Obama lives large off the taxpayer dime...

[callmeslick]

well, if someone wishes to address the banking regs, that's fine with me, too, frankly. Still, you're dancing around reality and seemingly uncaring about how your fellow citizens live their lives, on the edge. Also, you keep dodging the student voting issue.

So you think it is wise to demand banks stop requiring ID for cashing checks, opening accounts, etc.

I've opened roughly 12 bank accounts/securities account. None required photo ID. The requirement for cashing checks, as far as I know, is because most banks today only cash for customers. I can deposit any check I want with a simple handwritten deposit slip.

I'll read the student stuff and offer an opinion soon. I was under the impression that students of voting age can get a proper ID quite easily....real and fake....so I hadn't considered them falling under the umbrella of the claim that they were being denied equal access, or access in general. But I will read what has been offered on that and strike down on whoever I think is wrong with great veangeance and furious anger!

while working on spelling , check reading too. The question was about closing polling places near campuses, very selectively.

But first tell me about banks discriminating against minorities by requiring ID for transactions.

I did. The reason banks need ID is to ascertain their existing customers, unless it works differently down your way.

[callmeslick]

well, if someone wishes to address the banking regs, that's fine with me, too, frankly. Still, you're dancing around reality and seemingly uncaring about how your fellow citizens live their lives, on the edge. Also, you keep dodging the student voting issue.

THATS PURE ****. you seem to keep saying that being able to vote is a life or death matter.

it is a right of citizenship. Why do you avoid that fact?

the government requires ID just to get food stamps and other welfare benefits. so where is your moral outrage over that. so to dismiss them so casually shows something of your insight, or worse, character. Which is it?

I am saying that people who chose such benefits, choose to jump through those hoops. Voting is not a benefit, it is a right, I repeat.

your Moral compass reminds me of the one that Captain Jack used in Pirates of the Caribbean. it only point to what you desire most, not to the truth

uh, yeah, whatever.

[CUDA]

well, if someone wishes to address the banking regs, that's fine with me, too, frankly. Still, you're dancing around reality and seemingly uncaring about how your fellow citizens live their lives, on the edge. Also, you keep dodging the student voting issue.

THATS PURE ****. you seem to keep saying that being able to vote is a life or death matter.

it is a right of citizenship. Why do you avoid that fact?

and no one is removing that right, why do you keep avoiding that fact?

your Moral compass reminds me of the one that Captain Jack used in Pirates of the Caribbean. it only point to what you desire most, not to the truth

uh, yeah, whatever.[/quote]don't like it do you. always willing to spew it but get butt hurt when you're shown the mirror.

[callmeslick]

[and no one is removing that right, why do you keep avoiding that fact?

yes, they are. I already showed you several hundred thousand citizens without any way of getting the documentation in the rural south. You chose, in response to make snarky comments about moonshine and log cabins.

and the uh-huh wasn't hurt, it was an expression of amusement that someone willing to denigrate poor agricultural subsistance farmers, and poor inner city folks without the cash to maintain bank accounts, are somehow fair game to disenfranchise. In other words, you have lost the moral standing in those earlier words to affect me one way or the other regarding moral compasses. Find yours first and get back to me. I suspect you might find it in church, down where you left the cell phone......

[Tunnelcat]

so, if you don't have a birth certificate(for one large-scale example), tough luck, eh, CUDA? Further, I note you and others don't want to touch the matter of moving and reducing polling places, cutting early voting hours and other rules specifically designed to make it DIFFICULT for specifically targetted people to cast their ballots. Howzabout that disenfranchisement?

show me the law that says those people are no longer permitted to vote.

If I was to say "slick you no longer have a constitutional right to vote" THAT is disenfranchising. That is NOT what is happening. and to accuse the GOP of doing it is not true and you know it.

And Fyi get a birth certificate VERY few people do not have one OR do not have access to one and you know that too.

Oh, you don't realize that there are a LOT more elderly and poor people right now that fall into that category that you think. Around a 11% of Americans, or 21 million people, don't have any photo ID, American citizens that still have the right to vote, but now need to get the proof required so that they can continue to vote as they've always done. That includes the elderly, poor minorities and young students. Nearly one in 5, or around 8 million, of those 65 and older lack a government issued photo ID. That's not a small number of people either, that suddenly have go out and try to obtain one on the short notice that Republicans have given them in many states. And since this affects or targets, certain groups of people by essentially blocking their previously easy to perform voting rights, it makes it discriminatory.

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/go ... icans.html

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/defa ... _39242.pdf

and no one is removing that right, why do you keep avoiding that fact?

No, they're putting an impediment in the way of exercising a constitutional right they've always had in the past.

[Top Gun]

*cough*poll tax*cough*

[CUDA]

*cough*poll tax*cough*

a poll tax would be illegal because it allows for a certain group of people to vote without getting taxed and unfairly taxes those who were not eligible to vote before, and is therefore discriminatory. Voter ID does not do that. it requires EVERYONE to show ID and is therefore not discriminatory.

so your analogy is *cough*wrong*cough*

[callmeslick]

*cough*poll tax*cough*

a poll tax would be illegal because it allows for a certain group of people to vote without getting taxed and unfairly taxes those who were not eligible to vote before, and is therefore discriminatory. Voter ID does not do that. it requires EVERYONE to show ID and is therefore not discriminatory.

so your analogy is *cough*wrong*cough*

no, it isn't. The 'poll tax', if you check your history, was not evenly applied, likewise with 'literacy tests'. Both were unconstitutional, rightly so. You've been shown, repeatedly that 21 million eligible voters do not have photo ID, you've been shown repeatedly that getting one is very unevenly available, and you've been shown repeatedly that up to 800,000 citizens will never get a photo ID if a birth certificate is required as proof of citizenship. But, then again, you'd dismiss all those fellow citizens as moonshiners, too lazy to get a birth certificate, log cabin dwellers, etc, so really, do we really think you care if they vote?
Heck, let's just go back to the original rules: White Male Landowners only. That should be adequate, right?

[Tunnelcat]

Oh, but governments are different…

The local governments are supposed to govern the people, state government is supposed to govern the local governments, and the Fed is supposed to govern the state governments….but somewhere along the line everything went stupid.

On more levels than you can imagine. There are a few states that I consider far more repressive than the feds.

*cough*poll tax*cough*

Most of the time it takes money to get that sometimes very hard to obtain photo ID, if one doesn't have the correct documents to begin with. Spending money to get the ID is no different than paying a tax CUDA.

CUDA, I just remembered my paternal grandmother. She also had no photo ID of any kind. She was born on a rural farm, no birth certificate. She never drove a car, no driver's license. Neither of my grandparents had credit cards. I think that she would have been very chagrined to have to go through hoops nowadays just to get back her right to vote. But, she passed away a few years ago, so it's not a problem for her anymore.

[Jeff250]

If voter registration and voter registration cards aren't good enough, then just fix those. What does a driver's license have to do with voting?

[Tunnelcat]

If voter registration and voter registration cards aren't good enough, then just fix those. What does a driver's license have to do with voting?

That makes a whole lot of better sense than what Republicans have been doing to "fix" a problem that's really not a problem.

[Spidey]

I think if a state requires you to get a photo ID, then by law they must also provide the means for you to get one.

Otherwise it’s an unfunded mandate, and can easily be challenged in the courts.

[Tunnelcat]

I have never been required show any photo ID to vote in Oregon. And that was before vote by mail came along. All that was needed was a valid address and a utility bill to show that you lived at that residence.

[callmeslick]

I have never been required show any photo ID to vote in Oregon. And that was before vote by mail came along. All that was needed was a valid address and a utility bill to show that you lived at that residence.

WHAT? NO PHOTO, NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE??

and a fellow Oregonian, CUDA, is all uppity about potential fraud amongst poor agriculture workers and watermen? Heck, you folks are just a haven for fraud out there. Oh, and I note that mail voting eliminates that whole issue of access to a polling place or hours allowed to vote, too, huh??

Hey, CUDA, why can't you just get on board with the concept of making the rules YOU vote under become the nationwide model??

[Will Robinson]

You know it occurs to me that if the politicians couldn't circumvent the constitution we could let the whole world vote in our elections and not really be harmed.

[callmeslick]

You know it occurs to me that if the politicians couldn't circumvent the constitution we could let the whole world vote in our elections and not really be harmed.

either this came out wrong, or something, Will.......explain?

[Will Robinson]

You know it occurs to me that if the politicians couldn't circumvent the constitution we could let the whole world vote in our elections and not really be harmed.

either this came out wrong, or something, Will.......explain?

It was when I was thinking about all the stuff that NC is allegedly doing so terrible and realized that the few things that actually are bad will never survive the courts if they ever even get implemented, precedent has already been established and so, assuming one side or the other couldn't just ignore the law, it really won't be a problem. They will get to stop the same day registration and some form of ID will get used.

So I thought overall that's good enough to keep fraud under control, rogue Philly style polling station managers not included.

So if that little problem can't be swung too far either way thanks to the law, just how bad could it be if, for example Democrats got their way and took complete majority long term? If they had to obey the constitution just how bad could it really get?
Worst case hey would spend so much, expand so much that after ten or twenty years the pendulum would swing the other way over the disaster they create.

It is when politicians get to ignore the constitution that they set us up for hard core pain.

I was in between service calls when i posted that and haven't thought this through too deeply since then, busy day, but seriously, it isn't the conservatives in office that have kept he loony left in check. It is our core set of laws that protect us most.

Remember Obama's speech before he was elected where he said they need to find a way around the courts to be able to redistribute wealth? He cited the fact that the constitution keeps kicking their butts.

Anyway that's my incomplete thought outside the box for the week.