ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [190] -- Fine With Me!

[ Posted Friday, December 2nd, 2011 – 16:47 PST ]

Governments -- state and federal -- have three big ways of raising money. The first, of course, is taxes, which are endlessly fought over and usually get most of politicians' attention. The second is fees -- on a state level, registering a car or getting a driver's license; on a federal level getting a passport or becoming naturalized, for instance. But the third one hasn't gotten a whole lot of attention at the federal level: fines.

Because the states are strapped for cash, they've taken several measures to increase revenue. Taxes have been raised in some states (and lowered in others). Going down to the D.M.V. (or M.V.A., or whatever your state calls their drivers' license bureau) has gotten more expensive for most people. And, on the state level, fines have gone through the roof. That parking ticket which used to cost ten or twelve bucks now can cost $50 or $60. Minor speeding tickets often cost hundreds of dollars now.

So why isn't the federal government getting behind this idea? Raising fines is good politics, for the most part. After all, to incur a fine, you have to have done something wrong. The fine itself is a punishment. So it's easier for a politician to vote for raising a fine than it is to raise a fee or a tax, it would seem.

This came to light with the news that a federal judge had turned down a deal made between Big Banking and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The S.E.C. had done a deal, and wanted the judge to approve it. The deal wasn't exactly a "sweetheart" deal, but it was a lot more lenient than it could have been (one is reminded of Bart Simpson pleading before a judge: "I move for a decision of 'boys will be boys,' Your Honor..."). The judge turned it down.

However this story plays out, it came to light that the settlement was small, in part, because the structure of fines isn't robust enough. Congress hasn't updated the fine structure for businesses behaving badly, to put it another way.

So here's my proposal: Congress should pass a new schedule of fines. Each would be worded thusly: "the fine shall be $10 million, or 10 percent of the profits the company reported on its annual shareholders' report last year, whichever is larger." That'd be for a minor fine, of course, like a parking ticket. A bigger infraction would lead to, say, "50 percent," or "100 percent," or even higher.

This makes the fine proportional to the size of the business. Which, for all of those "too big to fail" banks, would hit them in their pocketbooks a little harder. Heck, you could even add in "plus all executive compensation for the past year," as well. If the federal budget needs some money, I say this is an excellent place to find it.

In other words, it'd be just fine with me.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Moving right along to the awards (I am trying to make these columns shorter, really!)....

We have two Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards to hand out.... although one of them falls into a questionable area of our eligibility rules, but we're feeling generous today, so there.

Two governors this week called upon the Obama administration to reclassify marijuana as a "Schedule II" drug. The only difference between "Schedule I" (as it is currently classified) and "Schedule II" is that a doctor can prescribe it. That's it. Schedule II drugs include plenty of things which are illegal to possess without a prescription, such as cocaine, opium, PCP, and methamphetamine. In other words, this isn't going to "legalize" marijuana -- but it is an acceptance of medical fact. One-third of the state jurisdictions (16 states plus DC) have now made medical marijuana legal. The federal government itself provides medical marijuana to a tiny handful of patients. There is simply no excuse for not moving marijuana to Schedule II, at least not one without the word "politics" in it. I've ranted about this before at great length (just a few months ago, in fact), if you're interested in further details.

For boldly standing up and calling on the federal government to stop harassing state attorneys general who are trying to come up with some sensible and workable regulations, to stop harassing patients and caregivers, and in general to put marijuana on a scientific footing (rather than one born of political expedience), both Washington Governor Christine Gregoire and Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee deserve MIDOTW awards this week.

Now, while Gregoire is a Democrat, Chafee used to be a Republican. He was a Republican senator from his state before he became governor. But now he says he's an Independent, and that's good enough for us (we certainly have bent this rule many times for Joe Lieberman). When he was in the Senate, he was more liberal than many Democrats, and left as the most liberal Republican senator in the past few decades. Since he's got an "I" next to his name now, we're going to say he's eligible.

The only question I have after this announcement is "Where are all the other Democratic governors?" Why was Gregoire the only one bold enough to get in front of this issue?

[Congratulate Governor Christine Gregoire on her official contact page, and Governor Lincoln Chafee on his official contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

Democrats had more success with their bill to extend the "payroll tax holiday" this week than Republicans did, by far. But, for some reason, three Democrats (well, two Democrats and one Independent, technically) voted with the Republicans against the Democratic bill. This is the idea to continue a $1,000-1,500 tax break for over 160 million working Americans, and to pay for it by raising the taxes three-and-a-quarter cents on the dollar for the 350,000 people who make more than a million dollars a year.

This was a procedural vote, meaning it needed 60 votes to overcome Republican intransigence. The final vote was 51-49 in favor, and that was only because Susan Collins crossed the aisle and voted with the Democrats. Three Democrats voted against it -- Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Jon Tester from Montana, and Bernie Sanders from Vermont (who is the Independent, but usually votes with Democrats).

The bad news for Republicans is that they followed up this vote with one on a competing Republican plan, which would have given 200,000 federal workers the pink slip as a Christmas present to pay for the tax holiday extension (some holiday!). The Republican plan was voted down with a whopping 78-20 vote. Twenty-six Republicans voted with the Democrats against the bill. More Republicans, in other words, voted against their own plan than voted for it.

Cracks are appearing in the Republican stonewall. But the only way these cracks can widen is if Democrats stand together at this critical moment. Fifty Democrats stood together this week. Three did not. To those three we award this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Contact Senator Joe Manchin on his Senate contact page, Senator Bernie Sanders on his Senate contact page, and Senator Jon Tester on his Senate contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 190 (12/2/11)

Because this is the fight of the week (and will be, until they pass it or go home), we're going to devote all the talking points this week to the efforts by Democrats to pass both the payroll tax holiday extension and a desperately-needed unemployment insurance payment extension before the January first deadline.

This week, for once, Democrats are actually doing a pretty good job of framing this issue. It's a real win-win issue for Democrats because it shows they're championing the middle class, and it also flummoxes Republicans because they are, in essence, having to vote to raise taxes (which must be causing heads to explode all over Capitol Hill).

Six out of our seven talking points this week come straight from the mouths of Democratic leaders. Well, OK, the one at the end is simply using a Republican's political squirmitude against him, but we threw it in there just for fun.

 

1
   Up or down vote!

This is an oldie but a goodie, and for the life of me I can't understand why Democrats don't use this term in every other sentence they utter in public, the way Republicans used to do so effectively.

"Democrats are demanding an up-or-down vote in the Senate so we can go home for the holidays knowing we've lowered taxes on 190 million working Americans next year. Republicans, who used to demand such up-or-down votes all the time, are essentially filibustering a tax cut for 190 million hardworking Americans. Who ever thought we'd see this day? We have a bipartisan majority in the Senate ready to pass this bill tomorrow -- if only Republicans would let us hold a fair up-or-down vote without filibustering a big tax cut for middle class Americans. If you live in a state with a Republican senator (whose last name is not 'Collins'), we urge you to give them a call and let them know how you feel about them filibustering a $1,500 tax cut for you, starting in January. Tell them: Give us an up-or-down vote!"

 

2
   Time is running out

Three of these quotes are from a press conference Nancy Pelosi just held with Steny Hoyer to talk about the bill. Throughout all of these comments runs a clock-ticking theme: time is indeed fast running out. Here is Pelosi, from the presser (by "these two" she means "extending the payroll tax holiday and extending unemployment benefits," just to clarify):

But these two are very important because they expire on January 1, December 31. We can't leave here without passing these. We have to stop toying with the American people and their economic security. We really do. It is a job -- we know that we have to do it. It's time for us to sit down and do this in a bipartisan way as we did when President Bush was President. Christmas is coming. Families are concerned. The deadline of December 31 is fast upon us.

 

3
   Democratic bill the bipartisan one

Heap praise on Susan Collins for her brave stance on the bill. Any bipartisan outreach should be warmly supported. Here's Harry Reid:

I was encouraged to see one Republican join Democrats in asking millionaires to pay their fair share. But because every other Republican continues to insist on protecting millionaires, middle class families could face a $1,000 tax increase next year. Democrats will not stop fighting to avoid that outcome. I hope Republicans will decide that the economic security of hard-working Americans is more important than protecting the wealthiest one percent.

 

4
   Most Republicans voted against their own plan

Use the fractiousness of the Republicans on the issue as a hammer. A 26-20 split in the party in the Senate is rather large news. Drive this wedge home with every chance you get. Here is Chuck Schumer, showing us how to do so:

These votes showed that Republicans simply don't care to extend this tax cut for the middle class, no matter how it is paid for. Senator McConnell vowed on Tuesday that a majority of Republicans would support an extension, but more than half of them opposed their own party's version of this proposal. Republicans continue to care more about protecting tax breaks for millionaires than preventing a tax hike on the middle class.

 

5
   Funny which tax cuts have to be paid for, isn't it?

This is an excellent point. Awfully funny that "Democratic" tax cuts "have to be paid for" while "Republican" tax cuts... um, what was it? "Pay for themselves" or some such tommyrot?

Nancy Pelosi, again:

And the fact is, we know what we have to do. If we have to pay for the payroll tax cut, and we are perfectly willing to do that, even though the Republicans never want to pay for the tax cut for the wealthiest people in our country. Doesn't that strike you as funny? For the middle income tax cut it has to be paid for. Tax cuts for the wealthy, we don't pay for that.

 

6
   Coal in the stocking

Steny Hoyer, also present at the Pelosi presser, injected a holiday theme into the dialog.

Coal in the stocking ought not to be what we leave for the American people at the end of this year. We are going to have some three million people who are going to be without [the] ability to support themselves and their families if we don't pass the unemployment insurance [extension] and do it in the next few days. An awful lot of people, working men and women, average-salaried people, are going to find their salaries, their take-home pay reduced if we do not extend and follow the president's recommendation for both individuals and small businesses.

 

7
   You're a mean one, Mister Grinch

Hopefully this will only be the first of such analogies. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, also getting into the spirit of the season, put out the a video, titled "The Grinch Who Stole Jobs." Now, this video does indeed have a snappy title, which refers to John Boehner (who is skewered in the video). But the best quote from it we can run is:

Don't be such a Grinch.

In actual fact, this looks like a video that used to be brilliant before some lawyer told the video guy "all that Grinch stuff is copyrighted, sorry, you can't use it." In other words, it is begging to be expanded-upon and mashed-up with a nice "You're A Mean One, Mister Grinch" soundtrack and everything. But even if a better video isn't forthcoming, the "Mister Grinch" theme should indeed be picked up as a talking point by Democrats everywhere if only for the fact that it's such a fun one to use.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: Democrats For Progress
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

 

203 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [190] -- Fine With Me!”

  1. [1] 
    Osborne Ink wrote:

    You're a mean one, Newt Gingrich
    You really are a heel,
    You're as cuddly as a cactus, you're as charming as an eel, Newt Gingrich,

    You're a bad banana with a greasy black peel!

    You're a monster, Newt Gingrich,
    Your heart's an empty hole,
    Your brain is full of spiders, you've got garlic in your soul, Mister Grinch,

    I wouldn't touch you with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole!

    You're a vile one, Newt Gingrich,
    You have termites in your smile,
    You have all the tender sweetness of a seasick crocodile, Newt Gingrich,

    Given a choice between the two of you I'd take the ... seasick crocodile!

    You nauseate me, Newt Gingrich,
    With a nauseous super "naus",
    You're a crooked dirty jockey and you drive a crooked hoss, Newt Gingrich,

    You're a three decker sauerkraut and toadstool sandwich, with arsenic sauce!

    You're a foul one, Newt Gingrich,
    You're a nasty wasty skunk,
    Your heart is full of unwashed socks, your soul is full of gunk, Newt Gingrich,

    The three words that describe you are as follows, and I quote, "Stink, Stank, Stunk!"

    You're a rotter, Newt Gingrich,
    You're the king of sinful sots,
    Your heart's a dead tomato splotched with moldy purple spots, Newt Gingrich,

    Your soul is an appalling dump heap overflowing with the most disgraceful assortment of rubbish imaginable, mangled up in tangled up knots!

  2. [2] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    I, generally speaking, agree with Osbourne Ink. Except that I think he's too nice.

    I think Newt Gingrich is totally evil. I think his only redeeming feature is that his pictures portray him as totally evil.

    His breath probably smells.

    Besides, have you ever read any of this fiction? Sad. Trite, overblown, tedious reditions of the Great Man theory of history on ideas that were better done by people writing Disney movie scripts.

  3. [3] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    for God's sake, Chris, get a review button:

    Besides, have you ever read any of his fiction? Sad. Trite, overblown, tedious renditions of the Great Man theory of history on ideas that were better done by people writing Disney movie scripts.

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    So here's my proposal: Congress should pass a new schedule of fines. Each would be worded thusly: "the fine shall be $10 million, or 10 percent of the profits the company reported on its annual shareholders' report last year, whichever is larger." That'd be for a minor fine, of course, like a parking ticket. A bigger infraction would lead to, say, "50 percent," or "100 percent," or even higher.

    What happens to the business when they are levied a fine of "100 percent" of their profits??

    Business goes under and hundreds or even thousands of workers are suddenly unemployed..

    But hay... As I said, I am all for it..

    But let's also apply the same thing to UNIONS behaving badly..

    For a minor "traffic" citation, Unions must forfeit 10 million dollars or 10% of the Annual Dues, which ever is larger.

    For more serious wrongs, Unions must forfeit 50% or 100% of all dues..

    Still fine by you?? :D

    As far as DF and Matt??

    Hate much??

    Isn't there simply too much hate in the world?? Hell, I don't "hate" Obama as much as you seem to hate anything or anyone Republican..

    Michale....
    053

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note, I echo DF's call for a preview option..

    I am sure there is enough HTML-talent amongst the readers here to insure a smooth and easy way to add a preview option.. :D

    Not me, of course. I am a hardware person.

    It's like the old joke.

    How many software programmers does it take to change a light bulb?

    None. It's a hardware problem. :D

    Michale.....
    054

  6. [6] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    "Hate much??"

    Yeah. I was politically active in the South during the time Newt tore the fabric of american politics to shreds. And I'm not talking about that thing with that #$%^%& Clinton. I saw what that ... person ... was capable of.

    I utterly despise Gingrich...more than Limbaugh, Savage, O'Reilly and Hannity put together. Hell, I'd kiss Ann Coulter on the lips (with tongue) before I'd spit on Gingrich's flaming body.

    I showed my wife what I had written yesterday on my thoughts of Romney losing to Gingrich on my blog. She sent $500 to Obama's primary campaign today. I'll send mine on Monday. Come the general election, we can send more.

    Welcome the world, Michale.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Welcome the world, Michale.

    Well, welcome to YOUR world anyways. :D

    Michale.....
    055

  8. [8] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Chris,

    I found this page by googling "adding a preview button to comment on blogs in html"

    http://ramui.com/Java_script_code_example/how-to-preview-html-code.html

    I have no idea if this will work (all my work was in database and freestanding programs ... non in web work).

    Good luck

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well Cain has been driven from the Presidential race..

    What a bunch of racists, eh???

    What??? No racism involved??

    How can that be??? The Left has established that ANYTHING said against a black man HAS to be racism....

    I am really confused now.... :^/

    Oh wait.. Anything said against a DEMOCRAT black person is racist.... Anything said against a CONSERVATIVE black person is just the truth...

    NOW I understand...

    /sarcasm

    Michale.....
    056

  10. [10] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I believe Cain is a victim of Cain. Is there anything to suggest otherwise?

    -David

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    I believe Cain is a victim of Cain. Is there anything to suggest otherwise?

    Just as much as there was to suggest that all the attacks against Obama were "racist"...

    But, like I said... It's a double standard, depending on whether the black person is a Democrat or a Republican...

    Michale......

  12. [12] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Oh, that poor dead horse. Must you beat him so?

    Either Cain has a serious case of John Edwards Delusional Syndrome (JEDS) or there was one hell of a plot to discredit him. I don't think the left was at all concerned with Cain and even if they were it's way to early for such tactics. Why take him out now when doing it after his nomination would be much more beneficial? If there was a plot, it came from the right this early on. Personally I'm going with JEDS...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, that poor dead horse. Must you beat him so?

    Of course...

    **NO ONE** wants to talk about false accusations of racism when it's a conservative that is being discussed.

    "GEE!!! I WONDER WHY THAT IS!!!"
    -Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

    Where was all this high and mighty morality when every one who said "Boo" against Obama was accused of being a racist??

    No one dared question accusations of racism when it's Obama, eh???

    Iddn't THAT funny, eh???

    Michale....
    058

  14. [14] 
    dsws wrote:

    Using fines for revenue is corruption, malfeasance of the basest sort, no matter who the victim is. If you want to go fining, fine all by your lonesome, because I ain't fining with you.

  15. [15] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Osborne Ink -

    Well done! Spectacular!

    Just had to say that.

    DerFarm [3] -

    Fiction by Newt? (shudder) I wouldn't touch it in a free library, personally...

    Michale [4] -

    Look up the definition of "profit" -- notice I didn't say "net" or "gross" or "earnings." Being fined 100% of one year's profits simply would not kill a business. It would merely make it unprofitable for one year. Big difference.

    DerFarm [8] -

    Aha! Now THIS is what I need! I don't know JavaScript much, but I sure can cut and paste... let me look into this, it seems pretty do-able. I understood their instructions perfectly, so hopefully I can paste it in without breaking a sweat. I was considering using a "plugin" but I hate plugins because it's hard to use just the parts you want to use and you run into update problems.

    Anyway, just wanted to say thanks, I will definitely check this out. I'm not morally against having previewable comments, just didn't want to spend weeks on the problem digging through code. You may have just spared me all that.

    BashiBazouk -

    I've never heard of the term JEDS, but I have to agree, this was a self-inflicted flameout. One wonders at the hubris behind anyone with such a history thinking they can run for president and nobody will notice. The days of JFK, when the press would just look the other way, are LONG gone...

    Michale [13] -

    You're standing on thin ice. The two aren't even remotely similar. Nobody's crying racism here (from the left or the right, that I'm aware of) because there is no racism here. The Left wasn't scared of Cain at all, they would have much prefered he win over Romney. This was a sex scandal, pure and simple. Cain got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and his melanin count had nothing to do with it, one way or the other.

    If racism had reared its ugly head in this scandal, it would have been when white women accused him of sexual advances. I am not aware this scurrilous charge was ever even mentioned by anyone, left or right. Now THAT would have definitely had some racism in it, but as I said, I don't think it ever came up.

    dsws -

    All fines are revenue, from parking tickets to fines on big banks. They are also punishment -- you can't be fined unless you either agree to it (strike a deal) or get your day in court and get ruled guilty. There is protection against the malfeasance you speak of, in other words, because the court system is still independent.

    I still say "fine with me." I got this phrase from a popular campaign in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in the 1970s, I should mention, if anyone is bored and feels like Googling.

    -CW

  16. [16] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, well it's kind of half-working. For some reason, it doesn't want to parse Return characters in the preview, though (no paragraphs are possible, to put it another way). It does seem to show links and bold and italic the way it should, so I'm going to leave it running for now for folks to play with tomorrow.

    I will try to work the bugs out of it in the next 24 hours or so. It's not elegant, but it (kind of) works. See what you think.

    -CW

  17. [17] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Oh, someone should test it with a long comment. I think it has introduced a character limit, which I will have to disable. Michale, try pasting a longish comment in to see what happens. It may refuse to preview it, but then actually accept it when you submit, I dunno... let me know...

    -CW

  18. [18] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I came up with JEDS purely on the fly. Interesting, it does show the html formatting. Even a link. Sometimes it's tough to live in a post war area...

    Lets see how it handles a second line.

    Or a third.

    Or a forth.

    Ok, interesting. In the preview all is a single paragraph unless I use or tags. Blank lines do not show up at all.

    Lets post and see how it renders. Sorry it's too late to ramble for a long post.

    There is a blank line above this one in the comment box.

  19. [19] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    So preview is rendering html format only but the normal post is as it normally formats text. Blank lines render. I'll stick a in the middle of this paragraph to see if it breaks it up. In the preview, the tag creates an indented paragraph. but not on the submitted comment.

  20. [20] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Probably reads a little strange, I was putting broken html tags in there [] and it's not rendering them at all in the final post.

  21. [21] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Bashi -

    I think I have two duelling styles on my style sheet, maybe. Or the Javascript is doing something weird, I dunno.

    The "Submit Comment / Display comment" is the same as it ever was, and shouldn't have changed at all. The "Preview comment" box and button are new, and are obviously still having problems...

    Let me know what else you figure out, it helps narrow the problem down.

    -CW

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Fiction by Newt? (shudder) I wouldn't touch it in a free library, personally...

    Oh, I couldn't possibly agree more!

    And, the preview thingy works great. Except, it doesn't show the comment as written ... you know, in paragraphs.

    Now, can we have an edit function after the comment has been submitted? :)

    Just kidding ...

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Michale, try pasting a longish comment in to see what happens.

    Be careful what you wish for. :D

    Look up the definition of "profit" -- notice I didn't say "net" or "gross" or "earnings." Being fined 100% of one year's profits simply would not kill a business. It would merely make it unprofitable for one year. Big difference.

    I acknowledge the distinction..

    Do you still want to apply this equally to Unions?? :D

    Nobody's crying racism here (from the left or the right, that I'm aware of) because there is no racism here.

    And the vast majority of complaints and attacks against Obama weren't racism either... But that didn't stop the Left from screaming "RACIST!!!" at every oppurtunity..

    Don't make me bring out the Journisto Listserv!! :D

    Sorry, not much of a long comment. :D

    No line breaks, as Bashi points out.. No Link for the JPG

    http://sjfm.us/temp/cwpreview.jpg

    Michale
    059

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me be clear.

    I don't think that any of the attacks against Cain were racially motivated.. Especially amongst us Weigantians...

    Just like none of the attacks against Obama were or are racially motivated...

    But let me ask ya'all...

    How would it make ya'all feel to have your legitimate gripes and complaints against Cain simply brushed away as, "awww yer just a racist"...

    That would piss ya'all off, wouldn't it??

    Damn skippy it would...

    Michale.....
    060

  25. [25] 
    dsws wrote:

    All fines are revenue, for someone. Not all fines are for revenue. To the extent that fines are set higher for the sake of bringing in money than they would be for the sake of bringing about compliance with the law, that's already corruption.

    The classic example of a fine for revenue is a speed trap. The 25mph sign is hidden over the crest of a hill, a few yards beyond the last prominently-visible 55mph sign. That isn't set up to make people drive more safely. It's set up to extract money from out-of-town people who don't know it's there.

    Theoretically, speed traps don't exist because the courts are independent, blah blah blah. Yeah right.

  26. [26] 
    dsws wrote:

    There have been unfounded accusations of racism against Obama opponents. On the other hand --

    As far as I've seen, Herman Cain got no more guff from the left than a white Republican perpetrator/frontrunner would have. By contrast, some -- not most, not even much, but some -- of the opposition to Obama does seem to have been partly influenced by racism.

  27. [27] 
    dsws wrote:

    Preview says, "Code length must be 1-1000 characters."

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    By contrast, some -- not most, not even much, but some -- of the opposition to Obama does seem to have been partly influenced by racism.

    For example......??????

    Michale
    061

  29. [29] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I don't think the left was at all concerned with Cain and even if they were it's way to early for such tactics.

    Bashi-- Yup. As Chris has argued (correctly, I believe), many on the left were hoping Cain would win.

    For some of the same reasons, I believe, they'd now like to see Gingrich win.

    How would it make ya'all feel to have your legitimate gripes and complaints against Cain simply brushed away as, "awww yer just a racist".

    You mean kind of like being called a "socialist" or a "liberal" or a "communist" or a "dirty hippie" or a "terrorist" or the "hysterical left" or "the Left"?

    And yes, it does piss me off when people do this.

    You've admitted that no one here is calling you a racist. And you've said no one has called Cain a racist.

    So I have no idea why you continue to bring this up here. Do you want us to feel sorry for you? I'll just ask you directly, Michale: What would you like us to do?

    Perhaps you should take this up with those you believe are calling you a racist?

    -David

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    I continue to bring it up because ya'all refuse to acknowledge that the Right had real and legitimate complaints about Obama and his policies and they were just labeled as racist..

    And no one here said Boo...

    What would you like us to do?

    I would like ya'all to condemn those on the Left who falsely accused anyone who spoke out against Obama and his policies as racist as fervently and vehemently as you condemn real and actual racism...

    I would like the fairness that ya'all espouse to be applied to the issue of these false accusations of racism..

    Frankly, the fact that I would even have to point this out is disappointing...

    Michale
    062

  31. [31] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    I was going to try to cite internet references about Cain and Obama being a n*****. I wasn't sure what this would show, but I tried.

    Worthless. Except for the Black Panthers (and they hate Cain just as much as Obama), its all the same people all the time. The racist right. And it IS the right.

    Among the pictures and words are calls to back to the gold standard, cut the debt by getting rid of Social Security and using the Trust Fund, defunding Planned Parenthood, invading Iran and setting up a white homeland in Idaho.

    Same old, same old. Only now its mainstream. To quote a famous Missourian: "Wunnerful, Wunnerful"

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    While yer at it, you could also acknowledge that there was a co-ordinated effort by Left Wing pundits to attack an criticism of Obama as racism and label the criticizer as "racist"...

    It would also be nice if you condemn such actions in the same manner you would condemn REAL racism from the Right...

    I would also like a pony and an Oscar Meyer Weenie Whistle...

    :D

    Michale....
    063

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    DF,

    its all the same people all the time. The racist right. And it IS the right.

    So, in your world, there are no racists on the Left??

    Michale.....
    064

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    dsws,

    Preview says, "Code length must be 1-1000 characters."

    Well, I certainly hope that doesn't mean that we now have a word limit around here! :(

  35. [35] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Ya know, Michale, I am a progressive. I make a distinction between the left, liberals and progressives. I understand that in your view anyone who holds positions you think are too humanitarian are the "left". And that you have little or no granularity, considering all tarred by that brush to be essentially the same believe system. But you are not correct.

    Historically, Liberals are not "left", conservatives were not "right". Liberals are still not "left". Those now called conservative have repudiated the real conservatives like Rockefeller, Brooks, Chaffee, Ford, Eisenhower. Those now called conservative deserve the term "right". One of the defining factors of rightwing is an inablility to distinguish between amount of difference between themselves and other groups.

    In my world, people who regularly do racists things, say racist things or believe racist sterotypes can be liberals, but are definitely not left or progressive. It is a litmus test for left. Please note the term "at this time", and the term "regularly"? I was born and raised hardscrabble Oklahoma racist. I changed in '69. It hasn't been easy and it occasionally doesn't show (I have an unfortunate penchant for Pat and Mike jokes, and I've been known to say mean things about the Danes on occasion).

    My heroes are Big Bill Hayward, Joe Hill, Big Jim Folsom, Mother Jones, Emma Goldman, Thomas Paine, Elizabeth Flynn, Molly Ivins and few others. You'll notice the lack of politicians? Only one in the bunch. You'll also note the lack of racism in the list? None.

  36. [36] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Chris,

    first off, get rid of line 31:
    "if((s.length>1000)||(s.length1000)||" and delete the error message in order to guarantee that there is a comment to preview. It makes for a cleaner logical path to keep the length > 0 and probably will avoid page break issues further down in the code.

  37. [37] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Sorry about the gibberish above, Chris.

    1. Get rid of the s>1000 part of the logical condition, and the error message that goes along with it.

    2. Keep the <1 condition to guarantee that you have a comment to preview. Often, null variables will cause problems that are totally irrelevant. a Null comment can be considered a pathological condition anyway and should be handled at all.

    3. You are retrieving the code as HTML HTML code does not recognize cr and extreaneous blanks as valid characters. Thats why you're getting the the formatting killed.

    I'm trying to look up how to retrieve without html reformatting right now.

  38. [38] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I would like ya'all to condemn those on the Left who falsely accused anyone who spoke out against Obama and his policies as racist as fervently and vehemently as you condemn real and actual racism.

    When I see it, I do.

    For example, when I've seen people here attacking you (or conservatives in general) as racist w/o any evidence, I speak out against those folks. It hasn't happened often. But when it did, I spoke out.

    Will you do the same with any conservatives who broadly label the Left as socialists, communists, hysterical left, or otherwise without any evidence?

    I would like the fairness that ya'all espouse to be applied to the issue of these false accusations of racism.

    What false accusations of racism? Can you show me one?

    Just one. You keep claiming there's all these false accusations of racism, yet you never point to one.

    While yer at it, you could also acknowledge that there was a co-ordinated effort by Left Wing pundits to attack an criticism of Obama as racism and label the criticizer as "racist".

    You've presented no evidence of a "coordinated attack".

    In fact, you haven't even presented one "false accusation of racism".

    All you've said is that no one here has done it. And you haven't seen it done against Cain.

    Yet you keep screaming about something and we can't even tell what you're screaming about.

    Now I know what you're going to do. You're going to Google "racism Republican" or something similar and post 15 links and claim that this is evidence without ever reading one of these links or showing how the accusation was false.

    This is not believable. Pick one example, Michale. Just one. And show us how the accusation was false. I might actually believe you.

    But I'd also like to ask that you refrain from making your "hysterical Left" and "Owsers" and "terrorists" or any of the other broad generalizations you use out of respect to those here who don't do it to you.

    Fair?

    -David

    p.s. I would also like a pony and a Red Rifle B-B gun.

  39. [39] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Chris,

    Try this on for size. Java recognizes /* ... */ as a comment and doesn't interpret it at all.

    If you changed line 32:

    document.getElementById('commentpreview').innerHTML=s;

    to:

    document.getElementById('commentpreview').innerHTML='/* ' + s + ' */';

    I use the + as a concatenation symbol. I don't know the javascript symbol for concatenation.

    This might preseve the formatting inside the preview box.

    PS - I had a pony. The damn thing bit me. I hate ponies

  40. [40] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    If that doesn't work, you might try changing

    s=document.getElementById('comment').value
    to
    s='/* ' + document.getElementById('comment').value + ' */'

  41. [41] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Chris,

    I decided to go to a source. You might want to keep an eye on this location:

    http://www.codingforums.com/showthread.php?t=245487

    Hopefully, they can find the answer to all your problems. Possibly including your arbitrary and irrational attachment to small, furry animals ...

  42. [42] 
    dsws wrote:

    ya'all refuse to acknowledge that the Right had real and legitimate complaints about Obama and his policies

    No, the right had honest, substantive policy disagreements. They're so far from "real and legitimate" that they don't even recognize reality when it comes up and bites them.

    I would like ya'all to condemn those on the Left who falsely accused anyone who spoke out against Obama and his policies as racist

    I'm sure you would. However, people are fallible. If it's intolerable for anyone to be wrong about something, then it's intolerable for them to have an opinion about it at all. If someone makes disingenuous accusations of racism, they should be condemned for it. But honest differences of opinion about the extent of racism must be tolerated.

    While yer at it, you could also acknowledge that there was a co-ordinated effort by Left Wing pundits

    If I ever see a coordinated effort at anything from the left, I'll try to remember to get back to you.

  43. [43] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    besides, in a snarky aside,

    y'all is singular

    all y'all is plural

  44. [44] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [23] -

    When you come up with something like this (and this isn't even the worst example) for Cain, then maybe you'll have a point.

    I do see what you're saying in [24], but while you may be right about "some" or even "most" attacks against Obama not being racist, the simple fact is that there have been racist attacks (or, to be overwhelmingly charitable "in-incredibly-bad-taste racist jokes") about Obama. Google "witch doctor Obama" to see probably the worst one (I refuse to link to that one).

    dsws [25] -

    OK, I think I see your distinction, but my point kind of agrees with you (I think). My point is that if a speeding ticket were, say, 25 cents, then nobody would care about getting one, and nobody would drive the speed limit. It wouldn't even be worth the cop's time to write one up, in fact. I'm saying the fines for people are (proportionally) much higher than the fines Congress writes for big business. Take DUI, that's a good example. MADD, in the 1980s, made a huge stink out of low fines for DUI. The fines were raised enormously. Out here in CA, in the late 1980s/early 1990s, the MINIMUM fine for DUI was over $1000. I have no idea what it is now, but I bet it's a lot higher. That is enough to deter the average citizen.

    The fines on business are simply not. To give Michale something to chew on, here's a public example (although not the one -- unions -- he was talking about). In a recent article in today's paper, Virginia Tech was fined for not notifying their students in a timely manner when the gunman was rampaging on campus. The fine? $55,000. Now, without getting into whether VA Tech is guilty or not (assume for the sake of my argument here that they are), that is simply not enough to make any sort of difference, or change any sort of behavior. That, to a large university, is a rounding error come budget time.

    So my point is that the fines are woefully out-of-date, and that setting a percentage is the way to go, because then it doesn't matter how big the entity is, they will (proportionally) feel it. All fines are punishment. But if the punishment is "pocket change" then deterring bad behavior never happens.

    dsws [27] -

    Technical point: did the preview reject it, but it posted OK? I guess I'm about to find out, with this post... never mind...

    Michale [30] -

    I do call out false racist charges, when I am aware of them. I called out Hillary Clinton for her (her supporters, too) cries of "sexism" for stuff that wasn't. I mean, the media discussing Clinton's neckline in the Senate -- that was sexism. Clinton not getting the delegate count she wanted from the DNC -- not sexism, no matter how shrill the cries were from her supporters about it. I guess I don't have an Obama example handy, but come on, you know I'm at least fair-minded (if not perfectly fair) about this stuff. If images like the ones passed around about Obama had been passed around about Cain, I would have been one of the first to cry "foul!" and "racism!" no matter where they were coming from.

    I've given you examples. So please give an example of the pundits co-ordinating to falsely cry "racism" over an Obama attack, as an example. (from [32])

    LizM [34] -

    No, no, they should still post OK, just the preview chokes on it. As I'm about to find out, with this comment...

    DerFarm [35] -

    To your excellent granularity I would add "Democrats used to be some of the biggest racists around, back in the 1960s, but for the most part they've either died off in the party (you don't see many Dixiecrats these days), or switched and become Republicans. Note I'm not talking about parties, per se, but members of parties here -- not trying to draw generalizations, just tossing Michale a bone because I know he'll bring it up if I don't. The point when it all changed -- the signing of the Civil Rights Act (63? 65?).

    DerFarm [36] -

    Yeah, my first inclination was to comment out the "if" statement, but I haven't had a chance to tinker with it today. Somehow, the line after that (the one that calls "comment") handles the text differently than the usual call that handles displaying the comment -- that's what I can't figure out, because I'm not that good with JavaScript. How is it ignoring the carriage returns? I'll give it a try, and don't worry, you're making perfect sense, not talking gibberish, to me.

    DerFarm [37] -

    OK, wait, are you saying get rid of the "if" statement, or just leave the if statement as basically "if length is >0"?

    I can try it both ways tonight, and see what happens. Good point about the HTML, rather than as just a string variable.

    Anyway, I will report back tonight after I try a few things. I may have questions. It may just be that within the WordPress code, it is sending it through the wrong filter. I know this causes minor formatting problems -- for instance, when I write a headline to an article with italics in it, it doesn't show up in the list on the left-hand side of the page with the italics intact -- because the display is filtered differently. This may be the heart of the problem, I dunno. Anyway I'll try doing it as a comment, but the problem with that may be that then the links and the tags won't be properly formatted.

    David [38] -

    I second your motion. Ball's in your court, Michale.

    dsws [42] -

    OK, your last line cracked me up...

    -CW

  45. [45] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    dsws -

    After further thought, maybe we can agree on this.

    Fines are for deterring bad behavior. You seem to be arguing that if the intent of raising a fine is just to make money, that's a bad thing. OK, fair and good.

    But if the intent is to prevent the bad behavior in the first place, then is that OK?

    Here's the example I was just thinking of: airline rules for runway delays. These fines were hiked enormously (on a "per passenger" basis, now, not "per incident") recently, and since then runway delays have all but disappeared. The ones that have happened have generated huge fines.

    So what's not fine with that?

    :-)

    -CW

  46. [46] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    testing... testing...

    Note: Buttons have been reversed. Seemed more logical to put "Preview" before "submit"...

    -CW

  47. [47] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Update:

    OK, comment length should be no problem now... long comments should preview.

    Empty comments should not... you should get a snarky message if you try.

    Work continues...

    -CW

  48. [48] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the issue of deterrence vs. revenue has been encountered big-time vis-a-vis red light cameras. the companies who make and operate the cameras want to make money, as do the townships who put them up and license them. if it were truly about safety then there would be more signs indicating photo enforcement, as well as longer yellow lights. but that's not what they've done. it's not about safety, it's about the money.by the by, CW, i love the preview function.

  49. [49] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet22 -

    thanks, but I seem to have broken it.

    Sigh... coding is such fun...

    -CW

  50. [50] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Update:

    Well, I broke it, spent an hour or two mucking around, then managed to get it working again.

    So: the button has moved. THe comment limit for preview is gone. But the return characters are still getting eaten.

    Coding is such fun!

    Better luck later, I guess....

    -CW

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like I have a lot to address.. :D For the record, I apologize for not addressing these last night. Since I am the one who started this debate, common courtesy dictates that I respond in a timely manner. It was the end of another 20 hour day and I was too beat to post coherently..

    I am now well rested and will post a little more coherently than I would have last night... But not much.. :D

    DF,

    Ya know, Michale, I am a progressive. I make a distinction between the left, liberals and progressives.

    That's kewl.. I don't..

    My only distinctions are the Left, the Hysterical Left, the Right and the Hysterical Right and politically agnostic..

    . And that you have little or no granularity, considering all tarred by that brush to be essentially the same believe system. But you are not correct.

    I could also say the same about your vision of the Right..

    In my world, people who regularly do racists things, say racist things or believe racist sterotypes can be liberals, but are definitely not left or progressive.

    And yet, many on the Left do do racist things, say racist things and believe racist things.

    And they are given a pass....

    THAT's what I have a beef with. It's as if being a Democrat is more important than anything else. This is evidenced by the fact that Obama is more Bush than Bush on many issues, yet he is given a pass because of that "D" after his name.

    But that's another debate. Well worth having, I might add, but another one.. :D

    David,

    What false accusations of racism? Can you show me one?

    Just one. You keep claiming there's all these false accusations of racism, yet you never point to one.

    This is not believable. Pick one example, Michale. Just one. And show us how the accusation was false. I might actually believe you.

    What surprises me the least*, however, is the Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman urging hundreds of his fellow JournoListers to pick an Obama critic and…

    "take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."


    http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2010/07/20/journolist-call-them-racists-is-the-least-shocking-revelation/

    Conspiracy to falsely accuse Obama critics as racist at it's "finest"..

    Want to move on to the Left Wing conspiracy to label the Tea Party as racist?? :D

    But I'd also like to ask that you refrain from making your "hysterical Left" and "Owsers" and "terrorists" or any of the other broad generalizations you use out of respect to those here who don't do it to you.

    The only time I make broad generalizations is when there is plenty of evidence to back it up..

    Most recently with the now defunct Oowzer movement...

    dsws,

    No, the right had honest, substantive policy disagreements. They're so far from "real and legitimate" that they don't even recognize reality when it comes up and bites them.

    .... in YOUR opinion..

    You see, that's my point. That is why political partisanship is like religious dogma.

    THEIR religion is wrong, evil and the cause of all the problems in the world.

    MY religion is pure and goodness and light...

    When the fact is, BOTH religions, ALL religions are responsible for great evil and suffering in the world..

    Now, replace "religion" with "political party" and lo and behold, it works!! It's a true and factual statement.. Well as "true and factual" and as statement based in fervent, feverish ideological dogma can be.

    If someone makes disingenuous accusations of racism, they should be condemned for it. But honest differences of opinion about the extent of racism must be tolerated.

    I completely agree...

    Which is why I was so surprised that all the false accusations of racism against the Tea Party were given a pass around here... I was surprised that when the JournoList conspiracy was brought up here, no one said "boo" about it...

    If I ever see a coordinated effort at anything from the left, I'll try to remember to get back to you.

    :D Now THAT was funny.... :D

    DF,

    besides, in a snarky aside,

    y'all is singular

    all y'all is plural

    Yea, I know.. It's one of my trademarks.. :D

    CW,

    When you come up with something like this (and this isn't even the worst example) for Cain, then maybe you'll have a point.

    Like I said, I never thought anything done against Cain was done because of racism..

    My only point in mentioning it was to contrast how ya'all MIGHT feel if a co-ordinated and consistent effort were made to try and paint any opposition against Cain as racially motivated..

    It would piss ya'all off and rightly so...

    I do see what you're saying in [24], but while you may be right about "some" or even "most" attacks against Obama not being racist, the simple fact is that there have been racist attacks (or, to be overwhelmingly charitable "in-incredibly-bad-taste racist jokes") about Obama. Google "witch doctor Obama" to see probably the worst one (I refuse to link to that one).

    There will always be morons and fruitcakes and scumbags. Whether from the Right or from the Left..

    I am not talking about some moronic redneck who puts up an effigy of Obama with a noose around it's neck.. I am not talking about some scumbag who starts preaching about Obama being a n***** and this and that...

    There are ALWAYS people like that. From the Right AND from the Left..

    Can you point to ANY opposition to Obama's policies from any Republican leaders or politicians or any "respectable" Right Wing pundits that was racially motivated??

    No, you can't...

    But yet, *I* can point to at LEAST a couple instances where Left Wing leaders/politicians and "respectable" Left Wing pundits conspired to falsely accuse Right Wing individual and groups of racism...

    That's been my whole point..

    Falsely accusing someone of racism in pursuit of a political agenda is almost as bad as racism itself.

    Wouldn't you agree??

    I've given you examples. So please give an example of the pundits co-ordinating to falsely cry "racism" over an Obama attack, as an example. (from [32])

    See above...

    To sum up, my point has never been to say that attacks against Cain were racially motivated..

    My point has been to compare and contrast the reaction to opposition of a black Democrat leader and a black Republican leader.

    The Left's reaction to opposition of a black Democrat leader was to label the opposition as racially motivated.

    The Right's reaction to opposition of a black Republican leader did not play the "race card" but rather address the opposition on it's merits...

    Speaking completely objectively, I much prefer the Right's reaction over the Left's..

    And I think ya'all would agree with me, painful though that may be.. :D

    As an aside, the PREVIEW COMMENT button, while not perfect yet, DID allow me to catch a couple un-closed attributes..

    That alone makes it a resounding success, as unclosed attributes is my biggest and most oft screw-ups... :D

    Besides what I post, I mean.. (aww, com'on!! Ya'all know you were thinking it!!! :D)

    Michale...
    065

  52. [52] 
    dsws wrote:

    if a speeding ticket were, say, 25 cents, then nobody would care about getting one

    I do agree with that part of it. Fines on business (and payments in out-of-court settlements of lawsuits) are often too small to matter to the business. They're not effective punishments. Some other punishment is needed. It could be bigger fines. It could be jail time for responsible individuals. It could be requirements to do or not do particular things.

    The time I have a problem with it is if the fine constitutes enough revenue to matter to the authority assessing it. If it does, then you have to use some other punishment, or have the fine go to someone else; otherwise you've got corruption.

    You seem to be arguing that if the intent of raising a fine is just to make money, that's a bad thing. OK, fair and good.

    But if the intent is to prevent the bad behavior in the first place, then is that OK?

    Good intentions in setting up a system don't prevent it from turning corrupt. If the result is that you have well-intentioned regulators trying to do their job, and finding that the only way they can scrape together a budget to go after the big-time bad-guys is by shaking down the relatively-defenseless among the petty offenders, then the system is corrupt.

  53. [53] 
    dsws wrote:

    That is why political partisanship is like religious dogma.

    THEIR religion is wrong, evil and the cause of all the problems in the world.

    MY religion is pure and goodness and light.

    No, my side is half-full of BS. But the other side is overflowing with it.

    Edmund-Burke-style conservatism has some point, that's applicable to some contemporary progressivism in much the same way as it was to French-Revolutionary zeal: it's very easy to come up with what turn out to be very bad ideas, when you proceed from ideals and principles without any reality check. Institutions that arise organically through history have ipso facto been subject to at least some level of reality check. Pushing this approach too far tends to support unwarranted claims from the right, but up to a point it's valid and important.

    There's no Edmund-Burke-style conservatism left, on the right. Insofar as there is any, it comes from old-fashioned liberals, who would be center-right in any sane society but who constitute part of the far left in US politics.

    If I matched your caricature, I would never have come to the conclusion that Burkean conservatism has a point: I was very much on the left before I had ever heard of Edmund Burke, and I learned of him because I went looking for flaws and caveats in my own positions.

    If the left as a whole matched your caricature, we would be far more unified and effective.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    No, my side is half-full of BS. But the other side is overflowing with it.

    Again, that is an opinion. An opinion formed looking thru the prisms of political bias..

    If the left as a whole matched your caricature, we would be far more unified and effective.

    Not so...

    Because (and I have said this many times before) the Left's biggest Achilles Heel is it's diversity..

    The very definition of Democrat/Liberal/Progressive precludes the very unification needed to be effective...

    Why do you think Will Roger's statement about not belonging to any organized political party has endured the test of time??

    Because it's as accurate when he said it as it is today...

    The biggest problem *I* have with Liberals/Progressives/Democrats of today is that they have adopted many of the mannerisms and techniques that make the Right such a pain in the ass..

    That is, the aggressiveness, arrogance and the belief that they are "in the right as God gives them to see what is right"...

    Liberals used to be of the "kill them with kindness" variety.. While that could be annoying to a ground pounder like me, it did have it's endearing qualities..

    NOW, Liberals/Progressives/Democrats are of the "kill them with any blunt force object you can get your hands on" variety..

    Which makes them indistinguishable from the Republicans that they castigate..

    "No religion has quite nailed it. Your hearts are in the right place, but your heads just got to wake up."
    -Selma Hyack, DOGMA

    Michale....
    066

  55. [55] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Question:

    Something it is possible to do, and I have been thinking about for a while (this post is an excellent example):

    Anybody interested in paginating these comments? Something like 40 or 50 per page, maybe? Anyone tired of endless scrolling down?

    I don't know if it would be easy to do, but looking at the code examples, it might be. Is this effort worth pursuing?

    I'm still determined to fix the preview paragraphs, but I don't know when it will happen. Since I'll be mucking around with the comment code, this may be something I can do at the same time. Oh, and I do have a surprise new feature that I think many will enjoy relating to comments, but it may have to wait until Xmas week, too.

    Let me know. Paged comments, anyone?

    -CW

  56. [56] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    I don't know about paging, but may you could put little + and - things every 15 comments or so? In that manner, you could list comments 1-10, 11-20 and so forth. We'd be able to to read those we wanted and auto skip those we don't.

    Should be doable with some form of hypertext markup ...

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @CW,

    as to the multiple comment pages, i'd have to say no. all things told, simple is best. i'd rather have to scroll down a bit more than try to keep clicking back and forth.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't mind the long commments.. It's easier to have everything on one page..

    That's my 2 cents..

    Michale.....
    067

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, iddn't this speeshal...

    Nancy Pelosi is threatening to dish some ethical dirt against Newt Gingrich...

    Hmmmmmmm

    What am I trying to think of...

    Hmmmmm

    Something about a pot and a kettle....

    Hmmmmmmmm

    Michale.....
    068

  60. [60] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Let's see

    3 marriages for Pelosi
    left 2 husbands during the worst times of their lives (cancer, MS)

    watched her daughters get cold because she didn't pay child support

    shut down the government because she had to get off the back of the plane

    was fined 300K because of sleazy book/teaching deals

    apologized to HuffPo for calling out a representative that was engaging in "leftwing social engineering"

    calls for the removal of child labor laws.

    Yup, you got it Michale.

    The pot calling the kettle black.

    She's just a much a sleazebag and whale shit as Newt. Damn, we can't get anything past you can we?

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    DF,

    If we were talking about all that personal baggage of Newt's, you WOULD have a point..

    But we're not, so you don't...

    But you are correct about one thing.

    Ethics-wise, Pelosi IS as much of a sleazebag and whale shit as Newt is...

    We completely agree there...

    I know you won't see it, because she has a "D" after her name...

    But it's there, nonetheless..

    Michale.....
    069
    (huh.. huh... ah.. huh... that's '69'... huh.. ah.. heh huh)

    :D

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Let me know. Paged comments, anyone?

    I'm with Michale on this one. I like scrolling down ... and up, for that matter ... for what it's worth. Heh.

  63. [63] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I'm w/ Michale and Elizabeth. I'd rather scroll.

    Conspiracy to falsely accuse Obama critics as racist at it's "finest".

    Ah, the journolist. Ok, I'll give you that I disagree with Spencer Ackerman's statement.

    But conspiracy? Puh-leez. It's just as likely that others on journolist disagreed with him as well.

    And there's no evidence he ever did what he was talking about. Journolist was a "bitch" blog, remember? Where progressive journalists went to gripe with other progressive journalists.

    BTW- I believe he's echoing Ann Coulter in his statement. She suggested this in her book How to Talk Down to Liberals ... err, I mean How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must).

    Here ... how about this ... I'll agree with you that: There will always be morons and fruitcakes and scumbags. Except in Ackerman's case I'll say idiots w/ a case of "foot in mouth" disease.

    -David

    p.s. Oooo ... preview almost works!

  64. [64] 
    dsws wrote:

    Again, that is an opinion.

    It's certainly vague: "half-full of BS" doesn't have an operational definition that provides a clear-cut decision procedure. It tells of an impression, rather than asserting that I have documentation to back it up.

    But it doesn't express an opinion in the same sense that "heath toffee cream is better than butter pecan" does.

    If I like heath toffee better but you prefer butter pecan, our tastes just differ. That's pretty much the end of it. There's no argument you can marshal to convince me that I really find one sensation more pleasant, and just think I prefer the other.

    It's not like that with "my side is half-full of BS". That's a statement I may be mistaken about. Maybe the people I think are hypocritical right-wing radicals really are insightful Burkean conservatives. Or maybe I'm being overly critical of my own side, and the comparison really is better described as night-and-day instead of night-and-dusk the way I think it is.

    Why do you think Will Roger's statement about not belonging to any organized political party has endured the test of time?

    Largely coincidence, actually.

    In Will Rogers's day, Democratic constituencies included the Solid South as well as northern liberals. Tensions between the wings of the party played out in ways like the two-thirds requirement for presidential nominations, that sometimes made the party look like a bunch of clowns.

    Today, Democrats are the opposition. Republicans have been setting the agenda for just over thirty years. They have a well-defined, professionally-written set of talking points that represents a stable arrangement among their various constituencies: "seamless-garment" Catholics ignore the death penalty in exchange for vigorous activism from the rest of the party on the rights of zygotes; pseudo-libertarians ignore the across-the-board near-totalitarianism of the party in exchange for anti-government rhetoric on economic issues; and so on. Everyone knows the drill. It's essentially unchanged since before most of them were born, because it works. The Democrats don't have anything like that. They have to try to herd cats, starting from scratch every election.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    But conspiracy? Puh-leez. It's just as likely that others on journolist disagreed with him as well.

    Actually, no...

    Most other journalists followed suit with similar ideas..

    The very definition of conspiracy..

    And there's no evidence he ever did what he was talking about.

    You mean, other than the FACT that practically every opposition to Obama and his policies was met with accusations of racism...

    It doesn't matter if it was never acted upon, even though the facts show it was.

    Conspiracy to commit terrorism is still a crime, even if the terrorism plot is foiled..

    You wanted evidence of a conspiracy. I provided it..

    As I knew you would, you just pooh-pooh (Winnie, not dog crap :D) it away without actually considering that the Left is (or more accurately, was) on a campaign to falsely accuse any opposition to Obama as racist based.

    What's yer pooh-pooh for the Hysterical Left's attempt to smear the Tea Party with the brush of racism?? :D

    Now, I will agree that the campaign is winding down and is not as prevalent today as it was a year or so ago. But that's only because it's a dismal failure. The American people are tired of the political games of the Democrats AND the Republicans..

    As requested (1 by you, 2 by CW.... Or is that 1 if by land rover, 2 if by jetski??? :D ) I have provided examples of Left Wing leadership and pundits conspiring to falsely accuse Right Wing groups and individuals of racism..

    Would you like more proof???

    Obama opposition “a racist thing” — Morgan Freeman
    blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/09/23/obama-opposition-a-racist-thing-morgan-freeman/

    Carter again cites racism as factor in Obama's treatment - CNN
    articles.cnn.com/2009-09-15/politics/carter.obama_1_president-jimmy-carter-president-obama-health-care-plan?_s=PM:POLITICS

    MSNBC: Opposition to Obama= Racism | NewsReal Blog
    newsrealblog.com/2009/08/13/msnbc-opposition-to-obama-racism/

    Opposition to Obama Health Care Reform Driven by Racism Not Fear of Increasing Debt
    huffingtonpost.com/ray-hanania/opposition-to-obama-healt_b_242938.html

    Democrats see race factor for Barack Obama foes
    politico.com/news/stories/0909/27120.html

    Actor Samuel L. Jackson Says Tea Party Racism Behind Obama Opposition; Rep. Allen West Fires Back
    foxnewsinsider.com/2011/10/05/actor-samuel-l-jackson-says-tea-party-racism-behind-obama-opposition-rep-allen-west-fires-back/

    Prejudice Fuels Opposition to Obama’s Plans
    gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/lowery_obama.html

    Top House Democrat: Opposition to Obama is Racist
    constitutionclub.org/2011/05/26/top-house-democrat-opposition-to-obama-is-racist/

    A plethora of Left Wing pundits and leaders who claim that Opposition to Obama is based on racism..

    Only one Right Wing link in the bunch..

    Anyone who says that the Left doesn't falsely see racism in Obama opposition is simply denying reality..

    Now, do you have any ACTUAL evidence to support a claim that opposition to any of Obama's policies or actions by Right Wing leadership or pundits were based on racism??

    Does ANYONE have any actual evidence to support the claim that opposition to any of Obama's policies or actions by Right Wing leadership or pundits were based on racism??

    I don't think anyone does because I don't think any of the Right Wing opposition from leadership or pundits WERE based on racism..

    Are the racists on the Right? Of course there are.. To deny this is to deny reality.

    Just as it is to deny reality to claim that that there are no racists on the Left?

    But it is an indisputable fact that Left Wing leaders and pundits have engaged in a wide ranging conspiracy to falsely accuse Right Wing opposition to Obama and his policies as being based in racism..

    To deny this is to deny reality..

    dsws,

    In Will Rogers's day, Democratic constituencies included the Solid South as well as northern liberals. Tensions between the wings of the party played out in ways like the two-thirds requirement for presidential nominations, that sometimes made the party look like a bunch of clowns.

    As opposed to today when the Democratic Party look like a bunch of hateful and hurtful clowns?? :D

    Michale.....
    070

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note...

    I believe someone here said a while ago that Egypt would go the way of Iran...

    Muslim Brotherhood top winner in Egyptian election
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-12-04/israel-egypt-elections/51641978/1

    Whoever that person was it appears that I.... er... he... it appears that he was dead on ballz accurate..

    Next up to join the Islamic Republic???

    LIBYA

    So much for Obama's "accomplishments", eh??

    Obama IS accomplishing a lot....

    For IRAN....

    To be fair, though.......

    I have to applaud Obama for his covert actions against Iran vis a vis the acquiring of nuclear weapons..

    "Could you tell me where to find the nuclear wessels?? NUUUCCLLLEEEAAARRR WESSELS"
    -Commander Pavel Chekov, STAR TREK IV, The Voyage Home

    Sorry.. Couldn't resist.. :D

    Anyways, kudos to Obama for realizing the danger of a nuclear armed Iran and for taking aggressive, albeit "covert" steps to prevent it..

    I saids it before and I'll says it again..

    Obama is at his best when he channels his inner Bush... :D

    Obama is taking steps that would make the most ardent Bush loyalist proud.. :D

    Michale.....
    072

  67. [67] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    As far as logical fallacies go, would posting a bunch of links without reading them be an appeal to authority? Anyway, I won't deny you the pleasure of reading your own links, because, hey, you posted them. But. Not only have you disproved a good portion of your argument, you have managed to to it scientifically. Which is pretty dam impressive, I must admit.

    This is one dead horse you probably ought to just let lie.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    Not only have you disproved a good portion of your argument, you have managed to to it scientifically.

    Care to explain how exactly you came to such an inane and illogical conclusion???

    Or should we just take your word for it?? :D

    Michale.....
    077

  69. [69] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Read your own links. The interpretive department is down the hall to the left, forth door on the right.

  70. [70] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Hahahahahah. I knew it was only a matter of time before the list of links came.

    Bam!

    Conspiracy!!!

    There's links on the Internet to prove it!!!!!

    *yawn*

    Michale, once again, for the hundredth time, you can prove anything on the Internet using this method. Anything.

    http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

    But let's put that aside for a second. I just think it's funny the extent you'll try to go to prove that somehow Republicans are morally superior to Democrats because they couldn't find any evidence of racism against Herman Cain because there wasn't any.

    Honestly, I find this entire discussion interesting, but not very important.

    It's not important because in 2012, I will vote based on people's positions on the economy. I will vote for the candidate who I believe has the best position on the economy.

    It's interesting because I disagree with both Democrats and Republicans who take a "win at all costs" approach to politics. You seem to oppose it with Democrats, yet at the same time, support it with Republicans. Because somehow this is who they are?

    How does that work?

    -David

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    If I understand you correctly, you are saying that all opposition to Obama and his policies IS based on racism..

    And your evidence for this conclusion is that a bunch of Left Wingers say so..

    Thank you for proving my assertion that a conspiracy to falsely accuse the Right of racism is alive and well...

    Michale.....
    078

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    SERIOUSLY???

    THAT is your counter argument??

    Because it's a link on the Net, that means it's not true..

    Your counter argument is the Net-age equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and yelling, "Nyaaaa Nyaaaa Nyaaaaa... I am not listening to you... Nyaaaa Nyaaaaa Nyaaaa..."

    Why not address the specifics of the news reports, rather than trying to pretend that they don't exist??

    I have given you what you requested.. Factual evidence of a Left Wing conspiracy to falsely accuse the Right of racism..

    Your response was to simply ignore the facts, as I predicted you would...

    How can we have a reasonable discussion of the facts, if you refuse to even acknowledge the facts??

    It's interesting because I disagree with both Democrats and Republicans who take a "win at all costs" approach to politics.

    Yet you STILL support Democrats..

    How does THAT work??

    You pick any action that both Democrats and Republicans do and it's an evil disgusting thing when it's a GOP action, but it's met with silence or even encouragement when it's a Dem action.

    How does THAT work??

    Michale
    079

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Read your own links. The interpretive department is down the hall to the left, forth door on the right.

    In other words:

    Translation: I got nuttin'

    :D

    Michale.....

  74. [74] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If I understand you correctly, you are saying that all opposition to Obama and his policies IS based on racism.

    Huh? Where did you get that?

    I like you, Michale, but sometimes you sure say some strange things.

    Not only did I never make that argument. I'm not even interested in trying to make that argument.

    You pick any action that both Democrats and Republicans do and it's an evil disgusting thing when it's a GOP action, but it's met with silence or even encouragement when it's a Dem action.

    Sure, Michale. I've defended you in the past and spoke out. Not only you, but I've done this for others as well.

    Will you do the same?

    Simple question. Yes / no are acceptable answers.

    -David

  75. [75] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Dam, I know you don't read the links you post, but I did not realize you were adverse to doing so.

    Hint: rather than linking to a political blog or some rinky-dink college no one has heard of when global warming comes up, you have linked to a story about research done at one of the worlds finest educational institutions and commonly #1 ranked business school in the US. Now if the discussion was even handed I would take it as a minor point in my favor but since you insist on extreme polarization...live by the sword, die by the sword I say, and this one is particularly bloody.

  76. [76] 
    akadjian wrote:

    you have linked to a story about research done at one of the worlds finest educational institutions and commonly #1 ranked business school in the US.

    Now that is hilarious, Bashi.

    You really should read your articles, Michale :). Apparently, there's been scientific work done on this subject.

    It still doesn't matter to me. I'd much rather talk about the economy, but it does add to the humor

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    So your "proof" that opposition to Obama's policies is based in racism is one report from a liberal university...

    I'll ask you the same thing I asked David...

    SERIOUSLY!!???

    David,

    Not only did I never make that argument. I'm not even interested in trying to make that argument.

    That particular post was to Bashi... I posted it right after his, but your post beat me to it..

    My apologies for the confusion..

    To clarify, it is Bashi's position (as I understand it) that opposition to Obama's policies was and/or is based in racism. His "proof" for this position is one report from a liberal university.

    YOUR position (again, as I understand) is that there was never any ongoing, co-ordinated and/or systematic attempts to falsely accuse the Right racism due to their opposition of Obama's policies..

    Bashi's position falls on it's own merits..

    Your position I have already shown is false, by virtue of the JournoList and the false accusations against the Tea Party from a wide-range of Left Wing groups, leaders and pundits..

    Hope that clears up any confusion...

    Will you do the same?

    Abso-frackin'-loutly. If your position warrants defending, I'll defend it as passionately and I defend my own positions..

    Err... What position are we talking about???

    Michale.....
    081

  78. [78] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Liberal University? That's like calling the US some minor back water military power. We are talking absolute top tier world class research institution here. Let us not forget it was a good enough source for you to post. Plus, from someone who commonly posts links to Fox news and even more conservative opinion pieces to back up arguments you have absolutely no standing in calling out bias.

    You put your foot in it this time. Man up and take ownership. SERIOUSLY!!

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let us not forget it was a good enough source for you to post

    Exactly...

    But you twist what I am trying to say and point to that one link as proof of something that has already been proven as false...

    It's evidence of a Left Wing agenda to falsely accuse opposition of Obama as being steeped in racism..

    As far as you questioning whether or not it is a liberal university, it's in California and one of the most Gay-Friendly universities in the country..

    Now, if YOU want to characterize that as not being Liberal, I think you would have a bunch of liberals disagreeing with you.. :D

    The simple fact that a liberal university would push a report claiming that opposition is based in racism with NO OTHER factors being considered simply is one more piece of evidence that supports the claim of a Left Wing agenda of falsely accusing opposition to Obama as being based in racism...

    You seem to be going out of your way to provide further evidence to support that claim..

    While I thank you for your efforts, I can assure you that it is not needed.. There is plenty of objective and logical evidence to support the conclusion..

    But yer a peach for trying. :D

    Michale.....
    082

  80. [80] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    You just really don't want read your own links do you?

    But you twist what I am trying to say and point to that one link as proof of something that has already been proven as false...

    And yet you post a link to research that says otherwise. 10 seconds in to reading the linked page and I got a chuckle that you had put your foot in it. And yes I am being coy purely to get you to read the links you posted...

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    I did read the link.. Which is why I included it in my evidence of the Left Wing agenda to falsely accuse any opposition to Obama as being based on racism..

    The Stanford study was flawed. It came to faulty conclusion because it didn't allow for any other explanation save the explanation of racism..

    If you think that the Stanford study is valid, then you MUST conclude that all the opposition to Cain was also based in racism..

    Now, do YOU want to go there???

    No??

    Didn't think so...

    Michale.....
    083

  82. [82] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Here is the actual research study.

    The methods seem sound and I agree with it. Here is it's actual conclusion:

    while our ?ndings do not corroborate the view that opposition to the President is motivated primarily by racial prejudice, they clearly rebut those who argue that opposition to Obama and his policies has nothing to do with race—or that we should ‘‘get over” the idea that it might.

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can't have it both ways, Bashi...

    Either the study is not valid...

    OR

    The study is valid.

    If it's your assertion that the study is valid then you HAVE to admit that idea that the opposition to Cain and his policies was based on race DOES is also valid....

    There is a third option..

    You can claim that the study ONLY applies to a Democrat black person and NOT to a Republican black person.

    Of course, if THAT is your claim then the only logical conclusion that *I* can come to is that you are the partisan hack that you have claimed you weren't... :D

    It's your call..

    Regardless of what you decide, I stand by my statement.

    There was an ongoing and systematic Left Wing agenda to falsely label any opposition to Obama and his policies as based in racism..

    I have provided ample empirical and unequivocal evidence to support that claim including an utterly ridiculous and biased study from a liberal university..

    I am still waiting for ANYONE to provide evidence that the accusations of racism were actually valid...

    Until such evidence is shown, my opinion stands...

    "So say we all"
    -Battlestar Galactica

    :D

    Michale.....
    084

  84. [84] 
    dsws wrote:

    [75] BashiBazouk wrote:

    Dam, I know you don't read the links you post, but I did not realize you were adverse to doing so.

    Something is adverse if it acts against something else, if it constitutes adversity: the game was canceled because of adverse weather conditions. Someone is averse (without a "d") to something if they tend to turn away from it, if they show aversion: investors normally are risk-averse.

    Presumably you want to say that Michale shows an aversion to reading his own links, not that he faces adversity in his attempts to do so.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Presumably you want to say that Michale shows an aversion to reading his own links, not that he faces adversity in his attempts to do so.

    Thanx.....

    I think... :D

    Michale.....
    085

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    If it's your assertion that the study is valid then you HAVE to admit that idea that the opposition to Cain and his policies was based on race DOES is also valid...

    OK, that came out a little convoluted.. Serves me right for debating while my brain is buried in a completely disassembled Vostro 1500..

    What that SHOULD say is:

    If it's your assertion that the study is valid then you HAVE to admit that the idea that the opposition to Cain and his policies was based on race is also valid...

    That's a little less convoluted... :D

    As I indicated above, I highly doubt that you would want to make the claim that the Left's opposition to Cain and his policies has anything to do with racism.....

    Michale.....
    086

  87. [87] 
    akadjian wrote:

    My apologies for the confusion.

    Ah, I thought that was odd. I was really confused. No worries.

    Abso-frackin'-loutly. If your position warrants defending, I'll defend it as passionately and I defend my own positions... Err... What position are we talking about???

    Heheheh. Just that we not throw around all the "-isms".

