Active Users:342 Time:15/07/2025 10:15:48 PM
The bad guys? That implies that there are some "good" guys somewhere in politics. Avendesora Send a noteboard - 20/10/2010 05:43:06 PM
I'm almost to the point that ENM is. I would love to simply not vote until there's campaign finance reform. But since that would be counter-productive, I will have to vote for only those who would enact campaign finance reform.

Whenever those good guys show up, you let me know.
*MySmiley*

I believe all news and research that supports my opinion, and dismiss the rest as conspiracy and lies.
Reply to message
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" - 20/10/2010 12:33:05 AM 884 Views
You don't want her? - 20/10/2010 01:21:20 AM 445 Views
I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year. - 20/10/2010 01:27:13 AM 322 Views
Now there's an answer - 20/10/2010 01:47:28 AM 418 Views
Voting isn't the only way to contribute *NM* - 20/10/2010 02:42:10 AM 135 Views
And most of those posts are a guess at best. - 20/10/2010 03:02:04 AM 295 Views
Maybe you shouldn't be guessing then? - 20/10/2010 06:00:02 AM 287 Views
Issac has a point. - 20/10/2010 02:14:28 AM 300 Views
Can you not spoil your ballot? - 20/10/2010 10:19:54 AM 280 Views
Depends where you live. - 20/10/2010 01:50:30 PM 338 Views
I don't think so but an intentional no vote is just as valid as voting IMHO. *NM* - 21/10/2010 02:45:35 AM 124 Views
The difference is when they look at statistics - 21/10/2010 10:49:48 AM 280 Views
Exactly. - 21/10/2010 02:02:46 PM 395 Views
When you don't vote the bad guys win. That simple. - 20/10/2010 01:53:23 PM 407 Views
The bad guys? That implies that there are some "good" guys somewhere in politics. - 20/10/2010 05:43:06 PM 271 Views
An intentional NO vote is just as valid as voting. - 21/10/2010 02:46:58 AM 274 Views
Apart from the fact there's no record of it whatsoever, yes. - 21/10/2010 01:37:46 PM 283 Views
She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is... - 20/10/2010 01:25:43 AM 396 Views
Re: She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is... - 20/10/2010 01:35:48 AM 322 Views
Re: (meant to be under the main thread, but I can't move it) - 20/10/2010 02:42:23 AM 293 Views
It's a valid argument. - 21/10/2010 03:26:46 PM 270 Views
i feel kinda bad for her - 20/10/2010 03:31:03 AM 321 Views
What is odd about this is that everyone is used to the 'separation' idea that they don't bother to - 20/10/2010 06:44:48 AM 325 Views
Or, you know, the letters on the topic written by the people who drafted the Constitution *NM* - 20/10/2010 07:04:47 AM 165 Views
Those aren't the Constitution though. - 20/10/2010 12:39:41 PM 307 Views
which show they considered it but did not include it *NM* - 20/10/2010 06:14:37 PM 129 Views
Yep, this. *NM* - 20/10/2010 07:40:19 PM 152 Views
Personally, I think that's splitting hairs. *NM* - 20/10/2010 09:20:28 PM 124 Views
a direct reading is splitting hairs? - 20/10/2010 09:25:14 PM 279 Views
That's what lawyers like the Founding Fathers do. - 21/10/2010 02:56:36 PM 287 Views
I actually felt bad for her - 20/10/2010 10:46:57 AM 291 Views
She's right. - 20/10/2010 12:27:55 PM 421 Views
I'm less concerned about what she said than why she said it. *NM* - 20/10/2010 01:32:38 PM 220 Views
It is on youtube - 20/10/2010 02:40:12 PM 318 Views
Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:03:30 PM 323 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:32:02 PM 290 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:36:48 PM 275 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:53:46 PM 267 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 04:01:49 PM 359 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 05:12:28 PM 268 Views
Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse. - 21/10/2010 02:31:19 PM 299 Views
See Dreaded Anomaly's reply below. - 21/10/2010 03:03:02 PM 323 Views
Done. - 21/10/2010 04:50:52 PM 272 Views
Yet another reason you aren't a lawyer. *NM* - 21/10/2010 05:09:16 PM 106 Views
Because I don't accept arguments I consider unproven? - 21/10/2010 05:23:52 PM 327 Views
I see we have replaced the PDS with ODS - 20/10/2010 03:05:58 PM 268 Views
It only depends on just how finely one wants to split hairs. - 20/10/2010 04:02:28 PM 275 Views
no it depends how far you want to stretch the Constitution to say things it doesn't say - 20/10/2010 04:19:04 PM 272 Views
No it does not show that. - 21/10/2010 02:58:32 AM 258 Views
It doesn't matter what some of them may have wanted - 21/10/2010 02:54:54 PM 252 Views
Treaty of Tripoli through the Establishment clause fairly explicitly affirms this. Sorry. *NM* - 21/10/2010 03:56:09 AM 111 Views
OK which clause allows for amending the Constitution by treaty? I can't seem to find it *NM* - 21/10/2010 02:59:01 PM 114 Views
Supremacy clause, not establishment clause. My mistake. - 21/10/2010 05:07:18 PM 266 Views
Sorry, but the Treaty of Tripolis relevant section still seems like commentary. - 21/10/2010 05:18:00 PM 245 Views
This is quickly becoming infuriating. - 22/10/2010 01:41:18 AM 245 Views
No, it's part of the treaty. - 22/10/2010 02:02:42 AM 267 Views
no your mistake was misreading the clause - 21/10/2010 05:48:52 PM 256 Views
Very difficult not to lose my temper here. - 22/10/2010 01:39:21 AM 264 Views
Then you should argue it violate a treaty with a country that no longer exist - 22/10/2010 02:03:32 PM 247 Views
Noticed that, too, did you? - 22/10/2010 08:40:09 PM 359 Views
She's so... bewildered! - 20/10/2010 06:40:04 PM 255 Views
that is what I think when I read a lot of the responses here - 20/10/2010 07:44:40 PM 263 Views
Because the logical conclusion is obvious. - 21/10/2010 03:08:39 AM 255 Views
I think it is logical that it means what is say not want some want it to say - 21/10/2010 03:02:08 PM 255 Views
Nonsense. The nature of the nation was already changing in the first generation. - 22/10/2010 12:35:26 AM 351 Views
but it is an impulse that should be limited - 22/10/2010 06:05:10 PM 254 Views
For those who think O'Donnell is correct, even on a technicality: - 20/10/2010 10:49:40 PM 299 Views
exactly - 21/10/2010 03:26:00 AM 289 Views
She started out alright - 21/10/2010 02:32:01 PM 256 Views
or she wasn't really paying attnetion to him and was still trying to argue her first point - 21/10/2010 03:24:06 PM 400 Views
Lol. Bush-League. - 21/10/2010 04:39:43 PM 252 Views
at leas thten the haters were hating someone who mattered *NM* - 21/10/2010 05:50:03 PM 116 Views

Reply to Message