ACORN gets bashed because they are a FRAUD!

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

And, before I go further, this is happening on both sides. I am an ind. and am still undecided which way I am going, this is just an observation that I started with last week and it is finishng up this. It has been going on for years, it is nothing new.

The candidates say children are off limits, and they should be, I am not disputing that at all. Yet, they have no problem "pimping" (I know not a very good choice of words, but somewhat apt) them out to meet their needs.

Last week, Obama's kids were up there and Biden's family too; though his children are older - does that make them fair game then, but either way the grandkids were on stage. Now, we see Pallin's kids up on stage and I am sure tonight McCain's kids will be front and center.

I don't think anybody should be attacking these kids, but why is we cannot ask any questions at all about the children or the candidate and their spouses about how they are going to balance work and family life, but they think it is okay to bring them up on stage and say, "See, what a happy and beautiful family we are."

The hypocrisy of the politicians is so thick, I need a scalpel to cut it. Again, this is on both sides and has been going on for election after election. Again, we should not be probing into these kids lives and attacking them, Chelsea Clinton unfortunately had it happen to her and now Bristol Palin is going through it.

It just begs the question of if you don't want your kids brought into the political rhetoric, why bring them out for all to see on a huge political stage, in front of millions of people.

but as a believer.....your comment really sent chills down my spine and not in a good way.

"The sleeping giant is stirring and a youthful new leader has emerged to restore us to the greatest nation in history."

Here is what I am thinking - and remember- I am canadian so my perspective is looking from the outside in.

I think this entire campaign is showing that perhaps the USA is really not "the greatest country in the world".

This campaign seems to be showing people for what they really are. I get CNN and I get Fox - I get the perspective from both sides as well as being accessable to everything on the net. I have never seen so much hate - not since the historical events of ww2- and the effects of this I see every day.

I thought the US was a country where if you work hard enough you will be rewarded.

It breaks my heart to see a candidate being judged by the colour of his skin - not for his education or his person - but the colour of his skin. It breaks my heart that racism is alive and kicking after so much recent history.

In my opinion - Barrack Obama and his lovely well spoken wife would be a breath of fresh air that America needs. The US needs to regain its reputation as the greatest country in the world - he is intelligent, has worked for everything he has earned - is young, fresh and vibrant - he would be a hero to those who need it most - you can come from nothing and work your way to something.

You don't have to be an old white man from an "old boys" club that has been hired to be a puppet for the big businesses of the west.

S0orry if I offended but I really need to say this- the entire campaign is on every news channel in the entire world - all eyes are on the US and it is not playing out very nice - it has become sad and pathetic.

fear mongering on here, but I truly am terrified of what has become and what is becoming of our great country. Other than storming D.C. with pitch forks and torches....I really don't know what to do. I can write letters as much as I want to any given politician and they are still going to do what their party wants them to or do whatever special interest group wants them to do. Our government is so corrupt, in my opinion, it isn't funny. I truly don't think that we have seen the worst yet, but I fear we will. I just keep hoping and praying that I'm wrong!

and you just called me gay (below) like some kind of fifth grader that doesn't know what to say when they aren't intelligent enough to debate...real mature.

Seems like y'all are obssessed with calling people you don't like gay like John Roberts. I thought you all supported gay people. I guess not.

Bush Bashed by Republicans

I, for one, thought it was funny. Before the election, I also stated that if O was elected, I would be quitting my job 'cause I was tired of working and wanted some of the free money. That was also a joke. I don't know what I'd do if I didn't work. Workaholic, ya know.

just one of many many many and the sheep who won't open their eyes to the mess the repubs have made will never learn

Please don't think I am accusing everyone who gets public assistance of this. Many people who get the assistance really need it, and I have a friend who is an example.

But there is also a subculture involved here. People can qualify for food stamps who have undocumented income, under-the-table earnings, and even money from criminal activity. They don't actually need the food stamps to eat, but they get them.

Back when food stamps were actual coupons, there used to be a thriving black market in buying and selling food stamps for a percentage of their cash value. Then the money could be used for tobacco, alcohol, drugs and other things. Maybe the new debit card system put a stop to this, maybe not. The money goes into your account every month. All it would take is lending your card and sharing your PIN number with someone. My friend has never been asked for ID.

And if the object of this assistance is to feed (and I think by that we mean nourish) people, is it right for parents to stuff their kids full of twinkies, chips and Pepsi with the food stamp money? What the kids need is nourishment, not junk. What we end up with is another poorly nourished, hyperactive generation that cannot concentrate and learn in school, then cannot hold down an adequate job, and the cycle repeats itself.

In the county where I live, if you are on public health assistance and get pregnant you have to comply with a whole host of requirements. Parenting classes, classes on prenatal nutrition, classes on how to take care of an infant, regular checkups, drug tests, classes on contraception, etc. You should consider this a job. We are paying you to have a healthy baby, and these are your duties. Women scream about this being degrading, and an invasion of their privacy.

But honestly, if you accept the assistance, why would you assume there should be no strings? Why would you assume you don't have to jump through some hoops to get it? Do you expect to be left alone until the day of delivery, get a free stay in the hospital, and go your merry way? Can't we assume that since this is your second illegetimate pregnancy, you don't really know what's causing it? Or you forgot and need to repeat the class?

These types of assistance are supposed to be an investment society makes in improving the situation. Used properly, they can be. But often they are considered just another entitlement. *Just gimme the money and get outta my face.*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lyn-l...-c_b_11483.html

Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman October 26, 2005

As a legal noose appears to be tightening around the Bush/Cheney/Rove inner circle, a shocking government report shows the floor under the legitimacy of their alleged election to the White House is crumbling.

The latest critical confirmation of key indicators that the election of 2004 was stolen comes in an extremely powerful, penetrating report from the Government Accountability Office that has gotten virtually no mainstream media coverage.

The government's lead investigative agency is known for its general incorruptibility and its thorough, in-depth analyses. Its concurrence with assertions widely dismissed as conspiracy theories adds crucial new weight to the case that Team Bush has no legitimate business being in the White House.

Nearly a year ago, senior Judiciary Committee Democrat John Conyers (D-MI) asked the GAO to investigate electronic voting machines as they were used during the November 2, 2004 presidential election. The request came amidst widespread complaints in Ohio and elsewhere that often shocking irregularities defined their performance.

According to CNN, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee received more than 57,000 complaints following Bush's alleged re-election. Many such concerns were memorialized under oath in a series of sworn statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations conducted in Ohio by the Free Press and other election protection organizations.

The non-partisan GAO report has now found that, some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes.

The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines. The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O'Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush.

Bush's official margin of victory in Ohio was just 118,775 votes out of more than 5.6 million cast. Election protection advocates argue that O'Dell's statement still stands as a clear sign of an effort, apparently successful, to steal the White House.

Among other things, the GAO confirms that:

1. Some electronic voting machines did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected. In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush's official margin of victory.

2. It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate. Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.

3. Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level. 3. Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards can easily be done, according to the GAO.

4. The GAO also confirms that access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one machine provided access to the whole network. This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not require a widespread conspiracy but rather the cooperation of a very small number of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With 800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done by just one programmer.

5. Access to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily guessed passwords. So even relatively amateur hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote tallies.

6. The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy, meaning, again, getting into the system was an easy matter.

7. One DRE model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would cause the entire network to fail, re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the Presidency of the United States was decided.

8. GAO identified further problems with the security protocols and background screening practices for vendor personnel, confirming still more easy access to the system.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf

The U.S. Attorney brought a case against former Sen. Vince Fumo of PA. He was found guilty today of 137 counts of corruption! They are holding the bail hearing now to see if he should go straight to jail. Even the governor was supoened to testify.

Sure wish they would start an investigation against him, too, as he probably did the same things, especially with the way he takes care of only certain groups. Hope this link works.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/news_breaking/20090316_Fumo_judge_allows_Twittering_juror_to_stay_on_panel_.html

http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-campaign-launches-voter-fraud-web.html

Keep a close eye on your credit card bills this election season lest you end up paying for a contribution you didn�t approve to a political candidate you don�t support

A North Kansas City couple has been left scratching their heads after they became the victims of a political scam

Steve and Rachel Larman say a strange credit card charge appeared on their statement this month ? a $2300 donation to Barack Obama?s presidential campaign. The Larman?s say they don?t want this to be about their political affiliation, but they say they?re not about to give the Obama campaign any help from their pocketbook

They said they notified Chase, their credit card bank, to report the fraud

?(They) said that they had seen-they were familiar with this,? said Steve Larman. ?It was fraud, they believe through telemarketing but they were going to be doing some more investigations.?
The Larman?s don?t want their politics to enter into what is essentially just a fraudulent charge. But they say that the charge involves the Obama campaign adds insult to injury for the registered Republicans

?They (Chase) kept on asking me ?are you sure you wouldnt have gone to a site in support of Obama?,? said Rachel Larman. ?And I repeatedly said ?Im voting for McCain - I would not be going to an Obama site?.?

Chase dropped the charge from the Larman?s card. The couple is thankful thay they caught the charge on the card, but worried that others may not see that type of fraud on their own credit cards before it?s too late.

This wasn�t just some random prankster. $2,300 is the exact amount of the maximum any individual can give to a federal candidate for office