These points are clear.
1) The American experiment in democracy is bigger than either Bush or Gore.
2) To point a fact, in the course of American history up to this point in his individual career, are both rather petty players on the stage.
3) There is no decisive winner in Florida. Whoever is declared the winner will more than likely win by less than a thousand votes.
4) Litigation is not the way to decide the issue.
5) Therefore, one of the canidates much take a higher road...which may not be easy, but one that will keep the election out of the courts. Each canidate and his campaign has yet to do so of yet).
Please concede Vice President Gore.
It's time to move on.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 17, 2000).]
But I agree.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Continuing to boldly go ...
Right now, I honestly don't think the winner of Florida is guaranteed to win the election.
Remember, we have the electoral college.
Less than half the states require their electors to vote in a certain way.
What happens in the event that enough votes are pulled from the 'winner' to the 'loser' to produce no result, i.e. less than 270? Whee, off to Congress we go.
Florida does not matter, IMVHO.
(And now, I think I'll like, step out of the Flameboard. Hehe... )
------------------
"Uh, Cody, what has the Mullah of Cappistan been smoking?"
"MILKSHAKES. I HAVE BEEN SMOKING MILKSHAKES!"
The odds of a lead this size disappearing during a recount (assuming no fraud takes place) are approximately 350,000,000 to 1. (Heard this on CNN from an oddsmaker) The odds of it NOW disappearing after the THIRD recount is even smaller.
Therefore, it will be easy to see if the fix is in, and by whom.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
However, I've seen a video of one woman bending and crunching ballots and then counting them as Gore votes... Another woman took a ballot that was hole-punched twice, and counted it as Gore's, when ANY ballot with two holes punched is automatically disqualified. There is fraud going on down there in Florida, and nothing is stopping them. That's why we the law had deadlines, so the chances of fraud wouldn't be so great. Unfortunately, Gore's campaign doesn't care about deadlines.
------------------
"I'm not like George Bush. If he wins or loses, life goes on. I will do anything to win." - Al Gore, Newsweek, 1999
------------------
"The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
--Albert Eistein
------------------
"What he did to that walrus gentle-man was inexcusable."
-T. Herman Zweibel on "Mr. Woodrow Wood-pecker", The Onion, 7-Nov-2000
------------------
"The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
--Albert Eistein
I will admit my reasons are selfish. Its one thing to have a recount -- going to the courts is another. The Democratic Party made a big point about possible Republican voter fraud, yet now, the Republicans are gaining points for making the same claim against the Dems (and they've got proof to back them up).
Even if Gore wins the White House, he is hurting the Democratic Party more than he is helping it. Please, Al, give it up ...
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Continuing to boldly go ...
Give it up, Gore. Salvage your credibility while you still can, regroup, then smash Bush in the NEXT election.
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
Right now, this whole military-ballot scandal is turning a LOT of people against Gore (including many independents & moderates...) Gore, you may have gone too far. Too bad, too.
If it turns out that the military ballots were discarded simply because they're from the military, then I don't think *I'd* vote for Gore next time around.
Now, if they were discarded b/c of a technicality such as not being postagemarked, well, that would be a very different story, IMHO.
------------------
The Dominion has been defeated, but the hardest job will be building the peace ...
Join Cpt. Connor H. Macy and the crew of the <i>Tokyo</i> as they attempt to forge the bonds of trust ...
You mentioned the odds of that lead disappearing. As I'm sure you are aware (but others may not be), the odds of Bush's original 1,700 vote lead diminishing to 300 votes after a second MACHINE recount are practically zero. For that to happen, there would have had to have been 1,400 errors that were registered as errors in the first count, but not in the second. the exact number was 2.4*10EX180. We're talking getting struck by lightening THIRTY TIMES.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
That's 29...........
------------------
**...****...**
I *thought* it was the Fl supreme court who ruled, but my Uncle is telling me no, so maybe I misheard the news bit ... ugh ...
Politics bad.
Irish cream good.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
It goes this way...appellants have a question regarding any given law and they go to the courts to find out how to construe said law.
Fascinating that how the system works.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
QED
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Yes, you too can make a difference.... Revote 2000
------------------
**...****...**
What is with these fucking people?!
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
We are sick people
Thank you, and good day.
------------------
**...****...**
Naw, I guess not...but you just go ahead and shout all you want to because they ruled in a manner you didn't like. You do after all have the right to do so.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
But, thank God, I am not you......
Ok, there is a reason to give THANKS today......
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------------
**...****...**
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
No, your are going to have to come up with this one all by your lonesome.
Please my beautiful child of the South, go out and buy a clue or back up the crap you spew.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
Dang Jay, that last line was poetic.....
Nothing like having the wind taken out of your sails is there??
Is it against the law to shift the burden of proof??
------------------
**...****...**
But that no longer seems to be the question of the thread. You say that the Florida Court is acting outside its jurisdiction and I ask you to tell me how you came to that conclusion.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 24, 2000).]
------------------
Re: Russia in WWII
"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.
All this means is that you have to go and look up the relevant law on election recounts and post it in this thread (like you posted it in another one, which anybody could get off their spotty behind for a moment and check...).
This will conclusively demonstrate what the law IS regarding election recounts in Florida.
Now, a court's job, as anyone with two active brain cells to rub together knows, is to INTERPRET the law. This refers only to the law AS IT IS WRITTEN.
There is NO law or reasonable ruling which grants a court or a judge the leeway to CREATE new law, overriding the intent and the text of the original law.
Creation of laws is SOLELY the responsibility of the Legislative branch of government. You can look this up in any grade-school civics textbook under "separation of powers."
Courts can rule on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of lower legislative branches' laws, but they cannot create their own.
This can be likened to a referee in a sporting event. The referees interpret the rules of the game. They judge whether one side or another committed an error/foul/touchdown, or not, but they CAN'T create new rules during the playing of a game. Neither can the players. (Actually, I forget who does, I assume it's the sports' legislative body) but the point is, it's not the referees.)
example: the 'lateral' pass in american football. At one time this was illegal, now it's not. But the refs didn't change it.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
Ritten:
"Is it against the law to shift the burden of proof??"
In a criminal case, yes (and that's even if the court tells you to). In a debate, it's simply bad form.
In any circumstances, the burden of proof rests with you guys. All government entities are limited in what they can legally do, by nature. They can only do what the laws say they can do. This applies to the supreme court of Florida. Therefore, for this ruling to be legal, there must be a law indicating that the court has the authority to change the rules. I state that there is none, thus I challenge the validity of your position.
Ball's in your court. You're the one that has to find a specific law.
First:
You've got a good point. I guess my mistake was assuming that my opponent DID, in fact, have those two brain cells to rub together. Thus I didn't spell things out for them as you did above. My mistake.
Anyway...
Florida Code, Title IX, Chapter 102.112, Section (1):
"The county canvassing board or a majority thereof shall file the county returns for the election of a federal or state officer with the Department of State immediately after certification of the election results. Returns must be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the first primary and general election and by 3 p.m. on the 3rd day following the second primary. If the returns are not received by the department by the time specified, such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department."
"SHALL file." Pretty clear, don't you think? This is not open to interpretation, unless you care to try and redefine the words. The DNC has been pretty bad about that, of late.
Under any circumstances, the court can only override this law if there's a higher law in effect. Since this is a state election, the only higher law that would be in effect would be in the state constitution.
And even THEN:
Florida Constitution, Article II, Section III:
"The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein."
This means that even if you CAN find a good reason for the court to have thrown out existing law, they CAN NOT make new law. By definition, the legislative branch does that, and the judicial branch doing so would be exercising a power appertaining to another branch, and is therefore unconstitutional.
Unless, of course, you care to dig up a proviso that may or may not be somewhere in their constitution, as allowed by, "unless expressly provided herein." Feel freee to look.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
-The Courts can toss out a law if it finds that if it breaks another law (unless it is stated that it supersedes the prior law).
-The courts can not legally make new law. That is the responsibility of the politicians.
-The courts have a responsibility to apply the law to whatever situation might arise. Granted, in unusual circumstances, they could "expand the old law" to fit the new situation (Law and Order reference, based on New York Law).
As for Gore saying that he will not recognize a Bush victory in Florida after the Dade ruling: GIVE IT UP, GORE!!!! Unless you are here to start American Civil War II you'd better stop. You now have everything to lose, including your credibility, and your reputation.
And even if you do win, you will never get the support from me, and probably hundreds of thousands of other Democrats who feel that you unfairly stole this election from Bush.
I hereby endorse George W. Bush as the next President. And this is even though I may be a Democrat Supporter.
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited November 24, 2000).]
quote:
As for Gore saying that he will not recognize a Bush victory in Florida after the Dade ruling: GIVE IT UP, GORE!!!! Unless you are here to start American Civil War II you'd better stop. You now have everything to lose, including your credibility, and your reputation.
I agree.
Moving on.
quote:
Jay, you held a position. I challenged you to prove it. Don't try and turn it on me, it ain't gonna work.
To put it in words that have no uncertain meaning, you Omega are an evasive idiot. Your intellectual sophistry is really starting to wear thin. (You might need to look that one up).
Who was the person to call the ruling of the court illegal? Omega.
Ok, fine say I. Proof or parrot. I think he's parroting things he's heard on the condervative talk radio (just a guess mind you).
Did you or did you not read the opinion of the Court before speaking? I do not think you did...again, just a guess. If you would like to, I found a link for you so you don't even have to research that.
quote:
VI. STATUTORY AMBIGUITYThe provisions of the Code are ambiguous in two significant areas. First, the time frame for conducting a manual recount under section 102.166(4) is in conflict with the time frame for submitting county returns under sections 102.111 and 102.112.
Second, the mandatory language in section 102.111 conflicts with the permissive language in 102.112.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 24, 2000).]
----------
Chapter 102.166 (4):
(a) Any candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, any political committee that supports or opposes an issue which appeared on the ballot, or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount. The written request shall contain a statement of the reason the manual recount is being requested.
(b) Such request must be filed with the canvassing board prior to the time the canvassing board certifies the results for the office being protested or within 72 hours after midnight of the date the election was held, whichever occurs later.
(c) The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount. If a manual recount is authorized, the county canvassing board shall make a reasonable effort to notify each candidate whose race is being recounted of the time and place of such recount.
(d) The manual recount must include at least three precincts and at least 1 percent of the total votes cast for such candidate or issue. In the event there are less than three precincts involved in the election, all precincts shall be counted. The person who requested the recount shall choose three precincts to be recounted, and, if other precincts are recounted, the county canvassing board shall select the additional precincts.
----------
Chapter 102.111:
(1) Immediately after certification of any election by the county canvassing board, the results shall be forwarded to the Department of State concerning the election of any federal or state officer. The Governor, the Secretary of State, and the Director of the Division of Elections shall be the Elections Canvassing Commission. The Elections Canvassing Commission shall, as soon as the official results are compiled from all counties, certify the returns of the election and determine and declare who has been elected for each office. In the event that any member of the Elections Canvassing Commission is unavailable to certify the returns of any election, such member shall be replaced by a substitute member of the Cabinet as determined by the Director of the Division of Elections. If the county returns are not received by the Department of State by 5 p.m. of the seventh day following an election, all missing counties shall be ignored, and the results shown by the returns on file shall be certified.
(2) The Division of Elections shall provide the staff services required by the Elections Canvassing Commission.
----------
Chapter 102.112:
(1) The county canvassing board or a majority thereof shall file the county returns for the election of a federal or state officer with the Department of State immediately after certification of the election results. Returns must be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the first primary and general election and by 3 p.m. on the 3rd day following the second primary. If the returns are not received by the department by the time specified, such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department.
(2) The department shall fine each board member $200 for each day such returns are late, the fine to be paid only from the board member's personal funds. Such fines shall be deposited into the 1Election Campaign Financing Trust Fund, created by s. 106.32. [Now defunct.]
(3) Members of the county canvassing board may appeal such fines to the Florida Elections Commission, which shall adopt rules for such appeals.
----------
I believe this is all the relevant legislation, no?
Now lets go through the court's points individually.
"the time frame for conducting a manual recount under section 102.166(4) is in conflict with the time frame for submitting county returns under sections 102.111 and 102.112."
Well, let's look at that. The time frame for submitting county returns in .111 and .112 is 5 pm (presumably EST, considering the time of the year) on the seventh day after the election. The time frame for conducting a manual recount as stated in .166 is... hmm. There isn't one. There's simply a time frame for submitting a request. Thus there is no conflict. Shall we declare this point moot, then?
"the mandatory language in section 102.111 conflicts with the permissive language in 102.112."
Well, they ARE correct in stating that the language is DIFFERENT in the statutes. "All missing counties shall be ignored, and the results shown by the returns on file shall be certified," as opposed to, "such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified."
However, this does not make any legal difference, as it is not, in fact, a direct conflict. How does it make any difference in meaning when one says that the board MAY do something, and the other says they MUST? It may be poor use of the english language, but it's not a direct contradiction. It's even possible to eliminate the idea that it's poor use of the language, if you care to make the effort to reconsile them. It can be reasonably read as meaning, "The board must do this, and it is, in fact, legal." A little redundant, but it would make sense.
And keep in mind that, even if the court's decision to toss out the election law were justified, they still don't have the right to write new law in its place.
Now tell me I wrote all that down REAL fast as Rush said it.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
True in the U.S. Especialy in terms of Constitutionality of laws.
"-The courts can not legally make new law. That is the responsibility of the politicians."
Very True in the U.S.
"-The courts have a responsibility to apply the law to whatever situation might arise. Granted, in unusual circumstances, they could "expand the old law" to fit the new situation (Law and Order reference, based on New York Law)."
Half-true in the U.S. In the event that no ruling exists for a certain contingency, in some few cases the court might use its discretion to 'expand' the law. However, such rulings are always extremely controversial, and are frequently overturned on appeal.
(as for Law and Order... it IS a TV ahow, after all. Does that New York law really exist? I'd be highly skeptical.)
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
Nope, nevermind. Thought I saw a loophole, but I think I was wrong.
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited November 24, 2000).]
Props.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
quote:
However, this does not make any legal difference, as it is not, in fact, a direct conflict. How does it make any difference in meaning when one says that the board MAY do something, and the other says they MUST?
Yes, it does make a legal difference. In legal terms, language is everything. A "may" leaves a door open to challege and legal interpretation.
quote:
Returns must be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following the first primary and general election and by 3 p.m. on the 3rd day following the second primary. If the returns are not received by the department by the time specified, such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department.
Herein lies a problem. The language reads "must be filed" and "may be ignored"...now if that said "will be ignored" there is no issue.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 24, 2000).]
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
The imperative "must" overrides the permissive "may" in the english language.
If you want a clearer example, try this.
Your mom says "You must clean your room by 6:00."
and then
Your dad says "You may clean your room today."
If your mom is anything like mine, you'd better have that room clean by 6:00.
Unless "may" refers to allowable potentiality, (it may happen this way) in which case it is still overridden by the imperative (it MUST happen this way)
*Disengages English B.A.*
I should tell you that my local English M.A. just agreed with that linguistic assessment. I haven't spoken to a lawyer yet, though.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
The count must end at such and such a time. Ballots after that may or may not be accpeted.
Ambiguity.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
Stating that something is possible or permissable does not automatically convey that there are other options.
The law is quite clear.
No ambiguity.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Clarifying such is not creating new law.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 24, 2000).]
As in "you may now do so-and-so."
It may even be imperative, as "may" in legal cases can often mean "should."
example: in a series of instructions regarding the baking of fruit-filled cookies, you might see "you may then add the desired filling." This isn't 'may-optional' this is 'may-directional.' As in 'once you have reached this point, THIS is the next step.'
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited November 25, 2000).]
I don't want any damned filling!!!!
is another option....
A slightly better one is a firing range (damn guns again). "You may fire when ready."
This would be more dirctional than the cooking, since you are there to fire your weapons anyway.
------------------
**...****...**
After such time no ballots will be accepted.
Or some such. The "may" in this case is discretionary and not directional.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
There are two possible definitions of the word "may" in 102.112. One contradicts 102.111. The other does not. The logical thing to do is to accept the interpretation that eliminates the contradiction.
Under any circumstances, may has several possible meanings, as First has so rightly pointed out, and while they may IMPLY that other options...
*glances down at dictionary page*
Ah. Well, I feel silly. I should have looked this up in the first place.
Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, pp. 735:
may
4: SHALL, MUST -- used in law where the sense, purpose, or policy requires this interpretation
Aside from being a prime example of the degridataion of our language, this should end the debate. "May" can be synonymous with "shall" if it is required for legal consistancy. In this case, it is. Therefore, there is no contradiction.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
May appears only 5 times as such:
"...or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount."
"The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount."
"...such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department."
"Members of the county canvassing board may appeal such fines to the Florida Elections Commission, which shall adopt rules for such appeals."
(emphasis added)
May is also used as To be allowed or permitted to and used to express possibility or probability.
Look at section A of 102.166 (4) which reads:
"...or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount."
Section C
"The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount. If a manual recount is authorized..."
(emphasis added)
The usage of may in these statutes, rather than leading to the degredation of the English language and all of mankind is used as discretionary language...alowing the option of a given action rather than sealing off the avenue with shall do and must do.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 25, 2000).]
Wait, wait, no. That would never work.
------------------
What did it mean to you
An early chat with death
To pull your body for a moment from your soul
--
Camper Van Beethoven
****
Read chapter TWO of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Now with 30% more plot.
Ritten: Then what the hell are you doing using the recipe process for fruit-filled cookies? Wouldn't using the recipe process for regular cookies do you better?
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
Oh my, language and law can be intrepreted...thank goodness we have courts.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 25, 2000).]
Indeed, using the discretionary meaning in this case would open up a can of worms, legally speaking, that the justices might never be able to close again. After all, if 'may' can be interpreted this way in ONE legal document, why not in ALL of them? Even when the intent is clearly directional? You know a smart defense lawyer would try that...
I'd just bet that that would make thousands of laws open to similar interpretation... a problem that could have repercussions for YEARS, some of them potentially dangerous.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
------------------
**...****...**
The supreme court was wrong. Get over it.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
------------------
**...****...**
This is from a lawyer friend of mine near Chicago:
quote:
It is hard to tell. I just want closure. The real problem, which the Court could have resolved, was the lack of uniformity in examining the ballots. I
understand that Broward had a low standard of allowing pregnant Chads while Palm Beach did not. I believe that the lack of uniformity casts doubt onthe legitimacy of the FL results.On a personal note, IL uses the butterfly ballot and it is a mess compared to CA's punch cards. You cannot see your selection as you punch it on the butterfly, which meant that when I was done I checked the results prior to turning in the ballot. I think the federal government has the constitutional authority under the 14th and 15th Amendments, along with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to set a mandatory ballot to be used in all federal, state and local elections. I think that is the real thing that needs to be done because FL went through this same ballot crisis 4 years ago.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 25, 2000).]
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
quote:
Somebody needs to invent some sort of system to deal with this sort of thing. We could have people real good at defining the words, and we'd call them...oh, I don't know, lawtalkers, I guess. Then we'd have other people who would make a decision based on their talks. They could be called...judgementalists.
You radical you!!
------------------
All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too.
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl,
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl.
Bob Dylan
The word "may" does have different meanings. However, is it not a legal maxium to accept the interpretation that lends itself to eliminating conflicts?
Ritten:
So in other words, you're going to accept the judgement of the FL supreme court, even though you can't see the reasoning behind it, and I've provided a conclusive argument against it? Why? Blind faith? Why should the origin of the argument make any difference?
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 25, 2000).]
Me, over 30. Some college. Been mainly a grunt type all my life, due to poor colorvision stopping me from so many things.
The FL Supreme Court, over 30. Lots of college, proably several years worth of continuing education. Been working with laws most of, if not, all of, their adult lives.
You, well under 30. College? Probably not. Been around the block, so to speak, probably not.
There are the three scores, and my reasoning should be pretty obvious.
When you grow up, and are in the positions that these people are, then I might even think that you are capable of the thought, and mostly, having the wisdom needed to make such descisions.
------------------
**...****...**
How can they file on a Sunday? Maybe we should try to some time.......
Political clout will open even buildings with no people in them.
------------------
**...****...**
quote:
The word "may" does have different meanings. However, is it not a legal maxium to accept the interpretation that lends itself to eliminating conflicts?
Why would that be.
I don't think that the Florida Court's interpretation necessitates a course towards the easiest answer. The Court is trying to resolve a legal issue brought before it by two appellants by ruling on the meaning and language of the law.
The elimination of legal question and therefore conflict is the ultimate goal of the Court. However, the when language comes down to interpretation one side is certianly going to be disappointed in the ruling therefore the Court's decision may not fit your self imposed maxim.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 26, 2000).]
Why do Rush listeners like to call themselves dittoheads? The name implies that they're incapable of thinking for themselves, and simply say "ditto, Rush!" to anything he says without question.
Comments? Omega, I'd love to know what you think about this. Dittoheads, derogatory term for the unthinking sheep who listen to Herr Limbaugh?
And you claim Ritten goes on blind faith. Truly, you are a testament to the intelligence of the Republican Party.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
No, that wasn't an attack. It was a legitimate question.
Ritten:
You really don't get it, do you? MY EXPERIENCE IS IRRELEVANT. I have presented a rational argument, and arguments are judged on their merits, not on the perceived merits of those who present them. Source is irrelevant. Quality is relevant.
JK2:
*TourGuideMode*
...and to your left you will see a PRIME example of a man who, when faced with an argument he can not defeat, resorts to ad hominem and guilt by association tactics. If you see someone like this wanting to join your debate team, RUN!
*/Mode*
Do you really not get that this does not improve your position, and merely makes you look bad?
"Uh-oh, he's winning. Better bring up Rush Limbaugh and change the subject."
Jay:
"The elimination of legal question and therefore conflict is the ultimate goal of the Court."
Yes, but would it not be the logical conclusion that we should attempt to find a way in which there was no conflict in the first place? Would this not be the most desirable solution?
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Of course your experience is irrelevent because you have none. Source is very relevent, IMHO. I don't believe anything I read from a tabloid, for instance.
I'm sorry -- I thought I brought up a valid point about "dittoheads." I also know you threw up "ad-homenium" and avoided the question all together, so I guess I must have come to the correct conclusion, hmm? You'll notice it wasn't an attack on Rush as you posture, but more a question regarding the intelligence of his listeners (like you, for one).
Now, I could go back and mention how you said that Cheney didn't have a heart attack ... (I think you said "did NOT, I repeat, NOT have a heart attack") despite the fact that CNN and Cheney's own doctor said that he did, and are you surprised that I find your intelect lacking? And since we're talking law here, yeah, your intelligence sorta comes into play, because, frankly, I don't think you're actually trying to interpret/decipher/read the law, and instead, are "dittoing" whatever Rush said about it.
Hence the term: Ditto-head.
dit*to
n., pl. dit*tos. Abbr. do.
1. The same as stated above or before
2. A duplicate; a copy
3. A pair of small marks (") used to indicate that the word, phrase, or figure given above is to be repeated.
Second, Jay has been doing an excellent job of debunking all your arguments. If you'll kindly re-read this thread, you'll notice that I am simply watching and reading, Omega. All you seem to be able to do is post large amounts of Florida law which you don't seem to understand.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 26, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 26, 2000).]
Your arguement was put forth in a good manner, it has a quality.
Your wisdom, in dealing with laws in general, unless you are in a School of Law now, is lacking. Being in Law School will still make you lacking, compared to years of experience.
So, looking at the amount of time a person has been dealing with laws, of all types, is VERY revelant.
------------------
**...****...**
"I'm sorry -- I thought I brought up a valid point about "dittoheads.""
You want to start a debate on the merits of Rush Limbaugh listeners, feel free to start a new thread. Don't clutter up this one with multiple, unrelated subjects. We don't like that too much around here, if we can avoid it.
"I also know you threw up "ad-homenium" and avoided the question all together, so I guess I must have come to the correct conclusion, hmm?"
Oh, brilliant deduction, Sherlock! How do you do it?
*/Sarcasm*
The reason I said it was an ad hominem attack was because IT WAS, and was thus not a legitimate point in ANY debate, regardless of relevancy. If you want to make a fool of yourself by bringing up completely unrelated topics, and then claim that you were right when I ignore an attempt to bait me into changing the topic, be my guest. You only reduce your own credibility, thus helping me.
"You'll notice it wasn't an attack on Rush as you posture"
When did I say it was an attack on Rush? It's an attack on his listeners, as you stated in the immediately following phrase.
"Source is very relevent, IMHO. I don't believe anything I read from a tabloid, for instance."
It is wise to ensure the validity of the facts presented. However, you have not questioned the validity of the facts I show in this case. Feel free to do so, however.
Since the rest of your post is irrelevant, it shall be ignored as such.
Ritten:
You make a good point, unlike others I could name. However...
"So, looking at the amount of time a person has been dealing with laws, of all types, is VERY revelant."
I would say that this only applies when one is dealing with OPINION on legal matters. I simply present fact. Law says this. Court opinion says this. Definitions are as presented. Deduction: court opinion is incorrect. I operate off the facts I have. Now, if there's something wrong with those facts, I'd appreciate it if someone would tell me. Otherwise, they, and the logical deduction therefrom, stand.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
And the next person who mentions Rush Limbaugh in this thread, in ANY capacity, I will strangle in their sleep.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited November 26, 2000).]
Anyhoo, I think it's funny how our election is on the 27th, and we'll have a leader before you guys.
------------------
"Karate is a form of martial arts in which people who have had years and years of training can, using only their hands and feet, make some of the worst movies in the history of the world." - Dave Barry
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
quote:
Yes, but would it not be the logical conclusion that we should attempt to find a way in which there was no conflict in the first place? Would this not be the most desirable solution?
Yes Omega, it certainly would be, but as you have pointed out my utopian beliefs do not necessarily fit with the way the world works.
Law and language are imprecise things much at are the humans who created both.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
quote:
The above statutes conflict. Whereas section 102.111 is mandatory, section 102.112 is permissive. While it is clear that the Boards must submit returns by 5 p.m. of the seventh day following the election or face penalties, the circumstances under which penalties may be assessed are unclear.
quote:
Legislative intent -- as always -- is the polestar that guides a court's inquiry into the provisions of the Florida Election Code. Where the language of the Code is clear and amenable to a reasonable and logical interpretation, courts are without power to diverge from the intent of the Legislature as expressed in the plain language of the Code. As noted above, however, chapter 102 is unclear concerning both the time limits for submitting the results of a manual recount and the penalties that may be assessed by the Secretary. In light of this ambiguity, the Court must resort to traditional rules of statutory construction in an effort to determine legislative intent.First, it is well-settled that where two statutory provisions are in conflict, the specific statute controls the general statute. In the present case, whereas section 102.111 in its title and text addresses the general makeup and duties of the Elections
Canvassing Commission, the statute only tangentially addresses the penalty for returns filed after the statutory date, noting that such returns "shall" be ignored by the Department. Section 102.112, on the other hand, directly addresses in its title and text
both the "deadline" for submitting returns and the "penalties" for submitting returns after a certain date; the statute expressly states that such returns "may" be ignored and that dilatory Board members "shall" be fined. Based on the precision of the title
and text, section 102.112 constitutes a specific penalty statute that defines both the deadline for filing returns and the penalties for filing returns thereafter and section 102.111 constitutes a non-specific statute in this regard. The specific statute controls the non-specific statute.Second, it also is well-settled that when two statutes are in conflict, the more recently enacted statute controls the older statute. In the present case, the provision in section 102.111 stating that the Department "shall" ignore returns was enacted
in 1951 as part of the Code. On the other hand, the penalty provision in section 102.112 stating that the Department "may" ignore returns was enacted in 1989 as a revision to chapter 102. The more recently enacted provision may be viewed as the clearest and most recent expression of legislative intent.Third, a statutory provision will not be construed in such a way that it renders meaningless or absurd any other statutory provision. In the present case, section 102.112 contains a detailed provision authorizing the assessment of fines against members of a dilatory County Canvassing Board. The fines are personal and substantial, i.e., $200 for each day the returns are
not received. If, as the Secretary asserts, the Department were required to ignore all returns received after the statutory date, the fine provision would be meaningless. For example, if a Board simply completed its count late and if the returns were going to be ignored in any event, what would be the point in submitting the returns? The Board would simply file no returns and avoid the fines. But, on the other hand, if the returns submitted after the statutory date would not be ignored, the Board would have good reason to submit the returns and accept the fines. The fines thus serve as an alternative penalty and are applicable only if the Department may count the returns.Fourth, related statutory provisions must be read as a cohesive whole. As stated in Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So. 2d 452, 455 (Fla. 1992), "all parts of a statute must be read together in order to achieve a consistent whole. Where possible, courts must give effect to all statutory provisions and construe related statutory provisions in harmony with another." In this regard we consider the provisions of section 102.166 and 102.168.
I'm not a lawtalker, but that sounds oddly like English common law based on precident.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 26, 2000).]
------------------
"The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
--Albert Eistein
Now, this wasn't very clear, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you're saying that, while my statement of the most desirable way to resolve the situation WAS correct, there is no such way to resolve the situation. Correct my assumption if this is not what you meant.
Now, continuing, there is such a way, and you know it. Simply look up the word "may" in the dictionary, and apply the appropriate definition to the code in question.
"Law and language are imprecise things much at are the humans who created both."
"Shall be ignored" is hardly imprecise.
"While it is clear that the Boards must submit returns by 5 p.m. of the seventh day following the election or face penalties, the circumstances under which penalties may be assessed are unclear."
So then the problem is where? The boards must submit their returns by the stated time or they will be ignored. Simple enough. Just because a prehipheral clause is unclear doesn't give the court the authority to throw out the ENTIRE law, and replace it with their own.
*goes to URL*
*grumbles*
OK, the Florida state website has apparently seen fit to up and move. Annoying...
Anyway...
"The specific statute controls the non-specific statute."
But not when they are not in contradiction, which they are not, according to the legal definition of "may".
But even if you choose to ignore that, 102.111 does not deal with the penalties imposed upon the counties because 102.111 deals with the actions of the state government. 102.112 deals with the counties. The issue is completely indigenous to 102.112, and therefore it can not be used to override the unrelated clauses of 102.111.
102.112 does mention punishments of late counties, whereas 102.111 doesn't. Therefore, ON THAT ISSUE, 102.112 obviously overrules the non-existant provisions in 102.111. However, the deadline is a completely seperate clause, and therefore CAN NOT be overridden on that basis.
"the more recently enacted statute controls the older statute."
Again, only when they're in conflict, which these two are not.
As for their third point, I would say that they may, in fact, have a legitimate argument here. However, i believe their conclusion is incorrect. It seems to me that this "may" may have been meant to deal with the even that a county failed to file ANY returns before the deadline. The county would probably rather pay the fines than be disenfranchised. However, they would not do so for a simple recount. Of course, you have to trust the SecState to judge whether late-filed returns are tainted or not, but that is her job, after all. Under any circumstances, the question is moot, for the reason stated below.
Even if you assume that the laws are contradictory, and even if you assume that 102.112 does, in fact, override 102.111 on this issue, you still have to deal with the fact that this supposed discresionary ability resides with Katherine Harris, as SecState of Florida. There is NO provision that states that she may not reject said returns arbitrarily. The supreme court of Florida just, as JK might say, pulled that out of their collective a**. Katherine Harris had every legal right to reject late-filed recounted returns, regardless of reason. She "may" do so, after all.
I am unable to respond to their fourth point, as the Florida website that I was reading no longer seems to exist or is down, and I therefore do not have access to 102.168.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited November 26, 2000).]
First, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that SecState does, in fact, have discresionary ability over whether late-filed returns are counted or not. I'll give the court that, just for the sake of this post.
The courts don't have the authority to write new law. Period. I doubt anyone would disagree with this. Even so, they wrote a new deadline and usurped Katherine Harris's authority as FL SecState to accept or reject late returns, thus writing new law. THAT, my friends, is the ultimate point, not all of the legal wrangling that we've been engaged in for the last page.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Will this question spark the Second Civil War...
I doubt it.
------------------
**...****...**
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
"Does giving a different interptation(sp?) of the law, one you don't like, count as writing a new law?"
Of course it wouldn't, but that's not what they did here. How can creating a COMPLETELY NEW deadline be considered an interpretation of a law? How can adding a qualification that was not even implied by an interpretation? It can't be. It's an addition. Thus they wrote new law.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Ah, your burning sarcasm has made me see the light! How DARE I question the government! The sheer AUDACITY of it! And what's more, it's not even MY government!
Think about it, man. I have every right to challenge their decision. Just because the so-called supreme court said it doesn't make it true, nor does it make it law. Don't you realize that blind acceptance of ANYTHING is dangerous? Analyze the points, not their source.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
quote:
Don't you realize that blind acceptance of ANYTHING is dangerous?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! This from the guy who sees no problem with the intermingling of Dinosaurs & Humans, a 3000 year old Earth, and a timespan of 7 days to create the earth!!
Does anyone else but me want to bludgeon Omega to death after reading hypocritical shit like this?
------------------
"Karate is a form of martial arts in which people who have had years and years of training can, using only their hands and feet, make some of the worst movies in the history of the world." - Dave Barry
At this point though you need to concede that there are several people on the Florida Bench who have had more study in law than you or I. Such is the system we have. And that you, who have had no study in law think that you know better than they.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
Does Gods day equal one of ours?
Is the Pope closer to God than any of us?
Does the Pope have the right to change the day of worship?
Is AIDS a sound of one of the Trumpets, an opening of a Vial, or a reading of an angelic Scroll?
Omega, this is a battle for you, oh well spoken one.
In my opinion, the Bible is a guide, having been re-written for to suit kings, ie King James, and for lay people to grasp.
Here, read this guide to better living.
Thank You.
------------------
Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.
------------------
Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.
UM: I almost *always* want to throttle Omega ... except during that Jack Ryan thread in Officer's Lounge, we actually had a rational discussion ... fascinating ...
Besides, isn't the question rather moot now that Bush has been certified?
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 27, 2000).]
"At this point though you need to concede that there are several people on the Florida Bench who have had more study in law than you or I."
One does not concede a point one has never contested to begin with. All I know is that I have made legitimate points for the position of their ruling being illegal, and pretty darned good ones, at that. I also know that no one has responded to these points. Therefore, these points stand until such time as someone sees fit to respond to them.
Jay, don't you get that what you're basically saying is, "Logic and deduction is irrelevant. I'm going to blindly assume the supreme court of Florida got it right?" Don't you see any inherant danger in that? In not examining the issue for yourself?
Ritten:
"Omega, this is a battle for you, oh well spoken one."
Then start another thread.
JK:
"how dare the audacity!"
Um... buh?
And since that made about as much rational sense as the rest of your post...
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited November 27, 2000).]
You made an earlier post in which you said "how dare I have the audacity" or some such. I was simply responding to that, by saying that of COURSE you can have the audacity to challenge anything you want! In doing so, people who disagree with you will challenge you ... much the same in other threads here on the flameboard. Which is the point that I was trying to make.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
------------------
"I am in one of those rare periods of life where I am convinced I am a sexy devil."- Simon "Sol System" Sizer
You, always. I was simply pointing out to any rational beings that might be reading this thread (read: not you) my reason for not responding to your post directly. The topic remains the same.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
Ah, yes, I forgot, you also know my thoughts better than I do. Darnit, you're ahead of me at every turn.
Does ANYONE here think JK has any credibility left after that one?
Now if someone would care to respond to the points I've made, do. Otherwise, this debate's over, and First and I win.
This thread will NOT turn into another inquisition. If it does, I will see that it gets locked.
This is my last word on this subject. Please return us to topic, someone.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Ok
Thank You.
------------------
Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.
[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited November 27, 2000).]
Omega, you've got no credibility, period. If First wins this argument, he does so by his own arguments, and on his own, and I think its kind of arrogant of you to assume you've a part of that.
I believe the topic was about law. Lawyers know the law. Therefore, they know how to interpret it better than the average layman. A judge is a lawyer, hence, he/she knows how to interpret the law. Yes, or no?
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 27, 2000).]
I did not read the whole stuff that Jay posted about precedent. It could be there. But unless there is some sort of loophole in there that allows an extension to the deadline due to certain "mitigating" circumstances, the courts pretty much had no right to give the extension. I believe that it is Katherine Harris' authority to give an extension, is it?
Omega: Though you may have provided valid points, Jay may have provided points of his own that are valid in his point of view. Please do not assume that unless everyone thinks your way, you are the one who is right. Everyone has a right to an interpretation which is based on fact. Most people however, will see another person's interpretation differently as the way that they themselves, not the other person, see it. I don't exactly know what Jay is trying to say, since I haven't read all that stuff, and I certainly don't know what the Judges were thinking about. There may be something buried in the large piles of law books out there.
P.S.: It seems like Bush Won, to which I react- Wonderful. Finally, all this crap is behind us. Now us Canadians will worry about our own election.
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited November 27, 2000).]
Of course, she was not given any good reason to extend the deadline, and therefore did not. The Supreme Court (shall we say, arbitrarily?) threw out the law regarding the deadline and wrote a new one. They do not have that authority, and therefore their ruling was illegal. They also wrote in an entirely new qualification, saying that Katherine Harris could not reject the late returns arbitrarily, which is NOT in the law. She can reject them for whatever reason she wants.
Oh, and BTW, I'm not saying Jay's wrong just because he disagrees with me. There IS one right answer here, and I believe I've got it. If someone has a good reason why I don't, let me know.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited November 27, 2000).]
------------------
"Karate is a form of martial arts in which people who have had years and years of training can, using only their hands and feet, make some of the worst movies in the history of the world." - Dave Barry
quote:
Jay, don't you get that what you're basically saying is, "Logic and deduction is irrelevant. I'm going to blindly assume the supreme court of Florida got it right?" Don't you see any inherant danger in that? In not examining the issue for yourself?
quote:
There IS one right answer here, and I believe I've got it.
Again, on both counts I disagree. I am not following the Court and it's decision as a matter of course; rather I agree with the Court's decision and it's discretionary finding of the statute. The Court made very clear that it's ruling was based on precident and not made of whole cloth which you seem to argue.
quote:
Allowing the manual recounts to proceed in an expeditious manner, rather than imposing an arbitrary seven-day deadline, is consistent not only with the statutory scheme but with prior United States Supreme Court pronouncements:
- Indiana has found, along with many other States, that one procedure necessary to guard against irregularity and error in the tabulation of votes is the availability of a recount. Despite the fact that a certificate of election may be issued to the leading candidate within 30 days after the election, the results are not final if a candidate's option to compel a recount is exercised. A recount is an integral part of the Indiana electoral process and is within the ambit of the broad powers delegated to the States by Art. I, s 4.
As you have offered no evidence other than your single minded argument that "may" always means "shall", I therefore believe that your interpretation is legally unsubstantiated and your position not sustainable in the light of the precident cited by the Court.
Ruling in favor of the Florida Supreme Court.
Next case.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
Really? Well...
"Allowing the manual recounts to proceed in an expeditious manner, rather than imposing an arbitrary seven-day deadline, is consistent not only with the statutory scheme but with prior United States Supreme Court pronouncements"
Well, DUH! Allowing that Katherine Harris did have the authority to extend the deadline, it is obviously consistant with law. HOWEVER, it is NOT consistant with law for the court to usurp that authority. It his her decision, and her decision alone. The power to extend the deadline, or conversly, to deny such extention, is vested solely in the Secretary of State, NOT the Supreme Court.
They still rewrote the law to extend the deadline, since they did not have that authority, and they still rewrote it to qualify SecState's authority over it. They're still overstepping their bounds.
"As you have offered no evidence other than your single minded argument that "may" always means "shall""
"Always"? Did I say "always"? I must have missed that.
You know, you do real damage to your credibility when you put words into my mouth.
And since you are not responding to my current argument, but instead to a previous and only prehipheraly related one, my points still stand.
Let's go through this very simply.
1) The court overstepped their authority by extending the deadline.
1. The court extended the deadline. This is not in dispute.
2. Therefore, the question is whether the court overstepped it's authority in doing so.
3. Nowhere in the law is it stated or implied that any entity other than the Election Canvasing Board, of which the Secretary of State Katherine Harris is head, has any authority over the deadline.
4. Therefore, the court did not have the authority to extend said deadline.
5. Therefore, the court excersized authority not allowed them.
6. Therefore, the court overstepped its bounds.
QED
2) The court created new law by stating that Katherine Harris may not arbitrarily reject late-filed returns, thus rendering the ruling invalid.
1. The court said this, and this is not in dispute.
2. This portion of the ruling must, by nature, either be derrived from existing law, or it must be completely new law.
3. The court does not have the authority to create completely new law.
4. Therefore, for this portion of the ruling to be legal, it must have been derrived from pre-existing law.
5. No law from which this could have been logically derrived has been presented. Therefore, until such time as it is, we can not assume that such law exists.
6. Since this ruling can not have been based on existing law, it must be completely new law.
7. Since the court does not have the authority to make new law, this ruling is illegal.
QED
Point to the EXACT premise or conclusion that you believe is incorrect.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
Omega in '04!!!!
*quietly walks to closet for rope and hangs self*
------------------
Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.
quote:
'THE SPANISH INQUISITION?'
Whats your problem with them anyway? Feel people are ganging up on you and ripping the living daylights out of your views? Just curious.
------------------
Re: Russia in WWII
"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.
------------------
Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.
No, my problem is when people act like they know what I'm thinking, act like I don't, while misrepresenting my views, and making no effort to figure out what I'm actually talking about.
And I would point out that instead of responding to my argument, you all simply started poking at ME. Surely, if my position was so full of holes, you'd be able to point at least one out in such a simply laid out argument.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
I believe that the Court acted within the scope of their authority and Omgea does not.
Further I believe that Omega did not take the time to read the decision and if he did, he glossed over the legal issues he appears to have already made up his mind about.
QED
What the point of going on.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
Come on, guys. I've laid it all out for you, nice and simple. If you can't point out a hole, then the logical conclusion (under the provision that one is not later discovered) is that there is none, and that my chain of reasoning is correct.
You can see my reasoning. If it's so horribly flawed, then point out the EXACT point that contains the flaw. I've done this before, and gotten the exact same response. Namely, none. And frankly, I'd love to see you, Jay, do something similar with YOUR position.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
However I would also like to point out that English Common Law is based on precedent a point you either seem not to agree with, not know about or ignore at your convenience. Whichever it is, you haven't been able to refute using anything other than 'this is what I believe' arguments to refute the Courts' arguments in why they ruled the way they did.
The Court was quite specific about why it ruled about extending the deadline as it did, and I bet that you don't know what those reasons are.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
Did you even read the argument I posted at the end of page three? Go do that now. Then you'll see what I've been talking about for the past page.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Go and read that now.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
Isn't it about time for Simon to explode again?
------------------
"I am in one of those rare periods of life where I am convinced I am a sexy devil."- Simon "Sol System" Sizer
It certainly can't be the first time... or the US Supreme Court would NEVER hear a case.
The numbered argument put forth by Omega, is logical, coherent, and internally consistent. If the premises are accepted as true, so must be the conclusion.
Clarification of the invalidity of any or all the premises has been requested, but instead, the opponents have fallen back on "The Court said it, I believe it, that settles it." (And yes, that IS satire on the very similar standard Creationist irrational retort: 'God said it, I believe it, that settles it.')
(In Locical Philosophy, these are referred to as an irrelevant Appeal to Authority -- in Creationism's case, the Bible Authors, in your case, the Judge.)
Thou hast also fallen for the 'two wrongs make a right' fallacy, in that accusing Omega of being irrational when it comes to Creationism does NOT bolster your own argument when you demonstrate equal irrationality towards this subject. You cannot legitimately say, in response to an argument that you are being irrational, "Well, YOU'RE irrational about THIS unrelated thing, so I can be, too!"
So: refute the points, clearly, succintly, and without resorting to further namecallings or counteraccusations, or consider thy argument successfully refuted.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
The whole crux is that a lawyer is more knowledgeable about law than the average layman. Do you say Omega is smarter than people who graduated law school?
Frankly, I don't give a damn whats going on down in Florida. Anyone whose read the first page of this thread knows that myself, and Jay, and others, want Gore to concede.
LAWYERS know the LAW. If the Florida Supreme Court did wrong, then the US Supreme Court will do right.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 28, 2000).]
------------------
"I'm not like George Bush. If he wins or loses, life goes on. I will do anything to win." - Al Gore, Newsweek, 1999
JR:
Looks that way to me.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
What's the point of going on?
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 28, 2000).]
Not until Omega admits that lawyers are smarter at law than he. That is what the argument has been about.
If you'd read the opening posts of this thread, you'll see that Gore's winning the election hasn't really been an issue, and anyone trying to make it the issue is an peacock.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
(Yeah, I'm suggesting that the court may have been biased, although that's only an opinion, based on some knowledge of human nature and a small bit of legal experience.)
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
And yes, sometimes laymen do see things that courts miss. But Jay did refute a lot of Omega's arguments, and Omega ignored those ... so I'm not entirely trusting of Omega's arguments myself.
Now, if you will excuse me, someone just paid me $275 for the official Marto Connor MacLeod sword I sold on eBay. Did I mention I bought it on eBay a few weeks ago for $58? Muwahahahahahahahaha!
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 28, 2000).]
1. The court extended the deadline. This is not in dispute.
2. Therefore, the question is whether the court overstepped it's authority in doing so.
3. Nowhere in the law is it stated or implied that any entity other than the Election Canvasing Board, of which the Secretary of State Katherine Harris is head, has any authority over the deadline.
4. Therefore, the court did not have the authority to extend said deadline.
5. Therefore, the court excersized authority not allowed them.
6. Therefore, the court overstepped its bounds.
QED
2) The court created new law by stating that Katherine Harris may not arbitrarily reject late-filed returns, thus rendering the ruling invalid.
1. The court said this, and this is not in dispute.
2. This portion of the ruling must, by nature, either be derrived from existing law, or it must be completely new law.
3. The court does not have the authority to create completely new law.
4. Therefore, for this portion of the ruling to be legal, it must have been derrived from pre-existing law.
5. No law from which this could have been logically derrived has been presented. Therefore, until such time as it is, we can not assume that such law exists.
6. Since this ruling can not have been based on existing law, it must be completely new law.
7. Since the court does not have the authority to make new law, this ruling is illegal.
QED
Exactly which point did he refute?
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
quote:
The court overstepped their authority by extending the deadline.
The Court stated it's authority...care to show me where that was? I'm sure you fellows have read the opinion of the Court, what was the principle that they used to make their decision? Can you show me that? And before you even ask, yes Sally I can show you, but you haven't read that far it seems.
quote:
The court created new law by stating that Katherine Harris may not arbitrarily reject late-filed returns, thus rendering the ruling invalid.
Not that I would be legalistic and say that to write a new law requires a signature of the governor so it is impossible for the Court to write "new law". For the slow of thinking, courts are in business to just what the Supreme Court of Florida did.
Party A says they have a problem with the law. Party B says no and challenges Party A and brings the matter to the court. Oh, the Court finds that there is a problem with the law and rules to correct that. Don't go around claiming it ilegal when you haven't looked at the case law that is the basis for the decision. Show me, in black letter law that is was and then we'll talk.
None of what you wrote above has law to back it up. One would hope you would be able to do such if you intend to be critical of a legal decision.
So, we try it from a new angle for the legaly challenged...overriding principle. Anyone?
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
Look at the Florida constitution sometime. I posted a section of it earlier. It clearly states that one division of the government MAY NOT perform the duties of any other division. Thus, the court may not write new law, as this duty by definition belongs with the legislative branch.
The court MAY NOT write new law. Period. This is in the Florida state constitution, and the only thing that can override THAT is the US constitution. Feel free to point out a clause that allows the judiciary to write new law.
Let's make this as simple as possible:
Premise 1: The Florida constitution states that a court may not create law.
Premise 2: The court created law in their ruling.
Conclusion: Said ruling is unconstitutional.
Simple enough?
Since the logic itself is unassailable, for the conclusion to be false, there must be something wrong with the premises. Therefore, the question is: which premise are you challenging?
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Anyway, why don't you answer my question, eh? What premise has the flaw? Where's the hole in the argument? You can't just say, "Well, I've just refuted that argument," without saying HOW you did so. If you refuted my argument, that means that you must have found a hole in the logic somewhere. Surely you wouldn't mind pointing out exactly where?
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Overriding principle. Look it up.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
Did it never occur to you that there is a difference between interpreting existing law and writing completely new law where none existed?
As for your "overriding principle", I can find no reference to it, anywhere. Feel free to explain.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
I stated before, that your basic questions are flawed so the rest is moot. If only you could understand the first time so I don't have to keep telling you this.
Overriding principle anyone?
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 28, 2000).]
You know, you could just as easily have said, "You're wrong. I'm not going to say why, but you're wrong. Coffee?" It would have meant as much.
How can my basic questions be flawed? I'm ASKING no questions. I simply state fact, and deduce from that fact. Now put up or shut up. Show me the hole in my logic, show me the incorrect premise, or swallow your pride and learn something.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
You have no clue about constitutional law and you can't accept the fact that you have not clue. You spouting the same tripe over and over. I've told you that your basic premise that the Court acted in an extra legal manner is flawed. The rest of your points are moot. Or did you miss that part in my previous posts. You must have cause oh, look, there it is.
All the rest is conservative bluster and wind with not a single point of black letter law to back it up. You know, cases that say that this is why I'm ruling the way I'm ruling?
Read the opinon legal scholar.
Overriding principle in this case anyone? Omega doesn't know what that means.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 28, 2000).]
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
Omgea, for the watchers of the thread, has no idea how constitutional law works but wants to be the expert. For he has declared the Court's action illegal.
And yet he can't even tell me what the Court's overriding principle was in their decision. As such he have absolutly no grounds to call the decision extra legal.
But that will not stop him from diverting people's attention and saying "find flaw" when the whole argument is based on conservative hatred of a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court.
The Court was right and saying it was extra leagal IS the flaw.
Overriding Principle (what we pay Supreme Courts do deliberate about) is what the whole case comes down to....did anyone read the opinion?
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited November 28, 2000).]
Ah, THIS explains your confusion! That is NOT my premise. That is my CONCLUSION. The little numbered things underneath them are my premises LEADING to that conclusion.
"The Court was right and saying it was extra leagal IS the flaw."
So basically, you've just said that the flaw in my argument is not in the argument at all, but in the conclusion? Again, "Screw logic, the court is right, no matter what."
Now, I'm again going out on a limb, and I'm going to try to decypher what you're saying, since you refuse to give the straight, simple answer I desire. It SEEMS that you're saying that my premise that the court wrote new law is the incorrect one. Is this what you're trying to say?
If so, then I'd love to see how you can possibly interpret Florida law to add in the word "arbitrarily," or to give the power to extend a deadline to a court. It ain't there. They created it.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
This is getting funny.
Props for not dealing with any real issues Omega.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
Or keep pointing to the dark space in your mind and trying to distract people from the Court's legal basis.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
**Yes, I just did a generalization.**
So shoot me......
Does that fact that I read somewhere that this is a Democratic Supreme Court have anything to do with Omega's dwelling on this???
------------------
Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.
[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited November 28, 2000).]
Oh, whooops ...
Hold on, Omega, I'll do it for ya:
Jay & JK: That was an ad-homenium, and I demand an apology! That is not a valid debate tactic! Blah-blah-blah-blah ...
::sigh::
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
Oh, and it's AD-HOMINEM. At least try to pick your knuckles off the ground long enough to spell it right, you ignorant savages.
(for those of you not bright enough to 'get it' and not be offended, that whole 'ignorant savages' bit is simply a little reverse ad-hominem, so they can know what it's like. Those of you who actually HAVE brainstems may continue.)
------------------
"...you're in a 7-11, you're eighteen years old, you don't know shit about shit... PULL UP YOUR PANTS!" -- Denis Leary
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited November 29, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited November 29, 2000).]
------------------
Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.
------------------
"I'm not like George Bush. If he wins or loses, life goes on. I will do anything to win." - Al Gore, Newsweek, 1999
------------------
Frank's Home Page
"I remember my mum telling me 'don't wear that jacket, it doesn't go with your top.' And I said 'Screw you mum, I'll wear what I'll like'. And then I went and changed tops." - Liam Ka--thingy
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Oh, hell, it's David Hasselhoff. HE'S the PRINCIPLE. Ugh.
Although, I can understand why poking fun at Omega's expense is common. Holier-than-thou attitudes deserve a smack in the head, and since these guys are not close enough to Omega to Layeth the smacketh down, they 'word murder' him.
And, it's not like Omega's the perfect little, non-insulting, non-derogatory blanket statement king himself. Oh no.
------------------
"Karate is a form of martial arts in which people who have had years and years of training can, using only their hands and feet, make some of the worst movies in the history of the world." - Dave Barry
From MSN News:
"Bush's brief asks the court to overturn the Florida Supreme Court's ruling last week that required Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to accept hand-counted ballots after Nov. 14, the deadline she said was set by state law.
Bush's attorneys argued that the Florida court's extension of that deadline violated the U.S. Constitution by infringing on the state Legislature's responsibility to ensure the proper election of the state's 25 members of the Electoral College.
The Constitution, the Bush brief said, gives that power solely to a state's lawmakers, not its courts. The court improperly obliterated that distinction when it allowed hand recounts to continue in three Democratic-leaning counties for 12 days beyond Nov. 14."
