Friday, November 5, 2010

Re: It's Okay That You're Not Voting Today

At 02:05 PM 11/5/2010, you wrote:
Everyone who didn't vote, did the right thing.  Please continue and
thanks again


"These voters, having given their votes in secret have put it out of your power to designate your principals individually. You have no legal knowledge as to who voted for you. And being unable to designate your principals individually, you have no right to say that you have any principals. And having no right to say that you have any principals, you are mere usurpers, making laws and enforcing them upon your own authority alone. A secret ballot makes a secret government; and a secret government is nothing else than a government by conspiracy. And a government by conspiracy is the only government we now have. You say that "every voter exercises a public trust." Who appointed him to that trust? Nobody. He simply usurped the power; he never accepted the trust. And because he usurped the power, he dares exercise it only in secret. Not one of all the voters who helped to place you in power would have dared to do so if he had known that he was to be held personally responsible for the acts of those for whom he voted."  -- Lysander Spooner

Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians: What’s the Difference?


Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians: What's the Difference?
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Friday, November 5, 2010

People sometimes ask what the differences are between liberals, conservatives, and libertarians.

The primary differences are moral and philosophical.

Libertarians believe that people should be free to live their lives any way they choose, so long as their conduct is peaceful.

Liberals and conservatives believe that people should be free to live their lives any way they choose, so long as their conduct is responsible.

Libertarians believe that the primary purposes of government are to protect people from the violence of others (e.g., murderers, rapists, thieves, and invaders) and to provide a forum (i.e., a judiciary) in which people can peacefully resolve their disputes.

Liberals and conservatives believe that the primary purposes of government are to take care of people, to regulate and control people's activities and to manage the economy, and to police the world through an extensive military empire.

To demonstrate the practical differences between liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, here is where most liberals, conservatives, and libertarians stand on a variety of governmental programs, departments, and agencies.

(Of course, it's always possible to find exceptions within each group. For example, Bill Buckley, a conservative, opposed the drug war but everyone would agree that most Republicans in Congress support it. Liberals Glenn Greenwald and the ACLU oppose infringements on civil liberties but everyone would agree that most Democrats in Congress support them. Moreover, while liberals and conservatives agree on the programs and departments, there might be vehement disagreements between them as to who should run them and how they should be run.)

                          Liberals & Conservatives                   Libertarians
Social Security          Support                    Oppose
Medicare                          Support                    Oppose
Medicaid                          Support                    Oppose
Public Schooling                  Support                   Oppose
Income Taxes & the IRS  Support                   Oppose
Welfare                           Support                    Oppose
Food Stamps              Support                    Oppose
Subsidies                         Support                    Oppose
Bailouts                          Support                    Oppose
Foreign Aid                       Support                    Oppose
Occupational Licensure  Support                   Oppose
Minimum Wage             Support                    Oppose
Economic Regulations    Support                    Oppose
The Postal Monopoly     Support                    Oppose
Trade Restrictions               Support                    Oppose
Immigration Controls    Support                    Oppose
Public Works             Support                    Oppose
Paper Money              Support                    Oppose
Legal Tender Laws                Support                    Oppose
The War on Drugs                  Support                   Oppose
Gun Control                       Support                    Oppose
The War on Terrorism    Support                    Oppose
Foreign Wars             Support                    Oppose
Wars of Aggression       Support                   Oppose
Undeclared Wars          Support                    Oppose
The Standing Army                Support                    Oppose
Military-Indtrl Complex Support                   Oppose
Overseas Military Empire         Support                   Oppose
Coups                     Support                    Oppose
Assassination            Support                    Oppose
Torture                   Support                    Oppose
Immunity for Illgl Srvllnc      Support                    Oppose
Frndly Frgn Dctrshps    Support                    Oppose
Infrngmnts on Cvl Lbrts Support                   Oppose
The Patriot Act          Support                    Oppose
Military Tribunals               Support                    Oppose
Occptns Iraq & Afghnstn Support                   Oppose
Dept of Education                Support                    Oppose
Dept of Commerce        Support                    Oppose
Dept of HHS              Support                    Oppose
Dept of Energy           Support                    Oppose
Dept of Hmlnd Security  Support                   Oppose
Dept of HUD              Support                    Oppose
Dept of Labor            Support                    Oppose
Dept of the Interior             Support                    Oppose
Dept of Agriculture              Support                    Oppose
Dept of Transportation  Support                   Oppose
Dept of Ntnl Intelligence        Support                   Oppose
The CIA                   Support                    Oppose
The FBI                   Support                    Oppose
The IRS                   Support                    Oppose
The DEA                   Support                    Oppose
The Federal Reserve     Support                    Oppose
The Border Patrol                Support                    Oppose

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-11-05.asp

since this subject seems to preoccupy so many here ...



GOP: Gay Old Party? More gays voted Republican than in 2008
By Jonathan Capehart

If you want more data that gay men and lesbians are pretty much just like everyone else -- worried about the economy, freaked out about the direction of the country and perhaps ticked at the slow pace of change with regard to their civil rights -- get a load of this exit poll result.

Gay men, lesbians and bisexuals who self-identified to exit pollsters made up 3 percent of those casting ballots in House races on Tuesday, and 31 percent of them voted Republican. By itself, that number is amazing, especially when you consider that way too many people think being gay and voting Democratic are one in the same. But that percentage is ominous news for a White House viewed with suspicion by many gay men and lesbians, because that's four percentage points higher than the change election of 2008.

Self-identified gays have been slowly sidling up to the GOP for a while now. In the 2008 presidential race, they made up four percent of the vote and gave 27 percent of their votes to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) against then-Sen. Barack Obama. In the 2006 midterm elections, when the House and Senate flipped to Democratic control, gays made up three percent of the electorate with the Republicans snagging 24 percent of their ballots. And in the 2004 presidential elections, President George W. Bush got 23 percent of the gay vote. They comprised four percent of those polled.

Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of the gay conservative group GOProud, is heralding the uptick in votes from gay men, lesbians and bisexuals for Republicans.

"The gay left would have you believe that gay conservatives don't exist. Now we see that almost a third of self-identified gay voters cast ballots for Republican candidates for Congress in this year's midterm," continued LaSalvia. "This should be a wake-up call for the out-of-touch so-called leadership of Gay, Inc. in Washington, D.C., which has become little more than a subsidiary of the Democrat Party."

But Post polling director Jon Cohen urged caution when interpreting the exit polls. "[Be] *careful* of extremely low sample sizes," he wrote to me in an e-mail. "Given the way the exit poll was divided into smaller parts, only 126 voters interviewed nationwide described themselves as gay. Sampling error margin is about + or - at least nine points for this group of voters." That should put a damper on LaSalvia's end-zone dancing. But the overall trend and the message it sends should not be ignored by Democrats.

Update, 4:55 p.m.: A previous version of this post did not make it clear that the gay men, lesbians and bisexuals surveyed by exit pollsters self-identified as such. The text above now reflects this.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/11/gop_gay_old_party_more_gays_vo.html

Re: Here is an issue that needs to be addressed right away in the new Congress and resolved

Praise be to Government, Amen.

Regard$,
--MJ

"[Y]ou simply cannot argue with nationalists. The Germans are fully
convinced that compulsion applied by them to other nations is fair and
just, while compulsion applied to themselves is criminal."
-- Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government

At 02:04 PM 11/5/2010, you wrote:
>Military votes should be taken before any official election dates, and
>counted first. No way to contest, disallow or challenge. FIRST.
>
>If I could, I'd say count those ones twice.
>
>I know we can't, but if anyone's vote counts more than John/Jane Q.
>Public's, its John/Jane Q. Soldier's
>
>On Nov 5, 1:42 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > If the Republicans allow this one to slip by then they have only
> > themselves to blame when the next election the military still does not
> > get to vote because of the actions of the local election boards and the
> > states.
> >
> > The Scandal of Military Voter Disenfranchisement
> > We can't depend on the Justice Department to see to it that the states
> > comply with the law regarding absentee ballots being shipped in a timely
> > manner to military personnel overseas.
> > November 4, 2010 - by Captain Samuel F. Wright, JAGC, USN (Ret.)
> >
> > Share |
> >
> > In a speech to the House of Commons on August 20, 1940, Prime Minister
> > Winston Churchill said:
> >
> > The gratitude of every home in our island, in our empire, and indeed
> > throughout the world, except in the abodes of the guilty, goes out to
> > the British airmen who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant
> > challenge of mortal danger, are turning the tide of world war by their
> > prowess and their devotion. Never in the field of human conflict was so
> > much owed by so many to so few.
> >
> > These eloquent words about the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain
> > could apply equally to the men and women of the United States Armed
> > Forces today. The entire U.S. military establishment, including the
> > National Guard and Reserve, amounts to less than three-fourths of 1
> > percent of the U.S. population. It is these few who, by their prowess
> > and their devotion, have protected all Americans from a repeat of the
> > horrors of September 11, 2001.
> >
> > What do these few ask of our country in exchange for their valiant
> > service? They have every right to ask, and indeed to demand, that they
> > be given the opportunity to cast ballots in elections that get counted.
> > In a 1952 letter to Congress, President Harry S. Truman wrote:
> >
> > About 2,500,000 men and women in the Armed Forces are of voting age at
> > the present time. Many of those in uniform are serving overseas, or in
> > parts of the country distant from their homes. They are unable to
> > return to their States either to register or to vote. Yet these men and
> > women, who are serving their country and in many cases risking their
> > lives, deserve above all others to exercise the right to vote in this
> > election year. At a time when these young people are defending our
> > country and its free institutions, the least we at home can do is to
> > make sure that they are able to enjoy the rights they are being asked to
> > fight to preserve.
> >
> > President Truman's letter is included in a 1952 report of the
> > Subcommittee on Elections, Committee on House Administration, U.S. House
> > of Representatives, concerning voting rights for military personnel
> > fighting the Korean War. The Honorable C.G. Hall, secretary of state of
> > Arkansas and president of the National Association of Secretaries of
> > State, testified that military personnel in Korea and elsewhere were
> > likely to be disenfranchised because late primaries, ballot access
> > lawsuits, and other problems made it impossible for local election
> > officials (LEOs) to print and mail absentee ballots until just a few
> > days before Election Day.
> >
> > In his 1952 letter, President Truman called upon the states to fix this
> > problem, and he called upon Congress to enact temporary federal
> > legislation for the 1952 presidential election. He wrote,
> >
> > Any such legislation by Congress should be temporary, since it should be
> > possible to make all the necessary changes in State laws before the
> > congressional elections of 1954.
> >
> > Well, it did not work out that way. The Korean War ground to an
> > inconclusive halt in 1952, the issue dropped off our national radar
> > screen, and the states did not fix the problem. Finally, in 2009,
> > Congress enacted the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE
> > Act). This new law requires every state to mail out absentee ballots to
> > military personnel and family members by the 45th day before Election
> > Day (e.g., September 18, 2010). Several sstates with late primaries
> > applied for and received waivers for 2010, and agreed to extend the
> > deadline for the return of ballots mailed in from overseas.
> >
> > In Illinois, the problem was not a late primary. Indeed, Illinois held
> > its 2010 primary on February 2, 2010. But 35 of 110 Illinois counties
> > seriously missed the September 18 deadline. One of the late counties
> > was St. Clair County, home to 261,000 people and to Scott Air Force Base.
> >
> > The U.S. Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing the MOVE
> > Act, but it seems not to take its responsibilities seriously --- perhaps
> > because military personnel vote overwhelmingly Republican when they do
> > have the opportunity to vote.
> >
> > DoJ entered into a consent decree with Illinois that does not solve the
> > problem. In those counties that were seriously late in sending out
> > ballots, the consent decree extends by only one day (from November 1 to
> > November 2) the deadline for the postmark of the marked ballot coming
> > back to the local election official. If Sergeant Smith in Afghanistan
> > receives his ballot on November 3, he cannot cast a ballot that will get
> > counted.
> >
> > Congress should amend the MOVE Act to clarify that individual military
> > voters have a private right of action to enforce the 45-day rule. We
> > cannot depend upon DOJ to enforce this law in good faith. DOJ, under
> > present management, will paper over MOVE Act violations for the same
> > reason that it condoned voter intimidation by the New Black Panther
> > Party in Philadelphia in 2008.
> >
> > Congress should also clarify that military personnel and family members
> > overseas have the right to vote in state and local elections as well as
> > federal elections, and that any violation of the 45-day rule must be
> > remedied by a court order extending both the deadline for the postmark
> > of the marked ballot and the deadline for its receipt.
> >
> > It is a national scandal that we as a nation are still conducting
> > absentee voting in much the same way that it was conducted during the
> > Korean War --- by shipping pieces of paper across oceans and continents
> > by snail mail. In our Armed Forces, classified information is
> > transmitted and received every day by secure electronic means. In
> > commerce, billions of dollars change hands electronically every business
> > day. If electronic means are secure enough for our nation's most
> > important secrets and for huge sums of money, why is it not possible, in
> > 2010, for deployed service members to vote by a secure means that will
> > guarantee that their ballots are counted?
> >
> > Captain Wright retired after a career as a judge advocate in the Navy
> > and Navy Reserve. He has been working the military voting issue since 1976.
> >
> > Podcasts
> > Subscribe
> > PJM Home
> > If you liked this article, please consider signing up for PJM daily digest.
> >
> > Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following
> > guidelines:
> >
> > 1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a
> > necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
> >
> > 2. Stay on topic.
> >
> > 3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
> >
> > 4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
> >
> > 5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
> >
> > These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible
> > situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with
> > or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to
> > filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our
> > discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial
> > staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was
> > filtered inappropriately, please email us atst...@pajamasmedia.com
> > <mailto:st...@pajamasmedia.com>.
> >
> > 15 Comments, 14 Threads
> >
> > 1. Ken
> > How about an amendment to the MOVE Act, so that military members who
> > don't get their absentee ballots on time are allowed to skip paying
> > state and local income taxes for the year?
> >
> > November 4, 2010 - 5:17 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
> > canuck
> > Good idea but two flaws. Some states have no income taxes and the period
> > should extend through the term of whomever is on the ballot. Six years
> > for Senate and four for President or Governor. Include federal taxes and
> > this will be an incentive to get votes to them.
> >
> > November 5, 2010 - 3:07 am Link to this Comment | Reply
> > 2. justasimplepatriot
> > Sign on Marine Barracks outside of Baghdad:
> >
> > "America is not at war, We are at war. America is at the Mall."
> >
> > How do you think this vote travesty impacts our troops.
> >
> > Raise Hell, America.
> >
> > November 4, 2010 - 6:07 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
> > 3. Anonymous
> > I do not see why the military just doesn't conduct it's own election
> > right where they are stationed and then add the vote to the state totals.
> > It is a national disgrace that illegal aliens have their vote more
> > protected than our military members.
> >
> > November 4, 2010 - 6:08 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
> > 4. Jon Nedved
> > On Tuesday evening, as I was preparing to vote, I noted with pride that
> > my daughter (registered in the same precinct) had already voted.
> > Immediately above my name on the list of registered voters was the name
> > of my youngest son, who is a Marine currently deployed on a Navy ship. I
> > was saddened to see that he had not voted, and then realized that it was
> > nearly impossible to get/receive mail from him, which is understandable
> > given his location. Why can't we, as a country, make it easy for those
> > who put their lives on the line defending us to cast a ballot? Why is it
> > easier to come here from a foreign country and obtain social services
> > than it is for our troops to vote? Shame on us!
> >
> > November 4, 2010 - 6:37 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
> > 5. Steve S
> > I suspect that the Justice Dept will have plenty of explaining to do
> > with the new Congress. If any of the issues see the light of day is the
> > problem.
> >
> > November 4, 2010 - 7:34 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
> > 6. Andy Gump (formerly Oscar the Grump)
> > The disenfranchisement of our military personnel smacks of Stalinist era
> > leadership. Its against the law right now to ask an individual for
> > identification or proof of citizenship. Where as, our military is
> > intentionally left out on purpose. Now that we have a Republican
> > Congress, its first job should be to guarantee the military the right to
> > vote. It should also call for the use of identification at each voting
> > precinct and/or proof of citizenship. Without such guarantees we are
> > only setting ourselves up to have the 2012 election hijacked. If we
> > press the point via Congress and the Bill is rejected by the Senate or
> > the President, it will prove our point.
> >
> > November 4, 2010 - 9:00 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
> > 7. ITYS
> > This is an absolute outrage and has been reported in the media for at
> > least 3weeks, yet no resolution. Its disgusting, the calculated
> > incompetence and disenfranchisement was purposeful b/c they know the
> > military overwhelmingly goes R. No ballots to those who put their lives
> > on the line for this country, but votes were taken personally to the
> > convicts in IL. Since when do the convicts get to vote????? Did nay
> > reporter ever ask Obama about this failure???? He's supposed to be the
> > commander-in-chief and he would actually have garnered some respect had
> > he acted to rectify this problem.
> >
> > November 4, 2010 - 9:43 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
> > 8. Anonymous
> > Left/liberals love illegal aliens and piss on our military.
> >
> > November 5, 2010 - 12:13 am Link to this Comment | Reply
> > 9. Mark Matis
> > And yet again, "Law Enforcement" is the Great Enabler for this. Be sure
> > to thank them appropriately for the OUTSTANDING job they have done.
> >
> > November 5, 2010 - 4:48 am Link to this Comment | Reply
> > 10. Eric Jablow
> > Perhaps disenfranchised soldiers could bring a lawsuit demanding that
> > Illinois and other states forfeit some of their representation in
> > Congress, according to section 2 of the 14th Amendment:
> >
> > "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according
> > to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in
> > each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at
> > any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President
> > of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and
> > Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof,
> > is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one
> > years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way
> > abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the
> > basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which
> > the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male
> > citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
> >
> > November 5, 2010 - 5:08 am Link to this Comment | Reply
> > 11. Claudia
> > We certainly can complain about the DOJ not doing their job, but we
> > conservatives didn't do much to make sure this outrage from the 2000
> > election was remedied and we did have the majority to accomplish it.
> > That said, it does not fall on deaf ears that the Dems seems to be those
> > most prone to disenfranchise the public with scores of groups who's aim
> > is to commit voter fraud in every way possible, Acorn is a great
> > example. What is it about liberals that honor seems to be something they
> > don't recognize or understand?
> >
> > November 5, 2010 - 5:46 am Link to this Comment | Reply
> > 12. kjatexas
> > Why is it that no one seems to ever go to jail for the kind of voter
> > fraud we see on a regular basis.
> >
> > November 5, 2010 - 8:01 am Link to this Comment | Reply
> > 13. Bill Lawrence
> > What must not be forgotten is that this year's disenfranchisement of the
> > military was in VIOLATION of the law. We need criminal penalties for
> > officials fail to get military ballots out as per the deadline.
> >
> > November 5, 2010 - 8:25 am Link to this Comment | Reply
> > 14. Joseph Rush Wills, II
> > The disenfranchisement of military personnel is only part of a larger
> > problem of election fraud. Unfortunately, Americans accept voter fraud
> > and in many cases wink at it. But election fraud is the theft of
> > democracy and attacks the very core of Representative government and the
> > Consent of the Governed in our Declaration of Independence.
> > Those failing to mail ballots to our brave men and women on the front
> > lines well knew how our defenders would vote; that's why they were cheated.
> > Commenter Bill Lawrence suggested criminal penalties for officials who
> > fail to get military ballots out on time; I agree, but make those
> > penalties, and all penalties for voter fraud severe. Not a few months in
> > a minimum security "white collar" penitentury, knowing they'll be "taken
> > care of" when they gey out, but long years at hard labor at some remote
> > prison camp.
> > The new Congress needs to address this corruption...and take steps to
> > ensure that those who attempt to "rig" elections in any way get the
> > punishment they deserve.
> > God Bless our military!
> >
> > November 5, 2010 - 9:45 am Link to this Comment | Reply
>
>--
>Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
>* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: *? 2 ALL: BUSH: 'DAMN RIGHT' I APPROVED WATERBOARDING - WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS?*



I look forward to something that is actually logical -- though I doubt it.
You seem to imagine that fallacy is instead reason, but then a great deal of your efforts are rather Orwellian.

Regard$,
--MJ

It is amazing how many people think that they can
answer an argument by attributing bad motives to
those who disagree with them. Using this kind of
reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything
about anything, without having to bother to deal
with facts or logic. -- Thomas Sowell




At 01:46 PM 11/5/2010, you wrote:
As stated, I intend on responding to this missive by Moonbat Raimondo later this evening, when I have time to write something logical and sensible, unlike Raimondo. 
 
I think that my purported "Fallacious"  pictures of Moonbats and crackpots, representing both, "Wacko Left Socialist-Elitist Moonbats"  and "Wacko Right Conspiratorialist Crackpots"  are quite apt, appropriate, befitting, and directly on point, being far from fallacious.
 
If the shoe fits......
 
I will search for an "apt, appropriate, befitting" picture of an "Anarcho-Capitalist" when I also get a moment.


 
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:37 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:


I have a dozen or so posts that are 'responded' to by you with pictures of bats and
similar FALLACIOUS sentiment.

A true pity that you are unable/incapable of addressing the words, concepts and ideas
that are ACTUALLY presented.

Regard$,
--MJ

If you don't like someone, the way he holds his spoon
makes you furious; if you like him, he can turn his plate
over into your lap and you won't mind. -- Irving Becker






 
 I will respond to Michael's posting of ANYTHING by Justin Raimondo, who is clueless, not at all an expert on what constitutes "torture", and who has an agenda that is clearly Anti-American.  (Raimondo runs a web site called, "Moonbats Against The War"  or something like that);
 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: 2010 Mid-Terms: Only 29% Consent to be Governed by the 112th US Congress



Still trying to change the subject -- not to mention your incessant projection.

Regard$,
--MJ

Probably not many realize how the rapid centralization of government
in America has fostered a kind of organized pauperism.  The big
industrial states contribute most of the Federal revenues and the
bureaucracy distributes it in the pauper states wherever it will do
the most good in a political way.  The same thing takes place within
the states themselves.  In fostering pauperism it also by necessary
consequence fosters corruption.  ... All this is due to the iniquitous
theory of taxation with which this country has been so thoroughly
indoctrinated -- that a man should be taxed according to his ability
to pay, instead of according to the value of the privileges he obtains
from government.  -- Albert Jay Nock



At 01:40 PM 11/5/2010, you wrote:
Back when I had about fifty employees, (most were predominately Black)  I encouraged them all to go and vote.  I even gave everyone a half of a day off, to go and vote.  Somewhere, around 1990ish, it dawned on me, that the few employees that did choose to go and vote, did not vote the way that I voted, or the way that I wanted them to vote, and like I said, most of them chose to go and drink or do some other, "constructive" past time, instead of voting.
 
So,  around this time, I quit giving folks a half a day off to go and vote, and I strongly encourage Moonbats, Crackpots, and Anarcho-Capitalists to stay at the house on election day.  As demonstrated here in Political Forum, many folks don't have a clue what is going on around them in the first place, and dangerous to themselves, as well as to the general public. 
 
I encourage the few employees that I have today, (all contractors by the way)  to go to the bar and have a few drinks instead of voting.....That they should not worry about such things.
 
Seems to work out well.
 


 
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:01 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:


Thats relevant.  This is your thread.  I am asking YOU.

ROTFLMAO!
I have been concerned with this sham and illusion for decades.

NOW -- other than your endless efforts at fallacy -- what is it you imagine that has to do with:

"A majority of those who could have voted refused to. A supermajority either chose not to vote or weren't allowed to vote," says Knapp. "Yet for the next two years, that politician will claim to 'represent,' and to possess legitimate authority to rule, all of them."

2010 Mid-Terms: Only 29% Consent to be Governed by the 112th US Congress
90 million Americans voted in the 2010 mid-term congressional elections. 220 million didn't. So much for the consent of the governed.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRLog (Press Release) – Nov 04, 2010 – According to the Associated Press, 90 million Americans -- only 42% of registered voters -- pulled the lever for a congressional candidate on Tuesday. That's just a hair under 29% of the US population of 310.6 million.
"So much for the consent of the governed," says Thomas L. Knapp of the X2012 Project (http://x2012.us). "In a typical district, the next US Representative was chosen by, at most, one out of four or five registered voters and less than one in six of his or her alleged constituents."
"A majority of those who could have voted refused to. A supermajority either chose not to vote or weren't allowed to vote," says Knapp. "Yet for the next two years, that politician will claim to 'represent,' and to possess legitimate authority to rule, all of them."
The X2012 Project aims to put the lie to those claims. Launched as the polls closed on Tuesday evening, X2012 is a "branding campaign" which allows non-voters to dispute the conventional wisdom that their abstention is rooted in apathy or that it constitutes implicit consent to the existing system of government. By the time 2012 rolls around, the project hopes to have millions of non-voters on the record as non-consenting.
A July Rasmussen poll found that only 23% of Americans believe the US government functions with "the consent of the governed" -- the criterion of legitimacy set forth by America's founders in the Declaration of Independence.
"Thomas Jefferson didn't say 'a majority of the governed,'" says Knapp. "Even a significant minority of dissenters calls the legitimacy of a government into question. Some estimates say that fewer than one third of Americans supported the Revolution at its beginning. We've got a better case against John Boehner, Harry Reid and Barack Obama than Tom Paine had against George III."
# # #
The mission of The 2012 Project is to provide a popular/identifiable brand for, facilitate media coverage of, and support grassroots activism toward, a boycott of the 2012 US general election.


http://bit.ly/ahdbqn



For what its worth, I DO think voter apathy is an issue, while at the
same time thanking every single person who couldn't find the
wherewithal to get off their asses and vote, for doing precisely the
right thing.


Apathy?  You spout the State's teachings well.
Maybe most realize their vote is meaningless and that the entire charade is just that.

Regard$,
--MJ

A government, at bottom, is nothing more than a gang of men and as a practical matter most of them are inferior men ... Government is actually the worst failure of civilized man. There has never been a really good one and even those governments that are most tolerable are arbitrary, cruel, grasping and unintelligent. Indeed, it would not be far from wrong to describe the best government as the common enemy of all decent citizens.  -- H.L. Mencken

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: 10 Things That Are Banned In San Francisco

10. Sitting

In order to curb aggressive panhandling, San Francisco outlawed
sitting on the street between the hours of 7am and 11pm.
Related Links

Damn... I thought sure you were going to say HOORAY... to that one....

On Nov 5, 2:20 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ((  Ban idiots and it would de-populate the city.  ))
>
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/10-things-that-are-banned-in-san-fra...

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Islam Not Recognized as Religion in Italy; Denied Tax Revenues

Crusades....
Historical and cultural prejudice is tough to overcome?

Besides... There's that Mussolini wannabe in Office there... what's
his name?.... Burlesque-oni?.... what a Buffoon....HAR Nominal9

On Nov 5, 2:27 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Good!
>
> …statistically speaking…looking at all of the elements of Islam, the
> smallest parts are religious while the majority is political ideology and
> the Sharia legal system.
>
> http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=3.1.880028077
>
>   Religion
>  ------------------------------
>
> Italy: Islam denied income tax revenue
>
>  Rome, 27 August (AKI) - Mosques in Italy will not receive a share of income
> tax revenue the Italian government allocates to religious faiths each year.
> Hindu and Buddhist temples, Greek Orthodox churches and Jehovah's Witnesses
> will be eligible for the funds, according to a bill approved by the Italian
> cabinet in May and still must be approved by parliament.
>
> Until now, the government had earmarked 8 percent of income tax revenue for
> Italy's established churches. The great majority of these funds go to the
> Catholic Church, although if they wish, individual tax payers may elect to
> give the money to charities and cultural projects instead.
>
> The head of COREIS, one of Italy's largest Muslim groups, Yahya Pallavicini,
> said he was bitter that Islam had been denied the revenue from Italian
> income tax.
>
> "Work should be begun on legally recognising those moderate Muslims who have
> for years shown themselves to be reliable interlocutors who are free of and
> fundamentalist ideology," he said.
>
> Islam is not an established religion in Italy and there is only one official
> mosque in the country, Rome's Grand Mosque (photo). Politicians from the
> ruling coalition cite radical imams, polygamy and failure to uphold women's
> rights by Muslims immigrants as obstacles to recognising Islam as an
> official religion in Italy.
>
> Until now, only the Catholic Church, Judaism and other established churches
> including Lutherans, Evangelists, Waldensians and 7th-day Adventists have
> received the income tax revenue from the Itallain government.
>
> There are between one million and 1.5 million Muslims in Italy and 130
> mosques linked the Muslim umbrella organisation UCOII across the country.
>
>  moscheea_romaaa_iberpprsss--200x150.jpg
> 9KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: VOTE AGAINST DICK 'THE BLOOMING ASSHOLE' BLUMENTHAL

PS.... I voted for the "Independent" candidate in the case of
Blumenthal.. and another....

