posted
Omega, again I disagree because may has different meanings.
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).]
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"
posted
How very mature of you, Omega, to attack Ritten because he doesn't agree with you. I applaud you, for you are truly a shining example of a "dittohead."
posted
No, not blind faith. But I do look at what each party has done in their lives to gauge whether or not they are qualified to make such a descision.
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.
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.
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.
posted
I do get it Omega, your arguement and my wife when I want.....
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"
posted
Indeed. I'd be interested in hearing a counterargument that happens to fit the facts, as well. So far the best that's been thrown out is a flimsy argument concerning the possible permissiveness of the word "may..." which kind of reminds one of Clinton's attempt to wiggle out of a testimonal tight spot by quibbling over the definitions of "sexual relations" and "is." ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman"? REALLY, Bubba? Where I come from, and everywhere else on the planet, BJ's COUNT! They're damned sure sexual!"
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).]
posted
Well, is masturbation sex? because BJ's are simply masturbation with a mouth thrown in for good measure.
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
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic