"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 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

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"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

I get it, Bush should have allowed the Democrats to throw out the Electoral
Count Act of 1887, the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act, and Article II,
Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.

"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.

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"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.

I guess they missed the fact that the judges appointed by the challenging
party violated the law as to get a shame of a recount, twice. I guess they
missed the fact that Congress controlled by that same challenging party
passed laws to protect the rights of the voter, BUT when those laws got in
the way that same challenging party tried to have those laws overturned in
violation of US Code.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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


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?

Yes, you are.


I don't think so.

Which merely makes you a deluded stooge of the Liberal/Democrat/Socialist
machine.


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."

What they willfully refuse to recognize is that there are perfectly
legitimate reasons to stop the recount that had nothing to do with
concealing anything, but rather had to do with federal election law and
fundamental fairness in voting.

As for what might have been "revealed," Democratic operatives and their
lackeys in the liberal media have been trying for YEARS to "reveal" some
impropriety that proves Bush "stole" the election...and they haven't been
able to prove anything. To the contrary, EVERY unofficial "recount" of the
ballots, and it's been done several times, proves again and again that Bush
won and Gore lost.



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.

Well, there it is. Your argument that Bush "stole" the election with the
assistances of the "republicans on the Supreme Court" has been factually
demolished, but you're unwilling to admit that you're wrong, so now you put
"stolen" in parentheses and attempt to recast your argument as one of
"impressions and interpretations" about the legitimacy of the election. This
is dishonest debate.

The simple fact is that the Democrats, and their Socialist supporters
worldwide are simply bereft that their Socialist stooges lost and are trying
to whip up anti-Bush sentiment using propaganda because they know that they
have no real foundation for their arguments. Fortunately, we don't give a
damn what "many others" think about our election. They don't get to vote, so
they can pound sand.

Bush won fair and square, both times. Get over it.

Why don't you just admit that you are wrong and end it?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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


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?

Yes, you are.


I don't think so.

Which merely makes you a deluded stooge of the Liberal/Democrat/Socialist
machine.

How did they manage this?

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."

What they willfully refuse to recognize is that there are perfectly
legitimate reasons to stop the recount that had nothing to do with
concealing anything, but rather had to do with federal election law and
fundamental fairness in voting.

As for what might have been "revealed," Democratic operatives and their
lackeys in the liberal media have been trying for YEARS to "reveal" some
impropriety that proves Bush "stole" the election...and they haven't been
able to prove anything.

Not to you.

To the contrary, EVERY unofficial "recount" of the
ballots, and it's been done several times, proves again and again that
Bush
won and Gore lost.

There's all sorts of interpretations that say Gore won/Bush won.

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.

Well, there it is. Your argument that Bush "stole" the election with the
assistances of the "republicans on the Supreme Court" has been factually
demolished but you're unwilling to admit that you're wrong, so now you put
"stolen" in parentheses and attempt to recast your argument as one of
"impressions and interpretations" about the legitimacy of the election.
This
is dishonest debate.

I'm not sure you understand what I am debating.

I think I am part of what is probably a very large group of people who think
that there was an unacceptable and alarming amount of irregularities in the
electoral process that gave Bush a victory in what was obviously an
extremely close vote, and that there should have been a full examination of
these issues with an official recount. That fact that this did not happen
means that the election is forever remembered as the one that Bush stole.

The simple fact is that the Democrats, and their Socialist supporters

You really think the Democrats are Socialists? Wow.

worldwide are simply bereft that their Socialist stooges lost and are
trying
to whip up anti-Bush sentiment using propaganda because they know that
they
have no real foundation for their arguments. Fortunately, we don't give a
damn what "many others" think about our election. They don't get to vote,
so
they can pound sand.

The funny thing is Bush is going around sucking up to the Europeans like
crazy right now. It's kind of embarassing.

Bush won fair and square, both times. Get over it.

Why don't you just admit that you are wrong and end it?

I have no idea who is right or wrong, because we never got to find out.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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


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?

Yes, you are.


I don't think so.

Which merely makes you a deluded stooge of the Liberal/Democrat/Socialist
machine.

How did they manage this?

That you don't know proves how effective their brainwashing and propaganda
is.


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."

What they willfully refuse to recognize is that there are perfectly
legitimate reasons to stop the recount that had nothing to do with
concealing anything, but rather had to do with federal election law and
fundamental fairness in voting.

As for what might have been "revealed," Democratic operatives and their
lackeys in the liberal media have been trying for YEARS to "reveal" some
impropriety that proves Bush "stole" the election...and they haven't been
able to prove anything.

Not to you.

To anyone. I challenge you to cite a SINGLE reputable report examining the
ballots that has Gore winning.


To the contrary, EVERY unofficial "recount" of the
ballots, and it's been done several times, proves again and again that
Bush
won and Gore lost.

There's all sorts of interpretations that say Gore won/Bush won.

Interpretations don't count. Ballots do. No review of the actual ballots in
Florida has ever put Gore ahead. Period.


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.

Well, there it is. Your argument that Bush "stole" the election with the
assistances of the "republicans on the Supreme Court" has been factually
demolished but you're unwilling to admit that you're wrong, so now you put
"stolen" in parentheses and attempt to recast your argument as one of
"impressions and interpretations" about the legitimacy of the election.
This
is dishonest debate.

I'm not sure you understand what I am debating.

I'm quite certain that you don't.


I think I am part of what is probably a very large group of people who think
that there was an unacceptable and alarming amount of irregularities in the
electoral process that gave Bush a victory in what was obviously an
extremely close vote, and that there should have been a full examination of
these issues with an official recount. That fact that this did not happen
means that the election is forever remembered as the one that Bush stole.

That's merely liberal whining and logical fallacy. Even if there were not
"full examination" it would not therefore follow that Bush "stole" the
election.

First, "stole" implies some deliberate action on Bush's part to engage in
election fraud. No such evidence exists.

Second, if, as you argue, there was no "full examination" of the evidence,
it is impossible to conclude that Bush "stole" the election. The absence of
evidence is not evidence. One cannot infer from a lack of evidence that
either candidate was responsible for the lack of evidence. I could just as
reasonably say, had Gore won, that he "stole" the election, and I'd be just
as incorrect as you are.

Third, there was an "official recount," and the results showed that Bush won
the election.

There was not an "official recount of the recount" because the United States
Supreme Court ruled that the process used by Florida, and ratified by the
Florida Supreme Court, was unconstitutional.

As to having an "official recount of the recount" including all ballots, the
law does not provide for such a recount. But the law DOES mandate that the
election be certified within a strict time frame. The purpose of this time
frame is to help prevent election fraud and to prevent endless delays of the
certification that has the potential of bringing the federal government to a
halt because some disgruntled voters disagree with the results of the
election.

There is no guarantee of a "perfect" election, there is merely a right to
vote in a "fair" election. If you screw up your vote, and it isn't counted
as a result, that's YOUR problem, not something that impeaches the election.
If you're too stupid to properly mark your ballot, again, that's YOUR
problem. If you care that much, then you need to take great care and ask for
assistance if you're having trouble with the system. The failure in the
Florida punch-card system was in not simply having a regulation requiring
that a "chad" be completely punched out and removed from the ballot in order
for that vote to count. Had they had this simple instruction, there would
have been no debate at all. If you screw up your ballot, it's not the
election commission's problem.


The simple fact is that the Democrats, and their Socialist supporters

You really think the Democrats are Socialists? Wow.

By and large, yes, though many of them aren't far enough left to suit the
Socialists. The Democrats are working hard to get far enough left, however,
even to suit Castro or Marx.


worldwide are simply bereft that their Socialist stooges lost and are
trying
to whip up anti-Bush sentiment using propaganda because they know that
they
have no real foundation for their arguments. Fortunately, we don't give a
damn what "many others" think about our election. They don't get to vote,
so
they can pound sand.

The funny thing is Bush is going around sucking up to the Europeans like
crazy right now. It's kind of embarassing.

I agree. I'm disappointed in him. But, he's president, so he gets to make
the decisions.


Bush won fair and square, both times. Get over it.

Why don't you just admit that you are wrong and end it?

I have no idea who is right or wrong, because we never got to find out.

That you have no idea is unsurprising, but not indicative of the surety of
the election.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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


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?

Yes, you are.


I don't think so.

Which merely makes you a deluded stooge of the
Liberal/Democrat/Socialist
machine.

How did they manage this?

That you don't know proves how effective their brainwashing and propaganda
is.

LOL. Since they never gave me any information about it, it was a hell of a
trick!


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."

What they willfully refuse to recognize is that there are perfectly
legitimate reasons to stop the recount that had nothing to do with
concealing anything, but rather had to do with federal election law and
fundamental fairness in voting.

As for what might have been "revealed," Democratic operatives and their
lackeys in the liberal media have been trying for YEARS to "reveal" some
impropriety that proves Bush "stole" the election...and they haven't
been
able to prove anything.

Not to you.

To anyone. I challenge you to cite a SINGLE reputable report examining the
ballots that has Gore winning.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

You could find dozens more if you looked.


To the contrary, EVERY unofficial "recount" of the
ballots, and it's been done several times, proves again and again that
Bush
won and Gore lost.

There's all sorts of interpretations that say Gore won/Bush won.

Interpretations don't count. Ballots do. No review of the actual ballots
in
Florida has ever put Gore ahead. Period.

We'll never know who won. Bush wouldn't let us find out.


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.

Well, there it is. Your argument that Bush "stole" the election with the
assistances of the "republicans on the Supreme Court" has been factually
demolished but you're unwilling to admit that you're wrong, so now you
put
"stolen" in parentheses and attempt to recast your argument as one of
"impressions and interpretations" about the legitimacy of the election.
This
is dishonest debate.

I'm not sure you understand what I am debating.

I'm quite certain that you don't.


I think I am part of what is probably a very large group of people who
think
that there was an unacceptable and alarming amount of irregularities in
the
electoral process that gave Bush a victory in what was obviously an
extremely close vote, and that there should have been a full examination
of
these issues with an official recount. That fact that this did not happen
means that the election is forever remembered as the one that Bush stole.

That's merely liberal whining and logical fallacy. Even if there were not
"full examination" it would not therefore follow that Bush "stole" the
election.

The fact that he wasn't intrested in the truth is why people think he stole
it.

First, "stole" implies some deliberate action on Bush's part to engage in
election fraud. No such evidence exists.

Some people think it does.

Second, if, as you argue, there was no "full examination" of the evidence,
it is impossible to conclude that Bush "stole" the election. The absence
of
evidence is not evidence. One cannot infer from a lack of evidence that
either candidate was responsible for the lack of evidence. I could just as
reasonably say, had Gore won, that he "stole" the election, and I'd be
just
as incorrect as you are.

If Gore has stopped the recount, I'd be right there saying he stole it.

Third, there was an "official recount," and the results showed that Bush
won
the election.

There was not an "official recount of the recount" because the United
States
Supreme Court ruled that the process used by Florida, and ratified by the
Florida Supreme Court, was unconstitutional.

LOL.

As to having an "official recount of the recount" including all ballots,
the
law does not provide for such a recount. But the law DOES mandate that the
election be certified within a strict time frame. The purpose of this time
frame is to help prevent election fraud and to prevent endless delays of
the
certification that has the potential of bringing the federal government to
a
halt because some disgruntled voters disagree with the results of the
election.

There is no guarantee of a "perfect" election, there is merely a right to
vote in a "fair" election. If you screw up your vote, and it isn't counted
as a result, that's YOUR problem, not something that impeaches the
election.
If you're too stupid to properly mark your ballot, again, that's YOUR
problem. If you care that much, then you need to take great care and ask
for
assistance if you're having trouble with the system. The failure in the
Florida punch-card system was in not simply having a regulation requiring
that a "chad" be completely punched out and removed from the ballot in
order
for that vote to count. Had they had this simple instruction, there would
have been no debate at all. If you screw up your ballot, it's not the
election commission's problem.

The whole thing is a disgrace. From the same president who lectures
Europeans about democracy. LOL!


The simple fact is that the Democrats, and their Socialist supporters

You really think the Democrats are Socialists? Wow.

By and large, yes, though many of them aren't far enough left to suit the
Socialists. The Democrats are working hard to get far enough left,
however,
even to suit Castro or Marx.

What is Socialist about the Democratic party?


worldwide are simply bereft that their Socialist stooges lost and are
trying
to whip up anti-Bush sentiment using propaganda because they know that
they
have no real foundation for their arguments. Fortunately, we don't give
a
damn what "many others" think about our election. They don't get to
vote,
so
they can pound sand.

The funny thing is Bush is going around sucking up to the Europeans like
crazy right now. It's kind of embarassing.

I agree. I'm disappointed in him. But, he's president, so he gets to make
the decisions.

Only because he stole the election.

Bush won fair and square, both times. Get over it.

Why don't you just admit that you are wrong and end it?

I have no idea who is right or wrong, because we never got to find out.

That you have no idea is unsurprising, but not indicative of the surety of
the election.

The election was a MESS by any standard. It was never cleaned up, just swept
under the rug.