Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You guys lose in court its foul on the judge or sabotage by democrats. Never is it your own short sighted screw ups. Thats why republican appointed judges keep slapping you down.

If you just settle down, look deeper and be more thoughtful with your ideas, they wouldn't STINK so bad. Or stop trying to screw those you don't like, of which the list is ENDLESS! They are still trying to sort out the last debacle you guys caused with this Sproul fellow. And the continuing back pedaling of supporting Todd Akins in Missouri for the senate.

Or waiting for Ryan Romney to tell us who gets screwed when the extract 5 trillion more dollars from the economy. Or why the scaredy fat cats you all call job creators ain't doing their JOB.................wait for it......................you blame on everybody but THEM!!

I love it when you guys screw yourself with BS of your own making! I really do!

---

Tal,

Come on dude, no one cried foul on the judge. You're the only one misplacing blame here.

I guess you don't think the repubs should be blamed for a lousy process of implementing their law?

Hello again:

"Voter ID, which is going to allow Romney to win" UNDONE!

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I guess you don't think the repubs should be blamed for a lousy process of implementing their law??

---

They'll get it right and you'll find something else to b*tch about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

They'll get it right and you'll find something else to b*tch about.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Not me.. I LOVE honest elections. I think ID's are great.

But, it's a matter of how we define "right", isn't it? You thought "right" meant passing laws that threw down a gauntlet for voters to run through... You called them lazy and stupid if they wouldn't or couldn't run through it...

The courts ruled, of course, that it WASN'T right, at all.

I think "right" means that if you're going to require ID, that you make SURE every eligible voter has one. A states JOB is to see that MORE people vote - not less..

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Not me.. I LOVE honest elections. I think ID's are great.

But, it's a matter of how we define "right", isn't it? You thought "right" meant passing laws that threw down a gauntlet for voters to run through... You called them lazy and stupid if they wouldn't or couldn't run through it...

---

I did? I don't recall that at all. In fact I did say I give the people more credit than your side does who thinks they're too stupid and helpless to take care of themselves.

Quote:

---

The courts ruled, of course, that it WASN'T right, at all.

---

A temporary setback.

Quote:

---

I think "right" means that if you're going to require ID, that you make SURE every eligible voter has one. A states JOB is to see that MORE people vote - not less..

---

What is this opposite day? I've pointed out several times that SCOTUS believes ensuring an honest election ENCOURAGES people to participate, and I agree wholeheartedly. YOU still think it's fine if I'm disenfranchised by fraudulent voters and I'm not fine with that at all. You may not care if your vote counts but I do.

Hello again,

Fortunately, much of the right wing voter suppression efforts have been blocked by the courts.. Activist judges, no doubt.. The latest effort to end early voting in Ohio was shot down yesterday...

I never DID understand how limiting early voting stopped voter fraud.. Maybe you guys can explain it to me.

excon

Quote:

---

I never DID understand how limiting early voting stopped voter fraud..

---

Guess it could end 'vote early ,vote often' . But that is not my big issue with early voting . I think it is a bad practice to do it months ahead of time while the campaign is still in progress.
Voters do not have all the key information yet to make that determination. Yesterday the jobs forecasts was favorable to the reelection.. in a few days there will be adjustments .4 years ago at this time the financial crisis was just beginning ,and McCain was talking of suspending his campaign. A lot can and does happen in October

Also there is some research that suggests that early voting depresses voter turn out .

Early Voting May Depress Voter Turnout - Megan McArdle - The Atlantic



My other objection ;and it would be the key reason why I would object to it locally is the cost of keeping a polling location open . As an example ; in Franklin County Ohio ,the Board of Elections is paying $93,000 to keep and secure an early voting station.
I don't suppose the circus court would donate from it's operating budget the funds necessary to finance the expanded cost of their decision for local governments that are already cash strapped ? Nah. Expand the cost of the 1 county to the whole state ,and you are talking about some real money. In 2008 ,the 1st year for early voting in Ohio ,the cost to run the elections statewide balloned from $67.3 million to $122.4 million.

Congress tried to give active service personel a break when it passed the 'Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act.' l. Does this decision mean that the court is overturning Congress ?

As usual we disagree Tom, with the suppression of turn out article, with the vote early vote often, and letting the military be given a special preference that citizens should enjoy also. Its not going against the congress granting early voting for all since it's a lot easier on the populated areas, and the voters, especially the ones that work.

I can agree on the extra costs but who said exercising rights, or freedom to do so is free? As it appears the taxpayers want early voting, and its tax dollars that pay for it, all is well.

Let not forget the events that made the states go for early voting in the first place, those darn long lines.

Any way by my count that's 8 for 8 court decisions against voter supression tactics even though I fully agree with the idea of having ID to vote. The states should take these rulings to heart and do a better job of procedure.

Could you please point me to where those decisions said it was suppression?

Suppression would be my word for republican tactics but the courts mainly said it was disenfranchisement due to poor implementation from what I have read of the 8 rulings. They were still blocked, or struck down for whatever reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Suppression would be my word for republican tactics but the courts mainly said it was disenfranchisement due to poor implementation from what I have read of the 8 rulings. They were still blocked, or struck down for whatever reason.

---

Specifics and references please.

You mean besides the ones that have already been cited?

Voter ID Laws Struck Down in Texas, Wisconsin - ABC News

Quote:

---

Federal judges struck down two states' voter ID laws today, throwing out government-issued identification requirements at the polls in both Texas and Wisconsin.

In Texas, the Justice Department ruled that the ID requirement would disproportionately affect the state's Hispanic voters, 11 percent of which do not have the necessary identification and would thus not be able to vote.

The Wisconsin law, which went into effect last May, was struck down because, Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess wrote in his ruling, it would “impermissibly eliminate the right of suffrage altogether for certain constitutionally qualified electors.”

---

And then we have history,

Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controversial PA Voter ID Laws Struck Down By Judge - WRIC Richmond News and Weather -

Quote:

---

Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson said in his ruling that he was concerned by the state's stumbling efforts to create a photo ID that is easily accessible to voters and that he could not rely on the assurances of government officials at this late date that every voter would be able to get a valid ID.

---

This will get you started while I get breakfast, and another cup of coffee. The controversy is pretty much settled for this election any way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Could you please point me to where those decisions said it was suppression?

---

Hello again, Steve:

I don't care if they called it frosted flakes, the courts SAW it for what it was, and KILLED it. You really don't think they LOVED it, do you?

excon

None of them called it a suppression tactic, that's just what YOU call it as Tal finally admitted when he said, "suppression would be my word for republican tactics".

I have no doubt most will eventually see it the way I do, that voter fraud disenfranchises qualified voters and discourages participation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

...that voter fraud disenfranchises qualified voters and discourages participation.

---

Everybody agrees with that but that's not at all what they are talking about. You just moved the goalposts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I have no doubt most will eventually see it the way I do, that voter fraud disenfranchises qualified voters and discourages participation.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Then, you've won.. Tal and I have agreed countless times that we think Voter ID's are just hunky dory.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Everybody agrees with that but that's not at all what they are talking about. You just moved the goalposts.

---

You're kind of like a shotgun, just pull the trigger and pellets scatter everywhere hoping to hit something.

No sir I did not move the goalpost, I've been making that same point throughout. In fact, I referenced SCOTUS' opinion in the Indiana case in support more than once.

Quote:

---

Finally, Indiana’s interest in protecting public confidence in elections, while closely related to its interest in preventing voter fraud, has independent significance, because such confidence encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.

---

They move the goalpost by calling it "suppression tactics" instead of what it is, protecting the integrity of and promoting confidence in the vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

They move the goalpost by calling it "suppression tactics" instead of what it is, protecting the integrity of and promoting confidence in the vote.

---

Hello again, Steve:

If it WAS truly "protecting the integrity and promoting confidence in the vote" do you believe that it would have been struck down - UNANIMOUSLY, in EVERY state where it was challenged? Do you really believe that ALL these judges are ACTIVIST or on the payroll of the libs??

Look... We're Going to have voter ID. We SHOULD have voter ID. Voter ID, in and of itself, does NOT suppress the vote... When the states learn HOW to administer their voter ID laws, they'll be fair. Until then, they weren't. They've got a couple years to get their act together.

What I don't get here, is you, YOURSELF admitted that the laws THREW down a gauntlet. Apparently, the right wing brain does NOT see a gauntlet as an impediment to voting.. That is realllllly bizarre..

excon

I never said anything about throwing down a gauntlet. I argued the opposite, I believe proving your identity is reasonable - free or not.