NationStates Jolt Archive

The mods locked it before I could respond, so...

(1) If you are going to cry, bitch, piss, and moan...If you are going to wail and gnash teeth at the loss of a few innocents through a conflict of arms....that is being fought by both sides....then why do you same people condone the killing of an innocent life in the womb? (Murder of an innocent, is murder of an innocent!)

(2) If you are going to place the blame for the killing of a few children in a conflict of arms, on the soldier, or the president.....then who is to blame for the killing of innocent children, by other children....here in our own streets every day? (Who is responsible for death?)

(3) How can you seek to remove the death penalty? Many who are given the death penalty have purposely, maliciously, and violently taken innocent lives. (They set out to take those lives from the start.)

(4) How can you support the acts of the Palestinians (Blowing up busloads of innocents and training children to strap bombs on their backs), but refuse to support the US leadership and military in putting an end to such things?

(5) How can you try to remove the gun from my home, that is used only to protect my home from invasion, but not support the removal from power, of a dictator that harbors mass graves, has people killed for free speech, or takes food from their mouths, to support his empire?

(6) (Two part question) How is it that you believe that the First Amendment only applies to those of you wanting to burn the flag, remove the cross, tear up the bible, hate the president, or spit at the soldier? Does the First Amendment not also apply to those who love their country, love god, support the military, or wish to preserve patritosm?


(1) I consider a condition of "killing" (read:murdering) that the being be sentient. Provide meproof that a small, potato sized being in a woman that has no developed brain, no memories, and no experiences is sentient, and I will provide you with a better answer than "just because." (Is murder of an insect still murder?)

(2) The church. Most of them do it in their church clothes on the way back home. And look at the hip-hop artists. Never before have I seen someone love god so much that they thank him for making their record "Killin All the Cops" numba 1! (The Church)

(3) I'm sorry, I guess we still live in the middle ages where whenever someone kills someone we must immediately kill them in the most convenient and expensive way we can. (You set out to take their lives before the trial begins)

(4) Because it's not our job to be the police of the world. I don't know what gives you the balls to think that our mere presence in the middle east will spur a new era of prosperity in a place where in no known time there has ever been peace. I guess I missed the part of the Constitution where we do whatever the hell we want and everyone loves us for it.

(5) That question doesn't warrant a response, when you consider that our murder rate is higher than any other developed (<---key word here) country in the free world. How can you support someone who didn't win the vote, has no place in his seat of power, and has spent all of his time circle-jerking all over the world to take our eyes further and further away from the economy. (I guess it's easy to look the other way when you don't live in a shit-hole, your parents have nice jobs, and your maid wipes your ass for you.)

(6) The first ammendment replies to anyone who is willing to use it. It's you people who want to stomp on our rights, not us on yours. True,you can say that you love your country, but in response, we can tell you to go f*** yourself. It's when we burn the flag and tear the bible up that you spit on us and scream at the top of your lungs that we are criminals. We respond to your words with words, you respond to our words with arrest warrants. Who's the bad guy here?

Any response before the mods find and lock this?

I also responded to that dude's inquiries in a new topic cause the dumb mods shut that one down. Here's what I had to say, in case everyone reads this one instead of mine:

1. The abortion issue is pro-choice vs. anti-choice. I morally oppose abortion, and would never recomend that option to a woman i care about, but I believe that every individual has ultimate control over their own body. If we call ourselves a free society, the law must reflect this. It's a woman's burden; it's a woman's choice.

2. I can only point to the double standard applied to violence perpetrated within a community, and violence perpetrated by one community upon another. If the president wants to set an example for America's youngsters, maybe he shouldn't make pre-emptive military strikes.

3. New forms of evidence gathering (such as DNA and the like) are consistenly overturning guilty verdicts. I'd rather have my taxes go toward sustaining ten guilty lives than taking one innocent life.

4. On the Israeli/Palestinian conflict: Just look at the numbers, man. The Palestinian Red Crescent (Red Cross of Muslim countries) lists 2,931 deaths since the beginning of the al-aqsa intifada (Sept. 2000). How many Israelis have died? Furthermore, the Palestinian independence movement will not die with its combatants and organizers. As long as Palestinians, especially those in Gaza and the West Bank, are opressed, harassed and collectively punished by Israeli authorities, Palestinian moderates will condone the violence of the extremists. When you face the IDF in open combat, you can kiss your ass goodbye. Suicide bombing is a way of ensuring casualties on your enemy. Civilians often die in the attacks, but they usually target soldiers. Plenty of Palestinian civilians die in Israeli rocket attacks. These people are resisting a foreign occupation the only way they can.

5. I support background checks for those who wish to purchase firearms, and I think that people with a history of violent crime should be denied the right to own firearms. Most gun control advocates don't want to take your gun away, unless you're a violent criminal with a record to prove it.

6. The First Ammendment applies to all. Liberals aren't stopping you from waving the flag and worshiping god if that's what you'd like to do. By "preserve patriotism" do you mean silence dissent? In 1776, the Patriots were the ones spitting on soldiers, resisting what they considered to be unjust rule. Patriots, in my opinion, are the people who have the courage to resist their little federal republic when it becomes the British empire.

Well said.

So far, your answers have exposed the hyprocasy that is the "left-wing." These questions asked bring up good points about the double standard the left wing represents.

(I am sure I will recieve alot of flak for what I just said, so I am going to get some food and then respond to your comments.)

no. Not well said. Its all bleedin common sense. Dont feed the troll. This guy only ever comes here to make trouble. Check everyone one of his posts and see.

So far, your answers have exposed the hyprocasy that is the "left-wing." These questions asked bring up good points about the double standard the left wing represents.

(I am sure I will recieve alot of flak for what I just said, so I am going to get some food and then respond to your comments.)

I'm just curious; what exactly is hypocritical about my statements? I mean, I could let "satirical" slide. I could let "cynical" slide. But "hypocritical" is a little much.

blablabla im to damn lazy to read anyof this. im sure its all good stuff though guys. Keep up the good work.

Death to the Man!
Fight the Power!
Down with the System!

So far, your answers have exposed the hyprocasy that is the "left-wing." These questions asked bring up good points about the double standard the left wing represents.

(I am sure I will recieve alot of flak for what I just said, so I am going to get some food and then respond to your comments.)

Elaborate, please. I only fire flak at people when they can't back up their arguements.

no. Not well said. Its all bleedin common sense. Dont feed the troll. This guy only ever comes here to make trouble. Check everyone one of his posts and see.

First off, blow me. Second off, I don't troll in other people's topics, unless they are blatantly asking for it. Therefore, I expect you to stay out of mine unless you have something constructive to add. I answered questions in my viewpoint, as was requested.

no. Not well said. Its all bleedin common sense. Dont feed the troll. This guy only ever comes here to make trouble. Check everyone one of his posts and see.

Do you mean the original poster of the now locked thread, or the person who started this thread for his response? I think the latter did a decent job (and that was who I was referring to), although the original post was crap.

Lithuanighanistania: I agree with you on almost everything but, for decency's sake, less vulgarity and more substance when defending your ideas.

Do you mean the original poster of the now locked thread, or the person who started this thread for his response? I think the latter did a decent job (and that was who I was referring to), although the original post was crap.

You're my nes best internet friend.

Lithuanighanistania: I agree with you on almost everything but, for decency's sake, less vulgarity and more substance when defending your ideas.

i would have said more vulgarity less substanial evidence, but you cant suit them all i guess.

Lithuanighanistania: I agree with you on almost everything but, for decency's sake, less vulgarity and more substance when defending your ideas.

i would have said more vulgarity, less substanial evidence, but you cant suit them all i guess.

Lithuanighanistania: I agree with you on almost everything but, for decency's sake, less vulgarity and more substance when defending your ideas.

i would have said more vulgarity, less substanial evidence, but you cant suit them all i guess.

Lithuanighanistania: I agree with you on almost everything but, for decency's sake, less vulgarity and more substance when defending your ideas.

i would have said more vulgarity, less substanial evidence, but you cant suit them all i guess.

Lithuanighanistania: I agree with you on almost everything but, for decency's sake, less vulgarity and more substance when defending your ideas.

I could do that, but I save my decency for essays. I do appologize if you're offended by what I said, but sometimes I feel it's neccessary to bring the level of intelegence down a bit so everyone can participate in the debate.

Lithuanighanistania: I agree with you on almost everything but, for decency's sake, less vulgarity and more substance when defending your ideas.

I could do that, but I save my decency for essays. I do appologize if you're offended by what I said, but sometimes I feel it's neccessary to bring the level of intelegence down a bit so everyone can participate in the debate.

I'm not offended, and neither are the people you've insulted. But the realm of political debate should be one of reason, not name-calling and obscene suggestions. I can name-call with the best of 'em, but that's not why I'm here.

So far, your answers have exposed the hyprocasy that is the "left-wing." These questions asked bring up good points about the double standard the left wing represents.

(I am sure I will recieve alot of flak for what I just said, so I am going to get some food and then respond to your comments.)

Honestly, if you've got something to say, say it, but don't just flame without thinking.

I'm not offended, and neither are the people you've insulted. But the realm of political debate should be one of reason, not name-calling and obscene suggestions. I can name-call with the best of 'em, but that's not why I'm here.

And what in my statement lacked reason? I gave very solid support to each of my statements, I just did so on a more low-brow know-how.

So far, your answers have exposed the hyprocasy that is the "left-wing." These questions asked bring up good points about the double standard the left wing represents.

(I am sure I will recieve alot of flak for what I just said, so I am going to get some food and then respond to your comments.)

Honestly, if you've got something to say, say it, but don't just flame without thinking.

He said he's gonna go eat and then respond. I'm pateintly waiting for what this guy has to say... and he'd better hurry up because aqua teen hunger force is on in ten minutes.

I'm not offended, and neither are the people you've insulted. But the realm of political debate should be one of reason, not name-calling and obscene suggestions. I can name-call with the best of 'em, but that's not why I'm here.

And what in my statement lacked reason? I gave very solid support to each of my statements, I just did so on a more low-brow know-how.

(2) The church. Most of them do it in their church clothes on the way back home. And look at the hip-hop artists. Never before have I seen someone love god so much that they thank him for making their record "Killin All the Cops" numba 1! (The Church)

That response is lacking in reason in that many of the victims of gun violence are not religious, and in that the majority of Rap and Hip-Hop musicians do not participate in violence, though they do sing about it. Also, there has been no strong corrolation shown between listening to music about violence and perpetrating similar acts of violence.

(4) Because it's not our job to be the police of the world. I don't know what gives you the balls to think that our mere presence in the middle east will spur a new era of prosperity in a place where in no known time there has ever been peace. I guess I missed the part of the Constitution where we do whatever the hell we want and everyone loves us for it.

It is not the job of the U.S. to police the goal, but many Americans feel a responsibility to use the power that they have for the good of others in other countries. It is perfectly reasonable for people to wish that their government would represent their ideals, including intervening where conflicts occur in other countries.

(5) That question doesn't warrant a response, when you consider that our murder rate is higher than any other developed (<---key word here) country in the free world. How can you support someone who didn't win the vote, has no place in his seat of power, and has spent all of his time circle-jerking all over the world to take our eyes further and further away from the economy. (I guess it's easy to look the other way when you don't live in a shit-hole, your parents have nice jobs, and your maid wipes your ass for you.)

There are countries with many more guns per person than the U.S. but many fewer gun deaths. The important thing is the way that the society handles their guns, and not the simple quantity of those guns that determines how dangerous they are. In Switzerland every person is required to serve a term in the military and is proficient in the use of a rifle. The vast majorty of Swiss own rifles, but the gun deaths in Switzerland are some of the lowest in the world. With proper training a gun is not a dangerous weapon, but a safe tool, the problem is irresponsibility on the part of gun owners and ineffective gun laws.

(6) The first ammendment replies to anyone who is willing to use it. It's you people who want to stomp on our rights, not us on yours. True,you can say that you love your country, but in response, we can tell you to go f*** yourself. It's when we burn the flag and tear the bible up that you spit on us and scream at the top of your lungs that we are criminals. We respond to your words with words, you respond to our words with arrest warrants. Who's the bad guy here?

Never never never never, say "you people" in a debate. Just don't do it. As for the rest of your point, you're pretty much right. The general Left Wing rhetoric recently has been just that, rhetoric, and the actions of the Radical Left have been generally non-violent and the only destruction is of private property, as opposed to the general Radical Right which has focused on restricting the rights of the Radical Left in the name of "counter-terrorism" which is an effectively meaningless term.

That response is lacking in reason in that many of the victims of gun violence are not religious, and in that the majority of Rap and Hip-Hop musicians do not participate in violence, though they do sing about it. Also, there has been no strong corrolation shown between listening to music about violence and perpetrating similar acts of violence.

First, the subject was not gun violence, it was murder rate. Second, the largest majority of serial murders are Christian white men. I never said that rap artists were involved in violence, I merely implied that they encourage it. Also, I didn't intend for anyone to read that and assume I was linking violence to music in such a manner. My fault for bad wording.

It is not the job of the U.S. to police the goal, but many Americans feel a responsibility to use the power that they have for the good of others in other countries. It is perfectly reasonable for people to wish that their government would represent their ideals, including intervening where conflicts occur in other countries.

But the point of the statement is that although we have our power we are only encouraging people to mock and spite us by using it. Truth be told, Iraq was safer with Hussein in power. Also, what happened to him? News about stuff like that doesn't reach Japan too often.

There are countries with many more guns per person than the U.S. but many fewer gun deaths. The important thing is the way that the society handles their guns, and not the simple quantity of those guns that determines how dangerous they are. In Switzerland every person is required to serve a term in the military and is proficient in the use of a rifle. The vast majorty of Swiss own rifles, but the gun deaths in Switzerland are some of the lowest in the world. With proper training a gun is not a dangerous weapon, but a safe tool, the problem is irresponsibility on the part of gun owners and ineffective gun laws.

True, but I don't think that just tightening the laws will be effective. This is a country where violence is condoned amongst young men from birth. Agree or not, if your friend hits you, you hit him back. The most logical solution is to ban guns. As for if it is practical, or possible, that's not my palce to decide.

Never never never never, say "you people" in a debate. Just don't do it. As for the rest of your point, you're pretty much right. The general Left Wing rhetoric recently has been just that, rhetoric, and the actions of the Radical Left have been generally non-violent and the only destruction is of private property, as opposed to the general Radical Right which has focused on restricting the rights of the Radical Left in the name of "counter-terrorism" which is an effectively meaningless term.

First off, this isn't a debate. Secondly, I could say "Conservatives", but not all conservatives share his/her's particular views. I used "you people" in relation not to his views, but to the people sharing the strength of those views.

First off, blow me.
You liberals talk about being tolerant towards all people, but show nothing but hostility to someone who does not agree with your views. Its my 1st Amendment right to not agree what you say and voice my opinion, the same way it is your 1st amendment right to call soldiers "baby killers."

First off, blow me.
You liberals talk about being tolerant towards all people, but show nothing but hostility to someone who does not agree with your views. Its my 1st Amendment right to not agree what you say and voice my opinion, the same way it is your 1st amendment right to call soldiers "baby killers."It's not a contradiction to be both tolerant and hostile at the same time. I tolerate Klansmen and their views while simultaneously detesting everything they stand for. There's no contradiction there.

First off, blow me.
You liberals talk about being tolerant towards all people, but show nothing but hostility to someone who does not agree with your views. Its my 1st Amendment right to not agree what you say and voice my opinion, the same way it is your 1st amendment right to call soldiers "baby killers."

Actually, I think that was addressed to New Astrolia, not you. Thanks for the outdated stereotype, though. Little things like that keeps the board "colorful." :wink:

(5) That question doesn't warrant a response, when you consider that our murder rate is higher than any other developed (<---key word here) country in the free world. How can you support someone who didn't win the vote, has no place in his seat of power, and has spent all of his time circle-jerking all over the world to take our eyes further and further away from the economy. (I guess it's easy to look the other way when you don't live in a shit-hole, your parents have nice jobs, and your maid wipes your ass for you.)
very nice way to not answer the question being asked. Bush was elected by the democratic process in the USA we call the electoral college. If you are unhappy with the electoral college, propose a change to it to your senator or US rep.

Everyone with an ounce of economic sense knows the down-turn of the US economy was caused by the .COM bust, Sept. 11th, and the normal economic cycle of our economy of busts and booms. The last 8 months have shown positive signs for the economy after the Bear market because of Bush's economic policy. The economy is not something you can tweak with one night and it will be okay the next morning. It takes a long time for economic policy to equal economic results. Now the results have been positive for nearly a year, I would say Bush's economic policy is on the right track, and not a "shit hole."

(1) If you are going to cry, bitch, piss, and moan...If you are going to wail and gnash teeth at the loss of a few innocents through a conflict of arms....that is being fought by both sides....then why do you same people condone the killing of an innocent life in the womb? (Murder of an innocent, is murder of an innocent!)

(2) If you are going to place the blame for the killing of a few children in a conflict of arms, on the soldier, or the president.....then who is to blame for the killing of innocent children, by other children....here in our own streets every day? (Who is responsible for death?)

(3) How can you seek to remove the death penalty? Many who are given the death penalty have purposely, maliciously, and violently taken innocent lives. (They set out to take those lives from the start.)

(4) How can you support the acts of the Palestinians (Blowing up busloads of innocents and training children to strap bombs on their backs), but refuse to support the US leadership and military in putting an end to such things?

(5) How can you try to remove the gun from my home, that is used only to protect my home from invasion, but not support the removal from power, of a dictator that harbors mass graves, has people killed for free speech, or takes food from their mouths, to support his empire?

(6) (Two part question) How is it that you believe that the First Amendment only applies to those of you wanting to burn the flag, remove the cross, tear up the bible, hate the president, or spit at the soldier? Does the First Amendment not also apply to those who love their country, love god, support the military, or wish to preserve patritosm?


1. The loss of life, any life is not a good thing.
If you call speaking out against it, pissing or whining, you have no value of human life, and that makes you a monster.

2. The same man who is spending billions and billions in the very war wich is killing children, could be spending those billions to stop the children in our country, from dying in a similiar manner.
He isnt.

3.Many who have received death as a penalty, were not guilty of those crimes.
Who are you to judge?

4.This is a two-parter.
A. What makes you think I, OR liberals in general support suicide bombing in any way?
B. Beucase the government through its actions, has only created more of these kinds of actions.

5. Becuase that dictator you mention, isnt likely to wander in to your bedroom, find your gun, and accidently blow his own head off....your child is.

6.It most certainly does.
You mention spitting at a soldier.
Who the hell, liberal or conservative, since Viet Nam has spit on a returning soldier?
These days, the returning soldier is your father, or brother, or son, or duaghter.
You dont spit at these people....you ARE THESE PEOPLE.

I have the right to say..."youre an idiot!"

You have the right to say.."Back at ya!"

What part of that do you have a problem with?

very nice way to not answer the question being asked. Bush was elected by the democratic process in the USA we call the electoral college. If you are unhappy with the electoral college, propose a change to it to your senator or US rep.

I'm sorry, I guess you invented the democratic system, didn't you? Maybe it was just me, but it seemed that a deciding factor in that election was Florida, and if you expect me to sit back and go "hey, that's nice; Bush won." Without any further evidence than "A bunch of old people didn't do it right, but they really, really like Bush," then you're more than welcome to give me a big wet one right on my ass.

Everyone with an ounce of economic sense knows the down-turn of the US economy was caused by the .COM bust, Sept. 11th, and the normal economic cycle of our economy of busts and booms. The last 8 months have shown positive signs for the economy after the Bear market because of Bush's economic policy. The economy is not something you can tweak with one night and it will be okay the next morning. It takes a long time for economic policy to equal economic results. Now the results have been positive for nearly a year, I would say Bush's economic policy is on the right track, and not a "shit hole."

First off, the cause of the economy's collapse and the ends taken to put it back on track are completely different. I personally blame Bush for everything that has happened during his term; from ignoring important security information that could have helped prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to not doing a damn thing to fix it. Tell me, what steps did Bush take when the economy went downhill? Gave people $300 as a tax break? Well holy crap, I'd better go and buy that Jag I was eyeing last week before all that extra money out there causes too much inflation. Point being, he did nothing. Bombing the crap out of Afghanistan and Iraq was a nice try at fixing us, but I guess his intellegence repoorts about their roads being paved with diamond was less than fully accurate.

And just for your information, I was reffering to my house, not to Bush's America. Although come to think of it, that's a shit-hole too.

very nice way to not answer the question being asked. Bush was elected by the democratic process in the USA we call the electoral college. If you are unhappy with the electoral college, propose a change to it to your senator or US rep.

I'm sorry, I guess you invented the democratic system, didn't you? Maybe it was just me, but it seemed that a deciding factor in that election was Florida, and if you expect me to sit back and go "hey, that's nice; Bush won." Without any further evidence than "A bunch of old people didn't do it right, but they really, really like Bush," then you're more than welcome to give me a big wet one right on my ass.

Everyone with an ounce of economic sense knows the down-turn of the US economy was caused by the .COM bust, Sept. 11th, and the normal economic cycle of our economy of busts and booms. The last 8 months have shown positive signs for the economy after the Bear market because of Bush's economic policy. The economy is not something you can tweak with one night and it will be okay the next morning. It takes a long time for economic policy to equal economic results. Now the results have been positive for nearly a year, I would say Bush's economic policy is on the right track, and not a "shit hole."

First off, the cause of the economy's collapse and the ends taken to put it back on track are completely different. I personally blame Bush for everything that has happened during his term; from ignoring important security information that could have helped prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to not doing a damn thing to fix it. Tell me, what steps did Bush take when the economy went downhill? Gave people $300 as a tax break? Well holy crap, I'd better go and buy that Jag I was eyeing last week before all that extra money out there causes too much inflation. Point being, he did nothing. Bombing the crap out of Afghanistan and Iraq was a nice try at fixing us, but I guess his intellegence repoorts about their roads being paved with diamond was less than fully accurate.

And just for your information, I was reffering to my house, not to Bush's America. Although come to think of it, that's a shit-hole too.
No matter how much evidence I cite to you, no matter how strong my response is, you will contine to blame Bush for anything and everything.

Bush was elected President under the electoral college. If you have a problem with it, your ancestors should have raised their voice 200 something years ago and made your point known. You did not want Bush to get elected in 2000. You are pissed he won, and you blame "the system" for his election. Bush did not win a majority of the popular vote, but neither did Clinton in 1992 or 1996, and no one was bitching then.

Now hold on, NA--your point about the way the electoral college works is legitimate, but comparing Bush's 2000 "win" to Clinton's two wins is crap. In both his wins, Clinton not only won more electoral votes than anyone else, he won more popular votes as well. There is a difference there.

As I've said before, I think the electoral college is a good thing. It forces candidates to spend time in places that would otherwise get copletely ignored. My issues in the Florida 2000 election stem from the other voting irregularities that you refuse to acknowledge for whatever reason.

6.It most certainly does.
You mention spitting at a soldier.
Who the hell, liberal or conservative, since Viet Nam has spit on a returning soldier?
These days, the returning soldier is your father, or brother, or son, or duaghter.
You dont spit at these people....you ARE THESE PEOPLE.

and i'm not entirely convinced that returning soldiers were spit on in more than a very few instances during vietnam. a good chunk of them wound up on our side, why mess around spitting on them when instead they make for good photo ops?

Now hold on, NA--your point about the way the electoral college works is legitimate, but comparing Bush's 2000 "win" to Clinton's two wins is crap. In both his wins, Clinton not only won more electoral votes than anyone else, he won more popular votes as well. There is a difference there.

As I've said before, I think the electoral college is a good thing. It forces candidates to spend time in places that would otherwise get copletely ignored. My issues in the Florida 2000 election stem from the other voting irregularities that you refuse to acknowledge for whatever reason.
I am saying in a "true democracy" like how people think the US is, if a canidate does not win a majority of the popular vote, then there is a run off between the top two canidates. Clinton did get more popular votes than Bush Sr and Dole, but he never won a majority of the votes. Perot in 1992 took 20% of the popular vote, which a majority of those voters would have probably voted for Bush Sr.

I see it as people can either be for one of two things:

1. Support the electoral college
2. Have a true democracy, making the winner of an election win the Majority of votes in the jurisdiction he is running for.

Option 2 will never happen, because 3/4 of the states will not ratify that change, so the USA's only option is #1.

And the voting irregularities that I refuse to acknowledge are because they were not irregularities according to FLA and national law.

And the voting irregularities that I refuse to acknowledge are because they were not irregularities according to FLA and national law.I agree with you on your points about the electoral college.

But you're wrong about the irregularities in the Florida 2000 election, especially when it comes to felons who had been given back their voting rights in the states where they were incarcerated. Florida was under a federal consent decree that required them to recognize those voting rights, and they still refused. That's a violation of federal law. Florida also settled a suit surrounding the voter roll scrubbing in 2000 and I believe they paid damages, so they certainly admitted some culpability there as well.

And the voting irregularities that I refuse to acknowledge are because they were not irregularities according to FLA and national law.I agree with you on your points about the electoral college.

But you're wrong about the irregularities in the Florida 2000 election, especially when it comes to felons who had been given back their voting rights in the states where they were incarcerated. Florida was under a federal consent decree that required them to recognize those voting rights, and they still refused. That's a violation of federal law. Florida also settled a suit surrounding the voter roll scrubbing in 2000 and I believe they paid damages, so they certainly admitted some culpability there as well.
All I am aware of is that not long before the election, Florida took away the voting rights of convicted felons, because according to FLA law, felons are not allowed to vote. I will have to do some research on the rest of it before I form an opinion on the issue.

All I am aware of is that not long before the election, Florida took away the voting rights of convicted felons, because according to FLA law, felons are not allowed to vote. I will have to do some research on the rest of it before I form an opinion on the issue.Here's the basics--and you're welcome to check me on them. Florida can do whatever it wants to the voting rights of felons whoa re convicted in its jurisdiction, and they're not alone in stripping voting rights from their felons.

What it can't do is remove voting rights that have been returned by another state. So if you're convicted in say, Maine (I think they restore voting rights upon release, but I could be wrong), and you get your right to vote back and then later on you move to Florida, Florida has no right, under federal law, to strip you of your right to vote. They had done it in the past, had been sued, and a federal judge had entered a consent decree against them to force them to stop. That's the basics as I understand them.