Comments on: About That Delegate List http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/ Sue Lowden's Look at Nevada Politics Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:23:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: KC http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-502 KC Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:09:02 +0000 http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-502 June 28th? July 26th? Why not vote on what date you prefer! http://bob-beers-and-sue-lowden.blogspot.com/ Obviously, the state GOP doesn't know how to take votes, so I took the liberty. June 28th?

July 26th?

Why not vote on what date you prefer!

http://bob-beers-and-sue-lowden.blogspot.com/

Obviously, the state GOP doesn’t know how to take votes, so I took the liberty.

]]> By: Kevin H http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-397 Kevin H Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:54:13 +0000 http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-397 Mrs. Lowden it has been over a month since the convention was recessed. I believe I speak for most of the delegation when I say that the GOP leadership needs to announce a date for when we will reconvene. I see that Mr. Terhune is once again offering a turn-key convention to the party. I'm not sure why this hasn't been at least considered. We need to reconvene, we need to send delegates for Nevada. We must not be disenfranchised. Mrs. Lowden it has been over a month since the convention was recessed. I believe I speak for most of the delegation when I say that the GOP leadership needs to announce a date for when we will reconvene. I see that Mr. Terhune is once again offering a turn-key convention to the party. I’m not sure why this hasn’t been at least considered. We need to reconvene, we need to send delegates for Nevada. We must not be disenfranchised.

]]> By: Doug Hansen http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-363 Doug Hansen Wed, 28 May 2008 23:16:31 +0000 http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-363 We must realize that this is 2008, we are now more people and we are now more involved than we have ever been before. As troubling as it would be for so many of our loyal republicans, perhaps it is time to extend the time we alot for our conventions. I beleive we would all be served well by some education in organisation, and consensus taking. Yes, within our party, we have veiws that defer as to the appearance of our banner, but if we are truely "Republicans", we must keep in mind that we have the largest diferance with the Socialist Democrats. They are the ones who would take all from us, our hard earned money, our property rights, and the right to raise our families. We are the good people, trying to do the right thing for our country. Because we do this thing, this taking of a stand, out of loyalty to our country, love of our families, and for clearity of our own conscience, sometimes we do have to bend with the wind of change or even stand aside. On the other hand we must all agree that change for the sake of change is non-sense and a waste of valuable time. I look out at the world around us and see our dangers stacking up against us daily. Our brave men and women fight daily around the world to protect us, we should think first of them. Our schools continue to teach our children useless drible, and hand them meaningless diplomas, we should think secondly of them. Our liberal government demands more and more of our hard earned wealth, yet it wastes more and more and seeks to restrict our freedoms. I suppose what I am attempting to put to us all, is that we have enimees enough out there. We have to listen and speak with respect among those who have chosen this party and it's banner. It will get us much and loose us less if we stand together and agree on the princeples we all agree on, and agree to disagree on the fine points we have dificulty with. If it is truely our intent to elect a Republican President, let's join together and do it. Some of the people we have joined in this party have been holding the rope alone for quite a while, and they have been doing it for the same reasons we are here today. If there is change to be made, speak with the same respect you wish to be spoken to. Let's save our load voices for the socialists. Let's bang our pots in unison and get the mule our of the garden. Right now, it appears we are only trying to see who has the loadest pot, while we should be closing the gate on the mule. Verifiable e-mail? Of course. Registered mail? of course. Gather again? If we must, but gather together as republicans. If our cantidate is not the lead horse, we should still join the team, allowing that we will still have a voice in the direction the wagon is pulled. Everyday we see a poor enough example when we watch the Dem-Soc's tear themselves apart. We are the conservitive voice of Nevada. For what it's worth, and for what we are worth, We are Republicans! And because we can vote, we must be grown-ups! Doug Hansen Pep talks will cost cost ya a buck, and you can pay the clown at the door. We must realize that this is 2008, we are now more people and we are now more involved than we have ever been before. As troubling as it would be for so many of our loyal republicans, perhaps it is time to extend the time we alot for our conventions. I beleive we would all be served well by some education in organisation, and consensus taking. Yes, within our party, we have veiws that defer as to the appearance of our banner, but if we are truely “Republicans”, we must keep in mind that we have the largest diferance with the Socialist Democrats. They are the ones who would take all from us, our hard earned money, our property rights, and the right to raise our families. We are the good people, trying to do the right thing for our country. Because we do this thing, this taking of a stand, out of loyalty to our country, love of our families, and for clearity of our own conscience, sometimes we do have to bend with the wind of change or even stand aside. On the other hand we must all agree that change for the sake of change is non-sense and a waste of valuable time. I look out at the world around us and see our dangers stacking up against us daily. Our brave men and women fight daily around the world to protect us, we should think first of them. Our schools continue to teach our children useless drible, and hand them meaningless diplomas, we should think secondly of them. Our liberal government demands more and more of our hard earned wealth, yet it wastes more and more and seeks to restrict our freedoms.
I suppose what I am attempting to put to us all, is that we have enimees enough out there. We have to listen and speak with respect among those who have chosen this party and it’s banner. It will get us much and loose us less if we stand together and agree on the princeples we all agree on, and agree to disagree on the fine points we have dificulty with. If it is truely our intent to elect a Republican President, let’s join together and do it.
Some of the people we have joined in this party have been holding the rope alone for quite a while, and they have been doing it for the same reasons we are here today. If there is change to be made, speak with the same respect you wish to be spoken to.
Let’s save our load voices for the socialists. Let’s bang our pots in unison and get the mule our of the garden. Right now, it appears we are only trying to see who has the loadest pot, while we should be closing the gate on the mule.
Verifiable e-mail? Of course. Registered mail? of course. Gather again? If we must, but gather together as republicans. If our cantidate is not the lead horse, we should still join the team, allowing that we will still have a voice in the direction the wagon is pulled.
Everyday we see a poor enough example when we watch the Dem-Soc’s tear themselves apart.
We are the conservitive voice of Nevada. For what it’s worth, and for what we are worth, We are Republicans!
And because we can vote, we must be grown-ups!

Doug Hansen

Pep talks will cost cost ya a buck, and you can pay the clown at the door.

]]> By: Shawnda Purdy http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-317 Shawnda Purdy Sun, 25 May 2008 23:46:24 +0000 http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-317 I am a McCain supporter who stayed on the floor after our party leaders left. i have to say that the way the convention ended was not okay and was very petty. The actions that followed by other McCain supporters was also very petty. We should have stayed until it was done and make sure that every voice is heard not just one supporter or another. Things could have and should have been handled better then they were. I am a McCain supporter who stayed on the floor after our party leaders left. i have to say that the way the convention ended was not okay and was very petty. The actions that followed by other McCain supporters was also very petty. We should have stayed until it was done and make sure that every voice is heard not just one supporter or another. Things could have and should have been handled better then they were.

]]> By: Scott Austin http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-275 Scott Austin Wed, 21 May 2008 04:24:49 +0000 http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-275 Well, it's nice to see that we're in favor of the rules when it's convenient, and not so much when it isn't. You'll forgive me for thinking that's, well, not genuine. For the record, I favor following the rules even when in the short term it does not tilt in my favor. I think you are dead wrong, Robert, and I think you are potentially setting a rather dangerous precedent. You may be right. Even were I permitted to attend the second meeting, it is doubtful I would be able to attend. That, I think, is not the point. Rather, the point is that we ought to be following the rules, not when we think it might be convenient, but rather because they need to be followed. Again, just my two cents, for whatever they may or may not be worth. And for the record, I couldn't give two figs what the majority thinks. The majority can think that only people with blue pressed slacks ought to be able to vote, that doesn't mean I'll follow them. Scott Well, it’s nice to see that we’re in favor of the rules when it’s convenient, and not so much when it isn’t. You’ll forgive me for thinking that’s, well, not genuine. For the record, I favor following the rules even when in the short term it does not tilt in my favor. I think you are dead wrong, Robert, and I think you are potentially setting a rather dangerous precedent. You may be right. Even were I permitted to attend the second meeting, it is doubtful I would be able to attend. That, I think, is not the point. Rather, the point is that we ought to be following the rules, not when we think it might be convenient, but rather because they need to be followed. Again, just my two cents, for whatever they may or may not be worth. And for the record, I couldn’t give two figs what the majority thinks. The majority can think that only people with blue pressed slacks ought to be able to vote, that doesn’t mean I’ll follow them.
Scott

]]> By: Scott http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-270 Scott Tue, 20 May 2008 20:06:38 +0000 http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-270 Robert, I hate to point this out, but your section of Robert's Rules dealing with day to day adjournments are relating to bodies who normally meet for more than 1 day. To use my own group, the NEA RA meets for a week, so of course the group has to adjourn at the end of the day and meet again the following day. Jason, were this the case, what if you had met and adopted rules, but later discovered that the rules you adopted for the convention were in violation of the Bylaws? Say, for the sake of the argument, that you had adopted rules -- and this was not the case, but say that it was -- which permitted voice vote for the Delegate seats even though there were more people running than seats available? The Bylaws of the Party state quite clearly that secret ballots must be used, so clearly the procedure would be invalid, whatever your adopted rules might have been. I state again, and have numerous Parliamentarians who will support me -- and I have a feeling that the only way to really resolve this would be to certify the statements, which I am happy to do -- that once you adjourned, rather than recessed, the Convention is over and you would have to call another, separate Convention in order to alter what took place. Robert,

I hate to point this out, but your section of Robert’s Rules dealing with day to day adjournments are relating to bodies who normally meet for more than 1 day. To use my own group, the NEA RA meets for a week, so of course the group has to adjourn at the end of the day and meet again the following day. Jason, were this the case, what if you had met and adopted rules, but later discovered that the rules you adopted for the convention were in violation of the Bylaws? Say, for the sake of the argument, that you had adopted rules — and this was not the case, but say that it was — which permitted voice vote for the Delegate seats even though there were more people running than seats available? The Bylaws of the Party state quite clearly that secret ballots must be used, so clearly the procedure would be invalid, whatever your adopted rules might have been. I state again, and have numerous Parliamentarians who will support me — and I have a feeling that the only way to really resolve this would be to certify the statements, which I am happy to do — that once you adjourned, rather than recessed, the Convention is over and you would have to call another, separate Convention in order to alter what took place.

]]> By: Jason Holloawy http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-269 Jason Holloawy Tue, 20 May 2008 19:04:54 +0000 http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-269 Scott, I don't know anything about Robert's Rules of Order, but I do know that the rules that the delegates to the State Convention adopted contained a provision that explicitly stated there could be no final adjournment of the convention until all business has been concluded. Scott,

I don’t know anything about Robert’s Rules of Order, but I do know that the rules that the delegates to the State Convention adopted contained a provision that explicitly stated there could be no final adjournment of the convention until all business has been concluded.

]]> By: Scott Austin http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-263 Scott Austin Tue, 20 May 2008 03:30:18 +0000 http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-263 Robert, YOur statement is what I was pointing to to begin with. If there ceased to be quorum, technically speaking the group dissolved permanently -- or at least until the next Convention. I believe under Robert's Rules -- and like Jason, I have consulted several certified Parliamentarians, and all of them seem to agree with me -- once the Convention adjourns, its business is done. Either this is the case, in which case you could not "reconvene" without opening the floor up to all people origianlly elligible to participate -- or in the counter you would have had to actually recess, which would have required a motion with a specific time and place for the reconvention. Do you see what I am saying? Technically speaking, you can not reconvene, unless you open the floor to all persons originally elligible to participate. I can certified statements from Parliamentarians if you like, but there we have it. Scott Robert,

YOur statement is what I was pointing to to begin with. If there ceased to be quorum, technically speaking the group dissolved permanently — or at least until the next Convention. I believe under Robert’s Rules — and like Jason, I have consulted several certified Parliamentarians, and all of them seem to agree with me — once the Convention adjourns, its business is done. Either this is the case, in which case you could not “reconvene” without opening the floor up to all people origianlly elligible to participate — or in the counter you would have had to actually recess, which would have required a motion with a specific time and place for the reconvention. Do you see what I am saying? Technically speaking, you can not reconvene, unless you open the floor to all persons originally elligible to participate. I can certified statements from Parliamentarians if you like, but there we have it.
Scott

]]> By: Delegate-in-limbo http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-262 Delegate-in-limbo Tue, 20 May 2008 03:25:46 +0000 http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-262 Robert Holloway said: "In effect, they would be like a dictator, dissolving a legislature that they find obnoxious." You mean like 'ole Dis-honest Abe? This seems to be a chronic tactic of American oligarchs: When they don't like the way the vote is going, they dissolve the assembly. I feel like a true Sean Hannity "Great 'Murrican" now having been a part of my very own dissolved assembly. Robert Holloway said: “In effect, they would be like a dictator, dissolving a legislature that they find obnoxious.”

You mean like ‘ole Dis-honest Abe? This seems to be a chronic tactic of American oligarchs: When they don’t like the way the vote is going, they dissolve the assembly. I feel like a true Sean Hannity “Great ‘Murrican” now having been a part of my very own dissolved assembly.

]]> By: KC http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-258 KC Mon, 19 May 2008 22:17:53 +0000 http://suelowden.blogivists.com/2008/05/14/about-that-delegate-list/#comment-258 Check out the news we're generating! http://bob-beers-and-sue-lowden.blogspot.com/ Check out the news we’re generating!

http://bob-beers-and-sue-lowden.blogspot.com/

]]>