    I think people here at CW are pretty good at not getting into it. And I like that. I like being able to talk to you and understand where you're coming from and you don't label me. Well, at least 99% of the time - I'll admit I was mad about the "economic terrorist" comment, but we got past it because we know each other. Heh. Mostly past it. :)

    Our arguments get heated, but we can always stop to say "Oh, crap. Sorry about that." Or something similar. I know I've been guilty of pushing too hard before and said some things I didn't really mean. And then I've found myself saying ... shit, it's only politics. It's not like it's about something meaningful like sports or beer.

    I think you said it about right when you said: "There will always be morons and fruitcakes and scumbags." There's probably always going to be racists too. But its the flip side I have to remind myself about, there are good people who simply have different ideas.

    That's why I try to stay away from the racist debate. And I know some raging racists too. Some of them are family. But accusing them of anything rarely does any good.

    Its a very touchy subject though. Because at the same time, I believe true racism should not be tolerated.

    Perhaps I just wish we could export our little CW.com world to the outside.

    *sigh*

    Ok, I got lost in reverie. I don't remember what my point was. Peace, love, and some hippie crap, Michale :)

    -David

  88. [88] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- An interesting sidenote, Michale.

    I got hammered yesterday by a couple of liberals for a dKos post.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/05/1042035/-A-$777-Trillion-Call-to-Arms

    They made some good points, but a couple were real f*ckwichs. Search for "HamdenRice" or "eXtina" in the comments.

    Mr. Hamden made some good points, but he also accused me of creating "a Ron Paulist narrative about economic intervention and the evils of the Fed." Someone else called the article "Bachmannian".

    It was a challenge for me because, as a writer, what I like to do is try to make things simple. Especially the complex. Economics, for example. But sometimes I get out of my league and this case was one of them.

    Mr. Hampton (sic) knew more about economics than me. And was being a dick about it. So I asked a lot of questions and tried to contain the name calling. And it made him look bad with many others on the post.

    My approach is, and always has been, that I'm here to learn and help others learn.

    I was mad as hell though. Because there's no reason to be a douchebag. I ended up pointing out some of the good points he made while at the same time calling him on his name calling.

    And ... at a certain point, I realized it wasn't worth it so stepped away. Just thought you'd find it interesting. Liberals, in addition to being hippies, can be real @-holes too sometimes :). Especially, those with a lot of knowledge.

    Knowledge does not necessarily equal wisdom.

    -David

  89. [89] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Hope all y'all don't mind (can there really be "correct usage" for a term that is, inherently, incorrect to begin with? the mind boggles...), but I'm going to yank this racism debate in another direction. You have been warned.

    I have two points to make. The first hopefully we can all agree on. It is indeed racism -- by a very tiny minority of seriously deranged individuals -- that in 2007/2008 Barack Obama was the first candidate to need Secret Service protection, and in 2011 it was Herman Cain who was the earliest to need SS protection. There are, quite likely, some very ugly untold stories in both these cases which caused the Secret Service to act sooner rather than too late. I think we can all condemn this situation, even without knowing all the details. Has nothing to do with either man's politics -- this is just pure hatred of the color of their skin.

    Secondly, after that hippie moment of agreement, I would toss out there that the institutionalized racism push on right now is the one fighting non-existent "voter fraud" by making it a lot harder for minorities to be able to vote. I read today a quote by (I believe) the NAACP head which was spot on: "this is not Jim Crow, this is James Crow, Esq." Changing the laws so fewer minorities vote is straight-up, no-chaser racism, as far as I'm concerned.

    This second point, perhaps not everyone will agree with, though...

    -CW

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/05/1042035/-A-$777-Trillion-Call-to-Arms

    Holy crap, David! Is that you!!??? :D

    I gotta tell ya, my mental picture of everyone is completely whacked!!! :D

    On the rest... I agree that things do get heated... And I agree, we can work things out a lot better than the pundits and our "leaders"..

    I have to say though.... It's nice to have confirmation of what I have always said. Something that, as you point out, we can all agree on..

    That there are dicks, assholes and douche bags on BOTH sides of the aisle...

    "Joe The Plumber's a douche"
    -Dean Winchester, SUPERNATURAL, Death Takes A Holiday

    :D

    CW,

    Yea, I'll have to agree on the first point, but disagree on the second..

    Actually, I'll meet you part of the way...

    I don't agree that requiring valid ID to vote is outrageous. I mean, if you accept the idea that voting should be restricted to American citizens only, it shouldn't be that big of a deal that authorized voters must PROVE that they are authorized...

    The part I'll meet you on is that I am sure that the reasons for requiring this are to nefariously serve the conservative agenda..

    Just as I am SURE you'll agree that the reasons for FIGHTING the requirement are to nefariously serve the liberal agenda...

    But cynicism aside, I really don't see a problem with requiring ID. Voting is a privilege, not a right. If a person has the time to go down to a voting booth and vote, then they have the time to go to the county office and get an ID.

    If they are too lazy to do that, or have some other, darker reason why they won't do that, they don't deserve to vote..

    And the PREVIEW option saved my arse once again!! :D Woot!!! :D

    Michale.....
    088

  91. [91] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Changing the laws so fewer minorities vote is straight-up, no-chaser racism, as far as I'm concerned.

    That's a tough one, CW. I'm not sure whether to agree or disagree. I am interested though on what you think makes something racist.

    Is it the fact that it disproportionately affects a certain group of people? Or are there other components as well?

    I am in complete agreement on number 1 so maybe I'm just trying to figure out why number 1 is easy when number 2 seems more complex.

    -David

  92. [92] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale-

    The problem with your choices are they are worded in absolute terms. There is certainly racism or more accurately racial prejudice in all parts of society. Left, right, middle. I as well as others have said as such. There has definitely been prejudice if not flat out racism in the birther stuff and the many signs you see with the tea party rallies complaining Obama is a muslim. Or do you really think liberal president John Smith, pasty white guy with a father born in England who happened to be born in Hawaii in 1961 would ever have his birth certificate challenged or be wrongly thought to be muslim?

    That absolutism makes discussing racism with you quite disingenuous and uninteresting. I think discussing the racial prejudice in Reid's or Clinton's remarks about Obama would be interesting but you are so hot to pin anything you can on the left that if I am backed in to a corner and asked if those comments make him a lynch from a tree racist or a pure as driven snow not a racist bone in his body I will always take the later as it is the only answer given that is closer to the truth even though in reality it's somewhere in between.

    I just don't think the left cares about Cain or any of the current republican candidates enough for racial prejudice to bubble up. If he became the republican nominee or was doing well enough and far along in the primaries that might be true for a small minority of the left. That small minority certainly dislikes Obama, I don't see Cain getting any different treatment. But to try and paint the whole left or large parts of it as racist just doesn't pass the smell test. But in the end it was either Cain's libido that got him in trouble or a serious plot. If it was a plot to discredit him, and regardless if racism was behind it rather than pure politics it would have been from the right this early on. As I said in another thread I think it was his libido.

    Until you are willing to discuss such subjects in more even handed terms I will leave the subject as I first mentioned in this thread: a dead horse that needs not to be beaten further.

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    The problem with your choices are they are worded in absolute terms.

    I am a simple man... Many things to me ARE absolute. Are black and white..

    Your attempts to obfuscate the discussion with "layers" and "shades of gray" is what is disingenuous here...

    Until you are willing to discuss such subjects in more even handed terms

    You mean nuance it to death until the meaning LOSES all meaning??

    No thank you...

    You got backed into a corner with your support of that biased and flawed Stanford study and you are trying to "nuance" your way out of it..

    As I said, it's a simple issue to me..

    Was there an ongoing and systematic effort by those on the Left to falsely characterize opposition to Obama as racist??

    Yes there was. This has been proven beyond ANY doubt. No nuance required, no shades of gray necessary. Just cold hard and objective facts...

    Sometimes, there ARE nice people. Sometimes, people are just assholes...

    This is true whether they are Democrats or Republicans, Liberals or Conservatives..

    The problem we have is your continued belief that the nice people are all on the Left and the assholes are all on the Right..

    In the 6 years that I have been posting to CW's commentaries, I think I have amply proven beyond ANY doubt that there ARE nice people on the Right and there ARE assholes on the Left...

    It's past my bedtime.... :D

    Michale....
    089

  94. [94] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Holy crap, David! Is that you!!??? :D

    Heheh. I'm assuming you're referring to the picture? It's a graphic artist's version of me as a high school student in 1967 done using an old photo of me.

    I'm afraid you will only be disappointed if we ever meet in person :)

    The part I'll meet you on is that I am sure that the reasons for requiring this are to nefariously serve the conservative agenda.

    Bonus points for use of the word "nefarious". Snidely Whiplash came to mind :)

    Just as I am SURE you'll agree that the reasons for FIGHTING the requirement are to nefariously serve the liberal agenda.

    Ok, know you posted in response to CW. So I won't say much here other than I'd disagree. You might find it hard to believe my friend but some people actually believe everyone should have the right to vote. Period. If someone were trying to deny you the right to vote, I'd be against it. If someone were trying to deny Newt Gingrich the right to vote, I'd be against it. Period.

    'Night
    -David

  95. [95] 
    dsws wrote:

    a term that is, inherently, incorrect to begin with

    How is "y'all" inherently incorrect? It's from a lower-status dialect, but there's nothing to make it correct or incorrect. Words don't work that way.

    There was once a view of language where contemporary languages were imagined to be degenerate forms of a pure, original language. God said "Let there be light", and there was light. Adam had dominion over the beasts by naming them. The word was the thing, in its deepest essence. Fragments were imagined to persist: wood (lignis) burns because fire (ignis) was present in it as potential. On this view, of course words could be correct or incorrect. But really, words don't work that way.

    To be *inherently* correct or incorrect, back in the real world, a piece of language has to have more structure. Then the conflict can be within the structure and thus inherent in the piece of language.

    To be correct or incorrect at all, it's enough for a word or phrase to have an established usage that makes sense and serves some purpose: then it's correct when used in accordance with that and incorrect when used contrary to normal usage. "Y'all" does have established usage, within some dialects, and it's useful. It's correct when used accordingly. But extrinsically so.

    Or do you really think liberal president John Smith, pasty white guy with a father born in England who happened to be born in Hawaii in 1961 would ever have his birth certificate challenged or be wrongly thought to be muslim?

    England isn't culturally alien enough. Make it Russia, they're pasty-white enough. If he first rose to prominence by writing a book reflecting on the experience of various immigrant groups, interwoven with the narrative of his own discovery of his roots in Russia, then his birth certificate might be challenged.

    This is John Mohammed Smith you're talking about, right? Whose grandfather was a Muslim? Yes, he would definitely be called a Muslim.

    For one of these smears to work, it has to be something where the baseless overt accusation resonates with the feelings of the people it appeals to. Americans are ashamed of our country's racist history, but want to be across-the-board proud of our history. That cognitive dissonance can play out in convoluted ways.

    some people actually believe everyone should have the right to vote. Period.

    Everyone with a real connection to a country should have the right to political participation. In our political system, that takes the form of voting. But it doesn't necessarily have to.

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Bonus points for use of the word "nefarious". Snidely Whiplash came to mind :)

    :D What was that old cartoon.... "CATCH THAT PIGEON"??? :D

    Period. If someone were trying to deny you the right to vote, I'd be against it. If someone were trying to deny Newt Gingrich the right to vote, I'd be against it. Period.

    Yes, YOU would be against it..

    *I* would be against it.. Most people here would be against it..

    But I just couldn't see the Left's leadership be so gung ho to protect the minority right to vote, if the minority vote overwhelmingly went towards the GOP...

    One only has to witness the Justice Department's Voting Rights Section disdain of pursuing voter rights violations if it was a white person's rights that were violated. Remember the Black Panther case of 2008???

    No, both GOP and DEM game the system and disenfranchise voters to their advantage..

    Another instance where there really is no difference between Democrat and Republican...

    Or do you really think liberal president John Smith, pasty white guy with a father born in England who happened to be born in Hawaii in 1961 would ever have his birth certificate challenged or be wrongly thought to be muslim?

    I think that if a white person had the muddled history that Obama had, and had so adamantly refused to release his Birth Certificate and spent millions of personal money to keep his Birth Certificate hidden, then the BC would have been challenged. The BC controversy was for political reasons, not for racial reasons. Further, if the roles had been reversed and it was a white GOP President that did all the things Obama did to prevent HIS BC from coming out, then the "Birthers" would have come from the Left instead of the Right...

    And if a white person had kow-towed to Muslims like Obama has and been such a jackass towards Israel (as Obama has) then the white person would have been accused of being a Muslim..

    But since when did accusing someone of being of a certain religion become a racial slur???

    If someone "accuses" me of being a black person, is that a racial slur???

    Or is it just a moronically stoopid accusation??

    I think the vast majority of people on the Left are so hyper-sensitive to racial issues that they see racism at every turn, cry racism at the drop of a hat...

    It's redonkulus....

    Everyone with a real connection to a country should have the right to political participation.

    How would you define "real connection"???

    Birth?? Location?? Investment Portfolio??

    Michale.....
    091

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Crap.... I forgot to delineate the response to David from the response to dsws...

    I think ya'all can spot the break ... :D

    Michale
    094

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Double crap...

    Seems I was channeling a response to Bashi, thru dsws...

    Personally, I like dsws's reasoning better than my own.. :D

    But both are valid...

    Michale
    095

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    As an aside, I know these endless follow-ups can really be annoying...

    But if I am going to hit 500 by the end of the year, I gots ta get creative.. :D

    Michale
    096

  100. [100] 
    akadjian wrote:

    *I* would be against it.. Most people here would be against it.

    Then be against it.

    Stop trying to say that because you believe one side does it that it's ok for the other side to do it.

    Don't fall for the manipulative tricks pulled by folks like Fox "News" - the Black Panthers case being one of them.

    Here's how Fox used this story and others like it. The Black Panthers were two idiots in Philadelphia standing outside a polling place looking intimidating. Wrong? Yes. A conspiracy? No. Fox actively seeks out stories like this so they can loop them over and over and try to make it look like some kind of conspiracy by a horrible group: The New Black Panthers. Two people. I don't even think they ever had any evidence that anyone was prevented from voting. Again, I do not agree with these 2 people being there looking intimidating. Yet is this a vast liberal conspiracy? It's two people. It was also handled by the local police as soon as it was reported. Two people. How big was this story? Well ... you're still talking about it. It was huge. Why? Largely because of Fox.

    Let's look at the flip side. Some estimates say as many as 5.5 million people could be disenfranchised by the new election laws. On one side, we've got a huge story about 2 scary looking black people with no evidence that anyone was prevented from voting. On the other side, it's estimated that 5.5 million eligible citizens may be prevented from voting for political reasons. Now, the 5.5 million number may be high. But lets say it's 90% off (a ridiculous amount off). That's still over 500,000 eligible people who would be prevented from voting.

    FoxNews uses one situation to justify the other. This is how Fox works. They try to make the claim that there's a huge liberal conspiracy so that things like preventing Democrats from voting somehow seem "fair".

    It's a pattern they use over and over. Don't fall for it.

    But how about this ... I propose an alliance. I'm willing to speak out against the anyone trying to intimidate voters in front of polling stations. I don't believe it's right. These situations should be handled by the police and these idiots removed. At the same time, our government shouldn't be trying to disenfranchise eligible voters. Would you be willing to speak out against this?

    -David

    Source for stat on number of voters. It did come from a liberal study which is why, admittedly, the 5.5 million number might be high. http://theweek.com/article/index/219920/the-gops-new-voting-laws-disenfranchising-5-million-americans

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Black Panthers were two idiots in Philadelphia standing outside a polling place looking intimidating.

    Would you have said the same thing if it were two white rednecks decked out in Cammies with one holding a baseball bat in a predominantly black neighborhood??

    Would the Left???

    The answer to the former is "probably". The answer to the latter is "definitely not"..

    At the same time, our government shouldn't be trying to disenfranchise eligible voters. Would you be willing to speak out against this?

    As I said, it depends..

    I don't think that saying that all voters must have ID is an unreasonable request..

    WHY it's being supported by the GOP and being fought against by the Left is another issue... And it's the SAME issue.. To push a politically ideological agenda...

    But, in and of itself, requiring ID is not unreasonable..

    Would you agree with that??

    Would you agree that a person who makes the time to go to a voting booth and vote should also make the time to go to a county office and obtain an ID..

    Michale.....
    097

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Would you agree that a person who makes the time to go to a voting booth and vote should also make the time to go to a county office and obtain an ID..

    Hell, these days, you can obtain a state ID online!!

    There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for not having an ID..

    If voting is THAT important to a person then obtaining an ID is not that big of an obstacle...

    Michale....
    098

  103. [103] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Would you have said the same thing if it were two white rednecks decked out in Cammies with one holding a baseball bat in a predominantly black neighborhood?

    Yup.

    Would the Left?

    What do you think they would be saying?

    You might see some calls for laws to outlaw voter intimidation. But I'm not sure how that would be a bad thing.

    I don't think that saying that all voters must have ID is an unreasonable request.

    1. IDs are required as is. This is determined by the states.
    2. What is being done is outlawing certain forms of ID.
    3. People who are too poor to own a car typically do not have a driver's license.

    Hell, these days, you can obtain a state ID online!

    If you have the resources and money to be online.

    4. Many college students don't have cars. But they have college IDs. These are being outlawed.
    5. In addition, it's not just about ID. The amount of time for voting is being shrunk. This affects anyone who votes absentee ballot.
    6. There is virtually no voter fraud. The cases are so low every year that they never impact elections. So new costly requirements are being put in place why? To make it harder for poor people to vote.

    These laws are being put in place solely to make it harder for people with little means to vote. And its being done for no purpose other than to aid one party.

    This is, as you said, nefarious.

    -David

  104. [104] 
    akadjian wrote:

    At it's heart though, I really don't believe it's about Republicans vs. Democrats.

    It's about rich vs. poor. And a middle class that doesn't understand what it really means to be poor and not have access to things like a car or the Internet.

    In the end, the laws may backfire on Republicans because much of their base is made up of poor white people in rural counties who are unable to vote. There are actually more poor white people in our country though common mythology has it that the majority of the poor are black.

    Statistics tend to say that poor people vote Democratic, but it's hard to tell anymore. Much of the propaganda pushed by the Republican party is pushed at poor people through religion and non-traditional outlets like AM radio.

    Time will tell but irregardless, I'm against it.

    -David

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    You might see some calls for laws to outlaw voter intimidation. But I'm not sure how that would be a bad thing.

    The Left would have gone batshit over it. They would be screaming to the high heavens about voter intimidation and "Vast Right Wing" Conspiracies!!

    6. There is virtually no voter fraud.

    Really??

    Then how come every election, the Left is screaming to the high heavens about "vote fraud"???

    Don't make me GOOGLE!! :D

    Remember?? The Left screamed to high heaven about a police car parked a mile away from a voter booth...

    As far as poor people not being able to afford an ID.. That's poppycock... If a poor person can't drive to a voting booth, then what does a Democrat/Liberal do??? Picks them up and drives them to a voting booth...

    So, why can't a Democrat/Liberal pick up a person and drive them to get an state ID??

    The problem here is that the Left wants to combat voter fraud and voter intimidation, but only to the point that it doesn't adversely affect THEIR voter turnout...

    When it does, all of the sudden, there is "no voter fraud".....

    Lemme ask you this....

    Do you have a problem with the rule that only American citizens can vote??

    If you don't, then it seems to me to be a little contradictory that you would have a problem with a universal mechanism that insures only American citizens can vote..

    Michale..
    101

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem here is that the Left wants to combat voter fraud and voter intimidation, but only to the point that it doesn't adversely affect THEIR voter turnout...

    When it does, all of the sudden, there is "no voter fraud".....

    To be fair, the Right is exactly the same way...

    Oh sure.. You can point to a person here or a person there who doesn't think like that..

    "A person is smart. People are dumb panicky animals and you know it."
    -Kay, MEN IN BLACK

    By and large, though, the Left will do what they can to enhance voters who vote Dem and disenfranchise voters who vote GOP... Just as the Right will do what they can to enhance voters who vote GOP and disenfranchise voters who vote Dem.

    "... nature of the beast."
    -Colonel Hadley, THE FINAL OPTION

    Michale....
    102

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's about rich vs. poor. And a middle class that doesn't understand what it really means to be poor and not have access to things like a car or the Internet.

    I disagree...

    I have been stinking filthy rich. The kind of rich where I could go into a bar and give a waitress a hundred dollar tip, just to see the look on her face...

    I have also been dirt poor. The kind of dirt poor where I would buy soda with food stamps to pour out the soda and return the cans (at .05 cents a can) so I could have gas money to go look for work..

    Even being dirt poor, if something was important enough to me, I would find a way to do it..

    By opposing IDs, Democrats are simply trying to enhance their own voter turnout..

    As I have said (and NO ONE has disputed) if the poor voted primarily GOP, the Left would be screaming to high heaven, demanding IDs for all voters...

    You know it. I know it... The Left knows it.. :D

    Michale....
    103

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, just to be clear.. I am not saying anything against the Left that I would not say against the Right...

    Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of looking out for their own agenda at the expense of the American people..

    Michale
    104

  109. [109] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Michale,

    What I'm arguing for is that everyone should have the right to vote.

    I'm not including any exemptions for wealthy people or people I disagree with. Rush Limbaugh should have the right to vote.

    And it's not ok to play dirty because one side thinks the other might do it if they somehow don't do it first.

    Everyone should have the right to vote. Period. Government should not be trying to deny people this right for one political party or the other. In fact, government should be encouraging people to vote.

    -David

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    What I'm arguing for is that everyone should have the right to vote.

    And yet, there are MANY Americans who don't have the right to vote. Our jails are filled with them... :D

    I would agree with your statement with the addition that everyone should have the right to vote in an American election who is an American citizen..

    Then the question becomes, how do we enforce that??

    How do we insure that only those authorized to vote ARE voting??

    Well, the only way to do that is to make sure everyone has a valid ID...

    You look at voting as a right. But it is NOT a right. It is a privilege.

    It is a privilege that can be taken away under certain circumstances..

    One of those circumstances is being a convicted felon..

    Another is not having a valid ID...

    I really don't have a problem with either of those restrictions..

    If you want the privilege of voting, don't commit any felonies and get yerself a state ID...

    If you can't be bothered with getting an ID, then you don't want to be bothered with voting.. Many, if not ALL states have programs for Free IDs for low income people who want an ID to vote...

    There is absolutely NO excuse for obtaining an ID for voters.. It's simple laziness....

    That's how I look at things...

    Michale
    105

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a completely unrelated note....

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8940350/Nasas-Voyager-1-in-cosmic-purgatory-on-verge-of-entering-Milky-Way.html

    Future history is being written...

    V'ger is on course for it's destiny! :D

    The creation of the Borg is at hand... :D

    Michale.....
    106

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, apropos of absolutely nothing.....

    Instead the cannonball flew over the foothills surrounding Camp Parks Military Firing Reservation, before spiraling back toward Dublin like a cruise missile.

    It flew straight though the front door of a home on Cassata Place, and bounced around like a pinball, flying up to the second floor before blasting through a back bedroom wall.

    The wayward cannonball then blasted across a busy road and through a second home some 50 yards away, demolishing roof tiles.

    The out of control cannonball finally came to a stop inside Jasper Gill’s minivan.

    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/12/06/tv-experiment-goes-awry-sends-cannonball-rocketing-through-homes/

    Filed under the heading of "OOOPPPSSS"

    :D

    Michale
    108

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    You seem to be saying that better 1 million illegal votes be cast rather than 1 legitimate voter not be allowed to vote...

    Is that an accurate assessment of what you are saying?

    Michale....
    109

  114. [114] 
    dsws wrote:

    I just couldn't see the Left's leadership be so gung ho to ...

    There you go again. The Democratic party has such a thing as a "leadership". Barely. The left, though? Not. At. All.

    How would you define "real connection"?

    Broadly. To a first approximation, I think everyone has a right to participation at the most basic level (speech, press, and even organizing and donating within financial limits) in everyone else's political process. We're all connected. It's just plain silly to pretend that countries are in separate universes. Voting and candidacy should be restricted to those with a greater degree of connection, basically to citizens.

    You might see some calls for laws to outlaw voter intimidation. But I'm not sure how that would be a bad thing.

    That's because you haven't seen the fine print of the new laws. The operational definition will amount to "being registered Democratic within 5000 feet of a polling place"; the penalty will be permanent disenfranchisement without due process. That's for laws designed not to pass but to elicit opposition from the left. Laws designed to pass will only be almost as bad.

    Then how come every election, the Left is screaming to the high heavens about "vote fraud"?

    Shame on you. Every time I forget how low you can sink, you find a way to remind me. You know perfectly well that there's a world of difference between vote fraud (stuffing ballot boxes, graveyard vote, diebolding) and votER fraud (trying to vote without being eligible to do so). For starters, one exists and the other doesn't.

    a universal mechanism that insures only American citizens can vote..

    Insure with an I means enter into a contract to pay in the event of loss. Ensure with an E means to make certain that that's what happens.

    Do you have a problem with the rule that only American citizens can vote??

    If you don't, then it seems to me to be a little contradictory that you would have a problem with a universal mechanism that insures only American citizens can vote.

    Not contradictory at all, given that essentially no aliens are trying to vote, and that the only 100% failsafe mechanism would be to let no one vote at all. Every decision mechanism has errors both ways (false positives and false negatives) unless it always says no (and thus has no false positives) or always says yes (and thus has no false negatives).

    You look at voting as a right. But it is NOT a right. It is a privilege.

    Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Everyone subject to the jurisdiction of a government has the right to express or withhold their consent, and to have that expression be part of a real political process that affords them the possibility of influencing government action. Anything less is tyranny.

    What's wrong with tyranny isn't only the effect on the tyrannized. It's also the effect on the tyrants, who might otherwise have been better people.

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    There you go again. The Democratic party has such a thing as a "leadership". Barely. The left, though? Not. At. All.

    Touche... I stand corrected... :D

    You know perfectly well that there's a world of difference between vote fraud (stuffing ballot boxes, graveyard vote, diebolding) and votER fraud (trying to vote without being eligible to do so).

    Actually, I did not make the distinction. I stand corrected.

    For starters, one exists and the other doesn't.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    Not contradictory at all, given that essentially no aliens are trying to vote,

    Again, assumes facts not in evidence...

    Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Everyone subject to the jurisdiction of a government has the right to express or withhold their consent, and to have that expression be part of a real political process that affords them the possibility of influencing government action. Anything less is tyranny.

    Which doesn't change the fact that voting is a privilege.

    A privilege that can be taken away under certain conditions.

    This is the law..

    Don't like the law?? Then work to change it..

    Working to change a law is admirable..

    Working to circumvent the law is nefarious... :D

    Especially when doing so to further a partisan agenda...

    Michale.....
    110

  116. [116] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I am a simple man... Many things to me ARE absolute. Are black and white..

    Your attempts to obfuscate the discussion with "layers" and "shades of gray" is what is disingenuous here...

    I would argue that there is almost nothing in society that is black or white. It is all shades of gray and nuance. Not only that, it's the shades of gray and nuance that make it interesting. Without which I would most likely be one of the non-voting, not interested in politics majority.

    You got backed into a corner with your support of that biased and flawed Stanford study and you are trying to "nuance" your way out of it..

    Hardly. What I wrote above: Now if the discussion was even handed I would take it as a minor point in my favor... and I stand by that. The methodology of the study is sound enough if you read it. They did not use controls that you would have personally used but they did use valid controls none the less. And the conclusion it what I would expect: Race/racism is not the primary reason for disagreement with Obama's policies but it is provably a factor in the disagreement.

    Discounting all universities because they tend liberal is a bit silly, no? It the internet liberal? Nuclear weapons? Ok, ok logical fallacies I know but at what point do you draw the distinction that the liberalism no longer influences the research?

    The problem we have is your continued belief that the nice people are all on the Left and the assholes are all on the Right..

    Please point out ANYWHERE in ANYTHING I have written where I have said this...

    In the 6 years that I have been posting to CW's commentaries, I think I have amply proven beyond ANY doubt that there ARE nice people on the Right and there ARE assholes on the Left...

    I find this a strange thing to post. Not the truth of it and it's reverse but that it would be a revelation that we would need convincing of and not a self evident truth. I now I as well as other on this forum have stated as such many times.

    It begs an interesting question that I direct as much to tinsldr2 as you: do you have friends/family/inlaws/co-workers and you have good relations with that are liberal? I have good relations with conservative republicans from all 4 categories. Probably why I fond the above to be self evident.

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would argue that there is almost nothing in society that is black or white. It is all shades of gray and nuance.

    You would be wrong.. :D But that's not a crime.. :D

    And the conclusion it what I would expect: Race/racism is not the primary reason for disagreement with Obama's policies but it is provably a factor in the disagreement.

    Then you would also agree with the statement that

    "Race/racism is not the primary reason for disagreement with Cain's policies but it is provably a factor in the disagreement."

    Correct???

    Please point out ANYWHERE in ANYTHING I have written where I have said this...

    It's a reasonable deduction, considering your posts of support for anything Left and your castigation of anything Right..

    It begs an interesting question that I direct as much to tinsldr2 as you: do you have friends/family/inlaws/co-workers and you have good relations with that are liberal?

    It's interesting that you should ask...

    One of the many hats I wear here at work is the surveillance systems expert... After setting up a particularly snazzy multi-layered security surveillance system, I happened upon one of the ladies that worked here.. Her disdain for what I was doing was evidence clear by the expression of face...

    Knowing I was going to regret it, I asked her what was wrong.. I was then treated to a litany of complaints about this camera/surveillance oriented world and how it was all to get us used to 24/7 surveillance..

    It was like CW.COM had come to life!! :D

    But, to answer your question, I work with liberals. I don't really have any friends, so that category is non applicable. Family?? That's a toughie... If you would have asked growing up, I would have said they were all flaming liberals, as evidenced by a Kent State "joke" I happened to utter at the dinner table which earned me some glares. In hindsight, it WAS in pretty poor taste, so.....

    But I am not real close with my family, being on opposite coasts.. I think it's been 10 years since I talked with my brothers, but I try to talk to my mom at least once a month. My dad, less so...

    To answer what I THINK you are asking, no.. I don't have many political discussions in real life.. But that's not because of any philosophical differences, but rather because of lack of contact and/or geographical isolation...

    Michale
    112

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another legend has passed away...

    RIP HARRY MORGAN aka Colonel Potter aka Officer Bill Gannon

    Michale
    113

  119. [119] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Correct???

    Absolutely. But where is that racial prejudice coming from? That is the interesting question.

    I was then treated to a litany of complaints about this camera/surveillance oriented world and how it was all to get us used to 24/7 surveillance..

    But, could that have not come from a libertarian just as easily?

    I think it was from the various eulogies of Tip O'neill after his death where I heard a few versions of the same story. That Tip and his colleagues across the aisle would spend the session rallying against each others position in the most fiery language possible. Then afterward meet up as friends, go out to dinner and hammer out a compromise over martinis. I wonder how we can get back to that level of civility in politics…

  120. [120] 
    dsws wrote:

    I would argue that there is almost nothing in society that is black or white.

    What politically-contentious issue are the Republicans right about?

    Not just stuff where they say the right thing half the time for rhetorical effect, but are on the other side when the tough choices have to be made. What are they actually right about?

    There's plenty the Democrats are wrong about. But it seems pretty clear cut that the Republicans are worse than hopeless.

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Absolutely. But where is that racial prejudice coming from? That is the interesting question.

    That's easy..

    From the people who oppose Cain's policies..

    That is, if you buy into that study....

    Which I do not...

    I think it was from the various eulogies of Tip O'neill after his death where I heard a few versions of the same story. That Tip and his colleagues across the aisle would spend the session rallying against each others position in the most fiery language possible. Then afterward meet up as friends, go out to dinner and hammer out a compromise over martinis. I wonder how we can get back to that level of civility in politics…

    Now on THIS, we are in complete agreement...

    Michale.....

  122. [122] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If you want the privilege of voting, don't commit any felonies and get yerself a state ID.

    Felons and the poor. They're all the same. Trash that should be picked up from the street. It's their fault they're poor. If they would just work harder, they'd be rich.

    Smithers ... release the hounds!

    You seem to be saying that better 1 million illegal votes be cast rather than 1 legitimate voter not be allowed to vote.

    No, I don't. You seem to be.

    How do we insure that only those authorized to vote ARE voting?

    "Authorized" means there has to be an authorizor which means some people have more rights than others.

    I do not believe in this.

    This is the system you want. Democracy for some. You said it yourself, "the privileged".

    -David

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Felons and the poor. They're all the same. Trash that should be picked up from the street. It's their fault they're poor. If they would just work harder, they'd be rich.

    Yea, and it's societies fault that felons commit felonies, right??

    Spare me the bleeding heart.. :D

    No, I don't. You seem to be.

    "I DID say that. Would YOU say that??"
    -Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

    So, DO you believe that it's better to have a million fraudulent votes cast rather than one disenfranchised voter..

    This is the system you want. Democracy for some. You said it yourself, "the privileged".

    No matter how you want to slice it, voting is a privilege.. A privilege that CAN be taken away under certain circumstances..

    If you want voting opened to all then make the case and change the law..

    But, be careful what you wish for...

    Unlimited voting without ANY kinds of restrictions or safeguards...

    What happens when a community of 10,000 people produced 500,000 votes???

    Because that's exactly what a free-for-all voting structure will produce...

    Michale.....
    115

  124. [124] 
    akadjian wrote:

    DO you believe that it's better to have a million fraudulent votes cast rather than one disenfranchised voter.

    Based on the evidence, I believe that the new plans will disenfranchise at least 1 million voters based on close to zero evidence that any fraudulent votes have actually been cast.

    So I believe about the exact opposite of your statement. A million disenfranchised voters for every 1 fraudulent vote.

    The only crime that's been committed by these voters is that many vote Democrat.

    Unlimited voting without ANY kinds of restrictions or safeguards.

    We have rules already to register voters. They both safeguard elections and ensure everyone who is a citizen can vote. And surprise ... they work!

    Do you know how I know they work?

    Because FoxNews ... the FoxNews ... FoxNews has been unable to come up with any major evidence of voter fraud other than small, isolated examples. Which they will tell you about incessantly to try to convince you that fraud is rampant.

    All they've got are things like 2 black guys in Philadelphia standing outside a voting establishment.

    Imagine how much we'd hear about it if they actually had any evidence :)

    I think Rupert Murdoch would crap himself in flatulent ecstasy if any actual evidence existed.

    You know there's no evidence though because if he had any, FoxNews would be screaming it. Because even when they don't have it, they go out of their way to make it up.

    But I believe we've hit our point of disagreement my friend. You believe in a society for the privileged. And I don't. I just hope you always stay one of the privileged so that at least you can enjoy it.

    I don't believe it's ok to cheat. Period. Not even if I think the other side is doing it too because I read it on some liberal blog. No shades of gray here :)

    -David

    p.s. As a very funny sidenote, there was evidence in 2008 that apparently Ann Coulter committed felony voter fraud, but the State of Florida (a very Republican leaning state) apparently decided not to press charges.

    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6046

    Just happened to stumble on this when looking for evidence of actual voter fraud. Which there didn't seem to be much of other than isolated cased.

  125. [125] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Jeez, 124 comments, and nobody want pagination?!?

    Sigh. Maybe I could make it a toggle, where you could see it either way you wanted...

    OK, here goes.

    Michale [66] -

    You should be looking at the party in Egypt which came in second, not the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Let me ask you a question: is Saudi Arabia our ally?

    They are the strictest "Islamist" government in the region, and yet they still sell us oil and all that. If you allow the Middle East democracy, and allow it to vote for whom they like, they are going to vote for people we don't approve of. THat's a given. So what's the answer? Not allow them democracy? Prop up dictators in the region, as we did with Saddam Hussein (see: 1980s, Rumsfeld), Mubarak, Shah of Iran, and all the rest of them? Or what?

    akadjian [91] -

    I would answer: it is in the intent. If the intent is to disenfranchise minority voters, then I would call it racist. Of course, maybe I'm making assumptions which can't be adequately proven by doing so, but that was where I was coming from.

    dsws [95] -

    Well, properly shouldn't it be "all of you"? I'm no English major, but "you all" (the long form of y'all) is inherently wrong, isn't it? Where's nypoet22 when you need him?

    "You" is second person plural (and singular). "You all" is therefore redundant. I think...

    But then I have problems with grammar rules myself. I mean, if that Scotsman had his way and declared split infinitives beyond the pale (which I totally reject because his reasoning was "Latin has no split infinitives" which is just horse manure), then we could never have the sentence "To boldly go where no man has gone before" which I'm sure Michale would join me in saying would be a shame, indeed. Heh.

    Michale [96] -

    You're missing the point. No presidential candidate has ever been ASKED for his birth certificate before Barack Obama. THAT is the point. McCain had to get an act of Congress to declare that he was eligible for the presidency because of where he was born (Canal Zone), but did anyone ever see HIS birth certificate? No, because nobody asked. THAT is the key difference.

    When, exactly has Obama kow-towed to Muslims, or (for that matter) apologized for, say, killing OBL? Or is only Bush allowed to hold hands with Muslims when they visit?

    Michale [97-99] -

    What's it you always say? "The more the merrier!"?

    Heh.

    akadjian [100] -

    and Michale in various places:

    It's the New Black Panther Party (NBPP). The Black Panthers have totally disavowed them. It's like the difference between the "Splinter IRA" and the "IRA". Doesn't sound like much, but a BIG difference. Sorry, just had to say that.

    As for voting, I'm with you.

    Michale [101], the other part of this is that Righties (and Fox) point to voter registration drives as some sort of grand conspiracy to commit voter fraud. This is not true, as it is apples and oranges. Grunt workers turn in forms for "Mickey Mouse" so they'll get paid (they work on a per-form basis, often). This doesn't mean "Mickey Mouse" turns up to vote. Republicans have launched thousands of investigations into voter fraud, and have turned up only a handful of prosecuted cases. It is a conspiracy which does not exist. But that doesn't stop them from enacting laws which make it harder for everyone to vote -- and almost impossible (in some cases) for minorities to do so. If you're living in a nursing home, how hard is it for you to renew a drivers license that means nothing to you otherwise?

    Here's a better example: states that are limiting early voting, when the proportion of early voters is high for minorities. Why in the heck would you limit such voting? There simply is no such reason, that isn't based in racism and prejudice against the poor (who often have problems voting a Tuesday workday).

    [102]

    Maybe in your state, but certainly not everywhere. Also: how much does it cost? Why should people be forced to pay this "poll tax" to the state?

    Both of you -

    Don't forget that these are state-by-state laws. What holds true in your state may not hold true in others. For example: in the West, "absentee voting" is all the rage -- it's easy, it's convenient, hell, in Oregon EVERYONE votes absentee now. In many East Coast states, you have to PROVE (with a plane ticket, for example) that you will be out of the state on election day. Big difference.

    akadjian [103] -

    I totally agree with all your points.

    [104] -

    That is an excellent, excellent point. The Law of Unintended Consequences is harsh, at times.

    Michale [aside] -

    Woo hoo! 100 comments!

    Everyone, just to let you know, he's paying to annoy us. I've so far receieved $100 from Michale in our year-end pledge drive. So get him fired up, as everytime he takes your bait from now until New Year's, he's paying a dollar to do so.

    :-)

    Michale [107] -

    That is an uncomfortably strong argument. All us Lefties should meditate on the question at the end, there. It certainly made me squirm for a moment...

    Michale [110] -

    This is a problem for me. Do you agree that felons should lose the right to vote for the rest of their lives? I don't. Many states don't. But some states do. I have a gigantic moral problem with this, and a constitutional one as well. Once you've "paid your debt to society" I think your rights and priveleges should be restored and you should be a full citizen once again.

    You may, however, disagree with this statement.

    Later on, however, you are just full of moosepoop. Voting is a right. It is a right which can be taken away by a state, but it is a basic right. It is guaranteed in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the subsequent Amendments. It is NOT a privelege, like driving.

    Historical footnote for you to ponder: how many of the amendments passed after the Bill of Rights have to do with voting rights? Answer: more than for any other subject -- count them if you don't believe me.

    As for the Voyager news, well, they're mis-defining "Milky Way" -- Voyager has ALWAYS been in the Milky Way, even when it was being built on the ground. But I have to admit, this story was interesting, because I was sitting in Goddard Space Flight Center (in Greenbelt, MD) watching LIVE as the photos from Voyager came in for the first time from Jupiter. I watched as each photo slowly came in, and firmed up, and color was added. It was the coolest space thing I've ever witnessed in my life. I got to watch as scientists freaked out over the volcanoes on Io, which could plainly be seen to be erupting.

    As for your Borg comment, wasn't it "Star Trek, the Movie, I" that you're thinking? Heh.

    dsws [114] -

    Right on. Well said.

    BashiBazouk [116] -

    Nuclear weapons are liberal? Wait a minute...

    On assholes: I once lived with a neighbor who said one of the smartest things I've ever heard in my life:

    "There's more assholes in this world than people."

    Heh.

    Michale [117] -

    OK, Kent State is not a joking matter. But then, to be fully honest, when younger, I repeated a few Challenger jokes, which were also equally as reprehensible. So nobody's perfect...

    [118] -

    He will indeed be missed. Col. Blake was good, but Potter was on the air much longer, and was well-loved by the end of M*A*S*H's run...

    BashiBazouk [119] -

    I keep saying: keep them in Washington and don't allow them to fly home every damn weekend. They'll forge some ties then...

    akadjian [122] -

    Nice Mr. Burns quote. Just had to say that.

    OK, that's it. Man, let's move on to this week's articles.

    And don't forget to donate to our pledge drive! I can always unleash the kittens, once again, you have been warned!!!

    Heh.

    :-)

    -CW

  126. [126] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Jeez, 124 comments, and nobody want pagination?!?

    How about threaded comments?

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Based on the evidence, I believe that the new plans will disenfranchise at least 1 million voters

    If getting an ID will disenfranchise 1 million voters, then it seems to me that those 1 million voters weren't really interested in voting anyways..

    I mean, look at it..

    "WE MUST HAVE DOOR TO DOOR VOTING BOOTHS BECAUSE THERE ARE A MILLION PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES AND THEY WOULD BE DISENFRANCHISED IF THEY CAN'T HAVE THE VOTING BOOTH COME TO THEM!!!"

    What would any logical person's response to that be??

    "If a person doesn't want to leave their homes to vote, then I guess they weren't really interested in voting anyways"

    Same applies to getting an ID. If they don't want to go thru the "hassle" of getting an ID, then they don't deserve the privilege to vote..

    As far as the point of 1 million fraudulent vote casts vs 1 voter disenfranchised....

    IMNSHO, it's better that 1 voter be disenfranchised than an entire election called into question..

    The Left, OF ALL PEOPLE, should understand that concept.. :D

    based on close to zero evidence that any fraudulent votes have actually been cast.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

    We have rules already to register voters. They both safeguard elections and ensure everyone who is a citizen can vote. And surprise ... they work!

    Really?? Each and every year, elections are more and more contested, are more and more decided by the courts rather than the people.

    And YOU say that is "working"??

    For some reason, I hear Charlie Sheen in my head saying, "WINNING".... :D

    But, this is an interesting admission..

    You apparently don't mind "rules" when it comes to elections..

    You just don't seem to like the rules that would hurt the Democratic Party agenda... :D

    Cheap shot.. I know you are sincerely concerned about the rights of the voters...

    But, as we both know, you are not the typical Democrat.. The typical Democrat is only concerned about the Democrat agenda.. If the voting bloc that would be depressed by requiring ID was a bloc that voted GOP, you and I both know that the Left would be screaming to high heaven for IDs...

    Democrat: "I see you're going to the polling booth to vote. Would you like a ride?"
    Republican: "You would do that for me??"
    Democrat: "Sure.. I'll be happy to run you over with my car."

    :D

    All they've got are things like 2 black guys in Philadelphia standing outside a voting establishment.

    What does THAT have to do with requiring IDs to vote??

    Absolutely nothing..

    Michale
    116

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    You should be looking at the party in Egypt which came in second, not the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Exactly my point. The radical Islamist group came in first with some 30 percent of the vote. The REALLY AGGRESSIVE radical Islamist group came in second with some 28 percent of the vote...

    So, we have a radical to REALLY radical Islamist group with almost 60 percent control of the Egypt government..

    So, WHO predicted that Egypt would go the way of Iran??? :D

    So what's the answer? Not allow them democracy? Prop up dictators in the region, as we did with Saddam Hussein (see: 1980s, Rumsfeld), Mubarak, Shah of Iran, and all the rest of them? Or what?

    I don't know what the best answer is...

    I DO know what the worst answer is.. And that is allowing another Iran-style Western Hating theocracy to come to power..

    Regardless, my point wasn't to knock Obama about it.. Well, not at first anyways.. :D My initial point was simply to say, "I told ya'all so"... :D

    I would answer: it is in the intent. If the intent is to disenfranchise minority voters, then I would call it racist. Of course, maybe I'm making assumptions which can't be adequately proven by doing so, but that was where I was coming from.

    I would agree... Like the definition of terrorism, intent is a VERY important factor.

    Now that THAT has been established, good luck proving intent.. :D

    Is there a logical and rational reason to require picture IDs at voting booths.

    Yes there is.

    That should be the only guiding factor..

    "You" is second person plural (and singular). "You all" is therefore redundant. I think...

    "In the dictionary under 'redundant' it says, 'see redundant'"
    -Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

    :D

    No presidential candidate has ever been ASKED for his birth certificate before Barack Obama.

    But you missed MY point.. (Or rather Bashi's point... Or was it dsws' point??)

    Obama wasn't asked for his BC because he was black. He was asked for his BC, first and foremost because he was a Democrat and the people asking were Republicans. Secondly, he was asked for his BC because his past was sufficiently muddled to warrant a second look. And thirdly, he was asked for his BC because that "second look" produced such an aggressive and multi-lawyered denial from Obama that it made people wonder...

    As dsws so aptly put it, there is a logical and rational scenario where a pasty white President would also be asked for his Birth Certificate..

    When, exactly has Obama kow-towed to Muslims, or (for that matter) apologized for, say, killing OBL?

    How many Muslim countries has Obama visited as President??

    How many times has Obama visited Israel??

    How many Muslim leaders has Obama insulted??

    How many Israeli leaders has Obama insulted??

    How many Muslim countries has Obama's actions threatened their very existence??

    How many of Obama's actions and/or lack of actions have threatened Israeli existence??

    If that ain't kow-towing to Muslims at the expense of Israel, I don't know what is..

    To be fair, Obama seems to be pursuing an aggressive covert campaign to destroy Iran's nuclear program. For that, and assuming he is the one who ordered it, he does deserve credit.

    Here's a better example: states that are limiting early voting, when the proportion of early voters is high for minorities. Why in the heck would you limit such voting? There simply is no such reason, that isn't based in racism and prejudice against the poor (who often have problems voting a Tuesday workday).

    What is the reason given for limiting early voting??

    For example, is it to save money??

    That would be a logical and rational reason that would dispute the idea that it is racism..

    That is an uncomfortably strong argument. All us Lefties should meditate on the question at the end, there. It certainly made me squirm for a moment...

    That's what I love to hear...

    I think the HIGHEST compliment that can be paid on these pages is:

    "Ya know, you make a good point. I am going to have to think about that"

    That's pure gold for me... Thanx :D

    But to the point itself.. It's kind of what I meant in the post to David immediately preceding this one..

    NO ONE... absolutely NO ONE can disenfranchise a voter who is determined to vote...

    NO ONE...

    "There can be no offense where none is taken."
    -Sarek of Vulcan

    As I said above, show me a person who is a disenfranchised voter because of having to have a picture ID and I'll show you a person who really isn't really interested in voting anyways...

    I think your rights and priveleges should be restored and you should be a full citizen once again.

    I agree...

    Voting is a right. It is a right which can be taken away by a state, but it is a basic right.

    I am willing to concede the point...

    Are you willing to concede the point that it is a right that comes with responsibilities??

    As for your Borg comment, wasn't it "Star Trek, the Movie, I" that you're thinking? Heh.

    Yea. In the non-canon "Eden" series of books by William Shatner, it was shown that V'GER was actually an early Borg probe..

    If you love Trek "history", you would love the Eden series of books.. It ties things up so perfectly, it's awesome...

    OK, Kent State is not a joking matter. But then, to be fully honest, when younger, I repeated a few Challenger jokes, which were also equally as reprehensible. So nobody's perfect...

    Yea, one of my more embarrassing memories as a young adult... It was right after the Vandenberg AFB/MX Missile protests where I was a cop, so you can imagine the context...

    And don't forget to donate to our pledge drive! I can always unleash the kittens, once again, you have been warned!!!

    That's just cruel..... :D

    Michale.....
    117

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    How many Muslim countries has Obama visited as President??

    How many times has Obama visited Israel?..... as president..

    Forgot to add that in..

    Michale
    118

  130. [130] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Yes, it is. You can't prove nothing. Which is what you're statement implies you're looking for. And without evidence, you can't prove anything.

    I would answer: it is in the intent. If the intent is to disenfranchise minority voters, then I would call it racist. Of course, maybe I'm making assumptions which can't be adequately proven by doing so, but that was where I was coming from.

    CW- I wanted to respond to this because this, I believe, would have been very similar to what I would have said. The trouble is that intent is often quite tough to prove. So while I do believe there are many racist things that are happening, I'm not sure if I believe anymore that trying to call people out as "racist" is an effective way of fighting these acts.

    Or maybe I'm just tired of all the slinging around of names ... "socialist" ... "Communist" ... "homophobic" ... "gay" ... "feminist" ... "sexist" ... etc.

    *sigh*

    Still not sold one way or another, but what I see happening in certain cases is, if you assume someone is a racist, and accuse them of that, it is end of discussion. Perhaps I'm coming at this from a learning background where I've always found that you almost never change anything, especially as something as deep-seated as racism can be, through direct confrontation.

    That said, I still believe there's a time and a place for it. For instance, I'm completely in favor of laws which outlaw workplace discrimination. But in most discussions, I always try to avoid it.

    Now that THAT has been established, good luck proving intent.. :D

    You say that, Michale, with a smile. Is it because most of your arguments are based on a deep-seated unproven suspicion that "the Left" is somehow conspiring against you?

    :)

    Happy almost Friday!
    -David

  131. [131] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, Michale. Just to be clear. My comment about intent is said with a smile because I agree with you that intent is difficult to prove. This is why I don't try to prove it and also why I strongly question any argument which focuses on intent.

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    because I was sitting in Goddard Space Flight Center (in Greenbelt, MD) watching LIVE as the photos from Voyager came in for the first time from Jupiter. I watched as each photo slowly came in, and firmed up, and color was added. It was the coolest space thing I've ever witnessed in my life. I got to watch as scientists freaked out over the volcanoes on Io, which could plainly be seen to be erupting.

    That had to have been awesome!!! :D

    Michale
    119

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, it is. You can't prove nothing. Which is what you're statement implies you're looking for. And without evidence, you can't prove anything.

    You can't prove a negative.

    As you and CW admit, there HAVE been cases of voter fraud discovered... If there are some then it's likely there are more.

    Regardless, for someone who REALLY wants to vote, asking them to show a picture ID is not as outrageous as ya'all make it out to be....

    You have to ask yourself..

    Does the person really want to vote??

    Or does the Democratic Party really want the person to vote??

    Or maybe I'm just tired of all the slinging around of names ... "socialist" ... "Communist" ... "homophobic" ... "gay" ... "feminist" ... "sexist" ... etc.

    I'm with you there...

    Still not sold one way or another, but what I see happening in certain cases is, if you assume someone is a racist, and accuse them of that, it is end of discussion.

    Yep, it's a Godwin Corollary

    You say that, Michale, with a smile. Is it because most of your arguments are based on a deep-seated unproven suspicion that "the Left" is somehow conspiring against you?

    Not conspiring against me..

    But it is undeniable that the Left is conspiring against the Right. Just as the Right is conspiring against the Left..

    And BOTH are so thoroughly inept as leaders, it's people like you and me that suffer..

    BTW, Michale. Just to be clear. My comment about intent is said with a smile because I agree with you that intent is difficult to prove. This is why I don't try to prove it and also why I strongly question any argument which focuses on intent.

    Again, agreed..

    Even though I am quite cynical when it comes to politicians (Left OR Right), if there is a logical, rational and non-nefarious reason for things, the Pollyanna in me will go for that reason.

    I assume the best, but expect the worst.. :D

    Michale
    120

  134. [134] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But it is undeniable that the Left is conspiring against the Right. Just as the Right is conspiring against the Left.

    Both sides politic. But there is a difference. You don't see Democrats, once they're in power, trying to pass laws to prevent Republicans from voting.

    Will you see Democrats arguing for Democratic principles? Sure. Will you see them trying to persuade people? Sure. Will you see them trying to encourage people to vote and to vote Democrat? Sure.

    All things you see Republicans do as well. Fair enough.

    What I haven't seen them doing is abusing their elected power to keep themselves in power. At least not to the extent of the Republican party.

    To me this says something about conservative ideas. It may also backfire on them as their attempts to go after unions in Ohio for the exact same reason (they tend to vote Democrat) backfired on them.

    -David

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Both sides politic. But there is a difference. You don't see Democrats, once they're in power, trying to pass laws to prevent Republicans from voting.

    But that's the whole point..

    Republicans aren't passing laws to prevent Democrats from voting..

    They are passing laws to uphold the law.. If that causes some voters not to want to vote well then it seems to me that those voters would be disinclined to vote anyways..

    They would be the kind of voters who look outside and say, "It's too cold.. I am going to stay home and not vote.."

    Should we move the VOTE to a time when it's warmer so as to not "disenfranchise" voters who aren't real thrilled about cold days???

    What I haven't seen them doing is abusing their elected power to keep themselves in power.

    Really??

    Democrat redistricting. Illegal Immigrant Amnesty...

    The list goes on and on...

    Each Party uses their position to jimmy and jockey the laws to better suit their own Party and screw over the other Party...

    Democrats do it. Republicans do it..

    But you only cry FOUL when Republicans do it..

    To me this says something about conservative ideas. It may also backfire on them as their attempts to go after unions in Ohio for the exact same reason (they tend to vote Democrat) backfired on them.

    Time will tell... About 1 years time, to be precise.. :D

    Remember how insufferable I was after the mid-term Dem shellacking?? :D

    Michale....
    121

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Illegal Immigrant Amnesty.

    Which is not to say that there are not logical and rational reasons for Illegal Immigrant amnesty..

    There are.

    Just as there are logical and rational reasons for picture IDs when voting..

    But the BY-PRODUCT of picture IDs for voting COULD be less votes for Democrats..

    Just as the BY-PRODUCT of Illegal Immigrant amnesty COULD be MORE votes for Democrats...

    You see how it can work both ways??

    Michale.....
    122

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Everyone, just to let you know, he's paying to annoy us.

    Hay!!! I resemble that remark!!! :D

    So get him fired up, as everytime he takes your bait from now until New Year's, he's paying a dollar to do so.

    At Least!!! :D

    This little sojourn thru this particular commentary has cost me $36.50!!! :D

    So FAR!! :D

    Michale
    123

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Minor cosmetic point..

    When I click on the PREVIEW COMMENT button, I get an "after image" of sorts..

    http://sjfm.us/temp/cwpreview2.jpg

    Just FYI

    Michale
    124

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, iddn't THIS speeshal...

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lying-holder-says-has-do-your-state-mind_611731.html

    I think I understand it..

    Bush lied..

    But when Democrats lie, it's a "state of mind"...

    "Neil said that Santa Claus is a state of mind.."
    "Yea... Like Neil!!!"

    -The Santa Claus

    These are the kinds of clowns that are running this country...

    Michale
    126

  140. [140] 
    dsws wrote:

    No matter how you want to slice it, voting is a privilege.. A privilege that CAN be taken away under certain circumstances..

    The ability to vote is in fact denied under some circumstances. Therefore it's a privilege, and therefore it's ok for it to be denied? That seems to be the reasoning.

    I say there's a right to political participation (not necessarily voting) for anyone governed by a government. Here's my reasoning --

    Premise 1: A right is the condition of having it be wrong for others to do that which constitutes violation of the right. Premise 2: Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Premise 3: "Consent" that cannot be meaningfully withheld is no consent at all. Premise 4: Under our institutions, voting plays such a role that political participation cannot be adequate without it.

    By (2) and (3), any government that denies to the governed the right to express or withhold their consent, is going beyond its just powers. By (1), that can be rephrased as saying that the governed have a right to political participation. By (4), that amounts (not necessarily, but currently) to a right to vote.

    Note that violating a right does not extinguish it. Doing something wrong once doesn't make it ok to do it again.

    [CW] 125
    Well, properly shouldn't it be "all of you"? I'm no English major, but "you all" (the long form of y'all) is inherently wrong, isn't it?

    What is there about the word "all" that makes it inherently an indefinite pronoun (disclosure: I had to look up what the word is for that kind of pronoun) instead of an adverb?

    Let it be stipulated that "all" can be an adverb: if you have the choice of whether to say "you quickly went up the stairs" or "you went quickly up the stairs", why shouldn't you have the choice of whether to say "you all are tall" or "you are all tall"?

    Of course, "y'all" isn't just an alternate spelling of "you all". It's a new word. Merging "you" and "all" is its etymology, but that doesn't keep it from being a new word. There's no more inherent reason to demand that "y'all" be regarded as still being two separate words "you" and "all", than there is to demand that "until" be separated into "und" and "till". The origin of "y'all" is much more recent, no question there. But that's not inherent.

    "You" is second person plural (and singular). "You all" is therefore redundant.

    "You all" definitely is not redundant. As a specification of a plural, it would be redundant only if "you" already specified the plural. But "you" can be singular as well, so the "all" provides additional information. It wouldn't exactly be redundant in its literal meaning either. Compare "we all". It implicitly contrasts with "some of us": both are plural but they have different meanings.

    That is an uncomfortably strong argument. All us Lefties should meditate on the question at the end, there. It certainly made me squirm for a moment...

    Not me. I've long known that there are plenty of nincompoops on the left. JFK probably wouldn't have won without the graveyard vote. It's not that there's no one dishonest on the left. There are plenty of dishonest people on the left. The problem is that it's well-nigh impossible for there to be any honest people on the right, the way the battle lines are now drawn.

    Conservatism normally provides a reason to be on the right, but not now. Conservatives, real conservatives in the old-fashioned meaning of the word, those who respect the organic development of institutions and traditions and distrust idealistic schemes of social engineering -- they're now 100% on the left, simply because for the last 30 years it's the radical right that's been in a position to undertake such schemes.

    [126] BashiBazouk
    How about threaded comments?

    Yuck. I would much prefer pagination.

    [127] Michale
    I mean, look at it.. "WE MUST HAVE DOOR TO DOOR VOTING BOOTHS

    They're called absentee ballots. And yes, we must have them because it is unjust to disenfranchise those who have difficulty traveling.

    NO ONE... absolutely NO ONE can disenfranchise a voter who is determined to vote...

    Again, shame on you. There is no excuse for saying that in a country where, for almost a century, it was basically policy that people of the "wrong" color who tried to vote in the wrong part of the country would be disenfranchised permanently, with a noose.

  141. [141] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Republicans aren't passing laws to prevent Democrats from voting.

    Republicans are passing laws to make it harder to vote in the hopes that this targets more Democrats.

    They are passing laws to uphold the law.

    You can't pass a law to uphold a law.

    Democrat redistricting.

    Redistricting is a different topic. And yes, both sides do it.

    Illegal Immigrant Amnesty.

    Hadn't thought of this being done for political reasons, but I'll give you a nod. I could potentially see politicians thinking this might benefit them with new voters. Republicans have proposed legislation similar to the DREAM act as well. They recognize the influence of the Hispanic vote and both sides are interested in winning Hispanics.

    Everyone admits that there is an issue with our immigration system. Issues for those living in our country illegally. And issues for us like schools, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.

    With voter ID laws, the difference is that there's no evidence of a real and systemic problem. It's just partisan. For the sake of partisan.

    The existing system of identification has worked.

    New laws would simply be bigger government, more cost, and designed to make it harder for certain groups to vote.

    -David

  142. [142] 
    dsws wrote:

    You can't prove nothing.

    Actually, the null string is a proof of nothing. Every line of the null string is either one of the postulates, a previously-proved theorem, or the result of applying modus ponens to previous lines. The last line of the null string is the null string. Hence the null string is a proof of the null string, i.e. of nothing. QED.

    You can't prove a negative.

    Yes you can. You just need strong enough premises. "A negative" here seems to mean a statement of the form "there is no ____". Well, there is no greatest prime number.

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just remember..

    I have quatloos on Holder being gone by the next election..

    Anyone wanna double down?? :D

    Michale
    127

  144. [144] 
    dsws wrote:

    You can't pass a law to uphold a law.

    Yes you can. For example, it's illegal to commit murder. To help uphold that law, we have laws authorizing funding of police, laws empowering police to do various things, laws governing trials, laws requiring people to report crimes under certain circumstances ... .

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    They're called absentee ballots. And yes, we must have them because it is unjust to disenfranchise those who have difficulty traveling.

    I am not talking about traveling..

    I am talking about too lazy or too involved in the afternoon Soap to get one's lazy ass out of the house to go down to voting station to vote..

    David,
    Republicans are passing laws to make it harder to vote in the hopes that this targets more Democrats.

    No, Republicans are passing laws to insure that only people who are allowed to vote do so..

    The BY PRODUCT of this is that some who would vote Democrat may not be inclined to vote.. Just as some who would vote Republican ALSO may be disinclined to vote...

    The problem the Democrats have is one of enthusiasm.. Obama has really killed the enthusiasm of Democrats in voting. You are concerned that the added hassle, coupled with this lack of enthusiasm might mean less votes for Democrats.

    It's a legitimate concern, but I must point out that getting an ID is only one component of that concern. The other component, lack of enthusiasm, is clearly the fault of Democrats..

    In other words, if a person was really pumped about voting Democrat, a little thing like getting an ID wouldn't stop them..

    With voter ID laws, the difference is that there's no evidence of a real and systemic problem. It's just partisan. For the sake of partisan.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    As you have admitted, there HAVE been instances of voter fraud...

    Again, I am constrained to point out that Democrats WOULD be for picture IDs to vote if it would help them instead of hurt them.

    This being the case, I just can't get passionate about the Democrat's argument because I know it's a partisan argument..

    We'll just have to agree to disagree on the "outrageousness" of requiring a picture ID to vote..

    I don't think it's a big deal. It certainly won't PREVENT someone who really wants to vote from voting..

    It might prevent the lazy and the good-for-nothings from voting but is that really such a bad thing??

    Or are you saying that the lazy and the good-for-nothings are solid Democrat voting blocs?? :D

    Democrats are famous for their GET OUT THE VOTE drives..

    Nothing is stopping them from mounting GET OUT AND GET AN ID campaigns...

    The existing system of identification has worked.

    No it hasn't... Every election since 2000 has been fracked up more and more.. More and more elections are being settled by lawsuits then ever before..

    Will picture IDs fix this??

    Maybe... Let's find out...

    The bottom line is requiring a picture ID to vote is not outrageous and it is accordance with the law...

    Michale.....

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, shame on you. There is no excuse for saying that in a country where, for almost a century, it was basically policy that people of the "wrong" color who tried to vote in the wrong part of the country would be disenfranchised permanently, with a noose.

    Yes and it was usually a DEMOCRAT who was holding that noose..

    Do we REALLY want or need to go there???

    Michale....
    129

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Dear taxpayers - I hope you don't mind that I'm watching YouTube clips of Nirvana at my government job. Thanks, you're the best'...
    http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/nw-pub-reports-larsen-aides-booze-it-up-at-work_b58351

    hehehehehehehehehehe

    How funny is THAT!!! :D

    Michale
    130

  148. [148] 
    dsws wrote:

    Do we REALLY want or need to go there?

    We wouldn't have needed to on my account. You're the one who said it not only didn't happen but can't possibly happen.

    Suppose I don't directly take away your vote. But suppose I do take away a bunch of votes of those who would vote the same way you do -- as many as it takes to ensure that your candidate isn't elected. That would be fine with you, right? You don't think you have any right to vote.

    You think it's fine to put up barriers as long as the most determined voter imaginable would be able to surmount them, and as long as it's Republicans doing it on some Republican pretext, right? And sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. After all, the only voters that would be affected are the laziest, good-for-nothing-est 99% of a politically-chosen subset of the electorate. (You know these laws would only be fully enforced against voters profiled to be likely Democrats. So it would be fine if they were enforced just as selectively against Republicans instead, right?)

    So there's no need for the outcome to actually be affected by the will of the voters. Right?

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    We wouldn't have needed to on my account. You're the one who said it not only didn't happen but can't possibly happen.

    I was referring to the here and now... Our whole entire discussion on this issues was referring to the here and now.

    There was absolutely NO reason to bring up the past that is more than a century old.

    However, if you DO want to go back that far, then by all means, let's go back that far.

    October 13, 1858
    During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

    April 16, 1862
    President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

    July 17, 1862
    Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

    January 31, 1865
    13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

    April 8, 1865
    13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

    November 22, 1865
    Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

    February 5, 1866
    U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

    April 9, 1866
    Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

    May 10, 1866
    U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

    June 8, 1866
    U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

    January 8, 1867
    Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

    July 19, 1867
    Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

    March 30, 1868
    Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

    September 12, 1868
    Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress

    October 7, 1868
    Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

    October 22, 1868
    While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

    December 10, 1869
    Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office

    February 3, 1870
    After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

    May 31, 1870
    President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

    June 22, 1870
    Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

    September 6, 1870
    Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

    February 28, 1871
    Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

    April 20, 1871
    Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans

    October 10, 1871
    Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

    October 18, 1871
    After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

    November 18, 1872
    Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

    January 17, 1874
    Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

    September 14, 1874
    Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

    March 1, 1875
    Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

    January 10, 1878
    U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong

    February 8, 1894
    Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote

    January 15, 1901
    Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

    I think the Democrat's Campaign Slogan of 1868 was especially telling..

    “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

    That just covers up to the start of the 20th Century...

    Would you like to see more???

    You know these laws would only be fully enforced against voters profiled to be likely Democrats.

    Assumes facts not in evidence and is an example of political bigotry at it's finest...

    So there's no need for the outcome to actually be affected by the will of the voters. Right?

    You mean, as opposed to today where the outcome is chosen by the courts via lawsuits?? {{{{{{{{cough}}}}}}} Gore v Bush {{{{{cough}}}}} {{{{{cough}}}}}

    Oh yes, it's SOO much better that way...

    All of this political garbage makes for fine theater..

    But the fact is, it's the law that only American citizens can vote in an election.

    It's very very easy to acquire a state ID. If one looks at things logically and rationally, it's harder for people who likely vote Republican to get an ID than it would be for people who likely vote Democrat.

    As far as expense?? For the cost of a case of beer or a carton of cigarettes a person could get an ID..

    If voting is not worth giving up beer or cigarettes for the week, then I would have to assume that said person just really isn't interested in voting..

    Having to show a picture ID to vote is not an outrageous, unfair or grossly inconvenient requirement.

    In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the US Supreme Court held that persons must be able to identify themselves to police and can be held if they don't.

    So, having a legal ID is a necessity that goes beyond simple voting..

    You claim that Republicans are simply going to use the ID requirement to disenfranchise voters likely to vote Democrat. That is a logical and rational possibility.

    Republicans make the claim that Democrats are against Picture ID so that they can cheat in elections. That is also a logical and rational possibility.

    Of course, I don't expect ya'all to concede THAT point. :D

    Regardless of political partisanship, three facts stand out and, for me, are the overriding factors in forming my opinion.

    1. It's the law that only American citizens can vote in an American election.

    2. Having a legal/official picture ID is necessary for many facets of life in America.

    3. Obtaining a legal/official picture ID is not difficult or expensive in the least.

    "These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
    -Kevin Bacon, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale....

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    ^^^^^^^^

    That would be #131

    Michale
    132

  151. [151] 
    akadjian wrote:

    As you have admitted, there HAVE been instances of voter fraud.

    Instances do not equal a systemic issue .

    There's also racists in the Tea Party. Does this mean the Tea Party is racist? No.

    Does this mean we should be making laws to ban Tea Party members from voting? No.

    If "instances" are the burden of proof, then using your logic, all I have to do to show the Tea Party is racist is find a few racist members.

    There is no systemic voting identification issue. Occurrences of voter fraud are statistically insignificant.

    Translation: There is no problem.

    I wonder who the 1% are going to go after next when going after the poor doesn't work? Maybe there should be a law that says only people who own property can vote.

    -David

  152. [152] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- I'm sure the media is going to go after these people as hard as they did the Journolists, right?

    http://www.salon.com/2011/12/08/right_wing_listserv_targets_israels_critics/

    :)

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Instances do not equal a systemic issue .

    Regardless.. It shows that it CAN happen...

    Ergo, requiring a picture ID is a logical and rational response to prevent it from happening..

    There's also racists in the Tea Party. Does this mean the Tea Party is racist? No.

    I am assuming you are referring to our little sojourn thru history...

    In those days, the entire Democratic Party was racist... That's the history of your chosen Party..

    If "instances" are the burden of proof, then using your logic, all I have to do to show the Tea Party is racist is find a few racist members.

    OK I guess you weren't talking about the little history lesson.. :D

    Can Voter Fraud happen??

    Yes, it can..

    HAS Voter Fraud happen??

    Yes, it has..

    Will picture IDs help prevent Voter Fraud..

    Yes, it will..

    Will picture IDs make it impossible for a legal voter to vote.

    No, it will not..

    I really fail to see the problem here..

    As I said, in reality it's harder for Republican voters to get IDs then it is for Democrat voters to get IDs...

    But I think I am beginning to see why the Left has a problem with picture IDs..

    What group would be most disinclined to go get an ID???

    I think you see where I am going with that... :D

    Maybe there should be a law that says only people who own property can vote.

    That's the way it used to be. And I think it was the Democratic Party who pushed that idea and held onto it for so long...

    Requiring a picture ID will not prevent ANY voter who wants to vote from voting...

    It's really THAT simple...

    Michale.....
    135

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    BTW- I'm sure the media is going to go after these people as hard as they did the Journolists, right?

    The key difference is knowingly false accusations of racism...

    If someone IS making anti-semitic remarks, I see nothing wrong with calling them on it..

    Just as I see nothing wrong with calling people when they make racist remarks..

    The key problem with the JournoList was that the conspiracy consisted of making knowingly false accusations of racism in an effort to stifle debate and discussion in opposition of His Lordship, Obama...

    Michale
    136

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    If "instances" are the burden of proof, then using your logic, all I have to do to show the Tea Party is racist is find a few racist members.

    Using this bit o' fanciful reasoning, we could disqualify all citizens of the US from voting because some of the citizens of the US are felons...

    Should the owners of The Bank Of BumFuq Kentucky leave the doors unlocked every night because it's only been robbed once in it's 100 year history, a statistical insignificance??

    Of course not..

    Laws and actions to PREVENT illegal acts are the epitome of logic...

    Michale.....
    137

  156. [156] 
    dsws wrote:

    So, having a legal ID is a necessity that goes beyond simple voting.

    And yet, there are enough people don't have the "right" kind of ID, to make these laws worthwhile for partisan hacks.

    Republicans make the claim that Democrats are against Picture ID so that they can cheat in elections. That is also a logical and rational possibility.

    It's a "logical possibility" in the sense of being an empirical question. It's not something where you can know a priori that it couldn't possibly happen, the way you claimed that it's absolutely impossible to disenfranchise a deserving voter.

    But it's not rational, in the sense of being something that a rational person could believe given a moderate level of awareness of current circumstances.

    1. It's the law that only American citizens can vote in an American election.

    It's also the law -- it's explicitly stated in the highest law of the land, the Constitution -- that you can't have a poll tax. Voting rights (for federal elections) cannot legally be made contingent on ANY payment, even if the amount seems trivial to you.

    By contrast, states do have the right to let non-citizens vote if they want to. There's nothing in the Constitution to restrict voting to citizens. The protections of voting rights (no poll tax, no age limit above 18) are extended only to citizens. On the other hand, resident aliens are included in the population for purposes of apportioning representation in the House.

    Eligibility to vote for federal office is always "The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures." So states could give aliens the right to vote for federal office too, if they so chose.

    Morally, of course, the right to vote belongs to "the governed". That includes resident aliens.

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    But it's not rational, in the sense of being something that a rational person could believe given a moderate level of awareness of current circumstances.

    "Current circumstances" being whether one is a Democrat or Republican.. :D

    You yourself stated "You know these laws would only be fully enforced against voters profiled to be likely Democrats."

    To a politically agnostic person like me, Republicans using the picture ID to disenfranchise Democrat voters is as likely Democrats fighting picture IDs so they can commit fraud...

    I realize that you can't admit to that... One of the hazards of being beholden to one political Party over the other..

    You will never convince me that obtaining a picture ID an outrageous requirement for voting.

    Especially in light of the fact that the level of difficulty in obtaining a picture ID is much higher for those that would vote Republican over those who would vote Democrat..

    Of course, the criminal element would be the one group that obtaining a picture ID might not be possible..

    If the Democratic Party wants to go on record as trying to protect that bloc of voters, I would be ECSTATIC to have that discussion.. :D

    It's also the law -- it's explicitly stated in the highest law of the land, the Constitution -- that you can't have a poll tax.

    And if we were talking about a "poll tax" then you would have a logical argument.

    But we're not, so you don't...

    Michale.....
    138

  158. [158] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That's the way it used to be. And I think it was the Democratic Party who pushed that idea and held onto it for so long.

    And it was wrong then. And if Democrats were pushing it today, I'd be against it.

    But they're not the ones trying to limit voting to the "privileged".

    Using this bit o' fanciful reasoning, we could disqualify all citizens of the US from voting because some of the citizens of the US are felons.

    Hey, it's your reasoning. If you want to call it fanciful, I guess that's your call.

    Ergo, requiring a picture ID is a logical and rational response to prevent it from happening.

    Let's look at some statistics to examine this claim. From 2002 to 2005, there were exactly 55 people convicted of voter fraud. Let's assume 100,000,000 people vote in a Federal election year.

    This means the percentage of voter fraud was .000055 percent. In effect, zero, with the current system of identification.

    The question is, is it possible for a new voter ID law to improve these statistics?

    Let's assume a sunny outlook and say that the new law decreases the fraud by 50%. I'll be optimistic. Elections impacted = none.

    This would reduce the voter fraud to .000027 percent. Elections impacted = none. This is the benefit side.

    Now let's look at the other side of the equation. The impact. In South Carolina, there are 217,000 registered voters in the state who lack a state driver's license or photo ID. These voters would then be required to obtain a driver's license or they would be unable to vote.

    This is just South Carolina. Estimates across the United States put the number at closer to 5 million people.

    Now how much additional overhead is required for all of the additional government red tape. In the state of Minnesota, a study was conducted on the cost of these mandates.

    H.F. 210 would cost $84 million over 3 years and H.F. 210 would cost over $25 million. This is just the state of Minnesota.

    So here's my simple cost benefit analysis:

    Benefit
    -------
    1. Reducing voter fraud from .000055 to .000027

    Cost/Impact
    -----------
    1. Potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to implement new systems
    2. Making it more difficult for up to 5 million more people to vote

    Now, some of these numbers are admittedly not exact. But are they close? Help me out here, Michale. If not, which numbers would you disagree with or what am I missing.

    If so, it helps provide some criteria for making a decision. This is what a business would do. A non-partisan cost/benefit analysis.

    This is what I would like to see in our media. This is what you almost never see. You see, here's what one side says, and then here's what the other side says.

    With no analysis.

    When you start looking at the numbers, here's where I don't see the value of new Voter ID laws. The current system works well, no elections are being impacted, and it would come with a significant cost.

    Now the reason this makes sense from a cost benefit perspective to the GOP is because under benefit (to them) they believe is "Less Democratic Voting" and that justifies all the cost of implementing new systems.

    -David

    I wonder if, in keeping up with the times, if MTV were around today they'd be hosting an event called Block the Vote! :)

  159. [159] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- I wish we could see more of this type of analysis for other things as well. I would have liked to see for the health care options too.

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    But they're not the ones trying to limit voting to the "privileged".

    Do you honestly consider those who have a Picture ID as the "privileged"??

    Com'on... That's not even a stretch... It's totally whacked... :D

    The current system works well,

    How many elections have resulted in lawsuits since 2000??

    I don't understand how you can make the claim that the system works well...

    Did the "system" work "well" in Gore v Bush???

    I am impressed with your statistics...

    But common sense trumps statistics...

    And common sense tells me that requiring a picture ID is not an outrageous requirement for people who want to vote...

    Now, if people have a nefarious reason for not wanting to obtain an ID, then they shouldn't be voting... Because that means they are crooks and they would likely vote for crooks..

    Again, if you want to have THAT discussion, let's go.. :D

    The bottom line is, it's no big deal for people to obtain a picture ID..

    A picture ID is, for all intents and purposes, required for daily life in the US anyways...

    There is no logical reason to be opposed to picture IDs for voting....

    Disenfranchisement is not a logical argument, it's an emotional argument because NO ONE can be disenfranchised by the requirement of Picture ID except if they CHOOSE to be disenfranchised.

    Michale....
    139

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    These voters would then be required to obtain a driver's license or they would be unable to vote.

    Wrong..

    These voters would be required to obtain a DL **OR** a state ID..

    State ID costs less than a case of beer or a carton of cigarettes...

    I stand corrected... In South Carolina, a State ID costs LESS than a pack of cigarettes or a 6pack of beer!!

    ***LESS***

    "OH MY GOD, WHAT A FUCKING NIGHTMARE!!!"
    -Marisa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

    Now, let's look at some reasons why people won't get IDs...

    ....

    .......

    ..........

    .............

    I can only think of three..

    1. They are too lazy.....

    2. They don't really care about voting..

    3. They are criminals...

    I have come around to ya'alls way of thinking...

    Voting *IS* a right...

    But it's a right that comes with responsibilities...

    If one is too lazy, to indifferent or too askeered to accept the responsibilities that come with voting, then they don't DESERVE the right to vote...

    Wouldn't you agree???

    Michale.....
    140

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    "OH MY GOD, WHAT A FUCKING NIGHTMARE!!!"
    -Marisa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

    I hope you understood the tongue/cheek manner in which that was posted... :D

    Michale.....

  163. [163] 
    akadjian wrote:

    How many elections have resulted in lawsuits since 2000?

    And how many lawsuits have had to do with issues which additional Voter ID laws could solve?

    I believe the answer is none . They were all related to different problems.

    Looking at the cost benefit analysis, there's no way these laws make sense except to conservatives who are trying to win elections.

    It's entirely cost with virtually no benefit.

    -David

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    And how many lawsuits have had to do with issues which additional Voter ID laws could solve?

    I believe the answer is none . They were all related to different problems.

    My only point is your claim that the system works well..

    It doesn't...

    Will requiring Picture ID help???

    Mebbe??

    Will requiring Picture ID make the system worse??

    Definitely not..

    Therefore, there is no logical or rational reason to oppose the requirement of picture ID..

    There are only partisan and unproven emotional reasons...

    Michale.....
    142

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's entirely cost with virtually no benefit.

    It has the benefit of insuring the law is followed...

    Other than the completely subjective and totally unproven reason of disenfranchising Democrat voters, can you give me one logical and rational reason to oppose ID requirements??

    Michale.....
    143

  166. [166] 
    akadjian wrote:

    My only point is your claim that the system works well.

    Good point. I should have said it works well when it comes to making sure those who vote are legitimate voters.

    Can you give me one logical and rational reason to oppose ID requirements?

    The benefit to implementing is ridiculously low versus the high cost of having to change the system.

    In the IT world, it would be like changing every computer in the company because you wanted the color of the computer to be white.

    You're not getting any additional value. And it's going to cost a lot.

    The value is reducing cases of voter fraud from .000055 to .000027. While costs, even in an extreme low-ball estimate, would be in the millions.

    Again, the numbers may be slightly off, but I believe they provide enough information for a comparison.

    Will requiring Picture ID make the system worse?

    No. But if it's not going to make it significantly better for the cost, it's not a project worth doing.

    It is ... and would be ... government waste.

    -David

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    Good point. I should have said it works well when it comes to making sure those who vote are legitimate voters.

    And your only "evidence" of that is absence of evidence.

    You would agree that this country has an illegal immigrant problem, right??

    Isn't it within the realm of possibility that, out of the millions and millions of illegals here in the US, SOME of them are voting, due to the lax ID laws???

    That possibility alone justifies a picture ID requirement..

    The benefit to implementing is ridiculously low versus the high cost of having to change the system.

    Nothing is being "changed"... ID is required when voting already.. The only change is the type of ID would be standardized to a State Issued picture ID..

    If anything, it will make things faster and cheaper...

    No. But if it's not going to make it significantly better for the cost, it's not a project worth doing.

    You don't know that it won't make things significantly better because you can't quantify how bad things are right now..

    Put another way.. Say that we have a nationwide picture ID requirement for the 2012 elections....

    In the 2012 election, there is a significant drop in Dem voter turnout, much larger than the "enthusiasm factor" (or lack thereof) would account for..

    Wouldn't a logical assumption be that the ID requirement prevented voter fraud??

    You point to lack of voter fraud cases in the here and now and say that is "proof" that there is no problem ..

    How would you know, if there isn't any mechanism in place to determine voter fraud??

    At least we have moved away from the "disenfranchisement" issue..

    A shame.. I have a "buttload" (it's an industry term.. :D) of new evidence that disproves the disenfranchisement theory... :D

    Michale.....
    144

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note..

    CW Looks like ya might have another $50 heading yer way tonight. hehehehehehehe

    Michale.....
    145

  169. [169] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Show me what the expected benefits are versus the cost of change.

    I can tell you what the cost of not changing is. Zero.

    And it looks like there's little benefit to changing the law. Statistically, voter "fraud" just isn't a problem.

    If it were, you'd have every statistic in the world at your fingertips because Fox News would be looping them endlessly.

    Even when it's not, they're doing everything they can to try and make it look like a problem.

    -David

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    And it looks like there's little benefit to changing the law. Statistically, voter "fraud" just isn't a problem.

    That we know of...

    Statistically, the St Augustine Bank has never been broken into..

    Does that mean it's a probably not a problem to leave the doors unlocked???

    Why NOT require picture ID??

    I can't think of ONE single legitimate reason to NOT require a picture ID...

    There will be no cost associated with requiring Picture ID..

    If anything, state income will go up slightly, due to the requirements..

    Michale.....
    146

  171. [171] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And your only "evidence" of that is absence of evidence.

    that's a defining characteristic of the scientific method - if a phenomenon cannot be observed, measured and/or replicated, the null set is most likely the correct assumption. you can have your suspicions, but until you prove them, the only rational assumption is that they're untrue.

    unlike alleged voter fraud (which fox did harp on pretty thoroughly in spite of finding no evidence), the documentary "hacking democracy" showed on-camera the paper evidence that disenfranchisement actually did happen in volusia county, as well as successfully replicating a voting machine hack that fit the data, and was directly observed (also on camera) by a county official. the evidence of computerized disenfranchisement is not necessarily partisan, by the way - diebold has yielded some suspiciously democratic results in democratic-controlled states as well.

    there's no final word on the matter, but the evidence thus far points distinctly in one direction - fraud in the counting of votes, not in the casting of votes. thus far, a great many people have come forward saying they were improperly denied access to the polls, while precious few have come forward suggesting that someone voted who shouldn't have. hard proof? no. but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, odds are that it's a duck.

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's a defining characteristic of the scientific method - if a phenomenon cannot be observed, measured and/or replicated,

    But in this case, the "phenomenon" WAS observed.

    If there are millions and millions of illegal immigrants, is it impossible that NONE of them voted??

    I believe so..

    Regardless, nothing rational or logical has been put forth that requiring picture IDs will disenfranchise any voters that would be inclined to not vote anyways...

    Until such evidence is presented and vetted, I am going to err on the side that enforcing the law is a good idea...

    Michale....
    147

  173. [173] 
    akadjian wrote:

    There will be no cost associated with requiring Picture ID.

    Did you ever change a business process?

    I'm doing this right now for our company.

    When changing a process, some of the things you need are:

    1. Training for workers on the new process
    2. Documentation for the new process
    3. A communication process and implementation plan for the new process; how you are going to make it happen
    4. Educating the public about the changes (Oh right, you don't care about this one because you want to make it difficult for people to vote. But I'm including it anyways.)
    5. Updates to forms and systems

    These costs vary. But to say there are no costs is inaccurate.

    This is why I looked at a report on what it cost for the State of Minnesota where the estimate was $100 million. Now this might be high, but it should give you an idea of the ballpark.

    -David

  174. [174] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Why NOT require picture ID?

    IDs are required. There is a verification process in place.

    And it works.

    You've shown no evidence that it doesn't.

    Why do waste government money on changing a process that works?

    -David

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    There IS no "change in the process"...

    There is simply asking for a new ID...

    How can that "change" the process??

    IDs are required. There is a verification process in place.

    And it works.

    You've shown no evidence that it doesn't.

    You have stated evidence that it hadn't...

    Why do waste government money on changing a process that works?

    There is no waste of government money as the change is miniscule...

    There is a net GAIN in revenue from the IDs that are purchased..

    You have yet to state one logical or rational reason for NOT reverting to Picture ID..

    Asking for a different kind of ID requires no additional funding.

    It's been established that anyone who won't vote because they don't want to get a picture ID is either of the criminal class or disinclined to vote anyways..

    Ergo, there is absolutely NO logical reason NOT to change the ID requirement..

    Other than it will make it harder for people to cheat in elections..

    How could ANYONE be against that???

    Michale.....
    148

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    And don't think I didn't notice how ya'all have moved away from the DISENFRANCHISEMENT reasoning and concentrated on the alleged extra costs of the program... :D

    Kudos...

    Run-O-The-Mill Democrats would do well to follow ya'alls example, as the DISENFRANCHISEMENT argument is an emotional argument that is easily shot down...

    Michale....
    149

  177. [177] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    There is a net GAIN in revenue from the IDs that are purchased..

    if that's the case, it's because there's a fee, and where the fee can be waived voters aren't informed of it, as in wisconsin. therefore, people who don't already have picture ID's (generally the poor) would have to buy them to vote, which they might have trouble affording, and those who lack the education to figure out the procedure for getting a free card (generally the poor) would be unable to get one.

    so in addition to being predominantly a tax on the poor, it is a de-facto poll tax, in violation of the 24th amendment.

    But in this case, the "phenomenon" WAS observed.

    observed, measured and replicated? by whom, specifically? the only aliens for whom i've found evidence of voting are the legal ones who did follow the laws for immigration and didn't realize voting was a crime. why would someone who jumped through all the hoops to enter the country legally knowingly decide to vote illegally? and if illegals voted, why have like five in the whole country been caught and deported?

    with all the lists the IRS has of voter numbers and SSN's, a little inter-agency cooperation would be inexpensive, infinitely more effective and not a tax on the poor.

    http://naacp.3cdn.net/67065c25be9ae43367_mlbrsy48b.pdf

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    therefore, people who don't already have picture ID's (generally the poor) would have to buy them to vote, which they might have trouble affording, and those who lack the education to figure out the procedure for getting a free card (generally the poor) would be unable to get one.

    Sorry, this argument simply will not fly..

    In all cases, fees for IDs are less than the cost of a case of beer or a carton of cigarettes.. Here in FL you can get a State ID for 3 bucks!!! South Carolina, you can get one for $5!!! Many states, seniors are FREE!!!!

    with all the lists the IRS has of voter numbers and SSN's, a little inter-agency cooperation would be inexpensive,

    Trying to get agencies to co-operate would be horrendously expensive and would like be worse than having no ID at all...

    The simplest, easiest and most effective way to ID people at voting is to change the ID requirement to a picture ID...

    It's actually those who would vote Republican who have a harder time getting ID than those who vote Democrat..

    This being the case, the ONLY reason that makes sense is that the Democratic Party wants to keep the option of cheating in an election open to them.

    Nothing else rationally and logically explains the Party's opposition to Picture IDs..

    It can't be the cost to the poor, because the cost is negligible to free. It certainly wouldn't prohibit anyone from voting who really wanted to vote.

    It can't be the cost to elections, as it would actually SAVE money by standardizing ID requirements.

    The ONLY group that would have a serious problem about obtaining IDs is the criminal element.

    Given these facts, there is only one possible rational reason to be against picture IDs to vote.

    Michale.....
    150*

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just to prove my point, here are the State Fees for ID cards:

    Alabama – $23
    Alaska – Under 60 is $15, over 60 is free
    Arizona – $12. Over 65 is free
    Arkansas – $10
    California – $23. Free for those over 62. $7 for low income folks
    Colorado – $10.50. Free for those over 60
    Connecticut – $15
    Delaware -$5
    Florida – $3 whole friggin’ dollars!!!!!!
    Georgia -$20 for 5 years, $35 for $10 years
    Hawaii – $15 for under 65, $10 for over 65
    Idaho – $7.50. Renewals can even be done by mail
    Illinois – $20, free for seniors over 65 with no renewal necessary
    Indiana – $13 under 65, $10 for over 65, last for 6 years
    Iowa – $5
    Kansas – $18 under 65, $14 over 65
    Kentucky – $12
    Louisiana – Average $21, free for over 60
    Maine – $5
    Maryland – $15, free for those over 65
    Massachusetts – $15
    Michigan – $10, free for seniors.
    Minnesota – $15.50, $10.75 for those 65 and up
    Mississippi – $13
    Missouri – $11
    Montana – $8
    Nebraska – $23.75 (lots of different fees for those under 21)
    Nevada – $11.25. For 65 and up, new is $6.25, renewal is $2.25
    New Hampshire – UNK
    New Jersey – $24
    New Mexico – $5 for 5 years, $8 for 10 years
    New York – Depending on length, $9 to $14. 62 and up, $6.50
    North Carolina – $10
    North Dakota – $8
    Ohio – $8.50
    Oklahoma – $10
    Oregon – $29 for 8 years
    Pennsylvania – $10, and they make it really, really easy
    Rhode Island – $15, free for 59 and up
    South Carolina – $5
    South Dakota – $8
    Tennessee – $12.50. For those 65 and up, they never expire
    Texas – $15. 60 and up, $5 and never has to be renewed
    Utah – $18. Never expires for those 65 and up
    Vermont – $15, $10 if you get Social Security Income
    Virginia – $10
    Washington – $20
    West Virginia – UNK
    Wisconsin – $28 for eight years
    Wyoming – $10, never expires
    Washington, D.C. – $20

    So, poor voters will be disenfranchised if they have to pay for an ID to vote??

    Puuuuuhhhhlllleeeeeeeessssssssssseeee

    Michale
    151

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that 15 states already have Photo ID requirements for voting..

    The world hasn't ended.

    Democracy as we know it hasn't ended..

    People still get elected and yes... Some of them are even Democrats!!!

    All the kerfluffle from the Democratic Party over Photo ID requirements is much ado about nothing...

    It's politics, pure and simple..

    Michale
    152

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me state for the record that I do not question ya'alls motives in making your arguments, nor do I doubt the sincerity of your position..

    But let's face facts.

    If a person is going to vote illegally, they will very likely be voting Democrat...

    So, the Democratic Party has a vested interest in insuring that voting illegally is as easy as possible...

    Of course, the converse of that is also true.

    The GOP also has a vested interested in insuring that voting illegally is as HARD as possible.

    If illegal voters were likely to vote GOP, then the actions of the DP and the GOP would be the diametric opposite..

    So as with many things, one must look past the politics and review the facts with a coldly logical and objective eye without ANY consideration for emotionally laden concepts..

    And such a review could only render one logical conclusion.

    That requiring a Photo ID for voting is a logical and rational requirement to insure a fair and legal election...

    Michale.....
    156

  182. [182] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The GOP also has a vested interested in insuring that voting illegally is as HARD as possible.

    NO, they have a vested interest in ensuring that voting is as hard as possible, PERIOD. the NAACP has made a list of the ways they've tried to make voting harder, if you follow my link. the lower the turn-out, the better they do, end of story. illegal voting is just a convenient excuse.

    The ONLY group that would have a serious problem about obtaining IDs is the criminal element.

    now that is just a load of moose poop. even i, somebody extremely educated and gainfully employed, had some trouble coming up with all the documentation the state now requires to renew my license. i found it shocking how complicated the requirements were, and my friend mike (an ex-marine who lives part of the year with his wife in Colombia) wasn't even able to get one. he's anything but illegal, he's just one of thousands of people who fall through the cracks.

    you're wrong about this one michale. there's extensive evidence that restricting people's ability to get an ID and to get registered, does cause a great many people who are neither criminal nor illegal to lose their legitimate vote. there's no evidence of anything more than an occasional outlier among illegal aliens. the ratio of legitimate voters denied to illegal voters allowed is something like 10,000 to 1 and that is being conservative, so to speak.

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    NO, they have a vested interest in ensuring that voting is as hard as possible, PERIOD.

    Assumes facts not in evidence...

    The NAACP??? Now THERE is the epitome of racial equality, eh?? :D

    Is there any evidence from anyone who doesn't have a dog in the hunt???

    you're wrong about this one michale. there's extensive evidence that restricting people's ability to get an ID and to get registered, does cause a great many people who are neither criminal nor illegal to lose their legitimate vote.

    No one can be disenfranchised to vote without their tacit approval..

    If it's too much of a hassle to get an ID (it really isn't) then it's too much of a hassle to vote..

    Those who think that voting is worthwhile will take the time to do what is required..

    Those who don't, won't...

    Sorry, but nothing presented has convinced me that getting an ID is, overall, the harrowing life-threatening endeavor ya'all make it out to be...

    Michale.....
    157

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    NO, they have a vested interest in ensuring that voting is as hard as possible, PERIOD.

    The same can be said that Democrats have a vested interest in making cheating as easy as possible..

    If one takes a partisan stance, it works both ways..

    Michale
    159

  185. [185] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If a person is going to vote illegally, they will very likely be voting Democrat..

    C'mon, Michale. I thought we'd gotten past the name calling.

    There's no evidence to support this statement and you know it.

    You don't like when conservatives are called racists and you say everyone should stop.

    Yet every chance you get you're making broad sweeping generalizations without any evidence. "Lazy", "criminal", "felons". These are just a few from this thread.

    Can we please stop the unsubstantiated name calling?

    Cost benefit analysis is not Republican or Democrat. It's used by every business I know in one sense or another.

    -David

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    C'mon, Michale. I thought we'd gotten past the name calling.

    There's no evidence to support this statement and you know it.

    It's not name-calling.. It's an opinion supported by reams and reams of facts..

    Are you saying that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly vote Republican??

    Yet every chance you get you're making broad sweeping generalizations without any evidence. "Lazy", "criminal", "felons". These are just a few from this thread.

    If someone doesn't have time to get an ID, what do YOU call it??

    If someone can't miss the latest episode of Oprah, what would YOU call it???

    Cost benefit analysis is not Republican or Democrat. It's used by every business I know in one sense or another.

    For cost benefit analysis to be useful, you have to quantify the factors..

    You can't quantify the factors in this case, so any analysis is based on gross assumptions that have little or nothing to do with reality...

    Michale....
    160

  187. [187] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Are you saying that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly vote Republican?

    No. We've said it again and again.

    There's no evidence that illegal immigrants are even voting illegally. In fact, there's scant evidence that anyone is voting illegally.

    Without evidence, all you have is suspicion. Just like your argument against racism.

    For cost benefit analysis to be useful, you have to quantify the factors.

    That's why I quantified the factors. What evidence are you basing your analysis on?

    -David

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    There's no evidence that illegal immigrants are even voting illegally. In fact, there's scant evidence that anyone is voting illegally.

    So, millions of illegal immigrants in this country and NONE of them are voting..

    Is that your claim??

    That's why I quantified the factors. What evidence are you basing your analysis on?

    Common sense..

    Democrats are for lax penalties, lesser laws and decriminalizing a lot of criminal behavior...

    Ergo, it's logical to assume that criminals would be more inclined to vote Democrat..

    If you want to make the assumption that Republicans are doing what they are doing to disenfranchise voters, aren't I allowed to make the assumption that Democrats are against it to make illegal voting easier??

    Michale.....

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's revisit the facts...

    1. Switching all states to a picture ID will not cost the states any more. It will make the ID process more uniformed and more streamlined as only one piece of ID will be required..

    2. State revenue will actually increase...

    3. It is not expensive nor difficult to obtain a state ID card...

    Given these facts, there is no logical or rational reason to oppose picture ID for voting..

    The reasons WHY the GOP supports it and the Democrats are against it are irrelevant..

    BUT....

    But if you want to claim that the GOP is supporting it for disenfranchisement reasons, then I can claim that Democrats are against it so they can cheat...

    Each claim is possible, albeit unlikely and completely without any foundation to support the claim..

    Michale
    162

  190. [190] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Common sense.

    It was once common sense that the world was flat. Then, along came evidence.

    1. Switching all states to a picture ID will not cost the states any more.

    State of Missouri estimates the cost at $16.9 million dollars for HB 1966. MO 2010 Fiscal Note.

    http://www.progressivestates.org/sync/pdfs/MO%202010%20fiscal%20note.pdf

    North Carolina estimates $18-25 million.
    Minnesota, I already mentioned at $25 million.

    Seems pretty consistent.

    2. State revenue will actually increase.

    From the North Carolina study:
    With studies showing that seven to 11 percent of citizens don’t have a photo ID, demands on DMV offices for ID cards will go up — and so will
    expenses if North Carolina issues free cards to avoid costly lawsuits which argue the costs of an ID card amount to a poll tax. In 2009, Wisconsin projected a total $2.4 million cost for ID cards; Missouri estimated $3.4 million.

    Hmmm. Seems this claim that revenue will go up is questionable as well.

    3. It is not expensive nor difficult to obtain a state ID card.

    This seems to depend.

    Nonetheless, all the evidence indicates that the current system works and there has been no evidence presented that a new system would work any better.

    All cost, no benefit.

    If the states that were doing this were businesses, they would be out of business quickly because it's clear they're not making good decisions.

    -David

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was once common sense that the world was flat. Then, along came evidence.

    Exactly..

    Now, once I see REAL evidence that the GOP is trying to disenfranchise voters I might change my mind...

    Once I see REAL evidence that a picture ID would actually hinder an election rather than helping it, I will change my mind..

    But until such time as that evidence is aired and vetted and not found wanting, here we are..

    With studies showing that seven to 11 percent of citizens don’t have a photo ID, demands on DMV offices for ID cards will go up —

    And so will revenues...

    A GOOD thing..

    State of Missouri estimates the cost at $16.9 million dollars for HB 1966. MO 2010 Fiscal Note.

    HB 1966 is a bill that allows voters to cast advance ballots.

    Doesn't say anything about ID cards..

    and so will
    expenses if North Carolina issues free cards to avoid costly lawsuits which argue the costs of an ID card amount to a poll tax. In 2009, Wisconsin projected a total $2.4 million cost for ID cards; Missouri estimated $3.4 million.

    That's a pretty big "IF"...

    Using the reasoning that obtaining an ID is a "poll tax" would lead us the the "reasoning" that purchasing gasoline to get to the polling station is a "poll tax"...

    Hell, buying a car would be a "poll tax" because some might have to have transportation to get to the polling station, right??

    Pretty ridiculous, isn't it? :D

    Just as ridiculous as claiming that obtaining an ID card is tantamount to a "poll tax"...

    Further, I would like to read the particulars of that study, to see if there are any indications that it was skewed due to partisan ideology..

    This seems to depend.

    On what?? Whether a person thinks that a case of beer or a carton of cigarettes is more important to them than voting??

    A person that would have to mull that no-brainer decision is not one likely to vote anyways..

    A person simply cannot be disenfranchised to vote without their tacit approval...

    Nonetheless, all the evidence indicates that the current system works and there has been no evidence presented that a new system would work any better.

    By definition, the system would work better.

    Why are Democrats so afraid to enforce the law??

    If the states that were doing this were businesses, they would be out of business quickly because it's clear they're not making good decisions.

    And yet, 16 states are already doing it and no problems have developed because of it.

    Kinda kills that theory, eh??

    Again, I'll ask..

    Why are Democrats so afraid of this??

    It can't be disenfranchising voters because that has already been shown to be false..

    It can't be the expense, because Democrats LOVE to spend and LOVE to give entitlements...

    So, WHY be so afraid of this??

    Only one answer makes any kind of sense..

    Democrats are afraid that it will prevent those who vote illegally from voting.

    That's the only logical conclusion.

    Michale
    163

  192. [192] 
    dsws wrote:

    NO ONE can be disenfranchised by the requirement of Picture ID except if they CHOOSE to be disenfranchised.

    I'm pretty sure you don't even believe this yourself.

    Statistically, the St Augustine Bank has never been broken into.. Does that mean it's a probably not a problem to leave the doors unlocked?

    In your analogy, the key point is that the "doors" have already been "unlocked" for over two hundred years, and precisely no elections have been stolen that way.

    These costs vary. But to say there are no costs is dishonest.

    Ftfy.

    And don't think I didn't notice how ya'all have moved away from the DISENFRANCHISEMENT reasoning

    Well, it doesn't even look like a horse any more. You've made clear that you're not going to acknowledge even the most obvious points about disenfranchisement, whereas you're still presenting a semblance of dialogue about cost.

    Democracy as we know it hasn't ended.

    Democracy "as we know it" is very far from perfect, as illustrated by the graveyard vote for Kennedy and the Supreme Court vote for Bush. (And Rutherfraud B. Hayes, and the Corrupt Bargain, but those were imperfect in a rather different way.) That doesn't mean the world has ended. But it also provides no reason to make our democracy a bit farther from perfect.

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    NO ONE can be disenfranchised by the requirement of Picture ID except if they CHOOSE to be disenfranchised.

    Of course I do...

    As I have shown, IDs are not expensive.

    If someone can make it to a voting booth, they can go get an ID..

    Put together a PLAUSIBLE scenario where someone would be disenfranchised by the picture ID requirement and then get back to me..

    In your analogy, the key point is that the "doors" have already been "unlocked" for over two hundred years, and precisely no elections have been stolen that way.

    Even given that, do you want to put YOUR money in a bank that would do that??

    Of course not..

    You've made clear that you're not going to acknowledge even the most obvious points about disenfranchisement, whereas you're still presenting a semblance of dialogue about cost.

    No one has MADE any logical point regarding disenfranchisement..

    But it also provides no reason to make our democracy a bit farther from perfect.

    If enforcing the laws makes a democracy "far from perfect" then maybe democracy ain't all it's cracked up to be...

    Michale.....
    164

  194. [194] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Once I see REAL evidence that a picture ID would actually hinder an election rather than helping it, I will change my mind.

    Businesses don't typically make investments unless there's evidence that they will see a ROI or significant business value from the investment.

    I still don't see any evidence that it will provide any benefit or returns.

    If I'm hearing you right, your argument sounds like "It can't hurt and it might help."

    If we were running a business together and I were making an argument like that, I would want you to hold me to a higher standard before making the investment. I'd want you to say ... show me some examples where it provided additional value or reduced my costs.

    The trouble with our country right now is that decisions aren't often made this way.

    It's seen as weakness (rather than strength) for both sides to work together. Let me explain how I see what we're doing as working together. And how I think it's a strength.

    I thought of the idea because I was asking myself, what might convince Michale? And ... how could we work together instead of getting into the same old boring unproductive Left/Right argument?

    This lead me to the idea of trying to lay out the cost/benefit and then see what holes you might poke in it.

    We had a guy at work who used to test software that we developed and he'd poke and prod and find the bugs in it and he was absolutely invaluable. You do the same type of thing.

    And, you're going to think of things and bring up things that I don't.

    You may still not agree with the analysis and that's ok. But thanks for discussing and trying to stay out of the Right/Left name calling. I learned a lot. And please, feel free to call me on it if I do it. I ain't sayin' I'm innocent.

    I wish I could have seen something like our discussion around the healthcare debate in our media (though healthcare is admittedly more complex) because I still feel like I don't understand the costs/benefits.

    That's why I can understand why people are questioning it.

    Wrapping up because there's probably other horses for us to search for and beat :)

    -David

    p.s. I think your bank analogy is good, but here's what I would change. You say that the bank is unprotected. In the case of voting, this is not the case: there is a system in place. To revise the analogy, it's more like moving the bank to a new security system. I would argue that, for the cost, there needs to be a compelling reason to move to a new security system. Some flaw in the old system. Currently, it looks to me like the old system works and works well so I would rather make investments in other areas where there are better returns.

  195. [195] 
    akadjian wrote:

    @dwds - If you're still out there. I haven't forgotten your argument:

    Actually, the null string is a proof of nothing. Every line of the null string is either one of the postulates, a previously-proved theorem, or the result of applying modus ponens to previous lines. The last line of the null string is the null string. Hence the null string is a proof of the null string, i.e. of nothing. QED.

    Your proof of the null string assumes the existence of a null character (otherwise, you can't use modus ponens) which I'm assuming you meant as one of the postulates. I still haven't been able to find one way or another a proof of a null character. Though a null character is simply a null string of length 1, somehow, in my mind, I feel like the null character has to exist as a postulate.

    No? Forgive me as it's been a long time since Discrete Math/Abstract Algebra. Your comment lead to some bad dreams of being stuck in one of these classes trying to answer a similar question on a test as time was running out :)

    -David

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Well said.

    For my part, I was very impressed with your argument. I mean that.

    You could have gone the easy way and used the old tried and (un)true argument of....

    "Oh my god!! Think of the children!!!"

    ..... The emotional laden argument that defies logic.

    But you went a different tact and made a reasonable and logical argument regarding a cost factor analysis..

    I disagree, but don't think for a moment that I don't respect your argument..

    It really had me knocked for a loop, because I was all set and prepared to demolish the emotional argument and here you go hitting me with logic..

    Bastard! :D

    Kudos on a well laid argument. :D

    Note To CW:

    Seems the Preview Comment is back to no LFs..

    Michale.....
    164

  197. [197] 
    dsws wrote:

    Your proof of the null string assumes the existence of a null character

    No, there isn't a null character. There's a character that represents the null string, Ø. But "Ø" isn't the null string. It's the string consisting of the character representing the null string. You can't have a null string of length 1: the null string is the string of length zero.

    Modus ponens says that given any expressions P and Q, if (P implies Q) and P are previous lines of a valid argument, then appending Q as a new line yields a valid argument.

    I wasn't saying that there's a proof of the null string: that depends on whether the null string is construed as an expression. I was saying that the null string itself satisfies the conditions to be a valid proof. A proof is a sequence of lines, such that every line is either etc. The null string is the sequence of zero lines, so any statement of the form 'every line of the null string is P' is true.

    The questionable premise is that the last line of the null string is the null statement, i.e. "nothing". Depending on one's semantics, the null statement could be the null string, or the logical constant TRUE, or the logical constant FALSE. Using the natural-language term "nothing" allows us to avoid the commitment to a semantics: if you posit that "proof of nothing" is a well-formed phrase, you're already in at least as deep trouble as you get by stipulating that the null statement is the same as the logical constant TRUE.

    The last of zero lines is certainly nothing, if you're willing to accept a word "nothing" at all.

  198. [198] 
    dsws wrote:

    Oh, I left out a qualifier: the null string normally is implicitly identified with the null set Ø. It need not be. A string is normally regarded as a function from a natural number to the set of characters. A function is normally regarded as a set of ordered pairs, where no two of them have the same first component. If there are no ordered pairs in the set, there certainly aren't two with the same first component. But it's also possible to set it up other ways, which wouldn't necessarily have the null string be identified with the null set.

  199. [199] 
    dsws wrote:

    Even given that, do you want to put YOUR money in a bank that would do that?

    If people have been trying to rob a bank for over two hundred years, and not once in all that time have any of them ever used the unlocked front door that lets customers access the night deposit slot, I'm not going to go insisting that they buy a lock for the front door. Whether I'm willing to put my money in such a bank will depend on whether they have sound assets, adequate deposit insurance, a strong vault, and so on.

    Not once has an election been stolen by votER fraud, even as several have been stolen by other means.

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, there isn't a null character. There's a character that represents the null string, Ø. But "Ø" isn't the null string. It's the string consisting of the character representing the null string. You can't have a null string of length 1: the null string is the string of length zero.

    Modus ponens says that given any expressions P and Q, if (P implies Q) and P are previous lines of a valid argument, then appending Q as a new line yields a valid argument.

    I wasn't saying that there's a proof of the null string: that depends on whether the null string is construed as an expression. I was saying that the null string itself satisfies the conditions to be a valid proof. A proof is a sequence of lines, such that every line is either etc. The null string is the sequence of zero lines, so any statement of the form 'every line of the null string is P' is true.

    The questionable premise is that the last line of the null string is the null statement, i.e. "nothing". Depending on one's semantics, the null statement could be the null string, or the logical constant TRUE, or the logical constant FALSE. Using the natural-language term "nothing" allows us to avoid the commitment to a semantics: if you posit that "proof of nothing" is a well-formed phrase, you're already in at least as deep trouble as you get by stipulating that the null statement is the same as the logical constant TRUE.

    The last of zero lines is certainly nothing, if you're willing to accept a word "nothing" at all.

    "Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed"
    -Mike Meyers, AUSTIN POWERS: THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME

    :D

    Michale....
    168

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record, the double image when looking at the PREVIEW has been eliminated... :D

    Michale
    169

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wrapping up because there's probably other horses for us to search for and beat :)

    Wanna talk about Tim Tebow?? :D

    Michale
    170

  203. [203] 
    akadjian wrote:

    @dsws: You were still out there!

    I wasn't saying that there's a proof of the null string.

    I was saying that the null string itself satisfies the conditions to be a valid proof.

    Thank you. I understand now.

    Though it still brings back nightmares :)

    Using the natural-language term "nothing" allows us to avoid the commitment to a semantics.

    Ah ... natural language. If only we could get rid of it and replace it with a logical system which we could use to prove everything.

    Bertrand Russell is still one of my personal heroes though. One of the classiest acts of the 20th century.

    -David

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]