Not when the argument has already been heard and debunked completely and thoroughly.
heard and debunked thoroughly by whom exactly? sorry but their job is not to rely on your opinion of the subject...... they have a responsibility to hear complaints....... and certainly there are enough people in the state rallied behind the complaint to consider it an issue not to overlook
my guess is theres some petition minimum or at least a standards threshold for a complaint in order to make sure they dont have to filter through millions of complaints
I personally could not care less...... not a birther.....but I nor you have any real evidence that suggests they should just be overlooked without consideration
and the court of public opinion....... which includes yours....... has nothing to do whatsoever with the elections board hearing arguments over blocking a candidate
millions of people in this country and many in your state believe your opinion to be completely wrong
why are you so scared of them hearing arguments? if what you say is true... and again... it may well be... then there should be no problem.... after they hear arguments then they will dismiss the complaints
if what they say is true (or for that matter even if it isnt) then you would want to deny them due process?
just ask yourself this 1 simple question..... and if you cant logically come to the conclusion that youre incorrect in this matter.... then theres little hope and good luck
if the elections board's job is not to make decisions about who is eligible, who is breaking campaign laws, hear arguments and investigate complaints about candidates, etc....... then is there any reason to have an elections board at all?
maybe we should just ask for a statewide show of hands and let some guy in an airplane take a rough count and announce a winner....... no need to have any real elections anymore so no need for election boards
There are times one has to use the functions of this site.
It's been debunked thoroughly. Anyone who doesn't think so hasn't spent time looking at the facts or has a political ax to grind. The facts are out there. The birth certificate has already been released. In fact, both birth certificates have been released. The elections board heard the same complaint last week and claimed they needed time to "consider it" (WTF???). Public backlash against the guy who lodged the complaint in the first place made him withdraw it. The one that is before them now is from a lawyer in California who is apparently going around to any state who will listen and most of them aren't since this argument is ridiculous. It's shameful that my state is.
Its shameful that you dont believe in due process..... right or wrong it deserves a chance to be heard
I don't believe in wasting resources on something that clearly has no validity. Why should we spend time exploring something that has already been falsified?
Yet it has been heard repeatedly, and dismissed. It has had its chance to be heard. Many, many chances.
It appears poor George Romney wouldn't vote for Mittens because he was on public assistance and a refuge from Mexico to boot.
Lenore Romney on George Romney's Campaign for Governor - YouTube
Maybe after this election the Republicans will throw the wack jobs in control under the bus.
This Presidential Race Should Never Have Been This Close | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone
"... The mere fact that Mitt Romney is even within striking distance of winning this election is an incredible testament to two things: a) the rank incompetence of the Democratic Party, which would have this and every other election for the next half century sewn up if they were a little less money-hungry and tried just a little harder to represent their ostensible constituents, and b) the power of our propaganda machine, which has conditioned all of us to accept the idea that the American population, ideologically speaking, is naturally split down the middle, whereas the real fault lines are a lot closer to the 99-1 ratio the Occupy movement has been talking about since last year."
I'd love it if both parties would throw their wack jobs under the bus and actually put reasonable people in charge. I'd also like world peace and for no children to go to bed hungry.
:bawling:I want a Unicorn
The Colbert Report uncovers the scandal that polls show Obama ahead.:cheers:
"Skewed" Presidential Polls - The Colbert Report - 2012-27-09 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
Are the voters still going to play the fool ?:fisheye:
Mitt Romney's Real Agenda | Politics News | Rolling Stone
The last time a Republican presidential candidate touted an agenda to cut spending, lower taxes, boost defense and balance the budget was Ronald Reagan in 1980. Like Romney and Ryan, Reagan didn't have an actual plan for his spending cuts
Kansas is infested with ALEX locusts.:help:
ALEC Politicians - SourceWatch
Anyone watching the debate? It's up on Youtube. I love Obama implying that we're providing Medicare at cost.
All the political talk and NO ONE watched the debate? Both guys seemed very fake to me. That was my initial takeaway.
I watched it. Still don't like either of them.
I tried to watch Gary Johnson's commentary, but YouTube must have been slammed. I'd get a few seconds and then the stream would stop. I restarted it for a few minutes, but eventually gave up. I'll watch it later (no time right now).
I tried to watch Gary Johnson as well just because I was told it was a guy sitting in a room screaming at a TV. I couldn't get it to load for me either.
Hahaha, it really is just a guy talking to a TV. That's hilarious.
Anyway, I thought the debate was interesting. Lots of MSM pundits are declaring Romney the "winner" just because he wasn't a robot, which I find puzzling. He was definitely more lively than I expected, I'll happily give him that, but he was way off the facts, and his constant departures from his own stated plans was mystifying. Obama looked sleepy and he rambled more than he should have, especially towards the beginning, but I felt like he picked it up towards the middle and end as he realized that Romney wasn't going to be a pushover. I'm hearing lots of Obama apologists saying "oh it's a chess match, he was feeling Romney out," etc etc, but I think it was just that he wasn't expecting Romney to bring it like that - inaccurate or not.
Seriously though, how can Obama be expected to debate someone who completely reneges on his own stated policy plans? Romney repeatedly tried to insist that he doesn't favor large tax cuts for the wealthy (he does), that his healthcare plan would allow coverage for those with pre-existing conditions (it doesn't), and a host of other wildly inaccurate claims - including the $716 billion from Medicare debacle, which he tried to use several times. Is he not aware that those cuts don't take any coverage away from seniors? Is he aware that he uses those same cuts in his own plan? Again, mystifying.
I think the one thing everyone can agree on is that the moderator was awful.
Obama looked rattled at times and looked like he was taken off guard. I was impressed by how Romney actually came across though not impressed by what he actually said. He sounded Presidential. Obama did too at times bother times looked off.
Jim Lehrer was horrible. Both guys walked all over him.
All I heard is that Romney won, and Obama sounded tired or something.
I wonder how the next one will go though. It sounded as if Obama was too calm and conservative as usual, I wonder will he change his game.
The debates are a waste of time, unless one enjoys "hoodwinking", which sounds like what two consenting adults should practice in the privacy of their homes.
League of Women Voters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The League sponsored the Presidential debates in 1976, 1980 and 1984. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release condemning the demands of the major candidates' campaigns: The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.
In all fairness, I think if Mitt Romney had been figuratively beaten to a pulp by Obama in the debate, you wouldn't be saying that.
With the same substance as two men with body guards punching out an old man.
I'm not sure about that. If anything, Obama handily beating Romney in a debate may have made it seem like even more of a pointless exercise since Obama was already ahead in the polls.
Romney needed the debates to try to make a dent in Obama's lead - I'm sure he knew that he had to come out swinging and going on the attack, which is just what he did. While I laud him for executing the strategy, the facts paid dearly, and while he may have "won" on "style" according to MSM pundits, the fact-checkers are tearing him apart:
Romney Goes On Offense, Pays For It In First Wave Of Fact Checks : It's All Politics : NPR
PolitiFact | Romney says IPAB board can "tell people ultimately what treatments they're going to receive." - Mostly False
Romney Admits Pushing Misinformation In Debate | ThinkProgress
At Last Night's Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes | ThinkProgress
An Unhelpful Presidential Debate - NYTimes.com
Separate names with a comma.