joeallen, yesterday, thanx for putting the details of dubya’s misadventures in the air national guard and his dubious (hey, I like that!— dubious dubya!) acceptance into hawvawd….
the comparison to those facts to the birthers by some people is ludicrous …..
equally ludicrous has been the comparison of the birthers to the facts of the stolen 2000 election…..it happened , folks!
The way the colorist has used brown in the glasses, it certainly could be interpreted as tea, if not also coffee or a cola drink. Just Plain Steve was simply making a joke, and I got it.
Nighthawks: Did you ever follow the recounts in Florida AFTER the Supreme Court ruling? Yes, it was finished, and No, Gore did NOT win. W did. Amazing how the left-leaning media kept that little tidbit out of the news isn’t it.
The bit about money going to enemies via phony charities doesn’t resemble anything that made the comments today.
It kinda resembles the Holy Land Foundation scandal, except that the monies were private, not public. It kinda sounds like the aid some nations give to the Palestinians, except that the money goes directly to terrorist leaders with no “charity” middleman. Such as this example:
Everybody knows the Supreme Court declared Bush the winner the firts time. Cowardly idiots elected him the second. Had they had the kugles to, they’ d have changed leadership in the middle of a war (which still happened) and showed the world how strong We The People truly are. But no, people had to show how weak we are, to stick with a loser who’s abused his position, power, and innocent folks.
There’s a reason why Florida puts a deadline on handing in ballots - to prevent what is known in Chicago as a “First Ward” election, by which the votes are recounted over and over until the votes tip in the direction desired by the counters. Four Democrat-run counties were counting the votes over and over. That sure looks like an attempt at election fraud.
Not provable in a court of law, though. But speaking of courts…
“Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by “later arbitrary and disparate treatment,” the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court’s scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the “safe harbor” provided by 3 USC Section 5)…
“Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court’s decision made new election law, which only the state legislature may do.”
Breyer and Souter signed on with that ruling, but disagreed on the remedy. Not sure how they explained the constitutionality of forcing Florida to change its ballot deadline for just this one occasion.
margueritem about 15 years ago
I want the scandal!
JP Steve Premium Member about 15 years ago
Tea in a glass? Perhaps brewed in a samovar? I sense a threat to Homeland Security!!!
Nighthawks Premium Member about 15 years ago
joeallen, yesterday, thanx for putting the details of dubya’s misadventures in the air national guard and his dubious (hey, I like that!— dubious dubya!) acceptance into hawvawd…. the comparison to those facts to the birthers by some people is ludicrous ….. equally ludicrous has been the comparison of the birthers to the facts of the stolen 2000 election…..it happened , folks!
carsc23 Premium Member about 15 years ago
The way the colorist has used brown in the glasses, it certainly could be interpreted as tea, if not also coffee or a cola drink. Just Plain Steve was simply making a joke, and I got it.
JanLC about 15 years ago
Nighthawks: Did you ever follow the recounts in Florida AFTER the Supreme Court ruling? Yes, it was finished, and No, Gore did NOT win. W did. Amazing how the left-leaning media kept that little tidbit out of the news isn’t it.
AKHenderson Premium Member about 15 years ago
The bit about money going to enemies via phony charities doesn’t resemble anything that made the comments today.
It kinda resembles the Holy Land Foundation scandal, except that the monies were private, not public. It kinda sounds like the aid some nations give to the Palestinians, except that the money goes directly to terrorist leaders with no “charity” middleman. Such as this example:
http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzJiMDQ0YjY0MTJlMzUyOGYzODY3OTkxZjVhY2NhNDA=
Perhaps the authors combined these two phenomena?
Noting the colors of the flag…does Grimm have a problem with blue states? :-)
mrprongs about 15 years ago
Everybody knows the Supreme Court declared Bush the winner the firts time. Cowardly idiots elected him the second. Had they had the kugles to, they’ d have changed leadership in the middle of a war (which still happened) and showed the world how strong We The People truly are. But no, people had to show how weak we are, to stick with a loser who’s abused his position, power, and innocent folks.
AKHenderson Premium Member about 15 years ago
There’s a reason why Florida puts a deadline on handing in ballots - to prevent what is known in Chicago as a “First Ward” election, by which the votes are recounted over and over until the votes tip in the direction desired by the counters. Four Democrat-run counties were counting the votes over and over. That sure looks like an attempt at election fraud.
Not provable in a court of law, though. But speaking of courts…
“Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by “later arbitrary and disparate treatment,” the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court’s scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the “safe harbor” provided by 3 USC Section 5)…
“Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court’s decision made new election law, which only the state legislature may do.”
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949/
Breyer and Souter signed on with that ruling, but disagreed on the remedy. Not sure how they explained the constitutionality of forcing Florida to change its ballot deadline for just this one occasion.
davidf42 about 6 years ago
Morning, Anniephans!
Waiting for Auntie Iphogene.