• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

McCain is done

BenBurch said:
I can't see how you are wrong.

And likewise, look at the campaign organization Obama leads!
Click to expand...

Total goat blather. The topic is whether the candidacy of John McCain and Sarah Palin is finished, or not.

Anything else is totally off topic. ;)

The candidacy has legs, whether you recognize it, or deny it.
 
BenBurch said:
No, as I know intimately the election process here and we use machines there is STILL no opportunity for fraud; We have a book that is printed by the County that has all names in order and for which duplicates are filtered before printing. The election judges then mark your entry when you vote so that you cannot vote a second time. The machine has nothing to do with this part of the process.
Click to expand...

I think the fraud arises if the same person is registered numerous times with different addresses. That's why voter registration (at least here) uses identifying stuff like driver's license number, the last 4 digits of your SSN, and your signature.

The registration fraud caught in Independence, MO was of that variety. The same person tried to register numerous times with different addresses (so the person might be in several different sign off books). The case I've seen (admittedly mostly reported by Republican sources) was of one Monica Ray who registered 10 times using 3 different birthdates and 4 different SSNs--but the signature was obviously the same.

I think, as someone already observed, this was more a scam to fraud ACORN by a canvasser rather than ACORN trying to scam the system.
 
Rika said:
I did. No results. Mind providing your own research? I'm tired of researching your claims and I need to run to work.

(That is, I would be very apprecitative if you could find them.)
Click to expand...

Keep sucking that benzene: s'it doof rof rouy dimn!
 
leonAzul said:
Total goat blather. The topic is whether the candidacy of John McCain and Sarah Palin is finished, or not.
Click to expand...
Unless Obama makes a pretty gruesome mistake, I'd say it's pretty much finished.


leonAzul said:
The candidacy has legs, whether you recognize it, or deny it.
Click to expand...
I would certainly hope so, for McCain's sake. He has a lot of lost ground to cover if he has chance in November and the clock is ticking.
 
BeAChooser said:
Then I hope you love high taxes, high unemployment, a sluggish economy, terrorism, socialism and lies. Because that's what Obama will bring.

It's beggars and choosers folks. And the beggars have discovered they can outvote the choosers. I hope you like working for their freebies. :D
Click to expand...

joobz said:
You just described the last 8 years.
Click to expand...

If I hadn't been familiar with BAC postings I would have thought his post was meant to be sarcastic.

It is just amazing that on a skeptics board somebody could see the Republicans as the party of low taxes. The Republicans spent 4.5 trillion dollars that the country doesn't have over the last seven years. Who does BAC and the rest of the knee jerk Republican partisans around here think is going to pay for that? Being for low taxes and high spend might be good for sound bites but it's not exactly a sustainable approach.

The notion that Democrats are fiscally irresponsible while Republicans are this great bastion of free markets and fiscal responsibility is only true in some mythical Republican Shangri-La. The Republicans have savaged the country with massive crony driven spending and now the country is beginning to pay the horrible price for the horrible Republican governance.

You might vote for Republicans because you like their nation building ideas or you go for their jingoistic militarism but if you actually believe their hypocritical patter about small government and low taxes you are one gullible individual.
 
Last edited:
leonAzul said:
Keep sucking that benzene: s'it doof rof rouy dimn!
Click to expand...

... or you can just be insulting, and I can just disregard you and what you say as I have no reason to spend time better spent on writing, or getting my comp to work. OK. Good way to convert someone, or evne provide proof, is to assume I'm sucking in benzene. WAY TO GO.
 
davefoc said:
If I hadn't been familiar with BAC postings I would have thought his post was meant to be sarcastic.

It is just amazing that on a skeptics board somebody could see the Republicans as the party of low taxes. The Republicans spent 4.5 trillion dollars that the country doesn't have over the last seven years. Who does BAC and the rest of the knee jerk Republican partisans around here think is going to pay for that? Being for low taxes and high spend might be good for sound bites but it's not exactly a sustainable approach.

The notion that Democrats are fiscally irresponsible while Republicans are this great bastion of free markets and fiscal responsibility is only true in some mythical Republican Shangri-La. The Republicans have savaged the country with massive crony driven spending and now the country is beginning to pay the horrible price for the horrible Republican governance.

You might vote for Republicans because you like their nation building ideas or you go for their jingoistic militarism but if you actually believe their hypocritical patter about small government and low taxes you are one gullible individual.
Click to expand...

GREAT POST!

Good stuff there Dave, thanks for that.
 
Rika said:
... or you can just be insulting, and I can just disregard you and what you say as I have no reason to spend time better spent on writing, or getting my comp to work. OK. Good way to convert someone, or evne provide proof, is to assume I'm sucking in benzene. WAY TO GO.
Click to expand...

Way to go, Rika.

Continue to prove my point of view with your arrant goat blather :-/

Your command of the English language is nothing else than astounding.
 
rikzilla said:
I just hope he doesn't screw this opportunity up as Clinton did his.....or Carter for that matter. He can do a lot of good, let's all hope he lives up to his potential.

-z
Click to expand...
rik:

Hope is not a method: it is an advertising slogan in this election, and it is a non-substatiated musing, an unfounded expectation of positive future outcomes. ( The other tag line seems to be change, far to loosely used. :p )

Vote and hope?

I suppose that to some extent, we do that in each election: hope the ones chosen don't cock it up too badly.

Here's somewhere where hope as a method was applied, with poor results: Iraq, 2003, by the Bush team, Phases III and IV of Operation Iraqi Freedom . . . which continues as we speak. The more irritating part is that sober analysis and due diligence was done, but discarded by leadership.

How much due diligence are voters doing in this election? I wonder.
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
rik:

Hope is not a method: it is an advertising slogan in this election, and it is a non-substantiated musing, an unfounded expectation of positive future outcomes. ( The other tag line seems to be change, far too loosely used. :p )
<snippage>
How much due diligence are voters doing in this election? I wonder.
Click to expand...

FIFY :bgrin:

I grok you ;)
 
Darth Rotor said:
Hope is not a method: it is an advertising slogan in this election, and it is a non-substantiated musing, an unfounded expectation of positive future outcomes.
Click to expand...
Hope is indeed a wish for a desired outcome, but it need not be unfounded. When something comes with evidence that it may work, it also increases hope. That evidence may be a rational explanation, a statistical analysis of past efforts, or other support data.

For example, if your air conditioner wasn't working, you might add coolant and hope that worked, because you know that coolant is a vital ingredient of AC's that sometimes leaks out. Still you might not know that it will work this time. You hope so. Alternatively, you may fall on your knees and pray to God to fix your air conditioner. You don't really have a lot of evidence that God has such technical interests, but somebody told you God answers prayers and will take care of you. At least, you hope so.

both of those are examples of hope. One is hope based on evidence. One is hope based on nothing but a wish.

I think that when political parties talk of "hope" the intend it to mean that the past evidence and the policies that their preferred candidate espouses give you better reason to have hope.

And of course, both parties hope their candidate will win. Right now, those hopes are unequal, by about ten percent.
 
Last edited:
leonAzul said:
Way to go, Rika.

Continue to prove my point of view with your arrant goat blather :-/

Your command of the English language is nothing else than astounding.
Click to expand...

I think you mean "errant".

Your command of the English language is something less than astounding, leonAzul.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I think you mean "errant".

Your command of the English language is something less than astounding, leonAzul.
Click to expand...


"Arrant" works in that post. It translates to "utter" or "downright" goat blather. It's used as an intensifier.
 
leonAzul said:
The facts are the other way around.

Out of 2,000 voter registrations facilitated by ACORN in the year 2004, only 180 or so were legitimate.

This is well documented ( I may have biffed the precise numbers, yet the comparative ratio is approximate and true )
Click to expand...

It would be very helpful if you could source your numbers.

I've found an article concerning ACORN's registrations in the state of Washington in 2004 that states 1762 of 1805 registrations in that state alone were fraudulent, but that no one showed up to vote under those registrations. Furthermore, the prosecutor for the case said, ""The defendants ... cheated their employers to get paid for work they did not actually perform... The defendants simply realized that making up names was easier than actually canvassing the streets." (This is the link: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/325217_registrations27.html)

You seem claim there were approx. 2000 registrations facilitated by ACORN in 2004. If 1805 of those were in the state of Washington alone then that leaves fewer than 200 registrations collected by ACORN in the rest of the US. That number doesn't seem right to me. Could you please provide your source for this, I can't seem to find it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom