[Vision2020] responding to No Weatherman

[No Weatherman]

Mr. London,

I would appreciate it if you addressed one of my points or even one of
my posts instead of your mischaracterization of them.

I have not addressed the polls except in one post where I noted the
poll that said 40% of all Democrats said they would not pull the lever
for a black candidate.

No poll can factor effectively the Bradley Effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

I am not a shill for the Republican Party. I'd have voted for Hillary
if I could.



On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Bill London <london at moscow.com> wrote:
> No Weatherman:
> Until today, I have not responded to your posts for several reasons:
> 1. you do not have the integrity to sign your opinions
> 2. you stretch and mangle the truth to suit your perspectives
> 3. your tone and message is strident, mean-spirited, angry, and offensive
>
> However, I am going to respond this one time -- just to gloat.
> The joke, you see, is all on you.  The more you sputter and bellow, the
> worse it gets for you.
> The national numbers clearly show this is happening in all parts of this
> country -- Americans are finally awakening to the reality of your kind of
> divisive rhetoric.
> The more the Republican spin-meisters try to compare a single sixty-year old
> professor of education with a horde of bomb-throwing Islamic warriors the
> worse it gets for the Republicans.  More and more voters are turned off by
> what they (correctly) perceive as the  desperation of the Republican
> true-believers.
> One reason is that Americans are getting tired of this empty anger, and
> another reason is that Obama has been masterful at reframing the issue.
>
> So, continue if you wish, I'll be laughing as you dig your hole deeper.
> BL
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "No Weatherman" <no.weatherman at gmail.com>
> To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 1:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Election Fraud
>
>
>> Chas:
>>
>> Dave absolutely made an argument and he premised it on the law — "they
>> have to turn in fraudulent ballots, it's the law!"
>>
>> However, his premise neglected to consider that tiny little fact that
>> ACORN broke the law when they committed felonies by knowingly
>> registering dead people to vote with the intent to turn in those
>> fraudulent registrations because according to them the law requires
>> them to.
>>
>> You can't have it both ways.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:19, No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're arguing that once ACORN commits fraud by registering dead
>>>> voters, they have a legal obligation to submit those fraudulent
>>>> registrations to the state.
>>>
>>> Dave wasn't arguing anything.  He was stating a matter of law, which
>>> you didn't refute, but twisted into an "argument," solely for the
>>> purpose of making an ad hominem accusation.
>>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>              http://www.fsr.net
>>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>
>
>