>If you'd seen communism in action or lived under it you'd oppose it as well.

And if your poor and live under capitalism?


In 2004 he attempted to corrupt the elections by massive fraud both before (donations from illegal sources, etc.) and at the polls (large voter fraud, Kerry supporters voting multiple times with invalid cards, like cards made out to dead people, pets, foreigners, etc.).

I think I saw an example of it.

I was in line to vote, and the guy ahead of me had several IDs. He selected one and pocketed the others. He was dressed like the typical hippie.

jasimp, I agree with you. I just feel slighted when someone attacks John Kerry on his outstanding war record, and not his poor performance as a presidential candidate. After all, this gave us another four years of you know whom.

Actually, you should blame the Plurality Voting System, combined with Ralph Nader's run. Nader siphoned away enough votes to hand Florida and New Hampshire to Bush.

Of course, you could also blame people who actually understand the economy. Kerry's promises would have destroyed the country's economy if he had been elected and allowed to enact them (as will Hillary's promises).

>I do believe that we needed to invade...

Why is that? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I heard Saddam Hussein say he was going to "continue to send financial support to Al Qaida" on the 60 Minutes interview, 3 months before we invaded. Or at least, that's what the translator said.

I said, "We are going to war again very soon."

True Ralph Nader did siphon away those votes but John Kerry's and Hillary's policies are not that much different than Bill Clinton's and the economy was never better under him.

The only voting fraud evidence I can find was that George Bush committed voting fraud in the 2004 election. Not John Kerry.

There was in fact no fraud on the part of Bush either in 2000 or 2004. That was all in the minds of leftist conspiracy theorists who couldn't understand anyone winning an election against their fraud efforts without at least the same amount of fraud.

If there was fraud, which there might of been becasue of devious minds of politicians, than it was probably on both sides. There is no point in debating this because it happens all the time. And I was merely stating that I only found evidence of Bush, not that Kerry didn't commit fruad because Bush probably did to.

Exactly where are you getting the 'Bush==Fraud' arguments from? I haven't seen anything about that that can't be accounted for by the Anti-Bush crowd's ability to scream imprecations.

I heard that John O'Neill's book "Unfit for Command" was supported by the Karl Rove folks as a dirty trick to win the elections for Dick and Bush.

So? I heard that Al Gore invented the Internet.

Don't believe everything you hear (or see written); check for facts. I've read Unfit, and I have yet to see anything which convinces me it was anything other than a warning from someone who knew what John Kerry was like.

Exactly where are you getting the 'Bush==Fraud' arguments from? I haven't seen anything about that that can't be accounted for by the Anti-Bush crowd's ability to scream imprecations.

That's because there is nothing else except the inability to conceive of the idea that they could possibly loose that many of the leftists in the self-proclaimed "Demokratik Partei" have.
Like I said, they committed so much fraud they reason that anyone who wins against that MUST commit even more fraud...

There is no proof of fraud from any side.