Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JBA on June 17, 2004, 09:36:52 AM
-
A reminder, When the Dems candidate in New Jersey was losing in the polls just 30 days before the election they pulled him out and put in poll tested Toraselli sp? to replace him, Toraseli won. The Dem appointed SJC ruled it Okay. Aganist the election laws of New Jersey and the State constituion. When GORE didn't like the results of Florida, well we know what happened there.
So once again here in Massachusetts the Dems don't like the law. If Kerry wins the Presidential (god help us) then the Governor a Rep. has the Law both State and Federal Constitutionality to appoint a interim Senate, Now the Dems in the State Legislature with Kennedy pushing hard are trying to pass a law to overturn an 80 year old law to stop this appointment, incidentally this is how KERRY got his senate set, Dukakis appointed
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/02/19/democrats_eye_plan_to_protect_kerry_senate_seat?mode=PF
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor
Michael S. Dukakis appointed Kerry to the seat to give him a leg up in ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts Democrats are devising a plan to keep John F. Kerry's US Senate seat in their party's hands by blocking Governor Mitt Romney from naming an interim replacement if Kerry wins the White House.
Under Article 17 of the US Constitution, governors derive the power of filling a Senate vacancy from their legislatures.
Under state law, Romney would appoint an interim senator
Under the Straus proposal, the Senate seat would remain vacant until the state holds a special election to fill it, 60 to 180 days after the vacancy.
Straus said such a system would also avoid having two Senate contests taking place in the same year. Senator Edward M. Kennedy will face reelection in 2006. With a gubernatorial election taking place that year, Straus argued, voters would face a lot of confusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
O I guess I'm to stupid to understand two names on the ballet. F off Straus
-
you evidently have no idea what happend in florida.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
you evidently have no idea what happend in florida.
Why don't you give us your condensed version of what happened in Florida then? Be prepared to be refuted with facts.
-
Pongo,
please explain? your version.
once again the dems don't like laws that don't help them gain or hold onto their power and they will change the election laws during an election to suit their personel agendas
-
Man oh man, them evil dems is out to get us!!! They all break the law and eat babies, while the upstanding republican crusaders do their best to live by a strict code of ethics and strive to never do anything underhanded. And I woke up with a headache this morning, damned democrats sneaking into my apartment at night and giving me a headache, they're sneaky and coniving and out to get us I tell you! When will this madness end?! It's plain to see that we need to get the camps up and running and wipe the liberal scum out of existence!
-
SoB adding nothing to the conversation once again, Thanks:aok Do you get ignored when out with friends?
-
Pongo,
I'm still waiting for you to reply to Kieren over at checksix regarding your statement on Harris breaking Florida laws, mainly by you showing which ones were actually broken.
-
On the contrary... SOB added about the most intelligent comment yet in this thread.
What exactly is the point of starting threads like this anyway? To point out the evils of Democrats? To whom?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Monkeys throwing feces, thats the point of this thread.
-SW
-
why brake the law, o thats right can't win at the voteing both.
-
lets vote Hitech for president.
-
Originally posted by JBA
why brake the law, o thats right can't win at the voteing both.
First of all, if you change the law you aren't breaking it. Second, you never did address the questions I asked. What is the point of this thread? To whom are you writing it? You obviously don't plan on convincing anyone of anything. It's more akin to ideological masturbation than anything else.
Lastly, how does blocking an unelected appointment equate to an inability to "win" at the "voteing both [sic]?" Do you even understand how these things work?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Incidentally, there is no "Article 17" of the U.S. Constitution. The author of the article refers to the 17th Amendment. Shouldn't this fact alone raise some alarm bells with you, JBA? Or should we not let facts get in the way of a good partisan rant?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by JBA
A reminder, When the Dems candidate in New Jersey was losing in the polls just 30 days before the election they pulled him out and put in poll tested Toraselli sp? to replace him, Toraseli won. The Dem appointed SJC ruled it Okay. Aganist the election laws of New Jersey and the State constituion. When GORE didn't like the results of Florida, well we know what happened there.
