Conjecture, you don't know what she was going thru, because she took the fifth

So according to you, it's ok to target the presidents opposition using the IRS. Sorry, if the head calls the fifth, then her emails disappear, all when the irs has a huge budget to prevent that from happening, I think that need to be looked into!

I went to the dentist for some periodontal work, they gave me a prescription for the pain. I showed my ID at CVS. I don't see a problem with that because of the Norco's they gave me, I don't want those to show up in someone else's possession. I guess you don't care about that?

No, i'm suggesting that a bunch of VERY far left FOREIGNERS shouldn't be so interested in the nuances of domestic politics or take partisan sides in arguments that they are not a part of or that do not concern them.

Of course someone should have to show ID to vote. It's thoroughly idiotic to know have to show id to participate in something as important as that.

Ok, I see. And I agree with you on several things here, including that is beyond belief people object to displaying a valid ID along with a registered voter card to cast your ballot.

I do find it interesting that people of other countries, including my own (Canada) tend to ignore the fact that we have our own problematic politicians and issues, and instead focus so much energy being critical of another country's.

The one similarity we do share, however, is that both of our country's have shifted political dynamics. No longer are our elected officials representing the people. Instead, they largely represent the interests of those who can give them the most money. That's the part that needs some focus.

This issue isn't really about id's. It's just more "my tribe vs your tribe" idiocy. Republicans are pushing it because these poor people who apparently can't get an ID card by any means at all are overwhelmingly Democratic voters. Thats somewhat understandable as it threatens their voter base...

However, the comedy in this issue is that there is still no logical reason why someone participating in a democracy should not have to verify their eligibility to participate. The arguments as to why they just can't possibly get any sort of valid ID at all, are just so sad, its depressing to think someone could even make these arguments about another human being which they are relying on to make educated decisions which determine the course of the future and the future of everyones children.

I don't have any issues with Canadians, but imagine daily threads of nuanced political discussion of Canadian politics, most of which created by Americans then featured the same 4 Americans telling you how 1/2 of Canada is nothing but a bunch of crazy assholes who hate people. It gets tiresome. They are everything themselves, which they claim to dislike in those they criticize :)

The Squealer: Once again, we agree :)

Fuck it. I'm moving to B.C. Love that place.

We need free IDs for everyone

The problem with these laws isn't the ID requirements (for the most part). As I stated above most of them allow for you get a free ID if you can't afford it. I was reading today that the Texas law will give you a free ID if you can't afford it. They estimated that 1.4 million people would be affected by the law yet only about a dozen people have actually asked for an ID. It's not about the ID. It's about the other stuff that goes with it.

The old saying is that cigarette isn't something that allows you to smoke tobacco. It is a delivery system for nicotine. The ID section of the voter laws is just the package that the rest of the crap is sold to you in. Many of these laws include things like reducing days/hours of early voting, restricting days when you an register and not allowing people to vote anywhere but at their assigned precinct. There is no good reason to change any of these things except to use them as a method to reduce voter turnout.

In a time when we are constantly talking about ways to get more people to vote and how important voting is, we should not be passing laws that restrict how and when you can vote simply because it benefits one party.

Voting
 

If this guy doesn't have ID, just think of the other "LAZY STUPID" people.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpoli...eaker/3422047/


This guy was the Speaker of the House of the United States and denied the right to vote for lack of ID

I'm too lazy to look into the details or specifics you mention and do not doubt it, however, i'd say that any discussion i've ever heard on the subject (including this forum) has been about the undo hardship the requirement places on people with respect to simply getting an ID at all. What you're saying simply seems to be a more credible angle on the issue rather than the first real argument that its just too difficult for people to get ID's. To believe you, would mean accepting that everyone is 100% fine with a requirement for having an ID as a sole issue and any other details could simply be stricken from a bill and then would pass with great expediency, which absolutely is not the case.

@kane
Those are some interesting points you have.

But how does it only "help" one party?

So Democrats are too stupid to vote on the actual election day or only at the voting station assigned to them, but Republicans are somehow superior and able to do that with ease?

I just don't get it. If the voter laws affect everyone...then how can it only "help" Republican candidates?

According to you the IRS no longer has the right to target political groups who are violating tax law?

If the President goes to the IRS and orders then not to allow an opposition group to operate, then we have a massive problem. However, this is not what happened. The IRS, as a matter of regular business, decided that certain groups frequently violate tax laws, and as such require extra scrutiny. This is common sense. But now if they are a political group... They can do whatever they want tax wise. Great, wonderful - brilliant. Don't you dare bitch about the debt because the IRS can't do it's job.

There are tons of studies out there that show those who tend to vote democrat tend to take advantage of early voting days in much larger numbers than those who tend to vote republican.

Here is a quote from this article. "A disproportionate number of black residents used early voting, which has been cut back by a week. Grass-roots efforts to get out the black vote relied on the state?s annual voter drive and same-day registration, which allowed residents to register and vote early at the same time. Both have been eliminated."

Karl Rove famously said that for republicans to win elections they need to stay far enough to the right to rally the base while moving just enough to the center to get the right leaning moderates and then pray for rain on election day because the republican base is well organized and will turn out to vote no matter what. The same can't be said about the democrat base. The lower the turnout the better it is for republicans.

Just google "low voter turnout helping republicans" and you will find plenty of info that shows why they want to limit the number of people who show up at the polls.

There are tons of lawsuits as well as news stories surrounding the lessening of voting days etc in these laws, but they don't get as much big press because of the spin that both parties want to put on it.

If you are a republican and you are pressing for these laws then you argue that everyone should have to show ID. If you are a democrat you argue that some people are too poor to show ID. The reason is because that is better than saying, "We don't want liberals voting." or "Our voters can't be bothered to show up on election day."

That's cool kane, but "taking advantage" of early voting days doesn't mean that they are completely incapable of just voting on election day.

It seems as if the studies are saying that Dems are so stupid and lazy that unless you make it 1000% convenient for them to vote any time and any where...then they simply WON'T vote.
And Republicans apparently care enough about their country to vote the same way that people voted for over 200 years.

I know that can't be true. So why do these studies seem to indicate that? And what the fuck is wrong with people in the Democrat party that they have to be treated so gently?
Do they want us to wipe their asses for them too?

Holy fuck. What a sorry ass bunch of people that can't vote unless it fits their schedule.
Maybe they could fit it in between their spa visit and their round of golf?

Why do republicans whine all the time?
Do you people ever want to be happy?

:1orglaugh

Maybe people who work 3 jobs because they can barely make ends meet need that extra flexibility that early voting provides.

People who vote Republican are usually making ends meet, unless they have other motives like "freedom and guns".

At its core it could be that they are too lazy. It may also be a case of circumstance. Let me give you an example from my life. When I turned 18 and was able to vote in my first election I was still living in the little redneck town I grew up in. My voting precinct was located in our local grade school. I happened to have a job that was a 45 minute commute (maybe more if traffic was bad) each way. With the hours I worked there was no way for me to vote on election day due to the hours that the polls were going to be open. I ended up having two choices. I could do an absentee ballot (which is what I did) or I could take off from work and make a 90 minute round trip to vote. If there had been early voting days I could have went in on my day off and voted.

Regardless of why people vote early be it circumstance, laziness or whatever, why should election day be so sacred? Why should we force people to stand in line, go to specific places and jump through hoops to vote when we have the simple means to make it faster and better. We should be encouraging people to vote not giving them reasons not to vote.

In my opinion every state should do it like my state does which is that 100% of the vote is by mail. You get the ballot and you can either mail it back or drop it in one of the many drop boxes that are around. Simple and easy. You can take as much time as you want with the ballot. You can vote when you want. The ballots come about 2 weeks before the election so you have plenty of time to vote. But that is too easy.

Seems Kane is the only one who read it. The Supreme Court only ruled on the Wisconsin law for this year and how they handled the mail in voting instructions.


They did not rule that it's unconstitutional to require ID.

Oh, okay. We should have all known better than to believe Mark Prince and his thread title.
He was just lying again. :)
I shoulda known...

Ok so it was OK for the IRS to leak the Tax return of the Organization The National Organization of Marriage? Which is prohibited by federal law!

During the period in which the applications were being scrutinized, the Cincinnati office of the IRS violated policy by releasing nine confidential pending applications from conservative groups to ProPublica, an investigative reporting organization. ProPublica had made a records request to the office seeking only completed applications, which are public information
On June 24, 2014 the IRS admitted wrongdoing in the case and paid the organization $50,000 in actual damages.

They ADMITTED WRONG DOING!

So fuck you and you're don't you dare bitch about the debt, it's not the job of the IRS to break the LAW!

Actually, the IRS admitted quite a few things in front of Congress that they did.

And even with the words coming out of their own mouths...there were Obamapologists on here saying it was all a "non-issue" being caused by evil Republicans.

Good lord, could you imagine if this had been a Republican president in office? The media would have been calling for his head and the faux-Liberals of GFY would be furious and screaming for impeachment.

It amazes me the idiots that think refusing to believe it exists will make it go away!

Case in point, Rochard

Actually, that strategy kinda worked on just about any misstep that this current administration has made.

Worked for the Bush admin too.

The govt. seems to have the media in it's pocket these days.

The Bush administration "embedded" them with the troops to make sure that we didn't have any Vietnam War style reporting and only pro-America reporting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The media went along with it like sheep.

And the Obama administration apparently has never done anything wrong either. lol

What this country needs is a Free Press again that gets out to the masses.
Right now Twitter gets more info out to people worldwide than the news does.

I mean...the other day on CNN they kept REPEATEDLY doing a "Breaking News" over and over again.
What was the "Breaking News"? Had war been declared with Russia? Had the Pres. been assassinated? Did an earthquake destroy Los Angeles?

No.
The guy in Dallas with Ebola died.
They reported it the first time as "Breaking News". Then they spent 10 minutes discussing it. Then they went to commercial. When they came back it was "Breaking News" and they repeated it. Then they discussed it for 10 minutes. Then to commercial.

They repeated that for about 14 hours straight. :(

That's not the news. And it's definitely not "Breaking News" when you repeat it all day long. :(

That's why Fox news has been doing so great in the ratings. People see this and are tired of it.
Liberal news barely reports of anything Obama does wrong, it's like they ask permission first!

Learner took the fifth and quit over the IRS scandal
Shinseki quit or was fired over the VA scandal
Sebelius was fired or quit over Obamacare
Holder is still in contempt over fast and furious and quiting
No one trust what the NSA says.

And the democrats are trying to say The Obama Administration is doing great?

Actually I don't think that's why Fox has higher ratings.

Fox sucks up to the Republicans almost as bad as MSNBC sucks up to the Dems.

I think it's simply that the clowns on Fox News (OReilly and Hannity) are far more entertaining than the clowns of MSNBC (Maddow, Sharpton, and Matthews).

Get some better, more charismatic people at CNN or MSNBC and they could turn that around.

The news channels are just entertainment channels now. Look at CNN. They brought in Piers Morgan. What a joke!
And now they have "shows" on CNN instead of news (though I have to say that Anthony Bourdain's show is fucking awesome...but it's not the news)

MSNBC? Forget about it.
It's like you walked into a roomful of people from "Revenge Of The Nerds".
They are so boring and condescending it's pathetic.

No, Fox wins because they have charismatic entertainers who love to bring on people with oppposing views and argue with them like it's the Jerry Springer show. And that's entertaining. It's not "news", but neither is MSNBC. :(

To see the actual news...you can go to Fox and watch the top of the hour news break where they just report what's going on with no "opinion".

Other than that? Tune in to CBS, NBC, or ABC news and watch the first five minutes (which is when they actually report shit).

AlJazeera America reports news sometimes as well.

I watch the today show in the morning, I read the news on Yahoo during the day and I watch a Fox news show a couple times a week, the 5 is a good show. I figure to get all the news you need to watch a mix.

Calling Robbie a republican is sort of like saying a dog is a hippopotamus

It is actually funny to me that people actually believe we have somehow had a change in political parties since Reagan, It is actually hard to see a difference in any of them once you look below the on the surface buzzwords, and talking points

I also think Fox's rating are due to the fact that if you want your news with a conservative slant they are really the only place to get it. If you want your news with a liberal slant you have a lot of options. If you want your news with no slant you are screwed.

That kind of makes sense...except that Fox News has almost double the ratings of MSNBC and CNN combined!

I know damn well that there aren't double the amount of conservatives in this country. And I also know all too well that stupid rednecks hardly watch the news at all (so that would eliminate a big part of the religious right crowd).

Here are the rating for yesterday (Thursday Oct. 9 2014). Just look at those numbers. It's not even close:
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...9-2014/312792/

I watch the Shepard Smith hour of news on Fox on occasion. In my opinion it is the only real news show on Fox. Hannity and to a lessor extent O'rielly are just the National Enquirer of the airway. All of the others that appear on Fox are just conservative talking heads. The five is just a conservative entertainment show...in my opinion.

What is the current status of your daughter?

BTW...I spend alot of my time watching the various C-Span channels for much of my news. You can hear and see the words come out of the "horses mouth" instead of being filtered through some news anchor.

I like Shepard Smiths News Room, very high tech.

I don't care for Hannity, Oreilly I like better, but when you listen to either, it's mostly opinion.

My daughter graduated from college, so she came to live with me for a while she looks for a job. Given that she's a veteran and has a degree, gives a good chance at getting something good. She's been applying for all sorts of things.
I love having her around, she's been going to the gym with me 4 times a week, great motivation! She also gets along with my fiancee really well.

I read the article, and while I'm rarely in agreement with the op, in the article it does state the texas voter law was/is unconstitutional.



:winkwink:

:thumbsup Is she just taking a break from school for awhile and planning on continuing her education at some point?

When you add them all together and combine CNN, MSNBC and HLN their numbers are close to what FOX gets. Then add in ABC, NBC etc which are more left leaning as well.

To me it is like this. If you have a town with 1 burger joint and five pizza places. Those pizza places will split the customers that want pizza on any given night, but the burger joint gets all of the customers who are in the mood for a burger.

I agree with you that FOX likely has the more entertaining pundits like Hannity and O'Riley. I don't really watch any of those guys (on any station), but from what I have seen, if you share the beliefs of these guys they do a good job entertaining you.

She took off the summer and is going to get a good job that hopefully pay for her continued education. Because at this point, she has no student loans to pay and that's a good thing.

She wants to continue to get her doctorate as a Anthropologist.

I'm not seeing that in the numbers on that ratings page. How are you coming up with those figures?

What I see is that if you add them all together, FOX is almost a third again bigger than all the rest combined.

Am I missing something on that page?

If you start with the first set of numbers for total day you get Fox at 1,199,000 viewers. The total of the others (I'm not including FBN because I'm not sure who that is) totals 1,151,000.

Moving on to primetime Fox has 1,927,000. The others combined have 1,637,000 so Fox has a bigger lead, but it isn't massive.

Where Fox excels is at their primetime shows. Their 6-9pm shows crush the others in their ratings and that adds to the total overall ratings.

When you add in broadcast networks it isn't even close. ABC World News tonight draws in about 8.4 million viewers while NBC gets 8.2 and CBS gets 6.6.

If you add it all together it means that on any given night roughly 2 million people get their "news" from conservative slanted fox and about 24.8 million get their "news" from a more liberal or moderately slanted source.