In Washington State Governor's race the recount now narrows the margin to 42
votes with the lead still the Republican candidate. This time in selected
areas, mostly the heavily populated one's they got to count voting cards
where candidates were circled instead of the circle being filled in to give
one example. However they didn't get to count the whole state so if the
Democrats pony up the $700,000 recount fee the rest of the State will
receive a hand count. Is it worthwhile for them? Probabl not. The
counties that are Democrat leaning already had the hand recount. The rest
are solid Repubican. Nope! I'd say they will fold their tent and move
aside so that a real second party can begin working on the 2008 election.

What has this to do with sailing? About as much as .asa usually has to do
with sailing. But then Washington is the sailing capital of the West Coast
and the Democrats are anti liveaboard so there you have it.

M.

Anti-liveaboard Democrats deserve to lose.

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. Typical, stupid, arrogant Democrat methods
have lost them the House, the Senate, the Presidency and
large numbers of governorships.

When are they going to learn? I think they are incapable
of learning. That's their problem in a nutshell. You must
know how to think logically in order to learn. There
is most certainly a dearth of logical thinking on the
Democrat side of the aisle. If this were not the case
there would not be a Democrat side of the aisle.

CN


"Michael" wrote in message ...
In Washington State Governor's race the recount now narrows the margin to 42
votes with the lead still the Republican candidate. This time in selected
areas, mostly the heavily populated one's they got to count voting cards
where candidates were circled instead of the circle being filled in to give
one example. However they didn't get to count the whole state so if the
Democrats pony up the $700,000 recount fee the rest of the State will
receive a hand count. Is it worthwhile for them? Probabl not. The
counties that are Democrat leaning already had the hand recount. The rest
are solid Repubican. Nope! I'd say they will fold their tent and move
aside so that a real second party can begin working on the 2008 election.

What has this to do with sailing? About as much as .asa usually has to do
with sailing. But then Washington is the sailing capital of the West Coast
and the Democrats are anti liveaboard so there you have it.

M.

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:50:28 -0500, =?Windows-1252?Q?Capt._Neal=AE?=
wrote:


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.
Typical, stupid, arrogant Democrat methods have lost them the House, the
Senate, the Presidency and large numbers of governorships.

Once again, you spout incorrect drivel. You really should pay more
attention to national events. On Nov. 11, 2000, George Bush was the first
to go to the courts. Ignorance is bliss, eh?

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATI...00timeline.php

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

"On November 13th, Volusia County sues to complete manual recount notwithstanding the
November 14 deadline for county Canvassing Boards to file election returns." They are
quickly joined by Gore, his legal team and the Palm Beach Canvassing Board who pursued
this action all the way to the Florida Supreme Court.

This suit is a blatant attempt to overturn election code 102.112.

This is Gore's first attempt to initiate having the courts decide the election in direct
contravention to election code which specifies a time period for recounts.

Gore started it, I rest my case.

Now, I know what your feeble argument is going to be. You are going to say that
way back on Nov 11th the Bush campaign seeks a federal injunction to stop hand
recounts because of alleged equal protection and other constitutional violations.

There is a very big difference in using the courts as intended - to interpret
existing laws - than to use liberal courts in friendly territory to overturn election
laws on the books as Gore attempted to do. And later to have a liberal Florida
Supreme Court actually write election law from the bench - a direct result of
the litigation initiated by Al Gore.

By the way, The Supreme Court of the United States of America found in
favor of Mr. Bush in case number 00-863 where the Court ruled and stated
the following:

"After reviewing the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court, we find "that
there is considerable uncertainty as to the precise grounds for the decision."

(In other words the United States Supreme Court chastised the Florida
Supreme Court for making decisions that were groundless and not based
on legal precedence and sent the decision back to them so they could
revisit it and perhaps provide some valid grounds for their decision if
they persisted with it.)

The Supreme Court of the United States of America further said
the Florida Supreme Court's decision based on "obscure adjudications
by state courts do not stand as barriers to a determination by this
Court of the validity under the federal constitution of state action."

(In plain English - you can't baffle us with bull****.)

The Supreme Court of the United States of America concluded,
"The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is therefore
vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
not inconsistent with this opinion"

(In plain English, the Supreme Court of the United States of
America told the Florida Supreme Court to go back to the
drawing board and try to come up with a valid decision
backed by valid precedence and in accordance with the
United States Supreme Court's instructions.)


To summarize, Gore and the Democrat party lawyers initiated
a suit in Volusia County in Florida Circuit court with respect to
the rights of canvassing boards.

This court found that the 7-day deadline was mandatory
but that Volusia County could amend their returns at a later date.
(In other words the seven day deadline could be circumvented).
and that the Secretary of State could exercise her discretion
in deciding to include the late returns in the statewide certification.
(In other words, again circumventing the 7-day deadline and
guaranteeing an avenue for appeal to a higher court under any
circumstance. A not so clever case of passing the buck.)

What the circuit court did was cleverly rewrite election law
while seeming to uphold existing law. This ruse did not work.

When the Secretary of State attempted to follow the circuit
court's rewriting of election law and decided none of the
four counties who filed requests to have late returns included
in the tallies did not have valid reasons for justifying an
extension of the filing deadline it was abhorrent to Gore et al.

Gore and his legal team refused to accept the Secretary of
State's decision and filed an emergency motion in the state
court that the Secretary had acted arbitrarily and
in contempt of the Circuit Courts ruling that she could
exercise her discretion . . .

The following day the state court denied the motion and
ruled the Secretary of State had not acted arbitrarily
and had exercised her discretion is a reasonable manner
in accordance with the court's earlier decision.

Gore and all went into a tizzy and appealed this decision to
the First District Court of Appeals that enjoined the Secretary
of State and the Elections Canvassing Commission from
certifying the results and declaring a winner "until
further notice of that court" (In other words the
Court of Appeals was ignoring the 7-day deadline upheld
by a lower court and arbitrarily suspended the implementation
of the deadline - i.e. they legislated from the bench.)

The Supreme Court of the State of Florida was then
called in and expeditiously decided on Nov 21
"Because of our reluctance to rewrite the Florida Election
Code, we conclude we must invoke the equitable powers of
this Court to fashion a remedy . . ."

This they did by extending the 7-day limit by twelve more
days. (In other words the Florida Supreme court also wrote
election law from the bench.) while upholding the decision
of the Court of Appeals. Upholding and adding to . . .
I guess they weren't all that reluctant to write
election law, in spite of their claim to the contrary.

The United States Supreme Court put an end to it by
ruling the Florida Supreme court had no power to write
election law and further could cite no legal precedence or
existing legislation that might give them right to do so.

Passing laws that are in direct conflict to existing
election law, is not the right or duty of courts when
it comes to affecting elections for President of the
United States of America, at least. This is now
the law of the land. Gore and the Democrats
lost in more ways than the election of 2000

Please reference The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 00-836, George W. Bush, Petitioner v. Palm Beach
County Canvassing Board et al. on writ of certiorari to
the Florida Supreme Court. You will find all that I've
written to be an accurate representation based on this
case.


Next time, don't mess with someone who knows the
law.

CN





"thunder" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:50:28 -0500, =?Windows-1252?Q?Capt._Neal=AE?=
wrote:


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.
Typical, stupid, arrogant Democrat methods have lost them the House, the
Senate, the Presidency and large numbers of governorships.

Once again, you spout incorrect drivel. You really should pay more
attention to national events. On Nov. 11, 2000, George Bush was the first
to go to the courts. Ignorance is bliss, eh?

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATI...00timeline.php

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.

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

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.

"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