Serious Question for Leftists

[Jim Thompson]

Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[linnix]

On May 26, 8:34 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

Web-Site.com> wrote:
> Serious Question for Leftists...
>
> There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
> left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
> rather than the law.
>
> I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
> of the law.
>
> Really!
>
> No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
> judicial decisions.
>

1985 NY Fed vs. TX State. The purpose was to protect NY based Texaco
business. So, i guess it qualify as right-leaning action.

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-12-19/business/fi-30544_1_texaco-partners

[Jim Thompson]

That's just a TRO. What I was "hoping" for was some citation of a
right-leaner judge meddling in something forbidden by the
Constitution.

[linnix]

On May 26, 9:46 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 08:58:52 -0700 (PDT), linnix
>
>
>
> <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
> >On May 26, 8:34 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
> >Web-Site.com> wrote:
> >> Serious Question for Leftists...
>
> >> There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
> >> left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
> >> rather than the law.
>
> >> I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
> >> of the law.
>
> >> Really!
>
> >> No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
> >> judicial decisions.
>
> >1985 NY Fed vs. TX State.  The purpose was to protect NY based Texaco
> >business.  So, i guess it qualify as right-leaning action.
>

> >http://articles.latimes.com/1985-12-19/business/fi-30544_1_texaco-par...

>
> That's just a TRO.  What I was "hoping" for was some citation of a
> right-leaner judge meddling in something forbidden by the
> Constitution.

Yes, the SC said NY judge was meddling in TX state action, forbidden
by C.

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 26 May 2011 09:50:57 -0700 (PDT), linnix
<m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:

>On May 26, 9:46 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
>Web-Site.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2011 08:58:52 -0700 (PDT), linnix
>>
>>
>>
>> <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
>> >On May 26, 8:34 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
>> >Web-Site.com> wrote:
>> >> Serious Question for Leftists...
>>
>> >> There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
>> >> left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
>> >> rather than the law.
>>
>> >> I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
>> >> of the law.
>>
>> >> Really!
>>
>> >> No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
>> >> judicial decisions.
>>
>> >1985 NY Fed vs. TX State.  The purpose was to protect NY based Texaco
>> >business.  So, i guess it qualify as right-leaning action.
>>
>> >http://articles.latimes.com/1985-12-19/business/fi-30544_1_texaco-par...
>>
>> That's just a TRO.  What I was "hoping" for was some citation of a
>> right-leaner judge meddling in something forbidden by the
>> Constitution.
>
>Yes, the SC said NY judge was meddling in TX state action, forbidden
>by C.

AFAIK ALL state actions can be appealed to Federal Courts ??

[linnix]

On May 26, 9:56 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

No, first to state SC, then US SC. The US SC said lower Fed and
Appeal Courts had no business meddling in state judiciary systems. It
was unfair for the trial to be in TX or NY. It should have been done
in CA, where getty was based. But the Texaco legal team should have
done that much earlier.

[Richard Henry]

On May 26, 8:34 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

> Serious Question for Leftists...
>
> There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
> left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
> rather than the law.
>
> I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
> of the law.
>
> Really!
>
> No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
> judicial decisions.
>
> Thanks!
>
>                                         ...Jim Thompson
> --
> | James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
> | Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
> | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
> | Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
> | Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |

> | E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |

>
> I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Bush v Gore

[JeffM]

Jim Thompson wrote:
>There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there,
>by left-leaning judges, who decided cases
>based on "warm-and-fuzzy" rather than the law.
>

(JT's brain-dead inclusion of alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
on the To: line in a text-only post removed.)

Antonin Scalia claims to be just following the law
but if you go over his decisions one by one,
you'll see ideology deeply embedded in the pattern.

>I'd like citations of right-leaning judges
>twisting the interpretation of the law.
>

The full personhood of corporations:
The Long March of corporate-friendly SCOTUS decisions
dates back to 1886. [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
culminating in unlimited spending on political campaigns
without any transparency required.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
.
.
I used to be a Leftist. Now I'm a Radical Far Leftist.
Capitalism has reverted to a feudalistic state;
if you're not the lord of the manor, you're just another serf;
the Middle is disappearing and the serf class expands daily.
Think you are immune? Guess again.
The top 0.01% want ALL of the wealth.
It stopped being about what you could *buy* a long time ago.
Now it's just a dick-measuring contest and a power grab
and they won't stop until it's a complete oligarchy.
.
.
[1] It was actually a clerk who slipped in the personhood provision;
the justices, however, ate it up with a spoon when they saw it.

[mi...@sushi.com]

On May 26, 8:34 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

> Serious Question for Leftists...
>
> There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
> left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
> rather than the law.
>
> I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
> of the law.
>
> Really!
>
> No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
> judicial decisions.
>
> Thanks!
>
>                                         ...Jim Thompson
> --
> | James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
> | Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
> | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
> | Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
> | Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |

> | E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |

>
> I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

The Bybee torture memo certainly has to be up there in twisted logic.
http://www.tomjoad.org/bybeememo.htm

And of course you failed to produce evidence of so-called left leaning
judges doing what they feel rather than obey the constitution.

Any particular reason why you send text to a binaries group. Do you
know the difference between a text and binary file?

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 26 May 2011 13:42:57 -0700 (PDT), "mi...@sushi.com"
<mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>On May 26, 8:34 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
>Web-Site.com> wrote:
>> Serious Question for Leftists...
>>
>> There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
>> left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
>> rather than the law.
>>
>> I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
>> of the law.
>>
>> Really!
>>
>> No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
>> judicial decisions.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>                                         ...Jim Thompson

[snip]

>
>The Bybee torture memo certainly has to be up there in twisted logic.
>http://www.tomjoad.org/bybeememo.htm

IMNSHO: No treatment of a liberal should be considered "torture" ;-)

>
>And of course you failed to produce evidence of so-called left leaning
>judges doing what they feel rather than obey the constitution.

"In a dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said
the majority justices adopted an excessively permissive reading of
federal immigration law in authorizing the Arizona statute.

Federal immigration law bars states from imposing civil or criminal
sanctions on those who hire illegal immigrants. But it allows the
states to adopt licensing regulations related to the employment of
illegal immigrants."

Arizona's law IS a "licensing law".

====

How about dumbshit judge "Sumi"? I'll not tell you what that judge
did, figuring you're too ignorant to know on your own :-)

====

I could go on for hours.

>
>Any particular reason why you send text to a binaries group. Do you
>know the difference between a text and binary file?

What? Binary group lurkers can't read text ?:-)

If you would get your nose out of your own butt hole you might smell
the roses ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |

| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

[mi...@sushi.com]

On May 26, 3:17 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 13:42:57 -0700 (PDT), "m...@sushi.com"

> | E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |

>
> I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Immigration is a federal issue, plain and simple. To interpret the law
otherwise means the judge is an activist.

Now excuse me while I mail Bernie Sanders some free speech, er I mean
money.

[Tim Wescott]

On 05/26/2011 08:34 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> Serious Question for Leftists...
>
> There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
> left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
> rather than the law.
>
> I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
> of the law.
>
> Really!
>
> No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
> judicial decisions.

I can't tell you the case numbers, but there were two guys in Texas,
both charged with pulling the trigger in a murder case. Went to trial
separately. First guy got convicted, second guy's lawyer said "you've
proved that my client's finger wasn't on the trigger, you can't say that
again". No go -- judge let it happen, then it was upheld. IIRC, all
the way to the Supreme Court.

Two guys. One bullet. One trigger. Two 1st-degree murder convictions,
gained by putting the suspect's finger on the trigger. The SAME DA in
both cases. One of those convictions was obviously bogus.

But that's OK -- no prosecuting attorneys or judges had _their_ rights
diminished. Only the rest of us.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

[Charlie E.]

On Fri, 27 May 2011 11:46:13 -0700, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

>On 05/26/2011 08:34 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> Serious Question for Leftists...
>>
>> There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
>> left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
>> rather than the law.
>>
>> I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
>> of the law.
>>
>> Really!
>>
>> No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
>> judicial decisions.
>
>I can't tell you the case numbers, but there were two guys in Texas,
>both charged with pulling the trigger in a murder case. Went to trial
>separately. First guy got convicted, second guy's lawyer said "you've
>proved that my client's finger wasn't on the trigger, you can't say that
>again". No go -- judge let it happen, then it was upheld. IIRC, all
>the way to the Supreme Court.
>
>Two guys. One bullet. One trigger. Two 1st-degree murder convictions,
>gained by putting the suspect's finger on the trigger. The SAME DA in
>both cases. One of those convictions was obviously bogus.
>
>But that's OK -- no prosecuting attorneys or judges had _their_ rights
>diminished. Only the rest of us.

So, two guys get together and kill someone. Either one COULD and
WOULD have pulled the trigger, but you say that, in reality, only one
of them actually did it. But, are not both of them equally guilty
under the law? If you can prove, to a reasonable doubt, that either
of them did!

