Make Sure You Have Valid Photo ID!

Over11% of eligible voters don't have a picture ID. In Cities the number is larger. In Philadelphia it's over 20%. People who don't drive don't need one. If you don't insist on sudafed you can indeed buy cold medicines without any sort of ID and banks do generally require photo IDs for setting up an account...you can even do it on line. Turzai let the cat out of the bag. Photo voter IDs are about voter suppression and nothing else. What kind of can hear the GOP literally admit this and then double down the GOP line? Answer: people who want to suppress your vote. Get your ID, help your family and neighbors to get theirs. Make every citizen can vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtbazz

This...

And who the hell doesnt a photo ID? You need it for so many things...Opening a bank account, getting OTC cold meds, in some places you need it even when mailing a package...

---

Bloody hell...Where? :shock:

Really, i mean it, if that's true, I'm fukkin shocked!!!

Vote, just vote. ( Okay, watch the video and vote)

WORDS MATTER: Original Obama Un-narrated Documentary/Review (Exposed: in his own words) - YouTube

View the video - see the clever games whoever edited it did - read and understand what the GOP will do for the poor of America... and who really funds them....and then vote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

see the clever games whoever edited it did

---

Very clever...how they took his words..his promises, then showed him, in his words break them. But Prospero, that video isn't for someone with a closed mind.

You're the one with the closed mind old buddy... why not take a real hard look at how the Koch brothers have manipulated the Tea party for a start... tak a look at how the GOP is the party of big business.. and at the racism inherent in the way they are trying to block votes. You guys wanna turn the clock back.

But then i recall you're the guy who thinks concealed combat weapons are acceptable... and as i recall also thought that the historical treatment of the Native Americans was perfectly acceptable too.

I didn't look at the whole video, what did it say, Obama's a bad guy???...
Hey, I can see that video 24/7 on Fox.
Don't you hard core tea party types know the republican party wiped their ass with you as soon as Mitt was nominated as your fearless leader?
The Koch Bros don't want a bunch of moronic true believers fucking up their business, that's why they spent a fortune carpet bombing the primary states against Newt, Santorum and all those other distant memories.
You really think Mitt's going to stand up for your values? Then you're watching the bullshit video made by the guys who made that video!!
Custom Made to make inbred idiots think they're not going to do the same thing to the Country they did in the Bush Administration. Eat it up, Republicans....nobody gets anything by you!!!!!

If you believe transsexuals are people, not deviants,
Register and VOTE!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

I didn't look at the whole video, what did it say,

---

It didnt say anything, it was all video of Barry saying one thing, and then doing another.

"CHANGE"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFTB

It didnt say anything, it was all video of Barry saying one thing, and then doing another.

---

I think what Barry was "doing" was your party. And I think he's gonna "do it" some more in the next four years. ENJOY. I will.

... bump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jericho

Bloody hell...Where? :shock:

Really, i mean it, if that's true, I'm fukkin shocked!!!

---

Many of the UPS stores and similar shipping places near me (philly area), require a photo ID to ship a package through them...

Nonsense. You can ship a living room sofa without a photo ID in the MidWest, proving that not everywhere is a photo-ID required to ship a package or create a checking or savings account. Over 11% of eligible voters do not have picture IDs of any kind and the percentage is higher in urban areas.

Eric the Witholder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

All hyperbole and vitriol aside, I agree with you. It IS a red herring being waved by your GOP and everyone else is taking the bait. How can a vote be trusted if the voter hasn`t proven that he/she is entitled to vote!?

In Ontario, we must present ID along with voter registration card at the polling station and I think that`s just good sense: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx...t=index&lang=e

---

Like I said, my Driver's license was confiscated until I paid off a traffic fine, at the time of an election. In such a case, should I be prohibited from voting, because I didn't have enough money? To purchase a state i.d., then amounts to a poll tax in such a case. Incidently I was ticketed while going to a recording session, in a communtiy with very little minorities, living there. None of the four others, who drove to the session were pulled over. They were all White. But the policeman claimed I was driving eractically, probably because I made a quick turn. I was unfamiliar with the streets, and one of the streets I needed to make a turn on, came up quicker that I expected. The policeman searched my vehicle, even going through my music equipment cases. But I did have an expired registration, and got a ticket.

Here in Ohio we had our own Republican sponsored 'voter supression act'. Wthi them rolling back voting times, etc. Part of that law, was struck down by the court.

In Michigan, we have needed ID to vote since before 2000.

Whats the big deal?

--

Here in the Sea of Sargasso, they demand the digital prints, the dna and they take some mug shots of you. Then, if you don’t vote for the proper candidate, they cut your hand with a machete. We all would be ok with a few irregularities, even with a few dead guys voting if it was just that…

The big deal - he said his voice getting hoarse through repetition - is the way that Republican controlled states have bulldozed through a set of obstructions to make it harder for the poor - and often this means Democrat voting African Americans - to use their rights to vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

The big deal - he said his voice getting hoarse through repetition - is the way that Republican controlled states have bulldozed through a set of obstructions to make it harder for the poor - and often this means Democrat voting African Americans - to use their rights to vote.

---

Do you read what you write? You can't possibly equate "may I see your ID" to bulldozing and oppressing the poor. There is a federal requirement to vote, if a state chooses to enforce that requirement so be it. How do you react at the bank when they ask for your id?

This is such a classic example from the so called "tolerant" ones of extremism. This is how you twist a tax paying citizen who doesn't feel they should have to pay for a 31 year old law students recreational birth control into "you want women to die in the streets because they couldn't get an abortion".

People take a good hard look at this, simple enforcement to ensure you meet a basic requirement, and you would think they were locking poor people up in camps.

Faldur - read this and respond please.

s an excellent essay by a professor of law at Florida State University, Diane Roberts.

IT'S FLORIDA, STUPID

As the great baseball player and master tautologist
Yogi Berra remarked, “it’s like déja vu all over
again.” This year’s presidential contest between
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney threatens to
become a replay of Florida’s inglorious election
imbroglio of 2000, those heady five weeks when the state counted
and recounted votes, chased butterfly ballots, and examined
pregnant chads to figure out who had actually won: George W
Bush or Al Gore. It was not an edifying spectacle. Jimmy Carter,
the former president whose Atlanta-based Carter Center sends
election observers to the likes of Paraguay, Nicaragua and East
Timor, declared that the “basic international requirements for a
fair election are missing in Florida.” Fidel Castro called Florida
a “banana republic.” The rest of the world began to refer to
the state as “FloriDUH.” The result of this year’s presidential
election could come down to Florida once more and the way it is
arrived at could be just as unsatisfactory as in 2000.
Thanks to improved voting technology, Florida no longer
has chads to dimple, dangle or otherwise, and happily, the butterfly
ballot is extinct. But Florida has not become the model
of democracy all parties promised post-2000. Both Democrats
and Republicans anticipate trouble on 6th November, election
day, and perhaps beyond. Bill Daley, the former White House
has warned the Obama campaign team they’d betwho worked for George W Bush during the last recount battle,
says Republicans will “have enough lawyers to handle all situations”
in Florida. Republicans raise the spectre of voter fraud,
with felons and foreigners illicitly swinging the election in favour
of Democrats and Barack Obama. Democrats say the real problem
is voter suppression, pointing to neo-Jim Crow restrictions
imposed by Republicans. All this takes place against the backdrop
of Florida’s swelling Latino population—in pursuing “illegal”
voters, Republicans risk alienating a crucial constituency.
In 2000, 12,000 Floridians were wrongly disenfranchised. The
private company hired to “clean up” the state’s electoral rolls,
striking off people who were dead or felons or otherwise ineligible,
made a mess of the job. Not that the candidate’s brother Governor
Jeb Bush or Secretary of State Katherine Harris seemed
overly concerned. The database was so slipshod that Floridians
with the same birthdate as criminals incarcerated in another
state were turned away from polling places. One Johnny Jackson,
Jr, an upstanding Florida citizen by all accounts, got confused
with one John Fitzgerald Jackson, who was serving time in
a Texas prison. Violating the space-time continuum, several hundred
people were listed as convicted of felonies some years in the
future. Harris, at the time both Florida’s chief elections officer
and co-chair of George W Bush’s Florida presidential campaign,
was not only nonchalant about these “false positives,” she let it
be known that she wanted more names to purge, not fewer. While
African Americans made up 11 per cent of Florida’s electorate,
according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University,
they comprised nearly half of those removed from the voter
lists. Since African Americans favoured Gore over Bush by 85 to
15 per cent, it’s a safe bet that if even a quarter of the disenfranchised
had voted, the election would have had a different result.
As it was, the United States Supreme Court declared Bush the
winner in Florida by a total of 537 votes.
These days, Katherine Harris is a private citizen, and Jeb
Bush is rumoured to be plotting a political future beyond 2012
when his surname may be a bit less toxic. Yet Florida is at it
again. Charlie Crist, the moderate Republican (recently turned
independent) who replaced Jeb Bush as governor in 2007, had
relaxed Florida’s restrictions on voting by former felons, arguing
that when they had paid their debt to society they should regain
the rights of citizens. When hardliner Rick Scott took office in
2011, he overturned Crist’s more liberal policy—clearly too many
of the wrong sort had been allowed to cast ballots in 2008, giving
Florida to Barack Obama by 200,000 votes.
Scott and the Republican-controlled legislature pushed
through new laws making it difficult for non-profit non-partisan
groups such as the League of Women Voters and the Boy
Scouts to sign people up to vote. Completed registration forms
had to be presented at the county election supervisor’s office not
one minute more than 48 hours from when they were signed, on
pain of prosecution. In Okaloosa County, Florida, the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People tried to register
new voters during January’s Martin Luther King Day weekend,
only to be threatened with a thousand dollars in fines and
a possible third-degree felony—they failed to deliver their forms
within 48 hours because the county offices were closed on Monday
in observance of the federal holiday. The NAACP was soon
contacted by the state elections chief: “We appreciate you going
out and registering voters,” the letter read. “However, if you’re
late anymore we’re going to turn this over to the Florida Department
of Justice for prosecution.”
As soon as the law was implemented in May, new voter registration
plummeted. While Florida’s population went up in
the past four years, the number of people signing up for a voter
card, without which they cannot cast a ballot, has gone down by
81,000. Several advocacy groups sued. An exasperated-sounding
federal judge overturned much of the law, saying, “If the goal is
to discourage voter registration drives and thus also to make it
harder for new voters to register, this may work. Otherwise there
is little reason for such a requirement.”
Unfortunately, the part of the law the judge didn’t throw
out allows the state to restrict early voting. Formerly,
citizens could cast a vote at the county courthouse
up to two weeks before the day of the election. This
period has now been reduced to eight days. Florida’s Republican
masters claim it’s a money-saving measure and anyway, there
are still eight early voting days. Democrats, however, charge that
Republicans want to depress turn-out by their voters, especially
students, the elderly, hourly-wage workers who can’t afford to
be off work for three or more hours standing in an election-day
queue, and African Americans. In 2008, 54 per cent of early voters
were black. The Sunday before election day when churches
mobilise “Souls to the Polls” efforts was especially popular. This
year, voting is also not allowed on the Sunday before election day.
Ion Sancho, who is the elections supervisor of Leon County, Florida,
predicts that, on election day, voters will have to wait several
hours and that precinct workers will be overwhelmed, saying he
fears Florida’s polling locations won’t be able to accommodate
the 8m voters projected to turn out in the general election.
Republicans have not been sympathetic. Mike Bennett, state
senator, argued that in Africa “the people in the desert literally
walk two- and three-hundred miles so they can have the opportunity
to do what we do, and we want to make it more convenient?”
However blatant these attempts to discourage the Democratic
vote, watchdog groups say that they’re small beer compared to
Republicans’ renewed attempts to purge the voter rolls. Last
year, Rick Scott, the governor of Florida, ordered his secretary
of state to scour the rolls for ineligible voters. He says he merely
wants to make sure that everyone who casts a ballot is a genuine
citizen of the US and not some border-jumping Mexican or smuggled
Salvadoran, a dead person or perhaps a cartoon character
(one “Mickey Mouse” did once attempt to register in Orlando,
but failed). A preliminary cull of 182,000 names was dispatched
to the state’s 67 county elections supervisors for verification. It
did not take long before they noticed that the list was curiously
light on white people and Republicans and heavy on African
Americans, Latinos, and those registered as either independents
or Democrats. Nevertheless, the supervisors did their jobs and
while they failed to scare up any members of the Choir Invisible
or denizens of Disney World, they did uncover a preponderance
of dodgy characters such as: Maureen Russo and Manoly Castro-
Williamson, two middle-aged ladies born in the exotic land
of Ohio; some second world war veterans including a 91-year-old
fellow named Bill Internicola who won the Bronze Star at the
Battle of the Bulge; and a great many recently naturalised citizens
eagerly looking forward to casting their first vote as Americans
and rather taken aback to be ordered either to produce their
papers or face jail time.
The problem with voter fraud (as practised by individual voters,
at least) is that it barely exists. The Brennan Center hasanalysed instances of “voter fraud” over the last four election
cycles and concludes that instances of it are rarer than being
struck by lightning or attacked by a shark. In an attempt to disprove
such studies, the Republican National Lawyers Association
prepared its own finding, a whopping 311 cases of alleged
voter fraud in the US over the past 15 years. Many of those cases
were thrown out of court, others involved mistakes (registering
twice, failing to report a change of address), a very few were
actually prosecuted. An investigation by the Tampa Bay Times,
Florida’s largest newspaper, revealed that of the state’s 11menrolled voters, 86 non-citizens have been unmasked and 46 of
those may have voted illegally at some point over the past couple
of decades. No prosecutions have been brought. Not exactly
an orgy of criminal behaviour at the ballot box. The Brennan
Center concludes: “The voter fraud phantom drives policy that
disenfranchises actual legitimate voters without a corresponding
actual benefit.”
Nevertheless, Republicans remain convinced that the only
way Democrats can win elections is by getting illegal aliens to
vote. One Wisconsin state senator recently praised his state’s
stringent new ID standards saying, “we believe the people who
cheat are more likely to vote against us.” Many Republicans still
believe Barack Obama won Florida in 2008 by “cheating” with
the help of groups such as the now-defunct Association of Community
Organisations for Reform Now (ACOR N), which focused
on registering the poor and members of ethnic minorities—and,
according to bitter Republicans, illegal immigrant voters. Never
mind the total lack of evidence; never mind that illegal immigrants
usually prefer to keep a low profile and try to avoid doing
things that would get them deported or sent to jail.
Legal immigrants, however, are another matter, and, in Florida
especially, a legitimate source of Republican worry. The
Democrats can count on the African-American vote, the women’s
vote and a substantial amount of votes from Jews and pensioners.
The Republicans know they’ll get most of the vote from
white people (or, as Romney’s advisor would have it, “Anglo Saxons”),
the affluent, anti-government Tea Party types and Christian
evangelicals. Latino voters will decide who wins Florida.
In 2000, Cubans made up the largest group by far of Latinos
in Florida. In 2012 there are almost as many Puerto Ricans (who
are American citizens) as Cubans. The “I-4 Corridor” (so-called
for the motorway which runs across the middle of Florida) has
seen its population increase by nearly half a million in the last
decade, of which 250,000 are Puerto Rican. Most of them lean
Democratic.
It used to be that Democrats would barely bother trying to get
Cuban votes: Cubans were militantly Republican, revering Ronald
Reagan for standing up to Fidel Castro. But lately Democrats
are making progress: in 2008, Barack Obama won 47 per cent of
the Cuban-American vote in Florida. He got more than 60 per
cent of the Puerto Rican vote. Recent polls indicate that Latinos
in Florida—and nationally—favour Obama by about two to one.
Republicans claim that’s only because Obama has pandered to them, appointing Sonia Sotomayor, a Puerto-Rican American,
to the Supreme Court and declaring that he would not deport
those who were brought to the US illegally as children. Though
Republicans point to some of their prominent Cuban-American
politicians, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Senator
Marco Rubio to name two from Florida, the party has done
itself no favours with its refusal to help with the passage of the
DRE AM Act, which would allow young undocumented people
to join the US military or go to university as legal residents. Nor
have Republican-run states such as Alabama and Arizona, with
their unabashedly xenophobic new immigration laws, helped.
Arizona’s notorious sheriff Joe Arpaio, who described Mexicans
as “dirty” and who spent taxpayer money sending his “posse” to
Hawaii to “prove” that Barack Obama’s birth certificate was a
“fraud,” is currently on trial for detaining Latinos—or people he
thinks look sort of like Latinos—without probable cause. Even if,
despite the fond dreams of Democrats, the home state of Senator
John McCain will not be in play during this election, the publicity
surrounding Arpaio, the “your papers, please” legislation, and
the ban on teaching the history of Latinos in Arizona schools, has
helped drive Latinos firmly into the arms of Democrats.
This is frustrating to Republicans who realise their party cannot
survive if it remains an angry old white men’s club. After all,
the US is projected to become a “majority minority” nation by
2060, by which time Latinos will form the single largest ethnic
group. Jeb Bush, recast by default as a “moderate” (he’s also a
fluent Spanish speaker married to a Mexican American), suggested
that Mitt Romney needs to ditch the Tea Party rhetoric:
“Don’t just talk about Hispanics and say immediately we must
have controlled borders. It’s kind of insulting.”
The general election is just two months away and what happens
in Florida may depend on what happens in the courts. Voting
rights groups are suing over access to the polls before election
day; the governor is urging supervisors of elections to keep purging
their lists, though federal law forbids that within 90 days of
an election. Because of Florida’s Old South segregationist past—
its unconstitutional disenfranchisement of former slaves in 1877,
its implementation of poll taxes and literacy tests, its long, hateful
history of denying people of colour the vote—the Department
of Justice, under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, will have the final
say over the way in which Florida votes. No matter what happens,
just about everybody believes that the election will come down to
whoever gets their voters out—and which votes get counted[/QUOTE]
__________________

Let's ask Pa House Republican leader Mike Turzai to explain it to us. In simple language.


Turzai: Voter ID Will Allow Romney to Win Pa. - YouTube

I thought only about third of Americans have a passport. Is that true? So, what you use for ID - driver's license?

The tide is turning.....

Backlash swells Against Voter Laws
Sep 13, 2012 6:05 PM EDT
The left has attacked voter ID laws and other restrictive legislation as a tool to suppress the votes of minorities and poor people. Suddenly, it seems they’re winning.
Another symbol of just how quickly the political calculus can change ahead of Election Day: crucial swing states Ohio and Florida, along with Texas, South Carolina, and Wisconsin, have won significant—albeit possibly temporary—victories against restrictive voting laws over a span of mere weeks. Voting laws, including the requirement that people carry photo IDs to the ballot box, have became a major source of controversy as the presidential race remains close less than two months ahead of the election.


“The tide has clearly turned,” says Diana Kasdan, counsel for the Democracy Program of Brennan Center, a public policy institute affiliated with New York University. “The results are coming in, court after court is rejecting these restrictive laws.”

The next crucial decision will come out of Pennsylvania. The state’s law requiring all voters to show identification is currently being debated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; a decision is forthcoming.

Since the Republican takeover of the House in 2010, voting laws restricting access to the ballot began passing in states across the country. But until two months ago, they had received little national attention. Now, a federal judge has blocked Ohio’s “right church, wrong poll” law that discounts provisional votes cast in the wrong precinct. In Florida, residents incorrectly removed from voter polls for being noncitizens have had their voting rights restored. And a federal court rejected Texas’s voter ID law on Aug. 30. Series about voting rights, such as MSNBC’s “Block the Vote” continuing segment, are now being aired during primetime TV news.

Behind the turnaround is a network of civil rights and advocacy groups, along with branches of the federal government, that have been battling these laws as they crop up. In Ohio, the Obama campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the Ohio Democratic Party sued Republican Ohio Secretary of State John Husted alleging that the restriction on early voting violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Litigation by the Advancement Project, a national civil rights organization, spearheaded another Ohio suit that challenged the state law that provisional votes mistakenly cast in the wrong precinct could be discounted. The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania has led the charge against that state’s voter ID law.

The Brennan Center has advocated for voting rights from Wisconsin to South Carolina.

The Department of Justice itself, along with other advocacy and civil rights groups, challenged Florida’s so-called “voter purge,” which removed thousands of eligible voters from the rolls in an attempt to crack down on noncitizens voting. The program was reversed on Wednesday.

Voting experts say that beyond the legal attacks from outside groups, the biggest enemy of struck-down voter laws may be the laws themselves.

“These courts smelled a rat,” says Dan Tokaji, a professor of election law at Ohio State University’s Moritz School of Law. “State legislatures overplayed their hand and got greedy. It was transparent that the real reason for these changes was to make it difficult for some people to vote.”

Civil-rights groups like the Advancement Project have claimed that restrictive laws on voting disproportionately affect minority and low-income voters who don’t have access to photo IDs or typically vote via church drives that take place during early voting periods.

Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UC Irvine and the author of The Voting Wars says “some of these laws are an overreach without good reasons for their enactment—and sometimes run afoul of federal, constitutional or statutory law.”

“These courts smelled a rat.”
“The public got fed up with these laws,” says Kasdan of the Brennan Center.

Voting-rights experts are quick to point out that these victories, while important, are tenuous.

Hasen says some of the rulings may be “ephemeral,” adding that he expects Texas’s voter ID ruling and Ohio’s early voting decision to be overturned, possibly disenfranchising thousands of Americans, before election day.

Kasdan says the Brennan Center will ensure there are plenty of people “on the ground to make sure people know what the law is in their state due to the patchwork of laws across the country. Still, she says, “the game’s not over.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martin48

I thought only about third of Americans have a passport. Is that true? So, what you use for ID - driver's license?

---

I'm one of those without a passport. Valid drivers license will work for just about anything. Some agencies/companies require 2 pieces of ID, social security card or birth certificate will work for them.

About 11 percent of U.S. citizens, or roughly 21 million citizens, don't have government-issued photo ID. This figure doesn't represent all voters likely to vote, just those eligible to vote.
People who vote have already jumped through one hoop when they registered to vote. Republicans want 80 year old ladies who don't drive and have been voting at the same place for 50 years to jump through one more hoop to prove they're not one of the tens of people that commit voter fraud.
Right.

Requiring a driver's license to vote is both a poll tax (in my state it costs about ninety bucks to renew a drver's license) and also a voter test (since you have to pass the driver's test). Eleven percent of eligible voters don't have a driver's license. A photo ID will only prevent in-person fraud which essentially doesn't happen. Why suppress a million votes to capture nine tenth of a person attempting in-person fraud? Answer: according to majority republican whip in the State of Pennsylvania, Mike Turzai, it's to secure the State for Romney. There is no argument here. The cat's out of the bag. Turzai has told what photo-iD is all about...voter suppression.

and this

Not a paradox. Making sure everyone has health coverage and making sure everyone can exercise their right to vote are not in conflict. Turzai has already told us what he designed voter-ID law to do: he designed it to suppress the democratic vote and secure his State for Romney. Deny it. You can't.

Only a complete fool would try to put a spin on the issues of health care for every American citizen and the right to vote for every American citizen.

It's a funnier spin that in their efforts to raid the Community Chest, Republicans have to kow-tow to the Rush Limbaugh morons to try and get elected.

They can't win with Onmyknees, and they can't win without him.

REGISTER AND VOTE!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Requiring a driver's license to vote is both a poll tax (in my state it costs about ninety bucks to renew a drver's license) and also a voter test (since you have to pass the driver's test). Eleven percent of eligible voters don't have a driver's license. A photo ID will only prevent in-person fraud which essentially doesn't happen. Why suppress a million votes to capture nine tenth of a person attempting in-person fraud? Answer: according to majority republican whip in the State of Pennsylvania, Mike Turzai, it's to secure the State for Romney. There is no argument here. The cat's out of the bag. Turzai has told what photo-iD is all about...voter suppression.

---

Well, they are requiring certain photo ID, not necessarily a driver's license, so your argument about a voter test is really a non-starter. However, like I mentioned earlier, I do think it could be considered a poll tax unless they give them out for free.

I really have to laugh at all these people who are beside themselves about someone simply proving who they say they are as it relates to voting. The libs have been buying off large chunks of the electorate for decades and suddenly they're interested in the purity of the elections, and to protect their deviousness, they'll stop at nothing. If you listen to them, you'd think the water cannons and German Shepard dogs will be in place at every polling place in America when it will simply be a little old lady asking to see your voter ID card. Here's a party that for generations has taken taxpayer dollars through the thug leadership of the public sector unions (against many of the members will) and given enormous amounts of those taxpayer dollars to liberal politicians in the way of campaign contributions. Follow the bouncing ball....The elected liberal democrats in a quid pro quo then turn around and "negotiate" with the very same thugs who lined their pockets and guess who wins? So emboldened by the generous new contracts, they line the pockets of even more politicians and the downward spiral continues until we reach a point where we are now.....where nearly every major city is operating in the red with public sector pensions and benefit package obligations are at an unsustainable level even to the point of bankrupting cities....even to the point of cutting programs to the poor....who these liberal politicians say they're trying to help ! And this insidious cancerous scheme is perfectly legal....so forgive me if I'm not all broke the fuck up about someone producing an ID at a voting booth..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYBURBS

Well, they are requiring certain photo ID, not necessarily a driver's license, so your argument about a voter test is really a non-starter. However, like I mentioned earlier, I do think it could be considered a poll tax unless they give them out for free.

---

Lets just make sure we also include the label welfare and food stamp tax right along with poll. You can't get either of those without valid id.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

I really have to laugh at all these people who are beside themselves ..blah blah blah....so forgive me if I'm not all broke the fuck up about someone producing an ID at a voting booth..

---

When Mitt loses this year, I'm betting Karl Rove and his buddies are going to sit down and figure out how to put a muzzle on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Sane people don't like Akin, Christine O'Donnel and Sarah Palin. They've made the Republican Party into a JOKE.
Sit in your little pity pool of prejudice, Knees, watch the real world go on without you.
Every Day the Republican Party is becoming YESTERDAY's NEWS.

America is about people, not ID cards.
REGISTER AND VOTE!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

Lets just make sure we also include the label welfare and food stamp tax right along with poll. You can't get either of those without valid id.

---

I blame the poor people for everything!!!!

A near miss for the lunatic fringe in Kansas.....


Manhattan man drops challenge to Obama on state ballot
OPEKA — A Kansas man said Friday that he's dropping his objection to President Barack Obama being listed on the state's November ballot, a day after top officials delayed a decision on his challenge and said they wanted to gather additional information.

Joe Montgomery, a 51-year-old Manhattan, Kanas resident, told the Kansas secretary of state's office in an email that he and those around him faced "animosity and intimidation" over his objection to Obama's candidacy for re-election. Montgomery argues that Obama is not eligible to serve as president and questions whether Obama has a valid birth certificate.

The notion that Obama was born anywhere other than in Hawaii has long been discredited, and the White House released his long-form birth certificate last year. Hawaii officials also have repeatedly confirmed his citizenship. His mother was a Kansas native.

The State Objections Board reviewed Montgomery's objection Thursday to the president's candidacy but postponed a decision so the secretary of state's office could obtain documents authenticating a copy of Obama's birth certificate from Hawaii that's available online. Secretary of State Kris Kobach serves as the board's chairman.

"There has been a great deal of animosity and intimidation directed not only at me, but at people around me, Montgomery wrote in his email, adding that he doesn't want to burden personal and professional associates with "more of this negative reaction."

Montgomery's plans to drop his challenge were first reported by the Manhattan Mercury. The Objections Board would be the final word on whether Obama appears on the ballot as the Democratic Party's nominee, absent a court challenge. Kobach and its other members, Attorney General Derek Schmidt and Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer, are all Republicans, and Montgomery is a registered Republican, according the secretary of state's office.

Kobach said the board still will meet Monday to formally close the case and add whatever additional information is available to the record.

"There's no possibility of Obama's name coming off the ballot when there's no objection," Kobach said.

Montgomery not only questions the validity of Obama's birth certificate but also argues that he wouldn't be eligible to serve as president anyway because his father was from Kenya. That's another argument circulating on the Internet and among members of the so-called "birther" movement.

He did not immediately return a telephone message or email seeking further comment Friday.

Montgomery declined Thursday to disclose his employer, saying he'd filed the objection as a private citizen. But Kansas State University confirmed Friday that he works as the communications coordinator for its College of Veterinary Medicine, a position financed privately through its nonprofit, fundraising arm, the Kansas State University Foundation.

Jeff Morris, the university's vice president for communications and marketing, said that Montgomery is acting as a private citizen, and the university respects his free speech rights.

"We have people on campus with lots of different political views," he said.

Kobach and the other board members faced criticism for delaying a decision to reject Montgomery's objection. Kansas Democrats labeled it frivolous, and an attorney for Obama's campaign said in a letter that the allegations were "tired" and "utterly baseless."

But Kobach — who once suggested during his successful 2010 campaign that Obama would quell doubts about his status by releasing his long-form birth certificate — said Kansas law requires the board to hear all objections.

Background before the fool saw the error of his ways - i.e. acting as a lightning rod for the ridicule ridicule which this would bring on the Republican party.


Going Birther: Kansas Secretary of State Considering Barring Obama from Ballot
Posted on September 13, 2012 by Glenn Church


The birthers just won’t go away. No matter how convincing the facts and the complete lack of any evidence that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, birtherism has reared its ugly head again. This time the place is Kansas.

Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who coincidentally backs Mitt Romney, met with Attorney General Derek Schmidt and Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer as part of the State Objections Board to determine if there is enough evidence to keep Obama on the Kansas ballot.

They deferred a decision until Monday because the Obama campaign would not play games with them by sending a representative.

Clearly, these three gentlemen have never Googled. If they had, they would have seen that officials from the state of Hawaii, including Republican officials, verified that Obama’s birth certificate is there and valid. They might have also seen the short and long forms that the Obama campaign has released. Despite some birthers who claim these documents are forged, Hawaiian officials have never disputed that the birth certificates are anything but valid.

Perhaps these elected officials of Kansas are just upset that the birther convention once planned for this month in Arizona was canceled for a lack of interest. This must be their way to express their frustration from taking a vacation in the Arizona sun.

That Kansas officials are questioning Obama’s right to be a candidate for president is ironic because both Obama’s mother and maternal grandparents are natives of Kansas. That should answer the question by itself.

Did I mention that these three Kansas officials are all Republicans? Normally, I try to avoid party designations as foolishness crosses ideology, but in this case it is highly relevant.

The State Objections Board is waiting for a response from Hawaii or for the Obama campaign to appear. All the Obama campaign did was send a letter stating that there was no merit to the charge that Obama was ineligible to be on the ballot.

All this stems from a Kansas resident who filed a complaint that Obama is not a natural-born citizen, as the Topeka Capital-Journal reports:

Joe Montgomery, who filed the ballot challenge with the all-Republican panel, said the president’s father held British and Kenyan citizenship, making Obama ineligible to run for the nation’s highest office.

Montgomery pointed to a handful of U.S. Supreme Court cases to support his claim a presidential candidate must be a “natural born citizen” from two American citizens.

“As for Mr. Obama’s citizenship, there are many doubts,” he said. “Doing the right thing can be hard and unpopular.”

Montgomery also argued that the birth certificate Obama released to the public has been forged. That is an argument that has made its way to those who either don’t want to or are unable to look at simple facts.

The long-form birth certificate that Obama released was scanned. Over-the-counter scanning equipment makes layers on all documents. Yet these birthers believe that the Obama campaign, which would have been able to miraculously perpetuate a 50-year fraud of his birth, would then make a third-rate document pieced together like a grade school photoshopping job.

In addition, Montgomery’s claim that someone can only hold the office of the presidency or vice-presidency if both parents are American citizens grossly distorts history and American law.

Dual citizenship or citizenship of a parent from another country does not prevent someone from being president. Many former presidents have held dual citizenships or the right to acquire them, including Ulysses Grant, Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson who were eligible for French citizenship.

Obama has never made an effort to claim British or Kenyan citizenship so the dual citizenship argument is just as baseless as it was for the above-mentioned presidents.

