quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

what you just said is SOOOO FUNNY, I have a friend who is an absolute OBAMA FAN
this is his reply to me talking about all the "scandels"

and the American people replied and said zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

but if you ask him about VOTER ID, which the supreme court has already ruled is fine to do, and is in effect in about 30 states, he'll go ON AN ON AN ON about how OUTRAGED the ENTIRE COUNTRY IS!!

funny how they impeached nixon for doing what this admin has done with the IRS, and NO ONE CARES, but when a state does what more than 1/2 of the other states are ALREADY DOING (voter ID) with no problems whatsoever, welll its a BIG DEAL!

Nixon tried to use the IRS to investigate Nixon's enemies list and prosecute them for tax issues.
Now the IRS has made a few organizations, that were at the very least very nearly not eligible for a particular tax status, wait a little longer for their approval and in some cases submit some extra paper work.
How precisely are these the same?

Voter ID that accepts a wide range of ID is fine. Voter ID that accepts almost no forms of ID and in which the state involved is careful to make getting those forms of ID harder for the people the GOP doesn't want voting is not ok.

No, no you got that wrong. Now OBama has used the IRS to investigate at least 3 political enemies (republicans).
Now Obama has used the IRS to delay the formation of more than 72 tea party organizations past an election. How is that different than Nixon. Gee, wally, I guess its not!

the rest of your characterization - (not eligible, 'some extra paperwork') is just offensive buffoonery.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I thought voter ID laws, these days were just aimed at keeping non-citizens and dead people from voting.

That's right. The left insists that "undocumented" aliens have a right to vote (More people to vote themselves free shit that they'll never have to pay for)?

Wrong. We just want all eligible citizens to have the ability.

For instance under the new Texas law a list of ID that is acceptable includes driver's licenses and a state ID issued only at the same locations as the DL, CCW permits, military ID and passports. But not college ID's or a lot of other photo ID's, or even expired DL's and ID's, despite the fact that Texas already requires proof of citizenship at the time a person registers to vote.

A big problem in Texas is the state doesn't have a DL facility in every county and there are several areas where it is more than 100 miles to such a facility which puts a significant burden on the poor and elderly if they want to be able to vote.

I have no problem with setting up lots of DL offices. Even better would be just letting people get voting cards at a variety of state buildings. As long as citizenship is proved. I really don't think you will find much opposition to that, Dom Ken.

I would also like to get rid of early voting as it makes fraud possible. I would be fine with doubling or tripling the number of voting stations. I would be fine with putting a system in place where if lines were more than 2 hours long, the person in charge of elections in each county loses his job. I don't want any one to be disenfranchised - and that means disenfranchised by way of fraud as well.

I want everyone to vote.
Once.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I thought voter ID laws, these days were just aimed at keeping non-citizens and dead people from voting.

That's right. The left insists that "undocumented" aliens have a right to vote (More people to vote themselves free shit that they'll never have to pay for)?

Wrong. We just want all eligible citizens to have the ability.

For instance under the new Texas law a list of ID that is acceptable includes driver's licenses and a state ID issued only at the same locations as the DL, CCW permits, military ID and passports. But not college ID's or a lot of other photo ID's, or even expired DL's and ID's, despite the fact that Texas already requires proof of citizenship at the time a person registers to vote.

A big problem in Texas is the state doesn't have a DL facility in every county and there are several areas where it is more than 100 miles to such a facility which puts a significant burden on the poor and elderly if they want to be able to vote.

I have no problem with setting up lots of DL offices. Even better would be just letting people get voting cards at a variety of state buildings. As long as citizenship is proved. I really don't think you will find much opposition to that, Dom Ken.

I would also like to get rid of early voting as it makes fraud possible. I would be fine with doubling or tripling the number of voting stations. I would be fine with putting a system in place where if lines were more than 2 hours long, the person in charge of elections in each county loses his job. I don't want any one to be disenfranchised - and that means disenfranchised by way of fraud as well.

I want everyone to vote.
Once.

And that's the problem with the Texas law, there is no provision to expand where you can go to get the ID's. And the list is so narrow and excludes ID that would be sufficient to register that it is clear that the intent is to disenfranchise eligible voters in demographics that do not in general vote for Republicans.

Consider this, everywhere in the country you must prove citizenship to register. Even in Texas you can register with an expired picture ID, your SS card and a recent bill (for proof of address). So if that is good enough to register why is it not good enough at the polling place?

As to early voting I cannot begin to see how it contributes to fraud. Do you think poll workers do not check the registrations or fail to record that the person has voted?

Even a one hour line would make it hard for the elderly and disabled. Plus a lot of people have a hard time getting to a polling place on a workday. Early voting, especially nigh and weekend hours, provides an opportunity for people to vote who otherwise could not get to the polls. IMO it is good for the health of the republic that more citizens are able to participate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

what you just said is SOOOO FUNNY, I have a friend who is an absolute OBAMA FAN
this is his reply to me talking about all the "scandels"

and the American people replied and said zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

but if you ask him about VOTER ID, which the supreme court has already ruled is fine to do, and is in effect in about 30 states, he'll go ON AN ON AN ON about how OUTRAGED the ENTIRE COUNTRY IS!!

funny how they impeached nixon for doing what this admin has done with the IRS, and NO ONE CARES, but when a state does what more than 1/2 of the other states are ALREADY DOING (voter ID) with no problems whatsoever, welll its a BIG DEAL!

Nixon tried to use the IRS to investigate Nixon's enemies list and prosecute them for tax issues.
Now the IRS has made a few organizations, that were at the very least very nearly not eligible for a particular tax status, wait a little longer for their approval and in some cases submit some extra paper work.
How precisely are these the same?

Voter ID that accepts a wide range of ID is fine. Voter ID that accepts almost no forms of ID and in which the state involved is careful to make getting those forms of ID harder for the people the GOP doesn't want voting is not ok.

No, no you got that wrong. Now OBama has used the IRS to investigate at least 3 political enemies (republicans).
Now Obama has used the IRS to delay the formation of more than 72 tea party organizations past an election. How is that different than Nixon. Gee, wally, I guess its not!

the rest of your characterization - (not eligible, 'some extra paperwork') is just offensive buffoonery.

You are either lying or grossly misinformed.
Name the 3 political enemies Obama had investigated and present some evidence, actual evidence not crazy shit on some blog, that Obama actually did order the investigations.

As to the political groups, they already existed when they applied for 501(c)4 status so there is no way their formation was delayed. And as I have pointed out many times by the letter of the law none of those groups were eligible for 501(c)4 status and the reason they sought that status was to evade federal law on the disclosure of donors to political groups. How all these right wingers who howl and moan and complain about potential, maybe, might possibly happen election law violations that necessitate disenfranchising poor and elderly people all over the country but turn a blind eye to their own organizations willful and deliberate violation of election law shows the underlying hypocrisy of the present conservative movement.

So unless you can come up with some evidence to support the claim that Obama used the IRS to investigate three entities you are still completely and utterly wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



I'm neither lying nor misinformed. Scroll back. Link said that the creditable witness said that the IRS deliberately targeted republican candidates - and other occassions were "inadvertent". Sure they were.

As for proving that Obummer did it - I don't have to. Whether it was him, or a political appointee installed by him - its still his administration. And the buck stops there.

quote:

As for the groups already being established - I have previously and copiously proved that this is a bullshit herring. The groups lost grant money because they didn't have tax status. They lost donations for the same reason. No one is going to donate money to a non tax exempt group when other groups have exampt status.

If you want to fight overreaching government do you want your (taxed) donations going to support it?

quote:

And the damages these groups faced were the reason that their is now a law suit against the federal govt. Were there no evidence of damage the suit would have been tossed at first reading.

quote:

Finally - what you completely gloss over is that the obummer administration purposely sat on these groups to preclude their participation in the electoral process.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Early voting contributes to fraud in the sense that it gives multiple opportunities for people to go out into the community and say.. have you voted yet? Here's a turkey.. let me show you how to vote.

quote:

We are guaranteed due process. Everyones vote is treated equally. I just don't see how its possible to say all votes are treated the same with things like absentee ballots, early voting, etc. Make voting easy. Treat all people the same. Early voting makes the early votes subject to tampering and fraud. Did 3000 people vote - or 30,000 people. It makes handling the voting machines suspect.
How do you know that voting machines didn't get preloaded after early voting - as one suit alleges happened in PA?

quote:

Look, I am more than happy to agitate for free and fair voting for all If you are willing to agitate equally to stop fraud.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



I'm neither lying nor misinformed. Scroll back. Link said that the creditable witness said that the IRS deliberately targeted republican candidates - and other occassions were "inadvertent". Sure they were.

As for proving that Obummer did it - I don't have to. Whether it was him, or a political appointee installed by him - its still his administration. And the buck stops there.

As for the groups already being established - I have previously and copiously proved that this is a bullshit herring. The groups lost grant money because they didn't have tax status. They lost donations for the same reason. No one is going to donate money to a non tax exempt group when other groups have exampt status.

If you want to fight overreaching government do you want your (taxed) donations going to support it?

And the damages these groups faced were the reason that their is now a law suit against the federal govt. Were there no evidence of damage the suit would have been tossed at first reading.

Finally - what you completely gloss over is that the obummer administration purposely sat on these groups to preclude their participation in the electoral process.

If you can't even admit that - you have no business calling for free and fair voting - because what you mean is free and fair voting for democrats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I'm neither lying nor misinformed. Scroll back. Link said that the creditable witness said that the IRS deliberately targeted republican candidates - and other occassions were "inadvertent". Sure they were.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Early voting contributes to fraud in the sense that it gives multiple opportunities for people to go out into the community and say.. have you voted yet? Here's a turkey.. let me show you how to vote.

That is no more or less legal before election day or during early voting. I do not see how early voting makes t more likely.

quote:

We are guaranteed due process. Everyones vote is treated equally. I just don't see how its possible to say all votes are treated the same with things like absentee ballots, early voting, etc. Make voting easy. Treat all people the same. Early voting makes the early votes subject to tampering and fraud. Did 3000 people vote - or 30,000 people. It makes handling the voting machines suspect.
How do you know that voting machines didn't get preloaded after early voting - as one suit alleges happened in PA?

quote:

Look, I am more than happy to agitate for free and fair voting for all If you are willing to agitate equally to stop fraud.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

As anyone who has ever formed a 501 knows, you can in fact apply for grants, and accept donations while your application is pending, you merely note it as such, and use a PFA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



I'm neither lying nor misinformed. Scroll back. Link said that the creditable witness said that the IRS deliberately targeted republican candidates - and other occassions were "inadvertent". Sure they were.

As for proving that Obummer did it - I don't have to. Whether it was him, or a political appointee installed by him - its still his administration. And the buck stops there.

As for the groups already being established - I have previously and copiously proved that this is a bullshit herring. The groups lost grant money because they didn't have tax status. They lost donations for the same reason. No one is going to donate money to a non tax exempt group when other groups have exampt status.

If you want to fight overreaching government do you want your (taxed) donations going to support it?

And the damages these groups faced were the reason that their is now a law suit against the federal govt. Were there no evidence of damage the suit would have been tossed at first reading.

Finally - what you completely gloss over is that the obummer administration purposely sat on these groups to preclude their participation in the electoral process.

If you can't even admit that - you have no business calling for free and fair voting - because what you mean is free and fair voting for democrats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

And as anyone who has ever worked for a 501 knows, not having the appropriate status can doom your fundraising efforts and make you ineligible for grants, matching funds etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

As anyone who has ever formed a 501 knows, you can in fact apply for grants, and accept donations while your application is pending, you merely note it as such, and use a PFA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



I'm neither lying nor misinformed. Scroll back. Link said that the creditable witness said that the IRS deliberately targeted republican candidates - and other occassions were "inadvertent". Sure they were.

As for proving that Obummer did it - I don't have to. Whether it was him, or a political appointee installed by him - its still his administration. And the buck stops there.

As for the groups already being established - I have previously and copiously proved that this is a bullshit herring. The groups lost grant money because they didn't have tax status. They lost donations for the same reason. No one is going to donate money to a non tax exempt group when other groups have exampt status.

If you want to fight overreaching government do you want your (taxed) donations going to support it?

And the damages these groups faced were the reason that their is now a law suit against the federal govt. Were there no evidence of damage the suit would have been tossed at first reading.

Finally - what you completely gloss over is that the obummer administration purposely sat on these groups to preclude their participation in the electoral process.

If you can't even admit that - you have no business calling for free and fair voting - because what you mean is free and fair voting for democrats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Aprl 23: Obama meets with the political appointee for the IRS (WW) - for an hour and a half.
April 24: IRS director goes to the white house and meets for 8.5 hours.
April 25: New regulations regarding Tea Party applications are published.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
But generally speaking - yes. I told you I'm in favor of *everyone* voting on one day. I'm in favor of enough voting machines so that lines are reasonable. I would even support having the day be on a Saturday or a Sunday, so people can vote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Aprl 23: Obama meets with the political appointee for the IRS (WW) - for an hour and a half.
April 24: IRS director goes to the white house and meets for 8.5 hours.
April 25: New regulations regarding Tea Party applications are published.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

So if we accept that Grace, then that law must be a real disaster, because they are still having to push back implementation.

On the up side, it does always make me smile when Obamabots default to the, "they aren't abusing their power, they are just totally incompetent," defense.