AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 10/23/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/23/2004 1:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/22/2004 2:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 10/21/2004 3:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Schizoid Man"
Date: 10/20/2004 5:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Sorry for being incommunicado for so long. I recently moved to San
Francisco
with a new job and have been busy settling down.

I just had an intriguing thought - if both Houston and Boston win
their
respective series, the World Series would be a mirror image of the
presidential election.

One big difference, you need four games to win the series but you
need
five
justices to become President.

Actually, you just need honest people counting the votes

Funny, when that happened after the fact without the supreme court
interference, Gore won.

Gore never won any legal count in Florida that I can recall.

Of course not, The supreme court interviened. He did win the most
accurate
count however.

He never won
any count in Florida done by anybody that I can recall.

Your recollection is not a reflection of reality in this case. There was
a
full
state recount after the fact and Gore won it.

Did he win according to his own criteria?

No. He had nothing to do with it. It was an independent state wide
recount.

I agree that is all we really need though. Funny how a
group that claims to be so anti-litigation would sue to stop
democracy.
But
anyways, Houston didn't make it.

They are anti-frivolous litigation.

Well preventing the votes from being recounted is worse tyhan frivilous,
it's
simply anti-democratic.

They didn't prevent a recount, there had been several, they just insisted
that Florida follow it's own laws.

They certainly did prevent a recount. What were they doing if they weren't
preventing a recount? It is up to Florida to make these calls not the
supreme
court.

Making sure the election isn't stolen
from you is hardly frivolous.

Niether is stealing one.

Then why did the Democrats try to do so?

Both sides tried to gain the advantage. Bush got his way.

They tried to mislead, they are the only ones who actually tried to deny
certian votes and they cherry picked the precincts where they wanted a
recount, because they thought it would serve their puposes better.

Complete nonsense. Of course they were worried about the counties where
the
**** ups were most prevelent. They should have taken the high road and
asked
for a state wide recount. It really doesn't matter though. The choice was
for
the state to make until the supreme court highjacked the election. That
was
bull****.

It was Democrats who were trying to steal something, it was the GOP who
simply wanted to follow the law.

If they simply wanted to follow the law they would have let the state make
the
call as was the states right. The supreme court stuck it's nose where it
didn't
belong and thwrted democracy.

Will you remember that you made this argument
after November 2, 2004?

No.

I think the Democrats
will be asking for US Supreme Court intervention
after they lose the 2004 appeals in state courts.

I doubt it happen but It wouldn't surprise me if the opportunity reared it's
ugly head. One thing the two parties seem to have in common is they believe one
bad deed deserves another.