VisorCentral.com - Republican or Democrat?

Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Republican or Democrat? (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=27659)

Posted by terrysalmi on 10-07-2002 07:14 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by jhappel
adderx99 said:

And just for terrysalmi - my license plate Picture of plate

Hmm...you are a member of the party that is 'for the people', though you drive a nice european sportscar. Interesting.

Sounds like the Gubernatorial race down here in Kansas. The democrat running is from the elite of the elite of Ohio (her father was a former Ohio Governor and she has raised 90% of her money from the same big spenders that have given to Gore or Hillary) while the GOP candidate came from a small rural Kansas town, where his father was the plumber...

__________________

Friends don't let Friends vote Democrat
Victory 2002 - Republicans Win Control of the Senate
Now onto Victory 2004 - FOUR MORE YEARS

Posted by zieak on 10-08-2002 08:45 AM:

Neither of the major parties. They just spend their time in office bickering about issues and not trying to solve problems. I've been old enough to vote for 10 years now - and I even vote in local elections. But a canidate's colors are not as important to me as their character.

I received an email passed on from a state senator representing my district. She was urging me to send in comments in favor of something. What really galled me was that this "representative" was not representing my views but rather trying to force her views on all of her constituents. She just rides the party line and doesn't stop and think objectively about an issue. That's not what I want.

I really want someone that will listen to me - even when my views differ from theirs. I want them to be able to put aside their agendas, ignore special interest groups and just focus on the constituents.

Posted by jhappel on 10-08-2002 03:16 PM:

terrysalmi said:

quote:
you are a member of the party that is 'for the people', though you drive a nice european sportscar. Interesting.

Are you saying that by being a proud Democrat I am forbidden from driving certain types of cars? And you claim to be a Republican but seem to want to dictate what I drive?????

__________________
Jonathan

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-08-2002 03:16 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by zieak
- and I even vote in local elections.

In many ways, I have come to believe that local elections have more of a day to day effect on my life than the national ones. Of course, I still vote in those, too!

yardie--very nice use of "her" above!!

Posted by Toby on 10-08-2002 03:46 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
In many ways, I have come to believe that local elections have more of a day to day effect on my life than the national ones. Of course, I still vote in those, too! [...]

You've 'come to believe' that? That's the way the system is supposed to work in the first place.

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-08-2002 04:25 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
You've 'come to believe' that? That's the way the system is supposed to work in the first place.

Tell that to the people who only vote in Presidential election years.

Posted by Toby on 10-08-2002 05:05 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
Tell that to the people who only vote in Presidential election years.

They're like the people who only go to church on the couple major holidays. There's a special place in 'Hell' reserved for them.

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-08-2002 06:29 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
They're like the people who only go to church on the couple major holidays. There's a special place in 'Hell' reserved for them.

C & E, man, C&E.

Posted by jhappel on 10-08-2002 08:31 PM:

quote:
C & E, man, C&E

????????????????????????????????????????????????

__________________
Jonathan

Posted by Toby on 10-08-2002 08:43 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by jhappel

????????????????????????????????????????????????

Christmas & Easter.

Posted by terrysalmi on 10-08-2002 08:47 PM:

Hmm...I was thinking Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but to everyone their own...........

__________________

Friends don't let Friends vote Democrat
Victory 2002 - Republicans Win Control of the Senate
Now onto Victory 2004 - FOUR MORE YEARS

Posted by Toby on 10-08-2002 09:11 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by terrysalmi
Hmm...I was thinking Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but to everyone their own...........

If I'd meant that, I'd have said 'synagogue' and 'Gehenna'.

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-08-2002 10:05 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by terrysalmi
Hmm...I was thinking Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but to everyone their own...........

Except my reference to "C&E" was in response to Toby's comment about Hell--which I do not think is a Jewish belief.

Posted by Toby on 10-08-2002 10:19 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
Except my reference to "C&E" was in response to Toby's comment about Hell--which I do not think is a Jewish belief.

It's not a direct one-to-one, but Gehenna (or Gehinnom) is interpreted as a similar concept as is Sheol (which is also compared to Purgatory at times). That's not to say that the two are seen the same by each of the respective religions, though.

Posted by NeilMcD on 10-09-2002 01:39 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by terrysalmi
The ballots in New Jersey should NOT be destroyed and re-printed. Toricelli knew the laws of the State of New Jersey, and it was his choice to withdraw from the race this late. If this is able to happen, it will encourage parties to change their candidates just because the one they originally chose is not as strong as they would like.

The law is the LAW - no ifs, ands, or buts (unless, of course, your a democrat)

I'm a democrat and was born and raised in NJ. On one hand, I'm bothered by the precedent (and the obvious idiocy of NJ dems for even electing this guy in the Dem Primary...) and fear that it will start a similar examples where parties start switching a weaker (but elected) candidate with a stronger one closer to election day. Was Torricelli wrong waiting so long to drop out? Sure.. we all know he's a self-concieted a$$ who would rather stroke his own political ego.

On the other hand, I do agree with the Court's ruling: that the primary intent of the election is to provide the voting public with a fair choice of candidates.

So what's the right answer here? I don't know. I wonder if we should set up a system whereby if a candidate for office is unable or unwilling to be elected to office (by illness or death, resignation, whatever); the closest runner-up from the primary election should automatically take their place if they win the election.

Posted by jhappel on 10-09-2002 02:07 PM:

I agree (OMG we agree on something ) with terrysalmi

quote:
I was thinking Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur

being Jewish I would never have guessed Chistmas & Easter.

NeilMcD said:

quote:
I'm bothered by the precedent and fear that it will start a similar examples where parties start switching a weaker (but elected) candidate with a stronger one closer to election day.

Many states have specific laws and/or regulations for replacing a candidate who drops out that address all time frames, unlike NJ's which does not state what should be done less than 51 days before an election. For example, here in NY (where I am an officer of my county's Democratic Party) each party must set up a committee which has the responsibility to replace a candidate who drops out of an election. This committee has to be set up for each and every race from the town and village level up to the state level and the members of it must get a certain number of signatures (depending on the race) when petitions are carried to get the candidate(s) on the ballot. However, and it's a big however, a candidate CANNOT be replaced on a ballot after a certain point, I believe this would be approximately 9-10 weeks before the election, unless that candidate either:
1. Dies
2. Moves out of NYS
3. Is nominated to run in that election for a judgeship.
So in NYS we could not have the same substitution as NJ did. In fact, even though Andrew Cuomo has officially dropped out of the race for governor, he is still on the ballot on the Liberal Party line because none of the three above stituations apply.

Sorry for the length of this - but as some of you might have realized I am into politics in a big way.

__________________
Jonathan

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-09-2002 02:19 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by NeilMcD

On the other hand, I do agree with the Court's ruling: that the primary intent of the election is to provide the voting public with a fair choice of candidates.

See, I think that since they can write in whomever they choose, interpretting the law as prohibitting later ballot changes (not candidate changes) wouldn't disenfranchise anyone.

Posted by volcanopele on 10-09-2002 08:53 PM:

First, I should say that I am a republican and have been for as long as I can remember. I am voting for the first time in a general election this month.

On NJ: Just because it is technically correct doesn't make it right. I definitely hope that NJ fixes that loophole in their election law before another debocal like this Toricelli matter happens again. Democrats voted for Toricelli so unless he died (physically not politcally as in this case), he should be on the ballot. the democrats should have been stuck with him because that is what the democrats of New Jersey as a whole chose. And to say he was unelectable shouldn't have been theirs to decide. It should be the people of New Jersey. If Missouri can elect their late governor to the senate, then it is always possible that Toricelli could have won. Now we will never know.

Here in Arizona we have our own election fight for governor between Matt Salmon and Janet Napolitano. Why do I cringe whenever I see Janet Napolitano, I am not sure why. However, I am angered by a political ad put out by the Libertarian candidate attacking Janet Napolitano. While I wouldn't vote for her even if I had a gun to my head, that ad (say she, as Arizona attorney general, only went after sex offenders who molested girls, not boys) was disgraceful and completely uncalled for. This is where I see the problem with the who electorial process. Candidates have commericals that only attack the other candidate. I have no problem with ads pointing out the problems with the other candidates positions and political past, but it should go on to say why your candidate is better.

Jason

__________________
Did you just go near a burning hot river of lava or are you just happy to see me?

Posted by Toby on 10-10-2002 02:15 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by volcanopele
[...] However, I am angered by a political ad put out by the Libertarian candidate attacking Janet Napolitano. While I wouldn't vote for her even if I had a gun to my head, that ad (say she, as Arizona attorney general, only went after sex offenders who molested girls, not boys) was disgraceful and completely uncalled for. [...]

Is it factual? I'm more disturbed by attack ads which distort the truth rather than attack ads in general.

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-10-2002 06:39 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Is it factual? I'm more disturbed by attack ads which distort the truth rather than attack ads in general.

I tend to agree, although I would say that attack ads that are factual, but leave out additional key facts, are irritants as well...
Lying by omission.

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:09 PM.

Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page