DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on April 28, 2012, 07:35:17 PM
-
I've already opined how team Obama is largely going to use the race card and class warfare as his 1-2 punch in why he deserves another 4years. Notice how no one can tout any Obama accomplishments to run on, or what the Democrats' plans are for pulling us out of our Greece-like decent, so all that's left is the vilification aspects to playing the race card and class warfare card.
But watch how virolently the left goes after any attempt to make sure this election is done with the least amount of fraud possible. Any and every attempt we make to try to minimize voter fraud and abuse is going to be erroneously demonized as trying to "disenfranchise minorities", if not simply out and out racist. Nevermind there'll be no facts to the allegation, its the allegation alone that's supposed to work......and a few black panthers strategically placed by the Justice Dept
Team Obamination realizes they need every vote, even if they're illegal or invalid, so just watch how apoplectic the left and team Obama gets
-
Yeah, sure.
Obama was elected because of four members of the New Black Panthers. Each of them intimidated over a million voters by just standing there.
-
Yeah, sure.
Obama was elected because of four members of the New Black Panthers. Each of them intimidated over a million voters by just standing there.
They wern't prosicuted, perhaps thugs in frount of the polls are the future.
Why do the Democrats think that fraud is a bigger benefit to minoritys than an accurate count would be?
-
It is not possible to do anything in a nation of over 300 million with absolute 100% perfection.
There is no evidence of any serious voter fraud. There is rather a lot of evidence that the GOP wants to prevent young people, minorities and others who change residence and lack drivers licenses from voting.
It is clear that a demand for picture ID would result in more eligible people from voting than in allowing ineligible people from committing fraud. It is clear that the GOP sees this as a way to throw the election in its favor.
Here in FL, I am asked for a picture ID. The voter reg. card used to be the requirement, but it has no picture on it.
Without a picture ID, the moron bald fool Rick Scott would probably have been elected governor anyway.
-
It is not possible to do anything in a nation of over 300 million with absolute 100% perfection.
There is no evidence of any serious voter fraud. There is rather a lot of evidence that the GOP wants to prevent young people, minorities and others who change residence and lack drivers licenses from voting.
Perfection is the enemy of good, but that is not the subject I want to adress.
There is overwhelming evidence that Al Franken is a Senator as a result of voitor fraud, but there is a yawning lack of evidence on the accusation that Republicans want to prevent anything but fraud.
What the french is? Au Contrare?
Or ,you have gotten this backwards.
Democrats are defending voter fraud because fraud is a big help to them
-
It is clear that a demand for picture ID would result in more eligible people from voting than in allowing ineligible people from committing fraud. It is clear that the GOP sees this as a way to throw the election in its favor.
HOW THE HELL DO YOU RATIONALIZE THAT CLAIM?? Yea, the GOP does FAVOR VALID VOTES, as opposed to the Dems who apparently do not. If its your contention that valid votes favor the GOP, well.......I guess that speaks volumes for what the Dems favor
-
It is clear that a demand for picture ID would result in more eligible people from voting than in allowing ineligible people from committing fraud. It is clear that the GOP sees this as a way to throw the election in its favor.
HOW THE HELL DO YOU RATIONALIZE THAT CLAIM?? Yea, the GOP does FAVOR VALID VOTES, as opposed to the Dems who apparently do not. If its your contention that valid votes favor the GOP, well.......I guess that speaks volumes for what the Dems favor
Good question, I second it.
What makes it clear that the requirement of verifiable ID would cause any harm at all?
Let alone a significant harm to minoritys in particular.
-
Precisely
-
The GOP strategists have already planned this PRECISELY to proovent people who vote Democratic from voting. Voter fraud is minuscule.
-
HOW??.......HOW IS SHOWING ID SOMEHOW ANALOGUS TO VOTING GOP BUT NOT DEMOCRAT?? The way you showcase the issue, voter fraud is apparently rampant within the democrat ranks
-
I've already opined how team Obama is largely going to use the race card and class warfare
and this too SIRS....
Are You an Enemy of the State?
Richard Nixon has gone down in the annals of modern political history as one of the most despised presidents we've ever had. The reasons aren't limited merely to Watergate, but more generally due to his fondness for sleaze and for dirty politics. His crimes famously included keeping an enemies list (oddly enough, maintained by his then-special counsel, the recently departed Chuck Colson) which covered his most prominent opponents, kept as a tool for their future intimidation when the time came.
Barack Obama, unable to run on any specific accomplishments beyond writing two autobiographies by his mid 40's, rose to political stardom by presenting himself as a fresh, clean slate, providing potential supporters with the ability to project their own dreams and desires onto the blank canvas of a hip young man of mixed racial heritage. His speeches were filled with soaring rhetoric such as:
"Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America, there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America, there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too: We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States, and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq."
Hmmm...., "there is not a liberal America and a conservative America, there is the United States of America" is a line filled with conciliation, or dare we say it, hope. It rejects naked partisanship and the angry, bitter politics of the past. It calls for a new spirit of togetherness, a rejection of Nixonian politics, if you will.
Yet, President Obama's 2012 re-election bid is so reminiscent of the bitter angst that was Richard Nixon that it should come as no big surprise that Obama has resurrected one of Richard Nixon's favorite tools, his "enemies list":
Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.
Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.
Are you worried?
Richard Nixon's "enemies list" appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers?to jail, to fine, to bankrupt?are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.
Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."
These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement."
These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.
"We don't tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things," says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. "When you have the power of the presidency?the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC, what you have effectively done is put these guys' names up on 'Wanted' posters in government offices." Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He's been ignored.
[e-mail]
-
Here we thought Obama was simply a worse version of Carter. Who would have thought he'd become the worse versions of Carter AND Nixon. Carter's horrbile leadership & economic decisions, wth Nixons attempts to use the power of his branch to target his enemies >:(
-
The GOP strategists have already planned this PRECISELY to proovent people who vote Democratic from voting. Voter fraud is minuscule.
Why should I think you are right that voter fraud is insignifigant?
There is good reason to think that President Kennedy won his squeeker against Niixon with voter fraud, it is certainly a possibility.
Is that insignifigant that Nixon was not president when the Vietnam war started ?
I think that Democrats are engaging in LOTS of voter fraud, why should I not?
Democrats are against any measure that would even result in a measurement of voter fraud.
-
The GOP strategists have already planned this PRECISELY to proovent people who vote Democratic from voting. Voter fraud is minuscule.
Democrats are against any measure that would even result in a measurement of voter fraud.
Well deduced, Plane
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/7d18eb20.jpg)
-
Why do President Clinton and President Obama think that ordering the attack on Osama Bin Laden was a difficult decision?
If a Seal called President Plane and told me that he had Osama Bin Laden in his sights I would have asked what he was waiting for, Christmass?
BTW has anyone checked lately to see if the Skull and Bones frat has any new ones?
-
Why do President Clinton and President Obama think that ordering the attack on Osama Bin Laden was a difficult decision?
==================================================
Because it could fail, as Carter's attack on Desert One failed, and that would have been political ruinous. Obama wisely requested two extra helicopters and 24 backup Seals to assure that this did not happen.
He clearly did the right thing. Read Time magazine's report on this.
-
The decision to take out Bin Laden, when they had confirmation of his location, was a no-brainer. There's no doubt what-so-ever that under a President Romney, he too would have said yes, to taking him out, despite how out of context you and your Obamination ilk take Romney's previous coments
Amazing though that the fella narrating the asanine inferring ad (Clinton), himself DID say "no" to taking out Bin Laden, not once, but IIRC, 3times
-
Romney said what Romney said.
You cannot unsay what Romney said.
Had the attack failed, you would be blaming Obama, NOT the Seals.
-
Of course I can't undo what Romney said......who would? IN CONTEXT it was clear that the war on Terror was the bigger picture, but at no time did Romney infer anything other than also the need to take out Bin Laden
This taking out of context what Romney was saying is ranking right up there now with what was said about Mushroom clouds.
And yea, I probably would blame Obama had the mission failed, depending on WHY the mission failed. If it was due to faulty intel, that's one thing. If it was due to mechanical error or human error by one or more of the Seals, quite another.
Of course, that's all irrelevent, since it did succeed, and OBAMA DOES GET CREDIT FOR MAKING THE MOST OBVIOUS DECISION HE COULD HAVE MADE AS PRESIDENT. The idiocy is trying to claim Romney wouldn't have given the go ahead, when all facts and rhetoric would deduce otherwise, is what's currently relevent
-
Remember this?:
It was announced on Wednesday that President Barack Obama has decided that he will not release the photos of Osama bin Laden's body to the public in order to prevent a threat to U.S. national security, The Vancouver Sun reports. Obama likened the release of the classified photos to spiking a football after a touchdown.
"It is very important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody that was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence or as a propaganda tool," Obama said on 60 Minutes. "That's not who we are. We don't trot this stuff out as trophies.
"The fact of the matter is this was somebody who was deserving of the justice that he received, and I think Americans and people around the world are glad that he is gone. But we don't need to spike the football."
Some have already opposed President Obama's decision, citing that the public exposure of the photos would not only provide proof of bin Laden's death, but would also serve as a threat to other terrorists.
"Show photo as warning to others seeking America's destruction," former Alaska governor Sarah Palin wrote on her Twitter page. "No pussy-footing around, no politicking, no drama;it's part of the mission."
However, Obama insists that the bin Laden is indeed dead, and providing the photographic proof is not necessary to ease the minds of Americans.
"There is no doubt that Osama bin Laden is dead. Certainly there is no doubt among al-Qaeda members that he is dead," Obama said. "So we don't think that a photograph in and of itself is going to make any difference. There are going to be some folks who deny it. The fact of the matter is, you will not see bin Laden walking on this Earth again."
Article (http://www.nesn.com/2011/05/barack-obama-says-he-will-not-spike-the-football-by-releasing-photos-of-osama-bin-laden-after-his-de.html)
So, spiking the football....when it's politically convenient, but not in celebration of the death of the man responsible for 9/11. Okay >:(
-
I know that you would have been blaming Obama no matter what caused any error had this mission failed.
You are still blathering about how Juniorbush did not lie about his motives for invading Iraq.
-
You're "knowing" just keeps reinforcing how wrong you'd be. Chalk this up to projection on your part, where nothing Bush could have done was right.
And no, I'm comparing the desperate idiocy of taking words out of context, be it Bush then or Romney now. A trademark of the left
-
I know that you would have been blaming Obama no matter what caused any error had this mission failed.
You are still blathering about how Juniorbush did not lie about his motives for invading Iraq.
That Bush lied is a matter of faith, not fact.
That Bush would have made the same call to shoot Osama down I little doubt.
President Obama has followed through on a lot of Bush plans,
after he became President the wisdom must have become more apparent.
Govenor Romney had a good line on this , even Carter would have made the same call in the same circumstance.
Clinton thinks it was a hard decision, perhaps because years ago when he was offered this same choice he decided the other way.
But this is mostly because Clinton is more than commonly craven.
I think that Obama does deserve credit for making the right call, but does this imply a serious criticism of Clinton who when offered the same choice flubbed it?
I would not mind admitting that Barak Obama is a better president than Bill Clinton, if you would not mind admitting that he is better because he is more like Bush than he is like Clinton.
-
I don't actually care whether he is "better than Clinton". No one is handing out prizes here.
Clinton was a far better president overall than Juniorbush. Perhaps Juniorbush was slightly better at not killing OBL than Clinton, but what is the point? Neither one accomplished anything successful with regard to this. Obama had better technology and intelligence than either of them.
-
Better tecnology maybe.
But the Intelligence and tecnology President Obama has for use is the product of earlyer administrations efforts.
Lets all feel sad for the next president who will have to make do with the defense and intelligence President Obama leaves .
-
Better tecnology maybe. But the Intelligence and tecnology President Obama has for use is the product of earlyer administrations efforts.
BINGO.......especially that of the EIT's. It's easy to deduce that without the interventions placed by messers, and especially Bush II, Obama would have had no firicken clue where Bin Laden was
Lets all feel sad for the next president who will have to make do with the defense and intelligence President Obama leaves .
I'm actually far more concerned about the economy & debt he's going to leave Romney & generations of our children with. But you do make a good point....as ususal 8)
-
53,000 Dead Voters Found in Florida
How could 53,000 dead voters have sat on the polls for so long? Simple. Because Florida hadn’t been using the best available data revealing which voters have died. Florida is now using the nationwide Social Security Death Index for determining which voters should be purged because they have died.
Here is the bad news. Most states aren’t using the same database that Florida is. In fact, I have heard reports that some election officials won’t even remove voters even when they are presented with a death certificate. That means that voter rolls across the nation still are filled with dead voters, even if Florida is leading the way in detecting and removing them.
But surely people aren’t voting in the names of dead voters, the voter fraud deniers argue. Wrong.
Consider the case of Lafayette Keaton. Keaton not only voted for a dead person in Oregon, he voted for his dead son. Making Keaton’s fraud easier was Oregon’s vote by mail scheme, which has opened up gaping holes in the integrity of elections. The incident in Oregon just scratches the surface of the problem. Massachusetts and Mississippi are but two other examples of the dead rising on election day.
Florida should be applauded for taking the problem seriously, even if Eric Holder’s Justice Department and many state election officials don’t (http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/05/16/53000-dead-voters-found-in-florida/)
-
Consider the case of Lafayette Keaton. Keaton not only voted for a dead person in Oregon, he voted for his dead son. Making Keaton’s fraud easier was Oregon’s vote by mail scheme, which has opened up gaping holes in the integrity of elections. The incident in Oregon just scratches the surface of the problem.
===========================================================
So the net result is that now Oregon is being run by a dead guy who won the election only because of the fraudulent vote of his son?
What is your point? That zombies will be elected unless stringent measures are taken?
Oregon could disqualify the deceased with SS records. I see no problem with that.
-
The point is there's still a major amount of voter fraud being pushed. The point is a simple photo ID would prevent much of it. The point is, the left, as exemplified by yourslef, have yet to explain how photo ID's to confirm valid voting is detrimental to legitimate voting. In fact, what you keep perpetuating, with this thread, is that how detrimental to Democrats, if such fraud was brought to a halt using simple valid photo ID's
-
Florida requires a photo ID to vote. None of those 53,000 dead people are going to show anyone their voter ID. Odds are that half of them are Republicans, anyway. It's not like only Democrats die and are still on the voter rolls.
-
Didn't answer the question, I noticed. Let's try again.....why is showing valid voter ID so detrimental to Democrats??
-
Notice again the literal avoidance of answering a simple direct question regarding claims he made, and far unsubsantiated assertions as to who is or isn't a dead voter, and their supposed party affiliation, and instead wishes to devote time and energy into debating warp drive.
Very transparent, indeed