DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BSB/Hero/Genius/MovieStar on September 01, 2012, 04:44:06 AM
-
>> Nuclear report on Iran puts Israel in a box
By Jodi Rudoren and David E. Sanger
THE NEW YORK TIMES
August 31, 2012
JERUSALEM — For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the International Atomic Energy Agency on Thursday offered findings validating his long-standing position that while economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation may have hurt Iran, they have failed to slow Tehran’s nuclear program. If anything, the program is speeding up.
But the agency’s report has also put Israel in a corner, documenting that Iran is close to crossing what Israel has long said is its red line: the capability to produce nuclear weapons in a location invulnerable to Israeli attack. With the report that the country has already installed 2,000 centrifuges inside a virtually impenetrable underground laboratory, and that it has ramped up production of nuclear fuel, officials and experts here say the conclusions may force Israel to strike Iran or concede it is not prepared to act on its own.
Whether that ultimately leads to a change in strategy — or a unilateral attack — is something that even Israel’s inner circle cannot yet agree on, despite what seems to be a consensus that Iran’s program may soon be beyond the reach of Israel’s military capability.<<
http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N33/long5.html (http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N33/long5.html)
-
Irony can stack.
A huge deep underground facility is not invunerable to attack by atomic bomb.
It need not completely destroy , sealing the exits and vents should be enough.
Does Isreal have atomic wepons?
I suppose they do, the evidence that they do is alike to the evidence that Iran does.
-
I suppose they do, the evidence that they do is alike to the evidence that Iran does.
=====================================
Everyone knows that Israel has nukes, lots of them. This was exposed by some Israeli who was kidnapped and disappeared by Mossad.
Iran has nothing.
A preemptive strike by Israel would be a failure without US collaboration.
Netanyahu lies, as do the Iranians. Neither is to be trusted.
-
A preemptive strike by Israel would be a failure without US collaboration.
Really?
Why is that?
-
Israel does not have the necessary weapons to penetrate the Earth enough to destroy the Iranian manufacturing devices.
-
Israel does not have the necessary weapons to penetrate the Earth enough to destroy the Iranian manufacturing devices.
For an atomic bomb this is not necessacery.
No one can make the doors and airvents proof against collapse or buryal if an atomic bomb goes off near enough to the surface.
So all of the engineers and tecs live through the blast, they would have to be dug out from under the crater and fracture zone.
If a dig like that takes a week then they would just pop another bomb each week.
It is much easyer and simpler once that first red line is crossed.
-
Israel does not dare use nuclear weapons. It would dry up funds from American, British and Canadian Jews. Israel is a beggar nation and overseas charity is an essential part of its economy.
I would expect Pakistan to donate a nuke to the Iranians to retaliate with. Nuclear weapons are out of the question.
-
Nuclear weapons are out of the question.
Ah baloney.
Israel will use tactical nuclear weapons against Iranian targets.
-
Tactical, schmactical. Who cares? a nuke is a nuke is a nuke.
You might as well be talking about legitimate or illegitimate rape.
Any nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon and will be seen as a horrible outrage by Israel against humanity anjd civilization. Even Netanyahu understands this. He is a hateful creep, but he appears to be smarter than you.
Israel will not use nukes in any peremptory strike.
If the US learned that they planned to do this, it would be the moral duty of the US president to send the seals tin to confiscate each and every nuke Israel has, buy force if necessary, and to destroy their facilities so they can never build another.
-
Tactical, schmactical. Who cares? a nuke is a nuke is a nuke.
More non-sense from a liberal denying reality.
If there is no difference why do they exist?
There is a huge difference....that's why.
But go ahead and continue to live in fanatsy land.
Israel will not use nukes in any peremptory strike
They will probably use tactical nukes to penetrate hardened IslamoNazi nuclear sites
and the sooner the better!
it would be the moral duty of the US president to send the seals tin to confiscate each and every nuke Israel has,
buy force if necessary, and to destroy their facilities so they can never build another.
Actually I could see Obama wanting to do that....attack US allies to protect US enemies.
-
Feint Accompli.
Forgiveness may be ever so hard to get , but still easyer to get than permission.
I can imagine Isreli leaders deciding that they would rather loose the good graces of the US than loose a city or two.
They might be able to rebuild a city , but in less time than they could rebuild the good graces of the US?
-
Israel depends on US foreign aid in great quantities, but even more than that, money from US Jews sent as charity and investments. Israel is not going to be attacked by Iran in any form other than verbally. Netanyahu and Amedinejahd BOTH use this constant trash talk to hold power. I have no use for either one of them.
Israel must never use those nukes unless attacked. Bombing any Israeli city would kill a huge amount of Palestinians as well as Jews.
-
"They will probably use tactical nukes to penetrate hardened IslamoNazi nuclear sites and the sooner the better!"
Yeah, they're going to use nukes to stop someone else from getting nukes. Jesus you're dumb.
You say you're in transportation. What do you have, a couple of donkey carts?
BSB
-
That would require enough smarts to outwit a donkey.
-
If their enemys were dead or sufficiently crippled , they would not need a lot of aid.
That is the cheap out for the US.
-
If their enemys were dead or sufficiently crippled , they would not need a lot of aid.
That is the cheap out for the US.
Yes exactly Plane!
OMG.....an entity may use it's full power to stop another entity,
whose leaders repeatedly threaten their very existence,
from attaining the weapons to actually carry out their repeated threats.
Such a "stupid" idea!
Up is down and down is up.
Yes it's "smart" to allow someone wanting to "wipe you off the map" to get nukes!
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.....Up is down and down is up!
-
Israel will never be able to gain acceptance in its location by bombing others in the neighborhood.
Iran is at most, a verbal threat to Israel. Iran has 77 million people and no number of any sort of bombs will cause Iran to leave, to cease to exist, or to become Israel's buddies.
Israel is one of the least popular countries on the planet. Bombing Iran will make them even MORE unpopular. Many Liberal American Jews, and there are a lot of them, will stop sending money, stop investing money, cease to donate money to Israel.
This has already begun to happen with the Israeli government subsidizing the unproductive Ultra-Orthodox who pay no taxes, have dozens of children, refuse to serve in the military and live in subsidized housing. Their only activity is Torah study. When they retire, the Israeli government pays them a nice pension. On the Sabbath, they come out and throw stones at people who dare to drive a car and yell at girls wearing tanktops and shorts.
They are pretty close to the fictional Welfare Queens that Reagan spoke about. With the important difference that they exist.
-
Do Isreals neighbors crave acceptance?
If they did , there might be a middle to meet in.
I am certain that sufficent firepower is a workable substitute for peace.
It might be all that is availible , both sides need to want to find peace , for any real peace to be found.
When Iran has built an Atomic arsenal, how will this situation have been improved?
-
the Israeli government subsidizing the unproductive Ultra-Orthodox who pay no taxes, have dozens of children, refuse to serve in the military and live in subsidized housing. Their only activity is Torah study. When they retire, the Israeli government pays them a nice pension. On the Sabbath, they come out and throw stones at people who dare to drive a car and yell at girls wearing tanktops and shorts. With the important difference that they exist.
Can you provide a source for all of this information?
And even if all of it were true...."dozens of chilren".....ha ha....ect
are you pretending only Israeli society has a group on the fringe?
hell we pay our outrageous disgraceful politicians a pension
I am sure Israel is shaking in their boots over leftist not donating money!
ps: I know lots of lazy ass, irresponsible welfare queens....
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/10/80_charged_with_welfare_fraud.html (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/10/80_charged_with_welfare_fraud.html)
-
There are scenarios where the use of nuclear weapons could justifiably be used to stop a sovereign nation from furthering its ability to manufacture nuclear weapons. This isn't one of them. It's not even close to being one of them. It could become one of them, but it's not very likely.
This kind of "nuke 'em" nonsense is what you get from the far right religious nut-jobs in this country. They're no different than Imadinnerjacket and his crowd. Same big mouth and no balls.
BSB
-
The welfare queens know they are screwing the government.
The Ultra-Orthodox believe that it is all part of God's Plan.
'We have some of these religious freeloaders here as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/nyregion/kiryas-joel-a-village-with-the-numbers-not-the-image-of-the-poorest-place.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/nyregion/kiryas-joel-a-village-with-the-numbers-not-the-image-of-the-poorest-place.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)
-
Iran is at most, a verbal threat to Israel.
Exactly....and that's the way it will stay because the IslamoNazis will not be allowed to attain nuclear missles.
-
There are scenarios where the use of nuclear weapons could justifiably be used to stop a sovereign nation from furthering its ability to manufacture nuclear weapons. This isn't one of them. It's not even close to being one of them. It could become one of them, but it's not very likely.
This kind of "nuke 'em" nonsense is what you get from the far right religious nut-jobs in this country. They're no different than Imadinnerjacket and his crowd. Same big mouth and no balls.
BSB
What is the lacking element?
-
The lacking element?
Brains.
BSB
-
It is pretty naive to say that anything will NEVER happen.
And, really, Christians", ditch that "Islamonazi" crap, it makes you sound like an idiot.
It is just like the term "Zionazi": stupid propaganda.
-
When President Obama said that Iran must not be allowed to develop atomic wepons , did he mean something diffrent than Netanyahu ment?
-
I think that he did.
Obama trusts diplomacy and sanctions.
Netanyahu trusts neither.
Preemptive strikes seem to be fine with Netanyahu. If he has not done one, it is because the US would need to provide the bomb and some degree of support. President Obama is unlikely to attack Iran unless Iran has actually started something.
-
Lets understand a few things before getting even further off the track and into crap like what did Obama mean?
Israel doesn't have the capacity to stop Iran's pursuit of either nuclear war heads, or the missiles to deliver them short of all out war. If they went to war they could bomb Iran. Not the sites, but Iran itself. That is not going to happen.
The United States has the capacity, militarily, to slow the program down, but not to stop it either short of all out war.
The reason for this is simple. Iran's program is spread out all over the country in hundreds of sites. Also, many of the sites are deep underground. The reason nothing has been militarily is because it won't take out that kind of setup. This is why Obama is pressing for a diplomatic solution.
BSB
-
And BTW, since we're in an election year lets not overlook the fact that Osama has not been afraid to use our military power. In particular our special operating forces which he has used brilliantly from the SEAL snipers on the fantail of the carrier to the bin Laden operation. He understands the war we're engaged in. You can't use a broadsword against this enemy. Bush didn't understand that. You have to use a rapier. You keep the cutting sword at the ready but essentially this is a personal fight, a duel, where thrusting is the key. Killing in large numbers is not the objective. Specific killing is.
If elected, will Romney understand this? I've seen nothing to suggest he understands anthing about the use of our military. However, one never knows until they sit in the chair.
BSB
-
Obama seems to have a "take no prisoners" policy.
The use of drones to assissanate Al Queda leaders is causing colateral damage because the Al Queda leadership is generally hiding in the proximity of people we don't really need to shoot, we are earning a bit of ill will.
I can't complain tho , because I can't think up a better choice.
-
There is no "take no prisoners" policy. When they can take prisoners, they do so. Then they lock them up somewhere where they will not get out: Diego Garcia, Poland, who knows? and none of us ever hear about it.
Drones are used against specific men they cannot capture, and they try not to kill those that are not the enemy. I think they have made few mistakes and are getting better at reducing "collateral damage".
I see no reason to believe that Romney would not do exactly the same thing, though he might reintroduce torture, and then deny it.
Romney wants to spend WAY too much on the military. As a rule, this slogan applies: "Give them an army, they will give us a war".
-
There is no "take no prisoners" polocy..........................As a rule, this slogan applies: "Give them an army, they will give us a war".
Hilarious.
President Obama is not taking prisoners, this is not a criticism from me. President Bush had a policy of prisoner collection that left us in charge of a lot of expensive and useless prisoners that we are going to have to keep a long time, not taking prisoners seems to be working better.
I like your slogan, it is so totally opposite of true ,it has enough irony to build a battleship.
Perhaps army free and prosperous countrys are common in history , I just havn't heard of many.
-
Reagan built up the army and we got wars: Grenada, Panama, and then Iraq I and II.
What Romney wants to do makes no sense at all. With two wars ending, he wants an even bigger military. He wants to spend more than the Pentagon requests. It is insane.
-
Carter and Clinton toree the heart out of the military and we got wars, that is not a point.
Will we go into the really inevitable wars with what it takes to win , or a little less than that , that is the point.
-
Carter caused no war and neither did Clinton.
At no point during either administration did the US have a smaller military than any other country.
That is just bullshit.
-
Carter caused no war and neither did Clinton.
At no point during either administration did the US have a smaller military than any other country.
That is just bullshit.
"Caused"?
Is there an objective or subjective standard for "Caused"?
Clinton could have left the Serbs alone, Carter could have taken what Iran was dishing out with a smile, just as well as "Reagan could have left the Cubans alone and Bush I and Bush II could have let Saddam Hussein consolidate his bloodline in power.
The last time that the US had a smaller military than another countey is .................. right now and ever since the fall of Nationalist China, they may be under armed but for sheer scale the Chineese are very impressive.
-
The US could not win a land war in Asia with China without nukes, and perhaps even with them.
That is why they should stay out of Asia. China does not want a war.
I do not want to pay for any more military than we already have, which is too much.
-
The US could not win a land war in Asia with China without nukes, and perhaps even with them.
That is why they should stay out of Asia. China does not want a war.
I do not want to pay for any more military than we already have, which is too much.
Last time we tried, we fought to a painfull stalemate.
Since then the US and China have both grown stronger and been inventive.
So.................... past performance may not indicate future results.
China has problems we don't and vice versa, I would hate to have a war like that but I am not sure we would loose.
China has also grown a lot more reasonable, maybe that fight never has to happen.
-
It was not cheap to end WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War.
It will not be cheap to leave Iraq or Afghanistan, either.
Israel will figure out a way to charge us for anything they do... they always have.
There is absolutely NO reason to fight a war with China in Asia. Taiwan is not worth the cost. China does not want Korea, and no one should die defending the Spratly Archipelago.
-
War is by its nature very very expensive.
So expensive that it is worth tremendous spending to prevent .
Having effective and impressive capability ready, means, at least, you need not fight the wise.
And the fights with the fools that cannot be avoided , will be shorter if there is enough force on tap to overwhelm .(along with the will and wisdom to use it well)
Once our country is strong enough to intimidate the prudent and squash the impudent , all that remains necessacery is to avoid being the fools ,that make fights inevitable, ourselves.
-
Once our country is strong enough to intimidate the prudent and squash the impudent , all that remains necessacery is to avoid being the fools ,that make fights inevitable, ourselves.
===============================
The US has many times this strength.
It is not wise for us to play the international policeman who imposes his will on those who simply have different values. It is not our role to impose women's rights in Afghanistan or Pakistan by any sort of force of arms.
We can explain our culture to women in those countries, but really, others have a right to their own culture.
I recall that in the 1960's when I lived in Mexico, women simply never appeared in public in pants, and certainly not in shorts. All that is a thing of the past now, even in small rural towns. TV was what changed the culture. Not US TV, Mexican TV.
-
Once our country is strong enough to intimidate the prudent and squash the impudent , all that remains necessacery is to avoid being the fools ,that make fights inevitable, ourselves.
===============================
The US has many times this strength.
Yes thank Reagan and Bush.
Though when you say "many times" just three posts after you have said that China could push us around an inconsistancy appears.
I think Barak Obama is just promising to change that.
-
I am not going to thank Reagan, who was out of office in 1984, for a military that we have today. What Reagan did is no9w obsolete or was destroyed in all the skirmishes and warts since 1984.
Juniorbush wasted HUGE amounts of money and lives, sending our military on a fool's mission, and unprepared with no plan after the conquest.
It was run by a collection of disturbed Jews who identified Baath with the Nazis and disbanded the Iraqi army and police, which led to several years of murderous anarchy. That destroyed huge amounts of our military.
Again Give them and army, they will give us a war.
-
I am not going to thank Reagan, who was out of office in 1984, for a military that we have today. What Reagan did is no9w obsolete or was destroyed in all the skirmishes and warts since 1984.
Juniorbush wasted HUGE amounts of money and lives, sending our military on a fool's mission, and unprepared with no plan after the conquest.
It was run by a collection of disturbed Jews who identified Baath with the Nazis and disbanded the Iraqi army and police, which led to several years of murderous anarchy. That destroyed huge amounts of our military.
Again Give them and army, they will give us a war.
Nice opinions ,
nothing correct in the pile.
If by "them" you mean all of them,.... maybe , only a few presidents in the last century have not had to deal with war.
A tiny fraction of the equipment and structure Reagan built has been used up or destroyed, Carter was a lot more distructive of the military by sheer neglect, but Carter too had to deal with war.
I am not happy with the loss of life we saw in Iraq, but considering the (realistic) alternatives , we got off very cheap.
The only solution to the quagmire we were in in Iraq that might have cost us less deaths and loss would be lots of high level bombing as did Clinton to the Serbs. The cost of that policy is much greater collateral damage , Sun Tzu would have agreed with the Clinton and Obama method. Maximising the cost to the enemys population can shorten the war, I daresay General Sherman would have also agreed with Obama and Clinton also about maximising damage to enemy population while minimising damage of any and all kinds to ones own side.
This I see as a serious failing of both Presidents Bush they both tryed too hard to minimise colateral damage and preserve the enemy population , even attempting quite hard to preserve arceological digs on enemy territory. This seems to have had the perverse effect of prolonging the conflict, getting the enemy accustomed to loss, and hardened .
I like both Bushes pretty well otherwise, but it would have helped a lot if President Bush II had been given a seminar on warfare by President Clinton, who I like on almost no other count.
-
I have had the proud duty of voting against Bushes SIX TIMES. Only those who moved from Texas to Florida could have done more for their country than that. If one moved at the right time, it could have been possible to vote against Bushes EIGHT times.
Jeb was the best GOP governor other than Charlie Crist, but that is because the Florida GOP is a mob of idiots, currently led by a con man, Rick Scott.
Iraq should never have been fought in the first place. Saddam was no threat to the US or its people, at least not any except those flying over Iraq.
This country has been at war with some country or another since I was born. We were not defending ourselves most of the time, and most of those wars could have been avoided by better diplomacy and smarter leaders. Enough already!
-
If you like to vote Democrat, why are you voting less than eight times in every election?
-
I only voted once in any election. There is no voter fraud, that is a stupid myth.
-
I only voted once in any election. There is no voter fraud, that is a stupid myth.
Even in Florida ?
I would not be surprised if Ponce De Leon is still regestered.
-
The latest fraud involved some Cuban lady named Deisy who was turning in the absentee ballots of mentally challenged oldsters in assisted care homes for Republican candidates. She was arrested and is pending a trial, along with several accomplices.
We have to show a photo ID before we vote. My drivers license was recently up for renewal. I was required to present six pieces of identification, make an appointment and pay $48. The people at the DMV were courteous and efficient, which was remarkable, because the facility had a malfunctioning air conditioner and was in a building not suited to the purpose.
-
This makesme courious.
What is the least possible expense and trouble a voter in your area could expect to pay and endure if he needed ID for voting only?
-
There is a state ID card.
Figure it out for yourself.
http://www.gathergoget.com/checklist/checklist.aspx (http://www.gathergoget.com/checklist/checklist.aspx)
-
That was pretty good .
It would seem that the main problem that would cause serious impediment would be homelessness.
As far as I know everyone elese would have little problem getting an ID.
So it might be worthwile to find a good way to identify the homeless also so that their vote can be counted.
-
It costs money and it takes time.
To make an appointment, you really need a computer. If you try on the phone, you are in for a huge wait.
-
In Georgia the ID is free.
I like that , even the pennyless should have the chance to vote.
