"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

BCITORGB wrote:
But Wolfgang, that applies to most of the nations in North
Europe....
WOW! Eureka! I think you've got it!

LOL. Thanks for the humor.

frtzw906

I just got back into town, from a weekend of waiting in lift lines
(Actually not to bad for holiday weekend.)

Now catching up on the news here, I think I am going to die waiting
in
line, for rick and KMAN to figure out what line we are waiting in.
So
where do I get this refreshing elixir of life at? TnT

Go to Newfoundland. It is called "screech." However, if you drink the

screech in a remote area of Newfoundland and get sick as a result and
would
like a very specific type of scan but you are not in an emergency
situation
you may have to wait to get the scan.

Interestingly enough, it was named "screech" because an American was
unable
to handle it, and he "screeched" so loud that people came running
from all
around to see what had happened.

The question is do you have to wait in line to get it?

On the day prior to a holiday weekend, most definitely.

Or maybe I
should ask, how many people have died waiting in line to get it?

Some. But it would be hard to prove it was the lack of screech that killed
them.

And
then the next question, is, does the Canadian government pay for his
funeral, maybe from tourism dollars?

No. Contrary to popular world opinion, the Canadian government can be quite
stingy, and continues to be one of the few countries that has a budgetary
surplus.

You wouldn't want to many dead
people standing in line, it makes it difficult to move ahead a step!
TnT

Having never been to a Republican convention, I really don't know.

Oh well. Perhaps rick caught that post, and it might work for him. It'd
be good viewing for Scott as well (and all those who live in an insular
world).

frtzw906

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
...
"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at
wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM:

just after Bush stole his first presidency.

Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a
different
result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of
Bush
but I'm
getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What
happened
in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times.

???

Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the
Supreme
Court
stopped the recount.

Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in
violation
of
state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the accuracy
of
the
election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The
Supreme
Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that
rules
on
the law, not on politics.

True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court
that
voted to stop the recount.

Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow Gore
to
win the Presidency??

I have no idea.

I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda.

For the sake of this argument, let's say the court stayed out of the
matter,
and Gore would have won this recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme
Court.

How would Go

1) get rid of the slate of certified Florida Bush Electors send on
11/26/2000, via the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the
Florida
Supreme Court in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris???

2) get rid of the slate of Bush electors that the Florida Legislature
was
in
the process of sending on 12/12/2000 (the Florida Senate was to vote on
12/14/2000)??

3) If he would get this far, how would he keep Congress from disqualify
his
slate of electors that were send via an a recount that violated 3 U.S.C.
section 5????

4) If he could not keep his electors, how does he win in the US House???

Here is a link to the law that would be used. One thing to keep in mind,
who
controlled the US House and the US Senate.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html

I have no idea.

As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you
ask.
For
every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a
http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php

However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both
lost.

Actually, Clinton won.

I think you mean Al Gore.

And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme Court
who
halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that
George
W
Bush stole.

Only to those who do not understand the Electoral College System.

No, I daresay a great many people who understand the ECS still view it
this
way.

I highly doubt that. There is a provision within 3 USC 15 that says if
Congress cannot decide on a legal slate of electors, those sent with the
signature of the state's executive shall be the legal slate.

Bush won those elector, the slate sent with the signature of the state's
executive, thanks to the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the
Florida Supreme Court (Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris). They
were awarded to him on 11/26/2000.

At the time that they were awarded, the Republicans held both the US House
and Senate, but at the time that the Electoral Votes were counted, the new
House and Senate (results of the 2000 election) had been seated. The US
Senate was 50/50 with Gore (the President of the Senate) as the tie breaker,
thus control was held by the Democrats. The US House was controlled by the
Republicans.

During the recount process, before Bush was certified, the Republicans made
it clear that they were not going to allow the election to be taken away via
a recount that included dimpled chads. They viewed this as an illegal change
in election law.

Following the process laid out in 3 U.S.C. section 15, when it would come
time to count Florida's electors, the Democrats would have filed a challenge
(which the Congressional Black Caucus did on 1/6/2000 and 1/6/2004), they
could have won in the Senate as long as they held ranks, and Gore cast the
deciding vote, BUT, then Gore has to win in the US House.

Clearly the Republicans viewed Gore's challenge to the Florida vote as an
attempt at stealing an election (illegally throwing out overseas ballots,
illegal counting standards, ect), they were not going to give up Bush's
electors.

That would end of the challenge. The Democrats could not get rid of Bush's
slate of electors, thus they would not proceed with a challenge to the slate
sent by the Florida State Legislature, or a slate that Gore might have
received via a recount that used a counting standard that violated 3 U.S.C.
section 5.

The fact is, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 makes any state challenge, or
recount, after state certification non-binding. And the Constitution gives
Congress the exclusive right to remove electors, not the courts.

Your argument is based on a non-binding recount, that used an illegal
counting standard, that had no hope of ever being considered. That is not
proof Bush stole the election.

IF Gore had been certified the winner of the state, Bush would not have had
the votes needed to overturn Gore's certification, even if
post-certification recounts would have shown a different result.

Ever wonder why the Democrat majority Florida Supreme Court first decided
that state certification could be granted based on a recount of 4 Democrat
Counties (11/21/2000)??? THEN, two weeks later, they change their minds
after Gore LOST that recount (12/8/2000)??? Ever wonder why the Democrat
majority ruled that the safe harbor date of 12/12/2000 was the final
deadline in recounts, and then shortened the contest period???

It is quite clear to me that they wanted Gore to have the benefits of being
first to certification.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
. com...
"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
...
"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at
wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM:

just after Bush stole his first presidency.

Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a
different
result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of
Bush
but I'm
getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What
happened
in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times.

???

Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the
Supreme
Court
stopped the recount.

Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in
violation
of
state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the
accuracy
of
the
election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The
Supreme
Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that
rules
on
the law, not on politics.

True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court
that
voted to stop the recount.

Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow Gore
to
win the Presidency??

I have no idea.

I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda.

I am?

I don't think so.

I'm explaining that in having the vote stopped, the reaction of many people
(obviously) is that those who stopped it were concerned about what it would
reveal. Thus, the election will forever be known as the one that was
"stolen."

For the sake of this argument, let's say the court stayed out of the
matter,
and Gore would have won this recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme
Court.

How would Go

1) get rid of the slate of certified Florida Bush Electors send on
11/26/2000, via the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the
Florida
Supreme Court in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris???

2) get rid of the slate of Bush electors that the Florida Legislature
was
in
the process of sending on 12/12/2000 (the Florida Senate was to vote on
12/14/2000)??

3) If he would get this far, how would he keep Congress from disqualify
his
slate of electors that were send via an a recount that violated 3
U.S.C.
section 5????

4) If he could not keep his electors, how does he win in the US
House???

Here is a link to the law that would be used. One thing to keep in
mind,
who
controlled the US House and the US Senate.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html

I have no idea.

As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you
ask.
For
every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a
http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php

However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both
lost.

Actually, Clinton won.

I think you mean Al Gore.

And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme
Court
who
halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that
George
W
Bush stole.

Only to those who do not understand the Electoral College System.

No, I daresay a great many people who understand the ECS still view it
this
way.

I highly doubt that. There is a provision within 3 USC 15 that says if
Congress cannot decide on a legal slate of electors, those sent with the
signature of the state's executive shall be the legal slate.

Bush won those elector, the slate sent with the signature of the state's
executive, thanks to the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the
Florida Supreme Court (Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris).
They
were awarded to him on 11/26/2000.

At the time that they were awarded, the Republicans held both the US House
and Senate, but at the time that the Electoral Votes were counted, the new
House and Senate (results of the 2000 election) had been seated. The US
Senate was 50/50 with Gore (the President of the Senate) as the tie
breaker,
thus control was held by the Democrats. The US House was controlled by the
Republicans.

During the recount process, before Bush was certified, the Republicans
made
it clear that they were not going to allow the election to be taken away
via
a recount that included dimpled chads. They viewed this as an illegal
change
in election law.

Following the process laid out in 3 U.S.C. section 15, when it would come
time to count Florida's electors, the Democrats would have filed a
challenge
(which the Congressional Black Caucus did on 1/6/2000 and 1/6/2004), they
could have won in the Senate as long as they held ranks, and Gore cast the
deciding vote, BUT, then Gore has to win in the US House.

Clearly the Republicans viewed Gore's challenge to the Florida vote as an
attempt at stealing an election (illegally throwing out overseas ballots,
illegal counting standards, ect), they were not going to give up Bush's
electors.

That would end of the challenge. The Democrats could not get rid of Bush's
slate of electors, thus they would not proceed with a challenge to the
slate
sent by the Florida State Legislature, or a slate that Gore might have
received via a recount that used a counting standard that violated 3
U.S.C.
section 5.

The fact is, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 makes any state challenge, or
recount, after state certification non-binding. And the Constitution gives
Congress the exclusive right to remove electors, not the courts.

Your argument is based on a non-binding recount, that used an illegal
counting standard, that had no hope of ever being considered. That is not
proof Bush stole the election.

IF Gore had been certified the winner of the state, Bush would not have
had
the votes needed to overturn Gore's certification, even if
post-certification recounts would have shown a different result.

Ever wonder why the Democrat majority Florida Supreme Court first decided
that state certification could be granted based on a recount of 4 Democrat
Counties (11/21/2000)??? THEN, two weeks later, they change their minds
after Gore LOST that recount (12/8/2000)??? Ever wonder why the Democrat
majority ruled that the safe harbor date of 12/12/2000 was the final
deadline in recounts, and then shortened the contest period???

It is quite clear to me that they wanted Gore to have the benefits of
being
first to certification.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html

None of that matters in terms of the impressions and interpretations that
many people in the US and indeed the world will continue to carry about that
election, and shutting down the recount is one of the major (but there are
many others) contributors to that viewpoint.

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

BCITORGB wrote:
But Wolfgang, that applies to most of the nations in North
Europe....
WOW! Eureka! I think you've got it!

LOL. Thanks for the humor.

frtzw906

I just got back into town, from a weekend of waiting in lift
lines
(Actually not to bad for holiday weekend.)

Now catching up on the news here, I think I am going to die
waiting
in
line, for rick and KMAN to figure out what line we are waiting
in.
So
where do I get this refreshing elixir of life at? TnT

Go to Newfoundland. It is called "screech." However, if you drink
the

screech in a remote area of Newfoundland and get sick as a result
and
would
like a very specific type of scan but you are not in an emergency
situation
you may have to wait to get the scan.

Interestingly enough, it was named "screech" because an American
was
unable
to handle it, and he "screeched" so loud that people came running
from all
around to see what had happened.

The question is do you have to wait in line to get it?

On the day prior to a holiday weekend, most definitely.

Or maybe I
should ask, how many people have died waiting in line to get it?

Some. But it would be hard to prove it was the lack of screech that
killed
them.

And
then the next question, is, does the Canadian government pay for
his
funeral, maybe from tourism dollars?

No. Contrary to popular world opinion, the Canadian government can be
quite
stingy, and continues to be one of the few countries that has a
budgetary
surplus.

You wouldn't want to many dead
people standing in line, it makes it difficult to move ahead a
step!
TnT

Having never been to a Republican convention, I really don't know.

Having never been to an RNC either, I don't know either!

It is a shame that the Canadian authorities are so stingy with a
product in such high demand, to make you wait in line, and that just
before a holiday. I would suggest that to increase supply and
distribution, that they contract with Halliburton to build a pipeline
to the Canadian-US border. I am sure that the good folks at Halliburton
would be willing to provide a kickback to any and all interested
parties. If done in time I am sure you could favorably impress and
influence the next RNC, especially if a line is piped directly in to
RNC. TnT

Wolfgang wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

Near is "near", sort of like is, "is"! TnT

Hm......

You know, I'm beginning to think you're toying with me.

I resent that

Wolfgang

Is that what was going on with the "is, is" thing? I begin to
understand, and would certainly understand you resenting it. Why don't
you have another drink, matter of fact have one for me as well, and I
am sure you will feel better in the AM. TnT

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
. com...
"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
...
"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott Weiser
at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at
wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM:

just after Bush stole his first presidency.

Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a
different
result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of
Bush
but I'm
getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap.
What
happened
in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many
times.

???

Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the
Supreme
Court
stopped the recount.

Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in
violation
of
state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the
accuracy
of
the
election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The
Supreme
Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that
rules
on
the law, not on politics.

True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court
that
voted to stop the recount.

Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow
Gore
to
win the Presidency??

I have no idea.

I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda.

I am?

I don't think so.

I'm explaining that in having the vote stopped, the reaction of many
people
(obviously) is that those who stopped it were concerned about what it
would
reveal. Thus, the election will forever be known as the one that was
"stolen."

For the sake of this argument, let's say the court stayed out of the
matter,
and Gore would have won this recount as ordered by the Florida
Supreme
Court.

How would Go

1) get rid of the slate of certified Florida Bush Electors send on
11/26/2000, via the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the
Florida
Supreme Court in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris???

2) get rid of the slate of Bush electors that the Florida Legislature
was
in
the process of sending on 12/12/2000 (the Florida Senate was to vote
on
12/14/2000)??

3) If he would get this far, how would he keep Congress from
disqualify
his
slate of electors that were send via an a recount that violated 3
U.S.C.
section 5????

4) If he could not keep his electors, how does he win in the US
House???

Here is a link to the law that would be used. One thing to keep in
mind,
who
controlled the US House and the US Senate.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html

I have no idea.

As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you
ask.
For
every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a
http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php

However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both
lost.

Actually, Clinton won.

I think you mean Al Gore.

And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme
Court
who
halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that
George
W
Bush stole.

Only to those who do not understand the Electoral College System.

No, I daresay a great many people who understand the ECS still view it
this
way.

I highly doubt that. There is a provision within 3 USC 15 that says if
Congress cannot decide on a legal slate of electors, those sent with the
signature of the state's executive shall be the legal slate.

Bush won those elector, the slate sent with the signature of the state's
executive, thanks to the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the
Florida Supreme Court (Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris).
They
were awarded to him on 11/26/2000.

At the time that they were awarded, the Republicans held both the US
House
and Senate, but at the time that the Electoral Votes were counted, the
new
House and Senate (results of the 2000 election) had been seated. The US
Senate was 50/50 with Gore (the President of the Senate) as the tie
breaker,
thus control was held by the Democrats. The US House was controlled by
the
Republicans.

During the recount process, before Bush was certified, the Republicans
made
it clear that they were not going to allow the election to be taken away
via
a recount that included dimpled chads. They viewed this as an illegal
change
in election law.

Following the process laid out in 3 U.S.C. section 15, when it would
come
time to count Florida's electors, the Democrats would have filed a
challenge
(which the Congressional Black Caucus did on 1/6/2000 and 1/6/2004),
they
could have won in the Senate as long as they held ranks, and Gore cast
the
deciding vote, BUT, then Gore has to win in the US House.

Clearly the Republicans viewed Gore's challenge to the Florida vote as
an
attempt at stealing an election (illegally throwing out overseas
ballots,
illegal counting standards, ect), they were not going to give up Bush's
electors.

That would end of the challenge. The Democrats could not get rid of
Bush's
slate of electors, thus they would not proceed with a challenge to the
slate
sent by the Florida State Legislature, or a slate that Gore might have
received via a recount that used a counting standard that violated 3
U.S.C.
section 5.

The fact is, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 makes any state challenge,
or
recount, after state certification non-binding. And the Constitution
gives
Congress the exclusive right to remove electors, not the courts.

Your argument is based on a non-binding recount, that used an illegal
counting standard, that had no hope of ever being considered. That is
not
proof Bush stole the election.

IF Gore had been certified the winner of the state, Bush would not have
had
the votes needed to overturn Gore's certification, even if
post-certification recounts would have shown a different result.

Ever wonder why the Democrat majority Florida Supreme Court first
decided
that state certification could be granted based on a recount of 4
Democrat
Counties (11/21/2000)??? THEN, two weeks later, they change their minds
after Gore LOST that recount (12/8/2000)??? Ever wonder why the Democrat
majority ruled that the safe harbor date of 12/12/2000 was the final
deadline in recounts, and then shortened the contest period???

It is quite clear to me that they wanted Gore to have the benefits of
being
first to certification.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html

None of that matters in terms of the impressions and interpretations that
many people in the US and indeed the world will continue to carry about
that
election, and shutting down the recount is one of the major (but there are
many others) contributors to that viewpoint.

That is a sad comment about those people in the US and the world. They don't
care about fair and honest recounts, just anything to get their man into
office.

"As implemented by Judge Terry Lewis, the Florida Supreme Court's decision
gave short shrift to Bush's basic right to judicial review of the thousands
of disputed ballot-interpretation decisions made by (among others) openly
partisan Democratic officials. In a series of late-night rulings hours after
the Dec. 8 decision, Judge Lewis refused to suggest (or hear evidence on)
what chad-counting standard vote-counters should use; assigned hundreds of
untrained counters to plunge into this world of standardless
chad-interpretation, without even requiring that they be nonpartisan;
refused to require that a record be kept of chad-interpretation decisions,
thereby making appeals virtually impossible; ignored Bush's request for a
recount of those hundreds of rejected overseas military ballots; and
shrugged off claims that some Gore votes would inevitably be counted twice."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...2000-12-28.htm

The Democrats tried to steal an election, but lets blame Bush because he
stood up for the rights of the voters in Florida.

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
om...

The Democrats tried to steal an election, but lets blame Bush because he
stood up for the rights of the voters in Florida.



Yet another example of Bush's Orwellian logic in action.

--riverman

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
om...
"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
. com...
"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"Mark Cook" wrote in message
...
"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott Weiser
at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at
wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM:

just after Bush stole his first presidency.

Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found
a
different
result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of
Bush
but I'm
getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap.
What
happened
in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many
times.

???

Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the
Supreme
Court
stopped the recount.

Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in
violation
of
state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the
accuracy
of
the
election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The
Supreme
Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body
that
rules
on
the law, not on politics.

True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme
Court
that
voted to stop the recount.

Time to prove you point. Just exactly how would this recount allow
Gore
to
win the Presidency??

I have no idea.

I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda.

I am?

I don't think so.

I'm explaining that in having the vote stopped, the reaction of many
people
(obviously) is that those who stopped it were concerned about what it
would
reveal. Thus, the election will forever be known as the one that was
"stolen."

For the sake of this argument, let's say the court stayed out of the
matter,
and Gore would have won this recount as ordered by the Florida
Supreme
Court.

How would Go

1) get rid of the slate of certified Florida Bush Electors send on
11/26/2000, via the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the
Florida
Supreme Court in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris???

2) get rid of the slate of Bush electors that the Florida
Legislature
was
in
the process of sending on 12/12/2000 (the Florida Senate was to vote
on
12/14/2000)??

3) If he would get this far, how would he keep Congress from
disqualify
his
slate of electors that were send via an a recount that violated 3
U.S.C.
section 5????

4) If he could not keep his electors, how does he win in the US
House???

Here is a link to the law that would be used. One thing to keep in
mind,
who
controlled the US House and the US Senate.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html

I have no idea.

As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who
you
ask.
For
every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a
http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php

However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both
lost.

Actually, Clinton won.

I think you mean Al Gore.

And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme
Court
who
halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that
George
W
Bush stole.

Only to those who do not understand the Electoral College System.

No, I daresay a great many people who understand the ECS still view it
this
way.

I highly doubt that. There is a provision within 3 USC 15 that says if
Congress cannot decide on a legal slate of electors, those sent with
the
signature of the state's executive shall be the legal slate.

Bush won those elector, the slate sent with the signature of the
state's
executive, thanks to the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the
Florida Supreme Court (Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Harris).
They
were awarded to him on 11/26/2000.

At the time that they were awarded, the Republicans held both the US
House
and Senate, but at the time that the Electoral Votes were counted, the
new
House and Senate (results of the 2000 election) had been seated. The US
Senate was 50/50 with Gore (the President of the Senate) as the tie
breaker,
thus control was held by the Democrats. The US House was controlled by
the
Republicans.

During the recount process, before Bush was certified, the Republicans
made
it clear that they were not going to allow the election to be taken
away
via
a recount that included dimpled chads. They viewed this as an illegal
change
in election law.

Following the process laid out in 3 U.S.C. section 15, when it would
come
time to count Florida's electors, the Democrats would have filed a
challenge
(which the Congressional Black Caucus did on 1/6/2000 and 1/6/2004),
they
could have won in the Senate as long as they held ranks, and Gore cast
the
deciding vote, BUT, then Gore has to win in the US House.

Clearly the Republicans viewed Gore's challenge to the Florida vote as
an
attempt at stealing an election (illegally throwing out overseas
ballots,
illegal counting standards, ect), they were not going to give up Bush's
electors.

That would end of the challenge. The Democrats could not get rid of
Bush's
slate of electors, thus they would not proceed with a challenge to the
slate
sent by the Florida State Legislature, or a slate that Gore might have
received via a recount that used a counting standard that violated 3
U.S.C.
section 5.

The fact is, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 makes any state challenge,
or
recount, after state certification non-binding. And the Constitution
gives
Congress the exclusive right to remove electors, not the courts.

Your argument is based on a non-binding recount, that used an illegal
counting standard, that had no hope of ever being considered. That is
not
proof Bush stole the election.

IF Gore had been certified the winner of the state, Bush would not have
had
the votes needed to overturn Gore's certification, even if
post-certification recounts would have shown a different result.

Ever wonder why the Democrat majority Florida Supreme Court first
decided
that state certification could be granted based on a recount of 4
Democrat
Counties (11/21/2000)??? THEN, two weeks later, they change their minds
after Gore LOST that recount (12/8/2000)??? Ever wonder why the
Democrat
majority ruled that the safe harbor date of 12/12/2000 was the final
deadline in recounts, and then shortened the contest period???

It is quite clear to me that they wanted Gore to have the benefits of
being
first to certification.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html

None of that matters in terms of the impressions and interpretations that
many people in the US and indeed the world will continue to carry about
that
election, and shutting down the recount is one of the major (but there
are
many others) contributors to that viewpoint.

That is a sad comment about those people in the US and the world. They
don't
care about fair and honest recounts, just anything to get their man into
office.

I don't think it is realistic to assume that all those people were pro-Gore
or anti-Bush. What they see is a very messed up electoral process with a
very close result and a recount that was halted by judges that were
appointed by the governing party.

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

Wolfgang wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

Near is "near", sort of like is, "is"! TnT

Hm......

You know, I'm beginning to think you're toying with me.

I resent that

Wolfgang

Is that what was going on with the "is, is" thing?

I don't know what that means.

I begin to understand,

Do you? Hm.......we'll see.

and would certainly understand you resenting it.

"Would"? Not "do"?

Why don't
you have another drink, matter of fact have one for me as well,

Actually, I don't drink.

and I
am sure you will feel better in the AM.

Better......than.....?

Wolfgang