The Republican Attack on the Right to Vote

rogerg

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Posts
613
Media
0
Likes
371
Points
148
It's easy to find evidence when one looks. Unlike you, I don't choose to keep my head in a particular orifice of my body

Plan to cut 30 Manatee County polling locations fuels outcry | Politics | Bradenton Herald
In Omaha, a Controversy Over Voting With National Reverberations | News | BET
Florida County Eliminates Minority-Heavy Polling Places | ThinkProgress
Experts: North Carolina early voting cuts will hit blacks hardest | MSNBC
Ohio sets up one early-voting system for Republican counties, another for Democratic counties

‘I cannot create unequal access from one county board to another, and I must also keep in mind resources available to each county,” Husted said in explaining his decision to deny expanded early voting hours in heavily Democratic counties. Yet in solidly Republican counties like Warren and Butler, GOP election commissioners have approved expanded early voting hours on nights and weekends.
No One in America Should Have to Wait 7 Hours to Vote - Andrew Cohen - The Atlantic
Polling Place Cutbacks Could Impact Vote, 100 Polls to Close in Omaha | Project Vote Blog
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/overt-discrimination-in-ohio.html?_r=0
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2012/11/election-updates.html
I could continue.....

As for the cost of the ID, you may have forgotten that no cost can be applied as a condition to vote. So even if the cost were ten cents it would be illegal. Plus there is the financial disadvantage of taking a day off from work or having to pay a babysitter so that the person could go to the DMV. Or what if they had to travel to get that ID? If one form of ID is acceptable to cash a check at a bank why isn't it acceptable to vote? If the ID that has been accepted in prior years is no longer acceptable then the cost of acquiring the new ID should not be passed on to the voter.


BET, MSNBC, Think Progress, Etc., once again, I said CREDIBLE SOURCES.

And if you READ these articles you'll see that cutting polling stations nation wide is due to the rise early and absentee voting, which saves tax payers millions of dollars, and they are across the board in ALL precincts not just Black ones. The argument here is the cuts affect black communities more than white ones because it will make it harder for Black's to get to a polling station due to transportation limitations. So they aren't arguing for EQUAL treatment here, but rather special treatment. Translation= because white folks have more cars than blacks, cuts in polling stations should only be in white precincts and NONE in black ones. If you do cut them all EQUALLY we will squeal "racism!!!" and "GOP voter suppression".That's asking tax payers to foot the bill to benefit one group over the other, and that is unacceptable.

Everything you've said in the thread so far is a bogus, leftwing fairy tail. You need to either get a brain or at least consult those who have one.
 

Jjz1109

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Posts
5,277
Media
25
Likes
6,800
Points
333
Location
NYC (New York, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
BET, MSNBC, Think Progress, Etc., once again, I said CREDIBLE SOURCES.

And if you READ these articles you'll see that cutting polling stations nation wide is due to the rise early and absentee voting, which saves tax payers millions of dollars, and they are across the board in ALL precincts not just Black ones. The argument here is the cuts affect black communities more than white ones because it will make it harder for Black's to get to a polling station due to transportation limitations. So they aren't arguing for EQUAL treatment here, but rather special treatment. Translation= because white folks have more cars than blacks, cuts in polling stations should only be in white precincts and NONE in black ones. If you do cut them all EQUALLY we will squeal "racism!!!" and "GOP voter suppression".That's asking tax payers to foot the bill to benefit one group over the other, and that is unacceptable.

Everything you've said in the thread so far is a bogus, leftwing fairy tail. You need to either get a brain or at least consult those who have one.

The liberal definition of equality is quite different from the Webster definition. It contains qualifiers and to them, it all makes sense. Equality is equality, for every man/woman.
 

rogerg

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Posts
613
Media
0
Likes
371
Points
148
The liberal definition of equality is quite different from the Webster definition. It contains qualifiers and to them, it all makes sense. Equality is equality, for every man/woman.

For them, its about equality of outcomes rather than Equality of opportunity. Its pure Marxism.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
BET, MSNBC, Think Progress, Etc., once again, I said CREDIBLE SOURCES.

And if you READ these articles you'll see that cutting polling stations nation wide is due to the rise early and absentee voting, which saves tax payers millions of dollars, and they are across the board in ALL precincts not just Black ones. The argument here is the cuts affect black communities more than white ones because it will make it harder for Black's to get to a polling station due to transportation limitations. So they aren't arguing for EQUAL treatment here, but rather special treatment. Translation= because white folks have more cars than blacks, cuts in polling stations should only be in white precincts and NONE in black ones. If you do cut them all EQUALLY we will squeal "racism!!!" and "GOP voter suppression".That's asking tax payers to foot the bill to benefit one group over the other, and that is unacceptable.

Everything you've said in the thread so far is a bogus, leftwing fairy tail. You need to either get a brain or at least consult those who have one.

This rather disingenuous GOP/Tea Party line of cutting polling stations and voting hours in order to "save taxpayers money" SHOULD be an INSULT to anyone with half a brain enough to see through their tactics and the reasons for those efforts.

Nor has it ANYTHING to do with "blacks wanting special treatment" or ANYONE suggesting that cuts in polling stations should be only done in white precincts. Those are phony bullshit strawman arguments, and pitiful deflections (though, undoubtedly, also from the party "handbook").

The FACTS ARE well documented in the following article (one of MANY such articles detailing the GOP's efforts at voter SUPPRESSION):


With eye on 2014, GOP ramps up war on voting | MSNBC


"Changes already on the books or in bills before state legislatures would make voting harder, create longer lines, and threaten to disenfranchise millions of voters from Ohio to Florida, Pennsylvania to Wisconsin, Georgia to Arizona and Texas."

"The results could significantly cut voter turnout in states where, historically, low participation has benefited Republicans."

""We are continuing to see laws that appear to be aimed at making it more difficult to vote—for no good reason,” Daniel Tokaji, an election law expert at Ohio State University, said in an interview."

"The changes are designed to affect local, state, and national races in favor of Republican candidates at every level."

"In Wisconsin, another key swing state, the GOP is readying a bid to eliminate weekend voting, and give populous counties less flexibility to keep early voting offices open late in response to a flood of voters."

"...would also lead to a reduction in early-voting hours for the state’s two biggest cities, Milwaukee and Madison, which happen to be Wisconsin’s most important Democratic strongholds.
The Wisconsin state Senate sponsors of the measure has said early voting in those cities is “out of control” and should be “reined in.”"

"Arizona and Kansas have gotten creative in their efforts."

"The scheme would create two classes of voters—those approved for voting in all contests, and those restricted to federal elections. The last state to enact a dual-registration system was Mississippi in the 1890s—you can guess for which purpose."

A local GOP official resigned last month after telling The Daily Show, “If it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that wants the government to give them everything, so be it.”



So they can go ahead with this bullshit pretense at "fair play", "uniformity", and "saving the taxpayers money" all they want. EVERYBODY knows what the fuck is "up". And some from among their OWN ranks acknowledge it:



In May, Ohio’s Republican secretary of state, Jon Husted—no voting-rights crusader—slammed the “hyperbole” over voter fraud, acknowledging that it’s not widespread."

"Republican officials in Arizona and Colorado pointed to an epidemic of illegal immigrant voting, but recent reviews suggested the phenomenon is nearly non-existent in both states.
"

"Judge Richard Posner, who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, In a new book, ...wrote that such laws are “now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression,”


One would THINK that those trying to prevent "certain" others from voting MIGHT have learned for their past. But apparently not:


"...restrictive legislation did not halt record turnout by black and Latino voters. Non-white voters made up a larger-than-ever share of the electorate last fall, and gave eight in 10 votes to President Obama."
 
Last edited:

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
These conversations can be fun to watch sometimes, but very rarely end in anyone being enlightened, changing their stance, or coming to a "middle ground".

Doesn't take away the fun though.

Many people from the right seem quite proud with their unwillingness to negotiate. The Tea Party even publishes their 15 non-negotiable core beliefs. Their reluctance to compromise will guarantee their demise.

The lack of curiosity, a low standard for evidence, and merging of ideology and values makes debating with a neoconservative a lesson in frustration. Consequently, Fuzzy mostly just corrects a few of their their copious untruths -- all the while trying to ignore their aggressive and sanctimonious language.

Although correcting their untruths has little to no effect on their ideology, Fuzzy believes that it's the responsibility for every who values honesty and evidence-based knowledge to assert these corrections.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
Well said. Obviously, shows how emotionally unwrapped some (not all, thankfully) can become in their hatred of all things conservative. Really, accusations of racism? References to masturbation? Wow, completely unhinged.

You said it earlier, they dont want any healthy debate. They just want to shut down any opposing views.

Alright guys, cut it out. You've had your fun, but while your quick quips that dismiss all the information you're not interested in reading might not be trolling (and really serve to just weaken your argument for anyone who might be genuinely interested in your point of view), your back and forth taunting about how all "the liberals" are inferior to you in some way certainly is. If you have something meaningful to contribute, fine. If you're interested in having a circle jerk while liberal bashing, open a private chat.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
The fun is pretty much the only reason to post here. It's true that no one is likely to change their stance based on what is presented here however one should be open to learning something new. Even though we know that certain types will either ignore anything that contradicts their views or call it spin it still allows us to keep up on what's happening. When a person refuses to even accept the words of someone on "their team" because it goes against his views it's clear that finding "middle ground" is impossible. It can happen though if there is openness to finding it. For example, Clinthardball and I disagree on just about everything but we did find common ground in our belief that our problems start with those in power and the divide that they wish to keep going.

I guess some here are used to the idea of liberals rolling over and taking it and when someone dares to push back they view it as an attack.

Many people from the right seem quite proud with their unwillingness to negotiate. The Tea Party even publishes their 15 non-negotiable core beliefs. Their reluctance to compromise will guarantee their demise.

The lack of curiosity, a low standard for evidence, and merging of ideology and values makes debating with a neoconservative a lesson in frustration. Consequently, Fuzzy mostly just corrects a few of their their copious untruths -- all the while trying to ignore their aggressive and sanctimonious language.

Although correcting their untruths has little to no effect on their ideology, Fuzzy believes that it's the responsibility for every who values honesty and evidence-based knowledge to assert these corrections.


Exactly. As I've stated here before, the purpose is NOT necessarily to change the minds of those who are determined to cling to an ideology or concept, no matter how much it is proven to be UNTRUE.

I mean, do we REALLY expect anyone to change their minds?

The PURPOSE is to showcase alternate and opposing points of view, so that our viewpoints and opinions, along with supporting FACTS, can be held up to scrutiny alongside their own, so VIVIDLY demonstrated, ideology, and judged (upon EACH'S merit) accordingly.
 
Last edited:

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
I'd actually like to issue a challenge to those that still think voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud is a good idea: Find conclusive evidence the voter fraud exists. Here are the terms:

1. Any credible source. This even includes FOX NEWS. (Gasp!) I'd prefer no tabloids like WND or anything for entertainment rather than information, but if they cite credible sources of relevant information, then fine.
2. The fraud must be of a form that would be preventable by voter ID laws. This is pretty much ONLY impersonation fraud.
3. The level of fraud that occurred must be significant enough to be considered. This is a purely subjective area, but I think I'll be reasonable. The reason voter fraud would be a worry it's because of the possibility it could swing an election. The 2000 presidential election was one of the closest in history, officially decided by a 573 vote difference in the state of Florida. So I think that's a good place to set the bar. Considering the number of claims that illegal votes number in the tens of thousands, 573 votes seems reasonable.
4. The claim must be said with CERTAINTY. Not "we think" or "there might be" or any other weasely language that gives them plausible deniability. Something said with enough conviction that it could mean a libel lawsuit in their future if they are lying.

Happy hunting. If you can deliver, you'll be the only person I've ever seen do so.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
I'd actually like to issue a challenge to those that still think voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud is a good idea: Find conclusive evidence the voter fraud exists. Here are the terms:

1. Any credible source. This even includes FOX NEWS. (Gasp!) I'd prefer no tabloids like WND or anything for entertainment rather than information, but if they cite credible sources of relevant information, then fine.
2. The fraud must be of a form that would be preventable by voter ID laws. This is pretty much ONLY impersonation fraud.
3. The level of fraud that occurred must be significant enough to be considered. This is a purely subjective area, but I think I'll be reasonable. The reason voter fraud would be a worry it's because of the possibility it could swing an election. The 2000 presidential election was one of the closest in history, officially decided by a 573 vote difference in the state of Florida. So I think that's a good place to set the bar. Considering the number of claims that illegal votes number in the tens of thousands, 573 votes seems reasonable.
4. The claim must be said with CERTAINTY. Not "we think" or "there might be" or any other weasely language that gives them plausible deniability. Something said with enough conviction that it could mean a libel lawsuit in their future if they are lying.

Happy hunting. If you can deliver, you'll be the only person I've ever seen do so.
I'll actually edit the challenge slightly. 573 people might be a little bit steep for impersonation fraud. How about 1/10 that? 57 people and I'll buy you a drink.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,854
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
BET, MSNBC, Think Progress, Etc., once again, I said CREDIBLE SOURCES.

And if you READ these articles you'll see that cutting polling stations nation wide is due to the rise early and absentee voting, which saves tax payers millions of dollars, and they are across the board in ALL precincts not just Black ones. The argument here is the cuts affect black communities more than white ones because it will make it harder for Black's to get to a polling station due to transportation limitations. So they aren't arguing for EQUAL treatment here, but rather special treatment. Translation= because white folks have more cars than blacks, cuts in polling stations should only be in white precincts and NONE in black ones. If you do cut them all EQUALLY we will squeal "racism!!!" and "GOP voter suppression".That's asking tax payers to foot the bill to benefit one group over the other, and that is unacceptable.

Everything you've said in the thread so far is a bogus, leftwing fairy tail. You need to either get a brain or at least consult those who have one.
I notice you ignored the links from the papers in the towns affected. Instead you focus on denouncing the source because you can't fault the information provided in them. You ignore the quotes from GOP officials which made clear their intent. You focus on the transportation issue but ignore that it was clearly stated in several links that while precincts across several states were being eliminated it was the minority areas that had them removed. Nowhere did it state that an equal number were eliminated. Any reasonable person would ask why if precincts had to be eliminated they all had to be in minority or Democratic areas? You also ignored the question as to why hours were shortened or eliminated in minority/Democratic areas while hours were extended in GOP leaning ones. You also missed the part about how it's easier to commit fraud with absentee voting but since more Republicans vote absentee there's been no push by the GOP to address that problem.

As for my sources, you can't think that they are anywhere near the level of bias found on Twitchy or Breitbart. Both of those sites still tout the discredited work of James O'Keefe. They report every rumor or urban legend about Obama and Hillary as if they were fact without ever trying to substantiate anything. Do they get quotes? Are there actual numbers to back up anything they say? No, because to them as long as it's an attack on Democrats it's okay. Have they ever done a negative story about any Republican? Doubtful.

I think you'd feel better if you get your head out of your:moon:. Maybe you'd learn something too.
 

Popyuu

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Posts
2,223
Media
0
Likes
46
Points
83
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'll actually edit the challenge slightly. 573 people might be a little bit steep for impersonation fraud. How about 1/10 that? 57 people and I'll buy you a drink.

Yeah i doubt you'll have any takers what so ever. They're too busy twisting each others nipples (haha south park reference). Ok ok i'll stop. :cool:
 

rogerg

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Posts
613
Media
0
Likes
371
Points
148
I'd actually like to issue a challenge to those that still think voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud is a good idea: Find conclusive evidence the voter fraud exists. Here are the terms:

1. Any credible source. This even includes FOX NEWS. (Gasp!) I'd prefer no tabloids like WND or anything for entertainment rather than information, but if they cite credible sources of relevant information, then fine.
2. The fraud must be of a form that would be preventable by voter ID laws. This is pretty much ONLY impersonation fraud.
3. The level of fraud that occurred must be significant enough to be considered. This is a purely subjective area, but I think I'll be reasonable. The reason voter fraud would be a worry it's because of the possibility it could swing an election. The 2000 presidential election was one of the closest in history, officially decided by a 573 vote difference in the state of Florida. So I think that's a good place to set the bar. Considering the number of claims that illegal votes number in the tens of thousands, 573 votes seems reasonable.
4. The claim must be said with CERTAINTY. Not "we think" or "there might be" or any other weasely language that gives them plausible deniability. Something said with enough conviction that it could mean a libel lawsuit in their future if they are lying.

Happy hunting. If you can deliver, you'll be the only person I've ever seen do so.

That was easy

Over 40,000 voters are registered in both Virginia and Maryland, group finds | Fox News
 

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male

rogerg

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Posts
613
Media
0
Likes
371
Points
148
I think JTalbain was asking for cases of voter fraud. Fuzzy doesn't think that he was asking for examples of where people are allowed to vote, which has nothing to do with fraudulence.

Can you show us 57 cases of voter fraud?

Dead people voting would be ended by voter ID's. Here are two articles that admit to this happening in California and S Car.:

"It turns out the claims of 953 votes by dead people actually involved not one election but 74 elections over a seven-year period."

Source- The case of
^^^ though this article set out to debunk claims that 900 dead people voted in the one election, it still admits that it did happen over a longer period if time.

"A closer look at the data revealed that some of the dead people were not only registered, but somehow, even voted, several years after their death. Sometimes, clerks say the mistake can purely be a clerical error, such as a misplaced signature or an outdated registration list that hadn't been purged. Other times, though, the voting turns out to be fraud, clerks say, where family members vote on their dead relatives' behalf."

Source- Dead And Still Voting | NBC Bay Area

And another:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...-Island-Nassau-County-Newsday-230030371.html#


This is interesting too though not vote fraud but registration fraud. Acorn worker admits actively perpetrating election fraud. He registered 2000 people who didn't even exist. No one argues that registration fraud doesn't exist. Therefore ID laws are necessary because imaginary people cannot vote if an ID is required.

Ex-ACORN worker: 'I paid the price' for voter registration fraud - CNN.com


Took me 5 minutes to find thousands of examples. You guys need to start broadening your information sources because you are either clearly idiots or just love being lied too.
 
Last edited:

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34

Your first attempt. SLightly misleading title; it implies all 44000+ were attempting to commit fraud. Of those people, they say about 100 voted in both states. This is not fraud that voter ID laws would prevent. If they're required to show a photo ID and they do so, they could still vote in both states. This is a registration problem, not impersonation fraud. Although I have my doubts about the legitimacy of their claims. They supposedly identified over 100 people who committed a felony, pinpointing them uniquely enough that they could confirm them voting multiple times, and no one is being charged with anything? This from an organization (Virginia Voters Alliance) who posts everything they can about voter fraud arrests and convictions in the state? Funny, this article that supposedly originates from them isn't even mentioned in the articles on their site. Their source may not have the blessing of his own group, but he sure has the blessing of FOX!

As a note, the VAA is on a witch hunt. They claim to be bipartisan, but drum up everything they can about "Democratic" voter fraud. Oh well, at least FOX kept their distance, wording everything as something the guy claimed (that plausible deniability thing). Ho hum. Next?
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
Dead people voting would be ended by voter ID's. Here are two articles that admit to this happening in California and S Car.:

"It turns out the claims of 953 votes by dead people actually involved not one election but 74 elections over a seven-year period."

Source- The case of
^^^ though this article set out to debunk claims that 900 dead people voted in the one election, it still admits that it did happen over a longer period if time.

"A closer look at the data revealed that some of the dead people were not only registered, but somehow, even voted, several years after their death. Sometimes, clerks say the mistake can purely be a clerical error, such as a misplaced signature or an outdated registration list that hadn't been purged. Other times, though, the voting turns out to be fraud, clerks say, where family members vote on their dead relatives' behalf."

Source- Dead And Still Voting | NBC Bay Area

And another:

More Than 200 Dead People Shown to Have Voted in NY County Elections: Report | NBC New York


This is interesting too though not vote fraud but registration fraud. Acorn worker admits actively perpetrating election fraud. He registered 2000 people who didn't even exist. No one argues that registration fraud doesn't exist. Therefore ID laws are necessary because imaginary people cannot vote if an ID is required.

Ex-ACORN worker: 'I paid the price' for voter registration fraud - CNN.com


Took me 5 minutes to find thousands of examples. You guys need to start broadening your information sources because you are either clearly idiots or just love being lied too.

Lol, do you actually read these articles before posting them as "proof"?

First article- concludes that the votes which were interspersed over 74 elections (already disqualified, less than 57 votes in one) were not intentional fraud, but confirmed clerical errors.

Second article- clerical errors.

Third article- clerical errors.

Fourth Article - guy made up people to register do he could meet ACORN's registration quotas. It is even confirmed that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY these phony registration could ever turn into votes.

Try reading the whole article rather than the headlines. I'll be waiting.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
As a note, the VAA is on a witch hunt. They claim to be bipartisan, but drum up everything they can about "Democratic" voter fraud.
I think I might have been too generous before. Upon further inspection, the Virginia Voters Alliance is not even a group with any official power whatsoever. It is made up of volunteers who have gotten together SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE they think voter fraud is a problem. Hell, here is the start of their mission statement:

"Who We are

About the Virginia Voters Alliance

Americans have lost faith in the integrity of our nation’s election results and fraud and law-breaking has become all too common in our electoral system. We hope to change that perception. Virginia Voters Alliance is a citizen-led effort to restore truth, faith, and integrity to our elections."

See, THIS is what bias really is. This is a group that was specifically founded to combat a problem. As such, it is an inherent assumption by this organization that the problem (aka: the entire reason their group was founded) exists at all. Because of this, they are inherently biased in determining whether a particular instance is fraudulent.

And this is what most people don't like about FOX News (and to a lesser extent the GOP). FOX is willing to repeat what they said for two reasons: 1) It makes the Democratic Party/Obama/Liberals/etc. look bad and furthers their talking points and 2) They have plausible deniability. This really isn't any different from the 2008 election, when the GOP and FOX had their ad banners on any and every site that was willing to bash Obama. There's a particular narrative they want to push, they're savvy enough to not fully endorse the lunatics (although ads do throw them money), and they're good at not getting caught holding the buck. If one of their stories gets disproven, they're still more or less in the clear; no one else reported it as news in the first place, and FOX doesn't issue a retraction, so you don't hear about it unless you go digging for it. About the only people that might see fit to talk about it are Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow, and I think very few in their audiences are going to feel shocked at the revelation. :rolleyes:

FOX rarely tells direct lies, but I don't think it's out of any sense of journalistic integrity. The right is really good at getting other people to tell the lies for them (Birthers anyone?). Honestly, given the people and messages I've seen them endorse in the past, I think the best word to describe the organization as a whole is sleazy.