Author Topic: Bush or Kerry? (Read 1710 times)

Creamo · « **Reply #30 on:** June 13, 2004, 09:03:50 AM »

Quote

On the whole British politics is more a party thing

No one cares.

Not to discount your point, but just saying.

Monk · « **Reply #31 on:** June 13, 2004, 10:02:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lada
and terrorism has been supressed .. sure sure

Sheesh, I hope not. Might have to take a pay cut.

Toad · « **Reply #32 on:** June 13, 2004, 12:44:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by capt. apathy
Kerry, and hopefully by a big enough margin that the courts can't get away with appointing Bush again.

You guys need to get over this.

One of the brightest spots of that election was that it WAS resolved in the courts.

In other countries, tanks would have settled the issue.

I suppose it's normal for the losers to either state outright or imply that the "judges were crooked" but that type of statement suggests that you think our whole system is crooked.

I find it hard to imagine you really believe that. Would you prefer the "tank solution" or do you still prefer having 9 respected jurists wrangle it out.

Put it this way: Had the SC decided for Gore, what would you say to Bush supporters still crying about it like you are now?

Nash · « **Reply #33 on:** June 13, 2004, 12:54:11 PM »

"I suppose it's normal for the losers to either state outright or imply that the "judges were crooked" but that type of statement suggests that you think our whole system is crooked." - Toad

Lemme see if I have this strait...

You decide which presidential candidate you'll vote for based almost solely on what types of Judges the prez will nominate for the Supreme Court, in order that it sway the decisions towards reflecting your own values.

How can you then say but that in the Bush/Gore instance, political bias just up and fled?

Either it's there or it's not. If it's not, maybe you should find an alternative to your election criteria.

Toad · « **Reply #34 on:** June 13, 2004, 01:07:20 PM »

Nash, anyone with half a brain realizes the SC is "the power" in this land. As Presidents appoint new members, the "flavor" of the Court will naturally vary and change. It's supposed to be that way.

Yeah, I usually vote for the Prez that will put people on the SC that don't try to change the Founders' intent with respect to the Constitution.

Now, to you, this means "political bias" or "reflecting my own values".

Not really. I want SC justices that read the Constitution and apply what's there. I don't want the ones that invent new meanings with leaps of logic or situational ethics.

I guess if the Constitution as written is "my own values" you might have a point. Because I like our Constitution; I like the way the old guys set up the system. I think they did really, really well.

And, I can honestly say that had the SC decided for Gore, I would be absolutely at peace with that. You wouldn't hear me crying about it. The SC worked the way it's supposed to work; it decided and the issue was resolved without any real problems.

Toad · « **Reply #35 on:** June 13, 2004, 01:10:45 PM »

BTW, as an aside, "political bias" doesn't necessarily equal "crooked".

For example, if the every State sent two Democratic Senators to the Senate, the Senate would be clearly "biased" towards the Democratic agenda.

However, if that's what the voters wanted it certainly isn't "crooked". It's the "will of the people".

Nash · « **Reply #36 on:** June 13, 2004, 01:16:10 PM »

But you were the only one who said anything about crooked.

Boil someone's argument down to "you think they are crooked", then argue that they are not. Okay...

Toad · « **Reply #37 on:** June 13, 2004, 01:39:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
But you were the only one who said anything about crooked.

No, I don't think so.

What do these words suggest to you? Why do you think Apathy chose this particular way of expressing his view?

Quote

Originally posted by capt. apathy
Kerry, and hopefully by a big enough margin that the courts can't get away with appointing Bush again.

Suggests that they "got away" with something right? What's the implication of "got away with"?

Nash · « **Reply #38 on:** June 13, 2004, 01:43:49 PM »

That they would be unable to exercise their inherent political bias in the electoral process. No Star Chamber scenario here.

Toad · « **Reply #39 on:** June 13, 2004, 01:59:13 PM »

LOL.

I think you're dancing.

What's the usual connotation of "got away with"?

As in "the bank robbers got away with millions". As in "the defensive end got away with a little holding on that play". As in "he got away with claiming his dog as his dependent on his income tax".

Let's wait for Apathy to explain his remark then. Of course, he's got a "heads up" now and he'll probably be able to "get away with" some other explanation of what he meant.

Nash · « **Reply #40 on:** June 13, 2004, 02:08:46 PM »

If he DID get away with some other explanation, would that make him crooked?

Or would it be using his own faculties to influence the outcome of an, in this case, argument... so that it most closely aligns with his agenda?

AKcurly · « **Reply #41 on:** June 13, 2004, 03:55:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Nash, anyone with half a brain realizes the SC is "the power" in this land. As Presidents appoint new members, the "flavor" of the Court will naturally vary and change. It's supposed to be that way.

Yeah, I usually vote for the Prez that will put people on the SC that don't try to change the Founders' intent with respect to the Constitution.

To me, the interesting part of this is the utter unpredictability of a SC justice. Earl Warren, a conservative governor, VP candidate with Thomas Dewey and appointed by Dwight Eisenhower (middle of the road republican) turned out to have liberal, humanist values.

There's no predicting the SC appointees. They really can't be recalled (in practice) and it's a lifetime appointment. They have bullet-proof political insulation.

curly

capt. apathy · « **Reply #42 on:** June 13, 2004, 03:58:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
No, I don't think so.

What do these words suggest to you? Why do you think Apathy chose this particular way of expressing his view?

Suggests that they "got away" with something right? What's the implication of "got away with"?

the got away with over stepping their bounds.

we have 2 months between election and turn-over of gov't. it was enough time to conduct elections in much more technologically backward times so it is more than ample now. we could have easily redone the Florida election or even the whole damn thing.

either of these 2 scenarios would have been better than having appointed officials appoint a president. they are very likely to appoint the guy from the team that appointed them. and big surprise thats exactly what each and every one of them did. Dem and Rep alike. a reasonably perceptive 6 year old could have seen that coming.

AKIron · « **Reply #43 on:** June 13, 2004, 04:04:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by capt. apathy
the got away with over stepping their bounds.

we have 2 months between election and turn-over of gov't. it was enough time to conduct elections in much more technologically backward times so it is more than ample now. we could have easily redone the Florida election or even the whole damn thing.

either of these 2 scenarios would have been better than having appointed officials appoint a president. they are very likely to appoint the guy from the team that appointed them. and big surprise thats exactly what each and every one of them did. Dem and Rep alike. a reasonably perceptive 6 year old could have seen that coming.

Who called in the big guns anyhow? Wasn't it the democrats?

Toad · « **Reply #44 on:** June 13, 2004, 04:14:18 PM »

First, Apathy, would you please help Nash and I out here?

When you say "got away with" just what exactly are you saying? Do you believe what was done was legal and correct or are you implying something less than legal and correct? Are you implying some sort of incorrect behavior?

Now then, how do you figure they "overstepped their bounds"? They are, after all, the Court of final appeal.

In your instance, I would view a "redo" as clearly overstepping their bounds. There's no "redo". Correct votes are counted, incorrect votes are not. That is the system.

If ANYTHING, they could have recounted Florida yet again. Of course, you're aware that in every recount conducted and in every investigation of recounts to date, Bush still would have won, right?

But "redo"? That's not part of the system. Never has been AFAIK.

In my view the system worked exactly as it should. You apparently believe that each and every justice voted on "party lines" instead of impartially on the Constitutional grounds. I suppose that's much easier than explaining where the judges disregarded the Constitution. I mean, after all, what do you and I really know about Constitutional Law at that level?

Maybe some voted "party"; surely some did not.

Again, my question to you is this:

If Gore had be awarded the election, would you still make the same complaints? What would you be saying right now to the crying Bush supporters that just couldn't let it go nearly four years later?