Would you care to explain this statement?

If someone needs to explain it to you.. you'd either never understand or selectively not understand. :lol:

Would you care to explain this statement?

Bill Clinton promised The American People "An Administration that would "AVOID THE MERE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY".... and went on to give us EVERY appearance of impropriety.

(More details later, I have to get off to an early start in the A.M.)

Golf, you and I are friends, and while I detest the Bush Administration and what the Republicans have become as much as you do, when it comes to the improprieties and crimes of the Clinton Administration, do you really need an explanation?? No president of The United states trampled The U.S. Constitution and breeched his sworn duties more than did Bill Clinton......errrr.....that is untill George W. Bush was elected!!!

Now, of course, Bush is Dick Chenney's Puppet in Chief!!!

Fozzy:

I understand that getting "serviced" while in office is nothing that half of the presidents haven't done, and is nothing like subverting the constitution in an attempt to steal an election. And if you think he was the LAST to know, and ONLY tried to 'cover it up' you're probably buying all of Bush's B.S. too!

If you don't want to be schooled you need to learn to keep your trap shut. Kennedy won by an electoral margin large enough that Illinois wouldn't have changed the result. So if Kennedy won there, Kennedy would be president. If Nixon had prevailed there, KENNEDY WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT.

That is all.

Useless: Although I wouldn't use the language JR OTR used on you (as you say, we are friends,) I would have to agree with what he said. Kennedy won by OVER 80 electoral votes... and that would have been more except for the 14 Southern Democrat Electors who refused to vote for him because he was Catholic, and due to his support of civil and (black) voting rights.

That is a LANDSLIDE compared to the 2000 vote. That is more than the "Bush States" of Florida and Texas combined.

Rev. Vassago said:

I agree that the turnout might have increased, but that's no crime. In fact, I wish we ALL took elections that seriously.

But, I don't know how they do it where you are from, but I've voted in both Blue and Red states, and ALWAYS had to verify my I.D. with the list of registered voters for that county. This little "problem" you speak of could have easily been monitored and controlled.

Many states still do not require ID to vote - Wisconsin being one of them. There was a huge problem with this in 2004, when it was shown that felons and deceased were voting in Milwaukee for Gov. Doyle.

most make you "verify" by simply signing the roster under the NAME you provide. I have voted at my local poll for the last 5 years and have never needed any REAL verification. The Chicago elections have been historically full of dead people. Since most of the dead people vote democrat.. they are as large a captive audience as the welfar classes that the democrats built there.

I hope tthunderdan doesn't mind, but he posted this link on the "incumbents" thread, and I thought it should ALSO go here.

http://www.votefraud.org/

I'm sure some will cry that it's obviously a Democratic website, and we're just still whining about losing the White House, but I think the ISSUE and the DANGER are real, and all Americans should be concerned.

EDIT: After actually reading much of the info on this site, I see that it is NOT Democratic, but rather Inependant (or whatever party Buchanan was.) Much of this will look like Conspiracy theory, and whining, to be sure. But, after checking SOME of the links that do NOT lead you to anything written by Jim Condit, I found quite a bit of info to back my position and concerns about voter fraud... especially by computers.

Anyone with half a brain cannot deny the possibility, likelihood and probability that these machines can, will or have been used to steal elections. The important point is... we would never know. Why vote if we can't be sure the results are fair and honest?