Bhhomeboy… You really should stop, and this will be my last response to you, since you’re arguing in circles and since I really have better stuff to do with my time than to own you in a debate.

Yeah, the law does allow for residency to be verified or changed before the election– IF the candidate is honest about it. Voters are no more correct to believe that names on a ballot are there legally than they would be to believe that politicians don’t take kickbacks and bribes and actually represent them. If you believe that, I have some oceanfront property in Arazona to sell you.

And no, Langford doesn’t have to be removed. As I stated above, all that needs to be done is to change Birmingham election law. And it’s even more likely that Cooper will never be elected. So much for the “sore looserman” argument.

Anyone who cares a wit about Birmingham voters and the “will of the people” wouldn’t want them to be scammed and would want them given a chance at a fair election. I’ve even stated that they could keep Langford if they so desired, but you don’t seem to care about that. You seem awfully concerned that anyone would question his residency, even if it became a non-issue. And the best you can come up with in defense of that position is “sore looserman.”

Game. Set. Match.

“Can’t voters assume the government exercises due diligence and that candidates names are on the ballots because they are LEGALLY there?” No, no they can’t. Just as you can’t trust your government that they are doing anything right. “The government” is not some divine and flawless institution, free from the sins and flaws of mankind. It is made up of some very selfish and very stupid and very greedy and very dishonest people. The founding fathers didn’t even trust the government. That’s why they created free press.

I have a big problem with anyone who says that (insert whatever here) is the government’s responsibility. In some way, things may be the government’s responsibility, but it is the responsibility of THE PEOPLE to keep the government accountable and to make sure that it follows through in its “responsibilities.” Go and read the Declaration of Independence if you don’t believe me. It is not up to the government to keep the people honest. It is quite the opposite.

And no… His residency wouldn’t have been questioned if he’d lost the election because it would be a non-issue. And yes, it should have been questioned before he was put on the ballot and elected, but the law doesn’t allow that. Again, you seem to have an issue with the law itself. You’re grasping at straws.

And yes… You can very easily protest or petition your lawmakers to change the law. It works quite well when you’re trying to rob a man of his business license without him so much as having a fair trial. Why wouldn’t it work for changing an itty bitty election law?

Be real and be honest. You don’t care one bit for the voters of Birmingham. If you did, you’d be concerned about the fact that they made a decision based on false pretenses. You’d be concerned about the fact that they were scammed, and you’d want them to have the opportunity to make it right. You’d want them to have the opportunity to change the law if they still want Langford so that they could have him legally as mayor. All you can seem to say is that the voters made a decision. What you seem to leave out every time is that they were scammed into making that decision. You don’t allow someone to continue to be victimized (yes, VICTIMIZED) just because they didn’t catch it before the fact. That’s just stupid and CRUEL. You let them know that they’re being victimized and give them the option of correcting that. If they choose to let it continue after knowing the truth, then so be it.

But you don’t care about any of those things. You want the voters to continue to be scammed. You don’t care about the voters. You care about Larry Langford. The least you can do is be honest about that.

Nobody is disputing that Langford won the majority vote. The thing in question is whether or not it was under false pretenses. Nobody’s questioning whether or not he was on the ballot. They’re questioning whether or not he should have been on the ballot to begin with. And nobody’s saying it isn’t stupid to only be able to question that candidacy after the election.

George W. Bush wasn’t an Afghan citizen who claimed U.S. residency so that he could run for president.

By the way, it’s spelled LEGAL. I can believe things are legal all day, but that doesn’t make them legal. If you cared about the voters as much as you claim you do, you’d care about the fact that the voters were scammed and that someone is trying to fix a problem created when the government failed them. Again, it’s like saying that a bank robber shouldn’t go to jail because the police failed to stop the robbery in the first place.

Government isn’t dependable or efficient at anything, which is why I question the whole domed stadium mess. How can a government run a domed stadium and its finances when it can’t even be bothered to check tax records?

Now, if you have such an issue with Langford’s candidacy being in question, why not address the election laws themselves? Why not change Birmingham election laws so that Langford qualifies? It would be a non-issue at that point, and it would save Birmingham citizens a lot of time and money. But nobody has even mentioned it to my knowledge, so apparently Birmingham voters aren’t as sure about that decision as you believe them to be. Let me know when that law is changed. I have a few friends in Hoover who would love to run Birmingham.

bhmhomeboy…

Because government (municipal, state, federal, or otherwise) is known for “responsibility”? Langford put his signature on a piece of paper saying that his primary residence is in Birmingham, while also having his signature on a piece of paper telling the IRS that his primary residence is in Fairfield. Try cheating on your taxes and then telling the IRS that it was their responsibility to verify it. I’m sure that will go over well with them.

Meanwhile, the clerk that the affidavit was handed to probably just stamped it and put it in a pile. How many city clerks do you know that moonlight as private investigators?

But are you seriously trying to argue that a grown man has no responsibility to tell the truth and that the government should have done it for him? Therefore, he shouldn’t suffer any consequences? It’s like saying that a bank robber shouldn’t go to jail because the police should have stopped him before the robbery took place.