« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Down

Author Topic: NJ flushes the law  (Read 2033 times)

Offline Kieran

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4119
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #45 on: October 03, 2002, 03:19:37 PM »
Thrawn-

Bad example. If I run a sale for a set number of days, and you come in three days late, are you entitled to sale price?
Logged

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #46 on: October 03, 2002, 03:23:31 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target

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


ROFL!!!!!!
Almost knocked my keyboard over!
Logged
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #47 on: October 03, 2002, 03:46:38 PM »
Seems we're missing the point about the law in this case. Isn't the goal of laws in a democracy to encourage voting, not discourage it? The Chief Justice, a Republican did his job and did the right thing. I would expect a Democrat Chief Justice to make the same ruling for the Republicans if the role was reversed. Not allowing a political party to introduce a candidate due to unforeseen circumstances is a bad law.
BTW for those of you that seem to have an adolescent need to 'catagorize' and silly name calling:
I am neither a Democrat or a Republican.
The right thing was done in this case IMHO.
Logged
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline Kieran

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4119
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #48 on: October 03, 2002, 03:58:23 PM »
Bad reasoning.

Why was there no Democratic option? Because the candidate withdrew.

Why did the candidate withdraw? Because he was losing.

Why say there were no other options? There are third-party candidates on the ballot (apparently).

This isn't about setting right a wrong, this is about changing the rules because you're losing. No, I don't think this ruling defended voters in any way. Worse, it set an example the whole country is going to have to live with.
Logged

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17673
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #49 on: October 03, 2002, 04:01:46 PM »
I'll be a Stupid ignorant turdican rather than a lying, stealing, cheating, corrupt "Democrat" anyday
Logged
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | EVGA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti FTW3 | Vive Pro | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder Pedals

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #50 on: October 03, 2002, 04:09:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Eagler
I'll be a Stupid ignorant turdican rather than a lying, stealing, cheating, corrupt "Democrat" anyday

But if there are "lying, stealing, cheating, corrupt Republicans" then it's okay?  ROFL!!!! You are sooo funny!  hehe
Personally I wouldn't want anyone in charge of anything important if they were:
Stupid, ignorant, lying, cheating, and/or corrupt no matter the political affiliation.
Too many bad things happen that way.
Logged
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline Udie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3395
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #51 on: October 03, 2002, 04:48:39 PM »
you must hate our entire government....
Logged

Offline easymo

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1640
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #52 on: October 03, 2002, 05:00:01 PM »
"The Chief Justice, a Republican "

Nice spin.  It almost makes me overlook the fact that two of the justice's made personal contributions to the "Torch's" campaign in '99.
Logged

Offline SaburoS

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2986
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #53 on: October 03, 2002, 07:14:31 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Udie
you must hate our entire government....


LOL Udie, you're too funny :) .  Because you might 'hate', doesn't mean that I do. Please really READ and comprehend what I posted above and tell me how I hate. Rather disappointed is what I am feeling actually. When you go fishing and don't catch anything, do you hate the fish, your equipment, and/or fishing in general, or are you disappointed?
Logged
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. ... Bertrand Russell

Offline Erlkonig

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #54 on: October 04, 2002, 01:36:05 PM »
Quote
This isn't about setting right a wrong, this is about changing the rules because you're losing. No, I don't think this ruling defended voters in any way. Worse, it set an example the whole country is going to have to live with.


Do you honestly think that politicians are the type of people willing to keep ringers hanging around in the background "just in case"?  Would any replacement really be more electable than the current cadidate behind in the polls?  Wouldn't this replacement probably be the current candidate if that were the case?  The way this situation has played out so far makes the Republicans look deathly afraid of running against an electable opponent.
Logged

Offline Udie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3395
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #55 on: October 04, 2002, 01:49:39 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Erlkonig


Do you honestly think that politicians are the type of people willing to keep ringers hanging around in the background "just in case"?  Would any replacement really be more electable than the current cadidate behind in the polls?  Wouldn't this replacement probably be the current candidate if that were the case?  The way this situation has played out so far makes the Republicans look deathly afraid of running against an electable opponent.




 ROFLOL!!! :D

 That way the torch quit?  Seems the dems are afraid to run an ELECTED opponent. ;)
Logged

Offline Kieran

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4119
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #56 on: October 04, 2002, 03:12:19 PM »
Erlkonig-

I honestly think that after the deadline the Democrats found their man un-electable. I honestly believe they think a "Hail Mary" is better than no shot at all. I honestly believe they do not have voter's interests in mind on this ruling- any more than they did when calling for selected recounts in Florida. It's about winning at any cost.
Logged

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #57 on: October 04, 2002, 03:17:25 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kieran
It's about winning at any cost.


Desperate measures in desperate times...its about control.  They still haven't got over the loss of the House in 1994, after 40 years of controlling it.
Logged

Offline Erlkonig

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #58 on: October 04, 2002, 10:22:55 PM »
Quote
I honestly think that after the deadline the Democrats found their man un-electable. I honestly believe they think a "Hail Mary" is better than no shot at all.


My understanding is that the current situation could have been avoided had Torricelli resigned from the Senate rather than withdraw from the election.  If this is the case than it would seem to undermine the contention that this is all some sort of Democrat conspiracy.  Moreover, there is the fact that the 2 Republicans and 1 Independent on the NJ Court that ruled in favor of the Democrats case (and you probably ought to be more concerned what they think vis a vis voters' interests anyway).

In any case my original post was a response to the idea that somehow this case is going to set a precedent in election abuse.
Logged

Offline Kieran

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4119
NJ flushes the law
« Reply #59 on: October 04, 2002, 11:44:17 PM »
Don't evade the point; there is a law, the Dems weren't happy about the application of the law, they argued a loophole and won. They didn't do it for the voters, they did it for themselves. Their argument (giving the voters choice) is hollow in light of the fact the situation was created by the Democrats themselves and there is a third-party candidate. The fact is (no matter what spin you apply) the Dems felt they were going to lose, the Torch stepped aside, and the Dems went to court to get a freebie.

Don't tell me about who voted for it, that's a straw man and you know it. And you can be damn sure this DID set a precedent we'll all be sorry for. I repeat, we are now truly a banana republic.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Up
« previous next »