The Big Cat

And since I've moved, I have trouble finding the folder I keep my passport, social security card and birth certificate. Does that mean I don't exist and thusly shouldn't vote? The one woman who was interviewed had identification, just not the right identification--probably the case for others who stand to be affected by this.

Haha, well, gentlemen, there's no accounting for taste. But your opinions don't change the fact she's TERRIBLE at her job!

Then don't question my honesty.

I'll pic message you my ballot, broheem.

You need to do a better job at hiding your links, bro.

I'm still waiting for one person ONE PERSON to address the possibility of hundreds of thousands of voters being eliminated by these laws--as shown by the PBS story, piece of **** thought it was.

You're right, the video was completely irrelevant.

Way to raise the discourse.

Please, enlighten me. What did I miss in the story? We'll ignore (for now) the fact that you've completely skirted around everything I said because you'd rather just call the story illegitimate and be done with it. Less thinky make brainy not hurt so much, I'm sure.) But in the meantime, what did I fail to derive from this story that--up until now--you've only barely hinted at its illegitimacy without providing a single example? Reform my idiotic ways!! I've been pretty !@#$ing clear on your question at numerous points throughout this thread. If it hasn't sunk in yet, then you're the problem. Also: nothing to add after looking at the PBS story? Would rather try and back me and my opinion into a corner than address facts reported on? That sounds about right.

Whether or not it was a good story is not the issue, dummy. And the fact that you've distilled the discussion thusly shows me that some items of the report had some resonance and are making you rethink whether nor not these laws will, in fact, make it harder for people to vote, and whether or not that "solution" fits the "crime." 750,000 registered voters in PA without a "valid" photo ID, 0 proven cases of voter fraud. So to combat ZERO crimes, it's appropriate to add a barrier to voting to nearly 3/4 of a million people, that !@#$ed up logic corroborates what's been my stance since the beginning: these laws stand to a lot more harm than good, considering the "good" what have been to curb the nonexistent voter fraud. Also: 500,000 registered voters nationwide with no access to a vehicle who live 10 miles from offices who provide them that are only open 2 days a week. So to say that hundreds of thousands of people might not vote in the Presidential election could be accurate. And why are we sacrificing their vote? Again, tell me. Are there hundreds of thousands of cases of voter fraud? Hell no there's not. And quite frankly, anyone arguing against the idea that this is a blatant ploy to get less Democrats to vote has their !@#$ing head buried in the sand/their ass. Actually, voter registration has nothing to do with this thread, at all.

Did I say that? I don't recall offering my opinion on the report. There seems to be a reoccurring theme of people making up an opinion for me just so they can tell me how idiotic that opinion is!

At some point you realized it was absurd to hold me accountable for someone else's reporting, so to preempt that sensible response, you chastised me in advance for not being the obvious: accountable for the PBS story. You're amazing... What other factors should bar a person from being eligible to vote?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec12/pennsylvania_07-24.html

I think Hannah Bueler is AWFUL.

That's a pretty bold argument for someone like you to make. We'll see how it all turns out.

Right, and being able to run a business and have a strong understanding of economics doesn't pre-qualify you as a good president, either.

Therefore Romney's one of them?

Fair enough. I say it's BO's to lose. Romney might be a whiz when it comes to numbers and dollars, but that doesn't necessarily a president make.

You're not making any sense. Please substantiate... That's fine and all, but it doesn't take away from him being a stuffy boob.

If there's one person to blame for Romney's lack of definition, it's Romney-- thanks to all the RE-defining he's been doing over the 6-7 years you mention...

I'd like to be clear: I know exactly where my compass points on this one--WEAR THE TIE. I was curious to see where everyone else was...

Okay. We'll just wait and see what happens.

I listen to Shek's podcast...big fan.

Haha, again: To base that notion on polls conducted three months before the election seems to upend your previous assertions, but I'll take a crack at it. The GOP circus over birth control filled the Obama camp's quiver with ample arrows that I wouldn't expect them to unleash unless they were dealing with uncomfortable margins. They've been doing their political homework and have been on the political offensive for the last six months. Not only in attacks, but in maneuvers that would force their opponent's hand. I see a lineup of issues from job creation, to women's rights, to immigrants rights, to gay rights that they're tallying somewhere for when it's time to transition to boasting about their "accomplishments." Please don't take the above as bible. I could swing and miss big time on this. But I see a spinnable record that Obama can use to mobilize voting segments (like women and minorities) that Romney's already in the red on.

No. I have insight. You have bull **** polls. We'll see whose turns out to be more accurate come November. You must have a read a poll somewhere to confirm that.