Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Bush v Gore: Hindsight is 20/20

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bush v Gore: Hindsight is 20/20

    U.S. Constitution - Article II, Section I, Clause 2:

    "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress; but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."

    ------------------------------------

    Per Curiam
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
    ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.

    ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
    December 12, 2000

    http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

    The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

    ...

    None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution's design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront.

    {edit: as opposed to blowing it off, as the court does with thousands of cases each year pursuant to Ashwander Doctrine?}

    ------------------------------------

    Scalia and Stevens clash over recount stay in Bush v. Gore

    http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/10/scalia.stevens/

    Stevens' dissent prompted Justice Scalia to take the unusual step of issuing a concurring opinion in connection with the stay in which he responded, "The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does, in my view, threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [George W. Bush] and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance that democratic stability requires."

    {edit: Shocking - actually counting the votes in a democracy! Who'da thunk it?!}

    ------------------------------------

    Bush vs. Gore
    http://www.failureisimpossible.com/n...bushvsgore.htm

    Great place to start (admittedly leans left).

    ------------------------------------

    None Dare Call It Treason
    by Vincent Bugliosi

    http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mh...205&s=bugliosi

    In the December 12 ruling by the US Supreme Court handing the election to George Bush, the Court committed the unpardonable sin of being a knowing surrogate for the Republican Party instead of being an impartial arbiter of the law. If you doubt this, try to imagine Al Gore's and George Bush's roles being reversed and ask yourself if you can conceive of Justice Antonin Scalia and his four conservative brethren issuing an emergency order on December 9 stopping the counting of ballots (at a time when Gore's lead had shrunk to 154 votes) on the grounds that if it continued, Gore could suffer "irreparable harm," and then subsequently, on December 12, bequeathing the election to Gore on equal protection grounds. If you can, then I suppose you can also imagine seeing a man jumping away from his own shadow, Frenchmen no longer drinking wine.

    From the beginning, Bush desperately sought, as it were, to prevent the opening of the door, the looking into the box--unmistakable signs that he feared the truth. In a nation that prides itself on openness, instead of the Supreme Court doing everything within its power to find a legal way to open the door and box, they did the precise opposite in grasping, stretching and searching mightily for a way, any way at all, to aid their choice for President, Bush, in the suppression of the truth, finally settling, in their judicial coup d'أ©tat, on the untenable argument that there was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause--the Court asserting that because of the various standards of determining the voter's intent in the Florida counties, voters were treated unequally, since a vote disqualified in one county (the so-called undervotes, which the voting machines did not pick up) may have been counted in another county, and vice versa. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court's order that the undervotes be counted, effectively delivering the presidency to Bush.

    ...

    Essentially, there are two types of crimes: malum prohibitum (wrong because they are prohibited) crimes, more popularly called "civil offenses" or "quasi crimes," such as selling liquor after a specified time of day, hunting during the off-season, gambling, etc.; and malum in se (wrong in themselves) crimes. The latter, such as robbery, rape, murder and arson, are the only true crimes. Without exception, they all involve morally reprehensible conduct. Even if there were no law prohibiting such conduct, one would know (as opposed to a malum prohibitum crime) it is wrong, often evil. Although the victim of most true crimes is an individual (for example, a person robbed or raped), such crimes are considered to be "wrongs against society." This is why the plaintiff in all felony criminal prosecutions is either the state (People of the State of California v. _______) or the federal government (United States of America v. _______).

    No technical true crime was committed here by the five conservative Justices only because no Congress ever dreamed of enacting a statute making it a crime to steal a presidential election. It is so far-out and unbelievable that there was no law, then, for these five Justices to have violated by their theft of the election. But if what these Justices did was not "morally reprehensible" and a "wrong against society," what would be? In terms, then, of natural law and justice--the protoplasm of all eventual laws on the books--these five Justices are criminals in every true sense of the word, and in a fair and just world belong behind prison bars as much as any American white-collar criminal who ever lived. Of course, the right-wing extremists who have saluted the Court for its theft of the election are the same type of people who feel it is perfectly all right to have a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in a federal penitentiary for some poor black in the ghetto who is in possession of just fifty grams of crack cocaine, even if he was not selling it. [آ§ 21 U.S.C. آ§ 841 (b)(1)(A)(iii)]

    ...

    Perhaps nothing Scalia et al. did revealed their consciousness of guilt more than the total lack of legal stature they reposed in their decision. Appellate court decisions, particularly those of the highest court in the land, all enunciate and stand for legal principles. Not just litigants but the courts themselves cite prior holdings as support for a legal proposition they are espousing. But the Court knew that its ruling (that differing standards for counting votes violate the equal protection clause) could not possibly be a constitutional principle cited in the future by themselves, other courts or litigants. Since different methods of counting votes exist throughout the fifty states (e.g., Texas counts dimpled chads, California does not), forty-four out of the fifty states do not have uniform voting methods, and voting equipment and mechanisms in all states necessarily vary in design, upkeep and performance, to apply the equal protection ruling of Bush v. Gore would necessarily invalidate virtually all elections throughout the country.

    This, obviously, was an extremely serious problem for the felonious five to deal with. What to do? Not to worry. Are you ready for this one? By that I mean, are you sitting down, since if you're standing, this is the type of thing that could affect your physical equilibrium. Unbelievably, the Court wrote that its ruling was "limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." (That's pure, unadulterated moonshine. The ruling sets forth a very simple, noncomplex proposition--that if there are varying standards to count votes, this violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.) In other words, the Court, in effect, was saying its ruling "only applied to those future cases captioned Bush v. Gore. In all other equal protection voting cases, litigants should refer to prior decisions of this court." Of the thousands of potential equal protection voting cases, the Court was only interested in, and eager to grant relief to, one person and one person only, George W. Bush.6 Is there any limit to the effrontery and shamelessness of these five right-wing Justices? Answer: No. This point number six here, all alone and by itself, clearly and unequivocally shows that the Court knew its decision was not based on the merits or the law, and was solely a decision to appoint George Bush President.

    ------------------------------------

    673 Law Professors Say
    http://www.the-rule-of-law.com/archive/supreme/

    ------------------------------------

    The Supreme Court and the 2000 Election
    Email debate between Alan M. Dershowitz and Richard A. Posner
    {edit: you have to tab through Mon-Fri}

    http://slate.msn.com/id/111313/entry/111319/

    Dershowitz: The gap between us is narrowing in one important respect. You seem to be agreeing more and more with the central allegation in my book that the five majority justices would not have decided for Gore had he been in Bush's legal shoes. You attribute this to unconscious bias and to the life experiences of the justices. I expect more self-awareness from justices of the Supreme Court. I believe that Justice Scalia, who is as smart as anyone either of us has ever met, did not fool himself. He understood exactly what he was doing. He engaged in, figuratively if not literally, the "to be or not to be" soliloquy. And he consciously decided to be a hypocrite by violating every principle he had previously espoused in order to bring about a result that he honestly believed was in the best interest of the country?namely, the election of George W. Bush as president.

    ------------------------------------

    And that's how you build a house of cards...

  • #2
    This is more political BS.... people seem to forget that the Supream court was responding to a decision by the Florida Supream court... they sent the ruling back to the Florida Supream Court and asked them to explain where in the Florida Constitution it allowed the court order a recount... the court didn't do so... instead it changed the selective recount (the Gore camp was pushing to recount only in areas that were heavily Democratic and thus any recounted votes were likely to favor him) instead of an explination, the Florida Supream Court decided to do a statewide recount (Which would be fine if they weren't running short on time) instead of explaining... The Supream Court's main failing was not in there ruling, but in the oppinion.

    If you want to start talking about Bais and breaking the constitution, you might turn your gaze to the Florida Supream Court... which tried to exert a power the Florida Constitution gives to the legislature...


    I hate to have my first post here be a political one... but this stuff really gets my goat... It's been almost four years now people... it's time to move on to something else...

    Comment


    • #3
      Supreme Court, yes.
      \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
      Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

      Comment


      • #4
        Well there's all this squabbling over people's service in Vietnam, so in comparison, this thread is about new news.

        Besides, it's all Clinton's fault!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Kitsune
          it's time to move on to something else...
          It's time we moved on to someone else.
          The cat spread its wings and flew high into the air, hovering to keep pace with them as they moved cautiously toward the city. Then, as they climbed over the rubble of what had once been a gateway and began to make their way through piles of weed-grown masonry, the cat flew to the squat building with the yellow dome upon its roof. It flew twice around the dome and then came back to settle on Jhary's shoulder. - The King of the Swords

          Comment


          • #6
            Good idea... lets talk about Kerry's flaws... like the fact that he never actually acomplished anything in the senate. Though to be honest I wish we could move on to a different set of choices... (I still have my old 'Cthulu in 96, when you're tired of chosing the lesser of two evils' button)
            Originally posted by Berry Sizemore
            Originally posted by Kitsune
            it's time to move on to something else...
            It's time we moved on to someone else.

            Comment


            • #7
              There isn't anyone to move on to. Kerry is either a pathological liar or the consummate politician. President Bush may not be the best President in history but he is doing a good job at a tough time in history. I would feel better about him if he would move to the right a bit more. I think his turning the tables on Kerry concerning the soft money TV spots was sheer brilliance. By whinning about the flashlight his fellow vets was shinning on his service he gave President Bush the chance to condemn all soft money advertising. Last I heard over 80% of those ads were being bought by Kerry supporters, ouch! LOL I was also glad to read Kerry is loosing ground in the polls. I don't think Ole Flip Flop is going to make it, thank goodness.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hello Woody... I was begining to think I was the only member of the Loyal Oposition on the board :D

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Woody
                  There isn't anyone to move on to. Kerry is either a pathological liar or the consummate politician.
                  I'm not sure why you would call Kerry a pathological liar. If someone re-evaluates a position and changes their mind, were they lying the first time? If you wan to compare lies, let's talk about weapons of mass destruction, immediate threats, and "mission accomplished."

                  President Bush may not be the best President in history but he is doing a good job at a tough time in history. I would feel better about him if he would move to the right a bit more. I think his turning the tables on Kerry concerning the soft money TV spots was sheer brilliance. By whinning about the flashlight his fellow vets was shinning on his service he gave President Bush the chance to condemn all soft money advertising. Last I heard over 80% of those ads were being bought by Kerry supporters, ouch! LOL I was also glad read Kerry is loosing ground in the polls. I don't think Ole Flip Flop is going to make it, thank goodness.[/quote]

                  As for moving more to the right, how can he?

                  As for soft money, Bush didn't turn the tables on Kerry. He refused to talk about the ads. Avoiding an issue and choosing another doesn't turn the tables on anyone. If anything, it shows how much of a flip-flopper Bush is. He's the one who only wants to regulate soft money when it won't cost him politically. For instance, he opposed most soft money reform in his debates with McCain in 2000, but began to support it when it became politically popular. Now Bush wants to talk about it's dangers when the Democrats have raised similar amounts of money.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Doc

                    I'm not sure why you would call Kerry a pathological liar. If someone re-evaluates a position and changes their mind, were they lying the first time? If you wan to compare lies, let's talk about weapons of mass destruction, immediate threats, and "mission accomplished."
                    Perhaps you would have an argument if he hadn't systematically reinvented himself for his bid for the presidency. I was watching him the other day taking about what a pro second amendment guy he is while holding a double barrel shot gun to prove his point. He gives that speech but neglects to tell the viewer that he has voted against second amendment issues everytime he has voted. He talks about jobs leaving our country but neglects to mention how many jobs have slipped over the border on his watch as the Consort of Pickles and ketcup. He called for the war on terror as a Senator but calls President Bush to task for doing that very thing. He cries about the danger to brave young soldiers but voted against the funding that would have placed class III body armor on them. It sickens me to think how many have died on Iraqi soil that would have come home if they would have had that protection. There is a reason every American policeman wears a class IIa vest, they save lives! He's running for the highest office of the land and showcasing what a war hero he was(insert clue--->Real heros don't tout their own heroism) but by his own admission he's a war criminal. You won't hear men like John McCain saying anything about their deeds over there. Purple Hearts indeed! My Uncle has one from Nam but of course he can't walk very well or stand for too long. I could go on but I don't see the point. The man has issues that's for sure. As far as deflecting my point with your line, "let's talk about weapons of mass destruction, immediate threats, and "mission accomplished". I don't see what the point is but here goes.

                    1)...Kerry voted to go after them. He believed they were there and he was in closed session meetings where he was allowed to weigh the evidence of their existence. He voted YES to go get them. I'm not real sure why people use WMD to denigrate our efforts in Iraq. I keep hearing it brought up in argument but the point was of course Saddams compliance failure not our ability to find WMDs in billions of cubic tons of sand. Never mind the parts of the WMD programs we did find. The sarin warhead(not a stock pile for sure but proof of their existance for sure.), the 14, 55gal barrels of mustard gas the Dutch secured(the main agent we expected to find), six mobile biological labs recovered, and over 100 ballistic missles that were part of the sanctions.

                    2)...Immediate threats! How many planes need to rain down on innocent people before you see an immediate threat? It amazes me how quickly we as a nation have lost our outrage over the event of 9/11.

                    3)...I'm sure the President had better things to do than plan party decorations. I'm a not sure why people took exception to the banner anyway as it was true. The war was over very quickly and the capital taken with little difficulty. The objectives had all been met at that point. To be fair the policing of Iraq has been difficult and I'll be glad when this phase is over as I have many friends and family members there now.

                    Originally posted by Doc

                    As for moving more to the right, how can he?
                    He could take a firmer stance against the falsely named "Assault Weapon"
                    Ban. I also wish he was staying with in the Republican party line of smaller government. I think he can redeem himself if he gives support to HB-25 and we can get rid of the IRS and Federal income tax. In general I just want to see a slight shift to the right.

                    Originally posted by Doc

                    As for soft money, Bush didn't turn the tables on Kerry. He refused to talk about the ads. Avoiding an issue and choosing another doesn't turn the tables on anyone. If anything, it shows how much of a flip-flopper Bush is. He's the one who only wants to regulate soft money when it won't cost him politically. For instance, he opposed most soft money reform in his debates with McCain in 2000, but began to support it when it became politically popular. Now Bush wants to talk about it's dangers when the Democrats have raised similar amounts of money.
                    I disagree 100%. He knew exactly what he was doing. The courts will now be looking into a practice that helps the Democratic party namely soft money TV spots paid for by liberal action groups. More than 80% of these mud slinging ads originate from pro liberal Democratic groups. The President's move also highlights how ugly and negative the Democratic Parties efforts and political practices really are. It reminds people that the President is a man of action and Kerry is just a reactionary full of negativity. I think the stupid slogan "ABB" demostrates the low brow nature of Liberal efforts nicely.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Kitsune
                      Hello Woody... I was begining to think I was the only member of the Loyal Oposition on the board :D
                      Greetings Kitsune! No your not alone and I have enjoyed your posts a great deal. Keep up the good work.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I dont think people realize how far right Bush really is. He is smart, though, becuase he is using moderate and even liberal langauge and tools to further a conservative agenda.

                        Anyway, to Doc and Psychic and Jerico, and Krunky (whereever you may be), did you ever imagine a day when I wouldn't be the far right poster boy????

                        I feel vindicated. :D

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'd like to make a comment on the Supream Court.... Having listend to their deliberations on NPR... I think these people really work hard to be unbiased and do the right thing, I don't always agree with them, but I respect their oppinions and I think it's a gross misrepresentation to refer to them as criminals because you don't agree with their rulings.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Woody
                            Originally posted by Doc

                            I'm not sure why you would call Kerry a pathological liar. If someone re-evaluates a position and changes their mind, were they lying the first time? If you wan to compare lies, let's talk about weapons of mass destruction, immediate threats, and "mission accomplished."
                            Perhaps you would have an argument if he hadn't systematically reinvented himself for his bid for the presidency. I was watching him the other day taking about what a pro second amendment guy he is while holding a double barrel shot gun to prove his point. He gives that speech but neglects to tell the viewer that he has voted against second amendment issues everytime he has voted.
                            I'm not a Kerry apologist, but you're mischaracterizing him. Voting against what the NRA defines as a second amendment issue and what might be unrelated to the second amendment are two different things. For instance, voting on an assault weapons ban is related to the right to keep and bear arms (which was meant for state militias, not individuals), but has very little to do with voting against or weakening the second amendment. It's not a one-dimensional issue. If anything, Senators like him are in many ways "protecting" the second amendment by not expanding its scope. Actually a pretty Republican postion on most issues.

                            Originally posted by Woody
                            He talks about jobs leaving our country but neglects to mention how many jobs have slipped over the border on his watch as the Consort of Pickles and ketcup.
                            Surely you know the difference between Teresa Kerry and John Kerry. Two different people. Laura Bush is a librarian. George Bush says he doesn't like to read. Two people, two different interests.


                            Originally posted by Woody
                            He called for the war on terror as a Senator but calls President Bush to task for doing that very thing. He cries about the danger to brave young soldiers but voted against the funding that would have placed class III body armor on them. It sickens me to think how many have died on Iraqi soil that would have come home if they would have had that protection.
                            You're over-simplifying the issue. Kerry can be for a war in Iraq and a war on terror (whatever that means) and not support the way that either is being handled. HIn particular, Kerry has never criticized the IDEA of a war on terror, he has only criticized Bush's execution of this one. Similarly, he voted against additional funding for the war not as a vote against troops, but against Bush's running of the war, especially the nearly unlimited spending that the war has generated. Are troops hurt by that? Absolutely. Howver, Bush is just as culpible for the danger the troops face, as he put them on the ground in the first place. Moreover, he just assumed he had free reign to do as he wished in Iraq, but even in war, a Presidnet answers to Congress. Protesting bad policy with a vote could keep other troops out of harms way. You don't have to keep adding to a mistake.


                            Originally posted by Woody
                            He's running for the highest office of the land and showcasing what a war hero he was(insert clue--->Real heros don't tout their own heroism) but by his own admission he's a war criminal. You won't hear men like John McCain saying anything about their deeds over there. Purple Hearts indeed! My Uncle has one from Nam but of course he can't walk very well or stand for too long. I could go on but I don't see the point. The man has issues that's for sure."
                            I'll take no issue on anyone's military heroism. I spent my time in green. I also won't debate strategy here. I actually agree with you that Kerry running as a war hero is actually kind of trite, if not outright stupid. But you've already forgotten that running as a war hero (even though he was primarily a POW) was also a significant part of McCain's presidential campaign strategy, and Bush dealt with that by essentially saying, as you have, "That man has issues, that's for sure."


                            Originally posted by Woody
                            As far as deflecting my point with your line, "let's talk about weapons of mass destruction, immediate threats, and "mission accomplished". I don't see what the point is but here goes.

                            1)...Kerry voted to go after them. He believed they were there and he was in closed session meetings where he was allowed to weigh the evidence of their existence. He voted YES to go get them. I'm not real sure why people use WMD to denigrate our efforts in Iraq. I keep hearing it brought up in argument but the point was of course Saddams compliance failure not our ability to find WMDs in billions of cubic tons of sand. Never mind the parts of the WMD programs we did find. The sarin warhead(not a stock pile for sure but proof of their existance for sure.), the 14, 55gal barrels of mustard gas the Dutch secured(the main agent we expected to find), six mobile biological labs recovered, and over 100 ballistic missles that were part of the sanctions.
                            Why do people harp on WMD? They are the exact reason Powell gave for going to war. Bush has gone back and forth (flip-flopped?) about both UN resolutions and WMD. But denigrate the efforts? I don't know anyone who has denigrated anyone's efforts. Questioning motives is something different.

                            Further, I can't believe that any nation should go to war based on Ashcroft and Rumsfeld's mantra "the absense of proof is not proof of absence." So the idea that there are probably more WMDs out there because we found a relatively insignificant cache of sarin gas isn't assurance enough for me, especially as a justification for war. And you're forgetting that the "mobile biological weapons labs" turned out not to be.

                            Originally posted by Woody
                            2)...Immediate threats! How many planes need to rain down on innocent people before you see an immediate threat? It amazes me how quickly we as a nation have lost our outrage over the event of 9/11.

                            Like most Americans, I'm devistated by 9/11, but Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. A bi-partisan commission found this out at great expense to American taxpayers.

                            Originally posted by Woody
                            3)...I'm sure the President had better things to do than plan party decorations. I'm a not sure why people took exception to the banner anyway as it was true. The war was over very quickly and the capital taken with little difficulty. The objectives had all been met at that point. To be fair the policing of Iraq has been difficult and I'll be glad when this phase is over as I have many friends and family members there now.
                            So the war is over but the occupation has been going on for several months? Give me a break. The war isn't over. And the PR stunt banner was far from accurate. If the goal was to establish a stable (and I emphasize stable) democracy in Iraq, W is at least a decade away from flying that banner accurately.

                            Originally posted by Woody
                            Originally posted by Doc

                            As for moving more to the right, how can he?
                            He could take a firmer stance against the falsely named "Assault Weapon"
                            Ban. I also wish he was staying with in the Republican party line of smaller government. I think he can redeem himself if he gives support to HB-25 and we can get rid of the IRS and Federal income tax. In general I just want to see a slight shift to the right.
                            Fair enough. Many of my Republican friends cringe at the explosive growth of government under Bush, especially those that criticized Clinton for similar growth.

                            As for eliminating the income tax, don't hold your breath. Both parties want to spend way too much, and the federal income tax is the only efficient way to accomidate them.

                            Originally posted by Woody
                            Originally posted by Doc

                            As for soft money, Bush didn't turn the tables on Kerry. He refused to talk about the ads. Avoiding an issue and choosing another doesn't turn the tables on anyone. If anything, it shows how much of a flip-flopper Bush is. He's the one who only wants to regulate soft money when it won't cost him politically. For instance, he opposed most soft money reform in his debates with McCain in 2000, but began to support it when it became politically popular. Now Bush wants to talk about it's dangers when the Democrats have raised similar amounts of money.
                            I disagree 100%. He knew exactly what he was doing. The courts will now be looking into a practice that helps the Democratic party namely soft money TV spots paid for by liberal action groups. More than 80% of these mud slinging ads originate from pro liberal Democratic groups. The President's move also highlights how ugly and negative the Democratic Parties efforts and political practices really are. It reminds people that the President is a man of action and Kerry is just a reactionary full of negativity. I think the stupid slogan "ABB" demostrates the low brow nature of Liberal efforts nicely.
                            I'll say again. Bush only cared when soft money started working against him. He raised more soft money in 2000 than any campaign in history, but he may surpass it this year. Now the worm has turned. And while I won't disagree that some liberal causes aren't doing themselves any favors with how they spend that money, those aren't Kerry's ads. If Bush gets to distance himself from the swift boat ads, Kerry isn't responsible for negative ads- none of them have Kerry's endorsement. If Bush gets a pass, it's only fair for Kerry to get one, too.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Doc
                              I'm not a Kerry apologist, but you're mischaracterizing him. Voting against what the NRA defines as a second amendment issue and what might be unrelated to the second amendment are two different things. For instance, voting on an assault weapons ban is related to the right to keep and bear arms (which was meant for state militias, not individuals), but has very little to do with voting against or weakening the second amendment. It's not a one-dimensional issue. If anything, Senators like him are in many ways "protecting" the second amendment by not expanding its scope. Actually a pretty Republican postion on most issues.
                              The NRA isn't a branch of the government and didn't pen the Second Amendment. Let me refine my statement. He has voted against all things to do with private firearm ownership. You clearly do not understand the falsely named "assault weapon" ban as it has nothing to do with real assault weapons. The ban is based on cosmetic features and all the firearms on the list are semi autos. The Second Amendment does not reserve the right of firearm ownership to the states. It states militia which at that time meant all able bodied me who weren't regular army.
                              "A pretty Republican position on most issues".
                              Yeah right, what ever.

                              Originally posted by Doc
                              Surely you know the difference between Teresa Kerry and John Kerry. Two different people. Laura Bush is a librarian. George Bush says he doesn't like to read. Two people, two different interests.
                              How can he preach one thing and have his wife do the opposite? He must be powerless to effect change under his own roof let alone the nation. Your comparison to the President and the First Lady is just wierd there is no similarity to the two situations.

                              Originally posted by Doc
                              . . . .he voted against additional funding for the war not as a vote against troops, but against Bush's running of the war, especially the nearly unlimited spending that the war has generated. Are troops hurt by that? Absolutely.
                              So it's ok to endanger the lives of young soldiers because he doesn't like the way the President is doing his job. I see, dead US soldiers help strengthen the Democratic parties position. But it wasn't a vote against the troops.....Hmmmm.

                              As for the WMD's discussion. I've heard the points you have made at least 100 times and I still think they are as wrong as the first time they were trotted out. Sorry I just disagree and see the whole argument as a bit of misdirection on the real issue.

                              The war is indeed over but I realize that to acknowledge that fact takes the wind out of the sails of the liberals. I'm not trying to convice you otherwise, I just think you are dead wrong on these issues.

                              I'm not in favor of any of the finance reform as I think it is a form of censorship. I just have to admire how President Bush turned the tables on Kerry. It was purely a political act but it hurts kerry's camp leaving the Republicans with the upper hand. The polls have been reflecting this as Kerry sinks more. It wasn't the condemnation of the ad spaces that was brilliant it was the fact that all can see what a negative mud slinging group of PC thugs the Democratic party has become. Didn't you know they pulled the Democrats ad with McCain in it? They would have really had egg on their face if they would have let that one ride! LOL

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X