want to nominate sunlitpath2

We have a player in our midst who has done a God inspired job w/ working w/ elementary school children. he has been teaching chess in the (Rhode Island cities of Providence, Central Falls, etc.. for over 10 yrs. ) His children have done well in area Burger king tourney, and Fall River mass. tourneys and has coached one child  to be 4x state champ! The time he has given to the children and community is UNPARALLELED. I would like to nominate him and share more of about his effort to teach chess to elementary school children the royal game. I hope that he will forgive me for posting this for he is such a humble spirit. His donations to the community are priceless!! how do i go about making this official????  

What are you nominating him for?

For standing against Donald Chump in the next elections?

Why not have Trump be president of this country? Could it be he's an arrogant, lying, freak? Sounds like presidential material to the voters of this country

Obama is digging America into a hole we may never get out of. If the Republicans come up with a decent nominee---they're a shoo-in!

Ha.

Obama has been pretty unlucky with the mess he inherited from Bush.  Now I thought when he first went into office he was inexperienced, and I still think that now.  Everyone is harping on how he has tanked our economy.  Well let me tell you this. 

War is an extremely expensive venture.  In every war America has had, we have raised taxes to pay for it except for Afganistan and Iraq.  Bush cut taxes to articially low levels and went to war.  I mean it is simple economics as to why we are in debt. 

So Obama took over what Bush started.  Nobody wants to raise taxes, but you almost have to; the taxes are artificially low anyways!  Simply end the wars and raise taxes, and low and behold, we have money.  Now Obama has screwed up and allowed banks to levy taxes directly onto the American people.  These banks are simply out of control with their moneylaundering schemes. 

Now Republicans are in a bit of trouble in the next election. 

Sarah Palin has already sunk her own ship.  Polls show that she is liked most by low income people, but liked least by high income people.  I think that is pretty telling.  She herself has declared herself part of the Tea Party Republicans.  The Tea Party People are not great politicians.  In politics you have to negotiate; that is the name of the game.  You cannot demand that one side gives up everything and you give nothing.  No bill would pass through Congress this way.  Please see our current Congress for example.

Mike Huckabee has said he will not run.  So there goes the frontrunner.

Donald Trump would not survive in an election.

Ron Paul might have a slim chance if a huge amount of youth voters came behind him.

Mitt Romney seems to be the guy, but the only problem is that he is liked by high income people, not the majority middle class.  I have heard him as a "Michigan man", but if you ask me, he is a sleazeball politician, moreso than the others. 

This is what everyone thinks will topple Obama.  I am not convinced just yet.

If the Republicans can come up with a viable candidate---they will do well in 2012. The candidates you've named are losers. The economy will sink Obama. People vote with their pocketbook. You cant keep blaming Bush forever. Obama said in 2008---elect me and I will get this country moving again.

Yeah, straight downhill!

TIme to start another war before the election...

Well what a lot of people don't realize that Romney-care as it was called way before we heard of Obama is virtually the same thing as Obama-care!  There really is no difference.  So Republicans are doing socialism as well as Democrats!

I blame Bush and Co. for starting our current sitution, but I blame Congress and Obama's inexperience for worsening the situation.  I think the Geopolitical mess in the world today was not anticiated, so to blame Obama for that is simply not true.

Republicans keep saying that they will not raise taxes.  Yet they want to cut Medicare and Medicaid back considerably and give further tax cuts to the upper class.  Who has to pay more into Medicare and Medicaid?  The seniors and the middle class.  That is another form of a tax!

In states like Wisconsin, Democrats, if there is no challenge within party, can cross party lines to support Ron Paul. then if we lose in november, we at least can look forward to more civil liberties.

Oh and I forgot about Newt Gingrich.  This guy almost won the presidential election as an independent a few decades back.  He was the Speaker of the House at one point.  But he tries to trick you with words by saying yes and no to issues.  He was part of the political mudslinging back in the 90s to destroy Clinton.  So when Republicans came out to take out Clinton, Democrats came back around and revealed the affairs of high ranking Republican officials.  That was when Newt Gingrich was taken out.  Quite frankly, I am surprised he is even back on the political scene again. After ruining his career, I seriously doubt that he can win the GOP nomination.

This just goes to say what I think politics is...dirty.

What kind of civil liberties is everyone talking about?  I keep hearing about them and I am not sure how it affects me other than the tax issue, but I'd be willing to give up more money to the gov't if they can give me some good "insurance" (e.g. healthcare, social security, Medicare) in return, in case I have an unfortunate accident or illness that would otherwise bankrupt me in spite of having insurance (they drop you on technicalities or raise your rates ridiculously) and a lifetime of regular income and tax-paying.   

Let the cops/feds do their job and bust the @$$holes who are taking advantage of this country's freedom by taking courses on how to fly planes into buildings, how to avoid jail for murder on a technicality, and how to bring concealed weapons in public places without passing a "can-I-hold-my-temper-when-dude- bumps-my-shoulder-while-walking-on-a-crowded-street-or-looks-at-my- girlfriend-or-wears-the-other-team's-jersey" test.    

I believe, and always will believe that morals should not be legislated.  Now I do not mean the criminal law codes or the tax law codes, I mean things like how religion is required in school, or same sex marriage.  The government has no business in those affairs.  Just do your job managing the economics, and foreign affairs.  Domestic affairs can be handled at the state level.  It is a waste of money and time to delve into the moral issues when that money and time could have been used improving the economics. 

States have a bad record with civil rights. Seems like the feds clean up a lot of mess caused by "state" rights (take the American Civil War or the race issue in the 1950's-60s, for instance), which often simply mean locally oppressing the minorities and underprivileged under the guise of local "legislation".  Religion is just another form of tribalism.  It seems like everywhere you go, people are trying to impose their law/shariya into everyone else's; just another attempt to get their people/way-of-life in power based on their version of belief in a subjectively-known/unproveable being saying things.  That's why I don't like "states"...seem to allow tribal pockets to extend their legislation in subtle ways over adjacent minorities in a region.  That's just human nature  though (more accurately, testosterone), with or without religion, the desire for money, power, control.   States have representatives in Congress (based on population) and Senate (equal representation regardless of population), that should do it, given that they seem to f--- up everything else. 

Not to interrupt the partisan flame war or anything, but thats not a bad idea. Chess.com should have some kind of "Service of the Game" award. People could nominate someone like the OP did, and they get a snazzy online trophy to show how awesome they are.

Anyway, back to your boring political hackery.

Threads evolve and morph into different creatures much like monkeys to men (evolution reference...BAM!), much like Mickey Mouse in the '30's, Daffy/Bugs/Porky in the '40's-50's, and Felix the Cat from the '20's (irreverant bad-arse anti-prohibition mutha) --> 30's (cutesie unsuccessful version of Mickey Mouse) -->'50's (his bag of magic tricks?! what the f...?! ).  

These threads take a life of their own.  I give my support to your friend, sunlit.... for the same reason I support certain candidates for anything...???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZP0pzDRtQw

Well the American Civil War was a different time period.  America was not that far off from being a colonial property.  Back then, the country preferred states rights as they were scared of a government like England.  In addition, several key states were entering the Union and the Slave States causing friction.  The South was a farm based economy and family values, but was threatened by the North's manufacturing and doing away with the traditional life.  Slavery was a secondary issue then because it was a portion of the economy.  Slavery did not take root as a primary issue until the later in the war.

The current states rights are more in line of what I am talking about. 

Now, the Civil Rights issue was one of the rarer times that the government had to step in to delegate to the states.  These issues if can be taken to the Supreme Court where they can be arbitrated.  Based on their decision, a Federal Action can reinforce it.  But otherwise the Federal Government should not intervene.

States rights still remain the body for domestic issues unless the Supreme Court believes an exception should be made.