Why Do Democrats Keep Siding With Criminals?

[aquapub]

LOL!!!!!

You have created a straw man here which could actually be the rear side of a horse and covered it with manure.

When you present topics like this, do your really think they should be given the dignity of debate?:roll:

So....you posted my intro....full of facts and evidence proving that liberals constantly side with criminals....and THIS is your big devastating counterpoint?

Vauge smearing?....THIS is what doesn't deserve the "dignity" of debate.

How bout presenting some form of actual argument? :roll:

 

[aquapub]

Yes the Republicans have had their share……but so have the donkeys.


I’m still tryin to figure out how Clinton in his last day in office pardoned 140 criminals. One hundred and forty!!!!!

http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2001/02/clinton_money_t.php



Then He pardoned the Puerto Rican terrorists…….

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1106506/posts

http://www.virtualboricua.org/Docs/salon01.htm

And the cover-up…

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2001/printer_838.shtml


Interesting…..

”






Not so fast. In the case of Jeff Hurley…the ACLU represented the two who raped and killed him.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/949422/posts

And for an organization who stands on their “free speech” tower…
They wanted a gag order placed on the case and the boys parents.

Guess they didnt want to give the parents free speech.

Can you just imagine having your son killed in the way those beasts killed Jeff........to sodomize, shove a rag soaked with gasoline down his throat.....and kill him......chop his body up and put in tupperware containers......and then keep your mouth shut?

Wow. Somebody who gets it.


We are at war in this country...and liberals always seem to be playing for the other side.

 

[TurtleDude]

Wow. Somebody who gets it.


We are at war in this country...and liberals always seem to be playing for the other side.

must be the enemy of their enemy is their friend?

 

[aquapub]

Another liberal has allowed another pedophile get off...

FOXNews.com - No Justice in Vermont? - Bill O’Reilly | The O’Reilly Factor

 

[reaganburch]

Another liberal has allowed another pedophile get off...

FOXNews.com - No Justice in Vermont? - Bill O’Reilly | The O’Reilly Factor

Yeah, I saw that on The Factor Friday and last night... I don't understand how the prosecutor and the judge can let that guy off with that type of sentence.

And Vermont has also decided not to pass Jessica's Law for some reason. It appears, at least on the surface, that Vermont is a child predator's paradise. If someone wants to prey on children, you can go to Vermont and not get punishment for it...

I don't see how ANYBODY can defend that sentence or lack thereof..

 

[dragonslayer]

I know the usual Democrat apologists will try to deny that liberals constantly side with criminals over middle America, so let’s put that one to rest right now…

1) A gigantic spotlight has been shined on two liberal judges in Vermont and Massachutes (largely due to Bill O’Reilly) who recently sentenced one man to 60 days and the other to NO TIME at all, both for child rape. One judge explained his decision by saying he does not believe in punishment anymore. Spoken like a true liberal. These cases are FAR from isolated, but they are the most infamous right now.

FOXNews.com - Worst Judge Award? - Bill O’Reilly | The O’Reilly Factor



2) It is common knowledge that criminals overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. This is why Democrats keep trying to give violent felons the right to vote. In Election 2000 they claimed Al Gore would have won if only violent felons (you know, the people who have proved themselves to have horrible judgment) were allowed to help determine who our representatives were. Of course, Democrats claim that it’s racist to prevent so many blacks from voting-with no mention of the fact that no one forces blacks to commit the violent crimes. Like many, many other things, Democrats play the race card to distract from the appalling reality of what they are advocating, and to camouflage their calculated, self-serving, partisan intent.

But of course, Democrats would never trust a violent ex-felon’s 2nd Amendment rights because…they’ve demonstrated how horrible their judgment is…but we can trust their judgment to pick the leaders of our country.


3) In addition to fighting for the rights of sex-offenders to not be tracked and registered; in addition to arguing in a Kansas City courtroom that a 15 year old boy has a Constitutional right to sleep with grown men; in addition to fighting Jessica’s law; in addition to fighting mandatory minimum sentences for molesters, the ACLU (backed and funded by Democrats-and tax dollars) has now decided to represent, in every single state, NAMBLA-the pro-molestation group-free of charge, in trials all over the country, at a MAXIMUM expense to taxpayers.

Deroy Murdock on ACLU & NAMBLA on National Review Online

4) It is overwhelmingly well-known that those who oppose the death penalty are almost always Democrats (and Bill O’Reilly).

5) Democrats have whined, moaned about and opposed EVERY SINGLE ACTION the president has taken to prevent further terrorist attacks since 9/11. Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, wiretapping terrorist phone calls, taking out a genocidal terror sponsor in Iraq and giving the terrorists a VOLUNTEER MILITARY target instead of a Lower Manhattan CIVILIAN target….EVERY SINGLE THING.

And they haven’t just opposed these things, they’ve used them to incessantly smear Bush and compare him to Hitler. Republicans actually DO something about foreign threats. None of it has been unconstitutional, and the American people overwhelmingly have supported most of the president’s national security decisions-because they are things we should have been doing for the FIRST decade in which Bin Laden was attacking us with impunity. But at that time, we had a criminal-friendly Democrat in office, so we spent that time further tying the hands of the FBI and the CIA instead.

6) Democrats are the ones who made it so that ILLEGAL aliens could come to this country and face no consequences. They are also the reason ILLEGAL aliens qualify for welfare benefits and free healthcare at our expense.

WorldNetDaily: Illegal aliens threaten U.S. medical system


7) Perhaps if sleazy, ambulance-chasing, economy-raping trial lawyers weren’t such a huge source of campaign contributions to Democrats, Democrats wouldn’t constantly give the clients of trial lawyers everything under the sun at taxpayer expense. Trial lawyers give almost exclusively to Democrats.

Trial Lawyers Inc. Health Care
Jim Copland on Trial Lawyers and Election 2004 on National Review Online

Now that we have preemptively put to rest any potential attempts to blur the issue, let’s have an honest discussion about why liberals side with criminals.

where did those darn liberal side with Criminals? I'll tell ya where. the first two are those nasty guys Dulay and Rove. liberals like people so they would have to love creeps like Rove and Dulay.

 

[aquapub]

Yeah, I saw that on The Factor Friday and last night... I don't understand how the prosecutor and the judge can let that guy off with that type of sentence.

And Vermont has also decided not to pass Jessica's Law for some reason. It appears, at least on the surface, that Vermont is a child predator's paradise. If someone wants to prey on children, you can go to Vermont and not get punishment for it...

I don't see how ANYBODY can defend that sentence or lack thereof..

Liberals have been the primary obstacle to Jessica's Law, Megan's Law, going after NAMBLA, maintaining sex offender registrations...for every measure against pedophiles, there is a liberal in the way.

Liberals are also the ones who started this idiocy about building more jails not being the answer. All they focus on is "fixing" the criminal, rather than admitting that sex offenders don't change and agreeing to permanently get them out of society on their first offense.

 

[reaganburch]

Liberals have been the primary obstacle to Jessica's Law, Megan's Law, going after NAMBLA, maintaining sex offender registrations...for every measure against pedophiles, there is a liberal in the way.

Liberals are also the ones who started this idiocy about building more jails not being the answer. All they focus on is "fixing" the criminal, rather than admitting that sex offenders don't change and agreeing to permanently get them out of society on their first offense.

I hate using generalities, but I believe the ones standing in the way of Jessica's Law & Megan's Law ARE liberals... although, I'm sure that not all liberals feel that way...

I CANNOT understand how ANYONE can be against Megan's Law, Jessica's Law, punishment for child molestors, etc.... I'd love to talk with somebody who agrees that someone who rapes a 4-year shouldn't get jail time... is there anybody on this board who feels that way and has the courage to state their opinion?

