| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
|
Trace, sometimes your arguments are germane and rational and very well-thought out. But it seems like sometimes you just can't hold it in and you burst out with something so prepostrous, it keeps me smiling all day. For this, I thank you. But I wish you could respond articulately all the time, because when your replies are articulate, they're very good. I don't agree with them, but I can grudgingly give you the points you deserve...sometimes people forget that part of arguing or debating well...self control. |
I do not suck, I eat. |
|
|
lucky bastard |
I don't get it. Actually most liberals have more morals than the bible thumpers will ever have. I have fringe relatives, wait fringe, rather, grandparents, that thump the southern baptist crap so hard they actual guilt-rid my father to death literally. granted he had problems, but their unsympathetic, "gods-will" approach to dealing with their son indirectly drove him to be so guilt y for his life he took it. These so called moralist christian soldiers made a black sheep of my sister because she was not my dads true offspring, he adopted her from my moms previous marriage, but they treated her like a red headed step child...she was not his blood child. Blame it on mixing Lebanese pride with southern baptist "morality" but my grandmother died a lonely death and alienated much of her closest family because of the her MORALITY led her to deal with her family. Republicans have no grounds to lecture on morality. Sem said it best. Im not sure anyone is twisting your words, if anything we are only struggling to understand what the hell you are talking about. |
i don't think trace sucks or swallows or whatever. his republican party opinions bug me but i can live with it. dig? |
it was tongue in cheek. you decide which cheek. |
I'm sorry he felt he needed to leave. But, this is a sorta-public forum, and everyone's comments and ideas are fair game for challenge. I will be the first to admit that Trace had some good comments, but I am not the first to point out the fallacy of other of his, especially the one that sparked this last round of verbal tussling. If you are going to make a contentious statement, best be prepared to back it up, or get your bulbs handed to you. We all run that risk. I've been called out on stuff, and I didn't run away. |
|
political views. It's that we can all dish it out...and take it too... |
those who flee were never true sorabjiites to begin with. |
you guys were ganging up on him. that seems to be the standard response when someone who hasn't been here too long disagrees with popular opinion. y'all may have been Called Out at one point or another, but I never saw any of you become the target of the sorabji-mob. I love you all, but you're a bunch of jerks. |
|
Anybody who thought he was being ganged up on at the time was free to jump in and defend his views. I never felt he was. Callinghima moron may have been pushing it, but if you can't take the nate, fuck you, you ass. Never forget those magic words. I love them alcohol. |
But Dubya and the conservatives are gonna unite us right? From what i understand their are going to be two hot topics right off the bat that will benchmark how determined they are to unite in legistlation. Voting reform, and I understand Hilary is gonna take that on, and campaign finance reform. We'll know right away how partisian the next 4 years are going to be |
we'll see. |
|
bush should give clinton a blanket pardon as his first presidential action. doesn't clinton have some 100+ legal actions waiting for him? |
that would be cool. |
|
|
I thought this was pretty good: A LAYMAN'S GUIDE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN BUSH V. GORE by Mark H. Levine, Attorney at Law. Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me? A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes. Q: But wait a second. The US Supreme Court has to give a reason, right? A: Right. Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal? A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the hand-counts were legal and should be done. Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would find any legal ballots? A. Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't be. Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't conservatives love that? A: Generally yes. These five justices, in the past few years, have held that the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state university it can't steal trade secrets just because such stealing is prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business telling a state that it should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal government use the equal protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence against women. Q: Is there an exception in this case? A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This decision is limited to only this situation. Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating. A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." Q: What complexities? A: They don't say. Q: I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The votes can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court "changed the rules of the election after it was held." Right? A. Dead wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme Court did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme Court found the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was wrong. Q: Huh? A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting vote is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was condemned for not adopting a clearer standard. Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the Legislature's law after the election. A: Right. Q: So what's the problem? A: They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme Court should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote" Q: I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law. A: Right. Q: So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have been overturned. A: Right. You're catching on. Q: If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned for changing the rules. And if it didn't, it's overturned for not changing the rules. That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did, legal votes could never be counted. A: Right. Next question. Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that some counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem? A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems. Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes. So approximately 3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can. Q: Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!! A: No it's not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried about the 3% of Democratic ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida. That "complexity" was not a problem. Q: Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and tricked more than 20,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or Gore and Buchanan. A: Nope. The Supreme Court has no problem believing that Buchanan got his highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age home with Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed their mind about Hitler. Q: Yikes. So what was the serious equal protection problem? A: The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 3% of Democrats (largely African-American) disenfranchised. The problem is that somewhat less than .005% of the ballots may have been determined under slightly different standards because judges sworn to uphold the law and doing their best to accomplish the legislative mandate of "clear intent of the voter" may have a slightly different opinion about the voter's intent. Q: Hmmm. OK, so if those votes are thrown out, you can still count the votes where everyone agrees the voter's intent is clear? A: Nope. Q: Why not? A: No time. Q: No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans, agree the intent is clear? Why not? A: Because December 12 was yesterday. Q: Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes? A: No. January 6 is the deadline. In 1960, Hawaii's votes weren't counted until January 4. Q: So why is December 12 important? A: December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the results. Q: What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme Court? A: Nothing. Q: But I thought --- A: The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to complete its work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress. The United States Supreme Court is trying to help the Florida Supreme Court out by forcing the Florida court to abide by a deadline that everyone agrees is not binding. Q: But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the votes counted by December 12. A: They would have made it, but the five conservative justices stopped the recount last Saturday. Q: Why? A: Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal. Q: So why not separate the votes into piles, indentations for Gore, hanging chads for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one candidate or the other so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining who won? Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out, the American people will know right away who won Florida. A. Great idea! The US Supreme Court rejected it. They held that such counts would likely to produce election results showing Gore won and Gore's winning would cause "public acceptance" and that would "cast[] a cloud" over Bush's "legitimacy" that would harm "democratic stability." Q: In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory? A: Yes. Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? or a political one? A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law, this reason has no basis in law. But that doesn't stop the five conservatives from creating new law out of thin air. Q: Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism? A: Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it. Q: Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count the votes? A: The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is not binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December 12. Q: Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for arbitrarily setting a deadline? A: Yes. Q: But, but -- A: Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws it sets for other courts. Q: So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline? A: The Bush lawyers who first went to court to stop the recount, the mob in Miami that got paid Florida vacations for intimidating officials, and the US Supreme Court for stopping the recount. Q: So who is punished for this behavior? A: Gore, of course. Q: Tell me this: Florida's laws are unconstitutional, right? A: Yes Q: And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted differently are unconstitutional? A: Yes. And 33 of those states have the "clear intent of the voter" standard that the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida. Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out? A: Um. Because...um.....the Supreme Court doesn't say... Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't know who really won the election there, right? A: Right. Though a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors). Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? Throw out the entire state? Count all ballots under a single uniform standard? A: No. We just don't count the votes that favor Gore. Q: That's completely bizarre! That sounds like rank political favoritism! Did the justices have any financial interest in the case? A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers working for Bush. Thomas's wife is collecting applications for people who want to work in the Bush administration. Q: Why didn't they recuse themselves? A: If either had recused himself, the vote would be 4-4, and the Florida Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have been affirmed. Q: I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political way. A: Read the opinions for yourself: <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf> (December 9 stay stopping the recount), and <http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-949.pdf> (December 12 final opinion) Q: So what are the consequences of this? A: The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under our Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice who won the all important 5-4 Supreme Court vote. Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins. A: True, in a democracy. But America is not a democracy. In America, in the year 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme Court votes wins. Q: Is there any way to stop the Supreme Court from doing this again? A: YES. No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the 50 Democratic Senators stand up to Bush and his Supremes and say that they will not approve a single judge appointed by him until a President can be democratically elected in 2004, the judicial reign of terror can end... and one day we can hope to return to the rule of law. Q: What do I do now? A: E-mail this to everyone you know, and write or call your senator, reminding him that Gore beat Bush by several hundred thousand votes (three times Kennedy's margin over Nixon) and that you believe that VOTERS rather than JUDGES should determine who wins an election by counting every vote. And to protect our judiciary from overturning the will of the people, you want them to confirm NO NEW JUDGES until 2004 when a president is finally chosen by most of the American people. The problem with the second to last answer is that it would only not happen again in favor of a conservative. No guarantees it wouldn't happen to a liberal under a liberal court. I just read all the comments on the BBC site from British citizens and every one had a negative opinion of Bush. THere were a few positive ones from Americans, but that was it. |
The trick is not to freak out, and you have a tendency to do that once in a while when someone compleatly shuts you down. You know what it happens, thats life, deal with it. And Gee, I don't think we're all jerks we just have our opinions and defend them in a very strong manner. You know what, I agreed with Nate on the first version of this string. And yet I've gotten some pretty big boots to the head from Nate. Why do I agree with him, because I think he's right... Thats the whole point of being her, if you don't like getting your opinions and ideas shut down by someone, and you don't like it when not everyone agree's with you... DON'T POST HERE... BUT!!! if you don't mind a little critisism, and you don't mind people telling you your wrong, then your at the right place. |
|
there would have been plenty of time to count the whole state if the Gore camp hadn't requested an extension of the protest phase. the idea that the repubs conspired to put crappy ballot machines in dem districts is rediculous. having standards in which a ballot is a vote in one county but the same ballot is discarded in another county is patently unfair. the fact that different machines in different counties also appears to be unfair does not dilute this. that is the argument of a child. "but nate can ride his bike in the street. why can't i?" the system elected Bush. it's time to move on. attempting to unhinge order in our country is only going to make things worse. michael moore attempting to sway electors is demonic. if the tables were turned, the christian right would be babbling the same lines and y'all would be laughing at how stupid they are. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
say you have a hand count and get one result. change the staff and have another hand count and you'll get a different result. you could hand count for the next four years and get a different result each time. hence, you need a time limit. and there is one. federal, december 12th. florida state... sometime in november? |
I love putting up stuff from Michael Moore here because it never fails to get a reaction out of Nate. (Pay attention, Trace.) That's the only reason I do it anymore, and the more out there the better. Bush can still kiss my ass. I can't wait to get pissed off and start railing against his appointments. THere's a possibility that Interior will go to Slade Gorton of WA, who has had big problems getting along with Native American tribes. |
big whoop. dave. questions authority again. still, just as gore was very gracious in concession, bush should be very gracious in victory. i don't think he's specifically done that. probably never will. fuckin' beady-eyed, upper-lipless little bitch. |
"Goverment Sucks." |
i'm almost okay with bush being president because he makes me laugh. is it sad that bobo the clown is being replaced by bush the president? i honestly don't care, i'm just here to be entertained. |
|
|
have i mentioned that i hate judges? especially the motherfucker who ruled that i did not plug the parking meter when i did. that man needs to die. it's not about the $25, it's purely the principle. fuck, just now i sat and stared into nothing for about 10 minutes fuming ineffectually at the whole concept of how this guy who wasn't there can say what happened and make it stick. especially when he was so completely wrong. it infuriates me. in fact, i'm so pavlovian about it that if any of you want to mess with my head, mention this at random moments. it's guaranteed to set me into an episode of frustrated rage for at least an hour. pull my string and i do my thing. |
nation." bullshit. |
That is what I equate Sorabji to. |
On our way to some hot ass sex. |
|
http://www.funofun.com/georgebush.htm I hate those pages, but I will make an exception with this |
|
|