In article <1g6notg.4x2y6fmrnm4gN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3>,
usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3 (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
hwhit <soupert@stil.com> wrote:
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6ndls.17y9eum134oafsN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
hwhit <soupert@stil.com> wrote:
[..]
easy. bush won because myopic, idealistic [supreme court] voters,
after absorbing [bush senior's] [undue influence] gave bush the
election. :)
I've corrected your statement. You can thank me later.
you can whinge about the scotus decision all you want. the REALITY is
that it may or may not have been a bad or good decision. that is a
question for legal scholars that will be debated ad infinitum. but, the
scotus wouldn't even have had to have ruled if myopic idealistic NADER
voters had voted tactically instead of having their heads up their
collective okoles.
they LOST gore the election. period. he would have trounced bush if they
had the brains to vote for a REAL candidate.
Whit, I *do* appear to have gotten under your skin. All this lashing
out... What can I have done to elicit this response from you?
Considering how you've yet to address the more salient point that your
vote for Nader was in effect a de facto vote for Bush, I'd have to say
that it is Whit who has "gotten" under *your* skin, Paul.
BTW, why is it whenever a Librul brings up the SCOTUS decision they
neglect to mention that it was the Gore camp who brought the case before
the SCOTUS?
Also... Why is the charge that Bush Sr. exerted "undue influence" over
the SCOTUS never followed up with proof of this "undue influence?"
Seriously... I've seen this charge made on numerous occasions, but I've
yet to read anything to support the charge.
--
-
Emmi H.
.
