Speak Out: UN invades Missouri - Warning UN observers not welcome here.

Posted by blogbudsman on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 10:47 AM:

Replies (90)

  • Invades?

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:01 AM
  • God Bless Texas!!!!

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:23 AM
  • God Bless Texas!!!!

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:23 AM

    For what?

    I have issues with any government official threatening arrest for doing nothing.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:35 AM
  • Rick,

    I heard on the news last night that Texas had told the UN to butt out.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:35 AM
  • RT,

    The UN has no business telling Texas or any other State in the United States how to run an election. Texas was not threatening arrest for doing nothing, they were simply making them aware of what the laws in Texas are.

    Before you get off on a tangent how wonderful Europe is and the UN etc. etc.

    I will tell you that I was accosted in a town in Holland several years ago for merely wandering around in the City Hall and looking at the pictures on the wall. The Burgermeister himself told me that was not permitted and I was not in the USA. He then became very nice and gave me a guided tour.

    Why does some foreigner think he/she has unassigned rights in this country to tell us how to operate?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:42 AM
  • Rick,

    Are you saying that letter is a fake?

    And for the record, I don't believe the United States has a right to tell another nation how to run an election either.

    And the UN appears to have been threatening us with.... we are watching you!

    Who knows.... I do not favor the UN sticking their beaks into our business. We are providing the largest percentage of their operating revenue and a place to do business from... they need to be satisfied with that. The US withdraws it's support and watch their house of cards collapse.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:56 AM
  • First if all OSCE is a seprete organzation then the UN; but has ties to it. It was set up after the fall of the U.S.S.R to make sure elections where fair in the the old Solvete block but has been mostly a joke. In the last Russian Elections Putin just ignored them.

    What just happened is that Project Vote; a group founded by ACORN got all mad because of the ID laws and complained to them. The state government of Texas, as Wheels said, told the to F themselves.

    -- Posted by Some Random Guy on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:59 AM
  • Rick,

    I do not think Texas should arrest them either.

    Just pick them up and drop them accross the border in some town like Matamoros with a sign on their back stating they have money in their pockets and they are going to stop drug trafficing.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:05 PM
  • .Rick.

    It is real I just got this from the Texas Attorny General website. But as I said OSCE is a joke; they have no power and are pretty much ignored everywhere they go. They have no power at all.

    https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=4195

    -- Posted by Some Random Guy on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 PM
  • It is a fact they are doing it on the Democrats behalf. They want a president that will kiss their *** instead of saying kiss ours.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:09 PM
  • RT,

    The UN has no business telling Texas or any other State in the United States how to run an election. Texas was not threatening arrest for doing nothing, they were simply making them aware of what the laws in Texas are.

    Before you get off on a tangent how wonderful Europe is and the UN etc. etc.

    I will tell you that I was accosted in a town in Holland several years ago for merely wandering around in the City Hall and looking at the pictures on the wall. The Burgermeister himself told me that was not permitted and I was not in the USA. He then became very nice and gave me a guided tour.

    Why does some foreigner think he/she has unassigned rights in this country to tell us how to operate?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:42 AM

    I agree. But the UN is not telling Texas hot to run an Election.

    But simply threatening arrest for people nearing a building is borderline facist, the very thing most of the people use as a calling card.

    Frankly, I think this is all just posturing. But still, its the type of posturing talk that I don not agree with. Its Texas, so luckily its not my issue. But I would be severly angry if Kostner or Nixon said the same thing.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:09 PM
  • "Before you get off on a tangent how wonderful Europe is and the UN etc. etc."

    I sort of felt the same thing about the illegal European immigrants who invaded the Great Lands long ago ☺

    -- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:13 PM

    Rick,

    I fully understand where you are coming from. It was a wrong that is not going to be righted... that much you can take to the bank.

    And I certainly have no solution to offer.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:18 PM
  • What I feel is scary is that they admit that they have been running our elections since 2002.

    -- Posted by Dr. Doom and Gloom on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:17 PM

    What?

    First you use the words "invade"

    Now they are running our elections?

    Just curious....Do you believe the moon landing took place on a sound stage? And what is your theory of who is behind sept. 11? Is everything a Dan Brown Novel to you?

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:22 PM
  • -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:09 PM

    RT

    The very idea that the UN sub organization is coming over to the US on election day to watch us is an implied threat in itself. That is what I have objection to.

    Who in hell do they think they are to threaten us???

    God Bless Texas!!!! At least someone in this country has the guts to tell them where the big bear shats in the woods.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:25 PM
  • -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:09 PM

    RT

    The very idea that the UN sub organization is coming over to the US on election day to watch us is an implied threat in itself. That is what I have objection to.

    Who in hell do they think they are to threaten us???

    God Bless Texas!!!! At least someone in this country has the guts to tell them where the big bear shats in the woods.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:25 PM
  • Oh crap another double dribble.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:26 PM
  • "But simply threatening arrest for people nearing a building is borderline facist, the very thing most of the people use as a calling card."

    RT

    Do you have a problem with the new law, forbiding us to assemble or protest where the secret service is watching the Emperor?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:30 PM
  • RT

    The very idea that the UN sub organization is coming over to the US on election day to watch us is an implied threat in itself. That is what I have objection to.

    Who in hell do they think they are to threaten us???

    God Bless Texas!!!! At least someone in this country has the guts to tell them where the big bear shats in the woods.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:25 P

    Is an implied threat?

    Why? Is everything you don't agree with "implied threat"?

    And I have nor problem if Texas told them to stick it. I have no problem with Texas talking about how big of a sham of an organizational they are.

    However, threatening arrest of legal residents is over the line. Just as it would be if some European nation threatened our citizens who are legally in the country.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:36 PM
  • "The ODIHR limited election observation mission for the 2012 general elections in the United States consists of a core team of 13 experts, from 10 OSCE participating States, based in Washington D.C., and 44 long-term observers deployed throughout the country. These are the sixth United States elections the Office has observed, without incident, since 2002."

    What do you have to say about that.

    -- Posted by Dr. Doom and Gloom on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:32 PM

    I know what I would say... The ODIHR appear to be creating their own self importance.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:38 PM
  • RT

    Do you have a problem with the new law, forbiding us to assemble or protest where the secret service is watching the Emperor?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:30 PM

    The Emporor?

    Personally, I disagree with it.

    But I admit I really don't know enough about protecting the president to know if it is needed. Would it have prevented Reagan from being shot? I really don't know.

    Now let me ask you a question? Are you really that concerned about that law. The moment Obama is voted out, and Romeny voted in, will your thoughts on this law and your emperor change?

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:43 PM
  • -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:36 PM

    RT

    Texas did not threaten them if they came into the state. Texas told them if they came within 100 feet of a polling place etc.

    What is threatening about that. Missouri has a law forbidding politicing with so many feet of a polling place, and you can be arrested for that. What is wrong with that?

    If I told you that I will be watching you to make sure you come into work on time and again to make sure you do not leave early, so that your boss receives a fair days work for a fair days pay. Would you consider that an implied threat? I have no business in your arrangement of wages and hours with your employer. But just sitting on the parking lot day after day would be a threat would it not?

    I will ask again...

    Do you have a problem with the new law, forbiding us to assemble or protest where the secret service is watching the Emperor?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:47 PM
  • Rational.Thought

    Did you take the time to read press release that I just posted?

    "The ODIHR limited election observation mission for the 2012 general elections in the United States consists of a core team of 13 experts, from 10 OSCE participating States, based in Washington D.C., and 44 long-term observers deployed throughout the country. These are the sixth United States elections the Office has observed, without incident, since 2002."

    What do you have to say about that.

    -- Posted by Dr. Doom and Gloom on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:32 PM

    There is nothing to say.

    You read "without incident" (in your own link) and derived "Running our elections". So there is nothing to say. You seek information to flame an agenda.

    Therefore, we will probably never agree on anything.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:48 PM
  • Now let me ask you a question? Are you really that concerned about that law. The moment Obama is voted out, and Romeny voted in, will your thoughts on this law and your emperor change?

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:43 PM

    No my position will not change. I do not believe the President of the United States should act like royalty. They are our hired hands, sent in to do a job for a given period of time and then move on. American citizens are given the right to peacefully assemble and protest and no self important individual should be able to change that.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:51 PM
  • RT

    Texas did not threaten them if they came into the state. Texas told them if they came within 100 feet of a polling place etc.

    What is threatening about that. Missouri has a law forbidding politicing with so many feet of a polling place, and you can be arrested for that. What is wrong with that?

    If I told you that I will be watching you to make sure you come into work on time and again to make sure you do not leave early, so that your boss receives a fair days work for a fair days pay. Would you consider that an implied threat? I have no business in your arrangement of wages and hours with your employer. But just sitting on the parking lot day after day would be a threat would it not?

    I will ask again...

    Do you have a problem with the new law, forbiding us to assemble or protest where the secret service is watching the Emperor?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:47 PM

    There is a distinction that you are overlooking.

    "Missouri Law prohibits 'politicing'". If they were to do that in Missouri, they should be arrested.

    However, this is a different situation. There is no texas law that states you have to be 100 feet away from a polling place. Even the Attorney General could not cite a law that would be broken.

    Have no idea what your point is about work.

    But let me ask you this. Substitute "Texas" with Californai. And substitute "UN Observers" with the NRA.

    You would really have no problem if the Californa attourney General threatened arrest of NRA members if they came withing 100 feet of polling palces? Personally, I would have SERIOUS issues with that.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:56 PM
  • There are 2 ways to get attention -- do something good or do something bad -- both get equal .

    -- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:53 PM

    I disagree in the fact that the doing something bad gets more attention.

    Otherwise, how do you explain the popularity if Kim Kardashian.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:58 PM
  • Sorry , this no longer true .

    Effective this year , the Secret Service will arrest any protester as a Felon . The US Constitution says the exact opposite .

    sad...very sad ..

    -- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:55 PM

    I have no problems with protesting. But I do know there is a time and place.

    For instance, those nut jobs at the funerals of serive men.

    Where the line is drawn, I am not sure. But there should be a line at some point.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:59 PM
  • RT

    "The Texas Election Code governs

    anyone who participates in Texas elections--including representatives of the OSCE. The

    OSCE's representatives are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place. It may be a

    criminal offense for OSCE's representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling

    place's entrance. Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE's

    representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law."

    From the Texas Attorney Generas letter. What do you know about Texas law that he does not?

    And what the hey.... if there is no law all the Governor has to do is issue an executive order. It works for Obama why wouldn't it work for Texas?

    The law should apply to the NRA and everyone else as well. That includes the UN and their affiliates. This is still the United States of America.... not one of the Socialist States of the World.

    "Have no idea what your point is about work."

    Sorry graphics are not permitted on here or I would draw you a picture.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 1:07 PM
  • America's collapsing Society .

    Do you have children ? Do they also behave , or be "good" all day and night ?

    Do you reward "good" or only correct them when they are "bad" ?

    -- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 1:05 PM

    I try to.

    But what I mostly do is end up praying that I am doing the right things.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 1:07 PM
  • -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 1:07 PM

    When your attorney general threatens arrest for no apparent except for a law "may have" been broken.

    May have? So the attorney general doesn't know his own state laws?

    And you say God Bless Texas because they have an attorney general that doesn't know what laws there are, or what appears to be the ability to look it up.

    And I call BS and you being comfortable for California arresting NRA members for showing up at polling places.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 1:11 PM
  • 1.Since I was born in Texas I say Yah bless Texas.

    2.To heck with the OSCE and the UN.

    3.In Missouri it's 25' from the door of a poling place.

    4.When we see the white-helmeted men coming, we can then very politely part their hair. Or better yet, instead of a statue of a pistol barrel twisted into a knot, like the one out front of the UN building in NY, I wouldn't mind seeing some certain necks twisted in the same manner.

