Reply With Quote
he would actually need to have money first.
Whottt has predicted a McCain landslide.
I would be willing to bet against that. I will put up my entire vbookie balance against that.
If it were legal, I would be willing to bet a good real $500-1000 against it.
List how much money you would be willing to take from whottt, if he were brave enough to take your bet.
he would actually need to have money first.
lol at you silly liberals. just wait until Nov 4. you will be crying.
I'll take your money too if you put it where your mouth is...
If Mccain wins in a landslide, i will cut off my leg and beat myself with it.
No need to promise that. Just tell us how much money you would be willing to bet whottt, if he were brave enough to put his money where his mouth is and bet that McCain wins by a landslide.If Mccain wins in a landslide, i will cut off my leg and beat myself with it.
Nah, we'll be crying tears of joy when Bush is out of office in January.
Want to put your money where your mouth is?
The vBookie cash bet on the election is actually a pretty good idea. Can you do that? I'd be willing to put some money on this.
I made a post willing to move up to 3k out of my poker bankroll and bet it on the election. No one ever took me up on it.
Oohh...500 vbucks? You sir, are a man.
Dude...I wasn't willing to make a bet even when McCain was up in the polls.
I have made bets to lose just for the sake of anti-jinxing in the Spurs...
I don't need to bet on this.
Besides...I actually don't have any real money to bet on it.
With all the publican connections to Diebold, betting on elections is s t u p i d...
Get real...no one does voter fraud like Acorn, the Obama campaign, and the Democratic Party.
Is that what your spin is going to be now? I mean, somebody already predicted you were going to claim the election as rigged a few months ago.
Your weak is very predictable...
What's sad is that the "fraud" was perpetuated AGAINST Acorn, not on behalf of it. It was nothing but a bunch of canvassers stealing money from ACORN by turning in a few fradulent registrations. There's no way those registrations would turn into votes at the ballot box.
This is just their preemptive excuse.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/223436.php
The Republican party is grasping on to the ACORN story as a way to delegitimize what now looks like the probable outcome of the November election. It is also a way to stoke the paranoia of their base, lay the groundwork for legal challenges of close outcomes in various states and promote new legal restrictions on legitimate voting by lower income voters and minorities. The big picture is that these claims of 'voter fraud' are themselves a fraud, a tool to aid in suppressing Democratic voter turnout. But I want give readers a bit more detail to understand what is going because the right-wing freak out about ACORN happens pretty much on schedule every two years. The whole scam is premised on having enough people who don't remember when they tried it before who they can then confuse and lie to. And this is clearly important because I'm hearing from a lot of people whose heart is in the right place thinking some real voter fraud conspiracy has been uncovered and that Obama has to distance himself from it post-haste.
ACORN registers lots of lower income and/or minority voters. They operate all across the country and do a lot of things beside voter registration. What's key to understand is their method. By and large they do not rely on volunteers to register voters. They hire people -- often people with low incomes or even the unemployed. This has the dual effect of not only registering people but also providing some work and income for people who are out of work. But because a lot of these people are doing it for the money, inevitably, a few of them cut corners or even cheat. So someone will end up filling out cards for nonexistent names and some of those slip through ACORN's own efforts to catch errors. (It's important to note that in many of the recent ACORN cases that have gotten the most attention it's ACORN itself that has turned the people in who did the fake registrations.) These reports start buzzing through the right-wing media every two years and every time the anecdotal reports of 'thousands' of fraudulent registrations turns out, on closer inspection, to be either totally bogus themselves or wildly exaggerated. So thousands of phony registrations ends up being, like, twelve.
I've always had questions about whether this is a good way to do voter registration. And Democratic campaigns usually keep their distance. But here's the key. This is fraud against ACORN. They end up paying people for registering more people then they actually signed up. If you register me three times to vote, the registrar will see two new registrations of an already registered person and the ones won't count. If I successfully register Mickey Mouse to vote, on election day, Mickey Mouse will still be a cartoon character who cannot go to the local voting station and vote. Logically speaking there's very little way a few phony names on the voting rolls could be used to commit actual vote fraud. And much more importantly, numerous studies and investigations have shown no evidence of anything more than a handful of isolated cases of actual instances of vote fraud.
To expand on this point let me quote from Richard Hasen, one of the most experienced and concise commentators on this question, from a June 2007 column in the Dallas Morning News ...
Again, there have been numerous investigations of this. Often by people with at least a mild political interest in finding wrongdoing. But they never find it. It always ends up being right-wing hype and lies. Remember, most of those now-famous fired US Attorneys from 2007 were Republican appointees who were canned after they got tasked with investigating allegations of widespread vote fraud, did everything they could to find it, but came up with nothing. That was the wrong answer so Karl Rove and his crew at the Justice Department fired them.At least in hindsight, the center's line of argument is easily deconstructed. First, arguing by anecdote is dangerous business. A new report by Lorraine Minnite of Barnard College looks at these anecdotes and shows them to be, for the most part, wholly spurious. Sure, one can find a rare case of someone voting in two jurisdictions, but nothing extensive or systematic has been unearthed or do ented.
But perhaps most importantly, the idea of massive polling-place fraud (through the use of inflated voter rolls) is inherently incredible. Suppose I want to swing the Missouri election for my preferred presidential candidate. I would have to figure out who the fake, dead or missing people on the registration rolls are, then pay a lot of other individuals to go to the polling place and claim to be that person, without any return guarantee - thanks to the secret ballot - that any of them will cast a vote for my preferred candidate.
Those who do show up at the polls run the risk of being detected and charged with a felony. And for what - $10? Polling-place fraud, in short, makes no sense.
The Justice Department devoted unprecedented resources to ferreting out fraud over five years and appears to have found not a single prosecutable case across the country. Of the many experts consulted, the only dissenter from that position was a representative of the now-evaporated American Center for Voting Rights.
Vote registration fraud is a limited and relatively minor problem in the US today. But it is principally an administrative and efficiency issue. It is has little or nothing to do with people casting illegitimate votes to affect an actual election. That's the key. What you're hearing right now from Fox News, the New York Post, John Fund and the rest of the right-wing bamboozlement chorus is a just another effort to exploit, confuse and lie in an effort to put more severe restrictions on legitimate voting and lay the groundwork to steal elections.
It's that simple.
Actually, I said I would also pony up a real $500. Five Benjamins.
If you were so confident in your prediction then it shouldn't matter whether or not you have the cash...
Don't actually get it right or anything. You must ignore the actual reality and simply listen to Fox "news" spin on this issue.
Ignore the man behind the curtain!
I am so bookmarking this post.
RG did you happen to catch the gem in the "Manu Doesn't Believe in God" thread? Whottt told us a nice story about how he thought up the existence of Supermassive Black Holes way back in 1988. Something about a bath tub drain looking like a black hole...I propose we nominate him for the Nobel Prize in Astronomy.
That's what happens when I don't check in for a few days. I miss out on the funny.
yeah... pretty good summation.
vastly more believable and probable than a large left wing conspiracy.
The most subtle part of his post was when he talked about being in an Astronomy class. I wonder if he knows the difference between Astronomy and Physics.
I saw the post. It is a silly reason for surmising the presence of supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies, but does seem like something he would think. Not that I would ascribe much to the accuracy of whottt's memory, but I would give him credit for thinking it, if not actually "discovering" the idea.The most subtle part of his post was when he talked about being in an Astronomy class. I wonder if he knows the difference between Astronomy and Physics.
The funny part was when he tried to parlay his observation that the center of galaxies (which I didn't realize were clearly do ented in pictures by 1988) looked like accretion disks of black holes into the theory that exists today. It's just laughable.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
