deminks
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 04:42 PM
Original message |
Republicans today - non denial denial |
|
In all their venom spitting today, did you hear any of them say that there was categorically no fraud? I did not hear all of them, but none of the ones I heard had anything substantial to say - just a lot of horse manure about conspiracy theories, Ohio certified their vote, blah blah blah. Is that all they have? I laugh at their insults. :hippie:
|
msgadget
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 04:43 PM
Response to Original message |
1. DeLay, for one, outright denied vote fraud and he wasn't the only one. |
|
Their's is a different reality, remember?
|
deminks
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
he just has "faith" that there was no fraud! ;-)
|
msgadget
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-07-05 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. No faith involved, it was more like a fantastic tale. |
|
He was seriously painting a completely different picture of the Democrats' complaint, actually saying things no Dem on the floor even hinted at. It was quite a performance.
|
Blue_In_AK
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 04:44 PM
Response to Original message |
|
that the Repubs got so defensive about it when all that was being asked for was clean and transparent elections. WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?
|
BR_Parkway
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 04:44 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Most I heard was "this paper says everything was ok" |
|
seemed like all of the RePugs wanted to quote the "liberal media"
|
scottxyz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 04:46 PM
Response to Original message |
|
in answer to the accusations of fraud, they said bush won ohio by 118,000 votes.
kind of circular logic isnt it? the reason we know that bush won by 118,000 votes (ie, that there was no fraud) was because... bush won by 118,000 votes!!
|
jaime_176
(61 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
They do seem to have this circuitous logic and linguistic problem, don't they? Round and round, going nowhere...very tiring.
|
quiet.american
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 04:48 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Kept hearing, "no evidence" |
|
Reminded me once of a legal run-in I had with someone.
When he discovered his behind would be in the hot seat, he approached me and said, "you have no proof."
Unfortunately for him, I did. He went down.
However, unlike the Pugs, and luckily for me, he was philosophical in defeat and ultimately didn't hold it against me.
Now, whenever I hear someone say, "you have no proof" or "you have no evidence," it immediately leads me to translate that to "I'm guilty, but you have no proof."
But somehow, there's always proof somewhere.
|
FreepFryer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 05:24 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Correct! You have identified an enforced frame. You get a cherry poptart. |
|
Edited on Thu Jan-06-05 05:25 PM by FreepFryer
The way the Dems handled this, anything but 'Kerry didn't win/sour grapes' would have put the GOP in a bad place.
As Conyers said to Will Pitt, "It's a win-win."
We're through playing badminton while the GOP plays Rollerball.
|
deminks
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-06-05 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
I figured it was something like that. You are so right about how they wound up looking. I was really impressed with Conyers and all the other dems.
Circular arguments- I really noticed that a lot today with what I heard. The repugs were saying "we won because we won." I thought it was terribly suspicious. :hippie:
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 06:58 PM
Response to Original message |