2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

[joecct]

Who said the deficit isnt a problem? No one? Sweet, you and your straw man have fun spooning tonight.

Deficits only matter when your party isnt spending the money huh...

Unsustainable <> a problem? When the Chair of the Fed utters the unsustainable word, I think we have an authoritative source.

If a new GOP Congress repeats the errors of the their last attempt at leadership, then they deserve to be tossed out on their butts again. Repeat as necessary until the Congre$$ gets the hint.

[Tiggsy]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

No it is obvious you wanted to steer the conversation away from the point...sorry man it is nothing personal but that is what you did. Just because the government is in the stupid habit of wasting money doesnt mean it is ok to waste more money on an investigation into something that has no value whatsoever.

Also, just because the Dems couldnt balance a checkbook doesnt make it ok for the "Party of Fiscal Responsibility" who screwed people over (not themselves of course) by shutting down the government to waste time and money with repeated hearings when there is no "there" there.

Hardly... it was simply a comparison to illustrate this is a classic "do as we say, not what we do" type of situation. Dems do it so why is there so much outrage when Reps do it in a scaled down version? Of course there should be some and rightfully so, but not to this degree and that's my issue here. The massive outrage about this. To me it looks like people are worried about something actually being exposed. I'm a little surprised the character assassination attempts on the Reps involved haven't dialed up just yet, but I'm sure they will soon as it is par for the course in situations like these where Dems are trying to take the high ground and quiet opposition.

The question of value of this is also being contested. Not by me personally but obviously someone thinks there is value, so you can't 100% factually say there is no value. It is the take of one side. Like it or not, it is true no matter what source is cited to try to prove that statement wrong. If there is nothing to fear, just humor everyone and go along with it and get it over with as quickly as possible. Govt. wastes money every day so what makes this time any different?

Opie we've already had 5,000 hearings and a zillion other investigations. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. So, you are now officially insane! IF this isn't an attempt to prop up a dying ideology and a bankrupt political party trying not to get crushed in the next Presidential election, why not just offer Lerner immunity in exchange for her full testimony, something she's already offered to do??? I mean, if Obama himself ordered this, don't you want to do whatever it takes to get that testimony on the record????

Got to admit, this one has puzzled me a bit too. Stonewalling is getting nowhere so why focus on one person when you can move up the ladder with her testimony.

[burd]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Given small town USA, and small voter turnout, a fraudulent vote may turn an election.

Plus what happens in the town is a lot more important than what happens in Des Moines or Washington.

In my small town USA, if I told the lady at the polling station I put two loads of laundry on the line last Tuesday, she would know if I was lying. There's nothing they don't know.

[SJHovey]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Which was caused by incompetence at many levels (from individual voters all the way up), not fraud.

My point wasn't that there was fraud. My point was that while it's easy to minimize 117 votes out of a million+, and it certainly is a minute fraction of ballots cast, it is not out of the question that a few hundred votes could matter in an election as big as a Presidential election.

[unofan]

My point wasn't that there was fraud. My point was that while it's easy to minimize 117 votes out of a million+, and it certainly is a minute fraction of ballots cast, it is not out of the question that a few hundred votes could matter in an election as big as a Presidential election.

Looking purely at the felony votes investigated in this study, the SoS accidentally (i say accidentally because the investigation was solely to find fraudulent votes, not improperly denied votes) found 20 felons who should've been allowed to vote and only 16 improper votes by felons.

Put another way, an investigation to root out fraud found more wrongfully denied ballots than fraudulent votes, at least with respect to one segment. And that's without even trying to find the former.

Voter fraud is next to non existent in this country. It's a red herring designed to be political cover to discourage voter turnout to sway elections for political reasons.

With a .01 percent fraud rate (presuming fir the sake of argument that all 117 are fraudulent despite only 6 convictions) a close election will be swayed far more by voter error than fraud.

[SJHovey]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Put another way, an investigation to root out fraud found more wrongfully denied ballots than fraudulent votes, at least with respect to one segment. And that's without even trying to find the former.

That's not quite what the article says. What happened was 20 felons hadn't yet had their rights restored. Therefore, they weren't "wrongfully denied" access to vote. They could have voted if they had gone through the process of restoring their rights.

But that said, let's say there are only 5 cases or 10 cases or 20 cases of voter fraud a year in Iowa. And maybe a proportionate number in the other 49 states. Should we ignore it? Should we refuse or neglect to investigate it? Should we just forget about prosecuting it? All because of what seems to be a statistically insignificant number? And if so, if only 10 people get denied access to the ballot box, should we forget about that, or refuse to do anything about it, because that number too is statistically insignificant to the outcome?

[unofan]

That's not quite what the article says. What happened was 20 felons hadn't yet had their rights restored. Therefore, they weren't "wrongfully denied" access to vote. They could have voted if they had gone through the process of restoring their rights.

But that said, let's say there are only 5 cases or 10 cases or 20 cases of voter fraud a year in Iowa. And maybe a proportionate number in the other 49 states. Should we ignore it? Should we refuse or neglect to investigate it? Should we just forget about prosecuting it? All because of what seems to be a statistically insignificant number? And if so, if only 10 people get denied access to the ballot box, should we forget about that, or refuse to do anything about it, because that number too is statistically insignificant to the outcome?

Ignore it? No. If you happen to come across it in the course of your normal duties, by all means prosecute.

But waste $250,000 chasing after it as a political stunt? Also no. This is not a problem requiring special task forces or commissions or congressional hearings.

[GrinCDXX]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

If there is nothing to fear, just humor everyone and go along with it and get it over with as quickly as possible.

And then humor them again, and then humor them again, ok, once more...no seriously guys this is the last one...

[Priceless]

Opie we've already had 5,000 hearings and a zillion other investigations. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. So, you are now officially insane! IF this isn't an attempt to prop up a dying ideology and a bankrupt political party trying not to get crushed in the next Presidential election, why not just offer Lerner immunity in exchange for her full testimony, something she's already offered to do??? I mean, if Obama himself ordered this, don't you want to do whatever it takes to get that testimony on the record????

I like how one Democrat said the hearing was a witch hunt and Pete Sessions responded "That must mean there is a with somewhere."

Um...that isn't how a witch hunt works...

[GrinCDXX]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I like how one Democrat said the hearing was a witch hunt and Pete Sessions responded "That must mean there is a with somewhere."

Um...that isn't how a witch hunt works...

The question everyone is dying to get an answer to...does Lois Lerner weigh the same as a duck?

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I like how one Democrat said the hearing was a witch hunt and Pete Sessions responded "That must mean there is a with somewhere."

Um...that isn't how a witch hunt works...

I see Pete Sessions is also a moron. Do we elect anyone competent anymore?

[geezer]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Voices in your head don't count as friends geezer.

Tell that to Fakhir and Abdul.

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I like how one Democrat said the hearing was a witch hunt and Pete Sessions responded "That must mean there is a with somewhere."

Um...that isn't how a witch hunt works...

Notice how Opie hasn't responded even though he's all hot and bothered over this? That can only mean one of two things: 1) The orderlies have taken away his internet privileges again, or 2) my question made his head explode!

But its still out there for any knuck' to answer. If there's a deeply rooted conspiracy over the IRS (or any other faux scandal) why wouldn't you offer complete immunity to all low level people until you at least reached the White House inner circle? The only other conclusion to draw is that this is a dog and pony show of no value other than to fundraise off of.

[SJHovey]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Notice how Opie hasn't responded even though he's all hot and bothered over this? That can only mean one of two things: 1) The orderlies have taken away his internet privileges again, or 2) my question made his head explode!

But its still out there for any knuck' to answer. If there's a deeply rooted conspiracy over the IRS (or any other faux scandal) why wouldn't you offer complete immunity to all low level people until you at least reached the White House inner circle? The only other conclusion to draw is that this is a dog and pony show of no value other than to fundraise off of.

I would guess part of the reason no immunity has been offered is that the Republicans feel they can get quite a bit of fundraising mileage out of saying, "Hey, we subpoenaed her to try to get to the bottom of it, but she wouldn't appear unless we gave her immunity for whatever crime she committed." To the average Joe, a demand for immunity is a confession of guilt, and that's probably a lot more than the Republicans could ever get in a real prosecution.

[Old Pio]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I'd prefer to give Ms. Lerner an enema instead of immunity. Nothing Nixon did with the IRS compares to the "coincidental" effort to suppress, intimidate and harass groups with whom Richard M. Obama disagreed. The goal here should be to create as much political damage to Obama and his party as possible. There's always time to throw that slag in prison.

Next up: Secretary Frequent Flyer Miles and her efforts to keep Boco Harem off the terrorist list. Given that thousands of Americans have been killed by Islamist terrorists, you'd think our government would want to err on the side of protecting our citizens, rather than avoid giving offense to a bunch of savages.