XPost: talk.politics.drugs, talk.politics.guns, alt.current-events.usa
XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.republican
XPost: alt.politics.bush, alt.law-enforcement
From: webmaster@gemsgallery.org
"ulTRAX" wrote in message
news:3513d8b1.0311260700.42ffced2@posting.google.com...
> Eric Johnson wrote in message
news:...
> > On 25-11-2003 19:17, in article
> > 3513d8b1.0311251017.de1686a@posting.google.com, "ulTRAX"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Pray tell what fact have I gotten wrong?
> > >
> > > Statement 1: Does the Constitution permits minority rule? YES... it so
> > > did in 2000.
> >
> > No, it did not. Bush won a sufficient amount of electoral votes in the
> > Electoral college.
>
> The EC and Senate were meant to give the votes of citizens in small
> states more vote than citizens elsewhere. Such vote weighing schemes
> are unconstitutional on all OTHER levels of government.
>
> > If you are going to total up the number of votes nationwide won by each,
you
> > will expose yourself as an idiot who does not realize that the "total
number
> > of votes," that a presidential candidate received is not a figure which
has
> > meaning in the USA Presidential system.
>
> Winning though an unaccountable, anti-democratic abomination such as
> the EC hardly erases the fact that Bush did NOT earn the consent of
> the governed.
>
>
> > Will you please grow up and admit reality? Otherwise it is hard to take
you
> > seriously.
>
>
> No Fluffy... it's time for YOU to get a dose of reality.
>
> The reality is that there are principles of morally legitimate
> government that were compromised away in the Constitution. The reality
> is that the Constitution has set in cement the primitive politics of
> 1778. The reality is that the federalist formulas set up in the
> Constitution makes morally illegitimate government more and more
> likely because of the nation's changing demographics.
>
> > >Does this meet the test of moral legitimacy set forth in
> > > the Declaration of Independence? NO.
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> Unless you believe that losing the national vote by 500000 to Gore and
> having some 3 million Nader voters also vote against Bush, it's pretty
> hard to make a case that George aWol Bush got "the consent of the
> governed"... isn't it Einstein. If you like a rigged anti-democratic
> system just because you love power over moral legitimacy... why not
> just come right out and admit it.
=====
You have to remember that EJ is a for-real Bush Buddy.
Had his picture taken with George and all that.
Bushies never admit to anything!
EJ will even publicly lie about documents which report the Bush Family's
past history and crimes, as he did when I posted a link to the document
"Elkhorn Manifesto". EJ told everyone repeatedly that this was a document
about the Jewish Banking conspiracy and thus a totally fraudulent document
which nobody should bother reading. When called on his lie, he faked a
search result and presented it as proof of his claims, right here in t.p.d..
When again called on his lie, he took the thread to private email.
Apparently EJ made a nice bundle of cash from his association with the Bush
Cartel and hopes to do so again if the opportunity arises, so he sings the
praises of GWBush every chance he gets.
EJ's job here on t.p.d. is to protect George W. Bush from acusations of
wrongdoing at any cost and to insure all trolls have an email response they
can use to remain active in the group - thus maintaining the newsgroup's
quota of troll-droppings and hopefully limiting the number of readers.
Some think he is really John Asscroft's little brother in disguise.
Regardless of his apparent pro-cannabis position, EJ is no friend of
liberty, honesty, or truth.
GEM
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
