-
If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.
Heres a couple of interesting "HOT OFF THE PRESSES " Headlines
- Thread starter GDAWG1958
- Start date
you didn't realize they voted? where have you been? on the moon?
Illegal Immigrants Are Voting in American Elections
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691
August 4th 2008
Illegal Immigrants Are Voting in American Elections
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691
August 4th 2008
just off the presses ....... Rod changes his last name to blackboyzob!tch ......lol .... 
The President - but once appointed they have life tenure so that they don't have to "pay back" favors.
You really going to try and pass this off as a credible report? The article starts out as NON-CITIZEN, which means LEGAL resident aliens, that are registered to vote. Yes, this happens becuase they fail to learn the actual laws AND because you have sleezy PACs out there roudning them up and convinving them they can vote. It does NOT specifically show any type of evidence that ILLEGALS are voting, It merely eludes to the fact there is illegal voting by non-citizens, and INSINUATES that illegals must be doing it also, but provides absolutely no factual evidence about ILLEGAL immigrants registered to vote. This is subjective opinion and blog material not actual fact-based reporting. There is a clear difference. I can't believe you are that naive.
Oh, did you even read the very last disclaimer at the bottom? "This report was produced for The Heritage Foundation." Enough said.
That's not enough said - please elaborate?
The fact that it was produced for an organization (any political organization) whose sole purpose is to sway opinion one way or another completely eliminates any objectivity. Objectivity is what separates news from editorials. Did you read the article?
No - just saw your comment and wanted to know your reasoning for making such a statement about The Heritage Foundation. You've answered my question.
ETA: Perhaps you should attack the facts (or perceived lack thereof) rather than the source, if, in fact, your argument is sound. I would appreciate that, as an independent observer of this argument, more than attacking the organization as a whole. Just because they have a certain perceived political ideology does not mean that everything they put out is a lie.
ETA: Perhaps you should attack the facts (or perceived lack thereof) rather than the source, if, in fact, your argument is sound. I would appreciate that, as an independent observer of this argument, more than attacking the organization as a whole. Just because they have a certain perceived political ideology does not mean that everything they put out is a lie.
Last edited:
