A man who knows no the meaning of "irony"...
mike weber
[AFP] US President George W. Bush on Thursday strongly condemned the
Myanmar military junta's crackdown on pro-democracy protestors and
called for the release of those who have been jailed.
"I strongly condemn the ongoing actions of the Burmese regime in
arresting, harassing, and assaulting pro-democracy activists for
organizing or participating in peaceful demonstrations," Bush said in
a statement.
He said the activists were merely voicing concerns about recent
dramatic increases in the price of fuel "and their concerns should be
listened to by the regime rather than silenced through force."
[snip]
Nobel Peace Prize winner and democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi's
National League for Democracy overwhelmingly won elections in 1990,
but were never allowed to take office, and she has now spent more than
a decade under house arrest.
[snip]
State Department spokesman Tom Casey said conditions of Myanmar's
prisons were not good, citing the department's annual human rights
reports. One report accused the military junta of holding prisoners in
"harsh and life threatening" conditions.
"But again, the main point is these people shouldn't be in jail in the
first place," Casey said. {more
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070831/ts_afp/usmyanmarrightsprotest_070831031354}
--
mike weber (fairp...@gmail.com)
============================
My Website: http://electronictiger.com
===================================
If you take in a starving dog off the street, and feed him, and make him prosperous, he will not bite you.
This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
- Mark Twain
mike weber
>I don't get this -- you're _offended_ that Bush condemned Myanamar for
>cracking down on pro-democracy protestors? I don't see any irony in
>that, since Bush has never cracked down on American protestors ... was
>that what you were trying to imply?
Lessee, he condemened them for violating people's civil rights. he
condemend them for setting aside the results of a Presidential
election. He condemned them for harassing and/or subverting the
press.
Obviously, nothing like *that* has happened around here.
--
mike weber (fairp...@gmail.com)
============================
My Website: http://electronictiger.com
===================================
No use looking for the answers when the questions are in doubt - Fred leBlanc, "The Love of My Life"
Kip Williams
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:01:45 -0700, JSBass...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I don't get this -- you're _offended_ that Bush condemned Myanamar for
>> cracking down on pro-democracy protestors? I don't see any irony in
>> that, since Bush has never cracked down on American protestors ... was
>> that what you were trying to imply?
>
> Lessee, he condemened them for violating people's civil rights. he
> condemend them for setting aside the results of a Presidential
> election. He condemned them for harassing and/or subverting the
> press.
>
> Obviously, nothing like *that* has happened around here.
Wait... he never cracked down on American protesters? We must be working
with some definition that doesn't include forcing them to go behind
fences into small, out-of-the-way "free speech" zones, doesn't include
arresting people for politely telling the Vice President that they
didn't agree with his policies, and doesn't include protesters being
gassed.
Well, I guess as long as Bush didn't personally herd them into the
zones, put the cuffs on, or hurl the gas canisters, he's off the hook,
by this logic.
Kip W
Dan Goodman
> I don't get this -- you're offended that Bush condemned Myanamar for
> cracking down on pro-democracy protestors? I don't see any irony in
> that, since Bush has never cracked down on American protestors ... was
> that what you were trying to imply?
What, never?
--
Dan Goodman
"You, each of you, have some special wild cards. Play with them.
Find out what makes you different and better. Because it is there,
if only you can find it." Vernor Vinge, _Rainbows End_
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://dangoodman.livejournal.com
mirror: http://dsgood.insanejoural.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
David Friedman
mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:01:45 -0700, JSBass...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >I don't get this -- you're _offended_ that Bush condemned Myanamar for
> >cracking down on pro-democracy protestors? I don't see any irony in
> >that, since Bush has never cracked down on American protestors ... was
> >that what you were trying to imply?
>
> Lessee, he condemened them for violating people's civil rights. he
> condemend them for setting aside the results of a Presidential
> election. He condemned them for harassing and/or subverting the
> press.
>
> Obviously, nothing like *that* has happened around here.
Bush didn't set aside the results of a Presidential election. I don't
think he's harassed or subverted the press, although like other
politicians he does his best to manipulate it in his favor.
You might have argued that he has done his best to make sure that
protesters are kept far from his speeches, but that's still a long way
short of suppressing protest.
Neither Gore nor Kerry was under house arrest, last time I looked.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
Karen Lofstrom
Dan Goodman wrote:
>> I don't get this -- you're offended that Bush condemned Myanamar for
>> cracking down on pro-democracy protestors? I don't see any irony in
>> that, since Bush has never cracked down on American protestors ... was
>> that what you were trying to imply?
>
> What, never?
Well, hardly ever.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------
Maybe in your linear fascist patriarchal "correct" spelling
scheme, it is, but some of us like to thonk outside the bqx
a little. -- Ray Radlein
mike weber
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>Bush didn't set aside the results of a Presidential election. I don't
>think he's harassed or subverted the press, although like other
>politicians he does his best to manipulate it in his favor.
No, but he certainly didn't protest much when the Supreme Court did.
mike weber
wrote:
>In article <46d8b092$0$53620$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com>,
>Dan Goodman wrote:
>
>>> I don't get this -- you're offended that Bush condemned Myanamar for
>>> cracking down on pro-democracy protestors? I don't see any irony in
>>> that, since Bush has never cracked down on American protestors ... was
>>> that what you were trying to imply?
>>
>> What, never?
>
>Well, hardly ever.
The man who said that "there's suh a thing as too much free speech"
lecturing anyone about free speech is ... amusing.
--
mike weber (fairp...@gmail.com)
============================
My Website: http://electronictiger.com
===================================
David Friedman
mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 12:01:23 -0000, lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <46d8b092$0$53620$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com>,
> >Dan Goodman wrote:
> >
> >>> I don't get this -- you're offended that Bush condemned Myanamar for
> >>> cracking down on pro-democracy protestors? I don't see any irony in
> >>> that, since Bush has never cracked down on American protestors ... was
> >>> that what you were trying to imply?
