"If Obrador is demanding that election laws be broken to satisfy his recount demands, that's a pretty good sign that he should not be president."

And since the Supreme Court recently found Bush's attempt at military tribunal "justice" to be illegal, the same can be said for Bush.

They seemed to have learned well from the Democrats here. Only liberals have the right to win elections. If they lose, it must be because of fraud. They will demand recount after recount until the liberal wins.

BTW, anybody else notice that everytime you have a recount, scores of votes for the liberal candidate seem to magicvally materialize out of nowhere from liberal-leaning districts?

Let see if I understand an idiot for once. According to Lee the democrats (communist)attempt in Mexico to destroy the constitution is equal to 'one' legal trial of a terrorists. To me it only means the lefties (communist) in Mexico were watching the lefties (communist) in the U.S. when they were attempting to shread the constitution in Florida (2000) and got slapped hard around their skulls by the SCOTUS. The Mexican communist are hoping for a different result.

Lee, your BDS is showing. Are you even CAPABLE of PRETENDING to stay on topic...for even ONE POST???

If someone asks you if it is raining outside...do you answer: "Bush sucks!"???

The topic is the M-E-X-I-C-A-N election. Geez

Lee's right. Bush should not be allowed to run for reelection in 2008!

Maybe Lees right about George not running? but not about Jeb..

Phonetically, could there be a worse name for a President? Calderon?

Ill-tempered. Uncooperative. A big pot or kettle that boils over at times. A cauldron. Hmm, fun.

"Lee, your BDS is showing"

republicans, you're hypocrisy is showing.

You support a president who has to be slapped down by the SCOTUS, and the majority of the comments above reference democrats in the U.S. in some way, and you ask me to stay on topic?

I thought the topic was presidents or potential presidents who operate illegally.

and have you noticed that Kim edited her post, eliminating the part of her post I quoted (repeated below)

"If Obrador is demanding that election laws be broken to satisfy his recount demands, that's a pretty good sign that he should not be president."

Breaking laws is a sign that he should not be president. I guess the fact that Bush broke the law is just another "inconvenient truth". Nice edit job - glad there are enough lefties around to keep you guys honest.

I see that the left in Mexico has taken a page out of the American DemocRats playbook. It will be interesting to see what the Mexican court rules. Does anyone here think that they will use Bush v. Gore as a precedent? Of course, the Drive-by Media here in the United States has taken the side of Orador in this battle. Only time well tell who will win. I am rooting for the right leaning candidate, lol

This clost election stuff is kind of wierd. I mean how does this happen so uniformly. Two presidential elections, several gubernatorial elections, Senate elections and now Mexico. Seems too much to be a coincidence.

Someone needs to give a rational explanation or I'm going to start believing in irrational ones.

Lee, the SCOTUS "slap down" is not what you'd like it to be bro. You can't analogize winning one inning to winning the world series. Likewise, you can't turn one legal opinion within a multiple-outcomed ruling into an illegal presidency. Believing it does not equate to it being so, my sad, sad friend.

You should aspire to being more in life than a BS artist.

C'mon guys. Lee can see a perfect correlation between trying to bring a terrorist to trial and manipulating a vote. However, he can't see the correlation between the Democrats screaming fraud and demanding recounts in two elections here in the US and a socialist screaming fraud and demanding recounts in Mexico.

What Lee can see is that the hypocrisy of the right - who complain about a lefty in Mexico "breaking the law" but go into full-tilt Denial Mode when someone points out that according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the military tribunals, which the Bush adminstration fought long and hard to push forward, were operating illegally.

What you still fail to see Lee is that they didn't rule they were illegal. They ruled the inmates were entitled to due process and subject to the Geneva convention.

Had they ruled them illegal they would have also ruled to release them. They didn't. In fact, the majority opinion even specified how Congress could write a law covering the Gitmo inmates.

So, either you are truly ignorant of the facts of the case and don't know what you are talking about, or you are just lying.

Frankly, I don't care either way as you have proven over and over to be so intellectually dishonest it really doesn't matter in the end.

What everyone else can see is that Lee fails to make an apt analogy with his twisted version of a supreme court decision and the goings-on in Mexico. Everyone else can smell the BS argument which is nothing more than BDS.

Faith+1:

Very well written, thank-you.

Entitlement at its purest. Worldwide Liberals feeeeeling that it makes sense for them to be elected, cannot deal with loss. Hence, bring on the lawyers.

Lee,

You claim that the Supreme Court's ruling against the military tribunals amounts to a criminal act by Bush. By your logic then, whenever the Supreme Court finds an enacted law unconstitutional, then Congress and the President are guilty of a crime. That would make most Presidents criminals by your standard. Of course that's just nonsense, but the left will grab onto any crumb they can find.

What you still fail to see Lee is that they didn't rule they were illegal. They ruled the inmates were entitled to due process and subject to the Geneva convention.

Ahh, I see you are still going for that "Liar of the Week" award. Or is it the "I don't lie I'm just stupid" award? The ruling had to do with giving them "due process"? Where did you get that bit of misinformation -- from a cereal box?

Read Justice Stevens' majority opinion. The rules set for the military tribunal were illegal (That is Justice Stevens' choice of words - illegal).

Do you know even what a tribunal is? What are you smoking to say that the terrorists would have been released?!?! You evidently watch too much Fox News Faith-1. Get informed or shut up.

Let's just set aside legal, illegal, fraud, etc for one moment and aks ourselves:

Why does the left in this country support a Communist to be president of Mexico?

The left, read Lee & co here, would just have fully supported Hugo Chavez.

Luke: "The left, read Lee & co here, would just have fully supported Hugo Chavez."

Good God, Luke, ex (thank God) President (sigh) Carter performed FELLATIO on Chavez on Venezuelan TV!! Lee's endorsement PALES by comparison!!

Now many of you know why I stopped reading Lee's BDS posts altogether, and only occasionally read replies to him.

To quote Hank Hill, "The boy ain't right."

To quote Hank Hill, "The boy ain't right."

Or as my late Dad used to say, "That boy ain't right in the head".

"Maybe Lees right about George not running? but not about Jeb.."

Maybe Jeb will bring his plaything to the oval office too...

When he's not taking financial tips from brother Neil...

..Yeah, screw that antiquated "one man one vote" nonsense..

Notice how leftists--here or in Mexico--appeal to the same sense of grievance, and allude to unproven, sinister collusion and fraud that has "robbed" them of their rightful place under the sun.

The look and act the same wherever they are--don't let facts get in the way of a good rabble-rousing!

Love the way Chavez came up in the conversation. Did I mention Chavez? No. But when one conservative monkey hears "Chavez" soon they are all chattering about "Chavez". There is a place in the conservative brain that is so primitive that once one monkey is "touched" they are all "touched" as a group.

Luke mentions "Chavez" then Justrand chimps in with "Chavez" and soon Big Mo is grunting... and Luke loves it when Big Mo grunts so he grunts too. This is better than TV. lol

But cant' we get back on topic folks - Presidents who operate illegally...?

I wonder who, on this site, is a poster child for BDS, Lee? I was wondering if it is possible for those with BDS to respond in any way to anything that happens in the world without somehow negatively relating it, no matter how obtuse, to the President of the United States, George W. Bush, who was elected twice to that office. By legal means, I might add.

"But cant' we get back on topic folks - Presidents who operate illegally...?"

Lee, so now you're declaring the topic? In case you haven't noticed, the topic is Mexico's recent election. Or is that ancient history to you already?

Yes, Lee, I've actually read the majority opinion unlike you. I can comprehend it. They did not find the tribunals illegal. They found the inmates did not fall under the tribunal rules and therefor qualified for coverage by the Geneva convention--which is where due process comes in. Try and keep up--I'll type slow.

Stephens also pointed out the problem was that there was no current law that adequately covered the case of Gitmo inmates and that's why it was found to be unconstitutional. He pointed out to Conggress where they needed to write such a law to cover the case.

Something the COngress is currently doing.

Unconstitutional doesn't mean illegal as in a crime was committed no matter how much you lie about it being so.

Just because you are ignorant of the case, ignorant of the law, ignorant of basic legal process and SCOTUS procedures doesn't make you an expert. It just makes ignorant.

Once again, you prove to be nothing more than a mouthpiece spouting talking points of which you know nothing about. Does it hurt to be a puppet so used?

So Lee, I know you'd love to be the uber-moderator of Wizbang, and shut up all these people pointing out all these pesky facts, but...

...and Luke loves it when Big Mo grunts so he grunts too. This is better than TV. lol

Nah Lee you mistook that grunt for a fart in your direction. Sorry, you seem to be a bit challenged in the grey matter department.

Faith+1:

Once again, well written. The President talked about working with Congress on that very fact last week. Too bad Lee hadn't caught up with everyone else yet...

Lee continues to babble equivocatively:

...according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the military tribunals, which the Bush adminstration fought long and hard to push forward, were operating illegally.

I told you this once, bucko, and you immediately disappeared, and now you're trying the same shinola argument somewhere else. THe answer doesn't change because you stick your fingers in your ears and sing at the top of your lungs.

There are several meanings to "illegal", only one of which pertain here.

That one is "not supported under [this] interpretation of the law".

The Supreme Court used [aka, cherry-picked]various laws to create an interpretation which made military tribunals "illegal". Which means that prior to that ruling any tribunals not being challenged would not have been "illegal".

The tribunal in question [i.e., Hamdan's] was held in abeyance until the appeal process played out, which means that since it never occurred, it was also not in violation of the law.

It doesn't get simpler than that, though you yourself certainly seem to be.

I hate to bore you republicans morons with facts, but here is a direct quote from the SCOTUS majority decision - page 5 (c) (pdf).

(c) Because UCMJ Article 36 has not been complied with here, the rules specified for Hamdam's commission trial are illegal.

So when Faith-brains lied:

Yes, Lee, I've actually read the majority opinion unlike you. I can comprehend it. They did not find the tribunals illegal. They found the inmates did not fall under the tribunal rules and therefor qualified for coverage by the Geneva convention--which is where due process comes in. Try and keep up--I'll type slow.

Stephens also pointed out the problem was that there was no current law that adequately covered the case of Gitmo inmates and that's why it was found to be unconstitutional. He pointed out to Conggress where they needed to write such a law to cover the case.

Something the COngress is currently doing.

Unconstitutional doesn't mean illegal as in a crime was committed no matter how much you lie about it being so.

Just because you are ignorant of the case, ignorant of the law, ignorant of basic legal process and SCOTUS procedures doesn't make you an expert. It just makes ignorant.

Once again, you prove to be nothing more than a mouthpiece spouting talking points of which you know nothing about. Does it hurt to be a puppet so used?

she lied big time... SCOTUS did determine that the tribunals, as they were constituted, were illegal.

Pee, you have a nifty argument in search of a point.

As usual, you miss the point. What if the SCOTUS was the body getting the law wrong? Is that possible--is any rational thought possible in that little skull of yours?

After all, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court found it legal and Constitutional.

Talk about morons.

Care to take the next plane to Cuba, Venezuela, or another home of the free to which you would obviously feel a greater bond?

Nobody supports democracy less than a progressive.
-=Mike
...authoriarianism is progressivism.

And no one complains more about being oppressed--with no evidence of actually being oppressed.