Is there a bigger asshole in American discourse today than Bill Maher? The answer is, of course, no. The unfunny host of an annoying HBO show ensconced himself further as The Biggest Asshole In America with his remarks about voter I.D. laws. Hot on the heals of Biden insulting whites and blacks on Tuesday, y’all… comes Maher: Poor black people don’t have picture I.D.’s because they take the bus. Ah…so smooth, much smoother than Biden. Maher rolls all the creative class/HuffPo arrogance into one thought. You see, what Maher really thinks is poor black people are too stupid or lazy to take the bus to the Pennsylvania DMV and must be protected by rich white men such as himself. But he can’t say that out loud. It would make his white friends being served tofu treats (by brown people) uncomfortable at Arianna’s cocktail parties.
One may obtain photo I.D. with relative ease in Pennsylvania. I do not think voting is a privilege. It is a right. And a pretty damn special right. One worth bothering about. The standard set for obtaining most library cards hardly seems too high here. I suspect many black Americans feel the same way. But Maher insults them anyway. Because, you know, poor black people need rich crackers like him protecting them. He’s cocksure of it.
Maher isn’t the least concerned about poor white folks – who are all “teabaggers”. They are Clinton Democrats who voted GOP in 2010 – so who the f#@k cares? Right? His riff on the “tea baggers” is particularly offensive, grating and condescending. (Three traits without which Bill Maher would simply evaporate.) Maher implies conservative whites are too stupid to know Africa is a continent and therefore they should not be allowed to vote. I can promise you stupidly knows no racial or ideological bounds in America. When I taught I had white kids who thought America was founded in 1945 and black kids who couldn’t find Mexico on a map. (Trust me, when I was done they all knew better.) Many Americans of all stripes are routinely proven to be morons when asked about other countries, and often their own. But hey, lets take another cheap shot at people with other political views. Plus, I get to say ‘teabagger’ again! Yippee! This is what “liberal” has become in the Obama era – a series of smug insults masquerading as a point of view.
It’s funny, I don’t remember Maher giving much of a shit about voter disenfranchisement on May 31st, 2008.
Get an i.d. if you want to vote. Make the damn effort. It’s voting for Christ sake. It’s a way we participate in the society as whole. Lynne, regular commenter Jay and I all had to show picture i.d. to sit through a taping of Maher’s crappy, creepy show at CBS . We had to show i.d. just to get on the studio lot…to be anywhere near Maher. But to vote in a Presidential election? Awful! Such an onerous request!
And rich, white faux liberals- stop talking down to the people you claim to be defending. Poor people are poor, not stupid. And by the by, spewing cheap shots and being corrosive on HBO doesn’t make one smart by default, Maher. You prove it.
A photo ID is essential these days. You can’t get a job or enter a government building without an ID.
If large numbers of black people don’t have them, why isn’t Maher outraged about that fact?
Why isn’t he demanding that the government help all those people obtain IDs?
Jesus, what a delicious rant. We both have writing envy today. That’s a GREAT thing! ♥
RIGHTEOUS!
John, I tweeted your link to @billmaher. Let the a-hole read about himself.
good idea! I’ll do that too!
What is a liberal today? What do people here think liberalism is? I remember not too long ago, John, you told an interloper that we’re liberals here, so surely liberalism can be defined. Or can nothing be defined because we’re all special snowflakes too cool to fit in little boxes? Has liberalism become like pornography, it can’t be defined but we know it when we see it?
It appears from these sentences and several comments I’ve read here the past few days that liberalism may have become a word that describes presentation rather than ideology or principles. Is that it? Is being a true liberal the way one talks to people, how one exhibits, rather than the consistent application of a set of principles to political ideology? Is there a liberal point of view that’s identifiable from one issue, one policy or plan, to the next? What principles are the basis of liberal thought today, or is there no principled foundation that, if missing from an argument, one can say hey those principles are missing so that argument is faux liberal? Does the presence of smugness, arrogance or condescension identify faux liberalism no matter the principles behind an argument?
Aside from definitions found in books about political philosophy, which I realize feels too confining in today’s we’re all special culture, is there an objective definition of a liberal today or, like truth and truthiness, does liberalism come down to whether or not one feels like clicking Like?
Here’s what I think may be going on: there can be no set definition because everybody believes they deserve to be right and, regardless of experience or action, deserve to be what they feel like they want to be and say they are. If Jack Sprat wants to define himself as a liberal then he deserves to be a liberal, no matter who or what he’s supporting even if it’s the opposite of what he criticized or cheered three years ago. Obamabots did this: criticized Bush for choices and action that they defended from Obama, and insisted they were and continue to be liberals or progressives. In such a culture, facts and consistently applied definitions and cogently reasoned arguments are just frustrating “talking points” because what one feels is right — is right. Just as truthiness –what one feels is right– is equal to truth even if the facts don’t match what one feels. That’s why Soledad O’Brien, in that now famous clip, smirks with such frustration: she knows she’s right because she feels it, she’s got “a reduction in the expected rate of growth” ingrained as meaning Obamacare results in no cuts to Medicare, ergo Obama=good, Romney=bad, and no coherent argument will change what she feels.
Zal– You raise an interesting question. I do think that the meaning of liberalism has been different at various points in time. Personally, I identify most closely with classical/19th-century liberalism, and feel somewhat alienated from modern-day progressive-liberals.
This fellow does a serviceable job of outlining the principles of classical liberalism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU-8Uz_nMaQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player
What do you think?
Yes. That means there has been a generally accepted definition of liberalism at each point in time. But is there one in this, our point in time?
You say you identify with 19th century liberalism and you provide a definition of that; if someone in the 22nd century says they identify with 21st century liberalism, how would they define 21st century liberalism? Or, in 2012, does liberalism mean whatever each individual says it means, and conservatism what each self-identified conservative says it means? And if it has a million disparate meanings how is a word useful in thought and communication? I’m realizing this is the case, and it fits with today’s common thought process along with truthiness. There is no set definition because each person feels he or she deserves to be whatever they say they are, and to have a set definition of liberalism in 2012 would deprive people of making up their own and it being given the legitimacy it “deserves.”
