Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
November 9, 2007
POLITICS: We Were Just Kidding About That Democracy Business

Apparently Gov. Corzine intends to go forward with his stem cell plan even after the voters rejected it.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:00 PM | Politics 2007 | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

Libs never let a little thing like a vote of the people get in their way.

Posted by: maddirishman at November 10, 2007 7:24 PM

I'm tempted to comment, but this action is such a classic example of political arrogance, that I do not think that any point made by me can say more than what the Governor of NJ is telling voters. "Let them eat cake..."? Or eat something else perhaps?

Posted by: NRA Life Member at November 10, 2007 7:36 PM

Wow, you Conservative Bloggers make me laugh sometimes in your lapses in consistency...

OK, Mr. NRA, what about Proposition 215 in California (medical marijuana)? The majority of people in your state voted for this law back in 1996, didn't they?

Now, Bush and his DEA cronies are essentially saying, "Too bad, we supercede this law..."

It's "Big Government Stay Out/States' Rights" ONLY when it's an issue that the Republicans agree with. Otherwise, they have a complete disregard for the voters of a state...

I know, I know, I've got this one wrong too, don't I? It's not Bush who's cracking down on Prop 215, it's actually Hillary...

Posted by: crystal at November 11, 2007 7:50 PM

crystal - Please explain, if you are familiar with the concept, the difference between the federal and state governments.

Posted by: The Crank at November 11, 2007 8:29 PM

Your response is nonsensical, and avoids the question. I'll repeat...

Please explain, Crank, why the Federal Goverment (BushCheney) would interfere with the wish of the voters of California, which is to have medical marijuana available legally? Has the DEA not recently cracked down on the places that sell this stuff to the sick people of California, ignoring state law?

Once again, Bush and his followers give lip service to the notion of small Federal Government, but only on certain hot button issues. I'm not sure what's so "small" about the expenditures in Iraq or the vast amounts of corporate welfare that is doled out, but Bush is pretty good at creating alternate realities.

Let me explain this using another angle. If any court, even the "Supreme" Court makes a decision that the Republicans like, then the court acted appropriately. For instance, when they voted to give the 2000 Election to Bush over Gore, that was a "good" decision.

However, when the court decides against Republican dictate, it's due to "activist judges." See the hypocrisy? For example, any decision that goes against school prayer or favors abortion rights is obviously the doing of "activist judges" because it doesn't follow the GOP dictates. See?

The whole point is this: your article accused the NJ governor of "ignoring" the will of the people and going ahead with stem cell financing. Well for one, the overwhelming majority of voters in NJ agree with this concept, despite the efforts of local "Right to Life" groups. They just don't want to pay for it, surprise, surprise. I ask you for th umpteenth time, since when do all contingents get to pick and choose how their tax money is spent? I'm sure there are some issues you disagree with where tax money is going, and the same for me. This is just another example...

The problem is when you try to paint Democrats as something that Republicans are not, which in this case is a party that "disregards" the wishes of the voters. You accuse the NJ governor of this and you have, or will, accuse Hillary of similar offenses. But I bet you weren't up in arms against the Impeachment of Clinton back in 1998, were you? Why not? The majority of voters saw it as a waste of time and money. We can't have an election to decide every issue, so when people contact their representative and that person votes the other way, what is that? My representatives vote different than my wishes (I live in Kentucky) almost every time, despite my phone calls, emails, and letters. I feel disenfranchised. Oh yeah, my state, despite being ass-poor and backward is pretty solidly Republican. Imagine that. I bet the elite rich are just laughing their asses off on that coup -- on how they convinced the Beverly Hillbillies to vote against their best interests and join the GOP...

...But I digress...The federal and state goverment, to answer your question, are distinct entities. You insult my intelligence to assume I don't know the difference. Meanwhile, you insult everyone else's intelligence by constantly pretending like the GOP is somehow "above" these supposed various wrongdoings you so willingly fling at the Democrats.

The point is this: Bush is the one that needs a lesson on what the difference between the Federal and State goverment is, not me. He has a double standard: he's very vocally "States' Rights" (wasn't that the philosophy of the Confederacy?) UNLESS it's an issue he disagrees with, then he trumps whatever the voters of a state want with his Federal mallet.

Another example? Well, back to California, which is sorta the "anti-America" at this point. See, California wants to have stricter environmental laws for car emissions. But they can't until they get "permission" from the EPA, which used to be a Federal agency that protected the environment. It wasn't mentioned in the Constitution, so you probably don't recognize it, Crank...

Anyway, now the EPA won't give permission. Why? Well, I believe it's because these restrictions will "restrict" the profits of car manufacturers. You see, in our society, wealthy corporations, like auto makers, and dirt poor trailer trash, like those that live in my state, are in the same political party. Confused? Me too...

So, you see, Bush defines State government as this: that sometimes pesky local entity that I'll defer to as a cop-out when I agree with them, but whom I'll ignore if they disagree with my wishes.

State laws differ from state to state, but Federal law is allegedly for all 50 states, right? For instance, if spying is illegal, federally, then it's not like spying is legal in Texas. Well, that's a bad example. It's not like spying is legal in Idaho, is it? Another example: perhaps radar detectors are "legal" in your state, but not in another. Unless the Feds made a ruling one way or the other on this issue, then that's how it would remain; 50 separate entities with different laws on radar detectors.

But Federal Law is supreme, right? Wrong. Not with Bush and his henchmen. See, like it or not, Crank, abortion is LEGAL in the United States. However, under the guidance of the most radical elements of your party, these rights are being restricted in many states. These states happen to the the Red ones. I'm sure it's coincidental...Why these restrictions? Isn't Roe v. Wade a Federal Law?

Republicans don't respect State or Federal law, and seem to be the ones confused about the differences.

How do YOU define Federal/State government, Crank?

Posted by: crystal at November 11, 2007 10:51 PM

"Isn't Roe v. Wade a Federal Law?"

Wow, crystal, I'm glad I didn't read your entire rant. That sentence above proves it would have been a waste of time.

Posted by: michaelt at November 12, 2007 9:03 AM

Just to briefly address Crystal's comment to me, I am impressed that you are so easily able to change the subject when you have nothing to say. FWIW, I voted against 215 (if that was the number) but it passed, and that reflects the will of the "stoned state of California". I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that state law can trump federal law when it is more restrictive, or when the Constitution is moot about the topic. In this case, CA law is in conflict with federal law, so it's my understanding that 215 can be overridden. I don't think it has much to do with Corzine action, but this seems to be the way you argue Crystal. I'd suggest another hit on your bong.

Posted by: NRA Life Member at November 12, 2007 10:34 AM


A wise man (Churchill, I believe) once said "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts." Instead of propagating the silly stories about the 2000 election, I'd suggest you actually do some research. The Supreme Court did not give the election to Bush. At most they compelled Florida to follow Florida election laws. If all the Dem election fraud was fully exposed it wouldn't be surprising to find out that Bush actually won the popular vote as well as the electoral vote.

Posted by: largebill at November 13, 2007 8:07 PM


Many people beg to differ with YOUR own set of facts on the 2000 issue. Coincidentally, these differences seem to fall along party lines -- go figure...

You see, Fox News decided to unilaterally "call" the state of Florida, and hence the election, for Bush, even though. as you put it, "at best" it was too close to call. Being the spineless drones that they are, the Big Three Networks soon followed suit. This gave everyone in the country the IMPRESSION that Bush was the clear victor, and Gore the usurper. This is yet another example, perhaps the first, of the Bushites creating an alternative reality and dumb Americans buying into it. Oh, did I mention the man responsible at Fox News for this decision was John Ellis, Bush's first cousin. Yeah, I know, another coincidence...

As for the interpretation of the Court's decision, you and your cohorts can smugly hide behind rhetoric, but Al Gore did win Florida, and the 2000 Election...

Posted by: crystal at November 14, 2007 10:50 PM

Fox called Florida for Gore - as did several networks - while the polls were still open in the most Republican part of Florida. Thousands of voters went home. Had that not happened, there would have been no recount.

It was hardly Fox alone that called FL for Bush later that night.

Posted by: The Crank at November 14, 2007 11:23 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg