Well that makes a little more sense. You're a much better explainer than 02Ram54.

I was just making a money is speech joke.

Well that makes a little more sense. You're a much better explainer than 02Ram54.

 

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

Oh, I see, you think that during the primary season the first ammendment should be suspended for the candidates.

 

(Sorry, I'm just having so much fun channelling my Inner Mitch in these threads. You know I'm just playin'.)

 

Is the first amendment suspended by them coming and giving me $100 and have that possibly influence my vote?

Really what I want to know is how to become a Super Delegate?

Is the first amendment suspended by them coming and giving me $100 and have that possibly influence my vote?

... I think you invert your meaning.

 

I think you mean to ask if it infringes their first amendment rights if they aren't allowed to do that. The answer is no, that's a bribe, assuming you aren't running for office.

 

Now, if you're running for office, money is speech. So says Mitch.

 

If you disagree with that statement, and think money is soiling politics to the point that no decent person can touch it, then by all means, Ditch Mitch.

A guy Bill Decker, (I think was his name) was on one of the talking political shows. He said he was one of the persons that was involved in setting up the Superdelegates in the early 80's.

 

He admitted that the Superdelegates were totally put in place to make sure Teddy Kennedy did not get the nomination over Walter Mondale. He said people can claim what they want but he was in the room when it was setup and they were afraid the people would nominate Teddy Kennedy and they wanted Walter Mondale as the candidate. They set up the system to make sure Mondale was the candidate.

 

That's a really interesting scenario. An insider tells us the story of how it all happened and was set up.

 

Problem is that if memory isn't failing, Ted Kennedy did not run for the Dem Nomination in '84. That's when Fritz Mondale was nominated. To my recollection Ted Kennedy only ran for president once and that was against Jimmy Carter in '80. That race further ruined Carter's chances of unifying the party and competing vs. Reagan.

 

Now if this guy just has his years and opponents mixed up that would be fine but that story doesn't jive with history.

... I think you invert your meaning.

 

I think you mean to ask if it infringes their first amendment rights if they aren't allowed to do that. The answer is no, that's a bribe, assuming you aren't running for office.

 

Now, if you're running for office, money is speech. So says Mitch.

 

If you disagree with that statement, and think money is soiling politics to the point that no decent person can touch it, then by all means, Ditch Mitch.

 

Dems give me a pro-life candidate and I would consider voting for them. But killing unborn babies is a bigger issue to our society than this.

 

So, they can give other politicians money for their campaigns and it ain't a bribe. But if they wanted to give my business money, they could not because it is a bribe.

 

Can I run for dog catcher and take their money?

That's a really interesting scenario. An insider tells us the story of how it all happened and was set up.

 

Problem is that if memory isn't failing, Ted Kennedy did not run for the Dem Nomination in '84. That's when Fritz Mondale was nominated. To my recollection Ted Kennedy only ran for president once and that was against Jimmy Carter in '80. That race further ruined Carter's chances of unifying the party and competing vs. Reagan.

 

Now if this guy just has his years and opponents mixed up that would be fine but that story doesn't jive with history.

 

I think you read something into the post that was not there. They were afraid that Ted Kennedy would run in 84 and would win the nomination. They wanted Mondale to be the candidate in 84 for the general election.

 

So prior to 84, they set up a system that they felt would assure Mondale the nomination.

 

I would assume that they would have to do this in 81 or 82 or very early 83.

Dems give me a pro-life candidate and I would consider voting for them. But killing unborn babies is a bigger issue to our society than this.

 

So, they can give other politicians money for their campaigns and it ain't a bribe. But if they wanted to give my business money, they could not because it is a bribe.

 

Can I run for dog catcher and take their money?

 

 

The pro-life is a big concern of mine too LBBC, but I don't think no matter who is going to be the next president or any from then on will be able to change that law so I think it is a moot point. IMO

The pro-life is a big concern of mine too LBBC, but I don't think no matter who is going to be the next president or any from then on will be able to change that law so I think it is a moot point. IMO

 

Young whippersnapper:D, we have been through this before on here, so I will give you the condensed version.

 

Bill Clinton vetoed the partial birth abortion bill.

George Bush passed it and it was upheld through a Supreme Court decision and is now law.

 

So, in the regards to one form of abortions, the choice of President was a big difference. Democrat President, it is legal to have a baby partially born then killed. Republican President, it is not legal.

 

Any change in the status of the legality of abortions will only be done through the Supreme Court. Who nominates the SC justices? The President. So, another area that a pro-lifer supporter while it DOES NOT GUARANTEE a pro-life justice, it sure is better than a person who thinks it is acceptable practice for this country would nominate.

 

And finally to move out of the political area and into a spiritual area on judgement day when I am called to account for my actions, I feel pretty confident that I will be MORE LIKELY to account for my votes as they stand in relation to the killing of unborn babies instead of repealing of the Bush tax cuts.

Young whippersnapper:D, we have been through this before on here, so I will give you the condensed version.

 

Bill Clinton vetoed the partial birth abortion bill.

George Bush passed it and it was upheld through a Supreme Court decision and is now law.

 

So, in the regards to one form of abortions, the choice of President was a big difference. Democrat President, it is legal to have a baby partially born then killed. Republican President, it is not legal.

 

Any change in the status of the legality of abortions will only be done through the Supreme Court. Who nominates the SC justices? The President. So, another area that a pro-lifer supporter while it DOES NOT GUARANTEE a pro-life justice, it sure is better than a person who thinks it is acceptable practice for this country would nominate.

 

And finally to move out of the political area and into a spiritual area on judgement day when I am called to account for my actions, I feel pretty confident that I will be MORE LIKELY to account for my votes as they stand in relation to the killing of unborn babies instead of repealing of the Bush tax cuts.

 

Yes that might be true but Regan never appointed the right justices that got RvW changed. And he had the chance if I remember right. It might have been him and Bush Sr. Plus I don't think I am going to be judged on how I vote. I think there are many other things that I have to worry about before that. :eek:

Yes that might be true but Regan never appointed the right justices that got RvW changed. And he had the chance if I remember right. It might have been him and Bush Sr. Plus I don't think I am going to be judged on how I vote. I think there are many other things that I have to worry about before that. :eek:

 

Check out the book of Hosea. God sure seemed to hold the religious people accountable for how the nation of Israel turned away from God. And the people ended up in slavery because of it.

 

If you vote for a candidate that supports the allowing of the practice of killing unborn babies in this country, you are enabling it.

THIS IS NOT AN ABORTION THREAD!

I think you read something into the post that was not there. They were afraid that Ted Kennedy would run in 84 and would win the nomination. They wanted Mondale to be the candidate in 84 for the general election.

 

So prior to 84, they set up a system that they felt would assure Mondale the nomination.

 

I would assume that they would have to do this in 81 or 82 or very early 83.

 

Actually I read what was there.

 

The way you spell it out makes sense but as I recall the climate of the times Kennedy really didn't look to run anymore after the '80 loss to Carter.

Check out the book of Hosea. God sure seemed to hold the religious people accountable for how the nation of Israel turned away from God. And the people ended up in slavery because of it.

 

If you vote for a candidate that supports the allowing of the practice of killing unborn babies in this country, you are enabling it.

 

If that's all you get from Hosea you have missed the boat.

 

The pivotal allegory of Hosea and the direct words from God in the book deal with the unending forgiveness and grace of God. Everytime Gomer leaves, Hosea goes after her to bring her back. "How Can I give you up Israel? How can I abandon you Ephraim?"