ACORN didn’t get scammed by its contractors. ACORN was guilty of a crime: paying people per voter registered. They set up a scheme by which they paid their registrants for each voter they got. Yes, they were scammed when the registrants started registering Mickey Mouse and Tony Roma, but that wasn’t the problem. The problem was that in Nevada, it’s not legal to pay your workers per voter registered. And ACORN did just that. No subcontractors. No being tricked into anything, the poor helpless liberals. Just a basic deliberate violation of NRS § 293.805, a simple felony.
So – were you lying when you said it was just ACORN getting scammed by its contractors? Or was that a deliberate attempt to … how does it go? “…reflexively being dishonest?”
So, when I said conservatives think ACORN is responsible for voter fraud, and you insinuate that it is, you actually meant that, “ACORN violated a Nevada law because their standard practices happen to be illegal in Nevada. It almost certainly was an oversight, since they weren’t secretive about it.”
Shouldn’t you say that, “ACORN didn’t commit voter fraud, but as a national organization they violated Nevada law, which caused exactly zero fraudulent votes to be cast.”
I suspect you didn’t say that because you are trying to distract from you utter failure to make your case and your innate dishonesty.
Gee, Lobo, maybe I shoulda said it that way, but I was distracted by thinking about all the felonious felonies that the criminals in charge of ACORN committed in Nevada. Or maybe I was distracted by the fact that these felonies are felonies for the reason that they can lead to voter fraud. Maybe I was distracted by imagining your indignant reaction at being caught inside the bank vault with a couple of empty sacks: “How dare they suggest this crime of mine is anything remotely related to theft?”
But I’m sure you’re pleased that Nevada automatically restores voting rights to non-violent felons after the sentence is served. I’m sure you’re prefer they could vote from their cellblocks, but, hey, life is full of disappointments. More felons voting = more Democrats elected! Vote Democrats, the friends of the felon!
What I said to you was precisely correct – just as what you said to me was equally precisely correct, and equally crafted to be technically truthful.
ACORN was guilty of a felony. End of story. Felonious felons of ACORN, unite! You have nothing to lose but an election!
A valiant attempt and gilding the turd. But you were dishonest. Because a fake victory tastes as sweet as a real one to you. Hell, it probably tastes better, considering that you get to deceive people and that feeds the unearned sense of superiority you roll in like a sow.
You’re filth, and a hypocrite and everyone reading this thread knows it. I’m sure if Magellan and Shodan show up, they’ll rah-rah for you though.
Hey, I have to get back to work for a bit, I have a big project that just came back from proof, can someone tell Bricker what a piece of shit he is for me?
Sure, Lobo. I was dishonest. You knew ACORN was found guilty of a felony violation of election law, I said they were found guilty of a violation of election law, but somehow I am dishonest.
Again, here is my dishonest statement for all the world to see:
Except that’s not the end of the story. But if you want to pretend to think it is, okay, whatever. No one can force you to apply your intellectual curiosity to things which don’t align with your worldview (yes, I know you could accuse some liberals of sometimes doing something similar).
(Except that your case saddens us, because you ARE intellectually curious, and so you SHOULD know better, unlike many people. Indeed, surely you DO know better, but choose to pretend to ignore so much, lest your “law and order” credentials be sullied.)
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
You’re filth, and a hypocrite and everyone reading this thread knows it. I’m sure if Magellan and Shodan show up, they’ll rah-rah for you though.
(Bolding added in both quotes to underscore where I see the distinction.)
Amphiboly is a type of lie, Bricker, more so if it’s a rhetorical trick --ambiguity by intent instead of through error. Since you’ve already been reminded repeatedly of religious proscriptions I don’t suppose a further note from me would be useful at all. But here it is anyway: False witness takes all of us further away from God’s truth. Always, and regardless of the ‘higher’ goal.
I deny that this makes you a “piece of shit” as described by Lobohan, or dirtier/more deluded than the average partisan, but it does make you a bullshitter at best and a mountebank in the strict sense.
No, it’s one of those “poster B is arguing for ethically questionable and antidemocratic-in-effect law X, and pressing that argument in a way I feel is fundamentally dishonest. While posters H and L are dismissive and insulting toward B in an unkind way, I’m most offended by the calumny and deceit exhibited by B in this and many other instances and therefore will take B to task for this.”
I admit that my complicity in the insults and slurs through my failure to admonish Hentor and Lobohan is insufficiently Christ-like, and that my attention to the mote in your eye, Bricker, requires at least my acknowledgement of the beam in my own.
But you still have the pesky mote, and tu quoque rebuttals, however numerous or deeply felt, won’t remove it.
The one which is right. The one that doesn’t force the poor to jump through yet another hoop in order to stop 3 cases of voter fraud per state per year.
I find it interesting that you cite this speech by Zell Miller. At this point in time, we were already well into a bloody insurgency in Iraq, and the republican media was pushing the “we are liberators” propaganda as a full-time job. Of course, he was wrong – Iraq wanted nothing more to do with us then, and the longer the conflict wore on, the less we were seen as liberators, and the more we were seen as occupiers. Huh. Kinda gotta wonder whether or not those democrats were on to something. Of course, the fact that Zell was completely and utterly wrong probably won’t mean anything to you, but by all means, keep on beating the dead horse of voter fraud.
However, I have a counterproposal. How about, instead of voter ID, we mandate DNA testing of every individual who comes to the polls via taking blood. This would not disenfranchise anyone, and would completely eliminated any threat of fraud, as you cannot fake your own genetic signature. Sure, it makes it so that some religious groups, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, have to violate their holy tenures in order to vote, but hey, and I’m gonna quote you here,
…And before you bitch about me taking this out of context, here’s the rest of the post:
And you are claiming that a change where we require something that 11% of the voting populace lacks and stops a handful of cases of voter fraud whose existence can hardly be established at all is reasonable. If that’s reasonable, then taking blood from every voter can hardly be considered out of line.
Well, I put that on my “things I care about” list slightly above “rich white men’s complaints about overtaxation under the current administration” and slightly below “Brazil84’s [retarded] opinion on global warming”. See, Bricker, I do, and if you really cared about stopping voter fraud, you’d go the extra mile to really ensure that voter fraud is actually impossible, rather than just putting another easily overcome hurdle between the fraudster and the polls.
Support for voter ID laws doesn’t seem to be solely a prerogative of vile, bloodsucking Republican capitalist running dogs. This is from April so maybe things have changed.
Of course it isn’t. It makes sense. The rest of the world with these requirements are to the left of the US.
The requirements for an ID are not so onerous that it prevents people who want to vote from voting. It does primarily prevent those who are lazy and those who can’t plan more than a day in the future (let alone 4 years!). I’m still baffled why people are so upset that their opinion, through every fault of their own I might add, isn’t being counted.
Because, since many don’t have ID currently, you shouldn’t require an ID until it becomes universal.
You’ve been told before, and I assume you are unable to remember things that don’t fit your ideological biases, that other countries have universal ID possession. We should do that, but the drooling yokels that make up the right would never allow that, because, presumably a universal ID would kill liberty, or something.
The fact that an ID is useful and many don’t have it means that it isn’t as easy for some people as you make it out to be. Just because you can’t imagine how it would be difficult to get an ID, doesn’t mean that it’s easy. It means you have a shitty imagination and are unable to model complex situations in your mind.
Are some people lazy? Sure. But other people work two jobs, have a bunch of kids, have moved recently, don’t have the documents, don’t even know where to start to get them, can’t afford the costs, are very old and haven’t driven in years, and so on.
For my part, I don’t know that losing illegal votes hurts the Democrats. I don’t even know that there are enough illegal votes cast to show statistically or to affect the result of any election anywhere in America. And neither do you.
