View Full Version : The real reason for Obama's open door immigration allowance
Guest
02-22-2016, 08:56 AM
For most the following is self explanatory:
Obama Administration Enabling Noncitizen Voting; DOJ Conflict of Interest (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431676/obama-administration-enabling-noncitizen-voting)
What else that is illegal will be allowed to stack the votes needed.
A side effect of having an Obama in office for so long is we the people have become accomodating to doing nothing about any openly illegal or selectively enforced laws.
How stupid have we become?
Guest
02-22-2016, 10:29 AM
For most the following is self explanatory:
Obama Administration Enabling Noncitizen Voting; DOJ Conflict of Interest (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431676/obama-administration-enabling-noncitizen-voting)
What else that is illegal will be allowed to stack the votes needed.
A side effect of having an Obama in office for so long is we the people have become accomodating to doing nothing about any openly illegal or selectively enforced laws.
How stupid have we become?
You've become pretty stupid - watching Faux News does that to you
Guest
02-22-2016, 10:55 AM
You've become pretty stupid - watching Faux News does that to you
Is that all you have in your response look up?
Do you think everything that is in opposition to you is from Fox? Maybe not. But since that is the party's programmed response, you don't have much choice.
Google the thread subject and see the variety of reports on this issue...none of which are Fox.
Your coined/canned/conned/programmed responses are truly not worth the effort of a response.
Guest
02-22-2016, 11:04 AM
You've become pretty stupid - watching Faux News does that to you
Here trollie, trollie.......
Guest
02-22-2016, 11:33 AM
You've become pretty stupid - watching Faux News does that to you
If you would take the time to pull your head out of you butt for only a few minutes, you might just have a different view of the world around you.
Guest
02-22-2016, 12:29 PM
If you would take the time to pull your head out of you butt for only a few minutes, you might just have a different view of the world around you.
And they wonder why it's so dark in their world......:a20:
Guest
02-22-2016, 12:48 PM
You've become pretty stupid - watching Faux News does that to you
I will say this real slow since you do not have the word in your vocabulary.
I L L E G A L. You can find this in any dictionary. You should never put the words SELECTIVELY ILLEGAL or SELECTIVELY ENFORCED together in one sentence, but the current administration has on a regular basis. By the way I watch NBC, CNN, and Fox so I can form an opinion after hearing all sides.
Guest
02-22-2016, 01:24 PM
And they wonder why it's so dark in their world......:a20:
And the view is so limited when all you can see is out the belly button.
But I think the leadership wants it that way.
Guest
02-22-2016, 02:15 PM
And the view is so limited when all you can see is out the belly button.
But I think the leadership wants it that way.
:thumbup:
Guest
02-22-2016, 04:01 PM
Chose one
A. This is why the US is the way it is
B. This is why the US is the way it is
C. This is why the US is the way it is
D. All the above
Guest
02-23-2016, 10:25 AM
For most the following is self explanatory:
Obama Administration Enabling Noncitizen Voting; DOJ Conflict of Interest (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431676/obama-administration-enabling-noncitizen-voting)
What else that is illegal will be allowed to stack the votes needed.
A side effect of having an Obama in office for so long is we the people have become accomodating to doing nothing about any openly illegal or selectively enforced laws.
How stupid have we become?
When you take what you read from the Heritage Foundation as gospel, stupid may be the wrong word. Naïve is a better word to describe it. They have a political agenda, and everything that they wright should be taken with a grain of salt unless your agenda is in line with theirs. Being open minded is at the bottom of the list of things to do.
see the attached article.
What we know about illegal immigration from Mexico | Pew Research Center (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/)
Illegal immigration from Mexico has gone from its high in 2007. That is right down from "W" days. No matter how loud you yell at Obama's open door policy numbers don't lie. When you blame Obama for everything, the true is the furthest thing on your mind.
Ask yourself one question, why would an illegal immigrant hiding in the shadows risk being caught and deported if they tried to vote? Who in their right mind thinks that illegals in Kansas could change, who got elected there?
Guest
02-23-2016, 11:24 AM
When you take what you read from the Heritage Foundation as gospel, stupid may be the wrong word. Naïve is a better word to describe it. They have a political agenda, and everything that they wright should be taken with a grain of salt unless your agenda is in line with theirs. Being open minded is at the bottom of the list of things to do.
see the attached article.
What we know about illegal immigration from Mexico | Pew Research Center (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/)
Illegal immigration from Mexico has gone from its high in 2007. That is right down from "W" days. No matter how loud you yell at Obama's open door policy numbers don't lie. When you blame Obama for everything, the true is the furthest thing on your mind.
Ask yourself one question, why would an illegal immigrant hiding in the shadows risk being caught and deported if they tried to vote? Who in their right mind thinks that illegals in Kansas could change, who got elected there?
Are you that stupid? Nobody knows how many illegals slip across the border. Anything the federal government estimates is usually WAY OFF. Big difference between 2007 and now is its planned open boarders not even attempt to collect and deport. Matter fact they are flying the in on the free government airline. Dumping them in most states thats to dumb to see who's going on. It's Designed program that will pay off 5 to 10 years down the road.
Guest
02-23-2016, 11:27 AM
When you take what you read from the Heritage Foundation as gospel, stupid may be the wrong word. Naïve is a better word to describe it. They have a political agenda, and everything that they wright should be taken with a grain of salt unless your agenda is in line with theirs. Being open minded is at the bottom of the list of things to do.
see the attached article.
What we know about illegal immigration from Mexico | Pew Research Center (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/)
Illegal immigration from Mexico has gone from its high in 2007. That is right down from "W" days. No matter how loud you yell at Obama's open door policy numbers don't lie. When you blame Obama for everything, the true is the furthest thing on your mind.
Ask yourself one question, why would an illegal immigrant hiding in the shadows risk being caught and deported if they tried to vote? Who in their right mind thinks that illegals in Kansas could change, who got elected there?
So, you feel that we do NOT have a problem with illegal aliens? I looked at your link to PEW and see millions of illegal aliens. Do you not consider that to be a problem?
Guest
02-23-2016, 11:57 AM
When you take what you read from the Heritage Foundation as gospel, stupid may be the wrong word. Naïve is a better word to describe it. They have a political agenda, and everything that they wright should be taken with a grain of salt unless your agenda is in line with theirs. Being open minded is at the bottom of the list of things to do.
see the attached article.
What we know about illegal immigration from Mexico | Pew Research Center (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/)
Illegal immigration from Mexico has gone from its high in 2007. That is right down from "W" days. No matter how loud you yell at Obama's open door policy numbers don't lie. When you blame Obama for everything, the true is the furthest thing on your mind.
Ask yourself one question, why would an illegal immigrant hiding in the shadows risk being caught and deported if they tried to vote? Who in their right mind thinks that illegals in Kansas could change, who got elected there?
You are taking it to a level that the average illegal would never take the subject.
If they knew they could vote for a candidate that would in fact insure and ensure they will not be persecuted, that they will get drivers liscences, that they will get social security, that they do not have to learn English, that they do not have to fear breaking the law, etc, etc, of course they willfollow the lead of the party that shows them where to go to vote.
Think about it from their perspect, not from a comfy arm chair with no investment in the scenario except perhaps a partisan slant.
Guest
02-23-2016, 12:55 PM
Are you that stupid? Nobody knows how many illegals slip across the border. Anything the federal government estimates is usually WAY OFF. Big difference between 2007 and now is its planned open boarders not even attempt to collect and deport. Matter fact they are flying the in on the free government airline. Dumping them in most states thats to dumb to see who's going on. It's Designed program that will pay off 5 to 10 years down the road.
You are operating without a clue. If there were an estimated 11 million plus in 2007, and there is an estimated 11 million plus a little now, how the hell did the number remain constant? Self deportation! Take a look at the number of illegals that have been deported under Obama. I have no doubt that you won't, so you can retain the misguided belief that Obama hasn't deported anyone.
Guest
02-23-2016, 01:11 PM
So, you feel that we do NOT have a problem with illegal aliens? I looked at your link to PEW and see millions of illegal aliens. Do you not consider that to be a problem?
It is a problem that can be corrected without deporting them all. There was a bill that passed the Senate, and never voted on in the House. That bill would have gone a long way to correct the problem. Hard line Republicans made sure that the immigration problem will never go away.
If you don't want to give them a path to citizenship, that is perfectly acceptable. So, they pay a fine, and back taxes. What is the problem? "W" and Obama aren't making a big effort to go after the illegals that have not broken the law, since they have been here. The next president will do the same, when they find out, if they already don't know, the cost in deporting large numbers of illegals.
Making sure that they don't vote is nothing but political noise. The same noise that the RNC put out with the "we have to reach out o minorities nonsense".
There was a line in the 1998 movie Bulworth that said that minorities can't believe a damn word Democrats, and Republicans have to say. What was true in 1998 is really true now.
Guest
02-23-2016, 01:53 PM
The answer is to arrest and prosecute any employer that hires an illegal alien. No jobs, and they will go home. After all, all our big companies are opening up in Mexico.
But, I will go with a big wall, and deportation for anyone caught by the police for breaking the law, even traffic violations.
Guest
02-23-2016, 03:59 PM
The answer is to arrest and prosecute any employer that hires an illegal alien. No jobs, and they will go home. After all, all our big companies are opening up in Mexico.
But, I will go with a big wall, and deportation for anyone caught by the police for breaking the law, even traffic violations.
The problem with that is no one wants to do their jibs. Alabama tried what you are suggesting. The farmers suffered, and really bitched about the new laws. The cure was worse that the disease.
Guest
02-23-2016, 04:10 PM
The problem with that is no one wants to do their jibs. Alabama tried what you are suggesting. The farmers suffered, and really bitched about the new laws. The cure was worse that the disease.
So the farmers have to pay a little more for labor. It's about time that parents quit giving their kids everything and let them work for their cars and dates, like we did growing up. Kids today will not take low paying jobs as long as their parents spoil them.
Guest
02-23-2016, 07:07 PM
So the farmers have to pay a little more for labor. It's about time that parents quit giving their kids everything and let them work for their cars and dates, like we did growing up. Kids today will not take low paying jobs as long as their parents spoil them.
Pay who? People don't want these jobs in the farms. It goes why beyond farm jobs. Here is one of many articles on the Alabama law. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/alabama-draconian-immigration-law-hitting-farmers-hard-article-1.981461
Guest
02-23-2016, 09:34 PM
You are operating without a clue. If there were an estimated 11 million plus in 2007, and there is an estimated 11 million plus a little now, how the hell did the number remain constant? Self deportation! Take a look at the number of illegals that have been deported under Obama. I have no doubt that you won't, so you can retain the misguided belief that Obama hasn't deported anyone.
Again it's all about how you count. And what numbers you want produce. Nobody knows how many come in every day. There no rotating counter counting them. It there was I sure the government would fudge them for their political agenda. There is no way in H€€€ the numbers was more in 2007 with the open door policy catch and release.
