Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 233
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Not bitter. Let me be more specific - I'm pi$$ed off that people like you did this to our country. You should be ashamed of yourself, not indignant.

    BTW - if you're gonna keep trying to be so cute and witty you may want to use the correct terminology for the "jokes" you post. It would be a tissue, not a napkin.


    “And the challenger gojeda is downnn!” “ He’s down Ladies and Gentlemen.” “The highly touted challenger made a big splash coming into the ring with his entourage and trainer mikec rubbing his shoulders. ...”He started out bobbing and weaving....slipping punches, ladies and gentlemen he looked good.” “Then out of nowhere.....Bam!” “Moderateinny caught him with the bolo punch.”.........(listener) “Bolo punch?” “You mean he didn’t see that coming?” (Listener 2) “Well I heard he did vote for Bush.” “OK that explains it.”.........1.....2......3......”will he get up?” hahahaha
    Last edited by Iago; 09/29/2007 at 11:24 PM.
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    FWIW - I'm not contesting the fact that Bush won. Fair and square? Dunno about that. Had the recount been allowed to happen it does seem that he would have won. But he did lose the general election and he could have allowed the Florida State Supreme Court's decision stand. But much like you and your new found buddy, he instead decided to be a divisive SOB and fracture our frail democracy to satisfy his perceived "entitlement" to become "king".
    Within the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling, as CNN reported:

    Denouncing the majority for stopping the manual recounts, Justice John Paul Stevens said the Bush campaign had no legal basis for its claims, other than an "unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges."

    "Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit," he wrote. "The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land," he said.

    "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of the law," he added.
    Knowing what we know now about Bush's tendency toward self-preservation at all costs, what took place in 2000 was only a precursor for the rightwing socialist direction his thinktank would direct.
  3. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Those who are actively posting in this thread are either clearly specifying a matter is opinion or are providing background which corroborates a claim.

    You provide neither, leaving you with propaganda.
    Merely parroting the charge of propaganda does not particularly make it so. In order to make the accusation stick, you will need to demonstrate as much. All that you are doing here is dancing about with little in the way of substance. Quite the poor defense that still does not remove the fact that you were rather ignorant on what the SCOTUS did on the issue....and why.

    If there was anything laughable in all of this, it was your assertion that the per curiam decision by the court in this case is somehow "less than" a normal decision or somehow "non-binding".

    Again, I suggest you actually READ for a change, in which case you have seen:

    "The variations in the ballots and the lack of a uniform, statewide standard spelling out how the ballots should be counted, and by whom, means recounts are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's equal protection guarantee, the ruling said.

    Now, perhaps the notion of the 14th amendment is "quaint" in your part of the world and does not require any serious consideration, but to some of us, flouting the 14th amendment is still a serious charge.
    Last edited by gojeda; 09/29/2007 at 10:46 PM.
  4. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by Iago View Post
    “And the challenger gojeda is downnn!” “ He’s down Ladies and Gentlemen.” “The highly touted challenger make a big splash coming into the ring with his entourage and trainer mikec rubbing his shoulders. ...”He started out. bobbing and weaving....slipping punches, ladies and gentlemen he looked good.” “Then out of nowhere.....Bam!” “Moderateinny caught him with the bolo punch.”.........(listener) “Bolo punch?” “You mean he didn’t see that coming?” (Listener 2) “Well I heard he did voted for Bush.” “OK that explains it.”1.....2......3......”will he get up?” hahahaha

    I think we have now determined who is the most easily entertained amoung us.
    Last edited by gojeda; 09/29/2007 at 10:40 PM.
  5. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Not bitter. Let me be more specific - I'm pi$$ed off that people like you did this to our country. You should be ashamed of yourself, not indignant.
    Let me see....

    "I am pissed off that people like you....did this."

    Who, exactly, are people "like me"? And what exactly did "we" do?

    "BTW - if you're gonna keep trying to be so cute and witty you may want to use the correct terminology for the "jokes" you post. It would be a tissue, not a napkin."
    Truth be told, the most indignant about your poor use of pronouns.
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    If there was anything laughable in all of this, it was your assertion that the per curiam decision by the court in this case is somehow "less than" a normal decision or somehow "non-binding".
    If the ruling was binding, what was the Supreme Court's remedy?

    "The variations in the ballots and the lack of a uniform, statewide standard spelling out how the ballots should be counted, and by whom, means recounts are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's equal protection guarantee, the ruling said.

    Now, perhaps the notion of the 14th amendment is "quaint" in your part of the world and does not require any serious consideration, but to some of us, flouting the 14th amendment is still a serious charge.
    The above only regarded the FL recount effort being completed by 12/12/2000 due to Bush running out the clock, leaving little time to complete a satisfactory reount, as you previously disregarded. Nothing more.

    Any other fiction you'd like to add?
  7. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    But he did lose the general election...
    Firstly, he didn't lose a general election. He lost the popular vote.

    More importantly, what was your point again? Oh that's right, there was none.

    and he could have allowed the Florida State Supreme Court's decision stand.
    Yes yes.....we already know you and your cabal have little regard for the 14th amendment.

    But much like you and your new found buddy, he instead decided to be a divisive SOB and fracture our frail democracy to satisfy his perceived "entitlement" to become "king".
    Whatever that means.
  8. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    If the ruling was binding, what was the Supreme Court's remedy?
    That all recounts must cease (approved 5-4).

    The above only regarded the FL recount effort being completed by 12/12/2000, as you previously disregarded. Nothing more.
    You are making less and less sense as the thread wears on.

    The 14th amendment, which the SCOTUS upheld, had exactly zero to do with the fact that the Florida election had to be completed and certified sooner rather than later. The SCOTUS, as cited in my source, clearly stated that the manner in which the Florida Supreme court was letting the recount occur was UNCONSTITUTIONAL because using different standards are counting votes violates the Equal Protection Clause.

    In other words, the recounts (as they were performed in this case) were a joke (SCOTUS vote 7-2) and put to a stop (SCOTUS 5-4). Another recount did not take place because, as per Florida law, the results had to be certified and the 25 electors had to place their votes.

    So to address your little bit of 'fiction'; it was Florida's election laws that ran out the clock, not Bush.

    It seems the only one who has a problem understanding all of this is you shortie. Instead of trying to revise history in futility, why not tackle the more interesting and irreconcilable fact that there were two judges who observed 14th amendment violations, yet wanted to the recount to continue.

    Any other fiction you'd like to add?
    The 14th amendment is fiction? Now now shortie, no need to be so rash.
    Last edited by gojeda; 09/30/2007 at 12:03 AM.
  9.    #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Firstly, he didn't lose a general election. He lost the popular vote.
    I've heard it referred to as the general election before and Bush won the electoral college. But whatever you call it - general or popular - Bush lost it.

    More importantly, what was your point again? Oh that's right, there was none.
    More cute humor. Funny stuff...really. You know exactly what my point is which is exactly why you have nothing to add but a$$hole comments like that.

    Yes yes.....we already know you and your cabal have little regard for the 14th amendment.
    That is rich. A clear Bush-whacko telling us all how much he values the 14th amendment.

    Whatever that means.
    Well some us saw Bush for the muppet that he was back then and some of us didn't. Since it is clear which side of that equation you were on I wouldn't expect you would know what I mean.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 09/29/2007 at 11:33 PM.
  10. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I've heard it referred to as the general election before and Bush won the electoral college. But whatever you call it - general or popular - Bush lost it.
    So, again, now that we have established that Bush lost the popular vote, what was the point?

    More cute humor. Funny stuff...really. You know exactly what my point is which is exactly why you have nothing to add but a$$hole comments like that.
    It was a simple question to which you seem to be having great difficulty in answering. Dodging the question is a poor defense, or is it because you really have problems articulating your sentiments?

    That is rich. A clear Bush-whacko telling us all how much he values the 14th amendment.
    Ahhh.....now the name calling begins. How "liberal" of you.

    It is not surprising, however, that you seem to be taking umbrage with someone who cites the Constitution.

    Well some us saw Bush for the muppet that he was back then and some of us didn't. Since it is clear which side of that equation you were on I wouldn't expect you would know what I mean.
    Well, part of the miracle of language is that we now have a tool by which we can articulate ideas, thoughts, and emotions. You offered a morsel of information that Bush was a muppet. Of course, calling someone a muppet is rather meaningless without any supporting information, but it is, nevertheless, a start I suppose.

    I say, is that the reason why you are posting here - to call people names? I would think that would get tiresome rather quickly.
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    That all recounts must cease (approved 5-4).
    'Approved'? Did you get your law degree in a CrackerJack box or at Yahoo University?

    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda
    If there was anything laughable in all of this, it was your assertion that the per curiam decision* by the court in this case is somehow "less than" a normal decision or somehow "non-binding".
    Wrong case. Try again? Since there were only 2 decisions rendered by the US Supreme Court, 1-binding, 1-non-binding, you have a more fair chance of getting it right this time.

    If the ruling* was binding [the 7-2 case ruling you were referring to above], what was the Supreme Court's remedy?

    Seriously. You're a well-intentioned, although misguided progressive/liberal/Democrat trying successfully to make conservatives/Republicans look like complete idiots, right?
  12. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    'Approved'? Did you get your law degree in a CrackerJack box or at Yahoo University?
    Yes, in other words, the court approved the aforementioned remedy by a vote of 5-4.

    You are not going to try to reduce this to a semantics exercise, are you?

    Since there were only 2 decisions rendered by the US Supreme Court, 1-binding, 1-non-binding...
    OK, this is the second time you are making the assertion. I think it is time you provide a source.

    If the ruling* was binding [the 7-2 case ruling you were referring to above], what was the Supreme Court's remedy?
    For a second time, the remedy was that the recounts are to be stopped. The remedy was approved 5-4.

    Wait wait....

    Are you saying that the decision is non-binding, but the remedy is (or vice-versa)? LMFAO!!

    Good one! I mean, really, you are not *really* saying that, are you?

    Seriously. You're a well-intentioned, although misguided progressive/liberal/Democrat trying successfully to make conservatives/Republicans look like complete idiots, right?
    Misguided? I have been called worse by better. Then again, if I were misguided, I shudder to think what words would be ascribed to you.

    Getting back on topic, let us accept, for the sake of arguement, that your assertion that the either the decision or remedy (or both for that matter) were non-binding. What is the revelation you see here that no one else does?
    Last edited by gojeda; 09/30/2007 at 12:36 AM.
  13. #93  
    You clearly know not of what you speak, nor do you have the inclination for education.

    Despite your best and laughable efforts, your purpose is perfectly clear. Life goes on during and after your trolling.
  14. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    You clearly know not of what you speak, nor do you have the inclination for education.
    So, in other words, you can not provide a source to support your erroneous position, but instead desire to demonstrate your adeptness at calling your counterpart "stupid".

    Bra-----vo shortie! Your reputation has surely benefitted as a result.

    Despite your best and laughable efforts, your purpose is perfectly clear.
    If you had surmised that my purpose was to mitigate the endless verbal tripe you impart to the forum, then you would be spot-on.

    Anyway, feel free to provide your source that says the SCOTUS *decisions* were non-binding during Bush v. Gore. I am sure we all waiting with bated breath to see what you can come up with.
  15.    #95  
    One cannot reason with the unreasonable. You don't even seem to know what my position is because you decided to parachute into this thread guns a blazing at all you thought were "liberals". The problem is you're trying to fight a war and you're not even close to one of the landing zones, let alone the other ten.

    Oh and a "muppet" is a derogatory term for someone that has the brain of a sock-puppet. Bush is clearly one of the most intellectually challenged President's in history. Whether his Presidency got so far off the rails because he was stupid (and surrounded himself with evil geniuses to push their neocon agendas) or he himself is both stupid and evil matters not to me - the net result is the worst Presidency in US history.

    As for the 2000 election - my position is that Bush acted like a spoiled pi$$pot and had his Daddy's friends stall, block, delay, and basically run out the clock on any recall so that they could claim the Presidency. Can you imagine what would have happened had Bush insisted on a recall himself? If he were the noble one that asserted that the voting rights of all Florida citizens lie at the heart of what a Democracy is so the recount must be done to put any doubt to rest who won the Electoral College vote and the Presidency?

    So my position on this matter had nothing to do with the legal underpinnings of it all. I don't care what legal basis they had because I'm certain I can find a hundred lawyers to counter your pointless arguments and you can find another hundred to counter them. In fact it seems to me 4 of the 5 US Supreme Court Justices disagreed with the 5 conservative justices so I am pretty sure the legal merits of this case can be discussed forever and the outcome will not change nor will the opinion of those "on the other side of the isle".

    But what hasn't changed is that Bush missed the first of many opportunities in his Presidency to be the "uniter" he claimed he would be and he failed that test miserably. Instead he has led only half of this nation and by any measure has been driven by politics more so than any President before him. The result being our global image has forever been scarred and our treasury so ravaged our great great great children will still be paying for his liberal fiscal policies (if you can even call it a policy...more lack a lack of any fiscal policy whatsoever).

    My point is that Bush has made a mess of the world and this country. My point is that I find it troubling that in light of the piles of evidence that he is the worst President in history trolls like yourself - that clearly are Bush supporters - will never admit you were wrong to elect him and instead continue to spin, lie, and propagate untruths because you're too small a man to admit you made a mistake voting for him.
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    If you had surmised that my purpose was to mitigate the endless verbal tripe you impart to the forum, then you would be spot-on.
    So, it's a personal issue with you. Not sure why that is, but whatever. Up until now, this has been a fairly respectful, intelligent discussion with minor outbursts from your compatriots. Please refrain from further personally vindictive explosions, unless your true purpose is to drive this forum section into the ground out of fear and loathing. Past is prologue, so we shall see.

    Anyway, feel free to provide your source that says the SCOTUS *decisions* were non-binding during Bush v. Gore. I am sure we all waiting with bated breath to see what you can come up with.
    What specific remedy was contained within the per curiam opinion [not a decision]? Please cite references from within this per curiam, as this opinion stands alone and is non-joined. Per curiam opinions only become binding when upheld by lower courts. Please don't confuse non-joined with concurrent, as well as not confusing the 5-4 decision which ordered the ending of the FL recount due to too little time for the recounts to be carried out in a constitutional manner, if you can help it. BTW- On matters such as this, it may be wise for you to not obtain your information from Wikipedia.
  17. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    One cannot reason with the unreasonable. You don't even seem to know what my position is because you decided to parachute into this thread guns a blazing at all you thought were "liberals".
    I think you have forgotten that you have left a trail around here. What I have always found interesting, though, is why liberals hate being called liberals?

    Why run away from something that you are? Never quite understood that.

    Oh and a "muppet" is a derogatory term for someone that has the brain of a sock-puppet.
    Sock-puppet's have brains? Well damn!!

    Here is thought that when someone is called a puppet, that the person is easily led or influence. Little did I know they had a brain.

    Bush is clearly one of the most intellectually challenged President's in history. Whether his Presidency got so far off the rails because he was stupid (and surrounded himself with evil geniuses to push their neocon agendas) or he himself is both stupid and evil matters not to me - the net result is the worst Presidency in US history.
    Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course. I am not sure, however, what is the basis for saying he is intellectually challenged.

    As for the 2000 election - my position is that Bush acted like a spoiled pi$$pot
    and had his Daddy's friends stall, block, delay,
    .....
    And, tell me, what did Gore and his friends do exactly? Were they innocent bystanders?

    ... and basically run out the clock on any recall so that they could claim the Presidency.
    Well, it is well established you have a disdain for certain things such as the 14th amendment. And it was Florida election law that ran out the clock.

    But, please, do not let the facts get in the way of your little **** party.

    Can you imagine what would have happened had Bush insisted on a recall himself?
    Well, he could have in the 4 other states that were all decided by a margin of less than 1% that ended up going to Gore. Should the republicans have raised a stink in Iowa and Mexico like the Democrats did in Florida? Maybe...maybe not. I, for one, am glad that the stupidity was limited only to Florida.

    If he were the noble one that asserted that the voting rights of all Florida citizens lie at the heart of what a Democracy is so the recount must be done to put any doubt to rest who won the Electoral College vote and the Presidency?
    I think you have forgotten one simple fact: an election DID take place. Votes WERE counted. And in many cases, voted were counted TWICE and sometimes three times before the idiocy was stopped.

    So my position on this matter had nothing to do with the legal underpinnings of it all. I don't care what legal basis they had because I'm certain I can find a hundred lawyers to counter your pointless arguments and you can find another hundred to counter them. In fact it seems to me 4 of the 5 US Supreme Court Justices disagreed with the 5 conservative justices so I am pretty sure the legal merits of this case can be discussed forever and the outcome will not change nor will the opinion of those "on the other side of the isle".
    Actually, 7 of the Supreme Court judges agreed that the recounts, as they were being performed, were unconstutional. What is bizarre is that only 5 said that those very same recounts should stop. That means there are two judges on thee SCOTUS who are extremely confused.

    But that is neither here nor there.

    But what hasn't changed is that Bush missed the first of many opportunities in his Presidency to be the "uniter" he claimed he would be and he failed that test miserably.
    Perhaps he did fail that test. Then again, unity is only possible when all the parties involved have a genuine desire to "unite". It seems to me that the left in this country were never quite willing to unite with a president who, in their mind, stole the election from them.

    In this regard, there is plenty of blame to go around - for both parties.

    Instead he has led only half of this nation and by any measure has been driven by politics more so than any President before him.
    The last president who was not driven by politics was Jimmy Carter...and look what a disaster he turned out to be. LOL!

    The result being our global image has forever been scarred and our treasury so ravaged our great great great children will still be paying for his liberal fiscal policies (if you can even call it a policy...more lack a lack of any fiscal policy whatsoever).
    Global image scarried - in the eyes of North Koreans perhaps?

    I have said it before elsewhere, and I willl say it again. A superpower, no matter how benevolent or well-intentioned it may be, is never liked.

    Such are the crosses that we bear.

    My point is that Bush has made a mess of the world and this country.
    And my opinion is that I think Bush has had to pay for the mistakes of the president before him, and quite possibly, the next president or two will have to pay for the mistakes of the Clinton era.

    My point is that I find it troubling that in light of the piles of evidence that he is the worst President in history trolls like yourself - that clearly are Bush supporters - will never admit you were wrong to elect him and instead continue to spin, lie, and propagate untruths because you're too small a man to admit you made a mistake voting for him.
    The irony here, of course, is that while I admit that I am a conservative - and quite proud to admit that to boot, you seem to have been offended when I accurately described you as a liberal.

    Only small men run away and are ashamed of who they are. Sad to say, liberals feel offended when they are called "liberal" for reasons known only unto them.

    I shudder to think what would have happened had a Kerry or Gore had taken the reigns. These days, I shudder to think that Billary has a more than good chance of taking the White House.
  18.    #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    The irony here, of course, is that while I admit that I am a conservative - and quite proud to admit that to boot, you seem to have been offended when I accurately described you as a liberal.

    Only small men run away and are ashamed of who they are. Sad to say, liberals feel offended when they are called "liberal" for reasons known only unto them.
    I've gone on record as stating my position several times now. I am a former member of the Republican party - a Goldwater Republican - and have definitely strayed more and more left the last 6 years. Whether that makes me a liberal or not I don't really know. I know that I am fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Does that make me a liberal? Or am I a liberal only in that I fail to meet your radical neocon view of things?

    Instead of advising me to look in the mirror and admit I am something that I may or may not be (depending on the definition of a liberal) perhaps you ought to be looking in the mirror yourself and asking how a supposed "conservative" could continue to support the most fiscally liberal President in recent memory as well as a party that claims to be the the moral majority but have shown itself to be repeatedly quite the opposite.

    I shudder to think what would have happened had a Kerry or Gore had taken the reigns. These days, I shudder to think that Billary has a more than good chance of taking the White House.
    Oh god...you're so far gone it is hardly worth writing any more.
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    If you had surmised that my purpose was to mitigate the endless verbal tripe you impart to the forum, then you would be spot-on.
    So, it's a personal issue with you. Not sure why that is, but whatever. Up until now, this has been a fairly respectful, intelligent discussion with minor outbursts from your compatriots. Please refrain from further personally vindictive explosions, unless your true purpose is to drive this forum section into the ground out of fear and loathing. Past is prologue, so we shall see.

    Anyway, feel free to provide your source that says the SCOTUS *decisions* were non-binding during Bush v. Gore. I am sure we all waiting with bated breath to see what you can come up with.
    What specific remedy was contained within the per curiam opinion [not a decision]? Please cite references from within this per curiam, as this opinion stands alone and is non-joined. Per curiam opinions only become binding when upheld by lower courts. Please don't confuse non-joined with concurrent, as well as not confusing the 5-4 decision which ordered the ending of the FL recount due to too little time for the recounts to be carried out in a constitutional manner, if you can help it. BTW- On matters such as this, it may be wise for you to not obtain your information from Wikipedia.

    Here, I'll even provide you an original-text source. Please focus on providing the answers to the questions asked without further distraction. Fair enough? http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

    [Edit: Sorry to all about the double post. Meant to just add a legitimate source to put this to rest.]
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    ...And my opinion is that I think Bush has had to pay for the mistakes of the president before him, and quite possibly, the next president or two will have to pay for the mistakes of the Clinton era...
    let us all thank god for junior's help in recovering from the Clinton Era.

    Let us all say halleleua to the towering fool who saved us from national prosperity, the lowest crime rates in generations, the first national budget surplus in the modern era, a strong dollar, the most vibrant enterprising, and technically advanced economy in the world, a President who tried despite the odds, to introduce universal health care, a nation respected and admired, a country trusted enough to be able to have genuine coalitions formed to enforce peace in places like Bosnia, a leader trusted enough that he was nearly able to negotiate peace between Israel and the Palestinians, a President who a republican Fed Reserve Chairman called the smartest and best President he has known --

    Yes, thank goodness junior has come to save us from all that ...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions