Murkowski Leads By Over 10,000 Votes

[Liability]

Fuck the law, in a right vs. wrong sense they should be counted. The law is there to protect against Fraud. You can't mistake the 2 fucking names, jeebus.

The motto of liberals everywhere is "fuck the law."

No no.

Fuck yourself.

The question is not whether Mookaka's name is somehow confused with Miller's name, you imbecile.

The question is whether we adhere to the law or not. It's not supposed to be up to your personal whim.

It's right vs. wrong, and of course a statist would take the Law over what's right or wrong. Not saying you're a statist, but that's the statist position.

I know what's right is that 8+k people wanted HER to win, over HIM, that's what I know. Their mis-spelling is of no consequence to ME in determining what the people actually WANTED, and I'll know, for me, that 10+ K people wanted her over him, whatever the "Official" tally comes to be doesn't change knowing that.

Wrong again.

The STATIST position is the one you just succinctly stated, "fuck the law."

And what you assume is different than what you allegedly "know."

IF the good people of the great State of Alaska, as represented in their own legislature, had wanted the law to be a murky mess wherein the Courts could divine voter intent from any random combination of pen-strokes, then they could have written the law in that fashion. But a choice was made BY the very body authorized in a Constitutionally-limited Republic to make such a choice.

You happen not to like the outcome, at least in this case, because as a liberal you love to tell the rest of us what was "obviously" intended by some illiterate marginally competent voters incapable of following even simple polling place instructions.

Nonetheless, the rest of us are NOT actually required to defer to whatever it is you imagine you "know."

 

[G.T.]

The motto of liberals everywhere is "fuck the law."

No no.

Fuck yourself.

The question is not whether Mookaka's name is somehow confused with Miller's name, you imbecile.

The question is whether we adhere to the law or not. It's not supposed to be up to your personal whim.

It's right vs. wrong, and of course a statist would take the Law over what's right or wrong. Not saying you're a statist, but that's the statist position.

I know what's right is that 8+k people wanted HER to win, over HIM, that's what I know. Their mis-spelling is of no consequence to ME in determining what the people actually WANTED, and I'll know, for me, that 10+ K people wanted her over him, whatever the "Official" tally comes to be doesn't change knowing that.

Wrong again.

The STATIST position is the one you just succinctly stated, "fuck the law."

And what you assume is different than what you allegedly "know."

IF the good people of the great State of Alaska, as represented in their own legislature, had wanted the law to be a murky mess wherein the Courts could divine voter intent from any random combination of pen-strokes, then they could have written the law in that fashion. But a choice was made BY the very body authorized in a Constitutionally-limited Republic to make such a choice.

You happen not to like the outcome, at least in this case, because as a liberal you love to tell the rest of us what was "obviously" intended by some illiterate marginally competent voters incapable of following even simple polling place instructions.

Nonetheless, the rest of us are NOT actually required to defer to whatever it is you imagine you "know."

What you defer to is of no consequence, to me.

I am happy knowing that 10+K more people Voted in opposition to the Palin endorsed tea-partier.

You are happy to dismiss that on a technicality.

Good for you, good for me. Have lunch.

 

[Liability]

It's right vs. wrong, and of course a statist would take the Law over what's right or wrong. Not saying you're a statist, but that's the statist position.

I know what's right is that 8+k people wanted HER to win, over HIM, that's what I know. Their mis-spelling is of no consequence to ME in determining what the people actually WANTED, and I'll know, for me, that 10+ K people wanted her over him, whatever the "Official" tally comes to be doesn't change knowing that.

Wrong again.

The STATIST position is the one you just succinctly stated, "fuck the law."

And what you assume is different than what you allegedly "know."

IF the good people of the great State of Alaska, as represented in their own legislature, had wanted the law to be a murky mess wherein the Courts could divine voter intent from any random combination of pen-strokes, then they could have written the law in that fashion. But a choice was made BY the very body authorized in a Constitutionally-limited Republic to make such a choice.

You happen not to like the outcome, at least in this case, because as a liberal you love to tell the rest of us what was "obviously" intended by some illiterate marginally competent voters incapable of following even simple polling place instructions.

Nonetheless, the rest of us are NOT actually required to defer to whatever it is you imagine you "know."

What you defer to is of no consequence, to me.

I am happy knowing that 10+K more people Voted in opposition to the Palin endorsed tea-partier.

You are happy to dismiss that on a technicality.

Good for you, good for me. Have lunch.

But you don't "know" that 10K plus more voters voted for Murkowski. You presume as much. You ASSume as much. But whether YOU like it or not, under the LAW, as written, a vote for Lesa Murkoki (whoever the fuck that is) is NOT a vote for Lisa Murkowski.

That's not a trechnicality, genius. It's called "the law. I know. I know. To folks like you, who proudly proclaim, "fuck the law," that is not of any abiding concern.

This is one of the reasons folks like you should never be entrusted with access to the powers of government.

Eat shit. Have a big lunch in fact.

 

[G.T.]

Wrong again.

The STATIST position is the one you just succinctly stated, "fuck the law."

And what you assume is different than what you allegedly "know."

IF the good people of the great State of Alaska, as represented in their own legislature, had wanted the law to be a murky mess wherein the Courts could divine voter intent from any random combination of pen-strokes, then they could have written the law in that fashion. But a choice was made BY the very body authorized in a Constitutionally-limited Republic to make such a choice.

You happen not to like the outcome, at least in this case, because as a liberal you love to tell the rest of us what was "obviously" intended by some illiterate marginally competent voters incapable of following even simple polling place instructions.

Nonetheless, the rest of us are NOT actually required to defer to whatever it is you imagine you "know."

What you defer to is of no consequence, to me.

I am happy knowing that 10+K more people Voted in opposition to the Palin endorsed tea-partier.

You are happy to dismiss that on a technicality.

Good for you, good for me. Have lunch.

But you don't "know" that 10K plus more voters voted for Murkowski. You presume as much. You ASSume as much. But whether YOU like it or not, under the LAW, as written, a vote for Lesa Murkoki (whoever the fuck that is) is NOT a vote for Lisa Murkowski.

That's not a trechnicality, genius. It's called "the law. I know. I know. To folks like you, who proudly proclaim, "fuck the law," that is not of any abiding concern.

This is one of the reasons folks like you should never be entrusted with access to the powers of government.

Eat shit. Have a big lunch in fact.

what a sad putz.

 

[Liability]

What you defer to is of no consequence, to me.

I am happy knowing that 10+K more people Voted in opposition to the Palin endorsed tea-partier.

You are happy to dismiss that on a technicality.

Good for you, good for me. Have lunch.

But you don't "know" that 10K plus more voters voted for Murkowski. You presume as much. You ASSume as much. But whether YOU like it or not, under the LAW, as written, a vote for Lesa Murkoki (whoever the fuck that is) is NOT a vote for Lisa Murkowski.

That's not a trechnicality, genius. It's called "the law. I know. I know. To folks like you, who proudly proclaim, "fuck the law," that is not of any abiding concern.

This is one of the reasons folks like you should never be entrusted with access to the powers of government.

Eat shit. Have a big lunch in fact.

what a sad putz.

I'm not the putz, here, dimwit; and I'm pretty much a happy kinda guy.

If you are a putz, you should not project so much.

If you're sad, do something smart, and seek happiness.

 

[G.T.]

 

[Liability]

 

[Ravi]

Didn't someone just disagree with me the other day when I pointed out what a shithead liarbility was if you disagreed with him?

 

[G.T.]

Didn't someone just disagree with me the other day when I pointed out what a shithead liarbility was if you disagreed with him?

aha, I don't take people's word for stuff until I see it myself

 

[Liability]

Didn't someone just disagree with me the other day when I pointed out what a shithead liarbility was if you disagreed with him?

Yes, because what you said was and still is false, Raving Lunacy.

I realize that things like honesty are unimportant to pond scum like you, but others do notice.

 

[Liability]

Didn't someone just disagree with me the other day when I pointed out what a shithead liarbility was if you disagreed with him?

aha, I don't take people's word for stuff until I see it myself

You are the one who said "fuck the law." So, frankly, your opinion, GT, is of no importance at this juncture.

 

[G.T.]

Didn't someone just disagree with me the other day when I pointed out what a shithead liarbility was if you disagreed with him?

Yes, because what you said was and still is false, Raving Lunacy.

I realize that things like honesty are unimportant to pond scum like you, but others do notice.

If honesty was important to you, you'd see that you proved her point in your first response to me.

You said "fuck yourself."

You said "imbecile."

You called her mookaka.

All because you disagreed with me? Or was it because that's how you normally discourse? Because I don't recall firing shots at you, first, and so her point is proven by your own actions. You made your bed ass hole. Go ahead and make an essay back-tracking and spinning now. Your O.C.D. demands that you do.

 

[G.T.]

Didn't someone just disagree with me the other day when I pointed out what a shithead liarbility was if you disagreed with him?

aha, I don't take people's word for stuff until I see it myself

You are the one who said "fuck the law." So, frankly, your opinion, GT, is of no importance at this juncture.

So it was my opinion you didn't care for, thus the personal attack. As Ravi said. Dickwad.

 

[G.T.]

Counting votes that should not be counted (because the law is clear and not at all ambiguous) is inherently fraudulent. Denying that -- as you do -- is dishonest of you.

I don't care if Mookaka wins. But let's at least find out if she won on the level.

Fuck the law, in a right vs. wrong sense they should be counted. The law is there to protect against Fraud. You can't mistake the 2 fucking names, jeebus.

The motto of liberals everywhere is "fuck the law."

No no.

Fuck yourself.

The question is not whether Mookaka's name is somehow confused with Miller's name, you imbecile.

The question is whether we adhere to the law or not. It's not supposed to be up to your personal whim.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I wasn't. Derisive laughter from people like you has never been a concern of mine. I vazlue the opini0ons of those whom I respect. I have not an iota of respect for you. I have long been quite indifferent to the opinions of morons like you for whom I have no respect.

Fred, as things turned out, simply turned out to be a weak CANDIDATE. Too bad. He was the best person for the job.

And none of that is relevant to the fact that the alleged 10K+ vote total difference for Murkowski is inflated to the extent those vote totals include votes which (under the law as written) should not be counted at all.

It is not the job of a news reporter to make judgments about the validity of ballots cast when the counters of the ballots give him the information that CURRENTLY Murkowski is leading by 10,400 votes. It is his job to report that number. If they also tell him that 8,153 ballots have been challenged, it is his job to also report that number.

That is what is being reported. There is no fraudulence involved.

Counting votes that should not be counted (because the law is clear and not at all ambiguous) is inherently fraudulent. Denying that -- as you do -- is dishonest of you.

I don't care if Mookaka wins. But let's at least find out if she won on the level.

The reporter's job is not to interpret the law.

The votes that Miller is challenging are CURRENTLY counted for Murkowski. That's why he challenged them.

But the fact that they are currently counted FOR Murkowski means that the only HONEST way to report the current count is to report the count that includes the challenged votes.

She CURRENTLY has a lead of 10,400 votes. You cannot HONESTLY report that as some different number.

 

[G.T.]

Didn't someone just disagree with me the other day when I pointed out what a shithead liarbility was if you disagreed with him?

aha, I don't take people's word for stuff until I see it myself

You are the one who said "fuck the law." So, frankly, your opinion, GT, is of no importance at this juncture.

of course I said that. Same as I'd say "fuck the Law" if the Law allowed for Slavery. I'd say "fuck the Law" if minorities had to ride the back of a bus. I'd say "fuck the Law" if the law was prohibition.

I'd say "fuck the Law" if a Voter's Right to choose was infringed upon simply because they wrote "Murkoki" and it wasn't counted as a result.

I can say fuck dumb laws, and your opinion of me doesn't count because GT fucking says so. Sit your ass down.

 

[Liability]

aha, I don't take people's word for stuff until I see it myself

You are the one who said "fuck the law." So, frankly, your opinion, GT, is of no importance at this juncture.

of course I said that. Same as I'd say "fuck the Law" if the Law allowed for Slavery. I'd say "fuck the Law" if minorities had to ride the back of a bus. I'd say "fuck the Law" if the law was prohibition.

I'd say "fuck the Law" if a Voter's Right to choose was infringed upon simply because they wrote "Murkoki" and it wasn't counted as a result.

I can say fuck dumb laws, and your opinion of me doesn't count because GT fucking says so. Sit your ass down.

My ass is sitting, dopey. I tend to sit when composing posts for an internet message board.

I realize that assholes of your unusually low intellectual capacity say "fuck the law" whenever you happen to disagree with the law. But, you, being an asshole, don't make those decisions based on any coherent set of guiding principles.

You do it on whim, caprice, spur of the moment preferences.

Sure, if the law said "do not harbor Jews" it would be morally proper to say "fuck the law." If the law were to permit slavery and forbid harboring an escaped slave, it would be morally proper to say "fuck the law."

But a clearly written law that is designed to avoid fundamental problems (and otherwise readily avoidable and foreseeable problems at that) during ELECTIONS does not fall into the same category.

Because you, being an asshole, don't care for the particular impact of that law, you say "fuck the law," even while you are incapable of grasping the evil it was designed to avoid.

You are a putz. Nothing more. Now go sit your own ass down in a corner and wear your dunce cap, jerkoff.

 

[G.T.]

You are the one who said "fuck the law." So, frankly, your opinion, GT, is of no importance at this juncture.

of course I said that. Same as I'd say "fuck the Law" if the Law allowed for Slavery. I'd say "fuck the Law" if minorities had to ride the back of a bus. I'd say "fuck the Law" if the law was prohibition.

I'd say "fuck the Law" if a Voter's Right to choose was infringed upon simply because they wrote "Murkoki" and it wasn't counted as a result.

I can say fuck dumb laws, and your opinion of me doesn't count because GT fucking says so. Sit your ass down.

My ass is sitting, dopey. I tend to sit when composing posts for an internet message board.

I realize that assholes of your unusually low intellectual capacity say "fuck the law" whenever you happen to disagree with the law. But, you, being an asshole, don't make those decisions based on any coherent set of guiding principles.

You do it on whim, caprice, spur of the moment preferences.

Sure, if the law said "do not harbor Jews" it would be morally proper to say "fuck the law." If the law were to permit slavery and forbid harboring an escaped slave, it would be morally proper to say "fuck the law."

But a clearly written law that is designed to avoid fundamental problems (and otherwise readily avoidable and foreseeable problems at that) during ELECTIONS does not fall into the same category.

Because you, being an asshole, don't care for the particular impact of that law, you say "fuck the law," even while you are incapable of grasping the evil it was designed to avoid.

You are a putz. Nothing more. Now go sit your own ass down in a corner and wear your dunce cap, jerkoff.

 

[G.T.]

Didn't someone just disagree with me the other day when I pointed out what a shithead liarbility was if you disagreed with him?

Yes, because what you said was and still is false, Raving Lunacy.

I realize that things like honesty are unimportant to pond scum like you, but others do notice.

If honesty was important to you, you'd see that you proved her point in your first response to me.

You said "fuck yourself."

You said "imbecile."

You called her mookaka.

All because you disagreed with me? Or was it because that's how you normally discourse? Because I don't recall firing shots at you, first, and so her point is proven by your own actions. You made your bed ass hole. Go ahead and make an essay back-tracking and spinning now. Your O.C.D. demands that you do.

 

[Ravi]

You are the one who said "fuck the law." So, frankly, your opinion, GT, is of no importance at this juncture.

of course I said that. Same as I'd say "fuck the Law" if the Law allowed for Slavery. I'd say "fuck the Law" if minorities had to ride the back of a bus. I'd say "fuck the Law" if the law was prohibition.

I'd say "fuck the Law" if a Voter's Right to choose was infringed upon simply because they wrote "Murkoki" and it wasn't counted as a result.

I can say fuck dumb laws, and your opinion of me doesn't count because GT fucking says so. Sit your ass down.

My ass is sitting, dopey. I tend to sit when composing posts for an internet message board.

I realize that assholes of your unusually low intellectual capacity say "fuck the law" whenever you happen to disagree with the law. But, you, being an asshole, don't make those decisions based on any coherent set of guiding principles.

You do it on whim, caprice, spur of the moment preferences.

Sure, if the law said "do not harbor Jews" it would be morally proper to say "fuck the law." If the law were to permit slavery and forbid harboring an escaped slave, it would be morally proper to say "fuck the law."

But a clearly written law that is designed to avoid fundamental problems (and otherwise readily avoidable and foreseeable problems at that) during ELECTIONS does not fall into the same category.

Because you, being an asshole, don't care for the particular impact of that law, you say "fuck the law," even while you are incapable of grasping the evil it was designed to avoid.

You are a putz. Nothing more. Now go sit your own ass down in a corner and wear your dunce cap, jerkoff.

Here's his post:

Fuck the law, in a right vs. wrong sense they should be counted. The law is there to protect against Fraud. You can't mistake the 2 fucking names, jeebus.

His meaning was very clear. Would you like a shovel?