Re: Voter Fraud! Only 31 Found Out of a Billion US Votes Cast

[AlleyCat]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 02:28:24 -0500, super70s says...

> > And so 19 people will come out of their graves to vote? Boy, you're stupid.
>
> Simp doesn't differentiate between registration fraud and in person
> voter fraud.
>

I guess you missed this.

> And so 19 people will come out of their graves to vote? Boy, you're
> stupid.

LOL... Wy The Canadian Faggot Welfare Queen, Thinks Voter Fraud Is ONLY
When Dead People Come Out Of Their Graves and Vote, Not When They Get
registered a Second, Third or Fourth Time?

That's OK, pea.

--

"NOAA And NASA Corrected Historical Temperature Data And Fabricated
Temperature Data"

"NASA Made Efforts To Discredit Their Own Satellite Data"

"NASA Refused To Give Data And Information Requested By The US
House Of Representatives Science, Space And Technology Committee"

"NASA And NOAA Caught In Climate Data Manipulation"

"NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000"

"Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA"

"NASA/NOAA Mislead, Deceive and Lie About 'Hottest Year' Claim - Concede
2014 NOT "Hottest Year"

"Climate Fraud: NASA's Recent Global Warming "Corrections" Equal a +95.0°C
Per Century Trend"

https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=noaa+nasa+caught

[AlleyCat]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:31:24 -0700 (PDT), Wexford says...

> >
> > http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-30/meet-young-virginia-democrat-
> > registered-19-dead-people-vote-virginia
> >
> > https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=admits+voter+fraud
> >
> > Gawd, you're a fucking idiot. Believing everything WaPo writes has GOT to
> > be some kind of psychosis.
> >
> > --
> >
> > A "teabagger" is a male Canadian Liberal New Democrat who performs
> > fellatio on another male Canadian Liberal New Democrat... either sucking
> > his balls or laying his genitals on his partner's face. <snicker>
>
> This is from winger web site. Stupid and unreliable, probably an outright lie.

I KNOW you looked it up and are feigning ignorance, but just to show
OTHERS how stupid YOU and wy are...


Investigation Launched After Dead People Are Registered To Vote In
Harrisonburg

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_e008ce00-0365-57a2-95c0-
4d9aa70012f9.html


Is the Richmond Times-Dispatch a right winger website?

LOL... and ALL left-winger websites tell the truth and nothing BUT the
truth, right? Riiiiiight.

YOUR winger websites won't print this shit, else it make Democrats look
bad, dumb fuck. WE know how it works. If something's too damaging to the
left, they won't print it. Winger websites LIE by omission, and should be
prosecuted for it.

Freedom OF the press, doesn't mean freedom FROM the press. The press
should not be able to WITHHOLD information... PEOPLE go to jail for doing
that as part of investigations.

Snopes can't prove it wrong, so they come up with all these excuses for
the story.

Snopes:

As of this writing, no one has been charged with any crimes in connection
with the reported story.

THAT doesn't mean he didn't do it, dumb ass... he has ADMITTED to doing
it, Read on:

The Richmond Times-Dispatch, the Daily News-Record, and the student
newspaper The Breeze have all reported that although a student CONFESSED
to registering 19 deceased people to vote, that student's name is being
withheld because as yet no charges have been filed.

Typical left-wing excuse-making.

[AlleyCat]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 18:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Wexford says...

> sometimes dead people with similar names to live ones are registered by accident

https://www.google.com/search?
q=democrat+voter+registration+graveyard&newwindow=1&biw=1920&bih=1077
&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiErfnX8uXPAhVFKCYKHexoCyUQ_AUIBygC

LOL

Well, this is not an accident! And it wasn't any propeller; and it wasn't
any coral reef; and it wasn't Jack the Ripper! It was a shark.

This is just ONE voter fraud incident. There's no telling how many go
without getting caught.

https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=project+veritas+voter+fraud

"How to Commit Voter Fraud on a Massive Scale": Part II of Project Veritas
Investigation into Clinton Network

The second video in James O'Keefe's Project Veritas investigation of the
2016 election reveals what O'Keefe describes as "Democratic Party
operatives tell[ing] us how to successfully commit voter fraud on a
massive scale."

Obama won the first election because of White guilt... he won the second
by cheating. EVERYONE was down on him, but he managed to win.

Time for the DEATH, yeah, that's right Homeland Security... the DEATH of
the Electoral College.

I'll believe a voter count, if Democrats quit cheating and committing
voter fraud, and WILL accept the outcome, as long as Democrats aren't
cheating, stuffing ballots or anything else they've done to cheat in the
past.

[AlleyCat]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:21:28 -0700 (PDT), Tom Sr. says...

> *Donald Trump's Pants-on-Fire Claim of 'Large Scale Voter Fraud'*
> by Linda Qiu
> Monday, October 17th, 2016
>
> Donald Trump tripled down on his baseless claim

Baseless?

BASELESS?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Because LINDA Qiu, whomever the fuck SHE is, says it's baseless, it's
baseless?

Jeez... you'll believe anything, ANY left wing idiot puts on the Internet.

Do YOU have proof that's there's no voter fraud, homo?

Let's hear it.

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-10-19 2:57 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:21:28 -0700 (PDT), Tom Sr. says...
>
>> *Donald Trump's Pants-on-Fire Claim of 'Large Scale Voter Fraud'*
>> by Linda Qiu
>> Monday, October 17th, 2016
>>
>> Donald Trump tripled down on his baseless claim
>
> Baseless?
>
> BASELESS?
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> Because LINDA Qiu, whomever the fuck SHE is, says it's baseless, it's
> baseless?
>
> Jeez... you'll believe anything, ANY left wing idiot puts on the Internet.
>
> Do YOU have proof that's there's no voter fraud, homo?
>
> Let's hear it.

Do you have any proof that the only fraud is in the Democrats favour?

>

[M.I.Wakefield]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message news:nu8qlm$s1g$4...@news.datemas.de...

> Do you have any proof that the only fraud is in the Democrats favour?

Probably not:

http://addictinginfo.org/2013/06/21/shocker-republicans-account-for-most-cases-of-u-s-voter-fraud/

[Deplorable Silver Slimer]

Pure stupidity from the baked anus.

--
Deplorable Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
Gab.ai: @silverslimer

[Alan Baker]

So that would be "no", then?

:-)

[AlleyCat]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:04:38 -0700, Alan Baker says...

Not at all... but is Republican voter fraud the topic? Does the liberal
DEMOCRAT press push the idea that Republicans cheated to take Congress
back? SHOULD they have?

Start a thread on Republican voter fraud. THOSE people need to go to jail,
WHATEVER party they're affiliated with.

Cheating is cheating. George Bush didn't cheat. The ELECTORAL COLLEGE
voted him in. Hanging chads didn't matter.

Is it just coincidence that the Democrats won the election AFTER we
switched over to electronic voting booths?

Maybe... maybe not. Obama was NOT very popular after his first term, yet
he won. Hmmmmmm. Did white guilt triumph AGAIN?

It's sad that Democrats have to offer free shit to get elected.

[AlleyCat]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:40:44 -0400, Deplorable Silver Slimer says...

> > Do you have any proof that the only fraud is in the Democrats favour?
>
> Pure stupidity from the baked anus.

No... it's a valid question. But it begs another question. How will
Hillary, a KNOWN criminal and liar, get elected?

What does that say about her party, and those who will elect her.

Seems to me Alan, that Democrats have become liars, thieves and crooked.
Do YOU think Clinton DESERVES to be President?

[AlleyCat]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:28:01 GMT, Ted&Alice says...

> > That's the ONLY time you people give a shit about them... election time.
> > What did Obama DO for Blacks in the 8 years he's been King?
>
> He can't killfile you anyway. He posts through Google.

LOL... yeah I see that. That's why I goaded him. He'll keep reading me.

;-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-10-19 3:54 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:04:38 -0700, Alan Baker says...
>
>>
>> On 2016-10-19 2:57 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:21:28 -0700 (PDT), Tom Sr. says...
>>>
>>>> *Donald Trump's Pants-on-Fire Claim of 'Large Scale Voter Fraud'*
>>>> by Linda Qiu
>>>> Monday, October 17th, 2016
>>>>
>>>> Donald Trump tripled down on his baseless claim
>>>
>>> Baseless?
>>>
>>> BASELESS?
>>>
>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>
>>> Because LINDA Qiu, whomever the fuck SHE is, says it's baseless, it's
>>> baseless?
>>>
>>> Jeez... you'll believe anything, ANY left wing idiot puts on the Internet.
>>>
>>> Do YOU have proof that's there's no voter fraud, homo?
>>>
>>> Let's hear it.
>>
>> Do you have any proof that the only fraud is in the Democrats favour?
>
> Not at all... but is Republican voter fraud the topic? Does the liberal
> DEMOCRAT press push the idea that Republicans cheated to take Congress
> back? SHOULD they have?

Perhaps because they realize that it's in reality an non-issue...

...whereas the Republicans stir it up because it's actually about
suppressing the vote of the poor and disadvantaged.

[AlleyCat]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:07:35 -0700, Alan Baker says...

> ...whereas the Republicans stir it up because it's actually about
> suppressing the vote of the poor and disadvantaged.
>

Bullshit.. name ONE way that voter ID laws "suppress" the vote.

EVERYBODY has ID... that's just another strawman argument from the
Democrats, because they KNOW there's cheating going on, ESPECIALLY in the
Black districts.

They KNOW no one on the right will challenge them, lest they be branded a
racist for even ATTEMPTING to impugn Blacks.

HOW on fucking EARTH, do Blacks get through life, WITHOUT an ID?

They don't... you know it... you liberal pansy-ass snowflakes just ACT
like you don't.

In the history of Black people since the civil rights bill was passed, not
ONE 17 year old has ever tried to buy alcohol? Is that what you're telling
me? No ID required?

In the history of Black people since the civil rights bill was passed, not
ONE 17 year old has ever tried to buy cigarettes? Is that what you're
telling me? No ID required?

In the history of Black people since the civil rights bill was passed, not
ONE Black has ever tried to open a bank account and DIDN'T have to show
ID? Is that what you're telling me? No ID required?

In the history of Black people since the civil rights bill was passed, not
ONE Black woman old has ever tried to get food stamps and did NOT have to
show ID? Is that what you're telling me? No ID required?

They NEVER have to show an ID to:

Apply for Welfare?

Apply for Medicaid?

Apply for Social Security?

Apply for a job?

Rent or buy a house?

Apply for section 8 housing?

Drive/buy/rent a car

Get on an airplane

Get married

Purchase a gun

Adopt a pet

Rent a hotel room

Apply for a hunting license

Apply for a fishing license

Buy a cell phone

Visit a casino

Pick up a prescription

Hold a rally or protest

Blood donations

Buy an "M" rated video game

Purchase nail polish at CVS

Purchase certain cold medicines



They have to have ID for all of that, but they don't have one to vote?

RIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.





--

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-10-19 5:14 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:07:35 -0700, Alan Baker says...
>
>> ...whereas the Republicans stir it up because it's actually about
>> suppressing the vote of the poor and disadvantaged.
>>
>
> Bullshit.. name ONE way that voter ID laws "suppress" the vote.

Because poor people lack the means to get it.

>
> EVERYBODY has ID... that's just another strawman argument from the
> Democrats, because they KNOW there's cheating going on, ESPECIALLY in the
> Black districts.

Really? Everyone has ID?

That's not what the courts have ruled.

>
> They KNOW no one on the right will challenge them, lest they be branded a
> racist for even ATTEMPTING to impugn Blacks.
>
> HOW on fucking EARTH, do Blacks get through life, WITHOUT an ID?

Cash economy: look it up.

[Deplorable Silver Slimer]

On 2016-10-19 8:14 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:07:35 -0700, Alan Baker says...
>
>> ...whereas the Republicans stir it up because it's actually about
>> suppressing the vote of the poor and disadvantaged.
>>
>
> Bullshit.. name ONE way that voter ID laws "suppress" the vote.
>
> EVERYBODY has ID... that's just another strawman argument from the
> Democrats, because they KNOW there's cheating going on, ESPECIALLY in the
> Black districts.
>
> They KNOW no one on the right will challenge them, lest they be branded a
> racist for even ATTEMPTING to impugn Blacks.

Baked Anus is just repeating the liberal lies the media has been
spreading since the dawn of time. He has no brain of his own and
whenever anyone demonstrates what kind of a tool he is, his strategy is
the same as any other dumbass:

1) Ask for sources
2) Question the reputation of the sources
3) Find a link by discredited source (just about any liberal media)
which says the opposite
4) Claim that he won

People aren't as stupid as Baked Anus needs them to be.

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-10-19 5:32 PM, Deplorable Silver Slimer wrote:
> On 2016-10-19 8:14 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:07:35 -0700, Alan Baker says...
>>
>>> ...whereas the Republicans stir it up because it's actually about
>>> suppressing the vote of the poor and disadvantaged.
>>>
>>
>> Bullshit.. name ONE way that voter ID laws "suppress" the vote.
>>
>> EVERYBODY has ID... that's just another strawman argument from the
>> Democrats, because they KNOW there's cheating going on, ESPECIALLY in the
>> Black districts.
>>
>> They KNOW no one on the right will challenge them, lest they be branded a
>> racist for even ATTEMPTING to impugn Blacks.
>
> Baked Anus is just repeating the liberal lies the media has been
> spreading since the dawn of time. He has no brain of his own and
> whenever anyone demonstrates what kind of a tool he is, his strategy is
> the same as any other dumbass:
>
> 1) Ask for sources
> 2) Question the reputation of the sources
> 3) Find a link by discredited source (just about any liberal media)
> which says the opposite

You don't even realize the irony there, do you?

[AlleyCat]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:21:31 -0700, Alan Baker says...

> > Bullshit.. name ONE way that voter ID laws "suppress" the vote.
>
> Because poor people lack the means to get it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
and
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
and
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
and
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ANOTHER Democrat lie.

"Poor" in America, ONLY means you can't afford a Toyota Camry, so you buy
a Hyundai of Kia that looks better.

"Poor" in America, means you have to settle for a 50" TV instead of a 60
incher.

"Poor" in America, means you have to buy a Galaxy 6 cell phone computer,
instead of the Galaxy 7.

"Poor" in America.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

They can receive $50,000 of freebies but they cain't drive demsleves to
the DMV?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-10-19 5:43 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:21:31 -0700, Alan Baker says...
>
>>> Bullshit.. name ONE way that voter ID laws "suppress" the vote.
>>
>> Because poor people lack the means to get it.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> and
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> and
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> and
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> ANOTHER Democrat lie.
>
> "Poor" in America, ONLY means you can't afford a Toyota Camry, so you buy
> a Hyundai of Kia that looks better.

No. That is not what it means.

>
> "Poor" in America, means you have to settle for a 50" TV instead of a 60
> incher.
>
> "Poor" in America, means you have to buy a Galaxy 6 cell phone computer,
> instead of the Galaxy 7.
>
> "Poor" in America.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> They can receive $50,000 of freebies but they cain't drive demsleves to
> the DMV?

Cite?

>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>

[AlleyCat]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:21:31 -0700, Alan Baker says...

> > HOW on fucking EARTH, do Blacks get through life, WITHOUT an ID?
>
> Cash economy: look it up.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Gawd, you're stupid AND perfect pansy ass liberal, who has to lie to cover
his lies.

I noticed you were too chicken shit to address the ID points I made, so...

So, there REALLY are Blacks who have NEVER had to show ID to:

Apply for Welfare?

Really? How many?

Apply for Medicaid?

Really? How many?

Apply for Social Security?

Really? How many?

Apply for a job?

Really? How many?

Rent or buy a house?

Apply for section 8 housing?

Drive/buy/rent a car

Get on an airplane

Get married

Purchase a gun

Adopt a pet

Rent a hotel room

Apply for a hunting license

Apply for a fishing license

Buy a cell phone

Visit a casino

Pick up a prescription

Hold a rally or protest

Blood donations

Buy an "M" rated video game

Purchase nail polish at CVS

Purchase certain cold medicines

REALLY? HOW MANY?

[Dänk 42Ø]

On 2016-10-19 22:54, AlleyCat wrote:
> Cheating is cheating. George Bush didn't cheat. The ELECTORAL COLLEGE
> voted him in. Hanging chads didn't matter.

Technically, yes, the Electoral College did vote him in, but only after
the Supreme Court ruled that Florida's last recount should stand. It
didn't have to rule that way, and had Florida had not been able to
settle the problem in time, its electors would not have been able to
attend the Electoral College (it's meeting date is set by law).

This would have been unprecedented, but as far as I know it is perfectly
constitutional. Each state decides how to choose its Electors, and
while all states now allow direct voting for them, they are not required
to, and could choose them the traditional way -- the state legislature
-- by lottery, by astrology, or however they wish. Florida chose the
direct election method, it was unable to conduct an accurate vote count,
so it wound up in the Supreme Court. The alternative would be to
exclude Florida's electors, and the winner would be whoever won the
majority of electors attending.

[Alan Baker]

Not just ID: ID acceptable for voting.

"In 2006, the Brennan Center published the results of a telephone survey
conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation (ORC), an independent
market research firm, on the number of voting-age Americans who have
government-issued photo ID and proof of citizenship. 11% of all
respondents to that survey did not have ready access to
government-issued photo ID; the percentages of those without ID were
even higher for certain demographic groups."

<https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/debunking-misinformation-photo-id>

And it goes on:

What is more, Kobach fails to note that the Brennan Center’s findings
are consistent with every independent study we have identified before
and since:

The 2001 Carter-Ford Commission on Election Reform found that between
6-11 percent of voting-age citizens lack driver’s license or alternate
state-issued photo ID.

A 2007 Indiana survey found that roughly 13 percent of registered
Indiana voters lack an Indiana driver’s license or an alternate
Indiana-issued photo ID.

In a 2009 study in Indiana, Professors Matt Barreto, Stephen Nuño, and
Gabriel Sanchez found that election restrictions like voter ID laws have
the greatest impact on the elderly, racial and ethnic minorities,
immigrants, those with less educational attainment and lower incomes.
The professors found that of the citizen adult population, 81.4% of all
white eligible adults had access to a driver’s license, whereas only
55.2% of black eligible adults had the same access. Indeed, study
after study has similarly concluded that burdens to voting have a large
and disparate impact on individuals with fewer resources, less
education, smaller social networks, and those who are institutionally
isolated.

The 2007 study, Voter ID Requirements and the Disenfranchisement of
Latino, Black, and Asian Voters, based on exit polls from the 2006
elections in California, New Mexico, and Washington State, found that
minority voters are less likely than whites to be able to present photo
identification.'

<http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/documents/Indiana_voter.pdf>
<http://faculty.washington.edu/mbarreto/papers/PS_VoterID.pdf>
<https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/debunking-misinformation-photo-id>

How's that for a start?

[AlleyCat]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:45:04 -0700, Alan Baker says...

> > They can receive $50,000 of freebies but they cain't drive demsleves to
> > the DMV?
>
> Cite?

States vary. The states with the highest welfare payouts - more than $20
per hour - are Hawaii, with payments equaling $29.13 per hour, DC at
$24.43 per hour, Massachusetts at $24.30 , Connecticut at $21.33, New York
at $21.01 per hour, New Jersey at $20.89 per hour, Rhode Island at $20.83
per hour and Vermont at $20.36 per hour.

Hawaii - You can make up to $60,590.40

Washington D.C. - $50,820.00

Massachusetts - $50,540

Connecticut - $44,370

New York - $43,700

New Jersey - $43,450

Rhode Island - $43,330 a year.

Vermont - $42,350

Feel better now... dumb ass?

Is your mommy a teacher? No? well, I'll give this tidbit to you anyway.

With all the talk about unemployment benefits and welfare, it's important
to understand just how much money we're talking about.

In 35 states, welfare, housing assistance and other benefits pays more
than a minimum wage job, according to a new study.

The study also found that in 13 states, the payout is more than $15 per
hour.

Of course, this study doesn't take into account that not everyone on
public assistance receives ALL of the programs.

But if they did, their payout would be significantly higher than even a
starting TEACHER'S SALARY in 11 states or a computer programmer in 3
states.

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-10-19 6:03 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:45:04 -0700, Alan Baker says...
>
>>> They can receive $50,000 of freebies but they cain't drive demsleves to
>>> the DMV?
>>
>> Cite?
>
> States vary. The states with the highest welfare payouts - more than $20
> per hour - are Hawaii, with payments equaling $29.13 per hour, DC at
> $24.43 per hour, Massachusetts at $24.30 , Connecticut at $21.33, New York
> at $21.01 per hour, New Jersey at $20.89 per hour, Rhode Island at $20.83
> per hour and Vermont at $20.36 per hour.
>
> Hawaii - You can make up to $60,590.40
>
> Washington D.C. - $50,820.00
>
> Massachusetts - $50,540
>
> Connecticut - $44,370
>
> New York - $43,700
>
> New Jersey - $43,450
>
> Rhode Island - $43,330 a year.
>
> Vermont - $42,350
>
> Feel better now... dumb ass?

Where is the source for your figures?

What is the cost of living where you can get those amounts?

Is that the amount you get if you have 4 kids to support?

Oh, wait! I found your source:

"The Work versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013"
by the CATO Institute.

Only...

...BusinessInsider...

...that well-known ultra-left publication/site...

...has this to say about it:

'The study is called "The Welfare-Versus-Work Tradeoff," and it's meant
to show why people don't get off welfare. And it's B.S., for three reasons.

1. Very few people actually qualify for all eight of the programs Cato
looks at. Particularly, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (cash
welfare) and housing assistance can provide some very expensive
benefits. But fewer than two million households get TANF and only about
four million get housing assistance. It is much more typical for a
welfare beneficiary to be getting SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid
(health insurance), but no assistance with housing or cash. So, the
typical welfare benefit is much lower than Cato makes out, making
staying on welfare less appealing.'

<http://www.businessinsider.com/does-welfare-really-pay-better-than-work-2013-8>

>
> Is your mommy a teacher? No? well, I'll give this tidbit to you anyway.
>
> With all the talk about unemployment benefits and welfare, it's important
> to understand just how much money we're talking about.
>
> In 35 states, welfare, housing assistance and other benefits pays more
> than a minimum wage job, according to a new study.

A study you fail to provide.

>
> The study also found that in 13 states, the payout is more than $15 per
> hour.

A study you fail to provide.

> Of course, this study doesn't take into account that not everyone on
> public assistance receives ALL of the programs.
>
> But if they did, their payout would be significantly higher than even a
> starting TEACHER'S SALARY in 11 states or a computer programmer in 3
> states.

And now you make yet another unsupported claim.

[AlleyCat]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 00:51:43 +0000, Dänk 42Ø says...

> > Cheating is cheating. George Bush didn't cheat. The ELECTORAL COLLEGE
> > voted him in. Hanging chads didn't matter.
>
> Technically, yes, the Electoral College did vote him in, but only after
> the Supreme Court ruled that Florida's last recount should stand.

Thanks, but read it again. BUSH was accused of cheating. Because those
poor weak-ass liberals couldn't pull a handle hard enough, there were
hanging chads. Thanks again, but I was addressing the cheating that will
undoubtedly happen election night from The DNC.

[snicker]

Study: Men With Weak Upper Bodies Tend To Be Liberal, physically strong
Men tend to be Conservative

Men who are physically strong are more likely to take a right wing
political stance, while weaker men are inclined to support the welfare
state, according to a new study.

Researchers discovered political motivations may have evolutionary links
to physical strength.

Men's upper-body strength predicts their political opinions on economic
redistribution, according to the research.

The principal investigators - psychological scientists Michael Bang
Petersen, of Aarhus University in Denmark, and Daniel Sznycer, of the
University of California in the U.S., believe that the link may reflect
psychological traits that evolved in response to our early ancestral
environments and continue to influence behavior today.

Professor Petersen said: 'While many think of politics as a modern
phenomenon, it has - in a sense - always been with our species.'

In the days of our early ancestors, decisions about the distribution of
resources were not made in courthouses or legislative offices, but
through shows of strength.

With this in mind, Professor Petersen and Professor Sznycer hypothesized
that upper-body strength - a proxy for the ability to physically defend
or acquire resources - would predict men's opinions about the
redistribution of wealth.

