KevinG

That is what the law says, but if believe that everyone is getting paid the minimum wage (or above) you are fooling yourself.

I saw that, bummer. 74 is a fairly god run.

It is kinda of silly to fight vehemently for the integrity of the vote and then be so cavalier about preventing people voting who have every right to vote.

Here is an interesting article that came out after the 2012 election on non documented workers and voting: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/undocumented-immigrants-voted-2012/story?id=18357147 From a presidential stand point even if the non documented residents are voting they aren't really affecting the outcome of the race. And there are no indication (or credible source) that can show where non documented residents vote. Just as a side note an immigrant who is here legally is able to get a driver's license and presumably use that driver's license to vote. So if you are worried ab

If you don't have thumbs you probably vote republican so I wouldn't want you to vote anyways.

Also as a note, what voter ID law would have stopped this woman form voting. By the accounts that I have read she abused her power as poll worker to vote twice. It wasn't like she went to different districts and voted. The only thing, and I always liked this, is the purple thumb thing they did in Iraq. Once you vote you dip your thumb in purple ink. This way you can't vote twice.

I hope that no one would object because it would benefit a particular party or group of people. I would hope people would object because something is against what they believe to be right and just. It maybe hard to understand, but there are people who do. You know I might be able to soften the notion of voter ID, but that compounded with removing same day registration, early voting, redistricting, it all just seems too much. Also in case of North Carolina and Texas it is amazing to me that these laws came so quickly after the supreme court's decision.

Math is hard. But I'll ask the question again you are ok with enacting laws that could disenfranchise thousands for the sake of a minute number of voter fraud.

I was off my a decimal point, but it is the other way .00001%. So you are willing to enact laws that could potentially disenfranchise thousands (if not 100 of thousands) because of the .00001% (or .001% depending on your math) cases of voter fraud? Yes you have to show ID to board planes etc, but getting on a plane is not a right mentioned in the constitution. Getting on a plane is private act, voting is a public act. I was pretty sure you have said that you did not support showing of an ID when you bought a gun through a third party or gun show sale. So for the record, you are ok wit

yeah that is all the time. Enough to warrant such messages to stop voting? Nearly 500,000 people voted in Milwaukee County in 2012. Out of the 10 cases listed 5 (and this is if you are reaching had to do with voting in the election (the other had to do with the recall petitions and some election job, not actual voting). So I will give you 5. That is .0001%. Really, you are concerned with .0001%? And are these and unreported cases really tipping the scales and have shaken your faith in the our voting system that these laws need to be passed? Really? But on the same hand you are ok wit

1) Voter ID laws - specifically in NC the requirement that it has to be state issued, rather than the current law which allows college IDs. 2) Shortening the time of early voting 3) Ending same day voting registration In many states, where the right has control, are pushing these voter suppression methods, to keep likely democratic voters form voting. There is no voter fraud, it is a made up myth to get these laws passed. We as a country need to make voting easier not harder. The more people who vote the better.

As much as I disagree with Hixtler and others on the right, most of their points are generally well thought out and supported. I just have a problem with some of the conclusions drawn. Yes some posters are right-wing parrots, but I see them as exception rather than the rule. I read the right-wing blogosphere and listen to Rush and Hannity. The right posters here don't come close the conspiracy you think they do. As much as I probably agree with you, your posts are childish. Which is really the best word to describe them. You also paint other posters with a broad brush and put wor

Ha! Should I feel bad that it took me awhile to figure it out?

I have being saying the same thing. right now PBO is given a major speech on his plan for economic recovery.

Can we return to talking about Weiner's weiner?

It is so funny how so many people are obsessed with politician's private lives. There has been many politicians who have comeback form a sex scandal. I don't see how Anthony Weiner is any different then the others I have mentioned. Also as a note, I am not sure why I should trust such a website like "The Dirty," nor do I know why Salon.com would be trusting it as well.

Here is an article on Weiner's legislative record. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/nyregion/weiners-record-in-house-intensity-publicity-and-limited-results.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Not great, but enough to run on for the mayorship or any other office. But regardless of his accomplishments his personal life should not preclude him from office. If you give Mark Sandford a pass, Elliott Spitzer a pass, Bill Clinton a pass then you have to allow Weiner the same pass. I am not saying you should vote for him nor am I advocating for his campaign. There just needs to be some consist

Why? By all accounts he did nothing illegal, just creepy. Look at Mark Sanford and Elliott Spitzer who have done things far worse then what Weiner did. Hell what Bill Clinton did is worse and he is the darling of the Democratic party. Personal life is just that, personal. In his professional life he has been a competent politician who did right by his constituents. It only affected his professional life because the media made it an issue.

Ok, settle down now. I don't think anyone here was making any generalizations. You seem to be thinking "bad guys" refer to all Iraqis or something, I am not too sure. Nevertheless the "bad guys" are the ones in the Abu Ghraib (yes, I am sure some are innocent but the majority of these guys are there for legit reasons). As Hixtler pointed out these guys in prison are bad guys. These guys now that they are out are not going to sit around peacefully and become regular members of Iraqi society, they will probably go back to their terrorist ways. I hope not, but it is not likely.

Well unfortunately it is. See these guys are terrorists and put there cause they sought to do harm to the US. Not that they are out they are more than likely embolden to cause more harm to the US. It is not like these guys are going to back to selling insurance. Their jobs is terrorism. So yeah it is our problem.

Florida America's wang

It is not a question of authorization, any damn fool can ask anyone they want on any subject. Anyone can speak on the matter. And they do with increasing frequency. There is so much "noise" on subjects from people it is hard weigh what is important not important. Tell me the reason why it we need to know what Sir Charles thinks about Travyon Martin. I don't care what Sir Charles has to say on the matter, I think it is silly for someone to ask him. It is not that I disagree his on his view (which I don't BTW), its the fact he is just adding to the noise.

Actually that was about as articulate and on point as most of the stuff here.

I think you failed to read some of my previous comments on this issue.

HIs comments were insightful no doubt. But this just goes to the over arching obsession we have with this case in particular. Charles Barkley is a former NBA player and sports commentator. There is no reason to ask him what he thinks about this, let alone for the people watching to care. I like my athletes to play sports, I like my actors to act. It is as simple as that.