Sec of state upheld

[1776]

There is a difference between Dems and Reps:
 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_limbaugh/20001121_xcdli_doing_anyt.shtml

[Nash]

Come on Toad...

All this talk of hipocracy while at the same time pointing out as facts that which are not...

Don't direct us to your selective quoting of the Texas voting law... and don't challenge us with regards to the semantics of his ducking the DUI charge. I can make just as strong a case using the exact same sources.

Eg. You point out that in Texas it's different because they use optical scanners or some such.... Then I could query why then they would have specific language in the law stating that 'dimpled chads' indicate voter intent... and on...  (not all counties use optical scanners in Texas as some would have us believe).

It's useless...

And it's a joke, really. I look at Bush and am just amazed how this man can inspire such.... such... hell I don't know what.

The man may have a taste for politics... granted.. but he has NO interest in the science of governance. He's simply not interested in it. He doesn't have the attention span for it. He's a frat boy doing this President thing for a goof, I reckon.

Tell me... honestly... does Bush like, rock your world? Is this a man worthy of spending your Thanksgiving weekend oiling your guns?

Dumb dumb dumb...

Getting back on topic here....

Secretary of State upheld?

Not. Of course not.

[LJK Raubvogel]

Just got done watching Gore's post-decision speech. That man is about as genuine as a vinyl sofa. I've seen better acting in porno movies.

------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[1776]

Now the laws mean nothing in the state of Florida.  Even the supreme court is filled with political hacks.

Soon the election commissions will be counting dimples and they will divine that each Gore voter has at least two each.

This election has been corrupted by the supreme court of Florida.  Stalin and Hitler couldn't have engineered it any better then Gore has.

I for one will find orange juice very bitter tasting in the future  

The rule of law is no more

[This message has been edited by 1776 (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Mighty1]

I have to agree. The document the Floriduh Supreme court passed out last night was one of the most biased things I've ever seen and Bush has every right to protest it.

I wonder what the Demos will do if Gore still doesn't win after they count all the dimple vote?...oh wait I know what they will do they will change the rules again..prolly this time count all the votes that didn't even have a dimple.

Nash the point is that Texas has specific rules to govern manual recounts floriduh does not. So you can't compare the 2 because they are not the same.

Texas law has no bearing on Floriduh except to try and make Bush look bad.

And your comment about Bush rocking our world well...no he doesn't but you haven't had to spend the last 8 years with that lying piece of trash Al Bore either.

You haven't had to watch your country go down the toilet because clinton/bore have no moral values what so ever.

So don't sit there and try to tell the rest of us your canadian BS about how we should feel or how wrong we are for disliking that lying underhanded 2 faced son of a squeak bore.

[Lance]

:::chuckles:::  Just when you thought this election had gotten stale as an entertainment source...

EDIT:  Nash, good post, here's your answer:

Zealot \Zeal"ot\, n. [F. z['e]lote, L. zelotes, Gr. ?. See Zeal.] 1.  One who is zealous; one who engages warmly in any cause, and pursues his object with earnestness and ardor; especially, one who is overzealous, or carried away by his zeal; one absorbed in devotion to anything; an enthusiast; a fanatical partisan.  2. A fervent and even militant proponent of something.

Such people don't need much of a leader to feel inspired.  And before any of you put me on your drive-by list for when the revolution ignites, let me say that goes for Democrips as well as Repubibloods  

Gordo

[This message has been edited by Lance (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Ripsnort]

Interesting enough, the Chief Justice on the panel (7 of 8 were democrats, one independant) had  made financial donations to the Clinton campaign  in 1992.

I'm not at  all surprised at their attempt to circumnavigate the written law.

One thing they forgot to add when they said "The will of the people.."...they should have truthfully said "The Will of the people in a select 3 counties  that are predominently democratic".

I have relatives in Montana.  Guess what, the states biggest Militia's have not been heard of, or seen, for 3 days now.  Rumor has it that they may have 'mobilized'.  I not quite sure what to think of that, but I know one thing for certain, we'll know what that means after Sunday.

[F4UDOA]

Toad,

You sound like you want to take the high road now and say you don't like Bush either? Why the change of heart? The way people talk about him on these boards I though he was your Republican savior. Nash has the best description I have heard of him yet.

   

He's a frat boy doing this President thing for a goof, I reckon.

It's the truth, just look at his bios. He is two jobs away being a fry cook at a local fast food joint except he has rich parents. He's not a president, he's a guy you give a wedgy too when your drunk.

As for the rest of you fine people.

 

Just got done watching Gore's post-decision speech. That man is about as genuine as a vinyl sofa. I've seen better acting in porno movies.

I didn't think Republicans watched porno-movies? Besides I don't think Bush is going to win a Pulitzer prize anytime soon.

   

This election has been corrupted by the supreme court of Florida. Stalin and Hitler couldn't have engineered it any better then Gore has.

Well don't you just hate it when those pesky laws get in the way. Hitler, Stalin? You forgot Po Pot. Except they slaughtered there opposition and murdered millions of there own people. Funny it's the Bush followers that are armed and ready to start killing people in the streets. And it was all Democratic Presidents that fought the wars against them ie. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy.

   

You haven't had to watch your country go down the toilet because clinton/bore have no moral values what so ever.

The country has gown down hill? Where do you live, in a cave? The Economy has been the best it has Ever been. We have a budget surplus for the first time in decades. And BTW it might be a Republican congress but is is a Democratic budget we have been on.
And Morals? Explain how an ex-drug and alcohol abuser is the moral leader of our country?

1776,

Rush Limbaugh is not a source of credibilty for mammals that walk upright. I just heard him last week calling the womans movent in the 60's and 70's Femi-nazi's for wanted to pass the ERA(Equal Rights Amendment). Imagine that, calling people Nazi's for wanting to get paid the same for the same work. Or just having the right to run in the Boston Marathon or any marathon as woman did not until the Mid-1970's.
Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.

[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 11-22-2000).]

[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Toad]

Nash,

Please note that I gave the address for the entire Texas law on the Texas Sec. Of State site.

I encourage people to at least examine the source information for themselves. I'd love to see the rest of these "zealots"   do the same!

I think an examination of that site will show that the Texas law has no relationship to what is happening in Florida, despite some folks attempt to link the two items.

I clipped two or three pertinent passages as an example. Do you think that is an invalid way to approach a discussion? Is that "selective quoting" when you point the way to the entire document? I'd think the parties interested in genuine debate would then go to the source document and fully brief themselves before taking the offensive. Or would you rather I clip the entire document and post it here? I can easily do that as well.  

Now, either way, anyone who wishes to engage my position on that subject has the same source document available that I used. So far the opposition apparently doesn't want to actually read the Texas law...go figure.

I am all for open debate. However, the utter BS that is often presented as "fact" in here is not a basis for rational debate. Does it bother you that I almost always post the source document for the "facts" I use? At least I'm not pulling this stuff out of my....ear....as some people are doing!

Further, perhaps you are confused on which poster is making which argument. My post discussed the difference in terms of procedural qualifications and restrictions that are present in the Texas law and apparently not in Florida.

Optical scanning (and I didn't mention that, you must be thinking of someone else) is NOT the big difference in any event.   In fact, I don't remember mentioning hypocrisy, either. (Although I think all politicians are hypocritical.)

While I admit I haven't kept up on the minor issues in this "campaign", I don't even remember Bush denying the DUI charge. It just came up recently, right? He admitted it when it was brought to light? Did he EVER deny it or fail to answer to the charge previously? Enlighten me, please.

I also think I've repeatedly explained my support for Bush based on the Supreme Court issue alone.

Nope, Bush doesn't rock my world. Does Gore rock yours? Does he? Do you view Gore as a true LEADER of men and nations?

There were NO good choices on the ballot for President of the United States, IMHO. There were only choices amongst the "lesser of evils".

Gore didn't "rock the world" of enough American voters to win a significant majority either in the Electoral College or the Popular Vote. Nor did Bush. Face it, this election is a statistical tie, with nearly half the voters sitting it out entirely.

I may indeed be a zealot by Lance's definition, but not a zealot of just "any" cause.

I am devoted to personal liberty, personal responsibility within that liberty and personal accountablity for the exercise of those freedoms. I don't feel this is an issue that is tied to a particular "party". It's just my personal "belief system".


I guess that makes me a zealot; guess I'm proud of that then. I figure I'm in good company...along with Jefferson, Franklin, Madison...well, you get the drift.  

This position seems to continually put me into opposition against folks who apparently abhor such principles.  

Guess that doesn't bother me either!  

[Toad]

F4,

My position on this election has never changed but you continually seem to be trying to change it for me!

Back in August in the 2nd Amendment thread I stated that I thought the only real issue in this election was the subsequent appointment of Supreme Court justices. No less a great American leader   than Jesse Jackson said the same.

(In case you forgot: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum4/HTML/000444.html)

Despite your continual attempts to paint me as a staunch Republican, the O-Club forum records contradict you.

I always have said that the only reason I voted Bush was due to the Supreme Court issue.

All the other "issues"   in this election are meaningless. Nothing is going to be done about any of them. Bureaucratic governement is about maintaining the status quo and it doesn't matter who is in office in the Congress or the White House.

...and I can find numerous posts where I have repeatedly stated this position.

But, hey, thanks for trying to make me into something I'm not! Over and over again!  

[Lance]

First, I wasn't directing that at you, Toad.  It was directed to the people that like to talk about oilin' up their guns and the like.  Its fine to disagree, but if someone wants to try to intimidate the opposition through hints of violence...  Well, lets just say I've got a problem with that.

Secondly, those are admirable things to be zealous over, Toad.  I hold firm to those beliefs as well.  Further, I think you could bet a sizable sum of money that most Democrats and Republicans feel very strongly about them too.  However, they disagree on this voting issue.  So I will venture to say that any zealotry displayed by people of either party over this election finds its wellspring elsewhere than in those admirable ideals that you mentioned above.

The rest of this isn't directed towards anyone in particular...

In this sitation, you have two conflicting state laws, one that says vote counts have to be in at a certain point in time, another that says counties have the ability to engage in recounts.  Both are vague and allow for interpretation (Secretary of state has discretion in imposing that deadline, no limits or methodology for hand recounts are spelled out, etc...)

Both sides are trying to interpret those laws as it suits them, and that is leading to the clash of laws.  Gore's camp is saying that the law that gives hand-count rights to counties outweighs the law that gives the Florida Secretary of State discretion in determining when vote tallies must be certified, and/or that she ruled arbitratily or with partisanship in her decision.  Bush's camp is saying that the law giving Harris' discretion in voting deadlines outweighs the law that spells out the rights of counties to conduct hand-recounts.  

Now, if someone wants to say all of those Florida Supreme Court justices are capable of partisanship, then they are saying that the same possibility exists for Harris as well.  There is no difference between the two situations.  Harris is no less affiliated with the Repubibloods than the Florida Supreme Court is with the Democrips.  Both ruled in favor of the party they are affiliated with in a matter of conflicting law.

I agree that recounting in only strongly-democrat counties is not the least bit fair, or the will of the people, or any of that crap.  A monkey could figure out that if you have 10,000 votes tossed out by machine in a county that traditionaly breaks 60-40 Democrat, then you are probably going to have 6000 Gore votes and 4000 Bush votes if they are all readmitted.  So Gore isn't interested in the will of the people, he wants to win.

The thing is, Bush has had an opportunity since day one to push for recounts in other counties.  He had a golden opportunity to push for a statewide recount before Harris ruled in his favor when Gore said that he would support such a recount and abide by it with no further legal action.  But Bush didn't.  Why?  Because he likes the result as is.  It suits him to not seek fairness in these hand recounts.  He wants to win, just as bad as Gore.

Bush has elected to roll the dice that these laws would either be ruled in his favor in court (and they still might) or that the public would make the Democrats think twice when it came to going to court (hasn't happened).  Don't feel dejected yet, and there is no need to take to do any drive bys of the guy across the street who had a Gore/Lieberman sign in his yard.  This is going to the Federal Supreme Court.  The particular law that you want to see rule still might win out there.

Now, unload those guns and go eat some freakin' turkey

Gordo

[Apache]

 

Well don't you just hate it when those pesky laws get in the way.

F4U, my friend. I have been a student and enforcer of Constitutional and Statuatory law for most of my adult (professionally)life. The law must not be circumvented. When the law got in the way, it was pushed aside. The law got in who's way I ask?

In the state of Florida, where is separation of powers? I will not enter a debate on your/my political opinions. The law, dear friend, which our whole country depends, whether we be Democrats or Republicans, has been rewritten in Florida by the Judicial system. That is not within the powers of that branch. The Florida Executive and Legislative branches have been summarily executed by the Florida State Supreme Court.

[Ripsnort]

 

Gordo:"In this sitation, you have two conflicting state laws, one that says vote counts have to be in at a certain point in time, another that says counties have the ability to engage in recounts. Both are vague and allow for interpretation (Secretary of state has discretion in imposing that deadline, no limits or methodology for hand recounts are spelled out, etc..."

Then why did the supreme court set their own arbitrary law by-passing the legislature?(By re-establishing the deadline date)  They've used this system for 10 years, yet now they change it in the middle of the game..

If you and I were on opposing football teams, in the middle of a game, then a ref wanted to change the rules of the game to favor one team since he was from that city, would that be fair?  The same thing is going on in Florida.  Rules can be changed, but not during the game, and not by the ref of the home team.

[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Toad]

Gordo,

This is O/T in an O/T thread but I see a significant difference between what could loosely be called "conservatives" and "liberals" on the liberty/responsibility/accountability issue.

Clearly, there is a "side" that desires every man to be responsible and be held accountable. There also appears to me to be a "side" that refuses to acknowledge personal responsibility and accountability.

However, that is grist for another O/T mill.

 

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 11-22-2000).]

[Lance]

Rip, that is an over-simplistic analogy.  One of the rule's has to be changed.  One law states that counties have the right to hand recounts, the other states the secretary of state can impede or stop those recounts by upholding the deadline as spelled out by another law.  These two laws or rules conflict, and one of them will be have to be made subjective to the other one. It may be the one the Republicans prefer, or it may be the one the Democrats prefer, but it will be one of them.  And one of the purposes of the Judicial branch is to rule on which laws supercede others when they conflict.  

I am glad to see it probably going to the Federal Supreme Court.  I think they will rule fairly, one way or the other.  But I fully expect either side to squeak and moan if it doesn't go their way.

As for the deadline being imposed with no problem in the last 10 years, I would like to see information on how many times counties in Florida have exercised their right to hand-recounts in that time.  I am running out of town for the holidays, so I don't have time to look it up right now.

Gordo