It still may be inconvienient , so there needs to be some more effort to bring the ID close to the people who need it.
http://www.sos.georgia.gov/gaphotoid/default.htm (http://www.sos.georgia.gov/gaphotoid/default.htm)
Fortuneately Georgia countys tend to be small, so no one is very far from a registrars office.
The AJC is very liberal, I thought this take was pretty funny.
When Georgia became one of the first states in the nation to demand a photo ID at the ballot box, both sides served up dire predictions. Opponents labeled it a Jim Crow-era tactic that would suppress the minority vote. Supporters insisted it was needed to combat fraud that imperiled the integrity of the elections process.
But both claims were overblown, according to a review of by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of statewide voting patterns in the five years since the law took effect.
Turnout among black and Hispanic voters increased from 2006 to 2010, dramatically outpacing population growth for those groups over the same period.
On the other hand, Georgia’s top elections official could not point to a single case of ballot fraud the voter ID law had prevented.
.................................................................................................snip....................
the law has had real and measurable effect for some voters: Since November 2008, the ballots of 1,586 Georgians didn’t count because of the law. (They arrived at the polls without a photo ID, cast provisional ballots, and did not return later with the required ID.) Overall, 13.6 million votes were cast in the state during the same period.
Hahahahahaha!
This can't be 1,586 prevented frauds can it?
-
I doubt that there were anywhere near that number of frauds.
The best explanation is that there were 1,586 pe3ople too lazy to return to show their IDs.
-
Whether Lazy or Fraudulent,... we are talking about 1,586 Democrats arn't we?
-
I cannot imagine why you would say they were all Democrats. Logic dictates that some were Republicans and Independents.
It isn't important now. The election is over and the ballots were not counted and may have made no difference.
-
Why do the Democrats maintain that tighter rules against cheating would be against them?
-
Because Democrats tend to be poorer and therefore move more often, which requires a change of address form and a new polling place. This whole stupid "voter fraud" thing was devised based on demographics by Republicans to throw Democrats off the voting rolls.
For every case of voter impersonation, about 500 people are disenfranchised because of this. The GOP honchos have talked about this a lot and there are conversations online about the intent of this nonsense. The REPUBLICANS maintain that photo IDs would benefit their candidates.
Here in Miami, nearly all voter fraud involves absentee ballots and local Cubans, who normally vote for Republicans.
If you have 100 million people voting, it is never going to be possible to eliminate all fraud. But what we have is around 99.9% and that is better than disenfranchising 5 to 8% because they moved to a different precinct.
-
I bet it would be difficult to find 500 qualified voters who can't afford to get an ID, nationwide.
And once you did, you could outfit each of them with an ID for a small sum.
That votor fraud is common and half the Dem vote in some districts resides in graveyards I sincerely believe.
You do not have to believe this if you don't wish to.
But why such a fight against efforts to prevent cheating , when half the expense and effort would distribute enough IDs?
-
That votor fraud is common and half the Dem vote in some districts resides in graveyards I sincerely believe.
You do not have to believe this if you don't wish to.
===========================================
It is utter nonsense and has been shown to be such.
-
That votor fraud is common and half the Dem vote in some districts resides in graveyards I sincerely believe.
You do not have to believe this if you don't wish to.
===========================================
It is utter nonsense and has been shown to be such.
Has it indeed been shown to be such?
I would be very interested in what shows this to be such.
-
Improper ID is valid to prove voter impersonation. I cannot vote as myself and return to vote as Tom Bombadil or Conrad Hilton unless I have a photo ID that had those names with my photo.
There is not a lot of voter fraud, but what there is, mostly involves fraudulent absentee ballots.
Here in Florida, they arrested a Cuban woman named Deisy with a whole bunch of ballots with the names of Assisted living residents on them. They were found to be improperly marked. They also found ONE (1) ONE Canadian who voted illegally using his own name.
In Pennsylvania, an investigation found NO cases of voter impersonation.
-
In Pennsylvania, an investigation found NO cases of voter impersonation.
We were not catching them in Georgia either untill we started using ID, then we saw about 1500.
Invisible is not the same thing as absent, without ID how do you catch even one?
-
If you had 1500, most were NOT voter impersonation.
-
Did you not read what he typed? The 1500 were ALL the added fraud found, period, with that 1 bit of added requirement. It matters not that they weren't all impersonations, they were fraud, in 1 form or another
-
If you had 1500, most were NOT voter impersonation.
Why not?
How many of the millions of votes cast are false?
Why are they no problem to Democrats?
-
There are no "millions of fraudulent votes cast". If Georgia only had 1500 that were actually fraudulent, the entire country, at the same rate, would have far fewer than a million.
Picture ID will not stop fraudulent mail in ballots. There is no significant number of voter impersonations.
Florida requires a picture ID, and it is not even free. And yet YOU claim that Florida has thousands of fraudulent votes. That is just absurd.
-
If there are not a lot of frauds in voting then Democrtats have nothing to loose in enacting laws that will make fraud easy to catch rather than hard to even detect.
It is fairly well documented that Al Franken owes his office to voters who ignored the rules, and that one election that depended on fewer than 500 fraudulent votes gave the slim majority of the Senate to the Democrats just in time to do their mischeif with Obamacare.
It really doesn't take much cheating to make a lot of diffrence , so I would favor pretty stiff penaltys on those few who are caught .
WIthout ID it isn't even possible to know if it is occuring, do you really think that in a state of millions there is not even one cheat?
Or just no means to find him?
-
It is fairly well documented that Al Franken owes his office to voters who ignored the rules, and that one election that depended on fewer than 500 fraudulent votes gave the slim majority of the Senate to the Democrats just in time to do their mischeif with Obamacare.
BINGO
-
Sorry, no BINGO.
Not even a thud.
-
lol.......yea, your inability-to-back-up/refute say so, is sooooooooo credible.
NOT
-
I think it has also been established that the law in Georgia has been working well so far and has had no ill effect on minority turnout.
I really do think it is the reliance on cheats that the Democratic party is trying to preserve.
It is hard to see any other reason unrefuted.
-
I really do think it is the reliance on cheats that the Democratic party is trying to preserve.
It is hard to see any other reason unrefuted.
Another good Plane summation
-
Al Franken is the sort of person we need in Congress. He is worth a dozen Norm Colemen.
-
Even if it requires voter fraud to get him there. Yea, that's the point we're noting
-
Al Franken is the sort of person we need in Congress. He is worth a dozen Norm Colemen.
So there is just no reason to worry about the cheating, it is Democrats, so the side of angels is to benefit.
-
There is at least as much Republican cheating as Democrat cheating, and all of it is too small to matter.
-
So its ok.......especially if it helps Democrats, as it did Franken. I see
-
I have seen no proof that Al Franken cheated.
He was clearly the best candidate.
-
I have seen no proof that Al Franken cheated.
He was clearly the best candidate.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2012/08/08/sen-al-franken-voter-fraud-revelations-call-for-ways-to-reduce-it/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2012/08/08/sen-al-franken-voter-fraud-revelations-call-for-ways-to-reduce-it/)
The latest revelations that illegal votes may have given Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) his 312-vote margin of victory in his 2008 Senate race—out of the nearly 3 million votes cast—gives one pause. The fact that 243 people have already been convicted or are awaiting trial on voter fraud underscores a persistent concern that, despite their small share of the vote, ineligible ballots can actually swing results.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163 (http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163)
"Who's Counting?", a new book by conservative journalist John Fund and former Bush Justice Department official Hans von Spakovsky. Although the authors cover the whole range of voter fraud issues, their chapter on Minnesota is enough to convince any skeptic that there are times when voter fraud not only exists but can be critical to the outcome of a critical race.
...................................
Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.
Still, that's a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes. With 1,099 examples identified by Minnesota Majority, and with evidence suggesting that felons, when they do vote, strongly favor Democrats, it doesn't require a leap to suggest there might one day be proof that Al Franken was elected on the strength of voter fraud.
And that's just the question of voting by felons. Minnesota Majority also found all sorts of other irregularities that cast further doubt on the Senate results.
.......................
-
If their enemys were dead or sufficiently crippled , they would not need a lot of aid.
That is the cheap out for the US.
===================================================
The US will not exterminate 77 million Iranians.
When Japan finally surrendered in 1945, there were very few males between 15 and 70. But we still had to occupy the country and set up a government and spend a lot of money.
A war with Iran would be worse for the US than an Iran with nukes.
-
LOL...Plane shows precisely how fraud led to Franken's win, and Xo's response.....change the subject.
Priceless 8)
-
If their enemys were dead or sufficiently crippled , they would not need a lot of aid.
That is the cheap out for the US.
===================================================
The US will not exterminate 77 million Iranians.
When Japan finally surrendered in 1945, there were very few males between 15 and 70. But we still had to occupy the country and set up a government and spend a lot of money.
A war with Iran would be worse for the US than an Iran with nukes.
An Iran with nukes would not go to war?
I guess it is possible that Atomic bombs would give a sense of security to Iranian leaders, and they might attack less.
But what seems more likely is that when they have a new toy , they will play with it.
So there is no dicotomy of either war or atomic wepons for Iran,
because nothing prevents war and atomic wepons for Iran.
-
I heard this the other day, and its so true. If the Arab world, were to lay down its arms, there would be peace. If the Israelis layed down their arms, they'd be annihilated, and wiped out of the region
-
No one is going to lay down their arms.
The US is against this, since they supply a huge majority of the weapons used in the region.
-
No one is going to lay down their arms.
Nor did I claim anyone would. Just providing context on the reality of the situation
-
If we confiscated everyone's guns, no one would ever get shot.
How about that for a context?
-
I am pretty sure that the confiscation process would include a lot of people getting shot.
Then of course the confiscation would never end.
In Bermuda they are prone to arrest and confiscate knives and slingshots, if they ever get the last of those they will have to come up with something elese to confiscate.
The USA is the supplyer of some of Isreals wepons , they make a lot of their own, including their own designs for tanks and their own modifacation of aircraft.
I don't think there is much objection to Iran building defenses, but how are atomic bombs defenses?
-
If we confiscated everyone's guns, no one would ever get shot.
Nice irrelevent strawman. Not to mention erroneous, in that criminals/terrorists get guns all the time ::)
How about that for a context?
Truely unconstitutional. How's that for context?
-
No one is going to confiscate all the guns, just as all the Muslims will never lay down their arms. Neither will the Israelis.
Besides, I was speaking globally. God has not given any audible inalienable right to own AK-47's to all His children. God did not write the US Constitution, either.
-
We should have every right .
All rights should be ours , except whatever right is necessacery to live without.
-
No one is going to confiscate all the guns, just as all the Muslims will never lay down their arms. Neither will the Israelis.
Which of course, no one has claimed will or would happen. So why argue a point, never made?? (oh yea, I forgot, it appears that is YOUR goal....to confiscate all the guns from the non-military/non-police populace. IIRC, that was Hitler's goal as well
Besides, I was speaking globally. God has not given any audible inalienable right to own AK-47's to all His children. God did not write the US Constitution, either.
Yea, People did...Americans did. And btw, automatic weapons, such as AK-47's, are still illegal. Are you trying to argue yet another point that hasn't been made??
-
Actually you can leagally own an automatic wepon.
But you have to regester it well, and pay a heroic tax on it.
Only a few people can afford this.
Most of the rules that get enacted on guns have the class warfare effect of being tougher on the poor than the wealthy .
-
That is true....with a special license, registration, fees, taxes, etc. Yes, all true. I'd be referring to Joe/Joan Smith, of Anywhere, USA, who would like to exercise their 2nd amendent right to own a firearm. But I do appreciate the improved clarity on the matter of Automatic weapons. At least Xo didn't try to pull the 'ol bazooka line again
-
You can get a lisense to build large rocket engines too, but you have to earn it by building a bunch of small ones first.
The Government knows you pretty well if you have a firearms , rocket , scilencer ,or automatic wepon lisense.