Lebell

Perhaps you do not make a connection between alleging fraud and stealing the election, but what else can it be? One does not engage in fraud to throw an election.

Not to pick nits, but it was you that said,

This in response to a post of mine where I specifically asked for proof from a respect source, alleging that Bush stole the election, and this,

when I said that there were folks over at DU asserting that Bush stole the election.

So forgive me if I have misunderstood what you have been trying to say, because I certainly feel that what I have said has been misunderstood, if not twisted into something I have not said.

Perhaps I got the wrong idea here when you said, While we may disagree that the particular post you used as an example claims that Bush stole the election, I believe the posts that I added show that there are many members of DU that believe just that.

It also occurs to me that you might believe that I was labeling all Dems as "crazies" or even just all members of DU as crazies. This is not the case. I recognize that there are many intelligent and sane individuals to be found in all political groupings. I still maintain however that DU attracts the Dem fringe element like ants to sugar.


I don't see the connection between the first part of the paragraph and the second, but I am assuming that even you will acknowledge that several posters are claiming Bush stole the election (or do you want me to post the quotes?)

As to being exaperating, please be assured it is mutual. And for what ever record you care to refer to, I do not regularly read DU, as it is too taxing, nor do I (as you allege elsewhere) have an account there.

I do however remain aware of it and look at it occasionally for one reason: Know thy enemy.

As to the statistical analysis that I have been "ignoring", let me make it clear: a statistical analysis is fine and good (I have certainly done my share), it is the conclusion that I find is erroneous.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

pan6467

When Clinton and the Dems won it all in 1992, I remember the GOP claiming it wasn't a mandate and that Clinton would lose the congress because the Dems would go to far. And he did. There was the press and radio talk hosts and all this hype over "term limits" and "Republican Revolution" and how these Republicans signed the charter saying they would only run so many terms and seek to make term limits law and not have "government as usual". Blah, blah, blah blah and so on and so on.....

Yet, these same Republicans, who ran and signed all that term limit crapola and such are still in office.

So, like some GOP in '92, I'm willing to sit back and give the other party a chance to either put up or shut up. I guarantee the Dems in 2 and 4 years will comeback much much stronger, just as the GOP did. And people will be reminded of how 10 years ago (12 and 14 in '06 and '08) how these GOP talked of term limits and that great Charter they signed that they never have brought up since.

So if you want to call what is happening a mandate then so be it. In '92 Clinton had a mandate and the Dem party fell apart I see the gGOP doing the same with this.... but we'll see. Just like those term limits and the what was it 40 points that the GOP were going to fight for that they to this day haven't....... hmmmmm.

Put up or shut up time guys let your actions do the talking now... hell, you control enough of congress with GOP "friendly" Dems that there won't even be any filibusters or reasons to blame the Dems for holding up any of these great laws you are going to pass.

As for Bush's overwheling support by the people....

1) Kerry was not a great candidate, his demeanor and attitude din't win many over

2) 3% is the LEAST any poll ever uses as their margin of Error, it's usually 3-5% soooo Bush's win falls into every polls margin of error.... not saying he didn't win, just saying if this were just one of the many many polls we were subjected to this past year it would be considered a dead heat.

3) You still have 57 million that voted against Bush, and in all honesty probably at the very least 75% of those votes were against Bush and not for Kerry because he never was clear on his issues,he had a lot of talk about what to do and what needed done BUT he never truly said how it would be done. Soooo I think the election shows the disappointment in Bush more than anything. Had a man who had talked of how things would get done and what he truly stood for ran I think the election results would have been a lot different... Kerry turned off too many voters, almost like he wanted to lose.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"