Religions > Atheism > Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
17 Sep 2003 06:55:27 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
Route66Lovers@2LanesForever.com.invalid (Dusty Rhodes) wrote:
:|if you have a link to it, I'd appreciate it posted here. (It appears
:|that you do from the info you gave above.)
Strickland having a link? I see you don't know jeffy.
He won't have a link, you can bet on that.
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
18 Sep 2003 05:54:13 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:qsigmvs5qfiuof868oa3eujgo6lj70grcq@4ax.com...
Route66Lovers@2LanesForever.com.invalid (Dusty Rhodes) wrote:
:|if you have a link to it, I'd appreciate it posted here. (It appears
:|that you do from the info you gave above.)
Strickland having a link? I see you don't know jeffy.
He won't have a link, you can bet on that.
You seem to be suggesting that getting one's news reports from the Internet
is a better source than a newspaper? Yeah, right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
22 Sep 2003 06:53:50 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:qsigmvs5qfiuof868oa3eujgo6lj70grcq@4ax.com...
:|> Route66Lovers@2LanesForever.com.invalid (Dusty Rhodes) wrote:
:|> >:|if you have a link to it, I'd appreciate it posted here. (It appears
:|> >:|that you do from the info you gave above.)
:|>
:|>
:|> Strickland having a link? I see you don't know jeffy.
:|>
:|> He won't have a link, you can bet on that.
:|
:|
:|You seem to be suggesting that getting one's news reports from the Internet
:|is a better source than a newspaper? Yeah, right.
Seem to be suggesting?
Jeffy, I don't have any problems saying what I mean at all.
I was quite clear and most who would have read what I said would have
understood what I meant.
For you since you didn't understand,
I made no mention of the internet
I made no mentions of newspapers even.
I pointed out a fact, you would not have a cite and you haven't provided a
cite yet despite several people asking you for one.
You keep blowing smoke
I meant, jeffy, you are famous or infamous for not providing any
documentation or cites to anything you say.
You are this person jeffy remember
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
I like to believe things I want to hear I don't like knowing the facts if
they aren't going to agree with what I want to believe and I especially
love passing along on the interest as facts things I haven't a clue about
their accuracy -- Strickland.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
22 Sep 2003 10:33:47 AM |
|
|
:|> He won't have a link, you can bet on that.
:|
:|
:|You seem to be suggesting that getting one's news reports from the
Internet
:|is a better source than a newspaper? Yeah, right.
Seem to be suggesting?
Jeffy, I don't have any problems saying what I mean at all.
I was quite clear and most who would have read what I said would have
understood what I meant.
For you since you didn't understand,
I made no mention of the internet
I made no mentions of newspapers even.
You specifically mentioned the Internet. The quote was, "He won't have a
LINK, you can bet on that."
A LINK is an Internet term. You specifically mentioned the Internet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
22 Sep 2003 11:57:16 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
:|
:|> >:|> He won't have a link, you can bet on that.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|
:|> >:|You seem to be suggesting that getting one's news reports from the
:|Internet
:|> >:|is a better source than a newspaper? Yeah, right.
:|>
:|> Seem to be suggesting?
:|> Jeffy, I don't have any problems saying what I mean at all.
:|>
:|> I was quite clear and most who would have read what I said would have
:|> understood what I meant.
:|>
:|> For you since you didn't understand,
:|> I made no mention of the internet
:|> I made no mentions of newspapers even.
:|>
:|
:|You specifically mentioned the Internet. The quote was, "He won't have a
:|LINK, you can bet on that."
:|
:|A LINK is an Internet term. You specifically mentioned the Internet.
Guilty as charged,
I confess.
You have yet to offer a valid cite, be it a link or in any other form.
Now, about this matter:
"Jeff Strickland" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:j0lrmvcouh07jmenrdb0d2nq759r4elui2@4ax.com...
:|>
:|> "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|Like you are a trust worthy source.
:|>
:|>
:|> I am a trust worth source. I have earned that reputation among most,
:|> excluding those that I routinely trash, that is routinely trash their
:|> flawed unsubstantiated opinions
:|>
:|> You don't have any credibility.
:|> this is you, remember:
:|>
:|Your opinion is so biased that it is worthless.
ho, hum. LOL
(1) Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) You will seldom find "my opinion" in my posts. You keep pretending you
don't remember that, that is until I hit a raw nerve at which time you then
***** whine, cry, bawl and in general act like a school kid over the fact I
don't offer my opinion.
(3) You will frequently find me offering the entire letter, speech,
newspaper report, etc, including that which supports the point that I am
making, as well as things that are neutral and "HORRORS" even things that
might even damaged my position some.
That is called balanced, that is called being accurate because things
occur, in life, in exactly that way. People and events are made up of
combinations of things. Some are supportive, some neutral and some not so
supportive even opposing.
The biased person scours life looking for only that which they feel or
thinks they can twist and spin in their favor leaving out all that is
neutral and non supportive.
You can look at our web site sonny and find all three, supportive, neutral
and opposing.
Also something that you are too stupid to understand is that being
biased, if it is true, is a negative only if the information, the INFORMED
opinions, etc are false, flawed or misrepresented in an effort to create
and maintain a falsehood, or otherwise flawed position.
Sorry sonny, I don't qualify for that dubious honor, but you do.
:|You swallow the crap and
:|stupidity of the court hook, line, and sinker.
LOL, Jeffy, I don't swallow anything.
I was born at a time when millions of people were dying blindly
unquestioningly following insane power hungry individuals. As a result of
that millions of others died as well.
I grew up in a time period jeffy that instilled high suspicion of
politicians, government, people in authority, etc.
I grew up in a period when hypocrisy was shown on a regular basis by such
people.
I became aware of, after the fact, long after the fact, that a man's father
bought the White House.
I also watched that man's son have his brains splattered all over the
street and his wife and other occupants of the car he rode in. Later his
brother would have much the same end.
I watched one of the most powerful men in this country maintain his power
by threats of blackmail, while he lived a life that he publicly scorned, a
life that was in some respects as sordid as any of those he threatened to
blackmail. J. Edgar Hoover gave homosexual love a black eye.
I participated in a war in which almost 60,000 Americans were killed, I
haven't a clue how many were physically wounded and has had to spend a
lifetime dealing with the results of those wounds and huge numbers were
emotionally wounded and spent a lifetime dealing with that. A war that was
basically government sponsored, created and maintained for 8 to 10 years as
a full scale war.
