Page 205 of 244 FirstFirst ... 105155195201202203204205206207208209215 ... LastLast
Results 2,041 to 2,050 of 2438

Thread: The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd

  1. #1
    Member Since
    Sep 2007
    Location
    RIGHT NEXT TO ARROWHEAD!
    Posts
    18,752
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd


    0 Not allowed!
    Clinton, McCain emerge as comeback winners in New Hampshire primary



    WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Clinton pulled off an unexpected narrow victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, dramatically rescuing her bid for the White House in a tense battle with Barack Obama.
    Clinton, who's fighting to become the first woman in the Oval Office, mounted a surprisingly strong showing after bracing for a second defeat following her devastating third-place showing in Iowa.
    Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. greets a familiar face. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/Elise Amendola
    Republican John McCain also nabbed a major comeback victory, putting him solidly back in his party's nomination race.
    While Obama, vying to make history as the first black U.S. president, scored big among independents and voters between 18 and 24, Clinton attracted lower-income voters and seniors and did best among voters citing the economy as their top concern.
    But a big factor for Clinton was women voters, who had gone over to Obama in large numbers in Iowa. Nearly half in New Hampshire were once again supporting her, while Obama got only a third.






    http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/080108/w0108115A.html







    Crap.
    http://arrowheadjunkies.com/pictures/PhotoShop/sig_pics/NFL_Players/kansas_city_chiefs/tyson.jackson/062009/tyson.jackson.500.png

  2. #2041
    Member Since
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SE Kansas
    Posts
    28,124
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 254
    Given: 447

    Default I'm voting for this guy!


    0 Not allowed!


  3. #2042
    Member Since
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Drunken State
    Posts
    4,064
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 60
    Given: 57

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chiefster View Post
    Unfortunately, I believe this to be a very accurate statement.
    Me too. Lotsa naive Americans in this country.
    A larger, more powerful gov't = a smaller, less powerful YOU!
    SHUT IT

  4. #2043
    Member Since
    May 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    9,142
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 30
    Given: 27

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bike View Post
    Me too. Lotsa naive Americans in this country.
    A larger, more powerful gov't = a smaller, less powerful YOU!
    A smaller, less powerful government just means larger, more powerful corporations, which equals a smaller, less powerful you.

    If we can find a way to get the money out of politics, then the government would be the better choice. But, since that isn't going to happen, it's six of one, or half dozen of the other.

  5. #2044
    Member Since
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SE Kansas
    Posts
    28,124
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 254
    Given: 447

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    The problem as I see it is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have one political party that wants to regulate industry so much, in the name of protecting individual rights, the environment and wildlife, that it halts the economy. The other political party wants to deregulate industry so much, in the name of creating private sector jobs, jump starting the economy and the pursuit of happiness, that it tramples individual rights, destroys the environment and kills wildlife.

    I have come to the conclusion that our Government has not been of, by and for the people in quite some time and that it is filled with individuals that are nothing more than self serving, power hungry people who are in the pockets of political action and special interests groups. Somewhere in the shuffle the American people get lost.


  6. #2045
    Member Since
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Topeka< KS
    Posts
    2,489
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 237
    Given: 61

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chiefster View Post
    The problem as I see it is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have one political party that wants to regulate industry so much, in the name of protecting individual rights, the environment and wildlife, that it halts the economy. The other political party wants to deregulate industry so much, in the name of creating private sector jobs, jump starting the economy and the pursuit of happiness, that it tramples individual rights, destroys the environment and kills wildlife.

    I have come to the conclusion that our Government has not been of, by and for the people in quite some time and that it is filled with individuals that are nothing more than self serving, power hungry people who are in the pockets of political action and special interests groups. Somewhere in the shuffle the American people get lost.
    I think a big part of the problem is that the best potential candidates often can't get elected. It takes a lot of money to run a campaign, and the very wealthy aren't necessarily the best people to lead this country.

    You would think that conservatives would have an advantage here in raising campaign money since they tend to be more pro big business, but wealthy liberals like George Soros and the Hollywood elite have a lot of money to throw around, too. And liberals have done a far better job of harnessing the power of the internet and social media to create grass roots support.

    Santorum has done a good job of getting his message out there in spite of Romney's bottomless pockets. (I'm not endorsing anyone here.) Candidates with more limited funds need to find creative ways of getting there message out there and, hopefully, the best ideas will prevail. The nomination shouldn't always go to the candidate who can put up the most billboards and buy the most TV commercials.
    ***Official Chiefs Crowd Game Thread Starter***

    Quote Originally Posted by matthewschiefs View Post
    MatthewsChiefs can't stand MatthewsChiefs

  7. #2046
    Member Since
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SE Kansas
    Posts
    28,124
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 254
    Given: 447

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post
    I think a big part of the problem is that the best potential candidates often can't get elected. It takes a lot of money to run a campaign, and the very wealthy aren't necessarily the best people to lead this country.

    You would think that conservatives would have an advantage here in raising campaign money since they tend to be more pro big business, but wealthy liberals like George Soros and the Hollywood elite have a lot of money to throw around, too. And liberals have done a far better job of harnessing the power of the internet and social media to create grass roots support.

    Santorum has done a good job of getting his message out there in spite of Romney's bottomless pockets. (I'm not endorsing anyone here.) Candidates with more limited funds need to find creative ways of getting there message out there and, hopefully, the best ideas will prevail. The nomination shouldn't always go to the candidate who can put up the most billboards and buy the most TV commercials.
    Absolutely agreed! Political office should not be for sale.


  8. #2047
    Member Since
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Topeka< KS
    Posts
    2,489
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 237
    Given: 61

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    On Monday, Obama 'threatened' the Supreme Court, that they 'better not' engage in judicial activism or 'legislate from the bench' by declaring that the individual mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional. That is not judicial activism. It is the sole purpose of the Supreme Court. Judicial activism is the exact opposite; ignoring the Constitution, because you believe a law is for 'the greater good.' The Dread Scott case, which ruled that slaveholders were entitled to keep their 'property' even if they moved to free states; Roe vs. Wade, which found an 'implied' right to privacy, even though it wasn't expressly in the constitution; and Plessy vs. Ferguson, which upheld segregation under the guise of 'separate but equal'--these were judicial activist decisions.

    This is not the first time Obama has attacked the Supreme Court for doing it's job of defending the Constitution. In his State of the Union Address last year, Obama chastised the Supreme Court for ruling that limits on campaign contributions violated a persons right to free speech and were thus unconstitutional.

    When Obama was sworn in as President he took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, but when the Constitution has gotten in the way of his personal agenda, he has attacked it. These are impeachable offenses!

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deGg41IiWwU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deGg41IiWwU[/ame]

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen
    Last edited by TopekaRoy; 04-05-2012 at 08:55 PM.
    ***Official Chiefs Crowd Game Thread Starter***

    Quote Originally Posted by matthewschiefs View Post
    MatthewsChiefs can't stand MatthewsChiefs

  9. #2048
    Member Since
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura, Ca.
    Posts
    2,605
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 6
    Given: 1

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post
    On Monday, Obama 'threatened' the Supreme Court, that they 'better not' engage in judicial activism or 'legislate from the bench' by declaring that the individual mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional. That is not judicial activism. It is the sole purpose of the Supreme Court. Judicial activism is the exact opposite; ignoring the Constitution, because you believe a law is for 'the greater good.' The Dread Scott case, which ruled that slaveholders were entitled to keep their 'property' even if they moved to free states; Roe vs. Wade, which found an 'implied' right to privacy, even though it wasn't expressly in the constitution; and Plessy vs. Ferguson, which upheld segregation under the guise of 'separate but equal'--these were judicial activist decisions.

    This is not the first time Obama has attacked the Supreme Court for doing it's job of defending the Constitution. In his State of the Union Address last year, Obama chastised the Supreme Court for ruling that limits on campaign contributions violated a persons right to free speech and were thus unconstitutional.

    When Obama was sworn in as President he took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, but when the Constitution has gotten in the way of his personal agenda, he has attacked it. These are impeachable offenses!



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen
    Roy, come on, don't you know that Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor and in that capacity he knows much more about the Constitution than even the Supreme Court Judges?


    Are you man enough? Eric Berry? Apparently Not!

  10. #2049
    Member Since
    Sep 2008
    Location
    kansas city
    Posts
    2,167
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 88
    Given: 46

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post
    On Monday, Obama 'threatened' the Supreme Court, that they 'better not' engage in judicial activism or 'legislate from the bench' by declaring that the individual mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional. That is not judicial activism. It is the sole purpose of the Supreme Court. Judicial activism is the exact opposite; ignoring the Constitution, because you believe a law is for 'the greater good.' The Dread Scott case, which ruled that slaveholders were entitled to keep their 'property' even if they moved to free states; Roe vs. Wade, which found an 'implied' right to privacy, even though it wasn't expressly in the constitution; and Plessy vs. Ferguson, which upheld segregation under the guise of 'separate but equal'--these were judicial activist decisions.

    This is not the first time Obama has attacked the Supreme Court for doing it's job of defending the Constitution. In his State of the Union Address last year, Obama chastised the Supreme Court for ruling that limits on campaign contributions violated a persons right to free speech and were thus unconstitutional.

    When Obama was sworn in as President he took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, but when the Constitution has gotten in the way of his personal agenda, he has attacked it. These are impeachable offenses!



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen
    if SCOTUS follows the constitution as it should Obozocare goes down like the Titanic. attacking them makes him look even worse
    http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=1540&dateline=1380047  325]

  11. #2050
    Member Since
    Sep 2008
    Location
    kansas city
    Posts
    2,167
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 88
    Given: 46

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Hayvern View Post
    Roy, come on, don't you know that Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor and in that capacity he knows much more about the Constitution than even the Supreme Court Judges?
    how many rolls ya need ???

    http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=1540&dateline=1380047  325]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •