posted on December 5, 2000 10:12:41 AM new
Of course Gore wouldn't join the Seminole County...or the Martin County...cases. He wants to divorce himself as much as possible from any action designed to disenfranchise what now amounts to 25,000 voters. How could he maintain his position that "all votes must be counted?"
I used to call myself a skeptic. It has now been proven, to my satisfaction at least, that no ethical pronouncement issuing from the mouth of a politician can ever be believed. They simply want to win, no matter the cost. I knew that at one time, but had forgotten.
posted on December 5, 2000 10:14:56 AM newnetworker,
I think that the climate in Florida courts is set against making any momentous changes, particularly at the superior court level. I think that the judge will pass.
I did see a report in which the editor in chief of the Miami Herald posited that even without court action in disallowing the at-issue ballots there would likely be a price to pay by the persons who took the action which biased the result in that county.
posted on December 5, 2000 03:54:17 PM new
Stusi - Unlike the Ebay Outlook, the Round Table was not originally designed to be an auction-only discussion board. According to AW, the Round Table was set up for discussion of various topics, including religion and politics.
The moderators were very kind in answering my specific answers as to whether religion and politics were now banned as subjects of conversation. They are not.
I don't consider someone who doesn't like George Bush or Al Gore a "bigot". I believe they are simply expressing their feelings and/or opinions as they have every right to do.
If you truly believe certain subjects should be censored or banned from AW and the Round Table, only the Powers That Be at AW can make this decision. Until that happens, I believe people will continue to discuss various and interesting topics from which I often learn a great deal.
Constantly haraunging other posters to avoid certain subjects which you or I may not wish to discuss will have no effect.
posted on December 5, 2000 08:55:50 PM newMYTH: Gore and his puppets are not involved in the Seminole and Martin County lawsuits.
Anyone that believes that Gore is not involved in the Seminole and Martin County lawsuits also believe the moon is made of green cheese.
When the subject (Jacob) filing the suit was asked about Gore involvement, he hesitated a few seconds before he was able to find the words to answer to the negative.
It is also very suspicious that the Seminole lawsuit is being heard by a circuit judge who's only assigned duties are juvenile matters. Such assignment indicates the judge is probably inexperienced, even incompetent, in matters requiring in-depth knowledge of broad civil and criminal trial law and interpretation of same.
Since some of us called the Florida Supreme Court ruling correctly i.e., improperly legislating from the bench, I'll take another shot at predicting the outcome of the Seminole and Martin lawsuits.
First scenario: If Circuit Judge Nikki Ann Clark is outrageously incompetent, or blindly biased, she will find in favor of the plaintiff(s) but her ruling(s) will be overturned in a higher court.
Second scenario: If she is competent or has asked for guidance from experienced people, she will have to find that the complaint is faulty and to throw out the ballots would be violating the due process rights of others not involved and that no proof exists that (all) parties named knew anything about the incident or was involved in any manner as laid out in the complaint and that the complainant is unable to state and prove a specific number of ballots were fraudulently altered. Especially since the allegations state that it was applications that were altered or added to, not ballots.
The complaint (witness) first states that ballot boxes contained "thousands" of voided Republican absentee ballots. Later in the same complaint, the witness states that "thousands" of absentee ballots were fraudulently altered. Then, in the same complaint the witness uses the term, "several thousand" fraudulent absentee ballots. How can the court factually identify and disqualify a specific number of ballots based on such varying estimations? What if the actual unknown number is 500. The court is going to disqualify 23,500 ballots or applications just to be sure?
If, in fact, certain parties did knowingly and intentionally violate a particular law, only (those) parties can be held to trial, and the sentence of the court must punish ONLY those involved. There is no evidence that Bush was involved and there is no evidence that the "Republican Party," as a whole, was involved. The court cannot disqualify the legal ballots of "thousands" of innocent people and punish Bush for the misconduct of a few.
Of course, we are talking about the Florida courts that have a notorious history.
posted on December 5, 2000 09:02:00 PM new
I'm sure that the democratic campaign committee will rely on and appreciates the support of their claim that votes have not been counted contained in the words from the above post:
How can the court factually identify and disqualify a specific number of ballots based on such varying estimations?
posted on December 5, 2000 09:07:37 PM new
And this Nikki Clark judge happens to be democrat...and appointed by a democrat..so what didn't she 'recuse' herself?
Seems like whenever a Republican is in a similar situation they want THEM to recuse themselves.
Heck, I don't think Jeb Bush should have recused himself either.
This guy that filed the Seminole suit finally admitted he had donated to the Gore campaign..raised funds for the Gore campaign..had even contacted Gore's attornies BEFORE filing the suit.
And Gore doesn't want anything to do with it?(Not up front anyways)
posted on December 5, 2000 09:21:45 PM new
Actually, the republican party attempted first to have her recuse herself because she had been passed over for appointment to a Florida appellate court by Jeb Bush. Do they have a juvenile appellate court in Florida? Didn't think so.
posted on December 5, 2000 09:24:38 PM new
You detractors of the recount can talk all you want to about Gore and Democrats and the legal issues zipping back and forth, but there is a bottom line . . . a bottom line for DEMOCRACY!
If you wish to maintain that you are not a fascist and anti-American, anti-democracy, then all you have to do is to not participate in mob violence to intimidate the democratic process, nor to try to justify such. That democratic process being a full-counting of all votes. To defend attempts to thwart all votes being counted is fascism --
I am not a Gore supporter, so don't bother me with "Gore did this, Dems did that" either. I couldn't care less! My candidate won't get elected and given a choice between the evils of Gore and the absolute evil of this New World Order Republican Party, I choose the slow-death of my freedoms under a democratic president than the violent rape of my freedoms by having a republican president. At least with Gore, there will still be time to try to save America and Democracy.
posted on December 5, 2000 10:01:07 PM new"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ..."
"And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities."
President Bill Clinton, 3-22-94
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..."
Bill Clinton, 11 March 1993
Bill Clinton (DEMOCRAT) in response to questions related to our Constitutional rights and New World Order.
"I'm so far to the right, I am almost at the left."
posted on December 5, 2000 10:43:12 PM new
SgtMike,
And don't forget it takes a VILLAGE to raise children. No thanks! So many agree with that statement withtout realizing it is giving others authority and power in our families and children.
Carole
posted on December 5, 2000 10:43:52 PM new
The second amendment,A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. which was written in order to preserve STATE's rights and afford state's the ability to defend themselves against undue encroachment by the US government, does not in any way imply that any AH in any housing project, or on any street may keep and bear arms.
posted on December 6, 2000 09:27:04 AM new
Unless otherwise prohibited by criminal acts where owning/possessing a firearm is part of the sentence and penalty phase, the 2nd Amendment provides the "People" the right to keep and bear arms. The Amendment does not say "Unless the person is an AH, or his or her skin is of a certain hue, and/or the person lives in a housing project."
There have been many interpretations of what the framers meant when they said,
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Most often the majority of the interpretations have a common translation; that 1) the States were not forbidden to have a well armed and regulated militia, 2) that the militia would be comprised of common citizens, 3) that the militia would be free of control by the US Government (which would exclude any military organization that can federalized), 4) that the militia is necessary and has the right and duty to resist any attempt by the federal government, or any government body, to usurp the rights of the States and/or the rights of the people.
The one interpretation of the 2nd Amendment I read and totally agree with because it was common sense based was (paraphrased),
"..the 2nd Amendment is not a statement of the right of the common citizen to possess firearms, rather, the 2nd Amendment is providing the right of each State to have a militia; in other words, an armed organization.... comprised of common citizens. Therefore, the People's right to keep and bear arms (cannot) be infringed in order for the State to have a militia."
"To question the right of the citizen to possess and use firearms in everyday life was not a consideration because in those times firearms were a common and important tool for self-defense and the gathering of food. The interpreter stated that it would have been absurd, almost laughable, to discuss the disarming of citizens or gun control in any sense."
"The right for all US citizens to possess firearms (is) covered under……'We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'
"All men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life, liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." John Locke
"As can be clearly seen, a well-regulated militia is composed of ordinary citizens who are trained to arms. The contemporary argument used by gun control advocates that the militia clause means only police or the government should be allowed to have arms has no historical or factual precedence what so ever." Shade
posted on December 6, 2000 10:30:15 AM new
as the amendment states, a well REGULATED militia does not mean that every AH in a housing project can have a gun.
Any citation using forms of Thomas Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence, to whit: a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not law. Inspirational, but not the law of the land.
posted on December 6, 2000 10:59:10 AM new
Some selected shrub-isms from "Is Our Children Learning" (by Paul Begala):
"It's kind of rhetorical. I will be ready. But I feel ready ... 'I am ready' kind of means I'm ready when I swear in. You caught me." LA Times, 7/1/99
"This is not my first trip to this incredible land called Silicon Valley. It's my first trip as Prsident of the United States. Soon to be President of the United States." Washington Post, 7/2/99
Actually, I - this may sound a little West Texan to you, but I like it. When I'm talking about-when I'm talking about myself, and when he's talking about myself, all of us are talking about me." MSNBC, 5/31/00
"States should have the right to enact reasonable laws and restrictions particularly to end the inhumane practice of ending a life that otherwise could live." Cleveland, 6/29/00
"The fact that he (Gore) relies on facts - says things that are not factual - are going to undermine his campaign." NYTimes, 3/4/00
"I think we agree, the past is over." Dallas Morning News, 5/10/00
"The senator has got to understand if he's going to have - he can't have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road." Florence, SC 2/17/00
"My education message will resignate amongst all parents." NY Post, 1/19/00
"A key to foreign policy is to rely on reliance." Boston Globe, 1/23/00
posted on December 6, 2000 11:33:52 AM new
Can someone explain why we Americans seem to be so obsessed by guns? It's not the case in Europe or even in Canada at least not to the extent that it is here. Any attempt on regulation on sale or possession of guns seems to drive people crazy. Is it some sort of sexual thing??
Humanity I love; it's people I can't stand
posted on December 6, 2000 11:59:17 AM new
savoyking - That one is hard to answer. You ask 200 million plus Americans that question you get 200 million plus different answers. Aside from the FACT that the right is granted under the Constitution. The obession is two fold IMHO as one of those 200 million plus Americans.
1. Its part of the Constitution and we can't just up and allow Government to just wipe away rights that help build this great Nation.
2. Face it America was built with guns in the hands of ordinary people. As such we sort of have to respect the power of the gun as it played a key part in building all of this.
Now when you look at history, and world history you observe that the Second Amendment has helped preserve a orderly and stable government. Why because the people should they become disenfranchised with that orderly and stable government has the power to fight it after orderly resolution fails.
So I wouldn't call it obession with guns moreso than obession with not allowing rights to be tampered with.
posted on December 6, 2000 02:38:29 PM new
Without guns, there would be no United States of America.
Remember that we are the product of an armed rebellion.
Although unrealistic today in an era of weaponry that no, or very, very few private citizens could possibly afford to deploy, the basis of the country depends on the ability of it's citizenry to resist with arms attempts to retract the freedoms, which makeup the liberty, fought for and won.
The Bill of Rights was written to enable in law the people of this country to prevent the incursions into liberty that had so recently been attempted or imposed by decree of the King of England even by our own newly created governmental system.
There was much resistance in the brand new thirteen states to the perceived danger that this new constitutional system might turn out to be only a localized version of the set of restrictions placed by England. They simply did not want to lose what they had fought to gain.
Many of the state's peoples were satisfied to be left alone as independent states. The founding fathers had the foresight to realize that they would not be able to survive like that. Either they would succumb piecemeal to new invasions from abroad or they would , in essence, kill each other off as squabbling fiefdoms.
In order to convince the very separate states to band together as one larger country the bill of writes was offered as guarantees that their fears would not be realized.
posted on December 6, 2000 11:24:08 PM new
I never said the Declaration of Independence is a legislated or Constitutional (stated) law.
I said that the right to own firearms is covered under the words of the Declaration of Independence. Apparently you mistakenly believe the Constitution was written to provide the People a list of what we are allowed to do. Wrong. The Constitution was written and enacted to protect and preserve………..
certain unalienable rights that are endowed by our Creator, that among these rights, meaning not just these rights, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In other words, we as free human beings have rights that were given to us by God upon our creation and that our rights are many and natural and do not have to be legislated in any form. In fact to legislate what is supposed to naturally be our right, is an act of infringement.
Unalienable Rights defined:
The powers, privileges and sovereignty which are endowed upon all mankind by the Creator, and which are not subject to infringement.
In summation, the Constitution did not have to award and define our "unalienable right" to possess firearms.
posted on December 7, 2000 01:15:21 AM new
Intelligent reply, a definite sign one has rapidly run out of knowledge and lacks analytical abilities e.g., reading comprehension.
Next time I'll try and break it down to a "Jack 'n Jill" level.
BTW, the same unalienable right allows you to choose a Ford over a Chevy. Get it yet?
posted on December 7, 2000 05:31:43 AM new
Some of the posts seem to be saying that without everyone armed to the teeth we would have long ago lost our freedom. I can not think of another country besides Switzerland and Israel that feels the need to have so many armed citizens in order to maintain their democratic institutions. We can accept controls in many areas of our lives but dare to suggest any over the sale and possession of guns and some go ballistic. All the talk over the foundling fathers and militas and the constitution don't seem to explain this incredible passion over guns. Perhaps it's the feeling of power that it gives to be able in an instant to take someones life? It certainly appears to be primarly a "male" thing.
Humanity I love; it's people I can't stand
[ edited by savoyking on Dec 7, 2000 05:32 AM ]
posted on December 7, 2000 07:18:22 AM new
Savoyking,
Another is Sweden, which requires each household to have a rifle, and issues the rifle. There is mandatory training in the use of it, and the primary reason that Hitler did not invade the country seems to have been his knowledge of their capability for immediate response with arms.
Has it occured to you that the obsession that you perceive is not an obsession after all?
I mean, that it doesn't exist?
You mention two countries armed to preserve their democratic traditions, but can you name two true democracies that do not permit an armed citizenry?
As to your "We can accept controls in many areas of our lives but dare to suggest any over the sale and possession of guns", perhaps you are unaware that there are now some 27,000 (or more) separate controls (laws) on the books throughout the country which regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms? How many more would you like to have? Or would you rather see a few of the existing laws enforced with any consistency?
As it is, every politician who comes along perceives a need to be able to show in his legislative record that he is proactively antigun by signing or writing a new piece of never to be enforced legislation. As it is, I, a completely law abiding citizen, can be detained if I carry in my car a rifle with it's ammunition in any proximity to the rifle yet I, that same citizen, or any person, citizen or not, with $300. in my pocket can take a walk on a particular main street close by and buy a selection of guns without any regulation involved.
You can say "get rid of them all" with a flip of your wrist, other countries have, but I'll bet you don't know that just last February a criminal organization in Canada, which now has pretty restrictive laws concerning firearms, was broken up when they were found to have participated in the illegal importation to the US from Canada of some 60,000 (or more) military rifles in one large shipment.
You say that you think it's a 'man' thing? Better obtain some records of firearm sales in this country over the last ten years. You'll find that the sale of firearms to women has grown at extraordinary rates during that time. Whether for sel and home protection, or for any other reason except that it's primarily a 'man' thing, women in this country are arming themselves at ever increasing rates.
posted on December 7, 2000 08:59:36 AM newsavoyking
On what basis did you conclude that the "passion" is specifically for the firearm? Because firearms are an element of the (real) passion, the passion to be free and to have the liberty to choose to live as one desires without your rights be oppressed for the acts of a few?
Preservation of Constitutional rights and all rights germane to being a free human being is the (primary) passion.
Additionally, how did you conclude that all firearms and the reason to own firearms is to take life?
It is acceptable to choose not to exercise your (own) rights, it is unacceptable to attempt to impose your choice upon others.
posted on December 7, 2000 09:56:26 AM new
I accept the addition of Sweden to the list. You asked me name two true democracies that do not permit an armed citizenry? How about the Unitied Kingdom, France, Japan, Canada? Guns are not banned, just limited. I cetainly am not suggesting that they should be banned here but I would like coherent and effective laws keeping their possession to a minimum. I believe the last estimate of guns in the U.S. was some 200 million. As for the some 27,000 gun laws i agree it would be nice if they were inforced. I live in NYC which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S, but it's only a days drive to States which have some of the least restrictive laws. It's like a waterproof container with a large hole. Any enterprising would-be gun dealer can travel there, load up the trunk with guns, and sell them on the streets of my city.
As for it being a "man " thing, I was referring to the passion of having guns. It's been my experience that it is mainly men who are so passionate against any gun controls.
As a realist, I believe the gun culture here is too strong for real change to take place anytime soon.
Humanity I love; it's people I can't stand
posted on December 7, 2000 10:59:38 PM new
Try to recall that the UK and Canada are not democracies, France calls itself a democracy but be careful who you ask, and Japan does have some guy that they revere as Emperor.
That depends.