Replies

I have already been told by one of our True Conservatives (tm) that they do not care what I say and that any explanation that is factual is *belittling* their opinion.

What we have here are folks who adore our few minority bomb throwers and have been looking for an excuse to stand on their so-called principles and not vote or vote for whatever-his-name-is, the isolationist, anti-Israel, so-called Constitution Party candidate who is probably not even on that many ballots.

These folks love to scare themselves and give themselves an excuse to pretend they will go hunting blue hats, even if these are not blue hats and even though they are just keyboard cowboys who most likely don't pass gas in public for fear of being noticed.

Several of us have spent several threads trying to explain the situation. They do not want an explanation. They want to foment dissension.

WND and now CNS are quoting DeWeese and Paul: one an unelected right wing journo and the other someone who couldn't get elected out of his single Congressional District.

You are both way too rational to be listened to.

The spokesman for Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who was among those who signed the letter to Annan, said the State Department's invitation to the OSCE "represents a good first step." Stuart Chapman, press secretary for Lee, said the U.S. should set an example for other countries by allowing an independent group to monitor the balloting. "We bill ourselves as the greatest democracy, so therefore, we should have applied to our own situation what we send out and promote and claim that we are to the rest of the world," Chapman said. "There clearly was a demonstrated, systematic effort to ensure that the votes of certain people were not counted in the last election," Chapman asserted.

We can't accede to these things because it gives credibility to people like Lee, Chapman and all the other progressives. Do you think we're going to go back from this point. I recognize that this organization is no true threat to our sovereignty but giving up the point is the strategic loss. Forever more "progressives" will be working day and night to exploit something established here and now. Was there anything happening in FL other than standard error in 2000? (The answer is no, in case you didn't know.) But how many people recognize that even on FR? Why? Because of the endless bleating of the professional victims.

I have already been told by one of our True Conservatives (tm) that they do not care what I say and that any explanation that is factual is *belittling* their opinion.

Perhaps it's because you've been promoting the hog swill that the Constitution is more of a "guideline" than an actual "ruling document."

And that is only one point against a narrow view of the constitution as a *ruling* vs a *guiding* document. The Constitution has been changed many times. Which version do you want the USA to hold to? There is a ream of additional SCOTUS decisions that are considered when Constitutionality is debated. Which ones are you willing to accept? Why?

Poohbah will undoubtedly find your views to be intellectually stimulating (anyone who can dismiss the effect the 2000 election debacle has had on Pres. Bush's tenure and confidence in our government in general with a wave of the hand is capable of entertaining any notion that floats by) but you will find a few hardheads around here who find your suggestion that "The Constitution is our GUIDING document" (and not really a ruling document) is not only belittling of our opinions but just plain insulting to the memories of all those who have died for it.

reformedliberal?

"I have already been told by one of our True Conservatives (tm) that they do not care what I say and that any explanation that is factual is *belittling* their opinion.

What we have here are folks who adore our few minority bomb throwers and have been looking for an excuse to stand on their so-called principles and not vote or vote for whatever-his-name-is, the isolationist, anti-Israel, so-called Constitution Party candidate who is probably not even on that many ballots."

No, you are wrong. In reference to me (the one who said you were belittling my opinion)-- it was not because of facts you presented, but the illustration of the guy you knew..."he carried around a copy of Einstein's Theory of Relativity and pulled it out whenever possible to make points on science. He may or may not have really understood it, but it sure impressed anyone who didn't."

Sorry, I'm probably just too sensitive-- I should have ignored your remark.

But again you are wrong on the voting point also. Because
I very definitely plan to vote, and I will be voting for George W. Bush for President. I am strongly pro-life, and Bush is my only choice for President.

Then again you say: "Several of us have spent several threads trying to explain the situation. They do not want an explanation. They want to foment dissension."

And I have to say it once again, you are wrong. I have no desire to "foment dissension." My statement was that no matter what you say, regardless of the explanations you give, I still do not think that we need foreigners to monitor our elections. That is my opinion on this issue.

Please, you are way off base on these accusations. Let's try to remain on good terms in our discussions here at FR.