However, something has to be done to stop the foul play of a republicans who made up baseless challenges last year.

Whats the alternative?

No legitimate voter was denied the right to vote.

The only foul play was (a) King County Elections sitting on the challenges for an extra week which allowed nearly 1/3 of the challenged absentee ballots to be counted before they could be adjudicated, and (b) the Democrats on the canvassing board upholding the obviously bogus registrations of hundreds of people who very clearly did not live in the mailboxes where they claimed to live.

They should be on the air - in the news - in Olympia SCREAMING about this bill! Why, when the Democrats pull this fraud-enabling crap, do our Republican leaders stay silent?

The Democrats failed in their attempt to villainize the Republicans in their voter challenges last fall. The Democrats failed in their attempt to sell Gregoire as the true Governor of the state... The public just doesn't trust the Democrats! (OK - maybe a few of our flakey trolls trust the Dems..) If we had Republican leadership with balls - this bill would have been shamed out of Olympia already! Remember - the media is part of the Liberal machine - and the liberal's love to eat their own. We need someone in leadership who knows how to feed and choke the liberal's!

Our Republican leadership in this state had better learn to be agressive soon...before the liberal Dems propose a bill that makes it illegal to have any checks and balances in our elections.

I'm sure our legislature will soon kowtow to the meth problem here in WA as well, with all of the self-righteous pontification of Ted Kennedy at a confirmation hearing, all the while ignoring the massive vote fraud elephant in the room.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_us/meth_crackdown

Don't go looking for over the counter cold medicine without photo ID in Washington as of January 1, 2006.

“Electoral Fraud” is a recurring shibboleth at this site. Despite repeated challenges, however, no one here has produced EVEN ONE EXAMPLE of partisan electoral fraud. Sorry, registering to vote at a P.O. Box for fear of a stalker, or similar reasons does not qualify.

Words have meanings. One can only bandy about an allegation like “fraud,” utterly devoid of evidence, for so long. History is replete with characters who brandish florid charges but fail to back them up. History likewise proves that such actors end up bitten in the hind side, three times harder.

The most laughable is that we should measure the validity of Stefan's assertions about "..fair and open electoral process(es)..." by some standard other than the merits of his arguments.

Were we to use b's yardstick, we would inevitably conclude that his own comment is meant as a juvenile jest.

Another joke is his wildly speculative and self-serving statement, "...utterly devoid of evidence...", that bogus registrations at PO boxes, etc. are all the result of stalkers or "...other similar reasons...".

What... does he channel victims?.

Maybe, maybe not, but he shouldn't be tossing off terms like "florid" without reading his own prose.

History is replete with characters whose words are vessels of spite and bile - whose empty allegations serve only to illuminate their lack of respect for the truth.

Interesting (in your parlance)“rhetorical flourishes.” Stefan is clever because he tells the truth and challenges those like you who reflexively dispute them to make a case.
“Electoral Fraud” is no “shibboleth,” or catchword by proxy but an unrelenting scrutiny of reality unanswered by those who are responsible to answer. Examples of electoral fraud and the rich grounds for it are too significant to ignore unless one like yourself is predisposed to ignore them. Ethical leaders avoid "even the appearance of impropriety." Our current Democrat rulers ignore the appearances and go straight for the impropriety.

Indeed, as you say, "words have meanings, and one can only bandy about an allegation like “fraud,” utterly devoid of evidence, for so long." As you say, ” History is replete with characters who brandish florid charges but fail to back them up. History likewise proves that such actors end up bitten in the hind side, three times harder.” Nice words that redound against those who cover up the truth and thus prevent failures of justice in the end. They ring hollow given the enormous weight of evidence to the contrary. Ignorance of small indices of criminality is not benign acknowledgment of innocence.

Many of us will see how this criminal activity by Democrats winds up but . . . it will obviously not favor your view. Sometime consider ethics and morality absent a strict party allegiance. Otherwise continue to be a supposed doctrinaire and empty-brained blowhard.

Thanks for your usual dimwitted analysis.

This stupid bill is unconstitutional ! Do you think any one will say that ? Otherwise, the emperor has no clothes and noone dares say anything about it. No way in h**l this bill should even be voted on. If it is, the Republicans are not doing their job ! And the lamebrain Democraps who drafted can stick it where the sun don't shine !

The Washington State Republican Party has had no vision and this is why we sit in our current state of affairs.

Now the political machinery is trying to preserve this failed culture by electing a "Vance Clone" that will continue these failed policies.

If you are a proud republican ask yourself this; how can someone like Finkbeiner ascend to the leadership of the Washington State Senate?

And republican politicians wonder why there are so many independents in this state...............

Read some history other than the revisionist myths peddled by your side, and learn something outside of your leftist echo chamber.

I will always call it corrupt King County!

the number of fraudulently ( not mistakenly ) registered voters or any other proven democratic vote fraud is entirely absent. the republican party in 2005 spent a considerable amount of time and money trying to prove fraud in the courts. this they could not do. so , you have no proof, and you are slandering and maliciously lying about the democrats. this lack of evidence is exactly the thing that impugns stefan sharansky's statements. his argument for democratic fraud is nonexistent.

my suspicion, though, is that you two already know this. this would mean that you are both conscious liars. you are so convinced that you are right that the end justifies the means.

i assure you that it does not.

you are just trying to equate the phrase "vote fraud" with democrats by constant repitition. but harebrained stunts like the fraudulent republican voter challenges by mercer island republican pussy sotelo number in the thousands.
documented republican vote fraud.

If in fact as you say, "bartelby is by far the better debater than . . . [us]," why does he need for you
to make up lies and insult Lori Sotelo in his stead pretending it is “debate” eh?

Thanks for defending Bartelby's superior non-existent debating record; with typical liberal imaginary bull$hit,
and the usual imaginary intellectual honesty; we will let this be a lesson to us by golly.

More of your same endless brain-dead spin.

Almost all of the republicans objections were baseless. The bills are trying to prevent this from what I see.

Amused sez:

"Many of us will see how this criminal activity by Democrats winds up but . . . it will obviously not favor your view. Sometime consider ethics and morality absent a strict party allegiance. Otherwise continue to be a supposed doctrinaire and empty-brained blowhard."

First, I have no strict party allegiance. I admire thoughtful conservatives who comport themselves with integrity and intellectual honesty (e.g., John McCain) just as I dislike blowhards on my own side of the aisle (e.g. Michael Moore). I'm sorry you regard me "dimwitted," but I shall let your language speak for itself.

Clay: I appreciate the compliment, though I must say there isn't really a debate going on. I merely made a straightforward statement which no has (or can) refute. Sure there's the usual wingnut boatload of red herrings and ad hominem distractions, but absolutely nothing to refutes the point. As Clay notes, there is a big difference between ERRONEOUS and FRAUDULENT registrations. Lots of people were registered at addresses where they did not live. So what? Stefan and his minions would like you to think this is evidence of some malign liberal conspiracy to steal elections. Sorry, it just ain't so. There were a few votes made for dead people. These may have been misguided acts of spousal loyalty or stupid acts born of grief, but I don't think anyone would seriously argue that they were deliberate effort to fraudulently affect the outcome of the election. Nonetheless, the folks were properly prosecuted and assessed with punitive fines. But that's it. If there were anything more to this story do you seriously believe that REPUBLICAN prosecutors Norm Maleng and John McKay would not be pursuing it?

Oh, sorry to offend you, JIMG. As an admire of Joe McCarthy you are probably of the belief that Maleng and McKay are liberal RINO plants, just as Tailgunner Joe thought that Dwight Eisenhower was a communist sympathizer. I think it’s time to phone your milliner to find out about getting that tin foil hat re-blocked, Jim.

Finally, Clay, I think your anatomical slur for Ms. Sotelo may be a tad too harsh. Sotelo is an apparatchik who bullies others to further her own ideological agenda, but folks like that usually get what they deserve from life. (I mean, Christ in a camper, what sort of person in their right mind would actually boast about palling about with Karl Rove, after all?) Maybe if she’s real good JimG will invite her over for one of his KoolAid quaffing soirees.

You say, "First, I have no strict party allegiance. I admire thoughtful conservatives who comport themselves with integrity and intellectual honesty . . . “ That is exactly the point. As a partisan Democrat, you are not holding yourself to such standards. In light of the artificial reasoning you employ, integrity and intellectual honesty fall by the wayside.

You say, ”Despite repeated challenges, however, no one here has produced EVEN ONE EXAMPLE of partisan electoral fraud. Sorry, registering to vote at a P.O. Box for fear of a stalker, or similar reasons does not qualify.”
Of course it qualifies!! Equivocating fraud by incidental superficial qualification or false justification with self defense for the purpose of asserting that it is not fraud, is evasive nonsense and decidedly intellectually dishonest.

You say, ”I'm sorry you regard me "dimwitted," but I shall let your language speak for itself.” Don't be sorry, wise up.
The law is clear, the facts transparent, and their is no excuse for misconduct. The use of this type of hedging strained illogic as a basis to deny the obvious is obdurately dim-witted.

There is no way that you can honestly deny that all mail voting and numerous EXAMPLES like this of partisan electoral fraud will not follow from the system put in place by the elections and other officials in our area. The only strong inference anyone can draw from your obstinate defiance, is that you seriously lack integrity. I know of a select few Democrats that are turning away from the Democrat party for this very reason. They care about ethics and morality absent a strict party allegiance, because ethics and morality reach well beyond the ballot . . . and into the wallet.

I will do you the compliment of not commenting on your proximity with Headless lucy (AKA Clay Shaw).

Our disagreement revolves more around semantics than any disagreement of fact or law.

Let me share something. Several years ago I was briefly registered to vote at a P.O. Box at which I received my mail. I was at a transitional period of my life and ended up residing at four different domiciles in the course of a year. Given the timing and logistics, I frankly did not know where I would be living on the date of the next election, and the thirty day residency requirement complicated things even further. Was I trying to deceive anyone or vote “fraudulently” (to cite the purple prose y’all seem to favor)? Of course not. I was simply exercising my franchise in the most practical manner possible. As soon as I retained a more permanent residence address I changed my address. I was not trying to deceive anyone and I certainly wasn’t making duplicate votes, selling my vote, etc.

Based on the analysis of Stefan and yourself, however, my acts constituted “fraud.”

If you wish to criminalize any exercise of one’s franchise which deviates from your strictest interpretation of statute, administrative code, or case law, knock yourself out. I trust the electorate will be about as impressed as have Judge Bridges, [Republican] King County Prosecuting Attorney Norm Maleng, [George Bush-appointed] United States Attorney John McKay and [Republican] Secretary of State Sam Reed.

Put another way, AMUSED, you folks are selling the judicial/intellectual equivalent of Amway or Scientology. It just AIN’T….GONNA….WORK. Hate to break the news to you dude, but you need to proceed to the special corner and join JimG and Lori. But buck up – the KoolAid ain’t half bad and you can console yourself within the confines of that perfervid, Liliputian mutual admiration society.

In your case the law is clear - if you voted within less than the proscribed period of actual residence, or voted in a district in which you no longer lived, then you committed a fraud.

You are required to post the necessary change of registration in order to be a qualified, legal voter. It is your prerogative should you choose to move around, but that does not give you license to ignore the law! If you vote illegally, it is my right, duty, and obligation to alert the authorities. However you wish to rationalize it, an illegal vote is an illegal vote.

Also for the record, I experienced a similar change of residence situation a few years ago. I chose to sit out the election that I was not qualified to vote in!

It is mildly humorous to bother arguing the facts to you. Nevertheless, you say “Our disagreement revolves more around semantics than any disagreement of fact or law.” O.K., . . . how so?

You say based on stipulated facts “on the analysis of Stefan and yourself [myself], . . . my [your] acts constituted “fraud.” Given your circumstances it only constitutes fraud if you filled out a registration without the address at which you “resided” at the time you registered. This is not difficult, and it is the law. For the sake of the discussion (and the fact that it has been discussed ad nauseum), I won’t belabor the reasons why a requirement to provide both addresses is appropriate; they are well established and inarguable. Lori Sotelo did nothing whatsoever to anyone (including those like you) who followed the law set forth by Democrats in our state and saying otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

I don’t wish to criminalize anything but criminal activity. I don’t consider your example of circumstances criminal (nor does Stefan or anyone else here at SP) unless you broke the law (made by Democrats). Amway and Scientology aside, your final effort to marginalize my persona is empty and tawdry. Why not admit the truth—that you favor the democrat agenda regardless of the games they are playing with our procedural democracy?

