Run, run Republicans!!!!

[OzzyKP]

Doesn't have much to do with parties. I know several Democrats who are giddy about Obama winning who are planning to be out of town. With some predicting an extra 5 million people in town and metro rides taking 5 hours (and lord knows what the roads will be like) there are plenty of locals of any political persuasion that just don't want to deal with the madness. Plus they can make a tidy sum by renting out their place for a few days.

[SlowwHand]

Sure, make light of election fraud, race discrimination and disfranchisement if that makes you feel better Slowwy.

How shall I put this,so that there's no misunderstanding of my intended meaning?

Does "stick it up your ass" work for you?

[Garth Vader]

Actually they weren't. Those polls after the fact Verto was refering to do show Gore would have won a state wide recount but the problem was Gore wasn't asking for that. He wasn't even asking for the method the study says would have allowed him to pull ahead in the vote count. He was trying to cherry pick counties and methods he believed would have allowed him to win but which the evidence says couldn't have allowed him to win.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...loridamain.htm

It shouldn't matter what Gore wanted, the vote should have been recounted properly, which would have resulted in a Gore win, which you admit, but for some reason are unconcerned that the wrong candidate won.

[Ben Kenobi]

Once again, BK shows his fundamental misunderstanding of democracy. The election and the government belong to the people of the United States, not the candidates. It is not their election to concede or not. Also keep in mind that on the night of the election, Gore was almost certainly unaware of the level of election fraud that had taken place in Florida, as it took a few weeks for Greg Palast to uncover what had happened.

Which is why he rejected the military ballots? I used to believe that America was all about the government belonging to the people of the US, but after I saw what Gore was trying to do I realised that it's precisely the opposite.

Americans have a right to still be upset about the 2000 coup d'etat. Our election and government were stolen. The GOP is still *****ing about the 1960 election, nearly 50 years after the fact, with a heck of a lot less evidence to support their claims.

When the dead rise to vote for Kennedy, what more can you say?

I think those of us who care about the democratic process can still be upset about something which happened 8 years ago.

Hence the Sore-Loserman quote. Elections are only stolen when they are won by Bush.
__________________

[Blaupanzer]

BK, Gore cannot reject or accept any ballots. Florida law was not followed. 9 people (the Supreme Court) decided on their own who would run the US. It's one thing to lose and another to be told everyone's original vote is meaningless.

In Chicago, in 1960 the zombie vote still controlled Illinois politics. Nixon had that election stolen from him. He would get his revenge -- he would destroy the Presidency and assure that no American trusted their government ever again. Fight for her, die for her if we must, but trust the politicians -- no way!

John Quincy Adams and one of the Harrisons also stole elections but only George W. stole two. Apparently he did it so he could really wreck the economy as he left politics -- after all, all his friends were already rich.

[Ben Kenobi]

only George W. stole two. Apparently he did it so he could really wreck the economy as he left politics -- after all, all his friends were already rich.

Have you come off your meds for BDS? It's treatable these days you know.

[chequita guevara]

Which is why he rejected the military ballots? I used to believe that America was all about the government belonging to the people of the US, but after I saw what Gore was trying to do I realised that it's precisely the opposite.

He who? Gore didn't approve or reject any ballots, idiot. That decision was made by individual county election board supervisors. As it was, 3,000 absentee ballots, which may or may not have been from the military, as the ballots don't have any way of identifying who the voter is, that whole secret ballot thing, were admitted, despite it being against Florida law to do so. So you were wrong three times just now.

When the dead rise to vote for Kennedy, what more can you say?

I say it was almost fifty years ago, and no one on this board voted in that election. Anger about the 1960 election is academic. We didn't experience the supposed theft of that election. Furthermore, it has never been proven that Illinois was stolen, merely alleged. It is proven fact in a court of law that the 2000 election was stolen in Florida.

Hence the Sore-Loserman quote. Elections are only stolen when they are won by Bush.

Except I'm not pro Gore (and especially not Leiberman) or Kerry or any other Democrat. I'm pro-democracy. Democracy seems to be a concept you either fail to understand or that you do understand and only have contempt for. Either way, it speaks ill of you.

Perhaps you should consider migrating to Russia. Their brand of democracy seems to be up your alley.

[Ben Kenobi]

He who? Gore didn't approve or reject any ballots, idiot.

Mr. "Count every ballot" conveniently forgot about the military ballots, you know the ones in the bags stamped with the USAF on them.

I say it was almost fifty years ago, and no one on this board voted in that election. Anger about the 1960 election is academic.

So the only thing wrong with election fraud is if it happens in the present day? Fraud is fraud. Whether we experienced it or not is irrelevant.

Is the only thing we can be sure of what we experienced? I don't recall you living in Florida in 2000.

Furthermore, it has never been proven that Illinois was stolen, merely alleged. It is proven fact in a court of law that the 2000 election was stolen in Florida.

Proven by who? It's a proven fact that Gore conceded before the count had been finished. You can speculate all you want, but no one forced him to concede, and the way elections have always worked, is that it is a contest between two individuals. You cannot force someone to serve who refuses to serve, no matter how many people vote for him.

Except I'm not pro Gore (and especially not Leiberman) or Kerry or any other Democrat.

Which is why I phrased it. You don't have to be pro anything to be anti-Bush, and that includes pro-american.

I'm pro-democracy. Democracy seems to be a concept you either fail to understand or that you do understand and only have contempt for. Either way, it speaks ill of you.

I encourage all of my friends to vote and for the first time some of them took the time to get off their ass and vote.

I hate democracy so much that I'm all in favour of an elected senate, and redistributed commons seats to reflect population changes.

What I am not, is a republican. I don't believe in written constitutions or in elected heads of states.

Perhaps you should consider migrating to Russia. Their brand of democracy seems to be up your alley.

At least Putin is a Russian citizen. If I wanted to be ruled by a british citizen, I'd stay in Canada.

[Theben]

Perhaps you should consider migrating to Russia. Their brand of democracy seems to be up your alley.

QFT. Reading this again makes me wonder how people like Sloww and Ben can claim to love this country when they hate what it stands for.

[chequita guevara]

Mr. "Count every ballot" conveniently forgot about the military ballots, you know the ones in the bags stamped with the USAF on them.

Prove they were military ballots. You can't. That's because the ballots may come to America in bags stamped USAF or USN or what have you, but once they enter the postal system, those bags don't follow. By the time those ballots were distributed among the 67 counties of Florida, there is no way of telling what the origin of the ballot was. It is speculated that they were military ballots, because most absentee ballots, at the time, were used by military personal. There are also, however the biggest source of potential vote fraud, which is why there are rules as to which ballots may or may not be accepted. These three thousand ballots, which were counted, btw, and not contested by the Democrats (as they should have been).

I realize I'm beating my head against a wall when I tell you this, because your long standing history is to ignore facts and invent your own, by try and learn something about the subject you are discussing.

In any event, even if what you wrote was true, which it isn't, it doesn't mitigate the illegal dropping of FIFTY THOUSAND Floridians, more than half of whom were (and still are) Black. Then there's the fact that in GOP controlled Duval county, the election machines for the Black precincts weren't working, and over 27,000 ballots were spoiled as a result, but all the machines in the white precincts were working fine.

But you will continue to lie, so why do I even bother?

So the only thing wrong with election fraud is if it happens in the present day? Fraud is fraud. Whether we experienced it or not is irrelevant.

How conveniently you ignore that no fraud was ever proven in 1960. Prove that it occurred and maybe my gives a **** will go up.

Is the only thing we can be sure of what we experienced? I don't recall you living in Florida in 2000.

You cannot even be sure of what you have experienced. The fact that I didn't live in Florida at the time is irrelevant. I know how to read government documents, such as the court case where Florida admitted it screwed up the 2000 election (without an admission of wrong-doing) and took measures to make sure that the roles and machines would be fixed for 2004 (which they were).

Proven by who? It's a proven fact that Gore conceded before the count had been finished. You can speculate all you want, but no one forced him to concede, and the way elections have always worked, is that it is a contest between two individuals. You cannot force someone to serve who refuses to serve, no matter how many people vote for him.

Irrelevant. Concession means nothing. It's not a game or a contest. It's an election, with rules about how a winner is determined. Conceding is simply a gentlemanly thing to do. If in the following weeks, when all the votes have been counted (it took two weeks in my district) the results show that the person who conceded is the actual winner, he's going to Washington, not the person everyone thought was the winner on election night. Your ignorance of and contempt for democracy is staggering.

If the winner truly refuses to serve, there are remedies in state law on how to deal with that, such as the governor or legislature appointing someone or a new election being held. The person in second place isn't automatically elevated to winner. Remember when Ashcroft lost to a dead guy? Ashcroft didn't automatically become Senator despite coming in second.

Which is why I phrased it. You don't have to be pro anything to be anti-Bush, and that includes pro-american.

The problem with your brain is that you think because I'm anti-Bush, that's why I care about stolen elections, his criminal neglect in the defense of our people, and his destroying another country based on a fraudulent argument, among so many other reasons, as opposed to understanding that those reasons are why I'm anti-Bush.

Bush has been especially bad for the United States and the world. But because he's an evangelical Christian, you're blind to his crimes. If a Democrat had done half of what Bush had done, you'd be calling him the worst disaster in history. I'm at least consistent. I've opposed every president since Ford, but I was a child at the time, so cut me some slack on that one.

[Ben Kenobi]

Prove they were military ballots. You can't.

Well it's rather hard to do when they aren't counted.

There are also, however the biggest source of potential vote fraud

Of course, because they tend to primarily vote republican.

In any event, even if what you wrote was true, which it isn't, it doesn't mitigate the illegal dropping of FIFTY THOUSAND Floridians, more than half of whom were (and still are) Black.

Of what percent were prisoners? It's a strange world where the servicemen cannot vote for their commander in chief, but the prisoners can.

You cannot even be sure of what you have experienced. The fact that I didn't live in Florida at the time is irrelevant.

Thank you. That means the fact that voter fraud occurred in 1960 is still significant. Voter fraud does not only happen when people vote for someone with an R by their name.

took measures to make sure that the roles and machines would be fixed for 2004 (which they were).

You might want to get your compatriots that information since they accused Bush of stealing two elections.

Irrelevant. Concession means nothing. It's not a game or a contest. It's an election, with rules about how a winner is determined.

How can you be a winner if you walk away?

Conceding is simply a gentlemanly thing to do. If in the following weeks, when all the votes have been counted (it took two weeks in my district) the results show that the person who conceded is the actual winner, he's going to Washington, not the person everyone thought was the winner on election night. Your ignorance of and contempt for democracy is staggering.

I used to play in magic tournaments. There were some right brigands who attempted to intimidate other players into conceding. I had one simple rule. If I am beaten, fine, but I'm not beaten until you've got me down to 0 life. I'm not going to delay, but if your deck can't finish me off, then you've got a problem.

I had guys going off on infinite loops who basically said, why don't you concede since you can't win? I simply said, play out your loops, every step and we'll go from there. The tournament ended up waiting 2 hours for us to finish one match. He was then banned from the tourney.

So no, I don't believe in concessions.

If the winner truly refuses to serve, there are remedies in state law on how to deal with that, such as the governor or legislature appointing someone or a new election being held. The person in second place isn't automatically elevated to winner. Remember when Ashcroft lost to a dead guy? Ashcroft didn't automatically become Senator despite coming in second.

Yes, because the dead guy had a D by his name. That was rather slimy to appoint his WIFE! I mean, come on there. How is it democratic to elect based on nepotism?

The problem with your brain is that you think because I'm anti-Bush, that's why I care about stolen elections

Yes, you are anti-bush when you care about the 'stolen' election of 2000, but dismiss the one in 1960. How can you claim to be democratic when you dismiss what occurred in 1960, simply because it meant that a D was elected.

Bush has been especially bad for the United States and the world. But because he's an evangelical Christian, you're blind to his crimes.

Kerry was a Catholic. I think playing the religion card is old. If I voted according to religion, I would have supported Kerry.

If a Democrat had done half of what Bush had done, you'd be calling him the worst disaster in history.

Actually, I'd be praising him. Appointing Sam Alito and Roberts? Awesome! It would be even better if he had a D by his name!

[chequita guevara]

Well it's rather hard to do when they aren't counted.

What part of, "they were counted," don't you understand?

What part of, "the ballots don't contain information identifying the voter" don't you understand?

Of course, because they tend to primarily vote republican.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of invalid ballots and whether or not they should have been counted under Florida law. You keep ignoring the fact that these ballots were illegal.

Of what percent were prisoners?

A whopping zero. In all, 90,000 voters were dropped from the roles. None of the other 40,000 were prisoners either. Prisoners don't get to vote. The reason the 90,000 were dropped is because they were listed as ex-felons. The fifty thousand I keep mentioning were never convicted of any crime. Hence the point of Florida admitting it screwed up in a court of law and fixing things so that it would not happen again in 2004. If they had been prisoners, then they would not have been illegally prevented from voting.

Your stupidity really is staggering.

It's a strange world where the servicemen cannot vote for their commander in chief, but the prisoners can.

When you find such a world, you can complain about it. For now all you are doing is lying. That's a sin, BK.

Thank you. That means the fact that voter fraud occurred in 1960 is still significant. Voter fraud does not only happen when people vote for someone with an R by their name.

Again, you have failed to prove that vote fraud occurred in 1960. Put up or shut up, liar.

You might want to get your compatriots that information since they accused Bush of stealing two elections.

Do you understand that Florida and Ohio are two completely different states? You know, I know you're stupid, but the depth of your stupidity is mind boggling.

How can you be a winner if you walk away?

Because the LAW says so.

I used to play in magic tournaments.

Elections are not a game, moron.

Yes, because the dead guy had a D by his name. That was rather slimy to appoint his WIFE! I mean, come on there. How is it democratic to elect based on nepotism?

The laws of the state of Missouri decided what the outcome would be.

Yes, you are anti-bush when you care about the 'stolen' election of 2000, but dismiss the one in 1960. How can you claim to be democratic when you dismiss what occurred in 1960, simply because it meant that a D was elected.

One, I don't accept that the election of 1960 was stolen since I've never seen any proof that it was. There is some circumstantial evidence, but there is not, and has never been, proof.

Second, it occurred fifty years ago. So for the same reason I'm more upset about a murder or a rape that occurred within the last ten year than I am about one that occurred fifty years ago, I am significantly less concerned about an alleged stolen election that occurred fifty years ago than I am about an actual stolen election that occurred eight years ago.

Now, unless you start dealing in facts, I'm just going to reply by mocking you.

[Kidlicious]

QFT. Reading this again makes me wonder how people like Sloww and Ben can claim to love this country when they hate what it stands for.

Haven't you ever notices the way they use language?

[DaShi]

Well it's rather hard to do when they aren't



Kerry was a Catholic. I think playing the religion card is old. If I voted according to religion, I would have supported Kerry.

Kerry was not evangelical and he was nearly excommunicated. And you're not a real Catholic.

[Ben Kenobi]

What part of, "they were counted," don't you understand?

What part of, "the ballots don't contain information identifying the voter" don't you understand?

Declaring ballots 'illegal' is the same as counting them? I suppose if I were a democrat I might employ the term 'disenfranchising'. That would mean that I believe in the principle that servicemen ought to be able to fully participate in election.

Secondly, you've completely ignored my query as to why you said that military ballots are the ones most prone to fraud? Where's the evidence of such?

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of invalid ballots and whether or not they should have been counted under Florida law. You keep ignoring the fact that these ballots were illegal.

So it's just a co-incidence that they contain primarily Republican voters? Sure the ballots might not enable you to identify who cast them, but all you really need are the poll box numbers.

Why do you think redistricting is so effective?

A whopping zero. In all, 90,000 voters were dropped from the roles. None of the other 40,000 were prisoners either. Prisoners don't get to vote. The reason the 90,000 were dropped is because they were listed as ex-felons.

Which is why you mentioned only the colour of their skin? I didn't know you were a racist Che. Seems to me that their prior conviction was the source of the difficulties, not the colour of their skin.

Your stupidity really is staggering.

Better stupid then racist. Only black people are prisoners in Florida?

Again, you have failed to prove that vote fraud occurred in 1960. Put up or shut up, liar.

So you believe that Daley's Chicago machine is as pure as the driven snow?

Do you understand that Florida and Ohio are two completely different states? You know, I know you're stupid, but the depth of your stupidity is mind boggling.

So you are insisting that Bush cheated and won two elections?

Has there ever been an election won by a republican that wasn't stolen? Seems to me that the Dems just didn't cheat enough to win.

Because the LAW says so.

There is no law that can compel service, Che. This is a democracy. If Gore truly was worthy of his position, he would not have conceded prior to the end of the count. That he conceded indicated at that point he no longer wished to serve. Changing your mind when the count turns is indicative of his lack of conviction.

The laws of the state of Missouri decided what the outcome would be.

Right, and there is no coincidence that a dead democrat always beats a living republican.

Elections based on nepotism are not democratic. I thought you were against the principles of an entrenched aristocracy.

Second, it occurred fifty years ago. So for the same reason I'm more upset about a murder or a rape that occurred within the last ten year than I am about one that occurred fifty years ago, I am significantly less concerned about an alleged stolen election that occurred fifty years ago than I am about an actual stolen election that occurred eight years ago.

I don't really see the difference. 8 years might as well be 60 for me. Accept your loss, and move on.

For someone who didn't even support the democrats, you sure are upset.