POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Do trials by jury make sense? Server Time
2 Oct 2024 00:19:37 EDT (-0400)
  Do trials by jury make sense? (Message 81 to 87 of 87)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages
From: Warp
Subject: Re: Do trials by jury make sense?
Date: 30 Apr 2008 05:59:10
Message: <481842ee@news.povray.org>
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> For Chrissake, man, the first time W was elected, it was 9 people who 
> decided

  No it wasn't. Millions of people voted.

  Just because approximately half of the people voted for and the other
half against doesn't mean that the votes were null, void and ignored.
It was still an election with millions of voters.

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Do trials by jury make sense?
Date: 30 Apr 2008 11:30:40
Message: <481890a0@news.povray.org>
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Deliberate misconduct could get the case dismissed with prejudice.

Thanks. I wasn't sure just how that worked out.  I'd also add "if he got 
caught" to that. :-) I guess it's pretty hard to be sneaky about such, tho.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."


Post a reply to this message

From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Do trials by jury make sense?
Date: 30 Apr 2008 12:43:44
Message: <4818a1c0@news.povray.org>
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:59:10 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> For Chrissake, man, the first time W was elected, it was 9 people who
>> decided
> 
>   No it wasn't. Millions of people voted.

And the votes didn't matter.  The race was close enough that voting 
irregularities in Florida (and in the later election in Ohio) needed to 
be dealt with, but instead, 9 people decided GWB was the one for us and 
disenfranchised those millions of people who voted by stopping the 
recount, crowning GWB our king.

>   Just because approximately half of the people voted for and the other
> half against doesn't mean that the votes were null, void and ignored. It
> was still an election with millions of voters.

Ah, so all you have to do is pretend to hold a vote and then it's OK?

How closely did you follow the 2000 election?

Jim


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: Do trials by jury make sense?
Date: 30 Apr 2008 15:43:04
Message: <4818cbc7@news.povray.org>
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:59:10 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> For Chrissake, man, the first time W was elected, it was 9 people who
> >> decided
> > 
> >   No it wasn't. Millions of people voted.

> And the votes didn't matter.

  The president was not elected by 9 people. He was elected by millions
of people. Millions of people voted for him. Without those millions of
votes he would not be a president.

  Of course the votes matter.

>  The race was close

  Which wouldn't have happened without the millions of votes. Hence the
votes mattered.

  Or are you telling me that if nobody had voted for Bush he would have
been elected by those 9 people anyways? Don't be ridiculous.

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Do trials by jury make sense?
Date: 30 Apr 2008 16:24:01
Message: <4818d561$1@news.povray.org>
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:43:04 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:59:10 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> For Chrissake, man, the first time W was elected, it was 9 people
>> >> who decided
>> > 
>> >   No it wasn't. Millions of people voted.
> 
>> And the votes didn't matter.
> 
>   The president was not elected by 9 people. He was elected by millions
> of people. Millions of people voted for him. Without those millions of
> votes he would not be a president.
> 
>   Of course the votes matter.
> 
>>  The race was close
> 
>   Which wouldn't have happened without the millions of votes. Hence the
> votes mattered.
> 
>   Or are you telling me that if nobody had voted for Bush he would have
> been elected by those 9 people anyways? Don't be ridiculous.

You seem to be avoiding my point.  Those 9 people ultimately decided to 
overrule the process.  By doing so, they crowned King George, and the 
"will of the people" be damned.

Jim


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: Do trials by jury make sense?
Date: 1 May 2008 03:35:10
Message: <481972ae@news.povray.org>
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> You seem to be avoiding my point.

  No, it's you who is avoiding my point. You don't even want to aknowledge
that you understand what I'm saying (regardless of whether you agree with
it or not).

  Bush was elected because millions of people voted for him. If those
millions of people hadn't voted for him, he wouldn't have elected. Thus
all the millions of votes counted.

  Your argument is simply ridiculous.

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Do trials by jury make sense?
Date: 2 May 2008 00:36:44
Message: <481a9a5c$1@news.povray.org>
<sigh>

Round and round we go, where we stop, *I* know.

Right here. ;-)

Jim


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.