Lets censure Ford....

[bueno bob]

No, you just have to exchange "You" with "U". Hence:

originally posted by matt19
B) Im not inbred, nice try, and all u libs bitch about the same shit, dont call names when u all do it.

and whether u like it or not he got voted in so get more of blah blah blah...

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
You're on notice you little puke.

I'm not letting this become jcook11 v.2.0 in here.

THIS is your ONE thread to remain open complaining about your hero FORD

Keep it all to THIS thread. If you start your little library posting jihad in here spamming this forum with anti-FORD threads I'll shut you down faster than you can say "Malcom in the Middle"


I was against Nick's anti-Warham spamming as well, so don't try your little "liberal bias" rant either.

THIS forum is about the issues, and our differing opinions of them, not you feeling your pubes grow challenging FORD, or any of us for that matter.

Got it Sparky?

And I'm sure my fellow mods will cut you off at the knees if I'm not here to do it myself.

So keep your troll shit in THIS THREAD.

Start one more, and I'll own your Colorado Public School ass

-LM

Can i start one? Why does matt get all the fun? I'm starting one...and then one about you LM...and then one about Nick...and then one about that pinko Warham...god, his communist agenda sickens me...

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by FORD
Horseshit. I suppose if he were to spit out a string of crap like "I fukin hate all lawyers cuz they r stoopid poopyheads", you would call him a legal scholar as well? Maybe make him a partner in the firm?

Don't be ridiculous, Matt

Perhaps then you can explain to us how the Supreme Court "selected" a president. matt19 correctly recognized that it did not.

[FORD]

Bugliosi followed, and like the passionate, skilled and persuasive prosecutor that he is, laid out his convincing case: that the Bush v. Gore ruling was not based on the law -- meaning that the court knowingly and deliberately nullified the votes of 51 million and stole the election for George Bush.

He concluded "nothing could possibly be more serious in its enormous ramifications. It was the biggest and most serious crime in American history. And in a fair and just world, the five Justices responsible for that decision belong behind prison bars."

Bugliosi made his case point by point as if his audience was a jury.

1. The Justices in effect confessed to the crime, he said, by stating in the decision that the ruling only pertains to Bush v. Gore, not to other cases. "This is the first time in the 210-year history of the court that the court limited its ruling to the case before it," Bugliosi said. "If that ruling was based on the law, there's no way under the moon why they would have said it does not apply to other cases."

He quoted Scalia writing in 1996 that "the Supreme Court of the United States does not sit to announce unique dispositions. Its principal function is to establish legal precedent, to set forth principles of law that every court in America must follow."

"But not apparently in Bush v. Gore," Bugliosi said, "the only exception in the 210 year history of the court."

2. A couple of days before its infamous ruling, the court in effect handed the election to Bush when they stopped the manual recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court of some 60,000 undervotes. Bush's lead had shrunk to 154 votes when Justice Scalia intervened with an emergency order claiming that the count could cause "irreparable harm" to George Bush.

Said Bugliosi, "So even though the election is not yet decided, the incredible Scalia presupposes Bush won the election, and indeed has a right to win it, and any recount that shows Gore had won threatens irreparable harm to George Bush! Now if this doesn't show these five Justices were deliberately trying to steal the election for George Bush, what in the world would?"

And what empirical evidence, Bugliosi asked, could indicate that different counting standards in Florida would hurt Bush more than Gore?

"The highest court in the land told 60,000 Americas "We're going to protect your right to vote by not counting any of your votes."

3. Bugliosi made the case that the equal protection clause -- the basis for the court ruling -- is inconsistent with the Justices' own judicial philosophy going back to 1945. The court, he said, has always held that there is no equal protection violation unless the discrimination is intentional, something no one claimed in this case.

Bugliosi cited not only past cases, but also a case decided four months AFTER the election, in which "Scalia suddenly remembered after deliberate amnesia what the long-standing position of the court was in equal protection cases. And in the civil rights case of Alexander v. Sandoval there was no intentional discrimination and therefore no equal protection violation.

4. These five Justices, Bugliosi reminded the crowd, are all ardent Federalists who swear by the principle that state courts interpret state law -- yet they intervened in this case.

5. These Justices believe in judicial restraint, he continued, constantly arguing against judicial activism. "What could possibly qualify as judicial activism more than telling the American people: "You're not going to pick the president, we are!" Bugliosi asked.

"The fact that these five Justices have completely departed from what they would have almost reflectively and automatically done in 99 out of 100 cases is further evidence of their criminal state of mind."

6. The ruling stopping the vote count was issued in the form of a per curium opinion, which Bugliosi said, is almost always used in cases that are uncontroversial. Moreover, these opinions are unsigned and anonymously written.

"It's remarkable that arguably the most consequential and far-reaching decision that the decision the Supreme Court has handed down since February 1, 1790 -- which will undoubtedly alter the course of American and therefore world history -- was unsigned and anonymously written," Bugliosi said.

All of these points, he concluded, prove that these five Justices have committed a judicial coup d'etat and "the unpardonable sin of being knowing surrogates for the Republican Party instead of being impartial arbiters of the law."

Link

[Warham]

It doesn't matter.

Gore never won any of the post-election recounts.

I think there were at least five of them, including one done by USA Today and several other newspapers.

He wouldn't have won despite the court ruling.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
It doesn't matter.

Gore never won any of the post-election recounts.

I think there were at least five of them, including one done by USA Today and several other newspapers.

He wouldn't have won despite the court ruling.

Actually, the final count DID prove Gore won. Problem is that it just happenned to be finished the second week of September 2001, so by the time the results were published, the papers that ran the story at all, buried it three sections deep into the newspaper, rather than be accused of "questioning the legitimacy of the pResident in a time of national crisis".

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by FORD
Actually, the final count DID prove Gore won. Problem is that it just happenned to be finished the second week of September 2001, so by the time the results were published, the papers that ran the story at all, buried it three sections deep into the newspaper, rather than be accused of "questioning the legitimacy of the pResident in a time of national crisis".

This is true, to some extent. The NY Times front page article on Monday Sept 10 was all about exactly this...

the coincidence in the timing was crazy

[Warham]

From florida2000election.com...

"Isn't it true that the ballots have been reviewed by independent sources and that Gore really did win Florida? After all, Michael Moore says so!

No. The NORC study, funded by news organizations, reviewed all ballots that were disqualified in Florida (over 160,000) in order to categorize and analyze problems that exist with voting systems. Democrats point to the study in an attempt to justify Gore's behavior.

Not only do they distort the outcome of the study, Democrats use it in illogical manner. They say that Gore would have won under a "variety of tabulation scenarios." That is, if more manual recounting would have taken place, under some scenarios canvassing boards would have converted enough dimples and hanging chads into fresh votes for Gore and he would have overtaken Bush's lead.

This is a little like saying, "The St. Louis Rams would have won the Super Bowl under a variety of scoring scenarios." That is, if we go back and change history, as well as some of the rules of the game (let's say we score field goals as five points each!) they could pick up enough points to win.

The NORC study does not say who won Florida. Rather, it categorized and tabulated the number of dimples, hanging chads, overvotes, undervotes, etc. But a dimple is not a vote (unless you're on the Gore team!)

(I have created a section on the NORC study.)"

[FORD]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
This is true, to some extent. The NY Times front page article on Monday Sept 10 was all about exactly this...

the coincidence in the timing was crazy

Just as crazy as the FEMA team arriving in Manhattan and setting up shop on Sept 10th, you might say

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by FORD
Just as crazy as the FEMA team arriving in Manhattan and setting up shop on Sept 10th, you might say

???

I am not familiar with this...

[FORD]

Long Debunked "Rumor" Validated by Giuliani

FEMA in NYC prior to 9-11 for Project TRIPOD terror drill, scheduled for 9-12

Scoop | June 29 2004

As of this writing, June 2, 2004, the transcript of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's testimony to the 9-11 Commission during the May 18-19, 2004 hearings in New York is the only transcript of that hearing omitted from the Commission website ( http://www.9-11commission.gov).

Did Rudy say something wrong?

In case you missed it live, you can listen to his testimony in full at the WNYC radio website at: http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/28147. As Giuliani recounts his experience of the day of 9/11, and the evolving location of the Emergency Command Center that morning, you might want to pay special attention to what he says at the end of his prepared statement:

"... the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed."

Readers may remember that on the days immediately after 9/11/01 there was a nasty little rumor running around the internet that FEMA had arrived in NYC on Monday September 10, thus implying foreknowledge of the disaster. The source of the rumor was a September 13, 2001 interview between CBS News anchor Dan Rather and Tom Kennedy (later corrected to Kenney) of FEMA National Urban Search and Rescue. Here is a transcript of the brief interview:

Rather: "Tom Kennedy... Kenney, a rescue worker with the National Urban Search and Rescue, it's part of FEMA... "

Kennedy: "We're currently one of the first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York for this disaster. We arrived on late Monday night, and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today did we get a full opportunity to work the entire site."

The rumors which subsequently ravaged online chatrooms and 9/11 websites were officially denied by FEMA. In a November 15, 2001 WorldNetDaily piece titled "FEMA: No prior knowledge of 9-11: Agency dispels Net rumor, says team didn't arrive in NYC Sept. 10", Jon Dougherty wrote: ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=25329)

"The Federal Emergency Management Agency has said it did not have urban search and rescue teams in place in New York City prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, contrary to an Internet-based rumor alleging otherwise.

In the interview, Kenney misspoke when he said he and his team arrived in New York City and were "finally on the ground" and deployed by "Monday night. ... " If accurate, that would have meant the team arrived Sept. 10 - the night before the attacks.

According to a spokesman in the office of Vito Pizzi, who works in FEMA's federal coordination office, a total of 16 teams were put on alert or activated Sept. 11. Two of those teams were sent in to Ground Zero the next day, Sept. 12.

FEMA officials said Kenney, in the head of the moment, misstated his team's arrival date. Kenney could not be reached for comment."

The rumor of FEMA presence prior to 9/11 was so stubborn that it took another debunking in a September 5, 2002 Boston Herlad piece written by a Stephanie Schorow. Schorow recommends that 'X-File fiction' can be separated from fact with simple research and checking of multiple sources. In reference to the rumor that "FEMA sent the Urban Search and Rescue Team to New York City THE NIGHT BEFORE the attacks occurred!", Schorow writes:

"But if you search further, you'll see Tom "Kennedy'' is actually Tom Kenney, an officer from the Massachusetts Urban Search and Rescue Task Force; apparently Rather got the name wrong. Likewise, common sense dictates Kenney simply said Monday when he meant Tuesday.

To confirm, the Herald called the Kenney home on Cape Cod and spoke to Kenney's wife, who said that her husband did go to New York on Sept. 11, not Sept. 10. She explained that he was under extreme stress when Rather interviewed him, and added wryly that it was typical of her husband to confuse dates."

( http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...ald090502.html )

We should note that the actual wording of the debunking accounts does not deny that FEMA was in New York on September 10, it merely denies that the Urban Search and Rescue Task Force was not in New York on September 10. We should note that FEMA, when denying presence in NYC prior to 9/11 did not raise the possibility that there was confusion about the existence of a separate FEMA team for the scheduled 9/12 bioterror drill, a drill which we have learned is named Operation TRIPOD. It seems that prior to the Giuliani testimony there has been scant mentioning of the bioterror drill.

According to a May 22, 2002 Press Release from the NYC Office of Emergency Management, the TRIPOD, or 'Point-of-Dispensing' drill, was successfully held that day. The Press Release states:

"TRIPOD had originally been scheduled to take place on September 12th, 2001, at Pier 92 - which ironically had served as the temporary home of OEM shortly after the terrorist attacks on 9/11."

The release also mentions that the TRIPOD exercise is supported by "The Office of Justice Programs, through the Office for Domestic Preparedness". The Office for Domestic Preparedness was the effort assigned to Dick Cheney by George W. Bush on May 8, 2001. Although reports indicate that Cheney never convened any meetings of this Task Force prior to September 2001, it seems that there must have been some sort of planning involved with the organization and scheduling of Operation TRIPOD for September 12, 2001. With all of the unpleasant news of 9/11, it must have pleased Cheney that the scheduling of this drill made the pre-assembled emergency team immediately available to New York City. Who would have thought?

Major questions exist as to why FEMA would deny being in New York City prior to 9/11 without mentioning the 9/12 bioterror drill. These questions must now be addressed as the initial suspicions of those who learned of the Tom Kenney statement have been clearly validated. The coincidental presence of a large FEMA team in NYC at the location, Pier 92, which became the Command Center for the entire emergency operation is disturbing. An alert press and a legitimate 9-11 Commission should have raised this issue long ago.

Mr. Vito Pizzi, listed as FEMA Branch Chief was contacted for this article.

link

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by FORD
Link

If your only source of information about constitutional law is posted at "democrats.com," then you've got even more serious issues than I thought.

The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore stopped the manual recounts. It did not "select" the president, although we can all agree that this was the effective result of the decision. But the Supremes were not asked to rule on the election results themselves, and they did not do this. You telling matt19 to "read the Constitution" is nothing but BS.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
If your only source of information about constitutional law is posted at "democrats.com," then you've got even more serious issues than I thought.

The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore stopped the manual recounts. It did not "select" the president, although we can all agree that this was the effective result of the decision. But the Supremes were not asked to rule on the election results themselves, and they did not do this. You telling matt19 to "read the Constitution" is nothing but BS.

Ouch! I'm on the east coast and I heard that bitch-slap all the way over here!

[jcook11]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
You're on notice you little puke.

I'm not letting this become jcook11 v.2.0 in here.

THIS is your ONE thread to remain open complaining about your hero FORD

Keep it all to THIS thread. If you start your little library posting jihad in here spamming this forum with anti-FORD threads I'll shut you down faster than you can say "Malcom in the Middle"


I was against Nick's anti-Warham spamming as well, so don't try your little "liberal bias" rant either.

THIS forum is about the issues, and our differing opinions of them, not you feeling your pubes grow challenging FORD, or any of us for that matter.

Got it Sparky?

And I'm sure my fellow mods will cut you off at the knees if I'm not here to do it myself.

So keep your troll shit in THIS THREAD.

Start one more, and I'll own your Colorado Public School ass

-LM

Hey Lounge, leave me out of this shit, by the way WHO THE FUCK MADE YOU KING OF TRIBE? You gonna start acting like your Hitler loving friend? BAN ME YOU FUCKING MAGGOT!

[FORD]

Didn't take you long to get back on the meth, did it?