About Us

"KMAN" wrote in message
news

"rick" wrote in message
news

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Oh well. Perhaps rick caught that post, and it might work
for him. It'd
be good viewing for Scott as well (and all those who live
in an insular
world).
============================
LOL Again, you've yet to find me praising the US system.
Maybe that's what you wish I said so that your own
jingoistic blather wouldn't look quite so outragious. It is
amazing that you rely on 10-15 year old books for your
current events, and dely that your own health care system
isn't working for every Canadian right now!

How your position has changed...first it was that people in
Canada were dying in waiting lines, now it is that the system
isn't working for every Canadian.
======================
LOL You really are a sad little boy, aren't you? Sarcasm
goes right over your head as much as facts do, doesn't it?
There is no change fool, you're still just as willfully
ignorant as ever...

There's a huge change, right there for all to see. You are
really quite a king weasel!
====================
No fool, there was no change. Especially in your health care
system, and particularly in your ignorance. Must be really hard
trying to keep up, eh? There was no change in the fact that you
cannot back up what you say.

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

"rick" wrote in message
news
I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be killed by
guns
at
the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively irrational.
========================
Tell me, how many were with these so-called assault weapons, by the
corner
drug-dealer.

Why are you offended by the term assault weapons?

Because it's a semantic deception. It's a phrase coined by the liberal
media
in an attempt to demonize certain semi-automatic firearms based on their
visual appearance.

Nice try at evasion, however. His actual question was "how many" of the
(specious and incorrect) number of deaths you claim were caused by
"assault
weapons?"

Do you have an answer? Clue: The information is available from the FBI,
and
the numbers are actually very small.

If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug related
offences
I'd be interested to see them.

Then go look them up.

Sorry, I don't play this game. If someone says statistics show this or
that, they should post them, or a link to them.
==================
ROTFLMAO You're the one that claimed that the drug dealers were buying
assault weapons at the corner gun-mart, and that they killed 1000s of
people every year. Seems you failed to ever back up that stupidity, eh?

Since I never made that claim, seems you are wrong as usual.

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
news

"rick" wrote in message
news

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Oh well. Perhaps rick caught that post, and it might work for him.
It'd
be good viewing for Scott as well (and all those who live in an
insular
world).
============================
LOL Again, you've yet to find me praising the US system. Maybe that's
what you wish I said so that your own jingoistic blather wouldn't look
quite so outragious. It is amazing that you rely on 10-15 year old
books for your current events, and dely that your own health care
system isn't working for every Canadian right now!

How your position has changed...first it was that people in Canada were
dying in waiting lines, now it is that the system isn't working for
every Canadian.
======================
LOL You really are a sad little boy, aren't you? Sarcasm goes right
over your head as much as facts do, doesn't it? There is no change fool,
you're still just as willfully ignorant as ever...

There's a huge change, right there for all to see. You are really quite a
king weasel!
====================
No fool, there was no change. Especially in your health care system, and
particularly in your ignorance. Must be really hard trying to keep up,
eh? There was no change in the fact that you cannot back up what you say.

Perhaps it has all happened to fast you missed it.

You started off saying that Canadians were dying in line waiting for health
care.

Your new position is that the system isn't working well for every single
Canadian.

Since the latter would be true for any system of health care, you've watered
down your position to something that is totally without meaning.

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
om...
"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
. com...
"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
...
"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott
Weiser
at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at
wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM:

just after Bush stole his first presidency.

Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you
found
a
different
result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower
of
Bush
but I'm
getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap.
What
happened
in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many
times.

???

Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the
Supreme
Court
stopped the recount.

Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in
violation
of
state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the
accuracy
of
the
election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful.
The
Supreme
Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body
that
rules
on
the law, not on politics.

True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme
Court
that
voted to stop the recount.

Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow
Gore
to
win the Presidency??

I have no idea.

I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda.

I am?

I don't think so.

I'm explaining that in having the vote stopped, the reaction of many
people
(obviously) is that those who stopped it were concerned about what it
would
reveal. Thus, the election will forever be known as the one that was
"stolen."

