Santorum fails to correct lady who calls Obama a Muslim

[xebec 195]

Functional link to the above:

Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

[Dan and Judy 614]

I'm a little worried about people that use the withdrawl method of birth control being allowed to vote

[slim 1,530]

We can disagree and still be friends. I can't count on one finger the times I have left it in there ...today.

To each his own.

Some people like feet, some people like fatties, some people dress up in fuzzy critter costumes. I don't like kids and therefore I never leave it in. Just a personal policy of mine that I've only violated one time in my entire life.

I have no problem with anyone's activities in their own bedroom. It's what happens out of the bedroom that concerns me. "Uh, I'm pregnant. Who gonna pay for this kid?"

Nope. See above. Our resident "Director of Intellectual Capital" would not. He's unfamiliar with very basic concepts on which this country is build.

He's about to get hammered by SOPA and/or PIPA.

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States"

Most individual citizens have never read the constitution.

I'm a little worried about people that use the withdrawl method of birth control being allowed to vote

Why? You let people who use no birth control vote.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I'm a little worried about people that use the withdrawl method of birth control being allowed to vote

Why?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I guess you just disqualified yourself from voting too

The right to vote can not be constitutionally abridged based on race, color, previous condition of servitude (15th), Gender (19th), or age, if over 18 (26th).

Poll taxes became unconstitutional (24th), but qualifying tests aren't addressed constitutionally.

Voting is certainly not the right of all citizens, including some classes of convicted felons in some states, and citizens under the age of 18.

Even the voting rights act of 1965 (which I believe some here are referencing in lieu of the Constitution) narrowly addresses the issue of tests and other practices designed to limit the franchise.... "[No state shall enact] voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."

In fact, Bush v. Gore is telling here. "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States"

I agree and disagree.

Voting in Federal elections is a right. Rights can be suspended pursuant to due process, such as a criminal conviction. It is still a right. What is NOT a right is being able to vote for President.

The constitution allows each state to determine how their electors will be chosen. Currently all states do so by election. The constitution does delineate some items for which you cannot be barred from voting but does not grant a "right to vote in presidential elections" per se.

The only election specifically listed in the constitution was for the election of Representatives in the House. Senators were originally appointed by states. An amendment changed that to allow for elections for Senators later.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Allen West Gives Thumbs Down To Gingrich’s Call To Bring Back Voter Literacy Tests

ERIC KLEEFELD MAY 17, 2011, 2:45 PM

Newt Gingrich is facing criticism for yet another idea he has floated during his presidential campaign — that the country bring back tests for voting, which were banned by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as a tool used to suppress African-American voters. Now, Think Progress reports, none other than Tea Party favorite Rep. Allen West (R-FL), an African-American, is disagreeing — and referring to the sort of discrimination that his own parents faced.

Think Progress asked West about Gingrich’s position that there should be a required knowledge of history in order to vote.

“I mean, that’s going back to some, you know, times that my parents had to contend with,” said West, who then segued into discussing his concerns with America’s education system failing young people, and his admiration of a high school student in his district who has sought to be an intern for him.

He returned to the subject in conclusion: “I think that we need to do a better job educating our young men and women in school, but we don’t need to have a litmus test, no.”

In the pre-Voting Rights Act era, the Jim Crow states used literacy tests as a means of preventing African-Americans from registering to vote. Local registrars (who were all white) would often exempt white voters entirely or only give them a simple task, compared to a complex series of civics questions given to black citizens. (Here is an actual literacy test used in Alabama.)

Allen West is an idiot, but even he knows better than to bring back voter testing.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gingrich is reaching for the Dem vote. Clearly Republicans do not like this idea but Dems do. Notice how this thread was started by Dems criticizing a voter for being stupid. It was Dems that had poll tests and poll taxes in the past.

Gingrich is going to have to appeal to Dems if he is going to beat Obama after he gets the nomination. He will probably jump on support for other racist programs like welfare and subsidized abortions.

[xebec 195]

I agree and disagree.

Voting in Federal elections is a right. Rights can be suspended pursuant to due process, such as a criminal conviction. It is still a right. What is NOT a right is being able to vote for President.

The constitution allows each state to determine how their electors will be chosen. Currently all states do so by election. The constitution does delineate some items for which you cannot be barred from voting but does not grant a "right to vote in presidential elections" per se.

The only election specifically listed in the constitution was for the election of Representatives in the House. Senators were originally appointed by states. An amendment changed that to allow for elections for Senators later.

Maybe I'm off into the weeds of political philosophy here, but.....

I would argue that, particularly in light of the above cited case, the Supreme Court has confirmed what is already clear- that voting isn't a right, but a privilege. It is certainly a broad-based privilege, but a privilege nonetheless. The constitution, even as amended, doesn't affirm the right of any individual person to vote. What it does affirm is the right of people to be free from racial, gender, and age (a.p. the 26th amendment) discrimination vis-a-vis other eligible voters in their state. In the Bush v. Gore case, the SC narrowly limited it's ruling to presidential elections because that was the only question before the court. There is nothing constitutionally that would make voting congressional elections a "right" while voting in presidential elections a "privilege." Any state (barring a state constitutional issue) could limit the franchise as it saw fit, provided it wasn't discriminating based on race, gender, or age (if the person is 18 or older). Privileges, not rights, are subject to such discretion.

[Dan and Judy 614]

　

Effectiveness is an important and common concern when choosing a birth control method. Like all birth control methods, the pull out method is much more effective when you do it correctly.

Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 4 will become pregnant each year if they always do it correctly.

Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 27 will become pregnant each year if they don't always do it correctly.