> >>
> >> What, never?
> >
> >Well, hardly ever.
>
> The man who said that "there's suh a thing as too much free speech"
> lecturing anyone about free speech is ... amusing.
"There's such a thing as too much free speech" is current legal
doctrine, and has been for a very long time--the standard examples being
shouting fire in a crowded theater and defamation.
David Friedman
mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:24:14 -0700, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >Bush didn't set aside the results of a Presidential election. I don't
> >think he's harassed or subverted the press, although like other
> >politicians he does his best to manipulate it in his favor.
>
> No, but he certainly didn't protest much when the Supreme Court did.
And did the other side protest when a state Supreme Court did?
That particular election seesawed according to which level of authority
you accepted--and the result was decided by the highest level of
authority in the judicial system.
Kip Williams
> In article <anajd39je5a23vcev...@4ax.com>,
> mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:24:14 -0700, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bush didn't set aside the results of a Presidential election. I don't
>>> think he's harassed or subverted the press, although like other
>>> politicians he does his best to manipulate it in his favor.
>> No, but he certainly didn't protest much when the Supreme Court did.
>
> And did the other side protest when a state Supreme Court did?
Was that when the Florida Supreme Court called for a state-wide recount
in 2000, or do you have something else in mind?
> That particular election seesawed according to which level of authority
> you accepted--and the result was decided by the highest level of
> authority in the judicial system.
Kip W
mike weber
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>That particular election seesawed according to which level of authority
>you accepted--and the result was decided by the highest level of
>authority in the judicial system.
Which essentially reversed itself to make the Come Out Right.
mike weber
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <toajd31alo17dbb2q...@4ax.com>,
> mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The man who said that "there's suh a thing as too much free speech"
>> lecturing anyone about free speech is ... amusing.
>
>"There's such a thing as too much free speech" is current legal
>doctrine, and has been for a very long time--the standard examples being
>shouting fire in a crowded theater and defamation.
George W. Bush said it about repoprters and copmmentators pointing
pout little unpleasantnesses in his political history.
David Friedman
mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 12:10:18 -0700, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >That particular election seesawed according to which level of authority
> >you accepted--and the result was decided by the highest level of
> >authority in the judicial system.
>
> Which essentially reversed itself to make the Come Out Right.
Which reversed the court below.
mike weber
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <i1ijd3pmhjli15qv6...@4ax.com>,
> mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 12:10:18 -0700, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >That particular election seesawed according to which level of authority
>> >you accepted--and the result was decided by the highest level of
>> >authority in the judicial system.
>>
>> Which essentially reversed itself to make the Come Out Right.
>
>Which reversed the court below.
Was it the Florida Court or (as i'm recalling it) SCOTUSt that issued
two different rulings about a week apart and essentially reversed
itself?
mike weber
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>"There's such a thing as too much free speech" is current legal
>doctrine, and has been for a very long time--the standard examples being
>shouting fire in a crowded theater and defamation.
Uh huh.
As Peter David once said in his blog, do you really want to use the
"fire in a crowded theater" line in this discussion, in which we are
talking about repression rather than reasonable limitations?
uoting Peter's summary of the case:
[quote]
What is often glossed over is that Holmes' oft' misquoted statement
was part of a decision that supported a staggeringly grotesque abuse
of free speech. Holmes' statement came about because of "Schenck v
United States" (1919). Charles Schenck, secretary of the Philadelphia
socialist party, distributed a pamphlet to draftees stating that, in
his opinion, the draft was a violation of the anti-slavery 13th
amendment and that, if they agreed with him, they should seek redress
of the law. That was all he did. He didn't urge violent reform. He
didn't cause a panic. To the best of my knowledge, he didn't even
convince one person to avoid the draft. But for his "crime," he was
found guilty under the Espionage Act of 1917 and sentenced to FIFTEEN
YEARS IN JAIL. Nor was that the maximum sentence: He could have gotten
up to twenty years and a $10,000 fine.
Nor was he alone. Hundreds of people were arrested, tried and jailed
under that Act, some for doing nothing more than making speeches
protesting the US getting involved in the World War.
Schenck's case was appealed to the Supreme Court and, horrifically,
they supported the findings. Holmes, writing the majority opinion (in
which the "fire" analogy was used) felt the government was within its
rights--at time of war--to jail dissenters since they presented (and
here was the first use of the phrase) "a clear and present danger."
[snip]
So Americans may want to think twice about trotting out that Holmes
quote when they consider that it had nothing to do with theaters,
fire, or panic, and instead was used to buttress the depriving of
Americans their freedom simply for speaking their mind.
[/quote]
I think it's still on the books. (It certainly was when Nixon used it
against Ellsberg.) I more than half believe that the only reason Bush
& Co haven't used it to jail dissenters is that they haven't thought
of it.
A fascinating debunking of Holmes can be found here:
http://www.godofthemachine.com/archives/00000320.html, entitled
"Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (Bogus American Sage Series, Part I)"
A representative paragraph (regarding Holes' dissent in "Abrams vs,
United States", 1919, another case involving the Espionage Act):
[quote]
Cold comfort for the civil libertarian. Free speech, according to
Holmes, is good because the best โtest of truthโ โ a word that, given
his philosophy, he is not strictly entitled to โ โis the power of the
thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.โ That
millions of American adults, having profited from two centuries of
free speech, continue to believe in astrology, the healing power of
crystals, and buying real estate with no money down might seem to put
this theory in some doubt. Fortunately it is only the theory of
Justice Holmes. The theory of our Constitution is that suppressing
speech is itself tyrannical and the shortest route to further tyranny.
[/quote]
David Friedman
mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 12:08:27 -0700, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >"There's such a thing as too much free speech" is current legal
> >doctrine, and has been for a very long time--the standard examples being
> >shouting fire in a crowded theater and defamation.
>
> Uh huh.
>
> As Peter David once said in his blog, do you really want to use the
> "fire in a crowded theater" line in this discussion, in which we are
> talking about repression rather than reasonable limitations?
You gave a quote from Bush, with the implication that it was obviously
unreasonable. I pointed out that the quote corresponded to the usual
view of the subject.
You may wish to talk about repression, but all you offered was evidence
that Bush thought there was some limit to free speech. So, I expect, do
you.
mike weber
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <u3ckd311g7j1td5o7...@4ax.com>,
> mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 12:08:27 -0700, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"There's such a thing as too much free speech" is current legal
>> >doctrine, and has been for a very long time--the standard examples being
>> >shouting fire in a crowded theater and defamation.
>>
>> Uh huh.
>>
>> As Peter David once said in his blog, do you really want to use the
>> "fire in a crowded theater" line in this discussion, in which we are
>> talking about repression rather than reasonable limitations?
>
>You gave a quote from Bush, with the implication that it was obviously
>unreasonable. I pointed out that the quote corresponded to the usual
>view of the subject.
You fail to respond to this amplification of my original quote from
the Shrub:
[quote]
George W. Bush said it about repoprters and commentators pointing
out little unpleasantnesses in his political history.
[/quote]
Hardly the same thing as "shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre."
Especially since "shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre" is both legal
and commendable if there *is* a fire.
And what was being pointed out about Bush's political (and business)
career was true.
>
>You may wish to talk about repression, but all you offered was evidence
>that Bush thought there was some limit to free speech. So, I expect, do
>you.
--
David Friedman
mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 23:04:32 -0700, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <u3ckd311g7j1td5o7...@4ax.com>,
> > mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 12:08:27 -0700, David Friedman
> >> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"There's such a thing as too much free speech" is current legal
> >> >doctrine, and has been for a very long time--the standard examples being
> >> >shouting fire in a crowded theater and defamation.
> >>
> >> Uh huh.
> >>
> >> As Peter David once said in his blog, do you really want to use the
> >> "fire in a crowded theater" line in this discussion, in which we are
> >> talking about repression rather than reasonable limitations?
> >
> >You gave a quote from Bush, with the implication that it was obviously
> >unreasonable. I pointed out that the quote corresponded to the usual
> >view of the subject.
>
> You fail to respond to this amplification of my original quote from
> the Shrub:
>
> [quote]
>
> George W. Bush said it about repoprters and commentators pointing
> out little unpleasantnesses in his political history.
>
> [/quote]
>
> Hardly the same thing as "shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre."
My reference to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater was a response to
your original statement, not to whatever Bush did or didn't say. So
there was no need to discuss whether it was or wasn't consistent with
your later amplification.
I suppose if you had given enough information so that I could form an
opinion of what Bush actually said and meant, I might have commented on
that--but given the disjunct between your summaries of the election
result and what happened, I didn't take your one sentence statement as
sufficient to do that.
Keith F. Lynch
> Nor was he alone. Hundreds of people were arrested, tried and
> jailed under that Act, some for doing nothing more than making
> speeches protesting the US getting involved in the World War.
This is one reason why I think those who think the current president
is the worst president ever need to get some perspective. As bad as
"W" is, he could be far, far worse. And other presidents have been.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Daniel R. Reitman
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>And did the other side protest when a state Supreme Court did?
>. . . .
How about the partisan rulings of the Secretary of that State?
Dan, ad nauseam
David Friedman
The side she ruled against protested, the side she ruled for didn't.
Ditto for the next two rulings.
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> In article <juqgd35urj1tjrlc79geq9i2o9fcfsl...@4ax.com>,
> mike weber <fairport...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:01:45 -0700, JSBassior2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >I don't get this -- you're _offended_ that Bush condemned Myanamar for
> > >cracking down on pro-democracy protestors? I don't see any irony in
> > >that, since Bush has never cracked down on American protestors ... was
> > >that what you were trying to imply?
>
> > Lessee, he condemened them for violating people's civil rights. he
> > condemend them for setting aside the results of a Presidential
> > election. He condemned them for harassing and/or subverting the
> > press.
>
> > Obviously, nothing like *that* has happened around here.
>
> Bush didn't set aside the results of a Presidential election. I don't
> think he's harassed or subverted the press, although like other
> politicians he does his best to manipulate it in his favor.
>
> You might have argued that he has done his best to make sure that
> protesters are kept far from his speeches, but that's still a long way
> short of suppressing protest.
That's bending over backward for understatement.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/silenced.html
Remember when I apologized for accusing you of supporting Bush. I
made it provisional because I couldn't find specific posts of yours,
particulary with Google Groups being in its current state.
This is exactly the sort of post I've been seeing from you. Finding
every loophole, splitting every hair in order to make it seem
reasonable and rational to allow the country to slip ever further down
the slippery slope.
The press doesn't have to be gagged actively and obviously. They'll
do it themselves to curry favor with whomever will promise them
greater market share and their stockholder greater riches.
It's always been about money for the few, not the many.
And given your past statements on climate change, I'll add an
observation of mine about the beliefs of the Very Serious People of
Washington:
Accumulating trillions of dollars in debt (not to be paid by rich
people) to occupy Iraq (and soon Iran if Cheney has his way) in order
to enrich the fossil fuel industry and pump billions of more tons of
greenhouse gases to generate a positive feedback loop of warming,
rational.
Invest it on non-fossil fuel technologies to remake the American
economy for the 21st century, irrational.
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 12:01:23 -0000, lofst...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <46d8b092$0$53620$80460...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com>,
> >Dan Goodman wrote:
>
> >>> I don't get this -- you're offended that Bush condemned Myanamar for
> >>> cracking down on pro-democracy protestors? I don't see any irony in
> >>> that, since Bush has never cracked down on American protestors ... was
> >>> that what you were trying to imply?
>
> >> What, never?
>
> >Well, hardly ever.
>
> The man who said that "there's suh a thing as too much free speech"
> lecturing anyone about free speech is ... amusing.
Even better, the man who gave a speech about free speech while his
flunkies were suppressing it:
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/silenced.html
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> In article <houkd3h3q509cflo09p2mo3b9vqqcjf...@4ax.com>,
> mike weber <fairport...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 23:04:32 -0700, David Friedman
>
> > >In article <u3ckd311g7j1td5o7nkkdlla6r33hj1...@4ax.com>,
What you don't do any research of your own into these matters? The
views of the POTUS on free speech are not important?
David Friedman
Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I suppose if you had given enough information so that I could form an
> > opinion of what Bush actually said and meant, I might have commented on
> > that--but given the disjunct between your summaries of the election
> > result and what happened, I didn't take your one sentence statement as
> > sufficient to do that.
>
> What you don't do any research of your own into these matters? The
> views of the POTUS on free speech are not important?
Not a subject of special interest to me, no. He isn't planning to run
again, and if he were I wouldn't be voting for him anyway. If I made a
serious attempt to research every claim made in every online
conversation I'm a part of, I wouldn't have much time left to do
anything more interesting.
A quick google on "There's such a thing as too much free speech" found
one hit--this thread. A google on "too much free speech" and "George
Bush" found lots of hits, but none of the bunch I looked at involved
Bush making the statement.
Further googling found assertions like the one in this thread, but so
far no actual quote in context.
David Friedman
Mark_R...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 31, 7:24 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:
> > In article <juqgd35urj1tjrlc79geq9i2o9fcfsl...@4ax.com>,
> > mike weber <fairport...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:01:45 -0700, JSBassior2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > >I don't get this -- you're _offended_ that Bush condemned Myanamar for
> > > >cracking down on pro-democracy protestors? I don't see any irony in
> > > >that, since Bush has never cracked down on American protestors ... was
> > > >that what you were trying to imply?
> >
> > > Lessee, he condemened them for violating people's civil rights. he
> > > condemend them for setting aside the results of a Presidential
> > > election. He condemned them for harassing and/or subverting the
> > > press.
> >
> > > Obviously, nothing like *that* has happened around here.
> >
> > Bush didn't set aside the results of a Presidential election. I don't
> > think he's harassed or subverted the press, although like other
> > politicians he does his best to manipulate it in his favor.
> >
> > You might have argued that he has done his best to make sure that
> > protesters are kept far from his speeches, but that's still a long way
> > short of suppressing protest.
>
> That's bending over backward for understatement.
>
> http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/silenced.html
Which described what I just said above.
>
> Remember when I apologized for accusing you of supporting Bush. I
> made it provisional because I couldn't find specific posts of yours,
> particulary with Google Groups being in its current state.
>
> This is exactly the sort of post I've been seeing from you. Finding
> every loophole, splitting every hair in order to make it seem
> reasonable and rational to allow the country to slip ever further down
> the slippery slope.
As I may have said before, the problem is the assumption that all
arguments are about which side you are on. I don't support Bush--so far
as I can tell, he's done an unusually bad job of being President. But I
also don't support the sort of rhetorical exaggeration that the post I
responded to engages in. I don't pick my arguments exclusively on the
grounds of "if I like the conclusion I'll support the argument, if I
don't I'll oppose it."
...
> And given your past statements on climate change, I'll add an
> observation of mine about the beliefs of the Very Serious People of
> Washington:
>
> Accumulating trillions of dollars in debt (not to be paid by rich
> people) to occupy Iraq (and soon Iran if Cheney has his way) in order
> to enrich the fossil fuel industry and pump billions of more tons of
> greenhouse gases to generate a positive feedback loop of warming,
> rational.
I'm a little puzzled at your view of the world. If the effect of the war
was to drive up the price of fossil fuels, thus enriching the industry,
it was also to decrease the use of fossil fuels, thus reducing the
amount of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere.
Or in other words, I think you carry the policy I am arguing against
above even further--to the point of "believe whatever makes the bad guys
bad guys and the good guys good guys, whether or not the resulting set
of beliefs is internally consistent."
JSBass...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:01:45 -0700, JSBassior2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >I don't get this -- you're _offended_ that Bush condemned Myanamar for
> >cracking down on pro-democracy protestors? I don't see any irony in
> >that, since Bush has never cracked down on American protestors ... was
> >that what you were trying to imply?
>
> Lessee, he condemened them for violating people's civil rights. he
> condemend them for setting aside the results of a Presidential
> election. He condemned them for harassing and/or subverting the
> press.
>
> Obviously, nothing like *that* has happened around here.
You could argue that Bush's detention of American citizens who he has
accused of joining the Terrorists counts as "violating people's civil
rights." He hasn't set aside the results of any Presidential
elections or harrassed or subverted the press, though.
Karl Johanson
> I'm a little puzzled at your view of the world. If the effect of the
> war
> was to drive up the price of fossil fuels, thus enriching the
> industry,
> it was also to decrease the use of fossil fuels, thus reducing the
> amount of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere.
Higher fossil fuel prices can lead to more use. Higher prices means
higher tax revenues to governments, per unit sold. The prospect of more
fossil fuel tax revenues can lead to some politicians okaying fossil
fuel power plants, while denying applications to build wind or nuclear
plants. Similarly, they might support a proposal to use diesel busses,
over a proposal to use electric buses powered by nuclear energy.
Karl Johanson
mike weber
As to the first, you're right, he didn't, merely benefited from it
(though his campaign actively connived at it).
As to the second, paying reporters to write favourable stories and
supplying video press releases that look like news stories to local
stations to be run as if they *are* news stories sounds like
"subverting" to me.
dwight...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:40:45 -0700, JSBassior2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Aug 31, 12:30 pm, mike weber <fairport...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:01:45 -0700, JSBassior2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >I don't get this -- you're _offended_ that Bush condemned Myanamar for
> >> >cracking down on pro-democracy protestors? I don't see any irony in
> >> >that, since Bush has never cracked down on American protestors ... was
> >> >that what you were trying to imply?
>
> >> Lessee, he condemened them for violating people's civil rights. he
> >> condemend them for setting aside the results of a Presidential
> >> election. He condemned them for harassing and/or subverting the
> >> press.
>
> >> Obviously, nothing like *that* has happened around here.
>
> >You could argue that Bush's detention of American citizens who he has
> >accused of joining the Terrorists counts as "violating people's civil
> >rights." He hasn't set aside the results of any Presidential
> >elections or harrassed or subverted the press, though.
>
> As to the first, you're right, he didn't, merely benefited from it
> (though his campaign actively connived at it).
Huh? Someone forced 'Lil Boots to become President? He couldn't have
stepped aside of his own volition? No, in point of fact setting aside
the results of a Presidential election could not have happened without
his cooperation. This is so obvious and elementary, I've got to
append a 'duh'.
He was not the only one involved, of course, and he couldn't have done
it without the help of others, But the above dissembling only works if
you add the word 'unilaterally', at which point you are arguing
something else.
David G. Bell
karljo...@shaw.ca "Karl Johanson" wrote:
One little insanity in the UK. In the tax system for road fuels there is
a classification for "biofuel", which allows it to be taxed at a
different rate. A few years ago, they realised people were adding
unprocessed vegetable oil, which doesn't meet the spec for biofuel, to
ordinary diesel. Since it wasn't biofuel it had to be taxed at the full
rate.
Incidentally, they also found some illegality in using it off-road. They
add a chemical marker to diesel for off-road uses, such as agriculture
and as a heating oil, and there's no marker. So it can't be
distinguished from a road fuel.
The interesting thing is that British agriculture, even taking
fertiliser into account, produces more energy than it uses. The energy
per tonne isn't the same, but 400 tonnes of wheat needs maybe thirty
tonnes of fertiliser and 5 tonnes of fuel. That's what using solar
energy does for you.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was
turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins.
JSBass...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Sep 8, 5:58 am, mike weber <fairport...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:40:45 -0700, JSBassior2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >On Aug 31, 12:30 pm, mike weber <fairport...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:01:45 -0700, JSBassior2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> >I don't get this -- you're _offended_ that Bush condemned Myanamar for
> > >> >cracking down on pro-democracy protestors? I don't see any irony in
> > >> >that, since Bush has never cracked down on American protestors ... was
> > >> >that what you were trying to imply?
>
> > >> Lessee, he condemened them for violating people's civil rights. he
> > >> condemend them for setting aside the results of a Presidential
> > >> election. He condemned them for harassing and/or subverting the
> > >> press.
>
> > >> Obviously, nothing like *that* has happened around here.
>
> > >You could argue that Bush's detention of American citizens who he has
> > >accused of joining the Terrorists counts as "violating people's civil
> > >rights." He hasn't set aside the results of any Presidential
> > >elections or harrassed or subverted the press, though.
>
> > As to the first, you're right, he didn't, merely benefited from it
> > (though his campaign actively connived at it).
>
> Huh? Someone forced 'Lil Boots to become President? He couldn't have
> stepped aside of his own volition?
Why should he have "stepped aside?"
> No, in point of fact setting aside
> the results of a Presidential election could not have happened without
> his cooperation. This is so obvious and elementary, I've got to
> append a 'duh'.
Bush did not "set aside" the results of any Presidential election. It
is true that he won one with a minority of the popular vote, but that
is possible in our electoral system. Winning that way is not cheating
or "setting aside" any results.
If it's so "obvious and elementary" that he did, why was he
inaugurated President in January 2001 without the event provoking a
coup or general revolt?
JSBass...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:40:45 -0700, JSBassior2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >You could argue that Bush's detention of American citizens who he has
> >accused of joining the Terrorists counts as "violating people's civil
> >rights." He hasn't set aside the results of any Presidential
> >elections or harrassed or subverted the press, though.
>
> As to the first, you're right, he didn't, merely benefited from it
> (though his campaign actively connived at it).
??? When did Bush "set aside" a Presidential election?
(Hint: in the American system you win if you get the most ELECTORAL
votes).
> As to the second, paying reporters to write favourable stories and
> supplying video press releases that look like news stories to local
> stations to be run as if they *are* news stories sounds like
> "subverting" to me.
Because reporters are all spineless and mindless?
- Jordan
Seth
<JSBass...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I don't get this -- you're _offended_ that Bush condemned Myanamar for
>cracking down on pro-democracy protestors? I don't see any irony in
>that, since Bush has never cracked down on American protestors ... was
>that what you were trying to imply?
Does the phrase "free speech zone" have a referent in your universe?
Seth
Seth
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>Bush didn't set aside the results of a Presidential election.
That's arguable.
>You might have argued that he has done his best to make sure that
>protesters are kept far from his speeches, but that's still a long way
>short of suppressing protest.
Having people arrested for wearing a political t-shirt is suppressing
protest.
Keeping people off supposedly-public streets if they want to say
anything anti-Bush is suppressing protest.
Seth
Seth
mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Especially since "shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre" is both legal
>and commendable if there *is* a fire.
It's legal, but not commendable: it leads to riots and people getting
trampled.
Much better is what happened some years ago with a magician on stage
(the way I remember hearing about it): he was quietly informed that
there was a fire, so he asked the audience to follow him outside to
see his next trick.
Seth
mike weber
>If it's so "obvious and elementary" that he did, why was he
>inaugurated President in January 2001 without the event provoking a
>coup or general revolt?
"You can fool all of the people [or a lot of them] some of the
time..."
mike weber
>??? When did Bush "set aside" a Presidential election?
>
>(Hint: in the American system you win if you get the most ELECTORAL
>votes).
Bush did not (or at leasst had not legally) amassed the number of
electoral votes necessary when the Supreme Court awarded Florida's
votes to him.
mike weber
wrote:
Okay - "raising the alarm", not necessarily "shouting fire".
"Mr Sands is in the building"
Paul Dormer
fairp...@gmail.com (mike weber) wrote:
> Okay - "raising the alarm", not necessarily "shouting fire".
