Get over our not getting over it, OK?

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE *
Remember when the Florida Supreme Court ruled to extend the recount deadline beyond the pre-existing one? Florida’s SC was as much in Gore’s pocket as the SCOTUS was in Bush’s.

Or it could have been a reasonable interpretation of conflicting statutes. Even the SCOTUS didn’t disagree. That’s a court’s function - if you don’t like the result, that doesn’t mean it’s automatically corrupt. In the case of the SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Gore, it’s pretty well proven, though. Even the most ardently conservative legal analysts I know of concede that.

And don’t feed me the line about “The court said it was legal, so it was!”, because a higher court overruled that decision.

Yes, there is a final, unappealable court, whose decisions are law until overturned legislatively. That gives them a responsibility they did not live up to. Your point?

We also know for damn sure who the State’s choice was, and that, my raving friend, is what counts.

Except that is NOT “for damn sure”, unless you like ignoring facts and putting your fingers in your ears and yelling “La la la, I can’t hear you, my guy is in, deal with it, la la la, nothing else matters but that”.

Including all the privately-funded recounts which took place long after the election.

Depends on which standard you use. The LAW, which was that the local canvassing boards determine “clear intent of the voter”, was NEVER followed, even by private recounts.

More of your estimates. Quit hiding behind your estimates.

You have to say things like that in order to keep up your denial.

If we don’t know, it’s because we CAN’T know, you dink.

That view is already disproven in detail, but I understand your need to cling to it. If you wish to actually avoid finding facts, and actually embrace ignorance, you’re free to do so, but you’ll get a reaction on a board devoted to fighting ignorance instead. If you really don’t want to know facts, you don’t have to, and you have my pity - but then, why are you in this thread?

I’m not the one who called the SCOTUS decision “illegal” to begin with. I simply like evidence, and so far, I see no reason to conclude the SCOTUS decision to be “illegal”.

If you horses don’t want to drink, you can’t claim you haven’t been shown the water. The remedial-reading links I posted above are a good start, if you’re honest about your demand for evidence.

Re my use of the word “illegal”, that’s shorthand for “in violation of Constitutional principles and history, flouting precedent, at variance with Justices’ own claimed principles, and a case of cobbling up a legal rationalization for a preselected outcome”. You want I should macro that for you?

[Sauron]

*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
Anyone who still wants to claim G.W.'s accession to the rightful throne of the House of Bush was principled, honored, or even legal, and does not simply want to keep his/her head in the sand,…

(Emphasis mine - Sauron.)

Incidentally, ElvisL1ves, here’s where you claim that Bush isn’t in the Oval Office legally.

So, by accepting a tax rebate that Bush pushed through Congress, you are acting in an unprincipled, dishonorable, and illegal fashion. By proxy. By your own definition.

All I’m saying is be consistent. Don’t continue to froth at the mouth about Bush being in the White House if you’re going to accept largesse that comes your way as a result of Bush being in the White House.

[Sauron]

*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
Re my use of the word “illegal”, that’s shorthand for “in violation of Constitutional principles and history, flouting precedent, at variance with Justices’ own claimed principles, and a case of cobbling up a legal rationalization for a preselected outcome”. You want I should macro that for you?

Interesting. That’s not exactly what my Webster’s has, though; it simply defines “illegal” as “prohibited by law.”

[Earthworm_Jim]

*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
**Would you like to say he isn’t in dishonorably, though?
**

Bush is not in dishonorably.

Bush is in office legally, in accordance with the laws of both Florida and the United States of America at the time of the election.

As such, Bush is not in dishonorably.

Had the same been true of Al Gore, Gore would not be in dishonorably.

The honor is lacking from people like yourself who, as has been stated here many times, insist on shouting meaningless rhetoric instead of
A) working to make the next four years as successful as possible for everyone, regardless of political affiliation and
B) enumerating the alleged failures of the legal systems involved and using your (seemingly boundless) energy to change them.

Bush is now the president of the US, which includes people who voted for Gore, Nader, Browne, Dolph Lundgren, etc. If enough people agree with you, then Bush will not win again in 2004. Can you point me towards any effort you’ve made to change the system which allowed these election results? Can you show me anything you’ve done (other than whine here) to educate others on the shortcomings of Florida and/or Federal law? Or is all your rhetoric full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?

Oh, and squeegee:

Bumper sticker:

---

Al Gore 2004
Reelect the President

Call (202) 456-1111 and ask “Who is currently the president of the United States?” for a little reality-check…

[Tejota]

*Originally posted by Milossarian *
**

**As long as you keep smugly shutting out any inconvenient fact that might inhibit you from feeling good about the results, YOU will be the ones who are “not over it” - worse, you will be refusing the opportunity to learn from it.

**
Would those be “inconvenient facts” like the vote totals, each of the four or five times they were counted?

Or like the laws against counting overvotes? **

No, like the fact that each and every recount skipped over mostly the same set of ballots. Or the fact that there were ballots that the machines think are overvotes but aren’t. Or the fact that in Seminole (bush) county, this sort of overvote was counted.

Milo you and Scylla, you go right ahead and beat the shit out of the ‘count and count again’ strawman. It’s your best move after all.

[Milossarian]

By God, Elvis, you’re right - about something.

I did, indeed, intend to say the U.S. Constitution and the Florida Supreme Court.

Article II, Sec. I of the U.S. Constitution says a state’s presidential electors will be appointed “in such a manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

Florida election law says those electors will go to the presidential candidate that received the most votes.

The Florida SC ruling refers repeatedly to trying to discern the Legislature’s intent in Florida’s election laws. (See here, on page 11 of the ruling, for example. But you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader.)

The Legislature, as noted here in the Washington Post, felt that most of the legal votes cast in the state for president were cast for Bush, and the Legislature was preparing to send its state electors to D.C. to vote for Bush.

Yeah, yeah. Just more terrible Republican partisanship, right?

There’s a reason why subjectivity should be kept out of voting as much as possible. There’s a reason why a person should not be able to just waltz into an election hall, grab a ballot, scrawl “GOR” across its entirety in huge letters, and have it counted as a vote for Al Gore.

Subjectivity = varying standards = varying accuracy = inaccuracy. It also equals the potential for partisanship and corruption. It also equals intolerable delays.

Hopefully the election morass in Florida served as a wake-up call for them to get their election procedures and laws in better shape, and to educate voters on how to vote. It’s my understanding that it has.

[ElvisL1ves]

It’s a little sad to see someone talk about other people’s honor who is proud to sell himself out for $300.

It’s sadder still that one of the hallmarks so far of the Jethro W. Bodine Administration and its supporters is the actual embrace of ignorance.

Sorry, Cecil and company, the fight must continue for another couple of years.

[Sauron]

Wanna clarify that last post there, ElvisL1ves? Since you’re the one accepting money from a government headed by a man you claim has acted dishonorably and illegally, YOU would seem to be the one who’s having trouble justifying his actions with his ideology.

[waterj2]

It’s a little sad to see someone talk about other people’s honor who is proud to sell himself out for $300.

It’s sadder still that one of the hallmarks so far of the Jethro W. Bodine Administration and its supporters is the actual embrace of ignorance.

Sorry, Cecil and company, the fight must continue for another couple of years.

Oh, yeah, the Bush administration are standing alone against reason, which has up until recently been omnipresent in politics. Sorry, I think my eyes just rolled out of my head.

BTW, I didn’t make enough to have any tax liability last year, and thus got no refund, so can I talk about honor?

It shows your arguments to be pathetically weak when you resort (or start off, as the case may be) to demonizing your opponents, and claiming hegemoney on rational thought. Frankly, you are a detriment to your own cause, and are hindering the efforts of reasonable and intelligent liberals such as wring, jshore, guinastasia, Kimstu, et al.

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
** The LAW, which was that the local canvassing boards determine “clear intent of the voter”, was NEVER followed, even by private recounts.

**

I’ll say it again, because it bears repeating.

Dimpled Chad, My Ass!!!