Test

The sad part of this story is that none of it matters now. Even with the truth, Bush still sits in our WH, laughing.

but i think it does matter because the theft of the 2000 election is at the basic core of the bush presidency..it is a fraud it is invalid ..it is illegal....because of it an unnecessary war was started illegally by lies..we are a nation of torture..we are a nation of illegal wiretaps...very wealthty corporate thieves put a puppet clown in the white house..dick cheney is the biggest criminal of all...the election of 2000...matters very much because it defined what we have become ..and until it is acknowledged and righted we will never be on the right path again..the united states as it stands now..is a disgrace

Everytime I read something like this, I get discouraged and depressed. What's the point of worrying about who will be the democratic candidate in 2008, or who will run for Congress in 2006 when it doesn't matter because Republicans control the elections?

If I were you guys, I'd be depressed too.

I mean what kind of "girlie-men" are you that even now, over 5 years after the 2000 election you are still crying about it...and doing it by playing the race card, or by insinuations etc.

You can't get over it....I remember a guy I knew back in college. He screwed around on his girl and she finally had enough and said, I'm done with you. She left him. He was indignant. He huffed and puffed as if she was the one that was wrong for wanting to leave him. He acted so pious and proud.

Years later show her to be happily married and starting a family...growing, loving, . . . doing that which she knows how to do.

His case is different. He is beligerent, nasty, hateful, cantankerous. . . horribly bitter over losing her and because of that, he can't find anyone else. He screws around from time to time, but he can't admit it openly, but he does privately, and that is he screwed up with her and let her get away from him because of his faults.

You guys screwed up, period. You wanted to change the rules of the election, after the election had run. You wanted the counties controlled by democrats, to be re-counted over and over again, until you found the votes.
You wanted to throw out military ballots.
You wanted a Sec. of State, Harris, to violate the law by extending a deadline that was not extendable by her, her position was a figure head and she even asked the voters of florida in that election to eliminate her position since it had lost all authority and was only for show. The voters agreed.

But hey, go ahead. Keep on trying to relive your old lives, kick back a few more shots of booze and cry a few more tears. Your lives are pretty much over now and there is nothing to live for, so go back and scream and hollar about the past, and do so by re-writing history. Remember the template but not the facts.
Bush stole the election....
Bush stole the election....
Bush stole the election....

You feel better now? Good. . . energy spent on these things is good for us trolls. Makes us enjoy your pathetic excuses for your failure. Sort of like my friend. Crying and whining for something he did. . . .

Crappy,

You apologist for criminals, liars, traitors and thugs...

...you deserve to be royally fucked up, and God as my witness, I'd bring that fate upon you were you in my presence.

Fuck off, you nazi trash. You'll meet your rightful fate one of these days.

God of War, I actually had people of carpediem's stripe tell me in Decmber of 2000 that Bush deserved to win because he had the balls to steal it, and that democracy was for pussies.

And if that ain't fascism, I'm an Adele penguin...

Take a good look at the shit-smeared face of Crape--- his every utterance reeking of excrement. He is the disgraceful, truculent, Know Nothing face of BushAmerica, and a symptom of our country's doom.

The post is actually about two new books examining the inconceivable corruption of our last two presidential elections and all Crape can do is vomit out his mememorized talking points like a trained seal, in hopes of being fed his fish entrails.

Thanks for bringing up the new book on the Florida scandal of 2000. I'll check it out.

I know this sounds so innocent and naive and idealistic...but I would think that even Republicans would be concerned about stolen elections. Even if they support Bu$hCo, don't at least some of them support Democracy more?

Bush stole the election in a state where his *brother* was governor, where the state official in charge of the vote was also the Elect Bush committee chairperson, and was validated by a Supreme Court with members his *father* nominated. Rigged.....you bet it was. But it was Al Gore that refused to fight, that gave it to Bush "for the good of the country". It was the Democrat Party that refused to go to the mat for their nominee. It was the GOP controlled Media that hid the evidence. And it was the majority of Americans who wanted Al Gore to be president that failed to rise up and stop the theft occuring in broad daylight. Then we all sat by and watched them do it again in 2004.

Although this further strengthens the case made by Greg Palast and others, I can't help but feel that we cannot continue to look behind us in this fashion. It's not that I disagree with the analysis or point of view on the matter with Bush and his Supreme Court stepping in and effectively demoloshing State's Rights. Quite the opposite - it incenses me just thinking about this whole fiasco all over again. And I also agree it encompasses this Presidency altogether quite well.

But my mind is on current matters and what we can do about things at present. Right now we have the Alito hearings who we must dissect and scrutinize every word to see if he either stays with his past opinions or diverts away from them (and whether or not he is seemingly truthful in doing so), we have the Iraq debacle as we help create an Islamic fundamentalist regime who's in leagues with Iran (while our brave soldiers are fighting and dying for that very cause), we have Bush's utter ignorance of Constitutional and FISA law, Medicare taking place, midterm elections, and so on.

Honestly, these are the things I am most concerned with at present, though I do appreciate Pessimist's point by bringing this topic up somewhat.

Anjha, they don't care about stolen elections because they don't expect to be out of power again. Wonder how they expect to pull that off, don't you?

T2 gives us a clue to that one. They also know the Dems wouldn't stoop to stealing elections, acknowledging that Dems are more honest than they will ever aspire to be.

Don't you remember GA6thDem telling all of us that more votes were disenfranchised in Georgia than in Florida? Who ran the vote there? Not Republicans for sure. Point being, the skill of the local operative in each polling place is not very good. They try hard, as in Palm Beach, she tried hard but came up with a troublesome ballot. Remember Duval county? Selective recounts in this level of voting shouldn't happen. Maybe we should look into the VNS and its influence on our voting trends. Its influence on the networks calling of states. When Florida was called for Gore, he was trailing 50 to 48 with western Florida's polls still not closed.

The principle difference between GA and FL is the vote wasn't close in GA. California also had a lot of ballot spoilage, vote wasn't close there either. Didn't raise a blip on your radar, did it? Problems in South Dakota in 2002, any notice here?

Lets go back to FL, Janet Reno ran into problems in the 2002 vote. A vote ran by Democrats for Democrats and the numbers were problematical.

There have been many looks into the 2000 Florida vote. Many have said the result would not have changed. Some have said what you have here. Your being Democrats will most often want to agree with what you've posted here. You're free to do so. It may inflame mamy of your readers , again. Had the 2000 result been so outragous, the 2004 vote should have overturned it. It didn't, not even in Ohio. Even with all the bad news of 2004, our President was and still is George W Bush.

And from the various musings from ALGORE, I think many would agree, we are better off with W at the helm than we would have been with ALGORE. The 2004 vote sure shows that with the record turnouts that both parties acheived. Both of the political parties should be proud of their voter turnout numbers. Great participation, we still need to do better. The Iraqis are far outshining us with their turnout as do many other democracies.

Judith, he's only laughing about a recent joke he's heard. You're not a joke, are you? Are you the joker? What happened with the St. Louis vote in 2000? Just wondering.

And from the various musings from ALGORE, I think many would agree, we are better off with W at the helm than we would have been with ALGORE. posted by Peter
*********
Huh?!?!?!?!?

It took Clinton EIGHT years to unfuck what was done by the previous Repuklican presidents. (and he did this while being witch-hunted by Newt and his crew) They were just in a place to finally be able to truly implement so much of their great agenda.

p, No offense, but I'd would like to plug "The Brad Blog" for being the best on up to date voter fraud.

in the 2000 election more people voted for al gore then the fraud both in florida and across the country..up until the supreme courts decision that was usually enough to win an election..not any more

now we are a country that is an occupier of nations..a nation builder with taxpayer money..we are a country defined by sexually depraved torture..we spy on americans without warrants...a coward president awol in the guard during viet nam is our leader..a vice president with 5 deferrments still collecting money from halliburton...their top men in both offices under indictment or investigation...tom delay indicted..bill frist under investigation...the house corruption scandal with abramoff..all republicans....bravo trolls you have a lot to be proud of....and you have the temerity to say it's all sour grapes...you all are what you are..and each and everyone of you know what that is....

And dennis, none of this was known in 2004. Your candidate had none of these 'facts' in his arsenal to use as he chose to? Your two candidates were both on the intel committee, they didn't know anything? Maybe they should have paid more attention to their 'day' job? I'd be upset too if my guy 'dropped' this ball. But, my guy didn't.

peter pan

your guy doesn't have any balls...no one in this administration has any real ones...the country has become what our leadership and their followers are..back room thieves who think torture is okay...i'm ashamed of us

peter you're guy's strategy was to first hide the ball, then drop it.

God of War's quote. . .
you deserve to be royally fucked up, and God as my witness, I'd bring that fate upon you were you in my presence

The only difference between the venom that comes of your mouth and the faggot basher is. . . .well I can't think of a difference.

I've said it before, I'll say it now, and I'll say it again...

Hate is a wonderful motivator, Hitler used it against the Gypies and Jews, Pol Pot against the educated class, and you use it against anyone that has an opinion that you don't like.

Enjoy your life. . . . If you can.

hitler and pol pot used power to enforce hate...both used lies and deceit to get their power..this administattion has used lies and deceit to obtain and keep it's power...get my drift

Worst SCOTUS decision ever: Bush V. Gore

had no reason to even hear it..let alone decide it...but what the hell..thats just sour grapes....what's the big deal!!!!!

carpe, I don't understand. You're not a 'faggot basher', right? Are you a 'faggot'? What are you trying to say?

Vinnie, it's right up there, but there have been some monstrous ones----Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson (upholding separate but "equal"), Korematsu (upholding internment of thousands japanese-americans in wartime)----Bush v. Gore is in some pretty vile company.

i truly believe that history will show the supreme court decision of the 2000 election and the ensuing years to be some of the darkest and most corrupt in our nations history..a period where the united states of america lost it's moral standing in the eyes of the world...there has never been an administration as corrupt as this one...it all started with gore vs bush...but it certainly hasn't ended...the decision was profoundly corrupt..sour grapes

Even though I also think that 2000 election was stolen, if Gore would have just won his own state (TN), Florida vote would not have mattered. If you cannot win your own state, do you deserve to win the presidency?

Crappy just loves the hate, doesn't he? Broken record, much?

I understand how Gore lost TN! This helps explain it.

In April "Conned - How Millions of Americans Went to Prison, Lost the Vote, and Helped Send George Bush to The White House" will be published. See this link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565849663/qid=1136834013/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-8898793-5758329?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

If Gore had won West Virginia in 2000, Florida and every other state with possible fraudulant vote counting wouldn't have mattered. West Virginia is a poor rural historically Democratic state that voted the culture value concerns advertising and televalgelistssold them rather than economics in the "W" era. With the revalations of mine safety violations in Sego that the Bush administration winked at, we're seeing how much the Bush administration values the lives of coal miners.

When the voters in red states realize that without good economic values, cultural values don't matter, it's going to be quite an awakening. The Democrats need to stress Sego, West Virgina as well as Katrina. It's not just poor blacks in big cities that are being left endangered, it's white rural people and basically everyone else who makes less than 250k a year.

Oh brother, back to the 2000 election again?

Well maybe I'm the faggot America...

...I'm not part of the redneck agenda...

(apologies to Green Day)

Sorry crappy...my hate, as it were, is a focused, righteous, powerful thing, and your kind are in the crosshairs. So to speak.

You best shut the fuck up and flee when we come around demanding justice and redemption.

Well maybe I'm the faggot America...

...I'm not part of the redneck agenda...

Greatest Album in History!

Hate is a wonderful motivator,

Is that why the Tali-Evan-Fundies preach it? Is that why your President gasman uses it?

You wanted to change the rules of the election, after the election had run.

God damn! That's an artistic way to rephrase election fraud! How do you rephase your spousal abuse or inbreeding with your own children? Love?

Again, y'all were all caught up in Florida 2000 and let any other state fall from the headlines. Y'all dropped the ball entirely, if you're to believe bbtb up there. Again, selective recounts shouldn't happen. Places more value on one vote over another. The SC ruling was 7 to 2 against the Florida recount and only 5 to 4 on the remedy. Three of the five that have been protecting women's privacy rights were part of the seven finding against Gore in Gore v. Bush. One of those protecting a women's privacy sided for the remedy in Gore v. Bush.

"Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
From Justice John Paul Stevens' dissent in Bush v Gore

That's what ALGORE brought us as the sitting Vice President of the United States. Contesting an election, a national election, should not have been attempted. Nothing good can come out of it. Just more doubt. Did ALGORE and his campaign accept ANY of the lower court decisions decided against him by loyal Democratic judges? They ruled correctly and couragously for the rule of law. Yet the Gore campaign just threw them away for upper court politically appointed judges, the Florida Supreme Court.

Look now in Texas, lower courts have the DeLay matter. He appealed to the upper chamber, all Republican Justices. They rejected the appeal. Quite a difference from the Florida Supremes isn't it? Wonder who made the right and just opinion? The Florida Supremes never readdressed the matters remmanded to them from SCOTUS.

The four dissenters in BvG would have returned the case to the Florida Supreme Court to continue a recount of ALL undervotes using a UNIFORM standard, which is what peter seems to be urging.

The five vote majority simply stopped the recount, ensuring that the nation was saddled, for the first time in 100 years, with a president who won only the electoral vote and not the popular vote.

The Court had a chance to enhance its constitutional role of being above partisan politics and to reaffirm, in a very public way, the importance of doing everything one could to ensure the citizens select the president.

But the Republican justices could not rise above their personal politics, and couldn't find the strength to set in place a proud beacon that would have shown for all of our history, and demonstrated our nation's committment to democratic government.

They failed the Court and the Country, and set us on the disastrous path we are now embarked upon.

Their partisan decision can never be forgotten.

ive posted my comments on Gore v Bush before. The response was silence. The template Bush Stole the Election is all you heard.

7 to 2 was how SCOTUS ruled in applying the Rule of Law. Even the Democratic CHIEF JUSTICE of SCOF pleaded with his colleagues not to embarass their positions by ruling as they did.

I will never forget the very second when the nëws reported that the SCOTUS had stopped the illegal recount. It was WONDERFUL ,

THANKS FOR REMINDING ME

SO I WONDER IF YOU ALL REMEMBER IT? ;>}

thanks my pearlie whites are glistening from that rememberance

How can the concept of the "Pretender" be attached to Dubya, because that is what these reports indicate he truly is. He might play at being "President" but he is only a "Pretend" President. Clearly, he won't be removed from office by extra-Constitutional means, but that doesn't mean his reputation, legacy, colleagues and family can't be tarred with the "illegitimate Pretender" meme so that we don't experience a rerun of this disaster.

Just think, if Clinton had ignored the "pardons" Bush Pere handed out to unindicted criminals back in 2003 because they had not been tried and convicted and pursued them anyway, none of them could have slipped into office in 2001. We'd have no Cheney, no Rumsfeld, no Negroponte, no Elliot Abrams, (God, the list is too long to include totally), etc. The vermin can't be allowed to slip into the shadows, crooks and crevices again, only to reemerge at a later date.

Yes it was Carp! euzoius, ALGORE ran into a timing problem with that one. Thats where his big mistake was. The first battle should have been for recounting the state, the entire state. Not for those four selected counties. By the time the state got around to an entire recount, there was not enough time left. And other states should have also been pursued. His concern should have been national not local.

As for 'pretender' up there. No nation on this earth looks at W as a pretender. In his travels, he has been correctly accorded the proper respect as our Head of State.

pretender bush is viewed on the global stage as a fraud and a buffoon...our stock in the world is at an all time low...we are seen as the crooks and torturers we are..we are despised universally..george bush is a pretender for sure..he is a bible toting ex-drunk to whom god whispers...the supreme court installed a clown as oil commander in chief..and i hope he and dick cheney rot in hell for what they've done in the name of the american people...

he has been correctly accorded the proper respect as our Head of State

Yep. The same respect they would give to the head of a large penis. What was that about Rummy being worried about war crimes charges in Germany? Memories dim so quickly.

if anyone has any doubts about gw being a fraud and a pretender..get yourself a videotape of george reading my pet goat to the children during the attack on this country which he let happen..watch the tape and watch it closely..it tells you all you need to know about gwbush and his character ..it's real and it is astonishing...there is no plausable explanation for his reaction...he was told the nation was under attack...watch it ..it speaks volumes..he is an utter fraud and a disgrace...and you can thank the supreme court

Al Least now the Democrats and the Republicans are able to see the Truth about whatever happened in 2000, Hopefully the America would choose the Next Leader carefully after serious consideration, When Al Gore was a VP 22 millions new Jobs were created, we had surplus in the Economy and we never had a war with a country and we never had thousands of Americans getting Killed and Losing their Body Parts, we never had Unemplyment situation in America as it is now, we Never had mothers losing their children and we never had Americans losing their Loved ones Unnecessarily for the Oil and for the Ignorance and arrogance of the right wingers.

http://www.runalgore.com
http://www.electgore2008.com

thanks my pearlie whites are glistening from that rememberance

Then you must be laughing your ass off over the 54,000 legally registered voters Katherine Harris took off the polling lists. Don't worry, your turn is next.

There's no sense "discussing" this matter with people like peter who are only interested in justifying the outcome of BvG: that George Bush be sworn in as the first electoral college president in 113 years. It's all just a manifestation of the "winning at all costs" team mentality.

For those interested in the actual dispute, the Forida Supreme Court DID order a manual recount of all undervotes in all Florida counties, despite Gore's request that only selected counties be recounted.

The Florida Supreme Court tried its best (with substantial time wasting and needless nit picking from the US Supreme Court in the FIRST of two appeals taken to them by Dubya) to have all the undervote ballots manually recounted in the 2000 election. They tried to see what candidate the voters of Florida had actually selected, following the election law of Florida and applicable precedents, which they had final say over under the Florida Constitution.

But George Bush and The US Supreme Court hampered them at every turn, and ultimately just took the case away from them, declaring (wrongly and disingenuously) that the "clock had run out".

History will damn them, and Bush v. Gore will take its place in the pantheon of colossally wrongly decided, disastrous decisions by the Supreme Court.

euzoius

i believe history already has damned them...this war in iraq which never had to be..has seen to that...

Bush vs. Gore is the worst decision in SCOTUS history, based on this one simple standard: How many people, worldwide, are now DEAD because of that decision?

I have seen many polls that state that only 13% of the US population thinks the 2000 election was stolen.

This is why even the Bush-bashing media and the most left-leaning congressmen don't claim that the 200 election was stolen.

That's why the general public doesn't take this seriously.

And how many of the US population thinks Saddam had something to do with 9/11?

Not many contributions in the media concerning Diebold either but it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Electronic voter fraud that is, before the question comes up.

Euzios,

Trying to re-write history by ignoring significant facts huh?

Here is a little tidbit of history, I'll keep it short since I've written about gore v bush on other occasions only to hear my name taken in vain in response.

1. Nothing in the Constitution gives you or me the right to vote for President. Period, Nada. I know, this is pretty hard for you lemmons to figure out, but thats the fact.

2. The States are-empowered with certain electorial votes to use as they so choose. They could let The Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court make the decision if they wanted. The Federal Law doesn't tell them how to do it, but if they do an election, then some little tiddy bitty thing called equal protection should apply. (Remember some States give all of their votes to the winner, others parce them per the percentages. This is determined by the STATE.)

3. BEFORE the election, Florida Lawmakers- (for you liberals, those are the guys and gals that write the rules for the elections, and not the judges) these rule makers established how the election should be done. HOWEVER, one rule was paramount, the date of Dec 13? (I forget the exacdt one,) also called the safe harbor date, meant that if FLORIDA wanted their votes to be counted, that they had to have their elector's names ready by that date.

4. Florida election laws decided to allow each county to decide their own ballots, etc. and all of these had to pass through Justice, (Civil Rights act required this for the old confederacy states) The means to vote, whether by paper ballot, punch cards, or by opti-scan, were all okay, as long as fairness was the means.

5. DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED counties have alot of morons that don't know how to read or how to hold a punchcard and push it through.

6. The State Law said, Counties, if you want your vote to count, you have to have your numbers to the Sec. of State by a certain date. Then if a candidate wanted to appeal, then that could happen only after the certification went through.

Again, this was all on the BOOKS BEFORE THE ELECTION OCCURRED. Sure, the technical difficulties that these procedures might cause when a final date is set, makes it hard to do, but these were the rules BEFORE THE ELECTION.

Essentially, Gore wanted to fish for votes from his counties and block the votes from Bush precincts, like the MILITARY- you know, we support our troops?

So they tried to follow the law, but they knew they couldn't do it without some help from the liberal judges who needed to re-write the normal intepretation of the words in the code.

So instead of allowing the local canvass boards to do their job, the Florida Supreme Court said, ooh, no, Gore is losing, we have to fix this and we can't make it look bad, so we order that all of the votes all over the State must be RECOUNTED AGAIN, and AGAIN. And we want the STANDARD FOR DETERMINEING how the vote should be judged, (to be if its anywhere close for Gore, count it, if its for Bush ignore it.)

Actually, this is the biggest problem, and again how liberal judges often rule, . .. they said, the recount should be done by. . . . "the voter's intent!". Yep, that was the standard, determine the voters intent.

So the effect was, in any given precinct, at any given table, by any given election official, a different SUBJECTIVE determination for how the vote should be counted was given. NO OBJECTIVE nor EQUALLY PROTECTED WAY was given. Just do what the Voter Intended. A classic "feel good" liberal judge DECISION.

Well, fortunately, intelligent justices from SCOTUS 7-2, decided that this WAS A VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION.

The problem with the 5-4 was whether in just a few days, I believe it was three, if the case was sent back down to Florida, could they establish a fair and equitable and objective way to do this without violating the equal protection rule AND that would not violate the FEDERAL SAFE HARBOR RULE.

Which is really what Gore wanted. He wanted to either count only those areas that helped him, or he wanted them to fail to meet the safe harbor rule, and then FLORIDA'S VOTES WOULD NOT HAVE COUNTED AT ALL, AND GORE WOULD HAVE WON WITH MORE ELECTORIAL VOTES.

Again, I know this is hard for you liberals to relive.

I want to thank you for reminding me of that event, that I will never, ever forget. I remember where I was, I remember the sights, the scents and the joy that everyone felt, WHEN THE SCOTUS stopped Gore from stealing the election by cheating.

Oh, by the way, the Democrats did steal the election in New Jersey the following year. They dropped their criminal candidate. And they appointed a new one at the last minute, in VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED NEW JERSEY LAW. But hey, its for a Democrat Senator, so the rules be damned.
Look it up, Nixon lost to Kennedy because of the Democrats Stealing Chicago in 1960.

You've done it before, you'll do it again.

But again, thanks for reminding me of the wonderful day and time when the news broke, The United States Supreme Court has ordered that the re-count in Florida be ended. . . .

Say do you liberals remember when you heard that news?...

Sharon,

72% of the US population is glad that Saddam is gone. He does not have to have anything to do with 9/11 to be a supporter of OTHER terrorism and be worthy of removal. I know you are sad to see his genocide stop.

In any case, only 13% of the US population believes the 2000 election was stolen. That is why even the media and Democrat politicians don't claim it. You leftist moonbats are much further from the mainstream than you realize, which is why it is fun to rub it in when you lose each time.

I am sincerely confused. I thought that it was Bu$hCo, with help of then good buddy Chief Justice Roberts who took 2000 to the Supreme Court.

That was not Gore's doing.

Hence the Bush v Gore.

Why is this Gore's fault?

Carpediem,

You are trying to reason with idiots who have no interest in facts. These are the 13% of the population with the lowest IQ (and who, frankly, don't know how to read a voting ballot).

They even think the 1984 Reagan landslide was stolen....

only 13% of the US population believes the 2000 election was stolen.

So called Neutral,

Can you back up any of your statistics or are you just pulling them out of your ass?

A reminder from Florida.

Democratic Circuit Judge Saul (I believe was his name. over Leon County) heard the case from Bush and Gore and ruled in favor of Bush people.
Gore appealed and won at the Florida Supreme Court.

Bush said the Florida Supreme Court was ignoring the Federal requirement that if votes are counted that they be counted "equally".

Scotus agreed with Bush and with the DEMOCRATIC CHIEF JUSTICE OF FLORIDA, AND COINCIDENTALLY with the Democratic Judge Saul that started the whole process.

The biggest mistake was with Liberal Justices on the Florida Supreme Court who did not understand that the rule of law meant that they could change things the way they wanted, but that these laws were originally written with equal protection in mind, and to re-write them as they felt, by saying "voter intent" that this did not address the federal equal protection clause.

Again, warm sweet memories......

Actually Neutral, these guys have a very high I.Q. I suspect. Well, maybe not all of them. GOW and Coyote are just teenagers, I think who can't get a date.

Anyway, I.Q. sometimes is a good thing but its not the only thing.

Bill Clinton was extremely bright, but morally ane ethically a dirtbag.

Ronald Reagan was a visionary and a leader, with high morals and clarity of thought, but no book worm.

Karl Marx was said to be extremely bright, along with Adolf Hitler, and we know how they turned out.

But those were all articulate monsters. The moonbats here can't even answer simple questions, and have a view of the world that ignores even the most basic realities.

Hence, the 13% of the US population who thinks the 2000 election was stolen certainly does not have a high IQ. If they did, they would debate your posts point-to-point.

Bill Clinton had a blow job from an intern.

The Republican cabal are up to their necks in corruption, lies and murder. They are despised by the left and right on every continent for their contempt for international law, their own constitution and the basic civilities of human behaviour.

Bush won't last a full term.

Oh Peter, I am so glad you asked. Gore lost by only 3% points in 2000 State wide. The City of St. Louis voted for Gore in 2000, just as they voted for Kerry in 2004. Another note of interest is that 90% of the blacks voted in the for Gore in St. Louis City in 2000, and 81% in 2004 for Kerry. However, don't worry your cute little self over the 2006 and 2008 elections. The City of St. Louis is installing Diebold machines for the 2006 elections. That way they can finally decimate the black vote and the Democrats living within the City limits.

Bill Clinton never pursued terrorists even after numerous attacks (1993 WTC, USS Cole, US embassies). He did nothing to stop genocide in Iraq and Rwanda. 500,000 died in Iraq while Clinton looked the other way during the Oil for Food scandal.

Bush has taken the fight to terrorists, and has savefd many lives that would have been lost under Clinton.

No wonder Bush won a majority of the popular vote in 2004, something Clinton never achieved.

tee hee...

Neutral, Bill Clinton was on it with OBL. Unfortunately he had a lot of energies removed from his efforts because he was having to deal with being persecuted for having a consentual affair.

If it weren't for Newt's witch hunt he would have been able to give complete focus to what he was doing.

Oh, and "Neutral" is not at all how you are behaving.

Anjha,

Bull. He didn't send one troop to Afghanistan to look for OBL.

By your reasoning, if Bush weren't 'persecuted' by the hateful left, he migght have caught OBL by now too, eh?

Don't you see your hypocrisy and double standards.

Look it up, Nixon lost to Kennedy because of the Democrats Stealing Chicago in 1960.

Posted by carpediem at January 9, 2006 03:16 PM

**********************************

1960 presidential electoral votes

KENNEDY 303
NIXON 219

Illinois EV = 27

You do the math. Remember, it takes 270 electoral votes to win a presidential election.

Believe me, I found numerous other innacuracies in your lengthy diatribe, but if you can't get this one simple fact right, I don't need to shatter the credibility of the rest of your post. You take care of that on your own very well.

Oh, and I'm not surprised in the least that you can others you think like you would celebrate the stoppage of votes being counted.

Here is a link showing the faces of the criminals who slashed the tires of Republican voters and threatened to beat them up if they voted on election day, 2004.

http://www.michellemalkin.com/

Now, all you "Bush stole the election" people, tell me :

DO YOU APPROVE OR CONDEMN THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS BY THESE PEOPLE THREATENING REPUBLICAN VOTERS?

Let's see if you can condemn fairly, or whether you just complain when it is your side that is the victim, while permitting Republican voters from being assaulted..

Are you going to be fair, people?

Hey carpediem! How are you? I told you I would catch up with you on another thread. I see you've got some company this time, too. The only problem with your friends -- well and you, too -- is that none of you realize that you've all (except for the newbees) been discredited on other threads. Therefore, no one really needs to take any of you on point by point, but rather does so for their own reasons.

As for me, I'm going to scroll up and read that really long comment you made and determine if I want to tickle you a bit.

No facts to back up your numbers huh so called Nuetral?
Not that I'm surprised, your type tends to make up lies and then tries to avoid answering when someone calls "bullshit" on you.
The people who are reading this thread can see your creditblity for what it is, non-existant.

Rlp,

Do you APPROVE or CONDEMN the actions of thugs who vandalize the cars of Republican voters and beat them up?

Answer the question.

And if you think more than 13% believe the 2000 election was stolen, search the Gallup archives. Or even conduct a poll yourself. Why do you think even the media and Democrat congressmen don't believe your brain-dead conspiracy theories?

Newtie, looks like no one here is willing to sully their computer by going to malkin's site because she makes shit up, has no credibility and is a freaking wild-ass loon. And who the fuck are you to demand an answer from anyone? Your rock called - it wants you to crawl back under it.

Actions of thugs? First, find a repuable scorce. One hint, a woman who tries to justify the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans is not a creditable scorce. As far as numbers go, YOU made the 13% claim, it's YOUR duty to back it up.
I'm not going to do your work for you.

There is an official criminal report about the crimes against Republican voters.

http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/jan05/slashings_012405.pdf

Forget Michelle Malkin. She is biased (as you are), but this report is undeniable.

So, the question again :

DO YOU CONDEMN THESE CRIMES AGAINST REPUBLICAN VOTERS, OR WOULD YOU ONLY CONDEMN IT IF DEMOCRATS WERE THE VICTIMS.

A very simple question, really.

Neutral -- you go first -- back up your 13% claim, k?

Otherwise, there's no use inanswering anything else from you.

rlp,

You are in luck. It appears that the number who think Bush stole the 2000 election is 18%, more than the 13% I read elsewhere :

http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/121700/gen_public.shtml

OK, so it is 18%, this too just after the election when a few people other than loony leftists were still upset about it (unlike 5 years later). So, what are you gonna do now? Have you figured out why even the liberal media and Democrat politicians don't harp on this to this day?

18% = a loony fringe. Certainly not the mainstream.

Thirty-two percent said he won on a technicality and 18 percent said he stole the election.

By my math that makes 50%. And I know it was the stolen part that you harped on, but I think you were just guessing before.

A criminal act is a criminal act and should be prosecuted. If someone broke the law, prosecute them. Have any of those who participated in election day criminal activities been prosecuted?

A big difference between 'winning on a technicality' and STEALING. Surely you know that much.

And if crimes bother you so much, answer my other question about whether you approve of or condemn violent Democrats vandalizing Republican voter cars and beating up Republican voters.
That is a crime too, but do you approve of it or condemn it?

Neutral, there is all kinds of information here about the stolen election(s).

Oh, sorry, you don't read much.

And Dorita, you are right, I do not believe than any of these people have yet been prosecuted...

glad that the law still works.

Neutral, this shows 38% of Americans believe it was stolen.

OK, I'm done. I have to finish making dinner.

So, it appear Anjha has admitted that breaking the law to hurt a Republican is OK, but breaking the law to hurt a Democrat is not.

Shows what Anjha is about. That is how you leftist win elections, eh?

Anyone else?

Neutral,

I'll tell you what. The 2000 election went 48/48 nationwide. That means that roughly half the people were unhappy at the outcome. It's an understatement to say that a lot has happened scince then and some "security" voters who went for Bush in 2004 had gone for Gore in 2000. Also, many anti-Bush voters, do not openly talk about events five years later scince most people just live their lives without getting involved in politics except around election time. Considering all of this, if I saw a valid poll on "was the 2000 election stolen?" today I wouldn't be surprised if the number saying "yes" were currently in the 20's for the reasons I mentioned above. I would also expect the usual breakdown of those identifing as Democrats being most likely to say "yes", with independants being in the middle and the Republican number being close to zero. Having said that, even statistically valid numbers would not apply to other questions. In other words, an independant who feels that the 2000 election was fair may, if questioned futher, still lean strongly towards voting Democrat in Nov. 2006 for example.

DO YOU CONDEMN THESE CRIMES AGAINST REPUBLICAN VOTERS, OR WOULD YOU ONLY CONDEMN IT IF DEMOCRATS WERE THE VICTIMS.

More demands from the diaper crowd.

Here, folks, is the cyber-equivalant of stomping your feet and holding your breath until you turn blue.

So, it appear Anjha has admitted that breaking the law to hurt a Republican is OK, but breaking the law to hurt a Democrat is not. posted by Neutral
*****
Where did I say such a thing?

Breaking the law is not OK. For anyone.

Guess you decided to not complete your reading. Too bad, there is so much more that might enlighten you if you were willing.

Neutral, yes of course I know the difference. I also know that winning on a technicality is not the same as winning outright. But opinion polls can be slippery things. You can't always force them to show what you want.

As for crime, again I will say: criminals should be prosecuted. Why do you insist that anyone here condem any crime in particular? If a crime has been commited, I trust local law enforcement with deal with it. If you find that that is not the case, you should take it up with them, not commenters on a blog.

Let me add that having wrote what I did above and then seeing the Times numbers from Anjha, I'm pleasntly surprised to see people as politizied as 38% indicates. After all, politizied voters turn out on election day. : )

It seems to be about time to mention this again:

Swing State Project -- up-to-date info

DCCC: Races to watch -- check your district and that of your friends. There must be a candidate in every district. Last I counted, there were 100 unopposed republican district races. I'll count again tonight and see if there has been any change.

Remember filing dates differ by state. There is always time to fight back.

Re: the 1960 Stolen Election.

History might help prove or disprove this theory, but this is a follow up to the comments made earlier.

It seems to argue a very unbiased rendition of the election.
Actually, I didn't know that Hawaii's votes had to be redown and changed to Kennedy.

No question, the Democrats stole Illinois, if that had not happened, then Texas would have been a possible point to prove, but to fight two wars was impossible.

And for those of you who think LBJ didn't help engineer the Texas ballots a bit, well then I guess you don't think he had anything to do with Kennedy's assassination...which is another debate unto itself.

Here is the pertinent info, that I either forgot, did not know, or found interesting.

http://www.answers.com/topic/u-s-presidential-election-1960

The election was held on November 8. It was close and Kennedy defeated Nixon by at most two tenths of a percentage point (0.2%) in the popular vote. Some speculate that Kennedy benefited from vote fraud especially in Texas and Illinois. There is no certainty that Nixon would have won both Texas and Illinois (which he would have had to do to win the Electoral College vote). What is certain, however, is that in Illinois, Kennedy won by a bare 9,000 votes, and Mayor Daley, who held back Chicago's vote until late in the evening, provided an extraordinary Cook County margin of victory of 450,000 votes. No thorough investigation of the massive irregularities was ever conducted, and partisans of Kennedy and Nixon still debate the bottom line"[1]. The Republican party urged Nixon to pursue recounts and challenge the validity of some of the votes for Kennedy, especially in the pivotal states of Illinois, Missouri and New Jersey, where marginal wins handed Kennedy the election. Nixon publicly refused to call for a recount, saying it would cause a constitutional crisis. However, privately, he encouraged GOP Chair Thurston Morton to push for a recount, which Morton did in 11 states, keeping challenges in the courts into the summer of 1961; the only result was the loss of the State of Hawaii to Kennedy on a recount.

The actual number of votes received by Byrd and Kennedy are difficult to determine. In Alabama, the statewide primary had chosen eleven electors, five of which were pledged to vote for Kennedy, and six of whom were free to vote for anyone they chose. The ballot gave voters a choice between Nixon and a slate of Democratic unpledged electors. It is unclear how many of the 318,303 Democratic votes in Alabama were for Byrd, and how many were for Kennedy. This margin is easily large enough to make Nixon the winner of the popular vote instead of Kennedy.

Actually according to the numbers and the cites given on this website, NIXON WON THE POPULAR VOTE

John Fitzgerald Kennedy Democratic Massachusetts 33,902,681(a) 49.3%
Richard Milhous Nixon Republican California 34,108,157 49.6%

So I guess this wasn't the first "ELECTORAL" election win in the last 100 years.

Here is a link showing the faces of the criminals who slashed the tires of Republican voters and threatened to beat them up if they voted on election day, 2004.

http://www.michellemalkin.com/

Now, all you "Bush stole the election" people, tell me :

DO YOU APPROVE OR CONDEMN THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS BY THESE PEOPLE THREATENING REPUBLICAN VOTERS?

Let's see if you can condemn fairly, or whether you just complain when it is your side that is the victim, while permitting Republican voters from being assaulted..

Are you going to be fair, people?
Posted by Neutral at January 9, 2006 04:57 PM

*****

You linked to Michelle "pug" Malkin.

Ergo, you are eliminated from being considered anything other than a shiteating wingnut Rovefucker from this moment ad infinitum.

Lots of hard word there carpe. I'm only a little hurt you didn't return my greetings. It's not as if we don't know each other just a little bit. I trust you will redeem yourself next time.

As you try to point out, sort of, there was no way Texas was going to vote in Nixon. Texas is still a vastly Democratic state. The conservative "shift" happened with Reagan. But prior to Reagan and the Bushes, we elected Democrats.

Now that I read back over your comment, it seems most of your ideas are from this website. Which might that be?

Lastly, your argument is not on point. Speculation about a 1960 election is not the same as real numbers -- the popular vote -- in 2000.

Oh! What district are you in? I'd love to look up your rep.

Oh, yes, Michelle Malkin, icon of credibility, revered journalist. What a joke. Any one who even mentions her as a source is completely debunked.

Yes, Carpe, that myth about Kennedy being delivered the election by stealing Illinois is exactly that, a myth. But hell, given your lack of critical thinking skills, it's no surprise you'd believe it. Say, aren't you always the one bringing the "facts"?

God of War,

I see your racism didn't take long to emerge. No wonder more minorities voted for Bush in 2004 than 2000. Left wing racism is becoming increasingly more sinister.

DO YOU CONDEMN THESE CRIMES AGAINST REPUBLICAN VOTERS, OR WOULD YOU ONLY CONDEMN IT IF DEMOCRATS WERE THE VICTIMS.

And you fucks have the moral high ground?

Meanwhile, Democratic party spokesman Seth Boffeli condemned the actions of "overzealous supporters on both sides" that have gone beyond yard-sign vandalism. He said signs were stolen off of a Democratic campaign office in Wausau, and, in one case, a man whose wife died got an angry phone call when her obituary asked people to vote for John Kerry in lieu of buying flowers.

"He got a voicemail at home from a Republican supporter of Bush saying that his wife should burn in hell," Boffeli said. "There has been a level of incivility in this campaign, admittedly on both sides, that we haven't seen before."

And look whats going on with you rethugs in Ohio...

House Bill 3's most publicized provision will require positive identification before casting a vote. But it also opens voter registration activists to partisan prosecution, exempts electronic voting machines from public scrutiny, quintuples the cost of citizen-requested statewide recounts and makes it illegal to challenge a presidential vote count or, indeed, any federal election result in Ohio

Yeah. You cocksukers have the high ground.

The good news?

New Jersey Moratorium on death penalty executions.

Neutral, as I' sure you have, given your Malkin reference, take a look at LFG for racism ad nausiem. Explain their RoP watch and then come back and color progressives with that same broad brush.

I think we need to get the electoral vote process back to where states can divide them up again.
They are going to install Diebold here in AZ across the state. If Napalitano, who has a 69% popularity factor does not win, some major riots will happen down here. I could not believe when the states female voter rep. announced Diebold machines going in. But sure enough, I saw a truck driving by the other day that had the name written all over it. It made me more supiscious because it was early Sunday morning about 7AM and not a sole out. I didn't here about the protest soon enough or I would have been down there.

That's "hear", not here.

Dear Dorita,

I'd love to be more personable, but alas, to give you too much information would invite your "colleagues" to flood my emails with spam, tinker around with my business, which I don't need.

I was yelled at, screamed at, shoved and spit upon in New York, (actually, I don't know if they spit, but it sounded good) while at the convention. I'm a trial lawyer so my many friends are generally, well, almost exclusively Democrats, so I know how it is to take the abuse from them. But to the most minimal degree, they might yell and hollar on my website against my ideas, I'm at least not worried about having my tires slashed in the middle of the night.

Is by chance Dorita your real name? I'm afraid I'm not terribly literate as to its origins, but it has a nice ring to it.l

Actually according to the numbers and the cites given on this website, NIXON WON THE POPULAR VOTE

John Fitzgerald Kennedy Democratic Massachusetts 33,902,681(a) 49.3%
Richard Milhous Nixon Republican California 34,108,157 49.6%

So I guess this wasn't the first "ELECTORAL" election win in the last 100 years.

Posted by carpediem at January 9, 2006 06:52 PM

*****

Beautiful, just beautiful, carpe. Kennedy won the election 49.72 to 49.55 on every credible website and those are the facts. Everything else you discussed is mere speculation and innuendo on your part. You really are a sorry ass. Why don't you go and hug David on your "victory" over us poor, misinformed liberals. That should help with that little inferiority thing you guys got goin' on.

Carpe, as you might be able to tell, I'm not living in the past, but I do remember it. I see that the treatment you received at the RNC means a lot to you. I can actually empathize. If you are a close reader, you may have realized that I live in Texas. I'm a native, as a matter of fact. I have always been a progressive -- there are strong progressive roots in this state -- and yet there has always been steady immigration from other states, and with it less progressive ideas. The aggression towards progressives has been building here for a while. I'm sorry that happened to you. I know how it feels. But happily I have moved beyond it. (You can, too, if you try.)

You should not fear spam or attacks on your website if you simply tell me your district. I'd just like to see who your rep is.

Lastly, no dorita is a pet name, but thanks for the compliment all the same :)

I was yelled at, screamed at, shoved and spit upon in New York, (actually, I don't know if they spit, but it sounded good) while at the convention

Posted by carpediem at January 9, 2006 08:06 PM

****

Given the steady stream of vitriol, hate, and lies I hear everyday on talk radio from Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, Hannity, and others, do you really expect a civil reception? Think about the filth you people spread on a daily basis. You call us criminals, traitors, faggots.
Your mighty wurlitzer plays this EVERYDAY, 24/7, without stop and you expect civility? You come here as a dupe shill, continuing the lies and you expect civility? Fuck you.

Yet another study has been concluded which indicates that the 2000 Election really did go to President Al Gore.

What's the recount tally now, 2 for Gore and about 81 for Bush?

LOL.

I'm a trial lawyer...

And I'm sure that Crappy is in favor of eliminating all those 'frivolous' lawsuits which keeps him in legal-size notepads.

Please, this issue has been sttled by how many independent recounts....rhetorical question (no need to answer).

And if crimes bother you so much, answer my other question about whether you approve of or condemn violent Democrats vandalizing Republican voter cars and beating up Republican voters.
That is a crime too, but do you approve of it or condemn it?

Posted by Neutral at January 9, 2006 06:18 PM

I wonder how Anything but Neutral would answer his own question if it were thrown back in his traitorous, America-hating face:

If crimes bother you so much, do you approve of or condemn violent Publicans vandalizing Democrartic voter cars and beating up Democratic voters? Do you approve of or condemn the fraud, voter intimidation, and illegal suppression of votes by Publicans in 2000, 2002, and 2004? They are crimes too, but do you approve of it or condemn it when your Publican masters do it too?

It is nice to see Crappy Day expending so much hot air in propagating Blush Limpdick talking points on progressive web sites. How's that Scaife money feel, Crap? I'm thinking somewhat like those thirty pieces of silver from days gone by...