View Full Version : Photo ID to vote
iris lily
6-14-12, 11:05am
My workplace has an ongoing issue with Social Security. Yesterday we were indoctrinated by the Social Security goons about what we needed to do to participate in the SS program. It will involve a vote of employees to participate, or not, in the SS program. We must bring a photo ID to vote. In addition, I had to show my photo ID to the SS person before she would give me information about my specific situation of SS benefits.
I feel disenfranchised.
Iris, where the heck do you work where you have to vote to participate in SS? It's pretty much automatic everywhere else. Is it really an issue with SS or has your employer been 'forgetting' to submit the paperwork?
ApatheticNoMore
6-14-12, 12:09pm
I wouldn't give it up without a fight. I would vote to keep it of course. I would talk to my congressperson in person when they have those "meet your congressperson" events and tell them about my situation. I would see if there are groups working for people in your situation to change the law (though this situation seems very obscure, on a nationwide basis, in this huge country, I'm sure others are affected). All without illusion I would necessarily win. Just not decades of payments throughout my life, not without a fight. More minor screwings I have bent over for but this is really just an epic screwing. And yes it's a highly weird situation and not typical of most employees and SS (my guess is maybe or school or something - as teachers have pensions for instance and don't get SS - neither do they usually pay in). And bureacracy acts in the nature of burearcracy and I don't expect otherwise, I KNOW what burearcracy is. It doesn't care about individual situations and how incredibly unjust they may be, only cares about following the rules. So hope to get SS, if not work to change the rules, if that doesn't work there is nothing to be done really (although I wonder if there might even be legal recourse for this kind of screwing, I mean not all unjust obscure laws can be challenged of course (I can't sue because I hate the tax code say, no matter how unjust it is), but if your employer actually did something wrong so that you ended up in this situaiton ....).
Iris, where the heck do you work where you have to vote to participate in SS? It's pretty much automatic everywhere else. Is it really an issue with SS or has your employer been 'forgetting' to submit the paperwork?
I was wondering that myself - it seems like there would be endless people (and employers) that would want to end their participation if it was an option.
I know I'm progressive and am not supposed to care about this stuff, but I think asking for a photo ID before revealing my personal social security benefits information isn't unreasonable. I also think asking it of people who are voting (for elected officials) isn't unreasonable. There's an enormous amount of fraud out there {shrug} These are government agencies trying to do the best they can with 270,000,000 constituents; rules are meant to keep a system from being run by exception, which is a nightmare on every level, not to mention a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars (or shall we say an even BIGGER waste :) ). I've got no issue with carrying an ID to prove I am who I say I am.
I had to show ID and proof of citizenship in order to fill out my new-hire paperwork just a few months ago.
Some of you are missing the point that I am being victimized and traumatized by having to display photo ID at this goobermental voting event. Really, ya'll are fair weather progressives.;) Where's your famous empathy when I need it, finally, in a liberal cause?!!!
Iris, where the heck do you work where you have to vote to participate in SS? It's pretty much automatic everywhere else. Is it really an issue with SS or has your employer been 'forgetting' to submit the paperwork?
Ah I would have to kill you if I told you that.:0!:0!:D
But here's the short skinny: my employer submitted “paperwork” 27 years ago as well as 27 years worth of payments for employees. Those Social Security bureaucrats acknowledge receipt of all money.They do not posses the paperwork. It’s missing from their files!!!!! This was revealed in one of their standard audits. Supplying them with the original document as well as documents of supporting official actions by governing board doesn’t cut it with them. Months of work by our attorneys---to no avail. Only if we were able to show them the actual POST OFFICE receipt for the long ago mailing would they back off.
So, on to the employee referendum. Oddly, at this point, I don’t care. Sure I will be out some money if it fails, but it’s not that much*. I am tempted to scream out to the young folks here: I am too deep into this now to get out, but you young people—SAVE YOURSELVES! Vote NO. Don’t give these clowns one more cent.
*After months of negotiations where I worried and stewed that it was all lost, it seems that all of the money I've put into Soc Security is fine, it is "there" according to the (usually lying) bureaucrats. From those funds I can draw an SS benefit. But if the employees at my workplace vote "No" we will no longer participate in SS and funds from the last years of my earning will not go to SS, my highest paying years. I"ll lose more thatn $118 in monthly retirement benefits, but that's not huge. Really, it could be worse. For many at my place of work it IS worse. Whatever. It's not as though I ever actually trusted the SS groups them to begin with and only fools think that the "Government is there to help you." Believe it or not, the state bureaucrat used this line (um tin ear?) but I failed to find it funny. :0!
fidgiegirl
6-14-12, 9:08pm
Some of you are missing the point that I am being victimized and traumatized by having to display photo ID at this goobermental voting event. Really, ya'll are fair weather progressives.;) Where's your famous empathy when I need it, finally, in a liberal cause?!!!
Wait, I thought your OP was sarcasm, and now I'm confused!!!
Fidgie, when have you known me to ever consider myself a victim ? OF COURSE showing a photo ID is eminently reasonable.
I'm just yanking the chain of the progressives here. We've not debated photo ID's for voting lately.
Sorry for the confusion. My SS retirement benefit issue is real, and serious. The Photo ID issue is a non-issue.
loosechickens
6-15-12, 12:03am
I'm not sure I understand, Iris Lily. I am assuming that you are working in a public sector job, municipal or state government, or some such, or one of the entitities that self funds pension plans.....
So it sounds like that you'll get a Social Security check for the years that you and your employer paid into Social Security, and if your workplace votes to self fund pension (as a friend of mine who works for a public utility has seen happen in her workplace), then you will receive retirement pension income based on that system for the years that IT is covering you.
I guess I don't understand the problem, unless you are somehow trying to equate having to show your Social Security card to get information on your Social Security account with attempts across the country to put roadblocks in front of people's efforts to register to vote, despite virtually no instances of people in the country illegally ever TRYING to vote.
Or....maybe I just don't get the joke, or your attempt at humor or sarcasm. Forgive me.
... attempts across the country to put roadblocks in front of people's efforts to register to vote, ...
Hmmm.
I need a valid photo ID to open a bank account, cash a check, write a check, get a credit card, buy a gun, carry a gun, get a passport, apply for a loan, adopt a kitten, get a job, get married, buy beer, drive, get on a plane, hunt or fish, get Social Security, rent a car or apartment or hotel room, get Medicaid or Medicare, buy antihistamines at a drug store, go to college, sign up for power/water service, have a prescription filled, and dozens of other common tasks.
Yet somehow having to have an ID is an impediment to voting?
iris lily
6-15-12, 12:19am
Hmmm.
I need a valid photo ID to open a bank account, cash a check, write a check, get a credit card, buy a gun, carry a gun, get a passport, apply for a loan, adopt a kitten, get a job, get married, buy beer, drive, get on a plane, hunt or fish, get Social Security, rent a car or apartment or hotel room, get Medicaid or Medicare, buy antihistamines at a drug store, go to college, sign up for power/water service, have a prescription filled, and dozens of other common tasks.
Yet somehow having to have an ID is an impediment to voting?
Finally we are getting going. You people are slow. :laff:
You know, I really do understand that some people do not have photo id's. But given the importance of honest elections and the awesom responsibility to vote in them, I think that going to the trouble to get proper ID and using it to vote isn't too much to ask of responsible citizens.
Some of you are missing the point that I am being victimized and traumatized by having to display photo ID at this goobermental voting event. Really, ya'll are fair weather progressives.;) Where's your famous empathy when I need it, finally, in a liberal cause?!!!
I don't know if this fits in, but I object to being photographed at all. At Costco. At the Gym. At Work for ID. I just hate it. I don't want to be photographed. But it's taken for granted that anyone can be photographed and there is no limitation on it. I know that's not the case here, but I really object to photos in general.
loosechickens
6-15-12, 12:43am
ya know, bae......if I thought that the motivation for these voter ID laws actually WAS to prevent voter fraud, I'd agree.
but since elections officials all over the country, of both parties, say that it's mostly a nonexistent problem, AND there is indication that the laws are being pushed specifically because the Republicans feel they can suppress votes of poor and minority people who tend to vote Democratic, by doing so.....not so much.
but.......if it's o.k. to force some 80 year old inner city old lady who has never had a driver's license, to get someone to take her to a DMV, wait hours and pay money to get a photo ID so that she can go into the same polling place where she has voted for fifty years and show that ID to people who know exactly who she is, then Iris Lily should be perfectly willing to jump through whatever hoops she needs to at her workplace.
Iris Lily.....you're not working at one of those kinds of places where they "self fund" retirement pensions, are you? Like some municipal or public service job? Are you one of those folks that everybody has been talking about, getting rich at the public trough? hahahahaha ;-)
ApatheticNoMore
6-15-12, 1:49am
Iris Lily.....you're not working at one of those kinds of places where they "self fund" retirement pensions, are you? Like some municipal or public service job? Are you one of those folks that everybody has been talking about, getting rich at the public trough? hahahahaha ;-)
It is often my suspicion that many of the conservatives are secretly working for government and find it inefficient, arbitrary, wasteful, and disorganized. While the liberals are all working for private industry and find it inefficient, arbitrary, clueless and painful.
It is often my suspicion that many of the conservatives are secretly working for government and find it inefficient, arbitrary, wasteful, and disorganized. While the liberals are all working for private industry and find it inefficient, arbitrary, clueless and painful.
hahahaha, so true.
The Photo ID issue is a non-issue.
Awwww... I was half way to the barn to grab my pitch fork.
Well, as LC pointed out, voter fraud is a non issue. People who are here illegally, trying to pass under the radar and are in fear of being deported are just NOT registering to vote! It's a goofy idea and it's patently clear why the republicans are pushing this. Like with the now struck down rule in Florida that registrations must be turned in within 48 hours. And no good explanation why except the league of Woman voters usually are out in force on the weekends/Fridays. The republicans are clearly trying to suppress the vote, but maybe this will just come back and bite them in the butt cause all those elderly voters who don't drive or fly or really need an ID for anything typically vote republican.
But, actually I don't have a problem with showing an ID to vote, as long as the republicans acknowledge that their new rules that they are pushing in all states REQUIRE AMERICAN CITIZENS TO PURCHASE A PRODUCT IN ORDER TO EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE. You know, a mandate, if you will.
Let me say that again. Republicans want to require American citizens to purchase a product in order to do that which the constitution guarantees them the right to do. This is clearly an infringement on my constitutional right, and I am outraged, outraged I tell you, at this mandate! Can I get a little republican support in this outrage?
Hmmm.
I need a valid photo ID to open a bank account, cash a check, write a check, get a credit card, buy a gun, carry a gun, get a passport, apply for a loan, adopt a kitten, get a job, get married, buy beer, drive, get on a plane, hunt or fish, get Social Security, rent a car or apartment or hotel room, get Medicaid or Medicare, buy antihistamines at a drug store, go to college, sign up for power/water service, have a prescription filled, and dozens of other common tasks.
Yet somehow having to have an ID is an impediment to voting?
+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10
Seriously (and this is a real question, not just snark), how many people does anyone here actually KNOW that are eligible to vote, want to vote and yet have no valid form of picture ID? As far as I'm aware, I don't know a single one. I realize we can all think of examples, but I'm talking about actual cases. My life is somewhat sheltered in suburbia so I readily concede that there are many groups I don't interact with on a regular basis. Simply based on my own experience my suspicion is that this is more of an intellectual argument than one based on large numbers of real cases because of the list of reasons to hold a valid ID that bae rattled off above. YMMV.
Let me say that again. Republicans want to require American citizens to purchase a product in order to do that which the constitution guarantees them the right to do. This is clearly an infringement on my constitutional right, and I am outraged, outraged I tell you, at this mandate! Can I get a little republican support in this outrage?
Consider it done peggy. Drivers licenses, or state ID cards, should be FREE for ALL!!!
iris lily
6-15-12, 10:59am
Awwww... I was half way to the barn to grab my pitch fork.
Now that's funny!
Well, as LC pointed out, voter fraud is a non issue. People who are here illegally, trying to pass under the radar and are in fear of being deported are just NOT registering to vote! It's a goofy idea and it's patently clear why the republicans are pushing this. Like with the now struck down rule in Florida that registrations must be turned in within 48 hours. And no good explanation why except the league of Woman voters usually are out in force on the weekends/Fridays. The republicans are clearly trying to suppress the vote, but maybe this will just come back and bite them in the butt cause all those elderly voters who don't drive or fly or really need an ID for anything typically vote republican.
But, actually I don't have a problem with showing an ID to vote, as long as the republicans acknowledge that their new rules that they are pushing in all states REQUIRE AMERICAN CITIZENS TO PURCHASE A PRODUCT IN ORDER TO EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE. You know, a mandate, if you will.
Let me say that again. Republicans want to require American citizens to purchase a product in order to do that which the constitution guarantees them the right to do. This is clearly an infringement on my constitutional right, and I am outraged, outraged I tell you, at this mandate! Can I get a little republican support in this outrage?
Is there any part of the Constitution that explicitly guarantees the right to vote in the same way it guarantees the right to assembly? I know that over the years the list of who can vote has been an issue for non-property holders, women, slaves, felons, etc., but is there any language in the document itself that speaks to a right to vote rather than the mechanics of the electoral system itself?
+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10
Seriously (and this is a real question, not just snark), how many people does anyone here actually KNOW that are eligible to vote, want to vote and yet have no valid form of picture ID? As far as I'm aware, I don't know a single one. I realize we can all think of examples, but I'm talking about actual cases. My life is somewhat sheltered in suburbia so I readily concede that there are many groups I don't interact with on a regular basis. Simply based on my own experience my suspicion is that this is more of an intellectual argument than one based on large numbers of real cases because of the list of reasons to hold a valid ID that bae rattled off above. YMMV.
My concern is not so much having to have the ID, but seeing people turned away from the polls because of supposed issues with their ID's. It's not just a matter of having an ID, it's the polls accepting it as a valid ID - if they don't accept it, you don't vote. Or seeing challenges to votes in certain wards based on the accusation that ID's weren't properly checked. I think this kind of abuse is much more likely than individual voter fraud.
Seriously (and this is a real question, not just snark), how many people does anyone here actually KNOW that are eligible to vote, want to vote and yet have no valid form of picture ID?
My grandmother. She never learned to drive, never had a bank account, doesn't have a passport. She has a library card, and a hand-written birth certificate from some village in the hills of Kentucky.
You should have seen me trying to sort this out with the nice Border Patrol/Customs people when we came back from Canada a few years ago with her on the boat. Apparently a lot of 90 year old terrorists or fieldworkers must be sneaking across.
"But, but, her birth certificate doesn't have her right name on it!" "That's her married name, she married when she was 14. Back when Hoover was president..."
"It's not typed or certified!" "They didn't have a typewriter in Coon's Breath Hollow, Kentucky, back then... They were lucky to find someone who could write..."
My grandmother. She never learned to drive, never had a bank account, doesn't have a passport. She has a library card, and a hand-written birth certificate from some village in the hills of Kentucky.
You should have seen me trying to sort this out with the nice Border Patrol/Customs people when we came back from Canada a few years ago with her on the boat. Apparently a lot of 90 year old terrorists or fieldworkers must be sneaking across.
"But, but, her birth certificate doesn't have her right name on it!" "That's her married name, she married when she was 14. Back when Hoover was president..."
"It's not typed or certified!" "They didn't have a typewriter in Coon's Breath Hollow, Kentucky, back then... They were lucky to find someone who could write..."
If they let the nice old ladies and cute little kids through unquestioned, they'd be accused of profiling.
+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10
Seriously (and this is a real question, not just snark), how many people does anyone here actually KNOW that are eligible to vote, want to vote and yet have no valid form of picture ID? As far as I'm aware, I don't know a single one. I realize we can all think of examples, but I'm talking about actual cases. My life is somewhat sheltered in suburbia so I readily concede that there are many groups I don't interact with on a regular basis. Simply based on my own experience my suspicion is that this is more of an intellectual argument than one based on large numbers of real cases because of the list of reasons to hold a valid ID that bae rattled off above. YMMV.
My dad. Doesn't drive, doesn't have a passport. Doesn't travel, anywhere. Doesn't even have a library card, not that that would be valid in these states. His eyesight isn't what it used to be. No need for a photo ID.
My husbands mom, before she passed. Never drove, never flew but once, before 9/11 and all that, no need for a photo ID.
I can actually think of several people who don't have photo Id's but giving you their names wouldn't mean anything to you. You don't know them and wouldn't recognize them.
Also, even though most people think all young people over 16 have drivers license, they don't. My son didn't get his license until 20 and my daughter was 22. Both had student ID's from their universities, but apparently these republicans are writing the laws where student ID's won't be valid.
Here is an area where the republicans are seeing easy pickings. So many students at university don't have drivers license, or passports. Not only is parking a nightmare on most campuses, so many are simply to poor to own or drive a car, so they simply don't. They do have student ID's, that are valid for just about everything else, including signing up for all those things bae mentioned. But the republicans, who actually just want to suppress democratic voting, are writing the laws to make student ID's invalid, even though they are picture ID's. They have, however, made gun license valid. (Let's see...Now I wonder just who they are pandering to?) And of course, statistics show who students generally vote for, so, eliminate the student vote and it's a win win for republicans.
What gets me is, how can thinking people look at what they are so obviously doing and still vote for them, the thinking being, we don't want no fair election..we just want to win. So, the ends justify the means.
But, as I said, personally I have no problem with it. But I'm not naive enough to think this is all for some noble cause to stop voter fraud (which has been proven to not really exist) Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, tell yourself whatever lie you need to tell yourself to justify this voter purge. Just know you aren't fooling anyone worth fooling.
My concern is not so much having to have the ID, but seeing people turned away from the polls because of supposed issues with their ID's. It's not just a matter of having an ID, it's the polls accepting it as a valid ID - if they don't accept it, you don't vote. Or seeing challenges to votes in certain wards based on the accusation that ID's weren't properly checked. I think this kind of abuse is much more likely than individual voter fraud.
What they found in AZ was that the main issue was people not updating their addresses. So the challenge comes when the address on your official government ID - driver's license, passport, military ID, etc. - does not correspond to the district where you're trying to vote. A poll worker has every right to turn away people who don't appear to live in the district.
Was pretty funny because the Republicans who pushed through the ID law on the idea that there were hordes of "illegals" voting, instead heard outraged stories like someone's great-aunt Fran who was denied a ballot because she never updated her address after she moved to the nursing home.
I'm not really worried about illegals voting, but I do wonder how all those dead people manage to get the polls with or without ID, and prisoners.
http://www.freep.com/article/20120516/NEWS15/205160363/State-audit-shows-dead-people-prisoners-cast-1-500-votes
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/02/14/nearly_two_million_dead_people_registered_to_vote_ in_america
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/11/video-nh-poll-workers-shown-handing-out-ballots-in-dead-peoples-names/
I'm not really worried about illegals voting, but I do wonder how all those dead people manage to get the polls with or without ID, and prisoners.
http://www.freep.com/article/20120516/NEWS15/205160363/State-audit-shows-dead-people-prisoners-cast-1-500-votes
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/02/14/nearly_two_million_dead_people_registered_to_vote_ in_america
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/11/video-nh-poll-workers-shown-handing-out-ballots-in-dead-peoples-names/
Come to St. Louis, ACORN will show you how to do that.
When I was 18 and eligible to vote, I had never done any of those things bae listed. Lots of college age people haven't had to do any of those things yet. A friend of mine who is originally from NYC didn't get a driver's license until she was in her 30's and moved here, because lots of people in NYC don't have cars or driver's licenses since they use public transportation. If you're the female of a couple, lots of times utilities and things are in the husband's name. I think I only have to show my ID for something maybe once every couple years.
Wisconsin is going through this voter ID debate right now. It turns out that in the last election that they studied, there were only something like 14 fraudulent votes that could have been avoided by requiring voter ID, and those were pretty much equally divided between Republican and Democrats, so it didn't matter anyway.
iris lily
6-15-12, 11:09pm
DH is an election judge (poll worker) at every election.
He said that it works like this for Missouri:
A voter needs to show an ID to identify who he is, but it doesn't have to be a picture ID. There are several kinds of ID that are acceptable, but DH likes best the card that the Election Board mails to every voter a few days before the election.
Any ID shown does not have to have an address that matches the registration book, nor does the address have to be within the precinct of the polling place. He sees many ID's from out of state. He lets them vote.
He is a Republican election judge. The polls are supposed to have both Republican and Democrat judges, but it's hard to get Republicans in this blue city, and that's why he is called to work every election.
iris lily
6-15-12, 11:16pm
But, actually ...Let me say that again. Republicans want to require American citizens to purchase a product in order to do that which the constitution guarantees them the right to do. This is clearly an infringement on my constitutional right, and I am outraged, outraged I tell you, at this mandate! Can I get a little republican support in this outrage?
Hmm, maybe. Since 99% of people won't have to pay for a photo ID that exists for the sole purpose of being a photo ID, I can only work up a little outrage. And also it's only a little outrage because it's a nominal fee and besides, if they don't want to vote, they don't need it.
Health insurance under the plan popularly known as Obamacare is required to simply exist in the Unite States and of course it's much more than a nominal fee.
But in principle, sure, peggy, I can support you in your outrage!
Call me old fashioned but it occurs to me that voting is an awesome responsibility and a great leveler, meaning that each persons vote is equal to every other persons vote. Well, unless the desire to let everyone vote easily and effortlessly continues. Since I own property in two states I could probably get two votes on national issues, giving me twice as much influence as those of you with only one residence.
When we lived in Colorado I don't recall ever being asked for any form if ID to vote. Granted it was not in a high population area and if you didn't know someone you had probably at least seen their face around town, but all they ever did was ask your name then check you off a list. Then we always got an "I Voted" sticker, coffee and cookies. It was all very civilized.
That said, I don't think requiring an ID is a bad idea. Voting is, as Alan said, a responsibility and in a way it is a privilege (we have a right to vote, but it can be taken away if we mess up) so I don't think it is unreasonable to have people jump through a hoop before they can exercise their right.
iris lily
6-16-12, 10:26am
Again, I know that theoretically there are people without photo ID's. But KAthy in WI's example--not today. All college kids have photo IDs (as well as university email addresses and etc.) these days. Many many workplaces issue photos ID's. In order to get food stamps you need a photo ID in this state, I believe.
So again, ask yourself: who do you know TODAY, in the year of 2012, who has not been issued a photo ID who is of majority age to vote? That they don't "have" it in their possession is their problem.
So again, ask yourself: who do you know TODAY, in the year of 2012, who has not been issued a photo ID who is of majority age to vote? That they don't "have" it in their possession is their problem.
My grandmother, as I mentioned above.
And I suspect that many of my Amish friends don't have photo IDs.
These edge conditions are easily handled though.
Of course it occurs to me that most of the activities bae mentions where ID is necessary are actions to start something. Opening a bank account, getting a job, buying a kitten, renting an apartment and several others are all "show ID once" activities.* After that my signature is perfectly satisfactory proof of me. By the same token my signature when I check in at the polling place seems perfectly satisfactory. The poll worker compares it to the one that I did when I originally registered and voter fraud has been avoided. The items on his list that require ID all the time, driving, carrying guns and whatnot, make sense. These are potentially dangerous activities where one can harm another person. Given the lack of proof of voter fraud I don't see that as an equivalent situation.
*not to pick nits but for the 8 apartments for which I've signed up for utilities I've never shown an ID. It's always just taken a phone call.
fidgiegirl
6-16-12, 1:00pm
Yeah but colleges who are generating IDs and even for a driver's license people's citizenship status is not being assessed. So unless it's a passport, I'm not sure any of it matters. It has to be a document that looks at citizenship.
Many Latin American countries have a universal ID that is a voter ID card. Actually if I remember correctly, in Argentina you have your national identity card from infancy. The picture is updated at 8 y/o, some teenage point, and then at a certain interval after that, much like our driver's licenses.
I don't like the concept of driver's license as identification. DL says you passed the driver's test and no more.
I don't like the concept of driver's license as identification. DL says you passed the driver's test and no more.
A similar situation to that other "not for ID" card, a social security card.
Again, I know that theoretically there are people without photo ID's. But KAthy in WI's example--not today. All college kids have photo IDs (as well as university email addresses and etc.) these days. Many many workplaces issue photos ID's. In order to get food stamps you need a photo ID in this state, I believe.
So again, ask yourself: who do you know TODAY, in the year of 2012, who has not been issued a photo ID who is of majority age to vote? That they don't "have" it in their possession is their problem.
But Iris, that's the point. Many of these voter purge laws the republicans are pushing will NOT accept a school ID as valid.
And any ID you get is going to cost you money.
And, yes, nursing homes are full of folks who don't have photo ID's. No one is questioning showing something, a library card, SS card, 2 utility bills with your name and address, something. It's these voter purge rules the republicans are pushing in several states that try to make it way more difficult than that. They only accept certain ID's, student ID's not being one of them. So, yea, you will have disenfranchised a huge group of voting people.
And, it's back to the health care debate. (sigh...) Hey, I'm all about you dying in the hospital parking lot because you aren't covered, but that's not going to happen is it. It isn't happening and it won't happen, ever.
Voting IS an awesome responsibility. So is saving your butt when you have a heart attack/stroke/fall down the stairs/car accident/ appendix/ etc...
Personally, I just love that the republicans/right have become the party of irresponsible slackers. Let's root for the republicans.
HIP HIP DON'T PAY!:+1:
Again, I know that theoretically there are people without photo ID's. But KAthy in WI's example--not today. All college kids have photo IDs (as well as university email addresses and etc.) these days. Many many workplaces issue photos ID's. In order to get food stamps you need a photo ID in this state, I believe.
So again, ask yourself: who do you know TODAY, in the year of 2012, who has not been issued a photo ID who is of majority age to vote? That they don't "have" it in their possession is their problem.
Apparently, according to the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 9% of registered voters in PA don't currently have a state issued photo ID. And in Philadelphia the number is almost 20%.
So I guess the answer to the question is "A whole lot of people."
http://prospect.org/article/nine-percent-pennsylvanians-may-not-be-able-vote-lack-id
And, as we all know, this is only to promote the republican candidate. We really didn't need Pennsylvania house republican leader Mike Turzaic to put it so bluntly, as anyone with two grey cells to rub together already knew, but it's nice to have it in his own words, forever and ever. I suppose we can all kick the dirt and hem and haw and say it's for this reason and that reason, but eventually folks who think , and maybe even those who don't utilize the 'lobes' know the truth. See, the problem with crafty schemes is it involves people who maybe aren't as crafty, and who inadvertently reveal the game, not that we didn't all know the game. But, well, there you are. And the ones who do know the truth, and are still comfortable with the ruse, well, that speaks to their character as well.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77811.html
Apparently, according to the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 9% of registered voters in PA don't currently have a state issued photo ID. And in Philadelphia the number is almost 20%.
So I guess the answer to the question is "A whole lot of people."
http://prospect.org/article/nine-percent-pennsylvanians-may-not-be-able-vote-lack-id
You are right that is a lot of people without state issued ID. Guess they will have to hop to it before November to avoid that Republican victory.
Charle Rangle managed to pull out a win despite many voting shenanigans in his New York district. There was some voter fraud there, but I suppose some of you won't want to admit that. And who knows if it could have been avoided by requiring photo ID. I know that there are many ways to scam the polls and posing as someone else is just one of them.
do you have links to that voter fraud in New York? I'd be interested is seeing those.
My mother never had a photo ID, and toward the end of her life the idea of her fighting agoraphobia and crippling arthritis to "hop to it" to stand in line at the DMV is one that could make you laugh or cry depending on your mood. The incidence of voter fraud is negligible in this country. I just read there were something like 400 convictions total for all states over a ten-year period. This is transparent voter suppression.
http://news.yahoo.com/tough-id-laws-could-block-thousands-2012-votes-120503561.html
"Supporters of the laws cite anecdotal cases of fraud as a reason that states need to do more to secure elections, but fraud appears to be rare. As part of its effort to build support for voter ID laws, the Republican National Lawyers Association last year published a report that identified some 400 election fraud prosecutions over a decade across the entire country. That's not even one per state per year."
do you have links to that voter fraud in New York? I'd be interested is seeing those.
The New York Times wrote about it last week. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/nyregion/rangels-primary-victory-clouded-by-slow-count-and-espaillats-questions.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion
A national advocacy organization, LatinoJustice PRLDEF (http://latinojustice.org/), called on Monday for the Justice Department to investigate the board’s handling of the race, saying it had received reports of Spanish-speaking voters’ being unable to receive Spanish-language assistance at polling sites and being either turned away or forced to vote by affidavit ballots. The group also said there were reports that longtime bilingual polling workers at sites in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx had been reassigned at the last minute, leaving a shortage of such workers in those areas....
......Also on Monday, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, long a critic of the city’s elections process, weighed in. “It’s about as corruptible a system as anybody could design,” he told reporters. He called the Board of Elections “an incompetent organization.”
You are right that is a lot of people without state issued ID. Guess they will have to hop to it before November to avoid that Republican victory.
And I'm sure the PA DMV is going to add 108% more staff to accomodate the crush considering that only 25% of the state's population needs to renew their driver's license each year. Having an additional 9% of the population going there over the next 4 months will certainly put a strain on them otherwise.
Voter ID isn't just about having ID - it's having the voting polls accept that ID. If the person checking doesn't accept your id, you're not voting.
Oregon and Washington are both vote by mail states. Apparently, they think our signatures are proof enough that we are who we say we are.
Oregon and Washington are both vote by mail states. Apparently, they think our signatures are proof enough that we are who we say we are.
Add California to that list. I have not voted at a voting station in over 10 years, I think. This great country has survived for over 200 years without these outlandish voting laws. I thought we wanted to increase voter participation and not supress it!! Wie live in the Sierras in California and in November we can have a Lot of snow on the ground. I sure do not want to drive 12 miles on icy roads to vote.
Oregon and Washington are both vote by mail states. Apparently, they think our signatures are proof enough that we are who we say we are.
As a side note, voting in my county in Washington State used to be a fun civic activity. Everyone would wander in to a handful of polling places in historic locations, chat with friends and neighbors and the poll watchers and the folks running the balloting. You would vote on unmarked paper ballots, and then the auditable paper ballots would be counted, while being observed, and the results announced.
There was a sense of history, and civic participation Teachers would bring classes of children out to watch the process, and all that wonderful Mayberry RFD stuff.
Now, we receive ballots in the mail that have unique identifiers on them, contrary to state law, that we are promised are not linked to us personally, though both times we've investigated this claim, we've easily found "small problems in the system" that allow easy linkage between voter and marked ballot. We've had a couple of other issues involving incorrectly-printed ballots, and counting problems, difficult to audit with the "new improved system".
A great many of us here prefer the old system, and think our vote-by-mail scheme is cold, impersonal, vulnerable to corruption, and less auditable.
The New York Times wrote about it last week. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/nyregion/rangels-primary-victory-clouded-by-slow-count-and-espaillats-questions.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion
Uh...Alan, the quote above actually makes my point. Sure sounds like republican voter suppression to me. So, you want them to widen this? Did you offer that quote as proof that they aren't suppressing enough? :0!
These were actual American citizens turned away. Real Americans, even if you don't like the color of their skin or what language they speak.
As a side note, voting in my county in Washington State used to be a fun civic activity. Everyone would wander in to a handful of polling places in historic locations, chat with friends and neighbors and the poll watchers and the folks running the balloting. You would vote on unmarked paper ballots, and then the auditable paper ballots would be counted, while being observed, and the results announced.
There was a sense of history, and civic participation Teachers would bring classes of children out to watch the process, and all that wonderful Mayberry RFD stuff.
Now, we receive ballots in the mail that have unique identifiers on them, contrary to state law, that we are promised are not linked to us personally, though both times we've investigated this claim, we've easily found "small problems in the system" that allow easy linkage between voter and marked ballot. We've had a couple of other issues involving incorrectly-printed ballots, and counting problems, difficult to audit with the "new improved system".
A great many of us here prefer the old system, and think our vote-by-mail scheme is cold, impersonal, vulnerable to corruption, and less auditable.
And this is how it's been done in cities and towns across the Nation since the formation of this country. As someone said, voter ID laws are solutions in search of a problem. The real 'problem' being how do we suppress democratic voters!
The godfather of voter suppression is arguably Paul Weyrich, who famously said:
"Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome -- good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our (Republican) leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
Uh...Alan, the quote above actually makes my point. Sure sounds like republican voter suppression to me. So, you want them to widen this? .....
I'm not sure where you get the idea that it was Republican voter suppression. The two major players in the election were both Democrats, with one being Hispanic, who happened to lose the election by a very narrow margin. Are you alleging that it was Republicans who conspired to get Charlie Rangel re-elected?
Did you offer that quote as proof that they aren't suppressing enough? :0!
No, you said you'd be interested in seeing a link to any evidence of voter fraud in New York. I was being helpful. :doh:
These were actual American citizens turned away. Real Americans, even if you don't like the color of their skin or what language they speak.
Yes, they seemingly were actual American citizens being turned away from the polls. For all intents and purposes, it appears that someone made a concerted effort to keep Hispanic Americans from voting for another Hispanic American. I wonder who benefited from that? Republicans?
Shenanigans such as this make me very distrustful. I'm not sure why anyone would want to make it easier for unscrupulous entrenched interests to game a system by opposing reasonable voter ID efforts.
Shenanigans such as this make me very distrustful. I'm not sure why anyone would want to make it easier for unscrupulous entrenched interests to game a system by opposing reasonable voter ID efforts.
Do you think that a shot was fired from the grassy knoll, that it's not an official birth certificate or that there was a government coverup at Area 51? Come on, you can admit it.
Do you think that a shot was fired from the grassy knoll, that it's not an official birth certificate or that there was a government coverup at Area 51? Come on, you can admit it.
Lol, so questioning the motivation of sending voters away in some elections is akin to being a conspiracy theorist and being in favor of voter ID laws is akin to racism. What a goofy bunch.
Alan said: "voter ID laws is akin to racism" could be. before the 1970s in many southern states they were. The affect of many of these laws does seem to cause racial discrimination.
