Palin to be on SNL

[Shastafarian]

If California and it's 50 something Electoral Votes were swung, would you consider that massive?

Not if there was 1 vote that was fraudulent that swung it.

[ElNono]

I didn't listen to Prager that long, but I doubt he gave a detailed explanation of the allegation or the process involved. But the point is that the narrative of ACORN stealing the election for Obama is already being disseminated.

So we'll have a terrorist-lovin' socialist who stole the election running the country. Yeah, that won't be a problem for some people.

Theyre no different than the allegations of disenfranchisement from Republicans that we've been hearing for ages. See, as I explained a while ago, I think both sides cheat, and I personally think it's unacceptable. That said, I don't think they cheat on a scale to swing an entire election (at least not yet)

[whottt]

Anyway...I'll be back to continue this discussion later and post all the fraudulent ballots known of so far. But it'll most likely be on Tuesday, as I'll be working the Elections for 8 hours tomorrow and then working the Weezer Concert tomorrow night until midnight.

[Mr. Peabody]

Anyway...I'll be back to continue this discussion later and post all the fraudulent ballots known of so far. But it'll most likely be on Tuesday, as I'll be working the Elections for 8 hours tomorrow and then working the Weezer Concert tomorrow night until midnight.

Damn whott, I didn't know you were that cool. I have a whole new respect for you.

[whottt]

Not if there was 1 vote that was fraudulent that swung it.

A candidate could have a million fraudulent votes and still not take a single electoral vote with them....my definition is based on the impact of those votes not the amount.

[Shastafarian]

A candidate could have a million fraudulent votes and still not take a single electoral vote with them....my definition is based on the impact of those votes not the amount.

Then you need to use a word other than "massive" which denotes an enormity in number. So are you saying one person casting a fraudulent ballot would be massive if it swung a state?

[ChumpDumper]

This is how whottt works.

whottt: There is massive voter fraud.

any rational human being: How many fraudulent votes are there?

whottt: I neither know the answer nor will I look it up because I will probably end up ting all over my claim of massive voter fraud.

any rational human being: Why did you say it was massive in the first place?

whottt: I will now attack you personally and try to change the subject because it really makes me angry when my inane blather is exposed for what it is. For chrissakes all I was trying to do was pre-excuse McCain's and my imaginary girlfriend's loss in this election. I can't be wrong on that and I certainly can't be wrong on the excuse I am trying to establish weeks before the election! Why must you question any of the lies I try to propagate? What kind of monster are you? Don't you realize what you are doing to me?

any rational human being: Dude, no one is right all the time. I don't understand why you can't just accept that for yourself.

whottt: uh....Basketball! You were wrong at some point in your life about basketball! Therefore nothing you can ever say will ever be right! That's how it works on the internets. I said so!

any rational human being: Are you serious?

whottt: See? That proves it! Massive voter fraud!

any rational human: Huh? That doesn't make any sense.

whottt: You're on ignore pal! Don't you dare ever try to address me again unless you jump through some hoop for me that has nothing to do with my claim of massive voter fraud! My e-reputation is secure! Still undefeated!

[ChumpDumper]

So what was keeping whottt from defining massive voter fraud?

[DarkReign]

This is how whottt works.

whottt: There is massive voter fraud.

any rational human being: How many fraudulent votes are there?

whottt: I neither know the answer nor will I look it up because I will probably end up ting all over my claim of massive voter fraud.

any rational human being: Why did you say it was massive in the first place?

whottt: I will now attack you personally and try to change the subject because it really makes me angry when my inane blather is exposed for what it is. For chrissakes all I was trying to do was pre-excuse McCain's and my imaginary girlfriend's loss in this election. I can't be wrong on that and I certainly can't be wrong on the excuse I am trying to establish weeks before the election! Why must you question any of the lies I try to propagate? What kind of monster are you? Don't you realize what you are doing to me?

any rational human being: Dude, no one is right all the time. I don't understand why you can't just accept that for yourself.

whottt: uh....Basketball! You were wrong at some point in your life about basketball! Therefore nothing you can ever say will ever be right! That's how it works on the internets. I said so!

any rational human being: Are you serious?

whottt: See? That proves it! Massive voter fraud!

any rational human: Huh? That doesn't make any sense.

whottt: You're on ignore pal! Don't you dare ever try to address me again unless you jump through some hoop for me that has nothing to do with my claim of massive voter fraud! My e-reputation is secure! Still undefeated!

You have to admit, this post has "heightened reality" painted all over it.

[boutons_]

Has anybody come across any commentatariat opinion that pitbull 's SNL appearance helped her and McNasty?

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=DarkReign;2835985]

Palin is the worst VP nomination since Eagleton. She has done nothing for McCain except "rally the base". You know, those hardcore rednecks in Dixieland who suck the most from Welfare and Medicaid and contribute less than any other state in the Union.

That base.

She did rally the base, and she also hurt their chances because of her lack of knowledge on the issues, which doesn't necessarily translate into being a poor leader, but that's an unknown quan y, and with that in mind, it's much easier to make the case that Palin's not ready to take over the Presidency than it is to present a case that she is.
I like Palin, but my hopes were for a Romney VP selection (also my choice to lead the Republican ticket). Whatever.

That base wasn't the Welfare/Medicaid base, that belongs lock, stock, and barrel to the Democrats. McCain is talking about freezing the funding for most Federal Agencies while Obama is talking about dramatically increasing En lements. Most people are inherently selfish and vote based solely on what the candidate has to offer them personally. I don't believe most of the massive en lement politicians give a rat's butt about the poor, it's their way of assuring themselves 20 million votes* year in, and year out. I do understand that there is a need for Government assistance, but it shouldn't be to the extent that people are content living that lifestyle.

*An estimation, I don't know how many are comfortable living their entire lives being supported by the Government or who are dependent on the Gov, but it's significant, and it grows proportionately with en lement growth).

[JoeChalupa]

Alec Baldwin was great too.

[whottt]

Damn whott, I didn't know you were that cool. I have a whole new respect for you.

I am that cool...and I've been listening to them since 93 or so. They started out pretty commercial and mainstream and get less and less so with time. Their career trajectory runs almost directly opposite to most bands...

That concert was awesome BTW, I reccomend you go and see if if they come to your town...unfortunately I had a ty assignment and didn't get to enjoy it as much as I thought I would.

[whottt]

Then you need to use a word other than "massive" which denotes an enormity in number. So are you saying one person casting a fraudulent ballot would be massive if it swung a state?

Spoken like someone with a limited definition of the word massive.

I'll let you argue with the dictionary:

http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.ao...ionary/massive

Main Entry: mas·sive
Pronunciation: \ˈma-siv\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English massiffe, from Anglo-French mascif, alteration of massiz, from Vulgar Latin *massicius, from Latin massa mass
Date: 15th century
1: forming or consisting of a large mass: a: bulky b: weighty , heavy <massive walls> <a massive volume> c: impressively large or ponderous d: having no regular form but not necessarily lacking crystalline structure <massive sandstone>
2 a: large, solid, or heavy in structure <massive jaw> b: large in scope or degree <the feeling of frustration, of being ineffectual, is massive — David Halberstam> c (1): large in comparison to what is typical <a massive dose of penicillin> (2): being extensive and severe <massive hemorrhage> <massive collapse of a lung> (3): imposing in excellence or grandeur : monumental <massive simplicity>
3: having mass <a massive boson>
— mas·sive·ly adverb
— mas·sive·ness noun

[Shastafarian]

So you would indeed claim MASSIVE voter fraud if one vote was fraudulent?

[ElNono]

Spoken like someone with a limited definition of the word massive.

I'll let you argue with the dictionary:

http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.ao...ionary/massive

Main Entry: mas·sive
Pronunciation: \ˈma-siv\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English massiffe, from Anglo-French mascif, alteration of massiz, from Vulgar Latin *massicius, from Latin massa mass
Date: 15th century
1: forming or consisting of a large mass: a: bulky b: weighty , heavy <massive walls> <a massive volume> c: impressively large or ponderous d: having no regular form but not necessarily lacking crystalline structure <massive sandstone>
2 a: large, solid, or heavy in structure <massive jaw> b: large in scope or degree <the feeling of frustration, of being ineffectual, is massive — David Halberstam> c (1): large in comparison to what is typical <a massive dose of penicillin> (2): being extensive and severe <massive hemorrhage> <massive collapse of a lung> (3): imposing in excellence or grandeur : monumental <massive simplicity>
3: having mass <a massive boson>
— mas·sive·ly adverb
— mas·sive·ness noun

LOL@using my 'argue with the dictionary' line from the last time I owned your ass. I see you've learned your lesson.
That said, Im glad you finally decided to give the dictionary a chance

[whottt]

So you would indeed claim MASSIVE voter fraud if one vote was fraudulent?

Wouldn't have to...they'd recount that vote multiple times and most likely do a revote.

However I'd term any voter fraud that results in a swing of 50+ Electoral Votes as massive.


But all this is besides the point...I see you have a limited definition of the word massive, as do Chump and ElNono and that's why I wanted ya'll to answer that question.

I've been laughing at you guys for thinking it could only be in terms of some astronomical amount of voters.


By the way...what I was referring to when I said massive voter fraud as I said when I made the original statement, the context of which is clearly seen here in this thread:


http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...t=fraud+states

massive multistate voter fraud

was the fact that they submitted a substantial amount of fraudulent ballots in multiple states, since as little as 3 EV can swing an entire election, any multistate voter fraud is massive...




The fact that ACORN has provably submitted multiple fraudulent applications in at least 10 states

Connecticut
Indiana
Michigan
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Ohio
Texas
and Wisconsin...

Cons utes massive in my book, because in recent memory States have been decided by as little as under 400 votes(New Mexico in 2000) and Presidentail Elections have swung on as littles as under 600 votes(Florida aso in 2000)...the 121 Electoral Votes owned by those states is massive under any elction cir stances.



And by the way...all those fraudulent ballots not transferring to actual votes?


It is complete ignorance to make that statement.

#1. Most states only require you to show a Voter Registration Card, that's it, no ID, nothing else, just the card. Just about any fraudulent registration with a legitimate physical address or that results in an issued card is voter fraud and can easily be turned into a fraudulent vote in most states.




#2. Producing so many fraudulent applications overwhelms the Election offices and prevents them from accurately verifying the ballots or being unable to approve legitimate ones..and deliberately doing that or encouraging that is voter fraud. ACORN's pay system encourages doing just that...

[ElNono]

If voting fraud would be so widespread and easy, how come FoxNews have not sent a reporter to an Acorn office with phony docs, then had him vote (maybe even twice), and finally tape the whole thing? I mean, it's so easy and it would expose this whole massive voting fraud in blink of an eye...

The reality is that there's zero evidence of this happening. The rest is all party banter and political posturing.

[whottt]

If voting fraud would be so widespread and easy, how come FoxNews have not sent a reporter to an Acorn office with phony docs, then had him vote (maybe even twice), and finally tape the whole thing? I mean, it's so easy and it would expose this whole massive voting fraud in blink of an eye...

Did you not read what I wrote?

The reality is that there's zero evidence of this happening. The rest is all party banter and political posturing.

Well

#1. The Election is still in it's early stages...I mean it just started.

#2. Acorn has had more employes charged and convicted of fraud than anyone else I can think of off the top of my head...

It's not posturing...you just like Obama...like Chump and Shastafarian and every other person ignoring the reality on the forum. Trust me when I say it's not being ignored by the people who don't support Obama..and call it a hunch but laughing about it is going to turn out to be a ty solution.


This is the sort of thing that starts civil wars...they won't be laughing if that happens...but I imagine all the other countries that Democrats want to impress will be.

[ElNono]

Did you not read what I wrote?

Well

#1. The Election is still in it's early stages...I mean it just started.

#2. Acorn has had more employes charged and convicted of fraud than anyone else I can think of off the top of my head...

It's not posturing...you just like Obama...like Chump and Shastafarian and every other person ignoring the reality on the forum. Trust me when I say it's not being ignored by the people who don't support Obama..and call it a hunch but laughing about it is going to turn out to be a ty solution.

This is the sort of thing that starts civil wars...they won't be laughing if that happens...but I imagine all the other countries that Democrats want to impress will be.

You're plainly delusional. Please wake me up when you find any evidence of massive voter fraud, or when FoxNews airs their voter fraud special, or when your prophetized civil war begins.
And just to be fair, I will venture that if there are some states where the numbers are too close, both parties will pull out the voter fraud card and we're just gonna have another Florida, with recounts and maybe even the Supreme Court getting involved.

[whottt]

You have to admit, this post has "heightened reality" painted all over it.

Uh no it doesn't...Chump is dim, always has been.

A typical argument with Chump goes like this:


Poster: Sky is blue

Chump: You're a murderer.

Poster: What?

Chump: The sky can be other colors than blue, therefore you hate all the other colors the sky can be and want them dead. Why do you want to murder?

Poster: Shut up.

Chump: Don't get angry just because you've been exposed. Give me proof that not recognizing the other colors of the sky isn't endorsing murder.

Biased peanut gallery: PWNT

Poster: I don't want to murder anyone, plus I didn't say the sky couldn't be any other colors. You're an idiot.


Chump: Sure you did. You said the sky couldn't be any other colors when you said it was blue right here:

Sky is blue

Chump: Stop lying and murdering. I don't want to murder like you do. At least stop being a pussy and have the guts to admit you are what you are.
Pussy. Liar. Murderer.




That's what he does...bull strawman arguments and hairsplitting.

[timvp]

^^^

whottt and CD breaking down their opposing posting styles is damn funny.

[ElNono]

That was funny indeed.

[ChumpDumper]

That was good....

....but where's the Massive Vote Fraud we were promised?

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Most people are inherently selfish and vote based solely on what the candidate has to offer them personally.

There are a lot of problems with American politics, but I don't see how this statement can be supported. Ideological voters frequently vote against their own personal interests and they are a significant number. I have voted to raise my own taxes on several occasions (mostly in local issues like school funding, etc.). While there is certainly no way to be 100% sure, it's much more likely given the trends we see that American voters vote for the candidate who proposes the view of America they most agree with.

However I'd term any voter fraud that results in a swing of 50+ Electoral Votes as massive.

But all this is besides the point...I see you have a limited definition of the word massive, as do Chump and ElNono and that's why I wanted ya'll to answer that question.

I've been laughing at you guys for thinking it could only be in terms of some astronomical amount of voters.

Putting aside semantics over the word "massive" I'll happily spot you that any voter fraud that is within the margins of swinging even a single electoral vote is relevant. I'd happily read your evidence of such fraud and the data which I'm sure accompanies it proving conspiracy between the guilty parties and the Obama campaign. Links?