davjohns

I try not to declare things as fact when I didn't witness it. So, I went to my trusty 'google' and put in "voter fraud". It gave me a list of articles relating how different states are convicting people, have a problem, etc. I looked up Alabama seperately because I am from there. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/us/10fraud.html?pagewanted=all http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/minnesota-leads-the-nation-in-voter-fraud-convictions-131782928.html http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/286557/yes-virginia-there-really-voter-fraud-hans-von-spakovsky# http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/apr/17/greg-abbott/greg-abbott-claims-50-election-fraud-convictions-2/ http://www.electionintegritywatch.com/documents/2011-Report-Voter-Fraud-Convictions.pdf http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/jack-kelly/voter-fraud-is-real-224753/ Interestingly, the last article claims an INCREASE in minority turnout to vote after ID was required. It seems that voter fraud is real and frequent. Whether it bothers you or not is another matter. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Am I the only one who sees the humor is discussing this subject with someone bearing the screen name of 'killer'? I don't disagree with him at all. It's just like debating the merits with the Grim Reaper...you have to wonder if he's a truly objective source of reason. :) I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Congratulations on making it through school without the ability to read, reason or debate. Pretty impressive, really. You've questioned by training twice without offering any counter argument. I meet folks like you in court sometimes. You're delicious. :) You asked me to explain what I said. I did. You didn't bother to debate. You just started questioning my training with insults. I make a point of not arguing with people like that. They have their opinions and facts are irrelevant. Have a good day. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Please go to law school and get back to me on this. Meanwhile, read my post again. I didn't say the civil jury found him guilty. They found that he did commit the act he was accused of. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I whole heartedly agree when we lament a candidate changing stances to fit the stage of the campaign. At the same time, the current did it before and is doing it again. So, that really isn't a discriminator between the two. Romney has taken a state budget out of deficit. Obama has taken the country in the other direction. Romney can do the job and then walk away. I rather like that. Romney has the independence to make the hard decisions that we truly need made. Let's face it, there is not a way to get this country back on track without a bunch of pain. And NOBODY is going to agree on how that pain should be distributed. Most everyone is going to be unhappy with it. We need someone who can do it anyhow. I don't like everything about the guy. Heck, I don't like everything about me. But this guy is very impressive and has the potential to be what we need. We know what we've had. I think I'll be sending in my vote from Belgium. I had not planned to vote until today. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Actually, he appears to be pretty centrist. I've ignored the election for the most part and only looked at the guy's history this morning after receiving this. He established a program of near universal healthcare when he was governor. He balanced the budget. His views on many things seem to have changed some, but are pretty centrist. He hires people for their abilities rather than as political favors. Lots of good stuff on line about him. It looks to me like people who don't vote for him are going to latch on to his religion, wealth or political party as reasoning. Just my initial observation. I just started looking at him this morning, but he's about as impressive as they come on paper. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Received this. Seems pretty accurate. He did donate his salary for working on the Olympics three years. Declined salary as governor. Etc. Pretty impressive. I deleted a couple of editorial comments from the original. Whether you like Romney or not, this story is very revealing. In July, 1996, the 14-year-old daughter of Robert Gay, a partner at Bain Capital, had disappeared. She had attended a rave party in New York City and gotten high on ecstasy. Three days later, her distraught father had no idea where she was, and Romney took immediate action. He closed down the entire firm and asked all 30 partners and employees to fly to New York to help find Gay's daughter. Romney set up a command center at the LaGuardia Marriott and hired a private detective firm to assist with the search. He established a toll-free number for tips, coordinating the effort with the NYPD, and went through his Rolodex and called everyone Bain did business with in New York, and asked them to help find his friend's missing daughter. Romney's accountants at Price Waterhouse Cooper put up posters on street poles, while cashiers at a pharmacy owned by Bain put fliers in the bag of every shopper. Romney and the other Bain employees scoured every part of New York and talked with everyone they could... prostitutes, drug addicts, anyone. That day, their hunt made the evening news, which featured photos of the girl and the Bain employees searching for her. As a result, a teenage boy phoned in, asked if there was a reward, and then hung up abruptly. The NYPD traced the call to a home in New Jersey, where they found the girl in the basement, shivering and experiencing withdrawal symptoms from a massive ecstasy dose. Doctors later said the girl might not have survived another day. Romney's former partner credits Mitt Romney with saving his daughter's life, saying, "It was the most amazing thing, and I'll never forget this to the day I die." Many people are unaware of the fact that when Romney was asked by his old employer, Bill Bain, to come back to Bain & Company as CEO to rescue the firm from bankruptcy, Romney left Bain Capital to work at Bain & Company for an annual salary of one dollar. When Romney went to the rescue of the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics, he accepted no salary for three years, and wouldn't use an expense account. He also accepted no salary as Governor of Massachusetts. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Congratulations on your dedication and achievement. You're still a goofball, though. :) I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Could you explain what you mean by this? You are aware of which party has the burden in a criminal case, right? Sure. Juries do not and cannot find a defendant 'innocent'. Innocent means that you are completely without blame. Only God and the individual have any clue on that matter. Juries can find someone 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. That means that they would readily rely on this fact in their most personal affairs (one explanation the courts give). Alternately, a jury can find someone 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. That could mean anything from 'we think he was on another planet when this crime was committed' to 'we are quite certain he did it. He will not be left alone with our daughters. But the evidence didn't quite reach the legal standard.'. It is logically impossible for a jury to declare someone 'innocent'. That's a word that gets thrown around by people who are trying to manipulate the situation. In reality, innocent is an ideal that is too absolute to be knowable. Example: O.J. Simpson was found 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. He was NOT found innocent in the criminal court. A civil court, where the burden of proof was not 'beyond a reasonable doubt', but 'preponderance of the evidence' (That means someone has to win. Pick one.) found that he DID commit the crime (or 'more likely than not' committed the crime). How could the civil court say he did it when the criminal court said he was innocent? Because the criminal court did not and could not declare him innocent. The criminal court merely found that the state did not prove he was 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. I know it sounds funny. I blame it on the wording of 'presumed innocent until proven guilty'. But the truth is that nobody is innocent. They aren't necessarily guilty of a crime and often not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But innocent is a whole other matter. And yes...as an attorney, I'm fairly familiar with who has the burden of proof in a criminal case in the US. That doesn't change the fact that I can kill someone in cold blood; be tried and acquitted, and; clearly not be innocent. It happens every day. Edit to add - Andy and Jerry: Feel free to chime in if I'm in error or unclear. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Not particularly well photoshopped, but funny. I like it when they character's presence is a bit more discrete. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Certainly possible. I just noticed that the same polling agencies kept getting the same results over time. That suggests to me that the methods of the agency are effecting the results more than the passage of time / changes in voter disposition. It made all of the results suspect in my mind. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I thought that might be it. The guy Buchanan was supposed to be involved with was Pierce's VP. That's why you connected it. I don't see a compelling argument on Buchanan unless you are first inclined to want him to be gay. Could have been, but the evidence is incredibly scanty and ambiguous at best. Given the time period, scanty evidence is understandable. That doesn't make an argument in favor of, however. It just explains why you can't draw a conclusion. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I looked at an amalgamation of poll numbers. It does look like Romeny has closed the gap. Where it was just Rasmussen and ABC showing him slightly ahead, lately others are showing a little as well. Interestingly, the polls that show Romney ahead just show a slight margin. If they show Obama ahead, they tend to show a much greater margin. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

JERRY!!!! I did some research and was left completely confused on how you came up with Pierce being gay. The arguments for Buchanan were thin. Lincoln was barely ephemeral. Help me out here. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I remember when the WH website had a request that anyone who knew of someone defaming the health care legislation notify the WH at a special email address. Now, they're relating the current POTUS to events of the past. I wonder if the people brainstorming these ideas read 1984? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Ignoring the rotten spelling...did you really mean to bring up homosexuality and the metaphor of forcing something down someone's throat in the same sentence? Just curious. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Really? I always saw him as about as interesting as Dole. Maybe it was just me. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

