In a discussion of GOP induced voter disenfranchisement by restrictive voter ID laws, radical Rightists declare that we cannot accuse them of wanting to strip citizens of their right to vote.
They swear straight-faced that voter fraud at the polls is a crisis, and that only they can remedy it.
They may also assert, with a straight face, that these laws are acts of nobility and goodness. And they insist we cannot possibly guess their motives or intent for these laws.
Although motives certainly may be multiple or varied, opaque or obvious, intent is clear.
Consequences such as voter disenfranchisement are very real, and clearly desired by Republicans. If voter fraud at the polls were a real issue, if it were a problem of urgent public concern, Democrats would be involved and supportive in finding solutions. They are not even invited to the discussion.
FOX (R) admits voter fraud is not pervasive. They spelled it out, “Voter ID Laws Target Rarely Occurring Voter Fraud”.
Republicans know what they are doing, and it is a political assault on citizens’ voting rights and democracy. Republicans have admitted they don't want anyone who disagrees with their party to vote.
From the Washington Post:
An analysis by the North Carolina State Board of Elections showed that any new law requiring a state-issued ID could be problematic for large numbers of voters, particularly African Americans, whose turnout in 2008 helped Obama win the state.
Also from the same article:
New Hampshire's new Republican state House speaker is pretty clear about what he thinks of college kids and how they vote. They're "foolish," Speaker William O'Brien said in a recent speech to a tea party group.
House Speaker William O'Brien addresses a crowd saying students lack "life experience" and "just vote their feelings." "There's no doubt that this bill would help Republican causes," said Richard Sunderland III, head of the College Republicans at Dartmouth College.
These are not the first indicators of their intentions. The Right’s antagonism for democracy has a history.
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”– Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich
Here is the simple truth:
Voter fraud is Rarely Occurring, even according to FOX(R).
Voter disenfranchisement is real, and will occur in significant numbers, directly or indirectly, due to the GOP’s deliberate restriction of voting, according to everyone but radical Rightist Republicans.
Am I clear?
Our radical Rightist friends display a cult-like fanaticism and blind loyalty to Party and cause. They will deny the obvious, along with the rights of fellow citizens, in order to establish a one party dictatorship by the economic elite minority.
And like Moonie cultists they will declare they are noble and good. However I would probably grant the qualities of nobility and goodness in the poor Moonie’s heart over the cold heartlessness of the GOP.
The radical Right’s intent to strip citizens of their right to vote is as plainly clear, and felt, as a hangman’s noose around the neck.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
97 comments:
Everybody in America has an ID. Are you kidding me? Let me help you out, you need an ID to get a food stamp card and buy a 40. Trust me, everyone in poor neighborhoods has an ID. EVERYBODY.
Free0352 said...
"Trust me..."
Yeah, sure.
You can't even be honest with yourself; how do you expect anybody to believe you'll be honest with us?
I never use a driver's license for voter ID. I use my VA card, and wait for them to refuse me so I can say "You aren't going to let a veteran vote???"
My 80something Mother-in-law doesn't have a picture ID. She has never driven, so never got a driver's license and has never needed a state ID. To get a picture ID might be problematic as she was born at home and might have trouble getting a birth certificate. Of course, she wouldn't need ID as she never goes out to buy a "40"!!
Following are excerpts from statements made at a rally of the Palestinian Al-Ahrar movement in Gaza, a pro-Hamas group that split from Fatah, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on November 3, 2011:
Rally organizer: Praise be to you, our Lord. You have made our killing of the Jews an act of worship, through which we come closer to you.
Ok, what is the intent or motive of the organizer quoted above?
Dave, if I understand your post, you're okay with "rarely occurring voter fraud." I don't want to be accused of twisting your words or misrepresenting your position, so if you could just confirm.
HR,
I was quoting FOX(R)'s “Voter ID Laws Target Rarely Occurring Voter Fraud”.
This is not to suggest I am ok with voter fraud when it does occur. It is unfortunate that Republicans don't include others in finding a way to deal with the issue in a way that doesn't restrict the rights of citizens.
Maybe you could explain their motives behind that.
Free and Heathen would love to reduce the conversation to simplified generalizations. In Wisxonsin... it is not that an "ID is required" as much as the new laws clarification of what 'kind' of ID is acceptable. Currently you need one issued by Wisconsin DOT. If you do not have a drivers license and do not have ready access to a DOT facility...which is not uncommon in rural areas... you are SOL. This law was passed despite the fact that there IS NO Fraud.
" found just seven cases of voter fraud out of three million votes cast in Wisconsin during the 2004 election, a fraud rate of 0.0002 percent. All seven of these cases involved persons with felony convictions who weren’t eligible to vote after being released from prison."
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/02/381172/reince-priebus-voter-fraud/?mobile=nc
...so, .0002 ... by individuals who probably were not aware that they were ineligible.
Further....ID's used to cost $28 per... but they are now free..otherwise it is a 'Poll Tax' which is illegal.
Now... if it doesn't 'save' money and there is not fraud...
IT IS VOTER SUPRESSION
Criminal Intent/voter fraud?
Nah, the below are just right wing lies
online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html
pjmedia.com/blog/the-complete-guide-to-acorn-voter-fraud
rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html
youtube.com/watch?v=7NmaZIdz6Vo
youtube.com/watch?v=r9xjNtHo35g
dailycaller.com/2010/11/23/the-voter-fraud-hall-of-shame-milwaukee-voter-fraud-conviction-makes-acorn%E2%80%99s-2010-total-at-least-15/
webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=churchillj&date=120107
post-gazette.com/pg/11352/1197406-373-0.stm
nationalreview.com/corner/286557/yes-virginia-there-really-voter-fraud-hans-von-spakovsky
.prnewswire.com/news-releases/minnesota-leads-the-nation-in-voter-fraud-convictions-131782928.html
Anonymous,
Those are definitely Right Wing sources. None prove widespread voter fraud or non-disenfranchisement. If you are unable to articulate a point, don't expect us to follow your link dump.
"Maybe you could explain [Republican] motives behind [voter ID laws]."
Sure Dave. First, we find voter fraud to be despicable. A lot of men and women have died over the years to earn and preserve our right to vote. Seems a shame to let dishonest people co-opt our elections.
The average Republican/conservative does not believe that voter fraud is a crisis (as you claim we do). We do believe that it happens rarely but routinely and that government has the tools to prevent it. And those tools are easy and cheap to implement.
Consider an analogy from the left wing: capital punishment. If even one innocent man is executed, capital punishment is unjust, so we must oppose it. Well, if even one fraudulent vote is cast that we can prevent by asking for a photo ID, then we should prevent it.
The idea of an ID to vote doesn't strike Republicans as an unreasonable request. As Free points out, we all present a picture ID in daily life, so what's wrong with asking for it to vote. Especially if we can come up with solutions for people who can't afford one, which all Republican-proposed bills do.
The second motive is to prevent Democrats from stealing elections. As the saying goes, if it's not close, they can't cheat. You may have let this slip past you, but the people getting convicted of voter fraud are Democrats, and we Republicans want our votes to count, too.
"Those are definitely Right Wing sources. None prove widespread voter fraud or non-disenfranchisement."
I think your rejection of "conservative sources" on voter fraud is hypocritical. You cite liberal sources to back up your statement that voter fraud is not a problem. Regardless of the source, there are some facts that no one can deny. Here are a few, summarized in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette:
1) "The state chairman of Indiana's Democratic Party resigned Monday as a probe of election fraud in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary widened."
2) Black voter turnout rose in Georgia, Indiana, and Mississippi after photo IDs were required. [If Republican motives are to suppress turnout, they're clearly going down the wrong path.]
3) "This year there have been investigations, indictments or convictions for vote fraud in California, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Maryland. In all but one case, the alleged fraudsters were Democrats."
4) "At least 55 employees or associates of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now have been convicted of registration fraud in 11 states..."
5) "Former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, who is black, said vote fraud is rampant in African-American districts like his in Alabama... "The most aggressive contemporary voter suppression in the African-American community is the wholesale manufacture of ballots at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt," Mr. Davis said."
Dave, you like to say that we should raise taxes on the rich because polls tell us a majority of Americans support it. Well, "a Rasmussen poll in June indicated 75 percent of respondents support photo ID requirements." By your own logic, you should support voter ID laws.
We can argue till we're blue in the face about how often voter fraud happens. Point is, it happens. If it happens one time, it's too many times. Elections are in November and you don't need a DL for it to count. You can get a regular state ID card for like 20 bucks in most states. This is not an undue burden... unless of course you want felons and dead people to vote.
As for Dave with sources, any source that agrees with him is holy, non bias, totally fine. Any source even if it's MSNBC is a Republican propagadist front should they disagree. At least that's been the pattern these last few months.
Well said free and HR.
Next thing Dave will do is turn on the "clear before publication" feature of his blog to prevent any idea other than those he and JG share being published. In order to do what?
Since Dave and JG believe they can determine a persons motive or intent, I determine his intent or motive is to
suppress opposite views than theirs.
HR,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Unfortunately it requires much more effort to debunk falsehoods, dishonesty and deception than it does to make the initial assertions. Look on the bright side. This works to the Republicans advantage, especially since corporate media allow their assertions to go unchallenged.
So here we go, Debunk, part one:
we find voter fraud to be despicable
So do I, but not more despicable than stripping voting rights.
I think your rejection of "conservative sources" on voter fraud is hypocritical. You cite liberal sources to back up your statement that voter fraud is not a problem.
This is beautiful. Not only did I source FOX(R), I repeated the reference per your request. This dishonesty takes the cake.
...preserve our right to vote. Seems a shame to let dishonest people co-opt our elections
But it’s not so much a shame to strip citizens of their right to vote, without any actual co-opted elections, apparently.
Especially if we can come up with solutions for people who can't afford one, which all Republican-proposed bills do.
Are they secretly providing transportation for non-drivers in the inner cities? Yeah, I bet Republicans offered solutions for people who can't afford ID’s. Like closing offices in Wisconsin where ID’s are issued.
there are some facts that no one can deny.
Like climate change. But nothing stops a radical from denying the truth.
Debunk, part two:
”In Georgia, black voter turnout for the midterm election in 2006 was 42.9 percent.”
This one is true, believe it or not. But there’s a catch, of course.
http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/proponents_of_voter_id_laws_need_a_statistics_lesson/
Even if turnout increases at the same time as the adoption of a new voter ID law, there may be something other than the voter ID law that caused the turnout increase. In other words, correlation does not imply causation.
Bad statistical practices – like old habits – die hard. Supporters of voter ID requirements are at it again, this time misinterpreting a new set of election results in Georgia.
Consider nearby North Carolina, which does not yet have a voter ID requirement on the book. In 2006, just 28.8% of registered black voters turned out; in 2010, turnout among black voters was 40.4%.
Thus, relative to 2006 black turnout, North Carolina’s level of black turnout in 2010 represented a 40.2% increase.
Compare those turnout figures with Georgia’s. In 2006, when there was no voter ID requirement, 42.9% of registered black voters turned out; in 2010, after the state’s restrictive ID requirement became law, turnout was 50.4%. So relative to its 2006 black turnout, Georgia’s level of black turnout in 2010 constituted just a 17.5% increase.
In other words, the black turnout jump in North Carolina, a state without voter ID laws, was more than twice the size of the jump in Georgia, a state with stringent voter ID laws. When appropriately contextualized, Georgia’s voter ID law no longer looks quite so harmless.
You don’t need to be a statistician to know that without controlling for other factors that might influence turnout, the assertion that Georgia’s voter ID requirement didn’t depress turnout is meaningless -- at best unscientific, at worst just plain wrong.
By comparing Georgia’s turnout with turnout in other similar states that do not have voter ID requirements, it is possible to control for other factors that influence turnout.
What does this mean? A 40.2% increase with no voter ID law compared to a 17.5% increase with it. This indicates the rate of increase in black voter turnout was suppressed in Georgia. No doubt there were individuals denied their right to vote.
Debunk part three:
Rep. Artur Davis, who is black, said vote fraud is rampant in African-American
We are to take this as “fact” when Mr. Davis refused to cite one example other than “Donald Duck”.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/former_dem_rep_artur_davis_still_wouldnt_provide_e.php
Former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, who now supports voter ID laws as a method of preventing voter fraud but refuses to discuss any particular instances he says he witnessed, is again declining to provide any examples of voter fraud he witnessed, claiming doing so would turn the debate over voter ID laws into a ‘he-said-he-said’ controversy.
Davis alleged, “Cooking the [ballot] boxes on election day, they’re manufacturing absentee ballots, they’re voting [in the names of] people named Donald Duck, because they want to control politics and thwart progress.”
We gave Davis a ring... Davis didn’t provide any examples this time around either.
Davis said readers are entitled to think that he made it up, but that he’s under no obligation to provide specifics.
As for that mention of someone voting as “Donald Duck,” Davis told TPM he read about it in the media.
Well, now, he “refuses to discuss any particular instances he says he witnessed”. Really. This is how we prove a serious allegation? That certainly meets the test of incontrovertible proof of “facts that no one can deny”, right? Good enough for Republicans. All they need is assertion. Trust them.
By your own logic, you should support voter ID laws.
No, I would never support laws that strip citizens of their right to vote. This is where the majority is wrong. This is, or used to be, a free country. We do not vote to deny rights to our fellow citizens, no matter how much Republicans brainwash people. We are supposed to value majority rule with minority rights. This is an alien concept to the radical Right.
Last but not least, you neglected to cut and paste the “fair and balanced” opinion of your Right wing opinionated columnist:
Democrats fear they can't win next year unless they cheat.
This is your source we are to trust for “facts that no one can deny”?
There’s your icing on that cake.
Free,
So you're in favor of a de facto poll tax. We know you dislike democracy. We get that.
HR: "we find voter fraud to be despicable"
Dave: "So do I, but not more despicable than stripping voting rights."
I've shown you evidence of voter fraud. What's your evidence that any legal voter has had his/her rights stolen?
Maybe before you answer that, how will we settle this? Let's say I can show you 2,000 fraudulently cast votes and you can show 2,001 voters who didn't get to vote. Do you automatically win, or do we need some other standard? And let's be realistic, even if I show you more evidence, are you willing to change your position?
Approaching it another way, life is full of trade-offs. If a voter ID prevents fraud but also stops a few people who should be eligible from voting, is that a worthy trade-off? If no voter ID allows fraudulent voting, is that a worthy trade-off? Again, you make it sound so black and white, but life is full of nuance and trade-offs, which you seem unable to comprehend.
"This is beautiful. Not only did I source FOX(R), I repeated the reference per your request. This dishonesty takes the cake."
Your evidence of a lack of voter fraud came from the Washington Post and okjimm backed you up from Think Progress. Your citation of Fox is another form of hypocrisy entirely. Let me see if I understand this, you claim they're a propaganda arm of the Republican Party, but you cite them as evidence to prove your own argument? Either they're credible or they're not.
"Are they secretly providing transportation for non-drivers in the inner cities?"
Yes and no. Yes, the laws offer free transportation. No, it's not secret.
"Yeah, I bet Republicans offered solutions for people who can't afford ID’s."
Uh oh, sounds like you failed to do your research before writing your post. All Republican legislation for voter IDs includes free IDs for those who show they can't afford it. Between that and the transportation, you really sound like you don't know what you're talking about.
"This is where the majority is wrong."
Says an un-Democratic dictator.
"This is your source we are to trust for facts that no one can deny?"
Congratulations finding opposing editorials. I note that your "debunking" left out most of my editorial's allegations, so I'll chalk that up as a win on my end.
Dave, let's be rational for a moment and drop the partisan feuding. On its face, there is nothing discriminatory about a law asking people who are eligible to vote to provide a photo ID that proves they are eligible to vote. Some might argue it's simply common sense since the person at the voting booth can't know every person who lives in the neighborhood.
In addition, we all know that fraud has occurred in the past, even here in our bastion of freedom. Isn't it logical to want to create a system that minimizes the amount of fraud?
Tom,
And ‘tis far better to hang a thousand innocent prisoners than to allow one guilty man a life sentence.
HR,
Your citation of Fox is another form of hypocrisy entirely.
Now there you go again. First you condemn me for not referencing a conservative source. Then when I show you I actually did, you condemn me for it. Typical Republican. You think you can win a debate that way?
"This is where the majority is wrong." Says an un-Democratic dictator? “No” Say Justice and Truth. "This is where the majority is wrong." Belief in WMD’s, Invasion of Iraq, Voting for Bush, (I mean 2004, The majority was right in 2000, but democracy and the majority lost thanks to Republicans. Florida voter disenfranchisement was quite real then, too.)
Oh yes, voter disenfranchisement is a multi-front war on democracy by Republicans. Voter roll purges in Florida 2000, and in Florida 2012 voter registration so restricted that the League of Women Voters cannot register voters.
your "debunking" left out most of my editorial's allegations, so I'll chalk that up as a win on my end.
See my previous remark on time ratio between assertion and debunking. I know you’d love it if all your assertions were facts that no one can deny. Sorry, no. They remain assertions, not facts that no one can deny.
the laws offer free transportation and All Republican legislation for voter IDs includes free IDs for those who show they can't afford it.
Mere assertion again. And what is the fine print on how they show they can’t afford it? Republicans bending backwards to help people vote is a joke.
In Wisconsin...again:
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/capitol-report/article_335f59fa-d8fe-11e0-8a23-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1ivdVYgZc
An internal memo from a top Department of Transportation official instructs workers at Division of Motor Vehicles service centers NOT to tell members of the public that they can obtain voter identification cards free of charge -- unless they know to ask for it.
The memo, recently obtained by The Capital Times, was written by Steve Krieser and sent to all state Department of Transportation and Department of Motor Vehicles employees on July 1, the same day employees were to begin issuing photo IDs in accordance with a controversial new voter photo ID law adopted earlier in the year.
As laid out in the memo, failure to check a box when applying for photo ID with the Division of Motor Vehicles will result in the payment of $28. Interviews conducted about the memo suggest the state is more interested in continuing to charge the fee, which is required for a photo ID used for non-voting purposes, than it is in removing all barriers and providing easy access to a free, photo ID.
"While you should certainly help customers who come in asking for a free ID to check the appropriate box, you should refrain from offering the free version to customers who do not ask for it," Krieser writes to employees.
Now that’s what we call service, Republican style.
Your assertions are looking very weak again.
HR,
As I said, your assertions are looking very weak again.
I've shown you evidence of voter fraud.
Very little evidence actually. You mean mostly assertions and allegations. Evidence of voter impersonation at the polls remains insignificant. So, how many names do you have, again?
Let’s be rational, you needn’t list names. Show us your best estimate of voter impersonation fraud cases at the polls that voter ID laws have caught. The laws have been on the books for a while, so it should be very easy for you.
Let's say I can show you 2,000 fraudulently cast votes and you can show 2,001 voters who didn't get to vote.
Is that your idea of a fair trade off? Punish an equal amount of the innocent to catch the guilty? Really? Is it?
I disagree. I’m sure most rational people would too.
Again the advantage is yours. You get to simply look up the documented cases. I am at the disadvantage. Disenfranchised voters don’t go to court. It’s nobody’s job to count them. They have no access to media or other official recognition of their case.
But I’m game. Let’s be rational. I’ll start with a dozen cases of voter disenfranchisement.... from a single residence.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/07/nation/na-voterid7
Twelve nuns, all residents of a retirement home at Saint Mary's Convent near Notre Dame University, were denied ballots by a fellow sister and poll worker because the women, in their 80s and 90s, did not have valid Indiana photo ID cards.
"It's the law, and it makes it hard," said Sister Julie McGuire, who was working at the polling place and had to explain to the nuns that they could not vote. "Some don't understand why."
Denied their right to vote by a fellow sister! Think about that...
She was just doing her job, obeying the Republikan New Order.
You can run along and find twelve folks arrested for impersonation at the polls in Indiana now if you’d like. Trust me. It will be easier for you now... Or...
Let’s continue to be rational.
Let’s not forget the disenfranchisement of students.
More from the article:
Angela Hiss, 19, of suburban Chicago, said she was allowed to register to vote several weeks ago but was turned away Tuesday from a polling site in South Bend, where she attends Notre Dame.
Hiss said officials at a local motor vehicles office then would not accept her Illinois license as proof of identification for an Indiana license.
Make it baker’s dozen cases you owe me now, please.
Let’s continue to be rational.
Also reported above:
"We were at one polling place for a few hours and picked up three or four different stories of people being turned away," said Gary Kalman of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group in Washington. "I don't have numbers about how widespread it is."
Hmm, three or four reported but no way of counting all of them. But it is a over a dozen voters in this case.
Despite your having the advantage in finding actual numbers, I’ll be extremely generous and estimate the average at 1.5 instead of a dozen, or even instead of three or four being turned away from polls on average.
I think it would be rational to estimate the number of precincts in Indiana as about 900.
900 x 1.5 = 1350
Ok, now we go from 13 to over 1300 cases of voter impersonation for you to show us at the polls in Indiana.
Now, before you run along and collect those cases for us...
Let’s continue to be rational one more time. After that, I cannot waste any more time with your ridiculous assertions. I will simply assert they are wrong, as they usually are proven to be.
On its face, there is nothing discriminatory about a law asking people who are eligible to vote to provide a photo ID.
Knowing most people without photo ID are minorities changes the face of that assertion significantly.
Radical right types know most people aren't with them on most issues. I think they've concluded since 2007 that despite 30 years worth of incessant, saturation-level propaganda, people are no longer buying their lies about trickle down and their "you better be scared" memes. So, they've had to get creative with things like the Astroturf tea party "movement" and voter suppression.
One thing doesn't change, though. Radical-right Republicans will say and do anything to win.
In Wisconsin it is possible to get a free state ID, but only if you know about. The DMV has been told by Gov. Walker not to tell people about the free IDs. Which is another way of discouraging people from getting the necessary ID so they can vote.
Whatever happened to the FuckingRepublicans being against a national ID program which is what this voter ID is shaping up to be?? They were spouting some bullshit about freedom if I remember right??
"Whatever happened to the FuckingRepublicans being against a national ID program which is what this voter ID is shaping up to be?? They were spouting some bullshit about freedom if I remember right??"
Here's what happened to it:
If a national ID program helps suppress the vote, i.e., the vote for Democrats, the GOP is for everyone having a national ID, otherwise it's a commie/nazie/kenyan plot to deprive us of our freedoms.
Dave has presented volumes of evidence on how requiring voter IDs = minority/poor voter suppression.
No matter how much lipstick the GOP puts on this issue, it's still a pig.
The hypocrisy of the GOP is staggering.
It appears a man who worked with Senator Ted Kennedy, and praised him in the process, to get health care reform passed, and who vowed, while running for governor in Massachusetts, that he would always protect a woman's right to choose--this guy is probably going to get the GOP nomination.
This piece of hypocrisy, after having a serious flirtation with a man who was a serial adulterer and forced to leave the House of Representatives in disgrace--the first speaker in US history to do so. So much for the GOP's love affair with "family values."
And then we have the unctuous Santorum: A freedom-loving, get-the-government-out-of-our lives-conservative who would force the government into a woman's womb, who would repeal legal marriages between gays, and who would reinstate DADT if he were president.
No wonder we find such hypocrisy here in the arguments FOR voter suppression.
Hypocrisy is the force that nourishes the conservative heart.
@Dave
This makes no sense to me: "First you condemn me for not referencing a conservative source. Then when I show you I actually did, you condemn me for it." You said this earlier: "Not only did I source FOX(R), I repeated the reference per your request."
I think you've confused me with someone else because I didn't ask you for anything at all, let alone to use conservative sources. You condemned Free for using a conservative source and I pointed out your hypocrisy. Feel free to point me to the comment if I've forgotten my own request.
"Florida voter disenfranchisement was quite real then, too."
I thought the standard liberal line was that Bush stole the election... through voter fraud. Ahh, but that doesn't fit with today's narrative, so now you call it disenfranchisement.
"Mere assertion again. And what is the fine print on how they show they can’t afford it? Republicans bending backwards to help people vote is a joke."
Your quote from Madison.com backs up my statement, not yours. And that's a clever trick turning 3 instances into 1,300 instances of disenfranchisement. Is that called "new math"?
...After all that you say "I cannot waste any more time with your ridiculous assertions. I will simply assert they are wrong, as they usually are proven to be."
This is why I started the comment asking if you were open to contradictory evidence. You clearly are not, so there is no point going through the exercise. You believe what you believe regardless of the evidence.
SW,
This has been the pattern, and it will continue. New Pew poll shows more identify as D's than R's...again. How's that new "Jobs jobs jobs Congress" workin' out for ya?
Kulkuri,
Thank you. The GOP doesn't care for your Mother-in-law anyway. Why can't she pull herself up by her bootstraps?
Shaw and Kulkuri,
We know the GOP Nationial ID position is a bone tossed to the Armaggedonist rapture nuts frightened of the Mark of the Beast. Too bad they don't know the real beast is getting their votes.
HR,
So where's your first dozen cases in Indiana? We'll wait.
You want me to acknowlege evidence. How about yourself?
Still won't admit to the reality of disenfranchisement? Yeah, we know, it's your job to deny it, and cast false assertions in response.
Same old same old.
update re: Wisconsin DOT AND Free Id's..... the memo was leaked... the 'temp' employee who leaked the memo was dismissed....however.. DOT entrances now have a sign stated that State ID's are now free to those who need them.
I am an example... I have no driver's license...cataracts... cannot pass vision test.
I am not a Vet, not a student...my bank ID is Not Valid... why should I have to PAY to vote. these measures are nothing more than suppression... there IS NO OTHER REASON
I am an example... I have no driver's license...cataracts... cannot pass vision test.
I am not a Vet, not a student...my bank ID is Not Valid... why should I have to PAY to vote. these measures are nothing more than suppression... there IS NO OTHER REASON
If you live in S.C. the voter id is FREE!!! now what's your problem.
WOW HR, you had them stumped for two days until Dave was able to get a couple of his pals to (Shaw and Kulkur) to come to his aid.
Here's the best one "In Wisconsin it is possible to get a free state ID, but only if you know about. The DMV has been told by Gov. Walker not to tell people about the free IDs. Which is another way of discouraging people from getting the necessary ID so they can vote."
Proof that Gov Walker is telling the DMV to be mute, please. But here's the real question, wasn't the govt before Walker a DEM? If the DEMS are all against suppressing the vote, why wasn't it public knowledge then? In the most recent recall elections in WI, if this was known by the DEMs why didn't they make it known in their get out the vote drives?
Could it be that the DEM.s wanted the legal vote "suppressed"?
Cheers from the peanut gallery as their team sinks in the mud. The Great Challenge goes unmet.
The loyalty of fanatics is quite special.
They don't even need to read to have their minds made up.
How "Right" of them. Reading is for dum librools.
Governor Walker signed the voter photo ID law on May 25, 2011, and the Government Accountability Board is implementing the law.
Just another one of Dave's pals here to enlighten people.
Shaw,
Thank you. Some of us won't bother to read that, especially if it doesn't conform to their indoctrination.
Again:
An internal memo from a top Department of Transportation official instructs workers at Division of Motor Vehicles service centers NOT to tell members of the public that they can obtain voter identification cards free of charge -- unless they know to ask for it.
The memo, recently obtained by The Capital Times, was written by Steve Krieser and sent to all state Department of Transportation and Department of Motor Vehicles employees on July 1, the same day employees were to begin issuing photo IDs in accordance with a controversial new voter photo ID law adopted earlier in the year.
See evidence above. They may not even read this far.
http://gab.wi.gov/publications/brochures/how-to-obtain-a-free-wisconsin-state-id-for-voting-clerks
This is a the bottom of the page offered by Shaw, note the title. AH, the problem is the evil GOV Walker gets bill passed that give FREE, yes its free!!! and whats your problem now?
Note this bit of info:
MADISON, WI – The Government Accountability Board received approval Friday from the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Finance for its plan to inform and educate the public about Wisconsin’s new Voter Photo ID law, its requirements and ways that the State’s residents can meet those standards.
“Educating Wisconsin’s voters and local election officials about the law’s many new requirements is a critical part of implementing voter ID,” said Kevin J. Kennedy, director and general counsel of the G.A.B. “We want to make sure all electors understand the law, and that everyone has the proper photo ID to vote in February 2012.”
Before the G.A.B. spent any money on the public information and public outreach campaigns required by Act 23, the new state budget required the Board to obtain approval from the Joint Committee on Finance under the 14-day passive review process. The G.A.B. submitted a proposed plan to the committee on July 1, and the Committee gave its approval Friday, July 14, in a letter from its co-chairs, Senator Alberta Darling and Representative Robin Vos, stating no member of the committee had raised an objection to the plan.
Of the $1.9 million appropriated for implementing the law, $1.35 million will be spent for public information, public outreach, and education/training, said Nathaniel E. Robinson, elections division administrator. “All three of these components will work together and provide an effective combined tool to educate the public and local election officials about the details of Wisconsin’s new law,” Robinson said. The $1.35 million includes funding for expanded Board staff, who will implement the outreach effort.
The Board will use one of the existing state contracts with an advertising agency to assist the staff in developing a multimedia public information campaign to be deployed in waves prior to the February 2012 and April 2012 elections, as required by Act 23, and prior to the Fall 2012 Partisan Primary and General Elections, which involve much higher voter turnout than the Spring elections. The Board will also make extensive use of news releases and free public service announcements.
The Board and the agency will also develop a public outreach campaign to identify groups of voters who may not have an acceptable form of photo ID, and develop educational materials to reach those groups, which include the elderly, minority and student voters, rural and urban communities, voters with disabilities, and others.
The Board will also train, educate and provide technical assistance to Wisconsin’s local election officials for implementing the new law. Wisconsin has 1,850 municipal clerks and thousands more election workers who will need continuing training and technical assistance to uniformly implement the new law across the state.
Sounds like voter suppression to me!!
And as far as Dave's claim that there's a memo instructing DVM workers to NOT to tell members of the public that they can obtain voter identification cards free of charge, I went through 11 pages of Google and searching for the Memo that the Capital Times says they had. Never did find anywhere a copy of the damning MEMO.
Further, using Dave's theory of intent and motive, all links in all 11 Google pages were to progressive, liberal, Union or socialist websites, as they themsleves proudly claimed. Which leads me to say that if Dave can discredit proof because it didn't come from a far left source, I can discredit information if it came from a far left source.
I would strongly suggest you visit this site for another view.
partisan.blogs.hopelesslypartisan.com/item_10716.htm
-First, let's note that both print and broadcast media have been saturated with news about the free ID's for months - so much so that I suspect there are beings on Mars and Uranus who know about them by now;
-Then there is the fact that Mr. Krieser is not in any way telling DMV personnel to withhold information about free IDs. In fact, he is telling them the exact opposite - i.e. to "certainly help" people who come in asking for them - but that DMV personnel should not proactively be announcing it to everyone who comes in.
And what is wrong with that? How does it differ from other DMV services? Do DMV personnel proactively announce the availability of chauffeurs' licenses? Motorcycle licenses? Drivers Ed courses? Of course not. Their job is to provide the services which are asked for.
In this connection, my favorite part of the excerpt is where Senator Erpenbach whines that:
"Helping people obtain a free ID card to vote should be no different than any other service the Department of Transportation offers as an agent of the people of this state."
Er, Mr. Erpenbach: As noted above, that is exactly what is being done. You either do not realize, or - more to the point - do not want to know, that you are saying the same thing Mr. Krieser is saying.
-Third, we have the fact (which Mr. Marley was nice enough to bury 10 paragraphs into his article) that:
DMV service centers posted signs on Wednesday telling people they could get IDs for free if they were intended for voting. The signs had been planned for some time and were not a response to media accounts of the policy, Krieser said.
Huh? What was that? Signs touting the availability of free IDs are posted right on the walls of DMV offices, so everyone who walks in will be made aware of them, even without personnel inflicting an unasked-for oration about them? Doesn't that negate the entire complaint right there?
-And finally, even people who don't come into the office can find out about the free ID's by just logging onto the DMV web site.
Bottom line? Free ID's for Wisconsin voters are about as "hidden" as this season's Green Bay Packers schedule.
partisan.blogs.hopelesslypartisan.com/
Ken Berwitz
JTF,
Is that you? Or is someone more verbal commenting under your identity?
I'm inclined to suspect a shifting identity... again.
I'm sure the Right would love voter ID's to be about as available as Packer tickets to minorities.
Anyway, The original point I was making when I posted the article is the fact Republicans do not bend over backwards to help people vote. That is clear from the memo.
Do DMV personnel proactively announce the availability of chauffeurs' licenses? Motorcycle licenses? Drivers Ed courses?
No, but none of those are an essential right in a democracy, are they?
Okjimm made a clear point that there are folks that do not have easy access to a DMV office. There are fewer branches now, you know. They also may not have access to a computer.
He showed that there were 7 cases in 3 million of voter fraud in Wisconsin.
If this law takes away the right to vote from only a dozen people, which we know it will, then an injustice against citizens and democracy has been committed by Republicans.
The cure for the great "vote fraud" fraud is far worse than the problem. This is what the Right ignores.
And they alone want to dictate the election process.
I wonder why? It ain’t ‘cause they love democracy, that's for certain.
Oh, I see. That was all a copy and paste.
And this is coming from someone who accuses me of having people come to my aid.
More radical Right projection.
Figures.
And what is wrong with that? How does it differ from other DMV services? Do DMV personnel proactively announce the availability of chauffeurs' licenses? Motorcycle licenses? Drivers Ed courses? Of course not. Their job is to provide the services which are asked for.
Someone seriously compares telling people the availability of chauffeurs' licenses, motocycle licenses or drivers ed courses and informining people that they can obtain a free ID in order to participate in democracy as the same thing?
I wonder how the person who wrote that bit of nonsense kept a straight face while typing it.
I'm always amazed at the logic contortions people will twist themselves into in order to try to justify deceit and dishonesty.
Where is is a copy of Mr. Krieser's memo? In reviewing the 36 pages of my Google search for Mr. Kreiser, I found not one published example of his memo. Even more interesting, was it was on the 37 page that I found the link to the post I shared with you by Mr.Ken Berwitz.
His questions are good ones that I would hope any hones person would ask themselves before making the claim voter ID only suppresses the vote.
After all, in the 10 links posted on 1/68/12, there are more that 7 cases of voter fraud listed.
You see Dave, I would really love to beleive that the left's opposition to voter ID was based on a real concern that there would be legal register citizens who were kept from voting by not being able to get the require ID. But I do not beleive that to be the case. Just review the 10 links in aforementioned post to see why anyone not left of center would want voter ID.
The other thing that amazes me is while I have read on this blog the claim that the right is guilty of voter fraud, no one on the left seems upset about it. Wouldnt voter ID stop fraud committed by both the left and the right?
In closing I agree with HR statement when he said "I think your rejection of "conservative sources" on voter fraud is hypocritical. You cite liberal sources to back up your statement that voter fraud is not a problem."
I have yet to see proof of the Kreiser memo or proof that having a voter ID is an unreasonable requirement, that would prevent a legal citizen from voting.
Ah, we see more proof they don't even need to read to have their minds made up.
OK, Just the FOX(R), since HR has backed out, why don't you show us 12 cases of voter impersonation at the polls in Indiana, just to compensate for the 12 nuns who were disenfranshised.
You did read that, didn't you?
We want text, not just links.
Dave, I haven't backed out, I'm just waiting for the next round. You've made it clear you're not interested in evidence that contradicts your world view and you've resorted to childish mockery. Why would I waste my time?
This is why I started the comment asking if you were open to contradictory evidence.
No he is not, this would interfear with his faith beliefs. I have said many times these debates are not designed to exchange information or sway those participating, but to sway the opinion of those few undecided who see it and for our own amusement.
Not open to contrary evidence... Who, me?
What exactly would that evidence be again? Where is that evidence? Non-existent evidence is not contrary.
This reminds me of your fearless chickenhawk Decider looking for WMD’s behind White House curtains in that stupid video.
“No weapons of mass destruction there”, joked the man who started a war by false excuse of non-real threats. “They gotta be somewhere”.
Yes, we’ve been waiting for your evidence for some time now.
You haven't delivered it yet. You have not even provided a dozen cases to match the nuns yet.
You failed.
That’s right. Lies fail before the truth. But then again, you guys don't even believe nuns.
Did you forget the nuns part? Or is that just the "last round" for you; and you want to have a go at another one?
Sorry. You guys lost the last round.
And the debate.
You lost.
Truth and reality are not on your side, let alone nobility and goodness.
And speaking of contrary evidence...
We know about even more contrary evidence that you folks refuse to recognize.
Run along now, or I'll mention "nukular" aluminum tubes again.
You guys are so special!
The Iraq war has a bearing on voter fraud how exactly? This is a Dubya stock response... when loosing on facts start blathering about nuclear alluminum tubes and george bush. The man stopped being President nearly four years ago. This is 2012. Move on.
Dave,
"We want text, not just links."
Does this mean I can cut and paste as well as provide you the links? Are these new rules?
Did you post recently that you wanted my viewpoints, not cut and paste of others? When I've done so, you require supporting documentation. Talk about changing the level of the playing field as we debate, this is crazy!
Needless to say, I still want to see a copy of Mr. Krieser's memo. Do you not find it in the least bit strange, that with all the progressive/left wing/liberal blogs reporting almost the same word for word story of the existence of the memo, not one of them has published a copy?
You see Dave, I provided you links to 10 different stories of voter fraud from 10 different sources. I'm just asking to see a copy of Mr. Krieser's memo.
Until then Dave, I see that HR's most recent post makes total common sense. You have the floor, have at it.
Still can't show a dozen cases in Indiana, eh, guys?
A paragraph or two of the pertinent points is customary.
Dumping entire articles is not necessary. If you have a paragraph that includes, "A dozen liberals have been arrested for impersonating "real Americans" at a single polling place", then you'd be getting close to presenting the "contrary evidence" you accuse us of ignoring.
So far you guys are the ones ignoring evidence.
The debate is over. You have failed to show us the radical Right agenda prevents more voter impersonation fraud than it denies voter rights.
We have shown voter impersonation is insignificant and "rarely occurring" even according to FOX(R). (For which I have critizied for both referencing and not referencing.)
We have shown more people lose their right to vote than commit voter impersonation fraud.
We have also seen the radical Right's arrogant dismissal of those realities as further evidence of their antagonism for democracy.
I'm confident an impartial reader would agree.
Thanks for your input.
Cheer up. You have lost the debate but that means little, for as long as Republicans hold power, democracy loses.
Your side is winning the war on democracy. You should be very happy.
Dave Dubya, you concluded your victory with the following...
"Your side is winning the war on democracy."
Yes, they are. They're downsizing democracy bit by bit each day, and apparently having no misgivings about it. For some unexplained reason they believe their alliance with the 1% will pay dividends to them in the long run. Boy, are they in for a surprise...
By the way, I'm waiting for that "contrary evidence", myself. I guess they're researching it and I need to remain patient. ;-)
JG,
Something tells me we'll be waiting for their "contrary evidence" for about as long as we'll be waiting for "nukular" aluminum tubes and that magical "trickle down" promise.
In any case, I'm pretty sure I have time to go grocery shopping and run a few errands, don't you think?
Dave Dubya, you replied with...
"...I'm pretty sure I have time to go grocery shopping and run a few errands..."
Hell, I'm sure you have time to climb Mt. Everest, in addition to spending a few weeks with the Dalai Lama if you want to.
What our conservative brethren seem to have a failing grasp of, is the statistical insignificance of the number of voter fraud cases that occur. It's probably less than the number of elevator failures leading to death each year, and elevators are the safest form of public transportation in this country.
Talk about changing the level of the playing field as we debate, this is crazy!
If you're holding out for dave to admit you beat him, it will never happen. You have to remember that guys like you and me, we look at data, we look at information and make these decisions on what we think about things. Dave doesn't do that, he makes decisions on an emotional level to support his faith belief. A faith that is just as strong as any Christian or Muslims faith belief.
Remember the old saying if you point the finger there are always 3 pointed back at you. That's how you know. Guys like JG and Dave will accuse you of being "hateful" and emotional. There are three fingers pointed back at them. I'm not "hateful" because for example, I'm for killing Islamic Extremists. That only makes sense. Those people are dangerous and can't be reasoned with. That is what being extremist is by definition. I'm not full of hate, any more than I "hate" mice that get into my house. But the people Dave hates... the 1% whatever that means... he hates. So Dave takes the emotion he's basing his idea on, the Iraq war in this example, and points the finger. If the "1%" are for it, he's against it and he ties his hate in with it.
You can put all the data out there you want. I did last post, I showed a compiled data map and sources of thousands and thousands of cases of false registration - and he moves the goal post to back up his faith belief just like Christians will move that same goal post when you talk about evolution with them. Let me tell you, even if you had video of one million individuals committing voter fraud, it still wouldn't matter because dave has strong faith. That's why he's moving the goal post with you on your debate you were talking about before. Thats why he'll assign strange motives to you about this and other issues. For us, it's obvious that some people... at least some number... are defrauding elections. We think thats bad, so we put forth a simple regulation to fix it- show your ID. But people Dave hates are also for it. And so in his mind he assigns us motive, strange motives about suppression of Democracy at that. That's because it's easier to be a hater than it is to argue against a simple control he has no problem putting on other Constitutional Rights like showing your ID to buy a gun. See, the 1% don't say much about that one and so he could care less. You have to understand the thought process you deal with when it comes to people into faith. That's why it boggles his mind we could care less what FOX(R) says. In his mind we're automatons who can only do what FOX says, and he can't understand why we could care less about what they think. In his mind, and by his faith FOX is our church. If the shoe was on the other foot and some liberal elite told him not to think something, he'd comply immidiately. When we don't behave the same way, it confuses him.
Free0352, you said...
"Remember the old saying if you point the finger there are always 3 pointed back at you. That's how you know. Guys like JG and Dave will accuse you of being "hateful" and emotional. There are three fingers pointed back at them."
Yeah, we know, you just point with your "40". ;-)
I gotta give Free credit. He made some real effort to explain my motives, and concluded I’m "hateful". Gee, I wonder if there's any projection in all that. After all, Mr. Free has openly admitted to hating everybody from welfare recipients to hippies, not just Islamic extremists.
Of course, I never actually said I hated anybody. I don’t recall accusing either HR or Free of being hateful. I'd even be happy to enjoy a friendly brew or two with our Rightist friends. I’ve said so before. I really don't want to hurt them.
You’d think the fact I agree with punishing perpetrators of election fraud would cut me a little slack.
But no.
Maybe this sounded hateful:
We have shown more people lose their right to vote than commit voter impersonation fraud.
So an opponent of democracy accuses me of "moving the goalposts" by requesting evidence of a dozen cases of voter impersonation in Indiana to "justify" the nuns losing their right to vote.
They failed to come up with a dozen.
No wonder it has become all about me and my "hate" now. I can imagine they must hate it when they fail. Perhaps that’s where the hate has originated.
I’m starting to think there may be some projection after all.
“Ain't no time to hate” as the song goes.
Peace and love, folks. Peace and love.
Just don’t hate me for it.
Dave, you said "I'm confident an impartial reader would agree."
I was looking around for articles on voter ID laws to see where the evidence comes down. I don't know you from Adam, so you could probably count me as impartial.
You totally lost this argument. You made it clear you're unwilling to consider any evidence against your position and now you're just name calling. If I were part of this debate, I would've left, too.
If you thought your antics would convince an impartial reader, you were wrong.
-Angie L.
Just new guy you should have read the comments from the last post, where I showed him 10,000 cases of false vote registration. Boom.
I hope I don't offend anyone, but I honestly believe that if requiring IDs would benefit Democrats instead of Republicans every single person here would have the opposite opinion.
I don't think there is a genuine philosophy present in this discussion.
Yikes, that sounded offensive. I will probably feel like I owe everyone an apology later.
I already feel remorse. It is rather painful, almost painful enough to stop me from clicking "publish your comment."
Perhaps it is just that painful, and I hope that it is. We shall see.
Crap!
John,
You may have a point, if both sides were equally contemptuous of democracy, or if their attitudes were reversed. But there is one party that is clearly opposed to high voter turnout, especially minorities, and has taken measures to disenfranchise voters, curtail registration and purge voter rolls.
The philosophical differences are quite clear. If Democrats were the party dismantling democracy and stripping citizens of rights, I would be opposed to them as well. I believe I have indicated this in the past.
Just the Angie,
Because you don’t know me makes you impartial?
Right. That lame logic suggests which side you are on.
You made it clear you're unwilling to consider any evidence against your position and now you're just name calling
You’re regurgitating the unfounded accusations of the radical Rightists. This is more evidence you are dishonestly claiming to be impartial.
Once again here is our position: Please read it.
More people lose their right to vote than commit voter impersonation fraud.
Did you read that? Maybe you should read it again so you know what we are talking about.
More people lose their right to vote than commit voter impersonation fraud.
Now that you have pronounced your judgment, why don’t you show us some of that evidence of voter impersonation? Surely you must have found that in your articles, didn’t you?
In case you wonder what that particular evidence would be, we are still waiting for a dozen cases of voter impersonation at the Indiana polls
You’re impartial, all right, impartial as a Right winger can be, I suppose.
Free,
Your ACORN registration form fraud is not the issue. This is not the same as people showing up at the polls impersonating eligible voters. I agree that registration fraud is something to deal with. Paying people on a piecework scale for registrations was not the way to do it. It invited fraud. In case you didn’t notice ACORN is no more.
And now the League of Women Voters cannot register anymore in Florida. That is clearly suppression of voter registration.
Nobody is showing up at the polls posing as Donald Duck.
Show me where those improper registrations have led to impersonations at the polls. Otherwise they are scraps of garbage.
You don’t even need to show 10,000. How about 1,000?
You linked to a CNN article that mentions 2100 false registration forms in Indiana. How did that translate to voter impersonation at the polls?
You still haven’t shown us a dozen cases just to balance for the nuns.
Evidence, please.
The goal posts have not moved. You’re just not getting any closer.
You may have a point, if both sides were equally contemptuous of democracy, or if their attitudes were reversed. But there is one party that is clearly opposed to high voter turnout, especially minorities, and has taken measures to disenfranchise voters, curtail registration and purge voter rolls.
Minorities are more likely to vote for democrats. That is the reason why, which supports my contention.
I do not agree that democrats are non-partisan supporters of the right for everyone to vote no matter what. I do not agree that their primary motivation is a mission of justice. The left acts as if requiring a voter to present an ID is tantamount to organized oppression, but only in this case, not others.
Is the left concerned that in many states you are asked for an ID to purchase medicine, alcohol and cigarettes? That the Right is making it in issue, not because of the number of voter fraud instances, but because of the number of times a legitimate vote is cast against them without an ID is pretty obvious. It is equally obvious that the Left is against voter IDs for the exact same reason. This argument is purely partisan and each side is trying to justify their partisan philosophy with something real. Both sides have legitimate arguments to justify what they want need to justify, and they are using them. It would be refreshing to see each side argue what they believe for the reason they believe it. I will not get that here today.
I do have this going for me, though: each side knows what I am saying is true about the other side, so since each side thinks I am half right, the way I see it, two halves make a whole. Cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty may prevent us from seeing the same phenomenon in ourselves that is obvious in others, but there is a kind of litmus test we can use.
Each side is made up of smart people. The fact that there is an issue where each side makes mostly valid points and the other side unanimously discounts them, not on the relevance of the points made, but on the relevance of opposing points, proves that either one side is a complete idiot, summarily, or that the argument is partisan. I know the latter explanation to be the right one.
Your ACORN registration form fraud is not the issue.
It's exactly the issue Dave. You have to register those dead people before they can vote. And since you don't have to provide ID when voting, how else can we tell when someone is a fraud. It is an anonymous process after all.
Myste,
I honestly believe that if requiring IDs would benefit Democrats instead of Republicans every single person here would have the opposite opinion.
No, you're wrong... at least about us. Dave and company? I agree wit you. I don't care if it makes Liberals win, at least they'd win fairly.
Each side is made up of smart people.
Sure about that?
of greater concern, fraud-wise, would be 'who' is tallying the votes. Last April in Wisconsin's Supreme Court election a Republican County Clerk conveniently 'found' 14,000 untallied votes that ultimately swung the vote to the conservative Republican Candidate, a man the 'County Clerk' had once worked for.
Initial returns had the Liberal leaning candidate winning. At then end, nothing could be proven.... but it sure did smell funny. In anyone's estimation.
Here is a link from the Christian Science Monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election
Free,
Each side is made up of smart people.
Sure about that?
I am not going to waste my time researching and showing you all the statistics and reports, tons of them, that have been done showing that Republicans are uninformed, uneducated and gullible. They are all over the web and I know you have seen them, just as I know you have seen world-class liberal economists writings who would completely disagree with your link. We both have seen reports like the editorial you pointed me to, that try to show the opposite. However, the fact that you choose one you need to believe and buy into offers and example of one gullible conservative, which does not support your case, but supports the opposition's case.
As I have said before, you should argue what you believe for the reason you believe it and you are certainly not doing that now. If you do, your arguments will be less assailable. If you could refute your own argument, rest assured, others can also.
John,
This is key: because of the number of times a legitimate vote is cast against them
One side demands and imposes their unilateral standard for what they deem legitimate for a person’s most important right in a democracy, and in doing so, strips the right to vote from people who’ve voted in the past. I don’t understand how you see no underlying philosophical differences here.
Does everyone need to show an ID to buy booze and tobacco? Not if it is obvious the person is older than 30 or 40. The right to vote is denied even when it is obvious the person is old enough and their residency is known, as in the case of the nuns. There is a greater injustice in denying a nun her right to vote, than denying a 14 year-old’s right to booze. Perhaps this is not a fair equivalency.
Since the Right has historically been against universal suffrage, your case is hypothetical. The roles cannot be reversed.
I bet if we offered a quiz on which maid service is better, Republcans would score higher too.
Suppose we tested people about believing in "death panels", "government takeover of health care" Saddam's connections to al-Qaeda, and "nukular aluminum tubes"...
Okjimm,
This is key. There's a difference between "voter fraud" and election fraud. The Right wants to conflate the two and distort the former.
Meanwhile where's the Diebold (R) paper trail? Why is no documentation required for the Diebold (R) machines?
Can't imagine.
Dave,
Does everyone need to show an ID to buy booze and tobacco? Not if it is obvious the person is older than 30 or 40. The right to vote is denied even when it is obvious the person is old enough and their residency is known, as in the case of the nuns. There is a greater injustice in denying a nun her right to vote, than denying a 14 year-old’s right to booze. Perhaps this is not a fair equivalency.
Your argument that those who are obviously citizens should be exempt if the Right is sincere in their standard is weak. If you are trying to show there in this case from other ID requirements, it is still very weak. As you already realize, defining what an obvious citizen looks like is very arbitrary and problematic from a logistics perspective, and irrelevant to the question. You cannot argue that the proposed law is wrong because in other ID requirements we do not enforce it with the answer is known without enforcing it. How we enforce a requirement and if we should have the requirement, as you already know, are two separate questions that logically must be addressed separately.
Do you not see how far you are reaching to justify your stance? You still act as if requiring an ID to vote is an absurd violation of the constitution. Is requiring an ID to travel a similar violation?
The argument that requiring an ID to vote is absurd is itself absurd. There are reasons not to do it, but it is hard for me to get to them while the absurd justifications of the liberal stance are still getting promoted. Absurd claims to help solidify one’s position does just the opposite. It provides the opposition with legitimate targets and makes the discussion become one about the points where we are wrong and seeking to justify. It discredits our claims.
The idea of voter IDs is not absurd, not unconstitutional, and not abnormal in America. Moreover, it is obvious, and what would typically be expected if we were designing America from scratch. I agree that there are problems with doing it, but that it is in any way absurd or oppressive is not one of them.
I can have a preference without needing to falsely justify it as a "fact."
As I told Free, I do not think we are arguing what we believe for the reason we believe it. Like all democrats, we don't want to have a law that will produce fewer liberal votes. Like all conservatives, Free does. It is that simple.
As Emerson put it, we act as retained attorneys. If he knows our sect, he anticipates our arguments. We each come up with the best possible arguments we can to support our preferences, and no thought to truth shall intervene.
Now, on with our justifications of our specific stances. Charge!!!
John,
The idea of voter IDs is not absurd, not unconstitutional, and not abnormal in America.
Neither was the right to vote for only property owners.
You cannot argue that the proposed law is wrong because in other ID requirements we do not enforce it with the answer is known without enforcing it.
I didn’t introduce the argument over other ID requirements. I was saying it is not a fair equivalency. The right to buy booze, or drive a car, is not the same as the right to vote.
Again the bottom line is more people lose their right to vote than commit voter impersonation fraud. This is a violation of the underlying philosophy of democracy.
How is this reaching to justify my stance?
How we enforce a requirement and if we should have the requirement, as you already know, are two separate questions that logically must be addressed separately.
Agreed.
The burden of proof (significant voter impersonation fraud) has not been met by the Right. The debate should have been on that issue. Then the debate should have been whether something needed to be done, then what to do about it. Instead there has been no debate. There has been unilateral assertion of the problem and unilateral imposition of the solution of that determination.
The presumption of innocence of fraud is abandoned and replaced with a presumption of guilt of fraud that must be disproven.
This is contrary to the principles of democracy.
How about in cases of suspected voter impersonation we hold that vote as provisional until verified? Stripping rights, even from a Republican voter, is not the correct solution.
just as I know you have seen world-class liberal economists writings who would completely disagree with your link.
Who, like JM Keynes? We've been on that playbook for a while. How's that been working out these past few years? I would say your liberal economists are very stupid.
As if liberal economists have been running the country for the past thirty years.
Dave,
The idea of voter IDs is not absurd, not unconstitutional, and not abnormal in America.
Neither was the right to vote for only property owners.
This is a restriction on voting placed to show that the person voting is the person we think is voting, and everyone can get an ID. This is nothing like the right to own property. False correlation, sir.
You cannot argue that the proposed law is wrong because in other ID requirements we do not enforce it with the answer is known without enforcing it.
I didn’t introduce the argument over other ID requirements. I was saying it is not a fair equivalency. The right to buy booze, or drive a car, is not the same as the right to vote.
I agree, the right to vote is more precious and should be regulated more, if we are to continue down this line. To play devil’s advocate, when we allow fraudulent votes, voluntarily, we disenfranchise everyone, as the value of real votes are no longer worth a real vote, but less. In America, we have a precedent of forcing people to prove who they are to participate in things where that data is important: travel, purchasing of certain things, employment, etc. There is precedent and acceptance of precedent, the tacit agreement that it is valid, except in this case. What is the difference? This case has political ramifications.
Again the bottom line is more people lose their right to vote than commit voter impersonation fraud. This is a violation of the underlying philosophy of democracy.
How is this reaching to justify my stance?
No person loses their right to vote. Some lose their willingness to take the needed steps, and I am not saying you don’t make valid points, nor have I. I am saying that you are disregarding the oppositions’ valid points, and doing so for partisan reasons. I am also suggesting that if those “disenfranchised” individuals were primarily people who voted for republicans, we liberals would be arguing the exact case they are arguing now and they would be arguing ours.
The burden of proof (significant voter impersonation fraud) has not been met by the Right.
I am not sure why that burden is needed. In just about every other important decision in America, and ID is required. In most cases, it is presumed, not added after the fact. I almost think the burden of proof that one is not required should be on us. How much fraud exists is not relevant. How much fraud could exist matters. The burden of proof is not on my door’s need of a lock. I know no one has ever broken in, yet I should still put the lock on the door.
I do agree with your ultimate conclusion. I do not agree with how you get there. I agree with your conclusion precisely because of the unfair political ramifications this “disenfranchisement” would have. See how I argue the position I have for the reasons I have it?
Then the debate should have been whether something needed to be done, then what to do about it. Instead there has been no debate. There has been unilateral assertion of the problem and unilateral imposition of the solution of that determination.
I am sure this is partially true. The GOP wants to reduce the liberal voter base. That is what this is all about. They deny it. The Democrats don’t want their base diminished. That is what the defense is all about. They deny it. Neither side is genuine and the deception on both sides is obvious. Disenfranchisement as a concern is not an issue of broad concern, but it is a broad justification used to support a political stance.
[Continued ... ]
Dave [Conclusion ... ]
The presumption of innocence of fraud is abandoned and replaced with a presumption of guilt of fraud that must be disproven.
No one is being punished, persecuted or penalized. There is no litigation against anyone. No one is presumed guilty of anything, any more than I am presumed guilty when I walk through a metal detector at the airport.
This is contrary to the principles of democracy.
To be specific, you believe that forcing American citizens to have IDs to fully participate in American privileges and rights is against the concept of democracy. Your problem cannot be with voter IDs, per se. That makes no sense. Your problem must be with forcing Americans to carry IDs or to prove who they are in order to exercise their freedom in America. If that is your stance, then argue that.
If you think Americans are not eligible for Ids, then argue that the American who proves he is ineligible should not be denied the right to vote while his case is pending. I will agree with you, since I would not want to disenfranchise the poor fellow.
How about in cases of suspected voter impersonation we hold that vote as provisional until verified? Stripping rights, even from a Republican voter, is not the correct solution.
I agree that this is a fine regulation. Having someone show an ID before voting is not a violation of anything other than your democratic right to cast a vote whether or not you are a citizen of the United States. The only reason anyone has a problem with the ID requirement is that it would reduce democratic votes. I don’t hear you complaining about the ID for travel issue or the ID for collecting certain benefits requirement or the ID your employer requires (and must for tax purposes).
I implore you, Mr. Dave, tell me what’s really bothering you?
Free,
just as I know you have seen world-class liberal economists writings who would completely disagree with your link.
Who, like JM Keynes? We've been on that playbook for a while. How's that been working out these past few years? I would say your liberal economists are very stupid.
The conservative revolution took place with Reagan and with that, Keynes was challenged, and with him the country.
Your faith that Keynes was wrong about everything is unimpressive.
I admit that you are a better soldier than he was, but I suspect he was a much stronger thinker.
John Myste, you mentioned...
"It would be refreshing to see each side argue what they believe for the reason they believe it. I will not get that here today."
No, maybe not today, but it was probably stated yesterday...or the day before, or possibly on the previous post. Nevertheless, I believe it was adequately revealed. My own argument derives from the belief that 25% of minorities, particularly those in inner cities, do not have photo IDs. Even if the government made photo IDs available without charge, the cost to obtain one could still be considerable. Considering that few, if any, DMVs are located within close proximity to where this purported 25% lives, it could create enough of a hardship that they may decide it's not worth pursuing. Additionally, because I believe that the number of fraudulent voters is statistically negligible (which has been documented), it's not worth the risk of disenfranchising those who are eligible because of restrictive ID requirements.
"...each side knows what I am saying is true about the other side, so since each side thinks I am half right, the way I see it, two halves make a whole."
Not if one half is an orange; the other an apple. It's still half an apple and half an orange.
Free0352, you challenged John Myste with...
"Sure about that?" [link to article from professor of economics ate George Mason University, an Austrian school in the image of the University of Chicago.]
Please take the time to review the very first comment from a professor named Paul D. Thiem. In part, he says:
"I'm compelled to point out your survey methodology is deeply flawed. You're employing a Likert scale format for your questions, but your questions are not properly stated to use a Likert format. Further, with Likert scale responses, you do not consider the alternative as 'correct' or 'incorrect'.
Rather, Likert scale questions are to be statements that are either totally positive or totally negative about some idea or issue, and a single one at that. The statements you employ are not such statements, and they do not address a single issue.
So, in addition to your invalid response coding, you are have a confound in that your questions contain multiple statements so there is no way of determining which statement is being responded to."
I viewed this questionnaire similarly. It was vague, in addition to being ambiguous. I reasoned that each group's answers could be explained because many conservatives tend to see most issues, economics included, in black and white only, while most liberals tend to see a cornucopia of possibilities in between.
John,
We appreciate your fair and balanced refereeing.
Disenfranchisement as a concern is not an issue of broad concern
If there are political ramifications then the concern would be broad, right?
Voter impersonation is a concern, but not as broad an issue as voter disenfranchisement. Numbers show this.
People do not rampantly walk in from the street and impersonate voters. There are some screening measures in place.
What is missing in this discussion is the fact people first have to register, then show up, then give their name and address that matches the rolls. Why not add SS number for further verification?
If someone stole my wallet the night before an election I would lose my right to vote, even if the poll worker was my next door neighbor. I could still buy booze and probably would want to do so.
What’s really bothering me is what I’ve been saying.
More people are denied their right to vote than commit voter impersonation fraud. When turned away from the polls, especially after previously voting, they would be denied the right to vote.
There has been unilateral partisan assertion of the problem and unilateral imposition of the solution of that determination.
Laws are intended to promote justice, equality and fairness, or at least more good than harm. These GOP laws promote more harm than good.
We have a right to walk freely, but I suppose soon enough we will be asked, “Papers, please” for doing just that.
youtube.com/watch?v=9-uVhhIlPk0&feature=player_embedded
Who needs voter photo id's? Watch and see how minorities are being prevented from voting
Your faith that Keynes was wrong about everything is unimpressive.
I put my faith in data. How's that stimulus working out? You tell me? The economy is great right! What, 14.7 trillion in debt? That's not a problem according to the Keynesians like oh, Dick Chaney and Barak Obama. Naaaah no problem there...
but not as broad an issue as voter disenfranchisement
You aren't disenfranchised when you forget your ID to go vote, you'e just forgetful.
You're from Iowa or something right Dave? You're telling me a five buck ID Card you're going to have to get what... once, twice, maybe three times IN A LIFE TIME (Total cost 15.00 assuming you don't have a DL anyway which most people do) is disenfranchisement? What planet are you on?
Dave,
Disenfranchisement as a concern is not an issue of broad concern
If there are political ramifications then the concern would be broad, right?
Let me clarify: the political ramifications are the concern and disenfranchisement is the justification for the political concern.
Voter impersonation is a concern, but not as broad an issue as voter disenfranchisement. Numbers show this.
Numbers cannot show intent, but the litmus test of partisanship does.
People do not rampantly walk in from the street and impersonate voters. There are some screening measures in place.
No one is actually concerned with voter impersonation. The concerns in this area are political.
What is missing in this discussion is the fact people first have to register, then show up, then give their name and address that matches the rolls. Why not add SS number for further verification?
If we can find a way to have the equivalent of a photo ID, then the conservatives lose much ground. That lost ground does nothing to change the fact that a photo ID is not an insane idea and has much non-political precedents where liberals have no problem with it.
If someone stole my wallet the night before an election I would lose my right to vote, even if the poll worker was my next door neighbor. I could still buy booze and probably would want to do so.
If you are the correct age, you could still buy booze, only if you have other de facto verification, so no ID would be needed, and if you lose your wallet and the poll worker is not next door, you cannot drive to cast your vote. Oops, disenfranchisement. Saying that requiring an ID disenfranchises voters is deceitful, as they are still allowed to vote. By your definition of disenfranchisement, lots of voters are already disenfranchised. By your definition I am disenfranchised if I wait too long and have a flat on the way.
More people are denied their right to vote than commit voter impersonation fraud.
No one is denied their right to vote. If they are, we should correct this, post haste. I am however, denied my right to drive, even it means I will become homeless. I have to have an ID. That is a more important right and yet no one is questioning it. Shouldn’t we deal with the more urgent matters of survival first? I have places to be, for God’s sake! – But no one cares because me not driving has no detectible political ramifications.
When turned away from the polls, especially after previously voting, they would be denied the right to vote.
If you do not have a license and have to drive to get there, you are denied already. Everyone who does not follow the rules denies himself rights. This happens now and you are OK with it.
Laws are intended to promote justice, equality and fairness, or at least more good than harm. These GOP laws promote more harm than good.
Agreed, which is why I oppose Voter ID requirements.
We have a right to walk freely, but I suppose soon enough we will be asked, “Papers, please” for doing just that.
This is a separate and un-related question. Right a post on it and I assure you I will comment.
Free,
I have lost interest in rebutting your illogical faith against Keynes. We have been here already, at Saving Common Sense, I believe, and you lost handily, but seem to have forgotten.
You have no idea if the Bush-begun stimulus was effective because you cannot see the world as it would have been without it.
Also, you virtually claimed to be an economist in our last encounter, yet you don't understand basic Keynesian economics, and I just don't have the energy to keep repeating myself.
As for the debt, if we had collected enough revenue to stop it, it would not be here, so I kind of agree with your wild guess that the Bush stimulus ideas should not have been carried forward, and instead the top margin should have been taxed more heavily, above the 17-19 effective collection it is now. Either we should collect 35% or raise it.
I also agree that we should curtail the rabid military budget.
Jefferson,
My own argument derives from the belief that 25% of minorities, particularly those in inner cities, do not have photo IDs.
That is a real problem and it should be corrected immediately.
What if they are stopped by the authorities or need benefits requiring ids?
IDs should be free since we require them.
Damn! Write, not right.
You have no idea if the Bush-begun stimulus was effective because you cannot see the world as it would have been without it
I can only imagine the horror... THE HORROR of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley going out of business. Oh the humanity. All those rich bankers... who can stand the thought of them loosing millions. Oh wait, I don't care. I thought you were supposed to be the party against the evil 1%'ers and here you are defending a government give away of 1.8 (and counting) trillion dollars.
How corporatist of you.
yet you don't understand basic Keynesian economics
What was I doing during all those Econ classes at Michigan State? They might as well have been named "The History of J.M. Keynes and The Great Depression."
I forgot more about J.M. Keynes than you know.
if we had collected enough revenue to stop it, it would not be here
The same could be said if we had not spent that much. My way is better because government wouldn't have to take from some to pay for their big party down in D.C.
I also agree that we should curtail the rabid military budget.
There are room for specific defense cuts. Gotta be careful how you do those - or you might end up spending your peace dividend on your funeral.
Anywhoo, if you feel like learning all about J.M Keynes in a fun way you can go
Here
and
here
These two links condense about four years of macro economics into about ten solid minutes of awesome.
Free,
You have no idea if the Bush-begun stimulus was effective because you cannot see the world as it would have been without it
I can only imagine the horror... THE HORROR of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley going out of business. Oh the humanity. All those rich bankers... who can stand the thought of them loosing millions. Oh wait, I don't care. I thought you were supposed to be the party against the evil 1%'ers and here you are defending a government give away of 1.8 (and counting) trillion dollars.
How corporatist of you.
Because I said you don’t know what would have happened without the stimulus it does not make me a corporatist. A corporatist would have faith, like you, and claim to know what would have happened.
yet you don't understand basic Keynesian economics
What was I doing during all those Econ classes at Michigan State? They might as well have been named "The History of J.M. Keynes and The Great Depression."
I forgot more about J.M. Keynes than you know.
This is the second time you made this claim, by the way. I guess among the many things you forgot was that fact. The last time you made the claim, you were then clobbered in debate and then stomped away angry. If I had the time and energy, I would try to find our last debate on this topic and post a link to it (perhaps you can find it. I am 100% sure it was at Major Conflict or Saving Common Sense?). It was very funny. It is worth finding.
if we had collected enough revenue to stop it, it would not be here
The same could be said if we had not spent that much. My way is better because government wouldn't have to take from some to pay for their big party down in D.C.
Right. If we had cut the programs you want cut, then everything would have also been fine for you. Sounds like the most selfish remedy possible to me. I think cutting military pay would have been a better solution than cutting entitlements, don’t you?
I also agree that we should curtail the rabid military budget.
There are room for specific defense cuts. Gotta be careful how you do those - or you might end up spending your peace dividend on your funeral.
I am not trying to get more benefits from the government, as you know. If anything, my policies would give me less.
Free,
Anywhoo, if you feel like learning all about J.M Keynes in a fun way you can go …
I am not interested in your links, which I am sure are partisan. You have already expressed a very narrow view of Keynes and now you are trying to direct me to your narrow sources. I did notice the links point to YouTube, which I am sure is the gist of your actual economics education.
These two links condense about four years of macro economics into about ten solid minutes of awesome.
The fact that you think this can happen is indicative of your advanced learning.
By the way, for those who may not know, the undereducated Mr. Free has now claimed to have advanced academic and/or job training in the following:
Politics and government
Law
Economics and Accounting.
Logic and Critical Thinking.
He has debated me on all of these topics, all which I have studied at various levels and have quite a bit of different kinds of training in, though I do not pretend to be an authority on any of them. In no case (other than politics, perhaps) was he able to demonstrate a competent understanding of the topics (and even in politics, his interpretations are nuts). If you debate him about chess, he will claim to be a chess master. If you debate him about physics, he will claim to have advanced knowledge about String Theory and Black Holes. If you debate him about medicine and medical procedures, he will claim to have advanced knowledge dating back to Hippocrates and he will claim to be an expert in using a trephine (once you tell him what one is).
I once told a co-worker, in this case, a very knowledgeable one, but one who claimed far more knowledge than he had, that my computer was struck by the “Drive by Virus.” He started telling me all about what he thinks it is and what I should do. I made the virus up.
Free, you are a smart guy. If you were honest in debate, you would appear far more credible to your audience. Additionally, you would more often use your intelligence instead of bypassing it. You would naturally argue your case for the reasons you believe things, because that is inherent in honesty. Everyone knows you are not an expert in all things. If they are mistaken, you will never convince them otherwise, so you discredit yourself with the claims. While you use the claim that you are to try to score debating points, that does not work. People ignore claims of authority and look at the merits of your argument. However, when you create a record of claiming authority in all things, it means that if you cannot then back up your position in debate, you look like a hypocrite. You would be a much more powerful debater if you would stop overselling yourself and use your real arguments.
John Myste, you replied with the following...
"That is a real problem and it should be corrected immediately."
Ah, my friend...the devil's advocate.
"What if they are stopped by the authorities or need benefits requiring ids?"
Unless they're operating a motorized vehicle, a student at an education institution, or passing through a Homeland Security portal, there's no legal authority that can legitimately require them to produce a photo ID.
I can't, off the top of my head, think of many benefits that someone would receive, on a daily basis, where they'd have to present a photo ID. Even Social Security doesn't require one. Unless I'm going down to the package store to buy a six-pack or bottle of wine, even they don't require it.
If I'm walking down the street, minding my own business, and I'm stopped by authorities and asked to produce an ID (photo, or otherwise), I'm not obligated to comply. I'd like it to remain that way.
"IDs should be free since we require them."
There's not a national (photo) ID law that I'm aware of -- at least not yet.
Jefferson,
Just as we should have a standard electronic health record available, we should have a national ID available.
Since the federal government does not host most benefits, they are not the one requiring the IDs. My niece needed medicaid for something and her lack of an immediate ID inhibited that progress. That is one STATE example.
My point is that we have much precedent for requiring IDs, and that requiring them has never been deemed unreasonable until politics got involved.
One more thing: Medicare is a federal program and does require an ID for most of its services.
John Myste, you replied with...
"Just as we should have a standard electronic health record available, we should have a national ID available."
I would prefer neither, although with the latter we already have a de facto one -- the U.S. passport.
"...and that requiring them has never been deemed unreasonable until politics got involved."
Politics came first. It never was a question between the chicken or the egg.
"Medicare is a federal program and does require an ID for most of its services."
That's reasonable. Do you know whether Medicare provides that ID (as Social Security does)? Is it a photo ID?
Jefferson,
I thank you for your time an attention, sir.
Politics and government
Law
Economics and Accounting.
Logic and Critical Thinking.
Yes... well not so much accounting. I actually am not much of an accountant... however I am very gifted in math.
I interned at a country prosecutors office through high school where I was part of JROTC, the Math Club, Debate Team and Football team. I was also able to complete my first semester of college at the local community college as a high school senior. After graduation in 1997 I joined the Marine Corps in 1998 serving five years and was released from active service in 2003 where upon I enlisted in the USMC Reserve. My civilian employment during my USMC Reserve years was that of Court Bailiff (got the job thanks to the judge who was once the prosecutor I interned for in high school) and while working as a bailiff got my degree from Michigan State majoring in Political Science and minoring in Macro Economics in 2006. I then attended one semester of Cooley Law College in Lansing Michigan before dropping out because I ran out of money and complications from multiple deployments in the Reserves. I then got a job as a private security contractor and again deployed to the middle east, after which I joined the Army for the hell of it and something to do.
I have also held part time (and unpaid) positions while employed otherwise working on campaigns for two sitting Circuit Judges, one Senatorial candidate and one sitting Congressman, and one candidate for Governor. I have also worked on the campaigns of several County Commissioners and City Councilmen... 4 or five of those. I also lend my time to Americans For Progress and Freedom Works.
During my military service, I first served as MOS 0352 as a Marine, TOW Gunner, Vehicle Commander, and Squad leader and dismounted scout. I deployed to Afghanistan from 2001-2002, Djibouti Africa from 2002-2003, and Iraq for nine months in 2003 for a total of 20 months. After joining the reserves I was retrained as MOS 0351 Assaultman and deployed to Iraq again in 2004 for six months. I was a civilian contractor in Iraq in 2006 again for six months. In the reserves I served as a team leader, squad leader, and platoon sergeant.
As a PMC I served as a scout and body guard.
In the Army I was designated MOS 11B, and have served as a squad leader and operations sergeant. I deployed again to Iraq from April 2008 to July 2009.
Are there any questions?
Oops, also forgot at Michigan State I was a a chairman of the chapter of Young Republicans and a member of the MSU debate team, as well as a competitor in NRA 3 gun matches.
Free,
Are there any questions?
Just one: can you please point the kind folks here to that post where you “used” your knowledge of law and the other one where you “used” your knowledge of economics? I think they were both at Saving Common Sense and it is very entertaining to see you boast your resume with specifics.
Thanks in advance.
P.S. This is now the second time I have received your resume.
So you would think you'd remember it. I have noticed you haven't posted yours. Not that I care, but you're the one that keeps bringing up mine.
Free,
I am not claiming to be an authority in a plethora of positions I cannot support in debate. That is the difference.
So you whine and complain when others do about the methods we use to do it and offer nothing but empty critique? This is not a method of debate, it's what you would fondly call a logical fallacy- specifically denying the antecedent, and "Same Team" fallacy along with a healthy does on your part of proof by verbosity.
"proof by verbosity".
I like that term, fits John's debate methods to a T
Anon,
Verbose means wordy and Proof by Verbosity means that you are over-complicating the scenario with too many considerations.
I would say more, but I don't want to be too verbose.
Post a Comment