On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:14:03 -0700, Persephone wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:20:44 -0500, Omelet <ompomelet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>wrote:
>
>>In article
>><b2forewagner-9C1388.18231528042008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> Bill <b2forewagner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <b2forewagner-083056.10493128042008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> Bill <b2forewagner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Not Good.
>>> >
>>> > NEWS ALERT
>>> > from The Wall Street Journal
>>> >
>>> > April 28, 2008
>>> >
>>> > The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to
produce
>>> > photo identification without violating
>>> > their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID
>>> > laws. In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict
>>> > photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said
would
>>> > deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its
backers
>>> > said the law was needed to deter fraud.
>>> >
>>> > For more information, see:
>>> > <http://wsj.com?mod=djemalertNEWS>
>>> >
>>>
>>> BTW Next Tuesday Primary will be effected by this decision.
>>>
>>> Conniving MF'ers
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>>Sorry, but I was glad to see this law pass. It will prevent illegal
>>voters. Only tax paying citizens should have the right to vote in this
>>country.
>>--
>
>If only 'twere true. But many of the biggest tax evaders, super-rich
>individuals and companies, who shelter their huge profits off-shore,
>out of reach of the IRS, still vote. Guess which way...<g> I
>recently saw figures on the HUGE loss to the Treasury by these tax
>cheats.
>
>No reason to be surprised at this ruling from the Supremes. Since
>Alioto and Roberts got on the Court, a series of egregious
>pro-business decisions have come down. Interesting how, when
>the Far-Right Twins were up for confirmation, the buzz was all
>about how they might restrict women's rights to control their
>fertility. I always wondered whether that was a red herring,
>planted in the media by You Know Who, to distract attention
>from the heavily pro-business records of both Twins.
>
>Personally, while I realize this is a Republican ploy to cut down
>on the number of (poor and minority) Democrats who vote (see
>illegalities committed in 2000 and 2004 elections and intermediate
>ones), I don't think requiring ID is that bad IF -- and this is a BIG
>IF - the requirements for obtaining ID are not too onerous.
>The Devil might be in that detail. If a poor or minority person
>does have the requisite do***entation, the burden might be too great.
>And before you draw your weapon, I'm talking about US citizens, born
>or naturalized, not the flood of illegals with false docs that some
>Nativists hysterically invoke.
>
>Persephone
>
Oops - I meant to write: "If a poor or minority person does
NOT
have the required do***entation, the burden might be too great.
Mea Culpa!
Persephone
|
