Paul Ryan!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Quote:

---

A federal court in Washington D.C. on Thursday rejected a Texas law requiring voters to show certain types of photographic identification in order to cast a ballot. The three-judge panel found that the law imposes “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor,” pointing out that racial minorities are more likely to live in poverty.

---

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem....php?ref=fpblg

---

Reading more into it and found this nugget:

Quote:

---

“Nothing in this opinion remotely suggests that section 5 bars all covered jurisdictions from implementing photo ID laws,” the court ruled. “To the contrary, under our reasoning today, such laws might well be precleared if they ensure (1) that all prospective voters can easily obtain free photo ID, and (2) that any underlying documents required to obtain that ID are truly free of charge.”

---

Bolded for emphasis. The court ruled that underlying documents should also be free. Interesting. That means you need to provide free IDs. You also need to provide free birth certificates. The costs continue to mount for this nonsense to pass...

From liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens writing the 6-3 majority upholding the Indiana photo ID law:

“That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrate[s] that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Go read the majority opinion.

Of course, Justice Steven eats up the BS fed to him from Fox news.

Don't you think it's ironic to attack one for using a Fox news story and then cite extreme and unapologetic left wing sources in TheNation and Talkingpointsmemo?

Let me know if this is admissible evidence:

http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html#pa

Also, the right wing group (sarcasm) American University found that less than one half of 0.5% of votes don't currently have ID in states where laws have gone into effect.

Last, "In Georgia, which enacted a photo ID law before the 2008 election, the number of African American voters increased after the new law went into effect. “According to Census Bureau surveys,” von Spakovsky writes, “65 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2008 election, compared with only 54.4 percent in 2004, an increase of more than ten percentage points.”

http://www.askheritage.org/how-does-...lection-fraud/

I know you want to keep pushing that this is a GOP issue, though this is impossible given the numbers and a Rasmussen poll in 2008 which found that only 22% oppose voter ID laws. So why don't you answer your own question put to those opposing the law: Why does the DNC oppose these laws? Could it be that most fraud is to their benefit?

Conservatives have long wondered why so many elections are close and/or go to the democrat candidate since it is well know that the majority of voters self identify as conservative/republican. One would think that having that demographic majority would yield a majority of GOP winners. Since this is not the case, is it not reasonable to ask why the disparity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

From liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens writing the 6-3 majority upholding the Indiana photo ID law:

“That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrate[s] that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Go read the majority opinion.

Of course, Justice Steven eats up the BS fed to him from Fox news.

Don't you think it's ironic to attack one for using a Fox news story and then cite extreme and unapologetic left wing sources in TheNation and Talkingpointsmemo?

---

I wasn't referencing the article, only the segment where the state did not find evidence of voter fraud. You can find that information all over the place, that just happened to be the first relevant Google result I found. I don't even read that website.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

Let me know if this is admissible evidence:

http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html#pa

---

So you're going to source a site called "Rotten Acorn" against the State of Pennsylvania not finding evidence of voter fraud in a court case about voter fraud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

Also, the right wing group (sarcasm) American University found that less than one half of 0.5% of votes don't currently have ID in states where laws have gone into effect.

Last, "In Georgia, which enacted a photo ID law before the 2008 election, the number of African American voters increased after the new law went into effect. “According to Census Bureau surveys,” von Spakovsky writes, “65 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2008 election, compared with only 54.4 percent in 2004, an increase of more than ten percentage points.”

http://www.askheritage.org/how-does-...lection-fraud/

I know you want to keep pushing that this is a GOP issue, though this is impossible given the numbers and a Rasmussen poll in 2008 which found that only 22% oppose voter idea laws. So why don't you answer your own question put to those opposing the law: Why does the DNC oppose these laws? Could it be that most fraud is to their benefit?

Conservatives have long wondered why so many elections are close and/or go to the democrat candidate since it is well know that the majority of voters self identify as conservative/republican. One would think that having that demographic majority would yield a majority of GOP winners. Since this is not the case, is it now reasonable to ask why the disparity?

---

Gee, maybe the first black candidate for President had something to do with increased voter turnout. Effect does not equal causality.

Most voters don't identify as Republican. Except for a brief surge in our post-9/11 world, that hasn't been the case for 20 years.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151943/re...ependents.aspx

Referring to the hack video you posted you have now said:

[QUOTE=Brock Beauchamp;50600]

Quote:

---

This is all anyone should have to see about voter ID to see that the motivations behind the law have absolutely nothing to do with "cleaning up" the voting process. It's a cockblock of the vote, nothing more.

I can't tell you his intent, only the way his words come off... That the PA Voter ID law will win the state for Romney and that it has a positive impact for the GOP and a negative impact on Democrats.[/QUOTE

---

This is probably the closest thing to an admission of clearly smearing this person we can expect from you.

Again, let me suggest that you hear what you want to hear, appropriating this issue, the evidence and quotes to a preconceived narrative/meme.

Quote:

---

Most voters don't identify as Republican. Except for a brief surge in our post-9/11 world, that hasn't been the case for 20 years.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151943/re...ependents.aspx

---

[/QUOTE]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/co...cal-group.aspx

This is from 2009, but shows that 2x identify as conservative than liberal.

Quote:

---

Gee, maybe the first black candidate for President had something to do with increased voter turnout. Effect does not equal causality.

---

See, it didn't have the hypothesized impact you're dreaming up.

On the thread topic: Does any one still see Paul Ryan as a straight-shooter or a moderate after last night's speech?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

This is from 2009, but shows that 2x identify as conservative than liberal.

---

Conservatives don't necessarily equal Republican. People have no problem identifying as conservative (which means different things to different people); the Republican brand, however, might be too right for even self-identified conservatives to identify with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

Quote:

---

Most voters don't identify as Republican. Except for a brief surge in our post-9/11 world, that hasn't been the case for 20 years.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151943/re...ependents.aspx

---

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/co...cal-group.aspx

This is from 2009, but shows that 2x identify as conservative than liberal.

---

I still consider myself a quasi-conservative. That has absolutely nothing to do with my affiliation (or lack thereof) with the Republican Party. Again, I've been a registered Libertarian for 13 years... Most Libs refer to themselves as "conservative", but that doesn't mean they necessarily vote Republican.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason Republicans aren't winning national elections is because of people like me? People who used to vote Republican consistently but became so disenfranchised with the party over the past decade that they can no longer tolerate their stance on issues such as gay rights (didn't matter when nobody was going to vote in same-sex marriage) or abortion (before they started trying to restrict womens' options)? Add in the GOP's staunch support of the Patriot Act (not that the Dems are much better), their fiscal irresponsibility, and their desire to continue ballooning the defense budget and I no longer have any reason to vote for the party as a whole.

Those people may still call themselves "conservatives" but the GOP has spent so much time leaving an awful taste in our mouths that we can no longer consistently vote GOP in good conscience. It's no coincidence that the "Indepedent" moniker has been gaining traction in recent years while the GOP's numbers have declined. The Republican Party continues to slide further right and continues to disenchant people who don't share some of their more insane viewpoints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

On the thread topic: Does any one still see Paul Ryan as a straight-shooter or a moderate after last night's speech?

---

It was comical to see him call out Obama for the closure of the Janesville, WI auto plant that closed during Bush's term.

I mean, come on.

edit: I found that, technically speaking, Ryan's statement is true... but it's disingenuous to the point of lying. In December of 2008, GM shut down SUV production in Janesville, costing the area over 2,000 jobs.

Four months later in April of 2009, Isuzu shut down their part of the plant, which cost a whopping 57 jobs.

But I believe both announcements preceded Obama's inauguration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

This is probably the closest thing to an admission of clearly smearing this person we can expect from you.

Again, let me suggest that you hear what you want to hear, appropriating this issue, the evidence and quotes to a preconceived narrative/meme.

---

I still believe it to be a cockblock of the vote. Maybe I was wrong about his motivations but I really don't think I was... Anything more than a cursory glance at these voter ID laws should raise eyebrows over their true purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Conservatives don't necessarily equal Republican.

---

Correct. And 70-75% of the country is not GOP or conservative. Thus, those continually insisting that this is a GOP only issue AND claim to know that the true GOP intentions are nefarious -- those folks are either political hacks and/or insufferable drones.

A little levity from a libertarian website (Whether the author is or not I can't know. And even if I knew, that wouldn't entitle me to claim to know anything more *wink)

"Looks like some racist judge loves him some poll taxes. Because he’s racist. And wants to disenfranchise the millions upon millions of people studies from “non-partisan” and “independent” leftwing groups have shown will lose their franchise if they are required to engage in the onerous, unfair, and frankly racisty, polltaxy indignation of having to show a photo ID proving that they are who they are should they wish to vote.After all, it is much easier for our own Justice Department to sue to allow anybody who wants to to vote — several times, in fact, or even while dead, or not a citizen, or not human — than it is to get photo ideas [sic] to people without them. Which is an insurmountable obstacle.Moreso, it is just and fair to sue on behalf of these poor photo-less wretches yearning to be free. And decidedly non-racist, too boot. And decidedly non-polltaxy. Which is how we know that this judge is a racist — having upheld this racist polltax that unfairly and in a very racist way requires people to show ID before voting for other people’s ****."

http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/2012/08/voter-id-in-pa-survives-2447766.html

Forgive the quoted swear word, but it seems this cite's guidelines/rules have already been bent/broken by one of their promulgators, wink*

We have no issues with swear words on this site. If you want to use one that we "don't allow", it will simply appear starred out. That's why the word filters are there in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Conservatives don't necessarily equal Republican.

---

Correct. And 70-75% of the country is not GOP or conservative. Thus, those continually insisting that this is a GOP only issue AND claim to know that the true GOP intentions are nefarious -- those folks are either political hacks and/or insufferable drones.

---

The Democrats don't want the bills to pass because it's bad for the party and good for the GOP. The Libertarians oppose it on principle. I won't speak for the rest because I don't pay much attention to them.

Sadly enough, I'm pretty sure this bill is going to pass in MN. The only hope I have is that Federal Judges will continue to shoot them down, as what happened today with the Texas bill.

On the other hand, I think MN has a damned good shot at stemming the flow of anti-marriage amendments that have been sweeping the country and I'll be damned proud of the state if we do it. I'm seeing more and more of those orange "Don't Restrict Marriage" signs plunked down in front lawns (including my own).

But in the case of Voter ID laws, I think that's a losing battle in the polling booth. Sigh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Conservatives don't necessarily equal Republican.

---

Correct. And 70-75% of the country is not GOP or conservative. Thus, those continually insisting that this is a GOP only issue AND claim to know that the true GOP intentions are nefarious -- those folks are either political hacks and/or insufferable drones.

---

The Democrats don't want the bills to pass because it's bad for the party and good for the GOP. The Libertarians oppose it on principle. I won't speak for the rest because I don't pay much attention to them.

Sadly enough, I'm pretty sure this bill is going to pass in MN. The only hope I have is that Federal Judges will continue to shoot them down, as what happened today with the Texas bill.

On the other hand, I think MN has a damned good shot at stemming the flow of anti-marriage amendments that have been sweeping the country and I'll be damned proud of the state if we do it. I'm seeing more and more of those orange "Don't Restrict Marriage" signs plunked down in front lawns (including my own).

But in the case of Voter ID laws, I think that's a losing battle in the polling booth. Sigh.

---

You know, if you ran for office I'd be very tempted to vote for you. And I'm fairly socialist. But I like how you stand up for the issues based on real facts, common sense and what is humanly ethical rather than twisted half-truths and scare tactics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

[The courts have decided this, not me, not you.

---

Congrats, you've gotten Brock distracted. Not going to happen here. Which courts and what evidence did they cite that no one would be "burdened" by such a requirement?

Quote:

---

Missed the point on that. The point is that it's not like a poll tax as was suggested. No ID is full proof, but it certainly cuts down fraud, or are you suggesting driver ID, ID to buy a guy be done away with because they can be faked?

---

This is such a juicy mistake. So no ID is fool proof (can I pretend to be you and be a petty jerk about that mistake?) but this will "cut it down". By all means - could you tell me how much is happening now nation-wide. And then give me the numbers on how many less will happen with this? Since you already admitted that this legislation will not fix the problem, just reduce it - how much is this reduction going to be?

FYI - if you're honest here, you're going to realize that this massive concentration of time and campaigning is for a gain that is so minimal you should be ashamed of the pretentious tact you've taken. But by all means - post numbers. Not opinions. Facts. Burden of proof is on you.

Quote:

---

"tating that a number of election precincts in Philadelphia that are reliably Democratic have produced results which showed that more than 100 percent of registered voters cast ballots in some years in districts where turnout is normally low. It is true that these areas are also largely African-American, but that does not make such results more explicable or less suspicious.Does anyone really believe Philadelphia is the only place in America where there is a reasonable suspicion of fraud? The Supreme Court doesn’t. In 2008, it upheld an Indiana law requiring voter ID saying that it posed no undue burden on voters. And in his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that “not only is the risk of voter fraud real but...it could affect the outcome of a close election.”"

---

A Justice's opinion is still an opinion. Since you undoubtedly researched which precincts these were - care to share which ones they were and evidence of this? Again, there was no reference in this article so these are not "facts" until shown to be so. As far as I can tell, it is speculation and hearsay. I googled for these precinct issues and all I can find is this article. No outside verification doesn't do much to establish this as fact. So, again, since you undoubtedly fact checked what you posted - care to enlighten what this author did not and actually provide facts and not just the appearance of them?

Or are all articles I post that say something is true acceptable as facts?

Quote:

---

Self-righteous? Condescending? Since I've never engaged you, I would think we'd have a fresh start civilly. Brock flew off the handle and said some pretty insulting things before my rejoinder.

---

I don't always agree with Brock, Psuedo, GPA, Hornhead, diehard or any of the other old BYTO crew but I respect them and reading your pretentious nonsense lit me up. So no, we're not going to be civil if this is the tone of your discourse. I'll just give it back to you - better than you can.

Quote:

---

How do you know?

---

Because it's in the same vein as redistricting and all the other things both parties do to screw with the other. That's all this is.

Quote:

---

Igain, see the piece linked above and the portion I've copied above. Even with this, you will still believe that this is about racism with this video as the smoking gun. Why? Because you WANT to believe that the GOP is racist. If they weren't your head would explode.

---

I'm sorry - where did I say anything about racism? Feel free to post this exchange for your class - show what a winner you are at this!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

The GOP is actively trying to get certain demographics to stop voting, period.

---

Which, and how do you know?

Correct answers: Which? -- those people who are voting illegally. How do I know? -- I know this because this is what they and more the 70% of the country have said they want.

---

Just a comment about voter ID, but if people actually cared about vote fraud, they would be outraged at how electronic voting has been implemented in most states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

On the thread topic: Does any one still see Paul Ryan as a straight-shooter or a moderate after last night's speech?

---

I'll simply repost this. The man cannot be trusted.

Attachment 2200

Is anyone watching Clint Eastwood lose his **** on TV? This is weird.