Author Topic: Federal Judge Dismisses Birth Certificate Lawsuite (Read 3069 times)

45-70.gov · « **Reply #30 on:** October 26, 2008, 03:18:25 PM »

election by popular vote would need an amendment

if the electoral vote and popular vote are different
there will be volital people on the loosing side

keep you kids close to you

DalesCarpentry · « **Reply #31 on:** October 26, 2008, 03:28:05 PM »

Quote from: 45-70.gov on October 26, 2008, 03:18:25 PM

election by popular vote would need an amendment

if the electoral vote and popular vote are different
there will be volital people on the loosing side

keep you kids close to you

Tim are you saying it has always been this way? Dale

myronman3 · « **Reply #32 on:** October 26, 2008, 03:29:53 PM »

Quote from: DALESCARPENTRY on October 26, 2008, 03:06:13 PM

I really think it should run on the popular vote. Dale

oh that would solve all of our problems.

so we get to let the metropolitan areas make the decisions for the rest of the u.s.? dont sell the current system short.

DalesCarpentry · « **Reply #33 on:** October 26, 2008, 03:37:14 PM »

The way I see it, is that every vote in the country should be counted and who ever has the most votes in the end wins. The people in the metro area have as much right to their opion as ours. Dale

45-70.gov · « **Reply #34 on:** October 26, 2008, 03:51:39 PM »

communications were different in 1776

the states voted and send the reports in by delecates

TribReady · « **Reply #35 on:** October 26, 2008, 03:55:22 PM »

I think the founding fathers where light years ahead and got it right.
New York City alone would cancel out ALL of Wisconsin. When entire states can be "overruled" by one city, where do you think the politicians will cater to. All the $$ and influence would go to them.

Similar to Canada, from what I'm told by some rural folks in BC. The majority of the $$ is spent in the larger eastern cities, yet the majority of the $$ and resources come from the western, oil/gas rich provinces. The large eastern cities just vote for themselves and cancel out huge rural areas.

45-70.gov · « **Reply #36 on:** October 26, 2008, 03:58:28 PM »

the number of delegates and congressmen are determined by population

i think as determined by the cencus every 10 years

deltecs · « **Reply #37 on:** October 26, 2008, 04:00:36 PM »

Quote from: myronman3 on October 26, 2008, 03:29:53 PM

Quote from: DALESCARPENTRY on October 26, 2008, 03:06:13 PM
I really think it should run on the popular vote. Dale
oh that would solve all of our problems. so we get to let the metropolitan areas make the decisions for the rest of the u.s.? dont sell the current system short.

That's right, don't sell the current system short. It was designed so that political fads and overpopulated areas do have total control over the rest of the less populated nation. Right now the most populated States with the electoral college can elect the President above the rest of the nation. Theoretically, 11 States could decide the Presidency. CA, FL, IL, NY, OH, PA,TX, GE, MI, NJ, and NC. These States have 271 electoral college votes. Let's look at a situation where the electoral college has merit. Take California for example. If California overwhelmingly votes for Obama, a likelyhood, all the California votes would count toward the total popular vote. This effectively would wipe out all votes from PA and OH with 55 each. That is if every voter in OH and PA voted against Obama. If OH and PA barely voted McCain over Obama, the electoral college would negate the 55 electoral college votes from CA, even though CA overwhelmingly voted Obama. With a popular vote being the one counted for President, it is the more populated States that would determine the course of American politics with the resultant benefits going to those States at the expense of the rest of the Nation and less populated States. This is the same principle with term limits enacted in small States. The more populated States will control every chair in Congress. It is only by tenure that less populated States can achieve chairmanship in Congress.

However, the points above are moot as the polls indicate we will have an immigrant for President. This immigrant has his own agenda and the electoral college with a Democratic Congress will probably get changed to the popular vote for President, which will ensure his continued tenure for ?.

DalesCarpentry · « **Reply #38 on:** October 26, 2008, 04:48:46 PM »

Quote from: deltecs on October 26, 2008, 04:00:36 PM

Quote from: myronman3 on October 26, 2008, 03:29:53 PM
Quote from: DALESCARPENTRY on October 26, 2008, 03:06:13 PM
I really think it should run on the popular vote. Dale
oh that would solve all of our problems. so we get to let the metropolitan areas make the decisions for the rest of the u.s.? dont sell the current system short.
I never did understand the system. Thanks for explaining. Dale

