Write Review
1,979,188 Total Reviews 4,097 New Reviews
9,497 Users Online

Politics and Religion

It would be best for you to speak for yourself. (eom)
Telling ItLikeItIs 12399 reads
posted


END OF MESSAGE

Cynicalman17755 reads

"Laugh about it, Shout about it when you get to choose.
Anyway you look at it you lose."

Bush or Kerry; They're both tools of the secret corporate government that decides what you and I will pay for and what civil rights we'll lose along the way.

  Cm.

-- Modified on 4/20/2004 12:29:13 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
StartThinking!16803 reads

that there actually was a difference between Bush and Gore, even though Nader said there wasn't.

Not implying that you are a Nader supporter.

ReplyQuoteReport
james8616782 reads

This is probably a sound electoral analysis.

One thing I can respect about Ralph Nader is that he's an avowed Socialist.  Unlike the Democrats who lack the courage to admit it, all the while pursuing Socialist policies.  I can respect his honesty, if not his politics.

Ralph Nader is probably the reason George W. Bush is President.

Thank you, Ralph.

ReplyQuoteReport
sdstud17487 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
HarryLime16760 reads

According to the rules (regardless of how many feel about it).  Dems have Nadar, GOP has it's own "Nadars" in other elections.

ReplyQuoteReport
james8616813 reads

Harry, I hope you don't believe that I have suggested (like the loony left) that Bush's election was somehow illegitimate.  You are, of course, correct.

My only point was that, if Nader hadn't been in the race, his votes would almost certainly have gone to Gore.  And if they had, it would have been enough to swing the election to him.

National Review wrote an interesting blurb after the election that the results were disturbing because, for the first time since 1964, a simple (and simpleton) majority of Americans had cast their presidential ballots for candidates of the Left.

ReplyQuoteReport
sdstud14442 reads

And that is the only unassailable fact that ever came out of the 2000 Presidential election.

ReplyQuoteReport
Landem14869 reads

Oh puh-leeeeze! Remember the news media consortium recount - the one that took a year to complete? In case anyone has forgotten, check the link below.

Also note, this link is to the New York Times - not Foxnews, not the New York Post, not the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Anyone who thinks that the ! NY Times ! would put a conservative, pro-Republican, or pro-Bush spin on anything should proceed immediately to their nearest mental health care professional.

Related Link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA071FFA385C0C718DDDA80994D9404482

ReplyQuoteReport
sdstud14289 reads

Whatever you or I care to believe about the legitimacy of the 2000 Presidential election, the controversy ended because, In POINT OF FACT, 5 Supreme Court Justices (and NOT 6, 7, 8, or 9 of them) deemed it so.  If one more Supreme Court Justice thought otherwise, neither you nor I KNOW what the outcome would have been, although you quite apparently THINK you do.

ReplyQuoteReport
Landem17669 reads

I didn't say I know what the outcome would have been. It was the New York Times that said: "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote."

That sounds, to me, like an assault on your so-called "unassailable fact" but I did not write that headline.

ReplyQuoteReport
Telling ItLikeItIs12400 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
sdstud13729 reads

But it IS a FACT that the U.S. Supreme Court DID cast the deciding vote.  Had other votes ACTUALLY been counted, they might well have been the deciding votes in favor of Bush, but they were never OFFICIALLY counted.  The U.S. Supreme Court WAS IN FACT the final, official, legal arbiter of the 2000 Presidential election, by a mere 5-4 vote.  THAT IS FACT.  Anything else is mere speculative opinion.  I have mine, and you have yours.  And the person who wrote that headline has theirs, but it is clearly not correct in view of the facts.

ReplyQuoteReport
james8615966 reads

You suggest that "other votes" were not "actually" counted.  You're in fantasy land.  All ballots that could validly be counted were "officially" counted.  You, Algore, and every other Leftie just didn't like the outcome, so you wanted to have Democrats look at ballots again in Democrat leaning areas.  The Supreme's vote to stop the counts was 7-2, so you can't even get that right.

ReplyQuoteReport
sdstud12384 reads

And the fact that you don't even know this BASIC piece of information is indicative of just how little you know about this particular decision, which ranks with Dred Scott v. Sanford as among the most flawed decisions in the history of the court.  In this case, based on lack of valid precedent and not having any basis in the law,.  So, since you've already proven to be completely ignorant on this subject, we don't need to hear any more incorrect rantings from you about it, or the Supreme Court in general.

-- Modified on 4/29/2004 9:21:34 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
james8615293 reads

From the tone of your post, I conclude that you think this was a wrong-headed decision.

But in a later post, you proudly declare that "The CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court found Abortion Rights in the Constitution we already have! -nt --- sdstud® (4/26/2004 1:08:31 PM) (13 reads)."

So, the Supreme Court is right only when it agrees with sdstud?

I underestimated your influence.

ReplyQuoteReport
sdstud15451 reads

I never said that the Court was infallible.  Simply that they made the correct ruling in Roe v. Wade.  I was merely pointing out that we have no need for a Constitutional amendment granting abortion rights, because the Court already found them in the existing Constitution.  I don't need that finding to have come from an infallible source, as there is no such thing.  I merely need for that finding to be the Law of the Land.  

I am willing to accept that, on that basis:  Roe v. Wade is exactly as legitimate as the Law of this Nation as the George W. Bush Presidency is.  Are YOU willing to accept that premise?


ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!