Charlie

[Rich Grise]

Tim Wescott wrote:

> On 05/26/2011 08:34 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> Serious Question for Leftists...
>>
>> There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
>> left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
>> rather than the law.
>>
>> I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
>> of the law.
>>
>> Really!
>>
>> No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
>> judicial decisions.
>
> I can't tell you the case numbers, but there were two guys in Texas,
> both charged with pulling the trigger in a murder case. Went to trial
> separately. First guy got convicted, second guy's lawyer said "you've
> proved that my client's finger wasn't on the trigger, you can't say that
> again". No go -- judge let it happen, then it was upheld. IIRC, all
> the way to the Supreme Court.
>
> Two guys. One bullet. One trigger. Two 1st-degree murder convictions,
> gained by putting the suspect's finger on the trigger. The SAME DA in
> both cases. One of those convictions was obviously bogus.
>
> But that's OK -- no prosecuting attorneys or judges had _their_ rights
> diminished. Only the rest of us.
>

Were the two guys Negro?

Thanks,
Rich

[Rich Grise]

Charlie E. wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2011 11:46:13 -0700, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com>

Or get them on conspiracy, like they do with guys who hire hitmen.

Cheers!
Rich

[mi...@sushi.com]

On May 27, 11:46 am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
> On 05/26/2011 08:34 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> > Serious Question for Leftists...
>
> > There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
> > left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
> > rather than the law.
>
> > I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
> > of the law.
>
> > Really!
>
> > No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
> > judicial decisions.
>
> I can't tell you the case numbers, but there were two guys in Texas,
> both charged with pulling the trigger in a murder case.  Went to trial
> separately.  First guy got convicted, second guy's lawyer said "you've
> proved that my client's finger wasn't on the trigger, you can't say that
> again".  No go -- judge let it happen, then it was upheld.  IIRC, all
> the way to the Supreme Court.
>
> Two guys.  One bullet.  One trigger.  Two 1st-degree murder convictions,
> gained by putting the suspect's finger on the trigger.  The SAME DA in
> both cases.  One of those convictions was obviously bogus.
>
> But that's OK -- no prosecuting attorneys or judges had _their_ rights
> diminished.  Only the rest of us.
>
> --
>
> Tim Wescott

> Wescott Design Serviceshttp://www.wescottdesign.com

>
> Do you need to implement control loops in software?
> "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
> See details athttp://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

From a state where your public defender can sleep during your trial,
but that doesn't count for a death sentence appeal.

Somebody please, mess with Texas.

[Tim Wescott]

So, that's the approach the DA should have taken. Not the obvious --
and obviously government sanctioned -- lie that _both_ of them,
_separately_ shot _one_ fatal shot.

I'm all for putting the bad guys in jail, and in this case it was
obvious that both fellows colluded to kill their victim. But letting
the DA get away with his lie means that he can lie about _me_ or _you_
when we're completely innocent. Then unless we have barrels full of
money we're going to go to jail or worse, and when they're done with us
we won't have any money at all.

When we give up our liberty for security, we will find ourselves with
neither.

[Tim Wescott]

On 05/26/2011 08:34 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:

> Serious Question for Leftists...
>
> There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
> left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
> rather than the law.
>
> I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
> of the law.
>
> Really!
>
> No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
> judicial decisions.

And why, exactly, does wanting to live in a country where I can enjoy
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness make me a "leftist"?

[linnix]

On May 27, 1:30 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >http://articles.latimes.com/1985-12-19/business/fi-30544_1_texaco-par...
>
> How is that Right leaning?

The NY DC were very pro-business, big business. Carter appointed two
or three judges, the rests are Reagan, Bush, Nixon or earlier. In
this case, they are leaning toward bigger business, Texaco. In fact,
the SC said Texaco cannot be exempted from full bond, just because
they can afford to file in NY DC, AC against TX court. Most little
guys can't afford to do that.

Right leaning judges lean more in the direction of bigger businesses.

> Favoring one OIL COMPANY vs. Another OIL COMPANY??
>
> The best you could do was TWENTY SIX YEARS AGO?

But it's such a classic and import case. Justice is blind and
ageless.

[Glenn Gundlach]

On May 27, 2:07 pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
<snip>

> And why, exactly, does wanting to live in a country where I can
enjoy
> life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness make me a "leftist"?
>
> --
>
> Tim Wescott
> Wescott Design Serviceshttp://www.wescottdesign.com

You're only a leftist if you want ME to pay for your life liberty and
pursuit of happiness. You don't want that do you?

G²

[mi...@sushi.com]

One suspects a newsgroup frequented by engineers has a fair amount of
high wage earners, hence they are contributing to the public trough
way more than those old tea baggers.

[Jim Thompson]

What makes you think "those old tea baggers" aren't engineers ?:-)

Although, considering that most leftists are queer, I guess we're even
on insults ;-)

[mi...@sushi.com]

On May 28, 6:53 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2011 18:50:21 -0700 (PDT), "m...@sushi.com"

> | E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |

>
> I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

I've seen those videos of you in the gay free parade. Seriously,
wearing a pocket protector any carrying a slide rule does not go well
with your naked ass showing from those leather chaps you wear.

Regarding tea baggers, they are way to too stupid to have engineering
degrees, though I have met some real dolt engineers from Arizona.

[Jim Thompson]

Gawd! You're straining so hard you're about to shit a Larkin ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |

| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

[Lawrance A. Schneider]

By far and away the most egregious was the decision to appoint President
George Bush. The Constitution clearly makes elections a state issue.
The Supreme Court ignored the Constitution and repeatedly interfered in
the election process. Clearly showing their right wing bias and
willingness to ignore both "Stare decisis" and the Constitution.

The second most extreme example is the "Citizens United" decision. As
the standard joke goes: I'll believe a corporation is a person when I
see Texas execute one. Again, the ignoreing both "stare decisis" and
the Constitution.

The first decision gave us an incompetent who started one war and failed
to finish it; though the military knew where to find the rest of the
Taliban and Mr. Bin Laden, he let the VP talk him out of finishing the
job. He then proceeded to start a totally useless conflict costing more
than a trillion (not paid for) dollars and incurring two trillion
dollars in VA benefits.

The second gave us the Tea Baggers. They are paid for by the Koch
brothers and have destroyed civil discourse between persons of different
views.


Larry


In article <8dsst6ln3jiju9vbi...@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com>

wrote:

> Serious Question for Leftists...
>
> There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
> left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
> rather than the law.
>
> I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
> of the law.
>
> Really!
>
> No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
> judicial decisions.
>

> Thanks!
>
> ...Jim Thompson

[hifi-tek]

"Lawrance A. Schneider" <llaass...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:llaassllaaass-B0B...@east.AltBinaries.com...

> By far and away the most egregious was the decision to appoint President

<snip Liberal Bullshit>
gmail, indeed!
Electronics content please?
Tom

[spamtrap1888]

On Aug 8, 3:04 pm, "hifi-tek" <t.hoeh...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> "Lawrance A. Schneider" <llaassllaa...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:llaassllaaass-B0B...@east.AltBinaries.com...> By far and away the most egregious was the decision to appoint President

>
> <snip Liberal Bullshit>
> gmail, indeed!
> Electronics content please?
> Tom

Exactly what kind of electronics content did you expect from a thread
titled "Serious question for leftists"?

[spamtrap1888]

On Aug 8, 5:22 am, "Lawrance A. Schneider" <llaassllaa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> By far and away the most egregious was the decision to appoint President
> George Bush.  The Constitution clearly makes elections a state issue.
> The Supreme Court ignored the Constitution and repeatedly interfered in
> the election process.  Clearly showing their right wing bias and
> willingness to ignore both "Stare decisis" and the Constitution.

When the newspaper chains (Knight-Ridder was one) recounted the votes
the way Gore wanted, Bush won Florida anyway. (Although Gore still won
the popular vote across the country.)

>
> The second most extreme example is the "Citizens United" decision.  As
> the standard joke goes: I'll believe a corporation is a person when I
> see Texas execute one.  Again, the ignoreing both "stare decisis" and
> the Constitution.

Judicial overreach. The right-wingers took a decision applicable to a
closely-held corporation, where the opinions of the corporation and
the shareholders were one, and applied it to giant corporations with
hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of shareholders, like IBM
and GM.

>
> The first decision gave us an incompetent who started one war and failed
> to finish it; though the military knew where to find the rest of the
> Taliban and Mr. Bin Laden, he let the VP talk him out of finishing the
> job.  He then proceeded to start a totally useless conflict costing more
> than a trillion (not paid for) dollars and incurring two trillion
> dollars in VA benefits.

When the votes were recounted for the umpteenth time, Bush would have
won anyways. And we would have enjoyed several months of being led by
President Denny Hastert. (third in the line of succession). Because
Clinton was limited to two terms by the Constitution. (Could Gore have
been named acting President during the interim? Interesting question.)

>
> The second gave us the Tea Baggers.  They are paid for by the Koch
> brothers and have destroyed civil discourse between persons of different
> views.

The Teabaggers were a spontaneous movement, although surely the Kochs
were glad to see them emerge. Karl Denninger and his ilk are no more
destructive of civil discourse than the Occupy movement.

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 9, 12:39 am, spamtrap1888 <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 8, 5:22 am, "Lawrance A. Schneider" <llaassllaa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

<snip>

> When the votes were recounted for the umpteenth time, Bush would have
> won anyways.

Except that there had been a serious and persistent effort to get
people likely to vote Democrat off the electoral rolls. Jeb Bush had
subverted the electoral process, and got away with it.

<snip>

> > The second gave us the Tea Baggers.  They are paid for by the Koch
> > brothers and have destroyed civil discourse between persons of different
> > views.
>
> The Teabaggers were a spontaneous movement, although surely the Kochs
> were glad to see them emerge. Karl Denninger and his ilk are no more
> destructive of civil discourse than the Occupy movement.

They are a lot more irrational than the Occupy movement. There's a
whole lot of evidence that level of inequality in income and wealth in
the US is high enough to damage US society - anybody with more
inequality than Denmark does worse than Denmark on a whole range of
measures, and the US has a lot more inequality than Denmark and most
other advanced industrial countries - and to that extent the Occupy
movement is entirely rational.

The Teabaggers wouldn't recognise evidence if it bit them.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Silly Rabbit]

On 08/08/2012 03:39 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
>
> When the votes were recounted for the umpteenth time, Bush would have
> won anyways.

Not according to
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000>

It appears more likely that Gore, and not Bush, would have won if the U.S. Supreme
Court hadn't halted recount efforts.

[spamtrap1888]

On Aug 8, 9:48 pm, Silly Rabbit <5...@trix.com> wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 03:39 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
>
>
>
> > When the votes were recounted for the umpteenth time, Bush would have
> > won anyways.
>
> Not according to

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_F...>

>
> It appears more likely that Gore, and not Bush, would have won if the U.S. Supreme
> Court hadn't halted recount efforts.

Your wikipedia cites the Knight-Ridder study I mentioned. By the
"intent of the voter" standard urged by Gore, Bush wins Florida. Only
by the standard Gore rejected -- a complete clean punch through the
ballot -- does Gore win:

Lenient standard. Any alteration in a chad, ranging from a dimple
to a full punch, counts as a vote. By this standard, Bush won by 1,665
votes.
Palm Beach standard. A dimple is counted as a vote if other races
on the same ballot show dimples as well. By this standard, Bush won by
884 votes.
Two-corner standard. A chad with two or more corners removed is
counted as a vote. This is the most common standard in use. By this
standard, Bush won by 363 votes.
Strict standard. Only a fully removed chad counts as a vote. By
this standard, Gore won by 3 votes.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

Florida wasn't obeying its own election laws, as they allowed Gore to
file protest long after their own deadline.

Gore couldn't protest in a timely manner because he was busy trying to
bias the results, enforcing recounts only in districts he thought
helpful, while suppressing non-helpful districts.

None of it mattered anyhow. In contested cases the decision is made
constitutionally in U.S. House of Representatives. They were
Republicans. Who do you think *they* would've chosen?

> > The second gave us the Tea Baggers.  They are paid for by the Koch
> > brothers and have destroyed civil discourse between persons of different
> > views.

What nonsense. This from a President who accuses doctors of
unnecessarily cutting off feet, for the money.

> The Teabaggers were a spontaneous movement, although surely the Kochs
> were glad to see them emerge. Karl Denninger and his ilk are no more
> destructive of civil discourse than the Occupy movement.

At bottom, Obama and his democrats want to run people's lives down to
the minutest detail, to impose their own morals and dictates--ones
which they themselves don't follow--on an unwilling populace. Free
people don't like that.

And, their dictates are idiotic, such as all this stimulus nonsense
they keep insisting on long after its total, complete, and abject
failure has been abundantly demonstrated.

Last year they spent $3.6T on $2.3T revenues. That's $1.57 in
spending for every dollar taken in. And, they want to spend more.

If it weren't for the Tea Party this country would be lost already.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[hamilton]

On 8/9/2012 7:42 AM, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> If it weren't for the Tea Party this country would be lost already.

I can't say about your area, but here in Colorado the Teabaggers are the
anarchists who never filled taxes and wanted to abolish the IRS.

Today they are saving the country.

OK, I am not happy with the IRS either, but how did a bunch of hooligans
become Americas savior ??

[Michael A. Terrell]

The 'bunch of hooligans' is OWS. They can't bath, let alone save
America.

[hamilton]

So, its easier to change the subject then it is to answer a simple
question ?

What were the Teabaggers like in your area, before they became Americas
savior ?

Did you even know they existed before they hit the world stage ??

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 9, 4:44 pm, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 8/9/2012 7:42 AM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > If it weren't for the Tea Party this country would be lost already.
>
> I can't say about your area, but here in Colorado the Teabaggers are the
> anarchists who never filled taxes and wanted to abolish the IRS.
>
> Today they are saving the country.
>
> OK, I am not happy with the IRS either, but how did a bunch of hooligans

> become America's savior ??

Check out Karl Roves' skills at persuading people that black is white.
The Koch brother's money pays for a lot of that kind of persuasion.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Bill Sloman]

The illegal practices go back rather further - Jeb Bush spent a lot of
money purging the Florida electoral rolls of "suspected felons" (most
of whom weren't felons, and most of them Democrat voters). This was a
fraudulent abuse of power, and it's depressing, but scarcely
surprising, that he wasn't charged and imprisoned for it.

>
> Gore couldn't protest in a timely manner because he was busy trying to
> bias the results, enforcing recounts only in districts he thought
> helpful, while suppressing non-helpful districts.

Perhaps. US elections wouldn't rate a honestly administered in most
civilised countries, and politicians work within the mechanisms
availabel.

> None of it mattered anyhow.  In contested cases the decision is made
> constitutionally in U.S. House of Representatives.  They were
> Republicans.  Who do you think *they* would've chosen?

They would - of course - have based their decision of truth and logic,
just like Republicans always do ...

> > > The second gave us the Tea Baggers.  They are paid for by the Koch
> > > brothers and have destroyed civil discourse between persons of different
> > > views.
>
> What nonsense.  This from a President who accuses doctors of
> unnecessarily cutting off feet, for the money.

When did Obama claim that the Koch brothers had bought and paid for
the tEa Party movement? And when did he claim that doctor amputated
feet unnecessarily, for the operating fee involved?

Cite your sources - it's always entertaining to see how you manage to
misinterpret perfectly respectable comments to fit your silly ideas.

> > The Teabaggers were a spontaneous movement, although surely the Kochs
> > were glad to see them emerge. Karl Denninger and his ilk are no more
> > destructive of civil discourse than the Occupy movement.
>
> At bottom, Obama and his democrats want to run people's lives down to
> the minutest detail, to impose their own morals and dictates--ones
> which they themselves don't follow--on an unwilling populace.  Free
> people don't like that.

Twaddle. They love the war on drugs which is exactly that kind of
interference in people's choice of recreational substances.

You get excited about Obama closing down a loop-hole that had allowed
Catholic organisation to get their health insurance cheap, and
suddenly he's trying "to run people's lives down to the minutest
detail" which is one more bizarre misinterpretation of what's going
on.

> And, their dictates are idiotic, such as all this stimulus nonsense
> they keep insisting on long after its total, complete, and abject
> failure has been abundantly demonstrated.

"Failure"? The immediate aftermath of the sub-prime mortgage crisis
was 1.5% decline in GDP over a single quarter - which if sustained, as
it was from 1929 to 1933, would have produced a re-run of the Great
Depression. The Keynesian stimulus that was applied at the time
prevented any further decline in GDP and in fact managed to generate
some growth.

Granting the damage done to the US economy - and, at second hand - to
the economy of the rest of world, by the bursting of the US house
price bubble, blown up by a bunch of bottom-feeding idiots in the US
banking industry, who fed the bubble by making ninja loans to people
who were never going to pay them back, just preventing a re-run of the
Great Depression was a significant achievement.

If the Obama administration had been silly enough to listen to James
Arthur's moronic economic advice, you'd have had a second Great
Depression of spectacular proportions.

> Last year they spent $3.6T on $2.3T revenues.  That's $1.57 in
> spending for every dollar taken in.  And, they want to spend more.

Correctly.

> If it weren't for the Tea Party this country would be lost already.

The US has lost it, and the Occupy movement has put it's finger on the
problem. The Tea Baggers are just one more depressing symptom of
what's wrong with the USA, where the rich don't hesitate to exploit
every mechanism that lets them get richer at the expense of everybody
else.

So Mitt Romney's running for president rather than sitting in jail for
ripping off widows and orphans.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
> --
> Cheers,
> James Arthur

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 9, 5:10 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> hamilton wrote:

Remarkable - the smell from the unwashed Occupy Wall Street mob is
penetrating enough to be smelled in Florida, by a guy who bulk-buys
his incontinence underwear?

Sadly, Michael A Terrell is the kind of right-wing nitwit who hasn't
got enough sense to realise that quite a lot right-wing propaganda is
amateurish and depressingly implausible - it sells well to right-wing
nitwits, who aren't into critical thinking, but it does make them look
ridiculous when they expose their gullibility to informed criticism.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Michael A. Terrell]

I've never met a teabagger. I'm not gay, and I don't hang out in
their haunts.

[Jim Thompson]

"Teabaggers" is a rude play on "tea party", posted by people who will
not survive the depression.

[Silly Rabbit]

On 08/08/2012 11:00 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
> On Aug 8, 9:48 pm, Silly Rabbit <5...@trix.com> wrote:
>> On 08/08/2012 03:39 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> When the votes were recounted for the umpteenth time, Bush would have
>>> won anyways.
>>
>> Not according to
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_F...>
>>
>> It appears more likely that Gore, and not Bush, would have won if the U.S. Supreme
>> Court hadn't halted recount efforts.
>
> Your wikipedia cites the Knight-Ridder study I mentioned. By the
> "intent of the voter" standard urged by Gore, Bush wins Florida. Only
> by the standard Gore rejected -- a complete clean punch through the
> ballot -- does Gore win:

Disregard what Gore requested at the time, because The Florida judge overseeing the
recount also intended to look at the overvote ballots, as well as the undervote that
Gore asked for.

> Lenient standard. Any alteration in a chad, ranging from a dimple
> to a full punch, counts as a vote. By this standard, Bush won by 1,665
> votes.
> Palm Beach standard. A dimple is counted as a vote if other races
> on the same ballot show dimples as well. By this standard, Bush won by
> 884 votes.
> Two-corner standard. A chad with two or more corners removed is
> counted as a vote. This is the most common standard in use. By this
> standard, Bush won by 363 votes.
> Strict standard. Only a fully removed chad counts as a vote. By
> this standard, Gore won by 3 votes.

Those standards were relevant only to some "recounts conducted by various United
States news media organizations."

But look at:
Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken)
� Standard as set by each county canvassing board during their survey Gore by 171
� Fully punched chad and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115
� Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107
� One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Gore wins by any standard.

[hamilton]

So, you don't know the history of the TeaBeggers !

But, it was easy to blast the OWS.

OK, I get it now.

h

[spamtrap1888]

On Aug 9, 4:15 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 18:53:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >hamilton wrote:
>
> >> On 8/9/2012 9:10 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> >> > hamilton wrote:
>

> >> >> On 8/9/2012 7:42 AM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> >>> If it weren't for the Tea Party this country would be lost already.
>
> >> >> I can't say about your area, but here in Colorado the Teabaggers are the
> >> >> anarchists who never filled taxes and wanted to abolish the IRS.
>
> >> >> Today they are saving the country.
>
> >> >> OK, I am not happy with the IRS either, but how did a bunch of hooligans
> >> >> become Americas savior ??
>
> >> >     The 'bunch of hooligans' is OWS.  They can't bath, let alone save
> >> > America.
>
> >> So, its easier to change the subject then it is to answer a simple
> >> question ?
>
> >> What were the Teabaggers like in your area, before they became Americas
> >> savior ?
>
> >> Did you even know they existed before they hit the world stage ??
>
> >   I've never met a teabagger.  I'm not gay, and I don't hang out in
> >their haunts.
>
> "Teabaggers" is a rude play on "tea party", posted by people who will
> not survive the depression.
>

The budding Tea Party Movement embraced the teabag, soon after Obama
was inaugurated. There was a push, forwarded far and wide over the
internet, to mail a teabag "to Washington," whether to the White House
or one's Congressman or Senator, in time for Tax Day. At the same time
I saw many photos of supposed Tea Party members who had stapled tea
bags to their straw hats by the little Lipton's tags.

So the Tea Partiers themselves started the tea bag meme.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Aug 9, 10:44 am, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:

Perhaps you should examine your premises.

Hooligan: n. a ruffian; hoodlum
Hoodlum: n. 1. a gangster or thug; 2. a wild and destructive youth.

Have you a list of Tea Party assaults, vandalisms, and other such in
Colorado? Or anywhere,
for that matter?

The list for OWS--a far smaller group with a much shorter history--is
long and distinguished.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Jim Thompson]

Leftists, aka the fairies amongst us, have a different definition of
tea bagger.

[spamtrap1888]

This was taken by another US news media organization, the Washington
Post (actually the National Opinion Research Center under contract to
the WaPo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11_4.html

Nobody requested this, and in fact there was no mechanism to request a
statewide recount, only county by county. But, per the WaPo report,
had this been possible, and had both overvotes (as Bush had wanted)
and undervotes (as Gore had wanted), then there were some scenarios
under which Gore would have won:

> •  Standard as set by each county canvassing board during their survey        Gore by 171
> •  Fully punched chad and limited marks on optical ballots  Gore by 115
> •  Any dimples or optical mark        Gore by 107
> •  One corner of chad detached or optical mark        Gore by 60

> Gore wins by any standard.

Uh, no. Per the WaPo article, Bush wins under all the likely
scenarios. Only under those tortured scenarios mentioned at the end of
the article would Gore have won.

[spamtrap1888]

On Aug 9, 4:17 pm, Silly Rabbit <5...@trix.com> wrote:

> Disregard what Gore requested at the time, because The Florida judge overseeing the
> recount also intended to look at the overvote ballots, as well as the undervote that
> Gore asked for.

I don't know where this idea comes from.

[Michael A. Terrell]

hamilton wrote:
>
> OK, I get it now.

No, you don't but you'll keep blowing smoke.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Thompson wrote:

>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >
> > I've never met a teabagger. I'm not gay, and I don't hang out in
> >their haunts.
>
> "Teabaggers" is a rude play on "tea party", posted by people who will
> not survive the depression.

Not all types of depression can be cured. :)

Yes, I've heard the left's crap but like I said, I don't hang around
with them. They are fixated on insults, and constantly refer to gay
sex. May they all die slow, painful deaths from STDs, if they don't
learn to tell the truth. It's apparent that some of them have already
gone insane.

[Silly Rabbit]

"However, a Gore win was impossible without a recount of overvotes, which he did not
request. But one could argue that the recount of overvotes should have happened
nonetheless, because faxes discovered after the media recount indicated that the
judge overseeing the recount effort intended to have the overvotes counted. These
were faxes between Judge Terry Lewis and the canvassing* boards throughout the state."
...
"As stated by Lance DeHaven Smith in his interview with Research in Review at Florida
State University,: "...Everybody had thought that the chads were where all the bad
ballots were, but it turned out that the ones that were the most decisive were
write-in ballots where people would check Gore and write Gore in, and the machine
kicked those out. There were 175,000 votes overall that were so-called �spoiled
ballots.� About two-thirds of the spoiled ballots were over-votes; many or most of
them would have been write-in over-votes, where people had punched and written in a
candidate�s name. And nobody looked at this, not even the Florida Supreme Court in
the last decision it made requiring a statewide recount. Nobody had thought about it
except Judge Terry Lewis, who was overseeing the statewide recount when it was halted
by the U.S. Supreme Court."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000

[hamilton]

On 8/9/2012 5:15 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> "Teabaggers" is a rude play on "tea party"

Sorry Jim,

Tea BAGGER comes from Carpet Bagger[1].

The Tea Party has been around for a long time.

It has been trying to suppress the actions of the IRS for years with
varying degrees of success.

The Tea Bagger comes from how they TBs will kill off taxes instead of
the IRS.

Also for the opportunism and exploitation to get people to
think as they do.

Ask your IRS guy next time he comes to visit.

The IRS does not like the TeaBaggers.

hamilton


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 10, 3:04 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Aug 9, 10:44 am, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> > On 8/9/2012 7:42 AM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > If it weren't for the Tea Party this country would be lost already.
>
> > I can't say about your area, but here in Colorado the Teabaggers are the
> > anarchists who never filled taxes and wanted to abolish the IRS.
>
> > Today they are saving the country.
>
> > OK, I am not happy with the IRS either, but how did a bunch of hooligans
> > become Americas savior ??
>
> Perhaps you should examine your premises.
>
> Hooligan: n. a ruffian; hoodlum
> Hoodlum: n. 1. a gangster or thug; 2. a wild and destructive youth.
>
> Have you a list of Tea Party assaults, vandalisms, and other such in
> Colorado? Or anywhere,
> for that matter?

Congress. They regularly sabotaged any legislation that looked as if
it might help the economy in the run up to the current presidential
election. They always had ideological justifications for their
wrecking behaviour, and your example makes it clear that more or less
intelligent people can have vary silly ideas about economic, but they
were very convenient silly ideas.

> The list for OWS--a far smaller group with a much shorter history--is
> long and distinguished.

But you can't actually quote any examples. My understanding is that a
lot of their offences take the form of assaulting a police officer's
night stick by breaking it with their heads.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[spamtrap1888]

On Aug 9, 9:08 pm, Silly Rabbit <5...@trix.com> wrote:
> On 08/09/2012 06:53 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
>
> > On Aug 9, 4:17 pm, Silly Rabbit <5...@trix.com> wrote:
>
> >> Disregard what Gore requested at the time, because The Florida judge overseeing the
> >> recount also intended to look at the overvote ballots, as well as the undervote that
> >> Gore asked for.
>
> > I don't know where this idea comes from.
>
> "However, a Gore win was impossible without a recount of overvotes, which he did not
> request. But one could argue that the recount of overvotes should have happened
> nonetheless, because faxes discovered after the media recount indicated that the
> judge overseeing the recount effort intended to have the overvotes counted. These
> were faxes between Judge Terry Lewis and the canvassing* boards throughout the state."

Judge Lewis apparently told the Orlando Sentinel he was "open to
counting overvotes." But Gore was not seeking that, and the judge
could not have ordered that on his own.

