Appeals Court Rules Dem Cheating Will Be Harder

[Buff]

Dems Take HUGE Hit At Polls (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041102/ap_on_el_pr/eln_ohio_voting_4):


Court OKs Voter Challengers at Ohio Polls

1 hour, 16 minutes ago


BY LISA CORNWELL, Associated Press Writer

CINCINNATI - A federal appeals court has cleared the way for challengers to be present at polling places throughout Ohio, ruling early Tuesday that their presence on Election Day was allowed under state law.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) ruled 2-1 to grant emergency stays of two federal judges' orders Monday that barred voter challengers from political parties. The judges also consolidated the two appeals, which stemmed from separate lawsuits in Cincinnati and Akron.

Both cases had been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites). It was unclear whether the high court would issue a ruling before polls opened Tuesday morning.

The federal appeals court said that while it's in the public interest that registered voters cast ballots freely, there is also "strong public interest in permitting legitimate statutory processes to operate to preclude voting by those who are not entitled to vote."

The judges also said that smooth and effective administration of the voting laws means that the rules can't be changed hours before the election.

Gonna be a lot harder for Democrats to vote dead people and illegal aliens this time around.

Now why do you think Democrats would have a problem with verifying that voters are legitimate? All a challenger does is check ID to make sure a person is who he claims to be. Who could be against that? Cheating pieces of shit, that's who.

Let's look at it like this: now Democrats can go into Republican strongholds and challenge voters. If Republicans cheat as much as Democrats, it's a wash. Why wouldn't the Democrats be for this, since they are the good guys?

Oh, because they cheat like motherfuckers every single election, and try to change election law after the fact if the regular cheating doesn't work.

[Almighty Colin]

We're all going to need chip ID implants at this rate.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Colin@Nov 2 2004, 05:34 AM
We're all going to need chip ID implants at this rate.
Maybe so. I don't see what the problem is with making sure someone is who he claims to be, but apparently the Democrats have a problem with it.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Buff+Nov 2 2004, 06:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Nov 2 2004, 06:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Nov 2 2004, 05:34 AM
We're all going to need chip ID implants at this rate.
Maybe so. I don't see what the problem is with making sure someone is who he claims to be, but apparently the Democrats have a problem with it. [/b][/quote]
yeap,
I am DEFINATELY not the one who I am
;-)))

[KeyGuy]

Originally posted by Buff@Nov 2 2004, 03:23 AM
Dems Take HUGE Hit At Polls (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041102/ap_on_el_pr/eln_ohio_voting_4):


Court OKs Voter Challengers at Ohio Polls

1 hour, 16 minutes ago


BY LISA CORNWELL, Associated Press Writer

CINCINNATI - A federal appeals court has cleared the way for challengers to be present at polling places throughout Ohio, ruling early Tuesday that their presence on Election Day was allowed under state law.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) ruled 2-1 to grant emergency stays of two federal judges' orders Monday that barred voter challengers from political parties. The judges also consolidated the two appeals, which stemmed from separate lawsuits in Cincinnati and Akron.

Both cases had been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites). It was unclear whether the high court would issue a ruling before polls opened Tuesday morning.

The federal appeals court said that while it's in the public interest that registered voters cast ballots freely, there is also "strong public interest in permitting legitimate statutory processes to operate to preclude voting by those who are not entitled to vote."

The judges also said that smooth and effective administration of the voting laws means that the rules can't be changed hours before the election.

Gonna be a lot harder for Democrats to vote dead people and illegal aliens this time around.

Now why do you think Democrats would have a problem with verifying that voters are legitimate? All a challenger does is check ID to make sure a person is who he claims to be. Who could be against that? Cheating pieces of shit, that's who.

Let's look at it like this: now Democrats can go into Republican strongholds and challenge voters. If Republicans cheat as much as Democrats, it's a wash. Why wouldn't the Democrats be for this, since they are the good guys?

Oh, because they cheat like motherfuckers every single election, and try to change election law after the fact if the regular cheating doesn't work.
I can give you one good reason. What qualifies a "challenger"? Does he have credentials, or do they just bring in Bubba from the local gas station to harrass everyone that looks like a liberal?

[RawAlex]

Buff, this is a republican dirty trick. They know if they keep the popular vote under 50%, it is likely that Bush will win. They will "challenge" every new voter, make the lines long, and people will get pissed off and leave rather than vote.

Coming up with this at the last minute means not enough additional workers can be put in place to take care of the long lineups that will be caused if they start to challenge all over the place.

It's a sad, sad act by desperate people.

Alex

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Buff+Nov 2 2004, 06:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Nov 2 2004, 06:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Nov 2 2004, 05:34 AM
We're all going to need chip ID implants at this rate.
Maybe so. I don't see what the problem is with making sure someone is who he claims to be, but apparently the Democrats have a problem with it. [/b][/quote]
Uhhhh ... Buffy.

Stop and think for a minute. (I know, it's hard ... but give it a try).

Do you think that MAYBE - just MAYBE - the appeals court ruling will make it EASIER for Republicans to cheat?

[Buff]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 2 2004, 08:19 AM
Buff, this is a republican dirty trick. They know if they keep the popular vote under 50%, it is likely that Bush will win. They will "challenge" every new voter, make the lines long, and people will get pissed off and leave rather than vote.

Coming up with this at the last minute means not enough additional workers can be put in place to take care of the long lineups that will be caused if they start to challenge all over the place.

It's a sad, sad act by desperate people.

Alex
Democrats are now open to do the same thing in Republican areas. No, we both know this will limit Dem cheating.

[Buff]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Nov 2 2004, 08:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Nov 2 2004, 08:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Buff@Nov 2 2004, 06:39 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Nov 2 2004, 05:34 AM
We're all going to need chip ID implants at this rate.
Maybe so. I don't see what the problem is with making sure someone is who he claims to be, but apparently the Democrats have a problem with it.
Uhhhh ... Buffy.

Stop and think for a minute. (I know, it's hard ... but give it a try).

Do you think that MAYBE - just MAYBE - the appeals court ruling will make it EASIER for Republicans to cheat? [/b][/quote]
No, PD, this ruling affects both parties the same. Dems are free to put people in Republican areas. The only way this makes any difference is if one side cheats more than the other.

[PornoDoggy]

I smell fried chicken ...

[Buff]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 2 2004, 08:30 AM
I smell fried chicken ...
Explain to me how checking IDs is a bad thing.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 2 2004, 09:19 AM
Buff, this is a republican dirty trick. They know if they keep the popular vote under 50%, it is likely that Bush will win. They will "challenge" every new voter, make the lines long, and people will get pissed off and leave rather than vote.

Coming up with this at the last minute means not enough additional workers can be put in place to take care of the long lineups that will be caused if they start to challenge all over the place.

It's a sad, sad act by desperate people.

Alex


I guess this mean Alex is canceling his " quick trip across" the border to visitt friends in Ohio!!


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Alex the Democrats are professionals at stealing elections....

[KeyGuy]

Originally posted by Buff+Nov 2 2004, 06:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Nov 2 2004, 06:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Nov 2 2004, 08:30 AM
I smell fried chicken ...
Explain to me how checking IDs is a bad thing. [/b][/quote]
Well, if the id checker can't read, that could be a bad thing. What qualifies anyone to check id? You get a certificate at a community college or something? That is so obvious.

[RawAlex]

Mike, I am amazed as a lawyer type that you are not shocked and dismayed at this blatant attempt to stop and restrict people from exercising their right to vote. Clearly "checkers" are there to intimidate and hassle people, to create longer lines, and to discourage voting by new (usually democratic) voters.

This is just another hanging chad for the republicans to play with.

The fried chicken smell is Buff's brain crosswiring itself. :lol:

Alex

[Buff]

The Facts:

Ohio election law has permitted poll challengers from political parties for 100 years. A lower court tried to ignore the law and forbid poll challengers from political parties. The appeals court overruled them saying that the lower court is not authorized to change election law during the election process.

In the last election, some Democrat precincts recorded up to 30% more votes than they had registered voters, and in Democrat precinct, more voters than actual people. We call this cheating in the United States.

And Alex complains, because now the Dems have a harder time stuffing the ballot boxes by importing homeless crack addicts from Detroit to Ohio precincts to cast fraudulent votes.

Alex, stay in Canada where your brand of stupidity and hypocrisy is welcome.

[Peaches]

Originally posted by KeyGuy+Nov 2 2004, 11:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KeyGuy @ Nov 2 2004, 11:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Buff@Nov 2 2004, 06:31 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-PornoDoggy@Nov 2 2004, 08:30 AM
I smell fried chicken ...
Explain to me how checking IDs is a bad thing.
Well, if the id checker can't read, that could be a bad thing. What qualifies anyone to check id? You get a certificate at a community college or something? That is so obvious. [/b][/quote]
If the 16 year old cashier at the grocery store can legally check IDs for the state, seems finding someone with the ability to check a voter's ID wouldn't be all that hard. :awinky:

[RawAlex]

Buff, your such a republican dip today!

Just because the law has been on the books for 100 years doesn't make it constitutional. There is not time to figure that out (and that is what the republicans were counting on, spring this less than 48 hours before the election), so the courts have sided with the existing law.

if the republicans were going to do this, why not announce it with time to debate and clear the issue with the courts properly? Because even they are not convinced it would stand a real constitutional challenge.

It's a neat trick to deny and discourage real registered voters from getting rid of the boy, the old man, and the preacher.

Buff, if nothing else, you are proving your colors today, and that color is yellow...

Alex

[Buff]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 2 2004, 09:36 AM
Buff, your such a republican dip today!

Just because the law has been on the books for 100 years doesn't make it constitutional. There is not time to figure that out (and that is what the republicans were counting on, spring this less than 48 hours before the election), so the courts have sided with the existing law.

if the republicans were going to do this, why not announce it with time to debate and clear the issue with the courts properly? Because even they are not convinced it would stand a real constitutional challenge.

It's a neat trick to deny and discourage real registered voters from getting rid of the boy, the old man, and the preacher.

Buff, if nothing else, you are proving your colors today, and that color is yellow...

Alex
Dipshit, the courts sprang the original decision yesterday, you stupid fuck. It got overturned last night, not long after. It's hard to tell if you're more stupid than ignorant or more ignorant than stupid. Stick to Canadian politics, you fucking idiot.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Buff@Nov 2 2004, 10:28 AM
The Facts:

Ohio election law has permitted poll challengers from political parties for 100 years. A lower court tried to ignore the law and forbid poll challengers from political parties. The appeals court overruled them saying that the lower court is not authorized to change election law during the election process.

In the last election, some Democrat precincts recorded up to 30% more votes than they had registered voters, and in Democrat precinct, more voters than actual people. We call this cheating in the United States.

And Alex complains, because now the Dems have a harder time stuffing the ballot boxes by importing homeless crack addicts from Detroit to Ohio precincts to cast fraudulent votes.

Alex, stay in Canada where your brand of stupidity and hypocrisy is welcome.
You left out the fried chicken and the watermelon. I'm disappointed.

[SykkBoy]

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/200...s/25155397.html (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Nov-02-Tue-2004/news/25155397.html)

riiiiiiight, only dems are cheaters

and of course, good old Republican-funded Voters Outreach of America where the FBI is investigating them for fraud because they were registering voters and throwing away the registration of anyone who registered as a democrat....I had the pleasure of being in line behind a couple people who thought they were going to get to cast their first ballot and told they weren't registered...they were not pleased

I'm sure that's going to happen quite a bit today as well...

[Buff]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Nov 2 2004, 10:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Nov 2 2004, 10:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Buff@Nov 2 2004, 10:28 AM
The Facts:

Ohio election law has permitted poll challengers from political parties for 100 years. A lower court tried to ignore the law and forbid poll challengers from political parties. The appeals court overruled them saying that the lower court is not authorized to change election law during the election process.

In the last election, some Democrat precincts recorded up to 30% more votes than they had registered voters, and in Democrat precinct, more voters than actual people. We call this cheating in the United States.

And Alex complains, because now the Dems have a harder time stuffing the ballot boxes by importing homeless crack addicts from Detroit to Ohio precincts to cast fraudulent votes.

Alex, stay in Canada where your brand of stupidity and hypocrisy is welcome.
You left out the fried chicken and the watermelon. I'm disappointed. [/b][/quote]
PD, shove the racism bullshit up your ass next to the homing gerbils. Not everyone who doesn't want to suck a black cock is a racist. blacks got a really raw deal in this country for a very long time. Slavery, no rights, racism, it was shitty. But that doesn't mean they have to be coddled until the sun burns out. There are rules, and they need to be held accountable like everyone else, no matter what the idiotic leftist mindset (read: yours) is. Quit implying that everyone who has a different opinion than yours is a racist -- it's a sign of low intelligence, and quite frankly, you're a one-trick pony and you're shit is worn out.

[PornoDoggy]

Hey Buff ... just a hint.

When you are going to accuse someone of exhibiting "sign[s] of low intelligence", you would do well to drop the homo imagery.

Now, as to the few valid points you made in that sophmoric high school diatribe (honors level, to give credit where credit is due) ...

Oh, wait. There aren't any.

Where, exactly, am I saying that blacks don't need to be accountable for illegal activities?

Are YOU saying that predominantly black precincts deserve higher scrutiny?

[Buff]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 2 2004, 10:36 AM
Hey Buff ... just a hint.

When you are going to accuse someone of exhibiting "sign[s] of low intelligence", you would do well to drop the homo imagery.

Now, as to the few valid points you made in that sophmoric high school diatribe (honors level, to give credit where credit is due) ...

Oh, wait. There aren't any.

Where, exactly, am I saying that blacks don't need to be accountable for illegal activities?

Are YOU saying that predominantly black precincts deserve higher scrutiny?
If that's where most of the Democrat fraud is taking place, yes.

[PornoDoggy]

And you believe that to be true?

If so, on what basis?

[Buff]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 2 2004, 11:15 AM
And you believe that to be true?

If so, on what basis?
There are 2 possibilities:

Democrats cheat or they don't.

If Democrats cheat, there are two possibilites:

Either the cheating is distributed equally or it's not.

If Democrats cheat and their cheating is not distributed equally, than some factors are more prevalent than others with respect to where and how they cheat.

It seems to me that Republicans must think that

1) Dems do cheat
2) The cheating is not distributed equally
3) The cheating mostly occurs in black districts.

Yes, I believe they're right.

Which isn't to say I think that Republicans don't cheat.

[PornoDoggy]

1) I believe that cheating is vitually equal across the board

2) I do not doubt that cheating takes place in black districts. I have seen no real evidence to suggest that it is any greater in black districts, or poor districts.

3) I believe that the focus of Republicans on minority districts has been cynically devised to a) suppress voter turnout in districts they think will provide Democratic votes, and B) seem plausible to those predisposed to think minority and poor districts are more likely to be the places where fraud takes place.

[Buff]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 2 2004, 12:10 PM
1) I believe that cheating is vitually equal across the board

2) I do not doubt that cheating takes place in black districts. I have seen no real evidence to suggest that it is any greater in black districts, or poor districts.

3) I believe that the focus of Republicans on minority districts has been cynically devised to a) suppress voter turnout in districts they think will provide Democratic votes, and B) seem plausible to those predisposed to think minority and poor districts are more likely to be the places where fraud takes place.
Why would Republicans target blacks then? There are a great many white precincts that run strongly Democrat. Why not target those. Hmmm? Careful, don't say anything racist.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Buff@Nov 2 2004, 01:24 PM
Why would Republicans target blacks then?
You're from Louisiana and don't know the answer to that?! ;-)

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Colin+Nov 2 2004, 01:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Nov 2 2004, 01:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Buff@Nov 2 2004, 01:24 PM
Why would Republicans target blacks then?
You're from Louisiana and don't know the answer to that?! ;-) [/b][/quote]

There has not be a Republican Senator for La since Civil War.

The Dems run the State for the most part. Competition is between liberal dems and moderate dems.

The open primary has helped ensure this situation continues.

However, when it comes to Presidential elections Louisiana always goes Republican.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Buff@Nov 2 2004, 01:24 PM
Why would Republicans target blacks then? There are a great many white precincts that run strongly Democrat. Why not target those. Hmmm? Careful, don't say anything racist.
I know you aren't this stupid, but I'll play.

Why does the disapparence of a black child or a black wife not dominate the news the way a Laci Peterson does?

Why does crime in a black community (even in middle or upper class neighborhoods) draw less media or law enforcement attention than a comprable crime in a white community?

See 3.b. of my original post.
seem plausible to those predisposed to think minority and poor districts are more likely to be the places where fraud takes place