Sad but true
-
Your basic argument is the Democrats wanted to change the rules. I see no evidence of that. Also, you seem to be mixing up the newspaper consortium and the Democrats. Not related. Take a look at Bush v. Gore. The Supreme court was not did not intervene because Democrats wanted to change the rules. You are wrong.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
Your basic argument is the Democrats wanted to change the rules. I see no evidence of that.
Then you have a short memory. Or maybe you're just young and buy into the propaganda.
dennisd45 wrote:
Also, you seem to be mixing up the newspaper consortium and the Democrats. Not related.
What's the difference? I'm referring to the Democrats and the fact that every subsquent legal election actually showed Bush the winner. Your link illustrated a focus on illegal recounts.
dennisd45 wrote:
Take a look at Bush v. Gore. The Supreme court was not did not intervene because Democrats wanted to change the rules. You are wrong.
Wrong. Read the decision[^] yourself and see how it repeatedly refers to Gore's attempt to include "illegal votes" as the basis for the decision.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Your basic argument is the Democrats wanted to change the rules. I see no evidence of that.
Then you have a short memory. Or maybe you're just young and buy into the propaganda.
dennisd45 wrote:
Also, you seem to be mixing up the newspaper consortium and the Democrats. Not related.
What's the difference? I'm referring to the Democrats and the fact that every subsquent legal election actually showed Bush the winner. Your link illustrated a focus on illegal recounts.
dennisd45 wrote:
Take a look at Bush v. Gore. The Supreme court was not did not intervene because Democrats wanted to change the rules. You are wrong.
Wrong. Read the decision[^] yourself and see how it repeatedly refers to Gore's attempt to include "illegal votes" as the basis for the decision.
espeir wrote:
dennisd45 wrote: Your basic argument is the Democrats wanted to change the rules. I see no evidence of that. Then you have a short memory. Or maybe you're just young and buy into the propaganda.
So, you refuse to support your assertion.
espeir wrote:
dennisd45 wrote: Also, you seem to be mixing up the newspaper consortium and the Democrats. Not related. What's the difference?
Pathetic. You haven't even bothered to see what newspapers were involved, or how they did the recount.
espeir wrote:
every subsquent legal election actually showed Bush the winner.
There were additional 2000 presidential elections?
espeir wrote:
dennisd45 wrote: Take a look at Bush v. Gore. The Supreme court was not did not intervene because Democrats wanted to change the rules. You are wrong. Wrong. Read the decision[^] yourself and see how it repeatedly refers to Gore's attempt to include "illegal votes" as the basis for the decision.
I did a search on the word "illegal" and it appears once, as part of a Florida statute. The Supreme court was not addressing the issue of Democrats trying to change the rules as you contend. So, I stand by my original statement - the Supreme court aborted the election process and gave the presidency to bush.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
espeir wrote:
dennisd45 wrote: Your basic argument is the Democrats wanted to change the rules. I see no evidence of that. Then you have a short memory. Or maybe you're just young and buy into the propaganda.
So, you refuse to support your assertion.
espeir wrote:
dennisd45 wrote: Also, you seem to be mixing up the newspaper consortium and the Democrats. Not related. What's the difference?
Pathetic. You haven't even bothered to see what newspapers were involved, or how they did the recount.
espeir wrote:
every subsquent legal election actually showed Bush the winner.
There were additional 2000 presidential elections?
espeir wrote:
dennisd45 wrote: Take a look at Bush v. Gore. The Supreme court was not did not intervene because Democrats wanted to change the rules. You are wrong. Wrong. Read the decision[^] yourself and see how it repeatedly refers to Gore's attempt to include "illegal votes" as the basis for the decision.
I did a search on the word "illegal" and it appears once, as part of a Florida statute. The Supreme court was not addressing the issue of Democrats trying to change the rules as you contend. So, I stand by my original statement - the Supreme court aborted the election process and gave the presidency to bush.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
So, you refuse to support your assertion.
What, and find 6 year old news articles? How old are you? Can't you directly remember what went on?
dennisd45 wrote:
Pathetic. You haven't even bothered to see what newspapers were involved, or how they did the recount.
The link you provided stated that the recounts they used were not legal.
dennisd45 wrote:
I did a search on the word "illegal" and it appears once, as part of a Florida statute. The Supreme court was not addressing the issue of Democrats trying to change the rules as you contend. So, I stand by my original statement - the Supreme court aborted the election process and gave the presidency to bush.
So then you refuse to actually read the decision? The election was certified, the Democrats tried to steal the election by including illegal votes (which, at the time was impossible to discern) and the Supreme Court prevented it. It's all right there in the decision. Read it, or quit your yapping.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
So, you refuse to support your assertion.
What, and find 6 year old news articles? How old are you? Can't you directly remember what went on?
dennisd45 wrote:
Pathetic. You haven't even bothered to see what newspapers were involved, or how they did the recount.
The link you provided stated that the recounts they used were not legal.
dennisd45 wrote:
I did a search on the word "illegal" and it appears once, as part of a Florida statute. The Supreme court was not addressing the issue of Democrats trying to change the rules as you contend. So, I stand by my original statement - the Supreme court aborted the election process and gave the presidency to bush.
So then you refuse to actually read the decision? The election was certified, the Democrats tried to steal the election by including illegal votes (which, at the time was impossible to discern) and the Supreme Court prevented it. It's all right there in the decision. Read it, or quit your yapping.
espeir wrote:
Can't you directly remember what went on?
I remember went on - Bush was so afraid that he might not win that he had the Supreme court give him the presidency rather that let the voters decide.
espeir wrote:
The link you provided stated that the recounts they used were not legal.
It does no such thing.
espeir wrote:
the Democrats tried to steal the election by including illegal votes
False. I stand by by original statements: 1. The newspaper consortium found that in 6 of the 9 recount scenarios Gore would have won. 2. The Supreme court aborted the election process and gave the presidency to bush.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
espeir wrote:
Can't you directly remember what went on?
I remember went on - Bush was so afraid that he might not win that he had the Supreme court give him the presidency rather that let the voters decide.
espeir wrote:
The link you provided stated that the recounts they used were not legal.
It does no such thing.
espeir wrote:
the Democrats tried to steal the election by including illegal votes
False. I stand by by original statements: 1. The newspaper consortium found that in 6 of the 9 recount scenarios Gore would have won. 2. The Supreme court aborted the election process and gave the presidency to bush.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
dennisd45 wrote:
I remember went on - Bush was so afraid that he might not win that he had the Supreme court give him the presidency rather that let the voters decide.
How old are you?
dennisd45 wrote:
It does no such thing.
It says that used "six different standards for what constituted a vote". There is only one legal standard. Therefore the recount methods they used would be illegal if actually used. All the legal recounts showed Bush won.
dennisd45 wrote:
False
Yes they did. Read the supreme court decision. Democrats are slimy people and liars.
-
dennisd45 wrote:
I remember went on - Bush was so afraid that he might not win that he had the Supreme court give him the presidency rather that let the voters decide.
How old are you?
dennisd45 wrote:
It does no such thing.
It says that used "six different standards for what constituted a vote". There is only one legal standard. Therefore the recount methods they used would be illegal if actually used. All the legal recounts showed Bush won.
dennisd45 wrote:
False
Yes they did. Read the supreme court decision. Democrats are slimy people and liars.
espeir wrote:
It says that used "six different standards for what constituted a vote". There is only one legal standard. Therefore the recount methods they used would be illegal if actually used. All the legal recounts showed Bush won.
What standard would that be? You said yourself that it is done at the county level - different counties, different standards. In fact, one of the scenarios in which Gore would have won was were the recount was done on each county using that counties standard. Nothing "illegal".
espeir wrote:
Yes they did. .
The decision does not say this: "Democrats tried to steal the election by including illegal votes" Here, from the Supreme court decision is why they took the case: The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. As you will note it is a question of what the Florida Supreme court did, not what the Democrats did. I guess you didn't actually read the decision.
espeir wrote:
Democrats are slimy people and liars.
HO Hum:rolleyes: -- modified at 22:37 Tuesday 29th August, 2006
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison