Liberal free for all coming to an end

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, I stand corrected. It seems that republicans do attempt to influence elections. I still think it's far more rampant on the democrats side.

What is the basis upon which you "think it's far more rampant" among Democrats? Can you cite actual statistics?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

What is the basis upon which you "think it's far more rampant" among Democrats? Can you cite actual statistics?

I don't collect statistics and statistics can be made to show either side, but I do know that ACORN got nailed in 14 states in 2008 for voter fraud on the side of the democrats. And I know that liberals think they can get millions of votes if they can just get illegals to become citizens. And they aren't waiting. They're fighting against attempts to verify the citizenship of potential voters so that illegals can squeak through. These two things alone are not isolated incidents. They are on a multi-state scale.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I don't collect statistics and statistics can be made to show either side, but I do know that ACORN got nailed in 14 states in 2008 for voter fraud on the side of the democrats. And I know that liberals think they can get millions of votes if they can just get illegals to become citizens. And they aren't waiting. They're fighting against attempts to verify the citizenship of potential voters so that illegals can squeak through. These two things alone are not isolated incidents. They are on a multi-state scale.

The way in which you write about Democratic-related "voter fraud" -- with such anger and vitriol -- and the way in which you acknowledge Republican-related "voter fraud" when presented with the evidence -- with terse, one-line sentences -- I believe speaks volumes.

The problem of those who are either in power or seek to be in power (Democrats and Republicans alike), and who have enormous financial resources at their disposal that people like you and I, Tracy, do not have, is a threat to whatever vestiges of democracy we may enjoy in this country. It should not matter WHO subverts elections as much as THAT they are subverted. So long as you cannot demonstrate equal anger about both "sides" seeking to take away the power of your one vote through some kind of fraud, it is difficult to see that your objections are not grounded in something more insidious. Why should it matter more that one side may be trying to get immigrants to vote than it matters that another side is trying to ensure that minorities (citizens of this country) don't get to vote?

One of the things that polarizes people in the United States on the left and right is that the 24/7 cycle of vituperative commentary from the left and right uses selective information to skew the debate. You, I believe, have been cheated by some of those commentators, because they made sure you knew that ACORN had been accused of voter fraud in 14 states in 2008, but they made sure not to tell you whatever because of those accusations.

I am no supporter of ACORN, but of truth and civil discourse. Did you know, Tracy, that in June of this year the Government Accounting Office (GAO) -- independent of the Obama administration and of the Republicans -- released a report on these accusations in 14 states?

The GAO report found that, in every one of those cases, complaints filed against ACORN with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) were dismissed. The FEC is also not directly affiliated with the Democratic or Republican parties. The report also showed that four of six FBI investigations into alleged voter fraud committed by ACORN employees were closed due to lack of evidence. The two other investigations were also closed and referred to local and state jurisdictions.

The report detailed five cases in which ACORN employees pled guilty to misdemeanor counts of voter registration fraud, but the GAO stated that these cases did not allege any wrongdoing on behalf of ACORN itself or any affiliated organizations -- only the individuals. Did you know that ACORN, in fact, offered materials to local election officials that helped initiate the prosecution of these guilty individuals, because ACORN felt that they had undermined the proper training ACORN had provided them to register voters legally?

Again, I am not defending ACORN, but seeking the truth and encouraging you to direct your anger where it really NEEDS to be directed -- -- at anyone who usurps your democratic rights.

It is only my opinion, but it seems to me that you would want to get the widest possible hearing for your complaints about the government. Direct you anger appropriately, and recognize who is really at fault (hint: it's the people who own the wealth, not their politician lackeys, who are the real enemy, and those people support both sides to keep you thinking you have a choice), and you'll certainly get my ear for anything you want to say.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

The problem of those who are either in power or seek to be in power (Democrats and Republicans alike), and who have enormous financial resources at their disposal that people like you and I, Tracy, do not have, is a threat to whatever vestiges of democracy we may enjoy in this country. It should not matter WHO subverts elections as much as THAT they are subverted. So long as you cannot demonstrate equal anger about both "sides" seeking to take away the power of your one vote through some kind of fraud, it is difficult to see that your objections are not grounded in something more insidious.

As I said before, I do not see a problem with corporate backers in elections. They exist on both sides. And what difference does it make? Liberal leaning billionaires and corporations sunk a fortune into this election for NOTHING because what it comes down to is not their money. It comes down to the voters. They are the ones who go into the voting booth and cast their vote, not the evil corporations.

When the liberals tamper with the voters, THAT's where I have a problem. When you're bringing in illegal aliens, that's tampering with the voter. When you're signing up voters to vote multiple times, that's tampering with the voter. When you're filling out default liberal votes, that's tampering with the voter.

Originally Posted by smc

Why should it matter more that one side may be trying to get immigrants to vote than it matters that another side is trying to ensure that minorities (citizens of this country) don't get to vote?

Give these poor minorities a little credit. If they wanted to vote, no one is stopping them.

Originally Posted by smc

One of the things that polarizes people in the United States on the left and right is that the 24/7 cycle of vituperative commentary from the left and right uses selective information to skew the debate. You, I believe, have been cheated by some of those commentators, because they made sure you knew that ACORN had been accused of voter fraud in 14 states in 2008, but they made sure not to tell you whatever because of those accusations.

I know CNN is biased. And I also know Fox News is biased. I used to watch CNN exclusively. But then when I started to wake up to the liberal lies I started getting my news from several sources. And I noticed more and more that liberal news sources just out and out lie more than anything else I've seen. So pardon me if I don't get my news from there. I think I've had a pretty good track record of telling it like it is, and predicting where things were going on the Obama thread so my news sources are probably not all that bad.

Originally Posted by smc

The GAO report found that, in every one of those cases, complaints filed against ACORN with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) were dismissed.

And why is that? Certainly some pretty damning evidence has been shown so there better be a good reason. I'll look into this when I get some time, but right now I have a computer to rebuild.

[smc]

You can't have it both ways, Tracy. You can't admit there is voter suppression by both sides and then claim that the side you don't like can vote if they want to, no matter what might be done to keep that from happening. That's hypocrisy. And it's also hypocritical to state that adding votes to the mix that are or may be cast illegally is a problem that subverts elections, while implying by omission -- as you do again and again -- that subtracting potential votes does not subvert elections. If someone keeps a voter from voting, and someone else brings a voter to the polls and makes it possible for that person to vote even though not eligible, is that not the same subversion of your vote and how it counts.

Unless you can state unequivocally that anything that subverts elections, be it illegal voters or voter suppression or advertisements that lie but have no traceability as to who funded them, etc., etc. etc. -- then your argument is fallacious. And after many attempts, there is no value in challenging a fallacious argument. It is a waste of time.

I will continue to hold out hope that your interest is in truth and constructive discourse. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not one's own facts.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

You can't have it both ways, Tracy. You can't admit there is voter suppression by both sides and then claim that the side you don't like can vote if they want to

I did not say the voters in New Hampshire were suppressed. Are you saying they were not able to vote?

Originally Posted by smc

And it's also hypocritical to state that adding votes to the mix that are or may be cast illegally is a problem that subverts elections, while implying by omission -- as you do again and again -- that subtracting potential votes does not subvert elections. If someone keeps a voter from voting, and someone else brings a voter to the polls and makes it possible for that person to vote even though not eligible, is that not the same subversion of your vote and how it counts.

Ah I see the problem. You somehow have the idea that there is a block of people who need to be escorted by a political party to the voting booth. I sometimes forget that people have these odd ideas. No that is not part of our right to vote. America assumes that if the people have the responsibility for putting our leaders in office that they can get off their lazy ass and put a check for a party or candidate. And if they are not able to make it there then they call whoever it is that gets their groceries and asks for a ride. The republicans in New Hampshire were not blocking anyone from going out and voting.

Originally Posted by smc

Unless you can state unequivocally that anything that subverts elections, be it illegal voters or voter suppression or advertisements that lie but have no traceability as to who funded them, etc., etc. etc. -- then your argument is fallacious. And after many attempts, there is no value in challenging a fallacious argument. It is a waste of time.

While I have said before I do not support untraceable false advertisements or funds I believe they are canceled out by liberal media bias and lies and equally massive funding on the left which indirectly influence election results. And I'm sticking to my story that elections come down to the voter. You screw with the voter and you're directly tampering with election results.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I did not say the voters in New Hampshire were suppressed. Are you saying they were not able to vote?

Ah I see the problem. You somehow have the idea that there is a block of people who need to be escorted by a political party to the voting booth. I sometimes forget that people have these odd ideas. No that is not part of our right to vote. America assumes that if the people have the responsibility for putting our leaders in office that they can get off their lazy ass and put a check for a party or candidate. And if they are not able to make it there then they call whoever it is that gets their groceries and asks for a ride. The republicans in New Hampshire were not blocking anyone from going out and voting.

If you cannot see the equivalency between standing at the polling place and physically blocking the door and using some other means to, say, keep an elderly person from accessing the ride to the polling place that both parties offer on election day, then you have a serious blind spot.

The logical extension of your argument is that elderly people who are the victims of fraud over the telephone by those who convince them to share their personal information or to send them huge amounts of money -- a type of fraud that is a massive problem in the United States -- should simply have known better, and nothing should be done.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

And I'm sticking to my story that elections come down to the voter. You screw with the voter and you're directly tampering with election results.

Right. If someone figures out a clever, indirect, less visible way to suppress the voter, that someone is rewarded. How? Because people like you, by your own admission, decide to focus all your anger on the less clever.

In any case, our discussion is over, not because we can't agree, and not because the discourse isn't important, but because you seem too filled with anger and vitriol to have a meaningful dialogue. If it matters, I'll even let you say you scored all the points, even though I haven't been playing a game.

Ain't democracy wonderful? Let's enjoy it while it lasts. The people who take it away from us are going to be the ones who capitalize on the unwillingness of people to step back, take a deep breath, and really explore what is going on, rather than simply reacting to "facts" that are fed to them to serve a devious purpose. And again, as I've written time and again, that feeding comes from both wings of the rulers, equally.

[randolph]

From Michael Collins at "the money party.com"

Here are the facts.

There is just one political party in the United States, The Money Party. There?s the Republican wing, we?ll call them the ?crazies?, and the Democratic wing, now known as ?the sleepwalkers.? They all work for the same paymasters, the financial elite who thrive on bubbles, scams, and endless war. If you don?t start from that assumption, you haven?t been paying attention.

Why would Obama listen to you or any other ?liberal? blogger. First, he?d think that you?re less than serious for assuming that he?d ever listen. There?s a greater chance that pigs will fly than any politician listening who rises up through this money drenched system. In case you have not noticed, nobody gets to be president unless they?re in the bag of big money.

Obama has continued bailouts, war, and the civil rights violations of the Bush administration. Those are his principles. Isn?t that a hint that he doesn?t care what liberal bloggers think? The president has even added a new wrinkle ? targeting U.S. citizens for assassination once he?s proclaimed them a ?terrorist.? Any 8th grader studying the Constitution knows that this is illegal. This reflects his principles ? selective death sentences for citizens without an arrest or trial. Talk about the tyrannical model of leadership.

Obama?s cabinet choices and other appointments showed his principles ? Summers, Geithner, industry flacks running regulatory agencies. His principles showed when he gave Wall Street a big bonus for screwing up the economy and driving the people down. His principles showed when he committed the nation to another quagmire.

He did a bait-and-switch. That?s why the Democrats lost the election. The people know a hustle when they see it. They know they?re in trouble. They know Obama and Company could care less along with the spineless Democrats who promised change and delivered nothing.

I hate to admit it but much of this seems to be true.

[randolph]

Wall Street campaign donations to Democrats and Republicans. Something happened in October 2009. Health care bill?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Wall Street campaign donations to Democrats and Republicans. Something happened in October 2009. Health care bill?

How odd... it's exactly inverted.