SAM News Corp. Comment and Debate thread

[jokerman]

I called you on your bullsh**t and you couldn't take the heat so you've gone off the deep end with a bunch of whatever.

The fact is that you've always been a leading attacker of the alleged FEC, and this was why you wrote your multi-post report about FEC related activities (Though it should be noted, you found no actual evidence of anything involving the FEC, all you did was to out Ben Meyers.  What society has gained from that little vendetta of yours remains unclear) making it quite clear you are now the leading FEC conspiracy theorist on these boards.

It should also be noted, and you can verify this if you like, that my page on the FEC for the Wiki was written last night, long before you decided to attack me.

Ebowed voted against initiative 59, and he has constantly made it clear that he opposes the idea of there actually being a FEC.  In fact the "FEC" was not invented by Ebowed, me, or even Harry, yet I think Joe Republic.

As for Ebowed',s "vendetta" against Ben, I do think he was justified in doing what he did.  It also had nothing to do with the so called "FEC," no one has every claimed Ben to be a part of.  Obviously, Ben has cleared this up by explaining the matter regarding that guy at his school.  Yet what if that hadn't been the case?  We would have gained valuable information of a serious scandal committed by a forum member running for office.  I think the truth should be pursued at all lengths, and I commend those who delve in, investigate, and find it.

[jokerman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would have to agree with many of the sentiments that you express in these two paragraphs:

There remain at least 3 unanswered questions from the last election:

1. Vice President-less ballots
2. The problem surrounding Tweed's activity requirement disqualification(or not)
3. Ben Meyers' vote in the Senate elections.,

True: there is need to address the problems of tactical voting within the present system and that can only be done by statute, but the problems surrounding these three issues could easily be decided in the Courts.

Unfortunately the Court can only react to what is brought to it, it cannot be proactive unlike the Senate and the Executive, and this was taken to ridiculous extremes in the last election. The Senate (amazingly on the advice of one of the forum's most prominent strict constructionists) actively assumed the power to declare the result of a controversial Presidential election as its own, one that by all indication of the text of the Constituition belongs to the Supreme Court.

I have to ask what sort of precedent this has set - is every controversial election result now going to be decided by a show of hands in the Senate?

I share all of your concerns.  I demand that an accurate count of the election results is produced.  I have already gone over Ilikeverin's count and proven it to contain several errors, yet the Senate has taken the liberty of deciding the Presidency by itself.

[jokerman]

The SoFA's election count was not legitiment.

[jokerman]

The SoFA's election count was not legitiment.

That is very true.  However, the case of whether it was legitimate is a good question.

wtf grammer police?!?!?!?

[jokerman]

Fact is the ones involved settled it like adults and didn't need the court so the hindsight is useless.
Not you Q Bell.

Damn the "settling" of a few high power individuals.  It is not their constitutional power to do so.  This democratic republic cannot survive if we do not have strict accountability in our elections to produce one clear result with all disputes resolved by the proper authorities as dignified by the constitution.

[jokerman]

Fact is the ones involved settled it like adults and didn't need the court so the hindsight is useless.
Not you Q Bell.

Damn the "settling" of a few high power individuals.  It is not their constitutional power to do so.  This democratic republic cannot survive if we do not have strict accountability in our elections to produce one clear result with all disputes resolved by the proper authorities as dignified by the constitution.

Sour Grapes

I preferenced Joe Republic higher than Emsworth (2nd versus 3rd) and I would still probably prefer him to Emsworth.  My opinion on this matter is not shaped by any corrupt commitment to getting one candidate elected but my firm commitment to a strong and healthy democracy.  Nice try in turning the debate into a personal attack on me.

[jokerman]

I must say we need more than one GMs.  I say this in no offense to Sam at all but it is such a time comsuming job.  I think we should have two for economics and budget, one for international issues, and one to generate non-economic domestic scenarios.