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
------------------
"I am in one of those rare periods of life where I am convinced I am a sexy devil."- Simon "Sol System" Sizer
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
"I can't believe that the people of Florida want to see the expression of their will taken away by politicians," Gore told CNN.
Can't believe it? It certainly didn't stop you, Gore, did it?!
LOLOL
------------------
"I'm not like George Bush. If he wins or loses, life goes on. I will do anything to win." - Al Gore, Newsweek, 1999
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
------------------
What did it mean to you
An early chat with death
To pull your body for a moment from your soul
--
Camper Van Beethoven
****
Read chapter TWO of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Now with 30% more plot.
*Insert "Godfather" theme here*
'Hey, Al! You heard about McKennitt?'
'The Bush elector? What about 'er?'
'Apparently, she's a lezbo!'
'Really? Well, ah, tell 'er if she don't vote Gore, maybe we'll have to come OUT wit dat, if youse knows what I mean...'
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
On the other side of the fence, he may be referring to the people who wanted to vote for Gore, but didn't.
Still, the statement is kinda ironic. After all, he doesn't have any proof of the whole thing.
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Rated 7 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
------------------
Re: Russia in WWII
"Hey, we butchered Poles! Thats OK."
- DT.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
------------------
"My Name is Elmer Fudd, Millionaire. I own a Mansion and a Yacht."
Psychiatrist: "Again."
God, I loved that game ...
Especially cloaked starbases on self destruct. Muwahahahaha! Eventually, me and the guys I played with all decided to "ban" those, because, well ... they were sneaky ... but oh so fun ... 
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
Say, did anyone esle listen to the arguments before the Court? Great stuff.
It seems that the Supreme Court feels that USC section 5 trumps the Florida Court decision.
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited December 05, 2000).]
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Imagines a Mortal Kombat game with Gore reeling...
FINISH HIM!
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
I also think Bush is being very gracious in trying to give Gore some room in conceding and not demanding it.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
Now, "kiss my ballot..."
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
------------------
What did it mean to you
An early chat with death
To pull your body for a moment from your soul
--
Camper Van Beethoven
****
Read chapter TWO of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Now with 30% more plot.
Oh, this sig's for you.
------------------
"Solipsism, like other absurdities of the professional philosopher, is a product of too much time wasted in library stacks between the covers of a book, in smoke-filled coffeehouses (bad for the brains) and conversation-clogged seminars. To refute the solipsist or the metaphysical idealist all that you have to do is take him out and throw a rock at his head: if he ducks he's a liar."
--Edward Abbey
"The line of analysis can be overdone. The next president will not suffer an immediate crisis of legitimacy: American democracy is too resilient for that. Like a sick baby, the new president will be nutured by high-minded editorial page and a forgiving and patriotic public. If it's President Bush, the Democrats would tolerate him more than a President Gore; Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle just can't match House Majority Whip Tom DeLay in the partisan-vengeance department. But either Bush or Gore will be able to get things done.
"What they won't be able to do is control the partisan passions that may knock over the furniture of American politics. If Bush wins, blacks and other minorities will feel aggrieved and turn out even stronger in the future, consolidating their demographic gains and seriously hurting Republicans for years to come. If Gore somehow manages to win, conservatives will be energized and radicalized. What began as an effort to delegitimize Bill Clinton as early as 1993 (Republican in Congress told Democrats he was 'your president,' not theirs) would become a bloodless civil war, with boycotts of the inaguaration by GOP diginitaries that would almost certainly backfire on the delegitmatizers.
"Let's look at the more likely outcome first: the clock runs out and Bush wins. Amid the partisan scrum, a critical fact has been ignored. The Sunshine State has an exceptionally strong sunshine law that allows wide public access to government documents. If conservative gadfly Larry Klayman could examine Palm Beach ballots last week, how long will it take a liberal gadfly to examine the 10,000 undercounted Miami-Dade ballots next year?
"In other words, this isn't Chicago 1960, where votes are stolen under cover of darkness. These Florida ballots will be hand-counted sooner or later. Sooner is better, not just for Gore but for Bush's legitimacy. If Bush is elected and it's proved on a hand count that Gore actually carried Florida, what will the country say? 'Ooops' isn't going to cut it.
"The GOP may have stepped on a land mine this year. Consider what happened in California in the mid 1990's, when the then Gov. Pete Wilson antagonized immigrants and minorities. California moved from hotly contested to solid Democratic. Or look at Florida this year, where African-Americans, angry at Jeb Bush for abolishing affirmative action, helped drive statewide turnout to a remarkeable 70 percent of registered voters. Now extend that trend to the rest of the country, with new voting machines (a sure bet) that don't disproportionately stymie minority ballots, as punch cards do.
"Jess Jackson's outrage isn't enough to change the election, but it will almost certainly change the next one. While he can't prove his charge that Republicans engaged in "a voter suppression scheme on a wide scale", he can make plenty of headway in registering the 9 million blacks who are eligible to vote but still unregistered. Bush won big with white males, but white males aren't running the world the way they once did. In fact, fairly soon, white males will be ... a minority group."
"Bush and Cheney get this. What they don't get is that Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Cheney's calls for 'diversity' in the cabinet (which must make Lynne Cheney, high priestess of the anti-political-correctness crowd, bust a gut) are not likely to pay big political dividends. For all the warm and fuzzy talk of inclusion last summer, Bush ended up doing worse among blacks, Hispanics, and even Asian-Americans than anyone expected. And that was before all the recent unpleasantness.
"Looking ahead, Republicans will be under pressure not just to reach out but to fight the demographic trends and way they can. If Florida had not been among those few states that bar anyone with a felony conviction from voting, Gore would have won comfortably. (The GOP is angry that 445 such felons apparently voted anyway, mostly for Gore.) It's not hard to imagine other Republican-controlled state legislatures moving aggressively to disenfranchise ex-cons; felons don't exactly have a powerful lobby. This will likely ripen as an issue soon, with Bush (convicted of a misdemeanor DUI charge, not a felony) caught in the middle of old-fashioned race politics.
"The best approach to ensuring legitimacy has been clear for weeks: a hand count in all of Florida's 67 counties. Gore waited too long to take that position, and when he did, it was mostly a bargaining chip, offered only if Bush agreed. Had Gore himself immediately petitioned for hand counts statewide, he would have held the high road from the start. Bush, in turn, has never shown any awareness that winning by a margin of .00052% without counting all of the disputed ballots might pose a problem for his legitimacy. Both men were well born, but their presidential parentage is out of a Faulkner novel. However agreeable and successful he turns out to be, the new president is doomed to be seen by many Americans as a bastard."
--Jonathan Alter, NEWSWEEK, Dec. 11, 2000
Just for discussion. But I know Omega is already mumbling under his breath that I take all my arguments direct from 'liberally controled media' 'cuz we all know it is a vast left wing conspiracy, right little guy?*
* = Not intended as an ad-homenium
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 06, 2000).]
Oh, and BTW, that was not an attack intended to prove a logical point or anything like that. Just an expression of frustration.
"Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle just can't match House Majority Whip Tom DeLay in the partisan-vengeance department."
I'd like to see his examples for this, but... hey, he didn't give any! I wonder why?
"If Bush wins, blacks and other minorities will feel aggrieved and turn out even stronger in the future, consolidating their demographic gains and seriously hurting Republicans for years to come."
And I thought liberals didn't stereotype people. Exactly why would minorities do that? BECAUSE they're minorities? I think not. It'll be more likely that they'll judge Bush on what he does and what effect it has once he's in office, and since tax cuts nearly by definition are good for the economy, chances are these minorities are going to be better off after the Bush admin. It's just a question of whether they see it.
And what of the Cuban refugee community? They're a minority, right? And yet they didn't support Gore. Funny thing, stereotyping: there're always numerous exceptions.
"boycotts of the inaguaration by GOP diginitaries that would almost certainly backfire on the delegitmatizers."
Funny, I think I've heard this before somewhere...
*thinks*
Oh, yes! They said the exact same thing durning the Clinton trial! Looks like they were wrong then, too, huh?
"What began as an effort to delegitimize Bill Clinton as early as 1993"
There was no such effort. No one tried to "delegitimize" Clinton. He was, sadly, president, and no one denied it.
And no, that quote from the Republicans is NOT an effort to delegitimize. It can be taken any number of ways.
"If conservative gadfly Larry Klayman could examine Palm Beach ballots last week, how long will it take a liberal gadfly to examine the 10,000 undercounted Miami-Dade ballots next year?"
But did you hear about the results of that man's examination? He found ballots with TAPE on them, holding chads in place! These ballots have been tampered with during the hand counts, thus rendering said counts unreliable. Simple as that.
As for your so-called "undervote", why dinna you go find out exactly what you're talking about? Those ballots WERE counted. Twice. They were determined not to contain a vote for president. If someone counted these ballots by hand, it'd be far easier for them to create new votes like they've been doing. See, that's why we had that deadline the court rewrote: to prevent tampering with the ballots. If some liberal watchdog group counted the ballots and found Gore won, no one would believe them. There'd be no way for the group to prove that they did not actively create the votes they found.
"If Bush is elected and it's proved on a hand count that Gore actually carried Florida, what will the country say? 'Ooops' isn't going to cut it."
As said above, you couldn't prove anything. The most reliable count is the machine count, and Bush won both of those.
"Now extend that trend to the rest of the country, with new voting machines (a sure bet) that don't disproportionately stymie minority ballots, as punch cards do."
I'd love to know how he figures this, too. But, hey! Again, no evidence. Just an unsubstantiated claim.
"Jess Jackson's outrage isn't enough to change the election, but it will almost certainly change the next one."
Yeah, the more people he lies to, the more people he encourages to act as irrationally as he does, the greater chance that Hillary'll win in '04. Can't argue with that.
"What they don't get is that Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Cheney's calls for 'diversity' in the cabinet (which must make Lynne Cheney, high priestess of the anti-political-correctness crowd, bust a gut) "
Another funny thing. This person assumes that if you're against PC, then you must also be racist. But then, all Republicans are racist, aren't they?
"If Florida had not been among those few states that bar anyone with a felony conviction from voting, Gore would have won comfortably."
Oh, I can't imagine why a criminal would support Al Gore. It's not like he's ever broken the law or anything. And none of his major backers are criminals, either.
"The GOP is angry that 445 such felons apparently voted anyway, mostly for Gore."
Again, can't imagine why they would be angry.
"It's not hard to imagine other Republican-controlled state legislatures moving aggressively to disenfranchise ex-cons; felons don't exactly have a powerful lobby."
Oh, yes, gotta let those rapists, pedophiles, and thieves vote, you know. They have rights, too.
Come on, if they had all the rights we do, why can we keep them in cells?
"This will likely ripen as an issue soon, with Bush (convicted of a misdemeanor DUI charge, not a felony) caught in the middle of old-fashioned race politics."
A) He wasn't convicted of anything. He was never on trial. He paid his fine that night, and went home.
B) It was expunged from his record, thus it wouldn't affect him, even if it was a felony.
C) It's only race politics because that's what the Democrats always turn it into.
D) I wonder which breaking campaign fundraising laws qualifies as: misdemeanor or felony?
"The best approach to ensuring legitimacy has been clear for weeks: a hand count in all of Florida's 67 counties."
Again, how do you figure? The democrats have shown they'll do anything to win, including steal the election by screwing with the ballots. Hand counts are unreliable. There are no standards, and there's no way to prevent the ballots from being tampered with. There's a reason we use machines for this.
"Bush, in turn, has never shown any awareness that winning by a margin of .00052% without counting all of the disputed ballots might pose a problem for his legitimacy."
If he won according to the law, he's legitimate. According to the law, he won. Therefore he is legitimate. Simple as that.
And again, all the ballots have been counted. They've all been run though the machines. Twice. Gore lost. Period.
Oh, wait. I take that back. Some ballots WEREN'T counted: the military ballots that Gore got disqualified. But I thought every vote counted?
"However agreeable and successful he turns out to be, the new president is doomed to be seen by many Americans as a bastard."
Every poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that Bush won the election, and will consider him legitimate when he's sworn in.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Guess they should take better notice of the people they're busing to the polls.
Wonder if Bush will demand a recount of this obviously fraud-laden area... at least there, there's some good cause.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
Anyway, this is all academic. Jeb Bush already signed the bill of ascertainment, and sent it to the federal archives. The electors have been chosen, and they're required by oath in Florida to vote for their party's candidate. What's more, the Supreme Court of Florida once ruled that a court can not order the governor to accept a second set of returns, so the court case is pointless, as well. And if, by some miracle, Gore manages to get a second slate of electors named in HIS favor, the four times in history that two slates have been sent in, the one the governor signed off on has always been used. Gore's only chance now is for him to bribe or blackmail three of the electors from states that don't require them to vote for their party.
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Re: my spelling of Ad-whatever ... "hokt on foniks werkt 4 mi"
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
------------------
"I am in one of those rare periods of life where I am convinced I am a sexy devil."- Simon "Sol System" Sizer
So I'm a creative speller ... so sue me
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 06, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 06, 2000).]
------------------
"I'm not like George Bush. If he wins or loses, life goes on. I will do anything to win." - Al Gore, Newsweek, 1999
Omega, I think by now that they just misspell it to annoy you.
Typical gadfly misdirection trick. Provide a meaningless but bothersome distraction so that the main attack gets ignored. Didn't work, though it DID garner more than its share of attention.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
Before I explode with laughter, I think I should post a quote from Omega.
"Ad HOMINEM, you lingually challenged twit. It's spelled H-O-M-I-N-E-M. You could at least do yourself the favor of seeing how the word is spelled by looking at the times First and I have used it. Maybe you could even look it up."
*points* Na na na na nah, hypocrites, hypocrites, na na na na nyah!
[This message has been edited by PsyLiam (edited December 07, 2000).]
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
That Omega sure likes making a big deal over the fact that I don't spell it correctly. Surely, by pointing out that he is a superior speller (except when it comes to "Britain"), he is attempting a gadfly misdirection trick from the topic at hand.
And then you defend him (no problem there), by insinuating that only the Gore campaign would make such a big deal over a mis-spelling ... yourself conveniently forgetting that Omega made the big deal over it ...
Can we get back on topic now, or would the Republicans (and the so-called Independent) like to continue to bitch about spelling?
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 07, 2000).]
When did I say I was a superior speller? I simply stated that your spelling was incorrect, and has been for the couple dozen times you've used the word. And that's even after you'd been corrected by Rob. If you REALLY want to compair to me, then look up how many times I misspelled "Britain" after I was told it was wrong.
But yes, please, let's get back on topic.
Actually, I've already shredded the editorial you posted, so I think it's your turn to reply...
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Bush wins. Gets into office.
People count the ballots over the next few years ... and discover that Gore won the majority of the votes. Which means ... that Gore won the popular ... won the electorate ... and yet Bush is in the White House?
Now, if that scenario does happen to come around, what will happen?
And obviously blacks do believe Republicans to be racist. Otherwise, they wouldn't have voted against Bush in the numbers that they did.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 07, 2000).]
Sorry I couldn't get more numbers for my little survey, but the last week there was a bitch, doing my job as Assistant Manager, and filling in for Customer Service and Delivery Driver was getting to me. Then the Regional Manager had the nerve to write me up for my office not being tidy..... Well, f*ck, if I were in the store instead of on the road maybe I could have picked up after the Manager, Sales Rep., and Account Managers.
------------------
Well, it's done, yes, the deed is done.
You realize, of course, that this is a completely nonsensical view to hold, for a couple reasons.
1: Bush's plan was and still is for an across-the-board tax cut. Which means your other people will be paying less tax, too. This is HARDLY a burden. Hell, I make little enough to qualify to pay NO taxes. How can this hurt me?
2: There is no reason that if taxes on the rich are lowered, taxes on the not-rich must be raised. It's a zero-sum belief, which doesn't work in circumstances where there is a budget surplus. THEY WON'T BE PAYING MORE, to use small words.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
And since Republicans AREN'T racist, this begs the question, "Why do black people believe this?" The obvious answer is that they've been lied to by the Democratic Party. Do you really want to support a party that lies to get votes?
"Bush wins. Gets into office.
People count the ballots over the next few years ... and discover that Gore won the majority of the votes. Which means ... that Gore won the popular ... won the electorate ... and yet Bush is in the White House?
Now, if that scenario does happen to come around, what will happen?"
That depends on how good the Democrats are at the time at lying, how good the Republicans are at telling the truth, and the general state of intelligence in the populace. Of COURSE someone's gonna count the ballots and "discover" that Gore got a majority of the apparent vote. The whole idea now is to delegitimize the Bush presidency. The only question will be whether the GOP can get the word out well enough that the people who counted the ballots were not under supervision, and were (as they certainly will) modifying the ballots as they went.
How hard would it be to take the thousands of ballots that the Gore people are lying about (you know, the ones they keep saying that they haven't been counted) that contain no vote for president at all, and to knock out the Gore chad? There'd be no way to prove tampering. See, that's why we have that deadline in the law, and that's why we have such stringincy on the hand recounts. Heck, if someone announces that these thousands of non-votes gave Gore enough to win, we'll KNOW they're lying. If they contained that many actual votes, how were they missed by the machines? Twice?
It's all a question of how well the GOP will get the word out. Simple as that. And since he'd be in office, I'd bet Bush wouldn't hesitate to call them on it. Repeatedly.
Again, think about it. Do you really want to support a party who has to lie, cheat, and steal simply to make it LOOK like they won? And, looking at yourself objectively, what does supporting such people make you?
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
EVERYONE LIES.
Find me one and I mean ONE honest politician who hasn't lied to his/her constituents and i'll personally show you my villia on Syria Planum on Mars.
Quatre.
------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy
But the point is this, Omega. Your argument that a hand-recount would be invalid (or could be argued as such) only would work if the count was done by a liberal partisan. You seem to overlook independents, of which you laughingly consider yourself one. What would the GOP do if The New York Times or The Washington Post ran this headline: Independent Florida Recount Reveals Gore Won 2000 Election!?
Feel free to view this as a hypothetical situation. If you were Bush's chief of staff, and that headline ran in 2002, what would you do? I don't think saying "the media is a liberal controlled whore!" would work very well, now would it?
"And since Republicans aren't racist, this begs the question, "Why do black people believe this?" The obvious answer is that they've been lied to by the Democratic Party. Do you really want to support a party that lies to get votes?"-Omega
You seem to be of the belief that the average African-American male is a) too stupid or b) too ignorant to realize when he is being lied to -- in your example, by the Democratic Party. Isn't that assumption largely racist in and by itself?
What you fail to consider is that the Democratic Party has a better track-record with looking out for the benefit of those who do not fall into the category of "white protestant males." This was much truer in times long gone (when the KKK was actually a political power), but I would imagine that African-Americans remember that less than 150 years ago, they were slaves, and less than 40 some years ago, were not "equal" in society.
They also remember that Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that the Kennedys (you know, JFK? And especially Robert) were strong supporters of freedom.
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 07, 2000).]
Cynical, aren't we? We know that pretty well every Democrat involved with this is lying through his teeth. Give me evidence that ONE Republican involved with this campaign has done the same.
JK:
What question did I avoid? The one about what would happen? I answered that. I said that it would depend on various factors, and listed the factors. Of course, the only thing it really would affect is popular opinion. Nothing would change, in the big picture, as Bush would still be president.
"You seem to be of the belief that the average African-American male is a) too stupid or b) too ignorant to realize when he is being lied to -- in your example, by the Democratic Party. Isn't that assumption largely racist in and by itself?"
a) Why did you single out males? Just curious.
b) I make no assumptions. I simply make observations. The Democratic Party lies to the black community. The black community, by and large, believes them. I made no statement as to why. However, I would point out that the same thing applies to ALL democrats, regardless of race, including yourself. You're lied to, and you simply accept it as the truth. You tell me why.
"What you fail to consider is that the Democratic Party has a better track-record with looking out for the benefit of those who do not fall into the category of "white protestant males.""
Better track record? How do you figure? The Democrats in congress opposed the Civil Rights Act. Due to a tax cut instituted by a Republican president, the black middle class grew from 2.6 million to 3.9 million. Heck, the Democratic party was formed on the basis of keeping slavery alive! Check your facts, man.
Just what do you think it is that Democrats have done for black people, anyway? Unless you count lying to them as a favor.
Now, would you care to answer MY questions about how you can justify supporting a party such as the DNC?
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
And again, bravo on not answering the question.
Unless you mean to tell me, that faced with a situation where he lost both the popular and electoral vote, that George W. Bush would remain in office?
Omega, why do you support the Republicans? I really don't give a flying shit why you support them, and I don't know why you give a damn about why I support the Democrats. I support the side that I believe to be better for society.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 07, 2000).]
But that is not a possible situation. Once the electoral votes have been cast, they can not be un-cast. Therefore, it is impossible for Gore to win the electoral vote post facto. Any count performed by an independant organization would not be legally acceptable. Therefore, as Bush has won all legally acceptable counts of the votes cast in Florida, Gore can not be logically be said to have won the state, at any point. Your question is moot.
"I really don't give a flying shit why you support the [GOP], and I don't know why you give a damn about why I support the Democrats. I support the side that I believe to be better for society."
As for why I care about why you support who you do, I simply wish to understand your positions better.
So you believe that the DNC's positions, if implemented, would be better for society than those of the GOP. Fair enough. What is your basis for that conclusion?
"Kindly list examples where the DNC has lied to black voters. Oh, and Bill Clintons, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" speech doesn't count."
