Here is the general discussions for the artist Madonna, where you can share your thoughts and opinions about Madonna with others. If you would like to talk about an album or song in particular, then go to the album or song where you'll find a discussion.

Madonna - Discussion

4 reaction(s) | add reaction

Showing posts 1-4 of 4

Page 1 of 1

Discussion
0 @ 26-02-2007 00:25 blondey73
1,097 posts	I do not like Madonna at all
0 @ 11-05-2008 11:27 Gacktomadonna
6 posts	no you shouldn't hate madonna!! MADONNA ROCKS 4EVA!!!!!!!!!!! They called her not for nothing the Queen of Pop!!
0 @ 08-06-2008 11:45 TheDarkGenius
13 posts	i liked the confessions af a dancefloor but hardcandy just sucks!!!
0 @ 02-07-2008 06:30 LittleBrooks
28 posts	[offtopic]Queen of Pop, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Grammy Winner Madonna related to Senator Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton not only won more Votes than her rival Barack Obama, but after all the 2008 Presidential Primary Votes were Counted and Certified, she won more Votes than any other Presidential Primary candidate in American history. 17,822,145 Votes - Hillary Clinton 17,535,458 Votes - Barack Obama +286,687 Votes - Hillary Clinton 238,168 - Michigan Uncommitted,which included Barck Obama,Bill Richardson,Joe Biden and John Edwards, who chose to take their names off the ballot, and chose not to do a re-vote. Michigan is Voting on August 5th 2008 for Senator and Representative's In Congress, why not include a Presidential Primary re-vote? (and re-vote in Florida where Barack Obama "broke the rules") 1766.5 Pledged Delegates - Barack Obama 1639.5 Pledged Delegates - Hillary Clinton +127 Pledged Delegates - Barack Obama This is not the "real" Pledged Delegate count based on the Actual Certified Votes that were cast by the American People - this is the Pledged Delegate count after the democratic party changed the actual Votes ... based on research, exit polls, people who didn't Vote-but who may have wanted to Vote ... (This is a First in American History) ------------------------------------------------ Clinton camp: Obama's Florida ads bust pledge By Jeremy Wallace - HERALD TRIBUNE POLITICAL WRITER Published Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2008 at 4:30 a.m. Hillary Clinton's campaign said Tuesday it will not break a pledge to campaign in Florida, even as Clinton is accusing Barack Obama of doing just that. "I intend to abide by the pledge and follow the pledge, and that's what we are, you know, planning to do," Clinton told reporters on Tuesday. Her comments come two days after Obama's campaign launched national television advertisements on CNN and MSNBC that are shown in Florida -- a "blatant" violation of a pledge signed by all of the top Democratic candidates to not campaign in the state, Clinton's campaign says. Clinton's supporters in Florida are putting new pressure on her to scrap the pledge, arguing Obama's ads make it almost irrelevant. "It's time to take the gloves off," said Ana Cruz, a Democratic activist from Tampa who is helping lead Clinton's Florida campaign unofficially. Cruz said it is important for Clinton to get back to Florida and rally support to assure she wins the state on Tuesday. But Obama's campaign spokesman Bill Burton disputes the pledge was broken. He said the campaign asked CNN and MSNBC to pull Florida from the ad buy, but the networks said they could not. In August, major Democratic candidates signed a pledge to not campaign in Florida as part of the state's punishment for moving up its primary election to Jan. 29 -- a week before national rules allowed. The Democratic National Committee stripped the state of its delegates. Then Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina followed by pushing the pledge that bans the candidates from campaigning in the state, including running television commercials or hosting rallies. The only exception in the ban is for fundraising. Experts are surprised the pledge has held this long. Because three of the early states have already voted, Daniel A. Smith, a University of Florida political scientist, said he expected the campaigns to be heading to Florida by now. "If they break the pledge now, who is it going to offend?" Smith said. "I don't see how it would offend anyone in South Carolina enough to tip the presidential election." Yet South Carolina has become the gatekeeper for the pledge. Burton said Obama's campaign consulted with Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, before the ad ran, and she "told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of pledge made to the early states," Burton said. At this point, said Smith, neither Obama nor Clinton have incentive to campaign in Florida. Because he continues to trail Clinton in the polls here, Obama should focus instead on Feb. 5, when 22 states hold primary elections, Smith said. Clinton would not benefit either, Smith said. Breaking the pledge would be seen as a sign that her campaign sees support waning in the state. The only candidate that would benefit at this point would be John Edwards, who "has nothing to lose" by breaking the pledge. If he set up a rally in Florida, he could give himself a shot at winning over the state's Democrats who are desperate to see a real candidate. "I don't see how it would hurt him in the slightest," Smith said. jeremy.wallace@ heraldtribune.com. ------------------------------------- Clinton cries foul on Obama cable ads By: Mike Allen - Politico January 21, 2008 06:39 PM EST The Clinton campaign complained Monday that a national ad buy by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) violates the Democratic candidates' pledge not to campaign in Florida. "They made the strategic decision to affirmatively make a buy that includes Florida," Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said on a conference call the campaign held to denounce what the Clinton camp called "Senator Obama's Violation of the Early State Pledge." Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and the party's other candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida ahead of its primary next week because the Democratic National Committee is punishing the state party for holding its primary before Feb. 5. Having called out the Obama campaign over its advertising, the Clinton campaign says it may do the same thing. "We have honored the pledge in every way possible," Elleithee said. "Now ... we're going to review all the options that are available to us moving forward." Clinton will travel to raise Florida to raise money, which may be allowed due to a loophole in the agreement not to campaign there. Obama's ad began airing Monday on CNN and MSNBC. The positive ad, called "Inspiring," finishes with Obama saying: "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America." Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D), a key Clinton backer, said on the call: "These are sophisticated buyers that they have. They know full well that they were going to saturate the Florida market." Clinton's campaign acknowledged that it's not possible to buy 49-state coverage - that the only alternative would be the much more complex process of buying state by state and market by market. Asking a question on the call, NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd pointed out the complexity of the matter by noting that buying advertising in Mobile, Ala., gives a campaign substantial reach into the Florida Panhandle. Elleithee responded that Clinton has not yet bought ads in Alabama, which has a Feb. 5 primary, but said the campaign reserves the right to do so. Bill Burton, the Obama for America press secretary, called the attack "misguided." "Both national cable networks told us it would be impossible for us to run advertising nationally that excluded only Florida," Burton said. "For that reason we consulted with the South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler who told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of [the] pledge made to the early states." The issue marked an escalation in the increasingly fierce and public wrangling between the campaigns. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said on a later conference call that the Clinton campaign "has been looking" for an excuse to "evade" the pledge." "This has kind of been a pattern," Plouffe said. "They've been willing to play outside the lines." Plouffe also said: "We inquired about the ability, given our pledge in Florida, to not run spots down there. Both cable systems said that wasn't possible." Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) said on the call that the Clinton complaint was "both silly and a bit of an exaggeration" given that both candidates will appear on a two-hour debate on CNN, available to cable viewers in Florida. Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign of "a win-at-all-cost mentality." -------------------------------------------------- Specter Demands Sanity Check on Obama's Hypocrisy Peter J. Wirs - Townhall.com Wednesday, May 28, 2008 The Democrats begrudge the 2000 Bush-Gore Florida recount. They blithely complain when Republicans seek valid measures preventing voter fraud. Why then, are the Democrats suddenly blind, deaf, and dumb when Senator Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee openly avow to disenfranchise voters 1,749,920 in Florida and 594,398 in Michigan? Not only are Obama and the DNC perpetrating a "hi-tech" lynching, but it is blatantly unconstitutional and may even be criminal. The Democrats allege Florida and Michigan violated the DNC Rule 11.A prohibiting a caucus or primary before Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire. DNC Rule 20.C.1 specifies the punitive measures that both states lose 50% of their vote: Florida 210 delegates, Michigan 156 delegates. The DNC Rules Committee will be meeting this coming Saturday, May 31 to hear Obama's utterly bizarre plan allowing only the superdelegates (ironically the votes he desperately needs to capture the nomination) to be seated, while delegates elected by popular suffrage are repudiated by being half-counted, oddly reminiscent of a colonial enumeration of freed "Black Men and Indians." By why is there even a debate? Constitutional law is unequivocal. Every vote cast must be counted. This constitutional principle, pronounced by the United States Supreme Court since Ex parte Yarborough (1884) and reiterated as recently as Gray v. Sanders (1963), is simply beyond reproach. This rock-bottom constitutional demand applies to primaries as well as general elections. United States v. Classic (1941). Deliberately refusing to count votes cast may, under certain fact scenarios, constitute a Federal crime, United States v. Classic, citing now Section 241 of the Federal Crimes Code. Reiterating black letter law stated in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), the high court reasserted in Bush v. Gore (2000) that "once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another." Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), now the Senate Judiciary's ranking minority member, asserted to us in an exclusive interview, that although as a learned attorney he remains obliged to see "how it plays out," that "it may well be worthwhile" to hold Congressional hearings on the Democrats' refusal to seat Florida and Michigan at the Democratic National Convention. "It's certainly something I want to consider," said Specter, ruefully hinting things might be different if he was still the Judiciary Chairman. "The essence of democracy is the right to vote," asserted Specter, the Democrat's contemplation of not seating Florida and Michigan may constitute a fundamental violation of democratic principles. He believes that the Congress must act "very promptly." Specter emphasized while Republicans are striking bold initiatives such as GOP onDemand(tm) to promote full voter inclusiveness, the Democrats' direction in the opposite direction is more than paradoxical, it is "hypocrisy." "They are preaching one thing and practicing another" angrily complained the former prosecutor, who long fought the legendary Philadelphia Democratic machine's ghost voting and other voter frauds. While observing there is "great frustration and anger" among his Senate colleagues, Specter's own disbelief over Obama's disingenuous media manipulations was self-evident as we heard him literally swearing as he was hanging up the phone. I have observed Specter for 33 years. His strenuous objections are not political positioning for TV cameras, but are at heart of his -- and any civic minded citizen's -- core beliefs of what is America. To anyone who has served his country, it is incongruous to even think such an alien idea. Specter reminds Obama that it is fully within the Congress' prerogative to investigate the Democrats' machinations; the presumption that political parties as private entities are immune from oversight or court intervention has long been judicially discredited. Specter also suggested that Florida's Governor Charlie Crist or Attorney General Bill McCollum and Michigan's Attorney General Michael Cox or Secretary of State Terri Land Lynn contemplate what would be required to be prepared on June 2 to go into Federal court paren patriae to see emergency injunctive relief under "Section 1983," the legal parlance for the Civil Rights "Anti-Ku Klux Klan" Act of 1871, if the DNC May 31 hearings fail to adhere to the fundamental one-man, one-vote constitutional rule. And while the GOP concedes Florida's early calendaring of the Presidential primary caused consternation, at least the "Republicans counted Florida, in stark contrast to the Democrats who didn't count Florida," according to RNC's Alex Conant. Highly reliable sources inform me that Senator John McCain is absolute in insisting on fully seating both Florida and Michigan delegations without any penalties, and as one source put it "what the nominee wants, he likely gets." Michigan State Republican Chairman Saul Anuzi, one of the most conscientious and public-spirited leaders in either party, reiterated the bipartisan efforts throughout Michigan to seat fellow Wolverines at the Democratic convention, as it is beyond reproach that "every vote deserves to be counted." Anuzi, remains as baffled as everyone as to the Obama's "apologists" spin-doctoring Michigan's ostracization, warning voter anger from Obama's boycott of Michigan is not "going away" by a "perfunctory photo-op." Florida' National Republican Committeeman Paul Senft pointed to the hypocrisy of Obama "using Florida as an ATM" while agreeing in writing, to refuse to "talk to voters." Senft's courtly manner couldn't disguise his own frustration of the irony of liberals resurrecting the "ghosts of 2000" in the recent HBO movie while openly disenfranchising the very same Floridian voters. Several prominent civil rights attorneys, obviously speaking off the record being mindful they're outsiders, nonetheless told us that the without question, Democrats must fully seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. (Their response was as if we were asking a "no-brainer" akin to whether kids be eating their vegetables). The universal consensus that the possibility of embroiling the Democratic presidential nominee in criminal proceedings in the midst of a campaign unquestionably should not be a risk worth entertaining. They also routinely disbelieve Obama's contention Florida and Michigan must be punished for violating party rules, which although viscerally appealing, is utterly fallacious as a matter of law. If Obama was purportedly "upset" at Florida and Michigan primary dates, he was required by law to act before the primary vote, not afterwards. It is fundamental law that Equity hears not the Sloth coming into court. Democratic response to Specter is deafening by their utterly stolid silence. DNC press secretary Stacy Paxton did not respond to our phone calls to her office and cell. Liberal entities such as the Center for American Progress failed to respond. MoveOn (which we, the Trustees of the Republican Leadership Trust are the newly established GOP counterpart) avoids direct press contact by hiding behind a digital wall that requires the Fourth Estate to be vetted through an Orwellian email screening process. Obama's response is his website promoting a "National Voter Protection Center" urging us that "in this year's election we have a historic opportunity to bring more people than ever back to the political process and an essential part of that is ensuring every vote counts." Obama reputes that he was a prominent civil rights attorney, litigating hundreds of voting rights cases. In his September 28, 2007 Howard University speech, Obama implores: "The [students] who left their homes to march in the streets of Birmingham and Montgomery; the mothers who walked instead of taking the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry -- they didn't brave fire hoses and Billy clubs so that their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren would still wonder at the beginning of the 21st century whether their vote would be counted . . ." Come again? Even the ACLU, the "stalwart" Constitutional guardian, prolifically "promising" to get back, failed to produce a single person to justify Obama. And this is despite pleading, as I was once, an ACLU board member for several years, albeit a lone conservative Republican in a sea of liberal, Democratic activists. If this is so black and white, so basic Constitutional jurisprudence, why isn't the press demanding someone's head on a platter? Why are the liberal activists, who defend Mumia Adu-Jamal without blinking an eye, suddenly blind as two million Americans lose their right to vote? Is the Pelosi-Reid Political Correct Doublespeak so powerful as to usurp the very essence of our democracy? No matter where one hails on the political spectrum, as my fellow co-Trustee, Fred Hess, who also serves as an advisor to the son of the legendary Frank Rizzo, observed "there is never an excuse, under any circumstances, to defy the right to vote." Go to www.GOPonDemand.com right now to learn how you can help stop the Obama/ Democrat/ MoveOn doublespeak and require the Democrats obey the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under law. In America, absolutely no one deserves his ballot ripped up by the liberal Democrats. The students and mothers who marched in the streets of Birmingham deserve better, Mr. Obama, and it isn't you. -------------------------------- Conservative/ACLU Arguments Beg the Question on Florida/Michigan Primaries By Peter J. Wirs June 2, 2008 - Townhall.com This past Saturday, the Democratic National Committee Rules Committee voted, as many anticipated, on seating the Florida and Michigan Democratic delegates with only half of vote. Moreover, 59 Michigan delegates were awarded to Barak Obama, notwithstanding he was not on the January 15 Michigan primary ballot. As Clinton adviser and Rules committee member Harold Ickes asserted, the outcome for Michigan was a hijacking of voters' intent because it assigned delegates to Mr. Obama even though he did not win them. As we reported last week, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), the former chairman and now ranking minority member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is seriously evaluating whether he should call for Congressional hearings. We know that the Senator's political brain trust was working around the clock to analyze a response to the DNC decision. Although having no direct confirmation, we would expect Florida Governor Charles Crist and Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox, among others, were waiting for the Democrats to cast their decision into stone before considering whether they should seek judicial intervention as per Specter's brainstorming. Specter, probably one of the most legally astute of GOP Senators, contends the DNC is violating one of the most fundamental of all constitutional rules, that once a vote is cast it must be counted. This constitutional principle, pronounced by the United States Supreme Court since Ex parte Yarborough (1884) and reiterated as recently as Gray v. Sanders (1963), is simply beyond reproach. This rock-bottom constitutional demand applies to primaries as well as general elections. United States v. Classic (1941). Reiterating black letter law stated in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), the high court reasserted in Bush v. Gore (2000) that "once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another." Conservatives responded to our May 27 column that neither the Senate nor the courts have any business regarding the affairs of a political party on the First Amendment grounds of freedom of association. Their contention was viscerally shared by the ACLU, who graciously responded to us, but after our deadline. This Conservative/ACLU argument relies on major Supreme Court case, primarily Democratic Party of Wisconsin v. LaFollette (1981) which holds that First Amendment freedom to gather in association for purpose of advancing shared belief is protected by Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by any state, and moreover, that freedom to associate for common advancement of political beliefs necessarily presupposes freedom to identify people who comprise the association, and to limit the association to those people only. The High Court went on to hold that a political party's choice among various ways of determining makeup of a state's delegation to party's national convention is constitutionally protected, thus prohibiting the state or courts from substituting its own judgment for that of the party. But the joint conservative-ACLU logic falls under the petitio principii rule as their assertion is merely a strawman that begs the question, because obviously no one is disputing the Democrats have every right to set what its rules are and how its delegates are to be selected. But once the Democrats evoke the state's machinery in order to hold a public primary, a bright line is crossed. As the Supreme Court in Gray v. Saunders observed state regulated party primaries "show that the State . . . collaborates in the conduct of the primary, and puts its power behind the rules of the party. It adopts the primary as a part of the public election machinery. The exclusions of voters made by the party by the primary rules become exclusions enforced by the State." Grey v. Saunders went on to assert that "state regulation of this preliminary phase of the election process makes it state action." The issue isn't that the DNC is asserting some "for members only" admission to a clubhouse. The issue is that the Great States of Florida and Michigan held primaries, which although concerning one or another of our two major political parties, is part of the electoral process. These primaries weren't private affairs. They weren't even party affairs. They were official state actions. The DNC was acting by virtue of the power delegated to it by the legislatures of both Florida and Michigan. The taxpayers of both Florida and Michigan, not the DNC, paid for the primaries. If the DNC wants to exclude voters, or count only half of the votes cast, or award Obama delegates he did not win, then they should hold private affairs (like that San Francisco cocktail reception where Obama asserts most of us are bitter by virtue of believing in God). Let them sell tickets and pay for the events themselves. Keep in mind that our major political parties are not the same as a local cub scout troop. The rule initially expressed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Bentman v. Seventh Ward Democratic Executive Committee (1966) which Senator Specter properly observed, is now the law of the land in both Federal and state courts, is that "the relationship between political parties, the government and the public has become such that, in many areas, the public interest is not only directly affected by political parties but such parties actually perform public functions imposed upon them by law. Insofar as a political party performs statutorily-imposed public functions and to the extent that its actions constitute state action, the internal organization of such political party is a matter of such concern to the public as to make it subject to constitutional limitations and judicial restraint. When the internal organization of a political party directly affects its performance of such public function then not only may the judiciary intervene but it must intervene." I don't know about my fellow conservatives, but when I go to the polls to vote, I don't want someone to cancel or dilute my vote. I expect my vote to be count as one vote, nothing more, nothing less. Peter J. Wirs is currently the Chairman & Co-Trustee of the Republican Leadership Trust as well as the incoming President of the National Conference of Public Officials.

BROWSE:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Other

TOP ARTISTS:
Coldplay, Rihanna, Jonas Brothers, Jason Mraz, Miley Cyrus, Lil Wayne, Leona Lewis, Avril Lavigne, Chris Brown, Katy Perry, Paramore, Linkin Park, Mariah Carey, Pussycat Dolls, The, Taylor Swift, Britney Spears, Jordin Sparks, Secondhand Serenade, Akon, Eminem, Lifehouse, Usher, Nickelback, Ne-Yo, Colbie Caillat, Abba, Evanescence, Simple Plan, Takida, Metro Station, Kanye West, Lars Winnerbäck, Håkan Hellström, Sara Bareilles, Jesse McCartney, Avenged Sevenfold, Christina Aguilera, John Mayer, Boys Like Girls, Natasha Bedingfield, OneRepublic, Celine Dion, Kelly Clarkson, Fall Out Boy, Carrie Underwood, Death Cab For Cutie, Metallica, Aerosmith, Alanis Morissette, Beatles, The

Artists / M / Madonna / Discussion

Madonna - Discussion