The supreme courts has passed the football back to Florida. Judge Saul is waiting to see what the supreme court says before rendering his decision. The florida legislature is waiting for a ruling to fall their way before calling a special session and picking Bush Electors.

Does any Court or Jurisdiction, have the guts to decide this thing? I could solve this election in two minutes. My ruling would be: Bush won; all lawsuits regarding this election are null and void and....AND Gore is ordered to pay all of Bush's legal expenses. That about covers it.....

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 04, 2000

Answers

OK Rolex, Judge N. Sanders Sauls has ruled. We are one step closer to getting rid of Al Gore for at least 4 years.

If I were David Boies, I would advise my client of the political climate and tell him to concede. I don't believe the Florida Supreme Court will over rule the decision, I think they will let it stand.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 04, 2000.

From another thread, Rolex writes, in part:

"I believe in one man ,one vote, and to HELL with the high priced lawyers who would thwart the will of the people."

Interesting... Gore wins due to the popular vote.

-- Curious George (---@---.---), December 05, 2000.

You need to win the Electoral College not the Popular vote to become the President. Apology ACCEPTED...............

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 05, 2000.

I see, now. The will of the people only counts *sometimes*.

-- Curious George (---@---.---), December 05, 2000.

If the President was decided by the majority, so be it. It is not decided by the majority of people who live in large cities. Majority votes for President is simply un Constitutional. As BB and DB always rant: We have to follow the Constitution.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 05, 2000.

Yes, but as Curious is pointing out, you seem very clear in your resolve that the "will of the people" should trump everything else. You're trying to have it both ways and it isn't exactly working out for you.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 05, 2000.

Whatever... I have said my piece and I think I have said enough. Goodbye till next year.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 05, 2000.

Yeah Rolex, I agree, you've said enough.

See you next year.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 06, 2000.

Rolex,

If this forum takes up too much of your personal time and you have more important things to do, I understand your departure.

If you are leaving because of double speaking liberals (money spenders) trying to discredit you, then your departure is a mistake.

It is their intent to silence you. In the coming year, people will be drawn back on occasion to see what they can do to stop this proposed tax hike, or at the very least, to make sure voters get honest answers and options. It would be a shame if you were no longer participating.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 06, 2000.

Double speaking? Really Marsha, if you'd care to give us all an example of this, that would be most helpful.

As it is, your "private is private" (but more private if you're gay), and Rolex's "the will of the people should override the constitution" (as long as it comes out the way I want it to) comments come quickly to my mind when the term double talk is brought up. But again, if you'd care to show where one of the dissenters on this forum has engaged in double talk, that might help you back up what is right now a completely baseless claim.

And no, it is not my intent to silence Rolex. (Again, some sort of evidence to back up your claim would help you here.) Since when is engaging a person in debate and challenging their assertions an attempt at silencing them? I encourage him and anyone else to contribute to this discussion regardless of their views, and I would hope that his decision to stop posting is not due to feeling picked on. But I am not going to apologize if his feelings are hurt because I dared to question him. This is a discussion board, and if you want to share your opinions you better be prepared to have them questioned

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 06, 2000.

Did you take that comment to mean you?

In the discussion of the Blue Ribbons Report, BB claims the state doesn't have the right to encourage Transit Agencies to achieve a higher farebox recovery. Even though they clearly do.

He also claims Transit Agencies are no longer receiving funding from the State after I-695. They did, and I pointed him to the fact that the Blue Ribbon Commissions report expects funding will continue.

Both of those statements were incorrect. In the end, he talked around it. Double speak.

Private is private. Want me to tell you how mad I was that Republicans and press made us sit through all that Monica stuff?

"Yeah Rolex, I agree, you've said enough. See you next year."

Gee, that doesn't sound like it came from someone encouraging open debate of the issues.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 06, 2000.

Well seeing as only Curious and I were the only other ones participating in this thread....

And you said you don't like getting into a semantics debate, but in case you didn't realize it, to talk around something and to perform "double talk" are two VERY different things. Simply making an incorrect statement is NOT double talk!

Your last sentence is a laugh riot. Agreeing with Rolex that he's said enough on a certain subject is supposed to mean that I'm trying to silence him? I'm quite certain that Rolex, myself, everyone else, and even YOU knew that we were talking about how he didn't need to explain himself any further to get his view understood. And if I were trying to silence him, why would I say "See you next year"? Shouldn't I have said something like "don't come back" or "good riddance"?

Oh, and you claimed BB was trying to silence people too. Care to find a quote from him that you can take out of context and then reach really hard in order to try and save face?

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 06, 2000.

You poor thing! You have been wronged! I feel just awful about it!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 06, 2000.

I will admit to having a bit of fun at the expense of Rolex. But my intention was never to try to silence him.

We were having a nice dialog where, eventually, I would have asked Rolex to reconcile his staunch defense of the Constituion in one instance, and his preference for "one man, one vote" in another. I was about to ask which was more correct - or did it depend on the outcome of any one vote.

I.C. simply beat me to it.

Rolex, buddy... If you're still out there, come on back. We miss ya, guy.

As for Marsha and I.C.... Well, if you kids can't play nice, then go out in the yard. :)

-- Curious George (---@---.---), December 06, 2000.

IC

"Well seeing as only Curious and I were the only other ones participating in this thread.... "

How did you come to that conclusion? It looks as if I joined this thread before you. Maybe your so busy snarling and drooling you can't see to read!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 06, 2000.

Marsha -

Please read your quote of I.C. carefully:

"...Curious and I were the only *other* ones participating..."

-- Curious George (---@---.---), December 06, 2000.

>>In the discussion of the Blue Ribbons Report, BB claims the state doesn't have the right to encourage Transit Agencies to achieve a higher farebox recovery. Even though they clearly do.<<

I said that the state has no right to demand anything out of a system that they don't *operate*, and analogizing local transit systems to the state ferry system. If the state gives funding to local transit systems, they're welcome to attach whatever strings they want to that funding.

>>He also claims Transit Agencies are no longer receiving funding from the State after I-695. They did, and I pointed him to the fact that the Blue Ribbon Commissions report expects funding will continue.<<

They received funding through FY 2000, after which it all goes away. The only reason that they received this funding is because there is a one year lag between the collection of the MVET and its distribution. That means the money they are now receiving was collected in 1999. When the MVET went away, the money went away, but it took a year for it to hit transit districts.

The Blue Ribbon's report expects a lot of things, but none of its recommendations are guarantees. The reason why a number of different transit agencies have had to go to voters with sales tax increases is because they aren't getting MVET $ any more from the state.

There's no doublespeak. The state is getting out of the business of providing funding for local transit systems in fashion they did before 695. This could change, but it doesn't look like it'll be a priority for Olympia, considering most localities have filled the gap by increasing local taxes.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 07, 2000.

"The only reason that they received this funding is because there is a one year lag."

Try six months. My information comes from the Director of a Transit Agency. Where are you getting yours?

Are you telling me the state paid NO funds to Transit Agencies to bail them out?

IF Locke and/or the Legislature present transportation tax increases to me as a voter, that has the intention of paying a portion of Transit funding, it is reasonable for me as a taxpayer to expect a higher farebox recovery.

If Locke and/or the Legislature do not include Transit funding in their transportation tax plan, then I agree I/we would not have the right to expect a higher farebox recovery.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 07, 2000.