Alan said: "voter ID laws is akin to racism" could be. before the 1970s in many southern states they were. The affect of many of these laws does seem to cause racial discrimination.
Is the theory that people of certain races are unable to acquire suitable ID?
In my state, you can register by mail, or online, but, you have to provide ID on the form. Then the state sends you a voter registration card, which is a form of ID by itself of course, though not a photo ID. Is ID for registration too much of a burden?
I don't think there's anyone, anywhere who has ever registered to vote without presenting some form of ID. It's when you have to buy extra ID--that you wouldn't otherwise need--sometimes at great inconvenience, that it becomes a problem. And again, it's not like fake voters are a demonstrable problem.
Poll taxes and spurious "literacy tests" are historic exclusionary tactics. I'm surprised some demagogue hasn't tried to bring those back.
I don't think there's anyone, anywhere who has ever registered to vote without presenting some form of ID. It's when you have to buy extra ID--that you wouldn't otherwise need--sometimes at great inconvenience, that it becomes a problem.
It would seem simple enough to require that some form of acceptable ID be provided for free.
Washington State, on the voter registration forms, accepts driver's licenses, the State ID card if you don't have a license, or your Social Security number.
I just renewed our passports the other day. The costs were rather high. This sort of miffed me too, ID-wise - you are forced to pay a large fee in order to leave or re-enter the country. That seems...wrong.
It would seem simple enough to require that some form of acceptable ID be provided for free.
Washington State, on the voter registration forms, accepts driver's licenses, the State ID card if you don't have a license, or your Social Security number.
I just renewed our passports the other day. The costs were rather high. This sort of miffed me too, ID-wise - you are forced to pay a large fee in order to leave or re-enter the country. That seems...wrong.
Not to mention since (thanks to post 9/11 paranoia?) we're expected to show passports to visit places that used to be exempt. What with the upswing in applications, you'd think they could cut us a break.;)
Yes. I used to be able to take my boat from my house over to a variety of nice little villages across the border in Canada for lunch, or shopping, or dinner, and return home. Because I could easily clear customs/immigration over the radio/phone.
Now it is nearly impossible much of the year, especially if you have anyone on board you haven't prefilled-out lots of paperwork for. If you don't get back before the customs dock closes at 5, you are stuck overnighting on your boat, unable to even set foot off it. And you have to divert 20+ nautical miles out of the way to check in, which, in a boat making 9 knots, is a bit of a time sink.
It has crushed interisland commerce between our island communities here in Washington, and the similar communities right across the border in the Canadian Gulf Islands. We used to be neighbors...
Is the theory that people of certain races are unable to acquire suitable ID?
In my state, you can register by mail, or online, but, you have to provide ID on the form. Then the state sends you a voter registration card, which is a form of ID by itself of course, though not a photo ID. Is ID for registration too much of a burden?
It is similar to the distinction between de jure and de facto discrimination. A law can be racially neutral on its face, hence not illegally discriminatory, but have disparate impacts on different groups, hence discriminatory in effect.
These voting ID laws have the effect of disenfranchising certain people, and those people tend to be in certain groups, which coincidentally enough seem to suffer from historic discrimination and disenfranchisement and which also strangely enough tend to vote Democratic. That's just the way it is. Poor people generally have more issues obtaining properly sanctioned photo ID for whatever reasons and if they can't vote, it benefits the GOP. Again, that is just the way it is.
IMHO progressives need to launch a very aggressive campaign to make sure people get the proper IDs. There can be a fund to help people pay for their ID and volunteers to help take them where they need to go to get it. I don't think they are going to win in court because they don't have enough solid evidence of the actual impact of these laws violating voting rights and may not be able to compile that evidence for years. They shouldn't wait, but get started now trying to mitigate the effects of these laws constructively. I don't think state legislatures are going to reverse the laws. So as usual, just gotta deal.
BTW, a word to Iris Lily. ACORN? Really? Get off that dead horse girl. They are defunct and they never engaged in voting fraud anyway. Voting fraud is distinct from voter registration fraud. Nobody from ACORN ever went to the polls pretending to be someone else. No, actually what happened was they turned in voter registrations that were not valid because they paid contractors to go out and register people and some of those contractors just made stuff up so they could get paid for doing no work. They were sloppy no doubt, but there was no fraud and all the uproar over ACORN was always about just shutting down ACORN to stop their voter registration activities, which tended to get more Democratic voters on the rolls.
Voter suppression. Voter caging. Disenfranchisement. Voter intimidation. Those are real voting rights issues. Voter fraud is a chimera, a figment of the fertile GOP imagination. There were according to one estimate a confirmed 400 cases of voter fraud in the past 10 years across the country. That encompasses state, local and federal elections. Governor Scott in my state just tried to purse 2500 people, 98.5 % of whom had every right to vote, from the voting lists just this year on the basis that they were illegal aliens. The burden was placed on the voter to exculpate him or herself within a brief amount of time. Naturally some folks don't understand or don't have time for this nonsense, so of course they would lose their votes. Fortunately the supervisors of elections got together and balked and rejected the purge list. Unfortunately, there are more purge lists coming down the pike. Funny how they always seem to include a disproportionate number of hispanic and black people.
That my friends is the real problem and the real threat to democracy.
I'm curious to see what the numbers will be like for people with ID being turned away this year. If we get to see them - I would expect the people turning voters away will also be the people collecting this data.
Voter intimidation. Those are real voting rights issues.
Indeed. Good thing our Attorney General is on top of that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
...IMHO progressives need to launch a very aggressive campaign to make sure people get the proper IDs. There can be a fund to help people pay for their ID and volunteers to help take them where they need to go to get it. ...
Praise god, finally some sense from the left, and I mean this sincerely. This plan is one I can endorse.
... Voting fraud is distinct from voter registration fraud. ...
Gosh. ok.
Let me just say this: at my public library those who get a library card using fraudulent qualifications DO IN FACT show up to check out books and steal them. The frauds are untraceable to their vacant lots and non-existent apartments. These are the same goons who St. Louis ACORN recruited on registration rolls.
If you don't see the similarity in these situations, you don't need to. Enough people with common sense do see it.
You were not here when in 2000 Jessie Jackson called my neighbors telling them "to get their souls to the polls" when it was well after normal closing time for the polls. There had been a planned disruption to keep polls open. Why ever? Who knows, but it's more tactics to get people of the right (blue) stripe in to vote. It certainly allows more people to hit multiple polling places.
There is a long history in my city of fraud and lying in elections. I am not naive enough to think that state issued photo ID's will wipe that out though.
Indeed. Good thing our Attorney General is on top of that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
That's funny, I have actually voted at a school in the public housing complex where these type beret guys in their dark glasses hang out. That's a familiar scene. They are called Guardian Angels, I think. Or maybe it WAS Panthers here, I don't' remember but do remember the berets. They don't mess with my head because I know they aren't there for me, and conversely, they aren't bothered by me, a middle aged puffy female who isn't their profiled rabble rouser.
That's funny, I have actually voted at a school in the public housing complex where these type beret guys in their dark glasses hang out. That's a familiar scene. They are called Guardian Angels, I think. Or maybe it WAS Panthers here, I don't' remember but do remember the berets. They don't mess with my head because I know they aren't there for me, and conversely, they aren't bothered by me, a middle aged puffy female who isn't their profiled rabble rouser.
so, these guys didn't actually prevent you from voting, right? And I'm guessing they didn't actually demand to know who you were going to vote for, or who you actually voted for, or any real intimidation, right?
I know these two guys picture is often bandied about as some kind of 'democrat voter fraud' picture, but the fact is, these two guys, maybe gang wanna-be's or not, are the entire 'force'. These two guys were in a primarily democratic district and, unless they are also mind readers, didn't have a clue who was going to vote democratic and who was going to vote republican, right? And do you really think the presents of these two guys would make someone 'change' their private vote, cause these guys are, you know, mind readers and all. Sheesh! How stupid do you think we are! And this is for you IL as much as bae. Sorry, try again.
Voter suppression and voter ID laws wouldn't change the reality of these two at all. Period. So, using this picture with some bumper sticker quip doesn't actually bolster your argument at all, does it.
You know, the other people in the picture don't seem too terribly concerned. They are going in and out, just as planned. These two probably thought they were doing the community a service as some expected trouble at the polls, being the first black President and all. And really, are we judging them as bad news just because they are black? Had they been white, would we be hailing them as 'protector citizens?" Would we be making excuses saying they were simply maintaining neighborhood peace, kind of like George Zimmerman?
Interesting how the pictures we post and the comments we make expose our inner prejudices.
Indeed. Good thing our Attorney General is on top of that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
You have just outed yourself as a bona fide wingnut.
Praise god, finally some sense from the left, and I mean this sincerely. This plan is one I can endorse.
Gosh. ok.
Let me just say this: at my public library those who get a library card using fraudulent qualifications DO IN FACT show up to check out books and steal them. The frauds are untraceable to their vacant lots and non-existent apartments. These are the same goons who St. Louis ACORN recruited on registration rolls.
If you don't see the similarity in these situations, you don't need to. Enough people with common sense do see it.
You were not here when in 2000 Jessie Jackson called my neighbors telling them "to get their souls to the polls" when it was well after normal closing time for the polls. There had been a planned disruption to keep polls open. Why ever? Who knows, but it's more tactics to get people of the right (blue) stripe in to vote. It certainly allows more people to hit multiple polling places.
There is a long history in my city of fraud and lying in elections. I am not naive enough to think that state issued photo ID's will wipe that out though.
No. That is simply not correct. Not a single instance of actual vote or voter fraud is associated with ACORN. They turned in voter registrations of people who did not exist. Their contractors scammed them. They did not exercise due diligence in supervising their employees and perhaps for that reason alone they deserve to be out of business. But The point is that these problems were determined by the election supervisors so none of these fake registrations of fake people actually turned into a single fraudulent vote. The Bush Administration was hell bent on prosecuting voter fraud and pushed the justice department to find cases and this is what led to that whole attorney scandal. There really was no there there and that's why some of the career prosecutors balked. The left wing is hardly capable of organizing ordinary political actions let alone vast fraudulent conspiracies.
You have just outed yourself as a bona fide wingnut.
Interesting - thanks for the personal attack. So refreshing....
What did you read in the body language and actions of the fellow who stepped forward manipulating the baton in his hand?
I presume you are trained in such things...
so, these guys didn't actually prevent you from voting, right? And I'm guessing they didn't actually demand to know who you were going to vote for, or who you actually voted for, or any real intimidation, right?
I know these two guys picture is often bandied about as some kind of 'democrat voter fraud' picture, but the fact is, these two guys, maybe gang wanna-be's or not, are the entire 'force'. These two guys were in a primarily democratic district and, unless they are also mind readers, didn't have a clue who was going to vote democratic and who was going to vote republican, right? And do you really think the presents of these two guys would make someone 'change' their private vote, cause these guys are, you know, mind readers and all. Sheesh! How stupid do you think we are! And this is for you IL as much as bae. Sorry, try again.
Voter suppression and voter ID laws wouldn't change the reality of these two at all. Period. So, using this picture with some bumper sticker quip doesn't actually bolster your argument at all, does it.
You know, the other people in the picture don't seem too terribly concerned. They are going in and out, just as planned. These two probably thought they were doing the community a service as some expected trouble at the polls, being the first black President and all. And really, are we judging them as bad news just because they are black? Had they been white, would we be hailing them as 'protector citizens?" Would we be making excuses saying they were simply maintaining neighborhood peace, kind of like George Zimmerman?
Interesting how the pictures we post and the comments we make expose our inner prejudices.
My thought is that anyone who is living in a precinct where beret wearers like this hang out will NOT be intimidated by them 'cause we see them every day, it's just part of our regular scene. It's you guys out there in the 'burbs who are intimidated.
Actually, my thought is that anyone who is living in a precinct where beret wearers like this hang out will NOT be intimidated by them 'cause we see them every day, it's just part of our regular scene. It's you guys out there in the 'burbs who are intimidated.
I used to see Guardian Angels every day. These weren't them...
I used to see Guardian Angels every day. These weren't them...
ok, I'll take your word for it.
ok, I'll take your word for it.
Here's the text of the testimony in front of the US Commission on Civil Rights:
http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/04-23-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf
Start with page 46...
Here's the text of the testimony in front of the US Commission on Civil Rights:
http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/04-23-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf
Start with page 46...
Sorry, I earlier meant that the guys*I* saw here in my voting precinct were (probably) Guardian Angels.
But peggy, I will say that they didn't call me "cracker," that would have been shocking.
If those guys were hanging out in front of my 101yr old grandmothers voting place It would intimidate her. It may keep her from voting. But even at 101 I'll bet she has a photo ID, or would get one if required.
So your OK with forcing someone to buy health insurance or pay a fine, but the one time $20 or so for a photo ID is out of line.
Interesting - thanks for the personal attack. So refreshing....
What did you read in the body language and actions of the fellow who stepped forward manipulating the baton in his hand?
I presume you are trained in such things...
You have blown your cover now. You have jumped the shark. I am trained in wingnut my friend and you have gone there
1. Story of little significance which right wing partisans have tried to blow up into some big scandal to damage the Obama administration. Check
2. Pandering to fear and racism by widely broadcasting images of big scary black men and trying to link them to liberals. Check
3. Even when resident right wing scholars say there is nothing to look at here the story lives on and on and on and on and degenerates into a mess of conspriracy theories and wild accusations by people with clear partisan agendas. Check
4. Years after the alleged outrage the story is still being taken out of the vault and dusted off to shut down legitimate debate, obsfucate the issues, distract and deflect. Check
Shame on you. There are countless articles that debunk any notion that these individuals actually stopped anyone from voting, that the Justice Department did not investigate and respond properly or that the existence of this group represents any danger to voting rights.
The voter intimidation of the present tends to involve sending flyers out in poor neighborhoods "warning" people that they are going to get arrested at the polls if they have warrants out or owe child support. Voter intimidation does not look like hulked up goons at the polls any more. It is much
more subtle.
Interesting - thanks for the personal attack. So refreshing....
What did you read in the body language and actions of the fellow who stepped forward manipulating the baton in his hand?
I presume you are trained in such things...
Not rosebud but if i may....I guess we can read in these guys body language the same intent as some 'neighborhood protector' cruising around a Florida suburb 'looking out' for his fellow neighbors.
Perhaps we would give these guys the same benefit of the doubt as Zimmerman if they had guns instead of merely sticks, cause unfortunately the National Stick Association lacks both the political and the ideological creds.>8)
But they'd still be black, so...I don't know.
Not rosebud but if i may....I guess we can read in these guys body language the same intent as some 'neighborhood protector' cruising around a Florida suburb 'looking out' for his fellow neighbors.
Perhaps we would give these guys the same benefit of the doubt as Zimmerman if they had guns instead of merely sticks, cause unfortunately the National Stick Association lacks both the political and the ideological creds.>8)
But they'd still be black, so...I don't know.
LOL. National Stick Association. Love it. How long would it take before the NSA would be defending the rights of of its members to carry and use sticks of any kind including sticks that can kill dozens of people in a few seconds which to me kind of goes far beyond the right of self defense. Or the right to hunt animals. Or the right to hit for fun.
BTW as a pre emptive strike to the anticipated strawmen BAE and his defense team may try to erect, I am not in favor of any of the following:
1. The Black Panthers new old or in between. They are classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Center and I'll take Mark Potok's word for it.
2. Physical intimidation by big black scary guys in any circumstances or by anyone else for that matter.
3. Depriving white people of the vote. I'm white myself and am kinda attached to my right to vote.
You have just outed yourself as a bona fide wingnut.
Ya' remember that old cartoon of the little bird with the great big eyes? When something unexplainable happened he would just stand there dumbfounded, blinking slowly, at a loss for words. I know just how he feels.
And with MOD HAT ON for the benefit of all: Tread lightly whenever thoughts of personal attacks waft over your keyboards. Such attacks are still in conflict with the forum rules (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?12-Forum-Etiquette).
The voter intimidation of the present tends to involve sending flyers out in poor neighborhoods "warning" people that they are going to get arrested at the polls if they have warrants out or owe child support. Voter intimidation does not look like hulked up goons at the polls any more. It is much
more subtle.
There is a fairly rational line of thinking that says it may not be such a bad idea to deny the privilege of voting to those who's behavior is criminal in the eyes of society or who are not meeting the obligations placed on them by the rules of that society. Innocence until proven guilty notwithstanding.
Perhaps we would give these guys the same benefit of the doubt as Zimmerman if they had guns instead of merely sticks, cause unfortunately the National Stick Association lacks both the political and the ideological creds.>8)
As to Zimmerman, lacking a video of him, I can't really say. Where did you see the video?
However, in my state, which has some of the most pro-gun laws in the country, a fellow carrying a firearm in the manner that fellow in the video was would almost certainly be violating state law (*) (RCW 9.41.270), and if I were on a jury and the facts in accordance with the appearance of that video, I'd vote to acquit.
If called as an expert witness, which as a police baton instructor for several varieties of baton I am, I would have a few pretty convincing things to say about the manner in which the baton was being held, and the likely outcome of strikes made in that manner. I presume you are similarly qualified to speak to this?
Tell you what, go walk up to a law enforcement officer on the street while you are wielding a baton like that, and get within 21 feet. Report back to us how it goes for you...
I also provided a link to the text of the testimony in front of the US Commission on Civil Rights by people who were actually present during the incident, and what they experienced....
But they'd still be black, so...I don't know.
As to your attempt to call me a racist here, well, that's just loathsome on your part. Nicely done.
(*)"....It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons."
As to Zimmerman, lacking a video of him, I can't really say. Where did you see the video?
However, in my state, which has some of the most pro-gun laws in the country, a fellow carrying a firearm in the manner that fellow in the video was would almost certainly be violating state law (*) (RCW 9.41.270), and if I were on a jury and the facts in accordance with the appearance of that video, I'd vote to acquit.
If called as an expert witness, which as a police baton instructor for several varieties of baton I am, I would have a few pretty convincing things to say about the manner in which the baton was being held, and the likely outcome of strikes made in that manner. I presume you are similarly qualified to speak to this?
Tell you what, go walk up to a law enforcement officer on the street while you are wielding a baton like that, and get within 21 feet. Report back to us how it goes for you...
I also provided a link to the text of the testimony in front of the US Commission on Civil Rights by people who were actually present during the incident, and what they experienced....
As to your attempt to call me a racist here, well, that's just loathsome on your part. Nicely done.
(*)"....It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons."
yeah, well, how exactly does voter ID laws address this? And all things being equal, no one died, or was even remotely harmed by these two duffus, however, Zimmerman KILLED an innocent kid. One, the two idiots at the polling place, plastered all over the Internet nearly 4 years later as evidence, apparently, of the reason for voter ID (inexplicably), and two, an actual killing of someone who was in fact a loose cannon with a gun who enjoys the full protection and faith of NRA members simply because he was a registered gun owner (like THAT fact makes him worthy of innocence until proven guilty, and beyond). One we question beyond reason and the other, beyond question. I find those who question one but accept the other based solely on 'do they belong to my club' as ideological hacks, either way, and certainly not worthy of careful consideration in their opinion.
There is a fairly rational line of thinking that says it may not be such a bad idea to deny the privilege of voting to those who's behavior is criminal in the eyes of society or who are not meeting the obligations placed on them by the rules of that society. Innocence until proven guilty notwithstanding.
So, those who refuse to carry health insurance, or pay the penalty for not doing so should be denied the right to vote? Good to know.;)
I love how we expect the full weight of the law to be applied to those we deem unworthy, yet vilify the law (and law makers) that shoulder that weight. I don't mean you personally Gregg, Just 'some' in general.
yeah, well, how exactly does voter ID laws address this? .... One, the two idiots at the polling place, plastered all over the Internet nearly 4 years later as evidence, apparently, of the reason for voter ID (inexplicably), ...
If you actually wipe the spittle off your screen long enough to read the thread, you'll find that the two idiots at the polling place were offered as support for the statement that said: "Voter suppression. Voter caging. Disenfranchisement. Voter intimidation. Those are real voting rights issues. Voter fraud is a chimera..."
I think that the problem is that many of these older voters (in their 80's and 90's) no longer drive and have no driver's license. Additionally, they may have last registered to vote 30 or 40 years ago when they had ID or still knew where their birth certificates were located but now they simply no longer have access to these documents. I'm thinking when I'm 90 I probably won't be too concerned about the location of my birth certificate either.
There are 90+-year-olds who have voted in most elections all their lives and now they suddenly will be forbidden from voting because they LEGITIMATELY no longer have access to the documents what would allow them to get an ID.
But why couldn't they use a utility bill as ID? Do you really think someone who wants to vote illegally is going to break into someone's house to steal their electric bill so they can then go to the polls and pose as the person whose bill they stole? It's absurd.
I don't see why a voter registration card wouldn't suffice. It wouldn't even have to have a photo on it - my ATM card and credit card both seem to work fine without photos, with simple PINs. A little thinking should be able to produce a voter registration card that is verifiable, or at least only voted once.
You'd have to convince your voting authorities it was a big enough problem to spend the $$$ to resolve it. My local ones seem bent on spending hundreds of thousands on systems for problems we don't have, that create bigger problems, so how hard could it be to sell them on more? :-)
There is a fairly rational line of thinking that says it may not be such a bad idea to deny the privilege of voting to those who's behavior is criminal in the eyes of society or who are not meeting the obligations placed on them by the rules of that society. Innocence until proven guilty notwithstanding.
Well that statement makes me furious. It is completely wrong in terms of the notion of democracy andvoter intimidation efforts by anonymous operatives are blatantly ILLEGAL. It is NOT rational. It is the voting equivalent of vigilante justice and since we've mentioned Trayvon on this thread we see the dangers of that.
It is not rational merely a rationalization for anti democratic actvities that tend to benefit the GOP. Very angry actually about this cavalier indeed almost contemptuous attitude towards voting rights advanced by GOP partisans. What you said is exactly the same rationale used to disenfranchise people all the time. Some people don't deserve to vote: poor folks, black folks, women. If someone is registered to vote and qualified to vote THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION to impede that person from voting. Period.
Ya' remember that old cartoon of the little bird with the great big eyes? When something unexplainable happened he would just stand there dumbfounded, blinking slowly, at a loss for words. I know just how he feels.
And with MOD HAT ON for the benefit of all: Tread lightly whenever thoughts of personal attacks waft over your keyboards. Such attacks are still in conflict with the forum rules (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?12-Forum-Etiquette).
It really is not an attack. Just a jokey way of saying this: the black panther party story is ridiculous. It is the epitome of a radical right wing ginned up outrage that should remain behind the closed doors of Town Hall or breitbart and not introduced into an intelligent conversation. And it is offensive because it's narrative is in perfect aligment with the Southern strategy which makes it inherently racist. Being a provacateur is one thing but bringing that up was over the top. So that was my real point. Is it clear I do not really think BAE is a wingnut because I agree with him on plenty of stuff so obviously that would preclude him being a knee jerk right winger since I am more dogmatic in my beliefs.
The only reason all of this voter fraud stuff is coming up is the GOP got total control of a lot of state houses. Now they want to keep control by passing rediculess voter ID laws for a problem that does not exist.
As said above there have only been 400 cases of voter fraud in 10 years. Tens of millions of people have voted in that time period. The justice department is suing Texas to stop their voter fraud law. Texas will accept a concealed weapons permit as ID but not a student photo ID. Ask your. Self who is more likely to a GOP supporter an NRA member or a student.
Get real these laws have only one purpose and that is to suppress the Democratic party supporters vote.
iris lily
7-11-12, 10:14am
The only reason all of this voter fraud stuff is coming up is the GOP got total control of a lot of state houses. Now they want to keep control by passing rediculess voter ID laws for a problem that does not exist.
As said above there have only been 400 cases of voter fraud in 10 years. Tens of millions of people have voted in that time period. The justice department is suing Texas to stop their voter fraud law. Texas will accept a concealed weapons permit as ID but not a student photo ID. Ask your. Self who is more likely to a GOP supporter an NRA member or a student.
Get real these laws have only one purpose and that is to suppress the Democratic party supporters vote.
This Self suspects that given the rigorous protocol one must engage in to get a weapon, and knowing how freely student ID's are handed out, this is not necessarily unjust. Perhaps it is, perhaps not. But really, in the end, if the point is a photo ID to identify the person, I'd be ok with that.
This Self suspects that given the rigorous protocol one must engage in to get a weapon, and knowing how freely student ID's are handed out, this is not necessarily unjust. Perhaps it is, perhaps not. But really, in the end, if the point is a photo ID to identify the person, I'd be ok with that.
+1
Zimmerman KILLED an innocent kid.
I missed the report telling us that Trayvon Martin was (beyond any doubt) not engaging in any activity that was threatening to Mr. Zimmerman. It would certainly be convenient for your argument if that is the case, but I don't think its been established either way, yet.
So, those who refuse to carry health insurance, or pay the penalty for not doing so should be denied the right to vote? Good to know.
Well peggy, I hadn't thought about health insurance in this light. You're a lot more up to speed on Obamacare than me. Is it a felony offence if you don't pay? Should we make it one if its not?
It really is not an attack. Just a jokey way of saying this...
Just a heads up rosebud, in the filter of the forum etiquette your original statement did infringe on the rules. This medium does not allow us to see your tongue in your cheek the way we might in a physical conversation so the words have to stand alone. Smiley faces and avatars of any form also do not serve to lessen the impact of words. Not picking on you, all of us need to keep that in mind. A little proof reading and self-editing as needed prior to posting usually completely eliminates the need for any moderation.
"Student ID Card
ACC Photo Student ID Cards
Students can come to any campus Admissions & Records Office one business day after registering for classes to have a photo ID card issued. Students must present a valid state or federally issued photo ID, such as a Driver's License, to receive their permanent (will not expire at the end of each semester) ACC Student ID card. Lost or stolen cards will need to be reported to an Admissions Office immediately, where a replacement card can be issued; a replacement fee will apply."
A student ID card in Texas requires about as much as a permit to carry a deadly weapon. The info above is for a junior collage in Texas. But in Texas a student ID card is not good enough to vote. The Republicans in control of Texas want to suppress the Democratic vote pure and simple!
I missed the report telling us that Trayvon Martin was (beyond any doubt) not engaging in any activity that was threatening to Mr. Zimmerman. It would certainly be convenient for your argument if that is the case, but I don't think its been established either way, yet.
.
Well peggy, I hadn't thought about health insurance in this light. You're a lot more up to speed on Obamacare than me. Is it a felony offence if you don't pay? Should we make it one if its not?
Is it a felony offense to be behind in child support?
Sure, Zimmerman could have been simply defending himself from a raging lunatic who wanted to beat him over the head with a can of tea and a bag of skittles, after first cleverly luring Zimmerman from his car to follow and then pull his gun.....in a pigs eye!
You know, most crime doesn't have video to show what happened, but then that's why we have this grey matter between our ears, so we can figure things out, and this one doesn't exactly demand a brain surgeon. Here is a kid, who lives in the neighborhood, going to the store for some snacks, then on his way home, while there is self appointed 'neighborhood protector', with a gun, cruising looking for trouble, gets out of this car, stalks the unarmed kid, then next we have the kid dead on the ground and Zimmerman standing over him with his own gun which was fired to kill the kid. You would sure make a pretty poor detective if you can't figure this one out, cause, again, most crime doesn't come with video yet people are prosecuted and convicted everyday on less evidence that this. You have motive, you have weapon, and you have the guy standing over the body with the smoking gun saying "oh, I felt threatened!" and you believe that! Well, open the prison doors now cause prison is full of innocent people! The 'ol, "Well, you don't actually have video" defense.
Makes on wonder how anyone manages to exist day to day without video to help them think and figure anything out!
As to Zimmerman, lacking a video of him, I can't really say. Where did you see the video?
However, in my state, which has some of the most pro-gun laws in the country, a fellow carrying a firearm in the manner that fellow in the video was would almost certainly be violating state law (*) (RCW 9.41.270), and if I were on a jury and the facts in accordance with the appearance of that video, I'd vote to acquit.
If called as an expert witness, which as a police baton instructor for several varieties of baton I am, I would have a few pretty convincing things to say about the manner in which the baton was being held, and the likely outcome of strikes made in that manner. I presume you are similarly qualified to speak to this?
Tell you what, go walk up to a law enforcement officer on the street while you are wielding a baton like that, and get within 21 feet. Report back to us how it goes for you...
I also provided a link to the text of the testimony in front of the US Commission on Civil Rights by people who were actually present during the incident, and what they experienced....
As to your attempt to call me a racist here, well, that's just loathsome on your part. Nicely done.
(*)"....It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons."
Yeah, well, see this would all be good argument, especially the link to state law and all, and normally I could nod and agree...except, the same argument that condemns these guys carrying a stick, and they are really really big sticks, kind of gets swept under the rug when we discussed tea baggers carrying GUNS to a POLITICAL rally in order to INTIMIDATE political leaders they didn't happen to agree with. In that instance we were all kind of OK with that, weren't we. We were positively warm and fuzzy about that! So, let me get this straight.
Black guys with sticks, (or cans of tea and bags of skittles) = bad
tea baggers (or neighborhood protectors) with guns = good
Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.
Sure, Zimmerman could have been simply defending himself from a raging lunatic who wanted to beat him over the head with a can of tea and a bag of skittles, after first cleverly luring Zimmerman from his car to follow and then pull his gun.....in a pigs eye!
You know, most crime doesn't have video to show what happened, but then that's why we have this grey matter between our ears, so we can figure things out, and this one doesn't exactly demand a brain surgeon. Here is a kid, who lives in the neighborhood, going to the store for some snacks, then on his way home, while there is self appointed 'neighborhood protector', with a gun, cruising looking for trouble, gets out of this car, stalks the unarmed kid, then next we have the kid dead on the ground and Zimmerman standing over him with his own gun which was fired to kill the kid. You would sure make a pretty poor detective if you can't figure this one out, cause, again, most crime doesn't come with video yet people are prosecuted and convicted everyday on less evidence that this. You have motive, you have weapon, and you have the guy standing over the body with the smoking gun saying "oh, I felt threatened!" and you believe that! Well, open the prison doors now cause prison is full of innocent people! The 'ol, "Well, you don't actually have video" defense.
Makes on wonder how anyone manages to exist day to day without video to help them think and figure anything out!
Your version of the story could very well be all there is to it peggy. I don't know enough of the details of the investigation to draw that conclusion. Not sure anyone does yet, but I'm guessing there are detectives on the case that are doing more than watching CNBC when it comes to gathering evidence. As I said earlier its very convenient to the argument that Zimmerman is a gun totin', right wing, racist vigilante if you simply skip all the stuff that comes in the middle and jump right to the verdict. I would maintain that the stuff (things like a trial) is what really gives us the chance to USE the grey matter between our ears. There is, thankfully, more to our process than using simple word association style reactions or slanted media reports to determine guilt or innocence.
Yeah, well, see this would all be good argument, especially the link to state law and all, and normally I could nod and agree...except, the same argument that condemns these guys carrying a stick, and they are really really big sticks, kind of gets swept under the rug when we discussed tea baggers carrying GUNS to a POLITICAL rally in order to INTIMIDATE political leaders they didn't happen to agree with.
Can you show me photos or videos of Tea Party people carrying GUNS at a POLITICAL rally in a manner that manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons? Simply carrying a firearm without brandishing it, doesn't meet that standard. I could point you at plenty of case law or memos from various Attorney Generals on this point, if you were interested in facts, but there's clearly no point in doing so.
I recently attended a state-level political convention for a major party for a week, as a delegate for a presidential candidate. There were citizens on the convention floor carrying firearms in holsters, as is lawful in this state, and some of them were standing right next to senators, candidates for governor, our state's Attorney General, and a national-level presidential candidate's son, and there was no panic or alarm. Wonder why?
Can you show me photos or videos of Tea Party people carrying GUNS at a POLITICAL rally in a manner that manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons? Simply carrying a firearm without brandishing it, doesn't meet that standard. I could point you at plenty of case law or memos from various Attorney Generals on this point, if you were interested in facts, but there's clearly no point in doing so.
I recently attended a state-level political convention for a major party for a week, as a delegate for a presidential candidate. There were citizens on the convention floor carrying firearms in holsters, as is lawful in this state, and some of them were standing right next to senators, candidates for governor, our state's Attorney General, and a national-level presidential candidate's son, and there was no panic or alarm. Wonder why?
Well, you kind of make my case. Thanks.
Can you show me photos or videos of Tea Party people carrying GUNS at a POLITICAL rally in a manner that manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons? Simply carrying a firearm without brandishing it, doesn't meet that standard.
I wonder if peggy is thinking of this incident: http://www.bvblackspin.com/2009/08/11/obama-town-hall-protester-with-gun/
and contrast that with the peaceful couple who were arrested just for wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt when Bush was giving a speech: http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc082007
and I'm also reminded of the professionally printed Tea Party signs which said "We Came Unarmed (this time)."
no, that's not supposed to be intimidating at all.
I wonder if peggy is thinking of this incident: http://www.bvblackspin.com/2009/08/11/obama-town-hall-protester-with-gun/
A handgun in plain view in a holster is not "brandishing", typically. Probably why he wasn't arrested and charged with a crime.
Also, was he doing this at a polling place, where people are trying to walk in to vote? No.
As I said, there were plenty of firearms present at the state convention here recently, and plenty of law enforcement, and I didn't see anyone arrested. Because they weren't brandishing.
Now, if you have some irrational fear of weapons, I can see how you might be "intimidated", but the law doesn't address the behaviour or fears of irrational people in considering the actions of normal citizens, generally.
iris lily
7-12-12, 12:32am
...while there is self appointed 'neighborhood protector', with a gun, cruising looking for trouble...
The Zimmerman characterization is stupid. I drive around in citizen patrol in my neighborhood because I care about my neighborhood and someone has to be eyes and ears for police. I don't brandish a weapon but instead have fun trading gossip with my fellow patrolling neighbor. We aren't supposed to go out on night patrol alone, so having someone you like as a partner is important in our two hour stint.
