[speechlesstx]

I know. :D

Maybe we need a law that Republicans have to wear a purple and white striped pullover shirt in order to vote on Election Day. (The stripes can be either vertical or horizontal--we'll make it easy that way, but polo, not t-shirt.)

You want special rules for Republicans, I just want the same rules for everyone.

[talaniman]

Yeah you have your ID (papers please), YOU needed one. So everyone should need one too. RIGHT NOW!

Austin news, sports, weather, Longhorns, business | Statesman.com

[speechlesstx]

Yeah you have your ID (papers please), YOU needed one. So everyone should need one too. RIGHT NOW!

Austin news, sports, weather, Longhorns, business | Statesman.com

Damn right, only eligible voters should get to vote.

[excon]

Damn right, only eligible voters should get to vote.

Hello again, Steve:

Fortunately, a federal court AGREES with you. Last night it REJECTED part of Florida's new election law that would have restricted the number of early voting days across the state. The court said the new law cannot take effect in five counties where the African-American vote could be key in November.

So, when the FEDS get involved, SANITY returns... That's what I THOUGHT would happen..

excon

[speechlesstx]

So you believe sanity is blocking a state law in only five counties because of race?

Dude, that's not sanity. Sanity is equality, not giving preferential treatment to one race.

[excon]

So you believe sanity is blocking a state law in only five counties because of race?

Dude, that's not sanity. Sanity is equality, not giving preferential treatment to one race.

Hello again, Steve:

I didn't think keeping the polls open for EVERYBODY would give preferential treatment to one race...

It IS telling that you do..

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

I didn't think keeping the polls open for EVERYBODY would give preferential treatment to one race...

It IS telling that you do..

It was your article that said it, not me.

A federal court has rejected part of Florida's new election law that would have restricted the number of early voting days across the state. The court said the new law cannot take effect in five counties where the African-American vote could be key in November.

You stand corrected.

[excon]

Dude, that's not sanity. Sanity is equality, not giving preferential treatment to one race.

You stand corrected.

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhhh... But, we're getting CLOSE to the heart of the argument... Pursuant to the court, the new law cannot take effect in five counties where the African-American vote could be key in November.

So, when the playing field is LEVELED, YOU believe it gives black people a PREFERENCE... That's interesting... It follows, of course, that to make it equal for YOU, the black vote would have to be suppressed...

excon

[speechlesstx]

So, when the playing field is LEVELED, YOU believe it gives black people a PREFERENCE... That's interesting.... It follows, of course, that to make it equal for YOU, the black vote would have to be suppressed...

You see I find that to be very confusing 'logic,' that giving 5 counties with a key black population 4 more early voting days than everyone else is "leveling the playing field" while requiring everyone to play by the same rules is "suppression."

Do you guys even read what you write?

[excon]

You see I find that to be very confusing 'logic,' that giving 5 counties with a key black population 4 more early voting days than everyone else is "leveling the playing field"

Hello again, Steve:

It's only confusing if you're UNAWARE of the HISTORY of those counties. Here's what the law says:

... [the counties] must demonstrate that a proposed voting change does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of discriminating based on race or color. In some cases, they must also show that the proposed change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating against a "language minority group."

Now, if these counties had NEVER had a history of voter suppression, your argument MIGHT have some weight... But, in the light of HISTORY, it's CLEAR what those counties are doing... It's a matter of CONTEXT. Since you don't DO context, I suspect you'll disagree with me again.

Excon

[speechlesstx]

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

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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

[talaniman]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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, 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.

[excon]

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

[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

[talaniman]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

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