2016 N.H. ballot challenges (heard Nov. 24, 2015)

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12999
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (set for Nov. 24)

#101

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:29 am

So the NH commission got together and determined(unanimously it seems) that the candidates, or at least their underlings, were smart enough to properly fill out the forms, the things I miss when I sleep through the day, not that it would have been worth being awake for. I actually thought they might balk at two of them not really being registered candidates for the parties they are claiming to be registered for, but apparently the parties all said they really were, so no valid challenge point there. I do wish the NH commission would have the intellectual, or is it moral, honesty to come right out and say that they DON"T have any authority to review any other kind of eligibility other than that of the forms being properly completed.

Nice to see that Blovario has a little regard for state law as he does the Federal, and at least as good an understanding. He's nothing if not consistent(ly stupid and intellectually dishonest).


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (set for Nov. 24)

#102

Post by SueDB » Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:11 am

Putzy hasn't done anything for a while...so he hasn't lost. This gives him a chance to jump on the fail wagon and waller in the mud with the morans.


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27351
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (set for Nov. 24)

#103

Post by bob » Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:28 am

Foggy wrote:I left a comment at Mario's blog. He saw fit to write a new post, and I thought I'd give him a poke for old time's sake. In case it doesn't get through moderation
Apuzzo approved your comment.

Since we're auto-horn-tooting, Apuzzo's new post is based on me trolling him at WFP. :dance:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

noblepa
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (set for Nov. 24)

#104

Post by noblepa » Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:11 am

bob wrote:
Foggy wrote:I left a comment at Mario's blog. He saw fit to write a new post, and I thought I'd give him a poke for old time's sake. In case it doesn't get through moderation
Apuzzo approved your comment.

Since we're auto-horn-tooting, Apuzzo's new post is based on me trolling him at WFP. :dance:
I approve of Foggy's comment, as well, not that anyone cares.

He correctly points out the reason for the fact that treason is the only crime specifically defined in the Constitution. In 18th century Europe, treason seems to have been very loosely defined and used against political enemies, in order to silence them.

The constitutional definition of treason is so narrowly defined, that it is very rarely used. Even the Rosenbergs, who in the fifties were convicted and executed for selling secrets of the atom bomb to the USSR, were not accused of treason, only espionage. I don't mean to open a discussion of whether or not the Rosenbergs actually did the things they were accused of. There is still some controversy over that. But the fact is that, even in the anti-soviet hysteria of the fifties, the government did not try to bring charges of treason against them, because even if they did the things they were charged with, it did not fit the legal definition of treason.

Eddie Slovik, the only American soldier executed for desertion during WW II, was not charged with treason, even though his crimes occured on a battlefield, or at least in a "theater of operations".

The framers were rightly wary of the political intrigues that were commonplace in Europe. That is why the treason definition is there. That is why members of Congress can not be arrested while Congress is in session. That was another favorite trick. Have your political opponent arrested on some trumped up charge until after a crucial parliamentary vote was completed.


My America already IS great. Sorry about yours, Donald.

User avatar
Slarti the White
Posts: 7048
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (set for Nov. 24)

#105

Post by Slarti the White » Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:16 am

bob wrote:
Foggy wrote:I left a comment at Mario's blog. He saw fit to write a new post, and I thought I'd give him a poke for old time's sake. In case it doesn't get through moderation
Apuzzo approved your comment.

Since we're auto-horn-tooting, Apuzzo's new post is based on me trolling him at WFP. :dance:
I take it you are "Mr. Mayor"?


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27351
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (set for Nov. 24)

#106

Post by bob » Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:27 am

Slartibartfast wrote:I take it you are "Mr. Mayor"?
No; hizhonor is substantively engaging Apuzzo, which I don't do.

Rather, I (bob) just pointed out that while a real-life eligibility challenge was happening in New Hampshire, Apuzzo continued to waste his energy in comment sections. Which prompted an Apuzzo comment (at WFP) that was the basis for his new blog post.


Too also: Taitz is so bizzy reading headlines that she hasn't even acknowledged the failed challenges to Cruz and Rubio, despite her believing them to be ineligible. Yet in 2011 -- when it was Obama on the ballot -- Taitz couldn't get on a plane to New Hampshire fast enough. :think:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (set for Nov. 24)

#107

Post by BillTheCat » Wed Nov 25, 2015 12:21 pm

bob wrote: when it was Obama on the ballot -- Taitz couldn't get on a plane to New Hampshire fast enough. :think:
Silly you. Neither of those two candidates are Blah People, so no emergency here.


'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27351
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (set for Nov. 24)

#108

Post by bob » Wed Nov 25, 2015 2:02 pm

"For the record," South Carolina is the next primary.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15878
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (heard Nov. 24, 2015)

#109

Post by Reality Check » Wed Nov 25, 2015 2:30 pm

Apuzzo wrote a two part answer to Foggy. What a surprise that it is two parts! :rotflmao:


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45284
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (heard Nov. 24, 2015)

#110

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Nov 25, 2015 2:42 pm

More scornful bloviations. When Blovario uses the word "treason" it means exactly what he wants it to mean. Nothing more and nothing less.

So Blovario is really Humpty Dumpty.



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15878
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (heard Nov. 24, 2015)

#111

Post by Reality Check » Wed Nov 25, 2015 2:45 pm

By his own definition he is guilty of "treason against the Constitution".


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (heard Nov. 24, 2015)

#112

Post by BillTheCat » Wed Nov 25, 2015 2:48 pm

Reality Check wrote:Apuzzo wrote a two part answer to Foggy. What a surprise that it is two parts! :rotflmao:
Irony Meter-Breaking Line Of The Screed:
"You cannot legitimately claim a win in an argument simply by asserting that you have won"
I don't even. :dazed:


'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
Slarti the White
Posts: 7048
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (heard Nov. 24, 2015)

#113

Post by Slarti the White » Wed Nov 25, 2015 2:49 pm

Reality Check wrote:Apuzzo wrote a two part answer to Foggy. What a surprise that it is two parts! :rotflmao:
That's nothing. I once got a 16 point bloviation in 7 parts. For Luigi, two parts is pretty much phoning it in. I'm not surprised that Foggy's comment was published though---as long as there is content that is sufficiently "legalistic" for Mario, he'll let it through.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12999
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (heard Nov. 24, 2015)

#114

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Nov 25, 2015 2:50 pm

Reality Check wrote:Apuzzo wrote a two part answer to Foggy. What a surprise that it is two parts! :rotflmao:
There has to be at least three or four or maybe even five or it isn't real a genuine Blovario.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Slarti the White
Posts: 7048
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (heard Nov. 24, 2015)

#115

Post by Slarti the White » Wed Nov 25, 2015 2:53 pm

BillTheCat wrote:
Reality Check wrote:Apuzzo wrote a two part answer to Foggy. What a surprise that it is two parts! :rotflmao:
Irony Meter-Breaking Line Of The Screed:
"You cannot legitimately claim a win in an argument simply by asserting that you have won"
I don't even. :dazed:
I think I have to steal that. :think: Maybe someone should call my sponsor...


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15878
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (heard Nov. 24, 2015)

#116

Post by Reality Check » Wed Nov 25, 2015 2:57 pm

So a two parter is about one star on the Bloviaro scale? :think:


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15878
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (heard Nov. 24, 2015)

#117

Post by Reality Check » Wed Nov 25, 2015 2:59 pm

Bloviaro wrote: Winning is convincing others of your point of view, which you have failed to do, but which my research, evidence, writing, and reason have done
He has done especially well with judges. :lol:


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 8206
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (set for Nov. 24)

#118

Post by RoadScholar » Wed Nov 25, 2015 3:02 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Hey, birthers -- put your money where you mouth is and hire me! :mememe:

I'll give Cruz a run for his money.
Careful. Al Henver might take offense at that notion! :roll:


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45284
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (heard Nov. 24, 2015)

#119

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Nov 25, 2015 3:34 pm

:lol:



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 29111
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (heard Nov. 24, 2015)

#120

Post by Foggy » Wed Nov 25, 2015 4:33 pm

Reality Check wrote:Apuzzo wrote a two part answer to Foggy. What a surprise that it is two parts! :rotflmao:
I'm not going to read it. I wanted to annoy him, not engage in a dialog.


I put the 'fun' in dysfunctional.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 29111
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (heard Nov. 24, 2015)

#121

Post by Foggy » Wed Nov 25, 2015 4:33 pm

Reality Check wrote:By his own definition he is guilty of "treason against the Constitution".
Who, me? :bag:


I put the 'fun' in dysfunctional.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27351
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (heard Nov. 24, 2015)

#122

Post by bob » Wed Nov 25, 2015 4:40 pm

Foggy wrote:I'm not going to read it. I wanted to annoy him, not engage in a dialog.
You missed nothing: Same :yankyank: , different day.

It is often easier to leave snark than to substantively reply. Which is why Apuzzo recycles his responses so much.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Slarti the White
Posts: 7048
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (heard Nov. 24, 2015)

#123

Post by Slarti the White » Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:02 pm

Foggy wrote:
Reality Check wrote:Apuzzo wrote a two part answer to Foggy. What a surprise that it is two parts! :rotflmao:
I'm not going to read it. I wanted to annoy him, not engage in a dialog.
Since Luigi is incapable of having an honest dialog, annoying him is much more satisfying.
:towel:


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27351
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (heard Nov. 24, 2015)

#124

Post by bob » Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:04 pm

"You cannot legitimately claim a win in an argument simply by asserting that you have won"
Apuzzo didn't exactly write that; a commenter (Zammo See) wrote:
Zammo See wrote:For the record: you cannot legitimately claim a win in an argument simply by asserting that you have won; winning an argument is achieved by convincing others of your point of view, which you have repeatedly failed to do.
Apuzzo, who likes to parrot, responded:
Apuzzo wrote:You cannot legitimately claim a win in an argument simply by asserting that you have won, without providing historical and legal evidence and reason demonstrating that you have the winning argument. Winning is convincing others of your point of view, which you have failed to do, but which I have done through my research, evidence, writing, and reasoning.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45284
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: 2016 N.H. ballot challenges (heard Nov. 24, 2015)

#125

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:12 pm

Other than convincing his patron the slimeball Charles Kerchner, who has Apuzzo convinced exactly? Himself? That doesn't count.

Apuzzo remains a pathetic klown.



Post Reply

Return to “State Ballot Challenges”