Page 16 of 25 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 241

Thread: Debbie Wasserman Schultz on COL recall: 'Voter Suppression, Pure and Simple’

  1. #151
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:39 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,853

    Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz on COL recall: 'Voter Suppression, Pure and Simple’

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Every clever deception has some sliver of truth mixed in...So while some of the factual things DWS spoke of may indeed be a contributing factor to the loss, it is the rhetorical use of deceptive exaggeration that makes her dishonest.
    What does that even mean? If Wasserman reports the facts about the election - that by its very nature is not deceptive.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  2. #152
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz on COL recall: 'Voter Suppression, Pure and Simple’

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    OK prove me wrong......

    Yes, some people qualified for communications subsidies for a while now (progressive idea of course) however, people are getting free ****ing cell phones presently under the stimulus er "new CRA."



    Are you trying to tell me a video from James O'Keefe proves anything? LOL


    Conservative activist James O'Keefe released a new highly edited video that he's using to suggest there are widespread problems with a government program that provides phones and phone service to low-income Americans.

    The Lifeline phone program, which according to the Federal Communications Commission "provides discounts on monthly telephone service for eligible low-income consumers to help ensure they have the opportunities and security that telephone service affords, including being able to connect to jobs, family, and 911 services," has existed for decades and was expanded to include cell phones during the Bush administration. Conservatives have criticized the program repeatedly, which they have called the "Obama phone" for years.

    O'Keefe's video, which coincides with the launch of his self-congratulatory book, purports to show O'Keefe's actors receiving free cell phones after telling employees of a wireless phone company that they plan to sell the phones to pay for drugs, other purchases, or bills. The edited video includes a narration by O'Keefe asking if the employees would tell his actors "to sell the phones and break the law."

    The raw footage that O'Keefe also released doesn't show any of the featured employees telling the actors to sell their free phones, despite the actors repeatedly saying that they intend to do so and asking about their resale value. As New York magazine's Jonathan Chait explained, the employees only acknowledged that personal property, in the form of these cell phones, can be sold by their owners to buy other things. The raw footage also shows that none of the actors actually received a free phone -- only information about how they could apply for a free phone and the eligibility requirements to receive one, with the actors walking away saying they'd bring their documentation later.

    But O'Keefe's edited video is fulfilling its intended effect and is fooling right-wing media. The Daily Mail Online's David Martosko, who wrote the exclusive article about O'Keefe's video, falsely wrote in his headline that the video "catches wireless employees passing out 'Obama phones' to people who say they'll sell them for drugs, shoes, handbags and spending cash." Martosko again wrote that the video:

    [S]hows two corporate distributors of free cell phones handing out the mobile devices to people who have promised to sell them for drug money, to buy shoes and handbags, to pay off their bills, or just for extra spending cash.

    Again, the raw footage shows that the actors who stated their intention to sell free phones for these reasons never actually received phones.

    Fox News has teased a segment on the O'Keefe video for Tuesday's edition of The O'Reilly Factor. Will Fox fall for O'Keefe's misleading framing?

    Right-Wing Media Already Falling For O'Keefe's Latest Smear Campaign | Blog | Media Matters for America

    And there is Factcheck.org

    Griffin's video focuses on Lifeline, a federally mandated program that reimburses phone companies with a monthly subsidy of $9.25 for each low-income customer who uses a landline or a cell phone. The program has allowed millions of persons living under or just above the poverty line to acquire cell phones -- once considered a luxury -- for free.

    Lifeline is funded by telecom customers who pay a universal service fee as part of their phone bills. The fee technically is not a tax but a cross subsidy, the rules of which are determined by the Federal Communications Commission.

    [...]

    Griffin's video portrays Lifeline as a taxpayer-funded program. Technically, it's not. Telecom customers cover the cost.

    [...]

    [T]he universal service fee is not a tax but a cross subsidy overseen by the FCC. The U.S. Treasury does not collect or handle the funds. Griffin's description goes too far.

    Congressman’s Slippery Cell Phone Claim


  3. #153
    Be different, be honest
    EdwinWillers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Divided States of Kardashia
    Last Seen
    12-25-15 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,361

    Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz on COL recall: 'Voter Suppression, Pure and Simple’

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You have done NOTHING to negate two simple facts about this recall election and all the bluff and bluster from you does not change that reality:

    1 - mail in ballots were not allowed in this election
    2- some 70% of Colorado voters use mail in ballots
    Blah, blah, blah... get over it. You lost. Not only did you lose, but the left's platform on gun control is a loser as well - which is why they have to FORCE it upon the citizenry as they did in CO.

    Again - get over it.
    Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.

    zoom zoom

  4. #154
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz on COL recall: 'Voter Suppression, Pure and Simple’

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    What does that even mean? If Wasserman reports the facts about the election - that by its very nature is not deceptive.

    That simply means that if DWS is talking about mail in ballots not being used, that may or may not be factually true, however, she makes claim that this is systematic voter suppression without showing any proof of any conspiracy to do so at all....

    Show me some proof that there was a plan to disenfranchise, or suppress the vote for this election. You can't. Because it doesn't exist.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #155
    Be different, be honest
    EdwinWillers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Divided States of Kardashia
    Last Seen
    12-25-15 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,361

    Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz on COL recall: 'Voter Suppression, Pure and Simple’

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    That simply means that if DWS is talking about mail in ballots not being used, that may or may not be factually true, however, she makes claim that this is systematic voter suppression without showing any proof of any conspiracy to do so at all....

    Show me some proof that there was a plan to disenfranchise, or suppress the vote for this election. You can't. Because it doesn't exist.
    All he can do is all he's done which is merely say it's so.

    FWIW - that's why blabs has earned her blabbermouth title.
    Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.

    zoom zoom

  6. #156
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:39 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,853

    Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz on COL recall: 'Voter Suppression, Pure and Simple’

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    Blah, blah, blah... get over it. You lost.
    get real... I was never on the ballot and took no position on this recall. the only thing I have commented upon is the attack on Wasserman for "lying" when all she did was tell the truth about the election facts regarding the barring of mail in ballots.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  7. #157
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:39 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,853

    Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz on COL recall: 'Voter Suppression, Pure and Simple’

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    That simply means that if DWS is talking about mail in ballots not being used, that may or may not be factually true, however, she makes claim that this is systematic voter suppression without showing any proof of any conspiracy to do so at all....

    Show me some proof that there was a plan to disenfranchise, or suppress the vote for this election. You can't. Because it doesn't exist.
    So let me ask you a direct question - if we enact special measures which we believe will effectively prevent 70% of possible and likely voters from casting ballots in a particular election where we believe we have the advantage in a smaller turnout - have we enaged in voter suppression or not?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  8. #158
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz on COL recall: 'Voter Suppression, Pure and Simple’

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    So let me ask you a direct question - if we enact special measures which we believe will effectively prevent 70% of possible and likely voters from casting ballots in a particular election where we believe we have the advantage in a smaller turnout - have we enaged in voter suppression or not?
    Your reasoning, and parameters for doing such is too narrow, and you were not present, nor can you show any documentation showing that such a scheme was talked about, much less enacted...So your hypothetical is dismissed.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #159
    Be different, be honest
    EdwinWillers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Divided States of Kardashia
    Last Seen
    12-25-15 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,361

    Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz on COL recall: 'Voter Suppression, Pure and Simple’

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    get real... I was never on the ballot and took no position on this recall. the only thing I have commented upon is the attack on Wasserman for "lying" when all she did was tell the truth about the election facts regarding the barring of mail in ballots.
    She lied. Get over that. You're wrong. Get over that.
    Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.

    zoom zoom

  10. #160
    Be different, be honest
    EdwinWillers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Divided States of Kardashia
    Last Seen
    12-25-15 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,361

    Re: Debbie Wasserman Schultz on COL recall: 'Voter Suppression, Pure and Simple’

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    So let me ask you a direct question - if we enact special measures which we believe will effectively prevent 70% of possible and likely voters from casting ballots in a particular election where we believe we have the advantage in a smaller turnout - have we enaged in voter suppression or not?
    That's an absurd hypothetical. 70% of "possible" and "likely" voters were not prevented from voting in those elections. Stop repeating that blatant, bald-faced lie.
    Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.

    zoom zoom

Page 16 of 25 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •