And ignoring that all three of them are still supposed to be for the people.

Not the corporations, not the special interests, not the stock market.

 

Nonsense. The petitioner in the case was none other than George W. Bush, who was trying to halt the manual recount mandated by the Florida Supreme Court.

 

Gore sued Harris in Florida, this was the start of the court battle which ended at the US Supreme Court. Examine the process from start to finish, not just the finish.

https://www.re-quest.net/g2g/politics/election-2000/index.htm

If Gore had carried his "home" state Florida would have been a non-issue.

Again, get over it.

 

As usual, you're full of it. Gore was perfectly within his rights to petition the courts in Florida. It was their election, under the U.S. Constitution. It was George Bush who took the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, in order to PREVENT a manual recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court from occurring.

And Gore's "home" state is Tennessee...but what that has to do with anything is beyond me. When has it ever been necessary to carry one's home state to win a national election?

Lastly, I have no intention of "getting over it". Not when the U.S. Supreme Court was instrumental in fixing a presidential election.

 

Why do you refuse to admit that it was Gore's suit that starrted the whole thing. Was it not Bush's right to challenge the state courts findings in federal court?

 

The federal courts had no authority over the conduct of Florida's election, and the Supreme Court should not have heard the case. That's why they conjured up that bogus interpretation of the equal protection clause, and then promptly said it had no further applicability.

Aren't you the one that spends a lot of time arguing for states' rights, tenguy?

And let me make another point one more time. Gore was arguing in favor of COUNTING the votes. Bush was arguing to STOP counting the votes. Who had the moral high ground, in your opinion?

 

Let's see. Fannie and Freddie have both been run by Democrats at the head and all major offices since before Clinton was elected. If you wish to dispute reality, please do some research, so we don't have to bore everyone with you making silly and patently stupid arguments.

Do you want people to work or not? Or, do you want to try to repeat the former USSR's miserable economic failure? See, you rant on and on about fatcats and other irrelevant crap, failing to realize this has NOTHING to do with malfeasance, and everything to do with the excessive burdens on business that have absolutey no bearing on "ethics". Frankly, your statements reveal you have no idea what on earth you're talking about. Nor do you have any idea what I'm talking about. You are utterly and completely ignorant about all matters business and economic, apparently. And, that's approximately the state of about 80% of the country. That's why "following the crowd" is so insanely stupid.

Homework, then. Since you do not understand even the most fundamental facts about what's going on, nor have you any knowledge of history, this IS going to be rough on you.

First, I suggest you find out what percentage of government spending, specifically FEDERAL, consists solely of taking one person's money and giving it to someone else. Then, figure out what percentage of the federal receipts come from business and what come from individuals.

Then, realize that BUSINESS NEVER PAYS TAXES. Never. They are simply an expense they pass on to the consumers of their products. Built into the price of EVERYTHING, and deducted from the pay of every employee, is the taxes levied on business. Consumers pay 100% of all taxes and always will. However, you can make WHERE you put the business and WHO GETS EMPLOYED more or less attractive by how much you handicap business by imposing costs upon it to be born by the customers.

It's like this... NYC... You can start a business somewhere the mob controls things, or somewhere it doesn't. Which would you choose? Where you pay a tax to the mob for breathing and working, or where you don't? That's a no brainer. In your emotional and juvenile fit of temper tantrum, you've completely abandoned all understanding or even the wish to understand what's going on and just act out of anger and vengeance against other people. Your actions only make the employees suffer, in a misguided and ignorant fit of rage, directed at making a certain segment of the population your political enemy and wanting to hurt them.

Sad to say, you have absolutely NO understanding of anything you've talked about. None. Complete ignorance. Not particularly your fault... Just a failulre to be adult about things and find the truth. Instead, you're content to let other people do the thinking and you just go along with it. Except their thinking is all about how to control YOU, not how to make your life better.

Economic ignorance is rampant in this country. That's because it is not taught in school, the entire left endlessly preaches stuff that makes you know less than nothing, because nothing it says is true.

And, just so you'll have some clue here... The GOP has NOT been "conservative", though a few members of it are. Not since the early days of Clinton, when they briefly behaved conservatively, has the GOP been conservative. Throughout the latter Clinton years, and ever since, they've just been "liberal lite", parrotting mostly the same garbage as the Democrats.

So, please do not argue that "conservatives" have been running the show. There hasn't been an ACTUAL "conservative" government - one which would repeal the sins of liberalism and tear down all the horrifyingly bad nonsense that's been constructed by it since the days of FDR.

 

So, when you have nothing intelligent to say, you just accuse the other guy of a bunch of absurdities? I never said anything even remotely like the above, but that's your answer.

Apparently, your choice of action is driven by politics and not integrity. Seriously, you could have responded to me, but chose to play political games, instead. How predictable. And, saddening, too. After all, there's LOTS of very valid scientific minds and research and theories which are completely contradictory to the "global warming" noise, but you're not willing to be open minded. Instead, this is political war you want to "win", science be damned. You do not even acknowledge that there's a wide array of scientific opinion on the topic. Instead, you choose to simply misrepresent what I said.

I think that pretty much sums up the left. Dishonesty, vengeance, anger, hatred, and greed.

 

Ah yes, there hasn't been a REAL conservative in the White House since Herbert Hoover, is that what you're saying? How did THAT work out for you, mrdk? But by all means, let's bring back those halcyon days, when government wouldn't think of regulating the free market. Oh, wait...we DID bring back those days.

As for businesses not paying taxes...they sure do a great job of lobbying against them. And, for that matter, lobbying FOR tax breaks. Why would it matter to them at all if they're not the ones who pay?

By the same logic, you could argue that people don't pay taxes either, since without an employer or a business with customers, they wouldn't have any income to tax.

 

You are 200 percent wrong. Deliberately untruthful and deliberately wrong.

SCOTUS did have ONE thing they oversee... and that is the conduct of the state's courts.

You see, Gore went to the court and argued that the LAW WAS WRONG and the court then proceeded to ignore the law and attempt to write procedures and wishes into the election process. In other words, the Florida court decided to run the election according to its own wishes. That's not within the powers of any court.

SCOTUS slapped the court down and told them they had to follow the law. Whatever you might think of the law, the law is the law, and the FL Supremes are bound to it.

Gore wasn't interested in counting votes. Gore was interetested in "selective counting" until he found a way to manipulate the count to his victory, AND THEN STOP COUNTING.

The florida ballots have been counted, repeatedly, by multiple organizations, and nobody has ever found a valid count methodology that made Gore win. Nobody. Most found that Bush won by a much larger margin than the official count.

Like I said. the left must lie. It cannot win on truth.

 

All of your shouting doesn't change the facts. Deal with this truth:

 

Your statements are silly. Juvenile. They're an insult to the idea of intelligent conversation. You know that's all absurd nonsense, but you wrote it. You insult yourself, and that's just plain bad.

I mean, seriously. You know what you want to imply is both dishonest and false, but yet, you're going to try. That's embarassing, Kimiko. Don't go there.

Where did I say Hoover was a "conservative"? I didn't, of course. A "conservative" in the twenties was a completely different meaning than that of today. What I said was, that there has not been a conservative government in place since the time we started this massive leftward drift toward collectivism and centralized control and planning. And that's entirely true.

See, before FDR, the percentage of federal spending was... LESS THAN FIVE PERCENT OF GDP. And the states rarely consumed more than the feds. So, total government spending was well under ten percent of GDP. Even the WWI spending peaked at only 25 percent. Even during the Korean and Vietnam war, the government spent LESS of our GDP than today. And suddely, we're going to raise this from the low twenties to expected 33 percent in 2 years.

No nation can tax that much. It's a proven fact. When it tries, people's behavior changes and revenues fall. Tax business, and you'll have less of it. Tax investment, and you'll have less of it. Tax profits, and you'll have less of them. Tax individual wealth, and they will leave or hide it offshore.

And why do businesses lobby for lower taxes? Because taxes are a very large burden and impediment to operation.

 

Do not quote wikipedia as fact. Wikipedia is NOT fact and is generally just pop nonsense.

It is interesting, it's fun for casual information, but if you want hard fact... wikipedia will never be reliable.

 

Wow, I've never seen someone so damned determined to be wrong and remain wrong. You even lie to yourself.

 

As it happens, in this case they provided source documentation.

 

So much for Obama's speech.

 

No shit,,,,but it is amusing none the less.

 

I guess that's one way to look at it.

 

And I suppose YOUR opinions have nothing to do with politics...right? Give me a break.

But I do have the advantage of having the vast majority of legitimate climate scientists on my side of the issue, a small fact you seem to want to ignore. Why don't you look a little deeper, provide some documentation instead of hot air, and check out the peer-reviewed scientific journals on the subject. But you have no more regard for science than you do for anything or anyone else who might disagree with your ideology. You're just in ignorant blowhard whose brain has been rotted away by listening to Rush Limbaugh too much.

 

Sad, so sad.