You are the person spinning. Show me where I ever stated
Gore was the first to file in court, please.

What I wrote is this:

"Isn't it quite sad how Democrats seem to accept the tactic
of attempting to use the courts to win their elections?

"Gore started this tactic without realizing it is a lose-lose
proposition."

I said nothing about anyone's being first to file in court.

What I did say is how sad it is that Democrats seem to
accept the fact of attempting to use the courts to win
their elections.

Bush was the winner. Gore tried to use the courts to
have himself declared the winner. This is consistent
with my statement.

You, in typical lying liberal fashion are attempting
to change the subject because you lost on the original
topic.

CN

"thunder" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:30:57 -0500, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Capt._Neal=AE?= wrote:

The very link you posted proves you wrong. It states:

BS snipped

Spin as you wish, Bush was the first to file action in the courts. You
can write another few pages of BS, but that won't change the facts.

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:19:38 -0500, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Capt._Neal=AE?= wrote:

You are the person spinning. Show me where I ever stated Gore was the
first to file in court, please.

What I wrote is this:

"Isn't it quite sad how Democrats seem to accept the tactic of attempting
to use the courts to win their elections?

"Gore started this tactic without realizing it is a lose-lose
proposition."

I said nothing about anyone's being first to file in court.

What I did say is how sad it is that Democrats seem to accept the fact of
attempting to use the courts to win their elections.

Bush was the winner. Gore tried to use the courts to have himself declared
the winner. This is consistent with my statement.

You, in typical lying liberal fashion are attempting to change the subject
because you lost on the original topic.


Uh, huh. "Gore started this tactic." But, hey, that's just a
technicality. Bush went to court first, and in liberal fashion, in
*federal* court, not in state court where the Constitution mandates
election law lies. Bush is no conservative, and neither are you.

Oh, the two cases you cite, Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board et. al.
and Bush v. Gore, both have Bush's name in the first position, the
plaintiff's position. Since you are "someone who knows the law", do I
need remind you that a plaintiff is the one who seeks redress in the
Courts.

You seem to have difficulty with simple concepts. Perhaps, a doctor's
visit is in order.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:19:38 -0500, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Capt._Neal=AE?= wrote:

You are the person spinning. Show me where I ever stated Gore was the
first to file in court, please.

What I wrote is this:

"Isn't it quite sad how Democrats seem to accept the tactic of attempting
to use the courts to win their elections?

"Gore started this tactic without realizing it is a lose-lose
proposition."

I said nothing about anyone's being first to file in court.

What I did say is how sad it is that Democrats seem to accept the fact of
attempting to use the courts to win their elections.

Bush was the winner. Gore tried to use the courts to have himself
declared
the winner. This is consistent with my statement.

You, in typical lying liberal fashion are attempting to change the
subject
because you lost on the original topic.


Uh, huh. "Gore started this tactic." But, hey, that's just a
technicality. Bush went to court first, and in liberal fashion, in
*federal* court, not in state court where the Constitution mandates
election law lies. Bush is no conservative, and neither are you.

Oh, the two cases you cite, Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board et. al.
and Bush v. Gore, both have Bush's name in the first position, the
plaintiff's position. Since you are "someone who knows the law", do I
need remind you that a plaintiff is the one who seeks redress in the
Courts.

You seem to have difficulty with simple concepts. Perhaps, a doctor's
visit is in order.

Neal is slightly obtuse, you might suggest the type of "doctor" he should
visit. He might even be able to see one for free.
John Cairns

"John Cairns" wrote in message ...

Neal is slightly obtuse, you might suggest the type of "doctor" he should
visit. He might even be able to see one for free.
John Cairns


Mind your own business, please. Yours in a Gaynz-type post
and a waste of space. If you don't have something worthwhile
to contribute go back to your coloring book and leave us men
be.

CN

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...

"John Cairns" wrote in message
...

Neal is slightly obtuse, you might suggest the type of "doctor" he should
visit. He might even be able to see one for free.
John Cairns


Mind your own business, please. Yours in a Gaynz-type post
and a waste of space. If you don't have something worthwhile
to contribute go back to your coloring book and leave us men
be.

CN

Bwahhahahhaahaha. Real men don't live on yellow boats.
John Cairns

IN yellow boats, it's in not on. Any real sailor would
not write "lives on a boat".

CN


"John Cairns" wrote in message . com...

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...

"John Cairns" wrote in message
...

Neal is slightly obtuse, you might suggest the type of "doctor" he should
visit. He might even be able to see one for free.
John Cairns


Mind your own business, please. Yours in a Gaynz-type post
and a waste of space. If you don't have something worthwhile
to contribute go back to your coloring book and leave us men
be.

CN

Bwahhahahhaahaha. Real men don't live on yellow boats.
John Cairns

He's not a real man. He's barely human.

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

"John Cairns" wrote in message
. com...

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...

"John Cairns" wrote in message
...

Neal is slightly obtuse, you might suggest the type of "doctor" he
should
visit. He might even be able to see one for free.
John Cairns


Mind your own business, please. Yours in a Gaynz-type post
and a waste of space. If you don't have something worthwhile
to contribute go back to your coloring book and leave us men
be.

CN

Bwahhahahhaahaha. Real men don't live on yellow boats.
John Cairns

Go **** yourself Nelly. You're a liar and thief by your own admission.
You're a racist **** who tortures his cat and can't get laid... not big
news.

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

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...

"John Cairns" wrote in message
...

Neal is slightly obtuse, you might suggest the type of "doctor" he should
visit. He might even be able to see one for free.
John Cairns


Mind your own business, please. Yours in a Gaynz-type post
and a waste of space. If you don't have something worthwhile
to contribute go back to your coloring book and leave us men
be.

CN

You still can't seem to get it through your thick skull.

Bush won the Florida election, Bush won the recounts.

Bush was the winner.

Gore was the loser.

The loser, Gore, attempted to use the courts to change
election law so he could be declared the winner.

Gore was a Democrat. Democrats approved of Gores
tactics.

The winner, Bush, was using the courts to keep a loser
from overturning a valid election.

Bush used the courts correctly while Gore used the
courts to attempt to thwart the will of the voters.

CN




"thunder" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:19:38 -0500, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Capt._Neal=AE?= wrote:

You are the person spinning. Show me where I ever stated Gore was the
first to file in court, please.

What I wrote is this:

"Isn't it quite sad how Democrats seem to accept the tactic of attempting
to use the courts to win their elections?

"Gore started this tactic without realizing it is a lose-lose
proposition."

I said nothing about anyone's being first to file in court.

What I did say is how sad it is that Democrats seem to accept the fact of
attempting to use the courts to win their elections.

Bush was the winner. Gore tried to use the courts to have himself declared
the winner. This is consistent with my statement.

You, in typical lying liberal fashion are attempting to change the subject
because you lost on the original topic.


Uh, huh. "Gore started this tactic." But, hey, that's just a
technicality. Bush went to court first, and in liberal fashion, in
*federal* court, not in state court where the Constitution mandates
election law lies. Bush is no conservative, and neither are you.

Oh, the two cases you cite, Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board et. al.
and Bush v. Gore, both have Bush's name in the first position, the
plaintiff's position. Since you are "someone who knows the law", do I
need remind you that a plaintiff is the one who seeks redress in the
Courts.

You seem to have difficulty with simple concepts. Perhaps, a doctor's
visit is in order.

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:07:49 -0500, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Capt._Neal=AE?= wrote:


Bush used the courts correctly while Gore used the courts to attempt to
thwart the will of the voters.

It's all clear to me now. The clarity of your logic convinces me. Are
you sure you are venting that homemade heater correctly?