mentor397 said, "@Poobah - So then I was right about the analogy of the door locks. As long as there's "not enough" evidence of wrongdoing, then you're unwilling to take the steps to prevent it from happening in the first place."

Well, I'm adding another reading assignment for you! I want you to read the voter fraud laws. I guess I'm not too surprised that you weren't aware of the voter fraud laws that have been in place since well before the Walker voter suppression law. So, I'll give you a couple hours of reading time now given the additional assignment.

@Poobah - So then I was right about the analogy of the door locks. As long as there's "not enough" evidence of wrongdoing, then you're unwilling to take the steps to prevent it from happening in the first place. But again, in your example, if they're having problems getting out, they'd probably have been voting absentee anyway, which would mean they're still eligible to vote.

mentor397 said, "@Poohbah - If I don't understand what is required of me to vote, then I wouldn't get to vote."

That's not true. You probably already had the ID that you needed, didn't you? Put yourself in the position of an 85 year old person who doesn't have a birth certificate, no photo ID, no driver license, health problems that makes it difficult to get out and living on a limited income that makes spending money obtaining the necessary documents to get a photo ID card. That same person has lived in the same house they were born in and has served on their town board for 15 years. Thousands of others with similar situations or varied situations that makes it very burdensome to get the required ID. What is inconsistent here is the lack of proof of a problem with voter fraud (as noted by the court rulings) and the rhetoric of yourself and Republican lawmakers citing the need to stop voter fraud. I'll give you a break now to take some time with the new law so you better understand its impact on people.

@Poohbah - If I don't understand what is required of me to vote, then I wouldn't get to vote. The requirments for me are the same as the requirements for everyone else. How difficult is that for you to wrap your head around? If voting requirements are too onerous for those suppressed from voting, then what exactly am I doing since you believe I don't understand the law? You're inconsistent.

mentor397 said, "- And you either can't or won't defend your low opinion of the people you claim you're trying to help."

Perhaps I missed the real problem with your lack of knowledge of the voter ID law - a reading comprehension issue. I don't have a low opinion of the people whose votes this law is suppressing. I have a low opinion of supporters of the bill who have never even read the bill and others who couldn't understand it -- or wouldn't want to understand it if they did.

@Poohbah - And you either can't or won't defend your low opinion of the people you claim you're trying to help. It's not the supporters of the law you denigrate most, it's the people you claim are afflicted by it. You should be happy to think that all the supporters of Voter ID are so dumb because the very requirements you think are beyond their understanding would then prevent them from voting.

mentor397 said, "You seem to have a rather low opinion of everyone except yourself. Too weak, too feeble, too downright stupid to understand all the complexities of this evil law..."

As a matter of fact, yes I do think that many supporters of the law are too weak, too feeble, too downright lazy and/or ignorant to take the time to read the law and fully understand it. You, for example, said it was as simple as having your photo taken. Well, as you later showed by modifying that, it wasn't true. And now you either won't or can't answer what the other requirements are for obtaining a voter ID. I rather think with you that it's a combination of you not understanding the requirements and of knowing that to list them would further demonstrate the burden it is for many people who do not have satisfactory documentation. You should take the time to read the new law.

@Poohbah - Is this a quiz? You're not qualified to give it. But maybe that's the point. You seem to have a rather low opinion of everyone except yourself. Too weak, too feeble, too downright stupid to understand all the complexities of this evil law and you must protect them so that they may vote for Democrats, which is why you malign Walker so. It says a lot about what you think of the people who make up the side you've chosen. With allies like you, who needs enemies?

mentor397 said, "Still, if it's that hard to get an ID, then perhaps they should have signed up for absentee voting while they had the chance, before the law took effect."

Good, so you are now acknowledging the fact that the law makes it more difficult to vote. Thank you. And thanks for acknowledging that getting a photo ID is not as simple as having your photo taken. Can you tell the people what else is required besides a photo?

@poohbah - No. You have to walk into a polling place with a photo ID. You get the photo ID from the DMV. Much like opening the front door to your house requires you to have a specific key. Do you not understand that part? Does someone have to open the door for you? Do you not know what analogy means? I understand that going places is hard. Still, if it's that hard to get an ID, then perhaps they should have signed up for absentee voting while they had the chance, before the law took effect. Then they wouldn't have to worry about it.

mentor397 said, "I have no idea why people would be unable to have pictures taken in the first."

I think you lack of understanding about the new voter ID law helps to explain your support of it. This isn't as simple as having your friend snap a photo of you. The requirements of the law go well beyond walking into the polling place with a photo of yourself. Read the new law and get back to us when you have a better understanding of the requirements.

@Poobah - Are you upset that vampires can't have their photos taken or that people have to go to the store and get a key made in order to have one to open their door? The analogy is the same in the second case and I have no idea why people would be unable to have pictures taken in the first.

Not quite, mentor397. The voter ID law is more analogous to being required to show a photo ID each time you want to enter your home.

The argument against Voter ID seems to be that unless your house is broken into many, many times, you should not bother to put a lock on your door. Isolated instances are not enough to justify the effort required to get and carry a key.

only Romney is 5 points ahead of Obama and Santorum is 1.
pickles, yum

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-s...

Not to mention that Romney and Santorum's favorability ratings are now under 35% and Newt's is even lower. Quite the pickle you're in, isn't it kaysbrew?

westorbust
this country has always leaned center right.. Obama's 41% approval ratings is a new low. Excellent.

whitemalechristiancitizen said, "You know, if I were a minority..."

Tell us all about it.

-Analertcitizen....I think it was expedited because it is simply not a big deal. In fact, this is almost an expected task in my eyes, to show ID at voting anyway. People are making this a bigger deal than it is.
*
You know, if I were a minority, I would show my ID at a voting place with a lot of pride. I would not feel ashamed. That's why I don't see how this is putting down any certain groups.

Motorman, using your line of thinking, if you have nothing to hide and allow a police search, and if you are not committing any illegal or fraudulent activity during voting, why object to voter ID?
Great insight on the left’s thinking by the left.

It matters, eetech, because it will prevent thousands of people from voting for reasons already discussed earlier. Furthermore, it's another example of the R's flat out lying. Finally, it matters because it is also another example of the R's taking up time promoting a solution in search of a problem, when in the same breath, they promised to have a "laser focus on jobs". That's why it matters.

A quote from Judge Niess:

"The Legislature and governor may certainly take aggressive action to prevent its occurrence. But voter fraud is no more poisonous to our democracy than voter suppression. Indeed, they are two heads on the same monster."

I wholeheartedly agree.

Thankyou kaysbrew for perpetuating the myth of "liberal" and "conservative" when, in actuality, 99% of people are ideologically right down the middle. What people like you seem to want is extremism with no consensus making or discussion. Your way or the highway. Well, I would hope you put your money where your mouth is and take the highway when your time comes.

poobah-Thanks-Enjoyed the video, pretty cool stuff.

Well the Judge made the decision and that is how it will be.

Who cares if there aren't many cases documented for wrong doing. What is the problem with showing ID to vote. Is it really that difficult to show? Libtards...I'll never get them.

Motorman
Mar 12, 2012 at 10:58 p.m.
Hey how about we give the police the right to search your home without cause? Not a problem if you aren't a criminal right?

Motorman
what I find the most funny is your using an example the liberals are fighting for. Personal invasion into our lives. so funny!
Thank you for proving that liberals do really have a problem with over-reaching government and one of the main TEA party rallying calls. GREAT!

I show ID to prove who I am. Voting is more important then any other reason we show ID.

Only cheaters would oppose. The word disenfranchise is used a lot by the liberals and they are right. Cheaters disenfranchise the one person one vote integrity of elections across the board. One vote, one ID, one Address

@truecitizen- I agree with you that the voter ID requirement is not the worst thing in the world that could happen. My concern is the speed in which the Walker camp has enacted the requirement. Passing it so quickly speaks to an agenda that does disenfranchise some voters at this point. Why not enact legislation requiring everyone to have a voter ID by the 2016 elections and have proper advertising, time for people to make arrangements, assistance for those who have trouble getting an ID, etc.? I see the "rush" to push through legislation as an agenda to give an advantage to one party for the recall elections and the Presidential election in 2012.

There is nothing wrong with the requirement to have an ID at the voting place. I always wondered why they did not require it. I cannot believe so many are pretending to be upset about the requirement, and you are pretending it is okay for these judges to strike it down. You are simply against the man himself.
*
These judges are partisan....and biased....I don't care what anyone says about that. KEEP the ID requirement!

