• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

About time!

A

Anonymous

Guest
Nice to see that some of the party leaders got their arrogant heads out of their rears- and realized their decision to only allow the party leaders to choose the states Presidential nominee was running folks away from the party...


Montana GOP scraps presidential caucus BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) - Montana Republican Party leaders have scrapped the caucus voting system introduced during the 2008 presidential primary race after complaints the vote was too exclusive.

GOP executive director Bowen Greenwood said Friday that the party will revert to an open primary in which anyone can vote. The caucus had been open only to party insiders.

Set in February before most states had voted, it was meant to boost the Montana Republican Party's national influence. But Greenwood says many Republicans complained - especially after being allowed to vote in a June primary in 2008 only to be told that the caucus vote was the one that mattered.

The decision to scrap the caucus came from the party's central committee during its annual convention inBillings.

Now if we could get the members of both parties to ease the restrictions for Independents and 3rd party candidates to get on the ballot we'd be accomplishing something...(Or do away with the party system entirely on state and local elections)... But I don't see either happening as that would lose the parties power, control, and $$$$$.....
 

Liveoak

Well-known member
You got that right, OT! It would be nice to see some fresh faces and listen to some ideas that don't cater to a party line.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Now if we could get the members of both parties to ease the restrictions for Independents and 3rd party candidates to get on the ballot we'd be accomplishing something...(Or do away with the party system entirely on state and local elections)... But I don't see either happening as that would lose the parties power, control, and $$$$$.....
I think you nailed it, OT. It's all about the power, control and money. That's why it's going to be very hard (or impossible) to ever change the system. I would also like to see something done about the two party system because they just don't represent everybody. And our elected officials shouldn't be expected to stand with their party leadership when it doesn't represent their own constituents. A good strong, competitive third party would really shake things up.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Good point OT. Until it gets to the national level, I don't think the party should matter that much. Come to think of it, it shouldn't matter then either. Party just helps a person have some way to relate to a candidate. But it really irks me when a representitive votes one way or another just because his party did. How about a party of the people. What difference does it make if a candidate for county commisioner/sherriff is a democrat or republican? It shouldn't. We the people need to figure out a way to make these politicians job scared.
 

jingo2

Well-known member
BAR BAR 2 said:
We the people need to figure out a way to make these politicians job scared.


No, that is the wrong way to go about it.


If anyone is scared to loose thier job then tend to over or under react as they are not sure which way their 'boss' wants them to go.


We the people, as the employers of these representatives, need to make our wishes and wants more clear and precise in an understandable way.

Not this foolishish we've been seeing from the Tea Party, Rush L and Glenn Beck.

Screaming and yelling, calling and threats to elected officials....idiocy
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm am going to have to disagree jingo2. Our representatives have become to complacent. They have become addicted to power and influence. They need to be job scared. If they are not sure what position to take, maybe they should listen to the people back home. How could we have been more clear than we were on healthcare? An overwhelming majority were against this bill and that passed. It went right down party lines. There were congressmen that didn't want to vote for it but succumbed to pressure from their coworkers and not their constituents. If the people in Washington were to actually listen to what people wanted, there would be no "Tea Party".
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer wrote:


the party will revert to an open primary in which anyone can vote.

and there lies the problem, then we have dems crossing over and choosing the repub. candidate.
Then the liberals have 2 dogs in the fight- Conservatives 0
that is why we get all these rino's!
then people get stirred up because their voice isn't being heard, so the volume is turned up. The majority of people are conservative, they just seldom ever get to vote for one in the general election. If the elected actually represented a fair cross section of the people our Government would look allot different.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
BAR BAR 2 said:
I'm am going to have to disagree jingo2. Our representatives have become to complacent. They have become addicted to power and influence. They need to be job scared. If they are not sure what position to take, maybe they should listen to the people back home. How could we have been more clear than we were on healthcare? An overwhelming majority were against this bill and that passed. It went right down party lines. There were congressmen that didn't want to vote for it but succumbed to pressure from their coworkers and not their constituents. If the people in Washington were to actually listen to what people wanted, there would be no "Tea Party".

Part of the problem is that the voters thought they were voting for change. Governmnet didn't listen. The obama campaign misrepresented their policies and the direction they were going to take. The tactics being used, and the lack of leadership, do not resemble the "change in old politics", that people were expecting.

It's not just the Tea Party that is disillusioned.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
The founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Today, however, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% disagree and say the government does not have the necessary consent. Eighteen percent (18%) of voters are not sure.

However, 63% of the Political Class think the government has the consent of the governed, but only six percent (6%) of those with Mainstream views agree.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.
That helps explain why 75% of voters are angry at the policies of the federal government, and 63% say it would be better for the country if most members of Congress are defeated this November. Just 27% believe their own representative in Congress is the best person for the job.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer wrote:


the party will revert to an open primary in which anyone can vote.

and there lies the problem, then we have dems crossing over and choosing the repub. candidate.
Then the liberals have 2 dogs in the fight- Conservatives 0
that is why we get all these rino's!

then people get stirred up because their voice isn't being heard, so the volume is turned up. The majority of people are conservative, they just seldom ever get to vote for one in the general election. If the elected actually represented a fair cross section of the people our Government would look allot different.

I don't know if that is true or not- probably just as many Repubs vote Dem sometimes to get a good local candidate in...

I know often in the primary- the party I voted for used to be decided by who I really wanted to see get in on a local or county level.. Thats where I like what our county did by making all local and county positions non partisan...You don't have to pick a party to vote for all of them...

Several years ago (15+) a legislative study was done in the state- and the committee reported back that overwhelmingly the voters were in favor of doing away with party designation for even state races-- the results were presented to the legislature- but as soon as the D's and the R's realized they would lose their power, control, and $$$$ they had the study squelched fast....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The real problem is the missing 13th ammendment. When the White House burned the 13th was changed. Study it and you will see the undermining of America.

No lawyer could be elected under the original 13th Amendment.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Pig Farmer said:
The real problem is the missing 13th ammendment. When the White House burned the 13th was changed. Study it and you will see the undermining of America.

No lawyer could be elected under the original 13th Amendment.

Another rightwingernut- Holier than thou right wing Evangelical/Pentacostal/Aryan Nation/ KKK white supremacy conspiracy tale-that claims to know what happened 200 years ago- that has never been shown even half a leg to stand on..... :roll: :lol: :lol:

13th Amendment to the Constitution:
“ Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Each of two amendments proposed by the Congress would have become the Thirteenth Amendment if it had been ratified when originally proposed.

Titles of Nobility Amendment, proposed by the Congress in 1810 and ratified by twelve states, would have revoked the citizenship of anyone either (1) accepting a foreign title of nobility or (2) accepting any foreign payment without Congressional authorization. (Never ratified by 3/4 of the states)


The Corwin Amendment was passed by the House on March 1, 1861 and the Senate on March 3, 1861. President Buchanan signed it the same day, which was also his last full day in office; it was later ratified by three states: Ohio, Maryland and Illinois. This proposed amendment would have forbidden the adoption any constitutional amendment that would have abolished or restricted slavery, or permitted the Congress to do so. This proposal was an unsuccessful attempt to convince the Southern states not to secede from the Union.

Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, specifically referred to this amendment:

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution...has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
But it was never ratified- mainly because 7 slave states had already left the union- and refused to vote...

How many years should we go back to change Constitutional/Legal precedent to satisty the Bible Thumpers and KKK folks... :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OT, I think I understand what you were trying to get across. But, I was raised pentecostal and I resent being thrown in this group. As far as the 13th amendment I have no view one way or the other. Some people may, and according to some earlier posts of yours, they have that right. You got fired up when I used the word"oppisition". And, according to my dictionary when someone is on the other side of the issue, they are "oppisition". I relented though and admitted that,maybe I could have used a better term. Perhaps we can state an opnion without calling names and stereotyping???
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Don't hold your breath for that Bar Bar 2, olstimer can't speak unless he is name calling.
At least he kept it somewhat clean, more so than usual.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldtimer said:
Pig Farmer said:
The real problem is the missing 13th ammendment. When the White House burned the 13th was changed. Study it and you will see the undermining of America.

No lawyer could be elected under the original 13th Amendment.

Another rightwingernut- Holier than thou right wing Evangelical/Pentacostal/Aryan Nation/ KKK white supremacy conspiracy tale-that claims to know what happened 200 years ago- that has never been shown even half a leg to stand on..... :roll: :lol: :lol:

13th Amendment to the Constitution:
“ Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Each of two amendments proposed by the Congress would have become the Thirteenth Amendment if it had been ratified when originally proposed.

Titles of Nobility Amendment, proposed by the Congress in 1810 and ratified by twelve states, would have revoked the citizenship of anyone either (1) accepting a foreign title of nobility or (2) accepting any foreign payment without Congressional authorization. (Never ratified by 3/4 of the states)


The Corwin Amendment was passed by the House on March 1, 1861 and the Senate on March 3, 1861. President Buchanan signed it the same day, which was also his last full day in office; it was later ratified by three states: Ohio, Maryland and Illinois. This proposed amendment would have forbidden the adoption any constitutional amendment that would have abolished or restricted slavery, or permitted the Congress to do so. This proposal was an unsuccessful attempt to convince the Southern states not to secede from the Union.

Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, specifically referred to this amendment:

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution...has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
But it was never ratified- mainly because 7 slave states had already left the union- and refused to vote...

How many years should we go back to change Constitutional/Legal precedent to satisty the Bible Thumpers and KKK folks... :???:


ot can you tell me how many copies of the original constitution still exist.

Let me help you read below! Have you ever read one of the original copies?

READ one of the originals and then come back and repost an apology.

By the way you just had another wedding wheres the pictures? :oops:


The missing 13th Amendment by David Dodge.
The real Title of Nobility Amendment FAQ by Jol Silversmith
Re: 13th amendment by Richard C. Green

"TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR"

In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine.

By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government. So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860. In June of this year (1991), Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from US Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous.

The story of this "missing" Amendment is complex and at times confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first understand the Amendment's meaning and consequent current relevance.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEANING of the 13th Amendment

The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the "title of nobility" Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. The references to "nobility", "honour", "emperor", "king", and "prince" lead us to dismiss this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. But in US modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored.

Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the United States (1787); Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though "titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HISTORICAL CONTEXT

To understand the meaning of this "missing" 13th Amendment, we must understand its historical context -- the era surrounding the American Revolution. We tend to regard the notion of "Democracy" as benign, harmless, and politically unremarkable. But at the time of the American Revolution, King George III and the other monarchies of Europe saw Democracy as an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat, every bit as dangerously radical as Communism was once regarded by modern Western nations. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned other revolutions around the world, the American Revolution provided an example and incentive for people all over the world to overthrow their European monarchies.

Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies. The United States stood as a heroic role model for other nations, that inspired them to also struggle against oppressive monarchies. The French Revolution (1789-1799) and the Polish national uprising (1794) were in part encouraged by the American Revolution. Though we stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the monarchies regarded the United States as a political typhoid Mary, the principle source of radical democracy that was destroying monarchies around the world. The monarchies must have realized that if the principle source of that infection could be destroyed, the rest of the world might avoid the contagion and the monarchies would be saved.

Their survival at stake, the monarchies sought to destroy or subvert the American system of government. Knowing they couldn't destroy us militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of political subversion, employing spies and secret agents skilled in bribery and legal deception -- it was, perhaps, the first "cold war". Since governments run on money, politicians run for money, and money is the usual enticement to commit treason, much of the monarchy's counter- revolutionary efforts emanated from English banks.


theres more at http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/E/thirteen/thirteen1.htm
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
jingo2 said:
Pig Farmer said:
By the way you just had another wedding wheres the pictures? :oops:


Now why do you want to do this???

Should you not practice what you preach aftger you slammed the poster FH?

Mine is all above board! I seem to notice ots post just slipped right by you jingo.
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Pig Farmer said:
jingo2 said:
Pig Farmer said:
By the way you just had another wedding wheres the pictures? :oops:


Now why do you want to do this???

Should you not practice what you preach aftger you slammed the poster FH?

Mine is all above board! I seem to notice ots post just slipped right by you jingo.

None of it is 'above' board.............. :roll: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldtimer said:
Pig Farmer said:
The real problem is the missing 13th ammendment. When the White House burned the 13th was changed. Study it and you will see the undermining of America.

No lawyer could be elected under the original 13th Amendment.

Another rightwingernut- Holier than thou right wing Evangelical/Pentacostal/Aryan Nation/ KKK white supremacy conspiracy tale-that claims to know what happened 200 years ago- that has never been shown even half a leg to stand on..... :roll: :lol: :lol:

13th Amendment to the Constitution:
“ Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Each of two amendments proposed by the Congress would have become the Thirteenth Amendment if it had been ratified when originally proposed.

Titles of Nobility Amendment, proposed by the Congress in 1810 and ratified by twelve states, would have revoked the citizenship of anyone either (1) accepting a foreign title of nobility or (2) accepting any foreign payment without Congressional authorization. (Never ratified by 3/4 of the states)


The Corwin Amendment was passed by the House on March 1, 1861 and the Senate on March 3, 1861. President Buchanan signed it the same day, which was also his last full day in office; it was later ratified by three states: Ohio, Maryland and Illinois. This proposed amendment would have forbidden the adoption any constitutional amendment that would have abolished or restricted slavery, or permitted the Congress to do so. This proposal was an unsuccessful attempt to convince the Southern states not to secede from the Union.

Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, specifically referred to this amendment:

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution...has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
But it was never ratified- mainly because 7 slave states had already left the union- and refused to vote...

How many years should we go back to change Constitutional/Legal precedent to satisty the Bible Thumpers and KKK folks... :???:


ot you mention a bunch of groups are you intimidated by these groups because you are A ORIGINAL tie died tea bagger? There is shore something causing you to chomp at the bits.
 
Top