For the sake of this argument, let's say the court stayed out of
the
matter,
and Gore would have won this recount as ordered by the Florida
Supreme
Court.

How would Go

1) get rid of the slate of certified Florida Bush Electors send on
11/26/2000, via the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the
Florida
Supreme Court in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris???

2) get rid of the slate of Bush electors that the Florida
Legislature
was
in
the process of sending on 12/12/2000 (the Florida Senate was to
vote
on
12/14/2000)??

3) If he would get this far, how would he keep Congress from
disqualify
his
slate of electors that were send via an a recount that violated 3
U.S.C.
section 5????

4) If he could not keep his electors, how does he win in the US
House???

Here is a link to the law that would be used. One thing to keep in
mind,
who
controlled the US House and the US Senate.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html

I have no idea.

As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who
you
ask.
For
every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a
http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php

However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry
both
lost.

Actually, Clinton won.

I think you mean Al Gore.

And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme
Court
who
halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that
George
W
Bush stole.

Only to those who do not understand the Electoral College System.

No, I daresay a great many people who understand the ECS still view
it
this
way.

I highly doubt that. There is a provision within 3 USC 15 that says
if
Congress cannot decide on a legal slate of electors, those sent with
the
signature of the state's executive shall be the legal slate.

Bush won those elector, the slate sent with the signature of the
state's
executive, thanks to the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of
the
Florida Supreme Court (Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs.
Harris).
They
were awarded to him on 11/26/2000.

At the time that they were awarded, the Republicans held both the US
House
and Senate, but at the time that the Electoral Votes were counted,
the
new
House and Senate (results of the 2000 election) had been seated. The
US
Senate was 50/50 with Gore (the President of the Senate) as the tie
breaker,
thus control was held by the Democrats. The US House was controlled
by
the
Republicans.

During the recount process, before Bush was certified, the
Republicans
made
it clear that they were not going to allow the election to be taken
away
via
a recount that included dimpled chads. They viewed this as an illegal
change
in election law.

Following the process laid out in 3 U.S.C. section 15, when it would
come
time to count Florida's electors, the Democrats would have filed a
challenge
(which the Congressional Black Caucus did on 1/6/2000 and 1/6/2004),
they
could have won in the Senate as long as they held ranks, and Gore
cast
the
deciding vote, BUT, then Gore has to win in the US House.

Clearly the Republicans viewed Gore's challenge to the Florida vote
as
an
attempt at stealing an election (illegally throwing out overseas
ballots,
illegal counting standards, ect), they were not going to give up
Bush's
electors.

That would end of the challenge. The Democrats could not get rid of
Bush's
slate of electors, thus they would not proceed with a challenge to
the
slate
sent by the Florida State Legislature, or a slate that Gore might
have
received via a recount that used a counting standard that violated 3
U.S.C.
section 5.

The fact is, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 makes any state
challenge,
or
recount, after state certification non-binding. And the Constitution
gives
Congress the exclusive right to remove electors, not the courts.

Your argument is based on a non-binding recount, that used an illegal
counting standard, that had no hope of ever being considered. That is
not
proof Bush stole the election.

IF Gore had been certified the winner of the state, Bush would not
have
had
the votes needed to overturn Gore's certification, even if
post-certification recounts would have shown a different result.

Ever wonder why the Democrat majority Florida Supreme Court first
decided
that state certification could be granted based on a recount of 4
Democrat
Counties (11/21/2000)??? THEN, two weeks later, they change their
minds
after Gore LOST that recount (12/8/2000)??? Ever wonder why the
Democrat
majority ruled that the safe harbor date of 12/12/2000 was the final
deadline in recounts, and then shortened the contest period???

It is quite clear to me that they wanted Gore to have the benefits of
being
first to certification.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html

None of that matters in terms of the impressions and interpretations
that
many people in the US and indeed the world will continue to carry about
that
election, and shutting down the recount is one of the major (but there
are
many others) contributors to that viewpoint.

That is a sad comment about those people in the US and the world. They
don't
care about fair and honest recounts, just anything to get their man into
office.

I don't think it is realistic to assume that all those people were
pro-Gore
or anti-Bush. What they see is a very messed up electoral process with a
very close result and a recount that was halted by judges that were
appointed by the governing party.

I guess they missed the fact that the judges appointed by the challenging
party violated the law as to get a shame of a recount, twice. I guess they
missed the fact that Congress controlled by that same challenging party
passed laws to protect the rights of the voter, BUT when those laws got in
the way that same challenging party tried to have those laws overturned in
violation of US Code.

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
om...

The Democrats tried to steal an election, but lets blame Bush because he
stood up for the rights of the voters in Florida.

Yet another example of Bush's Orwellian logic in action.

--riverman

I get it, Bush should have allowed the Democrats to throw out the Electoral
Count Act of 1887, the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act, and Article II,
Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.

Weiser says:
====================
Why? What do you know about agriculture? Anything? Have you ever grown
anything for profit? Have you ever grown anything other than Bluegrass
and
weeds? Why would you presume, in your ignorance, to dictate to
agriculture
what it's water needs are?
=======================

I have grown nothing but, I never knew that one had to have given birth
to a child to become an OBGYN. That little bit notwithstanding, as you
guessed, I know nothing about agriculture. But the issue at hand is
not agricultural but, rather, economic.

As you point out, it would be ignorant to me to "dictate to agriculture
what it's water needs are". So I don't.

I do, however, point out that there are too many cases where industries
(and in the initial post, by way of example, I just grabbed
agri-busness out of a hat; I could well have picked any number of other
industries.) do not pay the full price for the commodities they
consume. If I remember correctly, the issue was less about
agri-business and more about subsidies to industries.

The environmental costs of California's agricultural use of water are
nowhere reflected in costs to the firms producing oranges in the
desert. That's a subsidy: from the citizens of the USA (it's their
water) to the firm.

Weiser says:
==================
So, when all the pools and artificially supported landscaping in
California is gone, then you can feel free to talk about rationing
agriculture.
===============

At this point, I have no desire to be argumentative. I'd be interested,
though, if you have these figures, how the total California acreage in
lawns compares to total agricultural acreage. Further, what might the
gallons/acre comparisons be between lawns/swimming pools versus
agricultural fields?

Weiser says:
======================
In the meantime, I suggest that you begin auditing your eating habits
and
determine the actual origin of every calorie you consume. Get back to
us on
how much of it comes from California.
==================

Too right, Scott! At this time of year, if it's not from California, it
is very likely from Mexico. And I'll be the first to admit that I am
the beneficiary of the water-related subsidies we're talking about. So,
while I have a chance here in the forum, I'd like to thank the people
of California and the USA for taking some jingle out of their jeans and
transferring that jingle into mine (and the shareholders of the
agri-busnesses).

So, as I do my audit, as you suggested, I am well aware of the fact
that I am aiding and abetting the destruction of California's water
resources. If, on the other hand, the price of Calfornia oranges
reflected the "true" cost of production, I might seek out substitute
products like BC-grown apples.

Cheers, and thanks again for your largesse,
frtzw906

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at
wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM:

just after Bush stole his first presidency.

Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a
different
result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush
but
I'm
getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What
happened
in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times.

???

Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the
Supreme
Court
stopped the recount.

Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in
violation
of
state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the accuracy
of
the
election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The
Supreme
Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that
rules
on
the law, not on politics.

True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court
that
voted to stop the recount.

The logical fallacy of the false dilemma. The political affiliation of
the
Justices is irrelevant.

Apparently it wasn't since they voted exactly along party lines.
Coincidence? Only a nut like you would believe that.

Apparently you have not read Gore vs. Harris, which became Bush vs. Gore, or
Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris.

Down party lines???? More Democrat propaganda. The fact is it was
BI-PARTISAN decision between the courts. The Florida Supreme Court has 6
Democrats, 0 Republicans, and 1 Independant. The SCotUS has 5 Republicans
and 4 Democrats. Judges Sauls is a Democrat.

Two of the questions in Bush vs. Gore was the counting standards and the
safe harbor date as the deadline.

One the first question, the counting standards.

Gore vs. Harris (I) Judge Sauls questioned the change of the counting
standards in the first recount. He quoted GORE'S own Florida Campaign Chair,
Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth. That is 1 Democrat.

Gore vs. Harris (II) 3 members of the Florida Supreme Court found problems
with the lack of a counting standard. That is 2 more Democrats and 1
Independent.

Bush vs. Gore 7 members of the Supreme Court of the United States found
problems with the "arbitrary" counting standards that were being used. That
is 5 Republicans and 2 Democrats.

The totals on this point, 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, 1 Independent, vs. 6
PARTISAN DEMOCRATS.

On safe harbor deadline of 12/12/2000. In Palm Beach County Canvassing Board
vs. Harris, the DEMOCRATS on the Florida Supreme Court ruled TWICE, include
12/11/2000, that the 12th was the FINAL DEADLINE.

The totals on this, is 6 DEMOCRATS, 5 Republicans, and 1 Independent vs. 4
PARTISAN DEMOCRATS.

Your "down party lines" are from the DEMOCRATS who said that identically
marked ballots DO NOT MEAN the same thing, and that the Constitutional
requirement that only a state legislature can enact election code does not
apply (i.e. a state legislature does not have the right to take advantage of
the safe harbor provisions of the Electoral Count Act of 1887).

****
From Gore vs.. Harris, 12/3/2000, Judge Sauls (Democrat) writing....

"The Palm Beach County board did not abuse its discretion in its review and
recounting process."

"Further, it acted in full compliance with the order of the circuit court in
and for Palm Beach County."

"Having done so, Plaintiffs are estopped from further challenge of this
process and standards. It should be noted, however, that such process and
standards were changed from the prior 1990 standards, perhaps contrary to
Title III, Section (5) of the United States code."

"Furthermore, with respect to the standards utilized by the Board in its
review and counting processes, the Court finds that the standard utilized
was in full compliance with the law and reviewed under another standard
would not be authorized, thus creating a two-tier situation within one
county, as well as with respect to other counties."

"The Court notes that the Attorney General of the State of Florida
enunciated his opinion of the law with respect to this, in a letter dated
November 14, 2000, to the Honorable Charles E. Burton, Chair of the Palm
each County Canvassing Board, which, in part. is as follows: "A two-tier
system would have the effect of treating voters differently, depending upon
what county they voted in."

http://www.quarterly-report.com/elec...s_opinion.html

The dissent of the FSC, in Gore vs. Harris, also found an equal protection
problem.

Justice Wells writing his dissent said "I must regrettably conclude that the
majority ignores the magnitude of its decision. The Court fails to make
provision for....(9) the effect of the differing intra-county standards."

and

"Harding with Shaw concurring. "...as I have serious concerns that
Appellant's interpretation of 102.168 would violate other votes' rights to
due process and equal protection of the law under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States."

Notice what Justice Wells said, "(9) the effect of the differing
intra-county standards."

Gore vs. Harris, 12/8/2000 See:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/OP-SC00-2431.pdf

Note that none of these judges or the Fla. Attny. General are Republicans.
The count here is 4 Democrats and 1 Independent.

From Bush vs. Gore.

"The record provides some examples. A monitor in Miami-Dade County testified
at trial that he observed that three members of the county canvassing board
applied different standards in defining a legal vote. 3 Tr. 497, 499 (Dec.
3, 2000). And testimony at trial also revealed that at least one county
changed its evaluative standards during the counting process. Palm Beach
County, for example, began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded
counting completely attached chads, switched to a rule that considered a
vote to be legal if any light could be seen through a chad, changed back to
the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to
have a court order that the county consider dimpled chads legal. This is not
a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment."

and

"Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems
with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy.
See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J.,
dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida
Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the
safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer's proposed
remedy-remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a
constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in
violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an
"appropriate" order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000)."

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

Justice Souter wrote that the change in counting standards was "arbitrary".

".....But evidence in the record here suggests that a different order of
disparity obtains under rules for determining a voter's intent that have
been applied (and could continue to be applied) to identical types of
ballots used in identical brands of machines and exhibiting identical
physical characteristics (such as "hanging" or "dimpled" chads). See, e.g.,
Tr., at 238-242 (Dec. 2-3, 2000) (testimony of Palm Beach County Canvassing
Board Chairman Judge Charles Burton describing varying standards applied to
imperfectly punched ballots in Palm Beach County during precertification
manual recount); id., at 497-500 (similarly describing varying standards
applied in Miami-Dade County); Tr. of Hearing 8-10 (Dec. 8, 2000)
(soliciting from county canvassing boards proposed protocols for determining
voters' intent but declining to provide a precise, uniform standard). I can
conceive of no legitimate state interest served by these differing
treatments of the expressions of voters' fundamental rights. The differences
appear wholly arbitrary."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD1.html

Justice Beyer also wrote: "The majority's third concern does implicate
principles of fundamental fairness. The majority concludes that the Equal
Protection Clause requires that a manual recount be governed not only by the
uniform general standard of the "clear intent of the voter," but also by
uniform subsidiary standards (for example, a uniform determination whether
indented, but not perforated, "undervotes" should count). The opinion points
out that the Florida Supreme Court ordered the inclusion of Broward County's
undercounted "legal votes" even though those votes included ballots that
were not perforated but simply "dimpled," while newly recounted ballots from
other counties will likely include only votes determined to be "legal" on
the basis of a stricter standard. In light of our previous remand, the
Florida Supreme Court may have been reluctant to adopt a more specific
standard than that provided for by the legislature for fear of exceeding its
authority under Article II. However, since the use of different standards
could favor one or the other of the candidates, since time was, and is, too
short to permit the lower courts to iron out significant differences through
ordinary judicial review, and since the relevant distinction was embodied in
the order of the State's highest court, I agree that, in these very special
circumstances, basic principles of fairness may well have counseled the
adoption of a uniform standard to address the problem. In light of the
majority's disposition, I need not decide whether, or the extent to which,
as a remedial matter, the Constitution would place limits upon the content
of the uniform standard."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD3.html

From: Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Katherine Harris, 11/21/2000,
all seven members agreed that the safe harbor date was the deadline. (6
DEMOCRATS, 1 Independent)

"Ignoring the county's returns is a drastic measure and is appropriate only
if the returns submitted the Department so late that their inclusion will
compromise the integrity of the electoral process in either of two way: (1)
by precluding a candidate, elector, or taxpayer from contesting the
certification of an election pursuant to section 102.168; or (2) by
precluding Florida voters from participating fully in the federal electoral
process." (reference to footnote 55)

"Footnote #55 See: 3 U.S.C. § § 1-10 (1994)."

The Safe Harbor date can be found in the above US Code.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346.pdf

As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you
ask.
For
every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a
http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php

However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both lost.

Actually, Clinton won.

I think you mean Al Gore.

Indeed. My mistake.

And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme Court
who
halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that
George
W
Bush stole.

The recount was halted by the Supreme Court because it was unlawful, not
because of the political affiliations of the Justices.

In your warped view. Others will continue to carry a different view.

Go read the case
sometime. The legal arguments are perfectly sound and have nothing
whatever
to do with politics.

Others will continue to carry a different view.

KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote:
And yet the fact remains that there are many features of our universe that
science cannot explain.

Yup. That's why moon gods and sun goods are somewhat less popular these
days. And why there are lots of nuts who still refuse to believe there were
dinosaurs.

Not to mention something as incredible as the "flat earth society"...

http://www.flat-earth.org/

Guess where it's based... :-)

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview	W. Watson	General	0	November 14th 04 10:05 PM

Menu

About Us