|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 26 2013 05:57 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Only problem with that is Senior Citizens who may or may not have a driver's license but no photo ID. I reject this notion that "old people might not have an ID" To collect welfare,ss, medicare or any other social benefits they have to have a government issued and approved id. If they have none of these things they have more problems then not being able to vote. Even homeless people are issued an ID for no cost.
"I reject legitimate statistics that show a significant amount of the senior and minority populations don't have ID's and/or don't have easy access to ID's."
...ok...?
|
I think we should take these provisions of the VRA and apply them to California and Michigan.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
While the initial proposals of Voter ID were intent on disenfranchising specific voters, I don't believe that the entire argument of requiring a photo ID is bad. Implemented wisely, it could improve things.
For instance, if the IDs were free and there was ample time to acquire them, everyone would now have a photo ID, which is just really useful for daily life. Also, if all voters had a state licensed ID, online voting may become a bigger thing as we could use the ID numbers for more efficient and less fraudulent online voting, which in turn may increase voter turnout.
Of course, do I trust the legislators in Texas etc. to implement such laws in good faith? Not at all. But, the possibilities to use Voter IDs as a mechanism for good are definitely there. There aren't many cons to it if the IDs are free and easily/quickly obtainable.
|
|
|
Congressional Democrats say Tea Party groups weren't the only ones being targeted by the Internal Revenue Service. And they have released some documents that they say prove it.
When IRS employees were deciding which groups to flag for extra scrutiny, they looked for certain terms. The spreadsheets full of those terms were known as "Be On the Lookout" lists, or BOLOs. And the BOLOs that Democrats have released contain the term "progressives."
This raises some questions. For instance: Why wasn't this mentioned sooner?
The IRS inspector general's report is clear: Tea Party groups were targeted by the IRS for extra scrutiny simply because they had "Tea Party" or "patriot" in their names. But the audit didn't mention progressive groups.
Democrats like Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, want to know why.
"I think the failure of the IG to acknowledge this, to address it, created the opportunity for people to politicize this and to try to connect it with the president and to probably help lead to statements that were not true," he says.
Source
|
On June 26 2013 09:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Congressional Democrats say Tea Party groups weren't the only ones being targeted by the Internal Revenue Service. And they have released some documents that they say prove it.
When IRS employees were deciding which groups to flag for extra scrutiny, they looked for certain terms. The spreadsheets full of those terms were known as "Be On the Lookout" lists, or BOLOs. And the BOLOs that Democrats have released contain the term "progressives."
This raises some questions. For instance: Why wasn't this mentioned sooner?
The IRS inspector general's report is clear: Tea Party groups were targeted by the IRS for extra scrutiny simply because they had "Tea Party" or "patriot" in their names. But the audit didn't mention progressive groups.
Democrats like Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, want to know why.
"I think the failure of the IG to acknowledge this, to address it, created the opportunity for people to politicize this and to try to connect it with the president and to probably help lead to statements that were not true," he says. Source
I wonder if any of these progressive groups actually received harassment as well as denied 501(c) status. This isn't even surprising. What is surprising is that no progressive/democrat group has come forward to say that they were denied or delayed approval. Tea Party groups were asked about the content of their prayers, names of their staffers ... were any progressives sent letters asking similar things? What better way to deflect criticism of the administration's IRS agents than to present evidence that groups from more than one side of the political aisle was singled out. Based on this alone, I would imagine that the IG saw different treatments of tea party patriots vs progressive democratic groups. Why else the wide silence from the left?
|
On June 26 2013 10:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 09:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Congressional Democrats say Tea Party groups weren't the only ones being targeted by the Internal Revenue Service. And they have released some documents that they say prove it.
When IRS employees were deciding which groups to flag for extra scrutiny, they looked for certain terms. The spreadsheets full of those terms were known as "Be On the Lookout" lists, or BOLOs. And the BOLOs that Democrats have released contain the term "progressives."
This raises some questions. For instance: Why wasn't this mentioned sooner?
The IRS inspector general's report is clear: Tea Party groups were targeted by the IRS for extra scrutiny simply because they had "Tea Party" or "patriot" in their names. But the audit didn't mention progressive groups.
Democrats like Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, want to know why.
"I think the failure of the IG to acknowledge this, to address it, created the opportunity for people to politicize this and to try to connect it with the president and to probably help lead to statements that were not true," he says. Source I wonder if any of these progressive groups actually received harassment as well as denied 501(c) status. This isn't even surprising. What is surprising is that no progressive/democrat group has come forward to say that they were denied or delayed approval. Tea Party groups were asked about the content of their prayers, names of their staffers ... were any progressives sent letters asking similar things? What better way to deflect criticism of the administration's IRS agents than to present evidence that groups from more than one side of the political aisle was singled out. Based on this alone, I would imagine that the IG saw different treatments of tea party patriots vs progressive democratic groups. Why else the wide silence from the left?
It's interesting that you see this as a cover up, where I see this as even more damning towards the Democratic Party. I would say that "progressives" are a bigger threat to the Party than Tea Party groups. Then again, I've spent years debating Democrat apologists on various fora on just about every issue, and the tactic of attempting to silence the opposition, or combat it in ways that bypass substance doesn't surprise me at all. That said, I too am very surprised no one has come forward as you say.
|
Ed Markey takes Kerry's former seat.
|
US Senators Push Bill to Scrap Mortgage Firms Fannie, Freddie
A bipartisan group of U.S. senators on Tuesday introduced a bill to abolish Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and replace them with a government reinsurer of mortgage securities that would backstop private capital in a crisis.
The U.S. government seized the mortgage finance firms in 2008 to rescue them from insolvency, spending a total of $187.5 billion to keep them afloat. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which charge lenders a fee in return for guaranteeing principal and interest on mortgages, are now posting record profits.
Under the bill, which is being led by Tennessee Republican Bob Corker and Virginia Democrat Mark Warner, the two companies would be liquidated within five years. The legislation would provide for government reinsurance that would kick in only once private creditors had shouldered large losses. ...
Link
Interesting idea... Something needs to be done with Fannie / Freddie for sure.
|
On June 26 2013 06:30 mordek wrote:
Couldn't this have bigger implications for local elections? I mean "no one is doubting the legitimate victor is elected" is probably true with the large numbers for the president but I feel like local corruption and voter fraud would be the main benefactor.
You see disenfranchisement, others see improvement in legitimacy. You're both right and you should work toward a middle ground. I think with a good faith effort to get everyone who wants a voter ID a card there is no problem with checking identities.
You are exactly right. There are many documented examples of the outcomes of local elections being affected by voter fraud.
|
On June 26 2013 12:11 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 06:30 mordek wrote:
Couldn't this have bigger implications for local elections? I mean "no one is doubting the legitimate victor is elected" is probably true with the large numbers for the president but I feel like local corruption and voter fraud would be the main benefactor.
You see disenfranchisement, others see improvement in legitimacy. You're both right and you should work toward a middle ground. I think with a good faith effort to get everyone who wants a voter ID a card there is no problem with checking identities. You are exactly right. There are many documented examples of the outcomes of local elections being affected by voter fraud.
How many elections need to be decided by voter fraud before you would change your mind and decide voter ID is necessary?
|
On June 26 2013 13:17 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 12:11 ziggurat wrote:On June 26 2013 06:30 mordek wrote:
Couldn't this have bigger implications for local elections? I mean "no one is doubting the legitimate victor is elected" is probably true with the large numbers for the president but I feel like local corruption and voter fraud would be the main benefactor.
You see disenfranchisement, others see improvement in legitimacy. You're both right and you should work toward a middle ground. I think with a good faith effort to get everyone who wants a voter ID a card there is no problem with checking identities. You are exactly right. There are many documented examples of the outcomes of local elections being affected by voter fraud. How many elections need to be decided by voter fraud before you would change your mind and decide voter ID is necessary?
1 that has clear-cut signs that voter ID was the cheapest, most effective, and least obtrusive to the voting process.
|
Extra Border-Security Spending Entices GOP, Raises Eyebrows
A huge increase in border security spending was the key to getting Republicans onboard with the immigration bill now making its way through the Senate. The bill is set to pass by the end of this week.
Fifteen Republicans agreed to support an eventual path to citizenship for millions of people in the country illegally — thanks to billions of dollars in new spending. In fact, the spending increase is so big that even those who specialize in border security are wondering where it came from. ...
The bill calls for spending an estimated $30 billion over the next 10 years on agents and fencing, including more than $3 billion for a high-tech border surveillance plan. The plan has specific requirements for more drones, sensors and cameras, despite a lack of evidence that they're effective. ...
Link
When in doubt, throw around some cash 
|
A multibillion-dollar U.S.-led effort to stem the threat of a terrorist nuclear blast is slowly unraveling because of huge cost overruns at a federal installation in South Carolina and stubborn resistance in Moscow to fulfilling the program’s chief goal, according to U.S. officials and independent experts.
The 13-year old Energy Department program, authorized in agreements with Moscow spanning three presidents, is meant to transform excess plutonium taken from retired U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons into fuel for nuclear plants, so that it can’t be stolen and misused.
But that ambitious goal has been blocked by a tangle of technical, diplomatic and financial problems. The Obama administration is now considering cancelling the project, an idea that has provoked furious opposition from some Republican lawmakers who say it is vital to U.S. national security.
Its potential demise has provoked cheers from some leading arms control and nonproliferation experts, however. They say that as a result of little-noticed revisions to the underlying pact with Moscow on the plutonium’s disposal, the deal might actually wind up promoting Russia’s production of as much or more plutonium as it was supposed to eliminate.
Source
|
On June 26 2013 15:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Extra Border-Security Spending Entices GOP, Raises Eyebrows
A huge increase in border security spending was the key to getting Republicans onboard with the immigration bill now making its way through the Senate. The bill is set to pass by the end of this week.
Fifteen Republicans agreed to support an eventual path to citizenship for millions of people in the country illegally — thanks to billions of dollars in new spending. In fact, the spending increase is so big that even those who specialize in border security are wondering where it came from. ...
The bill calls for spending an estimated $30 billion over the next 10 years on agents and fencing, including more than $3 billion for a high-tech border surveillance plan. The plan has specific requirements for more drones, sensors and cameras, despite a lack of evidence that they're effective. ... LinkWhen in doubt, throw around some cash
Oh god, will this thing pass the House now? I hear rumors that enough bipartisan support in the Senate could pressure the House to pass it, but I'm not convinced with so many House members being restricted to only voting "nay" on anything a Democrat votes "yay" on.
|
On June 26 2013 12:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +US Senators Push Bill to Scrap Mortgage Firms Fannie, Freddie
A bipartisan group of U.S. senators on Tuesday introduced a bill to abolish Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and replace them with a government reinsurer of mortgage securities that would backstop private capital in a crisis.
The U.S. government seized the mortgage finance firms in 2008 to rescue them from insolvency, spending a total of $187.5 billion to keep them afloat. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which charge lenders a fee in return for guaranteeing principal and interest on mortgages, are now posting record profits.
Under the bill, which is being led by Tennessee Republican Bob Corker and Virginia Democrat Mark Warner, the two companies would be liquidated within five years. The legislation would provide for government reinsurance that would kick in only once private creditors had shouldered large losses. ... LinkInteresting idea... Something needs to be done with Fannie / Freddie for sure.
I doubt they'll find enough support in the Senate to be honest. There's enough RINO's that are more concerned with having their names on, "Republicans deal blow to minority home ownership," than taking a stand that will have effects over the next decade. That's not to mention that the senate already has a democratic majority. I'd like to take an action to dissolve all government ties to freddie and fannie if we ever get a republican majority and enough of those with spines.
|
On June 26 2013 06:41 Jerubaal wrote:
I think we should take these provisions of the VRA and apply them to California and Michigan.
Striking down Section 4 but then saying that Section 5 must apply everywhere would actually be really great. Sure, it would be a lot of work, but "boo-hoo democracy is hard work" isn't a very good excuse for abrogating democratic rights.
|
|
|
Awesome.
DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others,the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf
The Rainbow TL logo is very appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
