this is brilliant

[scottw]

Attorney General Eric Holder is a staunch opponent of laws requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls to improve ballot security. He calls them “unnecessary” and has blocked their implementation in Texas and South Carolina, citing the fear they would discriminate against minorities.

I wonder what Holder will think when he learns just how easy it was for someone to be offered his ballot just by mentioning his name in a Washington, D.C., polling place in Tuesday’s primaries.

In Washington, it was child’s play for O’Keefe to beat the system. O’Keefe’s assistant used a hidden camera to document his encounter with the election worker at Holder’s polling place:

Man: “Do you have an Eric Holder, 50th Street?

Poll worker: “Let me see here.”

Man: Xxxx 50th Street.

Poll Worker: Let’s see, Holder, Hol-t-e-r, or Hold-d-e-r?

Man: H-o-l-d-e-r.

Poll Worker: D-e-r. Okay.

Man: That’s the name.

Poll Worker: I do. Xxxx 50th Street NW. Okay. [Puts check next to name, indicating someone has shown up to vote.] Will you sign there . . .

Man: I actually forgot my ID.

Poll Worker: You don’t need it; it’s all right.

Man: I left it in the car.

Poll Worker: As long as you’re in here, and you’re on our list and that’s who you say you are, we’re okay.

Man: I would feel more comfortable if I go get my ID, is it all right if I go get it?

Poll Worker: Sure, go ahead.

Man: I’ll be back faster than you can say furious!

Poll Worker: We’re not going anywhere.

Note that O’Keefe’s assistant never identified himself as Eric Holder, so he was not illegally impersonating him.

....a new study by the Pew Research Center found at least 1.8 million dead people are still registered to vote. They aren’t likely to complain if someone votes in their place.

Why We Need Voter-ID Laws Now - John Fund - National Review Online

[justplugit]

Except for the politicians not wanting it to milk it for votes, I could never understand the big deal in registering to vote and being able to prove your idenity.

You do it once, proves you are a citizen over the age of 18 and not a felon. Your official signature is sighned in the poll books and each time you go to vote you sighn your name under the original signature proving who you are and eligble.If your eligble there should be no problem in having
a photo ID either.

What's the big deal, no violation of rights here, just showing you are eligible.

[Jim in CT]

I'm with justplugit. What i sthe harm in verifying someone's identity at the voting booth? Isn't ensuring identity, for the purposes of election integrity, a good thing? Why are liberals opposed to this? Why would it discriminate against minorities? Is it better for those minorities if someone uses their identity to vote illegitimately?

I see no earthly reason to oppose this, but liberals, as a group, vehemently oppose it.

[PaulS]

So, O'Keefe lied and he is praised?

You conservatives have no morals.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So, O'Keefe lied and he is praised?

You conservatives have no morals.

Paul, there you go again, saying mean, nasty things. When I do it, you tell me I'm mean and nasty. When you do it, it's OK, I guess?

I see nothing immoral about exposing the issue of voter fraud. If the person actually voted as Eric Holder, that would be immoral.

When someone called Gov Scott Walker (in Wisconsin) and pretended to be one of the Koch brothers, did you call that out as immoral? Because most liberals jumped to the conclusion that the Koch brothers have Walker in their back pocket...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, there you go again, saying mean, nasty things. When I do it, you tell me I'm mean and nasty. When you do it, it's OK, I guess?I figure what is good for the goose is good for the gander - the decorum in this forum has good way down over the last year or so. I figure since your constantly railing against "liberals", that I'll start calling sleazy sleazy

I see nothing immoral about exposing the issue of voter fraud. If the person actually voted as Eric Holder, that would be immoral. If the sleazy conservative didn't vote, how is it voter fraud. Your missing the point - O'Keefe is lying to someone - he is conservative and sleazy. Therefore, using the logic you use daily, and no conservatives have called him out, therefore they are all sleazy.

When someone called Gov Scott Walker (in Wisconsin) and pretended to be one of the Koch brothers, did you call that out as immoral? Because most liberals jumped to the conclusion that the Koch brothers have Walker in their back pocket...

As w/me, the person who did it saw how sleazy cons. are and figured he would do the same.

Last week I saw that some sleazy conserv. tried the same thing (even setting up a website!) and got caught. I'm sure others have been contacting him and tell him where he went wrong.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You conservatives have no morals.

Maybe I missed something,please show me where I have posted something that was imoral.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Maybe I missed something,please show me where I have posted something that was imoral.

something about "goose decorum"...which I think is similar to "pink slime" ....sleazy sleazy

the guy didn't lie about anything, and he didn't try to cast a vote....just demonstrated how easy it is to vote for a dead guy..or apparently for a live guy too... a live guy (Holder)who doesn't see a problem with people voting for dead guys..

and it wasn't O'Keefe..it was his assistant

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Maybe I missed something,please show me where I have posted something that was imoral.

that your so willing to lie and that it comes so easy.

Originally Posted by scottw

:

the guy didn't lie about anything, He implied that he was Holder - you can tell he was implying he was Holder, right?and he didn't try to cast a vote....just demonstrated how easy it is to vote for a dead guy..How did he demonstrate that if he didn't actually vote?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by PaulS

that your so willing to lie and that it comes so easy.

Please show me a post where I have lied.

You seem to be very judgemental and self righteous.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

you can tell he was implying he was Holder, right?..

How did he demonstrate that if he didn't actually vote?

what he specifically asked the poll worker was..

“Do you have an Eric Holder, 50th Street?"

yes, that could imply to the poll worker that he was Eric Holder and was there to vote, but anyone could walk in and ask if they have anyone on their list at a particular address, I don't think it's illegal or lying.....does show just how pathetically easy it is to make a mess of the system...imagine if some organization(oh, say ACORN) was dedicated to making a mess of the system?


he demonstrated that it was very easy to walk into a polling place, ask if they had a name and an address and get a ballot by simply signing on the line, now in this case, if he had taken the ballot and voted(that woud be illegal), and if Holder had shown up at a later date there would be a contested ballot...if the name he asked for was a dead guy, there wouldn't be anyone to walk in later and try to vote under the same name and create a contested ballot...is this really that difficult to grasp?

the obvious irony is that he went to ask for Holder, the top law official in the land who adamantly opposes voter id.....outstanding

[The Dad Fisherman]

Lets take our foot off the gas pedal and relax.

and ease up on the name calling......just because people do it doesn't mean its right

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Lets take our foot off the gas pedal and relax.

and ease up on the name calling......just because people do it doesn't mean its right

Agree, and let's refrain from painting with broad brushes.
The only thing I posted on this thread was my opinion on voting registration.
Neither imoral or a lie.

[Jim in CT]

Can we get back to the point of the original post? Why do Obama and most liberals oppose identity verification? Whose civil rights get violated, and how do they get violated, if we ask folks to prove their identity at the voting booth?

I just don't see a valid argument against this, but liberals tend to paint it as discriminatory...

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I just don't see a valid argument against this, but liberals tend to paint it as discriminatory...

Because once you bring discrimmination into the argument, it tends to quiet the opposition. No one wants to be labeled as discriminatory.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Because once you bring discrimmination into the argument, it tends to quiet the opposition. No one wants to be labeled as discriminatory.

Good point FB.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Can we get back to the point of the original post? Why do Obama and most liberals oppose identity verification? Whose civil rights get violated, and how do they get violated, if we ask folks to prove their identity at the voting booth?

I just don't see a valid argument against this, but liberals tend to paint it as discriminatory...

Frankly, a free ID card (if you don't have a license/passport/military ID, etc.) wouldn't bother me all.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Frankly, a free ID card (if you don't have a license/passport/military ID, etc.) wouldn't bother me all.

Don't people need ID to get welfare or other social services? I would think an ID wouldn't be too difficult to get if someone really wanted one.

[spence]

Acorn? Oh Jesus....

The simple question is what's more likely, voter fraud or voter disenfranchisement?

O'keef's vid is nothing more than another stunt to feed the crack heads.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Acorn? Oh Jesus....

The simple question is what's more likely, voter fraud or voter disenfranchisement?

O'keef's vid is nothing more than another stunt to feed the crack heads.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, are you saying that verifying identity at the voting booth will cause "disenfranchisement"? Can you please explain?

I have to show id at the doctors office, at my kids' school, when I buy prescriptions aty the pharmacy, when I get on a plane. WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL? When asked to verify id, my rights (specifically my right to vote) is being protected, my rights aren't being violated.

It never occurred to me to feel disenfranchised, whatever the hell that is...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, are you saying that verifying identity at the voting booth will cause "disenfranchisement"? Can you please explain?

I have to show id at the doctors office, at my kids' school, when I buy prescriptions aty the pharmacy, when I get on a plane. WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL? When asked to verify id, my rights (specifically my right to vote) is being protected, my rights aren't being violated.

It never occurred to me to feel disenfranchised, whatever the hell that is...

makes you wonder what all the potentially disenfranchised do the other 364 days a year with no form of identification ....doesn't it?

[Piscator]

Clean it up, it's simple. Require an ID to vote. Common sense...........

[RIROCKHOUND]

Did OKeefe dress up like Huggy Bear this time?

[buckman]

I'm 50 years old and I need to show an ID to buy spray paint!!!! This is nuts!!

[RIROCKHOUND]

Google's fun.

Does it happen, yes. On both sides, apparently
Is it rampant? I still say no.
BBCW: Voter Fraud Declared at Christian County, Missouri Republican Caucus: Rick Santorum Wins Fraudulent Caucus
Political Animal - Another GOP official commits election fraud

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Google's fun.

Does it happen, yes. On both sides, apparently
Is it rampant? I still say no.
BBCW: Voter Fraud Declared at Christian County, Missouri Republican Caucus: Rick Santorum Wins Fraudulent Caucus
Political Animal - Another GOP official commits election fraud

I guess..."Bungalow Bills"??? that's a good one

how many examples till we get to "rampant"?

Bry, did you actually read either of those?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

I guess..."Bungalow Bills"??? that's a good one

how many examples till we get to "rampant"?

Bry, did you actually read either of those?

Yes. One was a Caucus, the other was mostly making reference to voter suppression (albeit a creative approach) in Maryland.

So you see this is a major issue?
I'd much rather they tackle some campaign finance laws first. I think that's the more pressing issue.

I still want to know if Oqueef was dressed like a Pimp when he played Holder....

[scottw]

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;932803]Yes. One was a Caucus, the other was mostly making reference to voter suppression (albeit a creative approach) in Maryland.

So you see this is a major issue?
QUOTE]

we're talking about voter fraud and id's

and you post one story from an unusual website involving the Missouri caucus another about a republican whose voter registration showed his ex-wife's address(can't see how that could happen) and then a campaign manager that approved some robo calls which**, while annoying, if you actually believe a strange unnamed voice that calls your house at night and tells you not to bother voting...maybe you shouldn't be voting in the first place

and that's your evidence that there is either no evidence or that everyone does it so it's no big deal?

I thought we did tackle campaign finance laws?

**WashPo
Ex-Ehrlich campaign manager Schurick convicted in robocall case - The Washington Post

The jury convicted Schurick — who got his start in politics working for Democrats — of trying to influence votes through fraud,guess we know where he learned how failing to identify the source of the call as required by law and two counts of conspiracy to commit those crimes.

[Piscator]

Interesting............................."The Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to."

[Piscator]

Make everyone show an ID.

As good old Benjamin Franklin once said “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Hell, back then only land owners could vote. Looking back its not a bad idea