See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On October 31st, 2008 at 4:27 pm, rambler said:

   As corrupt as this election is becoming, if Obama is elected, we won’t need another election in 2012. We will already have our dictator.

2. #102
   On October 31st, 2008 at 4:36 pm, sonofdy said:

   This election is already in question no matter who wins. For kicks, I hope cythia kinney wins so its obvious.

3. #103
   On October 31st, 2008 at 4:37 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

   Anyone know how Justice Kennedy stands on Free Speech rights? Would a Fairness Doctrine stand a challenge on Constitutional grounds? Or, would they find a ‘compelling State interest’ in requiring media outlets to air ‘both’ sides of an issue (Liberal AND Left Wing)?

4. #104
   On October 31st, 2008 at 4:40 pm, sonofdy said:

   Would a Fairness Doctrine stand a challenge on Constitutional grounds?

   It would after obama nominates a few justices.

5. #105
   On October 31st, 2008 at 4:41 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

   Geez, sonofdy! I thought for a minute you meant Cynthia McKinney. I almost lost my lunch!

6. #106
   On October 31st, 2008 at 4:43 pm, sonofdy said:

   Wouldn’t do that too you…

   I hope the twins don’t get my spelling genes.

7. #107
   On October 31st, 2008 at 4:47 pm, brooklyn red said:

   sonofdy said:
   This election is already in question no matter who wins.

   I was not going to go there but, Berg, (the guy who seued of the O’s birth certificate)has gone to the Supremes…

   In a
   statement today, Berg said he is applying to Justice David Souter for an “Immediate Injunction to Stay the Presidential Election of November 4, 2008.”

   “I am hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will grant the injunction pending a review of this case to avoid a constitutional crisis by insisting that Obama produce certified documentation that he is or is not a “natural born” citizen and if he cannot produce documentation that Obama be removed from the ballot for president,” Berg said.

   “We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the office of the presidency of the United States,” Berg said.

   that was from WND so, I don’t have great hopes…

8. #108
   On October 31st, 2008 at 4:52 pm, abstractmind said:

   On October 31st, 2008 at 1:26 pm, watershed said:

   i’m going to have to pick on you for a minute.

   the only thing that really sounded fishy was why you were adding these odd details that really didnt have anything to do with the person they were talking about…

   If less than half registered, and the elderly woman in question was one of them, and someone screwed with her vote, where is your condemnation of that fact? What about all of those “poor, disenfrancised” voters you scream to high heaven about when its “evil republicans” that are stttteeeeeaaaaallllliinnnnggggg votes????

   Where do you even presume, sir, to come in here and mock and belittle those who challange groups like ACORN, but sit and twiddle your thumbs when something like this comes along?

   Fishy? The only thing fishy I’ve seen today is your logic, your presumption, and your total lack of principle.

   If you REALLY were considering the plight of “poor, disenfranchised” people, or whose who fall into the catagory of being led away from the polls, you’d have bothered to come up with something more than the crap you dropped on this posting earlier.

9. #109
   On October 31st, 2008 at 4:53 pm, fourstringfuror said:

   What other groups of Americans don’t fit your standards for voting? Curious.

   Anyone who doesn’t pay income tax.

   Anyone who cannot provide proof of citizenship.

   Anyone who votes for a candidate based on pigment.

10. #110
    On October 31st, 2008 at 4:59 pm, wighttrasch said:

    Why should they worry about forcing people to vote for someone—-one of the few things a person needs to be president (natural-born citizen of the USA) has not even been proven with one of the candidates…?

    What’s this old piece of paper doing here?
    Why that’s the ‘constitution’.
    Bah–it’ll burn.

11. #111
    On October 31st, 2008 at 5:02 pm, sonofdy said:

    If you are so mentaly disabled that you can’t serve on a jury then you shouldn’t be able to vote. Sorry if you don’t like that idea, but I stand by it.

12. #112
    On October 31st, 2008 at 5:10 pm, Ty85719 said:

    Just one of hundreds of examples of the most low-brow, corrupt presidential campaign in the history of our nation – the story is sad, but far from shocking (at least, by today’s standards)

13. #113
    On October 31st, 2008 at 5:22 pm, watershed said:

    #108

    I will hit you up after tricks and treats, but at first glance it looks like the “cool air of detachment” image you’ve tried to create for yourself is slightly faded on this post. In fact it’s pretty Malkinite. You might wanna watch that!

    Happy Halloween all.

14. #114
    On October 31st, 2008 at 5:23 pm, watershed said:

    Oh, and Abstract…

    

    be well.

15. #115
    On October 31st, 2008 at 5:53 pm, brooklyn red said:

    What is all this proof of citizenship thing? If you don’t need it run, then why should need it to vote? sheeessh.

16. #116
    On October 31st, 2008 at 6:35 pm, Speakup said:

    We should expect no better from the new do it if it feels good Reich.

    Democrats have a very, very large tent, though registering institutionalized is actually a step up from the graveyard.
    I wonder how many prison guards are Obama supporters?

    Morality is such a bummer during an election cycle, for liberals.

17. #117
    On October 31st, 2008 at 6:59 pm, 29Victor said:

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again.

    I worked as direct support for developmentally disabled, mentally ill and elderly people for fifteen years.

    This kind of thing happens every election and the transition of more and more counties and states to mail-in voting just increases the fraud potential.

    Picture one head nurse of an Alzheimer’s ward with a stack of mail-in ballots on her desk.

    Or a 20 year old do-gooder “taking initiative” in a group home and “helping” the residents vote.

    Staff (who are, in my experience, overwhelming liberal) justify this because they believe that Republicans are out to cut funding and services for the people they server (and, coincidently, staff salaries) so it’s in the resident’s best interest to vote Democrat. Many of these staff don’t believe that any good-hearted person would vote Republican anyway.

18. #118
    On October 31st, 2008 at 9:01 pm, HeatherRadish said:

    Are any of these PO’d guardians going to sue the facilities who used their loved ones?

    I got paid today, I’d be happy to contribute to a legal fund.

19. #119
    On October 31st, 2008 at 9:43 pm, MrScribbler said:

    If it weren’t for voters with “diminished capacity,” Osama Obama would today be an obscure community organizer with a faded “Che” poster on his office wall.

20. #120
    On October 31st, 2008 at 10:52 pm, Common Sense said:

    I would think that if a home needs permission from the family or guardian to take the resident out somewhere, they would also need permission from the family for the resident to vote.

    It’s none of the homes business.

21. #121
    On November 1st, 2008 at 12:31 am, watershed said:

    VOTER FRAUD.

    It’s the new buzzword for conservatives who are shocked, shocked that Obama is perhaps liked by more than 51% of the elecorate. And so, just as for four tedious years we heard from liberals that Bush didn’t win the election because he didn’t win the popluar vote, now cons have their pre-approved anti-Obama argument. Hey, more power to them! Because it worked so well for the left in 2004, right?

    Although this angle, the “Obama is conspiratorially manipulating the mentally challenged people of the country to vote for him; oh and PS, those people shouldn’t vote, and wouldn’t in MY AMERICA,” is one of the more disgusting attempts I’ve seen at it. But that’s our Malkin! No barrel to big to scrape.

22. #122
    On November 1st, 2008 at 3:38 am, Khyris said:

    That was actually pretty brave of you. I’m serious. Not everyone just comes out in favor of rampant criminal voter fraud like that. I’m sure lots of other people on KOS and DU feel the same way and just won’t say it.

    On second thought, it takes a Darwin-Award-Winning level of moron to find the abuse of the mentally infirm by wingnuts to be “American Democracy” and at the same time find it “disgusting” that sane people don’t want the fate of the free world decided by toddlers.

    The whole concept of Voter Fraud means that WE’LL NEVER KNOW what % of the electorate ACTUALLY likes Obama for whatever inscrutible absurd reasons. You can pull whatever make-believe % out of your butt, and it won’t raise an eyebrow here because here we ignore fictional numbers.

    Voter Fraud: Illegal.
    Winning the Electoral College: Constitutionally Mandated.
    Watching liberal brain calisthenics and pretzel logic attempting to demonstrate moral equivalancy between two polar opposites?
    Priceless.

23. #123
    On November 1st, 2008 at 8:14 am, watershed said:

    rampant criminal voter fraud

    Pssst…a little heads up! The election isn’t until Tuesday. There can’t, by definition, be “rampant criminal voter fraud” if there hasnt even been a vote yet.

    See what I mean when I say pre-approved anti-Obama argument?

    sane people don’t want the fate of the free world decided by toddlers

    I personally wouldn’t snark about the mentally challenged when trying to defend them. That’s your thing. I also personally believe, and the Constitution backs me up, that they get to vote, if they want. This is their America too.

24. #124
    On November 1st, 2008 at 9:18 am, Wildcatter1980 said:

    But, hey! There is no vote (registration) fraud on the Democrat side of things. Only those EEE-VIL Republicans do like in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.
    –
    Ignorance, our most costly commodity – paraphrased from Rush Limbaugh.

25. #125
    On November 1st, 2008 at 11:02 am, 29Victor said:

    On October 31st, 2008 at 10:52 pm, Common Sense said:
    I would think that if a home needs permission from the family or guardian to take the resident out somewhere

    They don’t. In fact, the whole reason most of the folks I took care of were in a group home was because their family didn’t want to think about them at all.

26. #126
    On November 1st, 2008 at 1:41 pm, Batman said:

    I wonder, is there some sort of union for care workers that could be encouraging members to coerce these people into voting for Obama?

27. #127
    On November 1st, 2008 at 1:49 pm, Batman said:

    Because I wouldn’t rule it out

28. #128
    On November 1st, 2008 at 3:16 pm, Khyris said:

    There can’t, by definition, be “rampant criminal voter fraud” if there hasnt even been a vote yet.

    Are you blind? Living in a cave? Early voting and absentee voting HAS already occurred. The whole story in QUESTION is about voter fraud that HAS already occured.

    I personally wouldn’t snark about the mentally challenged when trying to defend them.

    #1, I don’t see how we can know that since you’ve never done that. You’re too busy defending those that exploit them.

    #2, I wasn’t even referring to the legitimately handicapped in terms of who’s acting like a child here. See if you can figure out who I meant.

    the Constitution backs me up

    . Categorically false. The Constitution prevents infraction on the vote by color, race, former servitude (XV) sex (XIX) and age once 18 (XXVI). It makes no prohibition on the legal restriction of voting for example, by felony conviction. While there is no current law prohibiting the vote by the mentally disabled, such a law would NOT be unconstitutional.

    that they get to vote, if they want.

    Nobody has disagreed with this other than you, in defending caretakers superceding the patients vote with their own.

    And for the third time since you fail to grasp this concept yet:
    THEIR ACKNOWLEDGED CURRENT RIGHT TO VOTE IS NOT AT ALL RELATED TO AN OPINION OF WHETHER SOME SHOULD VOTE.

    It’s people like you that perpetuated slavery. The Constitution “backed you up” on whether people had a right to own slaves, and according to you, questioning whether we SHOULD allow certain things is tantamount to treason.
    We question laws while following them. This is how laws change for the better.

29. #129
    On November 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm, watershed said:

    #128

    See if you can figure out who I meant.

    We both know who you meant. You referred to the mentally handicapped as “toddlers”. Backpedal all you wish, I totally understand.

    Anyway, the article above was NOT about “rampant criminal voter fraud”. Your use of the phrase is hyperbolic. As is most of the “information” found on this website.

    My stand was and remains that to say that Obama is conspiratorially manipulating the mentally challenged people of the country to vote for him is a pretty disgusting and desperate stand to take.

    PS- your slavery strawman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man is a standard MO on the Malkin boards. I wonder why you didn’t just go for Hitler instead, as long as you were conflating my view with some something completely unrelated? More bang for your buck.

    (Also! Slaves were set free, and you would attempt to LIMIT the freedoms of a large population of your fellow Americans. Pretty poor analogy.)

30. #130
    On November 2nd, 2008 at 3:05 pm, RetFireman said:

    Of course the Liberal trolls here have been completely disingenuous again as usual, or have completely missed the point in their never ending quest to paint us all a bunch of racists and bigots.

    the problem here is not that they have voted, nor even of who they voted for.

    It is the way in which this was carried out. To have someone other than their own family go behind the family’s back, to do something so underhanded and then to allow them, without proper supervision by the people that know them best, make them vote…THAT is the problem.

    How can these families, or anyone for that matter, know with any certainty that these people voted for who they actually wanted to have win? How can anyone guarantee that these people were in now way coerced into what amounts to Ballot Stuffing in order to get the candidate that these places and their employees wanted to have voted for?

    Had their families been the ones to escort them into the polls, or had these places made it possible for them to bring home absentee ballots so that they can vote at home with their family supervision, then that would be one thing.

    But that is not what happened, and you know damn well just exactly what the implications of what DID happen means.

    Their families do, but since it has something to do with your candidate, then we can all see just how concerned you all are about fairness and not taking advantage of the less fortunate.

31. #131
    On November 3rd, 2008 at 6:01 am, Khyris said:

    You referred to the mentally handicapped as “toddlers”. Backpedal all you wish, I totally understand.

    Hmm, that would seem to be the exact opposite of what I said:
    “not referring to the legitimately handicapped.” So once again by your total inability to understand, you prove the point of who I was really referring to. You’re so close to figuring it out kiddo!

    Obama is conspiratorially manipulating the mentally challenged people of the country to vote for him

    Your use of the phrase is hyperbolic. As is most of the “information” found in your posts. The only person here guilty of the tactics you decry, is you.
    So it’s no longer questioning of voting laws, it was the “conspiracy” straw man YOU fabricated that disgusts you? Backpedal faster.

    That you yet fail to show any outrage, concern, or even sympathy for the abused, even if there had only been one solitary case, is what is disgusting here.

    As flattered as I am that you would immitate us grownups, we already discussed your use of strawmen several posts ago. Take your condescending wikipedia entry and have your mommy tape it on the fridge, then try to grow up. As fasciniating as it is that you long for Hitler and place high value on him, no one has any interest in anything further you’d try to add. Go ahead and have the last word petulant one; we won’t be reading it.

32. #132
    On November 3rd, 2008 at 8:48 am, watershed said:

    On second thought, it takes a Darwin-Award-Winning level of moron to find the abuse of the mentally infirm by wingnuts to be “American Democracy” and at the same time find it “disgusting” that sane people don’t want the fate of the free world decided by toddlers.

    Backpedal all you wish from this statement. I totally understand.

33. #133
    On November 3rd, 2008 at 1:06 pm, Khyris said:

    On second thought, it takes a Darwin-Award-Winning level of moron to find the abuse of the mentally infirm by wingnuts to be “American Democracy” and at the same time find it “disgusting” that sane people don’t want the fate of the free world decided by toddlers.

    Sorry, you lose sport. Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

34. #134
    On November 3rd, 2008 at 3:48 pm, chaosrainz said:

    I already thought everyone voting for Obama suffered from diminished mental capacity anyway. What does this change? /snark