published Wednesday, February 16th, 2011

Election Day

Follow Clay Bennett on Facebook

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

91
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
steve_smith_tn said...

I don't get it. Maybe I shouldn't vote.

Is Clay for implementing a poll test? Surely not. I know I must be overlooking something. There has got to be some cleverness I am missing. It is quarter to one. I'll revisit later.

February 16, 2011 at 12:48 a.m.
nucanuck said...

By making it more difficult for marginal voters to vote,our democracy weakens. This is just one more small infringement,that when combined with the post 911 reduction in freedoms,moves us closer to the very kinds of autocratic governments we have been discussing over the past few weeks.

How can making it harder to vote improve America?

February 16, 2011 at 12:51 a.m.
acerigger said...

Steve, you must have missed the headline,(State)Senate passes bill requiring photo ID to vote

February 16, 2011 at 12:52 a.m.
alprova said...

Presumably, the intent behind this law is to prevent 2,000 convicted felons from being able to vote.

It's also easy to imagine that the intent is also to prevent those who do not have photo I.D. from voting as well. Who would those be? Most would be elderly. Many would be disabled. Some would be people of African-American descent. The rest would be dirt poor and probably be included in all three of the aforementioned categories.

Even if 2,000 formerly convicted felons managed to vote, which is highly doubtful, I don't think anyone could make a case that they would or could influence an election.

All the above aside, this is the year 2011. Everyone should have a photo I.D. of some kind. For some reason however, there are people who exist without updated I.D.

If they do care to vote, they have plenty of time to get off their fanny and to get one. Crying and moaning about the requirement later is not going to cut it.

There is little question that this is a Republican initiative, and the only way to beat them at their exclusionary games is to comply with the requirements that they think will exclude those they deem unfit to vote.

As a Georgia voter, I've been providing a photo I.D. for several years now, in order to vote.

Voting is important and we all should want it to be done without any fraud in evidence and without any unreasonable restrictions preventing people from voting.

Proving that you are whom you claim to be by presenting an approved form of identification is not unreasonable. In this day and age, not having a photographic piece of identification is very unreasonable.

The one flaw in the law will be a safety net for those who are poor. The State imposes an I.D. requirement, but does not provide free I.D's for those who cannot afford one. It was quoted in an article that "the State cannot afford to provide them to the poor."

They do offer the poor a provision that allows them to sign an affidavit swearing they are indigent and cannot afford a photo ID such as a driver's license. Time will tell if poll workers are aware of that provision. I'll bet there will be problems and the usual apologies that follow such intentional exclusions of voters.

As usual, legislators seem to be only capable of solving one problem only to open up the door to one with worse consequences.

Sigh...

February 16, 2011 at 1:22 a.m.
fairmon said...

Is this another government intervention with unintended consequences? Is there any evidence in any state that those voting that should not be eligible influenced the results? Would illegal voting be any more likely to influence an election than exclusion of legitimate voters unable or unwilling to comply with the ID requirement? Why can any government pass a law that they can't pay to implement? Is this a state or local issue? Do we have an intelligence requirement for elected officials that results in state representatives being more intelligent and capable than local officials? The federal government dictates to states and states to local. State and local governments prostitute themselves to the federal government to get grants, subsidies and other tools of manipulation and control. Grants and subsidies are the greatest ponzi scheme ever devised. They are enough to make Madoff and other con artist green with envy. Think about it, a ponzi scheme is where new investors money is used to give others enough to make them think they are getting something for nothing at no risk or cost to them. The fed goes beyond the normal ponzi scheme by borrowing and printing money and confiscating money in various ways to keep their con going. Like every ponzi scheme it will at some point blow up.

The federal department of education with a 77 billion dollar budget is a good example. It enables the federal government to intervene in and dictate to local and state governments various programs that has done nothing to improve education.

February 16, 2011 at 4:55 a.m.
hambone said...

I'm suprised our redneck senate hasn't passed a law that you have to have a carry permit to vote.

If the state is going to require a photo ID to vote then the state should be required to furnish same at no cost to the voter.

February 16, 2011 at 6:34 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Democrats claim George Bush stole the election of A.D. 2000; Republicans claim JFK stole the election of A.D. 1960; almost everyone agrees Lyndon Johnson stole his Senate seat. Stealing elections can be a problem, and it's a problem that strikes at the root of democracy--people who can't trust elections may be tempted to resort to other means. Huey Long was murdered. So keeping elections honest matters. Photo ID will probably help some, and it's not that hard to get. If you want to vote and can't get one, call the party you intend to vote for for help.

But nitwits vote, and people get elected who mess up. Our President has lots of brains full of worthless theories; so do some of his voters. How do we solve that problem?

Well, shrink the government; Jesus is libertarian, I like to say. (Search and ye shall find.) Better a small mess than a big one. If McDonalds messes up, you go to Burger King, and you don't wait for an election: you and your money change 'parties' right away. Economic democracy beats political democracy. And if you want pizza or tacos or subs or sushi or curry (Wendy and I enjoyed the Curry Pot on Valentines' day), you can get those: everyone's a winner, as opposed to Joe Biden beating Sarah Palin. Economic democracy, many winners; political democracy, winners and losers.

We may agree the deficit is too big; we may agree Social Security, Medicare/aid, and Defense each bloat D.C. as much as discretionary spending does; so Rand Paul is a profile in courage for tackling the big three, and the rest of D.C. correspondingly a profile in, well, cowardice by comparison.

February 16, 2011 at 6:34 a.m.
pmcauley said...

I see no problem with ID being needed for voting. You need it for renting a car, getting a library card: voting is atleast as important, no?

pm

February 16, 2011 at 6:51 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Let me see if I’ve got this straight . . .

A group of economically well-off Republican politicians who took an oath before God to serve the people in the State of Tennessee have established a new law that says the people of Tennessee must have a government issued picture I.D. in order to vote.

But these same economically well-off Republican politicians claim there is not enough money in Tennessee’s State treasury to pay for this government picture I.D. that they’ve declared the people must have; therefore, if the people of Tennessee want to vote in any future elections, the people of Tennessee must personally pick-up the tab for a government issued picture I.D.

And if the people in the State of Tennessee are personally too poor to pick up the tab for the new picturel I.D. requirement that these economically well-off Republicans politicians have declared the people of Tennesse must have, it is the people of Tennessee’s tough luck - they can’t vote.

. . . UNLESS, the people of Tennessee are willing to publicly swear before a voting magistrate that they are - like the State of Tennessee - deficient, destitute and impoverished.

February 16, 2011 at 7:15 a.m.
najones75 said...

Funny that this is actually an issue. Almost as funny as issues with state law-men being able to enforce immigration with illegals.

I know that we're talking state, but on a national level as well, I wish IQ's were required. It would be interesting to see how many votes a certain group would receive, considering the majority of the people that vote for them are parasites wanting free-money-for-nothing from the government.

Be careful what you ask for....

February 16, 2011 at 7:44 a.m.
hambone said...

It has been a long time, but if I remember correctly I Had to show ID and proof of residence to get my voter's registration card to start with.

Isn't this sort of redundant?

Is there a epidemic of bogus voter registration cards?

February 16, 2011 at 7:50 a.m.
fairmon said...

mountainlaurel,

You got it straight. You understand the new law perfectly and so eloquently described it. BUT, what do you think about the new law? Was it a completely partisan vote? Was the independent vote split?

Does it have to be a recent or current photo ID? I wonder how much it would cost the state if those few that have no photo ID went to the drivers license location and requested an ID only. I don't see the value of a photo ID but can see the need for some type identification.

What happens when somone wants to vote via absentee ballot?

February 16, 2011 at 8:09 a.m.
alprova said...

Mr. Lohr, you're full of criticism of President Obama, but all things considered, he can do one thing you cannot. The man can construct a cognitive sentence, consistently.

The next time you are looking for a nitwit and/or someone who has a brain full of worthless theories, all you need to do is to stand in front of a mirror.

Ron Paul may be standing a little taller due to his recent triumph in the CPAC straw poll, and it's not the first time that the man has received the highest nod in a Republican straw poll either.

The thing is, and there really is no way of getting around it, the simple fact that outside of certain circles, Ron Paul is considered to be a complete kook.

Mainstream America will never vote for the man. He's got as much chance of getting so much as 5% of the Republican vote as the chance that you will be able to post the Bible sung by Andrew Lohr on You Tube by December 31, A.D. 2011.

But to each of you...knock yourself out trying. I'll be looking for you next year on Grammy night February, A.D. 2012 and Ron Paul on November, A.D. 2012, a month before the world is expected to end and it will not matter anymore, according to some of your fellow kooks.

February 16, 2011 at 8:11 a.m.
Francis said...

alprova..you're a smug jackass......actually there is no evidence that obama can construct a cognitive sentence.....he won't allow anyone to see his college transcripts or grades..or anything he's written....there're even questions whether he wrote any of the books he says he wrote. when obama is away from his teleprompter and has no access to a speech writer.....he stumbles, fumbles for words and often looks lost. his live interviews reveal who he really is.

regarding saying the republicans are behind the ID for voting...damn right, democrats own voter corruption...dead people voting, people voting for other people......an ID very much is needed. it is for everything else.

there is no republican vote fraud.....and, no...not the bogus 2000 election charges...i'm talking about reality. voter corruption is part of the democrat party mo.

February 16, 2011 at 8:23 a.m.
trburrows said...

In this day and age, not having a photographic piece of identification is very unreasonable.

ALprova i dont think i can agree. you must have a photo id in this world. i dont think its much different from the 60's and regestration. you have 2 years to get to a place to get one and 2 years to save up the money with help from aclu and naacp.

February 16, 2011 at 8:50 a.m.
alprova said...

Najones75 wrote: "I know that we're talking state, but on a national level as well, I wish IQ's were required."


Do you see the problem in writing the above? I do.

On one hand, you lament the fact that the Federal Government is in charge of disposing of illegal immigrants, then you desire to see the Federal Government require everyone to have I.D.'s in order to vote.

First of all, the Federal Government does not conduct or regulate any election, even those for Federally elected officials. Elections are conducted and regulated by the respective states.

Secondly, are you possibly of the mistaken belief that those who may be Conservative and thus likely would vote for Republicans, would pass an I.Q. test with flying colors?

I think you'd be very surprised with the results, if they were instituted. I in fact welcome such a requirement, although it will never be seriously proposed by either political party.


"It would be interesting to see how many votes a certain group would receive, considering the majority of the people that vote for them are parasites wanting free-money-for-nothing from the government."


Notwithstanding the fact that your assertion is without a shred of proof that the "majority" of people voting for Democrats are "parasites" by any definition, I could easily turn your sentence around and make it much more factual.

It would be interesting to see how many votes a certain group would receive, considering the majority of the people that vote for them are heartless, selfish people, wanting nothing more than for people having a hard time or who have no means to pay outrageous health care bills due to a lack of having health care insurance, to simply die.


"Be careful what you ask for...."


Likewise, you short-sighted, self-aggrandizing peon. I'm rather confident that no one has handed you the key to the golden crapper.

Imagine yourself a shark in the ocean. You might be at the top of the food chain for awhile while you are young, quick, and on top of your game, but eventually there will come along a creature that will make you a fine meal of their own.

In the end, you will become poop.

All the money that exists on this entire big round ball will not buy the richest man's passage into Heaven. He will be as penniless as the rest of us when we make that journey.

Now I don't know about you, but I'd rather leave this Earth knowing that I assisted my fellow man as best I could, than for spitting on them for being poor, disabled, infirmed, elderly, disadvantaged, or for that which puts them in any situation where they need financial or any other kind of help to survive.

You have absolutely no reason to define anyone a parasite, and shame on you for doing it.

February 16, 2011 at 8:56 a.m.
trburrows said...

imo voter fraud can certainly change an election. Memphis, georgia, miss, la, fl. if it couldn't change one, no one would do it. this would stop most of the fraud of the past and force them to come up with new ways. kinda like terroism.

February 16, 2011 at 8:59 a.m.
alprova said...

Hambone asked "Is there a epidemic of bogus voter registration cards?"


What an interesting question.

I've never carried my voter registration card to my polling place. I don't know how it works in other states, but in Georgia, without photo I.D. and without your information appearing in the registered voter lists, you don't get to vote. All your info has to match your photo I.D. too.

Bogus or fictitious voter registration cards would be worthless in Georgia.

February 16, 2011 at 9:02 a.m.
alprova said...

tr burrows wrote: "ALprova i dont think i can agree. you must have a photo id in this world."


Perhaps you might go back and read what I wrote to understand that you actually do agree with what I wrote.

February 16, 2011 at 9:08 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

Oh my goodness. Some of these comments are silly. Anyone who doesn't have a driver's license can go to the DMV and get an ID only card for cheaper than a driver's license. Do you mean to tell me they might have to give up a couple of packs of cigarettes or a few tacos from Taco Bell in order to vote? (A TN state issued ID card costs $8.00) Well, which is more important to that person?

If I know someone who genuinely cannot afford a state ID (as in they cannot afford practically any commodity that's less than $8.00), I will be happy to help them out so they can vote. By no means am I wealthy, but voting is important, and I could spare $8.00 for a friend who is truly in need.

February 16, 2011 at 9:19 a.m.
jgmason75 said...

SUMMARY OF BILL: Requires a voter to present one form of name and photographic identification when voting in person. Exempts from this requirement voters who fall within the scope of the emergency voting and nursing home voting statutes. Authorizes any voter unable to present proper dentification to vote through an established provisional ballot procedure. Authorizes any voter unable to obtain proper identification due to indigence or religious objection to execute an affidavit of identity prior to voting.

As anyone can see from the bill summary, taken from the State website, there will be ample opportunities for someone without photo ID to vote. If one cannot take any of the steps provided to vote, then I'm not sure if I would want them to take part in the process. Every time legislation like this comes up, liberals start to scream discrimination and racism. The truth is that in a democracy, you must have elections that are administered with integrity. Part of that integrity is making sure that only those registered to vote are casting their alloted one ballot per election.

February 16, 2011 at 9:20 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

No, in this cartoon, Clay is taking a shot at America for wanting only citizens to vote, smart or not. He thinks this country should be like Mexico or Iran or France where you cross the border, walk up to a polling station and vote because they allow ... wait. No other country in the world allows that. Who knows what Clay the Dimwit is thinking?

February 16, 2011 at 9:23 a.m.
trburrows said...

In this day and age, not having a photographic piece of identification is very unreasonable.

sorry alprova i thought something wrong at first but didnt see it. i see it now.

February 16, 2011 at 9:47 a.m.
trburrows said...

what threw me was the not and un in the same sentence.

February 16, 2011 at 9:49 a.m.
pmcauley said...

Wow Francis you really have a disconnect from reality.

The guy, Obama, graduated from Harvard Law School.

Have you finished your observations of our species and are waiting for the overload to pick you up to return to your planet? For god's sake leave you paranoia, open your eyes and try to see a little reality.

Francis insert your spittle laden response.

BTW I wouldn't show my university records either. It's none of your business.

pm

February 16, 2011 at 9:54 a.m.
potcat said...

Its like beating a dead horse Ml. They are going to do it regardless of blantant discriminatory hardship on a targeted voting group. My GrandMother is 97 yrs. young and has volonteered for over 50 yrs. at her voting precict. She did the last election.I just got off the phone with her asking her opinion on this and told her about the cartoon. Mother said its a bunch of JackAsses making another unneeded law. She said if a law MUST be it should be one that actually makes it easier for folks.I asked what she would do when asked for photo ID.she has not drove in a while.She said i will put a knot on that head and then knock it off. Of course she is kidding...I think.I have a concern she will be Tased one of these days. Ha HA

February 16, 2011 at 10:09 a.m.

I don't understand Claydo's and left's fear. Doesn't everyone want a more secure and fair election? Well?

February 16, 2011 at 10:36 a.m.
trburrows said...

potcat

your mother sounds like my grandmother. she lived to be 88 and worked the poles in east chatt in the 40s 50s and 60s. she was very quick to use common since to make laws and hated all repubs. indeed ha ha

February 16, 2011 at 10:44 a.m.
najones75 said...

Great response Alprova,

In the first diatribe, you essentially agree with the theory, but diagree with the results. You're entitled to your opinion, so ok. I disagree.

In the second, you do much of the same, but declare your views as "factual". Interesting. How did you come to that declaration? If you say so...

Finally, when all else fails, you resort to personal attacks because you disagree with my thoughts on entitlement programs. Start asking me to imagine myself in unrealistic situations. Okie-dokie.

I grew up in a poor, single-mother household, for which my mom worked two jobs to put food on the table, lived in a crappy duplex that we were very embarrassed of. There were no food stamps being used, there was no government issued health insurance, there was no welfare. She didn't want handouts. What she did want was a better life. She taught me that it didn't have to be that way. She stayed on my butt to stay in school, work hard and one day I could get a good job and have a good life.

If you don't like your situation, do something different. If you want more money, get a better job. If you want a better job or health insurance, go get educated (plenty of free school money for those that can't afford...and if you can't get that, get a student loan...its very well worth it...trust me) so that you can get the job that you want.

I have no sympathy for those that are baby'd their entire life...or have more kids to get more handouts...because they do not want to go do for themselves. It fosters laziness, they become dependent on those handouts, and then those who work hard...i.e you and me...end up supporting them until the day they die.

You call it heartless and selfish, I call it real life.

Good day

February 16, 2011 at 10:53 a.m.
hambone said...

I lived in California for a lttle while, but long enough to see what I think their problem is. A proposition here and a proposition there, trying to micro- manage everything.

Now I see the same thing happening to Tennessee.

Our wonderful state legislature seems to think that we are not trustworthy and that we have to be supervised to the inth degree.

Why should someone who is elderly, doesn't have a photo ID, be made to go pay for a ID?

Just seems to me to be a backdoor poll-tax!

They should be coming up with ways to increase voter turnout, rather the creating stumbling blocks!

February 16, 2011 at 10:54 a.m.
BobMKE said...

Since Wisconsin turned into a "Red State" last election a voter ID bill is again going through our Senate and House. (Our last Lib Governor kept vetoing it)Our bill will provide free ID cards to anyone who wants one. We presently have same day voter registration and it is possible that this policy may end.

February 16, 2011 at 11:22 a.m.
Clara said...

trbubrrows,polcat,

The only time I didn't vote was the era when my present state had a poll tax. It wasn't high, back in the 1940's, but it didn't sound right to me. New York, where I grew up, didn't have one and even though I didn't know politics from squat, and am admittedly still very ignorant, I knew something was wrong. I have no problem now with presenting a driver's license , although I do have a card somewhere in my mess.

Remind me to clean out my house and check to see if I'm registerd as a POO. C:-)

February 16, 2011 at 11:23 a.m.
nucanuck said...

I suspect that the voter fraud that we should fear most is in the counting,not in the casting.

February 16, 2011 at 11:46 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

Hambone, regarding your 10:54 post, you may want to reread

Username: jgmason75 | On: February 16, 2011 at 9:20 a.m.

"Just seems to me to be a backdoor poll-tax!"

What does that mean?

February 16, 2011 at 11:51 a.m.
nucanuck said...

How can a Party that is anti government regulation reconcile spending legislative time and effort on an issue that is more emotional than real. This is the same Party that a few months back,fought hard to avoid meaningful regulation of our out-of-control financial system.

February 16, 2011 at 12:32 p.m.

"Atlantic City Councilman Marty Small testifies others collected absentee ballots without him knowing in voter fraud case" (The Associated Press, Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 12:36 PM) http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/atlantic_city_councilman_marty_1.html

February 16, 2011 at 12:53 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

You're comparing federal to state. Different groups with different agendas. I'm not talking about the republican party agenda in general, but you are asking why one group of people will pass this law when a completely different group of people didn't want to pass laws regarding a completely differnt topic...

I think the difference is pretty obvious. The state law would prevent someone who might not be who they are claiming to be from casting an otherwise illegal vote. That isn't the same type of regulation as the financial regulations by any means.

February 16, 2011 at 1:03 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Andrew wrote that, "Democrats claim George Bush stole the election of A.D. 2000; Republicans claim JFK stole the election of A.D. 1960;"

His statement piqued my curiosity so I decided to look it up. I found a article written by David Greenburg which was published by 'Slate' in 2000. You can look it up yourself, but here as some of the key points:

“That Richard Nixon was cheated out of the presidency in 1960 has become almost an accepted fact. You've probably heard the allegations: Kennedy's operatives fixed the tallies in Texas and Illinois, giving him those states' 51 electoral votes and a majority in the Electoral College. Fearing that to question the results would harm the Country, Nixon checked his pride and declined to mount a challenge.

“The race was indeed close—the closest of the century. Kennedy received only 113,000 votes more than Nixon out of the 68 million ballots cast. His 303-219 electoral-vote margin obscured the fact that many states besides Texas and Illinois could have gone either way. California's 32 electoral votes, for example, originally fell into Kennedy's column, but Nixon claimed them on Nov. 17 after absentee ballots were added.

“…while Nixon publicly pooh-poohed a challenge, his allies did dispute the results—aggressively.

“The Republicans pressed their case doggedly.They succeeded in obtaining recounts, empanelling grand juries, and involving U.S. attorneys and the FBI. Appeals were heard, claims evaluated, evidence weighed. The New York Times considered the charges in a Nov. 26 editorial. (Its bold verdict: "It is now imperative that the results in each state be definitively settled by the time the Electoral College meets.")

Kennedy won in Texas and took the 24 Electoral votes by 46,000. In Illinois, Kennedy only won by 9,000 votes, but he took Chicago by a suspicious 450,000 votes.

“Completed Dec. 9, the (Illinois) recount of 863 precincts showed that the original tally had undercounted Nixon's votes, but only by 943, far from the 4,500 needed to alter the results. In fact, in 40 percent of the rechecked precincts, Nixon's vote was overcounted.”

“A recount did wind up changing the winner in one state: Hawaii. On Dec. 28, a circuit court judge ruled that the state—originally called Kennedy's but awarded to Nixon after auditing errors emerged—belonged to Kennedy after all. Nixon's net gain: -3 electoral votes.”

The 'Slate' article went on to point out that just because the GOP failed in their efforts didn’t mean the election was clean. Three men in Chicago were jailed for election-related crimes. Another 677 were indicted before being acquitted by Judge John M. Karns, a Daley crony.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court halted the recount in Florida. The winner of that state's election would earn a majority in the Electoral College. By doing so, the Court put a man in the White House who may have actually lost. Sadly, we'll never know for sure which perpetuates the controversy.

February 16, 2011 at 1:23 p.m.

"Falsified registrations become votes" by JOHN FUND (Politico, 11/2/08) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15189.html

February 16, 2011 at 1:24 p.m.
trburrows said...

outstanding bw.

February 16, 2011 at 1:45 p.m.

“Two Democrats indicted in Troy ballot scam case” by Kenneth C. Crowe Ii and Bob Gardinier (Troy Times Union, January 28, 2011)

(http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Two-Democrats-indicted-in-Troy-ballot-scam-case-982948.php#ixzz1E9L6HwYr)

“The men are accused of systematically forging signatures on absentee ballots at either the county office building or somewhere in the city during the buildup to the Sept. 15, 2009 Working Families Party primary. Many of the questionable ballots were filed under the names of students and some of the city's poorest residents, many who live in Troy Housing Authority apartments.

"Many are the less fortunate of Rensselaer County. A good number do not speak English as a first language and have difficulty communicating in English. One is deaf and can communicate effectively only in sign language,’ Smith said describing the victims.”

February 16, 2011 at 1:59 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “You got it straight. You understand the new law perfectly . . . BUT, what do you think about the new law?”

Well, Harp3339, I feel if these elected officials believe that a government issued picture ID is critical to secure the integrity of the voting process, it is incumbant upon these same officials to take money from the State treasury – taxpayer dollars of the people of Tennessee – to cover the cost of a government issued I.D. for every voter in the State of Tennessee, as needed.

If the State of Tennessee’s treasury is short on funds, the voters in Tennessee should be given FIRST PRIORITY not the LAST PRIORITY. Clearly, the voting process plays a critical role in maintaining our way of governing and every official elected to serve the people in the State of Tennessee should have a deep respect for the voters and the election process.

Indeed, any elected official who truly respected the voters in the State of Tennesse, the election process, and America’s way of governing, would feel that expeditures for these government issued photo ID cards would be far more important than other expenditures such as the money taken out of the Tennessee's treasury for their own salaries, vacation pay, and health benefit packages.

So, Harp3339, what is my thinking about the new law? I’d say the new law pretty much shows a shortage of integrity, deficiency in respect, and depletion of morals.

February 16, 2011 at 2:08 p.m.
alprova said...

Najones whined: "In the first diatribe, you essentially agree with the theory, but diagree with the results. You're entitled to your opinion, so ok. I disagree.

In the second, you do much of the same, but declare your views as "factual". Interesting. How did you come to that declaration? If you say so..."


You proved it to be a fact. Thank you very much.


"Finally, when all else fails, you resort to personal attacks because you disagree with my thoughts on entitlement programs. Start asking me to imagine myself in unrealistic situations. Okie-dokie."


If what I wrote can be defined as a "personal attack," then you need to grow some thicker skin. You have your nose stuck so high in the air at the moment, I'm not sure if you are in any condition to walk.


"I grew up in a poor, single-mother household, for which my mom worked two jobs to put food on the table, lived in a crappy duplex that we were very embarrassed of. There were no food stamps being used, there was no government issued health insurance, there was no welfare...(snip)"


Gee...I'm sorry. I came from a very wealthy home and an even wealthier extended family. I used to have gobs of money that I earned myself. Nope...no welfare or food stamps either.

The point being Sir, is that you can still do everything you can right and stick that nose straight up in the air, but your life is never totally in your hands.

I spent it all and had to start my life all over again at the age of 47 when my wife was hit head-on by an idiot from Alabama. I was insured to the hilt but could do nothing when my health insurer sent me a little 'eff you' letter notifying me that they were immediately and without reason, canceling a policy in place for a decade. I have every copy of every check I wrote, proving that a half-million dollars went to save the live of my wife.


"If you don't like your situation, do something different. If you want more money, get a better job. (snip)"


It's not that simple for everyone and you should know it.

Some people have roots and obligations that cannot be put on hold and that better job is forever elusive to some.


"I have no sympathy for those that are baby'd their entire life...or have more kids to get more handouts...because they do not want to go do for themselves. It fosters laziness, they become dependent on those handouts, and then those who work hard...i.e you and me...end up supporting them until the day they die.

You call it heartless and selfish, I call it real life."


Your problem is that you lump all people who receive entitlements into the same category with those you describe above.

I separate those people by stating categorically, that if one is physically able to work, they should work...period.

I do not consider the elderly, the infirmed, the ill, or the physically disabled, to be "lazy."

From all that you offer, apparently you do.

February 16, 2011 at 2:12 p.m.
eel said...

whatswrongwitheworld: Politico?!?! -----> that partisan/propaganda/pushing/phony/publiction is your source?!?! LOL!!

February 16, 2011 at 2:41 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

eel is obviously a member of the liberal mafia. He attacked, and rightly so, an article WWWTW cited investigating fraudulent voter registration attributed to ACORN.

The article supports stricter voter identification requirements. The article points out:

"There are already documented examples of fraudulent registrations being converted into fraudulent votes in Ohio, where ACORN and other groups were active. Darrell Nash, an ACORN registration worker, submitted an illegal form for himself and then cast a paper ballot during the state's "early voting" period."

How can you stand up in support Liberalism, eel? Why don't you move to Chicago where they steal elections fair and square?

February 16, 2011 at 3:01 p.m.
trburrows said...

how can you steal an election fair and square??? ha ha

February 16, 2011 at 3:06 p.m.
Walden said...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahooooohhhhoooohhhhhaaahhhaaahhhahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahahheeeeheheehehehehehehehooohhhohohohohhhhhhhaaahahahahahahahahahahha... whew.... hahahahahahahahahahahahahooooohhhhoooohhhhhaaahhhaaahhhahahahahahahahahahahdhfaldfhahhahahahahahahheeeeheheehehehehehehehooohhhohohohohhhhhhhaaahahahahahahahahahahha... hhhh, hhh,hh... hahahahahahahahahahahahahooooohhhhoooohhhhhaaahhhaaahhhahahahahahahahahahahdhfaldfhahhahahahahahahheeeeheheehehehehehehehooohhhohohohohhhhhhhaaahahahahahahahahahahha... hnnh, hnnh, hnnh... whew..hhh...

hardehar, hardehar har har...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahooooohhhhoooohhhhhaaahhhaaahhhahahahahahahahahahahdhfaldfhahhahahahahahahheeeeheheehehehehehehehooohhhohohohohhhhhhhaaahahahahahahahahahahha hahahahahahahahahahahahahooooohhhhoooohhhhhaaahhhaaahhhahahahahahahahahahahdhfaldfhahhahahahahahahheeeeheheehehehehehehehooohhhohohohohhhhhhhaaahahahahahahahahahahha hahahahahahahahahahahahahooooohhhhoooohhhhhaaahhhaaahhhahahahahahahahahahahdhfaldfhahhahahahahahahheeeeheheehehehehehehehooohhhohohohohhhhhhhaaahahahahahahahahahahha hahahahahahahahahahahahahooooohhhhoooohhhhhaaahhhaaahhhahahahahahahahahahahdhfaldfhahhahahahahahahheeeeheheehehehehehehehooohhhohohohohhhhhhhaaahahahahahahahahahahha hahahahahahahahahahahahahooooohhhhoooohhhhhaaahhhaaahhhahahahahahahahahahahdhfaldfhahhahahahahahahheeeeheheehehehehehehehooohhhohohohohhhhhhhaaahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahooooohhhhoooohhhhhaaahhhaaahhhahahahahahahahahahahdhfaldfhahhahahahahahahheeeeheheehehehehehehehooohhhohohohohhhhhhhaaahahahahahahahahahahha... ho, hohhhh... stop, please, stop...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahooooohhhhoooohhhhhaaahhhaaahhhahahahahahahahahahahdhfaldfhahhahahahahahahheeeeheheehehehehehehehooohhhohohohohhhhhhhaaahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahooooohhhhoooohhhhhaaahhhaaahhhahahahahahahahahahahdhfaldfhahhahahahahahahheeeeheheehehehehehehehooohhhohohohohhhhhhhaaahahahahahahahahahahha... my sides are splitting, stop...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahooooohhhhoooohhhhhaaahhhaaahhhahahahahahahahahahahdhfaldfhahhahahahahahahheeeeheheehehehehehehehooohhhohohohohhhhhhhaaahahahahahahahahahahha, etc. etc.

February 16, 2011 at 3:41 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Nucanuck said: "How can making it harder to vote improve America?"

In view of this new law, it's become fairly obvious that Tennessee's elected officials are not interested in improving America or the State of Tennessee, Nucanuck.

The sole reason for this new law is to make it more difficult for the elderly, the disabled, lower income and poverty level citizens to vote in upcoming elections.

And why are they doing this? Because many of these same elected officials are trying to put the bulk of the country’s debts on the backs of elderly, disabled, lower-income, and poverty level persons.

Indeed, the majority of these elected officials fully understand that if great numbers of elderly, disabled, lower-income, and poverty level persons should manage to get to the voting booth, there is a high probability that these elected officials will be kicked out of office.

February 16, 2011 at 4:15 p.m.
najones75 said...

Al wrote: "You proved it to be a fact. Thank you very much."

Nothing to even say to that. "I'm right, you're wrong" is a stellar approach.

Al wrote: "If what I wrote can be defined as a "personal attack," then you need to grow some thicker skin. You have your nose stuck so high in the air at the moment, I'm not sure if you are in any condition to walk."

You can call me stuck up, a "short-sighted, self-aggrandizing peon"...whatever you want. I couldn't care less. Its your strategy, not mine. Again, stellar approach and has absolutely nothing to do with the issues...but, pretty standard for liberals.

Al wrote: "It's not that simple for everyone and you should know it."

Who said that anything, more importantly that life, was simple? No, its far from simple...but very possible, with adequate effort.

Al wrote: "Your problem is that you lump all people who receive entitlements into the same category with those you describe above."

No my liberal counter-part, you did. Not once did I say anything about any of the other groups. In fact, I was pretty specific about the type of person I was talking about. There will always be social programs, but I think Washington has taken it to a ridiculous level, with no end in sight. Because I don't agree with the level, I'm labeled as stuck-up, heartless, etc etc etc. Anybody who disagrees with anything you say is some sort of negative term.

Whatever. Wish I had more time to go back-and-forth, but I've got this thing called a job that I have to go back to.

February 16, 2011 at 4:22 p.m.

"ACORN defendant gets probation" by Francis McCabe (Las Vegas Review-Journal, January 10, 2011)

http://www.lvrj.com/news/last-individual-in-acorn-voter-registration-case-gets-probation-113245739.html

February 16, 2011 at 4:43 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

State issued I.D. cards cost $9.50 and is good for 5 years, which is $1.90 per year.
http://www.state.tn.us/safety/driverlicense/dllicensefees.htm

If you're over 65, it never expires, so if you live to be 85, it'll cost you $0.475 per year.

Everyone is also required to wear clothing when entering a voting place. Good luck clothing yourself for such a cheap price. One also has to be physically present to vote and if you can't afford $1.90 a year for an I.D., how the heck are you going to get yourself to the polls.

Along the same line of thought, how do people get by without a photo I.D. anyway. I have to produce one in all kinds of situations.


The motivation behind this law is not to exclude any legitimate voters, but to help ensure the integrity of the election process.

I'm dumbfounded that anyone would oppose this idea, unless fair elections are not really what they desire.

The cost of a photo I.D. is minuscule, even to the poorest among us.

February 16, 2011 at 5:29 p.m.
alprova said...

Najones75 wrote: "Nothing to even say to that. "I'm right, you're wrong" is a stellar approach."


There's not much you could say to that. You've offered more than enough proof already.


"You can call me stuck up, a "short-sighted, self-aggrandizing peon"...whatever you want. I couldn't care less. Its your strategy, not mine. Again, stellar approach and has absolutely nothing to do with the issues...but, pretty standard for liberals."


Look, you wrote what you wrote. To call it what it obviously was, and then for you to be offended because of it, is quite pathetic.

Perhaps in the future, you might take care to not drop generic bombs, but then I'm not sure that it matters. You haven't retreated one inch from your original post. That more than confirms that you are exactly as I sized you up.


"Who said that anything, more importantly that life, was simple? No, its far from simple...but very possible, with adequate effort."


You're typing the exact things I used to type a decade ago. Contrary to all, I hope you never have to endure a life correction and that you die believing to your last breath all that you have espoused, but I wouldn't bank on it.

Karma will bring you to your knees, just as it did me.


"No my liberal counter-part, you did. Not once did I say anything about any of the other groups."


You're kidding, right? If that's the game you're going to play, then we're through. You're not that stupid and neither am I.


"In fact, I was pretty specific about the type of person I was talking about."


The heck you were.


"There will always be social programs, but I think Washington has taken it to a ridiculous level, with no end in sight. Because I don't agree with the level, I'm labeled as stuck-up, heartless, etc etc etc. Anybody who disagrees with anything you say is some sort of negative term."


Hey, you wrote it.


"Whatever. Wish I had more time to go back-and-forth, but I've got this thing called a job that I have to go back to."


I have lots of time to go back and forth today because I don't have to work that hard to make a living anymore. People come to me and pay me outrageous sums of money for my expertise, wisdom, and guidance.

I'm hoping to make double what I did this year, so that I can write checks to the IRS and the State of Georgia, for amounts that double what I will have to this year.

February 16, 2011 at 5:33 p.m.
alprova said...

Scotty wrote: "The motivation behind this law is not to exclude any legitimate voters, but to help ensure the integrity of the election process."


Tell me then how presenting a photo I.D. does that. If they are a felon, with a photo I.D., and they have been culled from the registration list for being a felon, how could they vote anyway?

This is yet another exclusionary attempt, in the hope that those most likely to vote for Democrats, will not hear about it, and be denied voting privileges come 2012. It's a farce, but a legal one.

The Republicans think now that they think that ACORN is no longer a force to deal with, they are now going after using any and all other tactics available to deny other voters the means to vote for Democrats.


"I'm dumbfounded that anyone would oppose this idea, unless fair elections are not really what they desire."


I don't necessarily oppose it, but it will become a factor in denying legitimate voters their right to vote, rather than to fix anything currently wrong with the electoral system in Tennessee, currently in existence.

Where has the fraud been occurring in Tennessee?


"The cost of a photo I.D. is minuscule, even to the poorest among us."


You can say that, but you've never spent a minute, I will bet, speaking with someone trying to survive on a grand a month, who is trying to keep a roof over their head, food in their mouth, and medicine to keep them alive, not to mention their utility bills paid.

Eight bucks to them is like a c-note to you. Try living on a grand a month for one month. You'd never make it.

February 16, 2011 at 5:52 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

NaJones75 Said: “I have no sympathy for those that are baby'd...or have more kids to get more handouts...because they do not want to go do for themselves. It fosters laziness, they become dependent on those handouts.”

I believe you’re overlooking a couple of important points, NaJones75. But, perhaps, the most critical thing you’re not addressing is that the bulk of money that the U.S. spends on safety net programs is centered on young children who are not responsible for their poverty, the condidtion of their lives, the amount of food on their table, the size of their family, and/or the conduct of their parents.

The reality is that every child is stuck with the parents that they have – good, bad, abusive or indifferent. Clearly, you were fortunate to have a good parent who taught you well, put food on your table, made sure you stayed in school, and showed you a way out the poverty you described in your post. But, surely, you must understand that not every child has your good fortune.

February 16, 2011 at 5:52 p.m.
alprova said...

Nojones75 is also forgetting other certain realities that exist on this planet.

If all it took for people to become totally independent in life and to never have to depend on another soul for assistance, was to work hard, then life would be fine for everyone. But that is not the case.

A policeman's family of four might be on the right track, but then one night he is shot in the line of duty and dies instantly. The three remaining family members lives are changed instantly and forever.

Najones75, what might have happened to you, if your mother were struck down with terminal cancer when you were 10? How different would your life have been?

My life was humming along rather well until the night I received a call from an officer at the scene of my wife's car crash. It's going to be alright, but I am a changed man and a BETTER man, because of it.

Don't ever think that you are in complete control of your own destiny and that you are bullet proof. Life will change that for you in a blink of an eye.

I take nothing for granted and never will again.

February 16, 2011 at 6:09 p.m.
Francis said...

only a democrat who believes voter fraud is fine as long it gets their candidate in office would oppose an ID for voters. democrats own voter corruption..so of course they'll oppose an ID.

the same mentality is responisble for illegal aliens being able to roam free while we citizens have to constantly show ID.

February 16, 2011 at 6:32 p.m.
Clara said...

You can say that, but you've never spent a minute, I will bet, speaking with someone trying to survive on a grand a month, who is trying to keep a roof over their head, food in their mouth, and medicine to keep them alive, not to mention their utility bills paid.

Eight bucks to them is like a c-note to you. Try living on a grand a month for one month. You'd never make it. Username: alprova | On: February 16, 2011 at 5:52 p.m.

Thanks Al. I'm one of them!

February 16, 2011 at 6:43 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Al,

"Tell me then how presenting a photo I.D. does that." r.e. "ensure the integrity of the election process."

It will help prevent anyone who is not registered under their own name from voting. Nothing more.


"This is yet another exclusionary attempt, in the hope that those most likely to vote for Democrats, will not hear about it, and be denied voting privileges come 2012."

So, Al, are you saying that those folks who are uninformed and/or ignorant are most likely to vote Democrat? If so, I agree.


"it will become a factor in denying legitimate voters their right to vote"

How? If you are a legitimate voter, with a photo I.D. proving you are who you claim to be, this law will do nothing to inhibit your vote.


"Try living on a grand a month for one month."

I've lived on considerably less, for much more than a month.

I can go wandering around downtown for a few hours and pick $10 worth of change off the ground.

Setting aside the proceeds from 1.5 hours of work at minimum wage, over the course of five years, is NOT a significant burden for anyone who is physically able, and those who are not physically able can set aside $10 of the free money they receive from folks like you and me in the form of government handouts.

February 16, 2011 at 6:49 p.m.
fairmon said...

mountainlaurel,

We agree on this issue. I would attribute the failure to lack of appreciation for the situation of many without a picture ID. As noted earlier, being elected does not equal intelligence, capability or common sense.

February 16, 2011 at 6:50 p.m.
nucanuck said...

Scottym,identification has always been required to vote and I find it surprising to find you in favor of additional government voter regulation,especially in an area with a tiny implied infraction rate.

Now that you have crossed that bridge of acknowledgement that regulation has it's place,I hope you will become a champion of much needed real financial reform and regulation.

February 16, 2011 at 7:43 p.m.
fairmon said...

nucanuck,

I just read the budget and the proposed cuts as a percent of the budget. If we take the same aggressive approach with our monthly household budget we will have to cut back 3 cents per thousand. In other words my $4,000 per month budget will have to be cut by 12 cents per month. I guess I will suck it up and do without something.

February 16, 2011 at 7:53 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “being elected does not equal intelligence, capability or common sense.”

We agree on this as well, Harp3339. I've come to the conclusion that political campaigns have become more about money and image. And the image of a political candidate is something created by some unknown political election specialist - the source of the money is also unknown.

February 16, 2011 at 8:02 p.m.

“3 District 29 poll workers indicted: Accused of faking votes to help elect Ophelia Ford” by Marc Perrusquia (Memphis Commercial Appeal, June 22, 2006)
http://web.archive.org/web/20060723210829/http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/local/article/0,2845,MCA_25340_4792646,00.html

“Three Shelby County election workers faked votes in an effort to throw last fall's District 29 state Senate race to Ophelia Ford, prosecutors alleged Wednesday.

“Unsealing an indictment that charges the trio with illegal voting, making false entries and other crimes, Shelby County Dist. Atty. Gen. Bill Gibbons said the workers at now-dissolved Precinct 27-1 forged at least three votes, including two in the names of dead voters …

"There was an effort on the part of certain individuals in Precinct 27-1 to cast some illegal votes for Miss Ford, but I stress that there was nothing to indicate that she knew anything about that,'' Gibbons told reporters …

“The trio faces a combined 37 counts -- all but two of them felonies -- alleging they forged a variety of election documents to not only fake votes but to make it appear that two poll workers who didn't work were present for the Sept 15 election …

“The indictment alleges the poll workers forged votes in the names of Light and Kirkwood and also in the name of a third voter -- still alive -- who records show had moved out of the district.

“The election results came under intense scrutiny after Ford defeated Republican challenger Terry Roland by 13 votes in an election in which 8,748 ballots were cast …

“Reviewing that list, the newspaper found that voter Light, 70, a folk artist with a registered address at 607 Looney, hadn't lived there in years. Now a vacant lot, Light's home had been foreclosed in 2000 and razed.

“Then came a greater discovery -- Light had died of colon cancer on Aug. 6, six weeks before the election. The newspaper then discovered a ballot was cast in the name of a second dead voter, Archie L. Kirkwood, 72, who died Aug. 30 of hypertensive cardiovascular disease.

“Despite their deaths, the signatures of both voters were written into the poll book on Sept. 15 at the Precinct 27-1 polling place on Danny Thomas in North Memphis …

“In the case of Light, McClatcher filled out the ballot application while Mayo signed Light's name into the poll book and cast a ballot in the voting machine, the indictment alleges. Mayo and Otteridge faked the vote for Kirkwood, the indictment says.

“The indictment charges Mayo and Otteridge also allowed voter Markesha Hinton to vote in the name of LaToya Wilson, Otteridge's daughter.

“Prosecutors also filed felony charges against three felons who cast ballots in the Sept. 15 election …”

February 16, 2011 at 8:39 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

nn,

When have I ever stated that NO regulations is the ideal situation?

Never, that's when. You're poking at a caricature.

I have a few more regulations I'd like to see. Here are a few off the top of my head.

1) If you do not pay taxes, you do not get to vote. Only those who help fund the government should have a say in it's operation. (Paying sales taxes with money received from government handouts does not count.)

2) If you receive any sort of government assistance, you should be subject to random drug testing. If you fail, you lose your assistance forever.

3) If you are ever convicted of a violent crime you are forever barred from voting or receiving government assistance.

4) If you receive government assistance and are capable of even rudimentary physical or intellectual labor, you should be required to participate in community service projects for 40 hours per week, 50 weeks a year.

5) If you are imprisoned for violent crimes, you should spend your entire sentence sleeping on a concrete floor, busting rocks, and eating the absolute cheapest food which can be sourced up. You should be treated like the animal you are.

6) If you live in government subsidized housing, you should be subject to random inspections of the premises and immediate eviction if the dwelling is not clean and neat as a whistle.

7) If you have children in public schools who are consistently disruptive in class you should be fined $100 for every minute of the teachers time spent disciplining your poorly raised demon spawn. If you can not afford to pay the fine, it will be deducted from your government assistance funds, or you can work it off at minimum wage doing odd jobs around the school.

8) If you own a business and make poor decisions, you suffer the consequences. You do not receive a single penny of bailout bucks or government backed loans from the taxpaying folks who did not make such poor decisions.

9) If you sign credit documents to buy things that you clearly can not afford, you still have to pay. How you get the money is your problem as you should have considered the consequences before signing. You will get NO assistance from the responsible taxpayers. If you have to sell everything you own, live in a box down by the river and work 3 jobs, so be it.

10) If you are convicted of fraudulent business dealings you should be forever barred from voting, owning or managing another business, or running for elected office.

I could go on.

Showing a $10 I.D. card when voting, to help ensure the legitimacy of our elections, is small beans.

February 16, 2011 at 8:48 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

I've been around the block often enough to know that one of the easiest ways to game the election system is to have the same person vote at multiple polling places using various fraudulent registrations.

That only one side of the political spectrum is whining about closing the gap that could allow this to happen speaks volumes about their respect for the idea of a fairly elected government.


If someone would like to start up a charity organization to help anyone who really can't come up with $10 and make it to a TDOS office to get an state I.D. card, I'll be happy to donate a few hundred dollars.

It won't happen as that is NOT the real issue.

February 16, 2011 at 8:49 p.m.

“Judge: Let's air details of fraud. Public has right, Colton says in Ophelia Ford election case” by Marc Perrusquia (Memphis Commercial Appeal, May 22, 2007) http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2007/may/22/judge-lets-air-details-of-fraud/

“A judge said Monday he thinks the public is owed a more detailed explanation about an alleged plot by three poll workers to throw a 2005 election to Ophelia Ford, now a state senator.

“Shelby County Criminal Court Judge John P. Colton took guilty pleas earlier this month from the three election workers who avoided jail time in a deal with prosecutors.

“The workers admitted to voting fraud charges against them, yet never said what motivated them to fake at least three votes, two of them cast in the names of dead people …

“In a plea deal entered May 10, alleged ringleader Verline Mayo admitted to 10 felonies, including voter fraud, making false entries on election documents and official misconduct. Mayo, 70, received the stiffest sentence: two years' probation, $1,000 in fines and 200 hours of community service.

“Codefendants Gertrude Otteridge, 65, and Mary McClatcher, 53, pleaded guilty to one felony and one misdemeanor each and were sentenced to one year probation plus fines and community service …

“The irregularities occurred in North Memphis' heavily Democratic Precinct 27-1, where Mayo had served as an Election Day poll boss for decades. The Shelby County Election Commission has since abolished the precinct, merging it with an adjacent one …”

February 16, 2011 at 8:52 p.m.

Everyone except the most hopelessly partisan Democrats knows what happens on election day in Tennessee. There's enough money being passed around to buy every eligible poor person a trunk full of IDs.

February 16, 2011 at 8:57 p.m.

Wait a minute. The most hopelessly partisan Democrats know better than ANYONE what goes on.

February 16, 2011 at 9:01 p.m.
jpo3136 said...

It's not about voting. It looks like it at first, but I don't think it is.

Voting is the stimulus. The response these guys want, as a result of their claims, is money.

It opens with voting as an idea.

Let me tell you who can't afford the $10, won't have a current photo ID, and who votes: old people.

1 out of 6 people in our state are on food assistance. It's not a bunch of 20 year old guys who are lazy, contrary to the platitudes that get passed around as wisdom. A huge number of our old people cannot feed themselves. They live on their government check; they don't have ten bucks; and, no, they don't have a photo ID that looks like them at 73 years old.

But, they vote.

They also have one of the larger and more powerful lobbies in the US. So, I would suggest that by offering a law that would make the AARP uncomfortable, what Republican lawmakers are trying to do is get their attention.

What do politicians get when they have a lobbyist's attention? Money. For advertising.

This has little to do with the actual process of voting. Notice how you can offer your Tennessee Driver's License at any polling place, and they will use it to check their records. It's their records, more than what piece of paper or plastic a voter possesses, that vouches for the voter.

It's not about voting. It's about getting money by prodding old people and getting them to complain to their lobby, like the AARP.

The lobby would likely respond with a bribe like an ad endorsement or some cash or resources or whatever gets more ads for the politician.

If they don't, well, no matter: the proposal has no bearing on what actually happens at a polling place anyway. Driver's licenses are already accepted as a means of reporting the other, required, information. Then the politician can quietly drop his polling place claim; he will have already appeared patriotic by looking like he cares about the integrity of the process.

Another fake crisis manufactured by Republicans to get themselves some money. Their preferred fictions usually come wrapped in an American flag. That way they get the cash, and look great, too.

It's about ad money, not voting.

Reject this idea on both counts. Send the Republican lawmakers back to the drawing board. Insist that they do something for their voters instead of using their office to collect money for themselves.

February 16, 2011 at 10:01 p.m.
acerigger said...

"Everyone except the most hopelessly partisan Democrats knows what happens on election day in Tennessee. There's enough money being passed around to buy every eligible poor person a trunk full of IDs" Username: whats_wrong_with_the_world | On: February 16, 2011 at 8:57 p.m Is that why we have a GOP governor and a GOP state legislature?

February 16, 2011 at 10:09 p.m.

jpo3136 wrote: "...he will have already appeared patriotic by looking like he cares about the integrity of the process ...Another fake crisis ... Their preferred fictions usually come wrapped in an American flag. That way they get the cash, and look great, too."

I'll bet the next howler you'll be sending up is that the T.E.A. really has the best interests of students at heart.

February 16, 2011 at 10:14 p.m.

acerigger wrote: "Is that why we have a GOP governor and a GOP state legislature?"

Almost. Their ringleaders keep getting sent to jail. (The Memphis trio. Tennessee Waltz. Ray Blanton. Bookie Turner's ghost.) It's the GOP's only chance.

That, and having an intern as commander-in-chief.

February 16, 2011 at 10:20 p.m.
trburrows said...

the sharpest knife in the drawer right now is scottym by far. all else sucks.

February 16, 2011 at 10:20 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

jpo3136,

You sure put a lot of work into such a feeble attempt at reasoning.

How exactly, in your fantasy world, do those old folks cash those government checks w/o a valid photo I.D.?

Next, it is plainly obvious that offending the elderly voters would not result in an influx of cash from their lobbying organizations as you claim. In fact, just the opposite would occur. Those political organizations would launch ads and lobbying efforts with the goal of defeating the offending pols.

Finally, any old folks who retired with their only plan for survival being sugar daddy's SS payments, is in a predicament of their own making and will elicit zero sympathy from folks like me who fund those payments with no realistic expectation of ever seeing one red cent of return in our own retirement 30 or 40 years from now. The currently retired and soon to be retired folks in this country are the ones who allowed our current local, federal and state governments to become the ravenous, wealth eating monsters that they are and it is they who are now paying the price for their own ignorant embrace of a socialist system where daddy government is expected to take care of everyone at everyone else's expense.

February 16, 2011 at 10:50 p.m.

WWWTW wrote: "That, and having an intern as commander-in-chief."

That was mean. I respect him as commander-in-chief.

__ I am ____V

February 16, 2011 at 10:51 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Scotty wondered, "How exactly, in your fantasy world, do those old folks cash those government checks w/o a valid photo I.D.?"

Direct deposit.

Then he pondered, "Finally, any old folks who retired with their only plan for survival being sugar daddy's SS payments, is in a predicament of their own making and will elicit zero sympathy from folks like me who fund those payments with no realistic expectation of ever seeing one red cent of return in our own retirement 30 or 40 years from now."

You've mixed different issues to make one statement but I'll do my best to sort it out.

First, you assume retired people only have SS to live on. Some do, some don't. But you ignore the fact that these people paid into the program. If you don't contribute while you're working you don't collect when you retire. Finally, you also assume that SS will go broke in 30 or 40 years. Hand ringing dire predictions from the hard right as a means of dissolving the program and investing the money on Wall Street in hedge funds or derivatives (whatever that really is), or whatever.

Republicans have been repeating the same sky is falling predictions since Social Security began, but some specific issues were dealt with by our political leaders in the past. In 1983, for example, Ronald Reagan signed off on Social Security reform legislation that accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that high income earners pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

Maybe you didn't know Reagan increased taxes. He got away with it because he called it "revenue enhancement" but taxes increased $165 billion over seven years and Social Security was "saved."

Anyway, we've face serious problems in the past and serious leaders have had to deal with them.

We face serious problems in future, too, but the toxic atmosphere in Washington today seems to be clouding everyone's judgement.

February 16, 2011 at 11:39 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Direct deposit."

Sorry bdub, but one needs to show valid I.D. to set up a bank account. That same I.D. can be used at the polls.

"First, you assume retired people only have SS to live on."

I assumed nothing of the sort. I was discussing that those hypothetical folks who can not scrounge up $10 to get a state I.D. card must not have socked away anything on their own if they indeed can not lay their hands on $10. So what you're saying is that they receive SS AND, additionally, have personal retirement funds yet still can not raise $10? B.S.

"Finally, you also assume that SS will go broke in 30 or 40 years."

Yes, that's because I have a very firm grasp upon the ancient art of mathematics. The total, unfunded SS liabilities(promised benefits) at this point are larger than the entire US federal debt and growing every single day. There are ZERO dollars in the SS "trust fund", only IOUs which must be paid back with dollars from the general fund, which is in shambles. SS payouts are already exceeding SS revenues and the situation is only going to get worse as the cry-baby-boomers retire en mass.

"...required the self employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees."

Yes, I just love paying double the percentage as folks who cannot, or will not, create their own job. Luckily, they get the same supposed payout at retirement, while paying in half the amount for a given income. Nice.

Again, ZERO sympathy from me. I'd love to keep the 15 odd % I pay in and invest it as I see fit instead. At least then I wouldn't be at the mercy of the idiots in D.C.

February 17, 2011 at 12:15 a.m.
canarysong said...

blackwater48 said "Maybe you didn't know Reagan increased taxes".

He did indeed, eleven times to be exact. Funny how this is never remembered by those who cry 'foul' whenever tax increases are mentioned now.

February 17, 2011 at 12:27 a.m.
alprova said...

Scotty wrote: "It will help prevent anyone who is not registered under their own name from voting. Nothing more."


Now THAT'S the truth. I don't think however that what you describe has been a problem to any degree worth noting. And of course, that's not the way it was sold to the public by the legislators, was it?

No...it's all about stopping those convicted of a felony from being able to vote.


"So, Al, are you saying that those folks who are uninformed and/or ignorant are most likely to vote Democrat? If so, I agree."


That doesn't deserve a response as you have presented it.


"How? If you are a legitimate voter, with a photo I.D. proving you are who you claim to be, this law will do nothing to inhibit your vote."


Scott, I'm not going to fence with you over this. You know doggone well what is going on, why it was proposed and what the end result will be.

And it sure isn't about keeping felons from voting.


"..."Try living on a grand a month for one month."

I've lived on considerably less, for much more than a month."


When...30 years ago? You're so full of it.


"I can go wandering around downtown for a few hours and pick $10 worth of change off the ground."


Sure you can.


"Setting aside the proceeds from 1.5 hours of work at minimum wage, over the course of five years, is NOT a significant burden for anyone who is physically able, and those who are not physically able can set aside $10 of the free money they receive from folks like you and me in the form of government handouts."


It's a moot point to discuss this with you. They way things are going and considering the sentiment that is growing among people like yourself, the poor, the elderly, and the blacks who can't find sufficient employment, will all be dead and gone anyway within the next two years.

The Republicans are going to try with all their might to cut them off completely or to the point where they will not survive.

Pardon me while I go throw up.

February 17, 2011 at 2:34 a.m.
alprova said...

Scotty wrote: "Finally, any old folks who retired with their only plan for survival being sugar daddy's SS payments, is in a predicament of their own making and will elicit zero sympathy from folks like me who fund those payments with no realistic expectation of ever seeing one red cent of return in our own retirement 30 or 40 years from now."


I knew you were a punk. You just confirmed it by expressing your retirement timeline. You have no clue, but you have the Conservative talking heads influencing your thought patterns and fingers when you type.

My suggestion to you would be to start siring some offspring. You might also jump on the bandwagon to legitimize every illegal immigrant in the country now and invite a bunch more to join in paying those taxes that will be needed to support your benefits when you retire.

Never mind. It's going to happen whether you like it or not. And don't bore me with this, "I'm not going to accept a Social Security check." You will, just like every other American does.

You'll cry and moan just like everyone else who has a fit when their supplemental plan provider hikes the rate $25 a month.


"The currently retired and soon to be retired folks in this country are the ones who allowed our current local, federal and state governments to become the ravenous, wealth eating monsters that they are and it is they who are now paying the price for their own ignorant embrace of a socialist system where daddy government is expected to take care of everyone at everyone else's expense."


Man are you a whiner, and you don't even know what you are typing about.

As an American, you pay the lowest percentage in taxes, per dollar earned in income, than others who earn comparable incomes throughout the entire world. And still you whine.

Do some research to discover the facts. I challenge you to name any other country in existence that will allow you to earn what you do in this country, and pay so little in taxes to the Government. One!@!

Base it on an income of a hundred grand. Do the math. Post the results. You're doing far better than you think in this country.

February 17, 2011 at 3:11 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"They way things are going and considering the sentiment that is growing among people like yourself, the poor, the elderly, and the blacks who can't find sufficient employment, will all be dead and gone anyway within the next two years."

Hate much?


"I knew you were a punk. You just confirmed it by expressing your retirement timeline."

I'm not sure how my hoping to have enough funds to retire comfortably before I turn 80 makes me a punk.

Does "punk" now mean middle-aged, debt free, professional business owner?


"My suggestion to you would be to start siring some offspring."

There are plenty of well behaved, straight-A students wandering around my house already, but thanks.


And don't bore me with this, "I'm not going to accept a Social Security check.""

Where did I post anything of the sort?

Is your senility showing again?


"As an American, you pay the lowest percentage in taxes, per dollar earned in income, than others who earn comparable incomes throughout the entire world."

What, exactly, does this theory of yours have to do with anything?


"I challenge you to name any other country in existence that will allow you to earn what you do in this country, and pay so little in taxes to the Government."

Ah yes, your basic premise is flawed. It is not the governments job to decide what I'm "allowed" to make or keep. Contrary to the wishes of many Democrats, we citizens are not slaves to the government.


The more you rant, the more ridiculous you sound.

That you've gotten in such a huff over a rule requiring voters to show proof that they are who they say they are reveals a lot about your opinion of representative democracy.

Since you care so much, why don't you quite ranting and start up that charity organization I mentioned earlier to help all those folks who can't come up with $10?

February 17, 2011 at 7:45 a.m.

blackwater48 wrote:

"We face serious problems in future, too, but the toxic atmosphere in Washington today seems to be clouding everyone's judgment."

Toxic, meaning: willing to challenge President Obama. Ignore the drumbeat of "toxic atmosphere." Let freedom ring.

February 17, 2011 at 8:45 a.m.

blackwater48 wrote: “Republicans have been repeating the same sky is falling predictions since Social Security began, but some specific issues were dealt with by our political leaders in the past.”

Democrats know that there is a serious problem. They sponsor or support bi-partisan commissions to recommend changes, but they fail to act. They find posturing on Social Security too valuable as a campaign issue. Toxic partisanship indeed. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0216/Social-Security-needs-bipartisan-action-Obama-says http://www.hks.harvard.edu/jeffreyliebman/lms_nonpartisan_plan_description.pdf

February 17, 2011 at 11:08 a.m.

blackwater48 wrote: “Maybe you didn't know Reagan increased taxes. He got away with it because he called it ‘revenue enhancement’ but taxes increased $165 billion over seven years and Social Security was ‘saved.’ Anyway, we've face serious problems in the past and serious leaders have had to deal with them.”

Canarysong wrote: “He did indeed, eleven times to be exact. Funny how this is never remembered by those who cry 'foul' whenever tax increases are mentioned now.

I needn’t remind you that there is more than one branch of the federal government. When tax increases are mentioned, you can be sure whose idea it is. Just as both Bushes did, Reagan caved to the Democrats, who had controlled Congress for 30 years at that point) and who enacted the entitlement programs that China now finances and that future generations of Americans will pay for.

Yes, he was prevented from cutting government spending. His (modest?) achievement, however, was to slow the rate of spending growth as a percentage of GDP. He pushed through reforms that allowed the private sector to grow faster than the public sector. Liberals persistently err by failing to distinguish between those two sectors. Clinton (to be more precise, the country) benefited from peace dividends after his predecessors won the Cold War (for a time). He also had a GOP Congress that curtailed his desired expansion of government pork and forced some modicum of fiscal discipline. Your memories are short and selective.

Maybe we should erect a higher wall of separation between liberal religion (big government) and the freedom and resourcefulness of American citizens.

February 17, 2011 at 11:14 a.m.
trburrows said...

Republicans have been repeating the same sky is falling predictions since Social Security began.

how on earth could any one do this. it just got started you dh. more bs from bw. you know this is the worst grabbing at straWS i have ever seen. if reagan raised taxes how come everyone says they had more spendable money. more bs for the left bw.

February 17, 2011 at 1:03 p.m.
alprova said...

Scott wrote: "Hate much?"


That's a question you need to ask yourself. Do I hate people such as yourself? No, but you disgust me to my core.


"I'm not sure how my hoping to have enough funds to retire comfortably before I turn 80 makes me a punk.

Does "punk" now mean middle-aged, debt free, professional business owner?"


Will you make up your mind? You whined that you were not expecting Social Security to be there for you in 30-40 years.

If you are middle-aged, as you are now claiming to be, your previous timeline does not begin to make sense. Now which is it? Your starting to have trouble keeping your stories straight.


"There are plenty of well behaved, straight-A students wandering around my house already, but thanks."


Ah...Ozzie and Harriet reincarnated, eh?


"What, exactly, does this theory of yours have to do with anything?"


No theory. It's a fact, and a fact that refutes and makes all your whining about how the Gov't is supposedly raping your wallet, rather silly.


"Ah yes, your basic premise is flawed. It is not the governments job to decide what I'm "allowed" to make or keep. Contrary to the wishes of many Democrats, we citizens are not slaves to the government."


And you're challenging a point that was never offered. You DO live in a country where you can make whatever you desire.

That is NOT the case in other countries, which was my point. See how you try to sidestep that and turn it into something else altogether? You're fooling only yourself.


"The more you rant, the more ridiculous you sound."


The more you write, the more untruthful you sound.


"That you've gotten in such a huff over a rule requiring voters to show proof that they are who they say they are reveals a lot about your opinion of representative democracy."


Oh shut-up. You know well what premise exists behind this requirement, and you're so entrenched in worshiping the party of lies and dishonesty, not to mention the party that suppresses voting by those least likely to vote for Republicans, that you have adopted the lies and suppressive arguments as your own.


"Since you care so much, why don't you quite ranting and start up that charity organization I mentioned earlier to help all those folks who can't come up with $10?"


The better question is why don't you? You're the one claiming to be debt-free and a professional businessman.

Personally, I don't publish or discuss private acts of charity that I involve myself with. And that's all I'm going to type on that.

Have no fear. 2012 will result in President Obama serving a second term in a landslide election.

By 2016, ACORN and other Democratic organizations will be restored to their previous status, and with the help of all kinds of people who do know what the real deal is all about, I.D.'s will be purchased for those who desire them in the State of Tennessee.

February 18, 2011 at 9:43 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.