Democrats Caught Posing as Republican Election Judges in Colorado!

a reply to: AgentShillington

There isn't anything troubling about it.....

a reply to: tavi45

Well, someone is troubled over it, or this wouldn't be a thread on ATS nor a story in the newspaper.

This may be just a 'November surprise' that the Republicans are using to try to get the evening-before and election-morning newscasts and newspaper coverage. There are a set amount of poll watchers, and if there aren't enough of one party then someone can walk in off the street and sign up and get paid for the work. Making a fuss about it seems calculated to get people who don't know how the job works to think less of the Democrats, and maybe swing a couple of hundred votes in the process.

a reply to: Aleister

Thank you, this was the piece I wasnt seeing.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
I'm not sure republicans even exist in Boulder, so they had to do something ya know?

I gotta to agree with this.

Kinda like New York, and California now.

Considering CO's gun control legislation, and their legalization of marijuana.

I don't think Republicans exist anymore.

They were assimilated.

Resistance is futile.

a reply to: neo96

I've always been confused by one aspect you bring up. Republicans are supposed to be about freedom and individual liberties, but they are against legalization of pot.

Why is that? Why is the the so-called "liberal" states that are recognizing freedoms, but the red states are not?

Maybe you can address that.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

I've always been confused by one aspect you bring up. Republicans are supposed to be about freedom and individual liberties, but they are against legalization of pot.

There is nothing to be confused about.

As we all know the LEFT isn't about 'freedom, and individual liberties. Just ask gun owners, and them evil rich folks.

As Menchen put it near 100 years ago:

Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming "dangerous," ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it. "Liberty and Democracy" in the Baltimore Evening Sun (13 April 1925), also in A Second Mencken Chrestomathy : New Selections from the Writings of America's Legendary Editor, Critic, and Wit (1994) edited by Terry Teachout, p. 35

en.wikiquote.org...

But i forgot the Left and Right 'switched' sides.

People need to get real American politics is such a GD farce.

a reply to: neo96

Interesting, but you did not answer my question. If Republicans are all for individual liberties, why are they against the legalization of pot?

It's also interesting to note that what you quoted can also be applied to the Republicans as well, but I am looking for an answer to the original question.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

Interesting.

Can't really call out the RIGHT when the LEFT does the SAME GD THINGS.

But hey IGNORE THAT EH.

Can't ban marijuana, but it's ok to ban guns.

Pot calling the kettle.

No pun intended.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: neo96

Interesting, but you did not answer my question. If Republicans are all for individual liberties, why are they against the legalization of pot?

It's also interesting to note that what you quoted can also be applied to the Republicans as well, but I am looking for an answer to the original question.

Some may think that granting the freedom to smoke pot would infringe on the rights of others by impeding their safety and security.

a reply to: beezzer

And what about all that 'toxic' smoke that they exhale.

I thought co2 emissions was killing the planet!!!!

Then their is that 'healthcare' kick.

They got some big time cognitive dissonance going on that covers quite a few hot political 'issues'.

a reply to: beezzer

So why aren't they against alcohol and cigarettes? Or.. oooh... why aren't they against dumping poison in lakes and rivers?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Interesting.

Can't really call out the RIGHT when the LEFT does the SAME GD THINGS.

But hey IGNORE THAT EH.

Can't ban marijuana, but it's ok to ban guns.

Pot calling the kettle.

Unless something has been passed since I went to the range yesterday, guns are still legal. So that would be a bad example, correct?

So why isn't pot legal, except in liberal states?

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: beezzer

So why aren't they against alcohol and cigarettes? Or.. oooh... why aren't they against dumping poison in lakes and rivers?

Dunno. I just threw it out there.

Personally if you want to smoke yourself stupid, you should have that right.

I also should have the right to smoke my cigarettes anywhere I damn well please, but the whine-babies of society would rather smell pot smoke than my Pall Mall.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: neo96

Interesting, but you did not answer my question. If Republicans are all for individual liberties, why are they against the legalization of pot?

It's also interesting to note that what you quoted can also be applied to the Republicans as well, but I am looking for an answer to the original question.

Some may think that granting the freedom to smoke pot would infringe on the rights of others by impeding their safety and security.

Someone beat me to it, but I was going to ask about alcohol and nicotine. States such as mine have barred people from smoking indoors in public places, but haven't made smoking illegal.

I don't think your answer would be consistent with precedence.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

Oh wow!

I can get fully automatic rifles now!

Where?

a reply to: beezzer

Im all for doing whatever drugs anyone wants to do, cigs, e-cigs, weed, meth, booze, in the privacy of their own homes.

Like religion, it should be kept out of the public sector.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

Then someone hasn't been paying attention.

To the federal background checks.

To how many rounds can be fired at the squeeze of the trigger.

To magazine capacity.

To outright bans of what they can look like.

Bad example ?

No that was right on.

From the 1934 ban to 1968 NFA to Clintons AWB to the EO's from the current potus.

So why isn't pot legal, except in liberal states?

Probably because no one wants the ,airline pilots,doctors,police, and fireman, nurses, and everyone else. On a controled substance when they are doing their jobs.

a reply to: neo96

So, why isn't alcohol banned? Think of the doctors and the fireman and pilots!

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: neo96

Interesting, but you did not answer my question. If Republicans are all for individual liberties, why are they against the legalization of pot?

It's also interesting to note that what you quoted can also be applied to the Republicans as well, but I am looking for an answer to the original question.

Some may think that granting the freedom to smoke pot would infringe on the rights of others by impeding their safety and security.

Someone beat me to it, but I was going to ask about alcohol and nicotine. States such as mine have barred people from smoking indoors in public places, but haven't made smoking illegal.

I don't think your answer would be consistent with precedence.

An honest answer?

I don't care.