I am begging for a response to this post. I encourage anyone to give their viewpoint, especially those opposed to my position, because I truly cannot see the other side of this question.
Why is asking for identification prior to voting a big deal? The State GIVES free picture identification to any citizen. There is no financial burden.
You have to present identification to board a plane, to collect unemployment, to serve on a jury, cash a check, buy booze, buy cigarettes, and start a job. Most employers, schools and government workers have picture IDs assigned. You even have to provide a picture ID if you want to get in and see the US Attorney General give a speech about how awful picture ID requirements are. But to prove you are you before voting, before we participate in the most important task as citizens, is asking too much? I just do not get it.
27 comments:
I am waiting for Erin's reply but not holding my breath. James Old Guy
I am in favor of voter ID, but I was still floored by the statistics of how many adult's don't have a photo ID. Supposedly 8% of white adults and 32% of black adults don't have a photo ID. How do people without voter ID get jobs, sign up for government benefits or buy alcohol without photo ID? I can understand why nursing home residents don't have photo ID, but it's my understanding they are excluded from the photo ID requirements.
Democrats love the votes,
Republicans love the cheap labor,
And it is an issue that directly impacts wetbacks and illegal migration, so don't look for this to be something either faction of the Establishment party will do anything about...
Until they try another false flag & look to blame it on "right-wing extremists (gun-owning white people)."
The sound of Democrats responding.
I have an I.D., hoose. Why don't you ask someone who doesn't? Hey, I know! You can start with Viviette Applewhite.
Wartime welder, civil-rights marcher, world traveler, voter - Viviette Applewhite of Philadelphia's Germantown section can boast of having been all those things.
One question, how the hell do you become a world traveler without a passport? I am calling bullshit.
James Old Guy
You do not have a right to board a plane, to collect unemployment, to serve on a jury, cash a check, buy booze, buy cigarettes, and start a job.
You have a right to vote. Unless you're a felon. Sometimes.
OK, I tried. I don't buy it, but I tried.
Oooooh Oooooooh! I got it.
If you don't need to show a birth certificate to be president, why should you have to show ID to elect him?
Like JOG, I call bullshit. I think Indiana has a waiver for nursing home residents. I also know there is ways to get a free photo ID in Indinana for those who do not have a birth certificate.
The idea we can perpetuate voter fraud in order to not inconvenience one nun living in an abbey in remote outer Springfield is ridiculous.
I strongly suspect the motives of anyone against this reasonable requirement.
Like I said, the AG demands picture ID before you can see him give a speech...
Y'all want to worry about someone showing something? Worry about Mittens and his tax returns.
"The only person who has seen Romney's taxes is John McCain and he took one look and picked Sarah Palin."
-- James Carville, interviewed by CBS News.
EOB,
Why yes go after the tax returns. A candidate should hide nothing. And while we are at it how about we see Obama's college transcripts, his law review articles and Michelle's locked thesis paper. Maybe we can see why both Obama's lost their Illinois law licensces. Can we also see John kerry's military records he promised back in 2004?
Maybe we can see the disclosure on how the Obama's paid for their house in Chicago (see Tony Resco)? The "transparent" President sure has a lot of secrets doesn't he?
How about Debbie W-Shultz's tax returns since she thinks they are so important for a public official to disclose?
Maybe we could see the Fast & Furious papers? And the investigation on the White House security leaks?
How many years of tax returns will you Democrats need to be satisfied? Perhaps we will keep looking to find something, anything, to deflect from the President's piss poor performance on the economy?
Bah, don't argue or discuss it. Just label the people who want more tax returns "Returners" or something and laugh and point at them when they try to bring up potentially valid points.
I don't need to see Obama's transcripts to know that he is not doing a good job and that he is not half as well spoken as though, nor is he as quick on his feet as people would like to think he is.
The number of horrendous faux pas that the president and his administration is unbelievable. At this point I almost expect him to bring a candle made of human fat to Israel as a gift, if he ever bothers to go there.
BTW, nice blog you have here. You didn't build it.
I have no doubt that Obama was born in America, just as I have no doubt that he isn't American culturally. He has no understanding of things American's understand, he doesn't know when his foot is so far in his mouth that he is eating his own knee. He assumes the entire country is people like his closest friends, useful idiots, and rednecks.
Well said, Woodman and Joe.
Michelle Obama's college papers? Seriously?
This is the first I heard of any funny biz regarding Obama's law license.
You know, y'all spent the entire primary season trying to find "anyone but Romney" and came up with a bunch of clowns. Now you're stuck with a candidate you don't like, probably because with today's Right, the venerable Ronald Reagan would look like a peace sign totin' hippie. You've backed yourselves in a corner and all you can do is swing at anything. Call it desperation.
Maybe the Right ought to take a good look at itself in order to figure out the trouble instead of worrying about Michelle Obama's schoolwork.
It must be tough defending a candidate you were all wild about who has proven to be an absolute failure at being a leader, who can't get congress to cooperate, made tons of promises and kept none. I think there are much better candidates than the two we will be stuck with but this isn't about the best candidate it's a damn beauty contest with all slogans and no substance. The country gave the great experiment four years and we are damn near broke, involved in wars he said he would stop, now he wants four more. Romney is not the best choice but at this point damn near any mayor in the country is better than the clown sitting in the White House right now. Defend him if you want but deep down you know he is a failure. Make excuses, blame Bush, blame the TEA party, blame anyone but the man in charge. The Buck doesn't stop at his desk it is just passed on to the blame center.
James Old Guy
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/thesis.asp
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-502323_162-3881166.html
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/02/michelle-obamas-thesis-unblockaded.html
Perhaps all of 2 min with Google.
It's not tough. I have plenty of problems with BHO's presidency, but I think he tried in the face of staggering--and I daresay impressive--obstructionism.
The only thing Romney & Co. will try to do is deregulate the financial industry straight to hell and "legally" steal my money. That's why he's hiding his tax refunds. He "legally" did something smarmy in order to have more money. He's a venture capitalist for chrissake--that's what he does.
It's all about the money. I do not believe that's the case with Obama.
Now all of you run along and check your email. Find another bogus pile of anonymous tripe like the item on the law licenses. Read Michelle's thesis (which has been available for years per anon's links above) and report back here.
And thanks for those links, anon.
EOB--
Well, Obama had two years of COMPLETE control of Congress, so the whole "I could not get anything done because the Repubs would not let me" is bullshit. Obama and the Democrats pursued their agenda and the public responded with significant change in 2010.
I find it amazing it is a "mandate" when Dems are in control and "obstruction" when the Repubs get power.
The point is that there is plenty of "I am not releasing info" to go around. So Michelle's thesis is not blocked. So what, How many years of taxes do you need? The discussion on Bain and taxes is just politics -- The Obama cannot run on his record, and he has no plan going forward beyond "taxing millionaires who make $250,000), so he is looking for anything to deflect the public's short attention span.
Unfortunately there are few of the voting who bother to investigate politics like you and I. We amy come to different conclusions, but it is better than the fools who follow the biased news clips, or vote based on looks, race, religion,at the Union's direction or 'cause that is the way their daddy voted.
BTW Mrs. Obama's thesis WAS blocked. Since I really don't care about what she has to say then or now, I did not check to see if it was uunblocked now.
I guess you will all be happy clams if, after the election, Romney publishes his taxes? That will be OK with you right?
An interesting explanation of the current MR tax debate:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/18/opinion/kleinbard-canellos-romney-tax/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
"this tax loophole that is estimated as costing all of us billions of dollars every year."
I need to read no more than this line to know the autor of the article you referenced Anon E. Mouse is aleftist pure and simple. he has a clear bias and the article is written from tha tperspective.
Money does not belong to the Government. Not collecting a tax does not cost the American people a dime. A "loophole" is LEGAL. So a rich guy found good lawyers and managed keep money HE EARNED. So what?
I am more concerned about the number of people in the Obama administration who cheated on their taxes. They are the ones who cost us mmoney. They did steal from the American people by cheating on their taxes. Do you suppose this author wrote a similar story about Geitner for instance?
If the IRS believes there are issues with Romney's tax returns they can audit the returns. Since we are assuming non-public disclosure means Romney is hiding something, can we also assume non-audit means the IRS is satisfied?
I will state again , OBAMA is not a LEADER!!! Just because he was elected to an office doesn't instantly make him a leader. He is a bully, a man who blames his failures on anyone but him. He can't stand on his record, he lied about the cost of Obamacare, he only does the right thing when he is backed into a corner. I don't care about his school record, his birth place, he is the President and he has failed miserably. For two years he had complete control but could not even get his own party to buy his socialist leanings. The most powerful man in the most powerful country in the world can't even figure out how to get us out of a war. Here is a hint, order the troops to pack up and get the hell out. He is the Commander and Chief, he doesn't need anyone's permission to order the troops to leave. Explain that reasoning. Failure followed by failure followed by a new T time.
James Old Guy
Washington: A US plan, outlined recently in the US media, has stated that American troops will stay in Afghanistan until 2024 as Washington will not allow the Taliban to take over that country.
But Obama said they are leaving in 2013, 2014.
Um, James? Did you notice the end of Iraq war?
That said, I'd like nothing more than to see the fiasco in Afghanistan end. Would love to see anon's links about those dates. How many troops will be staying through 2024?
So Joe, you were just blowing smoke, eh? Or should I say swinging your fists at air.
US military commanders, led by Gen. Lloyd Austin III, the senior commander in Iraq, are proposing that up to 18,000 US troops remain in Iraq after the year-end pull-out date. Currently, about 45,000 US troops are in Iraq.
War ends in when they all leave or at least that use to be the definition. You didn't see that in the major news or about troops staying until 2024. Personally I was not in favor of either war but if you go to war, you go to win not negotiate a half ass peace.
James Old Guy
http://countdowntodrawdown.org/facts.php
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/afghanistan/story/2011-11-29/Afghanistan-US-Troops-war/51453988/1
Off topic arguing about tax returns and college essays is besides the point.
The point here is, why is it an undue hardship to expect a person to go through just as much trouble to get an ID to vote as they go through to vote?
If someone cannot prove who they are at all, then how does anyone know they are eligible to vote in the first place? If they have no record of their existence anywhere and are a non-person according to every method of identification known to man are they even a citizen?
If a man walks up to you and says he is John Smith, you don't have any reason to doubt him and the cost of him lying is minimal, you take him at his word obviously. If that man is walking up to me and I'm a limo driver looking for John Smith, then I might make sure he matches what I know of John Smith and if not I'll ask for proof, if I'm wrong it's a problem, maybe worth my job. If a man walks up and tries to cash a $5,000 check made out to John Smith, I'll ask for proof every time. Why shouldn't we ask for proof when people vote? Is voting important or useless?
Post a Comment