Mike Kelly - Go, man, go!

You guys in PA picked a good one, I think. We need more like this one.

[YOUTUBE]F1YQDjpuY_U[/YOUTUBE]

Great speech. Too bad ...

Meh. He wants to keep the boot on the neck of gays and women.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/119463/mike-kelly

http://ontheissues.org/PA/Mike_Kelly.htm

Oh, well.

I saw the speech on a couple sites, finally watched it, liked it. Posted it.

I did too Grav. Though it was well done. He deserves an atta-boy"

More Mike Kelly:

Mike Kelly wrote:

I know in your mind you can think of times when America was attacked. One is December 7th, that’s Pearl Harbor day. The other is September 11th, and that’s the day of the terrorist attack ... I want you to remember August the 1st, 2012, the attack on our religious freedom. That is a day that will live in infamy, along with those other dates.

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly
I know in your mind you can think of times when America was attacked. One is December 7th, that’s Pearl Harbor day. The other is September 11th, and that’s the day of the terrorist attack ... I want you to remember August the 1st, 2012, the attack on our religious freedom. That is a day that will live in infamy, along with those other dates.

He has high expectations for today !

Hey, He had a good rant. Don't be bringin in all his baggage now.

It makes me nauseous when someone like that rants about red tape. I'll be he supports the PA requiring a picture ID in order for a person to vote. Talk about red tape and regulation!

Yeah, why should a person be limited to one vote?

Why shouldn't illegal aliens be allowed to decide who governs legitimate citizens?

Spexxvet;822626 wrote:

It makes me nauseous when someone like that rants about red tape.

Most of the red tape was in his wasted bandwidth about green tape and blue tape - or whatever irrelevant bull he was wasting time with. I could have spend far more productive minutes watching Robin Williams. At least Robin is doing comedy to entertain - not promote hate.

I never had problems with building codes. I am a moderate - not a wacko extremist. So inspectors would routinely work with me. Even caution about codes that I might not be aware of. Why would a quarter inch be important? Our wacko extremist politician forget to mention how they went to war with the inspectors - blame government - rather than work with inspectors to avoid problems.

Spexxvet;822626 wrote:

It makes me nauseous when someone like that rants about red tape. I'll be he supports the PA requiring a picture ID in order for a person to vote. Talk about red tape and regulation!

Gravdigr;822721 wrote:

Yeah, why should a person be limited to one vote?

Why shouldn't illegal aliens be allowed to decide who governs legitimate citizens?

Y'know... it's ALREADY ILLEGAL to vote more than once. It's ALREADY ILLEGAL for illegal aliens to vote (decide who governs legitimate citizens. for that matter, those who govern us here also govern illegal aliens, so, there's the whole lack of representation thing going on there too, but I digress). The law Spexxvet alluded to is irrational, stupid, not to mention nauseating. There is no record of in person voter fraud in Pennsylvania. But this law was a high priority. Just NOT for the reasons you listed.

tw;822723 wrote:

I am a moderate - not a wacko extremist.

In your dreams

classicman;822803 wrote:

In your dreams

When you do ever have an intelligent thought? Just asking. Don't let the question cause a mental meltdown.

boys...
:crone:

BigV;822736 wrote:

...for that matter, those who govern us here also govern illegal aliens, so, there's the whole lack of representation thing going on there too...

Well, the illegal aliens can go back home and vote be represented there, or not, for all I care.

I wasn't listing reasons, but, why else would photo IDs at the voting places even be wanted? I admit to assuming that was the reason. Or voter fraud.

Gravdigr;823372 wrote:

I wasn't listing reasons, but, why else would photo IDs at the voting places even be wanted? I admit to assuming that was the reason. Or voter fraud.

Most experts believe that most voters who cannot get photo IDs are Democratic. Repubicans are passing these laws to increase the likelihood of their being elected.

[YOUTUBE]EuOT1bRYdK8[/YOUTUBE]

Gravdigr;823372 wrote:

Well, the illegal aliens can go back home and vote be represented there, or not, for all I care.

I wasn't listing reasons, but, why else would photo IDs at the voting places even be wanted? I admit to assuming that was the reason. Or voter fraud.

What Spexxvet said.

This is the story I read. As you can see, both sides agree, on the record, that no evidence of such fraud exists. What else then could be the reason for the law?

Pennsylvania admits it: no voter fraud problem
By Jamelle Bouie

A court filing by the state of Pennsylvania, ahead of a trial starting later this week on a lawsuit filed by civil rights groups against the state’s new voter fraud law, contains an astounding admission:

The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”

In other words, the state knows that voter fraud is a nonexistent problem, but will nonetheless defend a law that could potentially disenfranchise a huge number of the state’s voters.

Spexxvet;823376 wrote:

Most experts believe that most voters who cannot get photo IDs are Democratic.

Uh...I know I'm gonna regret this, but...

Why can't Democrats get photo IDs?

(I assumed you meant Democrats, instead of 'ppl in favor of democracy')

Why not make a literacy test in order to permit someone to vote? Like the political quizzes that are sometimes featured here. Make the "passing grade" 100%, and make the test, say, 100 questions long. The justification could be that we don't want people making frivolous uninformed votes. Voting is important after all. Then I would ask you your question back to you "Why can't people learn this stuff?"

...

You might have an answer because of this or because of that, but regardless, the effect would be to reduce the number of people qualified to vote. Furthermore, there would be no guarantee that the law would prohibit frivolous voting anyhow. The PA law is like this. It is an obstacle. It will prevent some people from voting. People who otherwise have a *right* to vote, but because of this arbitrary rule, a rule that is promoted as a response to a problem that isn't actually happening. It's a farce.

What about setting up only one polling place per precinct or district. Put that polling place in the slum, in the most crime-filled, police-scarce, bushy-haired-stranger scary place you can imagine, and make that the only one. Say you're doing it so the "underprivileged" can access the polls. Despite this apparently laudable goal, the effect would be to inhibit voting by some people. How is this a good thing *despite* the stated reason for the law? Your question backatcha "Why can't people just drive to the polls?" Why not make the law so that the polls are only open from 12:00 to 1:00 so the business community wouldn't have any loss of production as voters would now be voting on their lunch hour. We all want better business productivity, right? What would be the actual effect though and why is that a good idea?

Why is it a good idea to suppress voter turnout?

Tw, don't you dare claim moderate, normal, or natural thinking anywhere near here -- it isn't in you, and that shows a lack of situational awareness. It quite offends the wa.

Urbane Guerrilla;823424 wrote:

Urbane Guerrilla, don't you dare claim moderate, normal, or natural thinking anywhere near here -- it isn't in you, and that shows a lack of situational awareness. It quite offends the wa.

ftfy

You know, in the interest of Koyaanisqatsi suppression.

Gravdigr;823403 wrote:

Uh...I know I'm gonna regret this, but...

Why can't Democrats get photo IDs?

(I assumed you meant Democrats, instead of 'ppl in favor of democracy')

The demographics of the Democratic party is older and poorer than the repubican party. Many Democrats who don't have a photo ID will not be able to get one - can't afford it, can't get transportation to the ID center, don't have a checking account, don't have or have access to supporting documentation, what have you.

Gravdigr;823403 wrote:

Uh...I know I'm gonna regret this, but...

Why can't Democrats get photo IDs?

(I assumed you meant Democrats, instead of 'ppl in favor of democracy')

Even FOX News is willing to report what is going on here.

FOX News
By Juan Williams
Published August 03, 2012

GOP's fictional voter fraud charges aim to keep Democrats from voting
What is going on here is that the GOP is yelling ‘Fire’ when there is no fire.

Their goal is to reduce the number of Democrats casting ballots in the November election.
The GOP has created a fictional controversy about voter fraud
to hide the reality of efforts to suppress likely Democratic voters.
<snip>
The George W. Bush administration’s controversial firing of US Attorneys
was rooted in their upset that Republican appointees said
they could not find evidence of significant voter fraud to prosecute.
<snip> [COLOR="DarkRed"]

But the reporters concluded that after five years only 86 people
in the whole nation had been convicted and most of those involved
misunderstandings of the rules, not intentional fraud.[/COLOR]
<snip>

But to address your question directly as to the reasons
Democrats are more affected by such laws than Republicans

Their latest Brennan report shows that more than 10 million eligible voters live
“more than 10 miles from their nearest state ID-issuing office.”
Many of these voters do not have public transportation readily available to them
and many of the offices that issue the IDs are only open during weekdays
for limited hours when most people are working.

The report also says that copies of birth certificates needed to get these
ID scans cost between as much as $25.
It shows how marriage licenses, which are required for women whose birth certificates
only show their maiden name, can cost up to $20.

Adjusted for inflation, those fees are more than the poll tax in many
Southern states during the Jim Crow era.
Poll taxes have historically been used to disenfranchise minorities and poor people.

It sounds like a poll tax to me.
Wiki:

The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.

Thanks for the additional insight, gentlemen.

I'd still be in favor of it, photo ID's for voters.

As a matter of fact, now that I think of it, I think Kentucky requires photo ID for anyone over eighteen, period. Voter or not.

I need an photo ID to come to Kentucky?

Really?

No, but you do need one to live here. You got a drivers license? You're covered.


Posted from my new to me Nook Color. $35 thank you very much!

Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.

I don't particularly care for the source, but still.

Bad link.

works for me???

Works for me now. I had looked at the properties of the link to try and parse it. It's now different.

Gravdigr;823605 wrote:

No, but you do need one to live here. You got a drivers license? You're covered.


Posted from my new to me Nook Color. $35 thank you very much!

WHAT???? God damn. Kentucky - the state of my birth - has gone to hell. When I still lived there no one ever asked me for my papers please. What have ya'll done to my Blue Grass State? I demand a recount. :eyebrow:


[SIZE="1"]posted by morse code from Island in the Sky.[/SIZE]

I doubt the validity of the data in Classic's post above
about Minnesota, but even if true, how could be interpreted ?

From the same link posted above

The result is that 9.2 percent of the state’s 8.2 million voters
are suddenly at risk of losing their right to vote. Eighteen percent of the registered voters
in Philadelphia do not have government issued photographic identification.

Minnesota had a population about 5million / 12million of Pennsylvania in 2011.
So assuming the same ratios of eligible voters at risk (9.2%) and of registered voters with no ID (18%)...

... 5/12 X 8,200,000 X 0.092 X 0.18 = ~ 56,000

Thus the Republicans are asserting [COLOR="DarkRed"]it is better for
56,600 eligible voters lose their right to vote than have
143 people cast fraudulent votes.[/COLOR]

I seriously disagree.

Were the 143 fradulent votes for Dems or Republicans?

If they are going to make getting a voter registration card akin to coming up with a driver's license, then I think they should make would be voters have to pass a written test just like people have to do for a driver's license.

Some suggested questions/qualifications:

1) Pick out the United States on a world map.

2) How much does it cost to buy your very own senator?

3) Pick out the state you live in on a US map

4) Write a brief essay on why no CEO should be left behind.

5) How many tea party members does it take to make a picture of sun tea?

6) Which is better - A or [SIZE="5"]A[/SIZE]? How about now?

7) Are you an illegal alien? If so, why are you courting deportation by attempting to register to vote?

8) Why another 2 years of a do nothing Congress might be a good idea.

9) If you are an old person what makes you think you have the right to vote on stuff that will effect future generations when you will probably die tomorrow?

10) Do you now have or will you in the future have a child attending the electorial college?

11) Why is it good for government to have the supreme court vote along blatently partisen lines?

12) Why apple pie?

etc.

classicman;823783 wrote:

I don't particularly care for the source, but still.

Did those people have photo IDs? That would be very telling.

9) If you are an old person what makes you think you have the right to vote on stuff that will effect future generations when you will probably die tomorrow?

:D very good

There could even be multiple versions of this question to avoid cheating...

9-A) If you are a man what makes you think you have the right to vote on stuff that will effect women...
9-B) If you are a woman ... men...
9-C) If you are unemployed ... rich ...
etc.

also along the lines of classic's post,

We already have laws that make voting fraud illegal. Indeed, this is how these people were prosecuted and found guilty. How would voter id requirements have changed this behavior? We don't have any laws that *prohibit* crime. Deter criminals, sure, probably. I believe voter id laws will not *solve* the "problem" of voter fraud. I believe voter id laws like the one in PA will have a serious negative side effect of suppressing valid votes. That is NOT a good trade-off.

What about the valid vote negated by the invalid voter's vote?
Couldn't this be argued as just the opposite of voter suppression?

Is that negated vote worth disenfranchising thousands?

Lamplighter;823803 wrote:

I doubt the validity of the data in Classic's post above
about Minnesota, but even if true, how could be interpreted ?

From the same link posted above



Minnesota had a population about 5million / 12million of Pennsylvania in 2011.
So assuming the same ratios of eligible voters at risk (9.2%) and of registered voters with no ID (18%)...

... 5/12 X 8,200,000 X 0.092 X 0.18 = ~ 56,000

Thus the Republicans are asserting [COLOR="DarkRed"]it is better for
56,600 eligible voters lose their right to vote than have
143 people cast fraudulent votes.[/COLOR]

I seriously disagree.

Just checking your numbers.
Minnesota: 8,200,000 voters, 9.2 % at risk = 754,400
That should be added to the number for Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, etc.
I'm not sure which numbers to use for that, but 12,000,000 x 18% = 2,160,000

56,000 is wayyy low.

classicman;823925 wrote:

What about the valid vote negated by the invalid voter's vote?
Couldn't this be argued as just the opposite of voter suppression?

Ok, I'll accept that. But my question is how would a voter id law have prevented this?? We don't even know what the mechanism of the fraud was. I am betting that these cases were ones where the voter/fraud previously had legitimate credentials to vote, voted, and later during some audit or something were cross checked with the "felons recently released from prison after serving their sentences but not yet reintegrated enough to vote" list or some such.

Stuffing a ballot box with a bunch of anonymous but just made up ballots is also voter fraud. Voter id will not prevent that. OOOPSIE I accidentally put this box of votes in the recycle bin and they got shredded is also voter fraud, not preventable by voter id. Voting in the wrong precinct is voter fraud, not preventable by voter id. Walking up, voting, going to another polling place, voting again in the same day is voter fraud. I don't see how voter id as described by the PA law would prevent this one either.

Until you can explain to me what the voter fraud was I can't see how the law will make things better by reducing voter fraud, the advertised reason people have been stampeded/bamboozled into thinking this law was created to prevent.

This law is supposed to prevent this scenario. I'm not eligible to vote. If I vote, it's a fraud. Now I need to get a ballot, and get someone's government issued photo id (who presumably looks like me) and go to their polling place where my face matches the face on the id and the name on the id matches the name on the list of registered voters at the polling place then vote. It's supposed to keep ME from doing this, and other stupid bad guys. It's kind of ridiculous. So ridiculous in fact that it's never been attempted, or at least detected and prosecuted, according to everybody in the lawsuit challenging the law.

who the fuck conducts voter fraud this way?

next question.

What in the world is wrong with the way people in PA vote now? I'm asking about the voting process, NOT the recent results nor the anticipated results of elections? Because I believe the law's intended to affect the anticipated results by modifying how people get to vote. NOT the advertised result of keeping people from impersonating voters in person at polling places.

xoxoxoBruce;823930 wrote:

Is that negated vote worth disenfranchising thousands?

Yeah, are 143 cases of voter fraud such a huge big deal that no election results will be valid? I think not.

As an older person on a small fixed income, I know first hand how difficult it can be to get a picture ID - in the state of Colorado, anyhow. Being a complete space case, I seem to loose my purse with driver's license, debit card, etc on a fairly regular basis.

Colorado will only accept a notorized birth certificate or a copy of a divorce decree or a few other such documents to re-issue a picture ID or driver&#8217;s license. The birth certificate would seem the easiest route to go unless you happen to be born in the state of Kentucky. The fee is $10.00 &#8211; not vast, but a low income person like me still feels the pinch. But there&#8217;s another catch. The last time I filled out a request for a birth certificate from Kentucky, they wanted to know which hospital I was born in. Beats me, and I have no one left to ask, so I left that part blank on my application. Kentucky did not like this at all and refused to issue me my certificate (they did keep the 10 bucks though).

So next, I tried getting a copy of my divorce decree. In El Paso County (Colorado Springs) where I got my divorce if you require a copy of something specific from a file, certified copies are $20.00 for the certification and .75 cents per page for the copy. Plus there are additional fees if you need a copy of a record from prior to 1988. My divorce went through in &#8217;87. Total cost $50.00. I didn&#8217;t have it.

I knew my ex would have a copy because he is one of the most anal-retentive persons on the face of the earth. I hadn&#8217;t been in touch with him for years, but I knew he had a PO box in Manitou Springs. I didn&#8217;t know the number though, so I mailed him a letter care of general delivery in Manitou, requesting him to send a copy of our divorce papers. About a month later, he begrudgingly sent me the copy along with the request that I refrain from such communications in the future. Poor man, I hadn&#8217;t spoken with him for 10 years, never mind send him a letter. However, I guess the volume of our correspondence overwhelmed him.

Whatever. But my troubles were far from over. I still needed a second document from the official identification list and a document showing proof of address. I managed to come up with those somehow or other.

Then the cost of replacement of a lost license is $14.00. Well, I had 14 bucks, anyhow. But if I hadn&#8217;t had such a helpful ex (yeah, right), my total cost to get my picture ID would have been the $10.00 that the state of Kentucky nabbed, plus $50.00 to El Paso County, plus $14.00 to the motor vehicle department for a grand total of $74.00. That&#8217;s a big chunk for a low income person, never mind all the time and paperwork involved. If I&#8217;d had to present a picture ID to vote, the election would have long been over by time I came up with the required ID.

And there are many, many people in the US in more or less the same situation as mine. Exercising my right to vote is important to me, but someone less dedicated could easily throw up their hands and forget about the whole thing. This is what the Republicans are hoping for.

BigV;823961 wrote:

Voting in the wrong precinct is voter fraud, not preventable by voter id. Walking up, voting, going to another polling place, voting again in the same day is voter fraud. I don't see how voter id as described by the PA law would prevent this one either.

In PA you go to your designated poll, give them your address, they check their list, and if more than one person is listed for that address they ask which one you are, and have you sign. They already have the right to ask for your voter registration card if they think something's not right. I think you can still vote but they hold your ballot for further checking. That's what I've heard but have no experience with that.
So no, this bullshit won't do a thing except discourage people from voting, which is already a huge problem in this country. The vote fraud they aren't addressing is the electronic voting machines.

Pennsylvania's repubican Christians attack Amish!

HARRISBURG, Pa. (RNS) Nothing is sacred about your religion when it comes to getting a state identification card without a photo.

I didnt think the Amish voted anyway?

But yeah, the law is targeting the wrong group...unintended consequences and all that.

lol

I didn't think so either. UT would know for sure though.

I don't believe the Amish do, but many of the Mennonites do and they dwarf the Amish population.