That's right, don't sell the current system short. It was designed so that political fads and overpopulated areas do have total control over the rest of the less populated nation. Right now the most populated States with the electoral college can elect the President above the rest of the nation. Theoretically, 11 States could decide the Presidency. CA, FL, IL, NY, OH, PA,TX, GE, MI, NJ, and NC. These States have 271 electoral college votes. Let's look at a situation where the electoral college has merit. Take California for example. If California overwhelmingly votes for Obama, a likelyhood, all the California votes would count toward the total popular vote. This effectively would wipe out all votes from PA and OH with 55 each. That is if every voter in OH and PA voted against Obama. If OH and PA barely voted McCain over Obama, the electoral college would negate the 55 electoral college votes from CA, even though CA overwhelmingly voted Obama. With a popular vote being the one counted for President, it is the more populated States that would determine the course of American politics with the resultant benefits going to those States at the expense of the rest of the Nation and less populated States. This is the same principle with term limits enacted in small States. The more populated States will control every chair in Congress. It is only by tenure that less populated States can achieve chairmanship in Congress.

However, the points above are moot as the polls indicate we will have an immigrant for President. This immigrant has his own agenda and the electoral college with a Democratic Congress will probably get changed to the popular vote for President, which will ensure his continued tenure for ?.

myronman3 · « **Reply #39 on:** October 26, 2008, 04:58:57 PM »

Quote from: TribReady on October 26, 2008, 03:55:22 PM

I think the founding fathers where light years ahead and got it right.

exactly. i continue to be astonished at the foresight they had. i do not pretend to have the depth these people had and when it comes to second guessing them, i defer to their judgement.

Graybeard · « **Reply #40 on:** October 26, 2008, 06:45:02 PM »

In a true democracy major rules. In a true democracy 50% plus one decides everything. Do you REALLY want the dumbest low lifes on welfare to decide the fate of this nation? I sure don't.

But sadly the way things are going it almost is now.

The US is a democratic Republic not a democracy so the majority cannot trod on the minority. Our founding fathers were some of the wisest men ever to walk the earth. They had seen it all and been thru the worst of it. They gave us a system of government that should have stood forever but it won't as things are moving too far toward a true democracy and no democracy can stand for long.

Whenever the majority realizes they can vote themselves hand outs from the minority they will. That's exactly what's happening today and is the reason Obama is poised to win. The folks he is making promises to are the folks who don't pay taxes anyway and who want a handout from those who do. They'll vote him in on that promise and then we're all screwed.

Graybeard · « **Reply #41 on:** October 26, 2008, 06:46:39 PM »

Quote from: DALESCARPENTRY on October 26, 2008, 03:06:13 PM

I really think it should run on the popular vote. Dale

Then you sir are WRONG.

myronman3 · « **Reply #42 on:** October 27, 2008, 02:57:02 AM »

right on with reply 40. many times i dont have the patience to be as articulate as that. i know how to be, but i feel that the energy expended will fall on ears that wont hear it anyhow. hopefully i am wrong.

magooch · « **Reply #43 on:** October 27, 2008, 03:35:57 AM »

Bill, as usual you put it in a nutshell. I'm not the first to say it, but our form of government is the worst there is--except for all the rest.

45-70.gov · « **Reply #44 on:** October 27, 2008, 03:40:10 AM »

i would not say dale is wrong but

he is unconstitutional

jimster · « **Reply #45 on:** October 27, 2008, 06:13:23 AM »

I'm glad that the large cities such as New York, or SF California can't decide how the rest of the country should be....and your right about a full democracy, it would not have lasted as long as a republic, and the republic will fall at some point, just takes a lot longer.

The founding fathers knew the majority of people could be wrong, their morals could fall, and they would vote way their own freedoms out of stupidity. They tried to slow this down as best they could.
Wherever you have a bunch of people piled up on top of each other in high populated area's, they will not be thinking like other parts of the country....they become corrupt as a whole at some point. My opinion.
But if you want an idea of how corrupt massive bunches of people get...drop a wallet with 500 bucks in it and an address and phone number in it, right on the street in a major city....how many people will contact you out of the first 20 people to get it back to you? Do this again in a little one horse town in the country, you have a much better chance on getting it back...it's the moral structure of the people.
They seem to lose something when they are stacked on top each other like sardines.

God, country and guts seem to get lost in the most populated area's....and they seem to get lost where there is lot's of money (Hollywood?) Everyone needs some kind of guidance to keep them on a good moral path, or most do....could be religion, could be a good woman who has religion, maybe it was your folks, could be it's built in and you have a heart already....but most times to stay on the right path, people need some kind of guidance coming from somewhere.
I don't see how things can get much better with so many people with no guidance to keep them straight.
Ride hard, shoot straight and speak the truth, is something that is taught you...you normally would not have this on your own.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #46 on:** October 27, 2008, 07:26:04 AM »

when the org. system was set up only land owners could the system has already been messed with !
that said look at the crisis we are in and ask yourself do you really want to screw with it more ?
would it help to allow an easier route for people to VOTE themselves more freebies ?

Swampman · « **Reply #47 on:** October 27, 2008, 08:10:22 AM »

Quote from: mirage1988 on October 26, 2008, 12:41:47 PM

Can 51% of AMERICANS be so stupid?

I think it's a lot more than 51%.

Heather · « **Reply #48 on:** October 27, 2008, 08:12:47 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on October 27, 2008, 08:10:22 AM

Quote from: mirage1988 on October 26, 2008, 12:41:47 PM
Can 51% of AMERICANS be so stupid?

I think it's a lot more than 51%.

Me 2! Just because someone isn't voting for Obama doesn't automatically prove intelligence.

Heather

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #49 on:** October 27, 2008, 08:19:39 AM »

no , but it doesn't make um smart either

myronman3 · « **Reply #50 on:** October 27, 2008, 09:15:45 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on October 27, 2008, 08:19:39 AM

no , but it doesn't make um smart either

Casull · « **Reply #51 on:** October 27, 2008, 10:38:17 AM »

Quote

In a true democracy major rules. In a true democracy 50% plus one decides everything. Do you REALLY want the dumbest low lifes on welfare to decide the fate of this nation? I sure don't.

But sadly the way things are going it almost is now.

The US is a democratic Republic not a democracy so the majority cannot trod on the minority. Our founding fathers were some of the wisest men ever to walk the earth. They had seen it all and been thru the worst of it. They gave us a system of government that should have stood forever but it won't as things are moving too far toward a true democracy and no democracy can stand for long.

Whenever the majority realizes they can vote themselves hand outs from the minority they will. That's exactly what's happening today and is the reason Obama is poised to win. The folks he is making promises to are the folks who don't pay taxes anyway and who want a handout from those who do. They'll vote him in on that promise and then we're all screwed.

Bravo and very well said GB. If half of the politicians today had half of the intelligence of the Founders, this country would be light years ahead of the best of the rest of the world. What really strikes me as funny is how those that say we should elect the President by popular vote would cringe at the thought of having Senators in proportion to each state's population, which is exactly why the Founders set the Senate up the way it did (to keep the larger states from running roughshod over the smaller ones). Any of you popular vote people want to completely do away with states' rights?

DalesCarpentry · « **Reply #52 on:** October 27, 2008, 12:29:53 PM »

After reading all the posts on how the popular vote is not good. You guys have changed my mind and I now understand why it is set up the way it is. Thanks for explaining it to me. Dale

45-70.gov · « **Reply #53 on:** October 27, 2008, 01:11:57 PM »

not doing every thing you can to stop OBAMA
doesn't make you stupid

but it is a very good indication that your not too bright

lrs · « **Reply #54 on:** October 27, 2008, 01:37:03 PM »

A 2nd judge in Washington dismissed a similar lawsuit just a couple of hours ago.

see the other thread,

"Is this a coup de tat?"

I watched the major news channels this weekend, nobody was discussing this topic. CNN was discussing Palin's wardrobe, I don't recall what fox was discussing, but it was not this topic.
Rush dismissed it with one of today's callers.

If you are planning to vote 3rd party, please reconsider. This idiot can not be sworn into office as our next president.

Once again, I ask, What the hell is going on?

45-70.gov · « **Reply #55 on:** October 27, 2008, 01:46:25 PM »

http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/stop-obama-constitutional-crisis/

myronman3 · « **Reply #56 on:** October 28, 2008, 03:14:18 AM »

well, as much as i dont like rush, the guy is pretty smart. if he is dismissing it, my money says it doesnt hold water. you can bet if it did, he would be screaming it as loud as he could.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #57 on:** October 28, 2008, 03:17:30 AM »

you most likely are right but the key words are as loud as he can ?

Graybeard · « **Reply #58 on:** October 28, 2008, 03:26:38 AM »

Still it is fact that Obama has NOT produced a birth certificate as has been required of EVERY other candidate for the office besides him has ALWAYS been required to do. The office of President is unique in that the US Constitution REQUIRES the person holding that office be a natural born US Citizen.

To date Obama has not been required to do what every other candidate for the office has been required to do. WHY? And more importantly if he is a natural born US Citizen why would he not just produce it?

I think we all know the answer really if we search our hearts and minds. He either is NOT a natural born US Citizen or the birth certificate if it exists says clearly he is a muzlim and he knows that showing it before election day would result in him not being elected. I can think of no other reason than those two.