posted on November 4, 2002 12:16:08 PM new
I agree with Katy. No one deserves to have an opinion about the Bush administration except ultra rightwing nationalists. How presumptive of you KD. Get back here where you can be persecuted directly! I bet you're not even a fundamentalist. Oh, the horror!
posted on November 4, 2002 12:16:30 PM newAs far as voting, I can't vote here in Canada unless I want to give up my right to ever vote in the U.S., regardless of which country I'm living in.
Where did you get this cockamamie idea? This is incorrect. If you hold dual citizenship there are no repercussions from the United States with regard to voting rights. You do not lose your right to vote as long as you are a U.S. citizen.
So what's your REAL excuse for not voting in American elections?
posted on November 4, 2002 12:17:53 PM new
Katy, maybe this isn't a good day for you, so I won't take what you've said personally. If you want to discuss things, I will, but your digs only make you look bad at this point.
posted on November 4, 2002 12:23:16 PM new
No digs, kraftdinner. Just some honest questions. Care to answer them? You seem to have all kinds of *other* answers. I'm just curious why you complain so much about a country of which you are a citizen (you say) yet you don't seem to care enough to do anything about all the things you complain about which is your responsibility and obligation (according to Borillar) as a U.S. citizen (again, you say). So no digs. Just questions. Don't wanna answer? Why not?
Say! Ever hear of absentee ballot? Imagine that! You can vote in the county where you pay your property taxes seeing as how you are a U.S. citizen and all. Wow! Isn't that sumpthin? Now, why wouldn't you?
posted on November 4, 2002 12:35:47 PM new
No website that I'm aware of, Katy. Just theory based on my own observations of behavior. I used to describe the re-emergence as the enlightened inquisition, but I've modified it to neoinquisition, as it progresses in the society.
posted on November 4, 2002 12:41:47 PM new
Yellowstone - When are you going to learn that when the democrats do it...it's okay and there's a good reason. But when the exact same thing is done by a republican...shame...shame.
Borillar said: Along with that, there are already reports of massive voter fraud with absentee ballots being forged and stuffing the ballot boxes -- how else do Republicans win an election? Yes, and everyone of the seven cases I've read were where democrats were being investigated for the fraud. Mostly for someone who was paid by their party either filling out absentee ballots for others. But of course, the DNC denies any wrong doing. LOL
Yellowstone - Just two examples are an Indian woman Dashel's state was caught burning absentee ballots while filing out new ones. She had many excuses for why she was doing this, but it looks like charges will be brought against her anyway. Another was done in a MENTAL institution [care home] where after a 'party' with game playing, they were taking the mental patients in another room to fill out absentee ballots. LOL Very desperate, IMO. How low can you go? LOL
posted on November 4, 2002 12:46:06 PM new
Oh. Theory. Also known as conjecture. Could even be construed as "fantasy". Kinda like the "theory" that politicians and their families are "murdered' by rival "political parties", eh? I'm always amazed that certain "theorists" are so eager to accept such "theories" when it accuses, say "republicans" (Wellstone) but yet repudiates the same theory when it accuses Democrats (Foster). That kind of "behavior" just cracks me up.
posted on November 4, 2002 12:57:09 PM new
My honest answers to your honest questions don't seem to be what you want to hear though Katy. You have little knowledge of Canadian immigration laws, so I won't get into that with you... an absentee vote... yeah right! LoL!
Are you mad at me because I side with Borillar a lot? What's really bugging you?
posted on November 4, 2002 01:07:38 PM new
Nothings bugging me, kraftdinner. I just would like to know why you refuse to exercise your right to vote, when there is so much here in the U.S. that is "bugging" you.
I'm not asking you about "immigration" laws with respect to Canada. I asked you why you refuse to vote in U.S. elections as you are entitled to do since you are a U.S. property owner (you say) and a U.S. citizen (you say).
As far as voting, I can't vote here in Canada unless I want to give up my right to ever vote in the U.S.,
Perhaps you mispoke with regard to your statement above.
WHY don't you vote in U.S. elections, kraftdinner? You seem to think there is alot wrong here in this country. Why not vote to change it? Did you vote in the last presidential election? Why not?Do you value your U.S. citizenship? If so, why don't you vote?
