Crybaby Gore

[Spiderman]

Hawaiian Mage:

. He wants to use up our Oil supplies, when we currently are short on oil(what about 5 years from now?)

The US does not have 40 million or whatever the number is barrels of oil stocked away somewhere. Oil companies bid on contracts to provide the extra oil and they still have to get it from OPEC and other sources.

He wants to raise the military, despite the fact that we have the best Military in the world all ready(If some country actually tried to bomb us, we would compleatly smother them in Nukes within an Hour.)

Please refrain from unnecessary rhetoric about "nuking" people. As I said in the past in another post, the US is not nuking anyone anytime soon (examples are Gulf War, Libya, and Serbia). What, you say those weren't countries actually bombing us? Well, we're also not bombing Afghanistan which is suspected of harboring Lin Bad who is regarded as being behind the World Trade bombing.

Darsh:

Another interesting bit of information is that Bush's brother is Governor of Flordia.

Another interesting bit of information is that Bush's brother excused/recused himself from the recount process.

Ristik:

If Bush is elected, he will most likely appoint 4 of the 9 justices.

How did you come about this conclusion? Are four of the justices likely to die or retire in the next four years?

 

[Cateran Emperor]

Baskil, did you just look at the words or did you read them and try to understand them?

1. The President can NOT do anything save Executive orders without the Senate's approval. Yes, an even Congress is good for the country, but the REpublicans still have a majority, and though it is a small one they can still overrule anything the President does that isn't bipartisan.

2. Once again, gridlock will occur if Gore tries to do anything that is too left wing. The Senate simply will not allow it.

Don't worry Ristik, it's extraordinarily hard to offend me The signature says it all. As for what you said, just remember that the Democrats tend to split on issues more often than the Republicans do. Something too left wing can push away the vast number of moderate Democrats in the House / Senate. The same applies to Bush and vastly right wing proposals to moderate Republicans to a lesser degree (though for whatever reason there's a leser division there).

[Edited by Cateran Emperor on 11-09-00 at 10:13 AM]

 

[Ristik]

Cateran Emperor: As I said, the President CAN appoint justices without the Senate's approval. While the presidents in the past HAVE gone to the Senate for approval, and it is in fact a very good idea for anybody who wants to be re-elected, it is not compulsory. And I apparently failed to make my point clear. My point was that rather than gridlock being achieved, the parties will collaborate to get bipartisan bills past. At this point, I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing about with me. I completely agree with everything your last post said directly to me.

Spiderman: There are currently two justices who will almost certainly retire in the next four years. There are an additional two which will retire if Bush is elected because they would certainly retire within the next eight years and they want to ensure that a Republican will replace them. That's how I got 4 of 9. That's right folks, I do in fact understand how the American system of government works. Darn good thing, too, given that I live there.

 

[Ransac]

Okay! Okay! Bush may have been known to mispronouce a few words, but living in Texas will do that to you! Take it from me! I lived there for 4 years and my English was &$#$ed up. I just believed that he is the better politician and would be the better president. Just because he can't speak write doesn't mean DUMB!!!!!



Ransac, intent on suicide if Gore wins, which he won't

 

[Spiderman]

As I said, the President CAN appoint justices without the Senate's approval. While the presidents in the past HAVE gone to the Senate for approval, and it is in fact a very good idea for anybody who wants to be re-elected, it is not compulsory.

So what's all the business about the Senate CONFIRMING appointments? And where is it said that it's not compulsory?

There are currently two justices who will almost certainly retire in the next four years.

Who and where was this said?

There are an additional two which will retire if Bush is elected because they would certainly retire within the next eight years and they want to ensure that a Republican will replace them.

1. Who again?
2. Who says Bush is elected for a second term? Especially seeing how this election is so close?
3. Since when do the Justices (once elected) care about who replaces them? In fact, where is it said that they MUST follow party ideology, once appointed?

 

[Ristik]

The two retiring in the next four years is speculation by analysts, but it is not certain. It IS certain, however, that two will retire if Bush is elected; the two justices have stated as such. I unfortunately do not remember the names of all of them, and the only one I know is Rehnquist, who will retire if Bush is elected. The fact that you address Bush's second term proves that you did not read what I said, so I will not answer that question. The justices who do follow party lines want to ensure that they are replaced by those who follow their views. It is not said anywhere that judges follow party lines once appointed, and I never said as such. But giving someone in your party the opportunity to select the justices certainly increases the odds that you are replaced by someone who agrees with you. And obviously some of the judges care who replaces them now.

On the Congress thing, "advice and consent" meant something different when the Constitution was drafted. It meant that a certain majority of the Senate (I believe 2/3) can stop an appointment. This vote does not exist on party lines, so the President can ignore the advice if he wants to. Plus, it is never said that it is compulsory. That means it is not. It doesn't need to say anywhere specifically not compulsory, and the constitution does not technically say it is.

 

[Spiderman]

The two retiring in the next four years is speculation by analysts, but it is not certain. It IS certain, however, that two will retire if Bush is elected; the two justices have stated as such. I unfortunately do not remember the names of all of them, and the only one I know is Rehnquist, who will retire if Bush is elected.

Interesting. You'll forgive me if I keep your statements on hold until I can find some further verification.

The fact that you address Bush's second term proves that you did not read what I said, so I will not answer that question.

Since you said this, I went back and re-read it and I guess I did misunderstand what you were saying. Sorry.

The justices who do follow party lines want to ensure that they are replaced by those who follow their views. It is not said anywhere that judges follow party lines once appointed, and I never said as such. But giving someone in your party the opportunity to select the justices certainly increases the odds that you are replaced by someone who agrees with you. And obviously some of the judges care who replaces them now.

Again, this makes sense but I have not seen, heard, or read any "hard" data confirming this. As the Justices are appointed for life, I have only heard of them retiring for personal reasons, not to coincide with the President being the same party so someone else could get appointed.

On the Congress thing, "advice and consent" meant something different when the Constitution was drafted. It meant that a certain majority of the Senate (I believe 2/3) can stop an appointment. This vote does not exist on party lines, so the President can ignore the advice if he wants to. Plus, it is never said that it is compulsory. That means it is not. It doesn't need to say anywhere specifically not compulsory, and the constitution does not technically say it is.

At one point in the past (and heaven knows exactly when it was, within the past year?) it was mentioned that there was still MANY (couple hundred?) federal posts (judges for one, don't know the others) that remained unfulfilled and languishing due to the Senate's slowness in "confirming" them (for lack of better term). If the President can just ignore Congress on this point, why does he have to go through them at all? Why doesn't he just appoint them like his Cabinet? Or does this just apply to the Supreme Court?

 

[Spiderman]

Since we're getting into the realm where more data is needed, I did some searching. Here's what I found:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/newsissues/usgovinfo/library/weekly/aa081400a.htm

Little history of the US Supreme Court. Somewhere in the middle it says: "Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President of the United States. The nomination must be approved by two-thirds vote of the Senate."

The "must" seems to imply that the President CAN'T ignore the Senate will-nilly.

Another article here:

http://eppc.org/library/articles/acosta/99_8_23-supremecourt.html

Is an opinion piece about the potential effects of the Court if some retire. Named specifically are Rehnquist, Stevens, and O'Connor. Now granted this is an opinion piece, but it seems (from what I gather), 2 are conservative and one is liberal. It's only one article but it doesn't say that they are retiring BECAUSE of whover is elected President; it merely says they are retiring and weighs the results if either Bush or Gore is elected.

[Orgg's Note: actually, Sandra Day O'Connor is a swing-voter. She will go both to the republican and democratic side.]

Too bad I'm off tomorrow; I'm going to have to wait until Monday to see your reply

 

[Landkiller]

Originally posted by Rando
Landkiller, did you go to states? [/B]

Yep. I was 0-2, after 5 mulligans in two matches. Because I couldn't find any Vampiric Tutors and at the last second decided to add white for Geddon and Disenchant. I didn't take into account my mana balance, and only tested a few draws.

Oh, well.

 

[Ristik]

I was not entirely sure about the nominations, especially given your argument with every word I said. Looks like you did your homework on this one. Using the first article, my memory is refreshed on who will leave under what circumstances. I believe it is Ginsberg and Stevens who will retire regardless in the next four years, and Rehnquist and O'Connor who will retire if Bush wins.

I'll have to reread the Constitution on the "advice and consent" clause. My opinion on the matter was based on FDR's "midnight judges", in which he did bypass the Senate to appoint some judges who would let him get away with the New Deal.

I do feel that I have to congradulate you once again on your efforts in deciphering this; I look forward to see whatever you may have turned up over the weekend.

 

[Rando]

Landkiller -
Don't feel too bad. I went 2-2-2, and my little brother went 0-5! (he would not drop until the 6th round, the idiot, and then complained that there was no time for a side event)

I probably saw you there, but god only knows which one you were. I was playing Black/Blue, but so was half of everyone else...

...lot's O' green too...

 

[arachiron]

You have to admit, the fact that such controversy surrounds a state in which his brother is the govenor seems a little suspicious. Each state can devise how their ballots will look like, and it just so happens that in a state where many senior citizens with bad eyesight are prevelent, a confusing ballot is placed. Could I be pulling random stuff to make a connection? (of course I am!--i just dread the thought of Bush ever becoming president)

speaking of which, my friend sent me a great website of his victory dance. Check out:http://www.dovewinds.com/dubya/

Even if he is stupid, that man can dance!

 

[Apollo]

Various judicial stuff: Congress does have to approve the judges. FDR created new judging positions (not supreme court) without the approval of Congress (I believe). Of course, there are plenty of pro-choice people in this nation. If congress tries to reject one, Gore would name another, and so on. So as long as Gore didn't appoint someone really ridiculous, Congress wouldn't bother trying to reject them. The same goes for Dubya, were he to become president.

Now then, those judges: they want to retire. However, they are republicans, and want to retire when a member of their party is president and they can be replaced by someone that shares their views. So they will put off retirement for a while, in hopes that a Republican will be Pres.

Of course, this whole ballot thing is rather curious. It is a bit odd that this was done in a democrati area. One that has a population with quite a few elderly people who are more likely to have trouble reading. And in an area where a Republican is governor. Now, some people say that you should be able to read it. But I heard that a sample ballot that had the holes in different places was sent to these people. Say they looked it over, and decided they wanted to vote for Gore. They got to the voting place, and they automatically punched the hole they had thought about at home. Then, they realized they had voted for Buchanan. They obviously don't want to vote for this guy, so they mark the Gore hole, too, so that neither will count.

It really makes sense when you consider that there were 20,000 double-punced ballots in that area. And most of those had the holes for Buchanan and Gore punced.

If you factor those votes in for Gore, he wins easy.

Smells fishy to me.

[Edited by Apollo on 11-09-00 at 08:24 PM]

 

[Almindhra]

Originally posted by Ristik
My opinion on the matter was based on FDR's "midnight judges", in which he did bypass the Senate to appoint some judges who would let him get away with the New Deal.

Whoa, whoa, whoa there kiddo...You have your facts wrong...The "midnight judges" was from Marbury v. Madison in 1803, and started the whole judicial review thing...lalala...What FDR did was try to increase the size of the Fed judges so that he could put some on there that would agree with him...

 

[Apollo]

Have them wrassle for it! It could be a tag-team thing, with Gore and Lieberman vs. Dubya and Cheney. Maybe Clinton could run in during the match and smack Bush over the head with a chair. It would be a ratings smash! Of course, they'd probably put it on pay-per-view.

 

[Ristik]

Apollo: I think the WWF actually tried to have that happen, but it was turned down by both candidates.

 

[nodnarb24]

I could see the ads right now...

[tough wrestler] COME SEE THE DEBATE OF THE CENTURY!!! A NO HOLDS BAR FIGHT TO THE DEATH BETWEEN GORE/LEIBERMAN AND BUSH/CHENEY!!! WITH SPECIAL GUEST APPEARANCES BY RALPH NADER AND BILL CLINTON!!! ALL HAPPENING THIS SUNDAY ON PAY-PER-VIEW!!! AND IT IS ONLY $49.95!!! [/tough wrestler]

 

[mogg bomber]

This election is just pathetic, and I'm not sure what to think about this whole thing. First of all, I'm not sure where all these Bush supporters came from all of a sudden, because there was a discussion on the CPA awhile ago and only one or two people supported him. Anyway, Bush cannot be a credible leader, since Gore has the popular vote and of course there's Bush's speaking problem as well.

Besides that, the problems in Florida are being brushed off as being unimportant by Bush. Sure, you may think, this is the legally correct thing, but what if you lived in Florida? Would you want your vote not to count because one of the candidates thinks your vote is unimportant? The problems in Palm Beach need to be addressed, and Bush doesn't want them to do anything for those voters. I had almost no respect for Bush before this, and what I did have is gone now. Anyone who thinks getting an election over fast is more important than carrying out the will of the public is the exact opposite of what this country needs(That includes you, Ransac. You actually think that we should just put Bush in there(a man who would be a horrible president no less) instead of actually finding out who won? I won't complain if Bush does win, because Congress will stop him from messing the country up too much, but only if he actually is determined to be the winner.)

I do support some of the same issues as Bush, but not enough of them. Bush wants to build up the military, destroy the environment in Alaska just to get oil which is really not needed, and supports school vouchers instead of making the public school system better. The fact that nothing will actually get done because of Congress isn't important, I don't like Bush because I don't respect him and don't agree with his ideas.

 

[Zhaneel]

This is an incredibly pathetic election... countries aere laughing at us, we can't decide, and no matter who wins, they won't be able to do much. *sigh*

lol, Creed's on the radio, and the line just on was "I feel angry, I feel helpless, wanna change the world, yeah" How apropriate

 

[Apollo]

Ristik: no, the WWF wanted to have the candidates attend one of their events and have a debate. I want to have them duke it out for the presidency.

Of course, with the people that attend those events, I imagine the candidates would be doused with beer and pelted with batteries in minutes, so it would be almost as good.