Yesterday I posted that Kansas City and St. Louis have discovered ACORN voter fraud.

Today it is Indianapolis. (Saw it on CNN at the gym, so I don't have a link. I am sure if you google acorn and indianapolis, you will hit it.)

When is the Community Organizer going to speak out about his organization.  

Tip of the iceberg.

sounds like someone is afraid of losing an election on merit ... time for a hail mary play    ... voter fraud -- that's the ticket!  

I'm sorry. I am not sure I understand.  Are you saying McCain is afraid he will lose on merit so he is playing the fear of fraud card, or are you saying Obama is afraid of losing on merit so he is playing the fraud cars?

I would think that if the fraud is real, and you don't seem to dispute that, it would be the side committing fraud that is NOT winning on merit.  

If you believe you can win on merit, you don't have to go to massive fraud.

On the other hand, if you are outraged by fraud, it means that you want it decided on merit, not fraud.

and nowhere to hide... the repugs are dead by their own hand.

the Dems are the morally bankrupt party.  Which makes them both suck.

It is begining to be very clear that there is substantial fraud.  It doesn't seem that you are even questioning that.  

If you concede there is fraud, do you really think it is a non-issue if there are thousands of fraudulent voters in states with close elections?

Is it a non-issue to wipe out the vote of real citizens with fake ballots?

Is it unimportant whether the election is a result of fraud?

Are you so immoral that you are willing to negate free elections by fraud and call it "a non-issue?"

. . . conservatives here called me a whiner and a sore loser. So, just for balance, may I call you a whiner and a sore loser?

I'd call it kharma. If Obama wins by six percent or greater, and he might, it wouldn't be because of ACORN's doing. But ACORN is going to have a lot to answer for at the end of this election. The conspirators in the 2000 and 2004 elections will never answer for stealing Ohio and Florida and perhaps at least one other state. The Supreme Court justices will never answer throwing the 2000 election to the worst President ever.

So, enjoy Kharma. How do you want it served? Fried, baked or broiled?

Yup, Zin. You just reassured us that it's the Dems that are morally bankrupt.

-- Modified on 10/10/2008 6:28:35 PM

-- Modified on 10/10/2008 6:58:41 PM

that Repubs complain that they are on the receiving side, when no such sympathy was shown here when libs were.

In law, there are many issues that are subject to debate and either side can have an argument that is not fraud.  On the other hand, some things are just factually wrong.  Likewise, sometimes the facts may be in dispute

2000 and 2004 were the situation where it was a matter of interpretation or where the facts were not established.

Obviously, it would take too long to go through all allegations, so for brevity I will just discuss 2000.  (If you want specifics of 2004, tell me which allegations of fraud you are talking about, and we can discuss them later.)

In 2000, there was a question as to how and when a recount was to be conducted.  As a matter of statutory interpretation, either side was legally arguable and it would not be "fraud" to adopt one or the other.

To be specific, the ultimate issue in Bush v. Gore was whether each state should have one statewide standard that had to be applied by each county board to determine if a given ballot was a legal vote.

The GOP side wanted a statewide standard.  Now, it may be a legitmate argument to make to say that it should have been county by county, but saying that is "a" legitimate argument does not mean the other side was fraud.

If a statewide system was used Bush would win.  It is not "fraud" to argue for that.

In contrast, one person being registered 72 times, or football players from one state being registered in another, or fake names being used, is not arguably proper under any legal theory.