Last edited by Travis007; 06-11-14 at 11:08 AM.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
In the General, yes, it is not. You are correct,
However, in the primary, when those of another party are allowed to participate in a party primary election of their choice to run in the General Election, they exercise their right that should be reserved for the General, and by doing so are not necessarily voting for the candidate for which they will cast their vote in favor of in the General Election. That is corruption of the process, by which party members votes are in fact nullified, not by legitimate votes for the others candidates of choice to win the final election in the General Election, but as an unfair pre-General Election influence to gain strategic, undue and unfair influence.
Look at it this way - if a corporate competitor was given access to another companies proposal to the government prior to submission for final award, and allowed to change strategic content or pricing, thereby giving the other company an undue advantage or strategic advantage to be awarded the contract, the contract award would be flawed at least, and potentially illegally interfered with in reality (bid rigging, coercion, conspiracy to defraud the government). In the private world, these types of influence are illegal, for a reason. But, for some reason, we have no problem allowing it in the most important process in our country, the election of our representatives to the government.