Which candidate will do the most for the glbt cause?

[LarzMachine]

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.

Oh, I'm sorry, I was just responding in kind to the precedent set by Queersetti and later Pookie. If they hadn't set the precedent, I wouldn't have assumed that's what passes for intelligent debate in their ignorant, brainwashed little world where the ACLU is a shining beacon of all that's good and proper -- even though they proudly defended NAMbLA -- and that anyone right of Stalin or Mao is some kind of Nazi.

 

[Pookie]

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

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

Oh really. Here is your original post on this thread with your statement.

"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."

And it can be found right here in YOUR post ... https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=6062254#post6062254

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?

Here it is again ... YOUR quote in YOUR post - https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=6062254#post6062254

Have your mommy read it to you if you're still having problems understanding. Are you really this big of a dumbass that you can't read your very own post?

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!

And one last time ... here is the quote for your mommy to read to you ... https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=6062254#post6062254

And here was my dissection of it ... https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=6082062#post6082062

Now hurry back to class, little fella!

And ... you're and even bigger idiot now.

 

[Pookie]

Oh, I'm sorry, I was just responding in kind to the precedent set by Queersetti and later Pookie. If they hadn't set the precedent, I wouldn't have assumed that's what passes for intelligent debate in their ignorant, brainwashed little world where the ACLU is a shining beacon of all that's good and proper -- even though they proudly defended NAMbLA -- and that anyone right of Stalin or Mao is some kind of Nazi.

And your still a fucking hypocrite. Do you need me to look that up in the dictionary for you, little fella?

 

[LarzMachine]

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

Oh really. Here is your original post on this thread with your statement.

"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."

And again, let's see a direct quote where I specify the US Supreme Court.

Keep trying. Your illiteracy is proving quite amusing.

 

[LarzMachine]

And your still a fucking hypocrite. Do you need me to look that up in the dictionary for you, little fella?

How exactly is going by the precedent you and your friend set hypocrisy in any way? You're the ones who lowered the bar, not me...

 

[Pookie]

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

And again, let's see a direct quote where I specify the US Supreme Court.

Keep trying. Your illiteracy is proving quite amusing.

You really are a moron, but whatever. It's there for others to read, even if you can't comprehend it.

 

[Pookie]

How exactly is going by the precedent you and your friend set hypocrisy in any way? You're the ones who lowered the bar, not me...

Who set the precedent?

Incidentally, it was Gore who tried to sidestep election law by running to the Supreme Court to have himself appointed President. In case you don't actually know how elections work in this country, the popular vote isn't what elects the President, and for good reason. If it was solely the popular vote, New York and California (both of which are traditionally left of Stalin and Mao) would appoint the President every year.

It also wasn't the Republicans who tried to use Wellstone's corpse as a flag (or accuse the opposition of assassinating him by tampering with the plane) to draw voters last year either. If you want to complain about shady electoal practices, start by examining Billy Jeff and other Democrats. They're every bit as dirty as any Republican has ever been.

You beat both of us to it, moron.

Also, in the very post you attempted to point one out, you made one yourself. You continue to use them, while pointing them out to us as something we shouldn't use. Hypocrite. If you don't like them, don't use them.

You're becoming nothing more than a troll.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Oh, I'm sorry, I was just responding in kind to the precedent set by Queersetti and later Pookie. If they hadn't set the precedent, I wouldn't have assumed that's what passes for intelligent debate in their ignorant, brainwashed little world where the ACLU is a shining beacon of all that's good and proper -- even though they proudly defended NAMbLA -- and that anyone right of Stalin or Mao is some kind of Nazi.

Proof of idiocy right here...associating the modern progressive movement with Stalin and Mao and NAMBLA.

 

[SensualMan]

Pookie

In his quote all Larz says is that Gore went to the Supreme Court, which is true. Gore went to the Florida Supreme Court. Since Larz did not indicate whether it was the Florida or US Supreme Court, you can never prove what his intentions were. You can argue that by not stating "Florida Supreme Court" he, by default, meant the "US Supreme Court" but where is that pointless argument getting you? The bottom line is that is a stupid argument that in no way addresses the real substance of this debate. Get over it and address the real issues. You have a real knack for getting caught up on meaningless details that you can neither prove nor disprove.

"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."

- For the last time...he never specifies which Supreme Court. If he tells you he meant the Florida Supreme Court, take his word for it and move on. That is a meaningless detail....the point he is making is still valid. It was Gore that ran to the courts......

 

[Pookie]

Re: Pookie

Since Larz did not indicate whether it was the Florida or US Supreme Court, you can never prove what his intentions were.

That might have been what he intended, but it wasn't what he said. He should have never used "them" within his sentence when he had already used "Supreme Court" to reference the "US Supreme Court" in that same sentence. I never questioned that Gore went to the courts either.

If Larz is going to rant on here like you do, then the words you use make a big difference. There is no way to know someone's intent if they use the incorrect word for what they mean. All we have are the words you type.

 

[SensualMan]

Grow up...

Like I said, which court Gore went to is a non-issue....the point is that he went to the courts......

And like Larz has said...he never said "US Supreme Court" in that sentence.....he did say "Supreme Court"....if you think he MEANT US Supreme Court, then that is an inference on your part and you can't blame him for that. So while the argument is pointless, you are still wrong. The 'them" he used simply refers to "Supreme Court"...which Supreme Court? The US or the Florida? You ASSUME he meant the US Supreme Court...

 

[Pookie]

Re: Grow up...

Like I said, which court Gore went to is a non-issue....the point is that he went to the courts......

And like Larz has said...he never said "US Supreme Court" in that sentence.....he did say "Supreme Court"....if you think he MEANT US Supreme Court, then that is an inference on your part and you can't blame him for that. So while the argument is pointless, you are still wrong. The 'them" he used simply refers to "Supreme Court"...which Supreme Court? The US or the Florida? You ASSUME he meant the US Supreme Court...

"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."

If I started a thread on the GB and asked everyone to say who they thought Larz was referring to when he said "them", I would be willing to bet 9 out of 10 (or more) would say the US Supreme Court. I would say 10 out of 10, but I know there are people like you and Larz on the GB too. But whatever. He's more or less admitted he fucked up what he said in that sentence anyways. So I'll let it drop.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to 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). I asked you to quote me actual text from the ruling that states it. You claimed to have it. But then, you rarely do back up your assertions and claims with facts that can be referenced. I doubt you will now either. You and Larz have already proven you're idiots. You've both given us plenty of facts to reference for that.

 

[MzChrista]

What I want to know is how somebody gets a degree in PoliSci and never hears about a little thing called Separation of Powers.

It doesnt make one damn bit of difference what the courts did in the case of some joker running for dogcatcher in Cleveland or something. The Constitution gives the power of deciding a disputed PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION to the Congress. It is in a completely different category from any other kind of election. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. Oh, for those that are really, really slow, I mean the UNITED STATES Supreme court.

Maybe some people skipped class the day they covered that.

And just to bring up a personal pet peeve, Scalia and Thomas both had family members who were working for Bush at the time they made the decision so if they were anything except slimeballs they would have recused themselves.

 

[Owlz]

SelectSmart

I, myself, am straight. The purpose of this post is only to suggest a website that may help answer the question originally asked in this thread by deliciously_naughty.

http://selectsmart.com/president/

 

[SensualMan]

Christa proves her ignorance...

Christa - Please go back and catch up on the conversation before you open your mouth and sound ignorant....it has already been shown the US Supreme Court did not decide the election. The ruled on one particular portion of the election...how the hand recount was being conducted. The Congress still had power to step in and address the actual dispute, but they refused to do so. All the US Supreme Court said was that the hand recount violated Bush's righ to equal protection...period. They did not say Florida could not have a hand recount, they did not say Bush was President...they didn't say anything else. All they said was that the recount that was under way in Florida was a violation of Bush's Constitutional rights. Keeping that in mind, Congress could have acted and changed the day the electoral college met, giving Florida more time to conduct a hand recount that complied with the law. So read up before you start posting. You are way behind....

And as I have always claimed....the US Supreme Court ALWAYS has jurisdiction when it comes to protecting someone's Constitutional rights. The fact that it was a Presidential election does not matter, the Constitutional rights of an individual were at stake.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Christa proves her ignorance...

