Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
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. |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
Perhaps it's time for Cookie to get his head out of his ass.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "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 |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
... Of course, I have no interest in doing your research for you. Do you're own. Since that I provided the relevant facts, and you can't defend your statement, I will that as an admission that are wrong. Thanks for playing. -- "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. |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
... Perhaps it's time for Cookie to get his head out of his ass. So says the one who can't defend his argument. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "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 |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
You haven't provided anything. You can't defend your argument, because
you didn't address the initial question. What a loser. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Mark Cook" wrote in message news "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Of course, I have no interest in doing your research for you. Do you're own. Since that I provided the relevant facts, and you can't defend your statement, I will that as an admission that are wrong. Thanks for playing. -- "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. |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
So says the idiot.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Mark Cook" wrote in message news "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Perhaps it's time for Cookie to get his head out of his ass. So says the one who can't defend his argument. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "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 |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
... You haven't provided anything. You can't defend your argument, because you didn't address the initial question. What a loser. Give it up, I have already proven your contention the Bush's buddies on the SC gave him the election is incorrect. You might try to learn how to lose gracefully. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Mark Cook" wrote in message news "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Of course, I have no interest in doing your research for you. Do you're own. Since that I provided the relevant facts, and you can't defend your statement, I will that as an admission that are wrong. Thanks for playing. -- "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. |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
... So says the idiot. Personal attack = admission that you are wrong. Thanks again. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Mark Cook" wrote in message news "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Perhaps it's time for Cookie to get his head out of his ass. So says the one who can't defend his argument. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "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 |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message So says the idiot. Oh, excellent retort, Jon. You've ably countered my argument once again. Max |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
Try to answer intelligently. It'll help with job interviews.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Mark Cook" wrote in message ... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... You haven't provided anything. You can't defend your argument, because you didn't address the initial question. What a loser. Give it up, I have already proven your contention the Bush's buddies on the SC gave him the election is incorrect. You might try to learn how to lose gracefully. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Mark Cook" wrote in message news "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Of course, I have no interest in doing your research for you. Do you're own. Since that I provided the relevant facts, and you can't defend your statement, I will that as an admission that are wrong. Thanks for playing. -- "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. |