Palpatine in '08

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . stuff a sock in it.

Good advice, follow it.

--Pete

[Frag]

Hi,
Good advice, follow it.

--Pete

Funny that you never do though, Pete.

I didn't get personal, and I find it sad you decided to. Honestly, I have nothing but pity for you since you don't seem to give two #$%&s about respect.

Cheers,
~Frag :(

[--Pete]

Hi,

I didn't get personal, . . .

This thread was civil enough until some jerk decided to be a censor.

Respect? Earn it and I'll give it. Meanwhile, look at the Jefferson quote in your signature. Either you don't understand what you quote or you are a hypocrite -- which should I respect?

--Pete

[Kevin]

#36 by Gnollguy

"I even voted for the dead man since I was in MO at the time and I had issues with Ashcroft"

Voting for dead people and convicted felons, of whom you know they will never get the job, just because you don't want other candidates to have their chance? Is that common practice over there? If so, maybe many of you deserve the circus that poses as your elections :glare:

It's a little more complicated than that. I was well informed that I was actually voting for the democrat who would be appointed by the governor and that democrat would be Carnahan's wife Jean. Of course it was more complex than that since Mel was the the governor until 2000.

Mel died in a plane crash 3 weeks before the election (with his son and a campaign advisor). Missouri election laws don't allow you to remove a name from the ballot that close to the election (probably an archaic law to insure time to get ballots ready, etc). When Mel died Roger Wilson became the acting governor. Via the Missouri law process Wilson was able to appoint the new dem canidate. There was some discussion and issues if it would be the dem Mel defeated in the primaries or someone else appointed by the party or just whoever Wilson wanted. Due process was followed and everyone knew that if Mel won that Jean Carnahan, his wife, would get the seat. There were even stickers and flyers and signs on the ballots and at the polling places that explained the situation for people who didn't see the TV or a newspaper or talk to anyone else living in the state for the 2 weeks prior to the election. So yes, my vote was technically for a dead man, but I knew that based on the laws of the state I was actually voting for Jean Carnahan so did anyone else with an IQ. I also knew that I would get to vote for the position again in 2002. Jean ran for the seat in 2002 and lost to James Talent by 22,000 votes, 49.8%-48.6%.

It's very possible that had Mel not died that Ashcroft would have defeated him. Ashcroft suspended his campaign, and Jean didn't campaign when she accepted the appointment to take the seat if Mel won. She filmed one commercial. However since they had a home here in Rolla I got to have a little more info from people that talked to her. But the race was very very close and the sympathy vote might have swayed the election. For the record I was mostly happy with Jean's voting record too. When Bush appointed Ashcroft Attorney General in 2000 I felt even more validated for voting against him. I was not happy with some of what he championed, some of the sections of the Patriot Act in particular, many of which he was very heavily involved in writing. I blame him for impinging on some of my liberties.

So no, I didn't actually vote for a dead me. I technically voted for a dead man, but I vote for Jean Carnahan because I thought she would do a better job than Ashcroft and while she did just fine in her 2 years in the senate, that close race between her and Talent had me on the side of Talent, because Talent disagreed with Ashcroft on the issues that I had the bigger concerns about and I generally prefered the rest of the Republican platform at the time on state issues. Though of course it's a bit foolish to think your senator actually represents you state level issues in congress even when they are supposed to. Most of what I wanted to happen, Talent voted the way I wanted most of the time but still actually came out on the losing side of the votes and yes he was generally voting against the party on those issues.

Does that make it clearer? It's actually kind of fun to say I voted for a dead man, technically I did, but I was well aware of who I was voting for when I voted and I believe everyone else who voted for Carnahan were too.

[Taem]

Forum Rules - The Lurker Lounge

Read them guys, and while the exact descriptions under the two rules I'm about to invoke aren't specifically applicable, they certainly do seem to common-sense apply:

<span style="color:#FF9900">Keep on topic.
<span style="color:#FF9900">Avoid hotbutton issues.

The OP posted a bit of humor and we're now far off-topic covering flamebait.

If you have some respect for those who abide by the etiquette here, please take it to whispers or stuff a sock in it.

Cheers,
~Frag B)

I'm not too sure too what you are reffering, because I have been following this topic and all it's threads with mild interest and haven't seen anything I'd mistake for a "flame" quite yet. Yeah, the possibility is there if someone will reach out and take it, but I feel most of us here are too civil to take that bait. Perhaps a missed a thread, but even if so, shouldn't those people who infringed be warned in a private PM?

As for the staying on topic...:lol:. No, but seriously, isin't that what threaded view is for? I honestly don't recall a single one of my topics staying on topic once, and to be honest, I find it quite interesting to see where the conversations go, what drives other peoples interest. Besides, if people want to reply to that particular subject, the threaded view allows them too (for the most part - Bolty could stand to upgrade the software...).

Just my 2-cents, whatever that's worth nowadays.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Just my 2-cents, whatever that's worth nowadays.

A couple of shares in any major corporation. :lol::lol::lol:

--Pete

[Zenda]

Missouri election laws don't allow you to remove a name from the ballot that close to the election

If that law extends to obvious invalid candidates, it might require some adjustment, I'd say. Then again, it seems that some voters are quite content with it, since it gives them some extra 'opportunities'. And in using it, they help to keep the practice in existence. But my question was how common this is. Do most Americans perceive this as normal practice?

[Jester]

Hi,
A couple of shares in any major corporation. :lol::lol::lol:

--Pete

Not Volkswagen, much to the consternation of the hedge funds. ;)

-Jester

[swirly]

The details of the process vary from state to state and are covered by state, not federal, law.

Correct and here is a link with some information on what actually happens in Alaska (since this measure passed in 2004).

http://www.ncsl.org/ncsldb/elect98/irsrc...recid=2330

This measure would repeal state law that allows the Governor to appoint a person to temporarily fill a vacant seat in the United States Senate until an election can be held and certified. Under this measure a vacated seat would remain vacant for three to five months, leaving Alaska without full representation in the Senate. Other provisions are identical to existing law and those parts of the law remain unchanged. Current law requires that a senate vacancy be filled by special election, or regular election if the vacancy occurs less than 60 days before the primary election for that seat.

So my understanding is that if, after being elected, Stevens steps down or gets kicked out then a special election must happen and the seat is vacant till that election is over.

[Frag]

Hi,
This thread was civil enough until some jerk decided to be a censor.

Respect? Earn it and I'll give it. Meanwhile, look at the Jefferson quote in your signature. Either you don't understand what you quote or you are a hypocrite -- which should I respect?

--Pete

I wasn't talking about respect for myself, I was speaking of respect for the OP and his topic. Hell, Pete, I wasn't even considering what you'd posted in the thread so far as really what was at issue (You mostly responded to questions or offered insight, not trolled). As for my quote, 'now and then' means just that, not constantly pushing the envelope because one gets their jollies from the rush.

I'm not too sure too what you are reffering, because I have been following this topic and all it's threads with mild interest and haven't seen anything I'd mistake for a "flame" quite yet. Yeah, the possibility is there if someone will reach out and take it, but I feel most of us here are too civil to take that bait. Perhaps a missed a thread, but even if so, shouldn't those people who infringed be warned in a private PM?

Here's some of the things I saw skimming the thread that were hotbutton, though really the problem I saw was that again one of my friends make one of their first posts here about something that found interesting or witty or whatever and yet again it was pulled off topic, and nearly or did run into flames and left them with a recalcitrant feeling.

American's have no clue what liberty or freedom mean anymore, why should they care that their government has descended into kakistocracy.

It's all well and good to be high-minded and post-racial, but perhaps one might want to wait for at least one president from each historically excluded category (non-white ethnicities, women, gays, non-christian religions, atheists...) before you start lecturing people over it.

Voting for dead people and convicted felons, of whom you know they will never get the job, just because you don't want other candidates to have their chance? Is that common practice over there? If so, maybe many of you deserve the circus that poses as your elections glare.gif

All of those followed this post:

Here's a video for the Star Wars fans, not sure how old it is so sorry if it's been posted previously.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/a863be2...m-fod-team

Just a little election day humor for the lounge.

Which if you'll note is Palpy's second post. Nearly same thing happened with one of my best friends' first post here.

I don't have any power here more than my arguments can sway for me, and thus I didn't feel making a PM would have any more impact than just asking that we all follow the forum rules we agreed to abide by when we signed up here.

Regards,
~FragB)

Edit: Golden Rule & Idiocy

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . just asking that we all follow the forum rules . . .

Do you know why this place is called the Lurker Lounge? A long time ago in a forum far away some people stressed the importance of lurking for a while before posting.

Sorry if your friend was offended that people actually read and replied to his post, but had he lurked, he would have seen that the consequences were inevitable. That is and has been the nature of the Lounge all along.

--Pete

[Kevin]

If that law extends to obvious invalid candidates, it might require some adjustment, I'd say. Then again, it seems that some voters are quite content with it, since it gives them some extra 'opportunities'. And in using it, they help to keep the practice in existence. But my question was how common this is. Do most Americans perceive this as normal practice?

It probably does require adjustment, but again, it is far from common. This was the first case in the history of the US that someone was voted into the Senate posthumously. Though I believe it happened 3 times with people in the House of Representatives, and as I recall one of those cases was people of that district doing so as a form of protest.

The law about changing the ballot may need to be looked at and modified, but it's actually there as a form of protection not some kinda of odd loophole. The law doesn't really care about the reasons why you would want to change the ballot. There are lots of reasons, legitimate and not. People used to change ballots to put a candidate on it that had a name very similar to another candidate in order to try and pull votes away from the one, etc.

Another reason for laws that don't let you change ballots more than X time from the election is because of absentee balloting. You don't want people who for whatever reason (say they are over in England for 4 months but are still a US citizen) to be voting on candidates that are on a ballot that suddenly isn't the same as what the folks voting at the polls are voting on. On and in the case of Aschcroft v Carnahan, anyone who had voted before Caranahan died was issued a new ballot with the option to vote again or stay with their original absentee ballot.

[swirly]

Which if you'll note is Vecindak's second post.

First post, second post, 5,000th post makes no difference. Every post should get treated the same way.

My feelings in regard to this thread is that it is perfectly fine. The original post was "Just a little election day humor for the lounge.", but if you make a post about voting/elections even in humor then I don't think it is off topic for the thread to venture into more serious discussions about it.

The lounge is a harsh place. People are supposed to lurk first and get a feel for how people post and respond before posting. So if a person posts and replies that are made make them feel recalcitrant then my feeling is that they didn't take enough time to prepare themselves. Anybody who reads the lounge should quickly get the understanding that no post is safe. Everything posted will get analyzed, discussed, and argued about.

As I said, I think the replies here are fine. In fact I hope they continue despite your protest. I am rather enjoying the thread.

[Zenda]

but if you make a post about voting/elections even in humor then I don't think it is off topic for the thread to venture into more serious discussions about it.

I disagree with that, even though I'm as guilty as the rest. Shouldn't 'Joke' threads stay funny? If the original poster intended to start one, perhaps we indeed should have kept it free from serious discussions.

[Palpy]

Well that took a tailspin fast in the last few posts. I've been reading the post slowly over the last few days. I just want to say that I take no offense to anything mentioned here and much of it was interesting in a Trivial Pursuit kind of way. As to whether it violates any forum rules I'll decline comment.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Well that took a tailspin fast in the last few posts. I've been reading the post slowly over the last few days. I just want to say that I take no offense to anything mentioned here and much of it was interesting in a Trivial Pursuit kind of way. As to whether it violates any forum rules I'll decline comment.

Welcome to the Lounge.:)

--Pete

[Hammerskjold]

I disagree with that, even though I'm as guilty as the rest. Shouldn't 'Joke' threads stay funny?

Probably, yes. IMO more so out of the need for the funny over any need for being overly strict about rules.

If the original poster intended to start one, perhaps we indeed should have kept it free from serious discussions.

The topic does include the topic of 'elections' and implicit in that, politics. So yes, I'd say we're pretty successful in keeping it relatively free of seriousness. ;)

Ok on a more serious note. To the best of my recollection, the LL is a relatively unique forum among many in the innernets. In that someone can post something, and it can branch out in different directions. But once it's posted, no one really 'owns' a thread.

But I could be wrong, and if so I humbly pledge my loyalty to our new Alien Overlords and may I say I can be helpful in rounding up the other human posters where they can toil in underground data mines.

Alright what's the original topic again, humour and the US elections? Honestly, this election cycle IMO almost doesn't need any humour augmentation. The jokes almost writes themselves.

Giulianni banking on a Florida strategy? Fred Thompson doing the 'I don't want this job which is why I want this job' angle? Biden's foot in mouth disease? McCain's dramatic campaign suspension? Hillary's Bosnian sniper story? Chuck Norris stumping for Huckabee?

Sarah Palinisms? But my fave of the day? Joe Libermann's 'the election is over...come on guys, I'm an Independent but you know I'm really a (Insert whichever party can be beneficial to Droopy Dog at the moment.)

[kandrathe]

So two psychics meet on the street and one says, "You're fine, but how am I?"

A sign at the local castle stable reads, "This stall reserved for the mare of the wizard, violators will be toad."

[NuurAbSaal]

A sign at the local castle stable reads, "This stall reserved for the mare of the wizard, violators will be toad."

:D

Thanks for that one, never heard it before. Could be straight out of a Pratchett book, and that's the high praise I reckon.

take care
Tarabulus

[Sir_Die_alot]

Hi,
A couple of shares in any major corporation. :lol::lol::lol:

--Pete

THAT is funny!:w00t: