[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Setnakt If by "a lot of people" you mean "a few people who happened to be in congress"...

Quote by: My Poly-Sci final A CBS News / New York Times poll prior to the invasion in 2003 asked "What if the UN Security Council votes against the U.S. sponsored resolution to take military action against Iraq? Would you approve or disapprove of the U.S. taking military action against Iraq to try to remove Saddam Hussein from power without UN approval?" to which 55% approved and 41% disapproved (CBS poll, pollingreport.com). An ABC news poll also prior to the invasion asked "Would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power?" to which 65% favored this course and 30% opposed it (ABC poll, pollingreport.com). ... "PollingReport.com - Public Opinion Online." PollingReport.com. 2007. Polling Report, Inc.. 9 Apr 2007 <http://www.pollingreport.com/>. <http://www.pollingreport.com/terror10.htm>. <http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq13.htm>. < http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq10.htm>.

No... by a lot of people, I mean the country.

Because no one had reason to suspect any. I also don't recall accusations of outright voter fraud regarding any previous president, including republicans.

I do. Go read some.

I'm not a fan of the democratic party, but this is non-specific and seems to be evasive.

Sorry, I'm not going to pin-point every instance of voter fraud committed by the democratic party. I'm not writing a book. Both parties are guilty of voter fraud as seen by anyone with a grasp of history. It happens in nearly every election on some level or another by people at all levels. The only thing that you can really count on or hope for is that the actions taken by both sides cancel each other out.

You're sounding like you think that voter fraud was invented in the year 2000.

Perhaps you did not effectively denote your switch in the subject of your nouns.

Perhaps you failed basic reading in grade school. I have now explained what I meant verbatim.

The "conspiracy," as you insist on calling it, was essentially in the open, and is substantiated by evidence.

Great, now let's get into this.

The elections oversight committee reports how many votes were challenged, and we have a paper trail that shows that they came from the Republican National Committee.

Well, prove that these votes were improperly challenged.

The only reason legal action has not been taken is because the authority to whom the 2000 concerns were addressed was Ashcroft,

Speculation.

and now we have Alberto "I don't recall but I'm sure it was legal" Gonzales.

Also, speculation though Gonzales is slime.

While I don't have the specifics at hand to rebut your point about the 2004 election and you may be right, 2004 is when an excess of 1.9 million paper ballots were tossed out.

Ok, so seeing as Bush won the popular vote in 04 by 3,012,499 provided that all 1.9 million challenges were unjustified, Bush would still have won by 1,112,499.

We do have the caging lists that show ethnicity, employment, and residence of those targeted by the challenges.

Back those up and prove that the challenges were unjustified.

We also know Diebold intentionally placed defective electronic voting machines in predominantly Democratic areas.

Prove intentional tampering and not simply incompetence.

The democratic candidate also withdrew his challenge arbitrarily.

Right, I'm sure after raising and spending millions of dollars on a campaign, his decision to end it was arbitrary. Please.