You raise a good point, Zal. NES, thanks for the link to classic liberalism. I’m still ruminating if I fit that mold. I don’t know what the definitions are these days either, if those definitions are based on feelings. I think I lean more towards being an FDR liberal because I believe in SS, Medicare, and single payer healthcare.
How many contemporary Liberals in DC can anyone point to and say “That’s who I want to be when I grow up ?
Great post, John.
I don’t why, but I continue to be amazed at how indignant “progressives” get about voter ID. I think you’re right that it goes back to the “I’m cool and know what’s best for poor people that I approve of” frame of mind. And good on you for calling out their hypocritical attitude toward poor and working class whites.
I never thought it would happen, but I have come to despise progressives (and I think there is a difference beween progressives and liberals). Even though they champion some issues that mean alot to me, like gay rights, I just can’t help but loathe the smug SOBs.
“I have come to despise progressives”. Me too.
Interesting. How would you define progressivism, or progressives?
I thought it was about social reform and using government to regulate capitalism, enforcing restraints on monopolistic corporations and Wall Street for instance. No?
Those lunatics ruined a perfectly good word. Which is why I came up with “Proglodyte” for them.
Me three, John & Kim.
Part of the indignation goes back to voter qualification laws that were part of Jim Crow, including knowledge tests and poll taxes. If you were black your questions were ridiculously difficult to answer compared to the questions given to white voters. Your tax was higher, perhaps too high to afford given low incomes. This is a slippery slope issue. If it is not difficult to get a picture ID, the next step may be that you must have an original birth certificate, which may be more difficult to obtain, or more expensive. The point is that there shouldn’t be any kind of barrier to voting, not whether the proposed barrier is too difficult or not hard for most people to deal with. If there is anyone at all, any single person, regardless of who they are, who finds this difficult, there shouldn’t be that barrier at all. There is a principle involved, not a practical issue. That John or others cannot see this is a measure of how being in a privileged category prevents one from understanding what the hardships of others are like, as lived.
In CA, it might not be hard in theory to take the bus to the DMV to get an ID card, until you are the one who must look up where the DMV is, make an appt (otherwise the lines take hours that are difficult for the elderly or infirm to tolerate), figure out where to get the documents proving one’s eligibility for the ID (birth certificate, passport?) assuming the documents exist and haven’t been lost through time if one is very old or very transient, figure out which bus goes there, stand in the sun waiting for the bus (both ways), and get it done before the election date. This is clearly going to be harder for some people to do than others. Why should some people have to suffer a bigger obstacle than others in order to vote? This is a bigger obstacle to those without cars, without papers readily at hand, without cash and time to take the bus and visit the DMV (a major undertaking as long as the lines are these days). When there is a differential burden on people because of their life circumstances, there is interference with the likelihood that those people will take the steps needed to vote, and thus less chance they will do so, suppressing the vote from that segment of the population (which is largely Democrat). THAT is the issue and it troubles me that one must explain it, here, where there a supposedly liberal commenting community.
Voting is NOT the only reason to need an ID, Sally. We need an ID to open a bank account, cash a check, get a phone, electricity, etc. If one is in the poorest of circumstances, Medicaid provides a photo id. And before you qualify for Medicaid, you have to show enough valid ID to be awarded the help. This has nothing to do with voter suppression. It has everything to do with suppressing voter fraud.
It is oppression to not make sure everyone gets an ID card. Without it you can’t work, get food stamps, apply for SS, cash a check, enter a Gov building, fly, rent an apartment, buy a home.I t is not liberal to support keeping people trapped. We are saying, screw you and your personal life, we only care that you vote for us.That’s not liberal, it’s exploitive.
This is exactly to the point. Liberty and the right to representation in our government demands each citizen should have equal ease of access to voting, no matter their circumstances.
I’ve come to believe, reading comments about it here the past week, that people get offended at the notion of an absolute definition of liberalism; it must remain fluid so individuals can be free to call themselves liberal no matter their choices and principles (or lack thereof). Necessarily, then, basic liberal principles like liberty and equality may be appropriately absent from a liberal’s concerns, and if you’re troubled by that there’s probably a pill that Big Pharma will be glad to send over.
And ‘each citizen’ has equal access to voting. All you need to do is identify yourself as a citizen. Not Mickey Mouse, not a non-citizen, not a dead person, but a citizen who shall have access to voting.
I understand your need to be contrary at any cost. Do you?
From Anthony:
And from yttik:
It’s not true that you can’t rent a place to live without ID. It’s actually very easy. You also can work without ID.
It’s true a person couldn’t live the life you and I live without ID, but it’s presumptuous to suggest that living their way is being “trapped.” I’ll tell you, there are days when I think it’s us who’re trapped and them who’re free.
I don’t see one good reason people today shouldn’t be able to exercise the personal freedom of choice to live “off the grid” without banking or government assistance or any other thing that requires government-approved identification, and still be able to participate in voting for elected representatives.
We’re back again to choice.
I see two good reasons: voter fraud and corrupt politicians who will do anything to win an election and stay in power just for the sake of the benefit they reap from having that power.
There are third world countries where people can successfully live off the grid as you suggest, but they have absolutely no voice in elections (or anything else for that matter), are not protected by a Bill of Rights, or have any chance of advancement in that society.
ANd if living “off the grid” means living without banking or government assistance or any other thing that requires government-approved identification, why then should they participate in voting for elected officials? Isn’t that in itself contradictory?
What you’re saying is “I want to live outside the government, but I still want the right to decide which politician will represent me in the government I refuse to participate in.”
Sorry, but it makes absolutely no sense
When I walk up to a voting booth it should be clear to any thinking person that I’m neither Mickey Mouse nor dead, and it’s not hard for a noncitizen to obtain a driver’s license so having ID is not proof of citizenship.
Its clear you intend to continue dodging your contradiction. Its equally clear that remaining obtuse and contrarian is more important that providing an actual answer. I don’t have time to continue this little game, but your refusal to address your own contradictions is as good as any admission of error. Thanks for that.
Not using government assistance isn’t necessarily “living outside the government” or refusing to participate in government.
Voting is participation. Receiving assistance, to some people’s thinking, is enslavement to rules and conditions they make the choice to eschew.
When I was homeless, briefly, many years ago, and in my subsequent work with homeless, I met a lot of people who wouldn’t have ID but are affected by the decisions elected officials make and should have the chance to vote for representation.
The last few elections have clearly shown that there is election fraud going on. Dead people voted. Mickey Mouse voted. We Hillary supporters wanted to make it less likely for election fraud to happen so many of us support voter ID.
We live in an electronic age and all that means. We have millions of illegals crossing the border, accessing the system, and also voting.
Many of us are tired of this kind of thing. We want citizens to be able to vote, which means some sort of ID system.
I’m sorry Zal and Sally, we live in a different world than when there were poll taxes. And that world is comprised of a lot of electronic gadgetry which can effectively steal an election. We, the people supporting voter ID, would like to make that as hard to do as possible.
This is to Zal, asking how I define progressives.
I don’t. They define themselves quite well. Listen to Stephanie Miller or Ed Schultz or watch MSNBC for half an hour. They use the label loudly and often. You’ll know their definition.
In our world of electronic gadgetry, a laminated ID card is all but an anachronism and will not protect against stealing an election. If the integrity of vote count were really the concern being addressed, the solution would be more sophisticated and probably deal with voting machines and their counters.
Zal, it’s too early for me to think about your questions above…and later I will be working…I will say this though, I screwed up and lost the blog title “liberalrapture.com” a while back – and was actually relieved by the mistake because that word “liberal” started working my nerve so badly. There is something detestable about so many people who call themselves liberals now…and the Obama prog variety are outright fascists when pushed….what you see in Soledad O’Brien’s smug face is embryonic cult fascism. Given the right societal components that smug evolves into brown shirts a few beats later in the story. That one image of Obama with closed eyes and turned up nose struck a cord with so many people who know better about him because it gets at his essence and…well…it apes every collective memory the world has left of Mussolini. Obama’s chosen iconography over the years is another tell. As are the Obama halo images the media manages to “capture” and Obama wizard meme of the moment. The conscious and unconscious impulses of many in the media is toward, not away from fascism…or if you like statism. Control.
Also note the quiet consistent chatter about Obama being able to “do more” in a second term from his Obots. That wish isn’t about reality. The GOP will still be in place. It springs from the desire for Obama to simply take over and run things as a dictator out in the open. That the 3 branches system we have now – that has hobbled THE ONE in their minds – will simply be dismissed in an Obama 2nd term. That’s what the O’briens etc would really love. Obama’s done plenty of it already but the good news is that Obama is relatively inept and very lazy…and much of the country sees Obama with more clarity than they do.
I use the word liberal here in it’s current form in popular American discourse only. Speaking of lazy, this is admittedly short hand on my part.
Okay cup o coffee done. So I am.
One last thing: It’s possible “liberal” has become a tortured word for so many who think like those around here because the collective glue of the New Deal really is coming undone after 80 years. For decades a liberal in America was an off spring of FDR’s remaking of the government. A conservative wasn’t. Conservatives still have their identities in place, liberals are watching theirs slowly implode.
It’s a liberal (old world, pre-new deal definition, ftr) tendency to run for a good word because they let someone else define it for them. See “feminist” for another example.
A few thoughts:
* The word “progressive” was adopted by the Left because “liberal” had been successfully smeared by the Right as synonymous with weak, effete, tax-&-spend, etc.;
* It has no real link to the ideal of the original Progressives, who, among other things, fought party machines. This lot are eager droogs of the Dem/OFA machine.;
* Labels are just words, if the principles are not adhered to. The ‘German Democratic Republic’ was East Germany;
* Most people are “fans” of their resp. party, in the same way you’re on one side or the other in the Red Sox – Yankees rivalry. No thinking, just rabid devotion & rabid hatred for the other side. “Fan” comes from “fanatic.” The old word for fan was “crank” from the german “sick”, as they were considered sick-in-the-head;
* Maybe it’s time for us who consider ourselves liberal to re-write the definition, and lay out guiding principles. One thing for sure, it will not include trampling civil liberties, assassinations, rule by fiat, or coddling the rich & powerful.
As a resident of PA let me chime in.
The local news yesterday ran a piece three times in the 6 am to 7 am hour. The Erie PA party folks, both D and R, are offering, for free, assistance to any citizen who needs help obtaining an ID. All they need do is call the office. Which is as it should be. Instead of sending money to the national D party or to individual candidates, they are helping the citizens. (the same piece was repeated on the noon broadcast and in the 5 pm and 6 pm broadcasts as well)
ID is a necessity to participate in many things in our society. From opening a bank account, getting a driver’s license, obtaining ANY kind of government benefit to getting a library card- ID is required.
Obtaining legitimate (not under the table) employment requires BOTH ID and proof of eligibility to work in the U.S. As Anthony pointed out- the poor HAVE access to and assistance with- obtaining ID for things like Medi-Caid.
I worked the 08 elections. I watched the news, read the net, heard the horror stories of the abuse at the caucuses. Busloads of OFA volunteers coming in to town and taking over the caucus sites. People who, from some accounts, were not residents of the caucus states. Locking out legitimate voters.
As John said, it is fairly easy here in PA to get an ID- if you care to expend the effort. The local party offices are willing and able to help any who need that help.
And as John said- it is a RIGHT! Worth the effort to get the ID needed to exercise that right. The privileges associated with voting, imo, are to neglect to inform oneself about the candidates, relying on a bunch of lying sacks of readers known as the MSM for your instructions and voting any damn way you please.
if they’d demanded proof of registration in the 2008 Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton would be president right now.
Tamer- AMEN!
God, Tamer, I want to Tweet that. Every hour!
Sophie- good idea- I think I will tweet that!
?uid=17267878&iid=am-117706969213451506089615477&nid=6+273
That’s wrong and shows how uninformed so many Americans are about how a large segment of American society functions.
I hire people all the time without asking for ID and so do a lot of people I know. They’re United States citizens. Men and women who work in landscaping, pool building and maintenance, carpentry, construction, roofing, electrical and plumbing. I had a $35,000 water system installed last year for irrigation and farm animals, nobody asked for or showed any ID. I don’t give a shit about ID, I wanted good work done and they did it and I paid them. Restaurants and catering, concrete work, lighting installation, refuse, all kinds of small farm transactions and mechanical work. Free lance editors and writers and publicists, you think they need ID to work? No they do not. They need to be good at what they do. These people are doing and being paid for legitimate work and don’t need to have or show ID.
Thanks PMM. Agreed. I join in the chant:
if they’d demanded proof of registration in the 2008 Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton would be president right now.
Zal- I was a hiring manager for a lot of years. In order for an employee to pay taxes, an I-9 must be filled out. Legal id for an I-9 consists of One document from column A OR one from Column B and one from Column C.
Perhaps I was not clear in “legitimate” meaning “NOT under the table.”
One can certainly work without ID. But it is illegal for the employee AND the employer unless the work is under a certain amount (not sure what the current monthly wages need to be to hit the threshold) Sure, under the table work goes on all the time. And no payroll taxes are withheld, no Social Security or medicare contributions are made. Always a good deal for the employer who does not have to pay the employer share of SS and Medicare. If you hired a COMPANY to install your irrigation system the burden of ID’ing employees would fall on the company owner.
So I will retract “legitimate” and substitute “LEGAL.”
An employer is legally obligated to verify ID and right to work in the US. Are there law breakers?
Of course. But just because the laws are broken does not make it right. Oh, and by the way- were any of your employees by any chance double dipping by also collecting any benefits? Unemployment? Food Stamps? Medicaid? Housing?
Oh that’s right- you didn’t ask.
I know how that under the table economy works. The employee gets no benefits, not even worker’s comp if they suffer an injury. No $ going in to their SS or Medicare accounts. No taxes being taken out, so they can’t file for a refund with the associated credits the working poor get.
Oh yes, I know how that works. All good for the employer.
I maintain my belief that the voting system is so frigged up ID should be required for every voter, every time.
I kind of liked the purple finger idea too /s
Thanks for all the retweets- but Tamerlane should be getting the credit!
I think you’re lying about that. So far, you’ve lived on Park Ave in NYC, been a whiz at Goldman Sachs, in the next breath you’ve been homeless, and now you’re been “hiring people all the time”…. It just doesn’t add up, Zal. You are so obviously full of shit that it’s laughable at this point.
Secondly, its only a matter of time that you and the “lots of other people you know” have your asses turned in. But of course, that will never happen, because you’ve made up so many stories that I doubt any of them are true.
Let me guess, Zal – you were also on that bridge in Selma, weren’t you?
That is not true.
Independent contractors are not subject to the I-9 rules.
http://www.visalaw.com/07jan1/2jan107.html
All one needs to pay taxes is a Social Security number, not an ID card.
Zal- lol. You are correct in that an independent contractor is NOT an employee. They would still need ID to obtain their Social Security number- to pay their taxes.
So once again, an ID IS required.
PS Thanks for the refresher course on the I-9- or were you just verifying that I knew what I was talking about? (I took the semester long class covering those legalities)
It adds up to my life. If you think I’m lying that means you think it’s too unusual to be true, and that makes me smile. My life has been, and is, as I’ve said, and a great deal more besides; if you can’t believe these small snippets, you’d be floored at the rest. Your believing it or not is irrelevant.
Turned in to whom by whom? Everybody I hire and every dime I pay is on the up and up. In addition to other activities, I own a small farm and the money I pay to independent contractors is listed on my IRS returns. I don’t lie and I don’t cheat. But I do hire a lot of independent contractors.
Again, that’s not true.
Many Americans my age and younger are issued a SS number before age 12, to set up a savings account for instance; all that’s needed for identity is a hospital record of birth and for the rest of our lives we have a Social Security number.
LOL I was verifying that I knew what I was talking about and that you didn’t.
One can legitimately obtain a job and work without having ID.
So basically Zal admits to hiring people under the table and not paying the proper taxes for them. $600 a year is the threshold and they have to have W-9 form, and provide the number to the employer. He’s a tax cheat, yet we’re supposed to believe he has such a sterling character. Trolling is a tax-free activity, ftr.
Priceless.
Oh My. The child under age 12. Yes indeed, Got Social Security cards for all my children. Seems to me the last one I filled out the documents in the hospital-
after they had VERIFIED MY ID.
So no, my children did not get a social security card without an ID. Even children under age 12 must have proper documentation to obtain a social security number.
I don’t know if you’re not smart enough to understand what I wrote, or lying again, Lola.
Why don’t you copy and paste what I wrote that you believe supports your assertion that I “admit[ed] to hiring people under the table and not paying the proper taxes for them.”
Go ahead.
The parent’s ID is required, not the child’s.
And besides, that’s years before the child is of age to work.
The point is whether or not an American can legitimately work without an ID.
I’m surprised you haven’t the integrity to simply agree I’ve proven my point and it’s true that Americans can obtain work legitimately without an ID.
You’re probably surprised because what you said is totally false. All you’ve proven is that your need to be contrary trumps logic, law and facts. But I’m sure you’re happy with all this attention.
No, it simply means that I think you’re lying. Not an indication of an “unusual life” at all – its classic, text-book negative attention seeking behavior, usually an indication of narcissistic personality disorder. That’s why I think you’re lying.
I was ridiculed this morning on a progressive site because I said that I find the title of Joan Walsh’s new book (“What’s the Matter with White People?: Why We Long for a Golden Age that Never Was”) offensive.
Here’s a clue as to “What’s the Matter With Joan Walsh”.
John, a piece on Ryan and GenX you might find interesting. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/16/why-the-screwed-generation-is-turning-to-paul-ryan.html
Honestly as a GenXer I feel absolutely no affinity for Ryan at all.
I also don’t really see my generation as being “screwed” either.
Economic troubles aside,I think GenX grew up in a relatively stable point in time, the biggest and most jarring issue for me IMO as an adolescent was the onset of AIDS as an epedemic.
I don’t, Dan. I remember what government cheese tasted like, I remember food and gas lines, and I certainly remembering go to the community center at the heart of my housing projects for free lunch (bologna with a slice of GC on white bread & an apple) every day during summer. I also remembering working 4 jobs as soon as I turned 18 to afford my pitiful little apartment, a single room domicile in a flop house.
You’re boo-hooing over free food. Unfuckingbelieveable.
You prove Dan’s point that Gen X grew up in a relatively stable time.
This may be impossible for you to understand but people who grew up 50 years before you and didn’t have enough money for food — went hungry. And here you are moaning about having to eat a free lunch.
Your DMS must be particularly bad today, Zal. You’re just a bitch to everyone. How much are you spending on pads?
Actually I was being nice in keeping my comment to your spoiled brat nonsense about having access to free food indicating to you that Gen X did not grow up in a relatively stable period of time. It really is appalling that someone who apparently needed and was given free food complains about it and sees it as evidence of instability rather than of providing stability.
And, from your other comment to me in this thread, are you going to show what I wrote that you believe supports your assertion that I “admitted” to cheating on my taxes? Or will you, again, fail to respond and leave another example of how you lie and have at best questionable credibility?
Have I mentioned yet today what a fascist pig Toure is?
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-toure-to-panel-romney-engaging-in-the-niggerization-of-obama/
Sounds like you’re not alone
I really don’t know enough about it, ( but when has that ever stopped me? ) but it seems to me the last time there was this huge rift in what is laughing called the American Left, it was in the late 30′s and up till Hitler attacked Russia. Before that many on the left had no problem whatsoever with Hitler because Stalin was his pal. Whatever the Nazi did , for true believers there was no room for discussion, it was a closed topic. Stalin approves of Hitler was all they had to know. Hitler attacks Russia and literally over night these same people turn on a dime and say Hitler must be destroyed!! Seems to me many of today’s progressives come from those people. It would appear that seam has opened up again, it’s just that somehow Barry replaced Uncle Joe.
Speaking about voter fraud , it breaks down like this . A party’s position depends on where its greatest fraud investment is . Dem’s use dead people so they are against needing an ID…. Repugs work with voting counting companies and want to take out any Dems advantage .
The parties policies on this topic reflect thier best fraud game imo
What I love about the voter ID debate is that leftists now believe that it’s completely fine to make people pay for health insurance or pay a penaly/tax as a condition of just breathing, but it’s the end of equality as we know it to make people show an ID they can get for free to prove they are eligible to vote because damn it – voting is an inalienable right. (Apparently, in Obama’s America, breathing isn’t).
With respect to the argument as to showing ID for work. It is ABSOLUTELY illegal to hire anyone who isn’t a contractor without ensuring you’ve seen ID and proof of citizenship. If you are hiring a contractor – someone to do landscaping, paint your house, do construction on your roof, you are not required to ensure they have ID anymore than you are required to pay their SS. That is a COMPLETE exception. Every EMPLOYER has to ensure they’ve proven the citizenship/work requirements of their employees – no exceptions. Do many people ignore the law – sure – that’s why we have an illegal immigration problem in this country? That doesn’t mean it’s not the law.
As I made clear, I’m referring to American citizens who work as independent contractors. It’s legitimate to hire them and for them to work without presenting ID.
According to the 2010 US Census we have more than 10 million independent contractors in America.
My point stands.
run_dmc, the sound you hear is my applauding your comment. Applause, applause!!!!
Zal – no one knows what point you were trying to make as the responses to you above make clear. You made a pointless argument that you hired people to install some kind of farm equipment without asking for ID. People were telling you – who cares – that’s not germane to the point that you have to have an ID to work in this country. People who hire contractors don’t have to ask for ID; that doesn’t mean the contractors don’t have to have an ID to actually operate a business. It still remains the case that ANYONE who wants to work legally in this country needs to have an ID or in some way prove that they are a citizen or have valid work visas to either be employed or operate a business – even if it’s a one-person shop. Your point can stand all it wants – it just doesn’t make sense.
You are wrong. Factually you are wrong. American citizens can legitimately obtain work without an ID. I’ve demonstrated how. Independent contractors do it legally every single day. I listed a long but by no means full list of the kind of work people can get without showing ID. This was in response to Anthony and yttk stating that American citizens can’t rent or work without an ID today, which is absolutely not true and very germane to a discussion about requiring voters present ID.
I have proved, responding with verifiable facts (and a link) to each post that threw another argument at my point, that what you and PMM and Anthony and yttk said is wrong. And yet you and Anthony and PMM, and according to you everyone, refuses to recognize that it’s wrong. Further, Lola asserted straight out that I “admitted” to cheating on my taxes, and in truth I’d written nothing of the kind, and when I asked her to copy and paste proof to support her attack on my character of course she doesn’t respond to that.
You prove my earlier point that people today believe what they feel and what they want to believe rather than facts and truth. And Lola proves again that she’s a liar with no character.
Zal – you are being deliberately obtuse. No one said that contractors have to show ID to work with people they contract with. In fact EVERYONE who’s arguing with you is saying that exact thing. And, I’m sure everyone here also has contractors who work for them – you’re not the only one as much as you like to think you’re special. I have a cleaning company, dog-walker, landscaper and gardener. And, of course I didn’t have to ask them for an ID nor did I. You know very well that everyone acknowledges that clearly.
BUT – Listen close now – THEY NEED ID TO ACTUALLY LEGALLY OWN AND OPERATE THEIR CONTRACTING BUSINESSES. YOU CANNOT LEGALLY OWN ANY KIND OF BUSINESS IN THIS COUNTRY WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO PROVE WHO YOU ARE AND THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO WORK HERE. If ICE or the IRS or State business license authorities did a spot visit or an audit, they’d better damn well have ID – I don’t care who they are or how small. AND, IF THESE CONTRACTORS EMPLOY ANYONE THEY ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO ASCERTAIN – THROUGH SOME KIND OF ID CHECK THAT THEIR STAFF IS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO WORK HERE. JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T SEE YOUR CONTRACTORS’ EMPLOYEES ID DOESN’T MEAN THEY DON’T HAVE TO HAVE THEM.
No – People here in the US – Citizens or legal residents – cannot legitimately get work without an ID. You are the one who is wrong – and you know it. You are just the kind of person who can’t ever admit they are wrong and just let it go even when it’s demonstrably proven for them that they are wrong.
You also don’t have to pay contractors SS or hold back their taxes do you – as I specfically noted above. THEY STILL HAVE TO PAY THEIR OWN SS AND TAXES – OTHERWISE THEY ARE OPERATING ILLEGALLY. No one is saying, Zal, that people don’t do things illegally all the time. But, whooever you are – IF YOU ARE GOING TO OPERATE A COMPANY/WORK/DO SOMEONE’S NAILS FOR PAY – LEGALLY; I’ll say that again so you’ve got it – LEGALLY – you must have some kind of an ID.
Geez. You are thick. Maybe you are just acting thick, but same thing. And, your weird comment about “feeling” is such an off the wall bizarre non sequitur to an argument that is strictly about legal work requirements that it makes me think that you write these comments oft times when you are drunk.
This is not true and I’ll provide more links below to support what I’ve said. Where’s your support?
I’ve been a freelance writer for years and I know how this works: I do not have to own a business of any kind to legally take a job and be paid for it. I give my name, address and Social Security number and that’s it. No ID. And as you point out, I’m not special: a lot of people work this way. Freelance consulting and writing and editing, software development, all kinds of work, people who sell on ebay and other online sales venues, contract workers, day laborers (yes that’s legal and American citizens do it) – neither an ID nor business ownership is required for these and other legitimate jobs.
Many fields of work require no permits and many cities and towns require no business license for independent contractors, and even those who do generally only want your Social Security number and a fee, no ID. See link below. They want money, fees and taxes, that’s their concern. Further, even if you establish a business, if you use your full name in your business name you don’t have to register it, and every application I could find for tax registration certificates ask for Social Security number but no other ID (there’s no Federal law about this, it’s up to each town and city).
That is flatly wrong, as I’ve demonstrated. Now, unless you can post links to support this statement, as I’ve done to support mine, let’s see who’s “the kind of person who can’t ever admit they are wrong.”
Links:
Zal – now you are a freelance writer too? You are such a fabulist. Baron Munchausen has nothing on you. And, now I know that you write these comments when you are drunk. But, being drunk and an idiot is a bad combination. You say that you only need a SS# and the fee to get a business license, but no ID. WHAT IN THE WORLD DO YOU THINK A FRIGGIN SS# IS, FOOL?? It’s your ID that shows you can legally work here. An ID doesn’t have to be your friggin drivers license, maroon. If people could provide a SS# at their voting booth, that would work as an ID too.
Jeezus, I really hope you don’t vote, because you are too stupid to be trusted with it.
And, no – I don’t need to show links to prove what everyone in their right mind knows – that you need some kind of ID to legally work here. I would be linking to every single law there is, practically. Plus you seem to think that the mere act of providing a link to something random proves the most illogical arguments that you make. Virtually all the time the links you provide – like the one below – are completely irrelevant to your argument. Drunk, idiotic, illogical and lazy too.
No it wouldn’t.
Of the 33 states requiring voter ID only 4 accept a Social Security card for ID. And in 2014 one of those 4 states, Alabama, will require photo ID. The push today, the basis of this discussion, is for photo ID.
I’ve been a freelance writer for 12 years. I did some before that but the past 12 it’s my primary source of income.
LOL – thanks Senneth!!
So, wonder if this is an irony that the media will figure out and point out. Chicago has now erected (no pun intended) a plaque commemorating Barack and Michelle’s first kiss at a Baskin Robbins in Chicago. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/48691166/ns/today-today_news/
First thought – yuck. Sorry, but I just don’t want to think of presidential couples being sexual. Don’t want to know where Ronald and Nancy first got it on either.
Second thought – um Baskin Robbins was also one of those Bain capital investments that went on to be phenomenally successfull and created 1000′s of jobs (and apparently also the first black President/Beard(cough, cough) wife) couple.
Will the media report that? Prolly not!
We are not talking about the 18th century or before here, when people relied on an entry in the family Bible, to ascertain births and deaths. Anyone attempting to vote today Had to have been born in the 20th century at least. Both of my parents were born at home, both had birth certificates signed by the attending doctor. Three of my grandparents were born overseas in the late nineteenth century, all had birth certificates from their country of origin. I now wish I had asked if they needed them to enter the U.S., somehow, I expect they did.This tea pot tempest is due to the Bots attempting to pay illegals to vote, imo.
Many illegals have fake i.d. They are not hard to get in their communities. They also buy and register vehicles and have I phones, the plans for which require “i.d.” In my former job we found a few legal immigrants who ‘shared’ their documents..for a price. This gets caught when the same name and address appears over and over…All photo i.d. will do is make it a teeny bit harder to game the system. If a citizen lives here all their life, and can’t rouse themselves to get a photo i.d., or some form of i.d., it seems unlikely they would have much interest in voting anyway.
Whether or not this is true, it’s not for you or me or our government to say. It’s up to each American citizen whether they want to vote or not vote, and as Sally pointed out making it unnecessarily harder for some than others is wrong. Millions of Americans with ID don’t have much interest in voting; so what? That doesn’t diminish the right of those who do want to vote, with or without ID, to all have equal ease of access to vote.
Oh, but it IS ok for our government to tell us that we have to buy health insurance as a condition of existing. Nice that all the little farm animals can hold those 2 contradictory beliefs in their head at the same time. “Can make someone go out and get and pay for health insurance just because they exist; Can’t possibly make someone get an ID just to vote.”
“4 legs good; 2 legs better.”
I’d be willing to bet that a large number of illegal aliens don’t have IDs when they go to vote, It doesn’t matter if they have to take the bus to the DMV or not, because they aren’t going anywhere near the DMV even if you offer them a ride. Just saying. Not that I’m saying that illegal aliens……I mean Undocumented Workers…. without citizenship ID would try to vote or anything. That would be illegal. Kind of like entering this country by hopping a border is illegal. But I’m sure this has nothing to do with resistance to producing IDs at the polls and I know you are too.
The very poor, whose numbers are increasing daily under the Hope and Change administration, can’t get their public asstance without identification. They will need to take the bus, walk, get a ride, do whatever is necessary to get to that government building with the proper ID, though.
The assumption that the very poor are all on government assistance is a pretty appalling stereotype. A lot are, no doubt, but many are not. Some don’t want government assistance and there are other ways to get by, including frugality, income from the margins (talk to people at flea markets for instance), family and friends, charities and food banks and free clinics that aren’t government run.
Well, Gosh, Val, I feel like I fit right in now that you think I’m appalling.
The thing is, they’d still have to walk, take the bus, or get a ride to that food bank and free clinic, Val. And they would have to walk, take the bus, or get a ride to the polls too. So what’s really appaling is the sham argument that telling people to get a voter ID is tantamount to cruel and inhumane treatment. If you can walk, take a bus or get a ride to “here” you can just as well do it to “there”. …Unless of course, “There” means you aren’t qualified to vote in the USA, or “There” means you won’t be able to vote in several different places.
Funny, but producing ID to vote wasn’t always a problem, this is recent. I remember very clearly that an ID was required for me to vote before the heavily intrenched poll workers in my district got to know who I was. It was never about whether or not you were rich or poor. It was always about whether or not you were registered and were legally voting as a citizen of the USA — and in your actual district. It was also about stopping others from voting in your name or you voting in a name that is not yours. All of this required and still requires definitive ID. In other words, this whole thing smells of skunk.
Nobody said it’s cruel or inhuman. Liberals believe in liberty and equality, and that means fighting against hurdles like poll taxes or photo IDs to vote. Fact is, some American citizens don’t carry ID; that’s a legal choice, they can work and rent and travel and live their lives just fine. Restricting access to voting on the basis of having ID, especially when fake ID is so easy to obtain and dead people are apparently still voting, is unreasonable burden on one segment of society.
Dead people vote in Chicago, Val. That’s because they don’t need a Voter ID card they acquired by proving they are alive and living in a district that isn’t mowed regularly by a groundskeeper. They are an argument FOR voter ID, not against it.
Voting is the right of every American citizen. It is not the right of anyone else. There’s no way on earth one of us could vote in another country. Our voting system is all we have left to guarantee a Republic. As it is, it gets more corrupt by the day. To help its corruption along is wrong on so many levels. We once held the right to vote as a privilege because we were citizens of the USA. When we stop caring about how it’s done and when we stop recognizing it as the only thing between us and some despot in charge (even though our choices blow goats), we will have finished off our Republic. We just need to take it as seriously as we once did. The system worked and we broke it. Rather, our politicians broke itm because it benefits them to see it broken. We let it happen through our complacency. To sit here and imagine it’s okay to just allow any old person show up at any old polling place(s) and vote because they SAY they can is to throw the dirt on the burial hole of our process of selecting who runs our country, our state, our city..
How many cases of individual ineligible voters voting are there? As someone else pointed out, more people get struck by lighting.
There’s a lot of real corruption to deal with. Going after minority, low-income, and elderly voters for such a ridiculously low number of occurrences is nothing more than bullying the vulnerable.
What a sad hypocrisy that some Hillary supporters defend this kind of Republican political hooliganism.
Come on, Val, cut it out. Just because it’s your opinion, it is in NO WAY “sad” because I support something you don’t support. How many? ONE is enough. Itt’s called Election Fraud, Val and it is serious for a reason.
I’ll let you have the last word on this because it is so important to you, but don’t you EVER assume that because you feel one way about something that is it not right for someone else not to feel the way your perfect self feels. And leave the Hillary name the hell out of this, it no longer works. I had to listen to that shit from Obots for far too long for it to have any effect on me. Don’t acquire their habits. This is still the USA. That makes it really “sad” when someone here in this country decides that everyone else should think exactly like he does.
Stop embarrassing the real uppity women of history by parroting Bill O’Reilly.
Oh please stop whining, and disingenuously no less! No Obot ever called out a Hillary supporter for supporting what Hillary supported. I know because I was not only a Hillary supporter, I still fight for the principles she stood for. I actually stand for what she stood for. Shame on you for hiding behind Hillary’s skirts while defending a grotesque Republican attack on what she’d dismiss. Shame on you. But I’m sure you’ll conveniently change your position when Hillary runs in 2016 and takes the opposite position. Ugh.
I don’t think anybody on the planet should think as I do; Obamabots and Romneyites don’t and that’s fine with me. I think it’s sad that Hillary’s supporters defend Romney’s repulsive attacks.
But if Hillary runs in 2016 I’m sure you’ll follow in lockstep with her. OMG you’re so cool!!!!!!!!
Christ, what a revelation to discover people I agreed with and thought I was fighting side by side with have no principles at all. Y’all only supported Hillary because of her lady parts.
Is that supposed to be your Joe Biden imitation? You stupid fuck. You will NEVER learn to shut the fuck up, no matter now wrong you are. Your response is clearly the product of a child who only got attention whenever he misbehaved, and I’m delighted to know you had such a miserable childhood.
Real Hillary supporters saw REAL election fraud. And it wasn’t the elderly, low-income voters who were cheating in the 07-08 “Democratic” caucuses, it was the Obama THUGS who were cheating the elderly, disabled, low income voters! Bullying, thugging, cheating, Obots disenfranchising the very voters you CLAIM to defend! Give me a break. If you were a Hillary supporter, I’m Barack Obama. Your “lady parts” comment says it all. Go away spoiled brat Zal.
Exactly! So this penny ante trumped up Republican voter intimidation nonsense is all the more disingenuous a cause for Hillary supporters to take on. That is, unless everything after Hillary’s loss is motivated by revenge and hatred of those what done us wrong.
While voter fraud has happened, it virtually never occurs by voter impersonation at the polling place. Voting fraud happens through ballot box stuffing, voter machine manipulation, registration list manipulation and absentee balloting, none of which would be effected by presenting ID at the polling place. This merely goes after the poor, low-income, elderly, minority, those without a driver’s license, intimidating legitimate voters from voting.
I was enraged at Democrats and Obama after ’08, too. For a long time. I certainly won’t forget it and won’t ever trust them again, but at some point a mature mind makes order out of what happened, learns from it, lets rage settle it into history, and choses one’s own principles over revenge. I still want Obama out, not because of what he did but because of what he’ll do in the future.
This isn’t a new issue and I never approved of voter ID laws and, if you supported Hillary because of the principles she stood for, neither did you; I’m not changing my position and principles to simply align with the opponents of those who betrayed Hillary in ’08. I’m not letting the people who I felt betrayed by turn me into what I’ve always opposed. No “liberal” in this thread’s comments has offered a reasonable or factual argument to change positions from what I supported when I supported Hillary in ’08 or what I’ll support if she runs in ’16.
Good. It was intended to. Unless Hillary supporters have changed from liberal viewpoint to conservative, which would be an appalling response to ’08, you couldn’t have supported Hillary on the basis of her political and ideological positions: she was and remains a liberal, and as explained by me (and Sally before me), the principles of liberalism oppose this low-income voter intimidation.
The caucus fraud would NOT have happened with voter ID. They bussed in people from all over (check that: Chicago) to over run precincts. So people DID vote multiple times in many areas.
Caucuses are run by the Democratic and Republican parties and each party sets up the rules about who does and doesn’t have to present ID. All the states I looked up, voter ID applies only to voters casting ballots at polling places, not voter registration, absentee ballots or caucuses.
It’s funny you mention caucuses, though, because typical hypocrisy is alive and well in that arena as well. This year in Michigan Democrats (who generally oppose voter ID) imposed ID requirements and in Iowa Republicans (who push for voter ID) did not require ID.
http://www.theroot.com/blogs/rick-santorum-iowa-caucuses/no-photo-id-required-iowa-republican-caucuses
http://rnla.org/blogs/blogs/public/archive/2012/05/17/voter-id-requirement-at-democratic-caucus.aspx
“making it unnecessarily harder for some than others is wrong. … the right of … all have equal ease of access to vote.”
1) Deterrence of voter fraud is in the common good;
2) Requiring voters to present valid ID deters voter fraud;
3) Requiring every voter to present the same form of ID constitutes equal access;
Ergo, a universal requirement to present proof of identity in order to vote is both necessary and proper.
Let’s see evidence of that.
How many cases of voter fraud by voter impersonation at the polling place are there?
Let’s see evidence of that.
1) You go ahead and argue the opposite, that voter fraud is benign.
2) It’s self-evident.
How many cases of voter fraud by voter impersonation at the polling place are there?
* I dunno, but any is too many, and undermines the public’s confidence in the legitimacy of elections. There were allegedly 1,200 confirmed cases of voter fraud in the Franken / Coleman race, which was decided by c. 125 votes.
* Tell us how many voters are out there lacking photo ID.
* If you consider it a problem, why is the solution to permit proof-less voting, instead of assisting people who want to vote to get IDs?
There is information about that and if you dunno then arguing for voter law that places particular burden on vulnerable segments of society makes no sense. It’s like being overweight and developing a rash, taking Prednisone even though you dunno if your rash is an allergic reaction, thereby unnecessarily risking the side effect of type II diabetes. Supporting a law that further hobbles our most typically blocked voters, without knowing if it’ll fix anything, just doesn’t sound like you.
Studies indicate voter impersonation fraud -which is the only kind of voter fraud that requiring ID addresses- is as likely to happen as a voter getting struck by lightening, and that states with voter photo ID laws report a measurable decrease in voter turnout. And guess which demographic decreases? Lower income, minority, elderly, youth. So more power to the rich and powerful – what a great thing to fight for.
A study by the Brennan Center is the most comprehensive:
Then a study by the Harvard Law and Policy Review details changes in voter turnout as a consequence of voter ID requirements. Turnout consistently diminished in states with voter photo ID laws versus those that didn’t have them.
http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Voter-ID-and-Turnout.pdf
Here you go mr. linky-linky: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/19/us/vote-fraud-ruling-shifts-pennsylvania-senate.html
And, since you have probably also served as the US Attorney General at some point in your fabulous career, you should be aware of the US DOJ study tabulating instances of voting fraud convictions. You probably authored it too, right – while also working as a freelance writer . . .
That link has absolutely nothing to do with voter ID.
That’s a 1994 story about election fraud using absentee ballots. If you think real hard I bet you can figure out why requiring voter ID at polling places wouldn’t impact absentee ballot election fraud.
Geez.
The article is proof that party machines have no compunction against committing election fraud by any means available. In 2008, OFA bussed in hundreds of people from Chicago & Gary to vote in the Iowa primary, & Acorn got caught registering out-of-state college kids in Ohio, who’d they’d set up in temporary apts & houses.
If ID-less voting is available to them, they will use it to commit fraud.