George W. Bush illegally stole to 2000 election.

"If it was as clear as you allege, then George W. Bush would NOT have been president for eight years. If any misconduct beyond speculation occurred, then GWB would not still be the the president. And if it were so impossible for him to win the first time, how did he win in 2004?" What my opponent fails to realize is that there are allegations that he also stole the 2004 election(1)(2). what he also fails ro realize is that this is a debate about the 2000 election. The 2000 election obviously occured before the 2004 election, so right now, let's just act like the 2004 election doesn't exist. Also, the story on GWB stealing the 2000 election has yet to be fully blown. Nobody has really listened. "The 2000 presidential election was extremely close by all accounts so that, literally, the country was divided in two in popular votes. Each candidate won approximately 48% of the vote. That's very close. So close in fact that every vote counted, including absentee ballots." This is true. This is also the point where things began to get very hairy involing absentee ballots. "What had happened in Florida, aside from their inept balloting system, was that many in the media forgot that Florida is on two time zones, not one. While the majority of Florida runs on Eastern Standard Time (EST), the panhandle, known for its more conservative views, is on Central Standard Time (CST). The media called the election prematurely when all of the votes had not been tallied. The networks were forced to retract the victory for Gore. This perceived abnormality prompted Gore to demand a recount, which they did. While Gore won the popular vote by a narrow margin of about 500 votes, he still lost the electoral college." That is not true. Gore won by a margin of 543,895 votes(3). Also, it came down to adsentee ballots. These are minor details trying to sidetrack everyone from noticing the main idea. Many people will get confused by that because what you are saying is true and makes sense but is unrelated. "A firestorm promptly ensued which called the attention of the United States Supreme Court. What was decided, 7 to 2, was that recounting votes was itself unconstitutional. They thus turned it over to the Florida Supreme Court. A lawsuit incurred in Bush v. Gore. But in the final analysis, Bush was declared." That is true. But doesn't anything seem odd when recounting votes aka democracy, is declared unconstitutional? "If I were in Gore's shoes, I would have done the same thing he did and not ceded defeat, since there is some legitimate basis for suspicion. However, there is nothing, beyond anecdotal evidence and suspicion, to suggest that any misconduct was perpetrated, least of all by GWB himself, which is the premise of your debate." Well I like how you shed some light on the fact that it is greatly possible that he stole the election, which he did. "About the overseas ballots: It is no mystery that the US military has always been more highly in favor of conservative views. And since they are US citizens who are fighting for all US citizens, you're damn right their vote should count. In fact, I was in the military at that time. They attempted to get us ballots but we were operational at that time and my unit could not get our votes in. Regardless, of those that did, why shouldn't their vote count? Why is that a "sob story"?" Two facts, number one is that if by conservative, you mean war-mongers, you're wrong. All war-mongers are supposed to be liberals. Take a look at our history before GWB. Bush has made us forget that the Republicans hate war and that Democrats are for it. Also it is truly a sob story because if you want your damn vote to count, you get it in on time. There are plenty of soldiers who got their vote counted when it was late and there were plenty who didn't. In counties where GWB won, the total for illegal ballots counted was 4 of 5, where Gore won, 2 out of 5(4). "In closing, my opponent made an audacious claim specifically aimed at President Bush. He then should provide unimpeachable evidence that misconduct has occurred in order to win this debate." Why wouldn't it be? He is the one who stole the election no? And also, check out the date on Stupid White MEn by Michael Moore, it was printed in 2001. It was out before 9/11 and before any stupid wars by Bush. This isn't a bias against a war-mongering conservative(oxymoron), it is a bias against a man who stole the election. "As to your sources, I cannot use Michael Moore's movie as a legitimate source because I have not seen the movie. And even supposing that I have, I also don't own it. I therefore cannot reference it since I do not know what specifics it entails." Take the book out of a library, google it, do whatever. Don't dance around the facts. Give me some cold hard facts. No more of these opinionated responses. I'm looking for a debate not a freaking Letter to the Editor. (Just kidding of course) Sources--- (1)http://www.freepress.org... (2)http://www.salon.com... (3)http://en.wikipedia.org... (4)http://archive.democrats.com...