Joe Cali Next Generation-usa wrote:
>
> "Kurt" > wrote in message link.net>...
> > Only a first grade educated Idiot could make statement like that, supidity
> > in your brain is infinite.
>
> There is not a simple answer to this, half the U.S. Did not vote for
> Bush and actually I believe he did not win this election. Too much BS
> involved in the voting machines.

Why is it that every time the Democrats lose an election,
they want to blame it on the voting machines? In my
lifetime, it has appeared to me that the Democrats have been
the more likely party to try and influence election via
outright fraud or other somewhat shady means.

I do not Like "W." I voted for Kerry and was sorry he lost.
However, I don't think Bush stole the election or did
anything especially dishonest to win it. The truth is Bush
is the first president to get more than 50% of the voting
public to vote for him since 1988. Clinton never got 50%.
Neither Bush nor Gore got 50% in 2000. Instead of whining
about Bush winning, why not go out and work for a good
Democrat, so we will have someone the majority can vote for
in 2008. Think about the losers the Democrats have nominated
in the last 40 years - Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale,
Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. I left out Clinton (not a "loser"). He
wasn't exactly a great candidate and he never got 50% of the
vote either, but at least he could give a decent speech. I
only reluctantly included Carter since he won once but he
did lose to Regan. He was a lousy President, but clearly the
greatest ex-President of all time. I also left out Johnson
(he didn't lose, just quit). He was just a crook and an SOB.

If the Democrats keep nominating candidates like Gore and
Kerry, I doubt we can expect the Democrats to win. Dull,
dull, dull, no real achievements, can't give a speech, no
vision, etc. Face it, if Bush beat you, you must really
suck.

Ed