As the campaign's start to speed up.....

[sirs]

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

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Plane]

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?

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Plane]

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

[sirs]

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

[Plane]

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.

[sirs]

Precisely

[Xavier_Onassis]

The GOP strategists have already planned this PRECISELY to proovent people who vote Democratic from voting. Voter fraud is minuscule.

[sirs]

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

[Christians4LessGvt]

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]

[sirs]

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       

[Plane]

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.

[sirs]

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

[Christians4LessGvt]