Thanks go to Harold E., for submission
-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
How Obama will get re-elected …
Obama campaign sues to restrict military voting.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/02/obama-campaign-sues-to-restrict-military-voting
Wow, only 8% of the public got all 13 questions correct? I am of the 8%, what the hell happened to the 92%?
The 99% must comprise 100% of the 92%. 😀
Zed, Me too and I got them all correct. How sad!
Here is another way Obama is trying to guarantee he wins by any means.
Labor Department: Contractors should not send pre-sequester layoff notices
http://www.govexec.com/contracting/2012/07/labor-department-contractors-should-not-send-pre-sequester-layoff-notices/57105/
13 out of 13. Those questions were depressingly easy. At least it seems that most people who took the poll got at least half right, but still…
Of course, is Romney wins in November, you know this headline is going to bite you in the ***, right Jack? 😉
Zed: “Obama campaign sues to restrict military voting.”
It took a few minutes of research, but as I suspected, this charge is completely false. (It’s very telling that the Breitbart piece never provides a full quote from those who are suing, nor does it provide any source for its claims.)
The Obama administration is not suing to restrict voting; quite the opposite. They are actually suing Ohio to EXPAND early voting for all citizens of the state. As of now, only military members are allowed to vote in the three days before the election. From Ohio.com:
This lawsuit seeks to treat all Ohio citizens equally under the law, Bob Bauer, the attorney for Obama for America, the presidents campaign committee, said during a conference call with reporters. We want to restore the right of all to vote before Election Day.
The campaign says changes the Ohio General Assembly made created inequality among military and overseas voters, who can cast early ballots through the day before the election, and all other voters, who have until 6 p.m. on the Friday before the election to vote in-person absentee. This, the campaign contends, is a violation of the equal protection provision of the U.S. Constitution.
Without early voting in these last three days before Election Day, tens of thousands of citizens who would have otherwise exercised their right to vote during this time period, including the plaintiffs members and supporters, may not be able to participate in future elections at all, the campaigns complaint states.
http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/obama-campaign-sues-ohio-over-early-voting-restrictions-1.320837
Military members who vote in Ohio will retain every voting right they currently have if this lawsuit is successful. Those rights will simply be expanded to all.
But thanks, Zed, for providing further proof that Obama’s most vocal critics are mostly angry over things Obama never did.
“Wow, only 8% of the public got all 13 questions correct? I am of the 8%, ….”
So am I, Zed, and I voted for Obama. You didn’t, presumably.
So, Harold … explain to us again what what this is supposed to prove?
All I get from it is that those of us who amuse ourselves with political bickering are generally more politically aware than them that amuse themselves with American Idol. Big surprise there.
8% is pretty sad. These questions aren’t that hard but you do have to be plugged in to politics to get most of them; obviously most people are not.
More mindless spin from the king of mindless, non-critical thinking spin, Chris, who believes anything he reads out of the Obama camp.
In particular: “This lawsuit seeks to treat all Ohio citizens equally under the law,” Bob Bauer, the attorney for Obama for America, the presidents campaign committee, said during a conference call with reporters. “We want to restore the right of all to vote before Election Day.”
What nonsense. The lawsuit is intended to remove a law that treats people in the armed services as a special case by giving them a 3 day grace period not afforded other citizens. It is a reasonable and good law that Obama and his toadies like Chris wish to remove so that people in the military (especially those overseas) are not disenfranchised.
XXXX you Chris, and XXXX the aXXXXXXX you defend and support.
Cut and pasted from Ohio News, COLUMBUS Ohio Aug 2nd 2012: Fifteen military groups are opposing a federal lawsuit in Ohio brought by President Barack Obamas campaign because they say it could threaten voter protections afforded to service members.
Obamas campaign and Democrats argue the battleground states law unfairly ends in-person voting for most Ohioans three days earlier than it does for military and overseas voters. They say such disparate treatment is unconstitutional, and all voters should be able to vote on those days.
Organizations including AMVETS asked a judge late Wednesday to dismiss the lawsuit. They say federal and state law recognizes military voters need extra time. They fear a court could find that service members shouldn’tt be treated differently.
Most Ohioans have until Friday evening before Election Day to cast a ballot in person. Military voters have until Monday.
So I question Chris interpretation of facts as well as the spin he applies to it. After reading his link dated July 17th 2012, I will conclude that additional information about how suing to Equalize voting procedures is really a attempt to disenfranchise Military personnel. What sort of defense is ‘if they can ,than I want it too, and if I can’t have it no one should’ To me it is a blatant transparant attempt to eliminate the 3 extra days afforded our military.
‘So, Harold … explain to us again what what this is supposed to prove?’
Libby….That.. ah… well… ummmm, wait a minute, why ask, you seem to have it figured out? So I guess I dunt have to splain you again Libby.
Oh yes now I recall, it is as simple as this, anyone can think right, but a few are still left of reason.
Libby….why are you so snippy when it is just a simple fun quiz?
Ooops, the above should have read:
“It is a reasonable and good law that Obama and his toadies like Chris wish to remove so that people in the military (especially those overseas) are disenfranchised.”
Did either of you even read the news article?
“Noting the significance of those numbers, President Barack Obamas campaign filed a federal lawsuit in Columbus on Wednesday, seeking to restore the three days of early voting prior to Election Day that the GOP-controlled legislature eliminated earlier this year.”
How can any thinking adult claim this lawsuit is an effort to “disenfranchise” anybody? It’s simply returning early voting privileges to everyone in the state. Military members aren’t losing anything.
It was the GOP who actually took away early voting from Ohio citizens earlier this year, as the article makes clear. So if anything, it was the GOP who disenfranchised voters. Obama is suing to give them their early voting privileges back.
It is crazy to accuse me of “spin” when the Breitbart piece completely lies about what the lawsuit is for. Mike Flynn never explained that the lawsuit seeks to expand early voting for everyone–instead, he erroneously reported that it seeks to take away the three days of early voting for military members. This wasn’t just spin. This was a blatant lie!
But believe whatever you want to believe. Some people don’t care about facts, only whether something confirms their pre-existing biases.
“Libby….why are you so snippy when it is just a simple fun quiz?”
Don’t be so defensive all the time. If some people who do well on the quiz voted for Obama, and some who did well, didn’t … what does the quiz prove about how Obama got elected? Presumably the same split existed between who do not realize that Abe was a Repub, so … I still don’t get your point.
What I have heard is the early voting used to end on the Friday before the Tuesday election for everyone. It was extended to the Monday for the military to allow the extra time for them both over seas and local because of their unique duty demands. They dont work 9-5. Theyre on 24/7 even in the US when out on maneuvers.
The logistics and time needed to count the ballots before Tuesday prevented the state from extending the voting period to everyone.
I think Obama stepped in it this time when he filed a lawsuit against our military, which is fine by me. Its just showing how desperate he and the DNC is getting.
Harold Ey:
“What sort of defense is ‘if they can ,than I want it too, and if I can’t have it no one should'”
Harold, that is not at all what the lawsuit says. The lawsuit seeks to overturn a law that the GOP passed just last year which restricted early voting to most Ohio citizens, with the exception of the military. It says nothing about “if I can’t have it no one should.” The lawsuit doesn’t seek to only overturn the military exemption, it seeks to overturn the ENTIRE law. If it is successful, then all citizens of Ohio will be able to vote during those three days, just as they were in the last election.
Here is the full text of the lawsuit, which you will read if you are interested in the facts rather than “interpretation” or “spin:”
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/ObamaforAmericavHustedcomplaint.pdf
The complaint begins: “Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to restore in-person early voting for all Ohioans during
the three days prior to Election Day a right exercised by an estimated 93,000 Ohioans in the last presidential election. Ohio election law, as currently enacted by
the State of Ohio and administered by Defendant Ohio Secretary of State, arbitrarily eliminates early voting during the three days prior to Election Day for most Ohio
voters, a right previously available to all Ohio voters. This disparate treatment violates 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be rectified by the Court enjoining enforcement of statutory changes that eliminate early in-person voting for most Ohioans during the three days before an election.”
************************
The Wall Street Journal reports: “The days of early voting are often used by those who may not have the flexibility to take time off on a Tuesday to vote. More than 1.7 million people in Ohio voted before Election Day in 2008, accounting for about 30% of all ballots cast. About 100,000 of them voted in person in the final three days before the election, Akron Beacon Journal noted.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/07/18/obama-campaign-sues-ohio-for-cutting-early-voting-days/
So think about it, Harold. Who is really trying to disenfranchise voters here? That’s an awful lot of people who voted early in the last election who won’t be able to do so in Ohio this year, thanks to the GOP-passed law. Early voting is often used by low-income people and minorities. Was this an attempt by Ohio to disenfranchise those voters, who tend to vote Democrat?
Libby: “… I still don’t get your point.”
The point is to make Obama look bad by any means necessary. The argument doesn’t have to make any logical sense or be even remotely true, it just needs to stick in people’s minds. Look at all the comments on that Breitbart article from people who didn’t bother to research it. There are tons of commenters there calling Obama a “traitor” who hates the military because of something that never happened. Even after dozens of other commenters debunked the story and provided proof that it wasn’t true, many of them still refuse to admit they were wrong.
Look how spitting angry Zed got when I posted a real news article debunking his made-up story from a discredited conspiracy website. He has no facts to back up his case that Obama is suing to restrict military voting, because Obama is NOT suing to restrict military voting. So instead of making anything close to a logical argument, he just says “fuck you.” I told him something that doesn’t fit his narrative, and instead of evaluating the information rationally and admitting he was wrong, he short-circuits and shoots the messenger. And there are many more commenters like him on the Breitbart article.
We just have to hope that there are more voters out there who actually care more about the truth than with destroying the opposition. This site over the last few days hasn’t exactly filled me with hope; I’ve lost track of all the lies I’ve debunked this week. But I remain, as always, cautiously optimistic.
Peggy: “What I have heard is the early voting used to end on the Friday before the Tuesday election for everyone. It was extended to the Monday for the military to allow the extra time for them both over seas and local because of their unique duty demands.”
Peggy, you heard wrong. In Ohio, early voting used to encompass the three days before the election for everyone. The Ohio GOP then passed a law ending the three days of early voting, but left the military exempt. The Obama campaign’s lawsuit seeks to restore early voting to everyone. You can find this information confirmed in the following news articles:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/07/18/obama-campaign-sues-ohio-for-cutting-early-voting-days/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57474194-503544/obama-camp-dnc-sue-ohio-to-restore-early-voting/
http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/obama-campaign-sues-ohio-over-early-voting-restrictions-1.320837
“I think Obama stepped in it this time when he filed a lawsuit against our military,”
Obama did not file a lawsuit against the military. He filed a lawsuit against the state of Ohio. The military loses nothing if this lawsuit is successful; they will still have those three days to vote, as will all citizens of Ohio.
Chris, what started out as a simple case of identifying a need for our Military people by the GOP of a soldiers undefined schedule has turned into a battlefield of its own. The current Obama position of equal voter access to early voting in Ohio where none is necessary seems to be an obvious effort to prop up a better poll turnout for their following.
Why a civilian cannot perform a simple task of voting without additional incentives is beyond my willingness to accept. This is just a case of sloppy legislative awareness by the democrats, and this lawsuit appears to be a CYA issue using sameness for all as a rally cry and I hope it will bite them hard by those who will see through it.. Our Military deserves more that we give them, by either party. Your position on equal access to all is a lock step mantra of a socialist ideology in my opinion, and what you see in your mind’s eye about my opinion about government supported constituents as well as MY WANT for less Government in my life really falls on deaf ears. Your posts just reinforces my thinking, as well as my efforts to unseat Obamas possible second term. The mans policies are not right for my basic philosophy of self reliance, nor do I want to see a proven and failed Euro/America concept of Government in the United States. And unlike Jack, who is polite enough to tolerate your grinding style of dialect, I cant see any reason to continue of this subject. We absolutely see this differently
Harold: “Chris, what started out as a simple case of identifying a need for our Military people by the GOP of a soldiers undefined schedule has turned into a battlefield of its own.”
You still don’t understand the story, Harold. This did not start out as “a simple case of identifying a need for our military.” It started out with a law that the GOP passed which took away early voting from the people of Ohio, a right they have enjoyed for a very long time before this law was passed. While writing the law, the GOP decided that the military would be exempt.
“The current Obama position of equal voter access to early voting in Ohio where none is necessary seems to be an obvious effort to prop up a better poll turnout for their following.”
This isn’t just the “current Obama position”–it was standard practice in Ohio until the law was passed last year. You describe it as an “obvious effort to prop up a better poll turnout for their following,” but that doesn’t make any sense, since it would only ensure that every eligible person who had the opportunity to vote in the last election will also have the opportunity to vote in this election. This really isn’t that complicated, unless you want to see a Marxist plot around every corner.
“this lawsuit appears to be a CYA issue using sameness for all as a rally cry”
“Sameness?” It’s called equality, and it’s what this nation is founded upon.
“Your position on equal access to all is a lock step mantra of a socialist ideology in my opinion,”
Your opinion is nuts. Again, my position that the three extra days should apply to all voters was the REALITY in Ohio up until the GOP passed this unnecessary law, which could disenfranchise almost 100,000 voters, mostly low-income people and minorities. But whatever, just call me a “socialist” for wanting to return the law to what it always was; it’s much easier than actually making a rational argument.
You’ve said nothing about the lies told in the Breitbart article. Mike Flynn falsely claimed that the lawsuit was designed to restrict military voting, and did not once explain that the lawsuit actually aims to restore voting privileges to those whom it has been taken away from. Why do you take issue with me citing accurate sources of news and explaining what this lawsuit actually is, but you show no concern over the outright lies told by Breitbart.com? Do lies not bother you if they are used in service of your agenda?
*sigh* Now Mitt Romney is picking up this lie and running with it.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/04/640491/romney-smears-obama-falsely-claims-he-filed-lawsuit-to-restrict-military-voting-in-ohio
Even FOX News confirmed that Obama is not suing to restrict military voting–although they did so by burying the lead and using a misleading headline…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/04/obama-campaign-sues-ohio-over-early-voting-law-for-military/#ixzz22bqw859E
Ohio may just be the first of Obamas war on our Troops; overseas troops often find it difficult to vote. For one thing, they cant just drop their rifle and mail in their ballot especially if theyre stationed in a war zone, which is pretty much the entire Middle East. And not only that, since every state has a different law regarding absentee ballots, filling them out properly can be confusing. And if they dont arrive in the States in time, they cant be legally counted. During the last presidential election, only 20 percent of a 2.5 million-member military were able to vote successfully by absentee ballot. Just two years ago, it dropped to 5 percent. This is why some states have laws that accommodate members of the military. Ohio has a law that allows three extra days for them to mail in their early voting ballots. The Obama campaign, the DNC and the Ohio Democratic Party have filed suit against Ohio because they say this law disenfranchises other voters and that its not fair. Even our Chris continues this mantra of pure BS, and if you disagree with his media based comments hell inform you that you just dont understand. Oh Chris we understand all to well, we understand in 2008 over 2/3rds of a million NEW democratic voters were led to the polls, and approximately 200 thousand were never verified. We Understand that Obama is afraid of losing this state to a GOP candidate, We Understand that no illegal aliens will try to vote. We Understand the Obama campaign is just trying to make sure everything is fair, sure they are! but does it really have anything to do with fairness? This we ALL UNDERSTAND isnt the first time the democrats have fought against the troops. In the 2000 election, during the Florida recount debacle, democrats were able to influence local operators to reject over 1,500 ballots from overseas military members. I know DNC is just afraid that they might lose Ohio because of how overseas troops will vote. A recent Gallup poll among veterans shows Obama trailing Romney 58 to 34 percent. In the key battleground state of Ohio so to increase his chances of victory, hes trying to restrict the voting rights of those in the military. Chris, that law is in place out of respect for those in the military who are serving the interests of this country, UDERSTAND!
“Ohio may just be the first of Obamas war on our Troops… I know DNC is just afraid that they might lose Ohio because of how overseas troops will vote…hes trying to restrict the voting rights of those in the military”
Seriously, Harold, are you on some kind of hallucinogenic drugs? Because what you are saying bears no resemblance to the factual reality staring you right in the face. Did you even bother to read the lawsuit that I so nicely linked for you? I promise it’s not a bunch of legalese; it says quite plainly that it seeks to restore early voting for everyone, essentially returning voting rights to those who had them prior to LAST YEAR, when your party voted to disenfranchise almost 100,000 (mostly Democrat) voters.
You have nothing to back up your ludicrous and false claims that Obama is trying to restrict military voting. It has been proven that your claim is 100% false. Every time you repeat it, you are guilty of lying.
Are you a Christian, Harold? It’s been a while since I’ve been to church, but the Bible has a few things to say about bearing false witness, if I recall. You should be ashamed of yourself for continuing to cling to a claim that has been proven to be a lie, just because of your irrational hatred for the president.
That Democrat voters would be “disenfranchised” is more drama politicking. Democrats know how to “get out the vote”…they do it all the time when they have to do it on voting day. The word “disenfranchise” is loaded with energy…it;s used to scare people, especially black people. Keep them dumb, happy and voting Democrat.
All politicians use a certain amount of tricks and slight of hand. It isn’t too bad when it stays within reasonbable bounds. The party you support, Chris, uses all of the tactics you claim to despise in our conversations and they use them in the most despicable ways to unnecessarily frighten black folk (especially the elderly) into thinking that Republicans would do them harm and purposely keep them from the voting booth. THAT IS ABSOLUTE CRAP!
As Harold rightly points out Democrats have, on more than one occasion, taken steps to disenfranchise our military:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/05/Democrats-Versus-Military-Voters-Not-the-First-Time
Democrats wouldn’t come out and say what they are up to…but the stench that follows them tells the story.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/felons-voting-illegally-franken-minnesota-study-finds/
Democrats don’t want voter ID because they can’t see a way to cheat and if they can’t cheat they can’t win.
Chris, your false accusations of accusing me or anyone of being on some kind of hallucinogenic drugs? or if they are a church going Christian, as well as having irrational hatred, is a civil accusation and could have prosecutorial discretion. So I am telling you to end it!
You are over stepping your boundaries in an uncivil ill-bred manner less way. If fact, my assessment is that you reflect a bit on why you need to attack anyone with your personal slurs without creditable evidence so often in your rebuttal posts. Consider this, your opinion isn’t accepted as Gospel!
Your refusal to UNDERSTAND another’s perception of how they perceive media presented articles is appalling, which in turn limits your creditability with other readers. I have no hated toward the President, especially the office which he currently holds, just a uncomfortable opinion how how and what this administration is doing to undermine the basics of the Constitution as I see them, I hope that is simple enough for you to UNDERSTAND
Tina: “That Democrat voters would be “disenfranchised” is more drama politicking…The word “disenfranchise” is loaded with energy…it;s used to scare people, especially black people.”
And yet you have nothing to say about Mike Flynn’s false accusation that the DNC is trying to disenfranchise military voters? Amazingly hypocritical, Tina. Why don’t you have a problem with Breitbart.com using “drama politicking” in order to scare conservatives into thinking this lawsuit is going to restrict military voting, when there is no possible way for the lawsuit to do that?
I know the answer: because Flynn is a Republican making an accusation against Democrats. It’s obvious by now that this is all it takes to get your tacit approval. It doesn’t matter if the accusation is remotely true. All it matters is that it will help you at the polls. So even if you don’t want to come out and say it’s OK with you, you just say nothing about it and instead go into an unrelated rant about how bad the Democrats are. That is a form of dishonesty, Tina.
Harold: “Chris, your false accusations of accusing me or anyone of being on some kind of hallucinogenic drugs? or if they are a church going Christian, as well as having irrational hatred, is a civil accusation and could have prosecutorial discretion. So I am telling you to end it!”
First, learn how to construct a sentence. The ESL kids I tutor would be embarrassed to write something like the above.
Second, learn how to comprehend a sentence. I did not accuse you of being on hallucinogenic drugs; it was obviously a sarcastic jab referring to how removed your interpretation of events is from reality. There is not a court in the United States that would look at what I wrote and think it fit any definition of libel.
Similarly, I did not “accuse” you of being a church-going Christian. I asked you a question, which you chose not to answer. And even if I had accused you of being a church-going Christian, how would that be damaging? You do know that in order to prove libel, you have to prove damages? What do you think is wrong with being a church-going Christian? Some of my best friends go to church!
My conclusion that you had an irrational hatred for the president may be taken as an accusation, but I think it’s a reasonable one to make, given the false accusations you have leveled against the president on this blog.
See, Harold, YOU are the one making false accusations against people. Not me.
“If fact, my assessment is that you reflect a bit on why you need to attack anyone with your personal slurs without creditable evidence so often in your rebuttal posts.”
Harold, of the two of us, I am the only one who has presented credible evidence for my claims related to the lawsuit in Ohio. Again, you are the one making wild claims that are unsupported by evidence. Yes, I mocked you for doing so, because your claims were deserving of mockery. But I didn’t “accuse” you of anything other than hating the president, and again, I think that’s a reasonable conclusion to draw based on your comments here.
“Consider this, your opinion isn’t accepted as Gospel!”
But I’m not asking you to accept my “opinion,” Harold. I am asking you to accept facts. I asked you to read the actual lawsuit–the primary source upon which all of this is based–and I still have no idea if you’ve done that, because you wouldn’t answer my question.
“Your refusal to UNDERSTAND another’s perception of how they perceive media presented articles is appalling,”
Isn’t the phrase “media presented articles” kind of redundant? I’m not sure what you mean by this. Is the Breitbart article not a “media presented article?”
And again, you don’t have to take the word of any article; you can read the primary source document–the lawsuit–and that will answer all of your questions about this issue.
But I don’t think you want to do that. I think all you want are more reasons to be angry at the president, and more ammo to use against him in this campaign. So you’ll cling to anything that allows you to do that, even if it isn’t true.
“I have no hated toward the President, especially the office which he currently holds,”
Well, then I wouldn’t want to see how you act to people you do hate! If I didn’t hate someone, I wouldn’t go around making false accusations against them, and ignoring all evidence that shows the accusations are false. Heck–I wouldn’t even do that to someone I DID hate, because I believe in honesty above all.
“just a uncomfortable opinion how how and what this administration is doing to undermine the basics of the Constitution as I see them, I hope that is simple enough for you to UNDERSTAND”
You are entitled to your own opinion, Harold. You are not entitled to your own facts. “Obama is suing to restrict military voting” is not an opinion, any more than “The moon is made of cheese” or “Mitt Romney is secretly a robot dinosaur” are opinions. These things are either true, or they’re not. And they’re not. It is not honest to misrepresent facts and make claims that simply are not true, and then hide behind the word “opinion” as if it’s some kind of magical shield protecting you from logic and critical thinking.
You made a false accusation. I have given you more than enough proof that the accusation is false, not just from much more reputable articles than Breitbart’s, but from the primary source document itself–the lawsuit. It is time you admit that you were wrong about this one. There’s no shame in doing so. There is a lot of shame in clinging to a lie well past its expiration date.
Chris, your accusations about me were very precise, but more importantly disdainful, Your CYA attempt to disassociate yourself from youre own carefully chosen words is tepid at best. And with you being a tutor just confirms my position is that you knew you had crossed civil boundaries and now are just back peddling. Also judicial discretion is not bound by strict rules, so I again caution you to be careful with what you post. Now please understand at some point a judge will decide on the merits of Obamas lawsuit, you and I will just have to wait the results. What I am posting below is not to be construed as a rebuttal, but to show that ALL sides of the parties involved in this lawsuit see it as differently as you and I
Some states have very open early voting procedures. Other states have adopted more restrictive procedures that only allow certain people to vote early for certain reasons (i.e. being out of the country on Election Day). Democrats generally favor early voting since a larger turnout benefits their candidates. In Florida, for example, Democrats have opposed Gov. Rick Scotts (R-FL) attempt to not allow early voting on Sunday. Democrats argue that many African-Americans, who tend to vote for their candidates, go to the polls after church on Sunday.
So What about Ohio?
In the past, Ohio set a policy that allowed voters to cast their ballot three days before the election. In 2008, 93,000 Ohioans took advantage of these rules. Republicans, who control the Ohio state legislature, passed a law that restricted early voting rights to only those in the military.
What did the Obama campaign do?
The Obama campaign subsequently filed a lawsuit that seeks to reinstate the three-day early voting period for all Ohioans. The lawsuit argues that the new law adopted by the legislature will cause voters to suffer direct and irreparable injury by depriving many of them of the opportunity to vote. The lawsuit also claims that the distinction between other Ohio voters and military service members is arbitrary. Which is Chriss point?
What did the Romney campaign do?
The Romney campaign argued that the Obama campaign was trying to deprive military service members of their voting rights through the lawsuit, issuing the following statement,
President Obamas lawsuit claiming it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the states early voting period is an outrage. Which is the point Harold makes!
Note: Even some conservative publications have cast doubt on the Romney campaign’s claim.
Obama campaigns response?
The Obama campaign called the Romney campaigns argument a lie. The Obama campaign points out that the lawsuit does not seek to deprive anyone of any voting rights, but instead seeks to reinstate the early voting rights for all Ohioans.
Why Ohio matters
Ohio is a key swing state with 18 electoral votes in the upcoming election. Early voting tends to benefit Democrats. As was proven in Florida in 2000, a few thousand votes in one state can effectively decide which party occupies the White House over the next four years.
As I have stated, and others have written, it is not just Obama wishing everything to be fair and equal; its about herding voters and winning re-election. Chris you and I are at polar opposites on this issue and surliest name calling or accusations on your part is unnecessary. I will, as stated wait for the courts to decide the outcome.
Harold, I don’t feel I overstepped by boundaries and I don’t feel the need to backpedal or disassociate myself from anything I have written here. I did not accuse you of doing drugs, that was clearly a sarcastic comment. I also did not accuse you of being a church-going Christian; I asked you if you were. I did accuse you of hating Obama, but you’d have to be crazy to think that’s legally actionable.
The information about the lawsuit you provided in the above comment is very interesting and informative, although I am curious as to what the source was, since the majority doesn’t sound like your words.
I think we can certainly have different opinions on whether the Obama lawsuit makes a good case or not. We can disagree on whether or not active members of the military should get extra time to vote, and whether this time should be extended to everyone. That’s fine! But that’s a far cry from misrepresenting the actual lawsuit to claim that it does the exact opposite of what it’s actually doing; to say that it’s trying to restrict voting rights, when it’s actually trying to restore them.
The original claim from Breitbart.com, which was repeated by Zed and you, was that the lawsuit seeks to restrict military voting. That’s obviously not the case, and you don’t seem to even be making that argument any more, which is good.
I have no problem with differences of opinion. If the argument from Breitbart.com had simply been that the Obama lawsuit is wrong because military voters deserve extra time that no one else should have, we wouldn’t even be talking about this issue any more. (Heck, I’m not even sure I’d necessarily disagree!) But I get very angry when I see people flat-out lying about their opponents. It shouldn’t be necessary. If you don’t think the lawsuit is a good idea, then you should be able to make your case without relying on falsehoods. There is no need to claim that the lawsuit “restricts military voting;” that’s just spin to get people more angry than they otherwise would be. If your opponent is really as bad as you think they are, then the truth should be enough to make your case.
I am sorry if you think I crossed the line of civility with some of my sarcastic comments, Harold, but dishonesty really sets me off. I see lying as one of the worst forms of incivility. I want to have civil discussion and debate, but I feel like I can only have that as long as we stick to the facts and don’t make false claims about each other or anyone else. I would be much nicer if I weren’t always so frustrated by having to correct basic factual errors, and then having those corrections go ignored. So what do you say? Let’s all try to be a little more honest and a little more civil.
“As I have stated, and others have written, it is not just Obama wishing everything to be fair and equal; its about herding voters and winning re-election.”
Too true, Harold. But you still have not explained why, by the action of the Ohio leg, members of the military (who might possible vote for Romney) can STILL vote early, but poor people (who might possible vote for Obama) can NO LONGER vote early. The Ohio leg changed the rules to favor the Repugs. Obama filed suit to restore equity.
So it’s the Ohio leg that’s started with the voter herding, and now you are going to tell us why this is fair, or equitable, or just, or decent, or anything like that.
As you may know, last month the Obama re-election campaign sued Ohio state officials in an attempt to suppress, in that pivotal swing state, the votes of Americas military men and women people who traditionally lean conservative and vote Republican. (CNN exit polling data from 2008 show voters favored Republican John McCain over Obama by a 10-point margin, 54 to 44 percent.)
no fewer than 15 military organizations have joined together to fight this particular Obama-machine lawsuit in court? Im talking about:
The National Guard Association of the United States
The Association of the U.S. Army
The Association of the U.S. Navy
The Marine Corps League
The Military Officers Association of America
The Reserve Officers Association
The National Association of the Uniformed Services
The Non Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S.A.
The Army Reserve Association
The Fleet Reserve Association
The Special Forces Association
The U.S. Army Ranger Association, Inc.
AMVETS
The National Defense Committee
The Military Order of the World Wars
But as the Ohio defendants legal response points out so eloquently, America has always made special concessions for its soldiers to assure their opportunity to vote, going back to the Revolutionary War.
Unfortunately, argue lawyers for the Ohio defendants, throughout history military personnel have been prevented from [exercising their right to the franchise] due to both procedural and logistic hurdles, resulting in their franchise being effectively hollow. They explain:
The problem of how to allow those serving in the United States Military to cast a ballot has been with us since the time of our nations war for independence.
Dating as far back as the Civil War, President Lincoln issued an executive order declaring a cessation of military operations in order to allow military personnel to travel home so that they could cast their ballots.
In order to make sure that those serving in the Civil War had access to the franchise, many states authorized elections officials to travel to units in the field to set up polling locations and to collect ballots from soldiers.
Military voters the shocking truth
Putting aside arguments pro and con, is there or is there not a serious problem in todays America with active-duty members of the armed forces having enough time to vote?
Heres a one-question quiz: During the 2010 election, what percentage of Americas military and overseas voters do you think were able to cast a vote that actually counted in the election results?
If you guessed 5 percent, youre too high.
Tens of thousands of service members votes not counted was the headline of a June 27, 2012, McClatchy newspaper article detailing just how seriously flawed the current system is for enabling the millions of men and woman in the U.S. military to vote.
The story includes the following shocking statistics:
In 2010, of the approximately 2 million military and overseas voters accounted for in data reported by the states to the Election Assistance Commission, only 4.6 percent of those voters were able to cast an absentee ballot that counted, according to the Military Voter Protection Projects analysis of that data from the federal Election Assistance Commission, which tracks participation in voting. That compared with 5.5 percent in 2006, which was also a midterm election, the organization concluded.
The overall national voter participation rate for the 2010 election was 41.6 percent, authorities said.
According to that report, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted yes, the same Jon Husted being sued by Obama for America was so disgusted he told county election boards it would be considered grounds for removal of board members if their agencies should fail to electronically send out absentee ballots 45 days prior to an election to all military voters who requested one.
Maybe Team Obama didnt like Ohios zeal to make sure our brave soldiers get to vote along with all the illegal aliens, dead people and others the left is so eager to have vote early and often this November.
Read the full article to really get your dander up from how our military’s vote went uncounted in prior elections:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/yes-obama-really-is-suppressing-the-military-vote/
Well, I don’t know why all these organizations are so fussed. The OA suit doesn’t attempt to cut the military out, but to let the poor people back in.
Of course, the court could decide, by way of settling the kerfuffle, to cut everybody out … but who’s fault would that be? Certainly the Ohio legislature’s … right? It was they who went exclusionary, was it not?