Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Well, thanks, Justin. You make it too easy. I can rest a lot easier now, knowing you won't be imposing your will on me.

Can I expect the same from you? :wink:

Somebody's will will be imposed. That cannot be avoided by any conceivable political system.

It may as well be mine... (registering to vote with raspberries in Justin's general direction...)

Originally Posted by Sanford

Somebody's will will be imposed. That cannot be avoided by any conceivable political system.

Indeed (though I would say "somebody is going to try to impose their will"). I respect your and Croaker's lust for power and dominion; I'd have none of it (or at least would not seek it), myself.

"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." --Theodore Roosevelt

Firmly believing that what I believe in is right, I am all for "imposing my will" upon others via the ballot box. If for no other reason than to save them from the wretches of society, like "Billy Jeff", who wish to do the same thing!

But then again, I got kids. Perhaps if I did not, the notion of the country "going to hell in a handbasket" would actually give me a little thrill. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Firmly believing that what I believe in is right, I am all for "imposing my will" upon others via the ballot box. If for no other reason than to save them from the wretches of society, like "Billy Jeff", who wish to do the same thing!

Man, this is going way easier than I thought it would. Marc insists (above) that he is morally equivalent to a man he despises (good ol' BJC) through his actions at the box -- for I am sure Mr. Clinton rationalizes the same way about him.

But then again, I got kids. Perhaps if I did not, the notion of the country "going to hell in a handbasket" would actually give me a little thrill. :wink:

In January I will move from "having a kid" to the plural, like yourself. My most significant function as a parent (once the perpetuation of my childrens' lives is secured) is in teaching them how to behave in a manner befitting a good person. An important means of this is providing them an example to follow -- my own behavior. I'd like my kids to grow up understanding exactly why people like BJC are despicable (NOTE: it's not because their jerseys are the wrong color).

Of course, Mr. Clinton, and the left, rationalizes the same way about me! Of course, they would have written the very same thing I wrote, Justin!

Thus we fight. But we both can't win. Thank God for the ballot box that empowers the fight without bullets. For without the ballot box, I guarantee there would be bullets finding targets of those that oppose _________ (fill in the blank).

Our Constitutional form of republican democracy merely offers hope, not a utopia, not a perfect world, certainly not an end to the bickering. Those that believe that it does, or ever would are delusional.

I mean would you wish to step into a court room, as a defendant, wherein the judge, jury, prosecutor and defense counselor had all decided to "just get along" and "stop with the bickering"?

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

For without the ballot box, I guarantee there would be bullets finding targets of those that oppose _________ (fill in the blank).

Would you be one of those firing them? What makes you think that those who are willing to stubbornly stand their ground on the basis of punching a hole in a card would be just as willing to kill (and / or risk being killed) for the same issue? As Mao said, "political power comes from the barrel of a gun." Do not delude yourself -- the bullets are there, aimed at targets chosen by your hand (and BJC's, for that matter). Your acting in concert to delegate a third party shooter changes nothing in the nature of things.

As for bickering and disagreement in general, I'm all for it. Not only is it potentially a significant source of intellectual development but, as in The Hobbit, it can be a great way to keep the trolls occupied 'till the sun comes up.
:wink:

Senator Wellstone and family killed in a plane crash eleven days before an important election... Democrat... Liberal... Voted against the resolution on Iraq... Outspoken...

Something smells here.

Originally Posted by buzzard44

Senator Wellstone and family killed in a plane crash eleven days before an important election... Democrat... Liberal... Voted against the resolution on Iraq... Outspoken...

Something smells here.

Carrion?
Maybe the gas company is just using you to find a leak. :wink:

Something "smells here"? Sheesh. Trust me, Norm Coleman is crying tears of bitter defeat right now. Wellstone, like Carnahan in 2000, will be re-elected to the U.S. Senate anyway.

Yes, Justin, I would be "one of them". Let some damn commie-ass try to illegally confiscate my paltry 126 acres of God's green earth, for the Worker's Party of the World, and I can assure you that I will blow his damn head off! :wink:

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... What good can come from imposing my will on my fellow men? ...

What good can come of others imposing theirs on you?

A buzzard's smell is fallible but his eyesight is very good. I still smell something noxious around here. Give me a while. I'll spot it.

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... What good can come from imposing my will on my fellow men? ...

What good can come of others imposing theirs on you?

Why do you assume that this will happen (or that, in tossing my name into a box, I can fend it off)?
Here, I am with Marc in my willingness to expend some energy keeping just such a thing from happening. I, however, prefer to take personal responsibility for my life, and to restrict my aim only to those who want to "illegally confiscate" (though the status of the law on this issue is not terribly important. Laws can come and go) my stuff -- for Worker's parties or whatever cause.

Sadly, I must depart from this thread for the weekend. I return on Monday (hopefully having stocked my freezer with a hundred or so pounds of Bambi's mom). Good wishes to all.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Something "smells here"? Sheesh. Trust me, Norm Coleman is crying tears of bitter defeat right now. Wellstone, like Carnahan in 2000, will be re-elected to the U.S. Senate anyway.

Yes, Justin, I would be "one of them". Let some damn commie-ass try to illegally confiscate my paltry 126 acres of God's green earth, for the Worker's Party of the World, and I can assure you that I will blow his damn head off! :wink:

Actually, according to Minnesota Law, if a candidate dies more than 4 days before an election, his name must be replaced on the ballot. And this time, the deceased candidate's widow cannot help, either, as she is now also deceased. And no, nothing smells here. He was flying in freezing rain and snow in a prop plane. Not a good idea.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Well, thanks, Justin. You make it too easy. I can rest a lot easier now, knowing you won't be imposing your will on me.

Can I expect the same from you? :wink:

"Nothing is more ostentatious than deliberate humility, nor more egocentric than projects to get rid of egotism."

?Alan Watts


You're not wrong, Justin. In fact, I agree with some of it. I could do with fewer Christians, Muslims, and evil Voodooers trying to impose their wills on me. Jesus! You're thinking, though, I know you are. Your getting mighty close to Zen, whatever that is. And so you're voting for not voting.

Wake up, kid, and smell duh rosees, huh! Since when does us democrats need duh the law anyhow, huh, kid? Like justa we get around duh law, see. Like we did heer in New Joysee. Like dat stupid law sez we couldn't yank that loser Torchacelli fifty-one days before the elctshun go down, Hah! We showd 'em we dawn't need no law, see, kid.

Now, go home, kid, I hear ya momma callin'. :wink:

Justin--what kind of political system do you think would survive without revolutions in which the citizens decide NOT to vote (collectively)? This would lead society into a "state of nature" that political philosophers speak of, and make it quite easy for a authoritarian dictatorship to be established. Would you actually PREFER this? Since you are advocating NOT voting, that must mean that voting is an immoral act. Is this what you are arguing? In what sense is it immoral and does this make participatory democracy bad? Or is voting the only function in such a political system that you disagree with?

Let me propose the following situation: Suppose that voters in no particular year have a choice between two candidates: Candidate A supports a political system which YOU agree with. Candidate B supports throwing away nearly ALL civil liberties and establishing himslef as an authoritarian dictator. Would you still decide not to vote? And if you WOULD vote in THIS situation (perhaps because this is an extreme case you may say), then why should you not also vote in most OTHER elections as well, for small steps in the "wrong" direction in our political system will eventually lead to such choices.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Wake up, kid, and smell duh rosees, huh! Since when does us democrats need duh the law anyhow, huh, kid? Like justa we get around duh law, see. Like we did heer in New Joysee. Like dat stupid law sez we couldn't yank that loser Torchacelli fifty-one days before the elctshun go down, Hah! We showd 'em we dawn't need no law, see, kid.

Now, go home, kid, I hear ya momma callin'. :wink:

I had thought that the NJ senate law was blank on the subject of what to do for replacements less than 50 days before the election; while they outlined specific procedures for a replacement more than 50 days before the election it seems like the law neither expressly authorized nor forbade such a replacement closer to the deadline than that.

Originally Posted by Glass Joe

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Wake up, kid, and smell duh rosees, huh! Since when does us democrats need duh the law anyhow, huh, kid? Like justa we get around duh law, see. Like we did heer in New Joysee. Like dat stupid law sez we couldn't yank that loser Torchacelli fifty-one days before the elctshun go down, Hah! We showd 'em we dawn't need no law, see, kid.

I had thought that the NJ senate law was blank on the subject of what to do for replacements less than 50 days before the election; while they outlined specific procedures for a replacement more than 50 days before the election it seems like the law neither expressly authorized nor forbade such a replacement closer to the deadline than that.

Statute on vacancy (NJ Statute 19:13-20):

In the event of a vacancy, howsoever caused, among candidates nominated at primaries, which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election, or in the event of inability to select a candidate because of a tie vote at such primary, a candidate shall be selected in the following manner...

[The] selection made pursuant to this section shall be made not later than the 48th day preceding the date of the general election, and a statement of such selection shall be filed with the Secretary of State or the appropriate county clerk, as the case may be, not later than said 48th day, and in the following manner...

Since the Torricelli "vacancy" is well past the 51-day and the 48-day deadlines of the statute, there is, quite obviously, no procedure for replacing Torricelli's name on the ballot.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Statute on vacancy (NJ Statute 19:13-20):

In the event of a vacancy, howsoever caused, among candidates nominated at primaries, which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election, or in the event of inability to select a candidate because of a tie vote at such primary, a candidate shall be selected in the following manner...

[The] selection made pursuant to this section shall be made not later than the 48th day preceding the date of the general election, and a statement of such selection shall be filed with the Secretary of State or the appropriate county clerk, as the case may be, not later than said 48th day, and in the following manner...

Since the Torricelli "vacancy" is well past the 51-day and the 48-day deadlines of the statute, there is, quite obviously, no procedure for replacing Torricelli's name on the ballot.

But does that mean that the law is blank on the subject or that a vacancy is required to be kept? I still don't see anything that explicitly forbids replacement of vacancies after the 51-day deadline (and the 48-day deadline only refers to vacancies created before the 51-day deadline so it would be irrelevant in that case); the only way the replacement of late vacancies could actually be forbidden is if New Jersey has a system of "whatever isn't authorized is illegal" as opposed to the more common "whatever isn't expressly forbidden is legal"... and the unanimous NJ Supreme Court ruling seems to suggest that NJ law is generally interpreted under the first principle rather than the second

The law was written for a reason. That reason was to prohibit candidate switcheroos, for whatever reason, as an election nears.

Simply stated, you can't vacate within 51 days of the vote. But if you do vacate, prior to the 51 day deadline, you have only to within 48 days of the vote to name the replacement.

Dance w/wo the law all you want, but at least be honest and call it a dance. And it a pretty convoluted dance at that. Sheesh.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

The law was written for a reason. That reason was to prohibit candidate switcheroos, for whatever reason, as an election nears.

Simply stated, you can't vacate within 51 days of the vote. But if you do vacate, prior to the 51 day deadline, you have only to within 48 days of the vote to name the replacement.

Dance w/wo the law all you want, but at least be honest and call it a dance. And it a pretty convoluted dance at that. Sheesh.

It's good to see your opinion here rather than what appears to be a direct quote from http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel100102.asp: "well past"? "quite obvious"?

Granted, the procedure does seem a bit shady (and I am no supporter of a man whose greatest legislative accomplishment was to pioneer the usage of a form of blackmail to coerce states into passing laws that the federal government wants them to pass, but the federal government has no authority to make them pass), but it was not actually illegal - and the fact that the statute was written like that (and not changed) means that the legislature could easily have intended for ambiguous interpretation to be decided at a later date by the Court (possibly due to some sort of dispute between the parties)

The "legislature could easily have intended for ambiguous interpretation to be decided at a later date by the Court"?

I am all too familar with "passing the buck" and those gawd awful "bad laws", but law is law, son! Some folks actually are imprisoned and, gasp, put to death under said "law".

As far as the NRO quote goes... that was a rare moment of discretion on my part: A liberty I took, of which bares no real consequence. I could have easily put the bite in my own words, without changing the meaning one bit.

Je t'aime, monsieur, I'm impressed you caught it. :wink:

From The American Conservative, here is a lengthy but very good examination of the Bush [sic] Doctrine of preemptive war. Such a brash break with long-standing norms in international relations and ethics in general cannot help but encourage a 4T mood globally. We are looking at a global 4T and World War III unless this administration is stopped.

I will simply excerpt one passage which gives old Kant some play but the whole essay is well worth the read:


http://www.amconmag.com/10_21/iraq.html


What would Kant say?

Iraq: The Case Against Preemptive War*
The administration?s claim of a right to overthrow regimes it considers hostile is extraordinary ? and one the world will soon find intolerable.
by Paul W. Schroeder


... Consider what norm the administration?s planned attack will set for the world. The United States will be declaring not simply verbally but by using its overwhelming armed force that a state may justly launch a war against another much smaller and weaker state even though it cannot prove that the enemy represents an imminent, direct, and critical threat, or show that the threat could not be deterred or managed by means other than war. It need only claim that the regime and its leader are evil, harbor hostile intentions, were attempting to arm themselves with dangerous weapons, and might therefore attempt at some future time to carry out their hostile aims, and that this claim as to an opponent?s potential capabilities and intentions, a claim made solely by the attacking state and not subject to any international examination, justifies that state in eliminating the allegedly dangerous regime and leader preemptively.

A more dangerous, illegitimate norm and example can hardly be imagined. As could easily be shown by history, it completely subverts previous standards for judging the legitimacy of resorts to war, justifying any number of wars hitherto considered unjust and aggressive. It would, for example, justify not only the Austro-German decision for preventive war on Serbia in 1914, condemned by most historians, but also a German attack on Russia and/or France as urged by some German generals on numerous occasions between 1888 and 1914. It would in fact justify almost any attack by any state on any other for almost any reason. This is not a theoretical or academic point. The American example and standard for preemptive war, if carried out, would invite imitation and emulation, and get it. One can easily imagine plausible scenarios in which India could justly attack Pakistan or vice versa, or Israel any one of its neighbors, or China Taiwan, or South Korea North Korea, under this rule that suspicion of what a hostile regime might do justifies launching preventive wars to overthrow it.

We cannot want a world that operates on this principle, and therefore we cannot really want to use it ourselves. In a real, practical sense, Immanuel Kant?s famous ethical principle that one must so act that the principle of one?s action could become a universal law must also influence the conduct of states in international politics, above all the policy of the world?s only superpower. Without some application of it especially in critical cases like this, a sane, durable international system becomes impossible. ...

[quote="Marc Lamb"]Something "smells here"? Sheesh. Trust me, Norm Coleman is crying tears of bitter defeat right now. Wellstone, like Carnahan in 2000, will be re-elected to the U.S. Senate anyway.

There will be a very confused electorate in Minn. . Any votes for Wellstone will not be counted. The Dems. must appoint a replacement within 7 days. Most analysis point to either Page or Mondale as replacements. The reprograming of voting machines and the printing of a supplemental ballot will add to the voters confusion. If a voter marks Coleman on the master ballot and no votes the supplemental is that a vote for Coleman? And if a voter marks Wellstone on the master and votes Dem. on the supplemental what is the end result? We thought pregnant chads were an issue. This will be an emotional and controversial election. IMHO the race should be poseponed for thirty days to allow all sides to have a fair and equal chance to imform the voter.