    -- Posted by dchannes on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 5:16 PM
  • And I call BS and you being comfortable for California arresting NRA members for showing up at polling places.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 1:11 PM

    You call it what you want Sweetie.... but the fact remains, if they are breaking the law, I have no problem with them being arrested. If the NRA are assembled peacefully, so what... at least they are U.S. citizens. I do not believe in all of the laws we have but I do believe they apply to all or to none. You will find me to be a little different from the sorry arsed leftists you are aquainted with. I do not believe in the do not do what I do, do what I say BS.

    And people keep saying citizens, as if this group are truly U.S. citizens.

    We talk about our gutless politicians and when one shows a little intestinal fortitude, he is to be despised.

    God Bless Texas!!!! And I will add God Bless their Attorney General!!!! Run him for President... he will get my vote.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:11 PM
  • Dear Gov. Romney,

    Upon your election and inauguration as President, it would be an excellent idea for you to immediately advocate and work toward cancelling all government contributions and support to the United Nations. Furthermore, invite that organization to remove itself from our country. Let it do business elsewhere on its own without any further support whatever from the United States.

    The financial savings to the United States would be a good beginning in applying toward balancing our budget.

    As to the UN buildings in New York, we could suggest turning them over to Donald Trump to either rehab or tear down and rebuild. Mr. Trump has had considerable excperience and success in New York real estaate and might just make a little profit for the United States.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 11:38 AM
  • BC,

    What is the difference between 'legal' and 'lawful'?

    Just for grins, could you give us a run down on it?

    -- Posted by dchannes on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 7:49 PM
  • BC,

    You insult me? Why? I don't understand you. I just wanted your input. Never mind.

    -- Posted by dchannes on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 12:18 AM
  • I think democrats fear losing the union vote.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 12:31 AM
  • I wonder where the UN was when Ron Paul and his supporters were getting hosed by the GOP establishment during the primaries?

    -- Posted by Rick Vandeven on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 9:41 AM
  • I think it's important to understand the difference. Something can be considered 'legal' and really be 'lawful'.

    Lawful: In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. "Lawful" properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law.

    Legal: Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law.

    Legal matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules. They are equitable in nature and are implied (presumed) rather than actual (express). A legal process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous discussions of legal fictions and color of law. To be legal, a matter does not follow the law. Instead, it conforms to and follows the rules or form of law.

    -- Posted by dchannes on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 1:20 PM
  • I think democrats fear losing the union vote.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 12:31 AM

    The UMWA have decided NOT to endorse Obama over his hate for American coal. They are telling their people to vote Romney or leave his line blank. I have friends that are coal miners in IL. and they hate him.

    Most union members and other workers will be seriously hurt over Obama's job killing regulations that conveniently are to start after the elections. But at the same time Federal employees are seeing a 30% raise in pay and over 1000 people a day are being added to the disability rolls for the working man to pay for.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 4:31 PM
  • The minute-by-minute, daily, political rhetoric which is posted in the seMissourian threads by a handful is boarding institutionalize-able. IMHO (No doubt, plenty of evidence to support that opinion.)

    -- Posted by Me'Lange on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 11:40 AM

    From Another Thread....

    Regrets

    Turn around and let me look at you. I want to see if you fit this description.....

    Yup! You is one of em. Now would you take a good look at me and see if I am one of em too.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 5:03 PM
  • I is?

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 5:20 PM
  • Yep! You is too.....

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 5:22 PM
  • Oooooh Noooooo! Drat the luck... thought I might not be one of em.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 5:32 PM
  • " is boarding institutionalize-able. "

    Hmmmmmm wonder if she meant 'bordering'?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 5:34 PM
  • I thought she said hording.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 5:37 PM
  • Rick

    As Yogi Berra said De'ja vu all over again.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 6:42 PM
  • Rick,

    I knew Yogi's cousin years ago. He said that boy was different, but he could really play ball. :-)

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 7:44 PM
  • Wheels

    Wasn't Yogi from the South Side , or the area known as "Dago Hill" ?

    -- Posted by .Rick. on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 7:54 PM

    Rick,

    Yes he was. I knew his cousin who was in the HVAC business as I was. Have not seen him in years though. The cousin was a very dedicated guy and absolutely made sure he did everything exactly by the book down to dotting the i's and crossing the t's. So much so that it was kind of an obsession with him and a lot of us used to kid him about it. One of the guys remarked to Tony's wife once that he bet Tony read Carrier Manuals in bed and Berra's wife laughed and said yes he did.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 10:23 PM
  • If Yogi made a mistake, was that a Boo Boo?

    BC, Just look toward Scopus on the way to the farm, The color of the smoke will tell you who won.:)

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Oct 28, 2012, at 11:20 PM
  • Why are people keep talking about the UN. They are not even involed in this. It is a totally diffrent group the OSCE.

    -- Posted by Some Random Guy on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 8:20 AM
  • Will someone please tell me just what the UN really does FOR us? Dambned if I can figure it out.

    -- Posted by voyager on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 10:46 AM
  • You call it what you want Sweetie.... but the fact remains, if they are breaking the law, I have no problem with them being arrested. If the NRA are assembled peacefully, so what... at least they are U.S. citizens. I do not believe in all of the laws we have but I do believe they apply to all or to none. You will find me to be a little different from the sorry arsed leftists you are aquainted with. I do not believe in the do not do what I do, do what I say BS.

    And people keep saying citizens, as if this group are truly U.S. citizens.

    We talk about our gutless politicians and when one shows a little intestinal fortitude, he is to be despised.

    God Bless Texas!!!! And I will add God Bless their Attorney General!!!! Run him for President... he will get my vote.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:11 PM

    IF they are breaking laws....That is the key.

    Doing something you agree with is not "intestinal fortitutde".

    But I am glad that we agree on the fact that they must do something illegal to be arrested.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 12:57 PM
  • -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 12:57 PM

    They were adequately warned. And they still have no business here in any official capacity for starters. God Bless Texas! A State bold enough to tell them which cow ate the cabbage.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 5:54 PM
  • They were adequately warned. And they still have no business here in any official capacity for starters. God Bless Texas! A State bold enough to tell them which cow ate the cabbage.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 5:54 P

    So you support arrest without cause.

    No that isn't quite accurate. You support arrest on the grounds they don't agree with you.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 8:45 AM
  • We don't need the UN monitoring our elections, that job belongs to our County Clerks, Election Judges,Missouri Secretary of State, Missouri Attorney General and County Sheriff's and their deputies not the UN. Thank you Texas for standing your ground.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 8:55 AM
  • They were adequately warned. And they still have no business here in any official capacity for starters. God Bless Texas! A State bold enough to tell them which cow ate the cabbage.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 5:54 P

    So you support arrest without cause.

    No that isn't quite accurate. You support arrest on the grounds they don't agree with you.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 8:45 AM

    RT

    I do not know if you are so thicked headed you cannot understand what I have been saying or you simply want to put words in my mouth that I did not say.

    I will try to paint you a word picture. If Texas has a law regarding elections it should be obeyed by all and if it is violated the law should be enforced on whomever violates it equally and without exception. These UN affiliated do gooders have no jurisdiction here and should not be catered to. That is where I am coming from. The Attorney General warned them if they violated Texas laws they could be prosecuted. What part of that do you have a problem with? Do you think they should be exempt from laws in this country? I don't wether I happen to agree with the law or not.

    God Bless Texas!!!

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 9:13 AM
  • Swamp,

    Glad somebody agrees with me. :-)

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 9:16 AM
  • Lumbrg logic - words in your mouth and liberal. Some times you've just got to call a spade a spade and then everything becomes clearer.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 9:45 AM
  • Dug

    Have you noticed the pickup of chatter, as the CIA would call it fom the liberals on here the past few days. I think the realization has finally struck them that their Mesiah could possibly loose and it has them in a panic. Funny!! ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 9:51 AM
  • We don't need the UN monitoring our elections, that job belongs to our County Clerks, Election Judges,Missouri Secretary of State, Missouri Attorney General and County Sheriff's and their deputies not the UN. Thank you Texas for standing your ground.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 8:55 AM

    Standing what ground?

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 9:51 AM
  • "loose" Ooops to many O's in my last post... make that 'lose'.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 10:02 AM
  • RT

    I think you knew what he meant... but you are kind of dense. It's kind of like the old Tammy W. song that Hilary used when Bill was having his Monica problems. You know the "Stand By Your Man" thing.

    You stand by what you value... even if the only reason is to get you where you want to go in her case.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 10:06 AM
  • Wheels - yep, I noticed. I read today's "Letter to the Editor" from a man in Jackson. It is excellent. I like his last quote (if I may copy it):

    "When President Obama needed help to take out Osama bin Laden, he called on Navy Seal commandos.

    When two Navy Seals called on President Obama and their commanders for help, they were denied, and they paid the ultimate sacrifice." - in Benghazi.

    Obama is a narcissistic coward. I can't believe what anyone would value in a man with such little character or values.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 10:11 AM
  • Dug,

    I put on my beanie with the propeller on top and reasoned out that this guy just might not be an Obama Supporter. Probably won't find his name on the donations list.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 10:22 AM
  • The far left is coming out of the wood work these past few days they must be extremely worried that they are going to lose November 6 2012. Help is on the way called the silent majority come election day so we can get our country back.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 11:40 AM
  • Wheels I agree with you my friend, the far left is all shook up they are throwing everything they can including the kitchen sink in the final lap of this race. Help is on the way my friend I hope and pray for our kids, grand kids, middle class and small businesses and our country as a whole.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 11:50 AM
  • The far left is coming out of the wood work these past few days they must be extremely worried that they are going to lose November 6 2012. Help is on the way called the silent majority come election day so we can get our country back.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 11:40 AM

    Where was the silent majority when Obama was elected?

    Not sure if that is something that can be counted on.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 11:56 AM
  • They are coming on this one, they have had enough.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 12:26 PM
  • -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 11:50 AM

    Swamp.

    I am cautiously optomistic that America has had enough of the BS we have been experiencing for going on 4 years now.

    I hope we are correct, I do not feel America can stand four more years of this clueless 'empty suit'.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 12:31 PM
  • Swamp.

    I am cautiously optomistic that America has had enough of the BS we have been experiencing for going on 4 years now.

    I hope we are correct, I do not feel America can stand four more years of this clueless 'empty suit'.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 12:31 PM

    They put up with Bush for a second term. I am not suprised by what the american public will decide.

    With that said, Romney is a much, much more attractive challenger than Kerry.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 12:52 PM
  • Wheels: People have to be able to read between the lines here on what has been going on the past four years, especially with the most recent situation in Libya, I watched this father's interview of the murdered former navy seal I felt for this father and his family. I watched the Brian Terry family the border agent that was murdered suffer for two years now, because they have not received any answers from this administration about there son's murder while he was on duty. I see 23 million unemployed, one out of six Americans fall in to poverty, 47 million Americans on food stamps, a 6 trillion dollar deficit in just four years surely the people can see what has been going on, it is simple it is defined as failed leadership. This is not about how coolll you are or whether you are a Republican or Democrat this election is about saving our country for our kids, grand kids and many more future generations. Wheels, you know and my fellow bloggers on here know I have admitted many times on here openly that I'm a conservative democrat from the old democrat party of Truman and Kennedy I also voted for this President in 2008 big disappointment to say the least but I cannot cast my vote for him this time he and the current democratic party went way to far left for me this is not the party I was born and raised in, no way.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 1:08 PM
  • Politicians consider military personnel to be no more than tools with which to do their bidding.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 2:53 PM
  • -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 1:08 PM

    Swamp,

    I think most thinking people are in step with you. It is the freeloaders that concern me, and the number of them. Will they be willing to forgo their government check and go to work to earn their living, even if it is for the good of America?

    I have mentioned before, that I decided Obama was a fake in late 2007, and that was after my feeling that he was going to be good for America when I first heard of him and listened to him speak at the 2004 Democratic Convention. I consider myself a Conservative, and will pick the most conservative candidate, which will not always be as conservative as I like. Neither the Democrat or Republican Party are what they once were. I will take a Conservative Southern Democrat over a Liberal Republican any day.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 3:42 PM
  • Wheels, you know and my fellow bloggers on here know I have admitted many times on here openly that I'm a conservative democrat from the old democrat party of Truman and Kennedy I also voted for this President in 2008 big disappointment to say the least but I cannot cast my vote for him this time he and the current democratic party went way to far left for me this is not the party I was born and raised in, no way.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 1:08 PM

    I agree.

    But unfrotunatly, I see the same thing in the republican party as they abandoned their true values.

    But at least for Romney, he seems to be somewhat headed back to true Republican vlaues. Only time will tell.

    Personally, I look forward to the day when you have a true conservative democrat in office like Clinton, but a republican congress with a shrewd Newt Gingrich.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 3:53 PM
  • I still want to see how Jan1 , 2013 plays out when all Government checks go direct deposit .

    What will those with-out bank accounts do ?

    Will those who have grown to survive off Government checks still love their "Obama" as much if they can not get their check in their own hands to spend on what-ever ?

    Will the stupid mandated "Affordable Act" still be their Bilbe or will it be sooooooo unfair ??

    -- Posted by .Rick. on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 4:34 PM

    I guess I don't understand why people blaim Obama for wefare. He has only been in office for 4 years.

    Will anything really be different when he is voted out?

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 4:42 PM
  • Rational.Thought

    I can not speak for everyone nor will I even attempt to try .

    To me , Obama did nothing to slow the increasing Entitlements .

    For instance , his first priority after election in 2008 was insurance . Not the crumbling housing commerce of the crumbing economy -- but insurance .

    Actually , effective Jan1 , 2012 , a tax was added to home sales to help fund the Affordable Act .

    How wise is it to add an additional tax to a struggling commerce ?

    Again , this is just me ...

    -- Posted by .Rick. on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 4:53

    I agree with that.

    For me, both parties are equally guilty of creating, then refusing to limit entitlements (except clinton and gingrich).

    For instance, the "obama phone" is really a program that started under reagan that provided federal money (kick back) to telephone conglomerates. However, i still blaim Obama for not stopping the program and allowing it to be applied to cell phones. I think its actually cheaper than the old program, but still should be eliminated all together.

    I have no problem with him focusing on the UNaffordable Care act. Because it was part of his platform. But Like you, I blaim him for not accomplishing his other goals.

    Also, a tax was not added to new home sales. It was a gains tax. Only 2% were eleigable for it, and of those they had to sell property for significant profit. However, its an unreleated and unnecessary peice of tax legislation that adds to my dissapointed of the UNaffordable Care act.

    This is part of my dissapointment with the republicans. We now that the extremly liberal democrats will try and expand entitlements. But why havn't these programs been repealed in republicans are in Office?

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 5:21 PM
  • It says a lot about Obama when Clinton starts looking good.

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 5:29 PM
  • Personally, I look forward to the day when you have a true conservative democrat in office like Clinton,

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 3:53 PM

    Huh???????

    Clinton was no Conservative... but he was way smarter than this empty suit. Clinton knew he would have to move toward the middle to accomplish anything and that is exactly what he did.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 5:38 PM
  • -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 5:38 PM

    Exactly. Let's not rewrite history here.

    Clinton pushed for "Universal" government health care as president. It was defeated. Clinton pushed for openly serving gays in the military and that was defeated so he created the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Clinton signed the "work to welfare" bill pushed by republicans that controlled congress because his advisor warned him "if you don't sign this, you will be a one term president".

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 5:53 PM
  • Huh???????

    Clinton was no Conservative... but he was way smarter than this empty suit. Clinton knew he would have to move toward the middle to accomplish anything and that is exactly what he did.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 5:38 PM

    Fiscally conservative I should have said.

    And I agree about being down the middle.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 31, 2012, at 9:43 AM
  • It says a lot about Obama when Clinton starts looking good.

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 5:29 PM

    Actually, it says alot of your bias if you think the clinton years were bad.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 31, 2012, at 9:44 AM
  • Clinton pushed for "Universal" government health care as president. It was defeated. Clinton pushed for openly serving gays in the military and that was defeated so he created the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Clinton signed the "work to welfare" bill pushed by republicans that controlled congress because his advisor warned him "if you don't sign this, you will be a one term president".

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 5:53 PM

    What I am missing here.

    Clinton was a terrible president for signing that bill.

    Seriously, you guys can even managed to critize somebody for doing something you agree with?

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 31, 2012, at 9:45 AM
  • RT - which bill? I cited 3 instances. I wouldn't support universal health care under any president - I didn't support Bush's "donut hole" medicare bill.

    I don't support anyone flouting their sexual orientation in the military - gays included. Clinton pushed that liberal idea.

    I do support welfare to work (or work for welfare - whatever) and Clinton didn't. He spoke against it and then, under advisement of Dick Morris his senior advisor, he signed it only because he believed it would cost him a 2nd term.

    So which is it?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 31, 2012, at 10:00 AM
  • -- Posted by Dug on Wed, Oct 31, 2012, at 10:00 AM

    Clinton and Gingrich were master negotiators for the betterment of our country.

    I know you don't like to admit it, but Clinton did sign the bill. If you are so caught up in party politics and not realize that it was a good move, then I simply feel sorry for you.

    Clinton was a better president than conservatives give him credit for.

    Just as Gingrich was a much, much better politicians than democrats give him credit for.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 31, 2012, at 11:07 AM
  • Oh well...I guess I am bias against perverts..

    What can I say ...

    -- Posted by .Rick. on Wed, Oct 31, 2012, at 11:15 AM

    And that would be a valid criticism.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 31, 2012, at 11:41 AM
  • -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 31, 2012, at 11:07 AM

    I don't disagree. My only point was the Clinton was against welfare to work before he was for it. Of course Clinton signed the bill - I said that myself - admitted it.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 31, 2012, at 12:01 PM
  • I don't disagree. My only point was the Clinton was against welfare to work before he was for it. Of course Clinton signed the bill - I said that myself - admitted it.

    -- Posted by Dug on Wed, Oct 31, 2012, at 12:01 PM

    Which was my whole point about him and Gingrich.

    Clinton had a great presidency, but most of that was kept in check by Gingrich. Without him, I don't think the country would have been as financially secure.

    I think our country runs best in a situation like that. I prefer the party checks and balances, with skillful politician/slash negotiators.

    -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 31, 2012, at 12:05 PM
  • -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Nov 1, 2012, at 7:53 PM
  • Regrets,

    I like this comment from the OSCE folks... we have an "oblagation" to invite them to monitor our elections.

    ***************************************************************

    "In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Lenari wrote, "The threat of criminal sanctions against OSCE/ODIHR observers is unacceptable. The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections."

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/83108.html#ixzz2B7Q2lO1I

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Nov 2, 2012, at 8:30 PM
  • They can take the OSCE and shove it. This is another case of our country being moved into a one world government.

    The Europeans are worried about Romney because he is more interested in fixing our problems instead of being more flexible to help them after the election.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Nov 2, 2012, at 8:59 PM
  • See RSMo Chapter 115.409, where it says (under "who may be admitted to a polling place") that international observers registered with the election authority are to be admitted.

    I'm assuming the "registered..." verbiage means that they have to get the county clerk's permission. Maybe we need to change this statute.

    The United States had better stop stomping on all the other countries' sovereignty with regard to their elections, if we expect to have any credibility whatsoever in complaining about international observers doing the same over here. Just my opinion. It's about as logical as us claiming moral superiority with nuclear weapons, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    -- Posted by Givemeliberty on Fri, Nov 2, 2012, at 11:28 PM

Respond to this thread