Since when was being black a "language minority group?"

Since when was being black a "language minority group?"Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, I'm not a good editor... I should have ended the quote after the word color. Do you want to talk about voter suppression or my writing skills?

excon

You guys claim there is no voter fraud. Well, where's the suppression? Imagined doesn't count.

Are you crazy? If you didn't need an ID for the primary, why need one for the general election, since you were verified legit in the primary? That's what makes this suppression, that and the fact one of your own RNC in PA said so, without one shred of evidence there was fraud! NOT ONE!! EVER in PA!

That was from YOU guys! Admit it, You guys want a small government for the people, and churches and corporations to have unfettered power over YOU, us, and anybody else that doesn't go along with YOUR idea of the way the country should be run!

Hell we can't even have a reasonable debate without you hollering about what somebody is doing to YOUR freedom, but have no problem dismissing MY concerns. No wonder you support the guys that said granny is okay but her kids and grand kids are toast. No wonder your heroes are guys that have told you they were going to lower taxes for themselves while WE pay for it.

Guess you were impressed and convinced by Romney's white board presentation between two flags out doors too huh? Of course you were.

So just be honest, you guys are desperate to get your MITTS on the money that they didn't steal the first time. That makes you an accomplice to Bush on Steroids. Mitts kids are already rich, so the ones he screws over are OUR kids! He says he wants to save things for us?? YOU take his word, I need verification myself.

That integrity of the vote ain't washing, neither is that fraud crap you guys are pushing. Suppression is a mild term for what you guys are doing, OBSTRUCTION is a better word. I have to admit, you guys are really good at what you do.

I know, liberal straw arguments. Sorry, I thought it was my turn.

Are you crazy? If you didn't need an ID for the primary, why need one for the general election, since you were verified legit in the primary?

You got to start somewhere. If voter fraud isn't a problem then take that up with Justice Stevens, no right-winger, who wrote the 6-3 opinion affirming Indiana's voter ID law.



Once you get past the race-baiting, you will find that opponents of voter ID generally rely on two arguments, equally specious: 1) There is no need for photo ID, because there is no voter fraud in the United States; 2) This is a deliberate effort to suppress the turnout of minority voters, who often don’t have photo ID. Liberals keep repeating these false claims despite the fact that they have been disproved both in the courtroom and at the polling place.

The claim that there is no voter fraud in the U.S. is patently ridiculous (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275069/not-race-card-hans-von-spakovsky?pg=1), given our rich and unfortunate history of it. As the U.S. Supreme Court said when it upheld Indiana’s photo-ID law in 2008, “Flagrant examples of such fraud . . . have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists.” The liberal groups that fought Indiana’s law didn’t have much luck with liberal justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the 6–3 decision. Before being named to the Supreme Court, Justice Stevens practiced law in Chicago, a hotbed of electoral malfeasance.

So Stevens was wrong?


That was from YOU guys! Admit it, You guys want a small government for the people, and churches and corporations to have unfettered power over YOU, us, and anybody else that doesn't go along with YOUR idea of the way the country should be run!

You haven't a shred of evidence for that claim.


Hell we can't even have a reasonable debate without you hollering about what somebody is doing to YOUR freedom, but have no problem dismissing MY concerns.

I fight FOR your first amendment rights, I'd expect the same in return.


No wonder you support the guys that said granny is okay but her kids and grand kids are toast. No wonder your heroes are guys that have told you they were going to lower taxes for themselves while WE pay for it.

Cliché after cliché after cliché. I'm not impressed.

Guess you were impressed and convinced by Romney's white board presentation between two flags out doors too huh? Of course you were.


So just be honest, you guys are desperate to get your MITTS on the money that they didn't steal the first time. That makes you an accomplice to Bush on Steroids. Mitts kids are already rich, so the ones he screws over are OUR kids! He says he wants to save things for us?? YOU take his word, I need verification myself.

So I'm a liar?


That integrity of the vote ain't washing, neither is that fraud crap you guys are pushing. Suppression is a mild term for what you guys are doing, OBSTRUCTION is a better word. I have to admit, you guys are really good at what you do.

I know, liberal straw arguments. Sorry, I thought it was my turn.

And there we go, all that bobbing and weaving to offer only imagined voter suppression while I've repeatedly offered many examples of voter fraud. Like I said, you guys are under some silly impression that voter ID laws only affect your side. No sir, it applies to all equally... unless you're a black in 5 Florida counties. That sir is not fair, and I know y'all are all about fairness... it just has a warped meaning to the left.

Hello again,

Hep me out here...

I know you said there are dead people voting and that's why we need the law... But, HOW do you know dead people voted?? If you have some sort of LIST of dead people that you compared to those who voted, WHY couldn't you have used this list at the polling place to PREVENT the dead people from voting in the first place??

excon

Hello again,

Yeah, I have more to say... All during this conversation, I've been waiting for ANY of you to say, YES, my party has a HISTORY of suppressing the vote, but THIS isn't THAT. In fact, I've YET to hear ANY acknowledgement whatsoever on your part that your party has EVER engaged in voter suppression...

Earlier, we were discussing CONTEXT... If you take the need to STOP dead people from voting, OUT of the CONTEXT of the right wing's HISTORIC attempt to suppress the vote, then the report of dead people voting takes on a very different significance..

But, when taken IN the context of your party's history, one can LEGITIMATELY question whether dead peoples votes were ever counted, and one can question your motives...

That's all.

excon

Voter ID is a great idea, but the process is extremely flawed as yet again you guys have over reacted and put people in harms way of losing their RIGHT to vote. Obviously you have no regard for this obstruction of peoples right, only that they be in effect for THIS election.

There has been no evidence of the extensive voter fraud you guys have suggested, so that makes you liars about your intentions, and the judge well he gets used as an example of rights to make obstructive laws.

If you were sincere, you would be helping those that you want to comply with your new laws with time or assistance that far reaches what you wingers have done so far. I mean to solve a PROBLEM you have to round up a few million voters and make them produce PROOF they deserve the right to vote?

Its not WHAT you are doing, its HOW, that shows the true lunacy of the way you wingers address your own fears. Lie to yourselves if thats what you want, but don't think for a minute we believe you.

About 1100 felons all ineligible to vote .fraudulenty voted in the Franken -Coleman race that was decided by 312 votes . So far 177 people have been convicted and 66 await trial . The rest of them will get away with it because the rules of evidence favor the fraud .

The Franken vote was the 60 super-majority that Harry Reid needed in Obama's 1st term .
So you can say it all you want to that voter fraud isn't a problem .In 2008 ,it was a game changer.

So far 177 people have been convicted and 66 await trial . Hello again, tom:

I googled it. I found a BUNCH of right wingers SAYING the same thing, but I couldn't find any actual NEWS reports of WHO was charged, and what their sentence was, and WHY they did it... And, if there are 177 of 'em, you'd THINK you could find a local story about SOME of them... You know, REAL news. Or possibly a link to an actual courthouse, or an online case... Anything...

Now, I'm NOT saying it didn't happen... But, I can't find EVIDENCE of it.. Surely you can LINK me to some.

excon

About 1100 felons all ineligible to vote .fraudulenty voted in the Franken -Coleman race Hello again, tom:

I'm still having trouble here... Apparently, the ineligible felons, IF they're indeed real, registered under their OWN names and presented THEMSELVES at the polls to vote... Their IDENTIFICATION wasn't the issue... Their eligibility was...

How would a voter ID law fix that?

excon

Hello again, tom:

Yeah, I'm still having trouble... I'm a felon. I don't you think you could FIND another felon who wants to vote MORE than I do... But, casting a fraudulent vote ISN'T worth going to the slam.. I mean, it's NOT like they don't have my name and address. I can think of a MILLION crimes I'd rather commit than THAT.

Now, I can imagine there are one or two felons who could be convinced to risk it ALL for NOTHING in their pockets. Think about it, we're talking about FELONS risking EVERYTHING for NOTHING...

That's NOT how felons act.. It's not how ANYBODY acts. I have a problem believing that somebody convinced 1100 of them to do that...

excon

Cases of voter-ID election fraud found 'virtually non-existent' | MinnPost (http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/08/cases-voter-id-election-fraud-found-virtually-non-existent)


•Felons or noncitizens sometimes register to vote or cast votes because they are confused about their eligibility. The database shows 74 cases of felons voting and 56 cases of noncitizens voting.

Hello again, tal:

Thanks for that...

Let me see... We got the right wing fear merchants in one corner, and we got the legitimate press who actually conducted an investigation in the other...

I don't know about tom and Steve, but I'm going with the legitimate press..

excon

Ya know Ex, even there guys say there is no fraud, and in PA, the former state attorney now govenor says he has never seen fraud, the party leader said it was to get Mitt in the White House, and still they holler FOUL!!

Go figure! But don't say BOO, or they will soil themselves and blame OBAMA, their mama, and YOU! Good thing the sky hasn't fallen yet. And yes that's pee trickling on their heads... Hehehe! Don't tell 'em. SHHHHHHHH!!

Ya know Ex, even there guys say there is no fraud, and in PA, Hello again, tal:

Yeah, I can see it now..

"Hey Bubba", I say, "comere. I got a caper for us."

Bubba, looking upbeat, says "Cool, ex. I could use some extra bread. Who're we gonna do, and how much is our take?"

I say to Bubba, "Yeah, man... We're gonna VOTE. They'll NEVER catch us, the filthy coppers. If they do, they'll send us back, and we ain't gonna make any money, either... It's our civic duty."

Bubba looks at me crosseyed, and throws me out the door.

excon

Imagine what the wingers would say if Romney won, and they took the senate, and house, and we filibuster all their repeals.

Bwa haw haw!!

"Down the river and thru the woods to grandmas cliff we go, mitt knows the way to hire the slaves, to shovel his ice and snow OHHHH!"

Joke all you want to about it.. the fact is that the convictions are real, and in a close race like the Franken -Coleman race ,it is likely that vote irregularities were decisive . Much of the problem stems from same day registration which is a ridiculous practice begging for fraud .A legitimate voter id system would eliminate those questions .

"Down the river and thru the woods to grandmas cliff we go, mitt knows the way to hire the slaves, to shovel his ice and snow OHHHH!"

Tal and Joe Biden... perfect together .

Ya know Ex, even there guys say there is no fraud, and in PA, the former state attorney now govenor says he has never seen fraud, the party leader said it was to get Mitt in the White House, and still they holler FOUL!!!

Go figure! But don't say BOO, or they will soil themselves and blame OBAMA, their mama, and YOU! Good thing the sky hasn't fallen yet. And yes thats pee trickling on their heads............................................H ehehe! Don't tell 'em. SHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess what your really saying is there are enough safegaurds in place that voter fraud can't happen? Stop living in the clouds and see what you think of the video.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/08/DC-Polling-Place-Holder-Ballot

No one said it can't happen, no one siad it didn't happen, what they said is the incidence is low and even it a single person said he hadn't seen it, that doesn't mean anything. The question is are people being denied their right using technicalities

Since the right is not universal (age ,citizen ,in some states felons are restricted from voting) ,then it necessary to insure the integrity of the franchise . Voter photo id is a reasonable and prudent way to ensure it . ANY fraudulent vote weakens the integrity of the entire franchise .

Also the evidence suggests that Voter id laws do not negatively impact any voting group.
Stephan Thernstrom;a professor of history emeritus at Harvard University,and Abigail Thernstrom,vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights ,argue in favor of Voter id laws .

In the case of Indiana, whose voter ID law was in effect for the 2008 presidential election, there is some data about participation. That was a very good year for Democrats in general, but Democratic turnout rose more in Indiana, with its ID law in force, than in any other state. Georgia, which also had a new voter ID law in place that year for the first time, also had a huge jump in turnout, almost all of it from Democratic voters.
There are better and worse ID laws, and it seems obvious that the requisite proof of identity should not be needlessly burdensome to get; the process should be made as convenient as possible. The Texas Department of Public Safety, for example, provides free election identification cards to citizens who request them. Every state should make acquiring an ID equally easy.

President Ben Jealous of the NAACP has blasted voter ID laws and called for a “high tide of registration and mobilization and motivation and protection.”

If, indeed, the voter ID laws inspire drives to register citizens and get them to the polls (and get them photo IDs), won't America be better off? More people will gain the freedom to watch an argument in a court of law, board a train or a plane, and even buy a bottle of scotch. Democracy will have been enhanced. Sensible civil rights advocates might consider that, and join the drive for ID lawsVoter ID laws boost democracy - BostonHerald.com (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20220815voter_id_laws_boost_democracy_four-deck_subhead_goes_right_here/)

no one said it can't happen, noone siad it didn't happen, what they said is the incidence is low and even it a single person said he hadn't seen it, that doesn't mean anything. the question is are people being denied their right using technicalities


A good point. The only people who are prepared to, 'jump through the hoops' so to speak are those people who have some some of commitment to the political process. They want their vote because it is important to them. This group represents the 50 something percent that turns out on a regular basis at election time.

The apathetic minority have no political axe to grind. Unless of course they see something in in for them. So if there is even one hoop to jump through in order to get an I.D then they can't be bothered because it is just one vote.



Tut

I have repeatedly said, its not the requirement to have a valid ID that I oppose, it's the roll out of the process that I strongly disagree with. In Texas a third of the county DMV's were closed. I have already stated that in Ohio, despite the 4 hour waiting in line to get a ballot, they have cut the early voting times and this is evident in Florida as well.

Still doing the reseach for the other red states that have enacted these laws, but it seems at this time that they all have one thing and common, no thought was given to how this would cause any hardship on people who have voted before, LEGALLY, but cannot vote NOW. Even in PA its being shown that the government cannot keep there assurance that free ID's would be given to those elderly who want them.

So I ask again, to get a few must the many be denied their rights? Once you recognize that though it's a GREAT idea, you must also recognize the complexities that have to be addressed to implement that idea properly, AND FAIRLY!!

Now what's wrong with that??

I thoroughly reject the notion its okay to make people jump through hoops to exercise their right to vote. That patently straight from Jim Crow.

Boo hoo.. in other countries voters risk their lives to vote. Here a wait on line is an unreasonable inconvenience.

boo hoo ..in other countries voters risk their lives to vote. Here a wait on line is an unreasonable inconvenience.


What good is this?

I am sure that if you had to stand in line for 24 hours to cast a vote your would? But how does such a system cater for the disinterested voter who would give up an go home?

Tut

Since the right is not universal (age ,citizen ,in some states felons are restricted from voting) ,then it necessary to insure the integrity of the franchise . Voter photo id is a reasonable and prudent way to ensure it . ANY fraudulent vote weakens the integrity of the entire franchise .



I find it curious Tom you push and wave the flag of original intent but suddenly you want to use twenty first century methods to define who is eligible to vote. Tell me, Tom, what do you think the original intent was? Was it to give the vote to women, to ordinary people of various races and circumstance or was it a somewhat exclusive club? How come you are not suggesting original intent?Could it be it doesn't suit your purpose or would appear more ridiculous than this insistence on photo id? Will you want an imbedded chip next?

Why insist on reasonable and prudent measures here when you will not hear of them in any other constitutional argument?

boo hoo ..in other countries voters risk their lives to vote. Here a wait on line is an unreasonable inconvenience.Hello again, tom:

So, we should live DOWN to their standards?? What happened to American exceptionalism? You guys are silly.

excon

A little more on original intent


"At its birth, the United States was not a democratic nation—far from it. The very word "democracy" had pejorative overtones, summoning up images of disorder, government by the unfit, even mob rule. In practice, moreover, relatively few of the nation's inhabitants were able to participate in elections: among the excluded were most African Americans, Native Americans, women, men who had not attained their majority, and white males who did not own land.

John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence and later president, wrote in 1776 that no good could come from enfranchising more Americans:"

It seems the same attitudes remain today

I find it curious Tom you push and wave the flag of original intent but suddenly you want to use twenty first century methods to define who is eligible to vote. Tell me, Tom, what do you think the original intent was? Was it to give the vote to women, to ordinary people of various races and circumstance or was it a somewhat exclusive club? How come you are not suggesting original intent?Could it be it doesn't suit your purpose or would appear more ridiculous than this insistence on photo id? Will you want an imbedded chip next?
Hello! Original intent said that Amendment changes the Consititution.Voting rights were expanded through the amendment process . Therefore it satifies original intent.

Hello !! Original intent said that Amendment changes the Consititution.Voting rights were expanded through the amendment process . Therefore it satifies original intent.

Tell me Tom what amendment says photo ID is required?

Nothing has changed . The Constitution gives the States the power to decide issues like photo id. Remember ,there is no national election . We select electors who vote on the Presidency.
The Federal role was expanded with the 14th,15th,19th,23rd,and 24th and 26th amendments . But issues like voter ID are state issues .

Nothing has changed . The Constitution gives the States the power to decide issues like photo id. Remember ,there is no national election . We select electors who vote on the Presidency.
The Federal role was expanded with the 14th,15th,19th,23rd,and 24th and 26th amendments . But issues like voter ID are state issues .

Yes, but isn't this the very reason why you have a history of disenfranchisement?

Tut

One could make the same claim about your country since the rights have expanded at roughly the same time line ,give or take a few years. The fact is that there was no such a concept as "universal suffrage' prior to the 20th century. Our amendments to expand the franchise have followed the Western world .

Hello again, tom:

So, we should live DOWN to their standards??? What happened to American exceptionalism?? You guys are silly.

excon

Not saying that at all. I'm saying that if the franchise was so important to Americans ,more than 50% would show up to vote;and they would endure minor inconveniences like securing an id card that proves eligibilty .

and they would endure minor inconveniences like securing an id card that proves eligibilty .Hello again, tom:

The question at hand, is whether the inconveniences/roadblocks ARE, indeed, minor. You say they are. I say they aren't. The state COULD solve that issue by putting the onus on itself to provide the ID's. That would ELIMINATE the suppression question altogether. If it's simply an "inconvenience" for the voter, wouldn't it simply be an "inconvenience" for the state as well?

excon

So you are saying the feds give us all the right to vote, and states can make it harder to exercise those constitutional rights?

No wonder you guys, good ideas not withstanding, don't have a clue between an inconvenience, and a hardship! The funny part here in this whole debate is how when we agree you guys still ain't happy unless its a complete and total push for YOUR way only. "others need not apply"!!!

No I'm not saying the Feds give us the right to vote. I'm saying the Constitution gives the States the power to run elections. Maybe you should learn our system. Do you know how many elections the Federal Government runs ? ZERO

That's my point, state legislatures are RESPONSIBLE for FAIR elections. Its also my point that REPUBLICAN run legislatures are the ones rolling out new laws with no regard for cause and effect, or proper procedures that help make them FAIR to ALL its citizens.

That has national, and local implications. I know how the system works very well, and know how YOU want it to work even better.

Seems to me the system is broken or at least fractured. In the days of distance and poor communication it is possible to see why elections needed to be organised at a local level, but this is the twenty first century, a time when time and distance are transcended and all people should have equal right and access to vote

One could make the same claim about your country since the rights have expanded at roughly the same time line ,give or take a few years. The fact is that there was no such a concept as "universal suffrage' prior to the 20th century. Our amendments to expand the franchise have followed the Western world .

Yes, I understand that, but the question I was really wanting to ask is this:

If a need a photo I.D. to vote then it is up to the particular state to issue me with a photo I.D. However, if I am eligible for a photo I.D. in my state and I decide to move states does this mean that it is possible I may not meet the ordinary requirements needed in my new state to vote?

I have a history of mental illness,but my state still issues me with an I.D. because it is not a an issue. But what if I go to a state which excludes people with mental disorders from voting?

This is probably not the best example, but I am sure that when it comes deciding who should be disenfranchised different states have different criteria. I also understand that your Constitution would have some type of general definition for voter eligibility, but such a definition would not cover such things as registered and unregistered voters felons the mentally ill, etc etc.

Tut

Yes, I understand that, but the question I was really wanting to ask is this:

If a need a photo I.D. to vote then it is up to the particular state to issue me with a photo I.D. However, if I am eligible for a photo I.D. in my state and I decide to move states does this mean that it is possible I may not meet the ordinary requirements needed in my new state to vote?

I have a history of mental illness,but my state still issues me with an I.D. because it is not a an issue. But what if I go to a state which excludes people with mental disorders from voting?

This is probably not the best example, but I am sure that when it comes deciding who should be disenfranchised different states have different criteria. I also understand that your Constitution would have some type of general definition for voter eligibility, but such a definition would not cover such things as registered and unregistered voters felons the mentally ill, etc etc.

Tut

I will try to answer this. As far as changing states goes the answer is yes. You lose the right to vote in the current state until you become a resident. In most states that is a 3 to 6 month residency requirement. Where you do maintain the right to vote is in your previous state. You may request and absentee ballot (voting by mail) so your vote can still count.

There is a legal definition for the mentally ill. If the line is crossed to where a person can no longer make decisions on their own then they lose the right to vote because they can not make an informed decision. They lack the capacity to do so.

ID's are issued by most states at a minimal cost. Im sure if someone couldn't afford it someone else would step in to pay the fee or an added tax would step in so it can become free when the qualification is met. We already do that with telephone services in this country and with utilities. Most communities have assistance programs and outreach programs of some kind including legal aid that can assist in getting everything needed to qualify for a state issued ID.

Seems to me the system is broken or at least fractured. In the days of distance and poor communication it is possible to see why elections needed to be organised at a local level, but this is the twenty first century, a time when time and distance are transcended and all people should have equal right and access to vote

You miss the point . 1 almost all elections are local. 2 even the one national election for President is not really a national election. We are technically NOT voting for a candidate . We are voting for an elector who will vote for a candidate for the Presidency. We live in a Federal Republic .
The remedy as you know ;if you think the system is out of date is contained in the amendment process to the Constitution.
What we are seeing is that some states have committed to having their electors vote for the candidate that wins the plurality . That is their choice..

As far as "all people should have equal right and access to vote "... there are already restrictions on voting based on age and other factors not regulated by the Constitution. As long as there is no denial of the franchise for those covered under the Constitution ,and the requirements are the same for all eligible voters in the states ,then there is equal rights and access.

and the requirements are the same for all eligible voters in the states ,then there is equal rights and access.Hello again, tom:

It WOULD be equal, IF you didn't throw down some "inconveniences" in front of a bunch of voters... But, you did, so it isn't.

excon

The inconvenience is for all voters .

Hello again, tom:

It WOULD be equal, IF you didn't throw down some "inconveniences" in front of a bunch of voters... But, you did, so it isn't.

excon

Still with that straw man. You don't want the law to apply equally, you want preferential treatment for some.

The inconvenience is for all voters .

The inconvenience is to voters who have voted before to meet new requirements that a partisan legislature deems necessary, without proper procedures to in place to address them having access to government.

As in getting to a DMV 50 miles away or even being aware that they have to acquire new or different documentation. Making it necessary for the looming election instead of taking TIME to make insure the news is both wide spread, and proactive where to go and what to bring.

This and eliminating early voting sure looks like the FIX is in for this election, coupled with admission that it IS a partisan fix for political advantage and gain.

Obvious suppression and obstruction is NOT fair to voters, and indeed a manufactured straw man argument based on not FAIRNESS but willful desperation to control a process and ensure an outcome.

The fact you guys dress up and support such blatant suppression and obstruction in the name of a fair election with integrity frankly boggles the mind as you holler about the right of YOUR church, and YOUR rights as you SUBVERT the rights of others as guaranteed by the constitution.

You cannot hide behind the insulting claim that any dissent of your positions is a "straw man argument". That's a cop out in light of FACTS!!

Still with that straw man. You don't want the law to apply equally, you want preferential treatment for some.

Actually it's Romney that wants the preferential treatment for some:


“I’m not concerned about the very poor.”

Hello NK:


“I'm not concerned about the very poor.”He DID say that.. I heard it with my very own ears... Yes, there's some CONTEXT there that changes the meaning of what he said, but if CONTEXT doesn't matter for one, it doesn't matter for all.

Excon

Hello NK:

He DID say that.. I heard it with my very own ears... Yes, there's some CONTEXT there that changes the meaning of what he said, but if CONTEXT doesn't matter for one, it doesn't matter for all.

exconThat's exactly what I was thinking.

The inconvenience is to voters who have voted before to meet new requirements that a partisan legislature deems necessary, without proper procedures to in place to address them having access to government.

As in getting to a DMV 50 miles away or even being aware that they have to acquire new or different documentation. making it necessary for the looming election instead of taking TIME to make insure the news is both wide spread, and proactive where to go and what to bring.

This and eliminating early voting sure looks like the FIX is in for this election, coupled with admission that it IS a partisan fix for political advantage and gain.

Obvious suppression and obstruction is NOT fair to voters, and indeed a manufactured straw man argument based on not FAIRNESS but willful desperation to control a process and ensure an outcome.

The fact you guys dress up and support such blatant suppression and obstruction in the name of a fair election with integrity frankly boggles the mind as you holler about the right of YOUR church, and YOUR rights as you SUBVERT the rights of others as guaranteed by the constitution.

You cannot hide behind the insulting claim that any dissent of your positions is a "straw man argument". Thats a cop out in light of FACTS!!!!

And around and around we go, when y'all will stop nobody knows. Al of your objections have been satisfied which just goes to show you'll never be satisfied... or come up with something new.

And around and around we go, when y'all will stop nobody knows. Al of your objections have been satisfied which just goes to show you'll never be satisfied...or come up with something new.
That pretty defines politics on the Current Events board doesn't it? :D

"I'm not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

Your problem with that is what? He acknowledged all the aspects you apparently care about, making sure the poor have their safety net, not worrying about the rich, but shoring up the middle back. Obama just thinks "the private sector is doing fine."

Wait a minute... now context matters??

YOU (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/war-women-662145-20.html#post3242846) said it doesn't matter:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/war-women-662145-20.html#post3242846

Context or not that was a stupid and insulting line. Deal with it.

Wait a minute...now context matters?????


I have never said context didn't matter. Obama and Biden's context doesn't alleviate the sting of their lines, Romney's does.

And around and around we go, when y'all will stop nobody knows. Al of your objections have been satisfied which just goes to show you'll never be satisfied...or come up with something new.

Then go to our other great debate, and explain why your new VP candidate supported the Bush stimulus 3 times and opposes them now while taking the money and calling them a failure!

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/vp-paul-ryan-692749.html

I mean since this one is over and there is nothing new going on.

Or start a new one about the lies Romney tells of the president not requiring work for welfare recipients.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romney-keeps-lying-about-obama-and-welfare/2012/08/20/gJQATLmq9X_blog.html

Or the behavior of republican house members.

http://www.newsy.com/videos/fbi-probes-gop-skinny-dipping-in-sea-of-galilee-politico

Let see how fast you condemn them, or ignore the facts, or call it more left wing straw arguments.

Then go to our other great debate, and explain why your new VP candidate supported the Bush stimulus 3 times and opposes them now while taking the money and calling them a failure!

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/vp-paul-ryan-692749.html

Again, acknowledged, what else do you want?


Or start a new one about the lies Romney tells of the president not requiring work for welfare recipients.

Why Romney keeps lying about Obama and welfare - The Plum Line - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romney-keeps-lying-about-obama-and-welfare/2012/08/20/gJQATLmq9X_blog.html)

Answered (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/new-new-low-obama-campaign-693760-2.html#post3236872). And it's an opinion piece, that doesn't make it gospel.


Or the behavior of republican house members.

Newsy | Multisource Video News (http://www.newsy.com/videos/fbi-probes-gop-skinny-dipping-in-sea-of-galilee-politico)

Let see how fast you condemn them, or ignore the facts, or call it more left wing straw arguments.

Why is the FBI investigating congressmen taking a swim? Is there some crime involved here? Plus, this was dealt with a year ago.


But Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who was the senior most GOP lawmaker in Israel on the trip, was so upset about the antics that he rebuked the 30 lawmakers the morning after the Aug. 18, 2011, incident, saying they were distracting from the mission of the trip.

Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was also on the privately funded excursion, which means two of the three top House Republicans were a part of this trip. Neither Cantor nor McCarthy went swimming that night, the sources said. Some of their staff did.

The account of that August 2011 night in Israel was pieced together for the first time by POLITICO based on interviews with more than a dozen sources, including eyewitnesses, as well as public records of the trip.

A Cantor spokesman confirmed that the majority leader dressed down his Republican colleagues and that a staffer was later interviewed by FBI agents.

“Twelve months ago, [Cantor] dealt with this immediately and effectively to ensure such activities would not take place in the future,” said Doug Heye, Cantor’s deputy chief of staff.

Like I've said over and over, we police our own. When will your side do the same?

Well that was easy, next?

Yeah I recall all the Dem outrage over the antics of Anthony Weiner .As I recall ,the vitriol went after Andrew Breitbart ,who broke the story.

Weiner is no longer in congress, seems the FBI has found no wrong doing, with the rollicking congressmen who took a swim, so that leaves what you are acknowledging about Ryan and his flip flop on stimulus spending when Bush was the prez, and his lies about it didn't work, except like all the repubs who said it worked for their constituents, and took credit for bringing home the bacon.

And we can add to that hypocrisy by debating the attempts to redefine rape. Police him too while you are policing your own.

I see the repubs on this board are taking a 'wide stance' on this.

Now karma what could that possibly mean

I'll let you research it. :D

That's not all NK as I am researching more hypocrisy with the Ohio voter suppression efforts as they rollback early voting in densely populated urban areas, in an effort to seem fair,while there is a lot less need for early voting in rural much less populated areas of the state.

My premise, why do less populated areas have the same number of voting machines as the urban areas? Still working!

A note for the Canadians- In the US, not only is Jim Crow* alive and well, but separate but equal** is too.

*Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_Laws)

**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

Edited premise- early voting the same for both counties with 13,000 residents as for 1.4 million.

Where are the longest lines going to be?

As far as "all people should have equal right and access to vote " .... there are already restrictions on voting based on age and other factors not regulated by the Constitution. As long as there is no denial of the franchise for those covered under the Constitution ,and the requirements are the same for all eligible voters in the states ,then there is equal rights and access.



From the information I have gleaned here I would say you have equal rights, but not equal access.

Equal access would only apply if all states subscribed to a universal eligibility criterion; or, all states happen to exercise the same eligibility criterion.

From the information gathered here it would seem that equal rights do apply, but equal access doesn't.

Tut

From the information I have gleaned here I would say you have equal rights, but not equal access.

Equal access would only apply if all states subscribed to a universal eligibility criterion; or, all states happen to exercise the same eligibility criterion.

From the information gathered here it would seem that equal rights do apply, but equal access doesn't.

Tut

In a federal system all states subscribe to a universal eligibility criterion, they align their legislation with federal legislation or they adopt federal legislation. What we have here as has been pointed out is not a federal system but some sort of loose confederation where the only universal eligibility criterion is you can't susceed

BS... the criteria has been established in the various amendments I've already documented. Everything else is subject to the 10th amendment .

There is only one national election... and in that election , the electorate is NOT electing a President... they are selecting electors . EVERY other election in the country is a state matter subject to Constitutional standards that are equal .

So long as access is uniform within the state ;and state laws comply with the Constitutional criteria ,then it is just not a fact to make the claim that rights are being violated .

BS ...the criteria has been established in the various amendments I've already documented. Everything else is subject to the 10th amendment .

There is only one national election ....and in that election , the electorate is NOT electing a President ...they are selecting electors . EVERY other election in the country is a state matter subject to Constitutional standards that are equal .

So long as access is uniform within the state ;and state laws comply with the Constitutional criteria ,then it is just not a fact to make the claim that rights are being violated .



Hi Tom,

You are firming up what I have already pointed out. Namely: equal rights.

Just because state electoral laws fall in line with Constitutional criterion doesn't guarantee equal access. Equal access is only guaranteed if all state laws fall under a universal criterion of eligibility.

So you can tell me that all states have exactly the same eligibility criterion?

If you can't then there is no equal access.

Tut

Tut , Tom is caught in an eighteenth century time warp and he and his ilk have trapped the county there for over two hundred years. In that time no one has been allowed to have an original idea because dissent must be suppressed. Tom thinks his constitution is sacrosanct and must not be interferred with. He tells us there is an amendment process but you can be sure he would violently oppose it. The last time some one had an original idea they had a civil war which cost hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of lives. I can understand his caution but it is time to move on

All State laws must be Constutitutional . So long as there is equal access within a state there is equal access . Period . If a State decides to have voter id and the law within the state applies equally then there is no issue. If a state determines that it doesn't need voter id then that is their business (although I think it compromises the integrity of the franchise... which is as important in my opinion as equal access) .

Equal access is not part of the original concept, it is an unfamiliar concept to the writers of the constitution who formed a gentleman's club to run the country and keep all those poor people in line, and it seems it is an unfamiliar concept today. Civil rights was an unfamiliar concept until people took to the streets and forced those states to change, perhaps it will take that again

he tells us there is an amendment process but you can be sure he would violently oppose it that is just not true ! I have some ideas about about amendments that should be added.

the last time some one had an original idea they had a civil war which cost hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of lives
There have been 15 amendments post Civil War. Some I agree with ;some I don't . Doesn't matter.. they are now the law of the land . None of them caused a violent civil war . I would also add that it was an activist court's unconstitutional decision that was the primary cause of the Civil War .

equal access is not part of the original concept, it is an unfamiliar concept to the writers of the constitution who formed a gentleman's club to run the country and keep all those poor people in line, and it seems it is an unfamiliar concept today. Civil rights was an unfamiliar concept until people took to the streets and forced those states to change, perhaps it will take that again
I already addressed that in the various amendments . The "original concept " designed by the founders was that change would be addressed constitutionally through the amendment process. .

All State laws must be Constutitutional . So long as there is equal access within a state there is equal access . period . If a State decides to have voter id and the law within the state applies equally then there is no issue. If a state determines that it doesn't need voter id then that is their business (although I think it compromises the integrity of the franchise ...which is as important in my opinion as equal access) .


Sorry Tom, but you are only supplying a tautology.

"So long as there is equal access within a state there is equal access.Period"

The whole idea of equal access is that access can be applied universally to all states. Not just the tautology you offer.

I think you have equal rights but not equal access. Equal rights doesn't mean equal access.

Tut

The whole idea of equal access is that access can be applied universally to all states.
That would only be true if there were national elections... which there aren't .There are state elections . The result of each state election is independent of the other states ;even in a Presidential election. So you can only determine equal access within a state. PA has different rules governing their elections than my state of NY.. There are different rules for early voting ;even issues like polls open and closing times differ. So long as they apply equally to all voters WITHIN the state ;there is equal access.

Have you noticed we have come full circle?

That would only be true if there were national elections ... which there aren't .There are state elections . The result of each state election is independent of the other states ;even in a Presidential election. So you can only determine equal access within a state. PA has different rules governing their elections than my state of NY .. There are different rules for early voting ;even issues like polls open and closing times differ. So long as they apply equally to all voters WITHIN the state ;there is equal access.


Hi Tom,

I see.

You don't have a Federal Electoral Commission? You don't have some sort of Federal funding available for Presidential elections? You don't have some sort of Federal Election Act?


Tut

States like to legislate things to favor the party in power. From redistricting to access. Of course they can't just say its to keep control, but voter fraud, and budgetary reasons works most times.

Try living in Illinois... it hurts. :)

No thanks I like it here less snow

You don't have a Federal Electoral Commission? You don't have some sort of Federal funding available for Presidential elections? You don't have some sort of Federal Election Act?

Yes we do ;and their regulatory power is to ensure the Constitutional provisions ,and associated Federal law are complied with . In that regard ;there is a degree of uniformity .

Yes we do ;and their regulatory power is to ensure the Constitutional provisions ,and associated Federal law are complied with . In that regard ;there is a degree of uniformity .

Ok then.

What I am suggesting is that when you elect The President of the United States, you are actually having a Federal Election.

If you are having a Federal Election then equal access needs to be universal.

Tut

If you are having a Federal Election then equal access needs to be universal.Hello TUT:

Even if it's a state election, the 14th Amendment requires that everybody enjoys "equal protection under the law"...

excon

Ok then.

What I am suggesting is that when you elect The President of the United States, you are actually having a Federal Election.

If you are having a Federal Election then equal access needs to be universal.

Tut

Nope . The electorate is not voting for the President . They are voting for electors who represent the state in the Electoral College. It is the Electoral College that votes for the President .

Maybe that's where things should be changed, then maybe a candidate has to get more VOTES instead of more DELEGATES. It was the intent of the founding fathers to keep elections in the hands of the elite class rather than the working class and a classic example of voter suppression.

Break up the power of the elites, we may end up with some common sense from the electorate. Then maybe the whole election won't come down to just Florida, and local jiggering of delegates by one party or another. That alone would have saved us from the Bush years, or needing a Supreme Court to decide an election.

