Illegals Voting For Republicans

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 52 discussions (562 posts)
  1. American View profile image61
    American Viewposted 12 years ago

    If all the I illegal Aliens said tomorrow they are voting Republican, would the Dems desire Voter ID cards, would they want the voter rolls updated, would they have backed Obama's amnesty for the young illegals?

    replyreport
    1. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6888995_f248.jpg

      That's a good question, here's a little conversational info.

      replyreport
    2. profile image0
      Old Poolmanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I would say of course they would.  We all want those things that work in our favor.  That is just human nature regardless of party affiliation.  Right now the lack of voter ID cards works in their favor.

      replyreport
    3. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If all the illegals said they were voting for Republicans, Dems would want them all rounded up and stuck in concentration camps in the hope of reprogramming them for the next election. If not, deportation.

      replyreport
    4. Reality Bytes profile image73
      Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I do not agree with voter Id laws, but this is just silly:

      Eric Holder requires IDs before hearing his speech against voter ID law


      You can’t make this stuff up. The United States Attorney General Eric Holder spoke on Tuesday at the NAAPC’s annual convention in Houston, Texas. His topic was – in part – about fighting Texas for wanting to demand that people have to show their ID before voting in Texas’s elections.

      While Holder’s big concern about the voter ID law is that it would be prejudiced against minorities, it has been learned that persons entering the NAACP convention to hear Holder speak were required to show two picture identification cards - or they were turned away at the door.

      http://www.examiner.com/article/eric-ho … ter-id-law

      replyreport
      1. habee profile image93
        habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        What?? A hypocrite from the far left? Say it ain't so!

        And, BTW, I think there are just as many on the other far end of the political spectrum.

        replyreport
        1. Uninvited Writer profile image76
          Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Conventions are completely different from elections...

          I imagine it has a lot to do with security...do you think they should let anyone in off the street. At least people voting illegal does not result in possible violence...

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Right, because people who can't be trusted to stand in a crowd should be trusted to vote for the POTUS.

            replyreport
            1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image78
              TIMETRAVELER2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

              What makes you think that because someone is an illegal alien that they can't be trusted?  These people are poor and usually are unschooled.  All they know is that life will be better for them in America and they do whatever they can to get here.  Yes, some are criminals, but I don't believe they are the majority.  Plenty of American criminals vote...so I don't see a difference.

              I don't think that what illegals do is right or good, and I do think we need to stop illegal immigration, but I do understand why they do it.  Let's not criminalize them because they want a better life.

              replyreport
          2. Niteriter profile image61
            Niteriterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            There are large numbers of Second-Amendment enthusiasts in Texas. Small numbers of those large numbers have reputations for tolerance of progressive ideas.

            replyreport
            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Which is truly unfortunate.

              replyreport
              1. Niteriter profile image61
                Niteriterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Citizens bearing arms does not speak well of the spirit of a nation.

                replyreport
                1. stanwshura profile image72
                  stanwshuraposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Yeah.  Look, it's kind of hoakie at this point, but when I was a kid, my grandmother would recount with proud shoulders those days when you could go to the grocery without locking up your house.  Something about trust and honor and community, about the SHAME of being caught stealing from your neighbor, who would likely GIVE (not lend!) you 10 times what you could steal.  But then, asking for help requires humility.

                  If you're packin', you don't see neighbors; you see enemies.  That is incredibly sad.

                  replyreport
                  1. profile image0
                    SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Really? Because I'd bet MORE people owned guns in your grandmother's day than they do today.

                    replyreport
      2. udontnomi profile image58
        udontnomiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        I do not follow links. I am not easily fooled by such ploys.

        replyreport
        1. Reality Bytes profile image73
          Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          You could always Search for:  "Eric Holder requires IDs before hearing his speech against voter ID law"

          In my two years on this site, I have never come across a malicious link in the forums that was not easily identified spam.  I do understand your caution.

          replyreport
          1. udontnomi profile image58
            udontnomiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I am impressed by the longevity of your tenure. This makes you a trustworthy authority? I should put my faith in the symbol of power and freedom that you represent? There is no telling who is behind the mask. Besides you have made an absolute statement that can not possibly be true, therefore I maintain my discretion and will not be deceived into making a grave error.

            Why would I search Eric Holder? He has absolutely nothing to do with the question. Besides. The elections are a mute point, since your supreme court declared a corporation as an individual. Foreign influences, like the Saudis are contribute equal amounts to both parties. Whoever comes out on top owes them a dept of gratitude. This is a "ship of fools" in which you are sinking.

            replyreport
          2. udontnomi profile image58
            udontnomiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I am not impressed by the length of your tenure an this site. You may not be telling the truth about that, for all I know. I will not be conducting research on Eric Holder. It is irrelevant to the question proposed.

            Unfortunately for you, it does not matter whether it is a Republican or a Democrat. Foreign interests contribute to both equally to secure a debt of gratitude. You do not know this, because they are protected from disclosure by the decision of the supreme court (purchased) to extend to them the absolute rights of an individual American citizen.

            On the issue of trust? Right, I trust an eagle face at a masquerade party. Besides, you have made an extreme statement that is not possibly true. No malicious links? You can not stop them.

            replyreport
    5. Quilligrapher profile image73
      Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Greetings, AV. I hope you are feeling well and following your bliss.

      I was going to tell you that the OP statement was disappointing but I decided not to. I considered saying how I thought, with all the serious issues facing this country, creating a fake, implausible hypothetical question just to attribute imaginary, fictitious, and ludicrous reactions to others was surprising coming from you. However, I concluded it would be best to just leave some things unsaid. I was even going to suggest that the OP statement struck a petty, hollow cord since gerrymandering by both parties skews more election result then immigrants ever will but if restrained myself. 

      Instead, I will just lurk in the shadows and watch the venom spew from those to whom you pander. I will take solace in the knowledge most of them probably do not realize undocumented immigrants can not vote and if they could, their ballots will never be cast for those who show them no respect.   

      Stay well, my friend. Our journeys still have a long way to go.

      replyreport
      1. American View profile image61
        American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Quill,

        It has been a while, I hope all is well with you. Of all who respond, I still have the most respect for yours, do not be a stranger.

        You are right, this thread is a hypothetical question because I am looking for certain responses. I am writing an article and have put several of these types of questions out there, the results have been quite interesting. But the one thing I've noticed has been conspicuous by their absence responses from the left.

        I disagree with you when you say most don't realize that illegal aliens are not eligible to vote, I believe the majority of Americans understand that And believe our laws should be applied evenly to everybody. Does it not seem to you that are our laws are only being selectively enforce these days?

        take care and hope to see you around here more my friend. smile

        replyreport
    6. phion profile image60
      phionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The roles should be purged of all voters not eligible to vote. It just so happens that the majority of ineligible voters have a tendency to vote for Dems. Why? The bigger question is why is it even an issue that anyone wants to root out these voters? I honestly don't think that republicans would do the same thing, but we will probably never know.

      replyreport
      1. Jeff Berndt profile image72
        Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        "It just so happens that the majority of ineligible voters have a tendency to vote for Dems."
        You made that up.

        replyreport
        1. phion profile image60
          phionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          It's actually just a bit of common sense, and observations of the world around me. Why wouldn't they vote for democrats?

          Thought I’d ad an interesting link for you. Huffington Post~

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-fo … 18523.html

          The only thing that is made up is the idea that there is no problem. I’m sure ACORN didn’t get any ineligible voters counted. 

          http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html

          These aren’t sources I usually rely on, but they had the fastest response times.

          replyreport
          1. Jeff Berndt profile image72
            Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            It's actually just a bit of common sense, and observations of the world around me.
            So, you have no sound reason to believe that; you just think it's true.

            Why wouldn't they [ineligible voters] vote for democrats?
            'Cos they're ineligible to vote, silly.

            The huffpo opinion piece you link to makes a good case if you ignore the fact that if someone's in the country illegally, it doesn't make sense for them to do anything (like registering to vote) that not only calls attention to themselves, but also carries a great risk (of deportation) if they get caught, and finally, provides zero immediate benefit to them or their families.

            I mean seriously, think about it. If your family were starving, would you run a risk to get food for them? Maybe, depending on the risk: how likely you were to succeed, and what would happen if you failed. Now, suppose you're in the middle of running that risk, and so far, so good. Now you've got the chance to increase the risk of getting caught, big time. And if you get caught, you not only lose your means of making a living, you'll also probably go to prison, where you won't get to see your family for a long time. And in return for taking this big risk, you get....absolutely nothing!

            So, do you take door number one: continued freedom and modest income while living in a low-level fear of being deported, or door number two: greatly increased risk in exchange for no improvement whatsoever in your life?

            If you have a problem with my reasoning above, then why do you agree so readily with the reasoning in the Huffpo editorial? 'Cos my reasoning assumes that illegal immigrants aren't going to do crazy stuff that doesn't help them out in the immediate future, while the Huffpo article assumes that illegal immigrants are all about breaking laws for no good reason, come-what-may?

            As for the WSJ piece (from 2009, by the way), it makes the same mistake many right-wing pundits make when assuming that ACORN was part of some voter-fraud conspiracy.
            The real story is that ACORN foolishly made lots of voter registrations a condition of employment for their contracted workers. To keep their jobs, the contractors filled out fake voter registrations. In most jurisdictions, it's illegal not to turn in a completed voter registration form. There is no exception made for forms you suspect are faked. If someone says, "Here's a completed voter registration form," you have to turn it in to the Sec of State, even if you're certain that it's fake because it's filled out "Herman Munster, 1313 Mockingbird Lane." Not to turn in that form is a crime.

            Also, in some jurisdictions, there's a time limit: you have to turn in the form within 48 hours (for example) of it being filled out, or your guilty of a crime. This doesn't give you a heck of a lot of time to check if the forms are complete, much less to double-check for whether the form is faked.

            So yes, there was a lot of fraud by people filling out voter registrations, but they were defrauding ACORN, not the people at large: ACORN was paying for these contractors to get real people really registered to vote, and the contractors didn't do that. ACORN is the wronged party here.

            And of course, nobody has offered any evidence at all that a fake name fake registered by a contractor who defrauded ACORN ever was used to cast an actual ballot at the actual polls in any election ever.

            Imaginary people don't generally show up at the polls, you know.

            Their names do, however, sometimes show up on absentee ballots, which wouldn't be caught by an ID check at the polls, would it?

            Voter ID laws solve a barely existent problem so badly that they wouldn't solve it. It makes as much sense as trying to stop the fox from raiding the henhouse in the night by hiring a shepherd to watch over your cows every afternoon.

            replyreport
    7. Wayne Brown profile image81
      Wayne Brownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The way things stand at the present in some states today, if you know a person's name and address, you can walk into a precinct and vote in their name and never be challenged.  Something is not right about that when you consider how many people a year likely die and no one removes their names from the poll rolls due to a lack of notification.  The opportunities abound.  We carry a driver's license in our pocket that shows that we are qualified to exercise the priviledge of driving...not the right, but the priviledge.  Voting is a right if one meets all the requirements of citizenship and has not committed a felony.  I, for one, want that right protected so that I can exercise it at my discretion and not worry whether someone is voting my vote before I arrive at the poll.  This resistance is not about ID's at all...everything but that reason and the party crying the loudest to keep ID's out of the mix is the one that stands to lose the most on the illegal side of the equation....that is obvious. WB

      replyreport
      1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image78
        TIMETRAVELER2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        You've made an important point here.  If we did not provide all of those "opportunities" this would not even be an issue.  So, the fault is our own.  We are sloppy in the way we manage our laws and until we become efficient, illegals and everybody else will take advantage of the loopholes.  Excellent thought, WB.

        replyreport
        1. Quilligrapher profile image73
          Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Howdy Timetraveler. Welcome to the discussion.

          Wayne and I both follow similar procedures when we vote. Furthermore, Wayne and I both know that no body, dead or alive, can steal our votes by arriving at the polls before us. Knowing this makes it very hard for me to understand why he uses this imaginary problem to justify voter photo-ID regulations. To steal our ballots, the villain would have to know in advance that we were not going to show up on Election Day and they would have to duplicate our signatures! It is a disingenuous argument and those who use it are hiding their real motives.

          While you obviously agree with Wayne that voter fraud is distorting the outcome of elections, no one has ever produced a shred of evidence to support that claim. Any one who alleges voter fraud is widespread has either (1) not researched to see if such a claim in true, or (2) has researched, found nothing, but spreads the lie anyway.  Studies have established repeatedly that the biggest election frauds occur after the polls close.

          The incredible explanation offered by the state’s Attorney General when trying to justify Texas’s photo-ID law is an obvious attempt to repeat a false impression hopinig people will begin to believe it is true. If you are not adverse to a glimpse of the truth, follow footnote {1}. You allude to “opportunities” providing “an issue” but there is no issue here. The facts prove voter registration and verification procedures have been overwhelmingly effective for decades. But many want to deny the right to vote to long standing and legitimate voters who have already registered and have already established their identity, citizenship, and residence. States are now improvising a new form of "poll tax" that honest voters have never had to pay in the past.

          I am waiting for people to stop telling me voter fraud is a major problem and to start showing me some facts.

          Great sharing with you, TimeTraveler.  Be well and enjoy the summer.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/100529? … ost2160454

          replyreport
          1. undermyhat profile image60
            undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Thorough and polite as usual, Thank you for that.

            I think the vote(r) fraud argument breaks across ideological lines in a rather interesting way.  While conservatives and Republicans tend to think vote fraud is most likely by individuals acting alone or in concert with the purpose of stealing votes one at a time and, thereby, affect the outcome.  Individuals taking personal action to alter one ballot at a time.  This places the emphasis on the individual in isolated incidents of sufficient number to alter the course of an election.  There may be organization but the emphasis always remains on voteR fraud.

            Liberals and Democrats tend to see vote--- fraud.  The conspiratorial effort to alter an election result through organizing sufficient numbers of voters  or influential individuals with specific access to change the conditions of the election.  Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 are such cases.  The Florida election results were reviewed by nearly every news organization in the country with the same outcome - if not the same exact count.  The same is true in Ohio.  And do we all recall the Diebolt voting machines controversy?

            I do support voter Identification for only one reason - that is my franchise by God/Nature/Constitution and I want some guarantee - no matter how small - that I will be the only one to use it.  Purple ink, photograph, thumb print, retinal scan, DNA sample WHATEVER - that is the most precious piece of political power manifest in one place at one time that we each posses.  It should be guarded from individual and organizational fraud - in all of their manifestations - no matter how rare.

            http://harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080696

            http://thenextright.com/mikeroman/guilt … candidates

            http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm

            replyreport
            1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
              Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Just a coincidence that the voter ID bills will primarily discourage or disenfranchise Democratic voters?? Of course that has nothing to do with the forces of evil who are pushing these bills, especially in swing states. Give us a break!

              replyreport
              1. undermyhat profile image60
                undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Perhaps not.  Perhaps being lazy, uneducated and unwilling to expend the effort to get a voter ID is the reason for the voter ID - is that bad for the Republic - probably not.  So some will cry and whine about having to save pennies, scrounge aluminum cans, cut back on liquor, fast food and smokes all to get the money to ride the bus to get the free ID.  I am sure their ancestors who crossed an ocean, struggled in chains, fought with tooth and nail, suffered indignity and death, fought in the courts, fought in the streets, were beaten, hosed and had dogs set on them would be so very proud of the SACRIFICE their descendents are unwilling to make.  Way to go Democrats!! Medgar Evers would be proud.(He is buried at Arlington Cemetery)

                replyreport
                1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
                  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  That's a revealing comment. You should apply for a job on the Mittster's campaign team. He doesn't worry about the poor or middle class either. Reminds me of Goldwater's comment about bird dogs and kennel dogs.

                  replyreport
                  1. undermyhat profile image60
                    undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    I don't worry about any class - since class implies a immobile structure.  Having crawled out of a sick bed with a temperature of 103 degrees to vote in a non-national primary election I have no No NO sympathy for anyone unwilling to sacrifice to vote.  Removing the effort and will from the vote lessens its value and makes the price for its purchase equal to a pack of cigarettes and a sandwich.

                    http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/1 … boros.html
                    http://rnla.org/blogs/blogs/public/arch … s-now.aspx
                    http://hpn.asu.edu/archives/2000-November/001934.html

                    replyreport
                  2. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Hey Ralph... do you ever consider taking Romney's quotes in context?

                    replyreport
    8. American Romance profile image60
      American Romanceposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Best question of the month!  We all know they would jump on the bandwagon!

      replyreport
      1. undermyhat profile image60
        undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Given the result of some recent studies as to the political attitudes of later generations of Hispanics it is likely that a generation from now the Democrats will be pursuing a concerted effort to disenfranchise the same people whose children they purport to rescue today.

        replyreport
    9. MrMaranatha profile image71
      MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The Libs would do anything at all to secure a vote or make Reps lose a vote... so Yes... they would start complaining and demand a change... if it suited them.

      replyreport
      1. undermyhat profile image60
        undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        More than that, since they currently control the mechanism of the Federal government, one could expect that it would be easy to find a job as a Federal bus driver to the Mexican border.

        replyreport
    10. Xenonlit profile image60
      Xenonlitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This is an old crooked right wing lie. Illegals are voting in microscopic numbers. And how many white, extremist right wing  illegals are here while the racist right looks the other way?

      replyreport
      1. profile image0
        SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        I don't know. Why don't you enlighten us with, I don't know, perhaps some evidence of such a thing? Who are these white right-wing illegal extremists? Where did they come from? Seriously, I'd like to know.

        replyreport
        1. Jeff Berndt profile image72
          Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Well, no evidence is enough for you to demand a solution to the nonexistent problem of illegal aliens voting in US elections. Why do you need proof when someone makes a different unsupported claim?

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Well then. If we have all these right-wing extremists who are illegals running around voting, we need to fix that.

            All the more reason to support Voter ID laws I'd think. Thank you for supporting our argument.

            replyreport
            1. Jeff Berndt profile image72
              Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              I actually haven't supported your argument.

              But you've just demonstrated that not only do you have no problem believing stories that aren't true, but also are willing to waste time and resources correcting a problem that doesn't exist.

              replyreport
              1. profile image0
                SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                lol You are the one believing the stories from the Dems that all these people have no ID and they are the poor and downtrodden. Last I checked, the poor and downtrodden were the ones who needed Government benefits and they cannot obtain them without an ID. The argument does not hold water. It is a lie.

                I was merely being sarcastically agreeable to the claim of all these illegal right-wing extremists. Let's stop them now!

                replyreport
      2. profile image0
        Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Xenonlit, Wow, screams of racism just for the sake of screaming!!!

        Let me guess, to you, if someone is white, they're racist. Right? roll

        "And how many white, extremist right wing  illegals are here while the racist right looks the other way?"

        Do you even know what you're talking about?

        replyreport
      3. Reality Bytes profile image73
        Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f159/RaulMonkey/Animated/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

        replyreport
        1. American View profile image61
          American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          LMAO

          replyreport
          1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image78
            TIMETRAVELER2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            What does LMAO mean?

            replyreport
            1. Niteriter profile image61
              Niteriterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              It's internet shortform for "Laughing my a** off."

              replyreport
        2. Billy Hicks profile image79
          Billy Hicksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          10 Internets to you, good sir.

          replyreport
    11. American Romance profile image60
      American Romanceposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Josak..............I thought the lowest crime rates in the world were countries that cut your hands off if you steal something?..............might want to rethink the punishment stops crime ideology?????

      replyreport
      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Well you thought wrong (based on homicide rates which are the compiled crime stat) the best countries are Germany, Norway, Austria, Denmark and Japan.

        Besides even if the extreme punishment like that worked I don't think most Americans would be OK with the idea and our current harsh prisons and sentences (relative to the first world) are causing woeful crime and imprisonment stats.

        replyreport
    12. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      So the left  DOES admit  illegal voting is a big part of the left's election process !   I knew it !

      replyreport
  2. Nouveau Skeptic profile image63
    Nouveau Skepticposted 12 years ago
    replyreport
  3. Mighty Mom profile image76
    Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

    Not at all.
    Why would we assume they would vote for anyone other than Republicans?
    After all, it's monied Republicans like Mitt Romney and Meg Whitman who employ them.
    They should be grateful to have that employment (the reason they came here in the first place).
    Naturally they want to express that gratitude by feeding the system that keeps them here.
    tongue

    replyreport
    1. undermyhat profile image60
      undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So you are saying that Republicans like Mitt Romney and Meg Whitman are more compassionate to illegals than Democrats? 

      Do you think there are more employment opportunities in a Democrat dominated "Sanctuary City" (read flouter of federal immigration law) like Los Angeles or San Francisco than one with a Republican Mayor like Indianapolis?

      How is that working for California any way?  Illegals lounging on the California welfare system while productive people flee for Colorado, Nevada and Arizona.

      Isn't it far more compassionate to employ an illegal than to fatten him up by encouraging him to graze on the state preserve?

      replyreport
    2. phion profile image60
      phionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Was going to comment, but we all know that mighty mom is mistaken here. Does anyone believe that illegal aliens support Republicans over Democrats?  Especially after Obama’s latest stance. What happened to the libertarians or independents out there? Can a non biased person shed some light? I’m libertarian, but the current presidents stances have made me look more Republican to the hard core Dems.

      replyreport
    3. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image78
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Right.  And the way to rid our country of illegals is to go after those who employ them illegally.  Cut off the financial opportunities and you solve the problem...but I don't see that happening.

      replyreport
      1. stanwshura profile image72
        stanwshuraposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        I actually agree with you on this.  It isn't happening.  The question we need to ask ourselves is why?  Why do our oh-so-precious businesses break the laws their own Party put into place?  Why pay an earnest and strikingly poor American a rightfully mandated minimum wage, when you can pay an undocumented less than half that?  And deny retirement planning and healthcare coverage to boot??

        replyreport
  4. Wayne Brown profile image81
    Wayne Brownposted 12 years ago

    The average American must present a current drivers license and proof of insurance in order to operate a vehicle on the streets of America.  Driving is not a right, it is considered a priviledge yet we still must prove that we have qualified for that priviledge.  Voting is a right of citizenship but citizenship is not apparent on the basis of one simply showing up at the polls and deciding to vote regardless of who they vote for in the process.  As Americans with concerns for the future and the welfare of our country, we should all be of the same mind that those voting are indeed who they say the are and that they are citizens of the USA.  Anything less than that litmus test cheats all those who are truly citizens and it negates their vote in the process as well.  People who are legitimate citizens will have no problems getting a identification or in offering their identification as proof of who they are in order to vote.  I voted in the last election and never once had to show any identification.  I gave them a name, they looked it up, I signed my name beside it on the rolls and i was in.  Anyone could do that without challenge, in fact, I asked them a few times to please check my identification and they refuses.  If one holds that no identification or proof of citizenship is required to vote, the I have to assume that you also do not care who gets on your airplanes and with what.  By virtue of the fact that they showed up at the airport, they are entitled to ride th airplane without challenge.  The rationale of not proofing the voter stinks with trickery and cunning. WB

    replyreport
    1. Quilligrapher profile image73
      Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Wayne. How is the weather in Texas?

      The procedure you followed to cast your ballot sounds very similar to the one I follow here in New York so I can relate to it. To qualify to vote I had to be a US citizen over 18 years of age, not in prison or on parole, and not eligible to claim the right to vote elsewhere. The election board then verified my identity within 21 days of my registration. Each registered voter is listed in the Voter Poll book until purged because of death, relocation, etc. (1) Does this sound like the process you had to follow?

      There is no need for me or any registered voter to obtain or present an ID because no one can cast my ballot without my knowledge! When I sign my name on the voter roll, I "am in" because no one else signed before me. If an imposter had voted before me, polling procedures are in place to correct miscast votes.

      I see the banter about voter ID unwarranted particularly in light of a large body of research indicating that voter fraud is not a major issue. A 2007 staff report prepared by a Republican lawyer and a liberal election expert for the federal Election Assistance Commission found among experts "there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud.” (2) Further, the justice department under President George W. Bush spent 5 years and considerable resources trying to identify polling place fraud and could not find one case they could prosecute! (3)

      Nice sharing with you, Wayne.
      (1) http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/law/ … onList.pdf
      (2) Urbina, Ian (April 11, 2007), "Panel Said to Alter Finding on Voter Fraud", The New York Times, found at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/washi … TQ/Xp4VjMA
      (3)Richard L. Hasen (2007-05-18). "The Fraudulent Fraud Squad: The incredible, disappearing American Center for Voting Rights.". Slate. http://web.archive.org/web/201012251102 … genum/all/

      replyreport
      1. Living Well Now profile image61
        Living Well Nowposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Kudos for posting the facts and links, Quilligrapher. It's hard to dispute facts, but I'm sure a valiant effort will be made to tilt at the voter fraud windmills. Voter fraud isn't a big issue. There isn't enough of it going on to be concerned about. Voter suppression is the real issue.

        A qualified elector is a citizen whose identity and residence have been previously established as required by law. Adding additional qualifications, like a photo ID, is unconstitutional. Requiring a driver's license or other photo ID to vote is unconstitutional because it disqualifies electors who don't have driver's licenses but are still qualified to vote.

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          That is incorrect. By what have they been previously identified if they do not have an ID or Drivers' License? It is in no way unconstitutional. It does not disenfranchise anyone. If you do not drive, you can obtain a photo ID for a minimal cost. You need one in order to work. You need one in order to purchase cigs or alcohol. You need one to receive any financial aid. Again, please tell me of this group that will be disenfranchised by having to provide some sort of ID, one that is being offered for free?

          replyreport
          1. Living Well Now profile image61
            Living Well Nowposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            It is correct. Some of the voter ID bills have already been declared unconstitutional. Wisconsin's comes to mind.

            Let me repeat the single, most important fact for you again: A qualified elector has already met the legal requirements of identity and residence when he or she successfully registered to vote. Their identity has already been established. Read Quilligrapher's post again.

            The argument that you need ID for X is not relevant since a qualified elector has had their identity verified when they registered to vote. They don't need to do it again and requiring an additional qualification like a voter ID is unconstitutional.  I've already given you an example of suppression in my previous post. Go read it again.

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

              That well may be in your state but that is not the case everywhere. If that is true, then how is it that 3-5% of those who were called to Jury Duty, which is pulled directly from voter registration lists, were illegal aliens? Residence is NOT established by any legal entity here. You can register to vote by any myriad of opportunities. Some, yes, would include a verification of your residence and identity, such as if you register when you are applying for financial aid or obtaining a drivers' license, but some do not.  I would add that it was declared unconstitutional in Wisconsin by a State Judge, one who has already been proven to promote an agenda to the left. Same as with Texas. They are putting the burden on the states to prove that it does not disenfranchise voters, however, it should be the other way around. If one brings a lawsuit, it is then the burden on that party to show cause for the lawsuit. Nothing has been proven to disenfranchise any group and both decisions are under appeal.

              replyreport
              1. Jeff Berndt profile image72
                Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                If that is true, then how is it that 3-5% of those who were called to Jury Duty, which is pulled directly from voter registration lists, were illegal aliens?
                Source, please?

                replyreport
                1. profile image0
                  SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  There are several sources, so I tried to find one that is the most recent example. This particular one is in NC:

                  http://federaleagent86.blogspot.com/201 … liens.html

                  replyreport
                  1. profile image0
                    SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this
                    replyreport
                  2. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    So your evidence is in one small section 500 people claimed to be illegals for jury duty? The article does not say how many were called and it make sit clear that many (probably most) were just claiming to be illegals to get out of jury duty... totally worthless as evidence.

                    replyreport
            2. undermyhat profile image60
              undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              This only works if the registration process itself is reliable.  We have found identity theft, fraud, forgery have all plaid a role in falsified documents before - including those available thanks to the motor voter law, at you local license branch.  If one is intent on gaining for one's self or for another a false identity it is possible.  Muddying the water with accusations of anti-minority prejudice helps facilitate this falsification.  Nothing suppresses an action more than the possibility of a federal complaint - think EEOC or Justice Department.

              We also know that networking with those savvy in the ways of gaming the system is common - regardless of any condition, status, income, etc....

              The danger is that because we have refused, until now, to guarantee the sanctity of our polls, licenses, employment rights, etc...we may let the pendulum swing too far the other way and opt for internal passport - a direct assault on our liberty.

              replyreport
      2. American Romance profile image60
        American Romanceposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        The reason we want voter ID is to stop fraud and have a fair election.   Conservatives are not complaining about having IDs ............so why are Democrats?? You cannot tell me every minority buying beer and cigs doesn't have to show ID? ...........if they can do it for that then voting should be NO PROBLEM..............or maybe it's because ONLY Democrats cheat at the ballot box?????????????

        replyreport
        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Which is weird because we had a voter fraud crackdown that cost 8 billion dollars under the Bush administration for federal elections and only 86 people were convicted only 15 of them for intentional voter fraud  and the justices involved have said that there was no numerically significant party bias in the cases convicted.

          replyreport
        2. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          picking up mail
          checking out darts at the bar
          being at the bar
          being in the liquor store
          cashing a check
          buying sudafed
          receiving welfare
          shopping at Costco
          getting a Sam's Club membership

          and

          attending a Presidential Speech

          replyreport
        3. Quilligrapher profile image73
          Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Hi American Romance. I am sorry to see you have been banned but I would like to respond to you anyway. No doubt you have more than one sock in your drawer.

          Thanks for adding your voice to the resounding chorus, “The reason we want voter ID is to stop fraud and have a fair election.” The message would sound so noble and patriotic were it not so sinister and self-serving. Voter fraud is not a problem in this country, AR. You know it; the people pushing for voter ID regulations know it, and anyone who examines the existing data knows it. The message America hears is “The reason we want voter ID is to stop fraud that does not exist in any serious measure nationally and we really want to obstruct fair elections.” Non-existing voter fraud is being replaced with voter suppression.

          Open minded, unbiased Americans read the published statements of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and they are baffled. He tried to support his state’s 2011 voter photo-ID law by saying, “In Texas, evidence of voter fraud abounds. In recent years, my office has secured more than 50 voter fraud convictions.” {1} Obviously, Mr. Abbott does not believe Texans can do the math! The number of registered voters in Texas hovers each year around 13 million. About 8 million turned out for the 2008 presidential election. {2} Can you do the math, AR? Fifty voter fraud convictions “in recent years” when a typical major election turns out 8 million voters. One fraudulent vote in each 160,000 ballots! This is a good question, AR. To answer it you have to be able to imagine your self in the other fellow’s shoes. The answer lies, not in party ideology but in party demographics. Proponents say it is no big deal but nationwide studies say otherwise. Millions of eligible voters do not have easy access to all the documents needed to get a state-issued photo ID. This includes senior citizens, low wage earners, Afro-Americans, Hispanics, and millions of women. All of these eligible voting blocks favor Democratic candidates. {3} What is particularly distasteful about the voter ID movement is that these facts are know to those who hope to create hurdles for the opposition party. I do not believe the GOP would pursue voter ID regulations if they thought it would effect both parties to the same degree. It is obviously a strategy to upset what has been up to now a level playing field. Do I fabricate the notion that voter ID laws will benefit Republican Party candidates? PA State Rep Mike Turzai has publically confirmed the GOP objective of voter ID laws. “Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.” Yes, we have all heard the “Gee Whiz, it not a hardship” excuse before. To the contrary, studies reveal it IS an artificial barrier intended to separate millions of eligible voters from their right to vote. {4} While some may not agree, the fact remains, it is an unnecessary burden being placed on many other Americans who are just as sincere, just as informed, and just as entitled to vote as you are. Refusing to acknowledge the concerns of others does not render their concerns invalid.   
          Ouch! There is no need to resort to baseless, insulting innuendo just because you have run out of data and sound reasoning to support your position. Your statement reflects poorly on yourself and the Republican Party you are trying to defend. Informed debaters making an accusation they can support will always articulate their reasons while others without facts to support their claims bury them in a question.

          I am happy to have this opportunity to share with you, AR. We should do this again sometime under some other ID.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          (1) http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/st … 53658158/1
          (2) http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/hi … 0-92.shtml
          (3) http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/100529? … ost2149693
          (4) http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/d … _39242.pdf

          replyreport
          1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            ++++

            replyreport
    2. profile image0
      Phoebe Pikeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      When I vote, in Maine, we are required to show two forms of valid ID if you are on a campus and one if you aren't at a University. It's been just typical procedure for us... at least every place I've voted here. Some people, like my mother, get their voting card in the mail. She fills it out and sends it in, but it was a lot of paperwork to get it sent to her home.

      replyreport
      1. profile image0
        SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        PA has a new voter ID law here as well. Yet, funny, neither of our states are being targeted by the Democrats and Holder. What states are being targeted? Texas and Florida and Arizona. Bonus point question: What do they all have in common?

        replyreport
  5. Uninvited Writer profile image76
    Uninvited Writerposted 12 years ago

    No one ever answers me when I ask what is the percentage of illegal aliens who have been proven to have voted...

    replyreport
    1. Mighty Mom profile image76
      Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Don't feel bad, UW.
      No one ever answers me when I ask why America, as a pro-capitalist society, saddled our employers with paying for health care benefits for the people who work for them.
      Seems pretty indefensible from an economic competitiveness stance, doesn't it?
      As your question is too logical, sane and rational to rebut.
      MM

      replyreport
      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        I answered you.

        It doesn't matter if the employer pays for the employee's healthcare, or if the employer pays the employee and the money is taken out of their check, or if it is just bundled with taxes. Either way, the employee isn't directly getting the money.

        The cost of healthcare is bundled in with total compensation. There is no change to competitiveness.

        replyreport
      2. undermyhat profile image60
        undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Offering health, life insurance, paid vacation, company cars, expense accounts, etc... all grew out of the profoundly uncapitalistic wage and price controls FORCED on businesses during WWII.  It was the only way to offer better compensation to a prospective employee since wages were frozen by order of the Federal Gov't under the often abused Commerce Clause.

        As for proof of Illegals (or anyone else) voting illegally - who cares.  The value of the voting franchise is significant enough to have to prove you are the holder of it before using it.  It is much more valuable - in the long term - than many other things for which the government requires proof of identity, like boarding an airplane.

        replyreport
    2. Nouveau Skeptic profile image63
      Nouveau Skepticposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Who exactly would be going around collecting that proof?

      replyreport
      1. Uninvited Writer profile image76
        Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        So...how do we know it's a problem?

        replyreport
        1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image63
          Nouveau Skepticposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          We don't know how much of a problem it is, assuming you see the occurrence as problematic at all.

          But the absence of evidence no one is collecting is unsurprising.

          Perhaps someone who votes in a state that required no ID can explain how that works? I am used to a system based on a voting roll and you need ID to get added to the roll.

          replyreport
        2. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I am mystified by the idea that something need be a problem to require a thing of value, like the exercise of the voting franchise, be verified before it is used.  Requiring one to prove ones identity is a hallmark of the modern legal state.  I am 52, I haven't looked 21 since I was 16 but, until its repeal, was required to present a drivers license in the state of Indiana anytime I chose to purchase alcohol.

          replyreport
    3. American View profile image61
      American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      UW

      Great question, why does no one know that answer? I mean they know how many illegals there are here, they know how many get free healthcare, are not paying taxes, getting food stamps, so you would think they would know how many are voting are not.

      I mean after all Wasserman Schultz knows for a fact because she said so in the media, that Mitt Romney has secret bank accounts in Switzerland and Bermuda. I mean if she knows about the secret bank accounts which must tell me they're not secret, you would think she would know the secret about how many illegals vote.

      replyreport
    4. Ralph Deeds profile image66
      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Voting fraud is practically non-existent. It's quite clear that the voting I.D. proposals are designed for one purpose: suppression of likely Democratic voters--the elderly, minorities, the poor, non-car owners and students.

      replyreport
      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6894877_f248.jpg

        One more time Ralph........take notes if you have to.

        replyreport
      2. undermyhat profile image60
        undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        An official photo id is available to anyone, free of charge, in the state of Indiana through the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.  If one does not value one's own power to vote enough to get the appropriate identification than one should not vote.

        It is the value of the action that dictates whether one will pursue it not the perceived barriers that appear in the way. 

        I crawled out of a sick bed with a temperature  of 103 degrees to vote - it saddens me to think that we undervalue that power so much.  Americans have been fighting and dying for that power for centuries and we wish to diminish it by whining about people who are unwilling to make a sacrifice to secure their own franchise.

        It is hardly a suppression to require someone pull their lazy butt off the couch and haul it down to the license branch.  After all, isn't a photo id required to fill out the EBT paper work?

        replyreport
        1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
          Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Bravo. We need to encourage more people to vote, not discourage them with unnecessary requirements designed to suppress citizens who for one or more reasons will find it difficult to obtain photo I.D. or meet other unnecessary requirements. The intent and effect of these proposals is abundantly clear to anyone who honestly thinks about it. A Republican state representative, Mike Turzai in Pennsylvania let the cat out of the bag recently:

          “Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,” said Turzai. So there it is, plain and simple and out in the open. They enacted voter ID laws, and in Turzai’s excellent opinion, that will allow Romney to win the state come November.

          "Congratulations, Pennsylvania State Rep. Mike Turzai, for exposing the crooked Republican voter ID laws as being nothing but modern voter suppression techniques, you are the winner of this week’s “Bottom of the Barrel” award!"

          http://politicalgarbagechute.com/the-bo … ke-turzai/

          Maybe you should put your name in for a "bottom of the barrel award"???

          replyreport
          1. undermyhat profile image60
            undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            We do not need more people voting, we need more dedicated citizens making the sacrifices necessary to vote.  Something received without cost is little valued.  What quality representation can one expect when the power to choose it is so undervalued.  I would rather have an electorate that fought for the vote instead of one that expected to receive it with no cost after whipping the suckle from the public teat from their lips.

            replyreport
            1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
              Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              You'd like to reverse the Supreme Court's decision outlawing the poll tax and repeal the voter rights act?

              replyreport
              1. undermyhat profile image60
                undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                If it was my choice, I would bar anyone from voting that is receiving taxpayer provided income, regardless of the form of that income - as a conflict of interest.  Once a sufficient percentage of the population is dependent on the continued confiscation of personal property by the government for their livelyhood there can no longer be private property.  It will be replaced with licensed property - property permitted to be used by an individual by express permission of the government.  Given the intrusive nature of the personal information required to justify retaining private property required by the income tax return we are very close to that final step toward tyranny.

                Today, in China, property is held by permission of the goverrnment.  Here it is being held not owned.  Actual ownership of property is disappearing in America. 

                You suppose that I would deny someone the vote because of their skin color - the poll tax and the measures outlawed in the voting rights act were intended to keep blacks from voting.  you suppose that I am a racist with out the courage to state it out right.  Say what you mean and stand by it.  i couldn't care less about the color of someone's skin.  I care about the conflict of interest when government supposes that it's purpose is to provide income to citizens in exchange for continued political support. 

                Why do you think "right to work" scares Democrats?

                replyreport
                1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
                  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I see you're from Indiana, home of the largest KKK chapter in the country. I was stationed in the Army at Ft. Benjamin Harrison. I was asked to entertain a couple of visiting Korean officers for a weekend and took them to the amusement park where we encountered a huge sign which said "Whites Only."  I found this very embarrassing, but they accepted my explanation that the sign didn't apply to them. I hope the sign is no longer there.

                  To quote nonpartisan Congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, "Let's just say it: Republicans are the problem... The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

                  replyreport
                  1. undermyhat profile image60
                    undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    You are betraying your age and your prejudices.  Let me know when they bulldoze your neighborhood in Detroit and replant the trees.  Liberal government always results in the same hardships.  By the way, the KKK in Indiana - in the 1920s - tapped D.C. Stevenson for the race for the DEMOCRAT presidential nomination.  If we are going to dredge up the not so ancient history of Democrat Klansmen in the Senate.  Wasn't the recently deceased Robert Byrd the Grand Cyclops for the Klan in that great Democrat state West Virginia? 

                    By tossing around the KKK garbage youcontinue to imply that I am a racist.  I can think of nothing more racist than the way blacks are subjected to the conditions of Democrat run cities, like Detroit.  If you really believed in racial equality why would you do that to black people.  Blacks are people, too and should be free from the Democrat welfare and miserable urban education preserve.  There is no business as hostile to black prosperity as Democrat government.

                    replyreport
                2. Credence2 profile image80
                  Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, undermy hat, you should keep this under your hat as well. Thank God that IT IS NOT YOUR choice. I am a member of a minority group and me and mine will not tolerate any right wing ploy to disenfranchise.

                  What about social security recipients. I recieve a government pension and I tell you that NOBODY is going to disenfranchise me without a fight, that is most certain.  Who in the hell do you think that you are? This stuff that you talk about is "dead on arrival" Without elaborating, if if walks like a duck and talks like a duck, I am not going to call it a rabbit. Do you want a return to Male white over 21 as the basis of the franchise? You rightwing types turn my stomach so often, I never seem to manage to keep enough antiacids at home.

                  replyreport
                  1. undermyhat profile image60
                    undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    " I am a member of a minority group and me and mine will not tolerate any right wing ploy to disenfranchise. "

                    Please reread what I wrote - this is not something I have ever supported.

                    "What about social security recipients."

                    Social Security is a lie and is a welfare payment - and always has been.

                    "I receive a government pension"

                    This represents a contractual arrangement between you and the government.  How ever - Answer me this --- If the government was constantly raising pension benefits should pensioners have a right to support such policies since they represent a conflict of interest??

                    "Do you want a return to Male white over 21 as the basis of the franchise?"

                    Where have I advocated for that?  Perhaps your anger is getting in the way of you reading my post.

                    "You rightwing types turn my stomach so often, I never seem to manage to keep enough antiacids at home." 

                    That sounds like the consequence of not fully reading what was posted or a plain old personal problem - I think it must be the latter.  Anger is counter productive.  I am sad that you are so angry and unable to understand what I had posted.

                    replyreport
    5. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      They do not investigate voter fraud for the most part because it is too costly. However, only going by many who have shown up for Jury Duty, which is pulled from the voter registration logs, 3-5% were illegal aliens. That is only counting those that have been called for Jury Duty so the actual estimate of how many illegal aliens are on the voter registration lists is estimated to be much higher. Are they voting? Hard to say, but they certainly have the means to vote if they do not have to show any ID that has been verified.

      replyreport
    6. Xenonlit profile image60
      Xenonlitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That is because they get off on lying and pushing their extremist dogma in these forums. The numbers of illegals who allegedly voted is so miniscule that there is no truth to their claims.

      Lying liars get over by repeating the lies, dodging questions and having temper tantrums when they are caught out in a lie. Sick, sick, sick. They must lose in November or they will destroy our nation.

      replyreport
    7. Jeff Berndt profile image72
      Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That's because there isn't a real problem, and the Right is conjuring chimaeras to energize their base through fear. Why? Because people make stupid choices (like voting for someone like Romney) when they're scared.

      replyreport
    8. dianetrotter profile image63
      dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Has anyone proven that any single non-citizen has voted?

      replyreport
      1. psycheskinner profile image77
        psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Not that I'm aware of, it's a huge wild goose chase of an argument.

        replyreport
      2. Live to Learn profile image60
        Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        It's highly likely. I know in our state voter cards go out to individuals automatically when they get a license. I have a felon who works for me. They sent her one. She thinks it is some type of trap to catch her attempting to vote when she can't, but she is now registered to vote. Illegals apparently have driver's licenses here so I would assume they may get cards automatically also.

        replyreport
        1. psycheskinner profile image77
          psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          We are talking about *Federal* presidential elections in which non-citizen voting is illegal and causes immediate deportation when detected.

          So... no, not likely to be occurring very often.  You'd have to be quite the idiot to even try.

          replyreport
          1. Live to Learn profile image60
            Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, I'm aware that we are talking about federal elections. And, I think it is entirely possible for an illegal alien to be confused if they receive a card and vote. I think the likelihood of being detected and deported is rather slim.

            I'm not saying people rush across the border for the express purpose to vote in our elections but with our society as it is today one would have to be quite naive to think it doesn't happen occasionally.

            replyreport
            1. psycheskinner profile image77
              psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              For the Federal rolls that just doesn't happen.  You have to add yourself and explicitly declare you are a citizen.

              I doubt it has ever happened more than a handful of times each year.  It sure as holy heck is not a Hillary scam to swing the vote, as suggested in this thread.

              replyreport
              1. Live to Learn profile image60
                Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I would certainly agree that it couldn't happen in any degree that would equate to a scam by either candidate.

                replyreport
        2. dianetrotter profile image63
          dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I don't think a criminal past keeps people from getting licenses.  If we had anecdotal stories showing types of violation it would be easier to look for patterns.

          replyreport
  6. Bimothy Slangwell profile image61
    Bimothy Slangwellposted 12 years ago

    The last thing someone without an id is concerned with is voting. I can tell you this from personal experience.

    It's the reason why I always thought this was a non-issue. People without ID are more concerned with finding food for the night and avoiding police.

    How many of you knew that you can't receive food stamps or welfare without providing proof of your SS card and ID?

    replyreport
    1. American View profile image61
      American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Bimothy,

      See you get it. On the issue of voter ID it should be a nonissue. One has to have ID for everything these days, including the poor that they claim are being disenfranchised. Do they drive, do they receive a welfare check that needs to be cashed, did they apply for food stamps, are they receiving section 8 housing voucher, all of these require ID.

      If it is such a nonissue, why be against it?

      replyreport
      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Well then you would get people talking about closing the holes in the Southern border again wouldn't you?

        replyreport
  7. profile image0
    SassySue1963posted 12 years ago

    Honestly, as far as immigration is concerned, I don't really know. The Dems have always seemed to be in favor of amnesty but then again, that's always been a major part of their voting block.

    Fact is, we need an ID to purchase cigs, alcohol, get a job, drive a car and a myriad of other things. I don't know why all the hoopla about needing a voter ID (that they are offering for free, I might add) other than believing that part of your voter base are not legal voters.

    Boggles the mind how anyone could be against something so simple.

    replyreport
    1. Quilligrapher profile image73
      Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Ms. Sue. How is the weekend going?

      If I may interject, this issue is far from simple. ID is not required to purchase cigarettes or alcohol. In nearly all these cases, ID is a means to establish age and not identity. All jobs require a SSN for withholding purposes but only a small number require security and background checks to verify ID. In addition, existing voter registration procedures have proven to be adept at (a) verifying the identity and eligibility of voters within their jurisdictions and (b) eliminating the need to display IDs at polling locations.

      As for “believing that part of your voter base are not legal voters,” I would add that neither major party has ever taken the position that a meaningful number of their own, or their opposition’s, voters are ineligible. Even in the historical hair-splitting battle in Florida in 2000, you may recall, the issues were not eligible voters but eligible ballots!

      Two other facts bear consideration. Studies reveal that voter ID requirements will have a greater impact on elderly citizens, minority citizens, low-income citizens, and eligible female voters, all of which are voting blocks that heavily favor Democratic candidates. (1) Secondly, the justice department under President George W. Bush spent 5 years and considerable resources trying to identify polling place fraud and could not find one case they could prosecute! (2)

      If voter fraud is not an issue as so many studies indicate, then voter IDs would be unwarranted regulation and the type of intrusive government that is usually opposed by the Republican Party.

      Here’s hoping you enjoy the balance of your weekend, Sue.

      (1)http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/d … _39242.pdf
      (2)Richard L. Hasen (2007-05-18). "The Fraudulent Fraud Squad: The incredible, disappearing American Center for Voting Rights.". Slate. http://web.archive.org/web/201012251102 … genum/all/

      replyreport
      1. profile image0
        SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Such semantics really. How do they verify age without an ID? They do not. Ergo, an ID is required to purchase cigs and alcohol. Here in PA you must have a photo ID (drivers' license or ID card) and a copy of your SSN card to be employed. Or a copy of your work Visa if you are not a citizen.  It is listed as a requirement under a Federal Act (which I've never really looked at the name of) to verify you are able to work in the US legally.  There has been only one such study conducted by a partisan panel. The results of which are disputed by the other side's partisan panel. Again, it would not affect anyone. Birth certificates are easily ordered online, in most states, provided for free at the assistance office, and within the laws themselves is a program to provide free IDs. Where is the hardship? Where is the issue? A phone call? A trip to your local assistance office? An online order? A trip to the drivers' license center? OMG! How horrible! Please. Hardship is a load of manure.

        replyreport
        1. Quilligrapher profile image73
          Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Hello again Ms. Sue.

          I would like to clarify one minor point if I may. I did not say that ID is not required in PA. To repeat myself, “In nearly all these cases, ID is a means to establish age and not identity.”  Pa law requires retailers of alcohol and cigarettes to examine IDs in order to establish the age and not the identity of the buyer. A subtle yet significant difference since such ID regulations are obviously intended to protect minors and they do not alter the minor's rights as American Citizens.

          The PA State Police web site confirms this distinction under the heading Age Compliance Program, “If the establishment serves the Underage Buyer, a Liquor Enforcement Officer immediately notifies them about the Age Compliance Check and administrative action is taken.” (1)

          Secondly, there are a number of other aspects to the voter ID issue besides hardship. One is a citizen’s privilege to vote should not be denied because a birth certificate, passport or driver’s license was destroyed, lost, stolen, or confiscated. To require any document beyond those already provided to register and to establish your right to vote is no different than imposing a poll tax. It creates a prerequisite that exceeds those required by the Constitution. 

          The fact that you are content to have your constitutional right to vote re-defined by the ruling party in your state is fine with me. However, you should not be surprised that other Americans might think differently.   

          Thanks so much for replying to my post.

          http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/se … ent/501465

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Poppycock. Any papers required if lost, stolen or destroyed can be replaced. As for confiscated, usually they are not confiscated unless you've been incarcerated. When they suspend your license, you can immediately receive a State issued ID.

            As for what the ID is used to verify, that is just trying to skirt the issue. How else do you verify age? So you must have an ID.

            Other than allowing time for everyone to comply, there is absolutely no valid argument for requiring voters to prove their identity and residence. What exactly are you guys afraid of? Why would you not want to make certain that the chances of voter fraud are reduced? As for the numbers posted earlier, they are completely skewed. They use things like they have a drivers' license, but they've moved so it does not have their current address. A procedure which is free I might add. So all they'd have to do is change their address. They do not possess a social security card with their married name, or any name change. Again, a procedure which is free. Same with a birth certificate, at a cost of $10.

            replyreport
            1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
              Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              "Any papers required if lost, stolen or destroyed can be replaced. "

              That may be true in most cases, but how many people will actually do it in order to vote? We need to encourage more people to vote not put unnecessary impediments in their way. One of the most serious impediments are the onerous requirements for conducting voter registration drives imposed in several states.

              replyreport
              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Oh I see you should just let folks walk up and vote? Well why do we have polling place volunteers or rolls or anything. Just put the voting booths out there and let them have at it.
                If they circle back and vote a few extra times...hey...it's a Democracy.

                The entire argument the left poses is a farce.

                replyreport
                1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
                  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  No. I don't think people should be "allowed to walk up and vote." However, there are many ways short of requiring a photo I.D. to assure they are registered voters--a recent utility bill, student I.D. card. I've been voting for 40 years at a polling station a couple of blocks from my house, and my impression is that the poll people are quite capable of determining who's eligible to vote. The last time I voted I chatted with one of the good ladies and asked if she recalled any attempts at fraudulent voting. She couldn't recall any.

                  replyreport
                  1. profile image0
                    SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    How would she know? If I am registered, as I am, in my County, I can go to any polling place and vote. I am not required to do more than sign my name. If I then cross the state line (only a few minutes from me) and vote in another state where I am registered (and I am, because despite numerous requests they have not removed me as of yet and it has been 10 years) it is the same thing. I could vote twice in every single election if I so chose. No one would be the wiser because there is no comparing of databases. Unless there is some major happening that would bring into question every single vote and they must be double-checked, it would never come to light. Even then, unless it was something that involved both states and those rolls were compared, it would never come to light. All the poll people do here is have you sign, and check to see if you are registered. Period. As long as no one has used your name at that particular polling place, you are golden. There are no measures to even prevent duplicate voting by legal voters, let alone any identity check going on.

                    In PA one does not have to show ID unless they are a first time voter. After that, anyone could vote under my name. Further, there is absolutely no charge for an ID here.

                    I might also add, just to show this Administration's pick and choose agenda, that President Obama leads in the polls here and it is a swing state. Guess what? We also have a NEW ID law that requires you show ID to vote in the General Election of 2012. Why has Holder not come after this state?

                    replyreport
      2. American View profile image61
        American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        "In Texas, evidence of voter fraud abounds. In recent years, my office has secured more than 50 voter fraud convictions."

        ""The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters." That was the conclusion of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of State James Baker. The commission recommended stronger photo-identification requirements at the polls."

        http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/st … 53658158/1

        http://www.electionintegritywatch.com/d … ctions.pdf

        There are many more reports and articles of people who have actually been convicted. Overall voter fraud is not a large issue, but because these races are so close these days they are important. Look at the current race in NY. Rangel is hanging on for dear life as his primary lead is disappearing. These races are so close today that one can influence the outcome with fraud votes.

        replyreport
        1. Quilligrapher profile image73
          Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Hey there, AV. Hot and humid here this evening.

          I presume you are taking issue with my last paragraph, AV, and agree with everything else in my post. I have no position with the Carter-Baker report, so I will pass on that one. Okay? I will also suggest that occasional close contests are inevitable and, therefore, irrelevant to a discussion about voter fraud.

          I appreciate the links regarding voter fraud in Texas and Minnesota. They are very informative. One thing upon which we agree, as you said, “overall voter fraud is not a large issue.” The consensus across many studies seems to be yes, it exists but not to the degree that it matters. I say this in a pragmatic sense. Although I, like you, yearn for a perfect world, I can live with leaks in the armada so long as they don’t sink the entire fleet. smile

          The two links you provided, in many ways, bear out my observations that voter ID proponents are not on solid ground if their only argument is the existence of widespread voter fraud. They are promoting a solution badly in need of a problem. In the USA Today piece, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott argues in support of his state’s 2011 voter photo-ID law by saying, “In Texas, evidence of voter fraud abounds. In recent years, my office has secured more than 50 voter fraud convictions.” (1) The number of registered voters in Texas hovers each year around 13 million. About 8 million turned out for the 2008 presidential election. (2) It is hard for me to break a sweat over more than 50 voter fraud convictions “in recent years” when a typical major election turns out 8 million voters. Let’s see, AV, that’s one fraudulent vote out of 160,000 ballots. Furthermore, before someone screams, “what about all the suspected incidences of fraud that were not prosecuted,” I will go along with American jurisprudence that says, “it ain’t fraud if ya can’t prove it.” (Attempts at humor should not be taken too seriously.)

          The paper Minnesota Majority’s Report on Felon Voter Fraud Convictions begs the question about why are we even talking about voter fraud, or even voter ineligibility, as if it was a threat to the election system in American. The document is peppered with creative conclusions that go far beyond the facts presented.  For example, I will use underscores for emphasis and try to be brief:

          “As of August 10th, 2011, 113 individuals are now known to have been convicted for voter fraud committed in 2008.” 113 proven cases of fraud amoung 2.8 million ballots boils down to 1 of 24,778 ballots. (3)

          “Suspected ineligible voters were not charged … because the attorneys could not prove these individuals knowingly violated election law.” I read suspected cases with insufficient proof.

          “The data suggested that 20 times more felons than had been identified by KMSP-TV may have actually voted in the 2008
          General Election.”  I read more unsubstantiated estimates to “suggest” a large problem exists but cannot be proven.

          The bottom line, AV, is Minnesota Majority culled through various databases to come up with 2800 possible ineligible ballots cast of which only 113 were proven. The conclusions project numbers and conditions the researchers could support with facts. They claim laws have be broken on a big scale but they have no proof. Habeas Corpus: no body, no crime as I see it. I say, “don’t tell me crimes have been committed on a large scale. Show me. On the other hand, anyone who wants to believe crimes were committed big time and who are willing to treat unproven assumptions as if they were facts will probably drool all over these 10 fact challenged pages. 

          Gotta go, AV. Big day tomorrow and I need to get to bed before the sun rises. Take care.

          (1) http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/st … 53658158/1
          (2) http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/hi … 0-92.shtml
          (3) http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/ … =S&R=P

          replyreport
          1. American View profile image61
            American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Quill,

            MAybe that is my problem that I want everything to be as perfect as they can be. We both agree the fraud is not widespread but because these races are so close thy 12 votes? These day fraud can make a difference, Was it not Al Franken in Minnesota that was elected by 12 votes? I know his was close and there was one who got elected by 12 votes. If there were 20 fraudelent votes, well we may have the wrong person in office. And with the Senate being controlled by one seat, there is a lot at stake.

            Take care of yourself Quill, good to hear from you as always smile

            replyreport
  8. Credence2 profile image80
    Credence2posted 12 years ago

    I don't seem to get it with you folks.

    AV, I agreed to this idea but not at this election season, whats the hurry? You implement this over the next couple of years allowing people to get the needed ID, as some may have to order birth certicates and such as proof prior to receiving an ID. This costs both money and time. Holder is right, regardless of what the rightwinger says, all this nonsense constitutes an expense that I consider an attempt by the GOP to disenfranchise those that would never go along with its agenda. As such, this is unacceptable on its face.  I thought that it was interesting that in Texas a firearm registration  serves as proper ID while a Student ID does not. This is politically motivated and I don't trust the Right and smell a rat. There seems to be a correlation between being poor and not having standard picture ID. I want the Attorney General to stand his ground in this matter with all states that are making problems in this area!

    You can tell some of the obtuse rightwingers here that voting is not a privilege but a RIGHT of citizenship and coming from a group that has experience illegal disefranchisement in the not so distant past, it willl no longer be tolerated regardless of the label it is given.

    BTW, AV, hello hope all is well,,,,,,

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      Old Poolmanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Credence2 - Long time no see.  I am always curious when you use the term "You Folks" exactly who you are referring to, but assume that is anyone who is not left of center.
      I would be curious to know how many people in this country don't have at least one form of ID that would be accepted at a voting place.  My gosh, hardly a day goes by someone is not asking to see my ID.
      I have to believe this whole ID issue has been blown way out of proportion if we knew the small numbers of people who don't have ID.  But, while people focus on this issue, they aren't talking about the economy or unemployment.
      Hope all is well over there in Paradise.

      replyreport
      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Hi, OP, things are still in a piece here in the islands. I am refering to those on the political right that seem to endlessly push this thing. I wasn't hearing all this concern about this issue 8 or even 4 years ago, why all the hubbub now? I did say that I would work with the conservatives on this thing, but the rush indicates that this is politically motivated and, my being left of center, and I admit it, I am going to have a problem with that. I support the position of Mr. Holder that this big sea change is not supported by the data saying we have a problem. The franchise is important, just because we have commonly available identification, does not mean that all of us do and  I will chance a virtually non-existant problem over disenfranchising people who are citizens. Keep the current system in this election cycle and change it when there is enough time for everyone to get on board. -Best wishes, Cred2

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          Old Poolmanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Crecence2 - I'm glad to hear things are peaceful on the islands.  Anyone who says there is absolutely no voter fraud is dreaming or fooling themselves.  We all know it happens, but the question is to what extent does it happen.
          If I owned a candy store and kids were stealing $5 worth of candy a day, it would not warrant me hiring a $100 a day security guard.  But if they were stealing over $100 per day worth of candy, then it would make sense to hire the security guard.
          I live in a state where voter ID is required.  It is sent to us in the mail by the voter registration people, and it is free.  This card serves a dual purpose.  It identifies us to the poll workers, and they match it to their records and check it off their list as having voted.  It is not a picture ID, but at least the person holding the card can only vote once.  It also helps them keep the voter records up to date. When undeliverable cards are returned to them by the post office, they attempt to contact the person for corrected address information.  People do move out of state, and people do die.   It is not a fool proof system, but better than nothing I guess.
          I would guess the IRS has the best records on where each and every one of us lives.  They could issue an ID card when they mail us our tax forms and it wouldn't even cost an extra stamp.  The day will probably happen when all new born's are implanted with an ID chip before they leave the hospital.  That will solve this problem once and for all.

          replyreport
          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            OP, If every state used tax, social security and census records to identify every eligible voter within the state and sent ID cards to each and every, without charge. I go along with that while not perfect it reflects the fact that the state is doing its due diligence, to prevent disenfrachisement, which is my overiding concern. But this is going to take time, much longer than the date for the upcoming elections in November. None of these procedures taking place in the Grand Canyon State is happening in South Carolina , Texas and Pennsylvania. Are the state governments willing to foot the bill, we cannot have the other side saying that such a program would be too costly. now can we? I see your point OP and have no problem with the idea in priniciple, but to try to rush it through so many states so quickly is politically motivated by the Dark Side to try defeat Obama and the democrats, by disenfranchising a  part of his constituency, I will always take issue with that.

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              Old Poolmanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Credence2, Keep in mind that a "rush job" to the government is anything less than 50 years.  I certainly see your concerns, but will never agree that it is OK for those who vote illegally to continue to do so, upcoming election or not.  There is no way they will ever get any of these law changes put in place between now and the November election.  I do see the need for a carefully planned and executed program to clean up the voter rolls between now and the 2016 election.  I often hear people say they are not going to vote at all because it is so crooked their vote means nothing anyhow.  There is voter fraud, we just don't know if it is a little or a lot.

              replyreport
              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                OP, I could live with a program instituted by 2016 with all the groundwork beginning now.

                replyreport
                1. profile image0
                  Old Poolmanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Credence2, we should start making a list of all those who will not be allowed to vote in that 2016 election.
                  I'll start it, and we can continue to add items as we think of them.
                  1.  No dead person should ever be allowed to vote regardless of race, nationality, age, or party affiliation.

                  replyreport
                  1. Credence2 profile image80
                    Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    OP, as for dead people casting a ballot, I think that we are on the same page regarding that.
                    1. Not having an ID proving age and residency in the area where one is casting a ballot.

                    replyreport
      2. Quilligrapher profile image73
        Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Howdy OP. Thanks for sharing your opinions with us.

        There is no need to remain curious when data are available to estimate the scale and the impact of the voter ID issue. Here are the estimates extrapolated from a study funded by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law:

        1. An estimated 13 million American adult citizens nationwide can not easily produce documentation proving their citizenship.
        2. At least 12 percent of voting-age American citizens earning less that $25,000 per year do not have readily available U.S. passport, naturalization documents, or birth certificate.
        3. Of voting age women with access to their U.S. birth certificate, 48% do not have their current legal name on it.
        4. About 32 million voting-age women only have ready access to proof of citizenship documents that do not reflect their current legal name.
        5. More than 21 million voting age citizens DO NOT have a current government issued photo ID.
        6. Six million senior citizens do not have a current government-issued photo ID.
        7. About 5.5 million adult African-American citizens DO NOT have a photo ID.
        8. Indications are that 15 percent of voting-age American citizens earning less than $35,000 per year DO NOT have a valid government-issued photo ID. Moreover, more than 3.5 million Hispanic voting-age citizens DO NOT have a photo ID.
        9. Almost 4.5 million American citizens do not have photo ID with their current address and name. (1)

        Happy to oblige.

        (1) http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/d … _39242.pdf

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          Old Poolmanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Quilligrapher - Thanks for the education.  I would never have guessed the numbers of people without ID was that high.  Just color me wrong on this one.
          Thanks for sharing.

          replyreport
          1. American View profile image61
            American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Re-education. From the nationwide report:

            "From November 16-19, 2006, the independent Opinion Research Corporation conducted a telephone survey of 987 randomly selected voting-age American citizens." 

            987 phone calls, so much for nationwide.Since it was random, how do we know that anyone considered poor or  living in the poverty level we even called?

            Here are the only questions asked for the survey:

            1) Do you have a current, unexpired government-issued ID with your picture on it, like a driver’s license or a military ID? 
            2) If yes, does this photo ID have both your current address AND your current name (as opposed to a maiden name) on it? 
            3) Do you have any of the following citizenship documents (U.S. birth
            certificate/U.S. passport/U.S. naturalization papers) in a place where you can quickly find it if you had to show it tomorrow? 
            4) If yes, does [that document] have your current name on it (as opposed to a maiden name)?

            "1 Scholars recognize that many telephone surveys underrepresent low-income and minority households."

            So let me get this straight, they conducted a nationwide survey of 987 people, then admit the survey underrepresents the people the survey is suppose to be representing and I am expected to read it with a straight face.

            replyreport
            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Poor people and minorities are the ones least likely to have ID so we know that the results are actually worse for the poor and minorities. A sample size of about 1000 is considered sufficient in modern polling and surveying

              replyreport
              1. American View profile image61
                American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Only problem is this was not a sample size of the target they were looking to survey, then admit it in the notes.

                Why would the poor be least likely to have ID? The poor do not drive, they do not get medication, they do not rent or get a housing voucher, they do not get food stamps, they do not cash their paychecks or welfare checks?

                replyreport
                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Because the poor are less likely to own a car therefore less likely to have a drivers license and less likely to travel therefore less likely to have a passport. So your point just proves that the proportion is probably even higher.

                  replyreport
                  1. American View profile image61
                    American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    You can believe that if you choose, but then how did they get their apartment, their section 8, thier housing voucher, food stamps, medicare, medicaid, their prescription, cash their paychecks or welfare checks? .

                    replyreport
            2. Quilligrapher profile image73
              Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Hi AV. How are doing today?

              To answer your question directly, I would say you should read it with a straight face and an open mind! To understand the strengths and weaknesses of surveys requires some knowledge of the market research industry. You are not likely to gain a lot of that here today.

              However, here are some things you should know and where to find more information:

              Opinion Research Corporation, Princeton, NJ, conducted the survey. In 2009, this company generated $499.9 million in revenues as an independent provider of demographic, health, and market research. (1)
              A sample size of 987 is recognized as the size needed to be 95% certain your sample represents the total population. As you can see when reading the survey footnotes, the margin of error for each stated conclusion ranged between plus or minus 2% to +/- 7%. (2)
              The survey does not say that at all, AV. Footnote 1: “Scholars recognize that many telephone surveys underrepresent low-income and minority households.” This means that the actual numbers in the real population are greater than the results of this survey for low-income and minority households  (3)

              Finally, did you happen to notice that this survey is consistent with the government estimates in the 2005 Carter-Baker Commission?

              Whoops! It is time to remove the pumpkin from the carriage house.

              (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_Re … orporation
              (2) http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-f … ants.shtml
              (3) http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/d … _39242.pdf

              replyreport
    2. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Being poor does not correlate to not having ID because the poor are in need and guess what, without an ID they cannot get help for housing, they cannot get food stamps, they cannot get medicaid. So yeah, they have an ID. What it correlates to is voting in place of a deceased person, voting at multiple polls in various areas (an ID has your address, so you would not be able to do this), being in the country illegally (some illegals use stolen SSNs or use SSNs from deceased people for work, however, to obtain an ID you must also show a birth certificate, which they do not have).

      As for there not being fraud, that is simply not true. Most are not investigated nor prosecuted due to costs.

      links: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/D … ple_voting
      http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691 (illegals voting)

      I smell a rat too but it's sitting over on the left.

      replyreport
      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        So, Sassy Sue, what happens if you do not have a birth certificate, a necessary prerequisite for an ID, even though you have in fact been born here and have every right to vote. What is your remedy, do they pay exorbitants amounts of time and money to obtain this document even if it does not exist. This is, as the AG, says a form of poll tax. and the GOP knows that.

        replyreport
        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          That's a load of BS and YOU know that.

          replyreport
        2. profile image0
          Old Poolmanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Credence2 - I'm reading in your comment that your main gripe is with the GOP. and has very little to do with the voter ID issue.  I wonder what percentage of our entire population doesn't have a birth certificate.  I would guess it is a relatively small number and could be easily dealt with up to and including paying the necessary cost to obtain one for them.  My own daughter just had to order a certified copy of her own birth certificate, it cost her $10 and that included postage.  The financial cost of aiding people in obtaining proper ID could be folded into any number of existing financial aid programs and we would not even notice the difference.  I think the not having ID and not being able to afford one is sort of a lame excuse if you know what I mean.  Heck, we provide millions of cell phones, why not ID cards?

          replyreport
          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Hello, OP, I won't deny that I have a long standing gripe with the GOP of which the voter ID thing is one aspect. Many of my articles touch on my dismay with them , the GOP, and why. I don't know, OP when I needed my birth ciertificate from another state to get a passport, it did take some time and money. Mr. Holder (Attorney General) says that many stand to be disenfranchised by these requirements (Votor ID), I have to give him crdibility over right wing media outlets that claim otherwise.  We are talking about thousands of people, many of them 'off the grid', that tend to vote democratic and whose voices I definitely want heard.. But if the cards are sent free to all eligible voters, over a reasonable period of timeI have no issue with your suggestion...

            replyreport
            1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
              Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              I'm not even sure I could find my birth certificate or know how to obtain one. (I was born in Aruba.) I do have a driver's license with my picture on it. But if I didn't, getting a photo I.D. would be a major undertaking. Fortunately, in Michigan you can vote provisionally with an affidavit certifying residence and eligibility without a photo I.D. I usually go ahead and show my I.D., but I have refused just to be difficult and signed an affidavit at the poll where I've been voting in nearly every election since 1972.

              replyreport
        3. profile image0
          SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          As Old Poolman stated, the cost for a copy of your birth certificate is only $10. Also, while I do not know if all states have the same program, here you can go to the Assistance office and if you are born in this state, they can get a copy for you for free.
          Again, you are trying to say those without a birth certificate would be those unable to afford paying to get one. Again, I reiterate, they need an ID in order to receive any type of assistance.

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            Old Poolmanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I agree with SassySue.  I know a lot of people and I don't know a single one who doesn't have some form of ID.  As pointed out, nobody can go to any Financial Assistance office and refuse to prove who they are when they are asking for financial aid.
            I really think this is just another way to blame the other side of the aisle for perceived injustices, to further divide the citizens of this country, and it plays well into the smoke screen to divert attention away from things that really matter like the economy and unemployment issues.

            replyreport
          2. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            OK, Sue, I understand, its just the relative rush as there needs to be an information campaign to those that are residents that have been voting for years without all these requirements.

            replyreport
        4. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          If you are born in the United States your birth certificate exists - even if you were born 100 years ago - somewhere.  A legal valid copy can be obtained through the state and if the nominal dollar cost is to great a sacrifice than perhaps you shouldn't vote.

          Why do we think that voting should be easy, painless - meaningless?  The soldier who spilled the blood of his brother that black men could someday vote made sacrifices.  The soldier who watched the bloodied corpse of his comrade slosh in the surf at Normandy made sacrifices.  The slave who risked his life and that of his family to sneak away in the night toward some unknown Northern refuge made sacrifices.

          Cutting out the beer or cigarettes or lottery tickets for a month so you can afford to get a photo id is hardly a sacrifice worthy of the description.

          replyreport
          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Sir, it is not for you to say who shouldn't vote. I am a citizen of the United States and a legal resident of the state in which I live, I do not need to climb Mount Everest, nor otherwise prove anything to anybody.
            I should not have to sacrifice anything, you certainly don't.prior to  casting your ballot.

            replyreport
            1. undermyhat profile image60
              undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              I am so sorry you took all of that so personally as to believe that you know at all what I do or do not sacrifice in order to vote.  It has been the history of the vote that sacrifices are invariably made and always by those whose sacrifice is ultimately  reduced by those who lie, cheat and steal the vote.  Labor unions, organized crime, illegal immigration advocacy groups, political extremists have all, at one time or other, used force or fraud to steal elections.  The margin of victory in the electoral college has been narrow enough in the past as to place a national election in the hands of the most dedicated organizations - legitimate and otherwise.

              replyreport
              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Ain't nothing personal, its OK, but, lets not forget the culprits on the rightwing that contribute to the subverting the vote of the average citizen and there is a lot of it.

                replyreport
                1. undermyhat profile image60
                  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh yes, evil "right wingers" - perhaps another reason to support voter id laws.  During the Indiana primary Imy name had already been signed off in the book when I arrived - taking a 2 hour lunch and a ding on my attendance record - to vote.  No poll worker was disturbed by the obvious problem.  Someone voted under my name.  I couldn't raise hell at the time but I cast my vote not knowing whether, but suspecting that it was, cancelled out by the bogus vote from earlier.  All it takes is corrupt poll workers to tip a precinct, and as voting centers are instituted - several precintcts, to the party favored by the corrupt.

                  What conservative organization is so dedicated to its leaders that an election could be tipped in their favor?  Organized labor has demonstrated their willingness to disrupt and literally trash  the Wisconsin state house and to theaten and abuse people all across the country to protect their organization from legitimate political change.  Organized crime has been credited with delivering Illinois for Kennedy in the 1960 election.  And don't forget the evil GWB "stole" Florida from the saintly Algore(despite all evidence to the contrary) a scenario so loved by liberals.

                  replyreport
                  1. Credence2 profile image80
                    Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Ever heard of the Koch Brothers?

                    replyreport
      2. Jeff Berndt profile image72
        Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Your links do not prove what you imagine they prove.

        The one to ballotopedia proves only the following: that there are dead people on the voter rolls. That's so not the same as proving that someone used the name of a dead person to cast a vote at the polls.

        Potentiality is not the same as actuality.

        And the cutting edge 'news' link asserts that illegal immigrants are actually casting votes, even though they admit that they have no proof.

        In fact, most election fraud does not occur at the polls; rather, it happens behind the scenes, and the people doing it are people with access to the ballot box.

        Both major parties that do it, and they both seem to do it at about the same rate, which is pretty low (in spite of what everybody "knows").

        Does voter fraud occur? Sure. Is it anywhere near the problem that so many people think it is? Nope.

        Seriously, the GOP's blathering about this imaginary voter fraud epidemic is no more useful, but a lot less harmless, than the online debate about how best to act during a zombie apocalypse

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          The headline is ridiculous for the link for the illegals but if you read my post you'll see I never said they were voting, only that they were on the voter registration lists, having been called for jury duty. There has been no real investigation into voter fraud one way or the other honestly. And the debate is not even about that. I don't care if there hasn't been one single instance of voter fraud, there is nothing wrong with asking people to show an ID to prove they are who they say they are and they can legally vote in this Country. I think I've already stated that I simply do not understand why every single American does not want to insure that our voting system cannot be abused with fraud. The only logical argument has been that it is happening too quickly. That it needs to be implemented so everyone has a chance to comply and I can support that idea.

          replyreport
          1. Jeff Berndt profile image72
            Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I think I've already stated that I simply do not understand
            Granted.
            The only logical argument has been that it is happening too quickly.
            No, the only logical argument has been this:
            "Prove that it's a real problem."
            But nobody can prove that it's a real problem, quite probably because it isn't one.

            This is a classic example of distraction. Stage magicians do this kind of thing all the time: they try to focus your attention on their left hand (which isn't doing anything important) while they accomplish the trick with their right.

            So what are the GOP trying to distract us from? (I'd hazard a guess that it's the fact that tax cuts haven't created jobs like they've been telling us they would....)

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

              No I do not have to prove it is a problem at all. That was my point. I tell my kids to shut the door or flies will come in. Is it necessary for me to leave the door open until there is a bevy of flies in my house to prove it before I can ask them to shut the door? It is absurd. Why leave the door open until it becomes an issue and then shut it.

              Does not matter if voter fraud is an issue. Prevention is worth a pound of cure.

              replyreport
              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                You see....you just hit the nail on the head. We can't secure the borders and we can't attempt to verify who is really voting.

                Don't you know that you horrible bigoted racist person you?
                smile

                replyreport
              2. Jeff Berndt profile image72
                Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                No I do not have to prove it is a problem at all.
                Well, you made a claim that there is a big problem with voter fraud. If you expect people to agree to spend time and resources solving this 'problem,' you kinda need to prove that it exists.

                I tell my kids to shut the door or flies will come in. Is it necessary for me to leave the door open until there is a bevy of flies in my house to prove it before I can ask them to shut the door?
                Well, it takes no money and practically no effort to shut the door, and nobody's rights are going to be trampled. So, that's kind of a silly analogy.

                Does not matter if voter fraud is an issue.
                Why? Because you were told that it was, and that's good enough for you? Congratulations on your abdication of critical thought.

                Prevention is worth a pound of cure.
                So by that logic, you should go and have your appendix removed right now. 'Cos you might get appendicitis someday, and if you have no appendix, you can't get appendicitis. Except that invasive surgery like an appendectomy carries its own risk, and when you remove a healthy appendix you also expose yourself to complications like anaesthetic reactions and infection and so on. So are you going to go have your appendix out tomorrow?

                Of course, my analogy isn't perfect either, since your voter ID shenanigans  won't risk any of your rights, while the preventative appendectomy would certainly risk your health. No wonder so many conservatives love voter ID laws: if they're implemented, it won't affect people like them--it'll only affect other people, and they don't care so much about people who are different.

                You've been distracted from problems that really exist and manipulated into supporting efforts to disenfranchise a segment of the population. Again, congratulations.

                replyreport
                1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
                  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  SassySue1963 wrote:

                  "No I do not have to prove it is a problem at all."

                  True. You don't have to do anything you don't want to do. However, Jeff is correct--why would you want to spend a bunch of tax payers' money in order to disenfranchise Americans who are unable or perhaps unwilling to comply with an onerous voting requirement? (Your reason is apparent, actually.) We should be adopting polices to encourage more voters such as keeping the polls open longer, making it easier to vote absentee, enabling on-line voting and so forth.

                  replyreport
  9. Ralph Deeds profile image66
    Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

    "The Return of Voter Suppression" by Professor Alexander Keyssar

    “There are more UFO and Bigfoot sightings than documented cases of voter impersonation."

    http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/07/vote … on-returns

    replyreport
    1. undermyhat profile image60
      undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Considering the tone reflected in the quote, I will pass on the reading but I wonder, does he mention the New Black Panther Party menacing voters in Philadelphia as part of the voter suppression?

      replyreport
      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        The rightwinger wears this thing out, do you have anything else or are you going to force me to delve into the much more numerous incidents of voter suppression conducted by the Dark Side against eligible voters?

        replyreport
        1. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Any provable voter suppression is illegal, so long as the agents of the law are willing to do their duty.  It is clear that Eric Holder's Justice Department is unwilling to do so.

          replyreport
          1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Just curious, why would you say that? (Holder unwilling.)

            replyreport
      2. Ralph Deeds profile image66
        Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        From what I recall the "New Black Panthers" has only 30 members or so. And the incident in Philadelphia didn't intimidate anybody.

        replyreport
        1. rlbert00 profile image77
          rlbert00posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I wonder...if it had been a polling place in say Alabama or maybe Mississippi and the men standing outside of the it were members of the KKK; would you then condsider it voter intimidation? If so, I'd like to hear an explanation as to what exactly is the difference.

          replyreport
        2. profile image0
          SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Living in PA , I can tell you sir, you are wrong. They did intimidate white voters at the polls in Philly.  They were charged but then the Department of Justice did their thing and dismissed them.

          "The New Black Panther Party and two of its members, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson, were charged with voter intimidation for their conduct outside a polling station in Philadelphia. The Department of Justice later narrowed the charges against Minister King Shabazz and dismissed the charges against the New Black Panther Party and Jerry Jackson. The decision to dismiss the charges has led to accusations that the Department of Justice under the Obama administration is biased against white victims and unwilling to prosecute minorities for civil rights violations"

          replyreport
          1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "They did intimidate white voters at the polls in Philly."
            How do you know that? Were you there? How many voters were intimidated? Anyway, what's the connection with the voter I.D. issue? If there was intimidation it should have been stopped with by the appropriate authorities. I won't try to defend the Panthers or Holder's failure to follow through, if that's the case. However, whatever a handful of so-called Black Panthers did in Philadelphia is no excuse for the GOP's attempts to make it hard for millions of voters to exercise their right to vote. Why are you defending the GOP's brazen, coordinated efforts to deny citizens' right to vote.

            replyreport
            1. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Thats a big 10-4, Ralph. BTW, that is my question as well!

              replyreport
            2. profile image0
              SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

              @Ralph While I was not there, I have 3 friends in Philly who witnessed it, on more than one occasion. You are the one who said "it didn't intimidate anyone". Were you there? No, you were not. I did not bring up the subject in regards to this discussion. I would not even have referenced it unless you decided to state your opinion of an event you were not present for and have no knowledge of.

              Who is being denied the right to vote? Doesn't every American have the ability to obtain an ID, especially when it is being offered for free? If you are a legal immigrant you have naturalization papers. If you are born here you have a birth certificate. So what exactly is the problem? I've yet to hear anyone come up with anything other than someone might actually have to DO something to obtain an ID. Seriously, I just do not understand all this vitriol about having to show an ID to vote. Everyone should want to be certain that only fellow Americans are deciding our fate.

              replyreport
              1. Cody Hodge profile image60
                Cody Hodgeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-j … ration-law

                Now watch at the end where the Republican says its not needed.

                replyreport
                1. undermyhat profile image60
                  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  The Daily Show ?!?!?! - The barbarians are at the gates.

                  replyreport
              2. Ralph Deeds profile image66
                Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                No. Some people find it hard to get an I.D. for a number of reasons. Moreover, the GOP schemes vary from state to state. Not all I.D.s are free. For example, driver's licenses and passports aren't free. Getting a duplicate birth certificate is not free. These aren't insurmountable hurdles, but they are enough to discourage many voters.

                Why don't you Romney supporters just fess up to the truth that you are just trying to get an edge in the election in battleground states??

                replyreport
                1. undermyhat profile image60
                  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  The edge for Romney everywhere, except states where idiots still vote Democrat - like California - regardless of how disastrous, is Obama himself.  He is an angry, petulent, arrogant liberal whose policies have nearly killed the Animal Spirits of the economy.

                  Perhaps you should check into the various efforts to illegally influence votes

                  the cigarette for homeless votes in Wisconsin program
                  http://cnsnews.com/node/26533

                  or the "lets keep some precincts open later" program in Ohio

                  http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/li … ptoTRO.pdf

                  or the disenfrancnhise the military program

                  http://articles.cnn.com/2008-10-28/poli … M:POLITICS

                  or forging election documents in Indiana program

                  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04 … d-in-2008/


                  or fighting legitimate purging of voter rolls program

                  http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/06/2 … ready.html

                  and tainting the story with race baiting headlines - http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/06/01/fl … ter-purge/

                  or the let's slash the tires of the Republican get out the vote vans on election night program.

                  http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 … shed_x.htm

                  There is more than enough effort by liberals to influence the vote.

                  replyreport
                2. profile image0
                  SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  No drivers' licenses and passports are not free. State IDs are what is being offered for free for anyone who does not have an ID. There is absolutely no prohibitive cost to obtaining a birth certificate, as has already been stated. It cost $10.
                  Why don't you Obama supporters admit it is always a "it's wrong if you do it, but alright if we do it" mentality with this Administration. As undermyhat stated, go check out exactly which precincts were kept open later.

                  replyreport
                3. American View profile image61
                  American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Ralph,

                  So if the IDs and all were free would you be in favor of voter ID cards?

                  replyreport
                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    As conservatives are so fond of telling us: "Nothing is free, somebody has to pay".

                    replyreport
                  2. Ralph Deeds profile image66
                    Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    It would depend on the procedure for getting one and using it. It would be better than charging for a voter I.D. A voter I.D. should be free and easy to get. Some citizens don't have cars or access to public transportation to get to an office to apply for an I.D. They should be able to apply on line or by mail or through a voter registration drive. We should be encouraging more voting not less.

                    replyreport
  10. Uninvited Writer profile image76
    Uninvited Writerposted 12 years ago

    It could be solved like we do it in Canada. Send everyone a card showing they are registered to vote and they bring that with them with proof of address. Or a card telling them an election is coming up and how to go about getting registered. Picture ID is not necessary here. Of course, we don't have to register with a specific party.

    Just as well, I don't have any picture ID other than a health card but that's not accepted most places. I don't have a driver's licence and my passport is out of date. They do have a new photo id card now which will cost $40.

    replyreport
    1. Quilligrapher profile image73
      Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hey there, UW, and thanks for your input.

      Similar to you, the election board here in NY State mails a notice of up-coming elections to all registered voters. The card has a dual purpose but it does not have to be presented on Election Day. First, it informs the electorate about the location of the polls and the date and time they will be open. Secondly, if the registered voter is deceased or has moved, the posts office returns the undelivered notice to the board and the voter is purged from the voter rolls. How simple and effective it is and photo ID is not required.

      replyreport
  11. Ralph Deeds profile image66
    Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

    Voter impersonation fraud is not a frequent occurrence because there is no financial payoff or incentive for anyone to take the time and risk to impersonate someone else at the polls. There is plenty of financial incentive for the proponents of voter suppression--the banksters, and other vampire squids who are pushing these requirements designed to elect Republicans who will be disinclined to regulate them in the public interest.

    replyreport
  12. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

    To think that voter fraud exists everywhere else but in the U.S. is naive.

    replyreport
    1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It's not non-existent, but it's insignificant. That is, voter impersonation fraud which the I.D. and other requirements are supposed to prevent. The Libertarians have complained about fraud or being unfairly disadvantaged by state GOP officials running primary caucuses elections.

      A much more critical problem that the GOP and Tea Partiers aren't mentioning is what's happening as a result of the Citizens United decision which gives pimps like Sheldon Adelson the ability to donate millions to Super Paks--Adelson first gave $10 million to Gingrich's campaign and now he's giving gosh only knows how many millions to support Romney.

      "The National Jewish Democratic Council is calling on Mitt Romney and other 2012 Republican candidates to stop accepting donations from billionaire Sheldon Adelson in the wake of reports that the GOP mega donor personally approved of prostitution at his Macau resorts."

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/0 … 44426.html

      Why should people like Adelson and the Koch brothers and Karl Rove's Texas oilmen be allowed to have unlimited influence on the selection of candidates and the election?? Why are we worrying about petty voter fraud when our elections have been turned into a billionaires game? These guys put out the bait and the suckers are going for it. It's simple.  Who would support voter fraud?

      replyreport
      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        That is spot-on Ralph, thank you!

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          Old Poolmanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I believe one of the biggest problems with fair elections are the mail-in ballots.  We have a great many part year residents here in Arizona.  Those who will not be here at election time receive their mail-in ballot, and can vote from whatever state they are currently in.  If registered in their home state, they could also go to the polling place and vote in that state.  So in essence, they get to vote twice.
          Perhaps we should change the rules so every voter must go to his or her polling place and dip their finger in the ink bottle before they receive their ballot.  That would eliminate this type of double voting.  Hey, it works in other countries.

          replyreport
          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            OP, that might not fly, the military casts its votes by absentee ballot, that group tends to vote GOP. The proponents of the integrity of the voting process(Voter ID) would not want to rock the apple cart with this group. Funny that the drive to reform has never touched into this area?

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              Old Poolmanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Credence2, I was actually just kidding, but the Military would be an exception to this rule.  They obviously can't get to a polling place when they are stationed in another state or clear across the ocean.  I recall a past election where many of the Military Mail-in ballots didn't even arrive in time to be counted.  Can we just agree the our voting policies leave a great deal to be desired?
              More and more people I know are requesting mail-in ballots.  Not because they will not be in town, but because it is easier than driving to the polling place to vote.  Mail-in ballots open a whole new possibility of fraud.

              replyreport
              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Gosh, OP, what do you think they do in some of the remote areas, say Alaska, there has to be a provision like these absentee ballots to accomodate so many that live away from the grid.

                replyreport
                1. profile image0
                  Old Poolmanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Crede, I suspect many of them just don't vote.

                  replyreport
      2. American View profile image61
        American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        And Soros is just so innocent not to mention outspends the Koch brothers.

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          No, rich liberals are honest, caring people. Their money is clean.

          Rich conservatives are demon-spawn, homeless-hating, crony capitalists. Their money is evil.

          See? Makes perfect sense(apparently).

          replyreport
          1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Very true. We can agree on that. :-)

            replyreport
          2. profile image0
            Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "No, rich liberals are honest, caring people. Their money is clean."

            lol lol lol lol lol
            lol lol lol lol lol
            lol lol lol lol lol
            lol lol lol lol lol
            lol lol lol lol lol

            I hope that was sarcasm. If not, it's single largest load of BS I've seen in this forum in a LONG time.

            replyreport
        2. Ralph Deeds profile image66
          Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Soros is on the side of the angels.

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I thought liberals didn't believe in God much less angels.

            replyreport
            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Not to mention he is a man who sent his own people to the Nazi gas chambers.
              Angels indeed!

              replyreport
              1. profile image0
                rickyliceaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                George Soros was a kid when that happened, he didn't send anyone to the gas chambers.

                replyreport
                1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
                  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Very true. Chams tends to exaggerate.

                  replyreport
                  1. profile image0
                    Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Like there's not liberals on the site that exaggerate. Come on, Deeds, lets get real!!! roll

                    replyreport
    2. stanwshura profile image72
      stanwshuraposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed.  It does surprise me, at least in my town, that you just have to know your name and address.  Getting caught trying to commit voter fraud could only happen if someone were so motivated (as inexplicable as I find that to be - c'mon, even the most patriotic and idealistic among us must concede that, unless you're sitting next to Simon Cowell, or scoring jabs that connected and uppercuts that didn't, your one vote won't rock the boat - it's our vote as a citizenry, and our Constitutionally protected and sacred right to participate and speak up as individuals that makes democracy work)...so where was I, oh yeah the motive and likely success of a fraudster: the moment he identifies him/herself (by using the name and address) of somebody who has already voted - bam - the jig is up.

      This even ever so slim and ultmately impotent scam is the ONLY reason I believe in voter I.D., which process and vetting/verification should be made readily available, on site and staffed to convention levels by registrations assistants, interpretters (or the technology in their stead - and still manned by a breathing human) of every language on Earth, and specially trained facilitators for the blind, dyslexic, deaf, anxious, easily confused or overwhelmed, and said expert help for those (but not limited thereto) "on the spectrum" who have every damn bit the right to vote as you buck-toothed hayseed with an 8th grade education!

      replyreport
  13. profile image0
    rickyliceaposted 12 years ago

    I don't see how this is a big deal either way.
    Ids aren't that much of an inconvenience.
    "Illegals" aren't seeking to manipulate the political system, they are just trying to make some money.
    Fears of an "illegati" conspiracy to take over the country, are incredibly overblown. lol

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Fears that requiring IDs will suddenly disenfranchise the poor, downtrodden and minorities are equally overblown.

      replyreport
    2. undermyhat profile image60
      undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I would say that illegals are seeking to manipulate the political system but there is nothing nefarious about it.  the Russians want to manipulate our system, the Canadians want to manipulate our system, etc....  If a change in American politics is seen as beneficial to one's own group, country, church, sex, acting troupe, etc...an effort to gain some political consideration will be made.  It is the mechanism and shape that those things take that is debateable.

      replyreport
      1. profile image0
        rickyliceaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Not to insult the unauthorized immigrants, but they are mostly uneducated people, a lot barely literate, some not only don't speak English, but they also don't speak Spanish, (indians).
        I really doubt that they have the knowledge requisite to know or care about American politics.
        If they are voting illegally its because of outside activists seeking to politicize them.

        replyreport
        1. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          If they are being used by La Rasa or any other organization and voting illegally or just talking about politics with their friends it is as a part of trying to get the agenda they are told would benefit them, enacted.  i don't find that part of it to be offensive but rather the illegal part.  I would expect anyone to want government to behave as they would have it behave.

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            rickyliceaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah "La Raza" is the most important one, although I don't think they really care. Most of their funding comes from U.S. foundations and corporations, not the imaginary "raza" they came to represent.
            As a realist I would have to agree with you, everyone is looking out for themselves, and there is nothing wrong with that.

            replyreport
            1. undermyhat profile image60
              undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this



              That is the only point I was trying to make.  I like it when things are agreeable.

              replyreport
              1. profile image0
                rickyliceaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Agreed big_smile

                replyreport
      2. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        What are you doing to promote the interests of YOUR GROUP?

        replyreport
        1. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          What group am I supposed to belong to, last time I looked we were Americans.  I understand there is only one requirement to be a member of that group - be a legal citizen.  If that is what you meant than I am doing everything I can to defeat Barrack Hussein Obama in November, because I love my country.

          replyreport
          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Oh you know what group!

            R A C I S T S !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            replyreport
          2. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You consersevative types are not advocating for anything in your self interests, come on now? Your precious guns, the right to regulate the wombs of women, etc. This a deplorable group that MUST be defeated next November. We gotta get Thurston Howell III to cough up his income tax records and we are not letting up.  I am doing everthing that I can to keep that dishrag Romney from the Presidency and to rid Washington of the rabid rightwing scourge AKA, GOP.

            So I guess that and 5 cents will get you a cup of coffee?

            replyreport
            1. undermyhat profile image60
              undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              What group?  Did you answer that?  I was looking for the group you believe I should be assisting?

              replyreport
              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Undermy hat,

                You said, If a change in American politics is seen as beneficial to one's own group, country, church, sex, acting troupe, etc...an effort to gain some political consideration will be made.

                So what is your “Group” and what political consideration do you seek?

                You emphasize that we are all Americans. After chatting with you I see that as only meaning that we are both located within a geographic area that is presently defined as the United States of America. That is where the similarity ends. The ideals and principals associated with being “American” which what it truly means to be American is seen differently between us.

                How you easily would advocate denial of the ballot for 15% of the American populace aged 65 or older is not part or parcel of the American ideal I remember. The rightwinger’s goal of making it more difficult rather that easier for all to exercise this most important of rights smells of a fascist method of controlling dissent, that is outside acceptable political processes.

                I understand the need for integrity in the process, but the rush is politically motivated rather than for the reasons the GOP is selling everyone

                replyreport
                1. undermyhat profile image60
                  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't advocate for any single group be denied the vote.  I advocate that anyone, under any conditions that accepts a transfer payment - welfare - from the Federal government not be allowed to vote for as long as one is accepting those payments.  SS is welfare and so those accepting it are engaged in a conflict of interests when allowed to vote.

                  Voting is not a right.  We treat it as such but from where does this right derive?

                  replyreport
                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
                    Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    From the Constitution and laws passed pursuant to it as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

                    replyreport
                  2. MrMaranatha profile image71
                    MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Social Security was Paid into by my Parents for over 50 years...  They worked for it.  They not only deserve the little bit of return (small compared to what they should be getting from it) but they have also earned the right to Vote as citizens by their lives of service to this country.

                    replyreport
                  3. Credence2 profile image80
                    Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Your conflict of interest approach seems to be directed at constituencies on the left and who generally support democrats. What about the conflict of interests presented by industries that help write government regulations, the so called transparency of the Wall Street and the financial markets, etc. What about all the glad handing between the government and the fat cat corporate structure? I am far more concerned about THAT ‘conflict of interest’. Interests intersecting are as natural as a sunrise and just as unavoidable.   This stuff that you speak of is not new. I have heard a lot of rightwing claptrap regarding such a restriction on access to the ballot for federal employees. After all, regardless of the fact that they do pay taxes and provide labor in exchange for compensation, they receive their income from the treasury. Why do you even go into this stuff? You just a well be talking about ‘warp theory’. It is not even science fiction, its fantasy, akin to trying to  reach the moon with a pogo stick…. If you guys actually have your way we can take down the stars and stripes and replace it with a swastika

                    (It is obvious that you question regarding voting rights have been answered and I concur wholeheartedly)

                    replyreport
  14. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

    Thanks for the laughs Jeff . . . and the patient acceptance of industrial-strength wierdness, Ralph.

    I haven't had such a fun read since my last issue of Wingnut!

    http://www.urantiansojourn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/WingNut.jpg

    replyreport
    1. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      WOW, this is rich! Where can I subscribe?

      replyreport
  15. profile image0
    SassySue1963posted 12 years ago

    Oh my reason is apparent? Really? Please do tell. Then I'll tell you if you're correct.
    The only polls that are being kept open later are those that favor the Democrats. Once again, they pick and choose whose voting rights should be protected, or favored. No one, I repeat, absolutely no one who is able to vote LEGALLY would be disenfranchised by any requirement for a voter ID. Alright, so those who can't be bothered to order a birth certificate (if they do not already have one) or mail in a form, or take a drive to their local drivers' license center, maybe they would not vote. But I'd venture to say that anyone for whom that is too much bother certainly isn't bothering to get out to the polls. You can keep spouting "disenfranchised" until you're blue in the face. It is a bald face lie and fear mongering by the left.

    replyreport
  16. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

    http://antzinpantz.com/kns/images/jun12/voter-id-stats.jpg


    http://media-cache-ec6.pinterest.com/upload/40462096622618019_u33T5IMl_c.jpg

    http://media.timesfreepress.com/img/news/tease/2011/08/24/110825_The_Photo_ID_t618.jpg?ba5b5b122dd3d37cc13d83e92a6a0ec0d5bfa32a

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Photo IDs in Tennessee are free, Wizard, so the only votes being suppressed here in Tennessee would be those of the illegals who have no right to vote and those too damn lazy to get the FREE photo ID.

      replyreport
  17. Ralph Deeds profile image66
    Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

    Leonard Pitts's column today is worth reading.

    http://www.freep.com/article/20120717/O … y=nav|head

    "In Washington, conservative Republicans are seeking to gut the act. In Florida, they are, in effect, purging Democrats from the voting rolls. In Kansas, there is a law requiring a voter show proof of citizenship. And in 30 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, there are voter ID laws, either passed or under contemplation.

    Conservatives argue that such laws are needed to prevent voter fraud. This argument might hold more water if there actually were any significant voter fraud in our elections. There is not....

    "Keep in mind that black people are disenfranchised in many states by laws denying the ballot to former felons. Given the phenomenon of mass incarceration -- i.e., a system that will bypass 10 white cocaine dealers to jail one black crack dealer -- disenfranchising former felons largely means disenfranchising us.

    "Voter ID laws add fresh insult to standing injury. And let no one be fooled by GOP claims that this is not political. Mike Turzai, who sits in the Pennsylvania state legislature, inadvertently set fire to that lie last month. In a speech to a Republican State Committee meeting, he praised "voter ID, which is gonna allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania. "

    replyreport
    1. undermyhat profile image60
      undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I couldn't care less whether a convicted felon cannot vote.  How many people do not commit crimes?  Why should they not be elevated above the criminal who demonstrates his inability to live in the civil society?

      replyreport
  18. profile image0
    SassySue1963posted 12 years ago

    My favorite part of this ""Keep in mind that black people are disenfranchised in many states by laws denying the ballot to former felons." Yes, we all held guns to their heads and forced them to commit felonies. There are felons of all races btw.

    "i.e., a system that will bypass 10 white cocaine dealers to jail one black crack dealer" Really? Odd. I could not find one reliable source to confirm this.

    So, let me get this straight. Now we wish to allow felons to vote? Or, only if they happen to be African American felons? Enlighten me.

    More of the divisive nature of those currently in power. Fear mongering at its finest.

    It is like saying in order to lock my door, I should have to be robbed first.

    replyreport
  19. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

    The Republican Elephant in the room that they want you to ignore (as in ignore-ance)!

    And for Longhunter's phony canard of always screaming "racism,"  it's not about racism, it's about winning at any cost and anyway they can  . . .


    Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome": Good Government. Classic clip from 1980. This guy still gives weekly strategy sessions to Republicans nowadays. The entire dialog from the clip:


    http://youtu.be/8GBAsFwPglw

    I'm sorry, this is legal how? In case you missed it, Republican lawmakers across the country have been pushing for stricter voter ID laws and a host of other measures that prevent thousands of American citizens from voting — all in the name of combating a non-existent "epidemic" of voter fraud. To no one's surprise, the Americans targeted by these laws come from traditionally left-leaning demographics.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/24230825@N02/7450571352/

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Come on, Wizard!!! If illegals and the dead were voting Republican/conservative, you know good and well it would be the Dems/liberals screaming for voter ID cards and purging of dead voters.

      replyreport
      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Well now we all know the dead vote regularly in Chicago. But that would make the Democrats.
        big_smile

        replyreport
      2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        I know nothing of the kind.  Your values are yours, so don't ascribe them to me!

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          REALLY!!! You're actually going to sit there and say you know nothing of the kind? Either that's one hell of a dose of sarcasm or you're having a bad day!!!

          The Dems would be raising $900 worth of hell, wanting voter ID cards, birth certificates, and passports from each and every voter if they thought illegals and the dead were going to vote Republican. lol lol lol lol lol

          I'm trying to laugh with you, Wizard, in the hopes your previous post was pure sarcasm. lol lol lol lol lol

          replyreport
          1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
            Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Sorry to disappoint you LH, but I'm not being sarcastic at all—I'm actually sincere because I still remember those ruthless dirtbags in the GOP, like Richard Nixon, George Wallace, Strom Thurman, Jessie Helms, Lee Atwater, Tom Delay, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich and Carl Rove.  They fought to win, I'll grant you that much. 

            Now, The  ALEC Thugs are behind all of the underhanded ballot manipulation throughout the country . . . 

            Educate yourself!

            GOP Evasiveness On Voter Photo ID Leads To Court Challenge

            http://www.theuptake.org/2012/07/16/gop … challenge/

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

              You're just funny now. You think I need to educate myself? And you would sit there and say there is no voter fraud in Chicago? C'mon man.

              http://www.heritage.org/research/report … in-chicago

              http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2867929/posts

              http://roblorinov.wordpress.com/2012/03 … e-america/

              There are pages upon pages of examples of voter fraud in Chicago. Oh, but they're Democrats, so it's okay.

              You keep on spouting the same rhetoric over and over and over. Absolutely anyone who can legally vote in this country can obtain an ID card. It isn't that hard and it is being offered for free. You've yet to address that at all. You just keep on saying how these laws prevent people from voting. No, they do not. They only prevent those unable to vote here legally from voting, which should not be an issue.

              Yes, someone might have to update the address on their drivers' license. (free and online access)
              Yes, someone might have to update their SSN card to include a name change. (free and can mail or fax documents)
              Yes, someone might have to order their birth certificate and/or naturalization papers. Cost $10. Can be free in the case of a birth certificate at most Assistance Offices.

              If someone is so very lazy that they do not want to be bothered by any of this, odds are they are not voting anyway.

              replyreport
              1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Take your meds!  big_smile

                replyreport
                1. profile image0
                  SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Wizard...there is no honest debate with those who censor opinions differing from theirs on their Hubs. You have lost all credence here as far as I'm concerned.

                  replyreport
                  1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Good, I'll wear it as a badge of honor. tongue

                    replyreport
                2. profile image0
                  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Wizard wrote: "Take your meds!"

                  I seem to remember a time when I said the same thing to you, suggesting a warm glass of milk would help in that process, to which I got banned for three days. You didn't like it when I wrote it to you. How is it okay for you to do so now to someone else?

                  Come on, Wizard, you're better than that, no matter how many big_smile 's you put behind it.

                  replyreport
                  1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    First, I don't recall you getting banned or me being upset over something as trivial as that.

                    Second, you don't know me or know how I think, LH—so don't assume you think that you do.

                    Finally, and to give you more insight into how I really think, I get deeply offended by some behaviors that come from hate and intolerance—and that's what I usually attack, not the person.  Occasionally, however, someone posts in a way that my personal alarm bells go off and I sense in them a pathological compulsion to stalk and harass for egotistical reasons.  I have learned to avoid those types because talking sense to them is a waste of energy and time.  Moreover, I usually sense a deep unhappiness whereby the anger and vitriol in their posts are usually a necessary projection because they can't deal with the hurt, frustration and pain in their own inner and/or their outer life. 

                    I'm fine and happy by the way—just in case you're worried about me. And, FWIW,  there has always been something about you that I like—even when your being a dick!  smile

                    replyreport
  20. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/07/15/us/politics/15fivethirtyeight-id-law-table/15fivethirtyeight-id-law-table-custom1.png

    Measuring the Effects of Voter Identification Laws

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co … tion-laws/


    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NWqDDjT4zWk/T1KKdlJjD2I/AAAAAAAANrs/5j8KICP_3ZE/s1600/voter+fraud+chart.PNG


    Daily Show: 'Voter Fraud Statistics are Limited Only as Much as Your Imagination'

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-j … ration-law

    replyreport
  21. profile image0
    Longhunterposted 12 years ago

    Jeff wrote:
    "Nor does it make him a citizen.

    I don't think citizenship is a requirement for gun ownership, or even a CCW; you just have to pass the test and not have a criminal record.

    I can only speak to Tennessee, where I have my permit. You must be a citizen of Tennessee to get your permit, thus making you a citizen of the United States. You must present TN drivers license and birth certificate at the time of application for your permit.

    It's interesting that the law will accept one form of ID that doesn't prove you're a citizen, but will accept another form of ID that also doesn't prove you're a citizen.

    See remark above. In TN, a handgun carry permit is a legal photo ID.

    Do CCW's have your picture on them? I've never seen one.

    Yes, say one as my drivers license.

    replyreport
  22. Ralph Deeds profile image66
    Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

    Republican Speaker of the House and candidate in Michigan caught red-handed in election scam:

    http://www.freep.com/article/20120718/N … |FRONTPAGE

    LANSING -- A county prosecutor Tuesday slammed state House Speaker Jase Bolger and a state representative from Grand Rapids for conspiring to perpetrate a fraud on voters in connection with the November election....

    It turned out, according to Forsyth's report, that Schmidt and Bolger -- with text messages and phone calls -- had cooked up the plan to help make sure Schmidt had no real opposition. In fact, Schmidt used his son to recruit Mojzak, an acquaintance, to file as a Democrat with the enticement of a $450 fee. After Mojzak got skittish when reporters questioned his residency, Schmidt upped the offer to $1,000 if Mojzak stayed in the race.

    replyreport
  23. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

    Crying would indicate awareness.

    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/208830_452679084766514_777722184_n.jpg

    replyreport
    1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

      http://www.bartcop.com/citizens-united-pledge.jpg

      replyreport
    2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

      https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/428901_3048762357647_518466447_n.jpg

      https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/531232_383787325020779_1858348654_n.jpg

      replyreport
      1. profile image0
        Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Deleted

        1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          What's so radical, LH?  It's true about the laws in those states and the GOP want's us to believe that the  Romney's are more like us than the Obamas.  Look at what's going on in Frog's Hub with all of the lies, calumny and character assassination going on there. It's petty-minded radical hate and I see no Longhunter protestations  there? 

          https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/165898_3052177563387_1403326621_n.jpg

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I haven't had time to really stop and read too many things here on HP lately. However, I'll go back and take a look at what Frog is writing. I will say chances are if it's against Obama, I'll more than likely agree with them and you'll continue to see no Longhunter protestations there.

            As for radical, you've seemed to have taken a hard turn left in your thinking of late.

            As for the non-Atheist law here in TN, I wasn't aware of it as I can honestly say I've never voted for a candidate based on his religion as I don't know nor care what it is.

            replyreport
          2. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            WOW, the poster speaks volumes, my experience with all too many GOP advocates have been similar. How about that Michele Bachman, an entity like that can only exist and thrive inthe GOP, akin to fish surviing only in water. The "bitch-slap" was the remedy as it hat to come from a member of her own team with a bit more character. Sorry to digress!

            replyreport
            1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
              Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Don't apologize—I agree!

              http://s1.hubimg.com/u/5410944_f1024.jpg

              replyreport
    3. Ralph Deeds profile image66
      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

      Has anyone else noticed that the people who are so gung ho about requiring voter I.D. are the same ones who are opposed to improving the system for identifying gun buyers and sellers? Strikes me as more than a little inconsistent??? There is little evidence that voter impersonation or other fraud at the polls is a significant problem. However, there is plenty of evidence that our gun sale and purchase laws and enforcement have more holes than a sieve.

      replyreport
      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        These are also the same people, according to Mitt Romney, that believe that there are too many fireman, policemen and such on the public payroll and we need to cut back on government at this point. Paradox and inconsistency, the foundation of the modern conservative movement.

        replyreport
        1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
          Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Amen!

          replyreport
      2. Jeff Berndt profile image72
        Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Has anyone else noticed that the people who are so gung ho about requiring voter I.D. are the same ones who are opposed to improving the system for identifying gun buyers and sellers? Strikes me as more than a little inconsistent???
        A little bit. The inconsistency I've noticed has little to do with guns in specific but more to do with government control in general: the folks in favor of voter ID are also in favor of de-regulating and limiting government control over pretty much everything else.

        There is little evidence that voter impersonation or other fraud at the polls is a significant problem.
        Absolutely true: voter ID laws to prevent election fraud make about as much sense as replacing your roof to stop your basement from leaking.

        However, there is plenty of evidence that our gun sale and purchase laws and enforcement have more holes than a sieve.
        Is there? I'm not sure that's true.

        replyreport
        1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
          Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          There is a veritable pipeline of illegal weapons purchased in Virginia to New York City which has been frustrated in its efforts to stop the guns coming into the city. There is a problem of straw buyers of guns in Arizona gun shows or dealers which then go to Mexico. There is a problem of law enforcement agencies getting data on the identity of gun sellers and buyers. As I recall in the case of the episode in Arizona the ATF or Homeland security people were frustrated because of the reluctance of the U.S. attorneys to bring charges. There is a problem of weapons coming to states with stricter laws from states with more permissive or poorly enforced gun control laws. Republicans and Democrats, including Obama, fear the NRA and are reluctant to touch Second Amendment issues.

          replyreport
          1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
            Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            It's always about money and the intimidation necessary to continue the stream of profits, Ralph. 

            The NRA stirs up fear and paranoia in the gun-loving public and the cycle of violence increases with every new advancement in the sale of mayhem-technology. 

            https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/549586_480687851959461_1375260430_n.jpg

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Lets get some clearer statistics, Wizards.

              How many of these 83 were killed by a criminal committing a crime?

              How many of these 83 were killed by a police officer while committing a crime?

              How many of these 83 were killed by a handgun permit holder while committing a crime?

              Before we just blame an inanimate object, lets get some real numbers about WHO, not WHAT, actually did the killing. Oh, yeah . . . please.

              replyreport
              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Now, now.....don't make him have to deviate from those talking points!

                replyreport
              2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                LH, I gave you more credit than I should have.

                Try to to really understand the point. 

                The point is:

                I am NOT blaming an "inanimate object."  I am saying that tools of war that efficiently kill innocents have flooded into America (and the world) because they are a very profitable business for ruthless and greedy profiteers who care only about accruing more money.

                Regulation is weak and poorly enforced in this country.

                There are an incredible number of gun-lovers and gun-worshpers who want them no matter what the cost or the consequences of having them around.

                There are an incredible number of deranged and paranoid people in our culture who are alienated, anti-social, delusional and no longer placed in state institutions because of budgetary cuts and lack of public support.

                These weapons are not for hunting, they are for rapid destruction of human life.

                They should be banned to the general public and they should be regulated with the same efficacy as any dangerous potential hazard.

                So now you have it and now you can ignore my post and JSChams can snipe with some simple-minded, ultra-biased, Peanut Gallery comment.

                https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/549009_10150961369246275_1361523632_n.jpg

                replyreport
                1. profile image0
                  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I knew when I asked the questions I wouldn't get the numbers.

                  The point is, Wizard, people are going to kill people whether it's with a gun, a knife, or a baseball bat. To blame guns for the deaths of those shot is ludicrous. If we banned the guns, soon we'd be banning knives. Next, it would be baseball bats and 2 x 4s cut to a length of 4 feet or less.

                  "They should be banned to the general public and they should be regulated with the same efficacy as any dangerous potential hazard."

                  I guess you expect that regulation to be done by the same government who can't and won't keep the criminals in cages where they belong. God help us. Our government officials can't find their own ass with both hands and a flashlight. What makes you think they could handle this?

                  No thanks, Wizard. I'll stick to legally carrying my 9mm. You put far too much trust in the ability of our corrupt and inept government. I don't.

                  By the way, blaming the NRA for the shootings in Colorado is like blaming Bill Clinton for what happened in Waco.

                  replyreport
                  1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Why are you always so compelled to misrepresent everything to fit your cynical and spiteful views?

                    It's always black or white, good or evil.  Either address the point about the availability of assault weapons and the profiteers who flood the market with them—or don't—I could care less about what your knee-jerk thought process comes up with.

                    replyreport
                    1. profile image0
                      Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      Your original post said nothing about assault weapons, Wizard.

                      Yes, it is "always black or white, good or evil", or better yet, right or wrong, legal or illegal. There are no shades of gray when it comes to some things.

                      And you're a good one to be talking about "knee-jerk thought process". People got killed in Colorado so your "knee-jerk thought process" says lets use that to further our agenda to eliminate guns. Trying to eliminate guns because of what happened in Colorado would be the same as eliminating fertilizer because of Oklahoma City. It doesn't make sense, Wizard.

                      As for assault weapons, since you just now brought them up, I, personally, see no reason to own one unless society goes to hell on a rocket ship. But some people do. My thoughts are if you give our government an inch, they'll take a mile. Give them the assault weapons, they'll want the handguns.

                      Ice T said it best: "The right to bear arms is because it's the last form of defense against tyranny."

                      We don't have tyranny in this country, Wizard, but you can sure as hell see it if you look toward D.C., especially with this present administration. I'll keep my guns.

                      replyreport
                    2. Insanity Inc profile image61
                      Insanity Incposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      Did you know that before "the government", i.e. Lenin in Russia, Mao Tse Tung in  China, Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy (are you getting the picture, Whimsy?) first banned personal private gun ownership by their citizens just before they took over as dictators? 
                      Are you aware that the biggest, scariest most destructive illegal gun distribution (AKA Fast and Furious) was implemented by YOUR federal government?  And that YOUR PROGRESSIVE president exerted "executive privilege" to override and sabotage the truth of that?
                      Do you know that our "right to bear arms" as defined in OUR Constitution is "God given"  NOT "Big Brother granted"?
                      And that our forefathers (you know, those rich, white slave owning selfish horrible men) had such incredible foresight that they specified that our "right to bear arms" must be respected and kept intact TO KEEP GOVERNMENT IN IT'S PLACE AND PREVENT TYRANNY??????
                      And yes, Life (especially these days) sometimes MUST have that line drawn in the sand between Good and Evil...and yes, it's that simple.

                      replyreport
                    3. Insanity Inc profile image61
                      Insanity Incposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      And, BTW...Did you know that when Hitler was mapping out his march of conquest across Europe, he never attacked Sweden?  Know why?  Because he actually listened to his generals who told him Don't do that...their citizens have guns!!!!

                      replyreport
                  2. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    "I guess you expect that regulation to be done by the same government who can't and won't keep the criminals in cages where they belong."

                    Weird, last time I checked we had the largest prison population in the world and some of the harshest prisons in the first world, on the other hand we have three times the rate of people ending up back in prison than systems that have implemented better prison systems aimed to reform rather than punish.

                    replyreport
                    1. profile image0
                      Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      But we just keep letting them out. They get 20 years and they're out in five.

                      The ones that commit violent crimes such as murder just sit on death row for 30 years before we finally put them down like the animals they are. At least that's how long it take in my state. That's too damn long and costs far too much. Maybe if we actually started punishing these pukes, some would decide to reform on their own and actually make something of themselves.

                      replyreport
              3. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                A couple of questions for you pro-gun people.

                1. How far does the "Second Amendment" go for you? Does that mean Hand granades and fully automatic weapons? Are there any weapons or ordinance that you believe should not be available for purchase over the counter?

                2. Part of the rightwing philosophy that buttresses "Second Amendment" is the need to keep armed in the case that an oppressive Government may need to be overthrown.  In the face of Sarah Palin's comments a couple of years ago about "Second Amendment" solutions, we of the progressive stripe are concerned that if the political winds do not go your way, you would revert to your weapons out of frustration with the standard democratic process? May I put this concern to bed?

                replyreport
                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  1 - Handguns, shotguns, and non-automatic rifles are all weapons that can be controlled and used for self-defense, among other things. It should be quite clear that nukes, missiles, grenades, rocket launchers, etc, are all ineffective for self-defense purposes. You can't responsibly use them to stop a criminal without risk of collateral damage.

                  2 - Yes.

                  replyreport
                  1. profile image0
                    Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    +1

                    replyreport
                    1. MrMaranatha profile image71
                      MrMaranathaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      The Purpose of our Second Amendment rights had more to do with  defense or the people against a runaway and progressively more intrusive or oppressive Government than it ever had to do with personal defense against criminals...

                      But Both show the need for the people to take a greater interest in our own security and stop shoving the internal or personal security problems off onto the Government.

                      Government should protect the Shore Line... and interests outside the USA.  The People, the peoples police forces and our State Militias for internal security matters.

                      replyreport
                2. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Well... As you may know I am no kind of right winger, in fact I am a firm socialist (yes right wingers I do have actual horns out the top of my head) but I strongly believe in gun rights.

                  I think that the second amendment should extend no further than one person operated firearms, not grenades etc. I own an automatic rifle but to get it I had to get all sorts of permissions from different people and have a thorough background check and it took several months, I think that is great, I would also be happy for a psych evaluation to be added to that process (no idea if I would pass tongue ) I also believe that all guns which are concealable (i.e handguns) and all military style weapons should also require a test for competency and perhaps a psych evaluation also.

                  I suspect the answer for MOST right wingers is the same as mine, it would take a serious issue (genocide, military oppression, murder/imprisonment of political opponents etc.)  to convince me to take up arms again, I think there is a certain point that becomes a responsibility (in a dire situation) I am sure there are nuts out there (rather more on the right wing perhaps) ready to start a war about free healthcare or whatever but those don't represent the average.

                  replyreport
                  1. profile image0
                    Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    "I also believe that all guns which are concealable (i.e handguns) and all military style weapons should also require a test for competency and perhaps a psych evaluation also."

                    Before getting my permit to legally carry a firearm, I had to take a state mandated class, qualify on a gun range, and pass the test before applying for my permit. Once my application was submitted, I was put through a background check with state and local law enforcement, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, and the FBI. The whole process took almost 5 months at a cost of about $500. That may not be a lot of money to some people, may be even you, but it is to me so I took a lot of time to decide if it was something I really needed to do. In the end, it was.

                    replyreport
                    1. Josak profile image61
                      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      Great, there is the issue of owning one but yeah, I think you should have to prove you are competent and that seems just fine as a method.

                      replyreport
    4. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

      I've heard it said that everyone in prison is a democrat. I geuss the ones on death row are.smile

      replyreport
    5. jacharless profile image74
      jacharlessposted 12 years ago

      sorry am not very politico, precisely what illegals voting for which republic?

      replyreport
    6. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

      The facts and the denial of the facts is telling.

      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6922980_f520.jpg

      replyreport
      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Lol Wizard.

        The Brady Campaign admits to purposefully misleading people with that graphic.

        That being said, comparing countries is stupid. It's not guns that cause the crime. Gun homicide rates dropped some 50-60% since the early 90s, even with the gun ownership rate staying the same and the gun-carry rate increasing.

        I would suggest that our income inequality and war on drugs(paired with the border with Mexico) accounts for a large amount of the crime rates in the US.

        replyreport
        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          All the same,  the sheer magnitude of the difference must be attributed to more than some casual  explanation in passing. Other socieities have income inequity, the war on drugs explanation dog does not hunt, that activity does not begin to explain the vast majority of firearm related deaths in the US.

          The graphic is not as misleading as the explanation in rebuttal to it that you propose.

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The graphic is misleading by a factor as high as 62. That's a lot.

            Let's say that 100 people in America are killed by bombings. Would it be misleading to say that 6200 people are killed by bombings?

            Violence, period, is high in the US. Are guns also the reason for the high number of knife killings, blunt object killings, etc?

            replyreport
            1. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

              OK, Jaxson, lets take the violence issue. Why is violence so much higher here than say in Scotland or Canada? And it is common knowledge that homicidal people can kill much more quickly and maim with firearms than with just knives or blunt instruments. If you have to do your killing justas well make it efficient, huh. Think about that 1 deranged fellow spraying a least a 100 rounds of ammunition within a couple of minutes, sounds more like criminal offense than self defense.

              While as OP mentioned this is an inappropriate threatd to have this discussion on., this is a violent society, hazard a guess as to why? In a place where AK-47s can be bought ande sold easire than I can get my Big Mac, is not the problem exacerbated?

              replyreport
              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                I would recommend you start by reading reports on crime rates in America. It's clearly not guns that are the cause, because crime rates are going down as more people start carrying guns. There are a lot of factors that are different in the US than other countries.

                I can just as easily point to Switzerland to show that guns don't create crime.

                You also ignore studies that find that guns are used millions of times a year to prevent crimes.

                replyreport
                1. Credence2 profile image80
                  Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  "There are a lot of factors that are different in the US than other countries"
                  What do you think that some of those factors are?.

                  replyreport
                  1. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Income inequality, and areas of widespread poverty.
                    Drugs. Both crimes committed in smuggling/trafficking/distributing drugs, crimes committed to steal drugs or money for drugs, and crimes committed by people who have been labeled as criminals for using drugs, and are disadvantaged financially.
                    Civility, responsibility, and the glorification of violence in movies and games.

                    Really, I don't know what all the causes are. There is no consensus. It's not guns causing it though, you can clearly see that by comparing areas before and after changes.

                    replyreport
                    1. Credence2 profile image80
                      Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      Most interesting, I did check for a roster of the nations with thie highest homicide rates and your case has some support. But among 1st world nations, those that are the most powerful and inluencial in the world our rate is 3 to 4 time sgreater. I exclude Russia of course.

                      This is obviusly a topic that deserves greater studyIt may be as you said that the guns are merley the tools available for a violent society to do its mayhem. If everyone in a more peaceful society were armed to the teeth as we are, you would not have the violence. So the issue is violence and not guns?

                      replyreport
                    2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      See, this response is so typical of your blinkered perceptions and right-field conclusions.  Where did anyone say "guns were the cause of violence?" 

                      Guns are the overly-efficient tools of violence and that efficiency accounts for the number of deaths regardless of country.  Talk about straw mans!

                      replyreport
        2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I couldn't find proof of your claim Jaxson and I challenge you to provide a link.  Meanwhile, I still think the denial and your thinking is telling— and worse, you 'Lol"  about it, after an act of brutality with guns in Aurora.

          Here is a link to some facts about guns at the Brady website that is informative and worth considering . . .

          http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts?s=1

          These weapons being sold are weapons of war and mayhem in a country where the deranged and paranoid fixate on killing and terrorizing others. 

          The profits of the gun manufacturers and gun dealers are the real reason gun laws have no teeth and the NRA is no longer an organization for hunters, but in fact, an intimidation and propaganda arm of the gun industry. Now they want to have more guns on college campuses . . .

          "The gun lobby wants to override state laws and decisions made by those responsible for campus safety by forcing states and college administrators to allow students and faculty to carry loaded handguns on campus including dormitories and classrooms."

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Whimsy....here are some facts:

            "In fact, of the top 15 highest nations as ranked by overall homicide rate, more than a third of them, six, forbid their citizens from legally owning of firearms.  In some of these countries, the firearm homicide rate is lower than the non-firearm homicide rate, and in others it is not.  In a phrase, if there’s a will there’s a way."

            and

            " The worldwide homicide rate per 100,000 people is 6.9 as of 2010, ranging from 87 per 100,000 people in Honduras to 0.34 in Japan.  In the US, the rate is 4.8, which does not even rank in the top 30."

            source: http://www.the-leader.com/community/blo … Statistics

            it also cites some other sources for your perusal.

            replyreport
          2. profile image0
            Old Poolmanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            No type of gun control would ever be completely effective.  We ban drugs, but they are readily available on the street in most cities for the right price.  The same would be true of guns.  There would be guns for sale on the street or in back rooms with absolutely no record of the sale.  This is a tough situation but I would be open to better background screening by gun dealers.  With the databases available today, this should be a fairly simple thing to implement and use.
            By the way, how the heck did this go from illegal voting to guns?

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Not a clue. I left when Whimsy started talking to himself, with pics. Then it became more pics only this time about guns. At any rate, off to work!

              wishing you good debating!

              replyreport
          3. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I can provide a link, but I'm sure you'll just ignore it or dismiss it like everything else.

            http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/Fac … _FINAL.pdf

            They seem to downplay the difference more each time they release this, but they show in the report the homicide rates per 100,000 citizens(true comparison), but they don't use that in their posters, they allow their posters to present information that isn't adjusted by population.

            It's intentionally misleading. If Country A has 1 million citizens and 100 deaths, it is no worse than Country B with 2 million citizens and 200 deaths. Brady Campaign is just pushing their agenda, so they present facts that are misleading by a factor of over 6000%.

            I'm not loling at the tragedies that happen, I'm loling at you. Your obsession with shallow graphics that usually have simply blatantly wrong information, and more often are completely misleading or fallacious.

            Lol Wizard, BC is not an independent source for gun facts. Most of their arguments are completely fallacious. They use old, outdated, and disproven studies.

            Did you know that BC said that when the assault weapon ban ended, the streets would be filled with blood, and filled with AK47's? Instead, the homicide rate continued to decline.

            replyreport
            1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
              Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              See above post, Jaxson, and if the streets aren't running with blood, the movieplex, the campaign stop, the college campus and the high school surely are.

              Rebut this . . .

              The NRA has America living under the gun

              "The arsenal of democracy has been transformed into the arsenal of death"


              http://www.salon.com/2012/07/20/the_nra … r_the_gun/

              replyreport
              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, murders happen. But you take it out of context.

                No, the assault weapon ban expiration didn't cause murder rates to rise, as some anti-gun people have argued. The rise in concealed carry permits haven't caused murder rates to rise.

                Rebut what?

                An article full of isolated events, unfounded claims, and disproven notions?

                replyreport
                1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                  Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Really Jaxson, under what context is murder/mayhem with ridiculously  efficient weapons  that are readily available to anyone in a culture that worships violence and freedom to do whatever the hell we want, okay and perfectly acceptable? 

                  Rebut Bill Moyers, who is a caring and reasonable journalist and, at the very least, he's a pleasure to read as opposed to your arcane hyper-fanatical false equivalents  that always evade the central issue.

                  Arguing with you is like arguing with a Flat-Earther.  In order to prove the world is round to them you would have walk or or swim with them along every longitudinal and latitudinal line on the planet.  I don't have that kind of time or do I care about your stilted preconceptions.

                  replyreport
                  1. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Murder is never acceptable. I never said it is, but you just love to strawman my arguments, don't you?

                    Bill Moyers, ugh.

                    Ok, he tries to make comparisons in timing of events... there's no point.

                    He says that the number of states that allow citizens to carry guns has increased. Yeah, and their murder rates have decreased too. More guns = more crime = lower crime rates? Yeah, that's a hard argument to rebut.

                    He moves on to slavery... ok?

                    He says guns are easy to obtain at gun shows, but the FBI shows that statistically speaking, an insignificant number of crimes are committed with guns obtained at gun shows.

                    It's a stupid article, sorry. Get over it.

                    replyreport
    7. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

      Arguing for limitations is  just another rationalization in favor of the status quo.  Ignoring the profits and the motivations of the gun industry and implying that these powerful weapons of mayhem that are so ridiculously easy to get by deranged and paranoid kids are not the real issue is tragically ludicrous. 

      Yeah right, it's typical reactionary crowd-control and denial—Keep moving; nothing to see here; get going, visit a thread where the black muslim socialist is destroying America's constitution!

      "By the way, how the heck did this go from illegal voting to guns?'

      I think it has to do with a misinformed public voting against their own interests because they've been hoodwinked.

      replyreport
    8. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

      To go along with that chart:

      The average homicide rate for the 25 states with highest rates of gun ownership was 4.54.
      The average homicide rate for the 25 states with lowest rates of gun ownership was 4.79.

      Lol

      replyreport
    9. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

      Everything You’ve Ever Wanted to Know About Voter ID Laws

      http://www.propublica.org/article/every … er-id-laws

      replyreport
    10. Ralph Deeds profile image66
      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

      Massive voter fraud threat in Pennsylvania. Despite the fact that voter fraud has been non-existent there, the Republicans have passed a voter ID law which will require 9.2 percent of the electorate who don,t have driver,s licenses, mostly minorities and the elderly, to obtain and present photo IDs at the polls in order to vote. The law is being challenged in state courts and is being investigated by the Justice Department. Pennsylvania has voted for the Democratic candidate in th last five presidential elections.

      replyreport
      1. Niteriter profile image61
        Niteriterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        I follow your comments as much as I can, Ralph, because you have a way of representing common sense that I find appealing. Even though I am not an American citizen, I have been watching the developments in your country relative to the voting process. I don't know how scary this issue appears from your perspective, but from where I'm watching it looks like a deliberate and dangerously well funded attempt to sabotage democracy.

        replyreport
        1. Quilligrapher profile image73
          Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Nice to see the Niteriter still has a sharp wit and a keen eye.

          Nobody has asked for my opinions. In fact, nobody ever does. Therefore, I toss them into the discussion at no charge just for spite.

          Voter ID regulations are a blatant strategy to fabricate a political advantage at the polls where previously there was a level playing field. The existence of voter fraud at the polls is political theater contrived from smoke and mirrors. It does not exist when you turn up the lights. If voter ID requirements affected both political parties equally, the GOP would have no reason to pursue it.

          Thank you for your contribution, Niteriter. It is nice to know that this issue is so transparant from across the boarder as well.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

          replyreport
          1. Niteriter profile image61
            Niteriterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Hey, Quill, it warms my heart to see that there's still a brave soul willing to stake his reputation on the idea that I have some value! It's good to see ya!

            I try not to get too involved in politics and such. I respond to people like Ralph because he seems so smart and...well... someday some of it might rub off on me.

            So I just watch the goings-on from a safe distance Might as well because these days my mind is occupied for the most part with lofty thoughts such as, "Now where'd I leave my teeth this time?"

            Cheers, friend. Keep tossing in those opinions; they matter.

            replyreport
        2. Ralph Deeds profile image66
          Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks!  I share your concern. The Tea Party and it,s big money supporters behind the curtain have all but destroyed the Republican Party and with it the federal and some state government,s ability to reach workable solutions to public policy issues.

          replyreport
          1. undermyhat profile image60
            undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Isn't the TEA party dead?  I thought it was dead.  I heard from all over the liberal blab-o-sphere that it was dead.  Isn't Obama supposed to raise  BILLION dollars this year?  How much more money is contributed to liberal Super Pacs?  Isn't this big money?  Isn't it true???

            replyreport
            1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
              Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              From memory about one third of the amount given to Romney super pacs.

              replyreport
              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Hey George S. hasn't cracked open his wallet yet. Wait till October.....

                replyreport
              2. undermyhat profile image60
                undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                How much will the ultimate super pac - organized labor - spend for Obama? $100,000,000? 
                big money is big money

                replyreport
    11. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

      https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/480410_391570127568869_6912067_n.jpg

      replyreport
    12. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

      https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/481930_445078022199342_2052302206_n.jpg

      replyreport
    13. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 12 years ago

      http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virg … r-2081517/



      Yep...just the liberals working the vote without ID.......

      replyreport
    14. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

      https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/179499_481768885184433_1533487050_n.jpg

      replyreport
      1. undermyhat profile image60
        undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        He's dead isn't he?  And since there is no one and nothing divine who cares what a dead man said.

        replyreport
        1. Niteriter profile image61
          Niteriterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          So I guess your Constitution is irrelevant then since all its authors are dead?

          replyreport
          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            There is a big difference between a document that shapes and defines a nation and some remarks by an ancient Chinese philosopher.

            replyreport
            1. Niteriter profile image61
              Niteriterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              How so?

              replyreport
              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                One actually has an impact.

                replyreport
                1. Niteriter profile image61
                  Niteriterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I believe your perspective is narrow. I (and many others) am much more impacted by the words of the Chinese philosopher than by your Second Amendment. The first is life enhancing while the other is life destroying.

                  replyreport
                  1. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Well good that you get to see a different perspective.
                    I view most of the philosophers...at least the well known Greek ones and Renaissance and so forth as their days answer to The World's Most Interesting Man.
                    Monty Python did a good bit where they are all described as old alcoholics. Fitting.

                    replyreport
                    1. Niteriter profile image61
                      Niteriterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      Your flippancy does little to forward your argument.

                      replyreport
                    2. Josak profile image61
                      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      WOOOOOW you really have no idea how big an impact they have had on our society do you...

                      replyreport
                2. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Wow guys Chinese philosopher have had a massive impact on society everywhere, and well especially in China Lao Tsu and Confucius particularly. I mean by the same logic Jesus doesn't matter.

                  replyreport
                  1. Niteriter profile image61
                    Niteriterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    LOL! i was just playing ping pong with JS because he said the words of a dead man don't matter. I wasn't serious and I don't think JS was either.

                    replyreport
        2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I don't quite understand—where did I make that assumption?

          replyreport
          1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
            Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            What if I think everyone is divine and that the Universe is all interconnected and the harm to one creature is a harm to the entire Universe?

            replyreport
            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              I don't know. What does your navel have to say about that?

              replyreport
          2. undermyhat profile image60
            undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            i am saying that - I don't care what a pre-literate, dead Chinese mystic said.

            replyreport
            1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
              Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              And that's where your bias,  xenophobia, and lack of knowledge exposes your limited awareness of the world and its history to all.

              replyreport
              1. undermyhat profile image60
                undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Hardly, I know what many dead mystics have said.  Just don't care.  I have studied the worlds history.  Appeals to authority bore me as does name calling.  How "whimsical" and predictable you can be.  When your bumper stickers are ignored or you are told they are meaningless or better yet useless your whimsy disappears.

                I wasn't aware that whimsy meant hateful bumper sticker thinking but now I am, thanks.  It clears up so much.

                replyreport
                1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                  Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  First of all, the sage, Lao Tsu wasn't a "pre-literate" (whatever that means in your addled thought process), he was the author of the "Tao Te Ching"—a book that gives advice to a thoughtful ruler that influenced Eastern thought and philosophy for centuries, and six hundred years before Christianity was invented.

                  And I sincerely doubt you've ever studied anything in depth and I'm sure many subjects "bore" you. Nevertheless,  I'm heartened that you took the time to look up "whimsical" in a dictionary—if for no other reason than to insult me for alluding to the truth about your prejudiced and narrow-minded postings.

                  Btw, that Rene Magritte image is indeed perfect for your online persona.  You should now look up "persona" in the dictionary and you'll understand why it fits you so well.

                  Cheers Hat!

                  http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/sot.gif

                  replyreport
                  1. undermyhat profile image60
                    undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    No better sound than that of ruffled feathers

                    replyreport
    15. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

      We should have voter ID laws. It's pretty simple to understand that.

      But, we shouldn't push ID laws around a presidiential election. We should push for it after an election, and make sure everyone has ample time and opportunity to get ID.

      replyreport
    16. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

      https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/403861_449245531764819_1274865936_n.jpg

      replyreport
      1. Cody Hodge profile image60
        Cody Hodgeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        I'll drink to that

        replyreport
      2. undermyhat profile image60
        undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Just goes to show you can always find a whiner if you want.  Funy, he engaged in a false belief for decades - that he was providing for his retirement - through what Soc.Sec. and Medicare - sounds like the governemtn retirement and job didn't work out so well and he is looking for someone else to blame.

        It is easier to blame everyone else for the conditions you created for yourself by not paying attention to your own needs and placing your faith in the wrong places.  "I can't take care of me so it has to be someone else who is responsible for that.  It can't be me so it must be all those other people."

        "Wealth was never a priority" - apparently taking care of himself in retirement wasn't either.  If he had been more concerned with the future perhaps he wouldn't be whining now.  So this loser failed to plan it must be someone else who is responsible.

        replyreport
        1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          And speaking of "whining" . . .
          http://ezkool.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/whining-romney.jpg

          replyreport
          1. undermyhat profile image60
            undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I think the President implying that is guilty of a crime is sufficient reason to expect an apology. Unless stupid charges by sitting Presidents is what we are now about.

            replyreport
            1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
              Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/599509_367955249940821_2089907799_n.jpg

              replyreport
              1. undermyhat profile image60
                undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                That is a harsh thing to say about the poor.

                replyreport
                1. profile image0
                  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Come on, UnderMyHat, give Wizard some credit. He's not referring to the poor.

                  He's referring to Liberals, Dems, Progressives, Communists, and Marxists. I mean, hell, they're acting out the definition of insanity - doing the same damn thing over and over and over again, not realizing it simply isn't working.

                  But that's okay. Come Monday, January 21, 2013, we'll stop and rollback Barack Hussein Obama's FUBARred policies and begin making this country back into what our forefathers intended - a place where freedom and liberty mean something again. We'll be free to achieve success freely, without the government trying to take it all just to give it to someone too lazy to get off their butt to obtain it for themselves.

                  Yes, I know Inauguration Day is January 20, 2013 but that's a Sunday. I'll be at church thanking God for His deliverance from the worst president this country has ever had, at least in my lifetime.

                  I also know there are some who will disagree with my assessment of the idiot, Obama but they can save it. I REALLY don't gave a damn what they think of my opinion or me.

                  replyreport
                  1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Thanks all too obvious because you don't think—you just think that you think and resent people who are tolerant and fair-minded!

                    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6942420_f520.jpg

                    replyreport
                    1. profile image0
                      Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      No, Wizard. It's "I got mine and I'll be more than happy to help you get yours as well but you have to put forth the effort to show you want it. I'll give anyone a hand up but only a hand out if you can't get it yourself."

                      I'm just as tolerant and fair-minded as anyone, Wizard. I just WILL NOT tolerate laziness, in other words the liberal way.

                      Laziness is a poor excuse for failure.

                      replyreport
          2. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, WOW,

            replyreport
          3. profile image0
            Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Here's an idea. Romney should release his tax returns . . . right after Barack Hussein Obama releases his college transcripts.

            Mutual disclosure. Wow, what a concept!!!

            replyreport
      3. Ralph Deeds profile image66
        Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        That's a good one!

        replyreport
    17. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 12 years ago

      Wizard, I'm not feeling defensive in the least. lol lol

      Perhaps you should take a much needed vacation and relax a little. Your rhetoric is getting more and more left-wing extremist. It's like LMC took over your mind. Perhaps the two of you should go on a "Bitch About Conservatives" date. big_smile

      You're great with the cartoons. I've laughed at several but you seem to have gotten it your head your side is always right and neither side is anywhere close.

      Again, have a great weekend and get some rest. You REALLY seem to need it.

      replyreport
    18. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6946056_f520.jpg

      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6946060_f520.jpg

      replyreport
    19. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 12 years ago

      Deeds wrote: "No doubt food stamp use has gone up to the deep hole the GOP has kept the country in. Bush put us in a deep hole and the slobbering, mouth breathing Tea Baggers in the House have kept us there."

      Yeah, it's all Bush's fault, the GPO's fault, the mouth breathing Tea Baggers in the House" fault.

      Heaven forbid your side of Congress and Barack Hussein Obama take credit for their own screw ups, Deeds. Pelosi, Reid, and Obama had complete control and did nothing but pass a horrible healthcare law. roll

      You libs are sounding more and more like a bunch of 12-year olds. Do you stamp your feet when you write this "stuff"? roll

      replyreport
      1. stanwshura profile image72
        stanwshuraposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Complete control??!!  Are you out of your tree??  It's a credit to his diplomacy, intelligence, and his applied mastery of constitutional law that President Obama has done as much as he has, given the expressed intent of John Bonehead, the Speaker of the freakin' House!!, to obstruct Obama at every turn, oh he and his crocodile Tears from He....ll.

        How irresponsible can he and his flock of crony, tighty-rightie come-serve-ME-tives get.  And you blame left-leaning participatory citizens and voters for passing the buck??  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!  It's so dark in your Republican/red-neck of the woods that no matter how much light gets sucked in, and with the resultant blindness (Willful?  I doubt if most of them can even help it at this point!), neither it (the light) nor any cogent, uncorrupt thought or deed can or has emerged since Lincoln!

        replyreport
        1. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6954211.jpg

          replyreport
          1. stanwshura profile image72
            stanwshuraposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            See?  Very cogent, indeed! (smmmffffkkk....giggle.....gmmmheehee....chortle.....bwa...ffkkn...HA HA HA HA HA!!)

            replyreport
        2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/LMAO.jpg

          replyreport
          1. stanwshura profile image72
            stanwshuraposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Zzzzzzzzz......gmmph.......huh........zzzz.....snkkklkkkmph....what?  Oh, sure.....smmck...yeah...funny.......(yaawn)....kmzmmm...really fu....khhhhhmmmmmmmmm...ZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!

            replyreport
    20. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

      https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/419_10150957771966275_2002795952_n.jpg

      https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/576231_10150955977641275_1557638543_n.jpg

      https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/552550_10150954086791275_1368072222_n.jpg

      replyreport
      1. profile image0
        Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        "Being Liberal means never having to distort the facts in order to get people to believe in you message."

        Liberals wouldn't know the difference if it bit them on the ass.

        replyreport
        1. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          It is more or less true since facts are unnecessary for liberals to believe in the message of another liberal.  you should understand by now that all it takes for a liberal to dismiss,out of hand, any idea offered is to discover that the source is Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, the Koch Brothers, etc....  And all that is required to accept an idea is slather it with hate for America.

          replyreport
          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            For a second there I thought you were going to make an intelligent point, I should have known better, it seemed like you were going to highlight an issue all sides have where they dismiss informtion based on the source rather than the fact but then you turned around and covered it the even more ridiculous conservative "hate America" idiocy. *Sigh*

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Obviously you're one of the liberals to which I was referring, Josak.

              replyreport
              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Firstly not a liberal secondly as I see it I am a better American than you will ever be in all your life.

                replyreport
                1. profile image0
                  Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  " . . . secondly as I see it I am a better American than you will ever be in all your life."

                  Then obviously you're blind, Josak!!!

                  lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
                  lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
                  lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
                  lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
                  lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

                  Oh, wait, I have to catch my breath!

                  lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
                  lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
                  lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
                  lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
                  lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

                  Better American! That's a good one!!!

                  lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
                  lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
                  lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
                  lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
                  lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

                  replyreport
                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    If the US ever murders your entire family and most of your friends and you still love this country and choose to live here then come talk to me, until then as I said I will always be a better American than you without contest.

                    replyreport
                    1. JSChams profile image60
                      JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      I am sorry for your loss. I know I have expressed that before.
                      The frustration factor comes from the apparent fact that only the US ever murders anyone.

                      replyreport
                    2. profile image0
                      Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      roll

                      I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you, Josak. Sorry for your lose.

                      replyreport
            2. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              It's not idiocy.

              replyreport
          2. profile image0
            Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Oh, I understand it completely, undermyhat.

            Liberals hate America as it is and her Constitution. They want a Socialist Utopia but can't fathom the realization it's never work anywhere it's been tried.

            They also can't fathom the idea that patriotic Americans do believe in the Constitution and will fight to protect it.

            First the ballot box then we'll see. Impeachment? At the rate things are going, a real possibility, if he wins.

            replyreport
            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Ignorant conservatives: "We must protect the constitution from change, the evolving constitution is evil"

              Thomas Jefferson: "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

              replyreport
              1. profile image0
                Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Panty-waste Liberals! tongue Now, we're even. Even but never equal, Josak.

                You have a nice weekend anyway.

                replyreport
                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Good answer tongue your logic is undeniable tongue

                  replyreport
            2. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Longhunter, for you and all the other rightwingers out there, “lazyness” is not the progressive/or liberal, if you like, way. We all acknowledge that there is no hope for the interminably lazy. But the right is busy painting all hard working people as lazy instead of paying attention to the few that game the system to make it difficult to impossible for those that play by the rules and work hard to reap the benefits of their labor. It is the rightwing scurvy crew that attacks workers rights, shamelessly supports providing cover for the financial markets whose chiselers go to college and are trained how to steal money from hard working people. What about this?

              It is just this threat to the middle class by ruthless and unscrupulous people that we should be paying attention to. Progressives want to make the reforms necessary to keep the system fair and provide a level playing field and a route to success to those that apply themselves, while the right wants to accelerate the process advancing or at least turning a blind eye to the looters, guaranteeing a future economic world of lords and serfs. We all are anxiously waiting for the largess from ‘job creators’ to see fit to open the flood gates of opportunity, in return for the worker being willing to strip naked to gather the crumbs from his table of bounty. How about that, we just don’t revert to the 19the century, but with the rightwinger it is the 9th century. Picture a life with Merlin and the knights of the roundtable. I think that they called in feudalism, and that for me is far greater threat than socialism can ever be.

              I wrote in earnest about this topic, a definite area where the right remains a pain, an enabler of the worse kind of exploitation, and mark my words, if the middle class collapses, Thurston Howell will fall with it, one way or the other

              http://credence2.hubpages.com/hub/Why-D … overnment.

              I included a video clip that you will find amusing from the late George Carlin, who while as always is quite profane, is still really quite accurate as to the nature of the problem that most of us are facing. The problem that the “right” wants us all to turn a blind eye to….

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

              BTW, Mittwit had better come up with the Tax returns or his campaign will be adversely compromised and the President will confront Mittwit with just this question during debate season. I hope for his sake  that Romney has good answers. As a shoot from the lip, tongueslinger, we are going to have fun with him and his endless slips.

              Sakes, Romney's 59 points, ridiculous, Wilson only had 14!!! More confusion and smoke and mirrors from a guy that won't spit out the fundamentals of his plans to wreck the economy

              replyreport
              1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
                Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                "Mittwit"--I like it.

                replyreport
            3. Quilligrapher profile image73
              Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Hi there, Longhunter. It has been a while since we shared our thoughts together.

              I am prompted to reply to your post only because it is such a great example of contradicting oneself in every sentence. May I show you what I mean?
              America is a melting pot. It was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom for all. The Constitution encourages diversity among its citizens and provides for the benefits of shared governance. The document goes to great lengths to protect the rights of all citizens and to insure all voices are heard. It is both illogical and irrational thinking to proclaim one group hates America because they have another vision. On an intellectual and unemotional level, there is no way, Longhunter, your false claim can be proven true, but it only takes one Liberal leaning soldier killed in Afghanistan to prove you wrong.

              Furthermore, to declare that people with whom you disagree must hate the Constitution is just as warped. All ideologies are entitled to share in the governance of this country if they adhere to the rules and to deny them that right is to show disrespect and disdain for the Constitution. The self-contradicting rhetoric continues.

              Contrary to your indoctrination, Liberals in the US are a long, long way from being socialist. Your statement indicates a lack of understanding about both. In addition, there are three constitutional socialist governments and four socialist republics in the world today. {1} All are over 20 years old with the oldest formed 48 years ago. Socialist governments do work even thought you do not know they exist!
              There is a stage in mental development called “relativism” and adults only achieve it when they realize that they can be wrong and that other people's thoughts and feeling as well as their own do not always reflect reality. {2} You are an intelligent adult, so let me ask you a question. I am a patriotic American citizen who has served in the military and I am willing to fight to protect the Constitution. By your standards, am I liberal or a conservative? Sometimes it is hard to determine from a person’s words if they really believe what they say or they just use exaggerations as a means to articulate the depth of their emotions. Those who really believe the President of the United States should be impeached because he was re-elected should be encouraged to calm down, take their meds, and look up the grounds for impeachment in the Constitution. It is obvious they do not know the criteria and I am so grateful they are not serving in the Congress of the United States.

              Thanks, Longhunter, for sharing your views with us. I hope you get pleanty of rest.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
              {1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_so … _republics
              {2} https://www.msu.edu/~compeaua/piagettheory.html

              replyreport
            4. stanwshura profile image72
              stanwshuraposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              There!!!  You said it right there, Longhunter!  "Utopia"!  From your very own mout...er...fingers!  What in HELL is so damned wrong in aiming high??   Oh, and as for the Constitution, we liberals LOVE that sacred document and respect its function as THE written law of the land.  What we hate is when opportunistic scum piss on it when they try to appeal to the 'backy chewin' individualists - the rural, rugged outdoors(men) who built America's infrastructure, and their kin, ilk and wannabes of today.   AND...we "lefties" have our heads on straight enough to realize that it is THE final law of the land which should and does trump any piss-ant state's quaint attempt at unilateral jurisprudence or legislation thereof.

              replyreport
              1. profile image0
                Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                "I'm still waiting, and in no rush, to grow up."

                Judging from your post above, that doesn't surprise me in the least.

                replyreport
                1. undermyhat profile image60
                  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
                  replyreport
                2. stanwshura profile image72
                  stanwshuraposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You're a slick piece o' work, you know that.  You go way out of your way to check me out (thorry thweety, my man has to have some brains and absolute honesty, you fail twice) and take a truthful-in-spirit, but overtly self-depricating descriptor, apply it like some photo-shopped and childish "candid" of Obama on the phone in a completely irrelevant context, ignoring the rest of my bio, which you must have found inconvenient to your mud-slinging, and manage all-the-while to exercise willful blindness to my points above, which you doubtless found very inconvenient.  Damnnnn...if Mittt the nitwit who knows truth not one bit should walk in front of a bus, you could fill in and no one would be the wiser.  The PERFECT *CON*servative.

                  replyreport
                  1. profile image0
                    Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Careful, Stanley, you wouldn't want to get your britches in a twist. Someone might have clean up a terrible mess.

                    Seems I've pissed you off so my work here is done. My day is complete and just got that much better!!! Thanks, Stanley!!!

                    Just be careful. The HP police are always about and I'd hate for you to get your panties in a wad, say something too nasty, and get banned before we've discovered we dislike you completely.

                    You have a great day, now, and thanks for making mine a whole lot better, Stanley!!!

                    replyreport
                    1. stanwshura profile image72
                      stanwshuraposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      And as per your definitively mediocre purveyor of spin and spit, you woefully (or is that *willfully*?) miss by a wildly Willardly mile your anal-ass-is of my reply to your nonsensical non-sequitur.  To wit, you have yet to respond to anything I said, like, for example, the hypocritically flop-flippity Mitt slop he slings by the winds so finnicky, and flings so cynically such a desperate disparity from anything CLOSE to the truth - THERE'S YOUR PROOF! - that Mitt the nitwit shall surely have a shitfit, because, as karma will have it, Willie Wrongka can buy the chocolate factory (and a few thousand votes), but as for the Presidential power he so pines to possess, Mitt misses the mark, and thus shall always covet, but never collect the keys to the kingdom Mitt Majesty, the tragic travesty of ambition ambushed by men who will always be better than he, the hapless Willard Mitt Romney.

                      replyreport
                  2. profile image0
                    Longhunterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    " . . . take a truthful-in-spirit, but overtly self-depricating descriptor, apply it like some photo-shopped and childish "candid" of Obama on the phone in a completely irrelevant context . . ."

                    I have no idea what you're talking about here, Stanley, but I have a feeling that makes us even. Neither do you.

                    I was not the one to apply anything to a Photoshopped photo of the idiot, Barack Hussein Obama, on the phone. Heaven forbid you actually take the time to scroll down to get your story straight BEFORE getting all worked up.

                    Just so you know, if I were to waste my time Photoshopping a photo of Obama, it would be something far worse than him talking on the phone.

                    replyreport
                    1. stanwshura profile image72
                      stanwshuraposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      Now hear this!  Now hear this!   All liberals who have the gall to comport themselves eventually in exactly the same way as those dear, patriotic, perfect conservatives - but who suffer consequences they do not, let that be a lesson to you!

                      Do not upset the great Hate-keeper lest ye wish a 3 day banishment.  The bully pulpit is for we divine Republicans.  You lefties go drink from THAT fountain, sit at THAT counter, GET your ig'nant (m)asses to the back of the bus and shut up.  And be thankful for your lot in life.  Or it's the whipping post for you!

                      That is all.

                      replyreport
                    2. stanwshura profile image72
                      stanwshuraposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      Oh, and Longhunter?  Buh-bahh.  >^P

                      replyreport
          3. Ralph Deeds profile image66
            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Impeccable sources, all.

            replyreport
      2. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6947515_f248.jpg

        replyreport
        1. stanwshura profile image72
          stanwshuraposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Oh yeah, that's rational.   Everyone is immoral and lazy except for you, eh JCSh?  Seriously, folks - Psych101 is obviously of epidemic necessity in our grandiose, somewhat narcissistic, and very deluded society.  What drives us?  Hint: it ain't the desire to "get away with stuff"!!  Google "Maslow's heirarchy of needs".  That would be a good start.  Not ONE mention of competion or even leisure!!

          replyreport
          1. undermyhat profile image60
            undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            There is nothing Holy, Divine or exactly scientific about Maslow - it does feel good to read him though.  It always fills me with warm fuzzies - just like reading the Velvatine Rabbit - which is actually more profound.

            http://www.intropsych.com/ch09_motivati … heory.html

            replyreport
            1. stanwshura profile image72
              stanwshuraposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Oh, Keee-RIST, then - you pick the psych scholar.  Piaget, Jung, Freud ('though I personally find his theories, and his bio which doubtless biased him, to be el freako), Erik Erikson, Bela Bartok (didn't see THAT one coming, did'ja??

              Holy?  Divine?  Where the fluck did I claim this??  Hint, I wouldn't, as I find both "characteristics" to be magical, and completely irrelevant to reasonable discourse.  I would not defame any scholar by slapping these silly and pompous labels on them.  And, based on your theological stain, I wouldn't place much creedance on your ability to judge another's scholarship.

              replyreport
              1. undermyhat profile image60
                undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                And there it is the conclusion reached before the argument started.

                replyreport
      3. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

        https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/555493_397094913678972_1459231526_n.jpg

        https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/524483_395431670511963_1098956634_n.jpg

        https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/557078_413861675318397_1286020754_n.jpg

        replyreport
        1. stanwshura profile image72
          stanwshuraposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I would not change my stance on these voter proportion manipulation tactics one bit, nor my position that any square inch of earth belongs equally and fairly to no one and everyone, and that responsible stewardship of this planet belongs to every able living creature.

          Besides, one -ONE!- election cycle would not be worth the price of my integrity or credibility, because I am sure that said foreign-born Americans who indicate their inclination to vote conservative would make THAT mistake just ONCE.

          replyreport
      4. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

        Florida Republicans ‘Wanted to Suppress Black Vote’ July 27, 2012

        http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Jim_Greer_mugshot.jpg

        " . . . While the whole world is attuned to the tubs of gaffeine Mittens is drinking in merry old England and how he’s such a disconnected arse that even the Brits find him a pompous twit, but back at here home the hot-button issue of voter suppression in Florida just got even hotter than Florida itself.

        Disgraced former Florida Republican Chairman, Jim Greer, who was arrested and charged with one count of organized fraud, four counts of felony grand theft and one count of money laundering (or what Washington calls an amateur), recently confirmed Democrats suspicions that Republicans are deliberately disfranchising  large Democratic voting blocks ( blacks, young people, and the elderly) to make sure that their rich white guy wins."


        http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/27 … lack-vote/

        replyreport
        1. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I am sure there are no grudges being satisfied in Greer's comments.  He is as pure as the driven snow - expect that whole crime thing.  It would be like Blago saying that Democrats are criminals.  Who cares let him rot.  He is trying to get his 15 minutes extended - not unheard of among politician/criminals.

          replyreport
        2. Ralph Deeds profile image66
          Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Not suspicions, certainty.

          replyreport
      5. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 12 years ago

        I saw a documentary the other day where George W. Bush did the same thing.   As one of the promos said on the documentary, THE BEST DEMOCRACY THAT MONEY COULD BUY!

        replyreport