CLINTON SAID (L.KING):"BUSH WON IT FAIR AND SQUARE". SO DID JESSE JACKSON!

[TruthIsAll]

LOOK WHAT JESSE IS DOING NOW. FIGHTING FOR US.

SO WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
IT'S THE BIG CON.
THEY ARE RUBBING BUSHCO'S NOSE IN IT.

IT MEANS JUST ONE THING.

COME JAN 6:
YOU WILL BE AMAZED.
AND SHOCKED.
AND AWED.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. I can't believe it

I really believed there would be a show of legal pyrotechnics that would make history.

I really believed.

I am amazed and shocked and awed, and not in a good way.

[txindy]

8. Why use the past tense?

Let's wait until Conyers stands up on the 6th, at least. You may see your legal pyrotechnics, yet. ;) The whole world may.

[smb]

131. Get Real

The Great Pumpkin is not going to rise out of the pumpkin patch and deliver a reversal of the election results. Deal with it.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[txindy]

137. I prefer to wait for Congress to meet before making assumptions

You are free to assume all you like. It's very telling. Go right ahead. :eyes:

[IndyOp]

155. Hey, wait - some of us still Believe in the Great Pumpkin! ;-) (nt)

[righteous1]

157. Just better not try and bring Santy Claus into this debate n/t

[Pachamama]

51. Me too....

But, its only January 3rd...ask me on January 7th what I think...

:hi:

PS: I was one of the "Women for Kerry" raising 10's of Thousands of $$ for the GELAC fund for "legal challenges" for the Kerry campaign...I believed and still believe that they knew that there were shenanigans (they were fully expecting them and talked about them regularly) and I believed that they would fight to the end...As I stood in Cleveland, OH on the night before the election and listened to Bruce Springsteen dedicate "No Surrender" to John Kerry and listened to Kerry talk, the next day as I served as a poll monitor and watched shit going on that I can unequivically say was an "unclean" election and that the Ukrainian people would say "nyet" too...I was shocked when I heard Kerry conceded...while others were pissed and gave up, I never did...As we approach the big day, I am still keeping my faith in what I know in my heart to be the truth. I still believe in Kerry and the promises, and have hoped that they will show us something and on Jan. 6th send out the call to Americans...but, like I said, ask me January 7th what I think....

[Peace Patriot]

69. TruthIsAll, your post is too cryptic.

I read it three or four times, and still couldn't figure out what it meant. Read the comments. Still confused. Searched DU for other info on this. Nothing. Came back here and decided this is what you meant: First of all, you did NOT mean that Jesse Jackson recently said on Larry King that Bush won "fair and square." That's what your title and the first part of your post seems to mean--quite alarming (that Jesse might have gone over to the Dark Side), but it makes the second part of your post non-sensical.

(That Clinton might have said Bush won "fair and square" didn't surprise me--I pretty much wrote him off back when he betrayed his country, the left, and all his voters, by signing NAFTA with no labor and environmental protections, after promising otherwise in the campaign. I protested that policy in Seattle '99 (and got gassed by the Democrats). I think he did good on war and intelligence policy, for the most part, but I believe he is more responsible for job outsourcing and dismantling of the American middle class than Bush is. NAFTA, GATT et al are treasonous documents. And, given what Bush is generally--the puppet of a fascist coup--I found it nauseating and unbelievable that Clinton would invite him to anything, i.e. opening of Clinton library. Bush should have been (and should be) shunned. Clinton cozying up to Bush. Jeez. Best case: He doesn't want him and his to find their airplanes crashing mysteriously. Worst case: Bush is just a badass Clinton--both tools of global corporate jihad on all the resources and all the "little people" on the planet, including Americans. Bush "fair and square"? Uh-huh. And no, I don't think Clinton is about to burst into the White House with subpoenas. If there is such a plan, he is not part of it.)

So then I contemplated the second part of your post. Found a comment on it that pointed out that Jesse Jackson's "fair and square" remark was quite old (election fraud-wise). And so, what I gather you meant was: Here we had Jesse Jackson saying Bush won "fair and square" in the weeks after the election, but, a) either he was playing the Rattlesnake strategy (didn't believe Bush won "fair and square" but was saying so publicly to throw the BushCons off), or, b) the evidence turned him around (especially suppression of black voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which he had personally worked so hard for as a youth), and he became hot on election fraud. ("Look what Jesse is doing now. Fighting for us."--despite his previous "fair and square" belief or statement.)

And the same thing is true of--and will happen with--Clinton, in your opinion. He is either, a) part of the Rattlesnake strategy, or, b) the evidence will turn him around, if and when somebody gets it to him.

"The Big Con" (of your post): What I have been calling the Rattlesnake strategy. Kerry lying low, quietly gathering evidence (like the BCII and Iran Contra investigator/prosecutor he was), and will strike when the moment is ripe. (--has also been called the Teflon strategy--keep the focus off him, don't let BushCon smear campaign get going; that's why he's in Iraq and not DC this week).

"Amazement. Shock. Awe." (your post): The Rattlesnake strike is coming soon.

IS that what you meant?

My feeling about it: It's interesting. My gut says yes, that's what's happening. It's a sort of dream hit I got on Kerry (the Rattlesnake). My intellect says no--just too much evidence of Democratic and Kerry shilly-shallying around BushCons. 100,000-plus innocent Iraqis slaughtered. Hardly a peep out of them. Prisoners tortured, breaking of all treaties. Not a word. Grand theft Halliburton. Nothing. They want to do a "more efficient war in Iraq." Uh-huh. Not to menton their permitting Wally O'Dell and H. Ahmanson to get secret source code/no paper trail control of our election system.

So head and heart are not together right now.

[Not a Sheep]

87. I agree. I don't get the post. /eom

[Pacifist Patriot]

129. I don't get it either.

Oh, and I like the screen name. ;)

[Gloria]

2. Boy,now I'm even happier that I turned it off after the first

5 minutes!

[TruthIsAll]

5. Gloria, it's the Big Con. Don't believe he believes it.

He is speaking in code.

[righteous1]

125. And I believe TIA is speaking in "Tongues"

[euler]

98. TIA is right. You should always assume...

...our allies mean the opposite of what they say. It's clearer that way.

[Salomonity]

134. they're lying to us?

We're in a really bad jam if we're praying that people on our side have been lying to the country for two months.

The country will freak out if, after two months of saying "Bush won" major statesmen suddely do an about-face and say "Kerry won".

[In Truth We Trust]

3. I hope so!

Clinton can go fuck himself! DLC sellout!!!!

[roenyc]

72. When i see him look at the chimp

its like there is love in clintons eyes. WTF is wrong with him? i think it goes back to okla. they have much on the man. JMO. i know i will be called a freeper. but i hold some sadness in my heart about clinton.

[DoYouEverWonder]

81. I don't think I would call this

the look of love?

[buzzard]

95. A look of derision. n/t

[jus_the_facts]

4. what amazes..shocks and awes ME.....

...that so many can't face REALITY...we DON'T HAVE A SIDE ANYMORE! :eyes:

[purduejake]

7. Yea, I think some are delusional.

Including myself at times, so no offense meant. It is kind of ridiculous to think that all of these people are speaking in code and are going to come to our rescue. Remember that not ONE senator would stand up for the 2000 election that Gore won.

[pacalo]

45. True, not one senator stepped up in 2000.

However, you forgot to mention that it was Gore's decision that the senators not step up.

[mordarlar]

6. Hmmm, something strange going on...

These are interesting bedfellows for the lets lay down and take it club. Whats up i wonder. Can't anything just fit with its appearance? Geesh.;)

[loudsue]

9. Boy, TIA, I REALLY hope you're right!! It does kinda look....well,

strange, doesn't it?

I sure hope this turns out to be something BIG ENOUGH that we can get the electoral system straightened out before 2006. And I hope geedubya ends up with all kinds of egg on his face.

The sooner the better!

And if any good DOES come to pass from this, you have to KNOW, in your heart, that YOU had a lot to do with it. Your enthusiasm and research and information flow has helped tremendously with this movement.

Thanks! :hi::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::hi:

Floaty hearts all over the place!!

:kick::kick::kick:

[theboss]

10. This place may need grief counselors on the 6th

A lot of folks are setting themselves up for a big, big fall.

I'm a pretty smart attorney, and I'm not sure what pyrotecnics can be unleased that won't:

a) do anything but delay Bush's win by 2 hours, and

b) destroy the Democratic Party for the next 20 years.

[chi_girl_88]

16. I agree with you on this point

"A lot of folks are setting themselves up for a big, big fall."

What Jan 6th may bring, is that 1 (Boxer?) or perhaps more Senators may stand up with Conyers and whomever else in the House he can bring along with him, to contest the Electors' vote.

This outcome, should it occur, will put much needed focus on Election reform, in Ohio and elsewhere.

What it WON'T bring, is "President Kerry."

I wanted it as much as anyone here - I joined the Kerry forum on March 18th, and I fully expected that he'd win on Nov 2nd. But, he didn't, and nothing that happens on Jan 6th is going to change that.

I'm not a closet Freeper, I'm just a realist. Flame me, ban me if you must. I'll gladly retreat to the post-campaign Kerry board that broke the "We've got Boxer" story tonight.

The real issue of Jan 6th is not "President Kerry," it's Election reform. We can't change what happened this time around. But we can make damned sure it never happens again.

Stepping off the soapbox.

[theboss]

18. That's been my argument from the beginning

We should be trying to reform the election system, because it's cleary noy effecient, fair, and trustworthy. And I say that as someone who misses Mayor Daley. But instead of trying to point out system needs reform, it's become a crusade to pull a rabbit out of a hat and get Kerry declared President.

The important issue is geting lost and discredited.

[chi_girl_88]

32. I'm tempted to ask

"Which Mayor Daley?" ;-)

I'm assuming you mean the one that delivered the '60 election for Kennedy, and not the one who tore up Meigs Feild and is embroiled in so many would-be scandals nowadays? THAT (nuveaux) Mayor Daley has even agreed with Bush on many an occasion. His Daddy must be rolling in his grave.

But seriously, I do agree with you that the important issues are being lost and discredited with all the clamor about overturning the 2004 Election results. If we Americans had taken to the streets in outrage by the thousands, the way the Ukrainians did, then yeah, we'd stand a chance of that. The Blogosphere (those of us frantically poised over our keyboards) doesn't count, I'm talking bodies camped out in tents across the street from the White House, the way they did over in the Ukraine.

But, we didn't, so we don't stand a chance of changing anything this time around. Sorry folks, "game over" for 2004 - you don't get a re-vote just because of your post-count.

Set your sights on the future. Reform, and regroup.

[FreepFryer]

37. Having a Constitutional challenge is clearly hugely pro-Election Reform.

Come on!

The only greater impetus to reforming our electoral process I can imagine is if if John Wayne and Reagan were to be re-animated as a result of a write-in upset.

[TruthIsAll]

41. Always the "Future". Never "Now". Why is that? n/t

.

[eomer]

71. The status quo must be challenged

or else whatever reforms we get will continue to be too little or even worse than nothing.

Here in Florida we already reformed. We outlawed punch cards. We ended up jumping from the frying pan to the fire. This election is even worse than 2000 in terms of transparency and verifiability.

The reforms currently planned are likely to be the same. My representative responded to my emails with a canned response about legislating a paper trail requirement. But what good is a paper trail if the rest of the process is broken? In Ohio there is a paper trail for most of the votes but what good did it do? As long as the system allows a partisan state official to pull any shenanigans (s)he wants then they can take their paper trail and shove it. A paper trail was available in both Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 and in both cases a partisan official was able to render those paper trails totally useless by running out the clock, falsifying recounts, using a mob to stop a recount and other maneuvers.

So we can't let this slide by with some minor reforms that end up being useless while creating the impression that a solution was implemented. We have to shake things up in a big way and look for more of a revolution than the weak reform that we'll get otherwise.

[Peace Patriot]

74. The Boss and chi_girl_88: You don't realize what happened on 11/2...

...on everybody's TV screens. The Exit Polls said Kerry won. The networks altered the Exit Polls, "adjusting" the numbers to fit the in-coming BushCon controlled central electronic vote tabulator "results," making it appear that Bush had won both the Exit Polls and the "official results." Americans were denied the information that there were two separate numbers, one saying Kerry won, one saying Bush won--unlike in the Ukraine, where the voters had the two separate, conflicting numbers and could plainly see that something was very wrong.

Most treasonous, despicable act of journalism I've ever seen, bar none.

This is WHY Kerry voters did not react, and why most STILL don't know what happened to our votes.

Do you even know the basic facts about the secret, proprietary source code that runs the new electronic voting system, and who owns it?

These facts have also been Iron Curtained.

Can we oust the fascist BushCon coup at this point? Probably not. But Jan. 6 will tell who in Congress still believes in democracy, and who doesn't. We can sort the wheat from the chaff, as to our support--for whatever that is worth in BushCon U.S.A.

Secondly, we must achieve, a) a paper trail for every vote, and b) open source code (or, best alternative, a) paper ballot, and b) hand counts), and we have to do it locally, state by state, while we still have the power. (The BushCon Congress isn't going to help, and I'd just as soon they keep their filthy cheating hands off "election reform," thank you very much.)

[eomer]

76. And we have to reform the recount process too

or else the paper trail is worthless.

[Al-CIAda]

96. Excellent post.

" You don't realize what happened on 11/2..."
Posted by Peace Patriot
...on everybody's TV screens. The Exit Polls said Kerry won. The networks altered the Exit Polls, "adjusting" the numbers to fit the in-coming BushCon controlled central electronic vote tabulator "results," making it appear that Bush had won both the Exit Polls and the "official results." Americans were denied the information that there were two separate numbers, one saying Kerry won, one saying Bush won--unlike in the Ukraine, where the voters had the two separate, conflicting numbers and could plainly see that something was very wrong.

Most treasonous, despicable act of journalism I've ever seen, bar none.

This is WHY Kerry voters did not react, and why most STILL don't know what happened to our votes.

Do you even know the basic facts about the secret, proprietary source code that runs the new electronic voting system, and who owns it?

These facts have also been Iron Curtained.

Can we oust the fascist BushCon coup at this point? Probably not. But Jan. 6 will tell who in Congress still believes in democracy, and who doesn't. We can sort the wheat from the chaff, as to our support--for whatever that is worth in BushCon U.S.A.

Secondly, we must achieve, a) a paper trail for every vote, and b) open source code (or, best alternative, a) paper ballot, and b) hand counts), and we have to do it locally, state by state, while we still have the power. (The BushCon Congress isn't going to help, and I'd just as soon they keep their filthy cheating hands off "election reform," thank you very much.)"

[euler]

101. "The networks altered the Exit Polls"

The networks didn't alter the poll, the pollster (Mitofsky) did. Every exit poll since 1967 was altered in the same way and every election poll in the future will be similarly altered because THAT IS HOW EXIT POLLS ARE CONDUCTED. It is normal.

[davidgmills]

132. The question must be asked

and Freeman has now indirectly asked it, why do they need to be altered every time?

They have been altered in order to match the tablulations, on the presumption that the tabulations have been correct.

Freeman challenges the notion that past tabulations have been correct.

I have challenged several people now for proof that the tabulations of 1960, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80 ... through 2004 were in fact accurate. Of course there is no proof of that because no one has ever done any real testing to prove the accuracy of these tabulations.

Freeman makes the point that experts agree that our last census tabulations are off by six million or more and that if we wanted a more accurate census we would conduct the census statistically.

[dobegrrrl]

166. Why take them, if they just match them up with the outcome they want?

[davidgmills]

106. I'm a pretty smart lawyer too

And I approve this message.

I would also add that if this election has tought us anything, the last thing we need to do is scrap exit polling.

This statistical check is the only way of insuring that tabulation, no matter how it is done, is done accurately.

[euler]

112. I have a feeling you *do* want to scrap...

...the type of exit poll done in the US. European countries use exit poll methodologies that make it easy to verify elections, the US does not. Our exit polls are focused on explaining the election (who voted for which candidate and why.)

The European method uses a true random sample, so they can use their exit polls to prove fraud or not. Our exit poll is not random and that's why we can't do what TIA does with the numbers - it's nonsense.

However, if we want to do the European version, we have to come up with a lot of cash - random samples are harder to get, and MSM won't pick up the difference because they get the data they want with the current, much cheaper exit poll.

Some background about US and European exit polls is here:

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/what_about_thos.html

[davidgmills]

128. I agree we need better exit polls

The big debate about our present ones is just how useful they are as a check on tabulation.

But Freeman and Baiman maintain that they are a much better check than you (or mystery pollster of Mytofsy) give them credit for being, even though the official version is that they were designed for explaining the election.

Freeman's latest paper shows that in the last 3 German elections the exit polls averaged accuracy was .26%. Even if ours were five or six times less accurate that still is an accuracy of 1.25% to 1.5%. Nobody argues with a straight face that the clustering effect creates that much innacuracy. Baiman calculates that with a clustering effect of 30% you still don't get MOE's of 1.25%.

So Freeman and Baiman both maintain that even the 2004 exit polls work very well for predicting inaccurate tabulation.

I also maintain and have been arguing for weeks that a truly "random" sample could be obtained by polling the citizenry now.

[roenyc]

118. One Problem

I agree with all you said. BUT so few Americans are aware of election fraud and thats what people of the internet like you me and others here refuse to understand sometimes.

NO one knows this is even happening! Kerry is in Iraq. not a word. his little Newsweek article comes out just in time for the 6th.

B*sh and co. are thanking the devil for the Tsunami cause its keeping the news busy.

So lets say democrats all have a sneaky feeling - the ones here know the truth.

the others have no time to worry about it.

people are working their asses off to feed their family - they dont have time to care.

please know that many of us who have seen president Kennedy killed and watched in horror as no one cared. and because of that 54 thousand men died.

then went through the Nixon but it didn't stop with Nixon, Reagan should have been impeached! was he? nope. so now do we have a party? did they just merge. i dont know anymore. i am tired.

this didn't start in 2000. this has been going on since Nixon and nothing has been done to stop the crazy people in office. So now perhaps some people dont know what to expect. i just cant wait till its over.

cause then we will know, we will know if its too late. if its democracy lost for good. because if a senator doesn't stand up tomorrow we have more problems then fixed voting machines. perhaps going back to the 9/11 cover up.

So our next step on the 7th would be what do we do now. we can not fall apart or get depressed. perhaps we work with members of the greens to find new ways to bring these people to justice.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[pacalo]

48. Do you really think the Republicans would cooperate in reforming

our election system if Democratic senators did not speak up on the 6th? Are you kidding? Aren't you suspicious of so many Republican congressmen/judges being elected since 2000? There's no way in hell they want election reform, especially because they're getting away with stealing votes.

[SicTransit]

54. You don't seem to get it -

Republicans have majorities in the Senate and in the House. If at least some Republicans do not cooperate on election reform - there will be no election reform. Period. This is an incontrovertible fact. This is not an opinion.

So the tactic that is guaranteed to piss off EVERY Republican in Congress just does not seem very smart if your goal is election reform, now does it?

[saracat]

62. They are already pissed off.

[SicTransit]

65. If you approached electoral reform as a bipartisan issue,

I am sure some Republicans would be found on the other side of the isle to support it. Once you burn your bridges by challenging the election without hard proof of fraud, this becomes a *severely* partisan issue, and not one such Republican will be found.

[Darknyte7]

114. "Oh please...

... now who's being naive Kay?"

We tried that four years ago, and we got the HAVA for our efforts.

Since when in this society do we require "hard proof" that a crime has been committed before we start an investigation?

The Republicans have made every moment of this thing in Ohio a "severely partisan" exercise since 11/2.

[sunnystarr]

143. The Scott Peterson trial came to mind when I read your post.

The evidence was circumstantial and he was found guilty. You may say but the crime was obvious ... but when viewed with red logic it could be said that Lacy Peterson could have committed suicide.

Where was the smoking gun in that case? With all the evidence, why are there no charges and a trial? Why isn't voter suppression enough to negate the outcome of an election? More importantly, minimally, why isn't it prosecuted? When motive and opportunity of fraud is present and public obstructionism is evident, why isn't that enough to challenge an election and bring charges?

Kerry sent us a message when he made sure he was Iraq instead of the Senate floor. It's the same message he sent when he conceded quickly. I'd like to believe otherwise but it's too illogical.

We need to focus on election reform and forget about Kerry. I'm praying that a House and Senate member challenge the electors --- we need the public debate and it would be covered by MSM and provide a way to get the message out to more people.

Forget Kerry .... our democracy is more important and the issue is far greater than him.

[seabeyond]

146. right on n/t

[seabeyond]

77. you dont seem to get it

they are not going to embrace reform, they are for theft. the only way to get them to reform is the american people. you and me. thats it. they wont do it on their own, they created it

and be nice. being mice is going to do it. like dems being nice the last four years and not allowed into committee meetings ect.....

lordy

[whometense]

93. I get it just fine.

The mere existence of democrats pisses them off.

Are you kidding?? These are the people who are changing ethics rules to accomodate DeLay's criminality. These are the people who are talking about ending the filibuster. And you're concerned about upsetting them by contesting the election??? Please.

[SicTransit]

153. As I said before - without an objection on Jan 6th

there is at least a chance of being able to push election reform through. With it, the chance is exactly zero. But hey, if someone challenges, it will create a warm/fuzzy feeling for a couple of hours. I guess that's worth scrapping any chance of either election reform or Congressional investigation of the 2004 elections.

[whometense]

158. Seems to me this is a matter of opinion.

And your opinion is different from mine. Unless you have some kind of secret powers of divination.

[SicTransit]

159. You think that it is a matter of opinion that

objecting on the 6th will make the issue of electoral reform or Congressional investigation of these elections so extremely partisan that no Republican will touch it with a 10 foot pole?

[whometense]

160. Yes, indeed.

I do.

[SicTransit]

161. I think you're wrong -

and I think anyone thinking rationally about this would agree. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion. I think it is roughly equivalent to thinking that if you randomly go out and spit on someone, that person will then help you paint your house. Unlikely but hey - could happen, right?

[whometense]

163. I don't accept the terms of your argument.

This isn't spitting on anyone. It is not personal. If anything, it offers rational repugs (if there are still any of those left - I have my doubts) an opportunity to speak out.

It's about the purest political argument I can think of. Voters were disenfranchised. It's not about Bush. It's not about Kerry. It's about making our system work in a way that gives people confidence that their vote will count.

[saracat]

57. Puhleeze. Did making "nice" to the Repukes

stop them from destroying Daschle? He was "nice" to them. As were Cleland and Carnahan as I recall. They all voted for the tax cuts. Bipartisanship. Then they were axed!

[SicTransit]

60. See #54 n/t

[saracat]

63. I did . That is not an answer!

[SicTransit]

64. Ok - please explain how exactly you can do any kind of

electoral reform without cooperation of some Republicans.

[saracat]

66. The only way you could "possibly" get some

Republican support is by standing for something and not caving in to them. If the Senators show some guts they just might persuade some Republicans to join them. If they cower in fear of Republican judjement, the Republicans will know they never have to do anything. Remember, though they are the majority, to get any important legislation passed they still need Dems. They will need two thirds vote.Perhaps we should make them come to us? And remember, they really respected Clinton only after he shut the government down. We need to play hardball.

[SicTransit]

67. that is so naive it is kinda funny

but ok - think what you want. You think if you accuse someone of fraud without actually presenting any serious proof, they will respect you. All I can say is that's not how things work in Washington - or anywhere else, for that matter.

And as for needing two-thirds - wrong. They need that to overcome the judicial filibusters (and that probably not for long, especially if we give them an excuse for the "nuclear" option by the hijinx on the 6th) and to pass Constitutional amendments. That's about it. For the rest you need a simple majority.

[saracat]

68. Naive? I think that you are the one that is funny. You are so

dismissive of the judicial appointments and the constitutional amendments as though they are of no import to either side and as far as lack of serious proof, I know enough to know that I am not privy to the evidence so I can't even venture an opinion as to what they have. I assume Conyers and the others have consulted with you and provided you with copies of all the evidence as you seem to KNOW that there is no solid evidence.

[eomer]

75. Because as long as Democrats play nicely...

then the legislative process will be one of mutual cooperation and respect. The Republicans, even though they don't have to, will make sure that Democrats' input is carefully combined with their own ideas and the legislation we get will be a marvelous example of bi-partisan cooperation.

That's how you see it, right?

Now that we've finished our trip to Fantasyland let's describe how it's really going to be. All legislation will be developed totally within the Republican party and the public won't even be aware of what's in it due to MSM complicity. Democrats will have the opportunity to vote "No" on one bill after another and will rarely, if ever, have any real input into the process. The most effective thing they will be able to do is hold a press conference. That's the future you're admonishing us not to jeopardize.

[whometense]

94. Bitter LOL

You said it.

[bunny planet]

83. Oh, we certainly don't want to piss off the people who are running our

ONE PARTY GOVERNMENT, now do we?

[Eye_on_prize]

70. Excuse me. I think Jan 6th is ALL about reforming the election system...

...which you say is also your goal. What better way reform the election do you propose? None that I've heard. The Jan 6th challenge - with or without Kerry stealth action - accomplishes a number of critical things at once:
1) it effectively calls national attention quickly to the massive amount of documentation and legal evidence of fraud that has been accumulated to date,
2) it does so by using precisely the very Constitutionally prescribed forum for doing so, that being the certification (or noncertification) of electors on Jan 6th.
3) the fact that this has NEVER happened before (where US Senator joins the challenge) means it is..hello?.. historic, so much harder to ignore, esp. after the F9/11 clip being widely registered in everyone's collective awareness,
4) it enters permanently into the Congressional record the compelling (I think) evidence, prima facia and otherwise, that has been garnered to date.

I list these accomplishments because it helps me appreciate the importance of this more myself, and also to ask people trashing the idea of standing up on Jan 6, what their alternative actions would be, and precisely when would be the 'better time' or 'better place' to challenge election fraud OH and/or get REAL election reform out of the Republican controlled Congress? Naysayers have posted a LOT of ink simply repeating over and over how 'oh, this'll never work, blah blah' without any whiff of another strategy or time-line or credible work plan for more effectively registering our concerns in a compelling and timely manner.

Please either elaborate your 'someday' strategy and enlighten us, or at least think up something more original than "oh, this'll never work", or "it's political suicide" (try telling Conyers that), or "Oh, this will destroy the Dems for 20 years".

Yes there are certainly some risks to the Jan 6th challenge, as there are ALWAYS risks in these kind of struggles. And there will certainly be another whole set of risks to bedevil any alternative (as yet unspecified and unarticulated) alternative proposal for forcing this issue onto the agenda in a timely way, as in before 2006 elections.

The reality is this: Jan 6th is happening, and there is no turning back at this point, so magnifying the risks and playing on our fears is not helpful at this point. We need some serious momentum underway for reforming elections pronto, and Jan 6th is none to soon to get started.

I believe many at DU are very aware the gravity and significance of this move, and, on balance, still feel it is by far our best shot.

Here are some 'givens' I see:
•given all that we now know evidence-wise,
•given that there is safety in numbers and that alternative would abandon Conyers to twist in the wind with one or two other black Congresspeople (can u say 2000 redux), to be easily ignored and dismissed as 'a few wackos' by MSM,
•given that 'playing nice' on Jan 6th at this point would most certainly be seen as weaknes, as not really believing our own evidence, and used against us to cast irrational spells of 'doubt' on the evidence we've fought so hard to gather.
•given the Dems minority status (i.e. an uphill battle any way you slice it), and
•given what the Constitution spells out Jan 6th as the appropriate time and place for challenging election fraud.

Given all this, I personally feel a sacred responsibility to John Conyers and to my country to encourage as MANY of his collegues to stand up with him in solidarity on Jan 6th as possible.

[sendero]

79. You are absolutely correct...

.... nothing short of videos of people rigging votes is going to keep Bush* from taking office at this point, and that is not going to happen.

Frankly, I've been whipsawed with these "this is about to happen" crap SO MANY TIMES that I refused to buy any of it any more.

Even if a Senator "stands up", that would merely be step 1 in a 1,000 step process for fixing anything. It must be nice to be so damned optimistic :)

[seito]

20. Destroy the Democratic Party for 20 years

Do you really think so?

[theboss]

24. Well, there's an argument that we've already been destroyed for 20 years

But, yes, I think that turning Jan. 6 into a circus is a very dangerous game. Let's just say, I would love to be the Republican spin doctor who got to go on tv and say, "1.5 million votes is apparently not enough votes for the Democrats. They simply don't trust the will of the American people" or some such nonsense.

[flyarm]

100. whoa...circus??

hey wait a second..is expecting a senator or congressmen to stand up for democracy a circus?? is standing up for peoples votes a circus? is standing up for our constitution a circus??..ill tell you whats a circus and no ones gripping about that..the fact that bush knows he is illegitimate and yet acts like he is the newly annointed king...and cheney and all of the thugs acting like they are legitimate...what was a circus was kerry having all the people working for him get people to donate to the gelac fund, and begging on door steps, when he knew exactly what the bushes were doing to steal votes..thats a circus...a circus is having thousands upon thousands of americans busting their butts to make sure we had a legitimate president and election..and then having this crap of an election thrown in our faces...
i could have dealt with bush winning fair and square, and i would have been estatic if kerry won fair and square..but that is not what happened ..i saw a circus at the election..thats where the circus was..the election on nov 2nd..

i saw a circus at the convention...but do i see a circus now..now..i see americans fighting for the very right to call themselves americans...
i keep hearing ringing in my ears.."we the people"..."we the people"..it is our responsibility to our constitution to fight for our nation, for our values, for truth, for the right of all of us to vote and have our votes counted...and if that is a circus..then i am leaving this country..because it is no longer a place i believe in or want to be part of!

i was a delegate to the convention, i was a so called super volunteer, i worked my ass off...not for me..but for my country...
i have 2 homes..one in nj and one in fla..i transfered my vote to fla so i could help and make sure we had a legitimate election this time...
i worked hard..each and everyday for almost 2 years for that goal..i worked daily many times 15-18 hours a day on kerrys campaign..
ispend god only knows how much money..because i could no ask others to put money up ( that many didnt have) without digging deeper into my pockets...

i bought the giant kerry signs before the campaign kicked stuff in for our offices here..i bought all the t-shirts and buttons..long before kerrys campaign kicked stuff in...no one made me do it..i did it for a legitimate election..i did it for the blacks who are disenfrancized...
i am not a minority but my husband and son are..i did it for them..so they would no longer have their vote not counted..in 2000 my sons vote didnt count as an absentee ballot because he got a notice the day before the election that his signature didnt match the card in the soe office..it was his signature..it was his signature...but his obviously hispanic name made it easy for them to discount his vote...
since i am not a minority..it was difficult for me to ever understand discrimination...until i had a son who has experienced it his entire life...which broke this mothers heart....
if fighting for my sons vote or those of other minoritys vote is a circus..well let the show begin..because this constitution of ours doesn't say we the whites, or we the anglos...it says we the people..and if we can not expect and deand our representitives to stand up for this democracy...well we have no democracy then!
god blessed my family, and we are of very comfortable means...but that does not mean that we can sit back on our laurels and let others have their rights abused or taken for granted , and that does not mean my vote is more important than the person on the street with nothing..or the child who is poor with no health insurance..or barely enough food to survive..when we have the means we must fight harder..the people in a getto deserve the same vote as me in my austatious homes...thats what our forefathers meant by "we the people" and i will be darned if i will accept any representative of the people to sit back and let any americans vote be pissed in the wind!
and if it takes a circus to expose this fraud and abuse of our democracy..well bring in the clowns..and let the show begin!
i would never consider fighting for the very grain of my democracy a circus...
my inlaws both served this nation to preserve our democracy..my father in law on omaha beach and my mother inlaw was in the wacs she was one of the top soldiers in boston during ww2 she was a command sarget major...
does her son or grand son not deserve their votes?? because it might make some uncomfortable that their votes are fought for??
my grand father left his eye on the uss arizona in ww1 and my dad fought in the south pacific in ww2 does his grand son not deserve a vote??
a circus..the only place i see a circus is with the illegitimate regime in this white house , that has no regard for the laws or constitution of my nation...
and if it takes a fight to expose them or the illegitmacy of this or any other election..again i will say..let the show begin!

from a delegate for fla
a super volunteer for kerry
a woman for kerry
a just retired american airlines flight attendant 33 yrs who worked this campaign for her fallen co-workers
a speaker for the kerry campaign( volunteer)
from a family who housed the kerry head field rep for my area of fla

and most of all........from a proud wife and mother of two wonderful hispanic men!
fly

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

102. You said it all. Crying here. Thank you for your Passion, and most

of all for your True Patriotism.

[earth mom]

117. Bravo! You said it again flyarm!

I've been reading your wonderful posts and I have to tell you that
:yourock:

[TruthIsAll]

126. Bravo! You are the voice of reason. And there are 62 million who agree.

.

[scottxyz]

127. Thank you for a very moving post

You have really worked hard for all the people of this country.

[Pacifist Patriot]

130. I agree. I'm getting more than a little weary of

the idea of an elected official acting in a constitutionally mandated manner being seen as something outrageous. In my opinion, the circus happened on November 2 and before.

[Straight Shooter]

133. Go, flyarm, go rockin' go!!

Sometimes I think there's no reason to be proud to be an American anymore, and then I go and read a post like that. Damn, you can sure preach, sister, and you did it without waving the flag or thumping the Bible.

:yourock:

[KnowerOfLogic]

165. And that would only have an impact *if it went unanswered,* which

of course it would, given the present spineless state of the democratic party. Doesn't have to be that way, and it *shouldn't* be that way.

[Turn CO Blue]

40. How can something that has already crumbled to pieces

possibly be further "destroyed"? There is no Dem party anymore, just Repub-lite.

The only chance for the Dems is to move to the populist left - because the disillusioned non-voters won't come out to vote for anything remotely centrist or corporate-loving next time.

Anything that delays *'s win by even a nano-second, much less two hours is OKAY by me!

Pyrotechnics:
- It would go in the history books (material for which is not dependent upon whether the media does or does not cover the story, but rather dependent upon the history and government professors of this country who not only write the textbooks but who absolutely live for that kind of election abnormality and trivia.)

- It would delight the rest of the over 5 billion humans on the planet.

[mod mom]

88. Destroy the Dem Party for the next 20 years?

If the Dems do not stand up and fight for their constituency then what good is the party? This is a fight for democracy! I hope many of us feel that if the 6th goes by without a lot of pyrotechnics then our fight will continue with a shift toward impeachment. I know the repugs control the government but we must continue the fight to bring them down!

[tx_dem41]

90. Excellent points....especially point b. n/t

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[Birthmark]

11. When January 6th gets here, it means one thing:

That January 7th is coming in another 24 hours. That is all. The election is over. Bush will be President for another four years. He will NOT be impeached - at least on the basis of what is currently known. Better to realize that we lost and figure out where to go from here than to play make believe, imo.

[Joe Chi Minh]

142. Did you see that, folks?

He said "NOT"(be impeached) in capital letters! Wow! We'd better take note.

[Birthmark]

156. Yup.

You'd better. Or...or...or...well, I'll work that out later. But there is nothing that can be proven and used to impeach him at the moment. Wish there were good evidence of wrongdoing. But then, the Repub Congress would/will just give him a pass anyway.

[bobbieinok]

164. ignore the vote and the election.....nothing to impeach for; NOTHING????

--lies about WMD?

--protecting the people in the WH who 'outed' Plame???? outing a CIA covert agent is treason, right???

--exec orders for secret trials and secret death penalties??? destroys how many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights??

--exec orders permitting torture??? contravenes Geneva Conventions treaties, and treaties become US law?????

--etc

--etc

[Birthmark]

167. Look, I agree that he and his whole cabal are reprehensible.

But we've got nothing there that is both provable *and* a crime. I wish it was otherwise - and it may be, possibly soon. But until we have the crime and solid evidence ready to present, we're simply preaching to the choir.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[New Earth]

13. are you pushing the envelope again?

:hi: :hug:

[catgirl]

21. Speaking in code?

Boy, you know all the "inside scoop". Whadya think it really means? Okay enough of my sarcasm.

[Machiavelli05]

29. hey!

yes. yes I am.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Machiavelli05]

27. BREAKING NEWS ON WASHINGTONPOST.COM - KERRY WON

ring any bells?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Not a Sheep]

85. Actually it was "WASHINGTON POST DECLARES KERRY WON!" Which wasn't true.

[seito]

17. Now was that nice Machiavelli?

:hi:

[Machiavelli05]

26. not particularly

[Carolab]

23. Jesse wasn't on LK tonight

the Jesse comment was from a long while back, remember?

[Machiavelli05]

28. well then edit my comment - Maybe clinton did

I dont watch CNN - I dont know whos on LKL


However, what I do know is that this bantor about speaking in code just makes everything lose credibility.

[TruthIsAll]

31. You obviously don't know Bill Clinton. That's what he does.

.

[Machiavelli05]

34. I dont??

You know him? hows he doing?

[bunny planet]

84. See, patronizing.

[Joe Chi Minh]

144. Hey up, lads and lassies!

The scourge of the Commie hordes is back in, swinging for all he's worth! Game as a pebble... GO Mac!

[Wilms]

15. Watch what they do. Not what they say.

The fact that it WAS discussed (didn't see it) is impressive.

Oh. And Freepers can take that to the bank. Clinton, "who lies to the 'Merican peeple" weighed in on fairness and squareness. I'd like to see the Freeps get all around that!

I'm happy. Have a :)

[info being]

147. Since when have the Democrats done anything?

[bleever]

19. It depends on what one's "won" is. n/t

[Wilms]

22. That is so great, Bleever. n/t

[catgirl]

25. Clinton is not right 100% of the time

[fooj]

33. Bleever,

:yourock: SOOOOOO clever! Great tension tamer!!! Thanks!:)


WHAT ARE THEY HIDING???:think: :think: :think:

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

35. Clinton Is A Sellout

His trophy/bought & paid for wife won't get my vote in '08 if she is stupid enough to run.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[saracat]

58. I will be offensive too. Clinton is a DLC sellout.

He doesn't represent the Democratic Party. And to think I once respected him.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[saracat]

61. Some posters just like to pull other posters chains in order to make them

lose it. It is outrageous how some posters make assumptions about other posters knowing nothing about their background!Some would find the poster insulting but it makes me giggle knowing that he has no idea about whom he is speaking! I wonder why he doesn't tolerate any other opinion or allow anyone to change their opinion?

[No Exit]

43. (stifled snicker) No, Clinton is a survivor

Ah, how well I remember, reading on the web in early 2001. Their whining even exceeded their more recent keening. ("They're trying to take CHRISSSMUSS away from us! Whine!") Back then, the snookered little republicans were saying of Clinton, "He'll just NEVVVERRR go AWAAAAAY! Whine whine!"

Ah, but then they remembered something! Hey, their guy had (sort of) won! At least, their guy was going to be in the Oval Office. Oh, and best of all, they remembered how so many congress members had said during impeachment, "Now is not the time to prosecute President Clinton for perjury. That is something that should be done when he is out of office." Hey, thought the little snookered republicans--he's out of office now! This must mean that our noble congress members, led by our fearless King George, will now prosecute that sucker for his many crimes!

Ah, alas, the little snookered republicans are still waiting for their Fearless Leader to "prosecute" Clinton for his "crimes". Ha ha! I'm sure as they watched the dedication of Clinton's library (holding their noses), they were thinking, "Look, look! What's that Our Fearless King George is holding behind his back? Must be a warrant for Clinton's arrest!"

Oh, btw, I've heard Hillary called many things, I've even called her some of them myself, but never "trophy wife". Pardon me for dissolving into uproarious laughter! Parting thought: if only, if ONLY we had Hillary or Clinton or Gore or Kerry as president NOW. Look at the devastation wrought by the madness of King George.

[iconoclastNYC]

152. Amen---she's damaged goods n/t

[gumby]

39. NOT COUNTING ON IT.

We (you and me and all of us) now reside in the United Red Nazi States.

What is it about this FACT that everyone CAN'T understand???

There is NO Shock and Awe except the HARD Jack Boot that some will experience when Bush is sworn in as King Of The World. Amen.... (cough)

[genius]

42. I don't believe Jesse Jackson said that. This is nonsense.

[seito]

47. He said it

It was about a week before he went to Ohio and held that first rally. I believe the interview was on CNN. I distinctly remember the drama that evening. :eyes:

[foo_bar]

46. I'm beginning to think this is satire

at DU's expense. It's hard to separate farce in this world gone mad, but what started out maudlin now seems a little contrived, insincere even.

[BigBearJohn]

49. Oh hell

He doesn't want Kerry in.
He wants his wife elected in 2008.
It sickens me to watch him kiss up to the Bushes.

[malatesta1137]

50. NOTHING, REPEAT, NOTHING

will happen on Jan 6. Not one single senator will contest the election.

Bush will be inaugurated Jan 20.

Iran will be invaded by 2006.

Syria will be invaded by 2007.

Diebold will deliver the Presidency to Jeb Bush in 2008. He will win by a 10,000,000 vote margin.

[Pachamama]

52. Agree on all your predictions except for one.....

I believe on January 6th, there will be atleast 4 Senators that will stand up with the Black Congressional Caucus for a contest/challenge to the validity of this election....

Check in with me on Jan. 7th....and ofcourse lets follow up on the others....

:hi:

[gumby]

53. Not hard to be a "psychic" these days

is it??????????

All one needs is a simple understanding of fascist history.

Yawn... not on TV... yawn... nevermind... as long as there are TVs in those cells where George will imprison us for life without charges... y a w n.....

[zimba]

55. Alot of back and forth but

really, the only thing that will tell is time.

The important thing for me is that people are trying to raise the issues concerning the sad state of our election process.

Will Kerry end up president? Dont know but I doubt it.
Will Bush continue to run roughshod over the world? Dont know but I pray not.
Will true Americans continue to fight for an honest, transparent election process that isnt run by right wing corporations? Count on it and take it to the bank.

[Old and In the Way]

56. It's going to be an interesting 3 days.

Why Clinton wants to make nice with this criminal party is beyond my ken. They tortured him for 8 goddam years before they finally impeached him. He, along with Gore and Kerry should be leading the charge.

Bill is being the statesman here....but we really don't have a state anymore. We have 2 states that exist side-by-side. And until we start fighting for and getting a transparent, auditabe, consistant voting process, we will never win again. If that is what this amounts to, let 'er rip.

Speaking of Gore, where is he in all of this? I haven't heard anything from him since before the election.

[rodriguez94]

73. clinton

ok, i have to admit...I totally flipped out when I heard Bill say that last night...but then I got thinking...perhaps..just maybe he is being a little sarcastic? Let's hope so...

[rodeodance]

78. "but President Bush won this election fair and square" transcript (Bill C

I believe I have heard Bill C. say this before also. (I do not know about JJ).


.....CLINTON: I do. I don't think that the -- you know, I voted for the other fellow, but President Bush won this election fair and square. And he ought to -- he ought to be able to have his inaugural. And his supporters should be able to celebrate it, however they see fit. And I don't think that it will detract one red cent from the money that we will give privately or publicly to this relief effort......


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0501/03/lkl.01.html


CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Interview With Former Presidents Clinton, Bush

Aired January 3, 2005 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, former Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton, here. Live for the hour, an historic interview on their unique response to an unprecedented disaster, next on LARRY KING LIVE.
A lot of great moments in close to 20 years of doing this broadcast. Tonight is another one of them. Two former presidents on together. George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st president of the United States, joins us from Houston. And Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States, joins us from his home in Chappaqua, New York. ,,,,,,,,

[flpoljunkie]

80. It gets worse! Clinton is selling out our democracy, and for what!?

KING: President Clinton, do you agree with what President Bush just said?

CLINTON: I do. I don't think that the -- you know, I voted for the other fellow, but President Bush won this election fair and square. And he ought to -- he ought to be able to have his inaugural. And his supporters should be able to celebrate it, however they see fit. And I don't think that it will detract one red cent from the money that we will give privately or publicly to this relief effort.

Whenever you launch a new presidency,even if it's a reelected president, it's a moment of national reaffirmation, a dedication to our democratic process, and it's also a moment of celebration for the fellows that won and the women that won. They won it, and they ought to be able to celebrate.

[cyberpj]

89. For a shot at President of the U.N. - his ultimate goal now . eom

[SharonRB]

115. I freaked last night when I heard him say it as well,

but I think he was just being diplomatic (as he always is). He wasn't about to start in on Larry King with GHWB there saying "I don't think President Bush will be reinaugurated come January 20. The election was fraudulent and it will be proven. etc. etc. etc."

[righteous1]

116. So your saying he lied just for the sake of decorum?? n/t

[flpoljunkie]

119. "It's a moment of national reaffirmation, a dedication to our democratic

process"--getouttahere! Why did Clinton lay it on so damn thick! It disgusts me!

"Whenever you launch a new presidency,even if it's a reelected president, it's a moment of national reaffirmation, a dedication to our democratic process, and it's also a moment of celebration for the fellows that won and the women that won. They won it, and they ought to be able to celebrate." - William J. Clinton
 

[nodictators]

145. WJClinton: "...a dedication to our [SHAM] democratic process"

WTF, the Repubs beat the crap out of Clinton, gave him prematurely gray hair, and heart problems and stint, and now he says they won it "fair and square"???

Does he have Stockholm Syndrome? Did the Repubs tell him that they'd let Hillary win in 2008? Or, does he know that there is really only ONE party, the Republi-Dems, whose major enemy is the American People?

[righteous1]

82. Hmmmm , B Clinton must be a Freeper n/t

[Imajika]

86. Your posts have gone from mostly silly...

...to repetative and bizarre, to just downright comical.

"SO WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
IT'S THE BIG CON.
THEY ARE RUBBING BUSHCO'S NOSE IN IT."

Oh geeze. Your way out there TIA. The big con? You believe when Clinton says Bush won the election fair and square that he is really acting as part of some big con? So first it is the election fraud conspiracy, now Clinton in on the big con to presumably keep the investigation on the down low or hide the big ambush that is coming? Good grief, can you get any more goofy?

"COME JAN 6:
YOU WILL BE AMAZED.
AND SHOCKED.
AND AWED."

As per the norm, come Jan 6th, you will be wrong again. Rather than stop for a moment and ponder why your predictions, such as the constant "Bush is toast" posts, are almost always completely incorrect, I am sure you will probably just move the goalposts and begin endlessly predicting incredibly fantastic things will happen on the 20th. When the 20th passes, it will be some new date that "the fraud" will be exposed, etc, etc, etc.

Imajika

[righteous1]

92. For many people the denial is terminal, but it's a fact

that 2/3 of our own party believe that the election was legit. Bill Clinton, D Hoffheimer (JKs lead attornry in OH speaking for Kerry himself),Begala, Carville, McAuliffe, Brazille, Kos, Dowd. The list is endless, all in contrast to Conyers, Jackson and a half dozen reps and handful of nobody's. It is not that these people are ignorant or uninformed as is the usual contention, on the contrary, they are more informed than most if not all of us and have come to an educated conscientious conclusion. The best we can hope for is an increased awareness of voting issues and some legislation to improve the more egregious. But these endless wild theories , grandiose schemes and brilliant plans that will supposedly be premiered soon are nothing more than the concoctions of a desperate psyche

[fasttense]

99. The best YOU can hope for is never having a fair election again.

[righteous1]

103. What in the world are you talking about? n/t

[euler]

105. These democrats were all HYP. NO. TIZED.

[euler]

104. Be quiet and sit down. I paid...

...for a ticket and I want to see the end of the show : )

[Not a Sheep]

91. To clarify.....

.... is this post saying that Dems have bombshell evidence that we will be shocked and awed by on the 6th and they're playing a secret con game to the public until then?

[euler]

108. Yes, it is, but...

...just before the other side realizes that *we* realize that our party leaders are speaking in code, they will jam the signal with a red alert or something; thereby forcing us to begin speaking to our party leaders in code too, so they can understand us and we can understand them. However, once our party leaders realize we can easily decipher what they are saying, they will craft a new code because the objective is to be as unclear as possible to the very people who usually support them.

[Not a Sheep]

109. Well that clears it up! ;) /eom

[Walt Starr]

97. Let me get this straight. Clinton says Bush won fair and square

so that means that he's conning them and bush didn't win fair and square.

:silly:

:crazy:

[Imajika]

107. Yes, isn't that obvious enough?

It is all part of Kerry's secret plan.

Ya see, this has all been one big con game from the beginning. Clinton is fooling them (the Bushies) into thinking that all is well, and then, armed with Conyers incredible report and perhaps even TIA's statistical "evidence", the Democrats will ambush the Republicans on the 6th.

It's all been planned from the beginning dontcha know.

Don't listen to what they say, listen to the secret plans attributed to them you read about on Internet message forums :-)

Imajika

[Walt Starr]

111. Yeah, and the Democrats had a secret plan to take back Congress

in 2002.

We figure they'll spring it some time in 2022.

[SueZhope]

110. lets not forget clinton said(the MSM will never let us forget)

"I did not have sex with that women"
perhaps ....he does not really mean" Bush won fair and square"
:shrug:

[demo dutch]

154. I think Clinton is betting on Bush to "dig his own grave"

which I am convinced will happen!

[The Judged]

113. The DLC leadership has merged as one with the RNC leadership!

Time to sever the DLC from the DNC, and to return the party to its roots that people come first!

*41 probably has lots of goodies on Clinton. Remember, the CIA headquarters is named after HIM!

[Freddie Stubbs]

121. Why didn't 41 use those goodies on him in 1992, instead of

losing the election? :shrug:

[The Judged]

141. Based on some of Clinton's policy decisions, how do you know he didn't?

NAFTA, for example.

Also, 41's stronghold on the government didn't get him re-elected then either.

Remember, the Re-uglicans didn't control the House, the Senate, and the Judiciary at that time and thus didn't have complete license to act without fear of losing something.

[Freddie Stubbs]

151. NAFTA? Clinton campaigned on support of NAFTA

[info being]

148. Its been that way for a long time now

That's why a lot of us went Nader in 2000. We gave the Dems another chance in 2004 only to learn that nothing had really changed.

[femme.democratique]

120. Don't look to Clinton to save our democracy.

He was an OK president for Republican Lite, and he appointed Bader Ginsburg. The one thing I do blame him for is setting the stage for *. He believes * won fair and square because he may have his own painful skeletons in his closet. I wonder what kind of deal he made with BushCo. Flame me if you want, but Clinton is no angel!

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[spooked911]

123. TIA-- I fear you are getting delusional

Clinton is NOT going after Bush election win.

I seriously doubt any Senator will stand up to protest on Jan. 6th.

Sorry.

[AtLiberty]

124. I wonder why these guys choose these exact words?

Odd...

[cyberpj]

135. CLINTON - my wants still come first (pun intended) - WANTS UN

He won't admit it yet when asked in interviews but he wants it bad. When asked he chuckles, won't answer, but talks long on just what the UN needs. Bush and Co. can get it for him.

[Godspeed_4usDems]

139. Would`nt it be fun if Hillary were the Senator

to stand up in all this? Especially after the crap they put her through when she was first lady.

Poetic Justice in my opinion!!

[nonny]

138. Bush won Fair and Square!

What a wonderful title this would be for a documentary on Election Fraud.
Jesse Jackson said Bush won fair and square (Soon after election)
Michael Moore said Bush won fair and square (Jay Leno)
Clinton said Bush won fair and square (Larry King)

Sounds like a mantra.
Now we need some music to set the scene.
OK ready ----
Lets see those long lines of voters waiting in the rain.
Cut to Blackwell
More lines--- voter finally arrives at poll sign-in book but---
Oops --- wrong line. Your line is the one "over there"
and the story continues......

[spooked911]

150. I get it now-- "fair and square" is code for outrageous scamming of votes

[peacetalksforall]

149. The beasts figured out all the ways an election could be stolen , went

to work, and succeeded (so far).

What we have to do is never stress one of their methods over the other and forget or ignore the others.

The system can only be fixed by attacking the 'vast' scope of the theft.

Including people in charge of purchasing the theft machines as well as the people who 'permitted' some of the thefts by taking the word of 'technicians'. The degree of protection we got from election officials was equal to giving anteaters or seahorses the authority to run an election.

[Kilkenny5]

162. Whatever!

Forgive me for my cynicism but I'm ready to move on.

Unless they do something about BBV this will continue to go on.

Thank goodness for my Ipod and DVDs.