NEWS JUST IN.....


Obama has agreed to accept Clinton as his running mate if Hillary throws in the towel.

Campaign slogans and bumperstickers are already being made.

Obama & Bill.

Sorry, Hillary.

Obama wants Bill, not you.

"Where in the US Constitution does it say that one must show an ID before they are allowed to vote??"

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr


Larry, you're the one who pointed out to me about the UN Charter and reading it.

So, read the Constitution. Where does it state you have to prove your age to run for President. It doesn't. But, the requirement exists and I'm sure that anyone running for President or any other office must verify their eligibility.

So, you want to vote? Prove your eligible to vote.
Whether it is ID or some other choice document, I don't care. But, asking for proof is not unconstitutional. Refusing to prove you have a right, to me, is a violation of my right to know you legally can.

No difference.

Sorry, I didn't elaborate.

There's no difference in the fact that you must meet the legal requirements to run for office.

There is a legal requirement to vote.

How do you prove if someone is legally allowed to run for office?

Doesn't the person running for office legally required to prove it?

What's the difference for proving you have a legal right to vote? You have to be a citizen. If you're not, you can't vote. So, prove it.

Same thing with running for office. For the White House, don't you have to prove you're a citizen? Don't you have to prove your age?

Nobody complains about the public office's requirements and proof.

If you want to be elected to the House, Senate, or White House, what proof do you have to present?

Voting. No difference.

You have a right only if you meet the requirements.
Prove you meet the requirements.

Lipzoidal, show a tax court that agrees with the nonsense. The gov't and the anti-tax crowd have their interpretations of the law. The Courts decide who is right.

The anti-tax crowd will point to the Constitution for the law. Then they say the laws weren't properly passed to make them pay taxes. Then, they demand the Constitution be properly followed.

Well, the Constitution established the Courts to decide such issues. If you think you can win, take it to court. That is your Constitutional right.

Find a tax court that agrees with you.
The Gov't points to the magnitude of cases they've won. All you have to do is find one.

So the parents will sue the school.

The schools are public.

So the public will pay the price.

Wasn't there another discussion on the DR about the Governments not being able to fund pensions?

The governments are bankrupting. Wonder why?
Lawsuits.

Do people realize that they are suing the government, not just a school, and that to pay the bill of the lawsuit, the PUBLIC will pay.

With this in mind, I must believe that, as the Constitution states, for the General Welfare - we must close all Public Schools. Otherwise, the public will go broke paying out on lawsuits filed by their neighbor.

If it has to do with Xenu, then you better submit.

No one is pleased that their candidate is destined to lose.

Heck, most Republicans were probably expecting it for 2008.

But, thanks to the Democrats, the Republicans actually could win the one they probably shouldn't.

The worse enemy of the party is themselves.

Democrats don't deserve to win the election.
Neither do Republicans.

Deserve is the wrong term.

Expect may be, but not deserve.

If you pull one lever in November, then I hope you really believe that every candidate in that party should be elected.

For myself, this country needs more than two parties. We flip coins and choose the lesser of evils. It is the same evil either way.

Neither party is fiscally responsible. Neither party has really done anything to change the status quo. Take a good look at the past 50 years.

These two parties have not cut spending, abuse the welfare clause, the National Debt is outpacing any attempt to pay it down, we continue to borrow, we don't understand the difference between isolationist and non-intervention, we still hold to the UN charter which is a worthless piece of paper compared to our Constitution and the UN members are extremely guilty of more crimes than those they point out, etc.

Deserve? No.
Expect? Yes.
Do we deserve better? Yes.
Do we expect better? No.

Why should Japan surrender because of blockade?

Has Cuba? Why didn't we just blockade Cuba?

How about Iraq? Why didn't we just starve them instead of invading?

What about Bosnia? Could we just starve them?


If you blockaded Japan, would the American public accepted that in 1945? Would the American public accept a war without end? I think people underestimate the Japanese people's will to never surrender. A blockade would not have caused the Japanese to surrender.

They would rather starve than surrender. Do you think this statement is true?

Think Americans. Would you rather starve than surrender? Do American soldiers, being tortured, resist or surrender? Ask John McCain.