|
| T O P I C | |
|
Just sit and read... Quietly.
December 8th 2000, 10:59 CET by Andy Man sues porn site after wanking too hard... Well no, not really, but it's bound to happen sooner or later. For now, though, we'll have to make do with a touch of American legal culture arriving in Britain's schools. According to a report in the Times Educational Supplement, primary schools are banning traditional playground games due to fears of being sued. The games being banned include conkers (now classed as "offensive weapons"), rounders, British bulldog, three-legged races and skipping (because girls may fall over and hurt themselves). Bizarrely, football is also set to be banned, having been deemed "anti-social". A survey found that 57% of parents would seek compensation if their child was injured at school. One headmaster quoted in the report said he would prefer to "ban all playtimes, as they are a nightmare". The report's author, a University researcher who studied the breaktime activities of 1,000 children, concluded that playgrounds are becoming "barren, sterile and unimaginative". Hopefully we'll soon be back to the days when kids have nothing better to do than bully each other, get into fights and talk to the guy at the gate handing out free cigarettes. Much healthier than football. |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Just sit and read... Quietly.
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
<b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>There wouldn't be the question of popular vote vs. electoral vote discrepancies</quote> That is a non-issue here. The fact is that the popular vote means nothing as far as the determination of the Presidency is concerned. If you have not learned that in the last few weeks, then you are just not paying proper attention. The President is elected by the States, not the general populace. It is nice if those two number agree, but the popular vote is not a requirement. But, if you must have a 'majority' of some sort to make you feel better about it, then you can say that the President is elected by the majority of the states. George Bush won a majority of the States. Which brings me back to what my point was (which was not quoted, btw, it was a wholly original statement by me) in the first place. Al Gore has not ever once been elected President, George W. Bush has. Al Gore has never had the Florida majority. He has never been certified the winner of the Florida totals. Both candidates needed to win Florida in order to be presumed the winner. George Bush won Florida, and therefore is the presumed winner. And I am really tired of arguing that point. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>There wouldn't be seemingly true allegations of Republican vote fraud in the case of illegally filled-in absentee ballots by Republican party workers. </quote> While there may have been inappropriate action taken by the canvassing boards, they do not constitute voter, either in common sense, or according to Florida Law. The fact that both the trial court, trial precedent, and the Fl. Supreme court agree with that assessment would tend to bear that out. What was decided was that while the actions taken by the Republicans with regards to the<i> applications</i> were not strictly legal, they did not affect the validity of the <i>ballots</i>. Florida precedent allows that if the ballot itself is otherwise admissable, mishandling of the application by the cancassing boards does not invalidate it. That is not voter fraud. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>There wouldn't be the need for the Secretary of State to deny the counting officials of whichever county the extra hour and a half in order to get their balloting numbers in (which she acknowledged that she knew they would need, but refused to allow it anyways, and then simultaneously trumpeting the cause of "making sure every vote is counted"), even though the actual deadline wasn't until 9 oclock the next morning. </quote> Agreed, there was no need for her to have done that. But then again, she should not have been forced to accept an extended dealine by the FLSC, who were all the while spouting babble about how they do not interfere in the execution of administrative functions by the appropriately elected public official assigned those duties. She should have certified on the 14th, according to the election law, which she was proscribed to uphold and execute in the first paragraph of the Florida Election Code itself. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>There wouldn't be the need to question the Secretary of Sate herself. I mean can someone who is the fucking co-chair of the Bush campaign really be expected to be the slightest bit impartial? </quote> SHe was elected to do a job by the people of Florida. She was doing the job the way to was told to do the job by both the Legislature, and the FLSC - you don't like the result - so apparently she is a hack. Whatever. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>There wouldn't be the need for Guv'nuh Dubya to proclaim during the campaign how he trusts the states and the citizens to run things correctly -- and then argue that they can't be trusted to be able to count.</quote> He was not arguing that they could not count. He was arguing that they were not counting under any sort of legally enforcible standard, and that action itself violated the law. The USC agreed with him. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>There wouldn't be the need for the Governor to blast and proclaim the manual recount process as flawed and illegal -- even though he passed a law in Texas saying that in a case like this manual recounts are needed and required</quote> Texas law submits a standard. Florida law does not. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>But I know for a fucking fact that Dubya didn't come anywhere near "winning" this election. If he did, none of this would be happeneing, and he wouldn't be so damn worried as to have everything happen as it has. </quote> This is all happening because Al Gore could not accept defeat. I will give you something here. AL Gore made a mistake in pursuing this the way he did. Had he allowed Florida to certify on time and then properly submitted a contest to the election, which is allowed under Florida law, he may very well have won it on an overturn. It is possible. What Al Gore did was force the entension of the protest period of the election, until there was no time left for the contest period. Had he gone to contest the election properly, the state would have had time to set standards where required, listen to arguments, decide on arguments, count, recount, verify the recount, go through the appeals process, and come to a conclusion. He might have won. He didn't do it that way, because (IMHO) he did not want to appear to have lost the election in the first place. He dragged us all down this road for appearances sake. Had he come out the other side of a proper contest, I do not doubt that he would have been accepted as the President, however onerous that might have been. BTW, most of the above is based on my interpretation of the court proceedings. You want quotes - read them yourself. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
VeeSpike: I can see where you're coming from on everything except the Secretary of State's involvement. Simply because she is elected doesn't mean she should stay in her position when it's such a blatant conflict of interest. If she's basically the state's number one campaigner for one of the two candidates in question, she reallyshouldn't be incharge of impartiality. Hell, Jeb got out of the situation, she should have done the same. would it have made a difference? Probably not, and I fully acknowledge that, but it would have saved a whole hell of a lot of questionable goings-on and second-guessing. Not that anyone at the 'Crap ever second guesses anything. ;) As for this bit: <quote>He didn't do it that way, because (IMHO) he did not want to appear to have lost the election in the first place</quote> You may very well be right: http://www.cnn.com&story=breaking_news@2423705816/gore.html ;) (Please: note the smiley) |
|
Glad this entire show is over. The simpleton has won. Hurrah for Bush. |
|
Prize for Bob! |
|
What is it about this mindless, repetitive activity that reminds you of me? I don't like that you think about me so often. Dood.
|
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Just sit and read... Quietly.
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9.1-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2035 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|