Couples who have great self-control, experience, and trust may use the pull out method more effectively. Men who use the pull out method must be able to know when they are reaching the point in sexual excitement when ejaculation can no longer be stopped or postponed. If you cannot predict this moment accurately, withdrawal will not be as effective.

Even if a man pulls out in time, pregnancy can still happen. Some experts believe that pre-ejaculate , or pre-cum, can pick up enough sperm left in the urethra from a previous ejaculation to cause pregnancy. If a man urinates between ejaculations before having sex again, it will help clear the urethra of sperm and may increase the effectiveness of withdrawal.

Pregnancy is also possible if semen or pre-ejaculate is spilled on the vulva.

　

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/withdrawal-pull-out-method-4218.htm

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

　

Effectiveness is an important and common concern when choosing a birth control method. Like all birth control methods, the pull out method is much more effective when you do it correctly.

Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 4 will become pregnant each year if they always do it correctly.

Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 27 will become pregnant each year if they don't always do it correctly.

Couples who have great self-control, experience, and trust may use the pull out method more effectively. Men who use the pull out method must be able to know when they are reaching the point in sexual excitement when ejaculation can no longer be stopped or postponed. If you cannot predict this moment accurately, withdrawal will not be as effective.

Even if a man pulls out in time, pregnancy can still happen. Some experts believe that pre-ejaculate , or pre-cum, can pick up enough sperm left in the urethra from a previous ejaculation to cause pregnancy. If a man urinates between ejaculations before having sex again, it will help clear the urethra of sperm and may increase the effectiveness of withdrawal.

Pregnancy is also possible if semen or pre-ejaculate is spilled on the vulva.

　

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/withdrawal-pull-out-method-4218.htm

So if they care for their children what business is it of yours how effective their form of birth control is? Why are so many people hung up on what I do in the bedroom with my wife? I really do not care what you do with yours. Just take care of the results.

I do not always have time to urinate between ejaculations. I am married to a Ukrainian, it is not always an option. Alla does not snore, chew with her mouth open or spill sperm on her vulva, she is cultured.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Maybe I'm off into the weeds of political philosophy here, but.....

I would argue that, particularly in light of the above cited case, the Supreme Court has confirmed what is already clear- that voting isn't a right, but a privilege. It is certainly a broad-based privilege, but a privilege nonetheless. The constitution, even as amended, doesn't affirm the right of any individual person to vote. What it does affirm is the right of people to be free from racial, gender, and age (a.p. the 26th amendment) discrimination vis-a-vis other eligible voters in their state. In the Bush v. Gore case, the SC narrowly limited it's ruling to presidential elections because that was the only question before the court. There is nothing constitutionally that would make voting congressional elections a "right" while voting in presidential elections a "privilege." Any state (barring a state constitutional issue) could limit the franchise as it saw fit, provided it wasn't discriminating based on race, gender, or age (if the person is 18 or older). Privileges, not rights, are subject to such discretion.

For President you are correct. The Constitution does not specify how electors are chosen. It DOES require elections for Representatives, and by amendment, for Senators. You have a RIGHT to vote in "Federal Elections" what you do NOT have a right to is a federal election for President. The method of choosing electors is determined by the state. In Bush v. Gore the issue was whether Florida had a right to count the ballots as they did as opposed to how other states do it. YES. In fact, Florida is under no obligation to allow anyone to vote for President.

You DO have a right to vote, you do NOT have a right to vote for President.

[slim 1,530]

Effectiveness is an important and common concern when choosing a birth control method. Like all birth control methods, the pull out method is much more effective when you do it correctly.

Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 4 will become pregnant each year if they always do it correctly.

Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 27 will become pregnant each year if they don't always do it correctly.

Couples who have great self-control, experience, and trust may use the pull out method more effectively. Men who use the pull out method must be able to know when they are reaching the point in sexual excitement when ejaculation can no longer be stopped or postponed. If you cannot predict this moment accurately, withdrawal will not be as effective.

Even if a man pulls out in time, pregnancy can still happen. Some experts believe that pre-ejaculate , or pre-cum, can pick up enough sperm left in the urethra from a previous ejaculation to cause pregnancy. If a man urinates between ejaculations before having sex again, it will help clear the urethra of sperm and may increase the effectiveness of withdrawal.

Pregnancy is also possible if semen or pre-ejaculate is spilled on the vulva.

　

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/withdrawal-pull-out-method-4218.htm

So you support planned parenthood?

I have zero children. That means the pullout method is 100% effective for me. I would think you'd want responsible people to vote. I guess you'd rather have welfare moms and guys on unemployment because they can't figure out how to keep year-round work deciding the future of our country.

So if they care for their children what business is it of yours how effective their form of birth control is?

Just take care of the results.

Exactly.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I have zero children. That means the pullout method is 100% effective for me.

It could mean you are sterile. My brother has three children conceived on precum, so for him, the method didn't work.

[Dan and Judy 614]

So you support planned parenthood?

I have zero children. That means the pullout method is 100% effective for me.

Exactly.

FACT:

Infertility affects 7.3 million people of childbearing age in the United States -- about 10-15 percent of the reproductive-age population, according to the Centers for Disease Control

http://www.rscnewengland.com/for-patients/about-infertility/top-20-infertility-myths--facts.html

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

FACT:

Infertility affects 7.3 million people of childbearing age in the United States -- about 10-15 percent of the reproductive-age population, according to the Centers for Disease Control

http://www.rscnewengland.com/for-patients/about-infertility/top-20-infertility-myths--facts.html

I would consider that a good thing, but then we already have 4 kids and just have sex for sport anyway.

But I still say, "it is my kitchen table, you don't eat there and what I do on it is my business!"