Are you going to vote for Nader?

Campaign events, speeches, issues and discussion

Moderator: Super Moderators

User avatar
Posts: 13539
Joined: 01-01-2003 03:00 AM

Post by Iris » 10-25-2004 06:27 PM

Bobcat wrote: If you think Nader is then vote for him. If not you aren't being true to yourself or the voting process.
That was my exact reasoning when I voted for Harry last time. What did it get me? Bush! I've regretted that vote ever since.

You're right in as much as everyone has to examine their own conscience on their vote. We can't afford a return to Bush and THAT is the number one directive of MY conscisnce. There's only one way to make sure we get rid of Bush, and you're either part of the solution or part of the problem.
We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

Posts: 1761
Joined: 11-26-2000 03:00 AM

Post by alaskandevil » 10-25-2004 11:25 PM

CaptainBeyond wrote: I voted to support the Constitution.This government of ours is NOT a Democracy,it is a Representitive Republic.We have been mislead on the whole democracy issue and it's meaning has been clouded.

Our legislative body is supposed to make laws,not activist judges.Some people need to go back and read the Constitution.

Vote Libertarian!Support the Constitution!!!!!!!



another lib in a land of whine and cry...

for all these long years I was the only voice....welcome my friend...together lets convert the great unwashed here.
" Edited for Political Correctness "

User avatar
Posts: 3419
Joined: 09-14-2000 02:00 AM

Post by BenSlain » 10-25-2004 11:34 PM

Committee members now urging support for Kerry is online at our website <>. It includes Barbara Ehrenreich, Phil Donahue, Jim Hightower, Susan Sarandon, Noam Chomsky, Ben Cohen, Peter Coyote, Granny D, Manning Marable, Bonnie Raitt, Tim Robbins, Studs Terkel, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Eddie Vedder, Cornel West and Howard Zinn.

I buy all their records and watch all there movies! Then I watch and see who they want me to vote for. Then I vote for the other guy. The day I pick the same candidate as Eddie Vedder is the day I go to work being Rombaldis house boy.

Put in a prison cell, but one time he could-a been The champion of the world.

User avatar
Posts: 2062
Joined: 08-23-2004 10:23 PM

Post by smadewell » 10-25-2004 11:35 PM

CaptainBeyond wrote: Smadewell,you a barrel of laughs!


I'm pleased to see that others see the humor behind my odd remarks.... Some people take me way too seriously. Life's just too short for that! ;)
S.Madewell - "If the truth shall kill a man ... let him die!"

Posts: 9375
Joined: 05-17-2000 02:00 AM

Post by mudwoman » 10-25-2004 11:49 PM

CaptainBeyond wrote: I also find the sleeping attorney story a bit more than suspect.No presiding judge gonna allow such disrespect in their court.

You can look it up yourself:

HOUSTON--When George McFarland was accused of robbing and killing a neighborhood grocery owner, he took the advice of an acquaintance and hired longtime criminal lawyer John E. Benn. That may prove to be a fatal mistake.

Benn was 72 years old and had not handled a capital murder trial for at least 19 years. Nor did he jump headlong into the new case--he spent four hours preparing for the 1992 trial. Benn did not examine the crime scene, interviewed no witnesses, prepared no motions, did not request that any subpoenas be issued, relied solely on what was in the prosecutor's file, and visited his client only twice.

During the 17-day trial, Benn's performance took a turn for the worse: He fell asleep.

"Benn slept during great portions of the witness testimony," juror Mary Louisa Jensen said in an affidavit five years later. "It was so blatant and disgusting that it was the subject of conversation within the jury panel a couple of times."

Months after the trial ended with a conviction and death sentence, Benn was asked at a court hearing about his snoozing. "I'm 72 years old," he said. "I customarily take a short nap in the afternoon."

High Court Denies Texas Death Appeal
Court Declines to Intervene in 'Sleeping Lawyer Case'

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 3, 2002; 2:52 PM

Declining to intervene in a case that had focused national attention on the quality of legal help for death-penalty defendants, the Supreme Court announced today that it will not hear Texas's plea to reinstate the conviction of a death-row inmate whose lawyer slept through much of his 1983 murder trial.

>>>>>Finally justice was done by an "activist" jurist<<<<<

NEW ORLEANS, La. (Reuters) -- A federal appeals court overturned a Texas death penalty on Monday for a man whose attorney slept through much of his trial for murder, in a case that has raised questions about justice in the state that leads the nation in executions.

The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Calvin Burdine, 48, should get a new trial because his court-appointed lawyer, Joe Cannon, repeatedly dozed off during the 1984 trial that ended with Burdine being sentenced to death.

``A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated when that defendant's counsel is repeatedly unconscious through not insubstantial portions of the defendant's capital murder trial,'' said the court in an opinion supported by nine justices and opposed by five.

The decision overturned an Oct. 27, 2000 opinion by a three-judge panel of the court which upheld Burdine's conviction on grounds that Cannon had slept, but not at crucial times in the trial.

User avatar
Posts: 2062
Joined: 08-23-2004 10:23 PM

Post by smadewell » 10-25-2004 11:51 PM

"De only ting dats gonna change dis coun'ry is a revolution! Ballots? We ain't got no ballots. We don't need no ballots. I don't have to show you any stinking ballots! Vamos Muchachos!"

S.Madewell - "If the truth shall kill a man ... let him die!"

User avatar
Posts: 749
Joined: 08-01-2004 08:35 AM

Post by CaptainBeyond » 10-26-2004 05:23 AM

Mudwoman,how in the hell does stuff like this actually happen?How does a jury sit there and let this happen?

It is not only our duty,but also a privaledge to sit on a jury,and fullfill the law to the BEST of our ability.What kind of jury lets an attorney sleep through most of the trial and then convicts the accused?I would have stood up and said something.I might have gotten myself kicked out,but I would have said it anyway.

This is one of the most serious duties we have.It is our duty,everyone's duty to uphold the law and to let everyone be heard,with justice, fairness,equity,regarless of any external situation.

A jury should have never convicted the man if they had obviously seen the attorney asleep.What kind of ignorant ass people are in this country?

Well,in cases such as these(which I hope are not typical),judicial intervention is warranted,but I can't see that many Americans doing such an injustice!

Smadewell:I am not a fundamentalist.My religious beliefs drift towards the gnostic teachings,not the fundamental crap.My beliefs are much more esoteric,and include belief in re-incarnation,and many civilizations that were here long before modern man..

My governmental beliefs are based on the assumption that our founding fathers were quite more knowledgeable than our current incarnation.They had the ability to forsee far out into the future and made our government in such a fashion as to value the common man above all else.


Conspiracy Theorist
Posts: 264
Joined: 05-19-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Conspiracy Theorist » 10-26-2004 07:58 AM

This was an interesting case. I wish I had the name of the Bush-Appointee who wrote "The 6th Amendment only says you have to have a lawyer. It does not say he has to be awake." It was a lower Texas appellate judge, and as you can see, the Texas Supreme Court upheld the ruling. It took a Federal Judge to step in and overturn the conviction. Bush wants to pack the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court with judges similar to the Texas judges he appointed. He's already done a lot of damage in the lower Federal Courts, although the democrats have managed to stop many of his worst appointments. Rehnquist will soon be gone. A Bush replacement would probably not change many things, but a Kerry appointment would bring the court back in a more reasonable direction.

In the particular case cited by Mudwoman, the defendant eventually went free when the DA missed the deadline for filing new charges for a retrial.

Post Reply

Return to “Third Party Candidates - 2004”