Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Even as the feds move to block South Carolina from requiring voters to show a photo ID, a handful of other states are set to ring in 2012 with new laws mandating that voters produce picture identification cards before they are permitted to cast ballots. Beginning on Jan. 1, new laws will take effect in Kansas, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas requiring residents present a certified government-issued ID if they want to vote, according to a list of new 2012 laws compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

American1st

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

You have to have an ID to buy beer in a lot of places here, in an increrasing number of places, regardless of how old you look. What I can't figure out is why it isn't there a federal law mandating a valid ID in order to participate in something as important as contributing to the direction your country is going?

What I can't figure out is why it isn't there a federal law mandating a valid ID in order to participate in something as important as contributing to the direction your country is going?

I will never understand why liberals do not want us to actually know who is voting in OUR elections. I think it's because they are a submissive party, one that would let in the world and the world knows it. So the world would try to subvert our elections to get THEIR agenda done, not one that is pro-U.S. An I.D. is a no brainer and I cant even believe we are even arguing about it.

What if they had an election and nobody came? It would send a message that we're not playing your games anymore.

"What if they had an election and nobody came?"

What if they had an erection and nobody came?
FTFY

Can't say Chevrolet either.

Yet another step toward The Mark Of The Beast 666 = BIOMETRY.

Funny too how they look like they're pissin in the pic:

Smoking and drinking are rights, not privileges like driving, and you need ID for that too. NY State has a non-driver ID for $6.50, good for ten years. The only racist/repressive thing about requiring IDs is that it keeps out lazy people. God forbid.

And I thought that politicians are always about "ends justifying in the means." Stopping voter fraud I think would outweigh the ten people that don't want to fill out paperwork for a photo id, if you want to take that mindframe.

Yet another step toward The Mark Of The Beast 666 = BIOMETRY.

Funny too how they look like they're pissin in the pic:

sorry didn't mean to repost

Smoking and drinking are rights, not privileges like driving, and you need ID for that too. NY State has a non-driver ID for $6.50, good for ten years. The only racist/repressive thing about requiring IDs is that it keeps out lazy people. God forbid.

And I thought that politicians are always about "ends justifying in the means." Stopping voter fraud I think would outweigh the ten people that don't want to fill out paperwork for a photo id, if you want to take that mindframe.
#7 | Posted by adammm at 2011-12-26 08:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Fair point about the benefits. Still there's that pesky 666 thing looming. Like you mention rights. Those are "Inalianable Rights" - as our the rights to buy and sell via Gold and other TANGIBLE methods of exchange. Many will gladly take the mark.

one has to get by the fuckin lies from the left cause most states if not all will give id's for free

"...cause most states if not all will give id's for free"

Really? I bet not. Government does nothing for nothing.

$16 in Texas, for example.

$26 in California.

Actually it looks like every state charges a fee to issue an ID card.

About time this country starts to do some simple things to ensure my vote and others are legitimate. All you have to do is to watch those who scream the loudest against the simple things to ensure voter integrity to know they're only interested in one thing and that's voter fraud.

I agree. It's weird that you do't need ID to vote, frankly.

I also think it's interesting that Babbler makes a statement like "one has to get by the fuckin lies from the left" and then backs it up with "...most states if not all will give id's for free...", which is itself, in fact, a "fucken lie".

Good point redial. But seriously- why don't the politicians advocating id laws just have the bill include a provision that says a free id will be provided with your voter registration, if requested? It costs the state money already to process the registrations, so why not just cover the chump change it would take to hand out free ids to those who can't afford a whopping dollar a year for it?

"...why don't the politicians advocating id laws just have the bill include a provision that says a free id will be provided with your voter registration, if requested?"

Well, then you're into the "I earn my own way, why should I pay for a free ID card for some useless, lazy, freeloading, welfare bum?" debate.

Well yeah, that's why it would be a compromise.

I'm willing to pay for it, so long as I don't have to listen to the BS claim that a $6.50 ID for 10 years in NY is an undue burden on people. So is having to register to vote, and deadlines for primaries and generals, and petitions for ballot initiatives, but I consider them reasonable and I don't hear the DOJ bitching about that too.

How about the postage stamps for an absentee ballot? Figure the request and the actual ballot @ 88 cents a year = $8.80 over ten years. That costs more money than the photo ID. I call RACISM!

The real cost in Voter ID would probably be in the infrastructure needed to implement it.

How do you mean? They already do the registration process, so the infrastructure is there. One could even argue that it would SAVE money by reducing challenges to signatures and petitions, possible recounts, investigations, lawsuits, etc.

If nothing else, it will take more people to both issue and check the IDs. I don't really know how the process works now, but adding an ID check is going to cost money.

I don't see it saving any money on signature challenges and petitions since it's a voting ID, not a petition signing ID.

The logic of the NAACP is erroneous.

The ID applies to everyone--not just minorities or black folks--

Everyone.

Everytime I vote in CA--I have had to show an ID.

Same when we were in WA.

No one complains about showing an ID.


New laws for 2012 to target voter ID

The right-wing's assault on democracy must be defeated.

All you have to do is to watch those who scream the loudest against the simple things to ensure voter integrity to know they're only interested in one thing and that's voter fraud.

#15 | Posted by matsop at 2011-12-26 08:42 PM | Reply

New laws for 2012 to target voter ID
The right-wing's assault on democracy must be defeated.
#25 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2011-12-27 02:14 AM | Reply

Need I say more. Case closed.

All you have to do is to watch those who scream the loudest against the simple things to ensure voter integrity to know they're only interested in one thing and that's voter fraud.

Voter fraud is not now nor has it ever been a significant problem.

Are you actually stupid enough to think that the GOP's blatant attempts to suppress voter turn out with required ID cards and caging potential Dem voters is really about preventing voter fraud or do you just think you can sell that line of shiat to other people stupider than yourself?

Be Well.

Smoking and drinking are rights.

Unless you're attempting to smoke in a public place...or drink under the age of 21.....at that point they both become legislated privileges.

Deth, everyone is still required to show some kind of ID- just not a gov. photo one. If you really want to use the argument that photo ID leaves out tons of poor Dem voters, how about the current requirements- bills, SS card, etc? If they can afford electricity, and have a bill to show (as currently required), why not a dirt-cheap photo ID?

You can't claim that the plethora of requirements today- registration, deadlines, current address, bills/SS cards, hell- even not having a national holiday on voting day- are ok to have, but suddenly a photo ID is going to marginalize a bunch of minorities.

Yeah but Mustang, the government can't order you not to drink or smoke (yet), which makes them rights. And yes- a drinking age or smoking bans or having to show a photo id infringe on those rights, but voters have decided that those limits are reasonable. Like a photo ID is a reasonable requirement to most people who actually vote on a normal basis.

why not a dirt-cheap photo ID?

Cos that's unconstitutional.

Gotta be free or it's no go.

suddenly a photo ID is going to marginalize a bunch of minorities.

The photo ID thing isn't the only step the GOP have taken to disenfranchise mostly poor and minority voters.

Be Well.

Cos that's unconstitutional.

Gotta be free or it's no go.


Are you talking about state IDs or a Federal ID card? States charge. A Federal ID is your SS card.

"You can't claim ... suddenly a photo ID is going to marginalize a bunch of minorities."

You can if you have any grasp of reality.

The fact is any new requirement WILL marginalize folks. The questions are how many, and is marginalizing that many worth it to stop a problem which doesn't seem to be affected much by poll voter IDs.

Are you talking about state IDs or a Federal ID card?

Talking 24th Amendment.

The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.

Required voter ID w/o free Federal picture ID to do so is simply the old poll tax strategy redux.

Be Well.

24th doesn't apply IMHO Deth. ID cards serve many purposes and therefore are not a "poll tax" which is a charge just to vote.

conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax.

Issuing of state IDs is not a tax.

24th doesn't apply IMHO Deth. ID cards serve many purposes and therefore are not a "poll tax" which is a charge just to vote.

The SCOTUS seems to agree at present but many voters right's groups don't and Spud is on their side here.

The 2008 case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board ruled that an Indiana law that required voters to obtain and present picture identification such as a driver's license was constitutional because the Supreme Court found no substantial burden imposed on voters and preventing voter fraud was a valid governmental objective.[16] As of 2010, the issue continues to be litigated in state court in the case League of Women Voters, et al. v. Todd Rokita.[17]

A few states have even made Federal ID free because of this issue but only to those who know they can get it for free the ID issuers being told not to volunteer the information.

Be Well.

Frankly, with the problems of illegal aliens and identity theft, I personally believe you shouldn't be able to go to the bathroom without a photo ID. Certainly, you shouldn't be able to get a job, apply for any government services, get a loan or any type of bank account, etc. Having a photo ID to vote should be automatic for everyone who lives in this society.

Hawk,

You say that as if a photo ID isn't easily...VERY EASILY faked.

Well, I agree it can be done, Kan, but I don't think it's all that easy to fake one. I would think we can work on making it harder these modern computer days. But even if we can't, do we not even try because it's impossible to make it foolproof?

But even if we can't, do we not even try because it's impossible to make it foolproof?

IDs are beyond easy to fake. They were easy when I was in college and that was in the days before computers. Today, it is even more easy. That means you must look at the scope of the actual problem as the key context to a solution. Given the ease of faking ID with the minimal size of the problem and you end up on it is not worth infringing upon everyone.

"The fact is any new requirement WILL marginalize folks. The questions are how many, and is marginalizing that many worth it to stop a problem which doesn't seem to be affected much by poll voter IDs."

It is amazing how the best the left can do is liken this to marginalizing some teenager because the club now requires ID.

It is amazing how the best the right can do is pretend it's just marginalizing some lazy teenager.

"They were easy when I was in college and that was in the days before computers. Today, it is even more easy."
#40 | Posted by kanrei at 2011-12-27 10:36 AM | Reply

Well, used correctly, the computer age should be making it harder, not easier. As to the rest, as I said before, with identity theft, illegal aliens, misuse of government services and assistance, and yes voter fraud, I think the 'scope of the problem' demands that we have some type of photo identification.

I think Voter ID laws are looking at the wrong end of the election proccess for problems. The problems in every election since at least 2000 has been the counters, not the voters. We need more requirements and regulations over that end, not pretending voters are the problem.

In Utah they will not accept a passport to get a fucking drivers license. There is simply no more solid proof of who you are. Social Security Card, Birth Certificate, out of State Drivers License, and two current utility bills in your name or you can't renew, all much easier to forge than a passport. Depending on your living circumstance, many cannot produce utility bills. Some people have been sent back because they printed their utility bill from an online statement, others because the bill was 60 days old. Almost no one can renew without two or three in person trips. Its a real fucking headache. Typical Rethug policy in a hopelessly Rethuglican Mormon controlled State.

There is absolutely no reason to use computers (software) to count votes, other han to rig outcomes. Expensive, unreliable when used once a year, but extremely useful for changing counts. Optical soft pencil readers are cheap, reliable and hard wired.

Typical Rethug policy in a hopelessly Rethuglican Mormon controlled State.

#45 | POSTED BY NUTCASE AT 2011-12-27 10:51 AM

Or you can be like the libtard haven California. ANYONE can get a license, you can even have someone help you if you cannot read.

This page will list all the documents needed to obtain a license or ID card in the State of Utah.
publicsafety.utah.gov

Identity and Legal/Lawful Status Verification (must provide one)

Valid, unexpired U.S. passport or passport card; or

I think it's inappropriate for the NAACP to suggest that the Americans most likely to not live responsibly and posses any ID are black Americans. If I didn't know the definition of racism, I might incorrectly claim that those comments are racist.

I do however understand the reason for such a suggestion. Racial divide is the primary reason the NAACP exists, with the advancement of the Democrat Party being second.

"It is amazing how the best the right can do is pretend it's just marginalizing some lazy teenager."

You can't prove it is marginalizing anyone. You can't prove anyone who WANTS to vote will be unable to do so because an ID is required. As usual you want to ignore voters willing to conform, and instead make up voters out of thin air pretending they can't...


"But even if we can't, do we not even try because it's impossible to make it foolproof?"

We're talking about elections so fuck yes we do not even try because we already know we can't make it foolproof (which is why so many states want to use them in order to make stealing elections easier).

Also, if a state cannot show a large number of fraudulent voters then these laws should be seen, by the courts, as exactly what they are.....attempts to disenfranchise citizens who have a right to vote....and then they should be thrown out. Hopefully Eric Holder will get this right.

"You can't prove it is marginalizing anyone."

Proof has been posted here from various sources over and over. Now let's see you proof of the real need for any of these laws.

For the record, I have no problem asking people to show photo ID to vote; I do everytime, but talk about it in the proper context: it is not a widespread problem compared to the screw ups that occur in every election by those counting the votes. If you want to increase our confidence in the process (all laws like this really are there for), then make sure every vote is counted AND counts!

Proof has been posted here from various sources over and over. Now let's see you proof of the real need for any of these laws.#52 | Posted by danni

Proof has been posted here from various sources over and over.

Proof has been posted here from various sources over and over. Now let's see you proof of the real need for any of these laws.
#52 | Posted by danni at 2011-12-27 11:12 AM

Making up reasons why someone shouldn't have to follow suit is hardly proof. Nothing stopping anyone from legally registering to vote, and as usual you and the retards on the left group those who have no desire to as victims of a new law.

Voter fraud is not now nor has it ever been a significant problem.

Any amount of voter fraud is significant. Period.

Are you actually stupid enough to think that the GOP's blatant attempts to suppress voter turn out with required ID cards and caging potential Dem voters is really about preventing voter fraud or do you just think you can sell that line of shiat to other people stupider than yourself?

Are you actually stupid enough to think the Liberal agenda to win elections via fraud is really about the GOP try to "disenfranchise" the poor, the liberal and the lawless? Do you you just think you can sell that line of shit to other people equally as stupid as yourself?

"Proof has been posted here from various sources over and over."

Proof of insignificant numbers. NOt proof of any need for these laws with do disenfranchise citizens which is apparently just fine with the GOP because they believe the majority of those citizens would vote Democratic. GOP....win any way you can.

"Any amount of voter fraud is significant. Period."

When compared to election fraud it's miniscule.

NOt proof of any need for these laws with do disenfranchise citizens which is apparently just fine with the GOP because they believe the majority of those citizens would vote Democratic. GOP....win any way you can.
#57 | Posted by danni at 2011-12-27 11:27 AM

Guess you are the right person to lead the new group of stupid citizens and help them get registered and avoid being disenfranchised.

the Liberal agenda to win elections via fraud

This is what Republicans really think*.

Be Well.

/*Yes, used the word "think" there in it's broadest possible context.

I say National ID that everyone should carry and be linked to a computer base that has every gun the person ever owned or had access to. lets stop crime and voter fraud at the same time.

Zat,

Are you trying to discredit me?

Although some of what is required in Utah came in a letter to the editor of a women from California complaining yesterday, my personal experience two years ago was my passport was rejected. I had brought it because my social security card had been destroyed in the washing machine a long time ago. I did have a Social Security earnings report with my name and address on it. I was sent away. It would appear some of the rules have changed or DMV officers are just doing their own thing, like some wacko airport security personnel that confiscate passenger's insulin.

Also, if a state cannot show a large number of fraudulent voters then these laws should be seen, by the courts, as exactly what they are.....attempts to disenfranchise citizens who have a right to vote....and then they should be thrown out. Hopefully Eric Holder will get this right.

#51 | POSTED BY DANNI

1. That would be a first for Eric Holder, who failed to prosecute the Black Panthers for a more overt (and recorded on video) method of voter intimidation.
2. By your argument, unless a crime has already been committed, there should not be a law against it.
3. I'm currently in possession of FIVE different government-issued photo IDs. How hard can it be to get only ONE?

I really don't understand the argument about "disenfranchising voters". If you're not a US citizen, you can't vote. Obtaining proof of your US citizenship is inexpensive. Failure to comply with obtaining a photo-ID only says "I don't care enough about my vote to spend the time to get an ID". When I see Danni, et al decrying the requirement, I can only infer that they seek to gain the votes of those not legally allowed to: criminals, illegal aliens, children under 18, dead people, etc....

Am I personally effected by a requirement for an ID to vote? Hell no. I have one and for me it is not that difficult to obtain. And, btw, I am happy to report I do NOT need to present it to vote.

However, saying that it is not a form of poll tax is just plain disingenuous, just admit it. While the "tax" may be small to you, it is not to others. In my state, it costs roughly $20 for 4 years, only $5 per year, not too bad, until you take into account everything else.

Plenty of people don't have jobs that they can get off to get the ID.
Plenty of people don't have transportation to get to the office to get the ID (yes there is the bus -- and the fare should be considered part of the tax -- $2 each way, but that is not convenient or necessarily available -- rural areas).
Plenty of people that might fit into the above groups probably move often (yes, I have experienced that in a big brother program) -- so you need to account for the $15 change of address charge... maybe once a year.

So in this very simple example, that simple thinking of "6.50 every 10 years" --#7 | Posted by adammm (in NY), is really 21.50 every single year in my state(20 initial + 4 bus fare, + change of address + bus fare = $43 for 2 years with a move during the year). That $21.50 can be an unfair burden to people.

Until it is free and easy to get, it is the equivalent of a poll tax. And if it is free and easy to get, I would be in favor of it because there would be organizations set up to help the voters that are unaware of the requirement or availability of the ID.

...do you just think you can sell that line of shiat to other people stupider than yourself?

#27 | Posted by dethspud

Excluding the act of voting from ID requirements is like waiving seatbelt laws for folks using the express lane.

It's sort of the time we need those laws the most, don't ya think?

It's sort of the time we need those laws the most, don't ya think?
#65 | POSTED BY BLOODSACRAFICE

Why would it be more pertinent now than any other time prior?

Voter ID laws and the like were first used by Southern racists to prevent uneducated poor black people from voting. The Jim Crow laws. We now see the modern day Republican trying to concoct a new, more politically correct yet anti-poor, ant-elderly, anti-ESL way of going about it. Is anyone really surprised for even one second it is rightwingers who spearhead this effort? C'mon.

"If you're not a US citizen, you can't vote. Obtaining proof of your US citizenship is inexpensive."

Story right here the other day of an 88 year old woman forced to pay $200.00 for a birth certificate because her parents had never gotten her one after her birth. She has previously voted in every election during her entire adult life. That seems fair to you?

"Why would it be more pertinent now than any other time prior?"

Black man in the WH!

Story right here the other day of an 88 year old woman forced to pay $200.00 for a birth certificate because her parents had never gotten her one after her birth. She has previously voted in every election during her entire adult life. That seems fair to you?

#68 | Posted by danni

Yes, it's fair.

She paid a $57 energy bill in October too. So what?

Want to vote as yourself?

Then simply be prepared to prove you are, who somebody wanting to vote for you, say's you are.

Why would it be more pertinent now than any other time prior?

#66 | Posted by rstybeach11

A growing number of unexplainable and highly suspect statistical anomalies in the national voting patterns.

But you never heard that from me.

anti-poor

The Indiana law simply requires one to sign an affidavit saying they cannot afford an ID, and their vote will be counted. How is that "anti-poor?"

When compared to election fraud it's miniscule.

#58 | POSTED BY DANNI

We are not comparing anything Danni. Fraud is fraud is fraud. Either you want to prevent it or you want to commit it.

Where do you stand?

You and your parties whole disenfranchised argument is like trying to keep a leaking boat afloat. The only people disenfranchised are the ones making issue with getting an ID. That would be lazy people, crooks, and fraudters(Democrats).

I've stated several times the ID should be free, it's a cost worth baring. No amount of any type of fraud is worth baring.

Again Danni either you want to prevent it or you want to commit it.

#73, not everything is so black and white. I am sure Danni does not like any fraud just as any reasonable person would not like it (myself included), however there is a cost benefit analysis to everything.

I'll state up front that I am not in favor of such laws, but I am a reasonable person, so I will comprise with people that do, just make it free and easy to get.

But this is how I see the cost benefit analysis:

If we have ID cards and need to provide them freely, there is a cost.
If our ultimate goal is to prevent fraud, then they must be highly secure and unlikely to be able to be counterfeited (re: expensive). If it is easy to counterfeit, then it is not worth it since you won't prevent fraud.
Need the support at all polling locations for the highly secure IDs.
Need validation and on-going database support -- ongoing costs.

Ultimately, the new system will cost X dollars to keep Y fraudulent votes from being cast.

If X = $500 and Y = 1,000 then the $0.50 per vote ain't too bad
If X = $50 M and Y = 200,000 the the $250 is debatable
if X = $100 M and Y = 5,000 then $20,000 per vote for an amount of votes that would not likely change an election, well I think many would say that is too much.

The point is that there is a cost benefit analysis that makes sense. So yes, I think many people can say that, within reason, some fraud is not worth the effort to stop. Let's face it, both (all) sides likely commit it, so if in the last example 2500 committed fraud on both sides, not only did the election not change at all, you spent $100M to do nothing (in the end).

I say National ID that everyone should carry and be linked to a computer base that has every gun the person ever owned or had access to. lets stop crime and voter fraud at the same time.

#61 | Posted by THomewood

And perhaps we could just barcode and DNA test everyone at birth and be done with it.

Is that what you really want?

You can't claim ... suddenly a photo ID is going to marginalize a bunch of minorities."

You can if you have any grasp of reality.

The fact is any new requirement WILL marginalize folks. The questions are how many, and is marginalizing that many worth it to stop a problem which doesn't seem to be affected much by poll voter IDs.

#33 | Posted by Danforth

No, Danforth it won't. You say it will, you want it to, you need it to, but it won't.
And lets not go to the "studys" you are about to lean on.
"Studys show....." any f--king thing you want them to, thats why there are studys.

"Statistics are like a drunk and a lamp post neither is for illumination"

And why does your racist ass insist that "Minorities" are not capable of doing the same things as the rest of us, like they are some kind of pets.

Remember the dogs, fire hoses, lynchings, Jim Crow, the National Guard to get some black kids in to a public school (Your peeps didn't want them), muder in the night, SLAVERY , 3/5th vote, etc,etc,etc.

All brought to you by the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
All of the above was done to control "Minorities" NOT HELP THEM ,YOU POS.
Right now if all minorities told the Dems to "F" off your party would collapse over night.
The Democrats NEED the "Minorities" so you can feed off of them by telling them all the time that you are helping them against the racists.

Problem is your party are the racists and HAVE BEEN THROUGHT OUT AMERICAN HISTORY.

So now the new deal is voter I.D. and the Dems are having a fit about it.
Don't be giving our pets any ideas about voting with their own minds We'll take care of them and tell them how and when to vote.

Thing is you want all "Minorities" to think all other Minorities vote Democrat. They don't. And are starting to less and less..
Au,oh some of the Negros are getting off the plantation.

A voter I.D. card might give them the idea that their vote is really theirs and they can cast it any way they want no matter what you or your party say.

.....NOPE in 2012....then the unions of the teachers, billions and billions wasted year after year.

"it won't. You say it will, you want it to, you need it to, but it won't."

You'd have to be a complete idiot to believe that. Any additional barrier WILL depress voting. What, you never took a probability/stats class?

"then the unions of the teachers"

No wonder you're against the teachers. Still mad at them for failing you, huh?

"Statistics are like a drunk and a lamp post neither is for illumination"

Regardless...While the state has a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud and safeguarding voter confidence the state is also obliged to include any evidence or instance of either in-person voter impersonation or any other type of fraud.

Has this been done?

Is any of this potential fraud already being addressed by the state's existing voter identification requirements?

The 1965 Voting Rights Act says that states must demonstrate their laws will not have a discriminatory impact on minority voters.

These new requirements will obviously make it more difficult not easier for certain voters.

Have any of these states shown that this will NOT disfranchise voters?

These states are obviously in violation of the spirit of the 1965 Voting Rights Act which is the Law of the Land.

Interesting how this doesn't seem to bother some people.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act says that states must demonstrate their laws will not have a discriminatory impact on minority voters.

Libs, READ WHAT IT SAYS, NOT WHAT YOU WANT IT TO SAY.

So in your mind its "discriminatory" to ask Minorities to get any Govt. document. Driver Lic. , business Lic, checking account, pass port, marriage Lic, flood insurance, F.E.M.A. , welfare, medicare, medicade, W.I.C.K. , school meals, pell grants, sign up for military service, morgage loan, be a lawer, a doctor, a enginer, have a HAZ/MAT Lic., a C.D.L. Lic, fly a plane. Your story is as weak as the rest.

Not one person of ANY COLOR is being asked to do ANYTHING that is not being asked of ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE OF ANY COLOR TO DO.

...NOPE in 2012....then the unions of the teachers, billions and billions wasted year after year.

These new requirements will obviously make it more difficult not easier for certain voters.

#78 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2011-12-27 07:15 PM

How so?

They don't have a legitimate Constitutional answer, Glasshouse.

You have to present a picture ID to fly, apply for any government program, to run for office, to cash a check. This is clearly an attack in Holder's and the administrations' eye on illegal votes. End of story. There is no other debate needed in this.

From the original post: "If you look at who is most heavily targeted through voter suppression through these tactics, you see they are progressive voters who happen to be African-American and poor". No, it is clearly "targeted" against people voting often, and from votes from Mickey Mouse, Hitler, and Sponge Bob.

End of story. There is no other debate needed in this.

Then why are you still posting? You just keep proving how little you understand.

"Deth, everyone is still required to show some kind of ID- just not a gov. photo one."

Not to vote. I have NEVER been asked for an ID to vote. My name and where I live, verbal. No documentation required. (I don't remember, but I'm sure I had to show proof of residence to register.)

So maybe in most places, but not "everyone."
+++++

"No, it is clearly "targeted" against people voting often, and from votes from Mickey Mouse, Hitler, and Sponge Bob."

Is there any record of Mickey, Hitler, or Bob casting ballots? The reports about those names were on petitions. I don't know of any petitioners who check voting cards/IDs; methinks you're conflating the issues.

The fact is any new requirement WILL marginalize folks. The questions are how many, and is marginalizing that many worth it to stop a problem which doesn't seem to be affected much by poll voter IDs.

#33 | Posted by Danforth

The problem is one of trust; more than anything else.

I don't trust the current process. I believe there is undetected fraud.

We need ID requirements to instill a level of trust that simply is not present in the electoral system right now.

Deal with it. It's here; and where it ain't it's coming.

Your disenfranchising me, cause I don't trust your no-ID system.

Not to vote. I have NEVER been asked for an ID to vote. My name and where I live, verbal. No documentation required.

#85 | Posted by pragmatist

That's just retarded.

Whoever shows up to vote as me, I want to them to prove it's me.

Otherwise you're disenfranchising me.

How can anyone not have an ID ? If they drive you have one, drink or smoke you need one, and most important when they cash that government check they need one. Of less importance if they want a job they need one.

I have NEVER been asked for an ID to vote. My name and where I live, verbal. No documentation required. (I don't remember, but I'm sure I had to show proof of residence to register.)

#85 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST

Are you not a Union rep or official Prag? Either way, will you be willing to change the rules so that no one has to show ID to vote on any union issues? All I wan to do is get down to union hall before My neighbor and vote no on any pay increases or strike.

The dem base of dead people and illegal aliens will shrink when everyone has to show an ID.

Health Care Reform & RFID Implants? (ans=yes)

HEALTH CARE REFORM RFID 666 (playlist of 28 videos)

I cannot imagine ANY more obvious a "no-brainer" than the requiring of voter I.D.

Any argument against some method of proving who the F you are before being allowed into a voting booth is utterly disingenuous. Said another way -- an idea which could only be supported by lefties.

JM

"will you be willing to change the rules so that no one has to show ID to vote on any union issues?"

Sure...c'mon down to the polls. I'm sure no one will realize you're not who you say you are, and even if they do, that year in jail goes really, really fast.

All you have to do is to watch those who scream the loudest against the simple things to ensure voter integrity to know they're only interested in one thing and that's voter fraud.

#15 | Posted by matsop at 2011-12-26 08:42 PM | Reply

Are you actually stupid enough to think that the GOP's blatant attempts to suppress voter turn out with required ID cards and caging potential Dem voters is really about preventing voter fraud or do you just think you can sell that line of shiat to other people stupider than yourself?

Be Well.

#27 | Posted by dethspud at 2011-12-27 07:50 AM | Reply

Need I say more? Case closed.

All you have to do is to watch those who scream the loudest against the simple things to ensure voter integrity to know they're only interested in one thing and that's voter fraud.

#15 | Posted by matsop at 2011-12-26 08:42 PM | Reply

We're talking about elections so fuck yes we do not even try because we already know we can't make it foolproof (which is why so many states want to use them in order to make stealing elections easier).

#51 | Posted by danni at 2011-12-27 11:11 AM | Reply |

Need I say more? Case closed.

All you have to do is to watch those who scream the loudest against the simple things to ensure voter integrity to know they're only interested in one thing and that's voter fraud.

#15 | Posted by matsop at 2011-12-26 08:42 PM | Reply

Voter ID laws and the like were first used by Southern racists to prevent uneducated poor black people from voting. The Jim Crow laws. We now see the modern day Republican trying to concoct a new, more politically correct yet anti-poor, ant-elderly, anti-ESL way of going about it. Is anyone really surprised for even one second it is rightwingers who spearhead this effort? C'mon.

#67 | Posted by moder8 at 2011-12-27 04:22 PM | Reply

Need I say more? Case closed.

This issue isn't really about "disenfranchising poor black folk"; it's about another methodology of making it more difficult for the demoratic/lefty party to commit voter fraud which history has shown to be prevalent.

Need I say more? Case closed.

Case?

You spelled "mind" wrong there.

First off, you haven't actually made any kind of case yet so declaring case closed seems a bit premature.

Second, if you were to make such a case it would be predicated on you citing evidence that there is significant voter fraud going on right now and that simply isn't the case.

Third, the Republican party have a long and sordid history, well documented, wherein they have tried (often with great success) to suppress voter turnout in poor and minority heavy neighborhoods. From poll taxes and Jim Crow laws, to working to suppress unions to decrease campaign funds, to caging thousands of eligible voters, to providing misinformation on voting days, to GOP flunkies bum rushing the vote count in Fla, to unsealed bags of votes turning up at the last minute to decide elections, to a Diebold CEO promising a state to Bush, the history is there for those who care to check.

And now ID laws.

If you can't or won't see the pattern here that's not Spud's fault.

Be Well.

If you can't or won't see the pattern here that's not Spud's fault.

Be Well.

#99 | Posted by dethspud at 2011-12-28 07:25 AM | Reply

So, potato, have you reformed since your hiatus? Your lack of "cutesy" talk is a breath of fresh air. Your postings are actually more readable and effective. The only concern I have is that "Goat" might become quite discombobulated.

88--I'm not saying it's a good thing, just countering the claim that "everyone must show ID to vote." Nonsense.
+++++

90--See above. And I'm a union leader; though I am stepping down from that post this year, I expect others will continue to see me as "elder statesman." But we don't ask for ID at membership meetings; we're small enough that we know who's who. : ) Would I want IDs required at a bigger school? Probably. But I can see both sides of this voting argument, so I don't take a stand. I think the argument that instituting voter ID laws may cost more than it's worth is, well, worth taking a look at. Especially given the common rhetoric here that all states are gonna need to cut back in big ways.
+++++

100--Oh, shit, his critics might have to admit that Spud is actually an astute observer of American politics? Well, that's gonna ruin several people's day.

Protect my vote by ensuring it's really mine.

I simply do not trust a non-ID system, and most likely wouldn't even bother to vote.

Wish they had self serve kiosks to get an ID. The DMV is fucking hell.

I looked in my wallet and I have four picture ID's. At my next MENSA meeting I'm getting a photo attached to my ID just to make sure.

I looked in my wallet and I have four picture ID's. At my next MENSA meeting I'm getting a photo attached to my ID just to make sure.

#104 | Posted by fwthom

Look lower and see if there are special name-brand containers adorning your feet.

If not, then it's normal and expected of you to have proper ID.

Fwt's a mensa member. It all begins to make sense now.

lets see..

recently showed my id to get my mail....to PAY on a layaway item....to get my drivers liscense itself....to do ANYTHING AT A BANK>..and show id to do most anything..

but DEMS dont want to have to show ID when they are doing arguably our most precious freedom??

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO go figure....

AND THE OBAMA DOJ sues more states over this as well as immigration

WHILE AT THE SAME FUCKIN TIME>..CALIFORNIA tells feds to take thier immigration laws and fuck themselves....SO in other words...disagree with barry and you will have the full foot of the fed govt up your ass...AGREE with the radical leftwingers and you will be ignored when you ignore federal law....

If X = $500 and Y = 1,000 then the $0.50 per vote ain't too bad
If X = $50 M and Y = 200,000 the the $250 is debatable
if X = $100 M and Y = 5,000 then $20,000 per vote for an amount of votes that would not likely change an election, well I think many would say that is too much.
The point is that there is a cost benefit analysis that makes sense. So yes, I think many people can say that, within reason, some fraud is not worth the effort to stop. Let's face it, both (all) sides likely commit it, so if in the last example 2500 committed fraud on both sides, not only did the election not change at all, you spent $100M to do nothing (in the end).

#74 | POSTED BY WHATSRIGHT

NOW you're worried about spending money? LOL LOL LOL LOL....

AND THE OBAMA DOJ sues more states over this as well as immigration

Don't get yer panties in a bunch there Babbler.

The DOJ can only sue in states that already have a record of voter suppression according to the 1965 Voter Rights Act.

And with good reason. You see... those states ALREADY HAVE A RECORD OF VOTER SUPPRESSION in the past.

lets see..

recently showed my id to get my mail....to PAY on a layaway item....to get my drivers liscense itself....to do ANYTHING AT A BANK>..and show id to do most anything..

hmmmmmm let's see...

NONE OF THOSE THINGS ARE RIGHTS!

Everyone should be required to take a citizen test every 10 years. Even if your born here,makes to difference. If you don't pass it,you get deported.

Who creates the test? And why are you cutting and pasting another comment across multiple threads?

No, its my idea..

There are many people who were born in this country who really shouldn't be here.

More voting laws coming -- to the detriment of fair elections.

114--I didn't say it wasn't your idea. I asked why you're posting it in different places. I saw it on at least one other thread today.

And you didn't answer my primary question.

the first comment seems to sum it up quite well

The National Association for the Advancement of Welfare is at it again. The big conservative boogeymen are preventing minorities from voting. EVERYONE has to have some sort of ID. How do those people cash welfare checks, apply for food stamps or rent a section 8 apartment? Rather, it appears that the self appointed defenders of voter fraud are just whipping their low information types into a frenzy, just in time to help Obama.

Funny part is that white folks actually got the naacp off the ground and running......

And how do you ID out of state ballets?

Who creates the test? And why are you cutting and pasting another comment across multiple threads?

#113 | POSTED BY PRAGMATIST AT 2011-12-28 02:13 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Because he's a fucking spambot but rogers doesn't pay any attention to his site.

The political hacks pretend to worry about voter suppression, while the real vote manipulators are out gaining control of the untraceable black box voting machines.

#105 mensa wasnt worth my time. Its a bunch of cunts like newt. At least it was when i considered their invitation to join and was given a welcome party. That was bizzar how so many "smart" people could be such idiots.

" At least it was when i considered their invitation to join and was given a welcome party."

That's not Mensa, that's Scientology.

Quite similar ha.

121--What pundit recently quipped "Newt Gingrich is what stupid people think smart people sound like"? Krugman? Dunno, but it's a good line. Whether it's valid or not, it's a funny line.

Dear Danforth,

For the most part this is not me but.....S.T.F.U.
You may want to read just why these people are saying Voter I.D. is a good thing.
But myself and many others have already told you why.

An even stricter law in Indiana, however, was upheld years ago by the Supreme Court on a 6-3 vote. So now, 15 states require or plan to require photo IDs.

"The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law and the opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who as you know is one of the most liberal stalwarts of the Supreme Court," explained Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation.

Several Democratic congressmen, as well as former President Jimmy Carter, have also argued in favor of photo IDs.

Read more: www.foxnews.com

Mr. Danforth.

Idiots at the chalkboard

By Vox Day
© 2011 WND

Someone out there is worried. Due to the rapid growth in the popularity of homeschooling and the increasing obviousness of the concept's superiority, the legacy media has all but openly declared war on parents who wish to personally direct their children's education.

If an act of child abuse even tangentially involves children who don't attend a state-approved school, you can be sure that the media will not fail to mention that the children were "homeschooled" regardless of whether the parents were actually schooling them at home or torturing them instead.

So much for accuracy in media. If those now-infamous Florida parents were homeschoolers, then Abu Ghraib was a military academy.

One argument often heard in defense of the public schools is that education is better left to those trained to teach, to the "professionals." Most teachers, after all, are required to have a college degree in education, and in many states they are forced to take tests purported to prove that they are not drooling idiots. Although one has to wonder what exactly is on those tests considering that after 59 percent of prospective teachers failed to pass the Massachusetts Teachers' Test in 1999, the test was assailed by FairTest, a teacher-run organization that opposes tests for teachers, in the following manner:

The MTT included many bizarre questions unlike those on any other state's teacher licensing exams. On one, candidates were asked to transcribe a portion of 'The Federalist Papers' as dictated from a low quality tape-recorder. Other items asked for dictionary definitions of words with questions such as "What is a preposition?" and "What is an adjective?"

Clearly, it is outrageous to expect public school teachers to know elementary grammar or be able to perform tasks that entry-level secretaries with two-year vo-tech degrees handle with ease. If the MTT is considered to feature bizarre and difficult questions, one can only imagine that tests in more teacher-friendly states such as Minnesota and New York must run something like this:

What is your favorite color?

a) red
b) green
c) blue
d) purply-pink

The immortal PJ O'Rourke once declared: "Anybody who doesn't know what's wrong with America's educational system never screwed an el-ed major." And while one has no doubt that he is correct, it turns out that there is more empirical evidence for the dismal state of teacher intelligence than Mr. O'Rourke's sexual history or the fear and loathing with which the teachers' unions regard competency testing.

In 2001, the National Center for Education Statistics reported the average SAT score for intended education majors to be 481 math and 483 verbal. Only those interested in vocational school, home economics and public affairs scored lower.

But while the SAT is considered to be a generally reliable intelligence test, the 2001 SAT is not the same SAT that many of us took prior to attending university. Those 2001 scores on the 1996 SAT, which was replaced this year by the New SAT 2005, are equivalent to pre-1996 SAT scores of 451 math and 403 verbal. In case any education majors are reading this, 451 plus 403 equals a cumulative score of 854.

PART 1....SEE PART 2.... FOLLOWING POST

PART 2

Mr. Danforth

Examining an SAT-to-IQ conversion chart calculated from Mensa entrance criteria, a combined 854 indicates that the average IQ of those pursuing an education major is 91, nine points lower than the average IQ of 100. In other words, those who can't read teach whole language.

Now, not every would-be education major goes on to complete her degree â€" 77.4 percent of those who do are women â€" nor does every college graduate with an education major go on to teach in the public schools. But since teaching's best and brightest so frequently quit upon exposure to the labyrinthine public school system and since most teachers who fail their competency tests are still allowed to teach â€" in Illinois, 7.8 percent of the teachers who have taken these extraordinarily easy tests since 1988 have failed them â€" it is not logical to conclude that the average teacher's IQ is any higher than the average would-be education major.

Many a parent has wondered aloud what sort of idiots were teaching the anti-intellectual poison that currently passes for a modern public school curriculum, but I doubt that most ever considered that the pejorative might be more literal than metaphorical. Instead of wondering if they are sufficiently qualified to homeschool their children, parents would do well to instead ponder the wisdom of turning over their offspring to demonstrably sub-optimal morons for daily indoctrination in the name of education

.....NOPE in 2012.....then the unions of the teachers, billions and billions wasted year after year.

#127, stats are fun aren't they? Your article, while completely off topic, doesn't include who decides the curricula (not the teachers) and what their IQ is, nor does it mention who approves the curricula (not the teachers) and what their IQ is. What about an average school board?

If the purpose of your posted article was to bash a profession who is handcuffed by people who don't even know they're sufficiently capable of not only teaching but making sure the child learns, shift your focus on how to improve a teacher's job rather than insult intelligence.

I think you should reread the post it is in two parts.

Its mostly about how really its all just smoke and mirriors as far as a teacher being a professional, per the numbers its all really just a big B.S. story you tell each other.
Like I said reread it, holding an Avg. I.Q. of 91 will make it hard I'm sure. Read slow....er.

As for it being off topic, perhaps you don't know DANFORTH or his posting history..
There are 2 posts (3 really,but one is in two parts.)that are directed at Mr. Danforth and his posting for the last year on just these subjects.

....NOPE in 2012...then the unions of the teachers, billions and billions wasted year after year.

NOW you're worried about spending money? LOL LOL LOL LOL....

#109 | Posted by Tedly at 2011-12-28 12:52 PM

Too rich!

You said "No amount of any type of fraud is worth baring," while I am not exactly sure what you mean, I believe it to mean that any amount is worth baring to prevent fraud.

I'm willing to spend money when the cost benefit is worth it. How about you? It sounds like you would spend it indiscriminately.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable