Fox/GOP once again trying to disenfranchise black voters

It is an interesting bit of reporting. Why is it only the GOP that has to worry about double voting?

I guess its not a problem if the Dems have cross over voters that voted in the GOP primary as far as FOX is concerned.

The video of black voters while only being concerned about crossover voters voting in the GOP primary is what makes this an obvious slant by FOX.

parados wrote:

It is an interesting bit of reporting. Why is it only the GOP that has to worry about double voting?

I guess its not a problem if the Dems have cross over voters that voted in the GOP primary as far as FOX is concerned.

The video of black voters while only being concerned about crossover voters voting in the GOP primary is what makes this an obvious slant by FOX.

So Fox should have not dared show any black people because if they do they MUST be racist.

Don't you see how juvenile this sounds?

Where did I say they MUST be racist?

Juvenile? That perhaps could describe you and FOX.

It seems, like FOX, you don't understand that if someone can vote in both primaries it isn't just a problem for ONE party nor is one party more likely to cross over than the other. The problem is FOX only said it was a problem for the GOP then FOX showed black voters who would normally be Dems to punctuate the thrust of the story. Is it racist? I don't know. I do know it shows poor judgement and poor reporting skills. The story alone was politically biased and then they chose a video to accentuate that bias. Someone made the decision that in order to show Dems that would commit crimes they needed some video that could be easily identified as Democratic voters. I can see where it wasn't an intentional racism. But I can't see where it wasn't anything but sheer stupidity.

Tell us why you think it is ONLY a problem for the GOP when it comes to cross over voters. Be specific since you want to defend FOX's slanted story. (I don't expect you to be able to defend it with any clarity because you have already shown you can't think for yourself.)

What a dumb stretch. a 30 second news report about potential fraud and simply because you don't see whitey in it you claim its racists?


Hey Dookie. There are no white people in your post. Does that make you a racist? duh.....

reverend hellh0und wrote:

What a dumb stretch. a 30 second news report about potential fraud and simply because you don't see whitey in it you claim its racists?


Hey Dookie. There are no white people in your post. Does that make you a racist? duh.....

I repeat:

I never thought I'd see the day when the GOP would be in such deep sh!t right about now. And it just continues with the assinine comments of Reverend HellH0und.

Nobody said "racist" in this thread except those the Reverend, and the intellectual dishonesty quoted above from the Reverend conveniently omits anything about the AG scandal.

This will be typical fair from Reverend HellH0und. One merely can read the sum of his threads to truly understand the meaning of the word "juvenile."

Let's see how long this "newbie" lasts.

A lot longer than you would last at a VFW calling troops murderers and rapists.

In today's Washington Post, columnist Harold Meyerson highlights a little-noted study on the politics of voting fraud published in March by Lorraine Minnite, a political science professor at Columbia University, for a group called Project Vote. The study "makes unmistakably clear" that "the government's failure to prosecute or convict more than a handful of people for voter fraud isn't for lack of trying."

Quote:

Since 2002, the Justice Department's Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative has, as Gonzales put it, "made enforcement of election fraud and corruption offenses a top priority." And yet between October 2002 and September 2005, just 38 cases were brought nationally, and of those, 14 ended in dismissals or acquittals, 11 in guilty pleas, and 13 in convictions. Though a Justice Department manual on election crime states that these cases "may present an easier means of obtaining convictions than do other forms of public corruption," federal attorneys have failed to rack up those convictions, for the simple reason that incidents of fraud have been few and far between.

As the Republican Myth has it, nothing is more fraught with fraud than voter-registration campaigns waged in working-class and poor neighborhoods that are largely black or Hispanic. According to the 2004 Census, 15 percent of blacks and Hispanics were registered during such campaigns; the figure for whites is just 9 percent. But of those 38 prosecutions that the Justice Department brought between 2002 and 2005, a grand total of two were for fabricating or falsifying voter registration applications. This qualifies as one of our smaller crime waves.

Here's a chart from the study:



Given these figures, the Justice Department's intense focus on voter fraud is hard to explain. Yet, as Meyerson notes,

parados wrote:

Where did I say they MUST be racist?

The OP opined that with his link.

Quote:

Juvenile? That perhaps could describe you and FOX.

I know you are but what am I debate style? funny stuff.

Quote:

It seems, like FOX, you don't understand that if someone can vote in both primaries it isn't just a problem for ONE party nor is one party more likely to cross over than the other. The problem is FOX only said it was a problem for the GOP then FOX showed black voters who would normally be Dems to punctuate the thrust of the story. Is it racist? I don't know. I do know it shows poor judgement and poor reporting skills. The story alone was politically biased and then they chose a video to accentuate that bias. Someone made the decision that in order to show Dems that would commit crimes they needed some video that could be easily identified as Democratic voters. I can see where it wasn't an intentional racism. But I can't see where it wasn't anything but sheer stupidity.

Where you this upset over Dan Rather using fake documents?

Quote:

Tell us why you think it is ONLY a problem for the GOP when it comes to cross over voters. Be specific since you want to defend FOX's slanted story. (I don't expect you to be able to defend it with any clarity because you have already shown you can't think for yourself.)

Actually watch it again. Tell me what was the reporter following up with that was cut off at the end. "Now the two Carolina state parties are trying"... Cut off by "Crooks and liars"......


Who is being bias here Fox news or the lieing leftwing website and thier cronies?


Sad when some have to make **** up.....

Reverend HellH0und wrote:

A lot longer than you would last at a VFW calling troops murderers and rapists.

Maybe you can stop attacking other forum members on able2know for a second and address the issue. I know, it may be a tad difficult for you, as it is a bit more complicated than you wish it to be, but give it a try.

blah blah blah blah

parados wrote:

reverend hellh0und wrote:

parados wrote:

Where did I say they MUST be racist?

The OP opined that with his link.

Did I say I agreed with it? I didn't. You didn't quote the first post. You didn't reference the first post. You quoted my post and made a comment that had no relationship to what I said. If you wanted to comment on other people's opinion why did you quote me?

So FOX is NOT racist to you? Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Juvenile? That perhaps could describe you and FOX.

I know you are but what am I debate style? funny stuff.

Perhaps "juvenile" was being optimistic on my part. Juveniles can read.

Your mother drives a pink car!

Again, this is what passes as "debate" around here?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It seems, like FOX, you don't understand that if someone can vote in both primaries it isn't just a problem for ONE party nor is one party more likely to cross over than the other. The problem is FOX only said it was a problem for the GOP then FOX showed black voters who would normally be Dems to punctuate the thrust of the story. Is it racist? I don't know. I do know it shows poor judgement and poor reporting skills. The story alone was politically biased and then they chose a video to accentuate that bias. Someone made the decision that in order to show Dems that would commit crimes they needed some video that could be easily identified as Democratic voters. I can see where it wasn't an intentional racism. But I can't see where it wasn't anything but sheer stupidity.

Where you this upset over Dan Rather using fake documents?

Gee. You failed to address any of my points. See my statement later about this is exactly what I expected from someone of your "vast intellect."

Again with the insults and personal attacks. But I spose its the Good Reverend that is the "juvenile one" here. You bore me.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Tell us why you think it is ONLY a problem for the GOP when it comes to cross over voters. Be specific since you want to defend FOX's slanted story. (I don't expect you to be able to defend it with any clarity because you have already shown you can't think for yourself.)

You like a school on Saturday...... NO CLASS!.... HEY! HEY! HEY!


(Are you seeing how your little insults accomplish nothing yet? )


You see that the story was cut as they were talking about how both parties were trying to fix this yet you still call it a slanted story and attempt to insult me

Quote:

Quote:

Actually watch it again. Tell me what was the reporter following up with that was cut off at the end. "Now the two Carolina state parties are trying"... Cut off by "Crooks and liars"......


Who is being bias here Fox news or the lieing leftwing website and thier cronies?


Sad when some have to make **** up.....

I didn't make anything up. What was the rest of the statement? You are the one that seems to want to make up what it said. I can only go with what was actually there. The segment I saw was biased and unless you can show me the statement by FOX news that the Democratic party is worried about crossover accompanied by a video of voters pulling up to a voting site in limos I see no reason to change my mind.

Perhaps if you were less concerned with ad hominen and concentrated on the link you could follow along better. Listen to the end of the video where crooks and liars convienently vcuts off the commentary. The reporter was clearly going into how it affects both sides and what they were doing about it. Hence they crooks and fools, are "making **** up" you sir are simply choosing to ignore the facts for your agenda.

Perhaps if you addressed the issue at all instead of accusing others of tactics that aren't there we might be able to have a discussion.

As it is. You insinuated I have opinions that that I never said. You have failed to address my points about the FOX piece. You have trotted out red herrings like bringing up Dan Rather. You have accused me of being "upset" which I am not. Calling you an intellectual lightweight is hardly an ad hominem in the course of this discussion. You have continued to prove it to be true.

Where C&L cut off the video doesn't change what FOX actually put out in the part we saw. Let me repeat, until you provide evidence of FOX claiming the Democratic party is worried about voters crossing over while playing a video designed to clearly show some voters that normally vote GOP there is bias in the piece. I would have the same opinion if the piece had done the reverse. C&L may have made stuff up but I didn't deal with anything C&L said. I have only addressed the video. C&L may have edited the video but they didn't add content to it. The piece they played taken in or out of context is biased from a news standpoint.

1. If the piece was supposed to be about the GOP worrying about cross overs then there was no reason to show video of Democratic voters since that validates the concerns instead of just reporting on them.

2. If the piece was supposed to show both parties are concerned then it was biased by only showing video of one side's voters while stating it was a "crime."

I can see no context that makes this clip an example of good unbiased journalism. All your blustering about how C&L is lying doesn't change the clip. All your red herrings and accusations of ad hominem doesn't change the clip. Fox showed a group that are clearly Democratic voters while talking about the crime involved. In a normal newsroom the ombudsman would be all over this one and stating how wrong the story was and how it gave the wrong impression. Has Fox done that? Does Fox even have an ombudsman? I don't know and I don't care. I am only pointing out the obvious problems with the piece as it is and was played by FOX on air. You make up what ever you want to about what C&L cut off in their editing. I see no reason to make up anything to judge the clip.

I see so name calling is ok here on these boards.... Cool. Tell the Good Reverend how name calling does not make you look like a bitching fool with no substance?

So let me understand your obviously higher intellect... Something taken "out of context" to you does not change the point?

Speculating that all black people are democrats and bitching about percieved [sic] bias is a really great stance to have.

You say if the situation was reversed you would say the same thing? Please by all means show me in your prodigious posting past 1 case of this

As for the proof you request. First you need to PROVE those people were democrats. Voter reg card will do.

See answer to 1. Is redundancy in points a sign of your "supierior [sic] intellect"?

I await the ad hominens, personal attacks, and other yammering of those with lack of substance.

As for the proof you request. First you need to PROVE those people were democrats. Voter reg card will do.

Reverend HellH0und wrote:

As for the proof you request. First you need to PROVE those people were democrats. Voter reg card will do.

I'd like to see you prove they were Republicans.

Dookiestix wrote:

Reverend HellH0und wrote:

As for the proof you request. First you need to PROVE those people were democrats. Voter reg card will do.

I'd like to see you prove they were Republicans.

Never claimed they were. Unlike some though the Good Reverend does not make sh!t up.

Quote:

I see so name calling is ok here on these boards.... Cool. Tell the Good Reverend how name calling does not make you look like a bitching fool with no substance?

I am sure the irony eludes the "Good Reverend"

Quote:

So let me understand your obviously higher intellect... Something taken "out of context" to you does not change the point?

Simply because something has been edited does NOT mean it changed the point. You have not shown how the point was changed or what the original intent was. You have ASSUMED it should be different. (We all know about people that assume.) I showed how the context doesn't matter in my 2 possible reasons for the story.

Quote:

Speculating that all black people are democrats and bitching about percieved [sic] bias is a really great stance to have.

Who is speculating? Close to 88% percent of the African American vote went to John Kerry in the last Presidential election and you want to see voter registration cards before you decide whether the intent of the video was to show Democratic voters? If that wasn't their intent then somebody at FOX is just plain stupid.

Quote:

You say if the situation was reversed you would say the same thing? Please by all means show me in your prodigious posting past 1 case of this

I hope all my posts show a balance and an attempt at intellectual honesty. I am sure they don't but I like to think I try.

Quote:

As for the proof you request. First you need to PROVE those people were democrats. Voter reg card will do.

There's an 88% chance they were. That 88% chance pretty clearly points to the video attempting to show Democratic voters. Why else would FOX have picked the video of only black voters? Blacks make up only 12% of voters. You can't expect us to accept that FOX had no other video of voters? See my comment a couple of posts ago about an ombudsman.

Quote:

See answer to 1. Is redundancy in points a sign of your "supierior [sic] intellect"?

One is different from two on many levels you didn't seem to comprehend. Please explain why you think one party is the same thing as two parties. We won't try to confuse you by making you count to 3 yet.

Quote:

I await the ad hominens, personal attacks, and other yammering of those with lack of substance.

It seems you just couldn't wait as evidenced by your post.

reverend hellh0und wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

Reverend HellH0und wrote:

As for the proof you request. First you need to PROVE those people were democrats. Voter reg card will do.

I'd like to see you prove they were Republicans.

Never claimed they were. Unlike some though the Good Reverend does not make sh!t up.

referring to yourself in the third person is usually a sign of idiocy

Cycloptichorn

reverend hellh0und wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

Reverend HellH0und wrote:

As for the proof you request. First you need to PROVE those people were democrats. Voter reg card will do.

I'd like to see you prove they were Republicans.

Never claimed they were. Unlike some though the Good Reverend does not make sh!t up.

referring to yourself in the third person is usually a sign of idiocy

Cycloptichorn