Democrats paying people to walk precincts(MICHIGAN)

Michigan House Democratic Fund | MI HOUSE DEMS

[an amused spectator]

Again, we're back to your false premise that the precinct numbers out of Wayne County are more than just hearsay, numbers a Democrat precinct worker made up and turned in.

The only way to prove me wrong is to videotape one of these Wayne County precincts on November 5, 2002 and compare the bodies on the tape with the reported vote totals.

And you can't do that, because that act is a federal felony, "voter intimidation". Are you willing to commit a felony to prove me wrong, or are you just full of hot air, defending a Democrat lie?

I'll bet money we won't be seeing any November 5 home movies from you, so I guess my Wayne County posts stand as is. ;-)

[an amused spectator]

I'll wait for your home video till after the election. Until then, you're just another Clinton Kool-Aid drinker.

Imagine, someone on the Free Republic who takes a Democrat precinct worker at their word! I hear the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale, and there's good land in South Florida fer cheap.

Rube.

[an amused spectator]

No, I don't take YOU at your word.

I notice that you don't appear bold enough to deal with the problem at the source. No videotapey, hey? You're content to yap at me on the Internet, and allow the snickering Democrat precinct workers to work their illegal lists in the back room in Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York and all the other Democrat plantations.

It's all about money, rube, and just because you've drunk a gallon or two of liquid naive doesn't make it go away. ;-)

[PGalt]

Detroit totals 2000 Presidential Election: Gore 282,111 Bush 15,688

Precinct 4-6: Gore 495 Bush 0

Precinct 5-25: Gore 326 Bush 0

Precinct 9-28 Gore 140 Bush 0

Precinct 8-10 Gore 408 Bush 1

Etc.,etc., the breakdown is a real eye-opener.

It can be accessed at http://miboecfr.nicusa.com/cgi-bin/cfr/precinct_srch_res.cgi

[an amused spectator]

Pay no attention to PGalt's post 48. It has numbers in it, and it might tax your tiny mind.

And BTW, no one in their right mind will believe your false premise that a partisan vote for Bush has NO relationship to a partisan vote for a nonpartisan judge.

Also, your novel theory that voting for a non-partisan judge revolves around incumbency status is a real laugher. This theory presupposes that all judges are incumbent since birth, for how else could they be elected when running against an incumbent? ;-)

[an amused spectator]

Fascinating! I'll relax some more before beginning to bury the "little Angel Guy" with the precinct numbers.

I don't think he really wants to go there, though, seeing how he is "just another guy on the Internet that has got all the answers" already.

I remember going around with another guy on FR one time who knew more about American History than a PhD in American History. This Angelito appears to be cut from the same cloth. He already knows it all, and numbers and facts don't mean squat to him.

I was suitably impressed (not). ;-)

[an amused spectator]

My point was not that there is NO relationship, it was that that fact alone is not an indication of fraud.

You seem determined to maintain that it is my only fact in the presentation.

You continue to deliberately overlook other facts that I have presented. For example, the fact that it is a felony to go and watch these 400-0 votes in the Wayne County precincts.

You look great in those Nike shoes and the purple mustache, Bopp-boy.

[an amused spectator]

Your strange theory, not mine - Young was only talking about the 2000 election, not ALL elections.

Quit trying to extend your theory without backing it up with numbers, little Angel.

[an amused spectator]

Are you a resident of Wayne County, Michigan?

[Zack Nguyen]

But then they went to Texas and talked to the Sanchez guy. This is when I got worried. Sanchez has rented OVER 300 vans for election day.

I have heard this to. The polls have Perry up by 12-15 points, but it will be much closer than that.

[Zack Nguyen]

Well done. Excellent analysis. The fact is, a Supreme Court candidate would never get more votes than a Presidential candidate under any circumstances. Michigan was stolen.

[an amused spectator]

LOL! I was talking about the fact that the Democrats appeared not to waste their time flicking the switches in the judicial races, because they were going to lose anyway.

I said nothing about incumbency - you were the one who wanted to introduce that red herring. Incumbency has nothing to do with the central question: Why didn't all these "dedicated and responsible" citizens bother to be dedicated and responsible in the judicial races, unless perhaps some of them weren't actually there at the polls? ;-)