Slashdot Mirror


Dead Goldfish Offered The Vote In Illinois

Election officials in northern Chicago want to know why voter registration material was sent to Princess, a dead goldfish. "I am just stunned at the level of people compromising the integrity of the voting process," said Lake County Clerk Willard Helander, a Republican, who said she has spotted problems with nearly 1,000 voter registrations this year. Beth Nudelman, who owned Princess, said the fish may have got on a mailing list because the family once filled in her name when they got a second phone line for a computer. When will we recognize a goldfish's right to vote?

216 comments

  1. The Obama Campaign by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Has been push-polling my 5 year old son, so why not a goldfish?

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:The Obama Campaign by Wiarumas · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well its safe to say that the Goldfish has more foreign policy experience than Palin.

      --
      I will bend like a reed in the wind.
    2. Re:The Obama Campaign by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Does your 5 year old son have his own phone line? I'm guessing the goldfish in question probably didn't.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:The Obama Campaign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is probably the most hilarious "did you even read the fucking summary" ever

    4. Re:The Obama Campaign by El+Royo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is odd, since she has more executive experience than the other three folks involved in the race -- combined.

      --
      Author of Enyo: Up and Running from O'Reilly Media
    5. Re:The Obama Campaign by Chickan · · Score: 1

      What? Mayer of a town of 8000? Running a state trying to secede from the union?

    6. Re:The Obama Campaign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. You just have horrible reading comprehension.

    7. Re:The Obama Campaign by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      What? Mayer of a town of 8000? Running a state trying to secede from the union?

      and if it were trying to secede... wouldn't that make her more qualified to be in the executive branch of a sovereign nation rather than less...?

    8. Re:The Obama Campaign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Unfortunately, by the metric being used by Palin's supporters, the guy running the tailor shop down the street has more executive experience than all four folks involved in the race.

    9. Re:The Obama Campaign by Weasel+Boy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps this is why we tend to elect governors as president, not senators.

    10. Re:The Obama Campaign by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      No, Christopher doesn't. My name is on the phone line in question.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    11. Re:The Obama Campaign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is odd, since she has more executive experience than the other three folks involved in the race -- combined.

      Which pretty much puts the kibosh on the argument that 'experience' is the most important qualification.

    12. Re:The Obama Campaign by Agent__Smith · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well its safe to say that the Goldfish has more foreign policy experience than Palin.

      And it is also safe to say that the Goldfish had more executive experience than Obama and Joe the Bieden combined

      --
      "It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
    13. Re:The Obama Campaign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Way to read the summary.

      "Beth Nudelman, who owned Princess, said the fish may have got on a mailing list because the family once filled in her name when they got a second phone line for a computer."

    14. Re:The Obama Campaign by bonch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It gets worse. ACORN has been registering dead people, homeless people, Mickey Mouse, you name it. What was even more sickening is that Democrats on Huffington Post claimed Republicans were trying to "steal the election" by shutting down the "legitimate operations" of ACORN.

      I can't trust either one of these fucking political parties.

    15. Re:The Obama Campaign by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      Ok - ACORN is the victim of fraud here - some of its contractors were trying to rip it off by sending in false voter registration to get paid without doing any work. On top of that ACORN flagged most of them as suspicious. So you cannot claim this is an ACORN conspiracy when its a simple contracting fraud. Finally ACRON is not the democratic party. Both parties try and suck up to it from time to time when it suits them.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    16. Re:The Obama Campaign by Neoprofin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since when are they trying to secede?

      I was just up there during their celebration of 50 years of statehood, people seemed pretty excited about it.

    17. Re:The Obama Campaign by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      No, Christopher doesn't. My name is on the phone line in question.

      That is interesting, then. I figured that you may have purchased a phone line for your five-year-old (I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time its happened in this country).

      I'll guess that you and your son don't have the same first name, since you said the campaign is calling for him and not you. Have you tried calling the local campaign office to get your son's name removed from the list?

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    18. Re:The Obama Campaign by flyingsquid · · Score: 1

      Which is odd, since she has more executive experience than the other three folks involved in the race -- combined.

      By your logic, the average student council president has more "executive experience" and is therefore ready to lead the nation. Give me a break. If McCain died of a heart attack, or got so old he withered away and dissolved into dust like that dude in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and Palin took power... I'd say that Russia would reclaim Alaska withing 72 hours. You betcha!

    19. Re:The Obama Campaign by chikanamakalaka · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with seceding? I think every state should do it.

    20. Re:The Obama Campaign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is too bad, since according to Cheney, the VP slot is not an executive position.

    21. Re:The Obama Campaign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is odd, since she has more executive experience than the other three folks involved in the race -- combined.

      Riiiiight. Mayor of Wasilla = Presidential qualifying executive experience.

      I could go on about the podunk nature of the Wasilla Mayoral Office, but why waste my breath. The Daily Show interviewed the current mayor. That was pretty eye opening.

    22. Re:The Obama Campaign by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Quite possibly. Why do you think I hate our two party system?

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    23. Re:The Obama Campaign by gd2shoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This isn't the first time this has happened "to" ACORN. Drawing the connection to the Democrat party isn't a stretch. At a minimum, Obama used to work for them. I'm not going to blame ACORN, yet. Let there be an investigation. Yes, I know that phrase is overused, but here it's warranted. Something about their policies or practices is allowing a tendency of fraud.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    24. Re:The Obama Campaign by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As someone who works campaigns for a living now, I can tell you that trying to get off the lists is nigh impossible. Unless you tell them you will be voting against them. Those are the only ones who stopped getting called. Even then, that doesn't always work.

    25. Re:The Obama Campaign by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Drawing the connection to the Democrat party isn't a stretch.

      Actually, even Gumby would tear an arm out of it's socket if he tried to reach that far. ACORN is required by law to turn in all registration forms, so they flag the suspicious ones.

    26. Re:The Obama Campaign by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Huh?!? Of course they are required to! No duh! We can't have people taking voter registration forms and arbitrarily not turn them in. Nobody has said that they shouldn't turn them in. Argue with what is written if you must, but don't argue against what you wish I had said.

      Stop attacking straw men.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    27. Re:The Obama Campaign by jabster · · Score: 0

      I'll bet it knows there are four letters in jobs, too!!

      How come Clinton had "plenty" of executive and foreign policy experience, as governor of a pretty small state?

      And what's wrong with seceding? We have some towns seriously thinking about seceding from Cook county here in Illinois. More power to them.

      And does anybody -really- want Biden as President? Seriously. Obama--a smoker, don't forget--could keel over any day from that.

      --
      Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
    28. Re:The Obama Campaign by jabster · · Score: 0

      By your logic, any discussion of ANYone's executive or foreign policy experience is irrelevant.

      Russia taking back Alaska? Hmmm. Maybe THAT'S the upcoming foreign policy crisis that Biden warned us about if Obama becomes President! Come on, the Russians would be incredibly stupid to invade Alaska if Palin were in charge.

      She would kick their asses.

      Obama would sit back and probably give them part of Canada, too, just to appease them.

      --
      Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
    29. Re:The Obama Campaign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it turns out the real difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats want "people" who shouldn't be voting to vote and Rebublicans want people who should be voting to be prevented from voting.

      Stay classy America!

    30. Re:The Obama Campaign by tbannist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even worse, Bush had more "executive experience" when he was elected than all 4 candidates this time around, and I think we all know how that turned out...

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    31. Re:The Obama Campaign by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Huh?!? Of course they are required to! No duh! We can't have people taking voter registration forms and arbitrarily not turn them in. Nobody has said that they shouldn't turn them in. Argue with what is written if you must, but don't argue against what you wish I had said.

      Um, I am.

      This isn't the first time this has happened "to" ACORN. Drawing the connection to the Democrat party isn't a stretch. At a minimum, Obama used to work for them. I'm not going to blame ACORN, yet. Let there be an investigation. Yes, I know that phrase is overused, but here it's warranted. Something about their policies or practices is allowing a tendency of fraud.

      Their "policies or practices is allowing a tendency of fraud" is called following federal law, which was the point.

    32. Re:The Obama Campaign by Aranykai · · Score: 2, Informative

      We Texans went so far as to reserve the right.

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    33. Re:The Obama Campaign by rhathar · · Score: 1

      And no one has a better resume than Cheney...

      --
      http://www.chaotickingdoms.com
    34. Re:The Obama Campaign by rhathar · · Score: 1

      Obama would sit back and probably give them part of Canada, too, just to appease them.

      Interesting that you think the US has any say in that.

      --
      http://www.chaotickingdoms.com
    35. Re:The Obama Campaign by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Especially according to Cheney!

      It made me laugh when I found who was in charge of picking a VP candidate for Bush.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    36. Re:The Obama Campaign by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you're being selfishly narrow minded. You are also putting words into my mouth and I find that offensive.

      While "policies or practices" does include turning in every registration form, that is a disingenuous, extremely narrow interpretation of the phrase. It also includes employee training, telling them that they will get caught and fired if they turn in fake records. It involves more than just flagging suspicious records, but firing the employees responsible in a timely manner. It involves gathering data to help with prosecution (Which shouldn't be too hard; ACORN is a victim here, so they claim). It may involve announcing to their staff that an employee has been fired for registration fraud. It may involve announcing to their staff that evidence has been handed over to the state.

      I don't know what their policies are, but something isn't working. If this was the first election that they had this problem, it would be negligence from naivete, and easier to forgive.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    37. Re:The Obama Campaign by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Yep- mentioned it to them and all 5 of the callers. The calls have stopped, so I guess they've finally got the hint.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    38. Re:The Obama Campaign by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Ah, then that might have been what really did the trick- I told the last lady who called that Christopher couldn't vote, my wife has chosen to vote for Obama, and I'm fed up with both parties so I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    39. Re:The Obama Campaign by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      It gets worse. ACORN has been registering dead people, homeless people, Mickey Mouse, you name it. What was even more sickening is that Democrats on Huffington Post claimed Republicans were trying to "steal the election" by shutting down the "legitimate operations" of ACORN.

      Actually, you've got a half story there. The rest of the story was on PBS last weekend. Turns out it was a contractor for ACORN that ACORN was paying per voter registration card. None of the fake registration cards actually made it to the registrar's office.

      I can only hope that they refused to pay for those registration cards as well.

      I can't trust either one of these fucking political parties.

      Which is why I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    40. Re:The Obama Campaign by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Do you know what executive experience means?

    41. Re:The Obama Campaign by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      First of all, why would you think Russia would openly challenge the US.

      Second, do you actually think that NORAD and all the other groups that have worked contingency plans out for this wouldn't say Palin, this is what we need to do and she wouldn't follow it?

      I mean common, What would Obama do if that were to happen? He would look at the nations military and either say do nothing or what are our options and them pick the ones that the current military leaders favor the most.

      That doesn't sound so dificult that Palin or McCain couldn't do the same. BTW, we have military bases in Alaska. There are 3 air bases and 3 army bases with crossover personnel from the marines special forces. Not counting the national gard troops, we have roughly 18000 troops in alaska that probably wouldn't wait in a plan from Washington before they started responding to an attack from Russia. I mean there are contingency plans already in place that make what you said seem completely moronic.

    42. Re:The Obama Campaign by jabster · · Score: 0

      well he certainly wouldn't act to defend them...

      --
      Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
    43. Re:The Obama Campaign by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If you read the summery, you would see that the goldfish was listed as a person who lived there when they took the phone line out.

      I had a girl I moved in with do this to me when she turned the phone on. If someone called information and asked for my number, it would give hers. If you asked for the dog's phone number, it would give hers too because she decided to play house and act like the dog was our kid (yes, the first sign I got that she was crazy). Unfortunately, after I moved out, when I attempted to get a land line 3 years later, I had to pay he past due bill off because I was listed on the phone before they would let me take one in my own name at a different address just to get DSL.

    44. Re:The Obama Campaign by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That doesn't always work. A campaign worker came to the door and asked a friend if he had any questions for Obama. He told her know, he was voting for someone else. He then started getting push pull calls claiming to be from the McCain Palin republican foundation stating that Obama is a Nigger terrorist that likes to kill babies. They even played a recorded "I'm John McCain and I approved this message." from a TV add.

      After hearing about this, I have found a few others who have gotten them too. They are only after someone asks them something about Obama and they say they aren't interested or are voting for someone else.

      Of course the one guys wife is voting for Obama because she like saying his name.

    45. Re:The Obama Campaign by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You see, federal law says that they can't pay per voter registered. It has to be an hourly rate or some other form of compensation that doesn't require a count of who is registered. The law was put in place to address this already. Acorn has acted against the law if they are paying anyone per voter registration.

    46. Re:The Obama Campaign by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you're being selfishly narrow minded

      Yeah, I frequently get that from people who are overly dense.

      You are also putting words into my mouth and I find that offensive.

      Are you high? We can all see what you wrote I'm replying to that.

      While "policies or practices" does include turning in every registration form, that is a disingenuous, extremely narrow interpretation of the phrase.

      Just what part of "the law requires all forms to be turned in" are you not understanding?

      It also includes employee training, telling them that they will get caught and fired if they turn in fake records.

      Which...ACORN...also...does.

      It involves gathering data to help with prosecution

      Which...ACORN...also...does.

      You're asking for an investigation into an organization that is following the law, takes quality control seriously, and goes out of it's way to alert elections officials to questionable registrations. When can we send over Ken Starr to investigate your ass?

    47. Re:The Obama Campaign by KalAl · · Score: 1

      So perhaps we've shown that executive experience isn't the best criterion for predicting a candidate's success as President?

      --
      I'd rather let a thousand guilty men go free than chase after them.
    48. Re:The Obama Campaign by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      "Something about their policies or practices is allowing a tendency of fraud."

      I've determined that you are either a troll, or have a reading comprehension noticeably below the average American. This conversation is not worth continuing.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    49. Re:The Obama Campaign by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 1

      If you do it, doesn't that disqualify our current president from his job?

      Never liked Texans much anyways.

      --
      "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
    50. Re:The Obama Campaign by hotinaz · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what the big deal with fake registrations- these workers may file fake names to get paid but it doesn't affect the election unless someone tries to vote as "Daffy Duck" or a member of the Cowboys football team. That gets dicey with mail in ballots but you'd think as these things are processed, workers will find them. Both candidates have been linked to ACORN, so I'm not sure why the McCain campaign is trying to make it a democratic issue. Republicans have had their own issues with election day mischief, a la Allen Raymond.

    51. Re:The Obama Campaign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And does anybody -really- want Biden as President?

      People who aren't stupid, yes.

    52. Re:The Obama Campaign by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you started out a post disagreeing with me by repeating my last sentence. I said it doesn't always work. But, in my experience it is the only thing that MIGHT work.

    53. Re:The Obama Campaign by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I wasn't disagreeing with you as much as illustrating the hassles of how it doesn't always work.

      I probably could have started it off a little better but I'm not sure how I could have conveyed that I was talking about when you tell them to leave you alone, unexpected shit happens without dragging it into a convoluted and awkward sentence like this one. Your right, it was my failure, and no, I wasn't intending to diminish what you said, as you pointed out, I started off with what you already said. It that somehow offended you, it wasn't my intention and I'm sure we are adults which probably means your already over it. I know I am :)

      Anyways, I didn't intend you to take it the way you did rather then just show an aspect of how it can and does turn for some people. Given the choice between campaign calls and Push call, I would rather them to just waste their time and resources thinking I will actually vote for them. It's a lot more pleasant.

  2. Registration Materials by MyLongNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh no, it got sent registration materials. It did not get registered. The paperwork was sent out based on a request. It is the end of Democracy as we know it!

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Registration Materials by stinerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And if Princess registers, she will show up to the polling place and cast a ballot.

      You think anyone would notice Princess isn't a qualified elector?

    2. Re:Registration Materials by Straif · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Two words for this line of thinking: Absentee ballot.

      Registration fraud is not just about making it possible to walk in and vote illegally in person, it also about just getting on the rolls so that a ballot can be requested by mail. And with the minimal validations being enforced in most states, it's not all that hard to do. There have already been reported cases of dead people having already voted, both federally and in the primaries.

      Then of course there is the drive by voting trend that seems to be becoming more popular where people just enter a state long enough to register vote and leave (in direct violation of state voting laws). At least 14 cases have already been well documented (one an official Obama campaign worker and 13 others in an Obama associated 'get out the vote' group).

      But to be fair in this stories case, this was more about a voter registration group just bulk mailing forms.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    3. Re:Registration Materials by samkass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It gets even WORSE! Can you believe that some people are distributing BLANK registration forms that let you enter ANY NAME YOU WANT in the "Name" field??1!one! Let's throw out the entire democratic system because it can't possibly be perfect!

      To clarify the summary-- the registration forms (not the actual registration) were sent to the goldfish because the owner had lied about a name on phone records previously, entering the goldfish's name. The goldfish was not registered, and probably could not have come up with the ID (the form required a driver's license # or last-four SSN that matched the name) if it tried.

      Why am I not worried?

      --
      E pluribus unum
    4. Re:Registration Materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the goldfish had laser beams on his head, THEN you would be worried...

    5. Re:Registration Materials by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is getting out of hand, to be sure. In some states it's possible to register to vote even if your grandfather wasn't registered! Clearly voter registration requirements have become overly lax since the 19th century.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    6. Re:Registration Materials by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      There have already been reported cases of dead people having already voted, both federally and in the primaries.

      Interesting side topic - if you kick the bucket between posting your absentee ballot and election day, is your vote supposed to count? (even if, in practice, nobody ever actually extracts the small number of votes which meet those criteria)

      --
      FGD 135
    7. Re:Registration Materials by Straif · · Score: 1

      Short answer: sometimes.

      since every state is different it just matters where you live (or used to live).

      In South Dakota, depending on the day of the month you died, then no it doesn't count. If the election happens before the state elections board discovers your dead, which is done by a automated check every couple of weeks, then it would count but in general, if they know you're dead your ballot is dismissed.

      In Florida as long as you were alive when you filled in your ballot then everything is legal.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    8. Re:Registration Materials by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      All I had to do to get my Absentee Ballot was sign a request.

      Once you're on the roles it's as easy as that.

    9. Re:Registration Materials by stinerman · · Score: 1

      In Ohio, your SSN, driver's license number, or a copy of a recent utility bill is required to vote absentee.

      I suppose if Princess has a power bill in her name, she may be able to vote.

    10. Re:Registration Materials by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Where I'm from landline phones, electricity, and water are all valid utilities.

      Since Princess has a phone I wonder if she'll be voting for change?

    11. Re:Registration Materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it always jews getting into the press with this kinda stuff?

      I bet they requested the material themselves to run to the press afterwards.

    12. Re:Registration Materials by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Newly registered voters have to show id - meaning they can't vote absentee.

      Voter registration fraud != voter fraud.

      I'm more concerned with long lines (hours long) in urban centers of red states than I am with princess voting.

    13. Re:Registration Materials by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well, to make things worse, and I'm pretty sure I know where the 14 cases are, there have been people attempting to go door to door to collect people's absentee ballots for whatever reason and when the news agency aired this last night, they said that no official will do this and you should mail it directly from the post office or deliver it personally to the county elections office.

      According to the story, and yes, they showed a row of McCain signs in front yards of the home this supposedly happened at, after the woman refused to give the ballot to the guy, someone called her claiming to be with the county and she was to fill the form out and hand it to him or else her vote wouldn't count.

      I have racked myself attempting to find out how they would know who has absentee ballots until I remembered that both parties are allowed lists of them so they can validate the registrations. Then I'm reminded of the laptop computer that was stolen several states away with Campaign information on it.

      Sadely, when there is a real Watergate working, the people who cared the most before are turning a blind eye today.

    14. Re:Registration Materials by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The owner didn't lie about anything. The phone company asks who lives at the address when they install a land line in a residence. They listed their pet which is obviously pretty common. I had a girlfriend do it and I have heard of a parrot actually getting a voter registration card before.

      Apparently the problem is more widespread then this one thing or instance.

    15. Re:Registration Materials by stinerman · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that.

      It was none other than George W. Bush who famously said:

      "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."

      Perhaps that might translate into a vote for McCain?

    16. Re:Registration Materials by Straif · · Score: 1

      The 14 cases in Ohio were all people who spent at most 30 days in the state. In one case the person went to Ohio, registered and requested an absentee ballot and voted all within 1 week (I believe it was actually 3 days). All of his id's were for his home state and not Ohio (since he never changed anything to the Ohio residence they were renting from a friend).

      As for the actual campaign worker, even the Obama campaign acknowledges he voted they just contest the definition of "Ohio resident", even though the law clearly states persons residing temporarily in the state due not constitute residents.

      Now the fact they were all real people doesn't change the fact that they were all registered illegally and therefore voted illegally.

      Talking about long lines, due to the American system in which districts are generally run by one of the two parties (which makes no sense at all), most of these urban areas with problems are in democratic controlled districts where everything from funding, training, choice of ballot and machine are controlled by the Dems. It can't be helped if democratic politicians can't get their acts toegether to run a simple election. The butterfly ballot being a prime example of what a mess of things the wrong supervisors can make.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  3. I'd be more concerned... by orthancstone · · Score: 1, Insightful

    if election officials actually provided the pet with the ABILITY (aka some form of proof that is acceptable at a voting location) to vote.

    1. Re:I'd be more concerned... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point is that someone would be ABLE to vote on princess's behalf at the voting location. Not all polls care about a voter's ID.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:I'd be more concerned... by jgtg32a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      because requiring ID is racist

    3. Re:I'd be more concerned... by YodaToad · · Score: 1

      Don't forget ageist!

    4. Re:I'd be more concerned... by orthancstone · · Score: 1

      So there are polling locations that require NO form of identification (be it a registration card that has been certified and sent by the state, not application materials)? If so, I'm frightened by that more than people widely distributing applications to pets.

    5. Re:I'd be more concerned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In California you don't need ID or any type of registration or certified materials to vote. You need to give your name--which they then look up on a list to verify you're registered to vote in the 'zone' which the polling place serves. The very worst part of the system is how the 'list' is posted outside the polling station with a list of all registered voters and their addresses--the only thing stopping me from voting on behalf of everyone registered at the polling station is being recognized by the polling station staff.

      It is assumed that if the real 'Doc Johnson' ever showed up to vote after I voted on his behalf he'd be entitled to cast his vote provisionally. I've no idea how the state actually counts collisions in the voter pool.

    6. Re:I'd be more concerned... by phantomlord · · Score: 2, Informative

      No identification is required in NY when you go to the polls... you just sign your name in the register of eligible voters and they conveniently give you a copy of your signature to look at while you do it.

      --
      Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
    7. Re:I'd be more concerned... by faloi · · Score: 1

      The majority of polling locations require no form of identification. A signature and your word that you are indeed Mickey Mouse is all that's required.

      --
      "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
    8. Re:I'd be more concerned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Requiring ID isn't racist, but it is partisan. Its apparent intent - and its verifiable effect - is to disenfranchise voters who don't own cars, who tend to be poor, and tend to vote for Democrats. The fact that they're also disproportionately Black is not the point.

    9. Re:I'd be more concerned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This election I get the feeling that if Princess had an Obama-Biden sticker on her goldfish bowl that would taken as proof that everything was on the up and up and that nothing shady was going on.

    10. Re:I'd be more concerned... by Agent__Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It also, in a state like mine, Arizona, helps weed out those who are here illegally, but who ACORN not only helped to get mortgages by the hundreds of thousands, but also helped find ways to register to vote. As these illegals tend to vote DEMOCRAT in disproportionate numbers, I guess you could call that partisan... I don't buy the "are poor and don't own vehicles" crap, as even many of the illegals purchase and own automobiles, and also, as an adult in this country, you can get a state ID that is not a driver license, and I would imagine that most do as you could not do anything from buy liquor and cigarettes to trying to open a checking account or apply for a job of any kind without one. So your point is garbage.

      --
      "It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
    11. Re:I'd be more concerned... by Bartab · · Score: 1

      ID is not required in California, and while a signature is required it is not compared to anything.

      Even in Iraq, they had purple dye for the fingers to stop double voting.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    12. Re:I'd be more concerned... by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      The "tend to be poor" argument is ridiculous.

      At least in the state of Wisconsin getting a DL or ID costs $28 and is free to renew. Is there really such a large portion of the population that can't afford $28 lifetime? 13 cents a day for a year?

      Discard that if you want, even when the government offered to pay for the IDs as part of the Real ID act it was unacceptable. People who don't carry any ID what so ever, at least in my experience, do it for the sole purpose of not being able to be identified, not because they couldn't if they wanted to.

    13. Re:I'd be more concerned... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      That would just be racists against purple skinned people

    14. Re:I'd be more concerned... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      At least in the state of Wisconsin getting a DL or ID costs $28 and is free to renew. Is there really such a large portion of the population that can't afford $28 lifetime? 13 cents a day for a year?

      Why should someone have to go through the expense of getting a drivers license if they don't have a care? What is your rational for insisting that a fee be paid before people are entitled to their Constitutional rights?

      Discard that if you want, even when the government offered to pay for the IDs as part of the Real ID act it was unacceptable.

      Because the handful of cases of actual voter fraud are a molehill next to the mountain of voter disenfranchisement. Getting enough people to show up with 'Mickey Mouse' registration cards to swing an election is an enormous task. Whereas disenfranchisement robs thousands of voters of their Constitutional rights, and the Republicans already used it to steal a presidential election.

    15. Re:I'd be more concerned... by killmofasta · · Score: 1

      Ahh No. You need some form of ID ( DL or Passport ).
      Never an exception. Did have to go home and grab it once.

      You need to sign your name.
      If a few absentee voters showed up at a polling place, like 2, they would audit the whole precinct.

      They run a tight ship in CA, and Im living and voting in my third county.

    16. Re:I'd be more concerned... by killmofasta · · Score: 1

      Ahh, Again, This will be my 8th Presidential Election, voting in California, I have lived and voted in 3 counties, and in all cases, probibly 12 to 14 diffrent precints, I have had to show my ID every single time. My signature is compaired to the one on my ID, and was challenged once. ( I was sloppy ).

      Where in California did you vote? Baha?

    17. Re:I'd be more concerned... by jabster · · Score: 0

      Because the handful of cases of actual voter fraud are a molehill next to the mountain of voter disenfranchisement. Getting enough people to show up with 'Mickey Mouse' registration cards to swing an election is an enormous task. Whereas disenfranchisement robs thousands of voters of their Constitutional rights, and the Republicans already used it to steal a presidential election.

      Say it with me...

      GORE LOST FLORIDA!!!

      sheesh. at least come up with a rational, legitimate argument.

      --
      Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
    18. Re:I'd be more concerned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because requiring ID is racist

      Are you trying to be flamebait? or just plain stupid?
      How in the seven hells is requiring ID racist? Last time I checked, (about 5 minutes ago) getting an ID cost about $15 in Massachusetts and the costs are comparable (and often less) in other states. And all you need is an SSN.

    19. Re:I'd be more concerned... by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      The state of Indiana now requires ID to vote, and you can get a free one at the BMV.

    20. Re:I'd be more concerned... by 2short · · Score: 1

      No, they wouldn't.

      They got sent a registration form with Princess's name helpfully filled in. You can have as many blank registration forms as you like and fill in any name you want. That doesn't mean jack until the registrations get accepted, which in this case, has not even been attempted.

    21. Re:I'd be more concerned... by Bartab · · Score: 1

      I have also been requested to show ID. You can refuse, and they will not bar you from voting. Identification is not a requirement.

      I tested this in 2006, because I did not actually bring my ID and did not want to go back for it. I was not given a provisional ballot.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    22. Re:I'd be more concerned... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      GORE LOST FLORIDA!!!

      When you're in a hole, stop digging. Gore won Florida, as a statewide press recount proved. Republicans stole the election in 2000 - deal with it.

    23. Re:I'd be more concerned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um.....no....every recount performed by the press showed Bush winning. Gore "won" in only one scenario, where basically every hanging chad and double-vote was assumed to go for him.

      Even the New York Times admits it. Grow up.

      I assume you also think Bush guided Katrina directly into New Orleans?

    24. Re:I'd be more concerned... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Wrong. A press recount proved that a statewide recount would have made Gore president, under any scenario. So, once again: deal with it.

  4. Gender-appropriate names by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    Willard? That's my first name (as it's the custom in my family to torture first sons with it for 9 generations now), and I've never heard it on a woman before.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  5. Bad registration doesn't matter by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even if the fish had been registered it wouldn't matter. Voter registration fraud or voter registration errors aren't an issue unless actual voting fraud occurs which is much more difficult. None of the erroneously registered or requested to register individuals are going to actually vote.

    1. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, with so many bad registrations, the people verifying them get overwhelmed, and more and more bad ones slip through, combine that with early voting and some of the lax voting laws in some states (some of which are swing states), and it becomes feasible to "swing" the election.

    2. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Preventing voters from actually voting to me seems to be a much more serious issue than this nonsense...

      http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23638322/block_the_vote

    3. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod up parent!

      The flaw here is the system that PAYS people to register people, which is of course an open invitation to fraud. But as parent said, as long as no one "fishy" votes, there's no problem.

      The registration system just needs to be run on a volunteer basis. It won't stop the few retarded jokers who think it helps to register non-existant people, but at least there's no gain to doing so. No benefit = next to no fraud.

    4. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even if the fish had been registered it wouldn't matter. Voter registration fraud or voter registration errors aren't an issue unless actual voting fraud occurs which is much more difficult. None of the erroneously registered or requested to register individuals are going to actually vote.

      First, you can't have voter fraud without registration fraud. And once the vote takes place (ballot dropped in box), there is nothing you can do.

      And yes, some of the "erroneously registered" have already voted in Ohio:

      The New Yorkers and nine other members from across the country are accused of packing themselves into a modest three-bedroom house in Columbus, waiting 30 days - and then registering, even though the Buckeye State is not their permanent residence.

      Under Ohio law, a person who comes to the state for "temporary purposes only," without the intention of making it the "permanent place of abode" is not considered a resident. New permanent residents must live in Ohio 30 days before registering.

      Four group members, including two of the New Yorkers, have already cast ballots, and six others requested absentee ballots from the county elections board.

      So, I guess now it really is voter fraud and NOT just registration fraud!

      I understand Princess the dead gold-fish did not vote, however.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    5. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      That's actually a really bad example since a) the individuals in that case claim that they misunderstood the voting rules in Ohio b) they were real people who had changed their registration location to Ohio after living their for 30 days. This is distinct from the issues being brought up above such as registration of non-existent people or multiple registrations. c) None of the concerns about organizations like ACORN would deal with people transferring this way. Overall, this story is more about how lots of stupid people vote than about voter fraud.

    6. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bull.

      I'd like to point out that I understand that this was just a case of the family getting a registration packet for a fish that was pining for the fjords.

      However, the large influx of fraudulent/comical/garbage registrations that ARE being submitted is using up resources that should be used to remove the following entries:
      1. non-citizens who have driver's licenses, and so (in some states) are automatically registered to vote
      2. felons whose voting rights have been stripped as part of being found guilty, but are still (or are being actively) registered
      3. people who have mistakes on the registry form, and need those fixed in order for their vote to be counted

      The first two dilute the legitimate voters' rights (I don't fly to Germany and vote in their elections!) and the third case disenfranchises legitimate people whose votes deserve to be counted. There are documented cases where known felons' votes are being tallied, specifically because the election boards are overwhelmed, and don't want to wrongfully exclude those whose rights have been restored. (It's fine with me that a felon whose right has been restored gets to vote.)

      I'd also like to point out that in some states (Ohio) registration and voting happened the same day, and once the votes are accepted, there is no way to remove them from the process. So in those cases, registration fraud and voter fraud can happen simultaneously.

      Everyone talks about a fair election, how about being fair to those of us who maintain our citizenship and stay out of trouble?

    7. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Straif · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with that thinking is that people are stuck on the concept of physically showing up to vote. As most states have some form of absentee voting system many of these fraudulent registrations can lead to actual votes.

      There have already been reported cases of dead people voting through absentee ballots both federally and in the primaries.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    8. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with so many bad registrations, the people verifying them get overwhelmed, and more and more bad ones slip through, combine that with early voting and some of the lax voting laws in some states (some of which are swing states), and it becomes feasible to "swing" the election.

      That would require the participation of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people. You have to find that many people willing to do it, and somehow get every single one of them to keep quiet about it. Then you have to coordinate their efforts to spread them out thinly enough so no one will notice. You're taking a huge risk that a few of them will be caught, potentially exposing your conspiracy, and you still have no guarantee that all these people will actually vote the way you want once they're in the booth.
       
      It's just not practical. There are easier ways to steal an election.

    9. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 1

      Haven't you seen the Obama web adds all over the place encouraging people to register and cast their vote all in the same simple process?

      Whoever registered this fish could have went ahead and cast the vote at the same time.

      What's worse than hackable voting machines? A screwed up registration process that can't even tell if you are a dead goldfish. An "erroneous" but valid voter registration will thwart any voting machine.

    10. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      First, you can't have voter fraud without registration fraud.

      This is a false statement. People can stuff ballot boxes without registering. As there is no registration needed to do this, there is no registration fraud. Machines can be hacked without registration. Again, since there is no registration, there is no registration fraud.

      I understand that the line "No voter fraud without registration fraud" is one of the talking points of mouth-breathing Republicans, but it is a demonstrably false statement. I guess that's par for the course for them.

      --
      That is all.
    11. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The problem with that thinking is that people are stuck on the concept of physically showing up to vote. As most states have some form of absentee voting system many of these fraudulent registrations can lead to actual votes.

      There have already been reported cases of dead people voting through absentee ballots both federally and in the primaries."

      Links? I mean, there should be tons of court activity if people were voting on behalf of dead people, at least after the fact. This seems like an over-generalization, sort of like the idea that everyone on any sort of state assistance is a "welfare queen", even though the vast majority of people on assistance are not gaming or abusing it.

      The question becomes, are you okay with disenfranchising thousands of people on the *possibility* that a small minority may actually cast an extra vote in error? Sounds like the idea of killing social benefits because some people *may* be abusing the system. The last election that was "stolen" wasn't due to voter fraud, but rather due to throwing ballots out en masse, understaffing polls in densely populated areas, etc.

      If you pay people to register people to vote, a few of them are going to game the system (as was said earlier in the thread) for money. It doesn't mean that "teh democrats are going to steal the election!" Silently purging voter rolls, on the other hand, might do some damage, even if it's apparently unintentional.

    12. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Dave+Walker · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Guess you missed the part where volunteer poll workers used "leftover" voter registrations at the end of the night to make up for the lack of legitimate votes in both Gary, Indiana and St. Louis, Missouri.

      Voter registration fraud or voter registration errors aren't an issue unless actual voting fraud occurs which is much more difficult. I'm guessing you meant more difficult to prove.

      Oops, guess you missed this too:

      (Albuquerque, NM) - Public records released in New Mexico today confirm that fraudulent voter registrations are in fact turning into fraudulent votes. ACORN, currently under investigation by the FBI, is now confirmed to be responsible for producing fraudulent voter registrations and illegal votes in New Mexico. An inspection of public records has revealed that illegal votes were cast in New Mexico's 2008 primary election.

      What color is the sky on your planet?
      --
      "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." -- Benjamin Franklin

    13. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't you seen the Obama web adds all over the place encouraging people to register and cast their vote all in the same simple process?

      No. Link?

      What's worse than hackable voting machines?

      Not this. A few fake names on the voter roles is meaningless compared to the possibility of malicious code running on those machines.
       
      This doesn't scale up. Malicious code, if properly designed, does.

    14. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by SputnikPanic · · Score: 1

      I completely disagree. All aspects of the voting system -- registration, actual voting, tallying -- need to be protected from tampering. Allowing false registration threatens to compromise the entire process, particularly when you consider states with no-ID laws, absentee voting, etc. Whether or not actual voting fraud takes places is not the issue; the fact that the potential for voting fraud exists is, in itself, enough that something should be done about it. After all, isn't this potential for fraud the very same principle that gets so many of us (rightly) worked up over Diebold/electronic voting?

    15. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Haven't you seen the Obama web adds all over the place encouraging people to register and cast their vote all in the same simple process?

      That would be "web ads", short for advertisements.

      >Whoever registered this fish could have went ahead and cast the vote at the same time.

      That would have "could have gone" ahead".

      Glad to help!

    16. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I never really understood why a state would take a felon's right to vote away actually. Here in Maine they even encourage inmates to vote and do the absentee ballot for them.

      I got to work on a project that involved automating the request for absentee ballots for incarcerated people, it was tied in with registering to vote as well and inmates who weren't registered would be registered in the town/county of the facility that held them.

      It is my opinion that the vote is such a fundamental right that almost nothing should take that right away - including a felony conviction. I suppose a treason conviction or renouncing of citizenship should, of course, strip that right away but those are the only two I can think of off the top of my head.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    17. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Straif · · Score: 1

      From what I could see as to the problems with voter access and understaffing it was almost entirely within Democratic controlled districts.

      Since the voting districts in Florida are relatively self managing, meaning they pay for their own elections and set their own rules (although the local governments can request additional state funds if required), wouldn't this put the blame for poor voter services on the Democrats who ran those districts? The infamous Butterfly Ballot being a perfect example of how Democrats manage to screw up election they have 100% control over and yet still blame the Republicans.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    18. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      Stop! What are you doing! You are ruining the conspiracy theory with your logic!

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    19. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Why does it take thousands? I could fill out 2000 registration apps every day for 4 years, and if that allowed me to send in 1000 absentee ballots the system is already utterly destroyed.

    20. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Would you settle for "Successful registration fraud would more than likely lead to voter fraud?"

    21. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BZZZZT! Wrong answer. It only takes a few, in key positions at polling stations, to use the false registrations to change election results. How do you think JFK stole the election?

    22. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      He won't settle for anything that doesn't let him insult republicans at the end of his retort.

    23. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      But think of the children!!!! If pedophiles could vote, they would be at polling places!!! Some polling places are in people's homes! IF you let felons vote then you are letting pedophiles into people's homes! In fact, you are forcing people to let them into their homes! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! /psychosis

    24. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You bull.

      However, the large influx of fraudulent/comical/garbage registrations that ARE being submitted is using up resources that should be used to remove the following entries

      Then work to get the federal law changed that requires registrars to hand in all registrations. But that law was passed for a good reason: the potential for abuse. You don't want the KKK doing a registration drive where they throw out forms based on their own arbitrary standards.

      What ACORN can do is check registrations and flag forms that look suspicious, which is exactly what they do do.

      Furthermore, in most areas you are either required to show an ID or sign an affidavit that you are who you say you are - for all the Republican whining about registration fraud, they have yet to show it leads to actual vote fraud.

    25. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Would you settle for "Successful registration fraud would more than likely lead to voter fraud?"

      No, because that's nonsense. ACORN and other registrars are required by law to hand in all competed forms, even suspicious ones. Republicans have been completely incapable of demonstrating that vote registration fraud leads to vote fraud.

      One reason for this is the fact that in most places you have to either show an ID, sign an affidavit affirming you are who you say you are, or fill out a provisional ballot. Showing up at the poll both with your 'Mickey Mouse' registration card isn't going to cut it.

      Registration fraud is a molehill next to the mountain of disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of eligible voters. It's how they won in 2000, and it's the only way they can win this year.

    26. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Bumper sticker:

      Republicans ran everything.
      Everything is broken.
      Any questions?

    27. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You're ignoring the bogus felon list and the counting of blatantly illegal overseas ballots. But Gore got more votes in any case, as a statewide recount by the press proved.

    28. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by killmofasta · · Score: 1

      Im bringing my fish to the polls, but how can I get him to vote? All he does is swim eat and poop. Oh. He's a Republican.

    29. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Bumper sticker:

      Republicans ran everything.
      Everything is broken.
      Any questions?

      That would be cool, except it would be false. Take the economy for example. It was going great, breaking records even from 2002 to 2006. From 2006 to today, it's gone to shit. What happened in 2006? Oh yeah, the Democrats took over Congress. And anyone who has glanced over the Constitution knows that Congress controls the economy. So, how's this:

      Everything was fine.
      Democrats took Congress.
      Everything is broken.
      Any questions?

      There, fixed that for ya!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    30. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      No, because that's nonsense. ACORN and other registrars are required by law to hand in all competed forms, even suspicious ones. Republicans have been completely incapable of demonstrating that vote registration fraud leads to vote fraud.

      Did you not read my previous post? You know, the one where people fraudulently registered and then fraudulently voted?

      One reason for this is the fact that in most places you have to either show an ID, sign an affidavit affirming you are who you say you are, or fill out a provisional ballot. Showing up at the poll both with your 'Mickey Mouse' registration card isn't going to cut it.

      Again, not true. In Ohio, during that week of "register and vote the same day", no ID's were checked because the voters were officially voting "absentee", where ID is not required by law. So, NO, ID's were NOT checked.

      Registration fraud is a molehill next to the mountain of disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of eligible voters. It's how they won in 2000, and it's the only way they can win this year.

      That has been debunked repeatedly over the past 8 years, yet you people keep saying it as if it will somehow make it true.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    31. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      In North Carolina, 92% of the black population is claiming that they will vote for Obama. There's your "thousands" right there.

      I'm amazed that whenever the issue of race comes up, it is always the white guys that are racist.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    32. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by tbannist · · Score: 1

      The economy? Seriously?

      The economy was only "running" because the government was running huge deficits and interest rates were held abnormally low. The last 8 years should have been some of the best economic years that the U.S. have ever seen with that type of stimulus input.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    33. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      The economy? Seriously?

      The economy was only "running" because the government was running huge deficits and interest rates were held abnormally low. The last 8 years should have been some of the best economic years that the U.S. have ever seen with that type of stimulus input.

      Really? The gov't is running even higher deficits today. Why are we in a presumed recession, genius?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    34. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by PowerEdge · · Score: 1

      The press proved Bush the winner. Not sure what alternate universe you are from.

    35. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      You might want to read the rest of the threads, there's a pretty long one about how many states, (specifically mentioned: WI, OH, CA) do not require any form of identification at the polls. YOu just tell them who you are and if you're on the list you get a ballot.

      Why, oh why God, would someone successfully commit voter fraud to gain the ability to vote fraudulently and then NOT VOTE FRAUDULENTLY. Just for shits and giggles?

    36. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your assumption being that most black people would participate in election fraud given the chance.

      Who you calling racist, peckerwood?

    37. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Why, oh why God, would someone successfully commit voter fraud to gain the ability to vote fraudulently and then NOT VOTE FRAUDULENTLY. Just for shits and giggles?

      Why, oh why God, did my absent-minded 95 year old grandmother put a 12" butcher knife in her carry on luggage if not to hijack a plane and crash it into a building?

      Read up on the US Attorney scandal. The USA's were pressured to find cases of voter fraud to prosecute. They couldn't find any, and when they wouldn't pull a Ken Starr they were fired. More people die from bee stings every year than are convicted of vote fraud. And yet Republicans are willing to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people across the country in order to prevent instances of a crime that you can count on one or two hands. It should be painfully obvious that they don't actually care about vote fraud, it's all a sham to suppress the vote.

    38. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The press proved Bush the winner.

      Wrong. The press proved that a statewide recount would have made Gore POTUS under any scenario.

    39. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Did you not read my previous post? You know, the one where people fraudulently registered and then fraudulently voted?

      You mean the breathless, crazy story from a tabloid rag?

      That has been debunked repeatedly over the past 8 years, yet you people keep saying it as if it will somehow make it true.

      As is usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut viewpoint and you have reality. A statewide recount conducted by the press proved that Gore got more votes in Florida than Bush - which wouldn't have even been necessary if Katherine Harris hadn't purged thousands of eligible voters.

      That would be cool, except it would be false. Take the economy for example. It was going great, breaking records even from 2002 to 2006. From 2006 to today, it's gone to shit. What happened in 2006? Oh yeah, the Democrats took over Congress. And anyone who has glanced over the Constitution knows that Congress controls the economy. So, how's this:

      Wow, those must have been some terrible bills the Democrats passed since 2006 to wreck the economy in less than two years. Care to name them? What's that, you can't? You mean you're really full of shit? Huh, interesting.

    40. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Why should I produce a source? All you'll do is call it a "tabloid rag".

      Can you show me a legitimate source that shows that Gore truly won Florida? No? Then that means that it was Gore trying to steal the election, not Harris, not Bush. Oh, what the hell. Here's a source. Unless you consider PBS to be a "tabloid rag".

      In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

      So you say that Gore would have won and then call ME full of shit. I'm afraid the facts don't agree with you.

      On to Congress' control of the economy:
      This source says:

      Facts don't lie. The only major change politically in the last two years was the shift of power from the republicans to the democrats in early 2007. Historically, democrats have been better for the economy but this time around that doesnâ(TM)t appear to be the case.

      Read the whole thing for the facts he's referring to.

      Here's another site that backs me up. Don't bash the messenger just because you can't debate the facts.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    41. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      That's actually a really bad example since a) the individuals in that case claim that they misunderstood the voting rules in Ohio b) they were real people who had changed their registration location to Ohio after living their for 30 days. This is distinct from the issues being brought up above such as registration of non-existent people or multiple registrations. c) None of the concerns about organizations like ACORN would deal with people transferring this way. Overall, this story is more about how lots of stupid people vote than about voter fraud.

      a) Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Besides, these people knew exactly what they were doing.
      b) These are still fraudulent registrations and VOTES! Ohio state law clearly states that you must have lived in Ohio for 30 days AND intend to continue to live in Ohio.
      c) I never mentioned ACORN. While ACORN is a large part of the problem, they are not the only ones committing voter fraud in Ohio and other states around the country. Besides, this story has nothing to with ACORN anyway.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    42. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Straif · · Score: 1

      Well you're both right.

      The full report says that if a full recount had taken place Gore may have won by between 60 and 171 votes. Of course the report also found a statistically signifigant variation within their own examiners as to who counted what as a mark or intent to vote. For example, men tended to include marks that women didn't. There were also over 2200 'problem' ballots that could not be found. So the full recount totals are highly debateable due to the large pool (over 171,000 votes) and the tiny differences.

      However, no such count was ever formally requested and under every recound method requested by both parties at the time Bush won, and in much larger numbers (between 154 and 537). And since the study of the requested recount methods used a much smaller pool (since they were of candidates selected counties) the numbers can be considered more accurate.

      So in summary, Bush won according to Florida law, with or without the completion of the requested recounts at the time of the election.

      And as for the felons list, because of issues raised prior to the election most districts ignored those list all together so while those mistakenly stricten could in fact vote, so could legitimate felons. And most of the 'illegal' overseas votes were from persons serving in the military which, because of mailing standards, due not always receive postmarks (which was the main point of contention). These votes are pretty much uniformly accepted country wide.

      You did leave out the part about the news stations declaring the polls closed before the polls in the heavily republican districts of the pan handle actually were. That alone could account for hundreds, if not thousands of votes, mostly Republican.

      The general point is, it was a screwed up election ,which is what happens when you have a constitution that puts the responsibility of setting election guidlines to the various states, and I'm sure we'll all live to see many more screwed up elections but that one happened 8 years ago so everyone just needs to get over it.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    43. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Well you're both right.

      Not really. Reality has a well known liberal bias for a reason.

      However, no such count was ever formally requested and under every recound method requested by both parties at the time Bush won

      Gore didn't start with that request because that's not how Florida law works - it provides for county by country recounts, not for statewide recounts. If the Republicans on the Supreme Court had actually been interested in equal protection instead of stopping the count when it favored their party's candidate, that's what they would have ordered.

      And most of the 'illegal' overseas votes were from persons serving in the military which, because of mailing standards, due not always receive postmarks (which was the main point of contention). These votes are pretty much uniformly accepted country wide.

      It's the double standard. Military votes, even ones blatantly violating election law, were included even as Republicans were crying a river over the "hanging chads".

      You did leave out the part about the news stations declaring the polls closed before the polls in the heavily republican districts of the pan handle actually were. That alone could account for hundreds, if not thousands of votes, mostly Republican.

      I generally don't mention baseless Republican talking points. What did happen was some media sources erroneously called the state early for Gore, and then trampled the other way when Karl Rove's cousin called the state for Bush.

      but that one happened 8 years ago so everyone just needs to get over it.

      Um, what? Do that stolen election, our national debt has doubled, thousands of Americans have been needlessly killed or wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, a major hurricane ignored, our government has tortured innocent people, and our economy is in tatters.

      And they're trying to do it again. They did their best in 2004, although it might not have been necessary to re-elect Bush. They've passed a draconian, baseless voter ID law in Indiana, upheld by Bush's Supreme Court nomination. They pressured US Attorneys to prosecute cases of voter fraud, and when some couldn't find (or invent) any, they were fired. Now Republicans want to use home foreclosure lists to challenge voters or for having any discrepancies in personal information in government databases. This would disenfranchise Joe the Republican Plumber (because one such database misspelled his name), except they don't want to scrutinize all "questionable" registrations, only new ones. In a heavily Democratic year.

      So no, I'm not going to get over their continuing attempts to pervert our democracy.

    44. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Straif · · Score: 1

      Gore didn't start with that request because that's not how Florida law works

      I wasn't commenting on what Gore should or shouldn't have done, merely that under every counting method put forward during the whole debacle Bush won. As for the Supreme court, their job is to interpret exisiting law, not make new ones. If Florida doesn't have provisions for a statewide recount and various districts have set deadlines then that's all they can rule on. You can complain about it all you want but the fact is, according to the non-partisan media sponsored review, that no decision made by the State or Federal courts impacted the final outcome of the 2000 election. Period. End of story.

      I generally don't mention baseless Republican talking points. What did happen was some media sources erroneously called the state early for Gore, and then trampled the other way when Karl Rove's cousin called the state for Bush.

      CBS alone announced 18 times that the polls were CLOSED prior to the actual closing of the panhandle districts. Not that the vote was going one way or another but that the polling stations were closed. And every other major network also repeatedly announced the poll closures. It's not a 'talking point' it's fact and not open to interpretation. The networks even admitted it on their post election reviews.

      On the economy, you can blame a lot of people for the current mess but most of the leaders involved do not have a "R" after their name in the House registry. From preventing any oversight into the insane (and often illegal) actions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to raising the miminum wage by $2 (increasing minimum wages, especially by such a large number, has almost universally led to a slow down in employment as was the case after the Dems passed their bill), Democrats have done all they could to hurt the economy. Even Bill Clinton has come out complaining about how the Democrats have worked for the last decade to prevent anyone putting any restrictions on Freddie and Fannie.

      As for Katrina, could you remind me as to the party affiliation of the Mayor and Governor who have the actual legal responsibility to handle the disaster as dictated by the Constitution? Despite what you may think, the President doesn't actually have any legal standing to send national troops into a state uninvited. They can simply provide service and support on request and in many instances those services were either not requested or directly interferred with for political gain by the Governor's office (just check out the Red Cross's experieces with Blanco). That's not to say things went peachy on the Federal side, but as FEMA is not a first responder agency, it wasn't actually their responsibility to do many of the things they were being held accountable for. And even to give Blanco a bit of cover, the problem was made even worse by an overzealous media that continually hampered rescue efforts by reporting unsubstantiated stories and rumors as fact (most have since been debunked but only after the damage had been done). It's hard to send in a rescue crew into an area when CNN/FOX etc are reporting what turns out to be non-existant sniper fire.

      Of course I'm not expecting too much from someone whose entire ability to analyze a situation seems to be based on a Stephen Colbert joke. But then again, I guess people like you do tend to see a liberal bias in your reality since you seem to just reject out of hand any facts that don't fit your already fixed picture of the world.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    45. Re:Bad registration doesn't matter by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      No, Ms. Logic-deprived Dweeb. The implication is that it isn't that difficult to get people to band together if they believe their cause is just.

      Case in point: The brainwashing that has occurred that leads people to the conclusion that is perfectly permissible to rob those making >$250K/yr in order to give it to those who won't work. "I can't find a job", might cut it in a 3rd world country or if we had real unemployment problems. It just doesn't ring true when the rate is 6%. But as long at the Pres will give me $1000, everything's good.

      And to answer the GP, you don't need everyone to keep quiet about it. You need a press core that calls verbal felatio of their favorite candidate journalism.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  6. PETA by moniker127 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Looks like PETA finally got what they wanted. Damn lobbyists.

  7. That's nothing by hansamurai · · Score: 1

    That's nothing, CowboyNeal even voted in 2004!

    1. Re:That's nothing by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, YOU vote for CowboyNeal!

  8. Re:One thing's for sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -nod- That's why it was killed. You've never heard of a conservative goldfish getting "The Ick" have you? Connect the dots.

  9. 237.5 million by GunDawg · · Score: 1

    That's how many times Mayor Daley of Chicago is registered to vote. ;)

    No surprise about the goldfish.

    Heck, people who lived in Illinois (specifically Cook County) who have died, still vote!

  10. And "Willard" Hellander is female? by ROU+Nuisance+Value · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'd say somebody in the Lake Country Republican party has: 1. Gender confusion 2. A need to have voter registration fraud vs. voter fraud explained to her/him/it. 3. The expectation of a really interesting experience on the day Princess the Goldfish shows up and requests a ballot. Don't you think this Republican meme has passed its sell-by date?

  11. Check the history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would not be anything new for the dead to vote in Chicago in a fishy election. In as much as so many there have been sent to "sleep with the fishes(sic)" it might seem appropriate for fish to vote their displeasure and in that respect what is more appropriate then having a dead fish vote in Chicago?

  12. In Cook County Todd Stroger did even need to win by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    In Cook County Todd Stroger did even need to win the vote to get in office. Last year some came into the polling saying there dead family member is still on the voting list for years even after calling in about it.

  13. Voter suppresion at work by yareckon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is the humorous media end of a much more sinister campaign designed to convince people that lots of scary voter fraud is taking place and that we need to crack down at the polling places to stop it.

    The republicans are scared stiff, and want everyone to put aside the rights of new voters in a cloud of suspicion and red tape that will clog voting places, keep folks standing in line and frustrated them into not voting in minority and heavily Democratic areas. Casting suspicion on the lists used to target voters for persuasive ads is one thing - many of these are commercial advertising lists. Saying that the actual voter list has bad names on it, which evil people put there, who intend to risk their liberty to vote more than once, is harder to believe.

    1. Re:Voter suppresion at work by Detritus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've overheard people bragging about voting twice while I was standing in line for the polls. It's easy to do and rarely investigated or prosecuted. The integrity of the process is largely base upon the honor system.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:Voter suppresion at work by YodaToad · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I agree. There has never, ever been any voter fraud and the sole purpose of actually proving you're who you say you are when you vote is a ploy to make sure minorities can't vote. Why should I need a photo Id when I vote, it's not like I need it for anything else like driving my car or buying cigarettes or alcohol.

      Go ahead and keep living in your fantasy world where the sole act of saying nice things will get things done and the people who want to kill you will think more of you when you talk nice to them.

    3. Re:Voter suppresion at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice how much more press coverage the supposed voter fraud is getting over the uncountable examples of voter suppression. And remember folks, this means the media is "liberally biased". Brought to you by the same people who think Sarah Palin's ability to see russia gives her foreign policy experience.

    4. Re:Voter suppresion at work by PixelScuba · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Voting is a right, driving is a privilege.

    5. Re:Voter suppresion at work by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Actually drivers licenses are shall-issue, so they're more like a right. That is you have a right not to be denied a drivers license without cause.

      Compare with a learner's permit, which is void after six months regardless.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Voter suppresion at work by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Actually, driving is a right as well. You have to have the freedom to travel to use your right of free association, and traveling = driving for most of the United States.

  14. Re:And "Willard" Hellander is female? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > 1. Gender confusion
    Bigot!

  15. Voter fraud is a myth. by NotInfinitumLabs · · Score: 0, Troll

    In their five year investigation of voter fraud, the Bush Administration found 120 prosecutable offenses of voter fraud, out of millions and millions of votes cast. Organized voter fraud is a myth, but organized voter suppression is very real. Republicans know that the higher the turnout, the more likely it is that the Democrat will win. So, they like to spread things like this around to encourage voter suppression efforts Like this one in Ohio.

    1. Re:Voter fraud is a myth. by Straif · · Score: 1

      Interesting definition of "supression" you have there, of course its the same one Dems use every election; "Requiring people to in any way validate their eligability to vote is supression". There is also the famous "making people stand in long lines is voter supression". In that last one the part they normally forget is that in many if not most of the areas with polling station problems are Democratically controlled. Meaning everything from which machine to use to the number ot have to the instructing of volunteers to the design of the ballot is in the hands of the local Democrats. But of course, if anything goes wrong it's all the evil Republicans fault. How many people could tell you that the infamous 'butterfly ballot' that caused so much trouble in Florida was a Democrat design run through Democrat controlled districts.

      The case you linked was about requiring the Ohio Secretary of State to actually follow election law and create a link to the DMV or IRS to help validation voter registration information with at least one other verifiable data source. It was dismissed because the way the law is written, the GOP members filing the suit could not show standing in the court, meaning there was nothing wrong with the merits of the case, just that the people filing it were not the proper complaintants.

      From the article itself 1/3 of new registrations in Ohio were found to have fraudulent information. And with most of the ACORN and ACORN like groups policies of deadline filing of registrations to flood the offices and reduce validation checks that can lead to a lot of inelligble people being listed on the voter rolls.

      And if you want some more cases of voter fraud just check out the 14 Obama workers (one an official campaign worker and 13 others who work for an affiliated organization) who all did drive by voting. All registered to vote in Ohio (and several already did) when they had no intention of ever becoming an actual resident; a direct violation of Ohio law. They basically went to the state for 30 days to work on 'get out the vote' projects and then went home when done, making sure to vote there instead of the actual home states.

      Just to get back to your first point the term 'prosecutable' is a very important. Who exactly do you prosecute when poll stations show registered votes for people who have been dead for several years? Or how about when cities have 105% voter registration? Very few cases of fraud are ever prosecuted because it's simply too hard to track down the actual culprits and Dems work as hard as possible to make sure that any effort to stop fraud up front are stopped dead in it's tracks.

      Honestly, how hard is it for local governements (state or municple) to simply hire people to go door to door and register people and then offer a way for people who were missed to obtain registration papers later and then require some form of ID (either license or even a power bill with your address on it) to prove your identity when you show up at the polling station. They waste enough money on other things, why not on the most fundemental aspect of a democratic society.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
  16. My old girlfriend was a republican by BigRiff · · Score: 0

    She was a cold fish...

  17. Dead goldfish? by duckInferno · · Score: 1

    That's no way to talk about him. He's only in his eighties and probably would live long enough to get a shot at a second term.

    --
    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
  18. Here is some clue for ya idjits to mod down.... by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    I'm already hearing the apologists with their tired story that this is just registration fraud, no evidence of actual election fraud. Nothing to see here, move along.....

    But they are wrong. Most are just repeating Kos talking points and aren't actually in on the scam, but they are useful idiots. So what IS the scam?

    Go check out the CLOWARD-PIVEN STRATEGY for details. Basically the idea is to totally swamp the system so that there is insufficient manpower to detect fraud. So that is a win for them since it brings chaos. Be allowing them to actually commit fraud under the cover of all this noise is yet another win. Finally as they undermine public confidence in our elections they win yet again.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  19. Numbers Dont Lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dont know what the big deal is...how many fraudulent votes could actually be cast in a statewide or national election? Doesnt this fall under the 'margin of error'?

    1. Re:Numbers Dont Lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tend to agree with you, BUT think about Florida in 2000. Just a few hundred fraudulent votes would have been enough to change the outcome; I'm sure some people probably believe it did.

  20. Abomination! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only live goldfish should be allowed to vote

  21. Are you kidding? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is Illinois, where' we're so patriotic even being dead doesn't keep us from voting! Being nonhuman doesn't keep us from voting!

    VOTE EARLY! VOTE OFTEN!

    Illinois is home to Al Capone and Richard Daily.

    The last Democrat to be defeated by a Republican went to prison. The last Republican to be defeated by a Democrat is in prison right now. And our present Governor, a Democrat, will likely go to prison himself, as the Feds are scrutinizing him in the Rezco case.

    Both Federal Senators are Democrats. The Governor is a Democrat. The state legislature is mostly Democrat. Obama is from Illinois. Guess who's going to win Illinois by a landslide, dead goldfish or no?

  22. Which states are the fish-swing states? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I must have missed this punditry ... which candidate has the most affinity for the fish electorate in the swing states?

    The great seer, John Cleese, anticipated these problems back in the late 60's early 70's with his passive civil disobedience campaign, demanding a fish license (government ID) for "Eric, the Fish."

    Since it was a "gold"-fish, I suspect that the usual group of Ron Paul supporters will be blamed for this.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  23. It's shady business! by socz · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is my experience: When I got my drivers license in my state (a republic) i couldn't swap out the first letter of my second name, which is J on my birth certificate for X. In the end, they're both pronounced exactly the same, but because of "legal issues" i can't have it with an X on my drivers license.

    Go forward in time. I'm now 18 and able to register to vote. So I sign up with X instead of J, wondering if that'll go through EVEN THOUGH my birth certificate, social security number and drivers license along with all my other documentation in life so far has it with a J. Guess what? It went through!

    So I now happily vote with an X for my middle initial and no one ever questions it. So what's so shady about this? Do you guys ever wonder how you get notices for jury duty? Really, have you ever considered where those names are pulled from? At least in my state, it's from voter registration records.

    Since I registered, i've only received jury duty summons for X, never J, who legally doesn't exist! Yeah, something has to be done about all this. It shouldn't be so difficult. Mexico is infamous for it's election fraud. BUT the way the voter registration goes is excellent. Everyone has a voters credential. That is something that EVERYONE has, it's even more important that your drivers license. As a matter of fact, many people in rural areas don't have drivers licenses, but do have those voter cards.

    I grew up believing "USA is #1 in the world." But after having gone out of the US and seeing more of the world, I don't believe that is the case in every aspect. Mexico is always looked down out of ignorance. But they have got their voting system down... it's fraud they can't eliminate :P

    BTW, this reminds me of Bush's win in 2000... Mexicans said, "We thought we knew all of the dirty tricks on how to rig elections."

    --
    My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    1. Re:It's shady business! by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      Maybe you, or someone else can explain why all of this is such a hassle to begin with.

      In my country everyone who turns 18 and is a legal citizen of the country automatically gets a card sent in the mail on each election event, about where they are supposed to vote and how they can do an absentee vote and such.

      Being born automatically means you are eligble to vote 18 years later.

      If you're not issuing birth certificates, then how do you even know if and when someone was born in the USA? If you do, then why is this such an issue?

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    2. Re:It's shady business! by socz · · Score: 1

      Well in the U.S you are also issued a birth certificate. So i don't really know what the problem is. But i'll tell you what works bitchen, when I turned 18 i got a happy birthday postcard from the government saying 'Happy Birthday dude, hope you're having a good one. By the way, keep this little card with you at all times because it's your draft ID.' lol

      Although they can't figure out ass from head in anything else, they sure know when they can "legally" draft your ass!

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
  24. Re:In Cook County Todd Stroger did even need to wi by SydShamino · · Score: 1

    I'm registered to vote twice (not intentionally). I registered and voted at age 18 in my parents' city, then went off to college in another state, continuing to vote in my home state via absentee ballot. (I never registered in my temporary state even though they allowed college kids to do so.)

    After college I moved back to my parents' state, in a different city, and registered to vote in my new precinct when I updated my driver's license. Now, eight years later, my name still appears on the voter rolls in my parents' precinct. (How do I know? My dad has been precinct chair and seen it.) My dad has pointed it out personally to the registrar that I'm on the rolls there, haven't voted there in eight years, and indeed am registered and voting somewhere else in the state, and that I should be removed. The registrar said he could and would do nothing about it.

    Actually, I'm upset that I'm listed twice and wish they would remove me. My state keeps talking about one of those state-wide voter database laws, with clauses to kick anyone with questionable registrations. I worry one of these years that I'll walk in to vote and be told that I can't because my registration was questionable and I was kicked off the rolls in both places.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  25. Re:In Cook County Todd Stroger did even need to wi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Cook County Todd Stroger did even need to win the vote to get in office.

    Perhaps "...didn't even need to win.." would make more sense here. Then again, a bit more information about this anecdote (and relevant links) would also be helpful.

    Last year some came into the polling saying there dead family member is still on the voting list for years even after calling in about it.

    Again, perhaps you meant to say "Last year someone came into the polling place saying their dead family member was still on the voting list..."

    Unless that "dead family member" showed up to vote, I wouldn't worry too much about it. On the other hand, I would be worried if all it took to remove someone from the voting rolls was some an unverified phone call.

  26. Cloward-Piven Strategy by blackoutdustin · · Score: 1

    Give it a look see. it is not about voter fraud, it is about manufactured crisis and it can be pretty effective.

    1. Re:Cloward-Piven Strategy by NFNNMIDATA · · Score: 2

      That is a fairly ridiculous conspiracy theory they've woven together there. I would rebut it with Hanlon's Razor but it doesn't even merit that.

    2. Re:Cloward-Piven Strategy by blackoutdustin · · Score: 1

      well given the fact that they explicitly stated the intention of the strategy, and put it in to practice in new york city in 1975, i don't think it qualifies for a conspiracy. well, in fact they are conspiring in the strictest sense, but they are not doing anything illegal. classifying it as a conspiracy is like saying the US government conspired to invade iraq. point of fact it is perfectly legal to enroll people who are eligible into welfare programs. and since clinton signed it in to law, you can legally register pretty much anyone to vote (though a fish is a little extreme). the legality of invading iraq is however, dubious at best. it is a strategy designed to expose a flaw in our voting system by overwhelming it.

  27. Wow - 30 days huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So all I need to do is learn the registration and voting requirements in key states and wait after this term is over in this election?

    Monkey see monkey do. I can learn from the Democratic seminar on "get out and vote" drives too.

    See you all in 2012!

  28. Re:In Cook County Todd Stroger did even need to wi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dunno man. Maybe you could like, I dunno, maybe, like uh... take some personal responsibility or something like that and like find out if there's like some forms or something like that that you could like fill out you know, and uh... like get it taken care of or something. Whatever.

  29. I have some more dead animules by fortapocalypse · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Son, get your shovel. Let's go dig up some votes!

  30. Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by leftie · · Score: 3, Informative

    Small town mayors and small state governors might have a certain x quantity of time on their resumes in the category of executive experience. But so do Pizza Hut managers.

    I wouldn't for a moment consider either a small town mayors, small state governors, or a Pizza Hut managers to have the type of QUALITY of leadership experience required to seek national office.

    It not just Sarah Palin that epic failed trying to move from small town mayor / governor to national candidate. Unfortunately, so did VT Gov. Howard Dean. Dean's horrible performance even with his orange hatted legions on the ground in the Iowa caucuses proved he had no large organization leadership experience. Now, with 4 years experience as Nat'l Party chair, Dean might be ready to seek national office today. Palin clearly isn't close to being ready for the national stage.

    Obama, on the other hand, ran campaign organizations first in a large chunk of Chicago, then the state of Illinois, and then lead his national Presidential campaign to beat the Clintons nationally.

    1. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wouldn't for a moment consider either a small town mayors, small state governors, or a Pizza Hut managers to have the type of QUALITY of leadership experience required to seek national office.

      That is what I said about Bill Clinton.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by leftie · · Score: 1

      I didn't vote for Bill Clinton in the 1992 Democratic primary myself.

      However, in the general election, Bill Clinton had shown he was a capable national leader by running successful national campaign to win the Democratic nomination.

      A successful campaign to win a major Party's Presidential nomination is a more than adequate demonstration of executive leadership ability.

    3. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wow.. Where does that leave Obama?

      I mean he hasn't won a position in office that he had competition for and he might not have won the primary if it wasn't for Howard Dean demanding the Super Delegates declare an affiliation 3 months before the convention where Hillary could have changed some minds.

      Whether she could succeed at capturing the candidacy or not is another question that we don't have to answer. It was taken off the table when the rules were changed to favor Obama pver Hillary and once again remove his competition.

      Anyone who has actually followed Obama should be looking at this and his election record and asking who is pulling the strings that propel him into the offices he has held. Obama scares me, and unless your support his puppeteer, he should scare your too.

    4. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by leftie · · Score: 1

      You are free to disagree. You are not free to have your own facts, though.

      I was paying very close attention to the process, and as I didn't support either in the primaries (both too centrist for me), so I had no dog in the primary fight.

      Obama ran an excellent campaign and beat the Clintons fair and square. Howard Dean enforced the party as they were written. The Clintons were ones trying to overturn the will of Democratic Party members nationwide by appealing to DNC Superdelegates to overturn the rightful Democratic Party nominee as chosen by Democratic primary and caucus voters across the country.

      You must be sumdumass if you think I'm going to let you get away with claiming that some shadowy backroom figure is pulling Obama's strings at the same time you are claiming shadowy backroom DNC superdelegates had the right to overturn the clear voter's choice of the Democratic Presidential nomination at the end of the primary process.

    5. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by leftie · · Score: 1

      Oh... and as for sumdumass' claims "Obama scares me," that looks like more of that one and only talking point the neo-cons have left... ...see how many ways Republicans can put the word "scary" and the name of a black man in the same sentence.

    6. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm not free to disagree, you have fact and you have fiction. You cannot rewrite history because you either weren't paying attention or because you don't want to know the facts. The party guidelines said that the super delegates had until the convention to make up their mind. Dean required them to take a position 3 months before the convention or they risked having their vote removed. The super delegates were put there specifically to override the popular vote and that is exactly why they exist. You should stick to talking about which you know about and not make untrue statements because it's the way you feel or something. You cannot deny that, it happened, that is the way it is, and there is no room for disagreement.

      You must be sumdumass if you think I'm going to let you get away with claiming that some shadowy backroom figure is pulling Obama's strings at the same time you are claiming shadowy backroom DNC superdelegates had the right to overturn the clear voter's choice of the Democratic Presidential nomination at the end of the primary process.

      You really must be an ignorant tool. I see that you didn't address the other parts I mentioned so I will leave you with a question, why are there super delegates for if it isn't to override the popular vote? Why not just have the public process and then have the chair decide in the case of a tie? I don't think you even understand the democrat's primary process or why it is the way it is today. You do realize that there never was a primary until after the 60's (yes, after 1968) right? You do realize that the super delegates where there specifically to root our extreme candidates that appeal to the party but not to swing voters right? That process which is ingrained into the democrat party guidelines is there for a specific reason and you playing ignorant of it doesn't negate it or change any of the facts. Again, there is no room to disagree, that id a fact and you can't argue with history that was fact until it became inconvenient for Obama the messiah.

      If it isn't shadowy back room deals, then what is it? I mean he made his competition disapear in both elections that he had competition for. He lost the only election that he couldn't manipulate, and he won the primary election by shorting the process that was the rule before the ordeal started. So what would you call it then?

    7. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I backed up why he scares me. I don't see any republicans harping on the same lines. Perhaps you could refrain from sensationalism and stick to fact.

      BTW, calling me a racist doesn't bother me. I know the truth and your resorting to playing the race card to deflect legitimate criticism won't work with me. Why is it that Obama's supporters want to allude to Race whenever something doesn't go their way with Obama? I mean, and yes, this is Republican lines here but it seems to be the damn truth, but why is it whenever a tough question or critisims is levied again Obama, the person who made it is all the sudden a racist. They went as far as claiming that calling Obama a socialist is a code word for nigger. Your a racist if you point out that his take care of your brother campaign has totally forgotten about his own brother in kenya, If you bring up the asinine things that Michel Obama had said, your a racist. If you talk about his connections with Jeremiah Wright, your a racist. They even attempted to make the claim about Ayers but it didn't stick. They claimed that the white working class people who supported Hillary were racist, they claimed that people who made fun of Obama's clenching your guns and religion comment was him forgiving people for their racism. And now, when you bring up Biden's claim that the world will test Obama if he is elected, it because your a racist.

      Is there anything that isn't racist with Obama? And why is he and all his protector making it that way? And yes, it is things like that which scare me. It is the no one can criticize obama without being a racist and the winning elections because the competition has been removed that scare me. It is the press giving him and his campaign favors which they are.

    8. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your username is correct. You are a dumass.

    9. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by leftie · · Score: 1

      You didn't back up shit other than the other than the fact you have been called a racist by others a whole lot in the past. That's the least surprising revelation on this thread.

      You better get back to your trailer park, Billy Bob. Aren't you missing some NASCAR qualifiers on FOX Speed Channel?

    10. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You didn't back up shit other than the other than the fact you have been called a racist by others a whole lot in the past. That's the least surprising revelation on this thread.

      Lol.. I havn't been called a racist often except by Obama supporters who don't know how to answer the truth when presented to them. Here is a hint, calling someone a racist does not refute anything said, it is nothing but a ploy to divert the attention away from the facts presented.

      I presented the facts as they are. I'm sure you can find a link to the rules showing that A: the Super delegates are there for reasons other then what I mentioned or B: that the process was supposed to work the way you described. This didn't happen because it simply isn't true in the way you wanted to represent it. You ignored the bulk of the point I made and concentrated on something that is verifiable in which you failed to find anything proving you were right or that I was wrong. You failed because you know that I am right.

      You better get back to your trailer park, Billy Bob. Aren't you missing some NASCAR qualifiers on FOX Speed Channel?

      Lol.. Is that the way it is? Anyone who doesn't ignore the truth and agree with your false assumptions is somehow lower then you. I like the way that you put class envy and personal insults above the truth too. What do they call that when someone hides from the facts and goes directly into personal attacks? Oh yea, a losing argument.

      Perhaps you should think this through. It doesn't matter to me when you personally attack me or anyone else. I simply look at the source and end up laughing before I have a chance at getting upset. Not to mention that you couldn't even get a fact in there that was true either.

    11. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by leftie · · Score: 1

      Here's those 2008 DNC rules from pdf and google cache links, Billy Bob Sumdumass..

      13. FAIR REFLECTION OF PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCES

      A. Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participant

      What part "fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference" are you not capable of understanding?

      11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS

      A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

      http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fapache.3cdn.net%2F3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf&ei=OHkBSZ6sJ4nOtQOz0o2ECw&usg=AFQjCNHMLpm_nv77Ju2BtG77Ud_wkLSadA&sig2=RjRu3Sjm2gwuWgPc8Qjozw

      http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:pcvk4kSKzqMJ:s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf+dnc+rules+superdelegates&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

      Here's some others, too. You remember the rules that say Florida was not allowed to move it's primary up to Jan 29th 2008? Yeah. Them. The ones Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama signed a pledge not to campaign in Florida because Florida broke the rules set by Democratic Party regarding the primary schedule.

      Clinton broke her word, campaigned in Florida anyway, and then tried to force Howard Dean to change DNC rules and count Florida delegates that were derived from a process that that made Obama honored his word while soiled herself? Howard Dean and The DNC refused to change the rules the Clintons had tantrrums demanding the rules be changed for them

    12. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wow.. And if you would have put a little effort in this, you wouldn't have come out looking like an idiot. We aren't talking about Delegates dumb ass. We are talking about the Super delegates. That aren't the same.

      Here are some articles concerning the super delegates that we are talking about. There are/were in 2008, 842 super delegates that had no obligation whatsoever at all to any primary or caucus results. There were 796 unplugged super delegates when Dean made them chose over a risk of losing their voice at the convention. After Dean made his declaration, they _told_ Hillary to stop campaigning when Obama reached the number of delegates required. However, seeing how 441 of Obama's delegates where super delegates and by DNC rules had until the convention months later to decide, Hillary could have easily convinced some of them to goto her camp and Obama wouldn't have gotten the nomination. There is no guarantee that she could have but the rules said that the risk to Obama and the challenge to Clinton should have been there until the convention at the end of August when the votes where counted and if she could have convinced enough of the super delegates to vote for her, she would have had the election.

      You cannot deny that. It is fact and hiding behind regular delegates as if your acting ignorant of the facts doesn't make you right or correct. As a matter of fact, rule 9a and 9b speak specifically of the super delegates and their roles in the very links you provided. Of course they listed them as unpledged party leader and elected official delegate as well as add on delegates but I assumed that since you were taking a stand on them that you know this or at least had the wherewithal to google for super delegate in which one of the first pages would have told you about this. I also like the way you think it is perfectly ok to punish democrats of a state that is controlled by republicans who change the timing of the election. That's a bit like citing the passenger of the car for speed and driving without a license because the driver got the ticket. But in the case of preferring Obama, I guess it is worth it, right? And no, I'm not making this up, after the penalty to Michigan and Florida for something that the democrats in the states had no control over, you find that they still favored Clinton over Obama. In fact, the results in Florida was 33.5 Obama to 52.5 Hillary and in Michigan it was 29.5 Obama to 34.5 Hillary. Now if you remember, they cut the delegates in half for Michigan and Florida so Hillary should have gotten 105 in Florida and 76 in Michigan and if the full count would have been listed, Hillary would have had 87 more for a total of 1983.5 which is only 135 below the minimum needed to win. When Dean made his demands, about 320 super delegate votes where up for grabs and some of the already committed super delegates have already switched pledged alliances. Deans own words were The party "cannot give up three months of campaigning and active healing time,"

      Don't whine about the political slants of the sites either. I did a simple google search and those are the sites that came up. I'm not getting paid to educate you and I'm not going to invest the time to do it past what is easy for me. You can find the same information on other sites from going deeper into the google search or by even useing a different

    13. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by leftie · · Score: 1

      Hey dumbass. You can ramble on and on and and attempt to fillibuster all you want. It doesn't change the fact I posted above the actual text from the actual 2008 DNC rules that proves 100% I'm 100% right and you're still 100% wrong, and looking more ridiculous with each additional post.

      I posted the ACTUAL text from the ACTUAL 2008 DNC RULES, dumbass.

      Don't try quote me no USA Today or MSN 6th grade reading level mini-summaries.

      I posted links and text from the ACTUAL 2008 DNC RULES.

      The word "superdelegate" is a press-invented nickname for elected and party officials that recieve automatic invitation. The word "superdelegate" does not appear in linked 2008 DNC rules. Go look at THE ACTUAL 2008 DNC RULES....

      http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fapache.3cdn.net%2F3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf&ei=OHkBSZ6sJ4nOtQOz0o2ECw&usg=AFQjCNHMLpm_nv77Ju2BtG77Ud_wkLSadA&sig2=RjRu3Sjm2gwuWgPc8Qjozw

      http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:pcvk4kSKzqMJ:s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf+dnc+rules+superdelegates&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

      The term "superdelegate" is nowhere the ACTUAL 2008 DNC RULES. Officially, there is no such designation as "Superdelegate, you dumbass. The actual 2008 DNC rules say they are all delegates.

    14. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Hey dumbass. You can ramble on and on and and attempt to fillibuster all you want. It doesn't change the fact I posted above the actual text from the actual 2008 DNC rules that proves 100% I'm 100% right and you're still 100% wrong, and looking more ridiculous with each additional post.

      If you would try a little harder at proving your point, you would learn something instead of purposely remaining stupid. I'm sure your just as happy being ignorant and stupid while just claiming to be intelligent. Where I come from, we call that mental masturbation by retards. Your wrong, I proved you wrong, and somehow, your taking what I used to prove you wrong as your basis of being right. They should start a how to remain the most ignorant fuck around school and hire you as the teacher.

      I posted the ACTUAL text from the ACTUAL 2008 DNC RULES, dumbass.

      And if you would have read them, you would see that they support what I said about the super delegates.

      Don't try quote me no USA Today or MSN 6th grade reading level mini-summaries.

      That's right, you don't want to know anything... whatever you think is right no matter how many other people think your an idiot.

      The word "superdelegate" is a press-invented nickname for elected and party officials that recieve automatic invitation. The word "superdelegate" does not appear in linked 2008 DNC rules. Go look at THE ACTUAL 2008 DNC RULES....

      No fucking shit. Isn't that exactly what I already said? If you would have read what I wrote, I said that when explaining why you wouldn't have found the term super delegate and needed to look for the terms uncommitted or unpledged delegates with their various titles. It would do you a world of good to just stop and read what others have to say.

      BTW, your still wrong on the super delegates being permanently committed. What I said was right, I gave facts and numbers to support it and your argument has resorted to a "nuh huh, I don't want to acknowledge the truth so if I change the subject, maybe no one will notice."

      The term "superdelegate" is nowhere the ACTUAL 2008 DNC RULES. Officially, there is no such designation as "Superdelegate, you dumbass. The actual 2008 DNC rules say they are all delegates.

      Go back and read what I said this time.... In fact, I'll make it easy for you and post the relevant part here in case your not capable of hitting the parent link to mive up a slot in a conversation. You cannot deny that. It is fact and hiding behind regular delegates as if your acting ignorant of the facts doesn't make you right or correct. As a matter of fact, rule 9a and 9b speak specifically of the super delegates [amazonaws.com] and their roles in the very links you provided. Of course they listed them as unpledged party leader and elected official delegate as well as add on delegates but I assumed that since you were taking a stand on them that you know this or at least had the wherewithal to google for super delegate [wikipedia.org] in which one of the first pages would have told you about this.

    15. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by leftie · · Score: 1

      Then why is your dumb ass still on here claiming that the rule 13A I already posted doesn't exist.

      Because your dumb ass is wrong, that why.

      Rule 13A requires...

      "A. Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participant."

      If the delegates are being allocated in a way that doesn't fairly reflect the expressed presidential preference, then the 2008 DNC rules require the delegate allocation process continues on until the delegates do fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference.

    16. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Then why is your dumb ass still on here claiming that the rule 13A I already posted doesn't exist.

      My god your an ignorant fuck. I have never said that Rule 13a doesn't exist. Rule 13a is talking about pledged delegates, not unpleged delegates which was listed in rule rule 9a and 9b. If you actually read the rules or the links I presented, you would realize what I have been telling you all along. There are two (actually three types of delegates) pledged and unpledged. Rule 13 deals with pledged delegates and rule 9a and 9b deal with unpleged delegates. The exact rules say they aren't bound by primary results. If you want to bring the damn rules up, then don't pick and chose which ones apply.

      Because your dumb ass is wrong, that why.

      This is rich, it is right there in black and white in the same damn document that your rule 13 exists in and you refuse to read the damn rules or accept the truth. I mean I'm not even asking you to take my word for it, I'm asking you to get a fucking clue and read the damn rules and you will clearly see that I am right. If you weren't so ignorant that you couldn't follow a link or read what was presented by them, you would have ended this discussion a long time ago knowing that I'm rigth and your wrong. You can choose to remain ignorant and stupid all you want. But don't expect me or anyone else to give your a pass.

      Rule 13A requires...

      "A. Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participant."

      If the delegates are being allocated in a way that doesn't fairly reflect the expressed presidential preference, then the 2008 DNC rules require the delegate allocation process continues on until the delegates do fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference.

      Again, this is referring to pledged delegates not the super delegates (unpledged delegates). I don't even know why your harping on this when all the news papers wrote about the super delegates, I presented almost 10 links describing them along with the specific rules that cover them. I mean Christ, a google search will give you more then enough information to determine what they are and how they work. This is nothing new either, it has been the way I described since they moved to primary elections in the 60's. A little history lesson will go a long way for you here. A little opening your eyes and simply fucking reading will too. Like I said, the information is out there in plain site. If your too stupid to look for it or totally ignore it because it says something that you don't want to hear, that's your fault, not mine. And you deserve all the scamming asshats that you end up supporting because of your willful ignorance.

    17. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by leftie · · Score: 1

      Still wrong, dumbass.

      Still trying to claim a rule that clearly applies to every single one of the 2008 DNC delegates don't apply to some of them.

      You go on and keep on trying to convince yourself those rules don't apply to all the delegates. If you repeat it over and over and over again enough times, maybe you might actually be successful in fooling yourself that it's true for brief periods of time.

    18. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wow.. Just Wow. Your will to be ignorant is strong. As I previously pointed out, rule 13 refers to pledged delegates. It is to stop a state from sending more delegates then they have allotted to the convention for the purpose of skewing the votes or from having the pledged delegates cast a vote separate from what the primary decided. It also provides that when a state can't find enough delegates, some will be allotted to them to accurately reflect the way the state voted. This is something your probably not aware of, but for every primary election, they find new delegates to go to the convention and only a portion of their costs are reimbursed which means that not everyone who is asked can go and in some situations, it may be hard to find people to go. Rule 13 deals with the event that something happens and a candidate cannot find enough pledged delegates to show up to the election. Try reading the entire rule instead of just the parts that you think backs your claim up. Then if your still confused, ask your mommy what the big words mean or take a walk down to your local democrat office (there will be at least one in every county) and ask them.

      In fact, one of the most basic points of contracts, laws, and bylaws is that all the subsections of a section all pertain or relate in some way to the same provisions or set of facts. This means that rule 13 could not possibly mean what your attempting to make it mean if you would have read the entire rule. Rule 13 does not address the super delegates no matter how hard you want to fit it to them. And frankly, why would there be super delegates that the Chairman of the Democratic National comity, the same person who lends his name to the authorship of the rules your presented, ended up going on national TV 3 months before the convention and saying that the Super delegates need to commit now instead of later.

      Why would he have to do that? And don't claim he didn't, I presented a link to one of the actual videos and quite a few of the other links I presented quoted him as doing it. So why would the same guy who wrote the party rules have to go onto national TV and tell the super delegates to commit to a candidate when if your right and I am wrong, the super delegates would be bound to the state in which they resided?

      The answer to that is because your wrong. And despite constant attempts to steer you to the correct information regarding it, you have completely refused to learn anything, even if you were to do a simple google search to find the information independent of my voice. And you want to do this contrary to logic and reason of any actual events that have happened. I'm starting to think your just a troll.. I mean you have had ample opportunity to find out the truth and contrary to any and all logic, reports from news sources, the actual context of the rules themselves, and so on, your still refusing to acknowledge the truth.

    19. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by leftie · · Score: 1

      Still Still wrong, DUMBASS.

      Still Still trying to claim a rule that clearly applies to every single one of the 2008 DNC delegates don't apply to some of them.

      Still filibustering over pages and pages to convince yourself the meaning of a phrase that is obvious and crystal clearly applies to all delegates applies straight forward that if you pretzel up the logic, and leave out words here, and only consider this when the moon is in Sagittarius on months with 31 days, well, then, it doesn't apply to people who have 2 5s in their Social Security number...

      I've seen a advanced mathematics professor write a proof on a blackboard that ran across a whole wall that 5 equaled 4. Anybody can prove anything to themselves if they their pretzel up the logic the way dumbass does.

      So you keep going on and keep keeping on trying to convince yourself those rules don't apply to all the delegates. If you repeat it over and over and over again enough times, maybe you might actually be successful in fooling yourself that it's true for brief periods of time.

    20. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It's sumdumass or are you too stupid to see the sum in front of it? Oh well, it doesn't surpise me seeing how you have missed everything else surrounding this thread.

      Still Still trying to claim a rule that clearly applies to every single one of the 2008 DNC delegates don't apply to some of them.

      I'm not trying to claim anything. The DNC made the claim, your too ignorant to realize that. I'll tell you what, go to your local democrat office in the morning, every county of every state will have one, ask them and tell me what they said. While your at it, make sure you get their name because if they tell you the wrong thing, I will forward that information to the DNC so they can make adjustments at the local level. The information is there for you to see, all you have to do is look for it.

      Still filibustering over pages and pages to convince yourself the meaning of a phrase that is obvious and crystal clearly applies to all delegates applies straight forward that if you pretzel up the logic, and leave out words here, and only consider this when the moon is in Sagittarius on months with 31 days, well, then, it doesn't apply to people who have 2 5s in their Social Security number...

      Filibuster, is that your power word for the week or something? First of all, I don't believe you actually know what it means. Second, it wouldn't pertain to our conversations because all you have to do is look at the information and you will know the truth. The fact that you still refuse to look is simply amazing.

      BTW, if it applies to unpledged delegates, and those super delegates are locked into voting the way that the primary ended up in, then why are there unpledged delegates? I asked you to answer that in my last post but you refused to do so. You see, your logic doesn't fit and in order for you to be right, rules 9a and 9b would have to be meaningless as well as all the members of the press somehow be wrong along with every other person who has paid attention to politics longer then this race. So tell me, why did they put all that useless stuff in there if your right? Why does everyone but you have it wrong? Answer me.....

      I've seen a advanced mathematics professor write a proof on a blackboard that ran across a whole wall that 5 equaled 4. Anybody can prove anything to themselves if they their pretzel up the logic the way dumbass does.

      Well, if you seen it, he was probably attempting to sell you ocean front property in Arizona too. 5 cannot equal 4 unless your doing something with 5 before it equals 4. You cannot have a proof of 5 equals 4 and if that professor wasn't attempting to fool you, he was setting the problem up for you to find the error. Let me guess, you flunked out of his course just like your failing your point here. Just because you want something to be a certain way doesn't mean it is, even if you wish really hard.

      So you keep going on and keep keeping on trying to convince yourself those rules don't apply to all the delegates. If you repeat it over and over and over again enough times, maybe you might actually be successful in fooling yourself that it's true for brief periods of time.

      As I said, show me why they have the super delegates and why there are rules contrary to what you claim in the same document. Show me why everyone but you seems to think the way I do, and show me why they are all lieing to you. I asked you in my last post to show this and instead, you babel on about meaningless drivel while attacking me as if the facts don't matter and regardless of the truth, your going to believe whatever you want. Here is a problem you can solve, you saying something doesn't prove I'm wrong.

      Now put up or shut up and troll somewhere else. I posted links backing my claims up. You can read your own links to the documents you proved and see that your wrong. Read all of rule 13 and get yo

    21. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by leftie · · Score: 1

      OMG! Look at the meltdown DUMBASS is having. He's become Dep. Sheriff Eric Cartman. "RESPECT MY A-THOR-A-TIE! RESPECT MY A-THOR-A-TIE!... ...with every bit as much legitimacy to be an authority as Eric Cartman had, too.

      Dare to question the "Filibustering as a tactic" routine ? GET TWICE A MUCH FILIBUSTER!

      When are you going to start reading phonebooks from South Carolina like Strom Thurmond did in the 50's when he was filibustering against Civil Rights legislation?

      Still nothing but links to vague generalities... nothing remotely compared to the very specific rules of the 2008 DNC that proved my point.

      Go re-read rule 13A DUMBASS!

      You think that rule is written to compel any type of behavior of individual delegates?

      Nope. It's written for committees within Democratic Party with the authority to compel change in delegations.

      Individual uncommitted delegate are free to do whatever they wish. Then RULE 13A makes the DNC rules committee, credendials committee, etc. forces changes in the makeup of delegation to the DNC if the freedom of those uncommitted delgates get carried away enough to alter a result noticably.

      If a large chunk of uncommitted delegates broke toward Clinton improperly, other nameless minor elected officials supporting Clinton from other parts of the Country would have been removed by the Credentials Committee and replaced by nameless minor elected official supporting Obama. The math ensuring a Obama nomination would have remained exactly the same.

      ------------

      Google search "mathematics proof 5=4"

      Top link on 1st page that comes up...

      http://vsbabu.org/mt/archives/2003/04/29/funny_math.html

      Theorems that prove basic mathematics is wrong!

      While trying to clean up some old files/mails, I got these hilarious mathematical proofs. I donâ(TM)t remember who sent these over, but it is definitely worth filing.

      Theorem : 3=4
      Proof:
      Suppose:
      a + b = c
      This can also be written as:
      4a - 3a + 4b - 3b = 4c - 3c
      After reorganising:
      4a + 4b - 4c = 3a + 3b - 3c
      Take the constants out of the brackets:
      4 * (a+b-c) = 3 * (a+b-c)
      Remove the same term left and right:
      4 = 3

      Theorem : All numbers are equal to zero.
      Proof: Suppose that a=b. Then
      a = b
      a^2 = ab
      a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
      (a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b)
      a + b = b
      a = 0

      Theorem: 1$(dollar) = 1c(cent).
      Proof:
      And another that gives you a sense of
      money disappearing...
      1$ = 100c
      = (10c)^2
      = (0.1$)^2
      = 0.01$
      = 1c

      Theorem: 1 = -1 .
      Proof:
      1/-1 = -1/1
      sqrt[ 1/-1 ] = sqrt[ -1/1 ]
      sqrt[1]*sqrt[1] = sqrt[-1]*sqrt[-1]
      ie 1 = -1

      Th

    22. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      OMG! Look at the meltdown DUMBASS is having. He's become Dep. Sheriff Eric Cartman. "RESPECT MY A-THOR-A-TIE! RESPECT MY A-THOR-A-TIE!... ...with every bit as much legitimacy to be an authority as Eric Cartman had, too.

      Lol.. it isn't respect my authority, it is learn something about what your spouting. If you think me telling you to get some knowlege about the topic that you demonstrated you didn't know your ass from a hole in the ground already is a fit, then you have more problems then I can help you with.

      BTW, why is it that all Obama supporters lose the ability to use logic when facts are presented that show something other then what they want to think?

      Dare to question the "Filibustering as a tactic" routine ? GET TWICE A MUCH FILIBUSTER!

      I don't think you know what the word actually means. You use it like you heard it somewhere and think it is important. Anyways, at least my answers are on the point being raised instead of alluding to something else or personal insults when the facts don't support you view. BTW, how does that feel?

      When are you going to start reading phonebooks from South Carolina like Strom Thurmond did in the 50's when he was filibustering against Civil Rights legislation?

      When are you going to answer the logic questions I presented to you? I mean the difference between what I have done and what you think is going on, beside the fact that I have a basis in reality, is that I have addressed the question or point you raised accurately and factually. Discussion is not filibustering. Discussion while refusing to address the points raised could be considered filibustering if you stretch the definition a bit but then that would make your comment a filibuster instead of mine.

      I don't know why you won't answer my questions about the logic of your argument. I know that it will prove you to be wrong, hell, every single article adressing the Super Delegates proves you wrong. You can't even point to a single news source that supports your position and instead of addressing that, your diverting the attention away by making false allegations about things you know nothing about towards me. How does it fell to live in a fantasy world?

      Still nothing but links to vague generalities... nothing remotely compared to the very specific rules of the 2008 DNC that proved my point.

      I see that you provide no links yourself concerning the topic. Oh is that because you can't? The super delegates can decide the election independent of any primary results. That is their entire purpose.

      Individual uncommitted delegate are free to do whatever they wish. Then RULE 13A makes the DNC rules committee, credendials committee, etc. forces changes in the makeup of delegation to the DNC if the freedom of those uncommitted delgates get carried away enough to alter a result noticably.

      Your crazy..lol The unpledged delegates don't even count unless neither candidate gets a clear win. You went from saying that the unpledged delegates have to follow the state's primary results to admitting that I'm right in the the super delegates have the freedom to vote for anyone they want to the rules comity can over turn the super delegate's vote on it's own. OK, for sake of arguement, I will give you that. It still doesn't negate my point that Obama had help getting the nomination for president of the US from behind the scenes. So even with your convoluted chain of event's, my point still stands.

      If a large chunk of uncommitted delegates broke toward Clinton improperly, other nameless minor elected officials supporting Clinton from other parts of the Country would have been removed by the Credentials Committee and replaced by nameless minor elected official supporting Obama. The math ensuring a Obama nomination would

    23. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by leftie · · Score: 1

      OMG! Look at the meltdown DUMBASS is having. He's become Dep. Sheriff Eric Cartman. "RESPECT MY A-THOR-A-TIE! RESPECT MY A-THOR-A-TIE!... ...with every bit as much legitimacy to be an authority as Eric Cartman had, too.

      Lol.. it isn't respect my authority, it is learn something about what your spouting.

      Yeah... that why you're running around trying to claim that USA TODAY ARTICLE is a better source for knowledge on the rules of the 2008 DNC than the actual text of the rules to the 2008 DNC that I provided TO YOU.

      If you think me telling you to get some knowlege about the topic that you demonstrated you didn't know your ass from a hole in the ground already is a fit, then you have more problems then I can help you with.

      BTW, why is it that all Obama supporters lose the ability to use logic when facts are presented that show something other then what they want to think?

      Dare to question the "Filibustering as a tactic" routine ? GET TWICE A MUCH FILIBUSTER!

      I don't think you know what the word actually means. You use it like you heard it somewhere and think it is important. Anyways, at least my answers are on the point being raised instead of alluding to something else or personal insults when the facts don't support you view. BTW, how does that feel?

      When are you going to start reading phonebooks from South Carolina like Strom Thurmond did in the 50's when he was filibustering against Civil Rights legislation?

      When are you going to answer the logic questions I presented to you? I mean the difference between what I have done and what you think is going on, beside the fact that I have a basis in reality, is that I have addressed the question or point you raised accurately and factually. Discussion is not filibustering. Discussion while refusing to address the points raised could be considered filibustering if you stretch the definition a bit but then that would make your comment a filibuster instead of mine.

      I don't know why you won't answer my questions about the logic of your argument. I know that it will prove you to be wrong, hell, every single article adressing the Super Delegates proves you wrong. You can't even point to a single news source that supports your position and instead of addressing that, your diverting the attention away by making false allegations about things you know nothing about towards me. How does it fell to live in a fantasy world?

      Still nothing but links to vague generalities... nothing remotely compared to the very specific rules of the 2008 DNC that proved my point.

      I see that you provide no links yourself concerning the topic. Oh is that because you can't? The super delegates can decide the election independent of any primary results. That is their entire purpose.

      Individual uncommitted delegate are free to do whatever they wish. Then RULE 13A makes the DNC rules committee, credendials committee, etc. forces changes in the makeup of delegation to the DNC if the freedom of those uncommitted delgates get carried away enough to alter a result noticably.

      Your crazy..lol The unpledged delegates don't even count unless neither candidate gets a clear win. You went from saying that the unpledged delegates have to follow the state's primary results to admitting that I'm right in the the super delegates have the freedom to vote for anyone they want to the rules comity can over turn the super delegate's vote on it's own. OK, for sake of arguement, I will give you that. It still doesn't negate my point that Obama had help getting the nomination for president of the US from behind the scenes. So even with your convoluted chain of event's, my point still stands.

      If a large chunk of uncommitted delegates

    24. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by leftie · · Score: 1

      BTW, why is it that all Obama supporters lose the ability to use logic when facts are presented that show something other then what they want to think?

      Oh really. I see Obama about to become President in a few days. There's nothing for me in this situation to be upset about and lose perspective.

      You've the one who's in mid-meltdown over a Black man defeating white people.

      Dare to question the "Filibustering as a tactic" routine ? GET TWICE A MUCH FILIBUSTER!

      I don't think you know what the word actually means.

      More denial.

      You use it like you heard it somewhere and think it is important.

      Still more denial, DUMBASS.

      Anyways, at least my answers are on the point being raised instead of alluding to something else or personal insults when the facts don't support you view. BTW, how does that feel?

      When are you going to start reading phonebooks from South Carolina like Strom Thurmond did in the 50's when he was filibustering against Civil Rights legislation?

      When are you going to answer the logic questions I presented to you?

      They aren't "logic questions." They are mid-meltdown rantings of a bigot.

      I mean the difference between what I have done and what you think is going on, beside the fact that I have a basis in reality, is that I have addressed the question or point you raised accurately and factually. Discussion is not filibustering.

      It's not discussion. It's ranting.

      Discussion while refusing to address the points raised could be considered filibustering if you stretch the definition a bit but then that would make your comment a filibuster instead of mine.

      I don't know why you won't answer my questions about the logic of your argument. I know that it will prove you to be wrong, hell, every single article adressing the Super Delegates proves you wrong.

      Wrong. Every article you've posted is general fluff piece completely lacking in specifics. I posted the text of the exact rules of the 2008 DNC applying to the situation.

      Only someone deeply in denial who is in mid-meltdown would think any different.

      You can't even point to a single news source that supports your position

      I posted links and the text of the actual 2008 DNC rules in question.

      and instead of addressing that, your diverting the attention away by making false allegations about things you know nothing about towards me. How does it fell to live in a fantasy world?

      Still nothing but links to vague generalities... nothing remotely compared to the very specific rules of the 2008 DNC that proved my point.

      I see that you provide no links yourself concerning the topic. Oh is that because you can't? The super delegates can decide the election independent of any primary results. That is their entire purpose.

      Individual uncommitted delegate are free to do whatever they wish. Then RULE 13A makes the DNC rules committee, credendials committee, etc. forces changes in the makeup of delegation to the DNC if the freedom of those uncommitted delgates get carried away enough to alter a result noticably.

      Your crazy..lol The unpledged delegates don't even count unless neither candidate gets a clear win. You went from saying that the unpledged delegates have to follow the state's primary results

      Never happened.

      to admitting that I'm right in the the super delegates have the freedom to vote for anyone they want to the rules comity can over turn the super delegate's vote on it's own. OK, for sake of arguement, I will give you that. It still doesn't negate my point that Ob

    25. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wow.. It looks like you finally blew a gasket.....

      You have that post all fucked up and that appears to be even after you attempted to fix it.

      Let me guess, your really afraid to answer the questions about the logic in your thought. The logic just doesn't stand up when you ask yourself simply questions like what is the point of the unpledged delegates if they don't vote independent of th primary result.

      And in the end, my point still stands.. Oh, BTW, I like the way you attempted to change the subject when things weren't working for you by first claiming i was a racist, then by claiming a filibuster and meltdown on my behalf. It must really yank your chain to see I didn't fall for it and stuck to the points making you look as stupid as you can be.

      And just in case you missed my point or forgot what it was with all your nonsensical babel, It's that the primary elections were manipulated to Favor Obama when it looked as if he was going to lose. Now, you can cry it wasn't, you can make shit up and point to rules out of context, you can even change your story half way through your attempts to do it, but for the rest of us, calling a spade a spade is fair game. There is no reason someone who looks at this shouldn't be scared, even if just a little.

    26. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by leftie · · Score: 1

      Wow.. It looks like you finally blew a gasket.....

      Wrong, DUMBASS. The guy I voted for in early voting is about to become President. I got nothin' to blow a basket over.

      A white trash racist like you, though, that is now claiming the primaries Obama won were manipulated has lots to meltdown over, and you have been doing just that for more than a week.

      You have that post all fucked up and that appears to be even after you attempted to fix it.

      Let me guess, your really afraid to answer the questions about the logic in your thought.

      The guy who is defending Clintonistas plots to try to get Dem elected officials to steal the Dem nomination from rightful nominee at the same time claims he's scared of some dark force in the background was able to manipulate election in Obama's favor doesn't get to lecture anyone on logic.

      The logic just doesn't stand up when you ask yourself simply questions like what is the point of the unpledged delegates if they don't vote independent of th primary result.And in the end, my point still stands.. Oh, BTW, I like the way you attempted to change the subject when things weren't working for you by first claiming i was a racist, then by claiming a filibuster and meltdown on my behalf.

      I clearly never stopped pointing out you were racist white trash, DUMBASS

      You're racist white trash in mid-meltdown because a Black man is a week from becoming President.

      It must really yank your chain to see I didn't fall for it and stuck to the points making you look as stupid as you can be.

      I don't give a shit what racist white trash think, DUMBASS. There's nobody else reading this week long rant of yours other than me and you.

      And just in case you missed my point or forgot what it was with all your nonsensical babel, It's that the primary elections were manipulated to Favor Obama when it looked as if he was going to lose.

      This is where you prove every point I made that you are paranoid racist white trash in mid-meltdown.

      Anyone who thinks anyone other than a man named Barack Hussein Obama would create some plot to try to get a man named Barack Hussain Obama elected President of the USA is fruity loops.

      Now, you can cry it wasn't, you can make shit up and point to rules out of context, you can even change your story half way through your attempts to do it, but for the rest of us, calling a spade a spade is fair game. There is no reason someone who looks at this shouldn't be scared, even if just a little.

      The only thing to be afraid of on this thread is the knowledge your paranoid racist white trash DUMBASS is that someone as loathsome as you is walking the streets unsupervised.

    27. Re:Quantity vs. Quality of executive experience by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wrong, DUMBASS. The guy I voted for in early voting is about to become President. I got nothin' to blow a basket over.

      A white trash racist like you, though, that is now claiming the primaries Obama won were manipulated has lots to meltdown over, and you have been doing just that for more than a week.

      Lol.. It sure seems like you blew it up. I mean you got the quotes all wrong then you came back and attempted to fix it while geting them even more wrong. Your on a roll here.

      I see how you brought back the racist comments because I reminded you of them. Your a work of art there. Do you cry at night at the facts that Obama might still lose this when the people who people like you banter into publicly supporting him go to the polls and vote for someone else in the private.

      The guy who is defending Clintonistas plots to try to get Dem elected officials to steal the Dem nomination from rightful nominee at the same time claims he's scared of some dark force in the background was able to manipulate election in Obama's favor doesn't get to lecture anyone on logic.

      I'm not defending anyone. I'm pointing out that Obama, once again, had some mysterious hand change the rules to his benefit. You cannot deny that even though you have try and when you do, the logic of your position breaks down horribly.

      I clearly never stopped pointing out you were racist white trash, DUMBASS

      You're racist white trash in mid-meltdown because a Black man is a week from becoming President.

      Yes, I point out the underhanded and possibly corupt chain of events that have allowed Obama to win every election that he hasn't lost in and now I'm a racist. Tell me, would I be a racist too for demanding that a bank robber goto jail when it turns out he was black? Your logic is broken. Someone isn't a racist when they point out problems about someone. This isn't true when he is white or just because he is black. People of color don't get an automatic pass because of their color. There is nothing inherent in their genes or any defect that causes people to act the way they do just because they are black. Join the real world why don't you.

      I don't give a shit what racist white trash think, DUMBASS. There's nobody else reading this week long rant of yours other than me and you.

      Ohhh... It looks like it really did yank your chain. You went away from contradicting yourself in attempt to twist a point to outright insults. Let me guess, next you will be attempting to win the argument by says "nuh uh".

      This is where you prove every point I made that you are paranoid racist white trash in mid-meltdown.

      Anyone who thinks anyone other than a man named Barack Hussein Obama would create some plot to try to get a man named Barack Hussain Obama elected President of the USA is fruity loops.

      What are you saying here? Obama was behind getting the rules changed in the primary to get himself on the ticket? So it wasn't some mysterious hand of fate benefiting him, it was his own evil working coming to fruition? This is even worse then what I was saying.. Do you even think these things through?

      The only thing to be afraid of on this thread is the knowledge your paranoid racist white trash DUMBASS is that someone as loathsome as you is walking the streets unsupervised.

      Actually, anyone reading this should be very afraid. I mean you bounced all over the place trying to fabricate lies in Obama's defense and when those lies fell through, you jumped to the race card then jumped to personal insults, then back to your lies and now your calling me a racist white trash dumbass when your argument ends up with more holes in it then a pasta strainer. Your mom must be proud of you in person but ridiculing you behind your back. The rest of us who aren't igno

  31. What they don't mention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    They never seem to mention anywhere, but the fish was actually a Republican.

    1. Re:What they don't mention by killmofasta · · Score: 1

      I *knew* it. Only a dead fish would vote for Palin. The Pikes are jumping ship like makrel and the tuna are all democrats!

  32. Goldfish? More like a Republican red herring by Uberbah · · Score: 0, Troll

    Republicans are complaining now more than ever about problems with voter registration, but they have been completely unable to show it leading to voter fraud. It's classic misdirection.

    It should be noted that one GOP scheme to challenge voters if there is any discrepancy in government databases (IRS, DMV, etc) would have prevented their much ballyhooed "Joe the Plumber" from voting, because one database misspelled his name. And rather than challenge all "questionable" registrations, the GOP is only challenging new registrations. In a highly Democratic year.

    And all their whining over ACORN ignores the fact that groups are required by law to turn in all registrations, even if they appear problematic. Which is why ACORN does quality control and flags suspicious registrations so they can be easily investigated by elections officials.

    Republicans know their brand is a turd sandwich; their entire philosophy has been proven to be broken at every level on every issue. So now they're trying to cheat their way into holding on to power. Pathetic.

  33. the great 'registration fraud' fraud by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Guess you missed the part where volunteer poll workers used "leftover" voter registrations at the end of the night to make up for the lack of legitimate votes in both Gary, Indiana and St. Louis, Missouri.

    Which is a problem with registration, how exactly? If poll workers engage in shenanigans, that's a problem with the poll workers.

    Public records released in New Mexico today confirm that fraudulent voter registrations are in fact turning into fraudulent votes. ACORN, currently under investigation by the FBI, is now confirmed to be responsible for producing fraudulent voter registrations and illegal votes in New Mexico. An inspection of public records has revealed that illegal votes were cast in New Mexico's 2008 primary election.

    You remember what the US Attorney scandal was all about? Gonzales fired US Attorneys for not pursuing bogus cases of voter fraud. You ever stop and wonder why the rest weren't fired?

    ACORN (and all other registrars) are required by law to hand in suspicious registrations. If someone fills out a form saying they intend to vote as "Micky Mouse", ACORN must turn it in. In fact, not turning it in is a violation of federal law. The only thing they can do is flag suspicious registrations for elections officials, which is exactly what they do.

    What color is the sky on your planet?

    Blue, as opposed to the straight up bullshit on your homeworld.

  34. the great 'registration fraud' frad by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    You incompetent boob. ACORN is required by law to turn in all registration forms, even suspicious ones. The only thing they can do is flag forms they find to be suspicious, which is exactly what they do.

    The so called problems with ACORN are nothing more than baseless Republican talking points, but I repeat myself.

  35. So who is his VP Pick? by killmofasta · · Score: 1

    Didnt any one get to Poll him before his date with RALPH?
    Huh? ABC? Neilson?

    What was he thinking? Did he vote absentee?
    Comon! Wakey Wakey? Who is the fish voting for?
    What is his views? Is he a Swing voter or a Swim voter?

    Oh He's dead. Must be a ....