The NAACP is holding a march in North Carolina today to protest voter ID laws among other liberal causes. In the NAACP’s typical hypocritical style, they told the people attending to bring a photo ID.
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
Really? Apparently a number of republican majority state legislatures have heard of it. They’ve also figured out who tends to be voting then:
Current efforts to eliminate Sunday Voting in North Carolina are especially troubling because these efforts so clearly target successful voter turn-out programs such as Souls to the Polls. Sunday Voting is convenient for many voters, but it has disproportionately increased the turn-out among voters of color. In fact, in 2012, African-Americans in North Carolina used Sunday voting twice as much as white voters.
On the Sunday before the 2008 presidential election, church goers in Florida streamed from the pews to early voting places to cast their ballots.
The so-called Souls to the Polls campaigns were a windfall for then-presidential candidate Barack Obama and the Democrats. According to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, more than 32 percent of those who voted early on that last Sunday before Election Day were African American, and nearly 24 percent were Latino. Moreover, according to a report released by the Florida State Senate, 52 percent of people who voted early in the 2008 election were registered Democrats.
“Preachers would preach a great sermon and then march to the polls with their congregations,” said Hilary Shelton, senior vice president for advocacy and policy at the NAACP.
February 11, 2014, COLUMBUS, Ohio – Supporters say reform of Ohio’s election laws is overdue. But opponents say a series of voting bills being voted on at the statehouse are designed solely to help Republican incumbents.
“It really bothers me that we are making it more difficult to vote and more difficult to have your vote counted,” said Peg Rosenthal from the League of Women Voters. “A lot of people work six days a week, or hold down several jobs. They’re objecting to Sunday voting when that’s the only day some people have available.”
The Ohio House is expected to vote next week on a bill that will end “Golden Week” – the period when a person can register and vote on the same day. It will also cut early voting from 35 to 29 days.
Is there anyone out there who really can’t figure out what republican in these 3 states are up to? It is totally obvious.
Total BS. Certified copies are accepted EVERYWHERE.
A certified copy from the custodian of an original records is generally considered to have the same probative value as an original document. The definition of the term “original record” generally includes such certified copies. (A point that birther propaganda has apparently confused many people about.) They are accepted everywhere. That’s the point. If you don’t have a certified copy, you will have to get one.
More total BS, no certified copies cost $20 and mailing costs are minimal.
And next you’re going to claim it affects Dims more than Repubs.
Indeed, it does affect democrats far more often than republicans. The reason is very simple: Women tend to vote for democrats far more than men, and women are far more likely to change their names during their lifetimes, due to marriages and divorces. Men, who are more likely to vote for republicans, have legal name changes very infrequently.
The so-called Souls to the Polls campaigns were a windfall for then-presidential candidate Barack Obama and the Democrats.
Oh, so they want to discriminate against Republican voters that don’t get days off on Sunday. Why would Dimocrats want to have voting on days that Repubs apparently can’t make it? Why not limit it to days that both parties can make it? I’m confused anyhow as to how someone that can’t figure out how to get a photo ID can figure out where the polling place is.
“Preachers would preach a great sermon and then march to the polls with their congregations,” said Hilary Shelton, senior vice president for advocacy and policy at the NAACP.
Don’t the Dimocrats recognize this as voter intimidation? Kinda like having those donating money come down to the front and drop their money into the pot. If you’re not donating just remain sitting. Is the NAACP concerned about voter intimidation?
said Peg Rosenthal from the League of Women Voters. “A lot of people work six days a week, or hold down several jobs.
That would be the Republican women, all those unmarried mothers on welfare are Dimocrats. They can vote 7 days a week.
It will also cut early voting from 35 to 29 days.
Tell us again, How does that discriminate against Dimocrats that are available to vote all 29 of those days?
I don’t see where anyone has made a case that any of these changes discriminate against a race or a party. And I expect that is just because they can’t.
Greg
10 years ago
I’m not too worried about voter suppression efforts. They tend to backfire because they make the people they’re directed against angry. That anger turns into motivation. Nothing makes a person quite so determined to have their vote counted as transparent efforts by others to prevent it.
I’m not too worried about voter suppression efforts.
As in, because there is no such thing?
They tend to backfire
Tell me Greg, what party do you think the New Black Panther, standing in front of a polling place with a club, belonged to? You think he was trying to intimidate the Dimocrats? I’ll bet you’ve never even heard of that incident, have you?
Women tend to vote for democrats far more than men, and women are far more likely to change their names during their lifetimes,
Which proves nothing. Women who change their names due to marrying, would want to do all of it, Social Security card, driver’s license and voter registration, at the same time. The same requirements to change their name on the Texas driver’s license are the same requirements for Social Security.
But I thought you Democrats were all into that whole “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” thing, and encourage women to keep their maiden names as a sign of their independence. Guess that only applies when it is convenient to the cause. Isn’t that en vogue?
I’m not too worried about voter suppression efforts. They tend to backfire because they make the people they’re directed against angry. That anger turns into motivation. Nothing makes a person quite so determined to have their vote counted as transparent efforts by others to prevent it.
Seems like that whole “voter I.D. = voter suppression” thing is not getting out considering that Texas minorities voted in record numbers in an off year election right after Voter I.D. requirements were put into place in Texas.
Women who change their names due to marrying, would want to do all of it, Social Security card, driver’s license and voter registration, at the same time.
Apparently not. I’m guessing a lot of people only deal with the matter when a problem arises. Texas law doesn’t actually require a woman to change her name following marriage, so many may not even think about Social Security cards or what’s on voter’s registration records. This is from a Dallas News article dated January 29, 2014:
“Nearly 200,000 Dallas County voters have been told of possible problems with their identification, as county elections officials work to resolve complications arising from Texas’ new voter ID law before the March primary.”
That’s 200,000 voters, for a single Texas county.
The work-around devised for the recent off-year election involved requiring those with mismatches to sign affidavits. There were nearly 14,000 submitted at the polls in Dallas County. That, of course, slowed voting down and lengthened lines. The effect would likely be dramatic during elections having heavy voter turnouts. The Texas voter turnout for the last presidential election was 10 times higher.
There were nearly 14,000 submitted at the polls in Dallas County. That, of course, slowed voting down and lengthened lines.
And of course this was ONLY Dimocrats, the Republicans were smart enough to have theirs in order.
“Nearly 200,000 Dallas County voters have been told of possible problems with their identification,
I don’t see that they claim this problem is due to Dimocrat women that had gotten married. Do you suppose it might have affected all voters, not just Dimocrats?
I just don’t understand why Greg keeps insisting that Dimocrats are too stupid to cope with name changes etc and don’t know beforehand what is required to vote while apparently Repubs have no problems getting their name changes, etc done and papers in order so they can vote. This constant barrage about how stupid Dims are is getting tiresome Greg, maybe you can think of a different reason.
I don’t see that they claim this problem is due to Dimocrat women that had gotten married. Do you suppose it might have affected all voters, not just Dimocrats?
You seem to be unaware of the fact that women are more likely to vote for democrats than men. Among women, Obama had a 12% advantage over Romney in the 2012 election. From the republican perspective, all else being equal, they’re more likely better off each time random a female voter doesn’t make it to the polls.
I’m guessing that the republican state legislature’s recent efforts in the area of women’s reproductive rights hasn’t won them any points. Basically, they’re wanting to deprive a group of their rights, and then diminish their ability to answer back at the ballot box. We’ll see how that works out.
obamarhhea
10 years ago
@Greg: greggie boy why don’t you just say abortion instead of the newly concocted term reproductive rights? are you afraid to say abortion if so why?
Yet the Democrat disenfranchising of absentee military votes must be discrimination of men and Republican voters as they are a majority of the military vote, and Greg has no problem with that. Come to think of it, all military have to have photo ID, and they are often thousands of miles from the polls.
…why don’t you just say abortion instead of the newly concocted term reproductive rights?
How can abortion be called “reproductive rights” when the purpose of the medical procedure is to halt reproduction? Wouldn’t it be more correct to call it “termination rights”? Why is it that only women shall be allowed to have “reproductive rights,” which clearly must be seen as sexist discrimination of men? Why do we put up with Democrats torturing our language with their stupid revisionism bull crap?
You seem to be unaware of the fact that women are more likely to vote for democrats than men. Among women,
Yes, but they don’t have to worry about name changes because Dim women have their children out of wedlock so the gov will support them.
I’m guessing that the republican state legislature’s recent efforts in the area of women’s reproductive rights hasn’t won them any points.
Only amongst the crowd that want to kill their babies. While they’re out reproducing out of wedlock and having a baby killing the Repubs are out voting.
So now Dimocrat women are so stupid that they can’t figure out how to get a photo ID, how to get their name changed if they get married and had rather have the right to kill a baby than to vote. some crowd of women you got there Greg.
Bill Burris
10 years ago
@Greg: “I’m guessing that the republican state legislature’s recent efforts in the area of women’s reproductive rights hasn’t won them any points. Basically, they’re wanting to deprive a group of their rights, and then diminish their ability to answer back at the ballot box. We’ll see how that works out.” The efforts to upgrade the voter ID requirements in Texas started long before Windy made her splash defending partial birth abortion and unregulated abortion clinics.
No doubt there will be situations in which people have issues with their ID that they have ignored for years, since it has had no impact on their lives, which will complicate voter ID. Some of these might not have had the full realization of those making these requirements. However, there is no conclusion of disenfranchisement that can be drawn; there is simply no way to effectively target any specific group.
How about all the unintended bad consequences of Obamacare? Is this a definitive indication that the government wants to deny insurance to a specific group, the group that works and provides their own coverage? Is this proof that the government wants to destroy the insurance industry and replace it with their own control?
OK, that might not be a good example. But there is still no evidence of and organized intent to disenfranchise anyone.
@Ditto: Liberals can never say what they mean or intend to do; this would repulse rational and reasonable voters. They have to traffic in euphemistic linguistic misdirection.
During a speech at the Georgetown University Law Center on Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder declared that he wanted to extend voting rights for felons after being released from prison.
“I call upon the American people – who overwhelmingly oppose felony disenfranchisement – to join us in bringing about the end of misguided policies that unjustly restrict what’s been called the ‘most basic right’ of American citizenship,” he explained. (Snip)
…Holder pointed out that the laws blocking felons from voting caused “alienation and disillusionment” by those trying to reform their lives. He also said that the laws fell short of the promise of equal opportunity and justice for all Americans.”
According to the graphs, 74% of respondents said voters “should be required” to show a valid form of identification, and 57% of the group said they felt “strongly” about the matter. The estimated margin of error is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
From there, the Washington Post tried to ascertain why people are in favor of voter ID laws.
“Do you think voter fraud (pause) that is, people voting who are not eligible to do so, or voters casting multiple ballots — is a major problem, a minor problem or not a problem in presidential elections?
A staggering 81% responded that voter fraud is a problem– 48% saying it is a “major” problem, and 33% saying it is a “minor” problem.
Just 14% of respondents said voter fraud is not a problem at the current time.
retire05
10 years ago
6. My name on my approved photo ID does not exactly match my name on my voter registration card. Can I still vote?
Election officials will review the ID and if a name is “substantially similar” to the name on their list of registered voters, you will still be able to vote, but you will also have to submit an affidavit stating that you are the same person on the list of registered voters.
7. What does “substantially similar” mean?
A voter’s name is considered substantially similar if one or more of the following circumstances applies:
1.The name on the ID is slightly different from one or more of the name fields on the official list of registered voters.
2.The name on the voter’s ID or on list of registered voters is a customary variation of the voter’s formal name. For example, Bill for William, or Beto for Alberto.
3.The voter’s name contains an initial, middle name, or former name that is either not on the official list of registered voters or on the voter’s ID.
4.A first name, middle name, former name or initial of the voter’s name occupies a different field on the presented ID document than it does on the list of registered voters.
In considering whether a name is substantially similar, election officials will also look at whether information on the presented ID matches elements of the voter’s information on the official list of registered voters such as the voter’s residence address or date of birth.
So if a woman’s last name was Smith, she married and now her name is Jones, but the DOB and the address are the same as on the registration rolls, she will be allowed to vote simply by signing a one sheet, short statement that she is who she represents herself as.
If she has NO I.D. she will still be able to vote, but provisionally. She will have six days to provide her photo I.D. to the registrar’s office, at which time her vote will be counted and certified.
Democrats have no problem with requiring photo I.D. to be able to fly, or even subjecting us to the violation of our 4th Amendment rights to be able to fly, but making sure that the elections are clean and fair, well that to them is going just too damn far. Never mind that the NSA is recording every phone call those stupid Democrat women make, hey, that’s just the way it is.
Voter I.D. prevents vote fraud, and the Democrats know it. That is why they are so against Voter I.D. No more elections to be stolen in places like Hidalgo County, Texas where the majority of voters are Hispanic.
retire05
10 years ago
Dallas County Justice of the Peace
The Attorney General of Texas opened an investigation into allegations of mail-in ballot vote fraud said to have occurred in a Democratic primary in Dallas County in an election for justice of the peace between incumbent Luis Sepulveda and winner Carlos Medrano. Sepulveda said of the investigation, “…it needs to be done. It’s a big step in the right direction.”
County Judge Jim Foster, a Democrat, asked for the involvement of Greg Abbott because of concerns over whether Democrat District Attorney Craig Watkins would properly investigate. Foster said, “”This is absolutely necessary to bring an end to a longtime tradition of voter fraud in Dallas County.”
Ann McGeehan, election director for the Texas Secretary of State’s office, said in an April 20 letter that nine crimes might have been committed, including illegal voting, obstructing a poll watcher, unlawfully assisting a voter and providing false information on a ballot application.[8]
Democrats cheating Democrats
Starr County
A Starr County commissioner mishandled ballots in the Democratic primary. Commissioner Raul “Roy” Pena Jr. pleaded no contest to the charges. He was convicted on “one count of illegally returning a marked ballot and one count of improperly mailing another voter’s ballot, stemming from allegations he helped stuff ballot boxes with fraudulent mail-in votes,” The (McAllen) Monitor reported.[9]
Democrats cheating Democrats
Cameron County
A judge upheld the results of a tainted primary election for a Cameron County commission post. The judge found that some of the ballots should not be counted because they were mishandled, but that the voter fraud was not widespread enough to change the outcome. Ernie L. Hernandez Jr. won the primary, despite opponent Ruben R. Peña’s argument that Hernandez was aided by fraudulent votes. [10]
Democrats cheating Democrats
As I said, the biggest examples of voter fraud is among Democrats, in Democrat held districts/precincts, cheating each other and disenfranchising the voter of other Democrats.
Redteam
10 years ago
Here’s some good news for Dimocrats:
Kevin Faulconer recaptured the mayor’s office in San Diego for Republicans in a special election yesterday. The polls were skin-tight leading into yesterday’s election, and unions poured in millions to keep control in the nation’s eighth-largest city.
But in the end the vaunted Obama election model — flood the zone with negative attack ads and excite the base of the Democratic party — flopped.
Yet the Democrat disenfranchising of absentee military votes must be discrimination of men and Republican voters as they are a majority of the military vote, and Greg has no problem with that.
Like many stories that are an unquestioned part of the political right’s mythology, this one has no basis in fact. That won’t stop it from being endlessly repeated and automatically accepted, of course.
I believe it’s important to keep people who aren’t the least bit interested in the difference between fantasy and reality out of the driver’s seat.
Liberals, cram this in your pipe and smoke it: WaPo poll says 75% of Americans support voter ID laws
So why did so many red states and so many elected republicans resist the Real ID initiative? The entire point was to bring various state ID cards up to a uniform national standard that would turn them into reliable documents that would verify their holders with a far higher degree of certainty.
I find it interesting that Texas will happily accept a state-issued concealed carry card as adequate ID at the polling place—even though Texas regulations don’t seem to make U.S. citizenship a legal requirement obtain such a card. If you’re an alien, you need only prove that you’re legally present in the United States.
That’s the work-around referred to in post #108. The problem that could result was also noted: long waiting times in line, resulting from the necessity of many voters to explain mismatches and complete affidavits.
Voter I.D. prevents vote fraud, and the Democrats know it.
It has never been established that any significant level of voter fraud exists to begin with. Republicans cite handfuls of individual cases as if they were evidence of millions of fraudulent votes. They also commonly misrepresent registration inaccuracies as evidence of massive fraud—often when they haven’t even bothered to compare various state databases for years.
I actually approve of voter ID, in general. What I dislike is how republicans “got religion” when it suddenly occurred to them that regulations could be rolled out in a way that would work to their immediate political advantage. They didn’t like Real ID efforts, nor did they like the idea of a standardized national ID card that would readily confirm citizenship status.
And it would be the height of gobsmacking stupidity to believe that Dems who so blatantly cheat against each other in primaries do not engage in the same or even more egregious fraud when running against republicans…..
Factcheck.org is a far-left website ran by the far-left Annenberg Foundation, whose “facts” are often skewed, misrepresented or completely false. And of course you use it in a lame attempt to pretend that the disenfranchising of military votes doesn’t exit. Your linked Factcheck.org page does not address this at all. it only claims that ‘absentee military ballots that arrived a day late didn’t swing the election in Obama’s favor.’ That is a a false premise by Factcheck.org in that it tries to brush off the late and even undelivered ballots (because they were dumped overboard) claiming only that those specific ballots were not enough to have affected the presidential election. Day late ballots are only a small part of the disenfranchisement of military voters, and vote fraud is an incremental crime that steals election cumulatively. But that’s one of the well practiced tactics Democrats use to steal away rights, in piecemeal, incremental bits.
“Don’t buy a single vote more than necessary. I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay for a landslide.” – Joseph P Kennedy
Greg: So why did so many red states and so many elected republicans resist the Real ID initiative?
DOJ lawsuits and state election interference coupled with Democratic party propaganda campaigns and skewed misreporting by the leftist MSM. But of course, you knew that, didn’t you? You’re such a transparently ridiculous progressive tool.
Greg: —even though Texas regulations don’t seem to make U.S. citizenship a legal requirement obtain such a card.
Here is a list of the acceptable forms of photo ID:
Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
Texas concealed handgun license issued by DPS
United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
United States passport
You are working on the misunderstanding that simply having the proper Photo ID qualifies you to vote. That is not so, Texas election law required that a voter must still be a US citizen to be qualified to vote.
Greg: It has never been established that any significant level of voter fraud exists to begin with.
Vote fraud doesn’t need to be “significant”, it merely has to sufficient to tip the scales far enough to steal an election.
Redteam what a good news, it will reflect on what is following,
the people are sick and tired of this kind of empowerment from the leaders,
and they will say good ridden to them forever, one at the time,
THANK YOU FOR A GOOD NEWS WHICH BRING HOPE TO THE PEOPLE THAT .
NOT EVERYTHING IS LOST, THERE IS STILL TIME TO SAVE THE AMERICA FROM DEMS ,
AND ALL THAT GOES WITH DEM
Bill Burris
10 years ago
@Greg: “I find it interesting that Texas will happily accept a state-issued concealed carry card as adequate ID at the polling place—even though Texas regulations don’t seem to make U.S. citizenship a legal requirement obtain such a card.”
AGAIN, one undergoes both a state and FBI background check. One must be a legal resident to receive the CHL. Also on the CHL is your Texas Drivers License number which, unless you are a citizen, you do not get. Instead, the ID number is listed. So, just because you have a CHL, you do not automatically get to vote. The CHL will tell if you are a citizen or not.
Factcheck.org is a far-left website ran by the far-left Annenberg Foundation, whose “facts” are often skewed, misrepresented or completely false.
Similar statements seem to be made about any site that disputes right wing claims. Apparently that’s easier than dealing with the evidence they present.
And of course you use it in a lame attempt to pretend that the disenfranchising of military votes doesn’t exit.
It doesn’t exist. The entire story is bogus. The burden of proof is on those who make accusations, not on those who are accused. “Guilty until proven innocent” is not the way things are done in America. The fact that countless right wing media outlets picked up the story and repeated it—without bothering to verify it—doesn’t make it true.
The DoD issued the following official statement, which was quoted in the FactCheck article: “The Military Postal Service Agency dispatched to the U.S. Postal Service all military absentee ballots. We are not aware of any lost ballots at DoD [Department of Defense] overseas military locations.”
You are working on the misunderstanding that simply having the proper Photo ID qualifies you to vote. That is not so, Texas election law required that a voter must still be a US citizen to be qualified to vote.
Uh huh. So, in addition to providing your Texas concealed carry card as acceptable proof of identity at the polling place when you vote, you also have to present some evidence of citizenship? Or maybe all current Texas voters records were recently updated to verify that proof was at some point submitted? Because otherwise they are apparently content with that concealed carry card.
Vote fraud doesn’t need to be “significant”, it merely has to sufficient to tip the scales far enough to steal an election.
Also on the CHL is your Texas Drivers License number which, unless you are a citizen, you do not get.
I’m a bit confused on this point. Legally documented aliens living in Texas cannot get Texas driver’s licenses? They can apparently get concealed carry permits.
to vote is a priviledge given to the people along the power
to change the usurper in powers, forever
one must be very serious before voting, if they are ignorant,
they must learn of who is hurting this COUNTRY instead OF SERVING THE PEOPLE,
it’s not being done now,
it cannot be coming soon enough, before he spend more of the people’s money, and HE haS the arrogance to make speech,
as if all is okay nothing to worry, when the people see clear what is going on and what OBAMA has in mind, for more,
encroching in the lives of Americans, TO EMPOVERISH THE PEOPLE WITH A DEBT OF MORE THAN 17 TRILLION DOLLARS
AND COUNTING A DEBT
ON THE PEOPLE’S CHILDREN AND THEIR CHILDREN,
AND HE HAS THE ARROGANCE MORE TO PROMOTE ABORTION
OF FUTURE AMERICANS WHO WILL HAVE TO PAY THIS DEBT,
DIMINISHING THE AMERICANS OF THE FUTURE,
THAT IS CALLED A DEATH OF A NATION,
HEY HITLER DID IT FOR A WHILE ON 6 MILLION HUMAN,
he was an arrogant nobody with a persuasive big lying mouth,
Bill Burris
10 years ago
@Greg: No, they cannot receive a TDL but, yes, if they complete the course and pass the background checks, they can receive a CHL. For this, they have to present a resident’s card. So, the CHL will be different than that for a citizen.
Thanks for the clarification. I didn’t realize there was something about a Texas concealed carry photo ID card that would reveal the holder’s citizenship status. I stand corrected on that point.
Like many stories that are an unquestioned part of the political right’s mythology,
So you spread all the myths about Conserv’s and we say it ain’t true, then we tell about the Libs suppressing military vote and you say it ain’t so.
I’m surprised there are any women left on the left. Everyone seems to think that all of them want to live off the gov, don’t want to work, don’t want to get married, want to have lots of chilren to get that support money, but if they don’t want that chilrin, then it’s okay to just knock it in the head (so to speak). That’s the story of Dim women that Dims want out there. Why do women put up with that crap? Oh, and they’re too stupid to figure out how to get a photo ID, or to get their name changed, or how to find a place to vote. Real class.
Greg
YOU TALK OF THE MILITARY BALLOTS,
IT SOUND LIKE THE GUN WALKING, no they where running
WHICH KILLED A MAN OF TRUE AMERICAN ROOTS, AND IT DIDN’T HAPPEN, they said,
HELL THERE WHERE UNIONS WORKING FOR EXCLUSIVLY OBAMA IN BOTH ELECTIONS, SOMEONE MENTIONED THEIR WAS BOXES OF BALLOTS MOVING AROUND AND OUT, NO IT CAN’T BE WHAT I THINK, NO DON’T TELL ME, IT’S IMPOSSIBLE, THE MILITARY ALSO WHERE SICK AND TIRED OF THIS,
BUT THERE WHERE 400 UNION GUYS WORKING FOR OBAMA, PLUS THOSE SCIENTISTS OF GOOGLE UNDERNEAT THAT
EMPTY SPACE HIDDEN WHICH NO ONE OF THE MULTIPLE HUNDREDS OF YOUNG ON THER UPPER LAPTOPS DIDN’T EVEN KNOW THERE WAS A DOWNSTAIRS AND LESS ABOUT WHAT THE GOOGLE SCIENTISTS WHERE DOING IN THERE, AND WHAT ABOUT THE ONES WHO SAID THEIR VOTE TARGET CHANGE FOR OBAMA THEY SAW IT BEFORE IT DISAPPEAR, NO PROOF WHATSOEVER, OH NO IT CAN’T
IT CAN’T BE, HE WOULDN”T DO IT, AND THE GHOST WHO RISED FROM HELL TO VOTE, NO IT’S IMPOSSIBLE, AND THE OFFICER OF THE VOTES ,WHERE THEY ALL WITHOUT A SIN, NO SIR
ONE OF THEM VOTE 6 TIMES, MORE TELL ME MORE,
MITT ROMNEY WON THAT ELECTION he was rob of it,
Greg
10 years ago
I’ll have to admit that Texas concealed carry laws are a lot more complex than I imagined. Here’s a chart detailing where firearms can be carried, and under what circumstances. I was surprised to learn than any civilian carrying a firearm of any kind into a bar has committed a felony, regardless of his or her license status.
I’ll have to admit that Texas concealed carry laws are a lot more complex than I imagined. Here’s a chart detailing where firearms can be carried, and under what circumstances. I was surprised to learn than any civilian carrying a firearm of any kind into a bar has committed a felony, regardless of his or her license status.
Why don’t you just man up and admit you didn’t know what you were talking about and you were wrong. You glean some tidbit from ThinkProgress, Huffington Post or DailyKos, and being the lemming you are, automatically assume those sources are being honest and truthful.
And you are wrong about there being only minimal voter fraud. Name the state you live in, and I will provide you with the voter fraud in your own state, not just in Texas where it is estimated that 300,000 illegal immigrants are registered to vote, thanks to the Motor Voter Act.
Greg
10 years ago
I just acknowledged that I was incorrect on a couple of points. Some of us realize and admit that we aren’t right 100 percent of the time—a problem that apparently doesn’t exist on the right.
So, who estimated that 300,000 non-citizens voted in Texas? And why exactly does he or she believe that your state’s county election boards are so appallingly incompetent?
Greg
10 years ago
Texas officials received 616 allegations of election code violations from August 2002 through September 2012. After preliminary investigation, only 78 turned into prosecutions. Of those, 46 ended with a conviction, guilty plea, or no-contest plea. Only 18 of those resulted from election fraud on the part of individual voters.
In Texas, only 18 proven instances of election fraud by individuals over a period of 10 years.
So, someone has actually attempted a systematic review of the various databases of election fraud investigations. Their conclusions were published August 12, 2012:
None of which, most likely, carries as much weight in the right wing imagination as endlessly repeated claims that it happens all the time—claims presented without a shred of supporting evidence.
Redteam
10 years ago
@Greg: Doesn’t say that Greg, says if the business makes 51% of their income by ‘SERVING’ alcohol. Most places (bars) earn their money from alcohol sales. Not from charging for serving. Bars are legal carry as long as they don’t make 51% from serving.
Redteam
10 years ago
@Greg: It doesn’t happen all the time in TEXAS, but oh my, Ohio, Illinois, and some others.
You’d better run that theory past the local sheriff before testing it in practice. I’m guessing “51% of their income” means your average bar, and that they’re using that percentage to distinguish bars from restaurants. They’re probably intending to keep firearms out of places where people mainly go to consume alcohol—for obvious reasons. “Serving” is probably intended to distinguish bars from liquor stores. They probably figure people don’t hang around liquor stores to consume alcohol, so they’re low risk locations for drunken brawls that could lead to shooting, and that the owners of liquor stores have a perfectly legitimate reason to worry about robbery and self defense.
You’d better run that theory past the local sheriff before testing it in practice.
I didn’t say it was a theory. That chart, which YOU provided a link to, clearly says that businesses licensed to sell alcohol, carry is legal. Then it says if 51% of income is from serving alcohol, carry is illegal. So if a bar owner lists his income as selling alcohol 51%, then he can’t have 51% from ‘serving’ alcohol. Seems clear to me. We don’t have access to their footnotes so it’s clearly ‘not’ so clear.
where people mainly go to consume alcohol
I didn’t see any that mentioned ‘consuming’ alcohol. Clearly the owner of the liquor store doesn’t have to be concerned, it’s their premises and EVERYONE is allowed to carry on their premises.
Greg
10 years ago
Suit yourself. The way I’m reading it, I wouldn’t carry a firearm into a bar or to a horse or dog track in Texas. I don’t believe that’s allowed, even with a license. I do see where you’re entirely correct about the owner of a bar. It’s the owner’s premises, so a specific rule applies.
Bill Burris
10 years ago
@Greg: Your legally carried weapon can be carried into places that serve alcohol; you are not allowed to consume alcohol while you are carrying. If the establishment gets 51% of its revenue from alcohol sales, as stated above, carrying is prohibited; a sign that says “51” must be posted out front.
Carrying into any sporting event or arena, park or amusement park is prohibited.
@Greg:142 In Texas, we had the massive explosion at West. The liberal partisans, as they are apt to do, immediately sprang into action, criticizing Texas government for not having taken pro-active action to prevent the disaster, based on warning signs and common sense. In other words, Texas should have seen it coming and prevented it; to a certain extent, they are correct. The same is true of voter fraud prevention. We see the signs, we see the attempts, we even see some instances of success; why wait until massive fraud actually occurs to take steps to prevent it? The smoldering threat is detectible, the smoke is visible. Why wait for the massive explosion to take action?
No doubt repeating such comments as often as possible will win many young female voters over to the conservative point of view.
What, you think women don’t want to know the truth?
How is this any more the fault of women than of deadbeat fathers who won’t take responsibility for their own actions?
Do you think every unwed mother knows who the father of the child is? you ever watch those shows like Springer where they try to find out and sometimes have to test dozens of persons?
@Redteam, #87:
Really? Apparently a number of republican majority state legislatures have heard of it. They’ve also figured out who tends to be voting then:
Republican Lawmakers On Verge Of Limiting Early Voting In Ohio:
Is there anyone out there who really can’t figure out what republican in these 3 states are up to? It is totally obvious.
@Redteam, #89:
A certified copy from the custodian of an original records is generally considered to have the same probative value as an original document. The definition of the term “original record” generally includes such certified copies. (A point that birther propaganda has apparently confused many people about.) They are accepted everywhere. That’s the point. If you don’t have a certified copy, you will have to get one.
Actually, certified copies frequently cost even more than that. If you want a certified copy of your birth certificate from the Texas Department of State Health Services, for example, it will presently cost you $22. If you need it in 10-15 work days, they’ll charge you an additional $8 for expedited services, bringing the total up to $30.
Indeed, it does affect democrats far more often than republicans. The reason is very simple: Women tend to vote for democrats far more than men, and women are far more likely to change their names during their lifetimes, due to marriages and divorces. Men, who are more likely to vote for republicans, have legal name changes very infrequently.
@Greg:
Oh, so they want to discriminate against Republican voters that don’t get days off on Sunday. Why would Dimocrats want to have voting on days that Repubs apparently can’t make it? Why not limit it to days that both parties can make it? I’m confused anyhow as to how someone that can’t figure out how to get a photo ID can figure out where the polling place is.
Don’t the Dimocrats recognize this as voter intimidation? Kinda like having those donating money come down to the front and drop their money into the pot. If you’re not donating just remain sitting. Is the NAACP concerned about voter intimidation?
That would be the Republican women, all those unmarried mothers on welfare are Dimocrats. They can vote 7 days a week.
Tell us again, How does that discriminate against Dimocrats that are available to vote all 29 of those days?
I don’t see where anyone has made a case that any of these changes discriminate against a race or a party. And I expect that is just because they can’t.
I’m not too worried about voter suppression efforts. They tend to backfire because they make the people they’re directed against angry. That anger turns into motivation. Nothing makes a person quite so determined to have their vote counted as transparent efforts by others to prevent it.
@Greg:
As in, because there is no such thing?
Tell me Greg, what party do you think the New Black Panther, standing in front of a polling place with a club, belonged to? You think he was trying to intimidate the Dimocrats? I’ll bet you’ve never even heard of that incident, have you?
@Greg:
Which proves nothing. Women who change their names due to marrying, would want to do all of it, Social Security card, driver’s license and voter registration, at the same time. The same requirements to change their name on the Texas driver’s license are the same requirements for Social Security.
But I thought you Democrats were all into that whole “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” thing, and encourage women to keep their maiden names as a sign of their independence. Guess that only applies when it is convenient to the cause. Isn’t that en vogue?
@Greg:
Seems like that whole “voter I.D. = voter suppression” thing is not getting out considering that Texas minorities voted in record numbers in an off year election right after Voter I.D. requirements were put into place in Texas.
@retire05, #106:
Apparently not. I’m guessing a lot of people only deal with the matter when a problem arises. Texas law doesn’t actually require a woman to change her name following marriage, so many may not even think about Social Security cards or what’s on voter’s registration records. This is from a Dallas News article dated January 29, 2014:
That’s 200,000 voters, for a single Texas county.
The work-around devised for the recent off-year election involved requiring those with mismatches to sign affidavits. There were nearly 14,000 submitted at the polls in Dallas County. That, of course, slowed voting down and lengthened lines. The effect would likely be dramatic during elections having heavy voter turnouts. The Texas voter turnout for the last presidential election was 10 times higher.
@Greg:
And of course this was ONLY Dimocrats, the Republicans were smart enough to have theirs in order.
I don’t see that they claim this problem is due to Dimocrat women that had gotten married. Do you suppose it might have affected all voters, not just Dimocrats?
I just don’t understand why Greg keeps insisting that Dimocrats are too stupid to cope with name changes etc and don’t know beforehand what is required to vote while apparently Repubs have no problems getting their name changes, etc done and papers in order so they can vote. This constant barrage about how stupid Dims are is getting tiresome Greg, maybe you can think of a different reason.
@Redteam, #109:
You seem to be unaware of the fact that women are more likely to vote for democrats than men. Among women, Obama had a 12% advantage over Romney in the 2012 election. From the republican perspective, all else being equal, they’re more likely better off each time random a female voter doesn’t make it to the polls.
I’m guessing that the republican state legislature’s recent efforts in the area of women’s reproductive rights hasn’t won them any points. Basically, they’re wanting to deprive a group of their rights, and then diminish their ability to answer back at the ballot box. We’ll see how that works out.
@Greg: greggie boy why don’t you just say abortion instead of the newly concocted term reproductive rights? are you afraid to say abortion if so why?
@Greg:
Yet the Democrat disenfranchising of absentee military votes must be discrimination of men and Republican voters as they are a majority of the military vote, and Greg has no problem with that. Come to think of it, all military have to have photo ID, and they are often thousands of miles from the polls.
OBAMARHHEA
HI,
GREG IS AFRAID OF THE REALITY,
@ilovebeeswarzone: yes bees you are right
@obamarhhea:
How can abortion be called “reproductive rights” when the purpose of the medical procedure is to halt reproduction? Wouldn’t it be more correct to call it “termination rights”? Why is it that only women shall be allowed to have “reproductive rights,” which clearly must be seen as sexist discrimination of men? Why do we put up with Democrats torturing our language with their stupid revisionism bull crap?
@Greg:
Yes, but they don’t have to worry about name changes because Dim women have their children out of wedlock so the gov will support them.
Only amongst the crowd that want to kill their babies. While they’re out reproducing out of wedlock and having a baby killing the Repubs are out voting.
So now Dimocrat women are so stupid that they can’t figure out how to get a photo ID, how to get their name changed if they get married and had rather have the right to kill a baby than to vote. some crowd of women you got there Greg.
@Greg: “I’m guessing that the republican state legislature’s recent efforts in the area of women’s reproductive rights hasn’t won them any points. Basically, they’re wanting to deprive a group of their rights, and then diminish their ability to answer back at the ballot box. We’ll see how that works out.” The efforts to upgrade the voter ID requirements in Texas started long before Windy made her splash defending partial birth abortion and unregulated abortion clinics.
No doubt there will be situations in which people have issues with their ID that they have ignored for years, since it has had no impact on their lives, which will complicate voter ID. Some of these might not have had the full realization of those making these requirements. However, there is no conclusion of disenfranchisement that can be drawn; there is simply no way to effectively target any specific group.
How about all the unintended bad consequences of Obamacare? Is this a definitive indication that the government wants to deny insurance to a specific group, the group that works and provides their own coverage? Is this proof that the government wants to destroy the insurance industry and replace it with their own control?
OK, that might not be a good example. But there is still no evidence of and organized intent to disenfranchise anyone.
@Ditto: Liberals can never say what they mean or intend to do; this would repulse rational and reasonable voters. They have to traffic in euphemistic linguistic misdirection.
Eric Holder: Let felons start voting again
While whining about convicted felons, Holder made no comment on the disenfranchising of Military service men and women by the Obama Administration, during the 2012 elections Democratic party officials filing lawsuits to block military voting. contesting or not even counting active duty absentee ballots, and by failing to follow the law as required by the Military and Overseas Voter Empowering Act
Liberals, cram this in your pipe and smoke it: WaPo poll says 75% of Americans support voter ID laws
6. My name on my approved photo ID does not exactly match my name on my voter registration card. Can I still vote?
Election officials will review the ID and if a name is “substantially similar” to the name on their list of registered voters, you will still be able to vote, but you will also have to submit an affidavit stating that you are the same person on the list of registered voters.
7. What does “substantially similar” mean?
A voter’s name is considered substantially similar if one or more of the following circumstances applies:
1.The name on the ID is slightly different from one or more of the name fields on the official list of registered voters.
2.The name on the voter’s ID or on list of registered voters is a customary variation of the voter’s formal name. For example, Bill for William, or Beto for Alberto.
3.The voter’s name contains an initial, middle name, or former name that is either not on the official list of registered voters or on the voter’s ID.
4.A first name, middle name, former name or initial of the voter’s name occupies a different field on the presented ID document than it does on the list of registered voters.
In considering whether a name is substantially similar, election officials will also look at whether information on the presented ID matches elements of the voter’s information on the official list of registered voters such as the voter’s residence address or date of birth.
http://votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id
So if a woman’s last name was Smith, she married and now her name is Jones, but the DOB and the address are the same as on the registration rolls, she will be allowed to vote simply by signing a one sheet, short statement that she is who she represents herself as.
If she has NO I.D. she will still be able to vote, but provisionally. She will have six days to provide her photo I.D. to the registrar’s office, at which time her vote will be counted and certified.
Democrats have no problem with requiring photo I.D. to be able to fly, or even subjecting us to the violation of our 4th Amendment rights to be able to fly, but making sure that the elections are clean and fair, well that to them is going just too damn far. Never mind that the NSA is recording every phone call those stupid Democrat women make, hey, that’s just the way it is.
Voter I.D. prevents vote fraud, and the Democrats know it. That is why they are so against Voter I.D. No more elections to be stolen in places like Hidalgo County, Texas where the majority of voters are Hispanic.
Dallas County Justice of the Peace
The Attorney General of Texas opened an investigation into allegations of mail-in ballot vote fraud said to have occurred in a Democratic primary in Dallas County in an election for justice of the peace between incumbent Luis Sepulveda and winner Carlos Medrano. Sepulveda said of the investigation, “…it needs to be done. It’s a big step in the right direction.”
County Judge Jim Foster, a Democrat, asked for the involvement of Greg Abbott because of concerns over whether Democrat District Attorney Craig Watkins would properly investigate. Foster said, “”This is absolutely necessary to bring an end to a longtime tradition of voter fraud in Dallas County.”
Ann McGeehan, election director for the Texas Secretary of State’s office, said in an April 20 letter that nine crimes might have been committed, including illegal voting, obstructing a poll watcher, unlawfully assisting a voter and providing false information on a ballot application.[8]
Democrats cheating Democrats
Starr County
A Starr County commissioner mishandled ballots in the Democratic primary. Commissioner Raul “Roy” Pena Jr. pleaded no contest to the charges. He was convicted on “one count of illegally returning a marked ballot and one count of improperly mailing another voter’s ballot, stemming from allegations he helped stuff ballot boxes with fraudulent mail-in votes,” The (McAllen) Monitor reported.[9]
Democrats cheating Democrats
Cameron County
A judge upheld the results of a tainted primary election for a Cameron County commission post. The judge found that some of the ballots should not be counted because they were mishandled, but that the voter fraud was not widespread enough to change the outcome. Ernie L. Hernandez Jr. won the primary, despite opponent Ruben R. Peña’s argument that Hernandez was aided by fraudulent votes. [10]
Democrats cheating Democrats
As I said, the biggest examples of voter fraud is among Democrats, in Democrat held districts/precincts, cheating each other and disenfranchising the voter of other Democrats.
Here’s some good news for Dimocrats:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/370910/obama-turnout-machine-crashes-san-diego-loses-mayors-race-nine-points-john-fund
@Redteam, #116:
No doubt repeating such comments as often as possible will win many young female voters over to the conservative point of view.
How is this any more the fault of women than of deadbeat fathers who won’t take responsibility for their own actions?
@Ditto, #112:
Like many stories that are an unquestioned part of the political right’s mythology, this one has no basis in fact. That won’t stop it from being endlessly repeated and automatically accepted, of course.
I believe it’s important to keep people who aren’t the least bit interested in the difference between fantasy and reality out of the driver’s seat.
@Ditto, #118:
So why did so many red states and so many elected republicans resist the Real ID initiative? The entire point was to bring various state ID cards up to a uniform national standard that would turn them into reliable documents that would verify their holders with a far higher degree of certainty.
I find it interesting that Texas will happily accept a state-issued concealed carry card as adequate ID at the polling place—even though Texas regulations don’t seem to make U.S. citizenship a legal requirement obtain such a card. If you’re an alien, you need only prove that you’re legally present in the United States.
@retire05, #119:
That’s the work-around referred to in post #108. The problem that could result was also noted: long waiting times in line, resulting from the necessity of many voters to explain mismatches and complete affidavits.
It has never been established that any significant level of voter fraud exists to begin with. Republicans cite handfuls of individual cases as if they were evidence of millions of fraudulent votes. They also commonly misrepresent registration inaccuracies as evidence of massive fraud—often when they haven’t even bothered to compare various state databases for years.
I actually approve of voter ID, in general. What I dislike is how republicans “got religion” when it suddenly occurred to them that regulations could be rolled out in a way that would work to their immediate political advantage. They didn’t like Real ID efforts, nor did they like the idea of a standardized national ID card that would readily confirm citizenship status.
@retire05:
And it would be the height of gobsmacking stupidity to believe that Dems who so blatantly cheat against each other in primaries do not engage in the same or even more egregious fraud when running against republicans…..
@Greg:
Factcheck.org is a far-left website ran by the far-left Annenberg Foundation, whose “facts” are often skewed, misrepresented or completely false. And of course you use it in a lame attempt to pretend that the disenfranchising of military votes doesn’t exit. Your linked Factcheck.org page does not address this at all. it only claims that ‘absentee military ballots that arrived a day late didn’t swing the election in Obama’s favor.’ That is a a false premise by Factcheck.org in that it tries to brush off the late and even undelivered ballots (because they were dumped overboard) claiming only that those specific ballots were not enough to have affected the presidential election. Day late ballots are only a small part of the disenfranchisement of military voters, and vote fraud is an incremental crime that steals election cumulatively. But that’s one of the well practiced tactics Democrats use to steal away rights, in piecemeal, incremental bits.
“Don’t buy a single vote more than necessary. I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay for a landslide.” – Joseph P Kennedy
DOJ lawsuits and state election interference coupled with Democratic party propaganda campaigns and skewed misreporting by the leftist MSM. But of course, you knew that, didn’t you? You’re such a transparently ridiculous progressive tool.
Let’s look at your link Required Identification for Voting in Person:
You are working on the misunderstanding that simply having the proper Photo ID qualifies you to vote. That is not so, Texas election law required that a voter must still be a US citizen to be qualified to vote.
Vote fraud doesn’t need to be “significant”, it merely has to sufficient to tip the scales far enough to steal an election.
As usual Greg = FAIL
Redteam what a good news, it will reflect on what is following,
the people are sick and tired of this kind of empowerment from the leaders,
and they will say good ridden to them forever, one at the time,
THANK YOU FOR A GOOD NEWS WHICH BRING HOPE TO THE PEOPLE THAT .
NOT EVERYTHING IS LOST, THERE IS STILL TIME TO SAVE THE AMERICA FROM DEMS ,
AND ALL THAT GOES WITH DEM
@Greg: “I find it interesting that Texas will happily accept a state-issued concealed carry card as adequate ID at the polling place—even though Texas regulations don’t seem to make U.S. citizenship a legal requirement obtain such a card.”
AGAIN, one undergoes both a state and FBI background check. One must be a legal resident to receive the CHL. Also on the CHL is your Texas Drivers License number which, unless you are a citizen, you do not get. Instead, the ID number is listed. So, just because you have a CHL, you do not automatically get to vote. The CHL will tell if you are a citizen or not.
@Greg:
You need to re-read the requirements.
@Ditto, #126:
Similar statements seem to be made about any site that disputes right wing claims. Apparently that’s easier than dealing with the evidence they present.
It doesn’t exist. The entire story is bogus. The burden of proof is on those who make accusations, not on those who are accused. “Guilty until proven innocent” is not the way things are done in America. The fact that countless right wing media outlets picked up the story and repeated it—without bothering to verify it—doesn’t make it true.
The DoD issued the following official statement, which was quoted in the FactCheck article: “The Military Postal Service Agency dispatched to the U.S. Postal Service all military absentee ballots. We are not aware of any lost ballots at DoD [Department of Defense] overseas military locations.”
Uh huh. So, in addition to providing your Texas concealed carry card as acceptable proof of identity at the polling place when you vote, you also have to present some evidence of citizenship? Or maybe all current Texas voters records were recently updated to verify that proof was at some point submitted? Because otherwise they are apparently content with that concealed carry card.
That would be one definition of “significant.”
@Ditto:
It’s the Box 13 theory.
@Bill Burris, #128:
I’m a bit confused on this point. Legally documented aliens living in Texas cannot get Texas driver’s licenses? They can apparently get concealed carry permits.
to vote is a priviledge given to the people along the power
to change the usurper in powers, forever
one must be very serious before voting, if they are ignorant,
they must learn of who is hurting this COUNTRY instead OF SERVING THE PEOPLE,
it’s not being done now,
it cannot be coming soon enough, before he spend more of the people’s money, and HE haS the arrogance to make speech,
as if all is okay nothing to worry, when the people see clear what is going on and what OBAMA has in mind, for more,
encroching in the lives of Americans, TO EMPOVERISH THE PEOPLE WITH A DEBT OF MORE THAN 17 TRILLION DOLLARS
AND COUNTING A DEBT
ON THE PEOPLE’S CHILDREN AND THEIR CHILDREN,
AND HE HAS THE ARROGANCE MORE TO PROMOTE ABORTION
OF FUTURE AMERICANS WHO WILL HAVE TO PAY THIS DEBT,
DIMINISHING THE AMERICANS OF THE FUTURE,
THAT IS CALLED A DEATH OF A NATION,
HEY HITLER DID IT FOR A WHILE ON 6 MILLION HUMAN,
he was an arrogant nobody with a persuasive big lying mouth,
@Greg: No, they cannot receive a TDL but, yes, if they complete the course and pass the background checks, they can receive a CHL. For this, they have to present a resident’s card. So, the CHL will be different than that for a citizen.
@Bill Burris, #134:
Thanks for the clarification. I didn’t realize there was something about a Texas concealed carry photo ID card that would reveal the holder’s citizenship status. I stand corrected on that point.
@Greg:
So you spread all the myths about Conserv’s and we say it ain’t true, then we tell about the Libs suppressing military vote and you say it ain’t so.
I’m surprised there are any women left on the left. Everyone seems to think that all of them want to live off the gov, don’t want to work, don’t want to get married, want to have lots of chilren to get that support money, but if they don’t want that chilrin, then it’s okay to just knock it in the head (so to speak). That’s the story of Dim women that Dims want out there. Why do women put up with that crap? Oh, and they’re too stupid to figure out how to get a photo ID, or to get their name changed, or how to find a place to vote. Real class.
Greg
YOU TALK OF THE MILITARY BALLOTS,
IT SOUND LIKE THE GUN WALKING, no they where running
WHICH KILLED A MAN OF TRUE AMERICAN ROOTS, AND IT DIDN’T HAPPEN, they said,
HELL THERE WHERE UNIONS WORKING FOR EXCLUSIVLY OBAMA IN BOTH ELECTIONS, SOMEONE MENTIONED THEIR WAS BOXES OF BALLOTS MOVING AROUND AND OUT, NO IT CAN’T BE WHAT I THINK, NO DON’T TELL ME, IT’S IMPOSSIBLE, THE MILITARY ALSO WHERE SICK AND TIRED OF THIS,
BUT THERE WHERE 400 UNION GUYS WORKING FOR OBAMA, PLUS THOSE SCIENTISTS OF GOOGLE UNDERNEAT THAT
EMPTY SPACE HIDDEN WHICH NO ONE OF THE MULTIPLE HUNDREDS OF YOUNG ON THER UPPER LAPTOPS DIDN’T EVEN KNOW THERE WAS A DOWNSTAIRS AND LESS ABOUT WHAT THE GOOGLE SCIENTISTS WHERE DOING IN THERE, AND WHAT ABOUT THE ONES WHO SAID THEIR VOTE TARGET CHANGE FOR OBAMA THEY SAW IT BEFORE IT DISAPPEAR, NO PROOF WHATSOEVER, OH NO IT CAN’T
IT CAN’T BE, HE WOULDN”T DO IT, AND THE GHOST WHO RISED FROM HELL TO VOTE, NO IT’S IMPOSSIBLE, AND THE OFFICER OF THE VOTES ,WHERE THEY ALL WITHOUT A SIN, NO SIR
ONE OF THEM VOTE 6 TIMES, MORE TELL ME MORE,
MITT ROMNEY WON THAT ELECTION he was rob of it,
I’ll have to admit that Texas concealed carry laws are a lot more complex than I imagined. Here’s a chart detailing where firearms can be carried, and under what circumstances. I was surprised to learn than any civilian carrying a firearm of any kind into a bar has committed a felony, regardless of his or her license status.
Greg
so now that you learn it don’tdrink and shoot in the same place,
@Greg:
Why don’t you just man up and admit you didn’t know what you were talking about and you were wrong. You glean some tidbit from ThinkProgress, Huffington Post or DailyKos, and being the lemming you are, automatically assume those sources are being honest and truthful.
And you are wrong about there being only minimal voter fraud. Name the state you live in, and I will provide you with the voter fraud in your own state, not just in Texas where it is estimated that 300,000 illegal immigrants are registered to vote, thanks to the Motor Voter Act.
I just acknowledged that I was incorrect on a couple of points. Some of us realize and admit that we aren’t right 100 percent of the time—a problem that apparently doesn’t exist on the right.
So, who estimated that 300,000 non-citizens voted in Texas? And why exactly does he or she believe that your state’s county election boards are so appallingly incompetent?
Texas officials received 616 allegations of election code violations from August 2002 through September 2012. After preliminary investigation, only 78 turned into prosecutions. Of those, 46 ended with a conviction, guilty plea, or no-contest plea. Only 18 of those resulted from election fraud on the part of individual voters.
In Texas, only 18 proven instances of election fraud by individuals over a period of 10 years.
So, someone has actually attempted a systematic review of the various databases of election fraud investigations. Their conclusions were published August 12, 2012:
Exhaustive Database of Voter Fraud Cases Turns Up Scant Evidence That It Happens
None of which, most likely, carries as much weight in the right wing imagination as endlessly repeated claims that it happens all the time—claims presented without a shred of supporting evidence.
@Greg: Doesn’t say that Greg, says if the business makes 51% of their income by ‘SERVING’ alcohol. Most places (bars) earn their money from alcohol sales. Not from charging for serving. Bars are legal carry as long as they don’t make 51% from serving.
@Greg: It doesn’t happen all the time in TEXAS, but oh my, Ohio, Illinois, and some others.
@Redteam, #143:
You’d better run that theory past the local sheriff before testing it in practice. I’m guessing “51% of their income” means your average bar, and that they’re using that percentage to distinguish bars from restaurants. They’re probably intending to keep firearms out of places where people mainly go to consume alcohol—for obvious reasons. “Serving” is probably intended to distinguish bars from liquor stores. They probably figure people don’t hang around liquor stores to consume alcohol, so they’re low risk locations for drunken brawls that could lead to shooting, and that the owners of liquor stores have a perfectly legitimate reason to worry about robbery and self defense.
@Greg:
I didn’t say it was a theory. That chart, which YOU provided a link to, clearly says that businesses licensed to sell alcohol, carry is legal. Then it says if 51% of income is from serving alcohol, carry is illegal. So if a bar owner lists his income as selling alcohol 51%, then he can’t have 51% from ‘serving’ alcohol. Seems clear to me. We don’t have access to their footnotes so it’s clearly ‘not’ so clear.
I didn’t see any that mentioned ‘consuming’ alcohol. Clearly the owner of the liquor store doesn’t have to be concerned, it’s their premises and EVERYONE is allowed to carry on their premises.
Suit yourself. The way I’m reading it, I wouldn’t carry a firearm into a bar or to a horse or dog track in Texas. I don’t believe that’s allowed, even with a license. I do see where you’re entirely correct about the owner of a bar. It’s the owner’s premises, so a specific rule applies.
@Greg: Your legally carried weapon can be carried into places that serve alcohol; you are not allowed to consume alcohol while you are carrying. If the establishment gets 51% of its revenue from alcohol sales, as stated above, carrying is prohibited; a sign that says “51” must be posted out front.
Carrying into any sporting event or arena, park or amusement park is prohibited.
@Greg:142 In Texas, we had the massive explosion at West. The liberal partisans, as they are apt to do, immediately sprang into action, criticizing Texas government for not having taken pro-active action to prevent the disaster, based on warning signs and common sense. In other words, Texas should have seen it coming and prevented it; to a certain extent, they are correct. The same is true of voter fraud prevention. We see the signs, we see the attempts, we even see some instances of success; why wait until massive fraud actually occurs to take steps to prevent it? The smoldering threat is detectible, the smoke is visible. Why wait for the massive explosion to take action?
Bill Burris
at this point ,is in it too late?
bye
@Greg:122
What, you think women don’t want to know the truth?
Do you think every unwed mother knows who the father of the child is? you ever watch those shows like Springer where they try to find out and sometimes have to test dozens of persons?