So once again here in Massachusetts the Dems don't like the law. If Kerry wins the Presidential (god help us) then the Governor a Rep. has the Law both State and Federal Constitutionality to appoint a interim Senate, Now the Dems in the State Legislature with Kennedy pushing hard are trying to pass a law to overturn an 80 year old law to stop this appointment, incidentally this is how KERRY got his senate set, Dukakis appointed
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/02/19/democrats_eye_plan_to_protect_kerry_senate_seat?mode=PF
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor
Michael S. Dukakis appointed Kerry to the seat to give him a leg up in ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts Democrats are devising a plan to keep John F. Kerry's US Senate seat in their party's hands by blocking Governor Mitt Romney from naming an interim replacement if Kerry wins the White House.
Under Article 17 of the US Constitution, governors derive the power of filling a Senate vacancy from their legislatures.
Under state law, Romney would appoint an interim senator
Under the Straus proposal, the Senate seat would remain vacant until the state holds a special election to fill it, 60 to 180 days after the vacancy.
Straus said such a system would also avoid having two Senate contests taking place in the same year. Senator Edward M. Kennedy will face reelection in 2006. With a gubernatorial election taking place that year, Straus argued, voters would face a lot of confusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
O I guess I'm to stupid to understand two names on the ballet. F off Straus
ya, or like when Bush & Chaney found that law that forbids the pres and VP from being from the same state inconvenient. so Chaney changed his address to Wyoming immediately before taking the nomination
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
ya, or like when Bush & Chaney found that law that forbids the pres and VP from being from the same state inconvenient. so Chaney changed his address to Wyoming immediately before taking the nomination
or when Hillary moved to NY?
-
Originally posted by JBA
:aok
Yep, I figured as much.
-
Originally posted by JBA
or when Hillary moved to NY?
ya, she should have stayed in the Whitehorse. she had to move somewhere didn't she? she moved when her husbands job in DC ended. people move all the time. it's also reasonable that a political person like her would be involved in politics where ever she lived.
it's nowhere near the same as moving just for the purpose of developing a loop-hole to make yourself delegable for a job your are disqualified from.
-
The presidents brother, implemented a screening system to ensure that felons convicted out of state could not vote in Florida.
That system falsley deprived 19000 blacks of thier votes. They were not fellons. They just had the same name and lived in the same town as a felon. Whom may or may not have been black!
Is it against the law to deliberatly deprive a person of thier right to vote?
I know under federal law it is illegal for Florida and several other southern states to pass legislatiton or procedures that are intended to deprive blacks of thier vote.
How many laws is that?
19000 voters disenfranchised by the brother of the president and his autorny general.
Not a secret, Not a conspiracy. Not an error. The developers of the filter where ordered under protest to put in the line that droped voter smith if felon smith lived in the same town. Only if voter smith was black.
This was investigated by congress, its not a secret. Why do so few americans know it?
What kind of election law breaking are you accusing Gore of?
it goes without saying. That the only reason Bush jr has been president at all is that this was done. Period. The election came down to 400 votes or somthing. How do you think those black folkes voted?
Bush and Bush new how they would vote.
-
I think you got your numbers wrong. 19,000 was the number of ballots invalidated due to double punching. Try again?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
The presidents brother, implemented a screening system to ensure that felons convicted out of state could not vote in Florida.
That system falsley deprived 19000 blacks of thier votes. They were not fellons. They just had the same name and lived in the same town as a felon. Whom may or may not have been black!
Is it against the law to deliberatly deprive a person of thier right to vote?
I know under federal law it is illegal for Florida and several other southern states to pass legislatiton or procedures that are intended to deprive blacks of thier vote.
How many laws is that?
19000 voters disenfranchised by the brother of the president and his autorny general.
Not a secret, Not a conspiracy. Not an error. The developers of the filter where ordered under protest to put in the line that droped voter smith if felon smith lived in the same town. Only if voter smith was black.
This was investigated by congress, its not a secret. Why do so few americans know it?
What kind of election law breaking are you accusing Gore of?
it goes without saying. That the only reason Bush jr has been president at all is that this was done. Period. The election came down to 400 votes or somthing. How do you think those black folkes voted?
Bush and Bush new how they would vote.
didnt they do a recount.....didnt Bush win just about every recount???? If Jeb Bush broke the law why was he not convicted????? I know I know librals would not have been happy untill they kept recounting in JUST libral counties to get more votes but seriously.....19000 black voters....just black and 19000 exact? Surley charges should have been brought on Jeb Bush for this hanus crime of discriminating against exactly 19000 just black voters?
-
I dont have Time in front of me. It was over 19000 voters. As to why Jebs not in prison. you tell me. Why isnt jr in prison for insider trading? Why is the autorny general that orchastrated it now a senetor?(congresswoman) one or the other.
-
"didnt they do a recount.....didnt Bush win just about every recount???? "
you can recount amillion times and it will never take into acount, the votes of people who weren't allowed to vote.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
"didnt they do a recount.....didnt Bush win just about every recount???? "
you can recount amillion times and it will never take into acount, the votes of people who weren't allowed to vote.
SO if this is true why wasnt anyone charged w/ it. You can allege all you want untill you're blue in the face. You want to prove somthing to me than charge somone.
Dont forget about the 20,000 (mostly military) or so absente ballots that were thrown out as well. You saying that Librals were not allowed to vote in mostly Libral counties does not make me say....ooooooooooh conspiracy.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I dont have Time in front of me. It was over 19000 voters. As to why Jebs not in prison. you tell me. Why isnt jr in prison for insider trading? Why is the autorny general that orchastrated it now a senetor?(congresswoman) one or the other.
why isnt our former president jailed for purgery in front of a federal grand jurry....why why why. Again Alligations....nothing more.
-
Originally posted by JBA
A reminder, When the Dems candidate in New Jersey was losing in the polls just 30 days before the election they pulled him out and put in poll tested Toraselli sp? to replace him, Toraseli won. The Dem appointed SJC ruled it Okay. Aganist the election laws of New Jersey and the State constituion.
Actually it was Torecelli that pulled out. He would not have been able to serve if elected.
The NJ supreme court ruled 7-0 in favor of the switch. the 7 judges consisted of 4 dems, 2 reps and 1 ind.
Facts is facts
-
Can find all sorts of interesting, and some not so interesting, stuff on the web. I ran acroos one site that was boohooin' about all the felons that aren't allowed to vote. Does anyone besides lazs think felons should be allowed to vote? (sorry lazs ;))
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
On the contrary... SOB added about the most intelligent comment yet in this thread.
aye.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Actually it was Torecelli that pulled out. He would not have been able to serve if elected.
The NJ supreme court ruled 7-0 in favor of the switch. the 7 judges consisted of 4 dems, 2 reps and 1 ind.
Facts is facts
yes it was Lautenberg, Frank. that was "selected" less then 30 days before the election because Torecelli couldn't win. This is in violation of NJ election law; The SJC of NJ got it wrong.
Up hold the law not create the law
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Can find all sorts of interesting, and some not so interesting, stuff on the web. I ran acroos one site that was boohooin' about all the felons that aren't allowed to vote. Does anyone besides lazs think felons should be allowed to vote? (sorry lazs ;))
It wasnt felons that where deprived of thier votes. It was Blacks with the same last names as felons. Even white felons.
19000 of them apperently. Do you have a problem with that? I bet you dont.
-
I see no reason to not allow fellons to vote (once their time is served and parol over of course)
-
Florida actually has no right to deny out of state felons who have had thier voting rights returned to them the right to vote. The right was removed by another state and returned by another state. It has nothing to do with florida. But this issue really has nothing to do with that. The people deprived of thier votes were not felons. They were Blacks with the same names as felons.
-
Originally posted by JBA
yes it was Lautenberg, Frank. that was "selected" less then 30 days before the election because Torecelli couldn't win. This is in violation of NJ election law; The SJC of NJ got it wrong.
Up hold the law not create the law
1. It was 36 days
2. The court ruled that state law didn't rule out the possibility of a vacant candidacy within 51 days of the election.
3. The US Supreme Court Refused to hear GOP appeal.
In this case a ruling for the Republicans would have in essence "created law".
-
Originally posted by Pongo
It wasnt felons that where deprived of thier votes. It was Blacks with the same last names as felons. Even white felons.
19000 of them apperently. Do you have a problem with that? I bet you dont.
Guess I wasn't clear. From one of the not so interesting sites I found whining about 204,000 people denied the vote simply because they were convicted felons.
I still maintain that there were not 19,000 people mistakenly denied their vote. Do you have a reference?
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
I see no reason to not allow fellons to vote (once their time is served and parol over of course)
Considering the laxity of our justice system I see plenty of reason some of these people should never walk our streets again, much less vote. However, they most certainly do walk our streets. Guess you have no problem with that guy that raped a young girl, cut off her arms and left her to die voting for more lenient laws regarding pedophiles?
-
the failing wouldn't be in letting him vote, it would be in letting him out.
once someones debt is paid they should be allowed to vote again.
how do you expect to get someone to become a functioning, cooperative part of society, when you have laws in place to insure this never happens.
-
Nothing in this country should inhibit your ability to vote with exception of being in jail, or not paying your taxes..
If you did cut off the little girls arms raped her and then get let out of prison who's fault is that... If the laws had teeth vs violent crime then this discussion would be moot.. Some felonies involve economical reasons. And as such should not inhibit a citizen of this country to have a valid vote..
Violating someones abiltiy to vote should be one of the steepest penalties this country could give.. Becuase it effectively forces taxation without representation.. (thats pretty steep imo)
Violent perps should be kept in jail.. plain and simple... as apposed to non- violent dopers clogging the system at the public's expense..
DoctorYo
-
However, they did fail, they did let this guy out and he murdered someone thereafter.
Some actions demonstrate an inability to be trusted, forever. You step across that line when you commit a felony. Sure, some may turn themselves around and become productive members of society but they have still forever forfeited a certain amount of trust. Some things just cannot be undone.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Considering the laxity of our justice system I see plenty of reason some of these people should never walk our streets again, much less vote. However, they most certainly do walk our streets.
So should white collar criminals also be denied the right to vote? or, since all they do is milk millions from honest people, and not commit a violent crime, maybe that's OK?
IMO if you denied WCCs their right to vote, the ensuing legal bloodbath, and the resultant tumbleweeds blowing through our government buildings, at all levels, would be quite a sight to see...
-
That is an interesting opinion AKIron. But its not the law of your country. The question is what laws where broken.
I think your not looking to hard for the story I told you about.
Here is a start.
harpers (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=1)
-
I read it Pongo. Felons are not allowed to vote in Florida unless they get permission. Florida simply made a list of felons from a lot of states to ensure they didn't vote in Florida. Nothing illegal about that. Nothing about 19,000 in that article though. Also, I must say that that article was disingenous in comparing the number of felons in the US to the Florida voting population. Implying that sonehow 1% of Florida voters were disenfranchised based on this comparison.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I read it Pongo. Felons are not allowed to vote in Florida unless they get permission. Florida simply made a list of felons from a lot of states to ensure they didn't vote in Florida. Nothing illegal about that. Nothing about 19,000 in that article though. Also, I must say that that article was disingenous in comparing the number of felons in the US to the Florida voting population. Implying that sonehow 1% of Florida voters were disenfranchised based on this comparison.
No they didnt.
They took lists from other states(the one from Texas was 95% wrong for some reason) then had a computer program written to find out which Smith in a certain area of Miami was White Felon Smith that moved to Miami from Maryland 2 years ago. They wrote the program so that it was always black citizen smith that was a felon. Always. 10 black smiths living in the same area would lose thier vote. But no white smith. Even white felon smith would lose theirs.
Maybe thats why so many americans dont know about this. It must be hard to understand.
Original numbers were 23000 but right in that article they point out 1000s and 1000s of errors that they found just reviewing the lists. Over 5000 felons commited crimes in 2007 and were barred from the 2000 election. How does that work?
-
All these supposed barrings from voting and yet they listed what, four names? One of which was a convicted felon.