(12-23-2011 02:12 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  When a top executive of your company sends out a memo that says "employees shoud refrain from...", and then someone who works with you is fired for doing something related but much less that what you were instructed to refrain from doing, you are in fact being forbidden from doing such. You can split hairs however you want, but DMV employees were told not to offer the free IDs unless specifically requested and not to offer any guidance on what kind of ID was needed to vote. Voter suppression - it's a right-wing tradition.

Im sorry you consider one person telling everyone in the organization to disreagard the boss is a lesser offense than telling on customer they don't need to pay for that ID..

Wow you must *never* have worked for anyone outside of academia!

(12-23-2011 02:18 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 02:04 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 01:49 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Yet another facet to this story - a low-level DMV employee sent an email to his fellow DMV employees encouraging them to tell everyone they know about the free ID option for voting purposes. He was fired.

You mean he contraindicated his superiors and was fired... The horror!

If I went to the UM to ask about voter residency requirements would the gal at the library tell me or would she tell me to contact the appropriate government agency..

He didn't contradict his superiors. He encouraged DMV employees to let their friends, family, etc. know about the free IDs so that people who needed them would know that they could get one. He was fired for that.

As for your boneheaded analogy, if you needed a library card to prove residency, then I expect "the gal at the library" to inform people which library card is needed for that purpose.

Walker's voter suppression efforts are one of many reasons that he will be leaving office after only two years.

As usual you will either ignor facts or bask in your own ignorance...

He sand an email *FROM HIS DMV ACCOUNT*

Larsen, a limited-term employee at the state Department of Safety and Professional Services, sent this e-mail Thursday morning to colleagues, encouraging them to tell all their friends about the free ID cards:

(12-23-2011 02:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 02:12 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  When a top executive of your company sends out a memo that says "employees shoud refrain from...", and then someone who works with you is fired for doing something related but much less that what you were instructed to refrain from doing, you are in fact being forbidden from doing such. You can split hairs however you want, but DMV employees were told not to offer the free IDs unless specifically requested and not to offer any guidance on what kind of ID was needed to vote. Voter suppression - it's a right-wing tradition.

Im sorry you consider one person telling everyone in the organization to disreagard the boss is a lesser offense than telling on customer they don't need to pay for that ID..

Wow you must *never* have worked for anyone outside of academia!

The only way he could have been "disregarding the boss" is if the boss didn't want anyone to know about the free IDs. Thanks for making my point.

(12-23-2011 02:38 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 02:18 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 02:04 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 01:49 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Yet another facet to this story - a low-level DMV employee sent an email to his fellow DMV employees encouraging them to tell everyone they know about the free ID option for voting purposes. He was fired.

You mean he contraindicated his superiors and was fired... The horror!

If I went to the UM to ask about voter residency requirements would the gal at the library tell me or would she tell me to contact the appropriate government agency..

He didn't contradict his superiors. He encouraged DMV employees to let their friends, family, etc. know about the free IDs so that people who needed them would know that they could get one. He was fired for that.

As for your boneheaded analogy, if you needed a library card to prove residency, then I expect "the gal at the library" to inform people which library card is needed for that purpose.

Walker's voter suppression efforts are one of many reasons that he will be leaving office after only two years.

As usual you will either ignor facts or bask in your own ignorance...

He sand an email *FROM HIS DMV ACCOUNT*

Larsen, a limited-term employee at the state Department of Safety and Professional Services, sent this e-mail Thursday morning to colleagues, encouraging them to tell all their friends about the free ID cards:

OMG... you mean someone used their work email for something only partially related to work? Well, in that case...

(12-23-2011 02:44 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  He sand an email *FROM HIS DMV ACCOUNT*

Larsen, a limited-term employee at the state Department of Safety and Professional Services, sent this e-mail Thursday morning to colleagues, encouraging them to tell all their friends about the free ID cards:

OMG... you mean someone used their work email for something only partially related to work? Well, in that case...
[/quote]

If my boss reorgs our department and says, no more discussion on this its a pretty simple request

If I then send an email from my work account to other I work with and other outside the company discussion his memo and saying how much is suck... Well I would be looking for a new job

(12-23-2011 01:46 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 01:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 01:13 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 01:09 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 12:37 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  It's not my fault that you are too stupid and lazy to look something up for yourself.

It does not exist, you made it up out of thin air. It's not my fault you are the a*sshole making a case with falacy as the basis.

Yet another right-wing idiot who can't figure out how to work the Googly-machine.

Here is the memo in question

It was *not* forbidding employees from telling people that free IDs were available. They were told, if asked about the voter ID to help people through the process.

What they were told was *not* to tell everyone who came to the counter looking for ID 'hey it's free now for voters'.

UM bought the spin, but read the memo yourself

That memo states exactly what I said it does.

Damn, I've written this a hundred times. If you're gonna lie, at least do it in a different thread!

Here's my take on this. RIght or wrong.

1. i don't think there is ANYTHING more important in a democracy than to feel the vote was fair. BOTH sides have to feel like it was a fair shake. I'm not comfortable in pandering to people who can't even get a proper id. That might sound racist or anti-poor or whatever. So the GOP might be disenfranchising poor people. I think..... and this is very important. When you see long lines to vote in Democratic strong holds this is 20x's the problem. In Ohio, we have precincts where people can get in and out in 3 minutes while other areas have to wait to vote. Sometimes, people can wait in line for 8 hours or more. It's well documented. I don't know what it's like in other states but to me, I see both sides of the issue. Why don't they tie the two together? The GOP gets the voter ID laws and the D's get equal ballot boxes per precinct.

2. For people who scream about these voter ID laws. Do you want to end all fraud or just Democrat fraud. When you start mentioning the problems we have all around you would gain some credibility.

3. If you can't win without cheating you probably have to moderate some of your positions. Both sides could use some heavy doses of moderation.

The DOJ announced today that they are blocking South Carolina's voter ID law based on its disproportionate impact on minority voters. GOP voter suppression is going to be an issue in the next election.

(12-23-2011 04:51 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The DOJ announced today that they are blocking South Carolina's voter ID law based on its disproportionate impact on minority voters. GOP voter suppression is going to be an issue in the next election.

When 95% of blacks vote for a black guy we hear nothing. When his job is in jeopardy the race cards start being dealt.

(12-23-2011 04:54 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 04:51 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The DOJ announced today that they are blocking South Carolina's voter ID law based on its disproportionate impact on minority voters. GOP voter suppression is going to be an issue in the next election.

When 95% of blacks vote for a black guy we hear nothing. When his job is in jeopardy the race cards start being dealt.

The percentage of black voters casting ballots for the Democratic candidate has been relatively stable for decades. It was only slightly higher for President Obama. Move on to your next bigot talking point.

(12-23-2011 03:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  2. For people who scream about these voter ID laws. Do you want to end all fraud or just Democrat fraud. When you start mentioning the problems we have all around you would gain some credibility.

When you start citing specifics I'll listen.

HBO mockumentaries don't count.

(12-23-2011 04:51 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The DOJ announced today that they are blocking South Carolina's voter ID law based on its disproportionate impact on minority voters.

Dems want/need voter fraud. QED.

(12-23-2011 05:28 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 04:51 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The DOJ announced today that they are blocking South Carolina's voter ID law based on its disproportionate impact on minority voters.

Dems want/need voter fraud. QED.

Everybody stand back, the pseudo-scientist is reaching for his unsubstantiated conspirary theories.

(12-23-2011 05:11 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 04:54 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 04:51 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The DOJ announced today that they are blocking South Carolina's voter ID law based on its disproportionate impact on minority voters. GOP voter suppression is going to be an issue in the next election.

When 95% of blacks vote for a black guy we hear nothing. When his job is in jeopardy the race cards start being dealt.

The percentage of black voters casting ballots for the Democratic candidate has been relatively stable for decades. It was only slightly higher for President Obama. Move on to your next bigot talking point.

The only reason we have liberals in this country is because they get to vote themselves ****. The "slightly" higher percentage that you quote is insulting to your race. They might paint you white, force you to get a job, and call you a bigot if you don't stop.

(12-23-2011 06:33 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 05:11 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 04:54 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 04:51 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The DOJ announced today that they are blocking South Carolina's voter ID law based on its disproportionate impact on minority voters. GOP voter suppression is going to be an issue in the next election.

When 95% of blacks vote for a black guy we hear nothing. When his job is in jeopardy the race cards start being dealt.

The percentage of black voters casting ballots for the Democratic candidate has been relatively stable for decades. It was only slightly higher for President Obama. Move on to your next bigot talking point.

The only reason we have liberals in this country is because they get to vote themselves ****. The "slightly" higher percentage that you quote is insulting to your race. They might paint you white, force you to get a job, and call you a bigot if you don't stop.

Insulting in what way? This ought to be highly entertaining.

Justice Department blocks South Carolina voter ID law because the state's own research reveals it will have a disparate impact on minorities:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-...08612.html

Quote:"However analyzed, the state’s data demonstrate that non-white voters are both signficantly burdened by [the photo ID requirement] in absolute terms, and also disproportionately unlikely to possess the most common types of photo identification among the forms of identification that would be necessary for in-­person voting under the proposed law," Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez wrote in a letter delivered to the office of South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson just as official Washington shut down for the Christmas holiday.

As a jurisdiction with a history of discrimination in voting, South Carolina is required to submit changes in voting procedures to the Justice Department or a court for clearance under the Voting Rights Act before such changes can take effect.

Perez said data submitted by S. Carolina showed that minority voters were about 20 percent more likely to lack the kinds of photo ID that are acceptable to present at polling places.

"Until South Carolina succeeds in substantially addressing the racial disparities [in voter ID possession] the state cannot meet its burden of proving that, when compared to the benchmark standard, the voter identifications requirements proposed...will not have a retrogressive effect," Perez wrote in the letter (posted here). He said if S. Carolina addresses the discrepancy, it could reapply for clearance of the law.

In 2007 SCOTUS ruled in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board that requiring an ID to vote did not impair voting rights.

There really isn't much difference from the Indiana Statute previously considered and the South Carolina Law. Holder is just posturing.

(12-27-2011 11:46 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Justice Department blocks South Carolina voter ID law because the state's own research reveals it will have a disparate impact on minorities:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-...08612.html

Quote:"However analyzed, the state’s data demonstrate that non-white voters are both signficantly burdened by [the photo ID requirement] in absolute terms, and also disproportionately unlikely to possess the most common types of photo identification among the forms of identification that would be necessary for in-­person voting under the proposed law," Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez wrote in a letter delivered to the office of South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson just as official Washington shut down for the Christmas holiday.

As a jurisdiction with a history of discrimination in voting, South Carolina is required to submit changes in voting procedures to the Justice Department or a court for clearance under the Voting Rights Act before such changes can take effect.

Perez said data submitted by S. Carolina showed that minority voters were about 20 percent more likely to lack the kinds of photo ID that are acceptable to present at polling places.

"Until South Carolina succeeds in substantially addressing the racial disparities [in voter ID possession] the state cannot meet its burden of proving that, when compared to the benchmark standard, the voter identifications requirements proposed...will not have a retrogressive effect," Perez wrote in the letter (posted here). He said if S. Carolina addresses the discrepancy, it could reapply for clearance of the law.

Why is it that only poor black folks can't get ID? We wouldn't even be discussing this if there was a cluster of white conservatives somewhere who couldn't cough up ID.

Why is it assumed that it's because of their race that they don't have an ID?

(12-27-2011 12:09 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Why is it assumed that it's because of their race that they don't have an ID?

Youd be surprised as to the instances of deliberate misidentification. Cop makes a stop. They don't have ID, so they "toss" a name, usually fake. You can't verify it unless you take them in and run prints, so Cop just writes a ticket for a moving violation plus "no driver's license" both of which are ignored.