That black voters were being disenfranchised in Florida.
That Bush was responsible for the Byrd death.
That Bush did not sign a hate-crimes law in Texas.
That a different hate-crimes law would prevent further deaths of black people.
That Republicans are racist.
That the DNC has done more than the GOP to advance the cause of equal rights.
That the welfare programs instituted by the DNC have helped Black families escape poverty.
That the GOP congressmen didn't care about black schools, and only wanted to take pictures of them.
That said congressmen only wanted to have their pictures taken with black children, but were in "reality" trying to cut the funding that paid for a portion of their school lunches.
That quotas help black people get educations.
That's just off the top of my head. Want more?
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Omega said (ad nasuem)
"That black voters were being disenfranchised in Florida."
Really? Do you live in Florida? I do. And disenfranchisement is an old topic here.
"That Bush was responsible for the Byrd death."
Not directly, but he sure as hell help foster the eviroment that CAUSED it to happen.
"That Bush did not sign a hate-crimes law in Texas."
Well, he DIDN'T. Mainly because of fundie Christians objected to the parts which went after crimes commited on the condition of sexual orientation.
"That a different hate-crimes law would prevent further deaths of black people."
You must have pulled that one out of your ass, Omega-baka.
"That Republicans are racist."
Historically, they've been indifferent. Which is just as bad.
"That the DNC has done more than the GOP to advance the cause of equal rights."
In the present, yes they have. Go see the NAACP's page for that.
"That the welfare programs instituted by the DNC have helped Black families escape poverty."
That's true. But not just blacks but other groups as well.
"That the GOP congressmen didn't care about black schools, and only wanted to take pictures of them."
I have never seen OUR local congressman, Joe Scarborugh (R) ever show up at any black school in Pensacola. Ever.
"That said congressmen only wanted to have their pictures taken with black children, but were in "reality" trying to cut the funding that paid for a portion of their school lunches."
Newt Gingrich tried to do this. See his record for more details.
"That quotas help black people get educations."
Yes because of REDLINING. Know what that is?
I've lurked here for a loooong time trying to figure out when I should put in my two cents worth. And now it's time to do so. You, Omega, are a complete and total brainwash victim. I don't know which is sadder. The fact that you like to spew Republican propaganda like it was the official word from God on high or that you just don't know any better because you've spent WAY to much time in denial that you are a closet Democrat.
When you finally do get your head out of your ass and wake up and see the world for what it REALLY is, then maybe you'll grow the hell up. And for the record - I loath both the Republicans and the Democrats. As a Floridian, they both turned this whole election into a freak show and I most certainly wish they'd ALL GO AWAY!
That's my opinion overall.
Quatre.
------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy
------------------
"I'm not like George Bush. If he wins or loses, life goes on. I will do anything to win." - Al Gore, Newsweek, 1999
[This message has been edited by Jeff Raven (edited December 07, 2000).]
No, not really Demo-propoganda. Just some stuff i've seen happen in my city. J&S are die-hard democrats and a LOT of their freinds are. If I had to identify myself, politically, i'd say I fall along the lines of Libertarian.
BUT - basically everything Omega said is pretty much verbatim from what you can hear from Limbaugh and demogogs of his particular ilk. I despise politics on the whole. And I despise so-called twits who SEEM they have an answer for everything and they are right all the time and everyone else is wrong.
Cat.
------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy
------------------
"Karate is a form of martial arts in which people who have had years and years of training can, using only their hands and feet, make some of the worst movies in the history of the world." - Dave Barry
Really? Do you live in Florida? I do. And disenfranchisement is an old topic here."
Can you display evidence that black voters were disenfranchised in Florida?
"That Bush was responsible for the Byrd death.
Not directly, but he sure as hell help foster the eviroment that CAUSED it to happen."
What is your basis for this conclusion?
"That Bush did not sign a hate-crimes law in Texas.
Well, he DIDN'T. Mainly because of fundie Christians objected to the parts which went after crimes commited on the condition of sexual orientation."
----------
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 42.014
Finding that offense was committed because of bias or prejudice
"In the punishment phase of the trial of an offense under the Penal Code, if the court determines that the defendant intentionally selected the victim primarily because of the defendant's bias or prejudice against a group, the court shall make an affirmative finding of that fact and enter the affirmative finding in the judgment of that case."
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, � 50, eff. Sept. 1, 1995
----------
Texas Penal Code, Art. 12.47
Penalty if Offense Committed Because of Bias or Prejudice
"If the judge or jury, whichever assesses punishment in the case, makes an affirmative finding under Article 42.014, Code of Criminal Procedure, in the punishment phase of the trial of an offense other than a first degree felony or a Class A misdemeanor, the punishment for the offense is increased to the punishment prescribed for the next highest category of offense. If the offense is a Class A misdemeanor, the minimum term of confinement for the offense is increased to 180 days."
Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 751, � 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
----------
This would seem to include protection for homosexuals, and would seem to have been enacted during Bush's term in office as Governor.
"That Republicans are racist.
Historically, they've been indifferent. Which is just as bad."
This response is ambiguous. Does this mean that you believe that ignoring race entirely is just as bad as believing one race to be superior?
"That the DNC has done more than the GOP to advance the cause of equal rights.
In the present, yes they have."
Please cite specific examples.
"That the welfare programs instituted by the DNC have helped Black families escape poverty."
That's true. But not just blacks but other groups as well."
Can you display evidence of this?
"That the GOP congressmen didn't care about black schools, and only wanted to take pictures of them.
I have never seen OUR local congressman, Joe Scarborugh (R) ever show up at any black school in Pensacola. Ever."
This is not a response to my statement.
"That said congressmen only wanted to have their pictures taken with black children, but were in "reality" trying to cut the funding that paid for a portion of their school lunches.
Newt Gingrich tried to do this. See his record for more details."
Can you display evidence of this?
"That quotas help black people get educations.
Yes because of REDLINING. Know what that is?"
This response is ambiguous. Are you saying that quotas do help black people get better educations? If so, can you display evidence of this?
"I loath both the Republicans and the Democrats. As a Floridian, they both turned this whole election into a freak show"
What has George W. Bush done to turn the election in Florida into a "freak show?"
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
I commend you on your Texas law articles, they seem to be evidence, but you prolong the argument when asking your opponents to provide evidence, when you could simply shut them up.
"Don't tell them what you can do, show them, and you will be respected, but only if you can do what you would've told them you could".
------------------
"Karate is a form of martial arts in which people who have had years and years of training can, using only their hands and feet, make some of the worst movies in the history of the world." - Dave Barry
Quatre.
------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy
There was a pie-chart in Newsweek a few weeks back. It was titled, "WHAT AMERICANS WANT THE NEXT PRESIDENT TO SPEND MONEY ON"
And it was broken down like this:
1% - Health Care
1% - Social Security
98% - New Election System
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
I really liked that.
Quatre.
------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy
------------------
Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?
~C. Montgomery Burns
Quatre.
------------------
"Omae o korusu..." - Heero Yuy
So, now we're the Psi Corps?
Might I remind you just WHO has been legislating free speech out of existence, on college campuses and schools and public forums across this country... YOU FOLKS.
Nowadays you can't say anything negative about ANYBODY without being slandered with the label 'racist' or 'homophobe' or 'sexist' or any of a number of easy-stick, hard to remove labels that Liberals are absolutely ADDICTED to bestowing upon people, with NO justification whatsoever.
And once you've succumbed to the label fraud, it's easy to dismiss 'labeled' opponents out of hand, -- similar, in a way, to the ways in which certain populations in German-controlled Europe in the 1930's were 'labeled.'
So that now we have a country in which people are judged NOT by their character and actions, but by the 'opinions' that they profess to hold... very 1984-ish, that. So that we can have a (soon-to-be-ex) president accused of being a serial philanderer and rapist, but who still has the full support of feminist groups.
Thought Nazis.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
Why do you not respond to the questions asked?
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
1. A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution or grandeur,often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
2. Extreme, irrational distrust of others.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 08, 2000).]
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 08, 2000).]
naive na*ive \adj (1650) 1: Marked by unaffected simplicity. 2a: deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgement; esp: CREDULOUS. b: not previously subjected to experimentation or a particular experimental situation 3: PRIMITIVE.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
Frankly, I just think its naive to assume the opposition is naive simply because they disagree with your political beliefs.
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
Hey, if I'd had the chance I'd have deleted MY ad-hominem attack just after you deleted yours.. I didn't get that chance, and now it's too late.
No, my definition of 'naive' was in response to your little 'paranoid' crack. It's my opinion that you're not experienced enough to know where the boundary between 'justifiably concerned' and 'paranoid' lies.
'Justifiably concerned' people look at the pattern of incidents between China and the Clinton administration (I sort of doubt Nixon leaked any nuclear secrets to the Chinese military, before you take THAT track again), and deduce that there's at least some reason to believe that there exists some collusion between the current administration and the People's Revolutionary Army.
'Paranoid' people are the ones who think the whole things a 'deal between Gog and MaGog' and one of the signs of the coming apocalypse.
There's a difference.
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
I don't think I ever took the track that Nixon gave secrets to the Chinese ... so how could I do so again?
Sometimes the line between "paranoid" and "justifiably concerned" gets very close indeed. I don't mean to push you into one label if you're not, but I get so tired of hearing about the "liberal controlled media" ...
Well, off for a haircut and tire alignment ... ::sigh::
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
Hoorah, to His Fraudulency, George Dubya Bush.
Jay, I'm sure you've got more info on this. Didn't the ruling mention "irregularities" in the ballot requests?
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 08, 2000).]
Why do you believe that Bush did not win the election legitimately?
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited December 08, 2000).]
Why do you not answer my questions?
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
If he recieved more votes, he woulda won the popular vote, now wouldn't he?
And that's the crux of the issue. Okay, Bush won the electorate. The last President to do so without also winning the popular was also labeled "His Fraudulancy" ... it's not a new term, you know.
Why don't YOU answer my questions? Someone wanna compile a list of the questions Omega's been asked and not answered?
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
As in: "What makes you think that he did?"
------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
Omega answered ALL of my questions with questions, refusing to answer them. Ultra ripped him a nice new asshole for it, too.
Go back over and read it. Yeeesh ...
------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 7.5 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
Shop Smart -- Shop "S"-Mart
Which part do you disagree with?
------------------
"You know, you--you let a wolf save your life, they make you pay and pay and pay..."
- Fraser, "due South"
Primarially, this thread has degraded into personal attacks.
Also, the thread's over 200 posts now. We'll get rid of that limit someday. Damn getuserbynumber...
I'd like to ask for a 24 hour moratorium on posts about the US election and politics in general. Let's calm down just a bit before continuing.
Thankie.
------------------
"Uh, Cody, what has the Mullah of Cappistan been smoking?"
"MILKSHAKES. I HAVE BEEN SMOKING MILKSHAKES!"