How sweet. I just received one of John Kerrys 3 million letters he sent out reminding us of the meeting of Congress to certify the results of the 2004 election.

I thought Al Gore was a bad candidate in 2000 but John Kerry has him beat. one of Al Gore's biggest problems of course was his legal team not demanding a recount of the entire state of Florida and not just the few counties in question.

John Kerry, whose campaign team included Mccurry, Shrum, Cahill and the gurly man McAuliffe, didn't have the smarts to counter-attack swift boat ads, now sends a letter saying he won't be protesting Ohio electors.

though he admits, "widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote..." He won't protest.

His reason, "our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election."

i say, so what? just a few weeks ago there were protest in the Ukraine with "widespread reports of irregularities" and that got them a new election. The protest needs to be in the streets and John Kerry needs to be there and perhaps then, the media would cover it.....provided we have Mr Murdochs permission of course.

also, contacting Dennis Hastert and Bill Frist isn't going to do any good.....do you think a Congress that changes how the ethics committee will operate in behalf of DeLay really gives a damn about an election that used Republican voting machines?

No...I think a thank you John is in order here, but that's just me.

Originally posted by Rolader
do you think a Congress that changes how the ethics committee will operate in behalf of DeLay really gives a damn about an election that used Republican voting machines?

Actually, the rule change affects how parties may choose the leadership within their own party. There were no changes within the Ethics Committee. If he's such damaged goods, only the Republicans will be hurt by it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54572-2004Nov16.html

John Kerry is a f*cking mole planted by the warmongers!

If they thought they had some recourse, they would be taking it. Maybe there was irregularities - but they have to be able to prove it.

To imagine that we should have a Ukrane style blockade in the streets over stuff that cannot even be apparently proven is miss-guided.

I wanted Kerry to win, but Bush won, that's it - end of story. Bush is the President like it or not & we have to now hope he does a good job in the world over the next 4 years.

If they thought they had some recourse, they would be taking it. Maybe there was irregularities - but they have to be able to prove it.
Personally I think their pussyfoots and not very right to not do it just because "it wouldn't change the outcome". Regardless if it will change the outcome, we should know if there were problems so we can fix them.

we have to now hope he does a good job in the world over the next 4 years.
Hope's for those on dope. Not to mention we know quite well he wont... Neither of them are qualified to be president, and the American public really didn't want either of them, most votes went "Oh god, not that guy!" So we have to endure... inefficiency of a Democratic Republic at it's finest...

Originally posted by Blibblob
Personally I think their pussyfoots and not very right to not do it just because "it wouldn't change the outcome". Regardless if it will change the outcome, we should know if there were problems so we can fix them.

Well - you are entitled to believe that if it makes the outcome easier to bear for you. Truth is that there are many democrats involved - tens of thousands of them financially capable of filing suit. If they thought there was a chance in hell then Kerry would be retracting his concession.

Hope's for those on dope. Not to mention we know quite well he wont... Neither of them are qualified to be president, and the American public really didn't want either of them, most votes went "Oh god, not that guy!" So we have to endure... inefficiency of a Democratic Republic at it's finest...

So, run for office !

Well - you are entitled to believe that if it makes the outcome easier to bear for you. Truth is that there are many democrats involved - tens of thousands of them financially capable of filing suit. If they thought there was a chance in hell then Kerry would be retracting his concession.
No, I think you misunderstood what I said. I've seen evidence that there were problems, some may have been illegal, others just mistakes. I don't really care if it would give anybody the win, but it should be investigated, and certainly fixed. A flaw in the election system be a slap in the face of the founders and a complete destruction of our current system. The fix should be for the benefit of the future, regardless of what the fix is. One thing's for certain, closed source, papertrailless electronic voting machines is a BAD IDEA.

So, run for office !
I think burning things would be more efficient... but that's a possibility.

I agree with you that if there are flaws - they need to fix them.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
John Kerry is a f*cking mole planted by the warmongers!

As we can most obviously see here, all the reasons to believe John Kerry is not more entitled to run a country than George Bush are present. The true views of a pure Republican will never be forgotten simply by statements that are as rash and unthoughtful as this. I don't believe all Republicans have the wrong idea about all politics, yet statements like this give the complete party sterotypes that are thought to be lived up to. As to tampered votes, I believe this report has many of the right facts, though lots of the opioned sections are tampered by the authors views. This is a link to the report (http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won_.php)
I hope that report can shed some light on the issue, and I certainly hope not to see any reoccurences in posts similar to the quote above. Happy New Year.

just some updates for ya....

Bush is ahead by Kerry by 118,000 votes...

and Bush leads Kerry nationally by over 3 million votes.

I think it's clear who won the election.

If you dont like electronic voting machines, thats fine, i dont care how they vote as long as its right. Dont Blame bush for a voting system you dont agree with.

Jinx, Since you're new you wouldn't realize from past posts that Ed Blank is not a Republican. I don't want to speak for him, but I think he was suggesting that having a weak candidate like John Kerry benefitted the warmongering Republicans.

I think the problem with Democrats on this issue is that they know Senator Kerry lost, but just want to delegitimize the President's victory as much as they can.

Similarly, an "unnamed" Democrat reportedly said that President Bush's judicial nominee, Gonzalez, will be approved, but they want to give him a bloody nose first.

None of this benefits the country, but this is what it is now.

Why should Johnny get anything. HE LOST! Get over it. Bush rules!

yea.....why is it that democrats are only wanting a recount in OHIO???? If they really wanted to "get it right", they'd recount every state. Just shows that they dont want to get it right, they just are interested in the states that Kerry Lost

Originally posted by Brooks
Jinx, Since you're new you wouldn't realize from past posts that Ed Blank is not a Republican. I don't want to speak for him, but I think he was suggesting that having a weak candidate like John Kerry benefitted the warmongering Republicans.

Exactly *said in a Homer-Simpson-impersonating-Mr-Burns voice while touching fingertips together a la Mr Burns*

Sorry if i seemed to insult you in anyway, but the context of your statment just seemed rather unjust to John Kerry in the current conversation. I agree that George Bush won, I just dont think he desevered it more. Which is my opinion, which also seems to go rather against the crowd. Again, the reason of my earlier post was that I was not trying to make it seem like I was mainly aimed at attacking him for what I thought was his political status. I was meerly showing that many die hard republicans make similar statements and that I made an assumption that he was one. I myself am a democrate, yet I don't need a recount in Ohio. I know we lost and are willing to accept it.

Originally posted by Jinx
. I myself am a democrate, yet I don't need a recount in Ohio. I know we lost and are willing to accept it.

that is a first....i admire someone like you jinx. I know when i'm beat, and obviously you do as well. Lets stop wining about yesterday's news and move on to the current situations at hand.

Originally posted by Jinx
I myself am a democrate, yet I don't need a recount in Ohio. I know we lost and are willing to accept it.

I doubt VERY seriously if you "know" for a fact that the voting machines in Ohio were not rigged in some way to produce a desired Bush victory......the sort of victory, btw, that the man who OWNS the voting machine company *Diebold* publicly promised to deliver to Bush.

A large number of people in this country with access to information ---very likely far more information than you are privy to--- on that subject have concluded that there WERE irregularities in the vote and the voting machines.

So, you cannot say with any confidence whatsoever that you ""know"" the vote was correctly and honestly tabulated.

It may have been......it may have not have been.....there are several strange anomalies that would lead a rational person toward the conclusion that the voting process WAS flawed.

A thorough investigation might get to the bottom of it.......but the faction in control, a faction that blocked investigation of the most serious terrorist attack ever on American soil is certainly NOT going to roll over on this scandal and alllow a fair investigation into the 2004 election to ever take place.

The people in control (not GWB or anybody whose name you know) do what they want. It doesn't matter what you vote for.