Author Topic: NJ flushes the law  (Read 2235 times)

Offline Krusher

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2002, 07:20:22 AM »
This might lead to a new tactic by both parties.

Bring in a canidate to bash the crap out of the other guy. Run ad after ad with misquotes, and lies. Spend a few million dollars but make sure you never debate the other guy. Distort their record and insult their integrity, like they do now only with a twist. Your average voter hates negitive ads even if they do work.

So if your guy isnt doing all that hot in the polls, pull him out and insert the NEW and improved nice guy canidate. Make sure he plays the good cop and never mention the other canidates flaws base it totaly on platform differences. In the background the other political hacks continue the assault and if all goes well, you have a winner.

Offline dfl8rms

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 190
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2002, 08:08:02 AM »
I normally don't respond to the O'club threads, but this subject just burns me.

Reading the Trenton Times article N.J. court OKs Lautenberg I was struck by the fact that the Democrats and NJ Supreme court don't consider quote, unquote 3rd party candidates as being a valid choice.  

Quote
Yesterday's state Supreme Court ruling was issued hours after an almost three-hour hearing that saw justices ask detailed questions of and hear arguments from lawyers for the two major parties, state officials and two third-party candidates.


So the race had three viable choices for the voters, but since one of those choices wasn't a Democrat, this bi-partisan (ie made up of Dems and Reps) couldn't stand the thought of proceeding because it didn't give the people of NJ enough choices.  Bull!

Additionally,

Quote
State election laws should be "liberally construed to allow for the greatest scope for public participation in the electoral process, to allow candidates to get on the ballot, to allow parties to put their candidates on the ballot and, most importantly, to allow the voters a choice on Election Day," the justices wrote.


With the above statement, can I register a politcal party on Oct 1 of an election year and say that because people need a choice, the canidate I chose should be on the ballot?  Seems like I should be able to with this blurb of the ruling.  Granted taken out of context and doesn't really look at the other parts of the ruling or NJ law, but hey, its my right to pick and choose what parts of the "law" pertain to me or to adjust the interpretation of the laws to suit my needs.

And

What part of the election process says that a small group, probably made up of mostly white men, gets to choose who I get to vote for.  Isn't the "primary elections" the point where the (insert your registered political party here) members choose who they want on the general election ballot?


And finally,

Dfl8rms for US Senate in 2002, vote for the blind, hairy bat!  At least I'll have an excuse to overlook the corruption  
:D ;) :D

Flame on

Offline LePaul

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7988
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2002, 09:30:20 AM »
Its just another example of "Rules? Schmules..." in the Democratic mindset.  The Torch quit because he knew he couldn't win.  That's called a forfeit.

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2002, 09:39:52 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
the "brother" was not on any election board, can't you liberals every stop lieing?


Can't you conservatives ever stop generalizing? You guys always say the same thing, all of you!

Offline popeye

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3708
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2002, 10:06:19 AM »
All those lawyers gotta find something to do.  There's only so many ambulances to chase.
KONG

Where is Major Kong?!?

Offline H. Godwineson

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 551
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2002, 10:22:56 AM »
Sigh.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again;  Neither party has a monopoly on virtue.

I have an idea that would solve this problem.  Place the names of all Americans qualified by education or personal expertise to be government officials in a computer bank.  On election day, have the computer randomly select people to be the President, Vice-President, cabinet members, and congressional representatives.

Think of the money it would save in campaign expenses and political wrangling.

That would be fair wouldn't it?  :rolleyes:


Regards, Shuckins

Offline H. Godwineson

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 551
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2002, 10:24:42 AM »
On the other hand, think of all the entertainment we would lose!  ;)


Regards, Shuckins

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2002, 10:42:18 AM »
So when a court rules in favor of a Democrat, then the law is flushed, but if it rules in favor of a Republican the law is upheld? :Roll freakin eyes:

(notice I did not write Republiclown, Ratpublican, Repiece-o-craplican, Retiree-ican, Relephantican, or Stupid ignorant turdican)

Offline Sabre

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
      • Rich Owen
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2002, 10:47:43 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target


Can't you conservatives ever stop generalizing? You guys always say the same thing, all of you!


And can't you libs ever answer the question originally asked?;)  Just poking fun, Midnight...Generalizations are rampant in politics, on both sides.  Why? Because when you generalize you don't have to provide any actual facts.

Incidently, the NJ court ruling ignores the reason the law was written the way it was in the first place; i.e. to keep a party from pulling a sure-looser candidate at the last moment in hopes for an election day miracle.  The comment about "insuring voters have a choice" does indeed ignore the facts that a) the voters chose Torch as the Dem candidate during the primary elections and b) there were apparently at least 2 third-party candidates (in addition to the Repub. candidate.  Torch had not been convicted of a crime, so there was nothing to prevent him from excercising the office if he won.  Therefore, he was still a valid candidate (perhaps not a viable one, but a valid one).  This ruling is just plain wrong, and is indefensible under the bright-glare of reason.
Sabre
"The urge to save humanity almost always masks a desire to rule it."

Offline Krusher

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #24 on: October 03, 2002, 10:56:17 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sabre


This ruling is just plain wrong, and is indefensible under the bright-glare of reason.



Uhoh.... he used the common sense argument... :)

Offline Thud

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 476
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #25 on: October 03, 2002, 10:58:51 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
the "brother" was not on any election board, can't you liberals every stop lieing?


Can't you Republicans ever start spelling?

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2002, 11:05:48 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
So when a court rules in favor of a Democrat, then the law is flushed, but if it rules in favor of a Republican the law is upheld? :Roll freakin eyes:


 No. It's just when the law says "The candidate can be substituted up to 58 days prior to the election", most people believe it means "The candidate cannot be substituted less than 58 days prior to the election".

 The court's ruling is exactly that - the law specifies that substitution can be done before the deadline but does not say that it cannot be done after the deadline. Basically, the law is completely meaningless because it does not mean anything and there was no purpose in enacting it.

 miko

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #27 on: October 03, 2002, 11:10:22 AM »
And since it is the court's job to interpret the law they did exactly the right thing.
The Cheif Justice is a republican BTW.

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18769
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #28 on: October 03, 2002, 11:25:39 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
And since it is the court's job to interpret the law they did exactly the right thing.
The Cheif Justice is a republican BTW.


did they clarify what "is" is while they were at it?

they danced around the wording of the law, found what they think is a loophole or what most ppl with any scruples call it - broke the law :rolleyes:
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2002, 11:46:36 AM »
Quote
did they clarify what "is" is while they were at it?


Yawn... I think I've seen this before.

Here ya go.

 is   Pronunciation Key  (z)
v.
Third person singular present indicative of be.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old English. See es- in Indo-European Roots.]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

be   Pronunciation Key  (b)
v. First and third person singular past indicative was, (wz, wz; wz when unstressed)second person singular and plural and first and third person plural past indicative were, (wûr)past subjunctive were,past participle been, (bn)present participle be·ing, (bng)first person singular present indicative am, (m)second person singular and plural and first and third person plural present indicative are, (är)third person singular present indicative is, (z)present subjunctive be
v. intr.
To exist in actuality; have life or reality: I think, therefore I am.

To occupy a specified position: The food is on the table.
To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched, or unmolested: Let the children be.
To take place; occur: The test was yesterday.
To go or come: Have you ever been to Italy? Have you been home recently?
Used as a copula in such senses as:
To equal in identity: “To be a Christian was to be a Roman” (James Bryce).
To have a specified significance: A is excellent, C is passing. Let n be the unknown quantity.
To belong to a specified class or group: The human being is a primate.
To have or show a specified quality or characteristic: She is witty. All humans are mortal.
To seem to consist or be made of: The yard is all snow. He is all bluff and no bite.
To belong; befall: Peace be unto you. Woe is me.

v. aux.
Used with the past participle of a transitive verb to form the passive voice: The mayoral election is held annually.
Used with the present participle of a verb to express a continuing action: We are working to improve housing conditions.
Used with the infinitive of a verb to express intention, obligation, or future action: She was to call before she left. You are to make the necessary changes.
Archaic. Used with the past participle of certain intransitive verbs to form the perfect tense: “Where be those roses gone which sweetened so our eyes?” (Philip Sidney).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English ben, from Old English bon; see bheu- in Indo-European Roots. See am1 is, etc. for links to other Indo-European roots.]
Usage Note: Traditional grammar requires the nominative form of the pronoun in the predicate of the verb be: It is I (not me); That must be they (not them), and so forth. Nearly every speaker of Modern English finds this rule difficult to follow. Even if everyone could follow it, in informal contexts the nominative pronoun often sounds pedantic and even ridiculous, especially when the verb is contracted, as in It's we. But constructions like It is me have been condemned in the classroom and in writing handbooks for so long that there seems little likelihood that they will ever be entirely acceptable in formal writing. ·The traditional rule creates additional problems when the pronoun following be also functions as the object of a verb or preposition in a relative clause, as in It is not them/they that we have in mind when we talk about “crime in the streets” nowadays, where the plural pronoun serves as both the predicate of is and the object of have. In this example, 57 percent of the Usage Panel prefers the nominative form they, 33 percent prefer the objective them, and 10 percent accept both versions. Writers can usually revise their sentences to avoid this problem: They are not the ones we have in mind, We have someone else in mind, and so on. See Usage Note at I1. See Usage Note at we.
Our Living Language In place of the inflected forms of be, such as is and are, used in Standard English, African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and some varieties of Southern American English may use zero copula or an invariant be, as in He be working, instead of the Standard English He is usually working. As an identifying feature of the vernacular of many African Americans, invariant be in recent years has been frequently seized on by writers and commentators trying to imitate or parody Black speech. However, most imitators use it simply as a substitute for is, as in John be sitting in that chair now, without realizing that within AAVE, invariant be is used primarily for habitual or extended actions set in the present. Among African Americans the form is most commonly used by working-class speakers and young persons. Since the 1980s, younger speakers have tended to restrict the use of the form to progressive verb forms (as in He be walking), whereas their parents use it with progressives, adjectives (as in He be nice), and expressions referring to a location (as in He be at home). Younger speakers also use invariant be more exclusively to indicate habitual action, whereas older speakers more commonly omit be forms (as in He walking) or use present tense verb forms (such as He walks), sometimes with adverbs like often or usually, to indicate habituality. ·The source of invariant habitual be in AAVE is still disputed. Some linguists suggest that it represents influence from finite be in the 17th- to 19th-century English of British settlers, especially those from the southwest of England. Other linguists feel that contemporaneous Irish or Scotch-Irish immigrants may have played a larger role, since their dialects mark habitual verb forms with be and do be, as in “They be shooting and fishing out at the Forestry Lakes” (archival recordings of the Royal Irish Academy). and “Up half the night he does be” (James Joyce). Other linguists believe that it may have evolved from the does be construction indicating habitual action used by Gullah speakers from coastal South Carolina and Georgia and by Caribbean Creole immigants. Still other linguists suggest that invariant be is a mid- to late-20th-century innovation within AAVE, essentially a response to the wide range of meanings that the English progressive tense can express. See note at all. See note at like2. See note at zero copula.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


simple huh?