I predict, Bill Clinton will be our last elected president. After Bill, it's only dictators.

I predict that Bill Clinton will be our last legally elected President. HEY My prediction came true. From now on it's only dictatorships and the CIA and of course the Corporations that have the power in this nation. There are no more presidents, this is just a facade.

Soon the facade will be no more. Martial law WILL be here after a terrorist attack, and Bush will be OFFICIALLY a DICKtator. No pun intended. Ok maybe just a little bit. Bite me ;\

Originally posted by lilblam
Bush will be OFFICIALLY a DICKtator.

Since Bush will be the DICKtator, I guess we should refer to Clinton as the DICKtotter!

Dude, I'm not an American, but I live next door, so I see what goes on and I can tell you that the people would NEVER take that.

Whos to say that Clinton was legally elected? I mean after Bush entered the White House without being elected who knows how long this Diebold company has been playing around with the votes? The Bush appointment was only the first one to challenged! I think the powers that be are just as capable of putting a Democrat in there as well as anyone else as long as it suits their agenda.

Still continuing the lame lie that Bush was not properly elected, huh?

If you remember, it was conjectured that Clinton would be the last president and then he would declare himself permanent prez due to martial law, and that, too was proven wrong.

But as I said to the last person who asserted this a couple weeks ago (Nobody reads before starting threads), keep making the same guess over and over and eventually you'll probably be right.

[Edited on 9-1-2004 by Thomas Crowne]

Originally posted by intrepid
Dude, I'm not an American, but I live next door, so I see what goes on and I can tell you that the people would NEVER take that.

Are you saying there would be a Canadian "intervention"?

But as to the main topic, I'm not sure Bush will NEED to cheat this time. He's got the cards stacked in his favor...and keeps piling it on. Immigrant thing, Saddam capture, space missions, all which have nothing to do with him personally, but the public will give him credit for nonetheless.

Yes, I don't think anything can prevent a Bush re-election. Unless a total FUBAR. That is unlikely.

Yeah, Bush might lose if he says something really, really stupid. Oh wait, nevermind.....

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Still continuing the lame lie that Bush was not properly elected, huh?

He wasn't. It's not a lie.
www.iknowwhatyoudidlastelection.com...

www.guardian.co.uk...

My only question is , why was the deciding state the one where his brother was the Gov.?

I am aware of the propaganda and lies that propagate the myth, D-D, but thanks, anyway.


Flinx, that universal joke occured so that we could have people pondering the exact thing.

Flinx, one of my favorite Christmas presents is my day calander that has Bush's "Bushisms" on each page. To date, my favorite has been,
"We spent alot time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disdease."
Gothenburg, Sweden; June 14, 2001

For those of you suffering from a recently inflicted public education, the sanfu in the sentence lies in his calling Africa a nation.

Another Canadian chiming in on a few points:

1. Of course Canada would not intervene, whether asked tongue in cheek or not, thats never been our gig; to interfere in the internal affairs of another nation state. I wish I were as confident of the reciprocal if the US decided that it needed to secure the borders of all North America with it's own laws and troops to enforce them. Manifest Destiny all over again.

2. It amazes me the outrage and moral indignation shown by many at a clandestine act of pleasure in the Oval Office while maintaining complete indifference to clandestine acts of war that are initiated in the same room.

3. The USA and the USSR were/are bold experiments in social order. Neither had/has the patent on truth no matter their propaganda. Both suffer/ed from the actions of an oligarchy that have/had lost touch with the voice of the people. Privilege breeds privilege. When the voice of the people rises to a pitch that they cannot ignore it becomes a binary set. They can either enforce their will by force of arms or bow to the will of the people. We have seen the events in the East and the voice of the people for the most part prevailed but not without loss of life. I truly hope that the 2004 election in the US marks the time that the other % of the voters who don't bother, stand up and are counted this time. Show us an 80%+turnout, paper ballot, monitored as you demand of some other nations, election and I expect the rest of the world, never mind your own citizens, will not question the results.

Originally posted by tracer
Whos to say that Clinton was legally elected? I mean after Bush entered the White House without being elected who knows how long this Diebold company has been playing around with the votes? The Bush appointment was only the first one to challenged! I think the powers that be are just as capable of putting a Democrat in there as well as anyone else as long as it suits their agenda.

Ok go get your history book and read it again. 1st of all if you know anything about history then you know that everything that went down regarding the 2000 election was 100% legal and done by the books. Anyone who wants to challenge and say, well what about the extra votes where the chads werent counted because they were improperly punched. Well I say, since when do we count defected ballots and since when do stupid people who cant punch a ballot become the people who predict our president. It was done properly, through the electoral college the way the constitution calls for. If you or anyone cant deal with that, then maybe you need a history lesson and should go read what our constitution says.

Also let me add that there were numerous challenges against the electoral college in the past and all have failed because they are specifically in the constitution as the means of electing our president.

Anyone who thinks that the government is run by some conspiracy laden individuals IMO are lacking knowledge the great American experiment known as the government we have today.

Originally posted by intrepid
My only question is , why was the deciding state the one where his brother was the Gov.?

Ever hear of Coincidence?

[Edited on 9-1-2004 by Dreamz]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I am aware of the propaganda and lies that propagate the myth, D-D, but thanks, anyway.

Really then please inform me of the truth. The Supreme Court is allowed to pick our president? This issue will never go away.
You can argue it either way affectively.

Btw we don't need to argue it both sides have good points and it's getting really old. Plus I am sure there is many threads on it and I need to go to bed at a decent hour!!!

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I am aware of the propaganda and lies that propagate the myth, D-D, but thanks, anyway.

Really then please inform me of the truth. The Supreme Court is allowed to pick our president? This issue will never go away.

You can argue it either way affectively.

It was only brought forth to the supreme court after a lawsuit was filed by the DNC. Otherwise the election wouldve been finalized by the electoral college. Either way it was done 100% correct.

That seems correct. But I think it will only happen twice. Bush (2000) and probably Bush again (2004) - then, (as John Titor stated) the people will rise up and hopefully deal with these corrupt f*ckers.

Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't conservatives love that?
A: Generally yes. These five justices, in the past few years, have held that the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state university it can't steal trade secrets just because such stealing is prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business telling a state that it should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal government use the equal protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence against women.

Q: Is there an exception in this case?
A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This decision is limited to only this situation.

Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.
A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

Q: What complexities?
A: They don't say.

i know what you did last election.com is the greatest!!

Originally posted by ThePook
That seems correct. But I think it will only happen twice. Bush (2000) and probably Bush again (2004) - then, (as John Titor stated) the people will rise up and hopefully deal with these corrupt f*ckers.

I hope but I doubt it. Maybe after Bush declares himself leader for life and we are all bankrupt or know someone dead from his wars.