Which candidate will do the most for the glbt cause?

[Queersetti]

Re: Posting

I post here because I can.....do I need more of a reason? I like to exercise my 1st Amendment right to free speech. Initially I thought it would be interesting to jump into the arena of political ideas here....but unfortunately much of what others post is all about trashing someone and not about issues. So now I just post because I know it pisses you guys off to have a conservative voice in your sheltered little world that you can't silence.

You give yourself far too much credit.

I think it's too bad that you have decided you would rather be a negative presence than a positive one, but you are right, you have that option.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Take a look....

You're a moderator, so I am sure you keep up with the threads.....what percentage of the posts addressed to me actually address an issue? A small minority compared to those that just want to swear and bad mouth me and call me names. I love how the left preaches tolerance, yet when it comes down to it, liberals of some of the most intolerant of free speech of any people you will find.

On the contrary, your positions have been rationally dissected and shown to be without merit over and over again by several posters, while you have, from very early in the discussion, dismissed and derided everyone in the discussion. You do not allow for the possibility that others might disagree with you from a position of their own knowledge and convictions, you universally label all dissenters from your opinions as being motivated by either ignorance or malice. If eventually, we have taken to mocking you, it is not because of the strength of your long since discredited arguments, but because of the pigheaded and foolish persona you have chosen to present.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Larz....

YOu showed the quote by Larz a number of times.....and every time it is the same....the word "US" does not appear in front of Supreme Court....so you didn't prove anything. All you proved was that you inferred something from what he said, and he told you that you were wrong to infer it. So please tell me again how you convince yourself you made some sort of point during that whole series of posts?

So this is one of those "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" type of situations?

 

[SensualMan]

Tantrum

Are you done behaving like a child throwing a temper tantrum? The fact that you get irate and go off like you do only proves the fact that you have lost the argument to such a point that you basically lose self control. If at any time you feel you are capable of acting like a mature adult, maybe there could actually be a discussion here. As I have said many times though, that is obviously not your desire, because the last page of posts on your part just proves your ignorance. Every sinlge one of your supposed victories is crap taken out of context, and the sad thing is you have to know it. You would have to be a complete imbecile to not see that.

Let's start from the beginning here.....

"Assetions" 1 and 2.....here is Larz's quote....
"Incidentally, it was Gore who tried to sidestep election law by running to the Supreme Court to have himself appointed President."
- What part of the sentence is incorrect? Gore did run to the Florida Supreme Court...are you upset that he did not use the word "Florida"? Maybe he assumed too much when he thought you would be able to figure that one out on your own. Any way you look at it, that whole series of posts where you whined about him being wrong was based on an incorrect assumption on your part...you assumed Larz meant the US Supreme Court.

3rd "assertion" - Point out to me where I ever said you thought Bush was wrong when he went to the Supreme Court? I never said you did. Like I said, I know that more people than just you read my posts, so they are written for anyone who reads them, not just you. Your arrogance is getting in the way of a useful discussion.
"And as I said to you before ... if you are not replying to me, you better indicate who you are replying to when you quote me in your replies. Otherwise, you are directing your statements at my quote."
- I did not quote you anywhere in the post you are getting these examples out of, did I? I don't remember quoting anyone from this board as a matter of fact. And I can reply to anyone I choose in my posts, I don't owe you any special formatting.

4th "assertion" - See the above explanation....

5th "assertion" - Man, you are really having a bad day here...I addressed that issue ages ago. I told you, I was using multiple adjectives to make a point. Here again you are getting tied up on semantics and avoiding the larger issue. And the section of the ruling I posted addressed this point exactly.....the lack of a uniform standard for the recount violated Bush's right to equal protection. (In layman's terms, it was neither honest nor accurate.) If you don't like my choice of word's, that is your personal problem, the point remains valid.

6th "assertion" - This is the same as the 3rd and 4th above...I never quoted you or attributed the Newsmax comment to you. Because I put it in a post that also addressed you, you assumed it was directed towards you. Isn't it possible that I might have known queersetti would read that post too? I knew that he would realize the statement was directed at him, I gave you the same credit. Unfortunately, I was mistaken when I gave you that much credit.

7th "assertion" - I am trying to figure out what your point is here....I prefaced that statement by explaining it was just my recollection. To most people, that means I was not making a statement of fact, just something I thought I remembered happening. If I was wrong, oh well...I never presented as more than just a memory. Plus you tried to refute my recollection by bringing up a recount that occured after the election. I was talking about the hand recounts prior to the election being certified. The media was all over that story and very involved in covering the recounts. And as I said before, it is my recollection that more than a few reported they still felt Bush had won.

8th "assertion" - Where did I say anyting about Newsmax in my statement? I made a simple statement, that is true, that you took out of context or read too much into.
"And just because a site publishes stories and articles opposed to the "gay cause" does not make them anti-gay as you claim."
- where do I mention Newsmax there? You are the one that like to get caught up in semantics and exact language...point it out to me? I was just addressing a point that was brought up with newsmax being used as an example by someone else. Whoever used newsmax was trying to represent all conservative media, which is what I was disagreeing with. My statement is black and white....just because you are not actively pro-gay does not mean you are anti-gay. That is it.

9th "assertion" - As to Supreme Court involvement, you only think you refuted anything. YOu never gave one fact that proves the Supreme Court was out of line. Yes, you tried to cite a part of the Constitution that dealt with elections that resulted in a tie, but that did not apply here. And as I also showed you more than once....the Supreme Court ruling in no way prohibited the Congress from acting to resolve the election. As for the precedent issue, you are proving to be mentally deficiant on it so I will just let it go.



