Block the Vote 2012

by **BigBallinStalin** on Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:44 pm

Me too, HapSmo! That's why I confirmed my bias with a quick google search!

Surely, there's nothing stupid with that!

by **WILLIAMS5232** on Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:48 pm

an interesting, yet long winded, perspective on gun control....

via a quick google search.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html

by **_sabotage_** on Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:10 pm

1. Iraq.
2. Healthcare and education.
3. Military and security spending.
4. Lack of transparency.

I can't think of another developed country which has used pure fear and distraction in the last forty years to justify a war, unless we use UK in coming with us, or their little Faulklands skirmish.

We will lose all of our doctors/teachers if we cap rates. They don't have many alternatives. Other countries have preceeded with providing free or capped rates with no issue and refrained from these fear mongering tactics. Suggestions of a voucher system are just a caste system in disguise(please indicate this in your thread on it).

I'm pretty sure no other country has an axis of evil list. We now have ways to kill everyone and everything, or just everyone, from near from far, from high from low. Although this tactic is employed by others, nowhere near our extent.

When Haliburton's former CEO was summoned about his potential conflict of interest, I believe his response was along the lines of go f*ck yourselves. When he then shot a man, his response was he can go f*ck himself. While sensitive info is classified in other countries, we use security risk as a general blanket of fear to dissuade prying into certain government affairs.

In each of these cases private interests are involved. Katrina was used to enact a voucher system which had been routinely dismissed by locals in NO. Before drinking water was available this change had been put in place. Although similar things have happened in other countries, it's usually a condition of receiving aid and is our policy exerted on those countries in need.

Whereas most developed countries are worried about the ongoing well-being of their respective societies, ensuring they have a well educated population with free/cheap and openly available higher education, with free/cheap healthcare and low security spending, ours has insisted on creating a system that benefits the few and victimizes the few, with the many more likely to be victims than beneficiaries. While government has been said to provide the greatest good for the greatest numbers I don't remember receiving any of the trillions we spent on war and weaponry. I do know that many senior officials hold interests in defence firms though. I do know that judges received bribes to sentence teenagers from the privatized prisons. I do know that my share of the burden of the deficit has nothing to do with any benefits I've received. And I do know that going through JFK security takes two hours and leaves you feeling violated. Donald Rumsfield supplied weapons to both Iraq and Iran to fuel their war. When water is privatized rates increase while quality doesn't.

For me these policies are fear based and not too different from a mafia's protection racket. Give us money and you'll be safe. Don't ask questions. You see how badly that guy got fucked up. We just want a little off the top and it's those with the most which benefit the most and are subjected the least by these policies.

Water, education, healthcare are not voluntary and are not limited to the laws of supply and demand. The idea of private security is frightening. Having my son's future put in place at four years old due to his parentage or IQ would not please me.

All of the developed nations are democracies, so I'm not contradicting myself(although I still probably am). America is a dictatorship that uses bombs for diplomacy and prisons for civil disturbances, economic health as an excuse to promote big business and free markets to ignore the poorest and worst off. When abroad I tell people I'm Canadian, which recently has become true (although I've been saying it since before it was).

But the simplest truth is that American politicians are actors, with their shows being produced, directed, scripted and hosted by big business. In the past this was used to make banana republics out of weaker nations, now it's used to make our weakest into one.

by **Juan_Bottom** on Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:25 am

Night Strike wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Juan, can I go buy a gun without an I.D.?

Only if you buy from shops. You don't need an I.D. to buy a gun in the streets or to buy one at gun shows in many states.

A quick google search shows that Repubs have done more this decade to block minorities from voting than they have to regulate guns.

So why isn't showing an ID to buy a gun from a shop a violation of my rights?

I'm pretty sure that this is a trap and that you already know what I'll say. But here goes.

1) You have to show ID to become registered to vote. But you don't have to go out of your way to buy a special ID to vote, just like you don't have to buy a special ID to buy a gun.
2) Voter IDs disproportionally effect minority, elderly, and low income demographics that vote Democratic.
3) It's a poll tax.
4) This has nothing to do with preventing fraud.

by **HapSmo19** on Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:26 am

Funny troll thread, Juan

What kind of cunt would actually complain about having to show ID to vote? :lol:

by **Juan_Bottom** on Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:29 am

Ronald Reagan.

by **Night Strike** on Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:09 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:I'm pretty sure that this is a trap and that you already know what I'll say. But here goes.

1) You have to show ID to become registered to vote. But you don't have to go out of your way to buy a special ID to vote, just like you don't have to buy a special ID to buy a gun.
2) Voter IDs disproportionally effect minority, elderly, and low income demographics that vote Democratic.
3) It's a poll tax.
4) This has nothing to do with preventing fraud.

1) And once you're registered, anyone can get a piece of your mail and go vote claiming to be you.

2) I thought elderly tended to vote Democratic? And even if your premise is true, who cares? Why can't they go get a voter ID? Are they incapable of finding the DMV (or other ID location)? And we know there are plenty of Democrats who gladly bus them to polling sites or fill out their absentee ballots for them whether they're already registered or not, so why wouldn't they also help them get a valid ID?

3) Nearly every voter ID law has a provision to provide a free voting-only ID to those who need one, therefore no tax is being paid.

4) How does the current system prevent fraud?

by **Juan_Bottom** on Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:09 pm

Night Strike wrote:3) Nearly every voter ID law has a provision to provide a free voting-only ID to those who need one, therefore no tax is being paid.

Night Strike wrote:2) I thought elderly tended to vote Democratic? And even if your premise is true, who cares? Why can't they go get a voter ID?

