Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: More Democrat election tricks


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: More Democrat election tricks Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: More Democrat election tricks - 10/31/2013 3:39:38 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
The supreme court that attempted to break the law - was entirely democrat.
Souter, O'Connor, Rehnquist,Thomas, Kennedy, Stevens, Scalia.........puts the lie to that asswipe.


The Supreme Court referenced may have been the Florida Supreme Court.
    Barbara J. Pariente (appointed in 1997 by Lawton Chiles, Democrat)
    R. Fred Lewis (appointed in 1999 by Lawton Chiles, Democrat)
    Harry Lee Anstead (appointed in 1994 by Lawton Chiles, Democrat)
    Charles T. Wells (appointed in 1994 by Lawton Chiles, Democrat)
    Major B. Harding (appointed in 1991 by Lawton Chiles, Democrat)
    Leander J. Shaw, Jr. (appointed in 1983 by Bob Graham, Democrat)
    Peggy Quince (appointed by Lawton Chiles, Democrat and Jeb Bush, Republican)



I maybe wrong here, but....

Given the nature of the question at the time, such a thing would have been well above the pay grade of the Florida Supreme Court, and thus, sent to the US Supreme Court for a final (and quick) decision. The reasoning here, would be that the issue was not allowable under the tenth amendment since the actual outcome affected the rest of the nation.

Second, what information are you using that displays each member of the Florida US Supreme Court at the time were registered Democrats? Or are you saying the person that pushed for them to be on the bench was a Democrat? That would be rather irrelevant of a comparison. Maybe they all bought Girl Scout Cookies? Your wishing to push an argument that simply has nothing relevant supporting it. In essence, a baseless accusation.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: More Democrat election tricks - 10/31/2013 5:17:48 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
The supreme court that attempted to break the law - was entirely democrat.
Souter, O'Connor, Rehnquist,Thomas, Kennedy, Stevens, Scalia.........puts the lie to that asswipe.

The Supreme Court referenced may have been the Florida Supreme Court.
    Barbara J. Pariente (appointed in 1997 by Lawton Chiles, Democrat)
    R. Fred Lewis (appointed in 1999 by Lawton Chiles, Democrat)
    Harry Lee Anstead (appointed in 1994 by Lawton Chiles, Democrat)
    Charles T. Wells (appointed in 1994 by Lawton Chiles, Democrat)
    Major B. Harding (appointed in 1991 by Lawton Chiles, Democrat)
    Leander J. Shaw, Jr. (appointed in 1983 by Bob Graham, Democrat)
    Peggy Quince (appointed by Lawton Chiles, Democrat and Jeb Bush, Republican)

I maybe wrong here, but....
Given the nature of the question at the time, such a thing would have been well above the pay grade of the Florida Supreme Court, and thus, sent to the US Supreme Court for a final (and quick) decision. The reasoning here, would be that the issue was not allowable under the tenth amendment since the actual outcome affected the rest of the nation.
Second, what information are you using that displays each member of the Florida US Supreme Court at the time were registered Democrats? Or are you saying the person that pushed for them to be on the bench was a Democrat? That would be rather irrelevant of a comparison. Maybe they all bought Girl Scout Cookies? Your wishing to push an argument that simply has nothing relevant supporting it. In essence, a baseless accusation.


Phydeaux made a claim that the Supreme Court that acted illegally was "entirely Democrat."

MN countered with a list of the US Supreme Court Justices appointed by Republican Presidents.

I countered with the idea that Phydeaux wasn't referring to the US Supreme Court, but the FLA Supreme Court (which Phydeaux responded as being correct), showing that all 7 of those Justices were appointed by Democrat Governors (except the one that was being appointed at the time of a gubernatorial switch).

Nowhere did I claim that any of the FLA Justices were Democrats (note the "appointed by" part). Nowhere did I claim they acted legally or illegally.

The only argument that I "pushed" was that Phydeaux meant the FLA Supreme Court and not the SCOTUS. I did not make any claims about the actions of the FLA Supreme Court, nor did I make any claims about the actions of the SCOTUS. I was simply clearing up a misconception on MN's part.




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: More Democrat election tricks - 10/31/2013 5:24:29 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


Really. Quote me the law that was violated. Back up your bullshit.
Because I know a great deal more about this than you do. And it never happened.

The TRUTH of the matter is that the democrats designed the ballot to try to maximize turnout for gore.
Instead, it turned around and bit them in the ass, badly.

It was quite poetic actually. Hoisted by their own petard.



No, that is the biggest swallow of horseshit ever posted. First of all, you don't know a fucking thing about it.

Second of all, no it did not maximize votes for Gore and was not intended to, many of the people who thought they were voting for Gore actually ended up cast for Pat Buchanan, by his own words due to the confusing layout of the ballot. Yanno, left to right, just like old people fuck and English is read.




_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: More Democrat election tricks - 10/31/2013 11:40:54 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


Really. Quote me the law that was violated. Back up your bullshit.
Because I know a great deal more about this than you do. And it never happened.

The TRUTH of the matter is that the democrats designed the ballot to try to maximize turnout for gore.
Instead, it turned around and bit them in the ass, badly.

It was quite poetic actually. Hoisted by their own petard.



No, that is the biggest swallow of horseshit ever posted. First of all, you don't know a fucking thing about it.

Second of all, no it did not maximize votes for Gore and was not intended to, many of the people who thought they were voting for Gore actually ended up cast for Pat Buchanan, by his own words due to the confusing layout of the ballot. Yanno, left to right, just like old people fuck and English is read.





The fuck I don't. I live there. The person who knows fuck nothing is you. I was there when the butterfly ballot designed by a democrat was commented on.

I was there when the designer of the ballot said it was because they wanted to separate gore's name.

I was there when the ballot got approved - again, by a democrat.

And I was in the observer room when they were challenging ballots.

So, yes, actually. The move the *democrats* did to try to maximize their exposure turned around and bit them.
Because senior citizens were confused by the butterfly ballot.

Oh and that poor democrat who designed the ballot was shit canned after the election.

So try to find some evidence to back up your shit. You simply *can't* because everything I said is damn true.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: More Democrat election tricks - 10/31/2013 11:48:54 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Sonnie, my uncle was a republican state senator from st pete, I helped him get elected, more than once.  I see you are terribly in the know in an internet sense, but spewing horseshit in the real world.  Must be with the nutsackers in charge down there ALL REPUBLICAN running that election, that one semi nothing low level house of the living dead worker held down the whole fucking state. I know more about florida and politics than you could ever possibly know from a vantage point of spouting geysers of stupidity.

The rest of the asswipe you spew is singularly and wholly lying asswipe as evidenced by the supreme court cases and testimony as well as what we saw with our own eyes .

Buchanan has you wrong, the FL supreme court has you wrong, W et al has you wrong, Gore et al has you wrong  

You got nothing but illegitimate appeal to ignorance.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 10/31/2013 12:01:33 PM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: More Democrat election tricks - 10/31/2013 12:00:16 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Have a look on here.


Sure, I'm completely familiar with jurist. You have yet to quote me a rule that was violated.

Secondly, if you weren't actually there its not so easy to read between the lines. There was a contemporaneous examination of the issues with the supremes - they were trying to get a 6-3 decision - because different justices were agreed but for different reasons.

But time was running out and they ended with a 5-4.

The supreme court was also trying to rule in as benign a fashion as possible, trying to have consensus and make a ruling that set little or no precedent.

The easiest out to do that was to confirm that full hand recounts of all counties could not be completed by the date required. And the state was entitled to certify the results.
So thats how they ruled.

To restate:
Gore got his recount in the 4 counties he requested. He still didn't win. So after that they attempted to broaden the recount.

I suppose you think he should be able to cherry pick as many times as he liked in order to find the perfect combination of recounts that would yield him a victory?

Realize, that with millions of ballots cast - small numbers of them were subject to subjective interpretation.

People were looking at ballots with dimples on Gore an punched out for Buchanon and trying to figure - did the voter mean to vote for Gore... With such subjective rules, he who had the best lawyers - and enough time- could manufacture enough votes.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: More Democrat election tricks - 10/31/2013 12:21:14 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Gore got his recount in the 4 counties he requested.
Nope, that is on record as well. FL supreme court nixed it.

He still didn't win. So after that they attempted to broaden the recount. 
No the florida supreme court requested it, it is in the record, but that was stopped by SCOTUS.


I suppose you think he should be able to cherry pick as many times as he liked in order to find the perfect combination of recounts that would yield him a victory?
NO, only a nutsacker would say something that fuckin stupid.  Nobody else did. 

Realize, that with millions of ballots cast - small numbers of them were subject to subjective interpretation.
That is correct.


People were looking at ballots with dimples on Gore an punched out for Buchanon and trying to figure - did the voter mean to vote for Gore... With such subjective rules, he who had the best lawyers - and enough time- could manufacture enough votes.

So, now you are having to confront the truth, not meant to favor Gore, and in fact favored Buchanan.

So you are wrong approaching the 100% level so far.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 10/31/2013 12:31:38 PM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: More Democrat election tricks - 10/31/2013 12:39:22 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Gore got his recount in the 4 counties he requested.
Nope, that is on record as well.

He still didn't win. So after that they attempted to broaden the recount. 
No the florida supremcourt requested it, it is in the record.


I suppose you think he should be able to cherry pick as many times as he liked in order to find the perfect combination of recounts that would yield him a victory?
NO, only a nutsacker would say something that fuckin stupid.  Nobody else did. 

Realize, that with millions of ballots cast - small numbers of them were subject to subjective interpretation.
That is correct.


People were looking at ballots with dimples on Gore an punched out for Buchanon and trying to figure - did the voter mean to vote for Gore... With such subjective rules, he who had the best lawyers - and enough time- could manufacture enough votes.

So, now you are having to confront the truth, not meant to favor Gore, and in fact favored Buchanan.

So you are wrong approaching the 100% level so far.


Funny, how you think I'm wrong - and yet the results of the elections stand.
There's a word for that. Delusional comes to mind.

Saunders basically ruled that

a). There was no impropriety that entitled the plaintiff to additional recounts.
The butterfly ballots was put forth and agreed to by the democrats.

b). The legal requirement for standing wasn't that a recount "could" change the result - but that it "would" change the result.

And the difference is huge. Suppose a canvassing board was solely republican (which by the way, most of the contested counties were democrat). And they threw out 10,000 votes from republican districts. This would be an egregious act that entitled gore to a recount.

However, gore had no knowledge that a recount in specific counties would change the election - he merely hoped they would - and his preliminary recounts failed in that expectation.

c). Third. I never argued that the ballots favored gore. I said that the democrats intended them to favor gore.
And they did. And they fucked up which made it all the more humorous.

The democrats attempted to make the print bigger on the presidential ballot, so that elderly voters that typically back then voted democrat could read the ballot and vote for the right man.

d). Due process also means that you couldn't cherry pick time and time again to have some voters receive hand recounts and others not.

And recounting millions of votes by hand - was *never* going to happen in time. Especially considering that many of these canvassing boards had been recounting time and time again and fatigue was a huge factor.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: More Democrat election tricks - 10/31/2013 12:50:38 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		The SCOTUS simply violated states rights, in a state election.  Period.  While they have not set a precedent since it was commonly done by other republican SCOTUS in civil war times and aftermath, pretty much this is the stupdiest shit ever uttered on the internet: 

Funny, how you think I'm wrong - and yet the results of the elections stand.

premise one is a lie.
premise two is a lie.
premise yadda yadda yadda is a lie.

W won the election by the interference of a republican scotus.


The peroration is true.  but the rest is lying horseshit, cretinism and nutsackerism comes to mind.  That is delusional as a definition.  

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: More Democrat election tricks - 10/31/2013 2:08:20 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
The supreme court that attempted to break the law - was entirely democrat.
Souter, O'Connor, Rehnquist,Thomas, Kennedy, Stevens, Scalia.........puts the lie to that asswipe.

The Supreme Court referenced may have been the Florida Supreme Court.
    Barbara J. Pariente (appointed in 1997 by Lawton Chiles, Democrat)
    R. Fred Lewis (appointed in 1999 by Lawton Chiles, Democrat)
    Harry Lee Anstead (appointed in 1994 by Lawton Chiles, Democrat)
    Charles T. Wells (appointed in 1994 by Lawton Chiles, Democrat)
    Major B. Harding (appointed in 1991 by Lawton Chiles, Democrat)
    Leander J. Shaw, Jr. (appointed in 1983 by Bob Graham, Democrat)
    Peggy Quince (appointed by Lawton Chiles, Democrat and Jeb Bush, Republican)

I maybe wrong here, but....
Given the nature of the question at the time, such a thing would have been well above the pay grade of the Florida Supreme Court, and thus, sent to the US Supreme Court for a final (and quick) decision. The reasoning here, would be that the issue was not allowable under the tenth amendment since the actual outcome affected the rest of the nation.
Second, what information are you using that displays each member of the Florida US Supreme Court at the time were registered Democrats? Or are you saying the person that pushed for them to be on the bench was a Democrat? That would be rather irrelevant of a comparison. Maybe they all bought Girl Scout Cookies? Your wishing to push an argument that simply has nothing relevant supporting it. In essence, a baseless accusation.


Phydeaux made a claim that the Supreme Court that acted illegally was "entirely Democrat."

MN countered with a list of the US Supreme Court Justices appointed by Republican Presidents.

I countered with the idea that Phydeaux wasn't referring to the US Supreme Court, but the FLA Supreme Court (which Phydeaux responded as being correct), showing that all 7 of those Justices were appointed by Democrat Governors (except the one that was being appointed at the time of a gubernatorial switch).

Nowhere did I claim that any of the FLA Justices were Democrats (note the "appointed by" part). Nowhere did I claim they acted legally or illegally.

The only argument that I "pushed" was that Phydeaux meant the FLA Supreme Court and not the SCOTUS. I did not make any claims about the actions of the FLA Supreme Court, nor did I make any claims about the actions of the SCOTUS. I was simply clearing up a misconception on MN's part.


Ah....Thank you!

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: More Democrat election tricks - 10/31/2013 2:58:31 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Ah....Thank you!





_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: More Democrat election tricks - 10/31/2013 3:33:18 PM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion

Pitttsburgh A suburban Pittsburgh municipality won't enforce an ordinance regulating campaign signs after the America Civil Liberties Union threatened to sue it for allegedly singling out REPUBLICAN campaign signs.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported the ACLU wrote to township officials to take up claims that signs for REPUBLICAN township commissioner's candidates seemed to have been removed to the exclusion of other signs. The ACLU said "such uneven enforcement represents viewpoint censorship, making the law presumptively unconstitutional."

(more examples of Democrats using goverment entities to advance their political agenda) my words.



Those BASTAGES!!!!!

You mean to say that Democrats are doing the same kind of underhanded sleazy shitty creepy kinds of shit that the other guys do?

Fuck me blind!

(I had no idea).

(in reply to papassion)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: More Democrat election tricks - 11/1/2013 10:14:10 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		The fuck I don't. I live there.

Obviously you do not live there. If you did live there one would say "I live here"
If you no longer do but did, then one would have said I used to live there.
It is clear that you say what you mean even when you do not mean to.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: More Democrat election tricks - 11/1/2013 10:21:24 AM   
Just0Us0Two


Posts: 135
Joined: 6/3/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

lol, and the natsuckers hysterically impugn, smear and foam at the mouth, while not in possession of a credible, citeable facts.


Impugn, smear, and foam at the mouth? Hmmm, you mean kind of like someone who has to use obnoxious terms, like natsucker, for political groups they disagree with?

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: More Democrat election tricks - 11/1/2013 10:30:27 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		no, you know, fools like those who havent got brains enough to pour piss out of a boot, talk about dims, communists, marxists, socialist, dims, when they dont know the meaning of the word, who tell you shit is this and that, but it turns out the facts of the case are different, those nutsackers, and I dont disagree with them, it isn't quite correct to say that to point out lies is disagreement, since the debate would not have started with a premise.........those are nutsackers.  

And if you think that it is obnoxious to call them nutsackers on a fuck site, nutsackers who say obnoxious and ignorant fucking shit with every post they make, for nearly every post provably lies....then I guess you should not hang out on a fucksite, hah sport?

What the fuck ideas do nutsackers have to disagree with, after a lot of study, they have drool and asswipe, nothing else. Certainly nothing that could be considered an idea, to more than an ecoli bacterium attached to a chunk of shit. 

Hey, here is an idea, maybe nutsackers shouldn't say patently stupid shit in front of obnoxious people who will comment, just keep it amongst their own droolers so then their insensibilities won't be jostled. 

They did that 42 times trying to repeal obamacare, and they thought they did pretty good amongst themselves, they thought they were capable of thought. 

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 11/1/2013 10:51:18 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Just0Us0Two)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: More Democrat election tricks - 11/1/2013 10:56:05 AM   
Just0Us0Two


Posts: 135
Joined: 6/3/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

no, you know, fools like those who havent got brains enough to pour piss out of a boot, talk about dims, communists, marxists, socialist, dims, when they dont know the meaning of the word, who tell you shit is this and that, but it turns out the facts of the case are different, those nutsackers, and I dont disagree with them, it isn't quite correct to say that to point out lies is disagreement, since the debate would not have started with a premise.........those are nutsackers.  

And if you think that it is obnoxious to call them nutsackers on a fuck site, nutsackers who say obnoxious and ignorant fucking shit with every post they make, for nearly every post provably lies....then I guess you should not hang out on a fucksite, hah sport?

What the fuck ideas do nutsackers have to disagree with, after a lot of study, they have drool and asswipe, nothing else. Certainly nothing that could be considered an idea, to more than an ecoli bacterium attached to a chunk of shit. 

Hey, here is an idea, maybe nutsackers shouldn't say patently stupid shit in front of obnoxious people who will comment, just keep it amongst their own droolers so then their insensibilities won't be jostled. 



Ohhhh, he called me sport. I'm so intimidated now. I'm going to run for the hills.

I just think it's hysterical that you have the nerve to talk about anyone else foaming at the mouth, when almost all of your posts are nothing but expletive filled rants. You should probably watch the blood pressure, sounds like you're about to blow a gasket. Maybe you're the one who shouldn't be here.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: More Democrat election tricks - 11/1/2013 11:13:09 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Nah, I laugh; it is good sport, sport.  So, you think I am all about intimidating you?   Nah....I could not give less than a glimmer of a good goddamn fuck about you.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Just0Us0Two)
Profile   Post #: 57
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: More Democrat election tricks Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.107