Posted by Givemeliberty on Thu, Apr 17, 2014, at 10:06 AM:
Matthew Dameron, former Chief of Staff for MO Attorney General Chris Koster, is the treasurer for the Missouri Early Voting Fund. This group is behind the ballot petitions circulating for the public's signature, which you can examine at the Missouri SOS' website (scroll down the list):
All three propose amending the Missouri Constitution, Article VIII, adding a "Section 8".
No excuse will any longer be required to vote absentee, in federal or state general elections.
Most importantly, the effect is to expand voting to six weeks prior to election day. This is called "early voting" or "advance voting." (The petitions differ somewhat in a population thresh hold contained in the proposed amendment which triggers the requirement for one satellite early voting site, and then additional sites for certain sized population increments.)
Starting 3 weeks before the election, five hours of Saturday and Sunday voting at each vote early site will be required.
Local election authorities will have to appoint at least one election judge from each major political party, for all these sites. The same procedures for casting ballots (e.g., electronic vote machines) shall be in effect.
Rep. Tony Dugger, R-141, has introduced a less expansive "advance voting" measure into the legislature, as HJR 90 (which would also appear on the ballot, for the purpose of a vote to amend Missouri's Constitution), and HB 2271 which lays out the mechanics of his early voting proposal. This consists of advance voting sites starting the third Saturday before the election, and continuing to the Tuesday before the election, excluding Sundays (so, 9 days of early voting), with one advance voting site per county or at least one per 100,000 population.
We're talking about 10 advance voting sites in St. Louis County, 4 in St. Louis City, give or take. For your perusal, see this link:
Is voting really so hard? With six weeks of absentee voting, is this really necessary? Where are the people who have been disenfranchised by the system we have now? Storing, securing, moving ballots and voting machines at close of business every day...just what degree of peril will this impose on vote security?
Remember who will be running, and needing votes, in 2016.
Replies (288)
Didn't like the disenfranchised part,mic?
-- Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Apr 17, 2014, at 1:34 PM
What I want is for someone to tell me what the real agenda is here.
And whose agenda is it?
Where are the swarms of people who have been disenfranchised by the way it's done now? Isn't that the argument being used?
If you want to go to Game 3 of the World Series, you go to Game 3 of the World Series when and where it's being played. Doesn't voting rise to that level of importance?
-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Thu, Apr 17, 2014, at 3:01 PM
"For some people, it might be. Not everyone knows they are entitled to time off work to vote, and many employeRs likely don't know either or don't care and know the employees probably won't put up a fight."
So, this is about ensuring that the ignorant vote?
That explains a lot.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 17, 2014, at 4:12 PM
What a stupid question SH !!
-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Apr 17, 2014, at 4:19 PM
I always wondered why Tuesdays. Seems it was set up in 1845 on Tuesday after the first Monday in November because by then most crops had been harvested and a lot of folks had a two day trip to get to polling places. Monday meant they would most likely miss church. One unintended consequence (but a good one for the incumbents I guess) of November was that by then people had forgot about April 15. This is as out of date as the Electoral College.All that trouble to cast a vote then and now they want six weeks?
-- Posted by rocknroll on Thu, Apr 17, 2014, at 4:52 PM
"How do most people find out they have those rights? I know I never knew until I was part of a union that made sure we knew. It's most likely not something employers put in the orientation handbook..."
It seems to me the time and energy spent trying to revise the laws could be better used spreading the word of the laws that already exist. Why not require posters like they do for such things as minimum wage laws and such. It seems to me there is a faction that works hard to keep a lot of people in the dark about their freedoms, and it ain't the Republicans.
I think those that care enough about the "right to vote" ought to care enough about what rights already exist with regard to the vote.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 17, 2014, at 5:00 PM
Shapley, That's not in the budget, too much has been spent on ads about little boys having a healthy attitude about fat ladies on a powerchair shopping cart. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Apr 17, 2014, at 5:17 PM
:)
I learned about my rights in high school civics class. I guess they teach those anymore.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Apr 17, 2014, at 9:06 PM
Civics classes should be revived and mandatory.
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Fri, Apr 18, 2014, at 7:28 AM
Voting is not that hard for people my gosh give me a break. Some build all of this up in the media as if voting is the most difficult thing to do in this country. Show your ID at the polls and walk over to the booth and pull the curtain and vote what is so difficult about that. If you can't make it to the polls for some reason to vote call your County Clerk and request a absentee ballot.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Fri, Apr 18, 2014, at 7:51 AM
miccheck the voting times are fine and Tuesday is fine leave it alone.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Fri, Apr 18, 2014, at 7:54 AM
Let's change social security where every one that reaches the age of 62 can draw their FULL social security benefits and also medicare like it should be instead of being penalized by the government for retiring early after all you paid in to it all of your working years. So if we are going to change some of the voting laws let's change the screwed up social security law also which was put in place back in the depression of the 30's.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Fri, Apr 18, 2014, at 9:20 AM
We should be able to vote online. There's NO reason for us not to.
-- Posted by the_eye on Fri, Apr 18, 2014, at 12:44 PM
the_eye,
Voting online would remove the "precinct register" from use, at least for online voters.
How is the identity of the person voting to be verified?
Fill me in with the details.
-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Fri, Apr 18, 2014, at 6:39 PM
* Intention to vote must be announced to the employer prior to the day of the election.
* Paid time off only applies if the employee's shift does not allow for 3 continuous hours before or after the shift during regular poll hours.
* Proof of voting can be required by the employer.
* The employer can specify which three hours can be taken off, with the required pay.
Suggest one area of grey is the 8 to 5 employee who has 2 available hours before shift, and 2 after with 1 hour for lunch - is the employer on the hook for all three hours, or just the hour or two to make up the required continuous 3?
Further suggest extending polling times presents concerns for leaks , resulting media projections on winners, and what-not that may unfairly bias the later voters...
-- Posted by fxpwt on Fri, Apr 18, 2014, at 7:24 PM
Have never had a problem getting to the polls on Tuesday. Couldn't care less whether someone else has a problem making it on a Tuesday.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Apr 18, 2014, at 9:53 PM
So, will someone please give me an example of someone who was deprived from voting because they did not have enough opportunity to do so?
-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 7:39 AM
So, will someone please give me an example of someone who was deprived from voting because they did not have enough opportunity to do so?
-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 7:39 AM
There are no examples. Everyone that wants to vote has every opportunity to do so.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 9:26 AM
FreedomFadingFast,
So, if there are no examples, how can these proposed changes to the state constitution be justified?
Those against photo I.D. for voting use the "there is no vote fraud in Missouri" refrain to justify not mandating photo I.D. for voting.
They can't have it both ways.
-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 9:31 AM
Givemeliberty
The government doesn't have to justify anything. The government and it's politicians feel they own the people. The government will do what it wants, when it wants. What you or I think is irrevelant.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 10:28 AM
"Everyone that wants to vote has every opportunity to do so."
That is certainly correct and proper. Expanding voting opportunity is one side of the issue and remains open to discussion.
The real issue is the desire to restrict voting opportunity by one party. This is what people rightfully object to.
When the talk reverts to closing polling places, reducing voting days and hours, requiring photo ID's (in place of signature-type ID that has always been required) and other actions aimed at disenfranchising a specific category of voter, it becomes blatantly obvious that the party attempting to reduce voting opportunity is engaged in a losing crusade.
If you can only envision an electoral win by keeping the opposition from casting their votes, you are in a poor and hopeless position all around. In the current struggle, the republicans seem to be pinning all of their faith in rich, old white men, and while that may bring in campaign contributions, it doesn't bring in many votes.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 11:14 AM
and other actions aimed at disenfranchising a specific category of voter-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 11:14 AM
Finally we agree. The targeting of conservative groups by the Obama IRS is clearly an attempt to disenfranchise conservatives and deny them their right of free speech. The curious non-targeting of liberal groups speaks volumes.
Also curious is your assumption that requiring voter ID's targets one group when, in fact, it requires everyone to get a voter ID regardless of race, religion or gender.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 11:40 AM
I agree too. Keeping polling places open longer in highly democrat districts to envision a win indicates the poor situation evident of how far the left will go.
Just think, if the clown's defeat would have been fairly upheld and Nevada elections reflected the true will of the people, Obamacare may have been replaced with real solutions.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 11:49 AM
"...an attempt to disenfranchise conservatives..."
Try explaining how the evaluation of a request for tax exempt status deprives anyone of the right to vote.
The groups whose applications to avoid taxes were being reviewed had every right to speak freely. No one was denying them any rights.
The opposite is true of various secretaries of state who are targeting the poor, minorities and the elderly, who they seem to think will vote democratic and therefore trying to keep them from voting.
Logic says that to prevail in elections you win people to your side, not try to prevent the opposition from voting. Seems like the republicans haven't quite figured that out.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 7:52 PM
Nothing being done or propsing to be done disenfranchises the poor, minorities, or the elderly.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 8:25 PM
Heck,let's do it American Idol style. 50 votes per device. Wait a sec,that would disenfranchise those with only an obamaphone. My bad.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 8:51 PM
Try explaining how the evaluation of a request for tax exempt status deprives anyone of the right to vote. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 7:52 PM
Try explaining how the right to vote for everyone deprives anyone from it. Ludicrous. You've tried repeatedly for years and you've failed.
There are limits to the "right" to vote. You must be a citizen of the US. You must vote on election day. Proving both is no limit to that right. Pure demagoguery.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 10:05 PM
"You must vote on election day."
Wrong again. You vote when the polls are open or by absentee if you are allowed to. No one is aguing about that.
The problem has always been that the republican approach is now to reduce voting opportunity. Why is that? What are conservatives afraid of?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 10:35 PM
You vote when the polls are open or by absentee if you are allowed to-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 10:35 PM
If you can vote on that day, then it is election day for you. No one is restricting that.
=======
What are conservatives afraid of? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 10:35 PM
The ever increasing efforts of the democrat party to allow illegal voting, multiple voting, dead voting, etc.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 10:50 PM
Why was it the democrats tried to suppress the military absentee votes.
Common, you just keep spouting the same old talking point accusing republicans of wanting to keep poor people from voting.
Democrats have a poor record of integrity regarding elections starting with your top man that got his senate opponent disqualified.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Apr 19, 2014, at 10:54 PM
"...increasing efforts of the democrat party to allow illegal voting..."
That's nothing more than a
conservative/republican talking point. Where's the proof?
"....democrats tried to suppress the military absentee votes."
Again, where's the proof? For that matter, why should democrats "try to suppress" military from voting, as there are as many democrats as republicans in the military. Having been in the military for over 24 years, I voted in most elections and predominantly for liberals.
- - - - - - - -
What you both choose to ignore is that there is absolutely zero evidence of massive vote fraud. There are anecdotal examples such as "one guy in Kansas City" or "a lady in Ohio" but nothing that even approaches the fraud the republicans are actually trying to perpetrate by widespread vote suppression.
It is clear that conservative "anti-voting" fanatics have been and are touring states with republican governors and seeking to convince them that the only path to winning elections is to restrain democratic votes by whatever means possible. Their playbook includes demanding photo ID's from legally registered voters, restricting voting days, eliminating Sunday voting, reducing the number of voting machines in selected districts, eliminating polling locations to require longer travel, and stationing "goon lawyers" at the polls to intimidate minority voters.
Even honest Republicans agree....
"As his own party pushed through the Wisconsin Senate the latest in a series of measures to make it harder to vote in the state, Sen. Dale Schultz (R) blasted the efforts as "trying to suppress the vote" last week.
Schultz, who is not seeking re-election and was the lone Republican to oppose a bill last week to limit the hours of early voting in every jurisdiction in the state, was a guest on The Devil's Advocates radio program on Madison's 92.1 FM last Wednesday. Asked why his party pushed the bill, Schultz responded, "I am not willing to defend them anymore. I'm just not and I'm embarrassed by this."
Schultz argued that this and dozens of similar bills before the Senate this were based on "mythology" that voter fraud is a serious concern: "I began this session thinking that there was some lack of faith in our voting process and we maybe needed to address it. But I have come to the conclusion that this is far less noble."
Noting that Republican President Dwight Eisenhower championed the 1957 civil rights law, Schultz said that he could not "find any real reason" for his party's effort to make it harder to vote:
SCHULTZ: It's just, I think, sad when a political party -- my political party -- has so lost faith in its ideas that it's pouring all of its energy into election mechanics. And again, I'm a guy who understands and appreciates what we should be doing in order to make sure every vote counts, every vote is legitimate. But that fact is, it ought to be abundantly clear to everybody in this state that there is no massive voter fraud. The only thing that we do have in this state is we have long lines of people who want to vote. And it seems to me that we should be doing everything we can to make it easier, to help these people get their votes counted. And that we should be pitching as political parties our ideas for improving things in the future, rather than mucking around in the mechanics and making it more confrontational at the voting sites and trying to suppress the vote.
Schultz added that the suppression was "just plain wrong," adding, "It is all predicated on some belief there is a massive fraud or irregularities, something my colleagues have been hot on the trail for three years and have failed miserably at demonstrating." The GOP-controlled Assembly has already passed a similar bill.
A 2011 study by the non-partisan Brennan Center found just seven cases of voter fraud in Wisconsin's 2004 election, out of three million votes cast -- a fraud rate of just 0.0002 percent."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 7:28 AM
"The problem has always been that the republican approach is now to reduce voting opportunity. Why is that? What are conservatives afraid of?"
Republicans or conservatives? You keep using those terms as if they are interchangeable.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 7:51 AM
"Why not just change the voting process to allow more voting times to make voting more convenient?"
For one thing, it costs a lot of money. Pollworkers have to be paid, polling places have to be heated and cooled, pollwatchers have to be recruited, etc. It ain't all voluntary.
For another, it invites fraud, since poll watchers are hard enough to come by with normal polling hours, extended hours mean more unwatched voting.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 7:56 AM
I remember seeing one of those goon lawyers standing at a poll entrance holding a stick.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 10:46 AM
Even honest Republicans agree....-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 7:28 AM
You give a liberal source to back your point. I'll give you another liberal source that says "Even honest Democrats agree... with VOTER ID laws". From politifact:
"In January 2011, Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm that uses automated telephone polling, found that 56 percent of North Carolina Democrats supported a law to "show a government-issued photo ID in order to vote," while 36 percent opposed one.
This result supports McCrory's position, and it was echoed by subsequent live-caller polls conducted by Elon University. In February 2013, an Elon poll found that 52 percent of Democrats supported a law "requiring voters to show some sort of government approved photo identification before they are allowed to vote," while 43 percent opposed it.
Other polls backed up this pattern as well. A September 2012 automated-dial poll by SurveyUSA found 56 percent of Democrats supporting a photo ID requirement to vote, and an April 2013 poll by the same firm found 59 percent support among Democrats for showing a government-issued photo ID "such as a driver's license or passport."
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 10:51 AM
And yes. I did read the whole article. Some responses will be predictable.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 11:17 AM
What about all those polls on gun back ground checks work oput, Dug. Maybe you can provide some spin on those for us.
-- Posted by left turn on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 11:45 AM
-- Posted by left turn on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 11:45 AM
Far left turn - ask commonsense. He's the one putting up opinions and polls on here.
As for the gun background checks - take it up with the constitution. Apparently you think the constitution guarantees you free health care but doesn't guarantee "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". Yes - I just made that last statement up.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 11:52 AM
"Republicans or conservatives? You keep using those terms as if they are interchangeable."
So what is the difference? To me republicans are somewhat more sensible conservatives. But both seem to care most about money.
For that matter, I am in favor of smaller government, want taxes reduced by making them more equitable, want discretionary spending reduced, want social security and medicare put on a sustainable basis, and want the deficit eliminated.
Does that make me a conservative?
I'd say no because in addition, I am in favor of universal health care (as is the case in the remainder of the civilized world) and want the government to keep from intruding in birth control issues.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 12:05 PM
Dug, your 10:51 response didn't refer to polls? Hell you can't seem to comprehend your own statements. If you can't understand them, how is anybody else supposed to? You can't get it through your thick skull the highway patrol purchased a plane with an already approved budget. Yet, you keep posting that stupid opinion.
-- Posted by left turn on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 12:18 PM
For one that says he wants smaller government, Common certainly seems to defend anything big government's number one expander does.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 12:21 PM
I am in favor of smaller government
I want discretionary spending reduced
I am in favor of universal health care-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 12:05 PM
Takes a pretty complex set of spinning in ones head to reconcile all those counter opinions. Smaller govt', reduced discretionary spending and universal health care. They don't mix.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 12:33 PM
how is anybody else supposed to? -- Posted by left turn on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 12:18 PM
Simple. You can't comprehend anything that Obama doesn't say. Worshipping people in power. It's what you do.
Maybe you need to get through your thick skill that a) the highway patrol is in the Nixon administration b) Nixon PERSONALLY approved the plane and c) it isn't used for speeding or radar - it's a personal plane for the governor.
You are so blind you'll excuse anything for your guy. It's clear. Now that is the definition of thick skull. Now answer these questions
Did Nixon approve the $6 MILLION plane purchase?
Does Nixon use the plane as his primary form of transportation?
I know it hurts to call you out on your blind support.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 12:37 PM
Nixon did not have anything to do with the purchase of the plane. That's a lie Dug. The MSHP has used the plane in investigations both in and out of Missouri. The MSHP has been in charge of state air travel ever since 2006 when that radical liberal Matt Blunt was governor. I don't know if Nixon uses the plane for his primary mode of transportation and could care less. It's not my day to watch him. BTW, there was $13 million in the equipment purchase account of which 5.7 million was spent for the plane.Nice try, but your constant BS don't cut it with me.
-- Posted by left turn on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 1:39 PM
"Smaller govt', reduced discretionary spending and universal health care. They don't mix."
That may because you don't choose to understand.
And all along I thought conservatives wanted smaller government and less spending. Universal health care would be most easily accomplished through a single payer system like the US military uses. The need of an oversized health insurance bureaucracy is totally superfluous.
- - - - - - -
"...take it up with the [C]onstitution..."
It really is more than a bit humorous to watch your floundering in continued references to the Constitution's foresight. What's most amazing is that you can easily interpret the "militia clause" to mean that the "founding fathers" meant that anyone can have as many AK-47's or Glocks as they want, but can't seem to fathom that references to "promoting the general welfare" can clearly include aspects of health care for the citizenry. There is nothing "un-Constitutional" about health care for Americans.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 2:53 PM
Nixon did not have anything to do with the purchase of the plane. -- Posted by left turn on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 1:39 PM
That's a lie lefty. Nixon knew of the purchase, was consulted and viewed the plane before purchase.
Are you drinking so much kool-aid you believe the HP just purchased a plane for Nixon without his knowledge or approval? Of course you bought the "If you like your current insurance you can keep it. Period". You don't have a lot of credibility when it comes to believing what politicians say. Maybe you should listen to a fellow Democrat:
"The new nine-passenger King Air 250 would cost about $900 an hour to operate. The old, 1999 model King Air 90C, costs around $650 an hour to operate. Rep. Genise Montecillo, D-St. Louis, said she was upset by the high operating costs and called the plane's purchase "APPALLING."
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 5:52 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 2:53 PM
Please provide any statement out of the constitution or bill of rights that says "the right of the people to have government funded health care shall not be infringed".
And this statement is the most ludicrous:
"Universal health care would be most easily accomplished through a single payer system like the US military uses." - also known as LARGER GOVERNMENT. Simply astounding your partisan politics causes you to say that expansion of federal programs does not lead to larger government. No one's buying what your selling. More gov't programs is equal to smaller government? Hilarious!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 5:57 PM
Dug has definitely lost it. All of us proud liberals can now proclaim MISSION ACCOMPLISHED,
LOL
-- Posted by left turn on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 7:15 PM
-- Posted by left turn on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 7:15 PM
I think I knew you in second grade - sounds like something someone said back then.
Problem is, you didn't grow up apparently. Try again. That's a pretty pathetic statement.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 7:32 PM
Lefty,
Just reading through these posts convinces me that I have a 12 year old Granddaughter with a higher level of maturity than you exhibit.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 7:32 PM
HWWT: Kudos to her !!!
-- Posted by left turn on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 7:54 PM
Does anyone know of any reported instance of a person unable to cast a vote because they had difficulty voting on election day or during that day's absentee voting interval?
Let's have some proof, please. This "early" or "advance" voting is going to be plenty expensive for someone. Satellite voting locations, poll judges from each of the major parties present the entire time, securing ballots, securing electronic voting machines, etc. It's all going to cost money. Who will put up this money? The Carpenter's Union?
Please give me some names of people who have been aggrieved by the election day/absentee interval system we have now. Names and references.
The lack of proof has been given as an excuse not to have voter I.D. So, lack of proof of voter inconvenience should be an excuse not to change the system of opportunities to vote we have now.
-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Sun, Apr 20, 2014, at 10:33 PM
"So, lack of proof of voter inconvenience should be an excuse not to change the system..."
Exactly right. No one that I am aware of wants to change the system in place now. No one is asking for more voting opportunities.
The complaint all along has been to preserve the system we have, and not change it by reducing opportunity to vote. It seems to be the republicans that want limit poll times locations, and add new requirements.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 7:23 AM
No one that I am aware of wants to change the system in place now. No one is asking for more voting opportunities. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 7:23 AM
Head in the sand much? There are numerous stories of democrats pushing a) longer voting times b) voting for illegals and c) voting with NO identification.
Those are clearly not supporting "the system in place now".
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 7:31 AM
"...b) voting for illegals and c) voting with NO identification."
You will need a source for these fabricated accusations. If it's only from your vivid imagination, just say so.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 8:18 AM
NYC council member Daniel Dromm (D) is authoring a bill that, by his own admission, may allow illegals to vote in NYC municipal elections. "We haven't determined that yet but it's a possibility that may be a way that we can have people, for the first time, when they come in to vote, if their non-residents, non-citizens, that may be a way that we could do it."
====
"New Haven (Connecticut) Mayor John DeStefano has said he does not think citizenship is an absolute requirement for acquiring the right to vote in local elections. The Democratic mayor said that illegal immigrants contribute to the community in their own ways by paying taxes indirectly through rent and sending their children to local schools."
====
Want more common? As I said, head in the sand much?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 8:42 AM
"... may allow illegals..."
"...he does not think citizenship is an absolute requirement..."
Right "there are numerous stories..."
Nothing concrete about actions being taken. I see you believe anything you find on the internet, as long as it fits your preconceived notions.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 12:21 PM
I see you believe anything you find on the internet, as long as it fits your preconceived notions. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 12:21 PM
Both those statements are factual. We all know that you believe anything a democrat says so these two democrats are PUSHING (my words) voting for illegal aliens. I didn't say they passed laws - that's your straw man response. I said they were PUSHING voting for illegals. You said that wasn't true. THere are more examples of your party pushing this.
You're wrong again common!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 1:07 PM
-- Posted by Dugtard on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 3:42 PM
And your source is.... you? Gonna take more than that Jay/Ike/Spaniard.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 5:29 PM
"the_eye,
Voting online would remove the "precinct register" from use, at least for online voters.
How is the identity of the person voting to be verified?
Fill me in with the details.
-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Fri, Apr 18, 2014, at 6:39 PM"
The same way your identity is verified when you do your taxes online.... It's not that hard to comprehend.
-- Posted by the_eye on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 5:34 PM
The same way your identity is verified when you do your taxes online -- Posted by the_eye on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 5:34 PM
How does the IRS know if I filed my taxes online or an illegal alien did it for me?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 5:44 PM
I would say if your (Dug) taxes are correct...an alien probably did them.
-- Posted by left turn on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 5:47 PM
So the IRS doesn't know who submitted whose taxes.
Voting is a little more important than an "electronic signature" comprised of 5 digits.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 5:59 PM
The same way your identity is verified when you do your taxes online.... It's not that hard to comprehend.
-- Posted by the_eye on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 5:34 PM
And it's not too hard to comprehend what will happen.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Apr 21, 2014, at 6:25 PM
There will always be people trying to cheat the system. You'll never stop it.
I think some people are just afraid that online voting will provide a much clearer, more accurate picture of how and who this country supports, and that freaks certain people out.
-- Posted by the_eye on Tue, Apr 22, 2014, at 6:04 AM
I think some people are just afraid that online voting will provide a much clearer, more accurate picture of how and who this country supports, and that freaks certain people out. -- Posted by the_eye on Tue, Apr 22, 2014, at 6:04 AM
I more afraid that some people are clueless about how easy it is to write software programs to manipulate electronic voting. Absolutely clueless.
I think we should have stayed with paper/card ballots. Once my vote is cast in a computer there is no way to verify it or keep someone from electronically modifying it later.
I don't care who wins if it's legitimate. I may not like who won, I may disagree with them and I may debate/argue against their leftist policies. But if a slight majority of the American people want to go to hell in a hand basket well... there's no stopping that.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Apr 22, 2014, at 9:34 AM
-- Posted by Dugtard on Tue, Apr 22, 2014, at 1:17 PM
From the guy who continually requires links and references. Duh.
In DC vs. Heller the Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.
In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.
In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Apr 22, 2014, at 3:46 PM
Voting online would IMO be the best way of voting (provided that the government buys every family a computer). Each person of legal age would sign up into a government database and from it receives a secured username and password in order to cast a vote on election day.....wait a minute, then those who oversee the voting program would know who voted for who. What if the programmers leaves a back door to the program so as to make the final results reflect the way the highest bidder wants it to be. Second thought back to paper ballots on election day.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Apr 22, 2014, at 9:08 PM
-- Posted by Dugtard on Wed, Apr 23, 2014, at 12:21 PM
Just more hype and hysteria from someone who's importance exists only in his mind. Nothing but BS opinion. Where are your facts you demand? Your ignorance speaks volumes.
You said at one time you were going to convince us all of some of your other ignorant, atheist, communist-sympathizing statements. Like this one:
"The US had little to do with ending Hitler's reign" - Jay or Ike or Spaniard or whatever-sock-puppet-I-cand-hide-with. Or how about one of my favorites:
"I've never reported a posting to the SE Missourian" - Jay/Ike/Spanny and then
"I'm reporting you to the SE Missourian" - Jay/Ike/Spaniard/???
======
You have no credibility here. As is evident by your personal attack above and no educated response. It's a pattern with you. A sharp tongue with no brains.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Apr 24, 2014, at 11:59 AM
Angry? Too funny! Your posts are pure entertainment. You absolutely lose it when your own words and contradictions/ies are posted back. Get back to therapy quick. It's a safe spot for you. LOL!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Apr 24, 2014, at 5:32 PM
-- Posted by Dugtard on Thu, Apr 24, 2014, at 9:24 PM
Dugtard: So you play with dolls.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Apr 25, 2014, at 8:39 AM
Dugtard: So you play with dolls. -- Posted by semo471 on Fri, Apr 25, 2014, at 8:39 AM
Anyone who would change his name from Jay to Ike to Spaniard to Dugtard to whatever is trying to hide some inner issues. Others change and we all know it and they admit it. This one has tried to hide his changes in the past so we might forget their previous problems.
Unfortunately we get to see his serious problems and have to deal with it here.
The meltdown continues...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Apr 25, 2014, at 10:07 AM
Tony Dugger's early voting bill, HB 2271 (link above), is going to have a public hearing on Monday, April 28, at noon in the Senate Lounge in the Capitol.
His HJR 90, the MO Constitutional Amendment to change the voting within Article VIII of the state constitution, will also be heard.
Rep. Dugger's bill does specify that the funding for advance voting has to come from general revenue--which may be the safety valve. This seems rather tenuous, though...would the legislature really vote not to appropriate the money? The Dameron petitions being circulated do not have a mechanism for paying for the advance voting.
Whether or not you attend the public hearing before the Senate Committee on Financial and Governmental Organizations and Elections, contact the senators on the committee (link below) and contact your own state senator about this threat to the security of the vote.
-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Fri, Apr 25, 2014, at 10:18 AM
I more afraid that some people are clueless about how easy it is to write software programs to manipulate electronic voting. Absolutely clueless.
I think we should have stayed with paper/card ballots. Once my vote is cast in a computer there is no way to verify it or keep someone from electronically modifying it later.
I don't care who wins if it's legitimate. I may not like who won, I may disagree with them and I may debate/argue against their leftist policies. But if a slight majority of the American people want to go to hell in a hand basket well... there's no stopping that.
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Apr 22, 2014, at 9:34 AM
Agree 100%. It's not the citizens trying to cheat the system, it's the fringes of BOTH political parties.
There's several documentaries out there on voter machine fraud. Interesting stuff, especially when you find out who owns the companies that make the machines.
-- Posted by the_eye on Mon, Apr 28, 2014, at 9:00 AM
Possibly another example of conservative overreach. Trying to deny 600,000 Americans the right to vote may bring 4 or 5 times that many (that previously might not have voted) to the polls.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Oct 18, 2014, at 4:38 PM
Common,
What hat did you pull the 600,000 number from? Isn't that just some more of your leftist nonsense?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Oct 18, 2014, at 4:45 PM
Try reading the link...
"Some 600,000 people in Texas lack state-issued IDs, according to the U.S. Justice Department -- which rejected the law as a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
"Nationwide, the NAACP says 25% of African-Americans and 16% of Latinos of voting age lack a current government-issued photo ID.
"...words that bother you..."
There is absolutely nothing wrong with voter identification, it has been used for over 200 years. Why would the Texas republicans be afraid to let registered American voters go to the polls?
The only logical answer is that they are afraid the disenfranchised individuals could vote for a democratic candidate.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Oct 18, 2014, at 5:55 PM
The only logical answer is that the disenfranchised [due to being illegals or dead people] will be not be able to vote democrat.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Oct 18, 2014, at 6:48 PM
Rebel, An old Van Johnson movie addressed it once, the good of the district vs the good of the nation.
Seems today it is the good of the party vs the good of the nation.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Oct 18, 2014, at 7:15 PM
..."illegals or dead people..."
I find it extremely hard to believe that you could be gullible enough to really think that there is even a handfull of votes that photo ID's could prevent.
"....are you against it ???"
Why do you think I am against it. Every time I vote here I show an ID. It's called a voter registration card, and as I said, it's worked for over 200 years.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Oct 18, 2014, at 7:29 PM
Dang Common, Never knew you were that old. :)
Why do I think you are against it?, because your party tells you so.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Oct 18, 2014, at 7:49 PM
What I really wonder about is why there are no conservatives honest enough to simply admit that they are trying to reduce the number of legal democratic voters because the republicans are losing voters every time another old white male dies.
This is pretty obvious, and logic tells you that if can't attract voters with your policies, then limit, in any possible way, the number of legal opposition voters.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Oct 18, 2014, at 8:46 PM
I don't have to wonder about why libs want to add to the number of voters they seek to convince to vote democrat because they are inferior and need democratic help to protect them against their own ability to succeed.
Common, expand upon that racial denotation of old white males if you please.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Oct 18, 2014, at 9:00 PM
"...want to add to the number of voters..."
What is wrong with voting legally? Why would democrats need "illegal" votes when they already seem to be in the majority? And the best proof of that is the lengths the republicans are going to in their attempts to disenfranchise legal voters.
- - - - - - - - -
"...because they are inferior and need democratic help..."
Perhaps you can find a quote from a democratic candidate claiming this is true. I know minorities are not inferior and it always seems to be some republican/conservative that says they are.
- - - - - - - - -
"...racial denotation of old white males..."
There's nothing "racial" about it. I would believe that it should not surprise you that older, white males have a strong propensity to vote conservative/republican. It's also pretty clear that they have an extremely difficult time attracting voters with different characteristics.
- - - - - - - - -
"....suggesting Republicans are white and democrats are black?"
I'm not suggesting anything. It would however, lead a reasonable person to conclude that republicans are "exclusive" and democrats are "inclusive."
- - - - - - - - -
"....not make them automatically guilty by the color of their skin."
Is that like assuming that they will vote illegally because of the "color of their skin?"
- - - - - - - - -
"...the gist of your political beliefs , the color of a person..."
The "color of a person" has zero to do with my political beliefs. What I object to is creating false claims that there is this earth-shaking surge of the poor and minorities voting illegally, and the only way to stop this malevolent and vile effort is to cut voting hours, reduce registration opportunity, restrict voting days, limit access to voting machines, demand the equivalent of a "poll tax" and require registered voters to now possess a specific government-issued paper with photo, that has never been necessary until republican state legislatures found it a convenient means of reducing opposition vote numbers.
- - - - - - - - -
Getting back to logical approaches...
With republican/conservative relative numbers shrinking and democratic numbers increasing it would be highly logical for republicans/conservatives to invent ways to limit the number of democrats being able to vote. But instead of admitting that, they concoct this unbelievable and far-fetched theory that it is those millions of illegal voters that's causing them to do so poorly in national elections and disenfranchisement is the way to solve their imagined "problem."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Oct 19, 2014, at 8:15 AM
"...this as your opinion..."
It may be but it is also statistically correct. If republicans were not losing ground all over the nation, why would they be trying so hard to disenfranchise legal voters.
"Nor do I hear them complain about fraud."
That's my point exactly. There is no significant "fraud" that could be preventedby asking registered voters for a photo ID.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Oct 19, 2014, at 4:33 PM
Common thinks Al Franken was the victim of republican voter disenfranchisement.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Oct 19, 2014, at 6:14 PM
Why would I believe that? I do not know whether or not Minnesota has un-Constitutional voter ID laws? I'd guess that they are not like Texas.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Oct 19, 2014, at 6:26 PM
Democrats have history of finding votes after losing elections while crying foul about voter fraud.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Oct 19, 2014, at 6:42 PM
Democrats have history of finding votes after losing elections while crying foul about voter fraud.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Oct 19, 2014, at 6:42 PM
? I wonder if you have forgotten the 'hanging chad' in Florida, and just who was the beneficiary?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Sun, Oct 19, 2014, at 7:05 PM
Why would I believe that? I do not know whether or not Minnesota has un-Constitutional voter ID laws? I'd guess that they are not like Texas.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Oct 19, 2014, at 6:26 PM
How can it be unconstitutional if the Constitution does not give you the right to vote?
-- Posted by BonScott on Sun, Oct 19, 2014, at 7:21 PM
BS, Also the court that the libs love and respect did not rule it unconstitutional.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Oct 19, 2014, at 7:29 PM
Reasoning, I wonder if you forgot that Al Gore',,, now Obama's new buddy had in place 50,000 robo-calls in place to stir the pot well ahead of time along with a plan to invalidate military absentee votes.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Oct 19, 2014, at 7:33 PM
This is pretty obvious, and logic tells you that if can't attract voters with your policies -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Oct 18, 2014, at 8:46 PM
So the loss of the US House under Obama, the tight senate control coming in this election, the landslide domination in state legislatures and governorships with republicans is not because people agree with their policies, it's because of...
-racists?
-voter ids?
-failed democrat policies?
racists and voter ID's are your two favorites as to how such domination by republicans has occurred and is threatening to grow even more.
I believe it's failed liberal democrat policies that you support. They are not "common"by any means. They're fringe, liberal, socialist failed polices - period.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Oct 19, 2014, at 8:41 PM
I guess insignificant fraud is a-ok with common. Just not significant.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Sun, Oct 19, 2014, at 8:45 PM
Guess the next time I cash a check and asked for a photo ID I will just answer that it is unconstitutional to ask for one....wonder if I will get my check cashed. What is more important cashing a check or voting, both should have a photo ID requirement.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Oct 19, 2014, at 10:23 PM
Don't confuse the posters miccheck, they only read the second amendment, and spend most of their time trying to understand that one! Ha!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 6:34 AM
"...more important cashing a check or voting..."
Why do you seem to believe they are the same thing. Voting and cashing a check have nothing to do with one another.
In voting you are exercising a Constitutional right, while in check cashing you are giving someone a piece of paper so they will give you money. How are those two acts related?
The main issue is that since illegal voting (accomplished by not having to show a photo) is extremely rare and has been proven in a small number of isolated incidents. The unconstitutional aspect is requiring a legally registered voter who has been duly identified by acceptable (for over 200 years) identification, to also show a government issued photo ID.
Per the 15th Amendment...
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--"
Republicans/conservatives want to deny and abridge the right to vote because of the citizen may vote for the opposite party. That's what's sad and shameful.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 7:12 AM
Republicans/conservatives want to deny and abridge the right to vote because of the citizen may vote for the opposite party. That's what's sad and shameful.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 7:12 AM
Liberal democrats like Common want to deny the fact that the domination of republicans in state legislatures/governorships, the US House and the fact that the senate is in play is because of failed, socialist policies that they support.
People don't want your welfare, obamacare, obamaphones, subsidized housing, free food, 99 weeks of unemployment and targeting of political opponents. Add to that your killing of our national coal industry and refusal to build the keystone pipeline. Oh - and don't forget that $17 trillion in debt you've doubled.
Your race baiting arguments fail Common. It's about what you and Obama have "accomplished" - disaster.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 7:36 AM
-- Posted by miccheck on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 5:40 AM
The constitution does not ensure your "right" to vote. It only states you can't be denied the "right" to vote based on race or gender. After that, it is completely left up to the states. Therefore, showing a picture ID is perfectly legal....See miccheck, I don't have a problem looking past the end of my arm.
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 8:22 AM
Since reasoning again infused the 2nd amendment and voter fraud is insignificant as common says,less than 1%(taking out gang related and suicides)of deaths in the USA are gun related so why worry about it. Insignificant.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 8:22 AM
Reasoning is absolutely, positively obsessed/scared of guns and gun rights. I think he once posted this line:
"Does anyone else on here find this behavior disturbing?" - Reasoning
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 9:04 AM
"Now I'm mixfused."
You shouldn't have to be.
The incidence of vote fraud enabled by the lack of a photo ID law is extremely rare.
There are many people without a state issued photo ID, primarily because they are poor or elderly, but do have a voter registration card for identification, a system that has been working for over 200 years.
The republicans/conservatives believe that those people tend to vote democratic.
The photo ID laws are intended to prevent those people from voting. Republicans/conservatives are trying to convince people that there are hundreds of thousands of illegal votes cast at every polling place and the only way to stop that is to demand the equivalent of a national ID card for each voter.
The republicans/conservatives seem to believe that it is proper to prevent large numbers of legal voters (perhaps millions on a nationwide basis) to stop one or two illegal votes cast by someone without needing a photo ID.
My contention is that the republicans/conservatives see disenfranchisement as the only way of their having any chance in nationwide elections, so they are willing to attempt to implement unconstitutional requirements to prevent Americans from voting legally.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 9:21 AM
Kind of strange when there are more votes in a precinct than voters.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 9:25 AM
The photo ID laws are intended to prevent those people from voting.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 9:21 AM
Not true. Trying to verify who you are as a legal voter is not "disenfranchising".
===
My contention is that the republicans/conservatives see disenfranchisement as the only way of their having any chance in nationwide elections"-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 9:21 AM
Your "contention" is wrong as has been proven repeatedly. The FAILED policies you support and your president has implemented is the reason democrats are running from both of you. And losing elections at the state and federal level.
It's a failure - and you've embraced it. Grab a mirror.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 9:27 AM
If Common was truly concerned with voting rights he would be outraged at the numerous attempts by democrats to keep the military from voting.
Curious he doesn't speak of that "disenfranchisement".
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 9:28 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 9:21 AM
Common,
Your post can be easily summed up..... SSDD!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 9:30 AM
Wheels, I think common's dream job would be a certified voter machine technician.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 9:32 AM
Wheels - I actually had DSDD last week. 80 degrees, sunny every day and REDS - not the Obama kind, the ocean kind.
It was nice...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 9:40 AM
"...more votes in a precinct than voters."
And that happens in every polling place in every election. That's laughable...
"...certified voter machine technician."
What would that have to do with allowing legal registered voter to cast their ballot?
I'm still waiting for at least one honest or courageous republican/conservative to say, "Of course we're trying to suppress the vote, what would you expect us to do, appeal to ordinary Americans?"
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 9:47 AM
I'm waiting for a democrat to say of course we are accusing republicans of trying to keep illegals and felons from voting while we continue to understand educated and logical people vote republican.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 9:59 AM
According to what I think I read from one of Common's posts... voting from the cemetery has been working well for over 200 years, so why change it now.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 10:14 AM
Dug,
You down South eating Royal Reds and me sitting here in Missouri eating hot dogs, something isn't right about this. Laying that on me on Monday morning is a low down Leftist type trick. ;-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 10:22 AM
Other things common must hate as well: showing ID to buy liquor, insurance, a home, a phone, a firearm, cash a check or open a bank account, receive any type of welfare, etc...These few examples must infuriate common, because it's obvious poor people or the elderly never do any of those things...Grab a life preserver common, you're sinking.
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 10:24 AM
"...trying to keep illegals and felons from voting..."
Why should anyone object to that? My position is that legal registered voters should be allowed to continue voting as they always have.
"...educated and logical people vote republican."
I have serious doubts about that being the case. It's clear that some "...educated and logical people vote republican," but unfortunately there are so many that do not choose to, for very logical reasons.
As for "...educated and logical..." how do you explain the preponderance of SO people that claim to disregard "Limbaugh speak" while continuing, year after year, to repeat his absurd mantra.
Here are other examples of republican "logic"...
"On Monday, a Republican member of Congress from Alabama said on a radio program that Democrats were waging a "war on whites."
"That same day, a Republican representative from Indiana speculated on another radio program, with no evidence whatsoever, that children immigrating from Central America might be carrying the Ebola virus.
"I wanted to see what this sort of craziness felt like. So on Tuesday, I voted Republican. It tingles all over. I feel zestfully irrational."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 10:29 AM
"These few examples..."
are perfectly normal, but have nothing to do with preventing registered voters from casting a legal ballot.
Perhaps you can confirm that in Texas they are now requiring a photo birth certificate in order to get an ID card to vote.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 10:33 AM
You up already BC? :-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 11:10 AM
Simply more Common deflection.
Failed policies. Failed results. An electorate and politicians running from Obama and what does common blame?
Voter ID laws... and racist republicans.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 12:00 PM
"A picture ID card will solve nothing."
That part is exactly correct, and it's because there is no "problem" that the photo ID solves.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 12:19 PM
Picture IDs. Just more government in the lives of private citizens, wait, isn't this what the Republican party is against?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 12:32 PM
Picture IDs. Just more government in the lives of private citizens, wait, isn't this what the Republican party is against?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 12:32 PM
So you're also against showing ID to purchase alcohol, tobacco, a firearm, rent a car, cash a check, etc...That's very interesting.
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 12:46 PM
So you're also against showing ID to purchase alcohol, tobacco, a firearm, rent a car, cash a check, etc...That's very interesting.
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 12:46 PM
Oh you are confused. I did not say I am against ID for any of those things, and I am not Republican!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 1:09 PM
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 1:09 PM
I'm not confused Reasoning, and lord knows you're not a republican....So why are you against showing a photo ID to vote? What are you scared of?
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 1:35 PM
"...doesn't like a photo ID..."
What does "liking" have to do with anything. Does not having a photo ID make one a criminal? When you are old and/or poor you just may not have the documents to obtain a "state issued" photo ID.
Why should republicans not support a program where all registered voters would, if they so desire, receive a new voter registration card with a photo included right there in the polling place?
Oh yeah, that would defeat the purpose of suppressing the vote.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 2:24 PM
SSDD..........
-- Posted by rocknroll on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 3:18 PM
When you are old and/or poor you just may not have the documents to obtain a "state issued" photo ID.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 2:24 PM
When you are old and / or poor you just may not be able to walk or have a car to get to the polls. Do we need a new federal "drive the vote" law now? Why do you support democrats that try to suppress the military vote common?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 3:18 PM
If you believe in voting.... then you should also believe that even one illegal vote has had the effect of canceling out one legitimate vote. Now who is being discriminated against?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 3:49 PM
"...than getting illegal immigrants and dead people..."
Apparently some on SO still have a severe reading deficiency. From the beginning, no one has proposed having "...illegal immigrants and dead people to vote." All along I have been referring to legal registered voters, not anyone illegal.
"Now who is being discriminated against?"
And unconstitutional requirements for legal voters to cast their ballots can cancel out hundreds fo thousands of legal votes. But then again, I guess that's the republican/conservative goal, isn't it?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 4:25 PM
Common,
Are you purposely being dense, or does it come naturally?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 4:47 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 4:25 PM
Hey super sub, it's not unconstitutional for a state to require a photo ID to vote.
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 4:51 PM
Common, you're almost as entertaining as miccheck used to be. And you claim you're not a "liberal"...that is funny.
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 4:54 PM
Special kind of stupid,he is.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 5:10 PM
I'm wondering where is the proof that photo Id would prevent anyone from legally voting.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 5:26 PM
It's logical to assume someone that doesn't like a photo ID must have something to hide.
-- Posted by RELee on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 1:55 PM
Like when someone buys a handgun in a parking lot without any ID etc?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 6:08 PM
Could you be changing your premise on gun control ?
-- Posted by ▪Rebel on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 6:12 PM
Absolutely not!!I believe whole heartedly in background checks! I am agreeing that someone who is doing business in the parking lot without an ID, has something to hide!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 7:13 PM
"I'm not sure what the republican/conservative goal is and not so sure if they do either."
Let's make very clear. The republican/conservative goal is to surpress the democratic voter numbers. They want to reduce the number of legal voters that can vote against them.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 7:48 PM
"...not so sure if they do either."
Sorry, but they know exactly what they are doing. It's their only hope since they can't compete on ideas.
Please disregard this foolishness about there being thousands of "illegal" voters. There is no evidence, whatsoever, of that.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 7:52 PM
And there is no evidence that republicans/conservatives are trying to surpress voters...come up for air common.
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 7:55 PM
"...more important cashing a check or voting..."
Why do you seem to believe they are the same thing. Voting and cashing a check have nothing to do with one another.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 7:12 AM
Common: It's the same concept, proof as to who you are is needed for check cashing and voting. What are the Liberals afraid of....don't Democrats cash checks, open bank accounts, stay at motels, collect welfare, receive food stamps, receive unemployment checks and other matters where proof is needed to who you are.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 8:06 PM
The republican/conservative goal is to surpress the democratic voter numbers. They want to reduce the number of legal voters that can vote against them.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 7:48 PM
Says the guy who supports a party that suppresses the military vote. I cannot think of anything more shameful re: voting than that. Is this the same Common that wrote this??? Surely not:
"The simplest solution is to continue as is, for all registered voters, and when someone registers to vote for the first time, or in a new locale, issue him or her a VOTER CARD WITH A PHOTO ON IT." -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 4:05 PM
Issue voter cards with a photo on it? Wow. Sounds like you *used* to have "common sense". Not so much anymore. It's all about race now isn't it?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 8:16 PM
Very little voter fraud? Complete lie:
"In October 2006, St. Louis election officials discovered at least 1,492 "potentially fraudulent" voter registration cards. They were all turned in by ACORN volunteers. In November 2006, 20,000 to 35,000 questionable voter registration forms were turned in by ACORN officials in Missouri. Most all of these were from St. Louis and Kansas City areas, where ACORN purportedly sought to help empower the "disenfranchised" minorities living there."
or
"For 3 years the US Justice department has pursued a case against Missouri for failing to clean up it's voter rolls. Under Robin Carnahans watch 1/3 of Missouri counties have more registered voters than age-eligible voters."
or
"In 2004, John Kerry won Wisconsin over George W. Bush by 11,380 votes out of 2.5 million cast. After allegations of fraud surfaced, the Milwaukee police department's Special Investigative Unit conducted a probe. Its February 2008 report found that from 4,600 to 5,300 more votes were counted in Milwaukee than the number of voters recorded as having cast ballots. Absentee ballots were cast by people living elsewhere; ineligible felons not only voted but worked at the polls; transient college students cast improper votes; and homeless voters possibly voted more than once"
Just 10's of thousands of illegal, fraudulent votes cast. There are many, many more examples.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 8:27 PM
Dug, I reckon you're saving Minnesota for later. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 8:49 PM
Let's make very clear. The democrat/liberal goal is to continue the democratic voter numbers that vote for them without proper enfranchisement.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 8:52 PM
Dug, I reckon you're saving Minnesota for later. :) -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 8:49 PM
Common won't answer or reference the hard questions. He prefers to drivel on and on. He'll post again about how there are no cases of voter fraud. Minnesota would be another great example.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 9:57 PM
Texas dems looked hard and found an 80 year old guy that said he maybe wouldn't vote. But the Texas laws exempt people over 65.
I'm thinking if that man in the White House mentioned something about a chicken in every pot, common would become a chicken farmer. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 10:14 PM
"There is no evidence, whatsoever, of that."
As I have said all along there is virtually no credible evidence of vote fraud that would have been prevented by the unconstitutional demand for a photo ID.
Cleaning up voter rolls, potential registration discrepancies, or fraudulent absentee ballots all need to be corrected and prevented.
How does requiring a registered voter with valid signature and voter registration card for identification, do anything to stop something like illegal absentee voting?
If that's a bit too challenging mentally, I'll try to explain it in simpler terms. Supression of legal votes is the only chance republican/conservatives have. That certainly can't be that difficult for you to comprehend.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 10:30 PM
Common, please enlighten all of us on how it's unconstitutional for a state to require photo ID?...We'll be waiting a long time because you can't.
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 10:38 PM
Like when someone buys a handgun in a parking lot without any ID etc?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 6:08 PM
Reasoning,
If it is two private citizens that is a legal transaction no matter where it takes place... and it should be. However, a smart seller doing a private transaction is going to get a little information if he is smart. And a smart buyer is going to do the same and is not going to buy a handgun from somebody that appears to be selling stolen merchandise.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 10:59 PM
Now he says it an unconstitutional demand.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 11:09 PM
Absolutely not!!I believe whole heartedly in background checks! I am agreeing that someone who is doing business in the parking lot without an ID, has something to hide!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 7:13 PM
Reasoning,
You write as if you knew what you were talking about, and that it was a fact.
Legitimate dealers that have a license are not going to risk selling to someone in the parking lot with no paperwork and no background check... they have too much to lose by doing so. It is ludicrous to think they would. And there are rules on non licensed individuals dealing guns as an occupation without a license already.
Do individuals go to gun shows with a particular gun they would like to trade for something else, or to sell... sure they do and why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?
If I had a legal firearm either a long gun or a hand gun and wanted to sell it, why would I not be allowed to do so, no matter where the transaction takes place? Otherwise how would you suggest that I get the gun sold to someone else?
The old 22 rifle I purchased for $5 from a cousin when I was about the 7th grade one Sunday morning after church.... how would you suggest we had handled that transaction? That was before we had all this liberal foolishness and phobia about guns. You could walk into the little country store where I grew up carrying your 22 rifle and set it down against the counter and purchase a box of shells for it and go on home. Nobody screamed, nobody panicked. Somebody might ask to look at your gun, or want to know if you might sell it. That store was never robbed, the owner was never beaten up or shot.
Reasoning, what do you think has happened to society that we need all of these firearms laws today? If you cannot think of any reasons I could help you out with a few.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 11:25 PM
"...says it [is] an unconstitutional demand."
It may not be for you or I, but the republican/conservative intent is pretty clearly to suppress minority voting rights, by implementing what amounts to a poll tax (requiring minorities without birth certificates) to pay state and local agencies to try and "document" their obvious birth. Another aspect is the intentional elimination of early voting on Sundays, when leaders in black churches encouraged parishioners to go vote immediately after the services. That vote suppression move was specifically aimed at minorities.
Per the 15th Amendment, that's unconstitutional.
There was actually one honest republican/conservative that had the courage to tell the truth. The republican majority leader in Pennsylvania, Mike Turzai, admitted that their voter ID law had been designed specifically to enable Governor Romney a better chance to win in that state, by disenfranchising legal democratic voters.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 6:25 AM
Reasoning, what do you think has happened to society that we need all of these firearms laws today? If you cannot think of any reasons I could help you out with a few.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 11:25 PM
I appreciate your request. I don't think restating all the reasons gun control is important, is the right thing to do on this thread. And, I would be repeating myself. It is obvious when you read the morning news, no?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 6:47 AM
How does requiring a registered voter with valid signature and voter registration card for identification, do anything to stop something like illegal absentee voting?-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 10:30 PM
Have you ever voted absentee? Apparently not.
=====
Supression of legal votes is the only chance republican/conservatives have. That certainly can't be that difficult for you to comprehend. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 10:30 PM
You are consistent - albeit wrong. So I'll be consistent and ask the question you still won't answer - you believe that the domination of republicans in state legislatures/governorships, the US House and their gains in the senate this Fall are because of voter suppression?
It's the failed policies of your president. That's why democrats are critical of him and running from him and his approval rating is in the tank.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 7:04 AM
I believe whole heartedly in background checks! I am agreeing that someone who is doing business in the parking lot without an ID, has something to hide! -- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Oct 20, 2014, at 7:13 PM
All those people at flea markets who conduct business in a parking lot have something to hide? Because they don't present a photo ID to buy a cabbage patch doll? Or a gun?
The fact of the matter is this - when you purchase a gun from an individual you don't need a photo ID.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 7:08 AM
Common, I see you're still avoiding my question...
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 7:23 AM
Rebel, they still are in Paducah.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 9:19 AM
To the thread title: Is Voting Really So Hard?
Read this. Just happened. You won't believe it!
"Chicagoland voting machine casts candidate's vote for his Dem opponent"
"While using a touch screen voting machine in Schaumburg, Moynihan voted for several races on the ballot, only to find that whenever he voted for a Republican candidate, the machine registered the vote for a Democrat in the same race."
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 9:48 AM
A little different but akin in theory, when we were first shocked with gasoline woes I read an article on how fuel pumps are tested for accuracy. A 5 gallon bucket is filled. A couple of college kids figured a way to manipulate the pumps to be accurate for 5 gallons [passing the state test] and then measure 5 gallons per 4.7 gallons pumped thereafter. I'm sure the ACORN folks could do the same with voting machines if they were in charge of servicing them in Chicago. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 10:45 AM
"...avoiding my question...
See Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 6:25 AM.
Was there another?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 1:28 PM
Good try common. The 15 amendment has ZERO baring on states requiring photo ID...You're still sinking, grab the life preserver.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 3:02 PM
"...has ZERO [bearing] on states...
Guess again...
AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.
Section 1.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--"
Forcing minorities to pay for the right to vote is unconstitutional. What part of that do you not comprehend?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 4:27 PM
on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--"-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 4:27 PM
What part of that says anything about photo ID? Talk about spin.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 5:11 PM
So who is forcing minorities to pay for the right to vote?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 6:26 PM
Last time common, because I figured a super sub would be a little smarter...The states can do whatever they want when it comes to voting, with the exception of denying an individual because of race or gender....I think you are about to drown.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 7:04 PM
"...forcing minorities to pay..."
If an elderly Black American has a legal voter registration card, and no need for a photo ID otherwise, the state forces him to pay for any documentation to get one, the state is acting unconstitutionally by assessing a poll tax.
Unless he pays that poll tax, he is not allowed to vote. That's clearlyy unconstitutional.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 8:28 PM
"That's clearlyy unconstitutional." Judge Common, Can you give an example of a elderly American that is affected?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 8:35 PM
Unless he pays that poll tax, he is not allowed to vote. That's clearlyy unconstitutional.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 8:28 PM
Common,
Calling any incidental expense to acquiring a photo ID, has got to be one of the dumber things you have come up with.
Hell, the expense of the gasoline I use to get to the polls could be called a poll tax by your definitions. Are you living on a secret hazardous materials dump in your little corner of Bollinger County?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 8:54 PM
"Calling any incidental expense to acquiring a photo ID, has got to be one of the dumber things you have come up with."
Should hace said...........
'Calling any incidental expense to acquiring a photo ID a "poll tax", has got to be one of the dumber things you have come up with.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 8:58 PM
Super sub, we're talking about a photo ID, not a poll tax....My 85 year old grandma, who has never had a drivers license, has a photo ID. Oh, and she is considered poor and lives completely off of social security...Wow, I need to call her and let her know she is being discriminated against and oppressed...You're a joke common.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 8:59 PM
Sorry, how ever you choose to spin it, forcing a minority to pay to vote is unconstitutional. End of story. Read the 15th Amendment again.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 9:16 PM
How does this affect any minority and why in your twisted logic do minorities deserve special protection unless you deem them inferior?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 9:24 PM
I'm not spinning it super sub. You can't get past the "race" issue, which clouds your "common" sense on a lot of issues. I think you have officially drowned....So I guess carding a 50 year old, poor black man for a 40oz Old English is racist and unconstitutional as well, eh common?
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 9:24 PM
BC, How's the American history studies going?
Mine have a certain de ja vu about them or however it's spelled. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 9:35 PM
Wheels, When my wife and I were first married, we lived in a county, not Bollinger or Stoddard, one where we built our first house. When we drove 20 miles on a gravel rode to the polling place, the place was filled with people. We voted, and to our surprise the votes were called out where everyone could hear how we voted.
I'm not a voter now, but I do understand the process after being a county party chairman.
-- Posted by BCStoned on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 1:11 AM
BC,
When I was first married there was no urgency in learning the voting process. I was married at 19 and you didn't get to vote until you were 21. At 19 you could not get married without a parent signing for you, you could not drink alcohol legally, you could not vote.... but you were eligible for the draft.
I assumed a loan and took over the payments on a house that was going into foreclosure before I was eligible to vote. When the paperwork was processed and we signed the bottom line, no one asked my age and I never volunteered it, We were given a payment book and we made them even if it put us on near starvation diets a few times.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 10:38 PM
I'm guessing Barry Soetoro's foreign student photo ID wouldn't work at the voting booth.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 10:38 PM
RnR - kind fits this liberal bunch doesn't it? You don't need a birth certificate to prove you were born here, you don't need any transcripts to prove you went to college and you don't need a voter ID to prove your an American.
Sounds like Common and Obama have just about completed their drive to make this country a 3rd world one indeed.
I'm so happy this morning that we have an Ebola czar. I slept so much better last night.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 6:43 AM
"...twisted logic do minorities deserve special protection..."
Could be it's like defining every gun nut as a bona fide militia member...
But actually as the 15th Amendment says...
The right "...to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race..."
Looks to me like that's "special protection" for minorities.
And it's clearly not a matter of being unable to "...get past the 'race' issue..." as the "race issue" is the purpose of the 15th Amendment.
But it's not all bad. If at some time in the future us "white folks" become the minority, we'll be protected instead. (Sarcasm.)
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 7:20 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 7:20 AM
You've jumped the shark super sub. I'm going to let you argue with yourself now. A 10 year old could understand the constitution better than you.
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 7:27 AM
You have to have a voter ID Common. You have to register to vote. Those are no different than a photo ID. You support them and don't believe they will "deny or abridge" the right to vote. There are requirements to cast a ballot and you support them. No different than a photo ID.
It's all race and power with you. Anything to get those voters off the couch.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 7:27 AM
"I'm going to let you argue..."
Thanks for conceding.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 7:33 AM
Don't think he was conceding Common, just one of those situations where it's like wrestling with a pig..... you're both going to get dirty, but the pig loves it. So what's the use?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 7:55 AM
Bingo wheels!...:)
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 8:27 AM
Good thing you've got someone covering your mistakes...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 8:33 AM
Why are people so afraid of the word Socialism? I believe it is because they are attributing meaning to the word that simply isn't so.
Socialism is " a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles" Would you rather have distribution controlled by elite powers? Monarchy? Dictator??
It isn't a horrible word, it is the ignorance of the concept that is bad!
Voting - to each his own, but I was taught (and have therefore always felt), it was a valuable gift. If you choose not to exercise that gift, it only makes my vote more valuable!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 8:36 AM
And it's a good thing you never taught my kids in school "super sub"....you are the true definition of a pseudo-intellectual, along with your president.
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 8:39 AM
Reasoning,
How about some examples of where your favored system, Socialism, has worked long term?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 8:43 AM
Reasoning, I suggest you go live in a socialist country for a few years and then report back to us. I think your opinion might be a little different...Why do you think we have the biggest immigration problem?...
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 8:51 AM
Thanks Rick, I knew reasoning left out some key information....For the life of me, I truly can't understand how someone would want to live that way.
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM
Studying the effects of Socialism doesn't require foreign travel. Just a short trip to Iowa to study the Amana Colonies should be enough to convince one that it is a failed concept.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 9:15 AM
With capitalism you have many people pulling the wagon and few riding on the wagon.
With socialism you invariably always wind up with more people riding on the wagon than helping to pull it.
We are almost there folks.... by whatever name you choose to call it, we will soon have more people on welfare than producing.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 9:33 AM
Your right wheels. And in the end the only one left standing is the government, and we know what that will get us.
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 9:39 AM
"...you are the true definition of a pseudo-intellectual..."
BS (rather appropriate for you, don't you think.)
I'd say you've descended to the Dug level of credibility (as in right at zero). Rather that looking at facts, you seem to enjoy only the "name-calling" and, in my opinion, your ineffective and childish attempts at ridicule and unsuccessful derision, are really not worth responding to.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 9:45 AM
Common,
Since we are discussing Socialism, do you believe Socialism works and/or..... would it work in our country?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 9:50 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 9:45 AM
The liberal cop out of "I give up". I haven't name called and I've given you many factual examples of where you are wrong.
And, as usual, you hide. And when you lose, you resort to personal attacks. Grab a mirror Common.
Whether you respond to my posts or not matters none to me. You read them and others do as well. Mission accomplished. I don't need your personal attacks to feel "credible". As a matter of fact, your avoidance is proof enough you can't handle the truth.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 9:54 AM
When Common has no answer he goes into the "Ignore" mode. Kind of amusing.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 9:58 AM
"...you are the true definition of a pseudo-intellectual..."
BS (rather appropriate for you, don't you think.)
I'd say you've descended to the Dug level of credibility (as in right at zero). Rather that looking at facts, you seem to enjoy only the "name-calling" and, in my opinion, your ineffective and childish attempts at ridicule and unsuccessful derision, are really not worth responding to.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 9:45 AM
Once again, showing the true hypocracy of a "liberal". I'll take the comparison to Dug as a compliment, as I agree with 99% of what he posts and it's informative and it does have merit....I stand by the constitution common, you interpret it. I believe in free market common, you endorse regulations. I believe in small government common, you want it to grow...Those are FACTS of how this country is supposed to run. Slice it, dice it, and sauté it how you like, but you are 100% wrong on your view of government....Thanks for trying though.
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 10:17 AM
"...into the "Ignore" mode. Kind of amusing."
It's neither a case of having "no answer" nor a matter of being "amusing," although I do have to laugh at many of the antics and contributions of some of our SO friends. It goes back to the old saying of, "If you don't have something nice to say about someone, it's better to say nothing at all."
As for "socialism" working, if your socialistic group gets bigger than an extended family, it's probably doomed. In our country, with the exception of some fields, there's no reason to try it, and I don't really think anyone wants it.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 10:20 AM
.....with the exception of some fields, there's no reason to try it......
To emulate your use of partial statements.... what would those fields be? Why would Socialism work in these fields when it won't in others.
It appears that you are endorsing creeping Socialism. You know, the kind that eventually captures the entire system.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 10:44 AM
Probably voting for a Socialist society every time one pulls the lever for a leftist at the polls.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 11:16 AM
I wouldn't assume other posters of being ignorant .
-- Posted by ▪Rebel on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 9:02 AM
You misunderstand. By saying, "Ignorant of a concept", I meant not understanding a concept but making a judgment anyway.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 11:34 AM
-- Posted by Reasoning on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 11:34 AM
Reasoning,
I want to assure you that I fully understand the concept. And while not ignorant of the concept, neither am I stupid to the point of agreeing with it or believing it will ever be successful long term. It is not reality and human nature prevents it from working.
One only has to look at our current growing welfare fiasco to understand that there is a growing number of takers while the rest of us pay the taxes that keep them as takers instead of realizing their true potential.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 12:09 PM
"It appears that you are endorsing creeping Socialism."
Not really.
In mentioning certain "fields" I was referring to areas of society which may be considered "socialistic" by some but may not be.
For example, social security is in fact an insurance program that you invest in and receive benefits, rather than straight "welfare." My position has always been that the percentages deducted, the eligibility ages for different levels of pay outs, the amounts received, and effective income levels be adjusted so the program is self-sufficient and requires no offset from the general revenue.
Medicare should be treated in similar fashion to make it self-sufficient also. This is also considered to be "socialistic" by some but really in not since it is actually a government run health insurance program (that by the way is tremendously more efficient than private insurance.) Furthermore, this type of single payer system would be the best for the whole country, especially if set up to be augmented by optional private insurance.
The other major "field" that is closer to actual socialism in the various types of welfare and income credit. I have continually stated that I believe those should limited in amount and duration. If a family is receiving welfare and Medicaid, this is often halted if one or more family member s find work. If that job is low paying, welfare should be reduced, but Medicaid should continue until higher incomes are earned. Often people in that situation decline to work, not because they are unwilling to work, but because working will cause them to lose Medicaid coverage.
So there are areas where so-called "socialism" is working and should continue to do so, but not in an expansionary mode. I am in favor of no one being "dependent" on government and everyone being productive and self-sufficient, and enjoy free-market advantages.
That would also allow for the size of government to shrink. As I have mentioned often, the best way to reduce the size and role of government is zero-based budgeting for all agencies funding and manpower.
This is hardly socialistic, creeping or otherwise.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 1:23 PM
So what we've learned about voting is that the dastardly republicans want to keep old people and minorities from voting by adding a poll tax that is the government cost of an ID.
Nevermind that all proposals exempt people over 65.
Common's concern and protest is on behalf of all those poor old non-white people that are expected to vote democrat in exchange for such protest and concern from the democrats they elect.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 1:42 PM
Common,
You are promoting Social Security as what it was sold to the American as by FDR. But, that was a lie, the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional as such and they call it a tax which goes into general revenue and the payouts are now called "Entitlements" which are anything but payback on an insurance policy. And yes it is creeping socialism, medicare was tacked on and SSI and Medicaid etc. Not to mention now that employers are going to be forced into furnishing a hospitalization policy by year end, many are planning on putting low end employees on Medicaid, heard it this morning, and it is legal to do so if they qualify, more creeping socialism.
And then there is the big one that is glaring by it's omission in your post..... Obamacare, more socialization.
And the creeping is speeding up in the past few years to load us with as much welfare liability as possible before Obama leaves office.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 2:03 PM
"...all proposals exempt people over 65."
Possibly you may want to get that in writing before you show up without your photo ID.
The Texas law does not allow age exemptions.
Besides, you may not realize it but that type of an age exemption would defeat the republican/conservative purpose of vote suppression.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 2:30 PM
I believe something should be done about health care costs .
-- Posted by ▪Rebel on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 2:15 PM
Rebel
I would think if researched, one would find that the problem with health care costs, now and before Obamacare, have more to do with government having their nose in the industry up to their ankles than any other single cause.
Government cannot solve the problem... they are the problem. I believe Ronald Reagan stated that, but I may be wrong, but it is the truth.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 3:09 PM
That would also allow for the size of government to shrink. As I have mentioned often, the best way to reduce the size and role of government is zero-based budgeting for all agencies funding and manpower.
This is hardly socialistic, creeping or otherwise.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 1:23 PM
No, but it is a pipe dream.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 8:03 PM
Rather that looking at facts, you seem to enjoy only the "name-calling" and, in my opinion, your ineffective and childish attempts at ridicule and unsuccessful derision, are really not worth responding to. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 9:45 AM
I love Speak Out. It's fun, interesting, educational and entertaining. The most entertaining part - to me - are the Obama supporters. When you school them, they go to personal attacks and then whine when you return the favor. It's hilarious! It's the reason I come here daily.
Another example of an Obama worshipper losing it? Just the other day Jay/Ike/Spaniard/L'Spags was threatening me. He said he reported me. That I was done. That I was going to be taking a "permanent vacation" and that the moderator was going to block me. Also said I'd need a sock puppet. Ever since then, he's been incognito. Maybe he's busy visiting Putin in Russia or something. A complete melt down and then he vaporizes.
These liberals are very very insensitive to tough questions. I have never banned a single poster, attempted to have one banned, never changed my name and never not responded to another poster yet it is a thread that runs through all of them - every one. It's a character trait.
Grow up libs. You whine too much like your president. So thin skinned.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 8:13 PM
"...by it's omission in your post..."
The ACA affects less than 25% of the population. In a recent poll about 80% of the respondents stated that the ACA either helped them or it did not affect then either way.
Furthermore, how do state-run private health insurance exchanges equate to any manner of federal government "socialization."
As mentioned several times before, the only socialized medicine activity in the US is in the military.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 9:01 PM
I am describing, not "...promoting Social Security as..." it functions today, after operating successfully since 1935.
It is still an insurance program, and always has been. My personal experience is very typical. I paid into it since about 1960. After I turned 65 I began receiving benefits from the program that I had paid into. If I die tomorrow I stop receiving benefits.
Amounts deducted, the age to begin various payout levels, the monthly benefit amount, and the income cap on withholding, are all adjustable and the program should be modified to keep it on a self-sustaining basis. There is no "Ponzi" effect at all.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 9:14 PM
Downtrend.com
Obama Says Voter ID Laws Don't Suppress Black Vote, Laziness Does.
By Brian Anderson
October 21, 2014
What? Did Obama just say something that kind of makes sense? In the same Al Sharpton radio interview where the President submarined his fellow democrats by saying they support his agenda, Obama said that voter ID laws don't actually suppress the black vote. Instead, he blamed low black turn out on laziness, which is okay 'cause he's black too.
As you know, laws that require voters to prove who they are before casting a ballot are considered racist by the left. They claim that obtaining proper ID is a huge burden on the black community and therefore voter ID laws are suppressive to blacks.
Obama tried to dispel the voter ID/black vote suppression myth, a fundamental tenet of the Democratic Party, by saying blacks are either too lazy or just don't give a sh*t.
From The Hill:
"Most of these laws are not preventing the overwhelming majority of folks who don't vote from voting," Obama said during an interview with Rev. Al Sharpton. "Most people do have an ID. Most people do have a driver's license. Most people can get to the polls. It may not be as convenient, it may be a little more difficult."
And to make sure nobody is clear on what he thinks, Obama reiterated his point with a double negative:
"The bottom line is, if less than half of our folks vote, these laws aren't preventing the other half from not voting," Obama said.
So wait, the laws are not preventing folks from not voting? I'm not sure that's what he meant to say, but with Obama you never know. Maybe he thinks voter ID laws force people to vote against their will.
Continuing into the absurd, Obama blames a straw man for disenfranchisement and apathy in the black community:
"The reason we don't vote is because people have been fed this notion that somehow it's not going to make a difference," said Obama.
Yeah, where would people get the idea that voting doesn't change a **** thing? Maybe from a guy that promised hope and change but only delivered misery and disappointment. Hey, Obama is the straw man.
Obama is in rare form lately. He's ****** off the Latinos, completely alienated his democratic allies, and now he's bagging on his black base for being too lazy and apathetic. It's as if he he's intent on gifting as many voters and Congressional seats to the Republicans as possible.
Actually, there might be something to this seemingly bizarre strategy. If both houses of Congress are firmly in GOP hands, nobody on either side of the political spectrum would expect Obama to accomplish anything. Then he'd be free from his presidential duties, which he hates so much, and would be able to concentrate more on his golf game. Well played Barry, well played.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 9:31 PM
issue him or her a VOTER CARD WITH A PHOTO ON IT." -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 4:05 PM
the republican/conservative purpose of vote suppression. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 2:30 PM
This is what happens when you spin and lie - you get caught. You support voter cards with a photo on it 2 years ago. Now you call that republican voter suppression. What will it be next year? Depends on the wind doesn't it Common?
Playing both sides of the fence. Zero credibility.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 9:41 PM
Freedom, I think a republican congress would yield some results as it did with the Clinton administration. Obama would be forced to take credit for what would enhance his legacy.
Common, Your personal experience of social security lends little credence to anything but your allegiance to the progressive agenda that has evolved. Calling it an insurance plan is right in step with calling ACA a private enterprise.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 9:50 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Oct 23, 2014, at 5:29 AM
"Most of these laws are not preventing the overwhelming majority of folks who don't vote from voting," per President Obama.
That's absolutely correct. Most Americans of all races don't vote, particularly in off-year elections.
The republicans/conservatives are not concerned about "lazy" blacks, but they are concerned about those that want to vote. The ones that are registered and have a photo ID they can't do much about, except trying to reduce voting period to reduce access.
The blacks that want to vote and don't have a photo ID or the documentation required to get one, are the current target. The incidence of one voter voting once and then going from poll to poll and voting over and over again successfully (because of no photo ID requirement) is close to, if not at, zero.
There are cases of fraudulent registration and possibly cases of ballot box "stuffing" but these have nothing to do with a lack of a photo ID requirement. As I have suggested for years, if the republicans/conservatives want to implement a fair and honest picture ID prerequisite to voting, the states should issue voter registration cards with photos on them. Every registered voter whether voting for the first time or a long time voter should get a photo voter registration card at the polls the next time they go to vote.
This would have the effect of encouraging more people to vote, which apparently is the opposite of the republican/c0nservative intention. I'd suggest that their objective has been to discourage elderly and poor voters as in causing them to believe that there's no sense in going to the polls because they'll just be "hassled" by white folks demanding they show papers they don't have.
Unintended consequences may also come in to play. Part of the President's comments could have been designed to challenge voters, not just the "lazy" ones, but also those being disenfranchised. The desired low turnout can result in a much higher participation stemming from a "We'll show you" attitude.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 23, 2014, at 7:06 AM
"...your allegiance to the progressive agenda..."
First of all, I have no idea what you consider a "progressive agenda," but mine has been to stabilize Social Security/Medicare, reduce spending, decrease the size of government, and reduce the deficit by reforming the tax code. If that's "progressive" then I'd suggest a lot of republicans are, or at least should be, "progressive."
The way Social Security is working is on the insurance model. All pay into it and the payout varies by individual. Just as you can pay for auto insurance all your life and never have a claim, you can pay into SS and dies at 64 and never get anything back. It's not a savings plan, it's insurance.
And what part of state run, private insurance exchanges, don't you agree with? Where is the federal government involved?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 23, 2014, at 7:17 AM
Every post you make common proves your lack of knowledge towards the constitution. And your example of auto insurance solidifies my point.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 23, 2014, at 7:24 AM
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Oct 23, 2014, at 8:53 AM
-- Posted by ▪Rebel on Thu, Oct 23, 2014, at 8:53 AM
I take this as your opinion.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Oct 23, 2014, at 8:55 AM
Thanks Dug
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Oct 23, 2014, at 8:56 AM
Rick, you don't have to be a rebel to make the government work correctly. I don't quite get some of your posts here lately.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 23, 2014, at 9:03 AM
That may be true, but that's not how our country was set up.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 23, 2014, at 9:11 AM
A person's SSN is their Government ID ....
-- Posted by ▪Rebel on Thu, Oct 23, 2014, at 8:56 AM
Exactly! And yet, you can't open a bank account with just a SSN! Go figure.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Oct 23, 2014, at 10:22 AM
RE, I was in my 20's before I knew what Rick calls sweet leaf was. When I was a kid, Dad pointed out the plant as loco weed and said you don't want to let the goats eat it lest you want real trouble in the barnyard. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Oct 23, 2014, at 6:49 PM
True. I should have said they want to take away my right to practice my beliefs openly
-- Posted by RELee on Thu, Oct 23, 2014, at 9:43 PM
What do you mean by this? A belief comes from inside you, a 'state of mind'. Practicing your beliefs sounds more like religious rituals.
What are you referring to?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 6:00 AM
And who is trying to take what away?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 6:21 AM
-- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 6:00 AM
Companies being forced to provide birth control, businesses being forced to bake cakes, businesses being forced to host receptions, businesses being sued for offering church discounts, etc...Remember reasoning, "common sense" should matter, but I guess not.
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 6:34 AM
Well I'll be, BS and RELee are the same poster.
From another thread,
Please tell me how I am responsible for someone's poor choice to get pregnant without the means to pay for it.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 23, 2014, at 1:36 PM
Now let me get this straight. You don't want the insurance to cover birth control, you are against government helping with the cost of pregnancy, and you don't believe in abortion.
Seems to me, what you are against is helping "the poor". (Either that, are you have not experienced one of the finer things in life!)
-- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 8:16 AM
"Now let me get this straight. You don't want the insurance to cover birth control, you are against government helping with the cost of pregnancy, and you don't believe in abortion."
Reasoning, I would like to say something... I cannot prevent what insurance pays for. But I should not be forced to pay for something that is against my basic beliefs. Abortion is certainly one of them.
You may not believe taking the life of an innocent unborn child is wrong, but I do. And fawning over the lazy and irresponsible people of the world is not going to make up for it.
Curious as to what you refer to as being "one of the finer things of life".
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 8:44 AM
Simple Wheels, I am referring to how babies begin. And not a test tube.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 8:47 AM
-- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 8:16 AM
I am not RELee, but you are correct about everything else. So please answer my question. How is it my responsibility to fund someone's bad choice?
That is also why my stance is correct and yours is wrong. The government is not supposed to fund that, period.
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 8:56 AM
Simple Wheels, I am referring to how babies begin. And not a test tube.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 8:47 AM
Reasonig,
I have been married for 57 years and now have children in their 50's. Yes I have experienced that.
Beam me up Scotty!!!!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 9:54 AM
-- Posted by RELee on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 11:07 AM
RELee: Well said. Personally I don't care what the Liberals call me and until the gays and atheists rule this country we Christians should not cave into this PC bull and stand up for what we believe in.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 12:10 PM
So if someone is not 'like' you, they are wrong. You haven't got the ability to show tolerance, acceptance or love. What difference does it make to you what another person does privately?
I pity you.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 12:13 PM
semo471, BonScott, RELee, HWWT,Dug and a few others on her are "cafeteria Christians". OK, now let the BS responses begin in 3...2...
-- Posted by left turn on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 12:52 PM
BTW, BonScott, I think a little bit of all of us hate to pay for other's bad choices. Like that guy, oh, what's his name, that invaded Iraq in 2003? Gee, can't think of his name right now...can you help me?
That was a bad choice that has costs in perpetuity.
-- Posted by left turn on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 12:55 PM
-- Posted by left turn on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 12:55 PM
Read the constitution lefty, you might learn something. And it was approved by congress. Good try though.
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 2:28 PM
What does Christianity have to do with the government abiding by the law?
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Oct 24, 2014, at 2:29 PM
This is why Common, etc. are hiding. Even Nelson Mandela believed in IDs.
"Undercover video shows North Carolina poll workers offering ballots to ineligible impostor -- TWENTY TIMES -- putting voter ID battle on the front burner"
More failed liberal arguments. There isn't fraud Common? You couldn't be more wrong. A great story here:
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 12:13 PM
"A great story here:"
Pure BS. How is someone committing fraud by pretending to vote duplicate times prove anything.
The fact remains the incidence of vote fraud caused by the lack of a photo ID law is close to zero.
I'm still waiting for anyone with a bit of courage on SO to join Turzai and admit that the sole purpose of republican/conservative voter restriction laws is to reduce the number of legal votes.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 12:58 PM
I'm still waiting for anyone with a bit of courage on SO to join Turzai and admit that the sole purpose of republican/conservative voter restriction laws is to reduce the number of legal votes. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 12:58 PM
I'm still waiting for anyone with a bit of courage on SO to join Hillary Clinton and admit that when she said "Shame on you!" to Barack Obama she was right and that Obama should be ashamed of himself.
See how effective that is Common?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 1:50 PM
BC, The Mormons have the data base to check out your ID.
Strange that more voting has taken place in areas where more identification is required.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 1:51 PM
BC, I voted in a school election one time and handed the ballot to the lady who unfolded it an looked it over then put a sticker on the back of it and stacked it in a cardboard box with like votes.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 2:50 PM
I noticed the same thing. BOOM - it was gone. Wonder why? It would be nice to have an explanation so we can know what rule was violated.
Do you remember who started the thread? Maybe that poster was banned. I can't recall who started it.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 4:15 PM
"Where did the "Obama stupid thread" go ?"
I was looking for a place to ask the same question.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 4:21 PM
Common says the incidence of voter fraud is near zero. But he doesn't say how near zero.
All I know is if I go vote.... I don't want some illegal "Zero" canceling my vote.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 4:27 PM
Would a person who doesn't vote cancel out your vote ?
-- Posted by Rick's on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 4:29 PM
Not the way I cipher.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 5:21 PM
Where did the "Obama stupid thread" go ?
More elimination of free speech and freedom of religion , no ?
I never saw one word of profanity in this thread either...it just gets curiouser and curiouser ...
-- Posted by Rick's on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 4:12 PM
I had just made some pertinent points, I am sure! Dang it!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 5:48 PM
I had just made some pertinent points, I am sure! Dang it!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 5:48 PM
Well now you are free to explain your "Hell and Damnation" (not exact wording) statement to us and say if or not you would like to retract it.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 6:05 PM
I never gave you a "h and d" statement.
Are you referring to my question as to whether you were against other kinds of killing.
And yes, I did address that!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 6:40 PM
Wheels, Is the squirrel circling the tree?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 6:43 PM
"Me either except I'm not allowed to vote."
How is it that there were tribal leaders from the Lakota Sioux in South Dakota on TV this evening speaking about how it was their intent to get tribe members out and vote democratic.
Could it be that it's your conservative nature that prevents you from voting?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 6:46 PM
"I don't want some illegal "Zero" canceling my vote."
They do not. But I don't want some overly zealous republican/conservative governor, legislature, or secretary of state cancelling out thousand of legal votes.
I'd say that's a worse situation.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 6:50 PM
Common, Rick has explained several times, it's that liberal lack of reading comprehension again.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 6:53 PM
Common,there's dead cow at the dairy across the road. In lieu of a dead horse I'm sure you can come beat on it before the gut wagon gets it. It's pretty rank but it's eyes are open as yours aren't.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 7:01 PM
I never gave you a "h and d" statement.
Are you referring to my question as to whether you were against other kinds of killing.
And yes, I did address that!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 6:40 PM
Maybe if you disagree you would like to restate it. It was there Saturday afternoon and through yesterday and into today until the editor pulled the whole thread.
I am sure somebody besides myself read it. Maybe they can restate it exactly for you.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 7:05 PM
Wheels, Is the squirrel circling the tree?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 6:43 PM
Yup! In the top branches and circling. I would expect it to try jumping to another tree at any moment and try to make a run for it.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 7:09 PM
Common, how many years did you serve in the military?
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 7:16 PM
I am old Wheels, I have no idea what you are talking about.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 7:27 PM
Reasoning, you said it in a post. I read it as well.
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 7:34 PM
Well, just what is it I said, or can't you remember it?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 7:35 PM
I am old Wheels, I have no idea what you are talking about.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 7:27 PM
Reasoning.... that is weak, very weak. You are trying to tell us that you do not remember what you said that I replied to you with...
Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord!
Your statement was condemning to those of us disagreeing with you.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 7:54 PM
Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord!
Your statement was condemning to those of us disagreeing with you.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 7:54 PM
NOT AT ALL. Either you have me mixed up with someone, or I never read it!
So simply say it again.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 8:08 PM
What is weak, is you unwillingness to say it again! Have you changed your mine?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 8:09 PM
Reasoning,
I told you several posts ago that I did not remember your statement word for word or you can bet your bippy I would sure repeat it for you.
What is weak is you claiming not to know what you said based on your being old.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 8:12 PM
What was it about Wheels. Because if I said it, I will remember.
You went off on me this morning when I asked you if you were against other means of killing. Is that what you are referring to?
I responded to that post. If this isn't it, then you have me mixed up with someone, and I really would appreciate you clarifying.
what was the dang post about? Surely you can remember that?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 8:27 PM
Cant anyone on here refresh Wheels memory?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 8:31 PM
Reasoning,
It Start out with.....
Hells Fire and ******** on those who try to.....
That is about all I can remember of the words.
You said it, you know it and don't try BSing the rest of us. by trying to act stupid as you are now doing.
I will buy a steak dinner for the first one of you who can quote Reasoning word for word on what he/she said.
This whole thing, with this thread disappearing for no apparent reason is reminiscent of when all of Me'Lange's threads and posts disappeared overnight.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 8:49 PM
I NEVER said anything about HELLS FIRE...or anything close! You have me mixed up with someone else.
You have totally lost it. You have me confused with someone else.
If you said it, could you straighten this guy out?
You are straight out lying, and don't even know it.
Come on, anyone, and tell the truth.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 9:00 PM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 9:14 PM
"I NEVER said anything about HELLS FIRE...or anything close!"
That is a lie and we all know it!!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Nov 3, 2014, at 9:16 PM
"Hells Fire and ******** on those who try to.....
That is about all I can remember of the words."
It was Reasoning who posted this , your response was to quote the Bible .-- Posted by Rick's on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 3:43 AM
I never posted this! If it came up under my name then someone hacked my account. Are you saying you saw me post it? And if so, what else did it say and why is Wheels so mad?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 5:32 AM
What time of day was it posted? And if it was the reason the thread was removed, that proves I didn't post it because I am still here.
This is really tickin' me off. You can't accuse me of posting something I didn't, and then pretend you can't remember what it said.
Or I guess you can, since you are, but it is pathetic.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 5:34 AM
Reasoning, that's 3 people now who said they saw. And what Rick added, I remember as well. He is piecing more of it together....Bottom line is, I think people were just caught off guard with it and it shows more hypocracy by "liberals", because you said something like that but "liberals" are the ones who support the killing of unborn babies....Let it go, it's over with. If you truly don't think you posted then so be it. Let it go.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 7:10 AM
I know I didn't post anything with Hell Fire etc.
The only thing I addressed to wheels, was a question about whether he was ok with the death penalty, right to die.
If you saw it, then what did it say?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 7:26 AM
When I post something, I own up to it. I believe it and I defend it. If I am proven wrong, I own that too!
I NEVER posted anything with Hell Fire yesterday, and I find it odd that three of you said I did, and then can't remember what it said.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 7:50 AM
Not only that, but it is conveniently gone.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 7:51 AM
Reasoning, how are we supposed to recite back to you the exact wording of your post when it has been two days since it was posted....Let it go dude, let it go.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 8:18 AM
Reasoning didn't make the statement yesterday, it was made Sunday and started out to BC, that much I remember. I repeated it twice to him/her and gave him/her a chance to retract it or explain it.
Methinks Reasoning doth protest too much!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 9:26 AM
Perhaps you think I protest too much, because you realize you are wrong!
Maybe BC will remember who said it, but it wasn't me.
You wouldn't let it go if people were lying about you!
I was gone all day on Sunday, only checking in early morning and evening.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 10:43 AM
I repeated it twice to him/her and gave him/her a chance to retract it or explain it.
Methinks Reasoning doth protest too much!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 9:26 AM
You repeated it twice, and now can't remember it?? Me knows you are confused! You can't even remember that I am a man.
Just what did you repeat?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 11:00 AM
I could be wrong, maybe it was posted on Saturday, but it was definitely posted in your defense of Obama, so quit acting like a blind man in a snowstorm.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 11:03 AM
BCStoned doesn't miss much ...but , I'm right as rain .
I don't know much but what I know , I know...
-- Posted by Rick's on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 12:54 PM
I never said anything about Hell Fire! It wasn't me, I may have defended the President (probably did), but I NEVER said anything about Hell Fire! Now, if no one can remember what they are trying to say I wrote, obviously I didn't write it. (BUT WE ALL ALREADY KNOW THAT!)
-- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 3:12 PM
I don't just believe it, I KNOW it!
What I don't understand is how out of 100's of posts, you decided that I wrote this one, but can't remember what it said.
Wheels said I wrote something, is mad about it, but can't remember what it said. I KNOW you are both wrong, but can't prove it because SOMEONE took the thread down. Convenient?
Your gut is wrong, really wrong.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 3:25 PM
"Wheels said I wrote something, is mad about it,"
No wheels is not angry, just surprised that a good Leftist like yourself would say anything so judgmental. I thought the left was all about people and compassion. My comment as follows was not for something imaginary....
Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord!!
That was my answer to your post.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 4:06 PM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 4:11 PM
I don't remember anyone accusing you of having the thread erased ..perhaps your brain matter is taking a time out too ?
-- Posted by Rick's on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 3:34 PM
I never said you DID accuse me. Where are you getting this stuff?
The thread is gone. Wheels claims I wrote something on it, which I did not. And, now because it is gone, I have no way to prove except that I KNOW I didn't.
If you said that Wheels, you weren't commenting on a post of mine about Hells fire. I did not write those words!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 8:49 PM
Voting was easy and I got one of those "I Voted" stickers for the neighborhood cat.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 8:52 PM
Menu
Matthew Dameron, former Chief of Staff for MO Attorney General Chris Koster, is the treasurer for the Missouri Early Voting Fund. This group is behind the ballot petitions circulating for the public's signature, which you can examine at the Missouri SOS' website (scroll down the list):
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2014petitions/14init_pet.asp
All three propose amending the Missouri Constitution, Article VIII, adding a "Section 8".
No excuse will any longer be required to vote absentee, in federal or state general elections.
Most importantly, the effect is to expand voting to six weeks prior to election day. This is called "early voting" or "advance voting." (The petitions differ somewhat in a population thresh hold contained in the proposed amendment which triggers the requirement for one satellite early voting site, and then additional sites for certain sized population increments.)
Starting 3 weeks before the election, five hours of Saturday and Sunday voting at each vote early site will be required.
Local election authorities will have to appoint at least one election judge from each major political party, for all these sites. The same procedures for casting ballots (e.g., electronic vote machines) shall be in effect.
Rep. Tony Dugger, R-141, has introduced a less expansive "advance voting" measure into the legislature, as HJR 90 (which would also appear on the ballot, for the purpose of a vote to amend Missouri's Constitution), and HB 2271 which lays out the mechanics of his early voting proposal. This consists of advance voting sites starting the third Saturday before the election, and continuing to the Tuesday before the election, excluding Sundays (so, 9 days of early voting), with one advance voting site per county or at least one per 100,000 population.
We're talking about 10 advance voting sites in St. Louis County, 4 in St. Louis City, give or take. For your perusal, see this link:
http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB2271&year=2014&code=R
Is voting really so hard? With six weeks of absentee voting, is this really necessary? Where are the people who have been disenfranchised by the system we have now? Storing, securing, moving ballots and voting machines at close of business every day...just what degree of peril will this impose on vote security?
Remember who will be running, and needing votes, in 2016.
Replies (288)