Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Friday, September 12, 2008

The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting as part of the state GOP's effort to challenge some voters on Election Day. "We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people arent voting from those addresses," party chairman James Carabelli told Michigan Messenger.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

oldCADuser

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

a wonderful democracy we live in. And people say "I love this country because we are free". Whata bunch of bullshit!

The New World Order marches on.

The New World Order marches on.

I don't know about the "New" and the "World" part, li'l jeffy, but here in America, we do demand Order in our election process. In order to maintain it a person cannot leave one residence, move to another and vote from both. He can only vote from the one that he currently lives in. If such rules offend you, stay in denmark where I'm sure it's really peachy and elections are just as willy nilly as one pleases to make them. Exactly how many places of residence can a person vote from in denmark anyway, li'l jeffy?

State election rules allow parties to assign election challengers-- to polls to monitor the election. In addition to observing the poll workers, these volunteers can challenge the eligibility of any voter provided they have a good reason to believe-- that the person is not eligible to vote. One allowable reason is that the person is not a true resident of the city or township.

Goatman--you are back.

How was the hurricane?

---------------


On this thread--ACORN is being sued in 7 states for illegal registrations.


And if these folks live in another precinct--it seems that they vote provisional ballot--so they will count.

The news needs to help folks with instructions on where they should go to vote if there are questions.

Goatman--you are back.

How was the hurricane?

I'm missing it. I've been at the beach and other places around Texas the last couple of weeks. I was supposed to crew change today, but of course I did not. They say I'll be going back out Monday or Tuesday. Since I am still getting paid, I am obliged to sit at home by the phone and wait for the call to get to the heliport.

I can see it now - name off a grave site tagged to an empty foreclosed house address, very democrat.

Interesting,

I suspect there is more going on here than meets the eye.

And if these folks live in another precinct--it seems that they vote provisional ballot--so they will count.

#4 | Posted by MURPHY at 2008-09-11 05:27 PM

I wouldn't 'count' (excuse the pun) on it:

www.northstarwriters.com

OCU

Leave it to rethuglicuntz to try for an unfair advantage.

After all-they've gotta have their "thousand year reiche"!

Why is this a problem? If no one is living at an address then there should be no one voting from that address.

Which brings up my preference. If you did not pay any personal income tax then you cannot vote. We have over 35% of the people in this country who do not pay personal income tax, yet they want to vote for others to pay more taxes. This would be like the correlary (sp?) to Taxation without representation... No represenation without taxation.

So a full time college student shouldn't be allowed to vote? That is absolutley ridiculous. If my wife doesn't work does that mean that I am the only one in the household that gets to vote. Please clear this up for me, because you are making no sense at all.

"but here in America, we do demand Order in our election process"

YEAH!

Except you live entirely in a world you have carefully constructed for yourself!

Sort of like todays reality TV except dumber.

"Since I am still getting paid, I am obliged to sit at home by the phone and wait for the call to get to the heliport."

Yup, our 9 billion annually in energy company welfare at work!

What is the real problem here? Are we "disenfranchising" voters because they cannot vote from an address where they no longer live? They vote from their current address. Guess this goes along the same lines as requiring some sort of ID to vote. Let us make sure you are who you say you are and are a citizen before casting a ballot. Bet this would not "disenfranchise" as many legitimate voters as happened to Dems in Michigan and Florida. Total hypocrites. To be successful they need the vote that cannot be verified ala Chicago Thug Politics.

This is a little odd, but its an attempt to prevent voter fraud.. go for it..

I'm actually in favor of more restrictions on voting in federal elections.. such as you paid taxes in the prior year. If you didn't pay, you can't vote to take away more money from those of us that do.

All this crap about paying taxes to vote is the stupidest thing I think I have heard here. OK, what if you own a small business that lost money the year before, and you therefore didn't pay income tax. Are you saying that individual shouldn't be allowed to vote.

After reading these posts I am starting to wonder if there shouldn't be an IQ requirement to vote.

All voters should be required to pass a test proving their knowledge of government, and the US Constitution.

IF they pass both, they can vote.

IF they fail, they should be prohibited from voting.
It's like a driving test, except more serious, yet somehow they get a pass.

Which makes you wonder....does your vote REALLY count?

It seeks that some didn't read the article, just because your house is on a foreclosure list does not mean their not living there.

More on this subject......The GOP is working to keep eligible African-Americans from voting in several states.

www.newsweek.com

seeks=seems

Boy, if this story is true as reported. My own party embarrasses me sometime. I hate when uninformed people vote or people who are simply voting hoping to "raid the treasury' for their own selfish wants. But If you walk into a poll to vote and you speak perfect english, have a valid, legal non-forged ID. You should be able to vote. republicans need to remember if Obama wins, he has made so many promises, he can never fulfill them and in his attempt to do so will ruin the economy. so if he wins, he wins. the only people to vote to re-elect him will be the Black community. Stop embarrassing me. Obama makes no difference in my life, i survived Carter. i will survive Obama

"All voters should be required to pass a test proving their knowledge of government, and the US Constitution."

Oh you want to bring back the good old literacy tests that were used to prevent black people from voting in the south. How very inclusive. I think if you are an American citizen you should be encouraged to vote and that those who attempt to prevent American citizens from voting are really just trying to alter the outcome of an election.
They don't really love America at all, they put their own agenda ahead of supporting the intent of the Constitution of the US.

Having an ID is the least inrusive measure I have ever heard of. If you don't have one there is a 99.9% chance you're a fucking loser.
That includes those stupid nuns.

It seeks that some didn't read the article, just because your house is on a foreclosure list does not mean their not living there

???

I think it is you who did not read the article. It specifically says houses that are foreclosed, not houses in foreclosure (on a foreclosure list as you put it). There is a difference. If it is foreclosed, you no longer own it and therefore cannot live there -- legally anyway. Squatting is illegal.

The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County Michigan...is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting...

But If you walk into a poll to vote and you speak perfect english, have a valid, legal non-forged ID.

And where in the Constitution does it say that?

The Founders realized that being a property owner was a key to assuring that voters would be responible people. We should never given that up. Irresponsible people who lose their homes should not be allowed to vote.

Originalist Thom

illegal

"
???


I think it is you who did not read the article. It specifically says houses that are foreclosed, not houses in foreclosure (on a foreclosure list as you put it). There is a difference. If it is foreclosed, you no longer own it and therefore cannot live there -- legally anyway. Squatting is illegal.


The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County Michigan...is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting...

#22 | Posted by goatman at 2008-09-12 10:19 AM"

Same thing.....www.thefreedictionary.com

And from the article from....."One expert questioned the legality of the tactic."

You cant challenge people without a factual basis for doing so,-- said J. Gerald Hebert, a former voting rights litigator for the U.S. Justice Department who now runs the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington D.C.-based public-interest law firm. I dont think a foreclosure notice is sufficient basis for a challenge, because people often remain in their homes after foreclosure begins and sometimes are able to negotiate and refinance.--


"They don't really love America at all, they put their own agenda ahead of supporting the intent of the Constitution of the US."

#20 | Posted by danni

How is preventing voter fraud unconstitutional? Do you want people to be able to vote twice? From two different addresses?


The Founders realized that being a property owner was a key to assuring that voters would be responible people. We should never given that up. Irresponsible people who lose their homes should not be allowed to vote.


Originalist Thom

#24 | Posted by fwthom


Thank you MENSA member, with an IQ of 158, Thom...Please show me where in the constitution it says that only property owners can vote. BTW, living in your mother's basement would also disqualify you.

Same thing.....www.thefreedictionar
y.com

Exactly. Except you provide a definition to the present. Foreclosed indicates a done deal. The previous occupant no longer owns it. If he doesn't own it, he can't use it as his legal residence in his voter's registration.

Let's say he could legally do that --- he could still move to another county and claim that as a residence as well and be able to vote twice. Is this fair?

I have to agree: If you don't own the property, you cannot use it as your resident of record to vote. If it is in foreclosure, it is still your legal residence. If it is foreclosed, it is not.

And where in the Constitution does it say that?

It doesn't -- but the statement is true anyway.

BTW, the constitution doesn't guarantee a lot of things that we take for granted.

Everyone is missing the point. Just because someone has received a foreclosure notice does not mean that they are no longer still living at that address, however the Republicans in Michigan are using this as a legal pretense to challenge a group of people due to the current circumstances and who also happen to be predominately minorities who don't usually vote Republican. The goal is to both prevent members of this class from voting as well as slow the voting process down with this extra time-consuming activities which will reduce the overall voter turnout as they 'run out the clock' in those precincts where Democrats outnumber Republicans.

Since the Republicans can pick and choose WHICH precincts they want to send 'observers' to to initiate challenges, you can bet that they won't be checking any lists of bankruptcies in Grosse Pointe, Birmingham or Bloomfield Hills, but you can also bet that they'll be as thick as flies in places like Detroit, Pontiac, Wyandotte, etc. For all intents and purposes, this is just another form of 'red lining' where suddenly which neighborhood you live in can determine whether you will be able to vote or not.

Also, what about all of those absentee ballots, which generally are used by the more affluent and well healed (in many states now the local GOP party has started to automatically send postage-paid, pre-filled-out absentee applications to those who are registered Republicans)? How many of those do you think will be challenged based on bankruptcy lists?

No matter how you look at it, these are scumball tactics intended to disenfranchise and/or intimidate those groups who traditionally do not vote Republican. Republicans have always been the minority party (and God willing, it will remain that way) in this country and therefore they know that all things being equal, they can not win a fair election, so they have to do something to tip the odds and since there is so much at stake, they will do anything since in their minds, the ends justify the means.

OCU

Goatman, this is my last attempt to help you understand how the real world works....

Is it Possible For a Homeowner to Continue Living in His Home After Foreclosure?


ezinearticles.com

How is preventing voter fraud unconstitutional? Do you want people to be able to vote twice? From two different addresses?

#27 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE AT 2008-09-12 10:32 AM

Unless of course you're Ann Coulter.

OCU

"I have to agree: If you don't own the property, you cannot use it as your resident of record to vote. If it is in foreclosure, it is still your legal residence. If it is foreclosed, it is not."

If you live there, it is your legal residence, period.
Are you saying people who rent have no legal residence?

Goatman, this is my last attempt to help you understand how the real world works

Your own link supports my viewpoint. But of course as a lefty you sieze on the rare exception and try to convince the rest of the world to conform to it.

I go with the general practice and deal with the rare exception separately instead of making the entire process change and conform to the one in a hundred that doesn't fit the mold.

Typical lefty . . .

The question of how people stay in foreclosed properties sometimes for years is one with a simple answer. The foreclosure process is designed to take title away from a homeowner for non-payment of the mortgages on the property. If a homeowner stops making mortgage payments why wouldn't the lender take the property back as soon as possible and evict the homeowner immediately. In fact, this is the usual course of action in almost every foreclosure action, however, there are exceptions.

Are you saying people who rent have no legal residence?

???

No. What a bizarre twisting of my words you've achieved.

"If you don't own the property, you cannot use it as your resident of record to vote."

"Michigan election law 168.507a allows a voter to vote at their last-registered voter address.

(2) a registered and qualified elector of this state who has moved from the city or township in which he or she is registered to another city or township within the state after the sixtieth day before an election or primary election shall be permitted to vote in the election or primary election at the place of last registration upon the signing of a form containing an affidavit stating that the move has taken place. this subsection shall apply if the county in which the elector is registered has not implemented the county file as the official file pursuant to section 509e.--"

xnerg.blogspot.com

People are still living in a home during forclosure due to the length of time the process takes....once you are done with forclosure your house is forclosed...as in the process is done. You don't live after the process is done...that's the point. If they were using house in forclosure than yes they are illegally preventing the voters fromvoting...but theyre using a list of forclosed houses as in they are not in in litigation or being processed or negotiated...the process is over end game and it is NOT their legal address.

Also from your link prozacboi:

So the "hearsay" that lenders will allow homeowners to stay in foreclosed properties is nonsense.

It's odd for you to post a link that doesn't support your own argument. Time for you dose?

"No. What a bizarre twisting of my words you've achieved."



You can't fix stupid is all I have to say.

National elections are supposedly hanging on as few as 350 votes, (if you believe the thugs in charge). This scheme should be good for the Rethuglican's because we're talking 2.5 million foreclosures nationwide so far, climbing to 7 million over the next year or two.

Obama's base in the young vote, many in college. Rove launched another voter purging program which sends letters to college addresses during the summer, when they aren't in school. The letters say "Do Not Forward" and when they are returned the name is purged from voter registration.

Other Rethuglican programs target prisoner lists. If your name is John Mason and you went to prison, you are matched with with every John Brown in four Rethuglican States and purged. If the list isn't as long as needed to insure a 350 vote victory, the matching is expanded to include all Mason Johns. If that still isn't good enough voting machines are distributed unequally and ballots are destroyed. Whatever it takes, the criminals will do it.

Of course, all you have to do, if you are aware of the problem is register again. But most of these targets, selected by age, income, race and other facors which statistically determine district outcomes, never find out until the day they vote. The its too late for that election cycle.

In any Government people hold real power, if they strike or riot, they can force change.

But with numbers like that, and a complacent population, Diebold becomes the tool of last resort.

"the process is over end game and it is NOT their legal address."

But they're allowed to vote from that address, as illustrated in the Michigan law I posted.

From my link...

"If a homeowner stops making mortgage payments why wouldn't the lender take the property back as soon as possible and evict the homeowner immediately. In fact, this is the usual course of action in almost every foreclosure action, however, there are exceptions."

My point is proven, have good day
goatman.

Oh, yea, good insult there about the dose, never heard that one before.....

My point is proven, have good day

So your point is that the entire process should be changed to conform to the rare exception. Needless to say, I disagree. I feel the rules should address the norm and the excpetion should be dealt with separately. But then I probably feel that way because I am not a lefty.

Nutcase, in how many of those 2.7 million foreclosures are the former owners still trying to use that address. I submit to you that it would be very few. Unless they have done a change of address with the post office, they will not be receiving any mail either. This is blown out of proportion by the DEMAFRAUDS. Check the actual stats on delinquent and foreclosed loans. www.realtor.org
2.47 percent of loans "in foreclosure process". Number less than that actually foreclosed. Number even less than that where the bank has not actually sold the property. This is far fewer "disenfranchised" voters than there were in the DEM primaries in Michigan and Florida. "Disenfranchisement" is a DEMAFRAUD term that is used only when it suits there hypocritical policies.

...
But with numbers like that, and a complacent population, Diebold becomes the tool of last resort.

ah, nutcase --- why do you denigrate the democratic party so? Everytime their guy doesn't win they blame it on things things in your list above. So what you are really saying is that even though they know that the rethuglicuntianturds pull these evil stunts, but they (the dems) are too stupid to stop them.

It's as if I my house was continually burgled through the same window and I fail to close and lock it.

You really should imply that your party of choice is so ignorant. Even I give them credit for being smarter than that. Why don't you?

Remember also that this whole housing issue can be traced back to guys like Pat Leahy who said that everyone should be able to own a home and that lending rules at the time were discriminatory. Thus came about sub-prime mortgages. This is exactly what happens when you break rules of a free market system for socialist concepts.

"Remember also that this whole housing issue can be traced back to guys like Pat Leahy who said that everyone should be able to own a home and that lending rules at the time were discriminatory."

Desperately seeking excuses.

Danni not excuses at all. I was around when this was done. I know first hand. I knew then it was a mistake, but hey, our politicians are always right (no distinction between left or right here). That is one thing the left never does though. They point the finger at someone else, anyone else, even if they were the source of the problem. I was around for the Carter years too. Now that was a real mess and would be the direction we would head with Obama, only faster.

Accountability - what the left NEVER owns up to.

"This is exactly what happens when you break rules of a free market system for socialist concepts."

Don't look now, but bailing out failing financial institutions with taxpayer money is replacing the free market system with socialist concepts. Paulson is a champion of that.

Don't look now, but bailing out failing financial institutions with taxpayer money is replacing the free market system with socialist concepts. Paulson is a champion of that.

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2008-09-12 11:42 AM | Reply |


Where in the hell have you been? Control your troll will ya? He's sending out self destructs in your name again.

Don't look now, but bailing out failing financial institutions with taxpayer money is replacing the free market system with socialist concepts.

I strongly disagree with these policies. If financial instutions are stupid enough to make the decisions they do, they need to fail. Like a growing child, sometimes failure is the best teacher.

As long as Uncle Sugar is there with an open checkbook, these clowns will never learn. Fuck 'em

I agree totally with all of these bail-out policies. However, is it not correct for the people that actually caused the problem to correct it. Again, remember all you consipiracy theorists on the left, Congress promoted sub-prime policies based on the "conventional" lending rules (ie have some money down, have credit worthiness, have a good debt to income ratio) were discriminatory. BTW both sides were done with our tax dollars.

Sorry mistated. I agree that these bailouts should not occur

.......THIS VOTING ban was NEVER proposed. AGAIN, the REACHING, REACTIONARY LEFT IS in panic mode. The ship is sssssssssssssssiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnkkkkk
kkkkkkkkkking.

Obama's base in the young vote, many in college. Rove launched another voter purging program which sends letters to college addresses during the summer, when they aren't in school. The letters say "Do Not Forward" and when they are returned the name is purged from voter registration.

#41 | POSTED BY NUTCASE AT 2008-09-12 11:07 AM

This is a practice known as 'caging' and it's not limited to college kids. During the 2004 and 2006 elections, Republicans in several states also used this against servicemen deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly national guardsmen and reservists from cities where there were large percentages of minorities.

The irony is the the Republican National Committee is under a Federal 'consent decree' which is supposed to prevent them from being involved in schemes like this based in part on past cases where there has been legal proof presented where their tactics violated the voting rights act. Of course, since the Cheney/Bush team moved to Washington the Justice Department has decided that this was no longer a priority. The consent decree is still in place, just that no one is doing anything to see that it's still having the desired effect.

For more information on the practice of 'caging' and how this has become one of the primary tools used by the Republican Party in their attempt to suppress voting in America, please go to:

en.wikipedia.org

OCU

Friends don't let friends vote Republican.

OCU -- Thanks for the heads up. I do hope that Michigan (and the DNC) find a solution for this. If a person was a valid registrant they should have a right to vote where they lived until they can re-register.

The voting laws are so screwy there needs to eb a solution.

(Btw, in my state, I changed parties and wasn't allowed to vote in a primary for a full year after switching. I had always thought of myself as a moderate GOP in the Arnie S. mold, but after Bush Cheney Rummy et al, I now consider myself a hard core moderate DEM.)

"Where in the hell have you been? Control your troll will ya? He's sending out self destructs in your name again."

Fuck that gnat.

The Macomb County GOP chairman,James Carabelli, denies quotes attributed to him, saying he told a staffer for the blog that volunteers only would check to make sure that an address in a poll book matches the one the voter gives.


Eartha Jane Melzer, who talked to Carabelli for the blog, said she stands by her story but didn't tape her interview.

"It could be that they're embarrassed at having such a cynical tactic exposed," she said.

www.freep.com

Guess they must be lefty's.

Friends don't let friends vote Republican.

That is true. Friends assume their friends are smart enough to make their own decisions and encourage them to not be a sheeple and to make an informed vote. Friends do not treat friends condescendingly and tell them for whom to vote.

"Now that was a real mess and would be the direction we would head with Obama, only faster."

Well if you were around for the Carter years you know that he appointed Paul Volker as Chairman of the Fed who raised interest rates to try and stop the inflation which had been around since Ford's administration at various levels. His strategy did work though the rates became so high that they caused high unemployment numbers...but what is more interesting to me is that Reagan kept Volker who kept the same policies and finally inflation came under control. So if you blame Carter for those problems then you also blame Reagan who continued the same policy in regards to inflation until it was under control.

STONEFLY just for giggles, what policy does McCain profess that makes you think he will manage the economy better than Obama. Either will enter the presidency with a huge deficit and not anywhere enough tax revenue to pay it down, and McCain says he won't raise taxes. So you tell me, what is he planning to do???? I don't think he has a clue.

Inflation was not as bad under Ford. Grew significantly under Carter. Energy policy during "Oil Crisis" and windfall profits pushed the business to more importing. Was it Volker's Fed policies that ended up turning around inflation or other economic policies under Reagan? The Fed is really reactionary with the presumption that they are being proactive. There are a multitude of other factors that impact inflation, unemployment rates. No matter how you do your revisionist version of history, fact remains that Reagan economic policies pulled us out of the downward spiral maybe not totally caused but definitely worsened by the Carter socialist policies. Worst president in modern times. Obama is more of the same.

And Obama's answer is to take more of my money! Obama does not have a clue, period. Promises on funding he will never be able to keep. How is he going to pay for universal health care (failed in other places that have tried), failing social security, programs so your pre-K children can be indoctrinated and raised by the state, ad nasuem. Promises of not raising taxes which is a flat out lie. Just by not supporting the current tax cuts, ALL people who currently pay taxes will see their tax bill go up. Obama promising to cut taxes for 95% of taxpayers is a typical flat out lie. There is absolutely no way that he can fund all these socialist programs without increasing revenue. How about we give the president line item veto power to cut the earmarks. That would be a start in our government's overindulgence. McCain does have a clue about this!

Danni - main point is that Obama has said repeatedly that he has a new, fresh approach and it will not be the "same old Washington politics". His record, his advertisements and virtually everything he says proves this to be a flat out lie. It is the same old policies and propaganda by the DEMAFRAUD machine. Everyone is a victim and the govt needs to save them. Garbage.

Volker's policies worked but caused considerable pain. Add to that the treasonous crimes engaged in by BushI, Oliver North behind President Carter's back. How could these unelected officials pose as US Government negotiators with Iran much less traffic in crack cocaine? Add to that the failure of Carter's rescue mission when sand destroyed our helicopters and you understand why he was not re-elected. Add to that an Arab Oil Embargo. The irony in that timing is that the Arabs have never had a better friend than Carter.

But Carter was an honest man, unlike most Democrats and Republicans. He developed a sound Energy Policy, unlike Cheney, but it was never implemented. Reagan dismantled it.

If more people were as honest and competent as President Carter we would all be better off.

Shouldn't the headline be, "Move out of your home, lose your vote"? Or is this the order of things:

1. Borrow more than you can afford
2. Default on your loan
3. Get foreclosed on, and forced to move
4. Vote Democrat

And Obama's answer is to take more of my money!

#65 | POSTED BY STONEFLY AT 2008-09-12 01:44 PM

Unless you make more than about $260,000 per year, how exactly do you think that Obama is going to be taking more of your money?

And if you DO make more than $260,000 per year, why do you think McCain should give you a big tax cut?

Now if it's simple greed, fine, I can understand that. But if it's something else, like "why should I pay taxes to support social programs that I don't approve of", then what should the rest of us do with respect to paying for an illegal war that WE don't approve of?

For a chart that breaks down the impact of the proposed McCain versus Obama tax proposals based on family income, please go to:

money.cnn.com

OCU

Friends don't let friends vote Republican.

Friends don't let friends vote Republican.

That is true. Friends assume their friends are smart enough to make their own decisions and encourage them to not be a sheeple and to make an informed vote. Friends do not treat friends condescendingly and tell them for whom to vote.

When a friend has been drinking heavily and if he were allowed to drive, he might bring harm to himself or others, therefore society demands that under those circumstances those in a position to do so should take appropriate action.

Same principle applies here.

OCU

Friends don't let friends vote Republican.

Unless you make more than about $260,000 per year, how exactly do you think that Obama is going to be taking more of your money?


By letting the existing tax cuts expire with the rest of his socialist friends

Carter was honest, but totally inept and inneffective. His energy policy was a big publicity event and nothing more. There was nothing for Reagan to dismantle. He was the absolute worst president of our times. Non-revisionist history proves it.

PLEASE Referencing anything CNN would publish comparing candidates would be like Obama saying that he never heard a word Rev Wright said. You can say whatever you want but credibility is shot.

"why should I pay taxes to support social programs that I don't approve of", then what should the rest of us do with respect to paying for an illegal war that WE don't approve of?


You are the only ones calling it "illegal". The soldiers that are putting their lives on the line so you have the freedom to think what you want and say what you want do not think that. BTW, first thing the Chicago Thug did when this came out was to blast the McCain camp. As usual the liberal hack cannot get his facts right. This you man did this all on his own because of his love and concern for his country.

www.youtube.com

I suggest you ask the Iraqi people if they think this war was illegal and better yet, does it matter?

Now it all makes sense. Republicans create this disaster with the legislation they passed (written by Johnny Junk Jets chief financial adviser) and then reap the benefits of people losing their homes, because they wont vote for McSame.

I wonder if these repubs douche-bags will tell a black man, who is registered as an repub, that he can't vote either due to foreclosure.

That should play out nicely in the National Media.

Since I am still getting paid, I am obliged to sit at home by the phone and wait for the call to get to the heliport.

#5 | Posted by goatman at 2008-09-11 05:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Cellphone?

Cellphone?

That or landline. They have both numbers.

The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting as part of the state GOP's effort to challenge some voters on Election Day. "We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people arent voting from those addresses," party chairman James Carabelli told Michigan Messenger.

That's just about the sickest thing I've read today.

I'm actually in favor of more restrictions on voting in federal elections.. such as you paid taxes in the prior year. If you didn't pay, you can't vote to take away more money from those of us that do.

#14 | Posted by nmg_no at 2008-09-12 09:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

So, the unemployed shouldn't be allowed to vote?

WTF!

That's just about the sickest thing I've read today.

So some people should be given the opportunity to vote twice? wow. I think that's the sickest thing I've heard today.

So, the unemployed shouldn't be allowed to vote?

That wasn't cited or even implied in the article. WTF are you talking about?

never mind. I see where you got that. Shouldn't drink coffee and blog simultaneously

What I find revolting about it is that after Republicans pursue policies that screw over the average citizen, they then attempt to deprive them of their vote as well as their home.

"We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people arent voting from those addresses," party chairman James Carabelli told Michigan Messenger.

That's just lovely.

Spin away about all those foreclosed on folks who see this not as an eviction and spiral into homelessness, but as an opportunity to "vote twice", Goatman.

they then attempt to deprive them of their vote as well as their home.

???

Where did you get that?

That's just lovely.

It sure is. Otherwise they could move to another county and register there and vote, too. Why do you hate that the one person one vote rule being enforced, boyd?

"There was nothing for Reagan to dismantle."

Regardless of how much of Carter's plan was actually already set up and running....that doesn't excuse Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 for doing NOTHING to get us off of foreign oil.


"We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people arent voting from those addresses," party chairman James Carabelli told Michigan Messenger.

That's just lovely.

#86 | Posted by BetelG at 2008-09-12 04:06 PM

Nice to see someone stand up to election fraud. I knew it wouldnt be the dems they work for illegals, crimminals and the dead to vote for them. In WI they are registering poeple that dont exist, they use empty property as the address and have blocked every attempt to make the election less corrupt.

