That's not a big problem. The old lady and me have our food stamp cards which have pictures on them.

What worries me is that I pick up 6 or 7 cartons of smokes every election by taking the party bus from poll to poll. Is this going to screw that up?

We look forward to the extra cash.

Evil neocon facist Repugs - screwing up my gravy train again.

Right you are!

When the greatest man who ever lived, Bill Clinton, reformed welfare it was the best day of my life. He took me off general aid and put me on SSI, it was about a 300% pay increase. I look foreward to my SSI check each month and say a thank you to Bill Clinton everytime.

I live better thanks to him. I've never held a job in my life - I'm a Democrat!

The Supreme court is helping our right wing government to overcome the Constitution on the way to a national ID card. That's why they ruled the way they did.

Mighty strong words from a representative of a party that wants to disenfranchise two complete states....in counting their form of Democracy. How either of these two candidates can be considered as "valid" if either Michigan or Fla are not allowed to have their votes counted is beyond logic. This indeed shows the real concern that liberals have for any "democratic process" and how they consider the voting rights of anyone. For if they do not care to just completely eliminate two states from the process, would they indeed care if a few districts where disenfranchised by fraud? And now you have the nerve to example conservatives as some kind of Nazism or an example of dictatorship? BD

Rather weak Bluedog considering what is going on in Indiana and why. It takes a person with very little conscience to accuse the democrats when the republicans are running roughshod over our previous form of government. But who ever accused the republicans of having a conscience?

Of course, Nazis really never had a problem with people being forced to carry their papers.


But the main reason this is unconstitutional is because Indiana was never made to prove cases of voter fraud necessitating this restriction. Meanwhile the Supreme Court ruled that those challenging the rule had failed to prove it would violate voter's rights. This is inherently unconstitutional because the failure to prove was not upheld in the case of the state while it was in the case of the complainants. Not only must the state be held accountable to the same standard as the people, but it also made the accusation first and therefore should have been the first to prove a need. What happened was the state was allowed to change the rules without scrutiny and the people were held to a different standard of proof.

Those who said the state is allowed to set its own voter rules ignore the fact that many states have had poll taxes, literacy tests etc overturned by the Supreme Court. In the end it is the Congress and Supreme Court who make the decision. This is the first time the Supreme Court has come in on the side of limiting voter access.

You people really hate free American voting don't you?

No doubt the most interesting part of the "decision".

I do not see the Supreme Court telling the voters of two States who have a constitutional mandate that allows them to have their votes count.....that their votes don't count, because they actually had the nerve to choose the dates of their own elections instead of listening to some national dictation of a "political machine". But, I am sure you will see the Supreme Court addressing the facts thereof, if Sir Hillary loses the popular vote within the margin of the voter turnout for these two states. The entire Democratic party has turned into nothing less than a national example of the Political Machine that run cities like Chicago for so many years. BD

It's quite obvious anyone that does want an accurate and honest voting system would be in favor of identification and mandatory prison sentences for anyone intentionally committing voter fraud.

It's just as obvious anyone wanting to cheat on elections would enjoy a system that has virtually zero checks and balances of fairness....


I entirely support ID's for voting. I'd also support a mandatory 1 year prison sentence for anyone voting under a false name or voting at more than 1 precinct on the same election.

What is obvious is that you never thought about any of this before, Bushbot.

If you have a drivers licence then you have an ID. I don't want a National ID but want to curb voter fraud so that the people are able to vote.

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.