This Whole Affair STINKS -- the new vote is REALLY invalid

[Beet]

I'm talking about ex post facto not de facto. No ex post facto means you cannot pass a law or rule which convicts someone of a crime if, at the time they commited the "crime" (and i use the word very loosely), there was no law or rule in place against their act. There was no law preventing us from assenting to particiapte in Lewis's vote thread at the time, and any law passed now can only be forward looking; cannot convict him, or anyone who voted in his thread, of something they had no reason to expect was violating the law or rule, at that time. This is one of the most fundamental tenents of a democracy.

[JohnFKennedy]

I'm talking about ex post facto not de facto. No ex post facto means you cannot pass a law or rule which convicts someone of a crime if, at the time they commited the "crime" (and i use the word very loosely), there was no law or rule in place against their act. There was no law preventing us from assenting to particiapte in Lewis's vote thread at the time, and any law passed now can only be forward looking; cannot convict him, or anyone who voted in his thread, of something they had no reason to expect was violating the law or rule, at that time. This is one of the most fundamental tenents of a democracy.

I know what ex post facto means, I wasn't specifically referring to that post at the time, there has been throwing around of the phrase de facto around here which is not legally binding.

[Beet]

I second you beet. great post

Thank you dunn, I just saw your post in a myriad of bickering.

[dunn]

I second you beet. great post

Thank you dunn, I just saw your post in a myriad of bickering.

lol

[Demrepdan]

DemRepDan, who ran against Nym and Harry in the presidential election, and voted against the administration on the preferential voting amendment, is now trying to overturn that vote because it didn't turn out the way he wanted.  If the administration in anyway did not endorse the vote Lewis started, they should have objected before the vote was finished.

HEY HEY HEY HEY!!!

I take great offense to that. I did NOT make the new thread because it "didn't turn out the way I wanted it to." I made it to SHUT EVERYONE THE HELL UP! Because people kept bitching about it.....but evidently the bitching continues.....

I myself am NOT for preferential voting....I voted against it...and NEVER changed my vote OR opinion on the matter. Although I admitidly did make a mistake...by voting on this issue in the first place.....I should have said something about it THEN....in protest.....but I wasn't thinking.....because we had about 4 other VOTING rooms....dealing with other things.....that were never approved by anyone....because too many people are making POLLS. Taking it into their own hands.

I have stated MANY times....even to the President himself....that although I am AGAINST preferential voting.....I don't really give a damn how this turns out! If it PASSES it does.....NO BIG DEAL.....and I will GLADLY right it into the constitution...and accept it as LAW. I didn't make the poll for political purposes......now if I were to REFUSE to write preferential voting into the constitution after it had been passed.....then yes......then you CAN accuse me of trying to push my ideas and make sure they pass in to forum.
Until that happens.....get off your high horse and shut up!

I thought.....as many others did......that the idea of having amendments to be voted on....as WELL as preferential voting that shouldn't have even been in that CATEGORY......was VERY unfair....

We were voting on something things to be taken OUT of the constitution.....(those 5 amendments)....and then we throw in this PREVENTIAL voting....thinking that no one will notice...

If ANYTHING.....I would accuse LEWIS of pushing his poltical notebook to the people.....trying to get it to pass....but I'm not going to ATTACK someone to make people come to my side....like you guys......