Liberal free for all coming to an end

[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]

A major factor in the rout of the Democrats was the senior vote. Seniors are very concerned about Medicare. Also many of the young voters stayed home in disgust.