wmw999 2,173 #51 April 23, 2012 Again, the biggest possible downside of single instance of voter fraud is a small turned election (there hasn't ever been a large election turned on a single vote). The biggest possible downside of misplaced guns is loss of innocent life. I own guns; I'm not agin' em. But while it's easy to get bothered over institutionalized voter fraud or suppression, it's a lot harder to get bothered over single instances. But single instances of gun problems end up being newspaper articles entirely too often. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #52 April 23, 2012 QuoteAgain, the biggest possible downside of single instance of voter fraud is a small turned election (there hasn't ever been a large election turned on a single vote). And all actions past that that *may* not have happened if the other person had won the election. QuoteThe biggest possible downside of misplaced guns is loss of innocent life. I own guns; I'm not agin' em. But while it's easy to get bothered over institutionalized voter fraud or suppression, it's a lot harder to get bothered over single instances. But single instances of gun problems end up being newspaper articles entirely too often. Wendy P. "If it bleeds, it leads" - how many single instances *don't* end up making the news?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,173 #53 April 23, 2012 And how many drunk drivers don't cause accidents? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #54 April 23, 2012 Quote***QuoteQuote Fine. Now what about Charlie (R) and his 6 FELONIES? Got it, one person who is convicted of frausd is equal to the massive frauds perpetrated by Democrat surrogates. And equal to Black Panthers stationing themselves at voting places with the sole intent of preventing anyone except Dems from voting and then not even being charged by Obama's Justice Dept. You sure have a strange sense of parity. You have a strange sense of reality. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/23/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-blames-obama-administration-not-pursu/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #55 April 23, 2012 QuoteAnd how many drunk drivers don't cause accidents? Wendy P. All the drunk drivers you *don't* hear about on the news?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #56 April 23, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHow many tax dollars is it worth to spend on each case of voter fraud? Wendy P. How many tax dollars is it worth spending on DWI's? How about speeding? How about the SS Investigation? How about collecting on fraudulently filed tax returns? The question properly stated would be how many tax dollars is it worth spending to eliminate all DWIs or all speeders. Right now we opportunistically catch violators and punish them. Just as we do with voter fraud. 400 cases, but only 28 charges. Doesn't seem like a huge problem when we have voter machine error rates approaching 1%. 28 or 400 voters out of millions is simple noise. And yet, kallend *howls* over even smaller occurrences when it comes to guns. sure, but that falls under 'two wrongs don't make a right.' We know his agenda there, but it's irrelevant to this conversation. And as Wendy tries to point out, the consequences of misused guns are a bit more significant, and more measurable (dead people), then the consequences of a few dozen or hundred votes. Gets back to the problem that vote counting is not very accurate to start with. Most of the time we don't see any consequences at all because it's rare that votes are within that margin of error. Florida 2000 is obviously the most prominent near vote in recent history, but counts held the original finding. Al Franken's case was a reversal, right? I've seen local races for mayor come down to 7 votes. But none of them were driven by fraud...do we have to go back to Kennedy over Nixon, 1960, for an example of that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #57 April 23, 2012 QuoteWe think it's fair to hold Holder accountable for the decision to limit the civil case, but not the criminal one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #58 April 23, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHow many tax dollars is it worth to spend on each case of voter fraud? Wendy P. How many tax dollars is it worth spending on DWI's? How about speeding? How about the SS Investigation? How about collecting on fraudulently filed tax returns? The question properly stated would be how many tax dollars is it worth spending to eliminate all DWIs or all speeders. Right now we opportunistically catch violators and punish them. Just as we do with voter fraud. 400 cases, but only 28 charges. Doesn't seem like a huge problem when we have voter machine error rates approaching 1%. 28 or 400 voters out of millions is simple noise. And yet, kallend *howls* over even smaller occurrences when it comes to guns. sure, but that falls under 'two wrongs don't make a right.' We know his agenda there, but it's irrelevant to this conversation. Funny how he had plenty of snarking to do about Diebold, but poo-poos this away. QuoteAnd as Wendy tries to point out, the consequences of misused guns are a bit more significant, and more measurable (dead people), then the consequences of a few dozen or hundred votes. And yet, we've had 12 years of people talking about all the deaths due to GW's 'stolen election'. Quote Gets back to the problem that vote counting is not very accurate to start with. Most of the time we don't see any consequences at all because it's rare that votes are within that margin of error. And I don't disagree with that, in the broad sense. Yet, how many recounts and/or investigations have had to be paid for due to accusations of fraud?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #59 April 23, 2012 Quote GOP pushed the law to prevent voter fraud, then a senior one of their own got caught with his pants down, figuratively speaking. Hypocrites. If your logic is that since one GOP member is a bozo then all GOP members are bozos, then yes, you may be correct. The logic is screwy but...meh, there ya' go.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #60 April 23, 2012 Quote And yet, we've had 12 years of people talking about all the deaths due to GW's 'stolen election'. Yes, but only by the ignorant. The Florida vote was well confirmed, if well after the fact. Had the totals reversed that spring...that would have been quite the can of worms, though I suspect it would have hamstrung his presidency and his 2004 reelection. Part of the Move-on charter was exactly that - stop bitching about the past which is set in stone and focus the Left's energy on the future. Quote And I don't disagree with that, in the broad sense. Yet, how many recounts and/or investigations have had to be paid for due to accusations of fraud? Fair question. In most (?) cases, the losing party that requests the recount has to foot the bill if he or she is not vindicated. End result I would think then is that the two parties end up paying for most of these. Claiming fraud is more procedural/political tactic than an actual belief it happened. * states that have automatic recounts when differential is small - those costs might be borne by the local State department. In those cases the candidate doesn't have to claim fraud so long as the margin is small. I think those do point more to concerns about the vote counting process rather than fraud. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #61 April 23, 2012 QuoteClaiming fraud is more procedural/political tactic than an actual belief it happened. I agree with this as a general statement.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #62 April 23, 2012 QuoteQuote***We think it's fair to hold Holder accountable for the decision to limit the civil case, but not the criminal one. Let me help you out with the full quote; "But the pundits have often blurred the distinction between the civil and criminal cases. O'Reilly and other Fox commentators have confused the issue by suggesting Holder and the Obama administration made the call not to pursue more serious charges against the New Black Panther Party members. Perez stated that the Civil Rights Division decided pre-Obama not to pursue more serious, criminal charges. So when O'Reilly brings on legal analysts who paint it as an outrage that the Justice Department did not pursue a criminal case, and the only person condemned by O'Reilly is Holder for not "representing the United States in a fair and balanced way," that's misleading and misplaced. We think it's fair to hold Holder accountable for the decision to limit the civil case, but not the criminal one. We rate O'Reilly's statement False." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #63 April 24, 2012 QuoteQuote GOP pushed the law to prevent voter fraud, then a senior one of their own got caught with his pants down, figuratively speaking. Hypocrites. If your logic is that since one GOP member is a bozo then all GOP members are bozos, then yes, you may be correct. The logic is screwy but...meh, there ya' go. Your logic that "bozo" = "hypocrite" is what's screwy.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #64 April 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote***We think it's fair to hold Holder accountable for the decision to limit the civil case, but not the criminal one. Let me help you out with the full quote; "But the pundits have often blurred the distinction between the civil and criminal cases. O'Reilly and other Fox commentators have confused the issue by suggesting Holder and the Obama administration made the call not to pursue more serious charges against the New Black Panther Party members. Perez stated that the Civil Rights Division decided pre-Obama not to pursue more serious, criminal charges. So when O'Reilly brings on legal analysts who paint it as an outrage that the Justice Department did not pursue a criminal case, and the only person condemned by O'Reilly is Holder for not "representing the United States in a fair and balanced way," that's misleading and misplaced. We think it's fair to hold Holder accountable for the decision to limit the civil case, but not the criminal one. We rate O'Reilly's statement False." Gravitymaster guilty of a misleading and out of context quote? OH THE HUMANITY!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #65 April 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHow many tax dollars is it worth to spend on each case of voter fraud? Wendy P. How many tax dollars is it worth spending on DWI's? How about speeding? How about the SS Investigation? How about collecting on fraudulently filed tax returns? The question properly stated would be how many tax dollars is it worth spending to eliminate all DWIs or all speeders. Right now we opportunistically catch violators and punish them. Just as we do with voter fraud. 400 cases, but only 28 charges. Doesn't seem like a huge problem when we have voter machine error rates approaching 1%. 28 or 400 voters out of millions is simple noise. And yet, kallend *howls* over even smaller occurrences when it comes to guns. Only you would consider a multiple homicide to be a "smaller occurence". Well, maybe daVinci would too.;... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #66 April 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHow many tax dollars is it worth to spend on each case of voter fraud? Wendy P. How many tax dollars is it worth spending on DWI's? How about speeding? How about the SS Investigation? How about collecting on fraudulently filed tax returns? The question properly stated would be how many tax dollars is it worth spending to eliminate all DWIs or all speeders. Right now we opportunistically catch violators and punish them. Just as we do with voter fraud. 400 cases, but only 28 charges. Doesn't seem like a huge problem when we have voter machine error rates approaching 1%. 28 or 400 voters out of millions is simple noise. And yet, kallend *howls* over even smaller occurrences when it comes to guns. Only you would consider a multiple homicide to be a "smaller occurence". Well, maybe daVinci would too.; Actually, I was speaking to the guns and not the crimes - after all, we *ALL* know that you see 1% of crime guns as a greater problem than the 99% of crime guns.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #67 April 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHow many tax dollars is it worth to spend on each case of voter fraud? Wendy P. How many tax dollars is it worth spending on DWI's? How about speeding? How about the SS Investigation? How about collecting on fraudulently filed tax returns? The question properly stated would be how many tax dollars is it worth spending to eliminate all DWIs or all speeders. Right now we opportunistically catch violators and punish them. Just as we do with voter fraud. 400 cases, but only 28 charges. Doesn't seem like a huge problem when we have voter machine error rates approaching 1%. 28 or 400 voters out of millions is simple noise. And yet, kallend *howls* over even smaller occurrences when it comes to guns. Only you would consider a multiple homicide to be a "smaller occurence". Well, maybe daVinci would too.; Actually, I was speaking to the guns and not the crimes - after all, we *ALL* know that you see 1% of crime guns as a greater problem than the 99% of crime guns. Nice that you ignore multiple homicides as unimportant. QED... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #68 April 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHow many tax dollars is it worth to spend on each case of voter fraud? Wendy P. How many tax dollars is it worth spending on DWI's? How about speeding? How about the SS Investigation? How about collecting on fraudulently filed tax returns? The question properly stated would be how many tax dollars is it worth spending to eliminate all DWIs or all speeders. Right now we opportunistically catch violators and punish them. Just as we do with voter fraud. 400 cases, but only 28 charges. Doesn't seem like a huge problem when we have voter machine error rates approaching 1%. 28 or 400 voters out of millions is simple noise. And yet, kallend *howls* over even smaller occurrences when it comes to guns. Only you would consider a multiple homicide to be a "smaller occurence". Well, maybe daVinci would too.; Actually, I was speaking to the guns and not the crimes - after all, we *ALL* know that you see 1% of crime guns as a greater problem than the 99% of crime guns. Nice that you ignore multiple homicides as unimportant. QED The word used was "guns" and not "murders", perfesser. Honesty problems again, or just reading comprehension?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #69 April 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote***We think it's fair to hold Holder accountable for the decision to limit the civil case, but not the criminal one. Let me help you out with the full quote; "But the pundits have often blurred the distinction between the civil and criminal cases. O'Reilly and other Fox commentators have confused the issue by suggesting Holder and the Obama administration made the call not to pursue more serious charges against the New Black Panther Party members. Perez stated that the Civil Rights Division decided pre-Obama not to pursue more serious, criminal charges. So when O'Reilly brings on legal analysts who paint it as an outrage that the Justice Department did not pursue a criminal case, and the only person condemned by O'Reilly is Holder for not "representing the United States in a fair and balanced way," that's misleading and misplaced. We think it's fair to hold Holder accountable for the decision to limit the civil case, but not the criminal one. We rate O'Reilly's statement False." Gravitymaster guilty of a misleading and out of context quote? OH THE HUMANITY! And if you go back and read what I said in it's entirety, you will realize (but maybe not) that you just did what you and Jclalor just accused me of. Amazing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #70 April 24, 2012 You said, QuoteGot it, one person who is convicted of frausd is equal to the massive frauds perpetrated by Democrat surrogates. And equal to Black Panthers stationing themselves at voting places with the sole intent of preventing anyone except Dems from voting and then not even being charged by Obama's Justice Dept. You sure have a strange sense of parity. The term, " Not even being charged" perhaps means something different to you. Even when it it is explained to you in black and white, you still refuse to accept it. You're the bread and butter of the Fox news channel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #71 April 25, 2012 Dude, you are such a tool. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Coates http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/24/AR2010092403873.html?hpid=topnews Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #72 April 25, 2012 QuoteQuoteDude, you are such a tool. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Coates http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/24/AR2010092403873.html?hpid=topnews All based on Bush-era DOJ guy, nice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #73 April 25, 2012 QuoteBut Coates has a pedigree different from that of many conservatives. He was hired at Justice during the Clinton administration in 1996 and had worked for the American Civil Liberties Union. Sheldon Bradshaw, a high-level Civil Rights Division official in the Bush administration, said Coates "is nonpartisan in how he enforces voting rights laws." In his testimony, Coates said the current Justice Department is "at war" with "race-neutral" enforcement of civil rights laws. He also said there is evidence for broader prosecution of the New Black Panther case. "We had eyewitness testimony. We had videotape. One of them had a weapon. They were hurling racial slurs," Coates said. "I've never been able to understand how anyone could accuse us of not having a basis of law in this case." http://www.google.com/imgres?q=grasping+at+straws&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS407US407&biw=1150&bih=589&tbm=isch&tbnid=EJNMZGpKHTAqjM:&imgrefurl=http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/israel-grasping-at-straws-to-stop-the-flotillas/&docid=mRNBINF9PtQ2mM&imgurl=http://desertpeace.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/grasping-at-straws1.jpg&w=750&h=600&ei=CFKXT8u2LePx0gHli4m1Dg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=92&vpy=135&dur=2265&hovh=201&hovw=251&tx=163&ty=91&sig=117446999945249420641&page=1&tbnh=117&tbnw=159&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:69 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #74 April 25, 2012 Quote***Quote***But Coates has a pedigree different from that of many conservatives. He was hired at Justice during the Clinton administration in 1996 and had worked for the American Civil Liberties Union. Sheldon Bradshaw, a high-level Civil Rights Division official in the Bush administration, said Coates "is nonpartisan in how he enforces voting rights laws." In his testimony, Coates said the current Justice Department is "at war" with "race-neutral" enforcement of civil rights laws. He also said there is evidence for broader prosecution of the New Black Panther case. "We had eyewitness testimony. We had videotape. One of them had a weapon. They were hurling racial slurs," Coates said. "I've never been able to understand how anyone could accuse us of not having a basis of law in this case." http://www.google.com/imgres?q=grasping+at+straws&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS407US407&biw=1150&bih=589&tbm=isch&tbnid=EJNMZGpKHTAqjM:&imgrefurl=http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/israel-grasping-at-straws-to-stop-the-flotillas/&docid=mRNBINF9PtQ2mM&imgurl=http://desertpeace.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/grasping-at-straws1.jpg&w=750&h=600&ei=CFKXT8u2LePx0gHli4m1Dg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=92&vpy=135&dur=2265&hovh=201&hovw=251&tx=163&ty=91&sig=117446999945249420641&page=1&tbnh=117&tbnw=159&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:69 Was he there during the Bush Era? I never said he was not there under Clinton. See how it works both ways? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #75 April 25, 2012 I'm still trying to figure out what working for DOJ during the Bush Admin has to do with your claims anyway. Care to explain? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
