Author |
Message |
|
yambu |
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:39 pm |
|
|
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 6441
Location: SF Bay Area
|
I'm not saying they made bad law, but for Obama, the timing could not have been worse. We'll see. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Syd |
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:47 pm |
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 12901
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
|
Joe Vitus wrote: I can understand why, depending on where you live, you would not have a driver's liscence. But I'm more perplexed by the lack of a Social Security card. You can't get a job without it, and you often have to write the number down when you apply. It's a little hard for me to believe that a large number of blacks in Indiana don't have one. I support the legislature legislature in this case. Prevention of voter fraud is important, and how can you do this unless proof is offered?
My Social Security Card doesn't have a photograph on it. The Indiana law requires a photo ID. |
_________________ I had a love and my love was true but I lost my love to the yabba dabba doo, --The Flintstone Lament |
|
Back to top |
|
billyweeds |
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:00 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Joe Vitus wrote: Melody wrote: Joan Walsh, an Obama supporter, writes in Salon about Why Jeremiah Wright is so wrong:
My goal in this post is to try not to treat Wright the way Wright seems to treat the idea of America; to not utterly damn Wright because some of (a lot of? I'm not sure) what Wright has said is disturbing and wrong. I am grateful to Bill Moyers for airing so much of the sermons. I enjoyed their thoughtful conversation about theology and politics. But the whole idea that Wright has been attacked over "soundbites," and if Americans saw his entire sermons, in context, they'd feel differently, now seems ludicrous. The long clips Moyers played only confirm what was broadcast in the snippets (and the longer excerpts out today are even more troubling).
PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joan Walsh is HUGE Clinton supporter. Read her blogs. Read the posts in the letters column from Obama supporters. This woman lives, breathes, and dies for Hillary, and systemattically attacks Obama (passive agressively) while championing Hillary's every victory. I read Salon daily. This woman is not a unbiased commentator.
I mentioned this over in the other forum. Hopefully Melody has gotten the word by now. Walsh is more insidious than most commentators because of her Salon affililation and because of the passive aggression you allude to. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Joe Vitus |
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:05 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
I don't usually get emotional about these things, but Walsh makes my blood boil. She's trashed Salon's reputation. If she actually came out and endorsed Hillary, I'd be okay with it, but her deception is another matter entirely. She claims balance, but if you only read Salon you'd never even know about the Bosnia story, or any other Clinton fumbling. While anything that happens to Obama gets dragged on for weeks, if not indefinately. The site has become a bizarro O'Reilly Factor. |
_________________ You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
Back to top |
|
Joe Vitus |
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:10 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Syd wrote: Joe Vitus wrote: I can understand why, depending on where you live, you would not have a driver's liscence. But I'm more perplexed by the lack of a Social Security card. You can't get a job without it, and you often have to write the number down when you apply. It's a little hard for me to believe that a large number of blacks in Indiana don't have one. I support the legislature legislature in this case. Prevention of voter fraud is important, and how can you do this unless proof is offered?
My Social Security Card doesn't have a photograph on it. The Indiana law requires a photo ID.
I missed the part about "photo ID." I see the problem. Not sure what I think. I understand the issue of voter fraud, but the photo ID is more problematic. |
_________________ You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
Back to top |
|
Syd |
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:41 pm |
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 12901
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
|
I don't have a problem with some sort of picture ID if it can be obtained for free and is easy to get. If there's a charge for it, I'd think it would be a violation of the 24th Amendment, since it would be a charge for voting in federal elections. |
_________________ I had a love and my love was true but I lost my love to the yabba dabba doo, --The Flintstone Lament |
|
Back to top |
|
whiskeypriest |
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:54 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 6916
Location: "It's a Dry Heat."
|
bocce wrote: just out of wild curiousity, why would anyone over 18 years old not have an ID of some type???
i don't see this as any government conspiracy to deny the vote but, rather, to ensure it's valid...
actually, where i live, in the racist and reactionary south, a voter registration card is normally required to exercise the franchise... People who do not drive. Of whom which there are legions, most of whom are registered voters. |
_________________ I ask you, Velvel, as a rational man, which of us is possessed? |
|
Back to top |
|
Joe Vitus |
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:46 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Syd wrote: I don't have a problem with some sort of picture ID if it can be obtained for free and is easy to get. If there's a charge for it, I'd think it would be a violation of the 24th Amendment, since it would be a charge for voting in federal elections.
My questions are 1) how long ago was this ruling made, and 2) how long does it take to recieve it. I think a driver's liscense takes 3-4 four weeks to arrive in the mail. |
_________________ You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
Back to top |
|
Nancy |
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:53 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4607
Location: Norman, OK
|
Joe Vitus wrote: Syd wrote: I don't have a problem with some sort of picture ID if it can be obtained for free and is easy to get. If there's a charge for it, I'd think it would be a violation of the 24th Amendment, since it would be a charge for voting in federal elections.
My questions are 1) how long ago was this ruling made, and 2) how long does it take to recieve it. I think a driver's liscense takes 3-4 four weeks to arrive in the mail.
To some extent, the ID requirement is a recent development. When I was working elections, we didn't even have to see their voter's registration card unless they were not on the list of registered voters -- usually because they hadn't voted in a while. We never asked for a photo ID, but I think that has been creeping in for the last couple of years in certain areas. It's certainly not directed against a particular candidate -- I think it's more of an outgrowth of the whole homeland security thing. And a silly one, in my opinion. |
_________________ "All in all, it's just another feather in the fan."
Isaacism, 2009 |
|
Back to top |
|
Melody |
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:56 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2242
Location: TX
|
I don't know much about Joan Walsh; I read her occasionally. She may very well be a Clinton supporter, but these words convinced me she's an Obama supporter, too.
I know y'all find the idea unfathomable that someone can root for BOTH Democratic candidates, but I'm here to tell you I'm one. She may be one, too.
Since y'all obviously didn't read the article I posted, here's another excerpt. Tell me what you think about her sympathies.
But Obama isn't running for president as a Hyde Park liberal. He's running as a centrist who can unite the country better than Hillary Clinton. The new Wright tapes emerged on the very day Obama went to Fox News to make that case, telling Chris Wallace "I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea," and boasting about supporting tort reform legislation opposed by trial lawyers. The core of Obama's case to Democrats has been that he's more electable than Clinton because he's going to bring in independents and Republicans -- remember "Obamacans"? Let's hope they didn't watch Moyers Friday night.
I found myself feeling a little sorry for Wright Friday night, but even more sorry for Obama. The most sympathetic explanations of Obama's decision to choose Wright's church argued that the fatherless young man who was raised by white people and bereft of black role models chose Wright to fill both holes. Even though he disagreed with Wright's extreme critique of American society, this explanation held, he was comforted by his spiritual and personal mentoring. Maybe so. But if that's true, clearly Obama's been let down by Wright, who couldn't suppress his own hurt and anger at his treatment by the "corporate media" long enough to think about the presidential hopes of his renowned spiritual mentee, Obama. And so he pops up during Obama's worst week yet on the campaign trail, in the wake of his sobering loss to Clinton in Pennsylvania. I can't help wondering: Maybe Wright needs Obama to fail to justify his pessimistic view of American promise. The whole thing is very sad. |
_________________ My heart told my head: This time, no. |
|
Back to top |
|
Melody |
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:11 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2242
Location: TX
|
Here's the latest Joan Walsh entry on her chagrin, upon further reflection, of having given Rev. Wright the benefit of the doubt.
The latest front-page article features this:
What should Obama do about Rev. Jeremiah Wright?
With the pastor's latest invective clouding Obama's campaign, Salon turns to a panel of political and cultural experts for answers.
Various folks weigh in, including Andrew Sullivan, who I've grown to like the more I've seen him on Bill Maher.
I don't really see a pro-Clinton bias in these three articles I've posted, but I'm sure one of you will set me straight. |
_________________ My heart told my head: This time, no. |
|
Back to top |
|
Nancy |
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:23 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4607
Location: Norman, OK
|
Melody wrote: I don't really see a pro-Clinton bias in these three articles I've posted, but I'm sure one of you will set me straight.
I don't see it either, Melody. |
_________________ "All in all, it's just another feather in the fan."
Isaacism, 2009 |
|
Back to top |
|
yambu |
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:40 pm |
|
|
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 6441
Location: SF Bay Area
|
|
Back to top |
|
Joe Vitus |
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:49 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
The trouble is you're reading selectively. I read her continuously. She refuses to acknowledge any of Hillary's weaknesses or mistakes, and she hammers Obama over and over again. She's never let go of his assoication with Wright since it first came up, and she's always going on about his sense of entitlement and his elitism. She never, never criticises Hillary, almost never acknowledges her mistakes or failures. She ignored the Bosnia story when it happened. In fact, no Salon reporter did a story on it, and the information was never treated on the front page. While Obama is raked over the coals on the front page regularly by various columnists, including herself. Sometiems two or three at a time.
She waited for something else about Obama to come to the fore before, in a piece about something else she thinks he did wrong, she addressed Bosnia in passing (still not giving it front page reference) and said that Hillary didn't actually lie. That she simply, when confronted with the video evidence, and this is a quote "remembered that she misrememebered."
She also frequently attacks rabid Obama supporters while ignoring Hillary supporters of a similar stripe and, when called on this repeatedly in the letters column, finally admitted she was harsher on Obama supporters but that being harder on them and on their candidate was necessary because the media gives him a free ride and is so harsh on Clinton.
Hillary photos regularly show her smiling, against a brightly colored backdrop. Obama is generally show to disadvantage in somber colors. Her wins are triumphed. His are at best noted, while still hammering on the fact that he hasn't made it, yet.
Walsh is totally partisan. |
_________________ You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
Back to top |
|
Befade |
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:05 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 3784
Location: AZ
|
ENOUGH!! I've seen Rev. Wright's 3 tv appearances and now he's going to be on Nightline? At first I was curious......I think my curiousity has been satisfied. Now I want to see just Obama on tv. Please.......give me more Barack and less Jeremiah.
My conclusion about him, by the way.......is that he's a very substantial minister......smart and informed......but he is also a major showman....(his imitiations of the speech of JFK and Lyndon Johnson are evidence). His style and Barack's are radically different. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|