KevinG

So if it is a small number that is ok, but a large number then it is not ok. If one person is disenfranchised from their right and duty as an American Citizen then it is one too many. I agree with GoGo as well And it is a political ploy to get people not to vote, but it seems that many of you are ok with that, because you have an ID and it is not a hassle, for you. Too bad we don't think about others.

So? If you are saying that is a first amendment thing, your augment is baseless. Yes they have to show ID to cover events (to get into places, etc.), but they do not have to show ID to print or say what they want. They do not need an ID to perform right of free expression under the constitution. But then again and I want to get to my larger point. Voter fraud is a myth 13 credible cases in the last 10 years. What is the purpose of now implementing these voter ID laws (especially in the GOP controlled swing states) other then to disenfranchise democratic voters? The GOP say it is a

ih8music, I don't know anything about you, but if you are the average wilco fan you are probably white, male, aged 24-40, live in a middle sized city (possibly the suburbs), have a job, and drive a car. For you showing an ID is not an inconvenience. For most Americans it is not an inconvenience. But imagine this if you live in the inner city, have no need to drive a car and take public transportation, or are disabled, or if you have a job where you would have take off work to go to the DMV to get an ID (and lose wages because of that). How many DMV offices are in the inner cities? How m

Cashing a check, checking a book out of the library, casting a ballot. Only one of these things is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. In this case it is a conspiracy, voter fraud is a myth. Voter ID laws affect Minorities, youth (age 18-24), seniors, and the poor. Which are groups more likely to vote democratic. In fact Turzai a GOP legislator from PA said . Also out of the some 650 million votes cast in the past 10 years, a total of 13 credible case of voter fraud were found, or 0.00000002%. Democracy only works when people vote, why ar

Anyone else really bothered by the amount of Voter ID bills going through Republican controlled states? It seems that the GOP controlled states want to win this election for Mitt Romney either by hook or by crook. Was wondering what the prevailing thoughts on this were from the likes you all.

Yeah I forgot about that. Remember when we also got a surplus check for like $200? I bought a used snow blower and called it Bushie. In the alternative timeline I wonder what would have happened if we did not get that money. Oh well.

Understatement of the year. show your work. Also the Bush tax cuts where never intended to be permanent. They were suppose to stimulate the economy, and we all know how that went.

A poorly managed budget and a dysfunctional political system. Imagine any politician getting elected by saying, "I want the Bush era tax cuts to expire." Unfortunately with our current political climate, I see our economy getting a lot worse before it gets better.

so another call by Obama to extend the Bush era tax cuts on income less than 250K*. and another round of punditry saying class warfare, rich make too much, etc. Personally I want to see the Bush era tax cuts for income less than 250K kept in place. I would also like to see an exemption for small businesses (which the remove of the tax cuts would effected nearly 900K). Congress ain't gonna act on this before the election. So it is just another talking point. *not the tax cut would affect income made over 250K. So if you make 275K only 25K would be taxed higher. I am sure the GOP w

Interesting article in Vanity Fair about Mitt and his offshore holdings. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts It is noted in the article many times, that Mitt hasn't done anything illegal, but man it sure looks shady and slimy.

Another pitcher that we will be saying "what if..." about. So much potential. A good player no doubt, never as great as anyone hoped.

I love how I am now seeing ads calling ACA the biggest tax increase ever (or some crap). The tax is only for those who choose not to have insurance. If you have insurance, you ain't gonna get taxed. And yes, anything paid to the IRS is a tax. Also I love how the GOP sees the mandate as an attack on personal freedom. You know what you still have the choice to not buy health insurance, you just have to pay a tax to the Government to make that choice. I have a choice to pull money from my 401k before I am 59 1/2. If I so choose I have to pay a penalty (aka tax) to the IRS. The gover

Since Mitt has distanced himself entirely from his more centrist policies, I doubt he would ever come close to answering any of those questions (although really good ones). Mitt seems hell bent on reversing anything that Obama has done, I want to know how he plans on doing it.

But the thing is, ending ACA is Romney's central point in this current news cycle. I want someone to ask him, how he is going to repeal ACA. The entire press is so feckless. I wish they would put all politicians to task on their promises. Just one simple question, "How?"

Technically yes a new law passed would end ACA. Does anyone actually believe that will happen. When Romney says he will repeal the law as the first thing he does in office, he is either pandering to the far right or is failing to understand the constitution. Either way I agree with Jules, Romney does not care about ACA in so much as disagreeing with it will help him get elected. So if this ineffectual centrist health care policy (ACA) is not the answer? What is HAS's? Cause giving more money to banks is a good idea. I am looking at you jp Morgan (9 billion plus investor money lost

To repeal the law I think they need 60 senators which ain't gonna happen. Romney can posture all he wants but there is no way this law is overturned. Or Romney can come up with his own healthcare law and put a provision to end ACA but that would require passage in a deeply divided congress. Also it would require Romney to have an idea other than I am not Obama.

That is why a government option should have been included. ACA is really a law that benefits the insurance company. Remember the individual mandate was first suggested by the Heritage foundation. So if Romney is elected he will repeal the law. Someone tell me how he is going to do that? I am pretty sure that the constitution does not give the president that power. Wish someone in the media would ask him that.

I bet he doesn't make 15 of those.

Jerry Sandusky found guilty on 45 of the 48 charges. He is going to go to prison for a long time. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--jerry-sandusky-guilty-child-sex-abuse-jury-judge-cleland.html

How is that different from law enforcement agencies not enforcing those stupid laws on the books? (you really want to see some dumb laws go here); Obama is prioritizing enforcement (and in essence saving taxpayer money). It is not like he is saying immigration officers won't arrest illegal immigrants. He saying if you where brought to this country (when you where 15 or less) by you parents, and you are a good person (no crimes, etc.), they won't arrest and deport you. And yes I think deporting individuals who are covered by this change in policy is a dumb law (or portion of a law).

Well being the smartest guy in the room has its pitfalls. Bleed, I am sorry if you took my tone as condescending, I didn't mean to do that. I was merely trying to point out that in the past this has been attempted and been blocked via filibuster. I am so sick and tired of people not looking at was done in the past, so I am resigned to the fact they hey the only way to get shit done in this country is to bypass the normal means of legislation. So I am to the point where I say fuck it, the country is broken beyond repair, the two sides will never agree on anything, let alone get any mea

So back in 2009 or so they tried to pass something called the DREAM Act. This actually was set to pass the Senate, but it was block via filibuster by a handful of Republican senators. The same thing you said about one man, could be said about those republican senators. Or really in in politics in general. The political process is messy crude and nasty. People will get and use power to suit their needs. It sucks, but it happens. It is not like this does not have precedent. Every "modern" president has selectively enforced immigration policy. I am glad finally Obama is saying f you

You are not understanding what the President's policy is here. He is not granting citizenship to anyone. He, as the head of law enforcement, is merely saying, our immigration enforcement agencies will not actively go and look for illegal immigrants who where brought to the US as children. It is not a priority of the agency, its time a resources are better spent elsewhere. Liken it to when a local municipality decides to not bust someone for a small amount of pot. Is it pandering? Hell yes. Is it the right thing to do? You betcha.

Super, I guess it is beat up on old KevinG day in VC. Clearly, this thread has devolved into a petty name calling and pointless arguments, which is is unfortunate, but not unexpected (as most internet threads tend to do). So instead of exacerbating the problem, can we move the subject to something else? Doesn't anyone want to talk about the elephant in the room of this election? I speak of the amount of money that is being poured into our electoral process. Due to the Supreme Court's Citizen's United more money will be spent in this election cycle than ever before. So what say y