Merged The election was stolen/rigged!

[JayUtah]

No. Immorality is not necessarily illegal. Just immoral.

Politicking is distasteful and often dishonest. That's why most of us dislike it. But I'm not going to be baited into your painfully partisan rants. There is a huge difference between the parties out-politicking each other as they do alternately from time to time, and accusations of unlawful activity.

No one is interested in what you think is immoral, especially the moderators who have told you to quit politicking. We are interested only in what evidence you have for the unlawful activity you allege. You seem to think you've presented some, but you've really only spammed copypasted material and then run away without addressing any of the responses.

Broadcasters express opinion as opinion.

Given your ludicrously biased evaluation of popular media outlets, I don't think your analysis here merits much attention.

 

[jaydeehess]

Election polls show that an overwhelming majority of voters never heard of Bengahzi. That would not include regular Fox viewers. The mainstream news media spins the news by simply not reporting news that might conflict with their religion -- Obama worship.

Oh come on now Robert. All three original US networks as well as Fox, MSNBC and CNN reported on the controversy surrounding who knew what when and how it was characterized by all involved for weeks before the election.
At least I KNOW it was a topic on CBS world news, CNN's morning show with Soledad O'Brien as well as by Wolf Blitzer, and in Canada, I saw it spoken of on both Global National and CBC Newsworld.

However, if you polled the American public and asked them simply what "Bengahzi" is, the number of people who could correctly characterize it as a city in Libya would be small.
You cannot blame ignorance on the networks.

Seems the religious aspect of party loyalty is blinding you to what is actually occuring!

 

[jaydeehess]

No. Immorality is not necessarily illegal. Just immoral.

and every single one of your points above was committed by both parties. Is your complaint that the Democrats were worse?

Check your Bible as to what it says about the levels of sin.

 

[jaydeehess]

There is absolute proof and then there is also probable cause. I've previously cited both.

Let's take probable cause first: What makes this more compelling as standing against the Democrats than it does against the Republicans. They both stand to gain the same thing and thus have equal 'probable cause'.

As for absolute proof, NO you have not illustrated any such thing. You have posted articles from blatantly biased and second string 'news' organizations which cite anecdotes that are characterized by the quoted interviewees as fraud.
There is no Republican National Party effort to pursue such a claim, and this is the group who would stand to gain the absolute most by proving such a thing.
If electoral fraud on the scale you accuse the Dems of using was proven do you think they could elect a POTUS any time in the next 12 years! I doubt it, unless there were a complete and public purge of all top officials of the party.

Yet nary a peep from Romney or other top GOP persons.

WHY?
All RINOs willing to roll over for the Dems?
Baynor too?
Gingrich as well?



HOW do you explain the disinterest in this by party big wigs Robert?

 

[Garrison]

Election polls show that an overwhelming majority of voters never heard of Bengahzi. That would not include regular Fox viewers. The mainstream news media spins the news by simply not reporting news that might conflict with their religion -- Obama worship.

But here we see the problem again, you dislike Obama, you therefore see Benghazi as a huge story when in fact it is a minor tragedy that pales compared to those that have happened during other presidencies. And again you cannot accept that these broadcasters simply have a different viewpoint, you find it necessary to phrase it in terms of some unthinking religious worship. This is the same problem suffered by many of those who simply can't accept that a majority of the voters simply preferred Obama, and cling to statistical oddities and ordinary electioneering as evidence of vote rigging.

 

[Garrison]

Broadcasters express opinion as opinion. News casters announce news as though as if it really was news, not propaganda. And you would expect a news organization to not censor the news that conflicts with their ideology

And yet this is exactly what most posters here apparently see FOX as doing. Stripped of all the rhetoric what you are you accusing the media of is not reporting the news with your preferred political slant, you need to stop confusing that with some sort of conspiracy to rig the election.

 

[Robert Prey]

Let's take probable cause first: What makes this more compelling as standing against the Democrats than it does against the Republicans. They both stand to gain the same thing and thus have equal 'probable cause'.

As for absolute proof, NO you have not illustrated any such thing. You have posted articles from blatantly biased and second string 'news' organizations which cite anecdotes that are characterized by the quoted interviewees as fraud.
There is no Republican National Party effort to pursue such a claim, and this is the group who would stand to gain the absolute most by proving such a thing.
If electoral fraud on the scale you accuse the Dems of using was proven do you think they could elect a POTUS any time in the next 12 years! I doubt it, unless there were a complete and public purge of all top officials of the party.

Yet nary a peep from Romney or other top GOP persons.

WHY?
All RINOs willing to roll over for the Dems?
Baynor too?
Gingrich as well?



HOW do you explain the disinterest in this by party big wigs Robert?

Because the GOP is prohibited from doing so by law made by a 5th column of traitorous RINOS who made a spurious consent decree agreement with the Dems.

"The RNC and DNC made their Consent Decree 30 years ago, in 1982. The agreement in effect gives a carte blanche to the Democrat Party to commit vote fraud in every voting district across America that has, in the language of the Consent Decree, “a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations.” The term “substantial proportion” is not defined."


http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/why-the-gop-will-not-do-anything-about-vote-fraud/

 

[Robert Prey]

And yet this is exactly what most posters here apparently see FOX as doing. Stripped of all the rhetoric what you are you accusing the media of is not reporting the news with your preferred political slant, you need to stop confusing that with some sort of conspiracy to rig the election.

Most posters here do not watch Fox.

 

[Robert Prey]

But here we see the problem again, you dislike Obama, you therefore see Benghazi as a huge story when in fact it is a minor tragedy that pales compared to those that have happened during other presidencies. And again you cannot accept that these broadcasters simply have a different viewpoint, you find it necessary to phrase it in terms of some unthinking religious worship. This is the same problem suffered by many of those who simply can't accept that a majority of the voters simply preferred Obama, and cling to statistical oddities and ordinary electioneering as evidence of vote rigging.

"Minor tragedy"?????? Four Americans murdered including an Ambassador who pleaded for protection to no avail? And you call that "Minor"???

"Pales in comparison" to what, perhaps Watergate????? Was anyone murdered because of Watergate????

Now I don't think you have ever heard of Benghazi either.

 

[Robert Prey]

and every single one of your points above was committed by both parties. Is your complaint that the Democrats were worse?

Check your Bible as to what it says about the levels of sin.

Actually, election fraud is illegal. And in this election, the overwhelming evidence points to Democrat Fraud.

 

[Robert Prey]

It would be interesting to see which of your handwaving rants you consider "absolute proof" of voter fraud. Be so kind as to identify it, please. Also, explain why the GOP hasn't seen fit to act on it, given the obscene sum they spent trying to get Romney elected president.

As for "probable cause," no. Simply attributing to "electoral fraud" what departs from your biased and ill-informed expectation does not constitute "probable cause" of anything except for your ignorance and bias. Even the GOP admits they lost the presidential election, not that it was stolen from them or rigged.

Previously cited.The James O'Keefe video.

http://twitchy.com/2012/10/24/james-okeefe-teases-another-bombshell-video/


As to why the GOP doesn't pursue all of the claims, they are prohibited from doing so by law. See the previous citation addressed to Jaydeehess.

 

[JayUtah]

Because the GOP is prohibited from doing so by law made by a 5th column of traitorous RINOS who made a spurious consent decree agreement with the Dems.

I think it's cute how you're now relying on the legal analysis of a guy with duct tape wrapped around his head, posting in an anonymous self-operated Wordpress blog.

You do realize, of course, that the consent decree is tantamount to an admission of guilt that the GOP operatives were indeed engaging in voter intimidation at the time.

The consent decree limits "ballot security" activity on the GOP's part only in or near a polling place. It does not prevent either party from bringing subsequent action in court alleging voting fraud, or providing evidence to law enforcement of such activity so as to result in criminal investigation and prosecution. The decree does not in any way give any political party carte blanche to commit fraud or break the law; it merely prevents one political party from appointing itself the electoral police and attempting to enforce by intimidation its own ideas of electoral policy.

You should try paying attention to scholars and analysts who don't have duct tape on their heads.

 

[R.A.F.]

The mainstream news media spins the news by simply not reporting news that might conflict with their religion -- Obama worship.

Worshiping Obama sounds better than worshiping ignorance.

 

[JayUtah]

Previously cited.The James O'Keefe video.

Already addressed. Further, you neglected to address accounts of similar activity that favored Romney.

As to why the GOP doesn't pursue all of the claims, they are prohibited from doing so by law. See the previous citation addressed to Jaydeehess.

Addressed in a separate post above.

 

[jaydeehess]

Most posters here do not watch Fox.

I don't like Fox News but I do on occassion watch Fox News specifically so that I can observe how their fair and balanced stacks up against what I see on other networks.

I find myself muttering B****** as much when viewing it as I do when watching MSNBC! (Which I also watch only occassionally because of its obvious bias.

 

[jaydeehess]

Actually, election fraud is illegal. And in this election, the overwhelming evidence points to Democrat Fraud.

You keep saying this but you have yet to show that its true. I'm not going to accept that opinion until you can show me something other than uninformed anedotes put forth by people rushing to judgement such as yourself.

 

[jaydeehess]

Because the GOP is prohibited from doing so by law made by a 5th column of traitorous RINOS who made a spurious consent decree agreement with the Dems.

"The RNC and DNC made their Consent Decree 30 years ago, in 1982. The agreement in effect gives a carte blanche to the Democrat Party to commit vote fraud in every voting district across America that has, in the language of the Consent Decree, “a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations.” The term “substantial proportion” is not defined."


http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/why-the-gop-will-not-do-anything-about-vote-fraud/

Why is it that you so often quote another person's opinion about something rather than quote the original source?

How about a link to the "Consent Decree" itself or whole paragraph quotes from it rather than quote mines of it?

BTW when I try to open that link my computer hangs up.

Does your opion piece explain why, if the Dems have carte blanche to steal any election, that they managed to lose a few?
How the bloody H did GWB ever get elected?
It apparently doesn't apply to Congress either.

 

[jaydeehess]

I did a little quick research on the consent decree in question and it appears that NOTHING about it prevents the GOP from pursueing a claim of voter fraud AFTER THE FACT!
Certainly NOTHING in it would disallow an investigation concerning rigged voting MACHINES.
Its designed to adress voter restrictions being put in place BEFORE or during the election.
They only way it would even apply here would be if there was some effort by REPUBLICANS to restrict the ability to vote.

Sorry Robert, unless you can show otherwise, you seem to be barking up the wrong tree on this one.

 

[Garrison]

"Minor tragedy"?????? Four Americans murdered including an Ambassador who pleaded for protection to no avail? And you call that "Minor"???

"Pales in comparison" to what, perhaps Watergate????? Was anyone murdered because of Watergate????

Now I don't think you have ever heard of Benghazi either.

Oh please spare us the mock indignation, you know exactly what I had in mind and if you don't you're too damn ignorant to bother with.

 

[EventHorizon]

Funny how the GOP are not parading this withnesss around the US media

Robert will hand-wave that away by calling the GOP a bunch of RINOs.

Because the GOP is prohibited from doing so by law made by a 5th column of traitorous RINOS who made a spurious consent decree agreement with the Dems.

"The RNC and DNC made their Consent Decree 30 years ago, in 1982. The agreement in effect gives a carte blanche to the Democrat Party to commit vote fraud in every voting district across America that has, in the language of the Consent Decree, “a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations.” The term “substantial proportion” is not defined."


http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/why-the-gop-will-not-do-anything-about-vote-fraud/

When do I collect my million dollars? Do I need to contact somebody?