Speaking of Which doesn't he have a statute in Seattle?
Posted on 09/13/2012 8:00:29 PM PDT by RushIsMyTeddyBear
As of right now I think he will. We had a RINO purge in 2010 that seems State wide and the Primary turn out was very good for the our side and a good indicator for the general election.
People forget that NH outside of the border counties is not a rich State. The cost of Fuel, auto and heating, food, and property tax are killing a lot of people. As of now I think the rats have a problem.
I don’t know how reliable that map is. The county/city breakdown is pretty enlightening, and predictable.
The bigger issue here is the Dems have been so entrenched for so long, it’s impossible to get an honest election, as witnessed by the Rossi/ Fraudoire debacle. Rossi the R Gov. candidate won. IIRC on the 4th recount, the Dems “found some uncounted ballots in a polling booth”.
Shameless.
Speaking of Which doesn't he have a statute in Seattle?
“The country is as divided right now as it was in the 1850’s. The only thing preventing us from going to the “shooting stage” is the apathy caused by modern entertainment and convenience.
Its a good idea NOT to identify yourself to anyone who might find it convenient to retaliate against your politics.”
Ray, I agree with everything you wrote. Although, I will not let the opposition squelch my right to express my political views. I have an R&R lawn sign here in the far northern suburbs of NYC. I have noticed a significantly less number of Obama bumper stickers and signs as oppose to 2008. On my 25 minute drive to work this morning, I saw one Obama bumper sticker and that was on a car with Virginia plates. Overall, it looks like enthusiasm for Obama is way, way down. Which is a very good sign, pun intended that time!
If Romney was governor of Texas and attempted to implement
all those liberal “goodies” you might have a valid point. But we
are talking Massachuetts here and a lot of those folks apparently
like those liberal “gimmes”. So maybe Mittens could be considered
a populist. The question to ask Romney would be why would he
WANT to be gov of such a place?
I would submit that if Mitt is so similar to Obama as you seem to
indicate there should a noted lib somewhere who supports him.
Who is this person? No doubt Romney is GOP lite but a socialist
on the order of Obama? Hyperbole.
It doesn't matter if he's "on the same level" as Obama, what matters is that he's a socialist.
Socialism is Communism sold by the glass" -- P J O'Rourke
“I have talked face to face with the godless communist leaders. It may surprise you to learn that I was host to Mr. Kruschev for a half day when he visited the United States, not that I’m proud of it. I opposed his coming then, and I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor. But, according to President Eisenhower, Kruschev had expressed a desire to learn something of American Agriculture — and after seeing Russian agriculture I can understand why. As we talked face to face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his and all other grandchildren will live under freedom he arrogantly declared in substance: “ ‘You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.’ ” -- Ezra Taft Benson
I'm not voting for any I know to be socialists, period. Your argument is basically: Romney isn't as big of a mass murderer as Obama is, completely missing the point that it's not about the quantity of the lack of character, but the lack of character itself.
Things are all one thing or all the other to some folks. It
doesn’t even matter that a person’s vocation outside of
politics is demonstrative of uber capitalism. No, that just
makes a man a George Soros without an accent. Your
familiarity with Kruschev indicates you are probably older
like myself. And, if you are then you are also acquainted
with the John Birch Society. While I also hate communism
I don’t believe all who are not just like me are participa-
ting in a grand long term conspiracy to foist communism
on the nation. While you fight what you think are commies
coming thru the back door the proclaimed socialists are
sitting in the living room.
| New Mexico State constitution, Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.] No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. Simple enough, but there's this statute: NMSA 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty. |
As you can see, there is no way that this can be a valid statute for it denies the citizen the ability to carry arms on the campus; moreover, if the citizen resides in student housing the statute even prohibits him from keeping arms [there is no guarantee that he can store his arms elsewhere, and there is no reason to assume he needs a private vehicle if he is in on-campus housing]. Now, many people would say that it's the University's policy, but that is irrelevant: this is a state statute and therefore the University's policies have no relevance on this discussion.
When I investigated how to challenge this statute I was always either dismissed ("well we don't allow guns in courtrooms"*) or referred elsewhere: the AG says contact the representative, the rep. says contact the state supreme court, the state supreme court is unreachable and its answering-service refers you to the State Bar, the State Bar to a lawyer, the lawyer never gets back to you after an initial call-back.
Was there a conspiracy against following the State Constitution there; likely not. However, the result is the same as if there were indeed one. (And in fact this is reasonable, for if the Constitutions [both state and federal] were followed much power of state officials would be lost.)
* -- The prohibition of guns in courthouses is unsubstantiated by any state statute; furthermore, the second sentence in the State Constitution plainly invalidates any county or municipal law/statute/ordnance thereon... yet the State, County, and Municipal courts all had signs saying that firearms were prohibited therein.
Some further adventuring in SD regarding a similar statute (regarding state buildings vs the State Constitution's "shall not be denied") revealed that the only way to challenge it [via the legal system] is to violate the statute, be charged, and argue in court. This is inherently from a position of weakness: "I'm not guilty because the law is wrong." [Moreover it also forces an implicit acceptance of the validity of the law: you allowing yourself to be charges thereon.] Whereas being able to challenge the law w/o being accused is a position of strength.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.