I seen the fed. Machine in action, bean counters ( high level management) count for good appraisals, cash awards. Number fudging is tool for promotion's.
Guest
02-24-2016, 08:49 AM
Hmmmmnnnn. They are here illegally.
They cross the border anywhere along the TX-Mexico line.
They cross at all times of the day; more than likely at night.
Etc.
Just exactly where is it that these folks are counted?
How about the ones who did the above over the past 7.5 years (the Obama open border years).....and have been here....also not counted.....having children probably not counted......
So maybe those who throw around the number of 11 million, just exactly how did they come up with that number?
Why does it not get larger each year?
Those who report the number of illegals are the same folks who on less busy days measure passing clouds to report the cloud accumulation over select area of the world!!
Guest
02-24-2016, 10:40 AM
Hmmmmnnnn. They are here illegally.
They cross the border anywhere along the TX-Mexico line.
They cross at all times of the day; more than likely at night.
Etc.
Just exactly where is it that these folks are counted?
How about the ones who did the above over the past 7.5 years (the Obama open border years).....and have been here....also not counted.....having children probably not counted......
So maybe those who throw around the number of 11 million, just exactly how did they come up with that number?
Why does it not get larger each year?
Those who report the number of illegals are the same folks who on less busy days measure passing clouds to report the cloud accumulation over select area of the world!!
What world do you live in? Certainly not this one! Back up your nonsense with actual numbers. Obama exceeds 2 million mark in deportations (http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/05/obama-exceeds-million-mark-deportations/7340419/#)
If you don't like that, then goggle "how many people has Obama deported".
Why doesn't the number get larger? Duh! He is deporting more than are crossing the border. It's amazing how that works. It doesn't work in the Republican world, because they exist in an alternate universe. That universe blames Obama for everything. When facts don't support their argue, then just ignore the facts. It is that simple.
Guest
02-24-2016, 11:11 AM
According to CIS.org approx 46% of deportees are return offenders. That is ONLY counting the ones that are arrested for committing a crime. Obama's policy is to only deport criminals. So, if you round that up to 50% because not all returnees get caught, then even with the benefit of doubt, only one million were technically removed. So, an estimated 700,000 enter the U.S. every year then eight years of Obama equals 5 million 600K minus the one million(2 mil minus 50%) that were deported. So, during Obama's watch, we have 4.5 million more illegals in our country.
We won't get into how many other presidents have allowed to cross the border. However, we have had three presidents that have rounded up illegals and bused them across the border.
Guest
02-24-2016, 11:34 AM
What world do you live in? Certainly not this one! Back up your nonsense with actual numbers. Obama exceeds 2 million mark in deportations (http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/05/obama-exceeds-million-mark-deportations/7340419/#)
If you don't like that, then goggle "how many people has Obama deported".
Why doesn't the number get larger? Duh! He is deporting more than are crossing the border. It's amazing how that works. It doesn't work in the Republican world, because they exist in an alternate universe. That universe blames Obama for everything. When facts don't support their argue, then just ignore the facts. It is that simple.
The bad thing about being only equiped with party talking points, one has to somehow make them fit the subject at hand. No matter how far off the mark, no matter it has nothing to do with the subject. No matter just because their job is to go after ANYBODY opposed to their agenda.
I will offer some help for the benefit of helping some to focus:
The subject is OUT OF CONTROL ILLEGAL ENTRIES. Do all the plus and minus hokus pokus you want. The question (more help) is who/how is the count of those who are here (and more help) after all the plus and minus shaking of the bag.
Guest
02-25-2016, 10:23 AM
But this string was about Obama trying to keep them in the country so they could vote Democratic......
So lets go back to that and take one state who is fixated on no illegals voting.
The Secretary of State in Kansas is prosecuting 3 people for voter fraud, none of them appear to be illegal, to me. But here is the link:
The 3 People Being Prosecuted For Voter Fraud In Kansas | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/30/3717823/voter-fraud-cases-kansas/)
Now Kansas has a requirement for proof of citizenship and this is whats happening:
Kris Kobach sued over proof of citizenship requirement for voters | MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/kris-kobach-sued-over-proof-citizenship-requirement-voters)
These laws are intended to suppress the vote! It is me or do they only show up in
RED STATEI wonder why that is?
Guest
02-25-2016, 10:47 AM
The bad thing about being only equiped with party talking points, one has to somehow make them fit the subject at hand. No matter how far off the mark, no matter it has nothing to do with the subject. No matter just because their job is to go after ANYBODY opposed to their agenda.
I will offer some help for the benefit of helping some to focus:
The subject is OUT OF CONTROL ILLEGAL ENTRIES. Do all the plus and minus hokus pokus you want. The question (more help) is who/how is the count of those who are here (and more help) after all the plus and minus shaking of the bag.
Out of control by who's standard? The candidates that are pushing it for political gain! It isn't out of control for anyone that has their eyes wide open.
Guest
02-25-2016, 10:53 AM
Out of control by who's standard? The candidates that are pushing it for political gain! It isn't out of control for anyone that has their eyes wide open.
You are delusional! Out of control means - not in control. We, as a country, are not able to control the number of illegal immigrants entering the United States. So, yes Illegal immigration IS out of control.
Guest
02-25-2016, 11:36 AM
But this string was about Obama trying to keep them in the country so they could vote Democratic......
So lets go back to that and take one state who is fixated on no illegals voting.
The Secretary of State in Kansas is prosecuting 3 people for voter fraud, none of them appear to be illegal, to me. But here is the link:
The 3 People Being Prosecuted For Voter Fraud In Kansas | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/30/3717823/voter-fraud-cases-kansas/)
Now Kansas has a requirement for proof of citizenship and this is whats happening:
Kris Kobach sued over proof of citizenship requirement for voters | MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/kris-kobach-sued-over-proof-citizenship-requirement-voters)
These laws are intended to suppress the vote! It is me or do they only show up in
RED STATEI wonder why that is?
According to the constitution, you MUST be a U.S. citizen to vote. Therefore, how does one tell if the person voting is a citizen? You have to have a means to do it, otherwise the state is in violation. So, some form of ID is REQUIRED in order to make sure that the voter is in fact a citizen. If a court orders a state to allow voting without an ID presented, then it will be violating the constitution requirement of proof of citizenship.
Guest
02-25-2016, 11:49 AM
According to the constitution, you MUST be a U.S. citizen to vote. Therefore, how does one tell if the person voting is a citizen? You have to have a means to do it, otherwise the state is in violation. So, some form of ID is REQUIRED in order to make sure that the voter is in fact a citizen. If a court orders a state to allow voting without an ID presented, then it will be violating the constitution requirement of proof of citizenship.
Actually the Supreme Court of the United States thinks otherwise in a 7-2 decision.
SCOTUS: States Can't Require Proof of Citizenship to Vote Using Federal Form - Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/06/17/states-can-t-require-proof-of-citizenship-to-vote-supreme-court-says/)
Guest
02-25-2016, 12:09 PM
Actually the Supreme Court of the United States thinks otherwise in a 7-2 decision.
SCOTUS: States Can't Require Proof of Citizenship to Vote Using Federal Form - Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/06/17/states-can-t-require-proof-of-citizenship-to-vote-supreme-court-says/)
That does not mean that they are right. It just means that the CURRENT Supreme court with liberal ideology has deemed it a particular way. Anyone that can read can see the requirement, therefore the Supreme Court is wrong in this case. How ever, each state COULD require proof of citizenship in order to register for a voter registration ID card. The registration form states that you MUST be a U.S. citizen.
In a court of law, such blatant errors could be equivalent to mishandling the chain of custody for evidence and the charges would be dismissed. I wonder if someday, a very smart lawyer will contest the election voting results and make any states that did not require proof of citizenship, an invalid count. If you can't determine the legality of a vote, then it should be discarded. Right now, it seems we are on the honor system for voting.
If liquor stores were only required to use the honor system for determining age, then they wouldn't lose their license.
How about if a pharmacy used that system for prescriptions?
Why do airlines require an ID?
Guest
02-25-2016, 05:55 PM
The answer is to arrest and prosecute any employer that hires an illegal alien. No jobs, and they will go home. After all, all our big companies are opening up in Mexico.
But, I will go with a big wall, and deportation for anyone caught by the police for breaking the law, even traffic violations.
Do you really think that the repub hierarchy would allow prosecution of an employer? That really is the answer.
Guest
02-25-2016, 07:14 PM
That does not mean that they are right. It just means that the CURRENT Supreme court with liberal ideology has deemed it a particular way. Anyone that can read can see the requirement, therefore the Supreme Court is wrong in this case. How ever, each state COULD require proof of citizenship in order to register for a voter registration ID card. The registration form states that you MUST be a U.S. citizen.
In a court of law, such blatant errors could be equivalent to mishandling the chain of custody for evidence and the charges would be dismissed. I wonder if someday, a very smart lawyer will contest the election voting results and make any states that did not require proof of citizenship, an invalid count. If you can't determine the legality of a vote, then it should be discarded. Right now, it seems we are on the honor system for voting.
If liquor stores were only required to use the honor system for determining age, then they wouldn't lose their license.
How about if a pharmacy used that system for prescriptions?
Why do airlines require an ID?
You signaled your intelligence LIBERAL court. The current court leans 5-4 to the right, of course that was before Scalia's death. This decision was 7-2.
Can you provide a link for a study that looked at the number of illegals who VOTED in an election? In Kansas they could only find 11 people who had registered to vote but no one who had actually VOTED!!!
I await your link.......
Guest
02-25-2016, 07:15 PM
Do you really think that the repub hierarchy would allow prosecution of an employer? That really is the answer.
Why do you single out the republicans with that question.
Do you really think that the democratic hierarchy would allow prosecution of an employer? That really is the the other half the answer.
Remember? We are talking politicians here not honest or honorable people, hence it is impossible to distinguish one from another....R or D.
Guest
02-25-2016, 08:37 PM
You signaled your intelligence LIBERAL court. The current court leans 5-4 to the right, of course that was before Scalia's death. This decision was 7-2.
Can you provide a link for a study that looked at the number of illegals who VOTED in an election? In Kansas they could only find 11 people who had registered to vote but no one who had actually VOTED!!!
I await your link.......
Hey dummy, if they were KNOWN to be illegal they wouldn't have been allowed to vote right? I don't know of anyone that obtained prescriptions illegally either, or liquor, or plane tickets.
The law is the law. Citizenship is required to vote. How do you prove citizenship, by the honor system? I did know someone in NC that voted twice. Once as himself and once as his invalid father. All they ask for in NC is your address. They didn't even ask for any proof of your name. Just asked you name and address.
How did they find those eleven that voted illegally? Did they show ID?
Is there any reason that you can come up with that would be logical enough to NOT warrant a photo ID to vote? Please tell me that you can give me one person that you know of that votes that does not have an ID. They never have traveled, used medication, bought liquor, etc??? I have yet to hear a liberal give me one VALID reason NOT to have a voter ID.
Guest
02-25-2016, 10:26 PM
I moved to Florida from Maryland. No form of identification is required to cast your ballot in Maryland. Just tell the person checking you in your name, address, and birthdate. That is the State Law. It has been that way with both Republican and Democratic governors.
Guest
02-25-2016, 10:42 PM
Hey dummy, if they were KNOWN to be illegal they wouldn't have been allowed to vote right? I don't know of anyone that obtained prescriptions illegally either, or liquor, or plane tickets.
The law is the law. Citizenship is required to vote. How do you prove citizenship, by the honor system? I did know someone in NC that voted twice. Once as himself and once as his invalid father. All they ask for in NC is your address. They didn't even ask for any proof of your name. Just asked you name and address.
How did they find those eleven that voted illegally? Did they show ID?
Is there any reason that you can come up with that would be logical enough to NOT warrant a photo ID to vote? Please tell me that you can give me one person that you know of that votes that does not have an ID. They never have traveled, used medication, bought liquor, etc??? I have yet to hear a liberal give me one VALID reason NOT to have a voter ID.
I have no problem providing my driver's license in order to vote being doing that for years. There was a study in Kansas which did turn up 11 illegals who registered but didn't VOTE. I know of a person living in NC who votes in Florida!
Here is link to one woman...
She (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/article59695406.html)
But here is what is happening in Kansas
More than 21,000 Kansans (http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article3504228.html)
They are denying veterans the right to vote.....
Now I noticed you didn't provide a link to evidence of document voter fraud so I will again be waiting.
Guest
02-25-2016, 10:45 PM
Hey dummy, if they were KNOWN to be illegal they wouldn't have been allowed to vote right? I don't know of anyone that obtained prescriptions illegally either, or liquor, or plane tickets.
The law is the law. Citizenship is required to vote. How do you prove citizenship, by the honor system? I did know someone in NC that voted twice. Once as himself and once as his invalid father. All they ask for in NC is your address. They didn't even ask for any proof of your name. Just asked you name and address.
How did they find those eleven that voted illegally? Did they show ID?
Is there any reason that you can come up with that would be logical enough to NOT warrant a photo ID to vote? Please tell me that you can give me one person that you know of that votes that does not have an ID. They never have traveled, used medication, bought liquor, etc??? I have yet to hear a liberal give me one VALID reason NOT to have a voter ID.
Apparently, you missed the news clip that showed state representatives in the states that are trying to pass stricter voting laws voting for their absent colleagues. Some were sitting there with sticks, so they wouldn't have to get off the dead asses to hit their colleagues voting box. Some of the representatives were voting two or more times on a bill. Maybe they should start voting only once in their own chambers, and set a good example of what voting a real democracy is. They should try to live by their own rules.
I would like to hear one Republican that thinks that the states passing the stricter laws aren't targeting minorities. Why is so hard to accept that inner city minorities don't have drivers licenses? Why is obtaining a voter id only during working hours? The post office has mobile trucks that you can buy stamps, or mail items from. Why don't these states have mobile vehicles that will go into minority sections of cities, and issue voter ids? Why is making it easy to obtain a voter id a real problem?
Better yet, why not hand out voter ids at the polling booth at the next election. All the voter would have to do is show the id that they showed in the past, and then that person would receive voter id.
As soon as, the courts said that basically southern states didn't have to get courts approval before they could change the voting laws due to their discriminatory past practices, South Carolina, and Texas rushed to adopt strict voter id laws. South Caroline did it in a day.
You are going to sit there with a straight face, and say that minorities are being targeted. Come on man! If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
Guest
02-26-2016, 04:38 AM
I moved to Florida from Maryland. No form of identification is required to cast your ballot in Maryland. Just tell the person checking you in your name, address, and birthdate. That is the State Law. It has been that way with both Republican and Democratic governors.
Yes, and look at how messed up Maryland is. One of the worst cesspools in the country. And yes, I grew up there too. And I was smart enough to leave a long time ago. They tax everything, including rain tax, flush tax, having another home in another state, etc. Even California is better.
Guest
02-26-2016, 04:47 AM
Apparently, you missed the news clip that showed state representatives in the states that are trying to pass stricter voting laws voting for their absent colleagues. Some were sitting there with sticks, so they wouldn't have to get off the dead asses to hit their colleagues voting box. Some of the representatives were voting two or more times on a bill. Maybe they should start voting only once in their own chambers, and set a good example of what voting a real democracy is. They should try to live by their own rules.
I would like to hear one Republican that thinks that the states passing the stricter laws aren't targeting minorities. Why is so hard to accept that inner city minorities don't have drivers licenses? Why is obtaining a voter id only during working hours? The post office has mobile trucks that you can buy stamps, or mail items from. Why don't these states have mobile vehicles that will go into minority sections of cities, and issue voter ids? Why is making it easy to obtain a voter id a real problem?
Better yet, why not hand out voter ids at the polling booth at the next election. All the voter would have to do is show the id that they showed in the past, and then that person would receive voter id.
As soon as, the courts said that basically southern states didn't have to get courts approval before they could change the voting laws due to their discriminatory past practices, South Carolina, and Texas rushed to adopt strict voter id laws. South Caroline did it in a day.
You are going to sit there with a straight face, and say that minorities are being targeted. Come on man! If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
BS! Again, you are lying. Are you trying to convince me that minorities are stupid, and lazy? Are you telling me that minorities do not have a birth certificate, no ID, etc? If you believe that, then you are an idiot. I was a cop back in the 70's and never arrested one person that didn't have an ID available, either on him or at home. You are just spreading unfounded lies because you are afraid that we might be right in our supposition that there might be illegal voting practices going on that many do not know of. Even if there isn't, then the idea of voter ID is not unreasonable. When you register to vote, you have to check the box that certifies that you are a U.S. citizen. Proof should be required at the same time. PERIOD.
Another libtard shouting RACISM when they lose an argument.
Guest
02-26-2016, 08:03 AM
I moved to Florida from Maryland. No form of identification is required to cast your ballot in Maryland. Just tell the person checking you in your name, address, and birthdate. That is the State Law. It has been that way with both Republican and Democratic governors.
Yes, you are right. Each State determines if ID is required to vote or not. It is one of those things left to the States by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Maryland is one of 13 States not requiring ID to vote.
Guest
02-26-2016, 08:14 AM
Yes, you are right. Each State determines if ID is required to vote or not. It is one of those things left to the States by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Maryland is one of 13 States not requiring ID to vote.
Don't you wonder what happened to the constitutionality of state rights? You say MD requires ID to vote. So does Florida. But, what happens when someone takes it to court? The court tells the state that they can't require the ID. Another reason for term limits on everything political, especially the Supreme Court.
Guest
02-26-2016, 09:47 AM
Hey dummy, if they were KNOWN to be illegal they wouldn't have been allowed to vote right? I don't know of anyone that obtained prescriptions illegally either, or liquor, or plane tickets.
The law is the law. Citizenship is required to vote. How do you prove citizenship, by the honor system? I did know someone in NC that voted twice. Once as himself and once as his invalid father. All they ask for in NC is your address. They didn't even ask for any proof of your name. Just asked you name and address.
How did they find those eleven that voted illegally? Did they show ID?
Is there any reason that you can come up with that would be logical enough to NOT warrant a photo ID to vote? Please tell me that you can give me one person that you know of that votes that does not have an ID. They never have traveled, used medication, bought liquor, etc??? I have yet to hear a liberal give me one VALID reason NOT to have a voter ID.
Still waiting for that link that shows voter fraud! But we both know you can't because voter fraud at a level to swing a race just doesn't exist. But purging rolls, strict voter ID laws and stricter registration rules does suppress the vote.
But I have time I will wait for your link!
Guest
02-26-2016, 10:34 AM
Still waiting for that link that shows voter fraud! But we both know you can't because voter fraud at a level to swing a race just doesn't exist. But purging rolls, strict voter ID laws and stricter registration rules does suppress the vote.
But I have time I will wait for your link!
Why don't you provide some links that prove there is NO fraud? Are you an idiot or impaired that you did not comprehend that there is hardly any way of detecting voter fraud without first proving that someone is a legitimate voter? By the way, remember ACORN? There is one example of voter fraud. YOU look it up. That's just one example.
You are saying that you want to prove that a drunk drove home from the bar the night before, the next morning right? You want to prove that I was speeding on my down Rt95, a week after I arrived at my home? That is what you are saying.
I am not going to read through this 130+ pages, but it might be interesting reading. You probably won't accept anything from heritage.org.
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/VoterFraudCases-Merged-3-2.pdf
Guest
02-26-2016, 12:02 PM
Why don't you provide some links that prove there is NO fraud? Are you an idiot or impaired that you did not comprehend that there is hardly any way of detecting voter fraud without first proving that someone is a legitimate voter? By the way, remember ACORN? There is one example of voter fraud. YOU look it up. That's just one example.
You are saying that you want to prove that a drunk drove home from the bar the night before, the next morning right? You want to prove that I was speeding on my down Rt95, a week after I arrived at my home? That is what you are saying.
I am not going to read through this 130+ pages, but it might be interesting reading. You probably won't accept anything from heritage.org.
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/VoterFraudCases-Merged-3-2.pdf
Actually you are absolutely wrong about ACORN and their involvement in voter fraud. To commit voter fraud you have to ACTUALLY VOTE! Acorn was paying people to get people to sign up to vote. But do to a highly edited uncover sting operation by James O'Keefe.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/02/17/james-okeefe-and-the-myth-of-the-acorn-pimp/160485
After investigation ACORN was cleared of any wrong doing but the Republican myth lives on! Who looks stupid now?
I will look at Heritage stuff if you provide it! I am as narrow minded as you!
Guest
02-26-2016, 12:24 PM
Actually you are absolutely wrong about ACORN and their involvement in voter fraud. To commit voter fraud you have to ACTUALLY VOTE! Acorn was paying people to get people to sign up to vote. But do to a highly edited uncover sting operation by James O'Keefe.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/02/17/james-okeefe-and-the-myth-of-the-acorn-pimp/160485
After investigation ACORN was cleared of any wrong doing but the Republican myth lives on! Who looks stupid now?
I will look at Heritage stuff if you provide it! I am as narrow minded as you!
The link was in the post that you replied to.
ACORN cleared...ha,ha,ha.....right.
Guest
02-26-2016, 12:25 PM
Why don't you provide some links that prove there is NO fraud? Are you an idiot or impaired that you did not comprehend that there is hardly any way of detecting voter fraud without first proving that someone is a legitimate voter? By the way, remember ACORN? There is one example of voter fraud. YOU look it up. That's just one example.
You are saying that you want to prove that a drunk drove home from the bar the night before, the next morning right? You want to prove that I was speeding on my down Rt95, a week after I arrived at my home? That is what you are saying.
I am not going to read through this 130+ pages, but it might be interesting reading. You probably won't accept anything from heritage.org.
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/VoterFraudCases-Merged-3-2.pdf
I looked at Heritage and the link you provided. The Heritage case was from 2008 in Ohio which predicted there would be fraud but I could not find a followup which proved it actually happened. Can you find one about that?
The other one was 1 guy who voted in a different district to help a relative in a state house election. Not a massive voter fraud to say the least.
The other link was over many years and states which seem to deal with absentee ballots and voting in the wrong district. I didn't see anything that changed a US House, Senate or Presidential race. But I did notice there were no cases of voter fraud in Kansas the state that has the new citizenship requirement but is causing citizens from registering.
Guest
02-26-2016, 12:33 PM
I looked at Heritage and the link you provided. The Heritage case was from 2008 in Ohio which predicted there would be fraud but I could not find a followup which proved it actually happened. Can you find one about that?
The other one was 1 guy who voted in a different district to help a relative in a state house election. Not a massive voter fraud to say the least.
The other link was over many years and states which seem to deal with absentee ballots and voting in the wrong district. I didn't see anything that changed a US House, Senate or Presidential race. But I did notice there were no cases of voter fraud in Kansas the state that has the new citizenship requirement but is causing citizens from registering.
You're kidding, right? A citizenship requirement, which is a constitutional requirement, is keeping citizens from registering? That is absolutely asinine Without using Huffington Post as your reference, prove that this legal requirement has kept anyone from voting. Just provide some links and I'll look them up. You are so good at that requirement, so I am sure you can provide proof other than hearsay. You are so ridiculous. That's like saying that requiring a drivers license is keeping people from driving.
Guest
02-26-2016, 12:59 PM
BS! Again, you are lying. Are you trying to convince me that minorities are stupid, and lazy? Are you telling me that minorities do not have a birth certificate, no ID, etc? If you believe that, then you are an idiot. I was a cop back in the 70's and never arrested one person that didn't have an ID available, either on him or at home. You are just spreading unfounded lies because you are afraid that we might be right in our supposition that there might be illegal voting practices going on that many do not know of. Even if there isn't, then the idea of voter ID is not unreasonable. When you register to vote, you have to check the box that certifies that you are a U.S. citizen. Proof should be required at the same time. PERIOD.
Another libtard shouting RACISM when they lose an argument.
Well, I see starting every post with an insult has left your game plan yet. Why all of a sudden is voter fraud such a big deal? Republicans can't win the minority vote, so they are doing everything possible to make sure that minorities can't vote. Racism! You are damn right that it is. You want to run away from it go ahead, because it fits you.
Why is it that only Republican controlled states are instituting tough voter id laws? What was acceptable in the past is not acceptable now. Why?
How do you run away from the speaker of the Penn. House comment, we just gave Penn. to Romney, after Penn. passed voter id laws that was directed at inner city minorities in that state?
Guest
02-26-2016, 01:12 PM
Well, I see starting every post with an insult has left your game plan yet. Why all of a sudden is voter fraud such a big deal? Republicans can't win the minority vote, so they are doing everything possible to make sure that minorities can't vote. Racism! You are damn right that it is. You want to run away from it go ahead, because it fits you.
Why is it that only Republican controlled states are instituting tough voter id laws? What was acceptable in the past is not acceptable now. Why?
How do you run away from the speaker of the Penn. House comment, we just gave Penn. to Romney, after Penn. passed voter id laws that was directed at inner city minorities in that state?
What are you liberals afraid of? If you are a citizen, you have nothing to fear. Simple as that. Why that becomes racist is only something that a liberal can fabricate. How many blacks or Hispanics are running for office in the Democrat/socialist party?
Let's face it, if you can't win a argument, you shout racism. You have yet to give a reason for not enforcing the Constitutional requirement of being a citizen to vote. Do you not believe in the Constitution? Do you not believe in the law? Please provide some proof that this requirement will prevent anyone from voting. I have never met anyone that did not have an ID of some sort. Birth certificates are easily obtained if lost. You have to have one in order to obtain a drivers license.
So, give me one solid, substantial reason that requiring proof of citizenship is being unreasonable. If so, I suggest that you get the Constitution amended.
Guest
02-26-2016, 02:17 PM
What are you liberals afraid of? If you are a citizen, you have nothing to fear. Simple as that. Why that becomes racist is only something that a liberal can fabricate. How many blacks or Hispanics are running for office in the Democrat/socialist party?
Let's face it, if you can't win a argument, you shout racism. You have yet to give a reason for not enforcing the Constitutional requirement of being a citizen to vote. Do you not believe in the Constitution? Do you not believe in the law? Please provide some proof that this requirement will prevent anyone from voting. I have never met anyone that did not have an ID of some sort. Birth certificates are easily obtained if lost. You have to have one in order to obtain a drivers license.
So, give me one solid, substantial reason that requiring proof of citizenship is being unreasonable. If so, I suggest that you get the Constitution amended.
The proof of citizenship to vote is one of the powers left for the States. There are currently 13 states that require NO proof of citizenship. It is up to those states to develop whatever changes they desire. At this time, they do not desire changes. Some of those states have a Democratic governor and some have a Republican governor.
Guest
02-26-2016, 05:13 PM
What are you liberals afraid of? If you are a citizen, you have nothing to fear. Simple as that. Why that becomes racist is only something that a liberal can fabricate. How many blacks or Hispanics are running for office in the Democrat/socialist party?
Let's face it, if you can't win a argument, you shout racism. You have yet to give a reason for not enforcing the Constitutional requirement of being a citizen to vote. Do you not believe in the Constitution? Do you not believe in the law? Please provide some proof that this requirement will prevent anyone from voting. I have never met anyone that did not have an ID of some sort. Birth certificates are easily obtained if lost. You have to have one in order to obtain a drivers license.
So, give me one solid, substantial reason that requiring proof of citizenship is being unreasonable. If so, I suggest that you get the Constitution amended.
All of a sudden the Constitution popped up, when Republicans knew that they couldn't win election without a reasonable percentage of minority votes, and they were not going to make any attempt to get them. So, you do the next best thing make it hard for them to vote. I am going to take it upon myself to get the Constitution changed, so what was acceptable in the past is acceptable now. I have that power. I will have a meeting with McConnell, and Ryan. They will see that it is me asking, and they will do a 180 degree turn, and everything will return to the past. They will beg my forgiveness for their misguided attempt to change the rules of voting.
Give me one solid and substantial reason that items that proved your citizenship before are not acceptable now. Did the Founders have to show their drivers licenses to obtain a picture voter id?
For heavens sakes, Obama produced his birth certificate. Did that stop the birthers, including a very rich one, from questioning his citizenship? All they had to do was look at his color, and his name and they knew that he was an illegal. Hell, he wasn't president for two months, and people were yelling "give us our country back".
Some people are saying that his birth certificate isn't real, but not me. So, I just thought I would just spend millions to check.
Some people say that Ted Cruz isn't a natural born citizens, not me. So, I think I will sue before the Democrats do.
Some people say that Rubio can't run for president, because of his parents not me. I will just have to check.
Some people say that the world is flat, not me. I will just have to check.
And that who is leading the Republican party for nomination to be our president.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to live in the inner city? I don't. I get the impression that you think that it is real easy. It is heaven on earth.
Take a look at these estimated numbers from government agencies.
Demographics of Immigrants in the United States Illegally - Illegal Immigration Solutions - ProCon.org (http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845#countries)
Illegal immigration increased by over 3 million under "W". It has gone down around 300 thousand under Obama. There is a breakdown of the jobs that illegals are taking.
Was there any push for picture voter ids under "W". No, because "W" did well with the minorities. He spoke their language.
If you don't think that the new picture voters id laws are making it harder for minorities to vote, you aren't looking. The last thing that you want to look at is what information is required, where the location is that this information has to be produced, and what hours the locations are in operation.
Guest
02-26-2016, 06:02 PM
The link was in the post that you replied to.
ACORN cleared...ha,ha,ha.....right.
So you didn't read the link
So here is a different one....
ACORN Accusations (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/acorn-accusations/)
It was not VOTER FRAUD! Let's look at O'Keefe he has a criminal record
ACORN filmmaker James O (http://thehill.com/capital-living/in-the-know/100105-filmmaker-okeefe-sentenced-in-sen-mary-landrieu-break-in)
Keep drinking the FAUX NEWS KoolAide
Guest
02-26-2016, 07:14 PM
The question is a very simple one.
Why is it a problem to have to show proof of voter registration and identity at a polling place?
I have never voted in an election where it was not required.
So please a simple answer....why is it seen as a problem by some?
Guest
02-26-2016, 08:26 PM
The question is a very simple one.
Why is it a problem to have to show proof of voter registration and identity at a polling place?
I have never voted in an election where it was not required.
So please a simple answer....why is it seen as a problem by some?
To make it as simple as possible, its NOT that they have to show an ID its about the regulations surrounding an ID the state will accept.
Hope this helps.....
Guest
02-26-2016, 11:59 PM
To make it as simple as possible, its NOT that they have to show an ID its about the regulations surrounding an ID the state will accept.
Hope this helps.....
Oh! You mean they might not qualify. So! I get it now. Keep the system loosey goosey.... No id therefore anybody's and everybody can vote, valid or not.
No enforcement at work again. A complimentary benefit to illegal immigration......open borders......no enforcement........let em vote.
Now I get it.
BS! No ID no vote.
Guest
02-27-2016, 06:42 AM
A photo ID will only have an effect on Democrat voters. That is what the liberal on here is saying. ONLY Dem's have a hard time getting the proper ID, therefore it must be racial. So, Dem's think that minorities are slow and stupid and have more difficulty obtaining a voter registration than non-minorities. Dems are racists for thinking like that, and minorities must laugh at them for being so naive. Dem's have run out of logical reasons for not wanting to uphold the Constitutional law requiring citizenship to vote. They have tried to rely on racial bias for way too long. Now, it appears that they are attempting to hide something illegal.
I have yet to have one liberal provide proof that requiring a valid photo ID is a hardship, or that it would disenfranchise anyone from voting.
Guest
02-27-2016, 11:57 AM
Oh! You mean they might not qualify. So! I get it now. Keep the system loosey goosey.... No id therefore anybody's and everybody can vote, valid or not.
No enforcement at work again. A complimentary benefit to illegal immigration......open borders......no enforcement........let em vote.
Now I get it.
BS! No ID no vote.
That is NOT what I said! I am not opposed to a photo id. But let's look at what has been happening.
Many of the states that are pushing STRICT voter ID laws were covered under the voting rights section 4.
With Voting Rights Act Out, States Push Voter ID Laws | FRONTLINE | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/with-voting-rights-act-out-states-push-voter-id-laws/)
This is what Alabama did:
Alabama now requires a Photo ID.....then they closed 45 of 49 DMV offices which are the only places you can get an ID.
ALABAMA: State Prepares To Close 45 Of 49 DMV Offices, Shutting Out Poor Despite Strict Voter ID Law - Joe.My.God. (http://www.joemygod.com/2015/08/27/alabama-state-prepares-to-close-45-of-49-dmv-offices-shutting-out-poor-despite-strict-voter-id-law/)
After the backlash...
Alabama Will Reopen Closed DMV Offices in Black Counties (http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/drivers-license-offices-will-reopen-on-limited-basis.html)
Now lets look at what happens with women voters
This women was denied registration because she couldn't prove the M for her middle name was short for Miller her maiden name. But after the backlash a solution. How many other women has this happened to?
NC DMV says it messed up by rejecting 86-year-old woman seeking voter ID | News & Observer (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article59763976.html)
And in Texas what happened to a snowbird...I can relate to that
Texas woman threatened with jail after applying for voter ID | MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/texas-woman-threatened-jail-after-applying-voter-id)
Women historically change their name when they marry so this happens
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/29/texas-voter-id-law-women-vote
But I believe the courts have struck down parts of this.
Hopefully now you will understand..... I showed my license when I voted in Colorado and when I voted in Florida after I moved here 2 years ago.
Guest
02-27-2016, 12:02 PM
A photo ID will only have an effect on Democrat voters. That is what the liberal on here is saying. ONLY Dem's have a hard time getting the proper ID, therefore it must be racial. So, Dem's think that minorities are slow and stupid and have more difficulty obtaining a voter registration than non-minorities. Dems are racists for thinking like that, and minorities must laugh at them for being so naive. Dem's have run out of logical reasons for not wanting to uphold the Constitutional law requiring citizenship to vote. They have tried to rely on racial bias for way too long. Now, it appears that they are attempting to hide something illegal.
I have yet to have one liberal provide proof that requiring a valid photo ID is a hardship, or that it would disenfranchise anyone from voting.
Actually I was talking about women......
She (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/article59695406.html)
This woman couldn't register because of her middle initial which was changed when she married. How many woman change there names in life as opposed to men. You can't see that problem?
Guest
02-27-2016, 12:11 PM
Actually I was talking about women......
She (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/article59695406.html)
This woman couldn't register because of her middle initial which was changed when she married. How many woman change there names in life as opposed to men. You can't see that problem?
The question should be not "Can you see the problem or rather will you acknowledge the problem?"
Guest
02-27-2016, 04:02 PM
Actually I was talking about women......
She (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/article59695406.html)
This woman couldn't register because of her middle initial which was changed when she married. How many woman change there names in life as opposed to men. You can't see that problem?
So, you found one person that was too dumb to get the proper ID, and you want her vote. Got it. Democrats need dumb voters. The more ignorant the better. That's why they are the party of slavery and that is why they continue to control (enslave) the lower income folks. Got it. Thanks for admitting that Democrats need to control dumb voters so we must make it as easy as possible. Perhaps you should have a little smart pad like the UPS drivers have that you can have someone go out to their homes and have them vote using a scan of their fingerprint. That way, they won't have to have an ID and won't have to know how to sign their names. Better yet, have it voice controlled so that all they have to do is answer the door.
Guest
02-27-2016, 04:48 PM
The ID required to vote differs from state to state. Some states do not require any ID while some require photo ID.
This is not a national issue but a state issue.
Let it go and just go along with what is required for your state.
In Florida, a state issued ID from motor vehicles costs around $50 but is valid for 8 years. Are there free ones available?
Guest
02-27-2016, 05:12 PM
MAybe at some point we can get back to the subject of the original post........the pi$$ing contest over voter ID is sorta worn out.
Guest
02-27-2016, 06:05 PM
MAybe at some point we can get back to the subject of the original post........the pi$$ing contest over voter ID is sorta worn out.
Illegals voting is tied to Voter ID laws.... so those post appear to be in the stream of the subject.
Could it be that the 2 previous posts were hard to refute?
Guest
02-27-2016, 06:41 PM
It is easy to get a Florida driver license if you are from a different country. I used my International Driver License and it was not questioned.
Guest
02-27-2016, 07:36 PM
It is easy to get a Florida driver license if you are from a different country. I used my International Driver License and it was not questioned.
Excellent reason for a real voter ID card.
Guest
02-27-2016, 10:45 PM
It is easy to get a Florida driver license if you are from a different country. I used my International Driver License and it was not questioned.
So you had an International drivers liscence and must have been here legally.
Do you think an illegal entrant with no valid documentation of anything should be as easy?
Guest
02-27-2016, 11:16 PM
So you had an International drivers liscence and must have been here legally.
Do you think an illegal entrant with no valid documentation of anything should be as easy?
What is to say that someone who enters the USA illegally would not have an International Driver License? Since it is international, it is good all over Europe as well as Mexico, Central America, and South America.
Yes, I am legal but not a citizen. I was asked when I got my Florida driver license if I wanted to register to vote. The clerk was obviously not familiar with rules. I declined. Others probably do not decline voter registration. Motor Voter Registration is almost automatic.
Guest
02-28-2016, 06:13 AM
I am at a loss to understand why a citizen would argue in favor or against rules ,laws, policy that operate to maintain the integrity of our voting system so that the people's majority choices prevail? Why would any citizen with common sense be so reckless as to allow non citizens to vote? To allow citizens to cast more than one vote? To allow dead people to vote?
there can be only one answer and that is manipulation of the voting process to ensure and maintain control . That is how they vote in Latin America
This issue is especially sad since every citizen in this nation has a photo ID for something.
Personal Best Regards:
Guest
02-28-2016, 06:49 AM
I am at a loss to understand why a citizen would argue in favor or against rules ,laws, policy that operate to maintain the integrity of our voting system so that the people's majority choices prevail? Why would any citizen with common sense be so reckless as to allow non citizens to vote? To allow citizens to cast more than one vote? To allow dead people to vote?
there can be only one answer and that is manipulation of the voting process to ensure and maintain control . That is how they vote in Latin America
This issue is especially sad since every citizen in this nation has a photo ID for something.
Personal Best Regards:
You hit on it when you said "integrity." If you study the left over a period of time, you will notice that the left has drifted further and further toward immorality and the lack of ethics. Your "integrity" has been totally disregarded, and with pride. When they disparage anyone of religious faith, other than the Muslims (out of fear, of course) then they delight in their misery. And you know how misery loves company. The left has a total disregard for laws, rule and regulations and only refer to them IF they believe they can further their agenda, anarchy. They are a confused lot.
Guest
02-28-2016, 08:58 AM
I am at a loss to understand why a citizen would argue in favor or against rules ,laws, policy that operate to maintain the integrity of our voting system so that the people's majority choices prevail? Why would any citizen with common sense be so reckless as to allow non citizens to vote? To allow citizens to cast more than one vote? To allow dead people to vote?
there can be only one answer and that is manipulation of the voting process to ensure and maintain control . That is how they vote in Latin America
This issue is especially sad since every citizen in this nation has a photo ID for something.
Personal Best Regards:
As I said in my post I am not opposed to Photo ID to vote I personally have showed such an ID in 2 different states to vote.
But this statement you posted is, total incorrect:
This issue is especially sad since every citizen in this nation has a photo ID for something.
In reality
Having a driver's license or photo identification card is commonplace for most Americans, but about 11 percent of adult citizens — more than 21 million people — lack a valid, government-issued photo ID, according to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.
Some older citizens lack a birth certificate, my father was one such person, he always voted.
But as I said before its NOT about the ID its about what happens when a women presents her ID.
Voter Photo ID Laws Hit Older Americans Hard - Voting Rights - AARP (http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-01-2012/voter-id-laws-impact-older-americans.html)
She couldn't prove the letter M on her drivers license stood for her maiden name.
This practice is on the rise again....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/upshot/maiden-names-on-the-rise-again.html
If we were living in Texas in a retirement community our community id like The Villages ID is NOT an acceptable ID for voting even though it includes a picture.
Please try and understand what the problem really is!
Guest
02-28-2016, 10:30 AM
the whole voter ID issue is nothing more than anither political BS story to rile the uninformed.
I find it utterly amazing that the people who find a way to get to the registration location for food stamps have no problem.
Those who sign up for unemployment have no problem.
And one does have to verify who they are at each of those.
So cut the BS on the big inconvenience BS stories.
Guest
02-28-2016, 10:34 AM
As I said in my post I am not opposed to Photo ID to vote I personally have showed such an ID in 2 different states to vote.
But this statement you posted is, total incorrect:
This issue is especially sad since every citizen in this nation has a photo ID for something.
In reality
Having a driver's license or photo identification card is commonplace for most Americans, but about 11 percent of adult citizens — more than 21 million people — lack a valid, government-issued photo ID, according to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.
Some older citizens lack a birth certificate, my father was one such person, he always voted.
But as I said before its NOT about the ID its about what happens when a women presents her ID.
Voter Photo ID Laws Hit Older Americans Hard - Voting Rights - AARP (http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-01-2012/voter-id-laws-impact-older-americans.html)
She couldn't prove the letter M on her drivers license stood for her maiden name.
This practice is on the rise again....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/upshot/maiden-names-on-the-rise-again.html
If we were living in Texas in a retirement community our community id like The Villages ID is NOT an acceptable ID for voting even though it includes a picture.
Please try and understand what the problem really is!
Every state DMV/DOT has photo ID's available. Any state requiring a voter ID, will provide a photo ID. This is not a difficult issue. This is just an issue because liberals wish to make it an issue. They seem to be afraid that if there is a voter ID requirement, many folks won't be able to vote illegally. Such as underage voting, felony voting, voting twice (happens all the time), voting in the wrong jurisdiction, etc. And yet, they have insisted falsely that this requirement disenfranchises minorities. As if minorities are less intelligent, less able to obtain an ID, legitimately.
Guest
02-28-2016, 11:13 AM
Every state DMV/DOT has photo ID's available. Any state requiring a voter ID, will provide a photo ID. This is not a difficult issue. This is just an issue because liberals wish to make it an issue. They seem to be afraid that if there is a voter ID requirement, many folks won't be able to vote illegally. Such as underage voting, felony voting, voting twice (happens all the time), voting in the wrong jurisdiction, etc. And yet, they have insisted falsely that this requirement disenfranchises minorities. As if minorities are less intelligent, less able to obtain an ID, legitimately.
It seems that the poster has forgot in order to vote that you must be on the voter rolls. You cannot go in to a polling place and get a ballot. In the state of Maryland, you had to say your name, address, and birthdate. If you were not on the voter roll, no vote for you.
Guest
02-28-2016, 11:28 AM
Every state DMV/DOT has photo ID's available. Any state requiring a voter ID, will provide a photo ID. This is not a difficult issue. This is just an issue because liberals wish to make it an issue. They seem to be afraid that if there is a voter ID requirement, many folks won't be able to vote illegally. Such as underage voting, felony voting, voting twice (happens all the time), voting in the wrong jurisdiction, etc. And yet, they have insisted falsely that this requirement disenfranchises minorities. As if minorities are less intelligent, less able to obtain an ID, legitimately.
I don't think that women in NC was a minority......
Your racist comments have been noted!
Guest
02-28-2016, 11:30 AM
Every state DMV/DOT has photo ID's available. Any state requiring a voter ID, will provide a photo ID. This is not a difficult issue. This is just an issue because liberals wish to make it an issue. They seem to be afraid that if there is a voter ID requirement, many folks won't be able to vote illegally. Such as underage voting, felony voting, voting twice (happens all the time), voting in the wrong jurisdiction, etc. And yet, they have insisted falsely that this requirement disenfranchises minorities. As if minorities are less intelligent, less able to obtain an ID, legitimately.
Unless the state does this closes 90% of DMV, citing budget issues
Alabama Punishes All Voters And Drivers By Closing DMV Offices (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tures/alabama-punishes-all-vote_b_8338940.html)
Educate yourself about the issues......
Guest
02-28-2016, 11:43 AM
I read the link in the original post, from the National Review. It is an analysis of actions taken by federal agencies to regulate federal forms and what the details of those forms may be. Everyone who disagrees with the author's opinion is labeled as a Leftist, a member of a cadre etc. The issue is really how much proof is needed to qualify to vote in an election. Surely 160 years ago there was none. You were a white male citizen of age 21 by your own word, you could vote. No women nor negroes need attempt.
Now we have states that have differing levels of scrutiny. That is fine. What is an issue is whether the scrutiny is excessive or arbitrary. How about you must register your DNA in a state controlled database before being allowed to vote. That way we can be sure you are not a felon. Should you be convicted at a later time of a felony we can automatically remove you from the voter eligible list. This certainly accomplishes the goal of reducing voter fraud and all reductions in voter fraud are for the greater good, aren't they?
In the National Review the four recommended stories for me to read next are:
"Yes, Trump University was a Massive Scam"
"Trump isn't Upset by the Obama Era, He's Always been a Wannabe Mussolini"
"Donald Trump Three Times Fails to Deny the KKK"
and
"Trump vs the First Amendment"
So I guess it is a reliable and thoughtful source
Guest
02-28-2016, 11:53 AM
Every state DMV/DOT has photo ID's available. Any state requiring a voter ID, will provide a photo ID. This is not a difficult issue. This is just an issue because liberals wish to make it an issue. They seem to be afraid that if there is a voter ID requirement, many folks won't be able to vote illegally. Such as underage voting, felony voting, voting twice (happens all the time), voting in the wrong jurisdiction, etc. And yet, they have insisted falsely that this requirement disenfranchises minorities. As if minorities are less intelligent, less able to obtain an ID, legitimately.
I'll bet you went to church today! Southern Baptist?
Guest
02-28-2016, 12:23 PM
You've become pretty stupid - watching Faux News does that to you
:a20:
Guest
02-28-2016, 01:15 PM
I don't think that women in NC was a minority......
Your racist comments have been noted!
Obviously, you are illiterate. Otherwise, you would not interpret anything that I said to be racist. But, stick around and become educated.....if that's possible.
Guest
02-28-2016, 01:18 PM
I'll bet you went to church today! Southern Baptist?
You seem to have a lot of religious issues? You continue to bring up the issue of faith, so I imagine you are having some personal problems.
Guest
02-28-2016, 01:21 PM
It seems that the poster has forgot in order to vote that you must be on the voter rolls. You cannot go in to a polling place and get a ballot. In the state of Maryland, you had to say your name, address, and birthdate. If you were not on the voter roll, no vote for you.
It seems that you have a reading comprehension problem. Where did that poster say anything about "getting a ballot?" In NC, all they ask is name and address. I know a guy that voted twice, once for his father. So, before stepping on your .......... try thinking before posting.
Guest
02-28-2016, 02:45 PM
It seems that you have a reading comprehension problem. Where did that poster say anything about "getting a ballot?" In NC, all they ask is name and address. I know a guy that voted twice, once for his father. So, before stepping on your .......... try thinking before posting.
And like a good citizen you turned him in right?
Guest
02-28-2016, 02:53 PM
You seem to have a lot of religious issues? You continue to bring up the issue of faith, so I imagine you are having some personal problems.
I have problems with racist remarks, people that make them who then claim to be Christian. Southern Baptists have historically been a racist religion. The Southern Baptist Convention was formed in response to slavery. The SBC defunded the right to own slaves and opposed the civil rights of African Americans.
I noticed you didn't comment on the racist remarks.....
Guest
02-28-2016, 03:01 PM
I have problems with racist remarks, people that make them who then claim to be Christian. Southern Baptists have historically been a racist religion. The Southern Baptist Convention was formed in response to slavery. The SBC defunded the right to own slaves and opposed the civil rights of African Americans.
I noticed you didn't comment on the racist remarks.....
I think you have it displayed incorrectly.
It is not the religious bent that influences or represents racism or not.
It, like many other apsects of our lives, is dictated by individuals who happen to be of one religion or not.
So to tie a person being racist to a given religion is wrong.
Remember the weak link in most relious endeavors is MAN!!
Guest
02-28-2016, 03:10 PM
It seems that you have a reading comprehension problem. Where did that poster say anything about "getting a ballot?" In NC, all they ask is name and address. I know a guy that voted twice, once for his father. So, before stepping on your .......... try thinking before posting.
Your name must be on the voter rolls (registration) in order to vote - no matter what state.
You tell the person your name, address and date of birth and they hand you a ballot and you take the ballot to the booth and vote.
If you do not get a ballot, how do you vote? Don't step on yours - oh, too late.
Guest
02-28-2016, 03:17 PM
I think you have it displayed incorrectly.
It is not the religious bent that influences or represents racism or not.
It, like many other apsects of our lives, is dictated by individuals who happen to be of one religion or not.
So to tie a person being racist to a given religion is wrong.
Remember the weak link in most relious endeavors is MAN!!
In their own words....
Southern Baptist Convention > Resolution On Racial Reconciliation On The 150th Anniversary Of The Southern Baptist Convention (http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/899/resolution-on-racial-reconciliation-on-the-150th-anniversary-of-the-southern-baptist-convention)
When I was young a friend of mine's parents said we couldn't be friends because I was Catholic. So I have personal knowledge regarding this issue.
Guest
02-28-2016, 04:19 PM
Your name must be on the voter rolls (registration) in order to vote - no matter what state.
You tell the person your name, address and date of birth and they hand you a ballot and you take the ballot to the booth and vote.
If you do not get a ballot, how do you vote? Don't step on yours - oh, too late.
That is NOT true about North Carolina anymore.
Guest
02-28-2016, 04:22 PM
In their own words....
Southern Baptist Convention > Resolution On Racial Reconciliation On The 150th Anniversary Of The Southern Baptist Convention (http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/899/resolution-on-racial-reconciliation-on-the-150th-anniversary-of-the-southern-baptist-convention)
When I was young a friend of mine's parents said we couldn't be friends because I was Catholic. So I have personal knowledge regarding this issue.
So you are saying it was the religion that made then do it?
Not the people who happen to be in that religion!
Guest
02-28-2016, 04:46 PM
So you are saying it was the religion that made then do it?
Not the people who happen to be in that religion!
Not going to debate religion with you.
Guest
02-28-2016, 05:05 PM
Your name must be on the voter rolls (registration) in order to vote - no matter what state.
You tell the person your name, address and date of birth and they hand you a ballot and you take the ballot to the booth and vote.
If you do not get a ballot, how do you vote? Don't step on yours - oh, too late.
Duhhh! You are so naive. But, keep repeating yourself until you believe what you are saying.
Guest
02-29-2016, 08:36 AM
I'm
We’re in a funny moment. Those who do politics for a living, some of them quite brilliant, are struggling to comprehend the central fact Republican primary race, while regular people have already absorbed what has happened and is happening. Journalists and politicos have been sharing schemes for how Marco parlays a victory out of winning nowhere, or Ted roars back, or Kasich has to finish second in Ohio. But in my experience any nonpolitical person on the street, when asked who will win, not only knows but gets a look as if you’re teasing him. Trump, they say.
I had such a conversation again Tuesday with a friend who repairs shoes in a shop on Lexington Avenue. Jimmy asked me, conversationally, what was going to happen. I deflected and asked who he thinks is going to win. “Troomp!” He’s a very nice man, an elderly, old-school Italian-American, but I saw impatience flick across his face: Aren’t you supposed to know these things?
In America now only normal people are capable of seeing the obvious.
But actually that’s been true for a while, and is how we got in the position we’re in.
Last October I wrote of the five stages of Trump, based on the Kübler-Ross stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Most of the professionals I know are stuck somewhere between four and five.
But I keep thinking of how Donald Trump got to be the very likely Republican nominee. There are many answers and reasons, but my thoughts keep revolving around the idea of protection. It is a theme that has been something of a preoccupation in this space over the years, but I think I am seeing it now grow into an overall political dynamic throughout the West.
There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.
The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time.
I want to call them the elite to load the rhetorical dice, but let’s stick with the protected.
They are figures in government, politics and media. They live in nice neighborhoods, safe ones. Their families function, their kids go to good schools, they’ve got some money. All of these things tend to isolate them, or provide buffers. Some of them—in Washington it is important officials in the executive branch or on the Hill; in Brussels, significant figures in the European Union—literally have their own security details.
Because they are protected they feel they can do pretty much anything, impose any reality. They’re insulated from many of the effects of their own decisions.
One issue obviously roiling the U.S. and western Europe is immigration. It is THE issue of the moment, a real and concrete one but also a symbolic one: It stands for all the distance between governments and their citizens.
It is of course the issue that made Donald Trump.
Britain will probably leave the European Union over it. In truth immigration is one front in that battle, but it is the most salient because of the European refugee crisis and the failure of the protected class to address it realistically and in a way that offers safety to the unprotected.
If you are an unprotected American—one with limited resources and negligible access to power—you have absorbed some lessons from the past 20 years’ experience of illegal immigration. You know the Democrats won’t protect you and the Republicans won’t help you. Both parties refused to control the border. The Republicans were afraid of being called illiberal, racist, of losing a demographic for a generation. The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.
Many Americans suffered from illegal immigration—its impact on labor markets, financial costs, crime, the sense that the rule of law was collapsing. But the protected did fine—more workers at lower wages. No effect of illegal immigration was likely to hurt them personally.
It was good for the protected. But the unprotected watched and saw. They realized the protected were not looking out for them, and they inferred that they were not looking out for the country, either.
The unprotected came to think they owed the establishment—another word for the protected—nothing, no particular loyalty, no old allegiance.
Mr. Trump came from that.
Similarly in Europe, citizens on the ground in member nations came to see the EU apparatus as a racket—an elite that operated in splendid isolation, looking after its own while looking down on the people.
In Germany the incident that tipped public opinion against the Chancellor Angela Merkel’s liberal refugee policy happened on New Year’s Eve in the public square of Cologne. Packs of men said to be recent migrants groped and molested groups of young women. It was called a clash of cultures, and it was that, but it was also wholly predictable if any policy maker had cared to think about it. And it was not the protected who were the victims—not a daughter of EU officials or members of the Bundestag. It was middle- and working-class girls—the unprotected, who didn’t even immediately protest what had happened to them. They must have understood that in the general scheme of things they’re nobodies.
What marks this political moment, in Europe and the U.S., is the rise of the unprotected. It is the rise of people who don’t have all that much against those who’ve been given many blessings and seem to believe they have them not because they’re fortunate but because they’re better.
You see the dynamic in many spheres. In Hollywood, as we still call it, where they make our rough culture, they are careful to protect their own children from its ill effects. In places with failing schools, they choose not to help them through the school liberation movement—charter schools, choice, etc.—because they fear to go up against the most reactionary professional group in America, the teachers unions. They let the public schools flounder. But their children go to the best private schools.
This is a terrible feature of our age—that we are governed by protected people who don’t seem to care that much about their unprotected fellow citizens.
And a country really can’t continue this way.
In wise governments the top is attentive to the realities of the lives of normal people, and careful about their anxieties. That’s more or less how America used to be. There didn’t seem to be so much distance between the top and the bottom.
Now is seems the attitude of the top half is: You’re on your own. Get with the program, little racist.
Social philosophers are always saying the underclass must re-moralize. Maybe it is the overclass that must re-moralize.
I don’t know if the protected see how serious this moment is, or their role in it.
Guest
02-29-2016, 10:55 AM
We all need to pull ourselves up from the abyss created by our angry politicians and neighbors. Try first to understand, then to accept other opinions.
Guest
02-29-2016, 03:34 PM
We all need to pull ourselves up from the abyss created by our angry politicians and neighbors. Try first to understand, then to accept other opinions.
:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:
Guest
02-29-2016, 04:50 PM
We all need to pull ourselves up from the abyss created by our angry politicians and neighbors. Try first to understand, then to accept other opinions.
Listen to "other opinions" but I won't accept lazy @zz socialist views/opinions. Angery? No, very disappointed in lazy spoiled liberals, that think that socialism is going to make their lives better. Hasn't happened since the creation of the idea, so I doubt anyone here can make it a viable Utopia. Hard work and fair trade is the only answer. Self reliance makes a mature and strong nation. Not reliance upon the government nanny. Liberals are too needy and I have no use for them. I believe in NO WORK, NO EAT.
Guest
02-29-2016, 06:04 PM
Listen to "other opinions" but I won't accept lazy @zz socialist views/opinions. Angery? No, very disappointed in lazy spoiled liberals, that think that socialism is going to make their lives better. Hasn't happened since the creation of the idea, so I doubt anyone here can make it a viable Utopia. Hard work and fair trade is the only answer. Self reliance makes a mature and strong nation. Not reliance upon the government nanny. Liberals are too needy and I have no use for them. I believe in NO WORK, NO EAT.
Just when did liberals become socialists? The Bern may have won in NH but not in SC. He couldn't carry the African American vote and he is the Socialist.
If you believe in NO WORK, NO EAT where are you working these days assuming you live in TV and/or you are retired. If you are 65 or older are you accepting those SOCIAL SECURITY Checks? Are you enrolled in Medicare? I am sure you learned way back when that both of those programs are Socialist.....
Most liberals I know are NOT dipping into welfare/food stamps or any other social program. I am beginning to think that LIBERAL is now a code word for minorities.
How civil of you! Now don't lie about SS/Medicare and don't say it isn't a socialist program you know better than that!
Guest
02-29-2016, 07:11 PM
Just when did liberals become socialists? The Bern may have won in NH but not in SC. He couldn't carry the African American vote and he is the Socialist.
If you believe in NO WORK, NO EAT where are you working these days assuming you live in TV and/or you are retired. If you are 65 or older are you accepting those SOCIAL SECURITY Checks? Are you enrolled in Medicare? I am sure you learned way back when that both of those programs are Socialist.....
Most liberals I know are NOT dipping into welfare/food stamps or any other social program. I am beginning to think that LIBERAL is now a code word for minorities.
How civil of you! Now don't lie about SS/Medicare and don't say it isn't a socialist program you know better than that!
Exactly how Clinton plays them!!!
Guest
02-29-2016, 09:08 PM
Exactly how Clinton plays them!!!
Noticed the questions were not answered? To embarrassing?
Guest
02-29-2016, 09:12 PM
Exactly how Clinton plays them!!!
I believe the post you responded to was in response to this post
Listen to "other opinions" but I won't accept lazy @zz socialist views/opinions. Angery? No, very disappointed in lazy spoiled liberals, that think that socialism is going to make their lives better. Hasn't happened since the creation of the idea, so I doubt anyone here can make it a viable Utopia. Hard work and fair trade is the only answer. Self reliance makes a mature and strong nation. Not reliance upon the government nanny. Liberals are too needy and I have no use for them. I believe in NO WORK, NO EAT.
Nothing here about Clinton.......This is the general BS about minorities sucking the rest of us dry!
What would Jesus due for the poor!
Guest
02-29-2016, 09:57 PM
Just when did liberals become socialists? The Bern may have won in NH but not in SC. He couldn't carry the African American vote and he is the Socialist.
If you believe in NO WORK, NO EAT where are you working these days assuming you live in TV and/or you are retired. If you are 65 or older are you accepting those SOCIAL SECURITY Checks? Are you enrolled in Medicare? I am sure you learned way back when that both of those programs are Socialist.....
Most liberals I know are NOT dipping into welfare/food stamps or any other social program. I am beginning to think that LIBERAL is now a code word for minorities.
How civil of you! Now don't lie about SS/Medicare and don't say it isn't a socialist program you know better than that!
How about another example of Socialism? The military!
You guys got drafted against your will - or some did enlist - and you got all your food, clothing, and housing. After you got out of the military, you get free medical care for the rest of your life.
Guest
03-01-2016, 05:09 AM
Noticed the questions were not answered? To embarrassing?
Your stupid and naive questions were not answered because I was not on here since I last posted. I went out with my wife.
Yes, liberals are socialists now. Unless you didn't even watch your own liberal debates, you would know that Hillary was trying to out socialist Bernie. Go ahead and tell me what the difference between today's Democrat party and Socialism. Debbie Whatshername couldn't, even after being asked on different occasions.
Regarding Social Security. That is my money that was forcibly taken from me. So, it is my money. I have never used Medicare. I paid for it my whole working life and have not used it. I have private Insurance that covers everything I need. I pay near a thousand bucks a month for it. Medicare is cr@p and doesn't cover anything but hospitalization, unless you have Medicare B, C, D for other options. And you have to pay for those after you retire.
We live in a capitalist country with some socialist programs. Granted. That does not make Socialism a good thing. It means that our country can survive with some form of socialist programs. Unless you are totally uninformed, which seems to be the case for a lot of liberal trolls, you will know that our socialist programs are not viable. They are failing. Social Security is failing. Medicare is failing. They are getting too expensive. You can not give to those that don't contribute, without sacrificing and leaching from those that donate forcibly. Socialism fails in every country, including ours. And do not give me an example of Denmark as successful. It isn't. Every country that has socialism, has to increase their taxes for EVERYONE in order to keep above water. Greece is an example of a prominent failure in socialism.
So, yes you can have a bit of socialism and survive for a very short time, but not in the long term. Our country tried it and failed disastrously at the very beginning. Ever heard of the Mayflower Compact?
Yes, I consider today's liberals to be socialists. If you don't, then explain how and why you disagree. You are good at throwing questions out and then demanding someone to answer them. You answer questions, if you want to be treated with respect. You think you are so witty by throwing out cr@p when you know someone is not there to answer, so you can look like you won your argument. All you did was make a snarky comment and left the forum. Childish.
Guest
03-01-2016, 08:48 AM
How about another example of Socialism? The military!
You guys got drafted against your will - or some did enlist - and you got all your food, clothing, and housing. After you got out of the military, you get free medical care for the rest of your life.
This forum never ceases to be amazing.
Just when one thinks they have heard the most off the wall, BS sayings or arguments or positions....along comes one that pales them all and takes the crown of off the wall BS!
Guest
03-01-2016, 08:54 AM
This forum never ceases to be amazing.
Just when one thinks they have heard the most off the wall, BS sayings or arguments or positions....along comes one that pales them all and takes the crown of off the wall BS!
You got that right.....:thumbup:
Guest
03-01-2016, 08:56 AM
Noticed the questions were not answered? To embarrassing?
No....too stupid to consider.
Guest
03-01-2016, 10:16 AM
Your stupid and naive questions were not answered because I was not on here since I last posted. I went out with my wife.
Yes, liberals are socialists now. Unless you didn't even watch your own liberal debates, you would know that Hillary was trying to out socialist Bernie. Go ahead and tell me what the difference between today's Democrat party and Socialism. Debbie Whatshername couldn't, even after being asked on different occasions.
Regarding Social Security. That is my money that was forcibly taken from me. So, it is my money. I have never used Medicare. I paid for it my whole working life and have not used it. I have private Insurance that covers everything I need. I pay near a thousand bucks a month for it. Medicare is cr@p and doesn't cover anything but hospitalization, unless you have Medicare B, C, D for other options. And you have to pay for those after you retire.
We live in a capitalist country with some socialist programs. Granted. That does not make Socialism a good thing. It means that our country can survive with some form of socialist programs. Unless you are totally uninformed, which seems to be the case for a lot of liberal trolls, you will know that our socialist programs are not viable. They are failing. Social Security is failing. Medicare is failing. They are getting too expensive. You can not give to those that don't contribute, without sacrificing and leaching from those that donate forcibly. Socialism fails in every country, including ours. And do not give me an example of Denmark as successful. It isn't. Every country that has socialism, has to increase their taxes for EVERYONE in order to keep above water. Greece is an example of a prominent failure in socialism.
So, yes you can have a bit of socialism and survive for a very short time, but not in the long term. Our country tried it and failed disastrously at the very beginning. Ever heard of the Mayflower Compact?
Yes, I consider today's liberals to be socialists. If you don't, then explain how and why you disagree. You are good at throwing questions out and then demanding someone to answer them. You answer questions, if you want to be treated with respect. You think you are so witty by throwing out cr@p when you know someone is not there to answer, so you can look like you won your argument. All you did was make a snarky comment and left the forum. Childish.
If you are not using Medicare for a portion of health insurance, then you are a fool. Sure Medicare only covers 80%, but you can get a supplemental plan that covers the rest for around $500. per month for a family of two.
You have spouted this they took my money before for social security, and Medicare. The money that they took is a tax. That tax went to pay for people that were collecting at the time. They could cut these programs, and we would continue to collect until the unused money that is sitting in the national debt is gone. You do know what a tax is don't you?
The problem with Republicans is that there are no moderates any more. EVERYONE that isn't a conservative, or far right is a liberal. The last thing that most Republicans on this board want to give anyone that doesn't agree with them is respect. Name calling is the name of the game. You try to tag all liberals, which is everyone that doesn't agree with you, as welfare mom, dead beat dad, illegal immigrants, deadbeat or a freeloader. You know everyone that isn't a God fearing Republican doesn't deserve to be here in the US. The 80's and 90's saw a lot of the give away programs done away with. What is left doesn't amount to a pi$$ hole in the snow!
If you don't think that bigotry exists in the Republican party, you are kidding yourself. The attack on minorities rights, voting rights in particular, is there for anyone with their eyes wide open to see. The conversation of voter ids on this board will always go around in circles with neither party giving an inch. Republicans here will cry they are crying racism again. If the shoes fits!
If you don't contribute to social security, you don't collect. See the next post for the backup for this statement. Changes have to be made in social security to keep it going into 2030's. They will be made in the future. Social programs can only survive for a short period of time. What do you consider a short period of time?
You don't think unchecked capitalism ran a mock in the early 2000's, then how do you explain The Great Recession? Banks leading money to people that couldn't make their first payment. Then packaging these loans, and selling them with the AAA rating to financial institutions that believed the rating agencies. Dodd/Frank tried to prevent this from happening the future, and Republicans did what they could to under mind Dodd/Frank.
If Clinton, or Trump get elected president, things are going to get worse.
Why does everything on this board have to result in argument? A civil discussion here is totally not acceptable.
Guest
03-01-2016, 10:18 AM
Here is the article from the horse's mouth about people collecting social security.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
Guest
03-01-2016, 11:42 AM
Your stupid and naive questions were not answered because I was not on here since I last posted. I went out with my wife.
Yes, liberals are socialists now. Unless you didn't even watch your own liberal debates, you would know that Hillary was trying to out socialist Bernie. Go ahead and tell me what the difference between today's Democrat party and Socialism. Debbie Whatshername couldn't, even after being asked on different occasions.
Regarding Social Security. That is my money that was forcibly taken from me. So, it is my money. I have never used Medicare. I paid for it my whole working life and have not used it. I have private Insurance that covers everything I need. I pay near a thousand bucks a month for it. Medicare is cr@p and doesn't cover anything but hospitalization, unless you have Medicare B, C, D for other options. And you have to pay for those after you retire.
We live in a capitalist country with some socialist programs. Granted. That does not make Socialism a good thing. It means that our country can survive with some form of socialist programs. Unless you are totally uninformed, which seems to be the case for a lot of liberal trolls, you will know that our socialist programs are not viable. They are failing. Social Security is failing. Medicare is failing. They are getting too expensive. You can not give to those that don't contribute, without sacrificing and leaching from those that donate forcibly. Socialism fails in every country, including ours. And do not give me an example of Denmark as successful. It isn't. Every country that has socialism, has to increase their taxes for EVERYONE in order to keep above water. Greece is an example of a prominent failure in socialism.
So, yes you can have a bit of socialism and survive for a very short time, but not in the long term. Our country tried it and failed disastrously at the very beginning. Ever heard of the Mayflower Compact?
Yes, I consider today's liberals to be socialists. If you don't, then explain how and why you disagree. You are good at throwing questions out and then demanding someone to answer them. You answer questions, if you want to be treated with respect. You think you are so witty by throwing out cr@p when you know someone is not there to answer, so you can look like you won your argument. All you did was make a snarky comment and left the forum. Childish.
I drop in and drop out of the forums....as do many here.
If it were not for Social Security and Medicare most of the current generation of senior would be in huge trouble. I for one, as my company was sold 3 years before I retired and the new one frozen our pensions during our highest earning years and did not honor the pledge to keep retiree healthcare. With my preexisting conditions I would NEVER get health insurance in the open market.
I agree that pure socialism fails but mostly because of the people receiving it not the system its self.
Just because someone is to the left of you doesn't make them:
1. A liberal....there really are moderate Democrats
2. A socialist .... you are confusing liberals with progressives ( I will provide a link to a source on that)
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders reminds America (http://humanevents.com/2015/01/08/u-s-sen-bernie-sanders-reminds-america-progressive-means-socialist/)
3. While I support social programs for the poor and sick I don't think these programs should support people for years. Like this morning on,WESH News I think, they were reporting on welfare fraud. A middle aged women is accused of stealing additional money from welfare. She said "I'm on assistance for 16 years I know the rules" I thought you look well enough to work why have you been on welfare for that long? Welfare has its place as a short term solution.
I think this link expresses the kind of The United States I would like to return to:
No Really (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-31/no-really-what-s-the-difference-between-a-democrat-and-a-socialist-)
But to sum that up for me is this paragraph:
the elected government has a responsibility to ensure that the functioning of a market economy adequately provides for basic needs for everybody
For years now corporations do NOT take care of their employee's, I know because I worked for a corporation that did for many years. Dr. Beckman's motto was
"There is no substitute for excellence" part of that meant we, the employee's we empowered to do the best job for our customer's. We made profits and had happy employees.
In corporations now almost everyone is afraid at Christmas because there could be another massacre. I left my job early, taking a package, to save a younger persons job.
The middle class, the engine of this country, are being pushed into poverty. No jobs, less benefits while the corporations are making big profits and stuffing the money offshore to avoid taxes. Why should I pay 18% tax rate on my income while companies like Merck, Segate and General Motors pay 0% taxes.
I did not and still do not believe supply side economics works...Maybe you could explain why, I think, you support it?
Hopefully I have answered your questions
Guest
03-01-2016, 11:44 AM
Here is the article from the horse's mouth about people collecting social security.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
Thank you good article
Guest
03-01-2016, 12:19 PM
If you are not using Medicare for a portion of health insurance, then you are a fool. Sure Medicare only covers 80%, but you can get a supplemental plan that covers the rest for around $500. per month for a family of two.
You have spouted this they took my money before for social security, and Medicare. The money that they took is a tax. That tax went to pay for people that were collecting at the time. They could cut these programs, and we would continue to collect until the unused money that is sitting in the national debt is gone. You do know what a tax is don't you?
The problem with Republicans is that there are no moderates any more. EVERYONE that isn't a conservative, or far right is a liberal. The last thing that most Republicans on this board want to give anyone that doesn't agree with them is respect. Name calling is the name of the game. You try to tag all liberals, which is everyone that doesn't agree with you, as welfare mom, dead beat dad, illegal immigrants, deadbeat or a freeloader. You know everyone that isn't a God fearing Republican doesn't deserve to be here in the US. The 80's and 90's saw a lot of the give away programs done away with. What is left doesn't amount to a pi$$ hole in the snow!
If you don't think that bigotry exists in the Republican party, you are kidding yourself. The attack on minorities rights, voting rights in particular, is there for anyone with their eyes wide open to see. The conversation of voter ids on this board will always go around in circles with neither party giving an inch. Republicans here will cry they are crying racism again. If the shoes fits!
If you don't contribute to social security, you don't collect. See the next post for the backup for this statement. Changes have to be made in social security to keep it going into 2030's. They will be made in the future. Social programs can only survive for a short period of time. What do you consider a short period of time?
You don't think unchecked capitalism ran a mock in the early 2000's, then how do you explain The Great Recession? Banks leading money to people that couldn't make their first payment. Then packaging these loans, and selling them with the AAA rating to financial institutions that believed the rating agencies. Dodd/Frank tried to prevent this from happening the future, and Republicans did what they could to under mind Dodd/Frank.
If Clinton, or Trump get elected president, things are going to get worse.
Why does everything on this board have to result in argument? A civil discussion here is totally not acceptable.
You don't know what you are taking about when it comes to Medicare. Medicare A only pays for hospitalization. If you want any more coverage, you have to pay additional for it. I have private insurance so I do not need it. Medicare was wasted money in my case. So, your saying I should have a supplement plan is just ridiculous.
You say there are no moderate Republicans? You are kidding, right? The ONLY conservative Republicans in congress are the Tea Party. Just about everyone else is moderate. The truth is that the Democrat party has gone so far left that they are not just liberal, they are socialists. Your DNC chairman can't even tell the difference between the Democrat and Socialist.
You don't know anything about Social Security either. I know that millions of spouses that didn't pay into social security that DO get paid Social Security.
Guest
03-01-2016, 03:31 PM
You don't know what you are taking about when it comes to Medicare. Medicare A only pays for hospitalization. If you want any more coverage, you have to pay additional for it. I have private insurance so I do not need it. Medicare was wasted money in my case. So, your saying I should have a supplement plan is just ridiculous.
You say there are no moderate Republicans? You are kidding, right? The ONLY conservative Republicans in congress are the Tea Party. Just about everyone else is moderate. The truth is that the Democrat party has gone so far left that they are not just liberal, they are socialists. Your DNC chairman can't even tell the difference between the Democrat and Socialist.
You don't know anything about Social Security either. I know that millions of spouses that didn't pay into social security that DO get paid Social Security.
I don't know what I am talking about, but you do. If you want more coverage, you have to pay for it. That is exactly what I said. Do you think that they hand out supplement plans for nothing? Well, they do. I have one Blue Medicare Advantage Plan. It is an HMO for seniors, that are covered by Medicare. There are co-pays with a maximum for a year. If you are hospitalized, you pay for one day at the hospital. I know plenty of people here, that pay for supplemental plans, and everything is covered by their monthly premiums. If you think that you can't the same coverage for less, you aren't looking.
Your second paragraph is laughable. The Tea Party are Conservatives. In what world, do you live in certainly not this one?
You know millions of people, who spouses have died, and are collecting SS benefits that their spouses earned. When a spouse dies, and you didn't work, the government should let you starve to death. There are older people, late 80's, and 90's, here in the Villages that aren't receiving a living income from SS. There are groups here that are giving them food to live on.
You are so far right that you are off the charts. You can't pass yourself off as a Conservative. Boehner was a Conservative. He couldn't wait to get away from the Tea Party. He left singing a happy tune. Ryan is a Conservative, and he wouldn't accept the Speaker's job unless the Tea Party acted like grown ups.
Guest
03-01-2016, 04:37 PM
No....too stupid to consider.
Nah....mostly likely you can't comprehend them!
Guest
03-01-2016, 06:21 PM
I don't know what I am talking about, but you do. If you want more coverage, you have to pay for it. That is exactly what I said. Do you think that they hand out supplement plans for nothing? Well, they do. I have one Blue Medicare Advantage Plan. It is an HMO for seniors, that are covered by Medicare. There are co-pays with a maximum for a year. If you are hospitalized, you pay for one day at the hospital. I know plenty of people here, that pay for supplemental plans, and everything is covered by their monthly premiums. If you think that you can't the same coverage for less, you aren't looking.
Your second paragraph is laughable. The Tea Party are Conservatives. In what world, do you live in certainly not this one?
You know millions of people, who spouses have died, and are collecting SS benefits that their spouses earned. When a spouse dies, and you didn't work, the government should let you starve to death. There are older people, late 80's, and 90's, here in the Villages that aren't receiving a living income from SS. There are groups here that are giving them food to live on.
You are so far right that you are off the charts. You can't pass yourself off as a Conservative. Boehner was a Conservative. He couldn't wait to get away from the Tea Party. He left singing a happy tune. Ryan is a Conservative, and he wouldn't accept the Speaker's job unless the Tea Party acted like grown ups.
He dummy, you don't have to die for your spouse to get Social Security. They base the spouse payment on half of what the SS recipient gets. YOu just don't have a clue.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.