You don't seem to want to answer these questions. Why?
posted on November 4, 2002 01:11:24 PM new
Well, Katy, that is the odd thing about all religion and politics, it is a matter of opinion, subject only to logic, as one wishes to apply it or not. And it is possible that in observing a similar set of circumstances, individuals can come to different conclusions. There's nothing new or unusual in that. However, stating that someone has no *right* to state an opinion, as in the case of KD, seems to be a somewhat extremist view akin to that espoused by totalitarian or theocratic societies. I suppose that there's nothing wrong with that change in viewpoint if the majority of people decide that that's the sort of society that we should become. And though it's an opinion that I don't favor, I don't believe that advocates shouldn't have the right to express it. Just my own old-fashioned views I suppose.
posted on November 4, 2002 01:11:41 PM newAre you mad at me because I side with Borillar a lot?
What difference does it make if you "side with Borillar" or not? He votes. You don't. Why not? Why criticize and complain about a system in which you refuse to participate? Nothing better to do with your life?
posted on November 4, 2002 01:18:22 PM new
Katy, I can't vote in the U.S. because I don't live there. I live in Canada. You need to be a resident before you can vote in the U.S.
I don't vote in Canada because I will lose the right to vote in the U.S. if I do. That's part of the Canadian dual-citizenship law Katy.
posted on November 4, 2002 01:18:53 PM newHowever, stating that someone has no *right* to state an opinion, as in the case of KD,
Did somebody say KD didn't have the "right" to state an opinion? I must have missed that part, Antiquary.
Frankly, I find a good many of your "opinions" extremist and totalitarian and corrupting of the very idea of liberal politics, but I'll defend your "right" to such opinion. As long as you vote, that is.
posted on November 4, 2002 01:27:10 PM newI don't vote in Canada because I will lose the right to vote in the U.S. if I do.
No. You won't. Why don't you post the law that says if you hold dual citizenship and vote in Canada, that you lose your right to vote in U.S. elections. That simply isn't true.
As for being a "resident". Don't care to live here? Why not?
Actually, don't bother to answer. It's pretty clear now just how much you "value" your U.S. citizenship. I just can't figure out why you bother to complain so much about a country and a political system in which you have absolutely no interest in.
I'd say that's pretty hypocritical of you, kraftdinner.
posted on November 4, 2002 01:30:12 PM new"Hi yellowstone! I'm neither liberal or conservative... just so you know, but can you honestly say that you're better off since Bush became President? Can you think of anything he's done that's bettered the U.S.? A GOOD President would be trying to fix things and forego the limelight imo... especially now. The only thing he's taught me, is I should be investing in oil - that seems to be where all the money is and that's what really matters with this presidency."
That is what I was agreeing with, Katy.
KD, notice how supporters of the so-called Conservatives are generally nasty and demanding? Notice how they never risk their own opinions, but stop by to slam those who do? Notice how they never add to the content, but devolve any thread into general nastiness? These people don't know what it means to be a Conservative or what it means to have Values. Their views are all distorted and unsupportable, as we've shown so many times here in the RT. It's no wonder that they can do nothing but come into threads and take a crap and leave.
posted on November 4, 2002 01:33:29 PM newDon't sit there in Canada and b*tch and moan about all the things you don't like about the U.S. and who's running it.You don't have the right.
Well, yes, you did say that. Are you advocating 1) a law that requires all citizens to vote; or 2) a law that would only protect freedom of speech to those whose dossier includes proof that they have voted?
posted on November 4, 2002 01:46:22 PM new
You know Katy, your point, which you've finally made, makes sense. Should a person that doesn't vote have any credibility when knocking the government/policies, to which they were born if they don't live there.
In a way, I agree that it's pretty hypocritical. But the other side is, if you talk to enough people, opinions and thoughts can be swayed with the people that can vote... if I could vote, I would vote quite a bit diferently now than I would have before I came to this board.
Also, if you have dual-citizenship you can't vote in both countries Katy. It's one or the other. Sorry that you don't believe me.
posted on November 4, 2002 01:47:29 PM new
Borillar - You keep saying this --->
It's no wonder that they can do nothing but come into threads and take a crap and leave.
Some people don't live in the RT 24/7, like others do. They 'pop' in a read a thread or two, state an agreement or disagreement, then move on. They are NOT taking a crap and leaving.
posted on November 4, 2002 02:01:36 PM new
Lol! Borillar! You really crack me up. I've said this many times to you, I am not a conservative. I do not generally vote the Republican ticket. I am a registered Democrat. I've always considered myself "liberal" until recently when Daschle et.al started doing to the Democratic Party what Newt and the Religious Right did to the Republican Party. So maybe I should just call my self an "Independent" from now on. Obviously my old-fashioned type of "liberalism" doesn't fit into the RT Nazi-Liberal's version of what "liberals" are and the future direction of the Democratic Party.
Antiquary, you're quite right. I DID say that, didn't I. And on second thought, I stand by that. Kraftdinner has no right to constantly kvetch about U.S. Politics when she doesn't value her citizenship enough to vote.
Kraftdinner, evidently you only hold U.S. citizenship because of the simple accident of your birth. You are the perfect example of why I believe that citizenship should not be granted on the sole basis of being born on U.S. soil. You only keep your citizenship because you apparently believe it might come in "handy" or "convenient" someday. What a hypocrite you are. You choose to reside and vote in another country, but refuse to honor your so-called citizenship in this one. You are no American. You're Canadian. Your "opinions" mean nothing. In other words, kraftdinner, you just plain don't count!
KatyD
edited for spelling and syntax..
[ edited by KatyD on Nov 4, 2002 02:02 PM ]
posted on November 4, 2002 02:16:13 PM new
I don't know about anyone else here, but I'm convinced. YOU are the REAL American Katy, not me. What have I been thinking???
posted on November 4, 2002 02:21:07 PM new
Borillar
Allow me to bring you up to speed on this discussion, ok.
This whole discussion started with an attack, to wit; chococake stated in his/hers 1st initial post the following;
[i]What excuse will Bush use not to be in Washington? No more running from state to state campaigning, and having an audience
every day.[/i] and Any guesses?
To which I replied with;
{i]What exactly is wrong with Bush campaigning all around the country? Every single one of, at least, the past modern
Presidents has done this.[/i]
and then chococake replied with;
[i]yellowstone, I don't remember any president doing this much campaigning as much as this one. He's been to several states
three and four times.[/i]
So then I replied with;
So you are saying then that there should be a limit on how much a current President should and can be able to campaign. I honestly don't get it, can you explain this to me?
And then chococake replied with this but still did not answer my question;
[i]Yellowstone, you mean you actually believe he is running the country? Maybe the gang in Washington decided if he is on the
campaign trail it keeps him busy and out of their hair. Update him, what a joke![/i]
And then you jump in with this;
[i]Yellowstone, I notice that you ask a lot of questions, but you don't provide much content yourself. Why is that? Afriad to give
your own opinion or make an arguement for your beliefs? It's easier to attack others, isn't it, than to risk your own?[/i]
I have posted my questions following the tone of the original post and I have gotten no answers to my questions, just as you would put it, crap instead. Am I wrong about this or is it just that you, Borillar, have a reading comprehension problem as you have most notably accused others of in other threads.
posted on November 4, 2002 02:22:02 PM new
Yellowstone, sorry it took me so long, but I've been out. Your question was did I think there should be a limit on presidents campaigning for other members of their party. No, of course, I don't think there should be an official time limit. The original point I was trying to make with the topic is it's common knownledge that Bush hates being in Washington and will find any excuse to be away from the White House.
However, I do feel he is paying too much time to this election and not enough to other duties he's suppose to give his attention too. His appearances are more to push the war then to help the GOP anyway. War war war that's all he talks about!
posted on November 4, 2002 02:29:55 PM new
Well, well, well, kraftdinner. All may not be lost for you after all, if you are really INTERESTED in voting. It appears that you are under a misconception regarding your right as a "dual-citizen" to vote in U.S. Federal Elections. The law you speak of was repealed almost 25 years ago.
Note that US law used to mandate loss of US citizenship for voting in a foreign election. However, this provision was struck down by the Supreme Court in Afroyim v. Rusk and was repealed by Congress in 1978.
Incidentally, US citizens living abroad (whether or not they happen to be dual citizens) should be aware that they may be legally entitled to vote in US federal elections. Even if you have not had any residential ties to the US for years and have no plans to return, you may still vote in federal elections based on your last place of residence before moving away from the US. In such cases, federal law prohibits your former state from declaring you a resident for state tax purposes simply because you have exercised this right to vote in a federal election. For more information on how to register and vote from outside the US, contact the nearest US embassy or consulate, or visit the Web site of the Federal Voting Assistance Program at www.fvap.ncr.gov.
But then again, I suspect that you are not really interested in making a difference. Only b*tching about it because it simply amuses you, and you *can*.
Yes, kraftdinner. I AM an American. I vote. I am a citizen of the United States, and I take that citizenship seriously. Like Borillar (egad! I agree with him on something!) I believe that as a citizen, I have obligations and responsibilities to my country that begin with, but do not end with voting. What kind of responsiblilites do you think you have because of your accident of birth? Hmmmm?? Or is this *dual-citizenship* you claim just a convenience for you in case you find yourself in "need" of U.S. citizenship? Hmmmm?
that when the democrats do it...it's okay and there's a good reason. But when the exact same thing is done by a republican...shame...shame.
