That is amazing! You're telling me that requiring proof, that the lies banjojack and Minnesota Majority are spreading, is somehow redirecting this conversation into a "circular argument"? That is classic. So you spread lies, but if someone asks you to provide proof, of the BS you're spreading, they are the one's misleading the argument? Now I've heard it all. You're even dumber than banjojack. Although that is almost lawyeresque, in how you change the subject and find new ways to deflect the argument away from the main point. Then you offer some BS article about how many things, in our society, require IDs, which has absolutely nothing to with this particular discussion. It only serves to confuse the issue and deflect the reader's attention away from the main point, of the discussion. It's apparent that you have nothing constructive to add to this discussion, except to run interference for your pal, Loki.


You know, no matter how many of you dummies come, out of the woodwork, to aid banjojack and his lying source, Minnesota Majority, it will not alter the fact that neither you nor any of banjojack's lackies can prove the lies he has put forth. Conservatives are so desparate to prove that there is a "Voter Fraud" crisis, in the U.S., they are willing to lie and create fictitious stories, to back their claims. They think nothing of lying to people to get them to believe their make believe stories. But really this is why Liberals have such a hard time with Conservatives. Conservatives lie and expect everyone to just take them at their word. And when someone calls them, on their BS, they turn the argument away from the lie and make the argument about the individual that dares to question their validity.


Remember it's simple 40 verifiable cases of "voter fraud" convictions, in the state of Minnesota, for the 2008 Senatorial election. And remember 40 cases is a fraction, of the 177 cases banjojack and "Minnesota Majority" claim, have been adjudicated.

Just another lie. Show me the proof Minnesota Majority has that specifically cites the court case and conviction record, for "voter fraud" and show me at least 40 of them, although banjojack and Minnesota Majority claim there are 177 such cases. So don't cloud the issue with some more of your lies. If you show me the proof, I'll believe it. That means verifiable proof. And the proof is not some "word" from a bias, lying organization like Minnesota Majority. I've already proved they've lied once.

geezer, thank you for a rational response. It is refreshing. I cannot disagree with with any of your statements. I also find it suspicious that there are people here who are so cavalier about our voting system that they would advocate propositions that obviously invite corruption and chaos into our voting system. example: no voter id, elimination of residency requirements and same day registration / voting and mail in ballots, especially when those ballots are being sent to illegals, the dead and to vacated addresses . Any issue that works against the rule of law should be viewed with suspicion as should any who promotes such things.

It is absolutely amazing how you people come up with the most outrageous deductions. Where does this BS, "conservatives are liars and liberals tell the truth", come from? You're not doing some sort of drug, are you? I know I never said that. You are the one that came up with that deduction. Do you believe what you wrote? Because I don't. What I do believe is that "Minnesota Majority" lied, in their accusations, that there were 177 cases of "voter fraud" convictions, stemming from the 2008 Minnesota Senatorial race. And Loki, who I'm fairly confident is not a "Liberal", forwarded that lie, in his posts, to support his argument that "Voter Fraud" is a "crisis", in this country. Now while "Loki" has had every opportunity to denounce the "Minnesota Majority's" lie he has failed to do so. So let me clarify this for you. The allegation that there were or are 177 "voter fraud" convictions, stemming from the 2008 Minnesota Senatorial election, is a lie. And the way to prove me wrong is to provide verifiable evidence that these convictions do, in fact, exist. Again I've even given "Loki" a lot of slack, she needs to show proof of 40 convictions, not the entire alleged 177 cases. And if you support "Loki", or "Minnesota Majority", in that lie, then what does that make you? Like I said it's easy to prove me wrong, show me verifiable proof of at least 40 cases of "voter fraud" convictions, stemming from the 2008 Minnesota Senatorial election. The election between Al Franken and Norm Coleman. Let me add some :) :-) :D.

Bruce,

Get you head on straight...
I stated earlier that no one should have to prove past voter fraud, meaning that there would not need to be past voter fraud, in order to justify providing future common sense safeguards. (However, All of us who have read anything about this already know that voter fraud has been a problem.)

I stand by my earlier comment that no thinking person would need to PROVE voter fraud to justify future reasonable safeguards.

(Seems I remember the argument was at first the blacks were accused of being too stupid to get an ID, now everyone is too busy or too old..) what next ?

1oldgeezer

geez, I agree with your premise. Trying to prove past alleged voter fraud would be non productive. The issue should be how to secure the system from future attempts to disenfranchise legal citizen voters from fraud.

Breaking news from Philadelphia this morning claims 6 or 8 city officials were found to have taken bribes to vote against the Pennsylvania voter ID law. The bribes were between 1500 and 2000 dollars. The authorities decided not to prosecute because the officials were black and were afraid prosecution would be considered racist. Thats whats known as a cheap date with a low life politician.

What Bruce Kennedy will not acknowledge is that there are more ways of committing vote fraud than the play book talking point about repressing the vote.

Bruce,

Get you head on straight...
I stated earlier that no one should have to prove past voter fraud, meaning that there would not need to be past voter fraud, in order to justify providing future common sense safeguards. (However, All of us who have read anything about this already know that voter fraud has been a problem.)

I stand by my earlier comment that no thinking person would need to PROVE voter fraud to justify future reasonable safeguards.

(Seems I remember the argument was at first the blacks were accused of being too stupid to get an ID, now everyone is too busy or too old..) what next ?

1oldgeezer