Fluorescent Testicle: ACORN BAD. SUPERPACS GOOD.

NiBONG President, bad...people who elected him..TRAITORS!

Welcome to Republican Politics 2012.

The GOP has allowed it's agenda to be co-opted by the Tea Party retards and in a perfect world, it would be their undoing. However, it seems like every week, some moderate Republican gets primaried by a Teatard who thinks compromise is a dirty word unless it means "doing things OUR way".

Who would have guessed that the undoing of this country would come at the hands of a bunch of riled up, financially illiterate white retirees from rural America who don't know dick about how Government is supposed to work.

runin800m: COMALite J: Directly or indirectly. Sure, the ID itself may be free at the DMV, but getting to the DMV costs money: either gasoline if you drive yourself, public transportation (if even available) or taxi fare, etc. Not to mention cost of babysitting or day care if you have kids that you cannot lug to the DMV, the cost of lost work time if you work for hourly wages and/or tips and/or are self-employed, etc.

Using this line of logic, wouldn't the state be required to supply a babysitter, supply gasoline, taxi fare, or transport you to the polling place, and reimburse you for hourly wages and or tips when you go to actually vote too? Why would they have to pay for those things for you to get an ID when they don't pay for them when you ACTUALLY VOTE?

No. Because the 24^th Amendment and Supreme Court ruling forbid poll taxes or any substitute thereof. Requiring an ID that costs money in any way would qualify. Voting itself would not.

DeaH: In my state, Ohio, voters have to pass an income test to get the free voter ID cards. They have to pass that test every single time they need a new ID, and the process takes several days up to weeks. That means that, effectively, many people who qualify will not get an ID in time for elections, especially if a move is with in a month of the polling time. And, you are also correct about the distribution points. In Ohio, most of the DMVs are suburban, which makes them effectively useless for inner city non-drivers. Also, many students are automatically disqualified from getting the IDs because their parents' income is above the qualifying line.

So, no. At least here, no one has enacted the system I outlined above, and that is why people are unhappy.

First of all, problems in Ohio and Wisconsin don't mean that "no one" has enacted the system you outlined above. Many states have enacted Voter ID laws and showing some problems with the way that's administered in two states doesn't invalidate every state's administration of voter ID laws.

Maybe I'm not understanding the website but it looks like there's one bureau of motor vehicles in each county of Ohio. That seems pretty evenly distributed to me. What makes it such an unreasonable burden to place on people? I will say that I don't think it's constitutional to means test the free voting ID. I think that it is clear under the constitution that a poll tax isn't acceptable, even one that only applies the poll tax to wealthy people. I can support the requirement as not being a poll tax only when a voting ID can be obtained for free. I don't see a problem with a lag time of several days or a week before getting your ID though, that actually seems fairly efficient to me.

COMALite J: No. Because the 24th Amendment and Supreme Court ruling forbid poll taxes or any substitute thereof. Requiring an ID that costs money in any way would qualify. Voting itself would not.

The ID doesn't cost any money, they provide them for free. You have to get to the place to get that ID on your own. Voting doesn't cost any money, they provide that service for free. You have to get to the place to vote on your own.

See how that works? That's why it's not a poll tax. If that was a poll tax, then the gas it takes you to get to the polling station would be a poll tax. The money you pay the babysitter while you vote would be a poll tax. Etc. Those are not poll taxes and neither is the gas it takes to get the ID or the money you pay the babysitter while you get the ID.

Sgt Otter: Parthenogenetic: monoski: qorkfiend: No one who takes O'Keefe seriously will read this, so this whole thing is an exercise in futility.

There are a few die-hards out here on Fark who buy into his BS. Will be interesting to see if anyone chimes in to defend him.

It doesn't matter that this one specific instance was not entirely factually correct.

[freedomslighthouse.net image 450x338]

"Fake...but accurate."

Funny you should mention that. It seems now that the "analysis" that "proved" those documents "fake" was wrong, and that they likely were genuine after all. Turns out that typewriters capable of proportional spacing and even superscripted "th" really did exist at and even before the time of those documents (the IBM Executive series − I've personally used one), and even used the Times New Roman font, which Microsoft copied the form and metrics of for their TrueType version in Windows so it's no surprise that the letters would line up.

runin800m: Serious Black: Honestly, I don't have that big of a problem with them either; I just have a very low standard for what constitutes an unreasonable burden on the right to vote. And I also think that there are much better and more efficient things we can do to make our elections more reputable, like universal voter registration and (horror of horrors) compulsory voting.

Well, then we both agree that unreasonable restrictions are unacceptable we just seem to differ slightly in what constitutes unreasonable. I might be able to get behind the idea of compulsory voting, but it's probably not constitutional. At the same time that I see that it could be good, I also see a bad side. I think that everyone has a duty to vote, but I also think that you have a duty to be informed about who you are voting for or you have a duty to not vote, if that makes any sense. I'm not saying I think we should restrict peoples voting rights if they are uninformed, I don't think we should, but I think that person has a duty to not vote if they're not informed about the election.

I understand the constitutionality concern, at least where it concerns forcing speech. But I think that can be alleviated by either mandating a "none of the above" option be added to every race or allowing people to turn in a ballot with no votes in races. Because there are a multitude of reasons why someone would pick "none of the above," you're no longer compelling speech.

As for the issues with uninformed voters skewing the results, I think we actually have a reverse issue in America today, especially with primary elections. The people who vote today are the ones we can motivate to go to the polls, and it's a hell of a lot easier to convince people to vote when you're making apocalyptic threats about the world ending if the other side wins. That means our elections are largely controlled by small but vocal special interests. There's some evidence that "uninformed" voters are actually important to the proper functioning of a democracy because they dilute the power of those minority interests, though scientists aren't really sure why that's the case as of yet.

NeverDrunk23: TV's Vinnie: Much the way that Planned Parenthood is more than just about abortions, ACORN was more than just voter registration. ACORN was an agency that helped the poor. O'Keefe hates the poor with a seething passion, so to him, ACORN had to go.

Imagine being such a bitter, hate-filled little sh*t of a "man" for hating the poor so god-damned much that you even want to destroy anything and any one who may want to help them. To leave those in poverty with no help, no rights, no hope.


THAT is the sort of creature that is one James O'Keefe.

He has a very punchable face.

The way everything is all crooked and lopsided makes me think he's been punched a lot already.

Serious Black: I understand the constitutionality concern, at least where it concerns forcing speech. But I think that can be alleviated by either mandating a "none of the above" option be added to every race or allowing people to turn in a ballot with no votes in races. Because there are a multitude of reasons why someone would pick "none of the above," you're no longer compelling speech.

As for the issues with uninformed voters skewing the results, I think we actually have a reverse issue in America today, especially with primary elections. The people who vote today are the ones we can motivate to go to the polls, and it's a hell of a lot easier to convince people to vote when you're making apocalyptic threats about the world ending if the other side wins. That means our elections are largely controlled by small but vocal special interests. There's some evidence that "uninformed" voters are actually important to the proper functioning of a democracy because they dilute the power of those minority interests, though scientists aren't really sure why that's the case as of yet.

That's an interesting argument, regarding the constitutionality of mandatory voting. I think I actually like that idea. I could probably be persuaded to go along with that pretty easily.

I wasn't trying to suggest that I think uninformed voters are like massively skewing our election results or anything. That's just a pet peeve of mine. I think everyone should get informed about elections and the politicians running and then go vote however they feel they need to, I just also think that about the only thing even worse than not getting informed and voting is not getting informed and still voting. I don't really think it's a huge problem or anything.

RobertBruce: ACORN attempted massive voter fraud no different than the same old chicago democrats for over 100 years.

Are you retarded?

RobertBruce: So? you still get locked up for attempted murder. ACORN attempted massive voter fraud no different than the same old chicago democrats for over 100 years.

No they didn't.

gilgigamesh: strathcona: Cat Food Sandwiches: That's some good fact checking there. Didn't Elizabeth Warren also verify that she was NA?

Are you retarded?

The funny thing is I am seeing this same deflection on multiple websites reporting this story.

The repetition of disseminated talking points to the party faithful has become so blatant in the internet age.

The glare from your tin-foil hat is starting to blind me.

runin800m: DeaH: In my state, Ohio, voters have to pass an income test to get the free voter ID cards. They have to pass that test every single time they need a new ID, and the process takes several days up to weeks. That means that, effectively, many people who qualify will not get an ID in time for elections, especially if a move is with in a month of the polling time. And, you are also correct about the distribution points. In Ohio, most of the DMVs are suburban, which makes them effectively useless for inner city non-drivers. Also, many students are automatically disqualified from getting the IDs because their parents' income is above the qualifying line.

So, no. At least here, no one has enacted the system I outlined above, and that is why people are unhappy.

First of all, problems in Ohio and Wisconsin don't mean that "no one" has enacted the system you outlined above. Many states have enacted Voter ID laws and showing some problems with the way that's administered in two states doesn't invalidate every state's administration of voter ID laws.

Maybe I'm not understanding the website but it looks like there's one bureau of motor vehicles in each county of Ohio. That seems pretty evenly distributed to me. What makes it such an unreasonable burden to place on people? I will say that I don't think it's constitutional to means test the free voting ID. I think that it is clear under the constitution that a poll tax isn't acceptable, even one that only applies the poll tax to wealthy people. I can support the requirement as not being a poll tax only when a voting ID can be obtained for free. I don't see a problem with a lag time of several days or a week before getting your ID though, that actually seems fairly efficient to me.

How do non-drivers get out to the county area? In order to be useful, there needs to be a lot more DMVs (if they are to be the distribution point for the free IDs) in areas where there are no drivers. Generally, that's going to be urban areas and areas with lots of seniors. One per county can mean an hour or more by car. What is it to someone who has to walk (since many of these are not on any form a public transportation)? Or do you think a $50 cab ride - one way, IF you can find a cab - is a fair thing? It ends up being even more of a poll tax. And, since there is an income test, multiple trips are required, so we are talking about $100 or more dollars to get the "free" voter ID.

To be truly about just ID, and not about stopping certain demographics from voting, there needs to be a lot more places where the IDs are distributed. And, to be truly fair, the free ID needs to be available to anyone who can show proof of age and residency. They need to get rid of the whole proof of low income requirement.

Funny how O'Keefe hasn't even spent a night in jail for all the fraud he's perpetrated, and the damage caused by his stupid bullsh*t.

I miss the good old days, when GOPpers would crap their pants at the VERY IDEA of a national ID. They didn't want Big Government tracking everywhere we went, or getting our privacy rights stomped on by Big Brother.

To abandon a formerly strong principle is one thing. But to do so for voter suppression purposes is truly sick. But, whatever is more important to The Cause at this point, I suppose, so... USA! USA! USA!

whidbey: Funny how O'Keefe hasn't even spent a night in jail for all the fraud he's perpetrated, and the damage caused by his stupid bullsh*t.

If by "funny" you mean an injustice that should be embarrassing.

DeaH: To be truly about just ID, and not about stopping certain demographics from voting, there needs to be a lot more places where the IDs are distributed. And, to be truly fair, the free ID needs to be available to anyone who can show proof of age and residency. They need to get rid of the whole proof of low income requirement.

Well, I agree that it needs to be available but not to anyone who can show proof of age and residency, to anyone who can show proof of who they are. People without the right to vote can prove that they're of age and residents, so that doesn't really even get to the point. I do agree that one per county could be a burden, but it doesn't seem to me that it's done in a way to discourage a particular group, and that's what I was trying to get at. I was trying more to say that they're evenly distributed, not necessarily that there are enough. I will happily admit that one per county is, in many cases, not sufficient. I also think that requiring proof of low income in order to get the ID for free is blatantly unconstitutional. EVERYONE has to be able to get an ID for free or it's a poll tax. Poll taxes aren't OK, even when they're only applied to those with more money than others.

I just don't see it, in that particular case, as designed to disenfranchise. The DMV, or BMV in Ohio's case, is the logical place to have the IDs distributed and it would seem that they have one in each county so I don't feel like they're TRYING to make them hard to get, but I do think that in some cases it probably is too hard to get. If they want to do this then they need to find some way to make the IDs easier to get without traveling so far, like maybe offering them at the DMV but also making them available at other government locations that would be easier for people to access since they have so few DMVs.

We're definitely in complete and total agreement that the low income requirement is not acceptable and totally unconstitutional, if nothing else.

Sorry, I repeated myself a bit in my last post. I started responding and then finished up a bit later. I should have re-read the whole thing before posting something redundant.

There are few people on this planet who I would willfully yell out "green light" at a crosswalk to watch them walk in front of a moving bus.

This ridiculous little sh*t is one of them.

spongeboob: COMALite J: Does O'Keefe claim to be a Christian?

Isn't the only Republican who doesn't claim to be Christian S.E. Cupp, the "atheist" who writes books like Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity, and who "really aspires to be a person of faith some day." Link

/it is funny to me that the party that has so many people who ignore the sermon on the mount is considered "the Christian party"

Who gives a crap about that? CHECK OUT THOSE GAMS!





And no, those aren't shooped: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L-ObCaDwq8#t=1m20s

She's sort of a conservative version of Grable's Daughter, but thankfully without the Mirror Universe goatee. Not anywhere readily visible, anyway...

Serious Black: I also think that there are much better and more efficient things we can do to make our elections more reputable, like universal voter registration and (horror of horrors) compulsory voting.

How about making voting day a holiday so that people don't have to take time off to vote?

Blues_X: This is surprising.

To idiots.

Not really. I was a little surprised that Hitler wasn't involved, being Brazillian and all.

cman: No shiat, Sherlock

Also, love the headline. farking awesome trolling done there, subs

I suddenly realized that you're named after your favorite drink.

Here's what confuses me:

Why can't voting be treated as the gentlemanly act it was originally intentioned as? In my location, you send in your form, you're on a roll, you walk into the polling place, you sign your name affirming you're you, and you vote. You mark down your votes on a sheet, you put it into the feeder. That's it. It's honorable, it's simple, it requires no expenditure of funds (the registration is free when mailed) on behalf of the voter. If you can't be at your polling place for election day, you mail them a month or so ahead of time, you get a ballot in the mail, you fill it out, have two people affirm it, then mail it out, again, free.

Why do you need to spend money on an ID, or promise refunds, or do anything behind that? Is there a rash of people voting under a different name? Is there a statistically siginfigant group trying to illegally vote?

I don't honestly think there is.

COMALite J: Funny you should mention that. It seems now that the "analysis" that "proved" those documents "fake" was wrong, and that they likely were genuine after all. Turns out that typewriters capable of proportional spacing and even superscripted "th" really did exist at and even before the time of those documents (the IBM Executive series − I've personally used one), and even used the Times New Roman font, which Microsoft copied the form and metrics of for their TrueType version in Windows so it's no surprise that the letters would line up.

Not true. The IBM Executive was not capable of the kind of spacing that Word does routinely. It didn't use Times Roman but a proprietary roman serif font.

I'm an expert in typography and Yellow Dog hard-left liberal Democrat. I wanted the memos to be real and tried my damndest to prove that they could have been created on IBM equipment available at the time. In the end, I had to admit that they were fake, based on an analysis by Thomas Phinney, who was then head of Adobe's font program. I assisted him in visualizing this for the Washington Post.

I had raised the issue of the IBM Executive (which I had used myself in my time) and he shot it down easily. I forget the exact reasoning, but he definitively showed me how the typeface was different. I have the argument somewhere. He's the über-expert. I am a mere amateur by comparison. As much as I hated it, I had to concede that he was right. The memos were fake because the font in them did not exist at the time they were supposedly created.

runin800m: DeaH: To be truly about just ID, and not about stopping certain demographics from voting, there needs to be a lot more places where the IDs are distributed. And, to be truly fair, the free ID needs to be available to anyone who can show proof of age and residency. They need to get rid of the whole proof of low income requirement.

Well, I agree that it needs to be available but not to anyone who can show proof of age and residency, to anyone who can show proof of who they are. People without the right to vote can prove that they're of age and residents, so that doesn't really even get to the point. I do agree that one per county could be a burden, but it doesn't seem to me that it's done in a way to discourage a particular group, and that's what I was trying to get at. I was trying more to say that they're evenly distributed, not necessarily that there are enough. I will happily admit that one per county is, in many cases, not sufficient. I also think that requiring proof of low income in order to get the ID for free is blatantly unconstitutional. EVERYONE has to be able to get an ID for free or it's a poll tax. Poll taxes aren't OK, even when they're only applied to those with more money than others.

I just don't see it, in that particular case, as designed to disenfranchise. The DMV, or BMV in Ohio's case, is the logical place to have the IDs distributed and it would seem that they have one in each county so I don't feel like they're TRYING to make them hard to get, but I do think that in some cases it probably is too hard to get. If they want to do this then they need to find some way to make the IDs easier to get without traveling so far, like maybe offering them at the DMV but also making them available at other government locations that would be easier for people to access since they have so few DMVs.

We're definitely in complete and total agreement that the low income requirement is not acceptable and totally unconstitutional, if nothing else.

I like your idea of having these available at many different government offices. And, yes, the proof of income is a horror. I believe that it's in place because free IDs are very expensive for the state. The people pushing for the IDs are also pushing for huge cuts across the board, and especially for social programs.

It have looked very bad if, in a time of deep austerity, anyone who can provide required documents could get an ID for free because, with the proof of low income in place, the "free" voter IDs were going to have a price tag of around $4 million dollars per year. A free voter ID program without proof of income would cost multiples of that. But, if they are going to go ahead with the plan, they need to pay for it. And they need to do it properly. Anything else looks like voter suppression and general skullduggery.

You know what I miss? I miss those epic FAIL threads for SuperDeluxe. Could you guys just do that whenever O'Keefe comes up?

DeaH: I like your idea of having these available at many different government offices. And, yes, the proof of income is a horror. I believe that it's in place because free IDs are very expensive for the state. The people pushing for the IDs are also pushing for huge cuts across the board, and especially for social programs.

It have looked very bad if, in a time of deep austerity, anyone who can provide required documents could get an ID for free because, with the proof of low income in place, the "free" voter IDs were going to have a price tag of around $4 million dollars per year. A free voter ID program without proof of income would cost multiples of that. But, if they are going to go ahead with the plan, they need to pay for it. And they need to do it properly. Anything else looks like voter suppression and general skullduggery.

Well, considering what you've just said above, I'm going to go ahead and say we can probably be in complete agreement. It sucks that providing free id's for people to vote is expensive, but if you want to require one to vote without having it be a poll tax then tough shiat. I don't know how far they need to go to make them accessible, but it should be reasonable. I don't know exactly what would be reasonable but, for example, I don't think a 50 minute drive is reasonable when you vote only a 5 minute drive away. Maybe it could somehow be tied to how close your polling place is. That's the best way I can think, off of the top of my head, to apply a sort of universal standard that wouldn't be impractical in either urbarn or very rural areas.

eriphila: You know what I miss? I miss those epic FAIL threads for SuperDeluxe. Could you guys just do that whenever O'Keefe comes up?

works for me.

Antimatter: LasersHurt: jayg22: "draconian security measures like voter ID"

/Its amazing people think showing photo id is draconian.

Draconian, no. A silly political ploy clearly meant to disenfranchise individuals? Yes.

/either hand out free, valid IDs to citizens first, or drop it

Right. Unless your ID is free, easy to get, and convenient to get, it's really just a thinly disguised poll tax.

Thats funny you say that, because I bet you a nickel the people supposedly being disenfranchised by having to show their ID for voting can find the necessary identification most ricky tick when they're applying for welfare benefits

jules_siegel: COMALite J: Funny you should mention that. It seems now that the "analysis" that "proved" those documents "fake" was wrong, and that they likely were genuine after all. Turns out that typewriters capable of proportional spacing and even superscripted "th" really did exist at and even before the time of those documents (the IBM Executive series − I've personally used one), and even used the Times New Roman font, which Microsoft copied the form and metrics of for their TrueType version in Windows so it's no surprise that the letters would line up.

Not true. The IBM Executive was not capable of the kind of spacing that Word does routinely. It didn't use Times Roman but a proprietary roman serif font.

I'm an expert in typography and Yellow Dog hard-left liberal Democrat. I wanted the memos to be real and tried my damndest to prove that they could have been created on IBM equipment available at the time. In the end, I had to admit that they were fake, based on an analysis by Thomas Phinney, who was then head of Adobe's font program. I assisted him in visualizing this for the Washington Post.

I had raised the issue of the IBM Executive (which I had used myself in my time) and he shot it down easily. I forget the exact reasoning, but he definitively showed me how the typeface was different. I have the argument somewhere. He's the über-expert. I am a mere amateur by comparison. As much as I hated it, I had to concede that he was right. The memos were fake because the font in them did not exist at the time they were supposedly created.

Nice to meet you, Mr. Siegel! I've heard of you, but had no idea you're a FARKer! I may not be the typography expert you are, but I am a fan of typography, to the extent of nearly quitting FARK (and actually doing so for almost a year) when they changed the comment post-processing script to change all proper typographic "curly" quotes, apostrophes, and em and en dashes, back into straight quotes and apostrophes and hyphens, respectively (I did find a workaround for the en dash − behold!). I still don't know why they did that, as pretty much all other Unicode characters can be typed into FARK posts just fine!

I also, about 2½ decades ago, hand-coded a PostScript Type 3 font with some unique characteristics (long before OpenType Pro and contextual alternates and the like, I made a handwriting-simulation font that would actually randomize the character shapes each time the character was used [I mean really randomizing the shapes, not randomly picking from a selection of alternates] and also based the stroke thickness on physical units so that, for instance, no matter how large or small a font size you used, the thicknesses of the strokes would remain the same, just as if you used a real ballpoint or felt-tip pen [for this reason, instead of calling the weight variants "Regular" and "Bold," I called them "Ballpoint" and "Felttip," respectively]).

I read your analysis with interest, and one thing stands out: Thomas Phinney did not actually type it on a real Selectric Composer (you are correct that the Executive could not have done it). What he did was make a generic simulated Selectric Composer based on the information that all of the fonts available for the S.C. used the same character widths, so the letter shapes didn't matter for this purpose.

I checked out the .PDFs of the manuals and font catalogs on Gerry Kaplan's IBM Selectric Composer website (themselves typeset on IBM Selectric Composers!), and I do see some variation on the character widths between fonts, though this may be due to font groupings sharing character widths among all the fonts in a given group.

But more importantly, did it never occur to either of you that maybe Kaplan's list of the width units for each character may not have been absolutely accurate? Mr. Kaplan is a truly devoted fan of the S.C., enough so to make the Internet's best (if not only) website dedicated to it. But he's still a human being, and a human reading from a long table of numbers and copying them in could make mistakes, e.g. accidentally copying the width of one character from the line above or below the correct one.

If there were any such typos or other inaccuracies in Kaplan's width tables vs. the real Selectric Composer fonts, then the analysis comparing the line endings would not be valid.

That said, it's only a possibility, and I do find your analysis otherwise convincing, and besides, it's all moot since I remember now that Killian's own secretary said that while she remembered typing memos about Bush's AWOL status, she didn't type that particular memo, and she was the only one in that office who was trained in the operating of that complex typesetting typewriter. So, it's probably indeed fake, but from real information.

That said, Dan Rather should never have been fired over this. He's a journalist and a quite good one, but not a typography expert.

Tell me, do the Birther "expert" analyses of the Obama B.C.s make you want to tear your hair out? Especially the ones harping on "different fonts" and "kerning" and such?

Tainted1: Thats funny you say that, because I bet you a nickel the people supposedly being disenfranchised by having to show their ID for voting can find the necessary identification most ricky tick when they're applying for welfare benefits

You realize you sound like a GIGANTIC asshole, right?

Oh my lordy I just wanna send the Angry Marines to O'Keefe's door.

Kittypie070: Oh my lordy I just wanna send the Angry Marines to O'Keefe's door.

Send me. I'm not friends with old mobsters because I wanted to know Bugsy Siegel's egg salad recipe.

COMALite J:

But more importantly, did it never occur to either of you that maybe Kaplan's list of the width units for each character may not have been absolutely accurate?

It is extremely unlikely that Phinney would not pick up an error of that kind in something as important as this. I'll ask him, though.

she was the only one in that office who was trained in the operating of that complex typesetting typewriter. So, it's probably indeed fake, but from real information.

When did she say anything about a typesetting typewriter?

Tell me, do the Birther "expert" analyses of the Obama B.C.s make you want to tear your hair out? Especially the ones harping on "different fonts" and "kerning" and such?

I looked at one or two of them and they were just silly. Some guy was complaining that the line heights didn't track. Seems he had never used a real typewriter with a carriage release lever.

What happened to your font?

runin800m: DeaH: I like your idea of having these available at many different government offices. And, yes, the proof of income is a horror. I believe that it's in place because free IDs are very expensive for the state. The people pushing for the IDs are also pushing for huge cuts across the board, and especially for social programs.

It have looked very bad if, in a time of deep austerity, anyone who can provide required documents could get an ID for free because, with the proof of low income in place, the "free" voter IDs were going to have a price tag of around $4 million dollars per year. A free voter ID program without proof of income would cost multiples of that. But, if they are going to go ahead with the plan, they need to pay for it. And they need to do it properly. Anything else looks like voter suppression and general skullduggery.

Well, considering what you've just said above, I'm going to go ahead and say we can probably be in complete agreement. It sucks that providing free id's for people to vote is expensive, but if you want to require one to vote without having it be a poll tax then tough shiat. I don't know how far they need to go to make them accessible, but it should be reasonable. I don't know exactly what would be reasonable but, for example, I don't think a 50 minute drive is reasonable when you vote only a 5 minute drive away. Maybe it could somehow be tied to how close your polling place is. That's the best way I can think, off of the top of my head, to apply a sort of universal standard that wouldn't be impractical in either urbarn or very rural areas.

I don't think you and I are that far off on photo ID requirements either. I'd even suggest that a significant majority of Americans actively support such a requirement or are opposed to it solely because of the poll tax issue and effective disenfranchisement of millions of eligible voters (my main beef).

Coelacanth 2012-05-17 06:10:27 AM


Kittypie070: Oh my lordy I just wanna send the Angry Marines to O'Keefe's door.

Send me. I'm not friends with old mobsters because I wanted to know Bugsy Siegel's egg salad recipe.

I'd love to, man.

I could even write out the order with the proper politicalese, after some research.

Mobsters?

Kittypie070: Mobsters?

I live here in Las Vegas and I know a few of the old guys who were here before the corporations took over. When I first moved here, I stopped a couple of African-American gangbangers from robbing and killing the son of a local wiseguy named "Pooch" (They wanted his son's Chicago Bulls jacket). Pooch and his family have been grateful ever since.

I still go to their house for Thanksgiving dinner. They send me home with enough food to last me until the middle of January.

Ahh, interesting.

Sh*t just got very real in my head, which makes it even more fascinating.

Off to research. May require a few days.

[much deep and very careful thinkings]

Coelacanth: Kittypie070: Mobsters?

I live here in Las Vegas and I know a few of the old guys who were here before the corporations took over. When I first moved here, I stopped a couple of African-American gangbangers from robbing and killing the son of a local wiseguy named "Pooch" (They wanted his son's Chicago Bulls jacket). Pooch and his family have been grateful ever since.

I still go to their house for Thanksgiving dinner. They send me home with enough food to last me until the middle of January.