The election is over so why can't you people get over it? Bush is in, Gore is out and Clinton is still making headlines. All the whining in the world isn't going to change a damn thing. I like gossip just as much as the next person, but damn, quit beating a dead horse!

-- pavilion (pavilion@getoverit.jog), February 13, 2001

Answers

Dude,

This place still beats Y2K around just for kicks.....

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), February 13, 2001.

But the horse isn't dead yet. We must continue to kick it so that it doesn't rise again as in the last scene of a horror-flick. The horse is just playin' possum. Kick the shit out of it; kick it while it's down; kick it 'cause it's fun. Kick, kick, kick!

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 13, 2001.

Why Lars, you're positively glowing! I had no idea Sadism was your bag.

Making note to self...

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 13, 2001.

When will the GOP get over Bill Clinton?

The Democrats and other independents who watched the felons on the Supreme Court deliberately and knowingly disenfranchise 50 million Americans SHOULD NOT and WILL NOT "get over it." This is a crime of treason, of a magnitude never before seen in this nation, and a good portion of America is horrified by what happened.

Gore won the popular vote, and he is winning the electoral vote in the recounts in Florida. "What does it matter?" you ask in irritation.

Well, the wrong guy is in the White House, slow one.

Americans didn't elect George Bush for President. He was illegally installed by judicial fiat and a constitutional coup by the Florida Congress and executive branch.

GOP traitors have already "gotten over" watching our democracy be stolen from the people in broad daylight. The true patriots of this country will not, will never "get over it." We will fight until justice is restored, and until the dignity of every voice in America --- every vote --- is counted.

Meanwhile, the TRUTH is coming out, and will continue to come out, and all of you who continue to defend and justify this illegal installation of power fitting for a banana republic but not a democratic republic will be shamed by your BETRAYAL of your own country.

As for the Felonious Five, they ought to be behind bars. They are criminals in the TRUEST sense of the word, and history will paint them accurately for what they are : TRAITORS and FELONS who soiled the history and democratic legitimacy of this once "great" nation.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), February 13, 2001.

The GOP is so jealous that Clinton got the highest rating in history as president that they feel the only way Dumbya can hope to to get any respect is for them to continue to try to destroy the history of Clinton. After all, he is a hard act to follow. This is also part of their strategy to create a distraction from the fact that Dumbya is an illegitmate President-Reject, clearly not the people's choice.

-- (GOP@lowly.scum), February 13, 2001.

"Dude,

This place still beats Y2K around just for kicks.....

Deano"

Y2K is dead. The energy crisis and the environment is having a severe impact on this planet. There are no solutions, we are all up shit's creek without a paddle. BTW, any of you been given a pink slip yet?

-- pavilion (pavilion@getoverit.jog), February 13, 2001.

There is a certain limited entertainment value watching poor losers whine behind anonymous handles. But what it does for them I'll never quite understand.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 13, 2001.

Anyone here among the laid off?

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004Ub0

-- pavilion (pavilion@getoverit.jog), February 13, 2001.

There is a certain limited entertainment value watching treasonous citizens justify judicial fiat and a flat-out Constitutional coup behind anonymous handles like "Flint". But what it does for these grubby gun-toting traitors to democracy I'll never quite understand.

The FACTS and EVIDENCE are in, folks. This is retribution and justice we're addressing, and we'll see that it's carried out despite the whining of white-trash GOP traitors.

Oh, and if you're not already too flacid and cowardly Flint, try rebutting Vincent Bugliosi's case here.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), February 13, 2001.

pav

It was meant as a joke. Lighten up my friend.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), February 13, 2001.

Sorry, but the U.S. Constitution clearly states that the state legislature has the power to choose presidential electors.

All the talk about a "coup" makes people spouting it look silly in my estimation, and I am not a right-winger or a Republican.

BTW, can you name a presidential election in which everyone's vote counted?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 13, 2001.

So why didn't they Buddy? Why did "state's rights Bush" immediately run to the feds the day after the election?

Answer that and you peel a major layer back to what exactly these extremist IMPOSTORS are really about, and it has little if anything to do with traditional American values.

-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), February 13, 2001.

Buddy: Exactly, ever since machine voting began it was known that *every* vote would not be counted (as in: *every single vote*)

Flint, as always you're right!

Mar. (who's wondering what that "GOP white trash" remark was all about...?)

-- Not now, not like this (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), February 13, 2001.

It seems to me that it was Gore's folks who immediately took legal action before anyone else did.

Some points that many of the "coup" criers seem to miss are these: What makes you think that the entire election should have been decided by a few thousand rejected ballots in Florida?

What do you think the chances are that had an inaccurate manual hand count in Florida reversed the election results we would have had an even bigger fight on our hands? Bush could have challenged the results in dozens of counties around the country.

After watching the manual recount process on TV, I still cannot fathom why anyone would think that process could possibly be fair.

I just read the Vincent Bugliosi article cited here. What strikes me in that article is how much of his opinion the author believes is fact. He has attempted to make the reader take his speculations as fact. Rubs me the wrong way.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 13, 2001.

Buddy: "It seems to me that it was Gore's folks who immediately took legal action before anyone else did."

Depends on how you take the phrase "Gore's folks". The first suit was filed by some Florida Democrat voters in state court in Palm Beach County. The first suit filed by either presidential campaign team was filed by the Bush campaign in Federal court in Atlanta. The Gore campaign first filed suit *after* these other legal actions were taken.

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), February 13, 2001.

"The first suit was filed by some Florida Democrat voters in state court in Palm Beach County."

I've always thought that argument was funny. "Some Florida Democrat Voters" wouldn't be Gore campaigners now would they? And they didn't have any help from the Gore lawyers now did they?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 13, 2001.

And they didn't have any help from the Gore lawyers now did they?

I watched and listened to some of the lawyers representing those voters back when the cases came to the Florida Supreme court. And judging from that observation those lawyers were not getting any high-powered aid or advice. The caliber of their legal expertise was about what I'd expect if some group of dentists and retired florists pooled some money and hired some local guy with his shingle out. In other words, one guy doing all the research, writing the briefs, making the arguments in court and not sleeping much.

But, believe whatever you want. Obviously, belief requires no evidence for or against.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), February 13, 2001.

Hey Little Nipper, I question the caliber of Gore's teams legal expertise too, so that doesn't say much.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 13, 2001.

Bush was never elected president. Over 50,000,000 voters voted against him. But we will have the last laugh. All 50,000,000 of us are gong to quit our jobs and go on welfare. This will destroy the economy and ensure that dumbya will be a one-term president! Go Dems in 2004!

-- Dac Dalama (dac@none.business), February 13, 2001.

Can't you all get over it?

Pavillion, no. Don't you see, it is endless. It has gone on forever, it will go on forever. People disagreeing, jockying for power. IMO, this is good, this is the way it should be. This is how fresh ideas are created, this is how corrupt dynasties are avoided. The important thing is to maintain this dynamic tension without violence. The important thing is that power keeps shifting from one locus to another.

Even Chairman Mao recognized the need for a perpetual renewal. Trouble is he couldn't reconcile that within a totalitarian state. And so he had the Cultural Revolution which was not a revolution at all, just a state-sponsored, national nervous breakdown.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 13, 2001.

"There is a certain limited entertainment value watching poor losers whine behind anonymous handles. But what it does for them I'll never quite understand.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 13, 2001. "

Man you sound just like Anita!

-- pavilion (pavilion@getoverit.jog), February 13, 2001.

Fake addresses should be fine, provided if you start a thread, you don't request that all responses bounce.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 07, 1999.

-- pavilion (pavilion@getoverit.jog), February 13, 2001.

“All 50,000,000 of us are gong to quit our jobs and go on welfare.”

‘Gong’? There has to be a pun there somewhere.

I suspect that 20,000,000 of you are already on welfare, in this country illegally, or dead. So much for the liberal majority.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 13, 2001.

Flint: "There is a certain limited entertainment value watching poor losers whine behind anonymous handles."

You must have been a barrel of laughs in grade school, Flint. What next? Calling anyone who disagrees with you a poopyhead? hauling out the old "rubber and glue" line?

Haven't you noticed that, with this 'ha ha! whining losers' kind of horse apples you are linking arms and marching in lockstep with such mature folks as Ain't and Boswell? If you did notice, would you care?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), February 13, 2001.

Nips:

What deep lessons can we learn, that we have not already discussed? We've observed that our system does not handle electoral ties very well. We've learned that losers of close elections (of either party) are less willing to appeal to the legislature as intended, and more willing to appeal to the courts where such matters absolutely do not belong, if the legislature is dominated by the winning party. We've learned that some people simply can't face defeat, however minor or vicarious.

And how many times do we need to learn that last lesson? By now, I have relegated these people to the same group with those who continue to see computer date bugs lurking behind every trend they dislike, whether computers are even involved or not. Certainly there is no use trying to address such people sensibly, to marshall facts or logic or analysis. They are the intellectual equivalent of foghorns in Kansas, good for a laugh now and then but generally thin entertainment.

And I've noticed that those who use stable handles and real addresses, with the (at least slight) obligation to stand behind their positions, rarely exhibit such advanced symptoms. The weirdos always hide. But if you have some serious issue to discuss, by all means raise it and we'll talk about it. You also run the risk that, if you support the mindless, you'll be treated as one.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 13, 2001.

(((Bush was never elected president. Over 50,000,000 voters voted against him. But we will have the last laugh. All 50,000,000 of us are gong to quit our jobs and go on welfare. This will destroy the economy and ensure that dumbya will be a one-term president! Go Dems in 2004!)))

hahahahohohohehehe. losers!! most of you 50,000,000 gore voters are already on welfare.. or gov't "workers" or union socialists so you shouldn't have been allowed to vote anyway !!! hahaha. loser scum. hehehe. whooooooo

-- kermie (kermie@aol.com), February 13, 2001.

I agree with the first post. I'm sick of all this hatred and bickering, even though, yes, I realize it's your right to waste your time in such a manner.

Move along folks. Nothing to see here. Go back to your lives.

-- (cin@cin.cin), February 13, 2001.

Flint is entitled to change his position on any given subject, no opinion is carved in stone. The best approach to any subject, is to play the devil's advocate. A good debater will play both sides of the subject in question, and will try to sway and confuse the reader into his cleaver web. Flint is one of those good debaters, however, he has left too many blathers to his chagrin.

-- pavilion (pavilion@getoverit.job), February 13, 2001.

pavilion:

[Flint is entitled to change his position on any given subject, no opinion is carved in stone.]

Opinions based on the preponderance of the evidence work best. As observations accumulate, the preponderance might change. If it does, an intelligent person's opinion will track the evidence, rather than deny it and hold to a fixed position.

[The best approach to any subject, is to play the devil's advocate.]

Best for what purpose? As mental calisthenics, it's pretty good. Some of us are here to debate and discuss and exercise our minds. Those here to preach the same gospel right or wrong do dominate, though.

[A good debater will play both sides of the subject in question, and will try to sway and confuse the reader into his cleaver web.]

Whoa, back up there. A good *thinker* will recognize that there are *many* possible viewpoints on any subject, and understand that you learn nothing if you consider every viewpoint stupid and wrong except your own. Varied insight isn't an effort to "try to sway and confuse" at all, it's an effort to see with both more clarity and more depth. The world is complex and multifaceted. It's those who try to simplify it beyond any recognition who are confused and trapped. *Especially* because to a simpleton, a simpleminded opinion looks like God's Brass Ring.

[Flint is one of those good debaters, however, he has left too many blathers to his chagrin.]

You mean, you disagree with me sometimes? Hell, so do I!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 13, 2001.

I agree to disagree, but hell, we've all had trouble understanding where your coming from, and from what direction.

Here's another example of your winding the rubber band around the ball:

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001ant

" [resigned]:

This is a genuine and honest curiosity, posed without any intent of rancor or hostility.

[OK, fair enough. I'll treat it that way as well as I can.]

In a thread below dated today 10/15/99 "Y2K compliant systems are going backwards" you stated:

"Looks like we'll see hardships, but I've never doubted that.[I think you're hedging with that last statement.] My projection of just how hard has suffered an uptick lately."

Your statement was greeted with gracious nods from regulars on this forum, much to their honorable and everlasting credit. I too, wish to give you an appreciative nod for your integrity in making that statement. Still, it raises a few questions I've long wanted to ask.

In "prep" terms, your statement comes at quite a late date. So many of your frequent words in this forum have been spent minimizing the problem. I don't mind that you pose challenges to information, but I do have to ask why you have posed such strong and assured challenges to the unknowable impact of Y2K while quietly having months of preps in your garage.

[It's possible that my efforts have suffered by contrast with what we most often posted here. I sincerely feel that I'm not minimizing the problem, I'm simply not making a systematic effort to *maximize* the problem. That role is well represented here as it is. I keep saying that our information is ambiguous, unreliable and hopelessly incomplete. I try to determine what all the information taken together really means, rather than use bits and pieces of it selectively to support a foregone conclusion. I don't know what's coming and I don't believe anyone else does either. I consider that the preponderance of information is *most consistent* with exasperating but manageable problems. Your reading may well differ, but if support our opinion only with the most congenial subset of what you read, then I find your opinion suspect.]

You take positions of conviction that Y2K will not be an impactful event. However, many regulars have pointed out that you have prepped. I've not heard you say otherwise, so I end to believe them.

[Odds and stakes again. Also frame of reference. Just because I expect problems to be manageable writ large, doesn't necessarily mean each of us as individuals might not face something really serious. We accept 40,000 traffic deaths in the US yearly as one of the prices we pay for using our cars. This rate is certainly manageable on the whole, but has terrible consequences for those killed and for their families. I wouldn't be at all surprised if many y2k consequences weren't as random and targeted as specifically. If *you* freeze, it's small consolation that most people elsewhere are warm. So I recommend that everyone prepare. Murphy might show up at anyone's door.]

If this is not just a rhetorical game to you, why haven't you posted under your signature information about your prep status? Something to the effect of, "Prepped just in case." Or mention in your posts from time to time your prep status?

[Well, I have done so, from time to time. In most respects, I've reached the point where I wouldn't need to go outside for at least six months. In some respects, I can go for a year. I've stashed away plenty of food and supplies, I heat with wood in any case (which I cut, transport, and split myself), and one of my hobbies is target shooting. I've tried to cover as many bases as I can. But there's a separate preparation forum for such things. My goal here is to figure out what we're most likely to face, rather than focus on what the worst case might be. As I said, many others here do that so well.]

Now, at this late date, with (allegedly)significant preps already underneath you, you indicate that you feel a need to prep some more.

[Some items have a short nominal shelf life. These have long been on our list, and we're now starting to, uh, hoard those as well.]

You are a intelligent person, influential to some degree, and with some demonstrated debate talents. Whether intended or not, it would seem you have put these talents to use to convince people that prepping in a significant way is unnecessary, and aye, sometimes the subtext of your posts is that it is foolish to do so. You are entitled to your opinion. But, in my view, with the talents you possess comes a higher accountability.

[This is hard to answer. I feel that preparations will not be required for most of us, and *really* necessary for some of us. But we don't know who. I tend to agree with Jim Duggan, head of Gartner's y2k research, who said about preparations that "doing nothing is probably a safe bet." Yeah, for most of us it is. Are you willing to gamble on being among the "most" or not? There is plenty of evidence that problems are likely, the exact nature of which we cannot predict. But many here distort this evidence to support the contention that *all* problems are *sure* to happen, or at least enough of them that our standard of living will suffer drastically. I don't feel this is well supported by what little we DO know.]

Everybody is responsible for his/her own decisions re Y2K preparedness. Everybody is responsible for assigning each argument about Y2K it's proper credence and weight. Pleaes understand, it is difficult for a reader to do that when an active poster like yourself (seemingly against prepping) withholds very important information about his/her prep status. So much for conviction.

[No, I don't withhold that information. I've discussed my preparations quite a few times, and most people here are aware that they are extensive preparations (I get needled about that a lot). Nor do I try to hide my identity or location. I feel your statements here are unfounded.]

I believe you have influenced people. In the end, I would regard that as their mistake. Nonetheless, at some point and on some level, it also redounds to the clarity of your conscience.

[Why? If I've helped some people see the entire issue more dispassionately, good. If I've talked them out of preparation, that hasn't been my intention. Again, I recommend preparing. The problem is very real. I just can't accept that if I refuse to *exaggerate* the problem, I must be claiming it doesn't exist. There is a common, all-or-nothing mentality around here. I argue that the "all" position is highly unlikely (broadly speaking), so I get pigeonholed into the "nothing" camp. Then people get confused when I read bad news and say "yes, this is bad news." They say I've "switched sides." There aren't any "sides". There are bugs. Be ready for them.]

If I am wrong about your prep status, then I apologize in advance for believing what I have read on these boards , humbly and truly. And I will apologize again if you tell me the rumors are wrong.

[Well, I don't know which rumors. So I'm just trying to summarize my position here, and let you make up your own mind.]

However, if I am wrong (on the silver-lining side) I hope this provides an opportunity for you to clear up this rumor about your prep status. The mistake will be mine.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 16, 1999."

-- pavilion (pavilion@getoverit.job), February 13, 2001.

"We've learned that some people simply can't face defeat, however minor or vicarious."

Gore's win was not minor or "vicarious," whatever the hell that means. He won the single largest popular vote in the last century next to Reagan.

Projections from the recount in Florida going on now show that Gore has won the electoral vote handily as well.

You see, traitor Flint, Gore won the both the popular vote and electoral vote, and thus the election, and had the Felonious Five not committed an assault against our Constitution, he would be our rightful President, not the monkey currently occupying his office installed by a bloodless coup.

Is that clear enough for you, treasonous Flint? Because you don't seem able to face the facts. Rebut just one, just ONE argument in Vincent Bugliosi's argument (linked above) that the Supreme Court Five are grubby, common felons who deserve to be behind bars.

But you cannot, and so you will not, coward and traitor.

PS: Your meandering about anonymous handles was really hilarious, given that you post behind one. Oh, I see, because you've posted "longer" than others with anonymous handles, you are more "respectable" (guffaws).

That's logic for ya!

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), February 14, 2001.

[Gore's win (sic) was not minor or "vicarious," whatever the hell that means.]

Uh, right. You know it's not true, you just don't know what it means? GOOD thinking there, dumbass.

What it means is that you weren't the candidate, Gore was. Gore lost, and conceded. He recognized reality when he could no longer avoid it. He got on with his life. He had enough sense to recognize that unpleasant facts are still facts. In short, Gore exhibited sanity.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 14, 2001.

Flint, you seem to be implying that anyone who voices loud objections to the method by which Bush assumed office is unable to recognize "reality". However, I don't see anyone claiming that Bush does not occupy the White House, only that he does so illegitimately. In effect, you are saying that, by taking a particular side in the debate, Coup2K is insane. I believe that is called an ad hominem.

In our system, legitimacy is conferred by the consent of the governed. There is some reason to doubt whether the governed consented to having Bush as president. You yourself have repeatedly described this election as a tie. And, while having the Supreme Court declare Bush the victor was sufficient to confer power on Bush, it does not clear up the doubt as to whether the people conferred power on Bush and therefore leaves ample room to doubt the basic legitimacy of his power, though perhaps not its legality.

You say Coup2K "was not the candidate" and therefore the loss was vicarious. That is hooey. Coup2K is a citizen and therefore had and has a very intimate involvment in the outcome. Losing the chance to be represented as one wishes to be is a loss. It is felt as a loss and is a loss in "reality".

You know, you make some very nasty insinuations about your opponents. Questioning someone's sanity is nasty. You have some very mean, small places in your psyche. They show.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), February 14, 2001.

"Uh, right. You know it's not true, you just don't know what it means? GOOD thinking there, dumbass."

Traitor Flint, the truth, which the Washington Post now admits, is that GORE WON THE POPULAR VOTE AND FLORIDA'S ELECTORAL VOTE. My note, moron, was that I didn't know what "vicarious" meant in relation to your lame defense of criminality and treason.

You sicken me. I once respected your intellect, but now I find it frightening. You and your cohorts are the reason this nation has gone to the dogs -- you and your narrow self-interests that demean democracy and the people who care about honor and decency and the idea that every voice and vote in America ought to count.

Gore conceded because he was overruled by judicial fiat. He was strong-armed and beaten down by five Supreme Court thugs -- common felons. There's only one or two legal scholars in the nation you can find who will "defend" what the Supreme Court did, and Gore did the only thing left for him to do.

The "unpleasant facts" are that this election was stolen from the people and that the majority of American voters were brazenly disenfranchised by GOP felons. Continue to defend that, traitor Flint, and continue to shame yourself in front of your fellow citizens who have the decency to fight for traditional democratic principles over their selfish self-interests.

My vote was illegally nullified by five felons, and you call it "reality." You insult every American who has the courage to call this election what it was: a case of high treason and criminal fraud.

Why not move to Cuba or any other friendly banana republic, you shameless asshole, because that's where you rightfully belong. Democracy doesn't deserve grubby traitors like you who publicly defend the mauling and rape of Lady Liberty.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), February 14, 2001.

Snicker. I rest my case. *Very* comfortably.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 14, 2001.

"Can't You All Get Over It?"

Maybe. maybe not. But by now it's pretty plain that Flint just can't get over himself.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.com), February 14, 2001.

Nipper:

Why...why, you're beautiful when you're jealous!

So OK, I can't help it, I just *love* it when I can make a point and have it ratified with such resounding clarity, as spectacular an Exhibit A as anyone could dream of.

But I assure you, I'd be just as impressed as you are if you nailed it that dead-on yourself. Unlike you, I wouldn't even resent it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 14, 2001.

Snicker. I rest my case. *Very* comfortably.

Yeah, Flint, as usual, comes up with nothing to rebut the facts. Just ad nauseum innuendoes that he thinks are "witty."

Faced with the facts, he falls into lame-ass sarcasm. How clever, how very enlightened and noble he must think he is down South with his guns and shooting targets and liquor and left-over Y2k stockpile. Flint's a sanctimonious smug little white-trash drunk who'll go to his death defending guns and no taxes -- anything but Liberty itself.

"Snickers" and sarcasm don't rebut the facts, Traitor Flint. After you've set your beer down long enough, why not try again. On second thought, why bother. You'll not be able to defend your position because you haven't a beery leg to stand on nor a blurry eye to see from.

Enjoy your cozy little hell of betrayal to the nation that raised you, asshole.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), February 14, 2001.

Attention: Injustice Sandra Day O’Connor

To you, I am just one faceless, nameless person among millions of Americans, an American nobody. I am; however, white, Protestant, well educated by public institutions, a small business owner, and involved community member. I work hard, abide the law, pay my taxes, and have always exercised my right and responsibility to vote. I have been politically aware, but never politically active. I have always been PROUD to be an American, a Daughter of the American Revolution, and now the mother of a United States Air Force officer and pilot. I represent the backbone and lifeblood that has made and continues to make this nation powerful.

I cried for my country on the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated. I was then a child of ten and the violent death was frightening. I cried again for my country on December 12, 2000, when the decision of Bush vs Gore was read. I am now a woman of nearly fifty and your participation in this obviously partisan decision is more frightening to me now than murder was forty years ago. NO time for democracy? NO time to count the votes cast by Americans? Issuing an injunction against the good people of Florida who were getting the task done to count the votes? An act of the high court for the sole purpose of protecting one wealthy, spoiled citizen’s premature and illegitimate claim to the Office of President? Deliberately running out an imaginary and unnecessary clock to appoint a leader in a country founded upon democratic principles?

To borrow YOUR own words, Injustice O’ Connor, my reaction was, “Oh no, this is terrible!” As a Florida voter whose county uses punch machines, this meant that you got two votes this election and very likely my one vote may never even have been counted. Isn’t there an amendment to the constitution that is supposed to protect me from such an unequal voting disparity?

Even though you distorted and contorted the Fourteenth Amendment to silence my vote, I will; however, exercise my right under the First Amendment. I want to tell you and the other four injustices that I view your majority decision as the most serious contempt of law ever committed in this land.

You have seriously breached my confidence and respect for your worthiness to occupy ANY bench, much less the most revered in the land. I applaud the actions of the five hundred and growing number of professors of law who have publicly condemned you and your cohorts of partisan action. I can only hope that they and those who follow will teach their students throughout the ages of your personal and professional failure to be what our nation needed and expected you to be; impartial judges, blind to anything but justice for the people and guardians of our law. May history forever remember you with a black mark against your integrity and as one of the Five Assassins of Democracy! And to think I once admired you as first lady of the court! My respect is now bestowed upon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for dissenting to your opinion without traditional respect. Justice Stevens statement of truth shall be immortal and your lack of signature reflects your cowardice.

Election 2000 will never be forgotten and most likely not forgiven by millions of Americans like me. We have received your wake-up call from apathy and complacency. We are now learning to non-violently protest. Tears of pride and trepidation rolled down my cheeks on the evening that I watched my son pledge to give his life if necessary to defend this country against enemies foreign and domestic. I then feared Saddam Hussein and other terrorists. Now after your decision, I fear more my own corrupt countrymen and their greed for power and money at the expense of the people and democracy. I cannot in good conscience allow my son to be willingly to give his life in honor of this country, if I do not use my voice and keyboard to protest the violation of those rights and freedoms he stands willing to sacrifice his life to protect and preserve. This is not about Al Gore or George Bush or being a Democrat or Republican: this is about what America means and represents and what I strongly believe you have assisted in defiling.

We will not obediently “Get over it!” We are not just a few ‘fringe’ people. We are Americans! We are many and we are diverse! The spirit of our ancestors still courses through our blood as sons and daughters of Native Americans, patriots of Independence, immigrants from around the world, and those whom were so unjustly enslaved. We expect our Justice Department to seek out and punish those involved and responsible in this true crime against Americans. We demand our legislative branch to act to insure that NEVER again will even one single American vote not be counted. We dissent to a court appointed monarchy and self-proclaimed royal executive branch. WE, the PEOPLE, want control of OUR country! We will be legitimately governed, but never ruled. And we WILL be heard!!

We shall be everywhere you look from now on. Our faces may remain nameless, but they shall be seen in shades of red and yellow and black and white, old and young, male and female alike. We will always be there in the crowd, united and as one! We will forever remind you that it is our birthright to dissent! We will NOT be oppressed! In the infinite wisdom of Thomas Jefferson, “The patronage of Public Office should No longer be confided to one who uses it for Active Opposition to the National Will.” This country was founded to be a government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE with ALL created equal. That is the legacy I received from my forefathers and mothers and the one I intend to be bequeathed to my children’s, children’s, children.

Listen to the PEOPLE, Injustice O’ Connor and hear our mantra: “Hail to the Thief and the Supreme Coup!” We hope it rings in your ears while you are awake, haunts your sleep at night, and echoes beyond your grave.

With no respect,

Debra Scott Hierlmeier Land O’ Lakes, Florida

-- Just Another Citizen for Flint to Snicker At (GOP@thugs.com), February 15, 2001.

Oh look Flint, you have a new friend. And darn if he doesn’t sound like he has a sore butt. Wonder what could have caused that?

-- Coup (dont@stoop.2low), February 15, 2001.

Flint is a sad sack. He says he would be impressed when others say something accurate. Bullshit. When you say something that is correct and true, he can't stand it. He always has to debate you. He always has to come out thinking that he is more right than anyone else. He's a self-admitted "Anthill kicker". Translation = EGOMANIAC.

-- (pretty@disgusting.actually), February 15, 2001.

"Wonder what could have caused that?"

Perhaps it is because he was gang-raped by GW Bush, Dick Cheney and five Supreme Court justices.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), February 15, 2001.

We were all gang banged up the butt by Bush and the losers on the Supreme Court! (Flint apparently got to use vaseline)

-- Mikel (mej023@earthlink.net), February 16, 2001.

Flint, sir you are too intelligent to waste your time talking to morons. (But I'm not one to talk. I'm too intelligent to waste my time talking to Cherri but do it anyway.)

Have a good day, sir.

-- Michael (Michael Roskoff@hotmail.com), February 16, 2001.