On Nov 5, 2:28 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No Tommy... you don't have a clue... Politically I am liberal/
> progressive leaning... but the "so-called Democrats" in CT..... are
> abunch of self-serving, corrupt crooks.... Remember Lyin' Joe
> Lieberman  and his "Independent" run...or just keep in mind  Kelo v.
> New London.... these "bums" just want to feather their own nests,
> through patronage from Insurance or Medical or Pharma or other such
> "preferred" monied interests... the "progressive or populist" tag....
> it's a Lie...
> nominal9
>
> http://blogs.courant.com/rick_green/2010/11/malloy-v-foley-election-o...
> Malloy v. Foley: Election Off The Rails, CT A Laughingstock
> By Rick Green on November 4, 2010 6:23 PM | Permalink | Comments
> (23)
>
> In just the last few hours we've had stories about what may be an
> uncounted bag of ballots discovered in Bridgeport and news that
>
> there could be further problems in Torrington (how many other towns
> will show this?) plus the continuing duel of differing vote counts.
> Meanwhile, our Secretary of State, whose job it is to make sure our
> elections
>
> run smoothly, keeps postponing her final "official" tally -- even
> though she has said that Dan Malloy is the unofficial winner.
>
> It's no longer Ground Hog Day. Weve woken up to Florida in 2000. This
> election won't be settled for a long time.
> Categories:Connecticut Politics,Election 201023 Comments
>
> On Nov 3, 3:25 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > How Richard Blumenthal Smacked Down Whiney GOP WWE Profiteer Linda McMahon
>
> > In the race to succeed retiring Democratic Senator Chris Dodd,
> > Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal easily defeated former
> > wrestling executive Linda McMahon, despite being outspent by McMahon
> > by 7-1.
>
> > McMahon spent more than 40 million dollars on her campaign, almost all
> > of it her own money. She spent more than any other Senate candidate
> > this year. Yet as other wealthy self funding candidates this year in
> > Connecticut (see Ned Lamont) and in other states (see Meg Whitman and
> > Jeff Greene) found out, money could buy them name recognition but not
> > necessarily love.
>
> > Although this is the year of the "outsider", it was Blumenthal's years
> > of experience that probably saved him from the attacks by the McMahon
> > campaign. Moreover, McMahon's lack of political experience contributed
> > to her failure to overtake Blumenthal after closing in on him after
> > trailing by a wide margin early in the campaign.
>
> > The long time attorney general was able to withstand an onslaught of
> > tough attacks by Linda McMahon that sought to portray Blumenthal as a
> > career politician who couldn't be trusted. Many of her television
> > advertisements focused on Blumenthal's misstatements that he had
> > served in Vietnam, when he had actually served stateside during
> > Vietnam.
>
> > Full Connecticut Election Results
> > Connecticut Senate Exit Poll
> > Full Election Results
> > Despite these attacks Blumenthal was still viewed as "honest and
> > trustworthy" by Connecticut voters by a 62-36 percent margin
> > (preliminary CBS News Exit Poll results). A weaker candidate may have
> > been brought down by such attacks but Blumenthal had built up goodwill
> > among Connecticut voters based on his 20 year record as attorney
> > general that he was able to survive these attacks.
>
> > While McMahon billed herself as successful businessman who had the
> > skill it took to fix the ailing economy, her specific business
> > experience as head of the WWE turned out to be more of a liability
> > than an asset. By a 40-11 percent margin, Connecticut voters said that
> > this experience made them less likely rather than more likely to vote
> > for her.
>
> > Women turned out to be a key to Blumenthal's success. McMahon would
> > have become the first female senator elected. Yet she lost women by 21
> > points, but won men by 8 points. Another group that was a key to his
> > success was independents. Given the Democrats 34-21 percent
> > registration advantage in Connecticut, a Republican needs to win the
> > independent vote by a significant margin. Blumenthal was able to split
> > the independent vote with McMahon 50-49 percent.
>
> > Blumenthal had a very good October, which he really needed. After
> > leading McMahon all year and by as much as 41 points in January
> > McMahon had closed to within 3 points in September in a Quinnipiac
> > University Poll.
>
> > McMahon stumbled on a question involving the minimum wage which caused
> > her to be on the defensive for the first time in the campaign.
>
> > McMahon initially did not give a clear answer when asked whether she
> > favored lowering the minimum wage at a press conference. Not only did
> > this hurt her but her campaign suffered another blow when she said
> > didn't know what the minimum wage was, despite her business experience
> > that she was running on. Blumenthal opened up a 12 point lead in
> > October and never looked back.
>
> > Doug Schwartz Ph.D., is the Director of the Quinnipiac University Poll
>
> > More:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021575-503544.html
> > --
>
> > On 11/3/10, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > SmackDown WWE Profiteer GOP Whiner Linda McMahon LOST!
>
> > > VICTORY!
>
> > > On 11/3/10, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Asshole won. / Travis
>
> > >> Good Government loses.....
>
> > >> nominal9
>
> > >> On Nov 2, 10:03 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> Asshole won.
>
> > >>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Keith In Tampa
> > >>> <keithinta...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > >>> > These sound even better tonight CW!!!
>
> > >>> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Cold Water <coldwater...@gmail.com>
> > >>> > wrote:
>
> > >>> >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> >> *From:* Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>
> > >>> >> *To:* politicalforum@googlegroups.com
> > >>> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 02, 2010 09:32
> > >>> >> *Subject:* Re: VOTE AGAINST DICK 'THE BLOOMING ASSHOLE' BLUMENTHAL
>
> > >>> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com>
> > >>> >> wrote:
>
> > >>> >>> Smack Down Corrupt Wrestler Linda McMahon and Vote for Dick
> > >>> >>> Blumenthal, a Great Man
>
> > >>> >>> On 11/2/10, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>> >>> > just on principle... the man is a lying corrupt piece of crap....
> > >>> >>> > regardless of party.
> > >>> >>> > nominal9
>
> > >>> >>> > --
> > >>> >>> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > >>> >>> > For options & help
> > >>> >>> > seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > >>> >>> > * Visit our other community
> > >>> >>> > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > >>> >>> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > >>> >>> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > >>> >>> --
> > >>> >>> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > >>> >>> Have a great day,
> > >>> >>> Tommy
>
> > >>> >>> --
> > >>> >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > >>> >>> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > >>> >>> * Visit our other community
> > >>> >>> athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > >>> >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > >>> >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > >>> >> --
> > >>> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > >>> >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > >>> >> * Visit our other community
> > >>> >> athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > >>> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > >>> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > >>> >> --
> > >>> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > >>> >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > >>> >> * Visit our other community
> > >>> >> athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > >>> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > >>> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > >>> > --
> > >>> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > >>> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > >>> > * Visit our other community
> > >>> > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > >>> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > >>> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >> --
> > >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > >> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > --
> > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > > Have a great day,
> > > Tommy
>
> > --
> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > Have a great day,
> > Tommy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Law restricting where sex offenders can live is unconstitutional, L.A. judge rules









 

Unbelievable!  This goes with the recent one that an illegal who used someone else's SSN to buy a house, vehicle and to work did not commit a crime...Ferg

 

Law restricting where sex offenders can live is unconstitutional, L.A. judge rules

November 4, 2010 |  8:07 am

Saying sex offenders are being forced to choose between prison and homelessness, a Los Angeles judge issued an opinion this week blocking enforcement of provisions a state law restricting how close those offenders can live from parks or schools.

Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza issued the 10-page ruling after four registered sex offenders petitioned the court, arguing that the legislation known as Jessica's Law was unconstitutional.

He said the court had received about 650 habeas corpus petitions raising similar legal issues, and that hundreds more were being prepared by the public defender's and alternate public defender's offices.

"The court is not a 'potted plant' and need not sit idly by in the face of immediate, ongoing and significant violations of parolee constitutional rights," Espinoza wrote.

Proposition 83, which is better known as Jessica's Law and was overwhelmingly passed by state voters in 2006, imposes strict residency requirements on sex offenders, including requirements forbidding them from residing within 2,000 feet of any public or private school or park where children regularly gather.

Before the law passed, those residency requirements were imposed only on offenders whose victims were children.

Civil rights attorneys have argued that provisions of the law make it impossible for some registered sex offenders to live in densely populated cities.

Nearly all of San Francisco, for example, is off-limits to sex offenders because of the number of parks and schools close to housing. Los Angeles officials also said that there are few places in the city where sex offenders can find housing that meets Jessica's Law requirements.

The California Supreme Court ruled in February that registered sex offenders could challenge residency requirements in the law if it proves impossible to avoid living near parks and schools.

State corrections officials said Wednesday that they could not comment on the specifics of Espinoza's ruling, but said they would continue to ensure residency restrictions are imposed in cases where there is a valid reason to continue enforcing them.

"There are other tools that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation can and will continue to use to further public safety, including residency restrictions specific to each offender," said the agency spokesman Luis Patino.

In his opinion, Espinoza cited comments by Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck that the Jessica's Law restrictions had resulted in "a marked increase of homeless/transient registrants." The judge noted that in 2007, there were 30 sex offenders on active parole in the city of Los Angeles. By September of this year, that number had jumped to 259.

"Rather than protecting public safety, it appears that the sharp rise in homelessness rates in sex offenders on active parole in Los Angeles County actually undermines public safety." wrote Espinoza, who is the supervising judge of the Los Angeles County criminal courts. "The evidence presented suggests that despite lay belief, a sex offender parolee's residential proximity to a school or park where children regularly gather does not bear on the parolee's likelihood to commit a sexual offense against a child."

LAPD officials said they were reviewing the court decision and had no immediate comment on its specifics.

Last month, in a briefing for the Los Angeles Police Commission, Det. Diane Webb, who heads a unit responsible for tracking the whereabouts of sex offenders, said there are about 5,100 registered sex offenders living in the city.

Of those, about 20%, or approximately 1,020 people, are on parole for felony crimes and are prohibited by state law from living near a school or park where children gather, Webb said.

She said that some of the city's sex-offender population has come to Los Angeles from surrounding cities that have passed additional sex-offender laws that make it next to impossible for offenders to find a place to live and push them to look elsewhere, but that Los Angeles does not have any additional laws on its books, making it a feasible destination.

 -- Andrew Blankstein

 

 

 

 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: VOTE AGAINST DICK 'THE BLOOMING ASSHOLE' BLUMENTHAL

No Tommy... you don't have a clue... Politically I am liberal/
progressive leaning... but the "so-called Democrats" in CT..... are
abunch of self-serving, corrupt crooks.... Remember Lyin' Joe
Lieberman and his "Independent" run...or just keep in mind Kelo v.
New London.... these "bums" just want to feather their own nests,
through patronage from Insurance or Medical or Pharma or other such
"preferred" monied interests... the "progressive or populist" tag....
it's a Lie...
nominal9

http://blogs.courant.com/rick_green/2010/11/malloy-v-foley-election-off-th.html
Malloy v. Foley: Election Off The Rails, CT A Laughingstock
By Rick Green on November 4, 2010 6:23 PM | Permalink | Comments
(23)


In just the last few hours we've had stories about what may be an
uncounted bag of ballots discovered in Bridgeport and news that

there could be further problems in Torrington (how many other towns
will show this?) plus the continuing duel of differing vote counts.
Meanwhile, our Secretary of State, whose job it is to make sure our
elections

run smoothly, keeps postponing her final "official" tally -- even
though she has said that Dan Malloy is the unofficial winner.

It's no longer Ground Hog Day. Weve woken up to Florida in 2000. This
election won't be settled for a long time.
Categories:Connecticut Politics,Election 201023 Comments

On Nov 3, 3:25 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How Richard Blumenthal Smacked Down Whiney GOP WWE Profiteer Linda McMahon
>
> In the race to succeed retiring Democratic Senator Chris Dodd,
> Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal easily defeated former
> wrestling executive Linda McMahon, despite being outspent by McMahon
> by 7-1.
>
> McMahon spent more than 40 million dollars on her campaign, almost all
> of it her own money. She spent more than any other Senate candidate
> this year. Yet as other wealthy self funding candidates this year in
> Connecticut (see Ned Lamont) and in other states (see Meg Whitman and
> Jeff Greene) found out, money could buy them name recognition but not
> necessarily love.
>
> Although this is the year of the "outsider", it was Blumenthal's years
> of experience that probably saved him from the attacks by the McMahon
> campaign. Moreover, McMahon's lack of political experience contributed
> to her failure to overtake Blumenthal after closing in on him after
> trailing by a wide margin early in the campaign.
>
> The long time attorney general was able to withstand an onslaught of
> tough attacks by Linda McMahon that sought to portray Blumenthal as a
> career politician who couldn't be trusted. Many of her television
> advertisements focused on Blumenthal's misstatements that he had
> served in Vietnam, when he had actually served stateside during
> Vietnam.
>
> Full Connecticut Election Results
> Connecticut Senate Exit Poll
> Full Election Results
> Despite these attacks Blumenthal was still viewed as "honest and
> trustworthy" by Connecticut voters by a 62-36 percent margin
> (preliminary CBS News Exit Poll results). A weaker candidate may have
> been brought down by such attacks but Blumenthal had built up goodwill
> among Connecticut voters based on his 20 year record as attorney
> general that he was able to survive these attacks.
>
> While McMahon billed herself as successful businessman who had the
> skill it took to fix the ailing economy, her specific business
> experience as head of the WWE turned out to be more of a liability
> than an asset. By a 40-11 percent margin, Connecticut voters said that
> this experience made them less likely rather than more likely to vote
> for her.
>
> Women turned out to be a key to Blumenthal's success. McMahon would
> have become the first female senator elected. Yet she lost women by 21
> points, but won men by 8 points. Another group that was a key to his
> success was independents. Given the Democrats 34-21 percent
> registration advantage in Connecticut, a Republican needs to win the
> independent vote by a significant margin. Blumenthal was able to split
> the independent vote with McMahon 50-49 percent.
>
> Blumenthal had a very good October, which he really needed. After
> leading McMahon all year and by as much as 41 points in January
> McMahon had closed to within 3 points in September in a Quinnipiac
> University Poll.
>
> McMahon stumbled on a question involving the minimum wage which caused
> her to be on the defensive for the first time in the campaign.
>
> McMahon initially did not give a clear answer when asked whether she
> favored lowering the minimum wage at a press conference. Not only did
> this hurt her but her campaign suffered another blow when she said
> didn't know what the minimum wage was, despite her business experience
> that she was running on. Blumenthal opened up a 12 point lead in
> October and never looked back.
>
> Doug Schwartz Ph.D., is the Director of the Quinnipiac University Poll
>
> More:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021575-503544.html
> --
>
> On 11/3/10, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > SmackDown WWE Profiteer GOP Whiner Linda McMahon LOST!
>
> > VICTORY!
>
> > On 11/3/10, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Asshole won. / Travis
>
> >> Good Government loses.....
>
> >> nominal9
>
> >> On Nov 2, 10:03 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Asshole won.
>
> >>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Keith In Tampa
> >>> <keithinta...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>> > These sound even better tonight CW!!!
>
> >>> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Cold Water <coldwater...@gmail.com>
> >>> > wrote:
>
> >>> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> >> *From:* Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>
> >>> >> *To:* politicalforum@googlegroups.com
> >>> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 02, 2010 09:32
> >>> >> *Subject:* Re: VOTE AGAINST DICK 'THE BLOOMING ASSHOLE' BLUMENTHAL
>
> >>> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com>
> >>> >> wrote:
>
> >>> >>> Smack Down Corrupt Wrestler Linda McMahon and Vote for Dick
> >>> >>> Blumenthal, a Great Man
>
> >>> >>> On 11/2/10, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> >>> > just on principle... the man is a lying corrupt piece of crap....
> >>> >>> > regardless of party.
> >>> >>> > nominal9
>
> >>> >>> > --
> >>> >>> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >>> >>> > For options & help
> >>> >>> > seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >>> >>> > * Visit our other community
> >>> >>> > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> >>> >>> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >>> >>> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> >>> >>> --
> >>> >>> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> >>> >>> Have a great day,
> >>> >>> Tommy
>
> >>> >>> --
> >>> >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >>> >>> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >>> >>> * Visit our other community
> >>> >>> athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> >>> >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >>> >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >>> >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >>> >> * Visit our other community
> >>> >> athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> >>> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >>> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >>> >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >>> >> * Visit our other community
> >>> >> athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> >>> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >>> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> >>> > --
> >>> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >>> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >>> > * Visit our other community
> >>> > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> >>> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >>> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> --
> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > Have a great day,
> > Tommy
>
> --
> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> Have a great day,
> Tommy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Islam Not Recognized as Religion in Italy; Denied Tax Revenues









Good!

 

…statistically speaking…looking at all of the elements of Islam, the smallest parts are religious while the majority is political ideology and the Sharia legal system.

 

 

Religion


Italy: Islam denied income tax revenue



Rome, 27 August (AKI) - Mosques in Italy will not receive a share of income tax revenue the Italian government allocates to religious faiths each year. Hindu and Buddhist temples, Greek Orthodox churches and Jehovah's Witnesses will be eligible for the funds, according to a bill approved by the Italian cabinet in May and still must be approved by parliament.

Until now, the government had earmarked 8 percent of income tax revenue for Italy's established churches. The great majority of these funds go to the Catholic Church, although if they wish, individual tax payers may elect to give the money to charities and cultural projects instead.

The head of COREIS, one of Italy's largest Muslim groups, Yahya Pallavicini, said he was bitter that Islam had been denied the revenue from Italian income tax. 

"Work should be begun on legally recognising those moderate Muslims who have for years shown themselves to be reliable interlocutors who are free of and fundamentalist ideology," he said.

Islam is not an established religion in Italy and there is only one official mosque in the country, Rome's Grand Mosque (photo). Politicians from the ruling coalition cite radical imams, polygamy and failure to uphold women's rights by Muslims immigrants as obstacles to recognising Islam as an official religion in Italy.

Until now, only the Catholic Church, Judaism and other established churches including Lutherans, Evangelists, Waldensians and 7th-day Adventists have received the income tax revenue from the Itallain government.

There are between one million and 1.5 million Muslims in Italy and 130 mosques linked the Muslim umbrella organisation UCOII across the country. 


 

 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.