The Problem With Democrats

Voter Fraud?

Your point?

stockingfull wrote:Your point?

These mass mailings were sent out to unregistered Latino voters. How did the democrat party know the addresses of unregistered Latino voters? Only US government agencies have this info & they are not to be shared with political parties.

spc wrote:

stockingfull wrote:Your point?

These mass mailings were sent out to unregistered Latino voters. How did the democrat party know the addresses of unregistered Latino voters? Only US government agencies have this info & they are not to be shared with political parties.

I'm curious: how do you know that what you state about the origin and circulation of this letter is correct?

spc wrote:

stockingfull wrote:

spc wrote:These mass mailings were sent out to unregistered Latino voters. How did the democrat party know the addresses of unregistered Latino voters? Only US government agencies have this info & they are not to be shared with political parties.

I'm curious: how do you know that what you state about the origin and circulation of this letter is correct?

http://serb.org/serbia/indecision-2000- ... oundup.php

Now, there's a reliable-looking site!

The reason I asked is that the very face of the document you put up disproves your premise of fraud. Here's the relevent text:

Congratulations on your decision to register. Registering to vote is a basic responsibility of citizenship that far too many people ignore.

Now that you are registered:

* * * *

Remember: your vote is your voice.

Italics added.

The Clinton letter -- by its explicit terms -- was either sent to newly-registered voters or was part of a voter-registration package. Perhaps you should try reading these things before you accept what some whack-job site tells you they are.

Ya gotta watch out for that Kool-Aid, mon.

More red meat.

Great examples of the constitutional right of political free speech just raised on the McCain endorsement thread.

Having said that, the above health care assaults against Obama happen to be misleading in the extreme. I know because I represented the CFO of a not-for-profit hospital in a bankruptcy proceeding a few years back. Here's how the system works and why the whole premise of these very high production value smear ads is false:

All hospitals have cost structures for their services. "List prices" if you will. When HMO's began to become popular, they were no more expensive than traditional "major medical" insurance -- but they covered everything. How could they do that? By their initial low premiums, they gained control of the patient population, thus capturing the market and developing the clout to negotiate lower fees with all the medical providers in the system, doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, the whole gamut. With hospitals, the discounts the HMO's negotiate are called "contractual allowances." So, if the hospital's "list price" for a day in a semi-private room in a particular ward is, say, $1000, if a particular HMO negotiated a "contractual allowance" of 40% on that cost item, they'd only have to pay $600 for that day for their insured. If the hospital doesn't want to accept that rate, they risk not being on the approved list of hospitals for that HMO and, as the HMO's accumulated larger and larger groups of insureds, that would translate into the risk of going out of business, which we all know has happened a lot. Because the HMO's can crush them like the proverbial bug.

When uninsured people show up at hospitals, they are charged the "list price" for everything, whether they can pay or not. Is it unfair to uninsured patients? Sure, but it's not because these poor, uninsured folks are being charged more, it's because the HMO's have forced the hospitals to charge their insureds less.

The idea that Barack simply could "walk down the street" to the not-for-profit hospital where his wife serves on the Board and tell them to lower their "list prices" is absurd, for one thing because the "contractual allowances" may be somewhat different for various HMO's. If it were so easy to do, Hillary would have done it in 1993. It ain't.

Tough, grossly misleading ads. Will it stick? Time will tell.

I find it more disturbubing that college tution prices have risen 35% ( adjusted for inflation) while every other major business has gone up about 10% and yet nobody complains about Liberal Price Gouging. Why does academia get a pass while BIG OIL gets hammered on. Do colleges pay out 40% of their profits ? No, no they don't, but OIL does.

Here is a wake up call......On those "outlandish" 2006 profits, the company paid federal income taxes of $27.9 billion, leaving it with $39.5 billion in after-tax income. That $27.9 billion was more than was collected from half of individual taxpayers in 2004. In that year, 65 million returns — which represent far more than 65 million taxpayers because of joint returns — paid $27.4 billion in federal income taxes. And those taxes were paid on adjusted gross income of $922 billion, according to IRS data, yielding an average tax rate of 2.97%.
This year, according to Mark Perry, the economist who made this striking observation on the Seeking Alpha Web site, Exxon will pay $30 billion in taxes, at a 42% rate, leaving $40.6 billion in profit.

I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for the OIL industry, but they pay more and help more than any freaking college professor teaching our kids the value and virtue of Karl Marx.

stockingfull wrote:Ya gotta watch out for that Kool-Aid, mon.

Please enough with the kool-aid reference, you sound like Bill O'Reilly.

spc wrote:

stockingfull wrote:Ya gotta watch out for that Kool-Aid, mon.

Please enough with the kool-aid reference, you sound like Bill O'Reilly.

Now, THAT's a personal attack!!!

gaw wrote:Two Jackasses and a RINO running for president, I think I'll vote for Ralph

He didn't make the PA ballot last time. Doubt he will again. But screw it! I'm writing him in.

I voted green party in 2004 (don't even know who the candidate was) and saw that there were fewer than 2000 green party votes in PA. Stupid idealists ... don't they realize how IMPORTANT the vote is and not to waste in on someone you know can't win? I mean, just to vote for a platform you agree with instead of the less bad of the other options ...
jeez. some people.

pb

stockingfull wrote:

spc wrote:

stockingfull wrote:Ya gotta watch out for that Kool-Aid, mon.

Please enough with the kool-aid reference, you sound like Bill O'Reilly.

Now, THAT's a personal attack!!!

Well at least he didn't call him a douche bag! Now that's class,

coalkirk wrote:Well at least he didn't call him a douche bag! Now that's class,

Is that one word or two?

And, now that we've been reminded of the rules here, do you mean to direct that at me?

stockingfull wrote:

coalkirk wrote:Well at least he didn't call him a douche bag! Now that's class,

Is that one word or two?

And, now that we've been reminded of the rules here, do you mean to direct that at me?

No, I was quoting one of your posts from a few days ago when you called someone a douche bag and somehow managed to not get bounced. I think you should have been you see. Bad short term memory? Wonder what that's from?