"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Mark Cook" wrote in message
. com...
"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .


Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow
Gore
to
win the Presidency??

I have no idea.

I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda.

I am?

Yes, you are.


I don't think so.

Which merely makes you a deluded stooge of the
Liberal/Democrat/Socialist
machine.

How did they manage this?

That you don't know proves how effective their brainwashing and propaganda
is.

LOL. Since they never gave me any information about it, it was a hell of a
trick!


I'm explaining that in having the vote stopped, the reaction of many
people
(obviously) is that those who stopped it were concerned about what it
would
reveal. Thus, the election will forever be known as the one that was
"stolen."

What they willfully refuse to recognize is that there are perfectly
legitimate reasons to stop the recount that had nothing to do with
concealing anything, but rather had to do with federal election law and
fundamental fairness in voting.

As for what might have been "revealed," Democratic operatives and their
lackeys in the liberal media have been trying for YEARS to "reveal" some
impropriety that proves Bush "stole" the election...and they haven't
been
able to prove anything.

Not to you.

To anyone. I challenge you to cite a SINGLE reputable report examining the
ballots that has Gore winning.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

You could find dozens more if you looked.


To the contrary, EVERY unofficial "recount" of the
ballots, and it's been done several times, proves again and again that
Bush
won and Gore lost.

There's all sorts of interpretations that say Gore won/Bush won.

Interpretations don't count. Ballots do. No review of the actual ballots
in
Florida has ever put Gore ahead. Period.

We'll never know who won. Bush wouldn't let us find out.


None of that matters in terms of the impressions and interpretations
that
many people in the US and indeed the world will continue to carry about
that
election, and shutting down the recount is one of the major (but there
are
many others) contributors to that viewpoint.

Well, there it is. Your argument that Bush "stole" the election with the
assistances of the "republicans on the Supreme Court" has been factually
demolished but you're unwilling to admit that you're wrong, so now you
put
"stolen" in parentheses and attempt to recast your argument as one of
"impressions and interpretations" about the legitimacy of the election.
This
is dishonest debate.

I'm not sure you understand what I am debating.

I'm quite certain that you don't.


I think I am part of what is probably a very large group of people who
think
that there was an unacceptable and alarming amount of irregularities in
the
electoral process that gave Bush a victory in what was obviously an
extremely close vote, and that there should have been a full examination
of
these issues with an official recount. That fact that this did not happen
means that the election is forever remembered as the one that Bush stole.

That's merely liberal whining and logical fallacy. Even if there were not
"full examination" it would not therefore follow that Bush "stole" the
election.

The fact that he wasn't intrested in the truth is why people think he stole
it.

First, "stole" implies some deliberate action on Bush's part to engage in
election fraud. No such evidence exists.

Some people think it does.

Second, if, as you argue, there was no "full examination" of the evidence,
it is impossible to conclude that Bush "stole" the election. The absence
of
evidence is not evidence. One cannot infer from a lack of evidence that
either candidate was responsible for the lack of evidence. I could just as
reasonably say, had Gore won, that he "stole" the election, and I'd be
just
as incorrect as you are.

If Gore has stopped the recount, I'd be right there saying he stole it.

Third, there was an "official recount," and the results showed that Bush
won
the election.

There was not an "official recount of the recount" because the United
States
Supreme Court ruled that the process used by Florida, and ratified by the
Florida Supreme Court, was unconstitutional.

LOL.

As to having an "official recount of the recount" including all ballots,
the
law does not provide for such a recount. But the law DOES mandate that the
election be certified within a strict time frame. The purpose of this time
frame is to help prevent election fraud and to prevent endless delays of
the
certification that has the potential of bringing the federal government to
a
halt because some disgruntled voters disagree with the results of the
election.

There is no guarantee of a "perfect" election, there is merely a right to
vote in a "fair" election. If you screw up your vote, and it isn't counted
as a result, that's YOUR problem, not something that impeaches the
election.
If you're too stupid to properly mark your ballot, again, that's YOUR
problem. If you care that much, then you need to take great care and ask
for
assistance if you're having trouble with the system. The failure in the
Florida punch-card system was in not simply having a regulation requiring
that a "chad" be completely punched out and removed from the ballot in
order
for that vote to count. Had they had this simple instruction, there would
have been no debate at all. If you screw up your ballot, it's not the
election commission's problem.

The whole thing is a disgrace. From the same president who lectures
Europeans about democracy. LOL!


The simple fact is that the Democrats, and their Socialist supporters

You really think the Democrats are Socialists? Wow.

By and large, yes, though many of them aren't far enough left to suit the
Socialists. The Democrats are working hard to get far enough left,
however,
even to suit Castro or Marx.

What is Socialist about the Democratic party?


worldwide are simply bereft that their Socialist stooges lost and are
trying
to whip up anti-Bush sentiment using propaganda because they know that
they
have no real foundation for their arguments. Fortunately, we don't give
a
damn what "many others" think about our election. They don't get to
vote,
so
they can pound sand.

The funny thing is Bush is going around sucking up to the Europeans like
crazy right now. It's kind of embarassing.

I agree. I'm disappointed in him. But, he's president, so he gets to make
the decisions.

Only because he stole the election.

Bush won fair and square, both times. Get over it.

Why don't you just admit that you are wrong and end it?

I have no idea who is right or wrong, because we never got to find out.

That you have no idea is unsurprising, but not indicative of the surety of
the election.

The election was a MESS by any standard. It was never cleaned up, just swept
under the rug.