Dems hire Muslims to get out the vote.. you guessed it!

Louisiana is hit with thousands of bogus voter registrations, turned in by MASVip, US affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood.

What can I say... I figgered Don already knew about this.. or something else scandalous when I read his 'neocon' rant.

heh... :roll:

 

Scary Fog. It looks as though this site is promoting that Muslims, much like union members, vote Democrat. Not sure about their logic, perhaps it just comes down to entitlements or that Democrats will be weak when it comes to challenging American Muslims when sharia law rights issues arise. I got a post from a friend regarding the impact of these issues on Western governments when a political toehold starts in countries throughout the world. Heck, I've read some posts on the offal site to hear about how the locals feel about their changing composition. I'm not anti-anyone and love just about everyone, but I am very cautious about their motives.

 

Or it could be that Muslims have felt persecuted under the current regime and would feel that a different party might express less antipathy toward them.

 

So, what's the issue here? That Democrats are trying to get Muslims to vote? Or that there's a problem with some of the voter registrations that are getting filled out?

Because filling out voter registration cards with bogus information (is "bogus" a technical term?) is a bad thing. But trying to register eligible voters is a good thing. I'm not sure whether I'm more bothered by "OH NOES MUSL1MS V0TING" or combining the two into one issue and thus color the registration of Muslim voters with the stigma of bogus registrations.

 

Maybe. Persecution is a big word with a big negative meaning. Perhaps they feel watched and maybe rightly so since the Muslims who pulled off 9-11 did it from within the US, even though none of them were citizens. I don't think fear of terrorism is singular fear of our current executive branch (regime is carries a lot of negative totalitarian backage and is used by some for that very reason so I choose not to use it out of respect for the men and women who serve our country).

While there is no doubt US Muslims probably feel like they are being looked at more cautiously these days in public and their private lives, and some, a very small minority, have been hauled in by the FBI for questioning and even arrested. Muslims have not been persecuted, as a religion here in the US. Persectuion is what the Germans and Russians did to the Jews last century, what Americans did to the native Indians, and what seems to happen on a daily basis within parts of the continent of Africa. Muslims live freely in the US, more freely than almost anywhere else in the world, including the Middle East.

Persecution just doesn't fit and Bush doesn't dislike Muslims either as your comment would suggest.

 

Don, just so we are clear, and you know I love ya, but I read their web-site and they are focused on getting support in states that they feel can move from slightly Republican voting majority to Democratic. It is pretty clear. I am not as clear about their direct involvement in the LA registration issue however, I am not surprised that this is going on in general. Remember the Repubs prevent people from voting and the Dems make them up. ;-)

 

Also, every eligible person in the US should be allowed to vote regardless. I have Muslim friends and I love them dearly however a previous post used the word Persecution, which is so wrong, and when I see the word 'regime' when refering to the Bush White House, it makes my blood boil. It is so disrespectful. I know you didn't make that comment.

I live in California and am surrounded on all side by my well meaning liberal friends. So I get a little fiesty.

 

RidgeRider--I was trying to suggest that the motives for registering Muslims to vote Democratic are, perhaps, not as nefarious as you and pettyfog are implying. I didn't say that Muslims are persecuted; I said they feel persecuted. I don't think there's any doubt that Muslims, in general, feel that the tone coming out of the White House contributes to an uncomfortable atmosphere where children are made fun of, where families feel forced to move, and where a candidate who's been criticized for belonging to a Christian church is thought by one in ten Americans to be Muslim (and therefore a threat). Whether Bush personally "doesn't dislike" Muslims is irrelevant. Nevertheless, if you think the work "persecution" can only refer to harsh and organized measures, I'll withdraw the term.

As far as the word "regime" is concerned, I hope we can criticize a leader in a democracy without criticizing the men and women who serve our country. Although conscious of the connotations, I used the term as referring to a "prevailing social system or pattern," and "a period during which a particular administration or system prevails." I do not think the term is inappropriate, and I certainly meant no disrespect to those who serve. Again, if we can't, in a democracy, legitimately criticize the government without being accused of blanket disrespect for all to serve, I don't know what else to say.

 

OFUCRINEOUTLOUD!

here's the points, kiddies:

1. {THAT"S FIRST}... Yet Another Dem voter registration drive ending in tons of bogus future voters!

2. Why the DNC signed THESE guys to run the campaign. They have a pretty questionable background...

So, what do we have here. The accusation that whoever finds this strange and maybe a little unnerving is a bigot.

Terrier:

Perhaps you would point out EXACTLY where anyone criticized a candidate for belonging to a christian church?

Like you say, it's all in perception... true. Your perceptions, if I read you correctly, are just that. And they have no connection to the truth.

As to the 1 in 10 who perceive him to be muslim, can you elaborate on that?
Also why THOSE perceptions are to be discounted, while muslim perceptions of persecution are germane?

 

Terrier. appreciate the clarifying response. I think one of the greatest things about this country is we can say almost anything we want about our leaders and not have anyone show up at our doorstep.

My main beef with your post was mostly the inflamatory word choices. It seems to be prevalent out there and done for effect. I don't pretend to be an apologist for the current executive branch however I don't think every decision and move they have made are shite either.

In terms of our Muslim brothers here in the US and what that web-site is doing, I remain cautious on their political motives, not on their rights to organize......and on we go!

 

WTF!! Is that 'nuance'?

Do you REALLY not get the drift? Are you an idiot or just pretending? I KNOW you are just pretending.

NO ONE criticized obama for belonging to a church...PERIOD! They objected to what went on in the church he attended.

And YOU KNOW THAT! Not ONLY THAT, you KNOW that is what I meant.

And further you KNOW my point there is about Terrier glossing over those real concerns.

And YET, you cant resist!

 

Being that the point is election fraud, which is a serious thing that we should attempt to avoid, why is your thread title "Dems hire Muslims to get out the vote"? You're blatantly trying to link Muslims with election fraud.

 

To Fog's defense, the article does refer to VIP aka Voting is Power and that they were for hired by the Democrats to get 70,000 new voters before the upcoming election, has been named as being responsible for dumping registrations in Louisianna, and the site in question (if it is the same group) is a site for getting out the Muslim vote so.......it would seem to be fair to make the connection.

 

Boy, oh boy. Things get so muddled it’s hard to know where to start. First, RidgeRider, I appreciate your response. While certainly I was going for a certain tone, I really didn't intend on being inflamatory.
pettyfog:
1. Yes, people criticize what went on in Obama’s church, but I have seen/read/heard innumerable criticisms of Obama for remaining in a church whose minister espoused the views he did. Most do not separate the man from his membership in the church. If you do, then I applaud you. If you’re splitting a hair, that he was not criticized for belonging to A church, I’ll agree with you there. But he most certainly was criticized for belonging to THAT church.
2. The one in 10 figure was reported this morning on Good Morning America. The “perception” of that 10% is wrong: he is not a Muslim. When you ask, “Also why THOSE perceptions are to be discounted, while muslim perceptions of persecution are germane?” I’m baffled. They should be discounted because they are wrong. Muslim perceptions of unfair treatment (I’ve withdrawn my use of the word “persecution”) are germane because I am arguing that it’s reasonable for Muslims to vote Democratic given how they’ve felt under a Republican government. That’s also by way of saying it’s reasonable for the DNC to go after that demographic in an attempt to win the election. Does that excuse fraud, if, in fact, there has been fraud? NO, of course not.
3. I have never said “it’s all in the perception.” I’m not sure how you infer that from what I wrote.
4. Where in what I wrote do I accuse, or imply the accusation that those who are suspicious of the voter drive are bigots?
5. No connection to truth? I must be delusional or a fool--perhaps both.

 

Because perceptions COUNT!

I perceived Ron Paul was a simple minded charlatan, I was right. I perceive Pat Buchanan to be undesirable as a political influence EVEN THOUGH I may agree with more than 80% of statements he may make... because I disagree on what I consider the most important in the real world. And the points he makes in his last book show I was right.

So when you talk 'perception' it really is NOT 'splitting hairs'. What am I to 'perceive' when Obama claims to be the agent of change and hope, yet his associations and 'site community' are full of fringe nutcases.

And he {his campaign} lies about his boyhood 'adventures in Islam'?
The only thing to gather from the preponderance of circumstantial evidence contrary to his statements is that he is either extremely naive or worryingly deceptive.

Considering that it is a core tenet of expansionist Islam that it is permitted to lie to unbelievers in order to advance the faith, what am I to perceive?

Is he a 'terrorist'? I sincerely doubt it.
Is he following the well established practice of political deception to get elected? I think so.

Now... back to the point:

How many F34324G times do I have to say it? I am linking muslims to election fraud because they have done election fraud! That's not a perception, that's a fact.

The same as ACORN was linked to election fraud on behalf of Dems in the last elections... because it's not a 'perception' it's a fact!

You can keep your head in the sand or up your ass as you see fit.. dont rebut me pointing out the facts by pretending on one hand that I am saying more than I am, while at the same time pretending that connections with the Sharia-supporting 'Muslim Brotherhood', the organization responsible for the assassination of Anwar Sadat, don't matter.

BTW: Why do some of you have the impression that VIP was only hired to register Muslims? That wasnt the impression I got.