^ that makes some sense, but as a conservative, why do you support the gov. expanding burdensome regulations that don't appear to solve any actual problems?

Seems like a monumental waste of gov. resources and (a small) expansion of gov. power to prevent certain old coutnry people from being able to vote.

1/23/2012 9:35:28 PM

it's really not an expansion of any power. The gov't gives people the ability to vote. it only makes sense that the gov't ensure that people voting are allowed to vote and are who they say they are.

as for it "not solving any problem", let me ask you: would you close the barn door before or after the horses got out?

1/23/2012 9:39:09 PM

Quote :

"it's not an impediment. it's a common sense request that people who want to vote show that they are who they say they are."

Um...administrative requirements to be met prior to voting are in fact impediments.

^ Because it's not old people; aaronburro is pulling that out of his gaping asshole.

1/23/2012 9:42:12 PM

show me how many young people can't get an ID. again, EVERY sob story I hear about this is from an older person who, for some reason, didn't get a birth certificate or had some crazy error on their birth certificate or SS card.

and no, people having an ID is NOT an administrative burden. Hell, by that logic, simply having to register to vote should be unacceptable.

1/23/2012 9:44:04 PM

Quote :

" The gov't gives people the ability to vote."

Uhh... no.

People HAVE the ability to vote. It's The People that gives the gov. power, not the other way around (read the constitution).

Quote :

"it only makes sense that the gov't ensure that people voting are allowed to vote and are who they say they are."

That does make sense, but why wouldn't any gov. ID work? It seems the laws are written by conservatives specifically to reject certain demographics, outside of common sense.

For the old woman who had an ID, but it was expired. Presumably when she got the ID, she was the same person then, as she is now, right? Why does being expired even matter?

Regarding student IDs, the same logic applies. If they accept student IDs with a 2yr expiration date, why not accept any valid student ID?

If we applied barn-door logic to everything, why not require all cars to have breathalyzers to stop drunk driving? Why not have all wages be distributed through the gov. to stop tax evasion? Why not require an ID for purchasing ammo? Why not require and ID for purchasing pharmaceuticals that could make drugs... oh wait...

Quote :

"and no, people having an ID is NOT an administrative burden."

It's the getting of an ID that's a burden. Esp. for someone who has no birth certificate or an error on their certificate. That's at least a day or 2 off of work. Seems very poll-tax-y.


[Edited on January 23, 2012 at 9:48 PM. Reason : ]

1/23/2012 9:47:03 PM

way to completely gloss over the common practice of suppressing student voters. (burros)

[Edited on January 23, 2012 at 9:47 PM. Reason : ]

1/23/2012 9:47:15 PM

Quote :

"That does make sense, but why wouldn't any gov. ID work?"

because the ID should have an address on it. Most student IDs don't. People vote in a precinct which is address-based.

Quote :

"For the old woman who had an ID, but it was expired. Presumably when she got the ID, she was the same person then, as she is now, right? Why does being expired even matter?"

I'm with you on that. That's why a special dep't for handling these odd-ball cases would be called for.

Quote :

"Uhh... no. People HAVE the ability to vote."

Same difference. There are still regulations that are followed in order to ensure that people vote once and at most once.

Quote :

"If we applied barn-door logic to everything, why not require all cars to have breathalyzers to stop drunk driving? Why not have all wages be distributed through the gov. to stop tax evasion? Why not require an ID for purchasing ammo? Why not require and ID for purchasing pharmaceuticals that could make drugs... oh wait..."

Because the legitimacy of an election is important. Those others are important, too, but this is just a common sense measure that isn't as invasive as the other things you mentioned. This is a non-invasive measure that just makes sense: prove you are who you say you are when you want to vote.

^ the issue of student voters is a different one with different lines of discussion. Besides, those students can still vote in their hometown, so they aren't being suppressed. But, again, that's another discussion

1/23/2012 9:52:05 PM

Quote :

"the issue of student voters is a different one with different lines of discussion. Besides, those students can still vote in their hometown, so they aren't being suppressed. But, again, that's another discussion"

When the State is putting harsher restrictions on students (adding requirements that NO schools follow such as expiration date and home address) then the student is being denied his/her right to democracy.

And when that is done in conjunction with the systematic closing of DMVs in urban neighborhoods and the reduction of "early voting" then it's not hard to see the scheme for what it is: Voter suppression.

1/23/2012 9:55:19 PM

Quote :

"because the ID should have an address on it."

I'm homeless. Can I use your address?

Quote :

"That's why a special dep't for handling these odd-ball cases would be called for."

But you think such programs should only last 4 years. I guess there won't be any odd-ball cases after four years?

Quote :

"show me how many young people can't get an ID. again, EVERY sob story I hear about this is from an older person who, for some reason, didn't get a birth certificate or had some crazy error on their birth certificate or SS card."

The people who will be impacted by your "problem" solving are the poor, minorities, and those with low levels of education (and, yes, the elderly). You know, the types of people who probably can't afford time off to pay for and collect a bunch of documents to prove they are who they say they are.

1/23/2012 10:00:39 PM

Quote :

"When the State is putting harsher restrictions on students (adding requirements that NO schools follow such as expiration date and home address) then the student is being denied his/her right to democracy."

not if he can still vote in his hometown.

Quote :

"And when that is done in conjunction with the systematic closing of DMVs in urban neighborhoods and the reduction of "early voting" then it's not hard to see the scheme for what it is: Voter suppression."

the race card is getting old, dude. but hey, I understand, you don't care if people are actually voting legitimately.

Quote :

"I'm homeless. Can I use your address?"

Forgive me if I don't want the average homeless man voting, for one. For another what, exactly, IS a homeless man's address? Where should he be allowed to vote?

Quote :

"But you think such programs should only last 4 years. I guess there won't be any odd-ball cases after four years?"

Not enough oddball cases to warrant a full-fledged department, no. What part of "retain a few people for those specific cases" did you not understand?

Quote :

"The people who will be impacted by your "problem" solving are the poor, minorities, and those with low levels of education (and, yes, the elderly). You know, the types of people who probably can't afford time off to pay for and collect a bunch of documents to prove they are who they say they are."

Numbers. Give me numbers of people who can't get an ID. otherwise, take your crocodile tears elsewhere

1/23/2012 10:10:14 PM

Quote :

"Numbers. Give me numbers of people who can't get an ID. otherwise, take your crocodile tears elsewhere"

Google is sooooooo hard!

This pertains to Indiana specifically, but I'm sure you have some silly bullshit about how Indiana is grossly misrepresentative of the US as a whole:

http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/documents/Indiana_voter.pdf

Quote :

"Forgive me if I don't want the average homeless man voting, for one."

Homeless or not, with an ID or not, he is still one of the People of these United States. I won't forgive your "common sense" beliefs in who can and can't vote.

And now I'd like to ask you:

Numbers. Give me numbers of people who are such committing widespread voter fraud that it warrants disenfranchisement of segments of the US population. otherwise, take your crocodile tears elsewhere

1/23/2012 10:22:45 PM

congratulations. you gave me more numbers relating to people who don't have IDs, NOT numbers relating to people who have the perfect storm of circumstances that makes it nearly impossible for them to get one even with some effort on their part.

Quote :

"Homeless or not, with an ID or not, he is still one of the People of these United States. I won't forgive your "common sense" beliefs in who can and can't vote."

I'm glad to see that you ignored the second part of my response:

Quote :

"For another what, exactly, IS a homeless man's address? Where should he be allowed to vote?"

Or is it your assertion that a homeless man should be able to vote wherever the hell he can get to? if I put on rags and go to every polling place I can find, should they be forced to allow me to vote at every single one?

Quote :

"Numbers. Give me numbers of people who are such committing widespread voter fraud that it warrants disenfranchisement of segments of the US population. otherwise, take your crocodile tears elsewhere"

Fire the cops. Then give me numbers of arrests showing that there is a crime problem

1/23/2012 10:30:15 PM

Quote :

"the race card is getting old, dude. but hey, I understand, you don't care if people are actually voting legitimately."

huh?

1/23/2012 10:33:05 PM

Quote :

"Because the legitimacy of an election is important. Those others are important, too, but this is just a common sense measure that isn't as invasive as the other things you mentioned. This is a non-invasive measure that just makes sense: prove you are who you say you are when you want to vote. "

The problem is that the laws go far beyond just "prove who you are".

It seems based on your own words in this thread, you should looking to repeal these laws because they are horribly broken.

They serve to undermine the legitimacy of the election, instead of bolstering it.

1/23/2012 10:38:22 PM

Quote :

"The problem is that the laws go far beyond just "prove who you are"."

but they really don't. as it stands, you go in to a polling place, say you are John Smith, and they let you vote. As the ID laws would go, you would walk in to a polling place, tell them you are John Smith, and then prove it by showing them your ID. Pretty straightforward. And, that ID is used for more than just voting, and you'll probably need it for other things anyway. It's no imposition at all to say "provide proof that you are who you say you are" in order to vote, when the accepted proof is something you probably already have and that you can and do use in other circumstances. They aren't asking for blood, they aren't asking you to sign over your first-born. They are simply saying "ID, to prove you are allowed to vote in this precinct."

1/23/2012 10:43:39 PM

That's not really true.

Right now i'm registered in JoCo. If I were to buy a house in raleigh around election time, and changed my voter reg., it's very likely that I have no ID with my new address on it in time for election.

I would be disenfranchised.

The voter registration system should manage who can vote where, the vote polling system should, at most, see who is voting. Not who they are and where they live, if they are in the right district, etc.

For your homeless person, if they are registered in Wake, and then try to register in JoCo, then just remove their Wake registration.

And when the poll worker turns me away because I didn't get my new ID in time, i'll be cursing the gov., and you'll tell me that's what happens when the gov. creates too many regulations.

aaronburro: big government proponent

You're naive if you can't see the TRUE reason Conservative politicians support the implementation of these laws in they way the do.

[Edited on January 23, 2012 at 10:53 PM. Reason : ]

1/23/2012 10:52:18 PM

Quote :

"but they really don't. as it stands, you go in to a polling place, say you are John Smith, and they let you vote. As the ID laws would go, you would walk in to a polling place, tell them you are John Smith, and then prove it by showing them your ID. Pretty straightforward"

Unless you're a student, in which case your student ID isn't enough.

Or unless you live in a left-leaning city in Wisconsin, and many of the DMVs are being shut-down, making it more difficult to get an ID to begin with.

Or if you live in South Carolina, and if you don't have an ID, you have to pay for a Passport or birth-certificate.

Or, if you want to vote early, and the early-voting hours are being dashed across the board, making it difficult to vote if you work odd hours.


It's funny, because you seem to be against voter-suppression, but completely incapable or unwilling to acknowledge that disenfranchisement is obviously on the rise. Limiting access to I.D. and polling places IS SUPPRESSION, but for some reason you're not able to make the connection between limiting access and systematic voter suppression.



You really need to read-up on some of the bullshit Scott Walker is trying to pull-off in Wisconsin. It's pretty terrible. It's a pretty interesting brand of Badger-fascism.

[Edited on January 23, 2012 at 11:05 PM. Reason : ]

1/23/2012 10:57:21 PM

Quote :

"you gave me more numbers relating to people who don't have IDs, NOT numbers relating to people who have the perfect storm of circumstances that makes it nearly impossible for them to get one even with some effort on their part."

...and we're back to "Don't have an ID? Are you one of the 700,000 voters in NC without an ID?* Fuck you."

*http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/9059843/

Quote :

"Fire the cops. Then give me numbers of arrests showing that there is a crime problem"

Is it your assertion that significant voter fraud is occurring, and it's occurring undetected?

Are you really this dumb?

Voting is a right and responsibility. Like all rights and responsibilities, exercising the right to vote should be as free and unencumbered as possible.

You want to go in the opposite direction; you want to place administrative obstacles in front of those seeking to vote. And, you want to do so with absolutely no compelling evidence of voter fraud, nor any compelling evidence that such fraud would go undetected if it should occur.

1/23/2012 11:01:02 PM

What if they prove who they are when they are registering w/ whatever means they have available, then just show the registration card when they vote.

1/23/2012 11:43:18 PM

Quote :

"The voter registration system should manage who can vote where, the vote polling system should, at most, see who is voting. Not who they are and where they live, if they are in the right district, etc."

great. now, how do you tell who actually stands before you at the polls on election day?

Quote :

"You're naive if you can't see the TRUE reason Conservative politicians support the implementation of these laws in they way the do."

fine. some of them are racist. I'm not. what's your point? exactly.

Quote :

"Unless you're a student, in which case your student ID isn't enough."

do we have to keep going in circles on this? I've already expressed the problem with a student ID, and it's obvious I am talking about DMV-issued IDs.

Quote :

"Or unless you live in a left-leaning city in Wisconsin, and many of the DMVs are being shut-down, making it more difficult to get an ID to begin with."

budget cuts suck. deal with it.

Quote :

"Or if you live in South Carolina, and if you don't have an ID, you have to pay for a Passport or birth-certificate."

and a regular, non driver's license ID is FREE. damn, that's a real imposition. 12 bux for a birth certificate, even though you probably already have it.

Quote :

"Or, if you want to vote early, and the early-voting hours are being dashed across the board, making it difficult to vote if you work odd hours."

waaaaaaaaaaaaaah. if you can't find time to vote, that's your own problem. most employers give you time on election day to go to the polls. take it.

Quote :

"Limiting access to I.D. and polling places IS SUPPRESSION"

if they were happening, sure. but they aren't.

Quote :

"and we're back to "Don't have an ID? Are you one of the 700,000 voters in NC without an ID?* Fuck you.""

no, we're where we always have been. "Don't have an ID" =/= "Can't get an ID".

Quote :

"Is it your assertion that significant voter fraud is occurring, and it's occurring undetected?"

I imagine there certainly is some, and the type this law would stop cannot be detected easily. More importantly, I see no reason to leave this massive opening for fraud when it can easily be closed.

Quote :

"You want to go in the opposite direction; you want to place administrative obstacles in front of those seeking to vote."

by your logic, having to register to vote is an administrative obstacle.

Quote :

"And, you want to do so with absolutely no compelling evidence of voter fraud"

hey, we've got no police department, so we must have no crime because there are no arrests!

1/24/2012 8:30:24 AM

Quote :

"Forgive me if I don't want the average homeless man voting, for one."

They lose everything material and now you want them to lose their last token civic rights. The homeless receive almost none of the liberty or protections afforded to regular citizens, and now you're comfortable disenfranchising them as well?

1/24/2012 9:02:51 AM

ITT: People bitching about potentially needing ID to vote while being entirely okay with the income tax, which punishes inaction and is an invasion of privacy. It's fine if the government takes your wages and pisses it away. Take away our god given right to vote (which doesn't even fucking matter in the U.S. for the most part) without verifying identity to confirm 1 person/1 vote (which I'm pretty sure is a critical part of democracy), and it's an affront to humanity.

[Edited on January 24, 2012 at 9:15 AM. Reason : ]

1/24/2012 9:11:56 AM

It's gotta be nice to live in a world where you can denounce the act of voter suppression while simultaneously denying its existence even in the face of evidence. Honestly, I envy that skillset. It frees you from the guilt of supporting disenfranchisement while simultaneously agreeing with policies that encourage voter suppression.

[Edited on January 24, 2012 at 9:27 AM. Reason : burr]

1/24/2012 9:18:17 AM

^^I don't have a problem with needing ID. I DO have a problem with refusing ID or limiting access to DMVs or shutting them down completely in an effort to isolate voting blocks. Or not allowing students to vote in the precinct of their universities without some bogus ID requirement. Or limiting early-voting hours for no real reason. And all of this in the name of preventing voter fraud that occurs at a .007% rate. That's bullshit, and nobody should support it.


Honestly, some of the policy initiatives headed by Scott Walker are worthy of his own credibility thread. The dude is using the pretext of a budget crisis to enact voter suppression, bust up unions, and rip away social safety nets. It's pretty sick. The people of Wisconsin gathered up TWICE the number of signatures needed to head-up a recall. I'm sure he'll try to squash that too because of the budget crisis.

[Edited on January 24, 2012 at 9:33 AM. Reason : ]

1/24/2012 9:21:31 AM

Glad JesusHChrist is around to save my patience by enumerating the obvious

1/24/2012 9:37:02 AM

Quote :

"fine. some of them are racist. I'm not. what's your point? exactly. "

That rather than supporting a system that achieves your goals, you’re supporting the corrupt one instead.

1/24/2012 9:58:10 AM

Quote :

"^^I don't have a problem with needing ID. I DO have a problem with refusing ID or limiting access to DMVs or shutting them down completely in an effort to isolate voting blocks. Or not allowing students to vote in the precinct of their universities without some bogus ID requirement. Or limiting early-voting hours for no real reason. And all of this in the name of preventing voter fraud that occurs at a .007% rate. That's bullshit, and nobody should support it."

Most of the discussion in this thread is around requiring ID. The rest of that does seem like voter suppression.

1/24/2012 10:33:41 AM

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/01/newt-mitt-electability-gap-shrinks.html

Quote :

"Today’s ABC/Washington Post poll shows Romney’s favorable-unfavorable rating among the broader public collapsing to almost Newt-esque levels. He now stands at 31-49, closing in fast on Gingrich’s abysmal 29-51. "

Favorability ratings tend to be a much better indicator of election results than actual head to head polls this far out from the GE. Things are looking very very bad for both of these candidates. Goldwater 2.0?

[Edited on January 24, 2012 at 11:17 AM. Reason : :]

1/24/2012 11:16:53 AM

Don't insult Goldwater like that. He was a visionary and the ideological hero of a whole generation of fiscal conservatives and right-leaning libertarians. While he lost spectacularly, he inspired the fiscal conservatism movement that led to Reagan and later, the Republican revolution.

The only guy in the race even remotely comparable is Ron Paul, and it's an open question whether his message will ever resonate with the mainstream.

[Edited on January 24, 2012 at 12:00 PM. Reason : 2]

1/24/2012 11:56:16 AM

Since aaronburro won't answer the question, I will.

Quote :

"Are you really this dumb?"

Yes, aaronburro really is that dumb.

1/24/2012 11:57:10 AM

Quote :

"Most of the discussion in this thread is around requiring ID. The rest of that does seem like voter suppression."

Requiring ID is voter suppression if all voters do not already have ID, because many will have to get an ID and not all will be able to do so equally easily. It's a very transparent ploy for the GOP to bust Democratic voters out of voting, otherwise they'd also be want to abolish the precious absentee ballots their precious Old-Koots demographic uses so much.


1. Cities tend to vote Democrat, Rural areas vote Republican. In a rural area, a car (and thus) drivers license is a life necessity if you want to do anything except subsistence farm on your own property. So every Republican voter in rural areas already has an ID, except the old people, who have absentee ballots. In cities, a car is generally optional since many things are either within walking distance or you can use public transit.

2. Blacks tend to vote Democratic, and blacks tend to have higher poverty rates. Poor people can't afford cars (less impetus to get an ID), tend to live in cities (because of walking-distance and public transit, less impetus to get an ID again), and tend to shift between residences more frequently, often in pursuit of jobs (Nullifying their ID every time).

Why mention "black" here and not just "poor"? Because poor whites live in the country and have pickup trucks. Blacks live in cities (although in recent years this is starting to change) for a multitude of reasons. Blacks have a harder time getting employed due to discrimination by hirers (Well documented), and cities have more jobs. There's a lot more racist kooks in the country, that and similar stigmas keep them in cities as well. Finally, blacks never got their 40 acres and a mule to the extent whites did, and property ownership is rarer. Meanwhile many, many whites live on land that's been passed down for generations since homesteading times. So, blacks tend to rent more, which again lends itself to city life, as well as to frequent changes of address.

3. Students tend to vote Democratic, and move often, both between apartments (nullifying their ID) and between States.


So yeah, there's nothing wrong with thinking ID check is a good idea, it is a good idea if you pretend it's an equal burden for all people. But it's not, and the distribution of that burden lies heavily on constituencies the GOP has a clear interest in suppressing. So if you want to talk strictly abstraction, then yeah ID check is a good idea, if you live in the real world, it's a clear attempt at suppression. As I said before, if they were as aggressive about abolishing absentee ballots, I might give them the benefit of a doubt. Or maybe if they supported a program that would assist and pay for everyone to get an ID quickly and free of charge and right up until the day of the election. But they don't, so it's clear what they're doing and why. They care about the principle strictly in a rhetorical sense when it serves their interests. What I want to know is if aaronburro is actually this naive or actually this proudly pro-voter-supression.

[Edited on January 24, 2012 at 12:14 PM. Reason : .]

1/24/2012 12:09:15 PM

according to this article, it's already been decided - if they required a photo ID they would have to give everyone one

http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/9059843/

Quote :

"Requiring a photo ID would create more complications, officials said, noting that court rulings dictate IDs must be provided free to voters, which would require extra money and staff."

1/24/2012 12:54:44 PM

The people most likely to not have identification are more than likely poor, and accordingly are aligned with the Democrat party, who will promise them handouts.

I mean, you're going to turn around and call me racist for stating the obvious, but you know it's fucking true. The GOP promises to bomb people and lock up hippies. The Democratic party promises free shit.

1/24/2012 12:55:08 PM

Oh no. People who support the right thing have an alternative agenda! Whatever shall we do?

1/24/2012 12:58:56 PM

Quote :

"according to this article, it's already been decided - if they required a photo ID they would have to give everyone one."

as it should be

1/24/2012 1:11:10 PM

1/25/2012 11:23:59 AM

Quote :

"That rather than supporting a system that achieves your goals, you’re supporting the corrupt one instead."

bullshit. you are claiming that because some racist people are supporting a horrible implementation of a system, an intelligent implementation of that system is racist. Guilt by association is absurd.

Quote :

"They lose everything material and now you want them to lose their last token civic rights."

I've said no such thing. I've aked, instead, how you figure where a homeless person should vote. What is his precinct?

Quote :

"I DO have a problem with refusing ID or limiting access to DMVs or shutting them down completely in an effort to isolate voting blocks."

And if some are doing that, with that intent, then they are horrible people. It couldn't also be the case that some DMVs are being shut down due to budget constraints, could it? It's not like states all over have been running into major budget problems recently or anything.

Quote :

"The dude is using the pretext of a budget crisis"

There was no pretext. It was very much there, no matter what lies Rachel Maddow tells you otherwise.

Quote :

"Most of the discussion in this thread is around requiring ID. The rest of that does seem like voter suppression."

On its surface, maybe. But then you see that it involves budget issues, for one, and then another issue of student voting. Where students should be allowed to vote is a valid topic of discussion, and simply taking one side shouldn't be labeled "voter suppression," especially when the other side effectively suppresses voters, too.

Quote :

"Requiring ID is voter suppression if all voters do not already have ID, because many will have to get an ID and not all will be able to do so equally easily."

false. That some would have difficulty doesn't automatically make it suppression, unless the policy is passed with zero efforts to alleviate that situation.

Quote :

"Students tend to vote Democratic, and move often, both between apartments (nullifying their ID) and between States."

but it's also a valid question to ask if that voting block, which has little to no intent to stay in that area should be able to massively influence local elections thereby affecting the people who do live there, especially given how easily students can be herded into voting for specific causes by whatever group desires so. Like I said, student voting is about more than just the "OMG THEY ARE SUPPRESSING MY VOTE!!!" than you are letting on.

1/25/2012 11:36:51 AM

Nancy Pelosi saying she has something on Gingrich is BS.

They are probably in cahoots with each other. They have a common goal: she wants him to win the nomination (so he will lose to Obama) & he wants to win FL & thinks he can do it by rallying the republicans against a potential phony Pelosi smear!

1/25/2012 11:43:36 AM

Quote :

"And if some are doing that, with that intent, then they are horrible people. It couldn't also be the case that some DMVs are being shut down due to budget constraints, could it? It's not like states all over have been running into major budget problems recently or anything."

Here's what you just said:

If facilities issuing required IDs are being shutdown for the specific purpose of disenfranchising voters, that is bad.

If facilities issuing required IDs are being shutdown due to budget constraints, it's OK if voters just happen to be disenfranchised as a result.

Quote :

"false. That some would have difficulty doesn't automatically make it suppression, unless the policy is passed with zero efforts to alleviate that situation."

What happens when "efforts to alleviate that situation" run afoul of budget problems? Fuck 'em?

1/25/2012 11:55:12 AM

Quote :

"The people most likely to not have identification are more than likely poor, and accordingly are aligned with the Democrat party, who will promise them handouts."

Every person, rich or poor, votes to further their own interests or what they perceive to be their own interests. If you deny one group the right to vote, you're essentially making them slaves, unable to affect the system that controls them, while enabling the other groups in power to further entrench themselves without opposition. I know you're not pro-Democracy because it enslaves the few to the many, but I'd hope that you'd at least see how a partial Democracy based around ownership credentials would do the opposite and enslave the many to the few.

Quote :

"I mean, you're going to turn around and call me racist for stating the obvious, but you know it's fucking true. [quote]The GOP promises to bomb people and lock up hippies. The Democratic party promises free shit."

The Democratic party promises not to leave people high and dry who have been fucked over by circumstances beyond their control. The GOP simply blames those people, regardless of actual circumstances, as a point of principle. 75% of food stamp recipients have jobs, and would probably prefer to have better jobs than live in squalor. The vast majority of recipients are not idly sitting and enjoying handouts, they're trying to better their lives because, frankly, being on welfare in this country is not luxurious and current benefits are more meager than they've been in many, many decades.

And for the record, I call you a racist not because you're anti-poor people, but because you refuse to acknowledge the ongoing racism in America. When you do (infrequently) acknowledge it, you are opposed to any and all solutions to it that don't involve sitting on our hands and hoping people simply 'get less racist'. Your positions boils down to "Racism is a non-issue, and even if it were an issue, it's the victims' problem, not mine."

Maybe you don't hate other races, or think them inferior, good for you. You're still complicit with non-action in response to racism, which makes you an enabler and thus ally of the racists themselves and an enemy to anti-racists.

I've pointed out with some detail how ID law, given the current way ID's are typical gained, would be gamed against minorities both because of their tendency to be poorer and their tendency to live in cities (this separates them from poor whites). If you want me to take your position at all seriously, at least adopt some consistency and additionally support either a State obligation to provide ID's free of charge or hassle, OR go all the way and oppose absentee ballots as well.


[Edited on January 25, 2012 at 12:02 PM. Reason : .]

1/25/2012 11:57:42 AM

Quote :

"false. That some would have difficulty doesn't automatically make it suppression, unless the policy is passed with zero efforts to alleviate that situation."

True, that's an important caveat. If the State provided ID free of charge and hassle, it'd be more defensible. I still want to know if you'd also support abolishing absentee voting.

Quote :

"but it's also a valid question to ask if that voting block, which has little to no intent to stay in that area should be able to massively influence local elections thereby affecting the people who do live there,"

Students are more likely to be transient. Does that mean they should have no vote at all? What about non-students who intend to move? Should every citizen who votes have to pledge to not move until the next election?

Quote :

" especially given how easily students can be herded into voting for specific causes by whatever group desires so. Like I said, student voting is about more than just the "OMG THEY ARE SUPPRESSING MY VOTE!!!" than you are letting on."

Translation: "They don't vote like how I want them to vote so they shouldn't vote." which wouldn't be an uncommon or deplorable sentiment...if you weren't using it in an argument justifying disenfranchising them.


[Edited on January 25, 2012 at 12:08 PM. Reason : .]

1/25/2012 12:06:20 PM

the pelosi thing is BS-

everything that could be legally released from his ethics investigation has been and if she goes on the record with anything from closed session she will go to jail.

newt knows this so its no surprise earlier today he called her out on it.

now i suppose theres always the possibility she knows hes having threesomes with limbaugh and boehner, but whatever.

point being is they are so ideologically opposed that the thought of a gingrich whitehouse makes her physically ill. watch the video of that particular interview and youll see shes on the verge of just breaking out in full blown tourettes.

the white house claims to be preparing for romney but theyre probably in full blown panic mode over gingrich. cry all you want about his personal life but the disenchantment over obama is going to cause people to largely not care.

his life has been an open book for over 2 decades and the muckraking has largely panned out. id be more worried about some unknown romney timebomb exploding in our faces compared to newt. romney is a fucking idiot in his handling of his tax return anyway...

this is going on for too long and im starting to get pissed off. gingrich is far from the perfect GOP candidate due to the fact hes newt gingrich. at least he isnt a completely incompetent politician like our current president of other choices (except ron paul).

actually scratch that, obama is a marvelous politician hes just incompetent at everything else.

gingrich could tap paul for VP and take advantage of his popularity although paul would probably refuse based on the fact hes ideologically opposed to most everything gingrich says. at least they seem to laugh at each others jokes on stage more than anyone else.

as for me obviously these are all my opinions. ill just keep buying more ammo everytime SMC tells me to.

1/25/2012 12:17:03 PM

BEETS.
BEARS.
BASES ON THE MOON.

1/26/2012 12:05:28 AM

Santorum/Daniels would be a pretty strong ticket.

1/26/2012 12:07:32 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/mormon-church-mitt-romney_n_1229322.html

Quote :

"When Newsweek magazine asked Romney if he personally had performed posthumous baptisms on anyone, author Jonathan Darman wrote, "he looked slightly startled and answered, 'I have in my life, but I haven't recently.'"

1/26/2012 2:06:27 AM

Yeah, that's part of mormon religious practice... I don't think it would come as a surprise that Romney has done it, it kind of goes without asking but I suppose reporters have to ask so they can tie that to the posthumous baptisms of holocaust victims controversy from a while back.

Tangent: Church members are only supposed to submit names for baptism for their direct ancestors and seek permission from living family members in all other cases. It's been that way for as long as I've known.

The thing I find funny is how he tries to give the political answer. I have... but not recently. Like he's ashamed of his beliefs or that living that part of his faith was some "youthful indiscretion." Have you used illegal drugs "yes... in my life, but not recently. He's done that quite a bit when cornered about his beliefs.

[Edited on January 26, 2012 at 8:56 AM. Reason : -]

1/26/2012 8:53:07 AM

newt gingrich says baloney like every other word.

1/26/2012 11:45:31 AM

He had me at moon base.

1/26/2012 1:03:48 PM

my favorite "Newtism":

I have two grandchildren: Maggie is 11; Robert is 9. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.

Pulled the difficult combo of labeling someone an atheist and Islamic extremist at the same time!

1/26/2012 2:49:11 PM

On the surface, it seems like he's an idiot. His words are very calculated, though. He understands exactly what buzzwords to use and at what times.

1/26/2012 2:53:19 PM