(sigh) here we go again...

And in the on going war against voters, the republicans in Ohio have added their own particular twist to it all. They have kept early, in person voting for the military and their families, and eliminated it for everyone else, canceling the sat, sun and mon before the election, traditionally times when certain groups vote.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/r...173202620.html

And then dishonestly spin the Obama administration's suit to restore it to ALL Ohio people as 'trying to prevent military from voting'.

They are so incredibly dishonest! They know their guy or their party can't win without cheating or voter suppression!

I shouldn't be surprised by these scum tactics considering the sources, and yet i am. I guess what really surprises me is how many Americans are willing to go along and even defend this disenfranchising of other Americans. It's just a symptom of the systematic disrespecting and dehumanizing of one party towards the other. And it is very sad that so many Americans will so easily toss under the bus other Americans.
If I thought that republican voters were being suppressed, or tossed out, or otherwise systematically discouraged, denied or dissuaded from voting just because they were republican, you bet your ass I'd be up in arms about that! But, sadly, maybe another difference between republicans and democrats. Democrats want everyone to vote, and republicans only want 'some' to vote.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Democrats want everyone to vote, and republicans only want 'some' to vote.:(

---

Awww come on now peggy. Wouldn't you really rather see me stay home on November 6 just in case it's close?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Democrats want everyone to vote, and republicans only want 'some' to vote.:(

---

Democrats: vote early, vote often, and vote from the grave if we can find you! We have buses all ready to go, and union assistance in case you have trouble finding enough polling places!

http://www.timesunion.com/local/arti...ase-982948.php
http://www.timesunion.com/local/arti...ly-3402957.php


I bet we can find more examples.....

http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/W...138314509.html

I bet we can even find both parties engaged in it...

Why do we put up with it?

I think we're going to see more of the opposite this time around - valid voters (id's in hand) turned away from the polls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Democrats: vote early, vote often, and vote from the grave if we can find you! We have buses all ready to go, and union assistance in case you have trouble finding enough polling places!

http://www.timesunion.com/local/arti...ase-982948.php
http://www.timesunion.com/local/arti...ly-3402957.php


I bet we can find more examples.....

http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/W...138314509.html

I bet we can even find both parties engaged in it...

Why do we put up with it?

---

The first two are the the same guy who, by reading the article we find comes by his dishonesty 'honestly' as his dad was a scumbag too.
The third is also absentee ballot fraud.
Both would not be affected by voter ID laws as they were carried out at the 'courthouse level'. In fact, voter suppression laws, which voter ID laws are, would make this kind of crime EAISER as so many more would not be able to vote because of the id requirements, my dad, your grandmother, anyone who doesn't drive or travel out of the country, etc...thereby giving criminals even MORE names of non-voting voters to 'vote absentee'

On the national level there hasn't even been 1 case of in person voter fraud per state per vote in the last 10 years. Hardly worthy of preventing hundreds of thousands of voters from exercising their constitutional right.

But this is a distraction. We are talking about Ohio and their republicans blatant attempt to disenfranchise voters, except their block (military) of voters. Why would they cease early voting for everyone except military? This is so transparently dishonest! How transparently blatant does the attempt have to be before you see it or admit it? Here, let me make it even easier. The Penn. republican chairman actually lays it out for us. Says it in his own words! Voter ID laws will help Romney win.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/25/penn...lp_romney_win/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

Awww come on now peggy. Wouldn't you really rather see me stay home on November 6 just in case it's close?

---

No Gregg, I want you to vote. I want you to vote for that empty suit just waiting for Limbaugh or Norquist to shove their hand up his butt and pull the strings, cause if by some chance he wins, I want to know who to blame when this country falls off a cliff! I want to know who has the blood of our young service-people on their hands when he starts yet another war.

I want to know who voted for the most secretive candidate since Nixon, who's anti-transparent, holds no conviction on anything, refuses to actually discuss anything in his resume,(Bain, governorship) and expects you to vote for him just because he is him...or he deserves it...or it's his turn!

Yeah Gregg, I want you to vote! :)

Now, what do you say about these Ohio shenanigans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

No Gregg, I want you to vote.

---

Ok peggy, ya talked me into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Now, what do you say about these Ohio shenanigans?

---

To be honest I've paid a lot more attention to the Olympics than politics the past week or two. I've been trying to stay on top of issues here so have only really heard sound bites from Ohio. DS lives there and, as you know, he is fairly involved politically. I'll talk to him to get a little better idea of who's doing what before I say much. I think Alan is based in Ohio and he's certainly on top of issues so maybe he will share a little insight from ground zero while I try to get up to speed.

Quote:

---

I want to know who has the blood of our young service-people on their hands when he starts yet another war.

---

I still don't know whether Romney or Obama is more likely to do so. I assume you are talking Iran or Syria (which one first, changes every week?). Romney is giving off bad signals sure, talking about appointing neo-cons to his cabinet and so on. I don't see why anyone would have any reason whatsoever to trust Romney on these matters, all his signals are "more war".

But I also have no real confidence that Obama won't start these wars (merely that he hasn't yet - more or less) More or less? Yea well in some sense the U.S. military may already be said to be at war with these countries will all the covert stuff going on. The CIA is getting involved in covertly assisting rebels in Syria etc.. But it's not open war yet. All Obama has done so far is expanded drone operations to half a dozen other countries.

Throw a coin, heads or tails, who knows. No good choices left. The good choice for this on the Republican side was Ron Paul of course. No Dems ran against Obama so what can I say. There were no good choices for this on that side.

ok Gregg, fair enough. But I do want to hear your input when you have thought about it awhile. Alan's too, although I can pretty much guess his take on this, but maybe I'm wrong, and should apologize for assuming.

As for the Olympics, I'm sorry, I really don't like them. i don't normally watch sports anyway so I don't get all worked up for this sport event. Sure, the Olympics used to be a THING. A very special competition among countries. But, international competition happens every day in this modern age, so forgive me if i don't find the Olympics special. I just find them annoying really as it's all over the TV and papers and I can't really escape them.
And tell me this! Why isn't golf one of the sports? I mean, here is an exceedingly popular summer sport, one that takes great skill and is fairly objective in judging. Why isn't it one of the sports of the Olympics? They have beach volleyball for heavens sakes! And synchronized swimming!:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

I still don't know whether Romney or Obama is more likely to do so. I assume you are talking Iran or Syria (which one first, changes every week?). Romney is giving off bad signals sure, talking about appointing neo-cons to his cabinet and so on. I don't see why anyone would have any reason whatsoever to trust Romney on these matters, all his signals are "more war".

But I also have no real confidence that Obama won't start these wars (merely that he hasn't yet - more or less) More or less? Yea well in some sense the U.S. military may already be said to be at war with these countries will all the covert stuff going on. The CIA is getting involved in covertly assisting rebels in Syria etc.. But it's not open war yet. All Obama has done so far is expanded drone operations to half a dozen other countries.

Throw a coin, heads or tails, who knows. No good choices left. The good choice for this on the Republican side was Ron Paul of course. No Dems ran against Obama so what can I say. There were no good choices for this on that side.

---

Well, I understand what you are saying. But I think boots on the ground war, like Iraq and Afghanistan, is different than drones or sending advisers or providing arms even to let folks fight their own wars. Sometimes war, or war like actions, are necessary. Bush blew it with Iraq, but pretty much had the country with him on Afghanistan. We don't' want a pointless, costly (in dollars and lives) war like Iraq, but we also, in good conscience, can't allow a genocide. The civilized world can't or shouldn't allow a genocide. But it's really damned if you do and damned if you don't. somebody is going to get killed, or a lot of somebodies. But the question is, who. Is it innocents who are caught on the wrong side of ethnicity, or religion, or the ones who would eradicate them. it really isn't black and white, but a whole lot of shades of grey. Each case is different, each with it's own set of rules and parameters. The difficult job of the President is to navigate those parameters, and decide if we get involved or not. this is where Bush blew it with Iraq. He so desperately wanted Iraq to be guilty so he cherry picked what he wanted to see and know, and completely ignored the truth. And he relied to heavily on Cheney, and his neocon info, closing his eyes and ears to other voices.

This is the real difficulty in choosing a President. Is our candidate able to filter through all this and come to a conclusion that holds the truth, or simply what he wants to hear. Or what he thinks his supporters want to hear. Or is he easily manipulated? I think this was Bush's greatest fault. He was as easy as putty to manipulation. I never doubted he loved his country and though/was convinced he was doing what was right. I just think he lacked independent thought, or curiosity, or whatever it takes to form a sound judgement.