Democrats and Republicans ARE Different

Robert Barney · 11-05-2009, 04:44 PM

People who say there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats are big trash cans full of poop, to quote a childrens movie.

This was clearly demonstrated by the vote taken to defeat an amendment to add a citizenship question to the next census:

Senate blocks census US-citizenship question - Yahoo! News

Apparently it's OK to ask a person about their ethnicity, which doesn't have a darn thing to do with district proportioning (or shouldn't have), but you can't ask if someone is a citizen.

Huh?

What this means is that states with high immigrant populations, where those immigrants are NOT citizens, which means they can't vote, will be given more congressional representation than states where the ratio of citizens to immigrants is much higher.

The Democratic party IS ACORN.

God Bless Republicans who supported this change to the census.

al3 · 11-05-2009, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Barney

The Democratic party IS ACORN.

The Republican party IS Rush Limbaugh (and the KKK without the sheets and hoods.)

Robert Barney · 11-05-2009, 11:09 PM

The only grand wizard of the KKK in the United States Senate is a guy named Byrd and I believe he's a Democrat.

Rivers1 · 11-05-2009, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Barney

The Democratic party IS ACORN.

DNC is that she-devil Nasty Pelosi. She should be wearing red everyday since her agenda is to turn America into the 1950's Soviet bloc. Food lines are coming for bread & cheese!

al3 · 11-05-2009, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Barney

The only grand wizard of the KKK in the United States Senate is a guy named Byrd and I believe he's a Democrat.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Byrd more conservative than YOU are? I would think that in addition to Limbaugh, Beck, Palin and Huckabee, he would be right up there as one of your heroes.

I thought you arch-conservatives transcend party lines. Wasn't Strom Thurmond one of you guys... and he was a member of 3 political parties (four if you count the KKK when he was a youth.) Maybe at the end of his career he got a bit too liberal for you when he voted to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and to make MLK's birthday a national holiday?

Robert Barney · 11-06-2009, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by al3

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Byrd more conservative than YOU are? I would think that in addition to Limbaugh, Beck, Palin and Huckabee, he would be right up there as one of your heroes.

Sheets Byrd my hero. You jest of course. Robert Byrde is everything that's wrong with modern, self centered politics. You can't drive through West Virginia without seeing the guys name on everything. When it comes to pork, Byrd is one of the biggest pig farmers in Washington. Disgusting.

Winter · 11-07-2009, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Barney

People who say there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats are big trash cans full of poop, to quote a childrens movie.

This was clearly demonstrated by the vote taken to defeat an amendment to add a citizenship question to the next census:

Senate blocks census US-citizenship question - Yahoo! News

Apparently it's OK to ask a person about their ethnicity, which doesn't have a darn thing to do with district proportioning (or shouldn't have), but you can't ask if someone is a citizen.

Huh?

What this means is that states with high immigrant populations, where those immigrants are NOT citizens, which means they can't vote, will be given more congressional representation than states where the ratio of citizens to immigrants is much higher.

The Democratic party IS ACORN.

God Bless Republicans who supported this change to the census.

I side with the libs on this because I believe that their position is supported by the Constitution which we must either abide by or amend.

Neither the original framers nor the 14th Amendment intended to expose people to potential criminal action by participating in the census. Developing a database of people who are here illegally in the name of the conducting a census is Big Brother at its worst. In addition, it skews the results of the census because people will not participate if they are undocumented. That may sound good to you but that is not what the framers intended. The Constitution speaks to "persons" , "numbers" and "inhabitants" not citizens when conducting the census and, believe me, they knew the difference- especially when they decided to count slaves.

I think that there have been some instances where Indians have been excluded and I acknowledge that and the technical reasons are varied and I am okay with it one way or the other. By treaty, some populations have "separate nation" status which would take them out of the count, and some do not. That little piece is complex but does not hinge upon whether they are citizens or inhabitants.

I might change my mind if the conservatives are able to make a better case but that is where I stand now.

However, even if the Constitution were amended to bring greater clarity to this issue, I would support the inclusion of non-citizens even though it may alienate many. If I want a friend I will get a dog.

I would probably amend the Constitution though to set the Congressional apportionment to be based upon the number of registered voters in the states or something like that (havent done enough thinking there) but I would allow the apportionment of federal funds to flow based on total count document and undocumented. The undocumented problem needs to be fixed but not that way.

Robert Barney · 11-07-2009, 12:06 PM

Proving absurdidy by being more absurd.

Imagine State A with 30 million people, with 50 of them citizens the rest immigrants and illegal immigrants.

Imagine State B with 30 million people, ALL of them citizens.

You district each state, following the census, where you counted everyone person, citizen or not. Each state gets the same 50 congressman.

State A's 50 congressmen are elected by 50 people, each congressman representing one citizen.

State B's 50 congressmen are elected by 30,000,000 people, each congressman representing 600,000 citizens.

Do you get it yet or is it your position that citizenship means nothing?

Winter · 11-07-2009, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Barney

Do you get it yet or is it your position that citizenship means nothing?

I understand the issue completely but thank you for asking.

Unfortunately, you are interpreting the Constitution the way the libs do by explaining how you "feel" about the way the census is calculated. Although I am always here to feeeel your pain bro, the United States Constitution does not give a crap about it. We must refer to the language of the Constitution which clearly refers to "persons", "numbers" and "inhabitants" when doing the census, not citizens. As noted for example, the framers clearly did not consider slaves to be citizens but counted them in the census. And at that time they did not even consider slaves to be "persons" within the meaning of the Constitution without even getting to the citizenship issue.

Liberals can be two-faced bastards but I have been around the block enough in life to know that Conservatives are right up there too. They go to Congress and bitch about the expenses in their states resulting from undocumented workers all while, out of the other side of their mouths, pleading for the census to only reflect citizens - yet the census is the basis for the distribution of many federal goodies and assistance.

If you believe in a strict construction of the Constitution then you have to be able to live with it or amend the Constitution. Otherwise you will argue for a loosy goosey interpretation on your issue and then next week be bitching about judicial activism.

Where we are perhaps joined in spirit is that I am all in favor of tidying up that part of the Constitution as needed. I think Congressional seats should be based on citizens, and at the same time I think there is a valid need to know how many people are in each state- citizens and just plain inhabitants alike- for a whole variety of reasons as the framers contemplated. That isnt exactly a rocket science problem in the scheme of things and is very fixable.

The difference between me and you/the libs on this issue is that I am not able to conclude that just because I wish that something were so or wish that the Constitution said something that that means that it does- because it does not. Live with it or change it. I believe that is the same choice we offer the libs when we argue a strict constructionist view in the areas where they like to project their feelings on to the Constitution.

I have friends who can look at the US Constitution, especially "the provide for the general welfare clause" and see a government mandate to provide health care to all. All I can say to them is the same thing that I say to you "thanks for sharing, man." In college I had a roommate who took mescalin and saw Tex Ritter on the wall of the room. Didn't make it so.