Which candidate will do the most for the glbt cause?

[Pookie]

Why do you even post when all you do is cut and paste what other people say? The whole third page of this thread has been a pointless argument over nothing more than a person's choice of words.

You're full of shit. You either have a reading disability, or you're blind. Go back and read again, if you can.

Larz is as uninformed on this whole topic as you seem to be. He states things that are not based in fact, but rather in rumor or hearsay. He never could provide a link to support his claims that I brought into question. When he was asked to answer my questions, he dodged them. Turns out he was wrong on a number of things too. It was a bit more than an argument over a person's choice of words. It was statements he made that were incorrect, false, or misleading at best. But whatever. You seem to be of the same mold as him.

The bottom line is that Larz is exactly right in how he laid down the sequence of events. After the automatic recount was initiated after the election in Florida, Gore was not satisfied the results would go his way and went to the Florida Supreme Court to try to get a hand recount. The second he filed suit with that court, he assured that the election was going to be resolved in the courts.

You're just as wrong as he is. Gore never filed a lawsuit with the Florida Supreme Court.

After the certification of the results of the election, Bush was declared the winner of Florida’s electoral votes. Gore, pursuant to Florida’s contest provisions, filed a complaint in Leon County Circuit Court contesting the certification. Gore then sought manual recounts in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties, pursuant to Florida’s election protest provisions. The Circuit Court denied relief, stating that Gore had failed to meet his burden of proof. Gore appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, which certified the matter to the Florida Supreme Court. After the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction, they held Gore had satisfied his burden of proof with respect to his challenge to Miami-Dade County’s failure to tabulate, by manual count, 9,000 ballots on which the machines had failed to detect a vote for President - undervotes. The Florida Supreme Court explained that there can be no question that there are legal votes within the 9,000 uncounted votes sufficient to place the results of this election in doubt.

You really ought to research this topic before you start attempting to state "fact". It makes you look ignorant, or worse, a liar.

Bush, in response to the suit Gore filed, filed a counter suit in a higher court...the US Supreme Court. Now why is Bush wrong for filing a suit when it was Gore that initiated the legal action?

I think you do have a reading disability. I didn't say Bush was wrong. I said the US Supreme Court was wrong to take the case. They didn't have jurisdiction at that time.

Explain to me how Bush tried to steal the election when it was Gore that first filed a suit and got the courts involved?

I never said Bush tried to steal the election. Yeah, you do have a reading disability.

And the US Supreme Court did not "appoint" or "select" Bush, they simply stated that the ridiculous number of hand recounts taking place was a violation of election law....which is EXACTLY what courts are supposed to do, uphold the law!

I never said the US Supreme Court appointed or selected Bush. This disability is pretty severe with you. Have you sought any help yet? You really ought to.

The opinions of the justices can be found online if anyone wants to take the time to actually read what they were thinking when they made their ruling.

You might want to read it yourself. It's painfully obvious you didn't, as will be seen in a moment.

The US Supreme Court had the wisdom to see that after all of the handling and manipulating of ballots, getting an honest, accurate hand recount was nearly impossible.

You are wrong. That is NOT what the US Supreme Court said in their ruling at all.

The Florida Supreme Court ordered that the intent of the voter be discerned from the ballots in question. The US Supreme Court ruled that for purposes of resolving the equal protection challenge, it was not necessary to decide whether the Florida Supreme Court had the authority under the legislative scheme for resolving election disputes to define what a legal vote is and to mandate a manual recount implementing that definition. The US Supreme Court had a problem because of the lack of uniform rules to determine intent of the voter for the NEW recount. There was no mention at all by the US Supreme Court of what you claim.

All the talk of "disenfranchised" voters from the left is propoganda....Gore made every effort to get ballots excluded as well, namely from men and women in the military that have to exercise their right to vote by the absentee ballot system. Gore tried to have absentee balots thrown out because of the post mark date! Yet in the recount, he was the one saying we should count pregnant chads as votes because we need to considr voter intent! I would say an absentee ballot post marked a day late is a much more cleal indication of voter intent than a "pregnant chad".

You're confusing the issues. The absentee ballots excluded were done so within the Florida election laws. Many other non-absentee ballots were also excluded using those very same election laws, including votes for Gore as well as Bush. The questionable ballots were those where the intent of the voter could not be determined by the machines. These were ballots cast legally within the election laws. The US Supreme Court had no disagreement with this.

Try to stay on topic, if you can.

As for newsmax and other sites being extreme right and not recognized as reputable news sources, that is just a matter of opinion really. But it is my recollection that more than a few major newspapers and networks had people involved in the recount, and a number of them felt that even with the recounts, Bush would have won. And just because a site publishes stories and articles opposed to the "gay cause" does not make them anti-gay as you claim.

There's your reading disability again! I never mentioned anything about newsmax. You seem to have the very same problem as Larz when it comes to trying to use things I never said.

The ONLY recount of all the ballots in question was done by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. They conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies - The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, the St. Petersburg Times, The Palm Beach Post, The Washington Post and the Tribune Co., which includes the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, the Orlando Sentinel and Baltimore Sun, as well as other papers. You can read my previous posts for the information on what they found, if your reading disability doesn't get in the way again.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Here is the link...

Here is the link to the Supreme Court decision in Bush V. Gore.....it is from the Cornell Law School site if that makes a difference queer......

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=bush&url=/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html


The basic premise of the ruling was that the manula recount going on in Florida after the election was a violation of due process.

"This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment." - A quote from the ruling....

Now that you found it, try reading the whole thing and see if you can comprehend it. You obviously hadn't when you replied to my earlier post to Larz. If you can do that, maybe your future posts won't make you appear so ignorant.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Precedent

The legal precedent is very clear....when someone files a suit in a state level court.....every defendant has the right to appeal to a higher court. In this case, Gore filed a suit in state court, and Bush appealed to a higher court....all perfectly legal. And as for the actual ruling, read it for yourself....they did not rule on anything except procedure....they said that the lack of a uniform standard for counting votes was a violation of the Constitutional right to equal protection and the principle of "one man, one vote"....If you would read the decision you would know....numerous previous Supreme Court cases are cited as evidence.

Q asked you for the precedent for where you claimed that the US Supreme Court followed established precedent in Bush V. Gore. (the US Supreme Court intervening in a previous Presidential election). All you just gave us was a rant about Bush's right to file an appeal, and your take on the ruling. Now lets see if you can site the precedent for the US Supreme Court taking on a case like this, which is what Q asked. Can you?

 

[Pookie]

Re: Obvious...

... you know damn well I was referring to you when I mentioned newsmax.....

With yours and Larz nasty habit of attributing things to me that I never stated, it doesn't surprise me that Q would think you weren't replying to me.

See how it hurts your credibility to misquote people, and provide incorrect information?

 

[Pookie]

Re: Why do you even post Pookie....

As for newsmax and other sites being extreme right and not recognized as reputable news sources, that is just a matter of opinion really. ... And just because a site publishes stories and articles opposed to the "gay cause" does not make them anti-gay as you claim.

Just what in hell would you consider "anti-gay"?

Here are quotes from one article on the main webpage at newsmax.

"But defenders of traditional values know that what the airline does "best" is to be a major corporate sponsor of leading youth down the wrong path, one that can lead to poor health habits, even an early death."

"The fact that their public relations staff did not return phone calls about their sponsorship of this conference to CNS News.com reporter Marc Morano indicates that the airline is rightfully embarrassed that they spent their money on a conference promoting a lifestyle that leads to higher than average rates of AIDS/HIV and many other sexually transmitted diseases, as well as alcoholism and suicide. Then, of course, there is the question of the immoral basis of the lifestyle."

"This is no aberration. American has made it a point to cater to the homosexual/bisexual market, placing money above the defense of our traditional morality. On Sept. 12-14, in Washington, for instance, the airline is listed as a sponsor of Capital Classic XI, a gay and lesbian tennis tournament."

"Many Christians will undoubtedly be angered by what American Airlines is doing – namely, providing corporate sponsorship for a lifestyle that is very costly to our nation and deadly to its practitioners. How many will be angered enough to demand change from the airline?"

"When an airline like American spends money on a conference whose aim is to undermine traditional marriages and to foist the deadly, immoral bisexual lifestyle on youth, it should make Christians who are concerned about the spiritual health of our country wonder if our dollars wouldn't be better placed with its competitors."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/12/174936.shtml

"just because a site publishes stories and articles opposed to the "gay cause" does not make them anti-gay as you claim"

When a website publishes quotes of this nature with no rebuttal, they are most definitely anti-gay. You are naive at best if you think otherwise.

 

[SensualMan]

Ignorance and anger...

Your ignorance mixed with you anger make for quite a combination.....Your unwillingness, or inability, to grasp the obvious is incredible. If you think my whole post was aimed at you, you are sadly mistaken. Yes, I addressed some isues you brought up, but I also addressed issues raised by others on this board, and even on ther boards. The bottom line is that people that disagree with the results of the election all use the same tired arguments, so I was addressing them all because I knew questions would be raised. As for the involvement of the Supreme Court, they were in no way stepping over the line when they heard the case. Every child in a civics class knows that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land.....any issue brought to a court can be appealed to the Supreme Court. Basically that means once an issue or case is in the legal system, the Supreme Court has the power to hear and rule on the case. And if you took the time to read the decision, you would find that more than one time the handling of the ballots and the lack of a uniform standard for counting undervotes are cited as the reasons the Supreme Court stepped in! The case was a clear one....the recount was a violation of equal protection because it violated the idea of "one man, one vote"....read the decision and see for yourself.

Now whether you agree with the issue or not is another matter, and an irrelevant one. The decision of he Supreme Court is final and becomes the law of the land. Therefor, the election of George Bush is legal and undisputable. Just like I disagree with Roe v. Wade, but that does not change the fact that abortion is legal.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Ignorance and anger...

Your ignorance mixed with you anger make for quite a combination.....Your unwillingness, or inability, to grasp the obvious is incredible. If you think my whole post was aimed at you, you are sadly mistaken. Yes, I addressed some isues you brought up, but I also addressed issues raised by others on this board, and even on ther boards. The bottom line is that people that disagree with the results of the election all use the same tired arguments, so I was addressing them all because I knew questions would be raised.

Your ignorance is blatant. If you are not replying to me, don't quote me. Simple as that. Otherwise, you look like an idiot, which I believe you are.

As for the involvement of the Supreme Court, they were in no way stepping over the line when they heard the case. Every child in a civics class knows that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land.....any issue brought to a court can be appealed to the Supreme Court. Basically that means once an issue or case is in the legal system, the Supreme Court has the power to hear and rule on the case.

You are soooo ignorant. First, it was a countersuit ... not an appeal. Your ignorance on the whole process of the Supreme Court is amazing. You REALLY need to do some research before posting your crap.

And if you took the time to read the decision, you would find that more than one time the handling of the ballots and the lack of a uniform standard for counting undervotes are cited as the reasons the Supreme Court stepped in!

As I said in my reply to you, you're wrong. The US Supreme Court made absolutely no reference to what you originally claimed. If you believe I'm wrong, quote the relevant text from the US Supreme Court ruling. Bet ya can't.

[edit]
Here was your original quote ...

"The US Supreme Court had the wisdom to see that after all of the handling and manipulating of ballots, getting an honest, accurate hand recount was nearly impossible."
[/edit]


Oh yeah, where's that precedent Q was asking about ... that you claimed to have? Hmmm?


Edit indicated above.

 

[SensualMan]

"The record provides some examples. A monitor in
Miami-Dade County testified at trial that he observed that three members of the county canvassing board applied different standards in defining a legal vote. 3 Tr. 497, 499 (Dec. 3, 2000). And testimony at trial also revealed that at least one county changed its evaluative standards during the counting process. Palm Beach County, for example, began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded counting completely attached chads, switched to a rule that considered a vote to be legal if any light could be seen through a chad, changed back to the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to have a court order that the county consider dimpled chads legal. This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment."


-That is a direct quote from the majority opinion. Like it says....with people handling the ballots and counting them with no uniform standard as to what counted as a vote, there was no way there could be any confidence in the results of the recount.


It must just kill you that I have facts on my side, and no amount of bad mouthing or name calling on your part will change that. Why don't you accept that we have a difference of opinion on this matter, but unfortunately for you, I have facts on my side. You can argue all day as to whether or not the Supreme Court had the right to step in, but the FACTS are that they had every legal right to do it. Like I said before, once a matter is brought into the legal system of this country, the Supreme Court has the right to get involved. And many argue that in this case they had to step in because it involved protecting our most basic right of voting. Whether you agree with it or not make for interesting dinner conversation but does not change anything.


And lastly, how many times do I have to spell out the legal precedent? I will use your terminology this time....Bush filed a counter suit in a higher court.....that has been how our legal system has operated for 200 years. That is the precedent....if someone sues you in one court, you can counter sue in a higher court. As for precedent regarding the Supreme Court being involved in election dispute, read the majority opinion. This is a list I got from the Cornell law school website...it is every case the Supreme Court has heard regarding elections.

Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944) (USSC+)
Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946) (USSC+)
Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953) (USSC+)
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (USSC+)
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) (USSC+)
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (USSC+)
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (USSC+)
Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966) (USSC+)
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) (USSC+)
Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973) (USSC+)
Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752 (1973) (USSC+)
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) (USSC+)
Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974) (USSC+)
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) (USSC+)
Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974) (USSC+)
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (USSC+)
Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (1976) (USSC+)
City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) (USSC+)
Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982) (USSC+)
Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989) (USSC+)

 

[Pookie]

"The record provides some examples. A monitor in
Miami-Dade County testified at trial that he observed that three members of the county canvassing board applied different standards in defining a legal vote. 3 Tr. 497, 499 (Dec. 3, 2000). And testimony at trial also revealed that at least one county changed its evaluative standards during the counting process. Palm Beach County, for example, began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded counting completely attached chads, switched to a rule that considered a vote to be legal if any light could be seen through a chad, changed back to the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to have a court order that the county consider dimpled chads legal. This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment."


-That is a direct quote from the majority opinion. Like it says....with people handling the ballots and counting them with no uniform standard as to what counted as a vote, there was no way there could be any confidence in the results of the recount.

It must just kill you that I have facts on my side, and no amount of bad mouthing or name calling on your part will change that.

It might just kill me that you have facts on your side, if the quote from the ruling you provided applied to your original statement. You originally said, "The US Supreme Court had the wisdom to see that after all of the handling and manipulating of ballots, getting an honest, accurate hand recount was nearly impossible."

The US Supreme Court NEVER said the process wasn't honest. It never said any of the standards used weren't accurate either. The problem mentioned by the US Supreme Court was that for the EARLIER recounts "the standards for accepting or rejecting contested ballots might vary not only from county to county but indeed within a single county from one recount team to another." It was never mentioned in the ruling that those doing the recounts were doing something deceitful or dishonest with the standard they chose to utilize. The ruling states that "the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work." The ruling never states that an honest, accurate recount couldn't eventually be achieved. It doesn't even question the Florida Supreme Courts power to order a recount. The US Supreme Court's finding was that there was not a uniform standard included in the Florida Supreme Courts ruling.

The use of the phrase "manipulating of ballots" is of poor choice as well. When you state that "an honest, accurate hand recount" couldn't be achieved because of "manipulating of ballots" by those doing the recount, it is easy to view this in only one context ... felony election fraud. The US Supreme Court made no such finding.

You just can't seem to stop attributing things to others that was never said by them. The US Supreme Court never said in their ruling what you originally claimed . Misquoting and misattributing statements really hurts your credibility in a debate. It makes you appear less than honest. Again, you REALLY need to do some research BEFORE you make posts with claims that can't be substantiated, or turn out to be just false.

Why don't you accept that we have a difference of opinion on this matter, but unfortunately for you, I have facts on my side. You can argue all day as to whether or not the Supreme Court had the right to step in, but the FACTS are that they had every legal right to do it. Like I said before, once a matter is brought into the legal system of this country, the Supreme Court has the right to get involved. And many argue that in this case they had to step in because it involved protecting our most basic right of voting. Whether you agree with it or not make for interesting dinner conversation but does not change anything.

We do have differences of opinion. But, the majority of the things I have pointed out to you are your misquotes and misattributing of quotes to me and others, and incorrect information that you have yet to corroborate when asked to. You don't have facts by your side until you present them to us, which you haven't done in most situations. You have dodge most of my requests up to now to provide evidence to substantiate the things you have claimed.

The US Supreme Court can hear quite a few things, but it follows a process outlined in the Constitution and previous decisions. You can research that on your own though. The US Supreme Court had no constitutional jurisdiction to step into this Presidential election process when it did. You have yet to provide any evidence that the Supreme Court did have jurisdiction.

And lastly, how many times do I have to spell out the legal precedent? I will use your terminology this time....Bush filed a counter suit in a higher court.....that has been how our legal system has operated for 200 years. That is the precedent....if someone sues you in one court, you can counter sue in a higher court. As for precedent regarding the Supreme Court being involved in election dispute, read the majority opinion. This is a list I got from the Cornell law school website...it is every case the Supreme Court has heard regarding elections.

Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944) (USSC+)
Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946) (USSC+)
Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953) (USSC+)
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (USSC+)
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) (USSC+)
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (USSC+)
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (USSC+)
Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966) (USSC+)
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) (USSC+)
Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973) (USSC+)
Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752 (1973) (USSC+)
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) (USSC+)
Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974) (USSC+)
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) (USSC+)
Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974) (USSC+)
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (USSC+)
Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (1976) (USSC+)
City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) (USSC+)
Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982) (USSC+)
Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989) (USSC+)

And lastly, how many times do you have to spell out the legal precedent? Until you do. You have been asked more than once now to provide the precedent for where you claimed that the US Supreme Court followed established precedent in Bush V. Gore. (the US Supreme Court intervening in a previous Presidential election). NONE of the cases you listed does. None of them involve a Presidential election. Try again.

 

[SensualMan]

OK, let's try to clear this up...

"The use of the phrase "manipulating of ballots" is of poor choice as well. When you state that "an honest, accurate hand recount" couldn't be achieved because of "manipulating of ballots" by those doing the recount, it is easy to view this in only one context ... felony election fraud. The US Supreme Court made no such finding."

- It may be easy for you to infer from my statement that I thought the manipulation of ballots was intentional, but you would be wrong. I never said that. All I said is that the fact that the ballots were being handled and manipulated by different individuals, all with different standards as to what they considered a vote. I am sure there are isolated cases on both sides of people trying to cheat the system, but I am also sure that is the small minority. And any time that you have people counting ballots using different standards....it is impossible to get an honest, fair recount. And that is exactly what the Supreme Court ruling said. I will say that maybe it was not the best choice of words, but you read way too much into it.

"We do have differences of opinion. But, the majority of the things I have pointed out to you are your misquotes and misattributing of quotes to me and others, and incorrect information that you have yet to corroborate when asked to. You don't have facts by your side until you present them to us, which you haven't done in most situations. You have dodge most of my requests up to now to provide evidence to substantiate the things you have claimed."

- I have presented facts for every assertion I have made. The bottom line is that all of the facts supporting the involvement of the Supreme Court can be found in the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore where the justices already made the case why they stepped in.

"The US Supreme Court can hear quite a few things, but it follows a process outlined in the Constitution and previous decisions. You can research that on your own though. The US Supreme Court had no constitutional jurisdiction to step into this Presidential election process when it did. You have yet to provide any evidence that the Supreme Court did have jurisdiction."

-Basically, George Bush provided enough evidence that his Constitutional right to equal protection was being violated. Due to the fact that the electoral voted were to be cast only 6 days after the Supreme Court heard the case, they felt compelled to step in and protect Bush's Constitutional rights, which is their job. In the ruling, the majority justices even state that if there had been more time, they would have ruled that Florida should come up with a uniform standard for the hand recount and execute a state wide hand recount. Due to the time restraint, the Supreme Court, after Bush had proved his rights were being violated, made the decision to act. And if you are going to cite the powers of the Supreme Court according to the Constitution, why don't you point out where it says the Supreme Court is prohibited from protecting the Constitutional rights of a Presidential candidate?


"And lastly, how many times do you have to spell out the legal precedent? Until you do. You have been asked more than once now to provide the precedent for where you claimed that the US Supreme Court followed established precedent in Bush V. Gore. (the US Supreme Court intervening in a previous Presidential election). NONE of the cases you listed does. None of them involve a Presidential election. Try again."

- Do you know how legal precedents work? A Supreme Court ruling on any election helps to establish precedent. So the very fact the court has ruled on a dozen or so cases establishes the precedent. Look at the long list of Supreme Court decisions in the last 200 years, you will see many times that the court cites a previous case concerning a totally different issue as precedent. An example would be the right to privacy, they have established that precedent through numerous rulings on a variety of issues, from the internet to abortion. So for the Supreme Court to be involved in an election dispute is not a new thing, there is plenty of legal precedent there. As long as the cases have the same basic legal issue in common, there is precedent, and I am willing to bet that a number of those cases I cited earlier dealt with a right to equal protection in an election dispute.


- Now as a matter of principle, I agree with you are saying. I believe that as often as possible issues like the 2000 election should be resolved by the Congress. Congress is held accountable by voters and issues like election reform should be handled through legislation, not court rulings. The reason I support the Supreme Court in this case is that the only ruling they make is to protect the rights of one of the candidates. The justices themselves wrote that given more time, they would not have made a ruling and would have sent the issue back to the state to resolve. Also, the court did not make any ruling as to the actual election process....they did not mandate anything or tell the state of Florida how they had to run elections in the state. They simply said that the hand recounts were violating Bush's equal protection and that it should be stopped and the previous vote totals should be certified as the states vote totals.

Now I am not sure if I am talking above your head or way below it, but I am being as clear as I can. Maybe someone else reading this thread can just let me know if my posts are too confusing or unorganized and I will make an effort to make them more understandable

 

[LarzMachine]

Re: OK, let's try to clear this up...

Maybe someone else reading this thread can just let me know if my posts are too confusing or unorganized and I will make an effort to make them more understandable

They make perfect sense to anyone not living in a fantasy world where not saying "the US Supreme Court" somehow means you said "the US Supreme Court." Don't take it personal, brah, I'm sure they consider the New York Times to be the paragon of journalistic integrity every bit as much as they consider any source right of Stalin a bunch of rightwing propaganda, and therefore of no journalistic value. They simply can't help following in lockstep with their programming. It's sad, really.

Gotta love fanatics, no?

 

[Pookie]

Re: OK, let's try to clear this up...

- It may be easy for you to infer from my statement that I thought the manipulation of ballots was intentional, but you would be wrong. I never said that. All I said is that the fact that the ballots were being handled and manipulated by different individuals, all with different standards as to what they considered a vote. I am sure there are isolated cases on both sides of people trying to cheat the system, but I am also sure that is the small minority. And any time that you have people counting ballots using different standards....it is impossible to get an honest, fair recount. And that is exactly what the Supreme Court ruling said. I will say that maybe it was not the best choice of words, but you read way too much into it.

You are a complete moron. You can't even follow the sequence of events in the US Supreme Court ruling you are quoting and making claims from.

AGAIN, you said ...

"The US Supreme Court had the wisdom to see that after all of the handling and manipulating of ballots, getting an honest, accurate hand recount was nearly impossible."

Then you post a quote related to the EARLIER recounts where the majority mentioned the differing standards being used in the first recount. In this very post you said "it is impossible to get an honest, fair recount." The US Supreme Court ruling makes absolutely no mention concerning the "honesty" of the earlier recounts. There was no mention in the ruling that the earlier recount involved fraud or deception, only that different standards were used in different places. The things you are attributing to the US Supreme Court ruling are your statements, not those of the US Supreme Court!

You refuse to own up to your earlier statement that I've quoted several times now. You keep dodging my direct responses to your specific quote. I can only assume you don't want to own up to your statement at all. I'm finished asking you about it, as your continued refusal to reply to it is very telling of you.

- I have presented facts for every assertion I have made.

No. As I have shown in earlier posts, you have presented misquotes, and you have misattributed things to myself and others. You have yet to directly refute most of those things I have pointed out in prior posts. Also, you have provided information that doesn't even related to the things you are claiming, and when I call you out on it, you can't or won't defend your very own statements with supporting evidence. I have asked you to substantiate a number of things now with supporting evidence. You have ignored a big majority of my requests. Whatever.

You apparantly don't do any research before making your statements, or you don't have the mental capability to comprehend what your were reading and quoting. When called on it, you just say things like "I presented facts". When asked to provide evidence of your facts, you either refuse to or you can't or you won't. My requests for actual links in my earlier replies still stand. If you again choose not to reply to those requests, then I will assume you don't have the evidence to support what you claim are "facts". Just because you said it, doesn't make it a "fact".

The bottom line is that all of the facts supporting the involvement of the Supreme Court can be found in the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore where the justices already made the case why they stepped in.

Here is the question ONE MORE TIME. Let's see if you can answer it this time.

What is the precedent for where you claimed that the US Supreme Court followed established precedent in Bush V. Gore. (the US Supreme Court intervening in a previous Presidential election). NONE of the cases you listed does. None of them involve a Presidential election. You said you had it, now provide it. What you said above is NOT providing an ESTABLISHED precedent for the US Supreme Court intervening in a PREVIOUS Presidential election. A new precedent was set with THIS case. The US Supreme Court does not offer an ESTABLISHED precedent for their involvement in THIS Presidential election in their ruling. Do you even know what a legal precedent is? Look it up and then quote your established precedent that provides justification for the US Supreme Court to intervene in THIS Presidential election. Bet you can't.

-Basically, George Bush provided enough evidence that his Constitutional right to equal protection was being violated. Due to the fact that the electoral voted were to be cast only 6 days after the Supreme Court heard the case, they felt compelled to step in and protect Bush's Constitutional rights, which is their job. In the ruling, the majority justices even state that if there had been more time, they would have ruled that Florida should come up with a uniform standard for the hand recount and execute a state wide hand recount. Due to the time restraint, the Supreme Court, after Bush had proved his rights were being violated, made the decision to act.

Sorry. That's not even a precedent. All you quoted was your "interpretation" of their reasoning in this case. That is not an established precedent for them taking this case. Try again.

And if you are going to cite the powers of the Supreme Court according to the Constitution, why don't you point out where it says the Supreme Court is prohibited from protecting the Constitutional rights of a Presidential candidate?

- Do you know how legal precedents work? A Supreme Court ruling on any election helps to establish precedent.

You don't even know what a legal precedent is based on your earlier statements. A US Supreme Court ruling on any election does not establish precedent for the US Supreme Court to intervene and settle disputes in a Presidential election, unless the prior ruling involved settling a dispute in a Presidential election. Why? Because Article II section 1 of the US Constitution clearly vests in Congress, and not the Supreme Court, the authority to settle a disputed Presidential election.

So the very fact the court has ruled on a dozen or so cases establishes the precedent.

No. You are wrong. See above and below.

So for the Supreme Court to be involved in an election dispute is not a new thing, there is plenty of legal precedent there. As long as the cases have the same basic legal issue in common, there is precedent, and I am willing to bet that a number of those cases I cited earlier dealt with a right to equal protection in an election dispute.

It's not a new thing for the US Supreme Court to be involved in an election dispute. But that's not the issue. None of those involved a Presidential election, which the US Constitution clearly gives the US Congress responsibility for when there is a dispute. If the US Congress had been given the opportunity to settle the dispute, and not done their job, THEN it could have become the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court, depending on the issue(s) at THAT time. So unless you can provide us with an example where the US Supreme Court intervened before Congress had the opportunity to settle a Presidential election dispute, then there is NO precedent.

- Now as a matter of principle, I agree with you are saying. I believe that as often as possible issues like the 2000 election should be resolved by the Congress.

It doesn't matter if you agree or not. Whether you like it or not, according to the US Constitution, Presidential election disputes are to be handled specificly by Congress. Once Congress has done whatever it sees fit to do, then the US Supreme Court could have jurisdiction, and not before.

Now I am not sure if I am talking above your head or way below it, but I am being as clear as I can. Maybe someone else reading this thread can just let me know if my posts are too confusing or unorganized and I will make an effort to make them more understandable

It's not a matter of your posts being too confusing or unorganized. Your posts (for the most part) are just wrong. See above.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Re: OK, let's try to clear this up...

They make perfect sense to anyone not living in a fantasy world where not saying "the US Supreme Court" somehow means you said "the US Supreme Court."

From my earlier direct reply to you that you ignored ...

"when did I EVER say he went to the US Supreme Court?" Here we have it ... in your own words ...

If you're so smart, why are you incapable of figuring out Bush won the election under standard Electoral law? He had a majority of electoral votes, thus he won. Whine all you want about the Supreme Court getting involved, but it was YOUR candidate who ran to them when he lost in an effort to have himself appointed rather than abiding by American election laws.

Don't take it personal, brah, I'm sure they consider the New York Times to be the paragon of journalistic integrity every bit as much as they consider any source right of Stalin a bunch of rightwing propaganda, and therefore of no journalistic value. They simply can't help following in lockstep with their programming. It's sad, really.

Gotta love fanatics, no?

You're an idiot.

 

[LarzMachine]

Re: Re: Re: OK, let's try to clear this up...

From my earlier direct reply to you that you ignored ...
"when did I EVER say he went to the US Supreme Court?" Here we have it ... in your own words ...

I didn't ignore it. I simply found no evidence whatsoever that I said Gore went to the "US Supreme Court." Again, find a quote where I do so. And no, Queersetti's definitions do NOT count as MY words. Try again, this time in the real world, not some fantasy dimension where a direct quote says one thing yet somehow means something else from your warped perspective.

I really am sorry if plain English is too confusing for you. Perhaps you should take some remedial classes?

You're an idiot.

Oh look. Ad hominem attacks rather than even attempting to prove Me wrong. Thank you for proving your ignorance! I accept your forfeit.

Have a nice day!

 

[Pookie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: OK, let's try to clear this up...

I didn't ignore it. I simply found no evidence whatsoever that I said Gore went to the "US Supreme Court." Again, find a quote where I do so. And no, Queersetti's definitions do NOT count as MY words. Try again, this time in the real world, not some fantasy dimension where a direct quote says one thing yet somehow means something else from your warped perspective.

Lets dissect this quote of YOURS for you ...

"Whine all you want about the Supreme Court getting involved, "

This was your response to Q's "whining" (as you call it) about the US Supreme Court getting involved in this case. Q certainly wasn't "whining" about the Florida Supreme Court getting involved.

"but it was YOUR candidate who ran to them when he lost in an effort to have himself appointed rather than abiding by American election laws."

Based on previous posts, Q's candidate would be Gore. The key is where you use the word "them", which clearly relates back to "the Supreme Court" which was without question the US Supreme Court in the first part of your sentence, The conjunction "but" ties it all together.

Put it all back together ...

"Whine all you want about the Supreme Court getting involved, but it was YOUR candidate who ran to them when he lost in an effort to have himself appointed rather than abiding by American election laws."

Oh look. Ad hominem attacks rather than even attempting to prove Me wrong. Thank you for proving your ignorance! I accept your forfeit.

Have a nice day!

Contrary to your contention that I didn't attempt to prove you wrong, I did prove you wrong in my last post, and above as well.

And yeah, I made an ad hominem statement. Only because you had no intellect to appeal to in your last post. And thanks for giving me the opportunity to present your ignorance to you one more time.

You're still an idiot.

 

[Quint]

All of the below quotes are from LarzMachine on this thread.

The same Bill Maher who thinks he was being "censored" because advertisers pulled their ads and funding when he started making an ass of himself by spouting anti-American propaganda?

Do you guys actually know anything about how this country works, or is it easier to just jump on the "I don't like the results, so I'll claim they were illegal" bandwagon than to admit the process worked the way it was supposed to?

Are you capable of looking at the realities of election law, or is there some bizarre pathological obsession with running off on tangents hardwired into your brain?

Your inability to stick to the real world proves not only your inability to form a logical argument, but also your lack of anything intelligent to say.

I'm truly sorry you're so delusional and hellbent on supporting your martyr complex you can't accept reality if it disagrees with your conspiracy theories.

Try the real world.

They make perfect sense to anyone not living in a fantasy world where not saying "the US Supreme Court" somehow means you said "the US Supreme Court." Don't take it personal, brah, I'm sure they consider the New York Times to be the
paragon of journalistic integrity every bit as much as they consider any source right of Stalin a bunch of rightwing propaganda, and therefore of no journalistic value. They simply can't help following in lockstep with their programming. It's
sad, really.

Gotta love fanatics, no?

I really am sorry if plain English is too confusing for you. Perhaps you should take some remedial classes?

I don't pretend that this entire post is anything less than ad hominem itself or that the other side has any fewer ad hominem attacks than you; nevertheless, I get a little personally offended to see my beloved attack unconsciously named AND used within a single post.

Quint "Hypocrisy Police! Hands over your head, muthafucka!"

 

[Queersetti]

It's going to be fun to watch all those Republicans who agreed with the Supreme Court that the Florida recount should be stopped because of the variance in ballot standards now cry like babies when the same principle is applied in California.

 

[SensualMan]

Wow...Pookie is more dense than I thought...

Pookie - Just because you say the Supreme Court has has to have ruled on a Presidential election before to establish precedent does not make it so. You are just spouting your opinion, which in this case is just wrong. Precedents that were established from totally unrelated cases throughout the history of the Court have been cited in other cases before the Court. If I can't explain that to you, you are hopeless. Secondly, the Supreme Court did not have the final say in the election. All the Court did was say that the manual recount violated Bush's rights. ANY TIME AFTER THAT RULING CONGRESS COULD HAVE STEPPED IN WITH LEGISLATIVE ACTION.....THEY COULD HAVE DELAYED THE MEETING OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, THEY COULD HAVE DONE A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS RELATING TO THE ELECTION. The facts are that Congress still had the authority to address issues about the election, but they passed on it! YOu continue to erroneously reference Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution as if it means anything in this case. That article and section relate to the resolution of a disputed election. While looking at it now, the action of the Supreme Court did in affect resolve the election, but technically it did not. Their ruling was free of the results of the election and in no way did the ruling certify the election. The meeting of the electoral college and the casting of votes is what makes the election final. As I stated above, Congress could have delayed the meeting of the electoral college and given Florida time to conduct a full, uniform hand recount. The bottom line is that Congress had opportunity to act, but chose not to.

You seem to have a very hard time comprehending this point. It is a very fine point, but it is a critical one to make! The Supreme Court ruled on a single point about the recount in Florida...that it violated equal protection. That ruling in no way was a resolution of the dispute over the election. Congress still had the power to act and to resolve the dispute, but they did not act for whatever reason. Now you can hem and haw all you want, but that is fact. Where in the ruling did the Supreme Court name Bush as President? If they didn't do that, then Congress still had the power to act. Even if the Court had done that, Congress would have still had the power to act, it just would have gotten far more complicated.

And last time I checked...honest and fair are generally considered to be synonomous. So therefore, when I stated "it is impossible to get an honest, fair recount"... honest and fair were used as compound qualifiers. Yes it is redundant, but I did it intentionally to make a point. I am sorry if your grasp of the english language is below that level, I will try to simplify things in the future. Basic logic dictates that if the Supreme Court was worried about the fairness of an recount...are they not also worried about the honesty of it too? Without honesty there can be not fairness....but that gets into philosophy and I am sure that is way beyond you at this point. You have yet to break open a poli sci 101 book and get a basic grasp of the political process in this country.

As for facts, please take the time to read a book on political science before you continue to embarass yourself here. You may think that you must be onto something because queer agrees with you, but I would not put much stock in that. Your logic and knowledge or everything from judicial precedent, to legislative procedure, to the Constitution, to the english language is extremely lacking. I admire your zeal though...and if you keep saying it loud enough for long enough, someone might eventually listen. I took the time to apologize to your personally for saying a few things that may have been out of line, but I guess you are not interested in acting with any level of maturity. If you are going to call into question my intelligence and my education, you can rest assured I will do the same to you. And I am certain you don't want to get started down that road, because you will not like where it ends up.

You continue to whine about misqoutes and me misrepresenting what others have said yet you can not provide an example. And please give the "honest, fair hand recount" a rest...I made my case above and your opinion on it means little and does nothing to show that I misquoted anyone. If you wish for this argument to devolve into one on semantics, I will be more than happy to review all of your previous posts and evaluate your choive of words. If you can't get past phraseology and argue the big picture, we will get nowhere here. Sadly, I suspect that is what you are after because you know that you can't possibly debate the larger issues with any sort of logic or reason, or even knowledge.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Wow...Pookie is more dense than I thought...

Pookie - Just because you say the Supreme Court has has to have ruled on a Presidential election before to establish precedent does not make it so. You are just spouting your opinion, which in this case is just wrong. Precedents that were established from totally unrelated cases throughout the history of the Court have been cited in other cases before the Court. If I can't explain that to you, you are hopeless.

So quote the precedent for where you claimed that the US Supreme Court followed established precedent in Bush V. Gore. (the US Supreme Court intervening in a previous Presidential election). QUOTE IT! You said you had it! Don't just say it exists, show it! Show me in the ruling where the majority reasoned that it could do what the US Constitution specifically says is reserved for the Congress. I'm waiting. And don't just give me a laundry list of cases. Quote me actual text from the ruling that states what I've asked you for NUMEROUS times now, and you claimed to have.

Secondly, the Supreme Court did not have the final say in the election. All the Court did was say that the manual recount violated Bush's rights. ANY TIME AFTER THAT RULING CONGRESS COULD HAVE STEPPED IN WITH LEGISLATIVE ACTION.....THEY COULD HAVE DELAYED THE MEETING OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, THEY COULD HAVE DONE A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS RELATING TO THE ELECTION. The facts are that Congress still had the authority to address issues about the election, but they passed on it! YOu continue to erroneously reference Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution as if it means anything in this case. That article and section relate to the resolution of a disputed election. While looking at it now, the action of the Supreme Court did in affect resolve the election, but technically it did not. Their ruling was free of the results of the election and in no way did the ruling certify the election. The meeting of the electoral college and the casting of votes is what makes the election final. As I stated above, Congress could have delayed the meeting of the electoral college and given Florida time to conduct a full, uniform hand recount. The bottom line is that Congress had opportunity to act, but chose not to.

I didn't say the US Supreme Court had the final say. Yes, Congress could have later stepped in and done their constitutional duty. That's not the point. As you even say, "that article and section relate to the resolution of a disputed election." It clearly states that it is reserved to the Congress, not the US Supreme Court! It also doesn't matter that their ruling technically did or didn't resolve the election, as you said. They had no Constitutional jurisdiction to do one damn thing at that point in the process. They should never have heard the case to begin with, until AFTER Congress had completed their EXCLUSIVE Constitutional duty in the Presidential election. They had not even had a chance to BEGIN resolving the dispute when the US Supreme Court intervened.

You seem to have a very hard time comprehending this point. It is a very fine point, but it is a critical one to make! The Supreme Court ruled on a single point about the recount in Florida...that it violated equal protection.

And once again, the US Supreme Court had no jurisdiction at that point in time, per the US Constitution. I asked you above (once again) to provide the established precedent you said you had. You haven't yet. See above for my request.

If they didn't do that, then Congress still had the power to act.

And as long as Congress had the power to act, the Congress had exclusive jurisdiction, as the US Constitution states. There is NOTHING that you have stated that provides the US Supreme Court with the power to do what is SPECIFICALLY reserved for the US Congress.

And last time I checked...honest and fair are generally considered to be synonomous.

Merriam-Websters first definition of "honest" - "free from fraud or deception".

Basic logic dictates that if the Supreme Court was worried about the fairness of an recount...are they not also worried about the honesty of it too? Without honesty there can be not fairness....but that gets into philosophy and I am sure that is way beyond you at this point.

If the majority were concerned about the "honesty" of the prior and newly ordered recount, they never stated in their ruling. Your saying it doesn't cause it to magically appear in their ruling either. Quote me the line and paragraph in the ruling if it's there. I'm waiting.

As for facts, please take the time to read a book on political science before you continue to embarass yourself here. You may think that you must be onto something because queer agrees with you, but I would not put much stock in that. Your logic and knowledge or everything from judicial precedent, to legislative procedure, to the Constitution, to the english language is extremely lacking. I admire your zeal though...and if you keep saying it loud enough for long enough, someone might eventually listen. I took the time to apologize to your personally for saying a few things that may have been out of line, but I guess you are not interested in acting with any level of maturity. If you are going to call into question my intelligence and my education, you can rest assured I will do the same to you. And I am certain you don't want to get started down that road, because you will not like where it ends up.

You have no idea about my background. I doubt you would feel so arrogant about your supposed knowledge if you did. But whatever. You rant on and on about your "facts", yet you have very seldom directly refuted my statements with evidence that can be referenced. You rant is all. I can't help if you're too much of a coward to answer my specific questions with facts that can be substantiated. Again, whatever.

I've presented my case and evidence. At this point, I honestly don't care whether you believe it or not. It's here for everyone else to read. You don't want to debate, you want to rant. Go right ahead. You and Larz should have a good time together.

 

[SensualMan]

You are really hopeless...

Pookie - I in no way feel threatened by your background at all...I have argued politics with people that proved to be much more intelligent and informed with than you have shown yourself to be. Like I said, I have provided fact to support my assertions, you have yet to provide one single shred of fact to support yours. No where in the article and section you cite does it forbid the Supreme Court from intervening in an election when a candidate's rights may be violated. The Congress has the power to resolve election disputes based on procedure. This case was not purely a matter of procedure, it involved the protection of Constitutional rights. According to the Constitution you cite, that is the fundamental reason for the existence of the Supreme Court....to protect our rights and freedoms. If the Court did not intervene and protect Bush's rights as a candidate...who would have? You even admitted that the ruling did not decide the election....so how can you complain about the courts involvement? You just agreed with me that it did not determine the outcome of the election. Congress still had the power to act. Save your anger for the Congress for passing up the opportunity to step up, not for the Supreme Court that was doind what they are Constitutionally mandated to do.

As for queers little observation about the California election, I think it is going to be interesting to watch too. Basically the left is saying black people are too dumb to use a punch card ballot so we need to delay a legally mandated election. I find it pretty amusing myself......

 

[SensualMan]

Precedent

As for the issue of legal precedent....you are either unable, or unwilling to understand that concept. For the sake of everyone's sanity I am just going to ignore your ignorance on that topic until you can display a shred of knowledge on the subject. Look into it....you will be surprised how ignorant you sound. The Supreme Court, by ruling on ANY ELECTION, can establish a precedent for action in the Presidential election. Like I have also said many times, there is plenty of precedent for the Court acting to protect the Constitutional right's of a citizen....which is what they did in this case. In the issue of protecting Bush's rights, the fact that it was a Presidential election is irrelevant.

 

[Boo_Roger]

What I See

GLBT's are losing more and more and as time is going on, the overall straight acceptance rate is getting worse. it's at it's lowest since 1997! And, and what all has been achieved since then??? i know it's not useless, but before you know it, there will no longer be anything known as gay rights. i know i'm wrong in saying that, but it just pisses me off to no end. Bushy boy can suck my left one.

 

[ExistentialLuv]

I'm no expert, luv, but some of it has to do with the "morality"
of same sex marriages. Most of straight America is terrified that
to recognize same sex unions undermines their religous beleifs.

Most of it, and this is where the political neccesity of involvement
from the gay/lesbian community comes in, is the granting or
not granting of benefits for same sex unions. Without the same
rights as a married straight couple, you cann't put your life
partner under your health insurance policy at work.

You or they have no legal recourse in what happens to your community property, if family members jump in, when one of you
dies.

Life Insurance, 401k's, Social Security, etc. etc.

Big business is telling the government that hey'll tolerate gays
and lesbians as long as they're still second class citisens.

Thanx for your reply 69. Here in Or. we have the right to put or same sex partner on our insurance and as for property, is that not what a will is for. Big buisness runs the goverment. America wake up and fight back, take our country back from the capitalist bastards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LarzMachine]

It's going to be fun to watch all those Republicans who agreed with the Supreme Court that the Florida recount should be stopped because of the variance in ballot standards now cry like babies when the same principle is applied in California.

Actually, I'm quite amused by the recall being stopped or even delayed. It just gives Davis and his far-left cronies time to screw things up even more, with no possibility whatsoever of being able to blame anyone but themselves or anything but their own incompetence for the mess California has become.

But remember, the Democrats have all the answers and their fiscal policies are perfectly sound...

 

[LarzMachine]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OK, let's try to clear this up...

Lets dissect this quote of YOURS for you ...

No, let's see a direct quote. Your "dissections" and interpretations are merely opinions with no basis in reality.

Contrary to your contention that I didn't attempt to prove you wrong, I did prove you wrong in my last post, and above as well.

Really? I don't see the quote I requested. Since you seem to think you're smarter than an average rock, this shouldn't be too difficult -- unless you're wrong and I never said what you claim I said. So which is it? Are you wrong, lying, or just dumber than a rock?

And yeah, I made an ad hominem statement. Only because you had no intellect to appeal to in your last post. And thanks for giving me the opportunity to present your ignorance to you one more time.

You're still an idiot.

Which, again, coupled with your inability to provide the quote requested, proves you have nothing useful or intelligent to contribute, and proves once more I was correct in accepting your de facto forfeit.

Thank you for playing!