scooterbob

Right on target, Fastbreak.

Putting all the fertilizer aside, give those of us who feel that Obama is, to be nice, an empty suit concrete reasons (even one) for voting for Obama. What has he accomplished? Don't give us the law school graduate argument because thousands graduate from law school each year and Harvard, in reality, doesn't produce any better lawyers than does any other law school. Don't tell us that he was a brilliant student because no one knows what grades he earned at any level of his education Don't tell us he was a community organizer because we don't have any information as to what he really did other than register voters for the Democrats of Illinois. Don't tell us he is a U.S. Senator because he has introduced no legislation on his own and has spent half of his term running for president. Don't tell us he is a self-made man because it is obvious that he has a number of liberal handlers and promoters. All of the statements in this paragraph are examples of "fertilizer". also, don't waste our time by taking shots at Palin, McCain, and Bush. That has nothing to do with my query (The "they are worse" argument and feel good "we need change" argument, as Harry Callihan said, "don't get it". So don't insult us with them. So, now that we have gotten rid of the manure, give us some real information.

In effigy, absolutely. It is freedom of expression which has been interpreted to be merely an expansion of freedom of speech (First Amendment). However, an actual lynching is not constitutional without due process of law and without consideration of other applicable laws- state and federal.

I firmly believe that both acts are protected by the Second Amendment (Of course, that and many other traditional rights may change after January 20, 2009.). Many of you see both as criminal in nature. That's fine since all have a right to their opinion. However, my concern is that many seem to feel that the hanging of Obama is more serious than the hanging of Palin. Such a position supports the creation of a privileged group. That is not constitutional. Our country is based upon the premise that all are created equal with equal protection under the law. To advocate otherwise for special treatment of a certain group, regardless of the rational used to do so, is not in the best interests of any of us- even the special group.

In Ohio, by order of a Clinton appointee, they vote at the polling place located nearest their park bench.

It has happened before. If it happened to my child, I would hold the school responsible. It should not have allowed partisans on the school property without having the opposing party present. Although nothing will happen (Does it ever?), someone should be burned.

I feel sure the framers of our constitution would find the concept of "hate crimes" completely adverse to their intentions. They would be appalled just as anyone with a scintilla of knowledge of the constitution and traditional constitutional law should be appalled.

If we are ever going to reach that alleged utopia known as a "color-blind society", we cannot continually set different rules for dealing with perceived attacks on certain special groups. Equality does not mean that some get more protection than do others. Also, the sins of past generations have nothing to do with people living in the present. To think otherwise is to use a crutch.

The hypocrisy rests in the fact that Palin can be hanged in effigy and no one finds it disturbing. However, when it happens to Obama, shockwaves are heard all around. I am consistent. I actually find both acts to be lawful and protected expressions of our First Amendment rights.

Sometimes the truth is too much for one such as you to comprehend. There is truth and there is political correctness. They are rarely the same.

If you believe what you posted, I have some swamp property in Florida I would like to sell you.

Your argument is less than convincing but that is usually the case with you appeasers. Obama deserves no more consideration than does Palin. That is how this country is supposed to work. And, of course, Todd is a fool.

Ah, yes, the infamous hate crime. Truly an invention of liberals. Undoubtedly, the framers would be shocked to learn that, instead of all men being created equal, we have a special class. God help us when the liberals take over.

Now wait a minute, boys. I haven't seen much indignation out of you over the Palin "hanging" several days ago in California. Of course, we are being told that nothing illegal was done and the dummy has not been, nor must it be, removed. As a multiple graduate of UK, I must say I am disturbed by Todd's typical overreaction. UK has received its last alumnus dollar from me. The truth of the matter is that, unless we have citizens with special "super rights", the reaction to Obama's hanging should be no different than the reaction to Palin's hanging. The last time I read the US Constitution, it clearly stated that all should be treated equally. Of course, that appears to be changing, doesn't it?

I am an employer. If the minimum wage is increased the end result is that most all workers end up with an increase somewhere along the line. When that happens, I will merely pass along the increase, plus a little for good measure, to my clients. Since most every employer will do the same, the result will be a net loss in purchasing power for those receiving the "increase". Obama apparently doesn't understand this but, of course, he has never been an employer (or much else if the truth be told).

It will be difficult for many Obamaites to take a day off from work since they have no job or credible means of self support. But, then, many of them can change their usual "daily routine" to vote a time or two. With the prospect of money raining down from "Obama's Redistribution Heaven", there will be a lot of incentive for them to get out of bed.

If Biden isn't a millionaire after all those years as a US Senator, he must be spending even more of his money on Botox than even his appearance indicates.

I would like to see Liddy on the US Supreme Court. It would be nice for him to replace Mrs. Ginsberg or Stevens.

Very true. Those bureaucrats and individuals of a similar mindset are the ones I was referring to in the "decent minority" group. I have always been troubled by those who want everyone to vote. The result of these efforts (get out the vote) is that, when these unmotivated, uninformed, takers from the system vote, they decide the outcome of the election. I, on the other hand, believe that, if you don't have enopugh gumption to get out and vote on election day or if you aren't at least involved enough to get a legitimate absentee ballot, you don't deserve to vote.

Don't spin what I said, rockmom. I did not say all who support Obama are jobless people looking for handouts. I actually know a good many employed people who will vote as will you. Let me say it in a more direct way. If only those who actually pay income taxes and contribute to the system (thus being the ones who are, in reality, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty) were allowed to vote, McCain would win by a large margin. Surely, no one can doubt that this is true. Now, Obama will get a decent minority of the votes of that group. However, his margin of victory will be from those who are not a part of that group (ie: What is in it for me that won't require me to do anything of an active nature other than vote a time or two?).

:thumb: :thumb:

You know, rockmom, if you keep your eyes open and observe, some truths are obvious. This is one of them. To really believe otherwise is ridiculous- although probably quite politically correct.

I'm sure a number are "hoping for a job" in order to receive "compensation". However, from the profile of many of Obama's new voters (and a goodly number of his more "seasoned" voters), it is obvious that they want the latter without the burden of the former.

The only numbers that you can know are correct are the numbers that indicate that, if only those who actually contribute to the country (pay actual income taxes, etc.) voted, McCain would win easily. I received an email the other day that explained why Obama draws much larger crowds at rallies than does McCain. The reason was, of course, that McCain supporters had a job and were at work. Not politically correct but certainly true.

He, himself, can initiate directives that will result in wholesale abortion for any reason and at any time. As a Catholic (say what you will but you know this is not an area for self-interpretation), I am appalled at this probability. Obama's alleged church affiliation has few, if any, real moral absolutes (and that is being nice).