It's just astonishing to me that someone who hears that a 4-year old boy was raped repeatedly over a period of time, the perpetrator gets PROBATION, and then says... yeah, that sounds about right...

Is there anybody on this board from Vermont or Ohio, has heard about these cases or agrees with the judges/prosecutors?

 

[WMDLIAR]

I will take your avoidance of the topic as a confirmation that you have no argument.

OMFG! x2. WTH?! :spin:

 

[WMDLIAR]

I completely agree with you. Proof of your argument is Hilary siding with Bush on Iraq.

:spin: :2wave:

 

[ptsdkid]

The overall answer to your question as to why liberals embed with criminals, is because they're own lifestyle is criminally oriented. They support policies that favor the criminal, i.e. the prevention of capital punsihment for our most evil criminals; the acceptance of and support of abortionists to murder our precious and innocent youth; the continuance of class warfare of pitting the rich against the poor in hopes of evening out the playing field into some sort of socialist (unionized)--(equal rights) state; the need to over tax the rich--thus crippling our economy and further enhancing the welfare/socialist state. Liberals probably have no clue that they've been on the side of our enemies in every American war to date--thus their need to undermine our soldiers and war missions by ridiculing our prison guards, and handcuffing our president during war by creating frivolous and needless wiretapping proceedures. Remember how the liberals sided with the Sandanistas (Marxists/Socialists) in South America, while Reagan was helping the Contras by jailing Noreiga? Should be interesting to see the liberal accolades once their hero Castro takes his final dirt nap.

 

[Alkaline]

The overall answer to your question as to why liberals embed with criminals, is because they're own lifestyle is criminally oriented. They support policies that favor the criminal, i.e. the prevention of capital punsihment for our most evil criminals; the acceptance of and support of abortionists to murder our precious and innocent youth; the continuance of class warfare of pitting the rich against the poor in hopes of evening out the playing field into some sort of socialist (unionized)--(equal rights) state; the need to over tax the rich--thus crippling our economy and further enhancing the welfare/socialist state.

First, you're talking about the policies associated with liberals, not their lifestyle.
Second, these policies are not inherently criminal. Unfortunately, any political party can espouse any policy under the fourth amendment. Claiming that banning Capital Punishment creates any kind of danger to the American populace is strictly unfounded. Respected Economist Steven D. Levitt has done research on the relationship between crime and many other variables and determined that instituting Capital Punishment has had no effect on the crime rate. We can go in to this in more depth later if you choose. I can not argue with you about your positions on abortion and class warfare because no matter what evidence I put forward your mind will not be changed. What I will say is that you should tolerate the opinions of others. As to your economics claims, I refer you to another thread which has already well digested those claims here http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/15368-explanation-progressive-taxation.html#post431766

Liberals probably have no clue that they've been on the side of our enemies in every American war to date--thus their need to undermine our soldiers and war missions by ridiculing our prison guards, and handcuffing our president during war by creating frivolous and needless wiretapping proceedures. Remember how the liberals sided with the Sandanistas (Marxists/Socialists) in South America, while Reagan was helping the Contras by jailing Noreiga?

Wouldn't you say that EVERY is a little strong? A Democratic president fought WWI (and refrained from entering as a result of the conservative ideology of isolationism) while a republican congress struck down a treaty that would have helped stabilize Europe. If by the prison guard reference you meant Abu Ghraib, please clarify your position on the release of those photos. I think all people, even Americans, should be held accountable for human rights abuses. By the same token, the President of the United States must act within the confines of the Constitution. I hope you don't mean "constitutional" when you said "frivolous and needless."

Should be interesting to see the liberal accolades once their hero Castro takes his final dirt nap.

This is silly. Liberal ≠ Communist.

 

[aquapub]

This is silly. Liberal ≠ Communist.

But liberals defended, lied for, and sided with Communists throughout the entire Cold War, enabled Communists to take over most of Asia, knowingly promoted exposed Communist spies to more powerful positions in Washington, and everyone from Stephen Spielberg to Cindy Sheehan has made the pilgrimage to Castro's Cuba to call it a "paradise."

You may want to bust PTS's balls over the finer differences between American liberals and the Communists they routinely aid, but they are, at the very least, on the same side.

 

[DaMilkman]

Uhhh, Bush did just pardon Scooter Libby. Who exactly sides with criminials?

 

[Cold Highway]

If I was a judge I would give pedophiles the death penalty. Sick pieces of ****.

 

[argexpat]

OK, Aquapub, your belabored "argument" can be boiled down to this: "Democrats/Liberals are pedophile/terrorist/communist-coddling traitors who obviously hate America and are actively plotting its demise." Did I miss anything? (FYI, Aquapub, roughly half the electorate votes Democratic, and Democrats in Congress represent a majority of the U.S. population, so apparently most of America sides with criminals? My head hurts now. Maybe that could be your next post: "Why Do Most Americans Love Pedophiles and Hate America?")

So, for the sake of argument, let's say your fallacy-ridden rant is all true (and according to you it's "common knowledge" and not even worthy of debate). Why don't you save us all a lot of time then and answer your own question (and I know I'm going to regret this, but...), why do Democrats keep siding with criminals?

C'mon, Aquapub, don't hedge, spit it out!

 

[Conservative Democrat]

I know the usual Democrat apologists will try to deny that liberals constantly side with criminals over middle America, so let’s put that one to rest right now…

1) A gigantic spotlight has been shined on two liberal judges in Vermont and Massachutes (largely due to Bill O’Reilly) who recently sentenced one man to 60 days and the other to NO TIME at all, both for child rape. One judge explained his decision by saying he does not believe in punishment anymore. Spoken like a true liberal. These cases are FAR from isolated, but they are the most infamous right now.

FOXNews.com - Worst Judge Award? - Bill O’Reilly | The O’Reilly Factor



2) It is common knowledge that criminals overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. This is why Democrats keep trying to give violent felons the right to vote. In Election 2000 they claimed Al Gore would have won if only violent felons (you know, the people who have proved themselves to have horrible judgment) were allowed to help determine who our representatives were. Of course, Democrats claim that it’s racist to prevent so many blacks from voting-with no mention of the fact that no one forces blacks to commit the violent crimes. Like many, many other things, Democrats play the race card to distract from the appalling reality of what they are advocating, and to camouflage their calculated, self-serving, partisan intent.

But of course, Democrats would never trust a violent ex-felon’s 2nd Amendment rights because…they’ve demonstrated how horrible their judgment is…but we can trust their judgment to pick the leaders of our country.


3) In addition to fighting for the rights of sex-offenders to not be tracked and registered; in addition to arguing in a Kansas City courtroom that a 15 year old boy has a Constitutional right to sleep with grown men; in addition to fighting Jessica’s law; in addition to fighting mandatory minimum sentences for molesters, the ACLU (backed and funded by Democrats-and tax dollars) has now decided to represent, in every single state, NAMBLA-the pro-molestation group-free of charge, in trials all over the country, at a MAXIMUM expense to taxpayers.

Deroy Murdock on ACLU & NAMBLA on National Review Online

4) It is overwhelmingly well-known that those who oppose the death penalty are almost always Democrats (and Bill O’Reilly).

5) Democrats have whined, moaned about and opposed EVERY SINGLE ACTION the president has taken to prevent further terrorist attacks since 9/11. Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, wiretapping terrorist phone calls, taking out a genocidal terror sponsor in Iraq and giving the terrorists a VOLUNTEER MILITARY target instead of a Lower Manhattan CIVILIAN target….EVERY SINGLE THING.

And they haven’t just opposed these things, they’ve used them to incessantly smear Bush and compare him to Hitler. Republicans actually DO something about foreign threats. None of it has been unconstitutional, and the American people overwhelmingly have supported most of the president’s national security decisions-because they are things we should have been doing for the FIRST decade in which Bin Laden was attacking us with impunity. But at that time, we had a criminal-friendly Democrat in office, so we spent that time further tying the hands of the FBI and the CIA instead.

6) Democrats are the ones who made it so that ILLEGAL aliens could come to this country and face no consequences. They are also the reason ILLEGAL aliens qualify for welfare benefits and free healthcare at our expense.

WorldNetDaily: Illegal aliens threaten U.S. medical system


7) Perhaps if sleazy, ambulance-chasing, economy-raping trial lawyers weren’t such a huge source of campaign contributions to Democrats, Democrats wouldn’t constantly give the clients of trial lawyers everything under the sun at taxpayer expense. Trial lawyers give almost exclusively to Democrats.

http://www.triallawyersinc.com/healthcare/hc07.html
Jim Copland on Trial Lawyers and Election 2004 on National Review Online

Now that we have preemptively put to rest any potential attempts to blur the issue, let’s have an honest discussion about why liberals side with criminals.

Probably because the Extremist Liberal elements within the Party are Morons. They are so Quick to side with Criminals, convicted Felons and try to spring them from prisons with their bleeding hearts but will not forgive a Guy Like Mel Gibson for rants that he apologized for and sought retribution and made amends for. talk about the Ultimate Hypocrisy of the extremist left.

 

[dragonslayer]

I know the usual Democrat apologists will try to deny that liberals constantly side with criminals over middle America, so let’s put that one to rest right now…

1) A gigantic spotlight has been shined on two liberal judges in Vermont and Massachutes (largely due to Bill O’Reilly) who recently sentenced one man to 60 days and the other to NO TIME at all, both for child rape. One judge explained his decision by saying he does not believe in punishment anymore. Spoken like a true liberal. These cases are FAR from isolated, but they are the most infamous right now.

FOXNews.com - Worst Judge Award? - Bill O’Reilly | The O’Reilly Factor



2) It is common knowledge that criminals overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. This is why Democrats keep trying to give violent felons the right to vote. In Election 2000 they claimed Al Gore would have won if only violent felons (you know, the people who have proved themselves to have horrible judgment) were allowed to help determine who our representatives were. Of course, Democrats claim that it’s racist to prevent so many blacks from voting-with no mention of the fact that no one forces blacks to commit the violent crimes. Like many, many other things, Democrats play the race card to distract from the appalling reality of what they are advocating, and to camouflage their calculated, self-serving, partisan intent.

But of course, Democrats would never trust a violent ex-felon’s 2nd Amendment rights because…they’ve demonstrated how horrible their judgment is…but we can trust their judgment to pick the leaders of our country.


3) In addition to fighting for the rights of sex-offenders to not be tracked and registered; in addition to arguing in a Kansas City courtroom that a 15 year old boy has a Constitutional right to sleep with grown men; in addition to fighting Jessica’s law; in addition to fighting mandatory minimum sentences for molesters, the ACLU (backed and funded by Democrats-and tax dollars) has now decided to represent, in every single state, NAMBLA-the pro-molestation group-free of charge, in trials all over the country, at a MAXIMUM expense to taxpayers.

Deroy Murdock on ACLU & NAMBLA on National Review Online

4) It is overwhelmingly well-known that those who oppose the death penalty are almost always Democrats (and Bill O’Reilly).

5) Democrats have whined, moaned about and opposed EVERY SINGLE ACTION the president has taken to prevent further terrorist attacks since 9/11. Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, wiretapping terrorist phone calls, taking out a genocidal terror sponsor in Iraq and giving the terrorists a VOLUNTEER MILITARY target instead of a Lower Manhattan CIVILIAN target….EVERY SINGLE THING.

And they haven’t just opposed these things, they’ve used them to incessantly smear Bush and compare him to Hitler. Republicans actually DO something about foreign threats. None of it has been unconstitutional, and the American people overwhelmingly have supported most of the president’s national security decisions-because they are things we should have been doing for the FIRST decade in which Bin Laden was attacking us with impunity. But at that time, we had a criminal-friendly Democrat in office, so we spent that time further tying the hands of the FBI and the CIA instead.

