Obama campaign plotting against veteran votes in Ohio
Breitbart writes that the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party filed a suit last month in Ohio that opposes the three day grace period for absentee votes…you, know, the way that veterans are more likely to vote from their military addresses outside of Ohio. I guess it has nothing to do with the fact that Ohio is a battleground state, and that polls say that almost 2/3 of veterans are supporting Romney in this election. From Mike Flynn at Breitbart;
If anyone proposes legislation to combat voter fraud, Democrats will loudly scream that the proposal could “disenfranchise” some voter, somewhere. We must ensure, they argue, that voting is easy and accessible to every single voter. Every voter, that is, except the men and women of our military.
Make no mistake, the Democrat lawsuit is intended to disenfranchise some unknown number of military voters. The judge should reject it with prejudice.
So, I guess the Democrats aren’t buying that their big push for veterans’ votes this season is going to work, so it’s back to the tried and true disenfranchisement strategy. This is not my shocked face.
Category: Military issues, Veterans Issues
And the non Ohio mil voters will observe and take note.
That’s some strategic planning right there.
Well of course Breitbart would report that…and it’s entirely wrong. See here: http://www.denverpost.com/music/ci_21094840/obama-campaign-sues-over-ohio-early-voting-law
The lawsuit is about extending early voting, NOT restricting the military or overseas voting. The administration wants to see early voting allowed for as long as possible for all. They aren’t suing to move the military or overseas timeline to an earlier cutoff. Of course, facts don’t matter when Breitbart has a narrative to push that the CINC hates the military.
So, you have no problem with X county extending voting hours, much like Detroit and St. Louis did, but setting a time period that all counties have to abide by is disenfanchising certain voters?
And, Beitbart certainly doesn’t have to push that “narrative”.
3… Why? Because people who aren’t deployed or in another state in the military can’t get their asses to the polls in the allotted time? Why do they need extra time?
The suit is actually going for “all or nothing”, saying that it’s wrong to do it for the military and not everyone else as well.
If the GOP was doing this, Obama would have the DOJ hot on it and the usual loudmouths like Not-So-Sharpton and Jesse Jerkoff Jackson would be screaming and crying about voter suppression. So please, don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s rain.
So who are the 1/3 veterans supporting BO? Jeezus, I suppose hope and change tasted so good the first time, they want a heaping platter of seconds. Also, if BO runs out of vets to vote for him, he can always count on the old reliable standby–dead people.
^ Hahaha.. “Deceased Veterans For Obama”
Here’s the link to the actual suit documents so you can decide for yourself.
“Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to restore in-person early voting for all Ohioans during the three days prior to Election Day – a right exercised by an estimated 93,000 Ohioans in the last presidential election.”
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/ObamaForAmericaVHusted.php
I like how we do early voting in Texas (info courtesy of http://votetexas.gov/voting/when#early-voting)
Vote early in person.
Generally, early voting in person begins the 17th day before Election Day (if that’s a weekend, early voting starts on Monday) and ends the 4th day before election day. (EXCEPTION: Early voting for elections held in May starts the 12th day before Election Day and ends on the 4th day before Election Day.)
Vote at a location in your political subdivision that’s close to where you live or work. All other voting rules and procedures apply – e.g., eligibility, identification, polling hours.
Vote early by mail.
You may vote early by mail if:
You will be away from your county on Election Day and during early voting;
You are sick or disabled;
You are 65 years of age or older on Election Day; or
You are confined in jail, but eligible to vote.
Then again what works in some places doesn’t always work in others.
I repeat….is this the best that either party can come up with?
I’m voting for Alfred E. Newman…and for any asshole who tells me I’m wasting my vote…bla bla fuking bla…I’ll say kiss my …
@8. I appreciate the link but find your quote a tad curious. Take a look, if you will, at the motion to intervene filed on behalf of gazillion military associations and leagues. Are they mistaken about the aim of the Obama and Company suit? Here’s my selected quote from that motion:
“The Obama campaign and Democratic
National Committee contend that they cannot “discern[]” any “legitimate justification” for giving
members of the military extra time to participate in early voting. Id. ¶¶ 4, 48.”
