Jesus F***ING Christ!!!

[Guest]

Re: Re: Truth Hurts

"Count all the votes" but not the absentee military ballots

"Fair and accurate count" but only where we want

"I will fight for you" - enough said.

Bush:

- Count none of the votes, my Brother and Dad will make sure I get appointed by a conservative political court even if I lose on votes - which I did.

- We don't care about fair or accurate or legal votes because we aren't going to count any votes from blacks or democrats or jewish people in Florida because my brother runs this state.

- "Will of the people" (don't count votes) - "More state power" (first lawsuit was filed by Bush and NUMEROUS federal lawsuits to overturn the power of the state) - Enough said.

Bush was not elected by the people, he was appointed by a court which features members appointed by his father and a member who's sons are employed by a lawfirm that Bush himself is paying.

The only people in this country who will support Bush as the real president are Rush Limbaugh fans. You need only read this very thread to see that. Bush was appointed, not elected.

 

[TN_Vixen]

Re: Re: Truth Hurts

Thank you for your incisive commentary, Cha-Cha.

It's okay to disagree. I don't listen to Rush nor am I a "Dittohead" or a Republican. Isn't it interesting how some people resort to hysteria (name-calling, doom and gloom)when they don't have the brains to put together a rational argument? They hate logic.

It's the tactic of tyrants - the big lie. Keep screaming it over and over and over again until people hear it so much they believe it's the truth. Clinton mastered it by telling us "it was all about sex." He conveniently forgot about perjury and violating his oath of office, and lying to the his employees - us. Oh, I almost forgot - getting a blowjob from a star-fucker in the Oval Office wasn't sex.

"Count all the votes" but not the absentee military ballots

"Fair and accurate count" but only where we want

"I will fight for you" - enough said.

Clinton got caught in a time when the media was drooling for scandals, especially sex scandals and capitalized on it... he did just what Ollie North did with his debacle.. he swerved and shimmied and got out by the hair of his chin. And, he damaged what little integrity the office held by doing so. Now what do we do? We invite another bumbling cheesy rich playboy into office that will unite party lines in Congress and most likely on the SC. Where are the checks and balances here?

I shudder to think I'm going to have to listen to that man speak for the next 4 years and let's not even get into the political mayhem that will result in his being in office.

Remember Bush declaring war just to get the attention for re-election? It wasn't about altruism.. the raping and pillaging of innocent citizens, or even about stopping a madman out of control, or even.. *gasp* about oil. It was about diversion and manipulation of the American people. Shoot 'em, bomb 'em.. get me re-elected dammit. He makes me physically ill. I'm with Riff on this.

And yes, I was talking about Bush Sr, but if you think he's not going to be pulling the strings, you're dead wrong. Wouldn't be prudent to discount that influence.

 

[brazenblaze]

Voice of experience (one of those Bush Sn sent to war).
Thank God we are finally going to have a man in office who can use his balls for something other than f---ing.
Maybe we won't spend the next four years as the "joke" of the world.


"Even a dog knows better than to bite the hand that feeds it."

 

[miles]

Re: TV

It wasn't about altruism.. the raping and pillaging of innocent citizens, or even about stopping a madman out of control, or even.. *gasp* about oil. It was about diversion and manipulation of the American people. Shoot 'em, bomb 'em.. get me re-elected dammit.


WHOAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

You're right. We should have let the bastard rape, pillage, invade, and use poison gas on citizens of his own country.

Oops - I almost forgot about his little adventure into Kuwait. Kind of like Hitler's Blitzkrieg into Poland. But that was okay, too. So what if he de-stabilizes
the Middle East? So what if oil prices go through the roof?

Sorry, babe, some things ARE worth fighting for.

But I still love ya!

 

[Ambrosious]

Miles

Took the wind out of my sails. I agree wholeheartedly. Now, does this whole electoral college baffle some of you? We do NOT live in a democracy where the mob rules. This is a republic! We vote for REPRESENTATION and the electoral college is yet another form of REPRESENTATION. I personally don't want the major issues of this WHOLE country decided by Californians (Hollywood), New Yorkers(Sparky! HEHE) or Floridians (For obvious reasons).

Some thought that this election would be the end of the electoral college, God I hope not!

 

[miles]

Ambrosious

What you said!

We are a republic, period. Nowhere in the Constitution or any other document are we described as a "Democracy". We live by the rule of law, NOT by "majority rule". Okay, class, think of a time in U.S. histroy where the "majority" ruled. MMMMMMMMM - how about racial segregation? It was patently unconstitutional but the majority ruled that black people weren't entitled to the same rights as white people.

I'm not a fan of Bush, but whenever I hear someone say he won the election on a "technicality" it makes me wonder if they aren't watching too much TV. That technicality is the Constitution, and if you don't like it either work to change it and/or vote for someone who will. Let's talk about the facts and use some logic. Remember - most politicians will say anything to get your vote. And that includes lying.

 

[TN_Vixen]

Re: Re: TV

It wasn't about altruism.. the raping and pillaging of innocent citizens, or even about stopping a madman out of control, or even.. *gasp* about oil. It was about diversion and manipulation of the American people. Shoot 'em, bomb 'em.. get me re-elected dammit.


WHOAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

You're right. We should have let the bastard rape, pillage, invade, and use poison gas on citizens of his own country.

Oops - I almost forgot about his little adventure into Kuwait. Kind of like Hitler's Blitzkrieg into Poland. But that was okay, too. So what if he de-stabilizes
the Middle East? So what if oil prices go through the roof?

Sorry, babe, some things ARE worth fighting for.
But I still love ya!

Miles, I support human rights as much as the next person and don't wish to see Tyrannical rulers use their power over their own and other countries, but it happens and it isn't necessarily THE reason why the US should run in and help. AND, if you are going to go help, then effectively put a stop to such a ruler... c'mon. I'll admit that I don't know all the reasons behind that attack, but I'm not so naive that I believe we didn't have reelection interests or some other self-serving motivation.

And, I still love ya too. hehe

 

[FlamingoBlue]

How come you left out the....

UCK in FUCKING. The "UCK" is really the best descriptor of the whole mess that just occurred. The U.S. Supreme Court ain't so supreme to me anymore. Actually, it hasn't been supreme for the past 20 years.

blue

[Edited by FlamingoBlue on 12-14-2000 at 12:19 PM]

 

[Gaucho]

The Republican party spent 8 years smearing Clinton and spreading lies without getting one single charge to stick.

Is anybody else looking forward to tomorrow's "First Family's Gift to America: A Personal Tour of The White House" the way I am? I can just hear it now:

Bill Clinton: "And this is the chair I was sitting in the first time Monica blew me. Let me tell you folks, that girl's got a mouth that can really smoke a hog, if you know what I mean, heh, heh.

Oh, yeah. And this is the humidor where I got the cigar that I stuck up her, uh, you know, uh....hey, can I say that on television?

What's that, Hillary? Yeah, okay. You go show everybody the Lincoln Bedroom. I'll just stay here and see if anything, uh, comes up, heh, heh."

Almost makes you think twice about loading extra butter on the popcorn, doesn't it?

 

[Andra_Jenny]

PAY ATTENTION

You forget the attention span of the average american. The only thing that will matter will be the rant of the Democratic party three years from now and wether or not the prolls will believe whatever claptrap they are spooning out. All of this will be forgotten. Hell, I hope he gets nothing done (except to cut my taxes and stimulate growth and thus increasing my mutual funds) as I would have hoped for algore. The less government intrusion, the better!

Live long and prosper...

 

[Guest]

Re: PAY ATTENTION

You forget the attention span of the average american. The only thing that will matter will be the rant of the Democratic party three years from now and wether or not the prolls will believe whatever claptrap they are spooning out. All of this will be forgotten. Hell, I hope he gets nothing done (except to cut my taxes and stimulate growth and thus increasing my mutual funds) as I would have hoped for algore. The less government intrusion, the better!

Live long and prosper...

LOL! Don't hold your breath waiting for that tax cut. Tell me you're not so naive as to take campaign promises seriously.

As for "less government", try listening less to campaign slogans and looking more closely at the facts. Mr. George W. "States Rights" Bush went around the Florida Supreme Court and had the Feds decide what should have been a state question. It's the Clinton/Gore team who have actually REDUCED government over the past 8 years. Don't believe everything Rush tells you.

 

[Gaucho]

Re: Re: PAY ATTENTION

LOL! Don't hold your breath waiting for that tax cut. Tell me you're not so naive as to take campaign promises seriously.

It's the Clinton/Gore team who have actually REDUCED government over the past 8 years. Don't believe everything Rush tells you.

And which campaign promises were these? The Clinton/Gore promises to reduce the cost of prescriptions for seniors? Or was it the one about gays in the military?

REDUCED government? You've got to be kidding me. This from the people who tried to pass the costliest health care scam, er, scheme in recent memory? This from the president who butchered the military, while at the same time using it shamelessly to divert attention from his own antics?

This administration rode the wave of the strongest economy in US history and still couldn't get its heir apparent elected. In the end, they resorted to litigating their way into the Oval office and almost succeeded, thanks to a group of partisan hacks posing as Florida Supreme Court judges who were willing to rewrite election laws as fast as they could think up new ones.

I, for one, believe the US Supreme Court acted in a non-partisan and responsible manner in their decision. And regardless of what happens the next four years, I believe that we as a nation are the better for that decision.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: PAY ATTENTION

I, for one, believe the US Supreme Court acted in a non-partisan and responsible manner in their decision. And regardless of what happens the next four years, I believe that we as a nation are the better for that decision.

LOL!!!!!!!!

Pull your head out and look around. Every Constitutional scholar and historian, every pundit on both sides has blasted this decision. Just because it goes your way does not make it right.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: PAY ATTENTION

This administration rode the wave of the strongest economy in US history and still couldn't get its heir apparent elected. In the end, they resorted to litigating their way into the Oval office and almost succeeded, thanks to a group of partisan hacks posing as Florida Supreme Court judges who were willing to rewrite election laws as fast as they could think up new ones.

???
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not the Bush team who first sought litigation in this matter? Was it not Bush who challenged a Florida court decision, taking what should have been a state matter into the Federal courts?

Interesting how the Florida Supreme Court are "partisan hacks" yet the Federal Supreme Court is "nonpartisan". So much for the evil Big Government, eh Republican?

 

[Guest]

Let us examine the decision of the Supreme Court.

Basically, they said that the lack of standards between the Florida counties made it impossible to properly count votes. The votes were thus Unconstitutional. According to this decision, EVERY SINGLE VOTE IN THE UNITED STATES is Unconstitutional. No two states have the same standards, much less two counties within any state.

If you, as a Republican, support this decision, then you are supporting a voting standard decided by the Federal Government, NOT the state governments. You can then no longer claim to be against the Feds imposing their will on the states. By supporting this decision, the Republicans are in direct conflict with their supposed "Less Big Government" stance. Hypocrisy in action, once again.

This conservative Supreme Court has been a diehard supporter of states' rights. Their decision in this election is not motivated by justice or fairness and is not consistent with their past decisions. It is motivated by party politics. Any attempts to deny this are in direct contradiction to the facts.

 

[CelestialBody]

Re: Re: TV

 

[Thumper]

Hitler like Hussein was a madman..

This is why the UN is necessary. And why it is sometimes necessary for the US to act as "policemen". There are those among us who say we should get out of the Un and only get involved if it is in "our interests". First they should decide what interests they are referring to. Hitler's dismemberment of Czechoslovakia went unopposed, then he invaded Poland and it wasn't our affair...we waited until Hitler had all of Europe almost conquered til we got involved. Then it took us four years and 290,000 American lives to end it. It has been stipulated thata swift response to hitlers aggression would have ended his war efforts early on. France had the military strength to cripple him but they failed to act. While Britain, France, and the other Euoropean nations hemmed and hawwed around Hitler made his plans...It is a lot easier and safer to put out a brush fire than a forest fire. Total battle deaths from this war on the Allied side exceeded 9,000,000 people. The world is too small to say it isn't our affair and it is too costly to let aggression go unanswered. Isolationism is dangerous....

Ambrosious...You sound a bit like an elitist. So what makes your state or any other better than or more able to choose a president than New York, California or Florida? In all but a few unlikely scenarios these states will probably decide the winner anyway. Besides we are citizens of the United States, not a "mob". Are you a part of the mob or does that word only apply to those who believe differently than you? Just curious. My father in law is a very astute smart man...has voted Republican all his life..until this election that is.

As for the Libertarians...dead end there. I happen to agree with their stance on drugs and prostitution and related items. But they defend a party that has it's head so far up the Religious Right's ass that they can't see straight. It'll be a cold day in hell when a Republican candidate will have the guts to say he is for those issues.

On the whole I don't think Georgie will be do too bad at home. On the International scene...we'll see.

The rhetoric on both sides is getting silly...Dems cry that abortion rights are in danger...gimme a break...won't happen. Reps and Libertarians whine about Dems taking guns away...Puh-leeeeaze. Won't happen...just raging paranoia...

 

[miles]

Thumper

"As for the Libertarians...dead end there. I happen to agree with their stance on drugs and prostitution and related items. But they defend a party that has it's head so far up the Religious Right's ass that they can't see straight"

Thumper, Thumper, Thumper.

I'll be polite.

Please tell me how the Libertarians defend the Republican Party? Facts, please.

Can't wait to hear.

 

[Purple Haze]

Re: Thumper

Please tell me how the Libertarians defend the Republican Party?

You should be asking Unclebill.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Basically, they said that the lack of standards between the Florida counties made it impossible to properly count votes. The votes were thus Unconstitutional. According to this decision, EVERY SINGLE VOTE IN THE UNITED STATES is Unconstitutional. No two states have the same standards, much less two counties within any state.

This is a gross misinterpretation of the ruling. Seven of the nine justices (not only the five who ruled to completely stop the recounts) agreed that a single unified standard for manually counting undervotes was required to uphold the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Five justices ruled additionally, that more time would be needed in order to establish such a standard and make sure the votes were counted properly. Under the current conditions, the manual recount would have been hurried and chaotic, they argued, and thus could not possibly be any more just than the several recounts already done.

This conservative Supreme Court has been a diehard supporter of states' rights. Their decision in this election is not motivated by justice or fairness and is not consistent with their past decisions. It is motivated by party politics. Any attempts to deny this are in direct contradiction to the facts.

I don't think this ruling is as anti-states rights as Gore sympathizers are claiming. The ruling, of course, doesoverturn the highest state court, making it a triumph of Federal Courts over state courts, but another way to look at it is to say that the US Supremes were affirming the Constitutionally-derived authority of the state legislatures to make state election law. In that light, it's a very pro-states' rights decision.

This may be supported by the fact that Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, and Stevens actually ruled in favor of the state's high court instead of the Legislature's authority. They routinely dissent in the court's decisions favoring the states.

Or are they hypocrites too?

 

[Guest]

I don't think this ruling is as anti-states rights as Gore sympathizers are claiming. The ruling, of course, doesoverturn the highest state court, making it a triumph of Federal Courts over state courts, but another way to look at it is to say that the US Supremes were affirming the Constitutionally-derived authority of the state legislatures to make state election law. In that light, it's a very pro-states' rights decision.

Watch the Republicans spin! "Actually, by stealing this election, we've proven ourselves to be the honest party!" lol Face the facts, the Republican appointees were paying back their party by backing Bush, period, end of story. Twist it all you like, the facts show the exact opposite. Their partisanship has ruined the credibility of the Supreme Court. Congratulations! Your party destroyed the Presidency, now the land's highest court. What next? Oh yes, drilling in Alaskan wildlife refuges; the criminalization of abortion; giving the NRA, big drug companies, and big oil free reign to do whatever they please; and on and on.

 

[Guest]

A LAYMAN'S GUIDE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN BUSH V. GORE
by Mark H. Levine, Attorney at Law.

Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court
decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me?

A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore
got the most votes.

Q: But wait a second. The US Supreme Court has to give a reason, right?

A: Right.

Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?

A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the
hand-counts were legal and should be done.

Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would
find any legal ballots?

A. Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine
justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an
unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way
by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't
be.

Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't
conservatives love that?

A: Generally yes. These five justices, in the past few years, have held
that the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state
university it can't steal trade secrets just because such stealing is
prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business telling
a state that it should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal government
use the equal protection clause to force states to take measures to stop
violence against women.

Q: Is there an exception in this case?

A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own state
elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This decision
is limited to only this situation.

Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.

A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present
circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes
generally presents many complexities."

Q: What complexities?

A: They don't say.

Q: I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The votes
can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court "changed the rules of the
election after it was held." Right?

A. Dead wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme
Court did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme
Court found the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was wrong.

Q: Huh?

A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting vote
is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was condemned for not
adopting a clearer standard.

Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the Legislature's
law after the election.

A: Right.

Q: So what's the problem?

A: They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme
Court should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining
what is a legal vote"

Q: I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law.

A: Right.

Q: So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have
been overturned.

A: Right. You're catching on.

Q: If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned
for changing the rules. And if it didn't, it's overturned for not
changing the rules. That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme
Court
did, legal votes could never be counted.

A: Right. Next question.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Obsess much?

 

[Thumper]

What Haze said...

Bill has been defending Bush and the Republicans all along...

Careful Bill...ya may have latent Republican tendencies. Wouldn't want you to accidentally "come out"

I have yet to meet a Libertarian that wasn't a hairs breadth away from moving to Montana and joining a militia...

 

[miles]

Re: Thumper

"I have yet to meet a Libertarian that wasn't a hairs breadth away from moving to Montana and joining a militia."

What an absurd, bigoted statement. Let's substitute a few words:

"I have yet to meet a black person that wasn't a hairs breadth away from moving to Oakland and joining the Black Panthers."

You scare me.