If it is known, then where are the convictions? Oh that is right, there are none. And as been repeatedly pointed out to you numerous times my many different people, there is nothing in any of the Republican voter suppression laws that would have addressed the issue of felon voting – one of them minor points that keeps eluding you. One would think that you and your fellow Republicans would offer some proof that your voter suppression laws would actually fix a real problem. But neither you nor they can do it, despite repeated challenges to do so. Anyone that disagrees with you or Limbaugh is the loony left in your world. I am one of those people who have fought for your right to vote. And it really pisses me off to see you and the many other right wing chicken hawks wrap yourselves in the flag all the while pissing on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for personal gain. If your voter suppression laws were limited to showing a voter ID, that is one thing. But that is not the case; Republican voter suppression laws go way beyond voter ID. If you are going to require voter IDs, then you need to have a way to ensure that voters will not be needlessly disenfranchised and not make the voter registration process needlessly more complex and expensive. And reducing polling hours, making polling station hours more cumbersome has nothing to do with voter ID…nothing at all. “In Minnesota, there have been 10 total cases of reported fraud and no cases of voter impersonation reported since 2000.” - MinnPost 8/13/12 Referencing nationwide data “Editor’s note: This report is part of a project on voting rights in America produced by the Carnegie-Knight News21 program. A News21 analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent. In an exhaustive public records search, News21 reporters sent thousands of requests to elections officers in all 50 states, asking for every case of fraudulent activity, including registration fraud, absentee ballot fraud, vote buying, false election counts, campaign fraud, casting an ineligible vote, voting twice, voter impersonation fraud and intimidation. Analysis of the resulting comprehensive News21 election fraud database turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters. In Minnesota, there have been 10 total cases of reported fraud and no cases of voter impersonation reported since 2000. “Voter fraud at the polls is an insignificant aspect of American elections,” said elections expert David Schultz, professor of public policy at Hamline University School of Business in St. Paul. Courtesy of Hamline University David Schultz “There is absolutely no evidence that [voter impersonation fraud] has affected the outcome of any election in the United States, at least any recent election in the United States,” Schultz said.” - MinnPost http://www.minnpost.com/politics-po...d-election-fraud-found-virtually-non-existent
This was so good that I thought I would share it. http://www.fark.com/comments/7271831/78760518#c78760518
too much baggage a mustached german chancellor has better street cred with these loony thugs. the millions of jews killed is obviously a big plus. some redneck could boast.. "i built this deathcamp without govt help". hunting down and murdering homos would be a weekend routine for the whole family. that is what this filth that masquerade as americans hold near and dear to their heart they will come for you while you sleep they will assassinate your leaders they will lay waste to this land until it is theirs then they will goosestep over your graves get out and vote dem save yourselves
Thank YOU Obama! You have given me plenty of Hope an Change. I hope you leave when your 4 yrs are up an I, I have been given plenty of change, we are further in debt. An we have less employment An I wanted a president Change, the moment you took office! - by a anonymous Democrat
Does your ID list that you are a felon? If not, then your point is moot. Giving your real name is just as good as a gov ID in determining who is a felon.
Did Hillary Reject offer to Replace Biden as VP? The Washington Examiner is reporting that Hillary was offered the VP slot but turned it down: http://washingtonexaminer.com/hilla...-her-own-2016-run/article/2505206#.UC5wZ0I9—K
How long are you going to continue to post trash from debunked right wing propaganda sources on this website? Two, I find it just amazing that now you righties who a few years ago were accusing Hillary Clinton and her husband of a laundry list of crimes up to and including murder and spent nearly 8 years and tens of millions of public dollars trying to impeach President Clinton now want to bestow sainthood on the Clintons. My what a difference a few years make or is this just more of the same nonsense and deception that are the life blood of Republican politics? I think it is the latter, just more of the insane nonsense. Ironically, being tarred as a looser is probably why tier one Republican candidates like Jeb Bush and Christie refused to run this election cycle. So the Republicans we're left with are the pathetic slate of candidates like Gingrich, Perry, Romney and the infamous Mr. 999.
Conservative Zombie Mythopoeia I don't find the propaganda so problematic as the tendency toward zombie-eyed repetition. Like this story. To the one, sure, it's two-bit right-wing horse excrement, but note how it comes to us without any real personal insight. Okay, fine. Our conservative neighbor wants us to take it at face value. The face value is that this involves unnamed sources, which is a plague upon modern American media. And the face value is that the unnamed source suggests something entirely at odds with the ongoing narrative. Clinton told CNN, in March of last year, that she was done after the 2012 election. And, apparently, she needed to reiterate the point again in January. An unnamed source is an unnamed source; the value of that source is either validated by history or not. Hillary Clinton, if she won the presidency in 2016, would be sixty-nine years old at her inauguration. She's already been to twenty State of the Union addresses; the odds are that she doesn't want to spend her seventies delivering the speeches. Thus, for Bedard, the whole point is to reinforce the right-wing notion that Obama "should" replace Biden; it is part of their narrative that the Obama presidency is weak and in chaos. And it also plays to the narrative that Hillary Clinton is a power-hungry bitch. In recent years, the conservative discourse has largely been fueled by this sort of filth. In the end, it is about as useful to engage as arguing whether or not reality is really real. Indeed, that would be a major reason why so many of the conservative legion can only reiterate their pabulum mythopoeia instead of offer some useful insight. Of course, that's probably just symptomatic of bankrupt conservative morality and politics. ____________________ Notes: McCain, Meghan. "Meghan McCain on Why Obama Should Pick Hillary Clinton for VP". The Daily Beast. August 17, 2012. TheDailyBeast.com. August 17, 2012. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...obama-should-pick-hillary-clinton-for-vp.html
Voting is a right, not a privilege. It is fairly astounding that you'd say something that so squarely announces your disrespect for the voting rights of others, in the middle of trying to convince everyone that your campaign against imaginary voter fraud is not an effort at voter suppression. Better to refrain from any public advocacy, if you're going to kick own-goals like that...
So is owning a gun, but you have to do a lot more than simply show an ID before buying a gun in most states.
true but last time i checked voting never killed anybody. and there was some debate back than as there is now whether that should remain the case no one seriously thinks voting shouldn't be a right.
The Obvious Question I would simply reiterate: So here's the deal: Why punish responsible voters by disenfranchising millions in order to address an ill-defined problem? Consider shootings in Aurora, Colorado and Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Or maybe last year in Tuscon. Should we outlaw semiautomatic firearms? Or would such a proposition meet the usual gun-control opposition that says you can't punish responsible gun owners because some people are criminals? Republicans backing this disenfranchisement scheme should drop their responsible-gun-owner lament in the gun control discussion. Or is it that killing people is just that more important to conservatives than voting? Or did I miss your answer ...? Let's see ... that was #369. Your next post is #377, which involves you making speculations about Minnesota without supporting the underlying contention that none of those voting felons were breaking the law; and also some cheerleading about a bunch of conservatives going to a bakery. After that is #380, which continues to push the point about Minnesota without any substantiation; and then you implied voting is some sort of privilege. What's next? Ah, yes, #387, a useless post from a right-wing rag intended to reinforce the Conservative Bubble and the hopes of all who live within its barriers. And then we come 'round the circle at #391: So tell us, sir: As you're comfortable disenfranchising large numbers of legitimate voters in an attempt to cure a very small problem, should conservatives abandon their "don't punish the responsible gun owners" line? It just seems strange that you would err toward the "caution" of killing people, but reject that caution when it comes to people's voting rights. You do understand, do you not, that these sorts of rhetorical conundra conservatives create are a big part of the reason why the right wing is viewed more and more these days as a collection of hateful, tinfoil hacks whose efforts are best described as a cancer upon our society? Killing, or voting? Which one is more important to you?
That is a straw man, bullshit question for a variety of reasons. First of all, it completely ignores the fact that ensuring the integrity of the vote is vitally important to the democratic process. A right to vote means nothing when the legitimate votes of citizens can be overwhelmed by fraudulent votes. Matching the name of each registered voter with a photo ID is the most basic security measure imaginable and the fact that we haven't been doing that already is outrageous. Secondly, asking for an ID can hardly be described as "punishment". The vast majority of adults already have some sort of identification. And among those that do not, not many are registered to vote in the first place — or if they are registered, they are unlikely to turn out. Furthermore, In many cases, voters without proper identification can cast a provisional ballot, which could eventually be counted in the event of a vote-counting dispute.
Really? As I noted in June, two ten-thousands of a percent is not a number I'm going to lose sleep over. Nor nine one-millionths of a percent. Nor three hundred-millionths of a percent. "Overwhelmed"? Yeah. Those are overwhelming numbers, alright. Especially compared to the example of 2000, when thousands of voters were illegally scrubbed from the rolls, enough to redefine the outcome. Or the open acknowledgment in Pennsylvania that the new laws are meant to throw the election. Making photo identification a prerequisite for participating in society would be a new valence in government authority. And the comfort you offer of an incomplete ballot is not encouraging. It's like, "Don't worry, they'll only be partially disenfranchised. You know, if the lawyers decide they need those incomplete ballots." Come on, dude. Really?
It was a reference to Toryism, or loyalty to the Crown, which is at the roots of Conservatism. Republicans are a contradiction in this regard, xenophobic yet loyal to a foreign ideal, raging on about some ill-defined "Big Government", yet founded on loyalty to a central power that favors aristocracy. I understand homophobia, primarily among the Bible thumpers, and perhaps a degree of anti-Semitism. And both of these are consistent with the white supremacists and bigots of that ilk. This would also better define the attitude in the South, where Republican ideas resonate with sick people like this. Republicans pretend to represent American values. Yet nothing could be further from the Constitution and laws of the United States than to discriminate against any other person for reasons such as these. It's another huge contradiction that Republicans are in denial of. I'm not as optimistic about saving myself, but I'd like to see Democrats and moderate 3rd party candidates win by a landlside everywhere. I'd like to see the Republican Party fold -- permanently.
Can you comment on this: An ex-felon can register to vote at anytime, including using same day registration. When they go to the polls, there may or may not be the word "challenged" next to their name on the voter rolls. If they are challenged, they should speak to the head elections judge. The judge may ask some questions, and then will have the person take a brief oath assuring the judge that they have the right to vote. Once they have taken the oath they are allowed to vote. See Minnesota statute 204C.12 for more details. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_felons_vote_in_minnesota#ixzz2414EYbBl The right to vote is ordained in the Constitution. The power to impose voter ID checks is not. However the poll tax was made a tort, so it would appear to be legally impossible to pull off voter ID checks. Realistic problems include this. Suppose I have a reason for not having an ID. Maybe I don't drive. Maybe I don't like being associated with a number (a Mennonite might fall into this category). I'm stuck out under your plan. If I'm not mistaken, some states (I think Mass. is one) have removed the stipulation that people have to carry ID, unless, of course, while operating a motor vehicle, they must obviously carry a driver's license. These people would be stuck out under your plan. Suppose I'm forgetful or in a hurry and left my ID somewhere. But I want to vote. Stuck out. Suppose the ID was lost or stolen. Stuck out. Suppose I have an ID, but I'm not sure a paid a parking ticket, and I'm reluctant to produce it. Stuck out. Suppose I have an ID, and know for sure I owe a parking ticket. Stuck out. Suppose I have a real or imagined fear that my ID exposes me to known or unknown reprisal by authorities. Stuck out. Paranoid types? Stuck out. Someone at odds with the law? Stuck out. But felons? You seem to think they are not listed. I doubt that seriously. You may not be aware that many or most states have been deciding to restore the right to vote to felons once they complete their sentences. It makes no sense to me that they should be deprived of the right to vote anyway, as this has no rehabilitative purpose and it would tend to be counterproductive to the ends of criminal justice. The idea is to deter and rehabilitate, not to turn people into hardened psychopaths. Alienating them from society by taking away their right to vote would cause them further isolation and disinterest in public policy. They probably already suffered from low participation in civic matters, and having had time to think about their crime while in prison or on probation, they may be turning over a new leaf. What better way to help them get over their bad thinking patterns than to give them a ray of hope that they can make the world a better place? So I think your logic behind this is seriously flawed. "Hating on" convicts is in a way a kind of criminal thinking. It seems contradictory to deny them a vote for bad thinking patterns that you yourself hold, without at least surrendering your own right to vote and checking yourself in for some kind of therapy. Finally, and most importantly, this entire issue is a sham. Republicans simply don't care about any of the marginal people whose rights would be infringed by requiring voter ID. They are thinking only of their base, the mainstream, and those of them who would be infringed upon -- say the elders who may not have seen their IDs since who knows when -- but who want to vote -- they just don't matter. This isn't about rights at all, even if it purports to be. It's about wiring people up. In other words, it's another fabrication of divisiveness. It seems to have the potential of benefiting the Republican Party, but only in tight elections. Most importantly, it appeals to their inflated sense of self-righteousness. It's a motivator to turn out the Republican vote, nothing more. Get them riled up, fearing that illegals and convicts are stealing yet again another slice of that good ole apple pie. Forget all the people who get stepped on, this is a pep rally.
There was no straw man. Tiassa clearly and accurately laid out the inconsistencies in the conservative argument. Blaming the bearer of honesty for the inconsistencies in your argument is not persuasive nor is it honest. Disenfranchising legitimate voters in pursuit of an imaginary threat that can find no support in fact or evidence, is a larger and more immediate threat to democracy; there is no integrity in the vote when legitimate voters are not allowed to vote. And where is your support for this revelation? Further, it doesn’t matter if the vast majority of adults have some sort of identification for several reasons. First, Republican voter suppression laws do not accept “some sort of identification” as sufficient evidence to warrant the granting of a ballot at the ballot box. They require specific forms of identification and specifically exclude “some forms of identification” – forms of identification that would benefit the Republican Party are acceptable (e.g. gun permits). Forms that might benefit the Democratic Party on the other hand (e.g. college IDs) are not acceptable in many cases. And finally, it is pretty clear that these laws will prevent millions of Americans from voting this fall. In Pennsylvania alone it is estimated that the law will prevent nearly a million registered voters from voting this fall. Coincidentally, in a rare moment of honesty, the Pennsylvania House Speaker publically pronounced that he and his fellow Republicans had delivered Pennsylvania to Romney this fall by rigging the vote with their voter suppression law. http://www.philly.com/philly/video/BC1783171991001.html
Madanthonywayne has stood up for retributive justice for his entire SciForums tenure, so that's not about to change. Right wing authoritarians love retributive justice, and I doubt even indisputable proof of a reduced crime rate associated with a restorative justice model would make them give it up. Contemplating the suffering of the unrighteous is just too delicious. And good luck penetrating his Just World defense shields. Obviously, anyone caught up in any of the new pitfalls of voter ID laws (or other disenfranchising moves Republicans are making ) are people who don't really want to vote that badly anyway.
Soooo where the dirt on Obama? Is there so little that we been going on for several pages on voter disenfranchising and other forum members? You know how Santorum and even Romney have those web pages which demand to redefine their names as some horrific noun or verb. Why hasn't anyone tried to make up a word for obama, for example obama: when two or more people orgasm simultaneous during a mutually shared sexual act. For example "Jack and jill obamad in the hot tub last night" or "We had an obama and it was great!"
