<<Gore first went to court , there is no reason to think he feared assination when he went to the court . . . >>
Of course not. Assassination is a measure of last resort when the target can't be brought down in any other way. They'd have to be nuts to threaten him as long as the matter was before the courts and when the Supreme Court threw the case to Bush, it was kind of a signal to Gore that he was not going to get anywhere with the law, because he'd ultimately wind up before the same nine judges.
<< . . . and he brought with him a team of lawyers to make the best case he could , we are talking about a big team of Democrats who were on the scene , the really did go to the sites and turn over the rocks , finding nothing that was usefull to them in court.>>
With all due respect to you, plane, you have no idea WHAT they found or what factors were at play in their decisions to bring it up or to let it lie.
<<Your supposition of Gores cowardace is belied by the fact that Gore went to court with all that he had . . . >>
Again you're speculating. You don't really know WHAT Gore went to court with, that is PURE speculation. Neither have you any way of knowing whether Gore had all that there was. You are foolishly making the assumption that whatever dirt there was to be found, Gore's team had found it. I am not sure that Gore even had the phony purges of the voters rolls or the fake "search for fake documents" tactics of the state police before him going into court. Why on earth would you assume that everything the Republicans had taken great care to hide would immediately be found by the Gore team and in time for the case to be argued in the courts? That makes no sense whatsoever.
<< . . . and [Gore] won in the state court, the US Supreme court was appealed to by Bush because the Florida Supreme court was ignoreing the law and attempting to appoint Gore contrary to law.>>
In your own considered legal opinion, that is. Did you ever stop to consider that if Gore won handily in the state court and lost in the Supreme Court by only a narrow 5/4 majority, then the total number of judges who ruled on the case considered the law to be on Gore's side, as it in fact was, and that Gore was robbed of his legitimate victory only by four black-robed prostitutes who voted against their own "conservative" beliefs in letting the states decide their own procedures to hand the stolen victory to Bush?
<<It went up and down the State and federal supreme courts twice with everyone getting exasperated , but to suggest that Gore was holding back even a little is rediculous.>>
I don't know what or if Gore held back during Bush v. Gore. It's not my point that he did, but it's a distinct possibility. Why no Senator could be found to second a Senatorial motion attacking the validity of the election procedures has never been clear to me, and intimidation is one possibility to consider.
<<Lets talk about the Sasquatch , he is basd on stronger evidence than the Vanity fair article , at least with the Sasquatch there are supposed to be a small number of Sasqui so that their hideing is not so hard , the mythical Suppressd Florida voter is supposedly numerous yet still impossible to find.>>
I can fully understand and sympathize with your desire to discuss the Sasquatch, a truly mythical being, as opposed to the hard reality of the election which your party actually and demonstrably stole. You always did seem to be delivering your opinions from a fantasy world of impossibilities and total divorce from reality, and your new-found Sasquatch interest actually comes as no surprise.
<<To my mind it is a sort of meaness that preserves these lies in the face of extremely strong disproof .>>
Well, in the first place, they are definitely not lies and the meanness lies in accusing others of lying, not in someone asserting the truth in the face of heavily partisan, biased and irrational attacks against it. The ad hominem attack not only reflects poorly on you, but it's ineffective and weak, since I've been called so many worse things in this group. In the second place, it's ludicrous to speak as you did of "extremely strong disproof." In actual fact, there is no disproof at all, strong, extremely strong or otherwise.