Bush will pick a woman to replace O'Connor
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:06:51 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Bush will pick a woman to replace O'Connor
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Bush will pick a woman to replace O'Connor  (Read 3054 times)
riceowl
riceowl315
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,350


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 01, 2005, 05:16:09 PM »
« edited: July 01, 2005, 05:19:15 PM by riceowl315 »

You could also mention that the Scotus voted to stop recounts 7-2.

And that Bush was voted against in one of the 3 charges 3-6.

And I wasn't necessarily referring to you, but people like you have definitely made statements like that before.

...then show me where in Bush v. Gore there was an unconstitutional decision.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 01, 2005, 05:22:22 PM »

You could also mention that the Scotus voted to stop recounts 7-2.

Actually, the decision to halt (to grant the stay) was 5-4, even though 7-2 agreed that the recounts were unconstitutional.  Why 2 of the 7 refused to stop the recounts even though they agreed with the other 5 on the unconstitutionality of the recounts is a question I have yet to see answered!!!
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 01, 2005, 05:22:46 PM »

I see another Bush v. Gore argument thread coming up.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 01, 2005, 05:24:11 PM »

You could also mention that the Scotus voted to stop recounts 7-2.

And that Bush was voted against in one of the 3 charges 3-6.

And I wasn't necessarily referring to you, but people like you have definitely made statements like that before.

...then show me where in Bush v. Gore there was an unconstitutional decision.


Read this.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20001218_levine.html
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 01, 2005, 05:26:17 PM »


Dude, it's full of misinformation.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 01, 2005, 05:28:20 PM »


Care to refute anything in it, or are you just blindly attacking it?
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 01, 2005, 05:37:09 PM »

Care to refute anything in it, or are you just blindly attacking it?

Usually, I only answer those that can see straight, which rules you out...but I'll grant your request this one time:

Answer of 1st question from link..."A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes."

First, that is not what the ruling says.  It never proclaimed a winner, it simply said (paraphrased): "The current recount method is unconstitutional and the Florida Supreme Court has interpreted Florida law to mean that all recounts must be completed by the Safe-Harbor date, which is upon us.  Therefore, there is no time to put in place a constitutional recount so all attempts to recount must be halted."

Second, Gore did not get the most votes in Florida.  Even the media recounts confirmed this.

---

Now, if you want to argue that the Butterfly ballot cost Gore Florida and the White House...then I would agree with you.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 01, 2005, 05:39:59 PM »

Care to refute anything in it, or are you just blindly attacking it?

Usually, I only answer those that can see straight, which rules you out...but I'll grant your request this one time:

See straight? What garbage.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did you expect them to write: "We appoint Bush President"? The effect of the ruling was to appoint him President.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
No, the media recounts showed that Gore did get the most votes, but they didn't want to be seen as not supporting the President after 9/11. Plus there were the illegal absentee ballots that helped Bush, and the scrub list that hurt Gore.

Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 01, 2005, 05:59:27 PM »

ladies and gentlemen, you are all honored by the presence of a wise and studied poster with a somewhat enigmatic username.  Welcome back, jmfcst.

No, neither wise nor studied, but a hate filled religious intolerant.  But if that is what you like, angus, enjoy.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 01, 2005, 06:00:17 PM »

No, the media recounts showed that Gore did get the most votes, but they didn't want to be seen as not supporting the President after 9/11.

Dude, check a calendar...the vast majority of the media recounts were finished and published months PRIOR to 9/11.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 01, 2005, 06:11:54 PM »

No, the media recounts showed that Gore did get the most votes, but they didn't want to be seen as not supporting the President after 9/11.

Dude, check a calendar...the vast majority of the media recounts were finished and published months PRIOR to 9/11.


BUSTED.
Released November 2001. If I remember correctly, it was originally supposed to be released Sept 11th, 2001.

http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/11/12/politics/recount/
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 01, 2005, 06:25:21 PM »
« Edited: July 01, 2005, 06:54:15 PM by jmfcst »

No, the media recounts showed that Gore did get the most votes, but they didn't want to be seen as not supporting the President after 9/11.

Dude, check a calendar...the vast majority of the media recounts were finished and published months PRIOR to 9/11.


