Murkowski Leads By Over 10,000 Votes

[DiveCon]

i'd vote for ted kennedy over palin.

even if he was still alive.

sarah palin is walking, talking, tweeting, facebooking, prima facie evidence of the dumbing down of the american electorate.

I'm still not a big fan (or small air conditioner) of Sarah Palin. But I also don't agree that she's quite as dumb as so many of her strident critics contend. There is a big difference between mere IGNORANCE which can be cured with education and STUPIDITY which, as retardean and Rinata prove, cannot be cured.

Palin has MUCH to learn. And, frankly, unless she does and until she does, I am not going to support her in any primary. But she's still better (my own personal estimation, of course) to that empty suit currently infesting the Oval Orifice.

Turning to one other important matter. You said, and I again quote you,

i'd vote for ted kennedy over palin.

even if he was still alive.

DAYUM! I WISH I could Rep you again. That one had me snorting out loud.

You gave me a special mention!! Wow. I must really get under your skin. That makes me happy. Idiots hating me means that I am on the right track.

you hate yourself?

 

[mdn2000]

How come there is more than a dozen different ways people vote, if not a thousand different ways. How come we dont have a standard.

More of the Marxist destroying the USA.

Everything should be in and counted on election day with zero recounts, if you lose by one vote, who cares, one vote amongst thousands means it was a tie thus it dont matter.

One vote is good enough for me. It destroys our country to have these endless election lawsuits. More ways both parties keep us divided.

United we stand, Divided we fall.

 

[Ravi]

call me crazy, but i'd rather have the alleged RINO than the whack job hypocrite who refuses to speak to the press and lies about his actions.

*shrug*

Nope. I decline your generous invitation to call you crazy!

But I think you're off base. I'd prefer to dump the ******* RINO who has stated publicly that if Palin ran for President, she'd vote for the re-election of President Obama. She's a certified RINO with that statement.

I'd prefer to take my chances with a guy who has the endorsement of the Tea Party movement.

Miller DID, by the way, speak to the ******* press and if he lied, that makes him no different than almost EVERY other politician. But if your standard is not to prefer a "liar," then you must not prefer Murkoki, either: LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND LISA MURKOWSKI THE MILLSTONE DIARIES

i'd vote for ted kennedy over palin.

even if he was still alive .

sarah palin is walking, talking, tweeting, facebooking, prima facie evidence of the dumbing down of the american electorate.

Damn, that is harsh!

 

[Article 15]

How come there is more than a dozen different ways people vote, if not a thousand different ways. How come we dont have a standard.

More of the Marxist destroying the USA.

Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

[Liability]

How come there is more than a dozen different ways people vote, if not a thousand different ways. How come we dont have a standard.

More of the Marxist destroying the USA.

Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

LOL.

While I think it might make sense to have a uniform nation-wide manner of casting votes, I couldn't help but laugh at Art's reply, here.

 

[Liability]

i'd vote for ted kennedy over palin.

even if he was still alive.

sarah palin is walking, talking, tweeting, facebooking, prima facie evidence of the dumbing down of the american electorate.

I'm still not a big fan (or small air conditioner) of Sarah Palin. But I also don't agree that she's quite as dumb as so many of her strident critics contend. There is a big difference between mere IGNORANCE which can be cured with education and STUPIDITY which, as retardean and Rinata prove, cannot be cured.

Palin has MUCH to learn. And, frankly, unless she does and until she does, I am not going to support her in any primary. But she's still better (my own personal estimation, of course) to that empty suit currently infesting the Oval Orifice.

Turning to one other important matter. You said, and I again quote you,

i'd vote for ted kennedy over palin.

even if he was still alive.

DAYUM! I WISH I could Rep you again. That one had me snorting out loud.

You gave me a special mention!! Wow. I must really get under your skin. That makes me happy. Idiots hating me means that I am on the right track.

Retarda, as others have already noted, you ARE the idiot.

I did note your idiocy, however. Congrats!

 

[jillian]

How come there is more than a dozen different ways people vote, if not a thousand different ways. How come we dont have a standard.

More of the Marxist destroying the USA.

That's really funny... it should thrill you states' rights types... each state determines its own elections law so long as it falls within federal standards and doesn't deny anyone the vote for illegal reasons.

... well, except in Bush v Gore, of course.

 

[jillian]

i'd vote for ted kennedy over palin.

even if he was still alive.

sarah palin is walking, talking, tweeting, facebooking, prima facie evidence of the dumbing down of the american electorate.

lol.. yes....

and why anyone is crying because the tweeting twit lost her grudge match is beyond me.

 

[Liability]

How come there is more than a dozen different ways people vote, if not a thousand different ways. How come we dont have a standard.

More of the Marxist destroying the USA.

That's really funny... it should thrill you states' rights types... each state determines its own elections law so long as it falls within federal standards and doesn't deny anyone the vote for illegal reasons.

... well, except in Bush v Gore, of course.

Actually, Bush v. Gore didn't deny anybody the right to vote. It merely held that Florida Courts can't change the rules in the middle (or at the end) of the process. Kind of gives some effect to the whole notion of one man, one vote ... and equal protection.

I love how Gore v. Bush sets the libbies' teeth on edge.

 

[jillian]

Actually, Bush v. Gore didn't deny anybody the right to vote. It merely held that Florida Courts can't change the rules in the middle (or at the end) of the process. Kind of gives some effect to the whole notion of one man, one vote ... and equal protection.

I love how Gore v. Bush sets the libbies' teeth on edge.

Actually, it should set anyone who's an attorney's teeth on edge. i have no qualms about saying that it was a sickening display.

And just to backtrack a bit...... read what I wrote.. EACH STATE DETERMINES ITS OWN ELECTION LAW

.. except for Bush v Gore, which for the first time in history ignored the ruling of a highest court of a state in determining its own election law.

and then said the decision of the high court had no precedential value.

it should embarrass you and appall you and turn your stomach... because if you think that murkowski winning LAWFULLY is bad... babe, you aren't thinking about what that Court did.

But apparently "following the law" is only an issue when your side wins?

 

[Liability]

Actually, Bush v. Gore didn't deny anybody the right to vote. It merely held that Florida Courts can't change the rules in the middle (or at the end) of the process. Kind of gives some effect to the whole notion of one man, one vote ... and equal protection.

I love how Gore v. Bush sets the libbies' teeth on edge.

Actually, it should set anyone who's an attorney's teeth on edge. i have no qualms about saying that it was a sickening display.

And just to backtrack a bit...... read what I wrote.. EACH STATE DETERMINES ITS OWN ELECTION LAW

.. except for Bush v Gore, which for the first time in history ignored the ruling of a highest court of a state.

and then said the decision of the high court had no precedential value.

it should embarrass you and appall you and turn your stomach... because if you think that murkowski winning LAWFULLY is bad... babe, you aren't thinking about what that Court did.

But apparently "following the law" is only an issue when your side wins?

No no. Each State DOES determine it's own election laws and Gore v. Bush didn't change that. It merely denied the claimed authority of Florida ******* COURTS to create those "state laws" after the fact.

So, that whole "following the law" argument you try to foist off loses all of its surface appeal, Jilly.

Unlike you, in fact, I endorse following the law. But "follow" is another one of those words with actual meaning -- meaning which libs tend to want to evade. Here is how it works:

FIRST comes the law. THEN it gets "followed." When Florida tried to do it the other way around by judicial fiat (several fiats in fact), the Federal Court did intervene. Good.

I am a fan of Mark Levin and he regrets the Gore v. Bush decision much more than I do. But the one point he and I share is that it is unfortunate that the behavior of the Florida Courts made that interference at all necessary.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liarbility's argument is toasted and over. Joe is a loser, Liar is a quack, and liar's stooge divecon neg reps me for pointing out the flaws in Joe's petitiona and Liar's demagoguery.

Liar and Dive, boys, stop your whinging. This is over. Nothing is going to change.

 

[elvis]

Liarbility's argument is toasted and over. Joe is a loser, Liar is a quack, and liar's stooge divecon neg reps me for pointing out the flaws in Joe's petitiona and Liar's demagoguery.

Liar and Dive, boys, stop your whinging. This is over. Nothing is going to change.

I agree it's over, but I hope you told Gore the same thing.

 

[Liability]

Liarbility's argument is toasted and over. Joe is a loser, Liar is a quack, and liar's stooge divecon neg reps me for pointing out the flaws in Joe's petitiona and Liar's demagoguery.

Liar and Dive, boys, stop your whinging. This is over. Nothing is going to change.

JokeyFakey.

That you are unable to even track the discussion is a reflection of your stupidity. To the extent you can track the conversation but find it so urgent to deliberately distort that discussion is a reflection of your dishonesty.

Tell us the story again, JokeyFakey, of how YOU are a Republican.

And learn how to use a spell check, too, you imbecile.

In the meanwhile, since the Federal Judge has GRANTED the injunction against the prospect of the State "certifying" the Election "results" at least giving Miller time to re-file his suit in STATE Court (the deadline will be by the end of business TODAY, Monday, 11/22/2010), JokeyFakey's false claim that Joe has "lost," is revealed to be untrue (not surprisingly, since Jokey is so fundamentally dishonest).

If JokeyFakey were CAPABLE of being honest (he's not), he could make a more coherent assertion. He COULD say that it appears that ultimately Joe WILL lose. That's a reasonable prediction. But, it is still and all, just a prediction.

But if he qualified his blasthering bullshit at all, Jokey would have to acknowledge the fact that as long as the legal wrangling continues, there remains a chance (albeit a small one, perhaps) that Miller could yet win. JokeyFakey doesn't like to admit things that he dislikes. JokeyFakey isn't honest at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liarbility, stop your whinging.

The State of Alaska courts will handle the matter, not you.

Lisa Murkowski will be senator, end of story.

 

[jillian]

No no. Each State DOES determine it's own election laws and Gore v. Bush didn't change that. It merely denied the claimed authority of Florida ******* COURTS to create those "state laws" after the fact.

So, that whole "following the law" argument you try to foist off loses all of its surface appeal, Jilly.

Unlike you, in fact, I endorse following the law. But "follow" is another one of those words with actual meaning -- meaning which libs tend to want to evade. Here is how it works:

FIRST comes the law. THEN it gets "followed." When Florida tried to do it the other way around by judicial fiat (several fiats in fact), the Federal Court did intervene. Good.

I am a fan of Mark Levin and he regrets the Gore v. Bush decision much more than I do. But the one point he and I share is that it is unfortunate that the behavior of the Florida Courts made that interference at all necessary.

You seem not to be following honey. Every precedent PRIOR to Bush v Gore was that the determination of the highest court of the state determines the application of its own election law.

I know you know the concept. So trying to twist it so that somehow the high court didn't usurp the right of the state is silly. It did violate all precedent and then to take cover, determined that Bush v Gore was somehow special and that it would have no precedential value. If the Court was correct, and knew it were ruling properly, why would it do that?

What other Supreme Court determination says it is without value as precedent.

Good luck finding it... it doesn't exist.

 

[Rinata]

You make Palin look like a ******* rhodes scholar.

You know that I couldn't care less about your childish comments. They are even more lame than usual. Wish you'd stay missing.

That's why you continue to respond to them.....

dumb ****.

You can respond to something and still think it's childish, you ass. You and your pals are the dumb ones.

 

[Liability]

No no. Each State DOES determine it's own election laws and Gore v. Bush didn't change that. It merely denied the claimed authority of Florida ******* COURTS to create those "state laws" after the fact.

So, that whole "following the law" argument you try to foist off loses all of its surface appeal, Jilly.

Unlike you, in fact, I endorse following the law. But "follow" is another one of those words with actual meaning -- meaning which libs tend to want to evade. Here is how it works:

FIRST comes the law. THEN it gets "followed." When Florida tried to do it the other way around by judicial fiat (several fiats in fact), the Federal Court did intervene. Good.

I am a fan of Mark Levin and he regrets the Gore v. Bush decision much more than I do. But the one point he and I share is that it is unfortunate that the behavior of the Florida Courts made that interference at all necessary.

You seem not to be following honey. Every precedent PRIOR to Bush v Gore was that the determination of the highest court of the state determines the application of its own election law.

I know you know the concept. So trying to twist it so that somehow the high court didn't usurp the right of the state is silly. It did violate all precedent and then to take cover, determined that Bush v Gore was somehow special and that it would have no precedential value. If the Court was correct, and knew it were ruling properly, why would it do that?

What other Supreme Court determination says it is without value as precedent.

Good luck finding it... it doesn't exist.

Sorry schnookums, but it is you that is failing to grasp what actually happened.

Precedent doesn't obviate the responsibility of the Federal Courts to intervene when a State Court is violating its own laws and equal protection, etc., for its citizens.

Once the Florida Court started acting in that thuggish rogue way, the SCOTUS had no other viable choice. There was no precedent for dealing with a State Court acting that improperly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Point, the Alaska state court, despite your opinion, Liar, is not violating its own laws and equal protection. That has been decided by a federal judge. Florida is not a precedent for Miller. Miller is a bad precedent for bad candidates.

 

[Liability]

Point, the Alaska state court, despite your opinion, Liar, is not violating its own laws and equal protection. That has been decided by a federal judge. Florida is not a precedent for Miller. Miller is a bad precedent for bad candidates.

You are one incredible idiot, JokeyFakey. Try to keep up, schmuck. First, point to the post where I claimed that Alaska has violated its own laws and equal protection, you moron. You will not be able to do so. Why not? Because despite your ever-present willingness to offer outrageous outright lies, I never said that, you fucktard.

Now, second, cretin, the Federal Judge STAYED the vote certification process provided Miller files his suit in STATE Court. That's ALASKA State Court, in case any discussions I have had elsewhere over the FLORIDA Court debacle keeps confusing you. Assuming that Miller FILES in STATE court (i.e., ALASKA State Court) by the end of business TODAY, then the litigation will proceed and the STAY on certification will continue for who knows how long! (Excellent, so far!)

Now, furthermore (let's call this "Third") your jerkoff, the Gore v. Bush case is -- by its own terms -- not precedent for anything EXCEPT to the extent that it provides a HINT of what State Courts will not be permitted to do: make up the law AFTER THE FACT. And that's exactly what Miller is determined not to allow to happen. The ALASKA ballots (for write-in candidates) must comply (when cast by the voters) with very precise RULES.

IF the Alaska State Election officials TRY to officially count write-in ballots that FAIL to comply with those clear, unambiguous rules, you mutant, then that effort needs to be rebuffed. Nobody gives a shit what the voter's apparent "intent" may have been. A vote for Lesa Murkoki is NOT a vote for Lisa Murkowski. Nope. Nyet. Eh Eh.

If the failed write-in efforts get properly trashed (per the clear cut statutory LAW of Alaska) then the vote total difference in Alaska in favor of old Sen. Murkowski gets down to only about 2400 votes. That takes us to STEP TWO.

Miller contends that all the votes should be HAND COUNTED since write-in votes can only be hand-counted. One method of counting votes for candidates officially ON the ballot, but a different method of counting for write-in candidates creates a HUGE potential for miscounts.

Ultimately, the big question is whether (or not) Miller can overcome the apparent 2400 vote deficit once ALL the ballots get RECOUNTED in a uniform fashion.

You don't know the answer to that question no matter how much of a blow hard you like to be JokeyFakey.

You didn't tell us the story of how you are supposedly a Republican, JokeyFakey. I love that story. Tell it again!