100,000 Protestors... Angry mobs of students... - Page 17

Gemini Cricket · 04-10-2006, 02:00 PM

I left the Downtown Boston area as fast as I could. It's crowded crowded crowded at the Common. Lots of reporters, lots of helicopters, huge police presence... I hope it goes peacefully.

Alex · 04-10-2006, 02:03 PM

My problem isn't with the flyer. My problem is with the text commentary by the blog.

Nowhere on the flyer does it encourage people in this country to vote illegally (and Democrat). Nowhere on the flyer does it claim to possess the endorsement of the Democratic Party (but GD already said this, I'm just voicing my agreement).

Having been in and around various events in San Francisco I can assure you that there are all kinds of really stupid things printed and distributed that have delusions of wit, relevance, and support that are in no way justified. What is actually amazing, based on my experience with left-leaning gatherings is that someone actually found two things actually on point to ridicule. Usually in any large gathering (in my experience) you'll find 119 different political issues raised at a single-issue rally and no issue will have more than 2 signs in support (including the on point issue).

Ghoulish Delight · 04-10-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Yet you arbitrarily decide that the photo is some sort of fake- or nothing more than a ploy. Heaven forbid a democrat made that flyer. It's so much easier for you to think it's a fakery. Funny, from my POV, I find it hard to believe that a Dem would NOT do something just like it.

Jsut as I find it hard to believe that I couldn't find a republican who would happily print a flyer that condones the beating of homosexuals. Would that, therefore, imply that the Republicans condone that?

scaeagles · 04-10-2006, 02:27 PM

I am stumbling to trying to word my point, so I will give an example of local politics here in AZ.

Voters in AZ passed a law stating that identification must be given at polling locations to verify who you are prior to voting. I voted for it. It is reasonable.

However, the governor (who is a democrat) and the attorney general (who is a democrat) have fought against this tooth and nail, mounting legal challenge after legal challenge. Their stated reasoning? That this law will intimidate minorities into not voting.

What?

I read that to mean that the democrats are afraid that those who are not US citizens may be afraid to try to vote. Why would being expected to present identification to show that you are who you say you are be intimidating? I would suspect (and perhaps I am naive) that it is because you aren't supposed to be voting in the first place.

This leads me to believe that the democrat governor and attorney general want fraudulent voting. I can see no other reason to oppose it.

Does this mean every democrat wants that? Absolutely not. But it is not secret that the hispanic voting block votes heavily democrat. Enough red flags there for me. I would not presume, however, that every democrat would want to see illegals voting.

Motorboat Cruiser · 04-10-2006, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Yet you arbitrarily decide that the photo is some sort of fake- or nothing more than a ploy. Heaven forbid a democrat made that flyer. It's so much easier for you to think it's a fakery. Funny, from my POV, I find it hard to believe that a Dem would NOT do something just like it.

I should have been more clear. I'm not trying to say that a democrat couldn't have made the flyer, just that it probably wasn't the democrats. Perhaps you don't see the distinction but I do.

And I think the person who wrote the caption is reading a lot into what the flyer says.

Ghoulish Delight · 04-10-2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

This leads me to believe that the democrat governor and attorney general want fraudulent voting. I can see no other reason to oppose it.

I'm curious, then, what your explanation of the motives of black state-congressmen in Georgia walked out of the building in protest when a similar law was passed would be. Is it because they wanted the vast populations of illegal black immigrants to vote?

And, for the record, I was not arguing as to whether or not the Deomcratic party encourages illegal voting practices. All I was pointing out was that the posted photo of a single flyer spoke far fewer than 1,000 words.

scaeagles · 04-10-2006, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I'm curious, then, what your explanation of the motives of black state-congressmen in Georgia walked out of the building in protest when a similar law was passed would be. Is it because they wanted the vast populations of illegal black imigrants to vote?

I cannot speak to the politics of GA. However, I would suspect there are illegal aliens in GA as well.

Can you give me a good reason why just showing proof of your identity would cause a problem? Racial intimidation? I would not suspect that would be the issue, as you can't hide your skin color when you get in line at the poll. I fail to see how intimidation would increase simply by showing that you are actually John Smith at 123 Oak St and should therefore be permitted to vote as that person.

Alex · 04-10-2006, 02:51 PM

Georgia already required providing identification to vote and the attempt is to restrict it to government issued identification rather than also including things that can easily be made at home (such as a utility bill or student ID card).

The grounds for opposition were that poor people were more likely to be unable to afford state issued ID cards. So the bill was revised to include making free government ID cards available. They still oppose it. I don't know what the grounds for doing so now are.

To me, proving who you are to vote doesn't sound so burdensome (and it shocked me when I moved to California and learned that you not only didn't have to do so but that my polling station posted a list of all voters registered for that station outside the venue and then updated it throughout the day to show who voted), even if you are poor. Georgia should be willing to accept a birth certificate though.

Ghoulish Delight · 04-10-2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I cannot speak to the politics of GA. However, I would suspect there are illegal aliens in GA as well.

What does that have to do with black congress members?

I don't claim to know all of the factors involved. I do know that Georgia law was struck down in federal court on the grounds that it constituted an implicit poll tax. Namely, the cost of getting ID. And questions of economics in this country disproportionately affects minorities.

That may or may not be the thinking of those in Arizona, but the reaction of the black congress members leads me to believe that, whether you can think of it or not, there are other reasons to oppose the requirement.

Alex · 04-10-2006, 03:05 PM

Yeah, that was the basis on which the Democrats opposed the first bill. I'm just not clear on what the basis of opposition is now that the new bill includes giving a free "voter card" to anybody who can't afford a driver's license or state ID card (rather than persuing a court case to support the existing law which was not struck down but has an injunction during litigation they're just trying to pass a new law that would survive the injunction attempt).

04-10-2006, 02:00 PM	#161
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	I left the Downtown Boston area as fast as I could. It's crowded crowded crowded at the Common. Lots of reporters, lots of helicopters, huge police presence... I hope it goes peacefully.
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2006, 02:03 PM	#162
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	My problem isn't with the flyer. My problem is with the text commentary by the blog. Nowhere on the flyer does it encourage people in this country to vote illegally (and Democrat). Nowhere on the flyer does it claim to possess the endorsement of the Democratic Party (but GD already said this, I'm just voicing my agreement). Having been in and around various events in San Francisco I can assure you that there are all kinds of really stupid things printed and distributed that have delusions of wit, relevance, and support that are in no way justified. What is actually amazing, based on my experience with left-leaning gatherings is that someone actually found two things actually on point to ridicule. Usually in any large gathering (in my experience) you'll find 119 different political issues raised at a single-issue rally and no issue will have more than 2 signs in support (including the on point issue). Last edited by Alex : 04-10-2006 at 02:35 PM.
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2006, 02:27 PM	#164
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I am stumbling to trying to word my point, so I will give an example of local politics here in AZ. Voters in AZ passed a law stating that identification must be given at polling locations to verify who you are prior to voting. I voted for it. It is reasonable. However, the governor (who is a democrat) and the attorney general (who is a democrat) have fought against this tooth and nail, mounting legal challenge after legal challenge. Their stated reasoning? That this law will intimidate minorities into not voting. What? I read that to mean that the democrats are afraid that those who are not US citizens may be afraid to try to vote. Why would being expected to present identification to show that you are who you say you are be intimidating? I would suspect (and perhaps I am naive) that it is because you aren't supposed to be voting in the first place. This leads me to believe that the democrat governor and attorney general want fraudulent voting. I can see no other reason to oppose it. Does this mean every democrat wants that? Absolutely not. But it is not secret that the hispanic voting block votes heavily democrat. Enough red flags there for me. I would not presume, however, that every democrat would want to see illegals voting.
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2006, 02:51 PM	#168
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Georgia already required providing identification to vote and the attempt is to restrict it to government issued identification rather than also including things that can easily be made at home (such as a utility bill or student ID card). The grounds for opposition were that poor people were more likely to be unable to afford state issued ID cards. So the bill was revised to include making free government ID cards available. They still oppose it. I don't know what the grounds for doing so now are. To me, proving who you are to vote doesn't sound so burdensome (and it shocked me when I moved to California and learned that you not only didn't have to do so but that my polling station posted a list of all voters registered for that station outside the venue and then updated it throughout the day to show who voted), even if you are poor. Georgia should be willing to accept a birth certificate though.
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2006, 03:05 PM	#170
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yeah, that was the basis on which the Democrats opposed the first bill. I'm just not clear on what the basis of opposition is now that the new bill includes giving a free "voter card" to anybody who can't afford a driver's license or state ID card (rather than persuing a court case to support the existing law which was not struck down but has an injunction during litigation they're just trying to pass a new law that would survive the injunction attempt).
	Submit to Quotes