A Sea Of Red

A judge in PA blocked a law today that would make voters present a photo ID before being allowed to vote. I can't believe this was blocked, why is it such a problem to force people to present an ID to vote? I think we ought to administer a basic government knowledge test to anyone who wants to vote.

I'm not much for FoxNews but here is the article:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 ... latestnews

Because the voters of Democrats are too stupid to waddle down to the DMV.

But, I'm sure you have to have photo ID for public assistance......... don't they?

jbock13 wrote:
But, I'm sure you have to have photo ID for public assistance......... don't they?

Not sure about that but some liberal responded to me on FB with this: "they're presented as a way to prevent voter fraud, but are actually designed to prevent old people, african americans, low income families and students from voting because those demographics are likely to vote for obama. why would you care about voter fraud if you're gonna vote three times for one election?"

This is what the education system has done to my generation. The kid didn't even bother to read the actual law being proposed which doesn't discriminate against any demographic. Here's the law in case anyone wants to read it: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI ... /0018..HTM

Which is asinine. But, don't waste your time listening or debating with Democrats. You'd do better explaining to a dog how better Obama is.

I mean, think about what he is arguing. "Black people in my party are too stupid to get to the DMV and receive any identification." How can anyone honestly argue with that? You can't, and that's the point.

And if that isn't racism, I'm not sure what is.

jbock13 wrote:Which is asinine. But, don't waste your time listening or debating with Democrats. You'd do better explaining to a dog how better Obama is.

+1

I haven't used an Id to vote in the past 2 elections. But I do that for other reasons. Lol.

Simpson - a Republican first elected to the bench in 2001 - based his decision on guidelines given to him two weeks ago by the state Supreme Court to determine whether the state had made photo IDs easily accessible.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 2-10-42-39

From what I understand, this judge actually ruled to uphold the law back on Aug. 15 and then was given a directive to not do that this time around. Doesn't make ANY sense to me...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012 ... er-id-law/

I just don't understand why it is so hard for people to understand that voter ID's are free... just like all the other benefits the 'poor and underprivileged' receive. Someone else is paying for it - all they have to do is get off their butts, ride the public transit system down to the DMV and fill out a piece of paper.

Humble_Opinion wrote:

Simpson - a Republican first elected to the bench in 2001 - based his decision on guidelines given to him two weeks ago by the state Supreme Court to determine whether the state had made photo IDs easily accessible.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 2-10-42-39

From what I understand, this judge actually ruled to uphold the law back on Aug. 15 and then was given a directive to not do that this time around. Doesn't make ANY sense to me...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012 ... er-id-law/

I just don't understand why it is so hard for people to understand that voter ID's are free... just like all the other benefits the 'poor and underprivileged' receive. Someone else is paying for it - all they have to do is get off their butts, ride the public transit system down to the DMV and fill out a piece of paper.

But if you do that, Democrats can't cheat to win...

and then deny it later...