Crybaby sues because he lost election
In a nation chocked full of crybabies, in a political party of largely crybabies, how do you manage to stand out as a the biggest crybaby in history? Well, you sue because you lost an election because of your voting record which adhered slavishly to the party line, like crybaby Ohio’s Steve Driehaus.
It seems, according to US News, that the Susan B. Anthony List pro-life group campaigned against Driehaus because of his pro-abortion voting record, so Driehaus, using th president’s executive order, written to give cover to Democrats who voted for his healthcare regorm plan, to call Susan B. Anthony List’s attacks “lies”.
And you’d think that a judge with half a brain would toss out the case, right? Well, not Obama appointee U.S. District Court judge Timothy S. Black who allowed Driehaus to go forward in an attempt to enforce the Lawyers’ Employment Act.
What is equally curious, however, is why Judge Black has allowed the case to move forward and why he did not recuse himself from it since, as Barbara Hollingsworth reported Friday in The Washington Examiner, he apparently is the former president and director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati. As seeming conflicts of interest go this one is a real humdinger.
And as TSO says, they say the Stolen valor Act has a chilling effect on political speech, but they allow this crybaby shit go forward.
Thanks to ROS and Old Trooper for the link.
Category: Legal, Liberals suck, Shitbags
What I find hilarious, yet again, is how the left-minded thinking is so sure they are superior to the rest of us who post…This went from an election issue, to holding blacks down, to er, um…Yeah.
Al Franken…how many recounts and “found” votes were there? Just curious who ended that?
GWB? Same thing. SCOTUS rules and you people are still whining. GTFOI, already.
OWS people are freaks inciting revolution and supposedly *now* they understand what the tea party people were standing up for…too little too late. It would suck to be them, because they are doing nothing but stinking up every street they inhabit and leaving it for someone else to clean up. They don’t have it right. They should be in Washington, voting for the people who match their principles- not fucking hope and change. We tried to tell you not to vote for the empty suit…and now we reap what you have sown. Kinda sucks, doesn’t it?
The aptly named insipid is one of those folks who think that because they’ve taken a pre-law course, read a chapter of a hornbook, or actually attended law classes before flunking out, that they are qualified to pontificate about the law. He or she is either quite young, a fool, or a quite young fool. Got all excited with the prospect of showing the folks at TAH a thing or two and, predictably, failed miserably. (He or she was unaware who the class clown was in school.)
Why are we continuing to feed this troll? Everything brought up has been thoroughly debunked, even though junior doesn’t agree, so the troll keeps yapping and gets nowhere.
DON’T FEED THE TROLL!!!
So, it took all this to say that it is Bush’s fault that the idiot in OH is suing for having lost an election?
Actually, it just sounds like a typical career pol move. Is Gore really the first person in history to contest the results of an election, and end up suing over it? Whether he was or not, his filing a lawsuit is what started the court action. (Sorry, I’ve not taken a law course, but took enough science courses to understand the principle that action results in reaction.) You know – court receives a filing and reacts to it with a ruling.
It’s really not all that complicated, folks. The OH dude filed a court case and the court will react to it. What that has to do with any prior president or veep is beyond me.
Oh, and I didn’t appreciate being disenfanchised during Desert Storm, either.
All the words Instupid has typed on this post alone,and not a single point made.
Staying so very close to the Webster definition of his “handle”.
Insipid a. Destitute of taste; vapid; flat; dull; heavy; spiritless……
2-oh-oh and Go!
200!
Who’s up for 200 posts?
<Al Franken…how many recounts and “found” votes were there? Just curious who ended that?
The electorate ended that after a painstaking manual recount in which Al Franken won every challenge, usually in unanimous decision. You're trying to pretend that my issue is with the courts getting involved in State recounts. It's with the Supreme Court of the United States exercising a judicial Coup d' etat. Amusingly enough, it's you "Conservatives" that are arguing against States rights and also for activist judges.
<OWS people are freaks inciting revolution and supposedly *now* they understand what the tea party people were standing up for…too little too late.
Inciting revolution? You mean like this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmqtNiy4lgc
Terrible, i agree.
<Why are we continuing to feed this troll? Everything brought up has been thoroughly debunked, even though junior doesn’t agree, so the troll keeps yapping and gets nowhere.
Translation: Run! Hide! The mean liberal is kicking our ass! Maybe if we call him a troll, call him stupid or young or a neophyte or whatever he'll stop being mean to us!
If you can't argue facts or law and yelling and hollering doesn't work, just call the other guy names.
insipid, you don’t even believe the tripe you’re selling. You’re a paid member of the trolletariat here to distract folks from the issues of the day.
You ARE getting paid, aren’t you? Don’t claim you’re doing this for free.
If you are insipid enough to do this out of the whateveritis you claim is a heart, get in touch with Media Matters, and go through them to the Center for American Progress and sign up and get paid for trolling.
And don’t forget to join the union. Think it’s either SEIU or the Communications Workers. There are rules you know.
<All the words Instupid has typed on this post alone,and not a single point made.
Staying so very close to the Webster definition of his “handle”.
Insipid a. Destitute of taste; vapid; flat; dull; heavy; spiritless……
I recall making the point that this was the first SC case in history which was NOT precedent. If you really believe that those 5 found the principle of identical counting to be SO important why didn't they make that the rule for everyone? They didn't because it wasn't. What was important was getting their guy in.
No one has refuted my point, so you're pretending i didn't make it
I made the point that it is black letter constitutional law that ONLY the States are supposed to decide how the electors are choosen. That the SCOTUS inserting itself into this case was perhaps the greates violation of States rights in our countries history. A violation "Conservatives" are applauding because it chalked up a "win".
No one has refuted my point, so you're pretending i didn't make it
I made the point that if Al Gore was the one requesting the stop there is NO WAY these five justices would of done what they did. That they violated their oath to "rule irrespective of persons". Now all of a sudden an oaths which were so sacred during Clinton's tawdry sex scandal are meaningless when a SCOTUS Justice violates them.
No one has refuted my point, so you're pretending i didn't make it.
So, you're just wrong.
insipid, you are arguing hypotheticals while melle and others have laboriously informed you of the facts in the matter. A hypothetical has no weight when up against a fact. You have no point to make, and no way of making it until you come to the Dark Side, where facts rule.
You have no argument, you have no point, and you are supporting TAH by maintaining readership and lots of linky-luv with advertisers. Heh
Best thing about the Dark Side? Frito pies.
Finally, insipdidy doo dah said something worthwhile: “If you can’t argue facts or law and yelling and hollering doesn’t work, just call the other guy names.”
I accept. You are a knucklehead, a pimply-faced little puke, a pretender, a clown, a misguided miscreant who is unfit for honest work, a silly and inept slob who bends with every left-blowing wind, a lost soul who is both neurotic and self defeating–with a childish romanticism befitting butt clowns who were denied a father’s hand.
Thanks for the suggestion. That felt great!
<insipid, you don’t even believe the tripe you’re selling. You’re a paid member of the trolletariat here to distract folks from the issues of the day.
Not only do I believe the "tripe" i'm "selling" but so would most of you, if the names were reversed. In fact so would Scalia, if the names were reversed. That's why he and Thomas have temper tantrums every time the case is brought up. They know they violated their oaths and hate the fact that the peasants are questioning them.
It's hysterical that NOW the so-called Conservatives are arguing for an all-powerful Federal Government able and ready to assert itself in any State Election since the people are incapable of doing this themselves.
<insipid, you are arguing hypotheticals while melle and others have laboriously informed you of the facts in the matter. A hypothetical has no weight when up against a fact. You have no point to make, and no way of making it until you come to the Dark Side, where facts rule.
No, i'm not. The fact is that the SC did, for the first time in history render a decision limited to one time and one place. That's a fact, not hypothetical.
The fact is that the Constitution does render to the States the power to choose their electors. That's a fact, that's not hypothetical.
The fact is that if it were Gore asking for a stop, they wouldn't of granted it, that's a fact, not hypothetical.
<Thanks for the suggestion. That felt great!
Glad i could be there for you. See? Liberals are givers.
Jeez, talk about a twit who is obsessed! I knew a guy once who drank himself to death questioning the decisions made by Field Marshal Von Paulus at the Battle of Stalingrad. Insipididy doo dah reminds me of that poor drunk.
<insipid, you are arguing hypotheticals while melle and others have laboriously informed you of the facts in the matter. A hypothetical has no weight when up against a fact. You have no point to make, and no way of making it until you come to the Dark Side, where facts rule.
Just out of curiosity, what facts regarding the case itself did Melle and other inform me of? They told me falsly that this was 7-2 Decision. Unfortunately Breyer and Souter STRENUOUSLY disagree with that notion and strongly DISSENTED.
They told me that counting votes the same way is such an important issue that this stanard should be used ONCE only and never referred to again.
They alleged that the military was disenfranchised (terrible if true, but it has nothing to do with what the SCOTUS ruled on).
So really other than lying-ass assertions that this was a 7-2 decision about voting standards rather than 5-4 decisionabout recounts WHAT "facts" have they asserted?
<Jeez, talk about a twit who is obsessed! I knew a guy once who drank himself to death questioning the decisions made by Field Marshal Von Paulus at the Battle of Stalingrad. Insipididy doo dah reminds me of that poor drunk.
Lol. Between 1860 and 1865 about a million people died arguing the integrity of an election. Now all of a sudden a lot of posts on a message board is evidence of obsession.
I've showered today, i thought asserting rights was ok if you were clean?
ha ha. I love that I kicked off another 100+ thread. Yay me.
Insipid, I hate to break it to you but 11 years later is a BIT late to effect the election. Also your points are unbelievably asinine. you point out minutiae and then pull out your barracks lawyer card. Its kind of like listening to a 9/11 truther.
This is one for the American Psychiatric Association now. Clearly it (I’m tired of using he or she) is chadocentric. It must go to sleep thinking about chads, dreams about chads, and wakes up thinking about chads. When there’s any audience at all–online, at a bus stop, a cafe, anywhere–it’s chads, chads, and more chads. This child has a problem that we cannot fix. It will be back–if it ever goes away–but the tag will be different. That won’t help. No matter the topic, it will start scribbling about chads.
<Also your points are unbelievably asinine.
So "assinine" you're inapable of addressing them. And if you call a SCOTUS making a decision regarding ONE man in ONE case "minutia" then you have a different definition then the rest of us. That's NOT what the SC is supposed to do and you know it Or if you really gave a shit about the Constitution you SHOULD know it.
2-17, you’re the first person here who mentioned chads. But nice straw man!
True, true. Another chadocentric twoofer pays us a call. Or is it OG/OG2012/Richter/sockpuppet of the day. Still, hope s/he’s getting paid and paying taxes, cuz s/he’s Patriotic and all that.
I truly am amazed that you are arguing with this retard who can’t even get the basic premise of Gore v. Bush, when the case is available online.
I would love to get involved with this one, but…no, actually I wouldn’t. Even in law school very few wanted to argue the Gore position on this case.
Heh
insipid.. You’re waisting your time aguing with these people while you’re mopping the floor with them point by point that doesn’t matter they only know how to respond with insults and talking points from Hannity and Limbaugh.
Just realize their ring leader Jonn Lilyea was kicked off just about every conservative message board which forced him to start this one, he has about 6 to 8 hard line followers who will do anything he says and they are incapable of independent thought.
They like to wrap themselves in the flag and say that their service is more important than yours when many of them never deployed or were support mos.
<I truly am amazed that you are arguing with this retard who can’t even get the basic premise of Gore v. Bush, when the case is available online.
They're not arguing with me, they're calling me names. Which i'm enjoying because it's a blatant admission that they have nothing. Also, you're one to talk about getting the basic premise right when you can't even tell who the plaintiff and who the Defendant was. The case is Bush v Gore. Or are you trying to hide the fact that it was Bush that ran to the Supreme Court like a School yard sissy?
I know that the case is available online. I also know that the majority of legal scholars who've studied this case, both Conservative and Liberal state that it was a blatantly partisan decision.
You're full of shit when you say you'd "love" to get involved in this one. You wouldn't because you know you'd lose. Very, very badly. You don't have a winnable case.
Hey Obamagirl, you should try this site:
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/
I think you’d love it.
And i do know i’m wasting my time. But it’s enjoyable watching conservatives being reduced to calling me a doodyhead and declaring themeselves winners.
Speaking of mopping the floor, have you finished all your housework before you got on the computer today, OG?
They’re not arguing with me, they’re calling me names. Which i’m enjoying because it’s a blatant admission that they have nothing.
Or, we think you’re such a short-bus rider there’s not much point in spending the next few hours of what is shaping up to be an absolutely gorgeous day trying to convince you of something you’ll never consider? Maybe? Or not. YMMV.
@129 Actually I finished my homework from Grad School. I am going to vacuum later but I like to keep my apartment clean unlike most on this site who have empty pizza boxes littered all over the floor and X Mas decorations up all year round. LOL!!!
You’re- not surprisingly, mistaking the concept of agreeing with considering. I’ve considered your points and found them assinine.
@128 Thanks Insipid!! 🙂 Looks like a great site!!
That’s good, because all of my posts up to this point were clearly asinine…so…
That actually reminds me on Veterans Day my BF and I are having a party at a bar in Manhattan called Stout on West 33rd Street I would like to invite all the people who stand up to the misinformation on this site, we endure callous venomous insults but I feel we have turned some people to the right side.
Most of the people at the party will be veterans and non veterans from the occupy protests, some of my classmates and my bf will have friends there. Hopefully we can get a few people who fight back on this aint hell also!!
Frankly Opionated,Old Trooper and NHSparky you’re not invited!! So don’t even Ask LOL!!
“Make the bad people go away! Please!”
“I’m sorry, insipid, but you brought this on yousrelf.”
“But they’re calling me names!”
“Well, insipid, who was it that asked to be called names? And who said all those crazy foolish things to those nice people? Sorry, sweet pea, but that’s what you get. Now go change your pants. It looks like you wet yourself again.”
All trolling aside, something tells me this guy insipid hasn’t been taking his anti psychotic meds.
@138 Yeah because everyone who disagrees with you must be on some kind of meds, give me a break!!
@Claymore. That’s good, because all of my posts up to this point were clearly asinine…so…
For once we agree on something.
Wrong…two somethings…three if you include this one.
<“But they’re calling me names!”
“Well, insipid, who was it that asked to be called names? And who said all those crazy foolish things to those nice people? Sorry, sweet pea, but that’s what you get. Now go change your pants. It looks like you wet yourself again.”
You misconstrue. I'm not complaining about the fact that you've been reduced to name-calling. I'm enjoyingit imensely. I'm just pointing out the fact that you've reduced to that as evidence that you have nothing.
Also, in regards to the insults, isn't there a way you can make them, you know, less lame? I mean really "instupid"? Retard? You wet yourself? Short-bus? Far be it for me to tell any of you how to engage in vituperation, but still Oscar Wilde and Winnston Churchill have nothing to fear from TAH when it comes to epic put-downs.
I'm a gay male so maybe you can throw in some fag jokes just for variety? I think someone's already used the term limp-wristed to describe liberals, so there you are. Just trying to help.
@139. No OG, just trolls like you. I don’t think Insipid is on meds. I just don’t thing He or She is in full command of the facts. YOU on the other hand, are definitely on High doses of SOMETHING.
OG it has nothing to do with him disagreeing with me, more with the reasons why. Damn I wonder what’s in that kool aid….not enough to drink it though 😉
I’m a gay male so maybe you can throw in some fag jokes just for variety?
Hey, you asked for it. You need new material?
You know why there’s no cure for AIDS yet? 30 years and they still can’t get the rats to butt-fuck.
Thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all week.
Sparky–
LMAO —Here are some one liners I found
Did you hear about the homosexual electron?
Went around blowing fuses.
Did you hear about the homosexual letter?
Only came in male boxes.
What do you call 50 lesbians and 50 government employees in one room?
100 people that don”t do d*ck!
This has been very enjoyable to read, insipid I am still not sure what to think of you. There are several possibilities. The obvious is that you are a troll, as evidenced by the fact that you have been doing some on the fly research and arguing based on info given to you by the people you are arguing against. You are ignorant, which just means you don’t know any better, but you seem to know some things. Lastly, you could just be stupid…and well just declaring youself the winner over and over may work in some circles it doesn’t work very often.
I’m dissapointed in you insipid. For a second I thought you might be legit, but the gay male pushed it a little too far. Attention whore…
@143 OG it has nothing to do with him disagreeing with me, more with the reasons why. Damn I wonder what’s in that kool aid….not enough to drink it though
Which facts did i get wrong? Of course you won’t answer that because you’re lying to save face.
OG…on Veterans Day I’ll be paying my respects to those who have served our country.
You’ll be throwing a fucking party. Pretty much says it all right there.
@147 This has been very enjoyable to read, insipid I am still not sure what to think of you. There are several possibilities. The obvious is that you are a troll, as evidenced by the fact that you have been doing some on the fly research and arguing based on info given to you by the people you are arguing against. You are ignorant, which just means you don’t know any better, but you seem to know some things. Lastly, you could just be stupid…and well just declaring youself the winner over and over may work in some circles it doesn’t work very often. So I’m a troll because i research and argue based on info given to me? I’m ignorant, despite being the only one here who has dealt with the actual case and not side issues such Democrats alledgedly discarding veterans votes etc. Or i’m supid, because you say so? As far as me declaring myself the winner I’m doing it for two reasons 1 The other folks have asserted that THEY won and I’m countering with an uhn- uhn. Secondly they DID lose. Whenever i posted a direct question it was ignored, I’m the only one here who stayed on the case without going to side issues and I also didn’t dive into name-calling to the extent others did. There are ways to tell who won without going to voting (obviously here, the votes would be against me, but if we had this same debate on Crooks and Liars, they’d all say i won). The best way is to see who stuck with the case and who didn’t, who answered the other’s questions and who didn’t. So I won, and they lost. As far as my legitimacy: There’s a third possibility that you didn’t consider. I feel that the Bush v. Gore decision was a crime against justice and perhaps a permanent stain on the Supreme Court. I think that decision was as bad as any decision in history, including Dredd Scott and Plessy. I will not get over it or move on. Nor should ANYONE who… Read more »