>
> "Mr Sands is in the building"
I've heard that that is the code word used by the Royal Festival Hall
in London. Which led one wag to concoct the announcement, "In
tonight's concert, Mr. Sands Bird by Igor Stravinsky is being replaced
by the Ritual Mr. Sands Music by Manuel de Mr. Sands."
David Friedman
mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:52:54 -0700, JSBass...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >??? When did Bush "set aside" a Presidential election?
> >
> >(Hint: in the American system you win if you get the most ELECTORAL
> >votes).
>
> Bush did not (or at leasst had not legally) amassed the number of
> electoral votes necessary when the Supreme Court awarded Florida's
> votes to him.
In the American system, the final authority on disputed legal questions
is the Supreme Court.
mike weber
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <ik5hf39e5at1tsp4f...@4ax.com>,
> mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:52:54 -0700, JSBass...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >??? When did Bush "set aside" a Presidential election?
>> >
>> >(Hint: in the American system you win if you get the most ELECTORAL
>> >votes).
>>
>> Bush did not (or at leasst had not legally) amassed the number of
>> electoral votes necessary when the Supreme Court awarded Florida's
>> votes to him.
>
>In the American system, the final authority on disputed legal questions
>is the Supreme Court.
Finest court political considerations can buy.
mike weber
I don't know if it's just that hall - Ric Sanders wrote a piece by
that title for Fairport Convention, and mentions in the liner notes
that it's a theatrical signal for a fire backstage...
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:51:20 -0700, JSBass...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>If it's so "obvious and elementary" that he did, why was he
>>inaugurated President in January 2001 without the event provoking a
>>coup or general revolt?
>
>"You can fool all of the people [or a lot of them] some of the
>time..."
There was a significant protest. Many fans were part of it.
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com
Keith F. Lynch
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> In the American system, the final authority on disputed legal
>> questions is the Supreme Court.
> Finest court political considerations can buy.
What would have happened if all nine justices had recused themselves
on the grounds that they had personal preferences as to the outcome?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Kip Williams
> mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>> In the American system, the final authority on disputed legal
>>> questions is the Supreme Court.
>
>> Finest court political considerations can buy.
>
> What would have happened if all nine justices had recused themselves
> on the grounds that they had personal preferences as to the outcome?
Or if gravity had suddenly reversed, causing items to fall upward!
Kip W
mike weber
wrote:
>mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>> In the American system, the final authority on disputed legal
>>> questions is the Supreme Court.
>
>> Finest court political considerations can buy.
>
>What would have happened if all nine justices had recused themselves
>on the grounds that they had personal preferences as to the outcome?
Congress?
Aaron Denney
> mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>> In the American system, the final authority on disputed legal
>>> questions is the Supreme Court.
>
>> Finest court political considerations can buy.
>
> What would have happened if all nine justices had recused themselves
> on the grounds that they had personal preferences as to the outcome?
I expect that that would count as the U.S. Supreme Court not taking the
case, thus the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court would stand.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Daniel R. Reitman
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In the American system, the final authority on disputed legal questions
>is the Supreme Court.
At least as to federal issues. I still think the Court stretched on
that point.
Dan, ad nauseam
David Friedman
The Court is also the final authority on what is or is not a federal
issue.
I'm not arguing that they were right--I didn't pay enough attention to
the arguments to have an opinion. Merely that the procedures in place
were indeed followed.
dwight...@gmail.com
I don't understand the relevance of 'final authority', actually. Set
aside is set aside, legally or illegally. And, going back to the
original point, this wouldn't have been a problem if Bush hadn't gone
along with it. Yes, the man did set aside the results of an
election. Did he have help, lot's of it?
You Betcha.
David Friedman
"dwight...@gmail.com" <dwight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 9:34 pm, Daniel R. Reitman <dreit...@spiritone.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 06:59:00 -0700, David Friedman
> >
> > <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > >In the American system, the final authority on disputed legal questions
> > >is the Supreme Court.
> >
> > At least as to federal issues. I still think the Court stretched on
> > that point.
>
> I don't understand the relevance of 'final authority', actually. Set
> aside is set aside, legally or illegally.
The problem is with defining "the results of an election." The results
were disputed, and the court came down on one side of the dispute.
> And, going back to the
> original point, this wouldn't have been a problem if Bush hadn't gone
> along with it. Yes, the man did set aside the results of an
> election. Did he have help, lot's of it?
>
> You Betcha.
--
dwight...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article <1190866004.528354.275...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "dwight.thi...@gmail.com" <dwight.thi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 9:34 pm, Daniel R. Reitman <dreit...@spiritone.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 06:59:00 -0700, David Friedman
>
> > > <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > > >In the American system, the final authority on disputed legal questions
> > > >is the Supreme Court.
>
> > > At least as to federal issues. I still think the Court stretched on
> > > that point.
>
> > I don't understand the relevance of 'final authority', actually. Set
> > aside is set aside, legally or illegally.
>
> The problem is with defining "the results of an election." The results
> were disputed, and the court came down on one side of the dispute.
Sigh. David, at this point, I put you in the category of Jordan
Bassior, James Donald, et al. Now, if you would like, acknowledge
your mistakes once in a while - like your stupid math mistakes, or
inability to distinguish between household and personal income,
or . . . you get the idea. But you refuse to do so. So why should I
engage you? Or Bassior, or Donald, or Seth, etc.
I need hardly point out, for example, that, as usual, you are again
mischaractierizing what happened. In fact, it would do no good, and
you wouldn't budge. So conversation with you is pointless.
mike weber
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <lk5mf3dbvcsn41meb...@4ax.com>,
> Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 06:59:00 -0700, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In the American system, the final authority on disputed legal questions
>> >is the Supreme Court.
>>
>> At least as to federal issues. I still think the Court stretched on
>> that point.
>
>The Court is also the final authority on what is or is not a federal
>issue.
>
>I'm not arguing that they were right--I didn't pay enough attention to
>the arguments to have an opinion. Merely that the procedures in place
>were indeed followed.