RECALL WALKER! TAKE BACK WISCONSIN!

That's alright, joker. I've made the same kind of mix-up comparing documents before and most likely will again.

Poobah sorry I must have mixed up footnotes between the different judges statements. However they have ruled this already and I believe Stevens will not change his mind on the matter as you state.
Even if he does that still makes it 5-4

Well the Judge made the decision and that is how it is. Like i said before there is nothing a good old fasion election can't fix. Why wait ;ets have it right now so we can settle the matter once and for all.

Shopierehuh, sorry I'm getting off-topic here.... but speaking about oleophobic surfaces made me think of this new super hydrophobic substance. This short YouTube video shows them protecting a tennis shoe with it and then pouring chocolate syrup over the shoe and the chocolate syrup just running off. It is just incredible. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7is6r6zXF... ] Thought people might enjoy it and a little break from the action :-)

Poobah, at least cooking oil tends to be kinder and more gentle than some of the industrial use oils. However, one can't be too careful.

thekai, I also skimmed the page I quoted from, and others, while eating my onion rings, and find absolutely no difference. Let's be glad joker is at least trying to read the document. Cheers!

I'm glad this phone's display is oleophobic. :-)

Now, I only skimmed the two documents, I did not peruse them. However, I think that either I am not understanding the statement of discrepancies given by joker, or joker should re-check his/her statement. I see absolutely no difference in the foot notes. Again, I only skimmed.

Joker,
Could you please cite the page numbers where these discrepancies appear, and perhaps paragraph or line numbers, so I can see just what you are talking about?

joker, I'm out for a late snack now and will be brief as it's difficult commenting from my Droid. There was one footnote in the paragraph I cited. It was numbered 19 if I recall correctly. I did not include the number 19 in my quote. I'm glad to see you've chosen to read the opinion. That would be the only difference you found.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07p...

Poobah then why didn't you go to the source document. It is very interesting how the footnotes are different in your link compare to the actual footnotes in the U.S Supreme court .Gov document

joker said, "Did you find anything not factual in the msnbc little blub."

I don't bother researching main stream media articles for accuracy when I can go directly to the source document. It's not that the MSNBC article (content by AP) misquoted the paragraph or so that they included of the 65 page decision. The problem is the missing 64 3/4 pages of the decision that wasn't read because it was not included in the MSNBC article.

poobah and thekai I opened and read the .gov file and some newpaper articles long before I even started posting. Did you find anything not factual in the msnbc little blub. Not everyone has time to read a 65 page court document.

joker, as I have previously mentioned with the provisional ballot issue, I point you to the last paragraph of Section III of Justice Stevens opnion (page 16 of the decision, page 19 of the PDF).

"The severity of that burden is, of course, mitigated by the fact that, if eligible, voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will ultimately be counted. To do so, however, they must travel to the circuit court clerk’s office within 10 days to execute the required affidavit. It is unlikely that such a requirement would pose a constitutional problem unless it is wholly unjustified. And even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek in this litigation."

The Wisconsin provisional ballot procedure is more burdensome and restrictive than is Indiana's. You can count on losing Steven's vote, and possibly others, if the Supreme Court looks at the Wisconsin law. I am happy you opened the PDF to learn there were 65 pages. That's a start.

joker,
I envy you. I wish I could read two pages a minute.

Poobah It was 65 pages of excellent reading that proved my point. so why the issue it was ruled to not pose significant increase to the usual burdens of voting. Perhaps you are the one who should learn to read. Go back to your own link and read Stevens statement

Seriously, what is wrong with people? We have this wonderful resource called the Internet. And web browsers. And sites where we can search for documents. And document readers that let us read documents in their original form. So why is it that people choose not to read the raw, uninterpreted and relevant documents and instead make absolutely ignorant, uninformed and/or misinformed remarks based on what amounts to strained baby food that they've been fed by mainstream media sources? It's really disgusting and depressing. It's no wonder this country is in the position in which we find ourselves. Such ignorance, laziness and unwillingness to research and think independently.

