Donna Brazile has an excellent response about the non-controversy surrounding ACORN...
Experts who have examined the allegations against ACORN have concluded that there is no significant threat of voter fraud. For the fraudulent registration forms to turn into fraudulent votes, they would have had to get through the election officials' vetting systems and make it onto the voter rolls.
Next, someone would need to arrive at the assigned polling location with valid identification that lists the same name and address as the fraudulent registration. (This is fairly difficult to do if you're dead or named Mickey Mouse.)
Then, having passed all these hurdles, that someone would cast a vote that will cost him or her 10 years in jail. Just find me someone willing to spend 10 years in jail just for a chance to vote for Obama or McCain?
Let's look at the facts.
* ACORN labeled as "suspicious" the fraudulent registration forms a few of its paid volunteers submitted.
* Moreover, ACORN delivered them to election authorities under that heading.
* ACORN offered to help election officials pursue prosecutions against those who filled out the fraudulent forms.
The so-called ACORN scandal is no more than a few canvassers trying to meet their quota and make easy money by cheating the system.
Ask yourself how likely is it that someone would go through the effort and risk of submitting multiple false registration forms, find an accomplished forger capable of producing IDs of sufficient quality to trick election officials, and then spend Election Day racking up a couple extra votes at the potential cost of spending a decade in jail?
A simple cost-benefit analysis tells us this is not a reasonable or significant threat. The real threat here is the Republican Party using attacks on ACORN as a calculated strategy to justify massive challenges to the votes cast in Democratic-leaning voting precincts on Election Day. And this is what is truly outrageous, but where is John McCain's concern when it comes to people being harassed at the voting booth?
The same Republican Party shouting "Voter fraud!" is also furiously trying to prevent Ohio from registering voters at early voting sites and suing to shut down some early voting sites in Indiana...
Let them sputter and fret. A swelling of the voter rolls strengthens our democracy. The more eligible voters we have participating in the process, the stronger we are as a nation -- and the more accurately the results on November 4 will reflect our nation's choice for president.
Read the full essay here
18 comments:
Is there anything Obama and his surrigots support that you do not?
Off topic so don't answer it if you dont want to:
Who more represents your beliefs, the Apostle Paul or Obama?
I only ask becuse after reviewing your blog I find you criticise Paul far more than Obama and you are much more likly to defend Obama than you would Paul when discussing issues.
Of the two, who was hand picked by Jesus to be a leader?
Edwin,
Of course Dan criticizes BHO, it's all over his web site. While a cursory look reveals what a wonderful group of community oraganizers ACORN is. That darn legal system. It's so inconvienient. They're just trying to give a few convicted felons jobs. Of course those jobs allow them access to some degree of your personal information, and violate the laws of some (if not all) states. But it's ok, BHO didn't really know what they were about. Oh, did BHO's campaign really give a group affiliated with ACORN $850,000 during the primaries? Did BHO and his congress buddies really cut ACorn a piece of the $700,000,000,000,000(whatever) bailout package? Why? How much has ACORN donated to BHO?
Don't worry, though, because the states weed out the bad registrations. Except when they don't want to. See OH and MN. But it's still OK they have to get past the dedicated poll workers, especially reassuring given the fact that ACORN concentrates in urban areas where the democrat party has control of the local political apparatus.
So Edwin, don't worry, it's going to be fine. Dan says so.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009189
http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/2008/10/acorn-hires-7-convicted-felons-to.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/22/voter.fraud/index.html
http://americantruckersatwar.com/2008/10/18/investigation-into-acorn-shows-convicted-felons-registered-voters/
http://americantruckersatwar.com/2008/10/18/investigation-into-acorn-shows-convicted-felons-registered-voters/
http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news/politics.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-10-11-0098.html
http://rottenacorn.com/downloads/060728_badSeed.pdf
Wow, the whining has begin early and it isn't even Tuesday night. I'd suggest saving a little something or you guys are going to be hoarse by then.
Sorry, but to set the record straight, Jesus did not "hand-pick" Paul. They never met, at least according to the Gospels.
The book of Acts describes a vision the former Saul had of the risen Christ who also speaks to him. Paul, in his own letters, claims is that this vision is part of what qualifies him to be an apostle.
After some hesitation, it seems that the church hierarchy accepted his claim due to the work he was doing among Gentiles.
Now, what is more important for you, Edwin, is that among those Jesus DID hand-pick for his disciples, was a tax collector and three maybe four subversive revolutionaries.
In other words, this is a group that you would not want to hold up as model for political debate in this country.
Better dead than breaking bread, I guess you would say.
First, the word is "surrogates", Edwin.
Second, I have to say - What the heck? Seriously. i have read some really dumb things, but that really ranks up there.
Sorry, Dan, but you really attract a certain variety of stupid to your blog.
Thanks for the proof read Jeff also its great that your blog is all about the "real" church and your calling people names. O-u-t-s-t-a-n-d-i-n-g. Did I spell that right?
Can’t really argue with faith (or lack thereof) can you Fedor? So stop "setting the record strait".
So much ridicule but yet none of you can disagree with Obama or his surrogates (thanks Jeff) on anything. Have you stopped supporting him and started following him?
Faith without knowledge cannot make an argument, Edwin, it will be too weak to enter into the world.
"Thanks for the proof read Jeff also its great that your blog is all about the "real" church and your calling people names. O-u-t-s-t-a-n-d-i-n-g. Did I spell that right? "
You did. However it is "it's", not "its". And the second "your" should be "you're". There is a difference between the use of apostrophes for contractions vs. possessives. Ask your (not you're) English teacher, I'm sure she or he will explain. If you're (not your) going to be snotty about grammar, you could at least attempt to use English correctly on occasion. (Anyone want to bet that "Edwin" wants to make English the national language? LOL)
As a side note, I find your (not you're) deliberate misspelling of Geoffrey's name hilarious in that, 1) you're (not your) actually that juvenile, and 2) you're (not your) too scared to give your (not you're) own name.
Anyway, on to "Edwin's" point, such as it is:
"So much ridicule but yet none of you can disagree with Obama or his surrogates (thanks Jeff) on anything."
Actually we "can", I think what you mean is that we don't ... which is also incorrect but at least more grammatically correct.
For instance, I disagree with Obama on a number of issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and expanding off-shore drilling. But since no president is going to do anything on either gay marriage or abortion, and since Obama and McCain basically agree about off-short drilling, I'm not voting based on those issues, but on others on which they differ such as health care, middle class tax relief, etc.
"Have you stopped supporting him and started following him?"
We've gone past stupid to outright indecipherable now. Is that sentence supposed to make sense or is it some secret nutjob fundie code for something? Why would someone start following Obama if they stopped supporting Obama (or vice versa)? Forget it, I'm not interested in what I'm sure is your completely crazy and convoluted answer to that question, "Edwin."
I didn't make that up Fedor, arguing faith is known as "Appeal to Faith" a logical fallacy. It cannot be proven true because if it was then it wouldn't be faith. Now how does that relate to the book of Acts and the Gospels? I believe God designed the Bible as we know it. I believe that every word from Genesis to Revelations was God inspired. You do not believe this to be true. Neither one of us can "set the record strait". You can’t even argue interpretation because you believe the book to be false.
Your faith in Matt through John has no logical different than my faith in Matt through Rev.
The basis of the original question requires the person answering to have faith in the inerrancy of the book of acts.
Hey Jeff if you could go through and spruce up my punctuation and spell check I would really appreciate it. Just have it back on my desk by COB today.
;)
That would be funny if I was a kid Alan, since I draw such an emotional response from you. What does that say about you.
Emotional? LOL Well, yes, your comments do elicit a good deal of laughter, just not the emotion I'm sure you're hoping for. I'm sure you're (not your) thrilled to imagine that I get emotional about something you write, but don't flatter yourself, sweetie. ;)
(BTW, it should be "If I were" not "If I was" and there should be a question mark, not a period, after that last statement.)
In any event, since you did not respond substantively, I can only assume that you concede the point. Thank you for agreeing with me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Edwin thinks he is on to a tautology when he says that faith cannot argue anything since it is a different mode of being altogether. He thinks he is saying that faith is faith and can't be proven.
That is his cherished little kernel of "philosophical" truth that stands him in good stead when at the keyboard. What he doesn't see, because his eyes are don't look up very far that such a seed of "truth" is stillborn and wont grow a thing.
Edwin, why preach the Gospel if faith is, from beginning to end, absolutely, only, and merely a heart thing? Your description of faith makes it sound like a stupid thing.
Fides Quaerens Intellectum, Edwin. Otherwise, you are not doing what Jesus asks, Paul asks, Peter asks, James asks, the church has always asked of the faithful. Live in "faith seeking understanding."
Otherwise you are a whited sepulcher.
And since you claim to know scripture so well, I am sure you know the passage of reference. Right?
Jesus uses parables, Paul uses difficult and challenging interpretations of his scriptures (the Hebrew Bible), Peter and James spend long efforts drawing the implications to self, soul, body, and community contained in the short life and shattering passion of Jesus Christ.
They do so out of respect for the human mind as not only part of the way God made us, but as the central agent by which, over time, we determine ourselves as made in God's image and live our journey in witness to him.
But you, Edwin, rest in an existential moment of the decision when the heart leaps and then falls back never to do anything else again because God has made a book of leather and vellum with red ink and everything else can go to Hell.
You know what? There is not a single person, not one, in the New Testament that takes your attitude.
Everyone present in the Gospel, epistles, the book of Acts, the one of Revelation -- Jew, Gentile, Gnostic, Jew, Christian, male, female, slave, free oo everyone finds life in the community of people way too important not to talk, reason, argue, fight for what they feel is the way to eternal life.
They use their minds, and more, to seek understanding in their faith.
The red letter edition apparently never gets past your eyeballs.
So who was hand-picked by Jesus? Nobody who made an argument that faith can't be reasoned out as just the way life is lived.
I would love to hear your thoughts about logic and faith (not really). What is most telling is how you cannot deny your belief in Obama. Everything he does in your eyes is perfect. Where his speeches in red?
With the exception of Obama not supporting Alan’s chances of getting married none of you can find fault with him or anyone who supports him (in this post the example is ACORN) If that’s not faith then what is.
Maybe you should hold him to the same standard you have for my informal writing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I know reading is not your strong suit, but in addition to my problems with his stance on gay marriage, I also previously indicated that I'm not happy with his take on abortion, nor the expansion of off-short oil drilling (actually the expansion of any drilling.) There are several other more specific ways in which I disagree with him, but those are a few good, broad examples.
We'll see what happens when he gets elected, but I'm sure there will be a number of other ways in which I'll disagree with him.
So yeah, if we discount all the ways in which I disagree with him, yes, you're right "Edwin" I agree with him otherwise.
ROFL. And if we ignore all the ways in which you disagree with me, you completely agree with me on everything and everything I say is perfect.
Bow to me, Eddie.
Post a Comment