By the way, what happened to your topic statement about” Our disagreement revolves more around semantics.” Abandoned that one didn't you?

Tighten up your lines of reasoning by attending to consistent factual elements, claims, and debate.
Otherwise your comments will continue to be fairly considered less-than-worthy of discussion, and typical liberal bull$hit worthy of morons like Headlice (AKA whomever he wants to be this time).

Thanks for the comments.

How fu@king stupid can you get? As always . . . just as stupid as you are allowed to be.

You say respecting residential requirements for voting, "This kind of information doesn't require in depth research, probably less than a minute to find on google or even if you know the basic state legal codes to find challenges under . . . "

So for the sake of argument . . . I google your P.O. Box name "Patrick Moronovich Dipshit" and no address comes up . . . do I have the basis for a challenge?

Patrick, you answer the question many of us ask about why anyone like Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi could ever be in power over anything or why Patty Murray could be a Senator and you provide the answer.

How lowly and moronic can liberals get? . . . thanks for providing the reason.

Your legitimacy as an arbiter of debating skills is nonexistent.

Your amazing comment includes an accusation of "...slander and malicious lying about the democrats...". I guess I'll have to bow to an expert in the field. However, as bart says: "Words have meanings." and "...slander and malicious lying..." have not been part of my posts, pal.

Even if you try to impute them by constant "repitition" - whatever that is.

More amusing (and telling, I think) is the juxtaposition of your decrying my "...slander and malicious lying..." with your well-thought-out, temperate statement about "fraudulent" Republican voter challenges.

bartelby,

Thanking that hyperventilating hyena for a compliment can be hazardous to your health.

AMUSED started out playing nice, but experienced a challenged cranium running into a brick wall of intractable factual detail and compelling argument.

SOUP has never played well with others, and has clearly spent his life in rather dreary confines. It's sad to see feckless, embittered folks exiled to their own Elbas, but what's to be done? As Bloom and his compatriots say, ideas (or lack thereof) have consequences. Buck up, SOUP. Your existence has meaning -- your posts embody the risible infantilism of [u]SP.

[Which gives rise to an aside: What's up w/all the AKA speculation? This is presumably a marketplace of IDEAS, friends, not PERSONALITIES. Shape up or ship out. If you cannot produce, GO HOME.]

A real conservative (think Goldwater) would be ashamed of y'all. Do you PRESUME to be worthy to lick the dust of his or McCain's boots.

Carry on, esteemed Ahabs. I can't wait to see you nail that doubloon to the mast.

Stick to your "florid" style.

And PLEASE don't besmirch Goldwater's memory by mentioning him and McCain in the same sentence with the word "conservative".

Even if you have "...no strict party allegiance."

I've witnessed those with superior logic grace this blog....You - Bartelby - are simply not among them. Not even close.
No smears or slurs.....that's just a fact.

Deal with it.

I apologize for setting off your SYNTAX POLICE monitor. Are progressives only allowed to use certain language? ("Y'all" appears to be out of bounds, irrespective of speaker or context. What the hell is up with that?)

Goldwater of course was an adamant supporter of reproductive rights and queer equality in his latter years. He was however not smeared by George's flaks for having an illegitimate black child.
(http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/14/sc_pols/

But as Karl and Tom would say, why bother with meaningful dialogue when you can achieve much more effective results with slander and innuendo.

Are you really that stupid or are you just pretending to be?

I know that you've reading this site for the last 18 months, what has your superior intelligence absorbed?

If it were Republicans running the state and king county, Stefan would still have uncovered MALFEASANCE in our elections dept.

cheezuz, wake up and smell the coffe. Democrats have a long way to go to reach perfection. Then again, so do republicans. Putting on blinders doesn't help anyone.

as soon as the foul names for female democrats stop she will no longer be ,"pussy". until then, she may be lori to you, but she''ll forever remain "pussy" to me.

Get over yourself and start dealing in reality. If you were at all knowlegeable about what is truly going on with Sotelo, you wouldn't spout so much rhetoric and expose yourself so transparently as an uninformed party hack.