Only stupid people (liberals) would be dumb enough to buy a house they couldn't afford. Who is feeling the crunch of forclosure the most....Why that would be major Lib cities. They want big guberment to bail them out.


I hope they keep those jerks from voting. They're Obama sycophants anyway.

It is a legitimate concern that people might use vacant foreclosed properties as addresses for voter fraud. This should be monitored.

Seems ok to me. What is the problem? Oh wait, the dems are trying to use old Chicago voting rules again.

Dems are VERY,Very AFRAID.... You should be.

Damn, they ought to have a list of all the dead buried in all the precincts, and not accept any votes from the dead. That alone would cut the librul vote down by 30%.
And anybody that owns 2 or more houses should not be allowed to cash in on the commie bailout.
there was too much intent to drive up prices, flip houses and getting rich off the tax payers expense, to all those that got caught with your depends down , all I have to say is fuck you, like you were fucking us over.

Rightnut-
re: "Damn, they ought to have a list of all the dead buried in all the precincts, and not accept any votes from the dead. That alone would cut the librul vote down by 30%."

Point me to a case (which resulted in convictions) of in-person voter fraud that involved more than one or two random acts by individuals.

2 hours 23 minutes, no case presented.

I suspect there is more going on here than meets the eye.

The headline is an outright lie.

The people that have lost their house will NOT lose their vote. They just can't vote based on an address that is no longer theirs.

To put it plainer, they live SOMEWHERE now just not in the foreclosed house. They must vote in the precinct for their current address, not their old one.

Talk about the politics of fear. The Dems have long been the pot accusing the kettle in that particular argument. They just use different fears.

They just use different fears.

Posted by moomanfl at 2008-09-12 11:46 PM | Reply

Different than the fear of all those foreclosed on minorities using the opportunity of losing their homes as a way to vote twice?

Whether you are a minority, or a white anglo-saxon protestant... you have no right to vote in a precinct in which you do not live.

Nice try at a strawman.

Even a minority that has had their house forclosed upon must live SOMEWHERE.... so have them vote in the precinct in which they now live just like everyone else is supposed to.

No, the fear the Dems use is the one of the headline. To paraphrase:

The GOP is going to make sure you can't vote at all ("lose your vote") just because you fell on hard times.

Of course since that isn't true at all, it is just a lie to prey on the fears of minorities. What do you think is more racist?

"it is just a lie to prey on the fears of minorities."

I don't think I can improve on that, Mooman.

"it is just a lie to prey on the fears of minorities."

I don't think I can improve on that, Mooman.

Happy to see that you agree the headline is a lie.

I find it funny that Dems (especially since 2000) rant about unfair elections, then complain about closing a loophole that could be exploited. To hell with whether it has been exploited or not... why even have the possibility?

Mooman-
As you know, I was referring to the fact that some Republicans seem to be so convinced that minorities are engaged in rampant voter fraud that they even have compiled lists of foreclosed properties to contest lawful votes.
As you may not know, I issued this challenge hours ago with, as yet, no takers:

Point me to a case (which resulted in convictions) of in-person voter fraud that involved more than one or two random acts by individuals.

#96 | Posted by BetelG at 2008-09-12 08:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

As you know, I was referring to the fact that some Republicans seem to be so convinced that minorities are engaged in rampant voter fraud that they even have compiled lists of foreclosed properties to contest lawful votes.

You mean the headline isn't a lie, and the people that have lost a house won't be allowed to vote even from a correct CURRENT address? Wow... I must have missed that in the article. Why didn't CBS pick up on that one?

Don't suppose you have a link or other evidence for that conclusion?

No? Then you are just a liar trying to prey on the fears minorities have in being discriminated against. How racist of you.

have compiled lists of foreclosed properties to contest lawful votes.

Since when would has a vote from an address, and possibly a precinct that you don't live in EVER been a "lawful vote"?

There is yet ANOTHER lie from you.

Mooman-
List the string of convictions from in-person voter fraud.

Irrelevant. If it is illegal to cast a vote from a property that you don't live at, and nobody is doing it then there won't be any votes challenged. The exercise will have been useless.

That would be like arguing before 9/11 that warnings of that sort of thing were fear mongering because nobody have ever been convicted before of trying to fly a plane into a building as a terrorist attack.

An ounce of prevention is always worth more than a pound of cure.

Mooman-
And while you're at it, please explain how a list of foreclosed properties is proof that the residents don't still live there, or are attempting to cast fraudulent votes. And, please explain how this isn't just adding unhinged insult to Americans who are facing homelessness due to the wonderful economic stewardship of the very Republican Party that now wishes to challenge even the votes of those who have been shafted by eight years of a "fundamentally sound" economy.

An ounce of prevention is always worth more than a pound of cure.

#107 | Posted by moomanfl at 2008-09-13 12:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

You are totally correct. We should challenge the votes of thousands lest one vote twice.

BTW, you have yet to provide me with any evidence but your own irrational fear that in-person voter fraud is a systemic problem (ie, you can't even name one case (with a conviction) that establishes voter fraud as anything more than a very rare and isolated event)

Mooman-
Really. I'm sure that the string of convictions in multiple and widespread in-person voter fraud is what has got you so upset, so name a case or two. [Otherwise one might assume that race baiters set your bloomers afire and said that Mexicans (or whomever) did it]

Out of the order in which you asked:

"or are attempting to cast fraudulent votes."

Again, if they live at the address and in the precinct in which they are voting and they have only voted once.... there is no fraud and the exercise will be academic and your Chicken Little style whining about it will have been for nothing.

"please explain how a list of foreclosed properties is proof that the residents don't still live there"

A challenge to a vote is just that... a challenge. It is NOT an automatic throw-out of the vote. If they still live there then the challenge fails.

"please explain how this isn't just adding unhinged insult to Americans who are facing homelessness"

Sorry, but that doesn't make an illegal vote legal not matter how much you want to whine about it.

Mooman-
Nothin' from you, huh?

"I'm sure that the string of convictions in multiple and widespread in-person voter fraud is what has got you so upset"

Nope... as I said, it is irrelevant whether there have been prior convictions. It is already illegal to vote from an address and in a precinct in which you do not live. Enforcing that is not wrong, no matter how much you try to spin it so.

Mooman-
I'm still waiting for your list of convictions that justify challenging votes of folks who have been recently foreclosed. But, as you said, an ounce of prevention.... so I suppose we should fingerprint voters and ...etc. After all, "an ounce of prevention is ALWAYS worth more than a pound of cure..."

Right?

"Nothin' from you, huh?"

There has been plenty from me. I have yet to see from you anything suggesting that the headline is anything but a baldfaced lie designed to prey on the fears of a minority group. How racist of you.

"I'm still waiting for your list of convictions that justify challenging votes of folks who have been recently foreclosed."

Wait all you want. I feel no need to research facts that are irrelevant to the argument at hand.

Nope... as I said, it is irrelevant whether there have been prior convictions.

You and the Republican party seem concerned enough about this to actually get a list of foreclosures and stake out voting booths to challenge votes. I'm guessin' you have something more to go on than blind irrational fear, but I think I'm wrong.

I suppose there is more than just blind irrational fear to prompt a false headline that is in no way supported by the facts of the article?

Mooman-

BTW, whenever you get that voter fraud database up and running, I'd like to take a look at it. But on the other hand, what about people who have recently lost loved ones? Shouldn't some hawkish Republicans stake out precincts to ensure that their relatives don't vote for them? It should be easy to comb through the obituary and compile a list.

Pointless accusations are worth nothing in support of a lying headline. Tell me what legal vote will be lost due to the challenge mentioned in the article?

Can't?

Thought so.

Your suggestions are irrelevant unless you can do so and are nothing more than race baiting and fear mongering in their own right.

Mooman-
The "facts of the article" are that the Republican Party fears that people who have recently been foreclosed on will use this wonderful opportunity to vote twice, ostensibly from the homeless shelter and from their former residence.

The "facts of the article" are that the Republican Party fears that people who have recently been foreclosed on will use this wonderful opportunity to vote twice, ostensibly from the homeless shelter and from their former residence.

And if they aren't doing that then their vote is legal and either they aren't challenged or the challenge fails. Either way they haven't lost their vote.

The headline lies and you are race baiting and fear mongering to support it.

Mooman-
You daily hear of voter fraud, but you can't even come up with one case. Now, I'm sure it happens, but don't you think that in a situation you are so convinced is a problem you would have a few examples?

But you don't. You are just convinced that it happens all the time, but without any evidence whatsoever.

Why?

Mooman-
I'm sure you pride yourself, as we all do, on being reasonable. But you take it as gospel that there is rampant in-person voter fraud, but can't even name a single compelling conviction. Not one.

Isn't it a bid odd that you are EXTREMELY outraged about this, but can't even cite a case?

But you don't. You are just convinced that it happens all the time, but without any evidence whatsoever.

Why?

Why have voter fraud laws or bother checking for it at all if it never happens? Your question is irrelevant. If it isn't going to happen anyway as you suggest, then there is no problem.

Or are you just worried that the poor Republicans are just spinning their wheels in an effort that won't come to anything? How decent of you.

No...

The headline lies, and you are race baiting and fear mongering to support it.

Isn't it a bid odd that you are EXTREMELY outraged about this, but can't even cite a case?

Not as odd as you getting so outraged at the idea of an exercise that you are so sure will turn up nothing. After all, if nobody is doing it, exactly who will lose their vote?

"And if they aren't doing that then their vote is legal and either they aren't challenged or the challenge fails. Either way they haven't lost their vote."

Sure. You go to vote, and you are pulled aside and asked to prove that you own your house.Nothing wrong about that. If it happened to my mother she would never vote again. But nothin' wrong about that.

"You go to vote, and you are pulled aside and asked to prove that you own your house."

Considering that the house in question was foreclosed and the vote is possibly illegal... it would be reasonable.

"Nothing wrong about that."

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with trying to enforce the law. Those that think otherwise either have something to hide or have an agenda to promote.

"If it happened to my mother she would never vote again."

If she gives up so easily, then she doesn't value her right to vote very much. What a pity.

Mooman-
You're not even the least bit suspicious about the howling and gnashing of teeth regarding how there's fraud everywhere (Mexicans, blacks, etc) but nothing much as far as a legal trail about it, and how you can't even name one case?

Have you ever thought about that?

'NIGHT

Either way though, the headline is a lie and you are race baiting and fear mongering to support it.

Not surprising though.

If she gives up so easily, then she doesn't value her right to vote very much. What a pity.

#128 | Posted by moomanfl at 2008-09-13 01:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

My mother is 78, and it seems you don't value her right to vote much. What a pity.

Fuck off, and good night.

So, the unemployed shouldn't be allowed to vote?

That wasn't cited or even implied in the article. WTF are you talking about?

#83 | Posted by goatman at 2008-09-12 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

I never said it was from the article. I even included the original post right above my response.

I'm referring to post #14 where he/she said that you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you didn't pay taxes the previous year.

I asked about the unemployed. If you had no income for the year, then you're probably not paying any taxes.

This article pisses me off. What a mean thing to do. Bug somebody because their house is being foreclosed upon.

Fuckin A, people stay in them sometimes while trying to negotiate with the banks, so it's not automatic voter fraud If I haven't been evicted.

Too bad these michigan lawmakers are more concerned about a VERY small # of voting fraud percentage...and not people getting their homes taken away. Some public servants these people are.

But, they ARE concerned about foreclosed homeowners. Voting against them for perpetuating a shitty economy, that is.

Have you ever thought about that?

Not any more than I have thought about all the laws that exist even though I don't break them, or the police that never knock on my door to check for a crime that I am not committing.

That is to say, yes, I think about the laws... but I don't worry about the crimes they prevent by being in existence nor do I worry about the police that don't get to bust people that aren't committing those crimes.

Since you are so big on providing proof that something has happened before it can be dealt with.... show me a legal case won by someone recently for having their vote denied on a challenge when they weren't doing something wrong.

Goat, Nevermind, I saw your retraction one post later.

Catholics are turning out in record numbers this year to vote in Democratic presidential primaries from Texas to Pennsylvania. But at least a dozen of them were turned away from the polls yesterday in Indiana under that states strict new voter ID law, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court just last week.

The nuns, all residents of a retirement home at Saint Marys Convent near Notre Dame University, were denied ballots by a fellow sister and poll worker because the women, in their 80s and 90s, did not have valid Indiana photo ID cards,-- according to the Los Angeles Times. Its the law, and it makes it hard, said Sister Julie McGuire, who was working at the polling place and had to explain to the nuns that they could not vote. Some dont understand why.--

Update:

State senators Mario Gallegos and Rodney Ellis have penned an op-ed in todays Houston Chronicle to question why Texas Republican leadership continues to chase a phantom menace: voter impersonation at the polls.--

The fact is it doesnt exists,-- the two Houston Democrats conclude.

Apparently, they didnt get the word about the rash of Catholic nuns trying to steal the Indiana primary for their favored candidate.

www.austinpoliticalreport.com

If she gives up so easily, then she doesn't value her right to vote very much. What a pity.

#128 | Posted by moomanfl at 2008-09-13 01:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm just amazed at how much of an asshole you are.

Betelg,

On your first story... where was the legal suit or conviction that overturned the challenge? After all... that was YOUR benchmark: a conviction.

When it comes down to it, the case you mentioned was based on State law in Indiana. Maybe it sucked for them. Maybe the law should be changed. Either way though, the poll worker was right.

And just think... that was in a DEMOCRATIC primary... hrm.

The second story is summed up as follows:

"The fact is it doesnt exists,-- the two Houston Democrats conclude."

Gee... who would ever expect a Democrat to speak against Republicans? What is the world coming to? Heh heh

I'm just amazed at how much of an asshole you are.

Not as amazed as I am that you would race bait or fear monger by supporting a lying headline.

She lost brothers in WWII, and pitched in when my dad was enlisted. She raised children and worked to fill the void left by all the men who went to war. But, as you said, she doesn't value her right to vote very much.

You are an ass, Mooman.

Mooman-
I'm tired of dancing with you. Name some convictions regarding in-person voter fraud that would lead anyone to believe it was a systemic problem, or STFU.

Nothing. Even my mom, who "doesn't value her right to vote very much" could come up with at least one.

What a pity, Mooman.

She lost brothers in WWII, and pitched in when my dad was enlisted.

Yes, and McCain was held prisoner and tortured for 3 years 25 years or so later. Yet for him stuff that far back shouldn't hold any relevance to stuff going on today.

In reality though, I respect the sacrifice she and her brothers made at the time. However anyone that is willing to not vote again based on the situation you laid out just doesn't CURRENTLY value their vote very much. It would take a lot more than someone asking me a question about my current residence to prevent me from voting no matter what my age. I just value to privilege way too much to let it.

"I'm tired of dancing with you."

Thats ok... you are no Fred Astaire and my toes were getting sore from your ineptitude at it.

Mooman-
Just one, you asshole. One conviction that suggests a true problem. Else all I get from you is the FEAR that minorities will steal the election if foreclosed upon. And on top of that, you actually said that my mother, whose name you are not fit to speak, "doesn't value her right to vote very much".

You are a shitwad.

However anyone that is willing to not vote again based on the situation you laid out just doesn't CURRENTLY value their vote very much.

You are a prick.

And I'm still waiting fro the mountain of evidence that illustrates why you are so concerned about the fraudulent votes of minorities (and, apparently, my mom)

Damn, you've made an enemy this night.

Just one, you asshole. One conviction that suggests a true problem.

Irrelevant. Just as you feel my challenge to you is irrelevant. Namely that you supply one-- just one--recent lawsuit won due to a poll challenge denying a vote that was legal.

Otherwise, if the criteria that you set out is relevant and you can't supply one, then you are just fear mongering and race baiting that legal votes will be thrown out.

And on top of that, you actually said that my mother, whose name you are not fit to speak, "doesn't value her right to vote very much".

I can only go on the information you gave me... that she would be willing to walk away from her right to vote just because someone-- one time-- asked her about her current residence. If your claim was incorrect about her, then I retract my opinion. If you stand behind your assertion, then I stand behind mine.

Many people have died for their right to vote, yet someone that isn't willing to put up with a question for their right to vote values the right?

" I'm still waiting fro the mountain of evidence that illustrates why you are so concerned about the fraudulent votes "

The strangest thing was the IN Supreme Court changed the law without a single proven instance of violation. Can you say A-G-E-N-D-A?

BetelG

He isn't worth your anger--only pity. His brain is faulty. He believes you can bury a steel beam in some magic way and it will turn molten in six weeks because of rust.

"Irrelevant"

Nonsense.

Dimfroth, do me a favor and shut up.

Many people have died for their right to vote, yet someone that isn't willing to put up with a question for their right to vote values the right?

#147 | Posted by moomanfl at 2008-09-13 01:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

RE-"Many people have died for their right to vote"

Yeah. My mom was related to, and deeply loved, about twenty of them, asshole

You're worthless

And I'm still waiting fro the mountain of evidence that illustrates why you are so concerned about the fraudulent votes of minorities (and, apparently, my mom)

#145 | Posted by BetelG at 2008-09-13 01:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not getting any response to that, am I?

Yeah. My mom was related to, and deeply loved, about twenty of them, asshole

Then tell me why, according to you, that she would be willing to give up that right just because someone asks her a question?

Personally I think you are wrong and sell your mother way short. I find it hard to believe that she would disrespect their sacrifice in such a way. But that is just my opinion-- you know her better than I do.

He believes you can bury a steel beam in some magic way and it will turn molten in six weeks because of rust.

da bOoB believes there are smokestacks on the moon. Talk about faulty brains!

He isn't worth your anger--only pity. His brain is faulty. He believes you can bury a steel beam in some magic way and it will turn molten in six weeks because of rust.

#149 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-09-13 01:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

STFU, Bob. My opinion of your place on this blog is not so different from my opinion of the intestinal flu I had a few months ago.

And I'm still waiting fro the mountain of evidence that illustrates why you are so concerned about the fraudulent votes of minorities (and, apparently, my mom)

#145 | Posted by BetelG at 2008-09-13 01:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sweet dreams all.

Anyone ever take you aside and ask you for your "papers"?

Not for voting... but yes. Used to happen to me all the time when I was younger. I lived in a high crime area and chose to look like "hoodlum". Cops would always pull me over to check my ID even when I was just walking to the corner store. Never stopped me from going to the store though.

But, I swear to god, if you mention my mom again I will find a way to reach through this screen and grab you by the throat, not to put too fine a point on it.

Listen, numbnuts... you brought her into the discussion, not me. Sorry if you don't like how it turned out. You shouldn't have thrown doubt upon the depth of her conviction to her voting right.

Regardless, your threat is laughable in the extreme. It conjures an image of you spraying spittle on your monitor as you scream and claw futilely at the glass.

moonman just be sure he can't find your address. I once had a nut show up at my job. He drove from New Mexico to Santa Cruz to assault me.

"moonman just be sure he can't find your address."

No worries there. My address may be listed online, but not in connection to me. Either way, to quote Mr. T: I pity the fool that shows up here trying to cause trouble.

Mooman-
Take it from Rasta as he, under different names, has pushed the boundaries of fair play to extremes that would have him banned from any blog but this one.

"just be sure he can't find your address."

Including your IP address.

Right, Duluth?

Sorry, Duluth isn't my city... but nice try. Maybe that is where the main hub for my ISP is, but that doesn't mean much.

Even if it WAS my city, Duluth has a lot of people in it and a lot of addresses... good luck on finding which one is me.

"Duluth isn't my city"

I know.

Wouldn't you agree, Norcross?


moonman just be sure he can't find your address. I once had a nut show up at my job. He drove from New Mexico to Santa Cruz to assault me.

#162 | Posted by rastaninja at 2008-09-13 02:19 AM | Reply | Flag:


Considering the things I've seen you do on here, jackass/messiah/rastaninja, the nut in your story is probably you.

Wouldn't you agree, Norcross?

Go ahead... look there. Do you know how many square miles are in the Atlanta Metro area?

these guys are trolls that try to harass people day after day.

Danforth,

Let me put in in perspective for you,

Metro Atlanta, Georgia is the ninth-largest metropolitan area in the United States and consists of 28 counties in Georgia. According to the 2000 Census, the metropolitan area had a population of 4,247,981, though the 2007 Census estimate shows 5,278,904 people living in the area. According to the 2007 population estimates, the 28-county Atlanta metropolitan area is currently the fastest-growing metropolitan area in the United States based on numerical gains.

en.wikipedia.org

Your guesses weren't even in the right county out of 28 possible. Good luck searching through 8,376 sq. mi. and more than 5 million people to find me.


these guys are trolls that try to harass people day after day.

#170 | Posted by rastaninja at 2008-09-13 02:50 AM | Reply | Flag: Hypocrite

Hypocrit or not... he is correct just the same. Being a hypocrit doesn't make you automatically wrong.

and yes... I know I misspelled "hypocrite" twice.

Mooman-
Why did you have to make it a challenge?

Danforth lost a debate to Rex and I pointed it out and now he hates me and tries to lie about me every chance he gets. Alexandrite is Danforth's wing man so naturally he tries to Save him from looking foolish.

"these guys are trolls that try to harass people day after day."

By signing on falsely to other blogs?

Moom...relax...Rastaninja/
Messiah/Jackass is Norcross/Duluth. He likes signing onto other blogs as me and crapping on people. Or conceding defeat while pretending to be "Danforth" from "the Retort". Since the creep was so humiliated here (obviously) he's now reduced to sending cowardly self-destruct emails in my name. All it shows is he is so pwned by me he has to make up sock puppets to tell him what he desperately needs to hear. Clearly, Rastaninja/Norcross/Duluth will ALWAYS be MY BITCH!

Victory Dance!

Danforth read this:

User comments will be deleted if they contain commercial spam, viruses, illegal pornography, threats against public officials, threats of violence, excessive obscenity, prejudice based on race, religion, sexuality or gender, or personal harassment directed at another user (in particular, any attempt to identify a user's real name, address or workplace).

You should get a dump for your reprehensible behavior.

"Danforth lost a debate to Rex"

In your dreams. And Wrecks's too.

Danforth the sad thing is that you keep trying to guess where I live. Do I try to play that game?? No because I am a responsible blogger and try to follow RCADE'S rules. I could play your game and be better at it than you but i don't.

Mooman-
Why did you have to make it a challenge?

What challenge are you referring to? Finding me or answering my more overt challenge in answer to your previous challenge?

To the first, I would simply say that it is what it is. I live where I live and if you want to find me... good luck in trying.

To the second, I gave that challenge to show the ridiculousness of your own challenge based on the same premise: that if you can't prove a legal case that was won showing something has been done that it must not have occurred and that the possibility that it could occur shouldn't be dealt with.

"You should get a dump for your reprehensible behavior."

You're a longtime compulsive liar, and everyone knows it. You disclaim things other bloggers know as fact. You got caught pretending to me---within hours---and were so humiliated by that you've stepped up your pretense, adding cowardly self-destruct emails to your penchant for signing on as others just to spew hatred.

You mentioned recently you're not happy. Trust me: there's a connection. Not just the way you treat me; the way you treat everyone. You once posted "...the feeling of hurting another human being is the greatest feeling I have ever known." I hope, for your sake, that's not true. If it is, I hope, for your sake, you get help.

"the sad thing is that you keep trying to guess where I live. "

Too funny. Don't know, and don't care.

Dimforth, you better shut up or I might slap you in the mouth.

You mentioned recently you're not happy.

Danforth the reason I am not happy is that I am living in a red state. I want to return to Santa Cruz and be under the tutelage of Master Lee again.

"you better shut up or I might slap you in the mouth."

Be gone, before somebody drops a house on you.

Danforth are you so unhappy because you recently realized you were a 2nd rate actor?

You stupid pussy. I can hurt you with a look.

Slink off now.

"the reason I am not happy is that I am living in a red state"

Is that also the reason you're crapping on people in my name...the red state thing?

I will destroy you.

" I can hurt you with a look."

Bwahahaha. For a "big dog", Rogers has you on a very short leash.

"I will destroy you."

How...by blogging again from the diarrhea ward?

You're a bug dimforth, a maggot, your only claim to fame is a lie, you're a tick.

"you recently realized you were a 2nd rate actor?"

Oh, hell, I've always been a 2nd rate actor.

And an employed one: ten out of twelve tomorrow.

I'm a god, you're a bug living off a lie, living off me. I crush you, pissant.

You are a tick.

"...a bug..., a maggot...a tick."

Wrecks majored in projection 101. Regardless, I'll take it as a compliment from the biggest loser on the internet. That really takes some doing.

Nite, all.

ding ding ding Rex is the winner again!!!

Run away boy....do it now.

I can snap you in half.

fucking pussy

No running involved. You're both lying idiots, and we all three know it. I've had a long day, and have another one tomorrow. If this is the type of pretend victory you two need for your egos, I'll be laughing and throwing this in your faces forever!

Keep laughing pansy

Fucking turd nuggets....

Get back to the subject instead of a vendetta. There has been something wrong about the polls for a long time. Obama was very popular, and he was drawing thousands to see him and hear him and no bump in the polls. He went overseas and looked and acted presidential and no bump.He has given many intelligent speeches and no bump. He names the popular Joe Biden as running mate. No bump. The convention itself should have given him a huge boost.Palin comes out and gives one speech and doesn't seem to know much about the federal government and they flock to her? Something is wrong. The election is being stolen again, I think!!!!

"There has been something wrong about the polls for a long time."

Yes, it MUST be a problem with the poles instead of just your perception of reality.

It couldn't possibly be that Obama's comments in Germany (citizen of the world, etc) was actually a turn-off to some Americans.

It couldn't possibly be that Biden, while being a likable fellow outside the political arena, is actually to far left for most Americans and his gaffe prone nature an embarrassment.

It couldn't be that most Americans see Obama's speeches as being long on pretty sounding rhetoric and low on real substance.

It couldn't be thatthe convention was seen as too showy and cocky and only confirming the "empty suit celebrity" label.

It couldn't be that most people in America, regardless of party affiliation actually call themselves conservative and that, despite your perception of Palin, see her as the TRUE person of the people with values and style they can relate to and admire.

No... your perception of reality MUST be dead on and the election is being stolen.

/sarcasm

"Yes, it MUST be a problem with the poles(sic)"

Must be.

ROFL

moron

Yes, because we know good spelling is such a great indicator of intelligence.

Go check your pool, moron.

Danforth lost a debate to Rex

ROFLMAO!

Rex lost a debate with life, and he's been taking it out on the posters in this little known blog ever since.

The Democrats should block people who own more than one residence in MI. Afterall they could vote twice. Blocking people who own multiple houses will cut down on voter fraud. What a bunch of elitist, fascist bullshit. This is one of the reasons I became a Democrat, the Republicans are so fucked up.

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable