I can only fit so much in the story. Explaining all that would have added about 50% to the article and made no difference in the meaning of the story.
P.S. Bellhorn hit the home run to right field (not left) and it hit the right field foul pole, AKA the Pesky Pole. See how easy it is to mis-remember?
To be pedantic, that's not misremembering, it's me confusing my right and my left, which happens far too often. I know very well which pole it hit (BTW, did you notice how when Bellhorn hit it, it went THUD, but when he hit the same pole in Yankee stadium the previous night, it sounded like the thing was rattling so hard it was gonna fall down?).
If nothing else, it is a cardinal rule that you don't use the children of your opponent to score points for yourself. Even if this was not about homosexuality, he was wrong to do that, no matter what he said. It was low and slimy.
And you might not agree with that, but most people -- especially parents -- do.
Everyone in the Bush family who is for Bush is a Kerry Relative for Bush. And everyone in the Kerry family who is for Kerry is a Bush Relative for Kerry.
Fine, but the fact is that the definition of "WMD" included conventional explosives long before Freeh came along, and as noted, US Law contains conventional explosives in the definition now, today.
Fall for what, now? Why does it matter when it was put in? I noticed that the Section had been modified, but I didn't bother to look at when, because it is not important to my point. In fact, that it has changed supports my point even *more.*
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am talking about whether these things being WMD had anything to do with the justification for war. I am not talking about that at all (and on the peripheral point of the justification for war, I was making the OPPOSITE point, that whether Iraq had WMD was not relevant to the justification).
I am simply talking about the fact that different people have different definitions for "WMD" and asking people if Iraq had "WMD" isn't interesting unless you define your terms, which you helped prove. That the definition has changed only gives us more reason to question whether the respondents believed "WMD" means the same thing as you or someone else.
Wasn't that one of the reasons we were going to war against Saddam? Because he used "WMD's" against civilians?
No, it was for using chemical weapons against his own people. Of course, some people think the US is using radiological weapons, in the form of DU shells, so you could bring up that point if you wanted to (I like to help my debate opponents when it looks like they need it, so consider that a freebie:-).
But again, this is all beside the point. We're talking about a survey of people who think Iraq had WMD, in which "WMD" was not defined, as best we can tell, and we have established there are multiple definitions of "WMD." It makes the results meaningless.
I just proved that the director of the FBI has one definition, which is similar to the one in US law, which is different from the one that most people in this discussion use. Your claim is self-evidently false.
Rather, accourding to Title 18 of the United States Code, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2332 the definition is: (A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
Yes, and section 921 says a "destructive device" is "any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having a propellant charge of more than one quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) mine or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses."
An al Samoud rocket has a propellant charge of 825 kg, a lot more than four ounces, and if armed with explosives therefore fits the definition of a "destructive device" under Section 921, which means it is therefore a WMD, under the law you quoted.
Thanks for helping prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Iraq had WMD, according to U.S. law. Cheers!
"WMD" means nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
To whom? There is no one definition of WMD. That's the point. If the question had asked about NBC weapons, that would be different. For example, Clinton's FBI Director, Louis Freeh, said in May 1997:
A weapon of mass destruction (WMD), though typically associated with nuclear/radiological, chemical, or biological agents, may also take the form of explosives, such as in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in 1995. A weapon crosses the WMD threshold when the consequences of its release overwhelm local responders.
-- Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI, May 1997
(The source used to be http://norfolk.fbi.gov/wmd.htm, but that link is mysteriously inactive now, and I can find no other citation of the quote online... hmmmmm.)
One or more of the proscribed missiles filled with conventional explosives and launched at Kuwait or Saudi Arabia certainly would fill Freeh's definition of WMD, as it would have destructive capacity to overwhelm local responders more than the OK City bombing. Unless the question specifically mentioned NBC weapons -- and I see no indication it did -- then there is no justfication for assuming that is what those questioned meant when they answered, since a man no less than the former FBI Director himself agreed that WMD is not limited to those.
No, they did not. They said that there were reports of contacts between the two, but not connections.
The sky is not blue, rather, it is lacking red and green! To most people, there's no necessary difference between the two. If the questioner stated to those questioned that a connection is something more than contact, fine. But again, I see no indication of this.
You are again trying to narrowly define words and phrases moreso than is required, and then judging how other people answered based on your narrow definitions. That's unreasonable.
Look for the bit involving the WTC attack.
There's nothing in there supporting the claim that Bush said Iraq provided substantial support to al Qaeda. The fact that you didn't actually quote anything but instead tried to post a URL that didn't even support your point is telling.
Bush did say -- though not in the link you tried to provide -- "[Hussein's regime] has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda." That's the closest he came, and those things are likely true, and most experts agree they do not constitute substantial support, since the evidence he was referring to in re: al Qaeda was mostly indirect support, in allowing them to operate out of Western Iraq (the "harboring" part... note that the sentence construction requires that only one of "aided, trained, and harbored" apply to "operatives of al Qaeda").
I suppose you could say it depends on what "substantial" means, but still, Bush never drew very direct lines linking the two.
No. Again, look at what they actually said.
You first. Read the resolution. It authorized for two purposes:
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
These were the primary justifications for the use of force, the ones actually enumerated in the law.
I am not denying there were many components to the public case for war, and one of them was the apparently false intelligence of actual existence of WMD. I criticized Bush at the time for emphasizing this part of the case too much, and I was one of the few pro-war people who was not at all convinced by Powell's WMD presentation to the UN in February 2003 (my reaction was similar to the one expressed by Bush himself,
Iraq did actually have WMD. Remember the missiles they destroyed? Those were classified as WMD. That anyone thinks Iraq did NOT have WMD is odd. Of course, there is no reason to think Iraq had a "major" WMD program, but they did have actual WMD.
As to support for al Qaeda from Iraq, it is true that the 9/11 Commission did not conclude there was such support, but it is also true the Commission said there was evidence of a connection.
But both sides are absolutely wrong when they say Bush said Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. It never happened. That both sides think this shows that neither side is particularly bright.
I also like that Kull said, "they have not accepted the idea that it does not matter whether Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda." It is true, these things do not matter. They are at best peripherally related to the primary justification and reasons we went to war: violation of UN resolutions (which is the actual basis for the Congressional approval of the use of force, and which is not in dispute whatsoever) and the stabilization and transformation of the region in the long run.
Also, it would be interesting to see what the Kerry supporters thought about what KERRY'S views are. I presume the reason they didn't ask is because the pollsters could not agree on what Kerry's positions are.
I am not talking about keeping anyone from voting, and I am not talking about intelligence. You invented those ideas, I did not express them.
I am saying that if you are ignorant and don't know what you are voting for, your vote has negative value: it hurts the process. But only the individual can make that determination, for themselves.
When I moved to a new state last year, I didn't vote right away, because I didn't know about any of the candidates or issues. It was not a lack of intelligence, and no one was restricting me. I chose to not vote because it was the responsible thing to do, since I didn't know what I would be voting for.
If someone is too ignorant or apathetic to vote, they SHOULD NOT vote, because their vote has negative value.
It's a logical truism: democracy is rule by the people. The people make choices, who their leaders are, and such. In order to make a real choice, you must be educated to some degree about the options, and have a preference as to which option is best.
People who are neither ignorant nor apathetic do vote, in very large numbers, already. The solution to the problem is not increasing turnout by any means, but by doing it the right way: by education, and giving people a reason to care.
The latter would be fixed primarily by two things: improving the process of selecting our candidates, and reversing the course of centralizing the power that we have continued on in full force since the early 20th century and the beginning of progressivism. Give Congress back its power, give the states back their power. The more power your local officials have, the more you will see that your vote counts, and the more you will be likely to care about voting.
If they did misrepresent their organization, then it is wrong, but doesn't directly harm Democracy in a way the word "democracide" implies, like actual voter fraud does.
Further, there's no hard evidence that happened. The only hard evidence is that they were told to not register Democrats, which is perfectly acceptable.
Is it wrong to pretend that the Republicans are merely legally registering the voters they want, when they're lying to the public, government facilities, and anyone else necessary to do it? While pretending that Democrats are doing that, when they're not?
Is it wrong to pretend I am saying what you say I am saying? I never said this group is merely doing anything: I am only saying what we can reasonably know from the available evidence.
Is it wrong to pretend the evidence says more than it does?
Is it wrong to pretend this is the Republicans, instead of one group affiliated with the Republicans? If not, then the Democrats have paid crack to people to perpetrate voter fraud.
Gaming the system, exploiting security weaknesses in a vast social system, to win power you don't represent, kills democracy. Are you proud of your success?
Are you proud of lying, trying to make it look like I support fraud, when I am in fact -- clear to any reasonable person -- merely stating the clear fact that no fraud has been shown by any evidence that amounts to more than he-said-she-said?
"Democracide"? Huh? There is nothing remotely wrong with not registering people, as best I can tell. Maybe there's a PA state law about it, but I've never heard of such a thing.
It is wrong to accept a registration and then destroy it, discard it, or otherwise not file it properly. But it is not wrong to not accept that registration in the first place.
First, Madden 2005 is still a huge seller. A small hit was expected due to ESPN's great offering at a low price, and it happened.
I expected a big hit in NHL 2005, for two reasons: the lockout, and the fact that ESPN's hockey keeps improving more than EA's does. I haven't seen this year's offering yet, but I and lots of other people keep saying every year, "man, EA NHL sucks. Next year I am switching." And the $20 price point made it a perfect time to do it.
No, I am taking the risk of being wrong by telling the plain truth before it's proven.
Bull-fucking-shit. You said something as fact that is supported by no evidence whatsoever. You were lying, and now you say it is justified to lie because you are not a party to the lawsuit? You're out.
Right - the former chairman of the Nevada Republican Party sues Clark County to purge 17,000 Nevada Democrats from voting, and he's not associated with the Republican Party.
Stop lying. I did not say he was not associated with the Party -- he appears to be a member -- but that this ACTION was not affiliated with the Party. And I was responding to YOUR claim that his efforts were FUNDED by the Republican Party, and there is not only no evidence to support that claim, but there is contrary evidence that denies it (the official spokesman stating that there is no connection).
Now, it's possible the GOP is lying, and they are affiliated with the action. But for you to claim it as fact is just -- lying. Flat-out telling a big fat whopper.
Further, there is nothing remotely illegal about what Burdish is doing. He is challenging registrations in court. He sure seems like a slimeball, but if there is no merit to the challenges, then the courts won't do anything. Frankly, I think his challenge has Constitutional merit, though it is apparently in opposition to state law; that being the case, I can't see any court changing state law this close to the election, thereby disenfranchising thousands of voters. Further, even if the courts DID do something, it surely would not throw out only the registrations Burdish selected, but it would have to throw out all of them statewide, of all parties, that fall into the same category.
So, being that this is NOT financed by the GOP, and being that it has no chance of success, this is really a non-story, except as an item of humor or legal interest.
And as to "1.0", I find this a bit baffling:
It was exposed that this group hired and trained employees to solely register Republican voters and walk away from anyone who considered registering Democrat.
So what? How is this interesting? Groups have the right to register whomever they want. They can't actively discourage people from registering, but they can refuse to accept registrations. If they did destroy registrations, then that is a crime, but as we all know, there's no evidence that shows they did this, because it just as likely from the evidence that Russell himself did it to frame the company.
It certainly should be investigated, as it is being investigated. If they come up with more evidence that actually does point to the company, or Russell, then we will find out more.
No, I guess you've decided in favor of optimism despite evidence about Republicans
There is no evidence about Republicans, as I've already shown.
From what we know, the evidence *points to crimes by the company*
Only insofar as it also points at Russell framing the company for crimes it did not commit. Anyone who worked there could have thrown these registrations away, including Russell. To assume he did not is stupid.
So I'll just get to say "I told you so" when the obvious Republican crimes are proven.
This shows how ignorant you are, how you really have no clue what we're talking about. I am not taking a position on what the evidence means. No matter what happened, it won't be contrary to anything I've said.
You can say "I told you so," but it won't relate to any position I've held, since I am merely stating a logical fact: from the available evidence you mentioned, it is just as possible that Russell is trying to frame the company as it is that the company is trying to prevent people from voting.
I've already addressed this evidence several times. This evidence, from what we know, *does not point at any wrongdoing by the company.* For all you know, Russell took them himself, and pretended they were thrown away. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the company threw them away at this point.
I am not saying the company did or didn't do it. I am saying this evidence does not point any more at the company than it does at Russell himself. If you disagree with that, you're the blind one.
No, I am citing the physical evidence and testimony turned in to cops in Nevada, that points directly at the Republicans.
I saw no such evidence in the story that was posted, just evidence that some registrations had not been turned in, which pointed directly at no one. If there is additional evidence, it wasn't posted in this story, and I haven't seen it, and you haven't provided it, and it is not the evidence I am referring to.
You are discrediting the actual evidence before analysis
Not at all. I am discrediting people who assume what the evidence says now, before it is analyzed. People are saying this evidence says something that at this point it does not say, and I am pointing out this obvious fact.
Again, let's have some backup on your "fair and balanced" claims. It's interesting that inference of Democrat cheating in 2004 is good enough for you, but you require the physical evidence of Nevada Republican registration cheating to be processed by a US court.
See, you're mistaken. There is no physical evidence of Nevada Republican registration cheating. From what we know, they could be faked registrations, not even real ones. And assuming they are real, there is no reason to think that the Nevada Republicans were the ones who destroyed them, and not the person who supposedly blew the whistle.
You are making the logical fallacy of begging the question by assuming that this evidence points to the Republicans in order to show that I am ignoring evidence against the Republicans.
My paranoia is not naive. Things like this happen every election cycle, and naivite is to think otherwise.
And the fact that you think the GOP did evil things in 2000 where the Democrats did not is probably why you ignorantly think it is one-sided in 2004, too.
That is incorrect. As the article makes clear, the physical evidence that the "two guys" provided backs up their story.
No, it does not. It backs up the story that these particular registrations were not entered, NOT that the company in question had anything to do with it.
All we know is two guys claimed it happened. If it is reasonable to think this group might have been destroying voter registrations, why is it not reasonable to think these two guys were themselves taking those registrations and shredding them to frame this group? It's not like that sort of thing would be unprecedented, in this history of political dirty tricks.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, this is too crazy even for me. :-)
Sure this is pedantic, but...
I can only fit so much in the story. Explaining all that would have added about 50% to the article and made no difference in the meaning of the story.
P.S. Bellhorn hit the home run to right field (not left) and it hit the right field foul pole, AKA the Pesky Pole. See how easy it is to mis-remember?
To be pedantic, that's not misremembering, it's me confusing my right and my left, which happens far too often. I know very well which pole it hit (BTW, did you notice how when Bellhorn hit it, it went THUD, but when he hit the same pole in Yankee stadium the previous night, it sounded like the thing was rattling so hard it was gonna fall down?).
If nothing else, it is a cardinal rule that you don't use the children of your opponent to score points for yourself. Even if this was not about homosexuality, he was wrong to do that, no matter what he said. It was low and slimy.
And you might not agree with that, but most people -- especially parents -- do.
Everyone in the Bush family who is for Bush is a Kerry Relative for Bush. And everyone in the Kerry family who is for Kerry is a Bush Relative for Kerry.
Yawn.
Fine, but the fact is that the definition of "WMD" included conventional explosives long before Freeh came along, and as noted, US Law contains conventional explosives in the definition now, today.
I wanted to see if you'd fall for it and you did.
:-).
Fall for what, now? Why does it matter when it was put in? I noticed that the Section had been modified, but I didn't bother to look at when, because it is not important to my point. In fact, that it has changed supports my point even *more.*
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am talking about whether these things being WMD had anything to do with the justification for war. I am not talking about that at all (and on the peripheral point of the justification for war, I was making the OPPOSITE point, that whether Iraq had WMD was not relevant to the justification).
I am simply talking about the fact that different people have different definitions for "WMD" and asking people if Iraq had "WMD" isn't interesting unless you define your terms, which you helped prove. That the definition has changed only gives us more reason to question whether the respondents believed "WMD" means the same thing as you or someone else.
Wasn't that one of the reasons we were going to war against Saddam? Because he used "WMD's" against civilians?
No, it was for using chemical weapons against his own people. Of course, some people think the US is using radiological weapons, in the form of DU shells, so you could bring up that point if you wanted to (I like to help my debate opponents when it looks like they need it, so consider that a freebie
But again, this is all beside the point. We're talking about a survey of people who think Iraq had WMD, in which "WMD" was not defined, as best we can tell, and we have established there are multiple definitions of "WMD." It makes the results meaningless.
There is a well understood definition of WMD
I just proved that the director of the FBI has one definition, which is similar to the one in US law, which is different from the one that most people in this discussion use. Your claim is self-evidently false.
Rather, accourding to Title 18 of the United States Code, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2332 the definition is: (A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
Yes, and section 921 says a "destructive device" is "any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having a propellant charge of more than one quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) mine or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses."
An al Samoud rocket has a propellant charge of 825 kg, a lot more than four ounces, and if armed with explosives therefore fits the definition of a "destructive device" under Section 921, which means it is therefore a WMD, under the law you quoted.
Thanks for helping prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Iraq had WMD, according to U.S. law. Cheers!
To whom? There is no one definition of WMD. That's the point. If the question had asked about NBC weapons, that would be different. For example, Clinton's FBI Director, Louis Freeh, said in May 1997:
(The source used to be http://norfolk.fbi.gov/wmd.htm, but that link is mysteriously inactive now, and I can find no other citation of the quote online ... hmmmmm.)
... note that the sentence construction requires that only one of "aided, trained, and harbored" apply to "operatives of al Qaeda").
One or more of the proscribed missiles filled with conventional explosives and launched at Kuwait or Saudi Arabia certainly would fill Freeh's definition of WMD, as it would have destructive capacity to overwhelm local responders more than the OK City bombing. Unless the question specifically mentioned NBC weapons -- and I see no indication it did -- then there is no justfication for assuming that is what those questioned meant when they answered, since a man no less than the former FBI Director himself agreed that WMD is not limited to those.
No, they did not. They said that there were reports of contacts between the two, but not connections.
The sky is not blue, rather, it is lacking red and green! To most people, there's no necessary difference between the two. If the questioner stated to those questioned that a connection is something more than contact, fine. But again, I see no indication of this.
You are again trying to narrowly define words and phrases moreso than is required, and then judging how other people answered based on your narrow definitions. That's unreasonable.
Look for the bit involving the WTC attack.
There's nothing in there supporting the claim that Bush said Iraq provided substantial support to al Qaeda. The fact that you didn't actually quote anything but instead tried to post a URL that didn't even support your point is telling.
Bush did say -- though not in the link you tried to provide -- "[Hussein's regime] has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda." That's the closest he came, and those things are likely true, and most experts agree they do not constitute substantial support, since the evidence he was referring to in re: al Qaeda was mostly indirect support, in allowing them to operate out of Western Iraq (the "harboring" part
I suppose you could say it depends on what "substantial" means, but still, Bush never drew very direct lines linking the two.
No. Again, look at what they actually said.
You first. Read the resolution. It authorized for two purposes:
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
These were the primary justifications for the use of force, the ones actually enumerated in the law.
I am not denying there were many components to the public case for war, and one of them was the apparently false intelligence of actual existence of WMD. I criticized Bush at the time for emphasizing this part of the case too much, and I was one of the few pro-war people who was not at all convinced by Powell's WMD presentation to the UN in February 2003 (my reaction was similar to the one expressed by Bush himself,
Iraq did actually have WMD. Remember the missiles they destroyed? Those were classified as WMD. That anyone thinks Iraq did NOT have WMD is odd. Of course, there is no reason to think Iraq had a "major" WMD program, but they did have actual WMD.
As to support for al Qaeda from Iraq, it is true that the 9/11 Commission did not conclude there was such support, but it is also true the Commission said there was evidence of a connection.
But both sides are absolutely wrong when they say Bush said Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. It never happened. That both sides think this shows that neither side is particularly bright.
I also like that Kull said, "they have not accepted the idea that it does not matter whether Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda." It is true, these things do not matter. They are at best peripherally related to the primary justification and reasons we went to war: violation of UN resolutions (which is the actual basis for the Congressional approval of the use of force, and which is not in dispute whatsoever) and the stabilization and transformation of the region in the long run.
Also, it would be interesting to see what the Kerry supporters thought about what KERRY'S views are. I presume the reason they didn't ask is because the pollsters could not agree on what Kerry's positions are.
I am not talking about keeping anyone from voting, and I am not talking about intelligence. You invented those ideas, I did not express them.
I am saying that if you are ignorant and don't know what you are voting for, your vote has negative value: it hurts the process. But only the individual can make that determination, for themselves.
When I moved to a new state last year, I didn't vote right away, because I didn't know about any of the candidates or issues. It was not a lack of intelligence, and no one was restricting me. I chose to not vote because it was the responsible thing to do, since I didn't know what I would be voting for.
If someone is too ignorant or apathetic to vote, they SHOULD NOT vote, because their vote has negative value.
It's a logical truism: democracy is rule by the people. The people make choices, who their leaders are, and such. In order to make a real choice, you must be educated to some degree about the options, and have a preference as to which option is best.
People who are neither ignorant nor apathetic do vote, in very large numbers, already. The solution to the problem is not increasing turnout by any means, but by doing it the right way: by education, and giving people a reason to care.
The latter would be fixed primarily by two things: improving the process of selecting our candidates, and reversing the course of centralizing the power that we have continued on in full force since the early 20th century and the beginning of progressivism. Give Congress back its power, give the states back their power. The more power your local officials have, the more you will see that your vote counts, and the more you will be likely to care about voting.
How about fraud?
If they did misrepresent their organization, then it is wrong, but doesn't directly harm Democracy in a way the word "democracide" implies, like actual voter fraud does.
Further, there's no hard evidence that happened. The only hard evidence is that they were told to not register Democrats, which is perfectly acceptable.
Is it wrong to pretend that the Republicans are merely legally registering the voters they want, when they're lying to the public, government facilities, and anyone else necessary to do it? While pretending that Democrats are doing that, when they're not?
Is it wrong to pretend I am saying what you say I am saying? I never said this group is merely doing anything: I am only saying what we can reasonably know from the available evidence.
Is it wrong to pretend the evidence says more than it does?
Is it wrong to pretend this is the Republicans, instead of one group affiliated with the Republicans? If not, then the Democrats have paid crack to people to perpetrate voter fraud.
Gaming the system, exploiting security weaknesses in a vast social system, to win power you don't represent, kills democracy. Are you proud of your success?
Are you proud of lying, trying to make it look like I support fraud, when I am in fact -- clear to any reasonable person -- merely stating the clear fact that no fraud has been shown by any evidence that amounts to more than he-said-she-said?
"Democracide"? Huh? There is nothing remotely wrong with not registering people, as best I can tell. Maybe there's a PA state law about it, but I've never heard of such a thing.
It is wrong to accept a registration and then destroy it, discard it, or otherwise not file it properly. But it is not wrong to not accept that registration in the first place.
First, Madden 2005 is still a huge seller. A small hit was expected due to ESPN's great offering at a low price, and it happened.
I expected a big hit in NHL 2005, for two reasons: the lockout, and the fact that ESPN's hockey keeps improving more than EA's does. I haven't seen this year's offering yet, but I and lots of other people keep saying every year, "man, EA NHL sucks. Next year I am switching." And the $20 price point made it a perfect time to do it.
No, I am taking the risk of being wrong by telling the plain truth before it's proven.
Bull-fucking-shit. You said something as fact that is supported by no evidence whatsoever. You were lying, and now you say it is justified to lie because you are not a party to the lawsuit? You're out.
Right - the former chairman of the Nevada Republican Party sues Clark County to purge 17,000 Nevada Democrats from voting, and he's not associated with the Republican Party.
Stop lying. I did not say he was not associated with the Party -- he appears to be a member -- but that this ACTION was not affiliated with the Party. And I was responding to YOUR claim that his efforts were FUNDED by the Republican Party, and there is not only no evidence to support that claim, but there is contrary evidence that denies it (the official spokesman stating that there is no connection).
Now, it's possible the GOP is lying, and they are affiliated with the action. But for you to claim it as fact is just -- lying. Flat-out telling a big fat whopper.
You're lying. What Burdish is doing is NOT affiliated with the Republican Party. From the actual story: Republican Party spokesman Chris Carr said his party is not tied to the challenge.
Further, there is nothing remotely illegal about what Burdish is doing. He is challenging registrations in court. He sure seems like a slimeball, but if there is no merit to the challenges, then the courts won't do anything. Frankly, I think his challenge has Constitutional merit, though it is apparently in opposition to state law; that being the case, I can't see any court changing state law this close to the election, thereby disenfranchising thousands of voters. Further, even if the courts DID do something, it surely would not throw out only the registrations Burdish selected, but it would have to throw out all of them statewide, of all parties, that fall into the same category.
So, being that this is NOT financed by the GOP, and being that it has no chance of success, this is really a non-story, except as an item of humor or legal interest.
And as to "1.0", I find this a bit baffling:
It was exposed that this group hired and trained employees to solely register Republican voters and walk away from anyone who considered registering Democrat.
So what? How is this interesting? Groups have the right to register whomever they want. They can't actively discourage people from registering, but they can refuse to accept registrations. If they did destroy registrations, then that is a crime, but as we all know, there's no evidence that shows they did this, because it just as likely from the evidence that Russell himself did it to frame the company.
It certainly should be investigated, as it is being investigated. If they come up with more evidence that actually does point to the company, or Russell, then we will find out more.
No, I guess you've decided in favor of optimism despite evidence about Republicans
There is no evidence about Republicans, as I've already shown.
From what we know, the evidence *points to crimes by the company*
Only insofar as it also points at Russell framing the company for crimes it did not commit. Anyone who worked there could have thrown these registrations away, including Russell. To assume he did not is stupid.
So I'll just get to say "I told you so" when the obvious Republican crimes are proven.
This shows how ignorant you are, how you really have no clue what we're talking about. I am not taking a position on what the evidence means. No matter what happened, it won't be contrary to anything I've said.
You can say "I told you so," but it won't relate to any position I've held, since I am merely stating a logical fact: from the available evidence you mentioned, it is just as possible that Russell is trying to frame the company as it is that the company is trying to prevent people from voting.
I've already addressed this evidence several times. This evidence, from what we know, *does not point at any wrongdoing by the company.* For all you know, Russell took them himself, and pretended they were thrown away. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the company threw them away at this point.
I am not saying the company did or didn't do it. I am saying this evidence does not point any more at the company than it does at Russell himself. If you disagree with that, you're the blind one.
No, I am citing the physical evidence and testimony turned in to cops in Nevada, that points directly at the Republicans.
I saw no such evidence in the story that was posted, just evidence that some registrations had not been turned in, which pointed directly at no one. If there is additional evidence, it wasn't posted in this story, and I haven't seen it, and you haven't provided it, and it is not the evidence I am referring to.
You are discrediting the actual evidence before analysis
Not at all. I am discrediting people who assume what the evidence says now, before it is analyzed. People are saying this evidence says something that at this point it does not say, and I am pointing out this obvious fact.
Again, let's have some backup on your "fair and balanced" claims. It's interesting that inference of Democrat cheating in 2004 is good enough for you, but you require the physical evidence of Nevada Republican registration cheating to be processed by a US court.
See, you're mistaken. There is no physical evidence of Nevada Republican registration cheating. From what we know, they could be faked registrations, not even real ones. And assuming they are real, there is no reason to think that the Nevada Republicans were the ones who destroyed them, and not the person who supposedly blew the whistle.
You are making the logical fallacy of begging the question by assuming that this evidence points to the Republicans in order to show that I am ignoring evidence against the Republicans.
My paranoia is not naive. Things like this happen every election cycle, and naivite is to think otherwise.
And the fact that you think the GOP did evil things in 2000 where the Democrats did not is probably why you ignorantly think it is one-sided in 2004, too.
That is incorrect. As the article makes clear, the physical evidence that the "two guys" provided backs up their story.
No, it does not. It backs up the story that these particular registrations were not entered, NOT that the company in question had anything to do with it.
Because it is entirely unsubstantiated.
All we know is two guys claimed it happened. If it is reasonable to think this group might have been destroying voter registrations, why is it not reasonable to think these two guys were themselves taking those registrations and shredding them to frame this group? It's not like that sort of thing would be unprecedented, in this history of political dirty tricks.