| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2005 09:27:17 AM |
| Object: |
Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
It looks like Spike Lee was right. Mr. Michael "Bowling for Columbine"
Moore's bodyguards do carry guns,
"Filmmaker Michael Moore's bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed
weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night."
Well, well, well, could a man who believes that you don't have the "right to
bear arms" actually have a gun packing bodyguard protecting him? I guess as
far as Moore is concerned, there's one standard for all of us peons and
another standard for VILs (very important liberals) like himself.
Sure, Moore may think that "ordinary people" -- like YOU -- can't be trusted
to have a gun to defend your families. It's just too risky. Oh, but if
Michael Moore might be in danger, well that's a different matter all
together; he's special, you see, the rules that he wants to apply to the
"little people" shouldn't apply to him.
What a hypocrite.
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
02 Feb 2005 07:49:02 PM |
|
|
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Yea, except the counties he was asking for a
recount in he didn't win or lose by 1/4 or less
of a percentage of the ballots cast there.
That's irrelevant.
You win the state, not a county. As there were about
60,000 uncounted ballots in those counties alone,
and they impacted upon a state-wide race, they had
to be counted.... as provided by Florida state law &
ordered by the Florida court.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Lentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
03 Feb 2005 05:32:08 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kMidnT2bOa3cHJzfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Yea, except the counties he was asking for a
recount in he didn't win or lose by 1/4 or less
of a percentage of the ballots cast there.
That's irrelevant.
You win the state, not a county. As there were about
60,000 uncounted ballots in those counties alone,
and they impacted upon a state-wide race, they had
to be counted.... as provided by Florida state law &
ordered by the Florida court.
If as Albert Gore, Junior so wildly asserted that twenty thousand uncounted
ballots existed in Florida Two Thousand, why didn't Gore introduce any
evidence to that effect? Gore ranted about uncounted ballots outside the
court room but never made such a claim inside the court room.
David
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
02 Feb 2005 08:41:47 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kMidnT2bOa3cHJzfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Yea, except the counties he was asking for a
recount in he didn't win or lose by 1/4 or less
of a percentage of the ballots cast there.
That's irrelevant.
Irrelevent? It's the ENTIRE basis of the law
You win the state, not a county.
Perhaps, but he chose to contest only certain areas, and in those areas he
won by more than 1/4 of a percentage, which means under the statute cited he
has NO justification to call for a recount.
Now, if he had contested the ENTIRE state then that statute might have been
applicable, but he didn't and indeed refused that option. Probably because
he wasn't looking for a fair recount, but fishing for extra votes in a
couple of select areas where he would be most likely to pick up more than
his opponent.
As there were about
60,000 uncounted ballots in those counties alone,
Ah, except the statute doesn't allow counts in just certain areas. You have
to do the WHOLE thing, or nothing. So either he didn't have the proper
cause to demand a recount OR that recount wasn't conducted as per the law.
It's your call, but either way it pretty much sinks your argument.
and they impacted upon a state-wide race, they had
to be counted.... as provided by Florida state law &
ordered by the Florida court.
Yep, and they would have to count the ENTIRE state according to the statute.
"the board responsible for certifying the results of the vote on such race
or measure shall order a manual recount of the overvotes and undervotes cast
in the entire geographic jurisdiction of such office or ballot measure. "
What part of "entire" do you fail to understand?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
02 Feb 2005 09:03:08 PM |
|
|
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Yea, except the counties he was asking for a
recount in he didn't win or lose by 1/4 or less
of a percentage of the ballots cast there.
That's irrelevant.
Irrelevent? It's the ENTIRE basis of the law
The law says no such thing. As I already pointed out,
the Supreme Court UPHELD Florida election law
as it was written... as Al Gore requested a hand count...
as the Florida court ordered the hand count.
You are lying.
A Presidential race is a STATE WIDE race, the vote
BY COUNTY being largely irrelevant, except for the
fact that it wasn't being counted in 2000.
Perhaps, but he chose to contest only certain areas,
and in those areas he won by more than 1/4 of a
percentage, which means under the statute cited he
has NO justification to call for a recount.
As the actual cite I provided demonstrated, he asked
for a hand count for some 60,000 votes which had
never once been counted.
Al Gore wasn't challenging the votes which had
been counted, he was demanding that the rights of
some 60,000 voters stop being violated, and that
their votes be counted.
Read the actual Supreme Court decision, and stop
being such a frigging *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
02 Feb 2005 09:11:17 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2uWdnffxDpYCD5zfRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Yea, except the counties he was asking for a
recount in he didn't win or lose by 1/4 or less
of a percentage of the ballots cast there.
That's irrelevant.
Irrelevent? It's the ENTIRE basis of the law
The law says no such thing.
Care to try again?
1) If the second set of unofficial returns pursuant to s. 102.141 indicates
that a candidate for any office was defeated or eliminated by one-quarter of
a percent or less of the votes cast for such office, that a candidate for
retention to a judicial office was retained or not retained by one-quarter
of a percent or less of the votes cast on the question of retention, or that
a measure appearing on the ballot was approved or rejected by one-quarter of
a percent or less of the votes cast on such measure, the board responsible
for certifying the results of the vote on such race or measure shall order a
manual recount of the overvotes and undervotes cast in the entire geographic
jurisdiction of such office or ballot measure.
Oh, and please note the votes are certified by the county canvassing
commission. So it is they who would order such a recount in their area.
102.155 Certificate of election.--The supervisor shall give to any person
the election of whom is certified by the county canvassing board a
certificate of the person's election.
You are lying.
No, it is the law. Try reading it sometime.
A Presidential race is a STATE WIDE race, the vote
BY COUNTY being largely irrelevant, except for the
fact that it wasn't being counted in 2000.
Ok, a Presidential race is a STATE WIDE race.....
"manual recount of the overvotes and undervotes cast in the entire
geographic jurisdiction of such office or ballot measure. "
Which means that according to your claims the overvotes and undervotes would
have to be counted STATE WIDE, and they were not.
Either way you want to slice it you lose. Either Gore didn't comply with the
requirements to demand a manual recount, or he failed to demand the proper
area be subject to recount. Either way it doesn't look good for your
candidate, or your argument.
Point, Set, Match.
Perhaps, but he chose to contest only certain areas,
and in those areas he won by more than 1/4 of a
percentage, which means under the statute cited he
has NO justification to call for a recount.
As the actual cite I provided demonstrated, he asked
for a hand count for some 60,000 votes which had
never once been counted.
Why should they? He won those counties by more than the amount that allows a
manual recount in those areas....OR...he failed to call for a statewide
recount which would require that ALL such ballots STATE WIDE be recounted.
Gore screwed himself, and then played so many games that time ran out and
those county's returns should have been ignored as set forth in the law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
03 Feb 2005 12:14:21 AM |
|
|
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Care to try again?
1) If the second set of unofficial returns [...]
First you claim that Bush won Florida, now you claim
he lost by a comfortable margin, a margin so great that
re-counts were uncalled for.
We're not speaking of a county election here, and you
do already know that the Supreme Court upheld both
Florida election law *And* the Florida court's
decision. All they did was put it aside in the case of
Al Gore, and ONLY Al Gore.
You're not addressing anything I argued, or the Supreme
Court said.
You're making it up as you go along.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
03 Feb 2005 04:57:47 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VaedndgUc8zzIpzfRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Care to try again?
1) If the second set of unofficial returns [...]
First you claim that Bush won Florida, now you claim
he lost by a comfortable margin, a margin so great that
re-counts were uncalled for.
I never said that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
02 Feb 2005 11:17:08 PM |
|
|
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Yea, except the counties he was asking for a
recount in he didn't win or lose by 1/4 or less
of a percentage of the ballots cast there.
That's irrelevant.
Irrelevent? It's the ENTIRE basis of the law
The law says no such thing.
Care to try again?
1) If the second set of unofficial returns pursuant to s. 102.141 indicates
that a candidate for any office was defeated or eliminated by one-quarter of
a percent or less of the votes cast for such office,
"of the votes cast for such office"
The state, in other words.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
03 Feb 2005 04:50:58 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctsc4j$o5q$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
Yea, except the counties he was asking for a
recount in he didn't win or lose by 1/4 or less
of a percentage of the ballots cast there.
That's irrelevant.
Irrelevent? It's the ENTIRE basis of the law
The law says no such thing.
Care to try again?
1) If the second set of unofficial returns pursuant to s. 102.141
indicates
that a candidate for any office was defeated or eliminated by one-quarter
of
a percent or less of the votes cast for such office,
"of the votes cast for such office"
The state, in other words.
Except they didn't count the state, now did they.
Either it was close on a state wide basis, and as such they would have to
count the entire state which Gore refused to do, or they were going to count
only certain counties but not counties they could call for a manual recount
in. Either way you slice it, Gore wasn't following the law.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "D J" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
02 Feb 2005 10:27:25 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Al Gore wasn't challenging
Democrats lost that election and needed to move on. Two years after that
one they lost another election and last November they lost another one.
They are still living in the past.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
03 Feb 2005 12:17:05 AM |
|
|
"D J" <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote
Democrats lost that election
By getting 500,000+ votes more than Bush!
By winning Florida!
By having the Supreme Court set aside Florida
election law!
The mafia stole the election. That's the Bush mafia.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
03 Feb 2005 04:59:39 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XK2dnTmaRZaPXZzfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
"D J" <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote
Democrats lost that election
By getting 500,000+ votes more than Bush!
Doesn't matter.
By winning Florida!
The Democrats lost in Florida
By having the Supreme Court set aside Florida
election law!
Florida law says Gore lost at 5pm on the 11th day.
The mafia stole the election.
No, we still had the election so it couldn't have been stolen
That's the Bush mafia.
Bush doesn't have a mafia.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Two Bears" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
03 Feb 2005 12:47:16 PM |
|
|
Did Sore/Loserman win even one
re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-count?
ta tah...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
02 Feb 2005 11:17:35 PM |
|
|
D J <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Al Gore wasn't challenging
Democrats lost that election and needed to move on.
"Screw Democracy!"
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
03 Feb 2005 04:55:40 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctsc5f$o6u$1@bolt.sonic.net...
D J <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Al Gore wasn't challenging
Democrats lost that election and needed to move on.
"Screw Democracy!"
Democracy is also following the rules.....something you don't want.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
03 Feb 2005 02:48:43 PM |
|
|
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
D J <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Al Gore wasn't challenging
Democrats lost that election and needed to move on.
"Screw Democracy!"
Democracy is also following the rules.
Such as the US Constitution which says that states, and not the
federal government, get to decide how they conduct their elections.
We know that you neocons like to rewrite the rules to benefit your
candidates. You don't really care about democracy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
03 Feb 2005 07:21:40 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctu2nb$fic$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
D J <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Al Gore wasn't challenging
Democrats lost that election and needed to move on.
"Screw Democracy!"
Democracy is also following the rules.
Such as the US Constitution which says that states, and not the
federal government, get to decide how they conduct their elections.
Yep, and the legislatures set the rules.....the Courts don't have the
authority to change the rules, particularly in the middle of an election.
We know that you neocons like to rewrite the rules to benefit your
candidates. You don't really care about democracy.
You mean like rewriting the rules to allow Gore to continue recounting past
the mandated time period to certify returns?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
03 Feb 2005 08:16:59 PM |
|
|
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctu2nb$fic$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
D J <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Al Gore wasn't challenging
Democrats lost that election and needed to move on.
"Screw Democracy!"
Democracy is also following the rules.
Such as the US Constitution which says that states, and not the
federal government, get to decide how they conduct their elections.
Yep, and the legislatures set the rules.....the Courts don't have the
authority to change the rules,
Yes, *****, they do. Especially when that authority has been given
to them by the legislature.
We know that you neocons like to rewrite the rules to benefit your
candidates. You don't really care about democracy.
You mean like rewriting the rules to allow Gore to continue recounting past
the mandated time period to certify returns?
We saw how that worked - the USSC stops the recount long enough to
make it impossible to complete the recount before the arbitrary
deadline.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
03 Feb 2005 09:53:03 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctuluq$ovt$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ctu2nb$fic$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
D J <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Al Gore wasn't challenging
Democrats lost that election and needed to move on.
"Screw Democracy!"
Democracy is also following the rules.
Such as the US Constitution which says that states, and not the
federal government, get to decide how they conduct their elections.
Yep, and the legislatures set the rules.....the Courts don't have the
authority to change the rules,
Yes, *****, they do.
No, they do not.
"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no
Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit
under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. "
Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 1.
The legislature directs the appointment of the electors.....NOT the courts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
04 Feb 2005 10:07:49 PM |
|
|
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
D J <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Al Gore wasn't challenging
Democrats lost that election and needed to move on.
"Screw Democracy!"
Democracy is also following the rules.
Such as the US Constitution which says that states, and not the
federal government, get to decide how they conduct their elections.
Yep, and the legislatures set the rules.....the Courts don't have the
authority to change the rules,
Yes, *****, they do.
No, they do not.
Yes, they do, especially when that power has been given to them by the
legislature.
"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct,
And if they say that the method involves voting and judical review,
then that's the way it happens.
Unless you want to steal an election.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
05 Feb 2005 04:16:14 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu1gqk$68k$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
D J <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Al Gore wasn't challenging
Democrats lost that election and needed to move on.
"Screw Democracy!"
Democracy is also following the rules.
Such as the US Constitution which says that states, and not the
federal government, get to decide how they conduct their elections.
Yep, and the legislatures set the rules.....the Courts don't have the
authority to change the rules,
Yes, *****, they do.
No, they do not.
Yes, they do, especially when that power has been given to them by the
legislature.
Really? Care to post the statute that allows the Florida Supreme Court to
rewrite the state law?
"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct,
And if they say that the method involves voting and judical review,
then that's the way it happens.
Sorry, but I did a scan of the state election laws, and I didn't find
anything about "judicial review".
Care to point out where the Courts get to decide that the established
election laws don't apply and impose new standards?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
05 Feb 2005 01:54:25 PM |
|
|
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu1gqk$68k$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
D J <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Al Gore wasn't challenging
Democrats lost that election and needed to move on.
"Screw Democracy!"
Democracy is also following the rules.
Such as the US Constitution which says that states, and not the
federal government, get to decide how they conduct their elections.
Yep, and the legislatures set the rules.....the Courts don't have the
authority to change the rules,
Yes, *****, they do.
No, they do not.
Yes, they do, especially when that power has been given to them by the
legislature.
Really? Care to post the statute that allows the Florida Supreme Court to
rewrite the state law?
Care to provide the actual law that was rewritten, with both the
previous and subsequent versions?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
05 Feb 2005 07:57:00 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu389g$i6s$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu1gqk$68k$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
D J <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Al Gore wasn't challenging
Democrats lost that election and needed to move on.
"Screw Democracy!"
Democracy is also following the rules.
Such as the US Constitution which says that states, and not the
federal government, get to decide how they conduct their elections.
Yep, and the legislatures set the rules.....the Courts don't have the
authority to change the rules,
Yes, *****, they do.
No, they do not.
Yes, they do, especially when that power has been given to them by the
legislature.
Really? Care to post the statute that allows the Florida Supreme Court to
rewrite the state law?
Care to provide the actual law that was rewritten, with both the
previous and subsequent versions?
102.112 Deadline for submission of county returns to the Department of
State.--
(1) The county canvassing board or a majority thereof shall file the county
returns for the election of a federal or state officer with the Department
of State immediately after certification of the election results.
(2) Returns must be filed by 5 p.m. on the 7th day following a primary
election and by 5 p.m. on the 11th day following the general election.
(3) If the returns are not received by the department by the time
specified, such returns shall be ignored and the results on file at that
time shall be certified by the department.
(4) If the returns are not received by the department due to an emergency,
as defined in s. 101.732, the Elections Canvassing Commission shall
determine the deadline by which the returns must be received.
Day 11 at 5pm, Gore lost. The Court refused to uphold the law and
"interpreted" it to allow the returns to still be considered after that time
despite the clear letter of the law.
After all, I don't know about you but "shall be ignored" seems pretty cut
and dried to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
05 Feb 2005 11:57:42 PM |
|
|
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu389g$i6s$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu1gqk$68k$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
D J <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Al Gore wasn't challenging
Democrats lost that election and needed to move on.
"Screw Democracy!"
Democracy is also following the rules.
Such as the US Constitution which says that states, and not the
federal government, get to decide how they conduct their elections.
Yep, and the legislatures set the rules.....the Courts don't have the
authority to change the rules,
Yes, *****, they do.
No, they do not.
Yes, they do, especially when that power has been given to them by the
legislature.
Really? Care to post the statute that allows the Florida Supreme Court to
rewrite the state law?
Care to provide the actual law that was rewritten, with both the
previous and subsequent versions?
I see that you could not provide the "rewritten" version. Obviously
your claim was just another one of your many lies.
102.112 Deadline for submission of county returns to the Department of
State.--
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
06 Feb 2005 07:02:35 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu4bkm$mlt$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu389g$i6s$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cu1gqk$68k$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
D J <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Al Gore wasn't challenging
Democrats lost that election and needed to move on.
"Screw Democracy!"
Democracy is also following the rules.
Such as the US Constitution which says that states, and not the
federal government, get to decide how they conduct their
elections.
Yep, and the legislatures set the rules.....the Courts don't have
the
authority to change the rules,
Yes, *****, they do.
No, they do not.
Yes, they do, especially when that power has been given to them by the
legislature.
Really? Care to post the statute that allows the Florida Supreme Court
to
rewrite the state law?
Care to provide the actual law that was rewritten, with both the
previous and subsequent versions?
I see that you could not provide the "rewritten" version. Obviously
your claim was just another one of your many lies.
102.112 Deadline for submission of county returns to the Department of
State.--
And I note that you can't show where the court upheld this law as written.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
04 Feb 2005 10:56:50 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
D J <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Al Gore wasn't challenging
Democrats lost that election and needed to move on.
"Screw Democracy!"
Democracy is also following the rules.
Such as the US Constitution which says that states, and not the
federal government, get to decide how they conduct their elections.
Yep, and the legislatures set the rules.....the Courts don't have the
authority to change the rules,
Yes, *****, they do.
No, they do not.
Yes, they do, especially when that power has been given to them by the
legislature.
"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct,
And if they say that the method involves voting and judical review,
then that's the way it happens.
Unless you want to steal an election.
Well, that's what Christine Gregoire is trying to do...
recount... recount... recount... OOOOHHHH!!! I win... no
more recounts.
A typical liberal tactic, hoping to find a way to cheat the
system.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
05 Feb 2005 11:37:44 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
D J <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Al Gore wasn't challenging
Democrats lost that election and needed to move on.
"Screw Democracy!"
Democracy is also following the rules.
Such as the US Constitution which says that states, and not the
federal government, get to decide how they conduct their elections.
We know that you neocons like to rewrite the rules to benefit your
candidates. You don't really care about democracy.
That is true of both sides, Ray. Neither is clean about elections.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
05 Feb 2005 01:55:58 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
D J <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Al Gore wasn't challenging
Democrats lost that election and needed to move on.
"Screw Democracy!"
Democracy is also following the rules.
Such as the US Constitution which says that states, and not the
federal government, get to decide how they conduct their elections.
We know that you neocons like to rewrite the rules to benefit your
candidates. You don't really care about democracy.
That is true of both sides, Ray. Neither is clean about elections.
You get an award for impressive stupidity in missing the point.
Don't whine that "they did it too!" Demand that it stop. Stop making
excuses.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
06 Feb 2005 12:08:17 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
D J <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Al Gore wasn't challenging
Democrats lost that election and needed to move on.
"Screw Democracy!"
Democracy is also following the rules.
Such as the US Constitution which says that states, and not the
federal government, get to decide how they conduct their elections.
We know that you neocons like to rewrite the rules to benefit your
candidates. You don't really care about democracy.
That is true of both sides, Ray. Neither is clean about elections.
You get an award for impressive stupidity in missing the point.
If it comes from you, you must be a social climber....
Don't whine that "they did it too!" Demand that it stop. Stop making
excuses.
I do, you ignorant twit. Doing it in here won't accomplish a damn thing.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
04 Feb 2005 02:13:33 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
D J <djaymix@gignew.com> wrote:
JTEM wrote:
Al Gore wasn't challenging
Democrats lost that election and needed to move on.
"Screw Democracy!"
Democracy is also following the rules.
Such as the US Constitution which says that states, and not the
federal government, get to decide how they conduct their elections.
The US Constitution also states that the rules for conducting elections
can't be changed during an election.
We know that you neocons like to rewrite the rules to benefit your
candidates. You don't really care about democracy.
Equal protection is a *****, isn't it Ray?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
