![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Agincourt wrote:
> In 2000 the United States supreme court ruled, along partisan lines, > that a vote recount of unread ballots, in a state governed by Bush's > brother, should cease. This granted the Presidency to George W Bush. Chief justices are apointed for life, and once appointed beholden to nobody. #the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court acted entirely properly. > > There are no such allegations of corruption in the United States' > election of 2000. However, there is a widely held belief that legal > gerrymandering by both sides in the bipartisan election was > commonplace. Furthermore, in the contested state, inferior equipment > was on hand at polling stations in poorer areas. The result was that > the less advantaged, more likely to vote for the Democrats, were more > likely to have their ballots unread. Watch out, the Black Helicopters are chasing you. Gaz |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:07:21 +0000, Agincourt
<agincourt.dont@spam.agincourt.net> wrote: >On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 23:48:29 -0000, "Gaz" <gazter@msn.com> wrote: > >>Agincourt wrote: >>> In 2000 the United States supreme court ruled, along partisan lines, >>> that a vote recount of unread ballots, in a state governed by Bush's >>> brother, should cease. This granted the Presidency to George W Bush. >> >>Chief justices are apointed for life, and once appointed beholden to nobody. > > >That's as may be. They still ruled on partisan lines. > That statement is unsupportable. --- COFFEE.EXE missing Insert CUP and press ENTER to retry. Signaleer http://signaleer.blogspot.com This Day in U.S. Military History http://tdiumh.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:40:56 +0000, Agincourt
<agincourt.dont@spam.agincourt.net> wrote: >On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 01:48:45 GMT, RTO Trainer ><bill.white@us.HOOAH.army.mil> wrote: > > >>>That's as may be. They still ruled on partisan lines. >>> >> >>That statement is unsupportable. > > >Consider the unsupportable supported. Forget the papers. Go look at the decisions in question, the actual court documents. --- COFFEE.EXE missing Insert CUP and press ENTER to retry. Signaleer http://signaleer.blogspot.com This Day in U.S. Military History http://tdiumh.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 09:10:22 +0000, Agincourt
<agincourt.dont@spam.agincourt.net> wrote: >On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 03:21:20 GMT, RTO Trainer ><bill.white@us.HOOAH.army.mil> wrote: > > >>>Consider the unsupportable supported. >> >>Forget the papers. Go look at the decisions in question, the actual >>court documents. > > >What are you saying: That the 5-4 vote was not a conservative-liberal >split? I thought that was pretty clear. Go look it up. You'll never beleive me if I just tell you and you may learn something. --- COFFEE.EXE missing Insert CUP and press ENTER to retry. Signaleer http://signaleer.blogspot.com This Day in U.S. Military History http://tdiumh.blogspot.com |
|