DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Since there's so much talk about the Constitution on here...

Well if hypocrisy is an absolute problem, then let's just blow the whole thing up and start over.... maybe we can figure out a way to have politics without actual human beings involved because once you involve human beings, you are going to have hypocrisy..

I watched the John Oliver clip, it's not one of his more compelling arguments...

So you're making excuses for blatant cheating.

Aight bro.

What excuse? My guess is that these legislators sit next to each other every day, these votes come up (most of which are fairly insignificant like, vote to name the new bridge out on 129 after former state legislator Smith).. if a guy isn't going to be there, he tells the guy sitting next to him to push the button for him..

I have a good friend who was on the Capitol Police for many years. His job for a long time was to be security on the elevator in the Capitol Building.. he can tell some stories. One he tells all the time is that it was a daily occurrence for a US Senator to get on the elevator with his aids... while riding to the Senate chambers, the conversation would go like this:

Senator: So what are we voting on today?
Aid: Well you have a vote on this tax bill and that piece of legislation, etc.
Senator: How am I voting?

Every single day. We think this process is so refined, that these Senators sit and read and weigh options and have internal deliberations and do research on these votes.. 95% of the things they vote on, they don't even know what they are voting on or why they are voting the way they do.

That's why the stats like "He voted with Obama 95% of the time" are fairly meaningless because that other 5% were probably the only important votes a person cast on things like healthcare and taxes and the budget... everything else is pretty meaningless.

But I digress.. my point about hypocrisy is that it always cracks me up when one side makes a big deal out of hypocrisy from the other side...

Is it a big deal that the legislators push the button for each other on all of this insignificant crap? No, not really.

Is it a big deal that they can only find a handful of voter impersonation cases? No, not really.

Is it a big deal that you should have have to show an ID to vote? No, not really.

What I find funny about Olivers piece is that he discounts the 30 or so votes they can't account for in South Carolina as insignificant... but ONE woman in PA, out of the millions of registered voters, who had an issue with getting an ID is indicative of some huge problem.

They are limiting access to get ID cards in certain areas.

I think it's a problem. You can try to downplay the legislator ghost votes all you want, but either way you cut it, them not showing up to do their jobs is a problem. Casting votes for an absent person is a problem.

It's hypocritical to preach to the public about voter ID fraud, and then turn around and commit fraud.

So if you're cool with that, that's on you. I will never be fine with that.

He had one example from Mississippi, which I don't even know if it's true...


I know you have a point to make, but if I know I can't be there and ask you to push the button for me.. that's a pretty weak argument for "fraud"..


But you are ok with the thought of illegals and dead people voting, even if it's just "not that many"... okay.

I'm not ok with that either. And have never suggested I was.

However, you made it clear that you are ok with fraud.

They pretty sure they can do it now. T

You really need to calm down on the flagrant exaggerations.

If you tell me that you have an important meeting/function on Thursday or just want to take the day off.. and say, Hey, we are voting to extend the red headed wood sucker as the state bird and rename the overpass for Sgt. Smalls who served in Iraq, can you vote yes to both for me.. and I do it... if you want to consider that "FRAUD" then go ahead... that is the kind of inane position people take who get their news from comedians.... If the problem is worse than that, then prove it.. otherwise, this is a non-issue.

Now if you would like to talk about voter ID laws, let's do that.. if you want to talk about "hypocrisy" in politicians, then we can do that... won't serve any purpose except to prove what we both already know... both sides do it all the time... but we can do it.

I got a meeting that's gonna run over can you vote for X for President for me ?.Nah, if you can't be onsite at your chair to cast the vote then it doesn't get cast . Pretty simple arraignment for both sides to follow I would think .To even attempt to explain it away , no matter how simple the vote, is leaving it wide open for abuses .

You are absolutely ok with fraud. Every voter study ever done has found SOME LEVEL of fraud, illegals, dead people, felons, people voting in multiple districts.. every study finds some of it, they just disagree over how much...

And you have given no indication that it is important to you to stop it. You have just looked at voter ID laws and concluded that allowing some voter fraud is the lesser of two evils.

nope. sorry to burst your bubble.

i'm saying i have a problem with them being hypocrites, and also the fact that they have in turned tried to close down and then restrict the opening hours of the places that issue id's.

i think it's common sense to need an id to vote, but what i don't like is all the extracurricular stuff they have attached that agenda with.

when alabama enacts voter id laws, then turn around and close down spots to get said id's from, that looks like an underlying agenda. especially when the reports are out that they mainly closed down the spots were poverty is high.

when wisconsin enacts voter id laws, let the place that issue's id's is only open on the 5th wednesday of every month, which happens to be what? 4 or 5 times a year? and then the office hours are ridiculous, that looks like an underlying agenda to keep people from voting.

but good attempt to spin your way out of the fact that you support fraud from legislators.

if voter id law's were TRUELY meant to make sure there were no fraud going on, they would go out of their way to make sure every eligible voter had an id on TOP of enacting said laws.

then i wouldn't had posted anything on it.

however, that isn't the case. it's funny how gerrymandering and voting laws seem to help the republican party out the most.

coincidence? maybe, but that'll be a tough sell.

This whole "voter i.d." thing is a bunch of crap.

Some are acting like it impinges on their rights. Bull.

It's not like a voter i.d. is good for 1 day - so insinuating that people can't get an i.d. because the places to get them "closed down", or restricted their hours is senseless.

Go to the pharmacy right now, try to buy sudafed.

Try to pay for a prescription.

Try to cash a check at a bank - heck, try writing a check at a store.

Oh, we're talking about poor people only? Try getting gov't. benefits without an i.d.

A state i.d. card in Ohio costs under $10, and is good for at least 4 years, if not more. So, the whole "cost" issue is repugnant.

I don't even understand......when I go to vote, (and I've said this many times - maybe I'll need to video it for people), I walk in. The ladies say "Hey arch, how ya doing? I need to see your i.d." I could also use a bill that has my address on it.

Perhaps the difference is I am REGISTERED to vote, so my info is verifiable?

Show a damn i.d. to vote. What's the harm?

Did you see the video about voting in New Hampshire?

i just bought sudafed because have have a ton of pressure in my ears from a sinus infection.

i didn't show any id.

anyway, you can call it crap all you want, but the info is out there. i've laid out my argument and reasoning.

if you guys wanna cry about getting a id card, then turn around and not say anything about the legislators engaged in voter fraud, then don't ever cry about about hypocrisy or double standards.

but do what you want, i feel, and still feel it's a problem.

You would think that they could save tax payers money by making places where you get ID's the same places you register to vote. Then you could accomplish both things at the same time, at the same place.

And I must agree with you. If you can't send someone out to vote for you in elections, then the senate shouldn't be allowed to have someone vote for them either.

You must be present to vote in an election and the senate should be held to the same standard.

When I moved to Tennessee, the DMV totally messed up the year of my birth. They mail your license to you here and I didn't notice the error until I got my hard copy of my license. Their mistake caused me to have to jump through hoops in order to get registered to vote.

If I didn't have the transportation and means to follow up on this process, it would have been very difficult to accomplish.

thank you bro. and thanks for saying so elegantly what i've been trying to say.

how hypocritical is it to say people need an id to vote, and to show up, but then not hold the people we VOTE for to the same standard?

I try my best to look at things from a common sense standpoint instead of a political one. That's why it looks like I am GOP on some topics and Dem on others. I refuse to let a political party lead me around by the nose.

Even though DC and I disagree from time to time, I think he looks at it pretty much the same way.

I don't think you look like that at all.

I don't really care because I read what you post.

So do I.. which politicians aren't hypocrits? Go ahead, start me a list.


I don't know the laws from the individual states and how they were worded and how they are enforced. I do think it's great that you take John Oliver's word for it as gospel though, quoting him multiple times as the authority.


Good. If democrats in these states had felt that way, they could have had input into these laws, they could have made them more effective and more equitable.. but they didn't feel like you, they dug their heels in and fought it all or nothing. Then when it was finally written and past, they complain that it doesn't work right. They had their chance to get involved and have input, they passed. If the republicans actually did pass these laws and then make ID restrictions that create an unnecessary burden on many to get an ID, then shame on them... I will not support that.

Think of it like the ACA.. the republicans had a chance to have input and just vowed to defeat it.. then it was passed and they complain it doesn't work... and, also just like ACA, let's just say that those states needed to get these voter ID laws on the books, they can figure out how they are actually going to work later.


You might not have.. and I would have commended you for it, but the democratic party would have. These laws could have ID stations driving around like ice cream trucks in the summer and the dems were still going to fight it.


Both sides are very willing to stand up to "injustice" and "fraud" when it doesn't benefit them.

So, what the hell am I doing wrong?????

I have to show i.d. to people that KNOW me, in order to vote.

I can't buy sudafed without giving my name and DOB.

What the hell am I doing wrong?


I guess I don't know about legislators and voter fraud.

I do know I HAVE to show an i.d. to vote. And I think EVERYONE should have to. If you disagree with that, fine. I'll be the next mayor of Cleveland if verifying voters is not necessary.

I'd say that you were lying, but I think you're just ignorant of some facts. Please look up Virginia's 3rd congressional district. The district is actually split into 4 sections over 48 counties and 4 independent cities. It's been gerrymandered to be 58% black, and has had Bobby Scott (D) representing the district since 1992. That seems to me that this gerrymandering has helped the dems. I'm sure if you do a little research, you will find a lot more of them.

I don't necessarily think you should have to show up to vote. I think some secure system for on-line voting would be great.. where you register and get a unique voter password or something and you can do it on-line.

I also think the Senators should show up to vote.. just saying that on the sliding scale, voting for mundane stuff every day and voting once every 4 years for President are not the same thing.. similar but different. the other thing I was saying is that if you can show me where a senator actually stole a vote, voted differently than the person for whom they pushed the button would have voted, then it would be a much bigger deal to me. The fact that it is so common that these Senators actually have special sticks so their lazy asses don't even have to lean over the table to do it.. well that's also troubling.

Just stop with the "hypocrits" unless you are going to acknowledge all of the hypocrits... dems don't say there is NO voter fraud, they say there is very little.... and they have no plan to stop it and they challenge any republican plan to try to stop it... by default, they are willing to accept just a little voter fraud... primarily because it occurs in their favor.

it still mostly benefits the republican party the most.

key word "most"

most

again,

most.

i'm not lying, nor am i ignorant of the facts. the stats, articles and everything else is out there. republicans have benefited the most from it.

this is a really good breakdown:

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/

once again, we know both sides benefit, but republicans have gone to extremes, as they have gone above and beyond to rig the elections.

one more time, erik

most.

Nothing. They are different types of sudafed. Some have ingredients that are government regulated that you need id to purchase(pseudoephedrine I think), others do not, so you can buy them without id.

Considering all the security holes in the Obamacare site, the government wanting to ban encryption and the government wanting backdoors built into software, I would never trust online voting system in this country.

Not all types of Sudafed have pseudoephedrine.

If you buy Sudafed with pseudoephedrine as its decongestant, then you have to show ID, because there is a federal law that requires it. I know, as I am a long term sinus sufferer ..... and use a decongestant quite frequently .... and, unfortunately, this is the only one that does anything for me.

Here is the law:

Information by Drug Class > Legal Requirements for the Sale and Purchase of Drug Products Containing Pseudoephedrine, Ephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/ucm072423.htm

The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 has been incorporated into the Patriot Act signed by President Bush on March 9, 2006. The act bans over-the-counter sales of cold medicines that contain the ingredient pseudoephedrine, which is commonly used to make methamphetamine. The sale of cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine is limited to behind the counter. The amount of pseudoephedrine that an individual can purchase each month is limited and individuals are required to present photo identification to purchase products containing pseudoephedrine. In addition, stores are required to keep personal information about purchasers for at least two years.
What is FDA announcing today?
The FDA is announcing new legal requirements for the legal sale and purchase of drug products containing pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine required by the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005. This new law calls for a comprehensive system of controls regarding the distribution and sale of drug products that can be used in the illicit production of methamphetamine.

What is The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005?
The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 has been included in the Patriot Bill signed by the President on March 9, 2006. The Act would ban over-the-counter sales of cold medicines that contain ingredients that are commonly used to make methamphetamine such as pseudoephedrine.

Who has responsibility for enforcement of the Act?
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

What is pseudoephedrine?
Pseudoephedrine is a drug found in both prescription and over-the-counter products used to relieve nasal or sinus congestion caused by the common cold, sinusitis, hay fever, and other respiratory allergies. It can also be used illegally to produce methamphetamine.

What is methamphetamine?
Methamphetamine is a powerful, highly addictive stimulant. It is manufactured in covert, illegal laboratories throughout the United States. Methamphetamine can be ingested by swallowing, inhaling, injecting or smoking. The side effects, which arise from the use and abuse of methamphetamine, include irritability, nervousness, insomnia, nausea, depression, and brain damage.

Methamphetamine Fact Sheet from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration

Does this mean I need a prescription from my doctor to buy pseudoephedrine?
No. The Act allows for the sale of pseudoephedrine only from locked cabinets or behind the counter. The law:

limits the monthly amount any individual could purchase
requires individuals to present photo identification to purchase such medications
requires retailers to keep personal information about these customers for at least two years after the purchase of these medicines.
When will this law take effect?
This law becomes effective September 30, 2006.

Does the requirements of this law affect combination products, or just products that contain pure pseudoephedrine?
The requirements of this law will affect all products that contain ingredients pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, and ephedrine.

I still see Sudafed PE on the shelves. Is this different from regular Sudafed?
Yes, Sudafed PE is different from Sudafed. Sudafed contains the active ingredient Pseudoephedrine, while the active ingredient in Sudafed PE is Phenylephrine. In response to the issue of misuse of pseudoephedrine-containing products, many companies are voluntarily re-formulating their products to exclude phenylpropanolamine, ephedrine, and pseudoephedrine.

What are all the products that include the ingredients affected by this new law?
The FDA recommends that consumers read the labels of OTC drug products to determine if the product contains pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine. FDA believes this to be the most accurate method for determining the contents of OTC products rather than providing an incomplete or out-of-date list of products that may have already been reformulated and no longer contain these ingredients.

Products containing pseudoephedrine are already considered prescription controlled substances in my state. Does this new law change that status?
In response to the misuse of methamphetamine, many state governments have issued regulations controlling the sale of these products. This should not effect the restrictions already placed in your state.

I have chronic sinus problems. Will I be limited from getting the amount of pseudoephedrine I need?
Yes, with this new law there will be limits on the number of tablets of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine that can be purchased in a 30-day period. As there a many different dosages and formulations of these products, you should ask your pharmacist how much you will be allowed to purchase over a 30-day period for specific product you use.

How will this change the way pseudoephedrine is sold?
The Act requires that each regulated seller ensure that:

Customers do not have direct access to the product before the sale is made.
A written or electronic “logbook” listing sales is kept that identifies the products by name, quantity sold, names and addresses of purchasers, and the dates and times of the sales.
There is a limit on the amount that can be purchased in a single day and in a month.
What does “behind-the-counter” mean?
The Act defines “behind-the-counter” as placement of the product to ensure that customers do not have direct access to the product before the sale is made. In other words, placement may be in a secure location in the pharmacy prescription-filling area or in a locked cabinet that is located in the area of the facility to which customers do have direct access. In all cases, the seller will deliver the product directly into the custody of the buyer.

Will training be required for personnel responsible for selling pseudoephedrine ?
Companies selling products containing pseudoephedrine are required to submit to the Attorney General a statement regarding self-certification and training on the new law.

What about a sample size package containing only 1-2 pills of pseudoephedrine like those often sold at gas stations or grocery stores?
The Act exempts the requirements of a “logbook” to any purchase by an individual of a single sales package if that package contains not more than 60 milligrams of pseudoephedrine. These single dose packages have to remain behind the counter.

What will be required to purchase pseudoephedrine?
In order to purchase pseudoephedrine:

Buyers must:

Present a photo identification card issued by the State or the Federal Government or a document that is considered acceptable by the seller

Enter into the logbook their information such as name, address, date and time of sale, and signature
Sellers must:

Verify the logbook entries, and enter in the name of the product and quantity sold
What if I have other questions about pseudoephedrine or this new law?
If you have further questions regarding pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, ephedrine, or any medications, please contact the Division of Drug Information in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) at: 888-INFOFDA (888-463-6332), or email us at: druginfo@fda.hhs.gov

that's fine, but your attempt to side track the debate to be somehow about the drug laws is irrelevant.

you can't complain about voter id laws, but then say nothing about those same law makers...breaking the law with voter id.

What else are they supposed to do with the long sticks they keep at their desks?

I was just clarifying something that I, unfortunately, know well.

I get treated like a criminal every time I need sinus medication, and I don't like it. I think that it's a case of punishing the innocent.

i get treated like a criminal for the color of my skin, but this isn't the thread to discuss that.


voter id laws and talk about the constitution, do you support legislators comitting fraud or not?

it's nice that you find articles that support your misbegotten conclusions, but seeing as the owners of the largest search engines share your political leanings, it's always rather easy. Try this one on for size.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...cans-the-house/

Also, if you want to get right down to it, you might find that republicans are now correcting democrat gerrymandering in the past. To claim that it incorrectly benefits one party over the other is just bunk.

There you go crying about sources again

Because you never do that...

Not at all. Just another statement of fact. I can find plenty of arguments for and against your position that gerrymandering only benefits the republicans. The real problem is that you can too, but you ignore the facts. Do you ever go past the first page of a browser search? I'm surprised you didn't post a link from mother jones or thinkprogress again, as we all know they support your positions.

Gerrymandering has and will benefit both parties, depending on who has more power locally. As I was telling you about the 3rd district before, let me explain it to you in more detail. The 3rd district was actually set up to be a voting block of majority blacks in SE Virginia. Both the democrats and republicans have left it mostly alone, with democrats adding more black populace, while the republicans move some conservatives out. Bobby Scott has had the district locked up since '92. Nothing in those areas have really improved, and as I live near that area, I have first hand knowledge of this. Scott has completely stagnated that area, and people keep voting for him. Every time they attempt to drastically change the district, he gets people up in arms about it, and nothing changes. A democrat will hold that seat for a long time, or at least until the people start demanding change. Right now, they have nothing.

The problem is you keep ignoring the fact that I NEVER said the democrats haven't benefited from gerrymandering.

You're sitting there trying to argue a point that's not being debated.

What I'm arguing is that, which I have already supported with facts, and can support with more facts, is that republicans have not only benefited more from it, they have gone to very extreme methods in recent times to keep doing it.

You arguing that both parties do it is like arguing that all politicians lie.

Thanks, captain obvious, but as we have already discussed before, politics has come down to choosing between the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils in this case is the democrats.

In my opinion, of course.

You should keep in mind, Swish is never ever wrong.

I'd need to hear that from Mrs. Swish before I could support it.

This isn't right or wrong. It's ideology.

Ask Americans about war in the Middle East, we are the saviors.

Ask Muslims in the Middle East about Americans, to them we are the terrorist.

You think the republicans are right, I think they're wrong.