Obama and ACORN

From what I have read, the software glitches in the Diebold machines have been addressed. I still question the conflict of interest, but I suppose if any question of mafeasence in the software code has been eliminated, I don't see a problem.

Unfortunately I don't think either party are interested in persuing the controversial problems that occured in the pre-voting stages of this election. Surely the controversy will rise again in 4 years. At least there was no bullshit on voting day, but I would still like to see an effort in cleansing the entire process.

 

you know what occurs to me?

we have a great system, and it makes it really hard to cheat. elections have to be really close for cheating to work. contrast that to zimbabwe.

I'm proud to be american.

 

Probably the biggest factor was when, in August, 2003, the company's CEO said publicly that he and his company were "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

By "president" he meant Bush. And Ohio, under Sec. of State Ken Blackwell (about as crooked as they come) gave Diebold this massive contract. The rest, of course, is ugly history.


From the Cleveland Plain Dealer: Aug. 28, 2003 ...

Voting Machine Controversy
by Julie Carr Smyth ​

COLUMBUS - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

 

No member of ACORN has ever been convicted of voter registration fraud. ACORN's offense in the eyes of the GOP is that it registers poor blacks who are certain to vote Democrat.

 

Please tell me you're fucking joking. 21 pages of discussion and I am going to respond to this whipped horse? Are you new? A simple Google search will prove you wrong.

 

and yet a more complex google search will give you a more nuanced perspective...

 

No matter the perspective, "No member of ACORN has ever been convicted of voter registration fraud", can be disproven in about 30 seconds.

 

only if you assume hourly employees are members of acorn, which they are not.

semantics, I know, but it matters because then you will go off and impugn the whole operation based on that little false equivalency.

it's got its problems, but it's not a criminal enterprise.

 

Read post #204. I said "employees", Scribe said "members". Semantics.

 

yeah, but I've had cable all week since I'm staying in a hotel, and I've been watching fox.

O'Reilly in particular is very good at pulling the false equivalency gimmick and running with it.

There was a pinchy faced blond woman subbing for him yesterday, and she was even worse.

I mean, really, it's about as trashy as you can get, which is fine, but they keep talking about how honest they are. pretty revolting.

So i'm back on my "semantics is important" kick.

 

You are right, semantics is important. However, I cannot decide how people interpret my arguments. You notice several times throughout this thread where people have denied my accusation of "voter fraud", when in fact I never actually made that accusation. I always referred to the actions of ACORN as "voter registration fraud". I understand the difference, and obviously other people do too, but there seems to be a lack of comprehension in some instances. People make inaccurate presumptions on what I am saying, when details of my argument are often right in front of them.

Scribes post and your response is a perfect example of my point here. I use the term "employee". Scribe quotes me and responds using the term "member" You reply referring to my possibly misleading use of the term "member", when it was not even I who used that term to begin with. Attention to detail is an admirable quality, but is not my fault that people do not pay attention.

 

Let's eliminate all of this ambiguity and speculation about voting, and ACORN, and disenfranchisement, and who benefits and who doesn't.

Reinstate poll taxes and literacy tests. It's ugly, but at least it's honest. At least these tactics would correspond to their true goals.

 

when you use those details to try to create a narrative that suggest some kind of massive fraud with the intent of stealing elections, and when that narrative fits into a larger national strategy engineered and implemented with the intent of disenfranchising voters, it's a bit disingenuous to come back and whine about it.

 

You sure have a broad definition of "whine". I am simply clearing up the confusion. If "whining" means pointing out an argument which focuses on definition of words that I have not used, then I am guilty. YOU are the one making an argument on a false premise. For someone who preaches the importance of semantics, you sure don't pay much attention.

 

all right, you got me.

I ran out of intellectual steam before I finished the post.

I just got off a flight from nashville, and the flight was full. They guy next to me was so huge that I could not even get close to the armrest, and both my feet were over by the aisle. I had to spend the whole flight standing up by the bathroom in the back.

I really shouldn't take it out on you, when I'm the one who needs to whine. I try to be a god person, but I think some people should be required to purchase two seats.

 

You flippin' HYPOCRIT!!!

No one should discriminate against others,

EXCEPT YOU???

Oh, and get this ~ we aren't shocked AT ALL by your whining ~ we EXPECT it. YOU want equal rights, but you DON'T want them for others.

Yeah.

Got your number, you piece of bullspit.

ps. You 'ran out of intellectual steam?' :rofl: ROFLMAO
You NEVER HAD any 'intellectual' steam, water drops, nor even a good enough fog cover. Dumbass...

 

Ah, but right on the first page you quoted this fox headline:

Busted.

 

Wow. You've proven that Fox said what you're trying to accuse Wacky of saying,

and, btw, made his point, perfectly.

i'd say you were OWNED, pal...

 

Wacki quoted Fox.

Having a bad day?