🚀 go-pugleaf

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:z1MOb.58325$A45.8958@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:100mc32s12l6e3f@corp.supernews.com...
> > --
> >
> > "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:_jEOb.58217$eL3.29960@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > > news:100lqh9ce2sa579@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:hYpOb.9823$Dv2.2915@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:100jvja4ko3vudf@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bush went to court to stop ILLEGAL PARTIAL recounts. It was
Bush
> > who
> > > > > > argued
> > > > > > > that the recount should be of all ballots statewide, it was
Gore
> > who
> > > > > > argued
> > > > > > > that all ballots need NOT be counted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Revisionism, pure and simple.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is called truth. I notice that you have backed up your
argument.
> > > >
> > > > No, it's not truth, it's revisionism.  And that fact has been backed
> up
> > > many
> > > > times in this forum.  You want a reference?  Start with:
> > > > http://www.consortiumnews.com/
> > >
> > > Everything that I have posted is backed up with links. If they are
> wrong,
> > > then post the appropriate links to prove otherwise.
> > >
> > Obviously you've 1) not followed up my link
> > (http://www.consortiumnews.com/), and 2) persist in framing the issue
> > inappropriately.
>
> I have correctly responded to you accusation. Your quote:
>
>  "Baloney.  Bush was first to go to court to block any and all counts."
>
> The fact is the court record supports my contention that 1) Gore never
filed
> the paperwork to get a full recount.

How does that negate my statement that "Bush was first to go to court to
block any and all counts"?


>2) Florida Code requires that a contest
> of the election to include all ballots, statewide.

No it does not.  Even if it did, how does that negate my statement that How
does that negate my statement that "Bush was first to go to court to block
any and all counts"?

> 3) That Bush did NOT
> stop, or try to stop any legal statewide recount that included all
ballots.

Bullshit.  When the Florida Supreme court ordered a recount, Bush appealed
to the USSC.

> 4) Bush did try to stop illegal partial recounts.

"Illegal recounts"?!   Repuglican spin - not fact.

> 5) The Bush Campaign was
> on record in the Florida Supreme Court saying the Florida Code required
the
> court to include all ballots in a manual.

Your phrasing is interesting - and a complete lie.  Bush was never that
high-minded.

> 6) Gore was on record with both
> the Florida Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States
saying
> the he had not, and was not required to have all ballots recounted.

Regardless of what was argued, the fact is that the SCOTUS said the votes
should be counted, and then did not allow time for that to happen.
Regardless of what was argued before the SCOTUS, better legal minds than you
or me said their ruling made no sense.

>
> I have given quotes to prove all of these facts to be true. Please feel
free
> to try to refute them.
>
You've still not shown how anything you've posted would negate my statement
that "Bush was first to go to court to block any and all counts".