ACORN busted for voter fraud... has it been two years already?
Erik probably cant type a comment with fingers in both ears while yelling LA LALALA LAHALALAAA
Mark, if ACORN was involved in fraud, those involved should be punished, like anyone else would. Why would I disagree with lawbreakers being punished? They don't get a special pass just because they want to elect the same guy I do.
Good to hear, however your guy also worked with them.
Yes, I know he did. There are always some people that take things too far. Not everyone else's fault. Just have to try to weed them out or leave.
How about just weeding out ACORN all together?!
Poor Obama. It must be tough knowing you can't win without fraud.
Sniff, sniff. 
I thought you retired from all of this?
that is rich
Jill, what if Obama wins by too many states and by a margin too large to have reasonably been fraud? What will the reason he won be instead? The media, right? I ask again, isn't this the same as your supposition that if Obama loses we'll say it was racism? This statement seems no different.
Erik wrote:
I ask again, isn't this the same as your supposition that if Obama loses we'll say it was racism? This statement seems no different.
Except there's actual proof of fraud being committed/attempted.
Those crazy liberals are not defending integrity and honesty. So what are they fighting for?
There is nothing better for our society than a member of a minority that displays integrity.
There is nothing worse than bitter dishonesty!
Patrick, it would be very difficult, short of hacking the electronic voting machines, for any fraud to exceed the effect of racism. There has been plenty of evidence in polls showing a significant number of people less likely to vote for Obama based on race. AGAIN though I want to say that while I don't want any of this to be about race on ANY level, if he loses by a point or two in a low minority population state that costs him the election, it will be impossible to discount it as a factor. Black people typically vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter the candidate anyway, so aside from a boost in some states where there are more black people going to the polls, it won't matter. So, while there is evidence of both, you would need a couple million fraudulent ballots to approach the same impact. I don't want this race to be as close as 2000 or 2004 because I want to strip BOTH sides of as many excuses as possible.
"There has been plenty of evidence in polls showing a significant number of people less likely to vote for Obama based on race."
Could you maybe provide a link to some of that evidence?
DU doesn't count, nor does somebody saying that he rilly rilly _feels_ that it's true.
Erik, I figure the number of people who won't vote for Obama because he's black is by far outnumbered by the number of people who are voting for him just because he's black.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/pol...oll-
Obama_N.htm
This one actually focused more on Democrats, but I doubt racism has a party. There are similar polls like one from Indiana during the primaries. Plenty out there. Google them. I need to get my work done. For the third time, I don't want this to become about racism. I want to move beyond it, but completely ignoring it is silly. We all know it is waning slowly, but still exists.
I was going to put that in about Obama working for ACORN, but Obama camp has denied it and I can't find a acutal news source that says he did. Were are the journalists here? I suppose they are too busy digging into the past of the husband of the V.P. on our side, since that is so important.
RWS, blacks vote 85% Democrat anyway. If blacks were mostly Republican, then I would be able to see that argument. There may be some gains in turnout, but that remains to be seen. We counted on youth turnout in 2004 and we saw what happened.
Yes blacks vote 85%-95% Democrat, but there are many more blacks who are going to vote this time based on race. Many more that never voted before.
Youth meaning 18-25 or so, not minors.
I answered your question seconds before you asked it. Does that scare you? Heehee!
So... Erik has polls, whilst there are actual cases of groups like ACORN being caught engaging in voter fraud.
Hmm.
Unless you think there are only a few thousand racists in this country, you will see why that argument doesn't make a lot of sense. Patrick, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. It sounds like some people from Acorn were trying to do some fraud. They were caught and will be prosecuted as they should be. Do you think race will really be a non-factor in this election?
Oh, and by the way, these two things don't have anything to do with each other. I only brought it up to compare to Jill's statement. I have yet to hear ANYONE here state where they think McCain's campaign misstepped, so I wonder then if he loses by more than a bare percent or a couple electoral votes, what will be the argument? Fraud? Media?
Any truth to the rumor that the feds are going to drop RICO charges on ACORN? That would leave a mark.
I'll translate for Erik:
"Look guys, short of Obama being accused of murder (and even then I won't believe it unless you actually show me the vide of him pulling the trigger, and even then I want to see the video and study it 100 times before making up my mind).....I'm voting for my man Obama because the kool-aid is so good and I can't put it down."
Signed, Erik
LOL.
Erik declared:
Patrick, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. It sounds like some people from Acorn were trying to do some fraud. They were caught and will be prosecuted as they should be. Do you think race will really be a non-factor in this election?
Let's see... you try this:
" ask again, isn't this the same as your supposition that if Obama loses we'll say it was racism? This statement seems no different."
I explained the difference. Actual proof via actual events versus your nebulous polls. No more, no less.
The rest of your postings have been rather pathetic attempts at distractions. Not playing.
Jill, you went on with your usual cackling as expected, but still didn't answer my question. Whose fault will it be if Obama wins if fraud is ruled out? Will McCain or Republicans be at fault at all?
Patrick, polls are nebulous? When every tracking poll that has comes out in the last couple weeks (there have been dozens), has Obama ahead, is that nebulous to you? No, it doesn't mean he'll win, but it does mean if the election were held today, he would almost certainly win. Polls have meaning and predictive value when done right. Do you have any understanding of statistics at all? If you're one of those that think polls are "junk science" along with evolution and homosexuality being pre-determined at birth, then it's going to be hard to continue this argument.
I'll translate yet again for Erik:
"Grape kool-aid. It's my favorite."
Poor Erik. The free-thinking mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Hehheh. I think I'm going to start one of those little tickers that people put on their blogs as a little banner.
It has been:
1 Hour
29 Minutes
36 Seconds
...since I asked Jill a simple question that she will not answer. 37...38...39...40...
I heard that Tony Romo and TO are registered in both Nevada and Missouri.
"When every tracking poll that has comes out in the last couple weeks (there have been dozens), has Obama ahead, is that nebulous to you?"
Well, considering many polls had Kerry 5 to 11 points ahead of Bush in early October 2004, I would say Yes.
The polls you've alluded to have a tendency to oversample Democrats. When done improperly, polls can be warped into framing a narrative rather than telling anything useful. Especially when it involves politics.
Patrick, they sample based on the current registration rates, which are currently more D than R.
Stephen R, Kerry was ahead by up to 11 points in October? I would like to see those polls. Kerry wasn't ahead by that much in any major poll that I recall. Just checked a couple, and not even close to that based on state polls. It was very close from the debates through the election.
Commenting by HaloScan
