Michigan Dems settle on delegate-seating plan (Hillary 69, Obama 59)

AP - myfoxtoledo dot com ^ | 5-7-08 | Kathy Barks Hoffman

[doug from upland]

LANSING, Mich. (AP)

[Question Liberal Authority]

Her real hope is revealing a deep, dark secret of Obama that gets the Supers to jump ship.

I'd love to think so, but so far she'd done the worst job of revealing deep dark secrets, ever. "In Kindergarten, he once said that he wanted to be president. And an astronaut."

Also, it's hard to say what kind of deep dark secret would cause Dems to jump ship. Obama could open up the Democrat convention by snorting a line of coke off of Osama Bin Laden's chest, biting the heads off a basket full of kittens, and then handing a nuclear bomb to Hugo Chavez, and it would not cost him a single vote.

[Rameumptom]

It all makes perfect sense to the socialist mind. You just have to understand a bit of history.

The DEMs historically only granted 3/5 of a vote. Due to their present white guilt they have decided to give Obama 6/5 of a vote for reparations purposes. He would have been granted more delegates but since he is only half black mathmateically it works out to him picking up four delegates. Since they believe in the limited pie view of our Capitalist society they also had to take some delegates from Clinton as well, since she is richer.

Even though he was not on the ballot it is a triumph for "fairness" and affirmative action. The Michigan Dem party has been giving out campaign paraphernalia promoting the deal this week.

[jaydubya2]

"For a number of reasons, I don’t think Rush’s big push on “Operation Chaos” was a good idea. I know many disagree."

Not me. When Hillarys President, maybe she'll reward Rush with a big fat "fairness doctrine".

[American Quilter]

There is a right to private property (not a privilege).

I'm glad you raised this issue. I maintain that a right is inherent in nature, granted by God, and that it cannot be purchased. Nor can one person have more of a right than another does. It is accurate to say that we have a right to attempt to purchase property, but no right to succeed. The acquisition of property requires the consent of the seller/giver, and therefore is not a right, but rather a privilege. Once you own the property, you acquire the privileges associated with ownership--to build or not build on it (as permitted by law), to forbid or to permit tresspassing, etc.

It is biblical (Thou shalt not steal. - you cannot take what does not belong to you - implying things are able to belong to specific people).

The Bible codifies the immorality of stealing. But if property ownership is a right, then there can be no theft, because everyone inherently shares that right--rights exist in nature and are not granted by man--and the property therefore belongs to everyone, making stealing impossible. This of course is nonsensical, because there is no inherent right to own property. What the Bible inveighs against with that particular commandment is the violation of the privilege of ownership. Ownership of property grants you privileges over it which non-owners do not have. When someone steals from you, he violates those privileges. By establishing this fact, the Bible is in fact recognizing that ownership is a privilege and not a right.

The original wording of the phrase was “Life, Liberty, and Property.” They wound up changing it to ‘pursuit of happiness’.

The writers of the constitution were addressing this exact issue. The reason they made that change is that they recognized that there is no right to property. Therefore they replaced "property" with "pursuit of happiness", codifying our right to pursue the acquisition of property (and anything else we would like to have or achieve), but correcting their previous error of inferring that we have a right to succeed. By so doing they not only recognized an objective and logical reality, but brought that legal codification in line with the Bible's inferred recognition that ownership is a privilege and not a right.

The fact that they are not absolute rights does not mean they are not a right.

I think the attempt to differentiate between "absolute" and "nonabsolute" rights causes confusion which can be resolved by using the terms "right", "power", "privilege", and "license correctly. You illustrate the point well with your next paragraph.

Government can legally (and unfortunately, unlawfully) take your life, your liberty, and your property under certain conditions. You can do certain things that cause forfeiture of your rights, from a biblical standpoint. Murderers forfeited their right to life (death penatly). Criminals in prison forfeit their right to move about freely.

You are correct, and this point is indeed traceable back to the Bible. The correctly translated commandment "Thou shalt not murder" (this is a translation agreed upon by scholars of the original biblical language), establishes that the killing of an innocent person is not allowed. (This is why abortion is immoral.) By inference, though, the killing of a guilty person is allowed. However, the forfeiture of the ultimate right, the right to life, is so serious a matter that it requires the gravest of justifications--namely the premeditated murder of an innocent person. The temporary forfeiture of another right, liberty, can be incurred by a lesser crime, such as assault or theft.

Well, I'm going on at extreme length here, but your argument was so interesting that I thought it deserved a full answer. I look forward to seeing what you think!

[cvq3842]

That’s one reason why I don’t like it. :)

[tickles]

Just wondering exactly what was said. Did she/they say they would actually remove their names from the ballot, or was it that they wouldn’t campaign in those states? If all she said was she agreed to not campaign then she still had the right to have her name on those ballots.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Barry should have gotten ZERO delegates, since he kept himself off the ballot. But, I guess this is the Democrat party, and if Hillary wants to screw herself, that’s her business.

[UKTory]

“Just wondering exactly what was said. Did she/they say they would actually remove their names from the ballot, or was it that they wouldn’t campaign in those states? If all she said was she agreed to not campaign then she still had the right to have her name on those ballots.”

IIRC from what I read, all the candidates agreed not to ‘participate’ in the primaries in Michigan and Florida. In Michigan there was the possibility of a candidate removing their names from the ballot, and the others did. In Florida there was no mechanism by which to remove a name from the ballot.

Clinton justified not removing her name from the Michigan ballot by saying that it didn’t matter because the votes weren’t going to count for anything. That was before she realised she wasn’t going to stroll to the nomination and started thinking they should count, obviously.

[redgolum]

You of all people realize that Hillary is going to be the Democrat nominee. Don’t you?

I fear you are right. And cities will burn because of it. Sharpton's little NYC thing is just a dress rehearsal.

Hillary has a lock on the nomination. The super D's know that Obama can not win a national election.

[plain talk]

I just think that the Clintons are so completely ruthless that it is the only possible outcome.

Well no disagreement there but just don't see a path forward that allows her to pull it off. You have to have the votes.

[Radix]

That Tag of yours is going to leave a mark on more than just a few.

[Secret Agent Man]

Not sure if you’re a Christian or not, but if so, then you should know that (maybe I should be more precise) the ownership of property (ie the ability to acquire property) is a right. Not that all will have everything someone else might have, or even have the potential to, but being able to own something and call it yours is a fundamental right people have. The right to be able to acquire property is one that cannot be purchased, it is inherent in nature, and is granted by God. You have a right to be able to acquire things that are ‘yours’ and nobody else’s, and along with this idea you have the right to use your things as you see fit. The concept of personal items is inherently built into people as individuals.

To say a person has a right to life and liberty, but not property is a stretch because personal property is needed to keep the person alive and able to be at liberty. Without the right to property there is no support for the right to life or liberty, much less defending it from those who would wish to take it from him.

If you believe in the Christian God, in His Word you will find that the concept of personal ownership (ie private property) is supported throughout the book. Beginning with the concept that everything is God’s. For Him to give to others. You will find passages where land is declared to be a certain persons or for a particular group of people - they have the right to that land. People had personal flocks. People can lose particular things but they do not lose their right to acquire personal items. For example, take Job, the richest man in his time. Big flocks of camels and sheep. God allows a test of Him by Satan and his flocks are taken from Job. Job knows that “the Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of The Lord.” Yet these were His animals. They are called ‘his flocks’. They are Job’s.

[JohnLongIsland]

I thought John Conyer’s wife Monica was running the whole show in Michigan.

[StarFan]

Yeah, I don’t see how Clinton goes along with this. She was the only name on the ballot. Unless they can prove Obama got a certain percentage by write-ins, she ought to get all the delegates.

She was the FIRST on record last year to say Florida and Michigan elections are merely 'beauty contests' as these votes will not count. Where was her concern about disenfranchising voters she cares so much for today? Both States broke the rules and should not be rewarded for doing so!

[Secret Agent Man]

Again, not supporting the fact the dems screwed up their primary. Not saying Hillary isn’t hypocritical. But the primary was held, messed up as it was, and the only one who can point to winning anything was Hillary. I just want it to keep going because it’s Dems eating Dems.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Wow...59 delegates for a guy who wasn’t even on the ballot.

He really is, as the L.A. Times called him, the Magic Negro.

[greccogirl]

ROTFLMAO

[EQAndyBuzz]

“There is no way Obama would have won Michigan. “

Agreed. But with Edwards, Richardson, Obama, Biden and Dodd also in the race, Hillary wouldn’t be getting 73 delegates.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“Any speculation as to when that time would be? “

1 month before the election. This way she doesn’t have to debate McCain and won’t need much money.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“Uh. No. How did you arive at that math? “

I think Radix’ point and Radix please correct me if I am wrong is that Hillary will not win the nomination but she will be the nominee.

Math is irrelevant here. What is relevant is how low will the Clinton slime machine go and will the Mediacrats go along with the Clintons?