posted on December 13, 2000 09:10:03 AM
[i]Stupid people don't make good presidents.
[/i]
Ahhh, but they make wonderful puppets.
Bush has already shown how "disengaged" he is from the work of being President -- allowing/encouraging Dick Cheney to do all the heavy lifting. And Cheney and Baker et. al. are all just thrilled to fill in for him. Looks like George Bush has just won himself a 4-year vacation. Lucky boy.
posted on December 13, 2000 10:04:15 AM
"America is still about freedom after all."
No- America is now the laughing stock of the world. I can hear it now - "Can you believe in America they voted in a drug addict/alcoholic who cannot read or even pronounce our country?!!"
Jay Leno and David Letterman's writers are thrilled. They now have a brainless task at hand for the next four years.
Gore won the popular vote and Georgey Porgy will now eat his pie but I will never consider him the winner. He can sit in the seat and play with daddy's old toys but he will never be known as a leader and I will watch him make blunder after blunder and remind the ones who voted for him that he is their great leader.
posted on December 13, 2000 10:11:36 AM
Carole, I thought you jumped off this particular bandwagon of being obnoxious? What happened, the thrill of winning get to you and we are now THEM and THEY again?
posted on December 13, 2000 10:44:20 AM
One good thing about Dubya leaving for Washington, DC. Texan education level jumps from 49th to 40th and the average Texan IQ nearly doubles
posted on December 13, 2000 11:23:45 AM
While many supporters of each candidate have made shrill, stupid, and sore pronouncements (such as those leading this thread) I believe that both Gore and Bush have personally maintained totally respectible reserve throughout this ordeal.
posted on December 13, 2000 12:07:25 PM
I didn't intend to post in this thread because I don't think the originating POST is worth getting moderated over. But I have to say, I can't understand the need to keep trying to equate dislikable posts to a certain someone from the distant past. Why does it matter and who cares??? Sheeeesh!
posted on December 13, 2000 02:37:12 PM new
[KRS] I was here. As one who mainly observes, imho it looks like y'all can't let it go, like you're obsessed with it. By doing this you give someone power over this board.....still talking about it a year later.
Newsflash folks, there are many more than one, ten, ten thousand, obnoxious people in the world and surely you can't believe that there is only one who has posted or is posting on this board.
Claiming or speculating that anyone who prattles, piffles or pontificates to infuriate or goad others, is B is tiresome. And even if it were so, so what! B as B will never be back here, learn to deal with D, E, F and G.
posted on December 13, 2000 04:29:27 PM new
Yes, the Democrats did try to steal this election. And the Republicans also tried to steal this election. The only real difference is, the Republicans did it successfully. George W. got the presidency like the U.S. got the Panama Canal, he stole it fair and square. The U.S. eventually relinquished the Panama Canal, as George W. will the presidency.
That's the way of politics. To see that one party's members believes the lies and half-truth put out by their party, while not recognizing that the other party's members believe the lies and half-truths put out by their own party is to miss the real picture.
One of the dissenting justice's remarks in the last U.S. Supreme Court's opinion, his reference to the Worcester vs. Georgia case has gotten me to wondering if it could be that there's a parallel to the 2 situations that we don't know yet. If it's true, I wonder if we'll ever know.
The Worcester vs. Georgia case, of which, President Andrew Jackson reportedly said afterwards, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it," (and, of course, John Marshall and the U.S. Supreme Court couldn't enforce it, and that inability to enforce it led to the "Trail of Tears" ) was the second of the two Cherokee Indian cases. The first case, Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, had come before the U.S. Supreme Court the year before, and the U.S. Supreme Court then had ruled against the Cherokee's position.
After the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against the Cherokees, John Marshall, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, worked with the lawyer for the Cherokee Nation and instructed the lawyer on how to frame a legal argument that the U.S. Supreme Court could rule on in his favor.
So the next year, the same lawyer, with his case that was constructed by John Marshall, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court himself, brought the situation before the Supreme Court again, in Worcester vs. Georgia. This time, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Cherokees' favor.
So I wonder if, by referring to Worcester vs. Georgia, this dissenting Justice could possibly be hinting at something other than what he says he's illustrating by repeating Jackson's purported remarks. In my own skimmed reading of the decision and dissents, I didn't see how Jackson's purported quote was relevant, on its own, to this situation.
