10,000 Lawyers

[Michael McKelvy]

That's what the Democrats have waiting to subvert the system, again.

[TCS]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:10:18 GMT, Michael McKelvy > wrote:
>That's what the Democrats have waiting to subvert the system, again.


subvert the system? Imagine that... like if we had a president who lost the
popular vote and would have lost the electoral vote if not for the intervention
of his brother and the justices put on the supreme court by his daddy.

[Michael McKelvy]

"TCS" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:10:18 GMT, Michael McKelvy >
> wrote:
>>That's what the Democrats have waiting to subvert the system, again.
>
>
> subvert the system? Imagine that... like if we had a president who lost
> the
> popular vote and would have lost the electoral vote if not for the
> intervention
> of his brother and the justices put on the supreme court by his daddy.

But we don't have that, what we have is a President who won the electoral
college votes and the Democratic party so infuriated that they are not in
power, who used any lie they could think of to subvert the system.

Right now Democrats have instructed local Democrat election officials to
report election fraud, even if none is present.

These people want to lead us? **** them.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:02:11 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"TCS" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:10:18 GMT, Michael McKelvy >
>> wrote:
>>>That's what the Democrats have waiting to subvert the system, again.
>>
>>
>> subvert the system? Imagine that... like if we had a president who lost
>> the
>> popular vote and would have lost the electoral vote if not for the
>> intervention
>> of his brother and the justices put on the supreme court by his daddy.
>
>But we don't have that, what we have is a President who won the electoral
>college votes

So, the election *wasn't* determined by the Supreme Court? That's news
to me.

> and the Democratic party so infuriated that they are not in
>power, who used any lie they could think of to subvert the system.


>Right now Democrats have instructed local Democrat election officials to
>report election fraud, even if none is present.

Liar.

There is nothing that says that they are to "report election fraud,
even if none is present". In no way can you spin any language to
interpret it that way. "Preemptive strike where none has occured"
means making sure that people are alerted to the past tactics of the
Republicans, not that Republicans are reported for election fraud
where none is present.

This is yet another thing that you have "heard", but don't know the
facts about. You probably haven't even seen the item in question.
You've just heard some second and third-hand commentary.

You're no better than the alleged destroyer of Democratic
registrations (which *is* election fraud), the Republican Nathan
Sproul.

>These people want to lead us? **** them.

In a few weeks, you're going to be *****ed* by them for the next four
years, so here, have some lubricant.

[Lionel]

> In a few weeks, you're going to be *****ed* by them for the next four
> years, so here, have some lubricant.

He doesn't need, like his friends he prefers to suffer.

[Michael McKelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:02:11 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"TCS" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:10:18 GMT, Michael McKelvy
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>>That's what the Democrats have waiting to subvert the system, again.
>>>
>>>
>>> subvert the system? Imagine that... like if we had a president who lost
>>> the
>>> popular vote and would have lost the electoral vote if not for the
>>> intervention
>>> of his brother and the justices put on the supreme court by his daddy.
>>
>>But we don't have that, what we have is a President who won the electoral
>>college votes
>
> So, the election *wasn't* determined by the Supreme Court? That's news
> to me.
>
>> and the Democratic party so infuriated that they are not in
>>power, who used any lie they could think of to subvert the system.
>
>
>>Right now Democrats have instructed local Democrat election officials to
>>report election fraud, even if none is present.
>
> Liar.
>
> There is nothing that says that they are to "report election fraud,
> even if none is present".

Yes there is.

In no way can you spin any language to
> interpret it that way.

It's not spin, it's just a fact.

"Preemptive strike where none has occured"
> means making sure that people are alerted to the past tactics of the
> Republicans, not that Republicans are reported for election fraud
> where none is present.
>

Talk about spin.

> This is yet another thing that you have "heard", but don't know the
> facts about. You probably haven't even seen the item in question.
> You've just heard some second and third-hand commentary.
>
> You're no better than the alleged destroyer of Democratic
> registrations (which *is* election fraud), the Republican Nathan
> Sproul.
>
>>These people want to lead us? **** them.
>
> In a few weeks, you're going to be *****ed* by them for the next four
> years, so here, have some lubricant.

If Kerry wins we'll all be ****ed.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" emitted :
>
>>If Kerry wins we'll all be f**ked.
>
> What does a republican do in this kind of situation? Let me guess..
> stop paying taxes, get tooled up, surround property with hay bales.
>
>
> --
I don't know, if I see one, I'll ask.