Homeless "Driven" To Vote Obama

I despair that the media refuses to report on Obama, including some of the questionable tactics the Obama campaign has used in registering voters and financing his campaign.  Just as it was with George Bush, the negative information about Obama will likely come out AFTER THE ELECTION.  I haven't seen ONE news report about the investigation of ACORN.  I mentioned ACORN to several friends and they didn't know what I was talking about.

Yesterday, I was reading the CNN Ticker blogs and was disgusted at the hundreds of pro-Obama posts that complained about McCain's negative ad campaign.  Then, I read ONE blogger who provided a cite to a negative report about Obama that was immediately spinned as being a lie.  Apparently, EVERYTHING you say and write about Obama is a LIE.  It's unbelievable that YouTube does a better job of informing the public than The Today Show or The Morning Show or CBS.  Mainstream media is in cahoots with the Democrats to get Obama elected AT ALL COSTS.  McCain wouldn't have to run such a negative ad campaign if the media would just do its job.

Former Democrat, n/k/a Independent

Thats all over with. There were a few registration cards that were rejected but thats what election boards are supposed to do. Turns out they had such a response they hired temporaries who used phone books and sat on their behinds instead of doing what they were supposed to do. Move on had a much larger sontingent in that area and the rejection percaentages were about the same.

Contingent sorry

I'm not so sure McCain supporters are going to want to drive seniors to the polls, considering his positions with respect to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.  The Voter Guide published in this month's AARP Magazine, while non-partisan and containing no endorsements, is an interesting read for those interested in seniors' issues as well.

Many of the homeless are also veterans, a group the right claims to champion.

Before you McCain supporters start slamming those who abuse drugs have you forgotten that McCain's wife has already admitted drug abuse

 It's not uncommon for people to become addicted to their medications and I think it's a bit different than abusing illegal drugs, like your candidate Obama. Which I'm surprised he's even doing so because he didn't want Lindsay Lohan part of his campaign because she had abused drugs.

http://www.tmz.com/videos?mediaKey=9ac4ddfe-f7d8-48fc-8c77-ea7b161d3c43

Drug abuse is drug abuse, an addict is an addict no matter what drug (illegal or legal) they are using.  Are you saying people who abuse medications don't end up in rehab?   Are you saying people who start abusing medications are incapable of becoming illegal drug users?  You probably think cocaine users are different than crack users.  I don't agree with anyone that abuses any type of drug but I do think they should be allowed to vote.  Until the law says otherwise.  I'm sure if the assumption was that these people were voting for McCain you would have no issue with it.

iluvmyblog, Please explain to me the difference between abusing illegal drugs and abusing legal drugs illegally. I assure you that a sentencing judge will be quite interested in your answer.... before sentencing.

The thing that disgusts me is the intellectual dishonesty that is being displayed; I won't say that Obama is virgin white in this department, but McCain absoutely stinks to heaven.

There are essentially two groups in this or any other election: those that would vote their party even if Hitler were the candidate, and those that will vote the issues. McCain is doing a fantastic job at energizing those who are going to vote for him anyway... he has done nothing to get the vote of people like me, who just want the country to improve, and don't much care who does it. Let me qualify that further: I would vote any person - any race, gender, religion, sexual preference or other factor - if they would simply shut up and fix Medicare, Social Security, the national debt, the deficit, the war, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...

Rob M-472678 & Azzix,

OK, first my comment was in response to Rob calling out Cindy McCain for abusing drugs. Now, I think it is wrong for anyone to abuse drugs whether they are legal or not. I think it's worse for someone to purposely seek out an illegal drug, than a person like Cindy who became addicted to her prescribed medication. I'm not condoning it what so ever, I'm just saying that how can Obama supporters try and rag on Cindy about abusing her medication when Obama has smoked pot as well as did Cocaine.

I also think it's hypocritical of the Obama camp to seek out drug abusers when Obama did not allow Lindsay to contribute her support for him because she has done drugs.

I wasn't calling out Cindy McCain, she did that herself in various interviews and speeches.  I was only pointing out that some people(McCain supporters) are implying in their comments that drug users voting is such a horrible thing.   I don't care what drugs you have used or abused; if you're a US citizen you have a right to vote.   Also, having someone endorse a candidate publicly is very different then allowing grass roots campaign workers assist people to exercise their right to vote by providing transportation.  If these workers are telling them to only vote for Obama then yes they are wrong.  But listening to Obama supporters recent comments they're telling people to register and exercise their right to vote regardless of who they vote for.  I'm sure this isn't the opinion of the McCain camp since they will probably benefit from the overwhelming amount of new registered voters not casting a vote.  Most people in difficult situations today will probably vote for Obama.  If McCain had campaigned on issues affecting these people then maybe he would be getting their votes.

I  wasn't calling out Cindy McCain

So when you said...

Before you McCain supporters start slamming those who abuse drugs have you forgotten that McCain's wife has already admitted drug abuse

That wasn't calling her out...? Why not mention Obama and his drug use?

 This article is about Obama's camp making some desperate attempt for more votes by picking up people at homeless shelters, soup kitchens and drug-rehab centers. In which I think is hypocritical in regards to the drug-rehab centers ,  because he was against Lindsay's support for him because of her drug abuse/behavior because of her drug abuse. 

Lindsay Lohan wanted to stump for Barack Obama, but was turned down with a polite ''thanks, but no thanks,'' the Chicago Sun-Times reports.

The trouble-prone actress offered to host a series of events aimed at younger voters, but the Democratic presidential candidate's camp wasn't interested, the paper says.

Lohan ''is not exactly the kind of high-profile star who would be a positive for us," a top source on the Obama team told the paper.

So it's OK to get a person that's in drug rehab vote, but not allow Lindsay's support for him. He's supposed to be about change, and giving people second chances , no...

Forget the fact that Cindy did drugs and focus on the fact that she stole them from her own childrens charity. Please Explain why thats "ok".

Forget the fact that Cindy did drugs and focus on the fact that she stole them from her own childrens charity. Please Explain why thats "ok".

Actually, she was first prescribed them for her back problems in which she had surgery for. She became addicted to them and did steal from the charity , which is never OK. So if you expect me to say it's OK, don't hold your breath. It wasn't OK in the first place to abuse them, more less steal them.

You seem to be over looking the hypocrisy in the Obama camp, hence why y'all are focused on bringing up Cindy McCain's past addictions, and acting as if Obama hasn't done illegal drugs. Are you saying it's OK for Obama to smoke pot and do cocaine? 

I don't think who did what drugs and who was involved with which people, etc. are the important part.

Personally, the more important point that is that the Obama camp has not brought these kinds of things up against McCain, while the McCain campaign is launching a vicious attack on character. It would be easy to discredit McCain's integrity from his abandonment of his first marriage, the alienation of his children, Cindy's drug addiction, Palin's children and associations with the Alaskan Independence Party, etc.

But those aren't the issues. I honestly could give a hoot about McCain's personal life, or that of Palin's. I think most people don't. The democratic campaign is smart and sticking to the economy, the plans for the future instead of committing political suicide via character homicide.

Just so it's clear, I personally have never and never will bring up the issue of drug use by either candidate, their surrogates, their children, their housekeepers or their family pets.

Can we please get back to discussing how the candidates plan to fix Social Security? The War? The debt?

and there is nothing illegal about it.......For whatever reason, those who support McCain here are content on finding any way to smear Obama because they just plain HATE him.  They bring up ACORN, even though there's no issue there.  They bring up Rezko, even though Obama admitted that he handled it wrong and apologized, but was otherwise open about it.  They bring up Ayers, even though any "relationship" between he and Obama was virtually non-existant AND Ayers is now a distinguished professor.  They bring up Rev. Wright, though Obama was never present at any of his "God Damn America" sermons, AND he denounced him publically, quit the church and condemned his comments.  They bring up his name and his FATHER, who did not raise Obama.  They bring up his "questionable" citizenry, even though his birth certificate, issued by Hawaii has been posted online, inspected, verified and in all other ways, authenticated.  They bring up his lack of experience, yet don't bother to review his record.  They can't win on the issues, so they resort to hit pieces and cite cources such as The Weekly Standard, NRO, Little Green Footballs, FoxNews and the New York Post...They've got nothing but their racism, bigotry and hatred. - In short, they are pathetic.

Yes, those dang "community organizers" -- next thing you know people will be banding together to feed people in need. Wait! That's what Meals on Wheels and Food Banks do....

The humanity. How dare we treat the less fortunate as citizens and help them in any way. What an atrocity,

If you click some of these negative posters name you will see they just joined newsvine.

And I've noticed those folks.  I didn't want to derail the conversation more than to ask Dr. Danny what I've asked him up there. 

They just joined??? Imagine that. Now I'll have to put on my liberal rose colored glasses lest they influence me to change my weak little mind and vote for McCain.

... lest they influence me to change my weak little mind and vote for McCain.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step toward recovery.

Well, here's how I see it.  I apologize for not using the whole quote, but in my opinion the context isn't really lost.  The problem with that humor is that sometimes it doesn't translate well across this medium, when you see people that honestly have views such as that.

I saw it applicable sans the humor due to the content of the article being left vs. right in nature.  Sorry to hijack the thread a little bit.

Whether or not the quote is out of context, the salient, offensive portion was quoted. It takes an unarguably insightful statement ("A wise man changes his ideas to suit the truth") and tacks on a subjective, unprovable character assasantion ("Rush Limbaugh changes the truth to suit his ideas").

The quote is offensive to whoever the target of the second sentence is, period.

So they should leave that to the Republicans is what you're saying?

You can tell anyone to vote for anyone, hell, the candidates straight up ask you that all of the time.  They're not forcing them to vote, or even forcing them to vote Obama, they're enabling them to vote.  Unless they go into a booth with them and make the vote for them, there is nothing wrong here.  Poor folks should be allowed to vote too.

You must be reading the same newspapers and magazines as Palin. None of them.

His so called 'ties' to radicals groups are all that is in the media since last Friday, and before that, in the primaries. And the 'ties' were found to be lacking a thing we call relevancy and often times, blown way out of proportion.

So come on news media, grow a pair and start reporting about Obama's questionable record and past so that we know as a country what kind of person or thing that this Obama is or made out of.

Agreed.

I'll just be glad when one day the future of this nation is not based on events in the moronic states of Ohio and FL, where they can never seem to get their act together on voting.

Good job, if only everyone could be so helpful.  Notice how he didn't just leave the folks despite the fact that they voted against his candidate folks?  Learn a lesson there.  Whether you vote Obama or McCain, the people voting against your candidate are still Americans and should be treated as such.

Thanks again simmons.

Simmons, you have renewed my faith in my fellow man.  If only we could be sure that all of the volunteers are acting as responsibly.   Hope you find more of those Republicans - be sure and pick them up.

I'll just be glad when one day the future of this nation is not based on events in the moronic states of Ohio and FL, where they can never seem to get their act together on voting.

Jazzman...I am insulted and do not feel that you should characterize entire states populations  by the actions of a few misguided...

I am one of the dems working  to make sure that the repubs do not steal the election this year.  There are many folks working here in OHIO for fair elections..
I don't know what utopia you are from but here in OHIO we are working on our issues.

janice22

trust and believe that for every repub I take I keep driving until I figure I have canceled them out 2 to 1........:-)

I don't know what utopia you are from but here in OHIO we are working on our issues.

no offense Bro, but Ohio and Fl have been working on their issues for the last 2 presidential elections, I'm just wondering when those issues will finally be resolved.

But I do seriously applaud and support your personal efforts to stop voter fraud there in Ohio.

Keep up the fight!!!

moronic states of Ohio and FL

(O_o)

Wow.

I keep driving until I figure I have canceled them out 2 to 1........:-)

I am insulted and do not feel that you should characterize entire states populations  by the actions of a few misguided...

'nough said.  Non-partisan.  Right.

ElliePhat

'nough said.  Non-partisan.  Right.

I'm sorry did I say I was not partisan?

I am a proud Obama supporter who believes that eveyone should have the right to their vote...

Is there a problem with that?

By the way I am also a proud FEMALE!!!

Simmons, my apologies.  The first line of this thread, indeed, states that these are Obama supporters.  The rash of fraud that has been occuring in ACORN and other "non-partisan" voter registration groups favoring Obama is what I was thinking of.  I'll read more closely next time (and try not to end my sentences with prepositions).  :-)

As a proud Obama volunteer we are not swaying votes we are helping make sure people vote.

I was downtown Cleveland yesterday for about 3 hours, sitting at an outside table in a local Bistro...and I watched the NCAAP group approaching people, trying to talk them into voting right now, offering to take them where ever they wanted to go.  For 3 hours I sat there watching and was never approached.  Why?  Because the only people being approached were black.  One of the lines I over heard being used, "This is the first time in your life you have the chance to vote for a black man for president."

No....not swaying at all...right!

Here is how non-partisan some of these workers are:

http://vodpod.com/watch/1060573-how-obama-is-stealing-the-vote-in-ohio-

lol, I can't believe my sarcastic comment got the green star.

Scary, Repubs, SCARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the Republicans are really concerned that Democrats help the homeless vote then they should support policiies that reduce homelessness.

Common Sense Mike

Saw a local news story this morning that said these groups have been picking up homeless people in Michigan and driving them to Ohio so they can vote for Obama.  I've never seen such an attempt to steal an election before!  Chicago style politics come to Ohio.

I am Jeremiah Johnson and I am calling B.S. on this post and demanding it be taken down if there is no proof of this story. The local news will have been archived for everyone here to see, read, or listen to.