A resounding NO in my opinion. We are set up to be a two-party system. Ross Perot (my opinion) put Clinton in office twice by trying to create a third party. A third party just divides the base of one side or the other and assures a victory for the alternate. If we required a majority vote in addition to the electoral college, it might provide a slightly different answer. Clinton never won the majority vote. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

They don't. They have an interest in perceived justice, since that aids in re-election. Quick arrests and convictions score high on the perception of justice. I agree that is an issue. I'm not cynical enough to say that the system is completely corrupt regardless of the evidence. And your argument works against in this case as well. The negative publicity from killing someone who can be shown to have not committed the crime is even more politically volatile than public perception of you being weak on crime. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Four words: Al, Gore, John, Kerry You really think the Dems have the whole charisma thing worked out? Good point. Although I think Kerry was pretty charismatic. I think the Swift Boat thing torpedoed him. Gore wasn't very charismatic. He just had the advantage of having been VP. Alright. I'll give you that. Perhaps neither party has quite figured it out. I still think Barry takes this one because the GOP has managed to undermine themselves again. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'll just throw out a couple of things... Jerry obviously investigated this more than I did. I can't imagine the guy was convicted just on the evidendce of arson. There had to be more. The articles I saw totally ignored that. Things like that make me stop looking. The declarations of innocence are always a red herring. God knows if you are innocent. Courts deal in 'guilty beyond a reaonable doubt' and 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. Innocence is a term used by advocates for emotional reaction. Things like that make me stop looking. I kept seeing that the follow-on evaluations were being pushed by organizations who oppose the death penalty. That may or may not be a good source of information for argument. But basing a proclamation of innocence on just one side's arguments is suspect. It almost assumes the courts, attorney general, everyone in the system and even the governor have no interest in justice. Things like that make me stop looking. I am one who needs to be persuaded, not argued. Nothing I came across even attempted to persuade me. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I don't mind a drip so much if the candidate can do the job. The problem is, in today's world, doing the job without charisma is hard. Getting elected without it is impossible. The Dems have figured this out. The GOP does not appear to have. It's also possible that the truly qualified and charismatic conservatives are running a big company and making so much money that the presidency is not at all tantalizing. Just a thought. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I agree. I think Obama has made himself vulnerable, but the GOP is unable to capitalize on it. Romney has a minor issue with his religious views. But the biggest problem is how the candidates do the work of the opposing party during the primaries. They tear each other apart. Even now, Ron Paul's supporters are still going after Romeny. All Obama has to do is not screw up. I've been watching this for years. I thought Clinton and Obama were horrible candidates from an objective viewpoint. All they had going for them was charisma and an ability to speak well. Apparently that's all they needed. The Republicans put up...Bob Dole? Really? I think candidate Romney has better credentials than candidate Obama did. But now Obama has the power of the incumbent. The GOP is delivering a battered candidate before the first real punch is delivered. The question is 'not who will make a better president'. That hasn't been a viable question for decades. Who will win is a completely different game. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I did a quick google search and couldn't find anything about Pierce being gay. Do you have something I could read? Just find it interesting. I did find that Buchanan was disparaged for his long term relationship with a man, but that was Andrew Jackson. He was an ass and it didn't have to be based on anything, so it's hard to say. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Ah well. Thanks to many of the people who have posted here and all of the garbage around this issue, I hate baseball again. Organized sports in general...especially for kids...... because the adults always seem to make it no fun for anyone. The first story I read seemed to show some kids that learned how to be better people... tolerant and respectful. I have to quit being so optimistic. Please return to your highly intellectual game of 'did not, did too'. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.