Weekend Open Thread

20 Jul

Just some politically conservative observations from a right wing extremist (LOL) for us to discuss this weekend:

– I think Friday’s IRS revelations could potentially be very harmful to the White House. When this story broke, the administration was hoping to convince people that it was the result of just a couple of rogue agents in the Cincinnati office. Friday, it was revealed that this story now goes all the way to William Wilkins desk – an Obama political appointee and only one of two appointees in the IRS.

– I think the bankruptcy filing by Detroit should be a wake up call for all Americans regardless of your political stripe. Just 50 years ago, Detroit had the highest per capita income, the strongest manufacturing base and was arguably the model city for America, but now it is bankrupt and it is not the only municipality to file for bankruptcy, it just happens to be the largest so far. Detroit has over $18 billion in liabilities and when they began to lose some of their economic base, the model became unsustainable. Period. Now while the powers to be argue over the legality of the filing, the fact remains that Detroit is broke, aided by over promising, over spending, mismanagement and corruption all by the elected officials, and that is a sober fact that all citizens should be outraged over.

– I think the George Zimmerman case has exposed a very distasteful element in our culture and our media, and one that needs to be resolved if we are ever to “progress” as a society. I am not discounting the fact there are still some remnants of racism, but let’s not forget that those remnants are found on both sides of the political aisle, and both sides of the racial aisle. Interestingly enough, I think Booker T. Washington gave us all food for thought over 100 years ago when he said:

“There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well.”

I think that “class of people” can also include many white people, who are forever trying to show their compassion by over looking so many “real” issues that plague the black community; namely out of wedlock births and the perpetual mindset of victimhood, of which Larry Elder had the courage to confront.

As a society, we have to confront some real hard truths if we are to move this nation forward in a positive direction and that will require all of us growing a thicker skin. We have to call out corrupt and incompetent politicians, we have quit thinking in terms of who did what, and who said what, and start thinking in terms of identifying the problem and finding solutions, and when things aren’t going well, we have to lay down our political and economical biases, and  think of a new direction which is grounded in the Constitution. Unless and until we can stop the over emotional reaction to every thing that happens, and begin to approach the nations issues with clear eyes, we are destroying this great country that was given to us.

On a final note, while I didn’t care for her reporting or her politics, RIP Helen Thomas.


Posted by on July 20, 2013 in Open Thread


57 responses to “Weekend Open Thread

  1. mitchethekid

    July 20, 2013 at 11:32 am

    On Thursday, Darrel Isa’s own witness disagreed with him. This so called scandal is going nowhere.

  2. kmg

    July 20, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    – Like mitchie said, it is hard to keep a scandal going when your own star witnesses directly refute all of your claims. It only looks worse when Issa releases highly edited snippets of interviews that make it look like the Administration was behind it, then the uncut interview shows the exact opposite. Issa should go back to stealing cars; he’d be more successful. I think there are bigger questions in this “scandal”:

    1. Why did the IG agree to limit his audit to conservative search terms at Republicans’ request?

    2. Why did the IG say he only learned of liberal or progressive search terms last week when it has been known for over a month?

    3. Why did the IG demand that information on liberal or progressive groups being targeted not be given to the committee?

    Find the answers to those questions and I think you’ll find where the politicization really lies.

    – Detroit is a non-partisan problem of its own with no easy solution. The loss of residents has decimated the tax base, so the city wants to declare bankruptcy to get out of pension and health care obligations. What ever happened to the sanctity of a contract? The city had contracts with its retirees, but now wants to abrogate them and has taken some shady means to try and do so, at least according to the judge hearing the case.

    – Then we come to Larry Elder’s appearance on Piers Morgan, which I see has been burning up the right wing blogs today. Larry looked like he was going to pop a blood vessel during his stream of consciousness rant. He insinuated that Rachel Jeantel was stupid for being a high school senior at 19 and for talking the way she does. I guess he didn’t bother to find out that she has a deformity that causes a speech impediment, that she was behind a year in school because of an illness she had when she was younger, that she had a 3.0 GPA until Martin was killed (She still has a C average), and that she speaks three languages (English, Spanish, and French Creole). Someone there sure sounds stupid, but I’m not sure it is her.

    Just as there are some who make money blowing up everything as racism, there are those who make their living by claiming racism isn’t a problem in America anymore. Bonus pay if you make that claim and you aren’t white. There are also those who make a living by using every incident to demonstrate how inferior non-whites are, but right now those people all seem to be working for Rand Paul.

    I don’t fall for this whole “Constitutional Conservative” fad. A lot of people use this as a euphemism for nullification, which is clearly unconstitutional. Everything in our politics is already grounded in the Constitution, but that doesn’t stop some people from claiming otherwise. The ACA was found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court, but wingnuts still cry that it is an unconstitutional, fascist usurpation of our rights. Bullshit. Until at least 5 SC Justices say something is unconstitutional, it is constitutional. Believing otherwise is unconstitutional, or maybe just ideologically stupid.

    • Cluster

      July 20, 2013 at 2:12 pm

      What’s happening at the IRS should transcend all politics, and any American citizen with a pulse should be concerned about it. I remember when democrats use to be more libertarian and were genuinely concerned about government intrusion – remember the opposition to the Patriot Act? Well not only have Democrats expanded the Patriot Act, they no show zero concern that the IRS is arbitrarily scrutinizing political groups. I have to say, I am a little surprised.

      If you were to adopt a strict interpretation of the constitution and adhere to the 17 enumerated duties of the federal government, the ACA is not constitutional. Additionally, if you were to constitutionally argue the administrations insistence that the mandate is not a tax, but actually a mandate, that would also not be constitutional. Judge Roberts did Obama a favor, and ruled it to be a tax and passed it, but by doing so, he put Obama in a position of violating his campaign promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $250K/yr

      Re: Detroit – those pension promises were made by politicians and union leaders negotiating over tax payer money (public union collective bargaining) which FDR even opposed because no one at the table actually represents the tax payer. Politicians give tax payer money away for the promise of support and votes, and the unions lap it up and promise to provide that support all at the expense of people like you and me. I would think that all of us could agree that that is not a good thing.

      • kmg

        July 20, 2013 at 4:20 pm

        You mean the Patriot act that initially passed the Senate 98-1 and was extended with 67 congressional Democrats voting for it? I do remember opposition to the Patriot Act, but it was not by a majority and now it seems a majority of Republicans appose it. I’m sure that has nothing to do with who is in the White House right now.

        I don’t believe the IRS is “arbitrarily” scrutinizing groups and especially not on political leanings. Of the groups that were selected for additional review at least a third were liberal or progressive. Only one group had their 501(4)c status denied, and that group was Democratic. Not one group from either side was audited. I would have actually preferred if the IRS had been even tougher with both sides. When you have groups, like Crossroads GPS, which form for the sole purpose of influencing elections and hiding the donors’ names, they should not be tax-exempt.

      • Cluster

        July 20, 2013 at 4:32 pm

        I don’t believe the IRS is “arbitrarily” scrutinizing groups and especially not on political leanings

        The problem with that though is that IRS employees have actually admitted to doing that very thing.

      • kmg

        July 20, 2013 at 5:29 pm

        I know that’s what Issa would like you to believe, but I have yet to see a single employee say that. Feel free to post their statements.

      • Cluster

        July 20, 2013 at 5:36 pm

        Here you go

        Lerner began by describing the increase in 501(c)(4) applications the IRS received between 2010 and 2012. IRS employees in Cincinnati, Lerner said, had reacted by centralizing the applications for efficiency and consistency, something the IRS did “whenever we see an uptick in a new kind of application or something we haven’t seen before.” But in this case, Lerner said, the centralization had not been carried out properly.

        “Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list,” Lerner said, according to a transcript of the meeting. “They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate — that’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review.”

      • kmg

        July 20, 2013 at 6:36 pm

        Yes, Lerner did say that employees had made a mistake. I still don’t see where she said they were arbitrarily scrutinizing political groups, but that they were using improper criteria. She also failed to mention that it was not just Tea Party groups, but also groups on the left. If you were an employee and had a huge workload of applications, wouldn’t you try to find a more efficient way to sift through them? Once again, how many of these groups were audited or had their status denied? Just one, and it was on the left. You disagree with the method used and are trying to generate a scandal where none exists.

        Groups with these names had a much higher likelihood that their activities did not fall primarily in the area of social welfare, which was the criteria for gaining 501(c)4 status. What social welfare does Karl Rove or the Koch brothers engage in with their groups? BTW, none of these groups even had to apply for that status. They could have just claimed 501(c)4 and it would have been up to the IRS to actively investigate them to disprove it. With the IRS’s workload, odds are they would have never got around to it.

        But like I said, I don’t think the IRS looked hard enough. This whole issue could be easily solved by just denying tax-exempt status to any group that engages in political activities.

      • Cluster

        July 20, 2013 at 7:30 pm

        She didn’t say they made a mistake. She said it was insensitive, incorrect and inappropriate. That implies being deliberate. I am quite frankly surprised that anyone would defend the IRS. Look up Malik Obama’s non profit application and approval. You might or might not find that interesting in light of what we are talking about here.

      • kmg

        July 20, 2013 at 7:51 pm

        So now we are talking about implications rather than actual statements? Also, do you mean Obama’s foundation that doesn’t engage in politics and therefore doesn’t have anything to do with groups that received extra scrutiny?

      • Cluster

        July 21, 2013 at 5:55 am

        Look, I don’t want to belabor this point, but Malik’s BHO Foundation was approved less than a month after application and additionally, that tax exempt approval was made retroactive 3 years back. There was zero accountability and zero review, so who knows where that money is coming from and where it is going.

        That’s stands in stark contrast to their normal procedures.

      • kmg

        July 21, 2013 at 7:07 am


        My point is that there is no evidence that Obama’s foundation engages in political activities. It is comparing apples and oranges. Let’s say two groups are applying for 501(c)4 status. One is named Feed the Poor and the other is named Impeach Obama Now. Should they both receive the exact same level of scrutiny to determine if they are primarily engaged in social welfare activities? I don’t think so. If you think so, there is really no point to the laws determining who qualifies for tax-exempt status. All groups would receive either no scrutiny because of the caseload or all groups would get heavily scrutinized resulting in a huge backlog of applications.

        Because I don’t disapprove of the Patriot Act doesn’t mean I approve of everything the Government does as long as my party is in power. Naturally, I agree with them much more than I disagree because I am a liberal. My opinions are my own and, unsurprisingly, they are different from yours. You need to recognize that and not instinctively characterize anyone who doesn’t believe that Obama and the Democrats are intrinsically evil as some kind of bootlicker for the party.

        Instead of taking the wingnut talking points at face value, look deeper at the issues and make up your own mind. Start with Malik Obama’s foundation, a 501(c)3 charitable organization rather than a 501(c)4 social welfare organization. According to IRS statistics, 70% of 501(c) applications are approved on their face, with no additional scrutiny. The foundation works in Kenya and is not involved in US politics at all. As best I can tell, they only solicit donations in Virginia. Here’s their mission statement:

        “The Barack H. Obama Foundation is committed to a wide array of development and humanitarian projects which will help mitigate social-shortcomings in areas of education and literacy, health and well-being, poverty, and lack of community infrastructure in such basic needs such as water, electricity, shelter and sustenance. It was the vision of Barack H. Obama, that efforts be made around the globe to address the needs of those most in need.”

        BTW, the George W. Bush Foundation is a 501(c)3 and I don’t have an issue with it. I’m sure it received speedy approval.

        Now let’s look at Crossroads GPS, Karl Rove’s group. Crossroads GPS is a 501(c)4 social welfare group. A 501(c)4 is supposed to primarily engage in issue advocacy, but is prohibited from influencing elections. Does that sound like Rove’s purpose? The big benefit of 501(c)4 is that donor’s names are kept secret.

        According to the IRS IG report, media reports of conservative organizations led to the creation of the BOLO lists (which we now know did not only include conservative groups). In 2011 and especially 2012 applications for 501(c) status increased substantially, likely as result of the Citizen’s United decision. The number of IRS employees did not increase during that same period.

        You might want to read the actual report:

        Personally, I would like to see a list of all 298 groups that were selected for scrutiny. This report, at Issa’s demand, only talks about the conservative groups, which made up only a third of all groups. For some reason either the IG or Issa is reluctant to release that information.

        Now, in your opinion, should Obama’s foundation receive the same level of scrutiny as Rove’s group? If so, why and how does an organization prioritize increased workload without an initial screening?

      • Cluster

        July 21, 2013 at 7:47 am

        First of all, yes. Malik’s organization should have received some level of review, and the tax exempt status should not have been made retroactive, that’s just common sense. Is it a different organization than a 501 C 4, yes, but that shouldn’t exclude it from scrutiny. And simply reading the mission statement is a rather elementary approach, don’t ya think?

        If you are suspicious of Crossroads, than I would imagine you are suspicious of media matters, right? Or is that advocacy ok? 501 C 4’s have guidelines as to how the money is spent and the amount of advocacy allowed, IF they violate that, then strip them of status, but how can that be determined in advance? Ever think of that?

        You just expressed an opinion that is at the center of what is wrong with our country. You are very inclined to just believe in your party, rather than to examine your party. The same can be said for the other side, and we all just end up in a food fight. People are too emotional and less cerebral. We need more cerebral people, and that is my mission. I despise much of the GOP right now because too many of them don’t have a clue. Here’s an exercise – do some home work on quantitive easing and how that impacts our reserve currency. Just the other day, Bernanke said that if he were to stop QE, our economy would tank. That should frighten everyone. If we lose reserve currency status, the implosion of the cash bubble will make the housing crisis look like a spring storm.

      • Cluster

        July 21, 2013 at 7:52 am

        KMG, and just another item to think about. There were more applications for 501 C 4’s in 2004 than there were in 2010, yet the IRS was able get through those without “prioritizing”

      • kmg

        July 21, 2013 at 8:05 am


        First of all, I didn’t say that Obama’s group didn’t receive any scrutiny. I wasn’t involved in reviewing the application. Saying that the review only consisted of reading his mission statement is pure speculation on your part. And there were more applications in 2004, but that tells us nothing about what types of organizations were applying. However, this fact does tell us something; the amount of money spent by tax-exempt 501(c)4, (c)5, and (c)6 groups on election intervention more than doubled from 2010 to 2012.

        I don’t think Media Matters, OFA, Media Research Center, Crossroads, or other like groups should have tax-exempt status and that they should have to release all of their donor information. I believe the law needs to be fixed to better define what constitutes political activity and that a group that engages in ANY political activity should not be tax-exempt.

      • kmg

        July 21, 2013 at 8:06 am


        On QE, I’m not a fan, but economics is not my strong suit. I had a tough time with class in college. Too much math.

      • Cluster

        July 21, 2013 at 8:37 am

        they should have to release all of their donor information

        Be careful what you wish for. The non disclosure aspect of non profits, stems from the origination of the NAACP, and it was for good reason. Back then, anyone who donated to that organization would have been targeted by racists and the Klan. Hence the anonymity.

        Read up on QE if you get the chance. It is pushing us to the brink.

      • kmg

        July 21, 2013 at 9:44 am

        I’ll try to read up on QE. If you have any impartial links (no RedState, Daily Kos, or The Blaze, please) I’d appreciate it.

      • kmg

        July 21, 2013 at 10:00 am

        I don’t have a problem with groups such as the NAACP releasing their donor information. The Klan is a non-entity these days and the Government isn’t going to intimidate donors to shut it down. The same goes for other like groups.

  3. daruttan

    July 20, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    Hello, I am new to this blog and I find it refreshing. I am curious KMG, I noticed that you used to follow a blog called blogs for victory, I went over there to see what it was and I was shocked and appalled. I am curious, could you please provide me with your opinion on the latest topic of the Presidents comments regarding the Zimmerman-Martin case and how it relates to race relations, thank you.

    • kmg

      July 20, 2013 at 5:33 pm


      I did not listen to the President’s comments, but from what I’ve read I think they were good. It’s difficult for those of us who aren’t minorities to understand what they go through at times. People crossing to the other side of the street, being followed in stores, and being stopped by police for no reason other than others’ stereotyping. The President seemed to be trying to get that point across when he said he could have been Martin 35 years ago.

    • kmg

      July 20, 2013 at 6:39 pm

      Let me add that in my opinion the ones who are the race-baiters now are those claiming that Obama is trying to inflame racial tensions with his comments. Some have gone so far as to say he is trying to start a race war.

      • daruttan

        July 20, 2013 at 9:13 pm

        I wonder who would say such things? Obviously they are either misinformed or think they are cute by half. They just wait for any opportunity to display their racism. The President displayed thoughtful sensitivity towards black America and these people twist it into something divisive and hateful. I think they will just divide themselves out of the equation. This is OJ in reverse and he was found guilty in a civil suit. I think the same fate awaits Zimmerman.Remeber, he was found not guilty of manslaughter, hE wAs not found innocent.Ican,t believe that the blogs for victory talk about Zimmerman as if he never even got out of his car.Those people are crazy.

  4. Cluster

    July 21, 2013 at 6:23 am

    Re: Detroit. The following is from Melissa Harris Perry at MSNBC:

    “We can talk about the microstory of Detroit, but it seems to me that Detroit, as always, is standing for all kinds of things about America. In the case of Detroit, the reason that the tax base has become so small is because a loss of population, right? So folks out, they are not there to pay the taxes on the homes and the kind of deterioration is what you see in the numbers you’ve suggested. But this lack of tax base is also exactly the kind of thing that many Republicans would impose on us, even when our cities have sufficient populations, even when our communities have sufficient populations. This is what it looks like when government is small enough to drown in your bathtub, and it is not a pretty picture.”

    I would like to hear some reviews of this comment from the gallery.

  5. daruttan

    July 21, 2013 at 7:35 am

    I just want to say that I wish WordPress had a thumbs up or like button similar to Facebook, if so I would “like” KMG’s response to Cluster’s IRS thread! It’s fun watching from the sidelines!

  6. kmg

    July 21, 2013 at 8:32 am

    Since the accusation of kneepadding has been thrown out, let’s take a survey: List areas where you agree and disagree with the current Administration’s policies.

    I’ll start.

    I agree with immigration reform and providing a pathway to citizenship for those who are currently in the country. I support a fast-tracked citizenship process for children who grew up here and know no other life than being in America.

    I agree with the Administration’s support for voting rights and their efforts to fight the obvious attempt by some states to limit access to the polls to voters.

    I agree with the Administration’s pro-choice positions.

    I generally agree with the Administration’s actions on climate change. I’m agnostic about whether or not man is a major contributing factor, but the policies of reducing reliance on fossil fuels make sense to me from an environmental and foreign policy perspective.

    I’m unsure about economic policy. I just don’t know enough about economics, but it seems like everything has been reactive instead of proactive for getting the economy back on track.

    I disagree with the ACA because I don’t think it went far enough. It was probably the best deal they could get, but I fully support single payer with the option to purchase supplemental insurance on your own dime.

    I disagree with not closing Guantanamo. I believe the Administration could have done more than just throw up their hands, blaming the Republicans for not letting them do it.

    I disagree with the Administration’s foreign policy. We should not be intervening in Syria because we’ve seen the consequences of overthrowing another government several times and it rarely ends well. I also don’t agree with the Administration being duplicitous in how they characterize Egypt just to keep the money flowing. US law says we cannot provide aid to a country ruled as a result of a coup, but we refuse to call it a coup.Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…

    On military matters, I disagree with the decision to increase the number of missile interceptors. Until they can prove the system actually works, we should not be throwing more money at it. I also disagree with leaving any military in Afghanistan after 2014. By now, the Afghan government has to stand or fall on its own. Stay positioned outside the borders to quickly respond to threats.

    That’s not a complete list, but all the major topics I can think of right now.

    Your turn.

    • Cluster

      July 21, 2013 at 8:47 am

      I agree with immigration reform, but if we don’t secure the border first, this will be an endless discussion. We need to stream line legal immigration and make that the new channel for immigrants.

      I disagree with your thoughts on ACA (see The Case for Health Care), and climate change. We do need to move away from fossil fuels to a more sustainable platform, but we do have time to do it, and private enterprise should lead the way. The climate has always been changing and that is a result of the sun, not man.

      I agree with your assessment on nation building, Afghanistan, and Syria, but disagree on voting rights and choice. I do support a woman’s right to an abortion in the event of rape, incest, or physical harm, and for some circumstances in the first trimester. But primarily a woman’s choice AND a mans choice is before pregnancy not after. Men need to be held accountable for the children they father and that aspect is unfortunately over looked.

      Asking for an ID to vote is common sense. They should be made available free of charge to everyone, and most often are. It is not racist. In fact Obama recently spoke in favor of it in Kenya. Ironic isn’t it?

      • kmg

        July 21, 2013 at 9:42 am

        Well, Kenya has a history of election fraud, while the US doesn’t. Everyone claiming there is rampant voter fraud has been proven completely wrong, yet they still make the claims. Voter ID doesn’t do anything to solve the problem that doesn’t exist. All it does is put a burden on groups that are more likely to not have the IDs required by the laws. Even if the ID itself is free, there is still a cost. You have to pay your way to get to an office that issues the IDs, which are not necessarily in the town you live in. You also have to take time off work to get the ID. Finally, the documents needed to get the ID aren’t free. Getting a birth certificate costs money.

        Republicans have been trying everything they can to suppress the votes of groups that don’t vote for them. They know voter ID laws disproportionally affect minorities and the poor, so they try to push team through (see Pennsylvania where the state Republicans were very open in saying their voter ID law ensured delivery of the state to Romney). Look at states that have restricted or eliminated early voting for the sole purpose of restricting access to certain groups.

        Now I’m not saying there have been absolutely no cases of voter fraud. There was the old woman who filled out the absentee ballot for her recently deceased husband because she thought it was allowed. Or the case when an immigrant was asked if he wanted to register to vote when he got his driver’s license, not knowing it was illegal, then tried to vote. If these one-off cases are enough for you to restrict access to many, many others, so be it. It’s not good enough for me.

        When someone can show me evidence of a systemic problem with voter fraud that ID would have prevented, then I’ll be more incline to believe they aren’t just trying to disenfranchise voters.

      • Cluster

        July 21, 2013 at 10:37 am

        You certainly seem fully vested in the talking points, something of which I implore you to be more objective:

        To date, 135 cases have been referred to law enforcement for further investigation and possible prosecution…….boards of elections have identified and reported 625 cases of voting irregularities statewide.

        You seem to think that I am just a shill for Republicans which is something I wish you would get over. I don’t disagree that there might be some attempts at voter manipulation on the other side – it’s all dirty politics, and unless people like you and I recognize that, it will never change. Look, the people that you defined as being victimized by requiring an ID represent a small minority of people and they can be addressed quite easily. The fact is, people need to have an ID to get welfare, disability, SS, etc., and those same people need to get to the store, to the doctor, etc., so your complaints really do fall on deaf ears.

      • kmg

        July 21, 2013 at 11:22 am


        Those IDs that people need to do other things aren’t necessarily recognized by voter ID laws. In some cases a concealed carry permit is accepted, but a student ID is not. The only reason is to prevent students from voting. Also, going to the store, applying for welfare, etc. aren’t protected rights under the Constitution, but voting is.

        I’m not dealing in talking points; I’m dealing in facts. According to Sec. Husted, voter fraud exists, but it isn’t an epidemic. He also opposed the Ohio voter ID law, which didn’t pass. So for Ohio, since that is the case you picked, 625 complaints were made of voter fraud. 135 cases were initially selected for review, then of those, 115 were forwarded to local prosecutors for review. Most of those cases involved an attempt to vote more than once, via absentee and in person. In a majority of those cases, only one vote was counted. No district reported more than 15 suspected cases. Twenty cases were people voting in Ohio and another state. Husted himself said that voter ID wouldn’t have mattered. If we were to assume that the original 135 cases were all proven, that would be 0.002397% of the votes in Ohio’s election. Fortunately, that list of cases has shrunk even more.

        So far, that list of possible cases has been whittled down to 19. Of those, three have had charges pursued so far. One was a nun who voted absentee for another nun who recently died, one was a 75 year old man who voted for his recently deceased wife, and one was against a poll worker. The poll worker was found guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison.

        Those are facts, not talking points.

        So far, the single case of legitimate voter fraud in Ohio was found and resulted in a conviction with prison time. Voter ID would have done nothing to prevent any of these cases. I am not willing to restrict people’s access to the polls for a problem that doesn’t exist.

      • Cluster

        July 21, 2013 at 1:26 pm

        So now it has to be epidemic? You sure do find a lot of excuses. And by the way student ID’s are sufficient as is any government issued ID – but nice try.

      • kmg

        July 21, 2013 at 1:44 pm

        Are you sure student IDs are sufficient?

        And why are you willing to disenfranchise a larger number of legitimate voters than you would catch of illegitimate voters? Remember, not one Ohio case would been prevented if they had voter ID laws.

      • kmg

        July 21, 2013 at 1:56 pm

        Shit. My reply is in moderation because it has two links.

      • mitchethekid

        July 21, 2013 at 3:47 pm

        Neither of us moderate so I don’t know why the links are in la la land. I’m still on the WordPress learning curve so be tolerant. Or post them again. And play nice with Cluster!

      • Cluster

        July 21, 2013 at 2:00 pm

        Student ID’s are sufficient in my state and since states can control that aspect, it shouldn’t much of an obstacle. And I am not trying to disenfranchise anyone, I am trying protect the integrity of the process and everyone’s vote. As it is, I can walk into a voting booth in your precinct, sign in as you, and vote for a republican. I can then walk into another district sign in as someone else and vote for who ever I want. And do this all on the day of voting so the irregularity would not be caught until after my vote is counted.

        But you know KMG, you strike me as someone who will always find a reason why something can’t be done. I have always tried to keep my distance from those kind of people.

      • kmg

        July 21, 2013 at 2:18 pm

        I’m disappointed, Cluster. You raise a non-existent issue of voter ID, claiming you just want to protect the integrity of our elections. I point out that the problem doesn’t exist and you accuse me of blindly reciting talking points. I provide my opinions, supported by irrefutable facts (at least facts that you have yet to refute). You provide your facts, which have all been refuted, yet you still claim that I am wedded to my talking points. Finally, you accuse me of being the type of person who will always find an excuse for why something can’t be done. I thought I was pretty clear that there isn’t anything that needs to done. Your scary scenario never happens unless it is in broader context of election fraud and voter ID would do absolutely nothing to stop it. If someone is determined enough to vote under someone else’s name, they are determined enough to have a fake ID.

        Why do you instinctively resort to the talking points accusation when you are losing an argument? Try providing facts and data that support your opinions rather than just declaring that if you said it, it must be so and anyone who disagrees is no more than a partisan bootlicker.

      • Cluster

        July 21, 2013 at 2:25 pm

        You raise a non-existent issue of voter ID, claiming you just want to protect the integrity

        You have got to be kidding me. I gave just one example from Ohio which you dismissed, and can provide you with a hell of a lot more. Remember Al Franken in MN? You then moved the goal posts and claimed that voter fraud needed to be epidemic before you would be concerned. Look I can’t help it if you choose to ignore shit, just don’t deny that it exists. That’s just weird. It’s just like when you claimed that no IRS agent said they targeted conversitives, and then when I linked you to it, you dismissed it and claimed “so they made a mistake”.

        At this point, I don’t care if you’re disappointed, distracted and disoriented. I will try and make this a better country without you.

      • kmg

        July 21, 2013 at 2:32 pm


        I don’t have any problems with your state’s ID requirements. When I talk about objecting to voter ID laws, I am talking about photo ID. You can vote in your state using a utility bill or a bank statement with your name and address on it. No problem.

      • Cluster

        July 21, 2013 at 2:42 pm

        Try providing facts and data that support your opinions rather than just declaring that if you said it

        If you haven’t noticed, I do. It’s just that you dismiss it, move the goal posts and claim its not enough. It’s a convenient tactic, and typically liberal.

        I also got a laugh out of “losing the argument” meme as well. You are an experienced progressive blogger who has all the cliches down pat. It’s kind of sad actually. I am here to have an honest discussion, if you were honest, you would admit that voter fraud is happening in some areas, and maybe something can be done. If you were honest, you would admit that the IRS did admit that they targeted conservatives and maybe something should be done about it. If you were honest ……… but I get a sense that you are not.

      • kmg

        July 21, 2013 at 2:46 pm

        I didn’t just dismiss your Ohio example out of hand, I directly refuted it with evidence.

        Coleman’s suit was dismissed with prejudice after the court found that his claims had no merit.

        I didn’t say that voter fraud had to be “epidemic”, you came up with that word. I said it has to shown as systemic before I’ll start believing people just want to protect the franchise. It should at least rise to the level of a possibility greater than 1% before you start talking about making it harder for people to cast a legitimate ballot. Hell, at least get it up to 0.01 percent.

        I said I don’t believe the IRS is “arbitrarily” scrutinizing groups and especially not on political leanings. No testimony has refuted that. The IG’s own report does not refute that. The IG report says that employees made mistakes in applying selection criteria and that there was no political motivation. You should read it sometime.

        Best of luck on making the country a better place with just your conspiracy theories to help you out.

      • Cluster

        July 21, 2013 at 2:53 pm

        Here’s another “fact” KMG that you are welcome to ignore and dismiss. 11 states require ID including Illinois, Obama won four of them, and there were no reports of suppression.

      • Cluster

        July 21, 2013 at 2:59 pm

        You just make shit up KMG. You live in a weird little bubble. Good luck with it.

        Here’s another case for you to whistle on by. I am sure you’ll find an excuse for it:!/entry/ballotfraud-convictions-shed-light-on-obamas-08-campaign,51a330b7da27f5d9d0ce3317/1

      • Cluster

        July 21, 2013 at 3:03 pm

        I didn’t say that voter fraud had to be “epidemic”

        Just a few posts previously, you said:

        KMG – According to Sec. Husted, voter fraud exists, but it isn’t an epidemic

        So this can be construed that unless it is epidemic, it shouldn’t be of concern. At the very least, please remember what you said.

        I have a vacation to get to, and I am growing dumber by the minute having this conversation. Have a great Sunday.

      • kmg

        July 21, 2013 at 3:16 pm

        Sorry, I should have put quotes around it. Those were Sec. Husted’s words when he announced the release of the report.

        Enjoy your vacation. I’m too busy at work to get one this summer.

      • kmg

        July 21, 2013 at 3:56 pm

        Here’s another case for you to whistle on by.

        You do understand the difference between voter fraud and election fraud, don’t you? And how exactly would voter ID have prevented this case?

  7. mitchethekid

    July 21, 2013 at 1:02 pm

    The entire purpose of voter ID laws is to prevent a group, a class or a demographic from voting. The right knows that these folks tend to vote for democrats so at a minimum they are making it much more difficult for them to exercise their constitutional rights. In the last election, some people in Fla had to wait up to 8 hrs to vote. In Pa, some congressperson bragged about restrictive laws by declaring that because of this, Romney would carry the state. The actual amount of prosecutable instances of fraud occurring is less than UFO sightings and in some states, it’s easier to get a gun than it is to vote. Some states require documents that no longer exist, such as elementary school records or BC of people who weren’t born in a hospital. Look at the case of 96 yr old Dorothy Cooper, who has voted in every election since she was able to but in 2012, was denied her right because she lacked a marriage certificate.
    If the right wants to win elections, they should make it easier to vote, not more difficult. Instead of changing with the times and appealing to the now changed face of America, they are fighting a loosing battle with themselves. They are willing to do anything, except what is needed. It’s like an addict who tries to keep the addiction intact as part of the detox process. It won’t work.

    • kmg

      July 21, 2013 at 3:27 pm

      Feel free to jump into the above conversation, mitchie. It would be good to get other opinions. He’ll, at this point a referee would be nice.

  8. Cluster

    July 21, 2013 at 1:45 pm

    I got a question for all y’all progressives, and I am not being snippy, this is a genuine question. What did Obama mean when he said he could have been Trayvon? I sincerely don’t understand that? What was his point? And for that matter, when he said if he had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon – what did that mean?

    • kmg

      July 21, 2013 at 2:07 pm

      As Obama said, he meant it from the perspective of the experience of being black in America. I think his remarks in their entirety lay it out pretty clearly.

      • Cluster

        July 21, 2013 at 2:27 pm

        Isn’t Obama half white? Who grew up in privilege in HI, and attended elite schools?

      • Cluster

        July 21, 2013 at 2:34 pm

        How about LeBron James “black experience”? How about Chris Rocks? Jay Z’s?

        Could Obama have been one of them?

    • mitchethekid

      July 21, 2013 at 3:01 pm

      This is a no snippy zone! You snipster you!
      “There for the grace of god go me”. I think he meant that he could relate to being a teenager, Black and looked upon with suspicion only because of the color of his skin. I don’t think he meant it literally, nor do I think he was literal when he said that if he had a son, he would have the physical appearance like Trayvon. I think “the look” he was referring to was a projection of cultural and social stereotypes rooted in bias and predjudice. If I were to critique the President’s persona and oratory skills, I think he becomes (unfairly) victimized because he speaks as if it’s a forgone conclusion that all people have the same capacity for nuance, subtlety and abstract thinking as he does. I’m sure we have all had similar experiences ourselves, when we said (or typed) one thing and it was understood in a completely different manner than the intent in which it was expressed. That’s one of the problems with the metaphorical nature of words and language. We all have our own filters, so to speak, and those filters contain elements that can alter what we as individuals are trying to communicate. Lets take the analogy of Schrodinger’s Cat as an example of what I am trying to communicate here. The mere act of observation changes what is being observed. I think the President is more often than not unfairly looked upon by the right because they have deep seated, ingrained biases and he fulfills the archetype they use as a template to describe all similar people. But when challenged upon this, they reflexively declare “the country has no predjudice, we are not collectively racist because we elected a Mulatto. Twice”. Well, that’s all well and good but it doesn’t change the fact of the Rights reactionary push back against everything this man says. They use his own words as a justification for their mindless recalcitrance towards his every utterance. As a progressive, this mentality is like a vampire. It needs to be taken on a day pass so it can wither away under the bright light of the sun.

  9. Cluster

    July 21, 2013 at 1:52 pm

    Here’s something for all of you to ponder. A black man shoots and kills a 17 year old white kid, claims self defense and is acquitted:

    I don’t recall any riots, any protests, any President speaking out on the issue, or any outrage whatsoever. Interesting, right?

    • kmg

      July 21, 2013 at 2:00 pm

      I would point out that the kid here was plainly engaging in an illegal act. I also don’t know if there was any dispute as to whether or not the kid charged the man. What is the back story?

      • Cluster

        July 21, 2013 at 2:37 pm

        Read the article. But thinking of that, what’s Trayvons back story? Was he doing drugs? Was he glorifying the “gangsta life”?

      • kmg

        July 21, 2013 at 3:14 pm

        I did read the article and it didn’t have that information. I was hoping you knew the back story, since you brought it up.

        We actually agreed on the Zimmerman issue. I don’t see the relevance here because Zimmerman did not witness Martin conducting an illegal act. Whatever Martin had in his past was irrelevant to what happened that night.

  10. mitchethekid

    July 21, 2013 at 3:40 pm

    Don’t include pot. And so what if he was enamored with the “gangsta life”. That’s his teenage culture. Did he deserve to die for that? Was that Zimmerman’s justification? That he was eradicating from society an “undesirable” who was just walking home? Trayvon wasn’t involved in any criminal activity. Zimmerman assumed he was, confronted him unjustifiably and killed him. And got away with it. And so what if he was “high”. Since when is that a crime that deserves a self appointed vigilante to become an enforcer of his own subjective, personal morality? That’s what the Taliban does. Pot is becoming increasingly legal and all this bullshit about mixing sweets with Codeine is just that, complete bullshit. Not only is there no evidence in the case of that, to make that claim is pure conjecture and again, so fucking what? You can’t confront someone and then kill them because you suspected they were (1) “high” or (2) going home to get “high”. George Zimmerman is a pussy who got a pass. If in fact Trayvon was defending himself from a stranger and died as a result, he in my opinion is the bigger man. This isn’t going away and I sincerely hope that a civil suit gets filed against Mr. Zimmerman. Ever see The Devils Advocate? With Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino? “Round One. I’m a fan of man”.
    I was at a party yesterday and a Black family came in late. There was a mother around 45, a daughter around 25, a 1 yr old baby (who danced his little tush off) and a teenage boy around 17. Although I spent my time with them making the mother laugh, I couldn’t help but think about this case and how they must feel. I never brought it up (bad taste and inappropriate) but my time with them really effected me. I thought about my interaction with them for hrs afterwards. I have no frame of reference of being thought of as that family does and I have no right to. I felt sympathy and I went out of my way to be contrary to what they must stereotype as “a white guy”. Even though I am from a Jewish family, and understand the historic nature of the plights of Jews throughout history, I am still a white looking guy and therefore looked upon with the same suspicion as that family must experience everyday.
    As George Harrison said, All Things Must Pass. Or the other phrase, All Things Will Pass.

%d bloggers like this: