PDA

View Full Version : Instead of Post-Racial we get Most-Racial



Hew
04-27-2010, 07:07 AM
A few weeks ago, Andrew Breitbart offered to make a $100k donation the United Negro College Fund if anyone could provide video/audio evidence of black members of Congress being called "ni##er" as they walked through a crowd of protestors. The money remains unclaimed, yet the notion that anyone who protests/disagrees with Obama must be a racist remains:

http://bigjournalism.com/abreitbart/2010/04/26/no-more-beer-summits-tea-party-n-word-incident-didnt-happen-and-the-congressional-black-caucus-owes-america-an-apology/

road kill
04-27-2010, 08:27 AM
But wait, there is more!!

Here is the MORE;

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0410/Obama_seeks_to_reconnectyoung_people_AfricanAmerin s_Latinos_and_women_for_2010.html?showall




rk

dnf777
04-27-2010, 08:28 AM
A few weeks ago, Andrew Breitbart offered to make a $100k donation the United Negro College Fund if anyone could provide video/audio evidence of black members of Congress being called "ni##er" as they walked through a crowd of protestors. The money remains unclaimed, yet the notion that anyone who protests/disagrees with Obama must be a racist remains:

http://bigjournalism.com/abreitbart/2010/04/26/no-more-beer-summits-tea-party-n-word-incident-didnt-happen-and-the-congressional-black-caucus-owes-america-an-apology/

I think that tactic is deplorable and serves only to further racial discord in this country. But so does the following statement that claims anyone who disagrees with Obama must be racist! That is patently untrue, and serves only to stir to pot also. Both of the above tactics should be ignored.

Hew
04-27-2010, 08:44 AM
Both of the above tactics should be ignored.
LOL.

DNF to himself: "Gee wilickers. I know I should ignore that comment about everyone who opposes My Saviour Who Arte In Washington is a racist, but golly, what if the POTUS people don't get to read my opinions about it? I hate to punish them and make their lives less worth living by not letting them know what I think about it. Hmmmmmm. I know! I'll give them my opinion on those tactics and then suggest everyone else not comment about the tactics. Everyone's a winner, now. Dnf, you're one magnificent sonuvabiatch!"

:p:p:p

dnf777
04-27-2010, 08:56 AM
LOL.

DNF to himself: "Gee wilickers. I know I should ignore that comment about everyone who opposes My Saviour Who Arte In Washington is a racist, but golly, what if the POTUS people don't get to read my opinions about it? I hate to punish them and make their lives less worth living by not letting them know what I think about it. Hmmmmmm. I know! I'll give them my opinion on those tactics and then suggest everyone else not comment about the tactics. Everyone's a winner, now. Dnf, you're one magnificent sonuvabiatch!"



1) Jesus Christ is my saviour, certainly not anyone in Washington.

2) How you construe that I am trying to block discussion is beyond any contorsion my mind can figure out!:confused: Oh wait, its just the old "make $#it up tactic!" If you weren't so poised to pick a fight, you just might have seen I was agreeing with you for the most part.

3) Thank you very much for calling me a sonuvabiatch. Once again you've chosen to shed civility, ignore Vicky and RK's pleas for a little respect, and chosen to personally attack and name call, when as usual, your points lack any substance. Very typical for you. I've come to expect no more, and no less. Have a nice day.



Edit: oh, let me add some smileys too. :p:p:p
Even though "sonuvabiatch" probably warrants a "dumas", I took that out, in an attempt not to name call.

david gibson
04-27-2010, 09:12 AM
I think that tactic is deplorable and serves only to further racial discord in this country. But so does the following statement that claims anyone who disagrees with Obama must be racist! That is patently untrue, and serves only to stir to pot also. Both of the above tactics should be ignored.

am i reading this right? are you saying the obama supporters do not accuse anti-obamites of being racist?? are you serious? are you an ostrich?

Breitbart was right on the money! he turned on the lights and the cockroaches scurried away.....

dnf777
04-27-2010, 09:18 AM
am i reading this right? are you saying the obama supporters do not accuse anti-obamites of being racist?? are you serious? are you an ostrich?

Breitbart was right on the money! he turned on the lights and the cockroaches scurried away.....

Not saying that at all! Did Hew say that everyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist?? I don't think so. On BOTH issues, there are idiots who DO make those claims, and both are equally invalid. I think putting a bounty out on racist comments is racist in itself, in that it promotes and keeps strife alive. If such idiots were ignored, they hopefully would go away eventually. Same for people who claim that ANYONE who disagrees with the president is a racist. Its all race baiting. That was my point. I've been ignoring Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the likes for years, as they serve no purpose other than to serve themselves and their bank accounts. There are those on the flip side of the issue who do the same. They will be ignored equally as well.

YardleyLabs
04-27-2010, 09:21 AM
But wait, there is more!!

Here is the MORE;

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0410/Obama_seeks_to_reconnectyoung_people_AfricanAmerin s_Latinos_and_women_for_2010.html?showall




rk
Interestingly, Obama won in every demographic except white males in 2008, and his appeal in that piece you reference is to every group except white males that fueled his victory in 2008. If that is racist, then any appeal made by a republican to the base is racist because the Re[publican base is almost devoid of non-whites. Current pols show Obama and Democrats with a 12% margin of support among the youngest voters. However, this is also the group least likely to vote in a mid-term election. I would anticipate massive, targeted efforts to get out the youth and minority votes during the election by Democrats, and massive, target efforts by Republicans to get turnout from white males, fundamentalist Christian groups and others where they enjoy similar margins of support. That has been the "secret" of winning elections since the days of Tammany Hall.

duckheads
04-27-2010, 09:54 AM
Not saying that at all! Did Hew say that everyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist?? I don't think so. On BOTH issues, there are idiots who DO make those claims, and both are equally invalid. I think putting a bounty out on racist comments is racist in itself, in that it promotes and keeps strife alive. If such idiots were ignored, they hopefully would go away eventually. Same for people who claim that ANYONE who disagrees with the president is a racist. Its all race baiting. That was my point. I've been ignoring Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the likes for years, as they serve no purpose other than to serve themselves and their bank accounts. There are those on the flip side of the issue who do the same. They will be ignored equally as well.


So making someone back up their false claims is racists? You are doing exaclty what they are talking about. If anyone questons someone of color you are racists.

dnf777
04-27-2010, 10:49 AM
So making someone back up their false claims is racists? You are doing exaclty what they are talking about. If anyone questons someone of color you are racists.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????
I might have a big mouth, but you guys are putting more words in there for me than I can stand!

The false claim here is people saying anyone who disagrees with Obama is racist. Kooks on both sides will kindle this nebulous argument. I don't hear Obama saying that, and I don't hear his opponents saying that for the most part. I was actually agreeing with Hew's point, in the first place. Had I known he was just looking for a fight, I would have passed. stupid me.

JDogger
04-27-2010, 11:09 AM
I didn't see either video in the OP as proving or disproving anything, and the audio in both was just crowd noise with an occasional chant, "kill the bill". If the n-word was spoken, I'm sure it wasn't chanted and so would have been inaudible. Lose/lose.

ducknwork
04-27-2010, 12:52 PM
I think putting a bounty out on racist comments is racist in itself, in that it promotes and keeps strife alive.


?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????
I might have a big mouth, but you guys are putting more words in there for me than I can stand!

The false claim here is people saying anyone who disagrees with Obama is racist. Kooks on both sides will kindle this nebulous argument. I don't hear Obama saying that, and I don't hear his opponents saying that for the most part. I was actually agreeing with Hew's point, in the first place. Had I known he was just looking for a fight, I would have passed. stupid me.

Dave the above comment is the one that people are taking issue with. I don't see what is so racist about providing some incentive for someone to provide proof for the accusations that they made. If someone actually yelled the 'n' word, don't you think that someone who had proof of it would come forth with a cell phone video (or something) for $100K? I would!

If you won't prove your accusations when there is that kind of moolah on the table, then I would think there would be considerable doubt that some lies may have been told...:cool:

depittydawg
04-27-2010, 01:25 PM
LOL.

DNF to himself: "Gee wilickers. I know I should ignore that comment about everyone who opposes My Saviour Who Arte In Washington is a racist, but golly, what if the POTUS people don't get to read my opinions about it? I hate to punish them and make their lives less worth living by not letting them know what I think about it. Hmmmmmm. I know! I'll give them my opinion on those tactics and then suggest everyone else not comment about the tactics. Everyone's a winner, now. Dnf, you're one magnificent sonuvabiatch!"

:p:p:p

Just curious but where to you guys come off with this "savior" "messiah" bullcrap.

depittydawg
04-27-2010, 01:29 PM
Interestingly, Obama won in every demographic except white males in 2008, and his appeal in that piece you reference is to every group except white males that fueled his victory in 2008. If that is racist, then any appeal made by a republican to the base is racist because the Re[publican base is almost devoid of non-whites. Current pols show Obama and Democrats with a 12% margin of support among the youngest voters. However, this is also the group least likely to vote in a mid-term election. I would anticipate massive, targeted efforts to get out the youth and minority votes during the election by Democrats, and massive, target efforts by Republicans to get turnout from white males, fundamentalist Christian groups and others where they enjoy similar margins of support. That has been the "secret" of winning elections since the days of Tammany Hall.

You forgot one. The massive targeted effort by the Republican party to prevent the voting of minorities and poor whites. That, my friend, is at the root of the Az story.

Hoosier
04-27-2010, 01:54 PM
You forgot one. The massive targeted effort by the Republican party to prevent the voting of minorities and poor whites. That, my friend, is at the root of the Az story.

And how is it that they try and prevent anyone from voting? Would that be by requiring them to show ID? How else are you going to prevent people from voting 35 time, or illegals from voting when they have no right to? To say that requiring someone to give evidence, that they are who they say they are, is in some way stopping people from voting is ridiculous. Let's face it Democrats want the process to be set up to allow cheating, because they are way more likely to cheat.

depittydawg
04-27-2010, 02:35 PM
And how is it that they try and prevent anyone from voting? Would that be by requiring them to show ID? How else are you going to prevent people from voting 35 time, or illegals from voting when they have no right to? To say that requiring someone to give evidence, that they are who they say they are, is in some way stopping people from voting is ridiculous. Let's face it Democrats want the process to be set up to allow cheating, because they are way more likely to cheat.

Showing ID is not the issue. I would cite Ohio in 2004, Florida in 2000, and several states in 2008 as examples. HUGE examples. LImited access to voting machines in heavily democratic districts in Ohio, falsely removing names from eligible voter lists, harassment at the polls, all of these tactics have been documented and were orchestrated under Repbuclian leadership in those several states.

Uncle Bill
04-27-2010, 03:26 PM
You forgot one. The massive targeted effort by the Republican party to prevent the voting of minorities and poor whites. That, my friend, is at the root of the Az story.

What a zero comment by someone that has dippity-doo-daw intelligence concerning this issue. But like many in your socialistic infested state, you are quick to pass judement on what some other state's inhabitants are faced with, when you don't have a clue.

But like the sage once stated, and I paraphrase, you can stay on the sidelines and be a quiet idiot concerning a subject you have no knowledge about, OR you can open your mouth, or as in this case, start hammering on your keyboard, and remove all doubt.

This law wasn't brought about by some folks not willing to continue putting up with illegals voting, or taking jobs, or using the schools and hospitals etc., this was brought on because there are complete lawless gangsters taking over communities and making shut-ins of the bona fide populace that pay the taxes to support that state.

It's way more than a referendum against migrant workers and their employers. It's about concern if your child can even go to school without being involved in a drive-by gang shooting.

I can only encourage Obama and all his fools that put him in power, take this state and it's new law on. I love it when the REAL liberal/socialist agenda gets moved to the forefront for the world to see; Obama in favor of drug cartels; Obama in favor of illegals; Obama coming out of the closet so we can ALL see what he meant by that "hope and change" garbage he was spewing.

Just maybe the real people will start understanding what the conservatives were unable to portray him as, with his attendance in the reverand Wright church; or his involvement as a community organizer being primarily a member-pusher for ACORN; or his Marxist following of Bill Ayers; or his Muslim, not Christian beliefs. In other words what a complete sham this empty suit truly is.

Furthermore, if it inconveniences some of the Hispanics for having to show a card to prove they are NOT illegal, why not ask some of the legals in that race how little that really bothers them. They show it as a badge of honor. In fact the majority of them are the first in line to request the illegals, and especially the illegal hoodlum-druggies, be profiled so the quicker they can be deported or jailed.

As Franco requested, I too urge the neighboring states to grow a pair and get on board with the REAL people of Arizona. It's obvious the only thing the Feds are going to promote is LEGALIZING these immigrants so they have additional voting base to further their socialization of the USA.

UB

Cody Covey
04-27-2010, 03:27 PM
This man is a republican???????

http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/black-panthers.jpg

depittydawg
04-27-2010, 04:18 PM
What a zero comment by someone that has dippity-doo-daw intelligence concerning this issue. But like many in your socialistic infested state, you are quick to pass judement on what some other state's inhabitants are faced with, when you don't have a clue.

But like the sage once stated, and I paraphrase, you can stay on the sidelines and be a quiet idiot concerning a subject you have no knowledge about, OR you can open your mouth, or as in this case, start hammering on your keyboard, and remove all doubt.

This law wasn't brought about by some folks not willing to continue putting up with illegals voting, or taking jobs, or using the schools and hospitals etc., this was brought on because there are complete lawless gangsters taking over communities and making shut-ins of the bona fide populace that pay the taxes to support that state.

It's way more than a referendum against migrant workers and their employers. It's about concern if your child can even go to school without being involved in a drive-by gang shooting.

I can only encourage Obama and all his fools that put him in power, take this state and it's new law on. I love it when the REAL liberal/socialist agenda gets moved to the forefront for the world to see; Obama in favor of drug cartels; Obama in favor of illegals; Obama coming out of the closet so we can ALL see what he meant by that "hope and change" garbage he was spewing.

Just maybe the real people will start understanding what the conservatives were unable to portray him as, with his attendance in the reverand Wright church; or his involvement as a community organizer being primarily a member-pusher for ACORN; or his Marxist following of Bill Ayers; or his Muslim, not Christian beliefs. In other words what a complete sham this empty suit truly is.

Furthermore, if it inconveniences some of the Hispanics for having to show a card to prove they are NOT illegal, why not ask some of the legals in that race how little that really bothers them. They show it as a badge of honor. In fact the majority of them are the first in line to request the illegals, and especially the illegal hoodlum-druggies, be profiled so the quicker they can be deported or jailed.

As Franco requested, I too urge the neighboring states to grow a pair and get on board with the REAL people of Arizona. It's obvious the only thing the Feds are going to promote is LEGALIZING these immigrants so they have additional voting base to further their socialization of the USA.

UB
Just curious Bill. Is it possible for you to carry on a rational discussion without the adolescent tirades of insults? Pretty pathetic. Now don't forget to carry your papers when you leave your house. You might get pulled over by a Hispanic cop looking for a little fun of his own.

YardleyLabs
04-27-2010, 04:33 PM
And how is it that they try and prevent anyone from voting? Would that be by requiring them to show ID? How else are you going to prevent people from voting 35 time, or illegals from voting when they have no right to? To say that requiring someone to give evidence, that they are who they say they are, is in some way stopping people from voting is ridiculous. Let's face it Democrats want the process to be set up to allow cheating, because they are way more likely to cheat.
You would be hard pressed to find factual support for that contention. The most traditional way that Republicans have used to exclude minority voters has been through the use of selective voter registration purges. In Florida, for example, during the 2000 election, the Commissioner of Elections ordered a purge of suspected "felons" from voting registrations using a matching algorithm that was known to produce a very high rate of false positive matches so that the majority of people excluded were actually valid voters. This excluded thousands (over 20,000 estimated) who were turned away at the polls and probably determined the outcome of the election since almost everyone excluded was either black or hispanic. The individuals had a legal option to go to court to get themselves reinstated but, as was known at the time, almost no one follows through on this since it can take days to resolve. Ohio has a similar track record for massive purges as do a umber of other states around the country. I am not familiar with Arizona's record and cannot comment on how it stacks up against other areas.

Leddyman
04-27-2010, 04:36 PM
Interestingly, Obama won in every demographic except white males in 2008, and his appeal in that piece you reference is to every group except white males that fueled his victory in 2008. If that is racist, then any appeal made by a republican to the base is racist because the Re[publican base is almost devoid of non-whites. Current pols show Obama and Democrats with a 12% margin of support among the youngest voters. However, this is also the group least likely to vote in a mid-term election. I would anticipate massive, targeted efforts to get out the youth and minority votes during the election by Democrats, and massive, target efforts by Republicans to get turnout from white males, fundamentalist Christian groups and others where they enjoy similar margins of support. That has been the "secret" of winning elections since the days of Tammany Hall.

You know good and D A M well that if.....Oh let's say Palin said she wanted to reach out to Christian white women and Christian men who hunt and own guns it would be all over. That is her demographic would not be anywhere near an excuse the media would accept. And it is exactly the same thing.

Leddyman
04-27-2010, 04:39 PM
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????
I might have a big mouth, but you guys are putting more words in there for me than I can stand!

The false claim here is people saying anyone who disagrees with Obama is racist. Kooks on both sides will kindle this nebulous argument. I don't hear Obama saying that, and I don't hear his opponents saying that for the most part. I was actually agreeing with Hew's point, in the first place. Had I known he was just looking for a fight, I would have passed. stupid me.

There is another false claim afoot. Let's see if you can figure out what it is.
Hint: Andrew Brietbart offered 100,000 for proof of it and there isn't any proof forthcoming. Actually there is proof it didn't happen.

Leddyman
04-27-2010, 04:52 PM
Showing ID is not the issue. I would cite Ohio in 2004, Florida in 2000, and several states in 2008 as examples. HUGE examples. LImited access to voting machines in heavily democratic districts in Ohio, falsely removing names from eligible voter lists, harassment at the polls, all of these tactics have been documented and were orchestrated under Repbuclian leadership in those several states.

So you are citing Democrat attempts to subvert elections to prove what point?

ACORN is the only election stealing organization that any body has any proof of. Guess who was working closely with them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFSY2dnTSZQ

http://www.acornwatch.org/breaking-news/1450-ag-announces-voter-fraud-conviction-in-hale-county-al

dnf777
04-27-2010, 05:14 PM
There is another false claim afoot. Let's see if you can figure out what it is.
Hint: Andrew Brietbart offered 100,000 for proof of it and there isn't any proof forthcoming. Actually there is proof it didn't happen.

Leddy,
I know you're just jerkin' my chain, aren't you?
To set that standard for proof is beyond even the most bizarre claim imaginable! If that's the case, we better just open prison doors and let all the inmates run free. I believe it was 9th grade debate where most learn the mantra "absence of proof is NOT proof of absence!"

Buzz
04-27-2010, 05:27 PM
And how is it that they try and prevent anyone from voting? Would that be by requiring them to show ID? How else are you going to prevent people from voting 35 time, or illegals from voting when they have no right to? To say that requiring someone to give evidence, that they are who they say they are, is in some way stopping people from voting is ridiculous. Let's face it Democrats want the process to be set up to allow cheating, because they are way more likely to cheat.


You're just $h!tting when you say that right? Everywhere I have ever voted (several states), they have a list of voters who are supposed to vote that that precinct. When you present yourself, ID or no ID required, you are crossed off the list. There is no way you are coming back in later and voting again under that name.

huntinman
04-27-2010, 05:34 PM
This man is a republican???????

http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/black-panthers.jpg

He's the Democrat observer, just there to make sure all (democrat) voters get inside...

Marvin S
04-27-2010, 05:58 PM
Interestingly, Obama won in every demographic

Actually, George Bush lost & folks like you haven't figured that out. So keep biovating as it's all downhill from here on in.

Hew
04-27-2010, 06:28 PM
You would be hard pressed to find factual support for that contention. Speaking of that.... The most traditional way that Republicans have used to exclude minority voters has been through the use of selective voter registration purges. In Florida, for example, during the 2000 election, the Commissioner of Elections ordered a purge of suspected "felons" from voting registrations actually, a state law ordered the purging using a matching algorithm that was known to produce a very high rate of false positive matches so that the majority of people excluded were actually valid voters. So you're saying that the state knowingly contracted with a company knowingly using a flawed system? And that really makes sense to you? This excluded thousands (over 20,000 estimated estimated by who, Al Sharpton? The most generous/highest estimate that I've seen was 8,000) who were turned away at the polls not exactly...the 20k number you alluded to (which again is way more than I've read) was for people who ended up on the purged list by mistake; NOT voters turned away at the polls. The number of folks turned away at the polls is a SWAG and I've read it could have been as low as in the hundreds. The actual numbers of folks turned away was mitigated by the fact that many on the purged list received notifications before the election and could fix the snafu and also quite a few counties (including Dade and Palm Beach) broke the law and didn't even use the purge lists because they suspected they were messed up (and they were indeed messed up). and probably determined the outcome of the election since almost everyone excluded was either black or hispanic. If you're operating on the erroneous presumption that 20k were turned away your conclusion would be more than valid. If instead you opt for the infinately more likely presumption that anywhere from a few hundred to few thousand were disinfranchised then your conclusion is way closer to "possibly" than "probably." The individuals had a legal option to go to court to get themselves reinstated but, as was known at the time, almost no one follows through on this since it can take days to resolve. Ohio has a similar track record for massive purges as do a umber of other states around the country. Gee, I wonder why states would ever consider purging invalid voter registrations when you've got fine, upstanding organizations like Acorn getting paid to register Mickey Mouse, Alfred E. Newman and Homer Simpson? :rolleyes: I am not familiar with Arizona's record and cannot comment on how it stacks up against other areas.
.............

YardleyLabs
04-27-2010, 07:11 PM
You would be hard pressed to find factual support for that contention. Speaking of that.... The most traditional way that Republicans have used to exclude minority voters has been through the use of selective voter registration purges. In Florida, for example, during the 2000 election, the Commissioner of Elections ordered a purge of suspected "felons" from voting registrations actually, a state law ordered the purging using a matching algorithm that was known to produce a very high rate of false positive matches so that the majority of people excluded were actually valid voters. So you're saying that the state knowingly contracted with a company knowingly using a flawed system? And that really makes sense to you? This excluded thousands (over 20,000 estimated estimated by who, Al Sharpton? The most generous/highest estimate that I've seen was 8,000) who were turned away at the polls not exactly...the 20k number you alluded to (which again is way more than I've read) was for people who ended up on the purged list by mistake; NOT voters turned away at the polls. The number of folks turned away at the polls is a SWAG and I've read it could have been as low as in the hundreds. The actual numbers of folks turned away was mitigated by the fact that many on the purged list received notifications before the election and could fix the snafu and also quite a few counties (including Dade and Palm Beach) broke the law and didn't even use the purge lists because they suspected they were messed up (and they were indeed messed up). and probably determined the outcome of the election since almost everyone excluded was either black or hispanic. If you're operating on the erroneous presumption that 20k were turned away your conclusion would be more than valid. If instead you opt for the infinately more likely presumption that anywhere from a few hundred to few thousand were disinfranchised then your conclusion is way closer to "possibly" than "probably." The individuals had a legal option to go to court to get themselves reinstated but, as was known at the time, almost no one follows through on this since it can take days to resolve. Ohio has a similar track record for massive purges as do a umber of other states around the country. Gee, I wonder why states would ever consider purging invalid voter registrations when you've got fine, upstanding organizations like Acorn getting paid to register Mickey Mouse, Alfred E. Newman and Homer Simpson? :rolleyes: I am not familiar with Arizona's record and cannot comment on how it stacks up against other areas.

I am absolutely stating that the evidence is pretty conclusive that the State of Florida ordered its private contractor to use a standard for matching voter registration lists against lists of convicted felons that was seriously flawed and that the contractor told the state would result in thousands of people being denied the right to vote erroneously. That order was given by State election officials after they reviewed the first list provided by the contractor and decided that it did not exclude enough voters. You can read about this in the Federal investigative reports. The Wikipedia entry is pretty clear and well documented. It states, in part:

"
Problems in the cleansing process

At first, Florida specified only exact matches on names, birthdates and genders to identify voters as felons. However, state records reveal a memo dated March 1999 from Emmett "Bucky" Mitchell, a lawyer for the state elections office who was supervising the felon purge, asking DBT to loosen its criteria for acceptable matches. When DBT representatives warned Mitchell that this would yield a large proportion of false positives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive) (mismatches), Mitchell's reply was that it would be up to each county elections supervisor to deal with the problem.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File#cite_note-3)
In February 2000, in a phone conversation with the BBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC)'s London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London) studios, ChoicePoint vice-president James Lee said that the state "wanted there to be more names than were actually verified as being a convicted felon".[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File#cite_note-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File#cite_note-5)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florida_Central_Voter_File&action=edit&section=3)] James Lee's testimony

On 17 April, 2001, James Lee testified, before the McKinney panel, that the state had given DBT the directive to add to the purge list people who matched at least 90% of a last name. DBT objected, knowing that this would produce a huge number of false positives (non-felons).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File#cite_note-6)
Lee went on saying that the state then ordered DBT to shift to an even lower threshold of 80% match, allowing also names to be reversed (thus a person named Thomas Clarence could be taken to be the same as Clarence Thomas). Besides this, middle initials were skipped, Jr. and Sr. suffixes dropped, and some nicknames (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickname) and aliases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonym) were added to puff up the list.
"DBT told state officials", testified Lee, "that the rules for creating the [purge] list would mean a significant number of people who were not deceased, not registered in more than one county, or not a felon, would be included on the list. DBT made suggestions to reduce the numbers of eligible voters included on the list". According to Lee, to this suggestion the state told the company, "Forget about it".
"The people who worked on this (for DBT) are very adamant... they told them what would happen", said Lee. "The state expected the county supervisors to be the failsafe." Lee said his company will never again get involved in cleansing voting rolls. "We are not confident any of the methods used today can guarantee legal voters will not be wrongfully denied the right to vote", Lee told a group of Atlanta-area black lawmakers in March 2001.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File#cite_note-7)" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File]


Further, no appeals process was put in place before this was done. Voters denied the ability to vote had to petition the courts and prove, through fingerprints and other evidence that they were not the listed felon. However, the lists of felons came from many states and in some cases did not include any of the information (e.g. conviction rate, race, gender) that would even permit an individual to establish such proof. Even with all of these limits more than 4000 people did file such appeals and the majority were found to have been excluded erroneously. Over 150,000 people were on the exclusion lists, of which 88% were blacks, although blacks represented only 11% of voters. Thousands of those "matched" were clearly wrong on the face of it, but this was ignored and they were excluded any way.


With respect to your specific comments:

1. A state law required the purge. It did not require a purge using a standard for "matching" felon lists to voters that was guaranteed to exclude thousands with no justification.

2. It makes sense that the state used a flawed standard because the objective was to exclude voters, whether they were felons or not. The purge was simply the tool -- one that has been used repeatedly in other states and continues to be used today. In my mind, officials excluding voters on such a basis should be subject to the same penalties as voters who try to vote fraudulently. There should be no job based immunity from prosecution.

3. The 20,000 estimate was at the low end of those mentioned in the investigative reports I read for the number of people purged incorrectly. The "proven" number is over 2000 and that only covers those who went through the entire court proceeding. Tens of thousands were excluded. For a comparison from a different context, I once found a company that was submitting bills to Medicaid based on matching patients without insurance from hospitals against lists of valid Medicaid recipients. They used a more careful matching algorithm than the State did in Florida to purge the voter lists. We ultimately forced the company to close to avoid going to jail for Medicaid fraud. Their matches were resulting in bills that were attributed to the wrong patient in the majority of cases.

4. How many votes were cast illegally because of fraudulent voters registered by ACORN workers?

Hew
04-28-2010, 07:28 AM
Further, no appeals process was put in place before this was done. Voters denied the ability to vote had to petition the courts and prove, through fingerprints and other evidence that they were not the listed felon. Petition the courts? You sure? Or more likely they had to walk down to their local election office. A hassle for sure, but that in no way equates to "petitioning the courts" (hiring an attorney, waiting for court dates, etc.) However, the lists of felons came from many states and in some cases did not include any of the information (e.g. conviction rate, race, gender) that would even permit an individual to establish such proof. Even with all of these limits more than 4000 people did file such appeals and the majority were found to have been excluded erroneously. LOL. Walking a semantical tightrope, aren't you? But you're right...50.1% were incorrectly on the list. And all but 108 had their voting rights restored BEFORE the election. Over 150,000 people were on the exclusion lists, of which 88% were blacks, although blacks represented only 11% of voters. Thousands of those "matched" were clearly wrong on the face of it, but this was ignored and they were excluded any way.


With respect to your specific comments:

1. A state law required the purge. It did not require a purge using a standard for "matching" felon lists to voters that was guaranteed to exclude thousands with no justification.

2. It makes sense that the state used a flawed standard because the objective was to exclude voters, whether they were felons or not. The purge was simply the tool -- one that has been used repeatedly in other states and continues to be used today. In my mind, officials excluding voters on such a basis should be subject to the same penalties as voters who try to vote fraudulently. There should be no job based immunity from prosecution. And if you can prove that any state official knowingly and willfully purged valid voters then I agree and they should be thrown in jail. Nobody was able to do that (although you're not the only one claiming that...but then, there are people who claim the government brought down the Twin Towers, too).

3. The 20,000 estimate was at the low end of those mentioned in the investigative reports I read for the number of people purged incorrectly. OK, but that's not what you initially said. You claimed 20,000 people were turned away at the polls and disinfranchised. There is NO estimate I've read that comes close to that number. The "proven" number is over 2000 and that only covers those who went through the entire court proceeding. Tens of thousands were excluded. For a comparison from a different context, I once found a company that was submitting bills to Medicaid based on matching patients without insurance from hospitals against lists of valid Medicaid recipients. They used a more careful matching algorithm than the State did in Florida to purge the voter lists. We ultimately forced the company to close to avoid going to jail for Medicaid fraud. Their matches were resulting in bills that were attributed to the wrong patient in the majority of cases.

4. How many votes were cast illegally because of fraudulent voters registered by ACORN workers? 20,000.

..................

YardleyLabs
04-28-2010, 08:23 AM
.................. And if you can prove that any state official knowingly and willfully purged valid voters then I agree and they should be thrown in jail. Nobody was able to do that (although you're not the only one claiming that...but then, there are people who claim the government brought down the Twin Towers, too).

..
4. How many votes were cast illegally because of fraudulent voters registered by ACORN workers? 20,000.
I'd say that the 1999 directive from Emmett "Bucky" Mitchell ordering DBT to loosen the standards for identifying potential "felons" after being told that this would result in substantial false positives looks a lot like a smoking gun. The extent to which the problems with the system were reported prior to the election as well as afterward (see, for example, http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/21/news/mn-620) provided ample reason for an investigation. The results of Civil Rights and Voting Rights investigations made it clear that the pattern of abuse was highly discriminatory. Not surprisingly, the newly elected President's brother, Jeb Bush, denied any political motivation for the felon purge fiasco, and the newly elected president's Justice Department refused to initiate any criminal investigations. However, what more could be expected from those who argued (with whom the SCOTUS majority agreed) that any continuing efforts to investigate the outcome of the Florida elections should be halted since it might undermine the confidence of voters in the integrity of the election process if it was determined that Bush lost. Much of the scandal concerning the voter purge got lost in the noise surrounding the theft of the 2000 Presidential election. However, it was ultimately more significant than the warped logic of the supreme court and did more to distort and national election than ACORN ever did.

Care to explain any of your logic for estimating 20000 illegal votes attributable to fraudulent registrations? I am aware of one person arrested for trying to vote based on a fraudulent registration. He was arrested when he could not produce any identification as required for first time voters. I can easily understand how and why ACORN workers might have submitted a registration for "Mickey Mouse". I can even understand how ACORN would submit that application to the Elections Commission given that it is often illegal to fail to submit applications even when they appear fraudulent. I do not believe that there is any polling station that is going to let mickey Mouse vote without some additional voter identification as required by law. In my polling station, first time voters are asked to produce identification and those not recognized by poll workers are also likely to be asked for the same.

dnf777
04-28-2010, 08:25 AM
Dave the above comment is the one that people are taking issue with. I don't see what is so racist about providing some incentive for someone to provide proof for the accusations that they made. If someone actually yelled the 'n' word, don't you think that someone who had proof of it would come forth with a cell phone video (or something) for $100K? I would!

If you won't prove your accusations when there is that kind of moolah on the table, then I would think there would be considerable doubt that some lies may have been told...:cool:

Using that same exact logic, I have not seen any videotape of Obama's birth in Kenya, therefore, by your logic, it didn't happen. Oh, I'll offer a zillion dollars to anyone who can produce a videotape. There, that settles it, right?

Pete
04-28-2010, 09:27 AM
[QUOTE]You forgot one. The massive targeted effort by the Republican party to prevent the voting of minorities and poor whites. That, my friend, is at the root of the Az story/QUOTE]

I heard today on my friendly liberal talk show that I just love,,,that us lefties are now silencing the wealthy left,,and they are trying to pass a law that only illegal immigrants can vote. And all white people must pay the way for all other colors.
I thought it was a good idea and very fair,because the white man is our problem.
Their is also a vote in congress right now to concerning white people who earn more than 15 thousand dollars a year to commit them to slavery.

really there is

pete

Leddyman
04-28-2010, 11:40 AM
Leddy,
I know you're just jerkin' my chain, aren't you?
To set that standard for proof is beyond even the most bizarre claim imaginable! If that's the case, we better just open prison doors and let all the inmates run free. I believe it was 9th grade debate where most learn the mantra "absence of proof is NOT proof of absence!"

If there were 500-1000 video cameras running at the scene of the crime and none of them caught the defendant doing what he was accused of I would say let him go.

In this case, given the circumstances absence of proof IS proof of absence. There were only about 57,000 cameras rolling and we have video with audio of the whole thing.

Don't jerk too hard, my chain is attached to a sensitive area.

depittydawg
04-28-2010, 11:48 AM
Using that same exact logic, I have not seen any videotape of Obama's birth in Kenya, therefore, by your logic, it didn't happen. Oh, I'll offer a zillion dollars to anyone who can produce a videotape. There, that settles it, right?

Have you forgotten already? The reason their is no record of Obama's birth is because he is the Messiah.

ducknwork
04-28-2010, 11:49 AM
Using that same exact logic, I have not seen any videotape of Obama's birth in Kenya, therefore, by your logic, it didn't happen. Oh, I'll offer a zillion dollars to anyone who can produce a videotape. There, that settles it, right?

Point taken, but...

There are things called birth certificates that one can show to prove where you are born. The are NOT things called ni993r certificates that can be shown to prove each time a certain word was used...Not to mention in Kenya many years ago, the majority of people didn't carry a recording device on their person at all times like we do now.

BTW, is there a videotape of his birth in Hawaii? OH CRAP! We don't have proof that he was actually born at all!:shock: He IS the antichrist!;)

Hew
04-28-2010, 12:09 PM
Care to explain any of your logic for estimating 20000 illegal votes attributable to fraudulent registrations?
Sure. You pulled an unsupported number of 20,000 voters turned away at the polls out of thin air, so I just figured, "when in Rome...." I've got as much proof as you do. ;-)

YardleyLabs
04-28-2010, 12:42 PM
Sure. You pulled an unsupported number of 20,000 voters turned away at the polls out of thin air, so I just figured, "when in Rome...." I've got as much proof as you do. ;-)
Actually, there's a pretty bid difference. I noted the entire context within which outrageous official misconduct (as I view it) resulted in elimination of thousands from the voter registration lists erroneously. Many of these people were never informed of what had been done until they arrived at the polls and found that their voting privileges would not be restored until after the election was over. As noted in the Miami Herald, "the supervisor of elections in Leon County, told members of a U.S. House judiciary panel that because of a flawed list that sought to identify felons, about 20,000 legal Florida voters were barred from casting ballots in 2000 -- ``a contest decided by a mere 537 votes.'' (3/17/2010) Or, as noted on the web site of Project Vote, "in Florida during the 2000 presidential election, almost 20,000 people with names similar to felons were disenfranchised when an error-ridden list of “felons” was used to bar them from voting. " (http://www.projectvote.org/voter-intimidation.html)

By contrast, for your number you pull it out of the air while Republicans act like ACORN single handedly delivered the election to Obama by creating fictitious voters. However, I have yet to see evidence of the fraudulent votes claimed. Can you find evidence of 1, 10, 100? What Republicans routinely propose in response to the false threat of fraudulent registrations are purging techniques that routinely disenfranchise predominantly Democratic voters without valid justification. That fraud has been repeatedly proven to have excluded thousands of voters acxross the country and, in Florida, probably lead directly to the outcome of the national election. If you want to find the real election fraud in this country, look at the dirty tricks played in election commissions under a flag of righteous indignation.

depittydawg
04-28-2010, 12:57 PM
What Republicans routinely propose in response to the false threat of fraudulent registrations are purging techniques that routinely disenfranchise predominantly Democratic voters without valid justification. That fraud has been repeatedly proven to have excluded thousands of voters acxross the country and, in Florida, probably lead directly to the outcome of the national election

The 2004 election was also decided by voter fraud. That time it was Ohio. Democracy in the United States is in serious trouble. There is a film called "Uncounted" that will chill your spine if you ever get a chance to view it.
http://www.uncountedthemovie.com/

Cody Covey
04-28-2010, 01:13 PM
Lets say your right and Ohio was a sham. ohio gets 20 votes and Bush won by over 30 in 2004

YardleyLabs
04-28-2010, 01:56 PM
Lets say your right and Ohio was a sham. ohio gets 20 votes and Bush won by over 30 in 2004
I agree that, while there appears to have been massive fraud by election officials in Ohio, that this was not sufficient to shift the national election to Bush. I believe he actually won in 2004, whereas I believe, based on the evidence, that the 2000 election was stolen for him by his brother and with the concurrence of five members of the Supreme Court. I also believe that ACORN, which I have not seen linked to any fraudulently cast votes, has been a wet dream for Republican election strategists who have used its name to justify actions that have resulted in repeated denials of voting rights for large numbers of people. The actions of those officials make ACORN look like a band of angels in comparison.

Steve Hester
04-28-2010, 04:28 PM
Yaaaawwwnnn.....

ducknwork
04-28-2010, 04:49 PM
I believe, based on the evidence, that the 2000 election was stolen for him by his brother and with the concurrence of five members of the Supreme Court.

You better have evidence, or Jeb and the five will sue you for defamation of character.







;):p

YardleyLabs
04-28-2010, 05:41 PM
You better have evidence, or Jeb and the five will sue you for defamation of character.

;):p
No problem. The evidence is in the Civil Rights Commission report which states that, while there is no explicit evidence that the motivation was racial in nature that the Governor and the Election Commission in Florida pursued policies for purging voters in the face of overwhelming evidence that the impact was to disenfranchise large numbers of people, mostly black, without justification. What I have said about the five justices in the majority is milder than what was said in the dissenting opinions.

Hew
04-29-2010, 06:21 AM
As noted in the Miami Herald, "the supervisor of elections in Leon County, told members of a U.S. House judiciary panel that because of a flawed list that sought to identify felons, about 20,000 legal Florida voters were barred from casting ballots in 2000 -- ``a contest decided by a mere 537 votes.'' (3/17/2010) Or, as noted on the web site of Project Vote, "in Florida during the 2000 presidential election, almost 20,000 people with names similar to felons were disenfranchised when an error-ridden list of “felons” was used to bar them from voting. " (http://www.projectvote.org/voter-intimidation.html)

Gee. I'm torn. Whom to believe. On the one hand you have a Democrat election gadfly and a liberal voting rights blog who say 20k (ProjectVote...lmao...they chronicle every tinfoil hat voting conspiracy supposedly hatched by conservatives but can't find one byte to mention the New Black Panther bruthas in Philly :rolleyes:). Or on the other hand we have the wiki link you used previously (which you obviously trust since you used it) that says,


"[C]omputer analysis has found at least 1,100 eligible voters wrongly purged from the rolls before last year's election. [...] At least 108 law-abiding people were purged from the voter rolls as suspected criminals, only to be cleared after the election.


In the Palm Beach Post's article, a thoroughly researched expose collaborated on by 5 reporters, they found that:

- "Skeptical of the (purge) list's accuracy, elections supervisors in 20 counties (including Palm Beach) ignored it altogether, thereby allowing thousands of felons to vote."

- "But a review of state records, internal e-mails of DBT employees and testimony before the civil rights commission and an elections task force showed no evidence that minorities were specifically targeted."

- "Even so, the number of voters wrongly disenfranchised by the felon purge appears to be far less than the "thousands" its critics have claimed."

- "Controversy aside, most of the people the state prevented from voting probably were felons."

- "More than 6,500 (felons) were convicted in counties other than where they voted, suggesting they would not have been found by local officials without the DBT list.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm

Hew
04-29-2010, 06:34 AM
The evidence is in the Civil Rights Commission report which states that, while there is no explicit evidence that the motivation was racial in nature that the Governor and the Election Commission in Florida pursued policies for purging voters in the face of overwhelming evidence that the impact was to disenfranchise large numbers of people, mostly black, without justification.
The evidence is that there is no explicit evidence? Did you steal that from a Monty Python skit? Or maybe from some double-talking politician speaking on C-Span?

If the whiny, race-baiting loons in the Civil Rights Commission couldn't find evidence (expicit or not) of an intentional cabal to disenfranchise black voters that should tell you all you need to know about the accusation.

subroc
04-29-2010, 07:05 AM
in any recount during or after the 2000 election, especially the ones that the left wing extreemist media did while "seeking truth" did algore lead any or did any show he won?

road kill
04-29-2010, 07:09 AM
I agree that, while there appears to have been massive fraud by election officials in Ohio, that this was not sufficient to shift the national election to Bush. I believe he actually won in 2004, whereas I believe, based on the evidence, that the 2000 election was stolen for him by his brother and with the concurrence of five members of the Supreme Court. I also believe that ACORN, which I have not seen linked to any fraudulently cast votes, has been a wet dream for Republican election strategists who have used its name to justify actions that have resulted in repeated denials of voting rights for large numbers of people. The actions of those officials make ACORN look like a band of angels in comparison.

How?
By counting the Military's absentee votes?

Every dangling chad is a vote for a Democrat regards............:D


rk

YardleyLabs
04-29-2010, 07:16 AM
The evidence is that there is no explicit evidence? Did you steal that from a Monty Python skit? Or maybe from some double-talking politician speaking on C-Span?

If the whiny, race-baiting loons in the Civil Rights Commission couldn't find evidence (expicit or not) of an intentional cabal to disenfranchise black voters that should tell you all you need to know about the accusation.
What they actually noted was that there was no explicit evidence of intent. The evidence of effect was overwhelming. The majority of those disenfranchised were blacks, who voted 90% for Democrats. Interestingly, hispanics were excluded from the matching program and they just happen to vote Republican. I'm still waiting for any evidence of fraudulent votes cast as a result of actions by ACORN.

aandw
04-29-2010, 07:23 AM
so why didn't they fix it before the election? don't wait to see if your guy won then try to change how it's done.

Hew
04-29-2010, 09:16 AM
What they actually noted was that there was no explicit evidence of intent. Right. So your claims that the GOP machinery in FL intentionally disenfranchised blacks are not supported by the very people you sited earlier in this thread as a reference. That's the second time in this thread that you're trying to make arguments that are contradicted by your own references.The evidence of effect was overwhelming. Says you, a liberal blog and a Democrat election sh!t disturber. The Palm Beach Post says you guys are wrong; that the effects were negligible, and moreover, that there were more felons who voted who shouldn't have been able to than there were people who were disenfranchised. The majority of those disenfranchised were blacks, who voted 90% for Democrats. It's the State of Florida's fault that the majority of felons were black and that the Democratic Party prostitutes itself for that demographic? Interestingly, hispanics were excluded from the matching program and they just happen to vote Republican. Interstingly, I'm curious how they programed the computer to search for and exlude Hispanic surnames from a list of felons. And there you are again proscribing intent...something your own link/reference doesn't support. I'm still waiting for any evidence of fraudulent votes cast as a result of actions by ACORN. Not as long as I've been waiting for you to back up your claim that 20,000 people were "turned away at the polls."

....................