This Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic........
Hopefully he'll take some votes away from the Duo from Hell.
Nader the consumer adovcate and all around busybody wacko we dont need this dweeb in the whitehouse
No, but then again....Obama?
I'll echo DD2's hope.....
you betcha. I'll have to take off my Obama button now. Nader aint perfect, but he may get my vote over either of the two corporate democrats standing.
"Hopefully he'll take some votes away from the Duo from Hell.
DD2
Right, it's the only change the GOP has, lol. But Nader will be a non factor now, his support since 2000 has hit the skids. Still, I was hoping for a landslide for Obama so the GOP can't steal another election.
Good for you Wage, please, PLEASE vote Nader!
Why is he wasting his time?! He has absolutely no chance of winning and the only thing he can hope to accomplish is to siphon votes off another candidate.
WS you are completely EMASCULATED SPINELESS & COWARDLY IDIOT that is DELIRIOUS & DELUSIONAL.
You got to be a lonely little LIBPUKE if you come in here to get all this NEGATIVE ATTENTION.
I don't go to LIBPUKE websites for one they do not believe in FREE SPEACH. If you are not speaking LIBLIES then they BAN YOU & also I don't need negative attention.
Still, I was hoping for a landslide for Obama so the GOP can't steal another election.
Me too, just so we could stop talking about the last DFL landslide in...uh...what year was that? Hell, I'll settle for decade.
Hey everyone, a printout of Kayinsane's wet dream monitoring! Sweet dreams yourselves! 
Took me a couple of seconds to realize ya didn't say Nader 'stepped IN it' again. 
Yeah. Nader. Maybe he's our candidate?
He may take votes away from McDem too
Still, I was hoping for a landslide for Obama so the GOP can't steal another election.
Daniel Gustek
The only party that ever steals elections are dems. The proof will be this cycle when you steal it from yourselves!
I want popcorn for this ride - The Hildebeast stealing the nomination from the Obamanation!
What a ride, indeed! Pass the popcorn, wit...
What I said outloud when I saw this on the news... "UGHHHHH!"
Great now I will get more lectures on wearing my seatbelt. FRICK!
Am I misunderstanding some of you?
Are some of you actually hating McLame so bad you are willing to vote for the houseboy empty headed empty shirted osama hussein the slick talking black boy?
No - but we're really trying to get our moonbats to - so sshhhhh!
No, namvet - we don't like McLamexcuse so much that we are cheering FOR Nader...
Hooray! Looks like Kayinmaine finally got lucky!
Never mind the popcorn, wit - pass me a fork, so I can gouge my eyes out.
Thanks, RadRed.
I can't believe there are still brain-dead moonbats (is that redundant?) who think there was a stolen election. DIDN'T happen. Your Reverend "the planet has a fever" Algore flat out lost. Jesus christ get the f*ck over it already.
As for the Nader, ditto what DD2 says.
Nader will be the one stealing votes from Billary and Obamalama Ding Dong. Glad to see him do it! Hey Ralphie boy.
Dan O: Yes, it is redundant. That's what they thrive on.
As for the "stolen" election, I bow to the writing of Bill Whittle, who said in a rebuttal of another moonbat in this post, and I quote:
"14. Fraudulent elections. Thank you, 'American,' from the bottom of my heart, for saving this for last. The Miami Herald did a very, very in-depth study of the 2000 election in Florida. Here are the facts: Bush won the first mechanical count. Bush won the subsequent mechanical recount. That is all constitutional law required. But Bush then went on the win the third mechanical count. Bush then won the hand recount, where election officials read tea leaves and chicken entrails to determine a voter's 'intent.' As far as 'judicial selection' goes, the Constitution requires that electors be present in Washington at a certain date. The Supreme Court merely told the Florida court that it is not allowed to continue to recount and recount and recount and recount until it gets the result they desire. The Supreme Court did NOT 'select' Bush. They told Florida to have their electors on time. This is the essence of a lawful and orderly society. Tanks did not roll. Gunfire was not heard in the halls of the Congress, as they are no doubt in whatever little shithole you are writing from. I voted for Gore in 2000, to my everlasting shame, and I was immediately convinced that he had lost and was deeply embarrassed by the showboating. NIXON, evil EVIL Nixon conceded the 1960 election with far, far stronger case because he knew what was good for the country."
So, for all you barking moonbats who harp about the 2000 election, I shall place this in a programmed F-key and bang that thing as many times as I can anytime you mention that whole Algore thing ever again.
Goodness! I hope you don't talk like this at the dinner table.
Which part? Harping about moonbats, or banging my F-keys?
Get a job, a.
GREAT RANT, Cary!
Nothing like putting those measley little FACTS out for the libs to ignore!
I voted for Gore in 2000, also (Bush does NOT sell himself well) and was pretty much a lib myself back then.
I worked for a newspaper and had to call up those districts to get their results - and they were ready for me. Every one of them had the numbers and had me off their phones in mintues. Bush won - no question. I was bummed! I thought we (i.e. THEY) elected an idiot and boy howdy! were the next four years going to be long!
Then I saw how the dems wanted to disenfranchise the military vote (i.e. NOT count it) and then before Bush was inaugurated the dems started calling him a mass murderer and Hitler and a fascist and I thought, "Holy cow! These people are INSANE!!"
Thus I was de-libbed - forever!
wit
So you got a Lib-outa-me?
I would say yes, but somehow, when you get de-libbed part of the brain your not using seems to start functioning again. Perhaps a lobe-enhancement job....
Definitely a lobe enhancement, or perhaps a re-activation of cells lulled to sleep by the monotonous drumming of defeatist propaganda.
Never saw Republicans become Libs it's usually the other way around. Guilty as charged.
Weeellll - what was it that Churchill said? Something like, "If your young and not a liberal you don't have a heart - and if your old and not a conservative you don't have a brain."
I'll have to go find what he actually said.....
The Supreme Court did NOT 'select' Bush. They told Florida to have their electors on time. This is the essence of a lawful and orderly society.
The semantics are useless. The Court's remedy effectively ended any recount efforts. Of course, the fact that there were multiple recounts under standards that did in fact violate the Equal Protection Clause is a fair point.
That said, let's talk about the only fact that matters: the Court should have never taken the case in the first place.
George Bush still would have won and Al Gore supporters would have found something else to bitch about.
ECL, I have a question for you:
In FL in 2000, the state had a statute that specifically stated which day the election results were to be certified. The liberal FL Supreme Court moved the date forward to give the Gore camp more time to find new votes, saying that the Sec of State should not resort to (and I'm not making this sh#t up) "hypertechnical reliance on statutory provisions"! Yeah, that whole "let's get the results certified by the date the law says we have to" apparently qualifies as a "hypertechnical reliance on statutory provisions"...un-friggin'-believable.
Anywho, it's clear that the FL SC did not base their decision to change the date that was codified in state law on anything other than political agenda. They didn't say "the date is itself unconstitutional" or "the date poses an undue burden on the voters and is therefore unconstitutional" or anything like that. Nope, they just pulled a date out of wholecloth. If that's not legislating from the bench, I don't know what is.
Then we saw afterwards that when THAT date was met and the results certified, the FL SC moved the new deadline yet again in order to give Miami-Dade and Palm Beach and Broward counties more time to find more Gore votes. The US SC stepped in and said that enough was enough. Seven of the nine justices agreed that an Equal Protection Clause violation occurred, but of that seven, five ruled that the proper remedy was, in effect, to stop the recount. The other two wanted to have a statewide manual recount (in the span of about 2 - 3 days).
Oh, yeah...my question: When you say that the US SC should not have gotten involved in the FL recount case, (a) isn't that inconsistent with your position that an Equal Protection Clause violation had occurred; and (b) should the US SC get involved in any case where a state SC legislates from the bench as the FL SC so clearly did?
Your thoughts are greatly appreciated!
Yikes...you've gotten me to rethink my view on the whole case.
Let me try to address all of this.
First of all, I think that the Florida Supreme court was acting so far out of bounds that any criticisms I may have about the U.S Supreme Court pale in comparison to the behavior of the FL SC. As much as I loathe the terms "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench", given the context of the discussion, I'm inclined to agree with you on that point.
Second, to address your last point, I believe that the federal courts should only get involved where cases and controversies arise under federal law. A bad ruling does not necessarily mean federal law was violated. If we go down that road, we have real trouble.
As to the merits and arguments to Bush v. Gore, I think you bring up a correct point on my inconsistency here. I do think there was was a valid Equal Protection claim. The recounts were an awful mess, inconsistency at best and sketchy at worst.
The problem here is the remedy. Although I would probably agree with anyone who suggests that a constitutionally valid recount is impossible within a 2-3 day time period, my concern is that The Supreme Court made that conclusion and not the Florida Supreme Court (under the Equal Protection guidelines set by the case in the 7-2 ruling).
It may damn well be as close to common sense as common sense can get, but it is still not the realm of the Supreme Court to suggest such a remedy. That declaration should have been made by the Florida Supreme Court. Of course, depending on the Florida Court to do the right thing is probably a little to the left of moonbattery. That said, it should be left to the state to decide, and if another controversy arises, it could have gone back to the SCOTUS on a different claim. On that note, I can understand why, on pragmatic grounds, people aren't too offended by the court's remedy. That said, I'm not much of a fan of pragmatism.
I'm now probably more inclined to suggest that the SCOTUS should have at least taken the case due to Equal Protection issues although I know of some reasonable arguments that the court decline to hear the case on political grounds. In any event, the remedy in the case drew the sort of criticism that could have been avoided by the SCOTUS had they punted back to the state.
That's probably as best an opinion I can give on this. Hope it helps.
CARY, a vote for Nader is a vote for the ENEMY, traitorKKKrats. That's what I meant.
3rd parties are why KKKlintoon got into office & we are in this mess.
DAN O QUIT USING GOD'S NAME IN VAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am no prude. I do use vulgarity BUT I draw the line at using God's name in vain & don't care to hear anyone else using it either.
Everytime any one uses His name in vain expect a reply like this. If you do not care than you are not a TRUE CONSERVATIVE.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
