Limbaugh: "Fraudsters" at ACORN, SEIU, New Black Panthers going to try to affect elections on Tuesday

They paid money for a service that was not provided. That makes them a victim. Do you have anything of substance to add or are you covering your lack of evidence with a stupid "LMAO?"

What a nice and compassionate conservative you are kydem09. You are such a perfect example of the civil and intellectual discourse I so relish in the conservative camp. Thank you for correcting my error, I was in a hurry. What does it matter that it was only two places in Philadelphia? Well, because 70 million votes were cast, in fifty states and in thousands of counties and hundreds of thousands of polling places. There have been Conservative accusations of widespread voter intimidation, two places in one city do not widespread make, at least in my book. The men, Shabazz and King, were removed from their position outside the polling place. As to the racially charged remark, did the videographer do or say something to provoke the remark? I saw some fairly hostile behavior, and in looking at the video, I did not hear the remark that was allegedly made. But it still doesn't change the facts that most of the stories in the press repeat or paraphrase the Seper article. Please list the link to the civil rights leader's affidavit please. You are correct, intimidation should not be tolerated, and perhaps these men were intimidated by the presense of the white videographer who so obviously was trying to find trouble. In the recent ACORN video, we have heavily edited and doctored tapes from a Conservative source who claims to have captured improper behavior to support child prostitution, except that there were no child prostitutes, and the one woman who admitted to murder was apparently lying. Should we be outraged by her lying? Lying it never acceptable, is it? So, the lies that were told by the white videographers, O'Keefe and Giles, are not acceptable, right?

I agree that intimidation shouldn't be tolerated, but it does have to be proved to take legal action. The evidence in this case fell far too short of any actionable level, as the Justice Department determined. Has any body with legal expertise disagreed with that determination, or is all of the complaining just political?

Who was the "black civil rights leader" you're referring to?

The only person I've heard assert that the "cracker" comment was made was Bartle Bull. Only conservatives describe him as a "civil rights activist" and he isn't black. He did, however, support McCain in the election and called Obama a Marxist. Is that the guy you're building your case on?

There has to be evidence of intimidation. That's what was lacking. The Justice Department didn't have evidence of individuals who were prevented or discouraged from voting by those men. The judgments issued against them were the result of them not responding to the lawsuit against them. It was a simple pro forma action by the court had zero relevance to any kind of evidence.

I agree that the guy with the nightstick shouldn't have been there, even for the few minutes he was, but my point stands. There was nothing on which a criminal conviction could have been produced. Your wishing it was otherwise will never make it so.