Mark Twain said, "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." I think we need to update that to, "The man who only reads main stream media has no advantage over the man who cannot read."

joker, what you have copied and pasted is media coverage of the ruling from the Associated Press! The Associated Press content has a few quotes sprinkled here and there from some of the justices. The rest is the Associated Press reporter's interpretation of the ruling. I'm not one to be spoon fed my news in soundbites and partial quotes by the AP or any other news source. Read the Supreme Court ruling and pay attention to the discussion of provisional ballots, keeping in mind the Wisconsin statutes (which you probably haven't read either) covering provisional ballots. [ http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/upl... ]

Poobah you think I didnt read it. Here I will show it for those that wont look it up.
"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.

Stevens' opinion suggests that the outcome could be different in a state where voters could provide evidence that their rights had been impaired.

But in dissent, Souter said Indiana's voter ID law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens."

Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said, "The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.'"

Stevens said the partisan divide in Indiana, as well as elsewhere, was noteworthy. But he said that preventing fraud and inspiring voter confidence were legitimate goals of the law, regardless of who backed or opposed it.

Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.

Stevens said these provisions also help reduce the burden on people who lack driver licenses.
What part of Scalias statement do you not understand

joker said, "Lets see what the U.S. Supreme court ruling on this is...Sounds like precedance to me"

The word is precedent. Not precedence and not precedance. If you had taken the time to read the Supreme Court's decision regarding the INDIANA law that you cite, you would know one of the findings of fact for their ruling was that the Indiana provisional ballot procedure allowed people without proper ID to vote at the polls and then later easily verify their identity. Wisconsin has a provisional ballot procedure but it is much more difficult than Indiana's procedure and this is one reason Wisconsin's law is called the most restrictive in the nation. Why don't you read these rulings and the laws before you comment on them?

Interestingly enough the first judge to issue the temporary injunction against this law was appointed by Tommy Thompson.

I suggest that supporters of this law try to get a change in venue to Waukesha County.

Lets see what the U.S. Supreme court ruling on this is
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/ns/...
Sounds like precedance to me

Mouse, I heard he was seen choking the statue of Lady Wisconsin on top of the Capitol dome the other day.

rprp said, "Both judges must be democrat or socialist."

I agree with you, rprp. Their decisions demonstrate a high level of intelligence and judicial acumen.

Both judges must be democrat or socialist.

my10niki,
First of all, let me say I am glad you take voting seriously and cherish that right. Next, and I mean no insult, but you compared using your ID for buying beer to using your ID to vote. You also stated that it is our right to vote. If I am to follow your logic, then it seems that I am due some beer, because apparently it is my right to have beer. Further, since it is my right, there should be a store near me that has this free beer. Please tell me where this store is, and I will gladly present my ID so I can be approved for my free beer.

Your second comment, stating that we should outlaw recalls unless an illegal activity occurs, is a little bit nonsensical. If a lawmaker, or any member of any branch of our government, commits a serious illegal activity, that alone is often grounds for removing the person from office. Look no further than Rod "my hair is #$%^ golden!" Blagojevich. Wisconsin has very strict rules governing recalls. That simple fact should be enough to alert you that this isn't simply some "minority" kicking and screaming. We are legitimate Wisconsinites with legitimate concerns, who want a legitimate recall election because we feel we have been cheated. You need not agree with us, but the only people who look like they are kicking and screaming are the people who want to suddenly change the rules to their favor. We did not even have to somehow get a special law passed that allows recall elections. The possibility for a recall election has existed for a long time, and is open for people of any political party or belief.

mi10niki - might be sooner than you think
http://youtu.be/TwpFq1urK7c

I feel somewhat inadequate to enter this conversation with all the constitutional lawyers writing on this topic, but this is a constitutional issue. The constitution does trump any law that is written. The state of Wi. is pretty specific about putting any restrictions on voting. I find it hard to believe that a judge would make decision on purely political issues if they felt it would immediately be overturned. I don't see much to be gained. The first judge was appointed by Tommy Thompson by the way, he was hardly a flaming liberal.

I think the next bill that should get passed is no recalls unless someone has committed a criminal offense. This nonsense of recalling someone voted in by the majority because the minority doesn't like them is like we're back in grade school again and cost the state money some people could use.

I have a correction to my last post, in regards to don't ask, don't tell.

It seemed everyone remembered don't tell, but no one remembered don't ask.

The republithugs had a clear majority in the senate the assembly and they have the governors office. They could have passed a constitutional voter I'd bill, but they chose to pass one of the most restrictive in the country. They could have gotten consessions from public employees, but chose to instead destroy collective bargaining. They could have gotten redistricting done so that it was advantageous to their party, but chose to do it in secrecy while badly gerrymandering districts. They could have and did accomplish everything they wanted to accomplish, but they chose to bully, cheat, lie, and govern in secrecy. Thus, many of them are being recalled.

I don't know why we are so afraid of photo voter ID. U.S. citizens have the right to vote. Our borders are so open to anyone coming into our states that wasn't years ago, so this seems like a natural progression. What's the problem? 34 other states have it. Can't pay for proper documentation or don't have any. Maybe we should take thumbprints instead at the polls and have them on file. What would be the problem with that? I'm sure there would be something. You have to show ID for most things, even to get that beer. Why not for one of the most important rights we have. There is more to this and I think we all know what it is.

poorrichard,
I may be over thinking this, but my core principles are indeed simple. I am also upset that there is any voter fraud going on at all. However, I think it's still important to make sure the good outweighs the bad. While a voter ID law may be well intentioned, if it does more harm than good, then we should avoid it. A prime example is don't ask don't tell. The law was supposed to make it easier for homosexuals to serve in the military. In the end, everyone remembered don't ask, no one remembered don't tell.

On one hand, it should not matter if someone needs an ID to vote, as long as the entire process of obtaining that ID is free, convenient, easy, and secure. However, the sad truth is, this country is already plagued with low voter turnout. I do not think the situation is as dire as WalterReuther described, however, the less that American citizens actively participate in our democracy (and think for themselves), the closer Walter's description comes to reality.

thekai-You're over thinking this-I know you're studing E.E. but remember the KISS principle-
Keep It Simple Stupid-Now I'm not calling you stupid-far from it. My point is if you want to vote you'll find a way to get an I.D. card but if you want to steal my vote I'm mad and thats what I care about.

Walter Reuther at 2:38 p.m.: WELL WRITTEN imho. I am afraid though that most posters on here are so busy seeing bright blue or bright red, far left or far right, that they did not read and digest your statement with a careful thought. Country is run by very rich and elitist far right and far left people and middle class is being manipulated as you so accurately stated. An example is the delegation last year of coming up with a budget solution to a "super committee" of 12 (6 from each party of which half were from
Senate and half from House and of which 2 were not running for re-election). I believe that both parties knew they would fail from day one and wanted it that way. Perfect election year cover for the other 429 house members and 30+ senators running for election in 2012. Every one of them can state "NOT MY FAULT we did not get a budget deal. The super committee did not come up with a proposal for us to vote on. I did not want to cut social programs or I did not want to cut defense spending and did not vote to. The automatic cuts took place because the supercommittee failed. NOT MY FAULT" The old "good cop / bad cop" routine and the American public (if represented in any way by most of the posters on this site) are falling hook line and sinker for it because they are too busy screaming about who the good cop or the bad cop is while the politicians are working in cahoots to keep themselves and their rich backers that way, keep the poor dependent on the government, and keep the middle class paying for it while hoping to join the rich. IMHO .... All posters: please go back and read the Walter Reuther note at 2:38 p.m with an open and thoughtful mind. I can not tell from his post if he is a liberal or conservative and do not care .... He sounds like a middle of the road realist which I wish more of our politicians were.

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charl...

http://unspokenmajority.blogspot.com/200...

poorrichard,
I agree with your logic. The problem here is I think you assume that in my opinion, without a voter ID law there will be no fraud. And I am making the assumption that in your opinion, with voter ID, there will be no disenfranchised voters. I try to weigh everything out. Small amounts of voter fraud are still very bad, to be sure. However, I believe -more- votes will be discounted by implementing voter ID. If I only have two evils to choose from, I will choose the lesser of the two evils.

To put it another way, without a voter ID law, perhaps 10 fraudulent votes will be cast, potentially discounting 10 legitimate votes. With a voter ID law, perhaps 100 people will be disenfranchised, potentially discounting 100 votes. The net result is 90 more votes are discounted with a voter ID law than without.

Additionally, it is much easier to discover people casting votes fraudulently, and to persecute such people, than it is to measure how many people are disenfranchised. I will yield one point on this merit. It is more difficult to prove that we need voter ID than it is to prove that we do not. However, the onus should lie with those who want to introduce the constricting law, not the other way around. Further, it is quite easy to enforce laws against voter fraud, but impossible to charge someone for discouraging or disenfranchising a voter through a voter ID law.

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/09/27/1...

It just keeps going

Bowlgal said, "The left poobah calls the right parrots buy all I hear is Koch bros."

I need to correct your statement. I have singled out posters for parroting the talking points they are presented with. There are intelligent, independent thinking people of all political persuasions who speak their own mind -- as I have stated before. I seldom ever mention the Koch brothers unless the article is specifically about them.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?i...

Acorn even has a top ten list of fraud which usually means there is more. Defunding was bi-partisan

I just have been thinking about this.... i'm in my 50's now and i go to the bank, pharmacy, tavern, grocery store, drive and write checks ect ect all the time and i can't remember the last time someone asked me for a picture I.D.?.....its been years actually....

thekai-You said "when voter fraud has been found, its in small, isolated instances"
If it's only ONE fraudulent vote, that vote might cancel out my vote or even your vote.
Now who's being disenfranchised and that's why voter I.D. is needed. If you vote, your vote should count!

kaysbrew,
I wasn't aware it was your right to fly. I didn't know it was your right to write a check. I didn't know it was your right to check in to a hotel.

So, kaysbrew, did you ever have to show your proof of ID to be born, or periodically to prove it's okay for you to live? Do you have to show your ID any time you step outside of your house, or want to do something (anything) on your own free will; do you show your ID to prove you have liberty? Do you show your ID when you smile or laugh, to prove it's okay for you to be happy? Do you have to show your ID before you watch a funny show on the television or internet?

The liberals sure like to play the victim card

Why am I required to present ID boarding a plane, checking in to a hotel, right a check,yada yada same victim story by the liberals.

Those who want to vote will be proud to show there ID. I will!

GET IT FOR FREE. YOU LIBERALS LIKE FREE

Bad american - that is why they disbanded but it was forced due to the voter fraud in Nevada. look it up!
Eric Holder suing? Is this the same guy that gave guns to drug runners and drop voter intimidation cases against the black panthers?

poorrichard,
In Germany, even if you are born in their country, you are not automatically granted citizenship.

What's your point?

Bowlgal,
We didn't go to war with Libya. We assisted the UN in liberating the country. We didn't put boots on the ground (as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq). Do you also decry Nixon's bombing of Cambodia, without congressional approval? What was done in Cambodia makes the US involvement in Libya look like non-involvement.

It's just a good thing that appeals can be filed outside of Dane county.

thekai - the Obama administration is acting out of the constitution, not because of dislike.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...

one example of many

You need a state issued I.D. to vote in Mexico.
Wow thay must have millions of disenfranchised
voters down there who can't get to the DMV. OR
Will those who want to vote find a way to get one?

http://media2.620wtmj.com/breakingnews/E...

Acorn was forced to break up due to there voter fraud. And the Koch Bros give no more to Republicans as George Soros gives to the Democrats. There is no law against either. Your blind hyprocrisy.

Fraud report attached.

Bowlgal,
The Obama administration has seen so many lawsuits because Republicans just don't like him. One such lawsuit even alleges that Obama was not born in the United States. Really? Apparently just about anyone can file a lawsuit for just about any reason.

What is happening to Walker right now? He's being focused on more and more in the John Doe investigation. As far as I know, Obama is not facing anything of that magnitude. So if your measuring stick for judging how righteous or good a person is deals with legal challenges, then I think you ought to revisit your thoughts on your poster boy "Governer".

Voter fraud does exist? And it has been affecting the outcome of elections? Well, I know that in 2000 Al Gore won Florida, but the state (and thus the national election) was given to George W. Bush. That was certainly some type of fraud and involved voters. But then, that favored Republicans. In Wisconsin, there has been no evidence to support that voter fraud exists on a large scale at all. When voter fraud has been found, it's been in small, isolated instances, not some huge orchestration such as so many on the right are trying to portray it.

Someone, or some people, are trying to suppress legitimate elections, but it's not by protecting the integrity. Voters are being disenfranchised. Voter ID is not necessary, and to claim it is without great evidence to prove why we need it is to blindly follow.