For sure asking a rich guy to give up his connections and influence to the will of the great unwashed is a formidable task. But then wouldn't lawmakers be more accountable to the people rather than the rich guy? Or the machinations of party bosses?

Hello TUT:

Even if it's a state election, the 14th Amendment requires that everybody enjoys "equal protection under the law"...

excon

Everybody but babies.

Everybody but babies.
Babies have that protection too.

Maybe thats where things should be changed, then maybe a candidate has to get more VOTES instead of more DELEGATES. It was the intent of the founding fathers to keep elections in the hands of the elite class rather than the working class and a classic example of voter suppression.

Break up the power of the elites, we may end up with some common sense from the electorate. Then maybe the whole election won't come down to just Florida, and local jiggering of delegates by one party or another. That alone would have saved us from the Bush years, or needing a Supreme Court to decide an election.

For sure asking a rich guy to give up his connections and influence to the will of the great unwashed is a formidable task. But then wouldn't lawmakers be more accountable to the people rather than the rich guy? Or the machinations of party bosses?

No one has really made a serious move to amend. Some states have pledged to commit their electors to vote according to the national plurality . But that is the only effort made to change the current system.

The founders motives had nothing to do with what you ascribe to them. They in fact wanted to protect the minority from the majority . In this case there were some states like NY that would've had a disproportionate influence on the Republic based on it's large population. They wanted equal protection between the states .
This system works... the candidates can not ignore the small states ;they can't only concentrate their efforts in a few large urban centers .They have to attract enough of the vote from the WHOLE country to win in our system.

United States presidential election, 2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000)

Lol Don't know what you are trying to prove . Al Gore violated the Constitutional procedures by introducing the judiciary into the President election process. But in honesty ,it was not a high water mark for either party;or for SCOTUS . The proper constitutional arbitrator for that election was Congress. .

Edit... I agree with those on Wiki who blame Nader for the Gore loss. That is typical unintended consequences of 3rd party candidacies.

Yes Tom freedom does have consequences

Nope . The electorate is not voting for the President . They are voting for electors who represent the state in the Electoral College. It is the Electoral College that votes for the President .


In that case you you do have a Federal Presidential Election.

It would make no difference if you had a situation whereby The President of the United States was chosen by the Governor of every state. All that is required is that the Governors get together and cast their vote. Once this is done then you have just had a Federal Election.

This would have course be a non-accessible election as far as the public is concerned, but it is still a Federal Election for a President. It is Federal because every state has one representative to vote for a National President.

The same argument applies to the Electoral College delegates. Once the delegates get together and vote there has been a Federal Election for the President.


What I am saying is that question of suffrage, directness and indirectness of the electoral process is irrelevant to the question as to whether a voting process is actually National. You can have a National election for a President without considering directness, indirectness and universal suffrage.

Tut

Tut, you can't change a closed mind with logic, these guys are indoctrinated regarding their system from early childhood, absolutely brainwashed, and will not entertain another view. It is like talking to a wall, or, as they say in the classics; "talk to the hand...

Hello TUT:

Even if it's a state election, the 14th Amendment requires that everybody enjoys "equal protection under the law"...

excon

Hi Ex,

I understand how the 14th Amendment works but I am approaching this from a slightly different angle. I hope to work it something like this:

Imagine that in Australia we have a Federal Election for the Prime Minister (President). We don't actually, but imagine that we did. This is a National Election so every voter in every state gets to vote for the Prime Minister.

Because this is a National Election it is important that every state is uniform in the process. If every state in Australia had polling stations open for 3 hours on election day then every voter in every state would have equal access in terms of a time frame for voting. But if one state were to have their polling stations open for 12 hours on voting day then this would be unequal access. Either they are all open for 3 hours, or they are all open for 12 hours.

This wouldn't be a problem for a state election because everyone is subject to the same time limitation; but in terms of a Federal scale it is unequal access issue.

If you read my earlier posting you would see that I am arguing that you indeed hold a Federal Election for the Presidency. If this is the case then some states requiring voter I.D. and other states not requiring an I.D. is an example of unequal access when it comes to voting for a President.

I understand that voting for the President is an example of indirect voting, but I will be arguing that this changes nothing. Anyway, this is what I will be trying to do.

Tut

Tut you need to stop confusing these guys, our Prime Minister is not the equivalent of their President. Their President does not have to face a hostile opposition every day and to be personally called to account for policy implementation, nor is our Prime Minister elected by popular vote. The Party caucus is no different to their electoral college. We don't need an election to depose a Prime Minister

I agree with your logic, but good luck telling a republican we need more access not less. They believe in legal voter fraud tactics, to rig the system. Hey we all have tricks, but theirs is very blatant.

Not all of us has been so indoctrinated to this system though, and more are getting fed up with their tactics and excuses, especially this rigged electoral college deal that's way past its time for the scrap heap. You have to break up the local fiefdoms first, both republican, and democrats.

One rule for all, and one vote for all. Rich,or poor!!

especially this rigged electoral college deal that's way past its time for the scrap heap. Haven't seen a ground swell of public support for an amendment .

Opposition steadily grows.

I agree with your logic, but good luck telling a republican we need more access not less. They believe in legal voter fraud tactics, to rig the system. Hey we all have tricks, but theirs is very blatant.

That is totally, emphatically untrue. What do you have to fear from guaranteeing elections are legitimate?

I don't fear it just your version that makes IDS time critical, and limited hours to do it. FOUR hours of standing in line to vote! ABSURD!! Some of us like voting in person, it's a social thing.

How about the day off to do it?

I don't fear it just your version that makes IDS time critical, and limited hours to do it. FOUR hours of standing in line to vote! ABSURD!!! Some of us like voting in person, its a social thing.

How about the day off to do it?

I'd love the day off to do it, but good luck with that. Look, we cannot have open-ended voting, there HAS to be a time frame. We have early voting, mail-in ballots and we get 12 hours on election day. If people can't arrange to vote in that period that's just too darn bad. ID laws have already been held constitutional so all these attempts at reversing them are just political ploys. You're going to need an ID, get used to it.

P.S. Most states already have voting leave laws, so what's your next excuse?

I don't make excuses, but have empathy for elderly and working folks with no car. But then I am not a republican trying to get my candidate elected and using fraud as an excuse.

If you hadn't gotten caught, and called out on it, by admission of your own party, that fraud excuse would have been okay. But another example of right wing over reach, and throwing the baby out with the bath water.

You guys have good ideas, but the approach is an abomination. You could do better.

I don't make excuses, but have empathy for elderly and working folks with no car. But then I am not a republican trying to get my candidate elected and using fraud as an excuse.

If you hadn't gotten caught, and called out on it, by admission of your own party, that fraud excuse would have been okay. But another example of right wing over reach, and throwing the baby out with the bath water.

You guys have good ideas, but the approach is an abomination. You could do better.

There was no admission of anything, you guys are reading things into it that simply aren't there as usual. Like I said, you're going to need an ID, get used to it. And it has nothing to with empathy or the lack thereof.

There was no admission of anything, you guys are reading things into it that simply aren't there as usual. Like I said, you're going to need an ID, get used to it. And it has nothing to with empathy or the lack thereof.



I don't have a problem with I.D.'s for STATE elections. So long as the I.D.'s are easily obtainable at a nominal cost. One the other hand, I think there is a real access problem when it comes to obtaining a Federal outcome at election time.

Every four years someone gets the title of, The President of the United States. This title is not inherited, nor does it come about through osmosis. It comes about because of some type of federal election process.

I think you will continue to have access issues so long as you regard Federalism as a by-product of the electoral process. I also think equal access issues are an immediate problem.

Tut

Tut they are "the democracy" every time you question them you emasculate them, they have no idea what a democracy is

We don't claim to be a 'democracy'. We are a constitutional Federal Republic .

it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.(Alexander Hamilton )

Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
(John Adams )

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.(James Madison)

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.(Thomas Jefferson)

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." (John Marshall)


Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.(James Madison)

And a bonus quote
Democracy passes into despotism. (Plato)

Hello Padre:

The issue ISN'T ID.. It's that LOTS of poor people don't HAVE the ID the state is requiring... Now, if the state issued a FREE ID along with the new requirement, I'd say their intention is voter integrity... But, if they DON'T, I'd say their intention is voter suppression. The guy in my link AGREES with me.

excon

Candidly Ex the state should have no opinion either way, but partisan politics being what it is... I'm wondering how long it will be before the tail wags the dog in the Ryan, Romney ticket

We don't claim to be a 'democracy'. We are a constitutional Federal Republic .

it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.(Alexander Hamilton )

Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
(John Adams )

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.(James Madison)

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.(Thomas Jefferson)

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." (John Marshall)


Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.(James Madison)

and a bonus quote
Democracy passes into despotism. (Plato)


Hi Tom,


What actually caught my eye was Plato's quote right at the end of out post. "Democracy passes into despotism" was an interesting choice.Well, as far as Plato was concerned he was hoping Athenian Democracy would pass into despotism ; but that's another story.

In essence Plato was trying to answer the question, "Who should rule?" Clearly from you point of view the answer is your Constitution. In Australia we are a democracy. We are a democracy in as much as we accept the intrusion of government into our lives.

In Australia we elect a government to implement policy. If we don't like it then we have to lump it. The good news for those who,' have to lump it' is that others can vote the existing government out of power and then it becomes the other sides turn to lump it.

To answers Plato's question from our point of view is that we are a government of men. And that government should rule. The proviso being that we can change our rulers.

As far as you guys are concerned the question is answered by saying that political dominance should be spread around as much as possible.



Tut

Democracy passes into despotism. remember you said that Tom because that is what is happening to your happy Constitutional Federal Republic which you admit is no democracy, so government by the people, for the people, has indeed perished in North America. What you have left is populism typified by the razzled dazzle, some what soggy this week, but razzle dazzle none the less and when it is over you will have what?

We have to be vigilant .

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.(Ronald Reagan)

Freedom for who? The history of this country is that most have fought long and hard for their freedoms and rights to vote and along comes the right wing to roll back those gains and obstruct the very process of freedom.

Under the guise of fraud they TARGET specific peoples to deny and impede their rights while promoting increasing the extraction of the economy to those that have already extracted the lions share of blood,sweat and tears.

Now you can dress this up in all the quotes you want by dead presidents and statesmen, and debate intent, and interpretations but today's battles are real, and they are now, and Adams Plato, and Reagan are not here to consult with on philosophy, or policy.

Having freedom on paper and having the right to exercise those freedoms, is as we all know an ongoing battle due to the ever constant assault by the loony tunes who feel so threatened by the freedom of others, they would actively pursue a course of obstruction, and extraction to preserve the very gods that have long enslaved and impoverished them.

What kind of country do we have here that we reside in? We are about to find out aren't we? Adams and the boys can't vote.

Get used to it... photo ids are here to stay.

get used to it ....photo ids are here to stay.
For whom? Why? My state doesn't require one.

He meant if you live in Republican controlled states. You know red ones that that are clamping down on early voting? Shutting down DMV's, and telling seniors that their bibles are not proper proof of their existence or their rights to vote, while purging the voter roles of alien sounding names like Gonzales.

Those states.

It's coming... the last attempt was defeated in March but there are about 8 other bills floating around your state legislature and Senate... it's just a matter of time. It's a matter of defending America's electoral integrity.

it's a matter of defending America's electoral integrity.
From what? Voting for the "wrong" candidate?

Why doesn't the GOP work hard to get black and Latino votes? Where is the black convention speaker?

Why the irrelevant questions ? Fact is that in States like Georgia and Indiana ,voter participation rose after the photo id laws were passed.

From what? Voting for the "wrong" candidate?

And the circle begins again. Any new objections that haven't been thoroughly debunked?


Why doesn't the GOP work hard to get black and Latino votes? Where is the black convention speaker?

Who says they aren't? (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20120806-new-mitt-romney-video-features-texas-man-targets-hispanic-voters.ece) And what exactly does having a black convention speaker prove?

And what exactly does having a black convention speaker prove?
At least then there would be one black person at the convention.

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
And the circle begins again. Any new objections that haven't been thoroughly debunked?

Debunked to YOUR satisfaction, but minorities disagree strongly. They will have their IDS, but you won't have their votes.

I think gaining trust will take more than campaign ads.

At least then there would be one black person at the convention.

As if it will be whiter than Obama's cabinet.

Debunked to YOUR satisfaction, but minorities disagree strongly. They will have their IDS, but you won't have their votes.

And you won't the votes of felons, dead people and those voting in more than one state. I can live with that.


I think gaining trust will take more than campaign ads.


And less of this:

As if it will be whiter than Obama's cabinet.
Lots of minorities represented in that gang.

And you won't the votes of felons, dead people and those voting in more than one state. I can live with that.
All 16 of them.

A felon that's done his time should be given his rights back or what's the point of letting him out? To connect that with dead people voting and jumping from state to state is a real stretch and voter ID will NOT solve that problem. Those are problems for the registration process not the polls. And since when do we round up a bunch of folks to catch a very few?

Come on into the real world why don't you. And while you are at it, tell Romney to stop lying about his welfare ads. Blatant racism!! You have to be blind or scared, or both not to see that.

A felon thats done his time should be given his rights back or whats the point of letting him out?

Oh come on. Your not even thinking here just spoutng off. DO you really believe that about a felon? What if it is a rapist or child molester ? Should they just serve their time and that's it? Or as it is today they has to register as an offender?

There are already ways for felons to have their rights restored.

Hello again,

You know I can hear you...

excon

Hello again,

You know I can hear you...

excon

Lol. Have another beer and take your nap so you can skip a few answers ;)

Oh come on. Your not even thinking here just spoutng off. DO you really believe that about a felon? What if it is a rapist or child molester ? Should they just serve thier time and thats it? Or as it is today they has to register as an offender?

There are already ways for felons to have thier rights restored.

What does that have to do with the right to vote after one has served time and paid his debt to society? If he has to register as a sex offender so what, that's but a condition of release for his offense. The guy with the four year term for possession should be given a chance at being a good citizen, right?

All 16 of them.

I wonder how Al Franken got elected (http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/07/al-franken-and-the-felon-vote/)...


To date, 1099 felon votes have been identified, and 177 people have actually been convicted of voting illegally, with 66 more awaiting trial.

Lots of minorities represented in that gang.

Depends on your definition of "lots."

As to you earlier question, minority speakers at the GOP convention include: South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Condoleezza Rice, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, GOP Puerto Rico National Committeewoman Zoraida Fonalledas, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, Saratoga Springs Mayor Mia Love, Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuño and former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis.

But I'm sure they aren't genuine minorities and can't match the stature of Sandra Fluke.

P.S. MSNBC was so intent on convincing their 19 viewers that Republicans are just plain racist that they refused to show last night's minority speakers (http://redalertpolitics.com/2012/08/28/msnbc-cuts-every-speech-made-by-a-minority-from-rnc-speech-coverage/).


MSNBC wants you to think the Republican Party hates minorities. So much so that the liberal news network cut minority speeches from it's convention coverage.

When popular Tea Party candidate Ted Cruz, the GOP nominee for Senate, took the stage, MSNBC cut away from the Republican National Convention and the Hispanic Republican from Texas' speech.

MSNBC stayed on commercial through former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis' speech, as well. Davis, who recently became a Republican, is black.

Then, when Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno's wife Luce' Vela Fortuño took the stage minutes later, MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews opted to talk over the First Lady's speech.

And Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval? Noticeably missing from MSNBC, too.

Mia Love, a black candidate for Congress in Utah, was also ignored by MSNBC.

Got to pander to those 12 rabidly liberal viewers.

THe speech by Artur Davis MSNBC refused to show:

-WKJ_SUV_ek

Excerpt:


We don’t need flowery words about inequality to tell us that, and we don’t need a party that has led while poverty and hunger rose to record levels to give us lectures about suffering.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are Americans who are listening to this speech tonight who haven’t always been with you, and I want you to let me talk — just to them – for a moment.

I know how loaded up our politics is with anger and animosity, but I have to believe we can still make a case over the raised voices.

There are Americans who voted for the president, but who are searching right now, because they know that their votes didn’t build the country they wanted.

To those Democrats and independents whose minds are open to argument: listen closely to the Democratic Party that will gather in Charlotte and ask yourself if you ever hear your voice in the clamor.

Ask yourself if these Democrats still speak for you.

When they say we have a duty to grow government even when we can’t afford it, does it sound like compassion to you — or recklessness?

When you hear the party that glorified Occupy Wall Street blast success; when you hear them minimize the genius of the men and women who make jobs out of nothing, is that what you teach your children about work?

When they tell you America is this unequal place where the powerful trample on the powerless, does that sound like the country your children or your spouse risked their lives for in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Do you even recognize the America they are talking about? And what can we say about a house that doesn’t honor the pictures on its walls?

John F. Kennedy asked us what we could do for America. This Democratic Party asks what can government give you. Don’t worry about paying the bill, it’s on your kids and grandkids.

Bill Clinton took on his base and made welfare a thing you had to work for; this current crowd guts the welfare work requirement in the dead of night.

Bill Clinton, Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson reached out across the aisle and said meet me in the middle; but their party rammed through a healthcare bill that took over one-sixth of our economy, without accepting a single Republican idea, without winning a single vote in either house from a party whose constituents make up about 50 percent of the country.

You know, the Democrats used to have a night when they presented a film of their presidential legends: if they do it in Charlotte, the theme song should be this year’s hit, “Somebody That I Used to Know.”

You guys can have him, and Allen West too! I failto see your point.

Hello again, Steve:

I say you declare war on women... You say, NO.

He says, "When they say we have a duty to grow government even when we can't afford it", I say he's repeating right wing talking points..

So, WHEN I hear a Republican, even a black Republican repeating the right wing LIES, I turn off. I'm just not INTERESTED in ANYTHING else he has to say - NOTHING! He's a right wing blackbot..

excon

THe speech by Artur Davis MSNBC refused to show:


Bill Clinton took on his base and made welfare a thing you had to work for; this current crowd guts the welfare work requirement in the dead of night.
Hard to give him credence when he trots out that lie for all to hear.

You guys can have him, and Allen West too! I failto see your point.

Obviously you're not one of those "Democrats and independents whose minds are open to argument."

And the tradeoff is Davis for Charlie Crist. He's probably suntanned enough to somewhat resemble a minority but otherwise he's just an opportunistic dufus. We got the better end of the deal.

Hard to give him credence when he trots out that lie for all to hear.

Prove the lie.

Hello again, Steve:

I say you declare war on women... You say, NO.

He says, "When they say we have a duty to grow government even when we can’t afford it", I say he's repeating right wing talking points..

So, WHEN I hear a Republican, even a black Republican repeating the right wing LIES, I turn off. I'm just not INTERESTED in ANYTHING else he has to say - NOTHING! He's a right wing blackbot..

excon

Um, this is the guy that nominated Barack Obama four years ago. I'd hardly call that a "right wing blackbot" but I get it, any black that joins the GOP isn't genuinely black. And you think WE are the racists.

I read what you wrote he said, and I am not impressed, and neither would you be if you followed his campaign in Alabama.

But obviously a black face is all you need to claim diversity, and that's par for the course since a few dem votes makes things bi partisan.

And you think WE are the racists.Hello again, Steve:

Wow. Here's the problem.. You guys don't know the difference between politics and racism... I don't like THIS particular black person. I don't like Allen West either.. And, NO, that doesn't make me a racist... I think Dennis Miller is a comicbot, too, but that doesn't mean I hate all comedians.

excon

But obviously a black face is all you need to claim diversity...

Better to be diverse than claim it hypocritically.

The only ones paying attention to skin color are on the left, we're way past making it about race.

Your side not only won't let it go, you do your damnedest to de-legitimatize any minority that dares not toe the Democrat line. You just did it, ex just did it, MSNBC deceived its 7 viewers by intentionally cutting away to something else when a minority speaker was up. That's downright despicable.

He was rejected by the dems, you guys took him. You got him!

Hello again, Steve:

Wow. Here's the problem.. You guys don't know the difference between politics and racism... I don't like THIS particular black person. I don't like Allen West either.. And, NO, that doesn't make me a racist... I think Dennis Miller is a comicbot, too, but that doesn't mean I hate all comedians.

excon

Wow. Coming from the side of the aisle that's spent 4 years telling us Obama's politics has nothing to do with why we dislike him, the ONLY POSSIBLE REASON we don't like, excuse me I believe your word is HATE, Obama is because he's black. But you gave me a chuckle for trying.

You guys decided day one that you would not help him at all, and have thrown rocks ever since.

He has deported more illegals than any president, you holler the fence isn'thigh enough. He sends more troops to the border, you holler he hasn't sent enough so you need to round up everyone who talks different, or looks different and hold them. He shrinks the federal work force, you guys say he is growing government. He gives welfare to the states you holler he is giving away money.

He cuts taxes you guys say he spent too much, he sends the states money, you guys take credit for it. He kills Osama, you guys say Bush did it.

He farts, you guys say he pollutes the air. Get my drift? Cry b1tch and moan about what he isn't doing right. While you do NOTHING but holler.

You guys decided day one that you would not help him at all, and have thrown rocks ever since.

Again you refuse to acknowledge reality. Republicans tried to reach out, he said "I won." The House has done their job, your Democrat-controlled Senate won't consider anything, they haven't passed a budget in 3 years. He rammed Obamacare through, he formed a bipartisan debt commission and ignored them. Hell, he doesn't even help his own party, he 'leads' from behind. We need someone to lead, not a campaigner-in-chief.

More right wing talking points? I think so?

Prove the lie.
No problem:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/28/rick-santorum/Santorum-Romney-claim-Obama-ending-welfare-work/

More right wing talking points? I think so?

No sir. Facts.


Republicans tried to reach out, he said "I won." (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won/)

The House has done their job, your Democrat-controlled Senate won't consider anything,


Obama Campaign Says GOP Blocking Jobs Bill--After Reid Blocks Jobs (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-campaign-says-gop-blocking-jobs-bill-after-reid-blocks-jobs-bill_595022.html)

Sen. Reid: Boehner Bill is DOA at Senate (http://video.foxnews.com/v/1080675801001/sen-reid-boehner-bill-is-doa-at-senate/)

Senator Reid Blocks Republican Jobs Bills (http://majorityleader.gov/blog/2011/06/senator-reid-blocks-republican-jobs-bills.html)


they haven't passed a budget in 3 years. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/01/26/the_last_time_senate_passed_a_budget_was_april_200 9_272196.html)

He rammed Obamacare through (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704454304575081391789004352.html)

he formed a bipartisan debt commission and ignored them. (http://www.oftheeising1776.com/obama-to-debt-and-deficit-reduction-commission-so-long-it%E2%80%99s-been-good-to-know-you)

Hell, he doesn't even help his own party (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50459.html), he 'leads' from behind. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/02/110502fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all)

Like I said, we need someone to lead, not a campaigner-in-chief.

Even more right wing talking points, keep screwing the country and blame the president. Just because he is a DEMOCRAT.

Read the plan by Mitt yet??

More? No, the same facts backed up. So what is it about the Mitt plan that takes from the poor, who have nothing to take, and gives to the rich. The 20 percent across the board tax cut? Eliminating the tax penalty on investments for those making less than $200k? I hardly see how letting you keep more of your money is stealing from the poor.

No problem:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/28/rick-santorum/Santorum-Romney-claim-Obama-ending-welfare-work/

"Congress specifically shielded TANF (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/new-new-low-obama-campaign-693760-2.html#post3236872) from the waiver process to keep work requirements intact, this administration unilaterally overwrote the will of congress."

That sir is fact.

"Congress specifically shielded TANF (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/new-new-low-obama-campaign-693760-2.html#post3236872) from the waiver process to keep work requirements intact, this administration unilaterally overwrote the will of congress."

That sir is fact.

This is what's in that information memorandum:


HHS is encouraging states to consider new, more effective ways to meet the goals of TANF, particularly helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment. Therefore, HHS is issuing this information memorandum to notify states of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.

Does that look like "Obama ended welfare work requirements"? Of course not.
You just can't take what your right-wing blogs say as gospel - you have to do your own research and go to the sources.

TDoes that look like "Obama ended welfare work requirements"? Of course not.

Did Mitt Romney kill a steelworker's wife? At least this has a measure of truth - Obama's HHS did specifically, unilaterally, overwrite Congress' express intent to keep the work requirements intact (http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+intact&qpvt=intact&FORM=DTPDIA).


You just can't take what your right-wing blogs say as gospel - you have to do your own research and go to the sources.

I'm really bored with that smug cliché of yours. Yaaaaawwwwwnnnn...

And by the way, I don't put a whole lot of stock in Politifact and WaPa as fact checkers. Politifact has leaned way leftward for a long time and WaPo's fact checker called Romney a liar for saying a president who didn't go to Israel didn't go to Israel (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/06/Wapo-Fact-checker-Goes-Full-Orwell).

And by the way, I don't put a whole lot of stock in Politifact and WaPa as fact checkers. Politifact has leaned way leftward for a long time and WaPo's fact checkerI quoted the actual government memo.

I quoted the actual government memo.

I know, after citing Politifact as proof.

Let's forget for a moment that in response to Romney attacking the welfare changes that the left has given a full throated lie that Romney is racist for doing so, and get to the facts. Turns out the NY Times unwittingly validated the claim (http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/10/nyt-proves-romney-right-on-welfare/#ixzz24yQAvvvh) the Obama gutted work requirements.


The smoking gun is always in the last place you look: I had some serious doubts about Mitt Romney’s ad attacking Obama’s welfare “waivers”–until I read the New York Times editorial denouncing it. Now I know Romney’s ad isn’t as accurate as I’d thought. It’s much more accurate.

The Times notes that one of the states proposing waivers from the 1996 welfare reform’s work requirements is Nevada–indeed, Nevada was cited by the Obama Health and Human Services department when it quietly announced its plan to grant waivers on July 12 .** Here’s how the Times describes what Nevada wants to do:


[Nevada] asked to discuss flexibility in imposing those requirements. Perhaps, the state asked, those families hardest to employ could be exempted from the work requirements for six months while officials worked with them to stabilize their households. [E.A.]

“Exempted from the work requirements for six months.” That’s not just “weakening” work requirements–the safe, milder charge I chose to make a couple of days ago. It’s explicitly tossing them out the window for an extended period–“to allow time for their barriers to be addressed and their household circumstances stabilized”, in Nevada’s words.***

For those six months it’s also, unaccountably, exactly what Romney says will happen in his ad:


You wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check.

Romney’s admakers will have to do better than that if they want to earn their Pinocchios.

P.S.: And here I thought my friend Jonathan Alter was a victim of the liberal cocoon when he rushed to Twitter a few days ago to idiotically declare that the waivers “don’t weaken work requirements.” But it turns out the truth is so obvious you don’t even have to leave the cocoon to find it. All you have to do is read what the New York Times says while denying it. I apologize to the cocoon. ****

__________

**–As part of HHS secretary Sebelius’ subsequent damage-control effort, she hinted that “it appears some of the policies enumerated in the letters [from Utah and Nevada] would not be eligible for waivers under our policy.” She wouldn’t say which ones, though. I’d argue that HHS original statements, which Sebelius did not repudiate, are a better indication of HHS’ intent than her later PR backpedaling. The Times certainly thinks Nevada’s proposal is alive and well.

***–Here are the exact words in Nevada’s letter:


TANF Performance Measures and Possible Waiver Opportunities …

Exempt the hardest-to-employ population for a period of time (i.e. six months) to allow time for their barriers to be addressed and their household circumstances stabilized; …

Note that “six months” isn’t an upper limit on the “exempt” period. Could be sixteen months. Note also that the NYT makes it sound as if Nevada might actually be requiring welfare recipients do something during this period–”while officials worked with them.” But the actual Nevada letter doesn’t say anything except that they need “time for their barriers to be addressed.”

More generally, Nevada proposes a broad, excuse-laden “progression” system in which all recipients with “employment barriers” are given “more time and assistance”–translation, more welfare with fewer obligations to work or train for work or look for work. What are “employment barriers”? They include lack of child care, transportation, drug addiction, “special needs such as clothing and tools,” and lack of “job seeking/retention skills.” Obesity can also be a “barrier.”

****–Maybe that’s why Newt Gingrich, apparently wrongly, said there was “no proof” that Obama might be “be comfortable sending a lot of people checks for doing nothing.” He’s not in the cocoon.

Told you so: "Congress specifically shielded TANF from the waiver process to keep work requirements intact, this administration unilaterally overwrote the will of congress."

I love being right.

Told ya so: "Congress specifically shielded TANF from the waiver process to keep work requirements intact, this administration unilaterally overwrote the will of congress."

I love being right.
We aren't debating whether congress overwrote something, the topic was Romney saying that Obama "ended welfare work requirements". He clearly didn't.

Letting the facts get in the way of the hyperbole again, how tiresome

Hello again,

So, Texas DOES discriminate, says a federal court (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/opinion/discriminatory-purpose-in-texas.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120830)... Who knew?

excon

We aren't debating whether congress overwrote something, the topic was Romney saying that Obama "ended welfare work requirements". He clearly didn't.

Dude, you can't read can you.

Dude, you can't read can you.

If you have nothing to offer maybe you can comment on excon's post.

Hello again,

So, Texas DOES discriminate, says a federal court (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/opinion/discriminatory-purpose-in-texas.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120830)... Who knew?

excon

As if no other party in power configures redistricting to their advantage? Dude, get serious. I vividly recall when Democrats were in power here the redistricting maps they drew were insane. What's even more insane is the latest being overthrown on discrimination because Hispanics can't vote for Hispanics? What, they have to vote for someone of their skin color?

That's the same goofy nonsense some Hispanic jackwagon of an attorney in our city has been trying to do for years, create single member districts so everyone can vote along racial lines. What?? Why?? I helped vote in a Hispanic county commissioner this year and a Hispanic city commissioner last year, so who's the racist, those who don't give a crap about what color you are or those who do?

As if no other party in power configures redistricting to their advantage? Dude, get serious. Do you realize that that is your answer to every single transgression by a conservative?

Do you realize that that is your answer to every single transgression by a conservative?

Do you realize that most of your responses are irrelevant? But please feel free to show us every single one of those answers you're referring to.

Do you realize that most of your responses are irrelevant? But please feel free to show us every single one of those answers you're referring to.
You never notice that? Whenever a conservative gets caught doing a no-no your response is pretty much always "they all do it" or show an example of a liberal doing the same thing, usually accompanied with a 'get over it" type of statement. But yet your life here is spent searching out liberal no-nos. Do you see anything odd here?

You never notice that? Whenever a conservative gets caught doing a no-no your response is pretty much always "they all do it" or show an example of a liberal doing the same thing, usually accompanied with a 'get over it" type of statement. But yet your life here is spent searching out liberal no-nos. Do you see anything odd here?

I don't consider you a reliable source for anything but nonsense, just like this. Back it up with something besides your gibberish or back off.

Nah, I'll just wait until you do it again.
You want to call nonsense or irrelevant whenever I catch posting disinformation, that's your choice.

Nah, I'll just wait until you do it again.
You want to call nonsense or irrelevant whenever I catch posting disinformation, that's your choice.

Just another baseless piece of gibberish. You're behavior here borders on creeping you know.

How so Steve?

Hello again,

First, their redistricting was found to DISCRIMINATE, now their voter ID law has been BLOCKED (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/texas-voter-id-law-struck-down/2012/08/30/4a07e270-f2ad-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_story.html). Poor Texas..

The court held,
that Texas had failed to show that the statute would not harm the voting rights of minorities in the state. In addition, the judges found that evidence indicated that the cost of obtaining a photo ID to vote would fall most heavily on African American and Hispanic voters.

Who could have guessed THAT?

Excon

Next step is the Supreme Court I believe.

Hello again,

Wow.. Florida too. (http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/VRE/FL_injunction_082912.pdf). Poor Floridians...


A federal district judge in Florida temporarily blocked the law in May because it was unconstitutional and announced on Tuesday that he plans to issue a permanent injunction.

Two weeks ago, another three-judge panel (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/justice-for-voters-in-texas-and-florida.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120831)of the federal district court in the District of Columbia unanimously rejected part of the Florida law that allowed local supervisors to significantly limit times for early voting, with a disproportionate impact on blacks in five counties of concern to the court. In those in 2008, more than half of black voters cast an early ballot, compared with just over one-fourth of white voters.

Excon

So Florida is racist because there are five counties with lots of blacks that apparently didn't know 4 years ago we were having an election this year and couldn't be ready to vote during the scheduled voting period.

I'm sorry, but voting is not that complicated. I give people more credit than that. You guys apparently think people are such helpless fools they can't figure out how to vote within the allotted time and rules... or you just want more time to figure out how to get more dead people on the rolls to vote.

Hello again, Steve:

I was wondering where you were.. Making trades, huh?

Look... It's NOT me.. I'm just the messenger.. It's U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle. But, it's the TEXAS decision that ought to get your goat.. I mentioned it on page 42.

excon

No problem... photo id has already been found constitutional in Indiana and Georgia . At most Texas has to tweek it's law to make it compliant.

Hello again, Steve:

I was wondering where you were.. Making trades, huh??

Look... It's NOT me.. I'm just the messenger.. It's U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle. But, it's the TEXAS decision that ought to get your goat.. I mentioned it on page 42.

excon

I believe I responded, yes in fact I did.And then NK came in and started his usual juvenile games.

So Florida is racist because there are five counties with lots of blacks that apparently didn't know 4 years ago we were having an election this year and couldn't be ready to vote during the scheduled voting period.

I'm sorry, but voting is not that complicated. I give people more credit than that. You guys apparently think people are such helpless fools they can't figure out how to vote within the allotted time and rules...or you just want more time to figure out how to get more dead people on the rolls to vote.

That's so much Malarkey. You haven't been following this battle that started with Florida purging voters 200,000. The system was flawed so they rejected it.

I don't think its necessarily racist, but more partisan shenanigans to tilt the playing field republican, by republican run states. This is all about getting the Black guy out of the White House, and has been since he won. Does his race play a role in that? Maybe, but I think the plot would be the same for any democrat, but racism is a tool you guys have used quite effectively to poison the well.

I wonder how many dead guys are voting for you to impact millions of voters? And you guys see nothing wrong with that? I expect a lot more efficiency from guys who are serious about being fair.

So what's your excuse for changing the voting hours Mr. Dead man voters?

Hello again,

Oh no, Strike THREE! Now, it's Ohio..
District Court Judge Peter C. Economus granted a preliminary injunction (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/247023-judge-grants-injunction-against-ohio-early-voting-law) against a state law passed last year that would only allow early in-person voting by members of the military and their families. The injunction orders Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) to not enforce the law.

Poor Ohioans..

Excon

Why do you want to suppress the military vote ?

why do you want to suppress the military vote ?Why ONLY the military?

I'm not in favor of any early voting (except absentee voting ) . The Constitution gives Congress the authority to set the election day. Congress made it a law that Election Day is the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. There is no provision in the law that allows for early voting .

My comment was a tongue in cheek parody of the arguments being made here... that it is a burden on military personel to get to the polls on election day and that they need special accommodations lest they be disenfranchised.

Party pooper

Democrats in Maryland just admitted that voter fraud exists... and one of their own (former) candidates for congress is allegedly guilty.


Maryland Democrat quits congressional race amid vote fraud allegations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/maryland-politics/post/maryland-democrat-quits-congressional-race-amid-vote-fraud-allegations/2012/09/10/d0ff9b1e-fb73-11e1-b2af-1f7d12fe907a_blog.html)

By Ben Pershing

A Maryland Democratic candidate quit her congressional race Monday after her own party told state officials that she had committed fraud by voting in both Maryland and Florida in recent elections.

Wendy Rosen, a small-business owner running against freshman Rep. Andy Harris (R) in the Eastern Shore-based 1st Congressional District, released a statement saying that “with great regret, and much sorrow” she was resigning from the contest.

“Personal issues have made this the hardest decision that I have had to make,” Rosen said [in a statement.]

Rosen’s announcement came the same day the state Democratic party released a letter to state Attorney General Douglas Gansler and state prosecutors reporting the allegations against Rosen.

“The Maryland Democratic Party has discovered that Ms. Rosen has been registered to vote in both Florida and Maryland since at least 2006; that she in fact voted in the 2006 general election both in Florida and Maryland; and that she voted in the presidential preference primaries held in both Florida and Maryland in 2008,” wrote Yvette Lewis, the state party chair. “This information is based on an examination of the voter files from both states. We believe that this is a clear violation of Maryland law and urge the appropriate office to conduct a full investigation.”

Apparently the poor thing doesn't remember if she voted twice in two states or not. But kudos to the Maryland Dems for taking action. If only Dems were as concerned as much about all those dead people, felons, non-citizens and those voting multiple times we might get somewhere.

There has to be a better process than the ones you guys are using that makes a hardship for those that are legal voters. Then you may get more support.

Hello again,

What is it when you SAY you live in your sons basement in one state so you can claim residence there to RUN for office, when you clearly live in another state??

I'd say that's voter/election fraud.. Do you know WHICH presidential candidate DID that??

What do you call it when you file STATE income taxes IN one state, but you said you filed in another in order to be eligible to RUN for office in that state??

I'd call it a flat out lie.. Which presidential candidate did that?

excon

Is this twenty questions Ex tell us the answer, with evidence of course

is this twenty questions Ex tell us the answer, with evidence of courseHello clete:

With only TWO guys in the running, I thought it would be easy...

The basement cheating?? It was Mitt Romney (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021147412), of course... The Lying? It was, of course, Mitt Romney (http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-tax-returns-release-massachusetts-governor-election-obama-2012-7).

excon

I don't really know the dirt on either, but thanks for the heads up. Mr Romney not living up to his image, I mean this and that dog thing, he doesn't respect voters and he doesn't respect animals and of course there is Bain, kind of make you wonder, while with Obama you have had four years to get to know him

Hello clete:

With only TWO guys in the running, I thought it would be easy...

The basement cheating?? It was Mitt Romney (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021147412), of course... The Lying? It was, of course, Mitt Romney (http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-tax-returns-release-massachusetts-governor-election-obama-2012-7).

Excon

From your source:


Romney refused to release his returns, and the Massachusetts Democratic Party launched a month-long investigation that backfired. The state Ballot Law Commission ruled unanimously in June that Romney was still eligible to run for governor because he had "never severed his ties to Massachusetts," despite the primary-residency filing in Utah for three years

Read more: Mitt Romney Refused Tax Return Release In 2002 Running For Massachusetts Governor - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-tax-returns-release-massachusetts-governor-election-obama-2012-7#ixzz26AMyCi5B)


As to the basement thing, as long as he didn't vote more than once what's the problem?

As to the basement thing, as long as he didn't vote more than once what's the problem?Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, he got away with it, because he AMENDED his returns to reflect what he SAID they said, but didn't. After he amended them, they said what he said they said, but DIDN'T say earlier...

Look, I'm all for a guy who slips and slides around the law. I just don't think he should be president...

But, on to the thread at hand... I think all of the states voter suppression efforts will be heard in total by the Supreme Court and be ruled on BEFORE the election.. I think they'll be overturned, but the damage is already done.

excon

Okay explain why early voting hours were cut and no ID was required for the primaries. If fraud was the issue then and integrity of the vote was the goal, why cut the hours? That affects urban big cities a lot more than rural low population areas.

And you have never answered the question of why throw legal voters under the bus to get a few suspected illegals? Looks fishy to me in the name of integrity. Like I say sure seems like you guys are politically motivated and that's not much integrity, rigging the system.

The southern strategy Jim Crow on steroids doesn't sound so thought out or fair to me! But maybe fair was never a consideration, but the lie that makes it seem legit.

There has to be a better process than the ones you guys are using that makes a hardship for those that are legal voters. Then you may get more support.

There is no hardship, that's just a lame, lame argument. People are not as helpless as Dems want us to believe and quite frankly, I'd be offended at them portraying me as a helpless fool. Even so, what's your better process?

Look, I'm all for a guy who slips and slides around the law. I just don't think he should be president...

But, on to the thread at hand... I think all of the states voter suppression efforts will be heard in total by the Supreme Court and be ruled on BEFORE the election.. I think they'll be overturned, but the damage is already done.

excon

Brother, your guy doesn't slip and slide around the law, he just decrees it so. He don't need no stinkin' law.

And as we keep pointing out, SCOTUS has already upheld voter ID laws with a lefty on the court saying they were necessary.

Okay explain why early voting hours were cut and no ID was required for the primaries. If fraud was the issue then and integrity of the vote was the goal, why cut the hours? That affects urban big cities a lot more than rural low population areas.

And you have never answered the question of why throw legal voters under the bus to get a few suspected illegals? Looks fishy to me in the name of integrity. Like I say sure seems like you guys are politically motivated and thats not much integrity, rigging the system.

The southern strategy Jim Crow on steroids doesn't sound so thought out or fair to me! But maybe fair was never a consideration, but the lie that makes it seem legit.

If the law is applied equally what is the problem? They didn't provide early voting hours for whites but not blacks did they? Are you still saying blacks are too dumb to realize there's an election coming up? Their guy has been campaigning for 6 years, when are they going to figure it out?

Even so, what's your better process?Hello again, Steve:

It depends on whether you believe it's in the STATES interest to see that EVERY eligible voter in the state GETS the opportunity to vote, or whether you think it's FINE for the state to throw down roadblocks, and then leave it up to the PEOPLE to overcome them...

I suppose it boils down to whether you think voting is a RIGHT or a privilege.. Me?? I think it's a right.. You? I'll bet not.

Personally, I think it's FINE that people are required to show ID's to vote.. But, when the process of getting them has the effect of VOTER SUPPRESSION, as this does, then I'm NOT OK with it...

Let's just take STUDENTS.. They don't KNOW that their OLD Id's won't work.. Nobody TOLD them. The state SHOULD have made SURE that students KNOW about the new requirements, and the state should make EVERY effort to INSURE that every possible student KNOWS what they need to do to vote...

The state didn't DO any of that... It doesn't supply them for free.. It didn't inform the communities MOST effected by the law... It did NOTHING except throw down the roadblocks and look the other way...

That's voter suppression - plain and simple..

excon

So a county of urban millions has the same hours as a county of a thousand is equal??


Are you still saying blacks are too dumb to realize there's an election coming up?

Are you saying the white republicans are honest?

Hello again, Steve:

It depends on whether you believe it's in the STATES interest to see that EVERY eligible voter in the state GETS the opportunity to vote, or whether you think it's FINE for the state to throw down roadblocks, and then leave it up to the PEOPLE to overcome them...

Come on buddy, why would you think I wouldn't want every eligible voter to have the opportunity to vote? You apparently think voting is the only right that comes at a cost. The second amendment guarantees my right to bear arms but I'm sure you're OK with putting up roadblocks like registration, background checks, permits and such, no?

The first amendment guarantees my right to free speech so why should I have to endure roadblocks such as being forced to go to a "free speech zone."

I have the right to petition the government, so who's going to eliminate roadblocks for me like paying my phone bill, internet service, buying me a PC or stamps and envelopes?

Our rights come at a cost, voting is no different.

So a county of urban millions has the same hours as a county of a thousand is equal??

OK, so which county has "urban millions?"

You do know that Holder accepted a new plan in Florida (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/05/2986410/feds-ok-florida-early-voting-plan.html) don't you? Even the court that said no was open to returning to the 96 hours of early voting with revisions. If you can't get to where you need to in 8 days you're not in this country or hiking in the Alaskan wilderness somewhere.


Are you saying the white republicans are honest?

No worse than anyone else.

See if you can see a pattern in swing states with republican govenors, and legislatures.

List of counties in Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_counties_in_Ohio)

List of counties in Pennsylvania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_counties_in_Pennsylvania)

List of counties in Florida - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_counties_in_Florida)

Still awaiting data between voting machines per county, and polling places. Can't believe you cannot see the difference between a county with major urban areas, and rural very small towns.

The district Paul Ryan was elected in has NO major cities in it. How long does it take you to vote in Amarillo?

No, it was just a brain fart, having "rural" on the brain. See, I can admit when I'm a moron.

The question is how difficult is it to vote in those five Florida counties? Seems pretty easy to vote absentee (http://election.dos.state.fl.us/voting/absentee.shtml) so what's the problem?

P.S. Still waiting on your better process...

No, it was just a brain fart, having "rural" on the brain. See, I can admit when I'm a moron.

The question is how difficult is it to vote in those five Florida counties? Seems pretty easy to vote absentee (http://election.dos.state.fl.us/voting/absentee.shtml) so what's the problem?

P.S. Still waiting on your better process...


I think a better approach to federal elections is a top down approach rather than a bottom up approach. In other words, the federal government oversees and runs federal elections rather than leaving it up to the states.

As I said before, I think you will always have an equal access problem when it comes to federal elections unless you extend the role of the Federal Election Commission.


Tut

Tut
That interferes with their "States" rights to influence the election. They just haven't got the concept of federal, one nation, as opposed to a collection of states and it goes even deeper than that to a local government level

Governments don't have rights ;they have powers .The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite (Madison Federalist 45) .

governments don't have rights ;they have powers .The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite (Madison Federalist 45) .

The federalist papers are not laws but opinions, an argument for his way of thinking. Madisons opinion is his own. While the states have a lot of power to affect their own citizens, the feds still have to make sure the states stay within constitutional boundaries, or they can go to court. Given the history of the states and the federal remedies for past offenses to its own people, I can go with the courts. That's all we got in the grand scheme of things.


No, it was just a brain fart, having "rural" on the brain. See, I can admit when I'm a moron.

The question is how difficult is it to vote in those five Florida counties? Seems pretty easy to vote absentee (http://election.dos.state.fl.us/voting/absentee.shtml) so what's the problem?

P.S. Still waiting on your better process...

Which state? Some are already addressing the issues through the courts, and some the citizens are taking an active role.

If I were a govenor though, I would have every library and state building along with every school as a place for people to go to have their issues addressed. Community centers and grocery stores. Its an abomination to have people traveling miles for registration and incurring time and costs to vote.

That's the duty and responsibility of the state to ensure the rights of its citizens is preserved. It's a simple process to do the right thing if indeed that's your intent!

How Tom loves to play with symantics, no rights but powers. People have rights and according to some so do corporations. US is not a democracy but a republic and incidentally a federal republic held captive by states powers. By the way Tom this play on words is interesting when it gets to my nation which is not a democracy either but a commonwealth

Correct people have rights... governments only have powers... but the progressives don't seem to get that... the Dems here put out an add that said that the government is the only thing we all BELONG to .
DNC Video: "The Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLa9Te8Blw)

The federalist papers are not laws but opinions, an argument for his way of thinking. Madisons opinion is his own.
The Federalist papers explained to the people the thinking of the founders about the Constitution .They are the single best source to find out what the Founders were thinking , clause by clause ,when the wrote the Constitution . What Madison said about the power of the government is not just his own ;it was the majority opinion of the founders and was a central thought of the enlightenment . What he mentioned about the powers granted to the Federal Government and the states is an opinion shared by every signer .

Ok Tom stop saluting the flag which represents the federal government

If you look at the flag it is dominated by the States .The stripes are the 13 original States ,and the stars the 50 current States .

Which state? Some are already addressing the issues through the courts, and some the citizens are taking an active role.

Which state doesn't provide absentee ballots and early voting?


If I were a govenor though, I would have every library and state building along with every school as a place for people to go to have their issues addressed. Community centers and grocery stores. Its an abomination to have people traveling miles for registration and incurring time and costs to vote.

We have 53 public schools in Amarillo, do you know what it would cost to make each one a polling place? As I said before our rights come at a cost, there is no abomination in having to drive down the street, pick up the phone or mail a ballot to vote. Seriously, Tal that's over the top.

If you look at the flag it is dominated by the States .The stripes are the 13 original States ,and the stars the 50 current States .

Absolutely...

"Act of April 4, 1818 (http://usflag.org/history/flagevolution.html) - provided for 13 stripes and one star for each state, to be added to the flag on the 4th of July following the admission of each new state, signed by President Monroe."

Hello again,

Flag, schwag... Let's get back to the question... The Supreme Court WILL have a chance to rule on voter suppression before the election... Which way do you think they'll vote?

excon

Hello again,

Flag, schwag... Let's get back to the question... The Supreme Court WILL have a chance to rule on voter suppression before the election... Which way do you think they'll vote?

Excon

With the precedent, Voter ID will be ok'd again as it was in Indiana. From Steven's majority opinion:


Thus, under the standard applied in Harper, even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications. In Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780 (1983), however, we confirmed the general rule that “evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself” are not invidious and satisfy the standard set forth in Harper.

...

There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters. Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate recordkeeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process. While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.

You're fighting an uphill battle.

With the precedent, Voter ID will be ok'd again as it was in Indiana. Hello again, Steve:

I don't know WHY you keep MISSING the issue.. Is it the Texas water? Nah, it can't be that... Tal seems to be OK...

The Constitutional issue the Supreme Court will decide, is NOT voter ID, but the METHOD of IMPLEMENTING voter ID. You DO know what I mean.. You MENTION the implementation all the time when you DENIGRATE people who you think are too LAZY to jump through the government hoops...

This isn't difficult.

excon

So you are fine with the Georgia ,Indiana ,and Rhode Island photo-id laws ? Cool ,I'm OK with them too .

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know WHY you keep MISSING the issue.. Is it the Texas water? Nah, it can't be that... Tal seems to be OK...

The Constitutional issue the Supreme Court will decide, is NOT voter ID, but the METHOD of IMPLEMENTING voter ID. You DO know what I mean.. You MENTION the implementation all the time when you DENIGRATE people who you think are too LAZY to jump through the government hoops...

This isn't difficult.

Excon

Stevens, the liberal dude addressed that, you didn't read it?


While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.

What do you not get? The method may up for debate but It's been ok'd, it's coming and you can't stop it.

And that other part you have that exactly backwards, I'm the one defending the voters while you and Tal are the ones denigrating them by implying they're too helpless or too stupid to find a way to vote. I believe in the American people, it's the left that coddles and condescends and wants them dependent on government.

So you are fine with the Georgia ,Indiana ,and Rhode Island photo-id laws ? Cool ,I'm ok with them too .
While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear. Hello again,

Both tal and I have said over and over, that it's NOT the ID law, it's the implementation of them...

I don't think you understand the word, "propriety", Steve. It means its FINE to do it. It DOESN'T address HOW it's done. My problem with it is HOW it's done, and HOW it's done is the issue the court will decide... Certainly, if they think they've ALREADY ruled on it, they don't have to take the case. Apparently you think that's what they'll do.. We'll see.

excon

Hello again,

Both tal and I have said over and over, that it's NOT the ID law, it's the implementation of them...

I don't think you understand the word, "propriety", Steve. It means its FINE to do it.

No sir, it means proper, not "ok if you want to."

The court determined in that case that photo identification is not unconstitutional. That was the method in question, that was the method ruled constitutional. What is it YOU aren't getting here ex?

The court determined in that case that photo identification is not unconstitutional. That was the method in question, that was the method ruled constitutional. What is it YOU aren't getting here ex?Hello again, Steve:

If you don't get it by now, you won't get it if I explain it again... But the court will, and when they rule AGAINST it, I'll tell you WHY it happened.

excon

I know, you want IDs passed out free and state-owned buses to pick everyone up, take them to the polling place, return them home and maybe pick up a few groceries for them on the way.

I've already addressed (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/voter-id-suppression-678733-45.html#post3266387) your roadblocks issue earlier:


Come on buddy, why would you think I wouldn't want every eligible voter to have the opportunity to vote? You apparently think voting is the only right that comes at a cost. The second amendment guarantees my right to bear arms but I'm sure you're OK with putting up roadblocks like registration, background checks, permits and such, no?

The first amendment guarantees my right to free speech so why should I have to endure roadblocks such as being forced to go to a "free speech zone."

I have the right to petition the government, so who's going to eliminate roadblocks for me like paying my phone bill, internet service, buying me a PC or stamps and envelopes?

Our rights come at a cost, voting is no different.

The court agrees with me (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/28cnd-scotus.html) in the Indiana case:


Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. concurred in the judgment of the court, but went further in rejecting the plaintiffs’ challenge. In an opinion by Justice Scalia, the three justices said, “The law should be upheld because its overall burden is minimal and justified.”

Again what are you missing? Which roadblocks to exercising my rights are OK and which aren't?

I know homebound and nursing home residents who have no way of getting photo IDs. I know elderly people with no cars and no way of getting to a site that provides photo IDs. Will someone come to them with an ID-making setup? Will they have another recourse when they vote via an absentee ballot?

I don't know the specifics but the Indiana law we've been discussing makes provisions for people in nursing homes. I would imagine SCOTUS would have shot it down as it was written if it did not make such provisions. I would assume other states do as well.

Voter ID will be upheld again.

Which roadblocks to exercising my rights are ok and which aren't?Hello again, Steve:

It's not a matter of which ONE.. The Supreme Court will examine the totality of ALL the states efforts. The question will be, when taken as a whole, do these measures constitute voter suppression..

To me it's clear.. You? Not so much.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

It's not a matter of which ONE.. The Supreme Court will examine the totality of ALL the states efforts. The question will be, when taken as a whole, do these measures constitute voter suppression..

To me it's clear.. You? Not so much.

excon

Again you're missing the point, you are apparently OK with roadblocks to exercising SOME specifically enumerated constitutional rights but like Tal you think it's an abomination to have a minimal burden to vote.

SCOTUS has already said the MINIMAL burden of presenting ID is constitutional once, what makes you think it's going to do anything to reverse that from whatever viewpoint you think they're going to consider?

Which state doesn't provide absentee ballots and early voting?



We have 53 public schools in Amarillo, do you know what it would cost to make each one a polling place? As I said before our rights come at a cost, there is no abomination in having to drive down the street, pick up the phone or mail a ballot to vote. Seriously, Tal that's over the top.

Ohio for one and other swing states tried to restrict them both until lawsuits were filed and jugements were rendered, and I didn't say polling place, I said a registration place.


Again you're missing the point, you are apparently OK with roadblocks to exercising SOME specifically enumerated constitutional rights but like Tal you think it's an abomination to have a minimal burden to vote.

SCOTUS has already said the MINIMAL burden of presenting ID is constitutional once, what makes you think it's going to do anything to reverse that from whatever viewpoint you think they're going to consider?

Is asking a senior to travel 70 miles with no car a minimal burden to exercise their rights, or spending all day on the bus line transferring from bus tobus minimal?

I don't think so.

And lets use some common sense here with YOUR rights to bear arms or free speech. YOUR rights stop where concerns for the public safety are concerned.

And do you have papers that say YOU'RE NOT crazy?? You must be if you start a process that supposed to bring instant results but looks fishy to me, while you give nopause to even the effects on such a process on the rights of others.

That's a lousy way to go about having integrity. That was your intent,to bring integrity to the process right.

Ohio for one and other swing states tried to restrict them both until lawsuits were filed and jugements were rendered, and I didn't say polling place, I said a registration place.

OK, but why? There is no need, you can typically register online or by mail, even in Indiana where ID is required (https://indianavoters.in.gov/PublicSite/OVR/Introduction.aspx?Link=Polling).


Is asking a senior to travel 70 miles with no car a minimal burden to exercise their rights, or spending all day on the bus line transferring from bus tobus minimal?

What, seniors don't know how to use the postal service?


And lets use some common sense here with YOUR rights to bear arms or free speech. YOUR rights stop where concerns for the public safety are concerned.

Makes no difference to me, it's my right and there are roadblocks - just as with free speech, the right to petition the government and I'm sure others. Freedom isn't free, dude.


And do you have papers that say YOU'RE NOT crazy?? You must be if...

If I had said that a certain moderator here who shall remain nameless would be all over my a$$ for making it personal.


you start a process that supposed to bring instant results but looks fishy to me, while you give nopause to even the effects on such a process on the rights of others.

That's like way over the top. We've addressed all of your concerns, you're just rehashing them over and over and over as if we haven't been paying attention.


That's a lousy way to go about having integrity. That was your intent,to bring integrity to the process right.

Questioning my integrity? Again, that moderator who shall remain nameless would be all over my a$$ for making it personal... especially for questioning someone's integrity.

SCOTUS addressed that and agrees with me that ensuring the integrity of the elections is proper - even if there is no actual evidence of voter fraud. Read it yourself. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf)

I don't question YOUR integrity, just the republicans engaged in this rigging the votes.

I don't question YOUR integrity, just the republicans engaged in this rigging the votes.

An even-handed law is not vote rigging.

An even-handed law is not vote rigging.Hello again, Steve:

It can't be even handed if you can't READ it. I propose that we even handedly make sure EVERY voter can READ. That makes sense, as long as it's even handed, right?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

It can't be even handed if you can't READ it. I propose that we even handedly make sure EVERY voter can READ. That makes sense, as long as it's even handed, right?

excon

So ex let me get this straight, mandatory education is not against the constitution but mandatory voting is?

Hello again, Steve:

It can't be even handed if you can't READ it. I propose that we even handedly make sure EVERY voter can READ. That makes sense, as long as it's even handed, right?

excon

Dude, if they can't read it's because liberals have totally screwed the education system. Even if they can't read it's no excuse for not knowing the law. I just visited Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky and they have TVs, radios, cable, satellite and internet there, too.

Dude, if they can't read it's because liberals have totally screwed the education system. It's always amazing to hear how much power the liberals have in your country... and they have apparently done this for generations... and how powerless and inefficient the conservatives must be. They can't even find the time to make sure they own children are being educated properly by actively being involved in their homework or school associations. I guess just ing about it is all they can do.

Whatever dude.

You don't think we should be suspicious of this new law seeing as how you guys have moved so quickly and admitted in public it was to help Romney? Its like your fear of a second term by this president makes you guys desperate.

Tal, you're just spinning the same old thing we've debunked repeatedly.

Hello again,

You know what's MOST noticeably ABSENT in this discussion? It's ANY mention of it at all, by ANY administration official - especially Eric Holder.. Where the hell is he?

excon

Hello again,

You know what's MOST noticeably ABSENT in this discussion?? It's ANY mention of it at all, by ANY administration official - especially Eric Holder.. Where the hell is he?

excon



Busy shredding papers from the last big screw up. (Operation Fast and Furious)

Busy shredding papers from the last big screw up. (Operation Fast and Furious)

Too busy chasing down makers of high school quality Youtube videos about Mohammed.

Tal, you're just spinning the same old thing we've debunked repeatedly.

You don't mind if we wait for the court to rule do you? Just in case you are WRONG?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression

You guys do seem to know a lot about voter fraud though.

Michigan


Prior to the 2008 United States Presidential Election, on September 16, 2008, Obama legal counsel announced that they would be seeking an injunction to stop an alleged caging scheme in Michigan wherein the state Republican party would use home foreclosure lists to challenge voters still using their foreclosed home as a primary address at the polls.[38] Michigan GOP officials called the suit "desperate."[39] A Federal Appeals court ordered the reinstatement of 5,500 voters wrongly purged from the voter rolls by the State:[37]

This is only one example of many, no kidding!!

too busy chasing down makers of high school quality Youtube videos about Mohammed.

Is this the best your high school could produce? A video about Mudhutmad, obviously produced by someone who had not actually had sex.

This whole argument is too childist to pursue

You don't mind if we wait for the court to rule do you? Just in case you are WRONG??

Voter suppression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression)

You guys do seem to know a lot about voter fraud though.

Michigan



This is only one example of many, no kidding!!!!!!!!

So you also admit voter fraud is real. I appreciate that.

Voter rolls in Ohio are bloated, experts say | The Columbus Dispatch (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/09/16/voter-rolls-in-ohio-are-bloated-experts-say.html)

So do those bloated voter rolls give you gas?

You don't mind if we wait for the court to rule do you? Just in case you are WRONG??

Voter suppression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression)

You guys do seem to know a lot about voter fraud though.

Michigan



This is only one example of many, no kidding!!!!!!!!

Seems to be done by mostly by YOU guys,

Prior to the 2008 United States Presidential Election, on September 16, 2008, Obama legal counsel announced that they would be seeking an injunction to stop an alleged caging scheme in Michigan wherein the state Republican party would use home foreclosure lists to challenge voters still using their foreclosed home as a primary address at the polls.[38] Michigan GOP officials called the suit "desperate."[39] A Federal Appeals court ordered the reinstatement of 5,500 voters wrongly purged from the voter rolls by the State:[37]

Want more DOCUMENTED examples?

Don't worry guys there are always hanging chads to disenfranchise voters all you have to do is sabatage the machines at key polling stations, you know the ones, where there is a concentration of the other guys supporters, everyone can vote but no one gets a vote, I hear it was a very successful tactic in one presidential election

Dude, doesn't matter which side does it, I want it stopped. We could do this your side/my side thing all day and get nowhere. I've shown as many examples as you have if not more so why not just work together to end it?

why not just work together to end it?
I'm willing. What do you propose to do and how?

National registration with a biometric ID.

I want a microchip implanted in my body.

I'm willing. What do you propose to do and how?

I support photo ID, and you?