I, too, challenged a voter who was illegally registered at my family home of 100 years. Does that make me a "pussy"?

challenging a vote that you know to be fraudulent does not make you a pussy, dan. failing to grasp the essence of a simple argument, well, you figure it out...

None of this is surprising. You say, "AMUSED started out playing nice, but experienced a challenged cranium running into a brick wall of intractable factual detail and compelling argument."

How is that exactly? Your idea of intractable factual detail and compelling argument is changing the subject? In your post of January 15, 2006 07:11 PM, you stated a workable premise about semantics and then completely abandoned it. What happened; challenged cranium? I systematically defeated your assertion offering you an opportunity to make a counterpoint for your claim, and you say I ran into a brick wall? Exactly what brick wall was that? This IS your idea of integrity and intellectual honesty.

You say, "When confronted by superior logic, bullies characteristically resort to smears and slurs." You gotta love the convoluted whimsy of liberal "superior logic!" As headlice said about me earlier, "bartelby is by far the better debater than you . . . at least he states one valid fact " In it’s essence: LAWS DON'T APPLY TO DEMOCRATS-even when the democrats make the laws. It is quite clear that you believe this to be a fact so much so that you refuse to debate it.

I take it back . . . aside from a few self-inflating big words here and there, your comparative intellectual parity with Headlice could never be clearer.
You guys really crack me up.
Thanks for the lesson.

"SOUP has never played well with others, and has clearly spent his life in rather dreary confines. It's sad to see feckless, embittered folks exiled to their own Elbas, but what's to be done? As Bloom and his compatriots say, ideas (or lack thereof) have consequences. Buck up, SOUP. Your existence has meaning -- your posts embody the risible infantilism of [u]SP."

As shown above, you are a hypocrite ! you have no credibility.
I have not seen you able to prove with facts one assertion you have made. That being said, your posts are amusing to read - to see what kind of creativity you use to pull you baseless and ridiculous arguments out of thin air. Same back at ya - My Left Foot, Clay Shaw, Erik and the current school of leftist trolls contributing to the reading material on this blog. Rant on...

Now that your mistaken notion that "no one here has produced EVEN ONE EXAMPLE of partisan electoral fraud" has been dispelled, would you care to debate the issue on the merits?

And to save time, can we agree that electoral fraud is bad, whether partisan or not?

If you are making a challenge based on someone not really existing, the PO box bull sh@t doesn't even come in to play. You don't think you should have to prove that the person doesn't really exist to make a challenge that says they don't exist?

You quoted me as talking about residential requirements, you must read at a level where you would fail the eighth grade wasl. I was talking about it being easy to find that there are different requirements for challenges based on someone not existing rather than based on a false address.

How many times do things have to be explained for you to understand???

I didn't say for a second that a google search would be grounds for a challenge, I recommended someone (sgmmac) do at least that much research before they make an absurd claim. I would make the same argument with you, but you don't even try to use arguments that look factual, name calling is the extent of your debate prowess. Challenges should have a high burden of proof, voting is a right and before someones vote is taken away it needs to be demonstrated that they have done something to disqualify their vote. A google search doesn't cut it for that, you need real proof and personal knowledge

The point of the whole story is that the voters were NOT QUALIFIED to VOTE from the get-go. They BROKE the law when they REGISTERED of their own free will. The law is the law. No matter what you feel about it.
You are saying that it is a persons' RIGHT to break the law. Just because the law has to do with voting makes it all different in your mind.

Unbelievable!!

You don't seem to care about the law when it comes to challenges, because the process is clearly outlined, and you think the burden of proof lies on the voter.

When you fill out a loan form or insurance papers or hospital admissions forms, don't you normally try to follow the instructions and fill out the blanks to the best of your knowledge? If you answer no to this question, don't read any further.

If you answered yes, THE VOTER REIGISTRATION FORM SAYS "WHAT IS YOUR MAILING ADRESS," and also has a line that says, "WHERE DO YOU RESIDE!!!"

That is 2 seperate lines and 2 seperate questions.
Both need to be filled out to the best of your knowledge. If you say you reside in a mailbox, YOU'RE LYING!!!! You have broken the law and your vote SHOULD NOT be counted.

Do you understand now what is going on????

You, on the other hand, are advocating for people to commit illegal acts and making the victims (challengers) out to be the criminals. (in typical liberal fashion)

Do you understand???

Better yet, vote all of these jackasses out of office who don't look out for us, mainly those who are beholden to the ACLU, Trial Lawyers and other soulless special interest groups...

(I would think the solution to the disenfranchisement problem mentioned would be to have a unified statewide registration system and provide facilities and procedures for people who move within the state; to be eligibable to vote, a person would have had to be registered somewhere within the state prior to the election, file a timely notice that they would be moving, and then sign something when they vote indicating that they in fact had done so).

Obviously I’m light years ahead of you.

Your claim is that you were ”talking about it being easy to find that there are different requirements for challenges based on someone not existing rather than based on a false address.” This assumes a distinction without a relevant difference. The only relevant issue in your comments was your assertion that the kind of information necessary to prove it ”doesn't require in depth research, probably less than a minute to find on google” Even for someone of your obvious limitations . . . this is an idiotic statement.

Most amusingly you turn right around and say ”I didn't say for a second that a google search would be grounds for a challenge, I recommended someone (sgmmac) do at least that much research before they make an absurd claim.” YES, YOU DID say that a google search would be grounds for a challenge. Read your own post moron.

Then you say, ”A google search doesn't cut it . . . [i.e., a high burden of proof]” and ” you need real proof and personal knowledge.” If this is true, why bother mentioning it? Your statements are contradictory, incoherent, and stupid.

By creating an early deadline only for challengers, the subject bill encourages fraudulent voters to register as late as possible to obtain bulletproof immunity from pre-election challenges. How does recommending a Google search ever help anyone but fraudulent voters in any way? Stupid.

Since you always rely on this type of tortured foolhardy silly illogical nonsense, I’m not surprised.
Thanks once again for proving that you are an idiot with no useful point whatsoever.

Thank you for the Patricia Levesque example. If all of this checks out, I would agree that her vote was indeed fraudulent. I would be curious to know follow-up was done concerning her.

This illuminates my point, however. Levesque looks to be an example of real fraud -- i.e., a duplicate registration and duplicate vote -- something that could MATERIALLY AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF AN ELECTION. Levesque's behavior appears to be truly fraudulent (barring some mitigating circumstance such as Alzheimer's, which genuinely rendered her unaware of her error). This however is one example out of, what, TWO THOUSAND challenges, filed by Sotelo? Those challenges addressed the failure of individuals to state their genuine residence addresses in their voter applications.

Strict compliance with the law would seem to require this, and all things being equal it's a good thing that people comply with legal requirements in both the letter AND the spirit of the law. But I would argue that very few, if any, people violated the spirit of the law. They may have been lazy, stupid, more concerned about their privacy than fulfilling their strict legal obligations -- any number of things. But they were NOT trying to MATERIALLY AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF AN ELECTION by "committing fraud," as the folks here so promiscuously and regularly state or imply.

As we saw during the Clinton impeachment, the American public has a lick or two of sense about how to apply the law. Yup, perjury is a crime. And, yes, it certainly would have been better if Bill hadn't lied under oath about being orally pleasured. But his offense certainly didn't merit the multimillion dollar dog and pony show that Ken Starr dragged the American public through. That's why the impeachment was a howling failure, why Newt Gingrich is no longer in the House, and why Clinton's popularity at the apogee of impeachment was a hell of a lot greater than W's is today.

Voting is a sacred constitutional right. Challenging the legitimacy of one's vote is a grave charge. If it is to be done it must be done with sincerity and diligence. Lori Sotelo did not do this. Recall, for instance, the challenge to the 46 voters at the Watermarke Apartments in Seattle. This grossly imbecilic error was apparently based on the fact that there is a storage facility in FORKS with the same street number and name. Yet Sotelo asserted that, based on "personal knowledge," 46 American citizens were violating the law and should be stripped of their votes.

I know most readers here regard the behavior of the careless voter that lists a P.O. box rather than a domicile as more reprehensible than that of Ms. Sotelo. Do you seriously think even a paltry plurality of any electorate would concur with you?

Finally, I note that nary a syllable has been uttered in defense of Stefan's execrable slur, which I cited in my first post in this thread.

As the gospel sez, by their fruits ye shall know them.

Sez who, Rev. Bart?

Which part of the constitution mentions the "sacrament". Or does invoking some sort of "religious" component of voting suit you for THIS argument.

So nice to see you make the distinction between the letter and spirit of the law. BOTH the letter and spirit of the election laws in question address those who would intentionally pervert the process.

Your apologia for those hundreds, or thousands, of voters who "...may have been lazy, stupid, (etc.)..." implies some sort of KNOWLEDGE that fraud was not involved - which you clearly don't have.

Stefan and his allies just want to KNOW the truth - don't you. Or do you "feel" your way to the truth.

You dismiss the possibilty of fraud out of hand.

They ask for documentation.

You simply state: "But they were NOT trying to MATERIALLY AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF AN ELECTION by "committing fraud,"

O wise one, that's an ASSUMPTION that needs to be tested.

Which is all that Stefan & Co. have ever asked for.

Correct analysis. I believe that this bill is unconstitutional on its face - an insult to our intelligence and it needs to booted out. It is a piece of crap that would work in a totalitarian government, but if this even gets out of committee, this state is in big trouble. Leftist PINHEADS would think it has merits, because they wouldn't know a constitutional right if they saw one...

Howz that bartlesboob ? I challenge your rebuttal and I'll leave it to the other educated readers to shoot holes in it.

Do you understand amused? would it help if I just called people names instead of making real arguments? thats all you seem to be able to understand. Fine, you are an idiot.

rickeyragg, assaulting the language that bartelby used when he said sacrament doesn't refute his claim that the right to vote is important and needs protection from fraudulent challenges. That is why challenges have a burden of proof.

Assaulting???

Merely pointing up his amusing use of a religious adjective for a civic process.

Separation of Church and State uber alles!

Barty's conjured assumptions purporting to excuse incorrect registrations have a hollow ring. They conveniently allow these lazy, stupid, stalking victims (to paraphrase his litany of rationalizations) to affect the outcome of THIS election. I just can't help but wonder whether he'd be so understanding if the results had been reversed.

And, since we're all SO concerned about the accusation of fraudulence when it concerns voter registrations, let's apply that same level of care about accusations of fraudulent challenges, shall we.

and Barty,

I feel your pain.

Moral relativism is SUCH a cross to bear.

While I would be concenrned about fraudulent registrations, I haven't seen evidence of a massive attempt at fraud to change the outcome of an election. Regarding challenges, my accusation of fraud is based on Sotelo editing challenges after being subpoenaed which gives me the idea that she knew it was illegal to file them as she had originally. I do not think anyone is committing fraud just because they incorrectly challenged a valid voter (ie the 46 people bartelby mentioned)

Show a demonstration of intent to sway an election by a voter (if someone tried to cast 2000 ballots or something) and I will be right with you saying that the fraud should be harshly punished.

You retrench, "I was saying the information about different requirements can be found by a google search, not that a google search was all that you needed to do to satisfy the personal knowledge requirement to a voter challenge."

You were ”talking about it being easy to find that there are different requirements for challenges based on someone not existing rather than based on a false address.” The only relevant issue in your comments was your assertion that the kind of information necessary to prove it ”doesn't require in depth research, probably less than a minute to find on google” This is an idiotic statement.
In a humorously panicked way, NOW you are trying to escape your own words.

Say neener neener. Re-arranging reinventing and supplementing your comments will not save you from the fact that by virtue of your own words, you are an idiot.

Nice job of proving it.

In my first post in this thread I was replying to sgmmac's earlier post about having to provide the street address a fictional character really lived at. I accused him of not doing his homework and told him a google search would have answered his question. I did not say doing a google search would be personal knowledge for a challenge.

Amused, please point out where an idiot like you might have thought I did say a challenge constituted personal knowledge. I just googled george bush, does that mean I know him personally? I think I pointed out what personal knowledge meant earlier, but you might be too dense to remember something like that.

Sotelo, on the other hand, is evil, should have known better, malicious in intent, the devil incarnate. Any name in the book without considering the slightest shred of evidence that she may be justified. Yes, she made some mistakes.

This from supposedly educated people. To me, an education makes one well rounded, not myopic.

Do you guys read what you write?

That's it! Feel better? Good!

You see patrick, I think where we got off to a poor start was when we didn't allow you enough time to explore your feelings. We do want you to know that we do feel good that you want to share. It's important to share. We're happy that you chose to share with us.

OK, now that you're in your happy place, let's talk a bit about this voting thing. It's awfully complicated isn't it? Sometimes when grownups talk about things like this, they use big words, and that can become confusing.

One of the important things to remember is that voting has rules, just like when you're on the playground. The rules are there so that we can all get along and have a good time. You do want to have a good time, right? I knew that you did.

See, we're having a good time right now!

Imagine that we're out on the playground and you see Sally take an apple from a lunch sack. But the sack that she takes her apple from says "patrick" on it. Bad Sally, you say! This is an upsetting time, isn't it patrick?

Should we make Sally put it back?
Should we take an apple from someone else's sack?
Maybe we should tell the teacher?!

Yes, we know that teacher may snap at you, and yell about being overworked and underappreciated, but that's a story for another day.

You see patrick, sometimes we see things that just don't seem right, and, know in our hearts that the right thing to do is tell someone so that it can get fixed. Don't you feel better when things get fixed? I knew you did!

Now the fact is, It turned out that Sally's mom gave Sally her brother patrick's sack, and she was OK to eat her lunch from it. Was it bad that you asked teacher about Sally? No, it wasn't! You were good to tell someone so that, even though you were mistaken about what Sally was doing, everything got worked out and everybody had a good time!

Now don't you feel better?

Good!

I knew that you would.....

"Yes, she made some mistakes."

Jeepers, Dan, you're quite the master of understatement. I don't recall the exact number, but you could count the percentage of sustained challenges on one hand. And this is from someone using the resources of the King County Republican Party. "Personal knowledge"? I guess that's the sort of knowledge W. had about Iraq or Cheney has that the insurgency is in its "last throes." I'm sure you know a thing or two about "supposedly educated people," big fella.

And it is equally obvious that you do not....

Kinda desperate there aren't ya?

Why not call me some more names and explain your explanations of your explanations some more for us.
Then you can invent a few more torturously strained, absurd and nonsensical ways to avoid the facts.
I know, it's O.K. . . . it's fun for us too, because we can marvel at your completely delusional and hysterical departures from reality.

Thanks for the amusing display.

Having established that there is a problem, what should be done about it?

If people are not required to follow the law when registering to vote, how will you distinguish the ones who didn't mean to do anything wrong from those who are committing vote fraud by registering under false addresses?

Bartelby and Patrick are particularly helpful evidence of the fact that liberalism is a mental disease. Neither of them has a rational point of view let alone any integrity or intellectual honesty, but both of them insist that they use superior factual grounding, debate skills and intellect.

Bartelby demonstrates that he is incapable of debating anything with anyone so he uses inappropriately complex terms(feigning intellectuality), and changes of subject. He is a liberal with a very limited bag of cheap rhetorical tricks who is easy to defeat in rational debate because he has no defensible point. Best of all, he knows it. It doesn't matter how clearly and cogently you counter his foolishness . . . he simply changes the subject . . . declares victory . . . and then tries to move the dialogic goal post. He quickly runs away from conservatives in this way as clearly displayed in several posts above.

Patrick is particularly diseased with liberalism. He is abused with the notion that his painfully strained attempt to make useful ideas out of tedious hogwash cloaked in minutiae will save him from the fact that blind faith in liberalism cannot be rationally defended. It isn't clear that he knows this though. His compulsion is a sort of perverse alchemy—belaboring the conviction that applying enough strained absurdity (hot pressure–lead to gold) to a falsehood will somehow transform it into truth. Of course it doesn’t work at all—but it is fun to watch Patrick twist himself into knots defending completely incongruous ideas in service to a desperately panicked evasion of the facts. The only reason he ever gets away with this silliness, is because he applies it with other liberals.

I will say that Bartelby and Patrick are more amusing than Headlice, dogbutt and their ilk because at least they show some evidence of creativity. Headlice and dogbutt are just sick.

Voting fraud here will become much worse before it gets better because liberals are mentally deranged.
Their petty criminality is disturbing and amusing.