Subject:
|
Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:51:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
459 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Here's a puzzle for the Constitutionally-aware among us: Since W was
> > arguably "appointed" Prez,
>
> How so? There was an election, the results were certified, challenged in
> court, and allowed to let stand.
>
> You may not agree with all the various court decisions made by various
> courts(1) but it's a bit of a stretch to say he was appointed, ne? I'd
> prefer to use "not completely open/fair/free election" as the descriptor.
You zany understator! Ignoring for a moment the question of the polling
machines (ie, modern, well-maintained machines in largely republican
districts and archaic, run-down machines in largely democratic districts)
I don't have the info in front of me, but I've read a report of the
hideously exclusionary practices re: voter eligibility put in place
preceding the election, with specific mention of the involvement of the
Florida Gov't and that of Texas. Hardly iron-clad and conclusive, but if
right-wing demagogues are still griping about Clinton allegedly personally
transporting tons of cocaine into in Arkansas, I think the vote-fraud
allegation deserves at least some consideration!
There's also the problem that the Supreme Court ruled 100% along party
lines, with Justices Thomas and Scalia looming large in the proceedings.
Again, it's not conclusive, but it's interesting.
So the interesting SC vote, coupled with the conspicuous electoral
policies in Florida, coupled with the aggressive and thug-like tactics of
the Republicans in the days following the vote may at least give one pause.
In fairness, it would be more accurate of me to maintain simply that W
wasn't elected by the popular majority.
> > rather than elected, could he run for two more
> > terms? By way of counter-example, before Gore picked Lieberman, it was
> > speculated that Clinton might have been the running mate. Then Gore could
> > step down and leave Clinton in office for another four. This could
> > conceivably happen ad infintum...
> wow, scary! um, well... "thanks" for sharing that.
Woo-hoo! Clinton/Clinton in 2002--Hillary and Bill are back again! Now
*that* would be bread-and-circuses worth watching!
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
| (...) Oh for crying out loud. The "popular majority" that Gore supposedly won by was a smaller percentage than Bush won in florida, and well within the margin of error. Seriously, does anyone think Gore would be doing much different than Bush right (...) (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Freedom of Speech? W sez NO!
|
| (...) How so? There was an election, the results were certified, challenged in court, and allowed to let stand. You may not agree with all the various court decisions made by various courts(1) but it's a bit of a stretch to say he was appointed, ne? (...) (22 years ago, 26-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
