PDA

View Full Version : Somebody answer this,the election for prez......


ROYC75
11-30-2000, 11:40 AM
Al Gore claims to have won the popular vote,I don't buy this yet! He has won the total to this date by ,what 200-300,000 votes.Look at this and tell me what you think.

California has 1 millon overseas ballots that are not counted yet,they will not count them because it will not change the outcome on the Californias vote. Futhermore,more states are in the same mode that the outcome will not change the states.

With this in mind,It will change the total outcome of the popular vote 1 way or the other.Now I don't know how that would come up in the totals,but I would bet that all states that are like this are the overseas ballots that would push Bush over the hump on popular votes!

IMHO,Gore claims let every vote be counted.....Let it count in all states too,then stop crying about not winning the election .

Does anybody feel this way? Just looking for the truth to this election,no clouds over the next Prez !

58Forever
11-30-2000, 11:45 AM
Royc, sorry, there is already a cloud over the next prez...regardless of who finally gets in...looks like Bush, they won't have a mandate to lead the country...so basically we won't have much of a prez the next 4 years..unless of course becomes some great leader overnight...doubtful.

Gore on the other hand is basically screwing himself at any hope of running again in four years...no democrat in their right minds would vote for him as a candidate after the way he's handled himself...

Gore, Bush, of Joe Blow...the next 4 years will be like not having a prez at all...<P>

BIG_DADDY
11-30-2000, 11:51 AM
My understanding is they are not even going to count absentee ballots in many of these states as well. NY is a prime example. I don't believe that Sore won the popular vote as well.

BIG DADDY
If I have to look at Sore & Loserman for the next 4 years I am going to have to keep a puke bucket next to my desk.

Gaz
11-30-2000, 11:51 AM
The popular vote means nothing. Anyone clinging to the popular vote as a reason to contest the election either:

1. does not understand that we live in a representational republic

or

2. is twisting the situation in an attempt to overturn the certified results.

Neither case shows the person in a good light. Take your pick, are they ignorant or disingenuous?

xoxo~
gaz
either way, has zero respect for Gore and his ilk.<BR>

ROYC75
11-30-2000, 11:54 AM
Big Daddy...

I Agree...I don't think he has,if they count all the ballots,like Algore wants,Bush wins both counts!

ROYC75
11-30-2000, 11:56 AM
Gaz

I don't buy into the popular vote thing,but the Dem's and Algore is barking up a tree about it...Let all votes be counted...let the Dogs lay where they be!

BIG_DADDY
11-30-2000, 12:08 PM
Gaz,
We are a democracy, not a republic. Just ask Gore http://www.chiefsplanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

Gaz
11-30-2000, 12:13 PM
They have already counted the ballots. Twice.

The voter has a responsibility to follow the rules when casting his vote. If he does not follow those rules, his vote should not count. The “intent of the voter” crap is nonsense and an insult to the millions of people who did follow the rules.

· If the ballot was confusing, change it before the next election.
· If the voters are stupid, educate them before the next election.
· If the card machines are antiquated, change them before the next election.
· If you don’t like the Electoral College, change it before the next election.

The votes were counted and then re-counted in accordance with Florida law. Bush won and Gore is making a mockery of the system in his desperation to sit in the big chair.

The good news is that public and political support for Gore’s legal attack on the election system is dissipating like a fart in a stiff breeze.

xoxo~
gaz
almost through venting [for the moment].<BR>

ROYC75
11-30-2000, 12:18 PM
Gaz

I'm with you buddy,but I'm sick of Gore say'n he won the popular vote and all votes should be counted!

I wish they would count all the votes so Gore will lose both counts! http://www.chiefsplanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

DaWolf
11-30-2000, 12:33 PM
I'm just curious then, if it is true that the republican staffers in two counties filled out missing information on thousands of ballots where the voters had failed to include the required information, should those votes be disqualified?

Baby Lee
11-30-2000, 12:34 PM
Sunday November 26, 2000

Buffalo Bills - 17
Tampa Bay Bucs - 31

First Downs 25-13 - Bills
3rd Down Efficiency 8/20 Bills vs 2/10 Bucs
4th Down Efficiency 2/2 Bills vs 0/0 Bucs
Total Yards 433-180 - Bills
Total Plays 82-50 - Bills
Average Gain 5.3-3.6 - Bills
Time of Possession 36:17-22:43 - Bills

Someone tell who won this game, and I'll tell you who won the election.

[This message has been edited by JC-Johnny (edited 11-30-2000).]

Gaz
11-30-2000, 12:42 PM
DaWolf-

Did the go through the machine and were they counted? If so, then they are legitimate ballots. If not, they should be discounted.

Do not mistake me for a Bush supporter. I am an independent who is sickened by the Democrats' disgusting behavior.

xoxo~
gaz
equal-opportunity basher.<BR>

Nelson Muntz
11-30-2000, 12:42 PM
ok someone answer me this. i've heard that in some states (i can't remember which) they stopped counting because one of the candidates was so far ahead that it wouldn't make a difference. does anyone know if this is true. if it is shouldn't we go back and count the rest of those votes? just so no one can ***** about the popular vote? even though it makes no difference what that turns out to be

------------------
~R.I.P. Tupac Shakur~

Gaz
11-30-2000, 12:45 PM
JC_Johnny-

Excellent analogy.

Since the only criterion that matters is the final score, Tampa Bay won the game. They can weep and wail and howl about their statistics all they like, but the victor was determined by the rules already in effect at the time of the contest.

xoxo~
gaz
would throw Gore out of the game for unsportsmanlike conduct.<BR>

ROYC75
11-30-2000, 12:45 PM
Slim Shady

Don't tell this to GORE ! PLEASE !!! DON"T!!!

Gaz
11-30-2000, 12:47 PM
S_S-

I disagree. Counting those votes lends an air of legitimacy to Gore's pathetic whining. I prefer the stink of desperation currently wafting from his failed campaign.

xoxo~
gaz
chock full o' scorn for Gore.<BR>

Nelson Muntz
11-30-2000, 12:50 PM
well i remember hearing that this state was where bush was leading by a huge margin. i'm thinkin it was tennessee but i can't remember. anyways if i remember correctly they didn't count almost 400,000 ballots because of the margin. and hell no i wouldn't tell gore this. i can't stand that man. and i'm not saying that bush is much better.

------------------
~R.I.P. Tupac Shakur~

DaWolf
11-30-2000, 01:01 PM
Gaz,
Funny thing is, you and I are both independents. :)

To be honest, I think both sides have had their problems through this process. I can understand the scorn for Gore, but the Bush camp has hardly impressed me through this process.

The votes I am referring to are I believe absentee ballots, from Seminole county and another county too, apparently which thousands of these ballots did not contain all the required information, so republican staffers went through thousands of them and filled out required fields by hand. On the news shos the other day democratic lawyers were calling it a violation of state laws, and republican lawyers were calling it a technicality.

Now I'm not an expert on what exactly happened, I'll leave it to them. But I wonder if voters didn't fill out the required fields, then is it right to allow others to fill out that info for them, and if so then why not go do the same for all the democratic ballots too since these were included in the count?

BIG_DADDY
11-30-2000, 01:05 PM
Wolf,
I am a Libertarian :) and do not really like these guys either but I am just curious, what could have Bush done through this turmoil to have impressed you?.<P>

ROYC75
11-30-2000, 01:39 PM
WOLF

I agree with BIG DADDY...What do you expect of Bush....Well my fellow Americans,since I won,I'll let Al serve my time for me ! :rolleyes:

I don't get what you want him to do? http://www.chiefsplanet.com/ubb/confused.gif

DanT
11-30-2000, 01:39 PM
DaWolf,

The case you are referring to will be tried on December 6. It's seems pretty much a slam-dunk for the Democratic activist who is bringing the suit. The election official--who is a Republican--had a box of ballot applications that were disqualified because they did not have registration numbers. I think the reason they didn't have registration numbers is because the GOP forgot to include them in their mailings to likely absentee Republican voters advising them on how to apply for an absentee ballot. Anyway, the official allowed a Republican campaign worker to salvage the disqualified ballots by filling in the registration numbers on the corresponding applications himself. That action was understandable but illegal--after all, who doubts who the voters intended to vote for, so what if they f'ed up and didn't fill out their ballot applications legally?

The Gore campaign is trying to keep themselves out of the case because their whole theme has been to let ballots count if intent can reasonably be ascertained. The lawyer who is bringing the suit wants the Florida law that applies in this case to come into play, which would disqualify all of the absentee ballots. That would result in at least a 4,000 vote swing in Gore's favor. It'll be interesting to see what happens if this case gets tried.

[This message has been edited by DanT (edited 11-30-2000).]

[This message has been edited by DanT (edited 11-30-2000).]

[This message has been edited by DanT (edited 11-30-2000).]

DanT
11-30-2000, 01:48 PM
Here's a USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/pres149.htm

The pragmatist in me says, "Hey, it's a technicality. Registration numbers are important but it's understandable why they were omitted and the campaign worker was probably honest. Go ahead and retain those votes."

The Nader-supporter who is very sick of hearing Bush supporters act like anything is stolen by going through courts and of hearing Florida voters ridiculed for their supposed incompetence says, "Yeah, you can't count 'em. The law is pretty f'ing clear."

Baby Lee
11-30-2000, 01:55 PM
DanT - on the issue of questioning the 'inviolable' courts [not your word in quotes, I know]; Were you concerned with Gore calling out Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist in the campaign? Were you concerned with the foreboding warnings of the danger of allowing Bush to make S.C. appointments?

BIG_DADDY
11-30-2000, 01:58 PM
DanT,
Nader Supporter?.

BIG DADDY
Please tell me it isn't so.

WisChief
11-30-2000, 01:58 PM
DT - wait a damn second here. Your sick of hearing the Bush people say the law is clear? Your Gawd damn right its clear. The SOS followed the damn law and got burned up to her arss. Look, if the Demorats (I like that big daddy :))want to write the law as we go, then so be it, but kiss my arss if we are gonna screw the military vote because some dick munch forgot to make it clear some number had to be written in. Dumb $hits in Florida can't READ and we are suppose to allow that crap!

Wade

damn right I'm pissed

ROYC75
11-30-2000, 01:58 PM
This is a complete mess,how in the hell can you find a fair winner in this with so many problems with the voting procedures ?

DanT
11-30-2000, 02:12 PM
Hey JC_Johnny,

During the campaign, I thought that Gore was a neoconservative putz who mongered fear instead of hope. I voted for Nader (just like in 1996) and would have done so, no matter how close Illinois was. I didn't really follow what Gore said exactly about the 3 most conservative members of the court. I'll tell you my opinion of them in case you're interested.

I think Scalia is brilliant. He taught at my alma mater (The University of Chicago, which is a hotbed of brilliant conservatives and the world leader in Nobel Laureates who have been associated with it). His legal reasoning is good and he tries to stick to just the law, not information on legislative intent and such, which I think is fair if not exactly optimal. I'll always remember him as the guy who cast the decisive vote in the 5-4 decision to strike down the "flag burning" law, which to my ACLU-loving mind is the epitome of a decision that shouldn't have even been close.

Rehnquist is a man of high honor. He sticks to his beliefs. This is commendable because, as the Chief Justice, he could opt to join the majority on important decisions so that he can then write a very restrictive opinion. He doesn't do that, which to me is an indicator of very, very high integrity.

Thomas claimed during his hearing that he hadn't ever thought about Roe v. Wade or its effect on the law. If I were voting on his confirmation, that answer by itself would have resulted in an automatic NO vote from me, just because I can not believe that any college-educated adult can possibly make that statement honestly unless they are completely lacking any sense of citizenship and its duties.

DanT
11-30-2000, 02:19 PM
WisChief,

The SOS did not read the law correctly. There were grounds for a recount based on the tabulation error: there was no requirement to show machine malfunction or vote fraud. Given the grounds for a recount, her decision to ignore the revised county totals resulted in a nullification of the candidate's right to a recount. I can't see how anyone could read the Florida Statutes, the fact pattern in this case and the pertinent case law and not come to the conclusion that all 7 Florida Supreme Court justices did. Did you read their decision?

Honestly, I can't see any Supreme Court anywhere in America not deciding the way that the Florida one did.

Baby Lee
11-30-2000, 02:19 PM
DanT - so we're on the same page, post edit. You did bristle at the very notion of someone [in this case the Repubs] questioning the propriety of a court's decision, and the ability of the court to make the decision in the manner it had, correct?

[This message has been edited by JC-Johnny (edited 11-30-2000).]

Gaz
11-30-2000, 02:34 PM
Dan T-

There WAS a recount, as provided for under Florida law. Florida law also requires that the vote be certified one week after the election. If the candidate requests a manual recount, it must be completed in that week.

The Florida Supreme Court stayed the SOS from performing her duty under the law and substituted an arbitrary deadline in its place. The SOS complied with the new arbitrary deadline and certified the election under the new standards enacted by the Florida Supreme Court.

Were they making law or interpreting it? I do not see how anyone cannot acknowledge that this was new law enacted after the election. That is a violation of the Federal statutes. The Florida Supreme Court overstepped its authority by retroactively enacting a new law.

xoxo~
gaz
waiting for the Supreme Court to sort this mess out.<BR>

Baby Lee
11-30-2000, 02:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR> The Gore campaign is trying to keep themselves out of the case because their whole theme has been to let ballots count if intent can reasonably be ascertained. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can tell from your posts, you're not a pure partisan, but it is dangerous and unfair to ascribe nobility to this facet of the after-campaign campaign. The Repubs have number of avenues they have not pursued on the grounds of philosophical continuity as well [not ordering recounts in other close states, not ordering hand-recounts in 'Repub' counties or statewide, etc.]. And you know what? No one is doing it on their behalf, either.
There may be a perception of cleavage between the Gore team's flurry of suits and he citizen skirmishes in court, but I can assure you a litigator hates not having as much control over the situation as possible. If the Gore lawyers were not coordinating all legal efforts which would accrue to their benefit on some level, they would be calling for a halt to all suits they cannot control. If for no other reason than to avoid a 'less qualified' [and for a litigator, ANY other litigator is less qualified, when it comes to the interests HE or SHE is protecting] litigator setting bad precedent.

[This message has been edited by JC-Johnny (edited 11-30-2000).]

BIG_DADDY
11-30-2000, 02:51 PM
Thought u guys might like this sight. It matches you with all the candidates for pres. http://www.issues2000.org/ you have to click on the votematch tab. It also lets you know how the candidates stand on each issue. Good for reference. I matched with Harry Browne - Big surprise, that is who I voted for. The three I matched the least sore, loserman, and nader

BIG DADDY
Not really surprised by that either.

[This message has been edited by BIG_DADDY (edited 11-30-2000).]

DanT
11-30-2000, 02:56 PM
Gaz,

You are wrong. A manual recount does not have to be completed within that week. The Secretary of State is not required to ignore the results of the recount just because it comes in after 7 days. The law goes something like this:

i) Any county that doesn't get totals in by 7 days SHALL be ignored.

ii) Any revisions to the totals from (i) that come in after 7 days MAY be ignored.

[This message has been edited by DanT (edited 11-30-2000).]

DanT
11-30-2000, 03:12 PM
Hey JC~Johnny,

I didn't mean to suggest that Gore's legal theme has any nobility to it. I'm only going by what they say is their theme and the fact that I'm not aware of anything that the Gore camp has done to contradict it. I know that Gore was accused of not wanting a recount in Duval county, but it turned out that the Republican campaign officials there admitted that they misinformed Gore's folks about the number of rejected ballots there and that, in fact, over half of the rejected ballots there came from black precincts that had gone heavily for Gore--Duval was about 60/40 for Bush: I believe that Gore's folks would have pursued a recount there if they'd known the truth. I also heard many people claim that the Gore campaign intended to disqualify military ballots. The last I heard about this case was that, there was a hearing in Leon County, the judge complained that no wrongdoing by Dems was proven (though lots sure was alleged) and the next day the Republicans withdrew their suit.

The more mystifying thing about the whole selective-recount complaint is that somehow this notion has arisen that a candidate is supposed to be looking out for his and his opponent's interests. That's kind of loopy, given that all of election law is predicated on the notion that candidates are adversaries: if you want recounts, then ask for them, don't expect your opponent to ask for them for you. Anyone who has worked on any campaign knows that. Equity is achieved by each adversary pursuing the adjudication of their own claims. To the extent that Gore's theme contributes to the misconception that each candidate is supposed to be looking out the other guys, it's not at all a noble theme.

BIG_DADDY
11-30-2000, 03:19 PM
DT,
Thanx for the post. This showes me a lot about you and your self-described "non-partisan" stance. http://www.chiefsplanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

Baby Lee
11-30-2000, 03:24 PM
Actually I was referring to the notion that the Gore team is ONLY pursuing the noble goal of counting every vote, while these efforts at vote disallowance, or wild-eyed accusations of disfranchisement [figured SOMEONE should use the real word], or teary-eyed tales of confusion, are just individuals, regular american citizens, expressing their beliefs.
These individual suits will have an impact on who is president, one way or another, and I assure you that the Gore team has a handle on the direction and approach on each of them, or they would calling for a stop to them.
I haven't heard any teary eyed tales of citizens in Wisconsin, or Iowa, or Oregon, or absentees of any state, who didn't get their Repub votes counted. That is because the Bush team has not implemented a full-court, every angle [no matter how absurd], by any means necessary strategy. They believe they are following the law in Florida and have conceded the other 'possible' legal challenges in other states.

[This message has been edited by JC-Johnny (edited 11-30-2000).]

Raiderhader
11-30-2000, 03:26 PM
Roy, the California Sec. of State called Rush Limbaugh today, and said that this is not true, all of the ballots will be counted.

------------------
WILDCATS 29
corn balls 28

DanT
11-30-2000, 03:28 PM
Hey BD,

Thanks for the vote-match site. That was fun.

Also, I'm not a self-described "non-partisan". I'm an ACLU-loving, gun-rights-supporting, nationalized-heath-care-waiting-for liberal with too much edjumication not to know the folly that extremists of any stripe can get themselves into. You can ask any of the many, many intelligent conservatives on this site (e.g. KCTitus, Logical, Luzap, etc.) whether DanT has ever claimed to be a non-partisan and they'll set you straight.

BIG_DADDY
11-30-2000, 03:36 PM
DT,
Just giving you grief for since you took off on the early morning thread ;) The one thing I actually like about Nader was the fact that he wanted to abolish the Federal Reserve. That WOULD be refreshing. Then he blows it with wanting to socialize everything and tell me what kind of car I can drive.

BIG DADDY
Feeling that is downright unamerican.

ROYC75
11-30-2000, 03:39 PM
BD

I took the quiz too...OMG,I nailed it to a Tee...Voted Bush and hit it too !

Raiderhater...I got that,heard that on Rush today after the post ! Thasks.

DanT
11-30-2000, 03:51 PM
testing...

DanT
11-30-2000, 03:53 PM
Hey BD,

I didn't take off on the early-morning thread. This bulletin board wouldn't let me post my reply. Good thing, too, as I gotten worked into a snit and the reply was very unbecoming http://www.chiefsplanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

DanT
11-30-2000, 03:55 PM
I wonder if Browne wasn't in everybody's top-three. Those Libertarians have a lot of good ideas. At least, a lot that the folks here would agree with.

Raiderhader
11-30-2000, 03:55 PM
I took the test and I came up a Libertarian leaning Consevative. I was surprised, I thought I was more Libertarian.
Roy, glad to find another Rush listener.


------------------
WILDCATS 29
corn balls 28

DanT
11-30-2000, 04:00 PM
Is anybody else having problems getting their replies to post? I'm getting refusal messages that say stuff like "Fields not completely filled out", "No forum selected", "the forum in your reply does not match", ... Stuff like that. It's happened on this thread and on another thread this morning.

Oh Great Bulletin Board Powers, hear my plea.

DanT
11-30-2000, 04:12 PM
Hey JC~Johnny,

I'm not sure how absurd Gore's claims have been. I haven't seen him run out of any courts yet.

As an attorney, do you have any guesses about how the US Supreme Court case will wash out?

Gaz
12-01-2000, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR> Gaz,

You are wrong. A manual recount does not have to be completed within that week. The Secretary of State is not required to ignore the results of the recount just because it comes in after 7 days. The law goes something like this:

i) Any county that doesn't get totals in by 7 days SHALL be ignored.

ii) Any revisions to the totals from (i) that come in after 7 days MAY be ignored.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dan T-

You are wrong. :D

If you want to ensure that a manual recount is part of the certified results, you have to complete that recount before the certification date. That is the difference between SHALL and MAY. The SOS is under no obligation whatsoever to accept tardy recount results. She asked them to submit their excuses and determined that they were inadequate.

You do have every right to complain that she made a partisan decision, but she followed the letter of the law. That is, until the Florida Supreme Court threw out the existing law and substituted their own law AFTER the election, in clear violation of the Federal voting law.

xoxo~
gaz
SHALL post and MAY be reasonable on occasion.<BR>

KCTitus
12-01-2000, 08:02 AM
Setting the record straight: There is no way that DanT is a 'non partisan'. He's an avowed liberal who is willing to abstain from mantra or rhetoric in his arguments and I must say from the more conservative side of the fence, is someone I enjoy engaging in discussion.

Here's something you all might enjoy:
http://www.nationalreview.com/18dec00/ponnuru121800.shtml


It speaks to the culture of Judicial Activism. It's not a question of whether or not Judges now excercise their discretion to rewrite laws but to what degree.

This election struggle is a wonderful case in point on how much power the judicial branch now gives itself.<BR>

BIG_DADDY
12-01-2000, 09:30 AM
KCT,
Outstanding article. My favorite part is:

The Florida court reasoned that two state laws were in conflict. One provision said that returns filed after the deadline "shall be ignored," while another said that returns filed after that date "may be ignored." Gore's team argued that the fact that the secretary of state may ignore late returns does not mean she must ignore them; indeed, she must not ignore them. The Florida justices followed Gore's lawyers through the looking glass. They did so notwithstanding the traditional rule that statutes should be interpreted so as to avoid conflicting with each other.

How could any reasonable person come to that conclusion?. If that is not bias, I don't know what is. THANX

BIG DADDY
A little more concerned about how the Supreme Court will see things now. :rolleyes:

BIG_DADDY
12-01-2000, 10:34 AM
Is anybody listening to Supreme Court Crap. Justice (or should I say lack of justice) Ginsburg is most bias one sided beeoch I have ever heard in my life. Who would be stupid enough to put someone that bias on our supreme court?. Talk about an agenda.

DanT
12-01-2000, 11:23 AM
Hey Gaz,

OK, we're both right :) Based on your last reply, I'll read what you said in reply #29 as meaning 'The manual recount had to be in within 7 days TO GUARANTEE that they will be counted.' That is right as right can be, no bout adoubt it.

Cheers!
-Dan

47mack
12-01-2000, 11:29 AM
DanT

ACLU-loving?

Why? What do you feel they are good for?

DanT
12-01-2000, 12:06 PM
47mack,

The ACLU is good for keeping the government out of places they don't belong. Two recent examples: a fundamentalist Christian woman shouldn't have to have a surgery to deliver her baby, no matter what a hospital and Cook County's public defender (a Catholic) think. The ACLU defended her rights, and she had the baby without being forced to have surgery. (Happily, both are now healthy, by the way.) A homeowner should be able to put a little 8.5" by 11" sign in a bedroom window protesting the Persian Gulf War. This homeowner, in the very wealthy community of Ladue, Missouri, had earlier been forced to take down a protest sign in her front yard because ordinances had disallowed such things (presumably to preserve property values), and I can see how that's reasonable. But why couldn't she put a little sign (the size of regular typewriter paper, mind you) in her own bedroom window? I mean, what harm is there in that? Braindead town's lawyers actually spent over a quarter-million dollars trying to force her to take the sign down. The ACLU stepped in and defended her rights.

Those are the kind of things the ACLU is very good for.

[This message has been edited by DanT (edited 12-01-2000).]

KCTitus
12-01-2000, 01:35 PM
DanT: let's hope the ACLU does the right thing in this case:
http://www.foxnews.com/national/120100/ramadan.sml

An interesting school prayer issue that doesnt involve Christians this time. Odd how a NY school will approve/sponsor religion as long as it's not Christian.

BIG_DADDY
12-01-2000, 01:43 PM
DT,
Wasn't that Beeeeoch Ginsburg in the supreme court today from the ACLU?.

47mack
12-02-2000, 09:37 AM
I will agree that they serve a purpose every once in a while, but for the most part I think they are living in a dream world. Many of the cases they take to court have no business being heard. IMO groups like the ACLU are the reason that our society is so screwed up. I value your opinion on the topic though. Thanks for responding.

------------------
TWB

Bob Dole
12-02-2000, 12:54 PM
All this election crap and subsequent discussion is depressing as hel!, and the Chiefs' recent performance doesn't help.

Bob Dole fears that the arrival of the Marching Morons has arrived about 40 years earlier than Bob Dole originally thought. Reading the community college student newspaper this past week only reinforced that. 67% of the students polled thought the Electoral College should be banished. 20% could actually explain how the electoral college works. 8% could explain how to eliminate it. Good lord...

Yes, Virginia, the Marching Morons have arrived. The same people screaming that the "will of the people" is so important would likely not approve of the following.

A typical family of 5 should live by "majority rule."

That's right--if the 3 children think that they should not seek employment and their parent's should support them entirely, then that's the way it should be. End of story. So it is written, so it shall be done.

But the same wonderfully insightful folks that would not allow their own children such latitude are perfectly willing to turn the same power over to complete strangers. Sounds like a great plan to Bob Dole.

Mult9
12-02-2000, 01:15 PM
Just in case any of you are not familiar with Florida law...I submit the following:

When the vote count is within 1% (or maybe it was 1/2%) there will be a machine recount. The only time a hand recount is called for is when one or both of the candidates declare that they belive there was criminal activity in the election. Neither of the candidates filed such a case, hence the hand recount is not "legal" by Florida law.

How about them apples (oranges)?

jcl-kcfan
12-02-2000, 01:59 PM
DanT;

One question for you about the American Civil Liberties Union;

Why AREN'T they they defending my right to bear arms?

The constitution makes NO discrimination about WHAT TYPE of ARMS can be used, but the federal gov't has decreed many illegal.

So, I reiterate, why aren't they concerned with all of ours rights?

jcl-kcfan
12-02-2000, 01:59 PM
DanT;

One question for you about the American Civil Liberties Union;

Why AREN'T they they defending my right to bear arms?

The constitution makes NO discrimination about WHAT TYPE of ARMS can be used, but the federal gov't has decreed many illegal.

So, I reiterate, why aren't they concerned with all of ours rights?

Bob Dole
12-02-2000, 04:00 PM
<h1>ARGH!</H1>

Sorry. Bob Dole just read a similar thread "somewhere else" and needed to vent.

Joe Seahawk
12-02-2000, 04:58 PM
<h1>Hey Bob, you taught me a new trick!!! :)</H1>




[This message has been edited by Joe Seahawk (edited 12-02-2000).]

Bob Dole
12-02-2000, 05:01 PM
<font color="red"><H4>Bob Dole is glad he could help</H4></font>

Joe Seahawk
12-02-2000, 05:06 PM
<font color="blue"><H4>this is cool thanks! :eek:</H4></font>

[This message has been edited by Joe Seahawk (edited 12-03-2000).]

Bob Dole
12-02-2000, 05:39 PM
Bob Dole is going to have to see if he can't get Kyle to block the font="blue" tag...

Actually, Joe, Bob Dole has a new Sunday bar acquaintance that's a hardcore SeaChicken fan. We have a blast ragging each other every week. The staff is even giving Bob Dole sh!t about corrupting the guy, since he now yells like a maniac during the game.

Bob Dole
12-02-2000, 05:49 PM
And in the "basically useless stuff" category is:

<font face="tahoma"> Changing the </font><font face="courier">font face in </font> your messages <font face="arial"> as you go.</font>

[This message has been edited by Robert_Dole (edited 12-02-2000).]

Joe Seahawk
12-03-2000, 09:44 PM
yerwatchinghardball

http://a799.ms.akamai.net/7/799/388/3295f5be5b6cfc/www.msnbc.com/news/477519.jpg

DanT
12-04-2000, 06:18 PM
Hey jcl-kcfan,

The ACLU agrees with you that the 2nd amendment does not make any distinction about kinds of arms. Here's an excerpt from the following link that briefly describes their position on guns:
http://www.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

DanT
12-04-2000, 06:26 PM
Hey jcl-kcfan,

By the way, I'm a like a lot of ACLU members in believing that the widespread ownership of guns by our citizens is good for protecting our liberty.