• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republican wins Democratic New York House seat

Conservative said:
Aw, give me a break, where in the hell were you, buried head in the sand? Protests outside the Supreme Court, protests all over Florida. You have a very selective partisan memory. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? Your party has been infiltrated by leftwing zealots and the good Democrats are allowing it to happen.
Click to expand...
Bush was selected by SCOTUS in 2000, not elected. It was Tom Delay's thugs who tried to stop the hand recount.
 
haymarket said:
You specifically said



So where did this happen before the Bush inauguration?
Click to expand...

Didn't that happen in Wisconsin and have you been paying attention to what is going on in Washington when unions didn't get their way? There were protests after the Bush election but don't believe their was violence. Different time today with more people dependent on Govt. social spending and more heated rhetoric coming out of even your state or did you forget Hoffa's comments? Still waiting for an answer, what is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty and irrational reactions.
 
pbrauer said:
Bush was selected by SCOTUS in 2000, not elected. It was Tom Delay's thugs who tried to stop the hand recount.
Click to expand...

There you go, Haymarket, what a brilliant response from Pb. And you wonder why liberals are called nuts today?
 
Conservative said:
That of course is your speculation which is civics challenged. Seems that Democrats were more interested in regaining the WH than keeping the country out of a recession in 2007-2008. Again notice that results don't matter to ideologues as evidenced by your posts.

Obama JAR 39% again and worse on the economy but carry on with your support. Who knows Oregon may even elect more Republicans for a change.

Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Government, Politics, Economics, Management
Click to expand...
They are trying, the Oregon Republicans just the other day took gay marriage off the platform.

Two Republicans - Mark Hatfield and Tom McCall - are two of the best Governors Oregon ever had.
 
pbrauer said:
They are trying, the Oregon Republicans just the other day took gay marriage off the platform.

Two Republicans - Mark Hatfield and Tom McCall - are two of the best Governors Oregon ever had.
Click to expand...

The last Republican Governor left office in 1987 so it has been 24 years since your state has elected a Republican Governor
 
Conservative said:
There you go, Haymarket, what a brilliant response from Pb. And you wonder why liberals are called nuts today?
Click to expand...
The Florida Supreme Court decided to hand recount the entire state. So, Bush ran to his friends on SCOTUS to make a phony decision that Bush rights were being violated.
 
pbrauer said:
The Florida Supreme Court decided to hand recount the entire state. So, Bush ran to his friends on SCOTUS to make a phony decision that Bush rights were being violated.
Click to expand...

That is nice revisionist history which distorts what actually caused the controversy in the first place which was the selective recount of only a few counties. Then Democrats expanded it when they realized they weren't going to get what they wanted. They should have called for a recount in the entire state but the outcome would have been the same, Bush would have won by a larger margin. This really is something you need to get over. We have bigger problems today caused by Obama and liberalism. Reliving the past is all you can do. Obama has a 39% JAR today that are actually higher than they should be with the results he has generated.
 
Conservative said:
The last Republican Governor left office in 1987 so it has been 24 years since your state has elected a Republican Governor
Click to expand...
That's because they were all of the far right variety. Victor Atiyeh was a good governor as well, I voted for him.
 
Conservative said:
That is nice revisionist history which distorts what actually caused the controversy in the first place which was the selective recount of only a few counties. Then Democrats expanded it when they realized they weren't going to get what they wanted. They should have called for a recount in the entire state but the outcome would have been the same, Bush would have won by a larger margin. This really is something you need to get over. We have bigger problems today caused by Obama and liberalism. Reliving the past is all you can do. Obama has a 39% JAR today that are actually higher than they should be with the results he has generated.
Click to expand...

See bold. That's exactly what the Florida Supreme Court decided, so Bush ran to SCOTUS.

I'm over it, I'm just saying...
 
pbrauer said:
See bold. That's exactly what the Florida Supreme Court decided, so Bush ran to SCOTUS.

I'm over it, I'm just saying...
Click to expand...

This is a national election, not a state or local one. The SCOTUS had jurisdiction over the elections. Democrats tried to steal the election and were thwarted legally. That is reality, get over it. Anyone in their right mind believe Gore would have been a better President? Doesn't matter now, does it?
 
Conservative said:
This is a national election, not a state or local one. The SCOTUS had jurisdiction over the elections. Democrats tried to steal the election and were thwarted legally. That is reality, get over it. Anyone in their right mind believe Gore would have been a better President? Doesn't matter now, does it?
Click to expand...
You're just plain wrong, Con. The Constitution says its up to the states how they pick the electors.

Major :failpail:
 
Conservative said:
Didn't that happen in Wisconsin and have you been paying attention to what is going on in Washington when unions didn't get their way? There were protests after the Bush election but don't believe their was violence. Different time today with more people dependent on Govt. social spending and more heated rhetoric coming out of even your state or did you forget Hoffa's comments? Still waiting for an answer, what is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty and irrational reactions.
Click to expand...

I ask you to show us where this violence happened and you ask me if it was in Wisconsin!?!?!?!?!?

Amazing.

thanks for admitting that you lied about the violent protests following the Bush selection in 2000. At least you fessed up to your intellectual dishonesty on that claim.
 
pbrauer said:
Bush was selected by SCOTUS in 2000, not elected. It was Tom Delay's thugs who tried to stop the hand recount.
Click to expand...

Oh stop cryin'....Bush kicked Gore's ass, and he couldn't handle it, so he wanted to selectively recount, cheat, and steal FL after fighting to keep out the military vote...What a guy, and whiners like you still a decade later are still crying about it....Get over it, or seek help.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Oh stop cryin'....Bush kicked Gore's ass, and he couldn't handle it, so he wanted to selectively recount, cheat, and steal FL after fighting to keep out the military vote...What a guy, and whiners like you still a decade later are still crying about it....Get over it, or seek help.

j-mac
Click to expand...

If you at all care about the legal principles behind this - you should read the book that Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz wrote on it called SUPREME INJUSTICE. Here is an shorter article

The Supreme Court and the 2000 Election (1) - By Alan M. Dershowitz and Richard A. Posner - Slate Magazine

again, IF you care about the legal principles..... if all you care about is your guy won - you can disregard all the legal principles in favor of your own political self belief system.
 
haymarket said:
If you at all care about the legal principles behind this - you should read the book that Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz wrote on it called SUPREME INJUSTICE. Here is an shorter article

The Supreme Court and the 2000 Election (1) - By Alan M. Dershowitz and Richard A. Posner - Slate Magazine

again, IF you care about the legal principles..... if all you care about is your guy won - you can disregard all the legal principles in favor of your own political self belief system.
Click to expand...

So now I must agree with Dershowitz or I am just a political hack eh? Why must liberals always set up a situation where only their like minded sources must be believed, or else? What makes Dershowitz, a liberal democrat, the final word on the subject?

j-mac
 
pbrauer said:
Conservative said:
This is a national election, not a state or local one. The SCOTUS had jurisdiction over the elections. Democrats tried to steal the election and were thwarted legally. That is reality, get over it. Anyone in their right mind believe Gore would have been a better President? Doesn't matter now, does it?
Click to expand...
You're just plain wrong, Con. The Constitution says its up to the states how they pick the electors.

Major :failpail:
Click to expand...
I'm hearing crickets.:roll:
 
j-mac said:
So now I must agree with Dershowitz or I am just a political hack eh? Why must liberals always set up a situation where only their like minded sources must be believed, or else? What makes Dershowitz, a liberal democrat, the final word on the subject?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Feel free to take Professor Dershowitz to the woodshed by presenting your arguments against his legal positions.
 
haymarket said:
Feel free to take Professor Dershowitz to the woodshed by presenting your arguments against his legal positions.
Click to expand...

Is this thread now about the 2000 elections? I wasn't aware that was the topic. Nah, I'll tell you what, there are I am sure plenty of threads on the subject where you were shown all of this before. Just do a search and re read for comprehension this time.

Thanks.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Oh stop cryin'....Bush kicked Gore's ass, and he couldn't handle it, so he wanted to selectively recount, cheat, and steal FL after fighting to keep out the military vote...What a guy, and whiners like you still a decade later are still crying about it....Get over it, or seek help.

j-mac
Click to expand...
Gore got more of the popular vote than Bush. Yeah, that was some ass-kicking. :roll:
 
j-mac said:
Is this thread now about the 2000 elections? I wasn't aware that was the topic. Nah, I'll tell you what, there are I am sure plenty of threads on the subject where you were shown all of this before. Just do a search and re read for comprehension this time.

Thanks.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Then why did you spout off about it? You seemed happy to get involved until you were called out and found wanting for the lack of any intellectual argument. Just because someone in the past may have discussed the subject has not one thing to do with your inability to back up your own claims.
 
haymarket said:
If you at all care about the legal principles behind this - you should read the book that Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz wrote on it called SUPREME INJUSTICE. Here is an shorter article

The Supreme Court and the 2000 Election (1) - By Alan M. Dershowitz and Richard A. Posner - Slate Magazine

again, IF you care about the legal principles..... if all you care about is your guy won - you can disregard all the legal principles in favor of your own political self belief system.
Click to expand...


The founders of the*Federal*Constitution had attempted to anticipate contested or very close presidential election results and thus had made provisions to*deal*with such an eventuality. There is a strict timetable between the presidential election and the swearing in of the*successful*candidate as president. There is a constitutional provision that the*House*of Representatives can elect the president should any presidential election result in a tied vote or no candidate securing the required majority in the electoral*college. On the other hand, if there are disputed presidential election results in any of the states that determine the destination of electoral*college*votes then it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to make a fair and fast judgements to resolve the issue.
Click to expand...

Now seeing as you care so much for the law, then it appears as if the law was followed to the letter. Apparently you didn't agree with the results, and you have that right. But you have no right to question if the law was followed. Because it was followed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom