With a villain like Bush, it's difficult to focus all the spite he has
earned on one single reason why he does not deserve your vote.
Nearly everything he has done, both before and during his White
House squatting manifests a uniquely repulsive character. Yet one
reason screams out to be recognized as the best one for rejecting
him in the voting booth: his claim to the White House is fraudulent.
Let's start with one undisputed fact: nationally, Shrub lost the
year 2000 popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 Americans. In
other words, if the office of the President were decided in a directly
democratic manner, Dubya would still be stuck in Texas snuffing
death row inmates. Granted, this is legally irrelevant. Like it or
not, the U.S. Constitution established an Electoral College system
to select the President, not a system of popular vote. While the
system may seem archaic, it is nonetheless the rule of law, and
nobody would argue for trumping it without a Constitutional
Amendment. Right?
Actually, one group did argue this: the George W. Bush 2000
campaign. The polls leading up to the November election made it
seem likely that while Georgie Boy would win the popular vote by
a razor-thin margin, he would lose the Electoral College. The Bush
team's strategy for this contingency was to manufacture a massive
"popular" campaign of outrage to overturn the results of the election.
As reported November 1, 2000 by Michael Kramer of the New
York Daily News, the mass rebellion would be stoked by paid advertisements
and a right-wing talk radio onslaught. The broadcast
blowhards would inveigh against the "unfairness" of the Electoral
College, which was described in another pre-election Boston Herald
article as "an antiquated relic" by Republican sources.
The Republic anti-Electoral College campaign would go further.
"Local business leaders will be urged to lobby their customers, the
clergy will be asked to speak up for the popular will and Team
Bush will enlist as many Democrats as possible to scream as loud
as they can." For the last part, the Bushistas even came up with a
catchy slogan: "Democrats for Democracy." A Bush aide added,
"And I think you can count on the media to fuel the thing big-time.
Even papers that supported Gore might turn against him because
the will of the people will have been thwarted." Most important,
members of the Electoral College would be pressured to do the
right thing and switch their vote for Dubya. In summing up the
entire proposed operation, a Bush aide succinctly stated: "The one
thing we don't do is roll over-we fight."
(Lest you believe the Boston Herald article was part of some
liberal media plot to smear the Shrub campaign, the plan was
never denied by any member of the campaign, and was cited with
gleeful approval before the election by the right-wing GOP-linked
website Newsmax, which labeled as "obvious" the unfairness of
the Electoral College system.)
Oddly, when Gore defeated Dubya in the popular vote, the
massive talk-radio campaign against the trumping of the people's
will never happened. Instead, a campaign rallied against Gore and
his VP pick Joseph Lieberman (who were quickly referred to as
"Sore-Loserman") for daring to challenge the results of the Shrub
"victory" as granted by an infallible Electoral College.
Gore (to his credit) never risked provoking a Constitutional crisis
by challenging the legitimacy of the Electoral College. Instead,
the Gore campaign focused its challenges on the official voting
results in Florida, where a supposed win by Dubya granted 25
electoral votes toward his Electoral College majority. (270 votes
were needed, and Bush finished with 271 to Gore's 266.)
At face value, the 2000 Florida election stinks. The Governor
of the state then was Jeb Bush, Shrub's brother, who is still in
office. The Secretary of State, whose job was to certify the results
and ensure the election's integrity, was Katherine Harris, a rightwing
hack with ties to both Bush brothers. (She was co-chair of
the Bush 2000 campaign in Florida.) The official margin of victory
in Florida: 537 votes out of nearly six million. Even without any
further evidence, such results would have deservedly met with
snickers and skepticism had they been announced in some backwards banana
republic.
http://feralhouse.com/press/50reasons/downloads/50_reasons_1.pdf
.
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: 2000 Bush Campaign's Electoral College 'Plan' |
06 Sep 2004 05:03:22 PM |
|
|
"Dr. Blunt" <ufocalypse@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<10joj55i06ofd1@corp.supernews.com>...
[snip]
Let's start with one undisputed fact: nationally, Shrub lost the
year 2000 popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 Americans.
In that election, 500,000 votes represented *one half* of *one
percent* of the votes cast.
Like it or not, the U.S. Constitution established an Electoral
College system to select the President, not a system of popular
vote. While the system may seem archaic, it is nonetheless the
rule of law, and nobody would argue for trumping it without a
Constitutional Amendment. Right?
Right. Makes me wonder why Hillary Clinton was the loudest Democrat,
right after that election, to call for repeal of the Electoral
College. The fact is, the Electoral College is here to stay for one
very good reason -- all those people who live in the US Heartland will
NEVER give up their right to have a say in presidential elections.
Map tells election story
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
[excerpt] The map tells the story. Vast stretches of red across the
rural heartland, all Republican George W. Bush country. A coastal
perimeter and urban patches of blue, where Democrat Al Gore prevailed.
Big-city voters handed Gore a 71% to 25% landslide, while six in 10
rural and small-town voters backed Bush. The suburbs, split evenly
between the two parties, continue to be the pivotal battlegrounds in
national elections.
A USA TODAY analysis suggests that Democrats have a more urgent
survival question. Gore won only a quarter as many counties as Bush.
And population growth in Gore Country over the past decade has been
5%, compared with 14% for counties in Bush Country.
© Copyright 2002 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/pres84.htm
Below is a link to the map, which was originally published in USA
Today on November 9, 2000 --
(Bush counties are red, Gore counties are blue):
http://www.sweetliberty.org/images/mandatemap.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barbarossa" |
|
| Title: Re: 2000 Bush Campaign's Electoral College 'Plan' |
06 Sep 2004 07:36:50 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:a2b35e99.0409061403.a8a7716@posting.google.com...
"Dr. Blunt" <ufocalypse@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<10joj55i06ofd1@corp.supernews.com>...
<snip>
This is how the USA organizes elections. The media and the industrials
select
two persons who belong to a satanic secret society called Skull and Bones.
Only two preferably. Imagine if the USA was dominated by 10 or more parties!
Then you let them act like they are in a huge dispute about where the
country
must go. You even let them debate on TV. Not that third one or the possible
fourth one, nope only those two selected by the media and industrials will
have
that chance. After this mulitmillions show one gets elected or appointed by
a
supreme court and it's business as usual again. Meaning the one being able
to spend the highest amount of dollars at the same media and industrials
will
become president. And you call that democracy? Nope, it's an olichargy.
Please come over to The Netherlands one day, you will see that all parties
here get a fair chance and we have dozens! Now, that is democracy!
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: 2000 Bush Campaign's Electoral College 'Plan' |
07 Sep 2004 07:33:14 AM |
|
|
"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in article
<413d027a$0$4083$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> :
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:a2b35e99.0409061403.a8a7716@posting.google.com...
"Dr. Blunt" <ufocalypse@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<10joj55i06ofd1@corp.supernews.com>...
<snip>
This is how the USA organizes elections. The media and the industrials
select two persons who belong to a satanic secret society > [snip]
Sorry, I'm just not interested in your wacky conspiracy theory. But
I'm sure there are others on this group who will eat it up!
Please come over to The Netherlands one day, you will see that all parties
here get a fair chance and we have dozens! Now, that is democracy!
Thanks for the invitation, but I still have many places in North
America I'd like to see before I'd even think about going over there.
By the way, with all those parties do you ever have one party with a
majority? By majority, I mean more than 50%. You see, we don't have a
parliamentary system here. Our two parties work pretty well within our
two party system.
I have noticed that the people who believe there is little difference
between our two parties are the extremists on both sides. Those of us
who hover somewhere near the center (leaning towards one side or the
other) see a world of difference between the two parties -- and the
parties do a pretty good job of accommodating their respective
constituents (with the exception, of course, of extremists -- who then
start marginal 3rd parties that go nowhere due to lack of extremists).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: 2000 Bush Campaign's Electoral College 'Plan' |
07 Sep 2004 08:27:53 AM |
|
|
On 7 Sep 2004 05:33:14 -0700, (Steven Douglas)
wrote:
"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in article
<413d027a$0$4083$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> :
"Steven Douglas" < > schreef in bericht
news:a2b35e99.0409061403.a8a7716@posting.google.com...
"Dr. Blunt" <ufocalypse@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<10joj55i06ofd1@corp.supernews.com>...
<snip>
This is how the USA organizes elections. The media and the industrials
select two persons who belong to a satanic secret society > [snip]
Sorry, I'm just not interested in your wacky conspiracy theory. But
I'm sure there are others on this group who will eat it up!
<snip>
Just *who* has been eating *what* up? The people who think for
themselves and don't believe everything they're told and bother
accumulating as much information on the subject as they can, or the
people who march behind George Bush waving the star spangled banner,
whilst sipping on their cup of 'media' soup? You really ought to
listen to yourself. Surely there is enough 'reasonable cause' to
suspect political disinformation by now? Or does the CIA and MI5/6
normally bungle their intelligence up to send their countries into
multi-billion dollar wars? I suppose Nixon was the exception to the
rule. Oh sorry, I keep forgetting, Bush is your 'commander-in-chief'.
Fight the good fight then, Private Lemming (PFC).
Forest Gump, indeed.
"My momma always told me, politics is like a box'a chocolates - you
never know what you gonna get."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: 2000 Bush Campaign's Electoral College 'Plan' |
07 Sep 2004 02:27:43 PM |
|
|
Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message news:<hrcrj0114g9hqvp1ofgvgb4i5emsqej2h8@4ax.com>...
On 7 Sep 2004 05:33:14 -0700, (Steven Douglas)
wrote:
"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in article
<413d027a$0$4083$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> :
"Steven Douglas" < > schreef in bericht
news:a2b35e99.0409061403.a8a7716@posting.google.com...
"Dr. Blunt" <ufocalypse@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<10joj55i06ofd1@corp.supernews.com>...
<snip>
This is how the USA organizes elections. The media and the industrials
select two persons who belong to a satanic secret society > [snip]
Sorry, I'm just not interested in your wacky conspiracy theory. But
I'm sure there are others on this group who will eat it up!
<snip>
Just *who* has been eating *what* up? The people who think for
themselves and don't believe everything they're told and bother
accumulating as much information on the subject as they can, or the
people who march behind George Bush waving the star spangled banner,
whilst sipping on their cup of 'media' soup? You really ought to
listen to yourself. Surely there is enough 'reasonable cause' to
suspect political disinformation by now? Or does the CIA and MI5/6
normally bungle their intelligence up to send their countries into
multi-billion dollar wars?
So you believe every Western intelligence agency (including France,
Germany, and Russia) got together and rigged their intelligence? They
all believed the same thing (and by the way, Mr. Openminded Wonderman,
there are some *theories* that Saddam's WMDs were moved to Syria --
that may still be shown to be true).
And here's something you don't seem to understand about the media soup
over here -- most of the biggest media outlets in the US *don't* like
President Bush. They're doing everything in their power to help
Senator Kerry. There are a couple of exceptions, like Fox News and the
Washington Times. Those exceptions are far overshadowed in numbers by
pro-Kerry outlets.
I suppose Nixon was the exception to the rule. Oh sorry, I keep
forgetting, Bush is your 'commander-in-chief'.
Fight the good fight then, Private Lemming (PFC).
Forest Gump, indeed.
Got any actual points you'd like to debate today? I didn't think so.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Barbarossa=idiot Re: 2000 Bush Campaign's Electoral College 'Plan' |
07 Sep 2004 01:35:11 PM |
|
|
This pack of total ***** shots your credibility to shred.
You are an idiot Brabarossa to believe this total dribble.
J.
Barbarossa a écrit:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:a2b35e99.0409061403.a8a7716@posting.google.com...
"Dr. Blunt" <ufocalypse@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<10joj55i06ofd1@corp.supernews.com>...
<snip>
This is how the USA organizes elections. The media and the industrials
select
two persons who belong to a satanic secret society called Skull and Bones.
Only two preferably. Imagine if the USA was dominated by 10 or more parties!
Then you let them act like they are in a huge dispute about where the
country
must go. You even let them debate on TV. Not that third one or the possible
fourth one, nope only those two selected by the media and industrials will
have
that chance. After this mulitmillions show one gets elected or appointed by
a
supreme court and it's business as usual again. Meaning the one being able
to spend the highest amount of dollars at the same media and industrials
will
become president. And you call that democracy? Nope, it's an olichargy.
Please come over to The Netherlands one day, you will see that all parties
here get a fair chance and we have dozens! Now, that is democracy!
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barbarossa" |
|
| Title: Re: Barbarossa=idiot Re: 2000 Bush Campaign's Electoral College 'Plan' |
14 Sep 2004 05:31:22 AM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> schreef in bericht
news:zbn%c.102086$A8.23077@edtnps89...
This pack of total ***** shots your credibility to shred.
You are an idiot Brabarossa to believe this total dribble.
Hey, show some respect will you? My name is Barbarossa!
800 years ago I started as a pirate. Then I became emperor
of Rome. I engaged in the crusades. Unfortunately I had an
accident in Turkey and I drowned there. By coincidence I
have a red beard too!
Hmmm, perhaps you are right! Maybe I should just back off and
start to propagate Bush. With Bush in power we will certainly hurry
to WW3, the destruction of the USA and other cataclysms.
So, Jean, go girl! Vote Bush! And be sure of disaster coming at
you.
;-) ;-)
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Barbarossa=idiot Re: 2000 Bush Campaign's Electoral College 'Plan' |
14 Sep 2004 07:57:16 AM |
|
|
Barbarossa a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> schreef in bericht
news:zbn%c.102086$A8.23077@edtnps89...
This pack of total ***** shots your credibility to shred.
You are an idiot Brabarossa to believe this total dribble.
Hey, show some respect will you? My name is Barbarossa!
800 years ago I started as a pirate. Then I became emperor
of Rome. I engaged in the crusades. Unfortunately I had an
accident in Turkey and I drowned there. By coincidence I
have a red beard too!
Hmmm, perhaps you are right! Maybe I should just back off and
start to propagate Bush. With Bush in power we will certainly hurry
to WW3, the destruction of the USA and other cataclysms.
So, Jean, go girl! Vote Bush! And be sure of disaster coming at
you.
;-) ;-)
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
Oups sorry. You are an idiot "Barbarossa".
(Applies to this post as well)
There. :-)
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Barbarossa=idiot Re: 2000 Bush Campaign's Electoral College 'Plan' |
07 Sep 2004 09:28:44 PM |
|
|
Barbarossa wrote:
Imagine if the USA was dominated by 10 or more parties!
I say about ten dominate parties per every twelve houses per one block
would best describe America. Sometimes its a block-party like the one
I went to this weekend. ;)
Then you let them act like they are in a huge dispute about where the
country
must go.
The only major dispute is over government controlling the people's
lives or the People controlling the government's life.
Yes, it is a *huge dispute!* ;)
You even let them debate on TV.
Can't have that, can we? ...At least in your dream society. Then we
would hear free speech. Dreadful isn't it?
Not that third one or the possible
fourth one, nope only those two selected by the media and industrials will
have
that chance. After this mulitmillions show one gets elected or appointed by
a
supreme court and it's business as usual again.
Unintelligible – can you restate that?
Meaning the one being able
to spend the highest amount of dollars at the same media and industrials
will
become president.
Then Kerry will win according to your formula which I do not think is
based in fact - that is if every single pres. who had won had the
most campaign money?
And you call that democracy? Nope, it's an olichargy.
To get technical, America was never a democracy - we just call it
that. No where do the founders refer to it as such in the legislative
writings. Maybe in commentary and pamphlets - but the official term
is, in fact, the official term of the United States Government is
"Federalist Representative Republic."
http://michaelreport.com/reports/02/Democracy.htm
Please come over to The Netherlands one day, you will see that all parties
here get a fair chance and we have dozens!
We all know what kind of parties you [Not the The Netherland's people
in general] have and that your mindset is somehow reflective of them
;)
Now, that is democracy!
No debates on TV?
Well you can have it - I like the system we have. ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barbarossa" |
|
| Title: Re: Barbarossa=idiot Re: 2000 Bush Campaign's Electoral College 'Plan' |
14 Sep 2004 05:24:03 AM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:dd3256f0.0409071828.7d577fd2@posting.google.com...
Barbarossa wrote:
Imagine if the USA was dominated by 10 or more parties!
I say about ten dominate parties per every twelve houses per one block
would best describe America. Sometimes its a block-party like the one
I went to this weekend. ;)
You confuse lobbyists with parties.
Then you let them act like they are in a huge dispute about where the
country
must go.
The only major dispute is over government controlling the people's
lives or the People controlling the government's life.
Yes, it is a *huge dispute!* ;)
Not really. It's about milimeters away from the "holy" middle.
You even let them debate on TV.
Can't have that, can we? ...At least in your dream society. Then we
would hear free speech. Dreadful isn't it?
Nope, I don't want a "show". I want real debates, not shows where the
questions are known on forehand. And I want more candidates. Since
American taxpayers pay their salary when they are in office they have a
right to hear the other candidates for president as well. There should be
real debates between more candidates without the questions being faxed
or emailed on forehand.
Not that third one or the possible
fourth one, nope only those two selected by the media and industrials
will
have
that chance. After this mulitmillions show one gets elected or
appointed by
a
supreme court and it's business as usual again.
Unintelligible - can you restate that?
What do you mean?
Meaning the one being able
to spend the highest amount of dollars at the same media and
industrials
will
become president.
Then Kerry will win according to your formula which I do not think is
based in fact - that is if every single pres. who had won had the
most campaign money?
Well, we won't see Nader winning do we?
And you call that democracy? Nope, it's an olichargy.
To get technical, America was never a democracy - we just call it
that. No where do the founders refer to it as such in the legislative
writings. Maybe in commentary and pamphlets - but the official term
is, in fact, the official term of the United States Government is
"Federalist Representative Republic."
So, next time Bush proudly speaks about the democracy in the USA
he is just bluffing or profane?
http://michaelreport.com/reports/02/Democracy.htm
Please come over to The Netherlands one day, you will see that all
parties
here get a fair chance and we have dozens!
We all know what kind of parties you [Not the The Netherland's people
in general] have and that your mindset is somehow reflective of them
;)
Just come and see!
Now, that is democracy!
No debates on TV?
Many debates on TV with all parties.
Well you can have it - I like the system we have. ;)
Don't settle for less!
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: 2000 Bush Campaign's Electoral College 'Plan' |
06 Sep 2004 01:48:04 PM |
|
|
Dr. Blunt a écrit:
With a villain like Bush, it's difficult to focus all the spite he has
earned on one single reason why he does not deserve your vote.
Nearly everything he has done, both before and during his White
House squatting manifests a uniquely repulsive character. Yet one
reason screams out to be recognized as the best one for rejecting
him in the voting booth: his claim to the White House is fraudulent.
Let's start with one undisputed fact: nationally, Shrub lost the
year 2000 popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 Americans. In
other words, if the office of the President were decided in a directly
democratic manner, Dubya would still be stuck in Texas snuffing
death row inmates.
You are again using anti-administration propaganda lies to make up *****
about the president. What an ***** you are.
Nothing he has done in the White House was wrong. Only, losers like you
cannot stand that, they would rather see a weak white house.
And no, he is not a fraudulent prez. The popular vote has nothing to do
with the way elections are conducted. Gore, who was the one who lost,
not you, didn't dispute it. That you have to come back on that to try to
make believe that the president is a fraud, despite the law of the land,
and the US Supreme court ruling after some other losers questioned it,
shows how desperate you have become.
But why such idiotic cheap shot? Ha yes... Bush may win again! You are
shitting in your pants Bunk?
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Blunt" |
|
| Title: Re: 2000 Bush Campaign's Electoral College 'Plan' |
06 Sep 2004 02:55:53 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:Eh2%c.101758$A8.23382@edtnps89...
Dr. Blunt a écrit:
With a villain like Bush, it's difficult to focus all the spite he has
earned on one single reason why he does not deserve your vote.
Nearly everything he has done, both before and during his White
House squatting manifests a uniquely repulsive character. Yet one
reason screams out to be recognized as the best one for rejecting
him in the voting booth: his claim to the White House is fraudulent.
Let's start with one undisputed fact: nationally, Shrub lost the
year 2000 popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 Americans. In
other words, if the office of the President were decided in a directly
democratic manner, Dubya would still be stuck in Texas snuffing
death row inmates.
You are again using anti-administration propaganda lies to make up *****
about the president. What an ***** you are.
Nothing he has done in the White House was wrong. Only, losers like you
cannot stand that, they would rather see a weak white house.
And no, he is not a fraudulent prez. The popular vote has nothing to do
with the way elections are conducted.
YEAH, I guess those 500,000 should've just stayed home! ROFL...
Dr. B
Gore, who was the one who lost,
not you, didn't dispute it. That you have to come back on that to try to
make believe that the president is a fraud, despite the law of the land,
and the US Supreme court ruling after some other losers questioned it,
shows how desperate you have become.
But why such idiotic cheap shot? Ha yes... Bush may win again! You are
shitting in your pants Bunk?
Yeah, those 500,000 votes never counted and democracy by rule of the
majority defeated by the Electoral College and the Supreme Court decision
to not recount the Florida ballots.
It makes me ***** and ***** all over when I see injustice.
Dr. B
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: 2000 Bush Campaign's Electoral College 'Plan' |
06 Sep 2004 04:31:55 PM |
|
|
Dr. Blunt a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:Eh2%c.101758$A8.23382@edtnps89...
Dr. Blunt a écrit:
With a villain like Bush, it's difficult to focus all the spite he has
earned on one single reason why he does not deserve your vote.
Nearly everything he has done, both before and during his White
House squatting manifests a uniquely repulsive character. Yet one
reason screams out to be recognized as the best one for rejecting
him in the voting booth: his claim to the White House is fraudulent.
Let's start with one undisputed fact: nationally, Shrub lost the
year 2000 popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 Americans. In
other words, if the office of the President were decided in a directly
democratic manner, Dubya would still be stuck in Texas snuffing
death row inmates.
You are again using anti-administration propaganda lies to make up *****
about the president. What an ***** you are.
Nothing he has done in the White House was wrong. Only, losers like you
cannot stand that, they would rather see a weak white house.
And no, he is not a fraudulent prez. The popular vote has nothing to do
with the way elections are conducted.
YEAH, I guess those 500,000 should've just stayed home! ROFL...
Dr. B
Gore, who was the one who lost,
not you, didn't dispute it. That you have to come back on that to try to
make believe that the president is a fraud, despite the law of the land,
and the US Supreme court ruling after some other losers questioned it,
shows how desperate you have become.
But why such idiotic cheap shot? Ha yes... Bush may win again! You are
shitting in your pants Bunk?
Yeah, those 500,000 votes never counted and democracy by rule of the
majority defeated by the Electoral College and the Supreme Court decision
to not recount the Florida ballots.
It makes me ***** and ***** all over when I see injustice.
Dr. B
Bah uncounted for votes were not something planned.
J.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