In some places Birth Certificates cost $25. In some places, you have to wait 3 months to get one. Floridians have complained that they needed original copies of divorce certificates to get a voter ID, even if they had been divorced for 40 years.

Night Strike wrote:1) And once you're registered, anyone can get a piece of your mail and go vote claiming to be you.

Night Strike wrote:4) How does the current system prevent fraud?

There's no need to prevent "voter fraud" as it's virtually non-existent. You first need to show that there is a problem that needs solving.
There is a problem in that voter ID laws coincidentally disproportionately effect Democratic votes.

Night Strike wrote:And we know there are plenty of Democrats who gladly bus them to polling sites or fill out their absentee ballots for them whether they're already registered or not, so why wouldn't they also help them get a valid ID?

That makes it ok? Because Democrats can go get charity to vote?

by **Juan_Bottom** on Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:32 pm

HOLY f*ck REPUBLICANS

by **Night Strike** on Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:48 pm

How does that picture prove voter suppression? We all know that the Democratic Party had an impressive (although sometimes illegal) voter registration drive for the 2008 election. It's not surprising that a huge number of Democrats were registered at that time. And this year, there are more people registering who are disenchanted with the current administration and want to vote them out while there are fewer people available who want to register in support of it. It's not that surprising.

by **Juan_Bottom** on Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:28 pm

That's a link.

by **Night Strike** on Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:31 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:That's a link.

I know. Still doesn't disprove my point.

by **Juan_Bottom** on Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:37 pm

Your point is that for the first time in history everyone in Florida hates the same guy that you do? And that it just happens to coincide exactly with the new Republican-sponsored voter suppression laws?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/vp ... w|edshow=1^

by **Juan_Bottom** on Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:04 am

Court: GOP’s Texas Redistricting Plan Intentionally Discriminated Against Hispanics

A redistricting plan signed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) intentionally discriminated against Hispanic voters, a three-judge panel unanimously ruled Tuesday. The judges found that seats belonging to white incumbent members of Congress were protected under the plan while districts belonging to incumbent minorities were targeted for changes.

The court was “persuaded by the totality of the evidence that the plan was enacted with discriminatory intent,” according to the ruling. There was “sufficient evidence to conclude that the Congressional Plan was motivated, at least in part, by discriminatory intent,” the court found.

The three judges said they were overwhelmed with the amount of evidence showing the congressional redistricting plan was intentionally discriminatory, writing in a footnote that parties “have provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space, or need, to address here.”

Jon Husted firing election officials for protecting voting rights!
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/politicsnati ... 9#48819389

by **Juan_Bottom** on Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:10 am

by **Juan_Bottom** on Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:56 pm

'Reasonable Impediment' Clause Becomes Focus Of S.C. Voter ID Law Hearing

The provision would allow citizens without a valid photo ID to vote — but only if they sign an affidavit saying they had a "reasonable impediment" that kept them from getting the proper identification. The meaning of "reasonable impediment" is so vague in the law that opponents have complained that it's basically meaningless.

But Andino said it could describe some physical or medical obstacle, and could include things such as a lack of transportation to get to a motor vehicle office or election office. She also said a voter could legitimately use the excuse that he or she didn't have enough time to get a photo ID before the election.

The ballots cast by these individuals would be provisional, but Andino said they would eventually be counted — unless someone could show that an individual had lied.

Essentially, she said it was up to the voter to determine what was a "reasonable impediment" and that she was instructing poll managers to accept the voter's explanation.

Members of the three-judge panel in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., appeared surprised.

Considering there's only a short time before the Nov. 6 election, does that mean every South Carolina voter without a photo ID would have a "reasonable impediment" getting one, asked U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh?

by **Phatscotty** on Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:28 pm

200 voter fraud convictions in Minnesota..and rising
Minnesota Needs Voter ID

protectmyvote.com

by **Juan_Bottom** on Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:26 pm

While some ineligible felon voters registered in advance of the election and should have been flagged for
challenge, the overwhelming majority who evaded detection used Election Day Registration, which
currently has no mechanism to detect or prevent ineligible voters.
Brennan Law Center

They had to show ID to vote.
Voter ID would not prevent this Minnesota loophole.

by **Phatscotty** on Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:27 pm

voter ID 80% support. Oh, the tyranny of common sense!

by **Juan_Bottom** on Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:30 pm

Phatscotty wrote:voter ID 80% support. Oh, the tyranny of common sense!

Massacre of Jews, Poles, Russians, Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexuals and other minorities and enslavement of Europe supported by 80%, OH THE TYRANNY OF COMMON SENSE.

by **Juan_Bottom** on Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:31 pm

I used a black and white picture to honor how you see every issue in black and white.

[-(

by **rdsrds2120** on Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:48 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:I used a black and white picture to honor how you see every issue in black and white.

That photo's in grayscale.

-rd

by **Phatscotty** on Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:59 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:voter ID 80% support. Oh, the tyranny of common sense!

Massacre of Jews, Poles, Russians, Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexuals and other minorities and enslavement of Europe supported by 80%, OH THE TYRANNY OF COMMON SENSE.

Yes, Progressive Socialists Workers Parties get out of control from time to time....

Luckily, America was there to stop the Progressive Socialists Woker's Parties. They were off the chain yo

by **Woodruff** on Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:00 pm

Phatscotty wrote:voter ID 80% support. Oh, the tyranny of common sense!

Phatscotty's version of democracy: Two foxes and a hen voting on what's for dinner.

by **rdsrds2120** on Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:09 pm

Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:voter ID 80% support. Oh, the tyranny of common sense!

Phatscotty's version of democracy: Two foxes and a hen voting on what's for dinner.

I think I'm going to use that one against...people, sometime.

-rd

Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Re: Block the Vote 2012

Who is online