The Big Cat

Wow...Condi and Mitt? That'll really rev up the base. I'm suddenly reminded of Ned Flanders' anytime snack for sustained youth: Two slices of white bread and water on the side.

I'll see your spin, and you raise you more spin.

Wow, this response makes 110 in 6 hours, may be Buffalonians do have an axe to grind... Or, may be he just spent to much time on PPP.

I don't know why you're picking a fight, so have it your way. I think minorities, the poor, college students, legal immigrants and the elderly are completely incapable of helping themselves. There: my words, my opinion. Happy? Why are you guys asking me!? I don't think it's unreasonable to have people present ID to vote, I've already said so much in this thread.

I already did. Go back, click the link, read. From the Atlantic piece. There's more. As Brentin Mock wrote earlier this week at Colorlines, the practical reality of life in Texas makes it difficult, if not impossible, for people who want to comply with the new ID law to do so. Mock wrote: Texas has no driver's license offices in almost a third of the state's counties. Meanwhile, close to 15 percent of Hispanic Texans living in counties without driver's license offices don't have ID. A little less than a quarter of driver's license offices have extended hours, which would make it tough for many working voters to find a place and time to acquire the IDs. Despite this, the Texas legislature struck an amendment that would have reimbursed low-income voters for travel expenses when going to apply for a voter ID, and killed another that would have required offices to remain open until 7:00 p.m. or later on just one weekday, and four or more hours at least two weekends. It's not mine, no. But that's how the issue is being sold--and yes, that's pretty damn close to what they're calling it. And, okay, fair enough.

The point is it's NOT an obvious problem. And the 2000 election was decided by a half million votes. Just over 100,000,000 people voted, so unless 0.5% of all votes cast are frauds (numbers I've seen look more like 0.0009%), then it has little to impact on elections, especially Presidential ones. You're right though, there's no rationale argument against presenting ID to vote. But the argument FOR the law--that voter fraud is a rampant scourge on Democracy is just as irrationale.

I said that was according to articles I had read. Their accuracy and veracity you're welcome to scrutinize, but I'm neither an ID-less minority, nor know any personally (that I'm aware of), so I have no basis of knowledge on the issue, nor have ever personally attempted to verify the obstacles for obtaining identification. But it's been written about ad nauseum. You're welcome to consult Google if you like. Plus he said nothing about their capability of obtaining ID's, just that it was a win for the GOP if the measure was passed. So unless you've made up your mind that we disagree on this, and you're going to continue moving the target to satisfy that, please don't put any more words in my mouth.

I never made Turzai's words my own--in fact, I out rightly separated myself from his. Please don't insult me this way. I share your belief. And in fact, if they don't have the wherewithal or the motivation to meet those qualifications, then consider the voting pool purged. Operating under the assumption that voter turnout is inherently positive is reckless.

Saying there's no photo voter fraud is like saying there's no spontaneous combustion. Issuing laws to protect against voter fraud is similar to making everyone walk around with a fire extinguisher strapped to their backs in case they happen to burst into flames. I'm not saying the laws aren't sensible--they are--but the circumstances under wich we're being sold the necessity for the laws is completely bogus.

Well, most can't. At least according to the articles/studies I just skimmed searching for the oppressive language/nature of these laws. But of everything I read, this last paragraph from The Atlantic really struck a chord: In 10 years, just 100 federal prosecutions and 50 state convictions -- in a colossal state with a population of more than 25 million people. You can do the math. You can be stupid and vote in America. You can be drunk and vote in America. You can be mentally insane and vote in America. You could vote in America for Snooki or Rod Blagojevich. Or, like tens of millions of your fellow citizens, you can choose not to vote at all. But if you don't have the means to get a driver's license, or if you cannot afford the time and money it takes to get certain other forms of government ID, you are out of luck? What a great country this is. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/ And as far as the ID laws being a blatant GOP tactic--don't take my word for it, don't take fjl's word for it, take it straight from the GOP's mouth: (bracketed part is mine) And here's what [Pennsylvania Republican House Majority Leader Mike Turzai] told the Republican State Committee last month to wild applause: "Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done." http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-11/news/32633447_1_state-carol-aichele-voter-id-absentee-ballots

You're asking them to answer why we need these laws, and they keep telling you why we should have these laws. Doesn't matter how many laps you do, you're both right, but they won't tell you that.

I'm not defending the media by any means--but Romney set himself up for this scrutiny by touting HIMSELF as a jobs creator. He doesn't even paint HIMSELF as a profit turner. He's letting his "record on jobs" speak for his work performance, not the gobs and gobs of money he's made. It's a politically prudent move assuming, of course, it's valid.

Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?

That's a great point.

I think you're confusing a critique of Romney for a praise for Obama. Says who? Did you attend?

My employer insurance covers those. Shockingly, the quality has declined too badly since their uber-expansion over the past 5 years. Love me some Potbelly.

There's only one ball! Between Stevie, Freddy, CJ, Brad Smith and Chandler, I'm not sure we have room to do anything "more!"

Yeah, I live in a treehouse made of recycled toilet paper dowels. On weekends I do mushrooms and perform slam poetry at Potbelly. My fiancé and I have a live-in transgender partner named Jody, and I donate 20% to the CPS teachers union, because it's the right thing to do.

I bike to work, thank you. And god help anybody who might hire you to help them with messaging. Your team would make Mitts look like pros.

Hahah. You're hopeless. Youre either a sad pathetic troll, or a sad pathetic moron--either way I'm done trying to converse with someone who insists on putting words in my mouth for the sake of arguing.

Then I've drastically mis-communicated, or else you're just plain dumb. I'll say it again: Romney should not have stumped the NAACP by going after Obama. It's a.) a terribly ineffectual way to win their (black people's) vote and b.) it's now created a publicity **** storm (headline: Romney booed by NAACP). So, he went into the ring a black-vote underdog, and he came out even worse. Either you're completely incapable of understanding this concept, or you're trying like hell to interpret what I'm saying as something I'm not. If the goal of a campaign strategy is to win votes, then this was a super ****ty one. Period. Let me try and make a better analogy: Imagine a Pats* fan trying to convince that New England is a superior team by telling you Ryan Fitzpatrick sucks. Not only is his assertion debatable, but it's bound to make you defensive and you'll likely tune out to everything he has to say. So you leave the conversation thinking, wow, I hate the Patriots* even more now. THIS IS WHAT ROMNEY DID TO THE NAACP. Now what if he comes at you talking ONLY about Tom Brady's numbers, about his post-season success, etc. etc. As a Bills fan, even the most ardent among us would have difficulty refuting that. You might not leave that conversation a Pats* fan, but at the very least you'd walk away saying, huh, that guy made some pretty irrefutable points...THIS IS HOW ROMNEY SHOULD HAVE ADDRESSED THE NAACP.

The second one. By far. What's your point?

Boy, nothing gets by you.

HA!

This is why we need to pump more money into education.