[Silly Rabbit]

Jim's question has been answered anyway, by Larry. The Supreme Court stopped the
count and selected Bush as our President.

[Charlie E.]

Well, uh, the Supreme Court stepped in, and said that , by law, they
needed to accept the votes as tallied, accept the recounts that were
legally requested, and publish the results. The Gore campaign was not
allowed to keep requesting recount after recount in the hopes that
they might eventually get a result that they liked. Sorry you and so
many others seem to dislike the legal processes of elections in this
country, but it was almost twelve years ago. Get over it! 8-)

Charlie

[Charlie E.]

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 18:53:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"

Well, I ain't gay, but would consider myself a member of the Tea
Party, at least ideologically. We haven't actually met, though...

Charlie

[Silly Rabbit]

On 08/10/2012 12:45 PM, Charlie E. wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:12:46 -0700, Silly Rabbit <5...@trix.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim's question has been answered anyway, by Larry. The Supreme Court stopped
>> the count and selected Bush as our President.
>
> Well, uh, the Supreme Court stepped in, and

They didn't have to step in.

> Sorry you and so many others seem to dislike the legal processes of elections

Tell the weenie Bush. Fearing that he might not have truly won, he sued to stop recounts.

[spamtrap1888]

My point from the beginning was that -- had the ballot scrutinization
not been stopped, and had Gore gotten exactly what he wanted -- that
Bush would have won, anyways. As I said before:

"When the newspaper chains (Knight-Ridder was one) recounted the votes
the way Gore wanted, Bush won Florida anyway. (Although Gore still won
the popular vote across the country.) "

So the Supreme Court's decision did not affect the outcome of the
election.

If you're looking for villains, look at Nader. Absent his candidacy,
some of the votes he received would have gone to Gore -- even a few
hundred would have done it.

[spamtrap1888]

The votes had already been counted several times. There should have
been no need to count the votes again at all: The voters were told to
punch all the way through, and remove any paper debris. Then Gore
tried to have the counties apply a law covering the counting of
mutilated ballots. These ballots were not mutilated. The "recounts"
resembled psychic interpretation more than any rational process.

[Silly Rabbit]

On 08/10/2012 01:55 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
>
> The votes had already been counted several times. There should have
> been no need to count the votes again at all: The voters were told to
> punch all the way through, and remove any paper debris.

The "chad" ballots were just one troublespot, and not the most consequential. Other
voters were instructed to Vote Every Page, and their ballots were tossed out because
they followed the instructions.

[hamilton]

On 8/10/2012 1:46 PM, Charlie E. wrote:

>
> Well, I ain't gay, but would consider myself a member of the Tea
> Party, at least ideologically. We haven't actually met, though...
>
> Charlie
>

OK, how long have you been involved with the Tea Party ?

Does your ideology follow the precepts of the NEW Tea Party or the OLD
Tea Party ?

hamilton

[TheQuickBrownFox]

Some were turned away at the door as well.

[spamtrap1888]

On Aug 10, 5:10 pm, TheQuickBrownFox

Purging the voter rolls is a separate issue. Purging the voter rolls
is going on RIGHT NOW. If you think it's a bad idea, now's the time to
get involved and get people back on the rolls. (No, he's not the "Bill
Olsen" who did 20 years for manslaughter.) Now's also the time to help
your friends and neighbors to get their birth certificates and utility
bills together, and take them down to get a state photo ID.

[John Fields]

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:22:09 -0400, "Lawrance A. Schneider"
<llaass...@gmail.com> wrote:

>By far and away the most egregious was the decision to appoint President
>George Bush. The Constitution clearly makes elections a state issue.
>The Supreme Court ignored the Constitution and repeatedly interfered in
>the election process. Clearly showing their right wing bias and
>willingness to ignore both "Stare decisis" and the Constitution.
>
>The second most extreme example is the "Citizens United" decision. As
>the standard joke goes: I'll believe a corporation is a person when I
>see Texas execute one. Again, the ignoreing both "stare decisis" and
>the Constitution.
>
>The first decision gave us an incompetent who started one war and failed
>to finish it; though the military knew where to find the rest of the
>Taliban and Mr. Bin Laden, he let the VP talk him out of finishing the
>job. He then proceeded to start a totally useless conflict costing more
>than a trillion (not paid for) dollars and incurring two trillion
>dollars in VA benefits.
>
>The second gave us the Tea Baggers. They are paid for by the Koch
>brothers and have destroyed civil discourse between persons of different
>views.
>
>
>Larry

---
You claim to have been lurking here for years and yet you top post?

Methinks some gmail noob craving attention is in our midst.
---

>
>
>In article <8dsst6ln3jiju9vbi...@4ax.com>,
> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Serious Question for Leftists...
>>
>> There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
>> left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
>> rather than the law.
>>
>> I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
>> of the law.
>>
>> Really!
>>
>> No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
>> judicial decisions.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
--
JF

[Jim Thompson]

Yep. Larry is a real schmuck... can't even spell Lawrence ;-)

[Jim Thompson]

Indeed! The more Mexican illegals that vote, the sooner the
depression and the return to "skills, you survive", "leach, you
die"... bring it on.

[UltimatePatriot]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:54:48 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
<spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>(No, he's not the "Bill
>Olsen" who did 20 years for manslaughter.)

Doesn't matter. If he did his time and finished his parole, his voting
privileges are restored. Only certain states attempt to circumnavigate
the provisos of the constitution. He paid his price, he gets to return
to society.

Full citizenship, short of gun possession or ownership for felons, and
even that disability can be rescinded. (some smart ass will call that a
double negative) :-)

As an aside, the only exception I can think of are sex crime convicts.
They would have to 'register' with the local law enforcement agency in
whatever location they decide to take residence in.

[josephkk]

Ye dawgs. Do you have so much as the faintest clue from where they took
the name? You were supposed to have learned in your American history
courses. Can you state the similarity and the causus belli of the
historical act from which it came?

?-)

[spamtrap1888]

On Aug 10, 7:54 pm, UltimatePatriot

<UltimatePatr...@thebestcountry.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:54:48 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
>

> <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >(No, he's not the "Bill
> >Olsen" who did 20 years for manslaughter.)
>
>   Doesn't matter.  If he did his time and finished his parole, his voting
> privileges are restored.

Not in 12 states, including Florida.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

> Only certain states attempt to circumnavigate
> the provisos of the constitution.

There's no right to vote in the Constitution. There are rights not to
be discriminated against -- age, race, gender, ability to pay a poll
tax -- as regards voting, but no positive right to vote.

>  He paid his price, he gets to return
> to society.

Ex-felons return to society on society's terms. In England that wasn't
an issue, originally, because all felons received capital punishment.

>
>   Full citizenship, short of gun possession or ownership for felons, and
> even that disability can be rescinded. (some smart ass will call that a
> double negative)  :-)
>
>   As an aside, the only exception I can think of are sex crime convicts.
> They would have to 'register' with the local law enforcement agency in
> whatever location they decide to take residence in.

Depends where they live.

[spamtrap1888]

On Aug 10, 6:35 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:54:48 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 10, 5:10 pm, TheQuickBrownFox
> ><thequickbrown...@overthelazydog.org> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:19:00 -0700, Silly Rabbit <5...@trix.com> wrote:
> >> >On 08/10/2012 01:55 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
>
> >> >> The votes had already been counted several times. There should have
> >> >> been no need to count the votes again at all: The voters were told to
> >> >> punch all the way through, and remove any paper debris.
>
> >> >The "chad" ballots were just one troublespot, and not the most consequential. Other
> >> >voters were instructed to Vote Every Page, and their ballots were tossed out because
> >> >they followed the instructions.
>
> >> Some were turned away at the door as well.
>
> >Purging the voter rolls is a separate issue. Purging the voter rolls
> >is going on RIGHT NOW. If you think it's a bad idea, now's the time to
> >get involved and get people back on the rolls. (No, he's not the "Bill
> >Olsen" who did 20 years for manslaughter.) Now's also the time to help
> >your friends and neighbors to get their birth certificates and utility
> >bills together, and take them down to get a state photo ID.
>
> Indeed!  The more Mexican illegals that vote, the sooner the
> depression and the return to "skills, you survive", "leach, you
> die"... bring it on.
>
>

Overrejection is the usual problem with purging the voter rolls. But
in Miami-Dade County, I'd expect Hispanic names to be purged very
gingerly, lest some nice Republican Cuban exile get upset. So some
Mexican illegals may survive the purge there.

[UltimatePatriot]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:28:03 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
<spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>There's no right to vote in the Constitution. There are rights not to
>be discriminated against -- age, race, gender, ability to pay a poll
>tax -- as regards voting, but no positive right to vote.

It refers to paying for a crime, and only paying once.

No stripping of my federal right by some lame state. they have no say
over my right to vote for a president. Period.

Florida is a LAME state where the fucking retarded PIGS kill people with
tasers on a practically weekly basis. Including juveniles supposedly in
their care (custody).

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:58:25 -0700, UltimatePatriot
<Ultimat...@thebestcountry.org> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:28:03 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
><spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>There's no right to vote in the Constitution. There are rights not to
>>be discriminated against -- age, race, gender, ability to pay a poll
>>tax -- as regards voting, but no positive right to vote.
>
> It refers to paying for a crime, and only paying once.

Irrelevant, AlwaysWrong.

> No stripping of my federal right by some lame state. they have no say
>over my right to vote for a president. Period.

There is no federal right to vote for President, DimBulb. That was his point.

> Florida is a LAME state where the fucking retarded PIGS kill people with
>tasers on a practically weekly basis. Including juveniles supposedly in
>their care (custody).

Always wrong, as usual, AlwaysWrong.

[Jim Thompson]

How can anyone be so utterly clueless? One of my sons-in-law is third
generation, legal immigration, Hispanic-American. The legal Hispanic
community does NOT want the illegals voting.

[spamtrap1888]

On Aug 11, 9:32 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:31:56 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The state of Florida generated a list of 180,000 potential non
citizens on its voting rolls. After they checked with Homeland
Security, their list was cut down to some 2700. Of these, there were
some 1100 voters who couldn't prove citizenship. So 1600 voters were
unnecessarily hassled.
The non-citizen percentage of voters was 1100 out of 11.4 million
voters, or 0.01%

[Jim Thompson]

Crap! Homeland Insecurity! Everywhere I travel, hotel maids are
Hispanic (even NY State) and obviously non-citizens... they can't
speak English at all and I startle them with a little Arizona
"Spanish" ;-)

[UltimatePatriot]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:16:08 -0400, "kuntret...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<kuntret...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

>There is no federal right to vote for President, DimBulb. That was his point.

There is no state that can stop someone from voting in a presidential
election, idiot. THAT was MY point, KuntRetardWhimp.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Some one? Equal protection and protected classes apply, but of course you're
wrong, AlwaysWrong. There is no right to vote for President AT ALL. Read the
Constitution for once, DimBulb!

[UltimatePatriot]

Federal election voting rights are NOT controlled by ANY individual
state.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:54:18 -0700, UltimatePatriot

<Ultimat...@thebestcountry.org> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:41:31 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:26:08 -0700, UltimatePatriot
>><Ultimat...@thebestcountry.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:16:08 -0400, "kuntret...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>><kuntret...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>There is no federal right to vote for President, DimBulb. That was his point.
>>>
>>> There is no state that can stop someone from voting in a presidential
>>>election, idiot. THAT was MY point, KuntRetardWhimp.
>>
>>Some one? Equal protection and protected classes apply, but of course you're
>>wrong, AlwaysWrong. There is no right to vote for President AT ALL. Read the
>>Constitution for once, DimBulb!
>>
>>
> Federal election voting rights are NOT controlled by ANY individual
>state.

Irrelevance noted, AlwaysWrong.

[spamtrap1888]

On Aug 11, 12:07 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:54:18 -0700, UltimatePatriot

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <UltimatePatr...@thebestcountry.org> wrote:
> >On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:41:31 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
> ><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:26:08 -0700, UltimatePatriot

> >><UltimatePatr...@thebestcountry.org> wrote:

>
> >>>On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:16:08 -0400, "kuntretardwh...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
> >>><kuntretardwh...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
> >>>>There is no federal right to vote for President, DimBulb.  That was his point.
>
> >>>  There is no state that can stop someone from voting in a presidential
> >>>election, idiot.  THAT was MY point, KuntRetardWhimp.
>
> >>Some one?  Equal protection and protected classes apply, but of course you're
> >>wrong, AlwaysWrong.  There is no right to vote for President AT ALL.  Read the
> >>Constitution for once, DimBulb!
>
> >  Federal election voting rights are NOT controlled by ANY individual
> >state.
>
> Irrelevance noted, AlwaysWrong.

The dude is always wrong, isn't he? Florida controls if and when
felons can vote.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/04/2880650/ex-felons-need-voting-rights-restored.html

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

That's why he's known as AlwaysWrong. He's dumber than a stump, which is why
he's known as "DimBulb" and he has a couple of hundred nyms, so also goes by
the name "Nymbecile".

[UltimatePatriot]

You must have been sleeping.

While IN prison or on parole, you are NOT a citizen.

After your price is paid, you ARE.

Regardless of what some retarded state like Florida tries to impose.
They may succeed with *their own* convicts.

[Bill Sloman]

On Aug 11, 8:12 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson seems to miss the point that
non-citizens who aren't on the electoral rolls aren't a problem. If
they aren't on the electoral roll they aren't going to vote illegally.
There may be a lot of non-citizens working as hotel maids, but this
would only be relevant if there was some evidence that they were
trying to vote.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

>
>                                         ...Jim Thompson
> --
> | James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
> | Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
> | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
> | Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
> | Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |

> | E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |

[Tom Del Rosso]

Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> Yep. Larry is a real schmuck... can't even spell Lawrence ;-)

I think his answer to your question was, "No."


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

[Silly Rabbit]

On 08/11/2012 07:33 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Yep. Larry is a real schmuck... can't even spell Lawrence ;-)
>
> I think his answer to your question was, "No."

I think you two were left dumbstruck by his answer.

[Tom Del Rosso]

That's why you're silly. His 2 answers were baseless and anyone who takes
them seriously has the kind of ignorance that can only be achieved by
ignoring anything the other side says, so responding is a waste of time, as
is this.

[spamtrap1888]

On Aug 13, 4:23 am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:22:09 -0400, "Lawrance A. Schneider"

> <llaassllaa...@gmail.com> wrote

> >The second most extreme example is the "Citizens United" decision.  As
> >the standard joke goes: I'll believe a corporation is a person when I
> >see Texas execute one.
>

> This is not only classic 'liberal' absurdity, claiming a 'joke' as
> 'jurisprudence', but is typical of the demagogic crap the President
> uses.
>
> The Supreme Court has never ruled that a corporation "is a [real]
> person." It's what's called a 'legal fiction' and common in law to
> state that X 'shall be treated as' FOR THE PURPOSE OF or WITHIN THE
> MEANING OF, or some other such legal reference and restriction. Such
> as, for the purpose of article 10, the assessment in section 1 shall
> be considered a 'tax'.
>
> That a corporation possesses certain 'attributes' in common with
> 'persons' is, and always has been, integral to the concept of
> incorporation since the beginning. It is the basis for how they can
> enter into contracts and, I'm sure our liberal dupe will love this
> part, be sued and held liable.
>
> I.E. The Constitution doesn't say a blessed thing about suing
> corporations in Federal Court but the SCOTUS ruled them "citizens" in
> Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 43 U.S. 497, 559 (1844)
> --> "within the meaning of Article III, Sec. 2" <--- (quote is from
> the majority opinion). I.E. FOR THAT PURPOSE and not that, oh ho ho
> ho, you can 'execute it'.

"flipper" acknowledges the fundamental problem here -- that the
doctrine of corporate personality, one separate from the owners/
shareholders/members, was evolving during the 19th century. In 1789
when the Bill of Rights was drawn up, the framers could not have
contemplated that the voice of a corporation was anything beyond the
individual voices of its owners/shareholders/members. Even the
fundamental doctrine of limited liability was not established at that
point. In Letson, a half-century later, the Court decided that the
state of residence of a corporation did not depend on the states of
residence of the owners/shareholders/members.

>
> >  Again, the ignoreing both "stare decisis" and
> >the Constitution.
>

> It's interesting to hear you are firmly in support of segregation,
> minimum wage laws being unconstitutional, and the Government
> wiretapping without first obtaining warrants because all of those were
> official SCOTUS rulings and, so, by your holy genuflect to the stare
> decisis god, forever inviolate.
>
> It is, in fact, Austin that broke stare decisis in contravening both
> precedents Buckley and Bellotti so your 'convenient', new found,
> worship of stare decisis is even more amusing in that you must abandon
> your own cherished 'precedent' for having violated it first. In fact,
> Citizens United is a 'restoration' of the prior, well established by
> abundant precedent, historical order.
>
> Damn, what a bummer to be hoisted on your own petard.
>
> However, since you dance like a chicken on a hot skillet over 'the
> constitution', just what part of "Congress shall make   NO   LAW...
> abridging the freedom of speech" [emphasis added] do you not
> understand? Where does it say "this applies only to persons" or
> "except for groups of persons operating under a corporate charter?" In
> fact, show me ANY 'qualification' in the text of "NO LAW abridging"

Fine, just don't -- as Scalia does -- pretend to be an originalist,
reading the text of the Constitution as one who lived in 1789 would.
No separation between the joint stock company and its owners/
shareholders/members meant the corporate form did not speak with its
own voice.

>
> Those with a good memory will recall that is a repeat of what I said
> when McCain–Feingold first passed and predicted that, unless the
> SCOTUS suffered another case of temporary insanity, those 'bans' on
> political speech 'during the period of' would be struck down.
>
> The President, who fancies himself some sort of Constitutional
> 'scholar', is either stone ignorant or guilty of the worse kind of
> demagoguery in claiming Citizens United --- “open[ed] the floodgates
> for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend
> without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections
> should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse,
> by foreign entities” --- because the Court EXPLICITY said 2 U.S.C.
> 441e, barring ALL foreign contributions, corporate or private, was
> UNTOUCHED.

Sure, because, for example, British Petroleum is an AMERICAN
corporation, because it has a US subsidiary. All the foreign companies
who operate in the US do so through American subsidiaries, even if all
the profits go right back to the homeland.

>
> "We need not reach the question whether the Government has a
> compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations
> from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e
> (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”)."
> [majority opinion]
>
> I.E. There was NO modification, or even consideration, of any kind to
> 441e.

But the Court did reach the wholly unnecessary question of freedom of
speech for giant megacorporations. A small outfit like Citizens United
is under the direct control of its owners/shareholders/members --
ExxonMobil and IBM are not.

A reasonable rule would be to require giant megacorporations to poll
its shareholders before spending the shareholders' money on political
campaigning, as they do every year regarding the electing of
directors, compensating upper management, etc.

> >The first decision gave us an incompetent who started one war and failed
> >to finish it;
>

> You don't even know what 'the war' IS, much less 'how to finish it'.

>
> > though the military knew where to find the rest of the
> >Taliban and Mr. Bin Laden, he let the VP talk him out of finishing the
> >job.
>

> Hackneyed partisan gibberish.
>
> To begin with 'The Taliban' and 'Bin Laden' are only one set of actors
> on a much larger stage and this President's 'plan' is to simply 'go
> home' at not only a predetermined time but one stupidly announced to
> the whole planet which, by definition, includes the enemy and all
> present or future allies thereof. Want to 'win'? Well, lets see, is it
> Friday yet? They leave on Friday, you know.

>
> >  He then proceeded to start a totally useless conflict costing more
> >than a trillion (not paid for) dollars and incurring two trillion
> >dollars in VA benefits.
>

> More hackneyed partisan gibberish.

How about this: Every eighty minutes, a veteran of the war in Iraq or
Afghanistan kills himself. Bush had no idea of the total cost would be
-- whether in dollars or in lives -- as a consequence of his
administration's lying about WMDs

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/kristof-a-veterans-death-the-nations-shame.html?pagewanted=all

>
> Saddam Hussein, after starting two wars of aggression killing
> millions, had violated the terms of cease fire and over a dozen
> MANDATORY U.N. resolutions for over 10 years. (Perhaps you should
> review the meaning of "mandatory" in a dictionary) And, contrary to
> the media myth, 'stockpiles' of WMD was not 'the reason' nor did it
> make one whit of difference to the 'problem' as it makes no difference
> whatsoever if Saddam reconstituted his forces with old 'hidden
> stockpiles' or manufactured a fresh supply. That is, unless you think
> people staring up under the air burst, or watching the gas cloud float
> in, would have taken some kind of solace in "thank god it's the 'new
> stuff'."

So you agree the US had no objective reason to invade Iraq. The
justification that makes the most sense is that, unable to get Bin
Laden, Cheney wanted to show that the US was nobody to fuck with by
making a show of strength against Muslims.

>
> He's gone, damn good riddance, and Iraq has at least a 'chance' of
> becoming a half way reasonable representative government; and neither
> of those are 'useless' outcomes.

And, as a result, W. spent more borrowed Chinese money on rebuilding
Iraq's infrastructure than he did on our own. Just how far should our
kindness to strangers extend?


> Which is in stark contrast to this
> administration's "who cares what they become?" nonsensical Middle East
> non policy, which appears elated to trade one alleged 'evil' for an
> even worse one in a regional wide repeat of the debacle Jimmy Carter
> gave us with Iran. But I suppose you take solace in "after killing the
> dissenters they 'voted' to kill us."

So you admired Reagan's decision to send 1500 missiles to the
Iranians? How did arming terrorists fit into a coherent Middle Eastern
policy?

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Aug 13, 7:23 am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:22:09 -0400, "Lawrance A. Schneider"

> <llaassllaa...@gmail.com> wrote a big wet steaming pile of partisan
> dupe donkey dung.

[...]

> >The second most extreme example is the "Citizens United" decision.  As
> >the standard joke goes: I'll believe a corporation is a person when I
> >see Texas execute one.
>
> This is not only classic 'liberal' absurdity, claiming a 'joke' as
> 'jurisprudence', but is typical of the demagogic crap the President
> uses.
>
> The Supreme Court has never ruled that a corporation "is a [real]
> person." It's what's called a 'legal fiction' and common in law to
> state that X 'shall be treated as' FOR THE PURPOSE OF or WITHIN THE
> MEANING OF, or some other such legal reference and restriction. Such
> as, for the purpose of article 10, the assessment in section 1 shall
> be considered a 'tax'.

"for purposes of this section the term ‘person’
includes any corporation" --Obamacare / unACA [H.R. 3590 sect.
9006(a)]

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Lawrance A. Schneider]

In article <4g4h28di07h5lfn9h...@4ax.com>,

flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:22:09 -0400, "Lawrance A. Schneider"

> <llaass...@gmail.com> wrote a big wet steaming pile of partisan
> dupe donkey dung.
>
> >By far and away the most egregious was the decision to appoint President
> >George Bush.
>
> There is not one word in the Court's opinion making an 'appointment'
> of any kind, nor any declaration of 'who won', nor, contrary to myth,
> did the ruling prohibit the Florida Supreme Court from devising a
> constitutional recount. To quote "The judgment of the Supreme Court of
> Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
> not inconsistent with this opinion."
>
> Remand means the Florida Court is free to rehear the case and make any
> 'proper' judgments.
>
> The ruling did two things. First, by 7 - 2, it declared the Florida
> Supreme Courts absurd fabrication to be unconstitutional and that
> alone exposes the remainder of your dung pile on this topic. "Seven
> Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems
> with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a
> remedy."
>
> Second, the SCOTUS explained
> "--->The Supreme Court of Florida has said<--- [emphasis added]
> --> that the legislature intended<--- [emphasis added]
> the State’s electors to “participat[e] fully in the federal electoral
> process,” as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at
> 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434,
> *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy
> or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of
> electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there
> is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order
> that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is
> evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be
> unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the
> judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to
> proceed."
>
> It is this, acknowledging the safe harbor deadline, that is falsely
> construed as the SCOTUS 'ending all recounts' but it does not since
> The Florida Supreme Court, as 'interpreter' of Florida Law, could have
> conceivably reversed itself and declared the deadline 'not' the
> 'legislative intent' or, by sheer genius, devised a 'recount' plan
> that met the deadline. But, in any event, and contrary to your dung
> heap, it was the SCOTUS following the Constitution's declaration that
> the state LEGISLATURE shall direct the election process and the SCOTUS
> was merely repeating what the FSC had declared the legislative intent
> to be.
>
> This is also why Justice Breyer's dissenting 'remedy', itself, would
> be a constitutional violation because he proposed that the SCOTUS
> should, on it's own, vacate the FSC determination of legislative
> intent, which WOULD be the SCOTUS 'interfering in the election
> process'.
>
> "The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida
> Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain
> the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer’s proposed
> remedy–remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a
> constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action
> in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part
> of an “appropriate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8)
> (2000)."
>
> Only the FSC, or the Florida Legislature, could constitutionally
> 'reinterpret' the legislative intent, not Justice Breyer.
>
> But, again, that paragraph explains "Because the Florida Supreme Court
> has said." The remand left the FSC free to "say" whatever it deemed to
> be the legislative intent, as long as such a determination was
> constitutional.
>
> Now, if one wants to argue it 'had the effect of' stopping recounts
> then so be it but that was the FSC's fault, not the SCOTUS, in
> fabricating a nonsensical and unconstitutional recount non-procedure
> only four days before the federal "safe harbor" deadline.
>
> > The Constitution clearly makes elections a state issue.
>
> A typical left wing strategy of declaring their 'rewording' of a thing
> to be the thing. The Constitution does NOT make elections "a state
> issue." The Constitution explicitly says the means of choosing State
> electors (for President) shall be "as the LEGISLATURE thereof may
> direct." [emphasis added]
>
> >The Supreme Court ignored the Constitution and repeatedly interfered in
> >the election process.
>
> The SCOTUS 'ignored' nothing and nothing could be more obvious than it
> being the case the Florida Supreme Court literally threw State
> election law, duly passed by the Constitutionally directed
> LEGISLATURE, to the wind and fabricated an absurdity, that no
> legislature would ever devise, as its substitute.
>
> On top of that our purveyor of donkey dung apparently prefers to pick
> and choose which 'parts' of the Constitution are 'the constitution'
> because the 14'th Amendment explicitly provides for equal protection
> under the law and that, 'surprise', includes voters.
>
> The Florida Supreme Court's own opinion in their final ruling 2 days
> after the SCOTUS ruling stated "Moreover, upon reflection, we conclude
> that the development of a specific, uniform standard necessary to
> ensure equal application and to secure the fundamental right to vote
> throughout the State of Florida should be left to the body we believe
> best equipped to study and address it, the Legislature."
>
> A little late to the fold but at least they finally 'got it', which
> puts them ahead of whatever political propaganda outlet you parrot
> this partisan gibberish from.
>
> > Clearly showing their right wing bias and
> >willingness to ignore both "Stare decisis" and the Constitution.
>
> Stare decisis in quotes? That 'special', eh, or is it to 'impress'.
>
> The SCOTUS has enforced 14'th Amendment equal protections and
> prohibited vote-denial and vote-dilution for well over 40 years in a
> host of precedents and your own citing of stare decisis 'demanded'
> they do the same in Bush v. Gore.
>
> The only argument that could be made is they'd never before considered
> a State Supreme Court ruling, which precludes any notion of stare
> decisis visa vie 'a Court', but that's because no Court had ever been
> so blatantly ludicrous before.
>
> That the Florida Supreme Court's absurdity was unconstitutional came
> in at 7-2, not even close.
>
> As but one simple example, which even a liberal 'might' be able to
> get, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a partial count of precincts
> known to be heavily democrat, and therefore presumably skewed to Gore,
> to be certified. This had the effect of saying 'to hell' with
> potential 'republican' votes (indeed, democrat votes too since there
> certainly were some in the 'don't bother to count' set) in the
> remainder of that district. And anyone who thinks that's 'equal
> protection under the law' needs to have their head examined.
>
> The statewide remedy of reexamining "undervote" ballots had not been
> requested by any of the parties, had no source in Florida statutes,
> and the court provided no meaningful instructions for conducting it.
> The court’s decision, moreover, came only four days before the federal
> "safe harbor" deadline that was pointedly discussed in the U.S.
> Supreme Court’s Bush I opinion. It was perfectly obvious, as the three
> Florida Supreme Court dissenters insisted, that the majority was
> "departing from the essential requirements of the law by providing a
> remedy which is impossible to achieve and which will ultimately lead
> to chaos." And, as Chief Justice Wells pointed out in his dissent, the
> lawlessness was so obvious that it seemed likely to "eventually cause
> the election results in Florida to be stricken by the federal courts
> or Congress."
>
> With respect to what constituted the 'voters intent', an ad hoc
> fabricated on the spot non-standard with no basis in law, the decision
> essentially said to each board "do whatever you like" so that whether
> a person's vote 'counted' was totally arbitrary, which is anything but
> 'equal protection under the law', especially since there was NO LAW
> with the Florida Supreme Court having tossed it to the wind.

>
> >The second most extreme example is the "Citizens United" decision. As
> >the standard joke goes: I'll believe a corporation is a person when I
> >see Texas execute one.
>
> This is not only classic 'liberal' absurdity, claiming a 'joke' as
> 'jurisprudence', but is typical of the demagogic crap the President
> uses.
>
> The Supreme Court has never ruled that a corporation "is a [real]
> person." It's what's called a 'legal fiction' and common in law to
> state that X 'shall be treated as' FOR THE PURPOSE OF or WITHIN THE
> MEANING OF, or some other such legal reference and restriction. Such
> as, for the purpose of article 10, the assessment in section 1 shall
> be considered a 'tax'.
>

> That a corporation possesses certain 'attributes' in common with
> 'persons' is, and always has been, integral to the concept of
> incorporation since the beginning. It is the basis for how they can
> enter into contracts and, I'm sure our liberal dupe will love this
> part, be sued and held liable.
>
> I.E. The Constitution doesn't say a blessed thing about suing
> corporations in Federal Court but the SCOTUS ruled them "citizens" in
> Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 43 U.S. 497, 559 (1844)
> --> "within the meaning of Article III, Sec. 2" <--- (quote is from
> the majority opinion). I.E. FOR THAT PURPOSE and not that, oh ho ho
> ho, you can 'execute it'.
>

> > Again, the ignoreing both "stare decisis" and
> >the Constitution.
>
> It's interesting to hear you are firmly in support of segregation,
> minimum wage laws being unconstitutional, and the Government
> wiretapping without first obtaining warrants because all of those were
> official SCOTUS rulings and, so, by your holy genuflect to the stare
> decisis god, forever inviolate.
>
> It is, in fact, Austin that broke stare decisis in contravening both
> precedents Buckley and Bellotti so your 'convenient', new found,
> worship of stare decisis is even more amusing in that you must abandon
> your own cherished 'precedent' for having violated it first. In fact,
> Citizens United is a 'restoration' of the prior, well established by
> abundant precedent, historical order.
>
> Damn, what a bummer to be hoisted on your own petard.
>
> However, since you dance like a chicken on a hot skillet over 'the
> constitution', just what part of "Congress shall make NO LAW...
> abridging the freedom of speech" [emphasis added] do you not
> understand? Where does it say "this applies only to persons" or
> "except for groups of persons operating under a corporate charter?" In
> fact, show me ANY 'qualification' in the text of "NO LAW abridging"
>

> Those with a good memory will recall that is a repeat of what I said
> when McCain–Feingold first passed and predicted that, unless the
> SCOTUS suffered another case of temporary insanity, those 'bans' on
> political speech 'during the period of' would be struck down.
>
> The President, who fancies himself some sort of Constitutional
> 'scholar', is either stone ignorant or guilty of the worse kind of
> demagoguery in claiming Citizens United --- “open[ed] the floodgates
> for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend
> without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections
> should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse,
> by foreign entities” --- because the Court EXPLICITY said 2 U.S.C.
> 441e, barring ALL foreign contributions, corporate or private, was
> UNTOUCHED.
>

> "We need not reach the question whether the Government has a
> compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations
> from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e
> (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”)."
> [majority opinion]
>
> I.E. There was NO modification, or even consideration, of any kind to
> 441e.
>

> Nor did Citizens United change limits in direct contributions. All it
> said is you can't flat out BAN speech (during any particular 'time')
> simply because you 'don't like' the speaker or the, so called,
> 'special interest' of the speaker. And we're going to be in sorry
> shape, indeed, if the government can decide what 'interests' are
> 'allowed' to speak.
>
> And by way of illustration, I propose we first ban the 'special
> interest' of anyone who disagrees.
>
> Now, I don't know if the President is a 'liar' or not. I mean, 'liar'
> requires knowledge that the thing said is false and he may, instead,
> actually be nothing more than an ignorant doofus, but one can
> certainly see how someone might come to the 'liar' conclusion,
> especially since I can't think of anything, off hand, he doesn't claim
> Wile E. Coyote "Super Genius" status in, including instantly knowing,
> even though admitting he didn't have the facts, who 'acted stupidly'
> in a local law enforcement matter to running an automobile company to,
> of course, Constitutional Law and SCOTUS decisions he either didn't
> bother to read or was incapable of comprehending.

>
> >The first decision gave us an incompetent who started one war and failed
> >to finish it;
>
> You don't even know what 'the war' IS, much less 'how to finish it'.
>
> > though the military knew where to find the rest of the
> >Taliban and Mr. Bin Laden, he let the VP talk him out of finishing the
> >job.
>
> Hackneyed partisan gibberish.
>
> To begin with 'The Taliban' and 'Bin Laden' are only one set of actors
> on a much larger stage and this President's 'plan' is to simply 'go
> home' at not only a predetermined time but one stupidly announced to
> the whole planet which, by definition, includes the enemy and all
> present or future allies thereof. Want to 'win'? Well, lets see, is it
> Friday yet? They leave on Friday, you know.
>
> > He then proceeded to start a totally useless conflict costing more
> >than a trillion (not paid for) dollars and incurring two trillion
> >dollars in VA benefits.
>
> More hackneyed partisan gibberish.
>

> Saddam Hussein, after starting two wars of aggression killing
> millions, had violated the terms of cease fire and over a dozen
> MANDATORY U.N. resolutions for over 10 years. (Perhaps you should
> review the meaning of "mandatory" in a dictionary) And, contrary to
> the media myth, 'stockpiles' of WMD was not 'the reason' nor did it
> make one whit of difference to the 'problem' as it makes no difference
> whatsoever if Saddam reconstituted his forces with old 'hidden
> stockpiles' or manufactured a fresh supply. That is, unless you think
> people staring up under the air burst, or watching the gas cloud float
> in, would have taken some kind of solace in "thank god it's the 'new
> stuff'."
>

> He's gone, damn good riddance, and Iraq has at least a 'chance' of
> becoming a half way reasonable representative government; and neither

> of those are 'useless' outcomes. Which is in stark contrast to this

> administration's "who cares what they become?" nonsensical Middle East
> non policy, which appears elated to trade one alleged 'evil' for an
> even worse one in a regional wide repeat of the debacle Jimmy Carter
> gave us with Iran. But I suppose you take solace in "after killing the
> dissenters they 'voted' to kill us."
>

> >The second gave us the Tea Baggers.
>
> I thought what a person did in the bedroom... Oh, wait, I see. Hurling
> sexual innuendoes is one of your "civil discourse between persons of
> different views" examples.
>
> That "free speech" thing really pisses you off, don't it?
>
> > They are paid for by the Koch
> >brothers
>
> You'd prefer George Soros funding, no doubt.
>
> > and have destroyed civil discourse between persons of different
> >views.
>
> At least you ended on a real knee slapper of a joke. I mean, what
> could be more hilarious than the party of "you want to kill people"
> and "throw grandma over a cliff" (and that's when they're 'polite')
> pontificating about "civil discourse between persons of different
> views?"
>


I've read your reply.  Interesting!  I disagree.  I don't want to spend
more time on this as Mr. Thompson,  other than hurling invective drivel,
seems unable to reply in a cogent way.

By the way, I'm a Republican.  My name was given to me by my mother.

Larry