Thank you Micahel Moore for emphasizing this in Fahrenheit 9/11,
to all please read the ROLE OF CONGRESS in the 2000 election dispute:

http://www.c-span.org/questions/week180.asp

What role does Congress play in a contested presidential election? Buffalo, New York - 12/13/00
The U.S. Congress has two roles to perform: (1) to officially count the electoral ballots and announce the results of the Electoral College votes for President and Vice President, and (2) to elect the President and Vice President if the Electoral College fails to do so.

There are other possible roles for Congress in more contentious scenarios. Few historical precedents or clear procedural guidelines exist to guide us today in these areas. Scenarios include:


A Member of the House, together with one Senator, objecting during the electoral count to the validity of the votes of a state's electors based on either (1) a dispute over the credentials of the electors who cast those votes, or based on (2) the electors having been "faithless," meaning they had cast votes for candidates other than the ones to whom they had been pledged when elected.
Congress choosing between two different vote certificates from the same state issued by two competing slates of electors.Congress deciding whether the majority needed to win is calculated on the entire number of electors extant [538], or is calculated on the number of electors duly certified by their states, minus any states from which no electoral ballots had been received.
The Electoral College votes will be counted officially in a joint session of the U.S. Congress, scheduled for January 6, 2001 at 1pm, a date and time established by law unless changed by Congress. The Senate has proposed changing the date to January 5 [S.J.Res. 55] -- but the House must still pass, and the President still sign, the resolution in order for the date to change. The joint session takes place on the House floor. The President of the Senate presides.

The Constitution names the Vice President of the United States as the President of the Senate. So, the current Vice President, Al Gore, would preside over the electoral vote count and would announce the results and declare the next president and vice president. Vice Presidents in the recent past have announced their own victory – George Bush in 1989, and their own defeat -- Richard Nixon in 1961 and Dan Quayle in 1993.

After the ballots are counted and the results announced – if no majority materializes behind one candidate, then pursuant to the Constitution, the House and Senate must "immediately" proceed to an election for president and vice-president, known formally as a "Contingent Election."

In a Contingent Election, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution states "the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President." It further states that the U.S. Senate shall elect the Vice President. Therefore, it is at least theoretically possible for the House to choose a President of one party and the Senate a Vice President from the other.
In the House election for President, the House is instructed by the 12th Amendment to vote state by state, with each state receiving one vote. A majority of the 50 states is needed to elect the President – 26 votes. No direction is given for how each state is to determine its one vote. The Representatives of each state might meet first to take a straw poll within their delegation. In the seven at-large states that have only one Representative [Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North and South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming], the lone Member would make the decision for his/her state.

The House has elected a President twice before in our history. In 1801, the House of Representatives elected Thomas Jefferson, after 36 rounds of balloting. In 1825, it elected John Quincy Adams, after one round of balloting.

In the Senate, the vote is taken member by member, with a majority of 51 votes from among the 100 Senators needed to elect the Vice-President. The Senate has elected a vice president only once before. It elected Richard Mentor Johnson, President Martin Van Buren's running mate, to be Vice President in 1837.

Thanks, GL, for this info. If I read this correctly, though, and if these are the only two contingencies under which the election can be contested in Congress, then perhaps it explains why no Senators signed the objections of the black caucus. In the first contingency, there has to be some problem with the credentials of the electors. I don't believe this was an issue in Florida. In the second contingency, the electors would have had to have cast their votes for a candidate other than the one to whom they were pledged. In this second contingency, it seems there might have been some wiggle room for Gore if only because there was a question as to how many popular votes each candidate received, and therefore, a question as to how many electors would vote for which candidate in the electoral college. But since the SCOTUS put an end to any question of a recount and Katherine Harris put her iron-clad stamp of approval on the numbers that supported Bush, I think it would've been difficult to argue this point in the Congress.

I hope it was something like this that kept even one Senator from signing those objections rather than just that no one supported Gore. But still, I would think it would've been worth trying. You just never know . . .

Sorry Earthmother but you've got it all wrong. For starters this piece fails to point out that it's the Congress and specifically the House of Representatives that settles a disputed Presidential election and NOT the U.S. Supreme Court. The constitution itself makes this very clear. The U.S. Supreme Court had no legal authority to insert itself in 2000. In the case of John Quincy Adams in 1824, Andrew Jackson had won the popular vote but he didn't get enough votes for victory in the electoral college because 4 candidates ran that year and slit the electoral college vote. The election was sent to the House of Representatives as the constitution requires who after much wheeling and dealing by the Adams campaign installed John Quincy Adams against the will of the people. The 2000 election should've also been sent to the House as the constitution requires but the corrupt Rehnquist 5 made sure that didn't happen despite not having the legal authority. Furthermore, the battle in Florida in 2000 was over votes that have never been counted despite the fact that Florida election law clearly required that they be counted. It's the right wing and the pro Bush media who continue to wrongly use the word recount in order to hide the truth about the 2000 election. The failure of the democrats to defend our right to vote and hold the Bush campaign accountable for stealing the 2000 election is one of the great betrayals in the history of our country.

Do you not think I can't ban you if you are a guest? If you continue this, I will contact your ISP or have someone call you.

The choice is yours.

Well, NANCY. It doesn't matter if you call yourself "guest" or you use your screen name of Restoredemocracy, we all know it's you. And once again, you're misreading what I've written and attacking me for no reason. Did I ever say or imply that the SCOTUS had the right to interfere in the election? No. What I said was they put an end to the recount, which they did. I never said they had the right to do that.

I have seen two of your posts here this morning, and both of them have attacked moderators on this board (James and me). Chris is saying he's thinking of banning you again. I whole-heartedly support that decision. You are a menace to this board. :bad:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/election04/parties.htm

If no candidate for president receives a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives must determine the winner from among the top three vote-getters in the electoral college. In doing so, members of the House vote by states, with each state delegation casting one vote.

EVEN IF THE HOUSE WAS REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED, this was state by state and by state delegation with 1 vote for each state, it is FEASIBLE to say that the representatives of this country beginning with the failure of ONE SENATOR COMING FORTH TO START THIS PROCESS, is a true travesty of justice to the American people. They could've put an immediate halt to the theft of this presidency, instead they chose to be "hauntingly silent" in those chambers

Democracy died that day, no wonder nobody is talking about it

-GoreLeadership

Thanks again, GL, for clarifying the process for how the House of Rep. would have (and should have) handled the election of 2000. I agree with you that democracy died that day, but I don't follow the conclusion that it's no wonder nobody's talking about it. Everybody should have been talking about it then, and everybody should still be talking about it now. Look how long the O.J. Simpson trial dominated the media. Now THAT got everyone's attention. But the theft of a presidential election? THAT was just swept under the rug. I think part of the problem was that, since the decision came down from the highest court in the land, there was a sense of awe and fear about the whole thing, a sense of it all being bigger than the average citizen and therefore not something we could fight. I think the average person reacted as if God himself had handed down an eleventh commandment; thou shalt ignore the will of the people and install the idiot from Texas as president.

Your points well taken, when I said no wonder no-one is talking about it- Its something we all would have to admit to- people were not ready to face the fact that we lost something huge then.. Something those died before us and continue to serve to protect- our right to vote and live in freedom etc etc. We calim to attempt spreading DEMOCRACY in the middle east, yet we cannot practivce this in our country?

This quote strikes me profoundly:

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter."

MLK Jr.
as found at www.progressivetrail.org

We should all be writing letters, daily calls and contacting the DNC/DLC etc etc-
Al Gore shall be restored and our nominee for president AGAIN this July!!

PATRIOTS FOR GORE- this will not be considered a bad thing and for those to suggest that this is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE I say that remaining silent and ignoring the past is the worst ccounterproductivity we could be engaged in for our democracy

-GoreLeadership

This is a deep and essential truth. Leave it to MLK. Sounds like something Gore should've said back in 2000.

Do youthink he would've remained silent and settled for less than 100%? when fighting for the injustices and BS toward the minorities of this country.

HELL NO, and we shouldn't settle for anything less than Gore UNTIL after the nomination takes place. So people, please STAND FOR GORE- we must make it noted that we will not go away silently.

-GoreLeadership

Even if a Senator had stood up (which Gore did not support) and the election had gone into the House, Republicans controlled 27 of the 50 state delegations. Democrats only controlled 18. Four states have an equal split and Vermont had an independent. So it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference and would only have helped legitmized Bush.

Wasting time by tilting at windmills and not working for what is the most realistic and best for our country in the future is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to our democracy.

Republican controlled congress.. That is your perspective- as each state would have been given one vote to put forth by the delegation. they would have obviously had to go with the delegate count process and it would've been down to the FLA state issue. It is then the congress could've right the wrong, and I am not sure who was representative there but have we determine without a DOUBT that they would not have casted this vote for Gore?

How would you know that, are you a mind reader? Do you have the inside knowledge? Do you know how things would've played out because you have some sort of "crsytal ball"

The POINT IS, no-one stood up and the POINT IS no-one is standing up again at this convention. I am working to correct this. I may be but ONE person but I sure as hell will not support the pro quo just because everyone else is doing it.. You are caving to pressure and people wonder why our country is in the shape that it finds itself now..

Change doesn't happen because you got the guy out of office in a normal term, unchallenged and people remain silent. Change happens when you stand up and stand for your ground/principles.. Have you checked those lately, you know gut check? America wouldn't be what it is today if it weren't for those type of people.

Perhaps you should reconsider my comments of being bullS*** and take a good hard look at your own actions. Because like I said before, it is the beginning of the end if we remain silent on the things that matter- from MLK Jr.

Just the truth, bulls*** being your words referred to my comments is in FACT a way to bully as "our way or the highway", I am sorry that you feel so determined to put others down to see the possibilties and not necessarily be overcome by the hurdles. Optimism is something we are lacking, perhaps you ought to consider the other party? As you insist we ought to hand it to them anyway, people are not voting Kerry because he excites or enthuses them.. Their mentality for the most part is JUST GET BUSH OUT.. Wow, what a novel idea!

-GoreLeadership

Their mentality for the most part is JUST GET BUSH OUT.. Wow, what a novel idea!

Yes, that also happens to be Al Gore's idea. You may remember when Gore actually endorsed Kerry. So are you saying he caved in? Are you saying he is wrong for endorsing and campaigning for Kerry?

Is it really Al Gore's idea, or just the public perception its Al Gore's idea?
Imagine the difficult position he has been faced with since the spineless
so called leaders became mute in 2000.

He didn't cave in, he faced the ultimate reality of the disfunctioning state of
America in which we have ALLOWED to be silenced and bulldozed over. Time and again we have allowed each and every day to become more increasingly threatening to our basics of life. If dissent doesn't happen, your party is scared spineless and the people are silent- why should GORE RUN?? Think about it please.

Where are they now? GO KERRY!!

GO KERRY!!

GO KERRY!!

Hip Hip Hooray

Not, like I said we are being fed these perceptions from everywhere including
Gore but think about the truth of it all. Wouldn't it be a novel idea to support
the elected president again in 2004? Since when did this become taboo?

-GoreLeadership

Ok, I am not even going to bother replying the same rhetoric. I am not going to say anymore. However, if you or anyone else continues to bash Kerry or demean his candidacy, I will have to ban them. This is a rule of ours. http://s8.invisionfree.com/Al_Gore_Support...?act=boardrules

And, oh yes, I know that is Al's idea. I was there in February when he told us to support the nominee, becuase any of them are better than Bush. I also have heard him endorse Kerry and speak greatly of him.

Not just Rebuplican controled congress but GOP control of 27 state delegations. That's 27 votes for Bush. While the Dems only controled 18. And it's not just turning over one member but many in several states. Now if as you state "they would have obviously had to go with the delegate count process", then Bush won 29 states and Gore won 19 states, not counting Florida so that places Gore even further away from winning. I don't have a crystal ball but I can read a map and do basic math. And in case you haven't been paying attention the last 10 years, the Republicans will go to any lengths to win.
I'm not staying silent for something that matters, because getting Bush out does matter. And wasting time & energy trying to draft a man that doesn't want it and told us to support Kerry will only hurt that goal. Gore himself said that elections should be about the future not the past. We need to look to the future and one with Bush in the White House is not a good one.
And obviously enough people have been enthusiastic about Johy Kerry over the years to send him to the Senate 4 times and to give him the votes to secure him the nomination for the Presidency.
Finally, you accuse of acting as a 'my way or the highway bully' but I'll point out that I'm not the one who told people to go join the other party if you didn't agree with me.

Sorry Earthmother but I think your posts speak for themselves. It's not o.k. for you to post factually inaccurate information which is what you did. I have every right to point out that you got your facts wrong which you did. You were wrong about more than the Supreme Court and I have a right to point that out. In your follow-up post you once again attacked Al Gore. Do you not understand that Al Gore fought alone in 2000 to save our democacy from the Bush coup while the Congressional and national leadership of the democratic party hid in their cushy ivory Wasington towers? They're just as AWOL now in doing nothing to stop Jeb's latest illegal voter purge. The Miami Herald has already identified 2,100 legally registerd Florida voters on this list. Most of these voters are democrats and african americans. Many thanks to Gore Leadership for their eloquent defense of Al Gore and for correctly pointing out that democracy died in 2000. What was Al Gore supposed to do, start a civil war in 2000? I find James Aquilla's defense of the do nothing leadership of the democraic party shameful. Kerry is nothing more than a sacrificial lamb who has no intension of fighting back against the Bush election stealers. I think Al Gore's plan is to goalong with this Kerry chirade so that Kerry gets clobbered and then Al Gore will be able to say to the do nothing dem leadership, "I told you so". In conclusion,based on the comments in this thread, it's clear to me that democracy is truly dead and that telling the truth is now a crime. Chris, I think this forum needs to decide whether or not it can stand hearing the truth and especially in situations where the truth is very painful.

How about you go spread your "news" with people who share your beliefs and actions.

Oh, yes Nancy. You have Gore's motives figured out. He is just putting on a show by supporting and campaigning for Kerry so it will benefit his own political career.

You know what, I am getting tired of this lunacy. Al Gore is not running. He endorsed Kerry. He wants to win in 2004. He is not supporting Kerry to help his own political career. How dare you question Al's intentions. Some of you are giving a new meaning to the "looney left". This is where Hannity and all the other idiots get stuff about the left starting conspiracy theories. Then it reflects on the candidate himself.

You come up with the same crap everytime you post. It always starts out, "Sorry _____________, but you are wrong. I am tired of you posting factually wrong things. You are no supporter. Chris you better make a choice about who should be here. Blah, blah, blah, blah." Please stay out and save us from reading your insults and lies along with your conspiracy theories surrounding Gore.

Seriously, consult a shrink.

Stop picking on EM she is a great Gore supporter and she doesn't look to pick fights with others for no reason.

I'm not defending anybody. I'm stating facts that no one has yet bothered to refute. The problem with people like you is you think you see some hidden truth that eludes the rest of us but all you're really seeing is your own naivete and ignorance.

As badly as Al wants to get Bush out of the White House, maybe there's a part of him that's not so unhappy that Kerry's not a strong candidate? <_<

Where do you get that Kerry is not a strong candidate? He is doing better as a challenger than Reagan did in 1980 or Clinton did in 1992. He is also breaking all kinds of fundraising records. That is republican spin that he is not a strong candidate. I don't know why we just can't accept it that Al is for John Kerry. There is no reading into it. Al does not want him to lose. Al thinks he is a strong candidate. If any of you don't support Kerry fine, but don't bash him and create theories about he and Al.

Take care

Excuse me James but you're the one who continues to post false information in your posts in a desperate effort to prop up the current failed, do nothing, wimp dem party leaderhip. You've never refuted anything I've said because you can't. I only post the facts. Kerry is nothing more than a sacrificial lamb supported by the big business funded DLC who forced out the people's choce, Al Gore. You're really in dreamland if you think Kerry is going to fight back against the Bush election stealers. The DLC forced out Al Gore because they didn't want a candidate who would fight back against the Bush election stealers and speak up for we the people. To date, Al Gore has been the only democrat at the national level to take on Bush and hold him accountable for the disaster he's put our country in. Your response has been to attack me personally in order to cover up the truth. Chris, I've repeatedly asked you to remove me from your e-mail list but you refuse to do so. So long as you insist that I remain on your e-mail list, I have every right to post in this forum and to expose the false statements being posted in this forum. I can't begin to magine the pain that Al Gore feels about the theft of his victory in 2000. That pain is very evident in his post 2000 speeches as he's genuinely very upset about the disasterous course that Bush has put our country on. Al Gore has every right to be very angry with the way the current dem party leadership abandoned him when Bush was stealing the 2000 election in Florida and then refused to support him running for re-election in 2004. The truth will always be that Al Gore is the rightful winner of the 2000 election and he can do whatever he wants. If this is his way of coping with his pain then I say more power to him. It's not my fault you and too many at this forum have a problem with the truth. I think f you want to be a shill for the current dem party leadership then you should chage the name of your forum and quit using Al Gore's name because it's clear that anyome who dares to defend Al Gore against the attacks posted in this forum is going to be attacked of telling the truth. There are times when the truth hurts and this is one of those times.

Furthermore James, had the republican controlled Congress appointed Bush in direct defiance of the clear will of the people, it would've further de-legitimized Bush as was the case in 1824 when the Congress deifed the will of the people and appointed John Quincy Adams. It was in the aftermath of the stolen 1824 election that the DNC was founded and when this dem party leadership rallied behind Andrew Jackson and together they beat the crap out of John Quincy Adams in 1828 for stealing the 1824 election because they understood that democracy would be dead if the will of the people could be so easily thwarted. Sadly, democracy died in 2000 with a similar thwarting of the will of the people combined with the failure of the current dem party leadership to fight back and defend our democratic form of government.

It's not just Republican spin, Chris, unfortunately. Many, many people are underwhelmed by Kerry. I know this first hand. And Gore endorsed Kerry because he would've endorsed whomever ended up as the party nominee. I'm certain of that. He's a team player. He's doing what he thinks is best for the party and for the country. I had my tongue in my cheek when I made that comment in my last post, but there's no smilie guy for that. I believe that Gore wants Bush out in November as badly as he wants just about anything. But I don't believe that he believes that Kerry is the best man for the job. If he did, why did he endorse Dean back in December?

I give Gore enormous credit for being able to, publicly at least, move on. I believe he thinks Kerry is a good man. But that doesn't mean he thinks he's the best candidate, and it doesn't mean that, somewhere in the deep, dark recesses of his brain, he's not wishing that somehow he'll have a chance to run again in 2008. It's a difficult choice for him, I imagine: get Bush out in 2004; have the opportunity to run again in 2008. I believe he really wants Bush out in 2004. I also believe he wouldn't mind having the chance to run again if Kerry loses.

Earthmother, I agree 100% with your entire post, except the part of Kerry being a bad candidate. That is the same spin they did to Gore last time and you see he won the most votes of any dem in history. Again, Kerry is doing better against the sitting president as Reagan and Clinton were doing in their campaigns. He is also raising the same amount of money as Bush is, which is unheard of in the Democratic Party.

Other than that, I agree with you on every point. In our press release the statement Gore made said he didn't support John Kerry. Neither did President Clinton or President Carter. He went out there and earned it the hard way. However, he has united behind him now, and that is what I want us to do in support of Al. Not to continue to support something that in my opinion can only bring bad vibes to Al and possibly hurt John Kerry, in which it could be blamed on Al. I don't want that to happen. That is why I sent out that release. I have gotten a very good response from it too. I have gotten emails saying they are hardcore Gore and wish he was running, but they really, really want Bush out.

But we are a family, and families stick together through thich and thin!

I've missed something, Chris. What press release? Guess I need to check the home page. I've just been busy playing catch-up with the replies in my mailbox. No time now. It's nearly 3 a.m.! :o And what are you doing up at this hour? Tsk tsk. Tomorrow morning, dude. Good night. ;)

This press release:

http://www.algoresupportcenter.com/pressrelease1.html

You can discuss it here: http://s8.invisionfree.com/Al_Gore_Support...p?showtopic=201

or here:
http://s8.invisionfree.com/Al_Gore_Support...p?showtopic=202

Weigh in on it if you want to! I stay up real late and sleep in during the summer. I am also waiting to see who the next VP will be.

I've never seen you post one fact, just your delusional rantings. You make accusations without anything to back them up. If you say you post facts provide some links next time that prove what you say.

That's a matter of opinion. Many feel if it had gone to Congress it would have given Bush a constitutional legitimacy that he didn't and still doesn't have.

One problem many people have is that they get cocooned and only talk about politics with others that share their views. Last summer after spending time with die-hard Gore supporters, I couldn't understand why everyone didn't want to draft Gore. I think the same thing happened with many Dean supporters. You can even see it in the CNN documentary about Joe Trippi.
Kerry is going to win New Jersey and New York easily. The way Gore did in 2000. He doesn't need to campaign here so what you're seeing about him is filtered through the media. It's in the swing states were things count and where Kerry win spend most of his money. And he is connecting there as many polls show.

James,

That is just the point.. It IS A MATTER OF OPINION.. However, we all
will never know NOW WILL WE...

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS....Not one senator spoke up for the people January 6th and this was the whole point in the beginning of Fahrenheit 9/11, time to take your blinders off man- your missing the WHOLE picture

-GoreLeadership

It is a MATTER OF FACT that Gore didn't want it and it wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Take you're blinders off. This is the most important election in the history of this country. We can't afford to screw around.

James, you need to take your head out of the sand man. The most important election took place in 2000. Your dem party ledership hid in it's ivory Washington tower instead of helping Al Gore defend our democracy against the Bush coup. The dem ledership has been bowing to the Bush thief ever since. Had the dem ledership done it's job in 2000, Bush would be back in Texas where we the people sent him and our country wouldn't now be in this terrible mess. It's your dem party ledership that you continue to defend who dropped the ball and our country willpay for this failure for all eternity. What planet are you on man? Your twisting of this painful truth is as bax as the republicans truth twisting and follows in the footsteps of the former soviet unon's truth twisting. I have no idea why you post at this forum other than to shill for your failed dem party ledership and to attack supporters of the peoples choice, Al Gore. U think your beavior is shameful.

No I'm blaming the people that comitted the crime not the people who were the victums of it.
Read a few books on the recount. Gore didn't want any national figures in Florida. He wanted it all done with local officials.

Excuse me James but unlike you, I've actually lived in Florida and I know the laws that were deiberately broken and the disputed territory like the back of my hand. I used to know a number of the people who were involved in the Gore 2000 campaign in Florida. Florida law clearly required that the uncounted votes be counted. I object to your use of the republican description, "recount". That wasn't it at all. The battle was about the counting of votes that had NEVER been counted. Once again you twist and fabricate the truth. Please don't tell me about Florida. I know better what happened there than you'll ever know. The leadership of the dem party who founded the DNC and fought back against the theft of Andrew Jackson's victory in 1824 are rolling in ther graves at the do nothing behavior of their 21st century counterparts and at the behavior of someone like you who continue to defend the indefensible behavior of the current dem party leadership. Your claims are so twisted and naccurate that it's clear that you don't have a clue about what the truth is.

Nancy (aka "Guest"): You've been warned about your behavior repeatedly. I've read three of your posts here this morning, and each one has attacked James in ways that are against the rules of this forum. I don't agree with the things you say, and it's not true that James is a Rep. shill, but I won't throw you off the board for that kind of comment. Where you cross the line is in saying "I think you're disgusting . . . " Uh uh, Nancy. You are not allowed to say things like that, nor should anyone have to tolerate that, so I'm deleting that line from your post. I'll leave the rest for now, and I'm sure I'm setting myself up for being a target of your attacks, but hey, I guess we're all getting used to that over here. You can discuss the Florida theft all you want, but do it without personally attacking anyone, okay?

The problem with people like Nancy is that they think they know but they never bother to check any facts. The terms of party leadership that was in place during the recount ended in December of 2000 and they were all replaced by McAullife and the others currently there. Their terms end in December of this year and most will be replaced.

It's amazing to me that people like her and GL didn't know such simple facts like that or:

- Gore's own strategy was to use only local Florida Democrats not national party officials.

- That the DNC is made up of mainly local party officials and that Senators and Representatives are not automatically members.

- That the GOP controled 27 state delegations in the House after the 2000 elections.

Of course these facts would just get in the way of a good rant.

It is, of course, a problem when a poster doesn't have her/his facts straight, but Nancy's problem has more to do with her personal attacks on people here than with her agenda. We all have a lot to learn from each other, and some of us might even discover (if we're open minded) that our "facts" could use some adjusting. I know I've learned an awful lot from people on this board. But like I said, Nancy seems to be incapable of saying what she has to say without attacking the messenger. She, and others like her, would do well to remember to deal with the message, not the messenger.