Please keep in mind that, in my mind, there is a very clear distinction between the "Hysterical Left" and the rest...

The Hysterical Left consists of your truthers and your BUSH IS A WAR CRIMINAL!! etc etc etc...

No one here, as far as I am concerned is part of the "Hysterical Left"...

Simply being a part of Weigantia precludes such an outlook..

Just wanted to make sure I was clear...

Michale
279

I mean, ignore all the hype and just look at the facts..

According to the Hysterical Left, a cop car parked a mile away in a predominantly black voting area is "disenfranchisement"....

But armed and uniformed New Black Panther scum at the doorway of a predominantly white voting area is not...

Michale
277

A> Access is not a large problem at all. Anyone can contact their Party's programs and get a ride to anywhere they need to go...

I am also constrained to point out that many on the Left have no problem with restricting access to Right wing voters...

As for fraud being a much smaller problem, I can point to "hard evidence" that says this is simply not the case..

Tens of thousands of illegal voters in North Carolina for example.. Democrat operatives instructing people how to vote multiple times for another example..

Unless those on the Left (and on the Right) are fair and address ALL DIFFERENT TYPES of voter disenfranchise, it's nothing but partisan ideology in play...

Especially proposed when fixes are deliberately designed to disenfranchise your political opponents.

You mean like having armed New Black Panther soldiers outside of mostly white voting booths??

You mean like that??

Of course you don't mean like that..

Which illustrates EXACTLY the problem..

Voter disenfranchisement is perfectly fine as long as it's not the chosen Party being disenfranchised...

Michale
271

So, let's treat BOTH problems equally..

I would say both problems are not equal, so let's treat both proportionately, based on hard evidence. Let's not exacerbate a very large problem (access) by focusing on what all objective studies show is a much smaller problem (fraud). Especially proposed when fixes are deliberately designed to disenfranchise your political opponents.

hehehehehehe!!! :D

Michale
265

Now THAT was kewl!!

Michale
252

Don't get me wrong.. I completely understand the position SONY is in..

If they were to go ahead with the premiere, ignore the threats and a movie-goer so much as skinned their knee or got a splinter, Sony would be in a world of hurts..

I just think it's sad that what Americans can and cannot watch is at the mercy of the testicular-challenged and some third world pisspot...

My wife had a really good idea. She heard it somewhere.

Sony should release THE INTERVIEW on the Internet. Make it available far and wide at no cost.... Let activists in South Korea burn DVDs of the movie and paper the North Korean countryside with copies of THE INTERVIEW...

Not only will that be a big BIG FRAK YOU!! to little man Kim un, it will also be a great deterrent to copy-cats....

A helluva good idea...

Michale
251

A pissant country like North Korea can dictate what Americans can or cannot see on the big screen....

Pathetic..... Sadly pathetic....

Michale
244

Soo.......

Are you advocating the position that might makes right??? :D

Michale
242

Agreed..

Every *CITIZEN* has an equal right to vote..

But each potential voter has to PROVE they are a citizen..

I honestly don't see how ANYONE could have a problem with this..

Unless they are inclined to cheat...

You see my point??

Michale
241

So, lets cut the opportunity for mischief.

Agreed...

What causes more problems..

A person who has a right to vote, but can't...

Or a person who is an illegal voter, but votes...

I would say that they both are equal...

So, let's treat BOTH problems equally..

As opposed to letting partisan ideology be the determining factor..

Wouldn't you agree??

Michale
240

True, but it does equate with Powerful. A government small enough to drown in bath tub is not very powerful. George Washington, a big guy, believed in flexing Federal Power. Think Whiskey Rebellion and George Washington's armed response. Alexander Hamilton, a short guy, believed in financing federal power, and proposed the whiskey tax that resulted in rebellion.

The 15th amendment barred using race or previous servitude to deny the right to vote.

The 19th barred denial based on sex.

The 24th banned poll taxes to deny the right to vote.

States governments keep finding new ways to deny the vote in specific jurisdictions. Like not providing sufficient money for sufficient voting apparatus, or by restricting polling hours. Lines around the block are frequent in my state - inevitably in economically stressed cities.

So, lets cut the opportunity for mischief. Right now, states could probably use bad breath, or the inability to do 5 pushups as a voting test. Probably won't survive court challenge, but why should citizens have to challenge blatant political disenfranchisement, and miss casting a few votes while it all gets decided. Make the right to vote affirmative - every citizen has an equal right to vote. No discriminatory allocation of resources needed to vote. Want voter ID? Fine, just make it free and as universal as the social security card. A nice little gift on your 18th birthday.

With practically every "right" we enjoy there is a corresponding responsibility...

When you exercise your right to vote, you have the responsibility of proving you HAVE that right to vote...

Michale
239

No one is denying anyone the explicit right to vote..

Americans are simply enforcing the RESPONSIBILITY that goes along with the right...

Michale
238

moving on:

often honored mostly in the breech, the following are perpetually in the news cycle:

establishment of religion (I). Protestant is basically more equal than the others.

unreasonable searches and seizures (IV)

speedy trial (Ha!) assistance of counsel for his defense (really?) (VI)

excessive bail, excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishments (VIII)

Sadly missing from the Bill of Rights is an explicit right to vote.

Done. Cat has been cautioned and allowed back in the office.

Frequently vague and notably subject to divergent interpretation. (II)

Strong does not necessarily BIG equal...

Michale
236

My guess is, they wouldn't be happy...

Excellent history lesson, CW...

As usual...

Michale
233

(Note that '"big government"' and '"small government"' include quotation marks, to indicate the fact that "small government" is bigger than "big government". "Small government" means that they want to confine government to what they consider its legitimate functions: the military, and the transfer of unlimited amounts of money from taxpayers to bondholders. The latter is to be accomplished by running ever-increasing deficits until the government is so burdened by debt that it can't do anything else. So in the short run they're happy to spend on anything that will increase the deficit, really for political reasons but theoretically, ironically, on the premise that after the Revolution, the state will wither away.)

Which is why someone needs to write a book about all of this ... no one else could do it better, Chris.