"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:41b3622e.230666078@news-west.newscene.com...

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 05:55:08 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:41af0fbe.209562375@news-west.newscene.com...

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:21:53 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

"Cropdustersal" <cropdustersal@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20041111191058.06111.00000243@mb-m23.news.cs.com...

How to overturn the 2004 Presidential election

The Constitution does not mandate popular elections

by Salvador Astucia, Nov. 11, 2004

For those Americans who are upset with the re-election
of George W. Bush as President of the United States,
there may be a legal way to overturn his second term.
It may be possible, and completely legal, for a small
group of Democratic Governors to overturn the popular
vote in states where Bush was chosen to have a second
term. Contrary to common believe, the United States
Constitution does not mandate popular elections for the
President and Vice-President. The Constitution clearly
specifies that each state shall choose a small number
of "electors" to cast votes for the President and
Vice-President on behalf of the citizens who live in
that state. In addition, Federal law specifies--for
this year--that the election is not officially over
until December 13, 2004 when the electoral votes are
officially cast by the electors of each state, per
the Constitution. I will explain the legal details
shortly, but first, let's review the outcome of the
2004 election.

Oh, my.

Amazing how, when the Democrats are on the losing end of things, they
are
quite happy to engage in the very practices that they CLAIM to most
loathe
in the evil Republican hearts. Now we have one who is advocating
cheating
like crazy to overturn an election so that it will go the way HE wants.
Never mind the popular vote (which, I notice, all you Democrats were
shouting about in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote), never mind
anything.

Wouldn't you care to simply annoint Edward Kennedy King and be done with
it?

One post of dubious origin and you are ready to cast the entire
democratic party as duplicitous over it? My my Diana, you are naive.
There's a special place in O'Reilley's studio audience for you.

Now, if it WERE just one post....but it isn't and you know it. HOW many
posts have we seen now from people who are crying about the voting
machines
and the exit polls and the (insert favorite conspiracy theory here)? This
one, well, at least it has the virtue of being a slightly different
method.

Exuse me? EXCUSE ME? You think that being properly suspicious that
the vote was rigged after it happened the first time is some kind of
cheating?

yep. Especially when your own leaders admit that none of it was cheating on
the part of the Republicans, and none of it would have changed the results
of the election.

That was what you claimed here, an attempt at cheating and N O W you
are going to tell me this is common because the democrats won't take
the republicans obvious attempts at setting up vote fixing sitting
down?

Except that there is nothing 'obvious' about it, it's strawgrasping. Even
your own leaders are aware of this.

Nice attempt at pushing cheating yourself. I'm disgusted with you
Diana. And no, we aren't going to stop just because you pretend it's
cheating to insist that votes be properly set up for recounts and
properly and publically counted the first time.

Cripes. This takes the cake.

I'm disgusted with this whole thing. I have been since 2000, quite frankly.
For FOUR YEARS y'all have been shouting 'selected, not elected', when every
single recount of the Florida votes (done by very blatantly anti-Bush groups
and by left leaning newspaper organizations) show that Bush actually WON.
When it was the Democrats who attempted to invalidate the votes of thousands
of servicemen and women because they didn't have stamps (having been cast at
bases and on board ships and thus never seeing the post office)...when Gore
had the lawyers out with claws bared and chads hanging....

Look.

John Kerry has, by being gracious in defeat, by refusing to USE those 10,000
lawyers he had on retainer and by refusing to chase these pipe dreams, done
more to heal the breach between the left and the right than any other one
person. My opinion of him has jumped considerably. Now there are conspiracy
theories right and left, attempts to find a huge conspiracy on the part of
the right to alter the vote counts in every state, every pricinct, every
machine....how paranoid IS that? The thing is, the votes WERE counted
correctly, the machines DID operate as promised, the exit polls were
weighing women too heavily (and a few other things were miscalculated) as
the poll designers themselves admit quite readily. There was no whole sale
cheating. There was no vast right wing conspiracy to steal the election,
just a vast right wing bunch of PEOPLE who individually, one by one, punched
holes or dotted cards or pulled levers or touched screens or typed on
keyboards. I wish you would all follow your leaders' example...since, for
once, he is BEING a leader rather than the epitome of that old bit about
'see, there go my people, I must run and get in front of them for I am their
leader'.

"AngryJohn" <AngryJohn@AngryJohnBelief.net> wrote in message
news:bjm8p09ebjb49omclpnrsfipitbjjkn428@4ax.com...

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 05:55:08 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

<snip to>

I think that a conspiracy large enough to ensure the presidency would
be too hard to cover up. Yet, I am sure there was voter fraud on BOTH
sides at a lower level. The end result, exactly the way it turned out
whether I like it or not. quit, please quit, sounding like the
faithful christians when it comes to voter fraud.

OF COURSE there was. We know about it.

There were all those Michael Jacksons and Mary Poppins's being registered,
for instance, registrations paid for in crack cocaine, and all those dead
Indians, and the early voters whose helpful pricinct workers voted for them,
and all the hoorah about unfair removing the felonious and the deceased from
the voting lists was...

All sorts of stuff like that was going on.

It's a long standing American Tradition. Indeed, when it comes to that the
Democratic party has consisted of incredibly faithful Christians for many,
many decades; how else can you explain the many resurrections that occur on
voting day? Why, John F. Kennedy owed his own Presidency, and we as a nation
owe the existance of a national icon, to just such well timed resurrections.

And now, John F. Kerry can join Nixon as being named among the graceful, the
honorable, the defeated, conceding the election for the good of the country.

Well now, I think that took care of the Democratic Party fluff ups, I'll let
you enumerate those of the Republicans. ;-)

<drift@lost.net> wrote in message
news:ld2dp0heg0ma1r10h0n54ac5rnuet4efrl@4ax.com...

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 05:29:54 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:

<snip to>

Remember; this wasn't his first time, everybody knew his proclivities and
he
got voted in anyway. Therefore, it wasn't the 'what', as in 'the blow
job'.
It was where it happened, who did it and that he lied about it, under
oath.
.

He *did* get voted in while the voters knew he likes sex. (being
hetero pulls no weight here, does it? Just asking.)

I said that. (looking) Yep, that's what I said. Mind you, *I* didn't vote
for him, but enough others did that he got elected, obviously.

"Where" and "When" was disrespectful in the extreme, extremely disgusting
and would have resulted in the instant job termination of anybody who was
NOT the Democratic President of the United States. "Who" was against every
principle he claimed to support: workplace sexual harrassment, anybody?
She
WORKED for him, for crying out loud. However, for ME, those things would
have been simply chalked up to typical liberal hypocrisy. Quite frankly,
it
was expected behavior. For ME it was the lying under oath. Something, by
the way, that got him fined and disbarred. (shrug)

Perhaps YOU don't expect the President to keep his sexlife off the Oval
Office desk, but I don't think it's too much to ask, m'self. I mean, if he
can't keep even that much discipline....

See how much noise you make about the blow-job? Yes, it's "improper".
Two consenting adults getting sexual jollies in the wrong place. Not
harassment.

If she weren't working for him, it would be two consenting adults. If A:
she hadn't been working for him and B: they had indulged somewhere ELSE, I
would have, as I stated rather clearly, just chalked it up to well, the
country knew what they were getting when they voted for him. ....but she was
and they didn't. As I ALSO stated rather clearly, even that I would have
simply chalked up as typical liberal hypocrisy. But....

But, please step back and see how minimal 20 minutes of pleasure may
have affected a world leader.

WHILE HE WAS ON THE PHONE TO ANOTHER WORLD LEADER, or while he made someone
else take a walk in the Rose Garden until he was taking his 'pleasure'???

The realities of it are nill. The
spirituality of it, the perceived ungodliness of it is paramount to
those who want the government run by their religion.

Religion has nothing to do with it. Good taste, respect for others, respect
for the position he held, and just plain integrity does, however.

I cannot say lying under oath is right.

Well, duh.

But I must question the
motives of those who, when they could not find real crimes in the many
other investigations, resorted in a setup that hits everyone's sex
button.

You are just ticked because he got caught. There really isn't any defending
this behavior, y'know.

In other words, the Clinton administration may have been the most
investigated one with the least found, therefore the cleanest,
legally: and the biggie is a little sexual favor that is loathsome in
many hearts and is still nobody's business and has nothing to do with
Clinton's competency.

Except that it most royally did.

And who got it all over television, forcing "the" big talk to millions
of children by their parents at an inconvenient time? The theocrats..

Ah, yes; more hypocrisy. What Clinton did was just fine, in other words, it
was letting anybody know about it that wasn't.

Gaaahhh.

Suppose you held office, and had to answer, under oath, a question
such as.... umm... how do you or whether you masturbate. Any answer
you give is going to hurt you. But the question has nothing to do with
your performance on the job. (I don't think you are stupid)

Except that an equivalent question to the one asked of Clinton would be more
like 'Do you masturbate at work while you are on the phone to clients, and
instead of tending to business'?

Please take that into your heart and churn it around a bit. I'm not
asking you to cast your God out, just know that it's up to Him to
smite Clinton, not you.

I'm not out to 'smite Clinton'. I hope he lives a good, long, healthy life.
What I AM saying is that his actions were distasteful, would have gotten
anybody else CANNED, and are not defensible. In any way.

We are human, we have our foibles. This calls for a little tolerance.
Tolerance (and forgiveness) are words you should be familiar with. Do
you apply them evenly to lying about a blow-lob and lying to start a
war? C'mon, now, Bush is *also* under oath: the oath of office.

Ah, but I don't beleive Bush was lying. Because if he was, so was Kerry and
everybody else who saw the SAME INTELLIGENCE that he did, and agreed with
him about the actions needed. He may have gone in with bad intelligence, but
then so did everybody else.

On the other hand, France, Germany, Russia and the other nations that
blocked everything were lying through THEIR teeth, weren't they, about the
reasons they did NOT want to go in?

Oil for Food and post sanction oil contracts, anybody?

Ok, Are you going to say that Clinton lied under two oaths and Bush
lied under only one oath?

I'm saying that Clinton lied and Bush did not.

Look at the results, fair woman!!

Indeed.

Be free to choose and practice your religion.

Well, that's getting to be more and more difficult, actually.

If you need the
government to enforce your religion,

No. I need the government to stay OUT of religion. It's not doing that.

we don't want you here, because
you are against freedom.

Who's 'we', you and the mouse in your pocket?

You defeat yourself (and everyone else) if you want the government to
run your religion.