Party of fairness v the party of law
Dana
THE PARTY OF 'FAIRNESS' VS. THE PARTY OF LAW
Tuesday,November 21,2000
THE arguments yesterday before the Florida Supreme Court, and the questions
and answers that flew back and forth between the seven judges and the
lawyers, revealed the oceanic gulf separating two bodies of opinion held by
serious and politically engaged Americans about the very nature of the law.
The advocates for George W. Bush and Florida Secretary of State Katherine
Harris based their arguments on the proposition that law exists to define
limits.
If law features dates certain, those dates certain must be adhered to. If
law sets out procedures, those procedures must be followed with exactitude.
Most important, if a law is on the books, any change in the law cannot be
back-dated because all actions before the change were taken within the
framework of the law that prevailed when those acts were committed.
These ideas are the heart and soul of what we now call "conservatism," and
they find their origins in both the Old Testament and in the writings of
Aristotle and his philosophical descendants.
The advocates for Al Gore and Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth based
their arguments on the proposition that law must be elastic in the interest
of fairness.
If the law features dates certain, those dates certain are not as important
as the overarching principles according to which the law itself was drafted
(like the need to "discern the will of the voter"). If the law sets out
procedures, those procedures should fall by the wayside if they are in
conflict with a deeper truth.
Most important, if law is on the books, the books can be rewritten by the
courts - which have the power to interpret, and therefore to discern, their
deeper meaning and purpose.
These ideas are at the heart and soul of what we call "liberalism," and find
their origins in the writings of Plato - who believed laws were only just
insofar as they reflected the essence of truth.
What's going on in Florida, therefore, isn't just partisan wrangling. It's
not true that, as many have alleged, Republicans would have argued the
Democratic case and Democrats would have argued the Republican case if the
positions of George W. Bush and Al Gore had been reversed after Nov. 7.
If Bush had won the popular vote but failed to prevail in the Electoral
College after the mandated machine recount in Florida, he would not have
fought the same battle Gore has. Why? Because the Republican Party is the
party of law, and the Bushies would have been hard-pressed to make the kind
of antinomian case the Gore-ites are so comfortable making.
Indeed, Republicans believe so strongly in the power and force of law that
they spend most of their time arguing against new laws - on the grounds that
laws limit freedom in absolute ways and that there has to be a very good
reason to impose such limits.
The Democratic Party is the party of fairness. Laws are to be followed to
the letter only if they are fair. If they're not, they are to be ignored or
bent - or blurred by judicial intervention.
That's why Democrats have no problem passing new laws or arguing against the
language of statutes that seem unfair to them. They consider law not an end
in itself, but rather a framework for further discussion.
Though we've been talking about the post-election fracas as a struggle
between Democrats and Republicans, this really is a struggle between two
world views - the conservative world view and the liberal world view.
Many pundits are claiming that since the election was a tie, the nation is
basically stable. Don't believe it for a minute. Never before in modern
history have the differences between right and left come so directly into
conflict.
The results of this court decision and the election's final outcome are
going to usher in a period of protracted and pronounced philosophical
division the likes of which we have not seen in many generations.
--
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." --9th
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people." --10th Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
Gandalf Grey
Dana <ra...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Bg5T5.24711$15.59...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> http://www.nypostonline.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/16621.htm
> THE PARTY OF 'FAIRNESS' VS. THE PARTY OF LAW
> Tuesday,November 21,2000
>
> THE arguments yesterday before the Florida Supreme Court, and the
questions
> and answers that flew back and forth between the seven judges and the
> lawyers, revealed the oceanic gulf separating two bodies of opinion held
by
> serious and politically engaged Americans about the very nature of the
law.
> The advocates for George W. Bush and Florida Secretary of State Katherine
> Harris based their arguments on the proposition that law exists to define
> limits.
They wish. The laws in question were established to make the will of the
people obvious. The limit-based laws in this case exist to make it
difficult for conservative criminals like Harris subvert the will of the
people.
Tim Eberly
Gandalf Grey <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8vl1h4$kvm$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Give me a break. The law is clear and she should be commended for standing
up to those that wish to change the rules of the game because they are
losing. The people were heard according to the law. If there was just cause
for a hand count, as stated in the law, then she would have allowed one.
You flippantly call Harris a criminal...how would you know what one is if
the law is a "living and breathing document"? If the law can be changed and
rewritten on a whim, then how are you to know whether or not she is a
criminal? You can't just find people guilty based on your political desires.
The law keeps us free, or can't you see that??
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dana
Gandalf Grey <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8vl1h4$kvm$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Dana <ra...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Bg5T5.24711$15.59...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> > http://www.nypostonline.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/16621.htm
> > THE PARTY OF 'FAIRNESS' VS. THE PARTY OF LAW
> > Tuesday,November 21,2000
> >
> > THE arguments yesterday before the Florida Supreme Court, and the
> questions
> > and answers that flew back and forth between the seven judges and the
> > lawyers, revealed the oceanic gulf separating two bodies of opinion held
> by
> > serious and politically engaged Americans about the very nature of the
> law.
> > The advocates for George W. Bush and Florida Secretary of State
Katherine
> > Harris based their arguments on the proposition that law exists to
define
> > limits.
>
> They wish.
The laws in question were established to make the will of the
> people obvious.
No the laws were made to prevent people like gore and daley from subverting
the vote.
The limit-based laws in this case exist to make it
> difficult for conservative criminals like Harris subvert the will of the
> people.
Harris is trying to protect the will of the people, it is the dems who are
attacking the will of the people.
Another leftist who does not believe that we are a nation of laws
>
>
Gandalf Grey
Hardly. The laws discussed have not been voter-fraud laws. They've been
laws limiting the control of political animals like Harris.
>
> The limit-based laws in this case exist to make it
> > difficult for conservative criminals like Harris subvert the will of the
> > people.
> Harris is trying to protect the will of the people, it is the dems who are
> attacking the will of the people.
Wrong again. The will of the people rests in those votes Harris was so
willing to ignore.
> Another leftist who does not believe that we are a nation of laws
Considering his unwillingness to obey the courts, that would make George
Bush a "leftist."
Gandalf Grey
> Gandalf Grey <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8vl1h4$kvm$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > Dana <ra...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:Bg5T5.24711$15.59...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> > > http://www.nypostonline.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/16621.htm
> > > THE PARTY OF 'FAIRNESS' VS. THE PARTY OF LAW
> > > Tuesday,November 21,2000
> > >
> > > THE arguments yesterday before the Florida Supreme Court, and the
> > questions
> > > and answers that flew back and forth between the seven judges and the
> > > lawyers, revealed the oceanic gulf separating two bodies of opinion
held
> > by
> > > serious and politically engaged Americans about the very nature of the
> > law.
> > > The advocates for George W. Bush and Florida Secretary of State
> Katherine
> > > Harris based their arguments on the proposition that law exists to
> define
> > > limits.
> >
the
> > people obvious. The limit-based laws in this case exist to make it
> > difficult for conservative criminals like Harris subvert the will of the
> > people.
>
> people.
You can repeat your little piece of demagoguery as many times as you like
and it still won't sell. The conservatives are notorious for their
willingness to subvert the will of the people. It isn't the democrats that
are incapable of even saying the word "democracy," it's the republicans. It
isn't the democrats who are quick to jump into every uncertained moment in
history to insist that America "is not a democracy" and that the people take
second place to the will of the marketplace, it's the republicans. It isn't
the democrats who spent the last eight years ignoring their legislative
responsibilities while they attempted to short-circuit the legally elected
President of the United States with smear campaigns and threats to shut down
the government.
No thinkilng human being can miss the fact that the conservatives in this
country have never had the slightest interest in the will of the people.
Conservatives are the brain-diseased ideological bastards of the same
traitors that held with good old tyrant King George Now, the same kind of
treachery is trying to foist another intellectual moron with the same name
on an American public that doesn't deserve a failed businessman and part
time governor as president.
Gandalf Grey
> > >
> > > Gandalf Grey <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8vl1h4$kvm$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > >
> > > > Dana <ra...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:Bg5T5.24711$15.59...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> > > > > http://www.nypostonline.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/16621.htm
> > > > > THE PARTY OF 'FAIRNESS' VS. THE PARTY OF LAW
> > > > > Tuesday,November 21,2000
> > > > >
> > > > > THE arguments yesterday before the Florida Supreme Court, and the
> > > > questions
> > > > > and answers that flew back and forth between the seven judges and
> the
> > > > > lawyers, revealed the oceanic gulf separating two bodies of
opinion
> > held
> > > > by
> > > > > serious and politically engaged Americans about the very nature of
> the
> > > > law.
> > > > > The advocates for George W. Bush and Florida Secretary of State
> > > Katherine
> > > > > Harris based their arguments on the proposition that law exists to
> > > define
> > > > > limits.
> > > >
> > > > They wish.
> > >
> > > > people obvious.
> > subverting
> > > the vote.
> >
> > Hardly. The laws discussed have not been voter-fraud laws. They've
been
> > laws limiting the control of political animals like Harris.
>
> them. The law is there to prevent people like gore and daley from
subverting
> the vote.
Interesting that the laws that you say are there to protect "the will of the
people" from people like Gore and Daley are specifically aimed at the
actions and limitations of the Secratary of State...a post, no held by Gore
or Daley, but held by Harris, a republican flunky.
You Repugs are all alike. When the law points right at you, you argue that
it's about someone else. When the courts speak, they're rewriting the law.
The Republican Party, America's only Official Mafia.
Gandalf Grey
Marksman <whiney-...@suck.net> wrote in message
news:%xGT5.396$nh5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...> news:8vnbch$m8b$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> amazing.
Well, luckily we won't have to worry about spin, since Harris' vile partisan
activities are more than obvious, spinned or not.
>
>
> >
> > You Repugs are all alike. When the law points right at you, you argue
> that
> > it's about someone else. When the courts speak, they're rewriting the
> law.
> > The Republican Party, America's only Official Mafia.
>
>
> Thank God the law supports Ms. Harris' decision.
No it doesn't. I'm not sure how things work in the dictatorship you seem to
hanker for, but in America, our laws are defined and refined by the
judgements of courts.
Gandalf Grey
> > > Gandalf Grey <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8vl1h4$kvm$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > >
> > > > Dana <ra...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:Bg5T5.24711$15.59...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> > > > > http://www.nypostonline.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/16621.htm
> > > > > THE PARTY OF 'FAIRNESS' VS. THE PARTY OF LAW
> > > > > Tuesday,November 21,2000
> > > > >
> > > > > THE arguments yesterday before the Florida Supreme Court, and the
> > > > questions
> > > > > and answers that flew back and forth between the seven judges and
> the
> > > > > lawyers, revealed the oceanic gulf separating two bodies of
opinion
> > held
> > > > by
> > > > > serious and politically engaged Americans about the very nature of
> the
> > > > law.
> > > > > The advocates for George W. Bush and Florida Secretary of State
> > > Katherine
> > > > > Harris based their arguments on the proposition that law exists to
> > > define
> > > > > limits.
> > > >
of
> > the
> > > > people obvious. The limit-based laws in this case exist to make it
> > > > difficult for conservative criminals like Harris subvert the will of
> the
> > > > people.
> > >
> > > You still do not get it, it is the dems that are against the will of
the
> > > people.
> >
> > You can repeat your little piece of demagoguery as many times as you
like
> > and it still won't sell.
I doubt you see much of anything.
> To bad.
>
> The conservatives are notorious for their
> > willingness to subvert the will of the people.
> No that has always been the democraps, you do remember that your side was
> against the Civil Rights act, was in favor of and legislated Jim Crow
laws.
Unfortunately for you, most intelligent Americans are aware of the fact that
the parties, changed names in the past. The fact is that if Abraham Lincoln
were alive today, he'd be a democrat.
>
>
> It isn't the democrats that
> > are incapable of even saying the word "democracy," it's the republicans.
> We can say democracy just fine
Great. Too bad you don't understand it.
>
> It
> > isn't the democrats who are quick to jump into every uncertained moment
in
> > history to insist that America "is not a democracy"
> We are not a Democracy, try to figure out what our form of government is.
>
> and that the people take
> > second place to the will of the marketplace,
> We Republicans stand for liberty, freedom, and equality for all.
Right...as long as they tow the party line.
>
>
> it's the republicans. It isn't
> > the democrats who spent the last eight years ignoring their legislative
> > responsibilities while they attempted to short-circuit the legally
elected
> > President of the United States with smear campaigns and threats to shut
> down
> > the government.
>
> Where have they done that.
Their attempts to shut down the government are a part of the public record.
> > No thinkilng human being can miss the fact that the conservatives in
this
> > country have never had the slightest interest in the will of the people.
> That is why the right has freed the slaves. Remember most people that
> supported slavery and Jim Crow laws, are people from the left.
Wrong...you should avoid repeating the same lie twice. On the other hand,
George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, David Dukes are excellent examples of the
bigotry of the right wing although George seemed to finally see the error of
his ways.
Gandalf Grey
> >
> > Marksman <whiney-...@suck.net> wrote in message
> > news:%xGT5.396$nh5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > people obvious.
from
> > > > > > subverting
> > > > > > > the vote.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hardly. The laws discussed have not been voter-fraud laws.
> They've
> > > > been
> > > > > > laws limiting the control of political animals like Harris.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only political animals are daley and gore, and the dems that
> > follow
> > > > > them. The law is there to prevent people like gore and daley from
> > > > subverting
> > > > > the vote.
> > > >
will
> of
> > > the
> > > > people" from people like Gore and Daley are specifically aimed at
the
> > > > actions and limitations of the Secratary of State...a post, no held
by
> > > Gore
> > > > or Daley, but held by Harris, a republican flunky.
> > >
> > >
> > > Flunky? The spin you demoncraps put on those who abide by the law is
> > > amazing.
> >
> > Well, luckily we won't have to worry about spin, since Harris' vile
> partisan
> > activities are more than obvious, spinned or not.
>
> hypocrite like most dems.
Wow, "just like Butterworth." You almost took an honest stumble there. So
you admit Harris' activities were partisan. Well, done. Unfortunately for
you, Butterworth was not in charge of the electoral process. Harris'
blatant attempt to manufacture a win for George Bush was the most shameful
example of machine politics we've seen in this century.
Gandalf Grey
And again, you prove that calling your opponents "loons" can't hide the fact
that your propaganda is shot full of holes. Harris is a republican animal
and her activities in this election bordered on criminal.
Carin
> Unfortunately for you, most intelligent Americans are aware of the fact that
> the parties, changed names in the past. The fact is that if Abraham Lincoln
> were alive today, he'd be a democrat.
>>
Dana
news:8vl1h4$kvm$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Dana <ra...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Bg5T5.24711$15.59...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> > http://www.nypostonline.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/16621.htm
> > THE PARTY OF 'FAIRNESS' VS. THE PARTY OF LAW
> > Tuesday,November 21,2000
> >
> > THE arguments yesterday before the Florida Supreme Court, and the
> questions
> > and answers that flew back and forth between the seven judges and the
> > lawyers, revealed the oceanic gulf separating two bodies of opinion held
> by
> > serious and politically engaged Americans about the very nature of the
> law.
> > The advocates for George W. Bush and Florida Secretary of State
Katherine
> > Harris based their arguments on the proposition that law exists to
define
> > limits.
>
Dana
> >
> > Gandalf Grey <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:8vl1h4$kvm$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
> > > Dana <ra...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Bg5T5.24711$15.59...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> > > > http://www.nypostonline.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/16621.htm
> > > > THE PARTY OF 'FAIRNESS' VS. THE PARTY OF LAW
> > > > Tuesday,November 21,2000
> > > >
> > > > THE arguments yesterday before the Florida Supreme Court, and the
> > > questions
> > > > and answers that flew back and forth between the seven judges and
the
> > > > lawyers, revealed the oceanic gulf separating two bodies of opinion
> held
> > > by
> > > > serious and politically engaged Americans about the very nature of
the
> > > law.
> > > > The advocates for George W. Bush and Florida Secretary of State
> > Katherine
> > > > Harris based their arguments on the proposition that law exists to
> > define
> > > > limits.
> > >
> > > They wish.
> >
> > > people obvious.
> subverting
> > the vote.
>
> Hardly. The laws discussed have not been voter-fraud laws. They've been
> laws limiting the control of political animals like Harris.
The only political animals are daley and gore, and the dems that follow
them. The law is there to prevent people like gore and daley from subverting
the vote.
>
> >
> > The limit-based laws in this case exist to make it
> > > difficult for conservative criminals like Harris subvert the will of
the
> > > people.
> > Harris is trying to protect the will of the people, it is the dems who
are
> > attacking the will of the people.
>
> Wrong again. The will of the people rests in those votes Harris was so
> willing to ignore.
Just like the votes gore decided to throw out because they did not vote for
him. Harris has not ignored the will of the people of Florida, OTOH, people
like gore and daley would rather subvert the vote, and the will of the
people.
>
Marksman
the
> people" from people like Gore and Daley are specifically aimed at the
> actions and limitations of the Secratary of State...a post, no held by
Gore
> or Daley, but held by Harris, a republican flunky.
Flunky? The spin you demoncraps put on those who abide by the law is
amazing.
>
> You Repugs are all alike. When the law points right at you, you argue
that
> it's about someone else. When the courts speak, they're rewriting the
law.
> The Republican Party, America's only Official Mafia.
Thank God the law supports Ms. Harris' decision, even though the Lieberal FL
Supreme Court decided to go above their own powers and rewrite the
legislature.
Dana
> and it still won't sell.
We see you are also a loon who does not like the truth.
The conservatives are notorious for their
> willingness to subvert the will of the people.
No that has always been the democraps, you do remember that your side was
against the Civil Rights act, was in favor of and legislated Jim Crow laws.
It isn't the democrats that
> are incapable of even saying the word "democracy," it's the republicans.
We can say democracy just fine. I cannot help it if you do not know what
kind of government we have.
It
> isn't the democrats who are quick to jump into every uncertained moment in
> history to insist that America "is not a democracy"
We are not a Democracy, try to figure out what our form of government is.
and that the people take
> second place to the will of the marketplace,
We Republicans stand for liberty, freedom, and equality for all. You talk
like a confused little bugger.
it's the republicans. It isn't
> the democrats who spent the last eight years ignoring their legislative
> responsibilities while they attempted to short-circuit the legally elected
> President of the United States with smear campaigns and threats to shut
down
> the government.
Where have they done that. They were not trying to short circuit the legally
elected president. But they did impeach the president.
>
> No thinkilng human being can miss the fact that the conservatives in this
> country have never had the slightest interest in the will of the people.
That is why the right has freed the slaves. Remember most people that
supported slavery and Jim Crow laws, are people from the left. You can call
the left conservative if you want, but American liberal would be better, as
Conservatives in America are more classical liberal, just like our founders
were. Where our values are liberty, freedom, equality and justice for all.
Dana
the
> people" from people like Gore and Daley are specifically aimed at the
> actions and limitations of the Secratary of State...a post, no held by
Gore
> or Daley, but held by Harris, a republican flunky.
>
Dana
>
> Marksman <whiney-...@suck.net> wrote in message
> news:%xGT5.396$nh5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
partisan
> activities are more than obvious, spinned or not.
Just like Butterworth. How come you do not mention his name. Are you a
hypocrite like most dems.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > You Repugs are all alike. When the law points right at you, you argue
> > that
> > > it's about someone else. When the courts speak, they're rewriting the
> > law.
> > > The Republican Party, America's only Official Mafia.
> >
> >
> > Thank God the law supports Ms. Harris' decision.
>
> No it doesn't. I'm not sure how things work in the dictatorship you seem
to
> hanker for, but in America, our laws are defined and refined by the
> judgements of courts.
Ha HA ha ha to funny.
>
>
Philip Bourgeois
DANA .......
Do we have to go back and review your last little lesson in Southern
Politics????
What the nation might have been like with George Wallace in the White
House can be gleaned from an article entitled "What I Believe," which
he penned in 1971 for American Opinion magazine (a precursor to THE
NEW AMERICAN). He wrote that he wanted the federal government
completely out of education and welfare, a complete end to sending our
military forces into no-win wars, and a thorough cleaning out of
subversives from the State Department. Way ahead of his time, he
called for competition in the dispensing of news to the American
people. He termed communism "an evil conspiracy" that should be
exposed and never given any dignity or aid. And he intended to reverse
the ominous trend that increasingly saw Americans "become a
government-fearing people instead of a God-fearing people."
Sound like a Democrat or a Republican Dana????
Whose yo daddy!!!!!!
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1998/vo14no23/vo14no23_wallace.htm
On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 04:24:06 GMT,
"Dana" <ra...@home.com> wrote:
. Remember most people that
>supported slavery and Jim Crow laws, are people from the left. You can call
>the left conservative if you want, but American liberal would be better, as
>Conservatives in America are more classical liberal, just like our founders
>were. Where our values are liberty, freedom, equality and justice for all.
>
> >No that has always been the democraps, you do remember that your side was
>against the Civil Rights act, was in favor of and legislated Jim Crow laws.
>
> You still do not get it, it is the dems that are against the will of the
>> > people.
Dana
So
> you admit Harris' activities were partisan.
Well, done. Unfortunately for
> you, Butterworth was not in charge of the electoral process.
Then why is he interfering.
Harris'
> blatant attempt to manufacture a win for George Bush was the most shameful
> example of machine politics we've seen in this century.
Ha Ha
Are you forgetting that gore has daley as his campaign manager, you know,
vote eary and often, and the dead vote also.
>
>
Dana
fact
> that your propaganda is shot full of holes. Harris is a republican animal
> and her activities in this election bordered on criminal.
And you have no proof of this, yet there is proof of the animal gore who is
subverting the will of the people and is engaging in voter fraud, through
his campaign, and democrap volunteers.
>
>
Dana
>
> >
> > The conservatives are notorious for their
> > > willingness to subvert the will of the people.
> > No that has always been the democraps, you do remember that your side
was
> > against the Civil Rights act, was in favor of and legislated Jim Crow
> laws.
>
that
> the parties, changed names in the past. The fact is that if Abraham
Lincoln
> were alive today, he'd be a democrat.
Ha ha, no he would not, why we he side with the racists. He would be a
repub.
> >
> >
> > It isn't the democrats that
> > > are incapable of even saying the word "democracy," it's the
republicans.
> > We can say democracy just fine
>
> Great. Too bad you don't understand it.
No we do understand what the word means, that is why we know our country is
not a democracy.
>
> >
> > It
> > > isn't the democrats who are quick to jump into every uncertained
moment
> in
> > > history to insist that America "is not a democracy"
> > We are not a Democracy, try to figure out what our form of government
is.
>
> >
> > and that the people take
> > > second place to the will of the marketplace,
> > We Republicans stand for liberty, freedom, and equality for all.
>
> Right...as long as they tow the party line.
No, there are way more independents that are republicans, than there are
indepents that are democraps. You ever wonder why the dems always agree with
each other, it is because they are sheep.
>
> >
> >
> > it's the republicans. It isn't
> > > the democrats who spent the last eight years ignoring their
legislative
> > > responsibilities while they attempted to short-circuit the legally
> elected
> > > President of the United States with smear campaigns and threats to
shut
> > down
> > > the government.
> >
> > Where have they done that.
>
> Their attempts to shut down the government are a part of the public
record.
That was kkklintoon who shut down the government, twice.
And as you can see the country never even burped.
>
> > > No thinkilng human being can miss the fact that the conservatives in
> this
> > > country have never had the slightest interest in the will of the
people.
>
>
> > That is why the right has freed the slaves. Remember most people that
> > supported slavery and Jim Crow laws, are people from the left.
>
> Wrong...you should avoid repeating the same lie twice. On the other hand,
> George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, David Dukes are excellent examples of the
> bigotry of the right wing although George seemed to finally see the error
of
> his ways.
And all left wing idiots.
>
>
Dana
Philip Bourgeois <phi...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:3a1f4c0b...@news.so.centurytel.net...
>
> DANA .......
> Do we have to go back and review your last little lesson in Southern
The history that you revised, or the history that you know so very little
about.
> Sound like a Democrat or a Republican Dana????
> Whose yo daddy!!!!!!
Philip Bourgeois
>
>Philip Bourgeois <phi...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
>news:3a1f4c0b...@news.so.centurytel.net...
>>
>> DANA .......
>> Do we have to go back and review your last little lesson in Southern
>> Politics????]
>The history that you revised, or the history that you know so very little
>about.
>> Sound like a Democrat or a Republican Dana????
>> Whose yo daddy!!!!!!
>A democrap, just like you .
>>
Well if I had to give you a grade....?????
Dana
Philip Bourgeois <phi...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:3a1f5a85...@news.so.centurytel.net...
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 05:52:36 GMT, "Dana" <ra...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Philip Bourgeois <phi...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> >news:3a1f4c0b...@news.so.centurytel.net...
> >>
> >> DANA .......
> >> Do we have to go back and review your last little lesson in Southern
> >> Politics????]
> >The history that you revised, or the history that you know so very little
> >about.
> >> Sound like a Democrat or a Republican Dana????
> >> Whose yo daddy!!!!!!
> >A democrap, just like you .
> >>
> Well if I had to give you a grade....?????
Dana would get an "A+"
--
Note: If you make a mistake, return your ballot card and obtain another.
AFTER VOTING, CHECK YOUR BALLOT CARD TO BE SURE YOUR VOTING SELECTIONS ARE
CLEARLY AND CLEANLY PUNCHED AND THERE ARE NO CHIPS LEFT HANGING ON THE BACK
OF THE CARD.
Marksman
>
> Marksman <whiney-...@suck.net> wrote in message
> news:%xGT5.396$nh5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
partisan
> activities are more than obvious, spinned or not.
Nope no partisanship. Doing her job. You just can't stand it that she was
doing her job as it was defined.
TOUGH!
> >
> >
> > >
> > > You Repugs are all alike. When the law points right at you, you argue
> > that
> > > it's about someone else. When the courts speak, they're rewriting the
> > law.
> > > The Republican Party, America's only Official Mafia.
> >
> >
> > Thank God the law supports Ms. Harris' decision.
>
> No it doesn't. I'm not sure how things work in the dictatorship you seem
to
> hanker for, but in America, our laws are defined and refined by the
> judgements of courts.
I live in the US, where do you live loser? Florida laws are only INTERPRETED
by the courts fool, not written by them.
You need to be educated quick!
Marksman
fact
> that your propaganda is shot full of holes. Harris is a republican animal
> and her activities in this election bordered on criminal.
Following the law is criminal? You demoncraps sure like to spin!
Marksman
So
for
> you, Butterworth was not in charge of the electoral process. Harris'
> blatant attempt to manufacture a win for George Bush was the most shameful
> example of machine politics we've seen in this century.
Following the law is shameful? Only to a demoncrap like you!
Gandalf Grey
According to the court's she was not. According to a common sense view of
what she tried to do she violated both the spirit and the letter of the law.
Not surprising, since conservatives like Harris have no respect for the law.
>
> Well, done. Unfortunately for
> > you, Butterworth was not in charge of the electoral process.
> Then why is he interfering.
>
> Harris'
> > blatant attempt to manufacture a win for George Bush was the most
shameful
> > example of machine politics we've seen in this century.
> Ha Ha
> Are you forgetting that gore has daley as his campaign manager...
Daley wasn't running the election in Florida.
> >
>
>
Marksman
>
> > No she was following the law. Which cannot be said the same for
> Butterworth.
>
> According to the court's she was not. According to a common sense view of
> what she tried to do she violated both the spirit and the letter of the
law.
> Not surprising, since conservatives like Harris have no respect for the
law.
It is amazing how you demoncraps call following the letter of the law
subverting the law, when it doesn't fit your socialist agenda.
Dana
> what she tried to do she violated both the spirit and the letter of the
law.
> Not surprising, since conservatives like Harris have no respect for the
law.
the decision is moot.
> >
> > Well, done. Unfortunately for
> > > you, Butterworth was not in charge of the electoral process.
> > Then why is he interfering.
> >
> > Harris'
> > > blatant attempt to manufacture a win for George Bush was the most
> shameful
> > > example of machine politics we've seen in this century.
> > Ha Ha
>
> Daley wasn't running the election in Florida.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Gandalf Grey
> >
>
> > > No she was following the law. Which cannot be said the same for
> > Butterworth.
> >
of
> > what she tried to do she violated both the spirit and the letter of the
> law.
> > Not surprising, since conservatives like Harris have no respect for the
> law.
>
>
> subverting the law, when it doesn't fit your socialist agenda.
Amazing how you right wingers pretend to believe in a "rule of Law" until a
court disagrees with your fascist agenda. James Baker was all for praising
the Florida Supreme Court until they judged against his case, that's when
all the paid fascist demonstrators came out of the sewers to "spontaneously"
demonstrate for Boy George.
>
>
>
>
Gandalf Grey
Although with morons like yourself it's dangerous to presume intent, I
assume you meant to use the word "misrepresenting." Are you honestly stupid
enough to believe that ANY court in this country will deliver a verdict
based on case law that's been misrepresented? Are you aware of what
actually goes on in a court of law? Are you aware that the courts have
their own system of clerks and researchers? Are you even bright enough to
realize that Judges are actually capable of looking up cases on their own?
Do you honestly believe that declarations of law and briefs made in the
court are not checked for veracity?
Apparently, you don't need to be a moron to be a right winger but it
certainly helps.
Dana
Gandalf Grey <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8vpdpp$4o3> >
restricts the individual right to bear arms.
Are you aware of what
> actually goes on in a court of law? Are you aware that the courts have
> their own system of clerks and researchers?
And the Fl SC did not research the case law cited. Their decision was based
on a misrepresentation of the IL case. That case ruled that dimples cannot
be used to determine the intent of the voter, and cannot be counted.
Are you even bright enough to
> realize that Judges are actually capable of looking up cases on their own?
Must judges are very capable, but those left leaning judges need to be told
what to do
> Do you honestly believe that declarations of law and briefs made in the
> court are not checked for veracity?
In most cases yes, but when the gore camp is trying to steal an election,
all bets are off.
>
> Apparently, you don't need to be a moron to be a right winger but it
> certainly helps.
Yawn
>
>
Gandalf Grey
>
> Gandalf Grey <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8vpdpp$4o3>
> restricts the individual right to bear arms.
No they did not. You don't learn easily, do you? Where and when did the
lawyers representing Vice President Gore provide the court with
"misrepresented" statutes? Here's a hint, moron...the relevant statutes are
printed in both the briefs and the decision. It's there in black and white.
You can try to make the case that the court misinterpreted the law, but you
can't make the case that they weren't given the exact texts of the statutes
involved.
>
> Are you aware of what
> > actually goes on in a court of law? Are you aware that the courts have
> > their own system of clerks and researchers?
> And the Fl SC did not research the case law cited. Their decision was
based
> on a misrepresentation of the IL case. That case ruled that dimples cannot
> be used to determine the intent of the voter, and cannot be counted.
>
>
> Are you even bright enough to
> > realize that Judges are actually capable of looking up cases on their
own?
> Must judges are very capable, but those left leaning judges need to be
told
> what to do
> > Do you honestly believe that declarations of law and briefs made in the
> > court are not checked for veracity?
> In most cases yes, but when the gore camp is trying to steal an election,
> all bets are off.
So you're actually going to stick to your stupidity. For those who are
interested in the truth, the text of the Court's decision is offered at CNN
and can also be looked up in Findlaw. Apparently, Dana has decided that
there's a double-whammy going on here. The court was supplied with a
misrepresentation of the law and they then, allegedly, went on to
misinterpret the misrepresentation. Unfortunately, most of the known
Universe should be able to see that it's pretty nearly impossible to get
away with standing up in front of a State Supreme Court and misquote laws as
a small army of clerks and researchers can attest to. In Dana's case, there
might be a small problem in that laws and state statutes are often kept
hidden in things called books.
Nevertheless, Dana is doing what right wingers do. Knowing that their
positions are usually in error, they very quickly turn to lies to bolster
their positions. The assumption that the court was never provided the exact
texts of the statutes in question is right up there with some of the worst
lies and stupidities that have come out of the conservative mafia over the
last eight years. The fact that conservative shills like Dana don't seem to
be able to deal with political realities without lies like this is probably
the best evidence that they can't be trusted to run this country.
Gandalf Grey
it
> > > restricts the individual right to bear arms.
The fact that a court doesn't choose to interpret the actual text of a law
in a way that favors right wing extremists doesn't mean that they were
presented with a falsified version of the statute in question.
> >
> > No they did not. You don't learn easily, do you? Where and when did
the
> > lawyers representing Vice President Gore provide the court with
> > "misrepresented" statutes?
> The case law from Il.
Great! Show me the "real" version of the statute in question and we'll
compare the "real" law with the allegedly falsified version published in the
brief.
>
> Here's a hint, moron...the relevant statutes are
> > printed in both the briefs and the decision. It's there in black and
> white.
> > You can try to make the case that the court misinterpreted the law, but
> you
> > can't make the case that they weren't given the exact texts of the
> statutes
> > involved.
> team gore argued that IL case law ruled dimples were countable, when in
fact
> IL courts voted against the counting of dimples
Now are we talking about arguments or the laws and statutes themselves?
Team Bush made a lot of bullshit arguments but I'm not prepared to state
that they actually "misrepresented" the actual state laws....ESPECIALLY
since the laws are quoted in the briefs AND since the actual laws are
available to anyone who wants to look them up.
> >
> > >
> > > Are you aware of what
> > > > actually goes on in a court of law? Are you aware that the courts
> have
> > > > their own system of clerks and researchers?
> > > And the Fl SC did not research the case law cited. Their decision was
> > based
> > > on a misrepresentation of the IL case.
You KNOW they did not reference themselves to the statute in question?
Never looked at it? Odd, since their decision QUOTES THE ACTUAL STATUTES.
Thanks for proving you've never even thought about your charges.
That case ruled that dimples
> cannot
> > > be used to determine the intent of the voter, and cannot be counted.
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you even bright enough to
> > > > realize that Judges are actually capable of looking up cases on
their
> > own?
> > > Must judges are very capable, but those left leaning judges need to be
> > told
> > > what to do
So that would mean, I take it, that only right-leaning judges are capable of
making their own decisions? Or even reading, apparently.
> > > > Do you honestly believe that declarations of law and briefs made in
> the
> > > > court are not checked for veracity?
> > > In most cases yes, but when the gore camp is trying to steal an
> election,
> > > all bets are off.
Do you actually read yourself? Do you honestly believe that more than fifty
percent of America wouldn't be up in arms and the media wouldn't be having a
field day if the DNC or the Fl. SC attempted to misprint a statute so that
they could obtain a favorable ruling. Did any of the RNC lawyers come out
of the courtroom stating "that wasn't the actual statute they were looking
at...they misprinted it!!"
Are you for real???
> >
> > So you're actually going to stick to your stupidity. For those who are
> > interested in the truth, the text of the Court's decision is offered at
> CNN
> It is also on the fl SC page.
> > and can also be looked up in Findlaw. Apparently, Dana has decided that
> > there's a double-whammy going on here. The court was supplied with a
> > misrepresentation of the law and they then, allegedly, went on to
> > misinterpret the misrepresentation. Unfortunately, most of the known
> > Universe should be able to see that it's pretty nearly impossible to get
> > away with standing up in front of a State Supreme Court and misquote
laws
> as
> > a small army of clerks and researchers can attest to. In Dana's case,
> there
> > might be a small problem in that laws and state statutes are often kept
> > hidden in things called books.
> It is well known that the Fl SC decision was based on a faulty premise,
> provided by the corrupt dems.
OHHHHHHH!!!!! So now it's a "faulty premise." not the dems "[m]ispresenting
case law." I see that the emergency right wing move the goal post mode has
clicked on.
But see, my dear moron, Courts are actually supposed to do nasty things like
making decisions about which "premises" based on the law are actually
correct. That's what the Supreme Court has been doing since Marbury vs.
Madison. I'm sure it must make your little right wing heart ache to know
that there is an institution in America intended to protect the citizens
from assholes such as yourself interpreting the law in any way that suits
them,,,,but, there it is.
> >
> > Nevertheless, Dana is doing what right wingers do. Knowing that their
> > positions are usually in error, they very quickly turn to lies to
bolster
> > their positions. The assumption that the court was never provided the
> exact
> > texts of the statutes in question is right up there with some of the
worst
> > lies and stupidities that have come out of the conservative mafia over
the
> > last eight years. The fact that conservative shills like Dana don't
seem
> to
> > be able to deal with political realities without lies like this is
> probably
> > the best evidence that they can't be trusted to run this country.
> >
> Personal attacks are sure signs that you lack the facts to prove your
point.
Judging from your performance here, you're in a poor position to talk about
"facts." Books, Dana, books....read one sometime.
Gandalf Grey
> > > > > > assume you meant to use the word "misrepresenting." Are you
> > honestly
> > > > > stupid
> > > > > > enough to believe that ANY court in this country will deliver a
> > > verdict
> > > > > > based on case law that's been misrepresented?
> > > > > The Florida SC did. And look at all the courts that use Miller as
if
> > it
> > > > > restricts the individual right to bear arms.
> >
> > The fact that a court doesn't choose to interpret the actual text of a
law
> > in a way that favors right wing extremists doesn't mean that they were
> > presented with a falsified version of the statute in question.
> of the voter, scumbag gore and daley told the court that the case said
that
> dimples can be used.
Assuming that's true, you're stating for the record that the judges and
their clerks and their researchers aren't capable of reading for themselves?
> >
> > > >
> > > > No they did not. You don't learn easily, do you? Where and when
did
> > the
> > > > lawyers representing Vice President Gore provide the court with
> > > > "misrepresented" statutes?
> > > The case law from Il.
> >
> > Great! Show me the "real" version of the statute in question and we'll
> > compare the "real" law with the allegedly falsified version published in
> the
> > brief.
> It has already been posted in more than one thread.
You can't, right? I thought so.
Yeah, I know...you said that....answer the question. Otherwise, consider
shutting up before you begin to look even more stupid than you already do.
Gandalf Grey
It's the only other explanation. Your entire argument rests on the
assumption that the judges did nothing but rely on the case law as stated by
the gore attorneys even though NO court would do that. Apparently, no one
in the court was capable of looking up case law for themselves.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No they did not. You don't learn easily, do you? Where and
when
> > did
> > > > the
> > > > > > lawyers representing Vice President Gore provide the court with
> > > > > > "misrepresented" statutes?
> > > > > The case law from Il.
> > > >
> > > > Great! Show me the "real" version of the statute in question and
> we'll
> > > > compare the "real" law with the allegedly falsified version
published
> in
> > > the
> > > > brief.
> > > It has already been posted in more than one thread.
> >
> > You can't, right? I thought so.
> Yawn
I can see that you tire easily. But facts are tedious especially when they
can't be twisted to agree with your faulty theories.
> You can say whatever you want, will not change the fact that left leaning
> judges are political hacks.
But in order for it to be a fact there has to be some evidence. I doubt
that the entire world is ready to accept your judgement that "left-leaning"
judges are political hacks based on the shoddy knowledge of case law and the
courts that you're demonstrating here.
I mean, come on: you've already demonstrated that you don't seem to know the
difference between "case law" and an argument, nor do you seem to be aware
of the fact that courts have people called clerks and researchers that
[amazing though it may seem] aren't necessarily even of the same political
ilk as the judges they work for. You seem wholly unaware of the fact that
these people are responsible for making sure that the cases and statutes in
question are set out in their proper form along with all relevant case
histories before the arguments are even made. You even seem ignorant of the
fact that the case law in question was quoted exactly in the decision.
With all of that, it's a bit hard to accept your tarring of "left leaning"
judges to heart.
> > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you honestly believe that declarations of law and briefs
> made
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > court are not checked for veracity?
> > > > > > > In most cases yes, but when the gore camp is trying to steal
an
> > > > > election,
> > > > > > > all bets are off.
> > > >
> > > > Do you actually read yourself? Do you honestly believe that more
than
> > > fifty
> > > > percent of America wouldn't be up in arms and the media wouldn't be
> > having
> > > a
> > > > field day if the DNC or the Fl. SC attempted to misprint a statute
so
> > that
> > > > they could obtain a favorable ruling.
> The liberal media, spare me.
What about Fox? Hardly liberal media. What about the Spectator and all
those other charming conservative vehicles that spent the last eight years
drumming to the beat of the RNC? Not one of them failed to note that case
law was intentionally misquoted???????? Getting uncomfortable out on that
limb you're parked on?
>
>
> Did any of the RNC lawyers come
> > out
> > > > of the courtroom stating "that wasn't the actual statute they were
> > looking
> > > > at...they misprinted it!!"
> Yep, that is why it is going to the federal SC.
Which of the RNC's lawyers actually said that the statute text was
misprinted?
> Yawn the gore camp filed a known misrepresentation of case law, the SC
used
> that as their premise for their decision.
So you're now moving back to you're original boner? How did they
"misrepresent" the actual case law? Did they miss some of the text? Did
they say it was from the wrong year, the wrong state? Careful now.
> > > >
> > > > But see, my dear moron, Courts are actually supposed to do nasty
> things
> > > like
> > > > making decisions about which "premises" based on the law are
actually
> > > > correct. That's what the Supreme Court has been doing since Marbury
> vs.
> > > > Madison. I'm sure it must make your little right wing heart ache to
> > know
> > > > that there is an institution in America intended to protect the
> citizens
> > > > from assholes such as yourself interpreting the law in any way that
> > suits
> > > > them,,,,but, there it is.
> Yawn, you prove you have no facts.
On the contrary, facts are exactly what this is about. You're position is
that the democratic lawyers misrepresented case law. It would be very easy
to prove what you're accusing them of doing, but you can't. Instead you're
attempting a snow job with little jingoisms such as "left-leaning hacks."
Your problem is that it's very easy to just read the text. Anyone can do it
and they'll see that the case law is quoted exactly, both by the democratic
lawyers and the judges in their ruling.
> Yawn,, when the left resorts to personal attacks, you know you have won.
And when the right starts yawning you know they need to go back to the RNC
for more talking points.
Marksman
> > >
> >
> > > > No she was following the law. Which cannot be said the same for
> > > Butterworth.
> > >
view
> of
> > > what she tried to do she violated both the spirit and the letter of
the
> > law.
> > > Not surprising, since conservatives like Harris have no respect for
the
> > law.
> >
> >
> > subverting the law, when it doesn't fit your socialist agenda.
>
> Amazing how you right wingers pretend to believe in a "rule of Law" until
a
> court disagrees with your fascist agenda.
A demoncrap court? Puhleeze, even you can't be this ignorant.
James Baker was all for praising
> the Florida Supreme Court until they judged against his case, that's when
> all the paid fascist demonstrators came out of the sewers to
"spontaneously"
> demonstrate for Boy George.
Then you should have left your left wing fascists at home and not
protesting!
Dana
> > restricts the individual right to bear arms.
>
> lawyers representing Vice President Gore provide the court with
> "misrepresented" statutes?
The case law from Il.
Here's a hint, moron...the relevant statutes are
> printed in both the briefs and the decision. It's there in black and
white.
> You can try to make the case that the court misinterpreted the law, but
you
> can't make the case that they weren't given the exact texts of the
statutes
> involved.
team gore argued that IL case law ruled dimples were countable, when in fact
IL courts voted against the counting of dimples
>
> >
> > Are you aware of what
> > > actually goes on in a court of law? Are you aware that the courts
have
> > > their own system of clerks and researchers?
> > And the Fl SC did not research the case law cited. Their decision was
> based
> > on a misrepresentation of the IL case. That case ruled that dimples
cannot
> > be used to determine the intent of the voter, and cannot be counted.
> >
> >
> > Are you even bright enough to
> > > realize that Judges are actually capable of looking up cases on their
> own?
> > Must judges are very capable, but those left leaning judges need to be
> told
> > what to do
> > > Do you honestly believe that declarations of law and briefs made in
the
> > > court are not checked for veracity?
> > In most cases yes, but when the gore camp is trying to steal an
election,
> > all bets are off.
>
> So you're actually going to stick to your stupidity. For those who are
> interested in the truth, the text of the Court's decision is offered at
CNN
It is also on the fl SC page.
> and can also be looked up in Findlaw. Apparently, Dana has decided that
> there's a double-whammy going on here. The court was supplied with a
> misrepresentation of the law and they then, allegedly, went on to
> misinterpret the misrepresentation. Unfortunately, most of the known
> Universe should be able to see that it's pretty nearly impossible to get
> away with standing up in front of a State Supreme Court and misquote laws
as
> a small army of clerks and researchers can attest to. In Dana's case,
there
> might be a small problem in that laws and state statutes are often kept
> hidden in things called books.
It is well known that the Fl SC decision was based on a faulty premise,
provided by the corrupt dems.
>
Philip Bourgeois
Just cut to the chase Dana....Call him a liar....and post more
crap....
Dana
> > > > > assume you meant to use the word "misrepresenting." Are you
> honestly
> > > > stupid
> > > > > enough to believe that ANY court in this country will deliver a
> > verdict
> > > > > based on case law that's been misrepresented?
> > > > The Florida SC did. And look at all the courts that use Miller as if
> it
> > > > restricts the individual right to bear arms.
>
> The fact that a court doesn't choose to interpret the actual text of a law
> in a way that favors right wing extremists doesn't mean that they were
> presented with a falsified version of the statute in question.
of the voter, scumbag gore and daley told the court that the case said that
dimples can be used.
>
> > >
> the
> > > lawyers representing Vice President Gore provide the court with
> > > "misrepresented" statutes?
> > The case law from Il.
>
> Great! Show me the "real" version of the statute in question and we'll
> compare the "real" law with the allegedly falsified version published in
the
> brief.
> >
Dana
opinion. That is not a lie.
Dana
>
> > >
> > > > >
> did
> > > the
> > > > > lawyers representing Vice President Gore provide the court with
> > > > > "misrepresented" statutes?
> > > > The case law from Il.
> > >
> > > Great! Show me the "real" version of the statute in question and
we'll
> > > compare the "real" law with the allegedly falsified version published
in
> > the
> > > brief.
> > It has already been posted in more than one thread.
>
> You can't, right? I thought so.
You can say whatever you want, will not change the fact that left leaning
judges are political hacks.
> > >
> > > > > > > Do you honestly believe that declarations of law and briefs
made
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > court are not checked for veracity?
> > > > > > In most cases yes, but when the gore camp is trying to steal an
> > > > election,
> > > > > > all bets are off.
> > >
> > > Do you actually read yourself? Do you honestly believe that more than
> > fifty
> > > percent of America wouldn't be up in arms and the media wouldn't be
> having
> > a
> > > field day if the DNC or the Fl. SC attempted to misprint a statute so
> that
> > > they could obtain a favorable ruling.
The liberal media, spare me.
Did any of the RNC lawyers come
> out
> > > of the courtroom stating "that wasn't the actual statute they were
> looking
> > > at...they misprinted it!!"
Yep, that is why it is going to the federal SC.
> > >
> > > Are you for real???
Yawn the gore camp filed a known misrepresentation of case law, the SC used
that as their premise for their decision.
> > >
> > > But see, my dear moron, Courts are actually supposed to do nasty
things
> > like
> > > making decisions about which "premises" based on the law are actually
> > > correct. That's what the Supreme Court has been doing since Marbury
vs.
> > > Madison. I'm sure it must make your little right wing heart ache to
> know
> > > that there is an institution in America intended to protect the
citizens
> > > from assholes such as yourself interpreting the law in any way that
> suits
> > > them,,,,but, there it is.
Yawn, you prove you have no facts.
> > >
> > > > >
Dana
> > > Assuming that's true, you're stating for the record that the judges
and
> > > their clerks and their researchers aren't capable of reading for
> > themselves?
> > Now where do you see that.
>
> It's the only other explanation.
Your entire argument rests on the
> assumption that the judges did nothing but rely on the case law as stated
by
> the gore attorneys even though NO court would do that.
Looks like they did, that is why now the Florida SC, after being embarassed
by team gore will be more careful.
Apparently, no one
> in the court was capable of looking up case law for themselves.
Seems to be the case, they were all democraps.
Gandalf Grey
>
> Gandalf Grey <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8vqdun$otl$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > Assuming that's true, you're stating for the record that the judges
> and
> > > > their clerks and their researchers aren't capable of reading for
> > > themselves?
> > > Now where do you see that.
> >
> > It's the only other explanation.
> No it is not.
Give us the other possible explanation. Of course you can't. You haven't
had any facts from the beginning on this.
>
> Your entire argument rests on the
> > assumption that the judges did nothing but rely on the case law as
stated
> by
> > the gore attorneys even though NO court would do that.
> Looks like they did, that is why now the Florida SC, after being
embarassed
> by team gore will be more careful.
It does not look like they did and your willingness to lie about it when
it's simple enough to check up on the truth simply marks you as an idiot.
>
> Apparently, no one
> > in the court was capable of looking up case law for themselves.
> Seems to be the case, they were all democraps.
Your need to fall back on name calling is a nice conclusion to this
discussion. You never had a fact to begin with.
As with most of your posts, the facts aren't there. Like most right wingers
you're only slinging lies.
G
>
>
>
Dana
> >
> > Gandalf Grey <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:8vqdun$otl$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > > Assuming that's true, you're stating for the record that the
judges
> > and
> > > > > their clerks and their researchers aren't capable of reading for
> > > > themselves?
> > > > Now where do you see that.
> > >
> > > It's the only other explanation.
> > No it is not.
>
> had any facts from the beginning on this.
means is no excuse. The gore camp did misrepresent the case law, why the Fl
SC did not verify that case law is unknown. But looking at the dishonesty
most dems engage in with political matters, the court may have just accepted
what gore said, because of promises made for latter. Or the Fl SC could be
as ignorant as most people think, and this just may be te icing on the cake.
> >
> > Your entire argument rests on the
> > > assumption that the judges did nothing but rely on the case law as
> stated
> > by
> > > the gore attorneys even though NO court would do that.
decisions based on the Miller decision.
> > Looks like they did, that is why now the Florida SC, after being
> embarassed
> > by team gore will be more careful.
>
> It does not look like they did and your willingness to lie about it when
> it's simple enough to check up on the truth simply marks you as an idiot.
> >
> > Apparently, no one
> > > in the court was capable of looking up case law for themselves.
> > Seems to be the case, they were all democraps.
>
> Your need to fall back on name calling is a nice conclusion to this
> discussion. You never had a fact to begin with.
>
> As with most of your posts, the facts aren't there. Like most right
wingers
> you're only slinging lies.
You are the one slinging lies and bullshit
>
> G
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Gandalf Grey
> > >
> > > Gandalf Grey <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8vqdun$otl$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > > > Assuming that's true, you're stating for the record that the
> judges
> > > and
> > > > > > their clerks and their researchers aren't capable of reading for
> > > > > themselves?
> > > > > Now where do you see that.
> > > >
> > > > It's the only other explanation.
> > > No it is not.
> >
haven't
> > had any facts from the beginning on this.
> Yawn,
Another yawn. Are you having problems releasing excess air from your brain?
just because you do not think that the dems would resort to dishones
> means is no excuse.
But it looks good when you can't come up with a single example of how they
misquoted or misrepresented the law, nor can you show how the court somehow
ignored the real case law. Face it, you're out on a limb and you're not
doing well.
The gore camp did misrepresent the case law, why the Fl
> SC did not verify that case law is unknown.
We have no evidence that they did not "verify the case law" and about two
hundred years of court history to show that they did.
But looking at the dishonesty
> most dems engage in with political matters, the court may have just
accepted
> what gore said, because of promises made for latter.
But you have no evidence that this is the case.
Or the Fl SC could be
> as ignorant as most people think, and this just may be te icing on the
cake.
Frankly the only one looking ignorant here is you.
> > >
> > > Your entire argument rests on the
> > > > assumption that the judges did nothing but rely on the case law as
> > stated
> > > by
> > > > the gore attorneys even though NO court would do that.
> But Courts have done that and will continue to do that. Look at all the
> decisions based on the Miller decision.
Decisions can be argued, but that's not what you're trying to sell here.
You still haven't shown that case law was ever misrepresented or that the
court failed to adhere to case law. You're still peddling the same lie,
Dana.
>
>
> > > Looks like they did, that is why now the Florida SC, after being
> > embarassed
> > > by team gore will be more careful.
> >
> > It does not look like they did and your willingness to lie about it when
> > it's simple enough to check up on the truth simply marks you as an
idiot.
> > >
> > > Apparently, no one
> > > > in the court was capable of looking up case law for themselves.
> > > Seems to be the case, they were all democraps.
> >
> > Your need to fall back on name calling is a nice conclusion to this
> > discussion. You never had a fact to begin with.
> >
> > As with most of your posts, the facts aren't there. Like most right
> wingers
> > you're only slinging lies.
> You are the one slinging lies and bullshit
Proof, Dana...where's the proof. You're looking pretty bad here.
> >
> > G
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Gandalf Grey
> >
> > And again, you prove that calling your opponents "loons" can't hide the
> fact
> > that your propaganda is shot full of holes. Harris is a republican
animal
> > and her activities in this election bordered on criminal.
>
> Following the law is criminal? You demoncraps sure like to spin!
Funny comment coming from a guy who beleives that Hitler was a leftist even
while the republican party welcomes David Dukes, known nazi, with open arms.
>
Gandalf Grey
Then you admit Hitler was right wing. Thanks. I'm sure David Dukes
appreciates your support.
Gandalf Grey
> > > > > > people" from people like Gore and Daley are specifically aimed
at
> > the
> > > > > > actions and limitations of the Secratary of State...a post, no
> held
> > by
> > > > > Gore
> > > > > > or Daley, but held by Harris, a republican flunky.
> > > > > And again you post your ignorance. What a loon you are.
> > > >
> > > > And again, you prove that calling your opponents "loons" can't hide
> the
> > > fact
> > > > that your propaganda is shot full of holes. Harris is a republican
> > animal
> > > > and her activities in this election bordered on criminal.
> > >
> > > Following the law is criminal? You demoncraps sure like to spin!
> >
> > Funny comment coming from a guy who beleives that Hitler was a leftist
> even
> > while the republican party welcomes David Dukes, known nazi, with open
> arms.
>
arms.
> You need to ask the residents of Louisiana, why they elected a known
racist.
Because they're right wing racists like Dukes, Strom Thurmond, Jessie Helms,
etc.
Marksman
"Gandalf Grey" <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8vsljq$t99$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Marksman <whiney-...@suck.net> wrote in message
> news:oRQT5.2162$nh5.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Gandalf Grey" <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:8vnil3$4gp$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Gandalf Grey <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8vnbch$m8b$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gandalf Grey <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:8vlusu$7r5$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Gandalf Grey <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:8vl1h4$kvm$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > > > > > >
> the
> > > > > actions and limitations of the Secratary of State...a post, no
held
> by
> > > > Gore
> > > > > or Daley, but held by Harris, a republican flunky.
> > > > And again you post your ignorance. What a loon you are.
> > >
> > > And again, you prove that calling your opponents "loons" can't hide
the
> > fact
> > > that your propaganda is shot full of holes. Harris is a republican
> animal
> > > and her activities in this election bordered on criminal.
> >
> > Following the law is criminal? You demoncraps sure like to spin!
>
> Funny comment coming from a guy who beleives that Hitler was a leftist
even
> while the republican party welcomes David Dukes, known nazi, with open
arms.
Where did I ever say your hero Hitler was a leftist?
ROFL!!! Can't you debate without lying? Oh, that is right, you are a
demoncrap. Nevermind.....
Dana
> the
> > > > > actions and limitations of the Secratary of State...a post, no
held
> by
> > > > Gore
> > > > > or Daley, but held by Harris, a republican flunky.
> > > > And again you post your ignorance. What a loon you are.
> > >
> > > And again, you prove that calling your opponents "loons" can't hide
the
> > fact
> > > that your propaganda is shot full of holes. Harris is a republican
> animal
> > > and her activities in this election bordered on criminal.
> >
> > Following the law is criminal? You demoncraps sure like to spin!
>
> Funny comment coming from a guy who beleives that Hitler was a leftist
even
> while the republican party welcomes David Dukes, known nazi, with open
arms.
david duke has not been welcomed into the republican party, with open arms.
Marksman
> appreciates your support.
Wrong again fascist scum... Your hero Hitler was a socialist.
Gandalf Grey
> > appreciates your support.
>
> Wrong again fascist scum... Your hero Hitler was a socialist.
That must make Mao one of your Republican heros as in The People's Republic
of China.
>
Dana
> > > > > > > and her activities in this election bordered on criminal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Following the law is criminal? You demoncraps sure like to spin!
> > > > >
> > > > > Funny comment coming from a guy who beleives that Hitler was a
> leftist
> > > > even
> > > > > while the republican party welcomes David Dukes, known nazi, with
> open
> > > > arms.
> > > >
> > > > Where did I ever say your hero Hitler was a leftist?
> > >
> > > Then you admit Hitler was right wing. Thanks. I'm sure David Dukes
> > > appreciates your support.
> >
> > Wrong again fascist scum... Your hero Hitler was a socialist.
>
> That must make Mao one of your Republican heros as in The People's
Republic
> of China.
Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Castro all leftists, and all with horible
human rights records.
> >
>
>
Marksman
You are really ignorant of the truth.
Gandalf Grey
> > > > > > > > and her activities in this election bordered on criminal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Following the law is criminal? You demoncraps sure like to
spin!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Funny comment coming from a guy who beleives that Hitler was a
> > leftist
> > > > > even
> > > > > > while the republican party welcomes David Dukes, known nazi,
with
> > open
> > > > > arms.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where did I ever say your hero Hitler was a leftist?
> > > >
> > > > Then you admit Hitler was right wing. Thanks. I'm sure David Dukes
> > > > appreciates your support.
> > >
> > > Wrong again fascist scum... Your hero Hitler was a socialist.
> >
> > That must make Mao one of your Republican heros as in The People's
> Republic
> > of China.
>
> human rights records.
Go back to studying the definitions of "case law" and "arguments." You're
even more out of your depth with political history.
"FASCISM: The political system of the extreme right, which incorporates the
principles of the leader [dictator], a one party state, totalitarian
regimentation of economic and social activity, and the arbitrary exercise of
absolute power by the regime. After 1922, Benito Mussolini fashioned the
fascist prototype in Italy and was emulated in the 1930s by Adolf Hitler in
Germany, Francisco Franco in Spain, and Juan Peron in Argentina."
"The American Political Dictionary"
ninth edition.
Harcourt Brace, 1993.
This definition is echoed by about nine other textbooks on Political History
by a wide variety of Political Historians.
Marksman
> > > > > > > > > and her activities in this election bordered on criminal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Following the law is criminal? You demoncraps sure like to
> spin!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Funny comment coming from a guy who beleives that Hitler was a
> > > leftist
> > > > > > even
> > > > > > > while the republican party welcomes David Dukes, known nazi,
> with
> > > open
> > > > > > arms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where did I ever say your hero Hitler was a leftist?
> > > > >
> > > > > Then you admit Hitler was right wing. Thanks. I'm sure David
Dukes
> > > > > appreciates your support.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong again fascist scum... Your hero Hitler was a socialist.
> > >
> > > That must make Mao one of your Republican heros as in The People's
> > Republic
> > > of China.
> >
> > human rights records.
>
> Go back to studying the definitions of "case law" and "arguments." You're
> even more out of your depth with political history.
>
You are just to ignorant. Your left wing fascists prove Dana correct.
Philip Bourgeois
>>They elected a Republican Dana....The fact that he was a racists didn't bother them...Did you know
that the Republican Governor of Louisiana Mike Foster....bought David
Duke's mailing list....Paid big bucks for it too......Fact, not
fiction.....Now I don't figure you to be racist...I don't think all
Republicans are....but entirely too many in the South are....Want me
to explain how I think it came about....? Have you noticed the
Southern Capture of the GOP Leadership??? Have you thought about it?
>
>
gorelvr
bother them...Did you know
> that the Republican Governor of Louisiana Mike Foster....bought David
> Duke's mailing list....Paid big bucks for it too......Fact, not
> fiction.....Now I don't figure you to be racist...I don't think all
> Republicans are....but entirely too many in the South are....Want me
> to explain how I think it came about....? Have you noticed the
> Southern Capture of the GOP Leadership??? Have you thought about it?
racist who is a republican get enough votes to be elected to office. Looks
like both rebublican and democrat people voted for a know racist. This kind
of points towards there are more racist democrats in the south, than racist
republicans.
> >
> >
>
Gandalf Grey
> > > > > > > > and her activities in this election bordered on criminal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Following the law is criminal? You demoncraps sure like to
spin!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Funny comment coming from a guy who beleives that Hitler was a
> > leftist
> > > > > even
> > > > > > while the republican party welcomes David Dukes, known nazi,
with
> > open
> > > > > arms.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where did I ever say your hero Hitler was a leftist?
> > > >
> > > > Then you admit Hitler was right wing. Thanks. I'm sure David Dukes
> > > > appreciates your support.
> > >
> > > Wrong again fascist scum... Your hero Hitler was a socialist.
> >
> > That must make Mao one of your Republican heros as in The People's
> Republic
> > of China.
>
> human rights records.
Hitler was an extreme right wing ruler and nearly every historian recognizes
that fact
Gandalf Grey
> > > > > > > > > > and her activities in this election bordered on
criminal.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Following the law is criminal? You demoncraps sure like to
> > spin!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Funny comment coming from a guy who beleives that Hitler was
a
> > > > leftist
> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > while the republican party welcomes David Dukes, known nazi,
> > with
> > > > open
> > > > > > > arms.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Where did I ever say your hero Hitler was a leftist?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then you admit Hitler was right wing. Thanks. I'm sure David
> Dukes
> > > > > > appreciates your support.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong again fascist scum... Your hero Hitler was a socialist.
> > > >
> > > > That must make Mao one of your Republican heros as in The People's
> > > Republic
> > > > of China.
> > >
horible
> > > human rights records.
> >
You're
> > even more out of your depth with political history.
> >
> > "FASCISM: The political system of the extreme left, which incorporates
the
>
> You are just to ignorant. Your left wing fascists prove Dana correct.
"to" ignorant?
It's morons like you that call any statement by the right wing into
question.
gorelvr
> > > > > > > > > and her activities in this election bordered on criminal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Following the law is criminal? You demoncraps sure like to
> spin!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Funny comment coming from a guy who beleives that Hitler was a
> > > leftist
> > > > > > even
> > > > > > > while the republican party welcomes David Dukes, known nazi,
> with
> > > open
> > > > > > arms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where did I ever say your hero Hitler was a leftist?
> > > > >
> > > > > Then you admit Hitler was right wing. Thanks. I'm sure David
Dukes
> > > > > appreciates your support.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong again fascist scum... Your hero Hitler was a socialist.
> > >
> > > That must make Mao one of your Republican heros as in The People's
> > Republic
> > > of China.
> >
> > human rights records.
>
recognizes
> that fact
Sorry to bust your bubble, but that is not the truth.
>
>
Philip Bourgeois
wrote:
>
>Philip Bourgeois <phi...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
>news:3a22b389...@news.so.centurytel.net...
>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 05:37:25 GMT, "Dana" <ra...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>They elected a Republican Dana....The fact that he was a racists didn't
>bother them...Did you know
>> that the Republican Governor of Louisiana Mike Foster....bought David
>> Duke's mailing list....Paid big bucks for it too......Fact, not
>> fiction.....Now I don't figure you to be racist...I don't think all
>> Republicans are....but entirely too many in the South are....Want me
>> to explain how I think it came about....? Have you noticed the
>> Southern Capture of the GOP Leadership??? Have you thought about it?
>Have you thought about that the south is mostly democrat, so how did a known
>racist who is a republican get enough votes to be elected to office. Looks
>like both rebublican and democrat people voted for a know racist. This kind
>of points towards there are more racist democrats in the south, than racist
>republicans.
>> >
>> >No it doesn't!!!!
>>
>
>
Marksman
> > > > > > > > > > > and her activities in this election bordered on
> criminal.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Following the law is criminal? You demoncraps sure like
to
> > > spin!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Funny comment coming from a guy who beleives that Hitler
was
> a
> > > > > leftist
> > > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > while the republican party welcomes David Dukes, known
nazi,
> > > with
> > > > > open
> > > > > > > > arms.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Where did I ever say your hero Hitler was a leftist?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then you admit Hitler was right wing. Thanks. I'm sure David
> > Dukes
> > > > > > > appreciates your support.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wrong again fascist scum... Your hero Hitler was a socialist.
> > > > >
> > > > > That must make Mao one of your Republican heros as in The People's
> > > > Republic
> > > > > of China.
> > > >
> horible
> > > > human rights records.
> > >
> You're
> > > even more out of your depth with political history.
> > >
> > > "FASCISM: The political system of the extreme left, which incorporates
> the
> >
> > You are just to ignorant. Your left wing fascists prove Dana correct.
>
> "to" ignorant?
>
> It's morons like you that call any statement by the right wing into
> question.
Lord knows nothing you socialist lefties can be believed.
Gandalf Grey
gorelvr <gorel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jjzU5.31815$15.77...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...> news:8vueb1$4os$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...> > news:R4vU5.31212$15.76...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...> > > news:8vtual$210$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > > > > > > > and her activities in this election bordered on
criminal.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Following the law is criminal? You demoncraps sure like to
> > spin!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Funny comment coming from a guy who beleives that Hitler was
a
> > > > leftist
> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > while the republican party welcomes David Dukes, known nazi,
> > with
> > > > open
> > > > > > > arms.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Where did I ever say your hero Hitler was a leftist?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then you admit Hitler was right wing. Thanks. I'm sure David
> Dukes
> > > > > > appreciates your support.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong again fascist scum... Your hero Hitler was a socialist.
> > > >
> > > > That must make Mao one of your Republican heros as in The People's
> > > Republic
> > > > of China.
> > >
horible
> > > human rights records.
> >
> recognizes
> > that fact
>
> Sorry to bust your bubble, but that is not the truth.
Cite the evidence and the authorities to back your claim.
Dana
>
> gorelvr <gorel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jjzU5.31815$15.77...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > and her activities in this election bordered on
> criminal.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Following the law is criminal? You demoncraps sure like
to
> > > spin!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Funny comment coming from a guy who beleives that Hitler
was
> a
> > > > > leftist
> > > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > while the republican party welcomes David Dukes, known
nazi,
> > > with
> > > > > open
> > > > > > > > arms.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Where did I ever say your hero Hitler was a leftist?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then you admit Hitler was right wing. Thanks. I'm sure David
> > Dukes
> > > > > > > appreciates your support.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wrong again fascist scum... Your hero Hitler was a socialist.
> > > > >
> > > > > That must make Mao one of your Republican heros as in The People's
> > > > Republic
> > > > > of China.
> > > >
> horible
> > > > human rights records.
> > >
> > > Hitler was an extreme right wing ruler and nearly every historian
> > recognizes
> > > that fact
> >
> > Sorry to bust your bubble, but that is not the truth.
>
> Cite the evidence and the authorities to back your claim.
History my boy, history.
>
>
Gandalf Grey
So you have no evidence. Thanks for making that plain.
> >
> >
>
>