Loki Loc: Georgia

As long as you continue to shovel it. Two sources, two figures. So what? By the way, there were far more than 177 allegations of fraud.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

He will never acknowledge the truth, he is too imbedded in the leftist philosophy.

Bruce Kennedy Loc: Kansas

How about you Liberty Tree, do you have the "moral fiber" to admit when you are wrong, like right now? Or are you like a lot of Conservative cowards that go around talking sh1t and then backs down and runs away when confronted by the truth?

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Liberals hate when conservatives use science and facts, with a rebuttal of anger and hate. They quote opinion writers, are liberal scientists who already have been refuted.

Being a conservative, I have no hate or anger towards my liberal American brothers or sisters of our great nation. Rather concern for the spirit of blindness over coming them.
Just the facts!!!

Bruce Kennedy Loc: Kansas

Liberals don't hate Conservatives when they use science and facts. It's just that the use of science and facts, by
Conservatives, is such a rare occurrence that Liberals are shocked and caught off guard when a Conservative actually uses such intellectual tools. After all, it is a Conservative tenet, to denounce science and facts. Conservatives don't believe in science. Case in point, science tells us that "Global Warming" exists. Conservatives scream blasphemy every time a Liberal professes his or her belief in "Global Warming". Science tells us that humans have evolved over many, many millennia, once again Conservatives scream blasphemy. Any science that does not conform to their notion of economic growth and overwhelming profits, is "voodoo" science, in their eyes.

I too do not hate my Conservative brothers and sisters, I only pray that they embrace science and facts and denounce their hypocrisy. It is said that "There are none, so blind, as those who will not see".

Bruce Kennedy Loc: Kansas

Shovel what? ..."Two sources, two figures. So what?"...Classic, if I offered proof of something and my sources came up with two different figures, you and your cronies wouldn't cut me one ounce of slack. You'd be shouting from the mountain tops my sources are bogus BS and they must be liars. And I know you would. First of all that's two different "news" sources reporting the same story from the same "information source". It's not like two independent studies and two different conclusions. Both "news" sources are quoting from the same information source, Minnesota Majority. If you can't prove your allegations, or should I say your bogus source's allegations, why don't you just admit the "voter fraud" convictions are BS. Like I said, no excuses. You can't prove there were 113 "voter fraud" convictions, let alone 177. And anyone can make allegations, so there could be 3000 allegations, it doesn't mean jack if you can't prove them. Prove 40 cases of "voter fraud", in the 2008 Minnesota Senatorial election and I'll drop the other 137 or 73, if you prefer. And if you do, I'll be advocating for "Voter Fraud" reform laws, just like all the "Right Wing" nut jobs. Give me the names and proof of 40 individuals convicted of "voter fraud", in the 2008 Minnesota Senatorial race. Look most of the work has been done for you. Minnesota Majority has already provided you with a list of 113 names, of individuals "convicted" of voter fraud. All you have to do is show proof they were actually tried and convicted, for "voter fraud", in the 2008 Minnesota Senatorial race. (Did you check to see if your name was on that list?)

Loki Loc: Georgia

I believe yours was. You are going to have to wait your turn. Some of us have other things to do than troll 24/7.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

I believe it. My home state, I have presented an ID with no issues. If the Democrats are so concerned about voters (and citizens I might add) being locked out from voting then rather spending so much money on Hollywood stars to "get out the vote" they encourage people into getting ID's to prove citizenship.

Otherwise to your point: I shouldn't have to ever present an ID again.....

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

saloopo Loc: Colorado

Very Cool D.B. You have accurately diagrammed kennedys brain cells.

Loki Loc: Georgia

You want me to "prove" 40 cases of voter fraud. Why don't you "prove" me wrong? You cited 2 Liberal sources to substantiate your claim, I cited one Liberal and one Conservative. I believe my coverage is a little more balanced.
I am satisfied that my claims are true. Your satisfaction, or lack of it, is filed in my "who cares?" category. You want me, in order to satisfy YOU, to spend hours looking up the dispositions of at least 40 individual cases, some of which undoubtedly have other charges involved. You have access to the same sources as I do. Do your own damn legwork, Brucie Boy. If you expect me to do your paralegal research, you had better get ready to un-ass your wallet, because I will not do it for your satisfaction or entertainment. The sources I cited have already done the research. I will not do it again for your goddamn amusement. Poor little Bruce. a retired officer without a single damn luckless sailor to order around, so he can feel important. Peckerhead.

Bigmac495 Loc: Indiana

Agree! Its like a ice berg , you only see the tip of it!

Bigmac495 Loc: Indiana

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Bigmac495 Loc: Indiana

At last some good information to look at and think about!

Bruce Kennedy Loc: Kansas

What an loser, here you go making excuses. You're the one saying there are 177 cases of "voter fraud" convictions, in the state of Minnesota, as a result of the 2008 Senatorial election, not me. You're the one making bogus claims. Are you that stupid? I say there aren't 177 cases of "voter fraud" convictions, that alone proves my point. The only way to prove me wrong is to show me verifiable evidence of the 177 cases, of "voter fraud" convictions. Your skull can not be so thick as not to realize that I don't need to do anything, to prove I'm right. Because you can't create something, that doesn't exist, to prove that it doesn't exist. Are you suggesting that I show you proof of 177 cases of "voter fraud" convictions, to prove my assertion that these 177 cases of "voter fraud" convictions don't exist? You CAN"T be that stupid. I realize that you don't need facts or proof to satisfy, in your minute brain, that your lies are factual, to you. But critical thinking individuals will not simply take your word that what you say is fact. Especially now that you've been proven a liar. I'm sure your simple minded friends, like Old_Gringo and Liberty Tree will take every lie that you post, as gospel, no questions asked. Let me borrow another favorite Conservative saying, most recently, Paul Ryan used this one..."In God we trust, all others verify". You fall into the category of "all others", so you must verify. I know you think you are God, but we all know different. So according to your standards, for truth and fact, all someone needs to do is believe they are right, whether the facts support their claims or not.

The reason you don't care is because you're wrong. Your sources are liars and you simply choose to accept their lies. Then you ask me to do your work for you. You really are a work of art. This is exactly what I expected, no proof and complete evasion of the truth. If your sources are correct, and I just proved one of their bits of evidence, to support their claims, to be a lie, then prove they're not lying. I'm not going to simply take the word of a liar, on any subject, and accept is as some universal truth. Quit your whimpering and whining and grow a pair and show me 40 cases of verifiable "voter fraud" convictions, pertaining to the Minnesota 2008 Senatorial race. I don't even ask for the entire 177 cases, you and your lying source says exists. But we know you won't and can't because there aren't 177 cases of "voter fraud" convictions.