Of course, I have no interest in doing your research for you. Do you're
own.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Sorry, but it's not in my contract to "answer you"re stupid
question. The fact is that the Supremes prevented the recount.
The result was that Bu**** was president. It was disgusting.

Of course, if you are correct, you will have no problem proving it. Please
prove it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
.. .
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
I think the issue is that you don't understand how conservatives
have attempted to hijack the US Constitution for their own
purposes. Keep talking, you're looking more and more foolish.

Now you are trying to change the subject. You claim that Bush's
buddies
on
the Supreme Court elected him to office. Please answer the question. I
will
lay it out for you again.

IF SC had allowed the standardless partial recount to go forth, and
Gore
would have "won" that recount, how would he get his slate of electors
recognized over the slate of state certified electors that were
already
there for Bush?

If I am wrong, you should have no trouble laying out a scenario. But
remember, the Republicans, who say that dimpled chads are not legal
votes,
control the US House, and dimpled chads were added into the count by
the
FSC.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
It doesn't prove this. That's your assertion. Sorry, but you
haven't
convinced me. Keep talking though, you're making yourself look
more and more foolish.

Just because you fail to understand the Electoral Count Act of
1887,
thus
making false claims about the SC doesn't make me look foolish.

I will ask again, IF SC had allowed the standardless partial
recount
to
go
forth, and Gore would have "won" that recount, how would he get
his
slate
of
electors recognized over the slate of state certified electors
that
were
already there for Bush?

If I am wrong, you should have no trouble laying out a scenario.
But
remember, the Republicans, who say that dimpled chads are not
legal
votes,
control the US House, and dimpled chads were added into the count
by
the
FSC.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
. ..
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Boring and not relevant.

Boing, yes, but it does prove that the SCotUS did not appoint
Bush
to
the
White House. For anyone to say that the Supreme Court gave
Bush
the
win
does
not understand the ramifications of the Electoral Count Act of
1887,
and
how
it would work with the make up of Congess on 1/6/2001.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
.. .
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in
message
...
Are you just stupid or what. I never claimed that
anything
would
prove Gore won or didn't win. The Supremes never let it
go
far
enough to find out.

You don't like Gore. I don't like Bush. So, what's your
point?

The point the order of the FSC, which overturned by the
SCotUS,
would
NOT
have proven anything. It was standardless, partial recount
of
disputed
ballots (60k of 180k) which violated 3 U.S.C. section 5,
thus
would
have
been thrown out by the US House. To say that the SC gave
Bush
the
election
is wrong. If you going to make that kind of argument, then
it
was
the
Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court because they gave
Bush
the
state
certification which the Democrats could NEVER get enough
votes
to
override.