I guess I'm not as "disturbed" as you are.

The links didn't work for me because they are only accessible to NR subscribers. Will you tell us a password to try to see if the links work?

(Are you suggesting that the quotes are incorrect, or just that the links didn't work?)

sounds like "media matters for America" is attacking the messenger .

Bill,

What I wrote was "disturbing" was Keith's "habit of referring to the President of the United States as 'mister'".

I also pointed out that the MMFA did not provide links that readers can use to fact-check their claims. Perhaps you imagine that MMFA readers are National Review subscribers but I think most folks would agree that putting up links to stories behind a pay wall at National Review at Media Matters for America is about the same thing as not putting up links at all.

Be that as it may, it really doesn't address the salient point - that Media Matters is now attacking Olbermann Watch.

Bush barely deserves the "mister" either. Anyone who cares to check it out can see that Gore won Florida, if ALL votes were counted. The election was stolen. Democracy was usurped by a bunch of brown-shirts...

Media Matters routinely attacks anyone who disagrees with the far left wing of the Dem party without support for their comments. David Brock has become a hack and a hired gun.

Blindrat, try again...all of the counts, even those done by Gore supporters like the New York Times and Washington Post show that he would have lost if "all the votes" were counted in Florida...and all votes that were properly made were counted. We are very lucky that Al Gore never was and never will be President.

Wow! Another sheep to enlighten: Here goes, son...

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/11/13/column.rothenberg/index.html

"...To some, the most interesting finding is that Bush would have defeated Gore if the vice president's campaign had gotten its way in the state courts and forced four predominantly Democratic counties (Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Broward and Volusia) to recount disputed ballots. However, Gore would have nosed passed Bush if all statewide disqualified ballots had been counted. (Interestingly, most newspapers hyped the story by noting that Bush would have won under the terms of the Gore legal challenge, not that a complete recount would have elected Gore.) "

The whole kerfuffle about Florida is irrelevant. It didn't matter which count prevailed. The disputed vote would have been argued in the House of Representatives, where there were more GOP states than Dem states, so the vote would have gone for Bush anyhow.

To try to keep some tenuous thread to the topic at hand, do you suppose Olby will bring David Brock on again to do an expose of Olbermann Watch? Somehow I don't think so.

The topic, I thought, was "mister" Bush as opposed to "President" Bush...

The title of the President of the United States is, and always has been "mister." It is proper to call him that.

And there are VERY good reasons for it.

Let's not pretend that the lying, stealing wartime deserter is worthy of any respect. It insults both of our intelligences...

Its quite obvious and its certainly not troubling, or are you positing questions knowing the answer beforehand?You host this site for God's sake!
Well the use of "Mister" instead of "President" is an obvious underhand slap that KO is trying to deliver disrespecting the office of the Presidency, one can also infer that he disputes the legitimacy of calling Bush "President" vis-a-vis the "stolen election" argument.
Pretty low class stuff, but what else can you expect from this pompous git?

There is no argument, Bush lost the 2000 election. There was a statewide recount...

Hi Rat, just popping in between classes- Just wanted to make a few points...

1) I can't belive that the libs are STILL pining over Florida 2000. EVERY independent newspaper did their own "recount" and every one named Bush the winner. Of course, Gore didn't want a "statewide recount" as rat claims, he only wanted specific "democrat" counties. Also, team Gore didn't want the overseas MILITARY ballots counted either- as they would only serve to spank Gore even more.

2) If only Gore could have won his home state of Tenn. he would have been president... but, the people who knew him best- those of his HOME STATE voted overwhelmingly against him.

3) Bush won again in 2004... and the libs can't stand it. They STILL cry out about STEALING the election in 2000.

But, folks like Rat will never get over it. They have vast (right wing?) conspiracies on how Karl Rove and those evil NEOCONS stole the election, rigged voting machines, and even brought down the twin towers.

1) I posted my link, son. Post yours...

2) Irrelevent

3) Three million votes were never counted in the 2004 election; moreover, it is irrelevent to the 2000 election...

A true American wouldn't "get over" subverting our democracy, son...

That's our Rat... name-calling, hyperbole, and conspiracy-buying gullibility.

Cry, whine, drink the KoolAid... good, little rat.

Bush barely deserves the "mister" either. Anyone who cares to check it out can see that Gore won Florida, if ALL votes were counted. The election was stolen. Democracy was usurped by a bunch of brown-shirts...

Posted by: blindrat at October 30, 2006 10:01 AM

-----
There is no argument, Bush lost the 2000 election. There was a statewide recount...

Posted by: blindrat at October 30, 2006 11:00 AM

-------------

Well, at least blindrat is true to his name...yes there were statewide recountS and Bush won most of those (ask the major newspaper syndicates from across the country that went in and did it themselves).

My guess would be...no link...no rebuttal...no leg to stand on...

Right, son?

Connor,

Show me, please, where Bush wins if all the votes in Florida are counted...

Thanks!

Rat, I'll just do like you do- I'll just say "Irrelevent" (except, I'll spell it correctly- irrelevant).

Just like you... right, son?

Steve,

I posted a link that proved my point. You've posted...well...nothing...

I don't see much of a career for you in law if you cannot provide proof of your assertions, son...

Oh, and Rat- by the way... where was your righteous self-indignation back when Chicago Mayor/Crime Boss Daley (D) rigged the election for Kennedy?

You know, where there were actual (documented) cases of voter fraud, dead people voting, and the old democratic mantra of "vote early, and vote often" was taken to a new level?

Or are you only concerned about "subverting our democracy", when its alleged that a NEOCON is doing it?

Bush Still Wins Florida in Newspaper Recount
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/index.html
Miami Herald's results if its painstaking recount of all ballots in Florida

Also of note is this passage from the CNN article:

Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore

When that election was being held, I was hanging around my mother's womb, son...

Again, no proof of anything, just the prattle of the young and ignorant...

PS to Blindrat...I see no link you posted or is it the anonomous one

connor,

I see that you agree with me. The supposed Bush win was based upon what Gore wanted. Gore shouldn't decide whose votes should've been counted. When ALL the votes were counted, Gore won...

Thanks for showing that to the world...

Rat, if you need an internet link to help you through the denial process of the Florida 2000 situation, you need a lot more help than any link can provide.

This topic has been done, done, and over done.

I'll make it simple- BUSH WON. Let's say it together... BUSH WON.

Now, I know its been 6 years, and your head is still up your ass (in true liberal fashion), but Bush won. He won AGAIN in 2004. I'm sorry.

However, if what you say is true (and it isn't) where are the front page stories in the NY Times/TIME/USA Today, etc. claiming all of the "documented links" you provide?

I'll tell you- there are no such front page stories, because you and your ilk are delusional. Thanks for playing son, now- go upstairs, your mom is calling you to take out the garbage.

Wow! Another sheep to enlighten: Here goes, son...

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/11/13/column.rothenberg/index.html

"...To some, the most interesting finding is that Bush would have defeated Gore if the vice president's campaign had gotten its way in the state courts and forced four predominantly Democratic counties (Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Broward and Volusia) to recount disputed ballots. However, Gore would have nosed passed Bush if all statewide disqualified ballots had been counted. (Interestingly, most newspapers hyped the story by noting that Bush would have won under the terms of the Gore legal challenge, not that a complete recount would have elected Gore.) "

(It was anonymous)

Steve,

Still nothing? You are indeed a lightweight, child...

If it has been done (and done and done) you should be able to find a source, eh?

Steve,

Still nothing? You are indeed a lightweight, child...

If it has been done (and done and done) you should be able to find a source, eh?

I see on Media Matters.org that conservative stalwart William F. Buckley also habitually refers to the president as "Mr. Bush". Is he also impugning the petulant usurper's legitimacy? Probably, seeing as how Buckley is actually a Conservative, and not a fascist goon.

This site is Straw-man Central.

Rat...so how could Bush steal the election if Gore fought so hard for those other ballots...didn't he then contribute to his own downfall by your own logic?

Hey, that's great "PROOF" Rat... I am now a total beliver.

If only Gore could cherry-pick "four predominantly Democratic counties (Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Broward and Volusia) to recount disputed ballots" he would have won. I conceed.

I also realize now, how you libs belive that Krazy Keith (the actual subject of this website) can claim massive ratings gains in the coveted 18-25, blonde-haired, left-handed, Eskimo red-heads demographic.

I get it. Thanks for bringing us all up to speed.

Your mom's still waiting, son.

Connor,

Yes, he did contribute to his own downfall. Doesn't change the truth, though...

Hey, gotta run to class now, fellas- Rat, your mom is gonna be pissed if you don't come up from the basement and take that trash out.

NOW!

Steve,

Perhaps you should've read the article, rather than just skimming it for your name, son...

It states that, if all the votes were counted, Gore won...

You need to get that reading comprehension worked on if you are going to pretend to be a law student...

Rat...from your article:
"But we don't declare winners and losers in this country based on what is in the voters' minds. We require them to cast their votes in a certain way (yes, voters have some obligation to make sure that they are casting their ballots correctly), and we count them in a certain prescribed way. Using that test, Bush carried the state by 537 votes."

Great Thanks

also rat,

why is TN irrelevant? or any other state for that matter?

why is Chicago irrelevant in that past election?

Do you only have selective outrage like most on the left? If the are or were voting problems in any other place you are not concerned? For crying out loud, there are already people crying DIEBOLD & disenfranchisement for 11/7/2006 and its not even here yet

Connor,

I'm gratified that you read the entire article; however, it still shows that Gore won Florida; moreover, it shows that legal votes were not counted. You can be proud of that fact, but I would imagine that, since you don't live in Iran or Cuba, you probably would rather simply ignore it...

Connor,

Tennessee is irrelevant simply because the vote count error that would've given Gore the presidency was in Florida. I'm sure that it is relevant to someone having a different discussion...

Likewise is Chicago irrelevant to this discussion on whether or not Bush is president...

@blindrat -:
Gore lost a won election... so what, Lincoln died when he shouldn't have, Hitler was elected when he shouldn't have?Life goes on man.
In the _here and now_ KO is a sucker for silliness and stupidity, thats what we're talking about ...son!!.

Steve has problems with comprehension?

Did you read ALL of your own article?

"even normally partisan Democrats, such as Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, have passed up the opportunity to question President Bush's legitimacy or even merely score partisan political points. "

"My perspective is somewhat different. I regard the new report as merely restating the conclusion that most of us arrived at by late November: It all depends.

-- It all depends on what standard is being used (e.g., dimpled ballots? hanging chads? incorrectly marked paper ballots where the intent was clear?).

-- It all depends on who is doing the counting (Democrats or Republicans?).

-- It all depends on what ballots you evaluate and adjust (e.g., should military ballots that didn't meet the letter of the law be counted?).

-- It all depends on whether you try to discern "voter intent" and how you discern that."

"But we don't declare winners and losers in this country based on what is in the voters' minds. We require them to cast their votes in a certain way (yes, voters have some obligation to make sure that they are casting their ballots correctly), and we count them in a certain prescribed way. Using that test, Bush carried the state by 537 votes. "

Well, since it appears tha you concede my point about the election in 2000, why not illustrate your point about Olbermann's silliness with examples...?

Conner,

An overvote is one in which TWO people have been selected. The legal overvotes were those that were disgarded when one person was voted for and written in. That is the law and that law was disregarded. That cannot be too difficult for you to fathom, son...

Rat:
"A true American wouldn't "get over" subverting our democracy, son..." ---apparently from your last post, you already have...

Do you know there were not any vote count errors in TN or any other state that held Gore back...maybe OH...maybe some were wrong towards Gore and Bush would have won them...you said ALL the votes...now you only mean ALL the votes in FL 2000?

and where do see anyone conceding you are right on this one delusional rat

Conner,

See, this is where you neocon girls get testy: I show you where Gore won Florida, hence the 2000 election. First, you deny it, but you cannot for very long. You try that whole "scenario" dodge...but, anyone with half a brain knows that ALL the votes are important...

So, you now pretend that, because other states weren't close enough to be contested that they should've been recounted anyway?

Here's a tip, son. When you lose an argument, just admit it. I posted proof that Gore got the most votes in Florida...you posted nothing to the contrary...

Deal with it, son...

Brick,

You seem like an intelligent young lady (for a neocon)...

Why was Bush grounded?

Conner,

An overvote is one in which TWO people have been selected. The legal overvotes were those that were disgarded when one person was voted for and written in. That is the law and that law was disregarded. That cannot be too difficult for you to fathom, son...

Posted by: blindrat at October 30, 2006 12:08 PM

-----
What does this post have to do with anything baby boy rat...ist there any point of reference to this or is just another hound dogs got long ears post? (here is a fact I have and I will post it though it in no way adresses anything)

PS: check these items out
http://www.florida2000election.com/sections/11.asp
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/promiss.asp

So, Brick is out...

Too bad I had to show what a lightweight you were this quickly, son...

Poor delusional aborted fetus rat...your PROOF that gore won the election was a line in that article which also says multiple times that Bush won the election...I think you shouldn't donate your stem cells because something is terribly wrong with them

connor,

The only time that it mentions all of the votes is where Gore wins. There is no other definition for democracy. Why is this so difficult for you to understand, son? Say it aloud: IF ALL OF THE VOTES WERE COUNTED, GORE WON...

I hope that clears things up. Even the most obvious can be difficult to comprehend on a bad day...

Brick is just mad because she knows why Bush was grounded and cannot find the proper spin...

Don't worry, Brick...none of you neocons can figure out how to handle that one. Do what they do and put your hands over your ears and run, child...

"In 2004 George Bush picked up teh highest popular vote to ever elect a president..."

Yeah, Bush even got more votes than the population in one town, Mr. Buffoon...

Robert Cox wrote: "MMFA contrasts Olbermann with a few lines taken out of context from a column by National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr."

Here's what Buckley wrote:

"There is no way, however, in which Mr. Bush can undo the sentiment he expressed to Bob Woodward four years ago:"

and :

"But even if Mr. Bush reproduced his words on a calling card to distribute among diplomats bound for Pyongyang, this would surely not affect the man who sees himself as the mental pillar and the eternal sun to the Korean people."

What does Cox mean by "out of context" in his short, innane blurb? I think the Olbywatch buffoon is taking this venerable phrase out of context.

So, Ms. Brick knows why Bush was grounded but won't share it with the rest of the world? Are you frightened, young lady?...

Watch it, blindrat; you're making the chickenhawk Prick angry on the anonymous "net", and you know what that means; Its virtual clobberin' time!

I fear the blows of Ms. Brick...yet I am compelled to watch...

Ms. Brick,

If you had served, you wouldn't be so quick to disparage the service of others, young lady. Kerry and Murtha were in war zones...where was your husband?

Rat...I hope you are enjoying Gore's second term...

I started writing this post out using your arguments and the postings listed above...but why bother...you ignore whatever bits don't agree with your philosophy and claim victory...no matter what I say, Gore says, FL says, Supreme Court, newspaper/magazine writer says you won't believe/understand/see...

no wonder your name is blind
no wonder you are so full of venomous hatred

I hope you have a wonderful circle of family and friends...you sure need them for consolation

"In neither case does MMFA provide working links to support its claims."

Why doesn't Cox bitch instead at the National Review for limiting access to its site to paid subscribers? The link provided by MMFA actually "works", its just that the free-market mercenaries at the NR force you to pay to read it.

Looks like "Olbermannwatch.com" is in the habit of posting outright lies! Robert Cox needs to appologize immediately to MMFA for his libelous allegations.

Poor Sirloin
the free-market mercenaries at the NR force you to pay to read it.

Oh my...capitalism is a terrible thing...sorry not everything is free in workers paradise

"We know loin is an atheist and I bet so is blindrat. God still loves yall no matter how stupid yall are."

Prick must go the same "Our Lady of Bed-wetting Chickenhawk Sissies" church that frequent Olbermannwatch poster cee attends. When faced with insurrmountable questions regarding his hypcritical, irrational positions both tend to pull Jesus out of their back pockets and rub his belly until the world goes away.

Here are the key parts from the Associated Press stylebook, which I presume NBC subscibes to:

FIRST NAMES: In most cases, the first name of a current or former U.S. President is not necessary on first reference. Use first names when necessary to avoid confusion ... First names also may be used for literary effect, or in feature or personality contexts...

On second reference, use only the last name of the man. Use Miss, Mrs. or Ms. or no title before the last name of a woman, depending on her preference.

***

So going by the AP's style, Keith should simply use the name Bush in his second on onward references to the president. The 'mister' is improper style according to the AP, but is used by Olbermann simply for accenting purposes in a derogatory fashion (he's also wrong to use the title 'President' on second and further reference when talking about Bill Clinton, based on what the AP says is the correct style).

"Poor Sirloin
the free-market mercenaries at the NR force you to pay to read it.

Oh my...capitalism is a terrible thing...sorry not everything is free in workers paradise"

Hey a--hole, "stick to the issue at hand", as Dollar and Cox always say. What about the proven falsehoods posted by Cox on the blurb beginning this strand? You really don't give a shit, do you?

connor,

I am sad that you see your lack of arguing skills as somehow my fault...But, judging from the way republicans take responsibility for their actions, I can understand where you get it...

I have a wonderful circle of family and friends. Thank you for asking, friend...

I tend to use the honorarium "Cocksucker" when referring to our current president. - as in: the murdering "Cocksucker" Bush.

thank you for proving my point rat

loin:
1) I have seen no proven falsehoods
2) my my my profanity and name calling already...does someone need a hug?

Connor,

I will repost the falsehoods, you motherfucking dipshit:

""In neither case does MMFA provide working links to support its claims." (Cox)

"Why doesn't Cox bitch instead at the National Review for limiting access to its site to paid subscribers? The link provided by MMFA actually "works", its just that the free-market mercenaries at the NR force you to pay to read it. (Me)"

Cox said no working links/MMFA provides working links = falshood on the part of Mr. Cox.

Clear enough, you bumblefuck?

Connor,

I will repost the falsehoods, you motherfucking dipshit:

""In neither case does MMFA provide working links to support its claims." (Cox)

"Why doesn't Cox bitch instead at the National Review for limiting access to its site to paid subscribers? The link provided by MMFA actually "works", its just that the free-market mercenaries at the NR force you to pay to read it. (Me)"

Cox said no working links/MMFA provides working links = falshood on the part of Mr. Cox.

Clear enough, you bumblefuck?

Connor,

If I've proven any of your points, it is more that you've ever done with any of your points, son...

Just kidding, son...you cannot help being unintelligent...

My goodness...are the KO defenders still whining about the 2000 election?

It's over...Bush won. Get over it.

Fact is we'll never really know how the majority of Floridians intended to vote. You guys cherry-pick facts, much like your hero KO, but conveniently forget that when the networks first announced Florida for Gore, it likely drove down turnout in the panhandle, which is overwhelmingly conservative.

What was the impact of this? I don't know. We'll never know. No matter what side of the political aisle you sit on, I would hope everyone would agree that it's unfortunate to have an election end like that. But as some point, you need to get over it.

I would hope that if it was reversed and we were in the 6th year of a Gore Presidency, that I wouldn't still be whining over 6-year old election results.

Monarch,

No, your crowd - from the lowliest closeted homo eunuch in the RNC all the way up to your retard closeted homo president are still bitching and blaming everything on Bill Clinton, whose presidency predates the six-year-old election.

loin

"I think most folks would agree that putting up links to stories behind a pay wall at National Review at Media Matters for America is about the same thing as not putting up links at all. "

Posted by: Robert Cox at October 30, 2006 09:58 AM

is THAT last line "Clear enough, you bumblefuck?"

...does someone need a hug?

goodie...now blind rat is judging me! he should ya know, because, after all he is so qualified to judge and is so non-partisan that you know anythign he deems a certain way must be true

Now you get it, Connor...

Perhaps you if used your brain, rather than bleat what you are told to bleat, you would be qualified to judge as well, son...

but how can I live without blindrat telling me what is right and what is wrong...as you said, i am merely a sheep

"I think most folks would agree that putting up links to stories behind a pay wall at National Review at Media Matters for America is about the same thing as not putting up links at all. "

Posted by: Robert Cox at October 30, 2006 09:58 AM

Connor and Cox,

What idiot would agree with that ass-covering?

What does Mr. Cox suggest that MMFA do, apart from providing the highly relevant excerpts from Buckley's NR article that they do? Does he suggest that they break the law by somehow pirating this link, or printing a facsimile of the article in its entirety? Both illegal options.

MMFA provides the citation, and that's sufficient as long as its a legitimate citation; I see no refutation of this being the case. Why doesn't the pusillanimous Mr. Cox cough up the membership cash himself to check the accuracy of MMFA's excerpt's on the original provided by the NR site? I know why, but I'd like to hear you or Cox tell me.

Dear Loin,

I apologize for using logic and reason with you. Yes, some conservatives still take issue with the Clinton Administration, from the dubious foreign policy to the personal indiscretions of the President himself. And yes, some focused on it to the point of being ridiculous.

Yet, I was not taking issue with anyone's criticism of Bush or the Administration. There's plenty to take issue with, no doubt. On that, I might actually agree with some of the criticism of President Bush.

Instead, I took issue with the 6-year cycle of whining that has followed the 2000 election.

Sorry that you couldn't see through that, and needed to rely on your poorly written, ill-conceived and thoughtless response.

loin-y still needs a hug

Monarch,

If you'd looked harder, son, you'd have seen that I started the 2000 election topic because someone stated that the term "mister" was a snipe for the contested election...

It was relevent. Calling it a "whine" is simply your way of denigrating it while pretending to be above that sort of thing. Very insincere, son...

Yes yes...bad Monarch

do not disagree with blindrat he is all powerful...he is impotent!

...and I'm talking about the six years of Clinton-whining we've gotten in lieu of governance from this current crowd of pirates.

That the 2000 election was stolen is irrefutable, and its a sad but admirable fact that the winner, Gore, exhibited his love of this country by conceding before the issue was forced to the level of a civil war by the proto-fascist pirates that stole it.

When all you've got is sarcasm, conner, you haven't got anything...

loin-y needs a proto-fascist pirate hug

Wow, Connor's got absolutely nothing... except his lurid desire to hug me.

Dear Blind Rat:

I am not your son nor am I insincere.

I know the truth hurts, but one must come to accept it. Whatever your intent was in the first place, the comments that the 2000 election was stolen, and similar inane rants followed.

You might be my son...you are being insincere...

If one election gets stolen, what keeps the next from being stolen? For the past six years the administration has done its best to EXCLUDE as many people from the voting process as possible...

This may not raise red flags for you. You might be Canadian and don't really care what happens to the USA. Those of us who live here do...

"A true American wouldn't "get over" subverting our democracy"

Who can forget the old 'Sore Loserman' days? I mean besides blindrat. Moveon.org, blindrat.

Or at least moveon.org to a better substantiated instance of voter fraud. Care to comment on the 1960 election where Richard Daley held back Chicago's returns until the rest of the state had submitted their returns? If I didn't know better it might seem like Daley was determined to give Illinois to Kennedy no matter what the voters had to say.

Your Democratic Party: We Criticize Republican Malfeance Because We Are The Malfeance Experts

announcer's voiceover :
"What our liberal friends don't know is connor realizes that no matter what he points out to them here, through quotes/links from other media outlets, or even from their own arguments turned back against them...the poor angry, simple-minded fellows just will not listen to anything unless it completely agees with their own philosophy. Therefore, he has gone undercover to express brotherhood and reach out to them in a condescending, sarcastic tone that they frequently yeild against all they deem evil neocons ....let's listen in..."

did loin-y ever get a hug? even a proto-fascist pirate hug? I hope he does...good boy!

Sweetie,

Why do you neocons always bring up Chicago, as if I were born then? The democrats were the party of bigotry back then and hadn't made the change to being the good guys yet...that was done during the late sixties and early seventies.

Suddenly, the republicans were the ones opposed to civil rights legislation...

Get it? Just because it was the democratic party, doesn't mean that it was the same as it is today...

Or do you have an instance of recent democrat fraud?

connor,

Let me know when you actually point something out...

Wow, what an absurd jump in logic, blindrat. I can see why KO is a hero of yours...I disagree with you, so I must be Canadian. That's the type of clear-thinking, inclusive thought process that is a mainstay of "progressives." Next, you will make a 1984 reference, or perhaps a reference to a Twilight Zone episode from 1962.
It is any wonder I left the Democrat party with so many principled thinkers in the ranks.

The 2000 election was not stolen. The 2004 election was not stolen. Just because your guys lost, doesn't make it less valid.
In 2000, Gore won the popular vote. He did not win the electoral vote. That's a fact. Sometimes in democracy, things don't go the way we think they should.

Falling back on such hyperbole as the next election may be stolen too, strikes me as...hmmm...what's the word I'm looking for...wait...it'll come to me...waiting...waiting....ah yes...

INSINCERE.

yes, blind rat, please ignore all of my earlier posts (wait, you already did)...now show me the way to liberal enlightenment...what should I do to be more like you?

"For the past six years the administration has done its best to EXCLUDE as many people from the voting process as possible"

Most notably with the Negro and Swarthy Persons Poll Tax of 2004. And then the Hispanics Vote Through the Service Entrance Only Act that Bush signed this year.

But Bush can't even suppress voting right (let alone Iraq): more than 10 million 'extra' people managed to vote in 2004 than in 2000.

Sweetie...please note, the neocons voted for those items before they voted against them

(or is it the other way around?)

Monarch,

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you are against one man one vote, a tenet that our country was founded upon, you aren't much of an American.

Now, do you believe that Gore lost the popular vote in Florida? If not, then your postings are simply nonsense...