Posted on 11/28/2007 6:03:29 AM PST by redwill
In years past, when honor meant something among Yellow Dogs, the Republican Party supposed that statement of intent would keep honorable Democrats from voting in Republican Party. That is, perhaps, the only foolish thing about this policy.
>> The point of my post is that the poster had said that the oath was “non-binding.” There’s no such thing as a non-binding oath. <<
The point of MY post is that it’s not an oath! There’s no such thing as a binding “statement of intent.”
Oh, that’s rich. A left-wing rag launches a hit-piece on the Virginia GOP, and you’re singing Nazi hymns.
I’ve always wondered, though, how do you vote to sabotage? Who do you vote for if you’re a Democrat? A moderate to liberal, hoping conservatives will sit on their hands or split the vote with a third candidate? A REAL conservative, hoping he can’t draw more centrist voters? Don’t know the answer.
What a bunch of horse sh*t! This does nothing but legitimize the lying, weasel mentality that is paramount in our political process. Our parties are either encouraging us to publicly sign a lie or they are trying to intimidate voters with a mechanism that will cull out voters with open minds. This is simply another lying weasel mechanism to stack the deck for the syndicates that control the party selections.
The point of YOUR post had nothing to do with mine. YOUR post was about a "statement of intent" in the article. My post was about a poster saying that an oath, ANY oath, can be regarded as "non-binding," obviously not including a "statement of intent." This is because the term "non-binding oath" is an oxymoron. The willingness to even state "non-binding oath" as a reasonable thing to execute, especially without the existence of coercion on pain of death (the only real qualifier) is suggestion of serious moral import. Even then, some oaths, even spoken in total cynicism under the threat of death, are binding. Just ask any religious martyr.
Apparently the distinction still escapes you.
Allow me to offer you a latter day example. Radical Islamists consider any person who has spoken the words, "there is no other G-d but... and you know who is his Prophet," to be Muslim, and therefore subject to the penalties under Sharia Law. They don't care if that person means the words or not, the death penalty for apostasy still applies.
The propensity to accept loose standards of truth in our depraved society has cost us the discernment to take such spoken words seriously. If you took the time to examine the cost of such, you'd know that it's a far more serious matter both socially and economically than you'd probably supposed, everything from damages resulting from products that don't work to welfare expenses for broken families. It's enormous.
Thus, even if a person makes a "statement of intent" promising to vote for the GOP nominee whomever he may be, knowing that Rudy may be the nominee and knowing that they wouldn't vote for him is lying, but apparently that doesn't mean so much to you either.
Wrong union, it’s the even worse AFGE. At least the AFSCME has some actual workers.
Since civility is long gone from the political arena, it certainly seems strange that any jurisdiction would suggest this. Remember the "vote swap" nonsense from 2000? It'll be back this coming year, bigger than ever. IIRC, some federal judge has ruled that the practice is not illegal.
Fortunately, it's just as unenforceable as the above statement of intent.
LOL No. I originally thought your contention was that voters in general went Democratic because Bush wasn't conservative enough. You've clarified that you meant only Northern Virginia, and that was because you believe the population has exploded due to government growth, and that these new government workers vote 90% Democratic. I do not have enough information to dispute or support those claims.
Honest, responsible voters therefore can only skip the primary.
I'll believe it when I see it. To me it sounds like a leftists reporter punching up a mediocre story. I can see a loyalty oath used in hopes of keeping democrats away from the republican primary - but not to swear voters to a particular candidate. If I swear my loyalty to Thompson but Paul gets the nod, I can’t vote?
Nope. Just too fishy.
The party hack leaders of course.
They are trying to deter the Democrats who come in to disrupt the GOP primary and have no intention of voting in the fall for whom they come into to vote for.
In Virginia the Dems can show up to make mischief since there is no party registration.
No doubt some party political hack came up with this idea and I would not be in favor of it.
However, I personally figure the GOP needs my support and would want to stay loyal to it as much as I possibly could without violating my conscience.
The Dems would love having us fighting and don’t forget the Clinton strategy in 1992, 1996 and no doubt this time.
Create a third party and give Hillary the win.
Surely placement along an ideological spectrum isn’t the only criteria you can imagine? In the case of New Hampshire democrats’ votes for McCain and Buchanan, one could suppose that the democrats voted:
A. for a candidate who would side with the Democrats on certain key issues.
B. for a nut job
C. for someone who would divide the Republican party
D. for a “lesser of evils”
I would say that B, C, and D were saboteurs.
Well, if you were really wanting to simply correct bad word usage “non-binding oath,” I don’t see why you didn’t take issue with the original characterization.
“I would say that B, C, and D were saboteurs.”
I think the lesser of evils is included in my question. On the other two, hard to imagine them voting in enough numbers to matter.
Ouch! My bad! AFSCME, of course, is State, County, & Municipal Employees!
I'm pretty sure the latter is the actual situation.
That makes the whole business particularly stupid. A "non-binding oath" is as oxymoronic as a "non-binding adhesive".
In a situation where someone has no legitimate right to ask me to give my word (e.g. the classic "Arrre you hidink any Chews in ze attik?"), I can freely pretend to give my word without actually doing so.
This action in VA may be meant to head off a problem like they have in New Hampshire, where the Democrats have changed the voting laws so that anyone can vote there without prior registration and no proof of residency. All they have to do is lie.
Evidently, the idea is to inundate the state with last minute voters from neighboring Democrat strong holds.
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.