Sad Day For Hugo :-(

[Dr Grump]

Let's see. I mentioned Stalin, then again there was Hitler, that came quite close to what Chavez just tried. I doubt you'll find someone on the 'right' that has been more critical of Bush and his policies or execution of the war than myself, for as long as I've been. (Predates 2004 election). You just feel compelled to be nasty to the messenger, but that's just you.

The Katherine I was talking about was Harris. It did not say Kathianne did it? And are you in Bush's pocket? Didn't know you were, go figure....(rolls eyes). So no, I wasn't being nasty to you (unless you are Katherine Harris!!)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Katherine I was talking about was Harris. It did not say Kathianne did it? And are you in Bush's pocket? Didn't know you were, go figure....(rolls eyes). So no, I wasn't being nasty to you (unless you are Katherine Harris!!)

Again I suggest you actually learn Florida Law before making spurious claims. She made the only decision UNDER the law she could. As the Lower Courts all agreed. Only the Democratically controlled Florida Supreme Court disagreed. Go figure. And they did so BY IGNORING Florida Law.

 

[Toro]

Exactly...and since then??

lol

How many countries has Bush invaded since Iraq?

Well, I guess he's a humanitarian now.

 

[Dr Grump]

His reaction to this vote means he knows how to play the game. Nothing more nor less. He knows the entire world is watching, and whatever else he might be, he's no fool.

Ok, so now name one dictator who has given a toss about "the world watching"? Stalin? Hitler? Kim? Pol Pot? Mao? Burmese Junta? Pinochet? Bokossa? Amin? Charles Taylor? Hussein? Assad? Khomeni? Noreaga? A true dictator doesn't give a shit about what the world thinks...

 

[Dr Grump]

lol

How many countries has Bush invaded since Iraq?

Well, I guess he's a humanitarian now.

?

 

[Psychoblues]

Yes, you, rgs, in accordance with your sig line in your avatar.. Let's go over this one more time so you can ignore it again like you've always done before.

Al Gore expected the Florida Supervisor of Elections to abide by the Florida state law and instruct a recount. She did not and further she refused to order a recount. The Florida legislature intervened and demanded a recount as in accordance with the laws that they had enacted. A recount was begun. Bush filed a lawsuit against Al Gore to stop the recount and it was stopped twice before it wound up in the Florida Supreme Court. Bush appealed the decision by the Florida Supreme Court to the Federal Court in Atlanta. The Federal Court agreed with Gore that a recount was in keeping with the American Constitution and the laws as they existed in Florida. Bush appealed that decision to the United States Supreme Court where a sharply divided 5/4 decision was made to STOP THE COUNTING AND APPOINT GWB TO THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and stopped the recount for the 3rd and final time. They were so ashamed of their unlawful and crooked decision that they included in the ruling that the decision would only apply in that Bush v Gore case and would not be precedent setting. There has never been a complete or credible recount of the Florida vote of 2000. I wonder why?

Your ignorance is appalling. Gore got his required recount. He in fact got 2 recounts and part of a third. The State has a LAW. Passed by its legislature, that LAW required exactly the actions taken BY the State and its elected officials. But I forgot, laws do not apply to liberals do they?

Further Gore was the one that tried to cheat the system and forced a move to the Supreme Court. Thanks to 7 Democrats in the Florida Supreme Court ( or rather 4 of 7) that voted politics not law. Remind me again how a 7-2 decision in the Supreme Court is biased while a 4-3 vote in the Florida Court was right on.

And again the Supreme Court had to act because the FEDERAL LAW would have nullified Florida's Electors if the Florida Court decision had been carried out. This would have disenfranchised the ENTIRE State of Florida in a National election.

The courtroom was the only refuge for the scoundrel bush and his cabal and that decision will be a scourge on the reputation and credibility of the United States Supreme Court for decades to come. And the bush bunch has the nerve to condemn lawyers?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

 

[Dr Grump]

Yes, you, rgs, in accordance with your sig line in your avatar.. Let's go over this one more time so you can ignore it again like you've always done before.

Al Gore expected the Florida Supervisor of Elections to abide by the Florida state law and instruct a recount. She did not and further she refused to order a recount. The Florida legislature intervened and demanded a recount as in accordance with the laws that they had enacted. A recount was begun. Bush filed a lawsuit against Al Gore to stop the recount and it was stopped twice before it wound up in the Florida Supreme Court. Bush appealed the decision by the Florida Supreme Court to the Federal Court in Atlanta. The Federal Court agreed with Gore that a recount was in keeping with the American Constitution and the laws as they existed in Florida. Bush appealed that decision to the United States Supreme Court where a sharply divided 5/4 decision was made to STOP THE COUNTING AND APPOINT GWB TO THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and stopped the recount for the 3rd and final time. They were so ashamed of their unlawful and crooked decision that they included in the ruling that the decision would only apply in that Bush v Gore case and would not be precedent setting. There has never been a complete or credible recount of the Florida vote of 2000. I wonder why?

The courtroom was the only refuge for the scoundrel bush and his cabal and that decision will be a scourge on the reputation and credibility of the United States Supreme Court for decades to come. And the bush bunch has the nerve to condemn lawyers?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

Just out of interest, does anybody know how often, or how many times, the USSC has made a decision and said it is NOT to be precedent setting...

Just interested as I have no idea

 

[jillian]

Just out of interest, does anybody know how often, or how many times, the USSC has made a decision and said it is NOT to be precedent setting...

Just interested as I have no idea

Once.

 

[Dr Grump]

Once.

Including Florida, or Florida only...

 

[jillian]

Including Florida, or Florida only...

Bush v Gore bears the dubious distinction of being the only case I know of that the Court stated in its opinion had no precedential value whatsoever.

 

[Annie]

The Katherine I was talking about was Harris. It did not say Kathianne did it? And are you in Bush's pocket? Didn't know you were, go figure....(rolls eyes). So no, I wasn't being nasty to you (unless you are Katherine Harris!!)

Ok, my bad. Sorry!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, you, rgs, in accordance with your sig line in your avatar.. Let's go over this one more time so you can ignore it again like you've always done before.

Al Gore expected the Florida Supervisor of Elections to abide by the Florida state law and instruct a recount. She did not and further she refused to order a recount. The Florida legislature intervened and demanded a recount as in accordance with the laws that they had enacted. A recount was begun. Bush filed a lawsuit against Al Gore to stop the recount and it was stopped twice before it wound up in the Florida Supreme Court. Bush appealed the decision by the Florida Supreme Court to the Federal Court in Atlanta. The Federal Court agreed with Gore that a recount was in keeping with the American Constitution and the laws as they existed in Florida. Bush appealed that decision to the United States Supreme Court where a sharply divided 5/4 decision was made to STOP THE COUNTING AND APPOINT GWB TO THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and stopped the recount for the 3rd and final time. They were so ashamed of their unlawful and crooked decision that they included in the ruling that the decision would only apply in that Bush v Gore case and would not be precedent setting. There has never been a complete or credible recount of the Florida vote of 2000. I wonder why?




The courtroom was the only refuge for the scoundrel bush and his cabal and that decision will be a scourge on the reputation and credibility of the United States Supreme Court for decades to come. And the bush bunch has the nerve to condemn lawyers?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

Except the DECISION that the court made was 7-2 on the basic issue. Not 5-4. That being that the demand Gore made was not within the stricture of the law and would have caused damage to the process and Bush.

Or do you just want to ignore that part?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The ONLY court that agreed with Gore was the Florida Supreme Court, no surprise there as it was 7 Democrats. Every time it went to court at the lower level it was ruled AGAINST Gore.

Gore GOT his recount. As the law requires. He would have gotten more if he had not tried to play the system and demand new counts use illegal methods to count the ballots.

Gore NOT Bush involved the Courts and tried desperately to steal an election by act of Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court. I might add acting AGAINsT the will of the Legislature you CLAIM was for Gore. Or do I need to remind you that the Legislature was set to vote for Bush Electors irregardless of the order of the Florida Supreme Court to meet the Federal Deadline for submitting Electors?

 

[Psychoblues]

jillian, many here do not understand that it was Bush that filed the lawsuit and that Gore was the defendant in that case. They insist that it was Gore that filed the lawsuit because he was somehow dissatisfied with the decision of the Florida legislature. Could you help them to understand that it was fear by Bush all along that he in fact did not "win" in Florida and that fear compelled him to seek jurisprudense from a well stocked Supreme court to actually STOP THE COUNTING?

Bush v Gore bears the dubious distinction of being the only case I know of that the Court stated in its opinion had no precedential value whatsoever.

Gore expected the present laws to compel a complete recount and Bush was afraid of the result of that legally required determination and filed suit to stop any further examination of the vote after the politically connected Supervisor Of Elections called the vote in the favor of her own admittedly partisan desire for the outcome.

 

[Psychoblues]

You are a liar, rgs, or you are at least stupid. Both the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals in Atlanta sided with Gore on this issue and Gore was the defendant from the very start of that legal process. Bush filed and pursued the court process, NOT GORE!!!!!!!!!!!

The ONLY court that agreed with Gore was the Florida Supreme Court, no surprise there as it was 7 Democrats. Every time it went to court at the lower level it was ruled AGAINST Gore.

Gore GOT his recount. As the law requires. He would have gotten more if he had not tried to play the system and demand new counts use illegal methods to count the ballots.

Gore NOT Bush involved the Courts and tried desperately to steal an election by act of Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court. I might add acting AGAINsT the will of the Legislature you CLAIM was for Gore. Or do I need to remind you that the Legislature was set to vote for Bush Electors irregardless of the order of the Florida Supreme Court to meet the Federal Deadline for submitting Electors?

Many books are available for you to educate yourself and I suggest you read a few of them.

 

[Annie]

Back on dictators off of Election 2000 which was battled over enough. I believe Dr. Grump addressed a question regarding dictators and elections. I cited the case of Hitler, he did lose the bid for President in 1932, but after a run off, the Nazis picked up seats. A bit later, the ill Hindenberg made the mistake of appointing Hitler Chancellor, the rest became history.

Anyways, back to Grump's query, I found a better answer and perhaps even the source of his question:

http://reason.com/blog/show/123742.html

On Chavez and Laughland

Michael C. Moynihan | December 3, 2007, 4:56pm

After a day of tension, with opposition leaders and voters wondering just what the hell was taking so long, Hugo Chavez conceded defeat late last night; a surprising development considering the record of the Chavista-controlled CNE and the raft of legitimate questions about the accuracy of previous election results (pdf). As could be expected, Hugo's concession prompted his supporters at home and abroad to point to this as proof that Chavez presides over a democracy little different than our own (Chavez too immediately made this point: "His respect for the verdict, he asserted, proves he is a true democratic leader.") So one of the Huffington Post's house bloggers asks sarcastically if "dictators lose elections?" First: Many people have called Chavez a dictator, though I am not one of them. Second: Yes, sometimes dictators do lose elections (Pinochet did, the Sandinistas did). Before you too celebrate the flowering people's democracy of Venezuela, consider that Chavez's opponents braved serious threats and intimidation from government forces and ignored an onslaught of pro-regime propaganda when voting to reject the rewriting of the constitution. (In the Venezuelan version of authoritarian democracy, pro-government propaganda was ceaseless pumped into Caracas subway stations in the run-up to the referendum, while state television channels like ViVe and VTV act as sock puppets for the government.)

...

If you follow the link to the ellipsis, you'll find some opinion on the Putin results too.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

jillian, many here do not understand that it was Bush that filed the lawsuit and that Gore was the defendant in that case. They insist that it was Gore that filed the lawsuit because he was somehow dissatisfied with the decision of the Florida legislature. Could you help them to understand that it was fear by Bush all along that he in fact did not "win" in Florida and that fear compelled him to seek jurisprudense from a well stocked Supreme court to actually STOP THE COUNTING?




Gore expected the present laws to compel a complete recount and Bush was afraid of the result of that legally required determination and filed suit to stop any further examination of the vote after the politically connected Supervisor Of Elections called the vote in the favor of her own admittedly partisan desire for the outcome.

Gore was dead set AGAINST a complete recount, get your facts straight moron. Further he wanted to exclude all absentee ballots in any recount.

 

[Ninja]

Gore tried to steal the election and LOST thanks to the most well-reasoned and non-partisan SCOTUS decision of all time

Hugo tried to use the same tricks in pushing his constitutional amendments, using tricks from the Al Bore playbook, and LOST thanks to a few freedom-loving Venezuelans

 

[jillian]

Gore tried to steal the election and LOST thanks to the most well-reasoned and non-partisan SCOTUS decision of all time

A knee slapper, huh?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A knee slapper, huh?

Come on Jillian you have attacked the court, explain why the main decision was not 5-4 but rather 7-2. Explain why your rant on "Bush's" Court suddenly went silent when you found out all the Liberals on said court ( before Bush assigned ANY Conservatives) agreed that "kidnapped" criminals from foreign Countries could not sue the US? A decision that was basicly 9-0 and on the other part of the question 6-3 ( the 3 against being the 3 conservatives).

Maybe those Liberals just aren't liberal enough for you? Remind us again how your Liberal Justices all agreed that any level of Government was free to seize private property and give it away to Corporations or any one that might raise the tax base for them, using the excuse it was necessary Governmental seizure for the common good?