Franken May Be Fraudulent

[unregistered]

 

[Kruge]

The Minnesota election results are all the fault of the Republicans. They should have run Hulk Hogan or Sargeant Slaughter against Franken.

 

[squarejohn]

Franken May Be Fraudulent?

He was fraudulent as a "comic."
He was fraudulent as a radio talk show host.
He was fraudulent as an author. His book may be purchased at the economy bin in dollar stores.
He is fraudulent as a senator; first by winning a rigged election; second, by not having a clue about being a senator.

Yes, Franken is a fraud and a failure.

 

[RobDownSouth]

That's about what the article says, it's looking towards the next election and the next attempt by Democrats to steal an election.

Would it be too much for you and your bros to come up with more original excuses when the Democrats kick your cowardly asses in the next election? Hmmm?

 

[ubertroll]

I don't think you can say they are equally as bad. No Republican for voted for the health care debacle, and they've never spent on the scale we see the Democrats spending at now. Are they fucked up, yep, but not on the same scale as the Democrats, as we see manifested by the actions of the Obama administration.

You're stoned.

Iraq, afghanistan, medicare part d, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the ultra wealthy... all GOP initiaves that passed under unified GOP government.

All added trillions to the deficit. None even tried to be internally financed. Most involved extorting nonpartisan civil servants to avoid letting the public know ahead of the vote just how bad they were.


By contrast only two major Obama bills have been deficit financed--the tax cut/stimulus, which has added nothing to the government's long term liabilities beyond debt-service (with interest rates on government debt at effectively zero, this isn't even a significant liability). The other is the afghanistan ramp up... which is just doing what BUSH promised to do, but fucked up.

You're a catastrophic idiot for writing the quoted paragraph.

 

[firespin]

You're stoned.

Iraq, afghanistan, medicare part d, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the ultra wealthy... all GOP initiaves that passed under unified GOP government.

All added trillions to the deficit. None even tried to be internally financed. Most involved extorting nonpartisan civil servants to avoid letting the public know ahead of the vote just how bad they were.


By contrast only two major Obama bills have been deficit financed--the tax cut/stimulus, which has added nothing to the government's long term liabilities beyond debt-service (with interest rates on government debt at effectively zero, this isn't even a significant liability). The other is the afghanistan ramp up... which is just doing what BUSH promised to do, but fucked up.

You're a catastrophic idiot for writing the quoted paragraph.

Now wait a minute. How can the Bush tax cuts, which applied to all income groups across the board, and which all expire this year, be treated differently from the stimulus? Even if you believe that the tax cuts only increased the deficit, that's exactly what the stimulus did. (The stimulus included hundreds of billions of tax cuts, in fact.)

The fact that you treat these differently shows how biased and corrupted your thinking is. (Plus the gratuitious comment about incomprehensible bills. Made it through the health care initiative yet?) You might try reading something other than blogs for a change.

 

[Ishmael]

You're stoned.

Iraq, afghanistan, medicare part d, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the ultra wealthy... all GOP initiaves that passed under unified GOP government.

All added trillions to the deficit. None even tried to be internally financed. Most involved extorting nonpartisan civil servants to avoid letting the public know ahead of the vote just how bad they were.


By contrast only two major Obama bills have been deficit financed--the tax cut/stimulus, which has added nothing to the government's long term liabilities beyond debt-service (with interest rates on government debt at effectively zero, this isn't even a significant liability). The other is the afghanistan ramp up... which is just doing what BUSH promised to do, but fucked up.

You're a catastrophic idiot for writing the quoted paragraph.

Talking about idiots.

After the Bush tax cuts treasury revenues actually increased with the exception of 2002 and 2003 recovering from 9/11. Further the percentage of revenue paid by the top 10% earners increased as well. In other words the 'rich' actually padi more taxes AFTER the tax cuts.

Reality just doesn't match your words.

Ishmael

 

[ubertroll]

Talking about idiots.

After the Bush tax cuts treasury revenues actually increased with the exception of 2002 and 2003 recovering from 9/11.

Adjusted for inflation, and according to the Tax Policy Center,

Taxes collected in 2001 (last year before the Bush/GOP congress's budgets took effect): 2215B
Taxes collected in 2002 (first year's budget/taxes under Bush): 2028B
(that's down almost TEN PERCENT--also went from 142B surplus to 173B deficit. Just for the record, the *gross* cost of health care reform averages to less than 100B a year over the next decade... the Bush policy moves from 2001 to 2002 were TWO AND A HALF TIMES as large NET. And the ObamaCare spending is PAID FOR--its NET cost is actually *negative*)

2003 taxes: 1901B. That's down another 5%. Deficit of 400B--the relative change from 2002 is as much as ANOTHER 130B, more than another whole *unfunded* ObamaCare.





As for total taxes collected going up... they STILL haven't reached 2001 levels. (In spite of the fact that we have a MUCH larger GDP now) They WOULD have... except the stimulus bill contained large short-term tax breaks, both to stimulate the economy in the short term, and buy Republican votes for the whole package.



And incidentally, if you look at spending, in not a single Bush II year did spending go down from the year before. By contrast, Clinton's dropped precipitously, especially when compared with the trend line.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/GIF/fed_receipt_sum_historical.gif

Reality just doesn't match your words.

Again, Republicans look at what they're doing, and then use the word to describe it--in this case, lying through their teeth--and accuse their opponents of it, so that when their own malfeasance is pointed it, it looks like both sides are just slinging mud.

 

[busybody..]

Adjusted for inflation, and according to the Tax Policy Center,

Taxes collected in 2001 (last year before the Bush/GOP congress's budgets took effect): 2215B
Taxes collected in 2002 (first year's budget/taxes under Bush): 2028B

Hey Hermaphidyke, ever hear of 9/11???????????????

schmuck

what you had was massive tax cuts..........a terror attack that hurt the economy and ONLY a 10% drop.............shows how effective th etax cuts were

 

[Drixxx]

*sighs* Both parties suck. Once we get off our high horses and admit that both parties suck equally as bad, we can move forward with progress and change in this country.

As long as this crap ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ continues, we're going to continue the way of the Romans, slowly burying ourselves under our own greed, bias and excess.

This is just the biggest load of bullshit that people without facts love to repeat over and over. It's nice because it absolves them of taking responsibility, reviewing the issues, and taking a stand.

 

[Drixxx]

Unfortunitely none of the righties or lefties want to hear that. Both sides think their parties are above dirty dealings.

What dirty dealings of the Democrats are you referring to? The comparison of corruption among Republicans as compared to Democrats is staggering. Republicans are known for their dirty tricks as a matter of course.

 

[firespin]

As for total taxes collected going up... they STILL haven't reached 2001 levels.

Your own chart says that's not true.

Do you even read your posts, or do you just spew random nonsense?

"Receipts" are taxes.

2001 numbers: 1991 current, 2215 constant.

Now go look at 2006, 2007 and 2008. All bigger than 2001 computed either way.

Oh, and by the way, spending went up every year in the Clinton administration.

Are you a liar, or just incompetent? Or from Florida, but I repeat myself.

 

[MeeMie]

So based on public information, which may not be accurate or even complete, charges of fraud are raised by an organization with a very obvious bias?

I guess you missed this part:

"What we did this time is irrefutable," McGrath said. "We took the voting lists and matched them with conviction lists and then went back to the records and found the roster lists, where voters sign in before walking to the voting booth, and matched them by hand. "The only way we can be wrong is if someone with the same first, middle and last names, same year of birth as the felon, and living in the same community, has voted. And that isn't very likely."


In Hennepin County, 899 suspected felons had been matched on the county's voting records, and the review showed 289 voters were conclusively matched to felon records. The report says only three people in the county have been charged with voter fraud so far."



Officials are not saying that the number of felons who voted is incorrect:


Carruthers attributed differences in the numbers to Minnesota Majority's lack of access to nonpublic information, such as exact birth dates and other court records.

For example, he said, "public records might show a felon was given 10 years probation, but internal records the county attorney has might show that the probation period was cut to five and the felon was eligible to vote."

Carruthers said Ramsey County is still investigating all the names and has asked that 15 investigators be hired to complete the process.

"So far we have charged 28 people with felonies, have 17 more under review and have 182 cases still open," he said. "And there is a good chance we may match or even exceed their numbers."



The point made for future improvement:


"Prosecutors have to act more swiftly in prosecuting cases from the 2008 election to deter fraud in the future," he said, "and the state has to make sure that existing system, that flags convicted felons so voting officials can challenge them at the ballot, is effective.

In 90 percent of the cases we looked at, the felons weren't flagged."

"If the state had done that," he said, "things might be very different today."



There are still thousands of legally cast absentee votes that remain uncounted all from conservative republican districts. The whole episode was disgusting. Mark Ritchi is as crooked as Franken. Where is the outrage? The good people of Minnesota and the members of congress should be demanding a full-scale investigation.



What baffles me is how the one true ideal of this country is the sanctity of our voting rights ... yet officials seem to base their decisions on partisan issues, rather than vote counts being violated.

The Democrats are turning our nation into a banana republic!

THIS IS EXACTLY HOW the Obama-like Marxist thugs (Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, etc.) got "elected" in Latin America again and again. And former President Carter was there "confirming that the elections were clean"!


The time is NOW to prevent more VOTER FRAUD in the upcoming elections.



• ACORN Voter Registration Fraud run rampant
• charges of improprieties during the Democratic Presidential Primary
• college kids working on the Obama campaign instructed to register and vote in more than one location
• voter intimidation at polling places and subsequent charges dropped

In Michigan alone:
• suspicious ballots counted that showed up in a car trunk
• double counted votes at recount
• no verification of pollsters recorded numbers
• absentee votes only counted for Democrat dominated counties



Whatever happened to fairness in politics?

That's why the inclusion of thousands of illegal ballots in FL in 2000 couldn't unseat bush in 2001.

In the months following the disputed election several news organizations conducted their own reviews and recounts of all disputed ballots.

In nearly all scenarios, Bush would still have won Florida and the election.

 

[RightField]

We all knew that Franken won based on fraudulent voting. There were widespread reports of felons voting and other irregularities. All this does is verify the speculation.

Dems have to cheat and lie, no one would support their platform if they told the truth.

 

[Luk]

We all knew that Franken won based on fraudulent voting. There were widespread reports of felons voting and other irregularities. All this does is verify the speculation.

Dems have to cheat and lie, no one would support their platform if they told the truth.

More speculation verifies previous speculation. Got it.

 

[ubertroll]

Your own chart says that's not true.

Do you even read your posts, or do you just spew random nonsense?

"Receipts" are taxes.

2001 numbers: 1991 current, 2215 constant.

AHAHAHAHAHA.

You realize you're reading the columns backwards--you're reading "spending" as "taxes" and "taxes" as "spending." No wonder you're reversed! Because that's the only damn explanation.

Taxes collected, in billions of constant 2005 dollars:

2000: $2310
2001: $2215
2002: $2028
2003: $1901
2004: $1949
2005: $2153
2006: $2324 (Yes, sorry, I missed this--in 2006-7, we achieved parity with Clinton
2007: $2414 levels of taxes taken in... but only after adding half a trillion dollars annually to spending.
2008: $2288 Sorry, I only glanced at the bookend years. 'Swhy I'm not the economist)
2009: $1906 (And yet, THIS is the year all these teabaggers complain about how high taxes are... lowest per capita or per GDP taxes since Eisenhower. Almost makes you think that their stated justification of "taxes are too high" is total fucking bullshit!)

Oh, and by the way, spending went up every year in the Clinton administration.

Not even in absolute terms. 1993, Clinton's first year (shared with Bush I; it WAS his budget, and I give a lot of cred to Bush I for his budget compromise in 1991) spending was lower than in 1992.

That's a cheat, you say? Well, so's looking in absolute terms. Our government spends WAY more per capita than, say, Norway, but no one on Earth thinks that that makes us more socialist than the Norwiegans, for two reasons. First, we have more PEOPLE than Norway, so OF COURSE we spend more. Second, our economy is much, much larger--most government programs are highly dependent on GDP. Federal and military wages, social security, etc all go up as the economy and wages skyrocket. Which they did, in the Clinton years. Looking as a % GDP,

Per capita, or as a proportion of GDP--the only meaningful indices of government size/spending, government absolutely cratered under Clinton. Take a look at that chart, and learn to read.,

Spending in every year, 1991-2002, as a % of GDP:

1991: 22.3
1992: 22.1 Down! Bush I good!
1993: 21.4 Down! Bush I + (Clinton both good!
1994: 21.0 Down! Clinton good!
1995: 20.6 Down! Clinton good!
1996: 20.2 Down! Clinton good!
1997: 19.5 Down! Clinton good!
1998: 19.1 Down! Clinton good!
1999: 18.5 Down! Clinton good!
2000: 18.2 Down! Clinton good!
2001: 18.2 Steady... Clinton + Bush II okay!
2002: 19.1 Up! Bush II bad!

It's okay. You were almost right. If my almost right, I meant the exact opposite of right. Being as your statement was the reverse of what actually happened.

 

[ubertroll]

IN ANY CASE, however, this is all irrelevant. Once the election is called, certified, et cetra, according to state and Federal law, and the Senate (which controls its own membership, see Constitution, US) accedes, what's done is done.

Similarly, once the Electoral College vote is tabulated before a joint session of Congress, the election is over. Even if it turned out that a million of Bush's votes in Florida had really never been cast, and were stuffed-boxes Tammany Hall style, it wouldn't make a difference if the Congress had already certified the Electoral College's count.

That's the Constitution. Sorry.

 

[firespin]

AHAHAHAHAHA.

You realize you're reading the columns backwards--you're reading "spending" as "taxes" and "taxes" as "spending." No wonder you're reversed! Because that's the only damn explanation.

Taxes collected, in billions of constant 2005 dollars:

2000: $2310
2001: $2215
2002: $2028
2003: $1901
2004: $1949
2005: $2153
2006: $2324 (Yes, sorry, I missed this--in 2006-7, we achieved parity with Clinton
2007: $2414 levels of taxes taken in... but only after adding half a trillion dollars annually to spending.
2008: $2288 Sorry, I only glanced at the bookend years. 'Swhy I'm not the economist)
2009: $1906 (And yet, THIS is the year all these teabaggers complain about how high taxes are... lowest per capita or per GDP taxes since Eisenhower. Almost makes you think that their stated justification of "taxes are too high" is total fucking bullshit!)



Not even in absolute terms. 1993, Clinton's first year (shared with Bush I; it WAS his budget, and I give a lot of cred to Bush I for his budget compromise in 1991) spending was lower than in 1992.

That's a cheat, you say? Well, so's looking in absolute terms. Our government spends WAY more per capita than, say, Norway, but no one on Earth thinks that that makes us more socialist than the Norwiegans, for two reasons. First, we have more PEOPLE than Norway, so OF COURSE we spend more. Second, our economy is much, much larger--most government programs are highly dependent on GDP. Federal and military wages, social security, etc all go up as the economy and wages skyrocket. Which they did, in the Clinton years. Looking as a % GDP,

Per capita, or as a proportion of GDP--the only meaningful indices of government size/spending, government absolutely cratered under Clinton. Take a look at that chart, and learn to read.,

Spending in every year, 1991-2002, as a % of GDP:

1991: 22.3
1992: 22.1 Down! Bush I good!
1993: 21.4 Down! Bush I + (Clinton both good!
1994: 21.0 Down! Clinton good!
1995: 20.6 Down! Clinton good!
1996: 20.2 Down! Clinton good!
1997: 19.5 Down! Clinton good!
1998: 19.1 Down! Clinton good!
1999: 18.5 Down! Clinton good!
2000: 18.2 Down! Clinton good!
2001: 18.2 Steady... Clinton + Bush II okay!
2002: 19.1 Up! Bush II bad!

It's okay. You were almost right. If my almost right, I meant the exact opposite of right. Being as your statement was the reverse of what actually happened.

You moron. Receipts are taxes. Outlays are spending. You accuse me of getting it wrong, then note correctly that you were the one who botched it. Sweet.

Taxes in 2009 were low because so many people were out of work plus no capital gains taxes with the stock market tanking in 2008, plus corporate taxes way down. The people still working were still paying the same taxes on the same income though, they didn't get a huge tax cut.

The only way you get spending to go down in the Clinton years excepting a tiny delta in 1993 is by percentage of GDP, whereas you were otherwise looking at either current or constant dollars for the other categories. That's just plain underhanded and stupid. For example, spending under Bush was basically flat 2003-2007 as percentage of GDP. But you didn't mention that. Comparison by GDP includes a component of the business cycle, which is not controllable by the government (Paul Krugman notwithstanding) so is not particularly useful for year to year measurements, since the numbers are usually pretty close to 20% anyway.

When it comes to economics, you're a tedious little tyro who gets it wrong at least half the time. Why clutter up the board with your amateurish efforts?

 

[PannieMonster]

IN ANY CASE, however, this is all irrelevant. Once the election is called, certified, et cetra, according to state and Federal law, and the Senate (which controls its own membership, see Constitution, US) accedes, what's done is done.

Similarly, once the Electoral College vote is tabulated before a joint session of Congress, the election is over. Even if it turned out that a million of Bush's votes in Florida had really never been cast, and were stuffed-boxes Tammany Hall style, it wouldn't make a difference if the Congress had already certified the Electoral College's count.

That's the Constitution. Sorry.

Dude, believe what makes you happy, but do read this article, even though somehow I know you will equate it as all Bush's fault:

Debt commission leaders paint gloomy picture

By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer – Sun Jul 11, 9:30 pm ET
BOSTON – The heads of President Barack Obama's national debt commission painted a gloomy picture Sunday as the United States struggles to get its spending under control.
Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles told a meeting of the National Governors Association that everything needs to be considered — including curtailing popular tax breaks, such as the home mortgage deduction, and instituting a financial trigger mechanism for gaining Medicare coverage.
The nation's total federal debt next year is expected to exceed $14 trillion — about $47,000 for every U.S. resident.
"This debt is like a cancer," Bowles said in a sober presentation nonetheless lightened by humorous asides between him and Simpson. "It is truly going to destroy the country from within."
Simpson said the entirety of the nation's current discretionary spending is consumed by the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs.
"The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans, the whole rest of the discretionary budget, is being financed by China and other countries," said Simpson. China alone currently holds $920 billion in U.S. IOUs.
Bowles said if the U.S. makes no changes it will be spending $2 trillion by 2020 just for interest on the national debt.
"Just think about that: All that money, going somewhere else, to create jobs and opportunity somewhere else," he said.
Simpson, the former Republican senator from Wyoming, and Bowles, the former White House chief of staff under Democratic President Bill Clinton, head an 18-member commission. It's charged with coming up with a plan by Dec. 1 to reduce the government's annual deficits to 3 percent of the national economy by 2015.
Bowles led successful 1997 talks with Republicans on a balanced budget bill that produced government surpluses the last three years Clinton was in office and the first year of Republican George W. Bush's presidency. Simpson, as the Senate's GOP whip in 1990, helped round up votes for a budget bill in which President George H.W. Bush broke his "read my lips" pledge not to raise taxes.
Despite their backgrounds, both Simpson and Bowles said they were not 100 percent confident of success this time around.
Simpson labeled the commission members "good people of deep, deep difference, knowing the possibility of the odds of success are rather harrowing to say the least."
Bowles also said Congress had to be ready to accept the commission's findings.
"What we do is not so hard to figure out; it's the political consequences of doing it that makes it really tough," he said.
Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe was one of those leaders who sat in rapt attention during the presentation, one of the first in public by the commission leaders.
"I don't know that I ever heard a gloomier picture painted that created more hope for me," said Beebe, commending its frankness.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_governors_debt_commission

 

[Midnight_Man]

Bush stole the 2000 Presidential election and you're gonna cry about this? lol

Felons Voting Illegally May Have Put Franken Over the Top in Minnesota, Study Finds

By Ed Barnes

Published July 12, 2010

FoxNews.com


The six-month election recount that turned former "Saturday Night Live" comedian Al Franken into a U.S. senator may have been decided by convicted felons who voted illegally in Minnesota's Twin Cities.

That's the finding of an 18-month study conducted by Minnesota Majority, a conservative watchdog group, which found that at least 341 convicted felons in largely Democratic Minneapolis-St. Paul voted illegally in the 2008 Senate race between Franken, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent, then-incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman.

The final recount vote in the race, determined six months after Election Day, showed Franken beat Coleman by 312 votes -- fewer votes than the number of felons whose illegal ballots were counted, according to Minnesota Majority's newly released study, which matched publicly available conviction lists with voting records.

Furthermore, the report charges that efforts to get state and federal authorities to act on its findings have been "stonewalled."

"We aren't trying to change the result of the last election. That legally can't be done," said Dan McGrath, Minnesota Majority's executive director. "We are just trying to make sure the integrity of the next election isn't compromised."

He said his group was largely ignored when it turned over a list of hundreds of names to prosecutors in two of the state's largest counties, Ramsey and Hennepin, where fraud seemed to be the greatest.

A spokesman for both county attorneys' offices belittled the information, saying it was "just plain wrong" and full of errors, which prompted the group to go back and start an in-depth look at the records.

"What we did this time is irrefutable," McGrath said. "We took the voting lists and matched them with conviction lists and then went back to the records and found the roster lists, where voters sign in before walking to the voting booth, and matched them by hand.

"The only way we can be wrong is if someone with the same first, middle and last names, same year of birth as the felon, and living in the same community, has voted. And that isn't very likely."

The report said that in Hennepin County, which in includes Minneapolis, 899 suspected felons had been matched on the county's voting records, and the review showed 289 voters were conclusively matched to felon records. The report says only three people in the county have been charged with voter fraud so far.

A representative of the Hennepin County attorney's office, who declined to give her name, said "there was no one in the office today to talk about the charges."

But the report got a far different review in Ramsey County, which contains St. Paul. Phil Carruthers of the Ramsey County attorney's office said his agency had taken the charges "very seriously" and found that the Minnesota Majority "had done a good job in their review."

The report says that in Ramsey, 460 names on voting records were matched with felon lists, and a further review found 52 were conclusive matches.

Carruthers attributed differences in the numbers to Minnesota Majority's lack of access to nonpublic information, such as exact birth dates and other court records. For example, he said, "public records might show a felon was given 10 years probation, but internal records the county attorney has might show that the probation period was cut to five and the felon was eligible to vote."

Carruthers said Ramsey County is still investigating all the names and has asked that 15 investigators be hired to complete the process. "So far we have charged 28 people with felonies, have 17 more under review and have 182 cases still open," he said. "And there is a good chance we may match or even exceed their numbers."

McGrath says the report shows that more still has to be done.

"Prosecutors have to act more swiftly in prosecuting cases from the 2008 election to deter fraud in the future," he said, "and the state has to make sure that existing system, that flags convicted felons so voting officials can challenge them at the ballot, is effective. In 90 percent of the cases we looked at, the felons weren't flagged."

"If the state had done that," he said, "things might be very different today."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/felons-voting-illegally-franken-minnesota-study-finds/

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Limp Lib Lou Zar DUMZ cant win an election WITHOUT cheating

What's even funnier is when Hillary charges that Obama cheated in Iowa...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Bush stole the 2000 Presidential election and you're gonna cry about this? lol

The Liberal Press did the recounts that Kerry demanded and Kerry lost all of them.

Some people always leave off the end of a good story to get the ending they like...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I don't think you can say they are equally as bad. No Republican for voted for the health care debacle, and they've never spent on the scale we see the Democrats spending at now. Are they fucked up, yep, but not on the same scale as the Democrats, as we see manifested by the actions of the Obama administration.

Yeah, but they're going to stop fighting it once in power in order to enact "fixes" they like...

The Republicans lost forever when the moderates let the press pick their candidate for them and then decided Sara Palin and the Christian Right were more dangerous to them than Marxism so they abandoned the perfect Republican Candidate in droves.

So, despite their big display of "not voting for it" when it didn't matter, in action, they're going to work with the program continuing the moderate delusion that if they just act like John McCain when it comes to compromising themselves, then everyone will vote for them, just like Colin Powell, Buckley Jr., Noonan, Brooks...

Don't put any hope into the Republican Party, they are no different than the Democrats and serve no purpose other than to take the blame for when Socialism fails or take temporary power when the Democrats get too greedy. Watch in 2012 as they try to find another old white dinosaur conservative sell-out to run, like Newt Gingritch who became the embodiment of a Washington Insider and had to be destroyed by Steve Largent...

 

[John Doe]

Bush stole the 2000 Presidential election and you're gonna cry about this? lol

Prove it.

 

[Liar]

The Liberal Press did the recounts that Kerry demanded and Kerry lost all of them.

Some people always leave off the end of a good story to get the ending they like...

Had no idea he too ran in 2000.