It's not that Liberals are ignorant, it's that they know so much which isn't true.

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 05:12
VIEWED: 10176
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 9, 2012 8:16 PM

http://www.projectveritas.com/

Let the spin commence.

STORYMARK

Monday, April 9, 2012 8:29 PM

Too.... much..... irony.... laughing.... too.... hard....

Whoo! Thanks Rappy for my daily dose of Raptrad hilarity.

And that is literally all this thread is good for - a laugh.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 9, 2012 8:31 PM

I'd like to think that your laughter is being directed at AG Holder, who gets totally pwned by O'Keefe.

But experience w/ your comments here suggests otherwise.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, April 9, 2012 10:41 PM

*points*

*laughs*

So how's it feel to be a laughingstock, Rappy ?

KWICKO

Monday, April 9, 2012 10:57 PM

Wait - he's actually using James O'Keefe as a *NEWS SOURCE*?

And he's NOT being ironic about it?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 9, 2012 11:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Wait - he's actually using James O'Keefe as a *NEWS SOURCE*?

And he's NOT being ironic about it?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Debunk the story, on its merits, if you can.

Go for it, dude.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 1:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Wait - he's actually using James O'Keefe as a *NEWS SOURCE*?

And he's NOT being ironic about it?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Debunk the story, on its merits, if you can.

Go for it, dude.

Okay.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/04/james-okeefe-st
ill-hasnt-found-his-voter-fraud.html

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/james-okeefe-eric-holder-voter-fr
aud.html

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204090013

Done, poppet.

As always, we see that the only "voter fraud" that's "rampant" is the manufactured kind practiced regularly by the right. Well, unless it's the Indiana Secretary of State, who was convicted on half a dozen felony vote fraud charges (but with whom you had no problem whatsoever, by the way).

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AwRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 2:42 AM

No, not done. All you've done is shown complete and total denial, by the hyper extreme, ultra FAR Left wing media elite, and media matters, which is nothing more than an arm of Pravda- US.

It's so gorram funny, that even showing a video which specifically shows exactly what Holder says ins't happening, can't happen, isn't enough to wake the race baiting , lying , cheating Left from their delusional view on the world.

Use to be a saying, that even when shown a video of ( insert appropriate act ), the true believer would still deny that what's being shown is actually what's being shown.

And now we have, proof positive.

Alice, you can come back through the looking glass now. The gig's up.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:19 AM

Ah, I forgot - only YOU are allowed to say which media sources are acceptable and which aren't.

Clearly, to you and the rest of the hyper-right white-supremacist extremist wing of the Republican party, O'Keefe is a hero, your new messiah, "The One", a kind of god, and never to be questioned in any way, shape, or form.

To thinking people, though, he's a hack, and a really bad one at that.

You have no basis to assume you're not being shown heavily-edited ("phonied up" is the phrase you use for it, I believe) video which tells far, far less than the whole story, or even any semblance of the REAL story. It's what O'Keefe is known for, after all, and it's what he's done in every instance in the past, yet you're 100% sure that he NOT doing so this time.

It's not that you're ignorant (you are), it's that you know so very much that isn't true.

"Mission Accomplished!"

"WMD!"

"We'll be greeted as liberators!"

"The economy is on fire!"

"95% of Americans pay no taxes!"

"Rush is completely right, and any woman who wants to be responsible about practicing safe sex is a whore and a slut!"

"Corrine Brown said Trayvon was hunted down like a rabid dog!"

"Nobody edited the ACORN or Shirley Sherrod tapes!"

There's just so many things you *know*, are absolutely sure of, which are 100% wrong. It's no wonder you "know" that O'Keefe is a real reporter.

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AwRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:37 AM

So, can't dismiss what's on the video, can ya ?

Nope. Didn't think so.

Eric Holder gets pwned, and so did you, apparently.

And because you can't deal w/ the simple, straight forward truth, you are compelled to dig up old quotes, taking them completely out of context, or making them up out thin air, as is if a single one of them has 1 damn thing to do w/ voter fraud and the absolute need to show some sort of ID when voting.

Crassic.

And Corrine Brown ? Wow, seriously ? Dude, you're completely grasping for straws here, and it shows.

What we have here is nothing less than a display of the scientific method.

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Showing that voter fraud is possible, and in light with all the cases of KNOWN voter fraud, it's hardly a stretch to claim that there's no way that voter fraud can't be wide spread. A simple rule of showing one's ID to the polling officials would greatly reduce such fraud. It's really just that simple.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:35 AM

Okay Rappy, OKeef walked in, got a ballot by giving Holders namd and address and could have voted for him. So? Yes it is voter fraud, at the grand total of one vote. After having done that no one else could have used Holder's name to get a ballot. Plus if Holder did show up after the fact and was degined he could prove his identity, get OKeef's vote thrown out and cast his vote. If anything this shows how unrealistic it is to say there is wide spread voter fraud going on.

For that to happen you would need a large goup of people, with an even larger list of registared voters who you know are nto going to show up at the polling stations. At most you maybe able to get a couple hundred votes that way. Even then it is likely that you will be caught.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

So, can't dismiss what's on the video, can ya ?

Nope. Didn't think so.

Eric Holder gets pwned, and so did you, apparently.

And because you can't deal w/ the simple, straight forward truth, you are compelled to dig up old quotes, taking them completely out of context, or making them up out thin air, as is if a single one of them has 1 damn thing to do w/ voter fraud and the absolute need to show some sort of ID when voting.

Crassic.

And Corrine Brown ? Wow, seriously ? Dude, you're completely grasping for straws here, and it shows.

What we have here is nothing less than a display of the scientific method.

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Showing that voter fraud is possible, and in light with all the cases of KNOWN voter fraud, it's hardly a stretch to claim that there's no way that voter fraud can't be wide spread. A simple rule of showing one's ID to the polling officials would greatly reduce such fraud. It's really just that simple.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

Actually, the only thing the video proves is that O'Keefe is willing to actively participate in voter fraud.

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AuRaptor.

"Yes. I was wrong. I am sorry." - AuRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

BLUEHANDEDMENACE

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 12:16 PM

It is just so damn funny watching Rappy go into his Ostrich routine after getting refute-slammed yet again by Mikey.

I have started to picture Rap as the bad guy under the ghost costume at the end of the Scooby-Doo episode, shaking his fist, "I woulda gotten away with it too, if it weren't for that damned Kwicko!"

Seriously Rap. You post stuff from fringe BLOGS, who verofy nothing, and just spew, and complain about what people post from actual news sources? Biased or otherwise, a spot like the New Yorker actually does this crazy thing called verifying facts. I understand your lack of familiarity with the concept, as you have never done it, but it is the exact reason why what Kwicko has posted is valid, and what u have posted is a joke.

Do you not understand the concept that if O'Keefe had gone through with his voter fraud, and then Holder showed up himself, proved his ID, and voted, that the tally of votes would ultimately not be affected at all? Or is that too difficult for u to follow?

GEEZER

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 1:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Ah, I forgot - only YOU are allowed to say which media sources are acceptable and which aren't.

CBS?

http://wusa9.com/news/article/201160/82/Attorney-General-Eric-Holder-s
ays-voter-fraud-will-not-be-tolerated

Not to say one way or another whether this is a big issue or not, but it did make the local news here last night.

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 2:12 PM

"In the District of Columbia, we are one of many states where you identify yourself to the poll worker and you give some information about yourself to the poll worker, your address, and you sign into that book and your signature serves as verification that you are who you say you are on election day," McLaughlin said.

So if OKeef signed the book as Holder that would be forgery. I will smile if he gets arrested again.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

GEEZER

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 2:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
"In the District of Columbia, we are one of many states where you identify yourself to the poll worker and you give some information about yourself to the poll worker, your address, and you sign into that book and your signature serves as verification that you are who you say you are on election day," McLaughlin said.

So if OKeef signed the book as Holder that would be forgery. I will smile if he gets arrested again.

Sorry.

"The impersonator never identifies himself as Holder, never signs the election book, and never casts a ballot, apparently avoiding criminal activity while demonstrating for the camera how easily fraud could be committed by someone willing to do those things."

STORYMARK

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Okay Rappy, OKeef walked in, got a ballot by giving Holders namd and address and could have voted for him. So? Yes it is voter fraud, at the grand total of one vote. After having done that no one else could have used Holder's name to get a ballot. Plus if Holder did show up after the fact and was degined he could prove his identity, get OKeef's vote thrown out and cast his vote. If anything this shows how unrealistic it is to say there is wide spread voter fraud going on.

For that to happen you would need a large goup of people, with an even larger list of registared voters who you know are nto going to show up at the polling stations. At most you maybe able to get a couple hundred votes that way. Even then it is likely that you will be caught.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

Oh, there you go applying logic. Careful, you'll hurt the RapTard.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GEEZER:
Sorry.

"The impersonator never identifies himself as Holder, never signs the election book, and never casts a ballot, apparently avoiding criminal activity while demonstrating for the camera how easily fraud could be committed by someone willing to do those things."

Sorry I missed that. So it looks like he avoids breaking the law.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by GEEZER:
Sorry.

"The impersonator never identifies himself as Holder, never signs the election book, and never casts a ballot, apparently avoiding criminal activity while demonstrating for the camera how easily fraud could be committed by someone willing to do those things."

Sorry I missed that. So it looks like he avoids breaking the law.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

So he also avoided committing actual voting fraud, too, right? He *could* have voted fraudulently (a felony for anyone who tries it), but he didn't.

Y'know, I have a gun, and there's a bank on the corner. Clearly all guns should be outlawed, because robbery is just so easy. Anyone with a gun could do it!

This is the logic applied here. Because someone COULD do this - and change one single vote, but only if they don't get caught - we have to work harder to disenfranchise people, lest someone try to vote for them when the right doesn't want them voting at all!

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AuRaptor.

"Yes. I was wrong. I am sorry." - AuRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

GEEZER

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 4:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Y'know, I have a gun, and there's a bank on the corner. Clearly all guns should be outlawed, because robbery is just so easy. Anyone with a gun could do it!

This is the logic applied here. Because someone COULD do this - and change one single vote, but only if they don't get caught - we have to work harder to disenfranchise people, lest someone try to vote for them when the right doesn't want them voting at all!

Interesting that you apply the logic many liberals DO use relating to gun control - impose stricter requirements for owning guns and you'll reduce violence - to the argument that stricter requirements for voting reduce fraud.

Guess it just depends on who's ox is being gored.

NIKI2

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:37 PM

Silly people, why bother even responding to this? It's been proven over and over and OVER that actual VOTER FRAUD is negligible in America. Voter REGISTRATION has been rampant from both parties, but actual FRAUD has resulted in very few convictions. Voter-SUPPRESSION, on the other hand, as resulted in millions of votes not being counted.

Quote:
Last November, there was a fairly competitive gubernatorial race in Maryland. Late on Election Day, robocalls targeted more than 100,000 Democratic households, telling voters to “relax” and not bother voting because Dems were going to win. It was one of the most blatant examples of GOP voter-suppression tactics in a long while.

Fortunately, those responsible got caught. Yesterday, a jury convicted the Republican ringleader.
Quote:
Paul E. Schurick, the 2010 campaign manager for former Maryland governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., was convicted Tuesday by a Baltimore jury of four counts stemming from a robocall that prosecutors said was intended to suppress the black vote.

Why even bother playing the game of debating actual voter fraud or playing "I am, but what are you?" games, when the historical FACTS and convictions for voter SUPPRESSION are the real issue?

The call, which Schurick acknowledged authorizing, was placed on Election Day to 112,000 voters in Baltimore and Prince George’s County, the state’s two largest majority-African American jurisdictions. Recipients were told by an unidentified woman that they could “relax” because Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) had been successful.
Fortunately, other members of the former Republican governor’s team will also stand trial for their role.

Obviously, there’s a problem when Republican officials believe the best way to win an election is to suppress political participation. But the larger issue here is that GOP officials keep pushing the “war on voting,” putting new hurdles between voters and the ballot box, ostensibly because they fear the scourge of fraud. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_12/conviction_i
n_gop_votersuppres033951.php than playing into their spurious comments that voter fraud is "rampant" in this country (which the video certainly doesn't prove is "rampant"), pointing out how much voter-SUPPRESSION has been PROVEN and how many more lost votes it accounts for makes more sense. Voter suppression is all over the place; voter fraud is rare.
Quote:
The “Voter Protection Act” is the latest ploy from the Republican-controlled Missouri legislature to limit the voting rights of Missouri citizens. The legislature’s two previous attempts at voter suppression were stopped by the Missouri Supreme Court and a veto by Gov. Jay Nixon.

The Missouri legislature has claimed these laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud, even though Secretary of State Robin Carnahan has stated that for the past eight years Missouri has had no voter fraud convictions. Her statement is supported by an extensive study done by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University’s School of Law. Additionally, Missouri’s county clerks conduct continuous training for their bipartisan election judges to prevent voter fraud. Many county clerks throughout the state have procured the latest voting equipment that utilizes the latest technology designed to prevent voter fraud. http://www.news-leader.com/article/20120409/OPINIONS02/304090010/Misso
uri-Legislature-Republicans-voter-identification?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7COpinions%7Cp
Good old Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich was at least up front about it:
Quote:
Republicans have long tried to drive Democratic voters away from the polls. "I don't want everybody to vote," the influential conservative activist Paul Weyrich told a gathering of evangelical leaders in 1980. "As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." Wikipedia
He was at least hon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GEEZER:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Y'know, I have a gun, and there's a bank on the corner. Clearly all guns should be outlawed, because robbery is just so easy. Anyone with a gun could do it!

This is the logic applied here. Because someone COULD do this - and change one single vote, but only if they don't get caught - we have to work harder to disenfranchise people, lest someone try to vote for them when the right doesn't want them voting at all!

Interesting that you apply the logic many liberals DO use relating to gun control - impose stricter requirements for owning guns and you'll reduce violence - to the argument that stricter requirements for voting reduce fraud.

Guess it just depends on who's ox is being gored.

Yeah, and what's REALLY interesting is that I'm against it in both cases.

Too bad it seems you'll never be able to wrap your thick skull around that concept.

Here you are supporting much tighter qualifications for who is allowed to vote and who isn't, all while metaphorically claiming that you're strangling democracy because you love it so much.

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AuRaptor.

"Yes. I was wrong. I am sorry." - AuRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:54 PM

I wasn't refuted by kwickies links. Not even close.

It wasn't O'keefe who did this, we're told. It was a 23 yr old white male. Holder is a 61(?) yr old black man.

BHM, O'Keefe's video speaks for itself . The villain under the cloak is Holder, getting pwned, if it's anyone. It clearly shows how easy it is to committ voter fraud , which Holder says can't happen.

The emperor is naked, & yet you continue to marvel @ his outfit & his very fine hat.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

STORYMARK

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BLUEHANDEDMENACE:
It is just so damn funny watching Rappy go into his Ostrich routine after getting refute-slammed yet again by Mikey.

I have started to picture Rap as the bad guy under the ghost costume at the end of the Scooby-Doo episode, shaking his fist, "I woulda gotten away with it too, if it weren't for that damned Kwicko!"

Seriously Rap. You post stuff from fringe BLOGS, who verofy nothing, and just spew, and complain about what people post from actual news sources? Biased or otherwise, a spot like the New Yorker actually does this crazy thing called verifying facts. I understand your lack of familiarity with the concept, as you have never done it, but it is the exact reason why what Kwicko has posted is valid, and what u have posted is a joke.

Do you not understand the concept that if O'Keefe had gone through with his voter fraud, and then Holder showed up himself, proved his ID, and voted, that the tally of votes would ultimately not be affected at all? Or is that too difficult for u to follow?

See, so much common sense, Rappy wasn't even capable of looking at it.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURAPTOR:
I wasn't refuted by kwickies links. Not even close.

It wasn't O'keefe who did this, we're told. It was a 23 yr old white male. Holder is a 61(?) yr old black man.

BHM, O'Keefe's video speaks for itself . The villain under the cloak is Holder, getting pwned, if it's anyone. It clearly shows how easy it is to committ voter fraud , which Holder says can't happen.

It's can't in any meaningful way, which have been pointed out to you.

Explain how you are going to be able to use this weakness to influence an election in any meaningful way, lets say 500 votes.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NIKI2

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 7:06 PM

Quote:
Explain how you are going to be able to use this weakness to influence an election in any meaningful way, lets say 500 votes.

There's the pertinent point. How does ANY amount of individual fraud influence any election as much as wide-ranging voter suppression? The entire point this thread tries to make is irrelevant; one instance of pretend fraud doesn't even COUNT--even if it indicates more--when compared with what voter suppression has been doing for decades!

Actual voter fraud is negligible
Actual voter fraud is negligible
Actual voter fraud is negligible
Actual voter fraud is negligible
Actual voter fraud is negligible
Actual voter fraud is negligible
Actual voter fraud is negligible
Actual voter fraud is negligible

Maybe repeated enough, it will get through. No, I know it won't, which is funnier than hell sometimes, especially in this thread. Show some STATISTICS of Presidential voter election fraud, then we might...might...pay attention. You still can't show any statistics that come CLOSE to proven voter suppression. But go right ahead, keep trying. It keeps you busy, if nothing else.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:14 PM

Niki

For you, I understand that repeating a lie often enough, makes it believable.

But for me? Not so much.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

STORYMARK

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Niki

For you, I understand that repeating a lie often enough, makes it believable.

But for me? Not so much.

Again with the ironic funny overload.

Give it a rest, Rappy. My sides are aching from the laughter.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURAPTOR:
I wasn't refuted by kwickies links. Not even close.

It wasn't O'keefe who did this, we're told. It was a 23 yr old white male. Holder is a 61(?) yr old black man.

So what does a photo ID law do that a fake ID can't bypass? I mean, if the guy at the polling station didn't realize that this wasn't Eric Holder, then was he supposed to rely on some description the he'd have readily available that would tell him exactly what Eric Holder looks like? Or are you saying that it's impossible to make a photo ID with your picture on it over someone else's name?

Quote:

BHM, O'Keefe's video speaks for itself . The villain under the cloak is Holder, getting pwned, if it's anyone. It clearly shows how easy it is to committ voter fraud , which Holder says can't happen.

Can you provide any cites to back your claim that Holder says voter fraud "CAN'T HAPPEN"? You mistake "isn't happening on a widespread basis" with "can't possibly happen"; that's a problem when you live in only a black and white world.

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AuRaptor.

"Yes. I was wrong. I am sorry." - AuRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Niki

For you, I understand that repeating a lie often enough, makes it believable.

But for me? Not so much.

Again with the ironic funny overload.

Give it a rest, Rappy. My sides are aching from the laughter.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

More of Rappy's ironic overload - these are things and positions he's actually held:

"Mission Accomplished!"

"WMD!"

"We'll be greeted as liberators!"

"The economy is on fire!"

"95% of Americans pay no taxes!"

"Rush is completely right, and any woman who wants to be responsible about practicing safe sex is a whore and a slut!"

"Corrine Brown said Trayvon was hunted down like a rabid dog!"

"Nobody edited the ACORN or Shirley Sherrod tapes!"

Repeat as necessary, Rappy.

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AuRaptor.

"Yes. I was wrong. I am sorry." - AuRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

STORYMARK

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 10:05 PM

I am literally amazed at the level of cognitive dissonance that the poor boy delves into. Its like an inpenetrable barrier of talk radio soundbites and bumper sticker logic. I hoinestly wonder sometimes if he really believes all the bullshit he spouts.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

GEEZER

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Here you are supporting much tighter qualifications for who is allowed to vote and who isn't, all while metaphorically claiming that you're strangling democracy because you love it so much.

Now where in this thread have I done this?

I posted a link to a local story about the Holder voter fraud story.

I posted a followup to correct Nickerson's misapprehension.

I noted that you are applying the "we need to regulate this" philosophy to two situations supported by two sides of the political spectrum, and that such application seems to depend on who's injured by the issue.

If you want to jump to unsupported conclusions, I can't stop you, but be aware that's what you're doing.

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GEEZER:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Here you are supporting much tighter qualifications for who is allowed to vote and who isn't, all while metaphorically claiming that you're strangling democracy because you love it so much.

Now where in this thread have I done this?

Not in this thread, but in general you've been in favor of such laws.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51324

Quote:

I posted a link to a local story about the Holder voter fraud story.

I posted a followup to correct Nickerson's misapprehension.

I noted that you are applying the "we need to regulate this" philosophy to two situations supported by two sides of the political spectrum, and that such application seems to depend on who's injured by the issue.

Did I? Am I really applying "we need to regulate this" to guns? Or is that you jumping to unsupported conclusions? (Not that it would be the first time you've done so, of course.)

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AuRaptor.

"Yes. I was wrong. I am sorry." - AuRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

RIONAEIRE

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:34 AM

Off topic, but has anyone else noticed that all three of Quicko's closing quotes are by, or about Raptor?
:)

Geezer, Quicko has always seemed to be pretty pro gun rights to me, I know he likes using his guns for target shooting regularly etc.

I assume you're my pal until you let me know otherwise.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.

M52NICKERSON

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Niki

For you, I understand that repeating a lie often enough, makes it believable.

But for me? Not so much.

Than prove it you moron!

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:14 AM

Hmmm... I know the earth is round. I know that a belief is not provable. I know that man-made global warming is real, and it is happening now. I know you can't make an economy work by giving all the rich people more money. I know that rappy can't think his way out of a paper bag.

All true. What's the problem?

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Off topic, but has anyone else noticed that all three of Quicko's closing quotes are by, or about Raptor?
:)

Which I link, IMHO, to Kwicko's low self esteem.

NIKI2

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:37 AM

Or sarcasm. Or amusement. People have used all kinds of things for their sigs...some have been rather ugly quotes from other board members. They change fairly regularly. As I recall, at one time someone was using some of the uglier writings of Kane (I remembered his name! Well, I didn't actually remember it, I had it on an old Word document)--it was quite lengthy and got irritating to scroll past. His current one just means Mike is enjoying pointing out some of Raptor's recent idiocy, he'll be onto something else before long.

The one that always makes me shake my head is Hero...his posts of people agreeing with him or praising him are all dated and from the past, which actually makes it look like those are the ONLY such instances, and that he's desperate to show SOMEONE agreed with him SOMEWHERE along the line. I don't think that's what he intends it to indicate, tho'. ;o)

We all change our sigs from time to time...it's always nicer, as far as I'm concerned, if sigs are in color or are a link, so I don't get them confused with part of the post. But that's just me.

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Off topic, but has anyone else noticed that all three of Quicko's closing quotes are by, or about Raptor?
:)

Which I link, IMHO, to Kwicko's low self esteem.

Actually, it's a snark at Rappy and "Hero" and their habit of taking quotes from others and using them, completely out of context, as their own signature.

Or were you trying to say Rappy and "Hero" have low self-esteem?

And yes, Riona, they are all either quotes by Rappy or references to things he's said. Like Anthony, I thought it would be good to remind everyone exactly who this person is and the positions he takes. The apology one was just for fun, though, because Rappy finally apologized to me for some of the lies I called him out on.

But stay tuned; the sig lines can change at a moment's notice.

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AuRaptor.

"Yes. I was wrong. I am sorry." - AuRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

RIONAEIRE

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:46 AM

When I make observations like that it is generally not for any purpose other than musing and pointing out something I find humorous, interesting, or just worthy of note either way, without any judgement as to why. Just for fun. Raptor does that same thing now that Hero does, he has a quote about someone agreeing with him.

I think it might be funny to use nasty quotes about myself for tag lines, just to be contrarian.

I assume you're my pal until you let me know otherwise.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 4:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

The one that always makes me shake my head is Hero...his posts of people agreeing with him or praising him are all dated and from the past, which actually makes it look like those are the ONLY such instances, and that he's desperate to show SOMEONE agreed with him SOMEWHERE along the line. I don't think that's what he intends it to indicate, tho'. ;o)

I've got a great old one from "Hero" that shows his idiocy in full view for all, in more ways than one. I may have to bring it back just for his dubious benefit.

Quote:
I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence had very little to do with that decision. - "Hero", RWED, Monday, March 03, 2008 8:06 AM

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AuRaptor.

"Yes. I was wrong. I am sorry." - AuRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 4:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Actually, it's a snark at Rappy and "Hero" and their habit of taking quotes from others and using them, completely out of context, as their own signature.

Actually, the practice was started by Signy and/or Rue if I am not mistaken. And it has, much to my dismay, continued to flourish. It is nothing more than childish marginalization no matter how you might spin it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Or were you trying to say Rappy and "Hero" have low self-esteem?

I thought I made it quite clear who I postulated had low self esteem. Please refrain from your usual diversionary debate tactics.

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 5:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Actually, it's a snark at Rappy and "Hero" and their habit of taking quotes from others and using them, completely out of context, as their own signature.

Actually, the practice was started by Signy and/or Rue if I am not mistaken. And it has, much to my dismay, continued to flourish. It is nothing more than childish marginalization no matter how you might spin it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Or were you trying to say Rappy and "Hero" have low self-esteem?

I thought I made it quite clear who I postulated had low self esteem. Please refrain from your usual diversionary debate tactics.

Gorsh, I didn't realize you were incapable of debate. I'll not forget it again.

So if I satirize someone's sig style, that's evidence that *I* have self-esteem issues. But if they post out-of-context things that seem to flatter them, that's evidence (in your eyes, at least) that they have no self-esteem issues at all.

Is that what you're saying?

And speaking of marginalizing, aren't you the guy who once said that the only reason you were arguing with me at all was because I "rubbed you the wrong way"?

I guess it's different when you do it.

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AuRaptor.

"Yes. I was wrong. I am sorry." - AuRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 5:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So if I satirize someone's sig style, that's evidence that *I* have self-esteem issues.

So which is it now? Do you do it for satirical reasons or is it because you want to remind people of the kind of person they are dealing with?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And speaking of marginalizing, aren't you the guy who once said that the only reason you were arguing with me at all was because I "rubbed you the wrong way"?

I guess it's different when you do it.

I think you need to look up what marginalizing means.

GEEZER

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Not in this thread, but in general you've been in favor of such laws.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51324

Link doesn't work. Maybe just give the thread title.

Quote:

Did I? Am I really applying "we need to regulate this" to guns?

"Y'know, I have a gun, and there's a bank on the corner. Clearly all guns should be outlawed, because robbery is just so easy."

I'd think "outlaw" would fall under the meaning of "regulate". So looks kind'a like it.

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

"Y'know, I have a gun, and there's a bank on the corner. Clearly all guns should be outlawed, because robbery is just so easy."

I'd think "outlaw" would fall under the meaning of "regulate". So looks kind'a like it.

Ah. I didn't realize you can't comprehend sarcasm.

I was framing the O'Keefe/conservative argument in terms of the gun issue. O'Keefe and the right seem to believe that if vote fraud is POSSIBLE, then it's clearly out of control and needs to be reined in. I was just wondering how they'd feel if the same argument were applied to their beloved guns.

And, because you seem to be unable to read or comprehend, you may have missed where I said I'd be against such laws in both cases.

It seems I'm a better conservative/libertarian than some of the self-proclaimed ones on this board, because I believe "small government" actually means smaller, less intrusive government. The right-wingers here seem to want a government so small it can easily fit into every woman's uterus, or a voting booth, or anyone's bedroom (except theirs, of course).

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AuRaptor.

"Yes. I was wrong. I am sorry." - AuRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

GEEZER

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Ah. I didn't realize you can't comprehend sarcasm.

Mike, I consider everything you post to be sarcasm.

However, you did apply "we need to regulate" to guns, whether sarcasticly or not.

And being caught, you start with the personal insults.

Think I've seen this movie before.

STORYMARK

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

And being caught, you start with the personal insults.

Of course, you've shown us that the better option, when caught, is to pretend the thread never existed in the first place. :p

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

STORYMARK

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Please refrain from your usual diversionary debate tactics.

Drawing direct logical parallels from your own words is a diversion? Waaaaah.

Myabe you just should learn to write.

But that won't happen.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Ah. I didn't realize you can't comprehend sarcasm.

Mike, I consider everything you post to be sarcasm.

However, you did apply "we need to regulate" to guns, whether sarcasticly or not.

And being caught, you start with the personal insults.

Think I've seen this movie before.

Wait a sec - was THAT why you repeatedly called me a "sick fuck"? Because you got "caught"?

If you've seen that movie, it's because you were starring in it.

Big of you to finally admit it. It only took you several months. Maybe an apology is coming my way. Heck, maybe it's my week. Rappy apologized, and now Geezer might be in line to do the same!

I won't hold my breath, though.

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AuRaptor.

"Yes. I was wrong. I am sorry." - AuRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So he also avoided committing actual voting fraud, too, right? He *could* have voted fraudulently (a felony for anyone who tries it), but he didn't.

Y'know, I have a gun, and there's a bank on the corner. Clearly all guns should be outlawed, because robbery is just so easy. Anyone with a gun could do it!

This is the logic applied here. Because someone COULD do this - and change one single vote, but only if they don't get caught - we have to work harder to disenfranchise people, lest someone try to vote for them when the right doesn't want them voting at all!

Reposting my actual words, because Geezer here seems to have edited out quite a bit. I think he'd call that "lying" or "erroneous editing" if a media outlet like MSNBC did such a thing, and he'd be quite offended by it.

So, read the words and see if you think I'm really advocating for tight gun regulations. Pointing out that this is the logic being applied by the right in the photo ID discussion, and how much they claim to hate it when others use this kind of argument to try to regulate guns isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of such regulation or such tactics, but it's easy to see how Geezer gets so confused, since he can't seem to follow basic concepts very well.

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AuRaptor.

"Yes. I was wrong. I am sorry." - AuRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

GEEZER

Thursday, April 12, 2012 12:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Wait a sec - was THAT why you repeatedly called me a "sick fuck"?

Been down to the grey file cabinets again, Mike?

How long ago was that?

Nine months?

A year?

GEEZER

Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So, read the words and see if you think I'm really advocating for tight gun regulations. Pointing out that this is the logic being applied by the right in the photo ID discussion, and how much they claim to hate it when others use this kind of argument to try to regulate guns isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of such regulation or such tactics, but it's easy to see how Geezer gets so confused, since he can't seem to follow basic concepts very well.

Hmm. Did I say you were "advocating" for tight gun regulations?

Actually, it looks like I was saying pretty much what you did above.

"Interesting that you apply the logic many liberals DO use relating to gun control - impose stricter requirements for owning guns and you'll reduce violence - to the argument that stricter requirements for voting reduce fraud.

Guess it just depends on who's ox is being gored."

"I noted that you are applying the "we need to regulate this" philosophy to two situations supported by two sides of the political spectrum, and that such application seems to depend on who's injured by the issue."

If you decide to take this as disagreement with your point, that must be down to your preconceptions.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 12, 2012 5:28 PM

Ah, then you agree with me that tighter voting regulations aren't going to help anyone or stop any fraud.

Good to know. I'll make a note of your agreement on this matter.

Thank you.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 12, 2012 5:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Wait a sec - was THAT why you repeatedly called me a "sick fuck"?

Been down to the grey file cabinets again, Mike?

I guess I have to ask:

Is the average memory span of most people these days analogous to that of a gnat? Is it considered remarkable that someone might actually REMEMBER something, rather than have to go look it up or research it?

Strange.

Quote:

How long ago was that?

Nine months?

A year?

Is there a statute of limitations you're looking for?

I notice you won't answer the question, though. Duly noted. And I'll take your silence as confirmation that you were caught out, which is WHY you decided to start hurling insults, since according to you, that's what insults mean.

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AuRaptor.

"Yes. I was wrong. I am sorry." - AuRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

GEEZER

Thursday, April 12, 2012 6:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Ah, then you agree with me that tighter voting regulations aren't going to help anyone or stop any fraud.

Nope.

Whether they help anyone will depend on whether requiring likely Democratic voters to get some sort of photo I.D. is just too, too onerous.

They probably will stop fraud. Whether the amount of fraud will have any serious effect on an election is another question.

GEEZER

Thursday, April 12, 2012 6:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I guess I have to ask:

Is the average memory span of most people these days analogous to that of a gnat? Is it considered remarkable that someone might actually REMEMBER something, rather than have to go look it up or research it?

So you can remember every time you've insulted someone? You must have quite a memory, or else a strange concept of what's important enough to remember.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 12, 2012 6:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I guess I have to ask:

Is the average memory span of most people these days analogous to that of a gnat? Is it considered remarkable that someone might actually REMEMBER something, rather than have to go look it up or research it?

So you can remember every time you've insulted someone? You must have quite a memory, or else a strange concept of what's important enough to remember.

Then I guess you call people "a sick fuck" often enough that it's not even something you'd remember, right?

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AuRaptor.

"Yes. I was wrong. I am sorry." - AuRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

STORYMARK

Thursday, April 12, 2012 7:03 PM

Kwick.... come on, bro.... you're expecting memory skills from a guy who names himself "Geezer".

Just sayin'.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

KWICKO

Thursday, April 12, 2012 9:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

And being caught, you start with the personal insults.

Of course, you've shown us that the better option, when caught, is to pretend the thread never existed in the first place. :p

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

You've noticed that I seem to have scared BDN away again too.

GEEZER

Saturday, April 14, 2012 11:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Then I guess you call people "a sick fuck" often enough that it's not even something you'd remember, right?

Not really. When it's so long ago, however, I tend to let it go.

But back to the topic.

Got any comments on this?

"Whether they help anyone will depend on whether requiring likely Democratic voters to get some sort of photo I.D. is just too, too onerous.

They probably will stop fraud. Whether the amount of fraud will have any serious effect on an election is another question."

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 14, 2012 1:56 PM

Quote:
"Whether they help anyone will depend on whether requiring likely Democratic voters to get some sort of photo I.D. is just too, too onerous.

Seriously, GEEZER?

The biggest vote fraud ever committed was with the electronic vote, the second biggest was the excision of valid voters off the voter rolls, and the third is redistricting. That's all at the State Scy level, and no "voter ID" law is going to fix that. And the last big vote fraud was committed by the Supreme Court. Because, as was widely attributed to Stalin: "It's not who votes that counts, its who counts the votes." Or maybe that was Rove who said it.

If you guys want to go on and on vote fraud, start with the big stuff. You can fix the little stuff later. Sheesh. What tools.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Saturday, April 14, 2012 5:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You've noticed that I seem to have scared BDN away again too.

Now where did this come from?
Please tell me how often I must post in order to qualify in your mind of not being scared away?
Please explain to me what exactly you supposedly did to scare me away?
I patiently await your response.

GEEZER

Saturday, April 14, 2012 5:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
"Whether they help anyone will depend on whether requiring likely Democratic voters to get some sort of photo I.D. is just too, too onerous.
Seriously, GEEZER?

The biggest vote fraud ever committed was with the electronic vote, the second biggest was the excision of valid voters off the voter rolls, and the third is redistricting. That's all at the State Scy level, and no "voter ID" law is going to fix that. And the last big vote fraud was committed by the Supreme Court. Because, as was widely attributed to Stalin: "It's not who votes that counts, its who counts the votes." Or maybe that was Rove who said it.

If you guys want to go on and on vote fraud, start with the big stuff. You can fix the little stuff later. Sheesh. What tools.

The issue of this thread is voter fraud by false identification. I was discussing the politicization of this issue by both sides. If you want to go off on another topic, that's fine, but excuse me if I stick to the subject.

The quote of mine you included refers back to previous threads about this type of fraud, when some of the Liberals here claimed voter I.D. was a Republican plot to reduce Democratic votes by requiring prospective voters to get photo I.D., a task that they claimed was just too difficult for potential Democratic voters to perform. I feel they were playing politics, since I expect that, except in rare cases, anyone who actually wants to vote can spend the rough equvilent of the time and money it takes to see a movie and get a photo I.D.

M52NICKERSON

Saturday, April 14, 2012 5:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
The issue of this thread is voter fraud by false identification.

Which is pretty much non-existent and by it's nature can't be wide spread nor large enough to affect elections.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NIKI2

Saturday, April 14, 2012 6:09 PM

You know, a lot of us who used to be in the middle class can't afford to go to movies anymore, and are cautious how we use our gas. I can walk three blocks to my voting booth, but would have to drive into town and purchase a voter ID. That's been true for a LONG time for a lot of people who are poorer than us. And to snark that it's too "onerous" for the elderly and infirm, who would like to have their voices heard and exercise their right to vote, to have to find transportation to somewhere they can get a photo ID and pay for it, is the height of ignorant condescension, and petty to boot. People in rural areas might have to travel a long ways to acquire a photo ID, while the government makes sure there are convenient places nearby to cast their votes. Students on scholarships who have a job to make up the difference between their scholarships and what the scholarship doesn't cover, many of whom don't have cars, might well find it difficult to obtain a photo ID. The same for those in lower income brackets who work two jobs and have a family at home to care for. In other words, by what you're saying, ANY group of people who truly DO find it onerous to obtain a photo ID in order to exercise their right to vote are...what? Less valid that Americans who have no difficulty doing so?

There used to be a day when most of us wanted every American to be able to cast their vote. Those days never existed for the states in question, obviously, who only want to limit those portions of the population who MIGHT vote Democratic. Even you have admitted that requiring photo ID to vote would probably not make enough difference to change an election very much, so what other purpose is there in limiting people's right to vote? Anyone who truly wants to commit voter fraud can easily obtain or falsify a photo ID if they really want to, "onerous" or not. The small amount of election fraud that has EVER existed in this country by people who commit it does not justify limiting the voting rights of whole sections of the electorate, so why do it? What is the actual justification?

When you put together the fact that the states who are doing it are by and large those who've been PROVEN to have engaged in massive voter suppression speaks for itself. They have a history of TRUE voter fraud in that they've kept segments of the population from voting in numerous illegal ways...hell, laws had to be passed to STOP them! So what argument can be made that is valid for this new tactic by those same states?

GEEZER

Sunday, April 15, 2012 1:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
The issue of this thread is voter fraud by false identification.

Which is pretty much non-existent and by it's nature can't be wide spread nor large enough to affect elections.

Which is pretty much what I was saying.

However, that doesn't stop both sides from trying to make political capital out of it: the Republicans by raising the specter of masses of illegals fraudulently voting (Democratic, of course), and the Democrats trying to say that poor folks who want to vote (who are apparently all Democrats) will be disuaded in large numbers by being required to spend an afternoon getting a photo I.D.

ETA: See Niki's post above for the Democratic spin on the issue.

"Oh, it's just too, too difficult to get a photo I.D. I might have to spend a couple of hours to be able to help decide who's gonna run the country. Nah, I'll just spend the time complaining about it on-line."

M52NICKERSON

Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GEEZER:

Which is pretty much what I was saying.

However, that doesn't stop both sides from trying to make political capital out of it: the Republicans by raising the specter of masses of illegals fraudulently voting (Democratic, of course), and the Democrats trying to say that poor folks who want to vote (who are apparently all Democrats) will be disuaded in large numbers by being required to spend an afternoon getting a photo I.D.

That's the problem, it is not spin. It has been shown a number of time that the poor and disadvantaged widely vote Democrat. In Florida an ID card cost $25. That is extra money some may not have. Plus by requiring an ID at the polls you are going against the spirit of the 24th amendment. Now if a voter ID law also included provisions that allow individual to get an ID card and the paperwork needed to get that ID free of charge there would be little argument against it.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

KWICKO

Sunday, April 15, 2012 12:19 PM

Quote:
Justice: Evidence of bias in Texas voter ID law

AUSTIN, Texas — The U.S. Justice Department said Wednesday there is substantial evidence Texas' voter identification law will discriminate against minorities.

The department's assertion came in papers filed in a Washington federal court explaining why Texas lawmakers should have to testify and turn over their communications regarding the law to a panel of judges considering whether the law can be implemented by the November election.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has argued lawmakers should not have to reveal internal deliberations.

"These discovery requests represent an unwarranted federal intrusion into the operations of the Texas Legislature," Abbott said in his effort to prevent U.S. attorneys from acquiring the paperwork they requested and interviewing lawmakers and their staff. He argued lawmakers can only do their work if they are confident their deliberation cannot be brought up in court.

But the Justice Department says no such privilege exists and that evidence presented in the case so far shows 600,000 people will be unable to vote if the law is enforced and that minorities would be impacted the most. The department said the court needs more information to determine whether lawmakers intended the law to discriminate against minority voters.

"The record available to the United States at this point already contains significant circumstantial evidence that could support a finding of discriminatory intent," the papers filed Wednesday said.

Texas law currently requires a voter to present a registration card or a photo identification card to vote. The law passed last year would require everyone to present an official photo ID before voting.

Texas is one of nine states, most of them in the South, required to submit all changes to electoral law for federal approval, either by the Justice Department or the federal court in Washington. Texas has sued in federal court to have the voter ID law approved in time for the November general election.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/justice-evidence-of-bias-1413997.
html

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AuRaptor.

"Yes. I was wrong. I am sorry." - AuRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 15, 2012 2:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

"Rush is completely right, and any woman who wants to be responsible about practicing safe sex is a whore and a slut!"

You're a liar. I never said that. Rush never even said that.

You think that you can interject a complete, 100% fabricated lie like that, in the midsts of out of context comments, you can get away with it ?

I suppose you do, so shoddy are your ethics and so mind numbingly twisted is your zealotry.

It seems you've found ways to keep threads going, my simply making up unbelievable lies, in hopes others who have far more respect and dignity for their word will have to respond. But for someone who altered their own reply, simply to say they never said something as you have done, honor and self respect clearly are foreign concepts.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

M52NICKERSON

Sunday, April 15, 2012 2:34 PM

Your failure to accept reality is staggering. That was Rush's argument, on purpose or because he's a moron I don't know, but it does not change what he said and said and said for three days.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

KWICKO

Sunday, April 15, 2012 2:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

"Rush is completely right, and any woman who wants to be responsible about practicing safe sex is a whore and a slut!"

You're a liar. I never said that. Rush never even said that.

You think that you can interject a complete, 100% fabricated lie like that, in the midsts of out of context comments, you can get away with it ?

I suppose you do, so shoddy are your ethics and so mind numbingly twisted is your zealotry.

It seems you've found ways to keep threads going, my simply making up unbelievable lies, in hopes others who have far more respect and dignity for their word will have to respond. But for someone who altered their own reply, simply to say they never said something as you have done, honor and self respect clearly are foreign concepts.

Thanks for admitting that you're simply making up unbelievable lies, but that's no real news flash to anyone here. We've known that about you for years.

Show me where I claimed that you said that. I said it's a position you've held. For verification of that position, and of you holding that position, see the thread referenced in my signature.

Here's the thread you're responding to. Notice I said that these are positions you've held, and notice also that nowhere do I claim you posted these actual words. Funny how much you complain about "context" and then leave that critical information out of your post in your search for any reason to display your phony indignation.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Niki

For you, I understand that repeating a lie often enough, makes it believable.

But for me? Not so much.

Again with the ironic funny overload.

Give it a rest, Rappy. My sides are aching from the laughter.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

More of Rappy's ironic overload - these are things and positions he's actually held:

"Mission Accomplished!"

"WMD!"

"We'll be greeted as liberators!"

"The economy is on fire!"

"95% of Americans pay no taxes!"

"Rush is completely right, and any woman who wants to be responsible about practicing safe sex is a whore and a slut!"

"Corrine Brown said Trayvon was hunted down like a rabid dog!"

"Nobody edited the ACORN or Shirley Sherrod tapes!"

Repeat as necessary, Rappy.

"I have no real clue of what you're speaking." - AuRaptor.

"Yes. I was wrong. I am sorry." - AuRaptor.

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=51196

Now, here's your first response in the post about Rush and calling women "sluts":

Quote:
He's anything BUT a 'lunatic',and specifically on THIS matter, I fully support him AND his views.

Now you want to claim that you never said he was right, but you DID say quite specifically that you fully supported him and his views. So tell us all: Do you regularly fully support views and people you know to be wrong?

And here's your response to Anthony, when he asked for clarification of what you were really supporting:

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:
specifically on THIS matter, I fully support him AND his views.

Hello,

His specific views are that the woman is a slut and should post pornographic videos of herself.

Are you sure you support him and his views on this matter?

--Anthony

As for the 'slut' part... I'm thinking back to what Inara said.

" The term applies "

So please, tell us all again how you never said what you said.

The fact that you don't want anyone to remember it doesn't mean nobody remembers it.

"

KWICKO

Sunday, April 15, 2012 2:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Your failure to accept reality is staggering. That was Rush's argument, on purpose or because he's a moron I don't know, but it does not change what he said and said and said for three days.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

And Rappy was right there, insisting that he fully supported Rush AND his views.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:18 PM

Rappy, I hope to god that you're learning something from this. Over and over, with depressing regularity, your ideas are either flattened by facts which become obvious to everyone, or they bite themselves (and you) in the ass because they contradict each other. You might want to stop believing right wing entertainers.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:20 PM

You put the comment in quotes, indicating that I said it. I never did. Nor was it in any way an accurate description of ant position I have held, at any time.

Kwickie, you are nothing but a miserable sack of go-se. For you to waste this much time and effort by even posting this crap on the message boards, when you have to know it's 100 % false, clearly indicates to me , now more than ever, that you're damaged goods. A sad, mental case.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:21 PM

Rappy, we ALL know it's not false. WE remember what you said better than you do. Please, for the love of god, shut up. You're looking more and more irrational with every post. Just... just stop.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Your failure to accept reality is staggering. That was Rush's argument, on purpose or because he's a moron I don't know, but it does not change what he said and said and said for three days.

You're not too bright. I get that. But at the VERY least, get the facts straight. He didn't say it for 3 days. And his position was spot on, that Sandra Fluke , putting herself on parade, some how thinks she has some sort of a RIGHT to other people's money, so that she can get govt mandated contraceptive care. She doesn't have that right. Not to my money, or anyone else. Rush crossed the line in calling her a slut, but that was his attempted try at comedy. Being absurd to show absurdity. Bill Maher, did far, FAR worse, and Obama still takes his money ( Or refuses to call for it to be returned ) Hypocrites, all of you, on the Left, for organizing and trying to boycott Rush, but say next to nothing about Maher and his vile comments.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

KWICKO

Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

You put the comment in quotes, indicating that I said it. I never did. Nor was it in any way an accurate description of ant position I have held, at any time.

Never heard of paraphrasing, eh? I was pretty explicit in saying that these were positions you've held. Had I said that this was a direct quote of something you said, you might have an argument.

As always, you're very quick to throw out the word "LIE" when it's convenient for you.

Tell me you never claimed to support Rush when he called Sandra Fluke a slut for using birth control. Go ahead. Tell us all how you never held that position.

Quote:

Kwickie, you are nothing but a miserable sack of go-se. For you to waste this much time and effort by even posting this crap on the message boards, when you have to know it's 100 % false, clearly indicates to me , now more than ever, that you're damaged goods. A sad, mental case.

So if I post up my evidence, I'm a sad mental case of go-se. And if I don't post it, I'm a "liar". Good to know.

How much time and effort have you wasted posting crap on the message boards now? How damaged, sad, and mental are you?

Or, as always seems to be the case with conservatives, do you hold yourself to a far lesser standard of conduct than you hold others to?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Rappy, we ALL know it's not false. WE remember what you said better than you do. Please, for the love of god, shut up. You're looking more and more irrational with every post. Just... just stop.

It's 100 % false, and you know it. I know me far better than you ever will. If you can PROVE those were my views, then by all means, post it. Or YOU shut the fuck up.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

KWICKO

Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Rappy, we ALL know it's not false. WE remember what you said better than you do. Please, for the love of god, shut up. You're looking more and more irrational with every post. Just... just stop.

And the more desperate he gets, the more name-calling he resorts to, because he can't find any facts that support his claims.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:38 PM

Kwickie - Putting words in quotes indicates those are the actual words said by someone. Even if you're trying to claim those are my VIEWS, ( which clearly, they weren't ) you're still wrong, either way. You posting that as your 'evidence' is meaningless. You're wrong. Period. I never said those things, nor were they my 'views'. At best, some of them were taken out of context. But you know all this. Your intent was to jumble them all into one big pile, and then try to claim it was all correct , or none of it was, right ?

Pathetic.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

NIKI2

Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:39 PM

Quote:
evidence presented in the case so far shows 600,000 people will be unable to vote if the law is enforced and that minorities would be impacted the most

Where's Geezer to argue that point? That many people WOULD be enough to impact an election, wouldn't it??

Quote:
already contains significant circumstantial evidence that could support a finding of discriminatory intent

My question, once again, is if it would have no effect, WHY DO IT? Logically, politicians/legislators rarely do something they think won't have some sort of effect...if this wouldn't (despite evidence to the contrary), why would they bother? And why is it that for the most part it's ONLY states who have a record of suppressing the vote of minorities in the past? SO MUCH SO that they now have to get permission from the fed to change their voting laws. None of that means anything to you?

Spin my ass. There are FACTS supporting my argument; where are yours?

I don't know if the Atlanta Journal Constitution is a "liberally-biased" news source or not, but the Photo ID law is required in Tennessee, Georgia, Louisiana and Florida, among others, according to the National Conference of State Legislators ( http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx). If you look at their map there, and add Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas (currently in the works), it's obvious that, for the most part, it's the South and a few other Republican states which have or are trying to implement it. The two coasts, on the other hand, with the exception of Pennsylvania, have either no voter ID laws at all, or non-photo ID requirements.

As to "onerous":

Quote:
Texas has no driver's license offices in almost a third of the state's counties. Meanwhile, close to 15 percent of Hispanic Texans living in counties without driver's license offices don't have ID. A little less than a quarter of driver's license offices have extended hours, which would make it tough for many working voters to find a place and time to acquire the IDs. Despite this, the Texas legislature struck an amendment that would have reimbursed low-income voters for travel expenses when going to apply for a voter ID, and killed another that would have required offices to remain open until 7:00 p.m. or later on just one weekday, and four or more hours at least two weekends. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-
are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/ the other hand, in 10 years in Texas, there have been just 100 federal prosecutions and 50 state prosecutions of voter ID law (Same). How does that add up to "just spin"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Rappy, we ALL know it's not false. WE remember what you said better than you do. Please, for the love of god, shut up. You're looking more and more irrational with every post. Just... just stop.

And the more desperate he gets, the more name-calling he resorts to, because he can't find any facts that support his claims.

The burden of proof lies w/ you, to provide that those claims were true in the first place, not for me to prove they weren't.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Rappy, I hope to god that you're learning something from this. Over and over, with depressing regularity, your ideas are either flattened by facts which become obvious to everyone, or they bite themselves (and you) in the ass because they contradict each other. You might want to stop believing right wing entertainers.

No they aren't. I'm proven right, and you're the ones who absolutely believe fairy tales, like AGW , and then doubling down on your Left wing propaganda.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

KWICKO

Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Rappy, we ALL know it's not false. WE remember what you said better than you do. Please, for the love of god, shut up. You're looking more and more irrational with every post. Just... just stop.

It's 100 % false, and you know it. I know me far better than you ever will. If you can PROVE those were my views, then by all means, post it. Or YOU shut the fuck up.

Quote:
On Rush calling a woman a "slut":

He's anything BUT a 'lunatic',and specifically on THIS matter, I fully support him AND his views.

And here's your response to Anthony, when he asked for clarification of what you were really supporting:

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:
specifically on THIS matter, I fully support him AND his views.

Hello,

His specific views are that the woman is a slut and should post pornographic videos of herself.

Are you sure you support him and his views on this matter?

--Anthony

As for the 'slut' part... I'm thinking back to what Inara said.

" The term applies "

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You've noticed that I seem to have scared BDN away again too.

Hey Kwicko, I am still waiting for your response. I understand you have spent considerable time and energy engaging Auraptor. But please spare a few seconds to answer my simple questions. I would appreciate it greatly, thank-you.

KWICKO

Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
evidence presented in the case so far shows 600,000 people will be unable to vote if the law is enforced and that minorities would be impacted the most
Where's Geezer to argue that point? That many people WOULD be enough to impact an election, wouldn't it??
Quote:
already contains significant circumstantial evidence that could support a finding of discriminatory intent
My question, once again, is if it would have no effect, WHY DO IT? Logically, politicians/legislators rarely do something they think won't have some sort of effect...if this wouldn't (despite evidence to the contrary), why would they bother? And why is it that for the most part it's ONLY states who have a record of suppressing the vote of minorities in the past? SO MUCH SO that they now have to get permission from the fed to change their voting laws. None of that means anything to you?

Spin my ass. There are FACTS supporting my argument; where are yours?

I don't know if the Atlanta Journal Constitution is a "liberally-biased" news source or not, but the Photo ID law is required in Tennessee, Georgia, Louisiana and Florida, among others, according to the National Conference of State Legislators ( http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx). If you look at their map there, and add Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas (currently in the works), it's obvious that, for the most part, it's the South and a few other Republican states which have or are trying to implement it. The two coasts, on the other hand, with the exception of Pennsylvania, have either no voter ID laws at all, or non-photo ID requirements.

As to "onerous":
Quote:
Texas has no driver's license offices in almost a third of the state's counties. Meanwhile, close to 15 percent of Hispanic Texans living in counties without driver's license offices don't have ID. A little less than a quarter of driver's license offices have extended hours, which would make it tough for many working voters to find a place and time to acquire the IDs. Despite this, the Texas legislature struck an amendment that would have reimbursed low-income voters for travel expenses when going to apply for a voter ID, and killed another that would have required offices to remain open until 7:00 p.m. or later on just one weekday, and four or more hours at least two weekends. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-
are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/
On the other hand, in 10 years in Texas, there have been just 100 federal prosecutions and 50 state prosecutions of voter ID law (Same). How does that add up to "just spin"?

Well said.

In many places in Texas, just the act of trying to GET a photo ID is an all-day excursion, and it has to be done on a non-holiday weekday, meaning that if you're among the working poor, you have to sacrifice 20% of your income for the week just to take the time off work to go do this. Then there's the travel expense and the cost of the ID, and many working poor have decided that they just can't afford to vote.

And, of course, that's entirely the goal: Make it too expensive for poor people to vote.

KWICKO

Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You've noticed that I seem to have scared BDN away again too.

Hey Kwicko, I am still waiting for your response. I understand you have spent considerable time and energy engaging Auraptor. But please spare a few seconds to answer my simple questions. I would appreciate it greatly, thank-you.

Here ya go:

Quote:
Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Possibly the most facile thing you've ever said - which is a saying a lot.

So facile that I seemed to have scared Kwicko away. Oh well, I'm sure he will simply pop up in another thread to spread his wisdom.

http://blu.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51537

Are you saying that you, like Rappy, hold your own behavior to a different standard than you hold others?

How often do I have to post to satisfy your needs?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:51 PM

kwickie - I know you're not too bright. However, there is a difference in Rush mocking one woman, Sandra Fluke, and calling HER a slut for parading herself in front of members of Congress( all Democrats ) and wanting govt mandated contraception, and saying that ALL women who use contraception , for any reason, as 'sluts'.

Two entirely different issues.

See, this is the intentional bait-and-switch routine the Left uses. And I for one am sick of it.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:56 PM

Quote:
It's 100 % false, and you know it. I know me far better than you ever will. If you can PROVE those were my views, then by all means, post it. Or YOU shut the fuck up.

Would quotes from you be adequate proof? Or would you then claim that what you wrote wasn't what you meant? Or that the quotes were somehow taken out of context? because I will happily provide extended quotes from you, but I have a feeling you will just weasel out from under your own statements.

So... extended quotes FROM YOU, in which you seem to be very clearly stating YOUR views. If you agree that's what you said, is that sufficient? Yes, or no? If "no", then I'm not going to bother because if you won't even stand behind your own posts, then nothing you say is worth anything.

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 15, 2012 4:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
kwickie - I know you're not too bright. However, there is a difference in Rush mocking one woman, Sandra Fluke, and calling HER a slut for parading herself in front of members of Congress( all Democrats ) and wanting govt mandated contraception, and saying that ALL women who use contraception , for any reason, as 'sluts'.

Two entirely different issues.

See, this is the intentional bait-and-switch routine the Left uses. And I for one am sick of it.

Oh, I'm going to reply to this: Ms Fluke was not talking about herself, she was talking about a friend who needed contraception for medical reasons. When Rush called Ms Fluke a slut, HE was the one who pulled a "bait and switch", and we are indeed sick of it. Your memory is seriously faulty. Please take megadoses of B12, it might help.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 15, 2012 4:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM: Please take megadoses of B12, it might help.

B12 won't change reality. Might work for you, but not for me.

Quote:

So... extended quotes FROM YOU, in which you seem to be very clearly stating YOUR views. If you agree that's what you said, is that sufficient? Yes, or no? If "no", then I'm not going to bother because if you won't even stand behind your own posts, then nothing you say is worth anything.

They weren't quotes. Kwickie even said so. Can't you read ? I can understand how you'd THINK they were quotes, as Kwickie posted them in standard quote style, but they weren't quotes, nor were they MY views.

I'll accept your apology now.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

M52NICKERSON

Sunday, April 15, 2012 4:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You're not too bright. I get that. But at the VERY least, get the facts straight. He didn't say it for 3 days. And his position was spot on, that Sandra Fluke , putting herself on parade, some how thinks she has some sort of a RIGHT to other people's money, so that she can get govt mandated contraceptive care. She doesn't have that right. Not to my money, or anyone else. Rush crossed the line in calling her a slut, but that was his attempted try at comedy. Being absurd to show absurdity. Bill Maher, did far, FAR worse, and Obama still takes his money ( Or refuses to call for it to be returned ) Hypocrites, all of you, on the Left, for organizing and trying to boycott Rush, but say next to nothing about Maher and his vile comments.

Yes, it was three day. It was not about other people's money. Rush insulted her and had to apologize because he was losing sponsors left and right. Rush also uses that lame and cowardly "It's comedy" excuse when ever he steps in it. Yet Michael Steele had to apologize for calling Rush a comedian.

Maher has said some vile things. The difference is that not many people came defending him.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 15, 2012 4:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
It was not about other people's money.

And there you have it. It was ALWAYS about other people's money. That's the sole point of defeating ObamaCare !!!

Congratulations. You've fully bought into the Left wing's demagoguery and trap of distort, distract and deception.

" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 15, 2012 4:59 PM

Quote:
So... extended quotes FROM YOU, in which you seem to be very clearly stating YOUR views. If you agree that's what you said, is that sufficient? Yes, or no? If "no", then I'm not going to bother because if you won't even stand behind your own posts, then nothing you say is worth anything.- Signy

They weren't quotes. Kwickie even said so. Can't you read ? I can understand how you'd THINK they were quotes, as Kwickie posted them in standard quote style, but they weren't quotes, nor were they MY views. I'll accept your apology now.- rappy

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Hey, I know it can get a mite confusing, but apparently your reading comprehension isn't quite up to snuff. I was offering to come up with extended quotes FROM YOU in which you express the very views you say aren't yours. That's why I was asking that IF I came up with extended quotes FROM YOU, would that be sufficient for you to own up to your views? Or would you disavow what you said previously and try to weasel out of your own statements? 'Cause, yanno, I played this game with you before more than once, and all you did was claim that what you said wasn't what you meant (altho it seemed clear to everyone else), or that your statements were somehow taken out of context.

Anyway, here's the deal and all I need is a yes or no answer: IF I come up with extended quotes from you on any or all of the above topics that Kwicko was referring to, would you (1) Own up to the fact that you made the statements and (2) Agree to the common interpretation which follows, which would be just a restatement of your post? Or would you once again try to weasel out of everything you've said in the past, cherry-picking facts and re-defining words to suit your needs?

KWICKO

Sunday, April 15, 2012 5:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
kwickie - I know you're not too bright. However, there is a difference in Rush mocking one woman, Sandra Fluke, and calling HER a slut for parading herself in front of members of Congress( all Democrats ) and wanting govt mandated contraception, and saying that ALL women who use contraception , for any reason, as 'sluts'.

Two entirely different issues.

See, this is the intentional bait-and-switch routine the Left uses. And I for one am sick of it.

So let me get this straight.

You're using ME - ONE PERSON - and my post, and claiming that MY post about your positions - which you've clearly outlined and been quite up front about - are some kind of evidence of an "intentional bait-and-switch routine" that the entire "Left" uses.

In other words, you're using the words of one person who is mocking one person (me, mocking YOU) to tar everybody on "the Left".

Yeah, I'm sick of that, too. You should really quit doing that.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

KWICKO

Sunday, April 15, 2012 5:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

So... extended quotes FROM YOU, in which you seem to be very clearly stating YOUR views. If you agree that's what you said, is that sufficient? Yes, or no? If "no", then I'm not going to bother because if you won't even stand behind your own posts, then nothing you say is worth anything.

They weren't quotes. Kwickie even said so. Can't you read ? I can understand how you'd THINK they were quotes, as Kwickie posted them in standard quote style, but they weren't quotes, nor were they MY views.

Actually, the quotes I quoted you on were quotes. They quite clearly say, "Posted by AuRaptor..." within them, and they are your direct quotes. Your words AND your positions.

I'll accept your apology now. Again. You're getting really good at apologizing to me, but that's just because you're so good at being monumentally wrong about... well, about EVERYTHING.

I paraphrased the positions you've held, and then I used your actual posts and words as supporting evidence to clearly show you holding those positions with your own words.

I get that you don't understand that. I really do. I've long said you weren't burdened with an overabundance of smarts, and you've done nothing to dissuade me of that belief.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

KWICKO

Sunday, April 15, 2012 5:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:
So... extended quotes FROM YOU, in which you seem to be very clearly stating YOUR views. If you agree that's what you said, is that sufficient? Yes, or no? If "no", then I'm not going to bother because if you won't even stand behind your own posts, then nothing you say is worth anything.- Signy

They weren't quotes. Kwickie even said so. Can't you read ? I can understand how you'd THINK they were quotes, as Kwickie posted them in standard quote style, but they weren't quotes, nor were they MY views. I'll accept your apology now.- rappy

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Hey, I know it can get a mite confusing, but apparently your reading comprehension isn't quite up to snuff. I was offering to come up with extended quotes FROM YOU in which you express the very views you say aren't yours. That's why I was asking that IF I came up with extended quotes FROM YOU, would that be sufficient for you to own up to your views? Or would you disavow what you said previously and try to weasel out of your own statements? 'Cause, yanno, I played this game with you before more than once, and all you did was claim that what you said wasn't what you meant (altho it seemed clear to everyone else), or that your statements were somehow taken out of context.

Anyway, here's the deal and all I need is a yes or no answer: IF I come up with extended quotes from you on any or all of the above topics that Kwicko was referring to, would you (1) Own up to the fact that you made the statements and (2) Agree to the common interpretation which follows, which would be just a restatement of your post? Or would you once again try to weasel out of everything you've said in the past, cherry-picking facts and re-defining words to suit your needs?

He'll run away, then in another month or so he'll make the same assertions and claim he never said any such thing, or that he never saw your post and that it's irrelevant anyway because it's all "out of context".

And I'll bet money on it.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Sunday, April 15, 2012 7:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Are you saying that you, like Rappy, hold your own behavior to a different standard than you hold others?

How often do I have to post to satisfy your needs?

No Kwicko, what I am saying is that you, like Storymark, hold your own behaviour to a different standard than you hold others.

M52NICKERSON

Sunday, April 15, 2012 7:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And there you have it. It was ALWAYS about other people's money. That's the sole point of defeating ObamaCare !!!

Congratulations. You've fully bought into the Left wing's demagoguery and trap of distort, distract and deception.

You truly are the one of the most uneducated fucks I have come across. By your thinking you should hate and being trying to defeat the entire insurance industry because it works because some people will have less claims and pay for those who have more. That is the way it works you stupid twit. It works within the market, that is why Obama care was an invention of conservatives and the right.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE