Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 20, 2008 17:06:37 GMT -4
It doesn't matter. The president used information that his own sources had already discounted. While his specific words may have been true (that the British thought it was true), he used them as part of a broad strategy to paint a false picture of Iraq in the run-up to the war. Perhaps the President thought the British had better information than the CIA in this one instance? I disagree. I don't beleive that anyone who actually makes it into the Oval Office will ever want a war. And I don't think it's possible, given the politically-charged atmosphere that has surrounded President Bush since Gore tried to steal the election, that anyone but President Bush can accurately tell us what he did and didn't want from his first day in office.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 20, 2008 17:11:45 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 20, 2008 17:28:42 GMT -4
I'm sure that's what Dick Cheney was telling him to think.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 20, 2008 17:41:25 GMT -4
Sometimes I think you live on a completely different planet. I live on Utah. What planet do you live on?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 20, 2008 17:48:11 GMT -4
I live on the planet where you and I had a long, drawn out discussion about the aftermath of the 2000 election -- where I showed ad nauseum that Al Gore followed the law as written -- and where I showed you that the US Supreme Court couldn't even show in the end that they had any legal reason to intervene in the Florida recount controversy. That planet.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 20, 2008 18:16:25 GMT -4
I live on the planet where you and I had a long, drawn out discussion about the aftermath of the 2000 election -- where I showed ad nauseum that Al Gore followed the law as written -- and where I showed you that the US Supreme Court couldn't even show in the end that they had any legal reason to intervene in the Florida recount controversy. That planet. Hmmm. I seem to remember arguing Gore didn't act illegally but did act immorally. I also recall providing a Supreme Court ruling that showed that the Florida Supreme Court, at Gore's behest, had acted illegally (that is to say, unconstitutionally), and recall no serious objection to the idea that the US Supreme Court has obvious jurisdiction and excellent reasons to get involved in the election of a national federal office like President of the United States when a state supreme court oversteps its authority and starts re-writing state election law after the fact. Regardless of where you thought that debate ended up, my opinion remains that Gore did try to steal the election (in a moral rather than a legal sense), and that President Bush has remained a polarizing and controversial figure ever since, to the extent that any text claiming to know what Bush was thinking at any given point has to be taken with a grain of salt. There simply are no unbiased accounts. Also we have lots of Jell-O on this planet. Green is our favorite.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 20, 2008 18:49:42 GMT -4
to the extent that any text claiming to know what Bush was thinking at any given point has to be taken with a grain of saltI agree with you Jason, it does have to be taken with a grain of salt. But I would have to say that one does have to think now and then in order to become President of the United States. You shouldn't be that hard on him.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 20, 2008 19:08:11 GMT -4
ARG.
The US Supreme Court did[glow=red,2,300]NOT[/glow]rule that the Florida Supreme Court had violated the Florida Constitution.
Al Gore followed the law as it was written at that time. His actions were very specifically legal. It is beyond a stretch to claim to be immoral legal actions to verify actual voting totals.
Florida law was very clear that an attempt to determine voter intent should be made in cases where the ballot was unclear. Gore was trying to have this done -- Bush stopped it with a legal action. One might suggest that Bush violated Florida law and in doing so disenfranchised those voters in Florida who might have put Gore into the win column. I believe the actions of Bush were immoral and despicable. Bush showed his true colors before he even took office.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 20, 2008 20:53:03 GMT -4
Al, please step in here. ;D
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 20, 2008 20:54:10 GMT -4
ARG. The US Supreme Court did[glow=red,2,300]NOT[/glow]rule that the Florida Supreme Court had violated the Florida Constitution. You're right - they said they violated the U.S. Constitution. "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." You're confusing "legal" with "moral". Suing was going all over the place at the time. I note that the state officials certified the vote going to Bush per Florida Election law and that Gore sued to overturn the certification. But such a one would be wrong. Look, we had this debate. You didn't raise any points I considered sufficient to change my mind. Gore was the bad guy of the incident. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 21, 2008 8:44:15 GMT -4
Look, we had this debate and I showed you every which way that your claim is hogwash. The Florida Legislature gave wide latitude to the Florida courts to offer remedies in disputed elections. When Al Gore requested recounts, the courts agreed -- and their remedies were legal due to the fact that the Florida Legislature had given them the authority to do what was needed. The remedies ordered by the court were LEGAL. AL Gore wanted the votes carefully counted and did not try to sway those counting. His actions were MORAL, as he was requesting only what was allowed by Florida law -- which was that ballots be carefully counted. You have to be a rather unimaginative to think that machine counting is always more effective than visual inspection. The US Supreme Court did NOT rule that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Florida Law or that it had acted against the intent of the legislature. The view that the Florida Supreme Court acted contrary to the intent of the Florida legislature was rejected.www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/bg.shtmlBearing false witness are we, Jason?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 21, 2008 11:34:06 GMT -4
The Florida Legislature gave wide latitude to the Florida courts to offer remedies in disputed elections. When Al Gore requested recounts, the courts agreed -- and their remedies were legal due to the fact that the Florida Legislature had given them the authority to do what was needed. The remedies ordered by the court were LEGAL. No they weren't, because they violated the U.S. Constitution. From the original decision (emphasis added): So the court didn't need to consider whether the Florida Supremes had exceeded their authority in order to decide the case - the violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution was enough. "With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause." An unconstitutional solution is by definition an illegal one, as the Constitution is the highest law of the land. Regardless of their statement that they don't need to assess whether the Florida Supreme Court violated the intent of the Florida Legislature, later in the opinion they do address the subject somewhat - see below. AL Gore wanted the votes carefully counted and did not try to sway those counting. His actions were MORAL, as he was requesting only what was allowed by Florida law -- which was that ballots be carefully counted. You have to be a rather unimaginative to think that machine counting is always more effective than visual inspection. Again, you are confusing legal with moral. Not all legal actions are also moral actions. I have not argued that Al Gore's own actions were illegal, I have argued that they were immoral. EDIT: Also, Gore did not want all of the Florida votes recounted and carefully examined - only those in heavily democratic counties where he thought he could obtain more votes. That puts the lie to the idea that his objective was to obtain a more accurate count. He was only after more votes for him. The US Supreme Court did NOT rule that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Florida Law or that it had acted against the intent of the legislature. The view that the Florida Supreme Court acted contrary to the intent of the Florida legislature was rejected.That quote is not actually from the decision. It is the opinion of whoever put that particular website together. From the decision itself: In other words, the US Supreme court recognized that the Florida Supreme Court itself had said that the clear intent of the legislature was to have the issue resolved by December 12 (in fact the legislature passed a measure stating this outright) and that the Florida Supremes then acted to prolong the process beyond that date - in direct contravention of the clear intent of the Florida Legislature. So no, the US Supreme Court did in fact recognize that the Florida Supreme Court had acted outside of the clear intent of the legislature. Later in the opinion they also say: Again recognizing that overriding the dates set in Florida Election law would violate that law, in contravention to the stated intent of the Florida legislature. Now then, if you really have nothing new to say then I see no need to reiterate the arguments we already made. They didn't convince either of us the first time through.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 21, 2008 14:30:52 GMT -4
The Supreme Court did rule that recounts in Florida violated equal protection. This is a dubious ruling, particularly in light of the court's requirement that the decision not be used in other cases -- but it was the legal decision and I can't argue that it is wrong.
Any claim that the Florida Supreme Court acted improperly when considering Gore's claims is false -- as I have noted that the Florida Courts were not found to have gone against the legislature's intent.
The point is that none of any of it had anything to do with anything illegal or immoral on the part of Al Gore. Al Gore had nothing to do with how the recounts were handled. He requested what the law allowed. It is only your hatred of Al Gore that colors your judgment.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 21, 2008 14:47:17 GMT -4
Like I said, if you have nothing new to add we might as well let this subject drop again.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 21, 2008 15:37:40 GMT -4
So I guess what you are saying is that if I show you that Al Gore did nothing like trying to "steal" an election and if I show you very definitively why that is so -- you are just going to say that he tried to steal it, anyway.
If you don't have anything new to add, you should probably not make that claim.
|
|