Boring and not relevant.

--
"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.

Clearly, you are freaked out. Take a chill pill.

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

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
. ..
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
I already did, but you appear to be too stupid to get it. Not my
fault. You posted some URLs, so did I. I think mine are valid,
and you think yours are valid. I'm still missing what you're trying
to claim. The Supremes stopped the recount. That's a fact. Get
over it.

There is nothing for ME to get over. So what!!!

"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.

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.

--
"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.

"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.

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.

--
"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.

"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.

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.

--
"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.

"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.

"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.

Perhaps it's time to get over it, Jon?

Max