.. wrote:

On 18 Feb 2004 22:57:58 GMT, 123 (Butch Ammon) wrote:

I saw this on another internet forum and it spoke volumes about the 2000
election. My first thought was of good ol' Harry and how he did anything and
everything for Gore to try to win the election. This is solid proof that Bush
won. End of story. Case closed.


Says more about YOUR credibility.

{wildly pumps fist in air} Ha! I finally finally got you Harry. The below
posting will bring you to your knees. You will then finally admit to all on
"wrecked.boats" that you were wrong. Say it... Say it.... "Okay, okay, I'm
sorry, I was wrong. You were right." HA HA HA HA!!!!!! {pumps fist in air
again and hollers "YES"!}

Butch Ammon

============cut 'n pasted off another internet forum=============
At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the

bull**** snipped


Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul,
Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent
Presidential election:

More bull**** snipped

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was
mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's
territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and
living off government welfare..."

Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and "complacency"
phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the
nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.


Professor Olson never said any of this.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp


Butch is a nice guy, but he is easily misled.

You'll be crying next november...your dumb boy bush is going to lose.


Maybe not. Kerry will be viewed as the piece of scum that he really is.
Edwards then will pull ahead and take the nomination. Then it will be a tight
race for POTUS. Bush will win in even a more tighter race than Bush/Gore ever
had. 4 more years of Bush, which will set the stage for Hil-LIAR-y in 2008.

Remember the bet I that made? If Bush loses, we meet up somewhere and I will
buy you lunch or dinner at your choice of restaurants. If Bush wins, you take
me to lunch or dinner at my choice of restaurant. ....Deal?

Butch Ammon

On 19 Feb 2004 01:17:03 GMT, 123 (Butch Ammon) wrote:

Bush will win in even a more tighter race than Bush/Gore ever
had.

How much tighter can it get than Gore winning the vote and Bush being
appointed by the supreme court? Are you thinking BuschCo will just
cancel the elections?

bb

"bb" wrote in message


How much tighter can it get than Gore winning the vote and Bush being
appointed by the supreme court?

This is getting tiresome, like fourth-graders whining "...no fair!!. Will
you people PLEASE read the Constitution? Gore lost 20 of the votes that
mattered, and Bush won 30. You keep citing as your basis a national
aggregate total that always has been, still is, and properly ought to be
irrelevant in the Presidential election.

Please post a copy of the USSC document detailing the "appointment" of the
President.

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 09:25:26 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


Please post a copy of the USSC document detailing the "appointment" of the
President.

I'm not alone in the opinion that the Supreme Court "short-circuited" the
process.

http://www.lightparty.com/Misc/NoneD...ItTreason.html

http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2000/...on_sup_ct.html

John Gaquin wrote:

"bb" wrote in message


How much tighter can it get than Gore winning the vote and Bush being
appointed by the supreme court?

This is getting tiresome, like fourth-graders whining "...no fair!!. Will
you people PLEASE read the Constitution? Gore lost 20 of the votes that
mattered, and Bush won 30.


It has nothing to do with the Constitution. What happened is that Bush
and his operatives *stole* the Florida electoral votes, and the
Republican dominated Supreme Court rubber-stamped the theft.


Please post a copy of the USSC document detailing the "appointment" of the
President.



Dubya was annointed by the Supreme Court.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"bb" wrote in message


How much tighter can it get than Gore winning the vote and Bush being
appointed by the supreme court?

This is getting tiresome, like fourth-graders whining "...no fair!!.
Will
you people PLEASE read the Constitution? Gore lost 20 of the votes that
mattered, and Bush won 30.


It has nothing to do with the Constitution. What happened is that Bush
and his operatives *stole* the Florida electoral votes, and the
Republican dominated Supreme Court rubber-stamped the theft.

Again, the Supreme Court just said that you can't change the rules on
counting votes after the votes have been cast. This is a foreign concept to
you Democrats but it is the law.

Please post a copy of the USSC document detailing the "appointment" of
the
President.



Dubya was annointed by the Supreme Court.

Actually it was the Constitution of the United States of America. The
operative word in the previous sentence is "States". This country is
comprised of 50 states.

Bert

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...

Will you people PLEASE read the Constitution?

Then perhaps, some US history would be in order.

I swear, some folks never-ending crybabying, almost four years after
the fact, is nearly as amusing as their shocking ignorance of US
history which they so proudly display for all to see, here on
rec.boat.

1876 Rutherford B Hayes 185 Elec. vote - 4,033,768 pop. vote.
Samuel Tilden 184 Elec. vote - 4,285,992 pop. vote.

1888 Benjamin Harrison 233 Elec. vote - 5,440,216 pop. vote.
Grover Cleveland 168 Elec. vote - 5,538,233 pop. vote.

Some other rather famous "minority presidents" (who were elected with
less than 50% of the popular vote) were Abraham Lincoln (1860),
Woodrow Wilson (1912 & 1916), Harry Trumam (1948), John F. Kennedy
(1960), Richard Nixon (1968) and, lo and behold, their "hero" William
Jefferson Clinton Bythe (1992).

Suck on that one, all of you never-ending crybabies.
--
SJM

Scott McFadden wrote:
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...

Will you people PLEASE read the Constitution?

Then perhaps, some US history would be in order.

I swear, some folks never-ending crybabying, almost four years after
the fact, is nearly as amusing as their shocking ignorance of US
history which they so proudly display for all to see, here on
rec.boat.


The issue is not the electoral college, per se, but the stealing of the
election by BushCrap operatives in Florida, and the affirmation of that
theft by the KonservativeKrapKourt.

thunder wrote:

I'm not alone in the opinion that the Supreme Court "short-circuited" the
process.

Nope. Anybody that looks at the facts will conclude that the Supremes acted in a partisan fashion and
probably illegally.

Scott McFadden wrote:

I swear, some folks never-ending crybabying, almost four years after
the fact, is nearly as amusing as their shocking ignorance of US
history which they so proudly display for all to see, here on
rec.boat.

What's shocking is that you miss the point. Repeatedly. And you so proudly display your obtuseness etc
etc.

The point is not that Bush was not elected by a majority vote (since that's not the way the President is
elected anyway). The point is that the Supreme Court interfered with the election on blatantly partisan
grounds.

Of course, to many people, cheating isn't wrong if your chosen side wins.

DSK