Skip to comments.MUST SEE THIS PHOTO (God & Jerusalem vote) - "Picture snapped and emailed to me"
Posted on 09/06/2012 7:41:04 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
"Picture snapped and emailed to me by a colleague from the 'clarification' process" - Greta Van Susteren
(Excerpt) Read more at gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com ...
What a ridiculous bunch of clowns they are!
must see - really!
must see - really!
must see - really!
So, the results had been tallied before the vote had been made. “You got a problem with that, Comrade”?
You have a very appropriate screenname.
These people really are amateurs!!!
Sent the link to Drudge and The Blaze. They don’t have it up, yet.
Would you guys please send them the link as well? Perhaps they’ll post it if enough of us hammer them with it. Thanks. :-)
Yup...that is why it was done by voice vote so that the chair could enforce the predetermined outcome the delegates would not support and ram through the face saving replastering once the reaction was gauged.
Fastest counter or the most tuned in ear in history to arrive at that conclusion.
Speaks volumes of the makeup of their party.
But...lest we forget, the Republicans pulled a fast one of their own with last week’s rule change.
We the People have our hands full.
The rank and file booing God!Ghat little hunk of video tells the whole story!
Yeah looks like this isn’t going to be going away anytime soon....
IIRC, Tip O’Neill used to do that all the time on the House floor. I remember watching a video once, with an ear-splitting “NAY!” from the Republicans and several Democrats, at which point O’Neill would declare “The ‘Ayes’ have it, slam the gavel down, and that was it.
Ok- I’m not sure I get this. Is it that the screen reads the results BEFORE the vote is even taken? Or am I missing something? (I may well be, lack of sleep during election season is not good!)
Their attack convention is nothing but a comedy of errors and a monstrosity of lies.
What izzit I’m supposed to ‘see’?......I see a camera, and screen and ????.......
Great photo, and it needs no explanation.
I don't get it either.
What is this picture supposed to prove?
I know, Boehner really gave up the moral high ground there. What a putz.
That the outcome was pre-ordained.
It is showing that someone in the background actually typed the “results” of the floor vote for the teleprompter and for Antonio Villaraigosa to announce a false passing of the re-insertion of the phrases into the platform.
Don’t you understand?
The TELEPROMPTER response to the “voice vote” by the delegates was written BEFORE the voice vote was ever taken!
This is what the speaker was told to say.
The “leaders” of the party knew they HAD to restore the atheist-dominated, pro-Muslim democrat party platform BECAUSE they were caught deliberately removing the Israeli support and God from their platform. The “vote” was a sham from the day before when the convention got the “Word” from Obama’s White House.
From the few areas you can see in the background, the seats are friggin EMPTY.
They had put on the teleprompter language announcing the result of the vote... before the voice vote was taken.
“I don’t get it either”
I didn’t either and maybe still don’t, but maybe it shows that since the words are on the teleprompter, the chairman’s decision on the outcome of the voice votes was programmed in before the voice votes were taken.
Obama "saw" the platform BEFORE the convention.
He decided that God and recognition of Jerusalem would be nixed. AND, that Hamas would not be considered a hateful entity.
People got upset, including Jewish donors. Big blowback.
Whoops, well maybe we went a little TOO far. No problem. Let's put it to a floor vote and make it APPEAR as if Obama wanted God and Jerusalem back in.
Floor voted and even though it was not 2/3rds and they should have stopped the convention and had each delegation vote by ballot.
Instead, they rigged it to APPEAR that they were not denying God or Jerusalem.
Half or more of the people there denied God THREE TIMES!
And, Hamas is no longer considered a bad boy.
There are two possibilities:
1. The TV screen is a closed caption display, showing the chairman’s words as he spoke them in near-real time.
2. The TV screen is a telepropmpter, showing a script which was determined by the PTB (Powers That Be) before the voice vote was even taken, and the chairman was simply reading the script.
So, the results had been tallied before the vote had been made. You got a problem with that, Comrade?
Coming soon to our country...we need to win this election before it happens.
Wow, that just sent shivers.
“Half or more of the people there denied God THREE TIMES!”
But St.Peter they are NOT!
Nothing about the photo conveys that it was before the vote.
St. Peter repented, I don't think these people ever will.
That’s exactly what it means.
Votes (voice votes, especially) are by their nature spur-of-the-moment, yet the outcome was already written down on the teleprompter for Tony V. to read off. So there he was, staring at a “the vote passed” text passage on the teleprompter while clearly hearing that the vote most definitely did NOT pass.
Instead of just going with it and “deeming it passed” (h/t to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid), he stupidly repeated the vote twice, each time clearly showing that the 2/3 vote requirement was not met. Finally, he just read the teleprompter and moved on amid boos and shouting from the godless, psychopathic leftists.
The whole episode clearly demonstrates that the left hates democratic voting, Israel, and God Himself.
It’s the teleprompter. The words were written BEFORE the vote was taken.
It was a scripted speech, only the audience didn’t cooperate. You can see Vilar’s face. He knows the next line he has to deliver on the TP but he can’t bring himself to say it because the bubbleheads who wrote this assumed the audience they so dearly adore, would go along with it. I don’t think even they imagined the extent of the democrat delegate’s depravity.
Talk about God at work. The Republicans could not of wildly dreamed that the Dems would mess this up as bad as they have so far. All comes from the top. This is Obama’s show but the dems will blame all the little people around him.
Please Dear God, keep up the Good Work. The very One they deny has begun their demise.
This dipstick was sitting next to the pre postal nutcase guy who was screaming NAY to reinstatement at the fever pitch intensity of cheering for terrorists who let loose a missile on Israel.
My question too. (I visited your home in Belgium.)
Comment on the linked page. (I don’t believe it)
The writers pre-write the teleprompter scripts prior to any use. They will have several prepared, waiting for the correct one to use depending on the outcome of the vote. This is standard practice and is not a sign of unethical activity.
Pontius Villaraigosa appeared to be looking for a place to wash his hands as the crowd shouted "Barabbas, Hamas, Barak..."
Further, the teleprompter says, “In the opinion of the chair...” So the was essentially told what his opinion was.
You have summed it up perfectly!
Hugh Hewett played this no less than ten times on my very short drive home from school yesterday!
For us Californians, the extra bonus was that future gubernatorial candidate (CA), Anthony Villaraigosa, was wielding the gavel! His future opponent can now show this video as an ad campaign showing the man to be a cheat and a liar! (for any that don’t know this man, he is a current or past member of La Raza.)
Greta always on the job and she has contacts!
Regarding the woman shown with the “Arab American Democrat” sign in her lap, has anyone noticed, and commented upon, the fact that while the man she was seated next to (who appeared to be with her) vociferously voted “No,” she sat silently during both the 2nd and 3rd vote?
Then she shook her head at the result, clearly displeased. The obvious question that comes to mind is “Why didn’t she vote ‘No’ as well?”
I can think of a possible answer, one that has a bearing on the “War on Women” the Democrats are pushing, but it would take an interview of the woman to be sure. Perhaps another unscripted moment gone awry?
Soviet historians could fearlessly and unerringly foretell the ineluctable future, but could never predict the ever-changing past.