Conservative Mind Set & Conspiracy Theories

[LEAPup]

What !!! Your supposed to have me on ignore, remember?, because you couldn't deal with Jesus and his disciples all being gay.

I'm taking you off ignore for the PURE comedy. The FACT that you're going to burn in Hell for eternity I can't help. Helping myself to your lunacy/comedy is pure enjoyment.

 

[fhl]

but I am a proponent of truth.) Had the election been decided properly by invoking the twentieth amendment..... .

Yeah, you're a proponent of truth and the constitution, just like all democrats.

LMAO

 

[BSAM]

...Where exactly has following these RINOs gotten us?

I can tell you exactly: EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE.

 

[jem]

here was your quote. I see you stated Bush was appointed by the court.

Yes, ironic that we have moved toward the oppression of the Soviet Union, but striking differences between the U.S. and the old Soviet Union remain, despite growing similarities. To me, there is nothing more ironic in our entire history then G. W. Bush proclaiming we are engaged in democracy building in Iraq when he himself was appointed president by the Court. We, like all large, developed nations are evolving. And there can never be universal agreement on the direction that that evolution should take. Scat, here are two books I can highly recommend to you, the first will explain why we do what we do, and the second will put all of economics in perspective. These books are E.O. Wilson's "The Social Conquest of Earth" , particularly from chapter 10 onward.

https://www.google.com/search?q=e.+...fl1NZneD3eOO8-3GnI3pVlHvL30x5d0QMAJEPZAVHAAAA

And a wonderful new book by Australian economist, John Quiggin, "Zombie Economics." This is a humorous and critical review of economic schools of thought from Adam Smith to the Present day.
https://www.google.com/search?q=zom...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

then I said this...



then I said this.

what false drama you bring. Bush won, then Gore sued. Gore was trying to stop the electoral process from working.

you would have preferred that gore not start the litigation in the first place?

 

[LEAPup]

Yeah, you're a proponent of truth and the constitution, just like all democrats.

LMAO

This is what he sadly stands for, and worships like a God:

 

[jem]

then I said this.

what false drama you bring. Bush won, then Gore sued. Gore was trying to stop the electoral process from working.

you would have preferred that gore not start the litigation in the first place?

 

[piezoe]

here was your quote. I see you stated Bush was appointed by the court.





then I said this...



then I said this.

Actually I wrote "anointed" rather than "appointed"? These are not the same words. Since in the U.S. Supreme court case Bush was seeking relief from Florida's Supreme Court decision, you are correct, it would have been technically correct had I referred to Bush as the petitioner rather than plaintiff and Gore as the Respondent rather than defendant, since it was Gore that opposed the petition. Nevertheless, that case was brought by Bush not Gore. Gore's lawyers both botched that case and failed to bring a petition on 20th Amendment grounds where they had the best chance of prevailing. Frankly, I think I could ask 10 practicing lawyers to tell me what the 20th Amendment speaks to and less than half would know without looking the Amendment up. Why this was swept under the rug is something I'll never understand.

 

[jem]

The quote I was referencing --- you stated appointed.
Appointed / anointed different words yes... but the point was you were acting like there was some sort of problem with bush being less than fully legitimate.
It was gore's people who brought suit to stop Kathrine Harris from certifying the election. Florida Sup Ct found for Gore. US. Sup Court said FL was wrong.



your 20th amendment argument is a red herring.
we had no need for a temporary president.
gore was not trying to be a temporary president.

bush won the vote.
and even when the media did a post mortem he won the vote again.

Actually I wrote "anointed" rather than "appointed"? These are not the same words. Since in the U.S. Supreme court case Bush was seeking relief from Florida's Supreme Court decision, you are correct, it would have been technically correct had I referred to Bush as the petitioner rather than plaintiff and Gore as the Respondent rather than defendant, since it was Gore that opposed the petition. Nevertheless, that case was brought by Bush not Gore. Gore's lawyers both botched that case and failed to bring a petition on 20th Amendment grounds where they had the best chance of prevailing. Frankly, I think I could ask 10 practicing lawyers to tell me what the 20th Amendment speaks to and less than half would know without looking the Amendment up. Why this was swept under the rug is something I'll never understand.

 

[jem]

I want to stress that you have not only been wrong every step so far piezoe... you are are arguing with Scalia about Bush v. Gore. Again I would think that is foolhardy.

here what he says.
Gore brought it .
Gore lost on the votes anyway.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/aOqiH-bTXIc?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[piezoe]

Why don't you just quote me instead of claiming I wrote something I didn't. Wouldn't that be easier. I didn't comment on specific litigation in Florida, nor am I much interested in it. Suffice it to say that Gore's attempt to limit recounts to the precincts favoring him was transparent and asinine. My interest lies with Bush v Gore. If you make one more attempt to read what I wrote and try to understand it, perhaps you will realize that I have no interest in arguing with Scalia or the Court. That would be pointless. My entire interest revolves around the question of why the Gore camp took the approach they did before the Court.

When Scalia said that Gore decided to challenge the election results in the courts he was referring to the Florida courts of course. My post was only concerned with the Bush Petition brought to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the failure of the Gore camp to press the issue raised by the 20th Amendment. That is the issue of greatest interest to me. That Scalia is defensive when confronted with Bush v Gore is quite understandable. His response "get over it!" and " the outcome would have been the same regardless" completely skirt the legal argument. Disappointing and unprofessional in a Supreme Court Justice to say the least.

Alan Dershowitz, never one to mince words, called the Courts decision in Bush v Gore "the most egregious ruling since the Dred Scott Decision." I don't know if i'd agree with that sentiment, but it definitely was not the Court's most shining hour. In my opinion Gore and his lawyers handled the case badly. Why, for example, did Gore not ask Judge Thomas to recuse himself when it was known that his wife was heavily involved with the Bush campaign? And most importantly, why did Gore not petition on the basis of the 20th Amendment? That should have produced a stay until the Florida mess could be resolved. Yes, the outcome would have been the same. But the Court would then have exalted the correct election outcome over petty bickering, and acknowledged that consideration of the specified inauguration date was rendered moot by the 20th Amendment.

Respond if you like, but I have nothing more to add regarding Bush v Gore, and why I found Bushes' claim that we were Democracy building in Iraq so ironic.