Majority of Republicans think ACORN stole presidential election

Until you come up with something besides partisan blather ACORN hasn't done anything illegal.
 
Well, as you asked for a link to support my claim that ACORN's quota requirements are illegal, I've met my burden. You need to figure out exactly what you want now.

Personally, I would love to find a link to some ACORN convictions.

But to the point, fake registrations of people who don't exist don't ultimately vote and change election results.
I never claimed they did or didn't change election results, but the methodology is illegal.

so your are just deflecting off the OP, weren't you once very concerned about staying in topic?

that is at least your second ignoratio elenchi fallacy (boo yah) in this thread.
 
But to the point, fake registrations of people who don't exist don't ultimately vote and change election results.
I never claimed they did or didn't change election results, but the methodology is illegal.

so your are just deflecting off the OP, weren't you once very concerned about staying in topic?

that is at least your second ignoratio elenchi fallacy (boo yah) in this thread.
Poor, poor Eder. *cringe* He has no concept about opening doors in debate and once again demonstrates his ignorance about when fallacies are applicable and when they are not.
 
I never claimed they did or didn't change election results, but the methodology is illegal.

so your are just deflecting off the OP, weren't you once very concerned about staying in topic?

that is at least your second ignoratio elenchi fallacy (boo yah) in this thread.
Poor, poor Eder. *cringe* He has no concept about opening doors in debate and once again demonstrates his ignorance about when fallacies are applicable and when they are not.

lemme guess, pointing out fallacies is correct when you do it?

am i close?
 
Registering false names doesn't lead to false votes unless nonexistent people show up at the polls. ....

Yet, it's a violation of the FEC regulations (they are picky that way as they like integrity in elections); it's fraudulent; and it's illegal.

No one has argued otherwise. The point that's being made is that even if a billion false names are registered, they don't lead to false votes unless someone shows up and is able to cast a ballot in those names.
 
Well, as you asked for a link to support my claim that ACORN's quota requirements are illegal, I've met my burden. You need to figure out exactly what you want now.

Personally, I would love to find a link to some ACORN convictions.

the proof and links are posted here


the proof is in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

obviously your on the wrong post. the topic is ????
 
Registering false names doesn't lead to false votes unless nonexistent people show up at the polls. ....

Yet, it's a violation of the FEC regulations (they are picky that way as they like integrity in elections); it's fraudulent; and it's illegal.

No one has argued otherwise. The point that's being made is that even if a billion false names are registered, they don't lead to false votes unless someone shows up and is able to cast a ballot in those names.

the fishwife is busy dropping red herrings, she cannot listen.
 
to the tune of 7-3? that would indicate that two of the lefties on the court favored Bush

Not surprising, considering the line of reasoning the majority used to invalid the recounts. The Court ruled that the recounts were unconstitutional, since they violated the equal protection clause. What's odd about that argument is the court's conservative justices took a view of what constitutes a violation of equal protection that's even broader than the one generally taken by the liberal justices. They normally have a very narrow interpretation though. Seems really suspect that their interpretation changes when it gives them a preferred partisan outcome. It becomes even more suspect when they wrote in the decision that the standard used the case was special and the decision's equal protection standard was not considered to be a binding standard that other courts should use.

An even bigger affront is why the justices determined the recounts violated equal protection: because the recounting standards were not uniform across all districts. Using that logic though, the entire election in Florida violated equal protection, because several different types of voting machines were in use. The same reasoning that would result in different recount standards being unconstitutional (different standards and margins of error) would also apply to different mechanisms being used to record the vote.

Gore was stalling in an effort to invalidate the entire State of Florida. Further the Supreme Court of Florida violated Florida law which STATES one can not change the election rules DURING an election.

The decision on the basis of the complaint was 7-2 so only 2 liberals disagreed with the majority that the case was about equal protection. A recount would have required to much time and would have put Florida past the date required to have submitted their electoral college participants list. Which would have meant Flkorida, the entire State, would have been disenfranchised in the national election.

Further EVERY recount conducted both before the Supreme Court ruling and AFTER shows that BUSH won. Gore not Bush took a simple election to the courts in an effort to steal an election he lost.

The Supreme Court of Florida did not violate the laws of the state of Florida. The standard for counting ballots under Florida law is intent of the voter. The Supreme Court of Florida rules in accordance with this. Gore was not stalling in an attempt to have the entire state invalidated. Gore was exercising his legal rights as a candidate to ensure that all votes cast for him were counted.

There are process issues that made a broader recount impossible and analysis done after the fact did show that Bush would have won in such an event. However, that doesn't make the Court's ruling any more acceptable or any less corrupt.
 
w04bcx.jpg
 
You mean like W stole the election with his GOP friends in the Supreme Court?
 
When will conservatives stop lying?

When you pry their voiceboxes from their cold dead throats.

Really!!! And they just have to ask what lies I am talking about. I don't know if that's dumb or obtuse. Either way it's annoying. Geez, it's right there in black and white.

you keep using that word. Lies. I dont think it means what you seem to think it means.

I know what it means.

lie 2 (l)
n.

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing (lng), lies
v.intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
v.tr.
To cause to be in a specific condition or affect in a specific way by telling falsehoods: You have lied yourself into trouble.
Idiom:
lie through one's teeth
To lie outrageously or brazenly.

Lie - definition of Lie by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
 
LOL, right.
Of course we know the Court gave Bush the presidency in 2000, and he won by cheating in 2004.
 

Forum List

Back
Top