http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43156562...nge-landscape/

Voter ID debate could change 2012 landscape
Wisconsin governor to sign photo ID law Wednesday, with bills being debated in Ohio, North Carolina, and other battleground states

some excerpts:

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 11 states, including Wisconsin, request or require photo ID for voters.



But compared to the 2004 election, voter turnout went way up, not down, in 2008 in both Georgia and Indiana after those states’ voter ID laws took effect.


Supreme Court upholds photo ID law
The idea of requiring voters to show photo identification got its biggest lift when the Supreme Court upheld the Indiana photo ID law in 2008.

Believe me, I'm sure the next elections in Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio will have huge turnouts:rolleyes:

Wisconsin is far more restrictive than Indiana, with additional requirements, date changes, etc., so we'll see regarding the constitutionality. I believe the law guys when many say they doubt it will fly in the current incarnation.

see, i don't look at who passed what. i read the item, and decide for myself. now, some people see dem or rep, and decide to find and post anything 'bad' they see from whichever group it is they are against, as evidence of yet another nefarious plot.
as for voter turnout, i put an excerpt about voter turnout actually increased in the two states mentioned. imo, turnout has more to do with the candidates and voter apathy-or even the weather. if you want to vote, an id requirement won't stop you. if you don't vote anyway, you don't care.

When the Republican Governors Association meeting had an agenda item that talked about voter demographics of the future (strongly favoring the Democratic party), and the need for Republican governors to get voting laws made more restrictive (with a list of suggestions on how to do that) to make it harder for traditionally democratic voters not to vote with ease, and the Republicans talk about it publicly, it's not exactly a "plot" :D

It's the same thing as redistricting to get more Congressmen or preserve the political makeup of a gerrymandered district - changing voting requirements and ability to vote with easy has always been a political ploy, and the Republican party has used it for some time.

The "nefarious plot" side:
Deja Vu - new Florida law hinders voting rights of blacks and poor
http://newamericamedia.org/2011/05/d...lacks-poor.php

GOP efforts to change Ohio voting laws serve ideology not people
http://www.cantonrep.com/opinion/let...ogy-not-people

Republicans aiming to take away voting rights in 36 states
http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/05/23/re...-in-36-states/

Republicans writing laws to stop people from voting
http://www.examiner.com/political-sp...le-from-voting

TOP SECRET It's called the ACORN Offensive

Sigh ... I admire you for your single-minded dedication to purpose :tro:

Pay attention. The world is now ending October 21st, 2011.

I wonder if one has to show a photo ID to be eligible for the rapture?

This is the grand slam of ridiculous links

A letter to the editor? LOL

Considering it points out all the pertinent concerns, and is factually correct, yup. Feel free to ignore that one if you wish. You can read one of the other thousand newspaper articles on the web about it.

Uh it is a letter to the editor, not an "article". Of course union blogs arent exactly an unbiased source of news either.

Asking people for a photo ID to prove that they are who they say they are is hardly discriminatory regardless of how it is being spun. This is 2011, getting a gov't issued photo ID is hardly difficult or beyond just about anyone's capabilities.

And if that were the only change in the law, I doubt anyone would care. But it's not. By a long shot.

Do you think it's fair that students have to show a receipt for current paid tuition in addition to a photo ID that can't be their school ID because the school ID's do not fit the criteria the Republicans wrote into the law, chosen on purpose so students couldn't use them?

Yeah. It's oh so fair.

This is just another reason why the Republican party is headed into the political wilderness. Here's the main reason http://www.frumforum.com/paul-ryan-2012s-goldwater

I dont think college kids who aren't residents of the state they go to school in should be voting. If they are residents they most likely would have a drivers license. Plus exactly how hard is it to get a receipt? It isn't as though the school wont give you a copy if you request it.

The idea that this is such a huge outrage is silly. The GOP wants to do things that will help them get elected, plain and simple. Just like the other side does.

i'm pretty sure students who move out of state could vote by absentee ballot in their home state. perhaps that's the purpose of not taking a college id? after all, if a student is paying higher out of state tuition, he's not a citizen of said state, is he?
i don't see the big issue here at all. other states are either already requiring id, or in the process of doing so.

except they do take college ID's

no big issue except Riot is extremely obsessed with a state she doesnt live in.

The above statement is not supported in any of your political comments. You greatly admire Obama who supports nothing fiscally conservative, anti big government or government interference in our lives. He is the exact opposite of each of those views. So how are you a moderate conservative?

And if you read the article I posted, the college ID's in Wisconsin do not meet the requirements of a "college ID" in the new law, and never will. So they are useless to allow a student to vote.

Students also have to show "proof of current paid enrollment" - meaning they have to bring a receipt for their paid tuition with them to the polls.

I care very deeply when the RGA has a goal to altering and restricting voting rights across this country.

To say I shouldn't care about what happens in this country because I don't live next door to it is silly.

This is insidious and nasty. I didn't live through the civil rights struggle, but I sure lived through women trying to get equal rights, and blacks still trying, and gays trying - and supporting the Republican goal to disenfranchise whole blocks of voters before the 2012 election, so they have a better chance of winning against permanent changing US demographics, is abhorrent and wrong. Voting tests are wrong. Poll taxes are wrong. Making it harder for US citizens to vote is wrong.

You really are obsessed with throwing labels around, aren't you? What do you care what strangers call themselves politically? :D

(frankly, I think it's another superficial demonstration of how some self-professed "conservatives" like to control the lives of others)

You think in black and white. I don't. I think your assessment of Obama and our current politics scene simply wrong.

For example, the biggest government takeover threat in our lives right now is the GOP. The biggest fiscal irresponsibility demonstrated in the past 60 years is the GOP. The biggest threat to our national security and international stability is the GOP.

Yes, I admire Obama quite alot, I voted for him, I am very happy with his performance, I"ll vote for him again, and yes, he does some things I don't care for.

Please explain to me how Obama is fiscally conservative...

:zz: I never made the contention Obama is fiscally conservative. Yes, I am more fiscally conservative than Obama. Doesn't mean I still am not happy with him as President. I am. Very.

ok, where has Obama created less government or less government interference into our lives?

that means you should have been happy with Bush.

Wow. You sure view things in a simplistic, black-and-white manner.

Bush? You are calling his fiscal policies conservative? How could anyone do that? Certainly Bush was far from conservative fiscal values to spend indiscriminately on the charge card, with no care to the future. He was a blatent spendthrift, and has harmed our country greatly with the execution of his fiscal policies.

You dislike Obama, I do not. I'm not going to argue his administration with you. But to put it simply and most obviously, Obama and the Democrats are the ones protecting my freedoms, my health, my welfare as a citizen of this country; while the Republicans are the ones trying to take them away. You disagree. Good for you.

I didnt say that I was happy with Bush.

But people who are happy with Obama should have also been happy with Bush. They are the same. Except for that black-and-white thing you pointed out.

Bush was in no way fiscally conservative, and Obama is even LESS fiscally conservative.

Basically you are a hypocrite. The only reason you love him is because he is not a registered republican.

I havent heard you criticize a democrat or praise a republican the entire time you've posted in the politics section. You are as partisan as can be.

I didn't say you were happy with Bush, either. Yes, Obama has continued alot of the Bush policies. No, I'm not happy with alot of that. No, I do not think they are the same. Their goals and attitudes, let alone their intelligence and grasp of what this country needs, is far different.

Oh, I thought you wanted to talk politics? I see you just want to be a name calling bitch. Good luck with that.

Then I suggest you look again, before you profess yourself the expert on other posters.

I am not talking about me or the GOP. I just don't understand how u can admire and support Obama when you supposidely believe in fiscal responsibility, smaller government and less government interference in our lives. If u actually believed in any of these things there is no way u could be happy with Obama.

Not from your point of view, but yes, from mine. I think you mischaracterize alot of what Obama has done, you think I do. So it goes.

what? I didnt call you names. I told you exactly what you are.


get the fucl< out of here you stupid, no good cu.nt.


you are no better than Nascar

Ok enlighten me on what he has done that I am mischaracterized? Specifically where he has done anything to show fiscal responsibility, smaller govt and less govt interference into our lives?

I'm not the one swearing and cursing and personally attacking other posters, hypocrite.

its because she's a hypocritical douche-bag.

She basically thinks that she's the smartest person on the planet, and thats why she tea bags obama's nuts.. she thinks he's an intellectual equal to her.

I've been trying to play nice and debate politics with someone who thinks shes the god damn wizard of oz, but i'm done with her phony act.

lol. are you that dumb you dont remember back five minutes when you called me a bitch?

go find a hobby or try to get fucl<ed once and awhile.

He's cut the budget. He's cut waste from Medicare. He's cut millions from Medicare waste to make the PPACA self-funding with no tax increase. The PPACA protects consumers. He's given multiple incentive tax breaks across the board to individuals and small businesses. He's shrunk the number of people in the federal government. The auto bailout is virtually paid back (Chrysler paid back all of theirs this week) and we still have an auto industry with all the associated jobs and supportive businesses. We are not in a depression. He's signed in multiple laws to protect citizens (Lilly ledbetter, etc). He's gotten us out of Iraq. He is drawing down in Afghanistan. He requested and received billions in defense spending cuts.

Etc., Etc, Etc.

Not in the least.

You might review who appears the douche bag here.

"Except I couldn't help myself from degenerating to calling names, and now I"m really pissed it was pointed out."

Go take a good look in the mirror.

go sit on your Obama shaped dildo.


back to the ignore list. I become dumber everytime I read the crap you write.

When you stop talking politics and call someone a hypocrite, they may call you a bitch in return.

And that surprises and angers you?

Yes. We agree on something.

I believe this is the most insightful thing Riot has ever posted:

This message is hidden because Riot is on your ignore list.

Ror !!