If you know you can't win - Cheat ...

[dogtag]

It's the democrat way.
Besmirch your opponent. It's no doubt easy
enough to find women you can pay to say
what you want them to as long as you have
Gloria Allred standing by to help protect them.
Bus in loads of out of Staters or if you lose,
demand a recount and get your people to do it.
Remember Al Franken lost by 300+ votes, but
after a recount, Surprise, he won by 300+ votes.
Losers can be made winners with the right Know-How.

[togor]

Bush v. Gore.

If Gore wins, no Iraq War, possibly no 9/11 either.

[leftyo]

Bush v. Gore.

If Gore wins, no Iraq War, possibly no 9/11 either.

now we know your delusional. you do understand the ragheads had already attacked the world trade center before 9/11, they werent just going to give up because of who our president was.

[Allen]

now we know your delusional. you do understand the ragheads had already attacked the world trade center before 9/11, they werent just going to give up because of who our president was.

Agree

9/11 was a result in lax/no immigration laws and bill clinton doing NOTHING about the trade center attack 1993.

[dogtag]

Bush v. Gore.

If Gore wins, no Iraq War, possibly no 9/11 either.

Go back to Never never land. Peter misses you

[togor]

now we know your delusional. you do understand the ragheads had already attacked the world trade center before 9/11, they werent just going to give up because of who our president was.

No sh*t, Sherlock, but maybe they don't catch us with our pants down. Nobody talks about the Millennium attacks at LAX. Why? Because they were foiled. And even if they get us on 9/11, no way does Gore get sidetracked into Iraq. There are some guys here who have nothing good to say about Bush and Iraq, and as bitter a pill as it might be to admit it, the whole War On Terror, ISIS thing is because of Bush and the Neocons.

As for the SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Gore--go back and read it. They even say it's not to be used for establishing legal precedent. Just a craven political action.

[Allen]

Just because Gore may not have gotten us into a war with Iraq that is not to say he wouldn't have done something much worse. 9/11 would probably still have occurred. If he responded like clinton and did nothing (as in no war) perhaps another attack would have happened later many times worse.

Remember, this goon didn't even carry his own state during the election.

[S.A. Boggs]

No sh*t, Sherlock, but maybe they don't catch us with our pants down. Nobody talks about the Millennium attacks at LAX. Why? Because they were foiled. And even if they get us on 9/11, no way does Gore get sidetracked into Iraq. There are some guys here who have nothing good to say about Bush and Iraq, and as bitter a pill as it might be to admit it, the whole War On Terror, ISIS thing is because of Bush and the Neocons.

As for the SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Gore--go back and read it. They even say it's not to be used for establishing legal precedent. Just a craven political action.

Hate to tell you this but be advised Bill Clinton was caught with his pants down!
Sam

[togor]

Hate to tell you this but be advised Bill Clinton was caught with his pants down!
Sam

Allen: but you can't prove he would have got us into something worse.

Sam: true about Clinton but what do you gain by bring it up? I doubt your smart enough to thread the needle to explain why it's bad when Clinton does it (it is) but OK when it's Trump or Moore.

Dogtag's premise is wrong, that it falls on one side only. Look at the gerrymandering in NC, which even our own Vern Humphrey has in the past opined as being over the top.

[leftyo]

No sh*t, Sherlock, but maybe they don't catch us with our pants down. Nobody talks about the Millennium attacks at LAX. Why? Because they were foiled. And even if they get us on 9/11, no way does Gore get sidetracked into Iraq. There are some guys here who have nothing good to say about Bush and Iraq, and as bitter a pill as it might be to admit it, the whole War On Terror, ISIS thing is because of Bush and the Neocons.

As for the SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Gore--go back and read it. They even say it's not to be used for establishing legal precedent. Just a craven political action.

ok genius, you realize the first attack on the trade center was not foiled, the rag heads failed even though they detonated explosives! if you want to argue like red does, stfu. if you want to discuss the issue, carry on.

[togor]

ok genius, you realize the first attack on the trade center was not foiled, the rag heads failed even though they detonated explosives! if you want to argue like red does, stfu. if you want to discuss the issue, carry on.

The OP asserts that it's only the Dems with their finger on the scale. Agree or disagree?

[leftyo]

The OP asserts that it's only the Dems with their finger on the scale. Agree or disagree?

you wanna back up to what we were discussing or just change directions? after all, you are the one who brought it up.

[RED]

Hee.. Hee.

[togor]

you wanna back up to what we were discussing or just change directions? after all, you are the one who brought it up.

I brought up Bush v. Gore as an example of Republican fingers on scales. Dogtag doesn't like it when his threads get hijacked. After a brief diversion (plead guilty) I'm bringing it back to where dogtag started it. Do you agree or disagree with his premise?

[leftyo]

I brought up Bush v. Gore as an example of Republican fingers on scales. Dogtag doesn't like it when his threads get hijacked. After a brief diversion (plead guilty) I'm bringing it back to where dogtag started it. Do you agree or disagree with his premise?

no you brought up iraq/9/11, and when that didnt play out as you figured you started to act like chucklefuk up there, and now you want to redirect. your not as smart as you think you are, although i will concede your smarter than red.