Actually the last elected POTUS is still President of the USA. Just because
the AGore people tried to change the rules after the election, and did not
succeed, does not make Bush appointed.

Yes bill, you are right.. Bush was elected... by a vote of 5 to 4

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

Actually the last elected POTUS is still President of the USA. Just
because
the AGore people tried to change the rules after the election, and did not
succeed, does not make Bush appointed.

wrote in message
link.net...
Yes bill, you are right.. Bush was elected... by a vote of 5 to 4

That's still a plurality...so what's your point?

Wake up Noyb... That was the vote of the US Supreme Court

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

wrote in message
link.net...
Yes bill, you are right.. Bush was elected... by a vote of 5 to 4

That's still a plurality...so what's your point?

wrote in message
link.net...
Wake up Noyb... That was the vote of the US Supreme Court

No kidding. And it's still a plurality.

wrote in message
link.net...
Yes bill, you are right.. Bush was elected... by a vote of 5 to 4

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

Actually the last elected POTUS is still President of the USA. Just
because
the AGore people tried to change the rules after the election, and did
not
succeed, does not make Bush appointed.





And gore lost 4 to 5. and the Daley who learned to steal elections at his
daddy's feet, lost out on theft this time.

On Mon, 17 May 2004 19:15:01 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


Actually the last elected POTUS is still President of the USA. Just
because the AGore people tried to change the rules after the election, and
did not succeed, does not make Bush appointed.

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

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 17 May 2004 19:15:01 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


Actually the last elected POTUS is still President of the USA. Just
because the AGore people tried to change the rules after the election,
and
did not succeed, does not make Bush appointed.

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


So the Charles Manson prosecutor has an opinion. Just not the same as the
majority of the Supreme court. As the court stated, you can not change the
rules in the middle of the election. You would have been happy if the rules
had been changed to give Gore the election? Saying any double votes counted
for the Democrat candidate, and any non-vote also counted for the Democrat?

On Tue, 18 May 2004 05:16:12 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


So the Charles Manson prosecutor has an opinion. Just not the same as the
majority of the Supreme court. As the court stated, you can not change
the rules in the middle of the election. You would have been happy if the
rules had been changed to give Gore the election? Saying any double votes
counted for the Democrat candidate, and any non-vote also counted for the
Democrat?

First, that's not what the Courts stated. Second, while since Iraq, I am
definitely anti-Bush, at the time of the election, I had no strong
feelings for either candidate. In fact, I was more intent on the process
than the outcome. I was quite proud of my country, as it's citizens
struggled to count every vote. Some made jokes about the dimpled or
pregnant chads, but I saw citizens struggling to count every vote knowing
the Presidency of this country depended on in. They were wrong. There
were only nine votes that mattered.

Oh, and Bugliosi isn't the only lawyer of the opinion the Supreme Court
short-circuited the process.

http://www.the-rule-of-law.com/archi...statement.html

Calif Bill wrote:
So the Charles Manson prosecutor has an opinion. Just not the same as the
majority of the Supreme court. As the court stated, you can not change the
rules in the middle of the election.

???

Please show where they said that. There was nothing at all about
changing the rules. The law applied was the "equal protection" clause of
the 14th amendment. Quite frankly I don't see how it makes any sense at all.


... You would have been happy if the rules
had been changed to give Gore the election? Saying any double votes counted
for the Democrat candidate, and any non-vote also counted for the Democrat?

???

Where do you get this? There was no rule changing. There was only an
effort to count all the votes. This effort was thrown out by the Supreme
Court. Is counting the votes "changing the rules?"

DSK