The real "war on children"

[Michael Tee]

<<There is nothing to prevent suit in a state court and the political payoff would be immense ,there is every reason to do it but it lacks one thing .>>

That's absolutely ridiculous, the payoff would be another Republican "win" in the Supreme Court of the U.S.A.  Nobody who isn't already convinced of the fraudulent nature of the first SCOTUS election decision would be convinced by the second and millions of dollars would be wasted.  You also have to factor in the chickenshit thinking of Algore, who decided to concede the election and accept the SCOTUS decision, thinking that he would be praised for putting unity of the country above personal political ambition.  Why on earth would the Democrats, having already decided (wrongly IMHO) to take the high road, suddenly abandon the first decision, take the so-called low road, certain only that it would lead to a second defeat in a crooked SCOTUS?

Your expectations that the Democrats should take their case to the Supreme Court after a clear and unmistakeable demonstration of what they could expect from that Court are ludicrous.  Particularly your mythical "immense" political payoff.  The only payoff they could have expected  was a demonstration of partisan bias from SCOTUS.   But hey guess what?  They already HAD that. 

I'm glad you don't write plays, plane, if you did, you'd write a second act that demonstrated the exact same thing as the first act, and think you had scored and "immense payoff" with your second act.  There are no payoffs when you repeat what you've already said, plane. 

[Michael Tee]

<<Didn't you get the memo, Plane.  It works like this, a lack of proof, a lack of evidence, a lack of examples is proof positive >>

Unfortunately for the crypto-fascist liars and bullshitters, the press is full of proof, evidence and examples.  The Vanity Fair article that I had cited and that Lanya was good enough to bring up being only one example.

Here is how lying Republican bullshit artists operate, though.  No matter how many examples, how much evidence and how much proof is publicly available, they complain about a lack thereof as if none of it ever existed. 

The only liars in this affair are those who repeatedly deny, not only the fact that the Republicans stole the 2000 election, but go further in their lies and claim after repeated production of evidence, that there is "NO" evidence in support.  Truly pathetic, but what can you do except confront them on each and every one of their lies.

[Michael Tee]

<<No, they [SCOTUS] can't [review a Florida State Court decision on Florida election procedures.]   The Supreme Court normally only reviews Federal decisions.>>

I guess you must have been on a long vacation in another galaxy after the 2000 Presidential election.  The SCOTUS not only could but did take on a matter that was arguably out of their very jurisdiction, again due to the conservative majority.  In fact, the court specifically overrode jurisdictional objections in order to hear the case, so anxious were they to throw the election to Bush.

<<And the Supreme Court hears very few of the cases that are submitted anyway, so it would be unlikely to get there. >>

Yeah.  It's very unlikely that the Supreme Court would take on a case that challenges the legitimacy of the "Presidency" of the very man they already prostituted themselves for in the first place. 

What utter nonsense.

[sirs]

The only liars in this affair are those who repeatedly deny, not only the fact that the Republicans stole the 2000 election, but go further in their lies and claim after repeated production of evidence, that there is "NO" evidence in support.  Truly pathetic, but what can you do except confront them on each and every one of their lies.

ROFL.  Tee's apparently auditioning for a slot on a new version of the Gong Show

[Plane]

Did they set aside Gold or cash or some real estate?

No , they set aside IOU's didn't they?

The set aside is imaginary.

Cash. In an interest bearing account.

Oh ? I may be misinformed .  Got  link?

[Plane]

<<No, they [SCOTUS] can't [review a Florida State Court decision on Florida election procedures.]   The Supreme Court normally only reviews Federal decisions.>>

I guess you must have been on a long vacation in another galaxy after the 2000 Presidential election.  The SCOTUS not only could but did take on a matter that was arguably out of their very jurisdiction, again due to the conservative majority.  In fact, the court specifically overrode jurisdictional objections in order to hear the case, so anxious were they to throw the election to Bush.

<<And the Supreme Court hears very few of the cases that are submitted anyway, so it would be unlikely to get there. >>

Yeah.  It's very unlikely that the Supreme Court would take on a case that challenges the legitimacy of the "Presidency" of the very man they already prostituted themselves for in the first place. 

What utter nonsense.

I beleive you are wrong on this fact , the Supreme court does not pevent state courts from hearing cases.

Perhaps I am wrong about something , that the people hurt in these cases are imaginary, where could I look tosee hat there are real people that were disinfranchised?

[Michael Tee]

<<I beleive you are wrong on this fact , the Supreme court does not pevent state courts from hearing cases.>>

Perhaps you have misunderstood what I wrote.  The Supreme Court of course would not prevent the Florida State Court from hearing the case.  Whatever the Florida Court ruled would be appealed by the losing side.  When the case got up to SCOTUS level, SCOTUS would uphold a Florida ruling if favourable to Bush and strike down a Florida ruling if unfavourable to their man.  In other words, there is no point in Gore supporters bringing a claim in the State court - - either they will lose in the State court or they will lose in the SCOTUS.

<<Perhaps I am wrong about something , that the people hurt in these cases are imaginary, where could I look tosee hat there are real people that were disinfranchised?>>

I would start with the Vanity Fair article by three investigative reporters, then find other articles from other publications that cover the subject.

[Plane]

<<I beleive you are wrong on this fact , the Supreme court does not pevent state courts from hearing cases.>>

Perhaps you have misunderstood what I wrote.  The Supreme Court of course would not prevent the Florida State Court from hearing the case.  Whatever the Florida Court ruled would be appealed by the losing side.  When the case got up to SCOTUS level, SCOTUS would uphold a Florida ruling if favourable to Bush and strike down a Florida ruling if unfavourable to their man.  In other words, there is no point in Gore supporters bringing a claim in the State court - - either they will lose in the State court or they will lose in the SCOTUS.

<<Perhaps I am wrong about something , that the people hurt in these cases are imaginary, where could I look tosee hat there are real people that were disinfranchised?>>

I would start with the Vanity Fair article by three investigative reporters, then find other articles from other publications that cover the subject.

Gotta link?


If there were a leg for the case to stand on it would be in court, much milder and more hopeless things are tried , even cases with fewer freinds in the public and politial relms get their day in court .

Haveing you day in court has a value even when you are not likely to win.

No ,there are no actual persons with standing ,and this is proven beyond all reasonable doubts by their absense in a court that would at the very least net them a million dollar book and movie deal.

[sirs]

Haveing you day in court has a value even when you are not likely to win.  No ,there are no actual persons with standing ,and this is proven beyond all reasonable doubts by their absense in a court that would at the very least net them a million dollar book and movie deal.

Lack of proof/examples is proof postive     

[Michael Tee]

<<Lack of proof/examples is proof postive>>

Yeah, but the problem with that theory is that there is plenty of proof and plenty of examples in the Vanity Fair article.  The problem is with plane's theory that those whose votes were stolen didn't sue.  And the problem with THAT is that these folks would have to be total idiots to bring their case to be ultimately decided by a SCOTUS which has already abundantly made clear its devotion to the Republican Party and the fascism for which it stands.

[sirs]

<<Lack of proof/examples is proof postive>>

Yeah, but the problem with that theory is that there is plenty of proof and plenty of examples in the Vanity Fair article.

Which of course is validated by the huge throng of court cases pending.....oh wait. 
Well, of course there's all the recount reports taken by a throng of newspaper and media outlets that upon review had Gore winning......oh wait. 

Under "desperation" in wikipedia is a reference to "see any Tee rebuttal, located in 3DHS"

[Michael Tee]

<<Which of course is validated by the huge throng of court cases pending.....>>

No.  [sighs patiently]  I already did explain why these cases will never go to court.  The conservative majority on SCOTUS, which will ultimately decide any case brought in the U.S.A., has already been sold out to Bush and the Republican Party.  Remember?

<<Well, of course there's all the recount reports taken by a throng of newspaper and media outlets that upon review had Gore winning......>>

Uh, NO, actually.  Again, those reports had to do with the votes stolen by defective ballots and defective voting machines.  Nothing at all to do with the major mechanism of stealing the election, which was the active disenfranchisement of black voters, through (a) actively purging false "felons" from the rolls and (b) under-equipping poll stations in black districts and (c) actively intimidating blacks on their ways to the polls.  None of these were examined in the "throng" of "outlets" that dealt primarily with the defective voting machine and defective ballot aspects of the stolen election.

[sirs]

<<Which of course is validated by the huge throng of court cases pending.....>>

No.  [sighs patiently]  I already did explain why these cases will never go to court. 

and Plane (& Ami) explained how they easily could

The conservative majority on SCOTUS

Which is a LIE right there, since at the time, there were only 3 conservative judges, 4 liberal judges, and 2 moderates, who have ruled in both ideologial directions.  The support of abortion is in which ideological corner again?  RvW was ruled in which direction again?  And O'Conner ruled which way again?  So that above lie you can largely dispense with, since if there was any "majority" it was a liberal one

[Plane]

<<Which of course is validated by the huge throng of court cases pending.....>>

No.  [sighs patiently]  I already did explain why these cases will never go to court.  The conservative majority on SCOTUS, which will ultimately decide any case brought in the U.S.A., has already been sold out to Bush and the Republican Party.  Remember?

<<Well, of course there's all the recount reports taken by a throng of newspaper and media outlets that upon review had Gore winning......>>

Uh, NO, actually.  Again, those reports had to do with the votes stolen by defective ballots and defective voting machines.  Nothing at all to do with the major mechanism of stealing the election, which was the active disenfranchisement of black voters, through (a) actively purging false "felons" from the rolls and (b) under-equipping poll stations in black districts and (c) actively intimidating blacks on their ways to the polls.  None of these were examined in the "throng" of "outlets" that dealt primarily with the defective voting machine and defective ballot aspects of the stolen election.

You convince me further that this is an imaginary group , if there were indeed thousands of offended and disenfranchised persons , you , of all persons , would know the name of one of them.

I thought it likely that a small number of ligitimate cases could be dug up , but having not even one is a pleasant surprise.

[Michael Tee]

<<You convince me further that this is an imaginary group , if there were indeed thousands of offended and disenfranchised persons , you , of all persons , would know the name of one of them.>>

Maybe you should read what I post a little more carefully before it "convinces" you of the opposite of what I write.  I in fact pointed out that an article from Vanity Fair (which Lanya posted in this group) did refer by name to specific black voters disenfranchised in the 2000 election by the dirty tricks of the Jeb Bush administration, specifically in purging the rolls of falsely-identified "felons" all of whom just happened to be black.  The only "imaginary" factor in this entire discussion would appear to be your delusional fantasy that nobody has identified by name any of the disenfranchised.  But I would expect lies as barefaced as that to come from sirs.  I'm a little disappointed in you, plane.  I hope it's just something that you overlooked.  I will repeat it again:  The Vanity Fair article named names.  Got it?