"The history books should record Obama's re-election with an asterisk to indicate that it was achieved with the help of illicit means."

...ha ha, such nonsense.    (*fron the WSJ of course.)

How conveniently you forget that George W. Bush, the town drunk of Texas, decided he should try his hand at some ‘presidentin.’. The Repubs were able to steal two presidential elections with the electronic vote-stealing machines. I know that you're willingly adamantly blind, deaf, and dumb about that clear reality, but it is a fact regardless.

In Gore vs. Bush his supreme court stopped the recount and handed it to Bush. Why? So they could keep a clear majority.

It was clear from the voter lists purges that the fix was in for Florida. When the Supervisor of Elections for one county refused to use those lists because of obvious errors and another Supervisor was ON the list, there was no doubt at all. And Gore's people did nothing BEFORE the election to make sure people eligible to vote were not purged.

In McCain vs. Obama the fix was in, but people were so fed up with the criminal Bush administration they overwhelming voted Dem overriding the electronic fix.

In Rmoney vs.Obama they knew they would  have to steal MORE. Obama won because the R's miscalculated how much they had to electronically "adjust" the margin.

Make no mistake, they WILL try it again  Not only with the voter suppression laws they have put in place, but the electronic "adjustments" for the purpose of putting R's in office.

Web,.. I'm in the same "alternate universe" as Star...
... because the Supreme Court did stop the count and award the election to Bush...
In fact,... it was just in the news recently, that Justice O'Conner, now regrets the court taking on the issue...
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/oconner-bush-gore-case/2013/04/29/id/501867

This is the universe we live in... Where's yours?... ...

I donno, the more twirly bulbs the less coal burned. It's a tradeoff.

because the Supreme Court did stop the count and award the election to Bush...

No; they just said you couldn't change the rules halfway through the game.

you think I don't just because I disagree with you?

Serowbot wrote on 05/19/13 at 08:38:02:


Yeah, I read that too along with some other analysis. It was bad for the Supreme Court to get involved because it made a simple and correct decision look partisan.  They could have kicked it back or declined the case and Bush still would have won. Al's "selective recount of liberal strongholds" plan a non-winner in the end but the fairness of the process needed to be defended and that's why we are where we are.

Had Bush been more Reagan and less Romney then it would have been a landslide to bury Gore.

Now this is just a speculative idea on my part but I think that the Republicans are getting more liberal because the moderate refugees displaced by the democrat party's gigantic leap to the left are settling in the Republican camp, diluting the conservative message. This is an example of how a "big tent" isn't necessarily all that it is cracked up to be.

Serowbot wrote on 05/20/13 at 12:00:45:


Compare Bush 2 to Reagan and it becomes clear how far left the Republican establishment has moved. The Tea Party is, in my mind, those of us remembering the glory days of the Reagan era and wondering how it all got pissed away. Liberals have pushed the Democrats and the country soo far left that I am seeing statements from former Soviet bloc citizens who can't believe we are going this route voluntarilly.

Seeing all the countries that have tried socialism and failed and then to see America follow into the pit must be very strange for outsiders. It's like seeing a pile up on the freeway a 100 yards ahead and and thinking "wow, we need to be more like them" and driving right into the wreckage.

If I am wrong then explain Boehner!! Explain all the RINOs and the abandonment of conservative  and social conservative principles.