1 posted on
10/30/2004 9:02:01 AM PDT by
Pardon Me
To: Pardon Me
Well, since this is where the majority of the fraud happened in 2000, this works out swell for little Tommy, doesn't it?
2 posted on
10/30/2004 9:04:10 AM PDT by
Howlin
(Bush has claimed two things which Democrats believe they own by right: the presidency & the future)
To: Pardon Me
Bump and the fun continues.
3 posted on
10/30/2004 9:04:40 AM PDT by
jokar
(On line data base http://www.trackingthethreat.com/db/index.htm)
To: Pardon Me
Remember the last Senatorial election in SD? Thune was tied and all of a sudden, votes from one area arrived and were almost all cast for the democrat. It was an area where Thune was expected to have an edge.
4 posted on
10/30/2004 9:07:32 AM PDT by
Trepz
To: Pardon Me
This is a US federal election, not a Sioux election. They need to appeal this to the federal courts immediately.
To: Pardon Me; Congressman Billybob
So, the "official" democrat party response, through this supposed "independent group's leader" is that the repubbies are supposed to make specific claims of wrong-doing, and, without those specific claims, there was no illegal activity.
And, just to make sure there are no claims, the democrats get a hand-picked (tribal judge?) democrat to write a disjointed, poorly-written, over-broad restriction order AGAINST ANYBODY (anybody who is not from a democrat party lawyer that is!) from observing the polling place (NOT "private property"!) so they can OBSERVE (potential) illegal action so they can to make a statement claiming illegal activities to allow them to substantiate their claim.
But the claim of illegal activity by the democrats (according to the democrats' spokesman!) MUST be made without having video to capture evidence.
11 posted on
10/30/2004 9:15:25 AM PDT by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but Kerry's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: Pardon Me
This clown only has this authority if he involks his "independant nation" status.
If that status holds, then participation in "our" election is forsaken.
12 posted on
10/30/2004 9:15:46 AM PDT by
G Larry
(Support John Thune!)
To: Pardon Me
A good place for FEDERAL election monitors.
13 posted on
10/30/2004 9:21:56 AM PDT by
OldFriend
(It's the soldier, not the reporter who has given US freedom of the press)
To: Pardon Me
A "tribal judge" decides who can monitor the polls in a FEDERAL election? Will an Iman in Dearborn decree that sharia denies women the vote in this election?
To: Pardon Me
If the Indians are in their own country they shouldn't be voting in U.S. elections.
16 posted on
10/30/2004 9:42:54 AM PDT by
Mister Baredog
((Part of the Reagan legacy is to re-elect G.W. Bush))
To: Pardon Me
Then the indians are going to have to go to an off reservation polling place if they wish to participate in federal elections. If the polls can not be observed, then it's safe to say they can not be judged to be fair.
17 posted on
10/30/2004 9:47:45 AM PDT by
McGavin999
(We have planted the seeds of democracy and watered them with our blood, now let freedom reign)
To: Pardon Me
Oh wait, I have an idea. If there can not be republican poll watchers there, perhaps federal marshalls can fill the void.
18 posted on
10/30/2004 9:48:38 AM PDT by
McGavin999
(We have planted the seeds of democracy and watered them with our blood, now let freedom reign)
To: Pardon Me
But if they allow poll watchers, then they couldn't vote as often as they like. People can vote as many times as they like in Chicago and St. Louis, why not the reservations? Doesn't sound fair.
To: Pardon Me
Question: Can anyone explain to me why these f*ck*rs vote democrat?
20 posted on
10/30/2004 10:12:34 AM PDT by
SaintDismas
(Jest becuz you put yer boots in the oven, don't make it bread)
To: Pardon Me
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson