Unsubstantiated allegations that dimpled chads (as you brought up the subject and asked about it) haven't been counted elsewhere in this country? Where have you been for the past few weeks?
To be honest, Ellen, I am quite muddled on the entire issue on dimpled chads. I understand that the issue is addressed in several state election statutes, but I have failed to come across ONE ELECTION in which they were relied upon to determine a close election. You, yourself, have come here and stated that reliance upon dimple chads is commonplace by your use of the words "often" and "throughout." I don't see the dimple chad in those terms, and had kindly asked you to convince me otherwise with specific instances (i.e. election news coverage or court cases) in which the dimple chad rules had been used. I figured it shouldn't be so difficult since you believe their use to be "often" and applied "throughout" the US.
What I have asked you to do was not unreasonable and rather easy IF in-fact your words were the truth. But they're not. Your response to me on this issue was just one of many here that are filled with unsubstantiated Democratic dogma regarding this entire campaign.
You present yourself as an 'expert' of sorts on law. As such, you already know the answer to your own question.
Believe me, I am far from a legal expert, and have never claimed to describe myself by that title. I am just trained in law, and in some ways am no more, or no less, astute in these matters than some of the clowns you see on TV who profess to the world their legal expertise in these matters.
Lawyers are advocates. Each will espouse their own interpretation on such matters. In other words, they don't necessarily espouse the truth. Instead they manipulate it to their advantage. Legal analysis requires a more objective approach, and this is what judges are SUPPOSE to do. I enjoy the performing my own legal analysis in order to put to practice some of my legal training I acquired in law school, to see if I can figure out the issues on my own without reliance of any talking heads on TV. No one can second guess what a court will do. Its a game, and its fun. And so far, I'm not doing to bad.
So, to throw back to me my own "question," or more appropriately my CHALLENGE to you, is no excuse for your unsubstantiated defense of chad ballots. I said what I said about chad ballots because, IMHO, UNLESS there is some EXTRAORDINARY EXTRINSIC evidence to indicate voter intent, and perhaps explain WHY the chad was not fully punched through, it is completed unfounded for any election official, or court for that matter, to accept an impregnated chad alone as an express of voter intent. For example, in the Massachusetts case, I believe the dimpled chad rule was relied upon because the ballot card was wet at the time the hole was punched. Without such extrinsic evidence all one can do is simply GUESS what the voter's intent was as expressed by the ballot card, and when it comes to the LAW, you (and Al Gore) must realize that a GUESS is simply NOT GOOD ENOUGH, and is certainly no basis to determine who our next President will be. Gore would prefer you to believe otherwise. Shame on him.
You are just trying to get back at me because I didn't appreciate your contacting me via pm (in attempts to lecture me on how I should post and what I should say) and put you on pm ignore status.
First, Ellen, I could really give a rat's ass what you think of me. I tried to show some respect for you, but its obvious it was for naught. I contacted you in the manner I did because I thought your input was valuable from the standpoint of healthy debate, but I thought you were being too partisan in your attacking individuals here JUST BECAUSE you PERCEIVED them to be either Republican or Democrat, with absolutely NO APPRECIATION for the individual and the content or substance of his/her message. I thought such communication was more proper via PM than in this public forum, but since you have chosen to bring this discussion to light here, as I have just did.
And now you resort to insults.
What insults? Have I called you names? Is labeling you "extremely partisan" an insult? If anything, judging from you unfounded loyalty to the causes of the Democratic campaign, regardless of their merits or moral foundation, you should be flattered. Or perhaps you take issue that I labeled you a "Democrat?"
Great example you set there.
I try to set an example for myself, period. The beauty of these boards is that whatever is said, or rather posted, is a matter of record, for all to judge. If you make a mistake, its best to own up to it. If you choose to make yourself a fool or unreasonably combative, the world will know and you have only yourself to blame. So, yes, I try to make an example for myself here, as I do in life. You should do the same.
Peace. |
