A Joke And What It Reveals

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

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.

===================================
Why don't you tell us what evidence there is of sasquatch? At most, there is one grainy ten-second shot of what could be a guy in an apesuit.

Got a photo of even less quality for the supressed voters?

Ther are supposed to be tens of thousands and they are all better at hideing than bigfoot , at least for Sasquatch there is one photo.

[Plane]

Again you're speculating.  You don't really know WHAT Gore went to court with, that is PURE speculation.

You should look up speculation , yo0u are speculateing and I am not.

Gore went to court, he brought with him the evidence he had.

You are accuseing Gore of Cowardace , incompetance as a lawyer himself , and you are accuseing his leagal team of gross incompetance .

(I have never been as hard on Gore as you are being , and I don't even like him much.)

And all based on your speulation that he must have been in fear of assination .

Must I remind you that Gore had the same Secret Service Men around him he had had for eight years or more , and that he was a member of the party in power , how cowardly do you really think Gore was?

If "Vanity Fair " proclaims Sasquatch real I will still want to see the evidence, if "Vanity Fair " declairs the moon landings a fraud I will want to know how the evidence I have seen is refuted . The accusation of vote supression is rediculous reguardless that there are a lot of true beleivers who have low standards of proof.

[Plane]

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.

WHO on earth is better motivated to find and display these "proofs" than Al Gore?

Al Gore in fact did gather all of the proofs he could and went to court, he did not include the "Vanity Fair " proofs because they were useless in court .

What makes a fact useless in court other than that it is unproveable , perhaps not a fact at all.

Let me tell you right now that in Qubec the police are stopping people in Anglo neighborhoods and harassing them if they don't speak French, I just made that up , but could you prove to me it isn't so?

The voter Fraud that you beleive proved so well are just unsupported statements , they are disproved as well as any such statement can be disproved by the absense of the nessacery consequence to the truth of the statement.

The Florida State Patroll has not a few Democrats included also not a few black individual officers , could you expect to use this entity for voter supression and never produce a witness ?

All of the districts in which problems occured are run by Democratic comissions , who paradoxicly are supposed to have been working against their own party.

The Florida Supreme court was about to allow Gore to recount only in districts he would choose, this is supposed to be a good idea ?It isn't the law and Bush was forced to go to the Supreme Court US or just watch Gore pick out votes selecting them out from whole. Please don't tell me after this that Gore wanted every vote counted .

I think Gore is a liar and a cheat , but you think him a craven coward , which of us is being hard on him?

[sirs]

Why don't you tell us what evidence there is of sasquatch? At most, there is one grainy ten-second shot of what could be a guy in an apesuit.

Got a photo of even less quality for the supressed voters?  Ther are supposed to be tens of thousands and they are all better at hideing than bigfoot , at least for Sasquatch there is one photo.

LOL....touche', Plane     

[Michael Tee]

<<Got a photo of even less quality for the supressed voters?

<<Ther are supposed to be tens of thousands and they are all better at hideing than bigfoot , at least for Sasquatch there is one photo.>>

If three investigative reporters write up that it happened, it probably happened unless they're all frauds and have been revealed as such, the way Judith Miller or Jayson Blair were.  So far nobody's accused them of faking anything.

Magazines usually insist on the reporters producing their sources - - original notes of interviews, with names, dates, places, original tapes of the interviews, all given to fact-checkers, then the reporters are interviewed by the fact-checkers and then the researchers research for factual errors or impossibilities. 

Given the ludicrous factual errors that creep into posts in this group, my own included, I would take the word of Vanity Fair's article over the word of any poster in this group, yourself included.  Your facts aren't checked, theirs are rigorously checked.

You have nothing but pure speculation and ridicule to counter the facts of the Vanity Fair article.  Hands down, you lose.

[sirs]

Tee's in the ritualistic habit of confusing accusations with actual evidence of misconduct/illegal activity.  In other words, the evidence here would be in the actual "pictures of sasquatch", not on Vanity's Fair say they saw it

[Michael Tee]

sirs of course is in the habit of denying circumstantial evidence, when the criminal activity is meant to be clandestine and no real evidence exists.  The bulk of the case for the stolen election is circumstantial evidence, and it's very well documented in the Vanity Fair article.  I don't intend to re-hash it, we've all been through that way too many times, but only will point out: circumstantial evidence is all too often the ONLY evidence that exists of a crime having been committed, particularly if the crime is premeditated and evidence deliberately covered up or destroyed.  It's harder to make a case on circumstantial evidence but it is done all the time, every day or every week.

So when the circumstances add up to election fraud (and read the Vanity Fair article yourselves to see if they do or they don't) then the verdict must be election fraud.  Don't be fooled by the phony argument that circustantial evidence is no evidence at all.  It's powerful and it's sometimes the only evidence there's gonna be, especially if the crooks are smart and have smart lawyers backing them up.

[sirs]

Yea, that Gore, such a dunce & idiot, and not 1 smart laywer within the entire democrat party to pull out the fiction from the non-fiction.  So sad

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yea, that Gore, such a dunce & idiot, and not 1 smart laywer within the entire democrat party to pull out the fiction from the non-fiction.  So sad


Are you devising a plan for snagging your own Nobel Prize?

[sirs]

No, too busy trying to rehab patients vs a politician rehabing one's apparent idiocy.  Why do you ask?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Sorry, didn't know you were into "rehapping".

[sirs]

Oooo, the spelling nazi strikes again

[Xavier_Onassis]

I figured that if it was your career you might know how to spell it better than I.  Sorry.

[sirs]

Good think it's knot part of my carer to look over other peeple's showlders and criticise any speling or gramatical eror, while throuing a hissy fit when it's dun to himself