A real reporter, David Postman of the Seattle Times, gets the scoop on the real news, although it’s not really much news after all:
In Chelan County Superior Court, Bridges denied a Democratic Party motion to exclude the evidence, saying he did not see anything in law or court precedent that would prohibit the use of expert testimony to show how illegal votes were cast.
But Bridges said he was not yet accepting the statistical analysis as valid for the trial set to begin May 23. He said the Republican evidence is subject to a separate hearing where Democrats can challenge its scientific value.
So the general consensus of HA’s comment threads was borne out. Judge Bridges has not ruled out a statistical analysis, but he has not ruled it in. He will hear the evidence and then decide.
Still waiting to hear on the Republican motion to exclude offsetting votes. That’ll be the doozy.
UPDATE:
Postman has updated his story, and thus so shall I. In a potentially significant ruling, Judge Bridges has said that he will not accept voter-credit records as evidence that someone voted.
In granting a Democratic motion, Bridges said that any party alleging illegal votes will have to produce in court a copy of the voter’s signature in a polling place book or on the envelope of an absentee or provisional ballot.
Bridges said crediting is a “post-election administrative exercise” and “does not bear upon the authenticity of election results.”
This not only puts the burden on the parties to show that their respective felons actually voted, but it also eliminates much of the basis for Rossi’s “total mess” argument, the discrepancy between ballots counted and voters credited.
UPDATE, UPDATE:
Stick a fork in it:
On another issue, Bridges sided with Democrats, saying he would allow them to introduce evidence of election errors that benefited Rossi. Republicans had made a motion to prohibit Democrats from introducing evidence of any of those “off-setting errors.”
I cannot overstate the degree of confidence to which the Democrats’ attorneys believe they have enough offsetting errors, so that Rossi cannot prevail even given the most favorable “proportional deduction” methodology.
Also from Postman’s latest update:
Bridges denied motions from both parties regarding the burden of proof that will be required at trial to show illegal votes had been cast by felons. But he set a standard much more to the liking of Democrats.
Republicans said it was enough to show a voter had been convicted of a felony and that there was no evidence in the court file that the felons’ voting rights had been restored.
But Bridges said Republicans will have to present “clear and convincing” evidence that a felon voted, a higher standard than Republicans had hoped for.
Bridges also set out six standards, similar to what Democrats had proposed, that will have to be shown for the court to consider a vote illegally cast.
“Clear and convincing.” Hmmm. If Judge Bridges requires clear and convincing evidence that a felon voted, doesn’t that also hint that this might be the standard for proving that Rossi won?
More analysis later.
Sounds like a step in the right direction.
Hopefully they will be able to reverse this election or at the very least hold another election this fall.
prr @ 1 either you are not paying attention, or… No, you are just not paying attention. But then I certainly don’t mind seeing the repugs throw away their money on a useless court case.
PRR @ 1 — how on earth do you come to that conclusion from the information presented thusfar?
The fact that the judge is even temporarily allowing the evidence to be presented.
Let’s get rid of all the false accusations that are out there and just look at te facts. It sounds like this judge wants to do that.
My own feeling is that this election has been a scam and that Gregoire should be kicked to the curb
The fact that the judge is even temporarily allowing the evidence to be presented.
Let’s get rid of all the false accusations that are out there and just look at te facts. It sounds like this judge wants to do that.
My own feeling is that this election has been a scam and that Gregoire should be kicked to the curb
The fact that the judge is even temporarily allowing the evidence to be presented.
Let’s get rid of all the false accusations that are out there and just look at te facts. It sounds like this judge wants to do that.
My own feeling is that this election has been a scam and that Gregoire should be kicked to the curb
Goldy, I thought the same thing–ruling out the use of the voter credit files really clears the air. The whole “mess” concept was originally predicated on the discrepancy between votes and voters–and was symbolized for Rossi, Stefan, et al, in the use of the voter crediting process. By refusing to rely on those numbers at all, Bridges essentially confirmed that Goldy (and others) were right, and Stefan (and others) were wrong to focus on that method.
Now rather than one set of numbers (votes vs vote credits), Rossi will have to build his case on the results of each individual polling place or precinct, to declare the race fatally flawed.
You gotta love Bridges–he’s not closing any doors too early, which might leave him open for appellate reversal. The way the trial process is set up, it makes it sound like the GOP is winning on a lot of issues–and in a superficial sense, they are. What’s fascinating is that the Rossi spinners take the first half of Bridges’ ruling (their causes are sufficient for contest; there’s no ban on proportional analysis in the RCW), and ignore the more ominous second halves (sufficient for contest and sufficient to prevail are not the same thing; just because you get to present your methodology doesn’t mean it will be accepted). The GOP keeps winning arguments with unclear implications, while the Democrats win quiet arguments that are essentially final (no illegal alien votes, no voter crediting, etc.).
I wish NWCN was covering this…no video feed this time?
From this layman’s perspective, Bridges seems to be doing a good job and generally making the right calls based on precedent and law.
What is really disturbing though, is the wingers around here who are treating the elections process as just another spin-war to be one. They have no respect forthe democratic process or the system of government. Everything isjust a battlefieldto be conquered by any means neccesary.
As a sappy patriot type, I really do worry for the future of my country….
Nindid, I do too. The notion that the world was going to end if Gregoire became governor is disturbing. The paranoia is just laughable.
Hey Goldy, thanks for putting up a link over to Reload!
This not only puts the burden on the parties to show that their respective felons actually voted, but it also eliminates much of the basis for Rossi’s “total mess” argument, the discrepancy between ballots counted and voters credited.
Well. That pulled the plug for all of Unsound’s wacky spreadsheets over the last 4 months where everyone was acting “outraged.” The judge has ruled that that info has no relevant meaning.
At least we can look at what constitutes a vote and what does not now.
Goldy, while the voter crediting record issue was on another point — namely proving that a illegal felon or dead person voted will require a copy of the purported signature from the poll book or envelope — I would agree this ruling is relevant to the ballots vs. voters discrepancy issue. Apparently, the same kind of proof will be required to show that fewer people actually voted than there were ballots counted.
However, this ruling does not eliminate the GOP’s ability to prove that more ballots were counted in King County than people actually casting them — what you call the “total mess” argument. It merely changes the kind of evidence needed to support that argument.
The GOP will now have to furnish the court with actual copies of the poll book pages and absentee/provisional envelopes and other evidence as exhibits in court. They could simply issue a subpoena for the whole kit and kaboodle to be transported from Seattle to Wenatchee and entered as trial exhibits.
Judge Bridges will then have to either personally count all of the 890,000 plus signatures, or will have to rely upon the testimony of someone who has done this, in order to make findings of fact as to the actual number of voters in each precinct vs. the actual number of ballots counted for that precinct.
Granted, this will be a tedious task. And Judge Bridges does have the authority to appoint a special master — such as a CPA firm or mail processing firm — to do the counting for him. But the GOP is entitled to present the evidence to support their case, and the court is required to consider this evidence.
“Clear and convincing” is the standard of proof for fraud, and doesn’t apply to much else. So, it looks like Judge Bridges ruled, in effect, that anyone alleging illegal felon votes must prove fraud, which requires a higher standard of proof.
It seems to me this ruling is vulnerable to reversal on appeal. If I were a GOP attorney (which I’m not, God forbid!), I would argue that most of these votes resulted from confusion, not dishonesty, therefore the burden and standard of proof applicable to mistake — not fraud — should apply. If I were a justice on the state supreme court, even a liberal one, I probably would find this argument persuasive.
richard @ 11
yes, I agree with your conception of it. If they want to make that argument, they’re going to have to go for all of the component documents individually, and then present a summary that the judge accepts. MUCH more difficult than claiming the voter credit total doesn’t match ballots cast.
While I’ll be the first to admit. I know absolutely nothing about statistical analyses.
I am intrigued that the evidednce is being shown and that if in fact there is a resaon to argue the election – a serious look is being conducted.
If the proof is there, great.,
If not lets just move on with our lives.
I’m very interested to hear exactly what Bridges’s rulings were on
a) Showing whether a former felon had the right to vote.
b) Showing what constitutes an illegal vote.
On a), sounds like lack of rights restoration in a court file isn’t enough, but what is enough?
On b), are provisional ballots counted without verification illegal votes? or only if they are determined to be from unregistered voters? what if it can’t be determined whether the ballot came from a registered voter or not?
TJ @ 7
I agree that today’s rulings are very ominous for Rossi. Even GOP boosters have to be wearing blinders to not grasp what this does to his case.
Nindid @ 8
Thanks so much for expressing this point. I don’t blame prr, as he is merely voicing the sentiments of the right wing as a whole. And prr articulated it very well: For them it’s about “feeling.” For them, politics is visceral.
Well, if we’re honest, we’ll admit it is for us, too. Human nature doesn’t change depending on whether you’re a Republican, Democrat, or something else.
That’s why this lawsuit is a good thing. The legal process squeezes out the emotion, and forces people to deal with facts in a logical way. Resolving it this way is far better than shouting at each other on the airwaves or across the blog divide, becaus unlike partisan spinmanship, the lawsuit will actually settle the argument.
Then we can get on with other important things.
Richard @11,
Cogent point, but I’m not sure the GOP attorneys were preparing to seriously argue the “total mess” theory anyway. At least in court.
I’m not prepared to dig back for the citations, but Judge Bridges previously stated that case law presumes election returns to be accurate, and election officials to have adequately performed their job, unless proven otherwise. It would take a massive undertaking to prove the “more ballots than voters” thesis, and I’ve seen no evidence it would produce the results the R’s might hope for. So I’m going out on a limb here and predicting that they won’t even try.
Peter @ 15
I don’t think today’s rulings answer any of your questions, and I wonder if you aren’t misreading or misunderstanding what has been reported.
I couldn’t help myself… I was reading through the comment thread over on the other blog, and I came across this brilliant and thoughtful analysis of Judge Bridge’s rulings from “righton”:
Later on, the ever loquacious Jeff B made the following prediction:
Now I certainly wouldn’t want my blog characterized by the comments of my readers, but you gotta admit, this is exactly the kind of crap we all expect to eventually hear when Rossi inevitably loses his case. And it sounds to me like the handful of realists over on (u)SP are now expecting Rossi to lose.
Richard Pope @ 11
If you’re right, this is going to be a long trial — exactly what the GOP doesn’t want. They want a supreme court decision in hand by mid-July. So, if that’s what they would have to do to pursue their “total mess” theory, they may decide to skip that argument and focus on illegal votes. Going the route you suggest has to be a last resort for them, because it would move a new election (if they win) forward to November 2006 at the earliest.
Alan @ 12 – Again, let me emphasize my lack of expertise here…. BUT, if Rossi must actually prove that fraud – of some sort or another – was committed to overturn the election, isn’t this the right standard?
On proportional analysis, sounds like we will be treated to “dueling statisticians” – arguing whether county vs precinct vs precinct+gender vs precinct+gender+race vs precinct+gender+race+income vs … vs direct testimony is the best way of accounting.
It would be interesting if the court ruled it would use direct testimony as the gold standard, with some statistical analysis as a backing factor to discourage excessive perjury by former felons on how they voted. I.e. if enough people lie in stating how they vote (since there is an incentive to give the opposite answer and thus get a double-vote for who you actually voted for), it would fall outside some probability bound based on some selected statistical apportionment.
Any predictions on when the combined D+R legal costs of the contest will exceed the amount spent on the race itself?
As I understand it, this decision may actually hel the republicans. King county (and others) have already removed from the role a substantial number of felon’s that voted in the last election. The will provide the “clear and convincing” argument for those voters. In other words, the county has already done the work for the republicans.
The democrat’s will either have to hope counties act soon enough on their lists or prove it themselves.
OUCH! on the update.
Rossi’s fucked, now. The great advantage to the Democrats in this one is that Rossi precincts are more heavily Rossi, by and large, than Gregoire precincts are heavily Gregoire–often because there simply are so many fewer votes. The Democrats may only need 3/4 or even 2/3 of the votes Rossi has, in order to cancel them out. And of course they have a 129 vote head start.
Goldy @ 17 and 19
Anytime rightys start wailing “biased judge,” it’s a sure sign they realize the shithouse floor gave way and they’re in the cistern!
I wonder if Judge Bridges will apply the “clear and convincing” standard of proof to the entire proceeding. Now that would be interesting. It would say, in effect, the presumption in favor of upholding elections is equally strong regardless of whether the challenger is alleging mistake or fraud. I think the supremes would uphold that approach.
Richard and TJ: You both make a good point about the credited voter list. It’s not reliable enough to serve as a basis for determining whether the number of counted ballots matches the number of legal voters who cast them. Apparently Judge Bridges agrees on that point.
Now, where did I hear that point earlier? Oh yeah, it was back in January when Stefan at Sound Politics was just cranking up his “data-mining” BS machine and presenting the first of his many “definitive” analyses of unaccounted for ballots. I took the time to point out to him that an error rate of a few tenths of a percent in the crediting process was a) likely, and b) would account for much of the “discrepancy” he reported. I pointed out that the only accurate way to determine who had voted would be from examining the pollbooks and similar absentee ballot documents. Rather than deal with these points directly, Stefan responded with personal attacks and ultimately deleted some of my offending comments. Now we can see why.
Nindid @ 21
See my comment @ 25
Peter @ 22
We’re about halfway there. Roughly $4 million spent on lawsuit so far; about $9 million on the campaign.
Alan @ 16 – I won’t speak for anyone besides myself on this, but for me process does indeed trump victory by ny means necessary. I was actually present for a first-hand look at the 2000 elections in Florida. I was not happy with the ending result, but if the process had been completed and George won then I could have lived with it.
Mostly I was upset mostly by the fact that Republicans made a point of trying to stop the legally mandated recount process under Florida law. But even the legal back flips the Supreme Court pulled to install George paled in comparison to things like having an imported Republican mob attack and shut down the Miami-Dade County election board.
I actually do think that there is a difference between the parties on this, though you are right to note loonies on both sides. But how do we ignore the party of advocating violence against judges who do not do their bidding, the party of stomping on Senate tradition trying to abolish the filibuster, the party who label any dissent as traitorous and in league with the enemy?
There are plenty of trolls around here who fit these trends a little too closely… this is not about politics or about disagreements on the best course of action for our country. For them, this seems to be warfare by other means and only the destruction of all dissent will seem to satisfy.
Is this all Republicans? No, of course not. But it does seem to describe the ones currently running the party.
Many of the Democrats 432 alleged felons have previously been reviewed by the R’s and rejected because rights were restored, name/signature issues etc. It’s kind of interesting how difficult it has been for both Party’s to get their arms around the exactly who illegally voted. I can see why Bridges wants clarity on the illegals….irrefutable. Hard to be critical of that. The challenging Party must provide clear & compelling evidence that a felon illegally voted. Going to the SOURCE DOCUMENT (poll books, envelope etc.) is reasonable.
The methodology is still up for grabs. I thought he might give a bit more clarity or at least a hint on this…but he didn’t.
My guess is, if the R’s present a clear precindt based portional analysis method…well documented…it will likely fly because it is likely to be more precise than merely countywide.
Goldy–if you truly believe today’s rulings mean this is all over, your celebrity has impacted your judgment. Do I really need to repeat the words from Brad Paisley’s song??? If I must:
“Someday Goldy’s gonna be famous..
Does he have talent….well no.
These days you don’t really need it.
Thanks to reality shows.
Cuz when Goldy’s a celebrity
It’s adios reality
Goldy can act just like a fool
and people think he’s cool
Just cuz he’s on TV…bein’a celebrity.
Richard @ 11: I agree with your broader point, but I don’t think one gets to dump a mountain of unsorted data on the court and invite the court to sift through it. I think the GOP would need to do its own analysis and present an argument to the court. Dems, of course, would have an opportunity to rebut.
So far, it seems like the GOP is wisely avoiding this course of action and sticking with the illegal votes argument. Good luck to them on that, as well.
Goldy @ 19 : I saw the “earring analysis”, too. What’s more interesting is to go back further and check the archived (u)SP comments when Bridges was first appointed to the case. At the time, Stefan’s cult were beside themselves with glee because one of their own would be deciding the case and sending Gregoire packing in no time.
Now, of course, we’re already seeing the setup for charges of bias the other way. The notion of an independent judiciary ruling on the basis of law seems to be foreign to that crowd.
Stick a fork in it
Indeed. The burden of proof just got a whole lot clearer and harder for Rossi. The likelihood of winning this case just got a whole lot smaller.
Alan@18:
I said
“I’m very interested to hear exactly what Bridges’s rulings were on
a) Showing whether a former felon had the right to vote.
b) Showing what constitutes an illegal vote. ”
because I’m wondering if anyone has details on these two paragraphs in Postman’s story:
“Bridges denied motions from both parties regarding the burden of proof that will be required at trial to show illegal votes had been cast by felons. But he set a standard much more to the liking of Democrats.
Bridges also set out six standards, similar to what Democrats had proposed, that will have to be shown for the court to consider a vote illegally cast. ”
torridjoe@24:
Good point on King County having removed felons from the voting rolls since the election probably being ‘clear and convincing’ evidence that they were illegal votes (if they voted). However, didn’t King County remove a number of felons not listed by the Republicans and instead found by the Seattle Times? Presumably these weren’t listed by the Republicans because they don’t come from pro-Dem precincts
Goldy–
I hope to hell you don’t continue to insist on being “butt naked” for your radio interviews. I have a few thoughts on why you get so distracted and forget to make some of your major points. Let’s put it this way…clothing will help you.
Actually Goldy…you are improving your delivery. That screeching Philly voice of yours has toned down some. I could tell because the neighborhood dogs didn’t start howling at my radio like they usually do when you speak. Keep working on that…breathe dude….annuciate….
and for God’s sake put some fucking clothes on pervert!
annuciate? Pronounce it carefully, now: e-NUN-ci-ate.
peter @ 34
that wasn’t actually my point; my point was that a given felon vote for Rossi in a Rossi-leaning precinct is likely to hurt Rossi’s total more than a given felon vote for Gregoire–because the proportional margins are often higher in Rossi areas (and that itself is often because of lower total vote counts).
as to your question about the standards–here are the six standards from the Democrat motion:
*must prove they were convicted as an adult, not juvenile
*must prove conviction was for a felony
*must prove sentence was not deferred
*must prove rights were not restored
*must prove they cast a ballot in 2004 General
*must prove they cast a ballot for GOVERNOR in 2004 General
That last one is a killer. The other five can be done administratively, but to prove they voted for governor, they need either an affadavit or the ballot itself.
Postman says Bridges’ rules were “similar,” I’d be curious to see what he says about #6.
…that this was a big day in the local destructionists’ campaign to upend the Washington State Constitution by tossing out the certified result of Christine Gregoire’s election as Governor.
TJ @ 37 wrote, *must prove they cast a ballot for GOVERNOR in 2004 General
Yes, this is so seldom discussed. Not everyone who voted even voted for Governor.
Everyone, first off this is not spin. I look at this with both eyes open. It could be that the Judge wants to err on the conservative side and when it is brought to the WASSC, they can either say he was right in being conservative in his view or he was too conservative. Many judges don’t want to be found too lenient, like the 9th Circuit, which get’s it decisions overturned at the USSC level more than any other Circuit Court. If one was too narrow in their decision, they are held in better stead than being too lenient. As long as Dean Logan has not shredded any of the evidence, it should be there.
We’ll see about the 23rd. Regarding “But Bridges said Republicans will have to present “clear and convincing” evidence that a felon voted, a higher standard than Republicans had hoped for.” is pretty easy to do. Just get the receipts by precincts. One they prove felons voted, it should be a lower threshold.
Regarding: “In granting a Democratic motion, Bridges said that any party alleging illegal votes will have to produce in court a copy of the voter’s signature in a polling place book or on the envelope of an absentee or provisional ballot.” As long as Dean Logan has not shredded any of the evidence, Stefan has said there are documents where signatures of felons voting are available. Apparently you missed those Goldy.
Regarding: “On another issue, Bridges sided with Democrats, saying he would allow them to introduce evidence of election errors that benefited Rossi. Republicans had made a motion to prohibit Democrats from introducing evidence of any of those “off-setting errors.””, I welcome this also. I can understand the Republicans trying to supress this. Think about this you all. You have the democrats in the press saying “Aw so what a few felons voted it was such a small number.” Butt in the back rooms they are worried about the King County 650+ felon voting issue, so they start investigating their polls and find 432 felons voted. Republicans have to sue to get this information and the democrats produce it really fast. If you prove felons voted, felons voted. The is an illegal act in an election, and this may come back to haunt the Democrats.
So in all I am still looking for an interesting May 23rd.
Pudster
Would a true “proportional analysis” take into account the % of ballots cast which didn’t include a vote for governor? Most of us were there to vote for or against a candidate for president. (Which brings up the intriguing question of how the dynamics of voter turnout in any off-peak gubernatorial “revote” would change things, if it came to that.)
Wes@ 41 – If I understand correctly there is absolutely no provision in WA law to have a ‘revote’… Republican hysteria notwithstanding.
wes.in.wa @ 41
“Would a true “proportional analysis” take into account the % of ballots cast which didn’t include a vote for governor? Most of us were there to vote for or against a candidate for president.”
A true proporational analysis could very well take into account the under-votes for Gov. It makes the analysis only very slightly more complicated.
The last Democratic motion is not necessary to properly adjust things proportionally. (More important is whether a simple proportional adjustment can be justified for the ineligible felons who voted).
Nindid @ 29
“having an imported Republican mob attack and shut down the Miami-Dade County election board”
That incident was extremely disturbing, because it was only one short step away from violently overthrowing our government, and the fact the staged riot was conceived at the RNC indicates that’s something they’re willing to do, if that’s what it takes to take over our government. One more episode like this, and I will be suggesting that all liberals arm themselves.
Mr. Cynical @ 30
You’re saying the Democratic lawyers are offering bogus evidence to the court? You’re truly desperate! You’re also dreaming.
The felon list compiled by Democratic lawyers was vetted far better than anything the BIAW put together. You can take that to the bank, my friend.
Goldy @ 19 : I saw the “earring analysis”, too. What’s more interesting is to go back further and check the archived (u)SP comments when Bridges was first appointed to the case.
Yes. And when they lose, be prepared to see all of the right wingers ranting like Delay : there’s going to be a price to be paid.
If the earing comment means anything else, its that the right wingers are starting to see that they are going to lose so that they are shifting into victim mode.
Peter @ 34
My understanding right now is that Judge Bridges said he will consider votes by felons illegal unless it’s shown their voting rights were restored, but he also will require clear and convincing proof that the felon actually voted.
Alan @ 47.
Great.
Than if the Republican Parties accusations have merit, this will not be a problem and we can look at what the resolution is. If not we will know that this has been a bunch of sour grapes.
puddinhead @ 40
Puddy, you promised not to spin and look with both eyes open, then you proceeded to spin!
Your insinuation that Logan destroyed evidence is over the top. There’s no other way to put it. Do you realize that’s a felony? What makes you think Logan would do that? Do you have any evidence he did? If so, please call the GOP attorneys right away, because they urgently need your information! If not, shut the fuck up because you’re defaming an innocent man.
No, this post is just more of your standard fare — devoid of factual content, full of shit, and partisan as hell.
Alan@47, thanks for the information.
There were ~4% more votes (based on Wa state Sec of State elections site) in the Presidential race than for Governor, so clearly some accounting (proportional or direct testimony) needs to be made of these.
Does anyone know how the judge ruled the unverified-prior-to-counting provisional ballots are to be handled? Also, does anyone know the % of these that were after the fact verified outside of King County?
Alan @45,
But Cynical heard Chris Vance say so, on the Mike Siegel Show… so it has to be true!
Erik wrote, “If the earing comment means anything else, its that the right wingers are starting to see that they are going to lose so that they are shifting into victim mode.”
I’m all for not wanting to count chickens too early and such, so since the judge did not dismiss the case because he felt the evidence couldn’t possibly be there, we will have to wait until the evidence is provided and judged on.
Nevertheless, it does look bleak for the GOP, and one thing is for sure everyone will lose regardless of the outcome because of the huge cost to both sides financially and otherwise.
Peter said, “There were ~4% more votes (based on Wa state Sec of State elections site) in the Presidential race than for Governor, so clearly some accounting (proportional or direct testimony) needs to be made of these.”
And that 4% is statewide, correct? If you go by what the GOP wants to do then you have to look at it at a precinct level, so the number will surely be much higher than that in many precincts (while at the same time be lower in others).
And if it is ok to adjust by that, then it should be ok to adjust by other criteria, such as gender, income and occupation, religious belief, sexuality, etc… Choosing how is arbitrary. Not choosing is arbitrary. An arbitrary cannot be factual or a basis of proof.
Okay Alan, I got your ire. Wow it worked.
You said this was a site where you defame the innocent, and impugn your opponent, so I was testing your ability to take it. See, I can write something to give you a mob assault on anyone’s intelligence. Sure does hurt huh. I add no value in my posts.
You still haven’t answered my question about Hilary, John Kerry and Sam Hunt wanting felons to vote. Why is that? Law books got your tongue? My computer hasn’t got mine.
Now that I got YOUR ATTENTION, I have no evidence that Logan has shredded anything. It sure is interesting that it took Stefan months with freedom of information requests to get information out of the KCEC that the democrats get in a few days? Hmmm… see my point in what I agree to you is an obtuse way?
Pudster.
It is all over folks. Reason has prevailed. Progressives can go back to fixing the mess the repugs have caused (and are still causing) and the neo-con death-cult can go back to their underground bunkers and recycle their Spam provisions.
SillyPuddy @ 54
“You still haven’t answered my question about Hilary, John Kerry and Sam Hunt wanting felons to vote.”
Perhaps Alan hasn’t answered because your question is so inane.
But, you asked this question last week, and I answered it here:
http://www.horsesass.org/my-co.....ment-26955
Oh. . . and Pudster, try to post with a higher signal to noise ratio.
Puddybud wrote, “You said this was a site where you defame the innocent, and impugn your opponent, so I was testing your ability to take it. See, I can write something to give you a mob assault on anyone’s intelligence. Sure does hurt huh. I add no value in my posts.”
Yes, anyone can write anything, including falsities and lies. Which is why there is no virtue in doing so purposely and deceitfully.
What is so remarkable about this comment thread is how relatively free of trolls it has been. Probably as much a sign of things as anything.
HorsesAsses @ 56 & 57. My question is so inane. Yes, it’s inane because it will officially have you guys say that most felons vote your way. Why answer the “inane” when you can deflect?
Maybe you are right having their rights restored is okay, but why haven’t states done this even those controlled by Democrats; legislature, and govenor? Maybe the will of the people says otherwise. are you then agreeing with me that the hue and cry for rights restoring will benefit whom? – Democrats.
Then answer my other questions in my original post since you guys are so great at dissecting.
Pudster
I’m all for not wanting to count chickens too early and such, so since the judge did not dismiss the case because he felt the evidence couldn’t possibly be there, we will have to wait until the evidence is provided and judged on.
I agree. Also, there is a very good chance that the supremes are going to have a significant different approach than the trial judge. Who knows in which direction.
My point is that the neo cons are starting to believe they have lost. As the republican’s case progresses, look for less “re-vote” the mess now to “out of control judiciary” comments.
Erik, if the NeoCons fell they are losing, then you should have heard Slade Gorton. He was disappointed in the need to prove the felon voted and said it will take more work, but happy that the proportional analysis is being used.
Pudster
puddy @ 60
“being used” is a pretty loose term. There’s no law that says I can’t use the Chewbacca Defense in open court either–but that doesn’t mean I’d be jumping for joy if my lawyer told me the judge OKed it for my trial.
Erik wrote “My point is that the neo cons are starting to believe they have lost. As the republican’s case progresses, look for less “re-vote†the mess now to “out of control judiciary†comments.”
Yes indeed. Should reality about the final outcome of this case ever set in with the GOP faithful (it may never), we will probably see one or both of the following reactions:
– outrage at “activist jusdges” determining election outcomes, and
– claims that Rossi won more inconsequential decisions than Gregoire did and so by mere numbers actually won the case (regardless of the final outcome – they so love that kind of argument).
He was disappointed in the need to prove the felon voted and said it will take more work, but happy that the proportional analysis is being used.
Nice. Except of course, the judge made clear that he did not suggest he would accept the “proportional analysis,” only that he would not bar the testimony. Of course, even if it was, there are many ways to sterotype the behavior of the felon voters and by address is only one of them.
SillyPuddy @ 58
“. . .it will officially have you guys say that most felons vote your way.”
No, Pudster, your question will not. What will have me saying that is a good empirical study. To date there are none.
“Maybe you are right having their rights restored is okay, but why haven’t states done this even those controlled by Democrats; legislature, and govenor?”
Ummm. . . Pudster, some have. Washington is one of those states that has (at least partially). Felons convicted before 1984 are banned for life in Washington, those after 1984 can petition for having their rights restored after meeting some conditions. Other states have other rules.
“Maybe the will of the people says otherwise. are you then agreeing with me that the hue and cry for rights restoring will benefit whom? – Democrats.”
Maybe! Nobody knows for sure. But, African Americans make up 50% of the felon population in the U.S., so it is possible that felons, on average, tend to vote democratic when examined nationally. But, there is no studies done to verify that, so far. In Washington, African Americans make up a much smaller proportion of the Felon population, so for all we know the predominately white, male, low education voters are just as likely to vote Republican.
Pudster, get a fucking grip on yourself. The issue is about re-enfranchising people who have paid their debt to society.
“Then answer my other questions in my original post since you guys are so great at dissecting.”
No.
Well DJ, Alan, & Torridjoe since you know it all, lets take an example, sex offenders. If I remember right, who is the party wanting stringent controls and web sites tracking sex offenders? Hmmm… You research and figure it out. Now if I was a sex offender felon voting in the election, would I vote for the party making my life miserable voting for Rossi? Doubt it.
Lets take another example petit larceny? Isn’t that below $500 taken? Who steals at that level, poor uneducated people. If you want to steal you rob the bank vault. If one is poor they are getting welfare, foodstamps. Who wants people to get off the rolls and have them getting into the workplace? Hmmm… So if I am a larceny felon voting to have their foodstamps and welfare cut off earlier voting for Rossi? Doubt it.
So in closing you are saying poor blacks and latinos vote democratic while poor whites vote Republican? Hard to believe to me!!! Convince me?
Pudster
puddy @ 65
first you might start by trying to convince us that any of your unsupported assertions have any basis in reality. You provide not a bit of evidence for any of them.
Torridjoe, neither do you. It is not our side wanting to get felons back voting, it’s yours. That is all the validation I need. The hue and cry is from your side.
Pudster
Your side says, “We’ll get the felons from the Rossi winning counties to overcome the King County felon vote. So either you are saying all the felons who voted are minorities or they are white people. Which are they? So you are partially admitting to my argument.
NUFF SAID!!!
Pudster
Also, your side has said nothing of the dead resurrecting themselves to vote or the people in elderly homes who are senile and their children said they didn’t vote for them or authorize their vote. What about those illegal votes? What about those who double voted?
Focus on the felons so we can deflect the other issues found out by the Republicans. Hmmm…
Puddybud said, “Also, your side has said nothing of the dead resurrecting themselves to vote or the people in elderly homes who are senile and their children said they didn’t vote for them or authorize their vote. What about those illegal votes? What about those who double voted?”
Oh, my, you are right! The entire election should be thrown out because a few dead people had votes cast on their behalf by a spouse (nevermind the fact some of them voted for Rossi)! What the heck have we been thinking?! Stop the presses now! Stop this madness! 3 million people should have to vote again because of these inconsequential cases that certainly could never have happened before. No sirree, Bob!
puddy @ 67-69
“neither do you.” Neither do I what? I’m not presenting any argument to you.
“My side?” I guess you’re insinuating I’m on Gregoire’s side? Nice try–I have no dog in this hunt.
“Want to get felons back voting?” I wish I knew what that meant. Do you mean I’d like to see felons able to vote once out of prison? Yes. If you think that’s a bad idea, you’re the one who has to show why. And what that has to do with the election contest, I’m not sure.
“So either you are saying all the felons who voted are minorities or they are white people. Which are they? So you are partially admitting to my argument.” Again, this is meaningless mumbo jumbo not directed at anything I’ve said. What I’m saying is that if the GOP tries to rely on proportional apportionment for felon votes from King, the Dems will cancel most if not all of them out with felon votes from Rossi areas. The race of the voter is a total non sequitur.
“What about those illegal votes? Focus on the felons so we can deflect the other issues found out by the Republicans.” Now this is just stupid. Who’s been trumpeting “ILLEGAL FELONS” non stop for months, since the voter crediting angle was torpedoed? Not the Democrats. The non-felon illegal votes are infinitesimal—perhaps that’s why they’re not of great focus at the moment. But clearly the Democrats take note of them; they just had two of them thrown out today in court.
Hey you HorsesAsses: You guys are right, all the felons voted for Rossi, the article in the Vancouver Columbian about Gregoire voting felons was a total lie, and white felon people love Rossi and all voted for him (Pual Berendt). You win. 65% of Florida felons didn’t register democratic, 70+ in New York didn’t either. Please tell me what felon Christine Gregoire put into prison, since they voted against her, especially when she was against “3 Strikes Your Out”, like most of your democrat legislature members?
Yes, the democratic way is so right. I will gladly place my “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Rossi” bumper sticker when you see a 10 cent rise in gas, higher car registration fees, and other voted taxes.
Pudster
pud–you’re not getting it. The whole point of proportional analysis is because the voting patterns of the felon votes CANNOT be ascertained. The proportions you blithely cite are useless under the Rossi plan; he wants to tie it completely to how counties or precincts (likely the latter) voted as a whole.
I don’t mean to insult you here, but it seems this isn’t registering:
Rossi precinct with felon votes: Rossi loses votes
Gregoire precinct with felon votes: Gregoire loses votes
it has NOTHING to do with how felons voted.
pullmypud @ 54 The origianal talking ’empty’ head remains just that. A futile exercise in ignorance, and another reason for pro choice. Imagine more of the ’empty’ family in your neighborhood
torridjoe @ 73 pud is not getting it but he is losing it fast.
Boy I sure am getting hungry; where’s my crow Mr. Cynical?
brad@23–
Very observant of you.
Indeed, many of the felons who voted have already been clearly verified and removed from voter lists. Those are easy to throw in the hopper.
Goldy & Alan–
I don’t say that a lot of the Dems “felons” are wrong because of what Chris Vance said. There are lists of felons who were screened and eliminated by R’s for a variety of reasons. A number of the Dems alleged felon voters are on that list.
Alan–
You may think the Dems list has been vetted better than the R’s. Maybe it has…but I can assure you it isn’t perfect…or even close. That’s why I said its amazing how difficult it is for both Party’s to get their arms around a clear & verified list of felon voters. The ones that have already been removed ought to be close to 100% valid. Others are being investigated as we type.
The Dems need to get hoppin’ too guys.
No…just sit back and speculate.
Shawn–
I plan on serving you that crow with a side order of free-range TOFU! Plus perhaps a jug of your favorite organic ‘Rat milk to wash it all down……
Ooops…I don’t want to give you any meanass ideas Shawn.
It just dawned on me that I might be wrong!
Right now….who in the hell knows how this will untangle?
Is crow really that tough Alan?
Shawn…would you mind marinating it in teryaki for a week or so before you cook it up for me….you know, just in case.
For all of you I do get it. I understand the use of proportional analysis. I was trying to go past it and say what if… All I said is that other places in the US know from their registrations that their felon vote is X for the democraps. Democraps use extrapolation on other issues. Why can’t I use it? You are so blinded that you can even meet me half way.
Shawn, why have 650+ felons been vetted and verified as being on the list just in King County? Norm Maleng finally got off his ass and is going forward. You democraps have to vet theirs. Bring it on!
BTW ghost @74, I suppose an appropriate name, being transparent. I would never judge you as abortion material. Maybe the best part of your genome pool ran down your mother’s leg or butt crack, but that’s as far as I would go.
Pudster
and maybe the best part of you pullmypud ran down your fathers boyfriend’s leg! Never know do ya
Seems to me that the major felon vote must be for democrats! Why else would all the democrats want to allow Felon’s to vote.
GS @ 81
“Seems to me that the major felon vote must be for democrats!”
It may be that ex-felons vote in higher proportion for Democrats, but there is no empirical evidence for it so far.
“Why else would all the democrats want to allow Felon’s to vote.”
I realize that this might be very hard for you to understand, but some politicians may genuinely feel that people ought to be able to fully participate in our Democracy again after paying their debt to society. This JUST MAY NOT be about political gain. It may be about doing the right (correct) thing!
What would Jesus do?
WWJD??
I believe he would expect the sinner to make restitution BEFORE he got his voting privilege back.
“I realize that this might be very hard for you to understand, but some politicians may genuinely feel that people ought to be able to fully participate in our Democracy again after paying their debt to society. This JUST MAY NOT be about political gain. It may be about doing the right (correct) thing! ”
“Nope, you can bet your ass it’s about the voting block! Guaranteed!
Fellow Citizens of the Great State of Washington,
Battling it out in the courts over the Governor’s election is an expensive ordeal for all parties involved. I understand the Democrats owe 500 grand to their law firm and the Republicans also have about 370 grand in debt.
So no matter whose side you’re on. Give. Give what you can.
I gave today. Not much. I’m not rich but I’m sure it’s appreciated nonetheless. A lot of small donations add up.
Peter @ 50
It’s true that not everyone who returned a ballot cast a vote in the governor’s race, and I agree this should be taken into account. I don’t think Bridges has said yet how he will handle this. I believe what happened today was he agreed to hear what the plaintiff (i.e., GOP) wants to say, without committing himself to what he’ll do with it. So he left his options open on issues of this nature.
Goldy @ 51
Mr. C seems to be fuming and sputtering a lot today, and at a loss for real words. Apparently the looming prospect of a final, abject, humiliating, Rossi defeat is more than he can cope with until he’s had a few more stiff drinks.
Can someone explain to me how one can assume that felons, folks who by definition behaved differently than the norm, can be assumed to vote in the same pattern as non-felons?
If KCEC had implemented the RCW based changes identified in 2003 by the SOS BEFORE the election, no one would have to give anything to anyone. If Dean Logan and Bill Huennekens correctly did their job and not tried to certify an election which they admit under oath was not correctly implemented we would not be owing anyone anything.
Xmasgostpast said “and maybe the best part of you pullmypud ran down your fathers boyfriend’s leg! Never know do ya” It doesn’t even merit a cumback!
There are the old adages in your case xmasghostpast, “Don’t argue with an idiot, they’ll pull you down to their level and win on experience” Or “Support bacteria. They’re the only culture some people like you have.”
Pudster
As usual,
Puddinhead @ 54
OK, you got my attention, I’ll concede that to you, albeit you did it in a nefariously slimy way. You state:
“You still haven’t answered my question about Hilary, John Kerry and Sam Hunt wanting felons to vote. Why is that?”
This seems to be the Democratic Party’s platform, not just that of the aforementioned politicians. The rationale is that ex-felons will reintegrate into society better, and be less likely to reoffend, if their voting rights are restored upon completion of prison time. This position, by the way, has also been adopted by the American Correctional Association. Democrats’ for not holding out for restitution include:
a) It makes the system more complicated, increasing the chance of confusion like we had in the governor’s election;
b) Restitution is administered unequally, with defendants who committed similar crimes being given different restitution requirements;
c) Demanding restitution as a condition of restoring voting rights often results in permanent disenfranchisement, because many ex-inmates are poor, many restitution orders are unrealistic, and in those cases the felons will never be able to pay off their restitution debts;
d) Felon disenfranchisement disproportionately affects the poor and minority segments of the population.
Sure, you can be cynical and say Democrats wouldn’t support this if ex-felons didn’t vote for Democrats more often than they vote for Republicans, and it’s probably true. How many professional politicians don’t make calculations like that? You don’t get to Congress or the Senate by being slipshod about where your votes are, and where your opponent’s votes are. But that doesn’t change the fact Washington’s current system leads to confusion and illegal voting, and there are valid arguments for restoring voting rights after people finish serving their time. And before you start jumping up and down and accusing us liberals of being soft on crime ask yourself, “What would Jesus do?”
@ 78
You can get that terriaki crow just about anywhere in the u-dist with a side of day old rice. It’s not too bad if ya wash it down with some Maddog 2020.
Addendum to 90
I should point out, however, the lack of reliable studies (either nationally or locally) on how ex-felons actually vote. Although you can find studies that conclude felons tend to vote Democratic, those studies are based on statistical analyses, not asking felons how they voted, which is a dog-chasing-its-own-tail thing.
Also, Washington is different from those other states, in that we have a much lower percentage of minorities in our prison population. If felons tend to vote Democratic in New Jersey, it may have more to do with the higher proportion of minorities in their penal system, or even with just the demographics of that state, than with their status as felons. You certainly can’t assume that Washington’s felons vote the same way as New Jersey’s felons, or Texas’s felons.
The Democrats argue Washington felons probably supported Rossi more than Gregoire because they’re overwhelmingly white males (who, as a group, tend to vote Republican in this state) and because it’s unlikely felons would vote for the state’s chief law enforcement officer.
dj @ 56
No, Alan didn’t answer because Alan had other things to do this afternoon.
SillyPuddy @ 58
All I know right now is that of 9 felons who talked to the press, 8 said they voted for Rossi and 1 said she voted for Gregoire.
Silly Puddy @ 69 and other places
There aren’t enough dead votes or double votes to affect the outcome. You’re so wrapped up in stereotyping you probably have no idea how many Hispanics voted for Bush, or how many welfare bums vote Republican (trust me, some of them do).
Alan, I have read you slime others, so I had to use another tactic to get you to talk not your pinheaded friends.
Whoa, WWJD? Now you got me started. Just ask Unkl Witz. I love the Bible so let’s quote some New Testament here. First He would condemn the sin and plead with the sinner not to sin again, as He did with Mary Magdalene. (Luke 7 and John 8) Next He would ask many people, “Why the natural use of women has been replaced by butt packing?” (Romans 1:18-end of chapter.) Then He would ask why are humans killing other defenseless humans before they were born? Thou shall not murder. (Revelation 14:12 – Sixth Commandment.)
Last but not least Jesus would ask” Why do you call on Me in church and when you leave My house and go to work you forget about Me.” Thanks for the retort, counselor.
Pudster
Mr. Cynical @ 78
“Is crow really that tough Alan?”
It’s your own fault you don’t know, because you refused to eat crow when your turn came.
Puddy re gas tax
Why are you bitching about the 9 1/2 cent gas tax but saying nothing about the oil producers and refiners ripping you for 80 cents a gallon in the last 6 months? Is it okay for private enterprise to rob you, but not okay for government to spend 9 1/2 cents so a bridge doesn’t fall down and squish your sorry ass into rat pulp?
79
It’s hard to believe that of 100,000,000 sperms, this one swam the fastest.
Mr. C @ 83
Go back and read your Bible again. And again. Until you get it right.
SillyPuddy @ 96
None of those verses seem to have anything whatsoever to do with ex-felons. When we discuss “felons voting” did you somehow think we were refering to the people serving their sentences? No, dip shit, we are talking to those who have completed their sentence. How about quoting Christ’s messages about redemption and forgiveness?
Great thing about quoting Bibical verses, you can explain away anything if ya look hard enough. How about getting the bigger picture of Christs message, Puddy. Your posts might not be as uh, colorful, but ya might get your point accepted as more constructive and less agressive.
Silly Puddy @ 96
The only part of the Bible I ever read is the verse where He forgives me for all the shit I’ve done. I like to read that one over and over. :D
dj and DD @ 101 & 102
No, no, don’t point him to that path! Let him go to Hell with all his Repugian friends! I don’t want to end up on the same cloud with this guy! He’ll grab my harp!
ah, come on Alan…there’s enough for everybody.
Alan @ 93
“No, Alan didn’t answer because Alan had other things to do this afternoon.”
I figured that. . . I was using that excuse to bud in and get a little troll-smacking in for my afternoon entertainment. :)
DJ @ 101
Actually, a felon in this state CAN vote after they have completed their sentence. The community supervision after release from prison (i.e. parole, probation) is part of a felony sentence. So is the requirement to pay the fine and make restitution — that is also part of the felony sentence. So once a felon has completed their sentence by serving the required time in prison (not all felons are sentenced to serve time), the required period of community supervised, and payment of all fines and restitution set forth in the sentence, they are eligible to vote again.
The financial part of the sentence tends to be an obstacle to many felons. Judges tend to be lenient on financial sentencing, but they are always required to impose a minimum fine of $500 on any felony sentence. It is amazing how many felons who are sentenced to pay the minimum fine of $500 never get around to paying more than a few dollars of the fine — and never have their voting rights legally restored.
dj @ 106
Smack those trolls to your heart’s content!!! :D :D :D
Richard
“Actually, a felon in this state CAN vote after they have completed their sentence.”
Yep, I hear you (see my post @ 64). The only thing to add is that those convicted of a felon prior to 1984 are permanently disenfranchised.
The latest version of Postman’s Seattle Times article (http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....on03m.html) strongly implies proving a former felon voted illegaly includes proving they voted in the governor’s race. So either the former felons have to be interviewed or a proportional analysis based on % of “undervotes” is necessary.
Alan/Don–
You know you’ve had too much to drink when your cat eats your puke and gets hammered!
Why mr cinical. is that what your cat routinely does, or did you finally send your cat to the ‘honorable’ Dr. Frist?
Good morning Alan, DJ, and others. I guess being called a troll :) is a blessing. I will always troll for the truth. I love reading God’s Word. Bring it on! You love to discuss Christ’s forgiveness and want to say we have to forgive felons. I commend you for wanting to spread forgiveness. God can’t forgive those felons unless they first confess their sins as it says in 1 John 1:9. I agree when the felon has fully restituted, and has shown no sign of recitivism, let him/her receive their voting rights again. Demonstrate it here in your posts. Butt, the post saying they will vote against Christine “I hated Three Strikes Your Out Law” Gregoire is preposterous. The words from Sam Hunt has proven my point about the felon voting block. Yet you all overlook it. A true Christian doesn’t infer or say the things I have been accused of on this blog. Just because the HeadAss Goldy gives one the opportunity, do you use it? Compare my replies to yours.
Butt, I also said there is more to Christ’s message than just forgiveness. He wanted men and women to give up their sinful lives. What is sin? I thought I explained it in my Post # 96. I compare many of you to Matthew 23, empty shells, full of dead men’s bones, or Paul in Galations 5:19-22, you supporters of those who perform sinful acts.
I bet you all you believe you die and go to heaven. No where in the Bible does it say this either, otherwise why would Jesus come back in 1 Corinthians 15 or I Thessalonians 4 to resurrect the just, when you are already in heaven? Go ask you minister to prove it. Ask him to explain Ecclesiastes 9:5 or Psalms 6:5 or Job 14:21.
The way you AssesHorses talk about people, you don’t exhibit Galations 5:22& 23 or Romans 12 or Hebrews 11, let alone Matthew 5. Jesus had me first open the Bible to Jeremiah 25, but I thought, they’d never understand this prophecy Lord. But then some of you would have to first find your Bible, then dust it off and look in the index for those books. Some of you from your posts demonstrate a true disdain for God’s Word.
You see, it is true what they say about you democrats. They TRY to use the Bible to make their arguments but when it comes down to knowing the Word, they are like fighting an one armed man in a fistfight. After you crack open your Bible and perform a Bible study come back and talk to me about WWJD.
Pudster
DJ @ 109
You should refer to the SecState website for information on how felons can get their voting rights back:
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/ele.....oring.aspx
If someone was convicted for a crime committed before July 1, 1984 and sentenced to time in jail or prison, they have to apply to the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board. It would seem that discharge and restoration of rights would pretty much be automatic after a person has been released for three years, unless their parole is suspended or revoked. (Maybe they have to wait three more years in such case, or for some other period of time?) Apparently, the Board has discretion to restore voting rights even sooner than the three year automatic period. RCW 9.96.050
For someone sentenced for something done before July 1, 1984, but only given a suspended sentence (as opposed to jail or prison time), they have to apply to the sentencing court. The SecState says that restoration of rights is up to the discretion of the sentencing court. But I can’t imagine that the sentencing court would refuse to restore rights. If someone’s sentence was suspended under the pre-1984 law, and they haven’t screwed up and gotten this un-suspended (i.e. haven’t been sent to jail or prison for violating these conditions), then it would be a serious abuse of discretion for the court not to restore their rights. Especially after 20 years! RCW 9.92.066(1)
If someone has an out-of-state or federal felony conviction, then they can apply to the Clemency and Pardons Board to have their voting rights restored. There appear to be no standards for that Board to exercise its power. RCW 9.94A.885(2)
By the way, if Gregoire really thinks that it is unfair for convicted felons to lose their right to vote, she has the absolute power to do something about that. The Governor has the power to pardon and grant clemency, in whole or in part, under Article III, Section 9 of the state constitution. While this power can apparently be restricted by law, there are no real restrictions on the power that have been enacted into law. Only a Clemency and Pardons Board, which may made recommendations to the Governor, which the Governor is not required to follow and doesn’t even need to consider being acting.
So Gregoire can grant limited clemency to every single felon in this state, or to certain categories of them (such as those persons not being confined 24 hours a day in a correctional facility), limited to restoring their voting rights, simply by issuing an appropriate clemency certificate to each such person. In fact, RCW 9.96.010 to 9.96.040 expressly recognizes that the Governor may restore these voting rights.
Unfortunately, despite the Governor’s nearly unlimited power to grant pardons and clemency, including restoring voting rights to otherwise ineligible felons, I don’t believe that the Governor is able to make such relief retroactive. It might be worth a try however :)
puddy @ 113
anyone with even the slightest Biblical knowledge knows that Jesus was utterly silent on both homosexuality and abortion–so forgive me if I’m not impressed by your amazing facility with verse.
Whoa Torridjoe, how much do you know about the Bible? Do you accept that Jesus created the earth while God the Father watched in approval? Do you understand what Paul said that Jesus was there at the creation of the world? Do you understand what John said in John 1:1-3 that all things were created by Him? If you accept that then Jesus went in a round about way on homosexuality through Paul. If you don’t accept that then you need to go back and study that Bible.
Remember the Damascus Road experience Paul had in Acts. Who wrote Romans, Galatians, Corinthians, Hebrews, etc. Paul. Jesus asked why he was crucifying His disciples in Jerusalem and Damascus? He had he conversion and said he was crucified in Christ, yet I now longer live, Jesus now lives in me. Look up Romans chapter 1: start at verse 18 to the end focus on verses 26 and 27. If that doesn’t talk about homosexuality in the New Testament, I give up. Then I talked about Galations 5:19-21, and now I add Ephesians 5:3&4, and 2 Timothy 3:2-5.
Regarding abortion, what is that? Taking the life of an unborn child. Is that murder? What is the Sixth Commandment, “Thou Shall Not Murder”. Well we’ll just have to wait until Jesus comes back in the clouds of glory to determine if I’m right or not. But if I’m right, many people will face judgment. If I’m wrong then I lose out. So I said read Revelation 14:12. I’ll still put my trust in the Bible.
So Torridjoe: Need another Bible study?
Pudster
puddy–that reading comprehension problem is your Achilles heel again. Let me repeat: JESUS is silent on both issues. There is not a single word SPOKEN BY JESUS on either topic. Paul is not Jesus. John is not Jesus. John said all kinds of crap that Jesus NEVER intimated, but he claimed it was Jesus’ words anyway.
As for abortion–no, it’s not murder, quite obviously. And I don’t recall Jesus reading off the 10C to Moses, in any case.
I believe in the teachings of Jesus. All those other wankers can sod off, IMO. The ONE apostle who actually claimed to touch and feel the risen Christ–the one who absolutely knew him best–was shunned and discounted by the Chosen Twelve. Fuck ’em.
This is great Torridjoe. I got your ire now. You better read the Bible, because you are now saying that Jesus’ prophets are not inspired by Jesus himself. Now you are stepping out on cracked ice. Are you saying the Bible contradicts itself? You better rush to church and ask your minister that question. No minister will say the Bible contradicts itself because a house divided against itself can not stand. Jesus said that too.
From the words of Torridjoe: “I believe in the teachings of Jesus. All those other wankers can sod off, IMO. The ONE apostle who actually claimed to touch and feel the risen Christ–the one who absolutely knew him best–was shunned and discounted by the Chosen Twelve. Fuck ‘em.”
Hey Hot Joe, prove to me he was shunned by the other disciples? You must be mixing up Judas Iscariot with John, the brother of James, the sons of Zebedee, sons of thunder. Jesus told John to take care of Mary his mother while on the cross. DOH! Jesus revealed Himself to John who wrote Revelation – The Revelation of Jesus Christ, DOH! I thought the all touched Him and saw him in the locked room and told Thomas to touch His hands and feet. DOH!
Get a life Torridjoe. Read Matt 5:19, Matt 19:17, Mark 10:19, etc. I can state more verses that Jesus stated keeping His commandments. Was abortions done back then? I doubt it because it would have killed the person. I am glad I don’t aspire to your religious beliefs. What do your good AssesHorse friends say in your defense?
I said in my first comment shun the sin but comfort the sinner, as long as they confess their sins in 1 John 1:9. Confess your sins directly to Jesus.
Pudster
pud, you don’t have my ire–just my disdain.
I’ll accept your use of the phrase “inspired by” as an admission that I am correct, and Jesus never said anything of which you speak regarding homosexuality and abortion. My erotic fiction novels about the affair between Capt Kirk and Spock may be “inspired by” the original Star Trek, but that doesn’t mean Gene Roddenberry wrote them.
No minister will say the Bible contradicts itself? What kind of bubble do you live in? Whole DENOMINATIONS accept that premise.
“Prove to me he was shunned by the other disciples”–he who? Quite obviously I’m referring to MARY MAGDALENE–who, if you remember your theology correctly, was the first to see the risen Christ, and in fact appears to have been the ONLY one to touch him and confirm his presence. The others saw only apparition.
Man, even this abject liturgical rookie can school you in your own faith! How embarassing that must be for you.
tj–
I pity da fool.
—Mr. T (many times)
Mr. T was talking about you on this one tj.
You are schooling whom? Surely not me. Are you opening your Bible to ‘splain your version of events? I doubt it.
Name me the denominations that say the Bible contradicts itself that hold Jesus is the Son of God?
Again Torridjoe says ““Prove to me he was shunned by the other disciples”–he who? Quite obviously I’m referring to MARY MAGDALENE–who, if you remember your theology correctly, was the first to see the risen Christ, and in fact appears to have been the ONLY one to touch him and confirm his presence. The others saw only apparition.” Sorry Torridjoe u’s wrong again! My Bible says in John 20:17 Jesus tells Mary NOT to touch him because He has not ascended to His Father. But that’s right you just wrote that John was shunned and not inspired by Jesus as a disciple in this marvelously crafted missive: “John is not Jesus. John said all kinds of crap that Jesus NEVER intimated, but he claimed it was Jesus’ words anyway.” DOH! Prove me this too. I speak from the Bible and all I see from you is conjecture. I am quoting Biblical verses to sustain my argument.
Where does it say in the Bible that the 11 disciples saw an apparition when Jesus told Thomas to touch Him to see if He was real? My Bible says otherwise.
I don’t accept your premise, as I already proved you wrong with the verses direct from Jesus’ mouth.
Since you don’t accept Jesus’ prophets maybe you’ll accept God the Father. What did The Lord say in Genesis 19 – Sodom and Gomorrah; Lev 18:22; 20:13 – men laying with men; Judges 19 – The man and his visitor and his concubine.
The only truth you wrote in #119 was that you are a liturgical rookie. Eveything else you are spouting is strange.
Pudster
puddy–
Denominations that embrace errancy of the Bible in one way or another (contradiction obviously being one form):
Unitarian Universalist Church
The Catholic Church
Disciples of Christ
The Episcopal Church USA
United Church of Christ
United Methodist Church
Greek Orthodox
You go on to grossly misstate me: I never said John was shunned or was not “inspired.” I said MARY was shunned, as she was, and the issue is not whether John was inspired, but whether Jesus said the things of which you speak. He did not, a fact you seem to admit but cannot face.
John was a hack. How else do you describe someone who can’t even get his facts straight on the length of time before the resurrection? (He claims 2 days, 2 nights. Matthew, Luke and Mark all reported 3 days. And heck, Matthew 12:40 would indicate that Jesus was supposed to be gone for 3 days and THREE nights. No contradiction—riiiight. Heck, John very well may not even be the author of his own Gospel! In fact, the description ‘beloved disciple’ more accurately fits Mary herself.)
I don’t necessarily expect you to accept the premise of Mary the Apostle, since the traditional Bible pretty much ignores her the way Peter did when she came to them, having been the first to see him ascend.
puddy–
Denominations that embrace errancy of the Bible in one way or another (contradiction obviously being one form):
Unitarian Universalist Church
The Catholic Church
Disciples of Christ
The Episcopal Church USA
United Church of Christ
United Methodist Church
Greek Orthodox
You go on to grossly misstate me: I never said John was shunned or was not “inspired.” I said MARY was shunned, as she was, and the issue is not whether John was inspired, but whether Jesus said the things of which you speak. He did not, a fact you seem to admit but cannot face.
John was a hack. How else do you describe someone who can’t even get his facts straight on the length of time before the resurrection? (He claims 2 days, 2 nights. Matthew, Luke and Mark all reported 3 days. And heck, Matthew 12:40 would indicate that Jesus was supposed to be gone for 3 days and THREE nights. No contradiction—riiiight. Heck, John very well may not even be the author of his own Gospel! In fact, the description ‘beloved disciple’ more accurately fits Mary herself.)
I don’t necessarily expect you to accept the premise of Mary the Apostle, since the traditional Bible pretty much ignores her the way Peter did when she came to them, having been the first to see him ascend.
oops, sorry. HA crapped out for a minute and I resent.
TJ – Wow, you finally quoted a Bible verse. Wonderful. I didn’t know those religions say there are Biblical errors. Thanks for the new enlightenment. I will not set foot in those churches again unless friends are getting married or funerals are being conducted.
Looks like I have to use the Bible again. What does it say in Genesis Chapter 1 & 2. The evening and morning are a day. Notice that evening happens before morning, and that night is before day, not the way we look at days today, day first then night. Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 & 2:2 Matthew, Mark and Luke – 3 days 3 nights – Friday (Day and Night 1) Saturday (the Sabbath – Day and Night 2) Sunday Day and Night 3. Eventhough Jesus rose Sunday morning the night before is the 3rd night. John talks about the evening before the Sabbath and Sunday, only two days. Where is the contradiction? DOH! Good try TJ.
Regarding the beloved disciple, read Matthew Henry, Tisdale and other accepted scholars, John is talking about himself. He placed his head on the breast of Jesus at the Last Supper. DOH! Good Try TJ.
Where in the Bible is Mary Magdelene a disciple? Jesus didn’t elevate her to that status. She wasn’t shunned, she wasn’t believed and Jesus in Luke 24:10 talked to Mary; Joanna; Mary, James mother; and other women. DOH! Good Try TJ.
I appreciate this Biblical discussion. Regarding my belief that Jesus inspired others to write about that which is right or wrong, if you fail to accept Paul was inspired by Jesus after Acts 9, then I can’t help you. He writes throughout all his epistles about his accpetance of Jesus as the Son of God.
But what about my old testament verses direct from God the Father? You gloss right over them. DOH!
Look forward to your next try.
puddy–check your math. Nights: Firday, Saturday. That’s two, not three. And it doesn’t matter how you count them; John claims a different count than the others. However long it took Jesus, it cannot have been simultaneously two AND three.
I appreciated with great amusement your use of the word “enlightenment,” followed by the declaration that you’ll be immediately disregarding it.
Since John is an entirely in-credible witness, claiming himself to be author doesn’t exactly lend confidence to his account.
The Gospel of Mary was discovered in the 3rd Century. Quite obviously, if–as Peter did–other apostles dismissed her account and her ability to speak as a prophet of Christ, her account isn’t going to show up in the Big Book. But that certainly doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
oh, and as for the OT verses: those aren’t operative anymore, are they? Or do you wear only one type of fabric, in keeping with Leviticus? And let’s stay on track and remember that we’re talking about what JESUS said.
Hey TJ, I answered your questions but Goldy ate it.
Pudster
Goldy: I found it so you didn’t eat it.
TJ what Bible you read? I ‘splained to you how the Jews counted nights back then, butt you just can fathom it. To a Jew back them the next night signified the beginning of another day, night before day. So try counting again. Butt you can’t get it going past two. I sugguest you try reading Genesis first. I also explained to you that John started counting on Friday night which to them was the Sabbath, day and night two. Get it?
Jesus said I came to fulfill the law, not to change it. What is the law? The Old Testament. Jesus said Heaven and earth will pass away before one jot or tittle of my law will change. What is His law? The Old Testament. I gave you Genesis, Leviticus, and Judges. Oh yeah, you have a reading problem like Donna on another thread. Get a life. Why didn’t the Bible scholars in the 1600’s include this wonderful book of Mary. Not credible. Did you read Tisdale and Matthew Henry that fast? Wow a speed reader on the site.
Waiting…
count with me, Puddy:
Friday night: ONE
Saturday night: TWO
Sunday n….ooops, no Sunday night.
The Biblical scholars of the 1600’s didn’t have the benefit of the gospel’s discovery yet; it wasn’t until last century. The book had been buried once the idea of a female Apostle was chauvenistically discarded.
So in your estimation, it’s still wrong according to Jesus to wear blended clothing?
I will write this one more time. Read Genesis 1. Evening and morning is the way it was looked at, not morning and evening. The first day was evening then morning, butt you are looking at it in 2005 terms not back there terms. 1+1+1=3 Friday ended at sunset, and Saturday began at sunset. Sunday began at sunset Saturday evening. One more time Eveing before morning. Get it? If not I can’t help you. Add buddy.
What does blended clothing have to do with it? Changing the subject I’d guess? It was against the custom for Him to touch a leper, eat with prostitutes and tax collectors but He did it? He was accused of not having His diciples washing their hands before eating. Get it?
Pudster
PuddyBuddy, You should save your scripture for the Neo’s election contest funeral. Won’t be long now. You should also start preaching to your fellow trolls and trollettes (MR C and Chardsof sin) They certainly need your special kind of enlightenment
I know Cynical and he is smart, enlightened, and well rounded. He is very gung ho like me. We’ll see after May 23rd. I have no idea which way it will go.
Pudster