Are ye fer or agin the carloads coming?

Vote early. Vote once. Vote legally.

Nuff said.....

ACORN is offering $100 per vote tomorrow. I asked my boss if he can top the money I would make by going voting tomorrow instead of going to work.

It's cash under the table and a free ride around town. How can I pass that up?

... and again, the U.S. is not a Democracy, but a Republic, always has been and I will fight that it always will. They are vastly different. A democracy is mob rule, and a Republic is a system that elects it's leaders.

No where in the U.S. Constitution does it state that we as citizens of our great nation have a RIGHT to vote. There are only amendments that protect the rights of certain groups from discrimination in Fed elections. It's based on protection from discrimination and NOT establishing the Right to vote.

This was held up and validated by the U.S Supreme Court... look at Bush vs Gore.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

In regard to the campaign... it's funny to me that when the truth is spoken about your favorite son, it's called negative campaigning. I would think you would want/desire the truth be identified regarding all parties, not just the other guy. Goodness, the truth must still hurt.

The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.

You listen to way too much right wing radio propaganda. Worse, apparently you don't have the educational background to evaluate what you hear.

When you wrote, "No where in the U.S. Constitution does it state that we as citizens of our great nation have a RIGHT to vote." Did you read the Constitution first or did you think Rush and/or Sean were more reliable sources? Inquiring minds want to know.

Why don't you get a copy of the Constitution and read the Fifteenth Amendment, it goes something like this:

Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

BTW: Do you work in government?

..my reading of the the Amendment would be to understand that states could not deny its citizens to vote based upon the three criteria stated. Is it not the states that choose(elect)? The presidency, afterall, is decided by the Electorial College not the popular vote as Mr Gore unfortunately learned in 2000 and Mr Clinton was happy that he needed but 43% in 1992.

There's also the 1964 Voting Rights Act among others and the subsequent decisions by the Supreme Court. However, this is a favorite canard for the right-wingers and I'm satisfied to let y'all keep repeating it to each other.

But to clarify, your position is that it would be legal to deny people the right to vote as long as it is not based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude?

If anybody wants to test it out, stop somebody from voting for reasons other than the those specified and see if you don't land in federal prison.

Just out of curiosity though, why is it so important to the right-wingers that they must continue to assert that voting is not a right?

States can and do deny voters for reasons of convictions, inability to provide identification, or citizenship.
I guess I am of that group that would not give all the citizens of the world a right to choose my President. Kind of a national thing, to me but there are those who would defer to the UN.

The Amendment specifically says, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote..."

Citizens of the United States.

I haven't posted in a while because no one here is going to change anyone's mind for this election. But, Jeff I had to respond to your post.

The US Supreme Court ruled that, effectively, there is no right to vote in a federal election in Bush v Gore. The only thing that the Constitution provides for is the non-discrimination in voting on a set list of criteria outlined in the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments. The state level is, of course, a different matter.

You may review the following:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60580-2004Jul18.html

In fact, Jesse Jackson, Jr. even proposed a Constitutional Amendment explicitly defining and providing for a right to vote. If the right to vote were so, then why would Rep. Jackson propose a Constitutional Amendment?

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

Ruled that the people have no right to vote until the states decide to have an election. Since all states have election's the people then have the right to vote.

BTW, I am well aware that the Electoral College elects the President.

There is no Federal right to vote. It is a state derived right. Of course there is the VRA; but, only in those states, counties and towns that practiced less that tolerant voting practices which, according to some, are still going on today. Since Washington DC is not a state Congress provided them their limited right.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

to Presidential elections which is OK.

In Gore v Bush, as noted above the Supreme Court ruled:

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right
to vote for electors for the President of the United States
unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide
election as the means to implement its power to appoint
members of the Electoral College."

If the states have an election, which all do, then the "unless and until" clause becomes effective. If there is an election, the people have the right to vote.

There are numerous federal laws enforcing this including but not limited to the National Voting Rights Act of 1965, National Voter Registration Act of 1993 , Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986, and the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

Republicans are simply not going to be allowed to suppress the vote by finding some Federal loophole no matter how hard you try.

In regard to the campaign... it's funny to me that when the truth is spoken about your favorite son, it's called negative campaigning.

Isn't that what some Republicans have said about Palin? (the favorite daughter?) There is nothing funny about the low road taken during our political campaigns. The important point now is for Americans to join together to correct what is hurting our country, our economy, and our reputation. I know you probably won't be one of the citizens who will look for ways for Americans to work together to strengthen our government. It's not about more government or less government - it's about better government working for all the citizens of this country.

By the way, it's McCain vs Obama, not Palin vs Obama. But since you brought her up, I was speaking of truth, not lies, exaggerations or misleading statements, i.e., shoots wolves, her eldest daughter Bristol gave birth to her daughter, and tons more. Just trash !

Now, back to where you are partially wrong. It all about Less government, but Better Less government. Some believe that a better government is defined by More governemnt, i.e, your candidate. Ehhhh, wrong on that one. But at least YOU want to focus on better government, that is good, it's the how to get there part that we disagree on. So you have the Better government part correct.

However, and there is always a however, government is not supposed to work for all the citizens, but enable an environment that allows it's citizens to work for themselves.

The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.

"Government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves"

What's your take on the above?

Define cannot. I think the people are best served when the government provides for their defense. It would not be impossible for the citizens to defend themselves from enemies, foreign or domestic - but the coordination of such a defense might be better if left to government. But should government be responsible for all the basic necessities for those who refuse to take care of themselves. What responsiblity level for things above the basic needs? Who decides? Who pays? What obligation is owed by the recipients?

Katrina comes to mind.

Question:

Specifically, what will Barack Obama do to restore this country to its rightful place as a world leader? (specifics only please, no flighty platitudes)

Hope and change have never been dirty words. However, they are absolutely meaningless if a person hasn't done anything to show that they are uniters instead of dividers. Change can be very dangerous if the policies that someone wants to bring about will kill jobs, and bring the country into socialism.

He will probably reintegrate US foreign policy with our European allies, close the Guantanamo facility, make torture illegal again, stop the attack on Habeas Corpus, outlaw extraordinary rendition whereby the US sends people to other countries to be tortured, not start preemptive wars (which was the Bush Doctrine no matter how much the right tried to obfuscate it when Palin turned out to be totally clueless), reaffirm the Geneva Conventions and enforce the non-proliferation treaty for starters. All of these used to be bipartisan hallmarks of American policy until the Bush/Cheney/neo-cons took over the government and destroyed the US’s prestige abroad.

Just a couple notes pertaining to your "specifics":
1-Reintegrate US foreign policy with our Euopean allies-do you not mean reducing America's sphere of world influence to that of an average european nation? This way you can make a valid arguement for a UN resurgence of influence.
2-Close Guantanamo jail- we both know it's closing-the only question remaining is do we feed those incarcerated to the sharks or release them upon society.
3-Make torture illegal again-Since but one of the candidates can speak to the issue first hand, I would surmise that he would be far less likely to tolerate its existence during his administration.
4-Stop the attack on Habeas Corpus-I'll spot you that for arguement's sake until the "crisis", and then ask you why you've suddenly reversed your stance.
5-Rendition of exporting political unwanteds for the purpose of torture-name one-or better yet, could the two of us arbitrairily choose ten members of Congress each for attendance for the harm done to the Republic?
6-Not start preemptive wars-name a President since Hoover that has not had a taste of bloodshed.
7-Reaffirm the Geneva Convention-name an adversary of the last fifty years that has given more than lip service to it.
8-Non-proliferation treaty-wasn't it from your side that exported the nuclear technology that that poses the most immenent threats of tommorow?

1. No I do not mean reducing America's sphere of world influence. To me the notion that America is stronger when we stand alone and ridicule our traditional allies as “old Europe” is bizarre. The attitude is representative of the xenophobic wing of the Republican Party which is causing it to shrink to a regional party by driving moderates out.

2. “…do we feed those incarcerated to the sharks or release them upon society…” The typical attitude of that segment that does not have faith in the American system of justice whereby people are charged, giver lawyers and tried; in this case probably in military courts.

3. John McCain held a press conference and called waterboarding "torture and illegal" on the morning of February 13 this year then that afternoon that voted against a bill to ban waterboarding and other coercive tactics by the CIA

4. Again, no faith in the American system. Pay lip service until something happens then abandon the principles we’ve held for over 200 years. That really boosts us in the eyes of the world doesn’t it?

5. Yes.

6. Bush is the only President who has led us to a preemptive war.

7. Name the violations you know of and I’ll be happy to address them.

8. No. The Bush administration’s total failure to enforce the NPF with India has undermined the treaty more than anything to date.

...we can agree on number five, hey it's a start. Regarding number six, I really don't believe you believe all written about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident which would add another little "skirmish".
Number eight is debatable since I believe giving states of less than honorable intentions(N Korea) the technology to join this club of elites is much worse. Granted, it's an opinion, but suffice it to say I have far more worries regarding Pakistan than I do toward N Korea or Iran, as yet.
Treatment of John McCain, et al, would do nicely regarding number seven.
Number two-A gentleman by the name of William Ayers, a self proclaimed terrorist who did not do enough and an advisor of sorts to Mr Obama, speaks quite eloquently toward your position.
Number one-If we only could have a more "centrist" Congress, I think we could agree and have the law makers instead of the executives deal with foreign policy "in the long view."
Number three-with all the crap inserted into any of the bills before Congress, we both may have agreed with McCain.
Number four-as with nearly all national security emergencies, administrations from both sides with the concurrence of Congress has done the same sort of things and will no doubt, do so again. The incarceration of Japanese Americans just came to mind.

The US did not give nuclear fuel to Pakistan as it has agreed to do with India thus undermining the NPT. Neither India nor Pakistan have signed the treaty. That's why dealing with India undermines it.

As to the Geneva Conventions, it constantly amazes me how many people forget that we wrote them to protect our service people and it defines war crimes which can and have been prosecuted in international and US courts if they are violated. There was a robust discussion here not long ago in which several people gave the (to me) astonishing position that no matter how depraved and barbaric the actions of our enemies were we should match them atrocity for atrocity and beheading for beheading.

How about McCain's friend Gordon Liddy, mastermind of Watergate and who, after listening to Hitler’s speeches said they “made me feel a strength inside I had never known before”? Whose plans included the firebombing of the Brookings institute, kidnapping anti-war activists and transporting them to Mexico? He gets a pass why? Because he is a respected Republican and fundraiser?

As to McCain supporting the torture bill because of the other crap in it, well, Obama didn't.

...but folks like Liddy are not on my Christmas Card list either. He actually served time for Watergate, I believe, but the thing with the Brookings Institute never came to fruition unlike with Ayers.

I, too, am amazed at how some will tolerate or even promote barbarisms when as "lounge chair quarterbacks" they approve such. We may both agree that a taste of reality would soften some stances.

India and Pakistan, both countries are rewarded through the State Department for compliance.