The bottom line is that you, like I stated pages ago...like to get caught up in semantics and try your best to avoid arguing the larger issues. If that works for you when you argue other people, keep doing it. The problem is that when you argue anyone with knowledge of the subject, they see through your smoke and mirrors for what you are, someone out spouting the same old rhetoric with nothing to back it up. It gets really tiresome actually. I have tried my best to get you to logically lay out an argument as to why the Supreme Court was out of line, but all you can do is cite one line from the Constitution that does not apply in this case. I played along though and even took the time to argue that even if the sole power for deciding the election rested with Congress, what the Supreme Court did in no way usurped that authority. I think there probably is a pretty compelling argument out there that the Supreme Court exceeded it's power, unfortunately you have not found it yet and are unable to repeat it.

As much as queer's posts bothered me at times, he was at least able to conduct himself as an adult and I respect him for that. While I may disagree with him on the issues, I respect his posiiton on them and think he probably reached that position through doing his own research. You, on the other hand, behave like a spoiled child that thinks if you yell the loudest you must be right. If you swear and belittle people, somehow it makes you appear more knowledgeable. The fact is it just made you look silly, and I actually take pride in knowing that it is so easy for me to make you lose your self control. I wish you better luck in the future.

Unfortunately I will not be posting much in the future...my wife has asked me to finish a few projects around the house before I deploy that will preclude me from spending so much time on the internet. I hope you all miss me and I will check back in when I get the chance.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Tantrum

Let's start from the beginning here.....

"Assetions" 1 and 2.....here is Larz's quote....
"Incidentally, it was Gore who tried to sidestep election law by running to the Supreme Court to have himself appointed President."
- What part of the sentence is incorrect? Gore did run to the Florida Supreme Court...are you upset that he did not use the word "Florida"? Maybe he assumed too much when he thought you would be able to figure that one out on your own. Any way you look at it, that whole series of posts where you whined about him being wrong was based on an incorrect assumption on your part...you assumed Larz meant the US Supreme Court.

Quote the correct sentence, moron.

"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."

You're illiterate if you can't understand that "them", within the structure of that sentence, refers back to "Supreme Court" which was clearly established as the "US Supreme Court" early in that sentence. You never made it out of elementary school.

Oh, that was only my first assertion, not my second. You skipped over my second assertion.

3rd "assertion" - Point out to me where I ever said you thought Bush was wrong when he went to the Supreme Court? I never said you did. Like I said, I know that more people than just you read my posts, so they are written for anyone who reads them, not just you. Your arrogance is getting in the way of a useful discussion.
"And as I said to you before ... if you are not replying to me, you better indicate who you are replying to when you quote me in your replies. Otherwise, you are directing your statements at my quote."
- I did not quote you anywhere in the post you are getting these examples out of, did I? I don't remember quoting anyone from this board as a matter of fact. And I can reply to anyone I choose in my posts, I don't owe you any special formatting.

You addressed me specifically with the post that began with ... "Why do you even post Pookie.... "
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=195167&perpage=25&pagenumber=3

4th "assertion" - See the above explanation....

More proof of a tired mind.
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=195167&perpage=25&pagenumber=3

AGAIN, you addressed me specifically with the post that began with ... "Why do you even post Pookie.... "

5th "assertion" - Man, you are really having a bad day here...I addressed that issue ages ago. I told you, I was using multiple adjectives to make a point. Here again you are getting tied up on semantics and avoiding the larger issue. And the section of the ruling I posted addressed this point exactly.....the lack of a uniform standard for the recount violated Bush's right to equal protection. (In layman's terms, it was neither honest nor accurate.) If you don't like my choice of word's, that is your personal problem, the point remains valid.

I specifically told you your original quote wasn't in the ruling, and challenged you to post it if it was. As a reply, you quoted a section of the ruling that applied to the recount standards used in several locations. No where in the quote you provided did the US Supreme Court say that there was anything not honest about any of the standards or how they were utilized. The really sad part about your reply is that it applied to the earlier recount, not the one the US Supreme Court halted. Also, you didn't seem to even know what the definition of honest was.

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

I dare you AGAIN to show where the US Supreme Court addressed "honest" in their ruling.

6th "assertion" - This is the same as the 3rd and 4th above...I never quoted you or attributed the Newsmax comment to you. Because I put it in a post that also addressed you, you assumed it was directed towards you. Isn't it possible that I might have known queersetti would read that post too? I knew that he would realize the statement was directed at him, I gave you the same credit. Unfortunately, I was mistaken when I gave you that much credit.

Even more proof of a tired mind. Or just someone too lazy to even look at his own posts. Don't reference me if you're not replying to me.
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=195167&perpage=25&pagenumber=3

7th "assertion" - I am trying to figure out what your point is here....I prefaced that statement by explaining it was just my recollection. To most people, that means I was not making a statement of fact, just something I thought I remembered happening. If I was wrong, oh well...I never presented as more than just a memory. Plus you tried to refute my recollection by bringing up a recount that occured after the election. I was talking about the hand recounts prior to the election being certified. The media was all over that story and very involved in covering the recounts. And as I said before, it is my recollection that more than a few reported they still felt Bush had won.

The point is ... you made the statement ... "what percentage of the posts addressed to me actually address an issue? A small minority compared to those that just want to swear and bad mouth me and call me names." Did you forget what I was responding too that quickly? Idiot.

8th "assertion" - Where did I say anyting about Newsmax in my statement? I made a simple statement, that is true, that you took out of context or read too much into.
"And just because a site publishes stories and articles opposed to the "gay cause" does not make them anti-gay as you claim."
- where do I mention Newsmax there? You are the one that like to get caught up in semantics and exact language...point it out to me? I was just addressing a point that was brought up with newsmax being used as an example by someone else. Whoever used newsmax was trying to represent all conservative media, which is what I was disagreeing with. My statement is black and white....just because you are not actively pro-gay does not mean you are anti-gay. That is it.

Moron ...

Originally posted by SensualMan - "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."

You are so fucking pitiful.

9th "assertion" - As to Supreme Court involvement, you only think you refuted anything. YOu never gave one fact that proves the Supreme Court was out of line. Yes, you tried to cite a part of the Constitution that dealt with elections that resulted in a tie, but that did not apply here. And as I also showed you more than once....the Supreme Court ruling in no way prohibited the Congress from acting to resolve the election. As for the precedent issue, you are proving to be mentally deficiant on it so I will just let it go.

You did forget what I was responding too that quickly. The point is ... you made the statement ... "what percentage of the posts addressed to me actually address an issue? A small minority compared to those that just want to swear and bad mouth me and call me names." Shithead.

unfortunately you have not found it yet and are unable to repeat it.

As I've said several times now, you first.

Every sinlge one of your supposed victories is crap taken out of context, and the sad thing is you have to know it.

You can't seem to keep your concentration on what I was replying to ... "what percentage of the posts addressed to me actually address an issue? A small minority compared to those that just want to swear and bad mouth me and call me names."

Dumbass.

 

[SensualMan]

Nice try...

Ok, so the biggest mistake I have made in any of my posts is calling one of them "Why do you even post Pookie..." Other than that you have nothing? Ok, I will admit it was a bad title for the post since I knew I was going to be addressing more in that post than the points you raised. As I have said before, I reserve the right to address any argument I want in any of my posts. If you are too simple too see that, or acept it, then it is your problem. Until you show me where I was actually quoting you, and addressing you specifically, you are just running your mouth.




About your childish argument with Larz...

"Quote the correct sentence, moron."

I think if you go back and look, Larz posted the quote I cited before he posted the one you are talking about. But the same argument applies in this case.

"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."

Again I ask...where does it say "US Supreme Court"? The answer is...."It doesn't". That is the only correct answer.

"clearly established as the "US Supreme Court" early in that sentence"

Where does it establish it as meaning "US Supreme Court"? That phrase is nowhere in the sentence.




About honesty...

You still are not making any point, just rambling on. You insist on carrying on a pointless argument over semantics. I told you that I added the word honest, and since I was not quoting the US Supreme Court you are just running your mouth. Unless I incorrectly quoted the Court in my post, you should just give it up and move on. Your argument has devolved into nothing, like Clinton trying to establish the meaning of the word "is".

"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."

There is the quote from the ruling for you to see again...."standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection" clause...... Why does it violate the clause? Because it is inaccurate and, in my opinion, dishonest. You are free to disagree, but the ruling agrees. Granted, it does not use the word honest, but I never quoted it as doing so. You really need to learn....when someone uses quotation mars, it is a quote. Without quotation marks, then a person in paraphrasing....which means they are just making the same point.


Newsmax....

Now is when I say that if you are going to quote me, don't cut and paste and try to edit the quote to suit your needs....here is the whole paragraph....

"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."

I talked about Newsmax in a totally seperate sentence, a completely different thought. I don't know whether Newsmax is anti-gay or not, that was not my point......read the quote...The last sentence is a serperate sentence, a seperate idea. I made a point about newsmax in the first sentence, then a I made a point about other media sources in the second...then in the third I made a seperate point. If you can't follow that, you need serious help. That was a broad point, not posted in defense of newsmax.


So it seems you are back where you started, looking foolish and out of breath from the ranting. As for your posts making points or just trying to attack me....some did both. Well, some at least tried to make some sort of point before you got to the name calling. COme back when you grow up and can behave. Cursing and name calling might be acceptable in your minimum wage lifestyle, but in the professional world that behavior if frowned upon. It is definately frowned upon in the world of political discussion because all it does is act a a barrier to the expression of ideas and the exchange of ideas.

As for you being able to piece together an argument in support of your cause, I am waiting. I made my case and am waiting to see if you can actually discredit any of my main points. There really is only one, that the US Supreme Court was well within the bounds of their Constitutional powers to get involved in the case of Bush v. Gore. I cited numerous sections of the Constitution to support my claim, most of it resting on 2 main principles:

1. The Constitution charges the judicial branch with the protection of Constitutional rights. The US Supreme Court, as part of the judicial branch, has the ultimate authority over all legal matters in this country.

2 . The ruling in this case did not preclude the Congress from exercising powers vested in them by the Constitution. You try to claim that the Supreme Court decision in this case prevented the Congress from acting, which I have disproven.

 

[SensualMan]

Your goal...

So now your goal is to find some evidence to try to prove that the ruling prohibited action by Congress. Unless you can do that, we are done here and you have wasted all your anger and time by not accomplishing anything. Save your posts now until you can prove that, because from now on I plan on saving my time to address rational, logical arguments on your part. Not meaningless debates over semantics and sentence structure.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Nice try...

Ok, so the biggest mistake I have made in any of my posts is calling one of them "Why do you even post Pookie..." Other than that you have nothing? Ok, I will admit it was a bad title for the post since I knew I was going to be addressing more in that post than the points you raised. As I have said before, I reserve the right to address any argument I want in any of my posts. If you are too simple too see that, or acept it, then it is your problem. Until you show me where I was actually quoting you, and addressing you specifically, you are just running your mouth.

You're damn right it was a poor choice for the post title. You can reserve the right all you want, but if you don't specify who you are addressing, then I assume you are replying to me if you quote or address me.

About your childish argument with Larz...

"Quote the correct sentence, moron."

I think if you go back and look, Larz posted the quote I cited before he posted the one you are talking about. But the same argument applies in this case.

"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."

Again I ask...where does it say "US Supreme Court"? The answer is...."It doesn't". That is the only correct answer.

"clearly established as the "US Supreme Court" early in that sentence"

Where does it establish it as meaning "US Supreme Court"? That phrase is nowhere in the sentence.

Where is the meaning established? Here, dimwit ...

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

Do you think Q was "whining" about the Florida Supreme Court? If you do, you're an even bigger loser than I thought.

About honesty...

You still are not making any point, just rambling on. You insist on carrying on a pointless argument over semantics. I told you that I added the word honest, and since I was not quoting the US Supreme Court you are just running your mouth. Unless I incorrectly quoted the Court in my post, you should just give it up and move on. Your argument has devolved into nothing, like Clinton trying to establish the meaning of the word "is".

And AGAIN, there is NOTHING in the ruling that even addresses or questions the "honesty" of the recounts.

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."

I replied to the above. Are you so retarded that you can't remember the things you said, even when you can scroll back and read them? Fucktard.

"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."

There is the quote from the ruling for you to see again...."standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection" clause...... Why does it violate the clause? Because it is inaccurate and, in my opinion, dishonest. You are free to disagree, but the ruling agrees. Granted, it does not use the word honest, but I never quoted it as doing so. You really need to learn....when someone uses quotation mars, it is a quote. Without quotation marks, then a person in paraphrasing....which means they are just making the same point.

Honest and inaccurate have two different meanings, stupid ass. You said the "US Supreme Court had the wisdom to see ...". So fuck off, imbecile.

Newsmax....

Now is when I say that if you are going to quote me, don't cut and paste and try to edit the quote to suit your needs....here is the whole paragraph....

"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."

I talked about Newsmax in a totally seperate sentence, a completely different thought. I don't know whether Newsmax is anti-gay or not, that was not my point......read the quote...The last sentence is a serperate sentence, a seperate idea. I made a point about newsmax in the first sentence, then a I made a point about other media sources in the second...then in the third I made a seperate point. If you can't follow that, you need serious help. That was a broad point, not posted in defense of newsmax.

The sentences are all part of one paragraph. Do you know what a paragraph is? http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/general/gl_pgrph2.html

From the link ... "The entire paragraph should concern itself with a single focus. If it begins with a one focus or major point of discussion, it should not end with another or wander within different ideas."

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

What sites did Q refer to? Newsmax and FreeRepublic. So fuck off again, shithead.

As for you being able to piece together an argument in support of your cause, I am waiting. I made my case and am waiting to see if you can actually discredit any of my main points.

And I'm still waiting for you to deal with the issue. I'll post my reply soon. I know you can't write a coherent reply using case law to address what I asked. I will. But I've asked you numerous times for days to address the issue I asked ... and you said you had an established precedent. What have you replied with? Rants and drivel. Try again, dipshit. I called you out first.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Your goal...

So now your goal is to find some evidence to try to prove that the ruling prohibited action by Congress. Unless you can do that, we are done here and you have wasted all your anger and time by not accomplishing anything. Save your posts now until you can prove that, because from now on I plan on saving my time to address rational, logical arguments on your part. Not meaningless debates over semantics and sentence structure.

I never claimed it prohibited Congress from taking action, you dumbass retard. Read my question that I've asked you so many fucking times now ... with no response from you addressing the issue that you claimed you had an established precedent for.

You really need to get help for this reading disability of yours.

 

[SensualMan]

You called me out? Are you serious? What is this, the old west? You are in no position to call me out. I made my case and I am sufficiently satisfied that you have none, or you would have made it by now. Life must suck for an irritable, angry individual like you.

If the ruling did not prohibit Congress from acting, then what are you whining about? Get off the Supreme Court's back and write you congressman. You really are pathetic. So basically you are admitting that the Supreme Court stepping in did not violate the Constitution....what are you doing posting in this thread then? Move your ignorance elsewhere. You just made my case for me....thank you.

Your whole argument was based on the fact that the Supreme Court violated the Constitution because settling elections is the job of the Congress. Now you admit that the Court ruling had no impact on Congress acting. Make up your mind!

 

[Pookie]

If the ruling did not prohibit Congress from acting, then what are you whining about? Get off the Supreme Court's back and write you congressman. You really are pathetic. So basically you are admitting that the Supreme Court stepping in did not violate the Constitution....what are you doing posting in this thread then? Move your ignorance elsewhere. You just made my case for me....thank you.

You can't be this much of a dumbass. The US Supreme Court violated the Constitution. They had no jurisdiction in this case. You said you had a precedent. Put up, or shut the fuck up.

Again, I want to see if you can do what any Poli Sci major should be able to do easily. 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. 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. As I said, I'll post what I have very soon, whether you continue to be a wimp or not. You first, since you were asked first ... and quite a number of times.

Your whole argument was based on the fact that the Supreme Court violated the Constitution because settling elections is the job of the Congress. Now you admit that the Court ruling had no impact on Congress acting. Make up your mind!

I never said I " admit that the Court ruling had no impact on Congress acting." You tried to say I did. Fuck off. It doesn't matter that the Congress didn't do anything else after the US Supreme Court interfered. The US Supreme Court STILL violated the US Constitution ... no matter what Congress did or didn't do after the Court made its violation. You are one dumb ignorant fuck.

 

[SensualMan]

Calm down and breathe

Pookie....

"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."

1. You presented no such case law.
2. I have shown that the Supreme Court ruling did not "interfere" in the election, they simply ruled that a particular hand recount was a violation of the Constitution.
3. I posted the section of the Constitution the talks about Congressional power in an election. I made the argument that it did not apply in this situation, and you never refuted it.
4. YOu can show nothing in the Constitution that defends your ignorant position, I can cite two different sections.
5. The Constitution clearly gives judicial oversight to the Supreme Court in ALL legal matters in this country. Once Bush filed a suit, it became a legal matter, giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction.
6. The Section of the COnstitution you continue to reference states that Congress has the power to decide elections that are tied....they always had that power. Unless you can prove that the Supreme Court decision actually decided the election, then you can't make that argument. The COnstitution does not say that only Congress can RULE on elections and that any other branch is prohibited from acting. So like I have said all along, unless you can prove that the Supreme Court prohibited Congress from acting, there is no Constitutional violation.


Those are basic facts, as basic as they get....and you continue to be so blinded by your anger, ignorance, and selfish agenda that you can't see clearly. Like I said, all you have to do is prove one thing to make your case....You have to PROVE that the Supreme Court ruling prohibited Congress from exercising their Constitutional power. If you can't do that....go away and save you swearing and ignorance for someone else.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Calm down and breathe

Pookie....

"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."

1. You presented no such case law.
2. I have shown that the Supreme Court ruling did not "interfere" in the election, they simply ruled that a particular hand recount was a violation of the Constitution.
3. I posted the section of the Constitution the talks about Congressional power in an election. I made the argument that it did not apply in this situation, and you never refuted it.
4. YOu can show nothing in the Constitution that defends your ignorant position, I can cite two different sections.
5. The Constitution clearly gives judicial oversight to the Supreme Court in ALL legal matters in this country. Once Bush filed a suit, it became a legal matter, giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction.
6. The Section of the COnstitution you continue to reference states that Congress has the power to decide elections that are tied....they always had that power. Unless you can prove that the Supreme Court decision actually decided the election, then you can't make that argument. The COnstitution does not say that only Congress can RULE on elections and that any other branch is prohibited from acting. So like I have said all along, unless you can prove that the Supreme Court prohibited Congress from acting, there is no Constitutional violation.


Those are basic facts, as basic as they get....and you continue to be so blinded by your anger, ignorance, and selfish agenda that you can't see clearly. Like I said, all you have to do is prove one thing to make your case....You have to PROVE that the Supreme Court ruling prohibited Congress from exercising their Constitutional power. If you can't do that....go away and save you swearing and ignorance for someone else.

Here is the full quote ...

"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."

The request is for you to address the argument 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. Yeah, the wording in my quote is a bit fucked up, but you've been asked many times already to provide case law to support what you claim to have as far as an established precedent. Clearly I haven't yet, because I said I would after you addressed the issue you claimed to have, moron.

Where is the established precedent you claimed to have? I'm STILL waiting, dumbass.

Are you really sure you're correct about all the points you quoted above?

 

[Pookie]

Re: Calm down and breathe

Pookie....

5. The Constitution clearly gives judicial oversight to the Supreme Court in ALL legal matters in this country. Once Bush filed a suit, it became a legal matter, giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction.

You're wrong. The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with “Cases” and “Controversies.” John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’ s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision.

Those are basic facts, as basic as they get....and you continue to be so blinded by your anger, ignorance, and selfish agenda that you can't see clearly. Like I said, all you have to do is prove one thing to make your case....

I just proved number 5 wrong. So according to your statement, I made my case.

But wait. I won't do that to you, even though your "basic facts" weren't facts after all. I think you may be the one blinded. I'm having fun with this. You seem to be the one getting upset.

You have to PROVE that the Supreme Court ruling prohibited Congress from exercising their Constitutional power. If you can't do that....go away and save you swearing and ignorance for someone else.

I don't have to prove any such thing. I never said that to begin with. You did. I said that the US Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case. You said you had a established precedent to prove it did. We're still waiting for that from you.



Are you REALLY sure you're correct about all the other points you quoted above?

 

[SensualMan]

Is that all you have?

"You're wrong. The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with “Cases” and “Controversies.” John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’ s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision."

- Is that really the best you can do? I am sorely disappointed by your ineptness. You think a personal decision by one justice not to advise a President somehow qualifies as law or legal precedent? Other justices owned slaves at one time in their lives...does that establish a precedent for legalizing slavery? You can't find anywhere in the Constitution that supports your claim, only a personal decision by one man.

If you are going to quote the Constitution (which you did since you used quotes),quote it correctly. Don't cut out one or two words out of context...

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, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

The important line is...."The judicial power shall extend to ALL CASES, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States..."

So now explain to me how Bush v. Gore was not a case involving the law? If you can do that, I will concede your point. The case involved the equal protection afforded under the Constitution....seems pretty clear to me that the Supreme Court had the power to step in.

And I am not getting upset, in fact I am enjoying this. Never before have I had such an easy time discrediting someones arguments. You seem to have a very hard time accepting the fact that the Supreme Court ruling was independent of the election and did not in any way change the process laid out in the Constitution. Actually, the fact that it was a Presidential election in pretty irrelevant. Someone's Constitutional rights were being violated....I would have been upset if the Court had not stepped in.

Just as a side note, I was impressed by your last post....no swearing or name calling. I actually felt able to converse with you as if you were another adult, not a child.

 

[SensualMan]

Yeah, I'm ready....

If this is the best that you can come up with so far....I am more than ready for you to try to continue in your futile attempt to disprove my argument.

 

[Pookie]

"You're wrong. The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with “Cases” and “Controversies.” John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’ s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision."

- Is that really the best you can do? I am sorely disappointed by your ineptness. You think a personal decision by one justice not to advise a President somehow qualifies as law or legal precedent? Other justices owned slaves at one time in their lives...does that establish a precedent for legalizing slavery? You can't find anywhere in the Constitution that supports your claim, only a personal decision by one man.

What I posted wasn't just about a personal decision by one justice. It was taken from a booklet prepared by the US Supreme Court, and published with funding from the Supreme Court Historical Society.

"The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases."

The important line is...."The judicial power shall extend to ALL CASES, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States..."

But that isn't what you stated now, is it?

"The Constitution clearly gives judicial oversight to the Supreme Court in ALL legal matters in this country. Once Bush filed a suit, it became a legal matter, giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction."

Clearly, as stated by the US Supreme Court’s own publication concerning its jurisdiction, they do not get involved in “ALL legal matters.”

So now explain to me how Bush v. Gore was not a case involving the law? If you can do that, I will concede your point. The case involved the equal protection afforded under the Constitution....seems pretty clear to me that the Supreme Court had the power to step in.

Did I say it wasn't a case. No. I said the US Supreme Court didn't have jurisdiction in this case. You said you had an established precedent that says it did. We're STILL waiting.

And I am not getting upset, in fact I am enjoying this. Never before have I had such an easy time discrediting someones arguments. You seem to have a very hard time accepting the fact that the Supreme Court ruling was independent of the election and did not in any way change the process laid out in the Constitution. Actually, the fact that it was a Presidential election in pretty irrelevant. Someone's Constitutional rights were being violated....I would have been upset if the Court had not stepped in.

If you're enjoying it, then stop your bitching.

Discrediting my argument, huh? So where is that established precedent?

 

[SensualMan]

Who's bitching?

I am not bitching, I am simply pointing out the fallacies in your arguments. If you are referring to my comments about your swearing, that was hardly bitching. That was simply a request for you to grow up and act your age, which thankfully you appear to have done.

"The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases."

- Bush v. Gore was not an advisory opinion, it was most definately a "specific case". The ruling became law.


"Clearly, as stated by the US Supreme Court’s own publication concerning its jurisdiction, they do not get involved in 'ALL legal matters.'"

- No, the publication states the Court does not get involved in advisory opinions....and as I said, Bush v. Gore was not an advisory opinion. It was a legal ruling in a specific case based on the Constitutional right to equal protection.

"Did I say it wasn't a case. No. I said the US Supreme Court didn't have jurisdiction in this case. You said you had an established precedent that says it did. We're STILL waiting."

- Of course the Supreme Court had jurisdiction, you have still not been able to explain your basis for claiming they did not have jurisdiction. As for precedent, I gave it to you. Apparently we have a different definition of precedent, so I have decided that it was a pointless argument to continue. You refuse to acknowledge the cases I cited as precedent, all of which are examples of the Supreme Court involvement in election disputes. Precedent or not...according to the Constitution the Supreme Court was well within its power to act in this case.

I am still waiting for you to make one valid argument that the Supreme Court exceded its Constitutional powers. Which apparently they have plenty of since you see no problem with the Court creating a "seperation of church and state" that does not exist in the Constitution. Isn't it beautiful how all of these arguments about politics tie into one another?

 

[Pookie]

Re: Who's bitching?

I am not bitching, I am simply pointing out the fallacies in your arguments. If you are referring to my comments about your swearing, that was hardly bitching. That was simply a request for you to grow up and act your age, which thankfully you appear to have done.

I know bitching when I see it. You were bitching. But whatever.

"The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases."

- Bush v. Gore was not an advisory opinion, it was most definately a "specific case". The ruling became law.

Did I say that Bush v Gore was an advisory opinion? No.

You said ... "5. The Constitution clearly gives judicial oversight to the Supreme Court in ALL legal matters in this country. Once Bush filed a suit, it became a legal matter, giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction."

I said ... "You're wrong. The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with “Cases” and “Controversies.” John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’ s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision."

AGAIN, as CLEARLY stated by the US Supreme Court’s own publication concerning its jurisdiction, they do not get involved in “ALL legal matters.”

You really do have a problem following a topic from one post to the next, don't ya? If you have a mental disability, I apologize.

"Did I say it wasn't a case. No. I said the US Supreme Court didn't have jurisdiction in this case. You said you had an established precedent that says it did. We're STILL waiting."

- Of course the Supreme Court had jurisdiction, you have still not been able to explain your basis for claiming they did not have jurisdiction. As for precedent, I gave it to you. Apparently we have a different definition of precedent, so I have decided that it was a pointless argument to continue. You refuse to acknowledge the cases I cited as precedent, all of which are examples of the Supreme Court involvement in election disputes. Precedent or not...according to the Constitution the Supreme Court was well within its power to act in this case.

So quote the specific text(s) from the rulings that makes your "established precedent" then. That's what I have been asking for so many fucking times now.

And for God's sake, just quote the relevant section and not the entire rulings. Let's see if the Poli Sci major can finally do what he was asked numerous times to do.

While you're doing that, you might want to think about why the US Supreme Court ordered an end to the statewide recount, after ruling that all the Florida Supreme Court needed to do was add a uniform standard to the recount. Think about why that was not them interfering in the election by not counting “legal votes" that they admitted existed in their majority ruling .

Also, you might want to read up on Title 3, Sec. 5, of the U.S. Code, which contemplates that disputes arising from state elector election contests may be decided by a state's judiciary.

Oh yeah, you might also want to read up on Section 102.168 of the Florida Statutes too. And while you're doing that, it wouldn't hurt you to beef up on Gore v. Harris. Also, keep in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court is one of defined and limited power, as spelled out in Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

But first ... quote the specific text(s) from the rulings that makes your "established precedent".

 

[Pookie]

Re: Who's bitching?

... Bush v. Gore was not an advisory opinion, it was most definately a "specific case". The ruling became law. ...

You're a Poli Sci major? Pfft.

Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution on the role of Congress - "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. "

The US Supreme Court can not make law. That is the role of Congress. The US Supreme Court has ultimate authority to hear "appeals" in nearly all cases decided in the Federal court system. It can also hear "appeals", generally only after a decision by a State’s highest court that involve a "Federal question."

Maybe you meant you were a Sci Fi major, hmmm?

Also, a little hint while you preparing to post us the quotes for your "established precedent", you might want to pay particular attention to the part of Article I, section 8 above which says "and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States." I'm not saying whether it's important or not. You just might want to pay attention to it.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Who's bitching?

...according to the Constitution the Supreme Court was well within its power to act in this case.

I am still waiting for you to make one valid argument that the Supreme Court exceded its Constitutional powers. Which apparently they have plenty of since you see no problem with the Court creating a "seperation of church and state" that does not exist in the Constitution. Isn't it beautiful how all of these arguments about politics tie into one another?

One last thing you might want to add to the list of things to study while preparing to post us those quotes from the rulings you say creates an "established precedent", pay close attention to Section 2 of Article III of the US Constitution where it says "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Again, I'm not saying whether it's important or not. But a Sci Fi ... err ... Poli Sci major like yourself should be able to figure out if it is quite easily.

But first ... the quotes of the the specific text(s) of the relevant sections from the rulings that makes your "established precedent". I'm very interested in reading it.

 

[SensualMan]

Oh well...

I was hoping that in the last 2 days I have not been able to get on here and post you may have actually taken the time to post something worth my reading. Once again, you have let me down. You think after a while I would stop giving you the benefit of the doubt, I guess I was just more optimistic about your potential that I should have been.


If you did not think Bush v. Gore was an advisory opinion why the hell did you bring it up? It has no relevance to anything we are talking about. As for an advisory opinion fitting into the category of "all legal matters"...well that is a matter of opinion. Personally, I think the fact that it is called an "advisory opinion" is pretty clear evidence that it is not a legal matter in the sense I was referring to. If you took it that way, it just seems to follow your habit of inferring things from people's posts that were not meant to be inferred. Your argument about this is all smoke and mirrors with no relevance, so let's move on.

"While you're doing that, you might want to think about why the US Supreme Court ordered an end to the statewide recount, after ruling that all the Florida Supreme Court needed to do was add a uniform standard to the recount. Think about why that was not them interfering in the election by not counting “legal votes" that they admitted existed in their majority ruling ."

- Are you serious? YOu really need an answer? It is obvious...The Supreme Court demanded that the hand recount that was currently underway be stopped. The decision did not prevent the state from starting another recount with uniform standards. The ruling does state that there was a lack of time for the state to establish standards and get the recount done, but the ruling does not prevent the state from attempting it.


"Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution on the role of Congress - "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. "

- Oh lord, I should have known you would whine about that. I forgot that you take everything so seriously and figures of speech can't be used. It's just like you to waste time arguing about such an irrelevant point! Of course I know it did not become "law" in the legal sense of the word. The ruling was final though, and in that sense it was the final authority....or the "law" to use the term loosely. When you watch westerns do you get upset when the sheriff refers to himself as "the law"? I mean a law is something Congress passes, so how can a man be the law? It's a figure of speech, live with it.


"Also, you might want to read up on Title 3, Sec. 5, of the U.S. Code, which contemplates that disputes arising from state elector election contests may be decided by a state's judiciary."

- How did the Supreme Court ruling prevent the state judiciary from deciding the election? The ruling did prevent the state judiciary from deciding the election based on an unconstitutional recount. That is the exact function of the Supreme Court, to provide judicial oversight for all other courts. Should a lower court stray from the framework laid in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the authority to step in.



"Oh yeah, you might also want to read up on Section 102.168 of the Florida Statutes too. And while you're doing that, it wouldn't hurt you to beef up on Gore v. Harris. Also, keep in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court is one of defined and limited power, as spelled out in Article III of the U.S. Constitution."

- You are really having a hard time accepting fact, aren't you? You can cite anything you want, but until you find a section in the Constitution where it prohibits the Supreme Court from ruling on Constitutional rights....you need to give it up. It does not matter how you want to spin this debate, the bottome line is that it was a matter of the Supreme Court protecting the Constitutional rights of George Bush. And you can cite Florida law all you want, but no state law can violate the Constitution, and if it does, the Supreme Court has the authority to strike it down. I admit I have no idea what that Florda statute says, but in this case it does not matter.

You really are starting to bore me, you refuse to post arguments of real substance and choose instead to argue semantics and other issues that have nothing to do with the big picture. If you have evidence (i.e. sections from the Constitution, judicial precedent, etc.) that supports your claim that the Supreme Court exceeded the power vested in it under the Constitution, then present it. If all you are going to do is parse words and argue nonsense, just say so and I will quit wasting my valuable time posting here.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Oh well...

I was hoping that in the last 2 days I have not been able to get on here and post you may have actually taken the time to post something worth my reading. Once again, you have let me down. You think after a while I would stop giving you the benefit of the doubt, I guess I was just more optimistic about your potential that I should have been.


If you did not think Bush v. Gore was an advisory opinion why the hell did you bring it up? It has no relevance to anything we are talking about. As for an advisory opinion fitting into the category of "all legal matters"...well that is a matter of opinion. Personally, I think the fact that it is called an "advisory opinion" is pretty clear evidence that it is not a legal matter in the sense I was referring to. If you took it that way, it just seems to follow your habit of inferring things from people's posts that were not meant to be inferred. Your argument about this is all smoke and mirrors with no relevance, so let's move on.

Why did I bring it up? To show you don't know shit about the US Supreme Court. They do NOT handle ALL legal matters, including OTHER things as well, you dumbass fuck. Do your research.

"While you're doing that, you might want to think about why the US Supreme Court ordered an end to the statewide recount, after ruling that all the Florida Supreme Court needed to do was add a uniform standard to the recount. Think about why that was not them interfering in the election by not counting “legal votes" that they admitted existed in their majority ruling ."

- Are you serious? YOu really need an answer? It is obvious...The Supreme Court demanded that the hand recount that was currently underway be stopped. The decision did not prevent the state from starting another recount with uniform standards. The ruling does state that there was a lack of time for the state to establish standards and get the recount done, but the ruling does not prevent the state from attempting it.

You're wrong, stupid moron. The decision DID prevent the State from starting another recount, PERIOD. Do your research, moron.

"Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution on the role of Congress - "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. "

- Oh lord, I should have known you would whine about that. I forgot that you take everything so seriously and figures of speech can't be used. It's just like you to waste time arguing about such an irrelevant point! Of course I know it did not become "law" in the legal sense of the word. The ruling was final though, and in that sense it was the final authority....or the "law" to use the term loosely. When you watch westerns do you get upset when the sheriff refers to himself as "the law"? I mean a law is something Congress passes, so how can a man be the law? It's a figure of speech, live with it.

Someone with a Poli Sci degree would never even refer to it in a figure of speech like that. You show your lack of education so well. I think you learned your law knowledge from watching westerns.

"Also, you might want to read up on Title 3, Sec. 5, of the U.S. Code, which contemplates that disputes arising from state elector election contests may be decided by a state's judiciary."

- How did the Supreme Court ruling prevent the state judiciary from deciding the election? The ruling did prevent the state judiciary from deciding the election based on an unconstitutional recount. That is the exact function of the Supreme Court, to provide judicial oversight for all other courts. Should a lower court stray from the framework laid in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the authority to step in.

The US Supreme Court stopped the recount. Do your reading. Tsk tsk. You have no knowledge of Presidential election law. You show that too well. I strongly advise you to read what I suggested in my last few posts, before I embarrass the hell out of you.

"Oh yeah, you might also want to read up on Section 102.168 of the Florida Statutes too. And while you're doing that, it wouldn't hurt you to beef up on Gore v. Harris. Also, keep in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court is one of defined and limited power, as spelled out in Article III of the U.S. Constitution."

- You are really having a hard time accepting fact, aren't you? You can cite anything you want, but until you find a section in the Constitution where it prohibits the Supreme Court from ruling on Constitutional rights....you need to give it up. It does not matter how you want to spin this debate, the bottome line is that it was a matter of the Supreme Court protecting the Constitutional rights of George Bush. And you can cite Florida law all you want, but no state law can violate the Constitution, and if it does, the Supreme Court has the authority to strike it down. I admit I have no idea what that Florda statute says, but in this case it does not matter.

I strongly suggest you do your reading that I suggested before.

You really are starting to bore me, you refuse to post arguments of real substance and choose instead to argue semantics and other issues that have nothing to do with the big picture. If you have evidence (i.e. sections from the Constitution, judicial precedent, etc.) that supports your claim that the Supreme Court exceeded the power vested in it under the Constitution, then present it. If all you are going to do is parse words and argue nonsense, just say so and I will quit wasting my valuable time posting here.

Where are your "established precedent" quotes?

You're just a stupid ass lame troll. I'll give you another chance to do your reading and post something that even comes close to an established precedent, before I show you just how fucking ignorant you are about the Presidential election process, the US Constitution, and the law. I'm waiting.