i know many of you will poo-poo the source, but once you get past that-focus on the message. is the message that far-fetched? i think not. we've known for years that the dems have used "fraudulent voting over the years. the dems know we were on to them. the republicans are trying to shut down the "vote early and often" democrat election mantra. the democrats have been screaming foul despite the obvious. they know voter id is consitutional as it has been upheld in many states, and deep inside they know it's going to be the law of the land.
so what do they do? they circle the wagons and then hitch them up to the new voter fraud-illegals. they are going to kick and scream for their(illegals) right to vote and in their minds, the means will justify the ends of course. why? well because hussein said they won't have that right; translation-they won't have that right(constitutionally) ,but they are going to vote anyway. since when has the constitution meant anything to these miscreants. add a little(no, a lot) of help from their patron saint-george soros and you've got yourself another winning recipe albeit a fraudulent one once again for the democrats.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/hillarys-plans-to-stuff-the-ballot-box/
sorry-should have been posted in politics
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 09, 2015, 05:01:34 AM
i know many of you will poo-poo the source, but once you get past that-focus on the message. is the message that far-fetched? i think not. we've known for years that the dems have used "fraudulent voting over the years. the dems know we were on to them. the republicans are trying to shut down the "vote early and often" democrat election mantra. the democrats have been screaming foul despite the obvious. they know voter id is consitutional as it has been upheld in many states, and deep inside they know it's going to be the law of the land.
so what do they do? they circle the wagons and then hitch them up to the new voter fraud-illegals. they are going to kick and scream for their(illegals) right to vote and in their minds, the means will justify the ends of course. why? well because hussein said they won't have that right; translation-they won't have that right(constitutionally) ,but they are going to vote anyway. since when has the constitution meant anything to these miscreants. add a little(no, a lot) of help from their patron saint-george soros and you've got yourself another winning recipe albeit a fraudulent one once again for the democrats.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/hillarys-plans-to-stuff-the-ballot-box/
If you had an ounce of perspective you'd see that you guys are more than happy to throw out the constitution for it to benefit you and I'll happily break that point down when I get my password so I can post on a computer again. The problem is you lack any perspective so you resort to only reading unbelievably biased news outlets to reinforce your very skewed perspective of what is going on in this country and then when you post go out of your way to insult the other side but can't actually see that that's what you're doing. It's pathetic and the reason that this politics board isn't even a place of fair debate it's you Heisenberg and chicos just spewing crap.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 09, 2015, 05:01:34 AM
i know many of you will poo-poo the source, but once you get past that-focus on the message. is the message that far-fetched? i think not. we've known for years that the dems have used "fraudulent voting over the years.
That would be false. Another red herring that conservatives use because they can't handle the fact that Obama was legitimately elected twice.
So their next tactic isn't to try to appeal to more voters, but to limit the citizens who can vote.
Democracy the Republican way!!!
BTW, your link made me laugh out loud. Another crackpot site in your RSS feed?
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on June 09, 2015, 08:19:37 AM
If you had an ounce of perspective you'd see that you guys are more than happy to throw out the constitution for it to benefit you and I'll happily break that point down when I get my password so I can post on a computer again. The problem is you lack any perspective so you resort to only reading unbelievably biased news outlets to reinforce your very skewed perspective of what is going on in this country and then when you post go out of your way to insult the other side but can't actually see that that's what you're doing. It's pathetic and the reason that this politics board isn't even a place of fair debate it's you Heisenberg and chicos just spewing crap.
right back at you-i have a right to believe in what i believe just as you. you speak of insulting then you come right back with it. who gave you the license of what is "right"?
maybe we believe what you spew is crap. politics is a debate. if you can't handle it put me on ignore or don't come to the politics board
there is no disenfranchisement going on as the left is trying to say-everyone needs i.d. for everything-let's allow everyone's vote count and that means it's legal citizens
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 09, 2015, 09:26:18 AM
right back at you-i have a right to believe in what i believe just as you. you speak of insulting then you come right back with it. who gave you the license of what is "right"?
maybe we believe what you spew is crap. politics is a debate. if you can't handle it put me on ignore or don't come to the politics board
there is no disenfranchisement going on as the left is trying to say-everyone needs i.d. for everything-let's allow everyone's vote count and that means it's legal citizens
I've yet to see any liberal on this board claim you guys to be anything close to fraudulent, miscreants, this is what I'm talking about you post these rants insulting us but then can't even open your eyes to how much of an a$$ you're being. In no way does it foster the sharing of ideals. There's clearly a reason you didn't post on my topic about the rationale for political beliefs, it's because you don't want to have any fostering and understanding of each others perspectives you just want to rant and rave and insult the other side.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 09, 2015, 08:25:20 AM
That would be false. Another red herring that conservatives use because they can't handle the fact that Obama was legitimately elected twice.
So their next tactic isn't to try to appeal to more voters, but to limit the citizens who can vote.
Democracy the Republican way!!!
BTW, your link made me laugh out loud. Another crackpot site in your RSS feed?
Do you think Bush was legitimately elected in 2000?
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on June 09, 2015, 09:30:21 AM
I've yet to see any liberal on this board claim you guys to be anything close to fraudulent, miscreants, this is what I'm talking about you post these rants insulting us but then can't even open your eyes to how much of an a$$ you're being. In no way does it foster the sharing of ideals. There's clearly a reason you didn't post on my topic about the rationale for political beliefs, it's because you don't want to have any fostering and understanding of each others perspectives you just want to rant and rave and insult the other side.
i was referring to the pols, not anyone on this board ?-(
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 09, 2015, 10:05:29 AM
i was referring to the pols, not anyone on this board ?-(
Then that's my bad for reading something when I'm tired and crabby. Carry on.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 09, 2015, 05:01:34 AM
i know many of you will poo-poo the source, but once you get past that-focus on the message. is the message that far-fetched? i think not. we've known for years that the dems have used "fraudulent voting over the years. the dems know we were on to them. the republicans are trying to shut down the "vote early and often" democrat election mantra. the democrats have been screaming foul despite the obvious. they know voter id is consitutional as it has been upheld in many states, and deep inside they know it's going to be the law of the land.
so what do they do? they circle the wagons and then hitch them up to the new voter fraud-illegals. they are going to kick and scream for their(illegals) right to vote and in their minds, the means will justify the ends of course. why? well because hussein said they won't have that right; translation-they won't have that right(constitutionally) ,but they are going to vote anyway. since when has the constitution meant anything to these miscreants. add a little(no, a lot) of help from their patron saint-george soros and you've got yourself another winning recipe albeit a fraudulent one once again for the democrats.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/hillarys-plans-to-stuff-the-ballot-box/
Hilarious. You would be more enlightened if you read the Nation Enquirer or The Globe.
Quote from: brandx on June 09, 2015, 10:16:18 AM
Hilarious. You would be more enlightened if you read the Nation Enquirer or The Globe.
Didn't the National Enquirer nail John Edwards for nailing the nanny?
Quote from: jficke13 on June 09, 2015, 10:50:51 AM
Didn't the National Enquirer nail John Edwards for nailing the nanny?
i guess we're gonna need to get the official news sites that are allowable from brandy et.al. let's see-new york slimes, newsweek, time, mother jones, huffpo....
nat'l enquirer also broke the rush limbaugh/oxy story and the gary hart story and his "monkey business" i can see brandy running to re-new his subscription right now ;D
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 09, 2015, 11:11:07 AM
i guess we're gonna need to get the official news sites that are allowable from brandy et.al. let's see-new york slimes, newsweek, time, mother jones, huffpo....
nat'l enquirer also broke the rush limbaugh/oxy story and the gary hart story and his "monkey business" i can see brandy running to re-new his subscription right now ;D
Why are you knocking the NYT when you post a "source" like that in your original post?
Quote from: JuniorCardigan on June 09, 2015, 11:32:38 AM
Why are you knocking the NYT when you post a "source" like that in your original post?
the new york times is pretty well known to lean liberal as the world net daily(wnd) is a conservative source. if you haven't noticed, i have a tendency to lean a little conservative-heyna? thus, i use conservative sources as my "go to" for info just as "others" will rely on what they feel comfortable with
Quote from: Heisenberg on June 09, 2015, 09:43:14 AM
Do you think Bush was legitimately elected in 2000?
Yes. Why wouldn't I? Yeah the Supreme Court was biased, but they probably ruled as best they could have considering the clusterf*ck that was Florida voting that year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gSQg1i_q2g
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 09, 2015, 02:45:14 PM
the new york times is pretty well known to lean liberal as the world net daily(wnd) is a conservative source. if you haven't noticed, i have a tendency to lean a little conservative-heyna? thus, i use conservative sources as my "go to" for info just as "others" will rely on what they feel comfortable with
I understand using conservative sources if thats your view but after reading some of WND it comes across as nothing more than a far-right tabloid. You may not like the NYT based on its liberal slant but at least it has some quality writing, which WND seemed totally devoid of based on what I read. Almost every article on the front page (including the headliner) was sensationalist crap - "Obama's Birth Certificate Man Now Works at a Burger Joint"
I mean I almost expected to see in the archives of that website "A Case Study of Obama Photos Throughout the Years: Definitive Proof that he is Growing Horns"
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 09, 2015, 02:46:05 PM
Yes. Why wouldn't I? Yeah the Supreme Court was biased, but they probably ruled as best they could have considering the clusterf*ck that was Florida voting that year.
It didn't matter what I thought of the outcome, but it was totally legitimate considering the circumstances. Someone had to mercifully end the daily hanging chad count. And they specifically stated it was for this and this.
I did enjoy very much the SNL Will Ferrel & Darrel Hammond "Odd Couple" sketches that ran in the meantime.
Seriously rocket surgeon, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize the difference between far right tabloids and nationally recognized writing that has a left lean. Not even a comparison.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on June 09, 2015, 03:53:33 PM
Seriously rocket surgeon, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize the difference between far right tabloids and nationally recognized writing that has a left lean. Not even a comparison.
okey dokey guys. remember however, it was the message(illegal votes) i was highlighting here. i know others have also alluded to this and we probably be seeing more written about this as we get closer to the election. it's not a red herring, it's reality and should be a concern to everyone. if this were flipped, the libs would be bleeding from the eyeballs. watch and see how this plays out.
Have you ever actually looked at the percentage of cases of voter fraud? It's less than .00001% and most of these cases are from people who have been released from prison recenter who didn't know they could not vote. God help us all for whatever values and lies you instill into your children.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 09, 2015, 05:01:34 AM
i know many of you will poo-poo the source, but once you get past that-focus on the message. is the message that far-fetched? i think not. we've known for years that the dems have used "fraudulent voting over the years. the dems know we were on to them. the republicans are trying to shut down the "vote early and often" democrat election mantra. the democrats have been screaming foul despite the obvious. they know voter id is consitutional as it has been upheld in many states, and deep inside they know it's going to be the law of the land.
so what do they do? they circle the wagons and then hitch them up to the new voter fraud-illegals. they are going to kick and scream for their(illegals) right to vote and in their minds, the means will justify the ends of course. why? well because hussein said they won't have that right; translation-they won't have that right(constitutionally) ,but they are going to vote anyway. since when has the constitution meant anything to these miscreants. add a little(no, a lot) of help from their patron saint-george soros and you've got yourself another winning recipe albeit a fraudulent one once again for the democrats.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/hillarys-plans-to-stuff-the-ballot-box/
Please. There's a reason the politics board exists. I can't unsee this insanity.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 09, 2015, 04:06:31 PM
okey dokey guys. remember however, it was the message(illegal votes) i was highlighting here. i know others have also alluded to this and we probably be seeing more written about this as we get closer to the election. it's not a red herring, it's reality and should be a concern to everyone. if this were flipped, the libs would be bleeding from the eyeballs. watch and see how this plays out.
So, even if we all admit voter fraud exists, you're only attacking the democrats/liberals. Why is that? Shouldn't you leave out the part about "Chicago" and "Hillary" and just attack the issue of voter fraud as being a problem regardless of background or situation?
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 09, 2015, 08:38:33 PM
So, even if we all admit voter fraud exists, you're only attacking the democrats/liberals. Why is that? Shouldn't you leave out the part about "Chicago" and "Hillary" and just attack the issue of voter fraud as being a problem regardless of background or situation?
That is my point he cannot make a point without being insulting to anyone left leaning.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 09, 2015, 02:46:05 PM
Yes. Why wouldn't I? Yeah the Supreme Court was biased, but they probably ruled as best they could have considering the clusterf*ck that was Florida voting that year.
7-2 decision
post election analysis said he wins anyway
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 10, 2015, 08:32:24 AM
7-2 decision
post election analysis said he wins anyway
Yeah, the SC got it right. And you are correct that all legitimate canvasing after the fact showed that W did win FLA. Pretty damn close. That was wild.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 10, 2015, 08:32:24 AM
7-2 decision
There were two decisions made by the court. The 7-2 one was on the question of only recounting specific counties versus the whole state. (The 7 said this was unconstitutional due to equal protection.)
There was a 5-4 vote on the December 12 deadline that the Florida Legislature established was appropriate, and that the Florida Supreme Court exceeded its authority by removing it for the sake of the recount.
So here is how it basically broke down...
Five justices (Rhenquist, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor) said the recount in specific counties was unconstitutional but the December deadline as established by the state legislature was legitimate and therefore the Secretary of State could certify the votes. Since there was no practical timeframe to do a statewide recount, this ended everything immediately and Bush won the state.
Two justicies (Breyer and Souter) agreed with the five above that the recounts in specific counties was unconstitutional, but felt that the Florida Supreme Court was right in suspending the deadline. They wanted a state-wide recount.
Two justices (Ginsburg and Stevens) thought the recounts by specific counties was fine and that the Florida Supreme Court ruled correctly as well.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 10, 2015, 08:45:17 AM
There were two decisions made by the court. The 7-2 one was on the question of only recounting specific counties versus the whole state. (The 7 said this was unconstitutional due to equal protection.)
There was a 5-4 vote on the December 12 deadline that the Florida Legislature established was appropriate, and that the Florida Supreme Court exceeded its authority by removing it for the sake of the recount.
So here is how it basically broke down...
Five justices (Rhenquist, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor) said the recount in specific counties was unconstitutional but the December deadline as established by the state legislature was legitimate and therefore the Secretary of State could certify the votes. Since there was no practical timeframe to do a statewide recount, this ended everything immediately and Bush won the state.
Two justicies (Breyer and Souter) agreed with the five above that the recounts in specific counties was unconstitutional, but felt that the Florida Supreme Court was right in suspending the deadline. They wanted a state-wide recount.
Two justices (Ginsburg and Stevens) thought the recounts by specific counties was fine and that the Florida Supreme Court ruled correctly as well.
100% correct. Solid analysis. My memory is that we still faced the possibility of defecting electors when the electoral college voted. I think I remember an Al Gore elector defecting in protest.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 10, 2015, 08:45:17 AM
There were two decisions made by the court. The 7-2 one was on the question of only recounting specific counties versus the whole state. (The 7 said this was unconstitutional due to equal protection.)
There was a 5-4 vote on the December 12 deadline that the Florida Legislature established was appropriate, and that the Florida Supreme Court exceeded its authority by removing it for the sake of the recount.
So here is how it basically broke down...
Five justices (Rhenquist, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor) said the recount in specific counties was unconstitutional but the December deadline as established by the state legislature was legitimate and therefore the Secretary of State could certify the votes. Since there was no practical timeframe to do a statewide recount, this ended everything immediately and Bush won the state.
Two justicies (Breyer and Souter) agreed with the five above that the recounts in specific counties was unconstitutional, but felt that the Florida Supreme Court was right in suspending the deadline. They wanted a state-wide recount.
Two justices (Ginsburg and Stevens) thought the recounts by specific counties was fine and that the Florida Supreme Court ruled correctly as well.
Correct. 7-2. 5-4. Votes in Florida. All said the same thing.
Quote from: jsglow on June 10, 2015, 08:43:10 AM
Yeah, the SC got it right. And you are correct that all legitimate canvasing after the fact showed that W did win FLA. Pretty damn close. That was wild.
Yup, it was wild.
I've always enjoyed how people say the Scotus was bias, notice how that happens only when they lose. The Florida Supreme Court wasn't bias....no no. The 4 votes on Scotus wasn't bias...no no.
the HANGING CHAD-when i first heard that, i thought it was some well endowed dude and wondered what he had to do with the election. then there were multiple HANGING CHADS and now it's like, cheezuz, no wonder florida has so many good looking, scantily clad babes running around ;D