6) Democrats are the ones who made it so that ILLEGAL aliens could come to this country and face no consequences. They are also the reason ILLEGAL aliens qualify for welfare benefits and free healthcare at our expense.

WorldNetDaily: Illegal aliens threaten U.S. medical system


7) Perhaps if sleazy, ambulance-chasing, economy-raping trial lawyers weren’t such a huge source of campaign contributions to Democrats, Democrats wouldn’t constantly give the clients of trial lawyers everything under the sun at taxpayer expense. Trial lawyers give almost exclusively to Democrats.

Trial Lawyers Inc. Health Care
Jim Copland on Trial Lawyers and Election 2004 on National Review Online

Now that we have preemptively put to rest any potential attempts to blur the issue, let’s have an honest discussion about why liberals side with criminals.

Heck we only side with criminals once in while. The biggest criminals are Bush and Cheney, we democrats only side with them now and then.

Be Nice To America Or We'll Bring Democracy To Your Country.

 

[TurtleDude]

Heck we only side with criminals once in while. The biggest criminals are Bush and Cheney, we democrats only side with them now and then.

Be Nice To America Or We'll Bring Democracy To Your Country.

rather lame. of course keeping Gore from stealing the 00 Election upsets the dems more than say murdering 3000 people 6 years ago etc

 

[dragonslayer]

rather lame. of course keeping Gore from stealing the 00 Election upsets the dems more than say murdering 3000 people 6 years ago etc

what happened concerning Gore and the 00 election. I thought it was Katherin Harris from the Geb Bush administration in florida that ruined the election and the supreme court deciding the election.

About 10 p.m. EST on December 12, the United States Supreme Court handed down its ruling in favor of Bush by a 7–2 vote that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional, as well as a 5-4 United States Supreme Court decision that ended the Florida recounts and allowed Florida to certify its vote. effectively ending the legal review of the vote count with Bush in the lead. Seven of the nine justices cited differing vote-counting standards from county to county and the lack of a single judicial officer to oversee the recount, both of which, they ruled, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.


Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris became a controversial figure during the Florida election controversyThis ruling stopped the vote recount, allowing Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to certify the election results. This allowed Florida's electoral votes to be cast for Bush, making him the winner. Seven of the nine Justices agreed that the lack of unified standards in counting votes violated the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws, but five agreed that there was insufficient time to impose a unified standard and that the recounts should therefore be stopped.

So instead of recounting the votes like has happened in many elections, we got Bush and Cheney. If the courts had not stopped the count Gore would have been president.

Irregularities

"Butterfly ballot"The Florida election has been closely scrutinized since the election, and several irregularities are thought to have favored Bush. These included the Palm Beach "butterfly ballot,""Hanging Chads" which produced an unexpectedly large number of votes for third-party candidate Patrick Buchanan, and a purge of some 50,000 alleged felons from the Florida voting rolls that included many voters who were eligible to vote under Florida law. Some commentators still consider such irregularities and the legal maneuvering around the recounts to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vote, but as a matter of law the issue was settled when the United States Congress accepted Florida's electoral delegation.

 

[TurtleDude]

what happened concerning Gore and the 00 election. I thought it was Katherin Harris from the Geb Bush administration in florida that ruined the election and the supreme court deciding the election.

About 10 p.m. EST on December 12, the United States Supreme Court handed down its ruling in favor of Bush by a 7–2 vote that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional, as well as a 5-4 United States Supreme Court decision that ended the Florida recounts and allowed Florida to certify its vote. effectively ending the legal review of the vote count with Bush in the lead. Seven of the nine justices cited differing vote-counting standards from county to county and the lack of a single judicial officer to oversee the recount, both of which, they ruled, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.


Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris became a controversial figure during the Florida election controversyThis ruling stopped the vote recount, allowing Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to certify the election results. This allowed Florida's electoral votes to be cast for Bush, making him the winner. Seven of the nine Justices agreed that the lack of unified standards in counting votes violated the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws, but five agreed that there was insufficient time to impose a unified standard and that the recounts should therefore be stopped.

So instead of recounting the votes like has happened in many elections, we got Bush and Cheney. If the courts had not stopped the count Gore would have been president.

Irregularities

"Butterfly ballot"The Florida election has been closely scrutinized since the election, and several irregularities are thought to have favored Bush. These included the Palm Beach "butterfly ballot,""Hanging Chads" which produced an unexpectedly large number of votes for third-party candidate Patrick Buchanan, and a purge of some 50,000 alleged felons from the Florida voting rolls that included many voters who were eligible to vote under Florida law. Some commentators still consider such irregularities and the legal maneuvering around the recounts to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vote, but as a matter of law the issue was settled when the United States Congress accepted Florida's electoral delegation.

Sore Loserman revisionism-Bush had won the first count and the recount before the courts were involved. he also won every trial held in florida-all dem judges.

 

[Bodi]

Originally Posted by TurtleDude
of course keeping Gore from stealing the 00 Election upsets the dems more than say murdering 3000 people 6 years ago etc

I think that this is a fairly narrow view.
You can find stats to back up ANY view if you really want...
The fact is that the whole Bush/Gore thing was extremely disturbing and the reason Bush won the first counts is the reason that the courts became involved in the first place.
To dismiss that fact now is to be dishonest with the truth...

The fact that the courts then backed up Bush is also no surprise and again, farily disturbing.

Just ask any open minded conservative and they will agree with me.
I have.
You should try it.

 

[American]

I completely agree with you. Proof of your argument is Hilary siding with Bush on Iraq.

Grow up. Try actually debating his points, if you can.

 

[American]

what happened concerning Gore and the 00 election. I thought it was Katherin Harris from the Geb Bush administration in florida that ruined the election and the supreme court deciding the election.

About 10 p.m. EST on December 12, the United States Supreme Court handed down its ruling in favor of Bush by a 7–2 vote that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional, as well as a 5-4 United States Supreme Court decision that ended the Florida recounts and allowed Florida to certify its vote. effectively ending the legal review of the vote count with Bush in the lead. Seven of the nine justices cited differing vote-counting standards from county to county and the lack of a single judicial officer to oversee the recount, both of which, they ruled, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.


Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris became a controversial figure during the Florida election controversyThis ruling stopped the vote recount, allowing Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to certify the election results. This allowed Florida's electoral votes to be cast for Bush, making him the winner. Seven of the nine Justices agreed that the lack of unified standards in counting votes violated the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws, but five agreed that there was insufficient time to impose a unified standard and that the recounts should therefore be stopped.

So instead of recounting the votes like has happened in many elections, we got Bush and Cheney. If the courts had not stopped the count Gore would have been president.

Irregularities

"Butterfly ballot"The Florida election has been closely scrutinized since the election, and several irregularities are thought to have favored Bush. These included the Palm Beach "butterfly ballot,""Hanging Chads" which produced an unexpectedly large number of votes for third-party candidate Patrick Buchanan, and a purge of some 50,000 alleged felons from the Florida voting rolls that included many voters who were eligible to vote under Florida law. Some commentators still consider such irregularities and the legal maneuvering around the recounts to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vote, but as a matter of law the issue was settled when the United States Congress accepted Florida's electoral delegation.

No, the SCOTUS ended the recount by overturning the Florida Supreme Courts, who was trying to supercede the power of the Florida Sec of State Katherine Harris. The Florida court didn't follow its own constitution. Plus the Dems were trying to focus the recounts only in the areas they were losing instead of the whole state. The Dems also didn't want to count the absentee ballots of the military. All that butterfly BS is just that, the Democrats were the ones that approved that ballot.