Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

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.

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

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!!!

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

"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.

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

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.

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

"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.

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

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.

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

"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.

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

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.

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

"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.

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

"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

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.

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

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.

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

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
. ..
"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.

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

So says the idiot.

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

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
. ..
"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

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
. ..
"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.

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
. ..
"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

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

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
. ..
"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.

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

Yes, you're stooopid.

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

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
...
"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
. ..
"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

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

Which argument was that?

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

So says the idiot.

Oh, excellent retort, Jon. You've ably countered my argument once again.

Max

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Which argument was that?

Never mind. I gave up on you in my last post.

Max

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

Which post is that?

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Which argument was that?

Never mind. I gave up on you in my last post.

Max

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

Probably right, but does Max = Cook?

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

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:48:08 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"

wrote:

Which post is that?

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Which argument was that?

Never mind. I gave up on you in my last post.

Max





Jon, If you would stop replying to Max, I doubt any of the real habitants
would
think the less of you. I know you and I don't always get along so well,
but you
are better than this.

BB

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

I yam what I yam.

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

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:09:04 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"

wrote:

Probably right, but does Max = Cook?

Who cares. I've eliminated both of them. The only time I see that they
still
exist is if you are unable to remember who you are.

BB

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

wrote in message

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:48:08 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"

wrote:

Which post is that?

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Which argument was that?

Never mind. I gave up on you in my last post.

Max





Jon, If you would stop replying to Max, I doubt any of the real habitants
would
think the less of you. I know you and I don't always get along so well,
but you
are better than this.

He needn't bother, BB. I bailed on him earlier today.

Max

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Probably right, but does Max = Cook?

Wrong. I've been here before under a different name, but I'm not Cook.

Max

Rush Limbaugh? and why he & his listeners are losers...
 

I thought I was full of something else....

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

wrote in message

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:48:08 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"

wrote:

Which post is that?

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Which argument was that?

Never mind. I gave up on you in my last post.

Max





Jon, If you would stop replying to Max, I doubt any of the real
habitants
would
think the less of you. I know you and I don't always get along so well,
but you
are better than this.

He needn't bother, BB. I bailed on him earlier today.

Max