, but these guys hardly qualified as that.

Kerry,

here is the crux of the mormon wars.

The conflict was preceded by the eviction of the Mormons from Jackson County, Missouri in 1833. In 1831, Smith had proclaimed that the county was the Biblical Garden of Eden and that Mormons should establish the City of Zion there. However, the "old settlers" objected to the growing political power of the Mormons, as well as their belief in abolition and the divine destiny of the Native Americans, whom they called Lamanites.

The war was started by those who didn't like the growing power of the mormons of the tenants of their faith. Not because the mormons were terrorists. If anything the Missouri settlers were terrorists because they didn't recognize the freedom of the mormons to follow their faith as they saw fit.

Not surprising you saw them as terrorists. As you always seem to reside on the side of the bible thumping maniacs of traditional christian faiths. That's why you have the same problem distinguishing a Muslim from a a terrorist in the current conflict in the Middle East.

"Its you against the bad evil system."

No, it's the people against the bad, power-grabbing judges.

Kerry,

Judges have no say in getting amendents passed, and they definitely can't stop one from being passed if the people so demand. My point is you can't even get an amendment that far. You can't get the congress to approve them, and you get the states to approve them. The fact that you can't get one this far suggests you haven't got the support to meet the most minimum bar that the constitution requires.

I will also point out to you that the constitution is what created the supreme court, and the supreme court functions exactly as its intended. If you don't like that it suggests you have a problem with the system to founders set up, which means you have a problem with the constitution.

"It takes two to make a war, and most of the people killed in these wars were mormons."

It takes TWO to make a war? I thought it only took a bunch of neocons who wanted to have a war.

"Just because you think someone is a dangerous criminal doesn't make it so."

It does if you are the governor of Missouri, who pretty much had the right to declare it so.

"Some people thought and still think blacks are dangerous, and killed them to, but that doesn't make them terrorists."

Actually, the abolitionists were treated the same way in some states. Doesn't make it right--but it does make it LEGAL.

"Mormons were driven out because the locals saw their lifestyle as a threat. And why not, they were taking church members and money away from other communities as their faith started becoming popular."

Actually, there were three "Mormon wars." One in Missouri, one in Illinois, and one in Utah, which was fought against the United States government. The various details are complex, but for our purposes what you need to know is that they were considered enemies of the government and criminals.

"THat is a bit different than them, being raving savages attacking the local villagers in their sleep...which I would grant you would be a terrorist, but these guys hardly qualified as that."

Yes, they did qualify as that. Regardless of why, the Mormon militia, under leadership, looted, plundered, and pillaged several Missouri towns, and burned the Daviess County seat to the ground.

I don't know what else you want to call that.

"The war was started by those who didn't like the growing power of the mormons of the tenants of their faith."

Which war are you talking about here? Just the Missouri one? Or are you accusing the United States government of terrorism, too?

"Not because the mormons were terrorists. If anything the Missouri settlers were terrorists because they didn't recognize the freedom of the mormons to follow their faith as they saw fit."

Wait a minute. Not "recognizing the freedom of the mormons to follow their faith as they saw fit" (a right they did not actually have in 1838) is not "terrorism." It may be a violation of civil rights (which they also didn't have in 1838), but it's not "terrorism." "Terrorism" is seizing a town and driving its inhabitants away and burning it down.

"Not surprising you saw them as terrorists."

Yeah. Because they were.

"As you always seem to reside on the side of the bible thumping maniacs of traditional christian faiths."

For all I know, the governor of Missouri was a Satanist. But he knew an illegal cult when he saw one. I'm not on the side of anything but the law here. You burn down my town, that makes you a terrorist. I don't care if it's Gallatin in 1838 or the Pentagon in 1971 or Los Angeles in 1992. It's criminal behavior and it has to be stopped. In 1838 that meant shooting people.

"That's why you have the same problem distinguishing a Muslim from a a terrorist in the current conflict in the Middle East."

No, I don't have any problem with that. I've said it many times. Most terrorists are Muslims, but most Muslims are not terrorists. The difference is whether they plan and execute terrorism.

Follow me closely here, ahmanrah. It's basic policy and process 101.

"Judges have no say in getting amendents passed, and they definitely can't stop one from being passed if the people so demand."

But they can declare laws passed to be unconstitutional, which NECESSITATES an Amendment.

"My point is you can't even get an amendment that far."

Again, you are mistaken. Since this is a state issue, it is the states' obligation to pass amendments to THEIR constitutions, as needed. To date, 27 states have done so and have those amendments to their constitutions. Thus, those states are immune to the rulings of judges in other states--unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise.

14 other states have unprotected laws on their books (that is, they have passed legislation banning gay marriage, but have not changed their constitutions just in case.)

This is how it works. The people vote for a law. A judge (or judges) strikes it down. The people appeal the ruling. As needed, they amend their state constitutions so that the judge can't mess with that again.

I will also point out to you that the constitution is what created the supreme court, and the supreme court functions exactly as its intended. If you don't like that it suggests you have a problem with the system to founders set up, which means you have a problem with the constitution.

No, the Supreme Court does not function as intended. Misinterpretting the Constituiton was never the intent of the powers of the Judicial branch as laid out by the Founders.

The Founders would revolt, burn it all, and start anew if they saw the manner in which their Constitution was being interpretted by liberal judges. They would puke on the fires of Washington if they ever heard a Supreme interpretting the introductory clause of Article I, Section 8 to mean "the Congress shall start a social welfare state, paying for everything the People want/need"

They were also all for States rights, which you don't share. They would see today's liberal judges as a domestic enemy of said Constitution.

Sarge,

The constitution gave the judges the power to interpret the law and its validity and they have done that....and that is all they do.

Kerry,

And what would you call the non-mormons who burned and pillaged mormon property right before the mormons counter attacked on Gallatin? What right did they have to terrorize the mormons? What do you call the people before the attack on Gallatin that tried to prevent mormons from voting by picking a fight with them in the streets. Normally a terrorist in modern definitions is one that picks a fight without alot of provocation. No so in this case. There is blood on both sides, but you only look at one side.

And by the way I could care less what the governor of Missouri thought at the time, or the laws said at the time. I will judge upon the modern and more enlightened definition of what terrorism is. And frankly people who keep getting chased out of their home, from one land to the next are not terrorists simply because they finally fight back...otherwise we might as well start calling people like the Israelis terrorist tooo. Oh we can't do that now can we.

(a right [Freedom of Religion] they did not actually have in 1838)

Last time I checked they were in the U.S. and the constitution existed, so yes they did. The state of Missouri simply didn't choose to recognize it. And never the less, they still weren't terrorists.

Just because someone writes the laws, doesn't make those laws right, and it also doesn't mean they get to set definitions of things, especially in a modern light. The mormons were getting railroaded for their faith, because of the ignorance, intolerance, fear and envy of their neighbors, and they finally fought back. That is not a terrorist, that is a human being reacting as most human beings wanting to live their lives unharrased would behave.

"“And what would you call the non-mormons who burned and pillaged mormon property right before the mormons counter attacked on Gallatin?”

I would call them people who overstayed their welcome in the state of Missouri.

“What right did they have to terrorize the mormons?”

I see you’ve been reading the Mormon version.

“ What do you call the people before the attack on Gallatin that tried to prevent mormons from voting by picking a fight with them in the streets.”

I call them people trying to stop other people from voting. Which wasn’t actually illegal at that time, particularly in the South. You didn't have an automatic right to vote. Ask the Democratic party.

“ Normally a terrorist in modern definitions is one that picks a fight without alot of provocation. No so in this case. There is blood on both sides, but you only look at one side.”

No, a terrorist is a person who acts to produce terror, with the aim of a political outcome. That is precisely why they burned down Gallatin. Their own leader said they were at war.

“And by the way I could care less what the governor of Missouri thought at the time, or the laws said at the time.”

Well, that’s an interesting version of the law.

“ I will judge upon the modern and more enlightened definition of what terrorism is.”

Since we will, within the next decade, pass laws prohibiting abortion, I choose to consider all pro-choice people prior to 2018 to be ruthless murderers who should have been electrocuted. And since we will, by the year 2025, be incorporating the Martian doctrine of cannibalistic adventurism, I will henceforth consider Jeffrey Dahmer to have been a brave pioneer.

See how stupid that is?

“And frankly people who keep getting chased out of their home, from one land to the next are not terrorists simply because they finally fight back.”

What if they were run out of “their home” because they were definitionally criminals? Would you defend illegal aliens who were on their way to deportation, if they turned on their guards and slaughtered them? Because they “finally fought back?”

“” (a right [Freedom of Religion] they did not actually have in 1838)””

“Last time I checked they were in the U.S. and the constitution existed, so yes they did.”

No, they didn’t. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the individual states until the 1920s. Until then, the states had no affirmative duty to uphold portions of the Bill of Rights that were not in their own constitutions. The state of Missouri did not recognize the state citizenship of the Mormons or their “right” to live there. (Neither, by the way, did the state of Illinois or the United States government when the Mormons fought with them.)

“Just because someone writes the laws, doesn't make those laws right, and it also doesn't mean they get to set definitions of things, especially in a modern light.”

And you don’t get to project the “modern light” backwards to pass judgment on the governor of Missouri in 1898 who acted within his own rights to protect his people.

“The mormons were getting railroaded for their faith, because of the ignorance, intolerance, fear and envy of their neighbors, and they finally fought back.”

The Mormons were unwanted by the jurisdictions into which they fled because of their practice of polygamy. Strangely enough, the 1856 Republican platform pledged to abolish both polygamy and slavery, which they linked. Today, the conservatives link polygamy and gay marriage—and, as always, the Democrats resist.

“That is not a terrorist, that is a human being reacting as most human beings wanting to live their lives unharrased would behave.”

No, when they declare war against the state and then burn down a town, they are terrorists."

The constitution gave the judges the power to interpret the law and its validity and they have done that....and that is all they do.

No, they are MIS-interpretting law. They are interpretting the law to fit their personal ideology, not the "intent of the law" as written by the elected legislatures and enacted by the elected executors. The "intent" of the "public use" E.D. clause was NEVER meant to be "we can generate more tax $$$$$ from the other guy for 'public use' so we're gonna take your land by eminent do