Liberal Groups Are Undermining Voter ID Laws, Say Conservative Election Experts

News Article:

Washington (CNSNews.com) – Too many absentee ballots, litigation against voter identification laws, and actions by a liberal community-organizer group have disenfranchised some voters while potentially allowing illegal votes to be cast, election lawyers claimed Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C.

Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who supervised that state’s election system, called the effort to move the Census under control of the White House an indicator that “team Obama has its sights set on the greatest accumulation of power we have ever witnessed".

CNS News

Let me quote the frightening part:

team Obama has its sights set on the greatest accumulation of power we have ever witnessed

The article reads like an Orwellian play looking into a future of reduced individual rights and self reliance.

If we can survive for two years with at least some of our individual rights in tact, maybe the Nation will wake up and see what is happening in time for us to still be a free nation.

Hope

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


Was this the same election supervisor who was in charge when the Ohio election info was rerouted to the RNC? here

Or perhaps with all the changes in Ohio to confuse the democratic voters? here

the 350,000 voters the republicans challenged in ohio? here

and on and on.

I am sorry, but this looks like the same stuff thats been going around lately, where the far right is claiming foul on the methods they pioneered and in every case I have read (could be some I have not obviously), they have been debunked.

Bush's regime was the fascist Orwellian wonderland, I thought official propaganda was Obama was a commie(?).

reply to post by lordtyp0


Perhaps this will clear up your semantic confusion:

at least 12,000 votes were not counted, said Mark Braden, an election lawyer who has been involved in the case for the last several months.

Most of those 12,000 votes were absentee ballots, and most were rural voters

The left has run a consistent legal assault against voter-verification at the state level, said Hans Von Spakovsky, a former election lawyer for the Department of Justice and a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

The U.S Supreme Court upheld a voter ID law in Indiana. However, liberal organizations sued the state of Arizona for requiring proof of citizenship for voters and sued Georgia for checking voter registration forms against Social Security numbers to make sure a voter is still alive and is a citizen.

(Same Article)

There is more, but you should be able to get the gist from what I have quoted.

As for the "Commie" comment, I am unsure where that is headed or your intent in such an assertion. I have not heard President Obama referenced as a Communist. (If in fact that was your intent)

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


The 'commie' comment was a snarky tip of the hat to all the Anti-Obama people calling his policies socialist (as well as elitist depending on the day of the week).

I did a search for the arizona lawsuit and found something interesting

As for the Georgia a quick google yielded the following:

Per court documents, Camp noted the issue was not whether the state's procedure of matching voter IDs and citizenship against driver license and Social Security databases was appropriate, but whether the state's implementation of the Help America Vote Act was actually a change in voting procedures. Voting procedure changes fall under the purview of the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act, and any changes have to be pre-cleared by the U.S. Department of Justice.

quoted site

It was a state constitution matter to test the grounds of the state changing requirements, not to allow illegal voters.

There has been a flood of talking points released by the RNC, all seem to be aimed at claiming the Dems are the culprits of everything the Republicans have been getting away with for years. That and smearing Obama with the guilt that belongs to the RNC.

(Tom Feeney is of course a conservative republican).

Well first, Communism is NOT Socialism

Obama is definitely a Socialist...

Second, the troubling thing for me is Obama giving any power to ACORN when they have been proven time and again to be corrupt and to have an agenda.

And not an "Equal Rights" agenda at all.

Also a disturbing snippet from your reference..

If the Pima Democratic Party or any member of the public gets access to that programming information, they could affect the outcome of an election," said Amelia Cramer, Pima County's chief deputy attorney.

Perhaps their goal was NOT as stated, but instead to obtain information on how to "rig" the votes?

Also as a Free Nation, do we ever want to open the can of worms that is exposing the individual results of elections? I don't want anyone knowing exactly how I voted!!!
Very "Un-American"

You can take it to the bank that they did not want that proprietary electronic information simply because of that one instance.

Think of the damage that could cause?

Semper

Im a Posix engineer and coder. Having the source would only let them know how things are tallied. (edit) They would need direct access to change anything, and for changes like that they would not need the source. (end edit) Considering many of the machines (like Diebold) simply wrote to a XLS document that could be opened and edited anonymously... I have reservations on if it would have done anything but shed light on how things were added up.

A note on the Hans Von Spakovsky dude, from his wiki bio:

Von Spakovsky received his recess appointment by President Bush to the FEC in January 2006. Prior to the hearing for his confirmation to a full term, the committee received a letter by past career (civil service) staff of the Voting Section of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, whom von Spakovsky had supervisory authority over from early 2003 through December 2005, when he was the Voting Section Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division. The letter criticized his stewardship of the DOJ Voting Section and urged that he not be confirmed.[4] Democratic committee chair Dianne Feinstein warned von Spakovsky that he would have a difficult confirmation.[5][6]

A related issue concerned von Spakovsky's alleged involvement in the decision not to investigate a decision by Minnesota's Republican Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer to not accept tribal ID cards for voter identification by American Indians living outside reservations.[7]

His own underlings were saying he stunk. He and the site you mentioned "conservative voting expert" have a greater agenda I would think than a volunteer organization like ACORN. With the stomping they got in the past elections-if they dont win more seats in the upcoming election, they are more or less doomed to be a 'local party'.

As for Obama being a socialist.. I call BOO. I mean, if thats the case so is Palin (AK gets a whole lot of money dividends from oil, and pays people to live there). As is bush and all his cronies (in the form of spreading wealth to their buddies in the form of Halliburton etc. But in honesty that could define them as embezzlers instead.

Are there cases of corruption in the dem party? course, is there more in the republican party? Suppose thats a matter of perspective.

But on the original mention of Obama making a power grab and being Orwellian. The man has been in office for 2 months, all his nay-sayers have personal gain to him being smeared. I think it's a tad extreme to label him a despot when he has done nothing to earn the title other than scare the right wing and Fox News who are digging so deep for relevance they are making everyone bleed with sometimes not-so-subtle calls for a violent overthrow. Can look at Glen Beck's website if you would like more on that, I feel dirty even mentioning his name.

(edit)
BTW, got my curiosity up, what power has Obama given to ACORN?
[edit on 1-3-2009 by lordtyp0]

[edit on 1-3-2009 by lordtyp0]

Im a Posix engineer and coder. Having the source would only let them know how things are tallied.

Perhaps you are, but that still does not warrant them having that information..

His own underlings were saying he stunk

Sure your not talking about President Obama?

Digging dirt on any reference person in a source does not in anyway refute what they have asserted. I certainly don't want my skeletons exposed, but my statements are factual.

As for Obama being a socialist.. I call BOO

Calling Boo does not refute what has been proven on here time and again.

Are there cases of corruption in the dem party? course, is there more in the republican party?

50/50
Anyone would be hard pressed to show me a politician that is NOT corrupt, regardless of their ideology.

The man has been in office for 2 months, all his nay-sayers have personal gain to him being smeared. I

Not just the Nay-Sayers my friend..

Obama is now rated just one point higher than President George W. Bush was, after his first month in office, which is pretty shocking, considering the fact that Obama rode in on such a wave of “hope and change” hype.

CullMan Times

BTW, got my curiosity up, what power has Obama given to ACORN?

That should be a meaningful contribution to public knowledge, but the untold story that most needs to be told is how "the ACORN man" (Obama) became the President of the United States as the liberal media managed the news to make it happen.

The great irony is that ACORN and its Congressional Democrat allies, including then Senator Obama, enabled and encouraged the issuance of "imprudent" loans AND blocked United States Treasury Department oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sought by President George W. Bush supported by Senator John McCain and Congressional Republicans.

The massive nearly trillion dollar spending bill that the Obama Administration misdescribed as a pork-free stimulus bill and the proposed Obama budget and tax policy show that President Obama is pursuing ACORN's wealth redistribution agenda assiduously and generously rewarding ACORN in preparation for future elections.

ReNewAmerica

And More:

Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), the largest radical group in America.

To understand the nature and extent of Acorn’s radicalism, an excellent place to begin is Sol Stern’s 2003 City Journal article, “ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities.” (For a shorter but helpful piece, try Steven Malanga’s “Acorn Squash.”)

Sol Stern explains that Acorn is the key modern successor of the radical 1960’s “New Left,” with a “1960’s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism” to match. Acorn, says Stern, grew out of “one of the New Left’s silliest and most destructive groups, the National Welfare Rights Organization.”

According to Stern, Acorn’s radical agenda sometimes shifts toward “undisguised authoritarian socialism.” Fully aware of its living-wage campaign’s tendency to drive businesses out of cities, Acorn hopes to force companies that want to move to obtain “exit visas.” “How much longer before Acorn calls for exit visas for wealthy or middle-class individuals before they can leave a city?” asks Stern, adding, “This is the road to serfdom indeed.”

NRO

There is MUCH more... Just Google it, but that is the gist of it and there is no denying his attachment..

While this is not necessarily disturbing that Obama is attached to any group, most politicians are to one or another; the agenda of ACORN is truly frightening..

Semper

Have any site references that don't reak of partisanship and revision?

Some of the 'blocked efforts to curb'

This one by John MCcain in 2005

Sounded good till I got to:

Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation. Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements. Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.

Basically it would consolidate it all into a director from a board. In some cases that is certainly useful, I am not sure about situations like this as it is a call to privatize the regulation. Not regulate by itself. the 'to such a corporation' is the jittery part.

I also thought this was odd, considering your assertion Bush tried to regulate them:

n 2000, due to a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.[11]

The intent was that Fannie Mae's enforcement of the underwriting standards they maintained for standard conforming mortgages would also provide safe and stable means of lending to buyers who did not have prime credit. As Daniel Mudd, then President and CEO of Fannie Mae, testified in 2007, instead the agency's responsible underwriting requirements drove business into the arms of the private mortgage industry who marketed aggressive products without regard to future consequences: "We also set conservative underwriting standards for loans we finance to ensure the homebuyers can afford their loans over the long term. We sought to bring the standards we apply to the prime space to the subprime market with our industry partners primarily to expand our services to underserved families.

From Fannie may wiki

Basically, the banks went to other firms because the two F&M's were too restrictive. Freddie on the otherhand wouldnt even touch sub-primes until 2007:

Freddie Mac announced on February 27, 2007 that it will buy a subprime adjustable rate mortgage only if the borrower qualifies for the maximum rate of the loan, rather than merely a low introductory (so-called teaser) rate.

wiki freddie mac


Nice attempts at diversion and revisionism though.

I mentioned his nay-sayers benefited from smearing him you responded with something that confused me. The statement seemed to indicate his allies benefited from him getting smeared. But the link:

Obama is now rated just one point higher than President George W. Bush was, after his first month in office, which is pretty shocking, considering the fact that Obama rode in on such a wave of “hope and change” hype.

Doesn't seem relevant.. ? Could you clarify that part?

Have any site references that don't reak of partisanship and revision?

Just because it disagrees with your position, does not make it wrong... That is a typical "StrawMan" argument.. Attach the source and not the information...

Doesn't seem relevant.. ? Could you clarify that part?

Of course..

You stated:

The man has been in office for 2 months, all his nay-sayers have personal gain to him being smeared.

I responded with:

Obama is now rated just one point higher than President George W. Bush was, after his first month in office, which is pretty shocking, considering the fact that Obama rode in on such a wave of “hope and change” hype.

As an external quote and reference source of course.

Indicating that it is NOT just his Nay-Sayers that are "Smearing" him now. The rest of the nation is waking up and understanding that Washington is just business as usual..

As for the rest of your post, as you consider my sources to be partisan, I must conclude that your "Opinion" is also partisan and an expected discourse in response to the source material...

Semper

[edit on 3/1/2009 by semperfortis]

Pft, I am not a member of any party. I do however tend to read as much as I can on statements and events as I personally believe everyone holds responsibility. I do expect that the items I am shown at least look impartial, the rest I am happy to research.

What I was asking regarding neutral sites was not to impugn but to see if there were sites that did not have affiliation with the RNC or at least didn't use buzz words and inflammatory sentiment. Specifically regarding the subject of this thread. I was hoping for local news reports in the areas noted instead of something that looks like Rove wrote it. "Strawman" wish I had money for everytime someone uttered that to avoid answering a single item in an array of many. As if the other points vanish on the utterance of that magic word.

You stated things like:

Just because it disagrees with your position, does not make it wrong...

and

Calling Boo does not refute what has been proven on here time and again.

You also insinuated something was 'proven'. I suppose 'proof' has different weight to different people. To me it means evidence, not statements made by people who profit if they get an audience.


Otherwise: Citing only sources that reinforce your ideology, ignoring everything to the contrary. All the Obama hate posts. Talk about an agenda, in the classic neo-con vein. But I guess thats a 'strawman' argument too.

Show me cooberated proof, and I am willing to refine my views. I don't accept biased conjecture with veiled half-truths. and insinuation.

Somewhere in the middle is where the truth is and all that jazz. Do I think lib's are innocent? no, do I think Cons are innocent? no.

I am just getting weary of all the propaganda thats been swarming the MSM and websites. Just the facts please and lets move from there.

Looks like we have the board all to ourselves today...

Anyway...

"Just the facts"???

I would present to you that I used no less than 3 News sites while you countered with Wiki???

Now if Wiki is a factual source site, I'll eat my hat...

Again, it is a Strawman argument...and exactly why I did not bring it up about Wiki, nor would I.. I have used Wiki as source material before and undoubtedly will again, but never would I refute a source that contained factual material regardless of the ideology of the source.

The material is what is always relevant not where it comes from as long as it is factual, and mine has been.

You posting opinion to refute facts is fine, but truly can not be taken completely serious, as opinions are variable according to many factors. And while you "Claim" to have no political party, your assertions adamantly state otherwise.

"If it looks like a dem and quacks like a dem, it must be a dem"

Insert Duck for dem

(That was just a joke of course.)

Back on topic..

The simple fact is that there has been voter fraud since there have been voters. I myself am old enough to remember my Uncle getting a bottle of whiskey to vote for a particular party.. (Yes Dems) That is what set me as a young child on a certain path, that and my family taught me self reliance and not to depend on the government for anything; directly opposing the liberal mindset.

Now I have presented proof that the Liberals engage in voter fraud. That should be no surprise to anyone that follows politics even a little. Look and you will find plenty of proof the Reps do it as well..

The key here is to remember that it only reveals a weak stance when you attack the messenger/source and not the message.

Semper

I'll second, from professional experience, the contention that 'open source' voting machines (the 'programming information' referred to earlier) actual make for more secure systems, not less. To put it another way, if there are 'loopholes' via which a system can be exploited, is it preferable that the existence of such be discovered and made public by a diverse group of individual investigators, or should those 'loopholes' remain secret, known only to a particular organization?

However I am also of the opinion that, due to the very nature of computerized vote collection and tallying, such systems are inherently unsecure, and must be checked by a parallel, verifiable non-automated system.

With regard to the voter ID issues, I would imaging that the predicted risk of any action to change procedure of voter verification would entail two risks: 1) the allowance of invalid ballots to be cast, fraudulently or by illegal voters, and 2) the bureaucratic disenfranchisement of legal voters, deliberately or via cumbersome process of registration and ballot validation. Balancing those two risks, which are present in every proposed legislative change, would seem to me to be a matter that must be addressed on a case-by-case basis, as the procedures for vote validation and elections are set by the individual States.

An unfortunate confusion in this issue is that various partisan reporting tends to highlight one side of the risks involved, and downplay the other. We may speculate as to agendas driving that motivation, but influence by omission of consideration is a difficult case to prove or objectively evidence.

Yet the point remains..

It is the "Appearance" of tampering that is relevant to the public as a whole..

Any access to the coding of the machines would not have to actually involve tampering, for there would be no way to refute tampering in that case, regardless of the "Technical aspects" of "Open Source" or "Proprietary" codes.

When one is considering these issues, one must by default consider the public as a whole. While here on ATS we may have present a significant number of individuals knowledgeable in these things, the actual number is irrelevant when compared to the percentage of the population that has no idea what your talking about as far as coding goes.

Open the access up, and tampering will occur..

Political Ideology aside

Semper

Yeah, looks like its just us here
It's all good, Im enjoying it, I hope you havnt taken the sarcasm etc. Personally. Just comes with the territory of the topic.

--

Interesting stance. To accept as 'fact' from any source regardless of ideological bent is hazardous. Would you accept the verdict of 'innocent' from someone who investigated themselves without the tiniest bit of skepticism?

If I make a profit from my software, would you accept my own review of said software?

If I am posed to get a huge amount of money if you sign a contract with me, would you stop for a moment and consider my motives?

If the answer to the above isn't 'yes' 'yes' 'no' respectively, it is safe to say you are cherry picking data. What I mean is you seem to have asserted that motives do not taint the information. The three sites you listed were all right wing sites. They stand to profit from such things.

In a similar manner, pundits like Maddow and Olbermann are not reporters-they even state they are commentator/opinion pieces. But you will not see a similar air with regards to Limbaugh or O'Riley who state everything as fact with catch phrases like 'fair and balanced' 'we report, you decide'. Both sides extremely slanted, only one side claims to be opinion.

In conjunction I also find it a bit ingenuous the idea that you consider me a liberal (though honestly I don't even know what that actually means anymore). Did I vote democratic in the last election? Yes, and if it turns out bad I will freely admit my error. Do I agree with everything the DNC says? pft, no. As I mentioned, the truth lays to the center. Only the most sensational politicians are put on TV or given sound bites-because of their sensationalism. Is the hundreds of others we never hear about that put up the fight with I hope a good sense of pragmatism. I also think we must have more than 2 political parties for any semblance of balance in the government.

I think Bush's main problem was the arrogance in believing he was above the law and entitled to do anything he chose. Once anyone comes to that conclusion the ethical slope is a vertical drop. Whether Obama makes the same err in judgment time will tell.

Do I think this type of rhetoric is profoundly dangerous and counterproductive? You betcha!

Just the other day a 60 year old Floridian grabbed his gun and went next door and started shooting a bunch of chilean (I think they were from chile, the local news channel says 'hispanic decent' I think I saw an update on a different site that cited Chile) immigrants who were all on legal work visa's.

Ready for the revolution?

Neighbor Crystal Lynn says "he did come up to me one time and asked me if I was ready for the revolution to begin and if I had any immigrant in my house to get them out."

This is just a sampling of what that rhetoric can do.

In Lehi Utah, High School civics class, they actually teach (I kid you not) 'liberals hate America'. This is not hyperbole. Just sit for a moment and think on that. Think about all the talk from Beck and Limbaugh lately. Think about all the blind hate. What CAN happen with that if pragmatism isn't used.

Consider the thread title. It basically says those same things, more or less it breaks down to 'liberals are going to sneak in and eat your babies after they take away all your freedoms'. And this is all based on? Rival political party blogs.

I believe in separation of church and state. I believe freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion. I believe nobody has the right to over-ride anothers rights thus balance has to be maintained with common sense. I dont agree with the death penalty because I do not like the idea of the Government killing the citizens it represents. I think prison should be for serious crimes, not trivial infractions like a 3-strike rule where someone stole a pizza now has life in prison.

For the most part, those are I think anyway, liberal ideas. You have already said I appeared liberal. Do you honestly think I hate America?

There is real danger to people being bombarded with propaganda of any sort. The danger that could lead to more bloodshed. It is like parents who fight constantly in front of their kids-eventually the child is put in a situation where they have to chose mom or dad and the fight gets uglier.

I think we are approaching that threshhold and everyone has to make a concerted effort to reign things in.

Just saw this:

Originally posted by semperfortis
Yet the point remains..

It is the "Appearance" of tampering that is relevant to the public as a whole..

Any access to the coding of the machines would not have to actually involve tampering, for there would be no way to refute tampering in that case, regardless of the "Technical aspects" of "Open Source" or "Proprietary" codes.

When one is considering these issues, one must by default consider the public as a whole. While here on ATS we may have present a significant number of individuals knowledgeable in these things, the actual number is irrelevant when compared to the percentage of the population that has no idea what your talking about as far as coding goes.

Open the access up, and tampering will occur..

Political Ideology aside

Semper

To an extent I agree. The base problem with it is knowing how something works does not by itself make a vulnerability. For example, linux systems are very secure-as with anything on a network-it can be compromised BUT, simply having the source code for say, Apache (web server) does not really help you in getting in, it's a combination of what Mods might be running (like an unpatched mod_php for example). Of course, if you are actually at the console, you can just walk into root control (by booting into single-user mode).

My skills in hacking are trivial at best, but even I could compromise a database or spreadsheet depending on the storage method, with minimal effort-no source code needed. In this case having the source code would prove whether there were backdoors, which I believe was the concern in that case. I also have to say the people have a right to know how such things are done. In a similar manner as a defendant having a right to have the software of a breathalyser analyzed for flaws (to date they have found and corrected many.).

It is the "Appearance" of tampering that is relevant to the public as a whole..

Not true. It is tampering that is relevant to the public as a whole. It is the appearance of tampering that evokes the public engagement in the relevant issues. That's why the media, which is driven by stories the public finds 'juicy', attempts to show every possible sensational angle. It's suspicious when they don't, in fact. Appearance is important, in that a system which does not have the public's trust is unworkable, but to argue that appearance is the most important aspect, over actual integrity, would be to excuse potential fraud.

Any access to the coding of the machines would not have to actually involve tampering, for there would be no way to refute tampering in that case, regardless of the "Technical aspects" of "Open Source" or "Proprietary" codes.

Yes. Think of it as 'layers' of reliability. The software is build on top of the operating system, which is built on top of the hardware. 'Proving' security for the entire stack of components that make a computerized voting system is not possible. However, 'opening' (making available for the public to view) the implementation of various components increases transparency, and thus improves security. This has been shown in practice:

Diebold GEMS Central Tabulator Contains Stunning Security Hole

Here's an interesting tangent for people to follow: research the 'PROMIS' software case, in conjunction with the company Enslaw. In the 1970s, intelligence agencies actually created 'counterfeit' versions of major-brand computer hardware, with backdoors and exploits built in to the chips. This hardware was 'leaked' into sensitive areas. The possibility exists, however remote you might want to consider it, of similar, undetectable subversion of hardware in computerized vote collection/tallying systems. So you are correct that there is no way to completely refute tampering; which is why I consider such systems inherently unsecure.

When one is considering these issues, one must by default consider the public as a whole. While here on ATS we may have present a significant number of individuals knowledgeable in these things...

Yes. In interesting contrast to many of the more 'out there' conspiracy theories, it's sobering to see that, as you talk to professionals with more expertise and experience, it becomes more likely that they will say "yes, that theory of potential conspiracy is entirely possible and plausible." The media and corporate community seems to be downplaying the risks that academics talk about quite openly.

Open the access up, and tampering will occur..

Perhaps. If so, "keep the access closed, and tampering will occur", too - but with less chance of being detected.




Back to ideology: I have no doubts that Democrat-influenced election commissions and legislation will deal with these issues just as badly as Republican-influenced ones have. I think it transcends party, unfortunately. As you say, as long as there have been elections there has been fraud, or the desire thereto.

Nothing personal taken at all... I love a good political debate, especially one like this..!!!

When I look at source material, being human I gravitate to that material that most interests me. I am a Conservative.. (Shocking huh)

Now if that source material is opinion, I of course move on; yet if it states actual facts, produces evidence and is relevant, of course I stand behind it. As anyone should.

I also find it a bit ingenuous the idea that you consider me a liberal

I have only your posts on here to guide me my friend.

I also think we must have more than 2 political parties for any semblance of balance in the government.

Agreed...

While a Conservative at heart, I am actually more in line with the Libertarian Party.

I think Bush's main problem was the arrogance in believing he was above the law and entitled to do anything he chose

They all do..

Clinton felt so far above, that he lied under oath... (For the readers.. No HE WAS NOT IMPEACHED FOR THE SEX ACT)

In Lehi Utah, High School civics class, they actually teach (I kid you not) 'liberals hate America'

Well that mildly evens things out as in the rest of the country that teach only the liberal agenda.

I believe freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion.

But it doesn't.. No matter what you believe, your rights stop where mine begin and we still have the right to practice religion in public. Now if I come to your home, then my rights stop at your door step, where yours begin.

Do you honestly think I hate America?

No... If you did, we would not be having this conversation.

I just think that like most liberals you "just don't get it" that what made this country as great as it is, what gives us the freedom to be having this discussion and why we don't speak German or Russian or Japanese, is our "Core Conservative Values" that kept us strong in the face of adversaries that would have destroyed us if they could have.

It is the Core Conservative values of a fair wage for a hard days work, a hand up and not a hand out, individual liberties, no government interference in our lives and accepting nothing that we have not worked to earn, that has given us the strength to become the Super Power we still are. It has been the slow, but ever so present insidious liberal incursion that has brought us as far down as we are now and will eventually destroy us as a nation.

So, no, liberals don't hate the US, they hate what we are.

There is real danger to people being bombarded with propaganda of any sort.

While propaganda is not germane to any ideology, who can argue that it is not the favored tool of the liberal? Just look at the MSM's behavior during the last election..

Semper

reply to post by Ian McLean

Not true. It is tampering that is relevant to the public as a whole.

Where do you live!!!!!!

Obviously not in the Nation I'm discussing...

In this nation, at this time, appearance is everything.. Look who just got elected with no experience at all..

While this concept may insult and even aggravate the "Fact Based" person that is you, or even I to an extent; the facts remain... The public is not really interested in facts..

They care completely about appearance..

Doubt that?

Look at the last election...

How many voted a certain way because Oprah told them too? I would wager a LARGE number.
How many truly consider Obama to be a savior of some kind? HUGE numbers. He is just a politician, but tell the voters that before they started seeing the truth.

What was a larger issue? Obama's Speech or what his wife wore..

You can argue the technical semantics of the system all day long and it will not change the fact that most people wont listen or care.. Heck I didn't read all the tech you just typed...

Let the public know that a certain political ideology has access to the coding of voting machines and you will see a storm the likes of which will eclipse Watergate

Semper

[edit on 3/1/2009 by semperfortis]

But it doesn't.. No matter what you believe, your rights stop where mine begin and we still have the right to practice religion in public. Now if I come to your home, then my rights stop at your door step, where yours begin.

Remember, I am in Utah, home of the double missionary whammy
To clarify, I think it's fine to do whatever in the privacy of your home, but the moment you hit public domain one should restrain oneself. In a similar manner to certain acts of affection just are not appropriate in public. I am not meaning to imply anything on 'normal' things in our society mind-like say Christmas Carolers. What i am referring to are cases where singing carols might be mandatory for say a school kid to be in a singing group. I think such things should be voluntary as many parents hold the memory of their kid singing Silent Night in fondness.

Things should not be taken away, but there should always be a way out for those who might be shinto, jewish, bhuddist or atheist etc..

Here in Utah there was a case where an LDS girl joined the drama club at the UofU. Applied for a part that she knew had some lines she considered profane, then sued because the drama department told her to be in the play she had to do the lines or drop from the play. She sued. She won on grounds of religious freedom.

This IMO is as ludicrous as an atheist enrolling in catholic school then complaining of the religious overtones.

Real quick, could you define Liberal and Conservative for me? Each seem to have 20 different meanings and I was wanting to make sure what definitions we were using.

First, I agree with you on the religion aspect.. 100%

Real quick, could you define Liberal and Conservative for me? Each seem to have 20 different meanings and I was wanting to make sure what definitions we were using.

Conservative: Hand Up
Liberal: Hand out

Conservative: Small Government stays the HECK out of our lives
Liberal: Public dependent on the Government completely

Conservative: Social Programs at the Grass Roots Community Level
Liberal: All Social Programs funded by Government

Conservative: Just enough tax to run small government
Liberal: Increase tax to increase government and give more power to feds

Basically....

Conservatives: Independence
Liberals: Control

Now I will state for the record that we have not had a true conservative in office for some time.. RR was close

Semper