Bush won Florida 10 diff ways in 2000

[SAT2]

I didn't ask if Bush thought it was a major case. I don't think it was a major case.

But if you are going to go around whinging about how unfair something was, you should whing about everything that is unfair, not just the things that didn't work out for you...

You're not making any sense. In 2000, there are real people who didn't get to vote, who came forward about it. In the 2008 case you're referring to, there were no victims. I ask again, do you understand how this all works?

What the NBPP did was wrong, but you have no legitimate complaint with Holder.

Again, some facts would do you good.

From the previously posted link:

The Obama administration successfully obtained default judgment against Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party carrying a nightstick outside the Philadelphia polling center on Election Day 2008;

 

[M14 Shooter]

MY points remain, as you have yet again failed to address them.
Given that, I'll take your post, above, as your ccncession of those points.
Glad to see you could lose gracefully.

Bring it on, son - you got nothing here.

I've got nothing to bring it on to. You're just reciting wingnut wisdom about voting. Try harder, you might get my attention.

I made several points, You have failed to actually address any of them.
If you're -so- right, why can't you counter a single things that I wrote?

But that's OK -- you keep running away, and I'll keep laughing at you.

Still running away, eh?

Tell me, champ - if you're so right, why won't you address the points I made?

I mean other than you lack the capacity to do so?

 

[SAT2]

Still running away, eh?

Tell me, champ - if you're so right, why won't you address the points I made?

I mean other than you lack the capacity to do so?

You're not making it very interesting.

And as you can see from my discussion with Joe, I have really low standards.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still running away, eh?

Tell me, champ - if you're so right, why won't you address the points I made?

I mean other than you lack the capacity to do so?

You're not making it very interesting.

On the contrary - I believe that watching you tuck tail and run from a discussion that you know you don't posess the capacity to have is rather interesting indeed.

Though, I suppose, I'm expecting too much - its likely, from what I've read so far, that your lack of education is the reason for your reluctance to engage the points I made that nullify your petulant whining about the election.

No worries - one of these days, you'll hit 8th grade and take a civics class. If you're lucky, you'll be at a good middle school and they will teach you how the President is elected. If you're REALLY lucky, you'll be at a REALLY good school and they will teach you what 'equal protection' means and how it applies to elections.

Should that happen, you might be fit to have this discussion. Good luck, son.

 

[SAT2]

Still running away, eh?

Tell me, champ - if you're so right, why won't you address the points I made?

I mean other than you lack the capacity to do so?

You're not making it very interesting.

On the contrary - I believe that watching you tuck tail and run from a discussion that you know you don't posess the capacity to have is rather interesting indeed.

Though, I suppose, I'm expecting too much - its likely, from what I've read so far, that your lack of education is the reason for your reluctance to engage the points I made that nullify your petulant whining about the election.

No worries - one of these days, you'll hit 8th grade and take a civics class. If you're lucky, you'll be at a good middle school and they will teach you how the President is elected. If you're REALLY lucky, you'll be at a REALLY good school and they will teach you what 'equal protection' means and how it applies to elections.

Should that happen, you might be fit to have this discussion. Good luck, son.

Nice use of adjectives, but you really ought to go with substance once in a while.

Anyone who has spent any time on discussion boards has seen this bit of knowledge trotted out, and used to justify disenfranchising citizens. Usually by someone who can't do anymore with the information other than say "Look at me, I'm smaaaarttttt!"

Tell me more about how this justifies what happened in Florida, in your opinion, instead of baiting me with your imaginary brilliance, and this will be interesting, because people will come back at you about it. Keep using it as a cudgel, and you'll keep getting a collective yawn.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're not making it very interesting.

On the contrary - I believe that watching you tuck tail and run from a discussion that you know you don't posess the capacity to have is rather interesting indeed.

Though, I suppose, I'm expecting too much - its likely, from what I've read so far, that your lack of education is the reason for your reluctance to engage the points I made that nullify your petulant whining about the election.

No worries - one of these days, you'll hit 8th grade and take a civics class. If you're lucky, you'll be at a good middle school and they will teach you how the President is elected. If you're REALLY lucky, you'll be at a REALLY good school and they will teach you what 'equal protection' means and how it applies to elections.

Should that happen, you might be fit to have this discussion. Good luck, son.

Nice use of adjectives, but you really ought to go with substance once in a while.

I've posted -all kinds- of substance, none of which have received any response with any substance of your own..

Thus, your complaints to those ends have been dismissed, in toto; your failure to address my responses indicates your concession of the points you raised.

 

[SAT2]

I've posted -all kinds- of substance, none of which have received any response with any substance of your own..

Thus, your complaints to those ends have been dismissed, in toto; your failure to address my responses indicates your concession of the points you raised.

You made one post, and since then you've been baiting me. That is not substance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've posted -all kinds- of substance, none of which have received any response with any substance of your own..

Thus, your complaints to those ends have been dismissed, in toto; your failure to address my responses indicates your concession of the points you raised.

You made one post....

....to which you have thus far refused to meaningfully respond...

...and since then you've been baiting me...

...to man up and at least -try- to defend your position.

Why, other than you lack the capacity to do so, do you continue to refuse to defend your positions from responses that utterly destroy them?

 

[Truthseeker420]

Top 5 reasons
1. Brother is Govenor of Florida
2. Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris
3. Neoconsevative Supreme Court
4. Supressing black voters
5. Media stays silent


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSEOd1W3fZA&feature=related]How George W. Bush cheated in the 2000 election... - YouTube[/ame]

 

[M14 Shooter]

Top 5 reasons
1. Brother is Govenor of Florida
2. Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris
3. Neoconsevative Supreme Court
4. Supressing black voters
5. Media stays silent

1-3: Show a single act of inpropriety during the election.
4: Who suppressed the black vote and when were they convicted for it?
5: Laughable on its face.

 

[SAT2]

I've posted -all kinds- of substance, none of which have received any response with any substance of your own..

Thus, your complaints to those ends have been dismissed, in toto; your failure to address my responses indicates your concession of the points you raised.

You made one post....

....to which you have thus far refused to meaningfully respond...

...and since then you've been baiting me...

...to man up and at least -try- to defend your position.

Why, other than you lack the capacity to do so, do you continue to refuse to defend your positions from responses that utterly destroy them?

Because you haven't destroyed anything. You've recited wingnut wisdom-that it's OK that people didn't get to vote, because it's not in the USC anyway, and then sat back like you'd really said something new and riveting.

My position is that everyone should be treated equally when it comes to voting. What's yours? That people should listen to you recite nanobits of information and then pat you on the head?

Top 5 reasons
1. Brother is Govenor of Florida
2. Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris
3. Neoconsevative Supreme Court
4. Supressing black voters
5. Media stays silent

1-3: Show a single act of inpropriety during the election.
4: Who suppressed the black vote and when were they convicted for it?
5: Laughable on its face.

I already did, the inappropriate manner in which the voter roles were purged, the failure in many cases to notify the voters who were purged, and the fact that the USC said "this isn't precedent" in the court case. That covers 1 through 4.

5. Who Won the Election? Who Cares?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because you haven't destroyed anything

This is a lie.

You:

Under some counting scenarios, Gore won Florida.

Me:

Not under the only 'scenario' that mattered

This destroys whatever point you might have wanted to make by rendering it irrelevant.

You:

The recount process was stopped by the Supreme Court.

Me:

Because FL election law did not provide equal protection to the voters of FL and therefore violated the Constituttion.

This destroys whatever point you might have wanted to make by demonstrating the legitimacy of the action in question.

You:

The result was that the election was handed to an incompetent against the will of the people.

Me:

the people do not elect the President; as such, any argument regarding the will of the people is irrelevant.

This destroys whatever point you might have wanted to make by rendering it irrelevant.

You

Do you recall that decision? The SC specifically said not to use their decision as precedent. Think about that.

Me:

I recall that the Equal Protection decision went 7-2, and there was no such note attached.
Given that FL electuion law did not provide equal protection, there was no choice but to stop the recounts as any such recounts would have been in violation of the Constitution,
Period.

This destroys your point in that your statemnt is in error, and further renders any point you might have wanted to make by demonstrating the legitimacy of the action in question.

You

The will of the people is relevant, to those who value our nation as it is.

Me:

I am certain this will be news to you...
You have no right to vote for President.
The people do not elect the President.
Thus, the will of the people, in electing the President, is irrelevant.

This destroys your point by illustrating that you proceed from a false premise.

Your points have failed, as demonstrated; mine, by virtue of your refusal to meaningfully address them, continue to stand.

My position is that everyone should be treated equally when it comes to voting.

This is -exactly- what the court said in Bush v Gore decision under discusion, above.
Good to see you agree with the court.

 

[SAT2]

I thought you were going to focus on your stale information about the right to vote not being in the USC.

I have no idea what you're trying to prove by declaring that examining the debacle in Florida is "irrelevant".

We cannot change the past, but we can certainly discuss it.

My position is that everyone should be treated equally when it comes to voting.

This is -exactly- what the court said in Bush v Gore decision under discusion, above.
Good to see you agree with the court.

They said those words, but lied them. Their action did not serve that purpose.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I thought you were going to focus on your stale information about the right to vote not being in the USC.

I have no idea what you're trying to prove by declaring that examining the debacle in Florida is "irrelevant".

We cannot change the past, but we can certainly discuss it.

You can start by responding to the points I made.
Until you do, they stand, while your points are nullified.

My position is that everyone should be treated equally when it comes to voting.

This is -exactly- what the court said in Bush v Gore decision under discusion, above.
Good to see you agree with the court.

They said those words, but lied them. Their action did not serve that purpose.

You and I both know you have no capacity whatsoever to show how this is the case.

 

[SAT2]

You can start by responding to the points I made.
Until you do, they stand, while your points are nullified.

Are you conceited or delusional? I thought you wanted to give us a big lecture on what the USC says about voting.

This is -exactly- what the court said in Bush v Gore decision under discusion, above.
Good to see you agree with the court.

They said those words, but lied them. Their action did not serve that purpose.

You and I both know you have no capacity whatsoever to show how this is the case.

Absolutely, I do. That they said that their decision was not to be used as a precedent tells the story.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can start by responding to the points I made.
Until you do, they stand, while your points are nullified.

Are you conceited or delusional? I thought you wanted to give us a big lecture on what the USC says about voting.

Still unable to address the points that I made?
All that means is my points continue to stand and yours remain nullified.
Ok by me.

You and I both know you have no capacity whatsoever to show how this is the case.

Absolutely, I do. That they said that their decision was not to be used as a precedent tells the story.

The lack of content in your response is laughable.
SHOW your claim to be true in a substantive manner, rather than alluding to the text of a decision you've never read.

 

[SAT2]

You can start by responding to the points I made.
Until you do, they stand, while your points are nullified.

Are you conceited or delusional? I thought you wanted to give us a big lecture on what the USC says about voting.

Still unable to address the points that I made?
All that means is my points continue to stand and yours remain nullified.
Ok by me.

I ask again, give your lecture. Do more than just recite a talking point and then act like you've deciphered the Rosetta Stone.

The lack of content in your response is laughable.
SHOW your claim to be true in a substantive manner, rather than alluding to the text of a decision you've never read.

I have given you my evidence. If this was about equal protection, then why say that it does not establish a precedent? Do you understand the importance of precedent in our legal system?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you conceited or delusional? I thought you wanted to give us a big lecture on what the USC says about voting.

Still unable to address the points that I made?
All that means is my points continue to stand and yours remain nullified.
Ok by me.

I ask again, give your lecture.

I made my points as clearly as necessry. You havent responded.
Given that, I need not repeat myself.

The lack of content in your response is laughable.
SHOW your claim to be true in a substantive manner, rather than alluding to the text of a decision you've never read.

I have given you my evidence.

You've given nothing except a line of text you do not understand.

 

[SAT2]

Given that, I need not repeat myself.

You're just reciting the same bit of wingnut wisdom over and over, without any analysis or context. You clearly want a pat on the head from someone. I'm sorry that no one has come through for you.

You've given nothing except a line of text you do not understand.

Then please explain it your way, instead of making these lame posts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Given that, I need not repeat myself.

You're just reciting the same bit of wingnut wisdom over and over, without any analysis or context. You clearly want a pat on the head from someone. I'm sorry that no one has come through for you.

You've given nothing except a line of text you do not understand.

Then please explain it your way, instead of making these lame posts.

Sigh.

You have repeatedly failed to defend your points. I thusly accept your concession.