Saturday, December 31, 2011

Despicable Alan

Former Florida Congressman, Alan Grayson, in one of the most despicable campaign ads in U.S. history, referred to his opponent, Daniel Webster, as "Taliban Dan". I mean, I know that it was hyperbole and all and that, yes, Mr. Webster evidently IS a Bible-thumper of sorts, but to compare him to the Taliban was not only vile but abjectly stupid.............................................................................................For instance, Mr. Webster has never advocated that women wear burqas. He's never said that they shouldn't be able to work. He's never said that they shouldn't be allowed an education after the age of eight. He's never said that they shouldn't be allowed to be treated by male doctors (not that there ARE any female doctors) unless accompanied by a male chaperon. He's never said that they should face public floggings and executions for breaking religious laws. He's never advocated for forced marriages or the marriages of girls under 16. He's never advocated that women not speak loudly in public. He's never advocated for a severe restriction of movement for women. And he's never advocated that women not be allowed on radio, television, or at public gatherings. For Mr. Grayson to have even intimated that the admittedly doltish Mr. Webster (I'm afraid that you're going to have to call him Congressman Webster now) is analogous to these vile creatures was completely/totally over the line, IMO............................................................................................P.S. And, yes, Mr. Grayson absolutely DID splice tape. He took some isolated words from what was an essentially benign speech by Mr. Webster and made it sound as if he was saying something far more sinister. Mr. Grayson tried to justify it by pointing to other speeches by Mr. Webster and his voting record. But even if in fact that's true, you still don't splice and dice and engage in sleaziness. Nope, you take the ACTUAL words from the ACTUAL speeches and laws and attempt to make your point from those. You do it the old-fashioned honest way, in other words.

58 comments:

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

Re: "And, yes, Mr. Grayson absolutely DID splice tape. He took some isolated words .... and made it sound as if he was saying something far more sinister."

Was he taking a lessing from the Ed Schultz school of journalism?

It could have been worse. Grayson could have taken the Dan Rather route and exposed how evil Webster was by revealing incriminating documents which Webster had stored on his iPad when he was in high school in the early 1980s. Along with those nasty off-color Facebook comments Webster posted while in college in 1985. There might be forthcoming revelations found on Richard Nixon's Blackberry as well.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Honestly, dmarks, I'm not sure if I could have voted for either of these two individuals. But the fact that Mr. Grayson compared HIS opponent to the Taliban probably would have gotten him eliminated first.

dmarks said...

Will, often outrageous stuff makes me actually want to support the victim. These extremely nasty lies from Grayson are beyond the pale, and turns Webster into a sympathetic figure regardless.

I felt a similar thing when the Republican opponent of Democratic congressman Sander Levin said that people should not vote for Levin because he was Jewish. That was so far over the top that I was gunning for Levin to win regardless of his views.

Then I am reminded of the man I consider the worst politician of the modern era. Mark Sijander of Michigan, In one campaign, he urged people to vote against his opponent in order to "break the back of Satan". I don't know about you, but when a politician gets called Satan by his opponent, that gets me sympathy. Sijander was later caught funneling thousands of dollars to Al Qaeda. Yes, Al Qaeda.

The only politician whom you could very reasonably imagine having a campaign poster of the Twin Towers falling, and him standing smiling in front of it is very very bad indeed.

Rational Nation USA said...

Just shaking my head. Politics in a large way have lost honor. Perhaps 2012 will be better... or 2013, or....

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

At least he didn't call him Hitler, gents.

w-dervish said...

Why are you posting on this again? We've been over this before. Grayson took Webster's words and "made it sound" like what he actually said. That he thinks women should be subservient to their husbands.

The ad was totally accurate in my opinion. It's Webster who is despicable. I'm rooting for Alan Grayson to return to the House. He's a true champion of the people, and an individual I have a LOT of respect for.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

HE COMPARED HIM TO THE TALIBAN. And, like I said, wd, a decent human being would have taken the actual words from the actual speeches and made the point with honesty. In the speech in which Mr. Grayson quotes Mr. Webster out of context, Mr. Webster says no such thing about a woman being subservient. And even if he did, that's a hell of a lot different than the atrocities that every human rights group in the world attributes to the Taliban. It was an absolutely outlandish analogy and this Grayson fool needs to be publicly shamed.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Webster said "Don't read those parts, unless you want to." Unless you want to!.....And let's even say that this guy IS a chauvinist pig (his wife doesn't seem to think so but, whatever), the Taliban frigging beheads people and shit, wd. Come on, man!

dmarks said...

Grayson is a man of the people.... only those people in power. The less rhan 1%.

dmarks said...

Man of what people, WD? Here we have Grayson voting to raise taxes on anyone who works for a paycheck.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Man of what people, WD? Here we have Grayson voting to raise taxes on anyone who works for a paycheck.

Hahahahahahaha!!! The bill you linked to is an extension of the bush tax cuts! This vote PROVES Grayson is a progressive and a man of the people.

From Wikipedia... HR 4853: The Act centers on a two-year extension of the provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), together known as the "Bush tax cuts".

The website "That's My Congress", which bill itself as Independent, says, "Rep. Grayson has acted progressively by voting NO against this regressive measure".

Furthermore, they say "The 2010 extension of tax cuts didn't just continue the tax cuts for billionaires and millionaires enacted under George W. Bush. It expanded those tax cuts, allowing inheritance of estates of up to 10 million dollars tax-free and deepening special tax favors for investors. The legislation also undermined the integrity of Social Security by creating a new standard of low funding for the Social Security trust fund, exposing Social Security to new charges of being unsustainably funded".

I applaud Grayson for his vote on HR 4853. I wish more Democrats had voted with him and the bill had not passed.

Will: ...Webster said "Don't read those parts, unless you want to." Unless you want to!... And let's even say that this guy IS a chauvinist pig... Come on, man!

Apparently you have a very selective memory when it comes to who you don't want to criticize. I've explained this to you MULTIPLE times! Webster is saying "if you want to" because (in his mind) the husband shouldn't have to. Because that is the WIFE'S RESPONSIBILITY (to read and follow the Bible passages that say a woman should be subservient to her husband).

Webster is a chauvinist pig who believes women should be subservient to their husbands (which is what the Taliban believe). Grayson was attempting to warn voters of Webster's backward and misogynistic
views.

For your continued attacks on Grayson I say, "shame on you Will". I can't help but wonder if you agree with Webster, who does not view women as equals (at least within marriage).

Rusty Shackelford said...

WTF does it matter? The people in his district were so damn embarrassed by this nitwit they dumped him out on his ass.His opponent got almost 60% of the Orlando area vote.

Just be greatful we dont have to listen to either his or Anthony Weiners foolishness any more.

Truth 101 said...

What this all shows is the most powerful and influential force in the world is not the bomb or a plane. It's the vagina.

Happy New Year.

dmarks said...

"This vote PROVES Grayson is a progressive and a man of the people."

The bill in question was for the very few at the top, the ruling elites, to rob less from the people.

Grayson's vote was to have the rulers take more from the average person. He's a man of the people, alright, the very few people at the top.

Truth 101 said...

So you want taxes to be raised on the wealthiest now Dmarks.

Good for you my friend. happy New Year to you buddy!

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

"If you want to", wd, means that you don't have to. Semantic, OK? And unless you can get into his mind and into his marriage (his wife was interviewed and says that what you're saying is bullshit), then you're basically talking out your ass. And, again, even if he is a male chauvinist pig, that's an ocean's worth of distance from the Taliban - a group that does all of the things that I've enumerated in this post. Name me ONE of those things that Mr. Webster has advocated, wd. ONE! You can't, can you, and neither could Grayson.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

"I can't help but wonder if you agree with Webster, who does not view women as equals (at least within marriage)."......You're an asshole. My wife is deceased and so, no, we're not quite equals anymore.......I said that I wouldn't vote for him. I just don't think that decent people should compare their opponents to people who blow up statues of the Buddha and behead. Call me an old-fashioned romantic but I simply don't.

w-dervish said...

Will: ...you're basically talking out your ass.

No Will, you're talking out of your ass. Webster himself said that is exactly what he means.

He clarified what he meant in a Fox Nooz interview. Webster said, "I was talking about the idea of praying for your wife, but don't pray to her the verses that say submit to me because THAT'S HER RESPONSIBILITY. You as a man, as a father, and as a husband have responsibility. So I was saying you focus on your responsibility, not on hers".

He said a wife should submit to her husband -- it's her RESPONSIBILITY!!

We've had this conversation before. I've made this point before. That's why I was wondering if you agree with Webster. You keep defending him. And ignoring and denying his backward and misogynistic views.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And this is what Mr. Webster's wife said, "He was encouraging men to love their wives and [Grayson] totally took it out of context because he was trying to teach men to pray for their wives and what to pray and how to love their wives more everyday. It's being portrayed that we should be some subservient slaves or something but that's just untrue." His own frigging wife says that it isn't true!............I'm going to say this really slowly. Any sane and reasonable person who saw Mr. Webster's speech in it's entirety and then saw Mr. Grayson's despicable ad in which he compares Mr. Webster TO THE TALIBAN could only conclude that Mr. Grayson did something that clearly shouldn't have been done. You, Grayson, and the Daily Kos are the only sentient beings out there who don't see a problem here.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And I don't think that you understand the concept of principle. I can defend somebody who I disagree with politically if I feel that that person has been seriously wronged. I'm surprised that you, as a supposed progressive, aren't able to fathom this. It's kind of like with the the American Civil Liberties Union. They defend people that they don't like all the time. They defended Limbaugh. Hell, they even defended the KKK, for Christ.............And, yes, if Mr. Webster had run an ad that compared Grayson to Joseph Stalin (this, because of Mr. Grayson's insistence on strengthening the central government, his redistributionist propensities, etc.), I would have eviscerated him, Webster, too.

dmarks said...

T101: "So you want taxes to be raised on the wealthiest now Dmarks."

Actually, the Bush tax cuts being discussed lowered taxes mostly on middle class people.

And under this tax plan, the rich pay a lot more than the non-rich. What's there not to like? Keep the Bush tax cuts.

dmarks said...

Back to the subject. Will, this is a lot like the discussion that comes and goes about the Nancy Pelosi-related labor union quotes. WD is rather adamant in these circumstances about not letting the overwhelming preponderance of facts, not letting extensive quotations from all people involved, getting in the way of his arguments. It's like, dammit, he thinks the sun rises in the west, and there's not a damn thing you can do to convince him otherwise.

dmarks said...

The ACLU also fights against individual liberties. Most famously in their stance on the California Civil Rights Initiative. They passionately argued against it, claiming that individual rights don't matter and people can be have their rights denied if it is for what they deem to be a worthy goal.

dmarks said...

And no where did Will equate Webster fo the KKK.

w-dervish said...

Will: His own frigging wife says that it isn't true!... I'm going to say this really slowly. Any sane and reasonable person... [blah, blah, blah, nonsense about his POV being the absolute truth] ...only conclude that Mr. Grayson did something that clearly shouldn't have been done.

The only problem I see is that the voters reacted badly to the lies about the ad. Although truthful, the ad wasn't a good idea for that reason.

As for his wife, OF COURSE she's going to defend him! She's a member of the same fundamentalist religious cult as her husband. She's been brainwashed to believe that it's good and proper for a wife to be subservient to her husband. Citing her proves nothing.

Will: I can defend somebody who I disagree with politically if I feel that that person has been seriously wronged.

Webster wasn't "seriously wronged". Alan Grayson ran a truthful ad about him. You're defending Webster against his own misogynistic beliefs with this nonsense about Alan Grayson being "despicable" for telling the truth! I find your position on this utterly unbelievable!

dmarks: What's there not to like? Keep the Bush tax cuts.

The bush tax cuts are clobbering the economy. Alan Grayson realized this. We need to get rid of them ASAP. But we don't need to just get rid of them, taxes should actually be raised above what they would be without the bush tax cuts. We need to go back to the old pre-Reagan tax rates.

If we did that, plus abandon the foolish "free trade" agreements we entered into... the economy would explode. These two steps would yield sustained long-term non-bubble growth.

dmarks: WD is rather adamant in these circumstances about not letting the overwhelming preponderance of facts...

This reminds me of your defense of bush against charges of war crimes. Clearly bush violated international law when he invaded Iraq without UN authorization. Specifically bush violated Article 39 of the UN Charter, which says, "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".

But dmarks refuses to allow an overwhelming preponderance of facts, nor extensive quotations from a number of highly authoritative people involved, get in the way of his defense of bush's crimes. It's like, damn it, dmarks thinks the sun rises in the west, and there's not a damn thing you can do to convince him otherwise.

dmarks said...

"Clearly bush violated international law when he invaded Iraq without UN authorization. "

It is not only not "clear". It is false. You are running from your own wild armchair attorney interpretation of things. When in fact the actual expects, the real qualified people who know what they are doing, and know the law, found no violations.

"But dmarks refuses to allow an overwhelming preponderance of facts"

You have brought no facts to this discussion. Just an uninformed interpretation of the law.

"nor extensive quotations from a number of highly authoritative people involved"

Your main source to support your cause is Francis Boyle, a crank who also called Alan Derschewitz a war criminal. A crank who wants the Israelis eliminated, and is a professional failure with the equivalent of an honorary law license.

I stand with the experts. Unlike you, I am not stupid enough to think I can practice law.

dmarks said...

Question for Will: Is Grayson one of the people you would not trust with the nuclear "button"? I would guess he is.

w-dervish said...

dmarks lied: Your main source to support your cause is Francis Boyle...

I cited Boyle when discussing the illegality of the invasion of Afghanistan. I didn't cite him in regards to Iraq. In any case, you're attacking Boyle instead of the argument (which many others have made). That's called an ad hominem. Utilizing this logical fallacy shows the weakness of your argument dmarks. You can't refute the argument so you attack (one of) the messengers.

In regards to bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, I recently quoted Thomas Bingham, one of Britain's most authoritative judicial figures, who describes the invasion of Iraq, "as a serious violation of international law..."

Are you going to dig up some dirt on him too?

dmarks lied: Unlike you, I am not stupid enough to think I can practice law.

I never said I thought I was capable of practicing law. You made that lie up out of whole cloth. I stand with the experts like Thomas Bingham.

dmarks said...

"In regards to bush's illegal invasion of Iraq"

There was no illegal invasion. Why waste time referring to an event that never occured? You are in a fantasy land.

dmarks said...

"I never said I thought I was capable of practicing law."

It sure looks like it. You are making uninformed intepretations of law, which directly contradict the facts about the law. I go with the experts.

The ICC also disagreed with your source. Bingham put forth a poorly reasoned false argument, and it was rejected. Time to move on.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: The ICC also disagreed with your source.

No, they have not. The ICC not initiating a case against bush has absolutely nothing to do with their "rejecting" the charges.

The website "History Commons" says, "[The ICC] has authority to try cases involving genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Significantly, Article 12 of the Rome Statute gives the court jurisdiction over the nationals of any state if the alleged crime takes place on the territory of a state that is a party to the Statute or that delegates jurisdiction for that case to the ICC -- even in cases where the defendant's state of nationality is not a party to the treaty".

The crime took place in Iraq. Neither Iraq nor the US* are parties to the Rome Statute (the treaty that established the International Criminal Court), therefore the ICC doesn't have jurisdiction to bring charges against bush.

