Was the Vote Hacked?

quote:

---

Plus, the democratic party has a long history of voter fraud, dead people voting in Chicago, union/mafia muscle, etc,....so if fraud was done, most likely it was dems that did it, but you never know...

---

Sweetheart, do you really want to go down this road?I live in Michigan, and I have family in Pennsylvania.I know all about the deceptive voter registration schemes that Republicans conducted in both states, about how the republican party collected signatures (without identifying why they were doing so) to get Nader on the ballot in MI to split the Democratic vote, about how democratic voter registration cards were destroyed in MI, how Republicans have fought Motor Voter registration systems every single time they have been proposed, how they do their best to keep poor minorities from voting at all.Sure, both parties have things to not be proud of, but Republicans have been playing completely dirty for at least the last 10 years, right there in the open.The ends justifies the means for those folks, and keeping minorities and a few other groups away from the ballot box is their best chance to stay in power.What do you think of a party that wants fewer people to vote in America, as opposed to encouraging more participation?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-24-2006 08:55 PM

I stand by it. Most of the voter fraud I have noticed deals with democrats committing the fraud, such as paying people for their votes.

Yeah, I know that most of the voter fraud you have noticed is done by Democrats.But were are not only talking about what you notice, we are talking about everything I mentioned in my last post that you have chosen to not notice.Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "LA LA LA! I'm not listening!!" doesn't change the fact that Republicans did all of those things I listed.That is called willful ignorance.Read these links and tell me if you ever heard this information before. Because it's all old news.Page not found - Truthout
Page Not Found: 404 Not Found -
RNC funds voter supression efforts

Shraf, I heard of those, but I guess you weren't paying attention to numerous vandalism attacks and physical intimidation by union thugs last election, or offering homeless people cigs to vote dem, or going into centers for severely mentally disabled people and walking them through voting dem, or paying Indians to vote dem, or bussing illegal immigrants to vote dem, or keeping democratic precincts open later than Republican ones all in the name of fairness, and earlier elections of things like Hillary selling pardons for votes for an Orthodox Jewish community. All the others voted differently, but this little community with some of it's leaders in trouble for IRS violations turns up 98% for Hillary and then Bill pardons their leader, or of the fact that in the 90s, all of the investigations into illegal money basically resulted in the dems and only the dems being levied with the largest fines in US history for unprecedented levels of corruption and bribery, all the while people like you kept up the party line pretending it was Republicans and conservatives that were crooked.Sorry, but your spin doesn't wash....and claiming I am just partisan doesn't either. I am willing to believe someone could fix an election for Bush, but when you guys trot out the amazing anamoly that dixiecrats voted for Bush as if they really voted for Kerry just because they are registered dems, I have to call BS on that. JUst another typical lie from the liberal dem camp, smearing their enemies, most likely for stuff they themselves (talking on a national party level) are guilty of.

links to sources of information, please.Several of your claims sound terribly fishy to me....and her name is Senator Clinton.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-25-2006 07:58 PM

quote:

---

JUst another typical lie from the liberal dem camp, smearing their enemies, most likely for stuff they themselves (talking on a national party level) are guilty of.

---

You are horribly partisan, randman. At least, that is how you appear to me. But I could be wrong.Will you, here and now, express your disgust and displeasure at the widespread Republican voter fraud I documented earlier?Will you, here and now, express your moral outrage at the consistent Republican efforts to suppress the minority vote, including their blocking Motor Voter legislation every time it has bee proposed?

Actually, her name is Hillary, and anything you disagree with sounds fishy to you. Why should I waste my time?Can't you google too?

What widespread voter fraud? You mean like you guys claiming because a bunch of dixiecrats voted for Bush, that optical scanning machines or the computer that tallied them must have been hacked?Or the bogus lies that the GOP kept black folks from voting in Florida when one minority district had over a 90% turn-out, which by the way was evidence of democratic voter fraud, not GOP?I've got no problem condemning the GOP, but more often than not, what we have is incredible levels of democratic crime and wrongdoing, and then very small offenses in comparison by the GOP, and you want us to act like the GOP are the villains.Take this example you gave. That may well be a dirty trick, but probably not illegal. They helped Nader get on the ballot. Big deal. It's called politics, and politics make strange bedfellows at times. It ain't voter fraud. Don't know about that, but if you are saying one party signed up people and didn't turn in the democrats, that's bad, but at the same time, it isn't as bad as paying people for their votes, selling pardons, having dead people vote, and taking bribes for campaign cash from communist China. You ar eon seriously confused Mama. Opposing legislation is not voter fraud. Sorry but it ain't. Maybe one reason they oppose that is that some illegal aliens get licenses, and this could aid democratic voter fraud. Gimme a freakin brak. That's total BS. Let me give you an example. I live in a city where the dems complained that the GOP establishment was keeping the poor from voting by not having more early voting polls near black neighborhoods. It was a total lie because the only early polling stations the city had opened were, in fact, all near black neighborhoods and none near predominant white neighborhoods. The city wound up opening more stations, but they had no racial motivation for not opening more, but actually made sure they had Sunday polling stations for the democrats that made sure they coerced whole black church memberships into going to the polls right after service. They paid the deacons and pastors and then gave politicized speeches on how good church folk all needed to vote early and to sign up. Heck, they broke all sorts of rules, taking people into the voting booths and what-not, and then had the gall to say people were discriminating against them because, guess what, the polling stations were full after church with democrats, and they wanted more.They lied and the national media lied in stating that the polling stations were far from black neighborhoods and close to whites. it was a bald-faced lie, but that's dems for ya.Sorry but I have seen too much to believe tripe like your claims anymore. I was once a very liberal democrat, but the truth is the truth, and the democratic party is one of the biggest lying machines on the planet.

considering the percentage of the republican party currently indicted, yes, we do.you pretend like you have "no problem condemning the GOP." but the problem seems to be the acknowledgement of wrongdoing on their part. you're just posturing, trying to look good. you do, in fact, have a problem condemning the gop. unconstitutional wiretaps? high treason? money laundering? criminal conspiracy? voter fraud? surely these can't ALL be made up by liberal activist judges.fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. fool me 25 separate times, and that makes for one damned gullible public opinion.

---

אָרַח

Arach, your petty and false admonishments are tiresome. I did not vote for Ollie because of Iran/Contra even though Robb was doing cocaine while having sex with the beauty queen. Did not vote for Robb either, but abstained.But honestly, after the Clinton years, the charges of corruption by dems towards Republicans rings totally hollow. Yea, Republicans are people and people do bad things sometimes, and guess what, the GOP does not stonewall and keep their crooked politicians when caught, like the dems do.How you can seriously ignore the facts of democratic party corruption is beyond me. The only high treason I know of was Bill Clinton with the backing of the entire democratic leadership selling or giving away military secrets to the Chinese for campaign cash.Yea I know, they all take money, blah, blah, blah....first the level of bribery among the dems was unprecedented, but that's not even the issue. It was the new signal the democratic party sent that was treasonous. In the past, both parties took campaign cash, sometimes personal bribes, by Americans, American companies, and American interests. Yea, it's a slimey system in some respects, but at least it was an all American system.The democrats by soliciting and accepting campaign cash from foreign governments signalled that the US government policies were not just for sale to American interests, but to foreign interests, even hostile interests such as the communist military of China.That is treasonous. Using the NSA to wiretap phone calls between Americans and Al Qaeda operatives overseas is not.

two words:karl rove. i have no problem with the notion that democrats are crooked bastards. they just seem to be less crooked than the republicans right now. what's the score? 20-something indictments to how many democrats?this is a common tactic i've seen with republicans. when someone brings up the fact that about 25 republicans have been indicted on criminal charges in the last year or so, they deflect and point to a slimy democrat and say "look, you do it too!" mysteriously, it's always clinton. so, you know what? i'll give you clinton. you can have him. let's say he's bad enough that he cancels out bush and cheney on this side (i'm being VERY generous). who do we have for libby? delay? frist? abramoff? rove? i didn't say it was. i said it was unconstitutional, which is an accurate statement. in this country, you need a search warrant to tap land-lines. even if one side is al-qaeda.

---

אָרַח

I really don't consider any of the indictments, one that seems somewhat trumped up as far as the Texas dem partisan, to come close to comparing to what were routine democratic practices in the Clinton years. Moreover, indictments alone don't mean guilt.Do I think there are crooked lobbyists that are Republicans, sure, but like I said, this is the sort of thing politics has always had. The dems under Clinton pushed the envelope to embrace what I consider treason in this area, taking bribes not just from American interests but from foreign governments signalling American foreign policy is for sale, at least when the dems are in power.Btw, ever looked at who was indicted for illegal campaign fundraising, and what party paid the highest fines ever?If you ask me, the fact that more minor offenses are resulting in indictments when the GOP is in power is a testimony of how the Reps are more honorable and actually are willing to indict their own, and not stonewall like the dems.

Obviously not. It may be that an originalist interpretation of the Constitution would mean you need a search warrant, but you guys threw that sort of thinking overboard decades ago.

quote:

---

and anything you disagree with sounds fishy to you. Why should I waste my time?

​

Can't you google too?

---

Clearly I can, and do because I provided you links as support for my claims.Now it is your turn to provide support for your claims.That's how it works here. I support my assertions, and YOU support your assertions.The rule isn't "Everybody does their own research AND randman's research because he can't be bothered."Let me be crystal clear:If you make a claim, and someone requests a source for that claim, proper debate form requires that you must provide support for the claim or withdraw it.Let me call your attention to rule #4: It appears to me that you are not interested in following rule #4.

Randman, can you please tell me who Nathan Sproul is, and why he was in the news regarding the last presidential election?

quote:

---

Don't know about that,

---

What do you mean "you don't know about that"?That was the subject of one of my links that I gave you previously.Didn't you say that you had "heard of" the issues in my examples? Now it appears that you never even read the links.Like I said. Willful ignorance.