You know, the police ENCOURAGE organized citizen patrols and our neighborhood safety program. We are a model for the entire city. Well, I've lived out in the burbs and back then had no inkling of what strong neighborhoods must do to stay intact and safe, so I assume that those of you who make fun of George Zimmerman as vigilante are simply ignorant. I forgive you but suggest that you don't move here. We don't want people here who are confused about who the bad guys are.
Can you show me photos or videos of Tea Party people carrying GUNS at a POLITICAL rally in a manner that manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons? Simply carrying a firearm without brandishing it, doesn't meet that standard. I could point you at plenty of case law or memos from various Attorney Generals on this point, if you were interested in facts, but there's clearly no point in doing so.
I recently attended a state-level political convention for a major party for a week, as a delegate for a presidential candidate. There were citizens on the convention floor carrying firearms in holsters, as is lawful in this state, and some of them were standing right next to senators, candidates for governor, our state's Attorney General, and a national-level presidential candidate's son, and there was no panic or alarm. Wonder why?
Well obviously it's because nobody was wearing a hoodie.
Well obviously it's because nobody was wearing a hoodie.
Shame on you.
I don't have an irrational fear of weapons. I think that people who need to march in public holding signs about their weapons and their implied use against those of an opposing political party are the irrational ones. And yes, they are meant to intimidate. Otherwise, their signs would say "We Came Without Chewing Gum (this time)" or "We Came Without Coffee Mugs (this time)."
I don't have an irrational fear of weapons. I think that people who need to march in public holding signs about their weapons and their implied use against those of an opposing political party are the irrational ones. And yes, they are meant to intimidate. Otherwise, their signs would say "We Came Without Chewing Gum (this time)" or "We Came Without Coffee Mugs (this time)."
And if there was a dedicated movement to limit or remove your ability to chew gum or drink coffee from a mug that would be perfectly rational behavior. It may also pay to be a little careful when you're filling in the blanks of what someone else is 'implying'. I've been to a fair number of Republican events and don't recall anyone ever suggesting we draw down on the Democrats with anything more than a checkbook.
I don't have an irrational fear of weapons. I think that people who need to march in public holding signs about their weapons and their implied use against those of an opposing political party are the irrational ones. And yes, they are meant to intimidate. Otherwise, their signs would say "We Came Without Chewing Gum (this time)" or "We Came Without Coffee Mugs (this time)."
The signs were not a means of intimidation, they were a visual reminder that many, many people still believe in the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Sometimes politicians forget that their personal ideologies are not consistent with those they represent.
The signs were not a means of intimidation, they were a visual reminder that many, many people still believe in the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Sometimes politicians forget that their personal ideologies are not consistent with those they represent.
And sometimes people are just stupid! People who haven't figured out, from the last 30 years, that EVERY FREAKING TIME an election rolls around the right pulls out the old "democrats are trying to take your guns away" meme. Wow! How many times can some be fooled? Well, apparently EVERY TIME, year after year after year!
You would think those evil democrats who are trying to take every one's gun away would actually, you know, put forth some sort of legislation to do that.
But, every time you all write about how two guys with sticks are SO intimidating but good ol boys with guns and signs to make sure we all SEE their guns aren't, you just make our point clearer and clearer. Keep talking. We got it, loud and clear.
The only reason a person wears a handgun strapped to their side is to intimidate. Or suggest they will use it, and there isn't much deer, or rabbit or whatever at a political rally. To suggest otherwise insults my intelligence, and yours.
A visual reminder? Really? Isn't that just another term for intimidation?
The Zimmerman characterization is stupid. I drive around in citizen patrol in my neighborhood because I care about my neighborhood and someone has to be eyes and ears for police. I don't brandish a weapon but instead have fun trading gossip with my fellow patrolling neighbor. We aren't supposed to go out on night patrol alone, so having someone you like as a partner is important in our two hour stint.
You know, the police ENCOURAGE organized citizen patrols and our neighborhood safety program. We are a model for the entire city. Well, I've lived out in the burbs and back then had no inkling of what strong neighborhoods must do to stay intact and safe, so I assume that those of you who make fun of George Zimmerman as vigilante are simply ignorant. I forgive you but suggest that you don't move here. We don't want people here who are confused about who the bad guys are.
But the police DON'T encourage those citizen patrols to carry weapons! And Zimmerman was armed, AND got out of his car to follow this poor kids who was probably scared sh--less by this guy stalking him at night. so, Iris, this clown wasn't like your citizen patrol. He was alone, at night, armed, and stalking whom he thought was a bad guy simply because he was black and wearing a hoodie. Is this like your citizen patrol? No one is bad mouthing neighborhood watch, which is a good program, but this guy wasn't a 'neighborhood watch' but a 'cop wanna-be' who thought he was gonna catch him a bad guy.
I don't think he set out that morning to shoot someone, but he did and now he needs to pay cause some innocent kid is dead. Some one's son is dead, and that isn't what neighborhood watch is all about. And yes, I believe the kid was innocent by the FACTS of what we know, and not by Zimmermans story. This kid lived there, went to the store for snacks (didn't rob it or threaten the store clerk or do any other evil/suspicious deed) headed home and was confronted (for what?) by an idiot with a gun, and the kid is dead on the ground with Zimmerman standing over him with a smoking gun.
*no gregg, there isn't video, but I think smart people can figure this one out.
Shame on you.
No shame on you for trotting out that black panther clap trap. And shame on you for putting the question out there that begs the answer I posted.
No shame on you for trotting out that black panther clap trap.
My hometown paper carries this quote at the top of the front page, "If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen". Technilogically antiquated maybe, but still seems like sage advice to me.
[QUOTE=Gregg;90189]And if there was a dedicated movement to limit or remove your ability to chew gum or drink coffee from a mug that would be perfectly rational behavior. It may also pay to be a little careful when you're filling in the blanks of what someone else is 'implying'. I've been to a fair number of Republican events and don't recall anyone ever suggesting we draw down on the Democrats with anything more than a checkbook.
Right leaning politicians have been known to use quite a lot of eliminationist rhetoric against political opponents. They have been known to use quite a lot of language that suggests violence and they use a lot of guns as props and they like gun metaphors in political messaging. Lock and load, target scopes, etc.
It can be constued as a veiled threat of violence. We've heard rhetoric suggesting that if the ballot box does not produce the correct results the people will have to resort to the bullet box. Stuff like that day in and day out tends to breed paranoia and resentment on the left and who can blame us? Left wingers use violent rhetoric too with references to tbe guillotine and pitchforks...but the leftists who do this are bloggers and anonymous commentors, not politicians and folks who have a place at the table of mainstream media.
Nobody is taking your dang guns away, okay? The SCOTUS has affirmed your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the majority of citizens agree that we all have the right to own guns. Not a single piece of legislation curbing gun rights in any way has been touted by the current administration. The dedicated movement you speak of has no visibility or power. So what on earth are you talking about? Do these folks walk around outside Republican events with guns in view? As far as I can tell they only protest outside Democratic events. So how can you be sure of the intent?
My hometown paper carries this quote at the top of the front page, "If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen". Technilogically antiquated maybe, but still seems like sage advice to me.
Point not taken. There is a distinction between a news story and an event that is not particularly significant but has the right elements to spin into a ridiculous partisan controversy for political gain. There is a distinction between your average bland middle of the road centrist home town newspaper and the right wing noise machine.
And I did not do anything. Two guys did something. They were investigated properly and that is the end of the story. There is no grand scheme to deprive Republicans or white people of their right to vote, either by state action or covert action. So the only reason to cite to this story is to distract or invoke the racism of white people.
Nobody is taking your dang guns away, okay? The SCOTUS has affirmed your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the majority of citizens agree that we all have the right to own guns. Not a single piece of legislation curbing gun rights in any way has been touted by the current administration. The dedicated movement you speak of has no visibility or power. So what on earth are you talking about?
Yes, that pesky 2nd Amendment has prevented it so far, although this administration has made it fairly clear that it would like to skirt the Constitution, if possible, in order to achieve the desired result. It is on record, and undisputed, that President Obama told Sarah Brady that his administration was working behind the scenes to do so. This administration is also supporting the current UN Arms Treaty which goes so far as to ban the sale and possession of any weapon with a magazine, and, you still gotta wonder what they were thinking with that whole 'Fast & Furious' thing. Secretly allowing the transfer of weapons to known criminals in Mexico, without the ability to track them and without the knowledge of the Mexican government or police. What could their motive have possibly been?
Do these folks walk around outside Republican events with guns in view? As far as I can tell they only protest outside Democratic events. So how can you be sure of the intent?
That's called 'targeting your message'. Oops is that an intimidating phrase?
Right leaning politicians have been known to use quite a lot of eliminationist rhetoric against political opponents. They have been known to use quite a lot of language that suggests violence and they use a lot of guns as props and they like gun metaphors in political messaging. Lock and load, target scopes, etc.
It can be constued as a veiled threat of violence.
I'll pay more attention and see if I'm able to pick all that out in the next few Republican speeches I hear and get back to you. In the mean time I personally find that type of metaphorical speech poses far less threat than such catchy phrases as, "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world" or the classic, "I'm a warrior for the middle class". It's really not even necessary to tout things like, "I've been fighting with Acorn, alongside Acorn, on issues you care about, my entire career" to recognize a real threat, so I won't.
*no gregg, there isn't video, but I think smart people can figure this one out.
We've been a country for 236 years and had the basic form of our current justice system for a little less than that. The number of bad guys that have been brought to justice, and even more important the number if innocent people that were acquitted, because of video evidence isn't even a blip on the radar. Videos weren't possible in the past and aren't necessary today. Nice if you have 'em, sure, but not necessary. My real question is why would George Zimmerman not be entitled to the same benefit of the doubt and the same right to a fair trial that others in 200+ years received? Smart people figured out how to make it work a long time ago. Smart people can still do that without seeing it on TV. And i think most smart people realize that jumping to a conclusion before all the evidence has been presented isn't very....well, smart.
I'll pay more attention and see if I'm able to pick all that out in the next few Republican speeches I hear and get back to you. In the mean time I personally find that type of metaphorical speech poses far less threat than such catchy phrases as, "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world" or the classic, "I'm a warrior for the middle class". It's really not even necessary to tout things like, "I've been fighting with Acorn, alongside Acorn, on issues you care about, my entire career" to recognize a real threat, so I won't.
Oh, gregg, your republican hack-els are showing!:0! Acorn? Really? Gee, didn't know Acorn was a subversive, illegal, criminal organization. And here all along I thought it was a community organization there to help, you know, the community. Only in republican world is it a damnation that you work to improve your community. Or applaud when education is condemned, or sneer about public workers, teachers, community organizers, and other 'blood-sucking government types'.
And of course, in Fox/Rush Beck world it's an absolute crime to cheer for the middle class cause then you can't pay homage and bow down to all them there really smart folks who make bags and bags of money cause you know, they might get upset and stop investing their bags and bags of money so nothing trickles down to us poor slobs!
And really, we are just too stupid to figure out that even though the Bush Tax cuts have been in effect for, what, 11-12 years now, those 'job creators' haven't gotten the message cause, they ain't creating jobs, although they DID create jobs way back when Clinton was in office and he RAISED.....whoops, can't let that little bit of info out of the bag can we....quick, divert the message, quote some Latin or something...grab your guns cause, the democrats are trying to get your guns!
Personally I think a person who tried to help his community, in his community, right here in the US, is a much better choice to work for us all than someone who seems to think his community is somewhere off shore, in Switzerland, or the Cayman islands perhaps. Gee, has Romney EVER worked for his community? To better it? Do you really want to say that working for your community is a bad thing?
We've been a country for 236 years and had the basic form of our current justice system for a little less than that. The number of bad guys that have been brought to justice, and even more important the number if innocent people that were acquitted, because of video evidence isn't even a blip on the radar. Videos weren't possible in the past and aren't necessary today. Nice if you have 'em, sure, but not necessary. My real question is why would George Zimmerman not be entitled to the same benefit of the doubt and the same right to a fair trial that others in 200+ years received? Smart people figured out how to make it work a long time ago. Smart people can still do that without seeing it on TV. And i think most smart people realize that jumping to a conclusion before all the evidence has been presented isn't very....well, smart.
And what exactly more do we need? We have heard the story, from Zimmerman, and seen the re-enactment, from Zimmerman. It's his gun. The kid was unarmed. The kid was on his way home from the store. Zimmerman was told not to get out of his car. Unfortunately we can never hear the kids side, so we need to speak for him.
I hate to say it but picture this. If it were a black, armed "neighborhood protector" standing over a dead, unarmed white 17 year old simply on his way home from the store, how do you think that would have played out? I think you are old enough and smart enough to know how that would have come down. But are you honest enough?
And what exactly more do we need? We have heard the story, from Zimmerman, and seen the re-enactment, from Zimmerman. It's his gun. The kid was unarmed. The kid was on his way home from the store. Zimmerman was told not to get out of his car. Unfortunately we can never hear the kids side, so we need to speak for him.
?
How about a trial? Innocent until proven guilty? The truth is, we don't know what happened. That's why we have a system of justice that allows for a jury of peers to decide guilt or innocence based on the facts. Media hype, leaks, etc are not facts. Zimmerman deserves his day in court.
I'll pay more attention and see if I'm able to pick all that out in the next few Republican speeches I hear and get back to you. .
Here's one from a Santorum supporter: http://loop21.com/politics/gop-supporter-tells-santorum-pretend-its-obama-gun-range
And who can forget Sarah Palin's slogan, "Don't retreat, reload!"
Wonderful language to use against people who happen to have a different political point of view.
you still gotta wonder what they were thinking with that whole 'Fast & Furious' thing. Secretly allowing the transfer of weapons to known criminals in Mexico, without the ability to track them and without the knowledge of the Mexican government or police. What could their motive have possibly been?
We could ask Bush what the motive was, since the whole operation started under his administration: http://www.npr.org/2012/06/21/155513757/why-operation-fast-and-furious-failed
We could ask Bush what the motive was, since the whole operation started under his administration: http://www.npr.org/2012/06/21/155513757/why-operation-fast-and-furious-failed
Yes, but then we'd have to explore the differences between the various operations. Prior to 2009, the weapons were traceable through GPS transmitters and the ATF worked with the Mexican government and local Mexican law enforcement to trace them. Once there was evidence that the GPS devices had been compromised, the operation was aborted.
What made Fast & Furious different was that the weapons were not traceable from the start and the Mexican government and local Mexican law enforcement were not partners in the operation. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason for providing those weapons without any possible means of tracing them through their lifecycle with the criminal enterprises they were intended for.
Maybe under a new administration, the facts of the case will come out since it doesn't seem to be forthcoming under this one.
I deleted post because I could not find link backing up my post.
I hate to say it but picture this. If it were a black, armed "neighborhood protector" standing over a dead, unarmed white 17 year old simply on his way home from the store, how do you think that would have played out? I think you are old enough and smart enough to know how that would have come down. But are you honest enough?
Do you want me to back you up and say there is a strong probability that the shooter in your scenario would be convicted by public outrage even before a trial and that the outcome of the trial could be influenced by factors beyond simple evidence? Ok, you got it. A black man shooting a white teen may very well have a more difficult time in front of a white judge in the deep south than he would in front of a black judge in a northern inner city (example only). Even for an educated, articulate person, as we all hope our judges are, human prejudices and social environment are going to play a role. That does not mean that we should simply accept that and jump to the point where we decide a trial isn't really necessary because the "facts" are so obvious.
How about a trial? Innocent until proven guilty? The truth is, we don't know what happened. That's why we have a system of justice that allows for a jury of peers to decide guilt or innocence based on the facts. Media hype, leaks, etc are not facts. Zimmerman deserves his day in court.
Careful Midwest, taking the position that CNBC may have withheld information that could acquit Mr. Zimmerman is treading on thin ice. I suppose we should all be grateful that they are trying to save taxpayers the cost of a real trial.
Do you want me to back you up and say there is a strong probability that the shooter in your scenario would be convicted by public outrage even before a trial and that the outcome of the trial could be influenced by factors beyond simple evidence? Ok, you got it. A black man shooting a white teen may very well have a more difficult time in front of a white judge in the deep south than he would in front of a black judge in a northern inner city (example only). Even for an educated, articulate person, as we all hope our judges are, human prejudices and social environment are going to play a role. That does not mean that we should simply accept that and jump to the point where we decide a trial isn't really necessary because the "facts" are so obvious.
Careful Midwest, taking the position that CNBC may have withheld information that could acquit Mr. Zimmerman is treading on thin ice. I suppose we should all be grateful that they are trying to save taxpayers the cost of a real trial.
I know a news organziation wouldn't try to inflame the situation or adjust the facts. Oh, wait http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/03/2781802/nbc-correspondent-fired-over-doctored.html
I'm glad we have trials to find the innocence or guilt of the party involved.
I know a news organziation wouldn't try to inflame the situation or adjust the facts. Oh, wait http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/03/2781802/nbc-correspondent-fired-over-doctored.html
I'm glad we have trials to find the innocence or guilt of the party involved.
At least a real news organization stands up and fires the bad journalist. If Fox did that, it would be pretty much empty sets wouldn't it. But we don't need to worry about that. Fox would never do that!
Do you want me to back you up and say there is a strong probability that the shooter in your scenario would be convicted by public outrage even before a trial and that the outcome of the trial could be influenced by factors beyond simple evidence? Ok, you got it. A black man shooting a white teen may very well have a more difficult time in front of a white judge in the deep south than he would in front of a black judge in a northern inner city (example only). Even for an educated, articulate person, as we all hope our judges are, human prejudices and social environment are going to play a role. That does not mean that we should simply accept that and jump to the point where we decide a trial isn't really necessary because the "facts" are so obvious.
Careful Midwest, taking the position that CNBC may have withheld information that could acquit Mr. Zimmerman is treading on thin ice. I suppose we should all be grateful that they are trying to save taxpayers the cost of a real trial.
Wow, now who is making assumptions! I never said there shouldn't be a trial. Did I say that? I don't think so, but if you think I said there shouldn't be a trial, please post the thread where I said there shouldn't be a trial and I will gladly apologize. Otherwise, I think you need to walk that one back.;)
Of course there should be a trial. This is the US, and everyone deserves a fair trial. I just said we still know pretty much what happened. Sometimes you don't need a trial to tell you what happened. I'm pretty sure, even though they were 'tried and burned', the women of Salem weren't witches!
And really, how could that altered tape ACQUIT Zimmerman. Just because he didn't make this raciest remark doesn't mean he was somehow justified in shooting this UNARMED kid. that's a pretty silly assumption.:~)
Of course there should be a trial. This is the US, and everyone deserves a fair trial. I just said we still know pretty much what happened. Sometimes you don't need a trial to tell you what happened.
But sometimes you do need more than a Today show report. Hey, I don't mind Today. DW watches it every morning while she gets ready for work. In addition to all the journalistic grit of the Trayvon Martin cases, where else you gonna turn to get 20 minutes of insight from multiple correspondents regarding why Katie left Tom (whoever the hell they are)?
I'll stop chasing my tail here peggy. I didn't say you said Zimmerman didn't deserve a trial. I only said that we should not get so caught up in media coverage and what we think happened, using the information that was spoon fed to us, that we begin to believe a trial isn't really all that necessary. History gives us a few similar types of cases and it usually didn't turn out so well. Even so, if it came across that I had my crosshairs trained on you (:devil:) specifically, then I'm sorry. I know you're a lot sharper than that.
There's a paper on this effect...
http://www.tandfonline.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/lsqa20/2009/lsqa20.v028.i01/07474940802619451/production/images/lsqa_a_362113_o_um0043.gif
And really, how could that altered tape ACQUIT Zimmerman. Just because he didn't make this raciest remark doesn't mean he was somehow justified in shooting this UNARMED kid. that's a pretty silly assumption.:~)
It is a lack of evidence that could acquit Zimmerman, but you're right, basing opinions on any assumption without real evidence is silly. Zimmerman may be guilty as sin itself, but the prosecutor still has to PROVE that beyond ANY reasonable doubt. The guys who set up our system seemed to believe it is better to risk letting a crook go once in a while than it is to risk locking up an innocent man. Not everyone feels the same way.
There's a paper on this effect...
Gee bae, I may be forgetful sometimes,:0! but I'm pretty sure I didn't post that. Perhaps you were thinking of some other intentionally obscure, condescendingly fatuous mucker. :~)
Peggy: it has to do with detecting termination conditions and cycles in discrete Markov processes. Highly applicable to your posts in this thread., and I thought I'd just save you the time typing further screed...
But I see your program chugs along, with the predictable insults and other charming behaviour.
You get a D+ on your Turing test.
"“Our business is infested with idiots who try to impress by using pretentious jargon.” David Ogilvy
"The time spent in trying to impress others could be spent in doing the things by which others would be impressed."
Romer, Frank
A+ bae fior obtuse blah blah blah... really, no one is impressed. Pretty much skip over this stuff...I'm just saying...
At least a real news organization stands up and fires the bad journalist. If Fox did that, it would be pretty much empty sets wouldn't it. But we don't need to worry about that. Fox would never do that!
Yes, the journalist was fired. The point, however, remains that the news was clearly biased and allowed to air. If Fox was biased the other way, it would still prove my point that a trial is necessary to determine guilt or innocence.
I chose the above example not to prove or disprove the innocence of Zimmerman, but because it was an incredible example of media bias in this case.
In the United States, suspects are tried in a court of law. Not the court of public opinion.
Yes, the journalist was fired. The point, however, remains that the news was clearly biased and allowed to air. If Fox was biased the other way, it would still prove my point that a trial is necessary to determine guilt or innocence.
I chose the above example not to prove or disprove the innocence of Zimmerman, but because it was an incredible example of media bias in this case.
In the United States, suspects are tried in a court of law. Not the court of public opinion.
In any country, where humans are involved, people are tried in the court of public opinion! But they are also allowed their day in court in this, and most other countries.
Again, I never said he didn't deserve a trial. But I'm pretty sure of what happened, as are most people, knowing the story, and yes, we have heard all the story ad nauseam, just as we were all pretty sure what happened in the OJ Simpson case, yet he got his day in court and had the best lawyer money could buy, buying his freedom.
I don't think this guy set out to kill someone, but he did. That is a fact. It was his gun, that is a fact. The kid was unarmed, that is a fact. The guy was told to not get out of his car and pursue the kid, but he did, that is a fact. The kid was just at the store buying snacks, that is a fact (with video). Two voice experts have said the voice screaming for help on the tape is not Zimmerman. Unfortunately the kid is dead so they can't state for certain it was him, but unless there is a third party screaming for help, we can pretty much say it was the kid. The kid is dead, period.
But, Zimmerman does get his day in court.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.