BUSTED.
Released November 2001. If I remember correctly, it was originally supposed to be released Sept 11th, 2001.

http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/11/12/politics/recount/

Busted?  On what?  I stated "the vast majority of the media recounts were finished and published months PRIOR to 9/11". 

The media recount example you sited was indeed published after 9/11, but your example does not define a "vast majority".  That's why most people on this forum believe you're a fool - you irrationally attempt to twist definitions.

Again, the vast majority of the recounts were finished and published PRIOR to 9/11.

Here is an example of the The Miami Herald and USA Today media recounts that were published April 3, 2001...proving that the recounts started rolling off the press a full FIVE MONTHS prior to 9/11:  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 01, 2005, 06:28:39 PM »

No, the media recounts showed that Gore did get the most votes, but they didn't want to be seen as not supporting the President after 9/11.

Dude, check a calendar...the vast majority of the media recounts were finished and published months PRIOR to 9/11.


BUSTED.
Released November 2001. If I remember correctly, it was originally supposed to be released Sept 11th, 2001.

http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/11/12/politics/recount/

Busted?  On what?  I stated "the vast majority of the media recounts were finished and published months PRIOR to 9/11". 

The media recount example you sited was indeed published after 9/11, but your example does not define a "vast majority".  That's why most people on this forum believe you're a fool - you irrationally attempt to twist definitions.

Again, the vast majority of the recounts were finished and published PRIOR to 9/11.

Here is an example of the The Miami Herald and USA Today media recounts that were published April 3, 2001...proving that the recounts started rolling off the press a full FIVE MONTHS prior to 9/11:  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html



The one that the NY Times was involved with was the biggest one.  The April one didn't do as much. 
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 01, 2005, 06:52:54 PM »
« Edited: July 01, 2005, 06:55:02 PM by jmfcst »

The one that the NY Times was involved with was the biggest one.  The April one didn't do as much. 

"Biggest" is NOT a synonym for "vast majority".  Here is an article from June 3, 2001 (a full 3 months prior to 9/11), citing FIFTEEN seperate media recounts that had been published by June/2001:

http://www.sptimes.com/News/060301/Worldandnation/Ballot_reviews_agree_.shtml

"Nearly seven months since the historic election, more than 15 newspaper-led reviews of ballots in all or parts of the state reflect the fragility of Bush's victory over Al Gore."

So, your media conspiracy theory, that the press was afraid of Bush post-9/11 to report the results of the recounts is simply unfounded, but I know you like and will probably go on believing it.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 01, 2005, 07:05:33 PM »

The one that the NY Times was involved with was the biggest one.  The April one didn't do as much. 

"Biggest" is NOT a synonym for "vast majority".  Here is an article from June 3, 2001 (a full 3 months prior to 9/11), citing FIFTEEN seperate media recounts that had been published by June/2001:

http://www.sptimes.com/News/060301/Worldandnation/Ballot_reviews_agree_.shtml

"Nearly seven months since the historic election, more than 15 newspaper-led reviews of ballots in all or parts of the state reflect the fragility of Bush's victory over Al Gore."

So, your media conspiracy theory, that the press was afraid of Bush post-9/11 to report the results of the recounts is simply unfounded, but I know you like and will probably go on believing it.


I wasn't aware there were so many, but the one the NY Times was involved in looked at many different options. Most ways, Al Gore would have won, but they focused on the ones where Bush won. I'd be surprised if all 15 of those reviews said Bush won.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 01, 2005, 07:36:55 PM »

ladies and gentlemen, you are all honored by the presence of a wise and studied poster with a somewhat enigmatic username.  Welcome back, jmfcst.

No, neither wise nor studied, but a hate filled religious intolerant.  But if that is what you like, angus, enjoy.

Nice, opebo. Real nice.

it is funny, while searching opebol's old posts, i noticed that he many times complimented jmfcst.

i miss the old opebo.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 02, 2005, 12:21:47 PM »

The NYT dedicated the ENTIRE UPPER HALF of the first page of their print edition this morning to Justice O'Connor, her role, and the major decisions of the SC during her tenure.  They also dedicated a good bit of the lower half as well.  Pretty much the first page of the saturday edition is dedicated to one story!  This has happened, as I recall, only once in the entire time since the week immediately following September 11, 2001.  And that was when the Mighty Boston Red Sox (nee Stockings) opened up a delicious and surprising can of whoop-ass on the Damn Yankees.  Judging by the NYT, the boob tube, and just about every mindless yapping dog in the blogosphere, we're in for an exciting summer.  It's gonna be nasty, boys and girls.  In-your-face excitement.  Better than a Charles Bronson movie.  The republicans will nominate a well-qualified candidate.  The dems will play dirty.  The GOP will get even dirtier.  And it'll just keep getting better and better.  Nastiness on top of nastiness on top of nastiness.  sweeeeet.  Junkies, you are in for a real treat.  Ferocious ringside excitement as each side in our delightfully corrput two-party system will claim moral leverage over the other.  Who'll cave first?  Which interest-group will get rich the quickest from the obligaory donations and pledges?  The NRA?  NARAL?  The Sierra Club?  Mothers Against Drunk Driving?  Drunks Against Madd Mothers?  The Dead Kennedies?  And with two more retirements expected before King George II retires from public life, this promises to be a festive, fun-filled next couple of years at the forum.  So much excitement, so little time.  I'd love to give you a play-by-play, starting today even, but I'm packing up my yankee doodle boy and my not-so-yankee doodle little ol' lady and heading down below ye olde Mason'n'Dixon's line to a little place I like to call Maryland, the outer suburbs of our nation's capital to be more precise, to enjoy the 229th anniversary of the occassion during which our forefathers gave those imperialist english bastards the proverbial middle finger.  We'll be spending some time with some folks from the far east, and I'll be the odd(white) man out in this bit of cookie-cutter bourgeoisie.  Hanging out during the holiday with some long-time friends from Boston.  East Asians.  Newly-minted US citizens, in fact, who likely will neither know nor care who Sandra Day O'Connor is.  With any luck I'll not see a TV nor a computer before Tuesday.  But I'll be with youze all in spirit.  Have fun debating.  May the be$t man win.  Au revoir. 
Logged
tarheel-leftist85
krustytheklown
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,274
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 02, 2005, 12:33:59 PM »

If I had to guess right now, I'd say Sens. Elizabeth Dole or John Cornyn.  Hopefully Dole, so Easley can appoint someone to the Senate!
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 02, 2005, 05:35:36 PM »

In-your-face excitement.  Better than a Charles Bronson movie.

I'm not sure I can handle that.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: July 02, 2005, 06:42:34 PM »

ladies and gentlemen, you are all honored by the presence of a wise and studied poster with a somewhat enigmatic username.  Welcome back, jmfcst.

No, neither wise nor studied, but a hate filled religious intolerant.  But if that is what you like, angus, enjoy.

Nice, opebo. Real nice.

it is funny, while searching opebol's old posts, i noticed that he many times complimented jmfcst.

i miss the old opebo.

jmfcst is perfectly representative of the type that has ruined the GOP.
Logged
Rob
Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,277
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: July 02, 2005, 07:32:31 PM »


It's funny- I've read many of Old Opebo's posts, and I agree with most of what he believed. Too bad he had to lose it and become a crypto-Marxist.
Logged
Shira
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: July 02, 2005, 07:37:16 PM »

What they really want, is a conservative on economical issues.
D.Cheney does not really care about the abortions or gays issues but he has to demonstrate to his ignorant supporters from the religious right, that these are his top priorities. Practically, he is an extreme economical conservative who cares about the interests of big businesses and big corporations. He will prefer a business friendly conservative candidate over a social conservative candidate. That’s at least my prediction.

Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: July 02, 2005, 07:42:42 PM »

Shira, Cheney will not be making the decision. 
Logged
Shira
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: July 02, 2005, 07:57:39 PM »
« Edited: July 02, 2005, 10:00:31 PM by Shira »

Shira, Cheney will not be making the decision. 
Who do you think is the real president of the US?
Do you really think that Bush personally  cares about abortions?
Big business is the body they are  committed to and that's what they really care about.
Remember, Bush does not care about reelection and does not need the GOP base.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: July 02, 2005, 07:58:42 PM »

1. George W. Bush
2. Yes
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.07 seconds with 12 queries.