If you've been paying attention, no investigation could begin until the Democrats gained a majority in either the House or the Senate. The Republicans were never going to look into it. As you know, The Democrats gained the committee chairmanships in January 2007. In the spring of new legislative session in 2007, they began investigating the politicization of the Justice Department (honestly I can't believe I have to explain this) and the firing of the 8 U.S. Attorney's. During the course of that investigation, the missent emails were subpoenaed and handed over to the committee (insert Tim Griffin's resignation here.). The ultimate entity that would follow through on the investigation and prosecution regarding illegal voter caging would be.... The fucking Justice Department!!! What do you think the DOJ has done with this evidence? If you guessed nothing, you win a prize. They don't call it the politicization of the Justice Department for nothing.
In addition, the Judiciary committee has asked certain witnesses to testify. Those witnesses refuse to come in. They then subpoena them to come in and they still refuse to appear. Those witnesses then get charged with "Contempt of Congress". The DOJ is supposed to handle contempt of congress charges. Guess what they did? If you guessed nothing, you win another prize. The "contempt of Congress" complaints had to be filed with a Washington D.C. court.
I think patience is running very thin amongst the majority party on the committee. I think John Conyers and others are concerned for the fairness of the upcoming election and want to get something done.
To suggest that there isn't a serious investigation going on reveals a certain cluelessness on your part.
I think you really don't understand the matter. Their plan did not invlove many local officials. I've explained that "challenging" voters is legal. I've explained that challenged voters get a provisional ballot. I've explained that the validity of a provisional ballot becomes the discretion of the office of the Secretary of State. All of this is legal. The system wasn't intended to allow a mass challenge effort by any party. It was perverted by the RNC honchos by exploiting existing laws. The operatives are zealots and just do what they're instructed to do. Almost all of this is not a crime. It's despicable and reprehensible, but not a crime. Unless...
They're using caging lists that were created "where race is a factor". This is a felonious crime. A violation of the voting rights act.
I've also explained that noone but RNC insiders were supposed to see their email. If that had happened, noone (except for the perpetrators) would have any evidence of a crime. But it was sent to someone that wasn't supposed get a hold of it. As a result, they have the hard evidence.
I think to write the above paragraph you need to be in an alternative universe.
I'm going to give you some useful advice and I'm serious. Stop embarassing yourself. In case you are still delusional, here's one guy who knows about this (and there are many others, including the guilty).
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zj1nMvM5Y98&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zj1nMvM5Y98&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
It's kinda funny watching you qualify everything as something like "if you were paying attention" or "you don't understand" as you do your song and dance routine.
Now you want us to believe Democrats are intentionally not doing anything about voter suppression because "they came into power too late". Are you kidding me?
How about shedding some light on this fraud during the 2006 mid-term elections? wouldn't they do that?
Do you really believe they would choose to ignore this mega issue during this Presidential Election cycle?
And why do they have to be in power for something to happen anyways? How about law enforcement officials and / or the media.
"I don't think you understand", and "you're obviously are not paying attention", or you would obviously see that your arguments simply collapse under their own weight. Which is exactly the reason why nothing as come from this poppycock. You see, my argument is the only one that makes sense at the end of the day.
Now you want us to believe Democrats are intentionally not doing anything about voter suppression because "they came into power too late". Are you kidding me?
How about shedding some light on this fraud during the 2006 mid-term elections? wouldn't they do that?
Do you really believe they would choose to ignore this mega issue during this Presidential Election cycle?
And why do they have to be in power for something to happen anyways? How about law enforcement officials and / or the media.
"I don't think you understand", and "you're obviously are not paying attention", or you would obviously see that your arguments simply collapse under their own weight. Which is exactly the reason why nothing as come from this poppycock. You see, my argument is the only one that makes sense at the end of the day.
Thank you. Now I know where you stand, where you're coming from on this issue and what your agenda is.
cas, agreement is not important to me, clarity is. That was a very clarifying response. Full marks to you.
Of course I'm pro-voter ID. I'd like you to try and convince me why this is bad thing -- without injecting your RNC conspiracy bullshit distorting the issue, please. Tell me in abstract terms why voter ID is a BAD idea?
Moving on....
So far the only thing one can gleam from your long-winded ramblings and plethora of innuendo and accusations is that we don't know anything because -- drumroll -- the DOJ has been politicized! And the reason you know this is because -- another drum roll -- they fired 8 US attorneys! Oooo, that almost sounds scary. :scared:
Say, how many US Attorney's did Clinton fire?
(third and final drum roll -- I promise!)
93 -- NINETY THREE!!!
93 US Attorneys vs 8 in the Bush administration and this clown is trying to convince us there is something untoward lurking bellow the surface! :missingte
Hmmm...I wonder why Mr. Independent (D) didn't bother mentioning this -- ya know, putting this all into a fair and proper context? :think2:
I think everyone knows the answer. :lol:
I could continue to address everything you right. I had hopes that you wouldn't be like this, but that appears to have been wishful thinking. Anyone that claims there's no investigation going on is just delusional. I predict that within a year (perhaps much sooner), your posts in this thread will be a source of embarassment for you. Unless others reading are learning things that they didn't know, discussing this with you is an exercise in futility. I might continue to write in this thread, but I'm done responding to your posts within it.
Thank you. Now I know where you stand, where you're coming from on this issue and what your agenda is.
cas, agreement is not important to me, clarity is. That was a very clarifying response. Full marks to you.
Of course I'm pro-voter ID. I'd like you to try and convince me why this is bad thing -- without injecting your RNC conspiracy bullshit, please. Tell me in the abstract why voter ID is a BAD idea?
I'll give that a go, but not tonight. You must understand that much of my reasons have to do why it's so important to the RNC/GOP to have them. I fully expect you'll label that as "RNC conspiracy bullshit".
Let's try to put it into, as you say, a fair and proper context.
Are you saying that it's unusual for a new administration to clean house regarding U.S. Attorney's when replacing an administration from the opposite party?
Are you saying that George W. Bush kept all of Bill Clinton's appointed U.S. Attorney's and fired none of them?
Also, why is fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias suing George W. Bush for wrongful termination?
It's unbelievable that you think your ridiculous talking points have validity. You really must think everyone else is stupid.
I can hardly wait, but I'm not holding my breath.
I will tell in honest unequivocal non-partisan terms why I believe it's bad for society to NOT have voter ID laws.
If you insist on phrasing this debate as "voter suppression" then frankly you have a very weak and biased case and you should be prepared to be called on it each and every time.
So once again, why do you believe voter ID laws are bad?
Oh goody, I love proper contexts. :aktion033
Of course it's not unusual -- that's my whole point. And so we come to the point of the debate where your entire 'theory' begins to unravel at a greater pace than Barack Obama off his prompter -- in 5,4,3,2,1....
He fired 8 -- which you are implying is a 'wrongful' act. It isn't. The US Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the president and he may hire or fire whomever he pleases. If I felt one of my Attorney's was undermining my agenda, I would fire them too.
Again, I remind you Clinton fired 93!! Lo and behold, Republicans never made a partisan issue out of it because this is one of the 'perks' of winning elections.
8 vs 93!!
So where's the beef, cas?
Next time do your homework.
See my answer above. The fact you believe he has a case simply accentuates your irrational partisan bias on this matter.
It's unbelievable that you can't perform simple math.
93 divided by 8 equals 11.625.
So by your logic, Clinton was 11.625 times more corrupt and secretive than Bush is.
Where's the uproar over Clinton's "partisan" corruption, cas? :lol:
Maybe at some point in time when there are more facts than accusations, I'll concede you were right. But when there are far too many unanswered questions and far too many holes in your argument, I can't arrive at the same conclusions you do.
Time will tell.
Just popped in here for a few minutes. Might be around later. Just wanted to point something out for those that are stupid enough to fall for JoeC's logic.
Based on JoeC's math, he's claiming that George W. Bush didn't fire any of the holdovers from the Clinton administration. For those that are slow, here's what Joe is saying:
That the Clinton administration let go (or fired) all 93 U.S. Attorneys (who were in place during the George H.W. Bush admin) upon taking office. The Clinton admin then installed 93 others to fill those positions. This is all true. Kudos to JoeC.
According to JoeC, George W Bush fired 8 U.S. Attorneys in total. He doesn't mention the fact that they were fired 6 years into their term (in Dec 2006), using a provision that was slipped in the Patriot Act so the replacements didn't have to be confirmed. He doesn't mention that such an act is unprecedented in history. He doesn't mention that none of these 8 fired U.S. Attorneys were appointed by Bill Clinton.
There are 93 U.S. Attorney positions in total. Currently each one of them was appointed by George W. Bush. If what JoeC claims is true, what happened to all of the 93 U.S. Attorneys that were appointed by Bill Clinton?
Remember that JoeC says the score is
8 vs 93!!
Did they just vanish into thin air?
I think the real question is:
Is JoeC a complete idiot or, at the very least, a failure at math? Or does he just think everyone else is stupid? Or perhaps JoeC gets his talking points and never questions whether there's any validity to them.
So where's the beef, cas?
Next time do your homework.
I think it's pretty obvious who needs to do their homework.
Actually, I have a degree in Mathematics and you are fucking clown.
I think we need Barman with his reference to you either being on or off your meds again (I still can't remember which one it is).
I just reread Joes answer to this question. I had to do a double take. It's really hard to believe. Perhaps he'll offer a mea culpa. Joe is claiming that George W. Bush fired 8 of Bill Clinton's appointed U.S. Attorney's (and only 8).
I guess he's saying that the 8 Clinton appointee's were fired at the beinning of Bush's first term in order to make room for the 8 that he would eventually fire in December of 2006. Each of those that were fired in 2006 were Bush appointees. But that doesn't quite explain who was pushed out to make room for the other 85 U.S. Attorney's Bush appointed in Jan 2001.
I guess he's saying that the 8 Clinton appointee's were fired at the beinning of Bush's first term in order to make room for the 8 that he would eventually fire in December of 2006. Each of those that were fired in 2006 were Bush appointees. But that doesn't quite explain who was pushed out to make room for the other 85 U.S. Attorney's Bush appointed in Jan 2001.
He fired 8
8 vs 93!!
So where's the beef, cas?
Next time do your homework.
As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along
that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit
to "The War Zone". I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the
plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the
Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram.
As the Soldiers were lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't
say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he
finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent
that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so
he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned
the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service.
So really he was just here to make a showing for the American's back home
that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to
make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are
providing the freedom that they are providing for you.
I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas
Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the
President of the United States . I just don't understand how anyone would
want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to
be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.
If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know
what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all
fake.
In service,
CPT Jeffrey S. Porter
Battle Captain
TF Wasatch
American Soldier
that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit
to "The War Zone". I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the
plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the
Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram.
As the Soldiers were lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't
say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he
finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent
that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so
he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned
the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service.
So really he was just here to make a showing for the American's back home
that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to
make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are
providing the freedom that they are providing for you.
I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas
Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the
President of the United States . I just don't understand how anyone would
want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to
be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.
If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know
what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all
fake.
In service,
CPT Jeffrey S. Porter
Battle Captain
TF Wasatch
American Soldier
I am not an Obama supporter, but Snopes debunked the e-mail Roadreeler posted. Considering where RR gets most of his info I'm not shocked:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp
Again it strikes me funny how Libs deny the media is lefty. That's an ABC News video..not an opinion piece.
Yet I'm told, "Obama got a big day", It was an "Amazing Scene" and the GI's "mobbed him".
Wow...a lot of opinion for a "News" Story. Where are the jackasses that are outraged by Fox News?
Yet I'm told, "Obama got a big day", It was an "Amazing Scene" and the GI's "mobbed him".
Wow...a lot of opinion for a "News" Story. Where are the jackasses that are outraged by Fox News?
