skippy,
This is what you did say:
"I would never go to another country and expect them to learn my language. I would learn their language or not live there."
From your stance I was just assuming that this is what you expect of all people immigrating to the United States. I'm sure you are aware that the U.S. has no national language and that Spanish was spoken on this continent long before English ever was. Prior to that, as I've already stated, it was the Native American languages being spoken.

I never said that you should speak the language of the indigenous people, re read what I stated about the language, as for the ammendment process, I completely understand that. I just see it as a way to make things what people want, not only to change for the times. Trust me I do understand that things change over time. As for Vatoloco, why all of a sudden did you think that I was talking about hispanics when I said illegals. Do you have a guilty conscience. If our country was founded on ideas, then how does reverse assimilation work, or is that an idea to and not reality.
concernedperson
I also never said that people had to show an ID at the caucus, I said that they had to show an ID to be registered to participate in the caucus.

skippy,
You do realize that the amendment process that was built into the Constitution was the method that the forefathers intended for necessary changes to the document over time, right? They knew then that times would change, and that's why the option to amend the Constitution is in place. I'm not playing a game. I just know what I'm talking about, which is more than I can say for you. The Bill of Rights was the first set of amendments. Do you consider those rights granted to us by the Constitution to be "typical entitlement mentality"? You might want to go back over some basic U.S. history. It would probably do you some good.
As for knowing the language of the country that you live in, I assume then that you can speak Navajo, Iroquois, Chippewa, Sioux, etc. You wouldn't dare demand others to speak your language if you can't speak the language of the indigenous peoples of the land your ancestors immigrated to, now would you? You wouldn't dare be that hypocritical, right?

Skippy: You are wrong about people having to show I.D. at the caucus. Numerous TV stations reported that an I.D. WAS NOT NECESSARY.

WalterReuther
If you want the Caucasian to become the thing of the pastt, then we will. I have never said that change is not good, however, change needs to be understood for the future. Reverse assimilation is not good. The problem is accepting the assimilation. There is only one effect of illegals in this country and that is welfare. I am ok with people coming here for oppotunity, not welfare that we pay for. Unfortunatley you will never see that, and it is sad. I would never go to another country and expect them to learn my language. I would learn their language or not live there. We have become a weak nation to have to assimilate to other cultures the way we have. I should not have to press 2 for english. Anyone can only speculate the thoughts of the forefathers, cause they are gone now and we can not ask them. We have to trust history books. So don't olay the game of saying that the constitution was written to be changed. Typical entittlement mentallity to be able to change the constitution to say what benefits you.

Sometimes standards, rules and laws change. The Constitution is meant to be a living document and has mechanisms built into it to allow for change over time. This country was founded by people that were not from here coming to this land and taking it over from indigenous peoples. How arrogant and ignorant are we, even today, to think that writing some laws down is going to stop another group of people from coming and doing the same thing especially if they are not hostile but rather willing to work hard and contribute to the economy. Caucasians will cease to be the largest ethnic group within 30 years from now. It is inevitable that laws, including the supreme law of the Constitution, will change in order to remain relevant to, effective for and protective of the people living here in the U.S. Everything from public sector services to nearly all private sector business are accomodating people who speak Spanish as their first language. Your feelings, skippy, are becoming a thing of the past. Most of our political and business leaders have already recognized the important role that immigrants, legal or illegal, play in this country and are willing to treat them like anyone else. Trying to paint them as some threat to the integrity of our voting system simply makes no sense.

Legality is the issue. If we all start taking your view, then being illegal becomes the new norm. It is all about doing things right. I have no problem voting next to people who have gone through the proper procedure to become a citizen. No matter how long the process takes. I do however have a problem with the acceptance that you show. Acceptance breeds the new standard and a breakdown of what was setup in the constitution. It is the same as if you accepted your childs behavior in a bad way, the child would then believe that that was an acceptable standard to live by. I am not saying that what you have in your post is all wrong to me. I just can't believe that you would even think to re-define what a "citizen" is. The argument should all be about following the law, reguardless if you agree with it.

I guess the problem here is the definition of "citizen". To me, if you've come to this country in search of a better life for yourself and perhaps your family and you intend no harm to anyone, then I say welcome to you. What the hell do I care if you fill out some paperwork and then hand it off to a government worker who then shuffles that paperwork around a bit and then hands it off to another government worker to do the same? It's a process that takes months perhaps even years. Of course, some will squawk about the criminals that might try to get in and that's why we have a legal process and blah blah blah. The criminals won't be trying to get in legally anyway. I say if you're willing to risk life and limb to get here just to work hard for low pay at some hellish job, then good for you. I don't care if you're technically a citizen or not, and I'd be proud to vote in the booth next to yours.
All that being said, how many undocumented immigrants are going to show up at a government polling station? Why would they even put themselves at risk? All the different kinds of voter fraud that so many supporters of this new voter ID yap about barely even exist. The cases that did exist were being handled just fine by the laws in place before and those people entrusted to enforce those laws.

Every true american should want only citizens to vote. If not then you are not a true american.

WalterReuther
point taken, you might be ok with anyone being able to vote, but I am not ok with illegals, and people who are not eligable to vote due to not being a citizen. If you have a problem with showing an ID to vote, you must have something to hide. It is not a political party thing for me, it is about the constitution. Aparently it says that you must be a citizen to vote. With voter fraud out there it is apparent that some bad apples ruin it for everyone, and we need to have some accountablility to voting. Voting is a responsibility, you should have some sort of idea on which person you would like to see in office and at least a basic reason why. If you don't know why, then you should not vote. If you are told to vote for someone and do, then you are an idiot. Sorry, no excuses for anyone who can not think for themselves and pick someone for themselves.

Sure, you had to have ID to register, but you didn't have to show ID to participate in the caucus. So, someone could just claim to be someone else that may be a registered voter in order to participate. Where was all the concern from the Republicans over "fraud" in the Iowa Republican caucus that they go on and on and on about when it comes to general elections. Oh that's right. There were no Democrats running. Thank you for your concern there skip, but my facts are straight. I'm not so sure about yours.

In order to be at the caucus and vote you had to be a registered voter, in order to be registered you had to show ID, get your facts straight.

Last year Iowa Republicans fought for a statewide voter ID law that eventually died in committee. Last night at the caususes, which are completely controlled and run by the Republican party, no ID was required to participate. Interesting. I guess those Iowa Republicans would fall under the category of "stupid people" so eloquently referred to by the commenter below.

Responsible people have ID's, get an ID to vote. If the Repubs, want ID's to keep people from voting, then the dems don't want ID's to allow even the illegals to vote, not my idea of America. Get a clue people. Show ID, or don't vote it is really simple. Stupid people.

vatoloco is spot on here folks...in a way. Clearly RAF is not all that bad. It took a red herring (yes I admit to it) to reveal the soft, sensitive, perhaps even a little liberal person that RAF may actually be. He/she must have known full well that correcting my feigned misunderstanding of the voter ID law could quite possibly lead to a vote for a democratic candidate in any number of upcoming elections. Yet RAF chose to correct the erroneous information that I was knowingly putting out there in order to see if he/she or someone like him/her could resist the temptation of demonstrating the "superior" knowledge (wink, wink) in order to hopefully keep some votes for Democrats out of the ballot box. As I have always been willing to continuously correct RAF's own feigned ignorance (especially about electoral law), I was glad to see RAF return the favor when I attempted to utilize his/her favorite strategy. See, RAF's not all bad.

Silly liberals, all you need is one disk and a ballot bag with holes in it and you can "find" some votes that weren't stuffed into those holes.

Well this makes it easy to vote several times with any number of easily made fake IDs that poll workers will never know are fake. Thanks again Republicans.

onedayatatime if you don't like my posts feel free to skip over them. I will sleep fine either way.

Gandalf, did you know the Iowa Republican Party has also decided to move the tabulation of votes to an "undisclosed" location? The article claims it's because of a threat from protesters, but the party chairman makes no mention of that in his statement. I knew Republicans were big fans of privatization, but this is ridiculous!
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...

onedayatatime, people are now holding RAF accountable for his remarks, comparing his old posts with his newer posts for inconsistencies, taking days and days to pin him down to facts and then demonstrating how those facts do not support, and even contradict, his position. Once out of room for more subterfuge and diversion, and with no rational way to support his arguments, the name calling and rhetoric starts. I think you're being generous saying that his arguments ever had more validity than they do now. It's just that few people previously took the time or had the persistence required to debate/critique his arguments.

RAF..You have become very nasty, oppositional at all cost and simply angry in your post. What happened? You used to provide valid arguments.

Yes Walter, not surprisingly, looking at the facts before hyping false partisan rhetoric is usually the best approach. To bad the left fringe won't do that.

Well shucks. Would you look at that, and to think I was just going to sit out the upcoming recall and presidential elections in protest over what turned out to be an error on my part. Now I'll be sure to vote in both elections. Thanks for catching that, RAF. I'm sure the Democratic candidates appreciate your help. I know I do!

Walter your pity party is so full of holes it is getting silly. If you moved from one district to another you will be required to prove residency. If you are just using a ID to vote the ID does not require the residence listed on the ID to match the listed residence of the voter registration list.

"Must the address on the photo ID be current and match the address on the voter list?
No. An acceptable photo ID is not required to contain a current residential address and is not required to match the address on the voter list." http://gab.wi.gov/node/1957

http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/pu...

So sad those that peddle false information do so on a daily basis.

RAF,
Why would I ever expect you to express a sentiment like that. You've made it crystal clear that you identify with the victimizer rather than the victim no matter the circumstances.

mteg,
Thank you for clarifying your position that I should pay a poll tax. It is now clear which side of the constitution you fall on. As to you being "sympathetic", pardon me, but who cares? My license is legal for identification AND driving. Also, last time I checked it's not illegal to be frugal (cheap, as you call it). The DL was not expired, so I made a perfectly legal decision to change the address with the DOT but not pay money that I didn't have to. Now in order to exercise my right to vote, I have to pay money. Again, that is a poll tax, and it is unconstitutional.

Walter, had you have said a "a couple months ago" I might have been more sympathetic to your plight. Thats just being cheap, not going in for a new license after a couple years. I do give you props for at least notifying the DOT, most people don't. Now you face a dilema, do you cough up the $14 (just did that for my wife-pretty sure it was under $15), or go vote in district your former ID was registered(which is technically fraud). The choice is yours if you want to vote.

Walter why would I want to echo yours and your OWSDEM's party words "I think I can be a victim. I think I can be a victim"?

mteg,
I'll give you an example: me. I moved a couple years back and rather than shell out the money to get a new physical copy of my DL with my new address, I updated my info with the DOT on their online database. My DL remains perfectly valid as far as law enforcement is concerned. If I go to vote, however, I will be denied. In order to vote I have to replace my valid DL with another valid ID for $14...I think. It might be $28. It doesn't matter. Either way it amounts to a de facto poll tax. I'm legal to drive, but I'm not legal to vote unless I pay. That is unconstitutional. This law will be struck down in court.

RAF-
I'm not sure what party you're referring to. There is no Reuther party, unless, of course, you're talking about my New Year's Eve bash. Unfortunately for you, you're not invited. Sorry. If you're referring to Democrats or the Occupy Movement, I'm pretty sure they can't be proud of some made up moniker that only exists in your own little insular world. Keep trying, though. Just remember, "I think I can. I think I can."

The simple fact is most people have a valid (or semi valid id-where they recently relocated). Yes, there are a few people that do not have a valid ID, however, the majority of these indivduals have long fallen off the grid and wouldn't vote anyways. Honestly, the first thing I grab before leaving the house is my wallet with ID. Someone earlier made the comment about the displaced worker with a new residence not having current address on ID. Well, this would be considered fraud-voting in a district that you no longer reside in. You need an ID for banking, any state benefits, employement, driving, etc... Besides, it's not like this bill passed 2 days before the election, I could understand the complaining then (however it would still be legal). Like I've said before, if you don't like it-show up on election day with a valid ID and exercise your right to try and vote Walker out of office. If you can't do that, then you have no right to voice your opinion.

Sadly your party is proud of the OWSDEM tag as well...

I just noticed. You're really proud of that whole "OWSDEM" tag aren't ya? You'll just throw it up anywhere hoping it sticks, huh? You seem to be the only one using it though. Well, I hope you have the rights to it in case it catches on. Best of luck to ya. Now I have to go watch this voter ID bill get struck down in the courts and Scott Walker get recalled.

Typical simpleton OWSDEM answer "I like fraud and people should be able to claim their name is anything they want when they vote".

Typical simpleton GOP answer: "Because we said so!"
When really it means: "Because it will give us an unfair, unconstitutional and unAmerican advantage over those we disagree with!"

You do so now because it's the law-to prevent voter fraud. If you don't like it, don't vote/or vote to get Walker recalled...just make sure you have your ID.

mteg,
And what if I choose to walk to my neighborhood polling station or take the bus if it's cold outside. Last I checked I'm not required by law to carry my ID to walk places or buy bus fare. I have a right to walk about my neighborhood just as I have a right to vote. Why do I have to have an ID to exercise my right to vote if I don't have to carry an ID to exercise my right to walk to the place that I vote?

I guess if people feel so strongly about it, they can leave their ID's at home and not vote. My suggestion to fund this is to have police set up checkpoints by polling stations and check to see how many people "forgot" thier ID's, in addition to "forgetting" their proof of insurance. That should result in a few tickets. The irony is that the people that will claim they are being descriminated against for not having an ID are the same ones that will drive to a polling station-which is against the law.

Voting is a right. Carrying ID is not required by law. Showing ID to vote should not be required by law unless we are all required by law to cary ID. Most everything that people blabber about needing ID for (bank accounts, boarding planes, buying alcohol) are not rights. Voting is. If you are unable to recognize that difference, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. How about that?

I forgot to add..If you are a student YOU are given a student ID! You also need ID to be able to receive Social Security pensions, benefits, Medicare, Medicade etc.

Lets see, If you get stopped by the police, you HAVE to show some form of ID. You HAVE to show a ID to purchase tobacco, booze, open a bank account, credit card account, purchase a home, insurance, autos,& boats, board a plane, train, ship, purchase a Passport etc. Now why in the world would we want to require any one to have something as useless as a ID to vote?

He just exposed another one of his aliases...DeGryse.
-
http://www.gazettextra.com/users/DeGryse...

bebe,
What was personal about what I wrote? How does it compare to you making a comment about my dear mother's choices in raising me, a topic of which you know absolutely nothing about? I'm not convinced that you are all that knowledgable about anything, but whatever that subject might be, you should probably stick to it rather than addressing whether or not a complete stranger was breast fed. That's pretty inappropriate, even for a conservative. But if you want to keep on comin', I'll take you to school all day, and when the sun goes down I'll teach the night classes, too.

Robotstruisto,
"If you can't identify yourself, what the hell is wrong with you???"
Really? This from you who, by your own admission, uses numerous aliases on a site where comments are already posted anonymously. Maybe you should take your own advice.

bebe53 said, "RAF was the one who posed the question to you"
-
Yes, the operative word there is you, meaning poobah and not bebe53. So perhaps you should have practiced what you just preached and let RAF address my comment himself. Makes sense, doesn't it?

I'm just curious as to how many unidentifiable people voting in the state is acceptable.....
-
I mean, really......... If you can't identify yourself, what the hell is wrong with you??? REALLY. Get off it. It's too stupid to debate. Get an I.D. and shut up, or get out of the state. It IS that simple.

bebe53, that post contains items that RAF had stated he agreed with. He was referencing a post that contained my words which he apparently thought contradicted my previous words -- he wasn't referencing a post of his words. Since he won't explain his specific complaint, we have little else to go on. The items in the post you are talking about were all items that RAF in fact stated he agreed with. Don't believe me? Read his own words here:
-
poobah asked, "RAF, do you believe that all people who commit voter fraud after implementation of the new photo voter ID law will be caught and convicted?" RAF answered, "I have always suggested this, and other laws, don't catch all who commit offenses."
-
poobah said, "The difference between Obama and McCain was 414,818 votes. 7 fraudulent vote convictions." RAF answered, "Conviction numbers are hardly disputable. Neither is total voting numbers."
-
We have agreement that:
-
1) there were just seven convictions of voter fraud in Wisconsin in the 2008 presidential election

2) that this new law, just as the old law, will not catch all who violate it

3) that Obama received 414,818 more votes than McCain

RAF,
Really, sir. All you've got left are petty little one-liners? Let's have your counter-argument to Indiana's provisional ballots vs. WI's under the new law. I'd like to know if you think that would hold up in a similar Supreme Court case because you can bet your sweet bippy the whole mess will end up going that far.

bebe,
Apparently you are unable to grasp the difference between a figurative comment (mine) and an inappropriate personal swipe (your's). That's fine, though. Of course I can take it. That's why I asked if you had any more to share.

RAF, better have a doctor take a look at that bump on your head. Below are the two posts I had around the time of the imaginary post you credit me with - "Pooiee your own words 23dec 12:28"
-
On Dems lying about Ryan's plan?

Posted on December 23 at 1:27 p.m.
-
On Meet the suppress: The GOP ‘confidence’ game

Posted on December 23 at 12:16 p.m.

Pooiee your own words 23dec 12:28

Poobah's turkey feathers are ruffled. Dirty, worn-out feathers.

It puts the lotion on it's skin, or else it gets hosed again.

You have any specific examples of that, Raffy, or just the typical rhetorical accusations?

Poo great job on not even knowing or being able to read your own posts as you try to duck from your own words.

Gandalf you have just gave the most perfect example of hypocrisy and the lunatic fringe double standard I have ever seen. Bravo!

bebe,
Real classy. Any other baseless, irrelevant and/or inappropriate claims you'd like to share?

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever." - George Orwell.
-
THAT is the world that poobah, mooshoo, and WR among others are trying to create. A world of fear and hatred based upon their own design of narcissistic thought and deeds. I can already hear their jackboots clacking on the streets of America. Interference will be dealt with quickly, and without mercy.

poobah,
Bravo! With as much misinformation as some of these people spew all over this site, I have got to believe that they are just perpetually suckling at the Fox News teat. Hell, maybe they're loyal employees of good ol' Rupert.

bebe53, you need to read further than the first sentence of legal opinions to understand the opinion. Justice Stevens went on to say, "The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office."
-
As I have previously mentioned to RAF, who has also referred to the Indiana law being upheld, the differences in requirements for provisional ballots is significantly different between Indiana and Wisconsin. And for this reason, I think any ruling by the Supreme Court would not uphold the Wisconsin law.
-
bebe53 said, "Along the same lines lawsuits in Indiana and Georgia were both dismissed because there was NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of anyone being turned away due to the voter ID requirement."
-
Precisely because those states have very relaxed provisional ballot rules that provide an alternative to having photo ID on the day you vote. Wisconsin chose to implement significantly more restrictive and difficult provisional ballot rules and I can only hope it comes back to bite Walker and his cronies.

Thank you Gov. Walker, hope you join the ranks soon!

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/go...

Yeah gandalf strawmen like the koch clan is fine in tour book but not soros. Scurry along now before more of your nonsense is brought to light.

"I see the Robot name-callers and purveyors of hatred and negative vibes are still at it."
-
Yes, thank you. We call them Democrats, and socialists.

I see the union thugs are still at it. Raise that blue fist high in the air, and start the purges, I guess. Only those that think like them will be allowed to live.

RAF, be careful that claims you attribute to me are claims I've actually made. You said, 'You are the one claiming the existing laws are working because "only" 7 people have been convicted.'
-
It is dishonest to say I claimed that. I have never made that claim. What I did say, word for word, was, "But we don't need more restrictive, expensive and bureaucratic laws to replace existing laws that are working very well."

RAF,
Now it's clear that you have no idea how law works or are again feigning ignorance in a desperate attempt to make your point.
First, those 3, count 'em 3, cases you are talking about are merely ALLEGED cases of voter fraud. Innocent until proven guilty. At this point, that fraud never happened, so you're actually at ZERO cases cited and NO evidence shown for your point.
Second, say they are guilty as charged, you have no way of proving that these 3 people, specifically, or anyone else like them, generally, would have been stopped from doing what they did. Laws don't stop people. People stop people. That's what was happening under the previous law and would have kept happening.
Sure you can post articles in which the author cites outdated information to make their point, at this point it would be pretty difficult to make yourself look any sillier than you already have.
The point is, for whatever good it might do, this new law is going to do far more harm to the elderly, the young, those of low income and those that are completely homeless as well as cost the taxpayers of the state unnecessarily large amounts of money to implement.
Ultimately, the truth will continue to come out. You've admitted yourself that even the new law can't possibly catch every offender, but you can bet that every single disenfranchised voter will become a plaintiff in court case after court case filed by civil rights groups against the state of WI, yet another factor that will have to added into the growing costs of the new law. I've mentioned cost benefit analysis before. I realize it is going completely over your head, but do your level best to keep up please. Once the entire case is on the table against this law and all of the other big government Republican legislation that has been going on since the beginning of this year, the tide will begin to turn against the GOP in WI as it had been doing so for some time before this Frankensteinesque experiment known as Scott Walker(sponsored by the Kochs)ever began. I can't think of a better person to lead us back then someone by the name of La Follette. Fightin' Doug? I could live with that.

LOL, what do my words have to do with your failed logic poo? You are the one claiming the existing laws are working because "only" 7 people have been convicted. The idiocy of that claim is the old law obviously didn't work as evidenced by a non government entity having to publicly post information to have 3 people investigated. The new law would have prevented the action of these organized supporters in this state to work the election. You’re ignoring this with claims the old law was working shows you really don't want these actions stopped at all. This explains your defense of the old law and excuse making of nonexistent suppression in all the other states that have these same new laws in place.

poobah asked, "RAF, do you believe that all people who commit voter fraud after implementation of the new photo voter ID law will be caught and convicted?" RAF answered, "I have always suggested this, and other laws, don't catch all who commit offenses."

They are working so well people aren't being caught...only you understand that logic. Kind of like your defending the OWS folks costing municipalities millions thinking they are protesting and costing just the 1% time and money.

No, we need laws, RAF. But we don't need more restrictive, expensive and bureaucratic laws to replace existing laws that are working very well. Only seven voter fraud convictions and they replaced the law with another one that will cost taxpayers an additional $10 million over the next four years and according to you won't catch all violators! And that doesn't include the costs many people will incur to obtain the required documents to apply for the new photo voter ID.

In your eyes, since the new law won't catch all of them, and I am assuming you agree the old law didn't either, why have laws at all? In the OWSDEM theorem anarchy is the best policy, eh.

RAF said, "poo sorry to disappoint you, well not really, the "conspiracy" I wrote was just a word change using another posters conspiracy. Neither are true but glad to see you fell for it anyway."
-
No need to apologize, buddy. I know you've had a rough day on the blogs and then the bump to the head on the brick wall. Instead of focusing on one little fib you told me, we should focus on the items we've been able to agree on:
-
1) only seven voter fraud convictions in Wisconsin in the 2008 presidential election

2) the new photo voter ID law won't catch all violations

3) Obama's margin of victory in Wisconsin was 414,818 votes
-
We owe much credit for our agreement to Walter. He's been an infallible fountain of indubitable facts on voter fraud in Wisconsin and the Walker photo voter ID law.

Very insightful Pat, where did you get that from?

Good job gandalf. Deflect from the link between soros and your news source by linking to the huffpost, hey that will help.

Good for you walter draw symbolism between people with real problem and the recall circus posse SIEU folks from out of state. Is that your idea of moral equivalence?

Horowitz is totally correct in this article. Stop Democrats from voting. That's what it is all about for Republicans.

It seems that Republicans, including RAF, keep sticking their feet in the doo-doo. Oh, well let them keep doing it. They seem to keep doing this over and over again.

RAF,
Some people do live in motels or hotels. You are aware of this, aren't you? Sometimes people that have been evicted from a foreclosed home live in a run down motel or a homeless shelter. Should these people not be allowed to register and vote? Is that what you want for our state? There is a gentleman that owns a small chain of retail stores from Green Bay to here in Janesville. He has two residences. They are both hotels. Should he not be allowed to vote? Are you against small business owners voting in the state of WI?

gandalf stated " why must you always pull the Soros card instead of dealing with the facts of an article? To contrive a moral equivalence between the Koch brothers and George Soros is absurd."
-
I agree mentioning either one is absurd. But since you thought it was so important to mention koch it must be just as important to mention soros.

westorbust, the source was the three individuals of the SEIU that did just that this year during the spring recall circus. None of the three were caught during registration by the old law. Presumably the three also voted. The discovery came after the fact by an outside organization that this did happen and is currently being investigated after it was made public.

poo sorry to disappoint you, well not really, the "conspiracy" I wrote was just a word change using another posters conspiracy. Neither are true but glad to see you fell for it anyway.

" by the way, the Alternet news site is funded by advertisements and on-line donors. To imply that it's funded by George Soros is false."
-
LOL yeah okay.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit...

poobah,
I wouldn't worry about, RAF. It's far too late to do anything now. I'm pretty sure those effects are permanent.

RAF said, "Head meet brick wall."
-
Now big money vote stealing conspiracies...after he agreed there were only seven voter fraud convictions. I'm concerned about the effects of banging his head against that brick wall.

RAF said, "the facts are that extremely wealthy backers of the Democratic party (i.e. Soros, et. al.) are backing the nationwide effort to steal votes."
-
Awful lot of money and work to buy only SEVEN fraudulent votes, isn't it? But not nearly as much as what the taxpayers are now being forced to pay for the new photo voter ID law to try to stop these SEVEN fraudulent votes. $10.1 million over the next four years!

"What state prostituted..." Didn't know states could.

RAF said: "Under the old law people could register using a hotel room and out of state ID, vote, then leave the state"

Source?

Gandolf, you should study your facts better. George Soros has done far more damage with his billions and political influences then any one and that includes the Koch Brothers Corp.
It would be easy to call you a hypocrite but I think you are just ill-informed. I encourage you to study the damages done by George Soros.

What governor does Soros own? What state prostituted itself out to Soros? It isn't about money, it is about control. None. With people like RAF supposedly defending us, who needs enemies?

Gandalf why are posting stories funded by Soros? The Independent Media Institute, owners of AlterNet, are funded by the Tides Foundation, a Soros group. Interesting how you think the Koch Brothers are so bad because of their money but you ignore the same thing on your side of the fence...imagine that.

the facts are that extremely wealthy backers of the Democratic party (i.e. Soros, et. al.) are backing the nationwide effort to steal votes.

RAF,
Don't hurt yourself. Here's something else about that article you seem to love so much. Not once did the author mention the more recent investigation into the 2008 election conducted by the state AND federal governments that resulted in numbers very similar to those of the Brennan Center study. The AG and DOJ task force did, in fact, account for registration misconduct, and some were charged with just that. The total amount of voter fraud still was only found to be hovering around that number of .0002%-.0007% of votes cast.

Easy on the brick wall, RAF.

Head meet brick wall.

RAF,
From the National Review (hard conservative leaning publication) article on voter fraud:
"For one, under the previous Wisconsin law — which didn’t require voters to demonstrate who they were — vote fraud was virtually impossible to prove. If someone wanted to vote more than once, all they needed to do was know a name on the voter list, then use that name. That name could belong to a legitimate voter who didn’t show up to vote, or to a voter who doesn’t actually exist."
This is a lie. The author clearly has no idea what he is talking about. The voter had to match name with a residence within the voting district. For example, I was turned away from a polling station because my DL had the incorrect address. I had to return home and retrieve an approved piece of mail to confirm that I lived where I said I lived. Those were the rules under the previous law, and they were more than adequate. It's interesting how the author of the article you posted basically says that it will be ok to disallow homeless people from voting simply because they have no address. The entire article makes the case that people against the law have been making the whole time, Republicans are willing to target a group of people to keep them from voting, not because they have done something wrong but because they have the potential to do something wrong....oh, and because they tend to vote for Democrats.

RAF said, "The best part of the new law, it should keep the previous problems from occuring."
-
Shoulda, woulda, coulda. That's not what we agreed to earlier, RAF. Let's not start changing what took 13 days to agree on. This is what you agreed to about the new law. Remember?
-
poobah asked, "RAF, do you believe that all people who commit voter fraud after implementation of the new photo voter ID law will be caught and convicted?" RAF answered, "I have always suggested this, and other laws, don't catch all who commit offenses."

Thanks for making my point and reposting your preconception. Your point fails, as I previously pointed out, in proclaim this preconception where the old law never watched for or punished what the new law will. The best part of the new law, it should keep the previous problems from occuring. Then again for a person that thinks carrying a sign is courageous and costing municipalities millions punishes the one percent it is very apparent you are incapable of grasping reality in this issue as well.

RAF said, "Really? You stated "there were just seven convictions of voter fraud in Wisconsin in the 2008 presidential election"."
-
Yup! Exactly what you agreed to! Do I need to paste your exact words? OK.
-
poobah said, "The difference between Obama and McCain was 414,818 votes. 7 fraudulent vote convictions." RAF answered, "Conviction numbers are hardly disputable. Neither is total voting numbers."

"There are no preconceptions"
-
Really? You stated "there were just seven convictions of voter fraud in Wisconsin in the 2008 presidential election". A past conviction under the old law is used by you as a basis this new law is wasteful. The driving force for the new law is the prevention of fraud during registration and voting; this never happened under the old law. Your attempt to draw in past convictions under an old law shows ignorance in your, or yours based on previous delusionary remark, conclusions. Declaring because things never checked under the old law, and never considered punishable, means things were just fine is lunacy. Then again for a person that thinks carrying a sign is courageous and costing municipalities millions punishes the one percent it is very apparent you are incapable of grasping reality in this issue as well.

"we finally got there"
-
Again back to your dillusions.

RAF said, "poo your argument easily fails once you get past your preconceptions on what the law is for and what it will do."
-
That's the beautiful thing about my last comment. There are no preconceptions, just items you have agreed with. Took us thirteen days but we finally got there, RAF. Enjoy!

Concernedless have it your way, I asked you twice now for clarification and both times nothing. I guess I'll just follow the old Saturday Night Live trick and call you Pat.

poo your argument easily fails once you get past your preconceptions on what the law is for and what it will do.

A voter casts a ballot using an existing registration. The current law affects both registrations and voting. Under the old law people could register using a hotel room and out of state ID, vote, then leave the state. Under the new more stringent changes, proof of residence combined with verification during the voting process is in place. These changes were needed due to the criminal nature some radicals have taken to thwart our old system. Protecting the integrity of each vote is important, sticking your head in the sand claiming there is no problem fixes nothing.

Not that you will read it but here is a better synopsis of the problems in our state than I have outlined.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/285...

poobah asked, "RAF, do you believe that all people who commit voter fraud after implementation of the new photo voter ID law will be caught and convicted?" RAF answered, "I have always suggested this, and other laws, don't catch all who commit offenses."
-
poobah said, "The difference between Obama and McCain was 414,818 votes. 7 fraudulent vote convictions." RAF answered, "Conviction numbers are hardly disputable. Neither is total voting numbers."
-
We have agreement that:
-
1) there were just seven convictions of voter fraud in Wisconsin in the 2008 presidential election

2) that this new law, just as the old law, will not catch all who violate it

3) that Obama received 414,818 more votes than McCain
-
Giving the new law the complete benefit of doubt, let me stipulate to the following:
-
1) the new law would have caught all seven cases of fraudulent voting prior to voting

2) all seven of the fraudulent cases voted

3) all seven of the fraudulent cases voted for Obama
-
With those stipulations, this would have reduced Obama's margin of winning votes to 414,811.
-
The new photo voter ID law will cost an estimated $5.7 million to implement with ongoing cost increase estimates of $2.2 million per year ($1.9 million at the Department of Transportation and $300,000 at the University of Wisconsin). [ http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/publicati... ] These figures do not include the personal expense, in many cases prohibitive, that many people will face in obtaining the documentation required to apply for the new photo voter ID.
-
Seems to me that the only people left supporting the new, more expensive and more bureaucratic law are mainly the old, fiscal conservative, "less government" Republicans.

RAF, please provide your source for your claim that I am a "she." You have made this claim before but never backed it up. What you do is try to come back with something other than your proof. Please do so now.

Do you have me mixed up with one of the other "concerneds" who post here? There are a couple others.

And, RAF, in what fashion exactly is it that I behave? Since you claim I behave in one fashion.

And if you didn't get a response on something, that means I had more important things to attend to at that time.

RAF,
First, these are still alleged cases of voter fraud. No one has been convicted. Remember the whole innocent until proven guilty thing? This is still the USA last time I checked.
Second, you can only speculate that these three people, if the allegations are true of course, would not have been allowed to register and vote under the new voter ID law. Who's to say there aren't polling station workers that are planning on letting people vote with no ID at all? If there are people whose job it is to implement this law that are already encouraging people like Ruthelle Frank to commit voter fraud, then why would the allegations against these three people (the linch pin of your entire argument) mean anything at all?

Poo, do you really think asking the same thing over and over will get a different answer?

As I have always said: "I have always suggested this, and other laws, don't catch all who commit offenses."

RAF said, "The idea behind the law is stop these actions before they become criminals. [...] After all are all other criminals caught 100% of the time? Are all speeders caught? Are all people that park in handicap stalls without permits caught? Are all rapists caught? Are all white caller criminals caught? Are all illegal actions by elected or appointed government officials caught?"
-
RAF, do you believe that all people who commit voter fraud after implementation of the new photo voter ID law will be caught and convicted?

"You're whole argument hinges on three ALLEGED cases"
-
Hardly. This just shows what you claim to be true isn't. I have always suggested this, and other laws, don't catch all who commit offenses. You have taken the other approach claiming what is in place is sufficient even though it still happens and gets by the practices you think are enough. The fact is voter ID would have prevented these people from registering from a hotel room while still having out of state ID. But seeing you have no problems with it I see you don't care about it.

These latest cases show the practices in place don't prevent nor does it catch those that do it. The very fact these were identified by people not affiliated with law enforcement or voter protection should raise eyebrows for all who are concerned with voter integrity and the need to have tighter enforcement protections from these illegal actions.

Concernedless stated "you are doing it again, by calling me a "she?" Now...how would you know any such a thing? You tried calling me a "she" on another article once."
-
You ignored my response at that time as well; if you want it different speak up. Since you behave in one fashion I was being polite addressing you in that fashion, to me it is more polite than calling you it. But if you prefer "it", let me know.

RAF,
You're whole argument hinges on three ALLEGED cases of voter fraud that would have been considered illegal under the previous law. You can only speculate that these three would have been prevented from voting had the new law been in place at the time that they voted. And, once again, cost benefit analysis suggests that your supposed voter fraudsters are still not cause to completely revamp a system that, by all recent studies and investigations, was working just fine. If you want to continue to stand behind big government Republicanism, I suggest you start waving the flag proudly instead of trying to apologize for it. It doesn't lend much credibility to your cause...kind of like when you post Politifact articles that actually prove those that you argue against to be completely correct.

concernedperson, he does that to me as well. It seems like very misogynistic behavior and I'm saddened with the message it sends to women that they are less of a person and/or not as strong of a person simply because they are female.

RAF: I see you are doing it again, by calling me a "she?" Now, RAF, how would you know any such a thing? You tried calling me a "she" on another article once. Pray tell, what is your proof of this? Methinks you stepped in something big.

RAF said, "Walter the fact is the new law would have prevented the last three KNOWN cases of this fraud."
-
RAF, courts try the facts, not bloggers. Perhaps one or more of these three people have been found guilty by a court. If so, can you provide a source showing their convictions. If not, please let us know there has been no finding by a court of any wrong-doing. Also, could you address my question to you from 2:05PM today? Thanks.

Walter the fact is the new law would have prevented the last three KNOWN cases of this fraud. The same fraud i must remind you that never removes an illegal vote after it is cast. The very idea these latest cases were not identified by the previous existing laws and people you claim are doing enough and all that is needed should cast a light on your arguments and the short comings of the current system. In reference to the Milwaukee task force those individuals on the task force have a differing view of what you expressed. In fact on of those members was so upset over the shutdown he retired.

RAF,
The voter task force was shut down because it was unnecessary. In fact, one of the conclusions from the AG and DOJ task force's investigation into voter fraud during the 2008 election was that shutting down groups like the one you mentioned was the right move because voter fraud was such an infrequent occurrence. Again, the people handling what voter fraud there is were doing just fine without any new laws or task forces or whatever other ideas these big government Republicans seem to keep throwing money into. As for your 3 SEIU folks being reported by a citizen or news source or what have you, imagine that. A crime being reported to the proper authorities that otherwise would have gone unnoticed. Gee, that's never happened before. You're really breaking new ground here, RAF. You should be given an award or something. It sure is great that we have this new oppressive law. Regular folks like you and me could never have reported voter fraud before. I'm sure glad our special little boy Scotty threw enough money at this non-existent problem so now we have the "tools" to stop it.

I need to make it clear to all you righties that in the Politifact article it is stated that other people including the President that have used the term "privatize" or "voucherize" in reference to Ryan's plan for Medicare are speaking factually and that the program proposed by Paul Ryan would cost those covered under the plan much more than the current plan does. It's important to read more than just the first few sentences to get the whole gist of the article. I know it's hard when you're just so eager to start patting yourselves on the back.

Gandalf; Your link is some one elses OPINION.
The link plainly states at the top, "New York Times Opinion."
Sharing the same opinion does not a fact make.

RAF said, "The idea behind the law is stop these actions before they become criminals. [...] After all are all other criminals caught 100% of the time? Are all speeders caught? Are all people that park in handicap stalls without permits caught? Are all rapists caught? Are all white caller criminals caught? Are all illegal actions by elected or appointed government officials caught?"
-
RAF, do you believe that all people who commit voter fraud after implementation of the new photo voter ID law will be caught and convicted?

Imagine that, the cry wolf remarks from the fringe left on Ryan's plan for medicare has been named the lie of the year...

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/pol...

"Jim Crow by any other name is Voter ID"
-
Yeah I heard that many times from the left fringe. Not surprisingly the US supreme court has previously rules voter ID laws fail the Crow law requirement, since all voters are treated equally. But please keep echoing false notions, there still might be one or two people left that might believe you.

Walter interestingly enough, the only reason the three connected to SEIU are being investigated is because they were discovered by people other than law enforcement or prosecutors from doing what they did.

Keep pretending the current laws are enough...

http://mediatrackers.org/2011/10/uncover...

" The resources necessary to investigate such cases were never being stretched thin by any means."
-
Guess you missed the reasons the voter task force in Milwaukee was shut down ~6 years ago.

Using fear of possible law violations as an excuse to deny people access to the voting both means that you are a traitor to a country that espouses innocence until guilt is proven. Nice going Republican traitors.

Jim Crow by any other name is Voter ID.

RAF,
That's funny. I've been very clear that I believe voter fraud to be wrong. I believe that it is a problem that was already being handled adequately. Those 3 people from the SEIU are being investigated just as you've said. The resources necessary to investigate such cases were never being stretched thin by any means. The system was working. There was no reason to commit more resources that many are claiming the state is low on to a problem that was already being handled. Again, basic cost benefit analysis proves this.
Now there are people implementing the new laws that are encouraging voter fraud among disenfranchised voters and Republican party representatives are praising the behavior. It has become clear that the intent of the new law was not to prevent voter fraud. If the worry was that fraudulent ballots would cancel legitimate ones, why not err on the side of enfranchisement, keep the previous standards for voting in place, and set questionable votes aside for investigation? If the vote is found to be fraudulent, it counts. If not, the person would be subject to prosecution. A very simple system that may have required more resources too, but the possibility for voter suppression is all but removed.

Walter protecting every persons vote is important. One fraudulant ballot is too many and this becomes frighteningly clear during recounts and close electons. Tragically 3 people conected with the SEIU and part of the last recall circus were caught and are being investigated for this very thing. The biggest problem with that once they cast a ballot, fraudulent or not, it still counts. Funny how you claim suppression fear, thinking others won't be able to vote but you have no issues when these same voters have their votes negated by a possible fraudulent ballot.

RAF aka master of feigned ignorance,
The point here is that based on the small number of those charged and the smaller number that are convicted, the only reasonable conclusion here is that the standards and laws already in place were adequate in dealing with the problem. The assumption that others have committed voter fraud and gotten away with it is reasonable, but does that make throwing a significant amount of taxpayer money at the process of law making and new law implementation worth it? One doesn't have to be intimately familiar with cost benefit analysis to realize that the answer to that question is a resounding no. Which is why I must ask again: doesn't this whole law fly in the face of fiscal conservatism, which, from what has been said, is very important to the Walker administration and you as well?

someone should step back and read the posts again. See who's acting like what.

Poo try to get to a point. Conviction numbers are hardly disputable. Neither is total voting numbers. In your lame tap dance to get to a valid point, let me guess, suspected price per conviction versus cost of implication of the law.

The idea behind the law is stop these actions before they become criminals. In order for your lame tap dance to have any credibility you must declare those convicted are the only instances of the action. That is a big leap. After all are all other criminals caught 100% of the time? Are all speeders caught? Are all people that park in handicap stalls without permits caught? Are all rapists caught? Are all white caller criminals caught? Are all illegal actions by elected or appointed government officials caught?

Since people are still committing these offenses and it is easy to assume more acts occur than are caught before you can attempt to tap dance your way into drawing up a fictitious figure per convictions in the past feel free to try to calculate how many are never caught. Or you can keep your head in the sand and just keep tap dancing when you're not trolling.

I'm going to help out a friend here, RAF. The answer is 2,983,417 votes. The difference between Obama and McCain was 414,818 votes. 7 fraudulent vote convictions.
-
I think you know where this is going, Raffy, but you're going to have to wait until later this afternoon.

RAF, I'm glad we agree that Walter's data are correct and only seven voter fraud convictictions resulted from the 2008 presidential election in Wisconsin. RAF, how many votes total were cast in that election in the state of Wisconsin?

Already answered troll...guess you can't be a man after all.

Happily. RAF, do you agree with the data that Walter has provided on the number of voter fraud convictions in the state of Wisconsin during the 2008 presidential election?

we us our? You do have problems.

Be a man, if you have a question just step up and ask one.

You didn't dispute Walter's data but you never agreed with them either. I want you to acknowledge that Walter's data are correct. Then we can use that as our basis for further discussion about the need and costs of the new photo voter ID law.

Oh so sorry, change my wording of "we" to "us". I would hate to cause you too much stress.

Interesting game troll, since I never disputed Walter’s data on convictions? Please explain who the "we" is in your question.

1) Do you have multiple personalities?

2) Are you posting under different user names?

3) Is someone in the basement with helping you with these difficult questions?

4) All the above.

More diversion. This is very simple, RAF. The data Walter provided showed 9 people being charged and 7 of those people being convicted for voter fraud. You can NOW do one of four things:
-
1) you can say, "I agree that Walter's data is correct."
-
2) you can supply your own data
-
3) you can ignore us
-
4) you can continue with your diversions

Now you say "All we want is the data" and before you said "Walter has presented data". Troll as soon as you make up your mind try again.

Just asking you to produce the data. Call it what you will, RAF. All we want is the data.

poo I see you're out trolling again this time with concernedless at your heels, you two make good company. One of you can call mayors from out of state and the other can play the echo machine; regurgitating comments made by others since she has no thoughts of her own.

Well, RAF, we are all waiting, waiting, waiting, for your answer.

RAF, you've been asked multiple times over the last week to substantiate the number of voter fraud convictions in the state of Wisconsin and have failed to do so. Each time, you use subterfuge and diversion instead of providing the data.
-
All we are asking you to do is tell readers how many people were convicted of voter fraud in the last presidential election or gubernatorial election (your choice), how many total votes were cast and the vote difference between the top two vote contenders.
-
Then we can talk about the cost of Walker's photo voter ID bill in preventing those people from voting using a cost per fraudulent vote figure. We'll let the readers decide if the law is worth the money taxpayers will be spending to implement and comply with the new law, while keeping in mind the vote difference between the top two vote contenders.
-
Walter has presented data - all you have to say is that you agree with his data or present your own sources. Why are you so reluctant to provide us with this data or to agree with Walter's data?

So the argument you make claiming one party wants people to wither and die that you cant supstantiate is fine. The idea that you claim suppression by a law already in place in other states will cause harm here when you cant show it happened in those states is okay. But when you have seen real cases of convicted voter fraud combined with current cases where it still is going on you want to put your head in the sand and claim its not a problem. Only you and the cry wolf crowd can justify that logic.

RAF,
We get it. You're all about blaming the victims. You've said so. My pal was speaking on people his age because eventually we all end up his age if we're lucky to make it that far. He is fully aware of the difficulty that seniors would have in attempting to purchase private health insurance on the private market with the measly voucher in Ryan's plan. If Congress had been willing to get any where near Ryan's plan, the changes wouldn't be in the future. The fact remains that if anybody could come up with a privatization plan for Medicare that didn't completley gut the benefits, the GOP might have us heading down that road. Fortunately for all of us, that kind of right wing social engineering has not only been dismissed by Newt Gingrich because of the ire it drew from the American people, the rest of the Republican party backed off of it long ago as well. To believe that there is no possible way to sustain Medicare in its current form is silly. The argument that the only way to save Medicare is to do away with it makes no sense. The voucher idea leads to the withering and dying when the voucher runs out after 2-3 months.
That's all I've got for ya, RAF. Enough of this deflection. I've presented you with evidence of voter suppression through defacto poll taxes. You still have not presented any evidence of a deeper threat of voter fraud that would necessitate this additional layer of protection through taxpayer funded law making and implementation. In fact, I've presented evidenc that people tasked with implementing and enforcing the new laws have actually been encouraging more voter fraud. You've yet to really address any of this. I don't expect you to. I don't believe that you are capable.

So walter did he say one party wanted him to wither and die or was he worried how one persons idea to keep a program fiscally viable with future changes that didn't effect his coverage. Nothing proposed suggests poeople would wither and die, i wonder where he got this idea from?

That's just it. Ryan isn't making these programs available for the future. His plan is privatization. Privatizing social security and medicare doesn't save them. It ends them. Of course, he is counting on many people to not figure out his manipulative scheme. People are smarter than that. Ryan gives them no credit whatsoever.

There is no reason these programs cannot be saved. Of course, the 1% might have to contribute something. And, oh my goodness, we know how that might hurt their great big pocketbooks!

That's just it. Ryan isn't making these programs available for the future. His plan is privatization. Privatizing social security and medicare doesn't save them. It ends them. Of course, he is counting on many people to not figure out his manipulative scheme. People are smarter than that. Ryan gives them no credit whatsoever.

There is no reason these programs cannot be saved. Of course, the 1% might have to contribute something. And, oh my goodness, we know how that might hurt their great big pocketbooks!

dumbledorf, your request seems a bit disingenuous considering your multiple posts on many of the articles concerning teachers and education. Sorry, back to my Wii. And one and two and stretch and exhale...

it's too bad that the usual people on the gazette seem to think that they are going to solve the worlds view by posting on a small city website. Cant you all just post once and then go exercise or something?...wow.

This thread needs to be brought back to ground zero and RAF held accountable to provide substantiation of rampant voter and registration fraud he was asked to provide almost one week ago.
-
Walter said, "RAF, You are still yet to prove that voter fraud that has gone undetected is running rampant to the point that a significant amout of taxpayer funded resources are necessary in addition to what has already been spent. The task force organized by AG Van Hollen and joined by the DOJ charged 20 people with voter fraud in the '08 Pres election. 11 felons that voted would not have been detected under the new law. 6 were charged because of registration misconduct, 2 voted twice, and 1 guy got a ballot with his dead wife's name to fulfill her dying wish of voting for Obama. That is 9 people that may not have gotten by the new law. 9 people were charged. I believe 7 were convicted. This clearly does not necessitate another "layer of protection". Not at the taxpayers' expense. I figured you for a conservative, but you seem ready to throw money at a problem that is, for all intents and purposes, already solved."

When faced with the decision to let Medicare and Social Security go broke or make changes that would make these programs available for the future, the Democrat chooses to let them go broke.
When Paul Ryan makes a proposal, a starting point for change, the Democrat latches on to parts he/she doesn't like and declares that no discussion will be forthcoming.
.
Gandalf; Anything that meets with your disagreement is declared hate speech. Again you demonstrate the failings of hate speech laws.

RAF,
The other commenters here are already making this point, but I wanted to address the issue you took with the comments from the elderly gentleman that I assist. He is worried about the Republican use of the financial difficulties Medicare is faced with as an excuse to push a ridiculous voucher program (right wing social engineering as the current GOP nomination front runner has called it) that would more than likely be extremely ineffective in providing seniors with the quality of life that they enjoy under the Medicare program.

As a radio show host his opinion matters as little as ed shultz. As i said people from both sides say crazy things about medical issues. Taking that and then claiming one party wants old people to die early is just as nuts. This smells just like one of those loony campaign comercials stating one party wants to take away peoples medicare and social security. As i said more from the boy who cried wolf crowd.

Walter, the full transcript you quoted was also in the video i posted. The fact is many people from both political parties have stated silly comments on medical issues. But for someone to claim one party wants others to die is more from the boy calling wolf parade you have fallen prey to.

RAF,
Nice try, but Politifact was all over that load of BS about Obama's surgery vs. pill comment a long time ago:
"Looking at the full transcript, it’s clear that Obama voluntarily brought up the example of having to choose between a surgery and a pill. But he did so as a hypothetical example of difficult decisions about medical treatment for older patients. He was not advocating, much less requiring, bureaucrats to make a potentially life-ending decision for a centenarian."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...
Here's an in context quote from that TV special:
“And all we're suggesting — and we're not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going to have to be, we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller. And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decisions, and that — that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care, that's something we can achieve.”
Surgery of any sort for people that are 100 years old or older is, in many cases, not a viable option. Any realistic person knows that including people of that age. You can distort the facts and take words out of context all you want, RAF. That's why I train senior citizens to make use of wonderful sites like Politifact whenever they are questioning the credibility of GOP parrots like yourself. They love it. Older people often want to be as informed as possible. Fortunately, many of them are now realizing that that is exactly the opposite of what the Republican party wants them to be.

mooshoo, please continue to go through life believing you know what all people think/want.

Walter your personal poll is interesting. Counter to your claims all of my elderly relatives do have ID's and copies of birth certs, they are all over 70 except one. The crying from the left has reached the level of the boy crying wolf; they have done it for so long on things that have never happened that most people ignore them all now.

"Democrat, ever since the Republicans decided I was a liability to society because I'd rather stay healthy than wither and die"
-
LOL, yeah okay. Well don't show your coffee clutch this video clip.

President Obama said perhaps some should not have [the] surgery and just take a pain killer when talking about elderly patients.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rin4h4cRs...

RAF,
Your comments betray you. Not only have your words clearly outed you as a person lacking a moral compass, but they also prove you have no sense of historical perspective. When Ruthelle Frank was married 58 years ago, it was not always necessary to provide a birth certificate in order to obtain a marriage license. In fact, it was not always necessary to obtain a marriage license at all. In many instances church records were all that were required to for marriages. Things today are not as they were 60 years ago. Do you really have to be told that, RAF? As time went by and tax implications became involved, it was those church records that were provided in order to obtain the paper work making the marriage fully legal. In fact, in the church group I'm involved with at a local senior community I took an informal poll. Out of the attendees there was a group of 8 men and women that had gotten married 50 years ago or more. Not a single one of them had been required to provide a birth certificate to get married. Not a single one of them had a copy of their birth certificate nor had they ever needed it for anything. 5 out of 8 of them have no state ID. Of the 3 that do have a state ID, 2 of them knew their id's wouldn't be valid for voting purposes. The one that believed his would be valid didn't know why he ever got it or where it was because, "What do I need an ID for at my age? After voting for 40 years why am I suddenly considered untrustworthy because I don't have a little plastic card?" is how he put it.
"How do you normally vote?", I asked.
"Democrat, ever since the Republicans decided I was a liability to society because I'd rather stay healthy than wither and die" was his response.
"Well, that's why", I said.

RAF said, "poo for someone that echoes the left fringe OWSDEM line, has a history of redefining "you", stands by a party leader thinking the meaning of "is" needs to be defined in a deposition, and the latest goody form the US attorneys general claiming a lie depends on the intention of the person regardless of the words used its utterly not surprising you are so easily confused."
-
1) Republicans complain that OWS doesn't know what they want or stand for. How can anyone echo their "line" if they don't have one?
-
2) you apparently were unaware that "you" and "your" can be singular or plural. I didn't redefine them, I taught you something new.
-
3) never have I supported the actions or legal maneuvering of Bill Clinton in regard to his scandal with Lewinsky. I challenge you to find one comment where I've condoned his behavior in that scandal.
-
4) what about the latest goody? All you've done is hoped to associate it with me by mentioning it. Again, where are any comments I've made in reference to my position on that matter?
-
I do, indeed, have one of your comments I'd like you to explain. You said, "All victims look to blame someone else for something that was eazy to fix at the time." Can you tell us what the easy fix is for the 21,000 children under the age of five who will die of preventable causes today and who are these young children and babies blaming? Can you tell us what the easy fix is for sexual abuse victims around the world and who they will blame? What about the victims of cancer and other dreadful diseases? What is the easy fix for them and who are they blaming?

"The real issue liberals have with voter ID is the inability to offer cigarettes to homeless to vote."
One of the top ten most ignorant statements ever posted on this site.

poo for someone that echoes the left fringe OWSDEM line, has a history of redefining "you", stands by a party leader thinking the meaning of "is" needs to be defined in a deposition, and the latest goody form the US attorneys general claiming a lie depends on the intention of the person regardless of the words used its utterly not surprising you are so easily confused. Btw, isn't there some mayor you need to call on the west coast to show your support of other criminals? Or you and the msnbc peanut gallery can keep looking for other victims created by their own inaction.

RAF, you're either or a troll and/or had another one of your moments where your propensity for partisanship anger overpowered what commonsense you have with a comment like, "All victims look to blame someone else for something that was eazy to fix at the time." I'm actually going to give you the benefit of doubt and call it a case of the latter in which after Walter bested you in the debate you let partisanship anger overwhelm your commonsense and made an absolutely ignorant statement.

poo go troll somewhere else.

RAF, in your last comment you did not qualify or walk back your statement that, "All victims look to blame someone else for something that was eazy to fix at the time." Does this mean you completely stand behind that statement?

Laughable. She is married correct? In order to get a marrage licence takes a birth cert. Do you really think the didnt see it then? She has a social security card right? The spaelling on that card comes from either a marrage cert or birth cert. Keep pretending this has never been an issue till today. Ignoring problems is not a fix. As for your apparently over zealous belief on my thoughts, well they are as accurate as your other positions. Everyone has empathy for a situation she didn't cause, apparent misspelling, but she has took the position her whole life not to fix it. So the fact remains she has been spelling her name legality wrong if she never changed it.

RAF,
How would she possibly know what was recorded at her birth? I'm sure you remember the events that took place at your birth with crystal clarity, right? She's never had any need for her birth certificate, so how would she know that her name was recorded incorrectly? It doesn't matter what her legal name is if her legal name is incorrect. That was not her mistake. She shouldn't have to pay for the correction, and she certainly shouldn't have to pay for it in order to vote.
I have to admit, I'm really glad that you cleared something up for me when you wrote:
"All victims look to blame someone else for something that was eazy to fix at the time."
Before I could only speculate that you were a heartless cretin with a dark hole filled only with malevolence where a normal person's soul would be. However, with those words you have indeed confirmed those suspicions. I now have every reason to believe, based on your apparent "blame the victim" philosophy on life, that you're one of those people that thinks that when a woman is raped that she was asking for it.

RAF said, "All victims look to blame someone else for something that was eazy to fix at the time."
-
All victims? Do you want to walk that statement back before I ask you about different victims throughout history?

Look the three biggest msnbc lapdogs can't understand basic facts. Whatever spelling was recorded at her birth is her legal name. Pretending now its a problem when before it wasnt is absurd. Her parents and her obviously knew about the problem over 80 years ago. Legally her name is what is recorded, to change her name costs her as much as anyone wanting to legally change theirs. All victims look to blame someone else for something that was eazy to fix at the time. But holding walker at fault meets the fringe argument of the day.

I know that the 3-4 hours a week that I watch FOX news has fried my brain but just maybe I'll get a substantive response this time.
The real issue liberals have with voter ID is the inability to offer cigarettes to homeless to vote.
Bringing a busload of senior citizens from the old folks home or senior center at a moments notice will be more challenging with voter ID.
It's not the fraud, though it does exist, it's the curtailing of manipulating voters in the 11th hour that bothers the liberals.

RAF has erred on every issue regarding the photo voter ID law and has failed to provide sources to substantiate any of his claims. He no longer offers a valid argument, only subterfuge and diversion, and has made himself irrelevant.

Walter: Thanks for your great post.

It is absolutely unbelievable that some people cannot grasp this simple fact. You have put it pretty simply, if you ask me. Then again, maybe deep inside themselves, they know the truth but will never admit it. This is voter disenfranchisement in its highest form, and most people know it. The far right has concocted this trick to win elections and that's all there is to it, plain and simple. They don't want all segments of the American people to be able to vote.

Under George w. Bush our country moved backwards, and now the far right is trying to take us back even further. THIS IS NOT ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT ALL AMERICANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE. IT IS ABOUT CONTROL.

RAF,
Real nice. You try to come off so high and mighty every time you attack another commenter, yet you have the gall to attack the mental capacity of an elderly woman. She serves on the village board for God's sake. Your family must be so very proud of the final product you've turned out to be. And is it really that hard for you to grasp the very basic facts involved in Ms. Frank's case, or are you just feigning ignorance again for the upteenth time?
Ruthelle Frank has been using the correct spelling of her name in every aspect of her life including the 63 years in which she has been voting. She's never had or needed a birth certificate before in her life, so she never knew that the attending physician at her home birth misspelled her name which led to the register of deeds misspelling her name as well. She only found out about it because of Scott Walker's voter suppression bill. Now she'll have to spend at least $200 to petition the court to amend the spelling on the register of deeds document to get a birth certificate that actually has her name on it. To top it all off, county officials are encouraging her to purchase the inaccurate document for $20 and then knowingly attempt to get an ID to vote. If she were successful, do you know what that is called? VOTER FRAUD! I thought that's what our special little boy Scottie was against. Now it turns out those enforcing his laws have been instructed to advise citizens to commit voter fraud. If voter fraud was their big concern, why are they promoting it?

You worrying about my backside raises many concerns.

Walter you drank the koolaid and swallowed the MSNBC bait on this one. However her name is spelled on the documents/records, in this case birth, that is her legal name. She is in her 80's and now worried her name is legally different than the name she has been using her whole life, this is your idea of a reasoned and rational person? Perhaps you need to step away from the rachel madness and begin thinking for yourself. That is unless you enjoy being led around by your nose and told what to get upset over.

Midnight… all of the sources you have provided are very biased sites.
Wikipedia “The Blaze is a conservative news and opinion website launched on August 31, 2010, by American media personality and former Fox News host Glenn Beck's Mercury Radio ...”
Mediaite is a blog site. They do not cite any of their sources
breitbart....when clicking on the “About us” there is no information provided but we all know that breitbart is far right wing
Fox news, the Heritage Foundation, …no need to go there
Conservatives are not the only ones on this site that reference biased sites. Referencing MSNBC is just as biased.
DON’T ANY OF YOU PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH? Research the issues using unbiased sites and independent studies regarding the issues. Everyone seems to call others who do not share their opinion as “sheeples”. There are very few people who post on this site who bother to use legitimate sources for their news or seem to be willing to analyze information for themselves. I realize many people do not understand statistical data, but it is usually summarized in laymen’s terms. Unlike others on this site I prefer to spend a few hours researching the issues , analyzing and then forming MY OWN opinion, not letting the “talking heads” tell me what I think. It does the country no good when people seek out information from sites that they know will reiterate what they want to believe whether or not it is fact. I do go to links provided by both sides but before I read the articles I research the site as far as who are the founder’s, where do they get their financing, what is their mission statement, then I decide if I want to read the article. If the author of an article does not cite their sources I don’t read it. Voting for our representatives based on false information has been proven to be disastrous for the country, PLEASE INFORM YOURSELVES. STOP ALLOWING YOURSELVES TO BE MISINFORMED.

RAF,
One more thing. No, Ruthelle Frank can not get a birth certificate "just like everyone else". If you had actually paid close attention to the clip, you would know that. It doesn't cost everyone else $200 to get a birth certificate just so they can vote. Interesting how you just laugh it off. That says a lot about how you feel about the rights of anyone but yourself.

RAF,
The problem isn't that she has to pay for a birth certificate. It's that she has to pay for it in order to exercise her right to vote. That is a de facto poll tax. For people of limited means that could be burdensome to the point where they do not vote. That is voter suppression. The fact that you choose not to recoqnize this is, while not surprising, a sad comment on the lengths the right will go to pull the wool over the eyes of others immediately before doing it to themselves as well.
By the way, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss MSNBC. A number of ads being released by the GOP nomination front runners to go after their opponents feature some MSNBC personalities. Interesting how Republicans will stand behind these journalist who they would normally disparage in order to cast doubt about the legitimacy of political rivals within their own party.
Hey, there's Ed Schultz in that really cool Ron Paul ad:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/ron-paul-...

"evidence of voter suppression"
-
LOL. Yeah okay. She was born, right? She can get a legal birth cert just like everyone else, right? She can get an ID proving who she is, right? Those claiming victim status want to be victims.

FYI, someday when she is no longer here, her benefactors and/or family, friends, or other loved ones will need to purchase a cert to have proof of her passing as well. I suggest if you think paying for these types of services are a hardship, suggest to your local representative to sponsor a bill to make these services free. Until then she is being treated just like everyone else; her choice to participate or not.

RAF,
A little late to the party aren't ya? Why don't you go ahead and enlighten us all as to the obscenity of my comment. Also, using the word "lemmings" doesn't really mean a whole lot if that's your only rebuttal to the video providing you with the evidence of voter suppression that you so cravenly demanded.

"Maybe one of the 450 people losing their jobs at the Wausau paper mill can help her out with that. No voter suppression? Yeah, right. Just like we're "open for business"."
-
The ignorance of the left fringe is getting obscene.

Robot you don't get it. The video is from MSNBC so the lemmings are doing what they are told...

Don't stop them from their important job.

They might be from a red area of the state, but they're calling the blue area for their unemployment checks. Who's the mook now?

Robotstruisto,
Remember how I told you I work for a certain state agency involved with the accuracy of unemployment numbers? I wasn't lying. That's your job. Try again.

Mooshoo, do you know what the difference is between you and a monkey?
-
You can house-train a monkey, but they still don't make a good pet.

Mooshoo, do us all a favor and go blind.

Yeah, Walt. You are sooooooooooooo North woods. People up there hate you liberals. You are not smarter than they are. They hate you, and the fact that you run their lives from Madison and Milwaukee. That's why the only blue areas of the state are AROUND Madison and Milwaukee (or the rest of the lakefront South of Milwaukee). To them, you are nothing but a bunch of elitist, tofu-eatin' prius drivin' socialists. And they are right about that.

And Walt, it's more like 250. You've never been there, so you don't even know. You are just a parrot for the media.

The mill is in Brokaw, mook. I know 20 people who'll give her two bills to be able to vote. I'll make some calls.
-
Mooshoo, you are an evil person and your mother hates you.

Anti: You are right. We are going back to Jim Crow days. It's too bad more people don't see what is going on.

Robotstruisto,
Obviously you don't know Ruthelle Frank's story. You must not have watched the video that I posted the link to. I'm not surprised. Ruthelle needs two hundred dollars to get the necessary documentation just to get the ID to vote. Maybe one of the 450 people losing their jobs at the Wausau paper mill can help her out with that. No voter suppression? Yeah, right. Just like we're "open for business".
Here's the video AGAIN so people can inform themselves. Get used to seeing Ruthelle.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#45...

Ruthelle won't have any problem finding a kind soul to help her out in Brokaw (which by the way, is where I just moved from..). Any one of her five neighbors would probably take care of it. If not them, someone else from Wausau would help her, rather than just bitch about it like people do here in good old Janesville. If you are so upset about it, Walter, why don't you drive up there and get her an I.D.?? You don't know anything about Northern Wisconsin people, so forget it. They don't like you or anyone else from Southern Wisconsin because there are too many people down here that want to tell them how to live their lives from the area around the Peoples Republic of Madison and Milwaukee. Next.

Ruthelle Frank. Brokaw, WI. She cannot vote without paying because of new voter ID law.

kaysbrew said, "Way to back track poobah. Thank you for my confirmation"
-
Do you care to explain yourself? Perhaps give one example of where I've backtracked? Or are you just going to throw a few more barbs like RAF and midnight_rider and hope they stick?

RAF, you were wrong. Others use the VIC for voter registration. You said nobody used it except the VA. That's wrong.
-
You are also wrong about me not acknowledging the Supreme Court upholding Indiana's voter ID law. I clearly included the fact the Supreme Court upheld that law and pointed out a MAJOR difference between the Indiana law and the Wisconsin law - the provisional ballot that allows anyone to cast a vote with name and address only and then go to a circuit court to sign an affidavit to have their vote counted. It's the chief mitigating factor the Supreme Court cited in allowing Indiana's voter ID law to stand -- people had an alternative to having a state driver license or other approved ID's while voting. Not the case with Wisconsin's provisional ballot.
-
Whenever you've trapped yourself in your claims that are contradicted by the facts, you bring up the personal insults -- troll, peaking out from under your keyboard, etc. Why can't you carry on an intelligent, civilized conversation that is grounded in fact?

Way to back track poobah. Thank you for my confirmation

poo the troll is peaking out from under your keyboard again. In your other posting your direct quote was "And may we have your opinion on the Wisconsin photo voter ID law having a similar mitigating provisional ballot clause?" You are the one that complained here, crickets, for me not making time to read every one of your posts. So I did answer your previous post. I then said " You skipped right over where it was ruled requiring an ID was not unconstitutional. If you want to play games over how one states wording is slightly different go ahead. So far nothing in the current law was previously ruled against and there is nothing new in this law."

Now you are back playing the troll game...move along I have better things to do.

The people that provided the card declared its intended use. Just because other entities want to accept means nothing. New York state accepts a fishing license at times for an ID doesn't mean all states should too. The fact is you wrongly implied veterans will be suppressed because a VA ID card, declared by the VA "only for the purpose of identification and check-in for VA appointments" can't be used for voting. Guess what blue cross blue shield medical cards can't be used either. This red herring has gone on way to long...

RAF, now your comments are just becoming ridiculous to the point of being disingenuous. You just said, "You skipped right over where it was ruled requiring an ID was not unconstitutional."
-
I CLEARLY indicated the Supreme Court UPHELD the other state's voter ID law when I said, "Walter, RAF has not yet responded to a reply on the other voter ID article that he quoted regarding the Supreme Court upholding another state's voter ID law." I quoted the mitigating factor YOU had quoted that the state had in place which was the reason the court gave as upholding the law -- provisional ballots. You STILL have not told us if Wisconsin's voter ID law has a similar provision. Hint: don't spend too much time Googling for that.

That is NOT proof the VIC is not used for identification purposes by others. That is merely a quote from the VA showing for what purposes the VA uses the card. If others choose to accept it -- states, counties, cities, businesses, etc. that is up to those entities. I can show you specific examples of government entities and businesses that accept the VIC as identification. But I'm going to let you Google for those. Oh, and you'll find government entities, outside of the Federal government and the VA, that accept VICs for voter registration. Hint: look west young man. Happy Googling, RAF!

poo thats all you took away from the supreme courts previous ruling? You skipped right over where it was ruled requiring an ID was not unconstitutional. If you want to play games over how one states wording is slightly different go ahead. So far nothing in the current law was previously ruled against and there is nothing new in this law.

poo your claim of wanting proof shows clearly you ignored the proof I already provided, no big surprise really you often ignore facts and continue your rantings.

From the previously supplied link from the VA:
"The card is only for the purpose of identification and check-in for VA appointments."

http://www.va.gov/healtheligibility/Libr...

Walker donor arrested. But readers aren't allowed to express their speech about it. http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-ne...

How do Republicans take us back to the Dark Ages? By simply re-labeling common terms. The estate tax is the death tax; then it is repealed and returns us to aristocracy. Voter ID takes us back to Jim Crow where barrier after barrier prevent enfranchisement. To them an embryo is a child and that allows them to make women slaves to their laws.

Jim Crow by another name is Voter ID.

midnight_ride, let me make this as simple as possible for you. kaysbrew said hatred is a word not in the conservative vocabulary. I gave an example of a conservative who speaks hatred. I never said ALL Christians or ALL conservatives speak hatred. You're the one who broadened my comment about one church and one man to include the entire Christian faith! I never made that generalization. Before jumping to reply, please think about what I just said.

Midnight ride,
Way to go. You posted a link about a 2004 election investigation. A more recent investigation from the 2008 election showed voter fraud to be occurring in .0007% of votes cast. You might want to catch up on your current events. Then you posted an article that clearly states "Alleged voter fraud" in the headline. Do you have any actual information?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...

It is a good thing to protect voter integrity

Walter (and Gandalf). You are wrong. I did read all three links (I have a thirst for knowledge). This is my reasonable and credible response.
Two of the links parroted The original (.pdf) poll.
This was a reletively small poll taken in New Jersey.The poll shows that watchers of other networks (MSNBC, CNN) were weak on some subjects while FOX viewers were weak on others.
The data seemed good but the gratuitous charts at the end to besmirch FOX is why I "spouted off with a half baked insult about credibility"
.
NOTE: This is your condescension Quote"I just hope you realize that's what I think about every time I have a conversation with a conservative stupid enough to admit they get any of their informaion from Fox News."End Quote

http://www.breitbart.tv/nbc-news-ed-schu...

more mis-information from MSNBC

Happy about the good things but not harmful about the other party. Thank you both for proving everything I just said

Don't forget Rupert Murdoch owns Fox news, and he has stated (or should I say testified) that Fox news only reports what they are told to report. What they do report is skewed. Many important things are left out. When they report only what they are told to report, then then the complete truth is absent. IMO

http://media2.620wtmj.com/breakingnews/E...

Full police report on democrat fraud

http://nation.foxnews.com/voter-fraud/20...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-reports...

mis-information on NMNBC and now apologizes- seems even left wing media CAN go too far

http://nation.foxnews.com/chuck-todd/201...

No poobah, you are the one being closed minded and typical to group one that isn't conservative and offer none as proof with the entire christian faith. More mis-information as usual. I'll tune into MSNBC today, maybe they can feed my mind with more "evil"ness
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/chris-ma...

Mathrews for example could just ask why do you suppose they deny climate change. No, MSNBC is very good with angry and hateful adjectives which I do not hear on Fox. I do watch MSNBC to see what is being said and it's mostly garbage which is disproved again and again.

Walter, RAF has not yet responded to a reply on the other voter ID article that he quoted regarding the Supreme Court upholding another state's voter ID law. However, the court cited the fact that state allowed provisiounal ballots to be cast and the person then would go to court to fill out an affidavit of eligibility. I would still like RAF to show us where such a provisional ballot procedure is allowed in Wisconsin. Such a procedure would help to address the scenario in your previous comment.
-
RAF quoted, "...is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office."
-
And may we have your opinion on the Wisconsin photo voter ID law having a similar mitigating provisional ballot clause?
-
And then the sound of crickets...

If I lose all my personal documents in a house fire 1 day before the election because I was more worried about saving my family members than my identification, will I have enough time to gather the information necessary to be eligible to vote in that election. I don't think so. That is voter suppression.

Ruthelle Frank-disenfranchised voter Brokaw, WI.
Remember her when you try to claim the voter ID law causes no suppression.
***
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#45...
***
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/13...

midnight_ride, I don't care what, if any, Baptist group they are affiliated with. The point is they are a conservative church with a conservative minister and their website and signs are full of HATE. kaysbrew said nothing about private or public sector or being able to control others speech. kaysbrew simply said that hatred is not in the conservative vocabulary. Absolutely a ludicrous claim. Be more careful before you jump into things you haven't taken the time to understand.

Gandolf - so I will be informed when I hear KKK on MSNBC???
Talk about mis-informed!!!!!!!!!

nice try.
The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is an independent Baptist church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Ba...

I see a lot of finger pointing - what's the point? Check out the politicians not the private sector. You can't control the private sector or this site would not exist.

kaysbrew said, "Hatred is a word not in the Conservative vocabulary."
-
I can't link you to the site I want you to see because the URL, which contains the word HATE and a derogatory term, would cause the Gazette to delete my comment. But you can Google your way to the CONSERVATIVE Westboro Baptist Church website and view photos and videos of them protesting at fallen soldier's funerals and carrying signs that say "GOD HATES ...." Fill in the blank, kaysbrew, with the most derogatory words and phrases you can think of. HATE, HATE, HATE plastered all over the CONSERVATIVE website and the signs they carry. And to think that these are the words of a CONSERVATIVE Christian minister. Your statements are pathetic.

RAF said, "The VA ID has never been in use for anything other than its purpose."
-
I would like to see the source of your above claim, because I have found absolute proof to the contrary. There is no way you can substantiate your claim.

Gandolf and poobah. so far the only hatred I've read is from the two of you. You get your facts wrong about the colonial war and you demogog Fox news viewers. You think plantation politics is solely for the blacks. NO no my friends. It's the continued "victims" that you liberals like to kick down, beat down, and throw down. Then promise them if you vote for liberals, things will get better.
Well how long are you going to keep saying that? Are things better? No, they are worse because liberals are on a slow march to get as many people dependent on government as possible.

Hatred is a word not in the Conservative vocabulary. Liberals project it and will always tell you want they think and believe by what they accuse others of.
Open you mind and expand your horizons beyond your liberal crib.

You won't hear disgusting talk like this kind of hatred on Fox - only on liberals channels.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...

As I said red herring. The VA ID has never been in use for anything other than its purpose. Claiming suppression over it is the fringe complaining just to complain.

RAF, it's hardly a wild claim or lazy logic. The Texas voter ID bill which the Wisconsin bill is almost a mirror image of has Republican legislators taking opposite sides over the exclusion of Veterans Identification Cards. Key supporters of that Bill (Republicans) are scurrying to resolve the uproar over this in that state. And I'm quite sure it won't be long before reasonable Republican legislators in Wisconsin and intellectually honest veterans do the same. Interesting read for everyone on the backlash in Texas over this exact same issue. I'm in league with Republican legislators and supporters of the bill there, RAF, that want VICs to be accepted. Isn't that amazing?
-
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_n...

poo the ID card from the VA was never designed, intended, or purposed to provide ID for anything except receiving care from the VA. There is no change in voting with respect to this card, it has never been an ID for anything other than what it was designed and issued for, just like a person having a medical insurance card; the same thing. The fact the person in question lost, misplaced, or can’t find any other identification has nothing to do with the new law. The fact is with the VA card he couldn’t do anything with it before except get care from the VA, that doesn’t change. You claimed the new law is suppressing vets, over a VA ID card, using an ACLU complaint as some sort of relevant proof for your wild claim. The fact is that card was never intended for anything other than its purpose. Your lazy logic falls apart as soon as you realize, ya I know you never will, that card isn’t an ID for anything else either. Next red herring...

RAF said, "Then again providing factual information is not really what all this OWSDEM and recall mania is about."
-
From the link to the STATE document that you provided:
-
The following photo IDs are NOT acceptable for voting purposes:
-- Military Veteran Affairs IDs
-
Everything I said is factual. The state does NOT allow use of Veterans Identification Cards (VIC's) as I said. You tried confusing readers and making it appear I was not being factual by saying the state accepted "ID cards provided by a U.S. uniformed service." These are two different forms of ID we are talking about and you know it. Many veterans keep their VIC because they need them to obtain VA health services for the rest of their life. I'm sure many more veterans pack their ID cards away in scrapbooks, misplace them, etc. This is exactly what happened to the veteran who is a party to the ACLU Complaint -- he has his VIC but not his ID card. Both are photo ID's issued by a government agency.

RAF said, "The ACLU uses the term "Veterans Identification Card"
-
So does the Veterans Administration! The VA document you linked us to clearly calls it a Veterans Identification Card (VIC) exactly as the ACLU calls it in their Complaint.
-
If you take the time to read the Complaint, you will find an example of a veteran who has his Veterans Identification Card. He has no other acceptable form of identification. Supporting the exclusion of VIC's as an acceptable form of identification is another example of throwing veterans under the bus to gain political advantage. I'm amazed anyone, particularly veterans, would allow this to happen. The message being sent to everyone by Walker and the Republican party is that they don't trust the men and women who fought for our country to be trustworthy enough to allow them to register and vote with their Veterans Identification Card. It's just pathetic.

The left fringe is trying to claim vets with identification cards will be suppressed. They bring forth evidence in the form of a law suit, not a ruling, and think because the ACLU says so it must be true. The ACLU uses the term "Veterans Identification Card", interestingly this card is for at VA facilities only and was never intended as identification for any other purpose. In fact ID cards provided by a U.S. uniformed service are acceptable.

http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/pu...

http://www.va.gov/healtheligibility/Libr...

Then again providing factual information is not really what all this OWSDEM and recall mania is about.

Gandalf said "the problem with you and your fellow tea partiers is that you see everyone who doesn't agree with you as an enemy to be attacked."

Then Gandalf stated this "your absurd comments reinforce the studies about Fox News. It's clear you're misinformed about what 'liberal' means, and you certainly don't know what 'conservative' means. However, you do know what hatred means, because you sure spew it enough."

So why do you claim others have a problem attacking when you do the same thing?

Of course we empathize with the poor. That why the government of gravitylensistan doesn't require a birth certificate. You only need time and an ability to understand the system in which you are participating. All administered at government expense. Don't think you can perform the required service because of a disability? Don't worry it is the responsibility of the government to find a way for you to contribute that is within your ability.

Excuse me, Robert, but my father and brother are both veterans and neither of them currently has the proper paperwork to vote. Be careful when you speak for all veterans.

gravity,
Clearly you don't have the ability to empathize with a person with very low income that may not have the money readily available to purchase a copy of their birth certificate in order to get the ID to vote. That's the "system" that you don't seem to understand. I guess in gravitylensistan everyone makes just as much money as you do. You seem a little out of touch with reality. Why don't you go ahead and watch that video I posted below and inform yourself.

Feel free to take away my Democrat card (it's not that useful anyway), but I'm all for restrictive voter laws. I'd like to see more of them. They make you feel disenfranchised? Great. Rise above, or stay out of the decision making process if you are so easily discouraged.

I want stiffer criteria for voting. In gravitylensistan qualification for voting would involve passing a citizenship test and performing at least 2000 hours of community service. In order to vote you should have to demonstrate an understanding of how the system works and an ability to put the welfare of others ahead of your own.

It may be strict, arbitrary, and unfair, but really it no more strict, arbitrary, or unfair than determining your eligibility to vote based on the random time and place at which you arrived on this planet.

Proof of voter suppression cause by voter ID laws. One case from WI in particular. Sad, she seems like such a nice lady.
******
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#45...

vatoloco, this article is about voter suppression. Are you suggesting Democrats have attempted for the last 50 years to suppress the elderly, veterans, homeless and the poor from voting? That runs counter to everything we hear and see on FOX News that accuses Democrats of just the opposite.

Third eye,
I never believed for a second that, when presented with the studies you asked for, you would act like a reasonable, intelligent adult and take the time to read them. Instead, I figured you would spout off with some half-baked insult about the credibility of the study, and that is EXACTLY what you did. Way to go Mr. Predictable. Perhaps you didn't notice that there are 2 different studies there from 2 seperate organizations that conclude nearly the exact same thing. People that watch Fox News are the most misinformed news watching audience in the history of American television. I just hope you realize that's what I think about every time I have a conversation with a conservative stupid enough to admit they get any of their informaion from Fox News.

Walter and Gandalf; Your links say more about you than the issue at hand.
The poll is headed by Clay Ramsey who is part of - http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/?nid=&...

Robot_Lord aka La_Instruisto said, "Leave veterans out of your communist diatribe, poop. We all have I.D."
-
You obviously have not read either the photo voter ID law or the Complaint prior to spouting off. But that surprises none of us. Let me go directly to the sections of the Complaint that address veterans. It will hopefully allow you to understand that your Veteran's Identification Card is NOT accepted for registration and voting purposes. Perhaps once you actually understand what this voter suppression law does you will stand up for yourself and your brothers in arms.
-
93. Class 6 includes all veterans of a uniformed service of the United States who are eligible Wisconsin voters, lack accepted photo ID, and possess a Veterans Identification Card (“VIC”) issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
-
95. ... Additionally, by refusing to accept U.S. government-issued Veterans Identification Cards, Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.

Vote for Ron Paul, 2012.

"It is a cold and calculated attempt to suppress votes of people - elderly, veterans, homeless, poor and others."
-
Leave veterans out of your communist diatribe, poop. We all have I.D. You left hamsters and illegal aliens out of your list, however.

Poobah: Thanks for your kind words.

I post something when I have time. And sometimes there is not enough of that thing called "time."

I see that Kay is back with her usual "gibberish." I believe she has forgotten that Rupert Murdoch owns Fox news, and that he has stated (or should I say testified) that Fox reports "what they are told to report" and nothing more. It is quite evident that Fox news reports things a "bit twisted" and leaves out important things (and the Right knows this, but would never admit to it). So if you want the absolute truth, don't listen to Fox news. It has been stated by others before that those who listen to Fox news are less informed than anyone else. I believe it is self-evident by many statements made by the right. They know it, we know it, and the rest of the world knows it. But, gee, don't expect a rightie to ever admit that. It is against their code.

kaysbrew said, "...plantation politics. keep em down keep em low keep em begging for more."
-
Have you actually read the Complaint, kaysbrew? The classes I mentioned are taken directly from the Complaint. I didn't mention any racial classes, knowing one of you conservatives would scream about it. And despite that, you still replied with the typical racist rant about "plantation politics." Read the Complaint, then try to reply in an educated manner.
-
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2011121...

Gandolf - I could learn so much more listening to crazy Ed and watch him spit all over the camera. Fox news rocks for a reason. It's too bad that Messnbc only has 1/4 of the viewers. Demonizing Fox viewers again. Oh wait, you just said we do that. demogog it

poobah, please stop the liberal plantation politics.
keep em down keep em low keep em begging for more. It's the liberal way.

what am I spinning SB1?

Or is spin your word for the truth hurts?

I invite all of my conservative friends to read the stories of various individuals and how the photo voter ID law has disenfranchised them.
-
http://forwardforliberty.com/2011/12/13/...
-
If you think Walker's voter suppression law is all fun and games, you're sadly mistaken. It is a cold and calculated attempt to suppress the votes of people - elderly, veterans, homeless, poor and others.

The party that went to court in Florida to deny military men and women overseas their right to have their votes counted in 2000, and routinely required ID checks to simply attend their town hall meetings last year, are now complaining about disenfranchisement.

Like I always say, being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry.

So we are supposed to have confidence in studies you present, that were created by people with bias towards a specific ideology. Similar to global warming and other manufactured or manipulated data.

Third eye,
That quote is not condescending. That quote is the truth. Here are some links for you to peruse. I have then saved in my favorites. Good reading:
An article about the 2010 UofMD study
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/study-fox-new...
The study itself
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/p...
Here's the study from this year that shows Fox News viewers are less informed than people that watch no news at all
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/...

The arrests are starting. The walls are starting to close in around Scotty boy. As the info starts to come out, the election draws near. Perhaps the ACLU lawsuit will suspend the voter ID law just in time. Here's to hoping. Cheers!

Ezoner: We are not trying to change the subject. We have to post our comments SOMEWHERE since the Gazette has decided comments are not allowed on the actual article which talks of the arrest of this person.

Gandalf Dec 14, 2011 at 7:21 a.m. Quote "what you fail to acknowledge are the studies that show Fox News viewers are less well-informed than people who watch no news at all." End Quote
Your quote is condescending.
Where can I find these studies?

Gandolf, you sound very much like a conservative in your last post talking about liberals. Look again, the role reversal may surprise you. Especially the name calling. Barbara Boxer, Axelrod, Reid, Pelosi just in the last couple days have spit venom and hatred. And of course lies.

Gandolf, you sound very much like a conservative in your last post. Liberals demonize and demogog. This country was founded on a limited government which is completely and totally opposite of what the liberal/democrats/socialist whatever you call yourself now is against. Get out of the way and let the free market, free thinkers, free doers thrive. Limited is the key not do away with altogether but not completely take over like your Obama and party want.
We stand for freedom of choice, your party stands for do as I say. They want a nanny state and control and dominance. Look again and see what is right in front of you. The American Revolution was to free ourselves from burdensome taxes and oppressive rule of a king. (Obama)would gladly step in if it were not for the revolt you now see in the American people that he is at his lowest EVER approval.

concernedperson, thanks for bringing to our attention the Walker supporter being arrested for failing to cooperate with the probe. I noticed the frequency of your comments dropped way off several weeks ago. Hope all is well and that we see many, many more comments from you.

Gandalf -- you statements and condecending derrogotory comments are an attack themselves. Most liverals are just not accustomed to others defending themselves. BUt the stakes are too high now. Once again - liberals (by your comments) take credit for things they had nothing to do with. Actually the democrats would have been the Tory's. Democrats want to re-write history, misdirect, and apply any means possible. The worst are the progressives. By the way -- progressive are on both sides of the aisle. Which is why Romney would never be elected. He is just a more right leaning version of what we already have.

I guess I thought this discussion was about voter ID -- so the misdirection once again to another subject comes into play opposed to taking the time to undertsand why an ID is the best path forward.

So -- the law is in place, the people had spoken (elected officials). Now its time to move forward and determine the best way to proceed. If you want something different, vote in the next election. Liberal voices should be heard at the ballot box , just as conservative voices were heard in the last vote.

Jim Crow is alive and well in Wisconsin.

Just another big government mandate. The government's accusation is that I am not a citizen, so they should have to prove their assertion. Imagine what would happen if the Birthers were in charge. No ID would suffice.

Voter I.D. what a joke. How about campaign donor I.D. for both sides, name and how much. Might save some investigating, know who is being bought and by who !

I would like very much to see voters present ID. Please provide proof you are a Wisconsin resident. Thank you!

Gandolf, I was counter posting. For every ridiculous liberal comment about the GOP, I could easily provide two ridiculous liberals and what they have said or did. You are one of them.

Of the 250+ posts on this blog, this one wins the prize for being the most ludicrous:

"GUILTY PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS TO ACCOUNT FOR DRIVING OUR ECONOMY INTO THE DITCH."

RAF,
Please don't start spouting off with all those things that require an ID that are clearly a PRIVILEGE and not a right like voting is. The elderly folks I was referring to are those that are not confined to home or a facility. To bring it on home, I have a number of elderly relatives that are in the exact same boat. They refuse to claim that they are confined because as Ruth says, "That would be lying." Watch the video I posted the link to. Ruth is one of those nice older folks that has been voting for 63 years but has now been disenfranchised. She is not confined to her home or any other facility so she would be required to purchase a birth certificate in order to get the ID to vote. That amounts to a poll tax. It's all there in the video. Give it a spin. Please inform yourself.
p.s. for the record I have gotten on a plane, rented an apartment, opened a bank account, and gotten a job without ever showing photo ID of any kind OR my SS card. It is possible. The argument is still irrelevant as none of those things are a right like voting.

JCan: All hat, no cattle.
Thanks for playing.

Gandalf you need to read slower. I never said a birth cert and social were needed to rent a home, just an ID. For someone that wants to claim others are less intelligent you sure are having problems keeping up with the simple stuff.

Walter who are these elderly folks you speak of with no identification or birth certificates? If you are speaking of those in facilities a provision in the law was provided for them already.

To all the Walker supporters who claim to support accountability and responsibility:

The first person has just been arrested regarding the Walker investigation!

So much for your accountability and responsibility!

Corruption in our State Capitol, oh my goodness!

Third, next time you don't know, how about you don't comment?

JCan, I don't know, you tell me. It's your side that does these things. I think it's called playing the odds and tilting them your way with a little propaganda, such as candidate 'A' is going to take your social security away.

http://www.wisn.com/politics/29987729/de...

No fraud again committed by liberals. Nothing to see here. Just standard practices

Third, how do we liberals make sure that the homeless guy votes our way? Any advice? I sure wouldn't want to waste my money just to have him vote for the other guy...As for seniors being bused in, do you think that we brainwash them into shopping our way when we give them a ride to the grocery? Do we coerce them into which grandchild to dote on when we give them a ride to a relatives house? Many elderly rely on those bus services to get anywhere they need to go. So is it the free bus ride itself you object to?

Gandolf -guilty financial industry executives to account for driving our economy into the ditch? GUILTY PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS TO ACCOUNT FOR DRIVING OUR ECONOMY INTO THE DITCH.
DAH-
It's not the dumming down of people who clearly are center right as history shows - it's that people prefer the truth and not the spin the liberals march to everyday.
I like that list - more then 3-1

Maybe I should spell it out a little better;
The elephant in the room is voter manipulation.
The real issue liberals have with voter ID is the inability to offer cigarettes to homeless to vote.
Bringing a busload of senior citizens from the old folks home or senior center at a moments notice will be more challenging with voter ID.
It's not the fraud, though it does exist, it's the curtailing of manipulating voters in the 11th hour that bothers the liberals.

Gandalf,
You make a good point about the Fox News viewership. That gap used to be much larger. Kind of interesting; as the income desparity gap grows, the gap in the numbers between those that watch Fox News and those that watch other news networks gets smaller. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

RAF,
I was speaking mainly of our older citizens here in WI that have been voting for many years. Now the GOP is showing these folks their gratitude for all their years of political involvement by disenfranchising them. You wanted proof. Here it is. This clip is going to be part of many a campaign ad you can be sure. It will be shown on college campuses, in high school class rooms, and at senior centers. This is what the voter ID law has done.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#45...

Midnight_Ride, thanks for the list that helps to explain the dumbing-down of conservative America.

Gandalf
We are not the party that blames the Victim. We are the party that holds people to personal responsibility and accountability. She is now a “victim” in your eyes because you misguided liberals WANT her to be a victim and USE her as the face for your plantation politics. You would rather see her down and pitied then help her fight through it. It’s all too typical. Shame on you! You are the very reason this needs to stop. We will stop it in 2012.

Overall view of where American's are at:
CABLE NEWS RACE
VIEWERS NITE OF 12/12/11

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,271,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,168,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,030,000
CMDY DAILY SHOW 1,642,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,440,000
CMDY COLBERT 1,281,000
MSNBC SCHULTZ 877,000
MSNBC SHARPTON 830,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 797,000
MSNBC MADDOW 722,000
CNNHN GRACE 696,000
CNN COOPER 634,000
CNN PIERS MORGAN 604,000

What surprises me is that 877,000 people still tune in to crazy Ed. Of course some of us like to get our laugh on by simply seeing what comes out of his face. This country is and will always be center right and the left have to lie to get votes. If they said what they were really all about, they'd get just a handful. Mainly the misinformed that believe them from this site.

RAF, again, and again, and again, the voter ID laws ARE the suppression. I think you should clearly explain what kind of specific cases you want to see. You've been shown links to stories of people who have had their voting process made MUCH more difficult than it needs to be because of these laws.

In the mean time in order to get a job they require a valid social security card
-
You think that's an actual point? I've worked at places where they hired an illegal minor who had a valid SS card. They "didn't find out about it" until he was picked up for robbery. lol Just keep proving how out of touch you are.

Walter your logic is getting more left field here. Where are these people living with no identification? What landlord or leasing agent is signing contracts to a person with no identification? If by chance you are speaking of the kids at home needing a birth cert for an ID, most will gladly do this for their drivers license anyway.

In the mean time in order to get a job they require a valid social security card; this also requires a birth cert. The banking institution they choose to deposit or cash their employment check will require that same SS card and an ID. If they are in the social support system they will also need that ID and SS card to get help. Your points are full of holes and unreasoned excuses.

By the way, have you found any real examples of actual suppression in the other states that already have this law in place?

By the way, getting an ID can be free for some. Getting a copy of a birth certificate to get that ID is not free. This amounts to a poll tax.

Way, way, waaaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of ya, RAF.

Walter if you "feel" so passionate about the prohibitive free cost of an ID why not put your compassion where your mouth is. Start a community outreach for those you think "could" be disenfranchised or suppressed to help them get an updated identification card before election time?

Ezoner,
Lots of people have IDs. Not everyone has an ID that is 100% up-to-date every time there is an election. It might not be expired, but it might not have the correct address. People of low income generally change addresses quite frequently as do young people of a variety of economic backgrounds. Why should they have to pay for an updated ID every time they go to exercise their right to vote? It smacks heavily of poll tax and could be quite burdensome especially for people that are scrimping just for bus fare or their next trip to the grocery store. The previous standard of an ID of some sort along with a piece of mail to prove residence worked just fine. Groups that tend to vote Democratic are disproportionately affected (most likely because they've been targeted) by the voter ID law.

Look all -- I dont see this as suppressing anything -- all should have ID's -- done. If you want to get angry about voter suppression Look at Union Card check voting, now thats voter suppression where you can get threatened if dont vote a certain way.

RAF,
You are still yet to prove that voter fraud that has gone undetected is running rampant to the point that a significant amout of taxpayer funded resources are necessary in addition to what has already been spent. The task force organized by AG Van Hollen and joined by the DOJ charged 20 people with voter fraud in the '08 Pres election. 11 felons that voted would not have been detected under the new law. 6 were charged because of registration misconduct, 2 voted twice, and 1 guy got a ballot with his dead wife's name to fulfill her dying wish of voting for Obama. That is 9 people that may not have gotten by the new law. 9 people were charged. I believe 7 were convicted. This clearly does not necessitate another "layer of protection". Not at the taxpayers' expense. I figured you for a conservative, but you seem ready to throw money at a problem that is, for all intents and purposes, already solved. As for your silly bank alarm analogy, you could invest billions of dollars in the technology to create an energy field around the money, or the safe, or the entire bank itself to keep bad guys out. It doesn't mean people are going to stop trying to rob the bank. You stand a good chance of getting shot trying to rob a bank, yet there are far, far more people attempting to rob banks then commit voter fraud. Clearly, the ID law is not about voter fraud. It's about trying to legalize suppression. If you want to live in denial or just play ignorant, go for it. If one person is kept from voting because of this law, the law has gone too far.

Gandalf
What a pity this woman would rather complain to the media for the bleeding heart liberals then make a simple phone call to her representative.
I bet you didn't even know that.
No, you would rather cry foul where none exists and cheer the fraud by the liberals that does exist.

Right on bebe53!

The more strawman arguments and anecdotal examples I see from the left is proof enough of some sort of voter fraud or more mildly, voter manipulation. (Cigarettes for votes anyone?)
The tendency of the liberals to ignore social norms such as demonstrating in front of Governor Walker’s house and claiming 1st amendment protection is further proof of their intentions to win at all costs. (The end justifies the means.)
Then there's the guy who bragged about signing 80 recall petitions.
The liberals have no self imposed boundaries so for the common good we need voter ID.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/go...

Walter the bank analogy fits perfectly. You claim another law [voter ID], level of protection, isn’t needed because there are already laws in place and as you said lawyers prosecuting people if/when they break the rules/laws.

The comparison to banks fits amazingly well here. By your logic since stealing anything from the bank is already against the law and there are lawyers (prosecutors) ready to hold these people accountable there really is no need for another level of protection like alarms or security. Since there is a community police force out there already adding a security guard would add unneeded costs and just "suppress" customers or potential thieves...wouldn’t want that would we?

The three people I reference were just lately, showing this is still going on. They were also democrat campaign people from the SEIU, hence organized. But by your logic banks are just wasting money on alarm systems and security since there are existing laws protecting them and it is rare to have a robbery.

The bottom line is there is voter fraud, proven by convictions, yet people still do it. You and others make claims of potential suppression because of voter ID but can’t find a single example from any of the states that have these laws in place.

The liberals sound like they are afraid of only being able to vote once. Imagine the suppression, how dare the GOP try to limit everyone to one vote.
http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=10834

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php...

Liberals call it Voter Outreach, but federal and state election officials prefer a less PC term that is more precise: Voter Fraud.

RAF,
Where to begin...First, did you really call a comment "lame"? What are you, 12 years old? Secondly, your "banks with no alarms" analogy is completely ridiculous becuse there are already laws prohibiting voter fraud, there were already voter eligibility standards in place prior to the voter ID law, and polling stations have always been presided over by trained workers. That's why the state lawyers that are already in place were more than enough to handle the negligible number of voter fraud cases that occur in WI elections without having the taxpayers paying for the new voter ID law. Also, you keep referencing these out of state people that, in your own words, "allegedly" voted. There you go again referencing what amounts to imaginary voter fraud as there is not confirmation that it actually occurred. So, your argument continues to hinge on unprovable occurrences while you damn other arguments for the same reasons. Finally, what if the cases you reference are confirmed? A whole 3 cases of voter fraud in the recall elections! Wow. I imagine that kind of workload would absolutely overwhelm the state district attorneys. Long and short is, this law was unnecessary as is its expense. With no logical reason for its passing, one, if half way intelligent, would have to surmise that the reason for it was to favor the GOP.

"voter suppression is very wide-spread,"
-
If so wide spread why is there not one instance brought forward from the states that have put in place voter ID laws...? Or you could just continue with the lame claims of others must watch fox because you watch MSNBC and read huff.

RAF -- you can always tell when you have won the arguement with a left winger..... they start calling you names and using derogatory refernecs...... Next thing you know they call your mom ugly and something about the dogs butt being shaved and walking backwards.

You need instructions on finding articles online, RAF? Let us know and we'd be glad to get one of our 3rd graders to show you how to use Google.

My 3:08am post answers your only relevant question, RAF. Still awaiting your answer as to the number of fraudulent voter registration convictions. You seem to have knowledge of at least one or two, but too embarrassed to give us that number as a ratio to total registered voters. Imagine that!

Oh no, words from wiki not linked to a real story...yep that must be true.

How many voter suppression examples and how many registered voters in the states with those laws?

How many bank robbery convictions and how many people used banks in the state of Wisconsin in 2010?

How many more red herrings can you come up with while ignoring the fact there has not been one real example of suppression in any state with a voter ID law?

2008 Presidential Election in Wisconsin
-
"The Republican Party attempted to have all 60,000 voters in the heavily Democratic city of Milwaukee who had registered since 1/1/2006 deleted from the voter rolls. The requests were rejected by the Milwaukee Election Commission with Republican commissioner Bob Spindell voting in favor of deletion." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppr...
-
There was an ATTEMPT by the Republicans to suppress 60,000 voters in the 2008 Presidential election in Wisconsin. Fortunately, they weren't able to get away with it - no thanks to the Republican commissioner. I challenge anyone to produce documentation of 60,000 ATTEMPTS to fraudulently register or vote in the 2008 Presidential election in Wisconsin. From these numbers, it is clear the potential for voter suppression is far greater than the potential for voter fraud. And the irony of all of this is that the Republicans continue their quest to suppress voters by claiming the problem is voter fraud!

First person to identify all four usernames I use gets a cookie
-
lmmfao The fact you'd admit to 4 is just plain sad to begin with. It's pretty obvious 4 is you low balling the actual amount. Hell, you even made an account the day you started posting in this topic.....then talked to yourself........then argued with yourself.....then claimed anyone who does what you do is a loser.

I'll repeat my question. How many fraudulent voter registration convictions and how many registered voters in the state of Wisconsin in 2010?

If the laws we have in place are so good how exactly did the out of state paid recall circus participants register and allegedly vote from a hotel/motel room while having valid residences in other states? The small issue of an ID would have prevented this. You can continue to pretend all who have committed crimes, to include voting fraud, get caught, others don't have the same position you do. Kind of like all the law breakers during the OWS circus, did all of those cases get prosecuted? But we both know you are not interested in all laws being enforced.

So far there have been convictions of fraud and registration yet not one case of suppression...

RAF said, "The facts are, there has been voter and registration fraud [convictions] leading to the need for these laws;"
-
There also has been at least one person hit by lightning seven times. How many fraudulent voter registration convictions and how many registered voters in the state of Wisconsin in 2010?

Really gandolf the huffpost? This argument over suppression, that hasn't happened in any state with these laws, has jumped the shark now with stories of support from the huff.

Where are the complaints over voting times, days, locations? These are far more of a hindrance than an identification card.

The facts are, there has been voter and registration fraud [convictions] leading to the need for these laws; some people just can't follow the rules. And the other fact not one instance of voter suppression has been brought forward from all the states that have these laws in place. The drones of lawyers are already in place to fight fraud [voter and registration] is a lame comment. By your reasoning there is no need for alarms on banks because we already have police/investigators/prosecutors to thwart bank thieves. Get real.

/me ponders if Robot is spamming or crazy (or both)

Ignore the trolls. Robot aka alot of nicks, are trolls who argue among their nicks. On the internet, it's called astroturfing. I expect when the usual right wing posters seem to be absent, they're all in a tea party meeting cackling about how they are fooling everyone.

RAF,
You're still attacking the argument against the law that it could possibly lead to voter suppression yet you still haven't addressed the weakness in your own argument in support of the law that it will prevent undetected voter fraud which the existence of cannot be proven. That is the nitty gritty of our debate, but you continue to duck it. What gives?

bebe53,
The voter ID laws have not been on the books long enough for there to be evidence of vote suppression. The point is that all of the reasons regarding voter fraud that have been given for passing voter ID legislation into law are completely ridiculous. Again, any "fiscal conservative" should be outraged that state governments would spend taxpayer resources on this bogeyman of a problem that occurs about 7 ten thousandths of 1% of the time (.0007)
You seem to be hinting that stricter voter ID laws actually contributed to increased voter turnout. If so, can you provide some evidence? Can you also prove that stricter voter ID laws in the states you mentioned reduced voter fraud? I'm willing to bet you can't.

Red i see you're quoting the same studies others have. The same studies that have only speculated on suppression but haven't found any suppression from all the states where this is ID law has been in effect.

"Walter had you pegged from the start and commented on it 45 minutes after you tripped over yourself."
-
You both fell into it. It was brilliant, and both of you were chasing tail for four hours before Walt finally engaged in discussion again with RAF. Give or take, he sat for hours trying to make sense of something that made no sense. Such was the purpose. You people sit and think you know what is going on, and have no idea. Playdoh. Just a bunch of Playdoh. Kinda sad, really. Too easy. I should be a thespian. I can suspend belief in one dimension or less.

Short hairs.

Some things are as they seem. Others are not. In all things, the written word does not convey the same meaning as the spoken word, and in fact, the written word is only as good as the person who is trying to comprehend it. The written word is one-dimensional, or less. I just proved it. You guys are great. Thank you.

And the REAL Robot is?????????? You have no idea, do you? I love it. This is really fascinating. I am going to love writing this thesis.

Mauahahahahahahahahhahahahaaaaa!!!!!

Guess what YOU are not doing right now, Poop?

SNAP!! Where's the real rodent when you need one?

Little_Robot, FOUR hours? Walter had you pegged from the start and commented on it 45 minutes after you tripped over yourself. (History below in case you have forgotten the timeline.) Walter and others went on discussing the article topic. It was you who then became obsessed with posting comments that attempted, unsuccessfully, to find some idea that would justify your clownish behavior.
-
On Dec 11, 2011 at 9:38 a.m., La_instruisto said:

Just ask any police officer you might know.
-
On Dec 11, 2011 at 10:34 a.m., Robot_Lord_of_Tokyo said:

Like I said to Walter, ask any cop "who carries identification?
-
On Dec 11, 2011 at 11:19 a.m., WalterReuther said:

Robot Lord/La instruisto, We all know you're the same person. There's no need in having a conversation with yourself. Nobody's gonna buy it anymore.
-
On Dec 11, 2011 at 12:04 p.m., WalterReuther said:

Yeah, yeah, sure sure. La instruisto tells me to ask a cop and then Robot Lord says "Like I said to Walter, ask any cop..." Robot Lord didn't post that before La instruisto did. Admit it. You've been had.

By the way, Walt. Why doesn't someone just tell you to get over it??? You are not going to change a thing with your rants against Walker. Don't you get that? Remember when you were ranting about Doyle putting us 1.6 million in the hole when he expanded medecaid with a one-time fed injection that could not be sustained? All of your rants against that were worthless as this subject is. I think you should get over it. Jus' sayin' dog.

BeeTEEWHY Poop, that's the most lame cutdown I have ever seen. Looking over your shoulder at the thought police???? Pathetic. You never had Mr. Peterson for Psychology, did you? Now he was a card. But I liked the way he taught. You never knew when he was sober.....or on drugs. If you'd tossed a coin, you'd be half right all the time.

That you call that childish means only that you are an elitist, or you just want to get a rise out of me. Either one puts you in my ballpark, and I doubt that you can hit a homerun in either case.
-
Perhaps I am just doing something more sinister than you can possibly imagine. That I would do that begs the question of "why?"
-
It has nothing to do with me, per se, but has everything to do with about eight people who post on here. I am in the process of making fools of all of those who are mooks, and you don't even know why. THAT, or this, is one of the most sarcastic things I have done. And there is a reason for it. On your best day, you will never figure it out until the day you say "duhhhhhh." Irony and sarcasm are two of my favorite things, and I hate the Sound of Music. Julie Andrews never mentions them.......
-
Walt, for example, is probably wondering why he wasted four hours trying to make me into something I was not. For FOUR hours, he did nothing but try to prove I was someone I was not. So, for four hours, he was off topic. Why? It's so funny to me, it's hard to stop laughing... The best is yet to come, I think, and Walt gave me the idea.

Little_Robot, the fact you were caught doing something as childish as using another username tells us more than we care to know about you and nothing more than most of us already knew about you.

First person to identify all four usernames I use gets a cookie. They are all here on this thread.

And RAF. I TOTALLY have No mores. That explains quite a lot, don't you think?

fishbelly: Is that you John Wayne? Is it me? I TOTALLY rocked this one. I have to gloat.

"There are plenty of instances of those convicted for this [voter and registration fraud]..."
-
RAF believes 7 out of 3,000,000,000 is plenty, ample, an abundance, a plethora, profusion, bounty! Wow, I wonder what words he would use to describe a full percent?
-
The Republican propaganda machine is well oiled pumping out volumes of false information designed to scare voters and legislators into action. One could justify the efforts to pass voter ID laws IF there was evidence proving endemic voter fraud. Yet the exact opposite is true. Since there is OVERWHELMING evidence based on in-depth studies performed by unbiased public interest organizations that voter fraud is NOT widespread, those who continue to argue that a voter ID law is necessary to combat vote fraud are doing so with deceitful intent or out of ignorance. In addition, election experts have made it known that the few instances of voter fraud which do occur would NOT be prevented by requiring a photo ID. I agree with steps taken to eliminate both voter AND election fraud. But the current voter ID law is a PROVEN waste of taxpayer money and resources. The truth is in the facts.
-
A recent study by the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice found just seven cases of voter fraud out of three million votes cast in Wisconsin during the 2004 election, a fraud rate of 0.0002 percent. All seven of these cases involved persons with felony convictions who weren’t eligible to vote after being released from prison.
-
“Does the proposed policy actually solve the problem? Some of those who support photo identification requirements indiscriminately cite examples of “fraud,” whether the cited anecdotes can be remedied by photo identification or not.In Wisconsin in 2005, for example, supporters of a restrictive identification requirement pointed repeatedly to voting by allegedly ineligible persons with convictions – even though requiring restrictive ID would not prevent voting by persons who are rendered ineligible by a conviction.” (Gregory Stanford, Editorial, Voting Irregularities: State GOP Should Apologize, MILWAUKEE J. SENTINEL, Aug. 24, 2005, at A14)
-
http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/case_stud...

RAF, you said:

"Glad to hear you say voter fraud is minimal at best. You must be under the mind set that all people that break the rules, in this case laws, are always caught. Just curious do you also think all who speed are caught, all who shop lift are caught, all who commit white collar crimes are caught, all who commit violent crimes are caught, and all who commit all crimes are always caught.

Unlike you i am certain there are instances that are never found since that is how all other crimes work in our society. As i said before if all followed the rules additional laws like this one wouldn't be needed."

So, are you suggesting that laws don't work and therefore this voter ID law will be no better than speeding laws, etc.?

Huh, so RLOT's admitting to at least 4 accounts here? Not only does that confirm and explain alot, but isn't in the least bit surprising.

Bottom line is if Scott Walker thinks that spending the money to revamp the entire identification system for voters is worth it over what amounts to a less than .0009% rate of voter fraud, I have to question his claim that he's a fiscal conservative. I wouldn't question it if he owned up to trying to make it more difficult to vote for certain groups of people that tend to vote Democrat. Maybe then the money would seem worth it...only to Republicans, of course.

RAF,
Don't play ignorant. The imaginary voter fraud I referenced is the voter fraud you seem to be depending on to make your argument. You speak of the voter fraud that, according to you, went undetected and unpunished. Technically, that is imaginary voter fraud as there is no proof it exists. The only voter fraud that you should really be using to make your argument is CONFIRMED voter fraud which clearly did not necessitate an entire new law to deal with. The state district attorneys handling the few cases here and there were more than adequate. Now we'll be paying for new training, materials and implementation of this new law. As if all the taxpayer money spent when the state investigated voter fraud before only to find a negligible number of cases wasn't enough. Say the number of undetected cases would have doubled the total. That would still come to less than 20 in a multi-million vote election. Pretty unnecessary to revamp the entire system over that if you ask anybody with half a brain. It's not like voter fraud was bogging down the legal system. The state's lawyers were handling the load just fine.

If the fraud is imaginary, then why worry about it. The laws will have no impact on the results and in that case, all would support ID laws as its makes good sense. The louder the left only yells, the more its a duck. If it acts like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck -- its a duck.

Sorry, wrong story.

Apparently D.C. had a similar issue, but it never actually became a problem because of the following:

There will be no Nativity Scene in Washington this year! The
Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a Nativity Scene in the
United States' Capital this Christmas season.

This isn't for any religious reason. They simply have not been
able to find Three Wise Men in the Nation's Capitol.

A search for a Virgin continues.

There was no problem, however, finding enough asses to fill the
stable.

"imaginary voter fraud"
-
Really? There are plenty of instances of those convicted for this [voter and registration fraud] yet not one instance of any suppression under existing voter ID laws.

RAF,
Well, if you're a conservative that likes to see taxpayer money spent by our lawmakers in taking the time to create, pass and allocate money for the implementation of a a new law supposedly meant to solve a problem that is already being handled easily by the attorneys already being paid and continuing to be paid to handle the problem, you must sit by yourself a lot when you get together with other conservatives. I find it interesting that conservatives argue in favor of this law by saying that suppression is unprovable and at the same time invoking imaginary voter fraud that hasn't been caught which is itself unprovable. If, neither of the reasons for or against the law are provable, what's the point of the law? What's the point of spending all the resources in passing and implementing the law? Again, I think the Republicans' motives are clearly much less than benevolent here.

BTW; in Florida, there was all sorts of fraud claims from the left.
I know this quite well, because I had a business adversary down in Jacksonville. He was on every blog on the planet, posting how he personally saw fraudulent votes cast for Bush. There was countless stories in the press how the northern counties of FL (all heavy Republican counties) frauded the system (NOT by hanging chads or any of that nonsense..Actually fraud via voting twice, under a bogus name, ext)...Of course many republicans claimed the same thing in the Broward, and Democratic heavy counties..One of those deals where it may have all simply canceled itself out. Don't kid yourself though..It's hardly a myth, but quite prevalent when the stakes are high, and the race is close...Just look at the political environment we now live in..The sides are so hateful of each other, they will do ANYTHING to win these days..

Mooshop:
The study you sites are of cases where the fraud is KNOWN.
How many cases is it simply gotten away with? You cannot quantify any numbers when the fraud is never caught. The 2000 Presidential election you had thousands of stories of fraud. Where many bogus? I'm sure..Where many legit, no question...The more heated, and close, the race is, the more fraudulent ballots you will have have. Any idiot can read a newspaper or on-line poll, and see a race is razor tight. I suppose you could make the case that the fraud will cancel itself out. That both fanatical sides will equally fraud the system for their man (or woman). That would be a logical case one could make, but I don't think most in the public would be to comfortable with that. Most in the public are very much in favor of some sort of ID to vote.
.
If all you on the left truly think this will back fire against the Republicans pushing it, then you should be very much in favor of it; as the battle will be lost, but the war will eventually be won, so to speak, with the "huge" voter backlash that you claim will happen. All basic polling data I have seen, shows the public in favor, so I don't see this being a winning issue at all for those on the left.

Minnesota had the most extensive recount ever for their senate race.. the conclusion was voter fraud was almost non-existent.. it is obvious that the Repubs are trying to suppress voter turnout.. if you are not white and wealthy and vote Republican you are being duped..

Glad to hear you say voter fraud is minimal at best. You must be under the mind set that all people that break the rules, in this case laws, are always caught. Just curious do you also think all who speed are caught, all who shop lift are caught, all who commit white collar crimes are caught, all who commit violent crimes are caught, and all who commit all crimes are always caught.

Unlike you i am certain there are instances that are never found since that is how all other crimes work in our society. As i said before if all followed the rules additional laws like this one wouldn't be needed.

@Robot- talkin to the hand...

@Robot- Talkin to the hand...

But really, Walter. I don't think you'd let me even buy you a cup of coffee now, would you?

As I stated before, there are those that connive and those who obstruct. What you write is perfectly reasonable to most, and should be considered, but not ruled as law. The party does not come first. The person comes first.

I see what you are doing, WalterRuether. You are really trying to suppress me and others, but would you do the same thing to your own party if what they were doing was wrong or corrupt? And what do you think of our two-party system, which doesn't work anymore?

Go Walter- we need to have coffee.

Whoops!!! There I go again, talking to myself. You mooks get it yet?

RAF,
My claim is that the law has more potential to be suppressive than it has potential to encourage enfranchisement of voters. Given that the reason presented for the passing of the legislation was the threat of voter fraud which has proven to be minimal at most, I am also contending that since state district attorneys could easily handle the hand full of voter fraud cases, Republicans have pushed this legislation as a means to potentially favor their own party. Given that there is no evidence to prove that voter ID curbs voter fraud, a nearly non-existent problem in the first place, it's pretty unreasonable to believe that the voter ID law was based on an idea meant to benefit everyone. In fact, the implementation of the law will probably cost far more than the investigation and prosecution of reported cases of voter fraud had the previous standards been left in place. That is something that should infuriate fiscal Conservatives.

RLOT, how proud you must be of yourself. Have you always been such an immature fool? It must be lonely having so few friends that you find the need to invent them. Most people grow out of that stage by the time they're 3 or 4 years old. I wish you much happiness in your extended childhood. You seem to take so much joy from your childish behavior, I'd hate to see you lose that sense of comfort.

And now I'm RAF?? Ha ha!! Close but no cigar. Really. It's just a jump, to the left. And then a step to the right.

How exatly does research with no evidence of any suppression prove there will be any? It is obvious those against these laws are without evidence to thier claims of suppression from all the states where this law has been in effect. In a society where getting anything done with no identification is more of a hinderance than having one why some claim this is suppressing has become almost laughable.

Just ask the three out of state union members that registered to vote in our state during the last recall circus about ID's. They needed them to get their hotel room but didnt when they illegally registered and allegedly voted. But that is not the evidance that some think is important.

Walter-Once again you've posted(at 10:59AM) very good research that the enactment of voter ID laws gives an advantage to the political party in question. Too bad RAF/Robot/La-instr cannot comprehend it. He/she/IT? keeps asking you for evidence, then doesn't like your evidence. I liked it though. LOL

Walter your words speak for themselves. You admit there is no evidence of suppression but then you try to claim it benifits one party over the other. Hard to make a benifit claim with no evidence.

Robotstruisto,
All of your prancing about has grown dull. If you don't have anything of value to contribute, why are you still typing?

RAF,
I'm not claiming that there is evidence of voter suppression. I'm claiming that there is evidence that the evidence will probably show voter suppression. The problem with the law is that there was no need for it. The costs of implementing it are unnecessary. Voter fraud can be handled by prosecutors. It sends a bad and disingenuous message to voters that voter fraud caused this law. The need for the law was fabricated. As I've said, it's important to err on the side of more people being politically involved. This law clearly will not do that. Any votes that are of dubious eligibility could be set aside for investigation. The old prove who you are and prove where you live standards were perfectly adequate. Why spend the money to fix a system that was not only not broken but working just fine? The answer is very clear. To give advantage to one political party.

Incidentally, Walt, I currently have FOUR usernames on G-Ex. I had eight, but four were delted. One of them is not La_Insrtuisto. Three of them are on this very thread for this story, and I bet you can't tell which ones they are even on your best day.

Walter interesting links, yet none of them confirmed there has been any suppression like you and others claim. It should be easy for the parties on the left to bring forth people who had been: but as of yet they havent. Do you really want to play the because it might happen card here? Isnt that what youre accusing those in favor for the law of, while claiming their reason is wrong.

Not sure what the answer is to make all happy. Since some in our nation do not play by the rules making laws to protect votes is needed. I guess we could all just dip a finger in ink or use a natonal ID, that would just open up more controversy.

How does making yourself look like a complete fool a successful tactic for making fun of Democrats? All you do is lessen the credibility of conservative viewpoints. Good job, though. I can't hate on you too much when you're giving a boost to my cause, so thanks for that.

I hear ya alertcitizen.
This person is just resorting to a bunch of theatrics because he/she is completely incapable of backing up his/her own statements. It makes a mockery of actual adult debate. Too bad really. Good luck with all that Robotstruista. You obviously have nothing more of any value to contribute.

How did Jed Clampett say it?? "Gull-i-ble." No, wait, it was pit-i-ful. Same thing. LMFAO!!

Now look what you did, Walt!! That wasn't MY fault. That person actually made a bit of sense, as it were, excepting the smartphone thing and a lack of aptitude in relation to actually sticking with what a person believes. Wishy-washy isn't a political stand.

If this is all you people do all day I feel sorry for you. Goodbye.

Sorry folks- nice discussion all. Once Robot jumps in with his/her incessant non-sensical blathering I get out. I think his/her name alone indicates the megalomaniacal thinking he/she has. Good luck GOP if he is one of you.

I did that on purpose, Perry Mason....and you make my day. And you gave me a great idea.

Neither one of you have explained the overlapping comments. You can sit and deny til the cows come home, but the posts are there to disprove you.

This is better than I thought it would be. :)

Whoa!! Great detective work there, Walt! Simultaneous posts!! Whooooohooooo! Told ya! You can't even see the sarcasm that flies right out of my posts, can you? Sorry La. Having some fun. No fault of yours, so chill it. Nobody's screwing with you except for the usual suspects on here, and that isn't me.

I like screwing with you guys. It's fun, and I've been having some fun with you. I want you all to keep guessing who's who. Next? But as to la, leave the guy or gal alone. That's gone too far. I don't have that alias, but I have others.

Robot is not me

Walter said, "Yeah, yeah, sure sure. La instruisto tells me to ask a cop and then Robot Lord says "Like I said to Walter, ask any cop..." Robot Lord didn't post that before La instruisto did. Admit it. You've been had."
-
Good work Walter for that bit of detective work. La_instruisto probably isn't Robot_Lord's first alias, and I'm sure it won't be his last.

Robotsruisto,
Deflect all you like. I think you should take a look back at the comments and explain that interesting overlap in comments. Otherwise, you're just being disingenuous. I'm more than happy to engage a liar in debate, it would be nice of you to own up to it, though. That's all.

Mr. Raether, I can't answer for Robot lord of tokyo, but I assure you that after I finished watching Breath of Life this morning on the Hope channel, which is all I can do for church now, I got on my computer and read the news then decided to comment. You may think what you may, I guess. Robot lord, what did you mean by what you wrote to Mr. Raether and what did I do to you?

Yeah, yeah, sure sure. La instruisto tells me to ask a cop and then Robot Lord says "Like I said to Walter, ask any cop..." Robot Lord didn't post that before La instruisto did. Admit it. You've been had.
Oh, and one last thing before you go get our nonsense back on track. Your claim that low income folks are all irresponsible based only on your few experiences as a landlord is completely ridiculous and inappropriate. In my experience, when those scencarios occur, it is because the landlord is a bad one and deserves no respect from his or her tenants. Just sayin...

MooShoe-I take back that you are brain washed- You'd need one first. You goofy libs are already lining up the excuse for when the recall fails. A pathetic bunch of losers that never stop whining.

I don't know what you are talking about, Mr. Raether. I just joined this morning after church. Maybe that's a mistake, and I don't mean church? And no I didn't answer your questions. I am no expert on the subject. I don't think there is a system in place to verify I.D. cards if that is what you are asking of me, and I don't want to pay for one, either, and there is no reason to treat me roughly because of my opinion. I am no different than you are. You probably know more about poor people than I do if you work for the DWD, so I'll leave it at that. You're the expert. Thanks.

I think it's important to ask again why the state didn't decide to err on the side of enfranchisement. When I was young, all I heard was how important it was to register to vote and then exercise that right. Shouldn't we be encouraging as many people to vote as possible? Isn't political involvement the goal? Why not let anyone that comes to the polling stations vote? If there's a question regarding their eligibility, their vote could be set aside for later investigation. If they're eligible, great. Their vote counts. If not, they can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Why spend money on a system that could turn people away? Why not spend that money to involve more people while at the same time making it easier to catch the bad eggs?

La instruiston/Robot Lord,
The new law is already costing us (taxpayers) money as the the training required for every polling station worker along with the training materials and informational materials for voters is costing the state plenty of money. That's why I'm questioning whether the workers have access to the ID database. If not, I'd say the state is doing a half assed job. If they're going to spend the money to implement this thing for the sake of "accuracy", why aren't they making it as accurate as possible? They might be hurting their own cause by not being as thorough as possible. Don't you think?

No, La_instruisto. I was referring to your exchange with Robot_Lord when he said, "Bull! Everyone has access to a smartphone!! Don't be stupid."

Robot Lord/La instruisto,
We all know you're the same person. There's no need in having a conversation with yourself. Nobody's gonna buy it anymore. You're not even smart enough to keep your own BS straight. Secondly, you didn't answer my question. I asked if this system was in place. Either, it's not in place or you simply do not know one way or the other. That being said, if that system is not in place on voting day, it doesn't matter what information is in the online database. The polling station workers will only be going by the actual ID card and the individual voter's level of internet access is completely irrelevant. Thirdly, to answer an earlier question about what I do for disadvantaged folks. I work for the Dept of Workforce Development. There are many many people that have been hit hard by the economy. They are hard working folks and to remain employed they move...a lot. More often than once a year. There is nothing "fishy with that", as you put it. They just want to work, and for you to be insensitive to that is pretty low. It is very impractical and inconvenient for them to be chasing down an ID or DL with their current address everytime they would like to exercise their right to vote. Due to their near transient status and working hours, these people may not have access to the internet because they may not be near a library or DMV during operating hours. Like I said to RAF, the only good thing about this law is that WI is more than likely contributing to evidence that can be gathered for a study in the very near future proving voter disenfranchisement.

What do you mean, poobah?? Did I say something wrong?

Mr. Raether, that's some interesting reading there, so thanks, but don't you think that we should start somewhere to make sure that votingg is accurate and done in relation to existing laws. Mr. Robot said it pretty well, as far as a system is concerned. I don't think that I want to pay for it right now in the form of new taxes, considering the economy. There are other things to fix first, like infrastructure, before we spend money on computer systems and IT professionals to manage it. That would cost more than what we are spending right now on recall elections, though I'm no economist. Those things always cost more than anyone thinks they will.

La_instruisto, welcome to the Gazette comments section. I see you've been introduced to the Misguided_Mass_of_Mechanical_Misery. Enjoy.

RAF, Here are some studies for you to peruse:
"Our results clearly suggest that voting laws which require specific or multiple forms of identification will disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minorities, immigrant populations, and those with lower incomes. These results are compelling due to the nature of our data and the established literature on the impact increased costs has on voter turnout."
http://faculty.washington.edu/mbarreto/r...
***
Here's a study that found that even registered voters turn out at a rate 2 percentage points lower in states with strict voter identification laws when compared with other states.
http://brennan.3cdn.net/a5782740e4185414...
***
Even in studies indicating little effect on turnout due to voter ID laws, the conclusions are that the laws haven't been on the books long enough for there to be evidence of voter disenfranchisement:
"...we see the existing science regarding vote suppression as incomplete and inconclusive. This is not because of any reason to doubt the suppression effect but rather because the data that have been analyzed to date do not allow a conclusive test. What can be done to boost the empirical analysis of the problem? Additional elections and additional states enforcing strict voter ID laws will provide more and better data."
http://www.columbia.edu/~rse14/erikson-m...
The mere fact that these laws COULD cause disproportionately more disenfranchisement than they would solve any voter fraud problems was reason enough not to pass the law. That is why it is clearly a partisan political tactic. The only promising thing here is that WI may very well contribute to the mounting evidence proving that these types of laws do disenfranchise certain groups of voters. I guess that's the silver lining.

If you say so Robot, but just because you think so doesn't mean that it is true. This is going nowhere fast, I see. I don't have a smartphone, I have an old Motorola that works just fine. So not everyone has a smart phone, though I fail to see why it matters. I agree that most people have acess to the internet. Can we leave it at that?

Bull! Everyone has access to a smartphone!! Don't be stupid. If you don't own one, you know someone who does and don't say it ain't so!

I agree with what the Robot said, except that to think everyone has access to a smartphone is not realistic. But they should be able to get to a library. And as for the elderly, most of them have access through their children, or even in places like Cedar Crest. Why would that be a problem for them, Mr. Raether?

Walter, I think that such a system can easily be set up. Indeed, such a system could have already been bought and paid for with the money that is being wasted upon Wisconsin's continuous election process. I'd be willing to pay for that system vis-a-vis taxes, if necessary. I don't think it would cost that much, and if it helped to keep the vote valid and accurate, moreso the practical benefit to all our the citizens. Such a system would easily be able to identify any disparity between eligible voters and actual results. I think it's in our best interest to make sure that it's legal, and accurate. That's why we have laws, such as the Lautenberg Ammendment. Break that law, you lose your right to vote. Same goes for felons. It would help to enforce our laws. As far as your second question, as far as duplicate cards, I would support a no-cost replacement annually, or bi-annually. If anyone moves more than once in 365 days within state, something is fishy with that and I shouldn't have to pay for it, nor should you (John Q. Taxpayer). Annual replacement is not unreasonable to me. Anything more is. Multiple address changes within 365 days can be done online, as I previously suggested.

lol Any more aliases you want to own up to while you're at it?

Citizen, in this day and age, there is no lack of computer access, even for the elderly. To say differently is rediculous. How many people do you know that have smart phones? They work just as well.
*
If you want to make this a partisan issue, please ask yourself why it's necessary. I think that if you do so, you are contributing to the gridlock that 535 elected officials know all too well. I reiterate that I don't think that it's unreasonable to request valid identification from any would-be voter, to prove that they are who they say they are, and that they are in accordance with our laws when they excercise their right to vote. That is my opinion, for what it's worth, and it's non-partisan. If you think that it benefits the republican party, that's your opinion, and it may well be true, but it doesn't change mine. I think people should be able to identify themselves, and that's it. Like I said to Walter, ask any cop "who carries identification?" Their answer might surprise you, or you may already know and won't admit it.

La instruisto,
2 honest questions for you, and please provide evidence for your answers as I would like to be able to read the same information you are reading: Will polling station workers have access to the state of WI database containing the correct addresses while working on election day to verify that IDs without correct address are still valid for voting purposes? Also, is anyone allowed an unlimited number of duplicate ID cards as long as the request for the card is made for voting purposes?

analertcitizen your claims could easily be defended, just show where this thing you claim has happened in the states that already have voter ID laws. Waiting...

la-instruisto- You are making a huge leap to think that many of our downtrodden and elderly have access to a computer to simply make the changes. Just own up to the fact that the voter ID law was put in place to give the Republican party an edge in upcoming elections. We all know it.

By the way, Walter, your point about moving frequently makes sense, but is not all that big of an issue. For example, you are no longer required to obtain a duplicate driver's license if you change your address. If your correct address is in the database, you are good to go. The same can be done with a Wisconsin ID. Just go online and change your address in the database, I suppose. That is not too obstructive, is it? I think it's reasonable to expect someone to be able to do at least that.

I've read your comments, Walter, and it seems apparent and obvious that you have a vested interest in the lives of disadvantaged people, or are one yourself. What exactly do you do for them? Or are you, yourself, disadvantaged? You seem to think that it costs $14 for an I.D. That is not true. Identification cards will be provided at no cost, if requested. That means that you and I are picking up the bill. I have no problem with that. And if, dear sir, you think that people who don't carry identification are good people all around, then you have no friends who are in law enforcement, do you? The ones without identification are the repeat offenders, in almost every case. It's simply a fact that can not be disputed, and to do so diminishes anything else you have said that actually has merit.
-
And yes, disadvantaged people do change addresses quite often. First, they trash the property, then they leave suddenly without paying any of the utility bills. I own rental property, so I know this to be true. They also don't carry valid I.D., in many cases. Not all, but it's typical. Just ask any police officer you might know. Really, please do so. They will tell you.

Walter, you are presenting logic and reason to those who are determined to connive and obstruct. Anyone who truly wanted a level playing field would support what you have written, those who wish to win elections at any cost will not. I believe that at some point many of those following the lead of those who wish to win at any cost will regret it. Let's hope it's not too late. To those who aren't sure, please look within yourself and ask what kind of person you are.

Walter your ideas of voter suppression sound terrible, yet so far proven false by every state that has enacted voter ID, which the supreme court has upheld. Perhaps you can defend your idea that it might happen by showing were it has happened in other states where these very same rules/laws already exist.

Thankyou Walter- All very well and rationally stated. If someone chooses to disagree with you they are simply not cognizant of the condition of some people's lives.

MooShoo,
You are absolutely right about FL in 2000. To further your point, that wasn't even about voter fraud. That was about a flawed system of voting, collection of votes and counting those votes. It was a flawed system that was more open to potential fraud. That was the problem.

La intruisto says:
"If you don't carry identification with you at all times, it usually means that you have something to hide."
That is a ridiculous over generalization, and if you truly believe that, you are completely disconnected from reality.

There are a lot of people commenting here that believe, since they have a 100% up-to-date ID or DL, that it's completely insane that other people do not. Let's be clear. You are not everyone else. People of low income tend to change addresses frequently. It is not practical for them to spend the money every time they move. That is why the voter ID law is likened to a poll tax and rightfully so. A large percentage of people of low income in larger cities do not drive at all AND change addresses frequently which makes it even less practical for them to purchase a duplicate ID every time they move.

Many people may have a valid ID for identification purposes but the address is incorrect. To force those people to pay the $14 for a new ID just so they can exercise their right to vote might not seem like a big deal to a lot of people commenting here, but that is what amounts to a poll tax plain and simple. Not only that but that $14 might have gone for food or bus fare to get to their minimum wage job. I think it's pretty un-American to force someone to choose between voting and feeding themselves or voting and going to work. It used to be that if your ID was not expired you could bring a current piece of mail with you to verify your residence. That is no more and it is shameful.

Those of you that don't live in the depths of poverty should realize that those that do still have the right to vote. Just because they tend to vote Democrat doesn't mean that we should make it a lot more difficult for them to vote. And the handful of voter fraud cases are no excuse for this government over reach. There are prosecutors that can handle voter fraud. It is a huge waste of our state's resources to be doing this and using voter fraud as an excuse. Republicans are always trying to paint themselves as fiscally responsible. This voter ID law debacle was anything but.

There is nothing wrong with requiring someone to verify residency and eligibility to vote. People make too much of this issue. If you don't carry identification with you at all times, it usually means that you have something to hide. Usually. Felons can not vote, for example. Perhaps this is one reason that the democrat party is against it (too many members are felons?)? If that's not the case, then it makes little sense to oppose it. If you don't have an I.D., which you can get from the state at no cost under the voter ID legislation the last time I checked, why? If you drive, and havn't had your license revoked like half of Janesville right now, you already have identification. This is a non-issue.

Kind of funny to hear some on the left say voter fraud is all a myth now.
One of the most disingenuous statements of ALL TIME, consider back in 2000 all they were crying was VOTER FRAUD in Florida!
.
Guess when Kennedy won Illinois back in 60, having more votes in some precincts then actual registered voters, there was no fraud at all there...Yep, just a big myth.

MooShoo-Its my mother in law and it's the SAME I.D. needed for her to cash that check for cat food and to vote. If they want an I.D. they will get one.
You can make a hundred excusses why you can't get one. Voter suppression is when my vote doesn't count when somebody who is not suppose to vote cancels out mine.Why don't you own up to that?
You people are totally brainwashed.

@poorrichard- You finally got it right. They are subject to recalls because of "dirty rotten liars". Walker and gang have lied all along and you are finally admitting it. Good for you.

MooShoo-My 87 year old mother in law had to show an I.D. card to cash a check at Pet Smart last week. I don't remember her "jumping thru any hoops" to get one and she's deaf. And by the way that 84 year old you mention probably votes Republican.
And no they're subject to the recalls because of dirty, rotten liars.

You forgot to mention that showing an I.D. will cut down the number of illegal voters - we expect lots of voters from the national unions from all around the country.

Tea Party platform core belief # 5 ( Taken from the Tea Party Platform Movement belief statement) HMMM Seems to me Walker and gang have forgotten strayed from the message.

"5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States - The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and must be adhered to without exception at all levels of government. This includes the Bill of Rights and other Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and their provisions designed to protect states’ rights and individual liberties."

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” --Abraham Lincoln

For everyone saying that we only want a recall because we didn't win, then why don't we recall every election that a Republican wins?

dustyd, the recall is indeed nullifying everones vote who voted in the last election. Because the dems did not win they want a redo of a fairly won election last year. Voter ID was not rushed thru as some spout here. It has been on the adjenda for at least 3 years and was never passed when the Dems were control.Why? When there are more votes cast in a voting district than there are registered voters( ie in one Dane county district,) during the Prosser vote, something is wrong.

Mooshoo, I read the article and think it is a red herring. She states all she has to do to get a copy of her birth certificate is request it from the state with a $20 fee. She is 84 yre old. How did she get SS without a birth cert? She is fiesty and does not think she should have to pay for her copy of the Birth Cert. Her vote is not being disenfranchised! She is choosing by her own stubborness to be difficult and should not vote if she remains so.
btw, bebe is correct.

I notice it took several days for the spelling of the word "suppress" to be corrected in the headline to this article. Originally, the word was spelled incorrectly as "surpress," with an "r." I'm glad it finally got corrected.

For all of those blogging on here that, at the direction of your Republican propogandist sheppards, continually believe they are using the word "liberal" in a deragatory way, I can assure you that you're only resonating with people that are already stuck in your fascist echo chamber. "Liberal" stands for LIBERTY, not the suppression, division, morality laws and hatred promoted by the far right. We are quite happy to be referred to as liberals; it's a positive term that we are proud to have associated with our political philosophy.

From what I understand of US History, the Dem's are well familier with the use of voter suppression laws. They instigated many of them. Believe it was also a Dem that liked the idea that is now called Gerry-mandering of Districts. If you are legally eligible to vote, there is nothing that will stop you from voting if you really want to vote. Of the 40 to 50 percent of people that don't take the time to vote, are they all poor, elderly, or suppressed Dem's?

The problem is not that the wrong people are voting. There are not enough people voting. Such a small percentage of the electorate tends to vote, and Republicans love that. When a smaller percentage of the electorate votes, Republicans tend to do better. When a larger percentage votes, Democrats do better. That is why voter ID laws are being put in place. It's not about voter fraud. There are more people killed by lightning every year than cofirmed cases of voter fraud. There are more reported UFO sightings than confirmed cases of voter fraud. It is not an issue. There are prosecutors to handle possible voter fraud. The fact that possible voter fraud is being dealt with at the highest level of state governments is a collossal waste of time and resources. We should err on the side of enfranchisement. If, at a polling station, there is a question of voter eligibility, the person should be allowed to vote. However, they should be told that their vote will be set aside and looked into. If they are eligible, their vote will count. If they are not, the vote will obviously not count AND they will be prosecuted. It's as simple as that. Why turn away people trying to exercise their right simply because they don't have a to the minute up-to-date ID. Some people move A LOT. Low income folks tend to frequently change addresses as do young people from a variety of economic backgrounds. Why make it harder for them to vote? Oh...right...I forgot. It's because those groups tend to vote for Democrats.

Some against any voter ID, may have a different tune, if they show up at the polls to find their name has all ready been crossed off!! To say the %age of those defrauding the system is less then those who would be supposedly disenfranchised, has no evidence what so ever. Anyone eligible to vote can do so, if they have the WILL to take some basic steps to show they are eligible. If someone stays away from the voting booth because it requires some basic- minimal effort on their part, then they should not be voting in the 1st place. JMHO

"The voting ID has one purpose, reduce the number of young people, poor people and poor minorities that vote."
-
More salacious comments with no history of fact behind them. There are plenty of states in this nation that voter ID laws exist in, yet what you claim has never been shown true. If you think it might be a bad idea fine, just stop the silly claims that are easily shown false and misleading. The Supreme Court has upheld voter ID laws.

The sad part is why things like this are even needed. Just this past year during the last recall circus, out of state campaign workers staying in a hotel/motel used our existing laws to register to vote and cast ballots. Since then they returned to their home states, this by the way is being investigated. I wish every person would take the time to cast their ballot so our government was made up of those the true majority wants. Just think for a moment at some of the very recent close elections and then wonder if there were one or more ballots cast illegally. Do you want your government made up of people who the voters wanted or made up of the people schemes help create?

How many republicans are elderly and wont be able to get a voter ID so will lose their votes also. There are lot of poor middle class republicans that wont vote either because of voter ID laws. So wont be just democrates staying home and not voting in fact could turn out just the opposite.

Wrong bebe- voter ID laws are created to give an advantage to a political party that traditionally loses in a state. If you are/ were a student of History, you would know that. Happened for many years in the south and in other states in which the leaders(and I use that term loosely)knew that if a certain majority of people could vote, the outcome would be different. History has proven exactly that.

whzbng, is what bebe53 wrote at 3:39 what you meant or did he suppress your response?

@bebe- Just curious. Why do you think the Republican Party hurried up to get the voter idea measure through immediately? There seem to be so many other issues of greater importance than this so why the rush?

bebe53, I think everyone misunderstands you, you seem to be such a nice guy.

whzbng: No one's vote is going to be nullified. In fact, you'll have a chance to vote again for your beloved Scotty.

@whzbng, so now are you suggesting the suppression of the recall provision?

All the Dems here talking about voter suppression should look in the mirror. The biggest voter suppression is taking place right now to invalidate a fairly won election by our governor. Thousands of people that voted in the last election are seeing how the left wants to nullify their vote. Shame on them.

vatoloco, I get what you're saying. It does seem like the country, even the citizens, have been bought and paid for by the ruling class, the big business. But I'm not willing to give up the fight, yet. And though I've never seen a candidate who is perfect, I choose, usually, a Democrat. They are almost always, if not saintly representatives of freedom, at least much more aligned with my values and POV than the Conservative Right. You have to play the hand you are dealt. You have to work in the system to bring change. Usually.

bebe53 "@Gandalf-more lies,fear and idiotic baseless rhetoric-show us all where there has EVER been proven a case of voter suppression in states with voter ID laws-try dealing with the facts that are true before you continue to post your liberal B.S!!!
Can you please post one documented case of voter fraud which justifies the voter ID laws? No, you can't . There never was voter fraud. So follow you own advice try dealing with the facts that are true before you continue to post your conservative B.S!!!

Again, the voter ID laws ARE the vote suppression. And there ARE many cases of people who legitimately have the RIGHT to vote who find it so difficult to get the proper documentation that they don't end up voting. The elderly lady with no birth certificate, etc. The percentage of people who actually commit voter fraud compared to the percentage of people who vote is so extremely low and the draconian efforts to suppress votes is so extreme, it is another "solution in search of a problem" as my little Sharpton like sto say. Also, the voter fraud that DOES go on, rare as it is, is not usually the kind that can be stopped with these voter ID laws.

Liberal nut job? No, I believe you mean Tea Baggers.

RetiredAirForce
Dec 9, 2011 at 5:18 a.m.
Suggest removal I love how some toss the reason that since voting is a right there should be no limitations, like voter ID. This "might" have a standing if the base of your claim(s) had standing. In our country there is no such thing as an unlimited right. There are limits to your rights of speech, religion, assembly, press, and petitions of grievances. There are already limits on voting accepted by all; registration, number of votes, voting hours, voting places, days for voting, and travel to and from voting. The idea that proving who you are before voting is a bigger a burden than the others is on its face absurd, so why the claims of voter suppression? If the requirement for voter ID resulted in suppression there should be plenty of examples, since this is the law in many states, and has been upheld by the supreme court.
.
I would argue that many of the other limitations should be removed. Polls, for example, should be open the entire 24 hours of election day.
.
The rest, I would argue, don't descriminate and are not put in place for the singular purpose to reduce the number or a certain part of the population from voting.
.
The voting ID has one purpose, reduce the number of young people, poor people and poor minorities that vote.
.
That is the problem.

RetiredAirForce
Dec 9, 2011 at 5:18 a.m.
Suggest removal I love how some toss the reason that since voting is a right there should be no limitations, like voter ID. This "might" have a standing if the base of your claim(s) had standing. In our country there is no such thing as an unlimited right. There are limits to your rights of speech, religion, assembly, press, and petitions of grievances. There are already limits on voting accepted by all; registration, number of votes, voting hours, voting places, days for voting, and travel to and from voting. The idea that proving who you are before voting is a bigger a burden than the others is on its face absurd, so why the claims of voter suppression? If the requirement for voter ID resulted in suppression there should be plenty of examples, since this is the law in many states, and has been upheld by the supreme court.
.
I would argue that many of the other limitations should be removed. Polls, for example, should be open the entire 24 hours of election day.
.
The rest, I would argue, don't descriminate and are not put in place for the singular purpose to reduce the number or a certain part of the population from voting.
.
The voting ID has one purpose, reduce the number of young people, poor people and poor minorities that vote.
.
That is the problem.

What I love is the FACT that in some of these state a valid University ID cannot be used but a conceal carry permit can?
.
Why don't they just say GOP membership card valid, DEM card is not?
.
At least that would be honest...WAIT that is why, they are incapable of honesty.

It is always sad to see people who must first determine what their "party" believes and then find the reasons that support that thought as opposed to supporting what "they" know is correct and supporting that even when it conflicts with their party's perspective.

Wislady, what are you pulling those things out of?

I guess if a group can't win fair and square, they have to suppress to protect their interests. Very, very unpatriotic.

Another case of "monster" shouters.

@Bebe53: It's a lie or falsehood that only Republicans are pushing voter ID laws? Did I say "lazy and stupid?" I definately wouldn't, because I know there is a very high correlation between educational attainment and progressive voting. I suppose you're going to argue also that Republican union busting is all about "job creating" and has nothing to do with the fact that unions generally support and contribute to the Democratic party? You are the tool for carrying water for fat cats and believing all the far right-wing propoganda in your echo chamber.

dustyd.......It sounds like you are insinuating that democrats are either stupid or lazy. While I disagree with their perspectives on many things, I have always given them more credit for being much more resourceful than you do. IMHO--I think you owe them an apology for labeling them in such a negative light.......

Truth be known, the only thing stopping a person from voting is the person him/her self.
Funny that only poor, elderly, students, black, etc., who are being suppressed from voting are DEM's. Please clarify why that is?

Next thing we know, it will be like the recall petitions, if you think you might have used an invalid ballot.....vote again (up to 80 times).

The same people who whine about having to show ID to vote, never seem to have a problem showing ID to get their entitlements, or liquor, or movies, or to board an airplane.

I'm hearing all this "it's easy to get an ID" and "why is this an issue?" and "you need an ID for other stuff" yada yada yada. If this is such a plain, uncontenscious issue and makes perfect common sense, why is it that only the Republicans are pushing these voter ID restrictions through? The answer is simple and you all know it: voter ID laws surpress Democratic voting constituencies. Stop making silly excuses and inventing false arguments to justify what you know is an effort to keep the poor, students, black people and other Democratic majority demographic groups from voting.

RAF, the very nature of voter ID laws IS the suppression I am talking about. And the limits on our rights of "speech, religion, assembly, press, and petitions of grievances" that you are talking about, are, I think, only in place to stop MY rights in those areas from infringing on YOUR ability to exercise YOURS. For example, I can't force you to obey MY religion with say, Sunday alcohol laws if you aren't Christian...oh, wait...maybe not that one... Anyway, my right to vote completely for free does NOTHING to stop YOU from voting for free. See, we CAN all vote for free, and disenfranchising thousands just to stop a few from voting twice is absurd. And, to put it plainly, mean. Voter fraud is another largely concocted fear from the Right with very little basis in reality.

I love how some toss the reason that since voting is a right there should be no limitations, like voter ID. This "might" have a standing if the base of your claim(s) had standing. In our country there is no such thing as an unlimited right. There are limits to your rights of speech, religion, assembly, press, and petitions of grievances. There are already limits on voting accepted by all; registration, number of votes, voting hours, voting places, days for voting, and travel to and from voting. The idea that proving who you are before voting is a bigger a burden than the others is on its face absurd, so why the claims of voter suppression? If the requirement for voter ID resulted in suppression there should be plenty of examples, since this is the law in many states, and has been upheld by the supreme court.

Back in the time of the founding fathers, voting was a VASTLY discriminating process. Woman could not vote. Blacks could not vote. Indentured servants could not vote...You basically had to be a white, male, property owner.

usaret, businesses are not our government and therefore not the same. Evidently Lincoln should have said, so that a nation of those with IDs, by those with IDs, for those with IDs. Funny the founding fathers didn't seem to care that no one had IDs. In fact for over 200 years people didn't need IDs, but now suddenly not having an ID will destroy this nation. For Republicans, the sky is perpetual free fall.

If the government can create this restriction to voting, they can create any restriction to voting. Maybe a poll tax? A poll test? Nothing says liberty and freedom like, because the law says so (sarcasm).

I was homeless several times as a child, by the time I reached 18, because of all the moving, etc, I had NO official documents to show who I was, and no idea how to get them. I moved out on my own, got a job, looked into the matter, and within about a year I had my ducks all lined up and enough money to pay for the right papers and was registered to vote. My point is that I know from experience that when you are very poor, it can be EXTREMELY difficult to learn how to and track down the documents needed to prove who you are. Especially if you rent and have to move for a job, you need new stuff, if you lose a job and get evicted you have to get new stuff, and yeah, when you're scraping up change for gas money to get to work, $5.00 is a WHOLE LOT of money. Anything other than completely free and easily obtained documentation is voter suppression of the poor. Voting is a right, not a privilege, or we are simply NOT a democracy. We are a plutocracy and I think more and more of us are coming to understand that fact every hour and every day.

Oh I see there is a 28 dollar fee. But if your intent is to use it to vote it's free. So they should set up shop at the polling places and make it easier for those who can't get a ride from farm land, or across town, or three towns over, etc.

free

usret- since when where WI IDs fee?

Here's an idea - if an ID is required to do my American duty of voting, than the elections board should make my ID for free. Many poor can't come up with 5 bucks, does that mean their right to vote is taken away? As an American it is your right to vote, why should ANYONE's -left, right, up, down- right's be taken away because they are to poor to come up with the fee?

Baegucb: Being the nice person you are why don't you volunteer to take your co-worker to the DMV sometime so he can get a free ID. Simple solution, Right?

There has been no evidence of voter fraud. This just suppresses votes. I have a co-worker who can not drive due to a medical condition, and takes a bus/walks to work. He said the online ID costs money.
/shrug the Republicans and tea party branch are just being disingenuous.

dustyd: I guess republicans just get voter id,s when they turn 18 otherwise they would be complaining like the dem

TT: Your right and I want to be sure that my right to vote is not taken away from me by someone else voting as me. As to the others being a priviledge, can't disagree,but how come your not saying that the businesses, etc., are not denying the poor, the elderly the priviledge of purchasing a product. After all, are they not being denied their rights to shop?

anti: So glad you are recognized by so many but not everybody is as lucky as you in that case. Car dealerships ask for a DL so does that make me untrustworthy or anybody else for that matter? It is just verification. It is no big deal. How about those that put on their charge cards (SEE ID)? Shouldn't I trust them and not ask to see and ID? This back and forth could go on for ages with neither side giving in. Right now it is the law and we are a law abiding people right, so guess we should obey the law and stop looking for excuses to ignore it.

usaret: everything you listed is a privelage. voting is a right.

anti-Rarely asked? That means you have been asked and have an I.D..You must be a popular guy if they all know you. And just because somebody doesn't know you doesn't make you untrustworthy. Maybe you should get back in a bubble.

Actually, I am rarely asked for my ID when writing a check or when I go to the bank because they already know who I am, so sorry to burst your bubble, but that is your life usaret, not mine. Maybe you're just untrustworthy.

Just another socialist progressive liberal government mandate.

dustyd: Do you cash checks? Do you provide proof when you buy a car or house? What do you use to prove who you are? What do offer as proof when applying for a job? At Woodman's you're ID'd if you purchase cigarettes--what would you use? What do the payday loan companies use for proof of ID and I do believe a lot of poor use places like that? So, how is providing proof of ID such a vote stifler of the poor, minorities, the elderly and the students? If I am willing to provide proof to vote why can't someone else? How many people do you know that do not have any type of valid ID? If I were to purchase something from you and pay by check, what kind of proof/varification would you need before you accepted the check? So, it can be said everyone needs proof of ID at sometime or other and if you don't have it you do without. Sorry, but that is life.

Does Rick every say anything bad about the Democrats? Surely the Democrats can't be as perfect as he thinks, can they?

Your computer has to be tilted to one side probably the left with nothing but bashing the Republicans.

The problem with voterID laws is that they make an assumption of illegal behavior without proof or evidence just empty assertions. An assumption of guilt is wholly unAmerican comrades.

What is so hard about getting an I.D. card? To listen to the Democrats it would be easier to cut your arm off with a piece of tinsel. You SHOULD have one anyway.There is nothing restrictive about it-go get one and louwala-restriction gone.

Horowitz is absolutely right on this. The purpose of voter ID laws is to prevent minorities, students, the elderly and other likely Democratic constituencies from voting. Why do you suppose it's only Republicans that are pushing restrictive voter ID laws? Here in Wisconsin, the Republicans also cited "voter fraud" as the reason these voting restrictions are needed, when in fact voter fraud is almost nonexistent here. The only real fraud taking place, apparently, is by right wing extremists using dirty tricks to try to derail the Walker recall effort. Funny how those who love to talk about the Constitution don't seem to remember that the right to petition is one of the five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.