One more note, stated in general and not pointed to anyone specifically. The Republicans did so well in the last election because of hatred toward Obama and because the political pendulum was swung far to the right. Many Democrats did not get out and vote, and they paid for it. In fact, had many Democrats who did not vote motivated themselves to vote, it is likely far less Republicans would have been elected to office... and it is even conceivable that Scott Walker would have lost the election.

Good American, you bring up this Obama administration. Why is this Administration sued by more states then any other? The left poobah calls the right parrots buy all I hear is Koch bros.
Voters can vote-period!
Fraud does exist and you can be a closed minded liberal if you'd like but it exist when there is not ID.
The only suppression I have seen is again the left trying to suppress a legitimate election.

From what I've seen in Wisconsin this past year. I wouldn't put it past any blue fister to camp in a district for recall elections. Midnight ride is spot on in my opinion.

Struck down as it should be. Courts need to side with any member of society that might not need or be able to get an ID. Voting is as fundamental as breathing. Quit messing with it Republicans!

mouse
how about Soros money buying and contributing to media and tell Obama to just be a dictator?
Talk about being out of the kool-aid blue.
close your eyes to your party and give all the power to the Koch brothers. The liberals must really think they are more powerful then Soros and Buffet. It's the only explaination for their panty bunch. Glad they are on our side. Maybe we have a fighting chance against Soros

Mouse, have that website link printed on some tri-cornered hats and kaysbrew and his patriot buddies will wear it proudly. And don't forget to set out some patriot crackers.

how mouse? how? unverified claims don't add up to jack. you tell me how?

WR-I feel sorry for you if that's what you really believe. Sad and scary.

Mouse said, "poobah..... don't take much to get em going does it?"

No, it sure doesn't. They were a bit late arriving today but must have smelled the patriot chips we set out for them.

mouse can't answer the question. she doesn't know why she gets up in the morning.

I know my question may be a bit out there for you mouse. I thought it was so simple.
Maybe next time.

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/new-vo...

http://catscratchins.wordpress.com/2012/...

I'll match you mouse. One wing nut post for another.

I stand by my posts mouse. Please answer my question. What draws you to Democrats?

I might agree T except I look at liberals who say they are for the working middle class but take major wall street donor money. Millions from people like Bill Maher and other fat cat hollywood types. Give millions of tax dollars to companies like Solyndra while gas prices are up that hurt the very people liberals claim to protect. The middle class. High gas doesn't hurt the rich.
Voter Id doesn't hurt anyone either. Voter fraud hurts everyone.

This is just wrong. Can't Walker or the Fitzy brothers have these judges barred from the bench? What good is a plutocracy when legislators can't overrule the judicial office?

good post walter

Once again, the adult conversation has deteriorated with the entries of mouse.
Apparently you did not read Scott Angus' opinion article in Sunday's paper. This blog site was enacted for thoughts and ideas and additions to the article. Not to hit and run with juvenile one liners.
Suggest you try something new mouse. The real reason why you are a Democrat. What draws you to the party?

Mouse wake up you're dreaming again!

I am sure you do not pay taxes either mouse.
You come across as more of a taker and not a giver.

http://inventors.about.com/od/lstartinve...

WalterReuther you fail to rant about how the left loves this woman as long as she is a secretary. Does she have no business inventing liquid paper and becoming a million? Isn't that the American Dream?

A trusted election process is also an American dream.

I blame Walker for this. And the Koch brothers!

Walter: Sounds like a bunch of sour grapes to me.

The American dream for most involves giving up your freedom. The modern form of capitalism so deeply entrenched here in America cannot function without hordes of people up to their eyeballs in debt who are so scared that they won't be able to borrow more money that they'll scratch and claw and sell their souls to keep up the impression that they can continue to pay their bills. And what happens when people simply can't pay their bills. We've seen it happening for the past 4 or 5 years. Do you know why rich people want middle class folks to look at the poor with such disdain? Because the lower classes who are able to get by on the pittance that the government provides and little else are much more free than the middle class will ever be. The middle class has been trained to think that one day, they too will be rich enough to not have to worry. The rich have no intention of ever letting that happen, but it is key to keep the middle class thinking that it could happen. The rich need the middle class to keep slaving away for them with that pipe dream in mind. That's how the rich keep the wealth concentrated. The middle class does all the work and is more than willing to go into debt just to get a tiny taste of the "good life". And to keep most middle classers from looking to the life of the poor and thinking that living free of debt wouldn't be so bad, the rich keep one side of the government on the attack against "government hand outs" and the other side playing the "bleeding hearts" always advocating for the "free loaders". It has an appearance of balance. It's obviously convincing, but's all just illusion and dramatic effect of the political theater. It is but one distraction among many in an "empire of illusion" built on the "end of literacy" and the "triumph of spectacle". I must credit the brilliant writer Chris Hedges for those last few quotes. They're part of the title to one of his books. I highly recommend it.

When Gov. Walker wants things to go his way, he goes over to Republican friendly Waukesha County. That's the county he went to to make sure that tax payers would have to pay for recall petition review rather than paying for it himself as the law clearly spelled out. It was also in Waukesha County, far from the north woods, that a public forum was set up during the height of the mining legislation fiasco. Do the judges' rulings on this ridiculous law really seem all that different? This is how things are done. This is politics. This is our government. Why get upset about it? That's what they want. The more angrily divided we are, the more easily distracted we are. We never noticed that our governments were being sold off piece by piece to the highest bidder. We never noticed that the two parties are serving the same masters and using political theater as a cover. Now it's too late to do anything about it short of extreme measures. So we pretend that the work of the government is still important and that politicians look out for the common man's best interests. We do so because we don't want to admit that we let it get this way. Not even 250 years and here we are again. Instead of monarchs ruling us from the English throne, we have filthy rich plutocrats ruling us from gated communities and locked board rooms. Instead of influential and bought off loyalists, we have our own crooked state and national governments. And instead of 13 colonies full of informed and impassioned believers in what is good and what is right, we have us; a divided, politically uninformed & uninvolved, uneducated rabble. We're more concerned with our favorite sports team or reality t.v. than all the things being decided for us. We are defined by our credit score. Our value as people is now directly connected to how willing the rich are to allow us to become indebted to them. Cont'd----->

Suppress the vote? Anyone can vote. Anyone can obtain an ID. Anyone can prove who they are. But the left is very clear that they will be bring in occupy and other left groups and paid protesters to take up residence in Wisconsin to sway the vote. Getting rid of this law is extremely important to further their agenda. Money is no option.
We voted in Republicans overwhelmingly without voter ID. However, union operatives have a bigger stake now and a bigger need to commit fraud.

This is further indication of just how far from true conservatism today's extremist tea partiers have become.-by Gandalf @2:16pm.

They are not conservatives, Gandalf. They are some kind of bizarre useful idiot tools used by the likes of the Kochs and their cronies.

Gandalf said, "Feduptaxpayer stupidly states that the judges are corrupt, with no proof of such a serious charge. Shameful. This is further indication of just how far from true conservatism today's extremist tea partiers have become."

So true, Gandalf. The thing that amazes me is that there are so few, if any, true conservatives stepping forward to denounce his outrageous utterances.

gandalf: The only votes that would be suppressed with out an ID are fraudulant votes!

Well why am I not surprised

It would seem that it is time to start the 72 Wisconsin county lawsuit rotation. I wonder how many of the left would complain if the Waukesha judges up held laws. Dane county is so left bubbled you might as well be in Chicago.
The Supreme Court will be very busy.

GoodAmerican,
I think you are correct. After review, irony is basically something that happens and is opposite of what was expected to happen. No irony here.

Feduptaxpayer said, "A Dane County Lib reviewing another Dane County Lib and you get laws made up as you go."

You don't even understand the situation that you're offering an opinion on. This was not one judge reviewing another judge. The case Judge Niess ruled on today is totally separate of the case that Judge Flanagan previously ruled on. There was no review of Judge Flanagan's case and/or ruling by Judge Niess. Also, no laws were "made up" by either judge.

Are you at all embarrassed by being so wrong?

THis place is really becoming a joke with all the back and forth BS.

I am having trouble defining irony, and I was wondering if anyone could help.

Is it ironic to criticize two "liberal" judges for coming to similar conclusions on a controversial voter ID law, but not criticize two branches of the government strongly over powered by "conservatives," who were unwilling to take the time to work with their counterparts and produce a more comprehensive voter ID law?

Given the horrible Walker/Fitzgerald voter ID law, Judge Niess realistically had no other option. Forward! It's a great day in Wisconsin.

Only in the banana republic of dane county.