It's time for a new poll!

[georgedwilkinson]

Correction: the bias is being done by Democrats

Also looks like the republicans are getting ready to fix the elections again, as they did for Bush when he lost in 2000, witht the warnings about how there are likely to be problems.

Again, a case of you inserting what you want to see into an argument and making it appear as though you've put in a link to support your hypothesis.

There is nothing in the article you linked to indicate any indication of voter fraud by either side, though both sides are being cautious, with good reason.

Acorn has had some irregularities in their new voter registrations, registering some voters multiple times (I saw an interview with a young man who said Acorn registered him over 70 times), registering cartoon characters and sports teams, etc. Acorn is not affiliated with the Republican party and is more aligned with Democrat Obama.

With regards to the 2000 election: the newspapers in Florida hired a liberal institution (I think it was the University of Chicago) to go into Florida and recount every ballot from the 2000 presidential election by hand. The results were a surprising tilt of additional votes towards George W. Bush, away from Al Gore.

I have been watching your technical posts quite a while and thought you might be a quite helpful person. I'm wondering now if you show so little care in your technical posts as you do in this case.

 

[Alisa]

lol....

Voter registration fraud, fraudelent voting, wars, a running mate that promises we are gonna be in deep doo-doo from the world at large when his candidate is elected president, the candidate's party that helped to sink the American economy, everything you judge a person's character on including experience, core beliefs, philosophies learned from marxists and communists, associations with terrorists are all just "distractions" and not the issue.

If these are distractions and not the issue, I am still trying to figure out what the issue is except rhetoric.

-dk

That explains why you are so confused about which candidate to support. I will list the actual issues for you, although I doubt it will make any difference to your distraction addled brain:

1. The economy: Reckless spending on wars and bailouts has lead to a 10 trillion dollar deficit, a weakened U.S. dollar and a faltering economy with rising unemployment and inflation and record forclosures. What will the next president do to help us recover?

2. The wars: An arrogant executive branch willfully decieved the American people into starting a war in Iraq that should never have been started, while at the same time failing to address actual security concerns at home as well as in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This has lead to the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, while at the same time strengthening Al Qaeda and Iran. What will the next president do to address the very real security threats that exist? How will the next president extricate us from an unwinnable war? How will the next president repair diplomatic relations with other countries around the world so that we don't end up in even more wars?

3. Health care: Almost 50 million Americans have no health insurance, and another 100 million are underinsured, meaning that they face unaffordable bills should they need to use their insurance. Over a million Americans are forced into bankruptcy every year because of their medical bills. In addition, the U.S. spends a greater percentage of GDP on health care than other industrialized countries, up to twice as much in some cases. What will the next president do to reform the health care system so that all working families have access to affordable medical care?

4. Education: The U.S. K-12 educational system ranks very low in international comparisons. There are many reasons for this including outdated instructional methods and curriculum, inefficient funding, unreasonable testing demands, inconsistent standards, and lack of early childhood education. The U.S. college system is very good, but the price of a college education is rising much faster than inflation, and is unaffordable for many otherwise qualified students. What will the next president do to address the failing k-12 system, and to make college more affordable?

5. Taxes: Over the last 8 years, the tax burden has been shifted increasingly to the middle class. What will the next president do to distribute the tax burden more equitably?


Like I said, you don't appear to care about any real issues, but it makes me feel better to write them down anyway.

 

[Alisa]

Re: Correction: the bias is being done by Democrats

Acorn has had some irregularities in their new voter registrations, registering some voters multiple times (I saw an interview with a young man who said Acorn registered him over 70 times), registering cartoon characters and sports teams, etc. Acorn is not affiliated with the Republican party and is more aligned with Democrat Obama.

George, you need to understand something: the laws that govern community voter registration drives specifically say that you MUST turn in every single voter registration form you receive. Even if you think it is fake. In fact, the reason that so many Acorn voter registration forms are being questioned is that Acorn itself flagged the forms as suspicious. The reason the law is written this way is so that the decision about whether a given form is legitimate or not is left up to the professionals at the county clerk's office. Acorn followed the law. The fact that some individuals who worked for Acorn turned in fake forms in order to make more money is bad, but it doesn't actually lead to fraud because the county clerk has to verify the registrations BEFORE mickey mouse is actually allowed to vote.

In contrast, John McCain's associates actually violated the law, by NOT turning in every registration form they received. They specifically did NOT turn in forms received from democrats. Now THAT is fraud. What Acorn did was follow the law.

 

[dkinley]

Like I said, you don't appear to care about any real issues, but it makes me feel better to write them down anyway.

I care about the 'real' issues. But I don't want the real issues taken care of by someone who has a long association with extreme liberal peoples including marxists and communists. That's not a someone that will bring a solution that I will like. It didn't work for the long haul in other countries so why are we going to try it here?

I don't want issues taken care of by someone with very little clout with an extreme Congress that may have a filibuster override and will push his inexperienced rear around. He will be a pawn to whatever they want. The same Congress that has been playing with the economy and the taxes. I don't think he will get the job done, he has no reform experience and will definitely not reform members of his own party. I think it will get worse.

To me that's the real issue that will define all other issues and definitely not a distraction.

-dK

 

[Alisa]

Like I said, you don't care about the real issues. If you want to talk about associations, lets talk about associations:
-John McCain has HIRED a man (Timmons) who was directly involved in the oil for food scandal, who worked with lobbyists that were secretly working for Sadam Hussein.
-John McCain's campain manager (Davis) is still getting 15k per month from FM.
-John McCain was intimately involved in the Keating 5 scandal, and continues his association with Keating TODAY.
-Sarah Palin and her husband have been intimately involved with the Alaskan seccessionist movement. Is that "pro-America"?

 

[dkinley]

Agree to all the above.

It's not like Obama doesn't have lobbyists working for him. What I read was that Davis was not getting any money. I also think there was an investigation into the SNL stuff and the results are what they are.

Per the seccessionists, I am down with that. The federal government SHOULD BE kept in check. We do not have a method of doing that since everyone in the federal government has dug in their heels and think its a right to be elected. Thats why the next election starts the day after the current one is completed.

The civil war isn't quite over. Evey year states in the south talk about seceding. I think the federal goverment has too much power. How do you keep it in check when their reach is too much?

-dk

 

[Alisa]

Agree to all the above.

It's not like Obama doesn't have lobbyists working for him. What I read was that Davis was not getting any money. I also think there was an investigation into the SNL stuff and the results are what they are.

Per the seccessionists, I am down with that. The federal government SHOULD BE kept in check. We do not have a method of doing that since everyone in the federal government has dug in their heels and think its a right to be elected. Thats why the next election starts the day after the current one is completed.

The civil war isn't quite over. Evey year states in the south talk about seceding. I think the federal goverment has too much power. How do you keep it in check when their reach is too much?

-dk

So, the fact that Obama was appointed to a board along with Bill Ayres, a board that was funded by one of McCain's donors, really bothers you. But the fact that McCain hired Timmons, a man who basically worked on Sadam Hussein's behalf, to be the chief of his transition team, that doesn't bother you. Just want to make sure I am getting this correctly.

The fact that Obama attended a Christian church where the reverend made some very tough, yet true statements about America and it's policies, that makes him anti-American. But the fact that Sarah Palin thinks the state that she is the governer of should SECEDE from the rest of the United States, that isn't anti-American. Just want to be clear about the standard.

 

[redneckgeek]

As I've said before - and I believe it more every day -

McCain wins, there will be huge riots in big cities all over the US.

Obama wins, the secessionist movement will become very popular
and states will start to leave the union.

Either way, "It's the end of the world as we know it".

This election is just a Pick Your Poison.

 

[Alisa]

As I've said before - and I believe it more every day -

McCain wins, there will be huge riots in big cities all over the US.

Obama wins, the secessionist movement will become very popular
and states will start to leave the union.

Either way, "It's the end of the world as we know it".

This election is just a Pick Your Poison.

Let's meet back here on October 22, 2009 and evaluate the accuracy of your predictions.

 

[Rich]

As I've said before - and I believe it more every day -

McCain wins, there will be huge riots in big cities all over the US.

Obama wins, the secessionist movement will become very popular
and states will start to leave the union.

.

Ah good, you'll go back to fighting each other and not keep invading other countries, ah peace returns to the world.......

 

[redneckgeek]

Let's meet back here on October 22, 2009 and evaluate the accuracy of your predictions.

heh... If I haven't gone too far "off the grid", I'll be here.

 

[dkinley]

So, the fact that Obama was appointed to a board along with Bill Ayres, a board that was funded by one of McCain's donors, really bothers you.

No, it doesn't bother me because one of McCain's donors is not running for President. Obama who has an association with Ayers, is running for President. Therein lies the distraction to the issue of Obama's associations and his general philosophy. Good try, but your jedi mind tricks on work on the feeble minded. I've questions on said appointment ....
http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/10/where-are-we-now-update-on-ayersobama.html

If you applied for a federal job and this was found in your background check, you would be prohibited from federal employment. But this is overlooked because they are running for the highest office in the land. To the liberals, is this fair?

But the fact that McCain hired Timmons, a man who basically worked on Sadam Hussein's behalf, to be the chief of his transition team, that doesn't bother you. Just want to make sure I am getting this correctly.

Both sides have hired lobbyists aplenty. Since this news broke prior to the last debate, if it was a compelling issue, wouldn't Obama have brought it up during the debate? He didn't therefore if Obama/Axelrod doesn't consider there is fire there, then it must be a buncha smoke. So no, it doesn't bother me.

The fact that Obama attended a Christian church where the reverend made some very tough, yet true statements about America and it's policies, that makes him anti-American. But the fact that Sarah Palin thinks the state that she is the governer of should SECEDE from the rest of the United States, that isn't anti-American. Just want to be clear about the standard.

That's right. There is no proof that Sarah Palin did/did not registered for said party in question. Again, a distraction. Make an accusation without any data source which is what CNN, the Times and everyone is very fond of doing. Either don't issue one or issue the apology on page 33 and bury it in advertisements with 4 point font. It doesn't matter, you did what damage you set out to do without apology.

The Alaskan Independence Party is summed by the following: "The AIP will continue to strive to make Alaska a better place to live with less government interference in our everyday lives."

Key-word is less government. Again, there are Southern states that still talk about seceding because of the infringement on State's rights. That in itself, is patriotic - to keep the best country tied to it's basic principles that made it so great. One should always question the government, but blowing up the government because you didn't keep an eye on them or are singular in thought is not utilitarian and considered radical. The United States was formed in such a manner to prevent oppressive governments; hence the name 'United States' not 'One Government'. It's a republic and should be kept that way.

The difference to me is the Wright was/is trying to incite riots. His rhetoric is full of hate speech. The AIP, like other states, use clear cut points that note over-extending of the federal government and are trying to keep the federal side from overextending its authority and let each state govern themselves.

In my opinion, Wright preaches from a pulpit that is full of minority people, he preaches what they want to hear and takes their offering plate but yet lives in a two- or three-milion dollar home in a white suberb, who has the double-standard?

-dK

 

[Alisa]

So someone who supports McCain actually HIRED Ayres to be on that board AND gave him 50 million dollars. Do you think they would have done that if they thought Ayres was a problem? Meanwhile, you have a problem with Obama's association with Ayres, even though it was coincidental and not by design? Why? What exactly do you think it says about Obama that he served on a board with Ayres? Do you think it says he is a terrorist or what? Come out with it already! And if that is what it said about Obama, then what does it say about Mrs. Annenberg who gave him the 50 mil?

As far as the AIP, their motto is "Alaska First -- Alaska Always.", and they "challenge the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote as illegal and in violation of United Nations charter and international law."
I thought McCain was running on "Country First"?
Sarah Palin may not be an official member, but her husband was, and she has attended their conventions.

Obama doesn't bring up McCain's associations because he actually wants to talk about REAL issues in the debates, unlike McCain who has nothing to run on except smears. I am not even saying it is necessarily an important issue, because honestly, I don't care that much. THe point is, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. McCain has far worse associates in his record than Obama does in his, and if you want to play that game, McCain loses.

 

[Alisa]

chergh, I like your signature link.

 

[dkinley]

McCain has far worse associates in his record than Obama does in his, and if you want to play that game, McCain loses.

I highly doubt that but not going to spend my energy in this game. Go ahead and post what you want without substitive proof (i.e., from sites or news sources that don't quote the fact or source and/or only glean a clip that suits thier purpose) or any proof at all and try to create some false truth based on partial truths.

I don't care what is said or done. Here is my final take ...

Beginning in the primary, there has been different standards for Obama than anyone running against him during it or after it. In my opinion, this is a red flag because I do not swing full liberal and the media does. Why they do it? I don't know, perhaps for ratings, perhaps because they are socialists. They create business through fear and consumption. What I do know is that if the media says one thing, the better option is probably the other.

-dK

 

[Alisa]

I highly doubt that but not going to spend my energy in this game. Go ahead and post what you want without substitive proof (i.e., from sites or news sources that don't quote the fact or source and/or only glean a clip that suits thier purpose) or any proof at all and try to create some false truth based on partial truths.

I don't care what is said or done. Here is my final take ...

Beginning in the primary, there has been different standards for Obama than anyone running against him during it or after it. In my opinion, this is a red flag because I do not swing full liberal and the media does. Why they do it? I don't know, perhaps for ratings, perhaps because they are socialists. They create business through fear and consumption. What I do know is that if the media says one thing, the better option is probably the other.

-dK

You don't accept any proof I give you, so go find your own. You tell ME:
Who is William Timmons and what role does he play in McCain's campaign?
Who is George Liddy and what role does he play in McCain's campaign?
Who is Charles Keating and what association does he have with John McCain?

If you refuse to investigate these associations, then you have no right to cast aspersions on Obama for his associations.

I am aware that Obama spent years listening to Rev Wright. I happen to agree with everything that Wright said in the clips that have been played incessantly on tv.

I am aware that Obama has an association with Bill Ayres. Do I agree with what Bill Ayres did? No. But Obama didn't hire Ayres. He is not a close friend or advisor. I am not going to judge someone on someone else that they are only marginally associated with.

 

[dkinley]

Last response ....

Yes, I will do my own research but I am not going to share it because there is no 'discussion' when you are involved. Especially by claiming you are an 'unaffiliated' voter but yet went to Democratic parties to spank each other with a plank. You even attended the Democratic convention party love-fest gaggle but yet you claim unaffiliaation. You claim liberalism but yet hold 'discussions' with a closed mind. In those respects, I will not repudiate anything you feel free to make up and post from leftist think-tanks that are funded by rich leftists and claim non-partisanship (aka, your 'proof').

Truthfully, I think it ironic that liberals fully expect everyone else to be accountable for their past actions and associations, but perform a double standard when it comes to holding themselves to the same level of accountability.

This feeling is even more pervasive when Obama has repeated a string of lies about his association and changes his platform to whatever the latest focus group says he should do to get votes.

Case in point. At first he didn't know Ayers, then he was some guy in the neighborhood, then he served on a board with him and never hung out with him .... Same for the Wright and Rezko, etc ... How many lies are you gonna swallow? He has stated lie after lie to minimize his ties until a new truth is put into the spotlight?

Based on this and the fact is is conjectured with strong evidence that he didn't write his first book (which he claims), how many more outright lies or 'soft' lies that cover the latest truth is everyone willing to accept?

This is why I won't vote for someone I don't know. He lies too much about stuff he shouldn't have to lie about, he should be lying about more important stuff.

-dK

 

[Rich]

to keep the best country tied to it's basic principles that made it so great. -dK

Where's the proof to back up this statement?

 

[dkinley]

Where's the proof to back up this statement?

Since it saved you from typing in German.

-dk

 

[Alisa]

Last response ....

Yes, I will do my own research but I am not going to share it because there is no 'discussion' when you are involved. Especially by claiming you are an 'unaffiliated' voter but yet went to Democratic parties to spank each other with a plank. You even attended the Democratic convention party love-fest gaggle but yet you claim unaffiliaation. You claim liberalism but yet hold 'discussions' with a closed mind. In those respects, I will not repudiate anything you feel free to make up and post from leftist think-tanks that are funded by rich leftists and claim non-partisanship (aka, your 'proof').

Truthfully, I think it ironic that liberals fully expect everyone else to be accountable for their past actions and associations, but perform a double standard when it comes to holding themselves to the same level of accountability.

This feeling is even more pervasive when Obama has repeated a string of lies about his association and changes his platform to whatever the latest focus group says he should do to get votes.

Case in point. At first he didn't know Ayers, then he was some guy in the neighborhood, then he served on a board with him and never hung out with him .... Same for the Wright and Rezko, etc ... How many lies are you gonna swallow? He has stated lie after lie to minimize his ties until a new truth is put into the spotlight?

Based on this and the fact is is conjectured with strong evidence that he didn't write his first book (which he claims), how many more outright lies or 'soft' lies that cover the latest truth is everyone willing to except?

This is why I won't vote for someone I don't know. He lies too much about stuff he shouldn't have to lie about, he should be lying about more important stuff.

-dK

You keep whining about Ayres, but you still haven't answered my question. What exactly concerns you about his association with Ayres? Do you think that because he sat next to Ayres at a board meeting, he has been infected with anti-American sentiment by osmosis, and he is now going off to bomb the pentagon, or what? I just don't get the point.

I attempted to stear this conversation towards real issues, but instead, you would rather argue about who knew who when, and who knows someone worse than the other guy. WHO CARES! I certainly don't, but since you are so obsessed with associations, I hope you really do that research you are talking about.

Finally, for your information, liberals and democrats are not one and the same, just as republicans and conservatives are not the same. I really don't get why my lack of party affiliation bothers you. But by all means, continue to complain about completely meaningless "issues".