Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Both sides are ramping up the "get out the lawyers" effort this election season   (foxnews.com ) divider line
    More: Florida, Robert Bauer, White House Counsel, Bush campaign, provisional ballots, Delaware Democratic Party, electoral colleges, absentee ballots, Obama White House  
•       •       •

1622 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Nov 2012 at 1:50 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



84 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-02 10:51:23 AM  
Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.
 
2012-11-02 11:17:26 AM  
No matter the outcome, we're probably screwed but at least someone is going to haul in a metric ton of billable hours.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-02 11:51:40 AM  

Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.


Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.
 
2012-11-02 11:55:48 AM  

vpb: Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.


I don't think we'll ever see a repeat of that scenario. SCOTUS only gets to pull that trick once a century.
 
2012-11-02 11:56:02 AM  

Nabb1: No matter the outcome, we're probably screwed but at least someone is going to haul in a metric ton of billable hours.


They're mostly volunteers. Until it gets ugly, that is, then you bet your ass somebody on each side is coming out Rockefeller rich.
 
2012-11-02 12:08:39 PM  

brianbankerus: Nabb1: No matter the outcome, we're probably screwed but at least someone is going to haul in a metric ton of billable hours.

They're mostly volunteers. Until it gets ugly, that is, then you bet your ass somebody on each side is coming out Rockefeller rich.


I distinctly remember getting emails back in 2000 soliciting attorneys for volunteer work, but rest assured, some of the big dogs were getting paid once it started to get real.
 
2012-11-02 12:17:55 PM  

Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.


exactly.
 
2012-11-02 01:59:02 PM  

Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.


The other likely alternative isn't violence, it's one side completely standing down and putting their faith in the counting process and judiciary doing their job effectively and objectively.

And unicorn farts.

i404.photobucket.com 
pictured above: The "Brooks Brothers Riot", Florida 2000, interfering with the vote count
 
2012-11-02 02:00:18 PM  

Weaver95: I don't think we'll ever see a repeat of that scenario. SCOTUS only gets to pull that trick once a century.


Technically, 2000 was part of the 20th century.
 
2012-11-02 02:02:32 PM  

Nabb1: No matter the outcome, we're probably screwed but at least someone is going to haul in a metric ton of billable hours.


Between advertising and lawyers, I believe that our economy is becoming election based. Maybe other countries will begin outsourcing their elections to us and we can have a new election on the first Tuesday of every month.
 
2012-11-02 02:02:42 PM  
When the recounts are out
All you have to shout now
Who's going to lawyer up
 
2012-11-02 02:03:40 PM  

vpb: Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.


With John "Obamacare" Roberts as chief justice? Bwahahaha!!!
 
2012-11-02 02:03:44 PM  

StopLurkListen: The other likely alternative isn't violence, it's one side completely standing down and putting their faith in the counting process and judiciary doing their job effectively and objectively.


Except that's not what happened in 2000.

What happened in 2000 was Bush got a few hundred more votes than Al Gore so there was series of recounts. Did you remember the part where Al Gore sent lawyers to every single county in the state to have as many absentee ballots disqualifies as possible?

Or did you remember that elections are a legislative process but Al Gore circumvented the Republican Florida legislature and went to a more sympathetic Democrat controlled court?

Or did you remember what the SCOTUS ruling actually was? Which was that there were rules, the rules were followed, and that you can't go to court over it after the fact to change the rules?
 
2012-11-02 02:03:48 PM  
Yup.

Maybe, just maybe, we should get some independent election monitors in the country, but who in the world does that sort of service these days?
 
2012-11-02 02:04:36 PM  

Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.


Some of these chucklefarks could use a good week in Syria to understand what the "ammunition box" part of their chants mean. You'd think the American Revolution was a joyful jaunt of freedom and patriotism and they growled the brits out of town, instead of a years-long violent rebellion with 100,000 bodies in the ground and countless more mutilated.
 
2012-11-02 02:05:35 PM  
I don't think the Dems will go down without a fight this time. We saw what happened the last time they tried to play nice. And you just know the Repubs will try to pull some BS impeachment nonsense if they lose. This could get extremely ugly.
 
2012-11-02 02:06:02 PM  

Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.


We're looking forward to it. But the computer model says it won't happen until 2017-2020.
 
2012-11-02 02:06:55 PM  

vpb: Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.


No you won't. Conditions still will not be right.
 
2012-11-02 02:09:28 PM  

meat0918: Yup.

Maybe, just maybe, we should get some independent election monitors in the country, but who in the world does that sort of service these days?


Here's a good model.
 
2012-11-02 02:09:56 PM  
It would be EPIC if it was too close to call, went to SCOTUS, and was ruled that Obama is president.......just to hear all of the butthurt Republicans turn into hypocrites.
 
2012-11-02 02:10:43 PM  
Oooooooo... Look out, folks. We're dealing with a bad ass over here.

alanschuyler.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-02 02:11:29 PM  
NOT ON THE RIGHT - FOR THAT WOULD BE ELITISM
 
2012-11-02 02:13:38 PM  
As is normal, particularly for down ballot races. Any race which is "close" needs to be recounted, and it takes lawyers to oversee that process in most cases since it is run by the judiciary
 
2012-11-02 02:13:39 PM  

Citrate1007: It would be EPIC if it was too close to call, went to SCOTUS, and was ruled that Obama is president.......just to hear all of the butthurt Republicans turn into hypocrites.


Anything less then a crushing defeat is a roaring endorsement of Mitt's lying, etch-a-sketch campaign method. The challenger pretty much always loses to the incumbent. If Mitt's campaign of reckless disregard of facts, truth, history, and basic morality proves more successful then conventional challenges of presenting a better alternative to the status quo, then expect his campaign method to become the new norm in American politics. Let's not hope for that, because political leaders around the world are watching this with great interest.
 
2012-11-02 02:14:07 PM  

randomjsa: StopLurkListen: The other likely alternative isn't violence, it's one side completely standing down and putting their faith in the counting process and judiciary doing their job effectively and objectively.

Except that's not what happened in 2000.

What happened in 2000 was Bush got a few hundred more votes than Al Gore so there was series of recounts. Did you remember the part where Al Gore sent lawyers to every single county in the state to have as many absentee ballots disqualifies as possible?

Or did you remember that elections are a legislative process but Al Gore circumvented the Republican Florida legislature and went to a more sympathetic Democrat controlled court?

Or did you remember what the SCOTUS ruling actually was? Which was that there were rules, the rules were followed, and that you can't go to court over it after the fact to change the rules?


Someone's memory is selective, and it's not who you think.
 
2012-11-02 02:14:29 PM  
How stupid.

Romney is going to win Florida and nobody cares.

Obama is going to win Ohio and everybody cares.
 
2012-11-02 02:14:30 PM  
How exactly does one recount electrons?
 
2012-11-02 02:16:19 PM  

Bored Horde: If Mitt's campaign of reckless disregard of facts, truth, history, and basic morality proves more successful then conventional challenges of presenting a better alternative to the status quo, then expect his campaign method to become the new norm in American politics.


When have any of those things ever decided a presidential election? It's a glorified popularity contest, nothing more.
 
2012-11-02 02:17:43 PM  

doyner: How exactly does one recount electrons?


Ohm man, you realy amped it up there.
 
2012-11-02 02:17:52 PM  

doyner: How exactly does one recount electrons?


More importantly, why does the recounting of said electrons produce different results each time?
 
2012-11-02 02:19:51 PM  

Epoch_Zero: NOT ON THE RIGHT - FOR THAT WOULD BE ELITISM


Corporate Lawyers: Good
All other lawyers: Ambulance Chasing Bloodsuckers
 
2012-11-02 02:20:38 PM  

Pro Zack: doyner: How exactly does one recount electrons?

Ohm man, you realy amped it up there.


Do you have the capacity to not short circuit the discussion with such rhetorical impedance? Please switch back to the topic and stop trying to conduct a threadjack.
 
2012-11-02 02:21:22 PM  
I should amend, the recounting process consists of legal challenges to voter eligibility more so than recounting the actual vote tallies. ie: determining whether mail-in ballots were post marked in time, or how mispelled write-in votes are counted, or whether to count various "provisional" ballots cast by people who either didn't register properly, had their records "purged" or people who just plain showed up at the wrong polling station.
 
2012-11-02 02:23:52 PM  

Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.


Reminds me of Nixon's statesmanship in 1960 - bygone days, huh.
 
2012-11-02 02:24:17 PM  

Weaver95: vpb: Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.

I don't think we'll ever see a repeat of that scenario. SCOTUS only gets to pull that trick once a century.


Lucky thing they gave it to the guy with the most votes in Florida. Whew.
 
2012-11-02 02:29:34 PM  

Weaver95: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.


A running gun battle would be cool.
 
2012-11-02 02:32:13 PM  

Nabb1: No matter the outcome, we're probably screwed but at least someone is going to haul in a metric ton of billable hours.


What with the lawyerin' and advertisin', bout 12 billion done been injected into the economy.
 
2012-11-02 02:32:15 PM  
If lawyers are outlawed, only outlaws will have lawyers.

And no, "Sure we cheated but we would have won anyway" doesn't make it excusable.
 
2012-11-02 02:35:19 PM  

Weaver95: vpb: Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.

I don't think we'll ever see a repeat of that scenario. SCOTUS only gets to pull that trick once a century.


We'll see. One of my deepest, most tinfoily fears is that it could happen again and then the Republicans would just go hard-core "Why do you hate America?" on anyone who questions it, like they did after 9/11. I've seen nothing in the past 12 years to suggest that the Dems wouldn't back down again under the right circumstances.
 
2012-11-02 02:43:37 PM  

Citrate1007: It would be EPIC if it was too close to call, went to SCOTUS, and was ruled that Obama is president.......just to hear all of the butthurt Republicans turn into hypocrites.


"turn into"?!??!
 
2012-11-02 02:45:41 PM  
BSAGOTLSVR?
 
2012-11-02 02:45:54 PM  

Bored Horde: meat0918: Yup.

Maybe, just maybe, we should get some independent election monitors in the country, but who in the world does that sort of service these days?

Here's a good model.


>A concerned Canadian raises his hand

"Seconded!"
 
2012-11-02 02:47:40 PM  

biyaaatci: I don't think the Dems will go down without a fight this time. We saw what happened the last time they tried to play nice. And you just know the Repubs will try to pull some BS impeachment nonsense if they lose. This could get extremely ugly.



You really should just unplug from everything for awhile and try relaxing.
 
2012-11-02 02:54:36 PM  

Bored Horde: The challenger pretty much always loses to the incumbent. If Mitt's campaign of reckless disregard of facts, truth, history, and basic morality proves more successful then conventional challenges of presenting a better alternative to the status quo, then expect his campaign method to become the new norm in American politics.


Given the mass approval of things like Jersey Shore and Honney Boo, Boo, Ancient Aliens, etc. I think the American public is already there.
 
2012-11-02 02:57:53 PM  
Both sides appear to also have factions ramping up the cheatin methods so the acquisition of lawyers is probably a good idea.
 
2012-11-02 02:58:08 PM  

doyner: How exactly does one recount electrons?


I believe you've hit upon the entire strategy. One of my buddies works with the voting machine industry, and he swears there ARE ironclad ways to allow for a recount. But they aren't actually using them.

I don't want to sound like a Freeper, but how could that possibly be unless it's deliberate? We have the technology to review bank transactions going back decades, but we can't review votes cast 24 hours ago?

Sounds legit.
 
2012-11-02 03:00:22 PM  

keylock71: Oooooooo... Look out, folks. We're dealing with a bad ass over here.

[alanschuyler.files.wordpress.com image 460x323]


The only thing that thinks he's a badass is his toilet after he's had Mexican.
 
2012-11-02 03:03:30 PM  
Do we really need a President anymore?
 
2012-11-02 03:07:08 PM  

trotsky: keylock71: Oooooooo... Look out, folks. We're dealing with a bad ass over here.

[alanschuyler.files.wordpress.com image 460x323]

The only thing that thinks he's a badass is his toilet after he's had Mexican.


Once he gets the double-wide, he's going to get him one of them industrial toilets with shock absorbers on it....
 
2012-11-02 03:08:41 PM  

Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.


I'd rather have the running gun battle. Thin the herd. I'll hide safely away while Americans eat each other. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
 
2012-11-02 03:09:23 PM  

ole prophet: Do we really need a President anymore?


Checks and balances, supreme court appointments, declarations of war - how do they work?
 
2012-11-02 03:10:57 PM  
¿FoxNews? Lemme guess... both sides are bad so...

(reads article)

... wow, I'm surprised it was only tangential. Still, party-war is everywhere in any given fox article:

Lawyers will observe at targeted polling places, joined by tea party activists and voting abuse critics on the Republican side and civil rights and union groups on the Democratic side.
 
2012-11-02 03:15:22 PM  
This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2012-11-02 03:17:15 PM  

Rug Doctor: doyner: How exactly does one recount electrons?

I believe you've hit upon the entire strategy. One of my buddies works with the voting machine industry, and he swears there ARE ironclad ways to allow for a recount. But they aren't actually using them.

I don't want to sound like a Freeper, but how could that possibly be unless it's deliberate? We have the technology to review bank transactions going back decades, but we can't review votes cast 24 hours ago?

Sounds legit.


Of course it's deliberate. Diebold cannot release the proprietary code for their voting machines without the competetion unfairly stealing their ideas and their money. The ability to have a group of people individually cast votes electronically, have those votes counted, and announce a winner is patented Diebold software.

Which is why they should sue Drew over the inclusion of the smart/funny buttons.
 
2012-11-02 03:22:15 PM  

Epoch_Zero: ole prophet: Do we really need a President anymore?

Checks and balances, supreme court appointments, declarations of war - how do they work?


Sunset clauses, voting, AND don't f@cking kill people who don't believe what you do.

How does that work?
 
2012-11-02 03:22:21 PM  

Epoch_Zero: ole prophet: Do we really need a President anymore?

Checks and balances, supreme court appointments, declarations of war - how do they work?


I'll bet he's one of those libertarians whose solution to the whole "gay marriage" thing is to get rid of marriage entirely.

/ Congrats on the Florida tag, subby, it really ties the room headline together.
 
2012-11-02 03:29:50 PM  

Rug Doctor: Weaver95: vpb: Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.

I don't think we'll ever see a repeat of that scenario. SCOTUS only gets to pull that trick once a century.

We'll see. One of my deepest, most tinfoily fears is that it could happen again and then the Republicans would just go hard-core "Why do you hate America?" on anyone who questions it, like they did after 9/11. I've seen nothing in the past 12 years to suggest that the Dems wouldn't back down again under the right circumstances.


If that happens, I hope we see a few years worth of old-fashioned rioting, like we had in the 1960s.

Rioting like they had in France, 1787-1789, would be better.
 
2012-11-02 03:33:50 PM  

bookman: Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

We're looking forward to it. But the computer model says it won't happen until 2017-2020.


You mean the model is showing us normal people getting in running gun battles with lawyers and politicians in just a few years? Oh YEAH! ... Wait, you're not using the Year Zero model, are ya?
 
2012-11-02 03:34:27 PM  
I really don't know how Americans can have faith in their electoral process after what happened in 2000. Maybe I am not remembering it correctly but didn't the various court decisions follow the party the judge was associated with? i.e. Dem judge->judge in favor or dem, Rep judge->judge in favor of reps. Not even the appearance of an hint of a slight smell of impartiality.
 
2012-11-02 03:38:44 PM  

talkertopc: I really don't know how Americans can have faith in their electoral process after what happened in 2000. Maybe I am not remembering it correctly but didn't the various court decisions follow the party the judge was associated with? i.e. Dem judge->judge in favor or dem, Rep judge->judge in favor of reps. Not even the appearance of an hint of a slight smell of impartiality.


Supreme Court. The one people love when it agrees with them, and despise as partisan hacks when it doesn't. Kerry didn't win against Bush either, but you still had wingnuts claiming the whole process was rigged etc etc.

Last bastion of the weak minded is the partisan conspiracy theory.
 
2012-11-02 03:45:55 PM  

Weaver95: vpb: Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.

I don't think we'll ever see a repeat of that scenario. SCOTUS only gets to pull that trick once a century.


The century didn't start until January 1, 2001. Bush v. Gore was decided December 12, 2000.
 
2012-11-02 03:51:18 PM  

Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.


I'll bet you're a blast at parties, Debbie Downer.
 
2012-11-02 03:53:32 PM  
Fox News something lawyers derp
 
2012-11-02 03:56:15 PM  
It's not going to require lawyers, unless there is some significant fraud. Ohio is going to go for Obama. Probably Virginia and Florida, probably Colorado, definitely NH, NV and Iowa. NC is probably going to go to Mitt by 1-2 pts.

The only really semi-plausible case is that Romney wins Colorado, NC, and Virginia, and then wins Florida (due to the shorter early voter period and disenfranchisement) and Ohio (due to vote counting fraud).

I think Ohio's out of his reach though, and probably Colorado/Virginia also.
 
2012-11-02 03:56:26 PM  
I drive around a lot in Oklahoma for my job and right now AM radio is going nuts saying this is Obama's Katrina

And whar the generators, at the nytimes for the marathon,

Thanks a lot

Photo op the hurricane and then go to Vegas just like Benghazi

What the fark is wrong with this president wanting to campaign during an election?
 
2012-11-02 04:03:10 PM  

jso2897: Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

I'll bet you're a blast at parties, Debbie Downer.


I haven't been on fark long, but Weaver95 does seem like a nice and smart enough guy. He probably should worry about less politics and spend more time with some good old fashion pussy cat.
 
2012-11-02 04:04:59 PM  

vpb: Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.


I don't think Obama is in as desperate a spot as to try changing a state's election law through the circuit court system during the election.
 
2012-11-02 04:05:10 PM  
Some day, we're going to grow up and face the fact that just as opinion polls and scientific experiments have margins of error within which you can't draw any definitive conclusions, so do elections. If the candidates differ by a few thousand votes out of 100 million cast, then the only statistically defensible answer to the question of which candidate the majority actually prefer is "we don't know." In that case they should flip a coin.
 
2012-11-02 04:05:55 PM  

Tamater: Bored Horde: meat0918: Yup.

Maybe, just maybe, we should get some independent election monitors in the country, but who in the world does that sort of service these days?

Here's a good model.

>A concerned Canadian raises his hand

"Seconded!"


Except when we get election monitors, this will be the result...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/ constitution/item/13336-texas-wa r ns-un-affiliates-monitoring-us-electio n-of-prosecution-risk

http://shark-tank.net/2012/10/26/dont -mess-with-texas-connie-mack-bri n gs-un-monitoring-issue/

There's more, of course. Texas in particular does NOT want the U.N. checking for voter suppression or intimidation. I wonder why?
 
2012-11-02 04:12:19 PM  
Ask Al Fanken what he thinks about litigating elections. That was a total sleaze move by the Republicans.
 
2012-11-02 04:18:13 PM  

Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.


I dunno. Honestly, now -- wouldn't you welcome the chance to shoot some Floridians in the street? It has a certain appeal.
 
2012-11-02 04:26:04 PM  

JolobinSmokin: What the fark is wrong with this president wanting to campaign during an election?


He's black a Democrat.

Do they need any other reasons?
 
2012-11-02 04:27:32 PM  
Why would anyone care? I've seen maps on fark that show Romney winning every state and that I should deal with it. So I'm coping.
 
2012-11-02 04:41:38 PM  

Jgok: Tamater: Bored Horde: meat0918: Yup.

Maybe, just maybe, we should get some independent election monitors in the country, but who in the world does that sort of service these days?

Here's a good model.

>A concerned Canadian raises his hand

"Seconded!"

Except when we get election monitors, this will be the result...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/ constitution/item/13336-texas-wa r ns-un-affiliates-monitoring-us-electio n-of-prosecution-risk

http://shark-tank.net/2012/10/26/dont -mess-with-texas-connie-mack-bri n gs-un-monitoring-issue/

There's more, of course. Texas in particular does NOT want the U.N. checking for voter suppression or intimidation. I wonder why?


Um. . . because the UN will take their guns?
 
2012-11-02 04:46:25 PM  

vpb: Right, we'll save that until the Supremes make Romney the president like they did with shrub.


Um, SCOTUS upheld the original count on grounds that procedure was followed, which Bush won. The completed recounts mostly had Bush winning as well, though they didn't matter at that point.

They didn't rule that Bush was president so much as they ruled that the laws in place to ensure an acceptable count, agreed to in advance by all parties and the voters, had been followed, and you don't get to randomly recount because you just now realized that there is some error range now that they've said something which you don't like. It was a matter of "you don't have the grounds to challenge, if you had a problem with this you should have brought it up before the election, numbnuts".

//Among the recounts that Bush still would have won? The initial recount the Gore campaign requested. Amusingly, Bush won using that recount by a _wider_ margin than he did in the original count.
//Lot of revisionist history going on the further we get from 2000. Do people really fail at memory that hard? It was an attempt to use the courts to change election results through the courts by Gore that failed, not one by Bush that succeeded.
 
2012-11-02 05:14:25 PM  

Granny_Panties: jso2897: Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

I'll bet you're a blast at parties, Debbie Downer.

I haven't been on fark long, but Weaver95 does seem like a nice and smart enough guy. He probably should worry about less politics and spend more time with some good old fashion pussy cat.


Holy crap...has it been that long that people would never believe what Weaver used to be?

I was always afraid when he quoted me
 
2012-11-02 05:18:29 PM  

Aar1012: Holy crap...has it been that long that people would never believe what Weaver used to be?


He's a lesser demon helping us to find the Eye of Jupiter.

After that, look out.
 
2012-11-02 05:23:53 PM  

whidbey: Aar1012: Holy crap...has it been that long that people would never believe what Weaver used to be?

He's a lesser demon helping us to find the Eye of Jupiter.

After that, look out.


For the record, I think he's a great guy. I just remember what he used to be. The right just moved to far right for him
 
2012-11-02 05:24:38 PM  

Aar1012: I think he's a great guy. I


Me too. His posts have been nothing short of awesome in the past few years.
 
2012-11-02 07:34:44 PM  

whidbey: Aar1012: Holy crap...has it been that long that people would never believe what Weaver used to be?

He's a lesser demon helping us to find the Eye of Jupiter.

After that, look out.


I am not a demon. and I am certainly not a vampire. last I checked, I wasn't a lich either...although that'd be really fricking cool...

way I figure it, the Democrats are heading the right direction. might as well hitch a ride and help 'em out.
 
2012-11-02 08:28:12 PM  

Weaver95: I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.


Ummmm... No. That way the lawyers go home with bazallions in their pockets and we're left with WTF was that?

I say we get us a new rope and find us a nice tree..
 
2012-11-03 04:00:24 AM  

Aar1012: Granny_Panties: jso2897: Weaver95: Sad to say but it's almost necessary these days. I choose to look at it this way: I'd rather slug it out in a courtroom than have a running gun battle in the streets over election results.

I'll bet you're a blast at parties, Debbie Downer.

I haven't been on fark long, but Weaver95 does seem like a nice and smart enough guy. He probably should worry about less politics and spend more time with some good old fashion pussy cat.

Holy crap...has it been that long that people would never believe what Weaver used to be?

I was always afraid when he quoted me


So true but back then there were actual intelligent conservative voices on this site, Weaver included. I assume the bastardization of the right is what turned them into either libertarian or Democratic.
 
2012-11-03 08:44:11 AM  

Karac:
Diebold cannot release the proprietary code for their voting machines without the competetion unfairly stealing their ideas and their money.


How is that possible. I have been assured the competition would only make an exact copy of the code. Diebold would still have the original and therefore nothing was stolen.
 
2012-11-03 02:02:13 PM  

Weaver95: whidbey: Aar1012: Holy crap...has it been that long that people would never believe what Weaver used to be?

He's a lesser demon helping us to find the Eye of Jupiter.

After that, look out.

I am not a demon. and I am certainly not a vampire. last I checked, I wasn't a lich either...although that'd be really fricking cool...

way I figure it, the Democrats are heading the right direction. might as well hitch a ride and help 'em out.


Well something happened. I think Mirror Universe Weaver must have had you in kidnapped in suspended animation or something...
 
Displayed 84 of 84 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report