Re: "Both CJ and I have a strong understanding of the English language and both of us are encountering difficulty understanding your POV. You might consider that you are the problem, not us."
You might have trouble understanding my point of view, but when you quote me noting that unfair unconstitutional recounts were asked for by Gore, and then you say I've said that simply asking for a recount is illegal (as opposed to asking for unfiar/unconstitutional recounts DOYOUSEEYET?), you are definitely having trouble with your comprehension. It's as if you can't get it through your head that the Supreme Court DID rule 7-2 that the recounting Gore asked for and the FSC approved, was not allowable under the constitution. They did. Look it up. Step out of your limited soupy site existence.
Now, in your reply you laughlingly proceed to tell me much of what I've already told you about the 5-4 ruling, pretending I've not noted already what you suggest I need to take a look at. Frankly, what an ass and a rotten conversationalist you are, for that. "Suggest" away, dude. LOL.
For gods sake, I TOLD you you needed to concentrate on the 5-4 part of the decision if you wanted to make your argument. You guys kept using my OFT noted 7-2 vote in supposedly making your case. Now you come around as if you are telling us something new I didn't lead you to. LOL...sigh.
Well, you've certainly learned to concentrate on the dissent in the 5-4 decision as I suggested would be wise for you, but you sure as hell have nothing to say at all about the 7-2 decision which I brought up in the first place.
Imagine, all this squawking from ya'll over my statement, and ya'll haven't presented one single half witted argument that would indicate the Supreme Court was wrong to rule 7-2 against, as they did, on the matter of the manner in which the FSC had planned to have votes counted, i.e. ala Gore's request.
Dan B. |
