Peace Loving Religion has done it again .........................

Roger Blake wrote on 6/14/2016 6:46 PM:
On 2016-06-14, Alek wrote:
How about bailouts, tax breaks, etc.?

Only a liberal would consider a tax break to be an entitlement.
HINT: It's not your money! (As far as bailouts, there should not
be any.)

I don't care what you call it. Why should a government offer a tax break
to a business when its competitors are not getting one? Is that capitalism?

Those receiving handouts will simply vote for the politicians
who promises to steal the most from their neighbors. It's a
a conflict of interest. Really there should be no federal social
programs. What keeps them going are the hordes of moochers
in the voting booth.

And in the Senate and the House!!!

On 2016-06-14, Alek wrote:
I don't care what you call it. Why should a government offer a tax break
to a business when its competitors are not getting one? Is that capitalism?

The federal government should be reduced to about 10% of its current size and
go back to funding itself via indirect taxes as was originally intended.

And in the Senate and the House!!!

They are of course the worst moochers of all.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:52:16 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 6/12/16 6:19 PM, Good Guy wrote:

This time it is only 50 dead and 53 critically injured!! There you have
your peace loving religion.

Is there any religion that can match this?

Christians in the past, I'm afraid. :-(

I must have fallen into the wrong newsgroup. Please direct me to a
exit WINDOW.

bentot

On 15/06/2016 00:48, bentot wrote:
I must have fallen into the wrong newsgroup. Please direct me to a
exit WINDOW. bentot

news://nntp.aioe.org/alt.os.linux

Good luck and don't come here ever again.

--
--

1. /*This post contains rich text (HTML). if you don't like it then you
can kill-filter the poster without crying like a small baby.*/
2. /*This message is best read in Mozilla Thunderbird as it uses 21st
century technology.*/


i7 Machine http://s33.postimg.org/er0wkujun/Capture.png

Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/14/2016 6:43 PM:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:24:04 -0400, Alek wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/14/2016 6:03 PM:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:53:29 -0400, Alek wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/14/2016 3:43 PM:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:31:37 -0400, Alek wrote:

Tim Slattery wrote on 6/14/2016 10:28 AM:
Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:12:07 -0400, Alek
wrote:

And the Republican party's history of attempting to prevent minority
voters from voting?

The above statement is blatantly absurd. It was the party of Lincoln,
the Republicans, who championed the cause and freed the slaves. It
was the party of Ulysses S. Grant, again the Republican party, which
introduced and ratified the 15th amendment to the Constitution of the
United States of America which granted suffrage (the right to vote in
public, political elections) to African Americans.

And the modern Republican party is about as far from those ideals as
it's possible to be. They specialize in gerrymandering districts to
minimize the influence of minority voters. They look for new and
innovative ways to disenfranchise minorities and the poor.

And this has been going on for some time. They may have championed
voting rights in the past but now they are focused on "voter fraud", a
very rare occurrence, to prevent poor people from voting.

Your assertion is absurd and unsubstantiated. "Voting rights", by definition, ensure those who are entitled
to vote are able to do so, they also ensure that those who are not entitled to vote cannot do so.

Your parroted talking points are illogical and irrational.

I think that you need a nap. Are you saying that people who have voted
in the past are no longer entitled to because they do not have a photo
ID? That's absurd!!

Considering one needs a photo ID to apply for food stamps,

Aha! NOT!!!

“The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker is required to verify your identity. 7
CFR 273.2(f). There are many ways, however, that you may verify your
identity. A photo ID is only one way. You should not be denied SNAP/Food
Stamps simply because you do not have a photo ID. To prove who you are,
you can use such things as a work or school ID, an ID for health
benefits, an ID from another social services program such as TANF, wage
stubs, a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food
Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral
contact� who can confirm you who are. Shelter workers and employers are
examples of possible collateral contacts. If you have no paper
documentation of who you are, you should ask the SNAP/Food Stamp
caseworker to call a collateral contact."


IMHO, those who object to proof of voter eligibility requirements have a sinister agenda.
Likely it is born from the desire to allow all people to vote, citizen and non-citizen alike,
but that is also my personal opinion.

It is born from the desire that people who had been deemed eligible to
vote in the past should not now be denied that right because they do not
have a photo ID.

Cui bono.

For sake of argument, exactly what form(s) of ID would you consider acceptable to establish voter eligibility?


...a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food
Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral
contact� who can confirm you who are.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 05:29:22 -0400, Alek wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/14/2016 6:43 PM:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:24:04 -0400, Alek wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/14/2016 6:03 PM:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:53:29 -0400, Alek wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/14/2016 3:43 PM:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:31:37 -0400, Alek wrote:

Tim Slattery wrote on 6/14/2016 10:28 AM:
Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:12:07 -0400, Alek
wrote:

And the Republican party's history of attempting to prevent minority
voters from voting?

The above statement is blatantly absurd. It was the party of Lincoln,
the Republicans, who championed the cause and freed the slaves. It
was the party of Ulysses S. Grant, again the Republican party, which
introduced and ratified the 15th amendment to the Constitution of the
United States of America which granted suffrage (the right to vote in
public, political elections) to African Americans.

And the modern Republican party is about as far from those ideals as
it's possible to be. They specialize in gerrymandering districts to
minimize the influence of minority voters. They look for new and
innovative ways to disenfranchise minorities and the poor.

And this has been going on for some time. They may have championed
voting rights in the past but now they are focused on "voter fraud", a
very rare occurrence, to prevent poor people from voting.

Your assertion is absurd and unsubstantiated. "Voting rights", by definition, ensure those who are entitled
to vote are able to do so, they also ensure that those who are not entitled to vote cannot do so.

Your parroted talking points are illogical and irrational.

I think that you need a nap. Are you saying that people who have voted
in the past are no longer entitled to because they do not have a photo
ID? That's absurd!!

Considering one needs a photo ID to apply for food stamps,

Aha! NOT!!!

“The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker is required to verify your identity. 7
CFR 273.2(f). There are many ways, however, that you may verify your
identity. A photo ID is only one way. You should not be denied SNAP/Food
Stamps simply because you do not have a photo ID. To prove who you are,
you can use such things as a work or school ID, an ID for health
benefits, an ID from another social services program such as TANF, wage
stubs, a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food
Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral
contact” who can confirm you who are. Shelter workers and employers are
examples of possible collateral contacts. If you have no paper
documentation of who you are, you should ask the SNAP/Food Stamp
caseworker to call a collateral contact."


IMHO, those who object to proof of voter eligibility requirements have a sinister agenda.
Likely it is born from the desire to allow all people to vote, citizen and non-citizen alike,
but that is also my personal opinion.

It is born from the desire that people who had been deemed eligible to
vote in the past should not now be denied that right because they do not
have a photo ID.

Cui bono.

For sake of argument, exactly what form(s) of ID would you consider acceptable to establish voter eligibility?


...a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food
Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral
contact” who can confirm you who are.


Glad you agree that requiring an ID before allowing people to vote is a logical, rational idea.

Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/15/2016 9:22 AM:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 05:29:22 -0400, Alek wrote:

...a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food
Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral
contact� who can confirm you who are.

Glad you agree that requiring an ID before allowing people to vote is a logical, rational idea.

An ID of some kind has always been required, AFAIK. That's not the
point. Requiring a photo ID of people who have never had one and then
restricting the issuers of such IDs so as to make it next to impossible
for certain people to get photo IDs has been the Republican approach
since the days of the "Southern Strategy". (See
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/03/a-short-history-of-black-voter-suppression/)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:40:26 -0400, Alek wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/15/2016 9:22 AM:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 05:29:22 -0400, Alek wrote:

...a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food
Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral
contact” who can confirm you who are.

Glad you agree that requiring an ID before allowing people to vote is a logical, rational idea.

An ID of some kind has always been required, AFAIK. That's not the
point. Requiring a photo ID of people who have never had one and then
restricting the issuers of such IDs so as to make it next to impossible
for certain people to get photo IDs has been the Republican approach
since the days of the "Southern Strategy". (See
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/03/a-short-history-of-black-voter-suppression/)


You really need to stop promoting your propaganda. This isn't 1880, any citizen who wishes to get a photo ID
can do so, it simply means planning ahead and expending a small amount of effort.

If you can not positively prove your identity and citizenship, you should not be allowed to vote. You
wouldn't want your bank to hand your money out to someone without proper ID, how can you possibly advocate
allowing people without positive ID to have a vote in controlling the largest bank in the world?

With 11 - 20 million illegals in our country, it is imperative that we ensure the sanctity of the ballot box.

Stormin' Norman wrote on 06/15/2016 2:00 PM:

With 11 - 20 million illegals in our country, it is imperative that we ensure the sanctity of the ballot box.


http://mediamatters.org/research/201...oter-fr/201382




In the foreseeable future(sooner than many think) , some of those
electoral college important 'red states' - Texas, Arizona, Utah(53
electoral votes) will be 'blue states' - not from illegals voting but
their born in the U.S. (and U.S.citizens) educated children. Other
states where the trend is already apparent Florida, Nevada, Colorado(34
electoral votes). The GOP, unless they learn how to attract this
population and move to the center-moderate will be a minority party for
generations to come.




--
...winston
msft mvp windows experience

Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/15/2016 2:00 PM:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:40:26 -0400, Alek wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/15/2016 9:22 AM:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 05:29:22 -0400, Alek wrote:

...a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food
Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral
contact� who can confirm you who are.

Glad you agree that requiring an ID before allowing people to vote is a logical, rational idea.

An ID of some kind has always been required, AFAIK. That's not the
point. Requiring a photo ID of people who have never had one and then
restricting the issuers of such IDs so as to make it next to impossible
for certain people to get photo IDs has been the Republican approach
since the days of the "Southern Strategy". (See
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/03/a-short-history-of-black-voter-suppression/)


You really need to stop promoting your propaganda. This isn't 1880, any citizen who wishes to get a photo ID can do so, it simply means planning ahead and expending a small amount of effort.

Both sentences wrong. You have your head in the sand.

With 11 - 20 million illegals in our country, it is imperative that we
ensure the sanctity of the ballot box.

Voter fraud legislation does not target illegals.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:46:17 -0400, Alek wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/15/2016 2:00 PM:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:40:26 -0400, Alek wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/15/2016 9:22 AM:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 05:29:22 -0400, Alek wrote:

...a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food
Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral
contact” who can confirm you who are.

Glad you agree that requiring an ID before allowing people to vote is a logical, rational idea.

An ID of some kind has always been required, AFAIK. That's not the
point. Requiring a photo ID of people who have never had one and then
restricting the issuers of such IDs so as to make it next to impossible
for certain people to get photo IDs has been the Republican approach
since the days of the "Southern Strategy". (See
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/03/a-short-history-of-black-voter-suppression/)


You really need to stop promoting your propaganda. This isn't 1880, any citizen who wishes to get a photo ID can do so, it simply means planning ahead and expending a small amount of effort.

Both sentences wrong. You have your head in the sand.

That was very persuasive........ ;-)



With 11 - 20 million illegals in our country, it is imperative that we
ensure the sanctity of the ballot box.

Voter fraud legislation does not target illegals.

Don't be obtuse. Modern, state level, voter ID legislation targets non-citizens and others who are not
eligible to vote. There is zero intent or desire to disenfranchise any citizen who is legally entitled to
vote. You can produce no evidence to the contrary, only bloviating opinions.

Your use of baseless ad hominem attacks, against those who happen to have a differing ideology, is morally
reprehensible.

Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/15/2016 5:11 PM:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:46:17 -0400, Alek wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/15/2016 2:00 PM:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:40:26 -0400, Alek wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/15/2016 9:22 AM:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 05:29:22 -0400, Alek wrote:

...a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food
Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral
contact� who can confirm you who are.

Glad you agree that requiring an ID before allowing people to vote is a logical, rational idea.

An ID of some kind has always been required, AFAIK. That's not the
point. Requiring a photo ID of people who have never had one and then
restricting the issuers of such IDs so as to make it next to impossible
for certain people to get photo IDs has been the Republican approach
since the days of the "Southern Strategy". (See
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/03/a-short-history-of-black-voter-suppression/)


You really need to stop promoting your propaganda. This isn't 1880, any citizen who wishes to get a photo ID can do so, it simply means planning ahead and expending a small amount of effort.

Both sentences wrong. You have your head in the sand.

That was very persuasive........ ;-)

Did it cause you to get your head out?

With 11 - 20 million illegals in our country, it is imperative that we
ensure the sanctity of the ballot box.

Voter fraud legislation does not target illegals.

Don't be obtuse. Modern, state level, voter ID legislation targets non-citizens and others who are not eligible to vote. There is zero intent or desire to disenfranchise any citizen who is legally entitled to vote. You can produce no evidence to the contrary, only bloviating opinions.

Ad hominem!! I stand by what I posted, particularly
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/03/a-short-history-of-black-voter-suppression/
I'll bet you didn't even read it!

Your use of baseless ad hominem attacks, against those who happen to have a differing ideology, is morally reprehensible.

Moi? Surely you jest!

Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 07:55:06 -0700, XS11E
wrote:

Stormin' Norman wrote:

Could we possibly get more off topic?

What part of DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS was too hard for you people to
understand?

As with any other [OT] thread, feel free to filter it. I have added
the designation to the subject to make it simple for you.

It shoould not need filtering, the thread should not exist.


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

On 2016-06-15, Alek wrote:
Ad hominem!! I stand by what I posted, particularly
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/03/a-short-history-of-black-voter-suppression/
I'll bet you didn't even read it!

Given the huge blocks of unbroken text it is nearly unreadable and it
seems to talk mainly about Africans. The article certainly ignores the
long history of black voter suppression by the Democrat party, members of
which killed civil rights workers who attempted to encourage the black
vote. The violence of Democrats against blacks and those who would aid
them is a large part of that party's heritage. (As an old phart this is
something I lived through and have personal memory of.)

Given that you need to have identification to drive, to buy alcohol
or cigarettes, board an airliner or Amtrak train, open a bank account,
make use of a check cashing agency, and so many other things it is just
common sense to have identification for voters. Of course this might have
a negative effect on the voting rights of cemetary residents in Chicago.

An article that is easier to read - liberalism is a disease:

http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=7712

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:46:17 -0400, Alek wrote:

Voter fraud legislation does not target illegals.

It also doesn't target voter fraud, since that's a problem that we don't
actually have. As you've correctly pointed out, it targets certain groups of
people who have historically not voted Republican. It's as simple as that.