Reprehensible Voting/Ballot Outrages

[beebrisk]

Date: 10/14/2008 11:40:03 AM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 10/14/2008 11:32:05 AM

Author: beebrisk

Date: 10/14/2008 11:14:09 AM

Author: MoonWater

Date: 10/14/2008 10:57:01 AM


Author: beebrisk

Date: 10/14/2008 8:46:17 AM


Author: MoonWater

Date: 10/13/2008 9:54:20 PM



Author: beebrisk

Date: 10/12/2008 1:07:05 PM




Author:miraclesrule




And so it begins on absentee ballots. My gut tells me that this years election voting and ballot scandals will make the Butterfly ballot look like child''s play.

I think you''ll find that to be true...But ONLY if McCain wins.





Let''s look back:




2000-Bush elected. Hanging chad fiasco. Cries of Republicans ''stealing'' the election.





2004-Bush re-elected. Voting machine inquiries. Voter fraud accusations.''Disenfranchisement'' becomes the word of the day.





2006-Democrats sweep House and Senate. Amazingly, the election seemed to go off without a hint of fraud or scandal.





See what I''m getting at here?

Interesting, because in 2004 and 2006 it was the GOP that was crying.

That was my point. There was no crying. Not a single Dem railing about chads, disenfranchisement, voter intimidation, etc.



Yup, that election went off without a hitch! And if Obama wins this one, no one will be complaining about bad ballots and broken machines. Instead the election of 2008 will be hailed as the perfect example of democracy in action!



Your statement is not factual...but it sounds good.

Ok, it''s not surprising that if the election goes in favor of Repubs it is the Dems that whine and cry, just as if the election goes in favor of Dems (or appears that it will), Repubs whine and cry. So I''m not sure of your point there.



I''m sure if Obama wins, the Republicans will keep harping about voter fraud just as they did in 2004 and 2006, and as they are now right before this election. This is nothing new. The point of my post is that whining about voter fraud as it relates to multiple/dead voters registering while it does not translate into more votes being casts is just a way to get people''s panties in a bunch.



What part of my statement isn''t factual?

...That the GOP whines and cries when the Dem''s win.


There was no sweeping outcry in 2006 when the Dems took power. Nothing like when the Dem''s claimed that Bush ''stole'' the election--not once, but twice! You''d swear there wasn''t a correctly functioning voting machine in the entire 50 states.


Sheesh. Hollywood liberals even made a movie or two about the GOP''s ''manipulation'' of the polls.


You do not hear this coming from Republicans. Please tell me of one serious effort by the GOP to amend an election that the Dems won.

Well, I never said they cried when Dems won in my intial post. I was referring to the stink they made about voter fraud in 2004 and 2006 (that is a fact, use google). Both parties hype up issues of voter fraud when they are worried about an outcome or have faced the outcome. I don''t think it is remotely surprising at the outcry from the 2000 election because it was so close. You make this out to be some huge issue that only Dems take part in. Both parties of guilty of whining.

Arguments should be backed up by fact...Otherwise they are not worth perusing.

There is nothing remotely equivalent in the GOP''s history as the outrage from the Dems in 2000 and 2004. That outrage completely dissipated when they took the House and Senate in 2006. No rallying cries of "fraud" were heard--on either side.

Again, your contention that the GOP did the same in 2006 is inaccurate and not based on fact.

 

[MoonWater]

LMAO ok, feel free to believe whatever you wish. Although, I do find it odd that you are unaware of this, especially since it resulted in at least one of the attorney firings. Now, I'm getting back to work.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/14/2008 11:54:20 AM
Author: MoonWater
LMAO ok, feel free to believe whatever you wish. Although, I do find it odd that you are unaware of this, especially since it resulted in at least one of the attorney firings. Now, I''m getting back to work.

It''s fine if you don''t want to defend your argument but the fact that the website you cited had such a strong opposition to Indiana''s Voter ID Law applicable at the time an individual actually votes at the polls, I would assume they are against voter IDs at other times as well. I know that when I mailed in my absentee ballot no ID whatsoever was required.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 10/14/2008 12:01:45 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 10/14/2008 11:54:20 AM

Author: MoonWater

LMAO ok, feel free to believe whatever you wish. Although, I do find it odd that you are unaware of this, especially since it resulted in at least one of the attorney firings. Now, I''m getting back to work.

It''s fine if you don''t want to defend your argument but the fact that the website you cited had such a strong opposition to Indiana''s Voter ID Law applicable at the time an individual actually votes at the polls, I would assume they are against voter IDs at other times as well. I know that when I mailed in my absentee ballot no ID whatsoever was required.

It''s difficult--if not impossible to repsonsibly defend an opinion when there are no facts to back it up. As someone who lives in NYC and is openly Republican, I''m used to this decidedly liberal tactic.

 

[MoonWater]

Aww, I''m sorry ladies. I didn''t mean to run off without "defending" my argument. I''m at work and had a project due. But I''m free now. I''m a bit confused, what argument am I to defend? The fact that Republicans have cried about voter fraud in the past? I said to use google, what''s the problem? I don''t want to take a risk of offering up a bias source so feel free to take your pick:

Google Results

and it appears that Slate has been covering this for a while as well...take your pick:

Slate Results

I''m not exactly sure why this is controversial or needs to be denied. The GOP took an issue with voter fraud, big deal.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 10/14/2008 12:35:32 PM
Author: MoonWater
Aww, I''m sorry ladies. I didn''t mean to run off without ''defending'' my argument. I''m at work and had a project due. But I''m free now. I''m a bit confused, what argument am I to defend? The fact that Republicans have cried about voter fraud in the past? I said to use google, what''s the problem? I don''t want to take a risk of offering up a bias source so feel free to take your pick:


Google Results


and it appears that Slate has been covering this for a while as well...take your pick:


Slate Results


I''m not exactly sure why this is controversial or needs to be denied. The GOP took an issue with voter fraud, big deal.

One state, one issue.

In 2000 and 2004 the "vast right-wing conspiricy" theories were in full force. On a national level. The entire US polling system was called into question (not necessarily a bad thing, actually). Added to this were declarations that the election had been "stolen", that it should be voided (!) that it was corrupted by Republican "thugs" intimidating minority voters and that Jeb Bush of Florida somehow "fixed it" so his brother would win. Hysteria ensued.

There was an enormous difference between this activity and what happened in New Mexico. Not even remotely close in it''s scope.

As I said, according to many, the only time democracy has actually "worked" in the last 8 years if when the Republicans lost.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/14/2008 12:35:32 PM
Author: MoonWater
Aww, I''m sorry ladies. I didn''t mean to run off without ''defending'' my argument. I''m at work and had a project due. But I''m free now. I''m a bit confused, what argument am I to defend? The fact that Republicans have cried about voter fraud in the past? I said to use google, what''s the problem? I don''t want to take a risk of offering up a bias source so feel free to take your pick:

Google Results

and it appears that Slate has been covering this for a while as well...take your pick:

Slate Results

I''m not exactly sure why this is controversial or needs to be denied. The GOP took an issue with voter fraud, big deal.

No, you stated that ACORN had no fault in tarnishing this election but that it was the media. I asked to clarify if that is what you truly meant, as I don''t think ACORN is innocent. You replied by telling me to reread your post and then to tell me to believe whatever I wished. I will just take your original statement was how you truly felt...ACORN has no fault.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/14/2008 1:18:44 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 10/14/2008 12:35:32 PM
Author: MoonWater
Aww, I''m sorry ladies. I didn''t mean to run off without ''defending'' my argument. I''m at work and had a project due. But I''m free now. I''m a bit confused, what argument am I to defend? The fact that Republicans have cried about voter fraud in the past? I said to use google, what''s the problem? I don''t want to take a risk of offering up a bias source so feel free to take your pick:


Google Results


and it appears that Slate has been covering this for a while as well...take your pick:


Slate Results


I''m not exactly sure why this is controversial or needs to be denied. The GOP took an issue with voter fraud, big deal.

One state, one issue.

In 2000 and 2004 the ''vast right-wing conspiricy'' theories were in full force. On a national level. The entire US polling system was called into question (not necessarily a bad thing, actually). Added to this were declarations that the election had been ''stolen'', that it should be voided (!) that it was corrupted by Republican ''thugs'' intimidating minority voters and that Jeb Bush of Florida somehow ''fixed it'' so his brother would win. Hysteria ensued.

There was an enormous difference between this activity and what happened in New Mexico. Not even remotely close in it''s scope.

As I said, according to many, the only time democracy has actually ''worked'' in the last 8 years if when the Republicans lost.

I''m sorry, what does this have to do with what I originally said which you claimed was not fact?

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/14/2008 1:51:40 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 10/14/2008 12:35:32 PM
Author: MoonWater
Aww, I''m sorry ladies. I didn''t mean to run off without ''defending'' my argument. I''m at work and had a project due. But I''m free now. I''m a bit confused, what argument am I to defend? The fact that Republicans have cried about voter fraud in the past? I said to use google, what''s the problem? I don''t want to take a risk of offering up a bias source so feel free to take your pick:

Google Results

and it appears that Slate has been covering this for a while as well...take your pick:

Slate Results

I''m not exactly sure why this is controversial or needs to be denied. The GOP took an issue with voter fraud, big deal.

No, you stated that ACORN had no fault in tarnishing this election but that it was the media. I asked to clarify if that is what you truly meant, as I don''t think ACORN is innocent. You replied by telling me to reread your post and then to tell me to believe whatever I wished. I will just take your original statement was how you truly felt...ACORN has no fault.

Indy, I responded to you in another post. My post in which I said believe what you wish was directed at beebrisk. I usually quote but did not because I though it was obvious as I quoted you when responding to you, and responded immediately after beebrisk when responding to her. I won''t make that assumption again since you are obviously confused.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/14/2008 1:58:31 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 10/14/2008 1:51:40 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

No, you stated that ACORN had no fault in tarnishing this election but that it was the media. I asked to clarify if that is what you truly meant, as I don''t think ACORN is innocent. You replied by telling me to reread your post and then to tell me to believe whatever I wished. I will just take your original statement was how you truly felt...ACORN has no fault.

Indy, I responded to you in another post. My post in which I said believe what you wish was directed at beebrisk. I usually quote but did not because I though it was obvious as I quoted you when responding to you, and responded immediately after beebrisk when responding to her. I won''t make that assumption again since you are obviously confused.

Okay, so you only responded by telling me to reread your post. So you do think that ACORN is blameless...got it.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/14/2008 2:05:45 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 10/14/2008 1:58:31 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 10/14/2008 1:51:40 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

No, you stated that ACORN had no fault in tarnishing this election but that it was the media. I asked to clarify if that is what you truly meant, as I don''t think ACORN is innocent. You replied by telling me to reread your post and then to tell me to believe whatever I wished. I will just take your original statement was how you truly felt...ACORN has no fault.

Indy, I responded to you in another post. My post in which I said believe what you wish was directed at beebrisk. I usually quote but did not because I though it was obvious as I quoted you when responding to you, and responded immediately after beebrisk when responding to her. I won''t make that assumption again since you are obviously confused.

Okay, so you only responded by telling me to reread your post. So you do think that ACORN is blameless...got it.

LOL, please go to the previous page. I responded to you after you responded to my comment to re-read my post. Geez, some times people just want to be mad just to be mad. Have fun with that.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/14/2008 11:32:15 AM
Author: MoonWater

Please find me proof that these multiple/dead registrations have had an impact on the ballots being casts. I never said ACORN isn't doing something wrong, I think they could stand to be more organized. Obviously their main goal is to get as many legitimate people registered as possible. Since, upon verification, the illegitimately ones are cast aside, I see no problem if that means at least a few more people that would not have registered otherwise, did (and hopefully go on to vote). The tarnish aspect comes from people who choose to over hype it as something that truly changes the outcome of an election when it does not. The negative aspect is that people are attempting to spin this as if ACORN deliberately does this in order to change the outcome of an election when they do not.

Sorry for the confusion. You said that ACORN had no fault in tarnishing this election - which is what I disagreed with. I am not angry or mad in the least, I think it's hilarious that Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck were registered to vote by ACORN, as well as Tony Romo in Vegas; and even MORE hilarious that ACORN denies it when the registration forms bear their logo. If ACORN was just legitimately acting to carry out their goals and not offering people alcohol, drugs, and money to register multiple times then there would be no investigation, and therefore, no tarnishing from them. The tarnishing of the election FOR ME has nothing to do with actual numbers of fraudulent votes, but the perception of the election process as being harmed by ACORN's practices. I don't know if their MANY fraudulent voter registration acts will cause any change in the outcome of the election - I think it is impossible to prove or disprove to any certain degree. And it is obvious to me that it is ACORN's goal to register as many legitimate DEMOCRAT/OBAMA supporters to register, not just any voters.

ETA: I think EVERYONE should vote and be registered to vote and I know that ACORN does some great things...it's just too bad that their reputation and image has to be damaged by their poor choices in this election.

 

[MoonWater]

And?

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/14/2008 2:20:19 PM
Author: MoonWater
And?

ETA: Actually not adding to your post, just stating my perspective that ACORN doesn't try to register just any legitimate voter.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/14/2008 11:29:50 AM
Author: Richard Hughes

As Greg Palast points out, there are only about six voters per year found guilty of fraudulent voting. That's across the entire country. Major problemo, eh?

This is the classic straw dawg. If you are a thief, scream the loudest about how thieves are stealing us blind. Are you gay? Scream about how gays will be the death of human civilization. If you are ripping off the military, make sure your flag is always flying. If you are screwing the public via sweetheart deals, rat out your buddies and then claim to be holier than thou.

And if you're Dubya and the rest of the sods that now have been caught out, just grin and blame everything on everyone else. Lovely, simply lovely.

Where does that leave the 30 percenters who still feel like he's done a heckuva job? Where does that leave the 40 percenters who still will enter the booth and pull the lever for a party that has picked their pocket and now wants to send the crime squad elsewhere?

Sad, truly sad. What can one say?

I don't think I know what a "classic straw dawg" is but I understand your points. I felt the same way when several recounts of FL's votes revealed that Bush would've won in 2000 anyway.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/14/2008 2:21:48 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 10/14/2008 2:20:19 PM
Author: MoonWater
And?

Just correcting/adding to your post.

You corrected something? lol

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/14/2008 2:30:22 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 10/14/2008 2:21:48 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 10/14/2008 2:20:19 PM
Author: MoonWater
And?

Just correcting/adding to your post.

You corrected something? lol

No, I ETA my post because "correcting/adding to" was not the right phrase to use. I was simply pointing out that ACORN does not aim to increase voter registrations for all people, but a very targeted group.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/14/2008 2:33:02 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 10/14/2008 2:30:22 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 10/14/2008 2:21:48 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 10/14/2008 2:20:19 PM
Author: MoonWater
And?

Just correcting/adding to your post.

You corrected something? lol

No, I ETA my post because ''correcting/adding to'' was not the right phrase to use. I was simply pointing out that ACORN does not aim to increase voter registrations for all people, but a very targeted group.

Yeah, you''re stating the obvious.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/14/2008 2:36:07 PM
Author: MoonWater

Yeah, you're stating the obvious.

Well, I wouldn't call it that obvious since ACORN states that it is a "non-partisan" organization.

ETA: We just have different viewpoints on the whole ACORN scandal, so I'll just post again when I find more stories concerning miraclerules's OP.

 

[MoonWater]

The targeted group is poor people. Perhaps we need more low income Republicans living in the slums of the city to balance out the registrations.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 10/14/2008 2:57:22 PM
Author: MoonWater
The targeted group is poor people. Perhaps we need more low income Republicans living in the slums of the city to balance out the registrations.

LMAO!!!

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/14/2008 3:07:37 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl

Date: 10/14/2008 2:57:22 PM
Author: MoonWater
The targeted group is poor people. Perhaps we need more low income Republicans living in the slums of the city to balance out the registrations.

LMAO!!!

My suspicion is that if they have never registered then they are neither Democrat nor Republican...as registering is the only time when that distinction is actually made. Not only are the poor targeted, but minorities as well...both groups contain both Democrats and Republicans...it is obvious that ACORN is not "non-partisan" as they claim.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 10/14/2008 2:57:22 PM
Author: MoonWater
The targeted group is poor people. Perhaps we need more low income Republicans living in the slums of the city to balance out the registrations.

Do you realize that you just inferred that there are no ''poor'' or low-income Republicans?

Interesting.....

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/14/2008 3:21:16 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 10/14/2008 2:57:22 PM
Author: MoonWater
The targeted group is poor people. Perhaps we need more low income Republicans living in the slums of the city to balance out the registrations.

Do you realize that you just inferred that there are no ''poor'' or low-income Republicans?

Interesting.....

Why do you need to search for what is implied when you can simply read what I said?

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 10/14/2008 3:57:32 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 10/14/2008 3:21:16 PM

Author: beebrisk

Date: 10/14/2008 2:57:22 PM

Author: MoonWater

The targeted group is poor people. Perhaps we need more low income Republicans living in the slums of the city to balance out the registrations.

Do you realize that you just inferred that there are no ''poor'' or low-income Republicans?


Interesting.....

Why do you need to search for what is implied when you can simply read what I said?

Guess I''m just not enlightened....
I suppose what I should have said was that you inferred that there were "more" low-income and poor Democrats than Republican. I find it an interesting assumption. That''s all.

 

[MoonWater]

Please
read
what
I
wrote.

 

[luckystar112]

You wrote that if there were more low income Republicans living in the slums of the city it may balance out registrations.
Which implies that there are more low-income Democrats than there are Republicans, hence the imbalance.
Is your argument that while there are low-income Republicans they are not living in the slums of the city?

I guess I''m confused too. I hope you will clarify. I''m not trying to get in a one-on-one with you, I think I just read it the way others did.

 

[MoonWater]

I am amused by what you chose to put in bold. What I said is plainly clear. I think people are looking for argument where there is none.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 10/14/2008 4:54:21 PM
Author: MoonWater
I am amused by what you chose to put in bold. What I said is plainly clear. I think people are looking for argument where there is none.

Circular reasoning and a wee bit of double-talk here.
I think LuckyStar and I are probably capable of reading and understanding what you wrote.

 

[luckystar112]

....and I told you how I interpreted your sentence. The bold only highlights why I interpreted it the way I did. And you apparently do not want to clarify because it is "clear" if we read the whole sentence. Except we did and we don''t think it is clear. I guess you are telling us that it''s our problem. Gotcha!