Fairfax County Board of Elections is requiring everyone to present a photo i.d. (identification) card when voting. They can be purchased at convienent places like WalMart and 7-11. No i.d. = no vote

-

-

-

-

-



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2014 11:22AM by Fox News.

Voter ID is racist. Progressive Democrats tell me so. Illegals tell me so. Maryland Democrat Goobernatorial Candidate Tony Brown just mailed a piece telling me so.

MOTOR VOTER Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voter ID is racist. Progressive Democrats tell me
> so. Illegals tell me so. Maryland Democrat
> Goobernatorial Candidate Tony Brown just mailed a
> piece telling me so.

Why did Maryland mail you when you live in the Fairfax County?

Fox News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MOTOR VOTER Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Voter ID is racist. Progressive Democrats tell
> me
> > so. Illegals tell me so. Maryland Democrat
> > Goobernatorial Candidate Tony Brown just mailed
> a
> > piece telling me so.
>
> Why did Maryland mail you when you live in the
> Fairfax County?


You think MD Democrats wouldn't stoop so low to get VA voters to vote in their election?

Don't worry, I'll be voting in the MD election too!

MOTOR VOTER Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voter ID is racist.

No, not racist, just discriminatory. These laws are all crafted by Republicans to create obstacles to voting among populations that typically vote Democratic. College students. The urban and rural poor. The elderly dependent of Social Security. Republicans hope these laws will reduce turnout and thus votes among those folks, hopefully thereby winning them a few close elections as the result. It's nothing at all but Jim Crow revisited, but that's Republicans for you.

Matter of fact... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MOTOR VOTER Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Voter ID is racist.
>
> No, not racist, just discriminatory. These laws
> are all crafted by Republicans to create obstacles
> to voting among populations that typically vote
> Democratic. College students. The urban and
> rural poor. The elderly dependent of Social
> Security. Republicans hope these laws will reduce
> turnout and thus votes among those folks,
> hopefully thereby winning them a few close
> elections as the result. It's nothing at all but
> Jim Crow revisited, but that's Republicans for
> you.


Doesn't just about every college issue a photo ID?

I've been voting here in Fairfax County for 23 years now...I'm white and I've ALWAYS been asked for a photo I.D. when I show up on election day. The law has been this way for a LONG time however, it's up to the individual polling place worker to decide whether to ask for photo I.D. or not.

Huh??? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've been voting here in Fairfax County for 23
> years now...I'm white and I've ALWAYS been asked
> for a photo I.D. when I show up on election day.
> The law has been this way for a LONG time however,
> it's up to the individual polling place worker to
> decide whether to ask for photo I.D. or not.


Been here almost as long and same experience: always required to show photo ID.

Matter of fact... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MOTOR VOTER Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Voter ID is racist.
>
> No, not racist, just discriminatory. These laws
> are all crafted by Republicans to create obstacles
> to voting among populations that typically vote
> Democratic. College students. The urban and
> rural poor. The elderly dependent of Social
> Security. Republicans hope these laws will reduce
> turnout and thus votes among those folks,
> hopefully thereby winning them a few close
> elections as the result. It's nothing at all but
> Jim Crow revisited, but that's Republicans for
> you.


No, it's racist too. You have to be a good little Prog and conflate the two.

And pretty much everywhere lets you get an ID for free if you're desperately poor.

It's so out-of-towners and illegals can't vote. It's not racist at all. It's to prevent ILLEGAL voting practices by cheating Liberal idiots.

These laws were created to hurt Democrats. Why, because Democrats have been cheating since the beginning of their party.

Vote early, vote often. A typical Democrat adage.

Not only do Democrats cheat, they're not bothered by it. Democrats have always lived by the mantra of "The Ends Justify the Means." They think they're superior, so cheating to achieve their ends is not immoral to them.

So, lo and behold, a simple measure to keep people from cheating is installed, and the Democrats cry racism.

Now if only we could keep the Democrats from cheating by letting felons and illegal immigrants vote.

Huh??? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've been voting here in Fairfax County for 23
> years now...I'm white and I've ALWAYS been asked
> for a photo I.D. when I show up on election day.
> The law has been this way for a LONG time however,
> it's up to the individual polling place worker to
> decide whether to ask for photo I.D. or not.

Prior to 2006, no state had ever required voters to produce a government-issued photo-ID. This is all the work of Republicans since then. Demographics being what they are, Republicans need to disenfranchise as many potential Democratic voters as they possibly can.

Fairfax Conservative Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These laws were created to hurt Democrats. Why,
> because Democrats have been cheating since the
> beginning of their party.
>
> Vote early, vote often. A typical Democrat adage.
>
> Not only do Democrats cheat, they're not bothered
> by it. Democrats have always lived by the mantra
> of "The Ends Justify the Means." They think
> they're superior, so cheating to achieve their
> ends is not immoral to them.
>
>
>


Source?
A real one not some crazy bs website

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/146827471/study-1-8-million-dead-people-still-registered-to-vote

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/10/10/caught_on_tape_obama_campaign_worker_helping_activist_vote_twice

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Dead-Voter-List-Long-Island-Nassau-County-Newsday-230030371.html

I could spend all days trying to list articles showing how Democrats have cheated, and will continue to cheat.

Again, it's part of their make-up to cheat, and to lie.

It's great that Monica Lewinsky is back in the news again, isn't it?

How many of your dead voters have showed up and tried to vote? Moron.

Damn, you Democrats are stupid as shit:

Here's the scenario: Democrat votes in the morning as his true name in his own precinct. Goes to another precinct where his dead Dad (or some other known dead person) had lived, and votes there.

This is not some dream. This has been going on (by Democrats) for 60 years.

Idiot.

It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes that counts!

And the leftist junta that is firmly entrenched everywhere like the metastatic cancer that they are, and have zombified all the brainwashed millenials know exactly how to do this. Please, don't play dumb about the Douchecrats registering dead people and 'making' them vote 'D'. By hook and by crook.

We were telling you for a while that elections were being stolen with the help of illegals, among other things.

And I am so *shocked* (not) by this:

politically correct, (D) watered down version:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/


final analysis:
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/391134/jaw-dropping-study-claims-large-numbers-non-citizens-vote-us-jim-geraghty

For the record, it's not the Fairfax Board of Elections that is requiring photo ID - this is Commonwealth wide and the changes were passed by the General Assembly.

You can use any valid federal government issued ID (military, passport, employee ID), any valid VA issued ID, such as a valid VA drivers license (no more than one year expired), an employer issued ID that was issued in the normal course of business, or a student ID from a VA institution of higher learning.

If you don't have one of those, visit our office, any of our satellite voting locations, or any other General registrar's office in Virginia and you can get one issued for free.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2014 08:03PM by BrianSchoeneman.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For the record, it's not the Fairfax Board of
> Elections that is requiring photo ID - this is
> Commonwealth wide and the changes were passed by
> the General Assembly.
>
> You can use any valid federal government issued ID
> (military, passport, employee ID), any valid VA
> issued ID, such as a valid VA drivers license (no
> more than one year expired), an employer issued ID
> that was issued in the normal course of business,
> or a student ID from a VA institution of higher
> learning.
>
> If you don't have one of those, visit our office,
> any of our satellite voting locations, or any
> other General registrar's office in Virginia and
> you can get one issued for free.


Thanks for the info!

If you don't have a photo ID, you should probably kill yourself or go back to respective shithole country.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For the record, it's not the Fairfax Board of
> Elections that is requiring photo ID - this is
> Commonwealth wide and the changes were passed by
> the General Assembly.
>
> You can use any valid federal government issued ID
> (military, passport, employee ID), any valid VA
> issued ID, such as a valid VA drivers license (no
> more than one year expired), an employer issued ID
> that was issued in the normal course of business,
> or a student ID from a VA institution of higher
> learning.
>
> If you don't have one of those, visit our office,
> any of our satellite voting locations, or any
> other General registrar's office in Virginia and
> you can get one issued for free.


Thanks Brian, one of the few rational voices on this website.

Libtards please take note of the last part of Brian's helpful comment. Here it is, "...an you can get one issued for free." So yes, even the EBT & SNAP crowd has no excuse.

Voter ID: libtard bogeyman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks Brian, one of the few rational voices on
> this website.

Brian has repeatedly been shown to be a partisan dishrag.

@Matter of fact: Why do you fucking libtards think it is discriminatory to require a photo id to vote? It's not the old days of poll tax, so what is the fucking problem? You've got to be a fucking citizen of the good old United States to vote, period! I'll never understand the libtard mentality that claims that the poor assholes who might vote for the Democrat candidate (i.e., the classic libtard candidate) cannot afford to get a simple photo id.

Actually... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voter ID: libtard bogeyman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thanks Brian, one of the few rational voices on
> > this website.
>
> Brian has repeatedly been shown to be a partisan
> dishrag.


And you've been repeatedly shown to be a blowhard asshole.

Call it even.

ee6L7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Damn, you Democrats are stupid as shit:
>
> Here's the scenario: Democrat votes in the morning
> as his true name in his own precinct. Goes to
> another precinct where his dead Dad (or some other
> known dead person) had lived, and votes there.
>
> This is not some dream. This has been going on (by
> Democrats) for 60 years.
>
> Idiot.

You spelled "Republicans" wrong, and even with your cheating you still can't win. Kinda sad really.

I was listening to WAMU, the local Liberal NPR station this morning (88.5).

They announced some kind of prize, and described some rules, and then announced that the winner will have to show valid ID.

How racist!

I keep hearing that it is discriminatory to require EVERYONE to bring a photo ID to protect the integrity of our elections. Who exactly doesn't have a photo ID these days? I mean, really, just point out someone who does not have and cannot obtain a photo ID and perhaps I might be interested in your argument.

In the irony department, the NAACP held a march against voter ID policies and, you guess it, they required participants to have photo ID.

http://twitchy.com/2014/02/08/cant-make-this-up-nc-naacp-tells-voter-id-protesters-to-bring-photo-id-to-moral-march-pics/

Fox News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fairfax County Board of Elections is requiring
> everyone to present a photo i.d. (identification)
> card when voting. They can be purchased at
> convienent places like WalMart and 7-11. No i.d. =
> no vote


If they are being sold, then its a poll tax. Get how that works. By the way, I am registered again, and I even helped register 35 first time voters. You GOP fuckers are losing the generational battle with your idiot politics. Not that it matters in Virginia, we are no longer purple for statewide.

WTHolyF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll never understand the libtard mentality that
> claims that the poor assholes who might vote for
> the Democrat candidate (i.e., the classic libtard
> candidate) cannot afford to get a simple photo id.

I'm sure there are a great number of things that you will never understand. Meanwhile, one of the things that you SHOULD understand is that voter-id laws have NOTHING AT ALL to do with preserving the sanctity of our democracy. The only form of vote-fraud that these laws can possibly combat is voter-impersonation fraud, and that's the LEAST frequently found form. There simply is no problem here for voter-id laws to resolve. Behind the phony cover story, their one and only intent is to make it less likely that affected groups will actually make it to the polls. That's the ONLY purpose of these laws. Not coincidentally, the affected groups have traditionally tended to vote Democratic. This is why voter-id laws are all but exclusively pushed by Republicans. Such laws have in fact become a staple of the right-wing gospel these days, thanks in large part to hard-right groups like ALEC and meddling corporate extremists such as the Koch brothers.

jmLVN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And you've been repeatedly shown to be a blowhard
> asshole. Call it even.

Not even at all. Brian simply can't hold his own in any extended discussion with intelligent and well-informed persons. Partisan dishrag with tendencies toward long-windedness when out of actual answers would be a fair description of you. Er, him.

Actually... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WTHolyF Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'll never understand the libtard mentality that
>
> > claims that the poor assholes who might vote for
>
> > the Democrat candidate (i.e., the classic
> libtard
> > candidate) cannot afford to get a simple photo
> id.
>
> I'm sure there are a great number of things that
> you will never understand. Meanwhile, one of the
> things that you SHOULD understand is that voter-id
> laws have NOTHING AT ALL to do with preserving the
> sanctity of our democracy. The only form of
> vote-fraud that these laws can possibly combat is
> voter-impersonation fraud, and that's the LEAST
> frequently found form. There simply is no problem
> here for voter-id laws to resolve. Behind the
> phony cover story, their one and only intent is to
> make it less likely that affected groups will
> actually make it to the polls. That's the ONLY
> purpose of these laws. Not coincidentally, the
> affected groups have traditionally tended to vote
> Democratic. This is why voter-id laws are all but
> exclusively pushed by Republicans. Such laws have
> in fact become a staple of the right-wing gospel
> these days, thanks in large part to hard-right
> groups like ALEC and meddling corporate extremists
> such as the Koch brothers.

This is simply not true.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WTHolyF Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I'll never understand the libtard mentality
> that
> >
> > > claims that the poor assholes who might vote
> for
> >
> > > the Democrat candidate (i.e., the classic
> > libtard
> > > candidate) cannot afford to get a simple
> photo
> > id.
> >
> > I'm sure there are a great number of things
> that
> > you will never understand. Meanwhile, one of
> the
> > things that you SHOULD understand is that
> voter-id
> > laws have NOTHING AT ALL to do with preserving
> the
> > sanctity of our democracy. The only form of
> > vote-fraud that these laws can possibly combat
> is
> > voter-impersonation fraud, and that's the LEAST
> > frequently found form. There simply is no
> problem
> > here for voter-id laws to resolve. Behind the
> > phony cover story, their one and only intent is
> to
> > make it less likely that affected groups will
> > actually make it to the polls. That's the ONLY
> > purpose of these laws. Not coincidentally, the
> > affected groups have traditionally tended to
> vote
> > Democratic. This is why voter-id laws are all
> but
> > exclusively pushed by Republicans. Such laws
> have
> > in fact become a staple of the right-wing
> gospel
> > these days, thanks in large part to hard-right
> > groups like ALEC and meddling corporate
> extremists
> > such as the Koch brothers.
>
> This is simply not true.


When you put it that way. Ok. I trust now. Sorry for the confusion.

Link with video of republican politician, unrelated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/mike-turzai-voter-id_n_1625646.html

Electoral Integrity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I keep hearing that it is discriminatory to
> require EVERYONE to bring a photo ID to protect
> the integrity of our elections. Who exactly
> doesn't have a photo ID these days?

According to surveys by well-regarded researchers, about 11% of those who have reached voting-age do not have qualifying photo-ID. The attitude of Republicans has been, well, too bad for them.

> I mean, really, just point out someone who does not
> have and cannot obtain a photo ID and perhaps I might
> be interested in your argument.

No, you'd still be too stupid to care. The rural poor cannot easily afford trips into town or the costs involved in acquiring even "free" cards. And keep in mind that these laws are not designed to PREVENT anyone from voting, just to reduce the numbers of people who actually do.

> In the irony department, the NAACP held a march
> against voter ID policies and, you guess it, they
> required participants to have photo ID.

No, they didn't, You are either too stupid to understand or simply lying. Both could of course be true. March organizers advised marchers to bring a photo-id along and carrying it with them during the march. It was not required for anything. Since you may well have forgotten already, you are either too stupid to understand or simply lying.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is simply not true.

Yes, it is, Brian, and you've been schooled over it before, performing as poorly as ever in those discussions. Since it seems still not to have sunk in, voter fraud is quite rare to begin with, and almost all of it is committed by sworn election officials such as yourself. Voters themselves are statistically insignificant here.

The people principally affected by your deliberately discriminatory laws are meanwhile the urban and rural poor, college students (particularly those from out of state), and the elderly dependent upon pension and/or disability income. All of these groups tend to vote majority Democratic. That's why your disgraceful party goes after them.

I'm out for a bit, so you'll have time to go copy and paste your usual pointless drivel.

Huh??? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've been voting here in Fairfax County for 23
> years now...I'm white and I've ALWAYS been asked
> for a photo I.D. when I show up on election day.
> The law has been this way for a LONG time however,
> it's up to the individual polling place worker to
> decide whether to ask for photo I.D. or not.


To be fair, I never have been asked for an ID at my polling place. Part of the reason is that I extensively help my immediate area/community and the people who volunteer to run the polling know me well.

Other than if the polling proctors actually know you, then a valid ID should be required.

Would be nice to be able to edit, but does anyone know if they got rid of the law where a person could vouch for your identity to be able to vote?

Just saw on the news that USA Today has a study out that says as many
as 700,000 illegal aliens may have voted in the 2012 elections. I'll
provide a link as soon as I find one but in the meantime, to those of
you who don't like voter ID, you can go fuck yourselves.

Voting. Asshole keeps telling us and pasting text from various sites. Just like there's no breaking traffic laws...

HereLegally Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just saw on the news that USA Today has a study
> out that says as many
> as 700,000 illegal aliens may have voted in the
> 2012 elections. I'll
> provide a link as soon as I find one but in the
> meantime, to those of
> you who don't like voter ID, you can go fuck
> yourselves.

A study by a biased republican stooge at ODU. Congrats. No proof provided, just estimates.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you don't have one of those, visit our office,
> any of our satellite voting locations, or any
> other General registrar's office in Virginia and
> you can get one issued for free.

Really? I can walk into one of these offices with no other forms of ID at all and you will issue me a free card? Do tell.

And will you be paying any of my costs of transportation? Will you be making up for any of my lost productivity or wages? Don't think you much understand the meaning of "free", so here's a tip. If it costs you something, it ain't free.

Doubtful Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you don't have one of those, visit our
> office,
> > any of our satellite voting locations, or any
> > other General registrar's office in Virginia
> and
> > you can get one issued for free.
>
> Really? I can walk into one of these offices with
> no other forms of ID at all and you will issue me
> a free card? Do tell.
>
> And will you be paying any of my costs of
> transportation? Will you be making up for any of
> my lost productivity or wages? Don't think you
> much understand the meaning of "free", so here's a
> tip. If it costs you something, it ain't free.

If you want to vote you'd best get your ass off that bar stool and get busy.

poor dems. now they will have to rely on winning an election without cheating. wow, what a great idea. an election that is reflected by how the citizens who belong here voted. why in hell should an illegal be allowed to vote in a country they are not a citizen of anyway? dems like them to vote, but illegals vote for dems because they are too stupid to know any better. this should be required all the time, and maybe if it had, the retard running this country wouldnt have been put in office.

You are very fortunate that there is not a minimum IQ for voting.

Matter of fact... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MOTOR VOTER Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Voter ID is racist.
>
> No, not racist, just discriminatory. These laws
> are all crafted by Republicans to create obstacles
> to voting among populations that typically vote
> Democratic. College students. The urban and
> rural poor. The elderly dependent of Social
> Security. Republicans hope these laws will reduce
> turnout and thus votes among those folks,
> hopefully thereby winning them a few close
> elections as the result. It's nothing at all but
> Jim Crow revisited, but that's Republicans for
> you.


You just rattled off the list of people who should NOT be determining who gets elected. The votes that should count are the people that actually pay the bulk of taxes and understand the issues.

Colleges students - live a home and don't pay taxes
Elderly - zero liability voters who are should just take their SS check and shut up.
Rural and urban poor - these folks are also dependent on govt so they should not be voting to increase their benefits.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 01:33PM by LetsRock.

Doubtful Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you don't have one of those, visit our
> office,
> > any of our satellite voting locations, or any
> > other General registrar's office in Virginia
> and
> > you can get one issued for free.
>
> Really? I can walk into one of these offices with
> no other forms of ID at all and you will issue me
> a free card? Do tell.
>
> And will you be paying any of my costs of
> transportation? Will you be making up for any of
> my lost productivity or wages? Don't think you
> much understand the meaning of "free", so here's a
> tip. If it costs you something, it ain't free.

Yes, you can walk into one of these offices and get a free ID if you do not have any of the various forms.

Our office is open on Thursdays until 7 PM, and the satellites are open on Saturdays during election season.

Free means there is no cost to issue the document to you - you aren't charged a fee. It does not mean with zero inconvenience. You're going to have to walk or drive to get to your polling place on election day. Unless you're voting absentee by mail, there's always going to be something you've got to do in order to exercise your right to vote.

LetsRock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You just rattled off the list of people who should
> NOT be determining who gets elected. The votes
> that should count are the people that actually pay
> the bulk of taxes and understand the issues.

That's very retrograde of you. In the beginning of course, the franchise in this country was extended only to white male property owners. George Washington was elected the first President with a popular vote of less that 2% of the free population. That's what the people who wrote the phrase "We, the People" meant by the phrase "We, the People".

Their concern of course was that low-grade, garden-variety, man-in-the-street dupes such as yourself might be able to vote, and that, they were very much opposed to. They did everything they could to keep the new government away from the reach and influence of demagogued goobers and stooges. Your post is almost stupid enough to make a good argument for heading back in such a direction.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, you can walk into one of these offices and
> get a free ID if you do not have any of the
> various forms.

Let me get this straight. You will give me a piece of paper conclusively certifying my eligibility to vote without ever asking for any other piece of paper to support such eligibility? If that's your plan, why would you not just not take my word for it on Election Day?

> Free means there is no cost to issue the document
> to you - you aren't charged a fee. It does not
> mean with zero inconvenience.

Free means at zero cost. But in fact there IS a cost. In terms of both money and inconvenience. It is NOT free. It is what you want to CALL free.

> You're going to have to walk or drive to get to your
> polling place on election day. Unless you're voting
> absentee by mail, there's always going to be something
> you've> got to do in order to exercise your right to vote.

Yes, and Republicans simply want to make sure that the list of such things is made as much longer and more difficult to complete as possible for groups that have traditionally voted majority Democratic. There is nothing more to these laws than that. It's simply disenfranchisement through vote suppression. It's disgraceful.

Everyone should get a Voter ID card.....

It should be issued to you with a free health care system card when you pay your taxes.

Just saying.

Agree Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone should get a Voter ID card. It should be
> issued to you with a free health care system card
> when you pay your taxes.

Since everyone pays taxes, the condition wouldn't seem to make much sense.

> Just saying.

Yes, I know. No thinking. Just saying. We get that a lot around here.

Brilliant... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Let me get this straight. You will give me a
> piece of paper conclusively certifying my
> eligibility to vote without ever asking for any
> other piece of paper to support such eligibility?
> If that's your plan, why would you not just not
> take my word for it on Election Day?

Nope. You have to provide us with a piece of paper that includes a variety of things that help us to establish your eligibility to vote, and you have to do that before the election.

> Free means at zero cost. But in fact there IS a
> cost. In terms of both money and inconvenience.
> It is NOT free. It is what you want to CALL free.

When we say "we will issue this free of charge" it means you aren't going to be charged for that transaction.

To argue that it's not free because you have travel somewhere is ridiculous. You might as well argue that it's not free because you have to put on pants. Don't be obtuse.

> Yes, and Republicans simply want to make sure that
> the list of such things is made as much longer and
> more difficult to complete as possible for groups
> that have traditionally voted majority Democratic.
> There is nothing more to these laws than that.
> It's simply disenfranchisement through vote
> suppression. It's disgraceful.

Nothing I say is going to convince you that you are wrong. Eventually, though, when these laws have been on the books for a while and Democrats keep winning elections and the world doesn't end, a lot of folks are going to look back at all of this hand wringing and wonder what everybody was so worried about.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nope. You have to provide us with a piece of paper
> that includes a variety of things that help us to
> establish your eligibility to vote, and you have
> to do that before the election.

Ah, so there are things that you did not fully disclose in your earlier posts. More costs for more trips to more places to get the "variety of things" that you need. I see.

> When we say "we will issue this free of charge" it
> means you aren't going to be charged for that
> transaction.

Nixonian backtracking. Why not just say that your previous statements are now inoperative.

> To argue that it's not free because you have
> travel somewhere is ridiculous. You might as well
> argue that it's not free because you have to put
> on pants. Don't be obtuse.

Don't be such a transparent partisan boor. You disgraceful party is creating hoops of cost in hopes of diminishing the share of certain populations that is actually able to reach the polls and vote.

> Nothing I say is going to convince you that you are wrong.

Nor that the sun does not rise in the east. You are trying to cover for slimeballs and doing a bad job of it.


> Eventually, though, when these laws have been on
> the books for a while...

The big push began in 2006. "A while" is not even ten years yet. The impetus for it all was demographic analysis done by John Judis and Ruy Teixeira showing that a permanent Democratic majority might be looming just over the horizon. It scared the pants off the GOP and still does. That's where the phony campaign against ACORN came from, and it's where the otherwise pointless push for these voter-ID laws came from. It's all about the desperation of vote suppression and trying to hold off the coming tides for as long as possible.

> ...and Democrats keep winning elections and the world
> doesn't end, a lot of folks are going to look back at
> all of this hand wringing and wonder what everybody was
> so worried about.

No, they'll understand it all perfectly well. Just as they understand apartheid, Jim Crow. glass-ceilings, marriage and abortion bans, and other disgusting forms of discrimination that Republicans have been champions and defenders of over many, many, long, long years. Their apples never falls far from the tree.

I'm thoroughly enjoying watching Dems shit their pants over voter ID.
It's the law now so get used to it. Heh..heh....

Jim Crow laws were championed by Democrats like Robert Byrd.

It is truly offensive when Republicans pretend that their motivations are pure, while giggling behind closed doors. Voter ID laws are not intended to ensure the integrity of the voting process - any more than hospital standards for abortion clinics are intended to ensure women's health. You people are despicable.

Yeah, Right Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is truly offensive when Republicans pretend
> that their motivations are pure, while giggling
> behind closed doors. Voter ID laws are not
> intended to ensure the integrity of the voting
> process - any more than hospital standards for
> abortion clinics are intended to ensure women's
> health. You people are despicable.

I'm not giggling behind closed doors. I'm laughing out loud in public.
Butthurt much?

history lesson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jim Crow laws were championed by Democrats like
> Robert Byrd.

Shove your goober "history lesson", asshole. You don't know jack-shit about history. Or much of anything else, I'd venture to say. Jim Crow laws were championed by racists who were once found in ,arge numbers in the Democratic Party but who all moved over to the Republican Party starting more than 50 years ago. As for Robert Byrd, he joined and left the KKK in the 1940's. He later called that the greatest mistake he ever made. When will YOU wake up, weenie-boy?

gawwLeee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not giggling behind closed doors. I'm laughing
> out loud in public. Butthurt much?

Typically worthless right-wing redneck asshole. Get the fuck out of Dodge, you antediluvian moron. Head back to where an IQ of less than 80 is considered to be in the "normal" range.

Yeah, Right Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is truly offensive when Republicans pretend
> that their motivations are pure, while giggling
> behind closed doors. Voter ID laws are not
> intended to ensure the integrity of the voting
> process - any more than hospital standards for
> abortion clinics are intended to ensure women's
> health. You people are despicable.

^^^
This.

Brilliant... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> history lesson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jim Crow laws were championed by Democrats like
> > Robert Byrd.
>
> Shove your goober "history lesson", asshole. You
> don't know jack-shit about history. Or much of
> anything else, I'd venture to say. Jim Crow laws
> were championed by racists who were once found in
> ,arge numbers in the Democratic Party but who all
> moved over to the Republican Party starting more
> than 50 years ago.

Jim Crow laws were ended about 50 years ago with the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the Voting Rights Act of '65. According to your timeline, Republicans couldn't have been champions of Jim Crow laws.

> As for Robert Byrd, he joined
> and left the KKK in the 1940's. He later called
> that the greatest mistake he ever made.

Yet continued to use the reprehensible word "nigger" decades later. He didn't just join, he was a leader.

> When will
> YOU wake up, weenie-boy?

Been enlightened a good long time now. I'm enlightened enough to know that you are simply parroting stale talking points.

Blow me, dumbfuck

> Head back to where an IQ of less than 80 is
> considered to be in the "normal" range.


Sure thing. What's your address? That way I'll know the average of that neighborhood is down the tubes low.

history lesson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jim Crow laws were ended about 50 years ago with
> the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the Voting Rights
> Act of '65. According to your timeline,
> Republicans couldn't have been champions of Jim
> Crow laws.

Come on moron. Jim Crow was alive for 100 years. In those early days, all the BLACKS were Republicans, and all the unreconstructed racist assholes like you were Democrats. Stayed that way through WWII. But Truman integrated the military. That was the beginning of the end. The civl rights era awas the edn of the end. You;re just too stoopid top know any of it.

> Been enlightened a good long time now. I'm
> enlightened enough to know that you are simply
> parroting stale talking points.

Enlightened? LOL! You're nothing but an ignorant asswipe goober dumbfuck. Hate immigrants too, do you? How about them towel-heads? Gays? Atheists? PhD's?

Paging, Mr. Butthurt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure thing. What's your address? That way I'll
> know the average of that neighborhood is down the
> tubes low.

I live in a seven-figure home on a much larger than average lot in one of the most upscale neighborhoods of one of the most upscale counties in the country. I take it you're at some transient hotel? The cab ride over here might bust you, dumbshit.

Blow me, dumbfuck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gawwLeee Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm not giggling behind closed doors. I'm
> laughing
> > out loud in public. Butthurt much?
>
> Typically worthless right-wing redneck asshole.
> Get the fuck out of Dodge, you antediluvian moron.
> Head back to where an IQ of less than 80 is
> considered to be in the "normal" range.

You know what they say in Moscow. Tough Shitski.

Blow me, dumbfuck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Paging, Mr. Butthurt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sure thing. What's your address? That way
> I'll
> > know the average of that neighborhood is down
> the
> > tubes low.
>
> I live in a seven-figure home on a much larger
> than average lot in one of the most upscale
> neighborhoods of one of the most upscale counties
> in the country. I take it you're at some
> transient hotel? The cab ride over here might
> bust you, dumbshit.


Yet you're still a classless asshole.

gawLeee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know what they say in Moscow. Tough Shitski.

Maybe you should move there. The rest of us would be better off for it.

Go figger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet you're still a classless asshole.

Not at all. Some of you just force me to play down to your level.

Blow me, dumbfuck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I take it you're at some
> transient hotel?

The Quarry Inn is a fine place to live. I have some very upscale neighbors.

Blow me, dumbfuck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gawLeee Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You know what they say in Moscow. Tough
> Shitski.
>
> Maybe you should move there. The rest of us would
> be better off for it.

I'm not obligated to even entertain your suggestions. I'm staying right here.
Butthurt much? LOL!

3 2 1
Attachments:

Yeah, Right Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voter ID laws are not intended to ensure the integrity of the voting
> process - any more than hospital standards for
> abortion clinics are intended to ensure women's
> health. You people are despicable.


Good lord you idiots never give up...

Nearly all of Europe has voter I'd laws.

Mexico requires biometric ID voting cards.

Must the entire country's elections be run like Cook County's?

Are you really so insecure and paranoid to think that you could never win fairly?

Ridiculous Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you really so insecure and paranoid to think
> that you could never win fairly?

Why do you have to make up all these phony stories? Why did you have to hire a crooked videographer to doctor videos And then have national party leaders stand up and tout them as the real deal? People who have an actual case don't need to stoop to such disgraceful levels. Obviously, you assfucks have no case to make and are perfectly well aware of the fact. Just a bunch of low-lifes and liars all the way to the very top of the table.

Get fucked, losers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why did you have to hire a crooked
> videographer to doctor videos And then have
> national party leaders stand up and tout them as
> the real deal?

There's no need to bring Michael Moore into the discussion.

Blow me, dumbfuck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go figger Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yet you're still a classless asshole.
>
> Not at all. Some of you just force me to play
> down to your level.


It's you brah.

college student Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Matter of fact... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > MOTOR VOTER Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Voter ID is racist.
> >
> > No, not racist, just discriminatory. These
> laws
> > are all crafted by Republicans to create
> obstacles
> > to voting among populations that typically vote
> > Democratic. College students. The urban and
> > rural poor. The elderly dependent of Social
> > Security. Republicans hope these laws will
> reduce
> > turnout and thus votes among those folks,
> > hopefully thereby winning them a few close
> > elections as the result. It's nothing at all
> but
> > Jim Crow revisited, but that's Republicans for
> > you.
>
>
> Doesn't just about every college issue a photo ID?



GOOD NEWS!!!!

I found my college ID from the 80s!!!

I can vote!!!

Brilliant... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agree Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Everyone should get a Voter ID card. It should
> be
> > issued to you with a free health care system
> card
> > when you pay your taxes.
>
> Since everyone pays taxes, the condition wouldn't
> seem to make much sense.
>
> > Just saying.
>
> Yes, I know. No thinking. Just saying. We get
> that a lot around here.


You are not very brilliant if you do infact believe that eveyone pays taxes....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101015065

This is just one source, the cast majority of people suck the Govt nipple instead of actually filing taxes and paying into the system.

File your tax form and receive your Voter ID and Health Care ID. Don't file, stay off the system, and lose your right to have a choice in the system.

Brilliant... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Ah, so there are things that you did not fully
> disclose in your earlier posts. More costs for
> more trips to more places to get the "variety of
> things" that you need. I see.

No, apparently you don't see. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. When you come in for your free ID, you fill out an application. The application includes all of the information necessary for a voter registration, and you have to sign it.

We take the info, we verify that you are indeed registered and all of the information you've provided matches what we have on file for you. Once that's done, we take your photo and capture your signature, send the information to ELECT and they mail you your ID.

We can also generate temporary IDs with your photo and signature that can be used until the official card gets there. Those are only good for 30 days.

So yes, you need more than just your word for it, and no, you don't need multiple visits.

> Nixonian backtracking. Why not just say that your
> previous statements are now inoperative.

No, that's exactly what I said before.

> Don't be such a transparent partisan boor. You
> disgraceful party is creating hoops of cost in
> hopes of diminishing the share of certain
> populations that is actually able to reach the
> polls and vote.

No, we aren't, and clearly given the results in the last few elections, it hasn't made a difference.

It would be more helpful if you actually worked to help folks who don't have ID get it, rather than doing what you're doing, which helps nobody.

You can also use your library card or Starbucks card.

It is racist to imply that black people are to stupid to get an I.D.
Attachments:

Agree Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are not very brilliant if you do in fact
> believe that eveyone pays taxes....

The original use of "Brilliant" was as a derisive comment to another really dumb poster. As for the degree of your own dumbness, you article refers to FEDERAL INCOME TAX only. There are many more taxes than that. Were you not aware of them? The bottom 20% by income lose about 16% of their income to this array of taxes.

> This is just one source, the cast majority of
> people suck the Govt nipple instead of actually
> filing taxes and paying into the system.

Right-wing fairy tale alert! Wake up and smell the coffee.

Brilliant... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agree Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You are not very brilliant if you do in fact
> > believe that eveyone pays taxes....
>
> The original use of "Brilliant" was as a derisive
> comment to another really dumb poster. As for the
> degree of your own dumbness, you article refers to
> FEDERAL INCOME TAX only. There are many more
> taxes than that. Were you not aware of them? The
> bottom 20% by income lose about 16% of their
> income to this array of taxes.


Which still amounts to squat. We pay for things in dollars not percentages.

Not counting benefits received, EIC and other credits, etc.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, apparently you don't see. I don't understand
> why this is so hard to understand. When you come
> in for your free ID, you fill out an application.
> The application includes all of the information
> necessary for a voter registration, and you have
> to sign it.

Again, since you are back to taking my word for for everything here, why not just take my word for everything on election day? Why all the rigmarole added on top of things. You know why, and so do I.

> No, that's exactly what I said before.

LOL! Waffle, waffle, waffle. No one reading your description of it would have any fixed idea of the process at all.

> No, we aren't, and clearly given the results in
> the last few elections, it hasn't made a
> difference.

You could murder people and have it not make a measureable difference in terms of outcomes. And that's exactly the sort of corrupted morals that typify the Republican party. Who cares if we only disenfranchise a SMALL NUMBER of people who probably won't make a difference anyway. Screw you and your disgraceful party, Brian.

> It would be more helpful if you actually worked to
> help folks who don't have ID get it, rather than
> doing what you're doing, which helps nobody.

Pouring sunshine on your criminal subterfuge IS helping. What's NOT helping is trying to make it HARDER for eligible voters that you don't like to vote. What you SHOULD be doing instead is trying to make it EASIER for everyone who is actually eligible to vote, regardless of who they are. But THAT tune doesn't play on the disgraceful Republican jukebox.

TULNb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which still amounts to squat. We pay for things
> in dollars not percentages.

LOL! You pay both ways, moron, but high school students don't pay very much in any case. The bottom line here is that the poor pay taxes. The stupid right-wing goober meme that they don't is pure childish trash that only dumbfuck uneducated assholes believe. Taxes are in fact a heavy burden to the poor, due to the very low levels of resources that flow to them.

> Not counting benefits received, EIC and other credits, etc.

Wrong. The 16% figure includes the negative rate that the bottom 20% pay on federal income taxes. The bottom 20% also pay a very small amount toward corporate income and estate taxes. But they get clobbered on payroll taxes, excise taxes, and regressive state and local taxes. You're obviously another one of those dumbfuck uneducated assholes who doesn't know any of this and therefore spouts off stupid right-wing bullshit from the internet instead. Way to be a gigantic worthless assfuck!

Fox News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fairfax County Board of Elections is requiring
> everyone to present a photo i.d. (identification)
> card when voting. They can be purchased at
> convienent places like WalMart and 7-11. No i.d. =
> no vote

Shut the fuck up you stupid fucking lifeless troll fuck you. Shut your fucking cock holster.

How you like my black president Hussein Obama tho? Child of Africa, student of Indonesia? 8 years motherfucker. 8 years has never felt so good. To be continied, stay tuned, more ass fucking of Republicans to come.

Hey Matter of Fact you liberal dumb fuck... Ok it is not necessary to have an ID to vote. So no need for any ID in other things either... Then can I go to your bank and Say I am "Matter of Fact" Liberaldumbfuck and then the bank should give me whatever is in your account right?

No need for ID to prove that I have a right to your money is there?

Are you eligible to take money out of my accounts? Do you have any rightful claim to a penny of it? I ask because the only discussion here is over people who are entirely eligible to exercise a right to vote. It is fear over how they actually WILL vote that drives Republicans to try to keep them away from the polls. I guess you're dumb enough for all that to have gone right over your head, though.

It's the same butthurt, hammering away at it's saliva flecked keyboard, pretending to make "points".

Why so mad, bro? Faggot much?

Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you eligible to take money out of my accounts?
> Do you have any rightful claim to a penny of it?
> I ask because the only discussion here is over
> people who are entirely eligible to exercise a
> right to vote. It is fear over how they actually
> WILL vote that drives Republicans to try to keep
> them away from the polls. I guess you're dumb
> enough for all that to have gone right over your
> head, though.

The only ones kept away from the polls are those who aren't eligible to vote in the first place. Get off that bar stool and get your ID.

"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.:

—Democrat Robert C. Byrd, 1946


The Democrats own racism. The theory that all the racists left the Democrat party is a canard.

In fact, most northern union members are solidly racist. Racism is replete throughout the Democrat party. That's why it's amazing that Blacks in droves vote Democrat, unless you know anything about the Stockholm Syndrome.

But Matter of Fact you Liberal ignorant butt plug...

The reason the banks wants to see my ID is to be sure that I in fact do have a right to the money deposited in the account and the ID is that little way of making sure of that, stoopid fuck.

See dumb ass people lie and if you read your fucking Washington Post they had a story about a study that showed that illegals did in fact vote in elections.

So a valid ID of citizens is a way to make sure that illegals are not voting in elections and then influencing the laws of the country.

Oh fuck it you are too stupid to understand this.. just go back to telling yourself that fucking Obama makes the sun shine...

Matter of butthurt. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's the same butthurt, hammering away at it's
> saliva flecked keyboard, pretending to make
> "points". Why so mad, bro? Faggot much?

You aren't smart enough to recognize that you are only hurting "the cause." Schoeneman is over there cringing, hoping that you will go away. But you are the bedfellows he's chosen to lie down with.

Flna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only ones kept away from the polls are those
> who aren't eligible to vote in the first place.
> Get off that bar stool and get your ID.

Too dumb, dearie. Your right-wing leaders know better. That's the only reason they push this slop. They know how much trouble they are in. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

MyHHN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Democrats own racism. The theory that all the
> racists left the Democrat party is a canard.

God, you are one fucked up turkey. Why do you think the Dixiecrats were so up in arms in the late 1940's? They were aghast at the drift in the Democratic Party, that's why. When LBJ was finally able to sign the Civil Rights Act, he commented that Democrats had just lost the South for a generation. It's actually been longer than that. Because by then, the racists were and voted for Republicans. That's simply history. You can take your goober stupid shit and shove it up your ass.

That stabitha, Rockhound, Yucky24, Libs Hate, and all the other (R)etards on this forum state in terms of race just before posting something about how conservatives are better than liberals.

Suck a big one. Enjoy losing another Virginia election. You will probably win the senate this year but it took a celestial alignment to do so. Enjoy it while it lasts, you'll lose it in 2016 as well as another presidential race.

You are a tard Matter of Fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The reason the banks wants to see my ID is to be
> sure that I in fact do have a right to the money
> deposited in the account and the ID is that little
> way of making sure of that, stoopid fuck.

You're such a total asshole. The right to my money is exclusive to me except as I may extend it. When you walk in, the presumption is that you in fact DO NOT have a right, and the burden is ON YOU to show differently. Voting is exactly the fucking opposite. The privilege and accompanying rights are extended to everyone. When anyone at all walks in, the presumption is that he or she has a right to vote, and the burden is again ON YOU to show differently. Merely creating hoops that deliberately discourage particular groups of perfectly eligible voters from ever actually managing to vote is hardly the same thing by any possible stretch of the imagination. You are just a fucking goober dumbass. You and those like you are why the Republican Party is dying.

> See dumb ass people lie and if you read your
> fucking Washington Post they had a story about a
> study that showed that illegals did in fact vote
> in elections.

No, goober-fuck, your feckless piece of trash is a fraud. It talks only about "non-citizens" voting. In municipal elections. As they are perfectly entitled to do in many jurisdictions around the country. You see, your "article" is actually just a garbage-grade propaganda piece ripped straight from the right-wing Echo Chamber. It is not an actual WaPo piece, but I'm not surprised that you didn't know that. Assfucks tend to know very little, after all.

> So a valid ID of citizens is a way to make sure
> that illegals are not voting in elections and then
> influencing the laws of the country.

Bullshit, asshole. The laws target particularly out-of-state college kids, the urban and rural poor, and the elderly dependent on pension and/or disability payments. Illegals are not eligible to vote and do not do so even as often as they win the lottery. This is in part because illegals deliberately MINIMIZE their contacts with the system. But you were too dumb to realize that as well.

> Oh fuck it you are too stupid to understand this..
> just go back to telling yourself that fucking
> Obama makes the sun shine.

The issue here is not Obama, but your total assfuck ignorance and abjec stupidity. You are just another clueless Rushbo/FOX News moron.

Look, I am willing to let the whiney libs exercise their right to vote without showing an ID if they'll let me exercise my 2nd Amendment right without producing an ID.

Don't like it, then STFU and pull out your ID when asked.

Not how it works. This isn't fourth-grade and trading baseball cards. Though some plainly never do mature beyond that point.

Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> No, goober-fuck, your feckless piece of trash is a
> fraud. It talks only about "non-citizens" voting.
> In municipal elections. As they are perfectly
> entitled to do in many jurisdictions around the
> country. You see, your "article" is actually just
> a garbage-grade propaganda piece ripped straight
> from the right-wing Echo Chamber. It is not an
> actual WaPo piece, but I'm not surprised that you
> didn't know that. Assfucks tend to know very
> little, after all.
>


The study deals with voting in the 2008 and 2010 Congressional elections.

You've not even looked at it to know who did the study or what it is.

or comprehend.

Why so mad, bro? Faggot much?

Goober here.

This whole thread is proof of the problem: Democrats want to cheat.

I mean, out of state college students have zero right to vote in Virginia, unless they've moved here, and have a driver's license here.

The law is meant to prevent one thing: the regular and organized multi-voting by Democrat radicals.

How else do dead people show up voting?

It's a Conservative principle not to cheat. So don't worry about us pulling that shit.

And, I'll say it again, not only do Democrats cheat, but they brag about it.

Hey Goober, Nice shot.

Fc7ue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The study deals with voting in the 2008 and 2010
> Congressional elections.

It does so only by extrapolating (a favorite tool of sleazy researchers) from a survey database that includes responses from non-citizens legally voting in municipal elections. They count on you being too stupid to understand what they are doing. Looks like their ship came in in your case.

> You've not even looked at it to know who did the
> study or what it is.

Your piece of propaganda trash has already been debunked in the thread asking whether Fairfax County will ever become Republican again. It was meanwhile written by Jesse Richman and David Earnest, two political science professors at Old Dominion University. Their article appeared on Red State, Hot Air, Breitbart, NRO, Eagle Rising, Right Wing News, The Daily Caller, and other such Echo Chamber outlets, these comprising pretty much the entire universe of it's publication prior to appearing in a Washington Post blog column.

Can't dispute information? Hey, they're gooberassholes!!!

Yawn.

U mad, bro? Why so faggot?

Wow. Never thought this would result in the way it has.

Goober here Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Goober here. This whole thread is proof of
> the problem: Democrats want to cheat.

Go soak your head, goober. People of honor and good will want ALL Americans who are in fact perfectly eligible to vote to have an unencumbered opportunity to vote. Republicans by contrast, DO NOT.

Matter of Butthurt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can't dispute information? Hey, they're
> gooberassholes!!! Yawn. U mad, bro? Why so faggot?

Looks like you've fallen off of....
.
Attachments:

Fox News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow. Never thought this would result in the way it has.

Amazing what can happen once somebody who knows what's going on shows up.

is still butthurt.

Why so faggot bro?

matter of Butthurt... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

.
Attachments:

Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fc7ue Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The study deals with voting in the 2008 and
> 2010
> > Congressional elections.
>
> It does so only by extrapolating (a favorite tool
> of sleazy researchers) from a survey database that
> includes responses from non-citizens legally
> voting in municipal elections. They count on you
> being too stupid to understand what they are
> doing. Looks like their ship came in in your
> case.


Wrong. The only extrapolation done was from sampled size to highly qualified estimates of what the numbers would represent in the larger population. It has nothing to do with voting in municipal elections, that was just the first (incorrect) attempt to criticize it that you found so you went with that.

The authors aren't counting on anything of the sort because they're not partisan morons like you are. They openly note and readily admit the many significant limitations of the study. There plenty of bases on which the methods in the study could be legitimately questioned as, for example, Tesler does here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/27/methodological-challenges-affect-study-of-non-citizens-voting/

You own idiocy in not understanding what the study was isn't among them.


> > You've not even looked at it to know who did
> the
> > study or what it is.
>
> Your piece of propaganda trash has already been
> debunked in the thread asking whether Fairfax
> County will ever become Republican again. It was
> meanwhile written by Jesse Richman and David
> Earnest, two political science professors at Old
> Dominion University. Their article appeared on
> Red State, Hot Air, Breitbart, NRO, Eagle Rising,
> Right Wing News, The Daily Caller, and other such
> Echo Chamber outlets, these comprising pretty much
> the entire universe of it's publication prior to
> appearing in a Washington Post blog column.


It appeared in the Post first dumbshit. That's where the rest all picked it up.

No, it wasn't debunked. It's a standard statistical analysis using the CCES database. The numbers come out to be what they come out to be. The authors don't claim anything more than that.

As if the dead-eyed twink fucking libtards who post on this board care about votes being accurately counted.. Cook County wanna be butt-boy thugs need to move to Beijing or Caracas where they'll never have to worry about the terror of fair and secure elections again. The rest of us can finally move forwards toward the first world standard of voter ID and one citizen one vote.

Why so angry about fair elections limp dicks?

Yes, it's debunked, because I said so!

AARP




Posted on 11/08/2013
Could Virginia’s Voter ID Law Swing an Election?
by Lisa McElroy | Comments |  Print
You’ve probably read about the problems that many voters - especially older voters - have encountered under voter ID laws, many of which are relatively new. (There was the recent case, for example, of former House Speaker Jim Wright being turned away because, at 90, he didn’t have a valid driver’s license.) Among those who may have to make long trips to government offices to obtain voter ID cards are people without driver’s licenses (which, like Wright, many older Americans may no longer have), student or employee ID cards (which older Americans likely may not have had for years), or - in the curious case of Virginia - a handgun permit (I guess maybe some older Americans have those).

>> Sign up for the AARP Money newsletter

Think about it: Every citizen (with the exception of convicted felons) has the right to vote. When voter ID requirements make it difficult to exercise that right, chaos may follow.

Yep, for many Americans, voting can be a difficult enterprise. The result? Some a may choose not to go through the hassle, and others may show up at polling places without state-sanctioned ID and have to file provisional ballots.

This week, with voter ID laws in effect for the first election in some places, we started to see these very real effects playing out.

Take Virginia, for example.

On Tuesday, the race for attorney general there was incredibly close – with only 481 votes out of more than 2 million votes cast separating  Republican Mark Obenshain, who’s now leading, and Democrat Mark Herring. But there are likely to be lots of provisional ballots to be counted, as voters who did not have the required identification at the polls have until Nov. 7 to present their ID and thereby allow their votes to be counted. The state then has three weeks to finish counting these ballots, as well as those that weren’t tallied because of other issues.

The fallout? Virginia voters probably won’t know until around Thanksgiving just who will serve as AG – or, as the Washington Post put it, “Almost Governor,” as the attorney general is often a top contender for governor in future elections. Even then, though, if the race is still a nail-biter, the “losing” candidate may ask for a recount, forcing the people of Virginia to wait even longer to find out who will be the state’s top law enforcement officer.

>> Get discounts on financial products and services with your AARP Member Advantages.

And when the very last vote is officially counted, a troubling question may remain: What if the entire election turns on eligible voters who couldn’t or didn’t want to go through the trouble of making a second trip to guarantee that their ballots were counted – perhaps having to take time off work, pay for a taxicab, or spend hours trying to find, say, their birth certificate?

In such a case, you could make the argument that the voter ID law turned the outcome of the election.

AARP has been on the forefront of this issue, participating in lawsuits challenging voter ID laws and arguing that older Americans are disproportionately affected.

Photo: U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services

 

Also of Interest

Good News for an Older Americans’ Safety Net
Slideshow: 9 Beautiful Waterfalls Around the World
Questions about the Affordable Care Act? Get your answers here
Join AARP: Savings, resources and news for your well-being
 

See the AARP home page for deals, savings tips, trivia and more

 

Tagged: ballots, cards, driver's license, election, ID, Law, Lisa McElroy, older, requirements, virginia, voter

Share via: Facebook Twitter

Matter of fact... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MOTOR VOTER Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Voter ID is racist.
>
> No, not racist, just discriminatory. These laws
> are all crafted by Republicans to create obstacles
> to voting among populations that typically vote
> Democratic. College students. The urban and
> rural poor. The elderly dependent of Social
> Security. Republicans hope these laws will reduce
> turnout and thus votes among those folks,
> hopefully thereby winning them a few close
> elections as the result. It's nothing at all but
> Jim Crow revisited, but that's Republicans for
> you.


Same tired ass liberal talking points, used by a vapid cock smoking libtard. STFU and DIAF loser.

I need to fart

Brilliant... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> history lesson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jim Crow laws were championed by Democrats like
> > Robert Byrd.
>
> Shove your goober "history lesson", asshole. You
> don't know jack-shit about history. Or much of
> anything else, I'd venture to say. Jim Crow laws
> were championed by racists who were once found in
> ,arge numbers in the Democratic Party but who all
> moved over to the Republican Party starting more
> than 50 years ago. As for Robert Byrd, he joined
> and left the KKK in the 1940's. He later called
> that the greatest mistake he ever made. When will
> YOU wake up, weenie-boy?

Indeed. Put it another way: back then, racist laws were considered normal. Most Democrats adapted to the changing national attitude; those that didn't moved to the Republican Party. What does that tell us about the GOP? Discuss.

w9EvM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong. The only extrapolation done was from
> sampled size to highly qualified estimates of what
> the numbers would represent in the larger
> population.

Dude, extrapolation takes small numbers and blows them up to be very big. There is no upper bound as there would be with an interpolation. In this case, the authors took very small (and quite uncertain) numbers of "non-citizen" voters and blew those up to levels of national significance. It's tripe, as they have all but admitted since.

> It has nothing to do with voting in municipal elections,
> that was just the first (incorrect) attempt to criticize
> it that you found so you went with that.

Non-citizens legally vote in municipal elections in various jurisdictions. The corpus of them will become even larger if New York City (where 30% of residents are non-citizens) follows through with non-citizen enfranchisement. Meanwhile, the CCES and YouGov surveys do not have a means to exclude such voters. They are in there. And then they get extrapolated from.

> The authors aren't counting on anything of the
> sort because they're not partisan morons like you
> are. They openly note and readily admit the many
> significant limitations of the study.

They've basically agreed with critics that the survey is junk, indicating that it was only meant as a start point for others to work from. Readers of right-wing goober-media will of course never hear any of that. They will hear the phony cover story and nothing more. As for the "non-citizens" versus "illegals" bait-and switch, people with a glimmer of comprehension can draw their own conclusions.

> There plenty of bases on which the methods in the study
> could be legitimately questioned as, for example,
> Tesler does here:

I've read Tesler and others.

> You own idiocy in not understanding what the study
> was isn't among them.

Odd that you would claim it was "the first thing I found", then claim that it can't be found anywhere at all. I believe you have some wires crossed somewhere.

> It appeared in the Post first dumbshit. That's
> where the rest all picked it up.

No, it isn't where the rest of them got it. They all had it in hand, but did in fact wait hours to days for the redeeming link to The Post to be finalized. This is how the garbage-manufacturing industry works.

> No, it wasn't debunked. It's a standard
> statistical analysis using the CCES database. The
> numbers come out to be what they come out to be.
> The authors don't claim anything more than that.

CCES is not some sort of official survey. It is the product of a for-profit private polling firm working for a consortium of private and academic researchers. Their goal is to produce large volumes of data at really, really low prices. Guess what that means -- CCES is a Yugo, not a Cadillac.

Logically... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Put it another way: back then, racist laws were
> considered normal.

Racist laws were considered normal by racists. Radical Republicans of the time certainly did not. But Reconstruction had come a cropper by 1880 and the South succeeded in imposing a brutal order that has still not been completely done away with.

> Most Democrats adapted to the changing national attitude; those that didn't
> moved to the Republican Party. What does that tell us about the GOP? Discuss.

Well, the GOP is pretty much the Big Tent of people who still hate. They are doomed as a political party in the long run.

If the Republicans are a Big Tent, then the Democrats are a Patchwork Quilt, being torn left and right at its seams.

Blacks hate gays.

Gays hate church members.

Union members hate Earthy-Crunchies.

Earthy-Crunchies hate pretty much everybody, and think the world would be a better place without any humans.

The Democrat party is filled with hate. While you can falsely impugn hate on a Conservative, you can go to the internet and actually find high ranking Democrats use the word "hate", as in "I hate so and so."

None of my Conservative friends have any hatred. But, damn, most of my Progressive/Liberal/Democrat friends have hatred for all things American. They love France, though.

Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> w9EvM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wrong. The only extrapolation done was from
> > sampled size to highly qualified estimates of
> what
> > the numbers would represent in the larger
> > population.
>
> Dude, extrapolation takes small numbers and blows
> them up to be very big. There is no upper bound
> as there would be with an interpolation. In this
> case, the authors took very small (and quite
> uncertain) numbers of "non-citizen" voters and
> blew those up to levels of national significance.
> It's tripe, as they have all but admitted since.
>

Uh, yeah. That's kind of the definition of extrapolation. Which is a standard approach in making estimates to the larger from a smaller sampled population. It still had nothing to do with extrapolation from voting in municipal elections.

>
> > It has nothing to do with voting in municipal
> elections,
> > that was just the first (incorrect) attempt to
> criticize
> > it that you found so you went with that.
>
> Non-citizens legally vote in municipal elections
> in various jurisdictions.


The survey was specific to voting Congressional elections. Look at the questions. Do you know what the second "C" in CCES stands for?



> The corpus of them will
> become even larger if New York City (where 30% of
> residents are non-citizens) follows through with
> non-citizen enfranchisement. Meanwhile, the CCES
> and YouGov surveys do not have a means to exclude
> such voters. They are in there. And then they
> get extrapolated from.


Except that they can't now and couldn't at the time that the surveys were done.


>
> > The authors aren't counting on anything of the
> > sort because they're not partisan morons like
> you
> > are. They openly note and readily admit the
> many
> > significant limitations of the study.
>
> They've basically agreed with critics that the
> survey is junk, indicating that it was only meant
> as a start point for others to work from. Readers
> of right-wing goober-media will of course never
> hear any of that. They will hear the phony cover
> story and nothing more. As for the "non-citizens"
> versus "illegals" bait-and switch, people with a
> glimmer of comprehension can draw their own
> conclusions.


Uh, no. They noted the limitations of the study very clearly from the start. How someone else interprets the results is entirely independent of the work itself. You attempted to paint the researchers themselves as some "right-wing goobers." That's not the case.


>
> > There plenty of bases on which the methods in
> the study
> > could be legitimately questioned as, for
> example,
> > Tesler does here:
>
> I've read Tesler and others.
>
> > You own idiocy in not understanding what the
> study
> > was isn't among them.
>
> Odd that you would claim it was "the first thing I
> found", then claim that it can't be found anywhere
> at all. I believe you have some wires crossed
> somewhere.


Who claimed that it couldn't be found? You found the first rather off-point attempt to criticize the study by a "left-wing goober" who hadn't looked at it either and ran with that. And it's still off point.


>
> > It appeared in the Post first dumbshit. That's
> > where the rest all picked it up.
>
> No, it isn't where the rest of them got it. They
> all had it in hand, but did in fact wait hours to
> days for the redeeming link to The Post to be
> finalized. This is how the garbage-manufacturing
> industry works.
>

You're completely full of shit. Most of them even reference the same article in the Post you idiot. lol



> > No, it wasn't debunked. It's a standard
> > statistical analysis using the CCES database.
> The
> > numbers come out to be what they come out to be.
>
> > The authors don't claim anything more than
> that.
>
> CCES is not some sort of official survey. It is
> the product of a for-profit private polling firm
> working for a consortium of private and academic
> researchers. Their goal is to produce large
> volumes of data at really, really low prices.
> Guess what that means -- CCES is a Yugo, not a
> Cadillac.


Who said that it was anything more? It's a basic survey data set that's used by a variety of researchers doing elections-related work. Most such social survey data sets are not "official" and it's no different than many others in that respect. The numbers it produces are the numbers that it produces.

dEtYD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uh, yeah. That's kind of the definition of
> extrapolation. Which is a standard approach in
> making estimates to the larger from a smaller
> sampled population.

People who actually work with statistics -- as you apparently do not -- are very leary of extrapolation, as they know the effects that any error at all in the original data can have on the final blown up data. Simply put, a few noise records can be disastrous.

> It still had nothing to do with extrapolation from
> voting in municipal elections.

Neither database has filters to exclude them. Each claims to be nationally representative. Non-citizens legally vote in many jurisdictions. They are in there.

> The survey was specific to voting Congressional
> elections. Look at the questions. Do you know
> what the second "C" in CCES stands for?

Yes, do you know what sloppy private sector methodologies and cost-cutting errors are? CCES hopes to survive on the premise that large amounts of low-cost error-filled data will be more useful to some than smaller amounts of expensive but well filtered data. Some 20% of people who claimed they were non-citizens in the 2012 survey cycle had indicated in 2010 that they were in fact citizens. CCES doesn't care about such things. It makes no effort to resolve such anomalies. As Richamn et al, have stated, "If most or all of the ‘non-citizens’ who indicated that they voted were in fact citizens who accidentally misstated their citizenship status, then the data would have nothing to contribute concerning the frequency of non-citizen voting." What Richman et al, have not stated but should have is that ANY significant error in their unchecked, unverified, self-repoprted data would lead to substantial errors in their conclusions. Instead of saying that, they began their sad refrains over how their work was really only intended to be a start point for others to work from. Feed us some more bullshit, boys.

> Except that they can't now and couldn't at the
> time that the surveys were done.

You plainly do not live in Takoma Park.

> Uh, no. They noted the limitations of the study
> very clearly from the start.

No, they were pummeled upon the paper's release and have had to backtrack and admit to almost every one of the charges. But as always, retractions never actually wipe out all of the harm done by the original. The right-wing loves to capitalize on that simple fact.

> Who claimed that it couldn't be found? You found
> the first rather off-point attempt to criticize
> the study by a "left-wing goober" who hadn't
> looked at it either and ran with that. And it's
> still off point.

One ting was claimed and then its opposite. Go suck an egg.

> You're completely full of shit. Most of them even
> reference the same article in the Post you idiot.
> lol

This is how you refute the fact that they knew it was coming?

> Who said that it was anything more? It's a basic
> survey data set that's used by a variety of
> researchers doing elections-related work. Most
> such social survey data sets are not "official"
> and it's no different than many others in that
> respect. The numbers it produces are the numbers
> that it produces.

CCES and the YouGov opt-in data are lousy. That's why they are so inexpensive. As with so many other things, you get what you pay for. Is that really such a difficult thing for outsiders to understand?

Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dEtYD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Uh, yeah. That's kind of the definition of
> > extrapolation. Which is a standard approach in
> > making estimates to the larger from a smaller
> > sampled population.
>
> People who actually work with statistics -- as you
> apparently do not -- are very leary of
> extrapolation, as they know the effects that any
> error at all in the original data can have on the
> final blown up data. Simply put, a few noise
> records can be disastrous.


They extrapolated only to get to an estimate of what the numbers would represent in the larger population. Just like it's done in many other cases. They, in fact, noted the limitations and small sample size and the implications for error.


>
> > It still had nothing to do with extrapolation
> from
> > voting in municipal elections.
>
> Neither database has filters to exclude them. Each
> claims to be nationally representative.
> Non-citizens legally vote in many jurisdictions.
> They are in there.


They do in the framing of the questions. No they don't vote in "many" jurisdictions, they can vote in very few jurisdictions, MD being about it, and in no Congressional races even there.


>
> > The survey was specific to voting Congressional
> > elections. Look at the questions. Do you know
> > what the second "C" in CCES stands for?
>
> Yes, do you know what sloppy private sector
> methodologies and cost-cutting errors are? CCES
> hopes to survive on the premise that large amounts
> of low-cost error-filled data will be more useful
> to some than smaller amounts of expensive but well
> filtered data. Some 20% of people who claimed they
> were non-citizens in the 2012 survey cycle had
> indicated in 2010 that they were in fact citizens.
> CCES doesn't care about such things. It makes no
> effort to resolve such anomalies. As Richamn et
> al, have stated, "If most or all of the
> ‘non-citizens’ who indicated that they voted
> were in fact citizens who accidentally misstated
> their citizenship status, then the data would have
> nothing to contribute concerning the frequency of
> non-citizen voting." What Richman et al, have not
> stated but should have is that ANY significant
> error in their unchecked, unverified,
> self-repoprted data would lead to substantial
> errors in their conclusions. Instead of saying
> that, they began their sad refrains over how their
> work was really only intended to be a start point
> for others to work from. Feed us some more
> bullshit, boys.
>

If, if, if... The data says what it says. You can always caveat things further based on various potential sources of error. Again, which they clearly did in their own assessment of the data.


> > Except that they can't now and couldn't at the
> > time that the surveys were done.
>
> You plainly do not live in Takoma Park.


You were talking about what MIGHT happen in NY which obviously is irrelevant.


>
> > Uh, no. They noted the limitations of the
> study
> > very clearly from the start.
>
> No, they were pummeled upon the paper's release
> and have had to backtrack and admit to almost
> every one of the charges. But as always,
> retractions never actually wipe out all of the
> harm done by the original. The right-wing loves
> to capitalize on that simple fact.


Uh, no. Read it. They very clearly note the many limitations, sample sizes, etc., right there in the original paper. It wasn't written for the "right-wing" it was a published article.


>
> > Who claimed that it couldn't be found? You
> found
> > the first rather off-point attempt to criticize
> > the study by a "left-wing goober" who hadn't
> > looked at it either and ran with that. And
> it's
> > still off point.
>
> One ting was claimed and then its opposite. Go
> suck an egg.


You're obviously confused.


> > You're completely full of shit. Most of them
> even
> > reference the same article in the Post you
> idiot.
> > lol
>
> This is how you refute the fact that they knew it
> was coming?
>

They didn't idiot. Drudge picked up the article in the Post. Most of the rest all pulled it after seeing it on Drudge. There's your "vast right-wing conspiracy." lol


> > Who said that it was anything more? It's a
> basic
> > survey data set that's used by a variety of
> > researchers doing elections-related work. Most
> > such social survey data sets are not "official"
> > and it's no different than many others in that
> > respect. The numbers it produces are the
> numbers
> > that it produces.
>
> CCES and the YouGov opt-in data are lousy. That's
> why they are so inexpensive. As with so many
> other things, you get what you pay for. Is that
> really such a difficult thing for outsiders to
> understand?

No more lousy than thousands of others based on similar social surveys with the same potential for error. The numbers are what they are based on the data source. They don't claim anything more.

Can't fix stupid. Eventually, there's no more point in even trying.

Matter of fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can't fix stupid. Eventually, there's no more
> point in even trying.


Especially when stupid doesn't read before running their mouth. Stupid.

Fox News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MOTOR VOTER Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Voter ID is racist. Progressive Democrats tell
> me
> > so. Illegals tell me so. Maryland Democrat
> > Goobernatorial Candidate Tony Brown just mailed
> a
> > piece telling me so.
>
> Why did Maryland mail you when you live in the
> Fairfax County?


+1

Fox News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fairfax County Board of Elections is requiring
> everyone to present a photo i.d. (identification)
> card when voting. They can be purchased at
> convienent places like WalMart and 7-11. No i.d. =
> no vote
>
-

-



-
+1

If you don't bring an id you dont vote and if you don't vote you loose your citizenship

I cant find my voter registration card. Can I still vote at my local precinct?

Jesu Christe. Its the 21 Century. You don't have a picture id?? C'mon this BS has been taken too far. What percent of legal prospective voters do you feel lack picture ids? People are coming to the voting stations and voting in place of people who died. With all the illegal/undocumented folks, we need some mechanism to insure a legitimate election.

kdXhe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I cant find my voter registration card. Can I
> still vote at my local precinct?

If you have valid photo ID (which is discussed above). The voter registration card is not valid ID, and is only useful as proof that you are registered and of your polling location.

What about my matricula consular?

Here is what we think about ID's...
Attachments:

Can we use the permisos the gringos handed us when we walked across?

How about this voter ID?

I have a DC driver's license but have my passport with my VA address written in it. Can I use the passport?

Fucking Conservatives Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many of your dead voters have showed up and
> tried to vote? Moron.

Too many. WAY too many. And it certainly doesn't take a moron to figure that out.

Don't forget your I'd

Brilliant... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, and Republicans simply want to make sure that
> the list of such things is made as much longer and
> more difficult to complete as possible for groups
> that have traditionally voted majority Democratic.
> There is nothing more to these laws than that.
> It's simply disenfranchisement through vote
> suppression. It's disgraceful.


Oh, stick a sock in it.