j_b

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/23/us-usa-campaign-paul-plots-idUSTRE7BM03320111223

as if the issue was my minor hang ups when we are discussing Ron Paul's decades long history of condoning (at best) discrimination against ethnic minorities.

My problem viz racism is minor compared to Paul's and yours.

a scuzball is a scumball who pretends to be otherwise by emitting lots of diversionary smoke in my dictionary.

Nobody's racism is ok, but especially not for someone running to be president.

Suzzballs like KKK always try to turn anything into a personal argument as if their interlocutor was running for the presidency,

"libertarians" like Ron Paul used to be openly racist, yet they eventually realized it wouldn't fly with the electorate.

crickets

You claimed he let it go on for decades. Indeed, Ron Paul has been a far right fringe cook for more than one decade.

Bullshit, he didn't reject immediately what was spewed in his newsletter.

You must have not read much about him, then. Do you only get your news from youtube? everyone else knows more about Paul than you do You mean newsletters written by someone else TWENTY YEARS AGO, which he disavows and rejects? Libtards sure are great at beating a long dead horse. Don't get me wrong, Paul is a kook, but he's no racist. Ron Paul is either a liar (my pick based on his voting record) or utterly incompetent for letting someone he refuses to divulge spew racist garbage under his name for decades.

The GOP is clearly the perpetrator but the lack of reaction from Democrats to stolen elections in Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004) makes one ponder whether we are facing a bad cop-good cop scenario.

Your grammar is as good as ttk's evidently. versus your being a moron for not seeing there is a word missing?

No shit. j_bot's sources are about as worthless as any you can come up with. why don't you try bringing it up when it is timely? I think I see a pattern here: KKK claiming something out of context because he is too much of a wimp to try making his case when the discussion is taking place.

The Politics of Voter Fraud by Lorraine C. Minnite, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Political Science Barnard College, Columbia University Key findings • Voter fraud is the “intentional corruption of the electoral process by the voter.” This definition covers knowingly and willingly giving false information to establish voter eligibility, and knowingly and willingly voting illegally or participating in a conspiracy to encourage illegal voting by others. All other forms of corruption of the electoral process and corruption committed by elected or election officials, candidates, party organizations, advocacy groups or campaign workers fall under the wider definition of election fraud. • Voter fraud is extremely rare. At the federal level, records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. The available state-level evidence of voter fraud, culled from interviews, reviews of newspaper coverage and court proceedings, while not definitive, is also negligible. • The lack of evidence of voter fraud is not because of a failure to codify it. It is not as if the states have failed to detail the ways voters could corrupt elections. There are hundreds of examples drawn from state election codes and constitutions that illustrate the precision with which the states have criminalized voter and election fraud. I f we use the same standards for judging voter fraud crime rates as we do for other crimes, we must conclude that the lack of evidence of arrests, indictments or convictions for any of the practices defined as voter fraud means very little fraud is being committed. • Most voter fraud allegations turn out to be something other than fraud. A review of news stories over a recent two year period found that reports of voter fraud were most often limited to local races and individual acts and fell into three categories: unsubstantiated or false claims by the loser of a close race, mischief and administrative or voter error. • The more complex are the rules regulating voter registration and voting, the more likely voter mistakes, clerical errors, and the like will be wrongly identified as “fraud.” Voters play a limited role in the electoral process. Where they interact with the process they confront an array of rules that can trip them up. In addition, one consequence of expanding voting opportunities, i.e. permissive absentee voting systems, is a corresponding increase in opportunities for casting unintentionally illegal ballots if administrative tracking and auditing systems are flawed. • There is a long history in America of elites using voter fraud allegations to restrict and shape the electorate. In the late nineteenth century when newly freed black Americans were swept into electoral politics, and where blacks were the majority of the electorate, it was the Democrats who were threatened by a loss of power, and it was the Democratic party that erected new rules said to be necessary to respond to alleged fraud by black voters. Today, the success of voter registration drives among minorities and low income people in recent years threatens to expand the base of the Democratic party and tip the balance of power away from the Republicans. Consequently, the use of baseless voter fraud allegations for partisan advantage has become the exclusive domain of Republican party activists. http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/PoliticsofVoterFraudFinal.pdf

No. My claim is that I doubt you know whether someone not vaccinated in the midst of an overwhelmingly vaccinated population (such as the children of the people you are talking about) incurs greater risk from infectious disease than from exposure to pesticides (spare me the "trace amounts" spin as I have exposed it for what it was and you apparently declined to discuss it) spare me the posturing as well and answer the points I made, for a change.

[video:youtube]v=2RoAfpC7lrY

Good way to put it, tvash.

Miso soup with clams and spring onions. Yum!

There is no way that you can come up with these comments based on a synthesis of the scientific evidence. 1) a significant number of modern studies show correlation between average levels of some pesticides (like organochlorines) in populations (esp. children and mothers) with specific disorders (like adhd or developmental problems for example). Causality has often not yet been shown but, 2) dozens of pesticides widely used over decades have eventually been banned when manufacturers and regulators couldn't deny the evidence anymore, which suggests that application of the precautionary principle is in order rather than flippantly dismissing concerns about exposure to ~50,000 untested new chemicals since ww2. 3) it's not reasonable to claim 0 risk to humans from GMO consumption since the proper studies haven't been done (no, the live experiment of feeding GMOs to populations isn't controlled). The couple of studies that have been done are controversial, esp. since those finding 0 risk have terrible methodology, are conducted and cherry-picked by an industry that has zero credibility (read up on Monsanto's history). Moreover, many refuse GMOs for other reasons than health like environmental cost so what motivate these people as a group is mostly your opinion. 4) infectious risk is time and space dependent and you'll need more than your frivolous assertions to make the case there is a greater risk right now from infectious disease (in an overwhelmingly vaccinated population) in the NW islands than that incurred through pesticide expsoure (good luck) 5) despite all the bile spewed by your lap dogs, it appears that you are definitely meaning to minimize the risk of pesticides and deride people concerned for their health and that of their children, as it seemed obvious to me from the beginning. Well, first, there are studies showing that on average pesticide use has increased with the increase in GMO use and its remarkable that you ignore them to spew the industry line. Second, your example shows the need for strong regulations because despite what your claim otherwise average folk have no way to control on their own what goes into their food.

and? Nice try to muddy the waters but electoral fraud (your example) is as old as voting and it is relatively common but it has nothing to do with VOTER fraud (“intentional corruption of the electoral process by the voter.”) that is invoked by regressives to disenfranchise millions of poor and minority voters through these despicable laws. There is almost no evidence of VOTER fraud at the federal and state level (the fed found ~8 individual cases per year on average) and trying to preventy these at the cost of barring millions from voting is transparent in its intentions. It's also noted the nasty article you linked from the FOX propaganda network desperately and ineffectively tries to link ACORN with the officials involved in this instance of electoral fraud. Shame on you for spreading such noxious propaganda.

I can't blame anybody for not wanting to wrestle with pigs, which is exactly what bullies like you and your pal count on.

I am not making anything up. You are defending JayB against my pointing out his conflating people worried about pesticides and other arguably nocive agents with "progressive transcendental yoga moms" who would refuse to vaccinate their children.

My point is that, not only do you appear to claim that pesticides aren't a problem, but you refuse to clarify your meaning, which is consistent with your trying to run away from your record.

I am not making up that your post was: "You've evidently got "trace amounts" of functioning neurotransmitters.", which has nothing to do with JayB or anything beside your own lack of competence at saying something meaningful.