What about Howard Dean?

[sechs]

...And for the rest of you, MSNBC appears to be showing the Milwaukee debate tonight.

 

[flagreen]

It is obvious that the recount [ordered by the Florida Supreme Court] cannot be conducted... without substantial additional work. It would require not only the adoption... of adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable procedures to implement them, but also orderly judicial review.... In addition, the Secretary of State has advised that the recount of only a portion of the ballots requires that the vote tabulation equipment be used to screen out undervotes, a function for which the machines were not designed. If a recount of overvotes were also required, perhaps even a second screening would be necessary. Use of the equipment for this purpose, and any new software developed for it, would have to be evaluated for accuracy by the Secretary of State, as required by [Florida statute of the time].

This is to say that there weren't rules in place to do it right.....

Not to bore everyone to death but I have to take issue with you on this. First let me re-quote a portion of the same passage above but without editing out a key portion of it which is crucial imho in understanding why the Court decided to reverse the the Fl. Supreme Court;

Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work. It would require not only the adoption (after opportunity for argument) of adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable procedures to implement them, but also orderly judicial review of any disputed matters that might arise. In addition, the Secretary of State has advised that the recount of only a portion of the ballots requires that the vote tabulation equipment be used to screen out undervotes, a function for which the machines were not designed. If a recount of overvotes were also required, perhaps even a second screening would be necessary. Use of the equipment for this purpose, and any new software developed for it, would have to be evaluated for accuracy by the Secretary of State, as required by Fla. Stat. §101.015 (2000).

As I read that, the basis upon which the Court reversed the Florida Court's decision was the 14th Amendment. This is particularly evident when one takes the highlighted text above together with the passage I quoted earlier which specifically states the Court found that the Equal Protection clause was violated by the Florida court's ruling. Further the highlighted text is contained within the first sentence of the paragraph thereby establishing it the primary idea which is about to be supported by the sentences to follow.

Note also that even if the Florida Supreme Court had developed adequate standards (or rules to use your word) that the U. S. Supreme Court would still have reversed the decision based on the 14th Amendment. I say that because of the problem they describe associated with the requirement for screening out undervotes remains. And that has nothing to do with "rules". In other words even if adequate rules (statewide standards) were in place, the Florida Courts ruling would still have been reversed as it still would not have been compatible with the 14th Amendment.

Let's take a look at your initial statement again that I objected to;

The problem is that he won because there weren't appropriate rules. A situation came up which left what to do open to interpretation.

Clearly Bush did not "win" because there were not appropriate rules. For even if there were appropriate rules (statewide standards) in place he still would have won because the Florida Court's decision would still have been reversed.

Secondly, I am still unsure as to what you meant by the second sentence. I don't see what situation you were referring to which left what to do open to interpretation.

 

[sechs]

You've missed the point entirely.

If there were appropriate rules in place, then the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court would have been valid. Heck, if there were appropriate rules, the Florida Supreme Court wouldn't have needed to *make* a ruling.

Get past this hang-up on the Constitution. It doesn't tell anybody how to count ballots.

 

[flagreen]

You've missed the point entirely.

If there were appropriate rules in place, then the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court would have been valid. Heck, if there were appropriate rules, the Florida Supreme Court wouldn't have needed to *make* a ruling.

Get past this hang-up on the Constitution. It doesn't tell anybody how to count ballots.

You could have simply made this point earlier if that's what you meant and saved us both a lot of trouble. In fact I specifically asked you if that was what you meant and you never answered. Why not? Game playing were we?

BTW - If the voters had followed the instructions on how to vote there would not have been a need for any court action either. So you are stopping one step short of going to the actual root of the problem. Don't blame the lack of rules as to how to count F'd up ballots, blame the stupid voters who F'd them up.

You asked me what rules were in the Constitution which resolved the problem when you said;

Perhaps you could point out what rules, derived from the equal protection clause of the Consititution, applied to the situation, and made it clear exactly what should have happened.

I did just that. Now you tell me to "Get past this hang-up on the Constitution"? Nice...

 

[sechs]

Actually there were appropriate rules. The problem was that the Florida Supreme court refused to followed them.

I asked you to point out those rules.

You said that they existed, but that you couldn't point them out. I suggested that this was because they didn't exist.

You said that there was adequate controlling law -- the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

I asked you to point out the rules derived from the clause that applied to the vote counting situation and made it clear what to do.

You just restated that the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution was the controlling law -- not how it applied or how it made clear what to do.

I replied that you weren't proving any appropriate rules existed.

You replied that the Six-day Limit in the United States Code put a constraint on the recount; and that the United States Supreme Court cited the Equal Protection clause as the reason for overturning the decision of the Florida Supreme Court -- neither of which shows that any rules existed explaining exactly what should have been done. (Actually, it points towards there being no such rules.)

I quoted a bit of the Supreme Court decision wherein the Court points out that there weren't appropriate rules in place to do it right.

You once again pointed out that the United States Supreme Court cited the Equal Protection clause in their decision. Then you go on to say that whether there were appropriate rules or not was irrelevant -- which in, and of, itself is irrelevant.

I point out that you keep making irrelevant arguments and not talking about the existence of appropriate rules.

You then made an ad hominem attack. You then attacked the voters in the election. You then said that I had asked you, "were [sic] in the Constitution which resolved the problem."

Ignoring the frivolous attacks in your last message, perhaps you could point out some rules. The Constitution doesn't state how to count votes. The United States Supreme Court, in its Bush v. Gore decision, did not tell anyone how to count votes. In fact, as much as I can tell, the Florida Supreme Court did not even tell anyone how to count votes.

Now, either you can point out the appropriate rules which told people exactly what they needed to do, or stop making irrelevant (even if interesting) statements about Constitutional law.

 

[flagreen]

sechs,

This is a discussion. It is not supposed to be a one sided conversion where you ask all the questions and I answer them. No one is in "charge" per se. I was very patient with your terse replies and your refusal to respond to the questions which I put to you. My questions were sincere. They were not designed to tick / trap you or to divert the subject. I asked them in the interest of clarifying what it was you were talking about.

It is only in your second to last post that it became clear to me exactly what it is that you meant by "The problem is that he won because there weren't appropriate rules." Surely you must recognize that this statement is not particularly specific as to what rules you felt were lacking. Particularly since up until the time that you made that statement, you and I were going back and forth on the U.S. Supreme Court and your earlier statement that "perhaps this time they will side with the Democrats". That is is why in my third response to you on this subject, in an attempt to clarify what it was you meant, I asked;

Are you talking about the lack of uniform rules for ascertaining a voters intent when the ballot cannot be clearly read? If so, to that extent your I agree that your original statement is valid, I concede the point - and I retract my objection to it.

You never answered me.

I even went on to ask you the following;

Apparently I misunderstood what you meant by "rules"? The second sentence of your original statement - "A situation came up which left what to do open to interpretation." - sounded as if you were saying that the ruling was completely arbitrary and not based upon law. The word "interpretation" was not used in reference to any court decision as I thought you intended it to be but rather was in reference as to how to ascertain the voters intent uniformly?

Again no answers from you as to the questions I posed here either. Rather you went on to ask me the following in return;

Perhaps you could point out what rules, derived from the equal protection clause of the Consititution, applied to the situation, and made it clear exactly what should have happened.

Again you fail to state in this question specifically what rules you were talking about. So I went on to answer what I thought you were asking to the best of my ability which is how we got so deep into the Constitution. Again - no mention - none - from you that you actually meant "rules for decerning the voters intent from ballots".

So yes, I was pissed off when I read finally what it is you meant. And undoubtedly my anger is reflected in the tone of my last post to you. But nothing I said constitutes an ad hominem attack on you imho or on the voters of Florida (where I live incidentaly). It seemed to me that you had numerous opportunities to either clarify what you meant by "rules" or to correct me when you knew that I was barking up the wrong tree. Yet you chose not to say anything.

Why did you not answer my questions?

 

[sechs]

Metadiscussion can wait for a later day.

1. No

2. There are two question marks here, but neither of those are actual questions.

Perhaps you'd like to point out those rules now.

 

[flagreen]

Actually there were appropriate rules. The problem was that the Florida Supreme court refused to followed them.

I asked you to point out those rules.

You said that they existed, but that you couldn't point them out. I suggested that this was because they didn't exist.

Wrong. The rules the Florida Supreme Court should have followed are in the U.S. Constitution. I pointed out the specific rule in the Constitution that they should have followed.

You said that there was adequate controlling law -- the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

I asked you to point out the rules derived from the clause that applied to the vote counting situation and made it clear what to do.

You just restated that the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution was the controlling law -- not how it applied or how it made clear what to do.

Wrong. I very clearly explained exactly how the Fourteenth Amendment applied and how it made clear what should be done.

I replied that you weren't proving any appropriate rules existed.

You replied that the Six-day Limit in the United States Code put a constraint on the recount; and that the United States Supreme Court cited the Equal Protection clause as the reason for overturning the decision of the Florida Supreme Court -- neither of which shows that any rules existed explaining exactly what should have been done. (Actually, it points towards there being no such rules.)

Wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court in it's decision stated very clearly what rules existed, what rules should have been followed, and what rules the Florida Court failed to follow. And I pointed all of that out to you very clearly.

I quoted a bit of the Supreme Court decision wherein the Court points out that there weren't appropriate rules in place to do it right.

Wrong. The "bit" that you pointed out does not say that at all. Your interpretation of it is incorrect. And by the way - You will not find the word "rule" in that section you quoted. Now you can't have it both ways. If you are unwilling to accept an answer from me based on an interpretation rather than seeing the actual word "rules" in my answers, then you cannot turn around and suggest an answer yourself which is also based on interpretation and which also does not contain the specific word "rules"!

You once again pointed out that the United States Supreme Court cited the Equal Protection clause in their decision. Then you go on to say that whether there were appropriate rules or not was irrelevant -- which in, and of, itself is irrelevant.

Certianly I pointed out the lack of "rules" was irrelevant because it was as regards their decision. The problem of not be able to machine sort out undervotes by machine so that they could be read to determine the voters intent remained. Therefore the Florida Court would still have been reversed even if there were "appropriate rules for ascertaining the intent of a voter" in place.

I point out that you keep making irrelevant arguments and not talking about the existence of appropriate rules.

Wrong. I haven't made an irrelevent point yet. We are discussing the Florida election debacle. There are two people in this discussion sechs. You are not going to dictate to me what we can or cannot discuss. This is not a courtroom we are in here and I am not sitting in the witness chair.

You then made an ad hominem attack. You then attacked the voters in the election. You then said that I had asked you, "were [sic] in the Constitution which resolved the problem."

Ignoring the frivolous attacks in your last message, perhaps you could point out some rules. The Constitution doesn't state how to count votes. The United States Supreme Court, in its Bush v. Gore decision, did not tell anyone how to count votes. In fact, as much as I can tell, the Florida Supreme Court did not even tell anyone how to count votes.

Wrong. I made no ad hominem or frivilous attacks as I explained in my last post. And I have very clearly explained the rules contained within the Constitution which you asked for.

Now, either you can point out the appropriate rules which told people exactly what they needed to do, or stop making irrelevant (even if interesting) statements about Constitutional law.

LOL - Again - we not in a courtroom here. I have pointed out the appripriate rules numerous times already. You just don't like the answers you are getting.

Really when you get right down to it the whole debacle of the 2000 election could have been avoided if the voters in Florida had simply followed the "rules" posted on the voting booth walls and printed on the ballots.

Metadiscussion can wait for a later day.

1. No

"No" what? Which question is that the answer to? Would it kill you give other than one word answers?

2. There are two question marks here, but neither of those are actual questions.

You know very well what I was asking.

Perhaps you'd like to point out those rules now.

Been there.... Done that.

 

[sechs]

No you haven't. And I doubt that you'd know if you even saw them.

 

[flagreen]

No you haven't. And I doubt that you'd know if you even saw them.

That's it? That's all you have to say? Another "no" and an insinuation that I'm dumb? LOL

 

[its.fubar]

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be next president of the USA.

 

[Howell]

Sechs, had there been explicit rules regarding exactly how to count mis-votes there would have been no need for the court to get involved.

As we all know, not every contengency can be covered and were every contingency to be covered there would be problems with inflexibility.

And so the first level of the court system was involved and one party to the case thought they acted unconstitutionally. And so a second level of the courts were involved and confirmed that the first level acted unconstitutionally.

You would like to insinuate that there was some sort of misbehaviour but there is nothing there but the rule of law.

 

[its.fubar]

Let's all hope the next election that you Americans have, you do not have to go though that humiliation again where the world believes the person that wins the nomination to be the president of USA is by trickery and deception.

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be next president of the USA. John Kerry

 

[timwhit]

I don't even like Kerry. I voted for Dean today in our primary and he was horribly beaten. Even Edwards beat him.

 

[sechs]

Would someone smack its.fubar's idealism with some reality?

 

[its.fubar]

Is the idea Of decency and the sense of doing the right thing is something that belongs to the past and has nothing to do with the value that the USA is always talking about then so be it and if the reality that guy who is sitting in that house on Pennsylvania avenue 1600 is dishing up is what you Americans call decency and fair play then somebody needs to give him a DOS of reality and idealism and the guy that will do this goes by the name of John Kerry

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be nextpresident of the USA. John Kerry

 

[it's-fubar]

Is the idea Of decency and the sense of doing the right thing is something that belongs to the past and has nothing to do with the value that the USA is always talking about then so be it and if the reality that guy who is sitting in that house on Pennsylvania avenue 1600 is dishing up is what you Americans call decency and fair play then somebody needs to give him a DOS of reality and idealism and the guy that will do this goes by the name of John Kerry

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be nextpresident of the USA. John Kerry

when my bruzzer and I type vee dont like to end our sentences vee like to just keep on going and going to see how long of da sentence we can write because thats our thing mahn we are nihilists and we dont care about nuzzing so there is nuzzing you can to do to make us stop vee will just go on and on mahn punctuation is for the anal-retentive people who about zeese things mahn but we dont because vee believe in nuzzing man yah - vee dont care

congratulations mahn to the next pepsident john f. keery

 

[its.fubar]

Is the idea Of decency and the sense of doing the right thing is something that belongs to the past and has nothing to do with the value that the USA is always talking about then so be it and if the reality that guy who is sitting in that house on Pennsylvania avenue 1600 is dishing up is what you Americans call decency and fair play then somebody needs to give him a DOS of reality and idealism and the guy that will do this goes by the name of John Kerry

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be nextpresident of the USA. John Kerry

when my bruzzer and I type vee dont like to end our sentences vee like to just keep on going and going to see how long of da sentence we can write because thats our thing mahn we are nihilists and we dont care about nuzzing so there is nuzzing you can to do to make us stop vee will just go on and on mahn punctuation is for the anal-retentive people who about zeese things mahn but we dont because vee believe in nuzzing man yah - vee dont care

congratulations mahn to the next pepsident john f. keery

Well keep your bruzzer agoing how you like with your sentence and do what you like with the nuzzing "to be a nuzzing or not to be a nuzzing" that is the question is it not, it makes me also sad to realize that "anal-retentive people" are not your favorite type of people what leaves me with this question are you afraid of "anal-retentive people" or are you just trying to be funny and not succeeding you decide which is right. anal nuzzing bruzzer man.

iee dont care

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be next president of the USA. John Kerry

 

[sechs]

Wait just one minizzle. Fo' sho'.

 

[timwhit]

Let's take a quick look at Kerry. He voted FOR the war in Iraq and he voted FOR the USA Patriot Act.

He has sponsored 371 laws, nine of which became law, and six of those were of "a ceremonial nature," meaning renaming a federal building or designating a national POW/MIA day. Wow what a lot to show for 19 years in the senate.

its.fubar why are you glorifying this man so much, if he becomes president then nothing will happen. Maybe lots of buildings will get renamed to honor veterans of the Vietnam war. Whoooeeeee.

Take a chill pill and discuss the issues instead of saying how this guy is going to become president when he hasn't even won the democratic primary yet. November is still a long way off.

Now where is that ignore function when you need it???

 

[timwhit]

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/timep.kerry.tm/

 

[Howell]

"Not so fast, John Kerry." - John Edwards

 

[its.fubar]

Let's take a quick look at Kerry. He voted FOR the war in Iraq and he voted FOR the USA Patriot Act.

He has sponsored 371 laws, nine of which became law, and six of those were of "a ceremonial nature," meaning renaming a federal building or designating a national POW/MIA day. Wow what a lot to show for 19 years in the senate.

its.fubar why are you glorifying this man so much, if he becomes president then nothing will happen. Maybe lots of buildings will get renamed to honor veterans of the Vietnam war. Whoooeeeee.

Take a chill pill and discuss the issues instead of saying how this guy is going to become president when he hasn't even won the democratic primary yet. November is still a long way off.

Now where is that ignore function when you need it???

Like most people in the wold at the time believed that person sitting in that house on Pennsylvania avenue 1600 was telling the truth about WMD which now has been proved wrong, so it is hardly surprising that John Kerry voted With that person who mislead everyone with his lies and deception so how on earth can anyone believe what that person will say next.

If there is a person that understands what the meaning of going to war is and what devastation can come from it then it must be the person that has been there and done it am not stay at home in safety so maybe it is better to keep the buildings standing and rename them don't you think.

Are you suggesting that looking after you're war injured is not a honorable thing to do.

November is not so far away and you will be surprise how fast it is upon you.

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be next president of the USA. John Kerry

 

[Dïscfärm]

>>> CNN Newsflash: Howard Dean Calls It Quits <<<



Sounds like someone finally refilled his Thorazine prescription.

 

[its.fubar]

>>> CNN Newsflash: Howard Dean Calls It Quits <<<



Sounds like someone finally refilled his Thorazine prescription.

That is yesterday's new`s Here, Besides after he stopped shouting he didn't really have much to say any way.

 

[Howell]

So.... This thread is closed?

 

[Tea]

What thread?

 

[its.fubar]

The thread to elected a person that can work with other people not like that stupid person who just now residing in that house on Pennsylvania avenue 1600 But I suppose that is not important you American`s

Are all people from Texas that stupid and bonehead with a one way mind.


Once again my congratulations to the soon to be next president of the USA. John Kerry

 

[sechs]

So.... This thread is closed?

No, you can still vote for Howard Dean. He just won't win.

 

[its.fubar]

So.... This thread is closed?

No, you can still vote for Howard Dean. He just won't win.

But John Kerry Will.

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be next president of the USA. John Kerry

 

[timwhit]

So.... This thread is closed?

No, you can still vote for Howard Dean. He just won't win.

But John Kerry Will.

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be next president of the USA. John Kerry

Dude you are so annoying that it makes me want to fly all the way to Sweden and strangle you with the power cord from your computer. Give it a rest I guarantee that everyone here feels similarly to the way that I feel.

 

[flagreen]

Ditto.

 

[sechs]

Doesn't Sweeden have a monarchy?

 

[its.fubar]

So.... This thread is closed?

No, you can still vote for Howard Dean. He just won't win.

But John Kerry Will.

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be next president of the USA. John Kerry

Dude you are so annoying that it makes me want to fly all the way to Sweden and strangle you with the power cord from your computer. Give it a rest I guarantee that everyone here feels similarly to the way that I feel.

Why are you a republican about coming to Sweden you are more than welcome you might learn something about having a democracy and just taking about it.

case in point we don't go around threatening people with the power cord from one`s computer he he

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be next president of the USA. John Kerry

 

[timwhit]

Let me make this perfectly clear. You add nothing to the discussion here. When the Ignore function is implemented at the end of the month the only person that it will be used on is YOU. Everyone will ignore you and it will be a great day for mankind.

 

[flagreen]

If ever there was a reason not to vote for John Kerry - its.fubar is it.

 

[its.fubar]

Let me make this perfectly clear. You add nothing to the discussion here. When the Ignore function is implemented at the end of the month the only person that it will be used on is YOU. Everyone will ignore you and it will be a great day for mankind.

You do not seem to be talking like an American so I imagine you come from that other state of the Union number 51 where there is very little democracy and a great deal of lip service to the republicans where they also assume they speak for everyone is that why they lost everything and become the 51 state don't worry when the democrats get in they will release you from your bondage and give you your freedom.

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be next president of the USA. John Kerry

 

[its.fubar]

Let me make this perfectly clear. You add nothing to the discussion here. When the Ignore function is implemented at the end of the month the only person that it will be used on is YOU. Everyone will ignore you and it will be a great day for mankind.

You do not seem to be talking like an American so I imagine you come from that other state of the Union number 51 where there is very little democracy and a great deal of lip service to the republicans where they also assume they speak for everyone is that why they lost everything and become the 51 state don't worry when the democrats get in they will release you from your bondage and give you your freedom.

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be next president of the USA. John Kerry

If I have made a mistake about your whereabouts it is only because a student is still learning about the difference between democrats and republicans but don't worry you will soon graduate and you will be easier to find

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be next president of the USA. John Kerry[/quote]

 

[timwhit]

Ignore Ignore Ignore...everything that comes out of your mouth is pure BS BS BS BS. Put yourself in check, this is a community, not some sounding board for you to spray the shit that is coming out of your mouth.

 

[its.fubar]

Let me make this perfectly clear. You add nothing to the discussion here. When the Ignore function is implemented at the end of the month the only person that it will be used on is YOU. Everyone will ignore you and it will be a great day for mankind.

You do not seem to be talking like an American so I imagine you come from that other state of the Union number 51 where there is very little democracy and a great deal of lip service to the republicans where they also assume they speak for everyone is that why they lost everything and become the 51 state don't worry when the democrats get in they will release you from your bondage and give you your freedom.

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be next president of the USA. John Kerry

If I have made a mistake about your whereabouts it is only because a student is still learning about the difference between democrats and republicans but don't worry you will soon graduate and you will be easier to find

Once again my congratulations to the soon to be next president of the USA. John Kerry

[/quote]


Should Read

If I have made a mistake about your whereabouts it is only because You as a student are still learning about the difference between democrats and republicans but don't worry you will soon realize there's no difference between them but you will graduate and you will be easier to find .


Once again my congratulations to the soon to be next president of the USA. John Kerry