Serious Question for Leftists

The "chad" ballots were just one troublespot, and not the most consequential. Other voters were instructed to Vote Every Page, and their ballots were tossed out because they followed the instructions.

OK, how long have you been involved with the Tea Party ?

Does your ideology follow the precepts of the NEW Tea Party or the OLD Tea Party ?

hamilton

Other

because

Some were turned away at the door as well.

tial. Other

out because

Purging the voter rolls is a separate issue. Purging the voter rolls is going on RIGHT NOW. If you think it's a bad idea, now's the time to get involved and get people back on the rolls. (No, he's not the "Bill Olsen" who did 20 years for manslaughter.) Now's also the time to help your friends and neighbors to get their birth certificates and utility bills together, and take them down to get a state photo ID.

consequential. Other

because

Indeed! The more Mexican illegals that vote, the sooner the depression and the return to "skills, you survive", "leach, you die"... bring it on. ...Jim Thompson

already.

are the

hooligans

alone save

Americas

in

Ye dawgs. Do you have so much as the faintest clue from where they took the name? You were supposed to have learned in your American history courses. Can you state the similarity and the causus belli of the historical act from which it came?

?-)

ting

Not in 12 states, including Florida.

There's no right to vote in the Constitution. There are rights not to be discriminated against -- age, race, gender, ability to pay a poll tax -- as regards voting, but no positive right to vote.

Ex-felons return to society on society's terms. In England that wasn't an issue, originally, because all felons received capital punishment.

Depends where they live.

to

uential. Other

sed out because

Overrejection is the usual problem with purging the voter rolls. But in Miami-Dade County, I'd expect Hispanic names to be purged very gingerly, lest some nice Republican Cuban exile get upset. So some Mexican illegals may survive the purge there.

consequential. Other

out because

How can anyone be so utterly clueless? One of my sons-in-law is third generation, legal immigration, Hispanic-American. The legal Hispanic community does NOT want the illegals voting. ...Jim Thompson

ote:

ave

ld to

sequential. Other

tossed out because

The state of Florida generated a list of 180,000 potential non citizens on its voting rolls. After they checked with Homeland Security, their list was cut down to some 2700. Of these, there were some 1100 voters who couldn't prove citizenship. So 1600 voters were unnecessarily hassled. The non-citizen percentage of voters was 1100 out of 11.4 million voters, or 0.01%

consequential. Other

tossed out because

Crap! Homeland Insecurity! Everywhere I travel, hotel maids are Hispanic (even NY State) and obviously non-citizens... they can't speak English at all and I startle them with a little Arizona "Spanish" ;-) ...Jim Thompson

Some one? Equal protection and protected classes apply, but of course you're wrong, AlwaysWrong. There is no right to vote for President AT ALL. Read the Constitution for once, DimBulb!

point.

Irrelevance noted, AlwaysWrong.

z"

his point.

ial

e you're

=A0Read the

The dude is always wrong, isn't he? Florida controls if and when felons can vote.

point.

you're

the

That's why he's known as AlwaysWrong. He's dumber than a stump, which is why he's known as "DimBulb" and he has a couple of hundred nyms, so also goes by the name "Nymbecile".

d have

told to

consequential. Other

re tossed out because

ls

e to

Bill

help

lity

rd

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson seems to miss the point that non-citizens who aren't on the electoral rolls aren't a problem. If they aren't on the electoral roll they aren't going to vote illegally. There may be a lot of non-citizens working as hotel maids, but this would only be relevant if there was some evidence that they were trying to vote.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

=A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson

=A0 =A0| =A0 =A0mens =A0 =A0 |

=A0 | =A0 =A0 et =A0 =A0 =A0|

=A0|

=A0 =A0 =A0 |

"flipper" acknowledges the fundamental problem here -- that the doctrine of corporate personality, one separate from the owners/ shareholders/members, was evolving during the 19th century. In 1789 when the Bill of Rights was drawn up, the framers could not have contemplated that the voice of a corporation was anything beyond the individual voices of its owners/shareholders/members. Even the fundamental doctrine of limited liability was not established at that point. In Letson, a half-century later, the Court decided that the state of residence of a corporation did not depend on the states of residence of the owners/shareholders/members.

Fine, just don't -- as Scalia does -- pretend to be an originalist, reading the text of the Constitution as one who lived in 1789 would. No separation between the joint stock company and its owners/ shareholders/members meant the corporate form did not speak with its own voice.

Sure, because, for example, British Petroleum is an AMERICAN corporation, because it has a US subsidiary. All the foreign companies who operate in the US do so through American subsidiaries, even if all the profits go right back to the homeland.

But the Court did reach the wholly unnecessary question of freedom of speech for giant megacorporations. A small outfit like Citizens United is under the direct control of its owners/shareholders/members -- ExxonMobil and IBM are not.

A reasonable rule would be to require giant megacorporations to poll its shareholders before spending the shareholders' money on political campaigning, as they do every year regarding the electing of directors, compensating upper management, etc.

How about this: Every eighty minutes, a veteran of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan kills himself. Bush had no idea of the total cost would be

-- whether in dollars or in lives -- as a consequence of his administration's lying about WMDs

So you agree the US had no objective reason to invade Iraq. The justification that makes the most sense is that, unable to get Bin Laden, Cheney wanted to show that the US was nobody to f*ck with by making a show of strength against Muslims.

And, as a result, W. spent more borrowed Chinese money on rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure than he did on our own. Just how far should our kindness to strangers extend?

So you admired Reagan's decision to send 1500 missiles to the Iranians? How did arming terrorists fit into a coherent Middle Eastern policy?

"for purposes of this section the term =91person=92 includes any corporation" --Obamacare / unACA [H.R. 3590 sect.

-- Cheers, James Arthur