The Democratic party should be ashamed of themselves

[KK]

The democrats are always looking for a hand out, even if it means bending the law to accomplish it. Why the democrats are still being elected is their follower are typically the same type of people, wanting hand outs. The democratic party preys on the less informed people and tell them that the grass is greener on their side, and like little lambs they follow.

KK

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Corn

I already pointed out multiple times in this thread that I am a moderate republican.

...and I've pointed out many times in this thread, amongst others, that I am Barry Sanders.

Just forget it. If you are incapable of carrying out intelligent, mature debate, that's your issue.

 

[Corn]

Just forget it. If you are incapable of carrying out intelligent, mature debate, that's your issue.

LOL, my god, for someone who liberally (but is yet at the same time a conservative, heh) uses capital and bolded letters, you certainly don't seem to be able to deal well against a sarcastic prick with a quick wit, like myself.

OK then, I declare myself winner and still champion.



....or you could just address the rest of my posts and ignore the parts where I'm a sarcastic dick that you find to be so terribly upsetting.

 

[Michael]

Moonbeam,

The drugs are getting to you. I said I AGREED that the Governor could appoint a new Senator if the current one resigns.

I also have read your links and most of the media and other organization recounts of the Florida votes. The overwhelming conclusion is that Bush got the most votes in Florida. I'm not sure what you think is a legal vote vs. an illegal vote. Maybe any vote for Bush was illegal because you don't support him?

I preferred your posts when they were incomprehensible. Now you just blather.

Michael

 

[Corn]

The drugs are getting to you. I said I AGREED that the Governor could appoint a new Senator if the current one resigns.

The part that Moonbeam doesn't quite understand is that the appointment only runs until the end of the term held by the currently sitting senator. Appointing someone to replace a retiring senator doesn't extend the term mandated by the US constitution.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Corn

Just forget it. If you are incapable of carrying out intelligent, mature debate, that's your issue.

LOL, my god, for someone who liberally (but is yet at the same time a conservative, heh) uses capital and bolded letters, you certainly don't seem to be able to deal well against a quick witted sarcastic prick like myself.

ROFL I'm not on my best game today. For some reason this thread is actually getting under my skin, and that usually never happens to me. It was an easy out.

OK then, I declair myself winner and still champion.

Wear it with pride, fellow retard

....or you could just address the rest of my posts and ignore the sarcasm you find to be so terribly upsetting.

Ok, ok, ok.

So, you don't know his stance on his issues because he hasn't yet begun his campaign, yet it appears you've already declared him the superior candidate. LOL, so its not the platform as you claimed it to be, its simply that he isn't Torch or Forrester.

It does sound that way. I'm not trying to say that Lautenberg is a superior candidate to Forrester, but that he is a better alternative than Torch. You'd have to actually think about whether to vote for Forrester or Lautenberg.

Prove it. No one is forcing people to vote for Forrester, no one is forcing people to vote for the Torch, and no one is removing the column to write in their alternate choices. Talk about grasping at straws.....

How can I prove that? Well the fact that he dropped so far in the polls is a good indicator that people wouldn't vote for him. I'd say he's unfit for service.

Write-ins historically fail simply because they do not represent a majority party affiliation, ie Democrat or Republican. This situation is completely different, the write-in candidate would be a well known and have the support of his party behind him. Ultimately what hurts his chances of being elected? The midless drone who doesn't know jack about anything who simply selects the name on the ballot that fits his political affiliation--or put simply, the person you claim to despise.

If we're talking about the dems conducting a write-in campaign then you are absolutely correct. I thought we were talking about people just writing in whoever came to mind and hoping that someone they are all on the same page....which would be an interesting experiment...

 

[JoeBaD]

Moonbeam - you still agonizing over the vote in Florida.

Come on, repeat after me.

Gore Lost

Gore Lost

Gore Lost

Gore Lost

 

[Moonbeam]

Joe, I wouldn't call it agonize as much as laugh my ass off listening to the party of character blather on about morality after stealing the Presidency. The irony is just to delicious to abandon easily.

Michael, it's not drugs, it's probably dyslexia. You said I do agree which looks like I don't agree to me because I do agree is normally just I agree. Putting 'do' in there makes it negative to me cause I don't actually look at letters, I kind of go by shape.

I see too you didn't have your cookie.

Lots of the good sources are now locked up in newspaper archives and stuff that's hard to dig out, but here's just one from a moderate org that got it's info from them. Keep looking if you're interested, for less biased sources. A consortium did a count and the bottom line was that Gore had the most legal votes. Legal is Florida law legal. A full statewide recount by Florida law would have given Gore the Presidency. Bush knew that. That's why the recount was stopped. Members of the Supreme Coup publicly stated that they didn't want a Democrat to win because some wanted to retire and they didn't want to lose a conservative majority or ruin Scalia's chances for CJ.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Lots of the good sources are now locked up in newspaper archives and stuff that's hard to dig out, but here's just one from a moderate org that got it's info from them. Keep looking if you're interested, for less biased sources. A consortium did a count and the bottom line was that Gore had the most legal votes. Legal is Florida law legal. A full statewide recount by Florida law would have given Gore the Presidency. Bush knew that. That's why the recount was stopped. Members of the Supreme Coup publicly stated that they didn't want a Democrat to win because some wanted to retire and they didn't want to lose a conservative majority or ruin Scalia's chances for CJ.

You got something reliable to back that up or is that another one of the conspiracy theories the democrats are feeding you.

KK

 

[CantedValve]

According to WNBC, the Democratic Supreme Court in New Jersey has ruled in the Democrat's favor.

Now, I don't have a dog in this fight (live in Indiana), but this is just another example of law meaning absolutely shits. I don't know why we bother with this thing called law. Like I said, I have no interest in this as far as it concerns my right to vote, but it just pisses me off that Democrats are deciding to piss all over the Constitution.

For the people of New Jersey, it is unfortunate, but the seperation of powers is supposed to keep the courts from making law. The remedy in this case, according to our governmental model, should have been through the legislature, not the judiciary.

 

[Moonbeam]

Start here and go here. The data is in the independent newspaper review, but only partisan orgs. are now linking to it as you can well imagine. All this was well known shortly after 9/11 when the results first came out and were obfuscated for the sake of unity behind the President, phony or not.

 

[Moonbeam]

The Supreme Coup selected George Bush, CantedValve, welcome to reality. Get over it.

 

[CantedValve]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Start here and go here. The data is in the independent newspaper review, but only partisan orgs. are now linking to it as you can well imagine. All this was well known shortly after 9/11 when the results first came out and were obfuscated for the sake of unity behind the President, phony or not.

"Independent newspaper review" is an oxymoron.

Perhaps you could link directly to the articles, because both of those websites made my stomach turn when I saw them.

Oh... why are we talking about this again? I thought this was a whole other discussion altogether.

EDIT: I went back and looked at the list. The only newspaper I recognized was the Washington Post (although I didnt spend too much time looking), and I would not term them "independent."

The rest were "sour grapes" websites established for the sole purpose of whining for 4 years. I didn't bother with those.

 

[Kanly]

Ummmm, if 6 of the 7 NJ Supreme Court Justices were appointed by GOP Governors how does that translate into "The Democratic Supreme Court of NJ?"

 

[CantedValve]

Perhaps I was unclear...

When did I bring up the 2000 Presidential election? Wasn't this about the current predicament in New Jersey?

Who is having trouble getting over it Moonbeam? My guy won! I am as happy as a clam!

 

[CantedValve]

Originally posted by: DukeLeto
Ummmm, if 6 of the 7 NJ Supreme Court Justices were appointed by GOP Governors how does that translate into "The Democratic Supreme Court of NJ?"

I never disputed that they weren't appointed by GOP governors (although I dont know that to be true from anything I have read... I havent looked into it). Cant they be appointed by a GOP governor, and still be democrats?

The point is... a state supreme court has usurped its power once again. In case people have forgotten... the legislature WRITES law, the judiciary interprets it. If the law had wafering language (on or around the date... approximately... etc.) I would say okay, they interpreted it, not as I would have wanted, but they did their job. That isnt what they did. The law says 51 days. They decided that 51 days wasnt fair... a decision they are not allowed to make if you stick to our governmental model. The remeby for the problem (assuming there is one) is through the state legislature, not through the state judiciary.

I don't like the fact that the Democrats might not have a candidate on the ballot (assuming this isnt finished). I also dont like the fact that the person they nominated quit because he wasnt going to win. I dont like the fact that the Democrats think substituting a candidate of their choosing in place of the candidate the PEOPLE nominated in the primaries is a good thing.

But then again, like I said, I have no dog in this fight.

 

[Jzero]

It doesn't matter who appointed them, there are 4 democrats, 2 republicans and one independent, hence "Democratic Supreme Court" is an accurate description.
However, the fact that the decision was unanimous indicates that there is more to this than mere partisan politics. If it was all about democrat v. republican, it would have been a 4-3 or 5-2 majority decision.

 

[Shantanu]

NJ's supreme court took all over 2 hours to decide that it was in the best interests of the Democratic Party to allow Frank Lautenberg to run.

What NJ law has to say on the issue is of no consequence, of course.

 

[Michael]

I can't comment on what the NJ Supreme Court ruled because I ahven't seen the ruling and the reasoning used. I expect that the Republican Party will appeal this to the US Supreme Court. I don't know if the US Supreme Court will take the case. This is much narrower than the fight over the Presidency and may not have a basis for arguement in front of the Supreme Court. Of course, the US Supreme Court Justices might be pissed that another State Court is ignoring the overall law on elections and want to remind them what they said over the FL ruling they made.

Michael

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Shantanu
NJ's supreme court took all over 2 hours to decide that it was in the best interests of the Democratic Party to allow Frank Lautenberg to run.

What NJ law has to say on the issue is of no consequence, of course.

Did the judges that gave money to toricelli's campaign*sp* recuse themselves?

 

[CantedValve]

Thanks Jzero. Apparently that fact was completely lost on some people.

What I DIDN'T know is that it was a unanimous decision. That is interesting. Perhaps there is something else going on. Can't wait to hear what happened.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Shantanu
NJ's supreme court took all over 2 hours to decide that it was in the best interests of the Democratic Party to allow Frank Lautenberg to run.

What NJ law has to say on the issue is of no consequence, of course.

Did the judges that gave money to toricelli's campaign*sp* recuse themselves?

I'm embarassed that I had to check whether there were 7 or 9 judges on the panel, but there are indeed 7, so I guess those 2 did not recuse themselves.

 

[Torghn]

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The law is the law, and they are trying to break it. The judicial branch is there to decide what the law means, I think 51 days is fairly clear.

There is a reason for the deadline, what about all the absentee ballets already mailed? Should military personnel get a different ballet as everyone else? Also the PEOPLE decided who goes on the ballet, to change that would go agenst what they decided. If they don't want to elect him they should have thought about that before they voted for a crook.</SPAN>

 

[glenn1]

Look again at the options:
1. Toricelli stays on the ballot. Write in vote is a waste, Toricelli is a waste. Forrester might as well run uncontested.
2. Toricelli gets replaced. Write in is STILL a waste, but at least we can choose between Forrester or someone else. I don't care if it's Lautenberg or Mickey Mouse. I want the people of NJ to be able to choose between at least two people. For some reason you seem to support pitting Forrester against a lame duck. If Forrester is the better man, he'll win, even if he actually has to compete with someone.

There are FOUR candidates on the ballot beside the major two parties, you DO HAVE A CHOICE (and if you're in New Jersey and didn't know that, you should have your right to vote revoked. Link provided for the ignorant:

New Jersey political races

John "Ted" Glick (Green Party)
Liz Macron (Libertarian)
Norman Wahner (NJCP)
Greg Parson (Socialist)

How much clearer does it have to be for you? Or do you like being treated like a stooge by your elected officials, and having your candidate of choice from the primary overturned, coup d'etat style?

The Supreme Coup selected George Bush, CantedValve, welcome to reality. Get over it.

It ought to be fun watching Moonbeam blow a gasket when history repeats itself and the USSC rules against the position he's taken. It is sorta fun watching the Democrats eat their own, however.

$100 says if the USSC takes the appeal of the case, the New Jersey Supreme Court decision is (properly) going down.

 

[Corn]

Bush won, Gore lost. Get over it already.

[Warning, quality of link on par with that linked by Moonie]