# Serious question



## Silence (Oct 14, 2008)

Why do democrats want MORE people to vote and Republicans want FEWER people to vote?

I'm really curious about this.


----------



## manifold (Oct 14, 2008)

duh!

Cuz they both want their side to win.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 14, 2008)

Silence said:


> Why do democrats want MORE people to vote and Republicans want FEWER people to vote?
> 
> I'm really curious about this.



Republicans don't want fewer people to vote----that is a lie


----------



## Andrew2382 (Oct 14, 2008)

Republicans just don't want people like this voting

http://disney-desktop-wallpaper.com/walt-disney-world/mickey-mouse.jpg


----------



## DiamondDave (Oct 14, 2008)

You need to more accurately phrase the question...


DEMs want more people who want something or some handout from the government, who normally would not be voting, to cast a vote for them to seize or keep power.... I don't officially know what the REPs want.... I want to ensure that every vote cast is a valid vote cast by someone eligible to vote, and that it is not a second vote by any person....

and Mani is right... both sides want to win


----------



## rayboyusmc (Oct 14, 2008)

Republicans don't get involved in voting fraud, they excel in election fraud.

It's easier to disqualify more people they don't like that way.


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 14, 2008)

Silence said:


> Why do democrats want MORE people to vote and Republicans want FEWER people to vote?
> 
> I'm really curious about this.



I'm a Republican Silence and can tell you nothing pleases me more than to see people voting it validates all that I have ever stood for. You know, I have said it many times, my daughter is a big supporter of Obama and I could not be more proud of her, not because of her choice, but simply because she has taken the time to stop and realize that she does have a voice in her own government. You may  be surprised at how this Republican feels about MORE people voting.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

Andrew2382 said:


> Republicans just don't want people like this voting
> 
> http://disney-desktop-wallpaper.com/walt-disney-world/mickey-mouse.jpg



Actually, many Republicans don't want to see this group voting:



Or this group:



Or people of this race:

http://historytogo.utah.gov/people/...ahs_american_indians/images/Washakie_copy.jpg

Or people of this race:

http://www.newberg.k12.or.us/files/Image/Hispanic Parent Group.jpg

But these people are a okay:


----------



## Andrew2382 (Oct 14, 2008)

ooo KKK joke.

Ok I can play that game

People who vote for Obama


http://www.knowgangs.com/photo/data/503/medium/BLOODS_IN_THE_PARK.jpg


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 14, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Actually, many Republicans don't want to see this group voting:
> 
> View attachment 6088
> 
> ...




spread the lies Robby------you'll get a lto of credibility that way !


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 14, 2008)

Stupid azz questions!


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> spread the lies Robby------you'll get a lto of credibility that way !



Well gee, many Cons on this board always point out that 95% of African Americans are going to vote for Obama this election.

What better way to get rid of that then not have them vote at all through voter fraud?

Meanwhile, who do you think the KKK is going to vote for in this election? The only KKK members voting for Obama are the ones too stupid enough to know how to cast a ballot in the first place.


----------



## del (Oct 14, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Actually, many Republicans don't want to see this group voting:
> 
> View attachment 6088
> 
> ...



how long have you been a bigot?

big·ot        (b&#301;g'&#601;t)  Pronunciation Key 
n.   One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


[French, from Old French.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

Andrew2382 said:


> ooo KKK joke.
> 
> Ok I can play that game
> 
> ...



Actually it's people of all races and creeds. Unlike the RNC, which was about 95% white from what I saw.


----------



## Angel Heart (Oct 14, 2008)

Silence said:


> Why do democrats want MORE people to vote and Republicans want FEWER people to vote?
> 
> I'm really curious about this.



If this is true then why do we even have registration cards at each of our offices? Why do I carry cards on me up until the last day they can be turned in (today in Oregon BTW).


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

del said:


> how long have you been a bigot?
> 
> big·ot        (b&#301;g'&#601;t)  Pronunciation Key
> n.   One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
> ...



Am I intolerant or a bigot? No

But to tell me that all Republicans want African Americans voting in this election is ignorant.

Or do you ignore the fact that the racists are voting Republican in this election?


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 14, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Actually it's people of all races and creeds. Unlike the RNC, which was about 95% white from what I saw.





Well 98% of blacks will vote for Obama
  but

98% of whites will not vote for McCain


and that's a fact.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> Well 98% of blacks will vote for Obama
> but
> 
> 98% of whites will not vote for McCain
> ...



That's a fact huh? You just proved my point.

But where you getting those stats from? Other then the obvious place which is your ass.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 14, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Actually it's people of all races and creeds. Unlike the RNC, which was about 95% white from what I saw.




Ahh the politics of hate----you've made it Robby !!


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Ahh the politics of hate----you've made it Robby !!



Politics of hate? No

Politics of truth and not denying it? Yes

It's not my fault that your party currently has a bunch of angry white people wanting Obama dead and lynched because they think he's a arab or a terrorist. Or just because he's half black.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 14, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> That's a fact huh? You just proved my point.
> 
> But where you getting those stats from? Other then the obvious place which is your ass.





want to put some money on the table that 98% of the whites will vote for MCain?  Well doya huh?


----------



## Silence (Oct 14, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> I'm a Republican Silence and can tell you nothing pleases me more than to see people voting it validates all that I have ever stood for. You know, I have said it many times, my daughter is a big supporter of Obama and I could not be more proud of her, not because of her choice, but simply because she has taken the time to stop and realize that she does have a voice in her own government. You may  be surprised at how this Republican feels about MORE people voting.



I'm more impressed with you with every passing day Navy!  

The fact is the GOP attempts to knock people OFF the voter rolls, thereby keeping them from voting.  

The Dems apparently try to register people to vote who aren't eligible to vote.

Does one cancel out the other?  Do the Dems do what they do because Republican attempts to disenfranchise voters?  Do the Repubs do what they do in an effort to catch the illegal registrations?  

And why does it seem that more democrats get bumped off the voter rolls than Republicans?  

Do the Republicans hold get out the vote drives?  do they attempt to register new voters?  if yes, then how is it possible that they have no fraudulent registrations since it's human nature apparently to try to cheat.  and if no, why not?  

I'm not trying to be argumentative...

I see every election that the republicans worry about high voter turn out.  Wouldn't more voters bring them more votes if they have so much support?  

Why does more voter turn out always = lost elections for Republicans?  

and why does low voter turn out always = lost elections for Democrats?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> want to put some money on the table that 98% of the whites will vote for MCain?  Well doya huh?



No no, I meant the 98% of Blacks will supposedly vote for Obama part you brought up.

That much I'll put money on NOT happening.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

Silence said:


> I'm more impressed with you with every passing day Navy!
> 
> The fact is the GOP attempts to knock people OFF the voter rolls, thereby keeping them from voting.
> 
> ...



Cause too many people only vote and give a damn when the Republicans have fucked up this country beyond measure.


----------



## del (Oct 14, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Am I intolerant or a bigot? No
> 
> But to tell me that all Republicans want African Americans voting in this election is ignorant.
> 
> Or do you ignore the fact that the racists are voting Republican in this election?



i didn't tell you all anything want anything.
 are you claiming there are *no* democratic racists?
 ever been to boston? 
the last republican anything in the city of boston was probably around wwI, and i can tell you there are still plenty of racists there. 

read your own posts and then answer the question honestly.


you are a bigot.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 14, 2008)

Silence said:


> I'm more impressed with you with every passing day Navy!
> 
> The fact is the GOP attempts to knock people OFF the voter rolls, thereby keeping them from voting.
> 
> ...





What you are clearly doing is condoning voter fraud by your party and condemning the other for fraud.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

del said:


> i didn't tell you all anything want anything.
> are you claiming there are *no* democratic racists?
> ever been to boston?
> the last republican anything in the city of boston was probably around wwI, and i can tell you there are still plenty of racists there.
> ...



Did I ever say there are no democrat racists? Mind pointing out where I said that?

Yes, I've been to Boston. Yes, I know how bad it can be there.

I'm not a bigot as much as you want to try and slander me Del. I'm just pointing out the facts, in this election; racists are voting republican.

Are you trying to tell me otherwise? That white racist members of the KKK will come out in droves for Obama?

If so, I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 14, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> No no, I meant the 98% of Blacks will supposedly vote for Obama part you brought up.
> 
> That much I'll put money on NOT happening.






How many blacks do you say will NOT vote for Obamalama? We'll see who comes closest.


----------



## xsited1 (Oct 14, 2008)

This is generally true because more people means more poor people who traditionally vote Democratic because historically the Democrats have given more handouts to the poor.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> How many blacks do you say will NOT vote for Obamalama? We'll see who comes closest.



Least 5-10% I bet. African Americans have traditionally voted Democrat anyway since after the 1960's.


----------



## Silence (Oct 14, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Cause too many people only vote and give a damn when the Republicans have fucked up this country beyond measure.



you aren't answering my question Robert

I understand why there is high voter turn out but why does that always mean the Republicans lose?  or why is it their opinion that that is what it will mean anyway?


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

Silence said:


> Why do democrats want MORE people to vote and Republicans want FEWER people to vote?
> 
> I'm really curious about this.



Wow, all these responses, and nobody can answer this fairly simple question?

The fringe group between the "more" and the "fewer" votes, are individuals who often vote Democrat.   If Republicans make the rules of registration harder, the individuals who will be disenfranchised will often vote Democrat.   So, Democrats are in favor of making it as easy as possible to vote-which often means that its easier to commit voting fraud.

Its a balancing act, one side which benefits Republicans more, and one side that benefits Democrats more.   Its no wonder that each side supports policies which benefit their party more.


----------



## del (Oct 14, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Did I ever say there are no democrat racists? Mind pointing out where I said that?
> 
> Yes, I've been to Boston. Yes, I know how bad it can be there.
> 
> ...



it's not slander when it's the truth. sorry. and your attempts at deflecting responsibility for what _you_ posted are disingenuous.

you're a bigot, but i'm sure it's for the forces of good, right?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

Btw Del another thing.

Before you try to paint me with your very wide and blind brush, think about this and take off the blinders for a minute.

Who are the KKK and other white racists going to vote for in this election? Democrat? Hell to high water will they vote for Obama. They rather see him dead first.

Racists will vote Republican this campaign season. Hence "MANY REPUBLICANS" will hope that all these groups will not, because otherwise they don't win.

If everyone was involved in the election process who can, Republicans wouldn't win. Especially if the youth vote comes out in the droves that are predicted.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 14, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Did I ever say there are no democrat racists? Mind pointing out where I said that?
> 
> Yes, I've been to Boston. Yes, I know how bad it can be there.
> 
> ...



and black racists vote for Obama--big deal.


----------



## Silence (Oct 14, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> What you are clearly doing is condoning voter fraud by your party and condemning the other for fraud.



only in your imagination willow.  

I think BOTH are wrong and I've said BOTH should be prosecuted if crimes are committed.

and falsely registering to vote but not casting a vote isn't the same as  knocking a legal voter off the rolls and thereby illegally denying them their constitutional right to vote.

I guess I want to know, is it cause and effect?

Dems try to register more people, legal or illegal, to buffer those voters that the Repubs will surely knock off the rolls 

and Repubs knock voters off the rolls to buffer those illegal registered voters


does each group do what they do in an attempt to nullify the voter fraud of the other party?


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

del said:


> it's not slander when it's the truth. sorry. and your attempts at deflecting responsibility for what _you_ posted are disingenuous.
> 
> you're a bigot, but i'm sure it's for the forces of good, right?



What's false about what I said? Please point out to me anywhere I said there are no Democrat racists. A-N-Y-W-H-E-R-E, see I spelled it out for you.

You can't find it anywhere, you just keep repeating the same mantra over and over trying to discredit me. Prove to me where I'm wrong. Prove to me the KKK will come out for Obama, that the racists aren't voting for McCain this election season.

If you can prove those things, your right and I'm wrong.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> and black racists vote for Obama--big deal.



Again, I never said they don't exist. But to say no Republicans are racist is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read in my entire life.

Hell, there are plenty of racist white Democrats. Those are the ones voting Republican or staying home this year.


----------



## del (Oct 14, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Btw Del another thing.
> 
> Before you try to paint me with your very wide and blind brush, think about this and take off the blinders for a minute.
> 
> ...



go back and read your post.  if i posted the same words and pix, but used dems instead of repubs, what would you think?
you're a bigot.
end of story.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

Silence said:


> you aren't answering my question Robert
> 
> I understand why there is high voter turn out but why does that always mean the Republicans lose?  or why is it their opinion that that is what it will mean anyway?



Oh I see.

I personally believe the more people who vote, the more people who vote Democrat. Democrats actually outnumber Republicans, they just rarely in recent years had candidates to get excited about.

I knew plenty of Democrats in 2004 who voted for Bush over Kerry because Kerry was just that bad.

Why it's their opinion that it will? Tough question since I'm not a republican but I assume it's the whole "us against the world" mentality.

Xsite really summed it up to how they feel: 





> "This is generally true because more people means more poor people who traditionally vote Democratic because historically the Democrats have given more handouts to the poor."



They feel Democrats give to the poor so therefore more poor people equals more democrat votes.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

del said:


> go back and read your post.  if i posted the same words and pix, but used dems instead of repubs, what would you think?
> you're a bigot.
> end of story.



Well if you could prove to me it's true, I might say you had a point.

Otherwise, you don't.

I'm not a bigot, end of story.

But really Del, you keep saying go back and read my post. I have, and yet you haven't proven anything. You haven't proven me wrong, you just say "if and what would you think."

Show some proof to the fact I'm wrong, otherwise put down the blinders and the brush.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Wow, all these responses, and nobody can answer this fairly simple question?
> 
> The fringe group between the "more" and the "fewer" votes, are individuals who often vote Democrat.   If Republicans make the rules of registration harder, the individuals who will be disenfranchised will often vote Democrat.   So, Democrats are in favor of making it as easy as possible to vote-which often means that its easier to commit voting fraud.
> 
> Its a balancing act, one side which benefits Republicans more, and one side that benefits Democrats more.   Its no wonder that each side supports policies which benefit their party more.





The questions premise had to be true before intelligent people can answer it DUmbazz


----------



## DiamondDave (Oct 14, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Actually, many Republicans don't want to see this group voting:
> 
> View attachment 6088
> 
> ...



Probably the most ignorant post I have seen on here lately... and THAT says a lot, considering we have kirky boy and bobo the clown still posting here


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 14, 2008)

Silence said:


> I'm more impressed with you with every passing day Navy!
> 
> The fact is the GOP attempts to knock people OFF the voter rolls, thereby keeping them from voting.
> 
> ...



The fool has as great a right to express his opinion by vote as the wise, because he is equally free, and equally master of himself."  Thomas Jefferson

IMHO each citizen has an OBLIGATION to this great country in the selection of our leader's.  This not only validates ALL those who have laid down their lives for the last 200 plus years for this nation but it also lets us decide what kind of nation we leave those that come after us.  This RIGHT, should NEVER be taken away, for ANY reason, sold, or bartered or even trampled upon in an attempt to get one candidate or the other elected. Those that do are no better than the people who seek to destroy this great nation. 

To me Silence it is a matter of perception, if someone gets a reputation for doing one thing or the other then it becomes in todays fast moving society , if it is true or not a "label" and a weapon to be used in order to seek advantage in a political fight.  Let me give you an example of the label of democrats, every election cycle they motivate the young people then when election days rolls around they forget about them. See, thats perception, it may not be true, however it is a "label".  I have no use for any group be they democrat or republican that uses the right to vote as some sort of weapon or makes a living with these labels. It takes away  from the real business at hand. The bottom line is this, when you or me or my daughter walk into that voting booth, you have in your way showed  the true meaning of what it is to be an American Patriot regardless of who you pull that lever for. Those that make a living off of keeping Americans from doing that in my mind are one's that deserve scorn and do not deserve the word American associated with their names.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Probably the most ignorant post I have seen on here lately... and THAT says a lot, considering we have kirky boy and bobo the clown still posting here



Of course, since the whole idea of a Racist Republican existing is just another Liberal myth right?


----------



## del (Oct 14, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Well if you could prove to me it's true, I might say you had a point.
> 
> Otherwise, you don't.
> 
> ...



a wise man once said never try to teach a pig to whistle. it wastes your time and annoys the pig. 
he was right, and i'm done wasting my time.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 14, 2008)

Silence said:


> only in your imagination willow.
> 
> I think BOTH are wrong and I've said BOTH should be prosecuted if crimes are committed.
> 
> ...



See? I told you you were condoning it. Rest my case. To what end do you think the put forth all the effort to register multiple times if the person is only going to vote once. Stop being dishonest here it dosen't become you.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Wow, all these responses, and nobody can answer this fairly simple question?
> 
> The fringe group between the "more" and the "fewer" votes, are individuals who often vote Democrat.   If Republicans make the rules of registration harder, the individuals who will be disenfranchised will often vote Democrat.   So, Democrats are in favor of making it as easy as possible to vote-which often means that its easier to commit voting fraud.
> 
> Its a balancing act, one side which benefits Republicans more, and one side that benefits Democrats more.   Its no wonder that each side supports policies which benefit their party more.


no one has answered it because it is a false dichotomy


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

del said:


> a wise man once said never try to teach a pig to whistle. it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
> he was right, and i'm done wasting my time.



Once again, you've proven nothing.

Just a bunch of talk but no action. Though if it was such a waste of time why:

A.) Bother in the first place

B.) Make that post

Unless you just to get that last word in and feel superior by accusing me of being a bigot against Republicans. Sorry I speak the truth when I say many republicans (never said no democrats don't feel this way) because they are racist don't want to see all these groups voting.

The same spoke true of many Democrats in the 1960's in the south and even in the north.


----------



## Missourian (Oct 14, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Btw Del another thing.
> 
> Before you try to paint me with your very wide and blind brush, think about this and take off the blinders for a minute.



Robbie, if you think one side is all good and the other side is all bad, you're the one that needs to take the blinders off.


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> no one has answered it because it is a false dichotomy



Oh, do explain how.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

Missourian said:


> Robbie, if you think one side is all good and the other side is all bad, you're the one that needs to take the blinders off.



Never said that Missourian. Look at my last post above.

I NEVER stated anywhere that there are no racist Democrats.

There have been plenty of racist Democrats in history just like Republicans. Just so happens in this election that the racists in both parties are coming together to vote Republican because they don't want Obama in the White House because he is half-black.

Does that make sense to everyone or not really?

Btw, when did I ever state all Republicans believe this? I said MANY, not all.
Just like there are MANY racist DEMOCRATS.


----------



## Missourian (Oct 14, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Who are the KKK and other white racists going to vote for in this election? Democrat? Hell to high water will they vote for Obama. They rather see him dead first.
> 
> Racists will vote Republican this campaign season. Hence "MANY REPUBLICANS" will hope that all these groups will not, because otherwise they don't win.
> 
> If everyone was involved in the election process who can, Republicans wouldn't win. Especially if the youth vote comes out in the droves that are predicted.




If Racism decides the outcome of this presidential election, it is going to be Democrat and Independent Racists, not Republicans.  Republicans wern't going to vote for Obama anyway.


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

Missourian said:


> If Racism decides the outcome of this presidential election, it is going to be Democrat and Independent Racists, not Republicans.  Repblicans wern't going to vote for Obama anyway.



Considering the economy is in the shitter, I'm not so sure of that.   Maybe far-right folks wouldn't, but bread and butter Republicans who are being hurt, might.


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 14, 2008)

Something to consider here, when the economy is bad, and when a company is getting ready to lay off  people such as with the case of my wife. The first question they asked was not  if she was republican or democrat.  The point here is this no one party has a license on goodness, nor is one party the  picture of evil. Perhaps, this is the very reason why the same people we elect year after year never seem to tend the nations business because they are too busy cheering for their team when they all need to be cheering for OUR team for a change.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 14, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> Something to consider here, when the economy is bad, and when a company is getting ready to lay off  people such as with the case of my wife. The first question they asked was not  if she was republican or democrat.  The point here is this no one party has a license on goodness, nor is one party the  picture of evil. Perhaps, this is the very reason why the same people we elect year after year never seem to tend the nations business because they are too busy cheering for their team when they all need to be cheering for OUR team for a change.



That makes too much sense--it would ruin everything


----------



## Missourian (Oct 14, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Never said that Missourian. Look at my last post above.
> 
> I NEVER stated anywhere that there are no racist Democrats.
> 
> ...





I was speaking more generally, not specifically to race issues.

Even though I am a registered Republican,  there are some Democratic staples that I support.  I am an outdoorsman and therefore an environmentalist.  I support Unions.  I support outreach to the poor. I support global HIV reduction funding.  Democrats blocked the Mexican trucking pilot program and just recently defunded it.  They also blocked the privatization of social security.  I've also voted for Congressman Ike Skelton (D-MO) three times.  He does a good job. 

What I'm saying is, don't fall into the trap "my party is always right, they are a beacon of all that is good in the cosmos"  because, truth be told they are all power-hungry, coniving snakes in the grass who would gladly beat their mothers with an iron bar if that's what it took to get elected.


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 14, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> That makes too much sense--it would ruin everything



lol. well heck dillo there I go messing up all the fun.


----------



## Missourian (Oct 14, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> Something to consider here, when the economy is bad, and when a company is getting ready to lay off  people such as with the case of my wife. The first question they asked was not  if she was republican or democrat.  The point here is this no one party has a license on goodness, nor is one party the  picture of evil. Perhaps, this is the very reason why the same people we elect year after year never seem to tend the nations business because they are too busy cheering for their team when they all need to be cheering for OUR team for a change.




I'm going to have to learn to type faster.


----------



## AllieBaba (Oct 14, 2008)

Silence said:


> Why do democrats want MORE people to vote and Republicans want FEWER people to vote?
> 
> I'm really curious about this.



Democrats want more votes, not more "voters".

Demonstrated by their repeated voter fraud.

The only people we don't want to vote are dead, non-existent, or non-human.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

Missourian said:


> If Racism decides the outcome of this presidential election, it is going to be Democrat and Independent Racists, not Republicans.  Republicans wern't going to vote for Obama anyway.



True yet not true. I agree with you on the racist Democrat and Independent part.

Not all Republicans were happy with John McCain being chosen for the Republican Party though.


----------



## Chris (Oct 14, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Democrats want more votes, not more "voters".
> 
> Demonstrated by their repeated voter fraud.
> 
> The only people we don't want to vote are dead, non-existent, or non-human.



Wrong. 

Democrats have always championed drivers liscense voter registration. Nothing more fair than that.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 14, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> lol. well heck dillo there I go messing up all the fun.



Well--there are other things to fight about but it gets pretty nasty .


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

Missourian said:


> I was speaking more generally, not specifically to race issues.
> 
> Even though I am a registered Republican,  there are some Democratic staples that I support.  I am an outdoorsman and therefore an environmentalist.  I support Unions.  I support outreach to the poor. I support global HIV reduction funding.  Democrats blocked the Mexican trucking pilot program and just recently defunded it.  They also blocked the privatization of social security.  I've also voted for Congressman Ike Skelton (D-MO) three times.  He does a good job.
> 
> *What I'm saying is, don't fall into the trap "my party is always right, they are a beacon of all that is good in the cosmos"  because, truth be told they are all power-hungry, coniving snakes in the grass who would gladly beat their mothers with an iron bar if that's what it took to get elected*.



We are a bit opposite on your top part, especially on what we register as. 

But with what I bolded, couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## Missourian (Oct 14, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Democrats want more votes, not more "voters".
> 
> Demonstrated by their repeated voter fraud.
> 
> The only people we don't want to vote are dead, non-existent, or non-human.










I know, I know.  Your tired of seeing this cartoon, but it makes me laugh. ​


----------



## AllieBaba (Oct 14, 2008)

Chris said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Democrats have always championed drivers liscense voter registration. Nothing more fair than that.



Except their "drives" are nothing more than voter fraud machines. The sole intend of the "drives" is to push up Dem voter numbers...in any way possible. Hence your terrible record of stealing elections, voter fraud, etc.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> True yet not true. I agree with you on the racist Democrat and Independent part.
> 
> Not all Republicans were happy with John McCain being chosen for the Republican Party though.


but NONE of them would be voting for someone with Obamas platform


----------



## Avatar4321 (Oct 14, 2008)

Silence said:


> Why do democrats want MORE people to vote and Republicans want FEWER people to vote?
> 
> I'm really curious about this.



i think the real question is why do Republicans want real people to vote and Democrats want makebelieve/dead people to vote?

it's easy. The Democrats are trying to inflate the rolls so they can cheat. Its not freaking rocket science.


----------



## Missourian (Oct 14, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Not all Republicans were happy with John McCain being chosen for the Republican Party though.



I am one of them.  But I would wager the lions share of those would just stay home in November.

But truth be told,  IMO John McCain was the only one who stood a chance of winning.  Gulianni would have done OK but not as well as Sen. McCain, Fred Thompson's heart wasn't in it and Romney and Huckabee would have lost by a landslide.  I voted for Huckabee in the primary but he had very little chance of winning, barring a miracle.


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> but NONE of them would be voting for someone with Obamas platform



Really?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Really?


LOL
yeah, sure


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

Avatar4321 said:


> i think the real question is why do Republicans want real people to vote and Democrats want makebelieve/dead people to vote?
> 
> it's easy. The Democrats are trying to inflate the rolls so they can cheat. Its not freaking rocket science.



Actually Republicans tried to kick off 6,000 registered voters in Montana because of bullshit claims.   Surprise, surprise, it was in a Democratic district.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Actually Republicans tried to kick off 6,000 registered voters in Montana because of bullshit claims.   Surprise, surprise, it was in a Democratic district.


link?


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> link?



Montana Democratic Party Sues to Stop Republican Voter Challenges | Politics | New West Network


----------



## Silence (Oct 14, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> See? I told you you were condoning it. Rest my case. To what end do you think the put forth all the effort to register multiple times if the person is only going to vote once. Stop being dishonest here it dosen't become you.



are you really that stupid willow or is it an act?

what part of BOTH ARE WRONG is not getting through to you?!  

i guess I expect that someone on this board might have a clue but I should've known better.


----------



## Silence (Oct 14, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Except their "drives" are nothing more than voter fraud machines. The sole intend of the "drives" is to push up Dem voter numbers...in any way possible. Hence your terrible record of stealing elections, voter fraud, etc.



please please please tell me the last election stolen by a democrat allie..


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 14, 2008)

Missourian said:


> I'm going to have to learn to type faster.



Look at is this way Missourian, if your typing anything opposed to me, I'm sure the typing is better. LOL  My typing skills leave little to be desired.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 14, 2008)

del said:


> the last republican anything in the city of boston was probably around wwI,


What about the rental clerk?


----------



## del (Oct 14, 2008)

Ravi said:


> What about the rental clerk?



i meant to hold public office.
wiseass.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 14, 2008)

Silence said:


> Why do democrats want MORE people to vote and Republicans want FEWER people to vote?
> 
> I'm really curious about this.


Reps want fewer people to vote because they'd have less people to fool.


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 14, 2008)

Silence said:


> please please please tell me the last election stolen by a democrat allie..



*Democrat*
Sheila Thomas hugs Defense Attorney Paul Sims yesterday. Thomas was convicted of conspiracy and vote fraud and faces up to five years in prison for each charge. 

The jury in the East St. Louis vote fraud case gave out guilty verdicts for all five defendents yesterday in the biggest vote fraud case in the St. Louis area's history:

Convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit vote fraud during the Nov. 2 election was Charlie Powell Jr., head of the city's powerful Democratic Central Committee and a former city council member. He faces five years in prison.

Convicted of conspiracy and vote fraud and facing five years on each count were:

 Kelvin Ellis, a Democratic precinct committeeman and former East St. Louis city government department head who served a federal prison term for extortion in the early 1990s.

 Yvette Johnson, secretary to the city Democratic organization.

 Democratic precinct committeemen Sheila Thomas and Jesse Lewis.




*Republican*

BILLINGS, Mont.Montana Republicans on Tuesday abandoned their challenge to almost 6,000 voter registrations in key Democratic counties, after election officials said they would reject thousands of the challenges as invalid.


Republicans had notified seven counties last week that they were challenging the registrations of 5,977 voters whose addresses did not match a U.S. Postal Service database. Party leaders said they were trying to guard against voter fraud.


The maneuverjust weeks before the November electiondrew criticism from state and county election officials who had to investigate the claims. Nonpartisan voter rights groups said there was no proof of fraud in the state and said the GOP effort was partisan-driven. 

You see there is pretty much people no matter the label that have an agenda.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Montana Democratic Party Sues to Stop Republican Voter Challenges | Politics | New West Network


yeah, to prevent voter fraud
i can see why democrats would be against that


----------



## jschuck12001 (Oct 14, 2008)

Silence said:


> Why do democrats want MORE people to vote and Republicans want FEWER people to vote?
> 
> I'm really curious about this.



Because there are many lazy democrats.  Republicans are very loyal and always show up, this why why they always win, they are well organized, focused and determined(except this election).  I think the lower class Dems just dont believe it will make a difference whether they vote or not.


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> yeah, to prevent voter fraud
> i can see why democrats would be against that



Oh, really?

Care to explain why they targeted *only Democratic areas* to "prevent voter fraud?

Care to explain exactly what voting fraud was going on that they were trying to prevent?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Oh, really?
> 
> Care to explain why they targeted *only Democratic areas* to "prevent voter fraud?
> 
> Care to explain exactly what voting fraud was going on that they were trying to prevent?


uh, where do you think the democrats would be most likely to perpetrate their fraud?
:wall:


----------



## Missourian (Oct 14, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> *Democrat*
> 
> Sheila Thomas hugs Defense Attorney Paul Sims yesterday. Thomas was convicted of conspiracy and vote fraud and faces up to five years in prison for each charge.
> 
> ...








For the record, East Saint Louis is in *Illinois* and should not be construed in any way as a negative reflection on the Great State of Missouri. 
​

East St. Louis, Illinois - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 14, 2008)

Missourian said:


> For the record, East Saint Louis is in *Illinois* and therefore should not be construed in any way as a negative reflection on the Great State of Missouri.
> 
> 
> East St. Louis, Illinois - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It was in no way intentional to cast your state or any other for that matter in a bad light.  We have a fondness for your wonderful state here as we own a few horses that come from your great state.


----------



## Shogun (Oct 14, 2008)

Missourian said:


> For the record, East Saint Louis is in *Illinois* and should not be construed in any way as a negative reflection on the Great State of Missouri.
> ​
> 
> East St. Louis, Illinois - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



ok, on THAT we will both agree.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

Missourian said:


> I am one of them.  But I would wager the lions share of those would just stay home in November.
> 
> But truth be told,  IMO John McCain was the only one who stood a chance of winning.  Gulianni would have done OK but not as well as Sen. McCain, Fred Thompson's heart wasn't in it and Romney and Huckabee would have lost by a landslide.  I voted for Huckabee in the primary but he had very little chance of winning, barring a miracle.



Well he's the huckster, miracles is his speciality. 

It's sad really when McCain was the party's best hope. Romney got screwed kinda since he's a mormon. He's economically the most intelligent of the bunch and I admit would probably be fairing alot better then McCain at the moment.

Never mind the fact that Obama is looking better then McCain in some areas of foreign policy, which Republicans thought wouldn't happen in a cold day in hell.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 14, 2008)

Missourian said:


> For the record, East Saint Louis is in *Illinois* and should not be construed in any way as a negative reflection on the Great State of Missouri.
> ​
> 
> East St. Louis, Illinois - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The great state of Missouri, which currently has Obama up by eight points.


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> uh, where do you think the democrats would be most likely to perpetrate their fraud?
> :wall:



You are a fucking idiot.

Care to provide me with the evidence that Democrats were committing fraud at all, or they were committing fraud in those areas?

They didn't have any.   A judge found that they were challenging them based on the partisan lean of the areas.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> You are a fucking idiot.
> 
> Care to provide me with the evidence that Democrats were committing fraud at all, or they were committing fraud in those areas?
> 
> They didn't have any.   A judge found that they were challenging them based on the partisan lean of the areas.


and you are a fucking moron if you think they would be doing it in republican areas
come on man, use some common sense


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 14, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> and you are a fucking moron if you think they would be doing it in republican areas
> come on man, use some common sense






he don't got none. remember you are talking to a liberal.


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> and you are a fucking moron if you think they would be doing it in republican areas
> come on man, use some common sense



No evidence that there was any fraudulent voting/registration going on in those areas that you can provide?

Thought not.   It was a partisan ploy to deny Democrats the right to vote.   And your excusing it.   Pathetic.


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> he don't got none. remember you are talking to a liberal.



Maybe you can provide some evidence there was any fraud going on?

Or are you ok with disenfranchising college students and Native Americans because they often vote Democrat?


----------



## Shattered (Oct 14, 2008)

Silence said:


> Why do democrats want MORE people to vote and Republicans want FEWER people to vote?
> 
> I'm really curious about this.



Without reading through 8-billion pages of posts...

Dems want more *democrats* (not more *people*) to vote because not enough of them bother to normally.

Repubs want fewer *democrats* (not fewer *people*) to vote, because they're very good about getting to the polls to vote themselves.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Maybe you can provide some evidence there was any fraud going on?
> 
> Or are you ok with disenfranchising college students and Native Americans because they often vote Democrat?





bullshit, you wouldn't believe fraud if it smacked ya in the kisser. Again, I ask, probably for the third time, what is the purpose of registering someone 29 times if they are only going to vote once?  Start there.


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> bullshit, you wouldn't believe fraud if it smacked ya in the kisser. Again, I ask, probably for the third time, what is the purpose of registering someone 29 times if they are only going to vote once?  Start there.



How bout we stick on the topic?

Please provide ANY evidence of voter fraud in Montana in these specific districts.

Thanks


----------



## jschuck12001 (Oct 14, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> bullshit, you wouldn't believe fraud if it smacked ya in the kisser. Again, I ask, probably for the third time, what is the purpose of registering someone 29 times if they are only going to vote once?  Start there.



From what people on tv are saying, thats how the employees got paid, they received more money the more registrations they had.  Thats why, money always makes people do stupid things.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> How bout we stick on the topic?
> 
> Please provide ANY evidence of voter fraud in Montana in these specific districts.
> 
> Thanks



so, yer not gonna answer the question? I rest my case.


----------



## Navy1960 (Oct 14, 2008)

Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana said in a speech in July that he had used his position to influence the outcome of the 2006 Senate race in favor of a fellow Democrat, Jon Tester. Mr. Tester&#8217;s narrow victory helped to swing majority control of the United States Senate to the Democrats.

Mr. Schweitzer&#8217;s spokeswoman said Thursday that the governor&#8217;s remarks were meant only in jest. &#8220;He was joking, horsing around,&#8221; the spokeswoman, Sarah Elliott, said. The speech is at archive.org. 

But Republicans in Montana were not amused, including Secretary of State Brad Johnson, who asked the state attorney general to investigate the matter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/u.... States, Territories and Possessions/Montana


----------



## Mad Scientist (Oct 14, 2008)

Serious questions: Why can't Democrats follow election laws? Why do Democrats want Illegal Aliens to vote? Why do Democrats care about what the Eurogays think? Why do Democrats want Felons to vote?

Just wonderin'...


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> No evidence that there was any fraudulent voting/registration going on in those areas that you can provide?
> 
> Thought not.   It was a partisan ploy to deny Democrats the right to vote.   And your excusing it.   Pathetic.


why the fuck do you think it needed to be investigated


dumbass


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> so, yer not gonna answer the question? I rest my case.



Considering its off topic, and you've refused to answer my questions, no I'm not going to answer yours.

So couldn't find any evidence, eh?   What a surprise.


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> why the fuck do you think it needed to be investigated
> 
> 
> dumbass



It didn't need to be investigated.   Republicans wanted to investigate it because they wanted to kick voters off the rolls.

Unless of course you can provide that non-existant evidence?


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> and you are a fucking moron if you think they would be doing it in republican areas
> come on man, use some common sense



So...apparently they were doing it in Orange County, Florida which according to Ravi is a Republican stronghold.

So, apparently a "fucking moron" would know more about this than you.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> It didn't need to be investigated.   Republicans wanted to investigate it because they wanted to kick voters off the rolls.
> 
> Unless of course you can provide that non-existant evidence?


WRONG asshole

they dont want to stop LEGAL voters
thats your bullshit partisan way of saying they want to STOP ILLEGAL votes from happening


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> So...apparently they were doing it in Orange County, Florida which according to Ravi is a Republican stronghold.
> 
> So, apparently a "fucking moron" would know more about this than you.


ravi dont know her ass from a hole in the ground


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> WRONG asshole
> 
> they dont want to stop LEGAL voters
> thats your bullshit partisan way of saying they want to STOP ILLEGAL votes from happening



Really?   Whats your evidence that there was ANY illegal voting going on?   Surely if they wanted to stop illegal votes, they would have some evidence it was going on, right?


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> ravi dont know her ass from a hole in the ground



Really?   So is your claim that its not Republican?


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> WRONG asshole
> 
> they dont want to stop LEGAL voters
> thats your bullshit partisan way of saying they want to STOP ILLEGAL votes from happening



A federal judge thinks your opinion "defies common sense".   

Missoulian: Judge blasts GOP voter registration challenges



> The timing of these challenges is so transparent that it defies common sense to believe the purpose is anything but political chicanery, Molloy wrote.
> 
> Elsewhere, the judge wrote that Jake Eaton, executive director of the Montana Republican Party focused his ostensible worry over voter fraud not on all Montanans, but only on those who live in predominantly Democratic-leaning locations, such as Missoula and Lewis and Clark counties, where the vast majority of the 6,000 challenged voters reside.
> 
> He also wrote that had the state of Montana instituted such a voter fact-checking drive so close before an election, it would clearly violate federal law.





> The Republicans' concerns stemmed from registered voters who live at addresses different from the one listed on their voter registration information. The party requested counties ask the voters to prove their current address.



*gasp*...people move and haven't updated their files?   Omg, they must be fraudulent!!!!!

What a bunch of bullshit.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> A federal judge thinks your opinion "defies common sense".
> 
> Missoulian: Judge blasts GOP voter registration challenges
> 
> ...


they are supposed to update
if they dont, its no longer valid
that judge was a partisan asshole like YOU


----------



## del (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Really?   So is your claim that its not Republican?



yeah, it's a a real stronghold of republican voters, a veritable bastion of the GOP. lol

September
2008 Month End Statistics

	Total- 569,998 	
	Dem- 247,782 	
	Rep- 183,709 	
	Other/Minor Party- 36,946 	

No Party Affiliation- 101,561


Orange County Elections Home


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> they are supposed to update
> if they dont, its no longer valid



Actually you are wrong.   I think a Judge in Montana and the Republican Secretary of State, who agreed with the judge by the way, would know more about Montana law than you.



> that judge was a partisan asshole like YOU



And like the Republican Secretary of State is also a partisan asshole?

You are fucking blind as a bat.   You wouldn't see the truth if it hit you in the face.


----------



## WhatsGoing08 (Oct 14, 2008)

Dem. or Rep. just vote for the candidate who you believe in, and who will represent you and where you feel this country should be heading for all Americans concern.


----------



## Red Dawn (Oct 14, 2008)

Silence said:


> Why do democrats want MORE people to vote and Republicans want FEWER people to vote?
> 
> I'm really curious about this.




Because if we had 80 to 90% voter participation like all other democratic developed countries have, traditional american conservatism would never win an election.

Its disproportionately the young, the working poor, and minorities who aren't voting in large numbers.  Its not exactly a secret which party they tend to have an affinity for.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Actually you are wrong.   I think a Judge in Montana and the Republican Secretary of State, who agreed with the judge by the way, would know more about Montana law than you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


listen asshole, if you MOVE, you HAVE TO UPDATE YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION
thats the fucking LAW


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 14, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> Because if we had 80 to 90% voter participation like all other democratic developed countries have, traditional american conservatism would never win an election.
> 
> Its disproportionately the young, the working poor, and minorities who aren't voting in large numbers.  Its not exactly a secret which party they tend to have an affinity for.



no it's not. Which proves ACORN is NOT a bi-partisan organization as they claim. They are an arm of the democrat party.


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> listen asshole, if you MOVE, you HAVE TO UPDATE YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION
> thats the fucking LAW



And the REPUBLICAN Secretary of State thought the accusations were bullshit.

So shove that into your partisan pipe and smoke it, dumbshit.

Nobody but YOU thinks that the accusations had anything to do with anything other than attempting to suppress Democratic, LEGAL voters you paranoid schizo freak.


----------



## del (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> And the REPUBLICAN Secretary of State thought the accusations were bullshit.
> 
> So shove that into your partisan pipe and smoke it, dumbshit.
> 
> Nobody but YOU thinks that the accusations had anything to do with attempting to suppress Democratic, LEGAL voters you paranoid schizo freak.



heh-dr freud would like a word with you; he wants his slip back.

heh heh


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> And the REPUBLICAN Secretary of State thought the accusations were bullshit.
> 
> So shove that into your partisan pipe and smoke it, dumbshit.
> 
> Nobody but YOU thinks that the accusations had anything to do with attempting to suppress Democratic, LEGAL voters you paranoid schizo freak.


did you notice the WHY he thought that?
not because its ok to not update
but it was due to the TIMING


my god you are too fucking dense


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2008)

del said:


> heh-dr freud would like a word with you; he wants his slip back.
> 
> heh heh


you cant fix stupid


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

del said:


> heh-dr freud would like a word with you; he wants his slip back.
> 
> heh heh



Fixed so freud wouldn't go slip-less.   Twould be a tragedy.


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> did you notice the WHY he thought that?
> not because its ok to not update
> but it was due to the TIMING
> 
> my god you are too fucking dense



The timing, AND the fact that they only focused on Democratic areas (which is ILLEGAL), AND the fact that there was NO evidence of voter fraud.

The accusations were baseless lies with no evidence at all.   Of course you won't ever admit it because your a lying partisan hack.


----------



## del (Oct 14, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> you cant fix stupid



Quote:
Originally Posted by Larkinn  
And the REPUBLICAN Secretary of State thought the accusations were bullshit.

So shove that into your partisan pipe and smoke it, dumbshit.

*Nobody but YOU thinks that the accusations had anything to do with attempting to suppress Democratic, LEGAL voters you paranoid schizo freak. *

i don't think he's stupid, but he definitely needs a proofreader. either that or he's talking to himself.


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 14, 2008)

del said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Larkinn
> And the REPUBLICAN Secretary of State thought the accusations were bullshit.
> 
> ...



Aww, feel the love.   I don't proof-read what I write here.   Its not worth it.  Nor, to respond to your point from before, do I bother with correct grammar, or correct spelling.


----------



## del (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Fixed so freud wouldn't go slip-less.   Twould be a tragedy.



indeed it would. damn modifiers.


----------



## del (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Aww, feel the love.   I don't proof-read what I write here.   Its not worth it.  Nor, to respond to your point from before, do I bother with correct grammar, or correct spelling.



i no.


----------



## WhatsGoing08 (Oct 14, 2008)

The American people need to be heard, there is too much garbage out there with leaving everything to the crook of politics, and the middle class paying them to do it.  Maybe  this election will say now enough is enough.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> The timing, AND the fact that they only focused on Democratic areas (which is ILLEGAL), AND the fact that there was NO evidence of voter fraud.
> 
> The accusations were baseless lies with no evidence at all.   Of course you won't ever admit it because your a lying partisan hack.


LOL OMG you are too fucking stupid for words


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 15, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> LOL OMG you are too fucking stupid for words



This from someone who says LOL OMG at the beginning of their post?

Nobody else thinks these people shouldn't be voting.   Its fucking sick and pathetic how far you will go to bat for the Republicans to keep registered Americans from voting.


----------



## editec (Oct 15, 2008)

Dems want more people to vote because more people are working class than capital class.

This isn't _obvious?_


----------



## Silence (Oct 15, 2008)

Shattered said:


> Without reading through 8-billion pages of posts...
> 
> Dems want more *democrats* (not more *people*) to vote because not enough of them bother to normally.
> 
> Repubs want fewer *democrats* (not fewer *people*) to vote, because they're very good about getting to the polls to vote themselves.



okay....

and in order to achieve these goals both parties undertake questionable tactics.  got it


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 15, 2008)

Silence said:


> okay....
> 
> and in order to achieve these goals both parties undertake questionable tactics.  got it



well--both parties claim they are honest about it and the other party isn't but you get the general idea.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 15, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> This from someone who says LOL OMG at the beginning of their post?
> 
> Nobody else thinks these people shouldn't be voting.   Its fucking sick and pathetic how far you will go to bat for the Republicans to keep registered Americans from voting.


the point being the LAW is actually on the GOP's side and that judge was wrong
if you move, it is up to YOU to make sure you register at your new location
and it was only the lack of time to correct it that the judge and the GOP guy were refering to
so fuck you that you think it was dishonest
the GOP was right to challenge


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 15, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> the point being the LAW is actually on the GOP's side and that judge was wrong



No, its not.   You CANNOT challenge votes ONLY in Democratic districts.   That is ILLEGAL and NOT on the GOP's side.   Hence why the case was thrown out, AND they are bringing charges against the GOP who did this.   So suck it.   

Jesus Christ you are fucking stupid.   



> if you move, it is up to YOU to make sure you register at your new location
> and it was only the lack of time to correct it that the judge and the GOP guy were refering to
> so fuck you that you think it was dishonest
> the GOP was right to challenge



If the GOP was so worried, care to tell me why they didn't do this months ago?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 15, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> No, its not.   You CANNOT challenge votes ONLY in Democratic districts.   That is ILLEGAL and NOT on the GOP's side.   Hence why the case was thrown out, AND they are bringing charges against the GOP who did this.   So suck it.
> 
> Jesus Christ you are fucking stupid.
> 
> ...


you are the stupid one
and YES you can challenge anywhere you see fit


and they SHOULD have done it sooner


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 15, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> you are the stupid one
> and YES you can challenge anywhere you see fit



No, actually you can't.   The judge specifically said that was ILLEGAL.   I suspect he knows the law more than you do.



> and they SHOULD have done it sooner



Oh, do tell why they didn't, and why they only did it after polls closed?


----------



## del (Oct 15, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> No, actually you can't.   The judge specifically said that was ILLEGAL.   I suspect he knows the law more than you do.


 
no, he didn't
http://www.billingsgazette.net/m/extras/2008/10/08/order.pdf

because it isn't
13-13-301. Challenges.


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2008)

del said:


> no, he didn't
> http://www.billingsgazette.net/m/extras/2008/10/08/order.pdf
> 
> because it isn't
> 13-13-301. Challenges.



From my reading, the judge didn't really say that either. He told them they'd better come into court and justify the challenges so he can determine if a permanent injunction is appropriate. Apparently, he didn't think there would be irreparable harm if a temporary injunction wasn't granted.


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> you are the stupid one
> and YES you can challenge anywhere you see fit
> 
> 
> and they SHOULD have done it sooner



actually, the judge seemed to imply that the law under which the challenge was made, which allows people to vote after a move EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T CHANGE THEIR VOTER REGISTRATION, makes such a challenge specious.


----------



## del (Oct 15, 2008)

jillian said:


> From my reading, the judge didn't really say that either. He told them they'd better come into court and justify the challenges so he can determine if a permanent injunction is appropriate. Apparently, he didn't think there would be irreparable harm if a temporary injunction wasn't granted.



larkinn's position is that they can't challenge anywhere they want. i see nothing in the statute or the judge's ruling that says that. 

eaton resigned, BTW; i don't think he's got much of a future in montana GOP politics. 
that judge took his hide off, as well he should have. funny how no one's mentioned that the judge is republican. go figure.


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 15, 2008)

del said:


> no, he didn't
> http://www.billingsgazette.net/m/extras/2008/10/08/order.pdf
> 
> because it isn't
> 13-13-301. Challenges.



Your right that he didn't, but you have no idea whether it is or is not.   They are challenging that under the 14th amendment.   The judge didn't decide on that, rather he referred them to state court, it looks like.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 15, 2008)

del said:


> no, he didn't
> http://www.billingsgazette.net/m/extras/2008/10/08/order.pdf
> 
> because it isn't
> 13-13-301. Challenges.


proof once again, Larkin doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about
since the judge denied the claim of the democrats


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 15, 2008)

jillian said:


> actually, the judge seemed to imply that the law under which the challenge was made, which allows people to vote after a move EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T CHANGE THEIR VOTER REGISTRATION, makes such a challenge specious.



He did.   Which would have been my point if I could have found the damn opinion.   Do you know how long Lexis takes to get stuff like this up usually?   Damn slow bastards.


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 15, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> proof once again, Larkin doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about
> since the judge denied the claim of the democrats



Haha, is your claim that the judge sided with the Republicans?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 15, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Haha, is your claim that the judge sided with the Republicans?


he denied the democrats restraining order
so yes


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 15, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> he denied the democrats restraining order
> so yes



He denied the temporary restraining order, because it was unecessary.   Despite that, he included lots of dicta basically calling what the Republicans were doing, illegal, idiotic, and blatantly Partisan.


----------



## del (Oct 15, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> He did.   Which would have been my point if I could have found the damn opinion.   Do you know how long Lexis takes to get stuff like this up usually?   Damn slow bastards.



it's a poor workman that blames his tools.
you may want to write that down.


----------



## Larkinn (Oct 15, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> he denied the democrats restraining order
> so yes



While "siding with the Republicans" he also accused them of perjury.



> In light of the statute cited above, it appears that *some of
> the sworn affidavits Eaton filed (the exemplars Plaintiffs
> submitted as exhibits) falsely assert that electors are not
> qualified to vote under state law*.


----------



## del (Oct 15, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> he denied the democrats restraining order
> so yes



not even close, dude. 

from reading the order, i think he wanted to reach down from the bench and dope slap the GOP director.....HARD.


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> he denied the democrats restraining order
> so yes



he denied a TRO... but he did say all the things that Larkinn says.

So no, he didn't come close to siding with the GOP.


----------

