Once they aranged to have the boy king installed by judicial fiat, it was game on.
I'm just amazed there was enough left of the rule of law to actually ensare these jackels.
The only upside is I love to throw that ruling in the face of all the I hate judicial activism crowd. Oh how it flumoxes them so.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 3, 2005 08:25 PMSame old drivel.
Can you not get over the 2000 election.
Before you go arguing about Gore v. Bush, I recommend that you read it first and try and figure out how a State Judiciary can go about changing FEDERAL election laws in direct contradiction to our U.S. Constitutions Equal Protection clause, AFTER the votes had already been cast.
The vote was 7-2 not 5-4 if you read the real opinion on the main points of the opinion.
Also, almost every "re-count" by every major news agency said that Bush still would have won.
Get over your crying. Bush didn't steal the election, but he did stop Gore from blocking the military vote, from counting Democratic votes twice and from cheating.
The means is as important as the ends.
READ GORE V. BUSH FIRST before you start this tripe. Or, don't. I don't really care, because you will continue to waste your time on pointless exercises.
Can you document anything crappy, or is this just your usual repetetion of talking points?
Posted by rlp at December 3, 2005 08:33 PMTh pnt s th pntlss.
[Editor: ignore=off]READ GORE V. BUSH FIRST before you start this tripe. Or, don't. I don't really care, because you will continue to waste your time on pointless exercises.Posted by SmellyCarpSpeaking of being self-referential regarding tripe, you are the prime example.
The 7-2 decision was in regard to different standards of counting votes.
Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 USC Section 5). Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case. Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court's decision made new election law, which only the state legislature may do. Breyer and Souter (writing separately) agreed with the per curiam holding that the Florida Court's recount scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause, but they dissented with respect to the remedy, believing that a constitutional recount could be fashioned. Time is insubstantial when constitutional rights are at stake. Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued that for reasons of federalism, the Florida Supreme Court's decision ought to be respected. Moreover, the Florida decision was fundamentally right; the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.
Many misinterpret the new consortium's Florida recount results.
The study's key result: When the consortium tried to simulate a recount of all uncounted ballots statewide using six different standards for what constituted a vote, under each scenario they found enough new votes to have narrowly given the Florida election--and by extension the presidency--to Al Gore. Under three models that attempted to duplicate the various partial recounts that were asked for by Gore or ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, however, Bush maintained a slight margin of victory.
Here is an analysis of the Supreme Courts Bush v Gore ruling, which, despite the your spin, is pure, unmitigated bunk.
Of course, you should read the entire article, but here is one excerpt:
What the majority did in this passage was to attribute to the Florida legislature not just an intention to adhere to Section 5, but an intention to adhere to Section 5 at any cost. The majority said, in effect, that the Florida state legislature would want to take advantage of Section 5 even if that meant awarding the state’s electoral votes to the candidate who lost the election—“lost” according to the state’s election laws, as interpreted by the state’s highest court and modified by any federal constitutional requirements. That is an unlikely intention for any legislature to have. Certainly one would expect that the legislature would rather send forward challengeable electoral votes for the winner of the state’s popular vote, rather than unchallengeable votes for the loser. To attribute a contrary intention to Florida on the basis of a general statement in the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion is very strained. [9] In fact, the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion suggests, if anything, that it would not have wanted to abandon the effort to count votes; the majority of that court explicitly rejected the argument, advanced in a dissenting opinion, that “because of looming deadlines and practical difficulties we should give up any attempt to have the election of presidential electors rest upon the vote of Florida citizens as mandated by the Legislature.” [10]
Bush v. Gore destroyed the judicial reputatations of the five conservatives in the majority----the implacable judgement of history will forever condemn them as results-oriented, and like Lady MacBeth, they will never be able to wash the Bush v. Gore "blood" from their hands. The "law" was secondary to their decision.
Lawyers were stunned that the Court would even take the case, given the historic deference to state court rulings that these same conservative justices had for years been advocating.
Bush v. Gore involved issues of state election law that historically had been left to state supreme courts to decide----the US Supreme Court majority had to manufacture a fake federal issue in order to have any basis for hearing and deciding the case at all.
The decision will be considered and studied by legal historians as a landmark case which very seriously undermined the standing of the Supreme Court, and by extension all federal courts.
One of the reasons we find ourselves in the disastrous political situation we are in is because our institutions failed us when we needed them most.
The first institution to do so was the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.
It bent over backwards to ENSURE that we were saddled with the first president elected by only the electoral college in over a hundred years---the institution above all others that should have protected the popular vote of the American citizenry.
The Florida Supreme Court had simply held that the ballots that could be read, should be read. And five justices of the US Supreme Court didn't trust the state courts of Florida to determine who had received the most votes in Florida.
Don't forget that there was no question that Gore had won the popular vote nationwide.
Bush v. Gore will never be forgotten, or viewed favorably, by history, despite the talking points of the ignorant Right Wing. (see above)
Law professors (people actually learned in the law) generally have no sympathy or support for Bush v. Gore, and that is not going to change over time.
Posted by euzoius at December 3, 2005 09:32 PMWhy do you all argue Bush v. Gore with these right wing blowhards? The only thing they ever understood about that decision was "We win!"
They don't believe in or understand the law; they don't believe in or understand democracy. You can't argue with or explain things to people like that.
It's like showing a wristwatch to a dog.
Posted by James E. Powell at December 3, 2005 09:35 PMCrappy and Bendoverito,
I'll be "over" the assasination of our democracy when the world is rid of your kind.
Posted by God Of War at December 3, 2005 09:37 PMQuit quoting your liberal books. READ the OPINIONS all of them. 8 U.S. Supreme Court Justices, thats 8, found that the Florida Supreme Court had violated the U.S. Constitution.
Read this and weep. You aren't able to contradict the facts, although the commentary is complimentary....
If you recall, in Bush v. Gore the court found the following:
Paramount is our own U.S. Constitution which
GIVES NO RIGHT TO VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO THE CITIZENS of the U.S.. (For those that went to public schools. .. . oooh, that means me too.)
It gives the means of voting for the President to the States Individually. To do as they say. In fact, Many states used to allow their elected bodies to vote for president. There were no individual votes made.
However, the U.S. Const. requires that the States adopt whatever rules they decide but that it must be Constitutionally Sound which means it be pass the equal protection clause and all other applicable tests.
Then came the election---
Bush Won
Florida was a mess-in three prominently democratic counties with canvassing boards owned, operated, and paid for by the Democratic party.
PER THE LAW OF FLORIDA
Re-counts were permitted and they were done and BUSH WON.
PER THE LAW OF FLORIDA
Certification of the election was to be done by Nov. 14 (But the Democrats needed more time to screw with the votes, so they argued that it was mean old republicans that were stealing the election by FOLLOWING THE LAW. The SOS had no power to obviate the date of the 14th. The law gave that date as mandatory, not discretionary. (In fact, she also encouraged the voters to turn her out of a job, because she said her job was more ceremonial than real, which they did when they abolished her position. At least thats what I recall.)
Instead, the FLORIDA SUPREME COURT IGNORED THE LAW and suggested that it (the date for certification) was a mere guidleline with no real importance. So they IGNORED THE LAW AND CHANGED THE DATE TO November 26th (a date suggested by GORE's attorney's)
But that still didn't give the Democrats enough time to steal the election, so they went back and said, hey, the NEW LAW of the 26th is really only a guideline with no real purpose. (Republican's wonder why they even established any dates at all.)
So the Democrats said okay, okay, we will quickly try and follow the rules associated with these guidelines.
We want a re-count of all of these votes, manually. Not State wide, no the undervotes that we want counted are only to be counted 1.) in heavily stupid counties of Democrats. 2.) with clearly defined rules that are established by each and every person who happens to be doing the count. i.e. we make it up as we go along.
The Circuit Court said wait a minute, he was a democrat by the way, he said, "you haven't made your case". The fact is you want to selectively go fishing for votes and thats just not fair." The mere fact that of the three counties doing manual recounts,
a.) Broward alone was finding three times more of the votes than any other. Statistically that raised a concern.
b.) statistically undervotes occur 2% of the time, so perhaps that was the will of the voter not to vote for either candidate
c.) You don't have any standards to do the recount, other than that nebulous "voter intent". In which you must look at a static peice of paper and decide, by your own standards what they, the voter intended.
d) Plus you want to only count in Democratic headquarters, not the military votes nor any republican strongholds. I.E. Democrats are too stupid to know how to vote, so you need to have special rules for them.
The Supreme Court of Florida quickly took the case and agreed with much of the Circuit Court's decision, but then said hey, I'm going to go to bat for the Democrats. You see, the Supremes were watching the news channells and they weren't getting the answers they wanted to hear. They saw the Democrats were trying to cheat, and they wanted to help them, but they wanted to appear fair. So they said, the Voters Intent are holy and should be discerned in all means possible, but hey, we won't stop in the Democratic Counties, we say, let all votes be counted across the state. "See how wise we are!"
Yeah, that was a smart political move, but once again, they just ignored the Laws of Florida and in their infinite wisdom said hey,
1. We just changed the laws of Florida to give Gore a shot.
2. We are too stupid to know how to legislate in the first place, so we will decide that the votes should be counted using a very nebulous and subjective standard called "voters intent". Whatever that was.
So they sent the decision out to the masses, but remember what the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court said, (he was a democrat) he said
"Another significant problem is that the majority returns this case to the circuit court for a recount with no standards. I do not, and neither will the trial judge, know whether to count or not count ballots on the criteria used by the canvassing boards, what those criteria are, or to do so on the basis of standards divined by Judge Sauls. A continuing problem with these manual recounts is their reliability. It only stands to reason that many times a reading of a ballot by a human will be subjective, and the intent gleaned from that ballot is only in the mind of the beholder. This subjective counting is only compounded where no standards exist or, as in this statewide contest, where there are no statewide standards for determining voter intent by the various canvassing boards, individual judges, or multiple unknown counters who will eventually count these ballots.
I must regrettably conclude that the majority ignores the magnitude of its decision. The Court fails to make provision for: (1) the qualifications of those who count; (2) what standards are used in the count–are they the same standards for all ballots statewide or a continuation of the county-by-county constitutionally suspect standards; (3) who is to observe the count; (4) how one objects to the count; (5) who is entitled to object to the count; (6) whether a person may object to a counter; (7) the possible lack of personnel to conduct the count; (8) the fatigue of the counters; and (9) the effect of the differing intra-county standards.
So the U.S. Supreme Court gets this case and says hey, our job is to insure that all citizen's votes are created and treated equally. Knowing that 2% of all votes are undervotes, we must insure that when counting these votes, that a standard be used. Some objective standard that treats all of the votes the same.
However, 8 of the 9 Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Florida Supreme Court was in error. Not 5-4. This decision was 7-2, but Breyer thought if they tried real hard to help Gore, that you could send the case back to Florida in time for them to create, scrutinize and fabricate an "objective" and fair means to count every vote again. So 8 justices found a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Supremes then said, that since the date by which the State Legislatures must now certify their vote to the Federal Government is so close at hand, that for all practical purposes, the opportunity to go back and correct this problem is over.
So yeah, I guess these evil 8 Supreme Court Justices Stole the election from Gore and created their own laws to suit their needs. If that is in fact, how you liberals want to read it. But before you go any further, go back and read what the Florida Supreme Court said, once the case was remanded back to them. They almost agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court. They reviewed that decision and said, "
Moreover, upon reflection, we conclude that the development of a specific, uniform standard
necessary to ensure equal application and to secure the fundamental right to vote
throughout the State of Florida should be left to the body we believe best equipped
to study and address it, the Legislature.
Gees Louise, can you imagine that, letting the Legislatures write the laws, and then to allow the Supremes the right to interpret them within the confines of the Constitution. Go figure.
I know, I know, its not easy living a lie for these past 5 years. Believing what you read in the newspaper and on the blogs for liberal pundits, but the truth is easy enough to see, IF you read the opinions and carefully review the facts.
Even the Supreme Court of Florida acted remorsefully that they had crossed the line. Why can't you.
These blogs are wonderful in debunking your childish beliefs. In fact, a friend of mine, really the brother of my friend, is named Buckhead. He helped bring about a real change in the way the MSM media acts with impunity.
Maybe you heard of him. I knew who he was long before the Media learned of his identity.
My limited claim to fame, knowing who Buckhead was, long before the Liberal Media could find out who he was and then attempt to destroy him.
Seize the Day
Posted by Carpe Diem at December 3, 2005 10:29 PMCrappy,
Your little work of fiction, complete and utter bullshit that it is, does nothing to mitigate your treason. What a waste of bits and bytes.
And what a waste of carbon you, and your kind, truly are.
Also, fuckface, you might want to source that bullshit lest you be guilty of plagarism. Show us your links, asshole...we know you deliberately left them out because your source material is undoubtedly less than academically respected.
Goddamn. You fucking wingnuts are all the same. You create some fictional wingnut psuedoreality and expect everyone else to join up and inhabit it. Well, fuck you. Go ahead and live in your little fantasy land. Just know this: When you step back into the real world, you better be ready to face the music. Those of us dealing with the bullshit that you fuckers have pushed upon this earth are fed up and ready for some severe payback. Your number is up, bitch.
Posted by God Of War at December 3, 2005 10:30 PMLiberals must hate GOOGLE because it doesn't take much to find the truth.
April 4, 2001
MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- If a recount of Florida's disputed votes in last year's close presidential election had been allowed to proceed by the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican George W. Bush still would have won the White House, two newspapers reported Wednesday.
The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248 "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last month.
Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore.
"In the end, I think we probably confirmed that President Bush should have been president of the United States," said Mark Seibel, the paper's managing editor. "I think that it was worthwhile because so many people had questions about how the ballots had been handled and how the process had worked."
Ironically, a tougher standard of counting only cleanly punched ballots advocated by many Republicans would have resulted in a Gore lead of just three votes, the newspaper reported.
The newspapers' review also discovered that canvassing boards in Palm Beach and Broward counties threw out hundreds of ballots that had marks that were no different from ballots deemed to be valid.
The papers concluded that Gore would be in the White House today if those ballots had been counted.
The experts assigned by USA Today and the Herald began counting the undervotes -- ballots without presidential votes detected by counting machines -- on December 18, 2000.
They concluded their work on March 13.
Reaction to the verdict of the two newspapers was mixed, but some of the people who were key players in the 36-day recount drama that followed last Election Day agreed Wednesday that the results indicated Florida has a lot of work to do to improve its elections system.
Posted by Carpe Diem at December 3, 2005 10:33 PMOh, btw, carpe asslick, why, oh why pray tell, did the SCOTUS go to the unprecedented lengths of declaring that its own decision should not be used as precedent, thereby invalidating it upon its face?
You stupid little troll. Your treason will be addressed.
Posted by God Of War at December 3, 2005 10:34 PMAdded note: None of the great minds that decided Bush v. Gore had the judicial balls to sign the opinion.
Posted by James E. Powell at December 3, 2005 10:35 PMDear God of War,
Does using vulgarities and hatred as a debating tool make you FEEL better, if so, go for it.
Accusing me of lying and of making it up requires one thing, and one thing only, that you care about the truth. Which apparently you do not.
If I'm lying, then I'm a dying. Prove my facts wrong, (not my typos). Merely use any public database and search for the many, many Gore V. Bush decisions from the Circuit Court of Florida, to the Florida Supreme Court's decisions, there were many, to our several Federal District Courts, and finally the U.S. Supreme Courts.
If you will read them, then you can DISCERN THE TRUTH FOR YOURSELF. But no, you won't. You are too scared that the liberal blogs, newspapers and writers that you trust may have given you the spin that you wanted to hear, that the SUPREMES stole the election for Bush.
Go ahead and believe that for the rest of your life. Its easy remembering a catch phrase than in doing the research and then KNOWING THE TRUTH.
Better yet, show me your intelligence and call me a few more vulgarities.... oh, and throw in some more Bush is Hitler, Cheney is Himmler, and Rove is a lesbian transvestite.
This is a test. Can you face the TRUTH? All you have to do is take my challenge. To READ the OPINIONS available to you all. But you won't.
"To cowardly to face the truth, they would rather sulk in their ignorance."
Carpe Diem Dec. 4th, 2005
Enforcement of labor law remains a total joke, and Microsoft the monopolist was let offhow about Haliburton, Bextel and all others who are war profiteers?
I agree with most of what you are saying but on Microsoft I have to disagree as it is a company that has given us the internet. It is probably the only one that has given us freedom from the Miller, Woodward, Woofy, O’Reilly’s of our time. I just read on Media matters: Despite increasing questions about the Bush administration's handling of pre-war intelligence, CBS anchor -- and presidential pal -- Bob Schieffer appears to have made up his mind: "I don't think they deliberately misled people." Now I understand why he replaced Dan. That is why I do not watch him.
I have heard from C-span in the last few days that politic is not a spectator sport and that we are responsible for the outcome. People are going out on the street and have change the outcome of fraud in election in other country! .Here we went back to shopping the next day! Nobody challenge the 2000 election. Gregg Palast has a documentary that explains how the election was stolen! But unless you have free speech TV on the Dish who by the way is less expensive than the cable, you will never see it.
Sandra O’Connor, I have read was very upset when she heard the first result that Gore had won Florida and said that She lament that she could not resign now that Gore had won. A lot of people have said that she was great? I fear that they are waiting for Alito to make a decision about the abortion right. I was young when my mother came back home and told us that one of her small boy in the pre-school’s mother died from a botch abortion
These, religious fanatic freaks in this country, wants to take us back to the middle ages. They want America to go back to the inquisition. They want to control birth and death without giving a shit of what happen in between has they are destroying all social programs while claiming they are doing the people work!!!!!!!!!
Many says that they were DEM and change to Rep. I am the opposite as I voted Rep, all my live here until bush 41. I was not educated in politics. The motto was that they were for small government and jobs. This congress is the worst that we have ever seen. The rule should be 2/3 instead of ½ +1 for the Senate to vote.
We have to check all vote next election. We cannot allow Diebold to cheat us again.
You can spew out all the supercilious crap you want, not counting votes in a representative republic is just wrong, period. Sadly, there is no hell or afterlife, So Bush and the rest of the criminals will merely revert back to comet dust with lots of blood on its collective particles.
Posted by TIKI AL at December 3, 2005 11:08 PMDear TIKI AL,
Get this. The Votes were Counted using the methods that the Democrats in Florida determined were proper BEFORE the ELECTION. They tried to change the manner in which they were COUNTED AFTER the Election. Thats illegal, thats cheating.
Get your facts right. . . no wait, you don't want facts, you want talking points.
Bush lied, Bush is a cheat, Bush stole the election. There, not repeat that a dozen more times and sleep well tonight.
You guys really need to try harder. . . Don't you just hate it when Facts get in the way of YOUR truth?
Posted by Carpe Diem at December 3, 2005 11:11 PMCD, these folks have already predetermined what the outcomes of every election is from now until the End Times. Any victory that goes to a candidate other than a Democrat "must be" the result of a plot, conspiracy, theft, cheating, stealing, etc.
It's funny to read their views. A psychologist might say that they're "in denial."
Posted by muckdog at December 3, 2005 11:28 PMMuckdog,
"Its funny reading their views" is not totally correct.
Number 1. This infers that they have distinct views. They do not, they call share the same views. If it FEELS good, then thats all that it takes. And anything Republican is BAD.
Number 2. Its not funny, its sad. Sad that so many people can be so convinced that they really know what they are talking about.
I don't mind them screaming, cussing and yelling at me for being different, for that is part of liberlism's perfect Tolerance. But what I do mind, is their inability to speak the truth, when facts are so readily available to them.
They fear the truth, they fear the facts, so they scream and hollar and cuss and put people down, instead of actually doing real analytical thinking.
Then again, I'm not perfect either. But all they have to do is read these cases that are all online to prove me wrong, and they won't, not because they are not bright enough to read and understand the opinions, but because the know, down deep inside, that what I say is TRUE.
And all I can say to their failure to be honest with themselves, has already been said by Col. Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls.
And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?
Well liberals can't handle the truth.
TIKI AL, the utter soullessness shown by the sociopathic motherfuckers in DC, has shifted the cosmos so that where once there was a question about the existance of hellfire and brimstone, it is now a certainty that indeed there's a special place in the afterlife for them to pay the price of screwing anyone who is vulnerable. And those that try to defend them (haahhaahaha, they wish) will be frying too. I believe that. It helps me get through the day.
Posted by Sharon at December 4, 2005 03:37 AMThe problem with the Florida election is that it was just not the Supreme Court that stole it from Gore. THey were only the final straw. All those Jewish ladies who voted for Buchanan? The Repuglican-designed butterfly ballot? I'm afraid that in some states (FL, OH, TX), we'll never have a fair election again. Our democracy has already started down the slippery slope.
Posted by Cookie Monster at December 4, 2005 04:12 AM
the dixiecrat radicals who took over the republican party with the advent of lee atwater in 1980 don't just lack respect for law. they lack respect for american social and political traditions:
circumventing the congress (iran contra)
impeaching a president on a trivial persaonl matter
destroying the filibuster in the senate
amending the constitution at a whim
overtly and persistently misleading and lying to the american people about their security
fightin wars of choice, not necessity
ignoring basic public fiscal soundness
appealing to racial and religious intolerance
persistently misusing words and ideas in public discourse
turning ameican politics into a salable, consumable commodity to be packaged and marketed like cigarettes or six packs.
ameriican politics now is just an extension of corporate activity.
and the old dixiecrat radicals do just what they did so successfully in southern state politics between 1875 and 1965 --
they preach sex, race, religion, and war to the voters while seeing that the government operates as the handmaiden of large businesses.
Posted by orionATL at December 4, 2005 06:32 AM"overtly and persistently misleading and lying to the american people about their security."
OrionATL, you just reminded me of something. What happened to all those terrorist alerts and the green, pink, fushia, and baby blue color codes? I wonder if the election of 2006 will bring them back.
Posted by at December 4, 2005 07:21 AMAbove by me.
Posted by Judith at December 4, 2005 07:22 AMAgain, I say without pause, you anti-American wingnut Nazis are going to pay for what you've done to this nation, and pay dearly.
Posted by God Of War at December 4, 2005 07:37 AMWill the 2006 election bring back terror alerts?
Has Haliburton made money the last 5 years?
Posted by rlp at December 4, 2005 07:40 AMThe preelection polls, once quite accurate, are not worthless (and I mean worthless)
The use of paper ballots, perhaps the easiest way of insuring an accurate recount and used around the world in democracies, are being phased out in favor of black boxes that allow no paper trail.
Our democracy is beholden to private interests.
And neither party seems to care.
Looks like there's enough for both parties at the banquet. At least we get the crumbs.
Posted by Thor Likes Pizza at December 4, 2005 07:44 AMLook, Crapster, anyone familiar with the Court's Equal Protection jurisprudence—and particularly the Rehnquist Court's Equal Protection jurisprudence—knows that Bush v. Gore is hackery, pure and simple. There is absolutely no justification for it. Hence the decision to state that, unlike every other Supreme Court decision ever, it could not be used as precedent.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 4, 2005 08:03 AMDear Moonbat,
You state "anyone familiar with the Court's Equal Protection jurisprudence...knows that bush v. gore is hackery".
Classic case of wringing your hands. Yep, you liberals just can't handle the truth. So you jump back and make these broad accusations.
Read the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida's Opinion-Who is a democrat. He stated before and the Florida supreme court AGREED afterward, that they had screwed up. That you couldn't fashion a remedy POST ELECTION that didn't violate the FEDERAL equal PROTECTIONS law.
But don't worry, its okay. I know there are big words and these words have meaning and you don't like the meaning, so just fine some cute talking points and ignore the TRUTH.
YEP IGNORE THE TRUTH>
IGNORE THE TRUTH.
Repeat after me.
Bush stole the election.
Bush stole the election.
Bush stole the election.
Now, don't you libs feel so much better.
As FDR once said, The only thing you have to fear, is the fear of the truth. So find a way never to have the truth presented to you, find a way not to do the research necessary for you to find the truth, and then ignore the fact that your opinion on this issue is predicated upon your own dishonesty with your own search for the truth.
Which means that if you can lie to yourself about this one particular issue, then you could lie to yourself about all of these other areas too. Like the Iraq war, individual rights, abortion, taxes, civil rights....
But hey, you're liberals, its all about what "feels" good, not about the truth.
Not a single one of you have taken me up on my challenge.
Shame on you, shame on you all for being too offended by the truth to even recognize it when it stands up in your face.
Where are you at Snarky Shark, c'mon, give me one of your zingers. I can hardly wait.
Sieze the day.
Posted by Carpe Diem at December 4, 2005 08:31 AM"classic case of wringing your hands. yep. you liberals just can't handle the truth. so you jump back and make these broad accuisations."
even in web log comments one rarely finds such a pure example of a sentence that so explicitly projects the writer's own actions onto others.
and you rarely find a set of sentences so self-mocking. but a fit of rightousness can make a person do that.
Posted by orionATl at December 4, 2005 08:48 AMIt's pretty clear that you are not trained in the law, Crapster. Once you have the grounding in Equal Protection doctrine to talk sensibly about these issues, you let me know. Until then, you really ought to STFU.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 4, 2005 08:50 AMCrape Diem might as well be reading Greek as "reading" Bush v. Gore.
Posted by euzoius at December 4, 2005 09:18 AMcrappy's the new TP3000 - state of the art talking points dispenser. Put in a quarter and a bunch of scrambled letters and out comes a spew of talking points that will soon make the Hannitys of the world obsolete. Obviously, Bendito is the TP2000, a prototype that can only deliver one TP (maybe 2) a thread; and those are so obscure as to be incomprehensible. The bad news is that talking points will be delivered at a rate double that of the meat puppet variety, while the good news is that the lack of sourcing remains static - meaning it will be just as easy as before to refute the points as they fly.
An interesting sidenote - the crappy TP3000 is small, light, and curiously, resembles a projector.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 4, 2005 09:30 AMThey fear the truth, they fear the facts, so they scream and hollar and cuss and put people down, instead of actually doing real analytical thinking.
More examples of projection from carp deim.
This is in fact true for Carp-man and his tribe. As for the target of his arrows, not so much.
I am of course going by the raw data entering my mind through my ears and eyes and matching those with my real world encounters with the many Republicans I interact with in my world.
Carp of course is trying to match the facts with that buggy programing in his head.
We report, you decide.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 4, 2005 09:37 AMAll though in all fairness, I must say Carp is not guilty of the screaming and cussing, which to his credit makes him the exception to the rule. And I am not talking about here in the ether, but in the real word. In this world I cant kick your ass for cussing at me, but in the real world I surely could.
But in all fairness Carp is guilty of putting people down. His very essence drips with it, which is why so many people have a bad reaction to it. If it was me and I went to an oppo website and got cussed, I would leave and never come back.
In fact I have done just that on many an occassion.
But not Carp and his like-minded brethren. Why?
Does he think he is going to change minds and win souls? Maybe, but I dont think so. He's really not that stupid.
But by comming here and being superficialy polite, but with this I am a superiour being, he garuntees hostile reaction.
Which then re-enforces his pre-concieved notions about liberals, leftist, democrats or what-ever dark boogy-man he needs to have purpose.
Its always about fear. Not that their man is perfect of course, but they couldnt possibly support whatever whacked out agenda they think we have.
What-ever gets you through the day old man.
But let me tell you what you face here.
We honestly believe that your average Republican is consumed with phsycotic levels of greed. This anti-tax hatred doesn't even register with me. I cant feel anypart of it. I have always understood that in a collective effort such as soicety is, the individual has to contribute to the common causes.
Even you would admit we need a military, so its a matter of dergree. So we should be talking about getting the best returns for our money, but we can't because any conversation that includes the word tax sends you guys off howling like monkeys.
So almost the number one motivation for everything you do, I consider to be a physicotic condition. So why would I want to have a conversation with a nut job other than to stare in fascination like I would at the scene of a horrific car wreck.
You are the entertainment, and whatever you think about yourself, the reality is you aren't living in it. Fortunatly the whole corrupt facist machine has come apart at the seems, so we can afford the luxery of obseving your damaged phscye react to this soon to be bone-crushing refudiation of your whole world-veiw.
Fascinating stuff really.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 4, 2005 10:03 AM"this is true for the carp-man and his tribe."
yes. indeed it is.
and that is an "innovation" that the radicals ("republican radicals" is redundant) have brought into american politics with the gwbush presidency.
they (scott mcclellan, d. rumsfeld, ken mehlman, et al) have refused to follow the normal conventions of social discourse, specifically political discourse. when we argue with one another we expect the other to disagree, to muster his or her facts or lies, as we all do, but we do not expect them to turn words upside down in the orwellian fashion -- 1984 was, after all, fiction. but turning words uspsdie down is precisely what the bush information ministry has done quite consisstently since november 2000.
thus the president claims that those who disagree with his evaluation of the war in iraq are "revisionists". these opponents of the presdent's are no such thing. they have a very clear grasp of facts and they are using those facts as ammmunition for their arguments against the war.
we do not expect repeated evasions of direct questions such as mcclellan and rumsfeld routinely employ.
like virtually every other political activity the radicals take, this misue of words and evasion has a useful political function.
it throws discourse, and especially critical discourse, into disarray. in particular, to ordinary citizens, it makes political debate seems just a noisy, largely incomprehensible quarrel between sides.
and it hopes to preempt the use of certain words or ideas which might be employed against the radicals by their opponents. the tactic is, in military terms, a preemptive strike.
and it makes it easy to avoid conceeeding error or any criticism.
face with such deviousness in political discourse there actually is an effective strategy - one which many of these web sites employ. just state your point. state it clearly. repeat it. see that it has sufficient reality-oriented facts to support it. facts that others can check out if they wish.
and as snarky snark implies the ultimate weapon against sophistry is eyes, ears, and brain.
Still waiting for an answer from Carpe Koolaid on this very important point raised by GOW?
why, oh why pray tell, did the SCOTUS go to the unprecedented lengths of declaring that its own decision should not be used as precedent, thereby invalidating it upon its face?
You can spew everything you want and tell everyone to go read this or read that but the bottom line point that you never address is this one. The reason you can't answer it is because it flies in the face of everything you believe in.
Posted by emal at December 4, 2005 10:48 AMAgain, you liberals are just amazing.
You keep calling me Mr. Talking Points, you continue in your diatribes against Bush/Cheney, you mock me as being stupid. You summarily disregard everything I've posted on this subject- But why?
Once again, you libs did everything I said you would do. You danced around, whistling by the graveyard, but you never took the challenge.
Remember this TOPIC was the Bush v. Gore case wherein you all kept talking about the stolen election. I CHALLENGED YOU WITH THE TRUTH, I CHALLENGED YOU TO PROVE ME WRONG. Instead, you make cute little comments that are shameful.
Do you only come to this website to "pump yourself up"? Does the challenge of intellectual debate backed up by extensive and credible evidence scare you so much.
I don't get angry when you call me names, or use vulagarity as a debating tool. I get angry when you are intellectually dishonest. When you fail to even acknowledge the most minor of mistakes, and then you revert back to your shallow comments.
Safe to say, no one on this list will address the original topic and discuss the ramifications of what the opinions say.
Those opinions are not easy to read, necessarily, but they can be read by even those with limited brain power.
Oh, and as to my qualifications to understand Constitutional Law, I would ask Moonbat where he went to study Law. I imagine my experience as an appellant attorney, arguing cases before the Georgia Court of Appeals, Georgia Supreme Court and before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals might give me a small bit of understanding. I've never had a case to go to the Supreme Court, but maybe one day. (This year alone, I've taken three cases to the Court of Appeals and 11th Circuit AFTER losing below, only to have the Trial Court overturned.) So maybe, just maybe, I might know a little about the equal protection clause.
Yep, gasp with disbelief, I'm a shyster trial lawyer, who strangely enough, isn't a Democrat.
The challenge to rebut my caselaw summaries still stands.
IF YOU DON'T respond, then you all are intellectually dishonest. And guess what, YOU WILL ALL KNOW ITS TRUE IN YOUR HEART OF HEARTS. You're gonna have to live with that, not I. You will have to live with this fraud.
Then again, living in a fantasy world filled with the strange conspiracies such as Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan explains alot of why you feel so uncomfortable when shown the TRUTH.
Go to your liberal lawyer sites, copy and post their "facts" about Gore v. Bush. I'll tackle them as well.....
Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock. . . the clock will prove your honesty, or your shamefulness.
I grow very weary
Posted by Carpe Diem at December 4, 2005 11:08 AMThose opinions are not easy to read, necessarily, but they can be read by even those with limited brain power.
Nah, like most Americans I want my slogans and arguments in 15 secand and 30 second doses.
Here's the statement that does it for me.
one time use only, not to be used as a predecent
Sounds pretty damn fishy to me. You get that unique situatin with all that money and so much else at stake, and the supreme court does not take the oppertunity to resolve this issue now and for ever? If not now, when? If not the supreme court, who?
Bullshit.
You know it too.
Any election settled the way that one was will be disputed now and for ever. Fact. Live with that, and quit telling us what we must do.
Fuck what people say..... what do they do?
Right now I dont see any Republicans advocating that we maake our electorial process unhackable and accurate which we could do.
That speaks to the real truth.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 4, 2005 11:18 AMAnd btw Carpe,I am still waiting for an answer from yesterday's open thread about a contradiction in your belief system...but I won't hold my breath waiting for a response because I see you have a habit of ignoring questions and posts you can't answer with lots of attempts at deflection using hot air and rhetoric ...and that is plentiful, especially on this thread.
.....still waiting for the response to address a "one time only" non precedent issue......
Posted by emal at December 4, 2005 11:29 AM
Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock. . . the clock will prove your honesty, or your shamefulness.
Not up to you to dictate terms, you are the meat for the lions. This is our arena and your job is to die as nobly or as cowardly as you can for our enertainment.
There has been 3 requests for you to explain the no predecent rule. We think that rule was invoked so that the ruling wouldn't undergo close scrutiny as it surely would have.
Why do you think that was?
What say you to this one easily adressed question?
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 4, 2005 11:39 AMthe quote should have been in italics
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 4, 2005 11:40 AMMy apologizes for overlooking your earlier question/comment regarding the SCOTUS limiting its holding. You analysis that the Court somehow was disavowing its own holding is really, well, dumb, but I can understand why you need to have something to hang your hat on.
What the Supreme Court said was, and I quote:
The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.
Why did they do this? I can only speculate from my own experiences.
1. This is very common for a Court to limit its holding to the particular circumstances that were presented in the case below. Too often, a case has such peculiar facts, that too state that this broad holding on such particular set of facts may cause problems in the future.
The question was dealing with the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. This is a biggie, so care had to be taken in how it should be "SUMMARILY" applied.
Lets look at elections in General.
a.) Numerous candidates on the ballots.
b.) Each State is mandated to establish laws the insure equal protection. This is to be done LEGISLATIVELY.
c.) Each election has dozens of different types of voters, and different types of means to vote.
Again, I am coincidently on the Board of Elections in my community. We have absentee voters using touchpad screens. We have absentee voters using paper ballots, (nursing home voters, which is where much of the fraud we see occurs); we have military paper ballots, we have opti-scan ballots for people who are unable to come home to vote. All of these "means" are reasonable and fair processes whereby the STATE affords the CITIZEN and opportunity to vote.
The mere number of types of voting requires a minimum amount of appreciation for being fair and EQUAL.
Now throw in the fact that some voters can't read, some can't get to the polls, some are easily confused by the computer screens etc., then you will have a problem.
So what and how do we go about creating an EQUAL means by which we count every vote.
In Florida, the standard was so generic, so broad that its interpretation could be easily mis-understood. The Court said, "Voter Intent".
What exactly did that mean?
Well the Florida Supreme Court said we don't know. Let Judge Sauls decide on how to go about doing it. I.E. take away this process from the three Democratic Counties that ran these elections and create a new means by which we can count this dimpled, hanging chads, etc.
Judge Sauls said forget it, I can't do that, and recused himself. (He was a Democrat too.)
The fact is real simple. No matter how hard we try we are still human beings and we can't do it right everytime. The Broward Democrats created a butterfly ballot that could have been misread by some of the voters, but it passed their inspection BEFORE the Election was held. Was it wrong, well maybe, but it wasn't an issue until after the election was held. Ergo, it was only wrong if you wanted it to be wrong. (Gore election team) Just like the Military ballots. Gore tried to stop their count. Why? Because they were held up in the mail due to the soldiers being overseas, so he objected to those being Counted!! Not because the voter intent was not discernable, but because he didn't want to count the MILITARY VOTE AT ALL merely because they were late getting back to the home bases.
Once again, SCOTUS said, its hard to provide a broad opinion on Equal protection over something that is reasonable upon its face. The elections in Florida were, in hindsight, very unorganized. But in foresight, no one ever questioned it.
Again, the Democrats could have objected to the butterfly ballot BEFORE the election, instead they wanted a RE-VOTE. They wanted to change the way you COUNTED the vote AFTER the election was held.
They wanted to ONLY COUNT THEIR COUNTIES of DADE, BROWARD, AND VALOUSIA, if I recall correctly. They wanted only the dimpled chads from where they got 55% of the vote, which logically would mean that they would gain 55% of the dimpled chads. BUT AGAIN, THEY DIDN'T WANT TO COUNT THE DIMPLED CHADS of every voter, only of those from Democratic strongholds. (Now how is that for really wanting to count every vote?)
So until we find a way where human beings from all walks of life can find a way to vote that considers EVERY CONCIEVABLE possible example of a SCREWUP, then we will always have problems.
But PRIMARILY, what you shoud consider EQUAL and FAIR is HOW AND WHAT THE LAWS WERE BEFORE the ELECTION WAS HELD, UNLESS YOU CHALLENGED IT FIRST, BEFORE THE FIRST VOTE WAS CAST. (Democrats and Republicans wrote the election code. How could it be unfair?)
OTHERWISE, you are not being fair and honest. The LEGISLATURE DECIDED how the elections should be held, it was their responsiblity. They made mistakes, but the mistakes were MADE before the election was held. Both Gore and BUSH would have been helped and hurt by the laws written dozens of years before the election, which meant they were both treated EQUALLY.
READ THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT'S FINAL DECISION.
They said, "you know what, we tried to fix something that we had no experience with, with no full understanding about, and for something that should have been handled exclusively by the legislature."
So back to your question.
Equal Protection is hard to apply Pre-actively from an appellant court.
Every election has different factors and different ways it can be handled. There is no way that mistakes will not occur, and where there will be over votes and undervotes. But we can't second guess the legislature and must apply fairly and consistenly basic principles of fairness and equality. And the GORE TEAM only cared about winning, not about EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW.
The Florida Supreme Court should have cared about treating the law with respect.
Again, how can you answer my charges?
I'm still waiting.
....that too state that this broad holding on such particular set of facts may cause problems in the future.
Says it all...thanks.
Dear Emal,
Again, I refer you to Col Jessup's reply.
So tell me, why should easily discernable military ballots be ignored merely because our troops are overseas, and the mail was late coming in, verses, ballots whose instructions clearly stated that they MUST PUNCH THRU the ballots COMPLETELY.
You don't want the truth, cuz you can't handle the truth.
You derided me for not answering you, now that I do, you just scoff. Must make you angry that you can't handle the truth... then again, knowing your personal political beliefs, I'm not surprised.
Okay Snarky Shark, Okay GOD to War. I'm still waiting, EMAL couldn't handle it, can you?
Carpe, Talk about not being able to handle the truth...geesh..you let this stuff go wayyyyy to your head and take yourself wayyyy too seriously here.
Fact and truth. I raised the one question I did have and you finally answered. After you did I responded by saying thanks.
But I won't respond to something I am not well versed in and after reading what others who I have more respect for and who I think are more qualified and credible than you, I will let it go at that.
One thing I do note is that you have an extensive history of confusing fact with your opinion, your assumptions and your interpretations of things without providing a linked page referenced source to support the comments made by you.
You have the burden of providing the well sourced page referenced supporting facts when trying to prove your point. You would think you would do that since you feel so strongly about the righteousness of your opinion.
But that is just my opinion on the matter.
Posted by emal at December 4, 2005 02:31 PMOK, Crapster, what "discrete and insular minority" is denied the equal protection of the laws in Bush v. Gore, and what "tier of scrutiny" has traditionally applied to this minority in the Court's Equal Protection jurisprudence?
Posted by dj moonbat at December 4, 2005 02:39 PMEqual Protection is hard to apply Pre-actively from an appellant court.
What on Earth could you possibly mean by that?
Posted by dj moonbat at December 4, 2005 02:44 PMWhy did they do this? I can only speculate from my own experiences.
My experiences say that Republicans put their party before their country and even their own grandkids whole future.
My experiences say the Republicans cannot sell their agenda in the court of public opinion legitimitly, so they will lie cheat and steal to do it.
I can only speculate based on my own experiences.
They didn't want to get caught by the same illegitamite she-nanigans in the future that they had just perpetrated on America. They did not want the recount. They did not want close scrutinity. They knew this would be shaky, but Al Gore made it easier and less shady by his magnamious concession. Fat lot of good that did him.
So in other words, the grabbed the brass wing, then distracted everybody. They knew they could grab the reigns of power and did so.
We are both speculating, but I'm going to try to sell everybody I meet on the idea of Scalia plotting in the middle of the night to install Bush. And I intend to sell it in 15 second slogans. Good luck with all that arcane legal shit with the general public.
You guys taught us the new rules, but the talant has always been on this side. By willing to ignore traditions and trying your little power play, you grabbed a little power for a little while.
Those days are pretty much done.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 4, 2005 03:10 PMEmal, nice post.
Sorry, but the links can be easily googled.
Although I have personal access to caselaw due to my profession, Google now can give you all of these cases at no charge. Just Google it.
Moonbat, same old same old
Snarky Shark, Are you a 12 year old with a gift of gab? From my own experiences, means from my legal background. I again, am amazed that you wish to deride me rather than debate me.
I just oversaw an election. There was a checkbox, paper ballot, and the person missed the entire box, and just circled the name of the person. It was clear from the instructions, what you had to do.
Sure a check is different than an X by non the less, people still get it wrong no matter what you do.
So when I say, the SCOTUS did not want to Pre-actively decide other cases, I meant that they had no way of knowing what other peculiar facts might come their way inlight of America's vast election laws.
Here in Georgia, our sec. of State, who is a Democrat and is now running for Governor, decided on Diebold's touch screen to use. SHE DIDN"T WANT PAPER trails. Instead, the Feds are now reviewing to have a printout of your vote, that is shown in a glass box next to the touchscreen, and once you review it, a slot opens and it falls through to be used in any recount.
The DEMOCRAT didn't want that in place.
The DEMOCRATS IN GEORGIA didn't want anything to dissuade fraud, ergo, they oppose any type of screening of voters. They want no identification of anyone who votes. The Republicans only want legitimate voters to vote.
Go figure.
But thanks for the try, Snarky Shark. You're pretty smart for at 12 year old.
Moonbat, same old same old
That's some mighty fine lawyerin' there, Crapster. You've really shown terrific command of Equal Protection doctrine. (And the improper use of "appellant court," to boot.)
Posted by dj moonbat at December 4, 2005 04:14 PMThe DEMOCRAT didn't want that in place.
The DEMOCRATS IN GEORGIA didn't want anything to dissuade fraud, ergo, they oppose any type of screening of voters. They want no identification of anyone who votes. The Republicans only want legitimate voters to vote.
I dont care what Democrats in Georgia want. Untill E-voting machines spit out a paper reciepts, they are ripe for abuse. If Republicans want e-voting machines that give reciepts more power to them.
Why dont you guys let the big bosses in DC know this is an excellent idea to get rid of that tainted vote thing. You know, like what is still an issue in Ohio.
From my own experiences, means from my legal background
I know that, its just that I dont really think that means didly. You must not be a very good, cause you made some stupid assumptions about my in-laws that made you fall into a trap I set for you.
Do you also make stupid knee-jerk assumptions in your job?
Remind me never to get into a legal situation in Georgia.
You do realize we are on a left wing blog? The rules in keep the black man down Georgia dont apply here?
You can also put me in Shakesphere's camp. Hang all the lawyers. Everytime I can't dive off a diving board I think of you fucks.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 4, 2005 04:19 PM
The smart money sez Crapster's not a lawyer. If he is a lawyer, he's really bad at it.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 4, 2005 04:23 PMThe Smart money is on that I'm not a Lawyer....
now that has got to hurt.
Plus my inappropriate use of the term appellant attorney is mis-used "how" exactly.
Keeping the black man down, now thats real good liberalism for you right there. Yep, us down her in Georgia just can wait to keep the black man down.
Strange that Georgia is 30% black, (not politically correct african american). And they vote almost exclusively for the Democrat. They are now in the master's house, saying yes sa and no sa, with the Democrats as their slave owners.
Actually, Blacks represent 12/13% of the American Population, they vote Democrat at about 90%, they also vote slightly less than whites, so for every 100 voters, approximately 9 or 10 are blacks and they vote exclusively for the democrats who promise them all of the perks of a socialistic society with none of the requirements.
Keep making the blacks think they are oppressed by mean old whitey and you can count on their vote.
Oh, well, thats another issue altogether.
The topic was Bush v. Gore, and I think right now the score is Carpe Diem 10, Liberal bed wetters, . . . well they didn't even come to play, but they forgot to take the ball home with them.
Strange that Georgia is 30% black, (not politically correct african american). And they vote almost exclusively for the Democrat. They are now in the master's house, saying yes sa and no sa, with the Democrats as their slave owners.
Georgia has a piss poor record, starting with treason. Thanks for illustrating why that reputation is so richly desreved.
The topic was Bush v. Gore, and I think right now the score is Carpe Diem 10, Liberal bed wetters, . . . well they didn't even come to play, but they forgot to take the ball home with them.
I knew you would resort to this. You did not die nobly, you went sobbing and pleading.
We were only mildly entertained. You sir are fit only for GOW to abuse mercilessly.
Go now, and never pretend to be serious person again.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 4, 2005 04:59 PMI second SnarkyShark!
Posted by iamcoyote at December 4, 2005 05:20 PMCarpe,
Sorry, but the links can be easily googled......Just Google it.
Sorry, but I am not the one here trying to validate and prove my point. You are therefore you "Just google it" and provide the links and page references that support your interpretations. I will be happy to read it once you do that work for us. And if you don't want to then that is your perogative but don't expect me to just accept what you say until you do it. You just don't have that amount of trust and credibility here yet. Sorry, you have to earn it not just demand it.
One thing I learned from your party is the line Trust but verify. Even if I did trust you (and I don't) I would need you to verify...Trust but verify. You see all I am asking for is the verify.
Good luck.
Plus my inappropriate use of the term appellant attorney is mis-used "how" exactly.
Well, first, you said "appellant court," not "appellant attorney":
Equal Protection is hard to apply Pre-actively from an appellant court.
Second, an "appellant" is a party who has lost at trial and is appealing the decision to an appellate court (see? not "appellant court").
Third, if you had used the term "appellant attorney," that would still be wrong. You would have been correct to say "appellant's attorney," or "appellants' attorney," or, once again "appellate attorney."
But that would have evinced a knowledge of the law and the legal system, and thus would have been out of keeping with the rest of your lunatic diatribe.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 4, 2005 05:31 PMLet my try an experiment.
Contrast this
But thanks for the try, Snarky Shark. You're pretty smart for at 12 year old.
With this
I think right now the score is Carpe Diem 10, Liberal bed wetters, . . . well they didn't even come to play, but they forgot to take the ball home with them
Then try to imagine this individual arguing cases before a state supreme court.
Is anybody feeling warm and fuzzy with this?
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 4, 2005 05:49 PMCarpe Diem,
My congratulations for handing them their asses single handed. Fine job, i'm quite impressed. The truth is though, that they don't want the truth. They take comfort in repeating the lie that Bush stole the election. It helps them sleep at night.
Posted by FresnoBob at December 4, 2005 07:26 PMSorry Fresno, this thread is done. Your hero just got outed as Bagel-troll. If you think getting outed as a liar and sociopath is handing us our asses,well that pretty much speaks for itself.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 4, 2005 08:04 PMInteresting, FresnoBoob just happens to show up after Carpe is called out on the carpet and disappears without responding. What's that they say, timing is everything in life.
Posted by emal at December 5, 2005 04:30 AMIt's a shame that this thread on Bush v. Gore had to be ruined by asinine, incoherent gibberish dished out in such enormous proportions by someone who's got way, way too high an opinion of himself and apparently a lot of time on his hands.
Not many new visitors to this site are going to waste their time wading through shit like this.
Posted by euzoius at December 5, 2005 07:02 AMWhat a high opinion the carp has of the critical thinking abilities of blacks that he can claim that liberals can apparently order them to do anthing and they'll do it - probobly beacuse theyre just interested in "socialistic perks" (code for laying around eating watermelon and buying cadillacs).
Posted by jondee at December 5, 2005 01:26 PM(code for laying around eating watermelon and buying cadillacs).
Yep, thats what he meant. And he said it with no sense of shame. Thats those southern values for ya.
And I say that as a southerner.
Of course most of the worst ones around Houston are freakin carpetbagger yankees having an urban cowboy moment.
Mix those idiots with the truly evil home-grown haters, throw in a healthy dose of that old time religion, and you got a bunch of neurotic basket cases.
Known as the Republican base.
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 5, 2005 05:04 PMim sorry but im affraid i dident understand a single word i am very disipointed with this sight you should do tests and advise for when young secandry students are doing their tests i am 12 years old almost 13 and i am realy stuggaling with my tests so i want you to reply to me and dont be so igrannent and tell me a desant sight please p.s:you should be very very very very very apauled.
Posted by bethany at February 28, 2006 11:58 AM