Earlier this year Mexico had a Presidential election. All Mexican voters had to present ID cards in order to vote. If it can work in Mexico, why can't it work here?

Meanwhile, the first conviction for the Oil-For-Food corruption that happened under the Clinton administration was handed down today. Details here.

I think I know who the liars are...

"Go look at something that has nothing to do with this post." Scaramonga at 1:50 p.m.

"Still nothing useful to say on topic? That, if I recall, is the definition of a troll." Scaramonga at 10:30 a.m.

Matt,

I deal with people everyday who have no recourse in getting a valid, federally issued ID, for instance, the poor have few way to get a hold of birth certificates in timely manners, often times it can take months to track down who holds that information, and even if they can find the hospital or county in which the information is stored, without some OTHER form of ID, you can't be issued a BC. Some folks were never issued Birth Certificates, because of the time in which they were born, or the remoteness of it. My neighbor for instance was born in 1917, and he has paid cash for everything in his life, he told me a story where he joined the Navy in WWII and they spent a month trying to track down his birth information, before just giving up and making up info as they went along, he said he didn't have a Social Security number that matched his name until he was in his 40s.

When we have a system that punishes the old and poor, and makes it much more difficult to exercise their rights, then we need to step over party lines and come up with a good solution; I mean every state has the availablity to cast absentee ballots, and all they require is a signing of an affidavit.

I mean every state has the availablity to cast absentee ballots, and all they require is a signing of an affidavit.

Which then allows Liberals to vote early and often and then claim the election was "stolen" and cry about "recounts" and how poor the records are. Tap dancing to singing in the rain just like Gene Kelly.

That who rant was a fetid excuse to support illegals and criminals and ... terrorists ... who have, like, you know, a really tough time getting legitimate records and stuff.

TEO,
Yeah, that's the ticket...sign an affidavit to vote.

Great, this November I'll sign one of them affidavits.

I can see it now...I swear my name is Turd E. Blind and I want to vote.

As for your neigbor's SSN issue:

"The Social Security Administration was created in 1935 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law."

Duh...He was nearly in his 20's when it was created. How long do you think it took to get the program up and running. Do some research before you fall into your typical liberal sob story.

Nebraska,

You're obviously missing the point, as usual.

Many people, even good ole white-bred conservatives don't have access to their records, so why should they have a more rigorous endevour to prove their identity than anyone else, that is a complete affont to the intent of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th ammendment.

If you take it as a sob-story, then that's your problem; Seems that many courts, including Georgia, most recently, are going to disagree with your characterization of the issue.

I find it hard to believe that someone is voting, driving, etc with no valid identification and is unable to get one. I get a card for voter registration before each election letting me know where to go, and I have a state id that I could have gotten at no charge if I had had limited income. Yes, I had my birth certificate, and my ssn card, but then I have had those for over 30 years, because I have needed them for that long.

KJS,

A lot of people spend most of their lives never leaving their home-town, or working under-the-table jobs with no need for ID, or just plain can't get anything to notify the government about where they were born...or for instance, people from NOLA who may have had everything trashed in a natural disaster, and don't have two or three months to wait before someone can track down their info, these things happen very often. Makes you thankful you don't have the hassle of trying to prove who you are.

Hey, I had a niece in New Orleans, and she has had little problem getting help. But then, she also never worked "under the table" and has her id. Guess being a law abiding person can pay off. In case you missed it, working under the table means not paying taxes, and that is illegal.

KJS,

eh, whatever, are you saying that we can abridge your 14th amendment rights because you jay-walk?

The point still stands that a lot of people can't get their info in any sort of timely manner, are you saying that it's just tough-luck, and that we don't need to work as a nation to make sure that their rights aren't set-aside?

Apparently, these people don't want to drive, buy alcohol, buy tobacco, open bank accounts, establish utility contracts, or get cable either (all things that I have had to do in the last month that required at least an ssn... except for the alcohol and cigarettes). Then again, is $10 really that much?

Georgia,

it's less of an issue of money, than it is attempting to stop the innevitable disenfranchisement of the poor and elderly. When it comes time to vote, arguably one of the most important civic duties we can engage in (besides buying alcohol, ofcourse), these folks can/will be turned away for no other reason than being born in a rural place which they may have never had the need to have an ID or SSN, the question is why we allow people to vote using nothing more than a signature, but some people have to jump through hoops to engage in that same activity.

TEO,

Do you know what the percentage of people who are poor or elderly that do not have any form of ID and don't have ssn? And why can't we do something for these people? We shouldn't let ,a probably small number of people, hold this back.

And if you are in your hometown all of your life, how hard is it to get a dup birth cert? Should be available locally. I mean, even my grandparents, born on rural farms made sure they had their id's in order.

Not being willing to be in the system is not about jay-walking. It is aboout having valid id, and that is available, you just have to want to take the time to get it. How do these people register to vote, pay utility bills, or any of the myriad of other activities that require id. I mean, even renting a house in a small town where my family is required id, and that was from another private individual.

I think this ID argument that the Democrats put up as a problem is bogus. It's not a insurmountable problem. My dad is elderly and I know he has been voting for decades. I think that the democrats just don’t want to have a system in place that would or should stop voter fraud.

Several cities have made possession of firearms all but illegal. The result? While the vast majority of whites can easily get guns – the majority of blacks and Hispanics can not. If this same effect was revealed in jobs, education, or voting it would immediately be called into question by the ACLU and overturned (rightly) on the basis that these laws were denying blacks and Hispanics of their constitutional rights. Yet…. That is not true here. The ultra liberal money men (Soros and others) are bent on removing firearms. So, simple equations like the above are NOT pursued by the ACLU nor the NAACP.

Privately owned firearms were all that stood between some black neighborhoods being burned by the Klan in the 60's. Condi Rice tells a very moving personal story about this. Yet, Democrats (who largely made up the Klan) want blacks disarmed. They don't just want them disarmed - they HAVE disarmed them. Interesting.

Victory

KttR,

I believe you are right. If there is really that much of a problem, they would be trotting out examples for everyone to say how sad.

TEO,

I am afraid you are alone on this one. If someone really wants to vote, I think they can manage to get an ID card. Georgia is spot on. Seems reasonable to me.

Talk about "media bias," Matt. Clinton isn't quoted anywhere in that article. Politicians (yes, even Bush) are infamous for making promises and not following through with them. Obama was telling the crowd to be cautious about the Act. Pretty dishonest of you.

The point still stands that a lot of people can't get their info in any sort of timely manner, are you saying that it's just tough-luck, and that we don't need to work as a nation to make sure that their rights aren't set-aside?

The point does not stand. Your argument is weak in the extreme. People in this country who are not here illegally can get IDs and other documents. It may take some time, but tough. It is a one-time effort. Your straw man about the 14th amendment is just that. Nobody is being deprived of their 14th amendment rights. There are requirements before you can vote. One of those is proof of identification. You can get it. If you don't go through the process you abrogate your right to vote. Plain and simple.

According to the 2001 Voting Rights Commission, about 6% to 10% of voting-age Americans do not have a legal ID. For Scaramonga, who can't do the math, that's as many as 19 million potential voters. Of those, more than 3 million people with disabilities do not have identification issued by the government.

A 2005 study found that among Wisconsin men ages eighteen to twenty-four, 36% of whites, 57% of Latinos, and 78% of African Americans lacked a valid driver's license.

At the same time, requiring identification does nothing to stop voting fraud. As Scaramonga pointed out, fake id is easy to get, so fraudsters can collect as many fake id's as they want and have at it.

So you are seeking to disenfranchise all of these very poor people and getting nothing for it - except disenfranchising them. But maybe that's what you're really after.

Clinton isn't quoted anywhere in that article.

Hey dipstick. The article clearly indicates that the Hildebeast spoke out against President Bush and "warned the NAACP":

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois warned NAACP delegates to be cautious of any civil rights promises Bush offers when speaking to the group today. The senators criticized Republicans for allowing the landmark 1965 voting act to nearly expire and said the Justice Department has failed to aggressively pursue allegations of disenfranchisement.

Is this a rhetorical game you're playing? Sure there's no quote from Thunder Thighs, but it is clear she said the same kinds of things Obama said. And it is funny to watch you lefties cry "Wolf" when a Republican talks to one of your victim groups. Sooner or later they will catch on to the donkey exploitation scam and leave you all high and dry. But what I wonder, is does reading comprehension seem too difficult for you, or are YOU just being disingenuous? (big word meaning liar).

Yet, Democrats (who largely made up the Klan) want blacks disarmed.

Ever wonder why?

Blind Eyes,

A little civics lesson. In order to register to vote, an individual must show identification to prove who they are, when they were born, and where they live. If they provided such identification when they registered to vote, they can provide it when they vote.

If the poor and elderly don't have the identification which would allow them to vote if a Voter ID law was enacted, they would have had it when they registered.

The "poor and elderly" claim is nothing more than efforts by the Democrats to retain their ability to have people vote in multiple precincts, have the dead vote, and have people vote early and often. If they truely believed in honest elections, they would support Voter ID laws.

"But what I wonder, is does reading comprehension seem too difficult for you, or are YOU just being disingenuous?"

I said: "Clinton isn't quoted anywhere in that article."

Rhetorical game? Perhaps it is your reading comprehension that should be called into question. Show me, Rev, where Clinton was ***quoted*** in that article.

I'll be waiting.

Third Eye Open,
Your concern is noble; however, your argument is not valid. Many private and government agencies in small rural towns and large cities are there to help the poor and elderly. When my grandfather, born in 1887 in San Francisco, needed his birth certificate that was destroyed in the 1906 earthquake, his sister simply signed an affidavit saying he was born on the month, day and year he said he was. I am certain this would not take as long as you suggest, should the need arise. I simply do not believe there are that many people out there that have no identification of some kind. If these people really want to vote, they will put the process in motion well before the next election. If their paperwork is stalled in the processing, they can always vote provisional. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

According to the 2001 Voting Rights Commission...

Does that mean they can't get one? No. But that doesn't matter because it doesn't fit the action line, right?

A 2005 study found that among Wisconsin men ages eighteen to twenty-four, 36% of whites, 57% of Latinos, and 78% of African Americans lacked a valid driver's license.

Were they prevented from getting one? Is a driver's license required to vote? In my state, you can get an ID from the same place as you get a driver's license. All you gotta do is get off your fat butt and get down there - oh and pay a small fee. But, hey, everybody's gotta pay. Seems fair to me.

At the same time, requiring identification does nothing to stop voting fraud.

Sure it does. It stops people from voting more than once based on having no ID.

So you are seeking to disenfranchise all of these very poor people and getting nothing for it - except disenfranchising them. But maybe that's what you're really after.

If they're too lazy to get a valid ID, also needed to cash a check, get a credit card, and a million other things, they are disenfranchising themselves. We have to have some rules to ensure legitimate elections. If they can't follow them, they have no "right" to vote.

Show me, Rev, where Clinton was ***quoted*** in that article.

I said the article clearly indicates that she spoke out against President Bush and "warned the NAACP". And then I cited the article:

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois warned NAACP delegates to be cautious of any civil rights promises Bush offers when speaking to the group today. The senators criticized Republicans for allowing the landmark 1965 voting act to nearly expire and said the Justice Department has failed to aggressively pursue allegations of disenfranchisement.

She is not quoted but the article says that she "warned NAACP delegates." Now how do you suppose she did that? Semaphore flags? Did she read them a nursery rhyme? No, she "warned NAACP delegates." Wonder what about? Well the article said: " The senators criticized Republicans for allowing the landmark 1965 voting act to nearly expire and said the Justice Department has failed to aggressively pursue allegations of disenfranchisement." Notice the plural in there? Senators? Are you seriously claiming she didn't say the same kinds of things that Obama said? OK. Dream on.

Isn't it funny that the party that's always screaming about voter fraud is against measures to stop it?

Isn't it funny that that same party screams about energy, then votes to virtually stop exploration in America and stop all wind mill projects because ONE is a little too close to some rich big shots?

Isn't it funny when that same party accuses the other of being "for the rich", yet its money comes from a small number of VERY rich individuals and it's senior leadership in Congress has at least twice the net worth of the other?

Isn't it funny when that same party - the one that split the nation to keep slavery, the one that made up the vast majority (if not ALL) of the KKK and similar organizations, the one that ruled the south and implemented the Jim Crow laws accuses the Republicans of hating blacks?

And isn't it funny that their solution to the poverty in the nations cities is to provide aid that keeps a large block of people addicted to government aid (and loyal to that party) rather than seeking the kind of economic growth that benefits everyone.

Yep. Funny.

Liberty

Here is what she said:

"'"You did not blink, you did not waiver, you did not compromise and we were able to push through the reauthorization in the House,' Clinton said in reference to the extension of the law that was first signed in 1965."

"'When you have your surprise speaker,' Clinton said of Bush, 'he could sign it right here on this stage when he comes.'"

"We've got to make sure that the Justice Department has the authority, the expertise and the commitment to enforce the Voting Rights Act. We are halfway home but we're not in the Promised Land."

Matt's headline said Clinton called Bush a "liar," and then later qualified it by saying that she "cautioned the NAACP not to believe anything Bush says" at the convention.

Now, Rev, who is being intellectually dishonest here?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060719b.html

Come on, Kahn. Bush can admit your party was a bunch of racist pr*cks (and most still are), so why can't you?

“I consider it a tragedy that the party of Abraham Lincoln let go of its historic ties with the African-American community ... For too long my party wrote off the African-American vote, and many African-Americans wrote off the Republican Party."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.naacp20jul20,0,7973768.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

The link he posted. From the Baltimore Sun - we all know what a radical right rag THAT paper is. So excuse us for taking a liberal papers headlines and stories at face value.

Ha, actually it was from the NYT.

What, Kahn - that's all you got. Calling into question my source? Pretty pathetic.

It's a direct quote from Bush. Care to actually comment on it?

Now who is misquoting?

Good slant though, "as most STILL are." Establishes a fact I have to deny. Like asking someone if they still beat their wife.

Senator Byrd thought it was a politically good idea to be in the Klan until when? What year did he quit? The KKK and the oppressive governments in the south from 1865 right up into the 60's were DEMOCRAT. The DEMOCRATS denied voting rights. Murdered blacks and denied rights. Then, they decided under LBJ (great humanitarian he was) that they could BUY the blacks loyalty. And so they have. And the civil liberty laws were carried with vast Republican votes and some Democrat defections during the time Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

In fact.... why didn't FDR pass these laws? Why not Truman? Or JFK? If I remember right, it was Republican Ike that helped force Federal control into the south to enforce Brown vs. Board of Education.... Am I wrong here?

You label us as racist and that is crap. Hateful deliberate lies. That makes you a hateful deliberate liar (by the way). Republican, and really conservatives see the world as a place of personal responsibility. The idea is to nurture an environment where people can help themselves through opportunity. The liberals see the blacks as ignorant and poor children who need to be taken care of. What a racist and condescending view. YOU are the racists. YOU think less of blacks. YOU denied them the vote. YOU deny them firearms now (in case they figure you out).

Source -http://www.andresgentry.com/thoughts/2002/12/senator_robert_.html

"The New York Times reported in 1971 on a letter Mr. Byrd wrote in 1946, after leaving the Klan. Writing to the Klan's Imperial Wizard, Mr. Byrd identified himself as a former Kleagle and recommended a person to serve as state Klan coordinator. He wrote, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. . . . It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan realm of W.Va?"

And in a 1947 letter, after Mr. Byrd had been elected to the state senate, he wrote that he would "never submit to fight beneath that banner (the American flag) with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Since those unfortunate days, Senator Byrd has often referred to his Klan membership as a mistake of his youth, less often as a moral outrage. As recently as 1997, he told an interviewer he'd encourage young people to become involved in politics, but with this warning: "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the
political arena.""

It seems crazy to reach so far back. But Byrd has been in the Senate longer than anyone in history (I beleive). It also shows that maybe Byrd quit the Klan for politcal reasons and NOT because he had a problem with their values.

And mafy, I was citing the link that Mark posted in the opening part of this string.... not the counter quote you dug up. Duh. If you read the article he references, and not the one you do, you can see where the string subject comes from. But - you really don't care about that do you? I'd call you stupid - but I think you are not. I think you are slimey and lie on purpose because you're an asshole. But a smart one.

“I consider it a tragedy that the party of Abraham Lincoln let go of its historic ties with the African-American community ... For too long my party wrote off the African-American vote, and many African-Americans wrote off the Republican Party." - G.W. Bush

So, Kahn - who is telling the truth here? You, or your idol? Still waiting.

Also, please show me where Hillary Clinton told the crowd "not to believe anything Bush says when he speaks" at the NAACP convention.

I will be waiting on that too. Thanks.

One more thing - why did Bush speak at the segregationist Bob Jones University and genuflect before the Confederate flag?

Couldn't be that he was pandering to that crowd too?

Scaramonga at 11:18: "All you gotta do is get off your fat butt and get down there - oh and pay a small fee. But, hey, everybody's gotta pay. Seems fair to me."

Shorter Scaramonga: "Let's bring back the poll tax just like back in the good ol' days. Works for me."

As you have argued yourself, an id will do nothing to prevent fraud because you can get a fake id so easily. Your idea is nothing but a poll tax.

Yes. There was a separation. But that does not mean it was justified.

It means that Republicans saw the black "problem" as one of opportunity and idividual resposibility and the Democrats saw the blacks as a source of votes they could buy by getting them dependent on government hand-outs.

And you are centering on one phrase spoken by Clinton - yet that is not the gist of the subject. So, you are creating your own argument. This is a stupid distracting tangent.

Republicans are not rascist. If you believe we are, then maybe I was wrong about you not being stupid. But this evil shreik that your party puts up saying we are is one of the foundations of the political hatred that permeates the current environment. And you maffy, are helping to promote that lie and that hatred.

Oh - and when and where did GWB "genuflect" before the Confederate flag? Lier. Don't get your facts from the daily KOS OK? That phrase is a slander that "liberals" falsly throw at republicans over and over.

It is part of the systematic lie that you put forth. Assholes.

maf53,

RE: "Also, please show me where Hillary Clinton told the crowd 'not to believe anything Bush says when he speaks' at the NAACP convention."

"One day before President Bush addresses the NAACP for the first time during his presidency ... Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois warned NAACP delegates to be cautious of any civil rights promises Bush offers when speaking to the group today ... Don't be bamboozled. Don't buy into it, Obama said, trying to anticipate Bush's speech..."

You don't have to call a person a "liar" to call them a liar!

AAR

Disenfranchise means to deprive someone of the vote. So when someone votes illegally it's not really possible for them to disenfranchise other voters by doing so.

And by the way, Dems "cry foul, charge voter fraud" because their's plenty of evidence that Republicans can't win elections without these tactics.

And attempts to "fix" the problem with "commonsense voter reform" are partisan Republican attempts to further disenfranchise voters who cast their ballots traditionally for Democratics. It might fool Leiberman, but most Dems won't fall for it.

Republicans in Congress have had 8 years to fix problems with our voting system but have done nothing. Why? Because those in power can game a broken system in their own favor. Republicans act like they're going to be in power forever. Some day this inaction may come back to bight them in the ass. At which point they can recycle editorials from the Nation and the Times.

Enjoy the next two years. You won't get any more for a while.

Buttmuncher - bull. There is far more evidence that Democrats cheat.

Note that Democratic operatives disabled Republican get-out-the-vote vehichles in Ohio last election. And THAT is disenfranchisment.

Note That Democrats shot at, burned, and ransacked republican offices last election.

Note that Military absentee votes (assumed to be heavily Republican) are routinely rejected in Democrat voting areas.

AND - it was DEMOCRATS who for almost ONE HUNDRED YEARS made up the membership of the KKK and other hate organizations and who supressed the blacks through violence and intimidation. All those hate crimes in the '50's and '60's? Democrats. Democrat sherrifs, Democrat mayors, Democrat governors and Democrat judges. They ENABLED the Klan, and they led it. It only takes a tiny little bit of research to discover this.

Even in the disputed 2000 election it was in a Democratic controlled area with Democrat election officials that all the problems happened. They shut out the military. And they were too stupid to put a ballot together that made sense. Don't blame us for your sins.

But why cloud your prejudices with facts.

As you have argued yourself, an id will do nothing to prevent fraud because you can get a fake id so easily. Your idea is nothing but a poll tax.

Hey, stupid ass. The fee is to get an ID. The state charges these fees in most states to cover the costs of doing the work to create the ID card. It has nothing to do with the polls. All I said is that it isn't hard to get an ID. But you try to twist that by created a straw man and even pretending to quote me when its nothing more than your own stupid-assed lies.

Poll taxes are illegal in the United States, or don't you know that, idiot? I support that concept of disallowing poll taxes because they were used to deny the vote to Blacks by Southern Democrats, likely just before they lynched them for having the gall to climb out of their cotton fields long enough to vote.

You are truly disgusting and a perfect example of why the Democrat party is in disarray and crisis. And you are a liar. Plain and simple - and a not very good one.

Yet charging outrageous fees and requiring background checks to own a firearm (another CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT) are OK with Democrats?

And passing laws that seem designed to deny this right specifically to blacks and Hisspanics is OK also?

You people scare me.

Scaramonga,

"Address those two without the straw men, appeals to emotion, and other rhetorical tricks, and maybe you can get a real debate going." Scaramonga on Thursday.

"But you try to twist that by created [sic] a straw man". Scaramonga above.

It's clear you don't know what a straw man is. A straw man is an argument that the other side hasn't made that is more easily destroyed than the actual argument. There's no straw man here. Here is my argument, which I'll slow way, way down for you so even you can follow along:

- Fake ids are easily obtained.

- That means requiring an id isn't going to stop someone who wants to commit fraud. They'll just get a bunch of fake ids.

- And that means that requiring an id, since it isn't going to stop fraud, doesn't accomplish anything more than forcing someone to pay in order to vote. And as you say, poll taxes are illegal in the U.S.

Go ahead, S., embarrass yourself by blubbering some more insults having nothing to do with the argument. Everyone who read at the top of the comments could see that you were calling yourself a troll. Here at the bottom, it's clear you haven't stopped.

Scaramonga,

"Address those two without the straw men, appeals to emotion, and other rhetorical tricks, and maybe you can get a real debate going." Scaramonga on Thursday.

"But you try to twist that by created [sic] a straw man". Scaramonga above.

It's clear you don't know what a straw man is. A straw man is an argument that the other side hasn't made that is more easily destroyed than the actual argument. There's no straw man here. Here is my argument, which I'll slow way, way down for you so even you can follow along:

- Fake ids are easily obtained.

- That means requiring an id isn't going to stop someone who wants to commit fraud. They'll just get a bunch of fake ids.

- And that means that requiring an id, since it isn't going to stop fraud, doesn't accomplish anything more than forcing someone to pay in order to vote. And as you say, poll taxes are illegal in the U.S.

Go ahead, S., embarrass yourself by blubbering some more insults having nothing to do with the argument. Everyone who read at the top of the comments could see that you were calling yourself a troll. Here at the bottom, it's clear you haven't stopped.

maf:

One more thing - why did Bush speak at the segregationist Bob Jones University and genuflect before the Confederate flag?

You wanna see genuflect? Watch a tape of him signing the veto of the stem cell funding.

All the lily white far righters holding former stem cells..... it was the one time I had to turn of the television. I was vomiting in my mouth.