(12-31-2011 12:18 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  UM Grad needs to acquaint himself with the sordid story of "Houston Votes"..

But how does that move his agenda forward?

(12-29-2011 11:30 AM)Max Power Wrote:  240,000 South Carolinians don't have a photo ID

Source?

(12-31-2011 02:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 11:30 AM)Max Power Wrote:  240,000 South Carolinians don't have a photo ID

Source?

And about half a million 18+ in SC aren't registered to vote.

(12-31-2011 02:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 11:30 AM)Max Power Wrote:  240,000 South Carolinians don't have a photo ID

Source?

If so?..So what? Why is that anyone problem but theirs. Go get one.

(12-28-2011 04:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Rich have more when GOPers win and poor people have more when Dems win.

Not true at all. Rich have been getting richer and poor have been doing not so well since the mid-70s, and that includes 4 terms of dems (Carter, Clinton 2, Obama) and 5 terms of reps (Regan 2, Bush, Shrub 2) presidents, with congress controlled by reps 12 years, dems 12 years, and divided 12 years, IIRC.

Where the rich do really well and the poor do really badly, to the extent that the middle class disappears entirely, are the socialist paradises that the left wants to emulate. The poor in particular have always done better in capitalist free markets than in socialist/communist/fascist centrally planned economies. Disagree? Show some examples.

(12-30-2011 11:16 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-30-2011 10:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-30-2011 10:23 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  It's clear that you don't want to discuss the issue and that you'll use whatever excuse you can to slink away. If you're really that thin-skinned, then you're wasting my time.

If all you're going to do is behave like a jerk and add nothing of value to the conversation, then I don't want to discuss any issue with you. Nor should anyone else. Sounds like we both have better uses for our time than for you to engage in, and me to put up with, your childish antics. When you grow up, perhaps we can have further discussions.

Let me know when you stop being a coward.

Do you have anything besides name-calling?

(12-31-2011 04:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-30-2011 11:16 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-30-2011 10:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-30-2011 10:23 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  It's clear that you don't want to discuss the issue and that you'll use whatever excuse you can to slink away. If you're really that thin-skinned, then you're wasting my time.

If all you're going to do is behave like a jerk and add nothing of value to the conversation, then I don't want to discuss any issue with you. Nor should anyone else. Sounds like we both have better uses for our time than for you to engage in, and me to put up with, your childish antics. When you grow up, perhaps we can have further discussions.

Let me know when you stop being a coward.

Do you have anything besides name-calling?

He has offered a lot of things. THey just aren't what you believe so you don't take the time to try and think and see if what he is saying makes sense. You just automatically say he is wrong. Not sure where you get the idea all he does is name-call.

(12-31-2011 04:29 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Not sure where you get the idea all he does is name-call.

(12-31-2011 03:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 04:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Rich have more when GOPers win and poor people have more when Dems win.

Not true at all. Rich have been getting richer and poor have been doing not so well since the mid-70s, and that includes 4 terms of dems (Carter, Clinton 2, Obama) and 5 terms of reps (Regan 2, Bush, Shrub 2) presidents, with congress controlled by reps 12 years, dems 12 years, and divided 12 years, IIRC.

Where the rich do really well and the poor do really badly, to the extent that the middle class disappears entirely, are the socialist paradises that the left wants to emulate. The poor in particular have always done better in capitalist free markets than in socialist/communist/fascist centrally planned economies. Disagree? Show some examples.

Forget trying to reason with Comrade DUMgrad and RobertN. They are convinced that the State is the answer to everything. I guess they would love to have grown up under the velvet cover of the Motherland, the loving caress and discipline of Mao, the economic power of Castro, and the dark nights of North Korea. Wonderful examples of what you get when their ideology is put to test in its purest form.

(12-31-2011 05:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 03:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 04:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Rich have more when GOPers win and poor people have more when Dems win.

Not true at all. Rich have been getting richer and poor have been doing not so well since the mid-70s, and that includes 4 terms of dems (Carter, Clinton 2, Obama) and 5 terms of reps (Regan 2, Bush, Shrub 2) presidents, with congress controlled by reps 12 years, dems 12 years, and divided 12 years, IIRC.

Where the rich do really well and the poor do really badly, to the extent that the middle class disappears entirely, are the socialist paradises that the left wants to emulate. The poor in particular have always done better in capitalist free markets than in socialist/communist/fascist centrally planned economies. Disagree? Show some examples.

Forget trying to reason with Comrade DUMgrad and RobertN. They are convinced that the State is the answer to everything. I guess they would love to have grown up under the velvet cover of the Motherland, the loving caress and discipline of Mao, the economic power of Castro, and the dark nights of North Korea. Wonderful examples of what you get when their ideology is put to test in its purest form.

WTF are you blabbering about now?

(12-31-2011 09:08 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 05:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 03:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 04:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Rich have more when GOPers win and poor people have more when Dems win.

Not true at all. Rich have been getting richer and poor have been doing not so well since the mid-70s, and that includes 4 terms of dems (Carter, Clinton 2, Obama) and 5 terms of reps (Regan 2, Bush, Shrub 2) presidents, with congress controlled by reps 12 years, dems 12 years, and divided 12 years, IIRC.

Where the rich do really well and the poor do really badly, to the extent that the middle class disappears entirely, are the socialist paradises that the left wants to emulate. The poor in particular have always done better in capitalist free markets than in socialist/communist/fascist centrally planned economies. Disagree? Show some examples.

Forget trying to reason with Comrade DUMgrad and RobertN. They are convinced that the State is the answer to everything. I guess they would love to have grown up under the velvet cover of the Motherland, the loving caress and discipline of Mao, the economic power of Castro, and the dark nights of North Korea. Wonderful examples of what you get when their ideology is put to test in its purest form.

WTF are you blabbering about now?

You know full well WTF I am talking about Comrade.

(12-31-2011 05:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 03:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 04:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Rich have more when GOPers win and poor people have more when Dems win.

Not true at all. Rich have been getting richer and poor have been doing not so well since the mid-70s, and that includes 4 terms of dems (Carter, Clinton 2, Obama) and 5 terms of reps (Regan 2, Bush, Shrub 2) presidents, with congress controlled by reps 12 years, dems 12 years, and divided 12 years, IIRC.

Where the rich do really well and the poor do really badly, to the extent that the middle class disappears entirely, are the socialist paradises that the left wants to emulate. The poor in particular have always done better in capitalist free markets than in socialist/communist/fascist centrally planned economies. Disagree? Show some examples.

Forget trying to reason with Comrade DUMgrad and RobertN. They are convinced that the State is the answer to everything. I guess they would love to have grown up under the velvet cover of the Motherland, the loving caress and discipline of Mao, the economic power of Castro, and the dark nights of North Korea. Wonderful examples of what you get when their ideology is put to test in its purest form.

You forgot CommieTom , another total loser.

And that follower of the fictitious socialist christ, Mr. Peanut.

(01-01-2012 10:02 AM)Paul M Wrote:  And that follower of the fictitious socialist christ, Mr. Peanut.

Do you really believe he was a tea bagger?

Tom is actually okay. He can disagree without being disagreeable, as can guys like Mach, RedHawk, and Sundance. That permits reasonable discussion. Robert's not really disagreeable, he just doesn't add anything of substance. And Grad can't even agree without being disagreeable. There's nothing useful to be gained from engaging with folks like that.

(01-01-2012 02:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom is actually okay. He can disagree without being disagreeable, as can guys like Mach, RedHawk, and Sundance. That permits reasonable discussion. Robert's not really disagreeable, he just doesn't add anything of substance. And Grad can't even agree without being disagreeable. There's nothing useful to be gained from engaging with folks like that.

Didn't Mach wish Niner was dead? I don't think that qualifies him as agreeable. Although his tone lately even when he disagrees hasn't been quite so hostile.

(12-31-2011 02:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 11:30 AM)Max Power Wrote:  240,000 South Carolinians don't have a photo ID

Source?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/us/jus...olina.html

Quote:South Carolina provided data comparing its registered voters to those who had an identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, including a demographic breakdown of the 240,000 registered voters who it said did not have such identification.

Why aren't we complaining about the half million eligible SC residents that aren't registered to vote?

(01-03-2012 11:02 AM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  Why aren't we complaining about the half million eligible SC residents that aren't registered to vote?

Because it is in the best interest of the GOP that they aren't

(01-03-2012 10:26 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(12-31-2011 02:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 11:30 AM)Max Power Wrote:  240,000 South Carolinians don't have a photo ID

Source?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/us/jus...olina.html

Quote:South Carolina provided data comparing its registered voters to those who had an identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, including a demographic breakdown of the 240,000 registered voters who it said did not have such identification.

That number is pretty well discredited in the rest of the article. Looks like 80,000 may be a realistic number. That's still a lot. But I have a hard time believing that any substantial portion of that number can't afford a photo ID; I would imagine the vast majority don't have one for other reasons.

What if a photo ID card that will suffice is free to anyone who truly can't afford it? How do you feel about requiring photo ID then?