On Sun, 11 May 2008 15:59:44 -0700 (PDT), blue_collar_worker
<GeraldCNewton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 11, 2:48 pm, James Of Tucson <james0tuc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On May 11, 3:29 pm, jerry <GeraldCNew...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> > This has happened all
>> > over the USA in many other States and that is why Obama is winning,
he
>> > won with the caucuses.
>>
>> And they don't take excuses.
>>
>> And if there is a "hard working person" who did make the effort to be
>> part of the party
>> process, they probably aren't amused at the way you dismiss them.
>>
>> It's a political party. It's not an arm of government. You either
>> participate in its process,
>> or you don't, but you aren't being disemfranchised by some government
>> because you choose
>> not to participate.
>>
>> Elections are different. If you are forbidden from voting in the
>> general election in November, we
>> very much want to hear about that.
>>
>> If you want to be involved in a political party, now is the time to
>> start getting involved, on a daily basis, if you want to be part of it
>> for 2012.
>> They people you are complaining about, all made an effort, and they
>> don't necessarily care that you didn't, or couldn't make the same
>> effort.
>>
>> You admit that you didn't even know how the Democratic Convention
>> Delegates were selected in your state.
>> You probably don't even realize that there is no law that says they
>> have to vote one way or the other -- that the caucuses and in most
>> states, even the primary elections are considered mere suggestions.
>>
>> What other parts of your life did you miss because you were "too busy
>> working?" You must be very wealthy indeed now, having spent so much
>> time working that you had no time for other things.
>
>Imagine, 406 people electing the nominee for over 600,000 people.
>That comes to 7 percent.
>That word "Democrat" is very misleading. What do you call it when
>only 7 percent of the people elect the representative for 600,000? I
>don't think even the Nazis can find a word for that.
>Something is very wrong here, and someone is pulling the shades down
>on the electorate. How many other States had a similar event? So
>Obama is now calling himself a winner, becasue he won so many
>caucuses? What a joker he is.
Democrats have always argued that the minority should be in charge of
the majority for the sake of fairness. Remember, that's what they
said when they held a minority in the house and senate.
So it's really par for the course isn't it?
Regards
Starkiller
|
