Is there really a big fear of actually going to law enforcement

Relying on internet claims is always a bad strategy.

Why is twitter a more believable than say, the comments section on a Yahoo or newspaper comments section? Because you can find just as many such claims there, too...

I mean, I actually like twitter - but the signal to noise ratio isn't a whole lot better than those older internet forums where we are led to believe that Billy actually does run a Fortune 500 company and does claim X.

We're still talking about unverified internet chatter not attached to a real name or person... if the claims have any merit, then why tweet it? Is there really a big fear of actually going to law enforcement - or - putting up verifiable contact information?

but many Twitter users reported that they either showed up to vote and had been informed they had already voted (when they had not) or bragged that they voted more than once

but on my Twitter I said I voted 7 times

What's your Twitter handle?

Here is the tweet for your convenience.

I'm curious, why did you want it?

I'm guessing he just didn't believe you and I'm just hoping that Rants isn't out to cause trouble.

The lawsuit also refers to "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," a national event on Oct. 7 in which more than 1,500 pastors endorsed a candidate from the pulpit and then sent a record of their statement to the IRS, hoping their challenge would eventually end up in court.

For the past three years, the IRS hasn't been investigating complaints of partisan political activity by churches, leaving religious groups who make direct or thinly veiled endorsements of political candidates unchallenged.

Glad to hear it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say in one of these threads a few months ago, words something to the effect of dreading an Obama win and wishing strongly against it? Am I mis-remembering?

Elect a libertarian and you'll see an example of this.

Elect a libertarian and you'll see an example of this.

Yes, I just wanted to see it. I'm not a trouble maker, and I don't knowlingly spew lies on the internet, unlike everyone on Twitter apparently.

despite the comically holier-than-thou attitude of liberals here w/r/t Romney.

The idea that the AG should have more information than the President as to a potential breach of security involving the director of the CIA is utterly fantastical.

Elect a libertarian and you'll see an example of this.

Elect a libertarian and you'll see an example of this.

Or you'll see someone sitting all alone in the Senate, until he/she knuckles under.

Not to me Ray. AG is a full time job. He knows more than the President about a lot of ongoing investigations. This one never reached the level of "Is national security being impacted" or "Do we have to revoke Petraeus' security clearance?"

I am unsure on vote by mail

Do Libertarians even have any say in countries with palimentary systems that are more favorable to third parties than the US? I feel like I should know, but I don't. I know there are Green parties, communist parties, sundry religious and geographical parties, and it seems like every nation has a hard right reactionary party, but I am not aware of any Libertarian parties.

“I have a couple friends that I play basketball with who are black and I’m sure I’m going to get a few elbows that next time we play,” he joked.

And that cutting their taxes by a boatload was a non-factor?

Is it because your Muslim Representative has brainwashed you?

From your posts I suspect (am guessing) you are in Ellison's district. He seems like a good egg.

“I have a couple friends that I play basketball with who are black

Do Libertarians even have any say in countries with palimentary systems that are more favorable to third parties than the US? I feel like I should know, but I don't. I know there are Green parties, communist parties, sundry religious and geographical parties, and it seems like every nation has a hard right reactionary party, but I am not aware of any Libertarian parties.

Mitt Romney said Wednesday that his loss to President Obama was due in large part to his rival's strategy of giving "gifts" during his first term to three groups that were pivotal in the results of last week's election: African Americans, Latinos and young voters.

"The Obama campaign was following the old playbook of giving a lot of stuff to groups that they hoped they could get to vote for them and be motivated to go out to the polls, specifically the African American community, the Hispanic community and young people," Romney told hundreds of donors during a telephone town hall Wednesday. "In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups."

Young voters, Romney said, were motivated by the administration's plan for partial forgiveness of college loan interest, the extension of health coverage for students up to age 26 on their parents' insurance plans and free contraception coverage under Obama's healthcare plan, which he credited with ushering greater numbers of college-age women into Obama's coalition.

The extended insurance coverage, in particular, was "a big gift to young people," he said, noting that they turned out as a "larger share in this election even than in 2008."

Romney said the Obama healthcare plan's promise of coverage "in perpetuity" was behind the intensity of support for the president among African American voters making $25,000 to $35,000, as well as Hispanic voters:

"With regards to African American voters, 'Obamacare' was a huge plus — and was highly motivational to African American voters. You can imagine for somebody making $25—, or $30—, or $35,000 a year, being told you're now going to get free healthcare — particularly if you don't have it, getting free healthcare worth, what, $10,000 a family, in perpetuity, I mean this is huge. Likewise with Hispanic voters, free healthcare was a big plus."

Pivoting to immigration, Romney said the Obama campaign's efforts to paint him as "anti-immigrant" had been effective and that the administration's promise to offer what he called "amnesty" to the children of undocumented immigrants had helped turn out Latino voters in record numbers.

"With regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for the children of illegals — the so-called Dream Act kids — was a huge plus for that voting group," he said. "On the negative side, of course, they always characterized us as being anti-immigrant, being tough on illegal immigration, and so forth, so that was very effective with that group."

"The president's campaign," he said, "focused on giving targeted groups a big gift — so he made a big effort on small things. Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars."

Ok, which portions of Romney's comments are you liberals disputing, exactly?

It certainly reached the former. How could it not have? It had reached the level, weeks before the election, where the FBI had to ask both Broadwell and Petraeus how she ended up with classified documents on her computer.

Lots of sneering about Romney's comments. Ok, which portions of Romney's comments are you liberals disputing, exactly? I'm not talking about whether Obama's actions were an "election strategy" or whether they "swung the election" or produced a win for Obama; rather, I'm asking, specifically, whether liberals agree that Obama promised these things to these various groups - and if liberals disagree that he did this, which parts are disagreed with.

Governments are generally expected to do things that help out its citizens. That is much of the point of a government. Programs that help its citizens are not actually gifts. The assumption that said "gifts" are the only reason anyone would vote for Obama. The implicit belief that tax breaks for the wealthy is not just as much of a "gift" as anything Romney mentioned. And other content issues.

I know all about classification sprawl.

Do you really believe this stuff? You believe it's just a coincidence that the lowest-income people voted for the party of big government, and that they actually voted for Obama and Dems because of some unspecified non-economic political ideology?

Governments are generally expected to do things that help out its citizens. That is much of the point of a government.

Programs that help its citizens are not actually gifts.

The assumption that said "gifts" are the only reason anyone would vote for Obama.

The implicit belief that tax breaks for the wealthy is not just as much of a "gift" as anything Romney mentioned. And other content issues.

Did you read what I wrote? I was talking specifically about government action being what government is suppossed to do and is not a gift.

Did you read what I wrote? I was talking specifically about government action being what government is suppossed to do and is not a gift.

Ok, which portions of Romney's comments are you liberals disputing, exactly?

Ah. So the disagreement is over semantics; Romney was right on the substantive point, but you don't like the term "gifts." Fine

Well, with tax breaks you're not "giving" anything to anyone; you're taking less from them.

According to you. According to me, the government's role is to stay the hell out of the way as much as possible, rather than picking winners.

You believe it's just a coincidence that low-income (or no-income) people voted overwhelmingly for the party of big government

According to you. According to me

So the disagreement is over semantics

I specifically did not ask about

Well, with tax breaks you're not "giving" anything to anyone; you're taking less from them. Not so shockingly, liberals still haven't demonstrated the ability to grasp this distinction.

Yes, that was the part I found the most astonishing.

From what you quoted, it basically looks like Romney's entire complaint is that Obamacare was a "gift" that was targeted at minorities and college aged kids. I don't really view it that way, but you might.

Ah. So the disagreement is over semantics; Romney was right on the substantive point, but you don't like the term "gifts." Fine

Well, with tax breaks you're not "giving" anything to anyone; you're taking less from them.

The second quote seems like equally as much quibbling about semantics as the line the first quote was responding to.

Is it a coincidence that super-rich people voted overwhelmingly for the party that promised giant tax cuts for the super-rich?

Obama was specifically marketed as being targeted to "people who couldn't afford it." I'll leave it to you to decide who those people were, but the target beneficiaries certainly weren't people making $200K a year.

Do you really believe this stuff? You believe it's just a coincidence that low-income (or no-income) people voted overwhelmingly for the party of big government, and that they really voted for Obama and Dems because of some unspecified non-economic (and selfless) political ideology?

I don't consider affordable healthcare a 'gift'.

Bitter Mouse's Law For What Governments Are Supposed To Do has not yet been codified.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I was talking specifically about government action being what government is suppossed to do and is not a gift.

Not only is it a gift, but there is no argument that it isn't.

You find it astonishing that in a Democracy people expect a government that is beneficial to them, and vote in that manner? Really? People are suppossed to be electoral masochists voting against what they think is right for the nation? OK.

You're giving something of value to people for nothing.

Governments are generally expected to do things that help out its citizens. That is much of the point of a government. Programs that help its citizens are not actually gifts. The assumption that said "gifts" are the only reason anyone would vote for Obama. The implicit belief that tax breaks for the wealthy is not just as much of a "gift" as anythign Romney mentioned. And other content issues.

There is also the fact that it comes across as sour grapes when generally post election is about coming together and healing wounds (not whining). Plus the stylistic fact that seemingly everyone is to blame but Romney. He ran a terrible campaign and seemingly has no awarness of that fact.

Other than that he is spot on.

Not only is it a gift, but there is no argument that it isn't. You're giving something of value to people for nothing. That is called... wait for it... a gift.

It is not quibbling at all. What the hell? Do you not understand the difference between someone saying "I am taking $50K from you instead of $60K" and someone saying "I am giving $20K to you."

Do you really believe this stuff? You believe it's just a coincidence that high-income (or inherited income) people voted overwhelming for the party of small government, and that they really voted for Romney and Repubs because of some unspecified non-economic (and selfless) political ideology?

All part of the general welfare the constitution was put in place to promote. Functioning as designed.

It's interesting how quick you are to defer to "democracy."

The debate here is regarding liberals' continued insistence that poor people don't also generally vote their wallets.

So the founders intended for Obamacare to exist from the very start, but they and their successors just didn't get around to it in the country's first 200 years?

So the founders intended for Obamacare to exist from the very start, but they and their successors just didn't get around to it in the country's first 200 years?

Humphries, 47, confirmed the photograph exists and was sent to Kelley and dozens of other friends and acquaintances in the fall of 2010, shortly after Humphries had transferred to the Tampa office from Guantánamo Bay, where he had been an FBI liaison to the CIA at the detention facility there.

Indeed, among his friends and associates, Humphries was known to send dumb-joke emails in which the punch line was provided by opening an attached photo.

A Seattle Times reporter was among those who received an email containing an attachment of the shirtless photo. The subject line read: "Which one is Fred?"

The snapshot shows Humphries — bald, muscular and shirtless — standing between a pair of equally buff and bullet-ridden target dummies on a shooting range.

So the founders intended for Obamacare to exist from the very start, but they and their successors just didn't get around to it in the country's first 200 years?

Hey - I get the libertarian idea that government shouldn't 'give things' to people... fine... but wages have been stagnant for a good while now... the gap between haves and have nots is getting back to gilded age levels.

If the government shouldn't be providing health insurance... and companies don't think they can 'afford' to do so -- and wages are not rising commensurate with the costs of acquiring it on one's own, then what's the answer?

So the founders intended for Obamacare to exist from the very start, but they and their successors just didn't get around to it in the country's first 200 years?

Democracy is cool. It is our government. Interesting how eager you are to seemingly discount it.

And yet you and your party keep clamoring for more and more immigration. It's almost as if you don't understand the relationship between labor supply and wages.

And yet you and your party keep clamoring for more and more immigration. It's almost as if you don't understand the relationship between labor supply and wages.

The founders weren't stupid, Joe -- if Ben Franklin were here today, he'd probably say something along the lines "we didn't imagine such a thing like chemotherapy ever existing either... our doctors also cut our hair and pulled our teeth, and weren't particularly good at any of the three."

While you, instead, blithely ignore the fact that immigration doesn't matter a wit if a company can offshore the whole of production to some place where labor is cheaper...

One of the forgotten Romney tape gems was his comments about visiting a Foxconn facility in China and remarking, apparently believing it, that the 'fences and guards' were in place to stop the stampede of enterprising chinese who kept trying sneak into the facility to get those wonderful jobs. Even if true - this just goes back to the central problem - 'workers' get off too easy, the lazy SOBs... they ought to be happy they aren't living in dorms!

It is almost as if you did not understand that the strength of this country comes inpart from its diversity. The melting pot is not just a catchy term it is also a source of our wealth.

Ah, so we only need Obamacare because medicine has advanced so far here in 2012, but back in 1789, people had no right at all to even the most basic healthcare.

So the founders intended for Obamacare to exist from the very start, but they and their successors just didn't get around to it in the country's first 200 years?

While you, instead, blithely ignore the fact that immigration doesn't matter a wit if a company can offshore the whole of production to some place where labor is cheaper...

One of the forgotten Romney tape gems was his comments about visiting a Foxconn facility in China and remarking, apparently believing it, that the 'fences and guards' were in place to stop the stampede of enterprising chinese who kept trying sneak into the facility to get those wonderful jobs. Even if true - this just goes back to the central problem - 'workers' get off too easy, the lazy SOBs... they ought to be happy they aren't living in dorms!


Non-responsive.