Will the Supreme court get involved in elections, or will it let Florida keep its republican electors? Any opinions- Pro or Con...?

I think the court should dismiss this case without predujdice and let bush stand as winner in this election.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 27, 2000

Answers

Even a Justice has to wonder whether he/she would want this "Arrogant Al" to be our next President.

Anyone who calls for a fair and honest count would not be disputing military absentee ballots. "Arrogant Al" is still a liar.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 27, 2000.

Gore wants to take all our guns, give our hard earned money to every welfare scam artist that wants it, and to top that off- He wants to let queers be boy scout leaders, so they can watch, (Leer), over our sons on weekend campouts. To Hell with that. Bush Won! Welfare is Over! Work or Starve! All you Deviant Queers get back in the closet. It is time for real Americans to stand up and put our foot down. Congratulations, President Bush!...

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 27, 2000.

Rolex,

Speaking of "Deviant Queers," do you happen to have the link for the website of the group having the initiative against the state employee medical benefits for same sex partners? I have been unable to find it.

I am not against gay whatevers....if some guy at work wants to talk about his hetero sex life in front of me, it would be sexual harrassment. If a gay person wants to reveal his sexual whatever, why is that not considered sexual harrassment?

Get your butt back in the closet!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 27, 2000.

I do not know anything about that initiative, marsha. I have nothing against queers as long as they act normal and don't show their deviant behavior. I think they should go to a doctor and get cured. You have to give them special treatment at work. I worked in a place that had one, and all this guy wanted to do was get someone, anyone, to make a comment about his sick lifestyle, so the queer could mount a lawsuit and retire. We were on to this game and just stayed away from this guy at all times. Why does this country reward Deviancy?

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 27, 2000.

Wow, this has been an interesting exchange in "I don't hate gays, I just don't ever want to hear or see them" double talk, but back to the original discussion point.

Rolex, Bush filed the federal lawsuit, so if the Supreme Court dismisses it, he loses the case (but not necessarily the election). The issue is whether the Florida Supreme Court was acting within its authority to continue the last recount. Again, if it doesn't get involved, the decision to allow the 3 county recount stands, which would be seen as a Gore victory (again, in the legal matter).

Wasn't this forum supposed to be about initiatives sponsored by Tim Eyeman?

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), November 28, 2000.

Well, in case misinformed citizen is not aware, I believe the webmaster for this page is still the same one who hosts http://www.lowertaxes.nu/

The forum rules do not prohibit discussions of other topics.

If all you care to see in this forum are topics that include "initiatives sponsored by Tim Eyeman," perhaps you should ignore the topic.

I do not want "gays" in my face, telling me their problems in regards to their sexual preferences, anymore than I want to hear about heterosexual peoples problems in regards to their sexual preferences. Private lives need to be private. How stupid are you anyway? Do you watch too much garbage on TV?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 28, 2000.

Wow, harsh words Marsha!

First off, I didn't say anything about it being prohibited to post things other than things about the Eyman initiatives. If you want to talk about other things, that's your call. Of course there are a plethora of other discussion boards out there specifically designed for the discussion of the presidential election. It's not prohibited to discuss plants on a sports talk call in show either, just a little weird.

Second, seeing as I commented on what Rolex first stated in this thread, that does kind of show that I don't particularly mind discussing other topics.

Third, you're completely off base in your final paragraph. I point out comments like "I am not against gay whatevers" followed by "Get your butt back in the closet!" and "I have nothing against queers" followed by "I think they should go to a doctor and get cured." and I'm the stupid one? People are free to their own opinions, but when they say one thing and then so completely contradict themselves moments later it either shows that they are trying to be deceptive in their views or that they're really clueless.

And by the way, if I'm the misinformed one, why was I the one that pointed out that Rolex had the Supreme Court case all turned around? And that now I'm informing you that sexual harassment laws DO cover homosexual comments that interfere with a reasonable work environment. It's just that keeping homosexuals completely out of your sight and mind isn't defined as reasonable.

Might want to get more informed Marsha. Try watching more trashy tv.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), November 29, 2000.

I would have to say that you are the stupid one. You totally ignored my main point. Private is private.

I do not care to hear about anyone’s preferences. It should never even become an issue.

If people like you were in charge, I could be forced to tolerate individuals whose preferences are for children or animals.

Hey, I don't need to know that stuff either!

Just because you idiots "accept" homosexual behavior to be acceptable, does not mean that it isn't right up there with pedophiles and bestiality. When you are willing to accept a person’s deviancy, you’re not far from accepting "other" forms of deviancy. If gays can't handle my unacceptance, then they need not bring it up!

Sicko!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 29, 2000.

You continue to amaze me Marsha.

Actually, your first point was to wonder why it's sexual harassment for a heterosexual person to talk about his sex life in front of you while it isn't sexual harassment for a homosexual person to do the same. I didn't ignore that point since I directly addressed it by telling you that assumption is incorrect.

And just pray tell do you know how things would be if people like me were in charge? I haven't told you ANYTHING about how I'd have things if I were in charge. What I have done is tell you how thing ACTUALLY are. You've done a gigantic leap in assumptions and then have the audacty to insult me based on that assumption.

Get a grip Marsha.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), November 29, 2000.

uninformed citizen,

Let me repeat myself again, since you still don't understand the point. Private is private and I do not need to hear about it. Trying to be obtuse in your reply does not change anything.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 29, 2000.

And furthermore Marsha, if you'd calm down for a moment from your rage, I'd like to shock you by agreeing to your statement that "private is private." But if I might be given the same liberty you've already taken in making a blind assumption, my guess is that your definition of what should remain private for a heterosexual person is not the same as what you think should remain private for a homosexual person.

For me, I'd be offended if ANY person at work was publicly making graphic or explicit comments about their sex life. But I wouldn't be offended if any person was talking about a non-descript date or holding hands while walking down a street.

Again, that may totally disgust you, and you have a right to feel personally offended, but something that the law doesn't consider offensive for a heterosexual person to do, for the most part, is not considered offensive for a homosexual person to do, and vice versa.

You can say "private is private" and "I'm not against gays" all you want, but as long as you hold homosexuals to a much higher privacy restriction you DO have something against gays and you ARE being hypocritical.

Finally Marsha, I've tried to be as civil to you as possible despite the fact that in this thread alone you've called me stupid, an idiot, and a sicko. It would be nice if you treated me with the same respect I have shown you, but it's your choice. It just shows how much character you have, or don't have.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), November 29, 2000.

Rage? It looks like the rage is on your end.

I object to someone with "deviant behavior" from getting special treatment or legislation. I do not condone violence directed at them for their chosen lifestyle. I also don't think I should be forced into giving them special treatment because of "sexual preference." I don't believe "sexual preference" should be grounds for any public policy toward any individual.

It is the public acceptance of that behavior as OK, that has lead to a confusion of morality in this nation. Why is one deviant's behavior OK and not another? How long before others claim they were born that way and deserve special treatment? Who draws the line of distinction?

Your original post was combatitive IMO, so you got called stupid. Tough luck.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 29, 2000.

"Keeping Homo's out of your sight and mind"

Sounds Reasonable to me.....

Christ destroyed Sodom for a reason; He can do it again.....

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 29, 2000.

Well, like I said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. One person's definition of a "preference" is another person's "right" to be treated like everyone else.

I do find it quite telling that a lot of the "gay bashers" out there will start out by saying "I don't have anything against gays, but..." and then detail what they have against them. I have a feeling that these people who rally behind the flag of moral decency are scared that the rest of society will not judge their morality too kindly unless they try to cloak their true feelings. What does it say about how proud a person's beliefs in their own views are if they feel they need to preceed them with a disclaimer?

And no Marsha, it isn't tough that you feel the need to insult me to get your point across. This exchange has shown me, and it looks like several other people, that your an intolerant hypocritical rash and petty person whose comments aren't worth the pixels they're displayed with, and I will treat them as such in further discussions.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), November 29, 2000.

Ah yes, you own the moral high ground now, even though your first post was full of disrespect and ridicule for Rolex and myself.

I said exactly what I meant. There is no "quite telling" about it. You want tolerant behavior from the masses. I say that same type of tolerance is leading us to higher crime, worse parenting and a general moral decline in this society.

If someone chooses a particular lifestyle, fine. Just don't ask for special status.

Just because you choose to "be tolerant" and "politically correct" does not mean that my point is less valid. Where do we draw the line? Whose should decide moral values and then force everyone to accept them? Should we pass special legislation to protect child molestors? Drug addicts? How about drunk drivers? If they have a strong enough lobby......

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 29, 2000.

Well put Marsha. This whole discussion can be summed up with one question:

Would you honestly let your child be in the boy scouts, if one of these, H***s was the Scout Master? I respond with a deafening, "HELL NO..."

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 29, 2000.

I'm with Marsha- No, I am even more adamant than Marsha.

While I would not pursue the issue as long as a homosexual kept their behavior private and with consenting ADULTS (as opposed to the NAMBLA ethos of nobody's too young), there is NO QUESTION that homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle that ought to be condemned as surely as bestiality, incest, or other immoral behavior ought to be condemned.

From a strictly pragmatic viewpoint, it is about as high a risk factor as you are going to get (in this country) for STDs.
Sure, ANYONE can get AIDS, but in this country the attributable risk due to homosexuality is HUGE. Same for Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, Gonorrhea, syphillis, lymphogranuloma venereum, etc., etc., etc.

This is a lifestyle that ought to be condemned, and universally condemned. That doesn't mean there ought to be persecution, either legal or otherwise, but clearly being homosexual is nothing anyone ought to be proud of, nor should they advocate the practice.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 29, 2000.

is it me, or is tolerance and understanding being confused with acceptance and validation...?

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), December 01, 2000.

to Rolex: You write: "Christ destroyed Sodom for a reason". You must have a different Bible than mine. I thought Sodom was destroyed long before the arrival of Christ. Furthermore, "Christ" has its roots in a Greek word meaning "anointed". So, just who or what anointed the "destroyer of Sodom"?

When I read the story of Sodom & Gomorrah, their real sin was inhospitality.

Ultimately, the Bible is a moral code with one basic message: It is evil for the strong to prey upon the weak.

I can sum up the Bible in three words: Isaiah 1:17. I can sum up Isaiah 1:17 in four words: "Do the right thing"!

If you believe bashing gays is the "right thing", then so be it. If you believe what those men did to that gay guy in Wyoming was the "right thing", well, that tells people a lot about you. I believe in the rule of law. No one should be beaten to death.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 02, 2000.

to Mark: You write: "From a strictly pragmatic viewpoint, it is about as high a risk factor as you are going to get (in this country) for STDs."

False! As far as I know, lesbians have the lowest rate of STDs.

There's nothing wrong with lesbianism, except, usually, the women aren't very good-looking to me. I'm not offended by lesbians. And, I would think most heterosexual women aren't offended, either.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 02, 2000.

Mathew- If you want to stick up for Sick, Deviant, Scumbags; that is your choice. Sodom was destroyed because it was full of Deviants. The moral to Sodom is: Straighten up, act like Normal people, get cured from this sickness, or be utterly destroyed... It is a very simple lesson. Amen.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 02, 2000.

to Rolex: Whatever. I don't believe in bashing other people because of their beliefs, ethnicity, etc.

In any case, your original topic was about the Supreme Court's decision. I believe Article II of the U.S. Constitution is pretty straight-forward, and the legislative branch gave the executive branch the power to set a deadline. Hence, I expect the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule the Florida Supreme Court.

However, I don't see what relevance this has, since Bush has already been certified the winner, and Al Gore is contesting the election, as permitted under the rule of law.

So, we should discuss the merits of Gore's case for contesting the election, requiring a manual re-count of 4 large, Democratic counties.

Personally, I am of the opinion that unless there is definitive proof of a vote-counting machine malfunctioning, I see no justification for a re-count. So far, the Gore camp has not produced any such malfunctioning, vote-counting machine.

The Gore camp seems to be arguing that there were defects with the equipment used to punch the ballot cards. However, this is a weak argument, since the voter has the PRIMARY responsibility to ensure their ballot is properly marked.

Furthermore, the Gore camp should have the burden of proof to produce the faulty punching equipment, and there should only be re-counts for the precincts which used such equipment.

The bottom line is that it makes no sense to perform a manual re- count, if the machines which counted the ballots are working fine. Manual re-counts are highly subjective, and, therefore, highly dubious. This simply opens the door for the Florida Legislature to select the electors on their own, again, overruling the courts via Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 03, 2000.

I wonder why IC never bothered to debate Mark on his repsonse....

-- ABCD (madeup@youlosebuckwheat.com), December 06, 2000.

Here we go again! Once more, the U.S. Supreme Court is in a position to make a decision, which may bring the election to an end.

The latest decision from the Florida Supreme Court translates in this: In a statewide election, when it's really, really close, ALL uncounted ballots must be manually counted. Furthermore, keep in mind that the reason the ballots were uncounted is due to voter error, not machine error.

Now, I've looked at the Florida laws (via the internet), which came up in the trial presided by Judge Sauls. And, to me, the context of the law is that you perform a FULL MANUAL RECOUNT because you have no choice AS A RESULT OF EQUIPMENT MALFUNCTION. No one has ever presented any firm evidence in a court of law showing actual equipment malfunction. In fact, during the trial in Talahassee, it came out that voter error was the most likely cause of the problems.

Nowhere in Florida Law does it say: Manually recount all uncounted ballots in a really, really close election, when the ballots were uncounted due to VOTER ERROR!!!

I don't see what choice the U.S. Supreme Court has, but to rule that the Florida Supreme Court made up a new law, contrary to Article II of the U.S. Constitution. However, I'm not user that the U.S. Supreme Court will necessarily resolve the issue, satisfactorily. The may very well throw it back to the Florida courts, one more time.

I would hope that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule that FULL MANUAL RECOUNTS are illegal when the probable source of error is VOTER ERROR.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 11, 2000.