I'm more worried about this
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us...hp&oref=slogin
I absolutely oppose anyone not entitled to vote from casting a vote. But removing even one eligible vote is unacceptable.
Printable View
I'm more worried about this
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us...hp&oref=slogin
I absolutely oppose anyone not entitled to vote from casting a vote. But removing even one eligible vote is unacceptable.
I'll be back for more, later, but in response to your Michigan Messenger link, how about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
http://migop.blogs.com/blog/2008/09/...l-blog-re.html
And this?
http://www.outsidelansing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=283
There's much, much more...
Probably better to post a link from a non partisan source
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...g_to_keep.html
Would it be partisan of me to point out that the investigation in Nevada has been instigated by the Democrat Attorney General, whom, I will add, is demonstrating a forthrightness and integrity seldom witnessed in such matters. :whistling
Wasn't that in the original story?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
What's your point?
I would argue that he is a little on the late side given that ACORN had reported and supplied evidence some time ago.
I posted the factcheck link because it removes any accusation of bias.
The fact of party affiliation has bearing on the question of bias, I think you are bound to agree(though perhaps not, considering it's you).Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocateWasn't that in the original story?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
What's your point?
I would argue that he is a little on the late side given that ACORN had reported and supplied evidence some time ago.
BTW-
The AG is a she, not a he.
Okay I was talking about non partisan reporting of facts in the story as being more reliable when it came to the foreclosed home list story. It appears you jumped back and are talking about partisan led investigations. BTW as it stands ACORN is not accused of any wrongdoing, they are investigating the canvassers.
But I'm still wondering where you are going with the partisan thing when it's a democrat Ag investigating what you call a democrat orginisation.
I think the AG may be engaging in a bit of grandstanding with the raid method. Considering ACORN was not only cooperating, they were the ones pushing for an investigation, I can't see any reason why they couldn't have just asked for access to the records.
I am participating in a thread in the fashion I please; if you wish to direct the flow of a thread, start one of your own, or keep up.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
I mentioned the Nevada/dem AG, factoid because I find it interesting - am I to ask permission before doing so?
BTW-
How do you divorce the actions of ACORN's canvassers from ACORN proper?
Individual integrity allows this dem AG to investigate ACORN, the dem organization.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
It's just that easy.
ACORN is being investigated in a number of states.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Asking to be investigated in one state is not a "blanket" arrangement.
BTW-
If a court disallows some/all of ACORN's registrations for suspicion of fraud, would you call that disenfranchisement?
If so, tell me why.
First off I wouldn't be happy about a court arbitrarily disallowing registrations no matter who collected them. County elections departments should be verifying registrations, not a judge en mass.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4I am participating in a thread in the fashion I please; if you wish to direct the flow of a thread, start one of your own, or keep up.
Order forgive following for me, woman like conversation it's with yesterdays up brings subject the having a a who from conversation context without discussion in today
I mentioned the Nevada/dem AG, factoid because I find it interesting - am I to ask permission before doing so?
All you had to do is say that, no you don't have to ask but do I have to ask if I wish to ask a question about it?
BTW-
How do you divorce the actions of ACORN's canvassers from ACORN proper?
I thought I had already answered that
Quote:
I've already laid blame with their applicant processing. Other than that they appear to be at the same mercy from the behavior of employees as any other employer
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Individual integrity allows this dem AG to investigate ACORN, the dem organization.
It's just that easy.
I'm not asking about integrity of the AG, the question came from you asking if it would be partisan of you to point out the AG is a democrat.
ACORN is being investigated in a number of states.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Asking to be investigated in one state is not a "blanket" arrangement.
Thus far I've only been posting about the original article, at this time I have no information about any other investigations. I will point out again that being investigated doesn't mean anything wrong was actually done. There are many investigations going on.
BTW-
If a court disallows some/all of ACORN's registrations for suspicion of fraud, would you call that disenfranchisement?
If so, tell me why.
In answer
If a court disallows all then yes, the investigation is into a tiny problem compared to the bulk of the work.
If a court disallows even one eligible citizen from voting then yes. It may just be a single disenfranchisement but it still counts
If it only disqualifies phony registrations and the ruling allows for any eligible voter lumped in wrongly to have their vote counted then no.
Do you think this close to the election all the registrations should be disqualified by a court?
Problem is, we're up against it, time-wise, which I think was part of ACORN's strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocateFirst off I wouldn't be happy about a court arbitrarily disallowing registrations no matter who collected them. County elections departments should be verifying registrations, not a judge en mass.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4I am participating in a thread in the fashion I please; if you wish to direct the flow of a thread, start one of your own, or keep up.
Order forgive following for me, woman like conversation it's with yesterdays up brings subject the having a a who from conversation context without discussion in today
I mentioned the Nevada/dem AG, factoid because I find it interesting - am I to ask permission before doing so?
All you had to do is say that, no you don't have to ask but do I have to ask if I wish to ask a question about it?
BTW-
How do you divorce the actions of ACORN's canvassers from ACORN proper?
I thought I had already answered that
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Individual integrity allows this dem AG to investigate ACORN, the dem organization.
It's just that easy.
I'm not asking about integrity of the AG, the question came from you asking if it would be partisan of you to point out the AG is a democrat.
ACORN is being investigated in a number of states.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Asking to be investigated in one state is not a "blanket" arrangement.
Thus far I've only been posting about the original article, at this time I have no information about any other investigations. I will point out again that being investigated doesn't mean anything wrong was actually done. There are many investigations going on.
BTW-
If a court disallows some/all of ACORN's registrations for suspicion of fraud, would you call that disenfranchisement?
If so, tell me why.
In answer
If a court disallows all then yes, the investigation is into a tiny problem compared to the bulk of the work.
If a court disallows even one eligible citizen from voting then yes. It may just be a single disenfranchisement but it still counts
If it only disqualifies phony registrations and the ruling allows for any eligible voter lumped in wrongly to have their vote counted then no.
Do you think this close to the election all the registrations should be disqualified by a court?
Do you think it better to allow several thousand bogus registrations rather than disallow a single one?
Sure seems that way.