McCain and the GOP Sue Bob Barr

[shira]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dawp
If I remember right, the dems never tried this with Nader, thou they did ask him not to run in 2004, but didn't sue to remove him from the ballets.

Goes to show how desperate the GOP really is.

The dems sued him in 17 states to keep him off the ballot. In the process actually sued his campaign for legal expenses incurred in suing him in Penn. Which imo sets a precident about trying to get 3rd party candidates on the ballot. You better have all of your ducks in order because the two big parties will sue you. If they win, you have to pay their legal expenses as well.

Arizona
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com...004/06/21/daily44.html

Arkansas
http://www.democraticundergrou...all&address=102x817248

Florida
http://www.democraticundergrou...all&address=102x797391

Washington
http://community.seattletimes....=20040909&slug=dige09m

Dems sue and win lawyer costs

http://www.opednews.com/articl...preme_court_hits_r.htm

Naturally, you completely evaded the central point: McCain promised in 2000 to "never consider, ever consider, allowing a supporter of [his] to challenge [his opponent]'s right to be on the ballot in all 50 states.''

IOW, McCain broke his promise.

I'm not aware the the Dems made such a promise, so your links are irrelevant.

Zing

If I have never made a promise not to murder my neighbor, does that then make it OK for me to do so? I mean, I never promised not to, so it must be OK in your eyes. Right?

Promise or no, the act itself remains odious.

ZV

Your point, apparently, is that one candidate suing to remove another from the ballot is inherently odious.

I disagree. Suppose, for example, a candidate was able to gather sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot by paying $100 to each person who signs the petition. I'm guessing that would be illegal. I think we'd all agree that suing to remove such a candidate from the ballot would be the right thing to do.

But in the current case, the allegations made against Barr are absurd (see my earlier posts), especially since there's no evidence whatsoever (and nothing is offered by the petitioner) to suggest that Barr has himself done anything wrong.

To sum this up: It's one thing to act against corrupt and/or lawbreaking opponents; it's another to act against an opponent who has clearly received sufficient support (all by himself) from voters to qualify for the ballot. And under this latter condition, McCain has clearly violated his promise.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I provided all the information you require. It isnt my fault you are too stupid to understand it.

No. You've provided all the information of which you're capable. That's okay; it would be unreasonable of me to expect more: a man's GOT to know his inferior's limitations.

 

[bamacre]

This whole off-topic argument with Genx87 is absurd.

It all started with dawp's comment...

Originally posted by: dawp
If I remember right, the dems never tried this with Nader,

And all Genx87 did was point out that dawp didn't "remember right."

End of discussion.

Of course it wasn't the end because the resident Democrat apologists cannot accept any wrong-doing in their own party. So, they misdirected, misquoted, and diverted the argument so they can all feel safe with the false notion that corruption and power and greed end at the Republican party, and that their party is the good guy.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: bamacre
This whole off-topic argument with Genx87 is absurd.

It all started with dawp's comment...

Originally posted by: dawp
If I remember right, the dems never tried this with Nader,

And all Genx87 did was point out that dawp didn't "remember right."

End of discussion.

Of course it wasn't the end because the resident Democrat apologists cannot accept any wrong-doing in their own party. So, they misdirected, misquoted, and diverted the argument so they can all feel safe with the false notion that corruption and power and greed end at the Republican party, and that their party is the good guy.

Thank you. And with that it is end of discussion on this end.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: bamacre
This whole off-topic argument with Genx87 is absurd.

It all started with dawp's comment...

Originally posted by: dawp
If I remember right, the dems never tried this with Nader,

And all Genx87 did was point out that dawp didn't "remember right."

End of discussion.

Of course it wasn't the end because the resident Democrat apologists cannot accept any wrong-doing in their own party. So, they misdirected, misquoted, and diverted the argument so they can all feel safe with the false notion that corruption and power and greed end at the Republican party, and that their party is the good guy.

Not sure who that line is directed at but I don't think any of the 'resident Democrat apologists' feel the party is perfect. I consider them to be the lesser of 2 evils but definitely not blameless.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: bamacre
This whole off-topic argument with Genx87 is absurd.

It all started with dawp's comment...

Originally posted by: dawp
If I remember right, the dems never tried this with Nader,

And all Genx87 did was point out that dawp didn't "remember right."

End of discussion.

Of course it wasn't the end because the resident Democrat apologists cannot accept any wrong-doing in their own party. So, they misdirected, misquoted, and diverted the argument so they can all feel safe with the false notion that corruption and power and greed end at the Republican party, and that their party is the good guy.

Thank you. And with that it is end of discussion on this end.

HEY!, I took your side in this whole debacle as well way back at the top of this page!