On 28 Aug 2004 00:23:29 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>There you go again, making unsubstantiated assertions.

You are the one that said Bush was lot legally elected
> I'm asking
>YOU to provide the research.
And you want me to verify (or not) what you said. I feel that is your
place to prove your statements.

> I have done this in the past and every
>time you've either skirted the issue of gone silent on me. Why?
>Don't you have the nuts to own up to the fact that you have no
>evidence to disprove this hypothesis of mine?

Is it not your place to prove your hypothesis.
And yes you have asked me to prove your statements in the past.
>
>I know what my conclusions are based on many years of reading and
>actually *thinking* about what I read, the "left" as well as the
>"right", and I this is my conclusion.

Of which you have no proof.

>Not very convincing, Panbo...not very convincing at all.

Michel you made the statement. Your the one to convince others of the
truth of your comments.
>
>> There were three recounts by the media, after Bush became
>> President. All found that Bush had won in Florida by about 500
>> votes. This has been reported numerous times.
>
>But those had no impact on his becoming president.

No they are just proof of the count.

>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_2000
>
> The results were not confirmed and
Yes they were, read the site that you provided. The vote under the
count method, favored by Gore, show Bush to have more votes.

>
>I get a kick out of such total disingenuity...:-)

Then you must enjoy reading your own post. :-)

Pan Ohco