[AlleyCat]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:14:00 -0700, Alan Baker says...

> > In 35 states, welfare, housing assistance and other benefits pays more
> > than a minimum wage job, according to a new study.
>
> A study you fail to provide.

LOL... you looked for it... you found it, I KNOW you found it, and now you
have to TRY and disprove it, ONLY because it was a "conservative" think
tank, that provided the FACTS and information.

Boo fucking hoo.

Well, we don't believe ANY of your far left winger websites either, so...

Pathetic.

I was right... $50,000 is NOT out of the realm of possibility. That's what
I said, you were wrong for challenging me, now just turn and suck your
partners' dick and leave it (what I said, not his dick) alone.

"They can receive $50,000 of freebies but they cain't drive demsleves to
the DMV?"

RIIIIIIGHT.

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-10-19 6:24 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>

> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:14:00 -0700, Alan Baker says...
>
>>> In 35 states, welfare, housing assistance and other benefits pays more
>>> than a minimum wage job, according to a new study.
>>
>> A study you fail to provide.
>
> LOL... you looked for it... you found it, I KNOW you found it, and now you
> have to TRY and disprove it, ONLY because it was a "conservative" think
> tank, that provided the FACTS and information.

And I know I proved it to your satisfaction...

...because you snipped out the rebutall.

>
> Boo fucking hoo.
>
> Well, we don't believe ANY of your far left winger websites either, so...

BusinessInsider is "far left winger"?

>
> Pathetic.
>
> I was right... $50,000 is NOT out of the realm of possibility. That's what
> I said, you were wrong for challenging me, now just turn and suck your
> partners' dick and leave it (what I said, not his dick) alone.
>

No. You made it out to be the norm.

> "They can receive $50,000 of freebies but they cain't drive demsleves to
> the DMV?"
>
> RIIIIIIGHT.

So because some few can under some circumstances receive that much makes
it the norm you're implying?

>

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 10/19/2016 08:51 PM, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
> On 2016-10-19 22:54, AlleyCat wrote:
>> Cheating is cheating. George Bush didn't cheat. The ELECTORAL COLLEGE
>> voted him in. Hanging chads didn't matter.
>
> Technically, yes, the Electoral College did vote him in, but only after
> the Supreme Court ruled that Florida's last recount should stand. It
> didn't have to rule that way, and had Florida had not been able to
> settle the problem in time, its electors would not have been able to
> attend the Electoral College (it's meeting date is set by law).
>
> This would have been unprecedented, but as far as I know it is perfectly
> constitutional

Since when is it constitutional to unilaterally decide those people
legally voting in the election to select a President don't count. And
that some recount request for the sake of a few votes can make all the
votes worthless...?

It seems that the courts were protecting the millions of votes that were
counted correctly. The few that didn't get counted for a 3rd redundant
time were NOT going to meet the time restrictions no matter what they
did and that was going to cost millions of voters their constitutional
right.
--
That's Karma


*Rumination*
11 - Liberalism is a process of ignoring facts to reach a conclusion
that suits their interests.

[AlleyCat]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:27:12 -0700, Alan Baker says...

> > LOL... you looked for it... you found it, I KNOW you found it, and now you
> > have to TRY and disprove it, ONLY because it was a "conservative" think
> > tank, that provided the FACTS and information.
>
> And I know I proved it to your satisfaction...
>
> ...because you snipped out the rebutall.

For brevity, idiot. I read it, you read it... why post it?

> >
> > Boo fucking hoo.
> >
> > Well, we don't believe ANY of your far left winger websites either, so...
>
> BusinessInsider is "far left winger"?

It's not? Hmmmm... I don't knooooooow.

Business Insider Forced to Apologize for Falsely Claiming RNC Chairman
Thinks Mitt Romney Is Racist

Liberal media bias can turn up in some very unlikely places. One example
of this concept is an article on the Business Insider website in which
Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus was quoted as saying
that the concept of illegal immigrants "self-deporting" back to their
native countries -- as proposed by 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt
Romney -- was "racist."

"Business Insider does have a liberal slant. All you have to do is browse
the headlines to see that they lean way to the left. To understand why,
look at who founded the site; read the About page."

> > Pathetic.
> >
> > I was right... $50,000 is NOT out of the realm of possibility. That's what
> > I said, you were wrong for challenging me, now just turn and suck your
> > partners' dick and leave it (what I said, not his dick) alone.
> >
>
> No. You made it out to be the norm.

Uh... no. Please find "norm" in this statement:

"They can receive $50,000 of freebies but they cain't drive demsleves to
the DMV?"

RIIIIIIGHT.

> So because some few can under some circumstances receive that much makes
> it the norm you're implying?

I "implied" that they CAN receive $50,000 of freebies. You then, INFERRED
that I meant all welfare recipients made $50,000, which I did not.

Give it up, liberal... we all can see that you have to LIE to make your
point.

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-10-19 6:46 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:27:12 -0700, Alan Baker says...
>
>>> LOL... you looked for it... you found it, I KNOW you found it, and now you
>>> have to TRY and disprove it, ONLY because it was a "conservative" think
>>> tank, that provided the FACTS and information.
>>
>> And I know I proved it to your satisfaction...
>>
>> ...because you snipped out the rebutall.
>
> For brevity, idiot. I read it, you read it... why post it?
>
>>>
>>> Boo fucking hoo.
>>>
>>> Well, we don't believe ANY of your far left winger websites either, so...
>>
>> BusinessInsider is "far left winger"?
>
> It's not? Hmmmm... I don't knooooooow.
>
> Business Insider Forced to Apologize for Falsely Claiming RNC Chairman
> Thinks Mitt Romney Is Racist
>
> Liberal media bias can turn up in some very unlikely places. One example
> of this concept is an article on the Business Insider website in which
> Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus was quoted as saying
> that the concept of illegal immigrants "self-deporting" back to their
> native countries -- as proposed by 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt
> Romney -- was "racist."
>
> "Business Insider does have a liberal slant. All you have to do is browse
> the headlines to see that they lean way to the left. To understand why,
> look at who founded the site; read the About page."

Source?

>
>>> Pathetic.
>>>
>>> I was right... $50,000 is NOT out of the realm of possibility. That's what
>>> I said, you were wrong for challenging me, now just turn and suck your
>>> partners' dick and leave it (what I said, not his dick) alone.
>>>
>>
>> No. You made it out to be the norm.
>
> Uh... no. Please find "norm" in this statement:
>
> "They can receive $50,000 of freebies but they cain't drive demsleves to
> the DMV?"

1. "They".

2. It's context where you listed all things that "they" all supposedly
had, including cars.

>
> RIIIIIIGHT.
>
>> So because some few can under some circumstances receive that much makes
>> it the norm you're implying?
>
> I "implied" that they CAN receive $50,000 of freebies. You then, INFERRED
> that I meant all welfare recipients made $50,000, which I did not.

So then what you CAN make doesn't refute that many don't get anything
LIKE that much.

>
> Give it up, liberal... we all can see that you have to LIE to make your
> point.

LOL!

Irony!

[AlleyCat]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:51:24 -0700, Alan Baker says...

> > Give it up, liberal... we all can see that you have to LIE to make your
> > point.
>
> LOL!
>
> Irony!
>

Show THE lie. I stated that they CAN make $50,000, and some do, so YOU'RE
the one lying when you say that I said ALL of them... liar.

Discussion is over for the night. If you want to continue, do so tomorrow.
I can only read a finite number of lies per day, and you have gone WAY
past your quota.

[Alan Baker]

On 2016-10-19 7:10 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:51:24 -0700, Alan Baker says...
>
>>> Give it up, liberal... we all can see that you have to LIE to make your
>>> point.
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Irony!
>>
>
> Show THE lie. I stated that they CAN make $50,000, and some do, so YOU'RE
> the one lying when you say that I said ALL of them... liar.

OK:

""Poor" in America, ONLY means you can't afford a Toyota Camry, so you buy
a Hyundai of Kia that looks better.

"Poor" in America, means you have to settle for a 50" TV instead of a 60
incher.

"Poor" in America, means you have to buy a Galaxy 6 cell phone computer,
instead of the Galaxy 7.

"Poor" in America.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

They can receive $50,000 of freebies but they cain't drive demsleves to
the DMV?"

All of that has to be taken together with your use of the word "can".

You basically claim with that that all the '"Poor"' have 50" TVs and
cars, and smartphones.

You DO understand that you can't erase what you've already said, right?

[Dänk 42Ø]

On 10/20/2016 01:15 AM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 00:51:43 +0000, Dänk 42Ø says...
>
>>> Cheating is cheating. George Bush didn't cheat. The ELECTORAL COLLEGE
>>> voted him in. Hanging chads didn't matter.
>>
>> Technically, yes, the Electoral College did vote him in, but only after
>> the Supreme Court ruled that Florida's last recount should stand.
>
> Thanks, but read it again. BUSH was accused of cheating. Because those
> poor weak-ass liberals couldn't pull a handle hard enough, there were
> hanging chads. Thanks again, but I was addressing the cheating that will
> undoubtedly happen election night from The DNC.

What I'm saying is Florida didn't have adequate systems in place to
prevent mishaps like this from occurring. The punch card system seems
simple and accurate enough, but while one can't change the vote on a
punchcard, one can invalidate it by punching the spot for the rival
candidate. This might be solved by installing an optical scanner in
the ballot box to check for multiple votes, which would reject the
ballot, shred it in front of the voter and monitors, and a new ballot
given to the voter.

Most countries still use paper ballots, often with the candidate's
photo and party logo next to the check box which is X'd with
indelible ink. This doesn't solve the problem of vote counters
from X'ing other boxes to invalidate the ballot, though. Having
monitors review the ballot for errors eliminates the secrecy of the
vote.

So the only practical solution is to have each ballot box unsealed in
front of numerous independent observers, who will also observe and
record each vote in their own logbooks, with the entire count recorded
on video. Observers should be placed at each polling station,
counting every ballot cast, and these numbers should be identical to
what is counted at the central station. Absentee ballots should be
abolished, and mobile polling vans should be dispatched for people
who can't travel -- with observers present. Mail-in ballots are the
weakest link in election security. Anyone can register a senile
person in an old-age home and cast a vote in their name by mail,
making voter ID moot.

[Silver Slimer]

Damn, you just _served_ Baked Anus. I didn't even realize how bad the
welfare situation in the United States was. At that rate, it's no wonder
the country is quickly becoming bankrupt.

--

[Silver Slimer]

On 2016-10-19 9:46 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:27:12 -0700, Alan Baker says...
>
>>> LOL... you looked for it... you found it, I KNOW you found it, and now you
>>> have to TRY and disprove it, ONLY because it was a "conservative" think
>>> tank, that provided the FACTS and information.
>>
>> And I know I proved it to your satisfaction...
>>
>> ...because you snipped out the rebutall.
>
> For brevity, idiot. I read it, you read it... why post it?

I do the same because unlike liberals, I've been educated and learned
that such a thing makes for easier readings. Liberals will claim that
doing so makes you a liar but they're imbeciles and such stupid
statements should be expected.

>>> Boo fucking hoo.
>>>
>>> Well, we don't believe ANY of your far left winger websites either, so...
>>
>> BusinessInsider is "far left winger"?
>
> It's not? Hmmmm... I don't knooooooow.
>
> Business Insider Forced to Apologize for Falsely Claiming RNC Chairman
> Thinks Mitt Romney Is Racist
>
> Liberal media bias can turn up in some very unlikely places. One example
> of this concept is an article on the Business Insider website in which
> Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus was quoted as saying
> that the concept of illegal immigrants "self-deporting" back to their
> native countries -- as proposed by 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt
> Romney -- was "racist."
>
> "Business Insider does have a liberal slant. All you have to do is browse
> the headlines to see that they lean way to the left. To understand why,
> look at who founded the site; read the About page."

Baked Anus is getting _served_ , once more.

>>> Pathetic.
>>>
>>> I was right... $50,000 is NOT out of the realm of possibility. That's what
>>> I said, you were wrong for challenging me, now just turn and suck your
>>> partners' dick and leave it (what I said, not his dick) alone.
>>>
>>
>> No. You made it out to be the norm.
>
> Uh... no. Please find "norm" in this statement:
>
> "They can receive $50,000 of freebies but they cain't drive demsleves to
> the DMV?"
>
> RIIIIIIGHT.
>
>> So because some few can under some circumstances receive that much makes
>> it the norm you're implying?
>
> I "implied" that they CAN receive $50,000 of freebies. You then, INFERRED
> that I meant all welfare recipients made $50,000, which I did not.
>
> Give it up, liberal... we all can see that you have to LIE to make your
> point.

That's all that they are able to do.

[Gronk]

AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:04:38 -0700, Alan Baker says...
>
>>
>> On 2016-10-19 2:57 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:21:28 -0700 (PDT), Tom Sr. says...
>>>
>>>> *Donald Trump's Pants-on-Fire Claim of 'Large Scale Voter Fraud'*
>>>> by Linda Qiu
>>>> Monday, October 17th, 2016
>>>>
>>>> Donald Trump tripled down on his baseless claim
>>>
>>> Baseless?
>>>
>>> BASELESS?
>>>
>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>
>>> Because LINDA Qiu, whomever the fuck SHE is, says it's baseless, it's
>>> baseless?
>>>
>>> Jeez... you'll believe anything, ANY left wing idiot puts on the Internet.
>>>
>>> Do YOU have proof that's there's no voter fraud, homo?
>>>
>>> Let's hear it.
>>
>> Do you have any proof that the only fraud is in the Democrats favour?
>
> Not at all...

Looks like we're done here.

[Dänk 42Ø]

The argument of this thread seems illogical. We could say that because
only 31 Higgs Bosons have been discovered out of the quintillions of
particles in the universe, that the Higgs does not play a significant
role in the laws of physics. We assume that Higgs particles permeate
the universe, but we can't really prove it without inspecting every
single particle, just as we can't prove voter fraud occurred without
inspecting every single ballot and tracing it back to the person who
cast it and verifying it with him. This is impossible with a secret
ballot.

Recently I read an article about election fraud in some county in some
southern state that is notorious for it. So during a recent election,
where they were using electronic machines, some guy bet another guy
that a particular polling station would get about 600 voters. He
monitored the count meter and the final tally was 556. The next day
the elections office posted the results and listed the count for that
station as 330 (this was a predominantly black precinct, BTW). He
filed a complaint, and after investigating the election department
"found" the missing votes (how do you lose digital votes?). Not
quite the same as voter impersonation/multiple voting fraud, but
still an example that election fraud does occur in the USA -- in this
case by Republicans.