And as I have always claimed....the US Supreme Court ALWAYS has jurisdiction when it comes to protecting someone's Constitutional rights. The fact that it was a Presidential election does not matter, the Constitutional rights of an individual were at stake.

And I'm STILL waiting for you to 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). I have asked you to quote the actual text from the ruling that states it. You claimed to have it.

C'mon, Mr. "I Back Up My Assertions With Facts". Quote it. Cut and paste the quote from the ruling here for us to read. Or were you just lying? Maybe you just opened your big mouth before doing any research? Hmmmm? Quote the established precedent from the ruling.

 

[SensualMan]

Precedent...

What are you looking to hear? I will admit the US Supreme Court has never ruled on a Presidential election before, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. I could list dozens of cases where the Court has ruled on the protection of civil rights, namely equal protection. That is the precedent here. And the fact that the Court had ruled on the same principal in other elections just serves to futher establish the principal.

Whether you like it or not, or accept it or not, that is fact. The US Supreme Court is in the business of protecting our civil rights, and that is what they did in this case.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Precedent...

What are you looking to hear? I will admit the US Supreme Court has never ruled on a Presidential election before, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. I could list dozens of cases where the Court has ruled on the protection of civil rights, namely equal protection. That is the precedent here. And the fact that the Court had ruled on the same principal in other elections just serves to futher establish the principal.

Now you say you don't have the precedent for a Presidential election. So you either lied, or opened your mouth before doing any research, assuming it must exist. Well it doesn't. But you're not off the hook yet ...

The US Supreme Court had no jurisdiction based on the US Constitution among other things. The fact that it was a Presidential election is VERY relevant. You have yet to show me how it is within the US Supreme Court's jurisdiction, when the Constitution is clear in its delegation of this responsibility for a Presidential election.

You claim that the precedent is "protecting civil rights". Back up what you say with facts for a change. Quote text with links that support the US Supreme Court interfering in this Presidential election as they did. How did they justify violating the US Constitution. Quote it. Surely a Poli Sci major like yourself knows how to look up and quote what the US Supreme Court used as the basis for this, can't ya?

Then I'll explain to you why it wasn't in their jurisdiction. Won't that be interesting?

 

[SensualMan]

Pookie...

Unfortunately, you can never prove that the case of Bush v. Gore was out of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction....

"Article 3,Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States.."

- There you go, straight from the Constitution. Election laws are still laws, are they not? It says in black and white that judicial power extends to ALL CASES, in law and in equity.......


"Article 2, Section 1. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States."

- Right out of the Constitution, the Congress still had the power to change the day of the choosing of electors, and change the day on which they were to give their vote.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articlei

You can take a look at the website yourself.

The portion of Article 1, Section 2 you keep referring to has to do with tied elections....

"...The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President..."

- That section states that if there are two candidates with a majority AND have an equal number of electoral votes....then the House will decide the election. Bush and Gore did not have an equal number of electoral votes. That section in no way gives blanket power to the Congress over elections, Presidential or otherwise. Also, this section does not preclude the Supreme Court from ruling on civil rights issues involved in the election. When the Supreme Court ruled that the hand recount was a violation of equal protection....the House could have said ok, we will decide the election, and held a vote. Sorry to disappoint you, but that is straight out of the Constitution.

If you are too blind to accept all of that proof, which is undisputable, then you are too ignorant to even continue this argument with. If the Constitution is not good enough to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction....what is?

 

[Pookie]

Re: Pookie...

Unfortunately, you can never prove that the case of Bush v. Gore was out of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articlei

You can take a look at the website yourself.

Quoting me the US Constitution is nice. Thanks. But it's already on the internet and is easily accessible. What I asked you for is the reasoning (or precedent) the US Supreme Court used to interfere in this Presidential election.

Quoting sections of the Constitution is not stating the majority's reasoning or precedent for what they did in this case. It appears you don't have what you said you had. I'll give you a break though. Do some research, and then give me the precedent you said you had before, and that would be more than quoting me verbatim the US Constitution.

Quote text with links that support the US Supreme Court interfering in this Presidential election as they did. How did they justified violating the US Constitution. Quote it.

C'mon. You're brighter than this, aren't ya?

 

[SensualMan]

Very cute...

"Quoting me the US Constitution is nice. Thanks. But it's already on the internet and is easily accessible. What I asked you for is the reasoning (or precedent) the US Supreme Court used to interfere in this Presidential election.

Quoting sections of the Constitution is not stating the majority's reasoning or precedent for what they did in this case. It appears you don't have what you said you had. I'll give you a break though. Do some research, and then give me the precedent you said you had before, and that would be more than quoting me verbatim the US Constitution.

Quote text with links that support the US Supreme Court interfering in this Presidential election as they did. How did they justified violating the US Constitution. Quote it.

C'mon. You're brighter than this, aren't ya?"


- That's cute pookie, but refusing to accept reality will not work for you forever. I have made my point and if you are too blinded by party loyalty to see it, there is nothing I can do. I provided you with the text from the Constitution, the very document our whole system of government is based on, that says the Supreme Court was well within it's designated powers. If you can not accept that, then you are hopeless.

"Quoting sections of the Constitution is not stating the majority's reasoning or precedent for what they did in this case."

- What kind of absolute nonsense is that? Do you even realize what you are saying? You basically said "Who cares what the Constitution says, what did the Court say?" That is the exact opposite of the question you should be asking! The question always should be..."Who cares what the Court says....what does the Constitution say?" You evaluate any court ruling or action based on the Constitution, nothing else. Sure you can look to precedent for support if you want a warm fuzzy feeling, but this case is cut and dry. According to the foundation of this government...the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in ANY legal case.


"The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause."

- That is straight from the majority opinion...the Supreme Court found that Bush was able to prove his argument that his right to equal protection was violated. What more proof do you need?


Thanks for offering to give me a break, but you are hardly in a position to give me a break. You have yet to offer one single argument, logical or otherwise, on why the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction. Wait, you did try to cite Article 2 Section 1....but that had nothing to do with this case. You will have to come up with a new argument to defend your assertions. You have yet to prove that the Courts involvement violated the COnstitution, as you keep claiming. So go ahead, I am waiting......

 

[Pookie]

Re: Very cute...

That's cute pookie, but refusing to accept reality will not work for you forever. I have made my point and if you are too blinded by party loyalty to see it, there is nothing I can do. I provided you with the text from the Constitution, the very document our whole system of government is based on, that says the Supreme Court was well within it's designated powers. If you can not accept that, then you are hopeless.

So you are saying you don't know how to read the ruling and provide the reasoning for them not allowing Congress to settle the dispute? You don't know how to quote case law? I plan to. Lets see if you can. Stop dodging this. Or are you really this dumb?

"Quoting sections of the Constitution is not stating the majority's reasoning or precedent for what they did in this case."

- What kind of absolute nonsense is that? Do you even realize what you are saying? You basically said "Who cares what the Constitution says, what did the Court say?" That is the exact opposite of the question you should be asking! The question always should be..."Who cares what the Court says....what does the Constitution say?" You evaluate any court ruling or action based on the Constitution, nothing else. Sure you can look to precedent for support if you want a warm fuzzy feeling, but this case is cut and dry. According to the foundation of this government...the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in ANY legal case.

No. What it tells me is you don't know how to read Supreme Court rulings and quote case law when asked a question. I'll give you a little time to figure it out though. I plan to quote case law. Lets see if you can. Hmmm?

"The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause."

- That is straight from the majority opinion...the Supreme Court found that Bush was able to prove his argument that his right to equal protection was violated. What more proof do you need?

Keep trying. You still are not addressing the issue I asked. I know how they ruled. Do some research and answer the question, if you can.

Thanks for offering to give me a break, but you are hardly in a position to give me a break. You have yet to offer one single argument, logical or otherwise, on why the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction. Wait, you did try to cite Article 2 Section 1....but that had nothing to do with this case. You will have to come up with a new argument to defend your assertions. You have yet to prove that the Courts involvement violated the COnstitution, as you keep claiming. So go ahead, I am waiting......

Oh, I plan to provide it. As I said before, you first. You claimed you had the precedent. You still haven't responded to the issue in your replies. So lets see the reasoning behind the Supreme Court interfering in this PRESIDENTIAL election. And this time, address the issue I asked. I know what the ruling was.

... and if you are too blinded by party loyalty to see it ...

Who said I was a Democrat? Who said what party I belong to? Tsk tsk.

 

[SensualMan]

Just give up pookie

"Who said I was a Democrat? Who said what party I belong to? Tsk tsk."

- Where in that sentence did I say you were a Democrat?

"No. What it tells me is you don't know how to read Supreme Court rulings and quote case law when asked a question. I'll give you a little time to figure it out though. I plan to quote case law. Lets see if you can. Hmmm?"

- So go ahead and quote it all you want, I made my case based upon the Constitution, and in this country there is no higher law.


"So you are saying you don't know how to read the ruling and provide the reasoning for them not allowing Congress to settle the dispute? You don't know how to quote case law? I plan to. Lets see if you can. Stop dodging this. Or are you really this dumb?"

- Well if you explain to me how this ruling prevented Congress from acting, I will give you an answer. But I see nothing in the decision that indicates the Supreme Court prevented the Congress from settling the dispute. I have made that point a dozen times, and you have yet to make an argument against that point. I understand that you can't, but I want to see you try.

As for precedent, I gave you the precedent, if you choose to accept it or not is your choice. Like I said, you can not dispute that the sole purpose of the Supreme Court is to protect or civil rights. That was the reason the Supreme Court got involved in the election, to protect the civil rights of George Bush. They did not decide the election. So go ahead and present your half baked argument so I can shoot it down, as I have with everything else you have posted.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Just give up pookie

Where in that sentence did I say you were a Democrat?

Who are you referring to then as my party then when you say "too blinded by party loyalty"? Hmmmm?

"No. What it tells me is you don't know how to read Supreme Court rulings and quote case law when asked a question. I'll give you a little time to figure it out though. I plan to quote case law. Lets see if you can. Hmmm?"

- So go ahead and quote it all you want, I made my case based upon the Constitution, and in this country there is no higher law.

I suppose US Supreme Court rulings mean nothing then, huh?

"So you are saying you don't know how to read the ruling and provide the reasoning for them not allowing Congress to settle the dispute? You don't know how to quote case law? I plan to. Lets see if you can. Stop dodging this. Or are you really this dumb?"

- Well if you explain to me how this ruling prevented Congress from acting, I will give you an answer. But I see nothing in the decision that indicates the Supreme Court prevented the Congress from settling the dispute. I have made that point a dozen times, and you have yet to make an argument against that point. I understand that you can't, but I want to see you try.

As for precedent, I gave you the precedent, if you choose to accept it or not is your choice. Like I said, you can not dispute that the sole purpose of the Supreme Court is to protect or civil rights. That was the reason the Supreme Court got involved in the election, to protect the civil rights of George Bush. They did not decide the election. So go ahead and present your half baked argument so I can shoot it down, as I have with everything else you have posted.

You've given me nothing except your drivel about "I got facts". You've got nothing because you're too damn lazy to research anything. And you are the one that thinks there is no separation of church and state. Idiot. You didn't know a school district was a subdivision of the state. You're a dumbass. You don't even know what the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court is. I think you're lying about being a Poli Sci major. No Poli Sci major is this fucking ignorant about Government structure.

I'm still waiting for what I asked, at least a little longer. I want to see if you can do what any Poli Sci major should be able to do easily. C'mon, Mr. Poli Sci major. Show us you can read case law. Defend your position for once with something other than "I got facts" and "that's the bottom line". You haven't given a precedent. You've given us verbatim quotes from the Constitution and the ruling's finding, along with your lame ranting. Address the argument I presented using case law to support the US Supreme Court interfering in a Presidential election that is clearly delegated to the Congress in the US Constitution. At least try instead of wimping out like this. Do some research for a change. You know what that is, don't ya?


Oh yeah, from another thread ...

This country would be so much better off if the Confederacy had won the War of Northern Aggression.

You have no education. Poli Sci major, my ass. You don't even know how to read the Constitution. You're nothing but an ignorant fucking troll. Prove me wrong. Show me you can put together an argument without the lame ass ranting. Then I'll post what I have, or at least after you show yourself as an even bigger idiot.

you can not dispute that the sole purpose of the Supreme Court is to protect or civil rights

Are you sure about that?

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Does Bob Jones "University" have a pol-sci "degree" program?