Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Words That Will Live In Infamy Forever!
- Thread starter greenpartyaz
- Start date
del
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #42
In what happens to be a mass fraud committed by the state of Florida, Bush, Harris, and company not only removed thousands of black felons from the rolls, they also removed thousands of black citizens who had never committed a crime in their lives, along with thousands of eligible voters who had committed only misdemeanors.
bolding your text makes you no more persuasive, nor more intelligent.
thanks.
- Moderator
- #43
The opinion states, if the vote count had been allowed to continue, Al Gore would be the president!
Do you even read what you quote? That isnt what it said at all. It said that by continuing to "recount" votes multiple times with new questionable methods, the nation would be harmed by placing a question mark over the legitimacy of the electorial process.
In what happens to be a mass fraud committed by the state of Florida, Bush, Harris, and company not only removed thousands of black felons from the rolls, they also removed thousands of black citizens who had never committed a crime in their lives, along with thousands of eligible voters who had committed only misdemeanors.
I only respond to info that can be cited. You have not shown any evidence of this allegation. Only conjecture. Stick to provable facts junior.
Btw, do really have a problem with removing felons of any color from the rolls, if doing is in accordance with the law? Which it is in this case.
Last edited:
Words that will live in infamy forever... "The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does, in my view, threaten irreparable harm to petitioner (Bush), and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he (Bush) claims to be the legitimacy of his election." - Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice
Scalia's statement can be found at: Supreme Court of the United States, No. 00-949 (00A504) George W. Bush et al. V Albert Gore, Jr. et al. Scalia J. concurring opinion. 531 US_(2000).
GEEZ--we're not going to go back to people who could not figure out the "democrat" designed & approved by "democrats" butterfly ballot--with voters who could not find the right hole to punch, & when they did, could not punch all the way through it! Are we? The same method--punch card ballots, that they had been using in these 3 precints for over 20 years!
Those votes have been counted over 5 times now--by unbiased media sources. There has never been a count that Al Gore has won.
BTW--The U.S. Supreme court slapped down the Monkey court of Florida because they were trying to change election laws (after the election). I too would like to move those goal posts after my team has lost, but no one would put up with it.
The U.S Supreme court's decision was 7 to 9. That means 7 US Supreme Court justices told the Monkey Florida supreme court to knock it off!
Did anyone ever find those "black voters" that Jessie Jackson stated were blockaided by the police department from getting to the poles?
Last edited:
greenpartyaz
Corporate Watchdog
- Thread starter
- #46
I only respond to info that can be cited. You have not shown any evidence of this allegation. Only conjecture. Stick to provable facts junior.
Btw, do really have a problem with removing felons of any color from the rolls, if doing is in accordance with the law? Which it is in this case.
I don't have a problem with Felons loosing their right to vote, that is not what I am questioning, I am just stating the fact for the record.
greenpartyaz
Corporate Watchdog
- Thread starter
- #47
On the morning of December 9, 2000, the Supreme Court got word that the recounts in Florida, in spite of everything the Bush Camp had done to fix the elections, were going in favor of Al Gore. By 2 P.M., the unofficial tally showed that Gore was catching up to Bush-”only 66 votes down, and gaining!” as one breathless newscaster put it. It was critical to Bush that the words “Al Gore is in the lead” never be heard on American television: With only momentas to spare, they did what they had to do. At 2:45 that afternoon, the Supreme Court stopped the recount.
On the court sat Regan appointee Sandra Day O' Connor and Nixion appointee Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Both in their seventies, they were hoping to retire under a Republican administration so that their replacements would share their conservative ideology. On election night, O' Connor was heard lamenting at a party in Georgetown that she couldn't hold out another four-or eight years. Junior Bush was their only hope for securing a contented retirement in their home state of Arizona.
Meanwhile, two other justices with extremist right-wing viewpoints found themselves with a conflict of interest. Justice Clarence Thomas's wife, Virginia Lamp Thomas, worked at the Herritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank in D.C.; now she has just been hired by George W. Bush to help recruit people to serve in his impending administration. And Eugene Scalia, the son of Justice Antonin Scalia, was a lawyer with the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the very law firm representing Bush before the Supreme Court!
But neither Thomas nor Scalia saw any conflict of interest, and they refused to remove themselves from the case. In fact, when Court convened later, it was Scalia who issued the now-infamous explanation of why the ballot-counting had to be halted: “The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does, in my view, threaten irreparable harm to petitioner (Bush), and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he (Bush) claims to be the legitimacy of his election.” In other words, if we let all the votes be counted and they come out in favor of Gore, and Gore wins, well, that will impair Bush's ability to govern once we install him as “President.”
The time of the Supreme Court decision can be found at:
The Nation, “The God That Failed; Florida Supreme Court's Rulings on the Presidential Elections,” Herman Schwartz, January 1, 2001
CNN Saturday Norning News Transcripts 08:00, December 9, 2000
ABC News Special Report, 2:47PM, December 9, 2000
Justice O' Connor's comments reguarding her retirement were reported in:
Newsweek, “The Truth Behind The Pillars,” Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff, December 25, 2000.
Information reguarding the family connections between Supreme Court and the Administration is from:
The New York Times, “Contesting the Vote: Challenging a Justice,” Christopher Marquis, December 12, 2000.
Chicago Tribune, “Justice Scalia's Son a Lawyer in Firm Representing Bush Before Top Court,” Jill Zuckman, November, 29, 2000.
Scalia's statement can be found in the text of the deccision:
Supreme Court of the United States, No 00-949(00A504) George W. Bush et al. v. Alber Gore Jr. et al., Scalia J. concurring opinion 531 US_(2000) December 9, 2000.
On the court sat Regan appointee Sandra Day O' Connor and Nixion appointee Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Both in their seventies, they were hoping to retire under a Republican administration so that their replacements would share their conservative ideology. On election night, O' Connor was heard lamenting at a party in Georgetown that she couldn't hold out another four-or eight years. Junior Bush was their only hope for securing a contented retirement in their home state of Arizona.
Meanwhile, two other justices with extremist right-wing viewpoints found themselves with a conflict of interest. Justice Clarence Thomas's wife, Virginia Lamp Thomas, worked at the Herritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank in D.C.; now she has just been hired by George W. Bush to help recruit people to serve in his impending administration. And Eugene Scalia, the son of Justice Antonin Scalia, was a lawyer with the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the very law firm representing Bush before the Supreme Court!
But neither Thomas nor Scalia saw any conflict of interest, and they refused to remove themselves from the case. In fact, when Court convened later, it was Scalia who issued the now-infamous explanation of why the ballot-counting had to be halted: “The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does, in my view, threaten irreparable harm to petitioner (Bush), and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he (Bush) claims to be the legitimacy of his election.” In other words, if we let all the votes be counted and they come out in favor of Gore, and Gore wins, well, that will impair Bush's ability to govern once we install him as “President.”
The time of the Supreme Court decision can be found at:
The Nation, “The God That Failed; Florida Supreme Court's Rulings on the Presidential Elections,” Herman Schwartz, January 1, 2001
CNN Saturday Norning News Transcripts 08:00, December 9, 2000
ABC News Special Report, 2:47PM, December 9, 2000
Justice O' Connor's comments reguarding her retirement were reported in:
Newsweek, “The Truth Behind The Pillars,” Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff, December 25, 2000.
Information reguarding the family connections between Supreme Court and the Administration is from:
The New York Times, “Contesting the Vote: Challenging a Justice,” Christopher Marquis, December 12, 2000.
Chicago Tribune, “Justice Scalia's Son a Lawyer in Firm Representing Bush Before Top Court,” Jill Zuckman, November, 29, 2000.
Scalia's statement can be found in the text of the deccision:
Supreme Court of the United States, No 00-949(00A504) George W. Bush et al. v. Alber Gore Jr. et al., Scalia J. concurring opinion 531 US_(2000) December 9, 2000.
Last edited:
greenpartyaz
Corporate Watchdog
- Thread starter
- #48
of course you have no proof of this outrageous claim, so we will just take you at your word on it.
ROFLMAO
http://www.usmessageboard.com/elections-2008/58545-words-that-will-live-in-infamy-forever-4.html#post789945
On the morning of December 9, 2000, the Supreme Court got word that the recounts in Florida, in spite of everything the Bush Camp had done to fix the elections, were going in favor of Al Gore. By 2 P.M., the unofficial tally showed that Gore was catching up to Bush-”only 66 votes down, and gaining!” as one breathless newscaster put it. It was critical to Bush that the words “Al Gore is in the lead” never be heard on American television: With only momentas to spare, they did what they had to do. At 2:45 that afternoon, the Supreme Court stopped the recount.
On the court sat Regan appointee Sandra Day O' Connor and Nixion appointee Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Both in their seventies, they were hoping to retire under a Republican administration so that their replacements would share their conservative ideology. On election night, O' Connor was heard lamenting at a party in Georgetown that she couldn't hold out another four-or eight years. Junior Bush was their only hope for securing a contented retirement in their home state of Arizona.
Meanwhile, two other justices with extremist right-wing viewpoints found themselves with a conflict of interest. Justice Clarence Thomas's wife, Virginia Lamp Thomas, worked at the Herritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank in D.C.; now she has just been hired by George W. Bush to help recruit people to serve in his impending administration. And Eugene Scalia, the son of Justice Antonin Scalia, was a lawyer with the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the very law firm representing Bush before the Supreme Court!
But neither Thomas nor Scalia saw any conflict of interest, and they refused to remove themselves from the case. In fact, when Court convened later, it was Scalia who issued the now-infamous explanation of why the ballot-counting had to be halted: “The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does, in my view, threaten irreparable harm to petitioner (Bush), and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he (Bush) claims to be the legitimacy of his election.” In other words, if we let all the votes be counted and they come out in favor of Gore, and Gore wins, well, that will impair Bush's ability to govern once we install him as “President.”
The time of the Supreme Court decision can be found at:
The Nation, “The God That Failed; Florida Supreme Court's Rulings on the Presidential Elections,” Herman Schwartz, January 1, 2001
CNN Saturday Norning News Transcripts 08:00, December 9, 2000
ABC News Special Report, 2:47PM, December 9, 2000
Justice O' Connor's comments reguarding her retirement were reported in:
Newsweek, “The Truth Behind The Pillars,” Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff, December 25, 2000.
Information reguarding the family connections between Supreme Court and the Administration is from:
The New York Times, “Contesting the Vote: Challenging a Justice,” Christopher Marquis, December 12, 2000.
Chicago Tribune, “Justice Scalia's Son a Lawyer in Firm Representing Bush Before Top Court,” Jill Zuckman, November, 29, 2000.
Scalia's statement can be found in the text of the deccision:
Supreme Court of the United States, No 00-949(00A504) George W. Bush et al. v. Alber Gore Jr. et al., Scalia J. concurring opinion 531 US_(2000) December 9, 2000.
NICE CONSPIRACY--but it doesn't hold water. Is this a front for the coming election in case your guy doesn't win? 7 U.S. Supreme justices out of 9, told the Florida Monkey court to knock it off. The one appointee to the US Supreme court that George Bush # 1 sat on the court was in opposition to the other seven. How does that set with your conspiracy?
Last edited:
greenpartyaz
Corporate Watchdog
- Thread starter
- #50
NICE CONSPIRACY--but it doesn't hold water. Is this a front for the coming election in case your guy doesn't win? 7 U.S. Supreme justices out of 9, told the Florida Monkey court to knock it off. The one appointee to the US Supreme court that George Bush # 1 sat on the court was in opposition to the other seven. How does that set with your conspiracy?
What do you mean you guys?
Dig some of this! It is all in the sources provided. Not a conspiracy.
Last edited:
frazzledgear
Senior Member
- Mar 17, 2008
- 1,479
- 544
- 48
Words that will live in infamy forever... "The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does, in my view, threaten irreparable harm to petitioner (Bush), and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he (Bush) claims to be the legitimacy of his election." - Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice
Scalia's statement can be found at: Supreme Court of the United States, No. 00-949 (00A504) George W. Bush et al. V Albert Gore, Jr. et al. Scalia J. concurring opinion. 531 US_(2000).
What I find pretty funny that there are still some harping on about this. Bush isn't the one who decided to use the court system in the first place. GORE did. LOL His supporters are still whining about the fact that although Gore is the one who went to court about it - the court system still didn't give him what he never got at the ballot box. LOL
In that decision, you might want to notice that with reference to the scheme the Florida Supreme Court had set up -allowing the selective trolling of spoiled ballots in only those counties that were highly favorable to one candidate, while ignoring the spoiled ballots of those using the identical voting method but in counties not so favorable to that same candidate -was UNCONSTITUTIONAL -in a 7-2 decision.
To this day I wonder about the two whackos on the Supreme Court who think "democracy" means running an operation worthy of only a third world banana republic with what the FL state supreme court tried to help Gore get away with. All the Supreme Court said was that ballots that were produced by the identical voting system -MUST be treated IDENTICALLY. Anyone with any kind of rational mind gets that one. Hard to pretend that a decision that makes such obvious sense to anyone with critical thinking skills was somehow "unfair" to Gore in some way. LOL
The fact the Supreme Court refused to set aside federal election law so that Florida could finally get around to treating them all identically is irrelevant. Federal election law takes precedence over state election law at all times, not the other way around. Takes precedence even if a state really screws things up too. EVERY state must comply with federal election law -first of which is "no changing the rules" after the ballots have been cast. And second of which is each state gets their vote counted and certified before the deadline without exception -or their electoral votes will not be counted at all. Oh, you mean that bad, bad Supreme Court wouldn't rule that federal election law had to be set aside because the Florida state supreme court (at the behest of Gore), decided to really, really screw things up? LOL Too bad federal election law had foreseen the possibility of a state having to deal with a contested election and unable to get its vote counted and certified in time -which is why it specifically said there were NO exceptions for any kind of reason a state may have. Which meant the Supreme Court had no constitutional grounds whatsoever for setting aside federal election law.
You whackos STILL have your panties in a twist about that. LOL Still accusing Bush of using the courts to win, accusing Bush of "stealing" that election etc. DEAL WITH REALITY HERE. You can't steal what is already yours -it was Gore trying to steal what was NEVER his to begin with. And Bush isn't the one who went to court to get a "win" -he already won and won every recount too. Gore's problem is that it wasn't HIS win! Which is why GORE decided to go to court in the first place with the specific intention of trying to steal that win from Bush. And didn't like the outcome of going to court after all. Oh waaa. Get over it.
Last edited:
This bores me. I have fought this over and over. Hell I even represented Gore in Moot Court. I am tired of this one, can we please move along to the next election that the Republicans are going to steal.
Gunny
Gold Member
Words that will live in infamy forever... "The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does, in my view, threaten irreparable harm to petitioner (Bush), and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he (Bush) claims to be the legitimacy of his election." - Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice
Scalia's statement can be found at: Supreme Court of the United States, No. 00-949 (00A504) George W. Bush et al. V Albert Gore, Jr. et al. Scalia J. concurring opinion. 531 US_(2000).
Only in YOUR mind, moonbat.
Only in YOUR mind, moonbat.
Still waiting for "fair and balanced" Jillian to respond to the proof her claim that the Supreme Court decision was a political one when 7 of 9 Justices agreed that the case had merit and should be decided by the Supreme Court because it violated Federal law.
I get the outrage green feels, I felt it too, perhaps more strongly because I'm from Florida and I lived it live and in person.
The entire 2000 election was a fiasco. BUT, it's 2008 now and no one who didn't believe the election was stolen before is going to believe it now and no one who did believe it was stolen will suddenly give up that idea.
It's a waste of time to debate it. and really, even if somehow it could be 100% verified that it was indeed stolen, what would change? No one I know has a time machine to go back and fix the results. We can't take back the time GWB spent as President from 2001 on.
The only thing to do now is be more vigliant to ensure nothing like that happens again. I think more people believe the election was stolen than don't. I think more people are on the look out now for this type of incident. More questions are asked and that's a good thing.
It's time to let the 2000 election go and focus on the election that is ahead of us.
The entire 2000 election was a fiasco. BUT, it's 2008 now and no one who didn't believe the election was stolen before is going to believe it now and no one who did believe it was stolen will suddenly give up that idea.
It's a waste of time to debate it. and really, even if somehow it could be 100% verified that it was indeed stolen, what would change? No one I know has a time machine to go back and fix the results. We can't take back the time GWB spent as President from 2001 on.
The only thing to do now is be more vigliant to ensure nothing like that happens again. I think more people believe the election was stolen than don't. I think more people are on the look out now for this type of incident. More questions are asked and that's a good thing.
It's time to let the 2000 election go and focus on the election that is ahead of us.
Last edited:
I get the outrage green feels, I felt it too, perhaps more strongly because I'm from Florida and I lived it live and in person.
The entire 2000 election was a fiasco. BUT, it's 2008 now and no one who didn't believe the election was stolen before is going to believe it now and no one who did believe it was stolen will suddenly give up that idea.
It's a waste of time to debate it. and really, even if somehow it could be 100% verified that it was indeed stolen, what would change? No one I know has a time machine to go back and fix the results. We can't take back the time GWB spent as President from 2001 on.
The only thing to do now is be more vigliant to ensure nothing like that happens again. I think more people believe the election was stolen than don't. I think more people are on the look out now for this type of incident. More questions are asked and that's a good thing.
It's time to let the 2000 election go and focus on the election that is ahead of us.
Good post.
Debating this issue is pointless.
The evidence is there for all to see if they care to.
The courts have spoken, let's move on.
- Moderator
- #57
Good post.
Debating this issue is pointless.
The evidence is there for all to see if they care to.
The courts have spoken, let's move on.
The only reason debating the issue is pointless is because you guys lost. You know you lost and you are tired of looking stupid by continually bringing up the bogus claim that Bush stole the election.
But that doesnt keep you guys from bringing it up as if its a fact.
greenpartyaz
Corporate Watchdog
- Thread starter
- #58
If you think that a series of events leading up to the 2000 election, that was taken from Gore in Tallahassee, is all in the past. Let's see what else flys!
greenpartyaz
Corporate Watchdog
- Thread starter
- #59
I get the outrage green feels, I felt it too, perhaps more strongly because I'm from Florida and I lived it live and in person.
The entire 2000 election was a fiasco. BUT, it's 2008 now and no one who didn't believe the election was stolen before is going to believe it now and no one who did believe it was stolen will suddenly give up that idea.
It's a waste of time to debate it. and really, even if somehow it could be 100% verified that it was indeed stolen, what would change? No one I know has a time machine to go back and fix the results. We can't take back the time GWB spent as President from 2001 on.
The only thing to do now is be more vigliant to ensure nothing like that happens again. I think more people believe the election was stolen than don't. I think more people are on the look out now for this type of incident. More questions are asked and that's a good thing.
It's time to let the 2000 election go and focus on the election that is ahead of us.
It's not about letting go of a past election. It is making sure that future elections are not stolen and we have learned from this tragedy. We have empowered ourselves with the evidence, and can do everything within our power to try and stop it from ever occurring again! If the votes were counted, Bush would not be occupying federal land at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The sources have all been fact checked for accuracy.
- Moderator
- #60
If you think that a series of events leading up to the 2000 election, that was taken from Gore in Tallahassee, is all in the past. Let's see what else flys!
No it will probably never be over. Because youll still be harping on in 40 years from now when President Bush has long since passed from old age. You'll be sitting on message boards saying "Bush stole Florida. He did! There is no proof but he did!"
And the rest of us will simply think you are a nut job and the world has moved on since then. but then thats pretty much what we think now so i guess not much will change.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 168
- Views
- 5K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 49
- Views
- 251
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 34
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-