On December 29th at 12:25p.m. RetiredAirForce said to youkillme, "... your defense mechanism causes you to laugh at yours and others hypocrisy since you cant defend it rationally."
-
On December 27th at 3:25p.m. RetiredAirForce said to WalterReuther, "LOL, ..."

Yes, RAF, we get it. You believe that, at the time of her birth, the infant Ruthelle should have corrected the misspelling of her name by the doctor who had just delivered her. That's the basis for your argument as Ruthelle did not know of the misspelling in the register of deeds until she recently inquired about the costs of a birth certificate as she had not needed one until the voter ID law hit the books. Also, as you've already been made aware, common law name changes through long term consistent usage are legal in the state of WI. Ruthelle's legal name is the one she has been using since birth. In order to acquire legal ID to vote, she would have to pay around $200. This is a de facto poll tax which is unconstitutional.

Walter your delusions are growing wider, I never claimed to be important to ruth. To be truthful I am certain she was worried about you and I as much as she was worried about correcting her paperwork. Now she has become an idol for all the others claiming victimhood on a recurring basis.

I don't think you were ever important to her, RAF. I know it hurts, but you have to move on.

Just like she forget to fix something important in her life...

RAF, I'm sure Ruthelle has forgotten more Emerson than you'll ever google.

Something little ole ruth needs to read, "As long as a man stands in his own way, everything seems to be in his way."

"Next to the originator of a good sentence is the first quoter of it." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Walter you are a over your skies more than normal on this issue. You claim there are a number of people, in that poll, that share your views and your hyperbole.

Yet not one issue of "there are people like you that constantly rail against social welfare programs", "There is a never ending barrage of baseless, generalized criticism of social welfare programs coming from the right", "Social welfare recipients are often painted by the right as a group of drug addicts that only want money to buy more drugs", and this beauty "it nauseated you to even ponder someone that may not have enough money to make their mortgage payment because you've already made it clear that you blame the victim regardless of the circumstances surrounding their hardship."

The fraudulent humility you try to portray is shown true light every time you make these absurd insinuation of others, individually or in groups. You and many other OWSDEM posters here have very little in the form of integrity or honesty, at least on this you all share some consistency.

Oh, RAF. I was hoping you wouldn't live up to your M.O. of doing a half-assed job of reading some very informative material. There was five pages of polling information there, and it wasn't all about Congressional approval. The gist of the information taken as a whole is that you may consider my opinion to be hyperbole, but the number of people that share my views, to varying levels of course, is growing. Generally, a plurality of people agree that it is the Republican party that is responsible for many of the problems faced by our country today. One man's hyperbole is another man's truth. We're all entitled to our opinion, RAF. Sadly even you are. I guess that's ok since the number of people that think the way you do is rapidly dwindling. Oh how the "mighty" have fallen since November, 2010.

Please watch this video featuring Ruthelle Frank. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ay-aK_Wz... ] This is your chance to watch and hear Ruthelle's story in her own words.
-
Sign a recall petition, make sure you have acceptable voter ID, register to vote and be sure to vote on election day. Remember Ruthelle Frank!

LOL, what does a poll on congressional approval have to do with your hyperbole and class warfare victimization rants?

Well, RAF, I'm not the only that feels this way. Go through the whole thing. It's very interesting how the tide is turning as we near next year's election.
http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/15/f...

Imagine that walter provides another post full of hyperbole, over generalizations, and false conclusions.

Whether or not you believe the woman exists is completely irrelevant, RAF. She is very real and there are thousands of men and women in similar situations in this state alone. And, you're right, there are a great many opportunities to receive a helping hand in this country for people that have fallen on hard times. What you failed to mention is that there are people like you that constantly rail against social welfare programs that will keep this woman's children in her custody and keep them all off the street. There is a never ending barrage of baseless, generalized criticism of social welfare programs coming from the right claiming that the programs breed laziness or that the people on the programs drive expensive vehicles, live in luxurious homes or apartments and eat only gourmet food while feeding their kids only junk. Another lie is that the women's health services provided to them should be withheld because the recipients of those services are promiscuous and Planned Parenthood is trying to kill every fetus conceived on the planet. Social welfare recipients are often painted by the right as a group of drug addicts that only want money to buy more drugs. So you can walk back your "life's only certainty is you get what you put in" BS all you want. And you can save the false sympathy you've suddenly found for a person like the one I mentioned. It's obviously disingenuous anyway. I'm sure it nauseated you to even ponder someone that may not have enough money to make their mortgage payment because you've already made it clear that you blame the victim regardless of the circumstances surrounding their hardship.

RAF said, "...your latest disparaging comments about those that have used the VA..."
-
I only mentioned YOU and your not having paid VA healthcare PREMIUMS. You proclaimed YOU don't use VA healthcare. So that means I'm talking about.....NOBODY. And my remarks were clearly not disparaging. I simply was making a point that it's easy for you to think it's no sweat to pay premiums when you don't have to yourself.
-
I know others are sick of this petty bickering. Go do something productive, RAF. I'll let you be the winner and get in your last barb.

So the tap dance begins. Others paid but I didn't? Others declared I wasn't a Vet but you didn't? Only a twisted mind that declares words never spoken by others has this type of warped mentality. Keep digging your pathetic little hole.

RAF, knock off the patriotic grandstanding. I never said veterans did not pay for their VA service. I said YOU never paid a dime in PREMIUMS for your VA healthcare. Nobody buys your twisting of other's words.
-
I never agreed with others that you weren't a veteran. But given your reaction here, the grandstanding, I believe they are right.

http://governorsjournal.com/2011/12/gove...

" That is telling people not to pay union dues."
-
So not only do you think people have never paid anything for their VA service you have the ability to read and hear different words than provided. Then you fail miserably trying to peddle what you "think" you heard or read. You have on a consistent basis lied on numerous occasions but your latest disparaging comments about those that have used the VA has placed you in the lowest of places those on the left go to when they have nothing else to say to defend their nonsense. Your are a pristine example of pathetic liberal smallness.

RAF said, "pooie the next time you are near a VA center, American Legion Post, Disabled American Veterans meeting place, or a Veterans of Foreign Wars group please speak right up and tell all those people the never contributed anything for their coverage."
-
Need your victim card punched, Raffy? You dance around telling union members to suck it up and take the hits on their compensation while you enjoy free healthcare. Quit playing the victim now. You know, I'm not even sure you are a veteran. Veterans I know have a sense of looking out for their fellow citizens.

I don't believe you RAF. And even if I did, there's still a cost of maintaining that service so it is available should people decide to start using it.
-
Scott Walker, “It would save employees up to $1000 per year they could use to pay for pensions and health care contribution.”
-
Your boy Walker just told people they could take the money they were paying in union dues and instead use it to pay their increased costs of pensions and healthcare. That is telling people not to pay union dues. If they paid their union dues there would be no savings and his statement would be false. Plain as it gets.

"you've never paid a dime in premiums toward your VA healthcare benefits"
-
pooie the next time you are near a VA center, American Legion Post, Disabled American Veterans meeting place, or a Veterans of Foreign Wars group please speak right up and tell all those people the never contributed anything for their coverage.

You are indeed a small person.

pooie has started more LIES. I don't use the VA system. But this latest red herring was placed in her comments because this is what liberals do, try to attack the person since they have no ability to defend their comments and lies.

" they told union people to quit giving THEIR dues to unions " hmmmm Not the same as " they COULD use to pay for"

Imagine that the lie was proven FALSE AGAIN by the very person who peddled it to begin with.

Scott Walker, “It would save employees up to $1000 per year they could use to pay for pensions and health care contribution.”

RAF, unlike your taxpayer paid, premium free, national, single payer VA healthcare system that you enjoy, the union members are being required to increase their contributions to their healthcare plan and pension. You seem to forget that when more and more money is taken away, choices are taken away. It's easy for you to disagree because you've never paid a dime in premiums toward your VA healthcare benefits.

LIES "...they told union people to quit giving THEIR dues to unions..."

Some concept of choice, Raffy. Figure it out. First you pass a law making it illegal for employers to deduct union dues from an employees paycheck. And that law prohibits municipalities from collective bargaining with many unions for their pension and healthcare benefits. Then you increase the union employees contributions to their pensions and healthcare benefits. Where do the union dues you "saved" them go? Exactly where Walker said. Not into their unions or in their own pockets.
-
Rep. Kucinich, "How much does prohibiting employees from paying union dues from paychecks save the state of Wisconsin?"
-
Scott Walker, “It would save employees up to $1000 per year they could use to pay for pensions and health care contribution.”
-
Yeah, right. Save employees up to $1000 that they can now give back, probably with even more out of pocket soon, to help pay for the increase in their benefits contributions. Some savings for the employees! Some concept of choice there, RAF.

pooie who told union people to quit giving THEIR dues to unions? Still waiting.

NOTHING you have regurgitated, over and over, backs your LIES. Not auto-deducting from a persons paycheck told union people to quit giving THEIR dues to unions as you claim.

Members are still able to write a check, pay in cash, or allow the unions to pull money directly from their accounts; the same as all other bills/payments in life.

Don't want to disappoint you, RAF.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqhtUTyqV...

RAF, I'd love to keep exchanging those comments back and forth with you right up until the day of the recall election to keep what Walker did and said fresh in voters minds.

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, April 14, 2011.
-
Rep. Kucinich, "How much does prohibiting employees from paying union dues from paychecks save the state of Wisconsin?"
-
Scott Walker, “It would save employees up to $1000 per year they could use to pay for pensions and health care contribution.”
-
Don't believe me? Watch it for yourself, that is, if you can stand the pain of watching Walker caught in his web of deception. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqhtUTyqV...... ]

2011 WISCONSIN ACT 10
-
SECTION 227. 111.70 (3g) of the statutes is created to read: 111.70 (3g) WAGE DEDUCTION PROHIBITION. A municipal employer may not deduct labor organization dues from the earnings of a general municipal employee or supervisor.
-
SECTION 298. 111.845 of the statutes is created to read: 111.845 WAGE DEDUCTION PROHIBITION. The employer may not deduct labor organization dues from a general employee’s earnings.

"...they told union people to quit giving THEIR dues to unions..."
-
More lies from the fringe. Giving people a choice is what you're afraid of.

RAF said to Walter, ""If" your tale is true, doubtful through your history misinformation, hyperbole, and partisan ramblings, there are places in society for her that do offer help."
-
RAF forgot to add that his home is not one of those places. I had thought RAF fairly well represented conservative ideology. Now it's clear that it would be too great of an insult to conservatives to suggest that his latest comments are typical conservative viewpoints.

"If" your tale is true, doubtful through your history misinformation, hyperbole, and partisan ramblings, there are places in society for her that do offer help. Sad that a person she chose to have children with is thia way as well. For her, again if true, our country has countless opportunities for her to do well in life and provide for her children. Step one in her journey, again if true, is to get away from the likes of people like you that claim these misfortunes are done by the "unfair" system created and controlled by the 1%.

I don’t care how you “acquired” your “pennies”. I blame no one for my misfortunes. Thankfully, my misfortunes have been few and far between. I many not have an understanding of what ALL people go through (I never claimed to), but in my line of work I have been made very knowledgeable of what a great many people from a variety of backgrounds go through. I’ve never made the claim that anyone with money to spare acquired it through an “unfair process”. If you want to talk about “warped” lines of thinking, let’s examine your claim that “you get what you make of it” being the “only certainty in life”. How do you say that to a 48 year old single mother of 3 (ages 8-16) who worked for 22 years, many of those years after her husband left her and chose not to work in order to avoid paying child support. She has been unemployed for 8 months. Her former employer eliminated her position in order to create a new position for which they could hire someone with less experience to do the same type of work she was doing. She can’t find a job. She even got turned down for a job at McDonald’s. They told her they were afraid that she might find a better job and then leave, so they didn’t want to put the time and money into training her. She can’t really afford to move her and her 3 children. She will soon be evicted from the house she had purchased when she could easily afford it. She’s tried to sell it to move, but she bought it at $130,000, and it isn’t selling at $75,000. She owes $95,000. Her parents are dead. Her lone sibling is in dire straits as well. She has no one to turn to, and she and her children will soon be homeless. If nothing happens for her, she’ll end up in public housing and on every form of public assistance. She worked hard and lived within her means. It was a system that doesn’t care about how responsible people are that did her in, and she’s not the only one. Not by a long shot. The system favors only those that make far, far more money than this woman and others like her. So would you tell this poor woman that the only certainty in life is you get what you make of it? If you did, she’d probably tell you that you’re not even a decent excuse for a woeful human being, and you know what? She’d be right.

Yeah okay walter your pitty soapbox now declares I have no understanding of being without. In your dreams the pennies I have were aquired how exactly? The problem with people like you, always looking to blame others for their own misfortunes, you have no understanding of what ALL people go through. You sit back ans ASSUME if anyone has a spare penny it was aquired through an UNFAIR process because all dont have that same penny. Your warped socialistic view on how things should be has never workes in any society. The only certainty in life is you get what you make of it. If you take the position circumstances in life are always the result of others, excising personal responsibility for everything you are indeed the victim you want to be.

My "miserable soapbox", RAF? "Life has never been about fairness"? That is how you justify the manner in which the system has been hijacked by the ultra rich in their favor at the expense of the middle and lower classes? You think that since life in general isn't fair that it's ok for a few with a decided advantage to use their power and influence to enhance that advantage even at the cost of obliterating a giant nation's economy and ruining the financial health of millions upon millions of their fellow Americans? That's just another example of life's unfairness to you?
I was wrong. It's not that you don't understand the hardships of others. It would seem that you derive some kind of sick pleasure from them. You are the epitome of so much that is wrong with this country and the embodiment of soullessness and evil. May your life come crashing down around you through no fault of your own. May you be left with nothing so that you finally know what those that you so vehemently despise just for being without money go through every day.

Raffy, how can I convince you of the truth when you call state statutes "more false comments?"

. " no way to fight" LOL. Yep just give up, life is unfair, other people have all the luck. Get off your miserable soapbox walter. Life has never been about fairness, perhaps you think all fairytails are true too.

Pooie nothing is keeping these people from paying dues from their own bank accounts, much like all other bills are paid. Just because you lied earlier doesn't mean making more false comments now makes the original lie true.

RAF,
For families that have lost any source of income, which is much more prevalent among the middle class due to the careless handling of the financial sector by the ultra rich and the Republican de-regulation machine, losing such significant value in a home that they could easily afford prior to losing their job is devastating when attempting to start over. The only silver lining is that houses do cost less, but with no income, good luck getting financing. The money from selling the home, if they could actually sell it in this market, more than likely goes to other bills and obligations like food and clothing. Do you realize the hardships faced by middle class folks in their 50s that have lost jobs? Companies are not hiring these people because the perception is that for one, they're old and untrainable and therefore paying them for the experience they do have isn't worth the price. Young people that can be paid much less because of their inexperience and then trained are looked at as a much more solid investment. So, when the older unemployed can't find a job for a little under 2 years, their unemployment benefits completely run out and hopefully there's a little bit of money left in that 401k to cash out to pay the rent. If they were able to get a landlord to lease an apartment to someone with no income, that is. If not, they might just be living in their car. Again, these are not problems faced by the 1%. The 1% are actually instructing their underlings to engage in the hiring practices that border on age discrimination and ultimately funnel older people into social welfare programs beyond unemployment insurance.

This isn't about bad decisions. This is about bad luck and having no way to fight your way back because the system is set up only to benefit a fortunate few who are very, very rich. I wouldn't expect you to understand all of this, RAF. You've made it very clear that you have absolutely no sympathy for anyone that, through no fault of their own, has fallen on hard times. You've made it clear that you think that homeless people do not even have the right to vote because they have no residential address in order to register. Is that how you feel about my example above; a person that lost his job because downsizing dictated that he was no longer good for his company because he was older, more experienced and more highly paid? He may very well end up living out of his car. How is he supposed to make himself presentable for a job interview even for a minimum wage job that would in no way support his family?
So, RAF, tell me again how the loss of home and investment value hits the very rich just as hard as it hits the middle class. For some people selling and not re-purchasing wasn't their plan. It's the hand that life dealt them.

2011 WISCONSIN ACT 10
-
SECTION 227. 111.70 (3g) of the statutes is created to read: 111.70 (3g) WAGE DEDUCTION PROHIBITION. A municipal employer may not deduct labor organization dues from the earnings of a general municipal employee or supervisor.
-
SECTION 298. 111.845 of the statutes is created to read: 111.845 WAGE DEDUCTION PROHIBITION. The employer may not deduct labor organization dues from a general employee’s earnings.
-
http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/rel...

Rep. Kucinich, "How much does prohibiting employees from paying union dues from paychecks save the state of Wisconsin?"
-
Scott Walker, “It would save employees up to $1000 per year they could use to pay for pensions and health care contribution.”

RAF said, "I agree poo, all who purchased more than they could afford, with little to nothing down, are in over their head if they try to sell today."
-
As well as many who did purchase what they could afford to own, with 10% to 20% down, and still find themselves with more mortgage than house. These aren't people who bought more house than they could afford. They bought more house than the housing crisis, created to enrich the 1%'ers at the expense of the 99%'ers, will allow them to sell. A very limited number of people made billions of dollars off from the housing crisis, and it wasn't the 99%.

"...they told union people to quit giving THEIR dues to unions "
-
More lies from the fringe. Giving people a choice is what you're afraid of.

RAF, I'm glad we can agree on something. Happy New Year!

I agree poo, all who purchased more than they could afford, with little to nothing down, are in over their head if they try to sell today. But that scenario was not tied to a single class of people it was a direct reflection of bad choices made by many people. Unfortunately some gambled all their families only money on these choices. There is always risks in investing that has always been the case.

RAF, you saw what I said and the question that Walker answered...
-
I said, "they told union people to quit giving THEIR dues to unions"
-
Walker was asked and answered, "How much does prohibiting employees from paying union dues from paychecks save the state of Wisconsin?"
-
Same thing... telling people to quit doing something or prohibiting them from doing something. In fact, prohibiting them is even worse than telling them. Then again, I guess prohibition is something conservatives are quite familiar with.

RAF, you show a very limited understanding of what is happening with the real estate market. Many people bought what they could afford and now find themselves with a mortgage that is for a greater amount than the value of their home. This effectively prohibits them from even considering selling their home and buying another one (of greater OR lesser value) because they don't have enough to pay off the balance on their existing mortgage even if they sold their home. You need to get out more often, RAF, and see what's happening in the real world. Those conservative newsletters just aren't cutting it for you.

On the video of the union bought congressperson from Ohio I do cringe every time he speaks uttering rhetorically funny union talking points.

" they told union people to quit giving THEIR dues to unions " hmmmm Not the same as " they COULD use to pay for"

Imagine that the lie was proven FALSE by the very person who peddled it to begin with.

Read it and weep, RAF. Or better yet, watch it and cringe in embarrassment. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, April 14, 2011.
-
Rep. Kucinich, "How much does prohibiting employees from paying union dues from paychecks save the state of Wisconsin?"
-
Scott Walker, “It would save employees up to $1000 per year they could use to pay for pensions and health care contribution.”
-
Don't believe me? Watch it for yourself, that is, if you can stand the pain of watching Walker caught in his web of deception. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqhtUTyqV... ]

Poor walter still looking for victims. Claiming real estate and investment losses hurt one part of society more than another is absurd. It all depends on exposure and when they plan on liquidating their investments back to cash that there is a realized loss. Even in today's housing market there is little loss unless you plan on selling and not re-purchasing; all properties cost less. Those that purchased more than they could afford, betting on a continued upswing in markets with zero to little diversification were hurt the most; through bad decisions. Keep peddling your victimization claims, that's all you have left.

" they told union people to quit giving THEIR dues to unions "
-
More lies from the fringe. Giving people a choice is what you are afraid of.

Oh Raffy. Less government intrusion. We don't want government telling us how to spend our money. Yet you support Walker and his 1% buddies when they told union people to quit giving THEIR dues to unions and instead use it to pay toward their pensions and healthcare. Can you say hypocrites? Big government, tax and spend, we know how to spend your money better than you do, Republicans.

RAF,
Do you not realize that lost real estate or other investment values hits those with lower incomes much harder than it does someone with a much larger income? If a family takes home $60,000 per year, has a modest 401k account and has a $100,000 house the overall effects are much greater to their total financial situation than to a rich CEO or hedge fund manager. How many of those types do you think are losing their jobs or having their homes foreclosed on? It's quite the opposite actually. It is the CEOs and the hedge fund managers that avoid normal tax rates by paying a max of 15% capital gains and get huge bonuses after the corporations they work for are bailed out with taxpayer money.

poop......too funny! The dividing line between the 99% and the 1% is Governor Walker?? Seriously?? Last time I checked the unions and their "tax to the max" agenda which funds their excessive pension and benefit packages were hardly funded by the 1%. They are funded directly by the 99% who you see as Governor Walker as being "against". Funny how his signature legislation helps the very people you say he is against.....:)

New fringe dividing line, 99% against walker. Hilarious. With ole ruthie as the latest placard poster for self induced victimization the sheep will surely fall in line behind the callings of msnbc, but the failed logic thinking 99%others of voters fall for this trap is really funny.

The "invisible" line between the 1% and 99% has become very, very visible in Wisconsin - it is Scott Walker. If you haven't yet signed a recall petition, the next time you see someone collecting signatures be sure to remember Ruthelle and sign the petition.

The fringe think only certain people divided by a make belive invisible class line lost values in real estate holdings or the market. Falls perfectly into the infamous class war they enjoy peddling, trying to make people think they are being beaten down by an invisible foe, hence 99% of the people are victims. Laughable!

Yeah, Gandalf. Sheesh. Stop acting like a victim. Everybody else knows that it is the middle and lower classes that are responsible for their decreased wages and the lowered values of their homes and 401k accounts! When are you going to wake up and start blaming the victims like RAF? I'm sure he's been totally immune to those problems. That's why he supports the policies of the party that protects the lavish and excessive lifestyles of people that perpetrated the financial collapse and makes sure they will never be punished. Don't you see? If you just start voting for the Republicans, than the rich people will start looking out for your well being just like they do for RAF. And then one day, you'll magically be a member of the 1%, too. Now that's what I call a Christmas miracle. God bless us, everyone.

Gandalf wow another victim rant, Merry Christmas.

"She has taken the position her whole life not to fix it, if she chooses to now it is still her choice."
***
It is not her choice in the context of whether or not she will be allowed to vote, a right she has been exercising for decades without government interference. It is really quite telling how the party that squawks constantly about taking government out of our lives are so willing to get behind this big government type of law that requires, in many cases, fees to be paid in order to vote.
Yes, Doyle did have to fight off the voter ID law, especially between 2003 and 2006. This is where your history gets really inaccurate, yet again, RAF. I'd like to know where you get the idea that those bills that Doyle vetoed had such strong bi-partisan support. Both chambers of the 96th and 97th Legislatures were controlled by the Republicans. It was the Democratic led chambers of the 98th and 99th Legislatures that put down the efforts for the voter ID law, so, again, where is all that bi-partisan support? Are you playing revisionist historian again?

RAF said, "This is the same law that was passed at least twice before with bi-partisan support only to be vetoed by the last governor."
-
Last governor being a Democrat with respect for constitutional protections, illustrates the importance of recalling this governor and his senate cronies.

" having to spend up to $200 for documentation "
-
She has taken the position her whole life not to fix it, if she chooses to now it is still her choice.

I love the fringe's new claims of a "republican" law. This is the same law that was passed at least twice before with bi-partisan support only to be vetoed by the last governor. Those that didn't vote for it this time yet voted for it before were playing party line games. But then again ignoring the truth and looking for victims is how the OWSDEM movement is rolling...

coyote said, "It is the law of the State of Wisconsin as enacted by the citizens representatives and will be adheared to and enforced by the citizens of the state."
-
The operative word there is "be." And no, I don't like Walker's new law and hope the courts step in to modify it...for the sake of people like Ruthelle - a woman who has voted for 63 years without having to spend up to $200 for documentation to be allowed to vote.

coyote,
Those citizens that are enforcing that law have already been encouraging other citizens to commit voter fraud in order to vote. Just look at Ruthelle Frank's circumstances. Even in her case she'd still have to pay a poll tax just to commit voter fraud that election representatives have encouraged her to engage in, but that's what our great Republican "citizen representatives" have given to us.
In my situation, I have a valid driver's license. It does not have my current address on it but rather then shell out the money for an update before it expires, I decided to update my address with the DOT on the online database. This makes my license completely valid if I were to be stopped by a law enforcement officer. To vote, however, I would have to shell out the money for a new one because I already have a valid license. I have to pay money to exercise my right to vote. That is a poll tax, and it is unconstitutional. So, for knowing my rights as a citizen, would you give me that oh so intelligent response of "C-ya" as well?

Poobah, it is not Walkers law, it is not a republican law, and it is not a conservatives law. It is the law of the State of Wisconsin as enacted by the citizens representatives and will be adheared to and enforced by the citizens of the state. Don't like that? C-ya.

saxcat,
I don't have to post another article to counter your point. I just have to use information from the same article that you posted to counter your point:
***
"Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) raised doubts about the reporting, noting that the study itself said it was based on inconclusive data and that it was 'impossible to provide precise numbers' on how many people who were registered to vote in the state were not citizens.

Gonzalez asked Gessler, a former prosecutor, if he would have pursued a court case on such evidence.

Gessler responded that the goal of the study was to expose voter registration issues and pursue administrative avenues to resolve them.

'We don’t have a screen for citizenship on the front end when people register to vote,' he said."
***
To summarize, those doing the study admittedly conducted it based on inconclusive data. They don't really know how many of the people they are claiming are non-citizens actually are non-citizens. It could have been clerical errors in the registration process. When asked if he would recommend pursuing prosecution against any of the people the study claims are committing voter fraud, Colorado's Sec of State used political speak to say, "No. Not a single one."

RAF, you poor soul. Her name is legal. She's still a plaintiff. And you hate it that she is. A woman as loving as everyone's Grandma, town board member, still lives in the house she was born in, has voted for 63 years. And Walker and his photo voter ID law won't accept the ID she has used for the last 63 years she has voted. Hang it up, RAF.

pooie thanks for your idea of what law is. Guess you missed your calling, the ACLU is always looking for help, go ahead and apply there. Strange they never thought of your in-depth google search reasons why ruth doesn't have to change her name. By your insane logic she is no longer a plaintiff on their case...yeah right.

I think voter Id should be designed to protect the integrity of the voting system. Definitely not to infringe rights of a large group of people. I can see how this S.C. law could be shot down, but I also believe that with some modification it will be passed. I believe voter fraud exists. I think the cost of requiring a valid ID is much smaller than verifying every vote cast by unknown persons.

well zoom, the answer to your question would depend on who you ask. and unfortunately like most things, it is extremely partisan. I am for voter Id, so I will offer this thread.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/153079...
I know that those against it can match article for article supporting their point.

Ignorance is defined as the lack of knowledge, learning, information. I just provided you with the information that should have educated you, RAF, on the issue of common law rights as it pertains to name changes. I'm sure everyone else reading what I provided understands that Ruthelle, without doubt, changed her name through common law rights decades ago. You, RAF, are another story. You're willing to appear absolutely belligerent only for the sake of disagreeing with me and maintaining the conservative mantra.

Nice try pooie. Nothing is keeping her from changing her name but her own inaction.

constitutional right...

gpawcat, voting is a constitutional rite. It should be easy to carry out that right. Flying in an airplane is not a constitutional right.

I've asked this many times before, but still haven't received an answer. Where is the evidence of voting fraud that the voter ID law will prevent? We've used the same voting system for decades, yet now it's a problem? There is simply no evidence that enough voting fraud is being commited that would have any impact on an election. Most voting fraud comes from felons who don't know they are ineligable to vote, and the new law doesn't even address that issue.

This should prove that the state of Fitzwalkerstan is on the wrong track. It seems we have a lot of work to do after the recall.

RAF said, "Legally ruth has been using a false name her whole life. Another reason this law was needed. But the fringe think legalities dont apply to them."
-
That's absolutely NOT TRUE. It's just pathetic how you continue to make ignorant comments about subjects you know absolutely NOTHING about. You won't find a single Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who agrees with you on that one, RAF. Ruthelle's name is PERFECTLY LEGAL under Wisconsin's common law right to name change. The problem here is Walker's photo voter ID law and YOUR ignorance of the law, not what Ruthelle did or did not do.
-
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Case No. 97-0885-CR, Oral argument May 27, 1998, Decided June 19, 1998.
-
¶ 27. [...] Wisconsin does recognize the common law right to change one's name through consistent and continuous use, as long as the change is not effected for a fraudulent purpose.
-
http://174.123.24.242/leagle/xmlResult.a...
-
The Supreme Court not good enough for you, RAF? Check this out: "Wisconsin also recognizes the common law right to change your name through consistent and continuous use as long as the change is not done for a fraudulent purpose. This common law right also applies to name change upon marriage."
-
http://www.wicourts.gov/services/public/...

Legally ruth has been using a false name her whole life. Another reason this law was needed. But the fringe think legalities dont apply to them.

You cannot board an airplane, open a bank account, receive government benefits, even enter some government building, or buy alcohol without a proper ID.

Funny, the Obama regime and the party of voter fraud does not have a problem with any of those issues. It is only when the party of voter fraud needs to steal elections is this idea that ID is required becomes suddenly onerous.

If the Obama regime thinks it is discriminatory for people to be required to show ID’s to vote, how about we all go to the airport and claim discrimination when the TSA wants to see an ID before boarding an airplane

oldtimer wrote: "Look what happened in Milwaukee the last presidential election."

What was that?

RAF said, "Now the fringe, always on the lookout for a victim, found a person that made a poor choice by never correcting her legal name to hold up as a casualty of current law."
-
Ruthelle is a person who, up until running into Scott Walker and his photo voter ID law, had no trouble whatsoever for 84 years of her life with her identification -- doing the things most people do throughout their lives. No problems with her ID in dealing with local, state or federal agencies for 84 years of her life. She was able to marry, to work, she has voted for 53 years, she has served on the town board for 15 years. It is a real testament to the highly suppressive nature of Walker's new photo voter ID law that after 84 years of leading a productive life with no ID difficulties, Ruthelle is now unable to vote without spending a great deal of time and money.

RAF--"the fringe claim. . . " show me the numbers & data to back the need for the claims that these laws are needed --especially compared to the numbers &data of those who will be denied the right to vote. . .

Old-timer, what reality do you live in? Wait until this voter suppression hits someone you know . . . How's the "Koch -aide" you're drinkin?

The fringe continue with the fear campaign. Protecting voter integrity is declared suppression while claiming existing laws are more than enough. The same laws that allowed three organized SIEU campaign members to recently register and allegedly vote go undetected by authorities. The same laws that allow registrations from non existent residences, government buildings, and empty lots. This is what the fringe think should be normal and continue.

Sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees. In fifty years time, young people will be reading about this chapter in our history, the photo voter ID laws and words like yours, RAF. And it will all be viewed as part and parcel of all prior voter suppression efforts.

The clowns in SC would reinstate the poll tax and literacy tests if they could. You would think that Wisconsin would be above that sort of thing.

The plaintiff Ruth, has chosen to go through life never correcting her legal name. Now the fringe, always on the lookout for a victim, found a person that made a poor choice by never correcting her legal name to hold up as a casualty of current law. Pitty her decision to never correct her legal name is the lefts version of the newest victim. Jim Crow is rolling in shame how these people are portrayed as equivalent to past actions in our nation.

Voter suppression is nothing new. People have long been crafting ways of suppressing voters and maintaining their advantage of being able to vote. There was a time in this country that if you were not a white, male who was at least 21 years old and could afford a poll tax you could not vote. It took the 15th Amendment (1870) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) to allow non-whites to vote; the 19th Amendment (1920) to allow women to vote; the 24th Amendment (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) to allow people who could not afford a poll tax to vote; the 26th Amendment (1971) to allow 18 year olds to vote.
-
What was the reason for the suppression then? Were people afraid that non-whites were more likely to commit voter fraud than whites? That women were more likely to commit voter fraud than men? That people who could not pay a poll tax were more likely to commit voter fraud than those who could pay? That 18, 19 and 20 year olds were more likely to commit voter fraud than people 21 years and older?
-
What is the reason for the suppression now? Are people who cannot easily obtain and/or afford a photo voter ID any more likely to commit voter fraud than people who can easily obtain and/or afford a photo voter ID?
-
"Plaintiff Ruthelle Frank is an 84-year-old Caucasian resident of Brokaw, Wisconsin, where she has served on the Village Board since 1996, and an eligible voter registered to vote in Wisconsin. She has no accepted form of photo ID under the photo ID law and lacks a certified copy of her birth certificate, which she needs to prove citizenship to the Wisconsin DMV. Ms. Frank was born at her home in Brokaw in 1927. Though she has never possessed a birth certificate, upon information and belief, the state Register of Deeds has a record of her birth and could produce a certified copy of her birth certificate at a charge. However, that record bears an incorrect spelling of her maiden name: Wedepohl. The process to amend a birth certificate is lengthy and costly, with some reports suggesting it might require $200 or more. She has voted in every election since 1948 and intends to vote in Wisconsin again next year." - United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case 2:11-cv-01128 [ http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2011121... ]

RAF,
Wow. All you did there was retype some of the words from my post. I hope you're not looking for creativity points. You just gave me the "I know you are, but what am I". Maybe Santa will bring you some rhetorical skills.

The voter ID law screens out Hitler, mickey mouse etc that seem to be able to sign the recall election 80 times. Look what happened in Milwaukee the last presidential election.

Yes walter extra credit, is that the best one liner you have? Speaking of baseless comments with no shred of proof that smells like a big pile. You and your ilk are great at the hypocritical rants.

Plus, did RAF just "Lol" at this article? What are you 15 years old? You are aware these aren't text messages, right? Are you getting extra credit in government class for commenting on these articles?

Yet another baseless one-liner with no evidence provided brought to you by RAF. I think I'd rather get a lump of coal for Christmas than that steaming pile.

Lol the same federal office that thinks voter intimidation should go unpunished thinks keeping in place fraud is the only way to keep their party in office. Pathetic!

Fedup,
The new voter ID law will in no way prevent felons from voting. If they have proper ID, they'll be permitted to vote. The problem with this law is that it was sold on the idea that voter fraud is this giant problem that has become deeply entrenched in every aspect of our voter system. No investigation has proven that voter fraud occurs in any more than .0007% of votes in WI elections. This new law will cost millions of taxpayer dollars to go after a problem that was already being adequately handled by the previous law, those enforcing it and the state lawyers prosecuting those that broke it.

Let's go one step further, require everyone that donates to their prospective candidate to a have a valid voter ID for that election. No out of state money, no out of country money, no corporate money, no union money !

For those of you so determined that the votes of illegal immigrants is such a big problem; First of all, it's not. No investigation into voter fraud has proven that illegal immigrants are voting in large numbers. Secondly, a question for you. If putting a law in place that supposedly will prevent illegal immigrants from voting also prevents a larger number of elderly people and homeless people from voting, is it worth it? Is going after illegal immigrants so important that compromising others' right to vote is justified?

RustyRotor,
No, it doesn't bother me that President Lincoln was a Republican because I actually have historical perspective, something you seem to be intent on proving that you do not have. Political parties have gone through a great many changes over the 200 plus years of this nation's existence. There are a great many similarities between the Republican party of Lincoln's time and the Democratic party now. In fact, in 1860 the party candidates ran in favor of things like high protective tariffs (taxes), free homesteads (social program), and building the trans-continental railroad (infrastructure project). The Republican Party that Abe Lincoln belonged to might actually win my vote.

fed up you're exactly right. thats why the dems find it an Achilles heel. the illegals vote dem because their all about welfare and peoples "rights". forget about my rights as a tax paying, working, legal citizen of the good ole us of a.

ithappens, i like your idea. but... would we have to show an id to vote on this?

I moved a couple of years ago. Instead of getting a new drivers license, I opted to save the $28.00 fee and just update my address on the DOT website, making it valid for another 5 years. But because it has my old address, it is not a valid ID to use to vote. The state will not issue me a free voter ID card, because I have a valid driver license. So I am forced to pay $28.00 to vote in the spring election. Thanks a lot Scooter.

i guess my comment was uninformed. let me rephrase. leave it to the feds to protect their political interests over integrity.

i guess my comment was uninformed. let me rephrase. lease it to the feds to protect their political interests over integrity.

It's an election year and they backed down on Boeing. This is a big issue as well. Combating Voter Fraud

You mean the Justice Dept under Holder and the Banana Republic of Obama regime? I never in my life have seen so many states go after the Federal Government for over stepping states rights. Go get them on this too Gov. Haley!

leave it to a state below the mason dixon to remain in the 17th century.

Any bank transaction requires a photo ID, says the PPCU sign. The other day I needed change, 4-$5.00's for a twenty. It was a breeze, I handed them my ID, then they gave it back with change. This is not a complicated process to get a free state ID card and show it. One guy I took to the DMV was going to buy his ID card, until he found out it was free if he was going to use it to vote.

50% of the state wants voter id and 50% doesn't. It's not that big of a deal to show an id. You do it all the time. I say put it on a ballot and stop all this bickering.

wislady: So, what exactly are you saying?

Holder's Voter ID Fraud

The Obama Administration's re-election mobilization continues: Witness Eric Holder's attempt to play the race card and perhaps twist the law in a campaign against voter identification laws.

In the Attorney General's telling, the movement in the states to require voters to show some ID is a revival of minority disenfranchisement a la Jim Crow. A growing number of minorities, he said in a speech last week, are now worried about "the same disparities, divisions and problems" that beset the country in 1965 and "many Americans, for the first time in their lives . . . now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up" to the promise of democracy for all.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

The sooner Holder is removed from office, the better it will be for the citizens of the USA.

If all you so RIGHTeous hypocrites
looked in the mirror and were honest with yourselves, you would admit that your ridiculous proposed reasons for wanting voter ID could be accomplished with minimal cost and inconvenience by just having everyone put a thumbprint down when they vote.

But if you are truly honest, as you proclaim to be, you would admit what we all know anyway...voter fraud has nothing to do with it...unless of course you are a Republican sheep and drink the Kool-Ade.

Of course that is rhetorical...we all know the real reason. You just have to convince yourselves.

witaxman wrote: "oh yea, I remember, if you have to have an ID to vote then the illegals and non-residents can vote."

There will be far, far more people unable to vote in the next election than there will be people willing and able to commit voting fraud. The most common instance of voting fraud are from felons who are ineligible to vote. The voting ID law doesn't even address that.

witaxman,
All those things you named are not rights except for health care which you really don't need an ID for any way. Voting is a right and if one is not legally obligated to carry an ID to walk down the street to the polling station, then they should not be forced to carry an ID in order to exercise their right to vote. Proving your name and residence under the previous law was perfectly adequate. The new Voter ID law in WI will suppress certain groups of voters and will inevitably be struck down in the courts.

916WI,
There shouldn't be a tab for anyone to pick up. Voting is a right. No one should have to pay for anything to exercise that right. Gas, insurance, and all your other garbage red herrings do not matter unless people are being forced to pay to vote. You might think that people should have certain documents, but legally they are not obligated to unless, of course, they want to get an ID which they now need to vote. It is a poll tax: money that must be paid in order for a person to be allowed to vote.

Wally.......too funny! Yes, those things that they should already have will not be free if they need to replace them. Come to think of it, the fuel that their car will burn driving to the DMV also isn't free, neither is the insurance required to operate the car that will need to take them to the DMV...I guess you silly liberals would expect the state's taxpayers to pick up the tab for all of these things....no?

it's absolutely amazing to me that so many are against Voter ID. You need an ID to purchase alcohol if you're under a certain age, an ID to open a bank account, and ID when you check in at the doctor's office...why is so bad to have an ID to vote? oh yea, I remember, if you have to have an ID to vote then the illegals and non-residents can vote. no wonder the dems are so much against voter ID

RustyRotor, during the time the Voting Rights Act was passed, the 9 states still directly impacted by the bill had 15 Democrat senators and 3 Republican senators. These senators were under significant pressure to vote against the bill, irregardless of party affiliation, hence the percentages you provided. It wasn't until years later that Republicans saw significant senatorial gains in those states. During the extension vote in 2006, 17 of the 18 senators in those 9 states were Republicans. And it was the Republican senators who led attempts to thwart the extension. Again, those senators were under great pressure from their constituents. This is more a case of racism than political affiliation - racism runs straight through the political spectrum.

The Republican "Southern Strategy":
http://www.salon.com/2011/02/03/reagan_s...

916WI,
It can be considered a poll tax if the documents required to obtain the free ID are not free.

Badgerlvr......it sounds like you're a little clueless regarding the voter ID laws in our state. It can't be considered a poll tax if the IDs are free...

RustyRotor,
You're obviously not familiar with the history of the pro-slavery Southern Democrats and their eventual defection to the Republican party during and after the Civil Rights movement which turned that party much more conservative than it had been historically. Way to ignorantly drop some statistics without doing your homework. Nice try, but maybe you should let the educated folks do the intellectual heavy lifting.

I think the Justice Department did the right and proper thing here.

The Voting Rights Act was signed into law by Pres. Johnson in 1965 and is a direct result of a history, starting in the 1870s, when Southern Democratic legislators found means to deny the vote to blacks, through violence, intimidation, and Jim Crow laws. The law has been amended and extended since 1965. In 1965 when the senate voted for the law, democrats voted 73% for, 27% against. Senate republicans voted 94% for, 6% against. Looks like the republicans wanted fair voting rights for minorities more than the democrats. Pres. Bush signed a 25 year extension in 2006.

The South Caroline law also makes it harder for Illegals to cancel out qualified residents votes. The governor of Wisconsin could tap into these votes and win his recall election. I say this cause the illegals I know are conservatives, and not just conservatives but fiscal conservatives. Like Walker.

The voter ID law is nothing more than a resurgence of the 19th century "Poll Tax".

Oh yeah I almost forgot - VERIFY THE RECALL!

I suppose in that state they don't have pictures on their drivers licenses either.

Of course. Poopbah supports communism wherever it lives.

I applaud the Department of Justice for taking this action.

Recall Walker!

Hopefully this will happen in WI - almost forgot to say----------->Recall Walker. Our new Gov. will be Bronson L.