Clearly it is dmarks who is putting forward uninformed interpretations of international law... interpretations that directly contradict the facts about the law.

*Wikipedia/States Party to the Rome Statute/The United States: On 6 May 2002, the Bush administration announced it was nullifying the [former President Clinton's] signature of the treaty.

No doubt bush withdrew the US from the ICC because he was concerned about being prosecuted for launching an illegal war in Afghanistan (and for the illegal war with Iraq he planned to launch).

Truth 101 said...

The ACLU defended Oliver North. I guess that makes him a nazi according to Dmark's and that number guy's logic.

Dirty nazi!

w-dervish said...

dmarks, ACORN never padded voter registration with fake names". Why waste time referring to an event that never occured? *YOU* are living in a fantasy land.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Webster wasn't wronged!!!? He was fucking compared to the Taliban, you idiot! Show me just ONE instance in which Mr. Webster agrees with ANY of the examples that I've cited in this post. ONE!............And you really shouldn't accuse ANYBODY of being brainwashed, wd (the fact that you buy hook, line, and sinker literally everything that the collectivist cult figures throw at you). The woman says that she isn't subservient. But, noooooooo, that isn't good enough for you. You have to slander her, too. A person that you don't even frigging know, for Christ.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Oh, and, to answer your question, dmarks, I wouldn't trust this Grayson fellow to watch my cat, never mind anything else. HE COMPARED HIS OPPONENT TO THE TALIBAN.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And just to review here - Mr. Webster has never advocated that women wear burqas. He's never said that they shouldn't be able to work. He's never said that they shouldn't be allowed an education after the age of eight. He's never said that they shouldn't be allowed to be treated by male doctors (not that there ARE any female doctors) unless accompanied by a male chaperon. He's never said that they should face public floggings and executions for breaking religious laws. He's never advocated for forced marriages or the marriages of girls under 16. He's never advocated that women not speak loudly in public. He's never advocated for a severe restriction of movement for women. And he's never advocated that women not be allowed on radio, television, or at public gatherings. NONE of these things has Mr. Webster EVER advocated but wretched losers like Grayson and wd have zero trouble comparing him to the Taliban. Disgusting, absolutely disgusting.............And, just for the record, wd, that "clarification" came AFTER the despicable Grayson ad and unless Mr. Grayson is clairvoyant.....

Truth 101 said...

Sorry Will but WD is correct on this thing.

I've been to services and talked to the religious zealots of which Webster is one. They take the Bible literally. This Webster, Michelle Bachman, and other extremists can obsfucate all they want but they do believe in this submit stuff and that slaves must obey their masters etc.

Of course referring to Webster in an ad as Taliban Dan was in bad taste and bad judgement. These tactics work if you're trying to convince idiots, but they turn off people capable of rational thought.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Bad taste, Truth? Bad taste!

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And, Truth, how exactly have I extolled the virtues of this Webster guy? I've conceded that he probably IS a Bible-thumper and I've also stated that I WOULDN'T vote for him. My only point here is that he shouldn't have had his words taken out of context (snippets extracted and the exculpatory words left out) and he shouldn't have been compared to one of the most vile and ruthless regimes of the modern era (the frigging idiots blow up huge statues of the Buddha, for Christ). I mean, I know that wd is an uneducated idiot and fails to see the nuance here but certainly you can see what I'm doing.

Truth 101 said...

The man is a fundamentalist Will. he takes ther Bible literally. He believes in submission of the wife.

When asked he, Bachman and the rest of them are evasive but won't come out and say it's bullshit.

They believe this stuff Will. A passage written over 2,000 years ago by a guy who demanded his wives submit to him. Webster is one of them.

WD is correct and you are foolish for defending this joker Webster.

w-dervish said...

Will: I know that wd is an uneducated idiot and [blah, blah, blah, more absolutely disgusting nonsense concerning why he's defending the misogynistic Webster]

Oh, so now YOU'RE clairvoyant? That, or you've read my educational transcript. I'm stumped as to how you could possibly "know" I'm an uneducated idiot.

Will: The woman says that she isn't subservient.

So, you also believe the "sister wives" in those fundamentalist Mormon cults who love sharing their husband with several other women? They must not be brainwashed either, huh?

Grayson did not take Webster "out of context". So the eff what if Webster isn't LITERALLY a Taliban? (the ad makes no such claim). Webster believes women should be subservient to their husbands... just like the Taliban!

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the ad... aside from the fact that it backfired. As far as I'm concerned the only thing Grayson did wrong was, when his ad team came to him and showed him what they had put together, he told them to go ahead.

So, no, Webster was NOT "wronged". In fact, I find the suggestion utterly ridiculous. If anyone was "wronged" I think it was Grayson, for how the press attacked him over this truthful ad.

In conclusion -- despite Will's shameless attacks on Grayson, I'm proud to say I'm a huge fan... and I'm rooting for him to return to the House. I've got nothing but respect for him.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Only in the perverted world of the extremist is saying that a guy shouldn't be compared to the TALIBAN!!!!!!!!! considered "defending" that guy.............And wd obviously doesn't know what "taking out of context" means. It means when you take isolated words out of a larger text and make it sound like the person was saying something other than what he was actually saying. I challenge ANY reasonable person to watch Mr. Webster's speech and then watch Mr. Grayson's vile cherry-picked version of it and decide for themselves. As far as I know, the only idiots who didn't see a problem with what this asshole Grayson did are wd and the Daily Kos. I mean, my God, even Contessa Brewer of MSDNC had a problem wit it (and let him know it).

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And there are different types of stupidity, Truth. You have the backward thinking type of stupidity of Bachmann and Webster. And then you've got the type of stupidity that allowed somebody in the Obama Justice Department to OK Operation Fast and Furious. Maybe the hard-core left needs to manage their own stupidity a little better before they start crapping on another fellow's marriage.

dmarks said...

WD lied: "dmarks, ACORN never padded voter registration with fake names".

Actually, I presented a link to actual criminal investigations, actual arrests of ACORN operatives, for voter fraud crimes that exactly involved padding voter registration lists with fake names.

Do you want this link again? Do you want more links?

"Why waste time referring to an event that never occured? *YOU* are living in a fantasy land."

Sorry, I can't help but mention events that actually occured. Even if they are "inconvenient" for you.

w-dervish said...

dmarks lied: Sorry, I can't help but mention events that actually occured. Even if they are "inconvenient" for you.

dmarks, it isn't at all "inconvenient" to me for you to insist things that never happened actually did. Why would I care if you make yourself look foolish by repeating disproved Republican smears?

If you do have links to any articles that say ACORN was involved in any voter fraud or attempted voter fraud... the authors of those articles are lying (just like you're lying).

Yes, there were investigations by Republican operatives attempting to smear ACORN, but ACORN was found innocent, exactly as Shaw pointed out.

From the NYT, 12/23/2009: "Report Uncovers No Voting Fraud by Acorn". (excerpt) "A new report on the community group Acorn by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has found no evidence of fraudulent voting or of violations of federal financing rules by the group in the past five years".

dmarks said...

Here you go. Actual arrests by real law enforcement. Not "Republican operatives" .

And the crimes involved in the arrests were voter fraud.

click here

The article refers to crimes and arrests in multiple states.

The link you provided was basically political statements from leaders of the political party closely aligned with ACORN. Not surprising that they whitewash the actual evidence of crimes.

I've completely avoided any reference to Republicans here, as it is not a Republican hoax. The criminal record speaks for itself. Real crimes, real cops.

"If you do have links to any articles that say ACORN was involved in any voter fraud or attempted voter fraud... the authors of those articles are lying (just like you're lying)."

You've gone off the deep end.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: And the crimes involved in the arrests were voter fraud.

No, sorry dmarks, but you're wrong.

Your own link proves you wrong! An excerpt (from the article YOU linked to) says...

"The individuals being charged was further evidence we've been policing our own folks and report people attempting to commit voter registration fraud", said ACORN spokesman Brian Kettenring. "This was really some individuals who were trying to defraud their employer".

In other words, some people Acorn hired turned in fake registrations so they could collect money for doing no work. Acorn did NOT direct its employees to do this! Acorn cooperated with the authorities. They flagged suspect registrations before turning them in (as required by law).

Also, the author of the article lied. He says the people were arrested for "voter fraud". Voter fraud only occurs when someone attempts to vote fraudulently. The fake registrations were all about getting paid for work that wasn't done. Nobody actually tried to vote using the fake registrations...

...and I doubt you can produce even ONE article that says so.

Acorn was not involved in any voter fraud or attempted voter fraud. There was an investigation and they were found innocent (as the article I linked to says). That Acorn was involved in "voter fraud" most certainly *IS* a Republican hoax.

w-dervish said...

I advise you to stop pushing this Acorn voter fraud nonsense dmarks... you'll only further embarrass yourself.

dmarks said...

ACORN pushed voter fraud, not me.

Your attempts to use semantic tricks to deny that directing people to fraudulently register fake voters is not "voter fraud" is laughable. There are multiple types of voter fraud.

And of course ACORN will lie and deny it directed its employs to engage in the voter fraud they committed. They were caught in the act. Corporations do the same when their employees are caught doing things.

"Nobody actually tried to vote using the fake registrations..."

Yes, because the whistle was blown on ACORN's voter fraud before the next election occurred. Thankfully. But this gives us another reason why we need voter ID. So if ACORN get away with this again, the fake voters won't end up at the actual polls.

w-dervish said...

dmarks, your suggestion that I've used "semantic tricks to deny that directing people to fraudulently register fake voters" is laughable.

Acorn directed its employees to collect registrations from actual people who are qualified to vote. There are plenty of them, thus absolutely no reason to create fake ones (unless you want to be paid for not doing the real worker of going out and registering real people).

Acorn was found innocent by the authorities. I stand with the experts on this one dmarks... unlike you. You stand with the cranks and partisans who wish to smear Acorn in order to justify voter ID laws that have been proven to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters.

This is all about stealing elections by turning away qualified voters (because they are likely to vote Democratic), nothing more.

Rusty Shackelford said...

One question WD.If ACORN was the immpeccable,above board,lily white organization you say it was why did congress in a bipartisian vote
(including Barney Frank)suspend all federal funding for them?

w-dervish said...

To answer Rusty's question: The Democrats, believing public opinion had turned against ACORN (due to the Republican lies about how Acorn was involved in voter fraud) chickened out.

It was a cowardly vote, and I am deeply disappointed in any Democrat who voted to take away Acorn's federal funding... including Barney Frank (this was a rare instance were he got it wrong).

Rusty Shackelford said...

Hmmm.So the dems are dumb enough to fall for these republican lies? Is that what you're saying?

And not only were they dumb they were also cowards...are you saying that also?

Rusty Shackelford said...

So let me get this straight WD.

What you've deduced from this whole sordid ACORN mess.....is that the right lies and the left are cowardly dumbells.Interesting...very interesting.

w-dervish said...

No, Rusty. You're completely wrong regarding what I've deduced. What I've deduced is: [1] The Democrats are far from perfect, but they are a hell of a better choice then the Republicans. [2] Occasionally the Democrats will do things I disagree with and I think are dumb. OCCASIONALLY - not all the time (as your interpretation of what I've "deduced" implies).

Rusty Shackelford said...

Well now,thanks for clearing that up WD.

But you do deduce the dems were cowardly dumbells when it pertains to ACORN? Is that correct?

Would you also deduce they were likewise cowardly dumbells when it came to the Little Anthony Weiner dust up?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I'll take the Anthony Weiner question, Russ. Yes, absolutely, that poor bastard got sold down the river but time.