No matter what, Bush WILL be sworn in as president on January 20th

[Walt Starr]

There is no way around that fact constitutionally. First of all, the electoral votes have been cast and will be read and Bush will be declared the winner. Should some Senator end his/her political career by contesting a slate of electors, it gets thrown to the House where each STATE gets a single vote. Bush would win by a bigger margin in the House than he did in the electoral college! The Senate WILL choose Cheney and the whole point will be moot!

Face the fact folks, constitutionally, Bush WILL BE SWORN IN ON JANUARY 20TH!!!

I suggest energy be put towards the decision of who will be DNC Chair in February and fighting the Bush agenda on a daily basis because it will be a LONG four years otherwise.

[seriousstan]

1. stop being a realist

[Pegleg Thd]

7. Just the thought of another 4 years

of those bastards make me want to:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Freddie Stubbs]

133. You had better get used to it

Nothing is going to stop it.

[zann725]

80. Ditto!

If we put our focus 4 years ahead...they win!
For now, we need to focus on Jan. 6, and before...REAL HARD!

No negativity allowed!

[understandinglife]

2. Perhaps (n/t)

[rodeodance]

3. the protest is STILL necessary!!--even as Bush gets sworn in.

[Last Lemming]

4. I'm still offering

$5 bets that Kerry takes the oath of office--
people used to laugh--now they just look very uncomfortable

[Walt Starr]

9. I'll bet you $1000 that Bush is sworn in on January 20th

Care to take me up on it?

[Last Lemming]

12. You're most certainly on

but it could get us thrown off the message board--
at least I can say I put my money where my mouth--or typing finger--is

[Walt Starr]

16. On January 20th, please donate $1000 to the Tsunami victims

I guarantee you will lose. I am bookmarking this thread.

[Last Lemming]

18. Medicine sans frontieres

would get my money--this is much more exciting than $5..

[Freddie Stubbs]

171. That'll buy a lot

of lemming food.

[bemis12]

11. I'll accept that

Please donate it to the Red Cross for me when you lose.

[Last Lemming]

15. No fair

he asked me first

but like the charity part, I will do the same as long as the charity is MSF

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Last Lemming]

38. 5 bucks I hope

I don't think I can go another thousand

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Last Lemming]

66. Done!!!

We will have to keep track of this--I'll check back with all takers on January 20th at five pm--if I'm sober enough to view the screen

[karlrschneider]

73. Woot. If Chimp isn't inaugurated, I will give another thousand to

Doctors without Borders if you'll agree to give them $100 if he is...
deal? (That's a 10 to 1 shot I would love to lose!)

[Last Lemming]

152. Didn't see this until just now

You're on

[Carolab]

5. Why should he be?

HE LOST!!!!!!!!

[spooked]

6. Wouldn't the MSM then be FORCED to cover the "alleged" Election Fraud"?!

They can swear him in all they want, but once this hits the MSM fan, he's going DOWN IN NIXON STYLE!!!!

[googly]

147. Except the congress is hechuva lot partisan in 2005 than 1976

[Dem2theMax]

8. What a way to start the new year.

I didn't get drunk last night.

I'm rethinking that right about now.

[liam97]

10. Ok he will be sworn in

and your point is...?

[Walt Starr]

14. There are soooo many people still saying Kerry will be

I just had to put out a quick reality check on the constitutional issues.

[Der Blaue Engel]

29. Thank you SO much for giving me a reality check

I had a moment of non-suicidal hope there for a moment. What a RELIEF.

[Walt Starr]

40. Face it now

it would only be worse if you went all the way to January 20 thinking Kerry was going to be sworn in and had t face it then.

[Der Blaue Engel]

46. Oh! Oh! Please, stop! I might cry!

:cry:

:hi:

[troubleinwinter]

13. Not perfectly accurate

There is a one in six hundred eighty three trillion chance that the House and Senate will unanimously reject Florida, Ohio and New Mexico Electoral votes, and Kerry will take the oath 1/20/05.

So there's hope.

[liam97]

17. I am with you

rather than the realitycheckers - we must continue to fight towards the goal of exposure and impeachment. The ACLU scored a pretty big victory on the torture front, lets not forget

[troubleinwinter]

21. Thanks for reminding me... I gotta send ACLU a donation!

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[troubleinwinter]

54. 1:683,000,000,000 aren't good enough odds for you?

[darkism]

77. Aren't those about the odds of the red shift happening in 16 states? n/t

[troubleinwinter]

91. Yesss!!! ...

Oh, I was just tryin' to harass Walt.

[troubleinwinter]

59. Think maybe your posts have been a little

intense and argumentative for TODAY being your very FIRST day????

[Freddie Stubbs]

134. The odds are probably longer than that

[Calvinist Basset]

19. The protest is still necessary--to show that Bush won't have an easy ride.

And frankly, it should be our responsibility to declare that it is wrong--wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong--to let a fraudulent election be ratified. We need, among many other things, a constitutional amendment to fix this glaring problem. And if nothing else, a protest will bring this fact to light.

[Walt Starr]

20. I'm not disagreeing with that

I'm merely projecting the reality of the situation. Too many people on DU are living in a fantasy world thinking that Kerry will still be able to be president when it simply is not going to happen.

[rodeodance]

42. I really did not think you were --but agree that too many seem to think

Kerry will still be able to be president (it is a fantasy).

[hootinholler]

35. Why are people so eager to ammend a perfectly good Constitution?

It seems like I keep hearing that over last 10 years or so. The evidence points to the conclusion that the Constitution has already been violated in this election. I say Prosecute!

-Hoot

[Calvinist Basset]

109. Sure, there's been violation.

But the problem is that no provision is made to rectify a situation in which election fraud is proven after the electoral college decisions have been made and ratified. That is to say, if it is proven on January 7th that Ohio had widespread election fraud that changed the overall results--technically, nothing can really be done about it. We're still stuck with Chimpy.

[bunny planet]

113. I'm not sure that's true, and I believe lawyer's have discussed this here.

The drop dead date to prove fraud is before January 20th, not the 6th. Even if the electors are certified on the 6th, if fraud is proven before the inauguration it can be stopped. I am afraid it won't and after inauguration it will have to be plan B, impeachment. That is sooooooo
going to happen.

[Walt Starr]

119. I'm sorry, but the drop dead date was the 13th of December under U.S. Code

After that any proof is moot.

[bunny planet]

137. Why have lawyers on this board disputed that then. I'm confused.

See OldLeftieLawyer's posts. They seem quite convincing. We are in uncharted waters right now and their is no precendent for what might happen, at least according to OLL.

[Walt Starr]

154. Because they do not take into account political reality

It would require Republicans getting on board and that simply will not happen no matter waht even if you have video of Bush personally ordering election fraud while fucking a dead girl and a live boy.

[forgethell]

55. What would be the details

of the amendment? Can it be made cheat-proof?

[Last Lemming]

22. Why are you all so pessimistic

The answers are lying right in front of all of you!! Bush is history--look at the whole chess board!!!! You are just focusing on one or two things and so you think all hope is lost--it's not--the news--every single day--has given us a great treasure trove of stuff on which we can at last feel like what needs to be done is being done

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Last Lemming]

56. Sorry--

you made me go back and review the original post--I am sure Bush remain in office until Jan 20 as per our constitution

[Walt Starr]

37. There are two ways to get Bush out of office before January 20, 2009

Impeachment or expiration. He seems to be healthy enough that the latter won't be occuring any time soon and the former is nearly impossible given the political makeup of the Congress. Best bet for the former is to elect a Democratic Congress in 2006.

[Zan_of_Texas]

68. Impeachment or resignation are possible if media turn on him.

Given the makeup of the media, that is not likely.

But, give it at least SOME chance if they see the writing on the wall (clearly the writing has to be on some walls they don't own).

[pointsoflight]

24. Aren't Dems about fighting the good fight?

Aren't Dems about fighting for our democracy, one that is founded on the principle of "by the people for the people?"

I know that's what I'm about, so I'll keep fighting, thank you very much. I can think of nothing more worthy of my energy.

[corbett]

129. You Bet They Are!

The reason they will prevail is that the beauty of our Constitution is that it took fraud and mischief into account when written. The majority cannot win through fraud if the minority can prove malfeasance!

[Freddie Stubbs]

135. There is a big difference between the good fight and

the futile quixotic fight.

[sally343434]

25. Yes

What I find particularly sad is that there are still a lot of people on DU who are clinging to sheer fantasy. You'll see lots of posts about Kerry's "secret plan" which he is putting into action "out of sight, in just the right way."

Just before Christmas we had many 1000+ posters clamoring about the "blockbuster lawsuit" filed last Monday in Ohio that would reveal all and change everything.

Look, there are some very fundamental problems that will block any attempt to change anything. We're stuck with at least four more years of our War Crimes President. The Democrats are a sham, being a mere fictional foil of the republican party. It's all a facade. The press is now completely corrupted, acting as a state news agency to prop up the fraud. We're living in a soviet state. Protests will be edited from domestic news coverage just as thay have been for the past four years. Of course, they will be covered in the foreign press. This is the way it was in the Soviet Union.

The way I see it, the only hope for change is from one of two places -- either from outside the country, or the republican party itself. It took the Soviet Union seventy years before Gorbachev came along. It could very well be that long before our country returns to democracy, if it ever does.

[Der Blaue Engel]

39. What I find particularly sad is the dogged determination of some

to crush the hope of those of us who are "deluded" into envisioning a positive outcome.

One wonders why it is so important for some to denigrate that effort with such ferocity.

[Walt Starr]

43. Sorry if you don't like reality

but Bush WILL be inaugurated on January 20th and there's not a damn thing anybody can do to change that fact. This is the reality of the situation.

[Der Blaue Engel]

50. Thanks for the heads up, Wally

Where would I be without your level-headed wisdom?

:hi:

[SicTransit]

44. The simple explanation is -

Republicans are ready to fight future battles. Democrats seem to be determined to be mired in the past. Concentrating on the futile task of trying to prevent Bush's inauguration is detracting from the task of defining the Democratic party's tasks for the future.

[Der Blaue Engel]

48. Yes, Republican do seem to be fighting AWFULLY hard

Must be they have some reason to believe they could lose what they've stolen.

:scared:

:hi:

[Garbo 2004]

47. How crushed will your hope be if you are led to believe that Jan 6 will

result in an unlikely miracle and it doesn't?

[Der Blaue Engel]

49. Gosh, you're right!

Now where did I put those razor blades?

Bless you for setting me straight.

:hug:

:hi:

[Garbo 2004]

58. Well it makes me sick that we appear to be stuck with this criminal

administration and an apparently largely complicit Congress and hope that the chickens home to roost on their heads soon in the coming year. But I'm not about to kill myself over those a-holes.

Meantime, plenty of work to do and causes to support. Election issues arising from this and past elections shouldn't be dropped because "it's over." Demand greater transparency in elections and less cronyism, etc on the local and state level not just on the Fed level, if real changes are to be made.

Support alternative progressive media to counter the dominance of the party line MSM.

Congress will have a lot of things on its plate in the coming year and Social Security needs to be protected. It's not broken and doesn't need to be fixed, but you'll find Dems joining with Republicans in the claim that they have to fix it. And who will profit from their "fixes?"

Lots to work and hope for, just realize none of it will be easy or guaranteed.

[forgethell]

53. I can't speak for

everybody, but in my case it is the same sad urge that certain evolutionists have for people who espouse creationism.

I'll let you figure it out.

But I could be wrong, we'll see.

[RevCheesehead]

61. Well, if you ever get the definitive answer on creationism/evolution,

would ya please let me know? Because the last I heard, the jury's still out on that one.

[forgethell]

67. It's not about

evolution/creationism. It's about the urge to squash nonsense. And without some hard evidence, all we have is nonsense. The MSM would have picked up on this if there was anything to it. Corporate whores are still whores, and would never pass up ajuicy story like this.

[RevCheesehead]

70. Yeah, but one person's "Creationism" is another's "evolution."

I, for one, am willing to respect either perspective, and would not label an opposing view as "nonsense."

Some people believe in the possibility of the election being overturned, and others do not. Unfortunately, there is very little toleration or respect for opposing viewpoints.

What I find amazing is the level of black/white thinking, with little room for shades of gray. My response to your post was a way of asking "when you get the answer to THAT one, let me know...because I don't think we've gotten proof either way, either."

[forgethell]

75. Under the American system

of justice, one is innocent until proven guilty. The evidence of election fraud is extremely weak, in my opinion, and evidently in the opinion of the courts. So unless we have real evidence of fraud, then there is no basis to dispute the legitimacy of the election.

The Repukes DO NOT have to prove their innocence; it is up to us to prove their guilt. So I don't object to efforts to find the evidence; it is the accusations that everyone in the MSM is afraid, corrupt, etc. that annoys me. That the Repukes must have committed fraud, not just in Ohio, but nation-wide to the extent of 3-and-one-half-million votes, because THERE IS NO WAY KERRY COULD HAVE LOST, I FEEL IN IN MY BONES. Well, maybe Kerry actually did win. but I want to see some real evidence.

People are calling for some body ordered by his bosses to commit election fraud to come forward with his notes and software programs. OK. When he gets here, that is evidence. Maybe an inquiry could be started then. But it still won't affect the inauguration.

Maybe, if someone can come forward with evidence that * was personally involved, it might lead to impeachment. What do you want to bet that Bush has secret recordings of the plot??

Maybe it's unjust, maybe it's unfair. but Democrats have been equally guilty of such shenanigans in the past. It's just the way politics has been done everywhere, forever. Constant vigilance is the way to prevent it.

Without evidence that there was fraud, real evidence, then this is all just nonsense. The Repukes can just sit on their fat, rich, white asses and laugh at us. And we will deserve it.

Sorry to be so blunt, but the level of thinking about this subject has convinced me that I know why we keep losing elections. It's because we haven't got a single clue.

[Chimpanzee]

98. We? Speak for yourself!

It is not nonsense. The MSM would at a minimum report that the election is in dispute, recounts that could have affected the result of the election were ongoing, etc. There is NO WAY under normal circumstances that this would not have been reported. If you really believe that this election was on the up and up, then you should go spend your time in the DU lounge or someplace else. People here are talking about serious problems and some are doing serious work. The evidence of fraud 'may be exteremely weak' for a good court case, but we are not done yet! Now take your wet blanket and quit raining on the parade!

[forgethell]

110. If you say so. n/t

[hootinholler]

150. You're cool Rev, but when you say:

I, for one, am willing to respect either perspective, and would not label an opposing view as "nonsense."

I'll just have to point out that any creation myth that I believe in will have to account for little technicalities like carbon dating, fossil record and yadda yadda (or yaba daba) ;) Further, I reserve the right to dismiss as nonsense any creation story that I would like to.

Every society has a creation myth. I believe that it describes the origin of sentience in humankind in terms that make sense for that society. The "divine spark" if you will.

One of the key lessons to learn about the Eden story is knowledge is power, and power corrupts.

-Hoot

Who was amazed to learn about the plaque erected overlooking the Grand Canyon explaining its creation from drainage as the biblical floodwaters receded. Wish I had a photo of that.

[Chimpanzee]

94. Now that's a load of crap!

[googly]

167. For those who doubt evolution, all they have to do is look at

how MAN has manipulated the breed of dogs in a couple of thousand years
to produce animals which do not look anything like their ancestors, the
wolves. By selective breeding MAN can create dogs which can have desired
traits such as sheep herding, guard duty, blind person guide dogs,
miniature sized dogs, etc.

[Der Blaue Engel]

141. ROTFL

Thank you for that. I needed a good laugh. :)

[Last Lemming]

63. Here's an optimist

saying to you, Marlene, that things don't look bad at all--and I broke down and cried on Nov3--I'm not crying now

[Der Blaue Engel]

142. Thanks, Lemming

No crying here. Mostly just giggling quietly to myself.

(But that could just be because I'm watching Tenacious D.) ;)

[Astrochimp]

26. Much better anyway, IF fraud is proven........

it could be a chance to take down much of the party too.

Now we are just sore losers, but with proven fraud (IF) they are criminals.

[FreepFryer]

27. MORE IMPORTANT IN THE LONG RUN IS...

That although it is true that Bush will be sworn in IF:

1. the votes are not challenged by a Senator and a Congressman
AND IF
2. the votes are challenged, but the Senate and House vote along party lines

If that happens, which is indeed the vastly overwhelming likelihood, we will have had an election where, despite detailed, complex evidence of massive fraud, party politics won out hands down despite the core proposition of our democracy: Fair, Competitive Elections.

The Constitutional momentum - the 'mandate' - that this will give us in pursuing election reform and identifying those responsible for fraud will be massive, WHEN framed correctly by the Dems. And I do believe there is a lot of wisdom, and power evident in Kerry's conspicuous quietness amongst this frenzy.

The abuses against the House (ethics guideline eliminations, etc.) that are underway are gross and perverse, but the Liberal Democratic movement will have been handed the ultimate keys to success against those who would so freely rig an unfair election, should such partisanship be evident on Jan 6.

We can do it - It may seem like a few footprints behind us, but they can be seen all the way back past Women's Suffrage.

Remember - this is only the beginning. We must do what the Right has done so well - muster our resources, our children, our educational systems, and make long-term investments in growing understanding and acceptance of our world view while combatting those opposed to the pre-eminence of civil liberties. Except, we must do it without deceit and division. We can, and we will.

[pointsoflight]

36. Nice post. n/t

[wrate]

165. This is not something any average Joe writes. Beautiful post!

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Garbo 2004]

30. Merely contesting a state's electoral votes does not throw the election to

the House. First both houses of Congress have to vote to support the objection to the state's electoral votes. If the state's votes are thrown out entirely (when there is no competing slate of electors certified by the state, I suppose this is possible) and if Bush consequently doesn't have enough electoral votes, then the election goes to the House.

Contesting a state's electoral votes just puts the matter up for debate (two hours max according to Fed law) and then a vote in each house. If the objection is not agreed to by either house the state's electoral votes are accepted and included in the count.

[Walt Starr]

32. Sorry, should have worded it better

AT BEST it would get thrown to the House and Senate.

It won't even come to that. Not only will the electors not be thrown out, no Senator will contest them.

[IndyPriest]

72. So, Walt: when Conyers says he's absolutely sure that

SEVERAL Senators WILL contest, you think he's lying, or spinning, or what exactly?

[Doctor O]

76. Not sure about that. He said that earlier last week . But then he

said he had not talked to any senators about it and had no committment from them as of Tuesday. So go figure.

[Chimpanzee]

99. No he said he had not takled to a single senator.

Most of the senators are married.

[karlrschneider]

79. I have not heard Conyers saying that, do you have a source?

Not saying you are wrong, but it's news to me as of this moment...

[IndyPriest]

82. He said it in a radio interview Friday, Dec. 31, in Phoenix. Here's

the link to DU discussion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=218168&mesg_id=218168

Amazing, no??!

[Doctor O]

83. He was said to have made this mention on the

Ed Shultz show. But the next day there was an article in wich he said that he had not discussed this with any senators.

[IndyPriest]

87. Nope. See my post right above yours. n/t

[Doctor O]

93. This was the second time he is reported to have said it.

Both on Dec 31st and on Monday on Ed Shultz show.

[Doctor O]

117. This morning (sunday) he backed away from

would to should. This was on the air with Jesse Jackson live this morning!!!!!!!!!!

[Walt Starr]

120. Spinning

I see no chance whatsoever for any Senator to contest.

[Freddie Stubbs]

136. He has NEVER said that he had even one single commitment

Although wishful thinkers have posted that threads to that effect, only to have Conyer's exact words in the body were he says that he is sure that he will get some Senators. There is a big difference in the two.

[hootinholler]

31. Matters not...

Thinking that the fight in this election is about putting JK in the White House is like ordering a Hot Fudge Sundae because it has a cherry on top.

At the risk of being crass, I'll quote myself.

"Although it appears to be a long held tradition in American politics, I believe that the American people have evolved past the toleration of theft via electioneering, just as our forebearers evolved past the holding of slaves, past the denial of franchise to blacks and women, and past segregation. We the people can not continue to tolerate this behavior from our "elected" officials, and thier hired gun staff." -- HootinHoller

-Hoot

[smartvoter]

45. Doesn't change a thing for me. nt

[KoKo]

51. I HEAR YA!....but...I'm "stuck back" in this "thingy" about "elections

being important..:shrug: I'm just not ready to "move along" yet...???

[politicasista]

52. I am sorry, but Smirky is NOT my president.

:hurts:

[forgethell]

57. You are

correct.

[blueatheart]

60. kerry will not be prez, I believe most people know this..

but that scumbag, moron, lunatic shrub should be impeached. As slim as the hope is for that because of the power of the pukes, dems concentrating on next election (like it makes a difference) & the press in pukes pocket.

Just thinking about him makes me wanna :puke::puke::puke::puke:

Yes, reality bites sometimes but if we give up hope completely then nothing ever will be accomplished. I for one will not give up, and its not about Kerry.

[k8conant]

62. Mother Jones said it for me...

"Whatever your fight, don't be ladylike!"


:kick:
:kick:
:kick:

[IStriker]

64. You are a realist and so am I...

I came here after the election because I felt a need to talk with like minded people who were as disappointed as I am about the outcome. I have read just about everything posted here in regard to fraud and I withheld judgement until I had seen enough to realize that if there is any solid evidence, it has not been posted here. There are lots of allegations, but I haven't seen any proof.

I think you are absolutely correct that our energy needs to be directed toward how we can win the next election.

[Time for change]

104. How can we win the next election without

exposing and preventing further election fraud???

[saracat]

65. If nothing else a protest will force people to payattention.

Actually, I would like to see a popular revolt and for people to take to the streets, but Americans are too complacent. And if you really think you have any influence over DNC Chair, unless you have a vote? Do you? You are also in a dream world. And DNC chair doesn't have the power people think it does either. Ask Ed Rendell. He will tell you how he was over ruled by a group of twentysomethings. And they were in league with????? Guess.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[steelyboo]

71. I've said it on here the other day, and it bears repeating, listen to

"chicken-little" centrists like this guy, and you can go on and flush the Dems down the same toilet as the Populists and Whigs. READ YOUR FUCKING HISTORY --- RUNNING FROM THE MIDDLE WILL NEVER WIN.

But hey, who the fuck am I, let these guys continue to pull you farther and farther to the right (yeah, if you don't realize it, when they say the Dems need to be more "moderate" or the middle, what that means in Neocon Doublespeak is "either Conform, or we will wipe you off the political map"). Keep going to the Right, loose your support from the Left, watch your Party get flushed, I don't give a fuck anymore. After watching this board for a couple of months, I'm starting to understand why the Dems are burning out and fading away. Always remember, "To thy ownself be true", only cowards abandon when times get tough, or in this case, only cowards ask you to change your longstanding belief, to better your chances.

I have stated I will go Green if the Dems dont fight on this, and its guys like this (any relation to Ken?) that are driving the "left-wingnuts" away. Where the fuck else do Dems think they are going to find a base?

[TankLV]

90. We will excuse your insinuations of Walt's credentials, being a newcommer

and low poster.

Please do a "search" under Walt's name and learn where his heart lies.

It is not what you erroneously assert.

[steelyboo]

101. Can I ask who "We" are? Do I need to worry about hearing Jackboots?

Regardless, I apologize for any direct insult to Walt, as the comments were made in the hasted anger he created with his post. But my words were meant to be directed at this philosophy he preaches; this pessimism towards the liberals in this forum, and generally the emerging Democratic attitude towards Liberals in general.

Please, can one of you centrists answer this: Where do you think the Democratic Party will get its base if we are to abandon the Left wing of our party, and move more towards the "middle"? Whats the middle ground we are moving towards on abortion? My understanding of the Dem view now is that we want them rare, safe, and legal. The repubs want them totally banned. We COMPROMISED and said fine, we will agree to ban some rare abortion cases. What did we get in the bargain from the people we BENT OUR WILL to? Demands of MORE MORE MORE! They are children, how do you reason with children, guys?

Do you think that if we tell the people that want TOTAL reproductive freedom and no less, that their view, which this party has staunchly fought for, is now invalid? That the heat is too much now, and we've got to pack it in? When in fact the heat just got a megaphone, but didn't get any bigger at all.

Whats the middle ground on Gay marriage? Either their idea of a relationship is valid or it isn't. Plain and simple. I think only the lowest form of conservative would say that homosexual relationships are invalid. Certainly no Dems should think it, because that would be invalidating all the work Liberal wing of this party strove for in civil rights for all Americans (and this political machine rode the back of to power for awhile, I might add). So what is the argument about? Are we to treat them as less in the eyes of the law because some people don't like the fact that they don't to put their TAB A into someone's SLOT B, like "GODtm" intended.

If you keep abandoning your base, how the hell do you think you will win? Do you think the Repub moderates are going to defect, to even out the teams? WTF? You can't recruit from the other army while you are at war and expect to win.

[TankLV]

132. Assuming Walt and I are "centrists". That's a laugh.

Please do a search on both our names. You will be pleasantly surprised.

We all will disagree on the fine points, no one's opinion exactly matching the next one's.

I'm sure most on this board will argue that I'm a left wing "lunatic"!

Centrist. That's a good one.

You definition for myself and Walt as not being "liberal" is totally in error.

Other than these couple salient points, I agree with you totally.

And, unless I REALLY haven't been paying close attention, I don't believe Walt has said anything that I can strongly disagree with either. Maybe I missed something the couple days I didn't log on.

I agree that we should go back - LEFT - to the "middle" and our "base". I'm a proud member of the DEMOCRATIC WING of the Democratic Party.

[steelyboo]

138. Ok,, I apologize then, my fellow Dems. I should have researched.

But thanks for keeping it civil, and I appreciate your agreement.

Lets all see what we can do to move the party to the left again.

[mzmolly]

74. I agree.

And ... Dean for DNC!

[KaliTracy]

78. nonetheless it would be an unprecidented act

and if nothing else, would open the closet just a bit, and someone, somewhere, might get a glimpse of the dirty laundry that might be hiding.

[SicTransit]

88. if by "unprecedented" you mean something

that has never happened before, you'd be wrong.

[TankLV]

81. What ever happened to the "great news" that was supposed to break Monday,

27th?

I thought Willpit had some earthshattering news that would usher in some sort of Kerry victory in Ohio?

It sank like a lead baloon.

[IndyPriest]

85. Sank? Not yet.

Kerry filed a motion in Fed Court in OH to protect evidence. Hasn't been ruled on -- yet.

[Doctor O]

89. I have tried to find this, but have not been successful

Read The Law First reported in a post that the motions by the Glibs and by Kerry to the District Court have been denied. I have not been able to find it, but another DU'er posted he had seen it also.

[IndyPriest]

92. May be some confusion. A similar motion to save evidence

was submitting to the OH Supreme court which was denied on technicalities. Can be resubmitted.

[TankLV]

95. Thanks for the info - I have not seen anything on it.

Still seems extremely quiet on this front.

Is there a place we can keep a thread going to keep tabs on this situation?

I'm not on every day - will be out of commission for a couple days getting my corneal implant in my right eye next Tuesday to match the successful implant in my left eye last tuesday - so I lost track of this topic.

[thebigdonkey]

84. still i think we should put up a fight at the least we can take away some

of Bush's "capitol."

[fooj]

86. Well, Walt...I guess I'll take my chances!

I don't happen to agree...however, it's a free country!(or is it?) Just checking! A couple of questions...

1)You certainly seem to be right on the pulse of this and know EXACTLY what's going to happen. Is there a right-wing playbook that the rest of us are unfamiliar with? Oh c'mon-you can tell us...

2)Why would a senators career be "ruined" by embracing and honoring truth and justice? I thought this was an election based on MORAL VALUES! (or was it?)

3)When a citizen of this country breaks the law, if convicted, don't they go to jail? Has ole Tom Dingledork changed that law, too? Hypothetically speaking, if laws were broken it seems as though your whole point WILL BE MOOT. At least that is the America that I know and love.

4)There is no daily agenda in Bush's administration, is there? It is just all one big preplanned business deal, right? Now come on...EVERYONE who bothers to inform themselves knows that! Besides, keeping up is rather difficult (even if there was a daily agenda) because everything in the WH is kept "Off Limits"! Those pesky little National Security issues sure keep us in the dark, don't they?
5)And finally...where IS the Dickster? I sure hope they can find him when it comes time to steal election #2!!!

So, Walt- I know that "realistically" it may not be in the cards for us...however...I choose to believe that this country is full of people who hope for a better tomorrow. I choose to believe that Americans, generally, are an innately good group of people and our passion in preserving the integrity of our democracy will ignite a flame of promise within the borders of our country and beyond. This is my fervent prayer! Amen!

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING????:think:

[Walt Starr]

121. My answers to your questions

1-4) Read the constitution and the United States Code. Bush won regardless of cheating or not. It will be official on January 6 regardless of cheating or not. He will be inaugurated on January 20 regardless of cheating or not.

If you've got proof and are not forthcoming with it, you are also violating the law.

[Vinca]

96. Nixon was sworn in, too . . .

and look how well that turned out.

[graywarrior]

97. Regardless. We will make his life miserable for 4 years

Payback for Clinton.

[KellyW]

100. here is washington

The repugs seem to think if they cast dispersions on the election there will be a revote for govenor. Who is more deluded ?

[melwoods]

102. Well geez, Mr. Starr...

the chimp will most likely be sworn in on the 20th- But if we don't take a stand against fraudulent elections NOW? When? The next fraudulent election? I've lurked here for awhile and I followed your medal story and it's outcome-I respect you and your research.But if the voting isn't fixed NOW-then we all might as well give up- it don't mean a thing.:-(

[senseandsensibility]

103. Amen

Welcome to DU!!:hi:

[buddysmellgood]

105. It would be news if congress contests the vote. Get it?

[pointsoflight]

112. Yes, that would promote the electoral reform cause more than anything...

...else possibly could, regardless of the outcome of the contest itself. Even more importantly, protecting the sanctity of the vote and standing up for disenfranchised voters is simply the right thing to do.

[redacted]

106. Walt, are you an expert in Constitutional Law?

[Walt Starr]

122. The constitution is VERY clear on this

as is the United States code.

Read Article II, Amendment XII and Amendment XX. Then go read Title 3 Chapter 1 of the United States Code. If any other outcome than Bush being inaugurated on January 20th was to happen, the abslute proof of it had to be presented before December 13th.

[bemis12]

123. I guess I'd disagree

Title 3 Chapeter 1 § 15

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000015----000-.html

This section clearly gives Congress the final authority on accepting the electoral votes. If absolute proof is found in the next 3 days, they have the ability to elect someone else.

I don't disagree that it's over, just not in a technical standpoint.

[Walt Starr]

124. And that's the reality of the situation

There is no way whatsoever the Republican Party will NOT let Bush take office on January 20th.

You could prove that Bush gave the order to steal the election while fucking a live boy AND a dead girl and the Republicans would STILL elect him.

[WebeBlue]

107. Prefer my delusion, don't want to face "facts" when they are not yet facts

and will wear my extreme disappointment on Jan 20, if election is not overturned in one of the many protest demonstrations being planned. B*** translates, for me, to death warrant for our kids and more carnage and destruction in Iraq. I prefer holding onto the slim thread of hope, and am encouraged by the reports I've seen with Kerry filing motion with Federal Court and Conyers working from a knowledgeable place acting to contest the electorate vote.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sepia_steel]

111. WHO CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARES

It's not about getting Kerry into the White House. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, PLEASE, and in the meantime stop giong out of your way to discourage those who are hopeful. Expectation might be unrealistic; HOPE IS NOT. Leave people alone!

[malatesta1137]

116. WHO CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARES??? I fucking do

Or do you think by allowing Bush get away with another theft, we will be accomplish *ANYTHING* in the voting fraud issue in the next 4 years? Or any other progressive issue?

This has ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS been about getting Kerry in the White House, nothing else. He caved in and now 4 more years of global holocaust are upon us.

At this time, expectation AND HOPE are unrealistic, sorry.

[melwoods]

114. It don't mean a thing;

if it ain't got that swing:)

[marcologico]

115. Clinton was sworn in twice, but that didn't stop them

from spraying mud at him with a fire hose 24/7 for eight years, and election fraud is a heck of a lot more serious than oral sex. So why should an oath make any difference? We've got to hammmer Bush until he's flattened.

[lonestarnot]

118. SWORN Maybe; President NOT

Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio.

Gotta get down to it.
Soldiers are gunning us down.
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and
Found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?

Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na.
Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na.
Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na.
Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na.

Gotta get down to it.
Soldiers are cutting us down.
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and
Found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?

Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio.
Four dead in Ohio.
Four dead in Ohio.
Four dead in Ohio.
Four dead in Ohio.
Four dead in Ohio.
Four dead in Ohio.
Four dead in Ohio.
Four dead in Ohio.

[SmokingJacket]

125. I think you're wrong that many people have their hearts set on

Kerry being sworn in.

People are talking it up as a way of showing opposition -- showing that Bush's being sworn *should not* be inevitable.

I think we have plenty of energy to go around. We're not going to give up once B is sworn in. Are we??

[lonestarnot]

127. Can we get a HELL NO!

:kick:

[FULL_METAL_HAT]

126. With election piracy there will be no hope in 4 years... BUT THERE IS HOPE

Don't worry -- the secret plan does an end run around all the obstacles in place.

I don't want to elaborate right now (I know, call me a tease!), but I'll tell you all the signs and portents are all out in the open.

There is more hope than you might think.

Years of being programmed to think in certain ways has lead to people not realizing what in retrospect is super obvious.

I AM BEING A TEASE only because it doesn't matter if "we know" or not ... if it happens it will...

Please be patient before flaming or questioning my hypo-thesis. I working on writing it up properly and I'm still waiting on some feedback.

I BELIEVE HOPE IS ON THE WAY!

All the best,

{B^)
FULL_METAL_HAT

p.s. I agree with all the statements in this thread and others on why the deck is totallllly stacked against justice -- but justice can prevail despite those odds...

[s-cubed]

144. Hey, Hat, can't you tease us a little more?

I liked your other post, was it in there? Are you coming to DC for the celebration?

[corbett]

128. Sorry - You Skipped The Whole Fraud Angle

You are precisely wrong when citing the Constitution in this matter. The Ohio electors were sat illegally and Conyers can prove it.

You also skipped over the pair of other challenges looming, one of which names the shrub personally. The Constitution is on Kerry's side here and I exhort you to have your facts in order before posting a thread of this sort!

[pauldp]

130. Here, here. Thank you for pointing that out. n/t

[Garbo 2004]

139. Perhaps you too should check out your sources when you say

"You are precisely wrong when citing the Constitution in this matter. The Ohio electors were sat illegally and Conyers can prove it...The Constitution is on Kerry's side here and I exhort you to have your facts in order before posting a thread of this sort!"

Federal statute (US Code, Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15), not the Constitution, discusses the matter of contesting a state's electoral votes in Congress. Electors not lawfully certified by state would a basis for an objection. But that appears more a reference to procedure (state certification and submittal of votes to Congress) rather than an issue regarding that the popular vote results in the state were questionable and therefore the electoral votes may not be a valid representation of the popular vote. (The Constitution btw doesn't require a popular vote as the method for determining a state's votes in the electoral college.)

US Code, Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15 also includes:

"...no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified." http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+3USC15

Further analysis: "Basis for Objections. The general grounds for an objection to the counting of an electoral vote or votes would appear from the federal statute and from historical sources to be that such vote was not "regularly given" by an elector, and/or that the elector was not "lawfully certified" according to state statutory procedures. The statutory provision first states in the negative that "no electoral vote ... regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified ... from which but one return has been received shall be rejected" (3 U.S.C. § 15), and then reiterates for clarity (see Conference Report on 1887 legislation, 18 Congressional Record 668, 49th Cong., 2d Sess., January 14, 1887) that both houses concurrently may reject a vote when not "so regularly given" by electors "so certified." 3 U.S.C. § 15. It should be noted that the word "lawfully" was expressly inserted by the House in the Senate legislation (S. 9, 49th Cong.) before the word "certified" ( Conference Report, supra, 18 Congressional Record at 668). Such addition arguably provides an indication that Congress thought it might, as a grounds for an objection, question and look into the lawfulness of the certification under state law. While the first objection of "regularly given" may, in practice, subsume the latter (as a vote may arguably be other than "regularly given" if it were given by one who was not "lawfully certified"), the two objections are not necessarily the same. In the case of the socalled "faithless elector" in 1969, described above, the elector was apparently "lawfully certified" by the state, but the objection raised was that the vote was not "regularly given" by such elector." http://www.house.gov/cha/electoralcollege/electoralcollege.html

At any rate, what you don't account for is what would be the procedure and likely result assuming the Ohio vote is contested? All Dems and enough Republicans in both houses would have to support the objection. There is no competing slate of electors that have had their votes submitted to Congress by the state (which has happened in the past and so the Congress could choose to reject the votes of one set of electors while accepting the other). The portion of Section 15 above suggests that in such a case (no competing slate of electors votes) the state procedurally properly certified votes should not be rejected. But any action to not accept the votes as submitted would require a majority in both houses to concur.

For Kerry to be elected, all Dems and enough Republicans in both houses of Congress would have to agree to contest votes and assuming votes are thrown out so that Bush does not have enough votes to win, take the election to the House where again all Dems and enough Republicans would have to vote for Kerry. Do you really see that happening?

As for other legal challenges, Ohio's SOS and judiciary have been adept at running out the clock. I'd of course love some deus ex machina court decision to somehow overrule the Ohio vote, but is that happening, likely to happen or even possible? There hasn't even been a full recount, only questionable proceedings that appeared to guarantee there would no complete counting of all the votes. If Conyers can indeed prove fraud, has that proof been submitted to any court? And if so, what is the status of the case?

As for the Constitution, here's all it says on the matter of the appointment of electors:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

And further, as amended by the 12th Amendment:

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. * The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

*Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment:

"If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

[Walt Starr]

157. Sorry, you are wrong

The constitution is 100% behind Bush being sworn in. It was a done deal on December 13 because NO REPUBLICAN WILL GO AGAINST IT!

[TruthIsAll]

131. THAT's not the POINT: it was FRAUD. Everyone knows or will know it.

.

[Walt Starr]

158. Oh yeah? PROVE IT!

YOU CAN'T! You have no hard evidence whatsoever, regardless of suspicion.

[Imagevision]

140. Bush sworn in? -- we'll see on Jan. 6th. if no objections occur?

[Walt Starr]

159. Objections WON'T MEAN SHIT!

You won't get Republicans on board, ergo, any objection is a moot point before it even happens!

[The Gigmeister]

143. Please stop with the rational talk...We're not done eating each other yet!

[MissBrooks]

145. I've been saying that for a month

and everyone just jumps down my throat.

[googly]

148. What's the matter with you?

Don't you like to dream a little fantasy, that Kerry will jump in
thru the glass window on Jan 6th, with a sword in one hand and proof
in another hand showing incontrovertible proof of election fraud?

Oh well, I was fantasizing you were a beautiful princess and I was
the handsome prince :toast: :nopity:

[MissBrooks]

153. Sure...

Why not!

[googly]

146. not only that, ONLY congress can then depose a sitting president

not even the SCOTUS has the contitutional power to throw out
the scum bag.

[marcologico]

149. bowel movements are also inevitable

but that doesn't mean we have to dwell on it.

[Vinnie From Indy]

170. LOL n/t

[berniew1]

151. If the evidence is convincing to public, and I think it is; mo could swing

Widespread vote machine fraud has been documented in Florida in the big touchscreen counties, as well as voter suppression of minorities. Similar to the widespread voter suppression and fraud that has been documented in Ohio and New Mexico.
The problems appear large enough to swing all 3 states, as implied by the exit poll data- for which a new version is circulating today with strong evidence Kerry won the election. Exit poll data on voting groups.

Documentation for Ohio is at: http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19

and http://northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm

Documentation of the widespread Florida vote machine fraud is at: http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html


Newly released Media Exit Poll:

1) 59% of the 17% who did NOT vote in 2000 but who did in 2004 voted for Kerry. Just 39% for Bush.

2) 65% of those who did NOT vote for Bush or Gore in 2000 voted for Kerry. Just 13% for Bush and 16% for Nader.

3) 91% of those who voted for Gore, voted for Kerry.

4) 90% of those who voted for Bush in 2000, voted for Bush in 2004.

5) 20% (approx) of all voters are new voters. Of these voters according to the exit polls 65% voted Kerry and 35% voted Bush

6)The exit poll from the South shows Kerry won 64% of the Hispanic Vote.


7) Kerry's margin of victory was INCREASING, not decreasing as the day grew later


Some common myths regarding need tor adjustment dispelled by the Newly Released poll data:

1. The earlier exit poll numbers oversampled women.

Wrong. The 7:30 p.m. exit poll numbers consisted of 54% women and 46% men. The final exit poll numbers included the exact same percentages.

2. The earlier exit poll numbers oversampled minorities.

Wrong. The 7:30 p.m. exit poll numbers consisted of 11% blacks and 9% hispanics. The final exit poll numbers included 11% blacks and 8% hispanics.

3. The earlier exit poll numbers oversampled democrats (i.e., republicans voted later in the day).

Wrong. The 7:30 p.m. exit poll numbers consisted of 38% democrats, the final exit poll numbers consisted of 37%.

4. The earlier exit poll numbers undersampled rural voters.

Wrong. The 7:30 p.m. exit poll numbers consisted of 16% rural voters, same as the final exit poll numbers.


Newly Released Exit polls also show Kerry won in all major groups of voters except in the South

HORIZONTAL WEIGHTED
PARTYID Vertical Bush Kerry Nader Bush Kerry Nader
Dem 38% 9% 90% 1% 3.4% 34.2% 0.4%
Repub 36% 92% 7% 0% 33.1% 2.5% 0.0%
Indep 26% 45% 52% 2% 11.7% 13.5% 0.5%

100% 48.2% 50.2% 0.9%

IDEOLOGY
Liberal 22% 12% 86% 1% 2.6% 18.9% 0.2%
Moderate 45% 41% 57% 1% 18.5% 25.7% 0.5%
Conserv 33% 82% 16% 1% 27.1% 5.3% 0.3%

100% 48.2% 49.9% 1.0%

RELIGION
Protestant 53% 56% 43% 1% 29.7% 22.8% 0.5%
Catholic 27% 49% 50% 1% 13.2% 13.5% 0.3%
Jewish 3% 23% 77% 0% 0.7% 2.3% 0.0%
Other 7% 20% 75% 4% 1.4% 5.3% 0.3%
None 11% 29% 70% 1% 3.2% 7.7% 0.1%

100% 48.2% 51.6% 1.2%


MILITARY
Yes 18% 55% 43% 1% 9.9% 7.7% 0.2%
No 82% 46% 53% 1% 37.7% 43.5% 0.8%

100% 47.6% 51.2% 1.0%

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/pdfs/Mitofsky4zonedata /
http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm

[fasttense]

155. OK, so what?

Bush rigged the election. He made sure he got both the House and the Senate. Even if/when they go off to talk about the rigging, they are going to come back all happy to give B*sh a hand job. That is not the point. The point is for once the people will put enough pressure on a bunch of sorry little scum to get them to do the right thing even for just a brief moment in time. Anyway, I was just hoping to see some truth and honor for a small fraction of a second. To see some brave soul stand up and show some courage and dignity. That is the point.

[Snivi Yllom]

156. but but but Kerry is 'getting into the game' ;)

The reality of the situation is bad enough but the constant pushing and promotion of false hope is practically pointless, wasteful with misdirected energy, and frankly a little bit cruel.

Thank you for having the guts to say what needed to be said.

[Benson]

160. Read Kerry's interveiw from this last weekend.

I agree with Snivi Yllom. Thanx Walt.

[Snivi Yllom]

163. agreed

If you read the new Newsweek Kerry interview it's clear Kerry is not contesting the eleciton.

[Vinnie From Indy]

161. Wrong!

Not to get nit-picky, but it is not an absolute certainty that C+ Augustus will be coronated on the 20th. Shrub could be the first human being to ever fatally run himself over with a Segway machine or he could choke on a fried banana and pretzel sandwich. There is, of course, always the much hyped "rapture". I don't think this last possibility would even work however. The rapture would come and likely only about a few dozen people would qualify for heaven and be "raptured". The rest of us, including all of the religious right, would just get our hair messed up in all the fire, smoke, confusion and stuff. Then we would have to deal with all the pissed off "unraptured" fundies! Oh how the Buddhists will laugh and laugh at all of us unraptured Christians. Wal-Mart will start selling T-shirts with "The Rapture came and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" printed on them. Ann Coulter will call Jesus out as a "girly-man" and Rush will blame Bill Clinton's penis for denying real American's their shot to sit on a cloud and play a harp.

I seem to have gotten off on tangent. Anyhoo, the Democrats need to fight this battle regardless of the outcome. This battle involves the soul of our Democracy and, hopefully, it will break the grip of power of the DLC on our party. We need to fight now or we may not get another chance for a good long while.

[errorbells]

164. LOL

you had me with >C+ Augustus

i now have have tears running down my face from laughin' so hard

"raptured" i can't stop

thank you..i guess...oh god ..hahahaha

[Left Brain]

166. Wow, Vinnie,

I LIKE your style!

[Woody Box]

162. Walt Starr

Hi Walt,

as I remember, in the days after 11/2, I was one of the first guys here on DU claiming the election was fraudulent.

You immediately accused me of being a "tinfoil hat" in a rude way.

Now you don't say that the election was not fraudulent, but you say: "It doesn't matter, no chance to prevent Bush's inauguration."

Don't you think this hurts your credibility?

Think about it, Walt.

[chapel hill dem]

168. Frist is leaving USA tomorrow to go to tsunami areas

and will not be at the Jan 06 EC session, according to what I heard on CNN a few minutes ago. He must not be worried about the contest...

[Jo March]

169. The right isn't worried - why should they be?

Their minions are all over the place trying to fight us, shame us and make us fight each other all in an attempt to get us to forget the fraud issue.

Well, Kerry or no Kerry, I want my vote to count. I will continue to fight and fight as hard as I can.

It's about Democracy.