[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Earth Changes Summary - June 2025: Extreme Weather, Planetary Upheaval, China’s Tofu-Dreg High-Speed Rail Station Ceiling Suddenly Floods, Steel Bars Snap Russia Moves to Nationalize Country's Third Largest Gold Mining Firm Britain must prepare for civil war | David Betz The New MAGA Turf War Over National Intelligence Happy fourth of july The Empire Has Accidentally Caused The Rebirth Of Real Counterculture In The West Workers install 'Alligator Alcatraz' sign for Florida immigration detention center The Biggest Financial Collapse in China’s History Is Here, More Terrifying Than Evergrande! Lightning Cash Jordan NYC Courthouse EMPTIED... ICE Deports 'Entire Building Trump Sparks Domestic Labor Renaissance: Native-Born Workers Surge To Record High As Foreign-Born Plunge Mister Roberts (1965) WE BROKE HIM!! [Early weekend BS/nonsense thread] I'm going to send DOGE after Elon." -Trump This is the America I grew up in. We need to bring it back MD State Employee may get Arrested by Sheriff for reporting an Illegal Alien to ICE RFK Jr: DTaP vaccine was found to have link to Autism FBI Agents found that the Chinese manufactured fake driver’s licenses and shipped them to the U.S. to help Biden... Love & Real Estate: China’s new romance scam Huge Democrat shift against Israel stuns CNN McCarthy Was Right. They Lied About Everything. How Romans Built Domes My 7 day suspension on X was lifted today. They Just Revealed EVERYTHING... [Project 2029] Trump ACCUSED Of MASS EXECUTING Illegals By DUMPING Them In The Ocean The Siege (1998) Trump Admin To BAN Pride Rainbow Crosswalks, DoT Orders ALL Distractions REMOVED Elon Musk Backing Thomas Massie Against Trump-AIPAC Challenger Skateboarding Dog

(s)Elections
See other (s)Elections Articles

Title: Well Jethro guess your wish isn't coming true
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jun 1, 2008
Author: Me and boby mcgee
Post Date: 2008-06-01 15:59:30 by Itisa1mosttoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 1304
Comments: 102

Looks like Hillary can't win her required 195 delegates out of the remaining 200. Obama bin laden only needs 20 of the remaining 200.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 83.

#1. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#0)

JT wished for hillary?

christine  posted on  2008-06-01   16:14:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I think people are confusing our disgust with Obama with a preference for one of the other puppets.

buckeye  posted on  2008-06-01   16:23:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

which other candidates? it's only been hillary and barack for the past 6 months.

Itisa1mosttoolate  posted on  2008-06-01   16:31:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Well I think everyone knows that we despise McCain both for his Zionist connections and his co-sponsorship of the 2006/2007 Immigration Reform bills and McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. Our task here on 4 is to show that "change" will not come from the other two candidates are masters are offering us.

buckeye  posted on  2008-06-01   16:33:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

When we supported Ron Paul, the white guilters said.."One man cannot make a change, it wont happen".

Now the same side liners have found a "savior" to worship who says he will make small change and they grovel and slobber at his feet because he is a person of color.

Disgraceful.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-06-01   16:38:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

When we supported Ron Paul

Some of us never stopped supporting Dr. Paul.

mirage  posted on  2008-06-01   19:13:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Some of us never stopped supporting Dr. Paul.

I never stopped supporting Barry Goldwater but a lot of good it did.

Biggest landslide of popular vote in American history, for Johnson, I took little solace in that.

When my horse refuses to leave the gate, I have to wait for the next race.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-06-01   19:30:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

When my horse refuses to leave the gate, I have to wait for the next race.

True that. Check my tagline. There may be an alternative.

mirage  posted on  2008-06-01   19:35:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Mirage...off track, just something I am reading...

"For those not concerned with imposing term limits on Senate, House, and Supreme Court members, consider the following:

* Lifelong politicians are now allowed to represent lobbyists based in DC more than voters back home because of no limits to their power to stay in DC. * Term limits for legislators would allow a greater variety in the House and Senate, rather than a lifelong office just for the elite. What history proves is that Our Founding Fathers had this in mind: an average American citizen serving for a few short years, then returning home to enjoy their Guaranteed American Freedoms. * Since 1970, average Supreme Court Justice tenure has risen from approximately 15 years to over 25 years. * Until 2006, no new Justice had joined the Supreme Court in over ten years."

Cynicom  posted on  2008-06-01   19:40:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You're dead on with the citizen legislator. The Founders envisioned a citizen going off to Washington, serving a term or two, then returning to the farm.

Urbanization and the rise of the Professional Politician (see Jerry Brown in California for details) did a lot of damage to their vision.

The Constitution was to be both guide and harness for the citizen legislator.

We have strayed far.

mirage  posted on  2008-06-01   19:53:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

John Adams...

"" Although John Adams was a devout Federalist, he maintained that rotation, as well as frequent elections, would be necessary in order to keep government as near to the people as possible. Adams expressed these two beliefs in a speech given just before the American Revolution in which he proposed holding annual elections of representatives (Peek 101).

He also compared men in a society with rotation-in-office to bubbles on the sea which "rise,...break, and to that sea return"; Adams later develops his thought by adding, "This will teach them the great political virtues of humility, patience, and moderation, without which every man in power becomes a ravenous beast of prey (Peek 102)."

In response to the ideas of Melancton Smith, the strongest opposition from the Federalists came from Alexander Hamilton at the New York ratification convention. Hamilton, along with Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston, developed three strong arguments against implementing term limits in government: the people have a right to judge who they will and will not elect to public office, rotation reduces the incentives for political accountability, and rotation deprives society of experienced public servants (Foley 28). In general, the goals of all founders, despite their political affiliation, aimed at preserving a close connection between representatives and their constituencies. While the Antifederalists believed that imposing term limits would create enhanced participation in government, a check on tyrannical leaders, and greater representation of the people, the Federalists theorized that the same goals could be accomplished by the president serving a short term and having congressman follow his actions "(Foley 34)

The Founding Fathers erred very badly, they did not conceive of professional politicians looking and lusting for lifetime power.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-06-01   20:00:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The Founding Fathers erred very badly, they did not conceive of professional politicians looking and lusting for lifetime power.

Things like that just didn't exist in the 1770s and 1780s in America. They weren't really exposed to it because most folks were trying to make a living back then and politics didn't pay very well.

People were expected to maintain their own households back then - it was one of those "social things" that we say "Its how it is" nowadays about. The professional politician didn't come around until mass urbanization in the post-Civil War days if I remember correctly.

Note that the Founders had their own personal fortunes; Government service didn't pay in the early days of the Republic. In fact, it didn't really start to pay until around the 1950s/1960s if I remember my Congressional Pay Rates properly.

mirage  posted on  2008-06-01   20:17:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The professional politician didn't come around until mass urbanization in the post-Civil War days if I remember correctly.

True...

However the South saw what was coming and in their Constitution they restrained their President to a one time six year term and out you go. The rebels were nearly 100 years ahead of the rest of the country before FDR stayed on for life and something had to be done.

Also those were the days before this country became infested with lawyers looking for a steady paycheck.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-06-01   20:43:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Also those were the days before this country became infested with lawyers looking for a steady paycheck.

Lawyers have always been like that. Shakespeare even noticed.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Henry VI, Part II, Act IV, Scene II

mirage  posted on  2008-06-01   20:50:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Lawyers have always been like that. Shakespeare even noticed.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Henry VI, Part II, Act IV, Scene II

Well, Shakespeare noticed something that you seem not to have, and that is how necessary lawyers are to the rule of law and limited government.

You seem not to have noticed that the line you quote was put by Shakespeare into the mouth of Dick the Butcher, a thoroughly nasty and unsympathetic revolutionary.

aristeides  posted on  2008-06-02   18:44:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You seem not to have noticed that the line you quote was put by Shakespeare into the mouth of Dick the Butcher, a thoroughly nasty and unsympathetic revolutionary.

No offense intended, but I have a family full of attorneys and one of our lovelies wears that exact shirt with a dagger dripping blood off of it and is even named appropriately.

Would you care to take some wild guesses as to why I think Shakespeare was correct given that new information and some other things like watching one of them drag his ex-wife through a 15-year divorce process because the idiot couldn't figure out that the courts didn't want to give him what he wanted?

Yes, there are lots of horrible lawyers out there. I know a lot of them.

mirage  posted on  2008-06-02   19:02:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Would you care to take some wild guesses as to why I think Shakespeare was correct

I take it you've never read or seen the play. May I humbly suggest that you do so. Doing so will disabuse you of any belief that killing all the lawyers was anything Shakespeare wanted.

aristeides  posted on  2008-06-02   19:20:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I take it you've never read or seen the play. May I humbly suggest that you do so. Doing so will disabuse you of any belief that killing all the lawyers was anything Shakespeare wanted.

I have read it, but it was some years ago. I use the quote only for effect.

May I humbly suggest understanding what the motivation behind offering that up was? It may dispel misconceptions.

Or I could quote the Eagles with the same intent in mind. "Old Billy was right; let's kill all the lawyers; kill them tonight"

mirage  posted on  2008-06-02   19:26:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

May I humbly suggest understanding what the motivation behind offering that up was?

My intent was to point out that attributing the sentiment to Shakespeare himself is at best woefully mistaken, at worst intellectually dishonest.

In fact, the fact that he put the sentiment into the mouth of a character like Dick the Butcher is strong evidence that he believed just the opposite.

aristeides  posted on  2008-06-02   19:30:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

My intent was to point out that attributing the sentiment to Shakespeare himself is at best woefully mistaken, at worst intellectually dishonest.

Alas, the worst attorney I know, one whose cases are currently being used by one of the local law schools as examples of "what not to do" and one who I have personally had to get the State Attorney General's office after *and* who has been informed a few times to obey court orders or go to jail wears a shirt with that quote on it, and quite proudly.

Now, given that, I think its STILL appropriate and unless you walk a mile in my shoes, it is not your place to impugn.

mirage  posted on  2008-06-02   19:33:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

        There are no replies to Comment # 83.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 83.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]