Go fetch

It was during the first hour this morning:

http://www.wtam.com/pages/bobfrantz/ondemand/

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/260632

http://palestra.net/videos/play/16469

How about this one where our beloved congressman "Kook"cinish says it's ok to vote in Ohio even if your not a resident.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XsrTraXYqM&feature=user

Why is it that people say whatever they want about McCain and Palin with no proof, but when you tell the truth about something that reflects poorly on Obama......all these shouts of PROVE IT....YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT.......come out of left field? 

Now since you have made demands that my post should be removed if not proven, how about passing it around to everyone now that it has......Jeremiah Johnson

Common Sense Mike

I really appreciate you wasting my very valuable time with this post of yours.

No where in any of your links is there one single shred of evidence supporting your contention that Volunteers are busing in voters from the state of Michigan or any other state to vote in Ohio.

Secondly, In this video  the reporter from Faux News Network intentionally tried to trip up the volunteer, Mary Latham of Faith Vote Columbus and she got it at the 51 second mark and denied the reporters leading question.

I am Jeremiah Johnson and you should be ashamed of yourself trying to pass this off as proof on NewsVine where you know sooner or later you're going to get caught.

Hey Mr Johnson, that's your opinion and your welcome to it.  I doubt there is anything I can say that will change your mind.  You sir have apparently made the decision that your voting for Mr. Obama, and you have the right to vote for whoever you want.

I still haven't made a decision yet.  I see Mr. Obama as a Marxist presenting Socialism as his choice.....I see McCain as what used to be considered a typical Democrat ready to buy everybody a house.....and those of us who lean to the right and call ourselves conseratives really have no one to vote for this election.

But regardless how things turn out, I would like to see it be fair.  I'd like to see everybody vote...but only once.  I want to see every vote counted...but only once for each individual. 

Now I feel certain there is a high probability that you feel Bush has stolen the last two elections...right?  I know there are many Obama supporters that feel that way, even if you do or don't.  And since this feeling exsist, even though it's been investigated over and over and over and proven to be false, some feel they have to do what ever it takes to make certain Bush doesn't "steal" another election.....so they use this as justification for an "anything goes" mentality.  Personally I find it a bit funny how easily some of these people are lead.  Fall for anything, stand for nothing.  It's like you believing the lady in the video was tricked.....where did that come from?  Nevermind...who cares. 

I suppose what I am saying is, believe what you want, vote for whom ever you want.  After all, your Jeremiah Johnson, at lest I think you are.....and that's the only thing that matters, right?  As far as the vine goes, it's owned by MSNBC, and yes, I suspect sooner or later I will say something that one of your "Comrades In Charge" won't like and I will be punished....lol  I am so scared.  I find it funny that people like yourself complain about FOX, but find MSNBC and CNN to be acceptable....lol  I suppose that is why FOX has 9 of the top 10 shows on cable, while MSNBC ranks 26th over all.  I suppose that is why the morning show on FOX generates more viewers, than the entire MSNBC network all put together.  Because the majority of Americans can see something, you either can't see, or are unwilling to see. 

Peace Out!

Common Sense Mike...just wanted you to know I was originally aggravated at the whole McCain wanting to refinance all these loans too. Today after doing some research it has been mentioned that he is not considering adding more money to the package that has already passed, but rather that there is enough money there to do what he proposes. You might want to see what you can find out about it but that's what I've discovered so far.

Chicago style politics come to Ohio.

You Republicans keep this up, you are going to lose the Chicago vote.

Like there are enough Republicans in Chicago to out vote all the dead people from grave yards that vote there.

Typical Republican tactic. If you can't win on the issues, distract with nonsense.

luckydog......know what Obama and Bin Laden have in common?

Both have close associates that have bombed the pentagon.

luckydog......know what Obama and Bin Laden have in common?

Both have close associates that have bombed the pentagon.

Do you know what McCain supporters and mushrooms have in common? Think about it.

Except Obama wouldn't win on the issues. It's just the American electorate in general prefer American Idol style politics to getting bogged down in the issues. That's why issues really haven't featured much at all. My articles and seeds that focus on the issues get about one-tenth of the traffic that my seeds on character issues get.

Dr. Danny - I understand that invective gets more attention than substance but when it is used it promotes like responses (see my #12.6 in response to #12.4) and accomplishes little except to alienate responsible voters who would like answers to real questions on the issues. This article isn't an issue but a smear.

If you can't win on the issues, distract with nonsense.

That is what Obama is doing and the Obama camp does. .

Do you know what McCain supporters and mushrooms have in common?

Gee. Are you attempting to distract from the issues with nonsensical statements and-or personal attacks?

Simply responding in kind Shaun.

Obama is winning quite nicely on the issues thank you very much which is why McCain is throwing mud hoping some will stick. Judging from the polls though it seems to be having a reverse effect.

What issues is he winning on? 

Agree with him or not, the issue he's winning on is the economy and, as in 1992, "its the economy stupid" and mostly the economy that matters.

With credit markets seized, an irrelevant and incompetent  incumbent Republican president, the Republican party having held the White House for 20 of the last 28 years and the Congress for 12 of the last 14, swiss cheese and wishlist or not, the wind is not being blown-up from the campaigns so much as from the palpable fear in the heartland.

Let's forget what happened in the past, this is an election about the future.

I don't think voters are concerned about what happened in the past--it is what's happening right now that is why the economy is the predominant issue.

Since Ronald Reagan brought back the non-Augustinian view of government back into vogue, the Republican Party has been spouting that government isn't the solution but the problem.  Palin said exactly that as recently as last Thursday--if not since.

Free markets are the engine of our well being, but the do have inherent flaws. They tend toward oligopoly and concentrations of wealth and, through wealth, political power. For a generation, the policies that the Republican Party represents as its own possessions have ruled the day, but the events of the last 30 days have demonstrated that there is also a role for the state to intervene: to  rebuild the firewalls between the markets that serve mainstreat (home mortgages, small business loans) and the highly speculative markets that investment banks play in.  That was the lesson learned after the 1929 financial meltdown and resultant depression and institutionalized into protective regulations--the very regulations that have been slowly and systematically disabled during John McCain's 25 years serving on Capitol Hill--every single one of which (deregulations) McCain voted for.

So, if you want to talk about the future, whom do you think should lead us into it: the very guy who got us into the present mess or somebody, anybody else?

I await your polemical reply.

I didn't say you should vote for him. I'm not.

You asked why he's winning and I gave you my postulations as to why. You asked what policies does Obama have that make for a better future economy than McCain: I responded that he's not McCain or at least not as culpable as McCain for the mess we're in. You asked what other policies Obama will win on, to which I replied it is all about the economy.

I was just knee-jerking to your flat denial that a candidate you disfavor has anything to offer. He's moved ahead by  eight or ten percent--if one believes polls, in the last few weeks. The explanation is that people are attributing the currently unfolding financial disaster more to McCain than to Obama.

I was also pontificating on what has to be an economic lesson relearned from all this--that the state must intervene to protect the markets through certain limited permanent regulation.

I'll admit to postulating, knee-jerking and pontificating, but do you think I was polemicising too?  Is polemicising a real word?

I'm not making an argument for myself, just suggesting to you the argument that is being made. If you go to Open Secrets, you can find some interesting information about which three investment banks that have been in the news lately are among Obama's top six donors and how many hundreds of thousands of dollars each has given.

It's one thing to say you'll be a new kind of politician.  It's completely another to crawl around in the beds of the very people you claim need to be exorcised from the system as you are saying it.

On a personal note, McCain's seemingly impulsive and politically posturing reactions to the financial meltdown--suspending campaign to go to Washington, not going there for a full day, trying to claim credit for a resolution he had nothing to do with, blaming Obama for the Republicans in the House killing the deal, saying he'd support no agreement "but the final one," etc.  was a poor showing.  He looked like a guy who was standing outside of the process to solve the problem but close enough to jump in and claim credit.  That we all saw on TV and Obama's argument is enhanced by it. I fear McCain's growing angry old man act will further undermine his credibility.  He's in a tough spot---or so it seems today.

How is he winning? What economic policies does Obama have that are better than McCain's? Let's forget what happened in the past, this is an election about the future. What policies does Obama have that make for a better future economy than McCain? In addition, what other policies does Obama win on?

You state that the past doesn't matter, that voters don't and shouldn't care about it; well I am not surprised given what a train wreck conservative theorys have brought us. I can why you want us to get amnesia and just forget what a disaster a Republican congress (12 years) and a Republican president (8 years) have brought us.

Under McCain we would have much of the same that we have had. A belligerent foreign policy that foments unrest throughout the world and costs us lives and treasure. McCain is a danger to Social Security. Remember how he wanted to privitize it? Obama has a health care plan that will work although I am sure it will be modified by congressional imput but McCain's health plan makes the problem worse. Commanders are begging for more troops in Afghanistan a position that Obama has long held. McCain sees Iraq as the central front in the war on terrorism. Absolute stupidity. McCain thinks the economy is strong, Obama sees the economy has been hollowed out by Republican policies. Is that enough detail for you. Agree or disagree but Obama has a plan and it has been well publicized so quit pretending he has no plan.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Read this article

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/12/banking.reform/index.html

and this one

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml

and notice the dates. This has been coming on for more than 8 years - and both Democrats AND Republicans are to blame! I'm sick of hearing how all this has come about only in the last 8 years and it being blamed all on Bush. The man is not a dictator - he has a whole system of government and a Democratic congress for the last two years helping him to screw up whatever's been screwed up.

Ladybug, you're absolutely right when you say there is plenty of blame to go around.

Let's not forget that more or less, 'pubs and dems are merely brands; Ford doesn't hate GM. They might compete, but there's plenty of pie for everyone.

However, George W is the boss, and the buck stops there. Whether or not it's his fault , it is undeniably his responsibility.

Ladybug,

from your link http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/12/banking.reform/index.html

And up until a few weeks ago, the Clinton Administration itself had threatened a veto of the legislation as it took various forms that raised a series of White House objections. In recent months, the administration objected most sharply to the issue of rules requiring that banks make loans in minority and low-income communities where they operate.

Gramm, an outspoken conservative who opposes the rules, last year managed to kill a similar bill that would have overhauled the community lending laws. The White House insisted that banks be required to have a strong track record in local loan-making as a condition for being allowed to expand into other financial activities.

Interestingly, while Bill Clinton did sign the bill, look at its history and its main proponent.

The world changes, and Congress and the laws have to change with it," said Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm (R-Texas), who has fought for years for the overhaul. Gramm said the bill would improve banking competition and stability.

Well, we see how well that turned out, huh?

Interestingly again... the bill passes soon after the Congress of the USA was reformed with a Republican Majority that came about because of "The Contract On America"

See below:

The overhaul measure is one of the few major pieces of bipartisan legislation to emerge from the Republican-controlled Congress this year.

I am Jeremiah Johnson and I believe that even though both houses of Congress are responsible for this bill, It was in the works for years and apparently has it's Genesis in the Ronald Reagan Administration and is probably a part of George Herbert Walker Bush's plan for "It's a Big Idea: A New World Order"

i can sleep better at night now knowing my government controls my paycheck, how's about you?

Jeremiah Johnson - you are missing the point.Here, try this one

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac0a96f958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

from 1999 warning that there was going to have to be a bailout because the Clinton Administration was putting pressure on Fannie Mae to buy sub-prime mortgages - why may you ask...well, because everything has to be fair and equal. Poor people should be able to buy more house than they can afford!You just can't prove this is all some evil Republican plot. It's a major government screw up and both parties are responsible. And all of us Americans set by and let them do it while we were living in our little worlds.

Azzix - good point, however I would disagree with you on one issue. George Bush was not the only person in our government that has RESPONSIBILITY for this. It has been coming for a long time. All of the people in government while this was coming down the pipe bear some of the responsibility. We are talking about a system here...not a dictator with absolute power to decide every law or change every law.

We are talking about a system here...not a dictator with absolute power to decide every law or change every law.

I guess you haven't heard about his use of signing statements. Failure to enforce rules and regulations is tantamount to changing the laws passed by congress. That Bush has abused his power as president is hardly in dispute anymore except by the most partisan Bush zelots.

Oh gosh...is anyone - ANYONE - actually reading these posts? Did you check out the link lucky dog? Crucify Bush if you want - I'm not saying he did everything right (and if you think I did please point out where because I sure didn't mean to). But for gosh sakes don't act like you honestly believe this is all his fault. And we aren't discussing whether Bush 'abused his power as president'...we are discussing how we got into this financial mess we are in. I think somehow I switched conversations.

Constantly harping on how Bush abused his power has been given up by everyone except the most liberal Bush haters.

And before you jump all over me for being a McCain supporter I actually have issues with both candidates. But for goodness sake I cannot believe that as American's we honestly think this is all one party's, or one man's fault. That is actually the scariest part.

Ladybug331 ,

I read enough. The Clinton Administration originally opposed the legislation. I then posted the necessary information from your link that shows that opposition changing to a support.

I am Jeremiah Johnson and I believe that even though Clinton originally opposed the legislation and then supported it is not enough to lay the blame for this mess upon that man's shoulders when it can be clearly shown that Conservative Republicans pushed for this legislation for years and years until they finally got their way in the disrupted and unbalanced Congress after their "Contract On America" came to fruition.

Azzix - good point, however I would disagree with you on one issue. George Bush was not the only person in our government that has RESPONSIBILITY for this. It has been coming for a long time. All of the people in government while this was coming down the pipe bear some of the responsibility. We are talking about a system here...not a dictator with absolute power to decide every law or change every law.

Respectfully Ladybug, I must disagree. While there is plenty of blame to be laid all around, responsibility stops with The President, full stop, whomever that president is, right or wrong, justly or unjustly. It's important to distinguish between blame and responsibility.

In my business, I am responsible for everything that happens, even if it happens in the California plant and I work out the corporate headquarters in Texas. Even if I don't know the person who started the mess. I assure you my board feels the same.

The fact of the matter is that it appears to me that no one did or could have foreseen this. At the time this was done it seemed like a good idea. I have seen no evidence or accusations that these rule changes were promulgated by those with a direct profit opportunity. It appears even now that these rule changes were put forth with the best of intentions. It just so happens they were wrong.

The more power a person has, the greater the impact of any mistakes they make.

In a side note, I hope you would agree that I am not one of those partisans that find any excuse to blame the other guy. As disgusted as I am with the Bush presidency, I intended to vote for McCain until it became clearer and clearer that he simply lacks the vision America so desperately needs.

94% of us agree that we do not like the direction our country is taking. At this point in time, I'll take a chance on a relatively inexperienced idealist over a experienced cynic, especially since Obama has over the course of this campaign demonstrated his ability to lead to my satisfaction and overcome my concerns about his relative lack of experience.

A great comment and I fully concur. I would only add that less than 3 weeks ago McCain stated that the economy is fundamentally sound. I would categorize anybody that made that statement this recently as fundamentally out of touch with reality.

Well guys - thanks for the respectful conversation but I think we are beating the proverbial 'dead horse'...I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Just a note. Azzix I really appreciate your approaching this logically and not making it personal. If you will check out the last article I posted from the New York Times which actually was published in 1999, you will see that they mention that should economic times grow harder...a government bailout might come to be needed. So, in my opinion it was forseeable. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20!

Thanks guys! I'm outta here - may every person vote according to their conscience, and may God be with us. I'm afraid we're gonna need him!

Explain how helping people get to voting stations is in anyway shape or form remotely close to caging votes.

andddddddddd.....go!

I don't protest taking them to vote. Lots of people need a ride to the polls. I protest them voting illegally BEFORE their address is verified or without proper indentification. On the news they even said they registered a guy to vote from another STATE for heavens sake.

Caging does not incidentally keep anyone from voting...AND even though you weren't on the board where this was being discussed I do not CONDONE caging votes. But if you are a Democrat, you should be outraged at any sort of voter fraud. Not only the ones that don't help your party.

It's easy to explain.....these are the people doing it:

http://vodpod.com/watch/1060573-how-obama-is-stealing-the-vote-in-ohio

Not only this but they are riding around in vans and buses with Obama posters all over the side of them. There are reports that these buses and vans are going into Michigan and cleaning out the homeless shelters and bringing them into Ohio so they can vote for Obama.

Thank you Common Sense Mike! And I like your name - and you appear to have some of it!

 I protest them voting illegally BEFORE their address is verified or without proper indentification.

Since they live in local shelters and they are rather obviously off age, do you think they aren't legally qualified to vote? If there is no doubt of their residency, do you think their right to vote should be mooted because something isn't properly verified?  Isn't the most important thing that ever citizen get to vote?  When does process override that value?

Whenever it's against the law...or you are doing something that is against the law.

I have no problem with people in shelter's voting BTW...but the process was circumvented on PURPOSE to CHEAT. Everyone wants to rationalize it which is typical...but there is right and there is wrong.

I don't think it's right to cage voters and spoke against it even though it was my party being accused. I'm certainly not going to be convinced by a "but they were poor and need help" excuse to rationalize cheating in the opposite party.

It's not even just the shelter and/or homeless (which incidentally I hope these homeless people got some input for their decision besides the driver saying "vote for Obama because he's going to save you" - not like they probably have access to a lot of television) thing that bothers me. It's the double standard and rationalization. Have you seen what's come out since then about what is going on? My gosh - how can a party that screams about caging votes stoop so low and then rationalize it? It makes no sense to me. But that's just my personal feelings on the whole issue. Everyone is entitled to their own.

 There are reports that these buses and vans are going into Michigan and cleaning out the homeless shelters and bringing them into Ohio so they can vote for Obama.

There are reports? Man that is good enough for you.

Rumors are just that until they are proved by something called "evidence".

 but they were poor and need help" excuse to rationalize cheating in the opposite party.

Let's try and not see it through partisan eyes for a second. Neither party should cheat. Both due.

Shouldn't we take the importance of voting more seriously generically? Should not a democracy treat votes with more respect than the US does?

Should not voting rules make sense?  Should not the rules promote involvement rather than create artificial barriers designed to discourage voting?  Isn't the existence of those barriers proof that we are unworthy of our national democratic legacy?

Should not vote cheating by a high felony punished viciously to discourage it? Should all laws by standard throughout the nation based on a rational effort to encourage optimal participation--as they are in a score of other nations today?

Aren't all of us here participating in mutual finger-pointing rationalization and counter rationalization of vote cheating just a bunch of gormless and worthless appendages on the excretory vent of a political system that we've allowed to become so partisanized the we can no longer still be called democrats or even republicans--in the nonpartisan sense of those words?  Isn't all that is important to many of the people here, who'll win:  everything else can be rationalized, all standards can be abandoned, so long as your preferred candidate prevails?

Isn't the propery description of American democracy in the early 21st Century not Lincoln's description of it but rather that we've reduced it to a team sport?

L.E. - I agree with you.

I see part of the problem as that we have stayed back in our own little worlds and to some extent have forgotten that government was supposed to be, of the people, by the people and for the people. We just let them have the power...and we allowed ourselves to become just as partisan as our government. We were happy for them to manage and take care of it and it was fine for us to complain but maybe we didn't realize what we could do, or we felt powerless to do anything.

But we can stand up for right no matter what party we are in, and cheating is not right no matter how you try to make it so. If how many people/which people can vote is a problem, lets start working on it now before the next election. I don't have a problem with that.

I really like you description of it as a 'team sport'...that is about what it's become.

Awhile back the Dems were screaming at the top of their lungs

Stopped reading at this point. I see this a lot on NV -- an attempt to paint opposing parties (either Democrat or Republican) as irrational and wild via the use of the words "scream," "howl," "yell" etc.

I suggest that you stop making such derogatory comments if you want your opinion to be taken seriously.

How is describing how they were expressing themselves a derogatory comment? I didn't say they were dumb, or even that they shouldn't have been yelling. Only suggested they were vehement about the Republicans cheating. In fact IF you would have read on I said that I agreed with them - the Republicans shouldn't have been cheating.

If you stopped reading then you missed some great conversation! Oh well, your prerogative! I suggest that you stop presuming you know everything about what a person thinks and putting them in boxes just because of one sentence. It also might make people want to hear your opinion if you quit acting superior. I can't believe one snide comment was the most you had to offer on this conversation. In that case you taking me seriously isn't very important then is it?

I'm outta here. You people have fun!

You really think this is about caring for the poor?  Really?

I'd say it's one side caring about getting elected......has nothing to do with caring about the poor!

 I'd say it's one side caring about getting elected......has nothing to do with caring about the poor!

So does that make helping them vote turn into a bad thing?

Interesting how much cynicism plays in depending on one's personal agenda.

 Interesting how much cynicism plays in depending on one's personal agenda.

Well, your judgmentalism is clear, but you fail to articulate a point that anybody can grasp and hold.

Oh, I felt it was pretty straight forward. It's something we undeniably see all the time on NV, from all kinds of opinions.

Ex:
- you're only voting for Obama because you're a guilt-ridden white!
- you're only voting for McCain because you're a racist and a bigot!
- registration for homeless people is about votes, not about caring!

You see? Pretty simple concept, now matter how much you try to debunk it.

I'd say it's one side caring about getting elected......has nothing to do with caring about the poor!

I'd agree. I'd also say it's irrelevant.

First off, if those people didn't have votes to offer I highly doubt you'd see either of the campaigns giving them a second look, and that's why I believe it has little to do with caring about the homeless.

But it's also irrelevant if it's somewhat cynical. At worst it's a symbiotic relationship where both parties benefit.

Darn, if I'd have read your synopsis if most of what's here I could have just foregone slogging through all the mutual recriminations and baiting.

I apologize for the judgmentalism thing. Objectivity can seem judgmental to someone swimming in a sea of partisan subjectivity.

S'ok. I am admittedly an independent and a liberal, for the purposes of full disclosure, but a moderate one and extremism on either side of the proverbial "aisle" seriously turns me off.

Zing!

It's amazing to me how people run around screaming that elections are stolen when they lose, but more than willing to condone voter fraud if it helps them .

There you go... fixed that for ya. No charge for the intellectual honesty.

People who sign up voters get sometimes get paid for doing so, so who are they really hurting? The people that are paying them! These phony, dead voters are not voting. Very few cases of voter fraud are ever prosecuted. Now election fraud is a different issue. When 30,000 legetimate votes go missing that is a hell of a big deal and a real danger to our Democracy no matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent or some other party.