Hold on now. The ENTIRE basis for Bush v. Gore- to the limited extent that it made sense at all- was that everyone MUST be treated the same with regards to voting. That if votes are going to be counted, they MUST be counted in the same way everywhere, or not counted at all. Now the Obama campaign is asking that EVERYONE -not just a select few that happen to favor Republicans – be allowed the same right. But now you’re DEMANDING that a group gets favorable treatment. If i didn’t know better i’d swear that the use of the 14th Amendment in Bush v. Gore was just a cynical attempt to justify a foregone conclusion. Oh, wait, that’s exactly what it was. The Obama campaign is NOT lobying to get rid of a right for veterans, but to extend the SAME right to everyone. You can read the complaint here: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/ObamaForAmericaVHusted.php And if you don’t want to read the whole thing here’s the paragraph one of the complaint: ————————————————————- 1. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to restore in-person early voting for all Ohioans during the three days prior to Election Day – a right exercised by an estimated 93,000 Ohioans in the last presidential election. Ohio election law, as currently enacted by the State of Ohio and administered by Defendant Ohio Secretary of State, arbitrarily eliminates early voting during the three days prior to Election Day for most Ohio voters, a right previously available to all Ohio voters. This disparate treatment violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be rectified by the Court enjoining enforcement of statutory changes that eliminate early in-person voting for most Ohioans during the three days before an election. ————————————————————- We either live or die by the 14th Amendment. I, and the Obama campaign -and Reverand Al and Jesse Jackson for that matter – would MUCH rather open up the same right for everyone. But right now Kasich and his cohorts are trying to cut off the right to early voting to… Read more »
Wow. Keeping people from exercising their right to vote? That can easily be solved by registering to vote in the county where you’re stationed. This is new. What about places like Chicago, where ballot stuffing and dead voters are still so common? I wonder what will happen then. A population explosion in ghost voters, perhaps?
So the DNC and the incumbent want to bar people from voting, which violates the Constitution. Hmmm….
Since I moved out of Cook County, I’ve regularly receive “vote early, vote often” postcards in the mail. Never used to get those. I would get electioneering jerks within 50 feet of the doors to any polling place I went to, though, so I carried mace with me, just in case and complained loudly when I got through the doors.
This should be an interesting and possibly very dirty election.
Man, and I thought Nixon was a crook. What did I know?
And here’s the intervenors’ response:
“This Motion to Intervene is brought on behalf of 15 military organizations that collectively represent nearly a million members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine
Corps, including members of the Active Duty, Reserve, National Guard, and Retired Components. The Intervenors respectfully request the opportunity to participate in this lawsuit to defend the fundamental constitutional right to vote of members of the U.S. Armed Forces, which includes the right to receive special accommodations, flexibility, and extra time to facilitate their voting, whether absentee or in-person. Although the relief Plaintiffs seek is an overall extension of Ohio’s early voting period, the means through which Plaintiffs are attempting to attain it—a ruling that it is arbitrary and unconstitutional to grant extra time for early voting solely to military voters and overseas citizens—is both legally inappropriate and squarely contrary to the legal interests and constitutional rights of Intervenors, their members, and the courageous men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces.”
Absentee balloting is and always has been a legitimate and lawful means of allowing military and government employees stationed overseas to exercise their Constitutional right to vote within their voting districts. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to refuse this right by removing the use of the absentee ballot and the accompanying time extension allowed to the military, unless of course, the plaintiffs are afraid they’ll lose.
This is a seriously cheap and tacky approach to keep people from voting. Kind of like keeping blacks in the South from voting because they were supposed to be illiterate or couldn’t pay the poll tax. What’s next? Stuffing ballot boxes?
There’s very little evidence of voter fraud. This is simply an attempt to suppress Democratic voters. If they want to extend the same rights to everyone- everyone is happy. Or at least equally miserable. But they don’t want that, they want to rig it for one party. The same way they make college ID’s invalid forms of voter ID but allow gun permits as valid ID’s. Not crass partisanship there? The solution is to do things the same way they did it for the last four years. But the Republican’s want to rig things so only the “right” people vote.
“The same way they make college ID’s invalid forms of voter ID but allow gun permits as valid ID’s.”
Gee, ya think maybe that has something to with a gun permit indicating residency and a college ID not indicating residency?
How is it assumed that only the “right” people are the only ones who have the ability to get an i.d.?
Ya know Insipid, I can only think that your mother was a filthy hippie during ’60 who took too much acid while she was carrying you and this is why you’re retarded. I’ve asked many honest questions and you have failed to resound like dullAss Whatthefuck! You have no credibility here and your continued rants only prove your impotence.
#17, because, as usual, insipid doesn’t know what he’s talking about. It never fails.
hey insipid, how’s this for a credible reason: on my last deployment to Iraq I was the Voting Officer for my company (one of those cheerful additional duties) I made sure every one knew about registering and how to vote absentee. The ones who registered received their absentee ballots. 1 small slight problem. They were ballots for the primary. And it was 1 week before the general election. So yeah there are some difficulties in getting ballots to the military in time and getting them back in a reasonable amount of time. Oh they ballot fiasco covered several states and multiple counties within those states
@16- Country Singer- The so-called purpose of the voter ID laws is to establish identity, not residency. The eligibility to vote is determined at registration, not at the time of voting. NEITHER form of ID establishes citizenship of the State. So a signature is just as good as establishing Identity as either of these two forms of photo-id. In fact signatures are better because it’s easier to fake an ID than it is to fake a signature. But of course allowing signatures, as it has been done for DECADES would not suit Republican purposes of suppressing Democrats. @18- I always enjoy the yin/yang of the board zeitgeist towards my presence: Yin: How DARE you show up here! Yang- Why aren’t you answering my “honest questions”? Of course to do both in ONE short post is pretty exceptional, Yas. No one plays with his Yin/yang like Yat Yas. Yas, if i failed to respond to one of your questions it is either because I didn’t feel like it or i didn’t have the time. It’s certainly not because i was intimidated by your intellect. If I get a chance this weekend, I’ll look at the last thread I was at and try to respond. I try and keep a full weekend though. If I don’t respond, just imagine me huddling in a corner, shivering and scared at the awesomeness of your….message board reply. I hope it fills your day with joy. Speaking of intellect, here’s a tip for you. If you’re going to come up with an “insult” to explain my supposed “retardation” use one that doesn’t demonstrate your own “retardation”. There is no known link to the use of psychotropic drugs and fetal abnormalities. There is certainly nothing as severe as intellectual handicap. A better example would be my mother being an alcoholic, or my father being an alcoholic and beating my mother. Hell, my mother being a chain-smoker would be a better explanation for my supposed mental disability than LSD. Of course most people that would use “retarded” as a pejorative are pretty ignorant. @19- I actually demonstrated that… Read more »
@20- Very valid reason, Stacy. But that’s no reason why it should ONLY be allowed for the military. They’re not trying to take away the right for the military, just to keep it expanded for everyone else. It’s the GOP that precipitated this suit by changing the rules, not the Democrats.
Go and read the complaint and paragraph 1 from post #12.
Sorry about your voting tsuris. I’m glad you were on top of things.
Gun permits would be allowed as they show some proof of meeting age requirements. I had a college I.D. from the local community college due to being enrolled there for a dual credit class in high school. I was 16. That’s why college I.D.s aren’t allowed, but gun permits are. You must be 18 to get a gun permit.
Or, I should say at least 18. In the state of Alaska, you have to be 21 for a CCW.
Very little evidence for voter fraud, insipid? As John McEnroe might say: you cannot be serious. As usual, you’re just MSU or parroting talking points. Voter fraud is a documented fact. Hell, it’s been fairly conclusively documented to have changed the outcome of the 2008 MN Senate race. And it’s also regrettably fairly common. “Ever since Mr. Franken was declared the victor, the conservative watchdog group Minnesota Majority has combed through records comparing lists of those who voted with criminal rap sheets. It found that at least 341 convicted felons voted in Minneapolis’s Hennepin County, the state’s largest, and another 52 voted illegally in St. Paul’s Ramsey County, the state’s second largest. Dan McGrath, head of Minnesota Majority, says that only conclusive matches were included in the group’s totals. The number of felons voting in those two counties alone exceeds Mr. Franken’s victory margin.” Two counties and more felons are documented to have voted than the margin – with the real total likely 1.5 to 2x that in those two counties alone (questionable cases were all excluded). You are aware that ex-cons vote Democratic over 80% of the time, aren’t you? Add the numbers statewide and it’s a lock that Franken was elected via fraud. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365063352229680.html?KEYWORDS=JOHN+FUND Oh, and since I know you won’t like that source, try this one. Even liberal publications like CNBC acknowledge that it looks like Franken got his seat in the Senate through fraud. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/07/20/Al-Franken-May-Have-Won-His-Senate-Seat-Through-Voter-Fraud Further: for the last 60+ years, voter fraud has been substantially more common in favor of Democratic candidates. See Texas, 1948 (“landside” Lyndon); Cook County IL under Daly the elder as mayor; and a load of other irregularities in the 2000 election, including the blatant but failed attempt to steal the US presidential election perpetrated by Democratic officials in Florida through exactly the same mechanism as Franken fraudulently obtained his Senate seat – e.g., repeated selective recounts until the “correct” result was achieved, then a screeching halt and declaration of victory. And don’t forget CA’s Rep Sanchez getting elected through what virtually all observers acknowledge was a margin provided by ineligible,… Read more »
How is requiring photo IDs suppressing Democrats? The whole it disenfranchises minorities, the elderly, students, and the poor is a red herring. For example the South Carolina law required the voting commision to inform those without State ID or DL and offered those persons free State ID cards.
As far as allowing a CCW as proof, I know, at least as far as Alaska goes, that you have to prove State citizenship to recieve it.
Well, insipid, once again you’re either MSU or parroting something without researching it. Mere cursory research (less than 15 min on the Internet) reveals you’re just plain wrong.
Clinical studies have indeed found a link between the use of some psychotropic drugs to low birth weight and/or fetal abnormalities.
http://www.cjcp.ca/cjcp08046-e58-e65_einrason-r101736
Low birth weight is associated with bleeding in the brain in infants (among other health problems). It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that that can definitely cause mental damage.
Further, prenatal exposure to cocaine, amphetamines, and other drugs are indeed accepted as linked to an increased rate of mental retardation by medical professionals. Cocaine and amphetamines were relatively commonly abused by the hippie community – “uppers”, “bennies”, and “coke”, if I remember the slang correctly.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001523.htm
You’ve stated elsewhere that you’re 47. That means you were born in 1964 or 1965. Regardless of your protest above, Yat Yas 1833’s theory is plausible.
If you attempt to refute an insult to your intelligence, it’s best not to compound the issue by making obvious errors in your rebuttal – like you did above. You might want to remember that next time.
They’re not trying to take away the right for the military, just to keep it expanded for everyone else.
Florida 2000. I was pretty much apolitical until that point, insipid. What the Gore camp did pretty much got my ass off the fence, after what they did to my brothers and sisters and their votes.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/08/ap-military-groups-oppose-obama-suit-ohio-080212/
http://specialoperationsspeaks.com/articles/obama-sues-to-restrict-military-vote-in-swing-state
http://soforamerica.org/?p=476
So it ain’t just Breitbart, folks.
What happens if the court rules “all voters must be equal” and nobody should get to vote early? Hmmm, insipid?
Tell that’s not voter disenfranchisement. Tell me this isn’t an attempt to lower a conservative leaning group’s vote in a battleground state.
If you honestly think it’s not, I have some lovely, peaceful beachfront property to sell you in Kandahar.
Frankly, I’m of the opinion that voting is not only a right, but an OBLIGATION from which you MUST learn the issues, where you stand, and where the candidates really stand once you’ve engaged your brain and cut through all their bullshit.
Then and only then should you go cast your ballot. Instead, we’ve turned this into some sort of American Idol “he’s just so cuuuuuttttteeeee!” contest.
And in that vein, there’s ONE day to vote. The ONLY exceptions to that rule are those PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO BE PRESENT AT THE POLLING PLACE THE DAY OF THE ELECTION; i.e., military, those out of the area on business, or those hospitalized/too ill to go to the polls.
The above categories should be the ONLY people who get to cast absentee ballots. Not those too lazy to get off their dead asses and get to the polls, etc.
Maybe then we wouldn’t have 119 percent turnout in a recall election like they did in Dane County (Madison) WI a couple of months back.
Sparky: How dare you suggest that would-be voters learn something substantive about a candidate before voting! What are you, some sort of elitist? What about those who are illiterate and deaf who do not have the ability to read or hear about the candidates? What about the poor catatonics or the willfully stupid? You would deny them the vote? And while i’m at it, what of the many deceased registered voters? Sure they’re dead but is that any reason not to let them vote? Come on, man, get with the program!
@ 31 Sparky, call me a nerd but I LOVE going to the “fellowship hall” at Canterbury church to vote. There’s something about going into that little booth with my ballot and doing my American duty.
My take on voting is, if you don’t vote…STFU! You don’t have the right to say crap about the way things go. Don’t give me the “my 1st Amendment right” crap, if you don’t exercise you ‘right’ to vote, you forfeit your right to bitch about the outcome of the election. Whew!
Have to disagree, NHSparky. Voting should not be obligatory.
I’m perfectly OK with idiots too lazy to get up off their dead ass and go to the polls staying home instead of voting. Ditto going once every few years (say, 5) in person to the county seat and re-registering – with proof of eligibility (citizenship and/or legal residence, depending on the jurisdiction and election) and proof of residence required each time. And I’m OK with requiring validated proof of Identity and Voting Eligibility at the polls, too.
If you’re not willing to go vote or to go periodically and re-register/confirm your eligibility to vote – tough. To me, that says you don’t care. A trip to the county seat once every 5 years to prove eligibility and receive a free voter ID card isn’t exactly something I consider too onerous for anyone. And I’m OK with those who don’t care enough to do do this being turned away at the polls because their voter registration has lapsed and they’re no longer registered to vote.
Everyone who is eligible and registered should be allowed to vote. But the process must have sufficient checks to ensure that ONLY those eligible are allowed vote – and individuals have responsibilities as well as rights, too.
Clarification–it should be mandatory in the sense that you need to know what the hell you’re voting ON before casting your ballot.
So in that regard, yeah, I would agree with you Hondo.
But “registering” is far too easy, and far too prone to errors or corruption of the process; nee “Motor Voter”, etc.
I want to see every ELIGIBLE person registered to vote, but you’re right–if someone hasn’t cast a ballot in X years, why not? Send out a letter saying, “Dear Mr./Ms. So-and-so, We’ve noted you haven’t voted in a while, please come down with ID, etc., and register so many days before the election or your name will be purged from the rolls.”
I like that idea.
And before insipid gets his flaming panties in a wad, NO, insipid, that does not mean I’m in favor of any sort of “test” prior to casting a ballot, although it certainly would go a long way from separating people who SHOULD be making the decisions in this nation from those mindless boobs who should have stayed at home watching American Idol.
(Can you tell I don’t like “reality” television?)
Of course the most partisan among us see partisanship under every rock! They are incapable of being any other way. (Perhaps that is why so many of us consider them mentally ill? Imagining things which are not there is pretty standard among the delusional.)
Most of us do not care one whit for whom ineligible voters might cast their votes. We simply want the practice stopped.
Insipid, you can’t be as stupid as your posts indicate you are. Well, OK, you are. One doesn’t have to be a citizen to get a student ID, hell, some schools encourage the enrollment of illegals. Nice try, epic fail, yet again.
Of course he knows that. And that’s also why Dems have always been so hot-cock to push same-day voter registration, too.
NHSparky: agreed. I still think a mandatory in-person appearance every N years (I’d say 5, but could be convinced a different number was OK) is indicated. You might need a procedure to handle medical shut-ins, but that’s about as far as I’d go.
Make it mandatory for voters to periodically re-register in person (and show proof of residence and citizenship/eligibility to vote) and the issue of “dead voters” casting ballots becomes much less of a problem. Ditto that of ineligible voters voting.
My grandfather on my mother’s side was registered to vote and voted in the 2008 election. I know this because my mom got the voter identification card in the mail. Now, the information on the card was truthful. It listed his current residence correctly. However there were two small problems. He was never registered Democrat and… oh, yeah… HE HAS BEEN DEAD AND BURIED IN THE CEMETERY SINCE 1987!
Doing a little checking, my dad found that 90% of the “residents” of the cemetery were registered as Democrats prior to the 2008 elections. Apparently, it was a registration push by el Presidente’s favorite organization… ACORN.
So, there’s no fraud going on? If it weren’t for the fact that the Cemetery Groundskeeper was a friend of the family (VFW with my dad), we never would have found out.
At the same time, I remember three or four states mailing out the absentee ballots late to the troops in Iraq during the last election. That guaranteed they would not be returned in time to be counted. When questioned, the states said it was a misprint or that they mailed all absentee ballots out at the same time and it was the responsibility of the voters to get them back in a timely manner.
You know, the government seems to forget what it has been training these “disenfranchised” voters to do for the past 237 years…
I know I recieved my absentee ballot while in the Diyala province in the middle of November. I don’t know if it was on purpose or just the product of our wonderfull APO system.
As for “absentee” ballots? Unless you’re in uniform away from home or serving a legitimate purpose out of the CONUS, get your sorry a$$ to your polling place and vote. Be prepared to show a photo ID when you get there. Be prepared to vote in English.
OK, I’ll settle this by providing the first paragraph of the complaint: The principal campaign committee of President Barack Obama, the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, is arguing before this Court that the State of Ohio has violated the U.S. Constitution by giving members of the Armed Forces—who serve under his command, and risk their lives pursuant to his orders—three extra days to participate in early voting. Complaint, Dock #1, ¶¶ 6, 8 (July 17, 2012) (hereafter, “Compl.”). The Obama campaign and Democratic National Committee contend that they cannot “discern[]” any “legitimate justification” for giving members of the military extra time to participate in early voting. Id. ¶¶ 4, 48.” “cannot discern any legitimate justification for giving members of the military extra time to particiapte in early voting” is specifically aimed at elminiating the absentee ballot and specifically singles out the military, to eliminate the option of voting on an absentee ballot. It disenfranchises and blocks an entire voting demographic from exercising the right to vote in a general and/or preliminary election. If this isn’t fraud and a violation of the civil rights of the military, then what is it? There is no violation of the Constitution in providing service members extra time to vote by absentee ballot. For service members stationed overseas, this can be a critical issue because mail delivery is becoming notoriously slow and the Post Office more and more frequently loses mail or misdelivers it. I’ve been the recipient of a lot of misdelivered mail, so I think I know what the hell I’m talking about. Considering that the Constitution was written and published in 1789, and required several months to deliver to all the the states to be ratified, which required VOTING by the citizens of those states — there were no highways back in them there days, y’know, just trails through the forests and a lot of hostile natives — and the fact that there is NO TIME LIMIT on voting specific in theConstitution or the Bill of Rights, then denying the members of the military who require an absentee ballot to exercise… Read more »
Sorry, Hondo, I meant Sparky. (Thumps self upside of head.)
I am telling you–cut and save if you like–that the day is coming when the DNC will push for LEGAL voting by deceased persons, provided an immediate relative of the decedent swears or affirms that the late so and so WOULD vote for this or that candidate IF they had lived to election day.
@#32, the government in certain cities will send “helpers” out to help shut-ins, the illiterate, catatonic and dead to vote. Oh, snap, it already happens, in Detroit.
The dems need the extra time, it takes a while to dig up all of those dead people and get them to the polls.
@47
Exactly.
I don’t thikn the purpose of this lawsuit is to disenfranchise military voters (as I understand it, it applies to people voting in person, not to absentee ballots), but rather to give them more breathing room to enact the logistics to transport people around the state to vote multiple times.
@25- Hondo- In 2000 the SC violated the Constitution, stopped a recount and in a partisan 5-4 decision selected George W. Bush to be the President for the next 4 years. If I mention that I’m a whiner who needs to“Get over it.” The 2008 election in Minnesota had a meticulous hand recount open to the public, was argued over during the course of 6 long months, was ruled upon ballot by ballot almost always unanimously by the non-partisan election committee , yet you STILL can’t accept the fact that your guy got beat fair and square. The first article you linked to relied on the work of Minnesota Majority. The second article you linked to simply used the first article as a source. You and John Fund are resting your entire claim of voter fraud on the work of Minnesota Majority. You’re ignoring the meticulous recount, the months of challenges, the unanimous decisions and the fact that the Coleman campaign stipulated to the fact that there was no voter fraud . Unfortunately, the allegations of Minnesota Majority have been looked into and found to be wildly inflated by prosecutors: http://www.startribune.com/local/east/98276584.html?page=1&c=y [quote]But local and state officials say the group’s reports are likely inflated and hard to verify because of difficulties determining whether the suspected felon voters had their voting rights restored, if they knew they were ineligible to vote, or if they were actually the people whose names appear on voter rolls. ….. “Overwhelmingly, their statistics were not accurate,” Carruthers said. “But I would say they did the best they could, given their access to the databases.”[/quote] This article states that of the 475 complaints given by Minnesota Majority only 28 are being prosecuted. Of course we don’t know how these people voted and there’s certainly no evidence of Fraud by theGOP or the FDLC (the Minnesota Democratic Party) that would necessitate draconian changes to voting laws: [/quote]Of the 475 cases Minnesota Majority questioned, 270 examples were just not accurate, Carruthers said. There are reasons for so many inaccuracies, Carruthers said. For example, because of data privacy laws, Minnesota Majority… Read more »
@27- Hondo-So now you’re the designated fact-checker for stupid insults? You may want to do more than a 15 minute search next time, because the first source you stated CORROBARATES my statement:
http://www.cjcp.ca/cjcp08046-e58-e65_einrason-r101736
===================================================
“The body of evidence in the literature to date suggests that psychotropic drugs as a group are relatively safe to take during pregnancy and women and their health care providers should not be unduly concerned if a woman requires treatment.”
=======================================================
(I so wish some kind soul will tell me how to do quotes on this furshlugginer forum)
Also, of the drugs that you listed and your second source listed NONE are psychotropic drugs. Cocaine, amphetamines, and Benzedrine (Bennies) are all stimulants. The drug most harmful to the fetus, alcohol, is a depressant. I never denied that drugs cannot cause fetal damage, merely that there is little evidence that psychotropic drugs cause fetal damage, and your own first source outright agrees with me and your second source doesn’t even mention psychotropic drugs.
Obviously it is an insanely bad idea for a woman to take ANY drugs- legal or illegal- while pregnant without consulting with a physician. And it is highly unlikely that a pregnant woman who is irresponsible enough to take an illegal substance while pregnant will stop at LSD. However there is a far greater link between mental impairments and exposure to lead than there is with exposure to psychotropic drugs.
I’m not sure why you decided to insert yourself into this argument, but before you post a link you may just want to check to make sure it agrees with what you’re saying first. That way you don’t look silly when you piously lecture me about “obvious errors”. The one who made “obvious errors” is you and Yat and your own sources say so.
Aaaah, the goofy, goofy tangents we find ourselves in on this forum!