Another testimony to the Tea Party's rationality!

How many conspiracy theories do you believe anyway?

You mean. . .do I agree with the "birther" issue? Or the "Obama is the Anti-Christ," or "Obama is a Muslim who wants to destroy America."

No I don't. . .do you? :rolleyes:

However, do I have to remind you that the 2000 election "decision" had to be taken all the way to the Supreme Court, and that a majority of that court was Republican?

And that a judge involved in this matter recently admitted that this "decision" was skewed by the Republican majority in the Supreme Court?
 
Werbung:
He got the treatment he deserves for stealing the election for a whole of 9 months! Then, because of 9/11, the whole country rallied around him. . .

I wonder if the same terrible event had happened under Obama's watch, if the "whole country" would have given him the same benefit of the doubt, or would have ACCUSED him of PROVOKING 9/11?

2000 Florida election results:
Bush: 2,912,790
Gore: 2,912,253

....what stolen election?
 
2000 Florida election results:
Bush: 2,912,790
Gore: 2,912,253

....what stolen election?

Did you miss the whole ballot controversy?

Did you miss the fact that it is the Supreme Court that decided not to pursue the recount of those controversial ballots?

Is it just a "coincidence" that those controversies happened in FLORIDA, under another BUSH?

I would say that, at the VERY LEAST, that election was FAR from a mandate. . .for either men.
 
Did you miss the whole ballot controversy?

Did you miss the fact that it is the Supreme Court that decided not to pursue the recount of those controversial ballots?

Is it just a "coincidence" that those controversies happened in FLORIDA, under another BUSH?

I would say that, at the VERY LEAST, that election was FAR from a mandate. . .for either men.

I didn't miss anything....the FACT is the recount amounted legally to what I posted.
 
I didn't miss anything....the FACT is the recount amounted legally to what I posted.

This detailled description of what happens leaves enough doubts for ANY reasonable mind. . .and I believe you to be a reasonable mind.

Wikepedia

At approximately 7:50 p.m. EST on election day, 10 minutes before the polls closed in the largely Republican Florida panhandle, which is in the Central time zone, some television news networks declared that Gore had carried Florida's 25 electoral votes. They based this prediction substantially on exit polls. However, in the actual vote tally Bush began to take a wide lead early in Florida, and by 10 p.m. EST those networks had retracted that prediction and placed Florida back into the "undecided" column. At approximately 2:30 a.m., with some 85% of the votes counted in Florida and Bush leading Gore by more than 100,000 votes, the networks declared that Bush had carried Florida and therefore had been elected President. However, most of the remaining votes to be counted in Florida were located in three heavily Democratic counties - Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach - and as their votes were reported Gore began to gain on Bush. By 4:30 a.m., after all votes were counted, Gore had narrowed Bush's margin to just over 2,000 votes, and the networks retracted their predictions that Bush had won Florida and the presidency. Gore, who had privately conceded the election to Bush, withdrew his concession. The final result in Florida was slim enough to require a mandatory recount (by machine) under state law; Bush's lead had dwindled to about 300 votes by the time it was completed later that week. A count of overseas military ballots later boosted his margin to about 900 votes.


Florida Supreme CourtMost of the post-electoral controversy revolved around Gore's request for hand recounts in four counties (Broward, Miami Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia), as provided under Florida state law. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris announced she would reject any revised totals from those counties if they were not turned in by November 14, the statutory deadline for amended returns. The Florida Supreme Court extended the deadline to November 26, a decision later vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court. Miami-Dade eventually halted its recount and resubmitted its original total to the state canvassing board, while Palm Beach County failed to meet the extended deadline. On November 26, the state canvassing board certified Bush the winner of Florida's electors by 537 votes. Gore formally contested the certified results, but a state court decision overruling Gore was reversed by the Florida Supreme Court, which ordered a recount of over 70,000 ballots previously rejected by machine counters. The U.S. Supreme Court quickly halted the order.

On December 12, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 vote that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling requiring a statewide recount of ballots was unconstitutional, and in a 5–4 vote that the Florida recounts could not be completed before a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline, and should therefore cease and the previously certified total should hold. The Supreme Court's decision was an unsigned or "Per Curiam" ruling; the ruling was “limited to the present circumstances” and could not be cited as precedent.[47]

And, more recently (in October 2011), a former Supreme Court Judge wrote in his memoir:

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens writes in his new memoir, Five Chiefs, that the George W. Bush campaign's 2000 appeal to the United States Supreme Court over the Florida recount was "frivolous" and never should have been granted.

He recalls bumping into Justice Stephen Breyer at a Christmas party and the two having a brief conversation about the Bush application to halt the recount by issuing a stay. "We agreed that the application was frivolous," he writes. "To secure a stay, a litigant must show that one is necessary to prevent a legally cognizable irreparable injury. Bush's attorneys had failed to make any such showing."

By a five-to-four vote, the court granted the stay. "What I still regard as a frivolous stay application kept the court extremely busy for four days," he writes. He adds that no justice has ever cited the opinions that provided the basis for their ruling.

Indeed, the court -- unusually -- limited its decision "to the present circumstances," meaning that it did not want it to become a precedent.

HuffPost's Mike Sacks recently interviewed the 91-year-old former justice on his views on the death penalty and the Citizens United ruling just before the memoir was published.
 
This detailled description of what happens leaves enough doubts for ANY reasonable mind. . .and I believe you to be a reasonable mind.

So on what legal grounds are you attempting to invalidate the ruling of the Supreme Court?

And, more recently (in October 2011), a former Supreme Court Judge wrote in his memoir:

Well, there are 9 justices for a reason...so that one of them cannot simply dictate their will.
 
So on what legal grounds are you attempting to invalidate the ruling of the Supreme Court?



Well, there are 9 justices for a reason...so that one of them cannot simply dictate their will.

I, and many other people, will always doubt of the legality of the elections of 2000.

It is NOT because 5 our of 9 Supreme Court Judges. . .who shouldn't even have been involved in the process, as one of them notes, have made a subjective decision. . .which they were so unsure about that they didn't want it to be used as a precedent in the future, that it resolves all my doubts, or that YOU should feel totally certain that the "Florida adventure" was not paid for.

If you can't see that, if these events do not leave even the smallest possible doubt in your mind, if you, like Gipper, thinks I am falling for a "conspiration theory," that is totally unfunded. . . it is your right. I'm sure you'll sleep a lot better at night, if you believe that this "ruling" by 5 out of 9 Supreme court judges had nothing to do with Bush getting "elected," and with the events that followed. . .including the death of 4,400 American soldiers in Iraq.
 
I, and many other people, will always doubt of the legality of the elections of 2000.

And you, and many other people, hold a position that has been discounted by the courts.

It is NOT because 5 our of 9 Supreme Court Judges. . .who shouldn't even have been involved in the process, as one of them notes, have made a subjective decision. . .

"As one of them notes"...clearly the majority thought they should be involved, or they wouldn't have been.

which they were so unsure about that they didn't want it to be used as a precedent in the future, that it resolves all my doubts, or that YOU should feel totally certain that the "Florida adventure" was not paid for.

"paid for"??? Produced evidence of who got paid and what they got paid for, otherwise move your comments to the conspiracy thread where they belong.

If you can't see that, if these events do not leave even the smallest possible doubt in your mind, if you, like Gipper, thinks I am falling for a "conspiration theory," that is totally unfunded. . . it is your right. I'm sure you'll sleep a lot better at night, if you believe that this "ruling" by 5 out of 9 Supreme court judges had nothing to do with Bush getting "elected," and with the events that followed. . .including the death of 4,400 American soldiers in Iraq.

I don't dispute the USSC ruling decided the election, I dispute your claim that it was somehow done illegitimately.

And you keep coming back to this idea that "only 5 of 9" ruled in favor as if that adds credence to your claim that it is illegitimate. It does not.
 
And you, and many other people, hold a position that has been discounted by the courts.



"As one of them notes"...clearly the majority thought they should be involved, or they wouldn't have been.



"paid for"??? Produced evidence of who got paid and what they got paid for, otherwise move your comments to the conspiracy thread where they belong.



I don't dispute the USSC ruling decided the election, I dispute your claim that it was somehow done illegitimately.

And you keep coming back to this idea that "only 5 of 9" ruled in favor as if that adds credence to your claim that it is illegitimate. It does not.

I believe it does. If that decision was so perfect, why didn't all 9 agree with the decision? Well, probably because the decision was split along party lines.

Just as the "Citizen United" was split along party lines.

Funny how you so mistrust the government, but you give 100% credence to just over HALF of the SCOTUS. . .when they vote the way you want them to.

Is there a "conspiracy theory thread?" Is that where the "birther" conspiracy was discussed? ;)
 
I believe it does. If that decision was so perfect, why didn't all 9 agree with the decision? Well, probably because the decision was split along party lines.

....Seriously? What decision is ever "perfect"? Do you also expect unanimous consent in Congress before any bill is passed before you view it as legitimate?

Just as the "Citizen United" was split along party lines.

Funny how you so mistrust the government, but you give 100% credence to just over HALF of the SCOTUS. . .when they vote the way you want them to.

I don't "so mistrust the government", and I challenge you to produce evidence I have ever said such a thing. The point I am making is simple. The USSC ruled on the case, and they had the final say in this regard. Who else did you want to weigh in?

Is there a "conspiracy theory thread?" Is that where the "birther" conspiracy was discussed? ;)

That is where it should have been discussed...I have said as much on this thread that the whole "birther" issue was idiotic and a waste of time...so if that is your argument, it has fallen flat on its face with me.
 
....Seriously? What decision is ever "perfect"? Do you also expect unanimous consent in Congress before any bill is passed before you view it as legitimate?



I don't "so mistrust the government", and I challenge you to produce evidence I have ever said such a thing. The point I am making is simple. The USSC ruled on the case, and they had the final say in this regard. Who else did you want to weigh in?



That is where it should have been discussed...I have said as much on this thread that the whole "birther" issue was idiotic and a waste of time...so if that is your argument, it has fallen flat on its face with me.

The point is that the case should never have gone to the Supreme Court to begin with. the Florida Supreme Court judgement should have been the final authority in this matter

And, you didn't answer my question: What is that trade named, as I havenever seen it. Although I disagree with you that the issue of the 2000 election is a "conspiracy theory," it is a valid concern that will remain in the history books.
 
The point is that the case should never have gone to the Supreme Court to begin with. the Florida Supreme Court judgement should have been the final authority in this matter

According to one judge. That is why the Supreme Court has more than one.

And, you didn't answer my question: What is that trade named, as I havenever seen it. Although I disagree with you that the issue of the 2000 election is a "conspiracy theory," it is a valid concern that will remain in the history books.

I don't quite follow...what is what trade named?
 
Werbung:
Yes, and laws have a history of being put in place BY the elite, FOR the elite.

Which is exactly why we need to view the const as a law that specifically says that one group of people cannot be given any special rights or privileges. The rich are not supposed to get special treatment nor are they supposed to be singled out for penalty.
 
Back
Top