ChangoLanzao

Seriously. The Holocaust was a real wake-up call about the dangers governments pose to their populations. Avoiding victim disarmament should make committing such atrocities more difficult in the future. Nonsense. The Holocaust was about genocide. It wasn't about gun control.

And even though there are multiple claims of fraud at every election, we can't know how much voter fraud exists until we start counting. Problem is that some folks don't want that answer. All you have to do to count is to contact everyone who voted and verify that it was actually them using their registration info.

The poll worker himself said he would let the lady vote. What prevents him from doing that? Do you think he's a liar? That poll worker, by his dereliction, potentially disenfranchised a lawful voter by possibly allowing his vote to be cancelled. He needs to be relieved of duty. We are concerned about each and every voter's rights, aren't we? OK. So we have a lying, derelict, poll worker. Agreed? Just the kind of guy who can be counted on to look the other way when grandma can't produce an I.D.. For the guy who looks "different" it's, "PAPERS PLEASE!" See how that works? Remember: The State has admitted that there is no compelling reason to require the I.D. to vote in the first place.

I would do the same. But lazy people have the right to vote. Since there is no evidence that in-person voter fraud is or has taken place, there is no justifiable reason to require everyone to have an ID to vote, especially since that ensures that thousands of lazy citizens will be denied their right to vote.

yes, of course I am. My give a shit is broken right now and I'm fucking off rather than working. sure. sounds better. So being based on Rule of Law, wouldn't it be good if our chief executive didn't ignore some laws? Absolutely.

There you go again. I didn't mention "evil repubs" at all. I didn't mention anything about "valiant, noble, democrats" either. As far as I can tell YOU are the one who has made those associations, all by yourself.

You need to brush up on your HookedOnPhonics. I didn't say either of those things. And I'm not going to discuss the voter intimidation case with you here either. You're changing the subject. There's no point to what you are writing except divert attention from the subject of the OP until the whole discussion devolves into a bunch of confusing nonsense. The State of Pennsylvania doesn't simply want ID's. They want to make it more difficult for people without ID's to vote. Just because. They have admitted that there is no problem that needs solving. Everybody knows the real reason they want to suppress the vote.

The poll worker himself said he would let the lady vote. What prevents him from doing that? Do you think he's a liar?

To be fair she is not too lazy to vote. She "managed to find a way voting place on the right day vote." She is just too lazy to get a f'n ID over a period of 94 years. Either that or her lazy-ass son couldn't take a little time to get her down to the DMV to get her an ID. Where in the Constitution does it say that it's OK to deny lazy people the right to vote?

You're being silly. Our form of government is based on the Rule of Law, not insurrectionism. A Republican form of government. Is that better? Do you like that description better? How about constitutional?

It's not about grandma. It's about the fact that the poll worker decides who gets in and who doesn't. Voter ID laws simply provide them with the ability to turn away the guy who looks strange while going ahead and allowing grandma to vote.

So you want to be prepared to overthrow the United States government. I see. Hitler, shmitler. Germany had gun controls before Hitler came to power. It wasn't his idea. He actually made it easier for Germans to obtain guns with his 1938 gun control act. I've heard these insurrectionist arguments before. They are a serious threat to democracy. You're basically thinking that in America the people need to have free access to guns in order to defend themselves against the Government. This is YOUR government. If you want to preserve it, you can't justify taking up arms against it when it doesn't suit you anymore. That approach is fundamentally hostile to democracy. You need to take personal responsibility and work through the political process and abide by the law. The last thing we need is to have a bunch of gun nuts deciding for themselves that it's time to take up arms against the United States in order to save the rest of us from who knows what.

That's all you've got? Scary Negroes. What more does he need? Scary Mexicans?

It is not truth, it is just liberal spin. Let's not forget that Moyers was there at the beginning of President Johnson's Great Society ideology. One of the first experiments was Project 100,000. That was the drafting of 100,000 young men who could not attend college. Vietnam provided a guaranteed attrition to the Great Society funding. Liberal Democrats, consistently failing since 1964. Red herrings. Have nothing to do with anything he said in his editorial. Have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. But thanks for your insight! Sorry, I tend to type what comes into my head. Bill Moyers has no idea what the NRA stands for or what it does. He is nothing more than a life long liberal hack. Abeit, respected by many but not me. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of the NRA. Really? I never would have guessed! Incidentally, Bill'O has already addressed Moyer's editorial assay today with one of his apoplectic rants. He's jealous, I think, because Bill Moyers is a true journalist.

It is not truth, it is just liberal spin. Let's not forget that Moyers was there at the beginning of President Johnson's Great Society ideology. One of the first experiments was Project 100,000. That was the drafting of 100,000 young men who could not attend college. Vietnam provided a guaranteed attrition to the Great Society funding. Liberal Democrats, consistently failing since 1964. Red herrings. Have nothing to do with anything he said in his editorial. Have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. But thanks for your insight!

That's all you've got?

An interesting comment (Ron Aker) on how voter disenfranchisement actually works. Here's the article: CLICKY

The people have a right to make fire to enable them to fight against the tyranny of their government. We must have the unregulated ability to fight fire with fire. "Government is not reason, nor eloquence. It is force. And like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master." -- George Washington

in the end - if you can't find the specific individuals responsible, you're just whistling in the wind. you can't put the "atmosphere" on trial. I don't care if the college had a written policy that required employees to cover up abuse. If someone still covered up abuse like this, I'd still find them to be criminally responsible for their individual actions. They can point at the 'policy' all they want. It's not an excuse. Especially when the subject matter is protecting the kids. The implication that bothers me is that the individuals responsible are not"REALLY" totally responsible for their own actions. I don't like that this implicitly gives them an "excuse". Just as well pass a law requiring rape victims to 'dress less provocatively'. a better atmosphere - that's fine - go for it, try to improve it. But it's not responsible for what people did. The people are. To me, it's a distraction where people continue to try to social engineer a situation rather than insist on personal responsibility and personal morality. (I appreciate the other viewpoint, I understand it, hopefully I've laid mine out clear enough too) Well, at least Penn State, as an institution does accept responsibility. “The Penn State board of trustees failed in our obligation to provide proper oversight,” board member Kenneth Frazier said in a televised news conference. “Our hearts remain heavy and we are deeply ashamed.”

The sanctions aren't intended to punish individuals. Rather, they're intended to punish the institution for fostering the environment and allowing the crimes to happen and doing nothing at all about it. It's also a powerful message to other institutions - along with the communities and individuals who rely on those institutions - to not let this happen to them.

There are 10 type of people in the world... 0001 0010 0011 0100 0101 0110 0111 1000 1001 1010

Watch. This is what the truth sounds like. CLICKY

This link might help answer your question: CLICKY

That would be going too far. Instead we should convince as many people as we can to carry and conceal small, unmarked gasoline containers wherever they go, so that they can protect us from crazy people with gasoline.

Call 'em like I see 'em. The media wouldn't even call the Ft. Hood shooter a terrorist, so I'm not going to hold my breath on this one. Being someone who enjoys reading conspiracy theories (even though I think 99% of them have stepped off in the deep end), there are some being floated around now about the shooting. There are some variations, but mainly the prescribe to the shooter having been trained like a Manchurian Candidate. That he was acting with out choice or thought due to deep psychological conditioning. Also that his gear was funded by the same and that it is all part of the New World Order's push to disarm US citizens so there will be less chance of resistance when the revolution starts. I'm sure that the entire psychological condition was completed in the base under Denver International using technology provided by the Greys under orders by the reptile shape shifters who control the world. For me though, the guy is a domestic terrorist and should be tried as such. I'm going to forward your theory to Darrell Issa. I think it's something he can work with.