Others have had a parent born in another country. These include Chester Arthur (Ireland), Dwight Eisenhower (Germany), Thomas Jefferson (England), James Buchanan (Ireland), Woodrow Wilson (England) and Herbert Hoover (Canada). Arthur may even have been born in Canada.

Birthers like to argue that most of the parents in question with these presidents acquired their US citizenship by the time of the president’s birth. That would not be the case with Obama, birthers like to argue, since his father never was an American citizen.

The problem with this argument is that when Spiro Agnew became vice-president no one questioned if he was a natural-born citizen. As vice-president, he must have the same eligibility as the president. There is contradictory evidence if Agnew’s father was a naturalized citizen at the time of his birth.

The fact is that no one seriously questioned Agnew’s qualifications to be president, or even Arthur’s and the other presidents. That is because once someone is born in the United States, that person is a citizen. The only distinction American law makes in different classes of citizenship is that a president must be born in the United States, not naturalized.

Contrary to the assertion that the Supreme Court has offered guidelines on what a natural-born citizen is, their rulings have been ambiguous. One reason is that the Founders never left a clear definition on what that is. The other reason is that the Supreme Court does not want to further fracture the rights of citizenship than it already stands between those born and naturalized. In a republic, citizens are supposed to be equal. The Orwellian-birther view that some citizens are more equal than others just doesn’t cut it.

This entire issue is bogus. The three Kansas officials should be ashamed that they are using their offices for pure political trickery. They are simply boxing themselves into a corner because the state of Hawaii is not going to arrive quickly to their aid. Arizona’s Secretary of State ran around in circles for weeks while trying to have Hawaii provide evidence that Obama had a valid birth certificate. Kobach and his birther friends don’t have that much time.

If Kobach does bar Obama from the ballot, a state he has very little chance of winning anyway, it will generate a constitutional crisis that will only enhance Obama’s chances of victory.

It will be fun to watch them wiggle out of the hole they have dug for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYBURBS

Well, they are requiring certain photo ID, not necessarily a driver's license, so your argument about a voter test is really a non-starter. However, like I mentioned earlier, I do think it could be considered a poll tax unless they give them out for free.

---

Not intended as a complete argument but a counter those many very dense posters who keep suggesting that there's no problem 'cause everyone has a driver's license. To that end my argument is more than a starter, it finishes the objection.

Strange that no matter how many times one mentions Turzai's confession, no one has anything to say about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by francisfkudrow

Usually, I just respond to other people's threads, but there's something important that needs addressed.

If you live in Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Lousiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Dakota or Tennessee and want to vote this year, make sure you have current valid photo ID, as it is now required in these states. Make sure your friends and family have ID as well.

This is especially critical if you live in one of these states that could go either way in this year's election. (Let's face it, we already know how Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee will be voting)

Also, if you live in Florida, make sure you are still registered to vote. They've been purging people from the rolls for political reasons.

Pass it along.

(Yes, this should probably go in the politics forum, but who actually goes there?)

---

~bump~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by francisfkudrow

Usually, I just respond to other people's threads, but there's something important that needs addressed.

If you live in Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Lousiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Dakota or Tennessee and want to vote this year, make sure you have current valid photo ID, as it is now required in these states. Make sure your friends and family have ID as well.

This is especially critical if you live in one of these states that could go either way in this year's election. (Let's face it, we already know how Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee will be voting)

Also, if you live in Florida, make sure you are still registered to vote. They've been purging people from the rolls for political reasons.

Pass it along.

(Yes, this should probably go in the politics forum, but who actually goes there?)

---

~bump~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by francisfkudrow

Usually, I just respond to other people's threads, but there's something important that needs addressed.

If you live in Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Lousiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Dakota or Tennessee and want to vote this year, make sure you have current valid photo ID, as it is now required in these states. Make sure your friends and family have ID as well.

This is especially critical if you live in one of these states that could go either way in this year's election. (Let's face it, we already know how Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee will be voting)

Also, if you live in Florida, make sure you are still registered to vote. They've been purging people from the rolls for political reasons.

Pass it along.

(Yes, this should probably go in the politics forum, but who actually goes there?)

---

~bump~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by francisfkudrow

Usually, I just respond to other people's threads, but there's something important that needs addressed.

If you live in Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Lousiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Dakota or Tennessee and want to vote this year, make sure you have current valid photo ID, as it is now required in these states. Make sure your friends and family have ID as well.

This is especially critical if you live in one of these states that could go either way in this year's election. (Let's face it, we already know how Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee will be voting)

Also, if you live in Florida, make sure you are still registered to vote. They've been purging people from the rolls for political reasons.

Pass it along.

(Yes, this should probably go in the politics forum, but who actually goes there?)

---

~bump~

bump