AG Eric Holder has been found to be in Contempt of Congress

[redgreen5]

Everything* is biased (and, thereby, somewhat opinion). In fact, for someone who slams Fox for inserting opinion into their "hard" reporting, you appear to be blind to the possibility of it occurring anywhere else.

A patently stupid comment by you, only showing that you respond to my posts without reading them. Go back and review my comment of July 01, 2012, 03:40:27 PM.

So a guy who believes fraudulent voting is winning elections thinks that eliminating fraud will cause the other candidate to win is "proof"?

You are being deliberately disingenuous.
The "proof" is that the GOP intends the voter ID law to deliver the state of Pennsylvania for Romney. 
The legislator in question does not "believe fraudulent voting is winning elections".  How can this be the case? Because there is no evidence of any such vote-rigging in Pennsylvania. 

Voting rights groups say....Democrats say....

And the courts say.
And the evidence says - after all, where is the evidence of any such voter fraud?

"widespread" ≠ "existing"

LOL you're desperate now.

The bottom line is that these voter ID laws have been uniformly ruled unconstitutional, every time they have come up for a challenge. Yet the GOP continues this tactic. They know that these laws can take months (or years) to challenge and unravel in court. So they enact the laws at the level of the state legislature, knowing that they have several months to run. They are hoping to run out the clock so that the election comes before the court challenges can all be decided upon. 

Good plan, that. Until the Justice Department steps in and blocks such laws right out of the starting gate. That is why the GOP wants Holder:  because he's the one blocking all these efforts.

I have to wonder...do you think people should be required to "prove" who they are (i.e. provide identification) before their votes are counted or should anyone be allowed to vote under all circumstances?

Voter ID laws are unconstitutional. Period.  Part of the reason they are unconstitutional is that they impact poor, seniors, and other minority groups disproportionately.  And, such laws have been used in the past by the GOP to suppress turnout by Democrats. 

This is part of the longstanding tradition of conservatism:  going back hundreds of years, conservativism wants to retain power in the hands of the fewest. That is why this country started out with only white males, over 25, who owned 30 acres of land being able to vote. It is also why blacks were not allowed to vote -- and even after they were allowed, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, and literacy tests were used to suppress black voter turnout.  And it's also why women didn't get the vote until rather late in this country's history.

The modern GOP is using voter ID laws the same way as the post-Civil War South used the Jim Crow laws and literacy tests:  as a sideways methodology to win elections and suppress voters who would amost certainly be voting for the other party. 

 

[rsc2a]

Everything* is biased (and, thereby, somewhat opinion). In fact, for someone who slams Fox for inserting opinion into their "hard" reporting, you appear to be blind to the possibility of it occurring anywhere else.

A patently stupid comment by you, only showing that you respond to my posts without reading them. Go back and review my comment of July 01, 2012, 03:40:27 PM.

I remember that comment. I also remembered that singled out Fox as being particularly biased, more so than the more liberal media sources. This showed me that you aren't completely blind to it, but are willfully blind (partially) to a particular side of it.

[quote author=redgreen5]

So a guy who believes fraudulent voting is winning elections thinks that eliminating fraud will cause the other candidate to win is "proof"?

You are being deliberately disingenuous.
The "proof" is that the GOP intends the voter ID law to deliver the state of Pennsylvania for Romney. 
The legislator in question does not "believe fraudulent voting is winning elections".  How can this be the case? Because there is no evidence of any such vote-rigging in Pennsylvania.  [/quote]

No...I'm just reading the comments without seeing a boogeyman behind everyone with an "R" beside their name.

[quote author=redgreen5]

Voting rights groups say....Democrats say....

And the courts say.
And the evidence says - after all, where is the evidence of any such voter fraud?[/quote]

Evidence exists that both sides do as much as they can legally get away with. I don't trust either party when it comes to wanting fair elections.


[quote author=redgreen5] ... That is why the GOP wants Holder:  because he's the one blocking all these efforts.[/quote]

The GOP wants Holder because he's part of Obama's administration; they don't need any other reasoning.

[quote author=redgreen5]

I have to wonder...do you think people should be required to "prove" who they are (i.e. provide identification) before their votes are counted or should anyone be allowed to vote under all circumstances?

Voter ID laws are unconstitutional. Period.  Part of the reason they are unconstitutional is that they impact poor, seniors, and other minority groups disproportionately.  And, such laws have been used in the past by the GOP to suppress turnout by Democrats.  [/quote]

Of course you wouldn't answer that question with a simple "yes" or "no". In fact, you didn't even answer the question with qualification.

As an aside, everyone I know has a basic form of ID. In fact, it's illegal to travel without some form of identification in many areas. I guess those laws are unconstitutional as well?

[quote author=redgreen5]This is part of the longstanding tradition of conservatism:  going back hundreds of years, conservativism wants to retain power in the hands of the fewest. That is why this country started out with only white males, over 25, who owned 30 acres of land being able to vote. It is also why blacks were not allowed to vote -- and even after they were allowed, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, and literacy tests were used to suppress black voter turnout.  And it's also why women didn't get the vote until rather late in this country's history.[/quote]

Then why do you keep calling me a conservative? 

[quote author=redgreen5]The modern GOP is using voter ID laws the same way as the post-Civil War South used the Jim Crow laws and literacy tests:  as a sideways methodology to win elections and suppress voters who would amost certainly be voting for the other party. [/quote]

You should really stop limiting this to one party...