Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 1776 on November 17, 2000, 09:31:00 AM
-
Now the lawyers are off to the supreme court(democrats all,ya know).
If the Supremes overturn the lower court the rule of law is no more in the US (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
Here is a copy of the actual ruling today that upholds the Florida Secretary of State decision to NOT include the had counted ballots. If this ruling holds, George W. Bush will be declared President tomorrow.
Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis ruled Friday morning that Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris does not have to accept late hand-counted votes in the presidential election. The full text of his ruling follows:
Order Denying Emergency Motion to Compel Compliance With and for Enforcement of Injunction The limited issue before me on this Motion is whether the Secretary of State has violated my Order of November 14, 2000. The Plaintiffs assert that she has acted
arbitrarily in deciding to ignore amended returns from counties conducting manual recounts. I disagree.
As noted in my previous Order, Florida law grants to the Secretary, as the Chief Elections Officer, broad discretionary authority to accept or reject late filed returns.
The purpose and intent of my Order was to insure that she in fact properly exercised her discretion, rather than automatically reject returns that came in after the statutory deadline.
On the limited evidence presented, it appears that the Secretary has exercised her reasoned judgment to determine what relevant factors and criteria should be considered, applied them to the facts and circumstances pertinent to the individual counties involved, and made her decision. My Order requires nothing more.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is hereby denied.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of November, 2000.
Terry P. Lewis, Circuit Judge
-
Going to be interesting to see how the FL supreme court rules on this one. You KNOW Gore is banking on most of them being democrats. And if they overturn the decision, as 1776 said, the law becomes worthless in the US.
Yesterday, the FL supreme court ruled on petitions from PBC about Harris' descision to not accept the amended hand counted tallies:
"In its unanimous order Thursday, the state Supreme Court wrote: “We have considered the petition and it appears that the relief sought on the question of whether the canvassing board may conduct a manual recount of the votes cast for president and vice president has been answered in the affirmative in the Circuit Courts of Leon and Palm Beach County.
“At present this is binding legal authority on this issue and there is no legal impediment to the recounts continuing. Thus, petitioners are authorized to proceed with the manual recount.”"
Totally side stepping the issue.
Any odds on the FL supreme court refusing to hear Gore's appeal out of hand? They already cited the circuit courts of Leon county to be the ruling authority, and it was the Leon county circuit which upheld Harris' decision today.
Sounds like someone's got a case of being a sore looser to me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
This is getting to funny.
The Demos are now saying that the judge that said Harris is doing everything right didn't understand his own judgement. They are saying that the Supreme court knows more about what he meant than he does.
I'm wondering what comes next. Soon they will start saying that Bush really didn't intend to become president.
-
It's time to stop the insanity. I'm surprised Johnny Cochran hasn't shown up yet. Maybe they should let Judge Judy decide.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
Here's the real irony of the whole situation:
Alan Gersewitz(sp), a defense Lawyer for the O.J.Simpson case, now resides on Gore's legal
'Ream Team'....so 2 days ago they try their typical liberal tactic of trying to defame and drag a person thru the mud as to disconcern anything this person has to say..in this case its Harris. Alan calls Harris 'A Crook'...HOW IRONIC!!!
-
(http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/Ed.jpg)
-
Shouldn't this be in the Hardware/Software section? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) hehehe
Old Uncle Sam needs some Viagra.
Al Gore needs some Lie-agra.
Gunthr
-
“If she does go forward, we will take steps to have her action set aside or reversed,” Gore representative Warren Christopher said after Leon County Circuit Judge Terry Lewis rejected the Gore campaign’s effort to force Harris to consider adding hand recount totals to statewide election results.
In other words. If Bush wins the election, the Gore crowd will go to court to attempt to reverse the "will of the people" in its election of a United States President. This is getting ridiculous.
-
The florida supreme court just ordered her not to certify the vote tomarrow (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) They scheduled a hearing for 2pm monday to hear gore's arguments. Looks like our 14th amendment rights are about to be toejam upon.
Isn't the Secretary of State part of the Executive branch? Isn't there such a thing as seperation of powers where one branch of government can't control another branch? Isn't that in the US constitution? Doesn't that take precidence over any state's constitution? Doesn't every elected official have to swear to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States of America?
When this is all over and done with do you guys think they'll name it CWII? or just Civil War? If they bend the rules/laws for Gore, why should I obey any law? Seriously why should any of us? If the supreme court of florida allows gore to steel this election the rule of law is dead. Then I think it will be time to send all members of the government into retirement and start over. Good God this realy infuriates me.
I'm actualy contemplating using my 2nd amendment right for the first time. Talked to pop the other day and he's gonna get me a gun for Christmas. I saw a realy nice ar-15 at a pawnshop the other day. I think it's time to start getting ready. But don't worry guys only 25% of us feel the way I do, wait maybe that is something to worry about...
Udie
-
Udie,
Only 4% of the colonialists participated in the first war of independance (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Yeager
-
Udie what do you expect from a panel of democrats. Frankly I'm surprised they dinnae outright order her to add the handcount tallies to the certified count. But I guess that would've been too blatant, and Gore wants to maintain some semblance of maintaining the laws.
Dark, dark days loom ahead. I'll spend the weekend cleaning and oiling. Ain't no way I'm gonna be caught unprepared.
-
What is very disturbing to me is that the Judicial branch is there for a reason. It serves as the ultimate check and balance. It's SUPPOSED to be the unbiased branch to settle partisan disputes involving the other branches, if need be. When a case deeply rooted in party politics is decided by a panel consisting of 6 Democrats and an Independent, I get deeply suspicious, and very disenchanted with our legal system.
Something stinks in Florida, and it's not the Everglades.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
"Dark, dark days loom ahead. I'll spend the weekend cleaning and oiling. Ain't no way I'm gonna be caught unprepared." - Cave
Lol! Man yer guns!!
You come from a state where a quarter of a million more people voted for Gore. It's as big a margin in that one state alone as in the entire country. It's also Lieberman's home state, where in the Senate election he beat his republican foe by a two to one margin.
Don't lose any sleep waiting for the revolution up there Cave - get out and enjoy the fall season.. take a walk or something (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Let's see here, Secretary of State, elected by the will of the people. Legislature elected by the will of the people. Laws passed by the legislator by the will of the people. Secretary of State upholds those laws enacted by the will of the people.
Have I got it right so far?
Ok, how do the supremes fit in this equation??
Oh, ya, they are the ones who tell all the others they don't know what the hell they are doing!!!!
[This message has been edited by 1776 (edited 11-18-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Nash:
Lol! Man yer guns!!
You come from a state where a quarter of a million more people voted for Gore. It's as big a margin in that one state alone as in the entire country. It's also Lieberman's home state, where in the Senate election he beat his republican foe by a two to one margin.
Don't lose any sleep waiting for the revolution up there Cave - get out and enjoy the fall season.. take a walk or something (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Well I'll be damned, Nash finally caught in his speculations.
I do not, as you say, come from a state where a quarter of a million people voted for Goron. I come from a state where Bush carried 56% (966k) of the popular vote. The state I call home went to Bush with 55% of the popular vote (1.4mil). The state I call home, and cast an absentee ballot in, is Georgia. I was born in Alabama. Those two states are where my roots are.
Connecticut is niether of those states.
And since you mention it, I the state I am stuck in had a little more than three quarters of a million people cast votes for Gore (789k). That state is connecticut. Not like you to miss a number like that, or have you just been fudging all the numbers you've been posting?
I guess you missed it in another thread where I said I was a Navy dependent, the ONLY reason I'm stuck in this God forsaken place. Guess you were too busy calling everyone gullible (or whatever phrasing you used).
-
An all democrat supreme court is going to decide the will of the people? Right.
The only way the will of the people will ever be recognized in this country. Is if every citizen hires a personal lawyer to represent him.
-
.
ack nah... not gonna go there.
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 11-18-2000).]
-
Originally posted by easymo:
An all democrat supreme court is going to decide the will of the people? Right.
The only way the will of the people will ever be recognized in this country. Is if every citizen hires a personal lawyer to represent him.
My lawyer is Sam Colt (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
If you dont trust your supreme court how can you trust your country at all ?
Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris does not have to accept late hand-counted votes in the presidential election
Is this the same lady which is also one of Bush's supporters and is member of electorate?
Good show, You should change your president once in a year !
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Just make sure to hold out long enough for the T.V. crews to get there to document your heroism in using violence to defend your vision of America. That way you can take your place alongside the other great modern-day patriots. Men such as Timothy McVeigh (http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/oklahoma/nichols/week1.html), Theodore Kaczynski (http://www.thecourier.com/manifest.htm), Melvin Hale (http://www.austin360.com/news/1metro/2000/08/0804trooper_arrest.html), and the many other good citizens of this nation that have taken up arms to defend the true principles of America that our founding fathers sought to establish!
Viva la revolution!
Gordo
-
Nice try Gordo!
Yeager (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Gents,
Has it occurred to any of you fine Americans that Mrs. Harris is on George W. Bushes election committee and probably isn't the best choice of a person to make a decision regarding the election?
Isn't that the purpose of the State supreme court?
BTW, George W. Bush this year in the state of Texas passed a law requiring a hand count in the case of a very close election. Why do think he has changed his mind now?
Glad to see there is no hippocracy among the Republicans on this board.
F4UDOA
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 11-18-2000).]
-
The Florida supreme court has taken the powers of the office of Secretary of State, the court has over ruled the will of the people by her election to office.
Your whining that she is a partisan falls on deaf ears at this time.
Now we will see how this Democrat court rules Monday,and why they had to wait to start deliberation is way beyond any reason.
All other courts were able to act in a responsible and timely way. Why this court is unable to act sure adds suspicion to their final ruling!!
F4UDOA, are you moving to NY so you can be represented in the Senate by MS Clinton?
[This message has been edited by 1776 (edited 11-18-2000).]
-
Has it occurred to any of you fine Americans that Mrs. Harris is on George W. Bushes election committee and probably isn't the best choice of a person to make a decision regarding the election?
====
Why does the law of Florida allow partisans to be ***elected*** to positions overseeing elections? Do you get the sense (as I do) that the election mechanism in Florida is broken? Bush has won in Florida twice but you would prefer to mess with those damned ballots until they become spoiled enough to allow democrat controlled canvassing boards the option to "guess" that AlGore is our President? Dont think so.......
Isn't that the purpose of the State supreme court?
====
Oh touche my fine friend! This is a liberal court all democrats and one liberal being elected by democratic governers....getting a sense of a double standard yet?
BTW, George W. Bush this year in the state of Texas passed a law requiring a hand count in the case of a very close election. Why do think he has changed his mind now?
====
Again touche, but of course. The very Texas law you describe did not apply to ballots rejected by the machine, only a hand count of ballots accepted by the machine. Did you know this already and like the massive liberal media conveniently forget to mention it where as the fine democratic folks in Floridas' three largets compost piles of democrats feels free to count and assume the voter intent on ballots rejected by those finely tuned said machines.
Glad to see there is no hippocracy among the Republicans on this board.
====
Nice try (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Yeager
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
Isn't that the purpose of the State supreme court?
BTW, George W. Bush this year in the state of Texas passed a law requiring a hand count in the case of a very close election. Why do think he has changed his mind now?
Ahh yes, the non-partisan Court with 6 Democratic judges out of 7.
The law passed in Texas applied to the ballots that are tallied by optical scan. Unlike Floriduh, they have no chads, and can't be easily altered in the hand counting process.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
1776 they may have decided to wait and see the results of the absentee ballots. These may make the projected numbers from the hand recounts moot (but that won't stop Gore's legal actions).
F4U I believe someone posted that the law signed by Bush was for a statewide recount, along with what everyone else above posted. I'm not from TX, and I could be remembering incorrectly.
Yeager, the judges were appointed, not elected. Slight difference (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
But yes, they were all appointed by Dem governors. They may have to deal with elections every so often so the people can kick them out if needs be... not sure.
-
The supreme court, without hearing the case, ordered an elected official to not do her duty. Now doesn't that raise a lot of questions in your mind?? Just how impartial is this court????? Why would a court that hasn't heard the case issue an order??!!??
The case could have been heard after certification. The law would then have been served as mandated by the people of Florida through their elected officials.
I think the supreme court is only going to muddy all the issues involved in the "election".
-
Originally posted by CavemanJ:
Yeager, the judges were appointed, not elected. Slight difference (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
But yes, they were all appointed by Dem governors
The biggest mistake out Founding Fathers ever made... But then again, in their times, they just assummed that everybody is fundamentally honest. They actually thought that "it is not the man who should seek the office, it is the office who should seek the man".
I, for one, can't blame them. The "clinton/gore" disease has not been discovered until centuries after they passed on (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif).
mietla
-
F4UDOA,
You stated:
Has it occurred to any of you fine Americans that Mrs. Harris is on George W. Bushes election committee and probably isn't the best choice of a person to make a decision regarding the election?
F4, Harris is the Secretary of State in Florida: http://www.dos.state.fl.us/ (http://www.dos.state.fl.us/)
You and I do not decide "who is the best choice" to make responsible for elections in Florida. The Florida legislature has done that already. It is Harris's responsibilty whether she wants it or not. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
It is moot now however, since the FL Supreme Court has ordered her not to certify votes until further notice...
I think the Florida Supreme Court is in a CYA mode, (can't blame them, history will judge them) and they are searching for the safest route to take. They obviously felt that if Harris certified the Florida votes, they would be out of options.
It remains to be seen whether the rerecounted-by-hand votes will be allowed. That may become moot as well, if Gore doesn't get the votes he needs.
<S>
Gunthr
-
Gents,
The difference between Secretary of state Harris being On the George DoubleYa election committee and the Florida Supreme Court being appointed by Democratic Governors is this.
1. Polaticians are Partisan and Justice is blind.
That is a very clear distinction between the various branches of Government. The court has to act within guild lines of the legal system, ie. legal precedence. Where as the Secretary of State has no such restriction since she is a partisan politician. Why don't you just ask Jeb Bush who should be president. After all he was elected Governor. He should be able to determine "The will of the people" right?
BTW, the Texas voting Machines are brand new with optical sensors and still there is a hand count provision, why? Because machines malfunction and ultimately it is up to people to decide elections. If Hand counts are fraudulent then they are fraudulent in Texas as well. George W. however thinks they are good enough for his state but not others?
Also I would be in favor of a State wide recount or a revote. I would be in favor of a celebrity death match at this point.
Later
F4UDOA
-
Please, let's all be careful in our arguments.
The "Texas Recount" law has been repeatedly used in attempts to show a contradiction in the Bush/Republican position on recounts in Florida.
In this age of the Internet, there's no need to guess about the Texas law. Here's the address for the Texas Secretary of State's page on recounts:
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/recounts.shtml (http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/recounts.shtml)
It's short enough to read in a few minutes. Here's key clips that show that the Texas law would not allow what is going on in Florida:
Recount procedures are used only to recount the votes in a particular race, office or measure. The recounting of a particular race does not:
B. Delay canvassing (but the canvassing authority must make a note on the canvass that a recount has been requested) [Sec. 212.033];
D. Authorize more than one recount of a race (a race can only be recounted once) [Sec. 212.005].
V. Petition (Application) Contents. [Sec. 212.001]
4. If requesting a recount of electronic voting system ballots, specify manual or electronic recount.
If more than one petition for recount is filed and more than one method of counting is requested, a manual recount takes precedence over an electronic recount. And an electronic recount using a corrected program takes precedence over electronic recount using the same program as the original count;
So, the "Texas Recount Law" is not directly applicable to what's happening in Florida.
Please try to keep these discussions on a level plane. The more I read of this stuff, the more I'm reminded of that old "tell a lie often enough" quote.
The facts are generally available and only a few clicks away.
-
Toad,
So Texas does or does not have provisions for a hand count?
If they do, how is that hand count any lees valid than a hand count in Florida?
I am not comparing reasons for a hand count. Just the validity of them. Obviously the states laws will not be identical.
BTW, does your "not telling the truth is telling a lie" apply to George W. and his Drunk Driving conviction. Remember only applying rules to one side when they suit you is the same as hippocracy.
-
D. Authorize more than one recount of a race (a race can only be recounted
once) [Sec. 212.005].
hmm...seems pretty black and white to me F4U. Methinks some people have selective vision.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
F4UDOA,
You stated:
That is a very clear distinction between the various branches of Government. The court has to act within guild lines of the legal system, ie. legal precedence. Where as the Secretary of State has no such restriction since she is a partisan politician.
I disagree:
1. All the elected and appointed officials under discussion have political affiliations, including the Democratic Supreme Court Justices.
2. Secretary of State Harris is bound by law, as are the Supreme Court Judges. Secretary of State Harris is able to exercise some discretion in certain areas of her job, while the Supreme Court Justices are able to INTERPERET the law.
Something that disturbs me is that Florida Supreme Court Justices are not appointed for life, as are US Supreme Court Justices. When Florida Supreme Court Justices' terms expire, they face "merit retention" in a general election. Therefore, they are somewhat beholden to thier political party if they wish to remain on that bench. When they interpret the law, you can bet that these 7 judges have one eye on the expiration date of thier terms.
<S> Gunthr
-
Gunthr,
The guide lines of the Law are biased on Legal Precedence. In other words the Law is a growing document linked to it's past and is held up to review by higher courts. The Florida Secretary of State has no such guide lines for making decisions or review boards for oversight. That is a pretty significant difference.
The Supreme court of the US is only a lifetime seat based on when the Judge wants to give up his seat. One of the conservative Justices has already commented that they will not step down if Al Gore is elected president. Much like the State supreme courts it has it's roots in Partisan politics.
LJK Raubvogel,
I said
I am not comparing reasons for a hand count. Just the validity of them. Obviously the states laws will not be identical.
If my vision is selective, you must be blind.
The stated reasons against a hand count by the republican party is the inaccuracy of the hand count, not the right of a state to have a hand count. Florida law already has provisions for hand counting of ballots.
The Hippocracy is that George W. signed a law enabling Hand counts in his state while he opposes the rights of people in other states to do the same.
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 11-20-2000).]
-
F4U, I suggest you scroll up and read Toads post again....real slow this time. You keep throwing that catch phrase hypocrisy around. The Texas law does not allow the garbage that is going on in Floriduh, so where is the hypocrisy?
hy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s)
n., pl. hy·poc·ri·sies.
1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
According to the Texas law:
A. Request must include every election precinct in the territory from which
the office is elected (unless the ground is counting errors) [Sec. 212.131].
That's not happening in Floriduh, now is it?
XIX. Effect on Canvass.
A request for a recount does not delay the canvass, but the canvassing
authority must make a note on the canvass that a recount has been
requested [Sec. 212.033].
Also not happening in Floriduh.
The recounting of a particular race does not (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif). Authorize more than one recount of a race (a race can only be recounted
once) [Sec. 212.005].
Strike 3, or do you need me to point out more differences between the Texas law and what is happening in Floriduh?
The point is, if things were being done according to the Texas law, the election would have already been certified....twice!
You might want to choose a better word than hypocrisy, because it doesn't apply here.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
I just wanted to add that any sane court would in this case have all the lawyers rounded up, taken out back and shot.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
(http://hem.bredband.net/rickenbacker/images/ricksig.jpg)
-
F4 the ballots in Texas are different so you can't say that he is being a hypocrite.
But since you are calling Bush a hypocrite how about the Lieberman going on TV telling people that the Repubs are unjustly saying that the Demos officials are throwing out absentee ballots just because they are from the military and that the Repubs should trust them because they are elected officials while the whole time he is saying that secretary of State Harris should NOT be trusted.
On the same line the Demos keep saying that the Repubs should let the canvassing boards do what they feel is right but when Broward and Miami-Dade counties decided not to do a manual re-re-count the Demos threatened to sue them.
Talk about hypocrites! YEESH!
-
LJK Raubvogel,
You either don't want to listen or your just not reading my post.
I don't care if the law is different in Texas than in Florida. They both have provisions for hand counts!!!
The argument from the republicans in front of the Florida supreme court isn't that a hand count is against the Florida election law. They are arguing that all election results have to be in 7 days after the election.
The question I am asking you is why is a hand count in Texas less likely to be "fraught with mischief" according to the Republicans than a Hand recount in Florida.
That is hy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s)
n., pl. hy·poc·ri·sies.
1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
Mighty1
Why would you question Lieberman for Military absentee ballots that had no Post Mark. The Democrats decided to let those ballots count despite having no post mark or date when they were sent. Did you read that in a Republican comic book or something? At least the Dems let the votes of it's citizens count despite a processing error.
And Mrs.Harris is on the George W. election committee. But I bet you don't care about that do you.
F4UDOA
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
So Texas does or does not have provisions for a hand count?
If they do, how is that hand count any lees valid than a hand count in Florida?
Yes, if you bothered to go to the Texas Sec. of State site, you can see that Texas has a law that allows a manual recount.
Further, as has already been pointed out, that Texas law has procedural qualifications and restrictions on recounts that would not allow the type of recount that is going on in Florida.
Therefore, to say that Bush supports one particular procedure for recounts while not supporting another COMPLETELY DIFFERENT particular procedure for recounts does not make him hypocritical.
I am not comparing reasons for a hand count. Just the validity of them. Obviously the states laws will not be identical.
This Florida recount would not be valid in Texas. (I'll wager the Texas-style recount would more than fulfill Florida standards however (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))Therefore, you are comparing apples to oranges. These two types of manual recounts are NOT the same except in the most superficial respects.
BTW, does your "not telling the truth is telling a lie" apply to George W. and his Drunk Driving conviction. Remember only applying rules to one side when they suit you is the same as hippocracy.
As Reagan used to say "There you go again". Blowing smoke to obscure the present topic.
OK, I'll bite:
Please show me any source that says Bush was ever asked about past DUI arrests. In other words, show me where he was asked about it and then directly anc clearly lied about this incident.
Now, if you can't find that, are you saying that he "lied" by not volunteering his entire life story when asked some general question? If so, show me the politician who is "not guilty" of this "crime"?
Or does it "Depend on what your definition of "IS" is?"
ROTFLMFAO!
-
F4 my point was that the Demos are doing the same thing they are accusing the Repubs of doing.
And please! saying that the Demos are LETTING these people vote is total BS. They were given a 5 page document saying how to disqualify these ballots. CNN reported this.
As for the comic book comment all I can say is if I wanted to see fantasy and or comedy all I need to do is look at the way the Demos are running there lawsuits in Florida.
-
Toad,
You are an ex-government employee. What is the first thing they ask you before you can get a job? Ever been arrested, ever been convicted of a felony. You can't get a security clearance if you answer yes to those questions. Do you think Bush forgot?
Remember it was the Republicans who spent millions of dollars trying to find out if Clinton was porking his secretary. Now that there is some dirt on Bush you act as if he is a religious icon. Please, he was Alcoholic coke head until his dad got him a couple of jobs. Quid Pro Quo my fellow Americans.
Mighty1,
The Democrats aren't letting anyone vote, they are allowing votes to count that would otherwise be disqualified because of technicalities in the voting process ie. no Post mark.
Oh and by the way, it is the private citizens that are suing in Florida, and the Republican party using the Supreme court of the US to override the States verdict before the recount is even done. Now who's letting who vote????
-
Private citizens who are being supported by the Demos with money and lawyers.
The Repubs went to Federal court because they feel that it would end up there anyway so why go thru all the BS lawsuits that the Demos have going and just go to the court that could have the final say.
-
Are you now saying Bush filled out a government application for President and lied?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Again, YOU are the one trying to make the case that Bush lied about his past. The burden of proof is on you.
Now, do you have proof he was asked about any DUI incidents and lied?
Apparently you don't or you would not have to take off on a tangent.
Or are you saying he should have given the world his entire life history including all brushes with the law down to and including jaywalking without being asked?
If so, are you going to claim that Gore did that?
I doubt it; I suspect that if you did you'd be wandering in swamp of untruths that would drown your argument. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
You are desperate to trash Bush, apparently.
I guess you hope it will somehow make Gore look better in comparison.
Those of us who really aren't blindly partisan know that there is essentially no difference in Bush and Gore. They are both politicians, in the most demeaning sense of the word. Mere Party Hacks...no difference between Republican or Democrat. NEITHER one of these guys is the leader the US needs right now...in fact, IMHO, neither one of these guys is a leader at all.
We're stuck with one of them for the next 4 years, though. I voted for the one that I believe will appoint Supreme Court justices closer to my view of the Constitution. That's it.
I make no claims for sainthood for Bush. Nor would I for Gore, if I had voted for him.
-
There is a difference between Dems and Reps:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_limbaugh/20001121_xcdli_doing_anyt.shtml (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_limbaugh/20001121_xcdli_doing_anyt.shtml)
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
The rule of law is no more (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
[This message has been edited by 1776 (edited 11-22-2000).]
-
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.
-
:::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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Gordo
[This message has been edited by Lance (edited 11-22-2000).]
-
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.
-
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).]
-
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" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) 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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) 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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
This position seems to continually put me into opposition against folks who apparently abhor such principles. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Guess that doesn't bother me either! (http://smilecwm.tripod.com/net6/wave.gif)
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) than Jesse Jackson said the same.
(In case you forgot: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum4/HTML/000444.html) (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" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) 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! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Gordo
-
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.
-
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).]
-
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.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 11-22-2000).]
-
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
-
Gordo,
That is not the case at all. You are correct that there were 2 laws in contest, however, the court opinion applied to neither one. They wrote their own! The judicial branch is interpretive only. They cannot legislate law.
As to the US Supreme court, they won't even hear it IMHO, it will be sent back down.
-
Originally posted by Lance:
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?
I was watching Tim Russert on NBC last night, and he had some humourous commentary on this. This is paraphrased, but basically he said something like this: Bush didn't ask for a recount because Democratic supporters tend to be more frail, elderly, or poorly educated, and would be more likely to make mistakes on ballots. Thus, a recount in the whole state would favor Gore. Now, don't attack me, I think it's a poor stereotype, but I did think it was funny as hell (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
Heh!
Yeah, Apache, it does look goofy from the little excerpts I've had a chance to read. That's why I want to see it go to the supreme court.
Alright, I am outta here through the weekend. Hook 'em!
Gordo
-
Heh, Ripsnort we share a common border with Montana, and many, MANY firearms rights activists up here are members of units/clubs in Montana. A local shop here that sells hard to get items like Armored Vehicles (they have 2 M113's and a couple Cheiftan MBT's at the moment) has been closed for two days, and I can't get a hold of either of the guys that run the place (my shop used to send them business, and a couple clients of mine are trying to get in touch with them). You watch, those guys are nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake, and if things go awry (in their opinion) CNN will have some pretty interesting television coverage in the North West.
I just heard Miami-Dade voted 3-0 to stop the recounts. HAHA @F4DOA and all the other gay loving degenerate Demotards. Game - Set - Match. Oops, unless Gore's camp files yeat ANOTHER appeal.
I find it funny that this all has to happen in Florida, where gun ownership is probably higher per capita than anywhere else in the Nation. The state is even shaped like a gun. I hope Florida doesn't have any crazies like there are here and in Montana, or that pointy headed llama Warren Christopher might get a piano dropped on his head.
-
Gman,
HAHA @F4DOA and all the other gay loving degenerate Demotards. Game - Set - Match. Oops, unless Gore's camp files yeat ANOTHER appeal.
The internet is great for two things. Online gaming and people who like to hide behind an anonymous computer screen and throw stones. You are the pencil neck geek in the car in the next lane that flips the bird and drives away. You are a coward.
Toad/Ripsnort,
This is what the other side looks like from were I'm standing. You may not like some of the democrats you see on TV but people like Gman is what I see on these boards every day. I'm just glad this puke lives far enough away from people so he doesn't hurt someone or get hurt. I guess it's a good thing Canada has gun control laws so losers like this stay at the bottom of food chain where they belong.
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 11-22-2000).]
-
Apache,
I was being facetious. I am in favor of the law being upheld, and believe it was. Here is a quote from the ruling justices.
“Twenty-five years ago, this court commented that the will of the people, not a hyper-technical reliance upon statutory provisions, should be our guiding principle in election cases,” the court said.
I agree with this. I don't think a faulty ballot system should decide the next president of the US. This is the essence of the law, to let the people decide. Gore may not win just because there is a hand count. It is still a wide open issue. And I think George W. owes it to the people of the US to let this play out considering he did not win the popular vote or the majority of the electoral vote. The least he could do to validate a term in office is to make sure that he won the one state that would put him over the top in electoral votes.
-
If this situation was EXACTLY reversed, vote totals, speeches and court rulings since the election, etc., etc., etc.
How many of you guys would be saying the exact same things in your posts?
There's the true test.
I guarantee you, I'd be saying exactly what I have said. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Yes, I would still be complaining no matter who was dragging our future through the mudpit of litigation. It disturbs me to think that our country has steadily moved in this direction. I'd like to see some figures for the number of lawsuits filed in courts nationwide for the last 20 years. I'm sure it would show a frightening trend.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
...
[This message has been edited by Gman (edited 11-22-2000).]
-
Go on and say it, Gman.
We're all (mostly) thinking it too.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Toad,
Why don't you tell me instead?
-
F4, I only speak for myself here:
First I read this:
F4U: "The internet is great for two things. Online gaming and people who like to hide behind an anonymous computer screen and throw stones. You are the pencil neck geek in the car in the next lane that flips the bird and drives away. You are a coward....I'm just glad this puke lives far enough away from people so he doesn't hurt someone or get hurt. I guess it's a good thing Canada has gun control laws so losers like this stay at the bottom of food chain where they belong."
Then I remembered these from another thread:
Pyro: (11/14/00) Regardless, check your flamethrowers at the door. The thing I hate about political discussions is that while they may start out as intellectual discussions, they rarely end that way. The Rush Limbaugh and James Carville wannabes flock to the argument like moths to a campfire and that's all your left with in the end, just a bunch of bickering demagogues spouting mindless propaganda. And even that doesn't really matter as long as it's kept civil among participants. But if it can't be kept civil, then it's not in our interest to host these discussions, so keep it civil.
F4U: (11/14/00)Even I can hardly stand the message boards these day's. It is turning friends into enemies and even more so, turning my relaxation into frustration. I am even ready to deal with more C-hog whining.
So please add another off topic thread just for political bantering so I can get back to the business of enjoying my spare time.
Lastly, I re-read this:
F4U: (11/21/00) That is hy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s)
n., pl. hy·poc·ri·sies.
1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
...and I just laughed out loud.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 11-23-2000).]
-
Nice post, toad.
However, it is pointless to respond to F4UDOA as he can never stick to the issues.
-
1776, they have a special dispensation. They don't have to stick to the issues...only their opposition does. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Erhm.... You were talking about F4 right? Why do you use the word "they"? I'm confused (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Does the shoe fit,Nash?
-
Does the shoe fit? Do you mean with regard to not being able to stick to the issues?
I'd like to answer that but first let me ask why the Repubs support such archaic gun laws.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
LOL, Nash,now take the foot outa ya mouth and try the shoe on (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I liked your last post,Nash, heheeeeeeeeeeee (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)