They ruled on matters of state law.
David Friedman
mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:49:15 -0700, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <lk5mf3dbvcsn41meb...@4ax.com>,
> > Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 06:59:00 -0700, David Friedman
> >> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In the American system, the final authority on disputed legal questions
> >> >is the Supreme Court.
> >>
> >> At least as to federal issues. I still think the Court stretched on
> >> that point.
> >
> >The Court is also the final authority on what is or is not a federal
> >issue.
> >
> >I'm not arguing that they were right--I didn't pay enough attention to
> >the arguments to have an opinion. Merely that the procedures in place
> >were indeed followed.
>
> They ruled on matters of state law.
Deciding whether they have jurisdiction is one of the things that the
procedures in place permit them to do.
mike weber
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <0qt2g3deno5u2rndc...@4ax.com>,
> mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:49:15 -0700, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <lk5mf3dbvcsn41meb...@4ax.com>,
>> > Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 06:59:00 -0700, David Friedman
>> >> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In the American system, the final authority on disputed legal questions
>> >> >is the Supreme Court.
>> >>
>> >> At least as to federal issues. I still think the Court stretched on
>> >> that point.
>> >
>> >The Court is also the final authority on what is or is not a federal
>> >issue.
>> >
>> >I'm not arguing that they were right--I didn't pay enough attention to
>> >the arguments to have an opinion. Merely that the procedures in place
>> >were indeed followed.
>>
>> They ruled on matters of state law.
>
>Deciding whether they have jurisdiction is one of the things that the
>procedures in place permit them to do.
Which, i bleieve, is one of the eevull "Activist Courft" things that
Republicans often object to.
Unless, of course, it benefits them.
David Friedman
mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think so.
The usual objection isn't that the court gets to decide whether it has
jurisdiction but only that on that question (and others) it chooses to
make the wrong decision.
mike weber
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <vi63g3t2dp5j42du2...@4ax.com>,
> mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:23:06 -0700, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> >Deciding whether they have jurisdiction is one of the things that the
>> >procedures in place permit them to do.
>>
>> Which, i bleieve, is one of the eevull "Activist Courft" things that
>> Republicans often object to.
>
>I don't think so.
>
>The usual objection isn't that the court gets to decide whether it has
>jurisdiction but only that on that question (and others) it chooses to
>make the wrong decision.
Right - it's okay so long as the make the "right" decision.
Sort of like the article i chanced across a while back about the
mental and moral gyrations that anti-abortion types put themselves
through to justify their own abortions.
David Friedman
mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:20:39 -0700, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <vi63g3t2dp5j42du2...@4ax.com>,
> > mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:23:06 -0700, David Friedman
> >> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Deciding whether they have jurisdiction is one of the things that the
> >> >procedures in place permit them to do.
> >>
> >> Which, i bleieve, is one of the eevull "Activist Courft" things that
> >> Republicans often object to.
> >
> >I don't think so.
> >
> >The usual objection isn't that the court gets to decide whether it has
> >jurisdiction but only that on that question (and others) it chooses to
> >make the wrong decision.
>
> Right - it's okay so long as the make the "right" decision.
Your position as well. You think the right decision was to let the
Florida Supreme Court decision stand--and that not making that decision
amounted to stealing the election (or perhaps that part of the claim was
an earlier poster in the thread).
> Sort of like the article i chanced across a while back about the
> mental and moral gyrations that anti-abortion types put themselves
> through to justify their own abortions.
I don't see why it requires mental gyrations to argue that the Court
ought to make a different decision that it did in some particular case.
It's something people quite routinely do. Indeed, once in a while the
Court does it, when reversing a past decision.
mike weber
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <2po3g35386v87ve0r...@4ax.com>,
> mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:20:39 -0700, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> >The usual objection isn't that the court gets to decide whether it has
>> >jurisdiction but only that on that question (and others) it chooses to
>> >make the wrong decision.
>>
>> Right - it's okay so long as the make the "right" decision.
>
>Your position as well. You think the right decision was to let the
>Florida Supreme Court decision stand--and that not making that decision
>amounted to stealing the election (or perhaps that part of the claim was
>an earlier poster in the thread).
No, i think the right decision was to stay the hell out of what should
have been strictly a matter of Florida State law.
Now, i might well have bitched about what the Florida Court eventually
decided, but that's another question.
David Friedman
mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:44:15 -0700, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <2po3g35386v87ve0r...@4ax.com>,
> > mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:20:39 -0700, David Friedman
> >> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >> >The usual objection isn't that the court gets to decide whether it has
> >> >jurisdiction but only that on that question (and others) it chooses to
> >> >make the wrong decision.
> >>
> >> Right - it's okay so long as the make the "right" decision.
> >
> >Your position as well. You think the right decision was to let the
> >Florida Supreme Court decision stand--and that not making that decision
> >amounted to stealing the election (or perhaps that part of the claim was
> >an earlier poster in the thread).
>
> No, i think the right decision was to stay the hell out of what should
> have been strictly a matter of Florida State law.
Which would have allowed the Florida decision to stand, which is what I
just said.
I should add that, while you are entitled to your opinion, you ought not
to be so confident about it, given very nearly zero expertise on a
moderately technical issue about which people who do have expertise
appear to disagree. It was, after all, a federal election.
Aaron Denney
Technically, It was a state electing electors who would then participate
in a federal election.
David Friedman
Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
And how they do so is constrained by federal considerations.
dwight...@gmail.com
> On 2007-10-02, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <hci4g39vmvcajunes6gl28efp9kt6ac...@4ax.com>,
> > mike weber <fairport...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:44:15 -0700, David Friedman
>
> >> >In article <2po3g35386v87ve0r6j7k995bvoorsq...@4ax.com>,
> >> > mike weber <fairport...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:20:39 -0700, David Friedman
> >> >> <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >The usual objection isn't that the court gets to decide whether it has
> >> >> >jurisdiction but only that on that question (and others) it chooses to
> >> >> >make the wrong decision.
>
> >> >> Right - it's okay so long as the make the "right" decision.
>
> >> >Your position as well. You think the right decision was to let the
> >> >Florida Supreme Court decision stand--and that not making that decision
> >> >amounted to stealing the election (or perhaps that part of the claim was
> >> >an earlier poster in the thread).
>
> >> No, i think the right decision was to stay the hell out of what should
> >> have been strictly a matter of Florida State law.
>
> > Which would have allowed the Florida decision to stand, which is what I
> > just said.
>
> > I should add that, while you are entitled to your opinion, you ought not
> > to be so confident about it, given very nearly zero expertise on a
> > moderately technical issue about which people who do have expertise
> > appear to disagree. It was, after all, a federal election.
>
> Technically, It was a state electing electors who would then participate
> in a federal election.
This is why I try to steer clear of obfuscating wingnuts. The basic
point is not whether or not the Supreme court legally employed certain
powers - I don't know anybody who holds this view - but rather whether
the court is being consistent with previously held positions, either
in accepting the case or in the subsequent rulings. Again, to try to
insinuate that it was ever about anything but that is . . . dishonest.
And, quite clearly, the court was being inconsistent; you can't
simultaneously be all for states' rights, decry the meddling of
previous rulings as using the flimsiest of pretexts to make what is
clearly a matter for a state to resolve into a federal case, and then
turn around and do exactly the same thing when it's to the benefit of
some cause you champion. That's, what's that word that's been going
around so much lately, uh, hypocrisy. Which is also indicative of a
fundamental dishonesty and a contempt for the views of others.
Seth
Constrained but not determined by federal considerations. I don't see
where any of the controversy was over the federal considerations,
rather than the state rules.
Seth
Seth
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Indeed. And the Supreme Court ruled that the Florida State
>Supreme Court had overlooked the principle of "one-man, one-vote"
>by directing a recount in only four counties, and not the entire
>state.
I don't see how a partial recount violates that principal, unless you
believe that all places had votes seriously miscounted.
> The state law is unconstitutional under the 14th
>Amendment to the US Constitution. This also holds in any
>state-wide election, not just for federal office.
That you can't have partial recounts? Why not?
Seth
Daniel R. Reitman
<nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Indeed. And the Supreme Court ruled that the Florida State
>Supreme Court had overlooked the principle of "one-man, one-vote"
>by directing a recount in only four counties, and not the entire
>state. The state law is unconstitutional under the 14th
>Amendment to the US Constitution. This also holds in any
>state-wide election, not just for federal office.
>. . . .
Except, of course, that the Court created this reading of the Equal
Protection Clause out of whole cloth, after a decade of hostility
toward equal protection arguments, and specifically limited it to the
facts of that case.
Dan, ad nauseam
mike weber
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>Which would have allowed the Florida decision to stand, which is what I
>just said.
Perhaps i'm recalling incorrectly, but i seem to recall that the
FDlorida Court had ordered a fulklk recoiunt, which SCOTUS scotched.
>
>I should add that, while you are entitled to your opinion, you ought not
>to be so confident about it, given very nearly zero expertise on a
>moderately technical issue about which people who do have expertise
>appear to disagree. It was, after all, a federal election.
Yes, and i just re read the relevant parts of the Constitution and the
Federal Code, which say only that the States shall select Electors
(and how many), and leaves the manner therof totally upo to the
several States.
As written, the law would allow the Legislature to select the
electors, without a popular vote at all.
mike weber
Here is the relevant law and Constitutional citation. Note that it
leaves the selection/appointment of electors *totally* up to the
several legislatures:
[quote]
US Code, TITLE 3 > CHAPTER 1 > ยง 7
The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet
and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in
December next following their appointment at such place in each State
as the legislature of such State shall direct.
[/quote]
and
[quote]
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United
States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four
Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term,
be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof
may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of
Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the
Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an
Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed
an Elector.
{Clause supoerseded by 12th Amenement}
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the
Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same
throughout the United States.
[/quote]
mike weber
<nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"One-man, one-vote" is the reason why Minnesota has 67 State
>Senators, and not 80. Equal representation is required by the
>U.S. Constitution unless otherwise specified in said document.
>Likewise, _all_ of the votes in Florida were required to be
>recounted.
Would you mind citing precisely where that is stated in the
Constitution?
mike weber
Yup
Daniel R. Reitman
wrote:
>Perhaps i'm recalling incorrectly, but i seem to recall that the
>FDlorida Court had ordered a fulklk recoiunt, which SCOTUS scotched.
>. . . .
Yes. The screwball ruling on equal protection was that the "intent of
the voter" standard applicable in Florida allegedly was going to be
implemented unequally.
Dan, ad nauseam
mike weber
<nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:21:58 -0400, mike weber
><fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:42:23 -0500, Doug Wickstrom
>><nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"One-man, one-vote" is the reason why Minnesota has 67 State
>>>Senators, and not 80. Equal representation is required by the
>>>U.S. Constitution unless otherwise specified in said document.
>>>Likewise, _all_ of the votes in Florida were required to be
>>>recounted.
>>
>>Would you mind citing precisely where that is stated in the
>>Constitution?
>
>I already did -- 14th Amendment, as adjudicated since 1867.
I read it. The Court(s) may have so ruled, but i don't see it in the
words.
Karl Johanson
news:fd9lf3$6uf$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <ddfr-39D63A.1...@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
>>Bush didn't set aside the results of a Presidential election.
>
> That's arguable.
>
>>You might have argued that he has done his best to make sure that
>>protesters are kept far from his speeches, but that's still a long way
>>short of suppressing protest.
>
> Having people arrested for wearing a political t-shirt is suppressing
> protest.
Yes. And it sounds like the sort of thing Bush worshipers would go
berserk over if they thought some 'liberal' was doing the same thing.
Happened here in BC as well, when a person was carted away from a speech
for wearing a t-shirt which wasn't complimentary to the premiere.
Karl Johanson