George W. Bush illegally stole to 2000 election.

"I have laid down the facts that obviously prove that GWB didn't win." You haven't proved even one fact yet, and everyone is going to see that. "What is completley circumstantial. How is there no reasonable tie? Katherine Harris of FLORIDA, the state governed by GWB's cousin, sends out a memo saying to count ballots whether they are legal or not? How about when asked for the computer to be searched, she agreed but first her "Tech Specialist" had to check it for some bugs." We would all like to see this memo. You've mentioned it a few times but we are all still wondering where the elusive memo is. Try and remember that this went to a Congressional hearing. We aren't talking about a little tribunal where a couple of hokey people got together in the swamp. This case went to both the Supreme Court of the US and Florida. There was a gigantic lawsuit. Nor Bush or his circle ever indicted on any charge of tampering. Surely if this memo that you speak was so condemning it would have... well... condemned him. And since the man has been in the White House for just shy of 8 years, it is evident that no misconduct has ever been determined. You therefore are grasping at straws. "I realize that. You just made an error and I corrected you." No, you didn't. You seemed to think that the popular vote was all that was needed. It isn't. I had to clarify for you. "Again, you made an error, I corrected you." Sure about that? Let's look at my second post: "While Gore won the popular vote by a narrow margin of about 500 votes, he still lost the electoral college." If you are referring to the 500 votes, I was very obviously referring to Florida, not the US total. Here, look at the numbers again: http://www.fec.gov... The difference comes out to 537 votes. But as I said, it does not matter, because what they were both trying to do was win delegates. So, no, you didn't correct ANYTHING. And we are still waiting for you to present actual evidence that Bush stole the election. "I don't understand where you are going with that." It sounded as if you were implicating that the Supreme Court was suppressing evidence for Bush. "Source please. I just want to read up more on that." Certainly. (emboldened letters mine) "If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be CONCLUSIVE, and shall govern in the COUNTING of the ELECTORAL VOTES as provided in the CONSTITUTION, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned." Source: http://www4.law.cornell.edu... "What do you think that I've been doing?" Making baseless and unfounded assertions. "Seems that you don't know what a liberal is. Check out every president we've gone to war under and every president who got us out of war. Seeing the comparissons.?" ... I just posted that for you. And what it showed is that Republican presidents have gone to war more than liberal one's. Now I definitely have strong suspicions that you don't know what the word "liberal" means. http://dictionary.reference.com... "Clinton (D): Somalia, Haiti" - You forgot Iraq on this one." No, I didn't. Bill Clinton has NEVER gone to war with Iraq. Never.... Ever.... Bush Sr and Bush Jr did. Clinton, as in Hillary and not Bill, voted for the war in Iraq and then retracted. "Are you insane? Does American students held as prisoners held for 444 days ring a bell?" Yeah it does, except that nothing militarily was accomplished. I hardly would call that a "war" since it was negotiated through diplomacy and not violence. "Interesting enough, but proving my point not yours, correct?" Not in the slightest. I can pretty much guarantee that Democrats on this forum would take great offense at being called "war-mongerers." "My opponent fails to remember 1, the majority of people believe OJ was guilty, which should be a little hint for all of you" This is 1. Completely immaterial to the subject, and 2. Is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to consensus. "all he has done is deny what I say by claiming it makes no sense." I've never said this. All I have done is asked for you to, you know, give some kind of evidence. You argument thus far is: 1. Katherine Harris is a Republican from Florida a. You allege she sent out a memo but have provided no details to corroborate it. 2. Jeb Bush is the governor of Florida and GWB's brother. b. Presumably that means that he has the power to tamper with official ballots, but you have 0 evidence supporting it. That, in a nutshell, is your entire argument. Forgive me if I'm not moved by it. "Well I completley proved that Harris was one of the conspirators involved in stealing the election for GWB." I would like for you to tell me what "proof" constitutes in your world.