To: tejek who wrote (234748 ) 5/26/2005 3:14:23 PM From: Peter Dierks Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1578933 "A majority of WA state were in favor of having the election redone. Between NRO and you, I will take their statement of poll results over your opinion on this. Thanks for pointing out that you only believe polls that support your pro Democrat opinions." LOL Laughing, while therapeutic, does not give you credibility.LOL. I notice you are long on accusations like your WA GOP cronies but short on proof. "It is illegal to change, alter or adulterate ballots.: LOL. Who altered ballots and when did they do it? If you cannot read the article you posted, then don't waste my time."I suspect fraud was not the proper word. Criminal conspiracy would probably be more appropriate. The author appears to have erred on the lenient choice of words." You are really funny. If the judge rules in favor of the Dems will you claim a corrupted, activist judge bought off by the Dems? How much you want to bet that's what your comrades will say? You all are like the people who are convinced that everyone else is responsible for their screw ups. Your history indicates your bias. Democrat Clinton convicted, Clinton not problem. President Bush trusts advisors, President Bush is problem: McDougal convicted no problem; DeLay accused, problem. President Bush releases all military records, small discrepancy revealed is major problem; Kerry never signs his for 180, limited documents released evidentiary of his non-honorable discharge and other major problems, no problem. Democrat Gore loses Florida, attempt to steal election thwarted, Republicans problem; Democrat Gregoire successful in theft of election, Republicans problem. The facts speak for themselves. The judge will rule under Washington law. The article indicated that the threshold of proof is onerous. No one expects Democrat election fraud to be overturned or thwarted. History precedes this. Without fraud Democrats would have been much less successful in elections.