I watched a man in his ambition to get elected lie using the Eisenhower
Pledge of ending the war to get elected, then prolong the war for four more
years so her could use it again to get elected again.
Ike actually kept his word, Nixon used the death and maiming of Americans
to get elected not once but twice.
I watched far too many men like Judge Moore, use gullible people to get
what they personally wanted regardless of the harm it caused others.
All the politicians of the south of the 40s - 60s did the exact same thing
that judge Moore is doing today and that, far too frequently, resulted in
harm to many, many others and, far too frequently, death to others.
No, Jeffy, I don't swallow crap. I don't trust any politician, I don't
blindly accept anything any representative of government, business, Madison
Ave, etc. says. I don't blindly accept what talking heads give out on TV,
Radio, in fact, I seldom listen to either. I don't automatically accept
what is found in a newspaper, nor do I accept scholars without serious
verifying and research on my part.
The reason I hold you in such utter contempt is because you are just like
the politicians. Truth, facts and/or being accurate is of little if any
concern of yours.
You are the stupidity of the courts that you talk about, but you are too
stupid to even know it.
To show stupidity on the part of the courts or any other branch of the
government you have to be smart enough to recognize their flaws and not
only recognize it but show it with facts, with evidence, etc. You jeffy,
fail in that department miserably.
Anyone can say that such and such court ruling is 'incorrect.' That is
meaningless and irrelevant. In fact our legal system is set up to create
"winners" and "losers" and the losers are usually pretty unhappy.
(It is an adversarial system, jeffy, in case you hadn't noticed.) Person
"A" feels they have been subject to a "wrong" and they seek relief.
Person"B" claims no such "wrong" took place. A third party hears the facts,
the issues applies the law and reaches a conclusions which is the ruling or
holding. One of the principles is going be satisfied and one isn't going
to be. The side that didn't like the ruling is going to say the ruling is
wrong. That doesn't make it wrong.
You are unable to show, to document with valid facts, valid evidence why a
court ruling is wrong or you feel that it is wrong.
Here sonny, just so you can see the difference between you and me.
I do document, I do show with valid facts, valid evidence. You can't and
you don't You are nothing more than an opinionated, UNINFORMED buffoon,
that provides laughter and humor for far more intelligent and/or informed
people than you could even hope to be.
Compare your ***** posts and replies to the following:
(1) Vouchers: Our Position
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouposit.htm
(2) http://snurl.com/2f6u
:|I at least question the
:|ignorance around me instead of buy into it and spread it like so much
:|manure.
LOL what a joke.
The following has your number sonny no matter how blind you are to that
fact.
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
I like to believe things I want to hear I don't like knowing the facts if
they aren't going to agree with what I want to believe and I especially
love passing along on the interest as facts things I haven't a clue about
their accuracy -- Strickland.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
22 Sep 2003 04:21:55 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:c8aumv0sb7a3sqtd1c33dcbfda5l95pj14@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
:|
:|> >:|> He won't have a link, you can bet on that.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|
:|> >:|You seem to be suggesting that getting one's news reports from the
:|Internet
:|> >:|is a better source than a newspaper? Yeah, right.
:|>
:|> Seem to be suggesting?
:|> Jeffy, I don't have any problems saying what I mean at all.
:|>
:|> I was quite clear and most who would have read what I said would have
:|> understood what I meant.
:|>
:|> For you since you didn't understand,
:|> I made no mention of the internet
:|> I made no mentions of newspapers even.
:|>
:|
:|You specifically mentioned the Internet. The quote was, "He won't have
a
:|LINK, you can bet on that."
:|
:|A LINK is an Internet term. You specifically mentioned the Internet.
Guilty as charged,
I confess.
You have yet to offer a valid cite, be it a link or in any other form.
Now, about this matter:
You are right, I am making the whole thing up. The Recall Election in
California is going along without a hitch. The 9th has not intervened where
they have no business, cited a Supreme Court ruling that the SC itself said
should not be applied anywhere but in Florida in 2000. The ACLU has not
distorted the truth to illustrate a point that is bogus, flawwed, and
invalid. The ACLU is not creating a ficticous problem in counties with high
minority populations when the actual instances of voter error have occured
in non-minority counties. Yeah, right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
23 Sep 2003 06:37:34 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|You are right, I am making the whole thing up.
Amazing isn't it that the above was all you was able to grasp from what I
said in my reply.
:|The Recall Election in California
I have no interest in. it's not church state. in fact, I find it as
amusing as I find you. I think only my half sister and step sister, both
of whom live in California aren't running for Gov.
I find it even more amusing that perhaps the Bush/Gore thing is gonna come
back to haunt the five jokes on the USSC and it being stirred up all over
again as the handlers of baby Wyatt Earp, teflon Bush are beginning to
understand his re-election isn't a sure thing.
They have run out of wars to distract people with, and what is left of the
"wars" they are fighting is actually beginning to work against them
No, jeffy what I said, but was far too complex for you to grasp, covered
the time period from the end of June 2002 to the present and was
referencing all of the posts and replies I have seen and read that were
posted by you.
Now, in that light dippy, try it again:
"Jeff Strickland" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:j0lrmvcouh07jmenrdb0d2nq759r4elui2@4ax.com...
:|>
:|> "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|Like you are a trust worthy source.
:|>
:|>
:|> I am a trust worth source. I have earned that reputation among most,
:|> excluding those that I routinely trash, that is routinely trash their
:|> flawed unsubstantiated opinions
:|>
:|> You don't have any credibility.
:|> this is you, remember:
:|>
:|Your opinion is so biased that it is worthless.
ho, hum. LOL
(1) Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) You will seldom find "my opinion" in my posts. You keep pretending you
don't remember that, that is until I hit a raw nerve at which time you then
***** whine, cry, bawl and in general act like a school kid over the fact I
don't offer my opinion.
(3) You will frequently find me offering the entire letter, speech,
newspaper report, etc, including that which supports the point that I am
making, as well as things that are neutral and "HORRORS" even things that
might even damaged my position some.
That is called balanced, that is called being accurate because things
occur, in life, in exactly that way. People and events are made up of
combinations of things. Some are supportive, some neutral and some not so
supportive even opposing.
The biased person scours life looking for only that which they feel or
thinks they can twist and spin in their favor leaving out all that is
neutral and non supportive.
You can look at our web site sonny and find all three, supportive, neutral
and opposing.
Also something that you are too stupid to understand is that being
biased, if it is true, is a negative only if the information, the INFORMED
opinions, etc are false, flawed or misrepresented in an effort to create
and maintain a falsehood, or otherwise flawed position.
Sorry sonny, I don't qualify for that dubious honor, but you do.
:|You swallow the crap and
:|stupidity of the court hook, line, and sinker.
LOL, Jeffy, I don't swallow anything.
I was born at a time when millions of people were dying blindly
unquestioningly following insane power hungry individuals. As a result of
that millions of others died as well.
I grew up in a time period jeffy that instilled high suspicion of
politicians, government, people in authority, etc.
I grew up in a period when hypocrisy was shown on a regular basis by such
people.
I became aware of, after the fact, long after the fact, that a man's father
bought the White House.
I also watched that man's son have his brains splattered all over the
street and his wife and other occupants of the car he rode in. Later his
brother would have much the same end.
I watched one of the most powerful men in this country maintain his power
by threats of blackmail, while he lived a life that he publicly scorned, a
life that was in some respects as sordid as any of those he threatened to
blackmail. J. Edgar Hoover gave homosexual love a black eye.
I participated in a war in which almost 60,000 Americans were killed, I
haven't a clue how many were physically wounded and has had to spend a
lifetime dealing with the results of those wounds and huge numbers were
emotionally wounded and spent a lifetime dealing with that. A war that was
basically government sponsored, created and maintained for 8 to 10 years as
a full scale war.
I watched a man in his ambition to get elected lie using the Eisenhower
Pledge of ending the war to get elected, then prolong the war for four more
years so her could use it again to get elected again.
Ike actually kept his word, Nixon used the death and maiming of Americans
to get elected not once but twice.
I watched far too many men like Judge Moore, use gullible people to get
what they personally wanted regardless of the harm it caused others.
All the politicians of the south of the 40s - 60s did the exact same thing
that judge Moore is doing today and that, far too frequently, resulted in
harm to many, many others and, far too frequently, death to others.
No, Jeffy, I don't swallow crap. I don't trust any politician, I don't
blindly accept anything any representative of government, business, Madison
Ave, etc. says. I don't blindly accept what talking heads give out on TV,
Radio, in fact, I seldom listen to either. I don't automatically accept
what is found in a newspaper, nor do I accept scholars without serious
verifying and research on my part.
The reason I hold you in such utter contempt is because you are just like
the politicians. Truth, facts and/or being accurate is of little if any
concern of yours.
You are the stupidity of the courts that you talk about, but you are too
stupid to even know it.
To show stupidity on the part of the courts or any other branch of the
government you have to be smart enough to recognize their flaws and not
only recognize it but show it with facts, with evidence, etc. You jeffy,
fail in that department miserably.
Anyone can say that such and such court ruling is 'incorrect.' That is
meaningless and irrelevant. In fact our legal system is set up to create
"winners" and "losers" and the losers are usually pretty unhappy.
(It is an adversarial system, jeffy, in case you hadn't noticed.) Person
"A" feels they have been subject to a "wrong" and they seek relief.
Person"B" claims no such "wrong" took place. A third party hears the facts,
the issues applies the law and reaches a conclusions which is the ruling or
holding. One of the principles is going be satisfied and one isn't going
to be. The side that didn't like the ruling is going to say the ruling is
wrong. That doesn't make it wrong.
You are unable to show, to document with valid facts, valid evidence why a
court ruling is wrong or you feel that it is wrong.
Here sonny, just so you can see the difference between you and me.
I do document, I do show with valid facts, valid evidence. You can't and
you don't You are nothing more than an opinionated, UNINFORMED buffoon,
that provides laughter and humor for far more intelligent and/or informed
people than you could even hope to be.
Compare your ***** posts and replies to the following:
(1) Vouchers: Our Position
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouposit.htm
(2) http://snurl.com/2f6u
:|I at least question the
:|ignorance around me instead of buy into it and spread it like so much
:|manure.
LOL what a joke.
The following has your number sonny no matter how blind you are to that
fact.
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
I like to believe things I want to hear I don't like knowing the facts if
they aren't going to agree with what I want to believe and I especially
love passing along on the interest as facts things I haven't a clue about
their accuracy -- Strickland.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
23 Sep 2003 09:51:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 wrote:
:|The Recall Election in California
I have no interest in. it's not church state. in fact, I find it as
amusing as I find you. I think only my half sister and step sister, both
of whom live in California aren't running for Gov.
It is fun, isn't it?
What I enjoyed most today was commentary to the effect that Darrell
Issa, the guy who was behind the recall in the first place and then
withdrew in tears (he spent 1.7 mil. of his own cash on it), has
now suggested that if one of the top dogs doesn't pull out, a "no" vote is
in order.
Apparently Bustamante is more scary than Davis.
What's there not to love about this circus? It's got it all. Thrills.
Suspense. Comedy. Hysterics. Who needs soaps?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/24/national/24RECA.html?hp
Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican from San Diego who financed the
recall effort with more than $1.7 million of his own money, said that if
Mr. Schwarzenegger or Mr. McClintock did not withdraw in the next few days
he would urge a "no" vote on the recall to prevent the election of Mr.
Bustamante, whom he called worse than Mr. Davis.
"We cannot go into the last week of the election with two Republican
candidates vying for one slice of the electorate," Mr. Issa said in a
telephone interview from Washington.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
23 Sep 2003 10:39:47 PM |
|
|
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
What I enjoyed most today was commentary to the effect that Darrell
Issa, the guy who was behind the recall in the first place and then
withdrew in tears (he spent 1.7 mil. of his own cash on it), has
now suggested that if one of the top dogs doesn't pull out, a "no" vote is
in order.
Apparently Bustamante is more scary than Davis.
What's there not to love about this circus? It's got it all. Thrills.
Suspense. Comedy. Hysterics. Who needs soaps?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/24/national/24RECA.html?hp
Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican from San Diego who financed the
recall effort with more than $1.7 million of his own money, said that if
Mr. Schwarzenegger or Mr. McClintock did not withdraw in the next few days
he would urge a "no" vote on the recall to prevent the election of Mr.
Bustamante, whom he called worse than Mr. Davis.
"We cannot go into the last week of the election with two Republican
candidates vying for one slice of the electorate," Mr. Issa said in a
telephone interview from Washington.
Thereby proving the claim of Democrats that the recall was about
overturning the last election and not removing someone unfit for
office by his actions. If Issa truly felt that Davis was unfit for
office by his actions, then he would support his removal no matter who
would replace him.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
22 Sep 2003 06:00:58 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
You are right, I am making the whole thing up.
That was not the claim. The claim is whether you have any knowledge
of the facts, and whether that knowledge is accurate. You've already
proven that you are ignorant of the law.
The Recall Election in California is going along without a hitch.
The semantics of "hitch" would determine that.
The 9th has not intervened where they have no business,
They had business. They were given a case and asked to rule. It was
in their jurisdiction.
cited a Supreme Court ruling that the SC itself said
should not be applied anywhere but in Florida in 2000.
1) It remains to be seen whether the SC can in fact make such a
statement and hold to it, since it had never done so before and runs
counter to the judicial standards.
2) It cited the arguments posed for the SC decision, not the ruling.
If the arguments were invalid, then the SC decision was invalid.
3. The decision is not solely based on the SC decision, and several
other decisions were cited that are probably sufficient.
The ACLU has not distorted the truth
Correct.
to illustrate a point that is bogus, flawwed, and invalid.
The court has disagreed.
The ACLU is not creating a ficticous problem in counties with high
minority populations when the actual instances of voter error have occured
in non-minority counties. Yeah, right.
This argument makes no sense and has nothing to do with the decision.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's RecallElection? |
18 Sep 2003 07:13:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:qsigmvs5qfiuof868oa3eujgo6lj70grcq@4ax.com...
Route66Lovers@2LanesForever.com.invalid (Dusty Rhodes) wrote:
:|if you have a link to it, I'd appreciate it posted here. (It appears
:|that you do from the info you gave above.)
Strickland having a link? I see you don't know jeffy.
He won't have a link, you can bet on that.
You seem to be suggesting that getting one's news reports from the Internet
is a better source than a newspaper? Yeah, right.
You can still provide a proper citation. Most newspapers, however,
have a website that can provide at least contact info. And many many
of us have access to subscription databases accessible online
which will have news from newspapers not available online. Tho
many newspapers share the same sources.... so while you may have
read a particular story in one newspaper, it could very well have
been printed by a number of other papers too, some of which may
be online.
Whatever. At the very least, cite your sources.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
19 Sep 2003 11:13:01 AM |
|
|
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0309181711100.21299-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:qsigmvs5qfiuof868oa3eujgo6lj70grcq@4ax.com...
Route66Lovers@2LanesForever.com.invalid (Dusty Rhodes) wrote:
:|if you have a link to it, I'd appreciate it posted here. (It
appears
:|that you do from the info you gave above.)
Strickland having a link? I see you don't know jeffy.
He won't have a link, you can bet on that.
You seem to be suggesting that getting one's news reports from the
Internet
is a better source than a newspaper? Yeah, right.
You can still provide a proper citation. Most newspapers, however,
have a website that can provide at least contact info. And many many
of us have access to subscription databases accessible online
which will have news from newspapers not available online. Tho
many newspapers share the same sources.... so while you may have
read a particular story in one newspaper, it could very well have
been printed by a number of other papers too, some of which may
be online.
Whatever. At the very least, cite your sources.
It is a current news event that is covered by the national press, including
radio, television, newspapers, and magazines. If I was citing an obscure
ruling from years ago, then the citation would be needed. All you need to do
to check my sources is turn on the television or radio, or go buy a
newspaper. You could get a gallon of milk and read Time or Newsweek while
standing in the checkout counter line.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
19 Sep 2003 04:17:18 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:13:01 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote
(in message <vmmaptr2goece4@corp.supernews.com>):
It is a current news event that is covered by the national press, including
radio, television, newspapers, and magazines. If I was citing an obscure
ruling from years ago, then the citation would be needed. All you need to do
to check my sources is turn on the television or radio, or go buy a
newspaper. You could get a gallon of milk and read Time or Newsweek while
standing in the checkout counter line.
I would hope that you are not under the mistaken impression that you have any
credibilty whatsover and that anything you state without a citation is -
pretty much - not regarded as "reliable".
You seem to start off the day by believing six pieces of fiction before
breakfast and swallowing a frog.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
"Starting off the day by swallowing a frog will, generally,
insure that nothing worse will happen that day." - unknown
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
19 Sep 2003 06:58:43 PM |
|
|
"Gray Shockley" <gray@compcomm.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BB90DC8E000797D523A276B0@text.giganews.com...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:13:01 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote
(in message <vmmaptr2goece4@corp.supernews.com>):
It is a current news event that is covered by the national press,
including
radio, television, newspapers, and magazines. If I was citing an obscure
ruling from years ago, then the citation would be needed. All you need
to do
to check my sources is turn on the television or radio, or go buy a
newspaper. You could get a gallon of milk and read Time or Newsweek
while
standing in the checkout counter line.
I would hope that you are not under the mistaken impression that you have
any
credibilty whatsover and that anything you state without a citation is -
pretty much - not regarded as "reliable".
You seem to start off the day by believing six pieces of fiction before
breakfast and swallowing a frog.
Like you are a trust worthy source.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
21 Sep 2003 11:40:25 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Like you are a trust worthy source.
I am a trust worth source. I have earned that reputation among most,
excluding those that I routinely trash, that is routinely trash their
flawed unsubstantiated opinions
You don't have any credibility.
this is you, remember:
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
I like to believe things I want to hear I don't like knowing the facts if
they aren't going to agree with what I want to believe and I especially
love passing along on the interest as facts things I haven't a clue about
their accuracy -- Strickland.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
21 Sep 2003 02:02:50 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:j0lrmvcouh07jmenrdb0d2nq759r4elui2@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Like you are a trust worthy source.
I am a trust worth source. I have earned that reputation among most,
excluding those that I routinely trash, that is routinely trash their
flawed unsubstantiated opinions
You don't have any credibility.
this is you, remember:
Your opinion is so biased that it is worthless. You swallow the crap and
stupidity of the court hook, line, and sinker. I at least question the
ignorance around me instead of buy into it and spread it like so much
manure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
22 Sep 2003 06:53:11 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:j0lrmvcouh07jmenrdb0d2nq759r4elui2@4ax.com...
:|>
:|> "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|Like you are a trust worthy source.
:|>
:|>
:|> I am a trust worth source. I have earned that reputation among most,
:|> excluding those that I routinely trash, that is routinely trash their
:|> flawed unsubstantiated opinions
:|>
:|> You don't have any credibility.
:|> this is you, remember:
:|>
:|Your opinion is so biased that it is worthless.
ho, hum. LOL
(1) Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) You will seldom find "my opinion" in my posts. You keep pretending you
don't remember that, that is until I hit a raw nerve at which time you then
***** whine, cry, bawl and in general act like a school kid over the fact I
don't offer my opinion.
(3) You will frequently find me offering the entire letter, speech,
newspaper report, etc, including that which supports the point that I am
making, as well as things that are neutral and "HORRORS" even things that
might even damaged my position some.
That is called balanced, that is called being accurate because things
occur, in life, in exactly that way. People and events are made up of
combinations of things. Some are supportive, some neutral and some not so
supportive even opposing.
The biased person scours life looking for only that which they feel or
thinks they can twist and spin in their favor leaving out all that is
neutral and non supportive.
You can look at our web site sonny and find all three, supportive, neutral
and opposing.
Also something that you are too stupid to understand is that being
biased, if it is true, is a negative only if the information, the INFORMED
opinions, etc are false, flawed or misrepresented in an effort to create
and maintain a falsehood, or otherwise flawed position.
Sorry sonny, I don't qualify for that dubious honor, but you do.
:|You swallow the crap and
:|stupidity of the court hook, line, and sinker.
LOL, Jeffy, I don't swallow anything.
I was born at a time when millions of people were dying blindly
unquestioningly following insane power hungry individuals. As a result of
that millions of others died as well.
I grew up in a time period jeffy that instilled high suspicion of
politicians, government, people in authority, etc.
I grew up in a period when hypocrisy was shown on a regular basis by such
people.
I became aware of, after the fact, long after the fact, that a man's father
bought the White House.
I also watched that man's son have his brains splattered all over the
street and his wife and other occupants of the car he rode in. Later his
brother would have much the same end.
I watched one of the most powerful men in this country maintain his power
by threats of blackmail, while he lived a life that he publicly scorned, a
life that was in some respects as sordid as any of those he threatened to
blackmail. J. Edgar Hoover gave homosexual love a black eye.
I participated in a war in which almost 60,000 Americans were killed, I
haven't a clue how many were physically wounded and has had to spend a
lifetime dealing with the results of those wounds and huge numbers were
emotionally wounded and spent a lifetime dealing with that. A war that was
basically government sponsored, created and maintained for 8 to 10 years as
a full scale war.
I watched a man in his ambition to get elected lie using the Eisenhower
Pledge of ending the war to get elected, then prolong the war for four more
years so her could use it again to get elected again.
Ike actually kept his word, Nixon used the death and maiming of Americans
to get elected not once but twice.
I watched far too many men like Judge Moore, use gullible people to get
what they personally wanted regardless of the harm it caused others.
All the politicians of the south of the 40s - 60s did the exact same thing
that judge Moore is doing today and that, far too frequently, resulted in
harm to many, many others and, far too frequently, death to others.
No, Jeffy, I don't swallow crap. I don't trust any politician, I don't
blindly accept anything any representative of government, business, Madison
Ave, etc. says. I don't blindly accept what talking heads give out on TV,
Radio, in fact, I seldom listen to either. I don't automatically accept
what is found in a newspaper, nor do I accept scholars without serious
verifying and research on my part.
The reason I hold you in such utter contempt is because you are just like
the politicians. Truth, facts and/or being accurate is of little if any
concern of yours.
You are the stupidity of the courts that you talk about, but you are too
stupid to even know it.
To show stupidity on the part of the courts or any other branch of the
government you have to be smart enough to recognize their flaws and not
only recognize it but show it with facts, with evidence, etc. You jeffy,
fail in that department miserably.
Anyone can say that such and such court ruling is 'incorrect.' That is
meaningless and irrelevant. In fact our legal system is set up to create
"winners" and "losers" and the losers are usually pretty unhappy.
(It is an adversarial system, jeffy, in case you hadn't noticed.) Person
"A" feels they have been subject to a "wrong" and they seek relief.
Person"B" claims no such "wrong" took place. A third party hears the facts,
the issues applies the law and reaches a conclusions which is the ruling or
holding. One of the principles is going be satisfied and one isn't going
to be. The side that didn't like the ruling is going to say the ruling is
wrong. That doesn't make it wrong.
You are unable to show, to document with valid facts, valid evidence why a
court ruling is wrong or you feel that it is wrong.
Here sonny, just so you can see the difference between you and me.
I do document, I do show with valid facts, valid evidence. You can't and
you don't You are nothing more than an opinionated, UNINFORMED buffoon,
that provides laughter and humor for far more intelligent and/or informed
people than you could even hope to be.
Compare your ***** posts and replies to the following:
(1) Vouchers: Our Position
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouposit.htm
(2) http://snurl.com/2f6u
:|I at least question the
:|ignorance around me instead of buy into it and spread it like so much
:|manure.
LOL what a joke.
The following has your number sonny no matter how blind you are to that
fact.
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
I like to believe things I want to hear I don't like knowing the facts if
they aren't going to agree with what I want to believe and I especially
love passing along on the interest as facts things I haven't a clue about
their accuracy -- Strickland.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
22 Sep 2003 06:42:08 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:j0lrmvcouh07jmenrdb0d2nq759r4elui2@4ax.com...
:|>
:|> "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|Like you are a trust worthy source.
:|>
:|>
:|> I am a trust worth source. I have earned that reputation among most,
:|> excluding those that I routinely trash, that is routinely trash their
:|> flawed unsubstantiated opinions
:|>
:|> You don't have any credibility.
:|> this is you, remember:
:|>
:|Your opinion is so biased that it is worthless.
ho, hum. LOL
(1) Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) You will seldom find "my opinion" in my posts. You keep pretending you
don't remember that, that is until I hit a raw nerve at which time you then
***** whine, cry, bawl and in general act like a school kid over the fact I
don't offer my opinion.
(3) You will frequently find me offering the entire letter, speech,
newspaper report, etc, including that which supports the point that I am
making, as well as things that are neutral and "HORRORS" even things that
might even damaged my position some.
That is called balanced, that is called being accurate because things
occur, in life, in exactly that way. People and events are made up of
combinations of things. Some are supportive, some neutral and some not so
supportive even opposing.
The biased person scours life looking for only that which they feel or
thinks they can twist and spin in their favor leaving out all that is
neutral and non supportive.
You can look at our web site sonny and find all three, supportive, neutral
and opposing.
Also something that you are too stupid to understand is that being
biased, if it is true, is a negative only if the information, the INFORMED
opinions, etc are false, flawed or misrepresented in an effort to create
and maintain a falsehood, or otherwise flawed position.
Sorry sonny, I don't qualify for that dubious honor, but you do.
:|You swallow the crap and
:|stupidity of the court hook, line, and sinker.
LOL, Jeffy, I don't swallow anything.
I was born at a time when millions of people were dying blindly
unquestioningly following insane power hungry individuals. As a result of
that millions of others died as well.
I grew up in a time period jeffy that instilled high suspicion of
politicians, government, people in authority, etc.
I grew up in a period when hypocrisy was shown on a regular basis by such
people.
I became aware of, after the fact, long after the fact, that a man's father
bought the White House.
I also watched that man's son have his brains splattered all over the
street and his wife and other occupants of the car he rode in. Later his
brother would have much the same end.
I watched one of the most powerful men in this country maintain his power
by threats of blackmail, while he lived a life that he publicly scorned, a
life that was in some respects as sordid as any of those he threatened to
blackmail. J. Edgar Hoover gave homosexual love a black eye.
I participated in a war in which almost 60,000 Americans were killed, I
haven't a clue how many were physically wounded and has had to spend a
lifetime dealing with the results of those wounds and huge numbers were
emotionally wounded and spent a lifetime dealing with that. A war that was
basically government sponsored, created and maintained for 8 to 10 years as
a full scale war.
I watched a man in his ambition to get elected lie using the Eisenhower
Pledge of ending the war to get elected, then prolong the war for four more
years so her could use it again to get elected again.
Ike actually kept his word, Nixon used the death and maiming of Americans
to get elected not once but twice.
I watched far too many men like Judge Moore, use gullible people to get
what they personally wanted regardless of the harm it caused others.
All the politicians of the south of the 40s - 60s did the exact same thing
that judge Moore is doing today and that, far too frequently, resulted in
harm to many, many others and, far too frequently, death to others.
No, Jeffy, I don't swallow crap. I don't trust any politician, I don't
blindly accept anything any representative of government, business, Madison
Ave, etc. says. I don't blindly accept what talking heads give out on TV,
Radio, in fact, I seldom listen to either. I don't automatically accept
what is found in a newspaper, nor do I accept scholars without serious
verifying and research on my part.
The reason I hold you in such utter contempt is because you are just like
the politicians. Truth, facts and/or being accurate is of little if any
concern of yours.
You are the stupidity of the courts that you talk about, but you are too
stupid to even know it.
To show stupidity on the part of the courts or any other branch of the
government you have to be smart enough to recognize their flaws and not
only recognize it but show it with facts, with evidence, etc. You jeffy,
fail in that department miserably.
Anyone can say that such and such court ruling is 'incorrect.' That is
meaningless and irrelevant. In fact our legal system is set up to create
"winners" and "losers" and the losers are usually pretty unhappy.
(It is an adversarial system, jeffy, in case you hadn't noticed.) Person
"A" feels they have been subject to a "wrong" and they seek relief.
Person"B" claims no such "wrong" took place. A third party hears the facts,
the issues applies the law and reaches a conclusions which is the ruling or
holding. One of the principles is going be satisfied and one isn't going
to be. The side that didn't like the ruling is going to say the ruling is
wrong. That doesn't make it wrong.
You are unable to show, to document with valid facts, valid evidence why a
court ruling is wrong or you feel that it is wrong.
Here sonny, just so you can see the difference between you and me.
I do document, I do show with valid facts, valid evidence. You can't and
you don't You are nothing more than an opinionated, UNINFORMED buffoon,
that provides laughter and humor for far more intelligent and/or informed
people than you could even hope to be.
Compare your ***** posts and replies to the following:
(1) Vouchers: Our Position
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouposit.htm
(2) http://snurl.com/2f6u
:|I at least question the
:|ignorance around me instead of buy into it and spread it like so much
:|manure.
LOL what a joke.
The following has your number sonny no matter how blind you are to that
fact.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
21 Sep 2003 10:43:27 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
Your opinion is so biased that it is worthless. You swallow the crap and
stupidity of the court hook, line, and sinker. I at least question the
ignorance around me instead of buy into it and spread it like so much
manure.
The court opinion is the law, until and unless it is overturned. Your
opinion is trash, until and unless you are appointed to the relevant
court.
Any reliance in the discussion OTHER THAN on the court opinion, is
precisely the ignorance that you are buying into and spreading like
manure, despite your claim to the contrary.
It is possible that the court opinion is wrong or flawed. If so, then
you should be able to post a logical argument, based on the words of
the decision, and the facts and law cited, why this is so.
I doubt that you are capable of it, since reading the sort of thing
that needs to be read in order to argue OTHER THAN from ignorance,
apparently gives you a headache.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
22 Sep 2003 06:32:11 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
:|"Jeff Strickland" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
:|>Your opinion is so biased that it is worthless. You swallow the crap and
:|>stupidity of the court hook, line, and sinker. I at least question the
:|>ignorance around me instead of buy into it and spread it like so much
:|>manure.
:|
:|The court opinion is the law, until and unless it is overturned. Your
:|opinion is trash, until and unless you are appointed to the relevant
:|court.
:|
:|Any reliance in the discussion OTHER THAN on the court opinion, is
:|precisely the ignorance that you are buying into and spreading like
:|manure, despite your claim to the contrary.
:|
:|It is possible that the court opinion is wrong or flawed. If so, then
:|you should be able to post a logical argument, based on the words of
:|the decision, and the facts and law cited, why this is so.
:|
:|I doubt that you are capable of it, since reading the sort of thing
:|that needs to be read in order to argue OTHER THAN from ignorance,
:|apparently gives you a headache.
:|
The drug damaged brain helped along by beer has taken its toll. LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
22 Sep 2003 12:44:36 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:gbntmvg0cg999b2sa1mcug7vhkt0igj6d6@4ax.com...
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
:|"Jeff Strickland" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
:|>Your opinion is so biased that it is worthless. You swallow the crap
and
:|>stupidity of the court hook, line, and sinker. I at least question the
:|>ignorance around me instead of buy into it and spread it like so much
:|>manure.
:|
:|The court opinion is the law, until and unless it is overturned. Your
:|opinion is trash, until and unless you are appointed to the relevant
:|court.
:|
:|Any reliance in the discussion OTHER THAN on the court opinion, is
:|precisely the ignorance that you are buying into and spreading like
:|manure, despite your claim to the contrary.
:|
:|It is possible that the court opinion is wrong or flawed. If so, then
:|you should be able to post a logical argument, based on the words of
:|the decision, and the facts and law cited, why this is so.
:|
:|I doubt that you are capable of it, since reading the sort of thing
:|that needs to be read in order to argue OTHER THAN from ignorance,
:|apparently gives you a headache.
:|
The drug damaged brain helped along by beer has taken its toll. LOL
So, now we take on personal attacks and stop talking about the issues
altogether?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
22 Sep 2003 03:31:24 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:gbntmvg0cg999b2sa1mcug7vhkt0igj6d6@4ax.com...
:|> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
:|> >:|The court opinion is the law, until and unless it is overturned. Your
:|> >:|opinion is trash, until and unless you are appointed to the relevant
:|> >:|court.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|Any reliance in the discussion OTHER THAN on the court opinion, is
:|> >:|precisely the ignorance that you are buying into and spreading like
:|> >:|manure, despite your claim to the contrary.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|It is possible that the court opinion is wrong or flawed. If so, then
:|> >:|you should be able to post a logical argument, based on the words of
:|> >:|the decision, and the facts and law cited, why this is so.
:|> >:|
:|> >:|I doubt that you are capable of it, since reading the sort of thing
:|> >:|that needs to be read in order to argue OTHER THAN from ignorance,
:|> >:|apparently gives you a headache.
:|> >:|
:|>
:|> The drug damaged brain helped along by beer has taken its toll. LOL
:|>
:|>
:|
:|So, now we take on personal attacks and stop talking about the issues
:|altogether?
Jeffy baby, I can present you with 20 replies of mine that you have
elected to run away from in the past week or so, without taking on the
information contained in those replies. You seldom talk the issues, you are
only capable of expressing the same flawed uninformed personal opinions
over and over again.
You have already demonstrated you are incapable of learning
Personal attacks, on you? ALWAYS. But guess what, more and more of those
who reply to you are doing the same to try and get your attention. Even
those who seldom did it before are now doing it jeffy. Look up there
again. I was the second to attack you in this one post/reply.
You have earned it, now enjoy it.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
"Jeff Strickland" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:j0lrmvcouh07jmenrdb0d2nq759r4elui2@4ax.com...
:|>
:|> "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|Like you are a trust worthy source.
:|>
:|>
:|> I am a trust worth source. I have earned that reputation among most,
:|> excluding those that I routinely trash, that is routinely trash their
:|> flawed unsubstantiated opinions
:|>
:|> You don't have any credibility.
:|> this is you, remember:
:|>
:|Your opinion is so biased that it is worthless.
ho, hum. LOL
(1) Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) You will seldom find "my opinion" in my posts. You keep pretending you
don't remember that, that is until I hit a raw nerve at which time you then
***** whine, cry, bawl and in general act like a school kid over the fact I
don't offer my opinion.
(3) You will frequently find me offering the entire letter, speech,
newspaper report, etc, including that which supports the point that I am
making, as well as things that are neutral and "HORRORS" even things that
might even damaged my position some.
That is called balanced, that is called being accurate because things
occur, in life, in exactly that way. People and events are made up of
combinations of things. Some are supportive, some neutral and some not so
supportive even opposing.
The biased person scours life looking for only that which they feel or
thinks they can twist and spin in their favor leaving out all that is
neutral and non supportive.
You can look at our web site sonny and find all three, supportive, neutral
and opposing.
Also something that you are too stupid to understand is that being
biased, if it is true, is a negative only if the information, the INFORMED
opinions, etc are false, flawed or misrepresented in an effort to create
and maintain a falsehood, or otherwise flawed position.
Sorry sonny, I don't qualify for that dubious honor, but you do.
:|You swallow the crap and
:|stupidity of the court hook, line, and sinker.
LOL, Jeffy, I don't swallow anything.
I was born at a time when millions of people were dying blindly
unquestioningly following insane power hungry individuals. As a result of
that millions of others died as well.
I grew up in a time period jeffy that instilled high suspicion of
politicians, government, people in authority, etc.
I grew up in a period when hypocrisy was shown on a regular basis by such
people.
I became aware of, after the fact, long after the fact, that a man's father
bought the White House.
I also watched that man's son have his brains splattered all over the
street and his wife and other occupants of the car he rode in. Later his
brother would have much the same end.
I watched one of the most powerful men in this country maintain his power
by threats of blackmail, while he lived a life that he publicly scorned, a
life that was in some respects as sordid as any of those he threatened to
blackmail. J. Edgar Hoover gave homosexual love a black eye.
I participated in a war in which almost 60,000 Americans were killed, I
haven't a clue how many were physically wounded and has had to spend a
lifetime dealing with the results of those wounds and huge numbers were
emotionally wounded and spent a lifetime dealing with that. A war that was
basically government sponsored, created and maintained for 8 to 10 years as
a full scale war.
I watched a man in his ambition to get elected lie using the Eisenhower
Pledge of ending the war to get elected, then prolong the war for four more
years so her could use it again to get elected again.
Ike actually kept his word, Nixon used the death and maiming of Americans
to get elected not once but twice.
I watched far too many men like Judge Moore, use gullible people to get
what they personally wanted regardless of the harm it caused others.
All the politicians of the south of the 40s - 60s did the exact same thing
that judge Moore is doing today and that, far too frequently, resulted in
harm to many, many others and, far too frequently, death to others.
No, Jeffy, I don't swallow crap. I don't trust any politician, I don't
blindly accept anything any representative of government, business, Madison
Ave, etc. says. I don't blindly accept what talking heads give out on TV,
Radio, in fact, I seldom listen to either. I don't automatically accept
what is found in a newspaper, nor do I accept scholars without serious
verifying and research on my part.
The reason I hold you in such utter contempt is because you are just like
the politicians. Truth, facts and/or being accurate is of little if any
concern of yours.
You are the stupidity of the courts that you talk about, but you are too
stupid to even know it.
To show stupidity on the part of the courts or any other branch of the
government you have to be smart enough to recognize their flaws and not
only recognize it but show it with facts, with evidence, etc. You jeffy,
fail in that department miserably.
Anyone can say that such and such court ruling is 'incorrect.' That is
meaningless and irrelevant. In fact our legal system is set up to create
"winners" and "losers" and the losers are usually pretty unhappy.
(It is an adversarial system, jeffy, in case you hadn't noticed.) Person
"A" feels they have been subject to a "wrong" and they seek relief.
Person"B" claims no such "wrong" took place. A third party hears the facts,
the issues applies the law and reaches a conclusions which is the ruling or
holding. One of the principles is going be satisfied and one isn't going
to be. The side that didn't like the ruling is going to say the ruling is
wrong. That doesn't make it wrong.
You are unable to show, to document with valid facts, valid evidence why a
court ruling is wrong or you feel that it is wrong.
Here sonny, just so you can see the difference between you and me.
I do document, I do show with valid facts, valid evidence. You can't and
you don't You are nothing more than an opinionated, UNINFORMED buffoon,
that provides laughter and humor for far more intelligent and/or informed
people than you could even hope to be.
Compare your ***** posts and replies to the following:
(1) Vouchers: Our Position
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouposit.htm
(2) http://snurl.com/2f6u
:|I at least question the
:|ignorance around me instead of buy into it and spread it like so much
:|manure.
LOL what a joke.
The following has your number sonny no matter how blind you are to that
fact.
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
I like to believe things I want to hear I don't like knowing the facts if
they aren't going to agree with what I want to believe and I especially
love passing along on the interest as facts things I haven't a clue about
their accuracy -- Strickland.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
22 Sep 2003 02:53:08 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
So, now we take on personal attacks and stop talking about the issues
altogether?
Unless you present facts, there is nothing to discuss. No one cares
about your mere opinion.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
19 Sep 2003 10:57:48 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
I would hope that you are not under the mistaken impression that you have any
credibilty whatsover and that anything you state without a citation is -
pretty much - not regarded as "reliable".
You seem to start off the day by believing six pieces of fiction before
breakfast and swallowing a frog.
Like you are a trust worthy source.
He provides cites; thus we can check his reading comprehension, as
well as his quality of sources. You have displayed neither
adult-level reading comprehension, nor any quality of source above "I
think".
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's RecallElection? |
19 Sep 2003 04:46:51 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0309181711100.21299-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:qsigmvs5qfiuof868oa3eujgo6lj70grcq@4ax.com...
Route66Lovers@2LanesForever.com.invalid (Dusty Rhodes) wrote:
:|if you have a link to it, I'd appreciate it posted here. (It
appears
:|that you do from the info you gave above.)
Strickland having a link? I see you don't know jeffy.
He won't have a link, you can bet on that.
You seem to be suggesting that getting one's news reports from the
Internet
is a better source than a newspaper? Yeah, right.
You can still provide a proper citation. Most newspapers, however,
have a website that can provide at least contact info. And many many
of us have access to subscription databases accessible online
which will have news from newspapers not available online. Tho
many newspapers share the same sources.... so while you may have
read a particular story in one newspaper, it could very well have
been printed by a number of other papers too, some of which may
be online.
Whatever. At the very least, cite your sources.
It is a current news event that is covered by the national press, including
radio, television, newspapers, and magazines. If I was citing an obscure
ruling from years ago, then the citation would be needed. All you need to do
to check my sources is turn on the television or radio, or go buy a
newspaper. You could get a gallon of milk and read Time or Newsweek while
standing in the checkout counter line.
Then it is available online too.
It is the original poster's responsibility to provide citations.
My high school students know that much.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
19 Sep 2003 11:20:57 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
You can still provide a proper citation. Most newspapers, however,
have a website that can provide at least contact info. And many many
of us have access to subscription databases accessible online
which will have news from newspapers not available online. Tho
many newspapers share the same sources.... so while you may have
read a particular story in one newspaper, it could very well have
been printed by a number of other papers too, some of which may
be online.
Whatever. At the very least, cite your sources.
It is a current news event that is covered by the national press, including
radio, television, newspapers, and magazines. If I was citing an obscure
ruling from years ago, then the citation would be needed. All you need to do
to check my sources is turn on the television or radio, or go buy a
newspaper. You could get a gallon of milk and read Time or Newsweek while
standing in the checkout counter line.
That is certainly a novel excuse to use when attempting to wriggle out of
a request for verification.
Guess we can just assume you made it up in the first place.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
}<(((0> <o)))>{
L L J J
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
19 Sep 2003 07:03:21 PM |
|
|
There is nothing in this discussion that demands a cite. The topic is my
topic, and I am asking why the 9th feels compelled to disenfranchise some
voters in order to avoid disenfranchising other voters that have not even
been disenfranchised.
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030919111918.26845G-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
You can still provide a proper citation. Most newspapers, however,
have a website that can provide at least contact info. And many many
of us have access to subscription databases accessible online
which will have news from newspapers not available online. Tho
many newspapers share the same sources.... so while you may have
read a particular story in one newspaper, it could very well have
been printed by a number of other papers too, some of which may
be online.
Whatever. At the very least, cite your sources.
It is a current news event that is covered by the national press,
including
radio, television, newspapers, and magazines. If I was citing an obscure
ruling from years ago, then the citation would be needed. All you need
to do
to check my sources is turn on the television or radio, or go buy a
newspaper. You could get a gallon of milk and read Time or Newsweek
while
standing in the checkout counter line.
That is certainly a novel excuse to use when attempting to wriggle out of
a request for verification.
Guess we can just assume you made it up in the first place.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
}<(((0> <o)))>{
L L J J
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
19 Sep 2003 10:55:39 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is nothing in this discussion that demands a cite. The topic is my
topic, and I am asking why the 9th feels compelled to disenfranchise some
voters in order to avoid disenfranchising other voters that have not even
been disenfranchised.
And we can similarly ask why you feel compelled to continue beating
your three wives to the same effect.
In short you need to provide a cite to the effect that the 9th
"feels compelled" to do what you claim that they feel compelled to do.
Meanwhile, do you perceive that if you perceived things differently
than you do, that you would perceive things differently than you do?
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
20 Sep 2003 03:34:28 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Meanwhile, do you perceive that if you perceived things differently
than you do, that you would perceive things differently than you do?
No fair.
Trick question.
;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the US 9th Circuit Court derailing California's Recall Election? |
19 Sep 2003 08:22:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 19:03:21 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote
(in message <vmn6c6k3ie823e@corp.supernews.com>):
There is nothing in this discussion that demands a cite. The topic is my
topic, . . .
Do real people need to get your permission to discuss "your topic"?
Are you licensing "your topic" to radio and television? Newspaper columns?
Scandel sheets? Are just Republicans allowed to discuss it or may Americans
discuss "your topic"?
If this is a successful business venture, are you going to move of of your
mommie's house and learn to shop in a supermarket?
Will your parole officer and the person with whom you have to register if you
move to another jurisdiction approve?
Of course, I understand that with the recent scandel involving your regular
outlet, the World Weekly News:
-------- | | | | | | |
