Markie Mark- I know all about the electoral college, dearie. Thanks anyway.
On 1/6/11, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Tommy, > > The President of the USA is NOT selected by popular vote....not now, not > ever in history. > > Adams, Hayes, Harrison, Bush..... All lost the Popular vote.... Adams lost > by over 10% popular AND 15 electoral college but was LEGALLY elected by > congress. > > Quit whining.... shit happens. > > On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Tommy News <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Keith- >> >> This information is from Political Analysis . org, not from Wiki. >> >> http://political-analysis.org/vfraud/id11.html >> >> First, Gore did in fact win the popular election, he got more votes, >> as I have cited and proved. Therefore, your aseertion that Bush won >> the election is quite false. The Conservative SCOTUS appointed Bush, >> he was not elected. Those are the facts. >> >> There is no "Cherry picking" involved at all. >> >> Here are the statistics again, from the Federal Election Comission. >> Please review them again. >> >> 2000 OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS >> >> Bush 47.87 % Gore 48.38 % >> >> http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm >> >> >> Al Gore won the election. >> >> >> On 1/6/11, Keith In Köln <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Tom, >> > >> > I took the time to peruse your articles from Wiki, (the introduction of >> the >> > Wiki article is not cited). >> > >> > A couple of questions for you: >> > >> > First, let's assume that the recount in Florida would have been allowed >> to >> > have continued. You do understand that the eight news organizations >> > that >> I >> > have cited did in fact determine that President Bush was the winner in >> > Florida, after polling all 66 counties of Florida? That assuming that >> Gore >> > had won in court, he would have lost the election? >> > >> > Second, I refer you to the recent court battle in Minnesota, where >> Senator >> > Frankin prevailed, after what you are suggesting should have taken place >> in >> > Florida, took place in Minnesota. What I reference, is that a >> politically >> > influenced Court, with a politically influenced Supervisor of Elections >> was >> > allowed to cherry pick different precincts, counties and polling >> stations, >> > and in essence, threw the election in Senator Frankin's favor. This is >> not >> > me attempting to sound like sour grapes, it is well documented that the >> > Democratic Party literally stole the senatorial election in Minnesota. >> > This is what you are suggesting that the United States Supreme Court >> should >> > have allowed in Florida, in the 2000 Presidential election. That then >> Vice >> > President Gore should have been allowed to have "cherry picked" certain >> > counties and polling stations, that were predominately Democratic in >> nature, >> > and, using the, "Squeaking wheel gets the most grease" theory, those >> > who >> > cried the loudest, got their votes recounted. >> > >> > Surely, you don't advocate such a policy? That is in essence, what it >> > sounds as if you are calling for here today. Tell me that you are >> > more >> > astute than this!!! >> > >> > KeithInKöln >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Tommy News <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Lil' Keithie Keith- >> >> >> >> No, the Reich wing SCOTUS got it wrong. Bush versus Gore was decided >> >> on political bias rather than on legal grounds. >> >> >> >> Empirical Proof and Documentation: >> >> >> >> Was the Supreme Court’s ruling an example of judicial activism >> >> supporting election fraud? There are numerous cases where the state >> >> courts have supervised recounts, and this should have been another >> >> such case; however, the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the >> >> recount, by overturning the Florida Supreme Court’s holding >> >> authorizing the recount. Given the diffidence the Republican packed >> >> Supreme Court has shown both to federal and state governments and >> >> their courts since November of 1975, political bias is the only >> >> reasonable conclusion in Bush vs. Gore. Moreover a purported conflict >> >> of the 2 statutes (7 day limit for certifying an election result, and >> >> the 6 days to challenge to call for a recount) is easily resolved by >> >> interpreting as conjunctive, namely that the recount law stays the 7 >> >> day limit. The Supreme Court didn’t need to overturn the Florida >> >> Supreme Court holding which stayed the time limit and for Florida made >> >> election recounts unlikely. Bush versus Gore was decided on political >> >> rather than legal grounds. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Even more disconcerting is the fact that politics decides law >> >> enforcement. The criminal violation of election laws and civil rights >> >> were ignored by the attorney generals’ office (state and federal) and >> >> the legislative bodies. The attorney general’s offices were filled >> >> with Republican appointees, and Republicans controlled both federal >> >> and state legislatures. Obviously our country needs an independent >> >> department of the FBI set up just to investigate political crimes. I >> >> would suggest that such a department should be under the supervision >> >> of law professors—jk. >> >> >> >> How the courts handled the election issue >> >> >> >> From www.wikipedia.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a U.S. Supreme Court case heard >> >> on December 11, 2000, which directly influenced the outcome of the >> >> 2000 presidential election. In three separate opinions, seven justices >> >> found that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties >> >> in the State of Florida was to be stopped due to the lack of a >> >> consistent standard; two justices disagreed. A 5-4 majority further >> >> declared in a per curiam opinion that there was insufficient time to >> >> establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's >> >> deadline for certifying electors. >> >> >> >> The decision stopped the statewide recount that was occurring in >> >> Florida and allowed Florida Secretary of State (and Bush's Florida >> >> campaign co-chair) Katherine Harris to certify George W. Bush as the >> >> winner of Florida's electoral votes. Florida's 25 electoral votes gave >> >> Bush a majority of the electoral college with 272 votes and enabled >> >> him to win the Presidency. >> >> >> >> The Presidential election in question took place on November 7, 2000. >> >> Under the Electoral College system, each state conducts its own >> >> popular election for president, and the winner of each state's >> >> election receives a number of "electoral votes." The winner of a >> >> majority of the electoral college is elected President of the United >> >> States. In 2000, 270 electoral votes were required for victory. >> >> >> >> On November 8, 2000, the Florida Division of Elections reported that >> >> Bush had a margin of victory of 1,784 votes.[1] The margin of victory >> >> was less than 0.5% of the votes cast so an automatic machine recount >> >> was issued. The recount resulted in a much smaller margin of victory >> >> for Bush—on November 10, with the machine recount finished in all but >> >> one county, Bush's margin of victory had decreased to 327.[2] >> >> >> >> Florida's election laws[1] allow a candidate to request a county to >> >> conduct a manual recount, and Gore requested manual recounts in four >> >> Florida counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade. The >> >> four counties granted the request and began manual recounts. However, >> >> Florida law also required all counties to certify their election >> >> returns to the Florida Secretary of State within seven days of the >> >> election,[2] and several of the counties conducting manual recounts >> >> did not believe they could meet this deadline. On November 14, the >> >> statutory deadline, the Florida Circuit Court ruled that the 7-day >> >> deadline was mandatory, but that the counties could amend their >> >> returns at a later date. The court also ruled that the Secretary, >> >> after "considering all attendant facts and circumstances," had >> >> discretion to include any late amended returns in the statewide >> >> certification.[3] Prior to the 5pm deadline on November 14, Volusia >> >> county completed its manual recount and certified its results. At 5pm, >> >> Florida's Secretary of State Katherine Harris announced that she was >> >> in receipt of the certified returns from all 67 counties, while Palm >> >> Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties were still conducting manual >> >> recounts.[4] >> >> >> >> Harris issued a set of criteria[3] by which she would determine >> >> whether to allow late filings, and she required any county seeking to >> >> make a late filing to submit to her, by 2 p.m. the following day, a >> >> written statement of the facts and circumstances justifying the late >> >> filing. Four counties submitted statements, and, after reviewing the >> >> submissions, Harris determined that none justified an extension of the >> >> filing deadline. She further announced that after she received the >> >> certified returns of the overseas absentee ballots from each county, >> >> she would certify the results of the presidential election on >> >> Saturday, November 18, 2000.[5] >> >> >> >> On November 16, Gore and Palm Beach filed suit to compel Harris to >> >> accept the amended returns, and on November 17 appealed the case to >> >> the Florida Supreme Court.[4] On November 17, the Florida Supreme >> >> Court issued an injunction preventing Harris from certifying the >> >> election, pending a final ruling of the court. On November 21, the >> >> Florida Supreme Court, in Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v. Harris >> >> (Harris I) ordered Harris to accept the results of any manual recount >> >> certified before November 26 at 5pm. >> >> >> >> On November 22, Bush appealed the Florida Supreme Court's ruling to >> >> the United States Supreme Court. On December 4, the Court rendered its >> >> decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70 >> >> (2000). The Court opinion remanded the case back to the Florida >> >> Supreme Court for a clarification as to whether the basis for their >> >> ruling was the Florida constitution or Florida statutes. The Court was >> >> concerned that if the basis of the ruling was the Florida >> >> constitution, which was not written by the Florida legislature, the >> >> ruling might be unconstitutional under Art. II, § 1, cl. 2 ("Each >> >> state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may >> >> direct, a number of electors . . ."). >> >> >> >> While the Supreme Court appeal was pending, Miami-Dade county canceled >> >> its manual recount on the ground that it could not complete the >> >> recount by November 26.[6] Gore sued to compel Miami-Dade to complete >> >> the recount but lost. On November 26, Harris certified the Florida >> >> Election. She declared Bush the winner of the Florida election with >> >> 2,912,790 votes over Gore, who had 2,912,253—a margin of 537 votes, or >> >> about 0.01%.[7] >> >> >> >> BACKGROUND >> >> >> >> On November 27, Gore filed suit to contest the certified results of >> >> the election. The case was heard by Judge N. Sanders Sauls, who denied >> >> the requested relief on December 4. Gore appealed the case to the >> >> Florida Supreme Court. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court issued >> >> its opinion in Gore v. Harris (Harris II). The court ordered a manual >> >> recount of only undervotes,[5] to be conducted by the Leon County >> >> district court, for ballots from the counties and portion of >> >> Miami-Dade county not subject to the previous manual tally. The court >> >> further ordered that the results of the November manual recount, which >> >> was conducted by the various County canvassing boards, for disputed >> >> ballots in three counties and portions of a fourth county, which would >> >> have presumeably included some overvotes, be included in the final >> >> state tally. Bush appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court on >> >> December 9, and the Court issued a 5-4 injunction stopping the 64 of >> >> 67 county recount pending a final decision. The split on this was the >> >> same as the 5-4 split in the final ruling. >> >> >> >> The oral arguments in Bush v. Gore were brought before the court on >> >> December 11 by lawyers representing both sides. Due to the nature of >> >> the case, the U.S. Supreme Court gave its opinion just 16 hours after >> >> hearing arguments. The Florida Supreme Court provided the requested >> >> clarifications on Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board while the >> >> U.S. Supreme Court was deliberating Bush v. Gore; the two cases were >> >> subsequently combined. >> >> >> >> RELEVANT LAW >> >> >> >> U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 >> >> "No State shall...deny to any person...the equal protection of the >> laws." >> >> >> >> [edit] >> >> >> >> U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2 >> >> "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof >> >> may direct, a Number of Electors...." >> >> >> >> [edit] >> >> >> >> 3 U.S.C. § 5 >> >> "If any State shall have provided...for its final determination >> >> of...the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State...at >> >> least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, >> >> such determination...shall be conclusive." >> >> >> >> THE ISSUES >> >> >> >> The court had to resolve two different questions to fully resolve the >> >> case. >> >> >> >> Who wins on the merits of the case: Bush or Gore? In other words, are >> >> the recounts as they are currently being conducted, constitutional? >> >> If the recounts are unconstitutional, what is the remedy? >> >> The court, especially the majority, had trouble with the timing: they >> >> thought that there was little chance of the recount being finished by >> >> the December 12 safe harbor deadline. >> >> Bush was essentially making two distinct claims: >> >> >> >> [edit] >> >> >> >> Equal Protection Claim >> >> Bush argued that the recounts in Florida violated the Equal Protection >> >> Clause of the 14th Amendment because there was no statewide standard >> >> that each county board could use to determine whether a given ballot >> >> was a legal vote. His argument was that since each county used its own >> >> standard to count each vote, some counties would have more liberal >> >> standards than other counties. Therefore, two voters could have marked >> >> their ballot in an identical manner, but one voter's ballot in one >> >> county would be counted while the other voter's ballot in a different >> >> county would be rejected, due to the varying standards. >> >> >> >> Gore argued that there was indeed a statewide standard, the "intent of >> >> the voter" standard, and that this standard was sufficient under the >> >> Equal Protection Clause. Furthermore, Gore argued that the consequence >> >> of ruling the Florida recount unconstitutional simply because it >> >> treated different voters differently would effectively render every >> >> state election unconstitutional. This is because every state uses >> >> different methods of recording votes in different counties (e.g., >> >> optical scanners, punch-cards, etc.), and that each method has a >> >> different rate of error in counting votes. A voter in a "punch-card" >> >> county has a greater chance of having his vote undercounted than a >> >> voter in an "optical scanner" county. If Bush wins, Gore argued, every >> >> state would have to have one statewide method of recording votes to be >> >> constitutional. >> >> >> >> Seven justices agreed that Bush won on this claim. >> >> >> >> [edit] >> >> >> >> Article II Claim >> >> Bush also argued that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling violated Art. >> >> II, § 1, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires each state to >> >> appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may >> >> direct." Essentially, Bush argued that the Florida Supreme Court's >> >> interpretation of Florida law was so erroneous, that their ruling had >> >> the effect of making new law. Since this "new law" had not been >> >> directed by the Florida legislature, it violated Art. II. Ordinarily, >> >> when a state's highest court interprets state law, that interpretation >> >> is final, and a federal court can't question it. Bush argued, however, >> >> that Art. II gives the federal judiciary the power to interpret state >> >> election law for itself to ensure that the intent of the state >> >> legislature is followed. >> >> >> >> Gore argued that Art. II presupposes judicial review and >> >> interpretation of state statutes, and that the Florida Supreme Court >> >> did nothing more than exercise the routine principles of statutory >> >> construction in order to reach its decision. >> >> >> >> Only three justices, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia and >> >> Justice Thomas, accepted Bush's argument on this issue. >> >> >> >> [edit] >> >> >> >> The remedy >> >> If the current recount were unconstitutional, the State of Florida >> >> would have to fashion the proper remedy. Since oral arguments in the >> >> case occurred on December 11, there was a limited amount of time >> >> available to conduct a recount. By law, the Electoral College was >> >> scheduled to meet and cast their votes on December 18, just seven days >> >> away. A further complication was the fact that 3 U.S.C. § 5 >> >> established a safe harbor for states. A state had to select its >> >> electors at least six days prior to the date the Electoral College >> >> would meet in order to ensure their electoral votes could not be >> >> challenged in Congress. This safe harbor deadline was December 12, the >> >> very next day. It is possible that the recount would have been >> >> finished by this non-binding deadline if the Supreme Court had not >> >> stayed the recount on December 9th. >> >> >> >> Consequently, the court had to address whether to allow the redo of >> >> the recount that would subsequently be submitted by Florida, but miss >> >> the deadline established by 3 U.S.C. § 5; or stop all recounts and go >> >> with the certified results of November 26. >> >> >> >> Five justices decided to stop all recounts. >> >> >> >> Bush was represented before the Court by Theodore B. Olson, a >> >> Washington, D.C. lawyer and future Solicitor General. Gore's oral >> >> argument was delivered by attorney David Boies. >> >> >> >> [edit] >> >> >> >> The decision >> >> A 5–4 majority ruled that the Florida recount was unconstitutional. >> >> The majority opinion, which represented the opinions of five justices, >> >> noted significant problems in the uneven way the votes were being >> >> recounted. It cited, in particular, the use of differing standards; >> >> the combination of full manual recounts for some counties and for >> >> selected precincts within Miami-Dade County with partial recounts for >> >> other counties and for the rest of Miami-Dade; and the perceived >> >> impracticality of the process ordered by the Florida court. >> >> Furthermore, this 5-4 majority ruled that no constitutionally-valid >> >> recount could be completed by the December 12 deadline set in statute, >> >> effectively ending the recounts. The opinion stated that the >> >> state-wide standard ("if the voter's intent is clear, the vote should >> >> be counted") could not guarantee that each county would count the >> >> votes the same way, and held that this violated the Equal Protection >> >> Clause of the United States Constitution. >> >> >> >> The case was steeped in controversy as the majority versus minority >> >> opinion on the remedy was split along the lines of the more >> >> conservative justices voting in favor of Bush and the more liberal >> >> justices voting in favor of Gore. Additionally, part of the reason >> >> recounts could not be completed was due to various stoppages ordered >> >> by the various branches and levels of the judiciary. Opponents argued >> >> that it was improper for the court (by the same 5–4 majority) to grant >> >> an injunction stopping the recounts pending the outcome of the ruling >> >> based on the possibility of "irreparable harm" to "George Bush's >> >> reputation as the legitimate winner." Injunctions for irreparable harm >> >> cannot usually be granted if doing so would do equal or greater harm >> >> to another party (in this case, Al Gore). >> >> >> >> The minority dissents noted some of these issues and others including >> >> the principle of fairness, and the conflicting laws which could be >> >> interpreted as invalidating the December 12 deadline. It appears the >> >> minority would have wished to allow the recount to continue up until >> >> the college of electors were mandated to meet on December 18. The >> >> majority, however, accepted the finding of the Florida Supreme Court >> >> that the Florida legislature intended to obtain the benefits of >> >> federal statute. This included the December 12 deadline. Thus, sending >> >> the case back to the Florida Supreme Court until December 18 could be >> >> not appropriate under Florida statute. ([8] 4th & 5th paragraphs from >> >> end). >> >> >> >> The dissenting opinions were notable for their unusually harsh >> >> treatment of the majority. Justice Stevens' dissent scathingly >> >> concluded: >> >> >> >> What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida >> >> election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the >> >> impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the >> >> critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their >> >> position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by >> >> the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical >> >> appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence >> >> in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the >> >> true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to >> >> that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, >> >> however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete >> >> certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential >> >> election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the >> >> Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule >> >> of law. >> >> >> >> I respectfully dissent. >> >> >> >> The decision was widely criticized for the following sentence in the >> >> majority opinion: >> >> >> >> Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the >> >> problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents >> >> many complexities. >> >> >> >> The court's defenders considered this a reasonable precaution against >> >> the possibility that the decision might be read overbroadly, arguing >> >> that in the short time available it would not be appropriate to >> >> attempt to craft language spelling out in greater detail how to apply >> >> the holding to other cases. Critics, however, interpreted the sentence >> >> as stating that the case did not set precedent in any way and could >> >> not be used to justify any future court decision, and some suggested >> >> that this was evidence the majority realized its holding was >> >> untenable. It was seen by many as a departure from the stare decisis >> >> principle. >> >> >> >> In brief the breakdown of the decisions were: >> >> >> >> The remedy of ceasing all recounts was approved by 5 to 4. (Kennedy, >> >> O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer, Ginsburg, >> >> Souter and Stevens opposed) >> >> The finding that using different standards of counting in different >> >> areas without a single overseer violated equal protection was approved >> >> by 7 to 2. (Breyer, Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Souter and >> >> Thomas in support; Ginsburg and Stevens opposed) >> >> The view that the Florida Supreme Court acted contrary to the intent >> >> of the Florida legislature was rejected by 6 to 3. (Rehnquist, Scalia >> >> and Thomas in support; Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter and >> >> Stevens opposed) >> >> ENDNOTES >> >> >> >> Facts & Circumstances warranting waiver of statutory deadline >> >> >> >> 1. Where there is proof of voter fraud that affects the outcome of >> >> the election. In re Protest of Election Returns, 707 So. 2d 1170, 1172 >> >> (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Broward County Canvassing Bd. v. Hogan, 607 So. 2d >> >> 508, 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). >> >> >> >> 2. Where there has been a substantial noncompliance with statutory >> >> election procedures, and reasonable doubt exists as to whether the >> >> certified results expressed the will of the voters. Beckstrom v. >> >> Volusia County Canvassing Bd., 707 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1998). >> >> >> >> 3. Where election officials have made a good faith effort to comply >> >> with the statutory deadline and are prevented from timely complying >> >> with their duties as a result of an act of God, or extenuating >> >> circumstances beyond their control, by way of example, an electrical >> >> power outage, a malfunction of the transmitting equipment, or a >> >> mechanical malfunction of the voting tabulation system. McDermott v. >> >> Harris, No. 00-2700 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Nov. 14, 2000) >> >> >> >> Facts & circumstances Not Warranting waiver of statutory deadline >> >> >> >> 1. Where there has been substantial compliance with statutory >> >> election procedures and the contested results relate to voter error, >> >> and there exists a reasonable expectation that the certified results >> >> expressed the will of the voters. Beckstrom v. Volusia County >> >> Canvassing Bd., 707 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1998). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2. Where there exists a ballot that may be confusing because of the >> >> alignment and location of the candidates’ names, but is otherwise in >> >> substantial compliance with the election laws. Nelson v. Robinson, 301 >> >> So. 2d 508, 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (“[M]ere confusion does not amount >> >> to an impediment to the voters’ free choice if reasonable time and >> >> study will sort it out.”). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 3. Where there is nothing “more than a mere possibility that the >> >> outcome of the election would have been effected.” Broward County >> >> Canvassing Bd. v. Hogan, 607 So. 2d 508, 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) >> >> >> >> >> >> More: >> >> >> >> http://political-analysis.org/vfraud/id11.html >> >> >> >> >> >> On 1/5/11, Keith In Köln <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > And once again, Tommy forgets that Knight Ridder, Hearst, CBS, and >> five >> >> > other news organizations collectively recounted all 66 Florida >> counties' >> >> > votes. It was conclusive that George Bush won Florida, which was >> >> > the >> >> > determinative State during the 2000 election. Again, Moonbat's >> >> > with >> >> hate, >> >> > lies and smear, who would love to do nothing less than revise >> >> > history. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:59 PM, GregfromBoston >> >> > <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> No, they got it right. State courts have no say in elector >> >> >> selection >> >> >> rules. NONE. Its that friggin simple Tommy. >> >> >> >> >> >> And by the way, the SCOTUS death blow, was 9-0 >> >> >> >> >> >> Cumulative score, 21-6, with all 3 UBER liberal circuit courts in >> >> >> agreement. Gore was never in the ballpark. Had he gone to the >> >> >> legislature, he'd have had standing. He didn't, and didn't. >> >> >> >> >> >> Most learned that lesson. See Article II, Section 1. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 5, 10:36 am, Tommy News <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > The Conservative, biased SCOTUS got it wrong. Gore won the >> election. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Appointing BUSH was a grave and costly mistake. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On 1/4/11, GregfromBoston <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > Al Gore won the election in 2000 >> >> >> > > The truth conservatives COULDN'T spin in 2001 >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > LOL! >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > Damn shame 3 circuit courts, the Constitution and the Supreme >> Court >> >> >> > > think you're wrong. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > Gore sought relief in the wrong room, and got dope slapped. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > Now, maybe he didn't know the state court was irrelevant, but >> that >> >> >> > > would make him the dumbest VPOTUS in history. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > Scary dumb. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > I don't believe that. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > -- >> >> >> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> >> >> > > For options & help seehttp:// >> groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > * Visit our other community >> >> >> > > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ <http://www.politicalforum.com/ >> >< >> >> http://www.politicalforum.com/> >> >> >> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> >> >> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > -- >> >> >> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. >> >> >> > Have a great day, >> >> >> > Tommy- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> > >> >> >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> >> >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> >> >> >> >> * Visit our other community at >> >> >> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ <http://www.politicalforum.com/>< >> >> http://www.politicalforum.com/> >> >> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> >> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> >> > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> > >> >> > * Visit our other community at >> >> > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> >> >> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> >> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. >> >> Have a great day, >> >> Tommy >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> >> >> * Visit our other community at >> >> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> >> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> > >> > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> >> -- >> Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. >> Have a great day, >> Tommy >> >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> > > > > -- > Mark M. Kahle H. > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. Have a great day, Tommy -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
