I get what your saying, but don't like the wording. Its the thought that counts.

Jiminy Christmas! Time to declare another public emergency to pay for that ad. Talk about scorching the earth and salting the ground before he gets the boot.

In addition, having to pay for all those ids and other legal costs for legal residents without birth certificates will cost the state even more. Someone needs to tie him to the kickbacks he'll be getting from this.

http://electionlawcenter.com/2011/12/10/union-elections-require-a-photo-id-to-vote.aspx?mid=54

UNION ELECTIONS REQUIRE A PHOTO IDEA.

WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER.

He needs a picture ID and a birth certificate. (That last requirement was to keep Obama from voting)

Here's my poster:

http://fakeposters.com.s3.amazonaws.com/results/2011/12/13/q558xuladl.jpg

Pretty good!

That's good!

I like this, but it may not be properly understood.

really lets ppl know their rights in a corporate state. nicely done!

http://electionlawcenter.com/2011/12/10/union-elections-require-a-photo-id-to-vote.aspx?mid=54

UNION ELECTIONS REQUIRE A PHOTO ID.

HYPOCRISY,ANYONE?

Voting for union issues is not a constitutionally protected law.

I see the use of IDs in elections as a good idea, but shouldn't be the only idea. If someone loses an id or simply doesn't have one, there should be other acceptable methods of determining residency.

People barely care enough to go out an vote to begin with let alone try to game the system and commit voter fraud. Fraud is more likely to happen by the people hosting the voting areas (tossing out votes) than by any single person pretending to be a resident. Their presence alone is 99% of the proof they need.

It does not matter whether it is constitutionally protected. The issues are the same. When you vote, proof of residency is required so that you are not an out of stater living in a hotel (that happened) nor a homeless person being bribed cigarettes and alcohol for your vote (that also happened), nor an illegal alien, etc.

In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act), guaranteeing the right of private employees to form unions and to use the collective bargaining process. So whether a right is guaranteed under the constitution or granted by a congressional law, requiring voter ID for one act and making it unacceptable for another, is nothing more than blatant hypocrisy.

What a private union does and what a public election does are two separate issues. Beyond this you are derailing the discussion: this thread is NOT about voting or whether or not you agree w/ voter ID laws.

Lastly I am still waiting for you to provide any evidence what so ever that voting ID laws help to thwart any of the problems you've rambled on about. So not only is your conversation irrelevant to the discussion, an illogical comparison, but it is also has no substantive evidence to support it as factually plausible. If you would like to discuss any of these topics either reply to the threads that have already been created or create your own thread to discuss it. Do not latch on to other people's posts and derail the discussion. It is rude to the community and wastes people's time.

Do not latch on to other people's posts and derail the discussion. It is rude to the community and wastes people's time

here is one example in which the proof is common sense. If you are homeless and on the street, meaning you do not have an address, you are not eligible for a voter ID. Therefore, corrupt Democrats cannot approach you and give you cigarettes for going to the poll and voting for their candidate. And since this entire thread is about voter ID, your attack on the messenger instead of the message, wastes everyone's time.

http://cnsnews.com/node/26533

Wisconsin Dems giving homeless cigarettes to vote for Goe.

No Contessa, this was the subject of the thread:

please consider this your opportunity to come up with a winning slogan/billboard/commercial, etc., for would-be Wisconsin voters. You know what to do -- links, comments, uploads.

Even if you wanted to take the "no really I was on topic" course you would've only been able to argue that if you were attempting to tie this conversation into the nearly half million dollar ad scheme Gov. Walker will be engaging to advocate for the I.D. bill. You did not do this. So on both levels you fail to address the subject as was initiated by the thread. You then post your comment directly in response to blogger akadoka who stated:

Voter ID bill to disenfranchise Democrat voters √

Ignore election fraud issues that would hurt Republicans √

Ensure everyone's vote counts

Your initial post was that union votes require I.D.'s for the vote and charge that it's hypocrisy. A) no one, up until this point, was talking about unions or union voting (so there's your first instance of not staying on topic) and B) no one made any claims regarding whether or not it's good or bad to require I.D.'s for union voting up until you had posted this, so the charge of hypocrisy doesn't even make sense because you're calling people out for being hypocritical on a position they never took. So now you are also off topic to this particular blog post. In both cases you are off topic and you are doing so in an attempt to derail the conversation. So yes, Contessa, do not latch on to other people's posts and derail the discussion. It is rude to the community and wastes people's time. Since you are the only person who did this you are the only person being called out for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

here is one example in which the proof is common sense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

If you are homeless and on the street, meaning you do not have an address, you are not eligible for a voter ID.

This argument A) justifies preventing homeless people from voting, B) does not provide evidence for why the premise is asserted as true, and C) does not explain why the current system is inadequate to address the issue (since the current system requires that you must be registered to vote and in order to register you must have an address)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogistic_fallacy

And since this entire thread is about voter ID, your attack on the messenger instead of the message, wastes everyone's time.

....Contessa this is exactly what you were doing. Rather than discuss the issue at hand you, instead, scapegoated the conversation to something irrelevant as a means of justifying the issue being discussed....

Lastly you are aware that homeless people can list shelters as their legal residencies as well as rehab facilities and other such facilities, correct? So if Democrats really wanted to implement such fraud what would stop them from having homeless people list the shelter as their legal place of residency while applying for a Voter I.D.? Additionally your argument here does not explain why the current system doesn't work. This fraud case you're referring to? It was settled in small claims court because 1 (count it: 1) volunteer was found out to have given out 10 packs (yes that's right: contessa is upset over 10 packs) as a reward to 10 homeless men who voted. The current system caught this problem of voter fraud and corrected for it. The woman was forced to pay a $5,000 fine, which she did. How are you arguing that Voter I.D. laws are necessary when the current system corrected for this problem? Will the Voter I.D. laws make this problem less likely to happen? Will it make it easier to catch? Etc. Provide evidence for any claim you make asserting the necessity of the Voter I.D. versus our current system.

I am giving you the chance to justify your opinion and political position, but I am also not going to let it slide that you purposefully attempted to hijack this conversation in an attempt to derail it. The latter is just rude.

ahahahahah

long posts don't make for truth.

The fact that there was "only" ten homeless voter fraud does not mean that there weren't quite a bit more that they didn't catch. Common sense, which you apparently lack, shows that simple voter ID would take away any issues of fraud. If it is okay for union voters, it is okay for general voters.

As if producing link after link of fallacies is really improving the conversation on this thread. You are a joke.

long posts don't make for truth.

You are a joke.

Common sense, which you apparently lack,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I can understand that not everyone likes longer posts and longer reading. I am a long-winded person. It takes me a while to say what it is I want to say. If you do not like this format of talking I can appreciate that, but it does not address any of the contentions that I brought up in counter-argument. I will state that I do not intentionally elongate my responses as a means of derailing discussion. This is simply how I normally talk and how I normally articulate myself.

I listed these links because these are the fallacies you have committed in your argument. Under standard L/D debate rules you must, when debating your opponent, point out that an opponents argument is fallacious or you lose that argument. I simply have grown tired of retyping over and over again "red herring" "straw man" "appeal to X." The arguments pop up so much that I have decided I will link to you the fallacy and hope that you will inform yourself. Every single time you commit a logical fallacy in your argument you end up minimizing anything you might otherwise have to say of importance. Beyond this you prove that your argument is based on shaky ground which ends up undermining your own position. You end up giving reason for people to believe me as opposed to you and I do not think this is your intention. You do not have to make these arguments to argue your position which means you are selling yourself short. Additionally I addressed your issue on both it's substance and on it's fallacies- which you must do in L/D format debates. Failing to address the substantive claims I made, but instead focusing on the logical fallacies I pointed out is also a fallacy.

The fact that there was "only" ten homeless voter fraud does not mean that there weren't quite a bit more that they didn't catch.

There may very well have been more instances of fraudulent votes or bad votes that were not caught. My point here was not that 10 bad votes is minimalistic. My argument was that the current system accounts for those 10 votes. You must demonstrate how adding the voter I.D. addendum will increase the likelihood of either deterring voter fraud or catching voter fraud. As it stands right now the current system appears to be adequate at addressing this issue which would suggest that there is no need to amend the law at this point in time. Additionally I should point out that the homeless men who did vote did not vote fraudulently. They were already registered to vote and in their written testimony they stated they had already planned to vote for Gore. The woman who provided them w/ cigarettes ended up doing so after they arrived to the polls. It may very well have been that her intention was to provide an award to the voters for making the effort to come out and vote. However current election law states that giving a reward to someone for their vote is a form of bribery if that reward amounts to more than 1$. Since the packs were each valued at $3.37 her actions were considered fraudulent and thus those 10 votes were thrown out. Based on the details of this story there is no reason to conclude that the outcome would have been different had the voter I.D. law been in effect.

Common sense, which you apparently lack, shows that simple voter ID would take away any issues of fraud.

Common sense is another form of a logical fallacy of which I already addressed in my above post. You cannot argue "common sense" since there is no basis to which "sense" is considered "common." There is no apparent scientific or otherwise empirical reason to believe that voter I.D. laws will reduce voter fraud let alone "...take away any issues of fraud." There is also no pragmatic reason to assume that this is so.

Remember I am not arguing that voter I.D. laws will or won't reduce voter fraud. I am stating that I have not seen compelling evidence to suggest that they will do as much. Since you are the person advocating that these laws will I am asking for you to provide evidence of your position (which is all I ever asked).

If it is okay for union voters, it is okay for general voters.

Again this is another form of fallacy and is irrelevant to the conversation. What private unions do and what public elections do are two separate issues.

YAWN

In contessa's mind, homeless have no free will and can't make decisions for themselves. Somehow trivial compensations are more than enough to change their mindset and their circumstance. I would love to see young republicans gathering homeless, giving them rides to the polling place and telling them after they vote that they'll get a hot meal. I fully support that.

And the award goes to doughboy

yeah,because hardly anyone in Wisconsin has a driver's license.

yeah,because hardly anyone in Wisconsin has a driver's license.

Most do, but those who don't are more likely to be students, elders, disabled, and minorities. People with driver's licenses are already paying anyway. This law requires disadvantaged people--who are more likely to vote Democratic--to pay a tax they wouldn't otherwise have to pay--a poll tax just for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

When making logically fallacious arguments, Contessa, it ends up belittling what might otherwise be a valid point. Your argument here is invalid.

The poor need ID to get food stamps and welfare.

Those not poor can spend a few bucks to get an ID.

Mouzer....get a life.

Shouldn't we go after the liquor stores? how dare they require the poor to spend money to get an ID to buy alcohol. How dare the plasma centers require the poor to get not one, but two forms of ID. Airlines? How dare they requre ID to fly on a plane....and so on and so on.

Again contessa the arguments you present are fallacies. I am sorry that you do not like hearing that over and over again, but perhaps you should research what fallacious arguments are so that you stop making them. The fact that you continually commit these fallacies is on you.

The poor need ID to get food stamps and welfare.

1) food stamps are a form of welfare 2) this assumes all poor people are on welfare 3) this assumes that because they need an I.D. to acquire these things (which are unrelated to voting) it's OK to require them to have an I.D. for voting. It is faulty to conclude that because someone needs an I.D. for X they therefore should be expected to have an I.D. for Y. As an example let's say I switch the order here and I state that you need an I.D. to fly internationally therefore it's OK for me to ask for an I.D. when you make a phone call. Neither of these issues are equivalent to the other nor are they even correlated w/ one another. One has nothing to do w/ the other and therefore cannot be used as a justification for either.

Those not poor can spend a few bucks to get an ID.

This does not address the issue brought up by both David and Bob which is that voting is a constitutional right and therefore they do not have to. Someone's wealth status really doesn't enter into the equation except that this is what liberals feel is discriminatory about such laws.

Shouldn't we go after the liquor stores? how dare they require the poor to spend money to get an ID to buy alcohol. How dare the plasma centers require the poor to get not one, but two forms of ID. Airlines? How dare they requre ID to fly on a plane....and so on and so on.

No because this is an unrelated issue that has nothing to do w/ the topic at hand.