|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) |
Nicholas D Wolfwood (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:21 PM Original message |
Why exactly was there no plan to postpone the 2002 elections?? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Caution (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:22 PM Response to Original message |
1. very good point n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bemildred (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:36 PM Response to Reply #1 |
6. Ditto that, excellent point. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
havocmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:29 PM Response to Original message |
2. bush*/Cheney weren't running while dropping like a rock in the polls |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Spoon (401 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:30 PM Response to Original message |
3. It wasn't as high profile |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dookus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:31 PM Response to Original message |
4. because there wasn't a plan |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nicholas D Wolfwood (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:35 PM Response to Reply #4 |
5. There's a huge difference between |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
shraby (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:42 PM Response to Reply #5 |
11. "A contingency for an attack the day of |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nicholas D Wolfwood (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:48 PM Response to Reply #11 |
14. Actually.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Walt Starr (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:37 PM Response to Reply #4 |
8. There already IS a contingency plan |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nicholas D Wolfwood (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:40 PM Response to Reply #8 |
10. Fantastic plan |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jobycom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:44 PM Response to Reply #4 |
12. I agree with you. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Walt Starr (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:46 PM Response to Reply #12 |
13. Currently, there is a plan and it is out of Bush's hands |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jobycom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:58 PM Response to Reply #13 |
19. That would be unconstitutional |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Killarney (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:37 PM Response to Original message |
7. very good point! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BiggJawn (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:39 PM Response to Original message |
9. Because the Chimp wasn't up for re-selection then. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Walt Starr (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:48 PM Response to Original message |
15. I'd also add, there was no need for contingency plans for the 2002 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GreenPartyVoter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:49 PM Response to Original message |
16. How dare you bring logic into this debate! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
displacedtexan (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:50 PM Response to Original message |
17. This is the Question Of The Day, sirjwtheblack! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
F.Gordon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:52 PM Response to Original message |
18. Why wasn't there a plan to postpone the 2000 elections? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tom_paine (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jul-12-04 01:58 PM Response to Original message |
20. Excellent point: answer -- because the Busheviks already had what they |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Sat May 04th 2024, 03:38 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC